A retentiue, to stay good Christians, in true faith and religion, against the motiues of Richard Bristow Also a discouerie of the daungerous rocke of the popish Church, commended by Nicholas Sander D. of Diuinitie. Done by VVilliam Fulke Doctor of diuinitie, and Maister of Pembroke hall in Cambridge.

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 hun∣dreth yeares, By W. Fulke D. in diuinitie.

THE eternal rocke of the vniuersal Church, Christ was the rocke, an other foundation no * 1.1 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 buil∣ding of the Church Militant, and Christ * 1.2 Mat. 16. speaketh of an eternall rocke, a∣gainst the which the gates of hell shall not preuayle. Therefore your distinction of e∣ternall 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 Pro∣testants in the Realme of England, Nicolas Sander wisheth perfect faith and charitie in our Lorde, declaring in this pre∣face, 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 be∣halfe 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 here∣sie, nor to defend that Synagogue of Satan, wherof you professe your selfe to be a Champion, to be the vndefi∣led Church and spouse of Christ. For thinke you M. San∣ders, that we wil more mislike the Church of Christ per∣secuted 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 Hea∣thenish 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 spiri∣tuall 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 o∣pen 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 mini∣ster 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 vnderstan∣ded. 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 pri∣mitiue 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 pollu∣ted, yet the substance thereof continued, vntill by Anti∣christ, that great defection & apostasie was made, wher∣of the Apostle prophecyeth 2. Thess. 2. 3. And yet euen in the tyme of that a postasie, many histories make menti∣on, of the continuance of our faith and Church in di∣uers contryes in Europe, namely England, Fraunce, I∣taly, 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. Where∣fore 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 be seene in England, yet they that had spirituall eyes, and by Gods gr••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 perse∣cution, 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 pi∣cture of stone. Neroni ••l. Caes. Aug. Pontif. Max. ob prouin. latromb. & hijs qui nouam generi hum. superstitionem incul∣car. 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 superstiti∣on to mankind. Likewise another like piller there is of Diocletian and Maximian, in these wordes. Diocletian. Iouius Maximi. Herculeus Caes. Augu. Amplificato per Orien∣tem & Occident. nup. Rom. & nomme Christianorum deleto quiremp. euertebant. Diocletianus Iouius and Maximia∣nus Herculeus Caesaris Augusti, hauing amplified the Empire of Rome, both in the East and West, and vtter∣ly destroyed the name of Christians, which did ouer∣throw the common wealth, Another like there is of Di∣ocletian alone. Diocletian. Caes. Aug. Galerio in Oriente ad∣optat. superstitione Christi vbi{que} deleta & cultu Deorum pro∣pagato. 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 cru∣elty of the former tyrants haue added most detestable hypocrisy, haue thought that they had so wholy subuer∣ted 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 deny∣eth 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. there∣fore 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 ne∣uer 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 instructiō, 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 reasō is, that the meaning of those bookes which we are agreed vpon, is altogether in question be∣twene 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 with∣out 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 al∣so discerned, which is the verie cause, why the Papistes dare not abide the triall by the Scriptues, but flye to tra∣ditions, euen as their forefathers the auncient Valenti∣nian heretikes, of whome Irenaeus writeth lib. 3. cap. 2.

Cum ex Scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem conuertuntur ipsarū Scripturam, quasi non rectè habeant, neque fuit ex au∣ctoritate, quia variè sunt dictae, & quia non possit ab his in∣ueniriveritas, 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.

Vniuer∣sae scripturae & Propheticae & Euangelicae in aperto, & sine ambiguitat, & similiter ab omnibus audiri possunt &c. The

whole Scriptures both of the Prophets, and of the Gos∣pells, are open and without ambiguitie, & may be heard of all mē 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 ad∣mit * 1.3 Gods word for a marke of the true Church, and 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 as∣sured copies thereof, which we receyued not of them, for since that day in which S. Peter and S. Paule deliue∣red 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. A∣gaine 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, * 1.4

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 ac∣compted those bookes for apocryphall, witnesse hereof Hieronym praef. in prouerb.

Sicut ergo Iudith & Tobiae & Machabaeorum libros legit quidem Ecclesia, sed eos inter Ca∣nonicas Scripturas non recipit: sic & haec duo volumina le∣gat ad aedificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatē Ecclesiasticorū 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 ca∣nonicall 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 Augu∣stine de doct. Christ. lib. 2. cap. 8. (whō M. Sander quoteth) of any other iudgement, but prescribeth rules how the canonicall Scriptures are to be knowne. And cont. Gau∣dent. epist. lib. 2. cap. 23. he confesse••h plainely that the booke of Machabees is not accompted of the Iewes as the law, the Prophets and the Psalmes, which our Saui∣our 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 vn∣der condition of a sober reader or hearer. As for the de∣cree 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 de∣cree of Gelasius admitting but one booke of Esdras, ex∣cludeth the Canonicall booke of Nehemias, and recey∣ueth but one booke of the Machabees which will doe the Papistes but small pleasure.

The third marke, the popish Church receyueth not * 1.5 only the hebrue text of the old testament, & the greeke of the new, but also the greeke translation of the septua∣ginta, and the common Latine translation, to be of full

authoritie, whereas we giue small credit to those tran∣slations, 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 admit∣teth 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 authen∣tike copies it is impudently sayd, that the Papistes doe receiue, for we receiue not onely all these which he na∣meth, but also the most aunciēt Chaldee Paraphrastes, & the Syrian text of the new testament, yea the Arabi∣call text of the whole Bible, beside, all vulgare translati∣ons 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 origi∣nall truthe of the Heb••ue and Greeke texts: in which tongue, the olde and newe Testament were first writ∣ten.

Fourthly, the Papistes doe translate and expounde * 1.6 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 ••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 Bi∣shops 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, * 1.7 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 La∣tine. O maister of impudencie, what vse is there of the Greeke and Latine tongues, to be read to the peo∣ple 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 san∣ctified 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 con∣demned. 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 bra∣sen 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 Scrip∣ture, 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, AEthio∣pia, 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 Eusto∣chium 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, Lati∣no, Syroque sermone Psalmi in ordine personabant. In the Hebrue, Greeke, Latine and Syrian speache, the Psalmes were songe in order. But seeing Maister San∣der 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 ser∣uice 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 vnderstād not, by the exāple 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 vul∣gar 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 toūg that was not commonly vnderstood, therefore the ordinary pub∣like seruice ought to be in a straūge toung. Christ com∣passed about with his enemyes, & none within the hea∣ring of him but the virgine Mary, & Iohn the Euange∣list •••••••• loued him or regarded him spake Hebrue, there∣fore the Prieste in the church, must speake Latine or Greeke. But when M. Sand. hath played with this argu∣ment 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 Sabac••tani reported by both the Euangelists. Mat. 27. Mark. 15. Which is of the Syrian tounge, whereas the Hebrue texte is Hazab∣tani, as I report me to all that can but read two tounges Hebrue and Syrian. And whereas the malicious Hel∣hoūds said he called for Elias, it was not because they vnderstood him not, but because they most dispightful∣ly mocked his most vehement praier, taking occasion of the like sound of the name of God & of Elias, as scorne∣full 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, AEthiopiās, 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 sub∣mission 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 Prea∣chers of those Countryes vnderstande not the Latine and Greeke tounges by this meanes. What an ab∣surde 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 toūge? The••fore the vse of thevulgar toūge 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 Eng∣lishe, 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 abun∣dauntly taught vs, the 1. Corinthes the 14. Chapter. Finally we defende that our naturall Engli••he tounge, is better to edi••ie Englishe men, then your balde La∣tine toūge 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 pro∣position and as the words doe sound, so doe they vnder∣stand them. And heerof he bringeth many exāples. 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, if theire interpretation be none other then the sound of the word doth giue, they make the newe Testament to be nothing but a drinking vessel. But to discusse his examples, the first is this text. Matth. 26.

This is my body, why saith he is this which Christe poyn∣teth to, denied to be his body. I answere, it is affirmed to be * 1.8 his body in that sence that he spake and otherwise then he ment, it is denyed to be his body.

Againe Iames saith Cap. 2. A man is iustified of workes & not of faith onely. VVhy then are workes denyde to iustifie, or * 1.9 onely faith taught to iustifie. I aunswere woorkes are not denyed to iustifie before men, and onely faith is taught to iustifie before God. Rom. 3.

The doers of the lawe shalbe iustified. Rom. 2. VVhy then * 1.10 teach you the lawe not to be able to be doone. Because the Apostle saith, that of the workes of the law none shalbe iustified before God. Rom. 3. 20. for if the workes of the lawe could be done, by any man perfectly as the law re∣quireth, he shold be iustified by thē as the text affirmeth

By the obedience of one, that is Christe, many shall bee * 1.11 made righteous. Rom. 5. VVhy then are wee denyed to bee really righteous, and sayde to bee righteous by imputation onely? Because the obedience of Christe is not really our obedience, but by imputatiō of God through faith.

The loue of God is spread in our heartes by the holy ghost, which is geuen vs. Rom. 5. This is more then a bare im∣puting * 1.12 of righteousnesse to vs, yea Sir, but this is not our iustification, but an effect thereof, for he saide im∣mediatly before that beeing iustified by faith wee haue peace with God.

VVhose sinnes ye forgiue they shalbe forgiuē them. Ioh. 20 * 1.13 VVhy then are Bishops and Priests denyed to forgiue sinnes. We graunt that true Byshops and elders haue authori∣tie

to forgiue sinnes in Gods name, but not absolutely.

He that is great among you, let him be made as the yon∣ger. * 1.14 Luke 22. VVhy then deny you that one was greater a∣mong the Apostles, and is stil among the Bishops their succes∣sors. One was not greater among the Apostles in autho∣ritie, for their greatnes was to be the greatest seruaunt & to take the most paines, & to be most humble. Mat. 18

Thou art Peter or a rock, and vpon this Rock I wil builde * 1.15 my Church Mat. 16, VVhy is the militant Church denyed to be built vponS. Peter and his suceessors in that chayre and of∣fice.? The Church is affirmed to be built vpon the foun∣dation of the Prophets and Apostles, and so vpon Pe∣ter as one of thē, in which office he hath no successors.

Keepe the traditions which yee haue learned, either by word or by an Epistle. 1. Thessa. 2. VVhy then are traditions * 1.16 so dispised that the name cannot be suffred in the English Bi∣ble. It may and is suffred in that sense, which the holye Ghost vseth it, but not to bring in prayer for the deade or any thing contrary to the scripture, vnder the name of traditions Apostolike. For the Apostle speaketh only of the doctrine which he deliuered to them, either by preaching or by Epistle, which is none other, then is cōtayned in the holy Seriptures. For of other traditions pretended to be of the Apostles, he biddeth them take heede in the same Chapter. vers. 2.

He that ioyneth his Virgine in mariage doth well and hee * 1.17 that doth not ioyne her doth better. VVhy make you mariage as good as virginitie? For such as haue the gift of conti∣nence we graunt virginitie is better in such respectes as the Apostle teacheth,

Vow eye and render your vowes vnto God. Psal. 75. If * 1.18 thou wilt be perfect go and sel all thinges which thou haste & giue them to the poore & follow me. Mat. 19. There are Eunu∣ches which haue gelded them selues for the kingdome of Hea∣uen. Obey your Rulers, and be subiect vnto them? VVhy thē are the vowes of pouertie, of chastitie and obedience, counted vnlawful, or men cōstrained not to performe thē. The first text perteineth to the old Testamēt, The second is a singular

tryall to that one place. The third we graunt in them to whome it is giuen, the fourth we neuer made questi∣on about it, but al these are euil fauouredly patched to∣gither, to proue the vowe of Monkery lawfull, which is superstitious for want of Gods commaundement, blas∣phemous for the opinion of merite, impossible for the frailtie of many mens nature. As for compulsion there is none vsed, for no man is compelled to be rich, vnchaste or disobedient.

Doe ye the worthy fruites of penaunce, Luc. 3. VVhy thē * 1.19 is satisfaction and penaunce desptsed with you? This text is, Doe ye the fruits worthy of repentance. We honour the fruites worthy of true repentance, and exhorte all men to bring them forth, but popish satisfaction hath nothing like to them. For we beleeue that God doth freely for∣giue the penitent for Christes sake.

The husband & wife beeing two in one flesh, is a greate * 1.20. sacrament or mistery in Christ, & in the church. Ephe. 5. VVhy is then the mariage of faithful persons denied to be a sacra∣ment. If you vnderstand a sacrament generally, for euery mystery, we may graunt you it is a sacrament, but if you vnderstand a sacrament specially for an outwarde signe of Gods fauour & grace or a seale of our iustification it is none. For if it were it should be necessary for all men to receiue it, againe it hath the institutiō of God before the fall of man, therefore can be no sacrament of y^e new Testament to testifie our restitution. Your cōmon tran∣slation turneth the Greeke word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is a ho∣ly secret, oftentime Sacramentum, yet I know you woulde be ashamed to confesse so many sacramentes of the po∣pish church, as there be misteries which hee calleth sa∣cramēts as Ephe. 3. the preaching of the gospell to the Gentiles he calleth Sacramentum. 1. Tim. 3. So he calleth the incarnation of Christ sacramentum pietatis. And are you not ashamed to delude ignorant men, with the ambiguous name of a Sacrament.

VVork your saluatiō with feare & trembling Phi. 2. VVhy then are you so presumptuous, as euen by faith to assure your * 1.21.

selues of you saluation? because it followeth immediatly that it is God which worketh in vs both to will and to performe according to his good wil, for it is no presum∣tion to assure our selues that the promises of God are true. And he may welfeare, which is assured to be saued, for faith doth not exclude but plant in vs the feare of God, though not a seruile feare. As for y^e deepe secretes of Gods predestination, we take not vpon vs to knowe them, otherwise then they be reuealed by his worde. Fi∣nally, where you aske whether faith be not an ordinary gift in the Church, I answere you w^t the Apostle, that all men which are in the outward face of the Church, and participate the Sacraments, haue not fayth. 2. Thess. 3. 2.

The 8. marke of the Church if not onely the playne * 1.22. vnderstanding of any one sentence, but also the circum∣stance of the place, and the conference of Gods worde be necessary, the Papists haue vsed it in euery question. For proofe herof M. Sanders referreth vs to his treatise of the supper of the Lord lib. 4. and to his booke of Ima∣ges cap. 2. & 11. & in this booke to the ca. 2. & 4. I answer you make a light shew, for a fashion, but you nether cō∣sider the circumstances rightly, nor make any true col∣lation of one place with another, as is proued by the an∣swers of these bookes: Therefore your Academical con∣clusion is false, hereticall & blasphemous, that the onely word of God, being neuer so well handled, is no suffici∣ent marke to shew the truth. When Christ sayth, Sancti∣fie them in thy truth, Thy word is the truth. Ioan. 17. 17.

The 9. M. Sander sayth: the heads of the Church, the * 1.23. councels, the Bishops and the auncient fathers must be Iudges whether we do well apply the Scriptures or no? as whether S. Peter be the rock which M. Iewel denieth, & he proueth by 16 doctors afterward cap. 4. of w^c proofe we shall consider God willing in due place. But whereas M. Sander quoteth Aug. cont. Iulian. lib. 2. for his rule of Iudges: I say, he hath no such rule in that booke, onely Augustine doth cōuince the argumēts of the Pelagians of nouelty, by the iudgemēt of Iren. Cyprianus, Rheuanus,

Ambrosius &c. and other, which liued before their time, and therefore were no partial iudges, so do we conuince the Popish heresies, and their argumentes of noueltie, not only by the manifest worde of God, but also by the testimonie of the most auncient fathers, although we may not admit all that they did write to be true, euen as the same Augustine being pressed with the auctoritie of Ambrose, Chrysostome, and Cyprian by the Donatists & Pelagians, prouoketh from them onely to the Scrip∣tures. de nat. & gra••cap. 61. de vnit. eccl. cap. 16. cont. Crescon. lib. 2. cap. 31. de gratia Christ. cap. 43. That the allegation of the fathers suffiseth not of it selfe, we agree with Maister Sander, but that there is any other triall of the truth thē Scripture, we wil neuer graunt, seeing God hath therein deliuered his whole doctrine, whatsoeuer is necessarie for vs to beleue that we may be saued. Ioh. 20. 31.

But the Papistes for the tenth marke ioyne tradition and practise of Gods church, which can neuer deceaue amā. VVe * 1.24. thinke sayth Chrysostom the tradition of the church to be wor∣thie of beleefe. Is it a tradition? aske no further. But howe shall we proue it to be a tradition of the church. The Va∣lentinians (as I shewed before out of Irenaeus) denyed the Scriptures to be sufficient, without knowledge of the tradition. Therfore to discerne the tradition of •••••••• church from the tradition of the heretikes, we haue none other triall but by the Scriptures. Therefore Chrysostom saith in 2. Cor. Ho. 3. that S. Paule did write the same thinges which he told them before in preaching. As for the vni∣uersall practise either of the Popes supremacy, or of the sacrifice of the masse which he braggeth of, shall neuer be proued, but the contrarie.

The eleuenth marke is the auctority of generall coū∣cells confirming the truth, & condemning heretikes, & * 1.25. such he maketh the late councell of Trent to be. But we deny that Conciliabulum, of a few Popish hypocrits, to be a generall councell, in which no man should haue a de∣finitiue voyce, but they that were accused of heresie and whereof, he that is most of all charged with heresie, that

is the Pope, is made the supreme iudge, wherefore the Papists haue no lawfull generall councell on their side, although generall councells as he confesseth, are no sufficient triall of the true church, both because they may be hindered many wayes, and also because they may erre, as did the conncells of Arimine, and Ephesus.

In respect of these considerations, he maketh the twelfth marke to be the supremacy of the Pope, whichis * 1.26. wholly theirs for triall whereof, this booke following was written. But for proofe that Christ hath appoynted such a iudge, ouer all, he citeth Ioan. 21. that Christ cō∣maunded Peter to feede his sheepe, as though that per∣teyned not to euerie one of the Apostles, as much as to Peter. Also Lu. 22. that Christ hauing praied that Peters faith might not fayle, commaunded him when he was conuerted from his fall, to confirme his brethren, which perteineth only to the person of Peter, and can not with any cable ropes be drawē to the Bishop of Rome, or any successor of Peter, for it concerneth his singular, full, comfort & duty, in respect of his fall & Gods mercy, ex∣cept that according to analogy, it may be applied to any man, that is so raised after his fall, and so that precept confirme thy brethren, geueth no speciall commaundemēt to the Pope, but to euery. man whom God hath merci∣fully conuerted as he did Peter.

With the twelfth marke M. Sander would haue ended, but that the Protestantes, affirme the lawfull preaching * 1.27. of Gods word, and the lawfull administration of the Sa∣cramentes to be a marke whereby they wilbe tried. But seeing lawfull preaching & ministring must be tried by Gods worde, M. Sander first asketh what we call Gods word? & secondly he asketh if he haue not proued it to be more with thē thē with vs, whatsoeuer it be? It is like this Popishe academicall Atheist, hath proued Gods word to be on his side, •••••••• wil not haue it certeinly known what Gods word is. After this he will proue the Papists to be most lawfull preachers, because they are likest to the Apostles, in conuerting many nations, within these

900. yeres, whē he sayth no man aliue could once heare vs peepe. As though controuersie of nations would ar∣gue a true church. By which reasons not only the Prote∣stants may nowe proue them selues to be most like the Apostles in conuerting so many nations of Europe, but also the Arians, and most of all, the Mahumetists, might proue them selues the true church. It is not therfore cō∣uersion of nations, but conuersion of thē to the true do∣ctrine of the Apostles, which maketh vs like the Apo∣postles: & the Papistes, Arians, & Mahometists most vn∣like vnto them. And where he saith, that no soūd of ours was heard in 900. yeares space by any man aliue: to see how impudētly he lyeth, read Flaccius Illyricus in catalo∣go testium veritatis, & you shal see in all ages, what monu∣mēts are extant of some few, whom God reserued from that generall Apostasie of Antichrist. Read also the acts & monumentes set forth by M. Foxe, & you shall see the same most plentif••lly. He wil proue their administration of the Sacraments to be more lawful then ours, because they haue fiue more then we. But I answer because they haue fiue more then the worde of God alloweth, or the primitiue church acknowledgeth: & in the administra∣tion of the other they haue either altogether peruerted the institution, as in the Lordes supper: or shamefully corrupted it with superstition, as in baptisme: they are not the church of Christ, but the church of Antichrist.

When we alledge the persecution of the Romish An∣tichrist, to be the cause that our church, hath not flori∣shed * 1.28 in outward peace, & to be a marke also of the truth of our congregation, what maisters (sayth D. Sanders) Antichrists persecution shall dure but three yeres, & an halfe, and is the Pope Antichrist, who hath dured these 900. yeres? But good M. Doctor determiner, how proue you that Antichrists persecution shall dure but three & an halfe, of such yeares as the Pope hath dured 900. you quote Dan. 7. Apoc. 13. you might by as good reason say it shal dure but three dayes & an halfe Apoc. 11. 9. will you take vpon you so precisely to determine of the mysticall

nūber which is somtime called 3. yeares & an halfe, som∣time 42. moneths, somtime 1260. daies, somtime 3. daies & an halfe, somtime a time & times & halfe a time, al which make halfe a Prophetical weeke, & signifie a time deter∣mined of God, but not plainly reuealed to many.

Secōdly you aske, how it could be the true church, a∣gainst w^c Antichrist so lōg preuailed, that no man could tel whether any such were in y^e earth: whē hel gates shal not preuaile against y^e true church? I answere, if you can not put a difference betwene impugning & preuailing: you wil haue much to do to defend your Romish church to be the true church, against the Turkes thē selues, who haue possessed a great part of •••••••• groūd, w^c you say pertei∣ned once to your church. But herin appeareth the mark of the true church, against w^c the gates of hell haue not preuailed, that although Satā was let loose, the whore of Babylon dronken with the blood of her mēbers, her two witnesses slaine, she her selfe driuen into the wildernes, her seede persecuted wheresoeuer they were dispersed, yet she is restored in the sight of the world, her witnesses raised frō death to life, the deuill is vanquished, y^e purple whore of Babylon is fallen, & Antechrist shall at length be throwne into the lake with the deuil and his Angels. This is the Lordes worke & it is maruelous in our eyes.

If either persecution, or not failing in persecutiō, be a marke of the church, it is more in the Papists thē in the * 1.29. Protestāts, for persecutiō he will proue that they be per∣secuted by vs, as the mother by y^e child, which departeth from her obedience, as Agar & Ismael frō Sara. But I an∣swer, we are departed frō Agar, vnder whom we were in bondage to Sara by whom we are made children of the heauēly Ierusalem: & euen as Agar departed frō Sara, so did the synagoge of Rome frō the Catholike church of Christ. For not failing in persecutiō, experiēce teacheth in all countries, w^c haue receaued the Gospell, how small punishmēty greatest nūber of Papists wil abide, for their Popish profession: whereas so many thousands Go••s Saincts being most cruelly murdred by y^e popish church,

the church of Christ is not diminished but encreased thereby, euen as Cyprian saith the blood of the martyrs is the seede of church.

If antiquitie be a marke, it is proued to be on the Pa∣pists side by this reason. The church is all one, the later part of the church for 900. yeares last past is on the Papistes side therefore the former parte also. But this reason standing v∣pon a shamefull begging of that which is questioned, is soone turned vpon your ownē necke. The church is in all but one, but the beginning of the church maketh not for you, therefore that which you say is the later part of the church, being contrary to that former, is no part of the church, so that by this reason, you shal neither haue antiquitie or any parte of the church.

But if you appeale to particular examples (sayth M. Sander) I say the Christians in the primitiue church, did * 1.30. communicate vnder one kinde at Emaus, and at Ierusa∣lem. And I say M. Sander, if he would burst him self with study, shall neuer proue it. He quoteth Aug. de consen. E∣uang. lib. 3. cap. 25. whose opinion was that Christ gaue the sacramēt at Emaus, but of communion in one kind, * 1.31. he neuer once dreamed.

He sayth the Christians did set vp images in the ho∣nor of Christ, quoting Eus. lib. 7. cap. 14. whereas Eusebius speaketh of heathen men, that of heathenish custome did set vp images and not of Christians.

Dionysius although he be auncient, yet he wrote not * 1.32: in the tyme of Eusebius, Hieronymus or Gennadius, & so was knowne for no writer in y^e Church for 500. yeares after Christ, Wherefore I wil not stand about his errors and ceremonyes, which yet for the moste parte are as vnlike the popish ceremonyes, as they are to ours.

Although wee haue no certaintie of the writinges of Ignatius which are extant, yet is there nothing in them that fauoreth the Papists religion. Hee nameth a a sacrifice which could not be offered without the By∣shop, that cannot be the Masse, whiche euery hed ge∣prieste may say, ad Symrn. He would haue the Emperor obey

the Byshop (sayth M. Sand.) ad Phil. But this proueth the Epistle to bee counterfaite, for there was no Christi∣an Emperour when Ignatius liued. (Although in deuine matters the Christian Emperour ought to obey the Bi∣shop, or rather Gods word which y^e Bishop preacheth.) Also he speaketh of Virgins that had consecrated them selues to God: & who speaketh against them, which hauing the gifte of continency doe keepe virginity? In the same E∣pistle: He affirmeth both Peter and Paule to haue bene maried, and will not condemne the mariage of church ministers.

He commendeth the lent fast ad Antioch. Choose M. San∣der, whether your decretals lye of Thelesphorus that in∣uented the lent fast, or that this is a counterfait Epi∣stle of Ignatius. In the Epistle ad Phil. Where he com∣mendeth the 40. daies fast, the Wednesday & the Friday fast he saith farther.

Quicun{que} dominicum aut sabbathum non ieiunauerit praet••r vnum sabbathum pas••ae ipse est Christi interfector: Whosoeuer shall not fast the Lordes day or sabbat beside one sabbat of Easter he is a murtherer of Christ. If this be true antiquity: why doth the church of Rome omit fast on Sunday:

if it be counterfait? why is not M. Sander ashamed to alleage it?

Iustinus witnesseth that water was mingled with the wine. * 1.33. Yea but it was to alay the strength of the wine, not that it was necessary for the Sacrament, though afterward it grew to a superstitious obseruation. He saith further, the Deacons caried the consecrated mysieries to them that were absent which Caluine reputeth for an abuse. If they caried the bread & the wine as the Sacrament, it was an abuse not to be warranted by Gods word. But seeing the Dea∣cons office was to minister to the poore: I thinke rather they caried it as the almes of the church, to suche as were needy.

What Pius decreed we finde in no writer of credit. As * 1.34. for the Popes law it is no good euidēce, hauing a busnel of drosse & counterfait dregs to one graine of good and true antiquitie. In deede Eusebius restisieth, that Victor

Bishop of Rome did excommunicate the Bishops of A∣sia, about the celebration of Easter, but he testifieth al∣so, that Victor was sharply rebuked by diuerse other godly Bishops, namely by Irenaeus of Lyons and Poly∣crates of Ephesus for so doing. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 25.

Tertullian sayth all doctrine is false & lying that agreeth not with some Apostolike church. And such is the doctrine, that the church of Rome holdeth, which agreeth with no Apostolike church, no not with the ancient Aposto∣like church of Rome. But our doctrine agreeth with all the Apostolike churches that euer were, planted in the earth and continued in the doctrine of the Apostles.

Tertullian a Montanist, speaketh in deede of oblatiōs for the deade, but they were none other, then suche as * 1.35. they offred for the birth daies, & that was thākesgeuing. He speaketh of praier for the deade, which he receaued of Montanus the heretike. The stations he speaketh of were no gaddings, but standings. The visitation of Ieru∣salem is denyed to no man that will take the paynes to go thither, nether was it euer like to Popish pilgrimage, which is to runne a whoring after Idolls.

We confesse with S. Cyprian, that the breade in the Sacrament is chaunged, not in shape but in nature, to be * 1.36. the flesh of Christ vnderstanding nature for propertie, and the flesh of Christ to be receaued spiritually.

In publike offences we woulde haue confession to be made publikely, before the Elders of the church, as Cy∣prian would them that fell in persecution, but of Popish auricular confession, he neuer spake one word. We ac∣knowledge the forgiuenes of sinnes by the ministers, to be ratified by God, not binding Gods iudgemēt to it but it to Gods iudgement. We graūt that tēporal punishmēt for satisfaction of the church ought to be appointed vn∣to publike offenders, which may be released vpon their harty repētance, & is no more like to Popish pardōs, thē the stewes & market of Rome is like the church of God.

The rest which he huddleth vp together, I wil answer * 1.37. as briefly. S. Iames his chaire was esteemed, but as a mo∣nument

of antiquity & no holynes put in it. Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 15. The solēne dedicating of churches was no more like Popish hallowing of churches, then Christian prea∣ching & praying is like to con••uration. Euseb. lib. 9 ••a. 10. The straight life of heremites was as like the Popish he∣remites that dwelt at euery good townes end, where the other dwelled in the wildernes, as the city & the desolat wildernes are alike Ruff. li. 11. c. 4. Driuing of deuils by ho∣ly water, was no ordinary ceremony, but a miracle once wrought by the Bishop of Apamea, who whē the temple of Iupiter could not be burned with fire, that was set vn∣to it, after he had prayed, caused water signed with the crosse to be sprinckled on the altar, which being done, the deuills being driuen away, the temple was set on fire & burned: Theodor. lib. 5. c. 29. The auctority of vnwritten traditions is so defended by Basil, de sp. sanct. 27. that he affirme••h whatsoeuer is not of the holy Scriptures, is sinne. Mor. diff. 80.

Praier to Saincts, as the dregges of that time, I leaue to be sucked vp of the Papistes. Repentance but no Po∣pish sacrament of penance, is cōmended by S. Ambrose. The name of the masse is not in Ambrose Ep. 33. for mis∣sā facere signifieth to let go, or let passe, not to say masse, y^e name of sacrifice signifieth a sacrifice of thākesgiuing.

The Canon of the Popish masse is not in Ambrose, but the forme of celebration of the communion in his time de Sacr. li. 4. ca. 5. & 6. Chrysostom reciteth the text of S. Iames onely to proue that God forgiueth sinnes at the praiers of the Elders, not speaking of the ceremony of extreame vnction, vsed by the Papists & de Sacer. li. 3.

Hyeronym ad Vilant. alloweth not the superstitious vse of burning candells in the day time. That he will not al∣low Bishops to beget children, it sheweth his errors, cō∣demned by the Nicene councell, by the perswasion of Paphnutius: Socr. li. 1. cap. 11. Hieronyme speaketh not of a certeine number of prayers, to confirme the vse of your beades, but of a certeine nūber of the verses of the holy Scripture to be learned as a talke to the Lord. ad Furtan.

That he which hath had two wiues coulde not be a Priest in Hieronymus time y^t was a litle of that chaffe, w^c afterward ouerwhelmed y^e good corne in the church of Rome. Hierom affirmeth that he, as helper, vnto the wri∣ting of Damasus Bishop of the city of Rome, did answere the synodicall consultation that came from the East & the West. What is this to any purpose of the Papistes? Not only the Bishop of Rome was consulted, nor he al∣waies, except the matter concerned the whole church, when no member should be lefte vnconsulted, and not made priuye.

Finally that Augustine sayeth, that the fier by which some shalbe saued after this life, is more greeuous then any paine of this life. Psal. 37, he sayth the contrary de fi∣de ad Laurent. cap 68 where he denieth that text of scrip∣ture to be vnderstode of punishment after this life: and saveth the whole matter of purgatory may be enquired of, as a matter vncertaine. The like De octo Dulcity quest. 91. & cont. Pelag. Hypog. lib. 5. he knoweth heauē & hell, and vtterlye d••nyeth the third place to be found in the scriptures. By which it appeareth, that this error of pur∣gatory was but very young in Augustines time. And now you see what antiquity he can boast of, for when he hath wrested & wrong all that he can, scarce two or thre errors haue any shadow of antiquity, & those not in the greatest matters, wheras the whole substance of the do∣ctrine of fayth in God, iustification by Christ, the true worship of God, the vertue of Christes death, the infir∣mity of man, the right vse of the sacramentes the aucto∣rity of the holy scriptures, & a nūber more of such prin∣cipall heades of Christian learning, in which we differ from them, he is as silent as a stone.

The 17. marke, is the name of Catholikes, which * 1.38. M. Iewel confesseth to haue bene of late geuen to the Papistes, which among other thinges, stayed S. August. in the right fayth, as he confesseth Cont. epist. Manich. lib. 4. But seing the name of Catholikes was falsly geuen to you, which arè nowe ryghtlye called by the name of

your archeheretike the pope, papistes, the onely name of Catholikes, which was geuen to you by your selues, to shadowe your heresies, cannot proue you to be Chri∣stians, or your church to be Catholike, especially seeing you lacke the truth which Augustine in the same place, confesseth to be more worth then either successiō, anti∣quity, the name of Catholike, or any other thing else.

The eyghteenth marke is the succession of Priestes, and Bishops, euen from the seate of Peter vnto Pius the fifth in whose time this booke of M. Sander was written, which marke is approued by Augustine, by Irenaeus, by Tertullian, by Optatus & by Hieronym, as he sayth, be∣ing one of the most euident of all other, but therein he belyeth all these fathers whom he citeth, who neuer al∣leaged the bare successiō of place & persons, but ioyned with the cōtinuance of doctrine, receaued from the A∣postles, against new & late sprong vp heresies. Augustine shall speake for the rest, who after he hath alleaged vn∣to the Donatistes, the successions of Bishops from Peter in the vnity of the Catholike church, among which was neuer a Donatist, the iudgement of the Bishop of Rome in absoluing of Cecilianus, and many such like reasons, whereunto he thinketh the Donatistes shoulde yeelde, yet in the ende, he addeth these words. Quamquàm nos non tam de istis documentis presumamus, quam de Scripturis sanctis. Although we doe not so much presume of this documents as of the holy Scriptures.

These eighteene markes M. Sander will haue to be more richly seene in them, then in the Protestantes, but what markes they are, and how they are to be found in their church, I haue briefely shewed. But nowe he commeth to a general challenge to proue that we haue nothing which they lacke, and we lacke many thinges which they haue. First they haue a iustifying faith as well as we, but not iustifying alone, but with charity, which is the life of faith. But charitye is a fruict of a liuinge and vnfayned fayth, not the life thereof. 1. Tim. 1. 5. the ef∣fect not the cause, and we holde with Saynct Paule

that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the lawe. Rom. 3. for charitie is no instrument to appre∣hend the mercie of God, but faith onely, therefore faith onely doth iustifie. We are iustified gratis, steely by his grace. Rom. 3. 24. therfore nothing can come in accompt of iustification before God, but onely faith. which see∣ing y^e Papistes haue not, they haue not a iustifying faith.

We haue two Sacraments, and they haue seuen, but seeing they haue fiue more then Christ instituted, and haue peruerted the one, and polluted the other, they haue but one Sacrament at the most, and that horribly prophaned, I meane baptisme. VVe haue an inward priest∣hood (he sayth) to offer vp Christ in our hartes, and they of∣fer him both in hartes and handes. But our spirituall priest∣hood is not to offer vp Christ, but spirituall sacrifices ac∣ceptable by Christ 1. Pet. 2. 5. Heb. 13. 15. and they are horrible blasphemers, that take vpon them to offer vp Christ, whome none could offer but him selfe by his e∣ternall spirite. Heb. 9. 14.

He sayth, that the Papistes beleeue as well as we, that Christ by one sacrifice payed our raunsom for euer, when they shewe it to the eye in the eblation of their Masse, then the which nothing can be more contrary to the onely sacri∣fice of Christ once offred and neuer to be repeated, be∣cause he founde eternall redemption thereby. Heb. 10. 14. 9. 12. & 25. &c.

He addeth that they beleue Christ to be the head of the Church, and shewe it by a reall figure of one heade, in earth, meaning the Pope, whome now he maketh a figura∣tiue heade, as though Christ were not present with his Churche, or that his Churche were a monster with two heades.

As laye men receyue the communion in both kindes with vs, so they d••e with them in Austria by the Popes dispensation, as though Christes commaundement and institution were not sufficient without the Popes dis∣pensation. Wherein also he affirmeth a monstrous ab∣surditie, that the Sacrament was not instituted in two

kindes, to be so receyued, but by an vnbloody sacrifice, to shewe the nature of his bloody sacrifice in which his soule and blood was separated from his body and flesh, and yet he sayth the body and flesh of Christ, is not well conteyned in the cuppe, as his blood in the paten, with the body and forme of breade, and no separation of the one from the other, and no more contayned or distri∣buted by both, then by one alone. Which saying is to be receyued with whoopes and hisses, of all men that haue their fiue witts.

They haue mariage (he sayth) in greater price then we, because they teach it to be a sacrament, but we find it not instituted by Christ to be a sacrament of the new testament, therfore we receyue it as an holy ordinance, contayning also a great mystery, but yet no sacrament. But if it be an holy sacrament, why doe you thinke it vn∣meete for ministers of the Church? and why doth your Pope Syricius, or rather some counterfeating Canonist in his name, call holy matrimony a liuing in the flesh, such as can not please God. But although mariage be honorable in all men (you saye) it is not so in them that haue gelded them selues for the kingdome of heauen, who haue no more possibilitie to marye, then a gelded man to ••eget children. You were best then to tel the A∣postle that his saying was too generall, for he shoulde haue excepted them that so gelded themselues. But S. Paule sayth, notwithstanding your impossibilitie, if a virgine doe marye, she doth not sinne. 1. Cor. 8. 28. You will reply he speaketh of them that haue not vowed, & how proue you that Christ speaketh of them that haue vowed, longer then God would giue them grace to liue chast, which he affirmeth to be a peculiar gift, & not in the power of euery man. Mat. 19. 12. But what if your po∣pish geldings, by neying at euery mans wife, and by tombling in all beddes, where they are not kept out by force, proue them selues to be stone horses, are they still in the number of those, that hauing gelded them selues for the kingdom of heauen, may not possibly ma∣rye,

and yet nether we will nor can possibly liue chast? But omitting these thinges, which they haue as well as we, now he commeth to those thinges, which we lacke, and yet many of them are very necessary: as insufflati∣ons, that is blowing vpon exorcismes, that is coniuring: holy oyle in baptisme, chrisme in Bishopping, externall priesthood, sacrifice, altars, censing, lights, and so forth a large rablement of popish errors and superstitious ce∣remonies. And that we saye falsly, in saying these are naught, he proueth by S. Paules saying to the Galathi∣ans, praeterquam quod accepistis, beside that you haue re∣ceyued. for once (sayth he) we haue receyued those thinges of our auncestors, as if S. Paule had not spoken of the Gospell, but of beggerly ceremonies, which be∣cause they are an other Gospell, and way of saluation, brought in by the Pope, then S. Paule deliuered to the Galathians: we hold the Pope & thē iustly accursed. But we iustifie them (sayth he) by the word of God not written I am sure, but by your counterfeit word of traditions, & as you say by bookes of auncient fathers, and yet not by bookes of the most auncient fathers: in whome is litle or nothing at all of suche drosse and chaffe, amonge a great deale of good corne.

But seeing we made no new religion in those and such like thinges (sayth he) but keepe the olde: humilitie, obedience, and vnitie is our fault, if we haue any O fautles hypocrites, if the older truth had neuer bene reuealed vnto you, a∣gainst your olde heresies, your faults had bene the lesse. but nowe your darkenes being conuinced of the light, your pride, rebellion, and schisme from Christ and his Church, is and appeareth most haynous and manifest.

Now seeing M. Sander dare not encounter with vs in this very poynt of our contention, he sayneth an Idoll of an aduersary, to shew his manhood vpon, before his friendes, that they may prayse him for a worthy cham∣pion. He imagineth that we reply, that Luther and Cal∣uine did so change popish religion, as Christ and his A∣postles did chaūge the Iewish religion, and then he lay∣eth

on lode, that Luther and Caluines authoritie is not like to Christes, whereas we make no such comparison: but affirme, that these godly preachers were sent of God, so to reueale and discouer the idolatry & corrup∣tions, mayntayned in the Church, as Elias, Elizeus, Ose∣as and the other Prophets, were sent to restore and re∣forme the true worship of God, corrupted and decayed amonge the Israelites, reprouing and reforming all thinges according to the infallible rule of Gods worde. And whereas he trifleth of the continuance of the sa∣crifice of Christ, according to the order of Melchise∣dech, I say it is horrible blasphemy, to make any succes∣sors vnto Christ in •••••••• priesthood, which the holy Ghost sayth, he hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, such as passeth not from him by succession to others, because he liueth for euer. And whereas he quoteth Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 32. and Augustin. in Psal. 33. de ciui. Dei lib. 17. cap. 20. cont. adu. leg. lib. 1. cap. 18. reade the places who will, and he shall finde, that these fathers speake not at all, of any propiciatory sacri∣fice of Christes very body and bloode in the sacrament, but of the sacrifice of thankes giuing, which the Church throughout all the world doth offer to God, in the cele∣bration of the holy mysteries, for their redemption by the death of Christ. But it is sufficient for blinde and ob∣stinate Papists, to see the bookes margent paynted with quotations of doctors, by them which peraduenture ne∣uer turned the bookes them selues, but borowed their quotations of other men.

But M. Sander sayth, whereas we pretend that Luther and Caluine doe all things according to Gods worde, they are the more to be abhorred, not only because the one is contrary to the other, but also because they pre∣tende to haue their doings figured and prophecyed in the Gospel, whereas there is but one Christ, which hath bene borne & dyed but once, therefore these men haue no power to abrogate the Masse, or to take away the key of auncient religion. To their dissention, I aunswer it is not in many poyntes, but in one & that not of the grea∣test

weight as for their pretence of theyr doinges, to be figured or prophetied in the Gospell, it is a dreame of M. Sanders drousie head, for they make none such, but they shew the abuses of the Romish church, by the do∣ctrine of Gods word, & by the same they shew the way to reforme them and this, to the glory of Christ, who dyed but once, they abrogate the Masse, by which it should follow, if it were of any force, that he should dye often, for without death & sheding of bloud, there is no sacrifice for remission of sinnes. Heb. 9. 22. & 26.

If we deny the Masse to be that, they say it is, he aun∣swereth: that as he doeth not reade, that the Iewish priestes did erre concerning the substance of their pub∣like sacrifice. So is it lesse possible, that the vniuersall church of Christ should erre in that publike act, wherin Christ is sacrificed. Here is a wise argument, hauing neither head nor foote, nor any ioynt to hange togea∣ther. For whatsoeuer M. Sander readeth, we reade that Vrias the high Priest, made an heathenish altar in the Temple, at the commaundement of the king Achas, & offered sacrifice theron, 2. Reg. 16. VVe reade also in Io∣sephus, that Caiaphas & diuers other of y^e high Priestes were Saduces, which could not but erre in the substāce of their publike sacrifice, when they beleued not the re∣surrection. Seeing the end of theyr sacrifices was, to sig∣nifie y^e eternall red••ption by Christ. Now to the second parte of the argument, I say the vniuersall church dyd not erre, though the schismaticall synagogue of Rome departed frō Christs institutiō. But M. Sāder chafeth vs away, with this double negatiue, no no maisters, Ante∣christs you may be, christ you cānot be. Gods curse light on him, that would haue any other Christ thē Iesus the sonne of God & Mary, which sitteth at the right hand of his father in heauē. But it is your Antechrist of Rome, that vsurpeth not only the office, but also receiueth the name of Christ & God, of his Antechristiā Canonists, w^c I know you will not deny, though your face be of brasse, because •••••••• boks may be shewed to any māy list to se thē.

After his large excursion, he returneth to D. Parker whome he would aduise to reuolt to the popish church, but he (God be thanked) hauing ended his dayes in the catholike church of Christ on earth, is now receued in∣to the fellowship of the tryumphant church in heauen. I passe ouer how maliciously he ••ayleth against the ble∣ssed martyr Tho. Cranmer, for defence of whose lear∣ning and godlines, I refer the reader to his story faith∣fully set forth by M. Fox. All other Archbishops of Can∣terbury he saith from Augustine sent thither by Grego∣ry were of their popish profession. Of a great number it is as he sayth, but not of all. For the opinion of the car∣nall presence of Christ in the sacrament, was not re∣ceiued in the Church of England, for two or three hū∣dereth yeeres after Augustines arriual, as that Homely which that reuerend father Matthew late Archbishop of Canterbury, caused to be translated and imprinted, doth manifestly declare.

And whereas hee s••orneth at the persecuted con∣gregation of Wickleue, Husse, and the poore men of Lyons, boasting of the externall pompe and visar of glory that was in the Romish Church, I haue sufficiently aunsweared before, that bothe the apostacy of the church of Antichrist & the persecution of the church of Christ was so described & proficied before, that neither the one nor the other should trouble any mans consci∣ence, w^t the straungens thereof, so long as the trueth of the little flock & the falshod of the reuolted multitude, are manifestly tryed by the authoritie of the scriptures.

The conclusion of all his Preface is, that which was the cause of this treatise that there neuer lacked a chief Byshop in Saincte Peeters chaire, whose supremacy beeing graunted all other controuersies bee superflu∣ous. Yea verely all Scriptures, Doctors, and Coun∣celles be needlesse, where there is such a person alwaies at hand, who cannot erre in any thing that he com∣mandeth men to beleeue or doe. And contrariswise if ther be any necessary vse of scriptures, doctors, coūcels,

Learning, Tounges &c. there is no such chiefe Byshop on Earth. But what saye you M. Sander, did there ne∣uer lack a Pope to sit in Peters Chayre? Was that See neuer voyde many dayes, many monethes, and many yeeres togither? And when there was two Popes or three Popes at once and that oftentimes, who sat in Pe∣ters Chaire? You will say one of them: but which you cannot tell. Whose voyce shoulde the people obey as Christes vicar? The one cursed, the other absolued: the one commannded, the other forbadde. Is not all your bragging of Peters chaire, and vnitie, thereby proued to be nothing else but a meere mockerie?

The Lorde Iesus confounde Antichrist with the breath of his mouth, and with his glorious appearance, and defend his Church in trueth and holinesse, for euer and euer. Amen.

The first Chapter.

THE state of the Question concerning the supremacie of Sainct Peter and of the Byshoppes of Rome after * 1.39 him.

VPon our denyall of the supremacie of the Pope, and of S. Peter, he sayth we deny all primacie and * 1.40 chiefe gouernment in the Church. Wherevpon he ray∣seth three questions to intreate of.

Whether it be against the worde of God, that there * 1.41 should be in his Churche any primacie or chiefe au∣thoritie?

Whether S. Peter had the same primacie or no? * 1.42

Whether the Byshop of Rome had it after S. Peter. * 1.43

To which we aunswere with distinction of the words primacie and Church, that we affirme, there is a spiri∣tuall and eternall primacy of the vniuersall Churche, which is proper onely to our Sauiour Christ, which ne∣uer was giuen to Peter, nor to any mortall man. Like∣wise

we arffime that in particular Churches, there is & must be a primacie of order, which is temporall ac∣cording to the disposition of the Church. And such primacie in the Colledge of the Apostles might Peter haue for sometime, but that he had it not alwayes, it ap∣peareth in the councell of the Apostlesin the 15. of the Actes of which Iames in a manner by all writers con∣sent, was President and Primate: and vpon the contro∣uersie beeing throughly debated, pronounced the de∣finitiue sentence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c according to which the synodall Epistle to the Churches of Antiochia, Syria, and Cilicia, was written in the name of the Apostles, Elders and brethren.

But concerning S. Peter, M. Sander moueth newe questions. First whereas Christ promised that Simon should be called Cephas or Peter, whiche is a stone or Rock. Ioh. I. and afterward performed his promise, whē he chose him to be an Apostle, Mar. 3. Luk. 6. And third∣ly when Simon confessed his godhead, the reason of the promise was declared that he would builde his Church vpon that Rocke: the question is, whether Peter him∣selfe be that Rock, vpon which Christ woulde builde his Church, or Christ himselfe, or the fayth and confessi∣on of peter.

M. Sander the spokesman for the Papists, passing o∣uer the second question, that is whether Christe him∣selfe whom Peter confessed, by this rock, denyeth the fayth or confession of Peeter to be the perfect sence of that promise, affirming the Rock on which the Church is builded to be S. Peter, not barely confirmed, but in re∣spect of the promise past, the present confession, and the authoritie of feeding Christes Sheepe giuen him after his resurrection, of which foure conditions the Protestantes (hee sayth) doe lack no lesse then three. But what doe the Papists lack, when in there sence they exclude the rock Christ, the only foundation, then the which none other can be layde. 1. Cor. 10. 4. 1. Cor. 3. 11. by any wise builder of the Church. Yet seeing M. Sand.

is so desirous to haue Peter to bee the stone whereof Christ speaketh, laying first Iesus Christ to be the head corner stone, I wil franckly yeelde vnto him, that which he coulde neuer win by force, that Christ saying to Pe∣ter, thou art Peter, and vpon this Rocke or stone will I builde my Church, meaneth euen Peter him selfe vpon whome he would build his Church, but so that he ma∣keth not Peter a singular Rocke or stone to beare the whole building, (for then hee should put him selfe out of place) but one of the pr••ncipall stones of the foun∣dation, euen as all the Apostles and Prophetes were, for so the holy Ghost speaketh, Ephe. 2. vers. 20. beeing builded vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Pro∣phets, Iesus Christe beeing the head corner stone in whome all the building beeing compacted, groweth vn∣to an holy temple vnto the Lord.

Nowe let vs consider, whether any singular authority was committed to peter, when hee was willed to feede the sheepe of Christ. M. Sand. saith yea, because it was sayd to him alone, feede my sheepe, and no particular flock named, it must needes be ment the whole flocke. Marke these maine pillers of the popishe Rock. Christ saide onely to Peter, come after me Satan, for thou art an offence to me &c. Therefore Peter onely was an e∣nemie of Christe. If the Pope must needes haue the one texte as peculiar to him, let him take the other also. Againe Peter himself sayth to the elders, feede as much as in you lyeth the flocke of Christe 1. Peter. 5. Heere is no particular slocke named, therefore he mea∣neth the whole vniuersall flocke. But he vrgeth far∣ther, that as Peter loued Christe more then the rest, so he did feede the flock of Christ aboue all other pastors. But if labouring in preaching the gospel, be the feeding of Christes flock, not Peter, but Paule laboured more then he, and all the rest of the Apostles. 1. Cor. 15. The answere of the Protestants to his demande, Why Peter alone in presence of other Apostles was commaunded thrise to feede the sheepe, that by thrise confession and

iniunction to feede, he might abolishe the shame of his thrise denying, and knowe that hee was restored to his Apostleship, from which he deserued to be depriued) M. Sand. liketh not for three causes. First he sayth, hee had not lost his Apostleship, because his fault was not externally proued, nor confessed in iudgment, nor stub∣bernly defended &c. as though Christ which knew and foretolde his infirmitie before he fell, had neede of ex∣ternall proues, or a Commissaries court to depriue Pe∣ter of his office, O blockish reason. Although neither Caluine nor Beza doe affirme, that hee was altogither excluded from his office, by his fault, but that he deser∣ued so to be, and therefore had neede especially to bee confirmed by our Sauiour Christ more then the rest as his offence was more shamefull then of any of the o∣ther. Therefore the seconde reason that hee bringeth of his restitution, if he had lost it is superfluous. Ioh. 20 For he was none otherwise restored then the rest were, but at this time especially confirmed, as his speciall case required.

His last reason is, that admit Peter had not beene re∣stored before this time, yet nowe he was restored to a greater authority, then any other Apostle had receued at any time, and whereas we reply that all the Apostles were equall by testimonie of Cyprian and Hieromes, he aunsweareth by distinction, forsooth that they were equall in Apostleship, and yet Peter was chiefe of t••e Apostles, and an ordinary chiefe shepheard or high ••••y∣shop, wherein they were all inferiours to him, and ••••ee was their Primate and their heade, and this distinction he promiseth to proue exactly heereafter. In the meane time it is a monstrous Paradox, that all the Apostles should be equall with Peter in Apostleshipp, and yet Peter be the chiefe of the Apostles. He that can proue inequalitie to be where he graunteth equallitie to be, and in the same respecte, is a straunge Logition. Fy∣nally where as some men graunting Peter to bee the rock, deny the honor to his successors, he will proue that

the Byshop of Rome and none other, hath all that au∣thoritie which Peter sometime had, and consequently that the Protestants come neerer to the nature & con∣dition of Antichrist, then any pope of Rome euer did or can doe.

The seconde Chapter.

THat there is a certaine primacie of spirituall gouernment in the church of Christ (though not properly a Lordlynesse * 1.44 or heathenish dominion) And in what sort this E••clesiasticall primacie differeth from the Lordly gouernmēt ofseculer prin∣ces, and how it is practised by the Bishop of Rome. Also the A∣postles strife concerning superioritie is declared. That there ••as one greater amonge the Apostles to be a ruler and as a mi∣nister doe not repugne. The preheminence of Priestes aboue Kings. A King can not be supreame gouernour in all Ecclesia∣sticall causes, because by right and law he can not practise all Ecclesiasticall causes. The high Priest is preferred before the King, by Gods law. The euill life of a Bishop taketh not away his authoritie. The differences betwene the Bishop of Rome and temporall Princes. That Moyses was a Priest.

THe Ecclesiasticall gouernment of the Church is a * 1.45 ministery, or seruice, by the authoritie of Christ and his Apostle Peter: & therefore neither properly nor vn∣properly a Godlines or Hethenish dominion, but alto∣gether as vnlike to it, as our Sauiour Christ the paterne of all true ministers, was vnlike to an earthly Lorde or an Heathen Prince. But whereas M. Sander in the first sentence of this chapter sayth (That no man properly can t••e Lord among the Christians where all are seruaunts in∣differently, vnder the obedience of one true Lord and Maister Iesus Christ.) he sheweth him selfe not only to be a Pa∣pist, ••ut also an Anabaptist. For the cōmon seruice that we o••••e vnto Christ hindereth not, but that a Christian man ••ay be Lord & King ouer his fellow seruaunts and

thren in Christ, as properly as euer he might be before the incarnation of Christ: who saith himselfe that his kingdome is not of this worlde: who himselfe was obe∣dient and taught obedience both to God and Caesar, to eche in things that belonged to them: & that dominion which he forbiddeth vnto his Apostles, like to the prin∣ces of the nations. Luc. 22. Matth. 20. and which S. Peter forbiddeth the elders of the church. 1. Pet. 5. is not prohibited to all Christians, but to the ministers of the Church onely in respect of their ministery. And yet that there ought to be a gouernment of the church, & some kind of primacy also, it is cleerer by the scriptures, then that it neede any proofe, especially such slender proues as M. San. bringeth, & namely where he citeth this text, Feed my sheepe, to signifie that Peter should giue euery man his dewe portion & iust measure of victuals in cō∣uenient time: which thing neither Peter did, nether was he able to doe. And much lesse any man in succession to him, which is not equal in gifts with him. And therefore the example of a stuarde, who may prouide for a com∣petent number of one family, is fondly applyed to make one Stewarde ouer al the worlde, beside him that is al∣mightie. For although the Apostles were not lymited to any certaine congregation, but were generall Em∣bassadors into all partes of the worlde: yet were they not appoynted to giue to euery man his dewe portion, but to appoynt Pastors in euery Church and towne for that purpose. Tit. 1. Actes 14. verse. 23, & they them selues to proceed in matters pertayning to their gene∣rall Commission.

And therefore although M. Sander in applying these woordes of Ieronime Cont. Luciferanos, which hee cal∣leth, Exortem quandam & eminentem potestatem. A cer∣taine peerelesse and highe power. And of Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 3. Of one priest in the Church for that time &c. True. E∣uery seuerall Pastor, or as he tearmeth them parrishe priest, dealeth more honestly then other Papists that drawe the same testimonyes, as proper to the Popes

soueraigne auctority, yet in that he argueth, that the like should be in the whole church militant, which is in euery parish, it is out of all compasse of reason. For that which is possible in the one, is altogeather impossible in the other. And the argument is no better, then if we should say, there is one steward in euery Colledge, or greate house: therefore there is is one steward ouer all the world. And wheras he would proue his matter good, by that S. Mat. cap. 10. rehearsing the names of the Apostles, calleth Peter the first: it is to childish & friuo∣lous. For in euery nomber, one or other must be the first & it seemeth that Peter was first called to the office of Apostleship: therefore his primacy was of order & not of auctority. Nether is he alwaies first named, for Gal. 3. 9. where the question is, of the dignity of the Apostles, Iames is named before Cephas, or Peter as he was in∣deede elected to be the principall minister at Hierusa∣lem, by consent of most auncient writers, neither doeth it folow, that because the high Priest of the old law was called Princeps populi, A prince of the people, therefore Pe∣ter was made prince of all Christian men. For neither was the high Priest alone called the prince of the peo∣ple, as M. S. seemeth to say: neither had Peter by those wordes (feede my shope) any auctority committed vnto him, more then to the rest of the Apostles. As for the name of Lord, or tearme of dominiō, sometime geuē by ecclesiasticall writers to the Bishop or his gouernment, we striue not about it, so there be no such dominion by him excercised, as Christ & his Apostles forbiddeth, & as we see to be vsurped and practised by the Pope of Rome, & his clergy, howsoeuer M. Sander in tearmes of distinction, would seeme to shadow it. But he will shewe out one of these places which we alleadge, as if it did vt∣terly forbid all superiority amonge the Disciples, luc. 22 that the ecclesiasticall primacy is cleerely establyshed and confirmed.

First he sayth most vntruly, that we deny all supe∣riority amonge the Discyples of Christe as though we

denyed all gouernmente amonge Christians, excepte hee doe childishly vnderstande the Disciples of Christ for Ministers ecclesiasticall onely: and yet wee denye not all superioritie among them, but that kinde of pri∣macie which the Pope claymeth, and tyrannically v∣surpeth. Secondly he maketh a longe preamble before he come to the matter, that althoughe the Apostles did diuerse times striue for the primacie, as in the way to Capharnaum Mark. 9 vpon the request of Zebedees wife. Mark. 10. & after his last supper Luk. 22. yet Christ neuer denyed, that there should be one greater among them, and often signifyed, that the same shoulde be S. Peter, especially when he sayde, thou arte Peter, and vppon this Rock I will builde my Church. If you de∣maunde why they stroue for supremacie, when hee had determined it, he yeeldeth a substantial reason: because while Christe lyued vpon Earth, it was in his free choise to haue appoynted it otherwise, vntill at the last in the 21. of Iohn, he saide vnto him, Simon thou sonne of Iona. &c. By these it appeareth, that M. Sander confes∣seth that no text of Scripture proueth the supremacie of Peter more directly and playnely then this of Iohn 21. which when euery Childe seeth howe little force it hath to proue it, you may easily iudge that the Papists them selues againste their owne consciences, doe in∣force all other Textes vttered before to establishe it. And namely this of Luke 22. in which he sayth, that Christ taking vppe the strife that was among his Apo∣stles about the primacie, ended his talke at laste with Simon Peter, shewing him to bee that one that was greater then the rest.

What Asse if he coulde speake with mans voyce, would reason thus? that because Christe conuerting his speache from exhorting all his Apostles to admonishe Peter of his speciall daunger he stoode in by his infir∣mitie: signifyed that Peter was greater then all the Apostles. But wee muste heare him compare these words of Christe. Luke 22. with the words of S. Mathew

and Marke in other places, which he sayth the Magde∣burgen. cent. doth huddle vp, as they were alone, wher∣as they differ much.

The wordes of Christ Mat. 20. and Mar. 10. are these: VVhosoeuer among you wil be greater, let him be your serui∣tor. And whosoeuer among you will be first, shall bee your ser∣uant. In Sainct Luke 22. He that is greater among you, let him be made as the younger: and he that is chiefe, as he that ministereth. M. Sander will haue greate difference to be in these sayings. First generally that the former sen∣tence speaketh not of the greatnesse among ecclesiasti∣call officers, but all Christians, which is vtterly false, be∣cause this kinde of greatnes is prescribed vnto them to whome external dominion is forbidden, But that is not to all men, but vnto the Apostles onely and their succes∣sors: therefore this kinde of greatnes, is proper only vn∣to them. For he speaketh not of greatnes by humilitie onely, but of greatnes without forraine dominion and worldly dignity, and ioyned with seruice, which is pecu∣lier to the ministery ecclesiasticall. Secondly he maketh sixe friuolous differences, which either are false or else make no diuersitie in the sence of the places.

The first, Mathew and Mark speake of any man. VVho soeuer, S. Luke of one man, which by the article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is poin∣ted out. If the article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doe alwaies pointe one certaine man, it is somwhat that M. Sand. saith, but If, ten thousād times and more, (as euery man meanely learned in the Greeke toung doth know) it signifieth not one certaine man: then is this a fond difference.

The second, the other speake of a desire to be great, VVho so would be great, S. Luke of the effect already pre∣sent, he that is greater. But the the words of S. Matth. 18. ver. 4. ouerthrow this differēce, with the former: for ther 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the greateste, is taken for any one that shall humble himselfe, as a Childe, and not for one made primate of the Church.

The third difference is, that the letter speake of him that would be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 great. S. Luke of him that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

greater, by which is mente the greatest of all after the Greeke phrase. But that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the others signifyeth the greatest according to the Hebrue phrase, it is mani∣fest by the word vsed by both, which call him also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the first or chiefest of all. Therfore these three differen∣ces are not worth three chippes.

The fourth, S. Matthew calleth him that woulde be great 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a seruaunte. S. Luke giueth no name of seruice to him that is greater, but he is willed to be yoū∣ger or vnderling. Yet S. Luke in another place. Cap. 9. vers. 48. calleth him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the least which shall be the greatest. But what fonde quarrelling is this? Doth not the Pope call himselfe seruaunt of the seruantes of God by which he acknowledgeth that the greatest ser∣uice belongeth to him that claimeth the greatest dig∣nitie. though indeede, he yeelde no seruice, but vsurpeth all tyranny. Is M. Sander nowe ashamed of that ser∣uice: that the Pope by solemne title hath so longe pro∣fessed? As for a preeminence of order, we deny not but it was among the Apostles, & must be in euery seuerall company: although it be not necessary, that it should be perpetual in one man, but as euery Church shall or∣daine: but a primacy of authoritie ouer all the Church, we vtterly deny that euer it was graunted to Peeter or any man by our Sauiour Christe. M. Sand. citeth Am∣brose in Luke 22. to proue it Qui lapsus es &c.

Thou which didst slide before thou didst weepe, after thou haste wepte, art set vpright, that thou shouldesirule others, who before haddest not ruled thy selfe.

Loe (sayth he) Peter did rule others. A great myrracle, but doth it follow, that either he ruled al mē, or that he ruled his equals the Apostles, of whome the same Ambrose sayth, De spiritu Sancto lib. 2. cap. 12.

Nec Paulus inferior Petro quamuis is ecclesiae fundamentum & hic sapiens architectus s••iens vestigia cre∣dentium fundare populorum.

Neither was Paule inferi∣our to Peter although hee was the foundation of the church, & Paul a wise builder, knowing howe to founde the steps of the people beleuing.

And again in his boke

de incarnatione Domini ca. 4.

Hic inquam vbi audiuit vos ••u∣tem quid me dicitis? Statim loci non immemor sui Primatum egit. Primatum confessionis vtique, non honoris, primatum fi∣dei non ordinis.

This Peter I say, when he hearde, but what doe you say that I am? immediatly not forgetting his place, executed his primacie. Verely the primacie of confession not of honor, the primacie of faith not of degree.

By these places of Ambrose it appeareth, what gouernment and primacie was graunted to Peter, and how he exercised the same.

The fift differēce, is that the other Euangelists say abso∣lutely let him be a minister & a seruau••••t, in S. Luke it is said, with a great moderation, let him be made as the younger and as he that ministreth. If this be a good argument, to proue that the ministery is more truly a greatnesse then a mi∣nisterie: the Arrians may deny by the like, that Christ is more truely a man then the sonne of God: because Sainct Iohn sayeth: we sawe his glorie as the glorie of the onely begotten sonne of God: O beastly absurdity: and yet he sayeth: if any man say, that there was not one certeyne man greater amonge the Apostles, who might be as the younger, it is playne contradiction to Christ and he is Antechrist. But where on Gods name sayeth Christ, that there is one certeyne man greater among the A∣postles?

The last & the least difference is,

that the greater man is euidently named a litle after, when Christ sa••th to S. Peter, Simon Simon beholde Satan hath desired to sift you as it were wheate, but I haue prayed for thee, that thy faith shall not faile. And thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren.

Maister Sander asketh what other thing it is for Peter to confirme his brethren, but to practise and exercise his greatnesse ouer them? for euerie one that confir∣meth is greater, then they which are confirmed. Who euer did reade such impudent assertions? Peters faith was confirmed by Marie Magdalen: therefore she was greater then Peter. Paule was confirmed by Ananias, therefore he was greater then Paule. Aquila & Priscilla

confirmed Apollo: therfore they were greater then he. To conclude if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in S. Luk. 22. do necessarily proue that there was one certeine man among them greatest: thē 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the 9. of Luk. 48. doth proue that there was one least among them. He that is least among you al (saith our Sauiour Christ) euen he shalbe the greatest. And least M. Sander should renue his differēce of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it may please him to vnderstand, that the con∣tention was among the Apostles, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which should be the greater or greatest of them. Which question our Sauiour Christ doth not decide, if M. San∣ders difference of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this place may stande. Wherefore hitherto Peter hath found no supre∣macie, and muche lesse the Pope by prerogatiue of his chaire, who can not be sayd to sit in Peters chaire, ex∣cept he taught Peters doctrine, which if he did teach as he doth y^e contrarie, yet Peters auctority could no more be deriued to him, then the auctority of Moses to euery one of y^e Scribes & Pharizees w^c did sit in Moses chaire.

He citeth Ambrose to proue, that there is a prelacie or preferrement in the church, because he forbiddeth contention thereabout, as though there could not be a prelacy or preferremēt of euery Bishop ouer his church but there must be one Bishop ouer all the church. The like he alleageth out of Bede, which speaketh expressely of al the teachers of the church, & not of one Pope ouer all. The conclusion of his disputation is, that the ecclesi∣astical primacy doth in al points resemble (as much as it possible may) the primacy of Christ, & therefore he that denyeth the primacie among the Apostles to be a true primacy in his kinde is blasphemous against Christ him selfe. Nay rather, he that communicateth with any man, that which is peculiar to our Sauiour Christ, that he on∣ly shoulde, be as S. Paule speaketh of him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 himselfe the primate in al things Col. 1. 18. which is y^e head of his body, which is, the church is foūd a ma∣nifest blasphemer of our Sauiour Christ. But that they w^c excel among y^e Apostles, & their successors the Bishops,

may be humble and yet great after the example of our Sauiour Christ is no question at all. But that any hath suche greatnes in auctoritie, as our Sauiour Christ hath cuer his whole Churche, is the thinge we denye. If Gregorie affirme that Peter by Gods commission had the primacie of the holy church, and was growne in po∣wer aboue the rest: it is no maruel, seeing he was so nere to the open manifestation of Antechrist, which succee∣ded him the next saue one: whose tyranny beganne to encrease longe before Gregories time: yet was he in his pretended primacie more modest, then any that followed him to this day: Vtterly refusing and con∣demning as prophane, proude & blasphemous against Christ, the title of vniuersall Bishoppe: which Ihon of Constantinople did vsurpe, and other Bishoppes would haue geuen to him.

And whereas M. Sander frameth an obiection of our part, that no man can be both a minister & a gouernour: therfore no ecclesiasticall minister can be a gouernour, he playeth with his owne shadow. For we deny not but a minister of the church which is a seruaunt, is also a go∣uernour. But we affirme that his gouernmēt is spiritual, not worldly: vnlike to the earthly gouernment of this worlde, euen as the kingdome of Christ is not of this worlde. But it followeth not, because that euery Bishop & shepherd is a gouernour:

therefore there must be one Bishop and shepherd gouernour of them all, other then our Sauiour Christ the arch or head shepherd & Bishop of our soules. 1. Pet. 5. 4. & 1. Pet. 2. 25 M. Sander cōmen∣deth y^e saying of Leo B. of Rome to Anastasius B. of Thes∣salonica. Qui se &c. He that knoweth him seife to be set ouer some men, let him not disdaine to haue some man preferred be∣fore him. But he proceedeth: sed obedientiam quam exigit etiam ipse dependat.

But such obedience as he requireth of other, let him yeeld himselfe. By this saying it appea∣reth, that although Leo take much vpō him, as to heare the cōtrouersies y^e can not be determined by the Metro∣politans, yet he acknowledgeth, that in equitie, he was

b••••••••d to yeelde that obedience to others, which he re∣quired of others, if he him selfe were in fault.

But M. Sander maketh an other obiection for vs, on this maner. The Princes of the Gentiles, doe also serue their subiectes in conseruing peace, keeping out their e∣nemies &c. but the clergie must be altogether vnlike to temporal gouernours: therfore there must be no prima∣cie or gouernment among them, although it be ioyned with seruice. Once againe I say, we make no such obie∣ction, but we answere the Anabaptists that so obiect, that the gouernment of the clergy, as it differeth in matter which is spirituall, so also it differeth in forme & maner from the regiment temporall, w^c is with outward pompe of glory & with the material sword: & this with all humi∣lity & with the sword of the spirit. Contrariwise M. San∣der answereth this obiectiō so as he both strengtheneth the hands of the Anabaptistes, & sheweth him selfe litle to differ from their opinion. First therefore he saith that Christ forbiddeth his Apostles and Bishops such a dominion, as is vsed among the Princes of the earth, not altogether such as ought to be amōg them. But that he speaketh not of tyran∣nical dominion, it appeareth by the title of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be∣nefactors, which their subiectes did giue them, for their bountifulnes towards them in preseruing them from e∣nemies, in peace and wealth. Secondly he sayth, that al∣though the King be neuer so good, yet it is not the Kingly, but the Priestly power, which God chose frō the beginning to rule his people withal. And although Kings serue Gods eternal pur∣pose, & they are commaunded to be obeyed, yet the making of Kinges ouer Gods owne people at the first came not of God by way of his mercifull election, but by way of his angrie permis∣sion. What Anabaptist could speake more heretically or seditiously against the lawfull auctority of Kings & Prin∣ces? But let vs see his reason. Nemrod he sayth, was the first King we reade of: which either by force vsurped, or was aduanced by euell men. I aunswere: if Nemrod was the first that vsurped auctoritie as a tyrant: yet was he not the first that exercised Kingly auctority lawfully ne∣ther

was he ruler ouer Gods people. But what wil h••ouy of Melchisedech, King of Salem, was not he elected of God at the first, both to be a King & a figure of the King of Kings, who should not haue had that dignity, if it had not bene of it selfe both lawfull and godly? Secondly he sayth God was angrie with his people for asking a King, when they had a Priest to rule them. I aunswere, he was not angrie for their asking of a King, but for refusing of a Prince ordeyned by him, which was Samuel a Leuite in deede, of the familie of Cohath, but no Priest of the familie of Aaron. For in his dayes were high Priestes, Eli, Achitob, Achimelech. But after the dayes of Eli, which was both high Priest and Iudge. Samuel was or∣deyned Prince or Iudge of the people, hauing aucto∣ritie aboue Achitob or Achimelech the high Priestes in his time, which were sufficient to decide the contro∣uersie of the supremacie, if M. Sander, would geue place to the Scriptures. But who can discharge him of Ana∣baptistrie, where he deny eth the making of a King to be Gods institution, affirming it to be, the fact and consent of men allowed in deede by God, when the Apostle expres∣ly sayeth, it is Gods ordinaunce Rom. 13? And where he sayth that Abel, Noe, Abraham, were directly from God chosen to be Priestes as Aaron, he sayeth most vntruly, for they had in their familie, the principalitie of ciuill gouernment as directly, as they had the Priesthoode. But neither of both in suche sorte, as Aaron had the Priesthoode: in whom the one was distincted from the other. And of Abrahā it is testified that he was a Prince ordeyned of God Gen. 23. 6. He setteth foorth the excel∣lēcy of Priests by their auctority in making Christs bo∣dy, with their holy mouth, as Hierom speaketh. But that proueth not the supremacy of one Priest aboue al men, nor of one Priest aboue an other. As for the ordeining of Peter to be generall shepherd, and high Bishoppe of the whole flocke, by commaunding him to feede his shepe: when he can conclude it out of that Scripture, in any lawfull forme of argument, we will yeelde vnto it.

But this is intollerable impudencie, that pretending to shew howe much the Pope is more excellent then any king, he asketh to what Christian king did Christ euer saye? As my father sent me I send thee. as though Christ had e∣uer sayde so to Peter in singular, and not to all his Apo∣stles in generall. As my father sent me, so I send you. Io∣an. 20. Concerning the rocke that he woulde builde his Church vpon, and the feeding of Christes sheepe, and lambes: we shall haue more proper place to examine afterward, what supremacie they giue to the Pope or to Peter ether. His farther rauing against the dignitie of kinges, who list to see, let him turne to the 57. page of his booke, cap. 2. And yet I can not omit that he sayth, that the pompe of a king is most contrary of all other degrees to the profession of Christian faith: and maketh worldly pompe as vnmeete for a king as for a Bishop. But the Scripture (he sayth) neuer calleth any king head of the Churche, nether doe we call any Kinge heade of the Church, but onely Christ: but in euery particular Church, the Scri∣pture alloweth the king to be the chiefe Magistrate, not onely in gouerning the common wealth, but also in ma∣king godly lawes for the furtherance of religion, ha∣uing all sortes of men as well Ecclesiasticall as ciuill, subiect vnto him, to be gouerned by him, and punished also, not onely for ciuill offences, but also for heresie, and neglect of their duties in matters pertayning to the religion of God. For although many ciuill Magistrats at the first, were enemies of the Gospel: yet was it prophe∣cyed, that kings should be nursing fathers and Queenes nursing mothers vnto the Church. Es. 49. Againe it is an impudent and grosse lye, when he sayth that God was angry because the gouernmēt of the high Priest was reiected, & a kingly gouernment called for. For they reiected not y^e gouernmēt of the high Priest, but of Samuel y^e Iudge: who was no high Priest, although he was a Prophet, ne∣ther was there euer any high Priest Iudge but only Eli.

But if all supremacie be forbidd••n ouer the whole Church militant (sayth M. Sander) it is forbidden like∣wise,

that there should be any superior in any one part of the Church. And this he proueth by a iolly rule of Logicke. For the partes (according to their degree) are of the same nature whereof the whole is. O subtile reason by which I wil likewise cōclude, there may not be one scholemai∣ster for all the children of the worlde: therefore there may not be one schoolemaster for one towne in all the world. There can not be one Phisicion for all the world: therefore there may not be a Phisicion for euery citie: yea there can not be one Priest for all the Churches in the world: therefore there may not be a Priest in euery parishe. Againe he reasoneth thus: If a king be supreame head ouer his owne Christian Realme. it must be by that power which he ether had before his christianitie or beside it. For by his christianitie it is not possible, that he should haue greater power then the Apostles had. I aunswer: the kinges supre∣macie is perfectly distinct from any power the Apostles had. For although he haue authoritie ouer Ecclesiasti∣call persons, and in causes Ecclesiasticall, according to Gods word: yet is he no Ecclesiasticall officer, but a ci∣uill Magistrate, hauing chiefe authoritie in all causes, not absolute to doe what he will, but onely what God commaundeth him: namely to prouide by lawes, that God may be truely worshipped, and all offences against his religion may be punished. And whereas M. Sander inferreth, that an Ethnike Prince or Turke may be su∣preame heade of our Church, we vtterly denye to any such the name of an head, which can not be a member, but euen an Ethnicke Prince or a Turke may be chiefe Magistrate ouer the faithfull, and make lawes for the mayntenance of Christian religion, as an hypocrite Christian may. They are also to be obeyed in all things that are not contrary to God. Nabuchadnezer, Darius, Cyrus, Artaxerxes, which were heathen Princes, made godly lawes for the true worship of God & furtherance of his people: as in the prophecie of Daniel, the bookes of Ezra and Nehemiah, it is manifest. S, Paule appealed to Nero the Emperor. Eusebius testifieth lib. 7. cap. 24

that the Christians in a matter of a Bishopps election, and for a Bishops house, were directed by the decree of Aurelianus an heathen Emperour. And this notwith∣standing, the Church is alwayes vnder the soueraigne authoritie of Christ, and the spirituall gouernment of her seuerall pastors and teachers, when Christ ascen∣ding into heauen, ordayned for her edification and v∣nitie, and not one Pope ouer all. Eph. 4. 13.

But now he will enter one degree farther, and sup∣pose, that a king may be as good as it is possible for any mortall man to be, or as any Bishop and Priest is, yet he can nether baptize, consecrate, forgiue sinnes, praise, ex∣communicate, blesse, nor be Iudge of doctrine by his kingly authoritie. If he can doe none of those: he can not be supreame gouernour in all Ecclesiasticall causes. I denye this argument. For his supremacie is not to doe those thinges, or any of them, but to prouide and com∣maund, that they may be doon as they ought to be. But he riseth vp againe and sayth, that whosoeuer hath so∣ueraigne authoritie, either in ciuill matters or Ecclesia∣sticall, he may in his owne person execute any of those thinges, which any of his inferiours may do. So he saith, the king if he wil, may be Iudge in VVestminster hall, shrieue and constable, yea he may play the tayler, maister Carpenter or tanner. It is maruell he sayth not that he may be both a king and subiect. Likewise the primate, (he might as wel say the Pope) may helpe a Priest to Masse, cary the crosse in procession, digge a graue, &c. I deny this rule to hold in all thinges. For there are some thinges, that the Prince may not doe for lacke of knowledge, and some thinges for lacke of calling, and yet he may commaund both to be done. For controuersies of lawe he may not decyde, except he haue knowledge of the law, nor minister Phi∣sick, except he haue knowledge in phisicke, yet he may command both Lawyers & Phisitions to doe according to their knowledge, likewise to preache, baptize, &c. he may not, because he lacketh calling, for none may doe those thinges lawfully, but he that hath a speciall cal∣ling,

but he may commaund those thinges to be done, & to be well done, according to Gods lawe, whereof he ought not to be ignorant, and for that purpose is especi∣ally commaunded to study in the booke of Gods lawe, that not onely in matters concerning his owne person, but in matters concerning Gods honor, he may cause all men to doe their duetie. Deut. 17. 18. So did Dauid, Salomon, Iehosaphat, Ezechias, Iosias, commaund the Priestes to offer vp the sacrifices and to doe their due∣tie, which it was not lawfull for their kinges to execute.

And is it so straunge a matter, that a popish king may not commaund his Chaplayne to saye Masse, or to saye his Masse reuerently, and orderly as the lawes of pope∣ry doe require? if he may commaund ouer tho e mat∣ters, which yet he may not doe him selfe, let M. Sander see how his rule holdeth, that whosoeuer hath authori∣tie in any matters, may doe all thinges him selfe, which any of his inferiours may doe, or which he may com∣maund to be done, whereupon he concludeth, that the king hath no right or supreame power at all in Ecclesiasticall causes, (vnlesse it be committed to him from the Bishop) so that a king if he be a Bishops commissary, may doe that by M. Sanders exception, w^c nether by commaundement of God, nor his kingly power he hath auctoritie to doe.

Another argument he bringeth as good as this, that the lesser authoritie doth not comprehend the greater, and therefore M Horne must aunswer him, whether to preache, baptize, forgiue sinnes &c. be greater or les∣ser ministerie then the kinges authoritie. If it be grea∣ter: then it can not be comprehended in the kinges au∣thoritie, which is lesser. What that reuerend father the Bishop of Winchester hath aunswered, it may be seene in his booke against M. Feckenham. But to talke with you M. Sander, what if I graunt, that the Ecclesiasticall ministery, is not comprehended in the kinges authori∣tie? will you thereupon inferre, that the kinges autho∣ritie is not to commaund the ministers of the Church in these matters, to doe their dueties according to the

worde of God? In deede you conclude so, but your ar∣gument is naught. For the king is Gods Lieuetenant, to see both the Church and the common wealth to be wel ordered. And the same thing may be greater and lesser then another in diuers respectes. As in authoritie of commaunding, the king is greater then the Phisition: in knowledge & practise of phisicke, the king is lesse then the Phisition. So in authority of cōmaunding the prince is greater then the minister: but in authoritie of mini∣stration he is lesse, and no inconuenience in the world, to the dignitie of other estate or calling.

The Bishop of Winchesters examples, M. Sander saith are euil applyed. For they only shew what was done, and not what ought to haue bene done: and so for many cir∣cumstāces are subiect to much wrangling. 1. For either he was no good Prince which medled with disposing of holy matters, 2. or in that deede he was not good. 3. or he did it by cōmission from a Prophet or an high Priest, 4. or he was deceiued by flatterers, 5. or he was inforced by necessitie. But all these quarells notwithstanding, the examples of Scripture are so many, and so playne, that M. Sanders ••••angling can not obscure them. Dauid a good Prince, did well in appoynting the Leuits and Priestes to their seuerall offices, and forbidding the Le∣uits to cary the arke and the vessells thereof without a∣ny cōmission from Priest or Prophet, but onely by the word of God, not deceyued by flatterers, nor enforced by necessitie, 1. Chron. 23. 25. Salomon did the like about the temple. He deposed Abiathar the high Priest, & set Zadoc in his roome. 1. Reg. 2. 27. & 35. And such are y^e ex∣amples of all the godly kinges of Iuda. which being cōmended in the Scripture, are not vncertayne, deceit∣ful, or vnknown in their circumstances: but much more certaine arguments for the authoritie of Princes in Ec∣clesiastical matters, then this text w^c he citeth (Feede my sheepe) to forbid them. But here he will aske whether a Christian king be Peters sheepe or no? I answer by pro∣priety no but a sheepe of Christes as Peter is. Neuerthe∣lesse,

admit Peter to be a sheepeheard, and the king to be his sheepe, what then? forsooth it is against the lawe of nature, for a sheepe to rule his sheepeheard. I graunt in those thinges in which the one is sheepeheard, and the other a sheepe. But I aske of him, is not a king also in some respect called in Scripture a sheepeheard? if he doubt, Esa. 44. 28. and Iere. 23. 4. may resolue him, and is not Peter and Paule in this respect also sheepe? If he deny it: let the Apostles speake for them selues: let eue∣ry soule be subiect, &c. Rom. 13. If nowe I shoulde reason that it is against the lawe of nature, that the sheepe should rule his sheepeheard: I am sure he would answer with making a diuersitie of respectes. You may then see what a wise argumēt he hath made, that may be turned backe on his owne head Wherefore here is no such im∣possibility as he inferreth, but that a King in some respect of ecclesiasticall gouernment may be aboue his owne pastor, as in other respect he is vnder him.

M. Sander will goe forward for all this, & putteth case that a Bishop shoulde come to a Christian King, as Am∣brose did Ep. 33. to the Emperour Valentinian offering his body and goods to his pleasure, but the thing which the Emperour vnlawfully required, he would not yeeld vnto, what could the Emperour doe to him? He coulde not excommunicate him. And if he imprisoned him or put him to death: he did but as Nero or the Turke might doe. Therefore if the King be neuer so much Christened, hee hath no power ouer the Byshops soule. If it were possible for the Pope to require an vnlawfull thing: I might put the like case of his holinesse. What if a Christian man should come to him &c. he might excommunicate him as Cayphas did all that confessed Christe: hee might imprison him, as Annas did the Apostles: hee might commaund him to be smiten as Pashur did Ieremy, and Ananias Paule &c. Therefore if hee were neuer so much a Pope, he hath no power ouer a Christian mans soule. Marke the pith of M. Sand. arguments.

But if Auxentius the Heretike shoulde haue come to

the Emperour, had the Emperour none authoritie to call a synode to inquire of his heresie, & he being found an heretike, to haue condemned him therefore? In these doings he had done as Constantine about Arius, and Donatus, and not as Nero with Peter and Paule. But Ambrose his authoritie is cited Ep. 32. Sivel scriptu∣rarum seriem &c. If we call to mind ether the processe of holy Scriptures, or the auncient times, who can deny, but that in a cause of faith, in a cause I saye of fayth, Bishops are wont to iudge of Emperours, not Emperours of Bishops.

And who sayth the contrarye, but that in causes of faith, the Emperour is ordinarily to be instructed of the Bishops, and not the Bishops of the Emperour? Or that the Prince hath absolute authoritie in matters of religi∣on, to doe what he will, when we say that in all thinges he mnst follow the direction of Gods worde, the know∣ledge whereof, especially in difficult matters, he is to receyue of the Ministers of the Church, as of the Law∣yers the knowledge of law, although he be bownd to see iustice executed.

But M. Sander will know how a king shall correct or depose a Bishop. I aunswer, if his cryme be apparant, e∣uen as Salomon deposed Abiather, if it be doubtfull, by order of iudgement and tryall according, of ciuill Iud∣ges, if it be a ciuill cryme, and Ecclesiasticall if it be he∣resie that he is accused of, if he can not be condemned vpon iust tryall, he is to be absolued, if this will not satis∣fie the king, he hath no farther lawfull authoritie by any supremacy, and if he proceede further, he exerciseth ty∣ranny. And Augustine doth iustly complayne of the im∣portunitie of the Donatists, which when the cause had bene decyded by certayne Bishops, deputed by the Em∣perour, they would neuer be satisfied, but still appealed to the Emperour, & accused the Bishops that were appoyn∣ted their Iudges before the earthly king. M. Sander vrgeth that word vehemently, that he calleth Constantine an earthly king, and yet he is so blinde, that he will not see, that the same earthly kinge, which assigned those Bi∣shops

to be Iudges, was still acknowledged of all partes, to be the supreame gouernour, Ep. 48.

But omittinge the wordes of men, he will proue the dig nitie of highe Priestes aboue faithfull Princes, by the authoritie of God in the olde Testament. Leuit. 4. Because there God assigneth a sacrifice for the sinne of euery degree of men, according to their dignitie. And first beginneth with the highe Priest, next whom is the whole people, thirde the Prince, and last of all euery priuate man. There is no doubt but the highe Priest, as he was an image and figure of Christ, was chiefe in dignitie. Although in other respectes he was inferior to the Prince, as Aaron was to Moses, Achitob or A∣chimelech to Samuel, Abiather and Zadoc to Dauid and Salomon. The like is confessed of euery minister of the Gospell, and therefore the authoritie of Philo and Theodoretus which he vseth in this poynt, might haue bene spared. And yet may a wicked minister be deposed by a godly Prince. Abiathar in the temple, at the altar, in the holiest place, and sacrificing, was grea∣ter then Salomon, yet was he iustly deposed by Salomō for his treason.

Maister Sander chargeth vs to affi••me, that the euill life of a Bishop, taketh away his authoritie, w^c he denieth to be so, as long as the Church doth tollerate and per∣mitte them in their places, whereupon he concludeth, that though the Bishop of Rome haue neuer so much abused his office, yet he can not leese his primacye. In deede the abuse of the man, taketh not away the au∣thoritie of the office, but if the office be peruerted from the right vse, and degenerated into an heathenish ty∣rannye, as the Bishop of Romes place hath bene ma∣ny hundreth yeares, the name of a Bishop onely and that scarsely remayning, we iustly affirme that such di∣gnitie as that sea had by consent of men, it hath cleane lost, by abuse of their authoritie.

Moreouer he sayth, it hath no coullour of truth, that we affirme the Pope to gouerne, not as a Pastor, but to

beare a soueraintie, as Princes of the 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 * 1.46 inheritance. The like I may say of the Germane Empe∣rour, therefore this is no difference.

Secondly it is not obtayned by right of battaile, in∣uasion * 1.47 or otherwise, but by election. So is the Empe∣rour 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, * 1.48 nor Catechumeni can be chosen Bishop of Rome. No more can any suche be chosen Emperour by the gol∣den 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 deni∣ed the immortalitie of the soule.

The fourth, the election of the Bishop of Rome as of * 1.49 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 ele∣ction.

The fift, to omit the Bishop of Romes temporall do∣minion, * 1.50 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 obediēce, 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 puni∣sheth them with the materiall sword, which forsake his * 1.51 Church, No, but as Antichrist and a tyrant he impriso∣neth 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 de∣uisor of differēces 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 Scri∣pture Psal. 98. Where it is sayd, Moses & Aaron in sa∣cerdotibus 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 follow••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 pur∣pose for his cause.

It must needes be confessed, that Moses as all the Pa∣triarkes before him, in their families, was a Priest, be∣fore the distinction of the two offices was made, when Aaron and his posteritie onely were choosen ••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 infer∣red, that the office of a Prince is to commaunde the highe Priest, and so was it alwayes practised by all god∣ly Princes. But Maister Sander returning to his last and least difference, affirmeth that the Bishop of Rome ne∣uer condemneth any man for herefie or schisme to corporall death in his owne person, nor teacheth that they may be condemned of other Ecclesiasticall per∣sons. 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 Pe∣ter. 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 de∣riuation 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 demi∣nion 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 ty∣rannicall 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, where∣with he not only most shāefully 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 * 1.52 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 * 1.53 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, ••o thee I will giue the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen, hee meaneth not mate∣riall 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 go∣uerned by him which receiueth the Keyes (as Maister Sander sayth) For that was no part of Christes mea∣ning, 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 to∣warde 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 ap∣peare in the Apocalips the 21. Chapter and the 14. verse.

Furthermore I confesse, that what soeuer by necessa∣ry 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 consubstantiali∣tie 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 Pur∣gatory, against which the sense of the scripture is ma∣nifest, I will not admit them for examples.

But to come to his purpose, he findeth in the aunci∣ent 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 cal∣leth 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 God∣head, which is presently made, and the power of fee∣ding his Sheepe, which then was to come, is this Rocke vpon which the Church is builte. Heere I wishe the rea∣der 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 ex∣claime againste vs, if vppon neuer so good ground, we departe from the interpretation of the auncient Fa∣thers. But nowe let vs see what reasons hee hath to confute these three Doctors oppinions as vnsuffici∣ent 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, wherevp∣on 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 A∣postles, the same I saye in kinde, not in number. Nei∣ther 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 al∣ready 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 au∣thour of his power. But I deny that Christe did giue the same that he is him self, that is, to be the onely sin∣gular founda••ion, Rocke, and corner stone of his Church.

Secondly he sayth, if Peter in respecte of his con∣fession

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 Disci∣ples 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 Di∣sciples contained in Peter, whiche are contayned onely in Christe, as the members in their mystirall bo∣dy, whereof hee, onely is chiefe heade, Soueraigne, Captaine, or what other name of superioritie can bee deuised.

But nowe that hee hath 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 lite∣rall sense. But seeing hee wisheth Maister Iewell or any of vs to discusse the meaning of Christe particu∣lerly 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 other∣wise, 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 con∣fessed, 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 re∣spect

of the giftes of fortitude & constancie where with he woulde endue him, this proueth him not to be a sin∣gular rocke.

The second, he was named Peter before he cōfessed, which was the performaunce of the promise. Mark. 3. I dout not but that he had cōfessed Christ before he was made an Apostle, although he had not made that so∣lemne 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 fru••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, there∣fore 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 Apo∣stles Ioan. 17. the speciall prayer for Peter, was in re∣spect 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 faith∣ful, 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 conuer∣sion, 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 cir∣cumstance and conference of holy Scripture) that these * 1.54 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 con∣fesse 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. Sāder in the chap∣ter before, reiecting the interpretatiō of three of the * 1.55 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 con∣fesse, 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 ac∣knowledged 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 instru∣cted 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 omniū quae in orbe sunt ceclesiarum, qui caeli claues habet. For the sonne of thunder is most beloued of Christ, being a pil∣ler 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 si∣gnifying, 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 she∣weth manifestly in his booke de Trinit. lib. 4. speaking v∣pon 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 labere∣tur. I thinke he called a rocke, by denomination no∣thing els but the most vnmoueable and stedfast faith of that disciple, on which the church of Christ should be so established and founded, that it should not fall. Here is an other principall Doctor ioyning with Chrysostom, a∣gainst M. Sander, who affirmeth, that the rocke is no∣thing els, but Peters faith.

After these he nameth. Theo∣phylact and Euthymius two late writers, but he citeth

nothing out of them presently. But after shewing the force of Gods promise to be effectual, to work al meanes necessarie for the performaunce of it, he citeth out of Euthymius in Luc 6. that it was like, that in Ioh. 1. Christ promised that Simon should be called Peter, & in Luk. 6 called him Peter. All this needed not, we doubt not but Simon was called Peter. Yea but Cyrillus sayth in Ioan. lib. 12. cap. 64. that he being Prince and heade, first cried out saying, thou art Christ the sonne &c. Therfore he was head before his confession, by promise and name. I will not here say, how contrary M. Sander is to him selfe, which in the cap. 3. sayd, that his supremacie was graunted to him as a rewarde of his confession. But I will aunswere Cyrillus by him selfe, in Ioan. lib. 4. cap. 28 that Peter was Ordine maior, superior in order, to auoyde confusion, not in degee, dignitie or auctoritie. And whereas M. Sander vrgeth so vehemently, that the name of Peter was not geuen for his confession, but was singular to him by pro∣mise, so that it belonged literally to no Prophet, Apostle nor disciple but only to him, & his successors, it is a most fond & friuolus matter, for the name of Bonarges, was specially geuen to the sonnes of Zebedee, in respect of their excellent giftes, and at the same time that the name of Peter was geuen to Simon, which secing it per∣teineth not to their successors, which haue not the same giftes, no more doth the name & dignity of Peter per∣teine to any that sit in his chaire, if euer he had any fi∣xed chaire among the Gentiles, which by Gods ordi∣naunce, was appoynted to be the principall Apostle of the Iewes. Moreouer where he laboreth tooth & nailc, to proue, that these wordes (vpon this rocke I will build my church) are to be referred to Peter, as I sayd before, I will graunt euen as muche. But that Peter by these wordes, was made a singular rocke more then all the Apostles, vpon which the whole church is builded, I vt∣terly deny, neither shall he be euer able to proue it. For it is an impudent lye, that onely Peter at this time, had this high reuelation, to acknowledge Christ to be the sonne of

God. For he aunswered in the name of all the rest, who beleued the same which he in their name confessed. Did not Andrewe before Peter acknowledge him to be the Messias? Did not Nathaniel which was none of the Apostles, acknowledge him to be the sonne of God and the King of Israel. Ioan. 1. 49.

But he reasoneth substantially, when he saith thou on∣ly art the rocke, because thou alone hadst this name &c. pro∣mised, thou alone hadst it geuen, thou alone didst con∣fesse me & to thee alone I say thou art Peter. As though a man may not haue a name, whose signification is com∣mon to many. Salomon alone was promised to be cal∣led and was called Iedidiah, that is the beloued of God, shall we therefore reason that Salomon onely was belo∣ued of God, as for that he onely confessed, I haue she∣wed before, that it is false, for Christ saying, thou art Pe∣ter, meaneth not to say thou onely art a rocke, but thou well aunswerest thy name, which signifieth a rocke or stone, and I wil in deede vse thee as a rocke or stone, to builde my church vpon, yet not meaning the person, but the office and doctrine of his Apostleship.

But nowe hath M. Sander no lesse then 21. reasons, to proue that Peter is the rocke, here spoken of, w^c althogh they may for the most parte be easily auoided, yet I will graunt that Peter is one of the twelue stones, whereu∣pon the church is builded, but not the only stone.

Therfore his first foure arguments, I deny 1. Simon is alone promised to be called Peter, 2. he alone is called Peter, 3. Christ speaketh to him alone, saying. And I say to thee &c. 4. Christ sayth of him alone, thou art Peter, therefore Simon alone is the rocke of the church, let him proue the cōsequence if he can. The next 5. which proue that these wordes are to be referred to Peter, al∣though that they be not verie strong, yet I graunt the wordes may be aptly referred to Peter, the reasons are 1. vpon the pronoune. The 2 the worde rocke of which Peter is named, 3. the conference of thē together, 4. the word I will build, 5. the word my church.

The 10, Argument I denye, that Christ. (by saying to Peter, Feede my Lambes, feede my sheepe) made him the heade stone of Gods militant Church nexte vnto Christe.

The eleuenth, that Peter is shewed to be the Rocke spoken of, by geuing of the Keyes, I confesse: ebut see∣ing the keyes are giuen to all the Apostles, this proueth Peter to be none otherwise a Rocke, then euery one of them, That Iohn receued the Keyes I shewed euen now out of Chysostome.

The twelfth, that the propertie of a Rock in constant withstanding of tempests, agreeth with Peter, I graunt and so it doth to the rest of the Apostles, for whome Christ prayed as he did for Peter, who also strengthe∣ned and confirmed their brethren as Peter did.

The 13. I confesse that hell gates shall not preuayle against the Church, nor against any member thereof, which is a small reason to make Peter supreame heade thereof.

The 14. which is the authorities of those doctors that teach Peter to be the rocke whom he nameth when he citeth their sayings, or quoteth their places, I will seue∣rally consider.

The 15. their reason also when I see them, to deriue Peters authoritie to his successors, I will waighe like∣wise.

The 16. the practise of 1500. yeares I deny.

The 17. I deny that all generall councells, or any ge∣nerall councell for 600. yeares after Christ, acknowled∣ged Peter to be the rocke in that sence, the Papistes do now.

The 18. if the confession of Peter be the rocke, yet it is none inconuenience, that the church shoulde be builded theron, which began to be builded on the same confession offered by Iohn Baptist.

The 19. though you confound the diuerse senses ge∣uen by the fathers in your fourth sense, yet that proueth not your sense to be true.

The 20. seeing the Apostles are certeyne foundatiōs and rockes vpon which the church is builded, I confesse that Peter must needes be one, but that he was the most principall rocke in respect of his name Peter, which is a stone, I say it followeth no more then that Salomon was best of al men beloued of God, because of that name Ie∣didiah, which signifieth beloued of God.

The 21. that all the Protestantes doe not agree in the interpretation of these wordes (vpon this rocke I will builde my church) it proueth not your exposition, to be true, for neither do all the old Doctors, nor yet the new Papistes agree in one, & the same interpretation of this text. And oftentimes it may inuincibly be proued, that an heresie hath no grounde out of suche a text of Scrip∣ture, although the true and naturall sense thereof can not be found at all.

The fift Chapter.

IT is proued out of the auncient fathers, that S. Peter is this * 1.56 rocke, whereupon the church was promised to be builded, o∣therwise then M. Iewell affirmeth.

THat Peter was a rocke or stone, vpon which the * 1.57 church was builded, is graunted of vs, but that he a∣lone was a rock for the whole church to be builded vpō, we deny, and M. Iewell rightly affirmeth, that the olde Catholike fathers haue written and pronounced not a∣ny mortall man as Peter was, but Christ him selfe the sonne of God, to be this rocke, whereon y^t whole church is builded. But M. Sander will proue (if he can) out of the old writers, that not onely Christ is the chiefe rocke, but Peter also is an other rocke, so that the church by his doctrine, is builded vpon two rockes, and this he will shew, 1. by their words, 2. their reasons, 3. & by the same places which M. Iewell alleageth for the cōtrary opiniō.

The decretal epistles of Anacletus, Pius, Fabianus, &c. which in his owne conscience he knoweth to be forged,

he omitteth, and beginneth with Tertullian De praescrip. aduers. haeres. Latuit aliquid Petrum aedisicādae ecclesiae Pe∣tram dictum? Was any thing hid from Peter which was called a rocke of the church which was to be builded? This is graunted that he was a rocke or stone, whereon the churche is builded, and the same Tertullian in his booke de pudicitia sayth, of this whole text, that this was conferred to Peter Personally, and perteineth to none other, but such as he was, namely an Apostle or Pro∣phet.

Secundum enim Petri personam spiritualibus potestas ista conueniet, aut Apostolo aut Prophetae. For according to the person of Peter, this power shall belong to spiritual men either to an Apostle or to a Prophet.

Where is then the succession of the B. of Bome?

But Hippolytus saith: Princeps Petrus, fideipetra. Peter is chiefe, a rocke of faith. He meaneth a strong preacher of faith not a rocke whereon faith is builded.

Origenes in Exod. Ho. 5. calleth S. Peter Magnum illud &c. That great foundation and most sound rocke, whereupon Christ hath builded his church.

But let Origenes expound him selfe in Math. cap. 16. Si autem super vnum illum Pe∣trum arbitraris vniuersam ecclesiam aedisicari à deo, quid di∣cis de Iacobo & Ioanne filus tonitrui, velde singulis Aposto∣lis? Verè ergo ad Petrum quidem dictum est. Tues Petrus & super hanepetram edifi••abo ecclesiam meam, & pertae in∣ferorum non praeualeb••nt ei: tamen omnibus Apostolis & omnibus quibus q, perfectis fidelibus dictum videtur, quoniam omnes sunt Petrus & petrae, & in omnibus aedificata est ec∣clesia Christi, & aduersus nullum ecrum qui tales sunt, portae preualent inferorum. But if thou thinke the whole church is builded by God vpon that one man Peter, what sayst thou of Iames and Iohn, the sonnes of thunder, or of euerie one of the Apostles? Therefore it was in deede truly sayd vnto Peter. Thou art Peter & vpon this rocke I will builde my church, and the gates of hell shall not preuaile agaynst it, yet it seemeth that it was spoken al∣so to all the Apostles, and to all the perfect faithfull be∣cause

they are all Peter and stones, and on them all, the church of Christ is builded, and agaynst none of them which are suche, the gates of hell shall preuayle. By this you see howe Origen is none of his, howe so euer he abuse his name.

Next he citeth Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 3. & lib. 4. Ep. 9 which sayeth that the church was builded vpon Peter. Which we confesse as vpon one of the foundation stones, but the same Cyprian De simplicitate praelatorum sayth.

Hoc e∣rant vtique & caeters Apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consor∣tio praediti & honoris & potestatis, sed exordium ab vnitate proficiscinur, vt ecclesia vna monstretur. The rest of the A∣postles were euen the same thing that Peter was, endu∣ed with equall fellowship both of honor and auctoritie, but the beginning procedeth from one, that the church might be shewed to be one. This speaketh Cyprian vpon the very text now in discussing.

Consequently he citeth Hilarie lib 6. de trinit. Petrus &c. Peter lieth vnder the building of the church and in ca. Math. 16. O in nuncupatione &c. O happy foundation of the church in hauing the new name pronounced, and ô rocke wor∣thie of the building of that church, which should dissolue the lawes of hell.

But the same Hilarie sayeth of Christ, de trinit. lib. 2. Vna haec est foelix fidei petra, Petri ore confessa, tu es filius Dei viui. This is that onely happie rocke of fayth, confessed by the mouth of Peter, thou art the sonne of the liuing God. And agayne, lib. 6. Super hanc igitur confessionis petram ecclesiae aedificatio est. Vpon this rocke of confession is the building of the church. And againe. Haec fides ecelesiae fundamentum est, per hanc fidem infirmae aduersus eam sunt portae inferorum. Haec fides regni caelestis habet claues &c. This fayth is the foundation of the churche, by this fayth the gates of hell are of no force agaynst it. This fayth hath the keyes of the kingdome of heauen &c. Therefore not the per∣son of Peter is the rocke, for all the church to be built vpon.

S. Ambrose hath the next place, whome he citeth

Scr. 66. Si ergo &c. If Peter then be a rocke vpon which the church is builded, he doth well to heale first the feete, that e∣uen as he doth conteyne the foundation of faith in the church, so in the man he may confirme the foundation of his mem∣bers.

Of the auctoritie of this Sermon I will not dispute, it shall suf••ice that Ambrose in Ps. 38. sayth. Quod Petro di∣citur, Apost••lis di••itur, non p••testatem vsurpamus, sed serui∣••••s ••mperio. That which is sayd to Peter, is said to the A∣postles, we vsurpe not power, but we serue vnder com∣maund••ment.

By this saying of Ambrose, Peter is so a rocke and foundation, as the other Apostles are, & not a rocke to beare all the building him selfe.

S. Basil is alleaged in Conc••de paenit. Petrus petra est &c. Peter is a rocke through Christ the rocke. For Iesus geueth his owne dignities, he is a rocke and maketh a rocke. This pro∣ueth not Peter to be the onely rocke of the militant church, as M. Sander would make him.

After him he citeth Hierom in 16. Math. AEdificabo ecclesiam mean super te, I wil build my church vpon thee. Behold sayth M. Sander the church promised to be built vpon a mortall man. If he say true, Christ sayth in vaine that flesh and blood made him not Peter.

But the same Hieronyme interpreteth that power there geuen, to Pe∣ter, to perteyne to euerie Bishop and Priest, as much as to Peter. And contra Ioninian lib. 1. he writeth. At dicis su∣per Petrum fundatur ecclesia, licet id ipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostol••s fiat, & cuncti ••laues regni cael••rum acci∣piant, & ex aequo super eos ecclesiae fortitudo s••lidetur: ta∣men propterea inter du••decim vnus eligitur vt capite cōstitu∣to seisinatis tollatur occasio: But thou sayest the church is founded vpon Peter, although in an other place the same is done vpon al •••••••• Apostles, & they al receaued the keyes of the kingdom of heauen, & the strength of the church is grounded equally vpon thē, yet for this cause, one is chosen among the twelue, that the heade being appoynted, occasion of diuision might be taken away.

You see now that Peter is no more a rock or fundation,

then the rest, neither hath any more auctoritie of the keyes then the rest, al••hough by his iudgement, he was chosen to be the chiefe or first in order to auoyde strife, not in dignitie or auctority. Chrysostom is cited ex Var. in Math. Hom 27. Princeps &c. Peter Prince of the A∣postles, vpon whome Christ sounded the church, a verie im∣moueable rocke and a strong confession. M. Sander woulde haue vs note, that Peter is called confession, that when he sayth the church is builded vpon faith & con∣fession, we might vnderstand no mans saith and confes∣sion, but Peters. As though all the Apostles had not the same faith & made not the same cōfession. But notwith∣stāding that Chrysostom doth oftē acknowledge Peter to be the Prince of the Apostles, yet he willeth vs, to cō∣sider that his principallity was not of auctority but of or∣der.

Iam & ill••d considera, quàm & Petrus agit omma ex∣communi dis••ipulorum sententi••, nihil auctoritate sua, nihil cum imperio. Now also cōsider this, how euen Peter doth all things by the cōmon decree of the disciples, nothing by his owne auctority, nothing by commaundement. Ex. Act. Ho. 3. Also in 2. ad Gal. he doth not only asfirme that Paule was equall in honor with Peter, but also that all the rest were of equall dignitie.

Iamque se caeteris honore parem ostendit, nec se reliquis illis, sed ipsi summo comparat, declarans quod herum vnusquis q, parem sortitus sit dignitatē. And now Paule sheweth him selfe equall in honor with the rest, neither doth he cōpare him selfe with the rest, but euen with the highest himselfe, declaring that euery one of thē hath obteined equal dignity. Now followeth, Epiphanius in Anchor. Ipse dominus &c.

The Lord himselfe did constitute him chiefe of the Apostles, a sure rocke vpon which the church of God is built, and the gates of hell shall not preuayle aga••nst it: now the gates of hell are heresies and auctors of heresies, for by all meanes faith in him was establi∣shed which receaued the keye of heauen. That Peter was chiefe of y^e Apostles in order, we striue not, that he was a sure rocke we graunt, but that he alone was the rocke of the church we deny.

The same Epiphanius acknowled∣geth

the Bishop of Rome to be fellow minister with e∣uery Bishop, and no better, and therefore setting forth the epistle of Marcellus to Iulius Bishop of Rome, he gi∣ueth this superscriptiō. Beatissimo cōministro Iulio, Marcel∣lus in Domino gaudium. To his most blessed fellow mini∣ster Iulius, Marcellus wisheth ioy in the Lord.

The place of Cyrillus which followeth, I haue sette downe, and aunswered iu the chapter before.

After him Theodoretus alleageth Psellus. In Petro &c. In Peter the prince of the Apostles, our Lord in the Go∣spells hath promised that he will build his Church. Damas∣c••n and Euthymius later writers are alledged to the like effect, all which proue nothing but that Peter is a rocke, which we confesse as euery one of the Apostles is.

Thē followeth Augustine in his retractations, which leaueth it to the choyce of the reader, whether he will vnderstand Peter figuring the person of the Church, to be the rocke spoken of by Christ, or Christ whō he cō∣fessed. But that Peter as Bishop of Rome, should be the rocke he sayth nothing. Againe leauing it to the readers choyse, he sheweth he had no such perswasion of the rocke of the Church, as M. Sander teacheth.

After him Prosper Aquitanicus, & Leo with Gregory two Bishops of Rome, say nothing but that Peter was a rocke, which we graunt without controuersie.

Last of all the councell of Chalcedon is cited. Act. 3.

Petrus Apostolus est petra & crepido Ecclesiae. Peter the Apostle is a rocke and a shoare of the Churche, which M. Sander translateth the toppe of the Church. In deede the legats of the Bishop of Rome vttered such words, which may be well vnderstoode as all the rest of the fathers, that Peter was one of the twelue foundati∣ons of the Churche. But that the councell acknowled∣ged not the Bishop of Rome to haue such authoritie as is pretended, appeareth by the 16. action of the Chalce∣don councell, where notwithstanding the B. of Romes Legats reclaymed, & Leo him selfe refused to consent,

yet by the whole councell it was determined that the Archbishop of Constantinople should haue equall au∣thoritie with the Archbishop of Rome in the East, onely the title of prioritie or senioritie reserued to the Bishop of Rome.

To conclude, M, Iewell sayd truly, for all M. Sanders vaine & childishinsulting & impudent rayling, y^t no mor tall mā, but Christ only is the rocke & foundation of the Church, albeit that Peter & all the Apostles in respect of their office, & doctrine, were foūdation stones wher∣on the Church was builded, Iesus Christ being the cor∣ner stone and onely one generall foundation.

The sixt chapter.

THe diuerse reasōs which the fathers bring to declare why * 1.58 S. Peter was this rocke, do euidently shew that he was most literally this rocke, whereupon Christ would build his Church. How Peter beareth the person of the Church.

THat he was a stone or rocke, wheron the Church is * 1.59 builded, hath bene often graunted, but that he one∣ly was such a stone is stil denyed. First Basil aduersus Eu∣no. lib. 2. is cited, with his reason Petrus &c. Peter re∣ceyued the building of the Church vpon him selfe, for the ex∣cellencye of his faith. I aunswer, so did the other Apo∣stles for the excellencye of their fayth, for continu∣ance whereof, Christ prayed as well as for Peters faith. Iohn. 17.

The 2. Hilarie de trinit. lib. 6. sayth Supereminentem &c. Peter by confession of his blessed faith, deserued an exceding glory.

And so did the rest of the Apostles by their con∣fession of their blessed faith, obtaine an exceding or pas∣sing glory, vltra humanae infirmitatis modū, beyond y^e mea∣sure of mans infirmitie, w^c wordes also Hilary hath, left you should thinke he preferreth Peter in auctoritie be∣fore y^e other Apostles.

For Peters fayth & confession he did before interprete to be the rocke of the Church, w^c

because it was common to all the Apostles, he maketh their authoritie equall. Vos ô sancti & beati viri, ob sidei vestrae merituns claues regni caelorum sortiti, & ligandi aique soluendi in caelo & in terra ius adepti. O you holy and bles∣sed men, which for the worthines of your faith haue ob∣tayned the keyes of the kingdom of heauen, and haue attayned to auctoritie to bind and loose in heauen and in earth.

And if you vrge that Peter spake, when all the rest helde their peace: yet is that primacye but of or∣der, not of authoritie for they all beleued as Peter con∣fessed, and Peter confessed in the name of all the rest.

The 3. Cyprian ad Iubaianum: Ecclesia quae est vna &c. The Churche which is one, is founded by our Lordes voyce, vpon one which hath receyued the keyes of it. This reason (sayth he) can beare but one such rocke, for if there were more rocks at once, there should be more churches

But it is reason, that Cyprian should expound him selfe, which by founding meaneth the beginning of the foundation, as he sayth, de simplicitate pr elat. Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum &c. The Lorde speaketh to Peter. I say to thee (sayth he) that thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not preuayle against it. To thee will I giue the keyes of the kingdom of heauen, and whatsoeuer thou shalt bind vpon earth, shall be bound in heauen: and whatsoeuer thou shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heauen. And to the same after his resurrection, he sayth: Feede my sheepe. And although he giueth to all his Apostles after his resurrection equall power, and sayth, as my father hath sent me, so also doe I sende you, receyue the holy Ghost. Whose sinnes you forgiue they shall be forgiuen, and whose sinnes you retayne they shall be retayned: yet that he might shewe the vnitie, by his authoritie, he disposed the beginning of the same vnitie, beginning at one. For verely the rest of the Apostles, were euen the same thing that Peter was, endued with equall fellow∣ship both of honour and of power: but the beginning

procedeth from vnitie, that the Church might be shew∣ed to be one. Thus farre Cyprian. By which we see that there is but one beginning, yet all the Apostles are e∣quall.

This vnitie of beginning of building, Tertullian also lib. de pudic. sheweth to haue bene in Peter, when he was the first that preached after the ascention of Christ.

The 4. Augustine Hom. de pastoribus, Dominus &c. Our Lord hath commended vnitie in Peter him selfe: there were many Apostles, and it is say d•• to one, feede my sheepe. Here he will haue Peter to represent Christ, the onely good shepeheard: although the wordes importe no such thing, but onely a mystery of vnitie, which is but friuolously gathered by the author of that booke, or homely, vntruly ascubed to S. Augustine: where yet he will not haue Peter to be the head, but to beare a figure of the body of Christ, which is the Church. Whereupon his wordes follow soone after.

Na n & ipsum Petrum cui commendauit oues suas, quasi alter alteri vnum se••um facere volebat, vt sic ei oues commendaret, vt esset ille caput, ille fi∣guram corporis portaret, id est Ecclesiae, & tanquam s••onsus & sponsa essent duo in carne vna. For he would make euen Peter to whome he commended his sheepe, as one to another, one with him selfe, that he might so commend his sheepe to him, that he him selfe might be the heade, and Peter might beare the figure of his body, that is, of his Church, and so they might be as the bridegrome & his spouse, two in one flesh. These words shew how vaine M. Sanders collection is for Peters headship, beside that he citeth the wordes otherwise then they are in the au∣thor, euen as his note booke serued him.

The 5. reason is vttered by Hierome aduersus Iouinia∣num lib. 1. aunswering the obiection of Iouinian, and in∣tending to proue that Iohn the virgine was as excellent as Peter the maried man. At dicis, &c. But thou sayst, the Church is built vpon Peter: Albeit the selfe same thing in another place, be done vpon all the Aposiles, & all doe receiue the keyes of the kingdom of heauen, and the strength of the

Church be grounded equally vpon them, yet therefore one is chosen among twelue, that a head being made, the occasion of schisme may be taken away. Here he woulde haue three thinges to be noted. First that the Church is so built vp∣on Peter the rocke, that in the same place where it is built vpon Peter, the like is not done vpon the other A∣postles. But seeing he him selfe before vrged the future tence, I will build, this collection is false. Christ promi∣seth that he will builde his Church vpon Peter, but when he buildeth, he vseth all the Apostles as well as Peter.

Secondly that the church is equally built vpon all the Apostles, therefore not more on Peter then on the rest.

Thirdly that one is chosen head to auoyde schisme.

But if all be equall, he as keth how one may be head? I aunswer, euen as the foreman of the Iury in some re∣spectes is chiefe, and yet they are all equall. But he aun∣swereth they are equall in authoritie, as Apostles, but not as Bishops. But seeing the office of euery Apostle is aboue the office of euery Bishop, it will followe, that euery Apostle as Apostle, is aboue Peter as Bishop of Rome, which were a perilous matter for Maister San∣der to admitte. Howbeit concerning this distinction of his, more is to be sayd in a more proper place. In the meane tyme, he vrgeth, that Peter was chosen of Christ to be heade, to auoyde strife and schisme, which rea∣son seeing it holdeth alwayes, there ought alwayes one heade to be chosen, to be a heade and perpetuall rocke, by succession. I aunswer the reason of auoyding schis∣mes, may gayne so much, that in euery Church, such as the first of the Apostles was, such an head for such pur∣pose may be chosen, but it will not inforce one heade being a mortall man, ouer all the Churche, which no one man can keepe in vnitie, and how conuenient the headship of the Romish Church is to auoyde schismes, let so many schismes as haue bene made euen for the attayning of the same headship, beare witnes. Whereof one continued 39 yeares.

As for Leo Bishop of Rome, it is well knowen, hee was too much addicte to maintaine the dignitie of his Sea, and yet he was farre from the tyranny which the later byshops vsurped and practised vnder pretence of Peters supremacie. His words ate cited in Ann. ass. ser. 3. Super hoc Saxum &c. Vppon this stone, this soundnes and strength, I will builde an euerlasting temple, and the hight of my Church, which is to reach to Heauen, shall rise in the strength of this Rocke. A great extolling of Peter, vsuall to the Byshops of Rome, but yet no more is saide of him then may be truely faide vpon euery one of the A∣postles.

The 6. reason is vttered by Augustine. Ep. 165. Petro totins ecclesiae figuram. &c. Our Lorde saide to Peter bea∣ring the figure of the whole Church. vppon this rocke I will builde my church. And againe in Ioan Tr. 124. Ecclesiae &c. Peter the Apostle by a generalitie that was figured, did beare the person of the Church, by reason of the primacie of his Apostleship. Heere he maketh much adoe aboute his primacie, by reason whereof he beareth the figure of all the Church, willing to inferre that because hee was primate of the Apostles, and in respect of his primacy represented the whole Church, therefore he was soue∣raigne ruler and generall officer of the whole militant Church. But it followeth not, that euery one which is made an atturney or Proxei to receiue a thing for a whole comminaltie, is thereby made generall ruler of al that comminaltie.

The Papistes them selues in the Councell of Basill discharge vs of this conclusion, where they agree to the sentence of Iohn Patriarch of Antiochia which ci∣teth Augustine to witnesse that Peter receiued the Keyes as minister of the Church.

And Augustine writeth De Agone Christ. cap. 30 Non enim siae causa inter omnes Apostolos huius ecclesiae Catho∣licae personam sustinet Petrus, Huic enim ecclesie cla∣uis regni caelorum datae sunt. Et cum ei dicitur ad omnes di••itur, A••nas me, Pasce oues meas. For not without cause

amonge all the Apostles, Peeter sustaineth the person of this Catholike Churche. For to this Churche the Keyes of the kindome of Heauen are giuen. And when it is saide vnto him, it is saide to all. Doest thou loue me? feede my sheepe.

By this sentence it is playne, that Christe after Au∣gustines minde, preferred not Peter in power before all the rest, but to receiue equall power with the reste, hee made him as it were the Attornye of the rest. So that all these reasons duely considered, the sayinges of the Doctors which affirme Peter to be a rocke or stone, on which the Church is builded, doe not prooue that hee was an onely foundation of the whole Church, but with the rest of the apostles, he was one and the firste of the twelue stones, whereon the Church was founded, and that in respect of his office and doctrine, not of his per∣son, as he wasa mortal man.

The seuenth Chapter.

THE authorities alleadged by M. I••well, to proue that * 1.60 Peter was not this Rock, proue against him self that Pe∣ter was this Rocke, although they proue that there was an o∣ther kinde of Rock also beside him, which thinge wee denye not.

THE first authoritie is Gregorius Nyssenus in loc. vet. test. Thou art Peter, and vpon this rock I will * 1.61 build my church. He meaneth the confession of Christ. For he had sayd before: Thou art Christe the sonne of the liuing God.

M. S. replieth that it is neither said, that Peter was not this Rock: nor that Christ was this rock. But that the confession of Peter was the Rock, whiche he graunteth, and therefore Peter much rather muste be the rock. For his confession which commeth from his soule and heart, as from a fountaine or springe, is greater then the acte of confession. Firste I deny his Argument: because

Peters confession came neither from his soule nor hart, but from God, which reuealed the trueth vnto him, as Christ saith. Flesh and bloode &c. Secondly I say, Gre∣gory meaneth by Peters confession, him which Peter confessed, namely Christe which is the onely Rocke of the Church, whereon the whole Church is builded, as his wordes doe sounde, for he had sayde before: Thou art Christ &c.

But M. Sander reasoning like a learned Clarke, fin∣deth faulte with M. Iewels argumente, comparing it to this: There commeth eloquence from a man but he is not elo∣quent: Peters confession is the Rocke, therefore Peter is not the Rocke. Would a man thinke that a Doctor in Diui∣tie, should either be so ignoraunt in the Arte of reaso∣ning, or so impudent in peruerting a good reason, that a very Childe might reproue, either the one or the o∣ther? I appeale to Logicians, whether this reason of M. Iewels: The Rock commeth from Peter by confession, Ergo, Peter is not the Rock: be like this argument Elo∣quence commeth from Cicero, therefore Cicero is not Eloquence, and not as M. Sand. inferreth: Ergo, Cicero is not Eloquent. But he hath another Example. A mans Oration is eloquent. therefore the man him selfe is eloquent: So Peters conf••ssion is the Rocke, therefore Peter h••••selfe is the Rocke. I deny the resemblance, for there is resem∣bled the Adiectiue in the one, and the substantiue in the other. But thus he shoulde compare them, Tuilyes de∣fence of Mylo is an eloquent oration: therefore Tully is an eloquent Oration, which reasoning is no more absurde, then this of M. Sand. Peters confession is the Rocke, therefore Peter is the Rocke. Contrarywise you may reason: Peters confession was the Rock, therefore Peter was Rockey or stony.

The seconde authoritie is Hilarie. Haec vna est &c.

This is that onely blessed rock of Faith that Peter con∣fessed with his mouth. M. Sander caueleth, that this is not spoken vpon the wordes said to Peter, but vp••on the wordes spoken by Peter.

But beside that the whole

context of the place is against him, both in that, lib. 2. De trinit. and also lib. 6. Super hanc confessionis Petram ecclesiae edifi••ato est, vpon this Rock of confession is the building of the Church, which M. Sand. would auoyde by bringing in of two rocks, Christ & Peter:

the particle exclusiue shutteth him cleane out of the dores, for Hillarie sayth not, that Christe is a Rocke, but that he is the onely Rocke. Therefore this is but one Rocke and one building, and not as M. Sand. sayth two Rocks and two buildings, for aswell hee might say two Chur∣ches. Now where Hilarie vpon Mathew acknowled∣geth Peter to be a rock and foundation of the Church, it is answeared before, that he was one of the xii. foun∣dations spoken of Apoc. 21. in a farre other meaning then Christ is the onely Rock.

The 3. authoritie is, Cyrillus Dial, 4. de trini.

The rock is nothing else, but the strong & assured faith of the dis∣ciple.

This saith M. S. is that I would haue, for this disci∣ple was S. Peter, and the rock here spoken of is nothing else, but S. Peters faith, therfore it is not Christ. Nay ra∣ther the rock is nothing but S. Peters faith, therfore it is not his 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 ano∣nother,

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 cōfesseth 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 e∣qually 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 •••••••• rock whosoeuer is the disciple of Christ. M. S. reciteththis sēse 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 Apo∣stles, 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 fran∣tike 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 eccle∣siasticall 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 eccle∣siasticall

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 lea∣uing 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 ouer∣throwe 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 founda∣tion 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 im∣pudent assertion? Peter of all the Apostles first confes∣sed 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. * 1.62

THe conclusion consisteth of 7. poynctes. In the first * 1.63 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 pro∣mised, there must be alwayes some mortall man, which beeing made the same Rocke by election, and after∣warde by reuelation, shoulde make the same confessi∣on, 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 Sy∣nodes and Councelles, if one Pope were abe to re∣solue 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 on∣ly 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 ne∣cessary 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 necessa∣ry 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 foun∣dations 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 no∣ted 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 Pe∣ter. 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 Ped∣les and ignoraunt men imbrace this doctrine which we teach, so truely all Scriptures be on M. Sand. side. A∣mong so many Princes, noble men, and excellent lear∣ned 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 * 1.64 some kinde of ecclesiasticall dignitie.

THat S. Peter had some excellent gieftes, peraduen∣ture more then some of the Apostles, that he had greate dignity among the Apostles, may easely be graū∣ted, 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 A∣postles.

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 pro∣mised to him alone, for euery one of the Apostles recei∣ued 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 house∣holdes, Didrachma was to be payde, for the heade or firste borne of euery house. And you shewe your igno∣raunce 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 pen∣nie coulde be but xvj. pence at the moste of our mo∣nie.

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 Argu∣ment.

The seuenth, Christe preached out of Saincte Pe∣ters Bote, to shew that in his Chaire, his doctrine should alwayes be stedfastly professed. An Argument to be an∣sweared either with laughing or hissing.

The 8. Though all the Apostles were to be sifted, yet Pe∣ters Fayth alone is prayed for. This is vtterly false, for Christe prayed for all his Apostles fayth. Ioh. 17. if spe∣cially for Peter, it was in respecte of his greater daun∣ger, 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, & ther∣fore 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 Apo∣stles 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 par∣ticular 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 al∣so, 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, some∣time Iudas aunsweared. Iohn. 14.

16 Peter pronounced, Iudas Iscariot deposed. That was by speciall instinct of the holy Ghoste, and by no or∣dinary 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 Apo∣stles, 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 apo∣logie 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 cōfes∣sed 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 per∣sonall gift, which the Pope hath not, therefore it pertei∣neth nothing to him.

24 Peter did excommunicate & enioyne penance to Symon Magus the first heretike. Peter denounced Gods iudge∣ment 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 like∣wise raised the dead and peraduenture before Peter, al∣though 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 be∣lecue. Actes. 15. This is false, for Peter sayeth not, first of all, but of olde tyme. And the Eunuche of AEthio∣pia, was baptised by Philippe before Cornclius of Pe∣ter.

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 Pe∣ter 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 no∣teth. But S. Luke noteth, that they came to all the A∣postes and Elders at Ierusalem, and not to Peter onely, nor for his solution, but for the solution of the coun∣cell.

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 testi∣fieth, 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 Ierusa∣lem.

31 Sainct Paule came to Ierusalem to see Peter as Chry∣sostome 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 he∣retikes. &c. All this is vncerteyne being not founde in the Scriptures, but those stories which reporte it, con∣uinced by Scriptures, to be false in diuerse circum∣staunces.

34 Peters chaire and succession hath bene acknowled∣ged 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 ac∣knowledged by all auncient fathers to haue the aucto∣ritie, 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 aucto∣ritie 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 Constanti∣nople, the 5. &c. which withstoode the Bishoppe of Romes auctoritie in such cases as he pretended prero∣gatiue.

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 Apo∣stleshippe, * 1.65 had also the auctoritie to be particular Bi∣shoppes, which thing their name also did signifie in the olde time.

ALthough the Apostles had all such auctoritie, as e∣uerie * 1.66 particular Bishop hath, yet had they not two offices, but one Apostleship. No more then a King al∣though 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 resi∣dence, 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 of∣fice of a Bishoppe any longer, then vntill the churche was perfectly gathered, where they remayned. For al∣though 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 de∣cree 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 wor∣shippe. Of S. Peters sitting at Antioch as Bishoppe, we finde nothing in the Scriptures, and lesse of his remo∣uing to Rome. But we finde that when Peter came to Antioche, Paule withstoode him to his face, and repro∣ued 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 acci∣piat 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 Pro∣phet 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 Theodo∣ret 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 Epaphro∣ditus your Apostle, and my helper: whereas he meaneth that he was their messenger, vsing the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 A∣postles 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. Like∣wise where Augustine sayth, that the Bishoppes were made in steede of the Apostles, it rather proueth that the Apo∣stles, 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, frō 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 nei∣ther 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 A∣postles by Cyrill, or any auncient writer, we must vn∣derstande, as Ambrose teacheth a primacie of confes∣sion 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 * 1.67 Apostles in their Apostolike office. VVhere in diuerse ob∣iections are aunswered, which seeme to make against S. Pe∣ters supremacie.

BVt that necessity enforceth him, M. Sander thinketh * 1.68 it sinne of curiositie to inquire of that equality or in∣equalitie of the Apostles, where as it should suffice vs to fol∣low 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, al∣though a great part of the world hath of long time so ta∣ken 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 cō∣tent that he was first in the order of numbring, but he will haue him first in dignitie, because he is alwayes na∣med 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 grea∣test dignity to Peter, yet thereupon did not follow grea∣test authority. For these three Apostles last named, were of greatest dignity among the Apostles, yet not of grea∣ter 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, wher∣in 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, v∣sed by some of them, signifie his authoritie ouer them, but his dignitie amongest them.

But if you aske him wherin Peter was chiefe? He an∣swereth •••••••• 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 Apo∣stles, 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 A∣••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 ab∣stayned 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 A∣postles needed no heade, because they were not in daū∣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 succes∣sors. But how wil he proue that the priuiledge of not er∣ring, 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 suc∣cessors. 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 Constanti∣nople, and by the decree of Leo 2. Bishop of Rome con∣firming 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 king∣dom 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 Scrip∣tures, when of Peters headship or supremacie there is neuer a word And Paule sayth, that he was nothing in∣feriour to the highest Apostles, 2. Cor. 2. if nothing ab∣solutely, 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 e∣quality 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 do∣ctrine

of the abolishing of the lawe, or of Christian li∣bertie, but of bearing too much with the Iewes, in pre∣iudice 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 re∣spect, but because he was d••ceyued in opinion, thin∣king that in that case he ought so to haue done, before he being reprehended by Paule, sawe the inconueni∣ence, and then myldely yelded to the correction. But in this humble submission sayth Maister Sanders, Pe∣ter 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 deed•• he shewed herein such greatnes, as Christ commendeth, but no heade∣ship or authoritie ouer his brethren. Cyprian ad Quin∣tum, 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 vnder∣stande, that if he had chalenged primacie, he had ta∣ken 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: ne∣ther did he despise Paule, for that he was before a per∣secutor of the Churche, but he did admitte the coun∣sell of truth.

The like sayth Augustine for his humi∣litie, but as a later writer more pregnant for his prima∣cye. 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 d••e otherwise then the truth required about circum••sion, was corrected of Paule who was admitted after him to be an Apostle. In this say∣ing the primacye is of tyme and order, not of dig∣nitie

and authoritie. But Gregory much later then Au∣gustiue, graunteth to Peter, not onely a primacie, b••t also a maioritie, in Ezech. H••m. 18. Quatenus, &c. That he who was chiefe in the toppe of the Apostleship, should be chiefe also in humilitie. And agayne, E••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 Pe∣ter 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 A∣postles. It is not to be doubted, that they were many de∣grees 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 pom∣pous Clergye, let God and all indifferent men bee Iudges.

Moreouer where as it is obiected against the supre∣macie 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 chap∣ter, it proueth the Deane and Bishop to be inferior to the Canōs. 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 sup∣position, that Peter had authoritie to depose the Apo∣stles, 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 seen•• by his chiefe Bishoply power. Howe * 1.69 Christ loued Peter aboue others.

M. Sander fantasying that he hath proued Peter su∣perior * 1.70 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 same. And in order and office he confesseth that all Byshopps of the worlde, are equall as Hierome sayeth, ad Euagrium, and Cyprian De v∣nitate eccles••e, but not in authoritie. But seeing he rehearseth the testimonie of Hierome imperfectly, I will set it downe at large, that you may see whether it will beare his distinction.

He writeth against a custome of the Church of Rome, by which the Deacons were preferred abooue the Priestes, whome hee proueth by the Scripture to be equall with Byshoppes, excepte onely in ordaining. Quid enim facit exempta ordinatione Episcopus &c. For what doth a Bishop excepting ordina∣tion which a Priest or Elder doth not? Neither is it to be thought, that there is one church of the city of Rome and an other of the whole worlde. Both Fraunce, and Britayn, & Africa, and Persia, and the East, and India, & all barbarous nations, worship one Christ, obserue one rule of truth. If auctoritie be sought, the world is greater then a citie. Wheresoeuer a Bishop be either at Rome, or at Eugubium, or at Constantinople, or at Rhegium, or at Alexandria, or at Tunis, he is of the same worthi∣nes & of the same Priesthoode. Power of riches & base∣nes of pouerty make not the Bishop higher or inferior.

But they are all successors of the Apostles. And lest you should thinke he speaketh onely of equalitie in order & office, & not in authority. He doth in an other place shew that the authoritie of euery Priest is equall with euery Bishop by Gods disposition, & that the excelling of one Bishop aboue other Priests, came only by custom.

In Ti∣tum cap. 1. Sieut ergo presbyteri sciunt se ex Ecclesiae consue∣tudine, ei qui sibi praepositus fuerit, esse subiectos: it a Episcopi nouerint, se magis consuctudine, quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate, presbyteris esse maieres. Therefore as Priestes do know, that by custom of the Church, they are subiect to him that is set ouer them: so let Bishops know, that they are greater then Priests, rather by custom then by truth of the Lordes appoyntment. If the authoritie then & iu∣risdiction of Bishops dependeth vpon custō, & not vpon gods appointment, Peter was not by our lords appoint∣mēt preferred in bishoplik authority before the rest of y^e Apostles, nor the Bishop of Rome, before other Bishops & Priestes, but only by custom. as Hierom saith.

S. Cypri∣ans wordes also inferre the same.

Episcopatus vnus est, cu∣ius à singulis in solidum pars tenetur. The Bishops office is one, whereof euery man doth partake the Bishops office wholy. Now if authoritie & iurisdiction doe pertayne to the Bishops office, euery Bishop hath it wholy, as (to fol∣low M. Sanders example) whatsoeuer is incident to the nature or kind of a man, is equally in euery man.

But now the greatest matter resteth, to proue how S. Peter had more committed to his charge then the rest of the Apostles, and that he taketh on him to proue, by this reason. Peter loued Christ more then all the rest of the Apostles, therefore he gaue him greater authoritie in feeding his sheepe, then to the rest, But I deny the ar∣gument. For Peter loued Christ more then the rest, be∣cause Christ had forgiuen him greater sin••es, then to the rest, Luc. 7. 47. In consideration whereof, he required greater diligence in doing his office, but gaue him not a greater charge or authoritie.

Now where M. Sander reasoneth, that Peter loued

Christ most, because Christ first loued him most, and Christ loued him most, because he would make him go∣uernour of his Church, it is a shamefull petition or beg∣ging of that which is in question. For the nearest cause of Peters greater loue, was the greater mercy which he founde, which mercy proceeding from the loue of God as the first & infinite cause, can haue no higher, superi∣or, or former cause. But Peter in respect of greater loue shewed to him, in that greater sinne was forgiuen him, was bound to shewe greater loue toward Christ, which he required to be shewed in feeding his sheepe, yet this proueth not, that greater authoritie was giuen him, or that he did feede more then all men. For S. Paule sayth truly of him selfe, I haue labored more then they all, 1. Cor. 15. 10. wherby it appeareth, that Peter as a man, was not equall with Christ in the effect of excellent loue, which was in him in comparable. And whereas M. San∣der talketh so much of his commission of feeding, I say these words feede my sheepe &c. be not wordes of a newe commission, but words of exhortation, that he shew ex∣ceeding diligence in the commission equally deliuered to all the Apostles: As my father hath sent me, so I send you. Ioan. 20 21.

But the auncient fathers expound it so, that it might seeme to be a singular commission to Peter. It can not be denyed but diuers of the auncient fathers, otherwise godly and learned, were deceyued in opinion of Peters prerogatiue, which appeareth not in the Scriptures, but was chalenged by the Bishops of Rome, which seemed to haue a shew of some benefit of vnitye to the Church, so long as the Empire cōtinued at Rome, & the Bishops of that ••••ie retayned the substance of Catholike religi∣on: yet did they neuer imagine, that such blasphemous & tyrannicall authoritie, yea such false & hereticall do∣ctrine, as afterward was mayntayned vnder the pretēce of that prerogatiue, shoulde or ought to haue bene de∣fended thereby. But let vs see what M. Sander can saye, out of the aun••ient writers. August in Hom. de past. cap. 13.

writeth: Dominus &c. Our Lord hath commended vnitie in Peter him selfe. There were many Apostles, and it is sayde to one, feede my sheepe. God forbid there should now lacke good pastors, but all good pastors are in one, they are one. This ma∣keth nothing for Peters authority ouer the rest, but on∣ly the author supposeth the vnitie of all Pastors to be al∣legorically signified, in that Christ speaketh that to one, which is common to all good sheepeheardes, name∣ly to feede his sheepe. And againe de sanct hom. 24 In vno Petro &c. The vnitie of all pastors was figured in one Peter. So might it wel be without giuing Peter authoritie ouer all Pastors. Chrysostom is the next: lib. 2. de sacerdotio. who sayth that Christ did aske whether Peter loued him, not to teache vs y^t Peter loued him, but to enforme vs quanti sibi curae sit gregis huius praefectura. howe great care he taketh of the gouernment of this flock. Here he would haue vs marke, that Chrysostom calleth it a rule & gouernment of the flock, which Christ intendeth. Yea sir, we see it very wel, but you would make vs blind, if we could not see, that Chrysostom speaketh not of a gene∣ral rule, graunted to Peter only, but of the gouernment of euery Churche by euery Pastor. And therefore you daunce naked in a net, when you alledge the words fol∣lowing absolutely, as though they pertayned to Peter onely. Petrum Christus auctoritate praeditum esse voluit, &c. whereas Chrysostom speaking to euery Priest, & shewing how careful he ought to be in his office, in respect of his high calling & the excellent dignitie thereof, sayth:

Eti∣am ne nune nobisium contendes fraudemistam tibi non bene ac foeliciter cessisse, quiper eam vniuersis Dei optimi maximi bonis administrandis sis praeficiendus, quūpraesertim ea agas, quecū Petrus ageret, illū Christus auctoritate preditū esse vo∣luit, ac reliquos item Apostolos longē praecellere. Wilt thou then stil contend with vs, that this fraude hath not hap∣pened well & luckely to thee, which by it, art to be made ouerseer of all the goods of God almightye, especially when thou doest those thinges, which when Peter did, Christ would haue him to be endued with authoritie, &

also farre to excel the other Apostles.

Here M. Sander wil haue vs note 3. things, 1, Peters authoritie, 2. passing the Apostles, 3. farre passing. We marke them all, that they are directly ouerthrowing M. Sanders rocke of the popish Churche. For they declare, that Peter in doing those things, was endued with authoritie, & farre passed the other Apostles, euen as euery Priest (to whō Chry∣sostom speaketh) when he doth the same thinges, is en∣dued with the same authoritie, & farre passeth all other men. So that here is none other authority, nor excellēce of Peter then such as is common to all ministers in ex∣ecuting their charge, and was common to all the Apo∣stles when they did the same things that Peter did. For Chrysostom proueth to Basil, that he did him no hurt, when by pollicie he caused him to be called to the mi∣nistery against his will, seeing that thereby he was made partaker of the reward of the faithfull & wise seruaunt, and equall in authoritie with Peter, if of loue towardes Christ he would diligently feede his flocke. So that Leo had no iust cause to saye that in respect of any greater authoritie, Peter had a speciall care of feeding the sheepe committed to him. but rather in respect that he had grea∣ter cause to loue Christ, which had so mercifully forgi∣uen him so shamefull a fall.

But Arnobius is a lesse partiall witnes then Leo a Bi∣shop of Rome, & he vpon the Psal. 138. writeth thus. Nul∣lus Apostolorum nomen &c. None of the Apostles receiued the name of a Pastor. For our Lord Iesus Christ alone saide. I am the good pastor, & againe my sheepe follow me. Therefore this holy name, & the power of this name, after his resurrection he graunted to Peter repenting. And he that was thryse denyed, gaue to his denyer, that power which he had alone. Arnobius (saith he) noteth none of the Apostles euer to haue had the name of a pastor giuen to him by Christ, beside S. Peter alone. But I demaund of M. S. where he hath in Arnobius this word euer? For he sayth, y^t Peter had this name after y^e resurrection w^c none of y^e Apostles had be∣fore. He writeth against the Nouatians w^c denied helpe

to such as repented after baptisme, prouing by exāple of Peter, that they are to be receyued, seeing Christ gaue him greater dignitie after his repentance, then he had before his fal. But that Peter had greater authoritie thē the rest of the Apostles he neuer thought or sayde. M. Sander cutteth of both the head and the tayle. In this discourse lest the meaning of Arnobius might appeare, for thus he writeth: Dicis cert•• baptizatis non debere poe∣nitentibus subueniri Ecce Apostolo poenitenti succurritur, qui est Episcoporum Episcopus, & mai••r gradus additur ploranti, quam sublatus est deneganti. Quod vt doceam, illud est endo, quod nullus Apostolorū nomen Pasioris accepit. &c. In deede thou sayst that such as repent being baptised ought not to be helped. Beholde the Apostle repenting is helped, which is a Bishop of Bishops, and a greater degree is re∣stored to him weeping then was taken from him deny∣ing. Which that I may teach, this I shew, that none of the Apostles receyued the name of a sheepeheard, &c. A∣gaine in the ende following the wordes before cited by M. Sander he sayth, vt non s••lum recuperasse quod amiserat, probaretur, verum etiam & multo amplius poenitendo, quam negand•• perdiderat acquisisse. He gaue his denyer that power which before his resurrection he alone had: That he might be proued not onely to haue recouered that which he lost, but also to haue gotten much more by re∣penting, then he lost by denying. This speaketh Arno∣bius of the general authoritie which Peter had ouer all the Church, as euery Apostle had likewise, & was a Bi∣shop and ouerseer of Bishops as well as Peter, and a Pa∣stor of the vniuersal Church, which thing Arnobius ne∣uer did deny. These therfore be M. Sanders arguments, none of the Apostles had the name of a Pastor before Christes resurrection, ergo they neuer had it. Peter was called to greater dignitie after his fall then he had be∣fore, ergo he was greater then his fellow Apostles. Again Peter was a Bishop or an ouerseer of Bishops, ergo he was Bishop ouer the Apostles.

Next Arnobius is cited Ambrose in 24. Luc. Who first

ayd, that Peter was euery where, ether alone or first And thē vpon these words, Peter doost thou loue me, sayth: Dominus interrogat &c. Our Lord asked net to learne, but to teach whō he beeing to be l••fted vpp into heauen, did leaue to vs as the Vicare of his loue. For so thou hast ••••. Simon thou sonne of Iohn, doest thou l••ue me? Yea Lord thou knowest that I loue thee. Iesus sayth to him, feede my lambes. Peter being priuy of a good conscience, doth testifie his owne affection, not taken for the time, but already well knowen to God. For who else were able to professe this thing of him selfe. A••d because he alone amongst all professeth, he is preferred before all. M. Sander o∣mitteth the conclusion. Maior enim omnibus charitas. For the greatest of all is Chari••ie.

So Peter is heereby declared to haue the greateste loue, but not to haue the greatest authoritie. M. Sander vrgeth that he is the Vicar of Christes loue and pasto∣rall office. The one indeede Ambrose sayth, the other Sander sayeth but is not able to proue: no not by that which followeth in the same place of Ambrose, that Peter had committed to him to feede, not onely the Lambes with milke, as at the first, nor yet the little sheepe, as at the seconde time, but the sheepe, to the end that he beeing more perfect, might gouerne the more perfecte. For euery one of the Apostles hadde the same charge to feede the sheepe of Christe, and not the Lambes or little sheepe onely. Neither doth the woorde of gouernment helpe him. For euery Apostle had the like gouernment ouer the whole flock w^c Peter hath, and there is an ordinary gouernment in euery particular church, 1. Co. 12. w^c pro∣ueth not the gouernors to be rulers one ouer another, wherefore this collection is not only vaine, but also ri∣diculus, 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 distinctiō 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, he••re is no∣thing at al.

And that his conclusiō declareth sufficiently Et idio quasi perfecto in omnibus, quem caro iamreue•• 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 thē the rest of the Apostles, but as perfect in such degre, as the rest of the Apostles which were likewise prepared to martyrdō, were equal w^t him therin.

The testimony of Bernard a late w••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. •• writeth. There is no dout but Iames was acknowl••dged by the Apostles to be appointed by the holy ghoste to remaine at Ierusalem, though not as a p••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 Ar••obius in Psa. 138. saith he was made a Bishop of Bishops. Ecce Apostolo p. enitenti succurritur qui est epis∣coporum episcopus. Behold the Apostle beeing penitent is suc∣coured, 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 by∣shop of the Apostles. For admit that he was an ouerseer of particular bishops, as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth signi••ie, yet it followeth not that he was ••n ouerseer or Byshop of the Apostles. In which sense Clemens also (if the E∣pistle 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 Apo∣stle

ouerseer of particuler Bishops.

That Cyprian ad Quintum sayth: Neque quisquam &c Neither doeth any of vs make him selse a Byshoppe of By∣shops. He aunsweareth that although no man may make himselfe, yet Christe may make a man Bishop of By∣shopes, 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 deser∣ued to be preferred before all the Apostles, and he alone re∣ceiued the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen to be commu∣nicated vnto the reste. Ma••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 o∣pen 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 o∣ther will forge a Byshoplike office in the Apostles, whereof the Scripture giueth vs no instruction.

As for Leo and Gregorye Byshoppes of Rome, al∣though they were not come to the full pryde of Anti∣christ, 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 decei∣ued 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. Where∣fore although he haue some shewe out of the olde wri∣ters, 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 ••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 * 1.71 Peter, was an ordinary authoritie, and there fore it must goe for euer vnto his successors, where as the Apostolike au∣thoritie 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 * 1.72 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 Sacra∣ments, 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 A∣postolike authoritie, hath no successors in it, what mea∣neth the Pope almoste in euery Bul and decretall Epi∣stle, to brag so much of the Apostolike authoritie, & to ground all things Apostolica Authoritate by the Aposto∣like 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 inuēted lately by such as he is, to haue a star∣ting hole, to seeme to auoid such arguments and autho∣rites, 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 gouerne all the faythful, by helpe of many inferiour officers. As thoughe the Church had not inferior officers in the Apostles time. If S. Peter then was not able to rule, w^c had such greate giftes muchlesse the Pope, which is nothing compara∣ble with him in gifts, & is often a wicked man & an here tike is able to gouerne all the Church, for he hath not so great an helpe of the conuersion of the worlde, as he hath a want of Peters gracious giftes, meete for such a gouernment.

Secondly he would haue vs mark, the peculiar names of a Rock, of a pastor, & of a confirmer of his brethren, which are giuē by Christ to S. Peter alone, which argue that Peters supremacy must necessarily continue for e∣uer. But who will graunt to M. S. that Christe gaue these peculier names to Peter alone, indeed that which is mēt by the names is ordinary and perpetual in the Church. Peter was a Rock, not his person, but his doctrine that remaineth stil in the Church, he was a shephearde and confirmer of his brethren, and there bee nowe many shepheards and confirmers of their brethren.

Thirdly he sayth the Church neuer wanted a visible rock on the earth, beside the eternall Rock Christ: who in this life might bee so strongly fastened in the Faith of Christe the great Rocke, that he (though not for his owne sake, yet for the Churches sake) might be able to stay vppe all other small stones, which ioyned vnto him, vntill Christ came in the fleshe, who likewise ap∣poynted Saincte Peter and his successors to be this ordinary rock, as Adam Enos Henoch, Noe, Abraham,

Isaac, Iacob, Moyses, Aaron and his successors, who sate in the chaire of Moyses vntill the comming of Christ. Against this I say, that the church militant on earth, hath her foundation in heauen, and not on earth, ther∣fore the churche hath not a visible rocke in earth. A∣gaine it is not true, that some one, hath alwayes bene this visible rocke on earth. For who was greater Abra∣ham or Melchisedech? out of all controuersie Melchi∣sedech, then was not Abraham the onely rocke. After the death of Iacob and the twelue Patriarkes, who was the visible rocke vntill Moyses was called. And yet had God a church among the Iewes all that time.

Thirdly who is so impudent to say, that all the succes∣sors of Aaron were so strongly fastened in the faith, that they were able to stay all the small stones that leaned vpon them. Was not Vrias the high Priest an idolater? 2. Reg. 16.

What were Iason, Menclaus, Lysimachus by the re∣porte of the booke of Machabes? Was not Caiphas & Annas Sadducees by the testimonie of S. Luke Act. 5. and of Iosephus? Where is then the visible rocke, whose faith neuer failed &c? we see there was none suche be∣fore Christ, therefore there neede to be none suche af∣ter him.

His fourth reason is, of the name of a pastor, which si∣gnifieth an ordinarie office, for as the sheepe continue after S. Peters death, so must there be also a shepheard, as Peter was. But how proueth he that Peter was an on∣ly shepheard? forsooth Chrysostom sayth lib. 2. de sacer∣dotio. Christus sanguinem &c. Christ hath shedde his bloode to purchase those sheepe, the care of whom he did commit both to Peter & to Peters successors. But whom doth Chryso∣stom take for Peters successors? the Bishops of Rome only? No verily but all true pastors of the church as his wordes going before doe manifestly declare: Neque e∣nim tum volebat testatum esse quantum à Petro amaretur, si∣quidem id multis nobis argument is constabat.

Verum hoc ille sum agebat, vt & Petrum & caeteros nos edoceres, quanta

beneuolentia ac charitate ergasuam ipse ecclesiam afficeretur, vt hac ratione & nos quoque eiusdem ecclesiae studium cu∣ramque toto animo susciperemus. For his purpose was not then to testifie vnto vs, howe muche he was beloued of Peter for that was euident vnto vs by many arguments. But this thing then he intended, that he might teache both Peter and all vs, what beneuolence and loue he beareth towarde his church that by this reason we also might take vpon vs with all our hart, the loue & charge of the same church.

This sentence sheweth that Chry∣sostome accounted him selfe & euery true pastor of the church a successor of Peter and not the Bishop of Rome alone.

As for Leo a Bishop of Rome I haue often protested that he was more addicted to the dignitie of his see, then the Scripture would beare him, and therefore was ouerruled and resisted, in the generall councel of Chal∣cedon.

His fift argument is a rule of lawe, where the same reason is, the same right ought to be. The reason of Pe∣ters confession and power is such as agreeth to any or∣dinary office, of the church, therefore the office of Pe∣ter being a rock, of strengthening his brethren and fee∣ding Christes sheepe, is an ordinarie office. But I say, that Peters confession made him not a rock, but decla∣red him so to be, being appoynted of Christ for one of the twelue foundations of the churche, the office of strengthening and feeding as it was not singular in Pe∣ter, so it is not ordinarie that it should be singular in any man.

His sixt reason, Irenaeus, Optatus, and Augustine did recken vp such successors of Peter, as had liued till eu••∣rie of their ages or times. Therefore Peter had succes∣sors in his pastorall office. It is not denyed, but he had them, and other Bishoppes also successors in his pasto∣rall office, at least the Bishoppes of Antioche, whereby your owne cofession he was Bishoppe, before he came to Rome. Therefore his succession was not singular to

the Bishoppes of one see.

His seuenth reason, no man may preache to them to whom he is not sent, therefore there must be a generall pastor to sende other to preache, to them that are not conuerted, to plant newe Bishoprikes, to controll them that are negligent, to supplie the thinges that lacke: to excommunicate such as liue in no diocesse &c. For sen∣ding he quoteth Rom. 10. where mention is onely of the sending of God, and of the sending by men. But all his questions and doubtes, may be aunswered. Either the whole church in generall councells, or euerie particu∣lar church in their synodes, as they shall see most expe∣dient, may sende preachers as the Apostles and Elders sent Peter and Iohn into Samaria & order all such mat∣ters, as he imagineth must be done onely by the Pope. But he asketh who shall summon all other Bishoppes to generall or prouinciall councells. And I aske him, who summoned, the foure great & principall generall coun∣cells? and so many prouinciall councels, but the Empe∣rours and Princes in whose dominion they were gathe∣red? So that here is no necessary affaires of the church that doth require one generall pastor or Pope of Rome when all thinges may and haue bene done best of all without him.

As for placing of Bishoppes, in sees vacant, vniting of two Bishoprikes in one, or diuiding one into two, may better be done by the auctoritie of those churches, with consent of their Princes, who seeth and knoweth what is needefull in those cases, then by one which sit∣tinge in his chaire at Rome, requireth halfe a yeares trauell, from some parte of the worlde, to him, before he can be aduertised of the case, and yet must vnder∣stande it by heare saye, and therefore not able to see what is expedient, so well as they that are present, and see the state of the matter. Finally it is against all like∣lyhoode, that Christ woulde make suche a generall sheepehearde ouer all his flocke, as many thousande sheepe, which liue vnder the Sophi, the Cham, the

Turke, can haue none accesse vnto, for suche thinges as are supposed necessarie to be had and to be obteyned from him onely. Wherefore if the Pope were heade of the churche, suche as by crueltie of tyrauntes are cut from him shoulde be cut from the bodie of the church. Yea if Hethenish tyrauntes coulde so much preuayle, as they do in hindring this gouernment of the Pope, (pre∣tended to be so n••cessarie) the gates of hell might pre∣uayle against the churche, contrarie to the promise of Christ.

The fourteenth Chapter.

THat the ordinarie auctoritie of S. Peters primacie be∣longeth * 1.73 to one Bishop alone. The whole gouernmēt of the church tendeth to vnitie.

COncerning Peters primacie, as there is litle in the Scriptures, wherupon it may be gathered, so I haue * 1.74 shewed, that it was not in him perpetuall. For there are greater arguments to proue the primacie of Iames. A∣gayne the greatest shewe of Peters primacy, that we reade of in the Scriptures, is the primacie or heade A∣postleshippe of the circumcision. So that if one Bishoppe should succeede him, in that primacie, he must be chiefe Bishoppe ouer the Iewes, and not ouer the Gentiles. For the chiefe Apostleshippe ouer the Gentiles, was by God committed to Paule. Galat. 2. 7. & 8. But if M. Sander say, as he doth in an other place, that the Pope succeedeth both these Apostles, and therefore hath both their auctoritie. First he ouerthroweth his owne rocke of the church, which he will haue to be Peter a∣lone. Secondlie his argument of vnitie, which he vr∣geth in this chapter he subuerteth, if the Popes aucto∣ritie be deriued from two heades. Thirdly he de∣stroyeth his owne distinction of Bishoplike and Aposto∣like auctoritie, if the Apostolike auctority of Paul should

descend to the Pope by succession.

Nowe let vs consider what weighty reasons he hath, to proue the title of this chapter. S. Peters auctority was specified before the auctoritie was geuen to the rest, of binding & loosing. Mat. 18. Therfore seeing it was first in him alone, it ought to descend to one Bishop alone. But let M. Sander shew, where it was geuen to him alone, or promised to him alone ether. For the promise thou shalt be called Peter, gaue him no auctoritie, nor yet the per∣formance thereof: Thou art Peter. But still the auctority is promised, I will build, I will geue, (I reason as M. Sander doth of the Future tense) which promise being made Math. 16. is performed Math. 18. not to Peter onely, but to all the rest, and so all auctoritie is geuen in common Io••an. 20.

But S. Cyprian ad Iubaianum, sayth, that Christ gaue the auctority first to Peter. Petro primus Dominus (super quem aedificauit ecclesiam, & vnitatis originem instituit & o∣stendit) potestatem istam dedit, vt id solueretur in terris, quod ille soluisset. This doth M. Sander translate, Our Lorde did first geue vnto Peter &c. Wheras he should say:

Our Lord was the first that gaue to Peter (vpon whom he builded his churche and instituted and shewed the beginninge of vnity) this power, that whatsoeuer he loosed it should be loosed in earth. This proueth, that the auctoritie came first from Christ, but not that it was geuen first to Peter.

And if we should vnderstand it so, that it was first geuen to Peter, yet he meaneth not, that it was geuen to reside in his person, but that in him as the attorney of the rest, it was geuen to them also, as he saith, lib. 1. Ep. 3.

Petrus tamen super quem aedificata ab eodem Domino fue∣rat ecclesia, vnus pro omnibus loquens & Ecclesiae voce respondens, ait Domine ad quem ibimus &c. Yet Peter vpon whome the churche had beene builded, by the same our Lorde, as one speaking for all, and aunswering in the voyce of the church sayeth: Lorde whether shall we goe &c. as he spake for all, so he receaued for all.

Which thing if it had bene so (as we sinde not in the

Scripture) yet could it haue beene no ordinary matter, to discend to one by succession. For the power beeing once receiued by one in the name of the reste, and by him deliuered to the rest, it should be continued in suc∣cession of euery one that hath receiued it, and not eue∣ry day to be fetched a new from a seuerall heade. For that beginning came from vnitie, which Cyprian spea∣keth of, when Peter beeing one, was the voice & mouth of the rest, and so receiued power for the rest, which be∣ing once receiued, the church holdeth of Christe, and not of Peter or his successors, no more then a corpora∣tion holdeth of him, that was their atturney, to receiue either lands or authoritie from the Prince, but holdeth immediatly of the Prince. Wherfore this argument fol∣loweth not, although the authoritie had begon in one, that it should continue in one.

The second reason is, that the most perfect gouern∣ment is meete for the Church, but most perfection is in vnitie, therefore there ought to be one chiefe gouernor of all. This one chiefe gouernour is our Sauiour Christ, ruler both in heauen & in earth. Who ascending into heauen, did not appoynt one Pope ouer all his church, but Apostles, Euangelistes, Prophets, Pastors and tea∣chers, that we might all meete in the vnitie of faith, and grow into a perfect man. Eph. 4. 11. & 12.

The third reason is, that the state of the newe Testa∣ment, must be more perfect then the law, but in the law, there was one high pastor, the high Priest on earth, therefore there must be one now also and much rather. I aunswere we haue him in deede, our chiefe Bishop & high Priest, of whome the Aaronicall Priest, was but a shadow, namely Iesus Christ, whose gouernment is no∣thing lesse perfect and beneficiall to his church in that he sitteth in heauen, and hath as before is cited lefte an ordinarie ministerie on earth in many Pastors and tea∣chers ouer euerie seuerall congregation and not in one Pope ouer al, which could not possibly either know, or attend to decide, the one thousande parte of contro∣uersies,

which are determined by y^e auctoritie of Christs law, and such ministers as he hath ordeyned.

The fourth reason is of auctority. Cyprian ad Iubaia∣num: Ecclesia quae vna est &c. The church which is one was founded by our Lordes voyce vpon one, which receaued the keyes thereof. And againe, de simplicitat. praelat. Quamsis &c. Although Christ after his resurrection geueth equall po∣wer to all his Apostles and sayth: as my father sent me so do I send you: receaue the holy Ghost. If you remit to any man his sinnes they shal be remitted. And if you r••teine them, they shal be reteined, yet that he might shew the vnitie, he disposed by his auctoritie, the originall of that vnitie, beginning of one.

But Cyprian proceedeth: Hoc erant &c. Vere by the rest of the Apostles were the same thing that Peter was, endued with equall fellowshippe both of honor and of power, but the begin∣ning proceedeth from vnitie, that the church might be shewed to be one. These wordes are playne to declare, that Cy∣prian acknowledgeth no inequalitie of the Apostles, in respect of any auctoritie they had.

Also that the buil∣ding of the church vpon one, and the receauing of the keyes of one, was not an ordinarie office to discende, by succession, but a singular priuiledge, for that one tyme to shewe the beginning, and not the continu∣aunce of the power to proceede from one, but to be helde alwayes of one, which is Iesus Christ, without any shadowes of one Bishoppe on earth to signifie the same, when Christ is reuealed with open face vnto vs nowe sitting in heauen. 2. Cor. 3. 18.

The like thing teacheth Optatus lib. 2. de schism. Vt in ••na &c. That in one chaire in which Peter sate, vnity might be kept of all men, least the rest of the Apostles shoulde e∣uerie one challenge a chaire to him selfe: so that he shoulde nowe be a schismatike and a sinner, that agaynst a singular chaire, should place an other. Therfore in that one chaire which is chiefe in giftes, Peter sate first. His meaning is to de∣fende the vnitie of the churche against the Donatistes, but of the auctoritie of Peters chaire ouer all other Bi∣shoppes chaires, if he had spoken any thing M. Sander

would not haue concealed it, which doth vs great wrong to thinke that we can not distinguishe a chaire of vnitie, from a chaire of auctoritie.

The place of Hierom cont. Iouin. lib. 1. hath bene aun∣swered once or twise, shewing that among the Apostles which were equall, Peter was chosen to be primate, to a∣uoide contention, which was a primacy of order and not of auctority. As for the collection of Lco Bishoppe of Rome, that Peters primacy was a platforme, for other Bishops to vnderstād, that they must haue a Bishop ouer them, if the very Apostles had an head among them, sa∣uoreth of the ambition incident to that see, which was appoynted to be the seate of Antichrist. Although nei∣ther Leo him selfe, challēged so much as the Pope doth nowe, neither the Bishops of his time, would yeeld vnto him in so muche as he challenged. For beside the whole generall councel of Chalcedon, that concluded against him, about the priuiledges of the Bishop of Constanti∣nople, wherein they made him equall with the Bishoppe of Rome, the title of seniority onely reserued, it appea∣reth by his Epistles, that many Bishops acknowledged not such primacy ouer them, as he claimed, whereof he complameth in diuerse of his Epistles.

The place of Cyprian lib. 1. Epist. 3. that heresies haue sprong because one Iudge is not acknowledged in ste••de of Christ, for the time, to whom the whole brotherhood might obey He can not deny but it is ment of Cyprian of one Iudge in euery diocesse. But he reasoneth a fortiori, that there ought to be much rather one Iudge ouer all the world. Howbeit I haue shewed the in consequence of this argu∣ment, by example of one Phisitian, one Schoolemaister, one Iudge in temporall matters ouer the whole worlde, to whom it is as impossible to discharge suche an office ouer all, as it is profitable for one suche to be in euerie towne. He sayth that particular flockes, are voluntarie, and likewise particular pastors, but one flocke and one pastor, is of absolute necessitie on earth. In deede the li∣mites of particular flockes, and the persons of particular

pastors, are left to the appoyntment and choise of the church. But that there should be particular flockes and pastors, it is of Gods ordination, though God by his A∣postles appoynted it to be so, yet is it of as absolute ne∣cessity, while the church is dispersed in diuerse places of the world, as that there is one flocke and one shepheard ouer all Iesus Christ, and yet he is not ashamed to chal∣lenge vs pag. 298. Let the text be named where. Christ did institute many parishes? Whereas he him selfe, pag. 294. quoteth. Tit. 1. & Act. 14. which places proue, that Christ did institute many parishes, except he will say the Apo∣stles did it without the institution of Christ, which he confesseth they did not without the speciall inspiration of the holy Ghost or else will say, that the inspiration of the holy Ghost in the ordinaunce of many parishes, differeth from the institution of Christ. But he that wrangleth thus impudently and vnreasonably, aga••nst the playne institution of many parishes by Christ, bring∣eth a playne text where it is sayd, Feede me sheepe to one pastor.

Hath this man any foreheade thinke you, that cal∣leth this a playne text to proue that there shoulde be one sheepehearde vpon earth ouer all the flocke, be∣cause Christ vpon speciall occasion exhorted one man to feede his flocke? Are all thinges that were spoken to him singular vnto him? Christ sayd to him and to none other of the Apostles, come after me Satan, thou art an offense to me, for thou sauerest not the thinges that are of God but of men. Christ sayed to Peter and to none other, put vp thy sworde into thy scaberd, Christ sayed to Peter and to none other, thou wilt denye me thrise. O paynted rocke of the Popishe Churche, that hathe no better grounde then this saying feede my sheepe when he that challengeth au∣ctoritie hereby of all other feedeth least, and poysoneth most.

But let vs returne and see what auctoritie of olde fa∣thers he hath to proue one pastorall preheminence o∣uer

all the churche. Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 8. Deus. vnus est, & Christus vnus, & vna ecclesia, & Cathedra vna super petram Domini voce fundata. There is one God, and one Christ, and one churche, and one chaire founded vpon Peter by our Lordes voyce. Heare I say first of all, that he doth falsifie Sainct Cyprians wordes turning pe••ram into petrum, so that his saying is, There is one chaire by our Lordes voyce founded on the rocke. An other altar or a new Priesthoode can not be appointed beside one altar and one Priesthoode. Whosoeuer gathereth else∣where scattereth abroad &c.

But if the worde were petrum and not petram, yet the whole discourse of that Epistle sheweth, that Cyptian meaneth by these wordes to set forth not the past orall preheminence of one man ouer the whole church, but one 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 im∣pudence 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 hea∣uen, 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 here∣tike,

and all the church tend to vnity in him, the whole church should be wrapped in heresie with him. That di∣uerse Popes haue bene heretiks as Libe••ius, Anastasi••s, Vigil••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 succes∣siō that it should haue preheminēce & imisdiction ouer all the churche. Seeing vnity is best mainteyned in do∣ctrine 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 she∣weth 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, whē 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 factiōs, 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 * 1.75 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 * 1.76 was rather high Bishoppe of the circumcision, thē 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 straūge 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, e∣uen as Polycarpus by the Apostles in Asia, was made bi∣shop in Smyrna, which Church with the Church of E∣phesus founded by Paule, and continued by Iohn the A∣postles, he citeth as witnesses alike, with the Church of Rome, of the tradition of the Apostles, against Valenti∣nus and Marcion which being voyd of Scriptures, brag∣ged of the tradition of the Apostles. But of Peters pri∣macie, 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 cōfession of those Chur∣ches 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 saluta∣tions, men vse not to write allegorically, albeit, that in the reuelation of Saint Iohn Rome the sea of Antichrist

is mystically called Babylō. But Babylon from whence S. Peter did write, is more probably to be taken, for a ci∣tye of that name in Egypt, where Marke was with him, whō 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 mani∣fest by the first and seconde of the Epistle to the Gala∣thians, 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 dy∣ed 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 men∣tion 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 follow∣eth that if Peter came, he came very late to Rome with∣in two yeare before his death, at which tyme it was not possible, that Marke which was dead foure yeares be∣fore, 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 Ierusalē clayme it, in which Christ the head of all dyed. After this he telleth the fable out of the counter∣fait Egesippus, of Simon Magus flying in the ayer, & the Emperour Nero his great delight in his sorcerye. The credit of Egesippus he desendeth, by blaming his tran∣slatour for adding names of cities, which had none such when Egesippus liued. But that Simon Magus shewed no experiment ofsorcerye before Nero, as this coun∣terfait

Egesippus reporteth it is plaine, by Plinius lib. 30. cap. 2. natur. Histor. who shewing how desirous Nero was, and what meanes he had to haue triall thereof, yet neuer could come by any. It was a practise of old time, to fayne such fables, for loue of the Apostles, as Tertul∣lian witnesseth, de baptis. of a Priest of Asia, that was con∣uicted & confessed, that he fained for the loue of Paule, a writing vnto Tecla, in which many absurd things were contayned. Againe so many Apocriphall gospells, epi∣stles, itineraryes and passions, as are counterfaited vn∣der the name of Apostles, and auncient fathers, who knoweth not to be fables and false inuentions. Amonge which this fable of Simon Magus and Peter is one. That S. Luke maketh no mention of Peters death, he preuenteth the objection, because he continued not his storye so farre: which doubt (sayth he) he woulde not haue omitted, if he had gone so farre fo••ward in his sto∣ry. But seeing he brought Paule to Rome, both in his iorney, and in his history, why maketh he no mention of Peters being there? which if their story were true, must haue sit there twenty yeares before. To omit therefore the foure causes, why Peter should dye at Rome, where∣of three are taken out of a counterfait, August. de sa ctis, hom. 27. the 4. out of Leo & Gregory Bishops of Rome: he commeth to decyde the controuersie betwene the Greekes & Latines, who was first successor of Peter, Li∣nus or Clemens, taking parte with them that affirme, Clemens although Irenaeus the most auncient writer of any that is extant, name Linus who was not a Grecian farre of, but a Frenchmam at Lyons neare hand to Italy, whose authority although he reiect, in naming Linus to be ordayned Bishop by both the Apostles, yet he glori∣eth much that he calleth the Churche of Rome. Maxi∣mam & antiquissimam, &c. The greatest and the most aunci∣ent, & knowen to all men, founded and setled by two most glo∣rious Apostles, Peter and Paule. And agayne, Adhanc Ec∣clesiam &c. To this Church by reason of the mightier princi∣palitie, euery Church, that is, the faithful that are euery where

must needes agree. But he proceedeth and sheweth the cause why.

In qua semper ab hys qui sunt vndique conser••a∣ta est ca quae est ab Apostolis traditio. In which alwayes that tradition which is from the Apostles hath bene al∣waies kept, of them that are round about. M. Sander cal∣leth it willful ignorance, in M. Iewel, that sayth the migh∣tier principalitie spoken of in Irenaeus, is ment of the ci∣uill dominion, and Romane Empire, whereas it hath relation to the former titles of commendation, that it was the greatest and the most auncient:

the greatest he sayth, because it was fownded by Peter the greatest A∣postle, but so sayth not Irenaeus, for he sayth it was foun∣ded by two most glorious Apostles, and not by Peter a∣lone. It was then greatest, because the greatest num∣ber of Christians were in Rome, as the greatest citie. But howe is it the most auncient? but in respect of Peters se∣nioritie, for otherwise Ierusalem and Antioche were auncien∣ter in tyme. I aunswer two wayes, first it is sophisticall to vrge the superlatiue degree grammatically, as when we saye, potentissimo principi, to the most mightye prince, doctissimo viro, to the best learned man, &c. We doe not meane, that no Prince is equall or superiour in power, nor that no mā is equall or superiour in learning, to him whome we so commende, but to shewe the power and learning of those persons to be excellent great.

Secondly I aunswer, that Irenaeus speaketh coniun∣ctly, it is sophisticall to vnderstande seuerally. He saith there is no Church of such greatnes, so auncient, and so well knowen, as the Church of Rome.

From this blinde collection out of Irenaeus, he com∣meth downe groping to Cyprian, who speaking of cer∣tayne factious heretikes, that sayled from Carthage to Rome, to complayne of Saint Cyprian and other Bi∣shops of Afrike to Pope Cornelius. Lib. 1. Ep. 3. ad Cor. Audent & ad Petri, &c. They dare cary letters from sch••s∣maticall and prophane men vnto the chayer of Peter, and the principall Churche, from whence the priestly vnitie be∣ganne, Nether consider that they are Romanes, whose fayth

is pray sed by the report of the Apostle vnto whom falshod can haue none accesse.

In this saying we must note the priuiledges of S. Pe∣ters supremacie, to be at Rome. 1. This is S. Peters chayer, that is his ordinary power of teaching, &c. Nay rather the Bishops seate, which he and Paule did set vp there as I∣renaeus sheweth, li. 3. ca. 3. 2. There is the principal Church, because the Bishop of Rome succeedeth the prince of the A∣postles. Nay rather, because it is the greatest Church, be∣ing gathered in the greatest citie of the world, as Irenę∣us also calleth it. 3. The priestly vnitie beganne not in Rome but in Peter, therefore there is the whole authoritie of Peter. The argument is nought, the beginning of vnitie pro∣ueth not authoritie. 4. this worde vnitie doth import, that as Peter alone had in him the whole power of the cbiefe sheepeheard, so Cornelius his successor hath in him the same power. This argument is of small importance, for ne∣ther had Peter alone such power, nor any of his suc∣cessors. 5. where he sayth infidelitie can haue no accesse to the Romanes, what other thinge is it, then to saye in the Church of Rome he vuleth for whose faith Christ prayed. Luc. 22.

Christ prayed for the faith of all his Apostles, and of all his Disciples, to the ende of the worlde. Ioan. 17. Be∣side this, Maister Sander translateth perfidia which sig∣nifieth falshood or false dealing, infidelitie, secondly that which Cyprian sayth of all the faythfull Romanes, he draweth to his Pope, thirdly where Cyprian shew∣eth howe longe they shall continue without falshoode, namely so long as they retayne the fayth praysed by the Apostle, he maketh it perpetuall to the sea of Rome:

whereas the Romanes them selues write to Cyprian of those prayses of the Apostle, quarum laudum & gloriae degenerem fuisse, maximum crimen est. Of which pray∣ses and glorye to be growne out of kinde, it is the grea∣test cryme.

Finally if Cyprian had thought the Pope and Churche of Rome coulde not erre, he woulde ne∣uer haue mayntayned an opinion against them, as he

did in rebaptisinge them that were baptised by here∣tikes.

The 6. We must adde heareto, that Cyprian calleth Rome Ecclesiae Catholicae matricem & radicem, the mother & roote of the Catholike church. lib 4. Epist. 8. we find not Rome so called there, we find that Cyprian & his fel∣lowes, exhorted all such troublesome persons, as went o∣uer sea, & caried false tales, Vt Ecclesiae Catholicae matricē & radi••em agnoscerent & tenerent, that they woulde ac∣knowledg & holde the mother and roote of the Catho∣like Church, by which wordes, they disswaded them from ioygninge with schismatikes, who being condem∣ned in one Church, would gad vp and downe for abso∣lution in an other.

The 7. did not S. Cyp. confesse Cornelius to haue receiued the appellation of Rasilides lawfully, out of Spaine•• li. 1 Ep. 4, There is no word of any such confession or appellation, in that epistle. But rather, if you suppose an appellation & a restitution by the Byshop of Rome, Cyprian & 36. bishops with him, determine the same restitution to be voide & of none effect:

Neque rescindere ordinationem i••∣re perfectam potest, quod Basilides post crimina sua detecta, & conscientiam propria confessione nudatam, Romam pergens, Stephanum collegam nostrum longe positum & gestae rei ac veritatis ignarum fefellit, vt ambiret reponi se miustè in episcopatum, de quo fucrat iustè depositus. Haec eò pertinent vt Basilidis, non tam abolita sint quam cumulata delicta, vt ad superiora peccata eius, etiam fallaciae & circumuen∣tionis crimen accesseris. Neque enim tam culpandus est ille cui negligenter obreptū, quam hic execrādus qui fraudulenter obrepsit. Obrepere autē hominibus Basilides potuit, Deo nō po∣test, cū script•• sit, Deus non irridetur: Neither can it make frustrate the ordination lawfully made, y Basilides after his crimes were detected, & his cōsciēce opened by his owne confession, going to Rome, hath deceiued our fel∣low bishop Stephan, being farre of & ignorāt of •• matter & of •• truth, •• he might ābitiously seeke to be vniustlye restored into his bishoprick frō w̄ he was iustly deposed

These things tend to this ende, that the offences of Ba∣silides, are not so much abolished as increased, so that to his former sinnes the cryme of deceifulnesse and cir∣cumuention is added. For neither is he so much to be blamed who was negligently deceiued, as he is to bee abhorred, which did craftely deceiue him. But if Basi∣lides could deceiue men, he coulde not deceiue God, seeing it is written, God is not mocked.

Heere is no lawefull appellation spoken of, but the Bishope of Romes sentence pronounced voyde, and he blamed for his negligence and rashnesse, to medle with matters whereof he coulde haue no knowledge, by meanes of distance of place. But if M. San. reply, that he is not reproued for taking such appellations, he must heare what Cyprian sayth of such appellations which began to be vsed in his daies, vnto Cornelius B. of Rome immediatly after the woordes cyted by him. lib. 1 epi. 3. of those schismatikes that were so bolde as to sayle to Rome, and carry letters as aboue.

Quae autem causa veniendi & pseudoepiscopum contra episcopos factum nun∣ciandi? Aut enim placet illis quod fecerunt & in suo sce∣lere perseuerant, aut si displicet & recedunt, sciunt quo reuer∣tantur. Nam cum statutū sit omnibus nobis, & aequum sit pa∣riter & iustū, vt vnius••uius{que} causa illic audiatur, vbi est cri∣men admissum, & singulis pastoribus portio gregis sit ascripta, quam regat vnusquis{que} & gubernet, rationem sui actus Do∣mino redditurus, oportet vtique eos quibus presumus non cir∣cumc••rsare, nec episcoporum concordiam coherentem sua subdola & fallaci ••emeritate collidere. Sed agere illic causam suam, vbi & accusatores habere & testes sui criminis possint, nisi paucit desperatis & perditis, minor videtur esse auctoritas episcoporum in Africa constitutorum, qui iam de illis iudica∣uerunt & eorum conscientiam multis delictorum laqueis vinctā iudicij sui nuper grauitate damnarūt: But what cause had they to come and to report that a false Byshop was made against the Byshops: For either that which they haue done pleaseth them, & they continew in their wic∣kednesse, or if it displease thē, and they goe back from

it, they knowe whether they shoulde returne. For wher∣as it is decreed of vs all, & is also meete and right, that euery mans cause should be hard there, where the crime was committed, and a portion of the flocke is commit∣to euery Pastor, which euery one ought to rule and go∣uerne, as he that shall yeelde an account of his doings to the Lord: verily it behoueth them ouer whome wee haue rule, not to runne about, neither by their craftie & deceitful rashnes to crase the concord of Byshops agre∣ing togither: but there to plead their matter wher they may haue both accusers and witnesses of their crime, except the authoryty of the Byshops ordeined in Africa seemeth to a few desperate and wicked fellowes to bee lesse, which haue already iudged of them, and condem∣ned their consciences, bounde with the waight of their iudgement in many cordes of their offences. This place of Cyprian declareth not onely that the Byshopps of Africa, had decreede against such appellations, but also that they thought theyr authoritie nothing inferior to the Byshops of Italy, nor to the byshop of Rome him self.

The 8. note out of Cyprian is, That he required Stepha∣nus the Pope, to depose Marcianus the Byshop of Arles in Fraunce, which to dee in an other prouince is a signe that the Pope of Rome is aboue other Bishops. If it were true that M. Sander sheweth, it might proue the Bishop of Rome, to be a Primate or Metropolitane, it coulde not proue him to be a Byshop ouer all the world. But it is vtterly false, that he saith, Cyprian required the Pope Stephan to de∣pose him, for he was deposed by the iudgement of all the Byshops of the Weste Churche: Ab v••iuersis sacerdoti∣bus iudicatus, condemned of all the Priestes, onely hee exhorteth Stephan of Rome, which was negligēt in this behalfe, to ioyne with the reste of the Byshoppes of Fraunce in ordering of another Byshopp in his steade, who long since hath beene excommunicated and de∣posed from his place, for taking parte with Nouatiane the Heretike.

And lest you should think the whole m••t∣ter to be referred to the Byshop of Rome, these are is

words in the same Epistle. li, 3. Ep. 13. Id circo enim frater charissime, copiosum corpus est sacerdotum concordiae mutuae glutine at{que} vnitatis vinculo copulatum vt si quis ex collegio nostro haeres••m facere & gregem Christi lacerare & vastare tentauerit, subueniant caeteri & quasi pastores vtiles & mi∣sericordes, oues dominicas in gregem col••igant: For therfore most welbeloued brother, the bodie or fellowshippe of priestes is plentifull, beeing coupled togither by the Glewe of mutuall concorde, and the bande of Amitie, so that if any of our company shall assay to make an he∣resie, or to rente or waste the flocke of Christ, the reste should giue ayde, and as profitable and mercifull shep∣heards gather againe the Lords sheepe into his folde.

The 9. note is, That notwithstanding Cyprian dissented from Pope Stephanus in opinion concerning the baptizing of suchas had ben baptised by here••kes, yet hee denyed not his prerogatiue. but kept still the vnitie of the militant Church, in acknowledging the visible head thereof. He quoteth his ep. Contra Stephan, wherin is no word of acknowledging the Popes prerogatiue, but contrary wise euery childe may see, that seeing he did boldly dissent in opinon frō the B. of Rome, & wrote against him, he helde no such pre∣rogatiue of that sea, as the Papists now maintaine, that the bishop of Rome cannot erre. In deede Cyprian pro∣fesseth, that notwithstanding he differed from him in o∣pinion, yet he would not depar••e from the vnitie of the Church, but what is this for acknowledging of a visible head, wherof M. S. speaketh much, but Cyprian neuer a word, neither in that place, nor in any of all his workes.

The next authoritie is Hippolitus whose words Prud rehearseth: Peristeph in passion Hip. Respondetfugite &c.

H••s aunsvvere vvas O flee the s••smes of cursed Nouates l••re: And to the Catholike f••lke and stocke, your selues againe restore. Let onely one faith rule and ra••gne, kept in the Church of olde: VVhich faith both Paule doth s••l retaine & Peters chair doth hold••

No dout this was a good exhortation, so longe as the temple of Peter a••d Paule at Rome did holde the olde catholike faith: from which seeing the Pope is now fled, we may not honor the emptie chaire of Peter, to think

there is his faith, where his doctrine is not.

After Hippolitus, followeth Sozomenus, who repor∣teth that Athanasius and certaine other Byshops of the Greeke Church came to Rome to Iulius the byshopp there, to complaine that they were vniustly deposed by the Arians. Wherevpon the Byshop of Rome finding them vpon examination to agree with the Nicene coū∣cel did re••eiue them into the communion as one that had care of them all, for the worthynes of his owne See, and did restore to euery of them their owne Churches. &c. Heere M. Sander hath his 9 obseruations, he delighteth much in that number. But it shall not neede to stand vpon them, it is cōfessed that in Sozomenus time, the writer of this sto∣ry, who iudgeth of things done according to the present state in which he lyued, the sea of Rome was growne in∣to great estimation, and counted the first See or princi∣pall in dignitie of all Byshops Seas in the worlde. Yea, it is true that Socrates a writer of Historyes as well as he sayeth, That long before his time, the Byshops Sea of Rome aswel as of Alexandria, was growne beyonde the bands of Pr••esthood, into a forraine Lordship & do∣minion. Soc. lib. 7. cap. 11. But if we consider the recordes of the very time in which Iulius lyued, we shall not finde that the dignitie of his Sea was such, as that he hadde such authoritie as Sozomenus aseribeth to him, and much lesse such as M. Sander imagineth of him.

In Epiphanius there is an Epistle of one Marcellus, which beside that he called him his fellow minister, ac∣knowledgeth no such dignitie of his Sea lib. 3. to. 1. And Sozomenus himselfe testifyeth that the Bishops of the East, derided & contemned his commandementes. lib. 3. Cap. 8. & cap. 11. they were as bolde to depose him with the byshops of the West, as he was to check them, that they called not him to their councel. Wherein as I confesse, they did euell, yet thereby they shewed eui∣dently, that the Christian worlde in those dayes, did not acknowledge the vsurpation of the bishop of Rome, as M. Sander saith they did. Neither durst they eaer to

dissent from him, if it had beene a Catholike doctrine receiued in the Church, that the Byshopp of Rome is head of the Church, Byshop of all Byshops, Iudge of all causes, and one which cannot erre. As for Athanasi∣us, Paulus, &c. and other Byshops beeing tossed to and fro, by their enemyes, no maruaile if they were glad to finde any comfort at the Byshop of Romes hands, ha∣uing first sought to the Emperors for refuge, of whome sometime they were holpē, sometime they wer hindred as informatiō was giuen either for them or against thē.

But Arnobius he sayeth giueth a maruailous witnes for the church of Rome in Psa. 106. Petrus in deserto. &c Peter wandering in the desert of this worlde, vntill he came to Rome, preached the baptisme of Iesus Christ in whome all floods are blessed from Peter vnto this day. He hath made the going forth of the waters into thirst, so that he which shall goe forth of the Church of Peter shal perish for thirst.

It is a mar∣uelous witte of M. Sander, that can find such maruelous prerogatiue of Peter, in this place which Arnobius would haue in the example of Peter to be vnderstoode of all men. Quid est ascendunt? Disce in Petro, vt quod in ipso inueneris, in omnibus cernas. Ascendit Petrus &c. What meaneth this they goe vp as highe as heauen? Learne in Peter, to thend that y^t which thou shalt find in Peter, thou mayst see in all men. Peter went vp as high as hea∣uen, when he sayd: Although I should dye with thee, yet will I not deny thee &c. and so applying the vnderstan∣ding of the Psalme to Peter, and in him to all Christiās, he cōmeth to that maruelous testimony of the church of Rome, which M. Sander reporteth, shewing how af∣ter his repentance God exalted him to be a preacher of that baptisme of Iesus Christ in whome all floodes are blessed from Peter to this day.

Where M. Sander vseth a false translation, saying the floodes are blessed of Peter, and expoundeth the floodes to be the churches, where∣as Arnobius speaketh of all waters, which in Christ are sanctified to the vse of baptisme, from the Apostles time vntill this day. But it is a Catholike argument that who∣soeuer

goeth out of the Church of Peter, goeth out of the Church of Christe, therefore Rome is the mother Church and Peter the heade thereof. Euen lyke this, whosoeuer goeth out of the Church of Paule, or of any of the Apostles wheresoeuer they planted it, doth pe∣rish therefore Corinth and Paule, or any other Citie & the Apostle that preached there, may be taken for the head and Pastor, and mother Church of all other, yet is this with M. Sander a meruailous testimony.

Optatus succeeded Arnobius. Cont. Pamen de nat: lib. 2. Negare nonpotes. &c. Thou canst not deny, but that thou knowest that to Peter first the bishops chaire was giuen in the citie of Rome, in which Peter the head of al the apostles hath sit: wherofhe was also called Cephas, in which chair vnitie might be kept of al men, so that he should be a scismatike w^c should place any other chaire against the singular chaire. Vnto Peter succeeded Linus, vnto Linus succeded Clemens, & so nameth all the By∣shops vntil Siricius which liued in his time, of whom he saith, Qui noster est socius, which is our fellow. In this sen∣tence Optatus laboreth to proue against the Donatists which were scismatikes, that ther is but one Catholike church frō which they were departed. He vseth the ar∣gumēt of vnitie commended in Peters chaire whom he calleth head of the Apostles in respecte of vnitie, & not of authority, which appeareth by this that in the end he accounteth Syricius bishop of Rome and Peters succes∣sor, not head of all Churches nor vniuersall Bishop of al Bishops, but Socius noster, our fellowe or companion, as one consenting with him in the vnitie of that Church, which was first planted by the Apostles, and not as a ge∣nerall gouernor of the vniuersall Church of Christe. Wherefore although Optatus doe more thē was nece∣ssary vrge this argument of the vnitie of Peters Chaire, yet his meanining was not to set foorth an vnrepr oua∣ble authoritie thereof, such as the Pope nowe challen∣geth, but onely to make it tbe beginning of vnitie.

At length he commeth to S. Hierome in an Epistle

to Damasus, out of whiche he gathereth diuers senten∣ces. M••hi cathedram &c. I thought it beste to aske councel of the Chaire of Peter, & of the saith praysed by the mouth of the Apostle. I speake with the successor of a fisher, and with a difciple of the crosse. I following none first but Christe, am ioyned in communion with thy blessednesse, that is with the Chaire of Peter. Vpon that Rocke, I knowe the Church to be builded. VVhosoeuer shall eate the Lambe out of this house he is vnholy. If any man l••e out of the Arke of Noe during the time of the Floude, hee shall perishe. I knowe not V••atis, I despise Melitius, I haue no acquaintance with Paulinus, whosoeuer doth not gather with thee, he doth scatter abrode, that is, he that is not of Christe, is of Anti∣christe. The conclusion openeth all the matter as longe as Damasus Byshop of Rome, gathereth with Christe, that is mayntameth true doctrine, Hierome will gather with him, who professed before that he woulde followe none as first, but Christe, For he woulde not haue ga∣thered with Liberius Byshoppe of Rome, whome hee confesseth to haue subscrybed to the Arians that were Hereukes in Catal. Script. ecclesi. What mockery is it then to drawe the commendations of a good Catho∣like Byshop maintaining true Doctrine, to euery By∣shoppe sitting in that seate, agreeing neither in doctrine nor manners with that Christian predecessor.

Augustine must succeede Hierome, who in his 166. Epistle giueth vs this rule. Caelestis magister. &c. The Heauenly maister maketh the people secure, concerning euil ouerseers, lest for their sakes the Chaire of healthfu••l doc∣trine shoulde be sorsaken, in whiche Chaire euill men are euer constrayned to say good thinges, for the thinges whiche they speake are not their owne. But they are the thinges of God.

Heere sayeth Maister Sander wee haue a Chaire of healthfull doctrine, and that is afterwarde called the Chaire of vnitie, therefore it is not the Chayre of euery Byshop, which are many, and of which many haue beene Heretikes, but the only chayre of the bi∣shop

of Rome, in which Chaire the Pope be he neuer so e∣uill, is constrayned to say good thinges and cannot erre. But seeing I haue often proued that many Byshops sitting in that Chayre of Rome haue spoken euill thinges, and were fylthy Heretikes, it followeth, that this is not a wodden Chayre that Augustine speaketh of, but the Chayre of true doctrine, such as the Chayre of Mo∣ses was, in which not onely Aaron and his successors, but euen the Scrybes and Pharisees did sit, hauing the authoritie of Moses, while they vttered nothing but that which God deliuered by Moses. But when they preached false doctrine they did not sit in the chaire of Moses, but in the chayre of pestilence, as the Pope & all other heretikes doe. He talketh much of vnitie in S, Pe∣ter, in his chaire, sea••e and succession, as though any of these, were worth a straw, without vnitie in S. Peters doctrine, which was the doctrine of Christ.

But Sainct Augustine Contr epist fundament confesseth that the successiō of priestes from Saint Peter vnto this present time stayed him in the Catholike Church. It is true, he confesseth that this succession amonge many thinges was one that stayed him.

And yet he acknow∣ledgeth that the manifest trueth, Praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus quibus in Catholica tene••r, is to be preferred be∣fore all thinges by which I am stayed in the Catholike Church, namely before antiquitie, consent of nations, miracles, succession of Byshops and the name of Ca∣tholikes.

Likewise rehearsing the same things in a manner a∣gainst the Donatistes which Maister Sander hath not omitted. Epist. 165.

Hee sayeth, Quamuis non tam de istis documentis presumanus quam de Scripturis sanctis. Although we presume not so much of these documents as of the holy spriptures. Wherefore as the argument of sucessiō, was wel vsed against heretikes, so long as there was succession of doctrine with succession of persons:

so now to alleadge the onely succession of persons where the doctrin is cleane changed, is as folish & ridiculous,

as by shewing of emptie dishes, to proue abundance of victuals, or showing vessels ful of filthy waters, to proue that they are full of good wine, because meate of olde time, hath beene serued in such dishes, and wine pre∣serued in such vessels.

But if the authoritie of one man as Saint Augustine was, seeme little M. San. bringeth the two councels ga∣theredin Africa & Numidia, against the Pelagiās which sent their decrees to the Sea of Rome, That the authori∣of the Apostol••ke Sea might be giuen to them Epi. 19. if they required the B. of Rome to agree with thē in the truth, what pretog••tiue of supremacie do they graūt vnto him? Nay rather they do p••iu••ly reprehend him, that he had so long suffred the Pelagian poyson to be spread vnder his nose in Europe, and the doctriue neither called to examination, nor confuted, yea rather seemed to cōsent to the den of the bishops of the East, that Pelagius was iustly absolued. But Pope Innocentius himselfe praiseth them Ep 91. that they had kept the customs of the olde tradition, in referring the matter to his Sea and sayth, That the sathers not by humaine but by diuine sentence haue decreed that what soeuer was done in the prouinces a farre of, they should not account it before to be ended, except it came to the knhwledge of this sea, where whatsoeuer had beene iustly pronounced should be coufirmed by the authoritie of this sea, and those other churches should take it as it were waters which should flow from their owne natiue fountain. We know the ambitious Ep. of Innocentius if it be not counterfeted, because many patches therof are found in other decre∣tal epistles but we deny that y^e authoritie which he pre∣tended, was acknowledged by these two councels, yes saith M. S. the fathers of the Mileuitan councel say: Arbi∣tramur &c. VVe think these men that haue so pernitious and froward opinions will giue pla••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 ••ouch••••feth to rule you when you consult & to heare you whē you pray by these words they shew, that they hope y^e here

tikes being reproued by the B. of Rome out of the wo••d of God, wil the rather giue place, w^t out imagining, that the B. of Romes authoritie is so stablished by the scrip∣tures that whatsoeuer he decre cōtrary to thescriptures the same should be imbraced But a farther confirmatiō 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 writ∣ten by Innocent, nor if it were, do allowe his pretended auth ority, because that was no matter whereof they re∣quired 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 es∣pecially 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 ab∣solute authoritie, such as in processe of time the By∣shops 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 Ca∣non of the Councell of Nice, to haue authortie to re∣ceaue appeales out of Africa. Epi. con. Aphr. ad Boni∣fac. whiche they cou••pte an intollerable pride and presumption, and in Epist. cont. Aphri. ad Coelesti••••m fumosum typum seculi, A smokey pride of the worlde which the Pope claymed and an absurde authoritie, that one mā should be better able to examine such cau∣ses, 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 Rhegiū in Italie which affirmeth in lib de ingrat. that Rome the see of Peter was the first that did cut of the pestilence of Pela∣gius, which Rome being made head vnto the worlde of pasto∣rall honor holdeth by religion whatsoeuer it doth not possesse by warre. And againe. Rome through the primacie of the A∣postolike 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 he∣resie 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 pri∣macy of honor, not of power or auctority.

The testimonies of Leo & Gregory B••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 An∣tichrist, which soone after their dayes, tooke possessiō 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 * 1.77 thinke thē 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 Em∣perour in Ecclesiastical causes. The othe of the royal suprema∣cy, 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, * 1.78

although it be expounded sufficiently by her Maiestie in her iniunction, not to be suche as he most slaunde∣rously doth deforme it, yet I will here, as I haue done diuerse times before in aunswere to these Papistes, pro∣fesse, 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 acknowled∣ged 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 Sa∣cramentes, to excommunicate, &c. which perteine not to her office. But the supremacie we admit in Ecclesia∣sticall causes, is auctoritie ouer all persons to cōmaund, 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 ex∣amples of honor geuen to the Bishoppes by Christian Princes, which he bringeth forth, they deny not this su∣premacy, 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 Euse∣bius to be so. This Prince without due repentance, offe∣red him selfe to receaue the holy misteries, & being re∣fused by the Bishop of the place, tooke it paciētly, & sub∣mitted 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 Sacra∣mentes, the Prince differeth not from a priuate person.

But he pusheth at M. Nowell with a two horned argu∣ment, 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 distinctiō of the causes, but of the gouernments. The go∣uernment of the Prince is one, & of the Priest an other: this spiritual, the other external, & therefore no contra∣riety betwene them. For put the case, that Philippus had seene the Bishop prophane the sacrament, in ministring to infidels, or otherwise vncertainly behauing him selfe in his office, might he not iustly haue punished him, as supreame gouernour ouer the Bishoppe euen in those matters? I say not to doe them, but to see that they be well done, and to punishe the offendors. Neither is the meaning of the othe any other. And according to this meaning, M. Nowell, M. Horne and M. Iewel dare war∣rant the King to be supreame gouernour in all Ecclesia∣sticall causes, although it please M. Sander to say, the contrarie of them. Whose trayterous quarelling vpon the wordes of the othe, ought not to trouble any mans cōscience, when the meaning is publikelie testified both by the Prince, and by the whole consent of the church.

The next exāple is of Constantinus the great, which in the Synode of Nice, when the Bishops had offered vnto him bills of complaint, one against an other, with∣out disclosing the contentes of them, he sayd, as Ruffi∣nus reporteth lib. 10. cap. 2. Deus vos constituit sacerdotes &c. God hath made you Priestes, and hath giuen you power to iudge of vs also, and therfore we are rigtly iudged of you, but ye can not be iudged of m̄e. For which cause, expect ye the iudgement of God alone among ye. Here M. Sander noteth, first, that he calleth them Priestes, whereby he woulde proue, they had power to offer externall sacrifice, which is a simple reason, for then all Christian men & women

within the Scripture are called Priestes, haue the same power. Secondly he cōfesseth, they haue power to iudge the Emperour, for none can be greater then a Priest: In their challenge and spirituall gouernment, the Empe∣rour meaneth, and not as the Popish church practised, to dispose the Emperour. Thirdly, that Priestes can not be iudged of mē. If this be so, one Priest can not be iud∣ged of an other, and where is then the Popes suprema∣cie, but he aunswereth, if one Priest iudge an other, it is Gods iudgement, and not the iudgement of men, be∣cause God hath set one Priest aboue another. O blockish aunswere: as though God hath not set one Prince a∣boue all his subiectes. You see howe Popish Priestes ad∣uaunce them selues, to the honor of God, and withdraw their obedience from Gods Lieutenaunts on earth. An vndoubted note of Antichristians. You will aske me then, what sence these wordes haue, you can not be iud∣ged of men? I aunswere either they are ment, as Sainct Paule speaketh, of the vprightnes of his conscience in doing of his office, which is not subiect to the iudge∣ment of men, or else Ruffinus as he was a bolde repor∣ter, frameth the Emperours wordes, accord••ng to that estimation which he woulde haue men to haue of the clergie. For it is certeyne by recordes of Constantinus time, that he did iudge Bishoppes and tooke vpon him as supreame gouernour in ecclesiasticall causes, Maister Sander confesseth, he iudged certeyne Priests, or eccle∣siasticall causes, but he did it as Augustine sayeth, Epist. 162. as one that would afterward aske pardon of the holy Bi∣shops, at the importunitie of the Donatists: And as Op∣tatus recordeth he sayd, Deschis. lib. 1. Petitis à me &c. Ye aske of me iudgement in the world, whereas I my selfe looke for Christes iudgement. And Augustine reproueth the Do∣natistes that they would haue an earthly King to be iudge of their cause. In deede the importunitie of the Donatistes was wicked who would so referre the matter to the Em∣perour, y^t without knowledge of ecclesiasticall persons, who were only meete iudges in respect of knowledge in

that case, they would haue y^e cause decided. But the Em∣perour acknowledging his auctoririe appointed iudges ecclesiastical persons, first the Bishop of Rome Melchia∣des, whom he commaūded with other Bishops to heare the cause of Caecilianus, as Eusebius who ••ued in his time writeth li. 10. ca. 5. And whē the Donatists appealed from the Bishops of Rome & his cōpanions iudgement, he appointed other delegates, as Augustine also witnes∣seth. Ep. 162.

But to leaue this cause of the Donatistes Eusebius in his life libr. 1. sayeth of him: Quoniam nonnulli va∣riis locis inter se discrepabant, quasi communis quidem Episco∣pus à Deo constitutus, ministrorum Dei synodos conuocauit, ne•• dedignatus est adesse, & considere in illorum medio. Because some of them in diuerse places were at variance among them selues, he as a certeine generall Bishop appointed of God, called together the synodes of the ministers of God, and disdayned not to be present, and to sit in the middest of them.

And in lib. 3. He sheweth howe he ga∣thered the vniuersall synode of Nice, as it were leading foorth the armie of God to battell.

To this Emperour did Athanasius the great, Bishoppe of Alexandria, ap∣peale from the synode of Tyre, where he was iniurious∣ly handled, as both Socrates testifieth lib. 1. and the ve∣rie Epistle of Constantine him selfe vnto that synode, commaunding all the Bishoppes to come vnto his pre∣sence, and there to shewe before him, (quem syncerum esse Dei ministrum neque vos sanè negabitis, whome you can not deny to be a syncere minister of God) how sin∣cerely they had iudged in that councell.

Finally in the end of the epistle he protesteth, that he wil execute his supremacie in causes ecclesiastical. Omni virtute conabor ag••re quaten••s quae in lege Dei sunt ea praecipuè sine aliqu•• titubatione seruentur quibus vti{que} ne{que} vituperatio ne{que} mal•• superstitio poteris implicari dispersis vti{que} ac palam contritis, & penitus exterminatis sacratissimae legis inimicis, qui sub schemate sancti nominis blasphemas varias ad diuersos inij∣ciant. I will endeuour with all my might to bringe to

passe, that those thinges that are in the lawe of God, those chiefly without any staggering may be obserued, which by no reproofe or euill superstition can be intan∣gled, when all the enemyes of the moste holye law••, which vnder a shape of an holy name, doe cast out di∣uerse blasphemies vnto sondry persons, are dispersed & openly troden downe, and vtterly rooted out. Let this suffice to shewe what supremacie Constantinus did ex∣ercise in causes Ecclesiasticall.

Nowe Maister Sander draweth vs to see, what honour he gaue to the see of Rome.

First he taketh it for most certayne, that Constantine was baptised by Syluester, which is an impudent lye and forged fable, as is manifest by Eusebius, who liued in his tyme and after him, who knewe him familiarly, and affirmeth that he was baptised in his iorney towardes Iordane, where he had purposed to haue bene baptised, if God had spared him life. But this manifest testimo∣nye of Eusebius, Maister Sander refuseth, becau••e he was suspected for affection to the Arrian heresi••. Beside that he was vniustly suspected, what reason is it, to dis∣credit his story, who wrote at such tyme, as many thou∣sands aliue could disproue him, for any affection to that heresie, whereto the baptisme of Constantine per∣tayned nothinge in the worlde? As for the stones and pillers of marble, in which any such matter is grauen, bearing the name of his baptistry except Maister San∣der could proue, that they were sette vppe in his tyme, are simple witnesses against the historye of Eusebius, which lyued in his tyme. Nether the forged pontifi∣call of Damasus, nor the writings of Beda. Ado, Ma∣rianus, Gregorius Turenēsis, Zonarus, Nicephorus late writers, following the fable of the Romish Church, are of any credit in respect of Eusebius, and the eldest wri∣ters of the Ecclesiasticall story, that agree with Eusebi∣us that he was not baptised many yeares after Syluester was deade.

And concerning the donation of Constantine, it is

too absurd for any wise man to defend, which hath bene so long before disproued by Laurentius Valla, no enemy of the Romish religion, although a discouerer of that fable. Agayne his forsaking of the citie of Rome, and building of Constantinople, is as great a fable, for al∣though he bewtified Byzantium, and made it an impe∣riall citye, as placed conueniently to keepe the Ori∣entall Empire, yet he forsooke not Rome, but still re∣tayned it as the chiefe see of his Empire, so did the Emperours that followed him, vntill (after it was wa∣sted by the barbarous nations,) they made lesse ac∣compt of it. And therefore although Constans the Ne∣phew of Heraclius could not conueniently remoue the∣ther, yet he remoued frō thence what he thought good, by which it appeared he had authoritie in the citie, by the prouidence of God and not by chaunce, as M. San∣der dreameth, that he was prohibited by Gods proui∣dence in respect of the Popes supremacie, or els the world should be gouerned by chaunce.

But leauing Constantinus the father, we must come to Constantius his sonne which was an Arrian, of whom Athanasius complayneth, that he had no reuerence of the Bishop of Rome Ep. ad Solit. vit. agen. nether consi∣dering that it was an Apostolike see, nor that Rome was the mother citie of the Romane Empire. There were other A∣postolikes sees beside Rome, and the Christian worlde was larger then the Romane Empire, therefore this ma∣keth nothing for the singular prerogatiue of that see.

But the noble Emperours Gratianus, Valentinianus & Theodosius made a law, lege 1. Cod. de summ. trinit That all their people should continue in that religion, as the religion which is vsed from S. Peter vnto this day doth declare him to haue deliuered to the Romanes, and which it is euident that Bishop Damasus doth follow, and Peter Bishop of Alexandria a man of Apostolike holines. This law proueth, that the Em∣perours had authoritie in Ecclesiasticall causes. And that they ioyned the Patriarch of Rome with the Patri∣arch of Alexandria, not because he of Alexandria agre∣ed

with him of Rome, but because they both agreed with Peter, and Peter with Christ.

From these Emperours, he commeth to Bonifacius, who writing to the Emperour Honorius, and humbly desiring his ayde to appease the tumults of his Church, vseth these wordes.

Ecclesiae meae cui Deus noster meum sa∣cerdotiū (vobisres humanas regentibus) deputauit, cura con∣stringit, ne causis eius quamuis adhuc corporis incommoditate detinear, propter conu••ntus qui à sacerdotibus vniuersis, & cl••ricis, & Christianae plebis perturbationibus agitantur, apud aures Christianissimi principis desim. The care of my church to which our God hath deputed my priesthood, while you gouerne the affayres of men, doth bind me, that al∣though I am yet withholden by infirmitie of bodye, I should not be wanting to the causes thereof in the hea∣ring of a most Christian Prince, by reason of the mee∣tings that are held of all the Priestes and the Clergie with the perturbations of the Christian people. These words shewe, that the Emperour was supreame gouer∣nour in causes Ecclefiasti••••ll, for he writeth concerning the election of the Bishop.

To whom the Emperour an∣swereth making a lawe against the ambitious labouring for succession, that if two Bishops should be chosen, they should be both banished out of the citie. Con. To. 1. & dist. 97. I haue set downe the wordes at large to shewe the shamefull salsification of M. Sander, who setteth them downe absolutely thus. Mihi Deus noster mewn sacerdoti∣um vobis res humanas regētibus deputauit. Our God hath appoynted my priesthood to me, whereas you doe go∣uerne worldly matters. As though he had denied to the Emperour, all gouernment in Ecclesiasticall causes, whē he flyeth to his authoritie in a cause Ecclesiasticall, and doth not onely acknowledge him to be a conseruer of ciuill peace as M. Sander would haue it.

To Honorius he ioyneth Galla Placidia the Empe∣resse in her epistle to Theodosius, set before the coun∣cell of Chalcedon, Assirming that Peter ordayned the pri∣macy of the Bishoply office in the see Apostolike. Thus wrote

the Emperesse or her Secretary, and so it was taken in that time. The like sayth Valentinianus in his Epistle to Theodosius his father, that antiquitie gaue the chief••y of priestly power to the Bishop of the citie of Rome. And Martia∣nus with Valentinian confesse that the Synode of Chal∣cedon inquired of the faith by the authoritie of Leo Bishop of the euerlasting citie of Rome. Adde hereunto that the councell it selfe confesseth Act. ••. that Leo was ouer them as the head ouer the members. All these proue in deede a primacy of the Bishop of Rome acknowledged in those dayes, but not such a primacye as is now claymed. For the same councell and Emperours decreed that the see of Constantinople in the East should haue the same au∣thoritie that the see of Rome had in the West, the title of senioritie onely reserued to the Bishop of Rome. Al∣though the Bishop of Rome, Leo by letters and his le∣gats in the councell cryed out against it as lowd as they could. Cont. Chal act. 16. namely Lucentius cryed. Sedes Apostolica &c, The Apostolike sea ought not to be aba∣sed in our presence &c. but all the synode and the Iud∣ges continued in their decree.

The saying of Iustinian in cod de summ. trinit. is exami∣ned and aunswered in the 69. article of M. Sanders trea∣tise which is the true Church, before his booke of Ima∣ges, as also the sayings of the Bishop of Patara, of Euge∣nius Bishop of Carthage, and Gregory Bishop of Rome. The report of the councell of Sinuessa is too full of cor∣ruption and confusion to be credited for authenticall authoritie.

And yet it is playne that Marcellinus the Bishop of Rome was conuicted by witnesses to haue committed I∣dolatry, before he confessed the sinne, and receiued sen∣tence of condemnation and accursing of the Synode, howsoeuer that patche is thrust in after the Actes of the councell, prima sedes, &c. the first see is not iudged of any, which in euery counterfait decretall epistle almost must haue a place.

To proue that Phocas did not first make the see of

Rome heade of all Churches, when the history is plaine he did, M. Sander bringeth in these and such like alledg∣ged before, which acknowledged a certaine primacie of the see of Rome. And certaine it is the Bishops of Rome before Phocas tyme, affected a great primacie, which of many was acknowledged, but yet neuer absolutely, ne∣uer without cōtrouersie, vntil Phocas for a great summe of money receyued of Boniface the thirde, strake the stroke, and made the decree, for which in all popish wri∣ters he is highly praised: although in the Greeke church his decree was not long obserued. Touching the exam∣ples of Emperours and Princes of later times, although I could shewe they haue often resisted the Pope, yet I know many may be alledged that haue submitted them selues to his Antichristian tyranny, which I will not stād to examine, because they can be no preiudice to the truth approued by examples of the eldest age. As for the history of Lucius king of Britayne, that sent to Eleuthe∣rius for preachers, if it were true, it maketh nothinge for the supremacy of the romish Bishop. I will therefore conclude this chapter, with a saying of Socrates in proe. lib. 5. to shew what authoritie he iudged them perours to haue in Ecclesiasticall matters.

Etipsos quidem Imperato∣res hac historia continua complectimur, pr••pterea quod ab illis postquam Christiani esse coeperunt, res Ecclesiasticae pendent, & maximae Synodi ex illorum sententia & congregatae sunt & congregantur. And in this continuall history we com∣prehend the Emperours them selues, because that vp∣on them, since they began to be Christians, the matters of the Church depend, and the greatest synods haue bene gathered & are gathered by their authoritie. The punishment he threat••eth to them that forsake the Church of Rome, shal one day fall vpon them that take part with •• Church of Rome, as in part it doth already.

The 17. chapter.

THeir doct••ine who teach the Bishop of Rome to be A••••i∣christ * 1.79

him selfe is confuted by the auctoritie of Gods worde, and by the consent of auncient fathers. VVhy Antichrist is permitted to come.

AFter he hath shewed his opinion, what maner a one * 1.80 Antechrist shalbe, & alleaged •••••••• cause of his cōming out of S. Paul 2. Thes. 2. because men haue not receaued the loue of the truth, that they might be saued, God shal sende thē the working of error, y^t they may beleue lying, &c. he stormeth out of measure against the Protestants, for that they can find no place to setle Antichrist in, but in the see of Rome, so beautified & dignified by Christ, and all the primitiue Church: But seeing Antichrist is appoynted to sit in the temple of God, which is a higher place then S. Peters chayer, it is no meruayle if Satan haue thrust him into that see, which of olde tyme was accompted the toppe and castell of all religion.

But let vs see his reasons taken out of Gods word, by which it is proued, that the Pope can not be Antichrist him selfe. The first is, because in S. Paule he is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. the man of sinne which signifieth one sin∣gular man, and not a number of men in succession, and this is affirmed to be the Greeke article in this worde man, by Cyrillus in Ioan. lib. 1. cap. 4. But how frendly Cy∣rillus was deceaued, you shall see, by some examples, e∣uen out of the new Testament. In S. Mathew cap. 12. 35. you haue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart, and an euill man out of the euil treasure of his heart bringeth &c. where no one singular man is ment.

In S. Mark cap. 2. verse. 27. The Sabboth was made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for man & not man for the Sabboth. In S. Luke cap. 4. verse. 4. Not with breade onely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a man shall liue, but by euery woorde of God. S. Paule. 2. Tim. 3. ver. 17. That the man of God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be perfect and prepared to euery good woorke. These places and an hundreth more which might bee brought, doe proue, howe vaine the

argument is thatis taken of the nature of the Greke ar∣ticle. Nether is Hierom or any of the auncient writers to be heard without authoritie of the Scripture, which supposed that Antichrist should be one man. Although none of them directly affirmeth that he should be one man, as Christ was. Hierom in Dani. cap. 7. sayth we must not thinke that Antichrist should be a Deuill, but one of the kind of men in whom Satan should dwell. This proueth not that he should be a singular man, no more then the fourth beast, which signifieth the Romāe Empire, out of which he should rise, should be one singular Emperour. No more doth it proue that because Antiochus was a fi∣gure of him, he must be but one man. And as litle that Ambrose in 2. The. 2, sayth, Satan shall appeare in homine, in a man, which may signify the kind of men and not one singular person. Likewise Augustine calling Antichrist the Prince, and last Antichrist, meaneth no one person for the words Prince and last, may agree to a whole suc∣cession of men in one state, as well as the wordes king and beaste, to a whole succession of Emperours in Da∣niel. To conclude, there is not one whome he nameth, that denyeth Antichrist to be a whole succession of mē, in one state of deuilish gouernment. And Irenaeus thin∣keth it probable of the Romane kingdom, lib. 5.

The second argument is, that Antichrist is called the aduersary, & therefore is the greatest enemy of Christ, denying Iesus Christ to be God and man, or to be our Media∣tour. I aunswer, the Pope doth so, denying the office of Christ, although with the deuills, he confesse in wordes, Iesus to be the holy one of God, and to be Christ the sonne of God. Marke 1. 24. Luke. 4. 41. his diuinitie the Pope denieth, by denying his onely power in sauing, his wisedom in his word to be onely sufficient, his goodnes in the vertue of his death to take away both payne and guylt of sinne, which he arrogateth to him selfe by his blasphemous pardons. Christes humanitie he denyeth by his transsubstantiation, his mediation, in which he is principally Christ, he denyeth by so many meanes of

saluation as he maketh, beside Christ videlicet mans merits, ceremonies inuented by man, pardons, a newe sacrifice of the Masse, &c.

The third argumēt is, that Antichrist shall not come, before the Romane Empire be cleane taken away. For that which Saint Paule sayth, ye knowe what withholdeth, &c. Although it be not necessary to expound this of the Romane Empire, yet following the olde writers that so vnderstood it, I say the Romane Empire was remoued before Antichrist the Pope was throughly enstalled. For beside that the see of the Empire was remoued from Rome, the gouernment it selfe was in a manner cleane remoued, the title of the Romane Emperour onely re∣mayning, at last an other Empire by the Pope was ere∣cted in Germanye, whereof litle beside a name remay∣neth at this day, the Pope clayming authoritie of both the swordes, and he that is the Emperour in title, if he haue no landes of his owne inheritance, scarse equall with a Duke by dominion of his Empire.

The fourth argument is, that the deedes & doctrine of Antichrist against Christ, must be open and without all dissimulation, because Saint Paule maketh a diffe∣rence betwene the mysterye of iniquitie, and the open shewing of Antichrist. I aunswer, they are open to all faithfull Christians, although they be hidde from such as be deceiued by Antichrist. Here M. Sander aunswe∣reth to that which he supposeth might be obiected, that some gloses of y^e canon law, call the Pope God, or make him equall with Christ, yea they call him God aboue all Gods: but he thinketh to auoyd it by saying, they call him not God by nature, but by office vnder Christ, where they say he is equall with Christ. This bla••phemy will not so easily be excused. Nether is it to be thought that any man will euer cal him selfe God by nature. But to omitte these flattering gloses of the canon lawe, doth not the Pope exalt him self aboue all that is called God and worshipped as God. When he commaundeth to ab∣stayne from meates and mariage, whereof God hath

created the one and instituted the other, as good and holy, for greater goodnes and holines then God crea∣ted or instituted in them. Doth he not exalt him selfe a∣boue God the redeemer, when he affirmeth his redēp∣tion to be, ether onely from sinnes committed before baptisme, ••or onely from the guilt of sin whereas his po∣pish pardons can absolue from both. Doth he not extoll him selfe aboue God the holy Ghost, when he taketh vpon him to sanctifie the creatures of the world, other∣wise then God hath sanctified them to apply the merits of Christ, otherwise then Gods holy spirite worketh ap∣plication by faith, &c.

The 5. argument is, that Antichrist should be recey∣ued moste speciallye of the Iewes, of which hee brin∣geth the opinion of diuerse olde writers, but because the Scripture sayth no such thinge, but contrary that he shall sit in the Church of God. We deny the antecedent or proposition of this argument. But M. S. alledgeth the saying of Christ Ioan. 5 I came in my fathers name, and ye haue not receyued me, if another come in his owne name ye wil receyue him. This other man sayth M. S. is Antichrist, and so expounded by the auncient fathers. I aunswer they haue no ground of this exposition. For Theudas the E∣gyptian, Cocabas, and such like, deceyued the Iewes in their owne name, yet none of them was this Antichrist.

The 6. argument is, that Antichrist according to the prophecy of Daniel cap. 7. & the interpretation of Hie∣rom, shal subdue 3. kings, the kings of Egypt, Africa, and Ethiopia, which seeing the Pope hath not done, he is not Antichrist, I aunswer, Nether Hierom nor any Ec∣clesiastical writer, whom he followeth, hath any directi∣tion out of the Scripture, for this interpretation, where∣fore it is more like, that the Emperour is the litle horne which first diminishing as it were a thirde parte of the strength of the fourth beast, at length began vtterly to oppresse & destroy it, I meane y^e cōmon welth of Rome.

The 7. reason is, Antichrist shal preuaile in his raigne but 3. yeares & an halfe, Dan 7. which time the Apocal••se calleth

42. monethes. I aunswer, this tyme must not be limited by measure of man, but as God hath appoynted it. Daniell nameth no yeres, but a tyme, tymes, & halfe a tyme. And Hierom in his accompt of 1293 daies differeth from S. Iohn Apoc. 12. 6. who setteth them downe 1260. dayes.

The 8. reason is, that Helias shall come at the tyme of An∣tichrist, as Hippolitus, Augustine, Hierom & Theodoret teach, who is not yet come, although the Pope haue long florished. I aunswer, The Scripture speaketh of no comming of He∣lias, but of Christes two witnesses, which haue neuer fai∣led in the greatest heate of the popish tyranny. Apoc. 11.

The 9. reason is, that Antichrist shall be of the try be of Dan, by the ••••inion of Irenaeus, Hippolitus, Theodoretus, and Gregory, whereas the Popes are of no such ••ribe.

I aunswer, the Scripture hath not reu••aled any such matter, nether doth Irenaeus rest vpon that opinion, but iudgeth he may well be the king of the Romane Empire, saying ve∣ry wisely. Certius ••rgo & sine periculo est sustin••re ad••••ple∣tionem prophetiae, qua•• susp••car•• &c. Therefore it is more certayne and without daunger, to tary the fulfilling of the prophecy, then to surmise &c.

Againe if this opinion should be true, he shoulde not rise out of the Romane Empire, as all olde writers haue consenced he must, ac∣cording to the prophecye.

The 10. argument is, that Antichrist shall not come be∣fore the later ende of the world as August ne and Theodore∣tus iudged. but Gregory seeing the ambition of Iohn of Constantinople affirmed, that the tyme of the reuela∣tion of Antichrist was euen at hand, and that the same Iohn was the forerunner of Antichrist, and Antichrist should shortly be reucaled, & an army of Priests should waite vpon him. Nowe seeing he, whosoeuer tooke that which Iohn refused, by Gregories iudgement should be Antichrist, and it is certayne, that Pope Boniface the 3. soone after the death of Gregory and his successors, v∣surped not onely that, but more also, it is certayne by Gregoryes prophecye, that the Pope is Antichrist. Who being within the 600. yeares, aunswereth to M. Sanders

fonde chalenge. And although none within that com∣passe had pointed out the see of Rome, yet the fulfilling of the prophecye in the later tymes, did sufficiently de∣clare who it should be. And most of the auncient writers name Rome to be the see of Antichrist. Although they could not foresee that the Bishoprike of that see should degenerate into the tyrannye of Antichrist. M. Sander aunswereth, that Tertullian and Hierom, call Rome Ba∣bylon, because of the confusion of tongues of di••ersenations, that haūted thether in tyme of the Emperours. And the Rome was full of Id ••any, and did perse••ute the Sainctes and name∣ly more t••••n 30 Bishops of Rome. The reason of tongnes is very absurd, and not giuen by any of those writers. As for Idolatrie and persecuting of Sainctes, although it might be sayd in tyme of Irenaeus, and Tertullian, yet could it not be sayd in the dayes of Hierom, Augustine, Ambrose, Primasius, and a number that liued in time of the Christian Emperours. And whereas Hierom ad Al∣gasiam, expoundeth the name of blasphemye written in the foreheade of the purple harlet to be Rome euerla∣sting, it agreeth very well vnto the see of the Popedom, which they boast to be eternall, although the Empire of Rome shall be cleane taken away. For M. Sander him selfe liketh well the title giuen by Martianus and Valen∣tinianus to Leo, whome they call Bishop of the euerla∣sting citie of Rome. cap. 16.

But whereas Rome is the citie builded vpon seuen hills, spoken of in the Apocalypse cap 17. M. Sander coū∣teth it a childi••he argument, to proue the see of Anti∣christ to be there, for that the citie is nowe gone from the hills, and standeth in the playne of Campus Martius, and the Pope sitteth on the other side of the riuer, vpon the hill Vatican harde by Saint Peters Churche, by whome he hol∣deth his chayre, not at all deriuing his power from the seuen hills, &c. But if the Pope sitte now in an other Rome, then Peter the Apostle satte, howe will Maister Sander perswade vs, that he fitteth in the chayre of Peter. For that Rome where Peter satte, was buylded vpon seuen

Hilles, and not gone downe into the plaine of Campus Martins, nor ouer the Riuer. Beside this it is plaine, that although the people haue remoued their habitations from the hilles, yet the Pope hath not, for on them be still to this day his Churches, Monasteryes, & courtes. For on the Mounte Caelius be the monastery of Sainte Gregory, the church of Iohn and Paule, the Hospitall of our Sauiour, the rounde Church, the great Minster of Laterane, in which are sayde, to be the heades of the Aposiles Peter and Paule, and the goodlyest buil∣dings in the worlde, where the Byshops of Rome dwel∣led vntill the time of Nicolas the seconde, which was almost eleuen hundreth yeeres after Christe.

The Mount Auentinus, hath three Monastetyes, of Sabina Bonifacius, and Alexius.

The Mount Exquilinus, hath the Church of Saincte Peter himselfe surnamed Ad vincula.

The Mounte Viminalis hath the Church of S. Lau∣rence in Palisperna, and S. Potentiana.

The Mount Tarpeius or Capitoline, hath an house of Fryers Minors called Ara Coeli. And there did Boni∣face the ninth builde a fayre house of Bricke for kee∣ping of Courtes.

The Mount Palatinus, is a place called the great Pal∣lace, and hath an olde Church of S. Nicolas and of S. Andrewe.

The Mounte Quirinalis is not altogither voide of habitation, to which appertaineth the Churche of S. Maria de populo.

The citie with 7. hils is stil the see of Antichrist, descri∣bed by S. Iohn at such time as those 7, hills were most of alinhabited & garnished with sumptuous buildings. But M. S. to darken the prophesie saith, Those 7. hilles be the fulnes of pride in secular princes, to whome the Protestantes commit the supreme gouernment of the church. I will not speake of this contumely that hee bloweth out against christian Princes, neither wil I' stād to proue that 7. hills in that place are taken literally, which is an easy matter

because 7. hilles are the exposition of 7. heads of y^e beast, but how wil M. S or all the Papists in the world deny the citie of Rome to be that Babylon and see of Antichrist, When the Angel in the last verse of the chapter sayth, And the woman which thou sawest is that great citie which hath dominiō ouer the Kings of the earth: which if any man say was any other Citie then Rome, all lear∣ning and learned men wil cry out against him. The see beeing found, it is easy to finde the person by S. Paules description, and this note especially that excludeth the heathen tyrants, he shal sit in the temple of God, which when when we see to be fulfilled in the Pope, although none of the eldest fathers could see it, because it was performed after their death, we nothing doubt to say & affirme stil, that the Pope is that man of sinne & Sonne of perdttion, the aduersary that lifteth vp himselfe a∣boue all that is called God, and shalbe destroyed by the spirit of the Lords mouth, & by the glory of his cōming.

The 18. Chapter.

NOT the Pope of Rome, but the Protestants them selues are the members of Antichriste, by forsaking the Catho∣like * 1.81 Church, by setting vppe a newe Church and by teach∣ing salse doctrine against the Gospell of Iesus Christe. Here∣tikes departe from the Catholike Churche. Heretikes beeing once departed out of the Church, haue newe names. VVhy among the Catholikes some are called Franciscanes, Domini∣canes, &c. Heretikes can neuer agree The short raigne of Heretikes. Heretikes preach without commission. Heretikes do preferre the temporall raigne or swoorde before the spiri∣tuall. They are the members of Antichrist, who withstande the externall and publke sacrifice of Christes Church. Here∣tikes depriue Christe of his glorious inheritaunce in many nations togither. The intollerable pride of Heretikes, in ma∣king them selues onely Iudges of the righte sence of Gods word. The Protestants teach the same doctrine which the olde Heretikes did. The Protestants are the right members of An∣tichriste,

in that they spo••le Godes Church of very many giftes & graces & articles of the faith.

HE maketh 11. markes of an Antichristian. The 1. is. * 1.82 They departe from the church as all her••ti••s doe. I aunswere, the Protestantes haue not depart••d from the Church of Christ, but are gone out o•• the Church of Antechrist, according as they are comm••unded by the holy Ghost ••poc. 18. 4. & are returned to th•• ••h••••ch of Christ, which by the Pope & the d••uill was driuen into the wildernes, Apoc. 22. 6. But M Sand would haue the place named, where they dwelt, from whom the Pope departed, as though the place were mate••iall, when his depa••ture from the doctrine of Christ, is ma∣nifest.

And Saint Paule prophes••ed of the greate Apostasie and departing from Christ, which Antechrist shoulde make. 2 ••hess 2. to him selfe & his owne doctrine, as Ire∣naeus doeth expound it. ••••b. 5. & Basi. Ep. 71. which all na∣tions peoples & tongues should embrace. Ap••••. 18. 3. therefore it were no maruaile, if no place could be na∣med, altogeather voide of the insection of Ant••christ, especially seeing the Church her selfe was driuen into the desert, that is out of the sight of men. yet there is no donbt, but God preserued his Church, though in small numbers, both in the East & in the West. And namely one parte of the Church of God was in Britaine, both in Wales and Scotland, not subiect to the Pope, nor ac∣knowledging his auctority, at such time, as Augustine the monke came from Pope Gregory, & so con••nued longe after the reuelation of Antechrist. Bed. Hist. lib. 2. cap. 2. lib. 3. cap. 25. And no doubt but the like was in ma∣ny corners of the world.

The 2. marke of an Antechristian he maketh, to haue newe names after they be gone out of the Church, as, Lutherans, Zwinglians, &c. whereas they haue none but Catholikes, yes verely, the name of the Popish Church & Papistes, is as auncient as the name of Lu∣ther

& Luthe••ans, & more aunciente to. M. Sand. sayth we geue them these names of spight, eyght or nyne hundreth ye••res since the papacy Began. The lyke I say of them, who call vs Lutherans &c. of mere malice, when we are nothing but Christians, wherefore the try∣all must be in the doctrine, which either sorte professe, and not in names.

The Christians of the Arians were called Homou∣sians, Athanasians. &c. but the doctrine of the Catho∣tholike Christians ag••eeing with the woordes of God proued them to be no s••ctaryes nor Hetetikes, so doth our doctrine iustifie vs what names soeuer be deuised against vs. But Ma••ster Sander woulde haue vs to shewe a man, whose p••oper name was Papa or Roma∣nus as though many Heretikes were not called of their hearisie or place from whence they came, and not of proper names of men. Angelici, Apostolici, Barba∣rita, Cathari, Collyridiani, En••ratitae, Patripassiani and a great number more were called of their heresie, Cata∣phryges, Pepuziani and such like were called of the place where they were. Wherefore the name of Pa∣pistes and Romanistes agreeth ••ith the example of olde heretikes. As for the longe tarying, large sprea∣dinge, and straunge commng in of the Popishe here∣sie is therefore without example, in all poyntes lyke, because Ant••christ is not a common pettit heretike, but the greatest and most daungerous enemy that euer the Gospel had.

The names of Benedictines, Fraunciscanes &c. Maister Sander woulde excuse, because these sectes maintaine no doctrin, dissenting frō the Pope, but all seeke the perfectiou of the Gospell by diuerse wayes, as though there were any other way but Iesus Christ. Sainct Paule 1. Cor. 1. condemneth the holding of Pe∣ter, of Paule, of Apollo, when the Doctrine was all one, and counteth them schismatikes, that so did. And the purer P••imatiue church, condemned such apish immitators of the Apostles in forsaking all things and

possessing nothing, in abstayning from Marriage &c. for Heretikes, and called them Apostolicos, witnesse Epiphan. Cont. Aposto. haer, 61.

The thirde Marke of an Antichristian, is, dissa∣greement among Heretikes: and heere not content to charge vs with the dissagreeing of Anabaptistes from vs, he amplysieth the dissention betweene Luther and Zwinglius, about the presence of Christes body in the sacrament, for which contradiction, he thinketh it muste needes followe that one of them is an Anti∣christe.

I aunswere euery errour stifely mayntayned, ma∣keth not an Heretike, except it be in an article of fayth necessary to saluation.

Cyprian againste the Byshopps of Rome Stepha∣nus and Cornelius, helde an errour in Baptisme, as greate as that same of Luther, dissenting from Zwinglius in the Supper of the Lorde, yet is not Cy∣pryan accoumpted for an Heretike. Maister Sander replyeth and sayeth, that Cyprian was not so stub∣borne, that he woulde excommunicate them that held the contrary.

Luther also and Zwinglius, althoughe they coulde not bee reconcyled in opinions, yet agreed to abstaine from contention, at Marpurge Anno domini. 1529 Sleid. lib. 6. Maister Sander sayth, further, that in the contention of Cyprian, and Stephanus, the Ca∣tholike Faythe was not fully and vniuersally recei∣ued in any generall Councell. But hee forgeteth that the Byshoppe of Rome was one partie, whose iudgement should haue ended the striefe if his autho∣ritie had beene such then, as he vsurped moste ambi∣ciously afterward.

Nowe where as he defendeth the Papists for their vnitie, which he sayeth, could not bee with out the spirite of God, I aunsweare he might as well defend the Doctrine of the Mahometistes, where is greater vnitie then euer there was amonge the Papistes: who

to omit an hundreth small contentions of the schoole∣men, are not yet agreed, of the greatest question of all, whether the Pope be aboue the councell or the coun∣cell aboue the Pope. For seeing some of the Papistes, make the Popes determination to be the rule of truth, other make the councell, there is no vnitie among the Papistes in truth, when they are not agreed what is the onely rule of trueth: whereas we all agree, that the word of God is the only rule of truth, wherby we would haue all doctrine tried and examined.

The fourth marke of an Antichrist, is, to reigne but a short tyme, and here he woulde haue vs to marke howe Luthers kingdome is come to an ende, whose doctrine Melancthon hath chaunged although Illyricus woulde defend it. What depe roote y^e doctrine of God deliuered by Luther, hath taken, it is so well knowne, that it can not be dissembled. Neither hath Melancthon departed from him, except it were in his opinion of the reall pre∣sence. Wherefore this is a great impudency, to triūphe ouer the decay of Luthets doctrine, which dayly en∣creaseth, to the ouerthrow of the Popish kingdom.

The fall of Hosiander an heretike, no man either marueleth or pitieth. The doctrine of Zwinglius and Oecolampadius of the Sacrament is the same that Cal∣uine teacheth, as euery wise man doth know, and their learned workes shall liue and be in honor, when the Popes decretalls and his Masse bookes &c. shall stoppe mustard pottes, and be put to viler vses.

Neither is Caluines doctrine failed, by our othe of supremacie, for Caluine in the right sence of it, taught the same supremacie of Christian Princes which we sweare to acknowledge, in our soueraigne.

Neither doth Beza teache any otherwise of the de∣scending of Christ into hell, then Caluine did, nor o∣therwise expounded the place of the Psalme, cited in Actes the 2. then Caluine doth, as all men that wil read them both may see, notwithstanding the shamelesse ca∣uill of M. Sander.

The long continuaunce of the Popish kingdome, is a small cause to bragge of, when it being sound enemie to the kingdome of Christ, is nowe entered so farre into destruction, out of which it shall neuer escape, although Maister Sander sayth it doth florish, when it is banished out of so many regions and dayly decreaseth in euerie place, Gods holy name be praised therefore.

The fift marke of Antichrist (he sayeth) is to preach without commission, as Luther did, who was sent of none. I aunswere in the state of the church, so misera∣blie deceaued, as it was in his time, God sendeth extra∣ordinarily, immediatly from him selfe, as Helias & He∣lizaeus & the Prophetes were sent to the Iewes & Israe∣lites, which were not of the Priests & ordinary teachers, so Christ sent his Apostles and Euangelists. And so was Luther and such as he sent to repaire the ruines of the churche. And yet the Papistes haue small aduauntage against the calling of Luther, seeing he was a Doctor, authorised to preache in that church, where he first be∣ganne, which after he had reformed the abuses therof, and restored true doctrine in many poyntes banished, by the false doctrine of Antichrist. The same reformed church hath euer since sent forth ordinarie pastors and teachers and shall doe to the end of the world.

The sixt marke of an Antichrist is, that heretikes preferre the temporall sword before the spirituall. And therefore Anti∣christ shall by force of armes compell men to a new faith, for he shall come as S. Paule sayeth in virtute, that is to say in power or strength. O impudent falsifier of the holy Scrip∣ture, doth not Sainct Paule say that his comming shalbe according to the efficacy of Satan in all power & signes and lying wonders, & in al deceitfulnes of vnrighteous∣nes, 2. Thes. 2. by which is shewed seduction by false do∣ctrine, but he shall mainteine his kingdom by cruelty, as it is manifest in the Reuelation cap. 13. & 17. &c. But M. Sander hath a great quarel against the B. of Winchester for saying in his booke against Feckenham, that the ciuil Magistrate, may visit, correct, reforme and depose any Bishop

in their owne realme. Which is directly to say that the po∣wer of the King is higher and greater in Gods churche, then the power of a Bishop. And what inconuenience is this, in thinges perteining to his office, seeing that the Bishops power in his spirituall office of preaching mini∣string &c. is confessed to be aboue the King? Hereby we make the body aboue the soule (saith M. Sander) the tē∣poral reigne aboue the kingdom of heauen. Not a whit, no more thē Salomon in deposing Abiather, & Christiā Emperors in deposing proude Bishops of Rome. Onely this we say, that M. Sander dissembleth. The cause must be iust, for which •• King shoulde depose a Bishop or pa∣stor, for! thinke there is equall right in deposing of the greatest Bishop, & the poorest Priest from his benefice. This latter was alwaies lawful by the cōmon lawes vpon iust cause. Now if the cause be iust, it must be either ma∣nifest or doubtfull. If it be manifest as Abiathers was for murther, treason, adulterie, &c. the King obseruing the processe of the lawe, as in all other mens causes, may proceede against a Bishop. If the cause be doubtfull, it is either for life or doctrine. The triall of the Bishops life, ought to be as all other mens are, with due cōsideration of his accusers. The triall of doctrine is not in the Kings knowledge ordinarily but in the knowledge of the eccle siasticall state, who are iudges of the doctrine by reason of their knowledge, & to depose him from his ministery by reason of their calling, if he be culpable, and the King hath power to exclude him frō his place & from his life also if his offence deserue it. But that in spiritual matters the King should rule y^e Bishops, & pastors otherwise then Gods word woulde haue them ruled, none of vs did e∣uer affirme: for that were tyranny & not Christian go∣uernment. And of such tyranny of Constantius the Ar∣rian Emperour, doth Athanasius complaine: In Episi. ad sol. vit. agent. and shew the iudgement & aunsweres of the Christian Bishops, Paulinus, Lucifer, Eusebius, Diony∣sius, Liberius, Hosius, vnto him, when he would haue en∣forced them to subscribe against Athanasius, for defen∣ding

the eternall diuinitie of our Sauiour Christ.

But yet the same Athanasius, appealed, him selfe, to the godly Emperor Constantinus the great, although in the end the Emperour being caried away by multitude of false witnesses, as any mortall mā may be, & deceiued, as Dauid was about Mephibosheth, gaue wrong sentēce against him Socr. lib. 1. ca. 34. And whē the same Emperor in his letters before, threatned to depose him, if he were disobediēt, he neuer repined but acknowledged his au∣ctority.

Si cognouero quòd aliquos eorum qui ecclesiae student prohibueris, aut ab accessu ecclesiae excluseris, mittā euestigio qui te meo iussu deponat ac locum tuum transferat. If I shall know (sayth the Emperour) that thou wilt prohibit any of them that fauour the church or exclude them from entring into the churche, I will sende one immediatly which shall depose thee by my commaundement, & re∣moue thy place.

Socr. li. 1. ca. 27. Thus Athanasius iudging Constantius the hereticall Prince for an Antichristian image, in vsurping auctority in matters of faith against the truth, obeieth Constantinus a defender of the truth, & seeketh aide of his auctority in ecclesiasticall causes, according to the truth: M. Sander fearing we would ob∣iect against him that Constantinus, Martianus, & other godly Emperors, vsed to sit in generall coūcels with the Bishops, replieth, that it was only to kepe peace, wheras they did not only kepe peace, but also prescribe & com∣maūd the Bishops, to proceede according to Gods word as Constantine did in the Nicene councell.

Euangelici e∣nim &c. The bookes of the Gospells & of the Apostles & the oracles of the auncient Prophetes do plainly instruct vs in the vnderstanding of God. Therfore setting all hateful discord a∣side, let vs take out of the sayinges of Gods spirite, the explica∣tion of the questions.

They did also publish the decrees of the councell by their auctoritie, like as they called the councells together to make their decrees.

But Ambrose sayth Ep. 32. that euen an heretical Em∣perour comming to yeares of discretion, will be able to consider, what maner a Bishop he is, who layeth the Priestly

right vnder the lay mens feete. By which (saith M. Sander) you may see what maner a Bishop M. Horne and his fel∣lowes be, w^c geue the most proude & intollerable title of supreame head & gouernor, to lay Princes. I answere in geuing this title, they meane to take nothing from the right of the clergie, & cōfesse with Augustine, that there is no greater then a Priest in his office, although Moses after the distinction was no Priest, but a ciuil Magistrate & in his calling aboue Aaron, that was high Priest. And although M. Sander say, this is the diuinity of England only, to acknowledge the Prince to be chiefe gouernor, he sayeth most vntruly, for all learned men of all coun∣tries, doe acknowledge the same, in such sorte as we do in England, and not as he in Flanders, either dreameth or slaundereth vs to do. For we confesse with Valenti∣nian the good Emperour, that the Prince must submit his head to his godly pastor, in matters perteyning to his spirituall power Theodor. lib. 4. cap. 5. And yet we al∣lowe the same Valentinian writing to the Bishoppes of Asia and Phrigia Theodor. lib. 4. cap. 8.

Qui omnes noxios daemones student abigere precibus suis &c. They which stu∣die by their prayers to driue awaye all hurtfull deuells, knowe to submit them selues to publike offices, accor∣ding to the lawes, they speake not against the Emperors power, but they keepe the commaundementes of a sin∣cere and great Emperour, and the commaundementes of God, and are subiect to our lawes, but you are found disobedient.

Finally we neuer ment, to geue the Prince by flatteriē, auctoritie in suche matters as belong to Bi∣shops alone, neither would we haue a confusion, of the office of an Emperour and a Bishop, wherefore neither the saying of Leontius to Constantius, nor of Eulogius to Valens which were both heretikes & would enforce men to receaue the heresie of Arrius, doth any thing at all touch vs, who limit the supremacie of Princes, with∣in the compase of Gods worde, and Christian religion, against which, neither Prince nor Priest hath any au∣ctoritie to commaund.

The seuenth marke of Antichrist is, the withstanding of the externall and publike sacrifice of the church, by which he meaneth the sacrifice of the Masse. Nay ra∣ther it is a setting vp of a new altare & sacrifice propitia∣torie, against the only 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 vn∣bloody 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 Do∣ctors 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 pro∣pitiatory, 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 grea•• sacrifice, once fulfilled on the crosse, m••s••e also be par∣taker of the nature of that Sacrifice whereof it is a re∣membraunce. 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 pub∣like 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 sacri∣fice. Againe the Calfe that was killed was by Gods ap∣pointment 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 sig∣nification 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. hūdreth 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 ge∣nerall 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. hūdreth yeeres, then that the same was in persecutiō 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 Christiā Emperours. Yet was there townes & coun∣tryes, 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 an∣swere, 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 cā 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. Sāder 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 in∣terpretation. No sayth M. Sander, & bringeth an exāple of these word's of S. Paul. He that ioyneth his virgin in ma∣riage 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 ma∣riage. 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 there∣fore al his foolish dialogisme, is a fighting with his owne shadow. Beza expoūdeth he doth better that is more com∣modiously, 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 interpretatiō 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 ab∣solutely 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 com∣maundement of the Lorde. But he hath a commaunde∣ment, 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 con∣tinence, 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 ex∣tollers 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 she∣wed. And as touching y^e Epistle of S. Iames, it is a shame∣lesse 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 propitia∣torie, if Protestantes be charged to holde whatsoeuer Luther sometime helde, and after repented. But the confession of Zurich with the consent of the churches of Heluetia and Sabaudia, writeth thus, of it. Iacobus ille dixit &c. That Iames sayed, that workes doe iustifie, not speaking agaynst Sainct Paule, otherwise he were to be re∣iected. Here saith M. Sāder, they thinke it possible, that S. Iames might be contrarie to Sainct Paule, and so his E∣pistle to be no holy Scripture. A wise collectiō I promise you. S. Paule him selfe sayed. If I my selfe or an Angell from heauen, should preach any other Gospel then you haue already receaued, let him be accursed. Ergo S. Paul thought it was possible, y^t him selfe or an Angell shoulde be auctor of a new Gospel, & so his preaching should not be y^e Gospel. Who seeth not y^e madnes of this cōsequēce.

But S. Iames his epistle (he sayth) hath alwayes bene clearely admitted among true Catholikes, & for witnes hereof he quoteth most impudenly Euseb. lib. 1. ca. 23. in which booke and chapter, Eusebius clearely affirmeth that it is a counterfet epistle. I say not this to allowe the iudgment of Eusebius, but to shewe the impudencie of M. Sander. But he saith we reiect S. Iames because he is contrary to our deuilesh doctrin of only faith. We teach only faith none otherwise, thē the apostle teacheth, that a man is iustified by faith, without workes. We teach

not that a man is iustified by a dead faith, which is voide of good workes, but by a liuing faith which worketh by loue. We say with Sainct Iames, if a man say he haue faith and hath not workes, his faith shall not saue him. For Abrahās faith, which was imputed to him for righ∣teousnes by God, was not without good workes, as ap∣peared by his obedience in offering his sonne, wherein God tried him, neither to know him, nor to iustifie him, whom he knew and iustified before, but to shewe his o∣bedience & to iustifie him before men. So it is true that S. Iames sayeth a man is iustified of workes and not of faith onely. For a solitarie srutles faith doth not iustifie before God, but a faith which is fruteful in good workes is the onely instrument to apprehend iustification, and the workes as Augustine sayth follow and shewe a iusti∣fied man they goe not before to iustifie. Thus our do∣ctrine agreeth verie well with the Epistle of S. Iames & Sainct Paules doctrine, wherefore we haue no neede to reiect the Epistle of Sainct Iames, as contrarie to our doctrine.

But the Protestantes do not onely make them selues iudges of the whole bookes, but also ouer the very letter (saith he) of Christs Gospell finding fault with the con∣struction of the Euangelists, and bring the text it selfe in doubt. Example hereof he bringeth Beza in his annota∣tions vpon Luk 22. of the words: This cup is the new Te∣stamēt in my blood which is shed for you. In which text, because the word blood in the Greke, is the datiue case, the other worde that followeth is the nominatiue case, Beza supposeth that S. Luke vseth a figure called Soloe∣cophanes, which is appearaunce of incongruity, or else that the last worde which is shed for you, might, by error of writers, being first set in the margēt out of Mathew & Marke, be remoued into the text. Hereupon M. Sander out of all order & measure, raileth vpon Beza & vpon al Protestantes. But I pray you good Sir, shall the only opi∣nion of Beza, & that but a doubtful opiniō, in dite all the Protestants in the world of such high treason against the

worde of God? For what gaineth Beza by this interpre∣tation? Forsooth the Greeke text is contrary to his Sa∣cramentary heresie. For thus he should translate it: This cuppe is the newe Testament in my blood which cuppe is shed for you. Not the cup of gold or siluer (saith he) but the li∣quor in that cuppe, which is not wine because wine was not shed for vs, but the bloode of Christ. Why then the sence is this. This blood in the cup which is shed for you is the newe Testament in my blood. What sence in the world cā these words haue? By which it is manifest, that the words which is shed for you cā not be referred to the cup, but to his his blood. For the cup was the newe Te∣stamēt in his blood, which was shed for vs, which sense no man can deny, but he that will deny the manifest word of God. Neither doth the vulgare Latine transla∣tion geue any other sense, although M. Sander is not a∣shamed to say it doth. The vulgare Latine text is this. Hic est calix nouum Testamētum in sanguine meo qui pro vo∣bis fundetur. What grammarian in construing, would re∣ferre qui to calix and not rather to sanguine. Againe E∣rasmus translateth it euen as Beza. Hoc poculum nouum Testamentum per sanguinem meum qui pro vobis ••ffundit••r. Now touching the coniecture of Beza, that those words by errour of the scriuener, might be remoued from the margent into the text, is a thing that somtime hath hap∣pened as most learned men agree, in the 27. of Mathew where the name of Ieremy is placed in y^e text, for that w^c is in Zachary, & yet neither of the Prophets was named by the Euangelist, as in most ancient recordes it is testi∣fied. The like hath bene in the first of Marke, where the name of Esay is sette in some Greeke copies, and follo∣wed in your vulgare translation, for that which is cited out of Malachie which name was not set downe by the Euangelist, but added by some vnskilfull writer, & is re∣proued by other Greke copies. But this place you say is not otherwise found in any old copy, as Beza confesseth: then remaineth y^e second opinion, y^t S. Luke in this place, vseth Soloe cophanes w^c is an appearance of incōg••uity,

and yet no incongruitie. Wherein I can not maruayle more at your malice (M. Sander) then at your igno∣rance, which put no difference betwene soloecismus & soloecophanes, but euen as spitefully as vnlearnedly, you affirme that Beza should teach, that S. Luke wrote false Greeke, whereas Soloecophanes is a figure vsed of the most eloquent writers that euer tooke penne in hande, euen Cicero, Demosthenes, Greeke and Latine, pro∣phane and diuine, and euen of S. Luke him selfe in o∣ther places, whereof for examples, I referre you to Bu∣daeus vpon the word Soloecophanes. The apparance of incongruitie is, that it seemeth, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is the nominatiue case, shold agre with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is the datiue case, wheras in deed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is vsed as a relatiue for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as it is often, and the verbe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which wanteth, is vnderstoode, as it is commonly in the Greeke tongue, and so the translation must be hoc poculum nouum Testa∣mentum est in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis effunditur, or effu∣sus est. So that this is 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 e∣uery 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 con∣demne them: & so say you Papistes of your popish faith.

Secondly Acesius the Nouatian Bishop affirmed, that mortall sinnes committed after baptisme, might not be forgiuē 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 mi∣nister 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 ac∣cording to the power giuen, but haue your casus Episco∣pales & 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 opiniō of the Protestāts. The Protestants haue none opinion common with the Messalians, who affirmed that our owne merits & satis∣faction with prayers continual were necessary for pluc∣king vp the roote of sinnes, whereas we affirme, that ba∣ptisme 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 cōcupiscense remayne af∣ter the acte of baptisme, which you Papistes also con∣fesse 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 saluati∣on: he that beleueth & is baptised shall be saued. Marke 16. 16. Therefore you Papists both in this & in your cōti∣nual 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 supersti∣tion of praying for the dead, was iustly reproued by AE∣rius, 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 de∣nying 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 repro∣ued, 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 ••rasmus hath noted: yet he desendeth not the adoratio•• or worshipping, but the reuerent estimation of reliques.

Seuenthly, the Arrians would not beleue the consubstantia∣lity of the same, because that word was not written in the Scri∣pture. 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 Corneli∣us Bishop of Rome reporteth that Nouatus was bapti∣sed in tyme of necessitie being very like to dye. Iacens in lecto pro necessitate perfusus sit, nec reliqua in eo qu•• baptis∣mum subsequi solent solemniter adimpleta sunt: nec signaculo Chrismatis consummatus sit: vnde nec spiritum sanctum vn∣quam 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, ne∣ther was he consummate with y^e seale of Chrisme: wher∣by 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 Corne∣lius 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 cere∣mony intollerably: to deny the holy ghost to such as had it not, being none of the institution of Christ, and con∣trary 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 I∣sraell 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 Seu••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 interpre∣tation of their Pope, and popish Church: as the com∣maundement 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 Prote∣stāts now. Hieronym was no heretike, yet did he translate the Scriptures both into Latine and into the Dalmatian tongue. And the Papistes haue played the part of Anti∣christian heretikes, to confirme the vulgare Latine trā∣slation, which is so manifestly corrupt and false, contra∣ry to the truth of the Hebrue and Greeke textes vpon pretence of auoyding vncertaynty of translatiōs, wher∣as

there is none so bad as that.

I might heere runne through a great number of the olde heresies, in which the Papists consent with the an∣cient Heretikes. The Valentinians in their crosse. Mon∣tanistes in their purgatory, and prescript fastings. Car∣pocratians in their images. The Hemerobaptists in their holy water. The Offenes and Marcosianes in their re∣liques and straunge tounge in prayers. The Heraclea∣nites in annoynting them that are redy to dye. The Ca∣ians in praying to angels. The Archonticks in their coū∣terfaite mōkery. The Marcionists in extolling virginitie & fasting, & in permitting women to Baptize. The En∣ctatits in abstaining from flesh. The Apostoliks in their vowe of continence. The Cyrians in worshipping the virgine Mary. The Pelagians in their opinion of me∣rites and freewill. The Eutychians in denyinge the truethe of Christe his bodye. The Anthromor∣phites in making Images of God, and many other, but that I haue doone it elsewhere, more at large. But of these, Epiphanius, Augustine, and others are wit∣nesses.

The 11. and last marke is, that Antichristians shoulde goe about to make voyde, and deny the supernaturall graces which God hath giuen to his Church, so that the seale of An∣tichrist by Hippolitns iudgement should be Nego I deny. So doe the Protestants which deny fiue sacraments of the church, the sacrifice of the Masse. &c. And so maketh rehearsall of a greatnumber of popish errors, which indeed we deny, because they be contrary to the trueth of Gods worde. Among which he rehearseth some false and shamelesse slaunders, as, that we denye our sinnes to be taken away by the Lambe of God, saying they tary still but that they are not imputed. In deed, if we say we haue no sinne, we deceiue our selues, and the trueth is not in vs. But we say all the sinnes that we haue, are taken away, when they are not laid to our charge.

Secondly he chargeth vs to teach, That no iustice is at all made in vs by spreading charitie in our heartes, VVhere∣as

S. Paule saith Rom. 5. many shalbe made iust: but they say onely that Iustice shall be imputed. We say with Saincte Paule Rom. 5. that beeing iustifyed by faith we haue peace with God, reioycing in hope, which doth not confound vs in the middest of afflictions, because the loue of God is powred foorth in our heartes. I meane the loue of God towarde vs, and not our loue towarde him. Wee say likewise with Sainct Paule, that by the obedience of one which is Christe, many shalbe made righteous. But howe can we be made righteous by o∣bedience of Christe, but that his obedience is impu∣ted and made perfecte vnto vs? O putide and absurde slaunders.

He chargeth vs thirdly, that wee deny Baptisme, to remit our sinnes, which is false, excepte as Sainct Pe∣ter denyeth the woorke wroughte to saue vs. 1. Pet. 3. verse 21. not the washing of the filth of the body, but the aunsweare of a good conscience vnto Almightie God.

Fourthly, he chargeth vs to deny that Baptisme is necessary to Children, which are borne of christian Pa∣rentes wherein he lyeth moste impudently: although wee agree not with the Papistes that the Infantes of Christians excluded by necessitie from Baptisme, are damned. In which errour although Augustine was, yet he is no more to be followed, then in an other errour, about the same infantes, to whome bothe he and Pope Innocentius thought the Sacrament of the Lordes Supper as necessarye as the Sacrament of Baptisme, affirming that Infantes whiche haue not receiued the Lordes Supper were damned. Contra duas Episto.

Pe∣lag. ad Bonifac. lib. 2. cap. 4. Ecce beatae memoriae Inno∣centius Papa sine Baptisino Christi & sine participatione corporis & sanguinis Christi vitam non hobere paruulos dicit. Beholde Pope Innocente of blessed memory sayeth, that without the Baptisme of Christe, and the partici∣pation of the body and bloode of Christe, little Chil∣dren haue no lyfe.

To conclude, we deny nothing that they can proue to be true, but such matters as we proue by the onely rule of trueth to be false. But the Pope sheweth him∣self to be Antichrist, which denyeth al the soueraignitie of the office and prerogatiue of Christ.

He denyeth that Christe is the onely heade of his vniuersall Church in Heauen and in earth.

He denyeth that Christ onely is a Prieste, according to the order of Melchizedech.

He denyeth that Christ onely is our Mediatour, as∣well of intercession, as of redemption,

He denyeth that Christs woorde is sufficient for our saluation.

He denyeth that the sacrifice of Christe his death is the onely purgation of our sinnes.

He denyeth that the merites of Christ are our onely justification.

He denyeth that God onely is to be prayed vnto.

He denyeth the veritie of Christes bodye by his transubstantiation.

Finally he denyeth all honor and glory to be dewe onely to God by Iesus Christ, and therefore he is none other, but euen that detestable monster Antichriste whome I beseech the Lord, speadely to confound and abolish by the spirit of his mouth which is his holy woorde, and by the bright∣nesse of his comming.

Amen.

God be praysed.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Saunder.
• * 1.2

  Fulke.
• * 1.3

  1.
• * 1.4

  2.
• * 1.5

  3.
• * 1.6

  4.
• * 1.7

  5.
• * 1.8

  1
• * 1.9

  2
• * 1.10

  3
• * 1.11

  4
• * 1.12

  5
• * 1.13

  6
• * 1.14

  7
• * 1.15

  8
• * 1.16

  9
• * 1.17

  10
• * 1.18

  11
• * 1.19

  12
• * 1.20

  13
• * 1.21

  14
• * 1.22

  8
• * 1.23

  9
• * 1.24

  10
• * 1.25

  11
• * 1.26

  12
• * 1.27

  13
• * 1.28

  13
• * 1.29

  15
• * 1.30

  2
• * 1.31

  3
• * 1.32

  4
• * 1.33

  5
• * 1.34

  6
• * 1.35

  7
• * 1.36

  8
• * 1.37

  9
• * 1.38

  17
• * 1.39

  Sander.
• * 1.40

  Fulke.
• * 1.41

  1.
• * 1.42

  2.
• * 1.43

  3.
• * 1.44

  Sander.
• * 1.45

  Fulke.
• * 1.46

  1.
• * 1.47

  2.
• * 1.48

  3.
• * 1.49

  4.
• * 1.50

  5.
• * 1.51

  6.
• * 1.52

  Sander.
• * 1.53

  Fulke.
• * 1.54

  Sander.
• * 1.55

  Fulke.
• * 1.56

  Sander.
• * 1.57

  Fulke.
• * 1.58

  Sander.
• * 1.59

  Fulke
• * 1.60

  Sander.
• * 1.61

  Fulke.
• * 1.62

  Sander.
• * 1.63

  Fulke.
• * 1.64

  Sander.
• * 1.65

  Sander.
• * 1.66

  Fulke.
• * 1.67

  Sander.
• * 1.68

  Fulke.
• * 1.69

  Sander.
• * 1.70

  Fulke.
• * 1.71

  Sander.
• * 1.72

  Fulke.
• * 1.73

  Sander.
• * 1.74

  Fulke.
• * 1.75

  Sander.
• * 1.76

  Fulke.
• * 1.77

  Sander.
• * 1.78

  Fulke.
• * 1.79

  Sander.
• * 1.80

  Fulke.
• * 1.81

  Sander.
• * 1.82

  Fulke,