A Retentive to Stay Good Christians

The first Chapter.

VPon our denial of the supremacy of the Pope, and of S. Peter, he saith we deny all primacy and chief government in the Church. Wherevpon he raiseth three questions to entreat of.

Whether it be against the word of God, that there should be in his Church any primacy or chief authority?

Whether S. Peter had the same primacy or no?

Whether the Bishop of Rome had it after S. Peter.

To which we answer with distinction of the words primacy and Church, that we affirm, there is a spiritual and eternal primacy of the universal Church, which is proper only to our Savior Christ, which never was given to Peter, nor to any mortal man. Likewise we arffime that in particular Churches, there is & must be a primacy of order, which is temporal according to the disposition of the Church. And such primacy in the College of the Apostles might Peter have for sometime, but that he had it not always, it appeareth in the council of the Apostlesin the 15. of the Acts of which James in a manner by all writers consent, was President and Primate: and upon the controversy being thoroughly debated, pronounced the definitive sentence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c according to which the synodall Epistle to the Churches of Antiochia, Syria, and Silicia, was written in the name of the Apostles, Elders and brethren.

But concerning S. Peter, M. Sander moveth new questions. First whereas Christ promised that Simon should be called Cephas or Peter, which is a stone or Rock. John. I. and afterward performed his promise, whē he chose him to be an Apostle, Mar. 3. Luk. 6. And thirdly when Simon confessed his godhead, the reason of the promise was declared that he would build his Church upon that Rock: the question is, whether Peter himself be that Rock, upon which Christ would build his Church, or Christ himself, or the faith and confession of peter.

M. Sander the spokesman for the Papists, passing over the second question, that is whether Christ himself whom Peter confessed, by this rock, denieth the faith or confession of Peeter to be the perfect sense of that promise, affirming the Rock on which the Church is built to be S. Peter, not barely confirmed, but in respect of the promise past, the present confession, and the authority of feeding Christ's Sheep given him after his resurrection, of which four conditions the Protestants (he saith) do lack no less then three. But what do the Papists lack, when in there sense they exclude the rock Christ, the only foundation, then the which none other can be laid. 1. Cor. 10. 4. 1. Cor. 3. 11. by any wise builder of the Church. Yet seeing M. Sand. is so desirous to have Peter to be the stone whereof Christ speaketh, laying first Jesus Christ to be the head corner stone, I will frankly yield unto him, that which he could never win by force, that Christ saying to Peter, thou art Peter, and upon this Rock or stone will I build my Church, meaneth even Peter him self upon whom he would build his Church, but so that he maketh not Peter a singular Rock or stone to bear the whole building, (for then he should put him self out of place) but one of the pr • ncipall stones of the foundation, even as all the Apostles and Prophets were, for so the holy Ghost speaketh, Ephe. 2. verse. 20. being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ being the head corner stone in whom all the building being compacted, groweth unto an holy temple unto the Lord.

Now let us consider, whether any singular authority was committed to peter, when he was willed to feed the sheep of Christ. M. Sand. saith yea, because it was said to him alone, feed my sheep, and no particular flock named, it must needs be meant the whole flock. Mark these main pillars of the popish Rock. Christ said only to Peter, come after me Satan, for thou art an offense to me &c. Therefore Peter only was an enemy of Christ. If the Pope must needs have the one text as peculiar to him, let him take the other also. Again Peter himself saith to the elders, feed as much as in you lieth the flock of Christ 1. Peter. 5. Here is no particular slocke named, therefore he meaneth the whole universal flock. But he urgeth farther, that as Peter loved Christ more then the rest, so he did feed the flock of Christ above all other pastors. But if laboring in preaching the gospel, be the feeding of Christ's flock, not Peter, but Paul labored more then he, and all the rest of the Apostles. 1. Cor. 15. The answer of the Protestants to his demand, Why Peter alone in presence of other Apostles was commanded thrice to feed the sheep, that by thrice confession and injunction to feed, he might abolish the shame of his thrice denying, and know that he was restored to his Apostleship, from which he deserved to be deprived) M. Sand. liketh not for three causes. First he saith, he had not lost his Apostleship, because his fault was not externally proved, nor confessed in judgment, nor stubbernly defended &c. as though Christ which knew and foretold his infirmity before he fell, had need of external proves, or a Commissaries court to deprive Peter of his office, O blockish reason. Although neither Calvin nor Beza do affirm, that he was altogether excluded from his office, by his fault, but that he deserved so to be, and therefore had need especially to be confirmed by our Savior Christ more then the rest as his offense was more shameful then of any of the other. Therefore the seconde reason that he bringeth of his restitution, if he had lost it is superfluous. John. 20 For he was none otherwise restored then the rest were, but at this time especially confirmed, as his special case required.

His last reason is, that admit Peter had not been restored before this time, yet now 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 equal by testimony of Cyprian and Jerome's, he aunsweareth by distinction, forsooth that they were equal in Apostleship, and yet Peter was chief of t • e Apostles, and an ordinary chief shepherd or high •• yshop, wherein they were all inferiors to him, and •• ee was their Primate and their head, and this distinction he promiseth to prove exactly hereafter. In the mean time it is a monstrous Paradox, that all the Apostles should be equal with Peter in Apostleshipp, and yet Peter be the chief of the Apostles. He that can prove inequality to be where he granteth equallitie to be, and in the same respect, is a strange Logition. Finally where as some men granting Peter to be the rock, deny the honor to his successors, he will prove that the Bishop of Rome and none other, hath all that authority which Peter sometime had, and consequently that the Protestants come nearer to the nature & condition of Antichrist, then any pope of Rome ever did or can do.

The seconde Chapter.

THe Ecclesiastical government of the Church is a ministry, or service, by the authority of Christ and his Apostle Peter: & therefore neither properly nor improperly a Godlines or Hethenish dominion, but altogether as unlike to it, as our Savior Christ the pattern of all true ministers, was unlike to an earthly Lord or an Heathen Prince. But whereas M. Sander in the first sentence of this chapter saith (That no man properly can t • e Lord among the Christians where all are servants indifferently, under the obedience of one true Lord and Master Jesus Christ.) he showeth him self not only to be a Papist, • ut also an Anabaptist. For the common service that we o •• e unto Christ hindereth not, but that a Christian man • ay be Lord & King over his fellow servants and thren in Christ, as properly as ever he might be before the incarnation of Christ: who saith himself that his kingdom is not of this world: who himself was obedient and taught obedience both to God and Caesar, to eche in things that belonged to them: & that dominion which he forbiddeth unto his Apostles, like to the princes of the nations. Luc. 22. Matth. 20. and which S. Peter forbiddeth the elders of the church. 1. Pet. 5. is not prohibited to all Christians, but to the ministers of the Church only in respect of their ministry. And yet that there ought to be a government of the church, & some kind of primacy also, it is clearer by the scriptures, then that it need any proof, especially such slender proves as M. San. bringeth, & namely where he citeth this text, Feed my sheep, to signify that Peter should give every man his dew portion & just measure of victuals in convenient time: which thing neither Peter did, nether was he able to do. And much less any man in succession to him, which is not equal in gifts with him. And therefore the example of a stuarde, who may provide for a competent number of one family, is fondly applied to make one Stewarde over all the world, beside him that is almighty. For although the Apostles were not limited to any certain congregation, but were general Ambassadors into all partes of the world: yet were they not appointed to give to every man his dew portion, but to appoint Pastors in every Church and town for that purpose. Tit. 1. Acts 14. verse. 23, & they them selves to proceed in matters pertaining to their general Commission.

And therefore although M. Sander in applying these words of Ieronime Cont. Luciferanos, which he calleth, Exortem quandam & eminentem potestatem. A certain peerless and high power. And of Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 3. Of one priest in the Church for that time &c. True. Every several Pastor, or as he termeth them parrishe priest, dealeth more honestly then other Papists that draw the same testimonies, as proper to the Popes sovereign authority, yet in that he argueth, that the like should be in the whole church militant, which is in every parish, it is out of all compass of reason. For that which is possible in the one, is altogether impossible in the other. And the argument is no better, then if we should say, there is one steward in every College, or great house: therefore there is is one steward over all the world. And whereas he would prove his matter good, by that S. Mat. cap. 10. rehearsing the names of the Apostles, calleth Peter the first: it is to childish & frivolous. For in every number, 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 authority. Nether is he always first named, for Gal. 3. 9. where the question is, of the dignity of the Apostles, James is named before Cephas, or Peter as he was indeed elected to be the principal minister at Jerusalem, by consent of most ancient writers, neither doeth it follow, that because the high Priest of the old law was called Princeps populi, A prince of the people, therefore Peter was made prince of all Christian men. For neither was the high Priest alone called the prince of the people, as M. S. seemeth to say: neither had Peter by those words (feed my shope) any authority committed unto him, more then to the rest of the Apostles. As for the name of Lord, or term of dominiō, sometime givē by ecclesiastical writers to the Bishop or his government, we strive not about it, so there be no such dominion by him excercised, as Christ & his Apostles forbiddeth, & as we see to be usurped and practiced by the Pope of Rome, & his clergy, howsoever M. Sander in terms of distinction, would seem to shadow it. But he will show out one of these places which we allege, as if it did utterly forbid all superiority among the Disciples, luc. 22 that the ecclesiastical primacy is clearly establyshed and confirmed.

First he saith most untruly, that we deny all superiority among the Discyples of Christ as though we denied all gouernmente among Christians, except he do childishly understand the Disciples of Christ for Ministers ecclesiastical only: and yet we deny not all superiority among them, but that kind of primacy which the Pope claymeth, and tyrannically usurpeth. Secondly he maketh a longe preamble before he come to the matter, that although the Apostles did diverse times strive for the primacy, as in the way to Capharnaum Mark. 9 upon the request of Zebedees wife. Mark. 10. & after his last supper Luk. 22. yet Christ never denied, that there should be one greater among them, and often signified, that the same should be S. Peter, especially when he said, thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church. If you demand why they strove for supremacy, when he had determined it, he yieldeth a substantial reason: because while Christ lived upon Earth, it was in his free choice to have appointed it otherwise, until at the last in the 21. of John, he said unto him, Simon thou son of Jonah. &c. By these it appeareth, that M. Sander confesseth that no text of Scripture proveth the supremacy of Peter more directly and plainly then this of John 21. which when every Child seeth howe little force it hath to prove it, you may easily judge that the Papists them selves against their own consciences, do enforce all other Texts uttered before to establish it. And namely this of Luke 22. in which he saith, that Christ taking up the strife that was among his Apostles about the primacy, ended his talk at last with Simon Peter, showing him to be that one that was greater then the rest.

What Ass if he could speak with man's voice, would reason thus? that because Christ converting his speech from exhorting all his Apostles to admonish Peter of his special danger he stood in by his infirmity: signified that Peter was greater then all the Apostles. But we must hear him compare these words of Christ. Luke 22. with the words of S. Matthew and Mark in other places, which he saith the Magdeburgen. cent. doth huddle up, as they were alone, whereas they differ much.

The words of Christ Mat. 20. and Mar. 10. are these: Whosoever among you will be greater, let him be your seruitor. And whosoever among you will be first, shall be your servant. In Saint Luke 22. He that is greater among you, let him be made as the younger: and he that is chief, as he that ministereth. M. Sander will have great difference to be in these sayings. First generally that the former sentence speaketh not of the greatness among ecclesiastical officers, but all Christians, which is utterly false, because this kind of greatness is prescribed unto them to whom external dominion is forbidden, But that is not to all men, but unto the Apostles only and their successors: therefore this kind of greatness, is proper only unto them. For he speaketh not of greatness by humility only, but of greatness without foreign dominion and worldly dignity, and joined with service, which is peculiar to the ministry ecclesiastical. Secondly he maketh six frivolous differences, which either are false or else make no diversity in the sense of the places.

The first, Matthew and Mark speak of any man. Who soever, S. Luke of one man, which by the article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is pointed out. If the article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 do always pointe one certain man, it is somewhat that M. Sand. saith, but If, ten thousand times and more, (as every man meanly learned in the Greek tongue doth know) it signifieth not one certain man: then is this a fond difference.

The second, the other speak of a desire to be great, Who so would be great, S. Luke of the effect already present, he that is greater. But the the words of S. Matth. 18. ver. 4. overthrow this difference, with the former: for there 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the greatest, is taken for any one that shall humble himself, as a Child, and not for one made primate of the Church.

The third difference is, that the letter speak of him that would be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 great. S. Luke of him that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 greater, by which is mente the greatest of all after the Greek phrase. But that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the others signifieth the greatest according to the Hebrew phrase, it is manifest by the word used by both, which call him also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the first or chiefest of all. Therefore these three differences are not worth three chippes.

The fourth, S. Matthew calleth him that would be great 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a servant. S. Luke giveth no name of service to him that is greater, but he is willed to be yoūger or underling. Yet S. Luke in another place. Cap. 9. verse. 48. calleth him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the least which shall be the greatest. But what fond quarrelling is this? Doth not the Pope call himself servant of the servants of God by which he acknowledgeth that the greatest service belongeth to him that claimeth the greatest dignity. though indeed, he yield no service, but usurpeth all tyranny. Is M. Sander now ashamed of that service: that the Pope by solemn title hath so longe professed? As for a preeminence of order, we deny not but it was among the Apostles, & must be in every several company: although it be not necessary, that it should be perpetual in one man, but as every Church shall ordain: but a primacy of authority over all the Church, we utterly deny that ever it was granted to Peeter or any man by our Savior Christ. M. Sand. citeth Ambrose in Luke 22. to prove it Qui lapsus es &c.

The fifth difference, is that the other Evangelists say absolutely 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 ministereth. If this be a good argument, to prove that the ministry is more truly a greatness then a ministry: the Arians may deny by the like, that Christ is more truly a man then the son of God: because Saint John saith: we saw his glory as the glory of the only begotten son of God: O beastly absurdity: and yet he saith: if any man say, that there was not one certain man greater among the Apostles, who might be as the younger, it is plain contradiction to Christ and he is Antichrist. But where on God's name saith Christ, that there is one certain man greater among the Apostles?

The last & the least difference is,

He citeth Ambrose to prove, that there is a prelacy or preferrement in the church, because he forbiddeth contention thereabout, as though there could not be a prelacy or preferremēt of every Bishop over his church but there must be one Bishop over all the church. The like he allegeth out of Bede, which speaketh expressly of all the teachers of the church, & not of one Pope over all. The conclusion of his disputation is, that the ecclesiastical primacy doth in all points resemble (as much as it possible may) the primacy of Christ, & therefore he that denieth the primacy among the Apostles to be a true primacy in his kind is blasphemous against Christ him self. Nay rather, he that communicateth with any man, that which is peculiar to our Savior Christ, that he only should, be as S. Paul speaketh of him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 himself the primate in all things Col. 1. 18. which is y ^e head of his body, which is, the church is found a manifest blasphemer of our Savior 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 Savior Christ is no question at all. But that any hath such greatness in authority, as our Savior Christ hath cuer his whole Church, is the thing we deny. If Gregory affirm that Peter by God's commission had the primacy of the holy church, and was grown in power above the rest: it is no marvel, seeing he was so nere to the open manifestation of Antichrist, which succeeded him the next save one: whose tyranny began to increase longe before Gregory's time: yet was he in his pretended primacy more modest, then any that followed him to this day: Vtterly refusing and condemning as profane, proud & blasphemous against Christ, the title of universal Bishoppe: which John of Constantinople did usurp, and other Bishops would have given to him.

And whereas M. Sander frameth an objection of our part, that no man can be both a minister & a governor: therefore no ecclesiastical minister can be a governor, he playeth with his own shadow. For we deny not but a minister of the church which is a servant, is also a governor. But we affirm that his government is spiritual, not worldly: unlike to the earthly government of this world, even as the kingdom of Christ is not of this world. But it followeth not, because that every Bishop & shepherd is a governor:

But M. Sander maketh another objection for us, on this manner. The Princes of the Gentiles, do also serve their subjects in conseruing peace, keeping out their enemies &c. but the clergy must be altogether unlike to temporal governors: therefore there must be no primacy or government among them, although it be joined with service. Once again I say, we make no such objection, but we answer the Anabaptists that so object, that the government of the clergy, as it differeth in matter which is spiritual, so also it differeth in form & manner from the regiment temporal, w ^c is with outward pomp of glory & with the material sword: & this with all humility & with the sword of the spirit. Contrariwise M. Sander answereth this obiectiō so as he both strengtheneth the hands of the Anabaptists, & showeth him self little to differ from their opinion. First therefore he saith that Christ forbiddeth his Apostles and Bishops such a dominion, as is used among the Princes of the earth, not altogether such as ought to be among them. But that he speaketh not of tyrannical dominion, it appeareth by the title of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 benefactors, which their subjects did give them, for their bountifulness towards them in preserving them from enemies, in peace and wealth. Secondly he saith, that although the King be never 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 serve God's eternal purpose, & they are commanded to be obeyed, yet the making of Kings over God's own people at the first came not of God by way of his merciful election, but by way of his angry permission. What Anabaptist could speak more heretically or seditiously against the lawful authority of Kings & Princes? But let us see his reason. Nemrod he saith, was the first King we read of: which either by force usurped, or was advanced by evil men. I answer: if Nemrod was the first that usurped authority as a tyrant: yet was he not the first that exercised Kingly authority lawfully nether was he ruler over God's people. But what will h • ouy of Melchizedek, 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 have had that dignity, if it had not been of it self both lawful and godly? Secondly he saith God was angry with his people for asking a King, when they had a Priest to rule them. I answer, he was not angry for their asking of a King, but for refusing of a Prince ordained by him, which was Samuel a Levite in deed, of the family of Cohath, but no Priest of the family of Aaron. For in his days were high Priests, Eli, Achitob, Achimelech. But after the days of Eli, which was both high Priest and Judge. Samuel was ordained Prince or Judge of the people, having authority above Achitob or Achimelech the high Priests in his time, which were sufficient to decide the controversy of the supremacy, if M. Sander, would give place to the Scriptures. But who can discharge him of Anabaptistry, where he deny eth the making of a King to be God's institution, affirming it to be, the fact and consent of men allowed in deed by God, when the Apostle expressly saith, it is God's ordinance Rom. 13? And where he saith that Abel, Noah, Abraham, were directly from God chosen to be Priests as Aaron, he saith most untruly, for they had in their family, the principality of civil government as directly, as they had the Priesthoode. But neither of both in such sort, 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 ordained of God Gen. 23. 6. He setteth forth the excellency of Priests by their authority in making Christ's body, with their holy mouth, as Jerome speaketh. But that proveth not the supremacy of one Priest above all men, nor of one Priest above another. As for the ordaining of Peter to be general shepherd, and high Bishoppe of the whole flock, by commanding him to feed his sheep: when he can conclude it out of that Scripture, in any lawful form of argument, we will yield unto it. But this is intolerable impudency, that pretending to show howe much the Pope is more excellent then any king, he asketh to what Christian king did Christ ever say? As my father sent me I send thee. as though Christ had ever said so to Peter in singular, and not to all his Apostles in general. As my father sent me, so I send you. John. 20. Concerning the rock that he would build his Church upon, and the feeding of Christ's sheep, and lambes: we shall have more proper place to examine afterward, what supremacy they give to the Pope or to Peter ether. His farther raving against the dignity of kings, who list to see, let him turn to the 57. page of his book, cap. 2. And yet I cannot omit that he saith, that the pomp of a king is most contrary of all other degrees to the profession of Christian faith: and maketh worldly pomp as unmeet for a king as for a Bishop. But the Scripture (he saith) never calleth any king head of the Church, nether do we call any Kinge head of the Church, but only Christ: but in every particular Church, the Scripture alloweth the king to be the chief Magistrate, not only in governing the common wealth, but also in making godly laws for the furtherance of religion, having all sortes of men as well Ecclesiastical as civil, subject unto him, to be governed by him, and punished also, not only for civil offenses, but also for heresy, and neglect of their duties in matters pertaining to the religion of God. For although many civil Magistrates at the first, were enemies of the Gospel: yet was it prophesied, that kings should be nursing fathers and Queens nursing mothers unto the Church. Es. 49. Again it is an impudent and gross lie, when he saith that God was angry because the government of the high Priest was rejected, & a kingly government called for. For they rejected not y ^e government of the high Priest, but of Samuel y ^e Judge: who was no high Priest, although he was a Prophet, nether was there ever any high Priest Judge but only Eli.

But if all supremacy be forbid • n over the whole Church militant (saith M. Sander) it is forbidden likewise, that there should be any superior in any one part of the Church. And this he proveth by a jolly rule of Logic. For the partes (according to their degree) are of the same nature whereof the whole is. O subtle reason by which I will likewise conclude, there may not be one schoolmaster for all the children of the world: therefore there may not be one schoolmaster for one town in all the world. There cannot be one Phisicion for all the world: therefore there may not be a Phisicion for every city: yea there cannot be one Priest for all the Churches in the world: therefore there may not be a Priest in every parish. Again he reasoneth thus: If a king be supreme head over his own Christian Realm. it must be by that power which he ether had before his christianity or beside it. For by his christianity it is not possible, that he should have greater power then the Apostles had. I answer: the kings supremacy is perfectly distinct from any power the Apostles had. For although he have authority over Ecclesiastical persons, and in causes Ecclesiastical, according to God's word: yet is he no Ecclesiastical officer, but a civil Magistrate, having chief authority in all causes, not absolute to do what he will, but only what God commandeth him: namely to provide by laws, that God may be truly worshipped, and all offenses against his religion may be punished. And whereas M. Sander inferreth, that an Ethnike Prince or Turk may be supreme head of our Church, we utterly deny to any such the name of an head, which cannot be a member, but even an Ethnic Prince or a Turk may be chief Magistrate over the faithful, and make laws for the maintenance of Christian religion, as an hypocrite Christian may. They are also to be obeyed in all things that are not contrary to God. Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, Cyrus, Artaxerxes, which were heathen Princes, made godly laws for the true worship of God & furtherance of his people: as in the prophecy of Daniel, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, it is manifest. S, Paul 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 Emperor. And this notwithstanding, the Church is always under the sovereign authority of Christ, and the spiritual government of her several pastors and teachers, when Christ ascending into heaven, ordained for her edification and unity, and not one Pope over all. Eph. 4. 13.

But now he will enter one degree farther, and suppose, that a king may be as good as it is possible for any mortal man to be, or as any Bishop and Priest is, yet he can nether baptize, consecrate, forgive sins, praise, excommunicate, bless, nor be Judge of doctrine by his kingly authority. If he can do none of those: he cannot be supreme governor in all Ecclesiastical causes. I deny this argument. For his supremacy is not to do those things, or any of them, but to provide and command, that they may be doon as they ought to be. But he riseth up again and saith, that whosoever hath sovereign authority, either in civil matters or Ecclesiastical, he may in his own person execute any of those things, which any of his inferiors may do. So he saith, the king if he will, may be Judge in Westminster hall, shrieue and constable, yea he may play the tailor, master Carpenter or tanner. It is marvel he saith not that he may be both a king and subject. Likewise the primate, (he might as well say the Pope) may help a Priest to Mass, carry the cross in procession, dignity a grave, &c. I deny this rule to hold in all things. For there are some things, that the Prince may not do for lack of knowledge, and some things for lack of calling, and yet he may command both to be done. For controversies of law he may not decyde, except he have knowledge of the law, nor minister Phisick, except he have knowledge in physic, yet he may command both Lawyers & Physicians to do according to their knowledge, likewise to preach, baptize, &c. he may not, because he lacketh calling, for none may do those things lawfully, but he that hath a special calling, but he may command those things to be done, & to be well done, according to God's law, whereof he ought not to be ignorant, and for that purpose is especially commanded to study in the book of God's law, that not only in matters concerning his own person, but in matters concerning God's honor, he may cause all men to do their duty. Deut. 17. 18. So did David, Solomon, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, command the Priests to offer up the sacrifices and to do their duty, which it was not lawful for their kings to execute.

And is it so strange a matter, that a popish king may not command his Chaplayne to say Mass, or to say his Mass reverently, and orderly as the laws of popery do require? if he may command over though e matters, which yet he may not do him self, let M. Sander see how his rule holdeth, that whosoever hath authority in any matters, may do all things him self, which any of his inferiors may do, or which he may command to be done, whereupon he concludeth, that the king hath no right or supreme power at all in Ecclesiastical causes, (unless it be committed to him from the Bishop) so that a king if he be a Bishops commissary, may do that by M. Sanders exception, w ^c nether by commandment of God, nor his kingly power he hath authority to do.

Another argument he bringeth as good as this, that the lesser authority doth not comprehend the greater, and therefore M Horne must answer him, whether to preach, baptize, forgive sins &c. be greater or lesser ministry then the kings authority. If it be greater: then it cannot be comprehended in the kings authority, which is lesser. What that reverend father the Bishop of Winchester hath answered, it may be seen in his book against M. Feckenham. But to talk with you M. Sander, what if I grant, that the Ecclesiastical ministry, is not comprehended in the kings authority? will you thereupon infer, that the kings authority is not to command the ministers of the Church in these matters, to do their duties according to the word of God? In deed you conclude so, but your argument is naught. For the king is God's Lieuetenant, to see both the Church and the common wealth to be well ordered. And the same thing may be greater and lesser then another in diverse respects. As in authority of commanding, the king is greater then the Physician: in knowledge & practice of physic, the king is less then the Physician. So in authority of commanding the prince is greater then the minister: but in authority of ministration he is less, and no inconvenience in the world, to the dignity of other estate or calling.

The Bishop of Winchesters examples, M. Sander saith are evil applied. For they only show what was done, and not what ought to have been done: and so for many circumstances are subject to much wrangling. 1. For either he was no good Prince which meddled with disposing of holy matters, 2. or in that deed he was not good. 3. or he did it by commission from a Prophet or an high Priest, 4. or he was deceived by flatterers, 5. or he was enforced by necessity. But all these quarells notwithstanding, the examples of Scripture are so many, and so plain, that M. Sanders •• angling cannot obscure them. David a good Prince, did well in appointing the Levites and Priests to their several offices, and forbidding the Levites to carry the ark and the vessels thereof without any commission from Priest or Prophet, but only by the word of God, not deceived by flatterers, nor enforced by necessity, 1. Chron. 23. 25. Solomon did the like about the temple. He deposed Abiathar the high Priest, & set Zadoc in his room. 1. Reg. 2. 27. & 35. And such are y ^e examples of all the godly kings of Judah. which being commended in the Scripture, are not uncertain, deceitful, or unknown in their circumstances: but much more certain arguments for the authority of Princes in Ecclesiastical matters, then this text w ^c he citeth (Feede my sheep) to forbid them. But here he will ask whether a Christian king be Peters sheep or no? I answer by propriety no but a sheep of Christ's as Peter is. Nevertheless, admit Peter to be a shepherd, and the king to be his sheep, what then? forsooth it is against the law of nature, for a sheep to rule his shepherd. I grant in those things in which the one is shepherd, and the other a sheep. But I ask of him, is not a king also in some respect called in Scripture a shepherd? if he doubt, Esa. 44. 28. and Jer. 23. 4. may resolve him, and is not Peter and Paul in this respect also sheep? If he deny it: let the Apostles speak for them selves: let every soul be subject, &c. Rom. 13. If now I should reason that it is against the law of nature, that the sheep should rule his shepherd: I am sure he would answer with making a diversity of respects. You may then see what a wise argument he hath made, that may be turned back on his own head Wherefore here is no such impossibility as he inferreth, but that a King in some respect of ecclesiastical government may be above his own pastor, as in other respect he is under him.

M. Sander will go forward for all this, & putteth case that a Bishop should come to a Christian King, as Ambrose did Ep. 33. to the Emperor Valentinian offering his body and goods to his pleasure, but the thing which the Emperor unlawfully required, he would not yield unto, what could the Emperor do to him? He could not excommunicate him. And if he imprisoned him or put him to death: he did but as Nero or the Turk might do. Therefore if the King be never so much Christened, he hath no power over the Bishops soul. If it were possible for the Pope to require an unlawful thing: I might put the like case of his holiness. What if a Christian man should come to him &c. he might excommunicate him as Caiaphas did all that confessed Christ: he might imprison him, as Annas did the Apostles: he might command him to be smiten as Pashur did Jeremiah, and Ananias Paul &c. Therefore if he were never so much a Pope, he hath no power over a Christian man's soul. Mark the pith of M. Sand. arguments.

But if Auxentius the Heretike should have come to the Emperor, had the Emperor none authority to call a synod to inquire of his heresy, & he being found an heretic, to have condemned him therefore? In these doings he had done as Constantine about Arius, and Donatus, and not as Nero with Peter and Paul. But Ambrose his authority is cited Ep. 32. Sivel scripturarum seriem &c. If we call to mind ether the process of holy Scriptures, or the ancient times, who can deny, but that in a cause of faith, in a cause I say of faith, Bishops are wont to judge of Emperors, not Emperors of Bishops.

And who saith the contrary, but that in causes of faith, the Emperor is ordinarily to be instructed of the Bishops, and not the Bishops of the Emperor? Or that the Prince hath absolute authority in matters of religion, to do what he will, when we say that in all things he mnst follow the direction of God's word, the knowledge whereof, especially in difficult matters, he is to receive of the Ministers of the Church, as of the Lawyers the knowledge of law, although he be bownd to see justice executed.

But M. Sander will know how a king shall correct or depose a Bishop. I answer, if his crime be apparent, even as Solomon deposed Abiather, if it be doubtful, by order of judgment and trial according, of civil Judges, if it be a civil crime, and Ecclesiastical if it be heresy that he is accused of, if he cannot be condemned upon just trial, he is to be absolved, if this will not satisfy the king, he hath no farther lawful authority by any supremacy, and if he proceed further, he exerciseth tyranny. And Augustine doth justly complain of the importunity of the Donatists, which when the cause had been decyded by certain Bishops, deputed by the Emperor, they would never be satisfied, but still appealed to the Emperor, & accused the Bishops that were appointed their Judges before the earthly king. M. Sander urgeth that word vehemently, that he calleth Constantine an earthly king, and yet he is so blind, that he will not see, that the same earthly king, which assigned those Bishops to be Judges, was still acknowledged of all partes, to be the supreme governor, Ep. 48.

But omittinge the words of men, he will prove the dig nitie of high Priests above faithful Princes, by the authority of God in the old Testament. Levite. 4. Because there God assigneth a sacrifice for the sin of every degree of men, according to their dignity. And first beginneth with the high Priest, next whom is the whole people, third the Prince, and last of all every private man. There is no doubt but the high Priest, as he was an image and figure of Christ, was chief in dignity. Although in other respects he was inferior to the Prince, as Aaron was to Moses, Achitob or Achimelech to Samuel, Abiather and Zadoc to David and Solomon. The like is confessed of every minister of the Gospel, and therefore the authority of Philo and Theodoretus which he useth in this point, might have been spared. And yet may a wicked minister be deposed by a godly Prince. Abiathar in the temple, at the altar, in the holiest place, and sacrificing, was greater then Solomon, yet was he justly deposed by Salomō for his treason.

Master Sander chargeth us to affi • me, that the evil life of a Bishop, taketh away his authority, w ^c he denieth to be so, as long as the Church doth tolerate and permit them in their places, whereupon he concludeth, that though the Bishop of Rome have never so much abused his office, yet he cannot leese his primacye. In deed the abuse of the man, taketh not away the authority of the office, but if the office be perverted from the right use, and degenerated into an heathenish tyranny, as the Bishop of Rome's place hath been many hundredth years, the name of a Bishop only and that scarcely remaining, we justly affirm that such dignity as that sea had by consent of men, it hath clean lost, by abuse of their authority.

Moreover he saith, it hath no coullour of truth, that we affirm the Pope to govern, not as a Pastor, but to bear a sovereignty, as Princes of the world, and that he will show by six differences, which he will consider in order.

First no man succeedeth in that chayer, by right of inheritance. The like I may say of the Germane Emperor, therefore this is no difference.

Secondly it is not obtained by right of battle, invasion or otherwise, but by election. So is the Emperor at this day, only by election. And if Master Sanders be not to impudent, he will not deny, but there hath been bickering and intruding by force, into that chair, and that is worse entering, by symony, murder, treason and devilish sorcery.

The third, nether child, nor woman, nor Infidel, nor Catechumen can be chosen Bishop of Rome. No more can any such be chosen Emperor by the golden bull and law of the election. And yet seeing boys are made Cardinals, which be electours of the Pope, and elegible, there is none impossibility, but a boy may be chosen Pope, as well as a woman hath been Pope, Ione I mean. John the 23. was condemned in the council of Constance for an Infidel, which denied the immortality of the soul.

The fourth, the election of the Bishop of Rome as of all other Bishops, pertaineth only to Ecclesiastical persons, a king may be chosen by the people without the Clergy. To this I say, that the Bishop of Rome was wont to be chosen as well by the people as by the Clergy. And so is the Emperor chosen by as many Bishops as civil Princes, except in case of equality of voices. Nether is the Clergye ever excluded in any lawful election of any king where he is made by election.

The fifth, to omit the Bishop of Rome's temporal dominion, which he confesseth to be but accessory to his Bishoprike, in his Ecclesiastical government, he useth not that force and power which worldly Princes do. He compelleth none, no not y ^e Jews in Rome to baptism. No more doth the Emperor. But what means useth he to depose kings, & absolve their subjects from their oath of obedience, where he judgeth them for heretics, how maketh he wars and setteth all the world in an uproar, to defend his usurped dignity & false doctrine? Doth he not by force compel Christians to his filthy Idolatry, or else cruelly murdereth and tormenteth them?

The 6. the Bishop of Rome (as Bishop) never punisheth them with the material sword, which forsake his Church, No, but as Antichrist and a tyrant he imprisoneth them, hangeth them, drowneth them, burneth them, not as a Bishop saith M. Sander, but as a temporal Prince and Lord, as Moses being one of the Priests of our Lord was also master of civil government. Behold, this deuisor of differences at length maketh him a civil Prince and temporal Lord, from whom he had labored by so many differences to distingush before. But now lest you should espy his impudent conclusion, he draweth into a new controversy, whether Moses were a Priest. And first he will prove that Moses was a Priest, by the Scripture Psal. 98. Where it is said, Moses & Aaron in sacerdotibus eius. If he will not allow the Hebrew word Cohanim to signify Princes, as it doth, in diverse other places, yet saith not the Psalm that Moses and Aaron were both Priests, but that among his Priests they were such as called upon his name, and were heard, and Samuel who follow • th in the same verse, confessed now by Master Sander to be a Levite, forgetting that before he made him high Priest. But farther to prove that Moses was a Priest, he citeth Augustine, Ieronym, Gregor. Naz. Dionys. and Philo, but all to small purpose for his cause.

It must needs be confessed, that Moses as all the Patriarchs before him, in their families, was a Priest, before the distinction of the two offices was made, when Aaron and his posterity only were choosen • to be Priests.

After which time he was no longer a Priest, nether did he anything as a Priest, but as a Prophet, and as a Prince. But admit, he were both a Prince and a Priest, yet he commanded Aaron as a Prince and not as a Priest. For Aaron was high Priest, and therefore could have no Priest above him. By which it is inferred, that the office of a Prince is to command the high Priest, and so was it always practiced by all godly Princes. But Master Sander returning to his last and least difference, affirmeth that the Bishop of Rome never condemneth any man for herefie or schism to corporal death in his own person, nor teacheth that they may be condemned of other Ecclesiastical persons. But who understandeth not this mockery? for as well it may be said, the Kinge never hangeth any man in his own person, therefore none are executed by his authority, as the Pope never condemneth any to death in his own person, therefore he persuadeth not his religion with fire and sword. But will the Pope and the Bishoppe, that are so mylde and gentle, suffer them whom they condemn for heresy to escape their hands, before they have delivered them to death? O cruel and shameless hypocrites.

Neuertheles Master Sander saith, they have power over men's souls by that which our Savior said to Peter. To the I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. &c. which words are deryued to the Bishop of Rome, by means of the chair of S. Peter. A strange kind of derivation never touched in the Scripture, to which words the said Bishop referreth all his power, where as worldly Princes appeal to the law of the Gospel nether in getting, nor governing, nor establishing their dominion and power. Mark well this English Anabaptist. Is not this the law of the Gospel?

There is no power but of God, and the powers that be are ordained of God. Rom. 13. 1. for getting of deminion and power. And is not this the law of the Gospel for their governing? that governors are sent of God for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well. 1. Pet. 2. verse. 14.

And for the establyshing of their dominion, is not this the law of the Gospel, give unto Caesar the things that belong to Caesar. Matthew 22. verse 21. And again, we must be subject of necessity, not only for fear but even for conscience Rom. 13. verse. 5.

As for the Popes piety and lenity, wherewith he ruleth, when all the world seeth how proudely and tyrannical yhe behaveth him self, it were folly to spend many words about it. As for his gentle terms of sons and brethren, wherewith he saluteth Princes, and Bishops, and the servant of the servants of God, which he calleth him self: be simple and short clokes to hide his horrible presumption and tyranny, wherewith he not only most shāefully reuileth most Christian Princes, as it appeareth in that traiterous Bul, which came from him against our moste gracious sovereign Lady, but also taketh upon him to depose them from their estate royal, usurping to himself the name of holiness, of head of the Church &c. of Christ, of God him self, and calleth Princes his vassalles. &c. of which blasphemies his Cannon Laws are stuffed full. And therefore it is too far in the day, for M. Sander to make us think there is no difference between white and black, Pride and Humility, Gentlenesse and Crueltie, Holynesse and hypocrisy, faith and falsehood, vice and virtue.

The third Chapter.

TO contend about the diversity of senses, it were to take up a new controversy. I admit that which Master Sander confesseth, the lyter all sense only to be of force to convince the adversary. And the literal sense not to be always according to the gramatical sound of the words, but according to the moste plain meaning of the speaker. As when Christ saith to Peter, • o thee I will give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, he meaneth not material Keys of Yron, but authority in the Kingdom of Heaven, as Keys are delivered by the Master to his Stuard, but not as keys of a city are delivered, which betoken the giving of possession of that City to be governed by him which receiveth the Keys (as Master Sander saith) For that was no part of Christ's meaning, to resign the government of his Church to Peter, for such giving of Keys is of the subjects to their Superior, but to make him one of the Stuardes of his great house, to open and shut, according to his apoyntment. Otherwise, only Christ hath the key of David, which openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and no man openeth Apocalypse 3. verse 7.

Likewise when he saith: Thou art Peter, I confess and agree with Master Sander, that the lyterall sense is not, thou art a natural stone, but thou art that toward my Church, which a stone is toward the house that is built upon that stone. But so that Peter is not the only foundation, nor the Corner stone, which is only Christ, but one of the twelve stones of the foundation, as it may more plainly appear in the Apocalypse the 21. Chapter and the 14. verse.

Furthermore I confess, that whatsoever by necessary conclusion may be gathered, of any true literal sense, is of equal authority in the word of God, with that w ^c is expressed in plain words. As the consubstantialitie of Christ with God the Father, the blessed trinity, and such like, But whereas M. Sand. ioygneth to these, not only the perpetual virginity of the virgins Mary, which is not certainly, though probably to be gathered, but also transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the Mass, and Purgatory, against which the sense of the scripture is manifest, I will not admit them for examples.

But to come to his purpose, he findeth in the ancient Fathers, four diverse senses of these words (upon this Rock I will build my Church) whereof three he rejecteth, as imperfect which have ancient writers, as he confesseth for their Authors, the last he hath no ancient writer to defend.

The first, that Christ is that Rock on whom the Church is built, which Augustine holdeth.

The second, that every Disciple of Christ is the rock, which is Origen's opinion.

The third, that Peters faith or confeffion is the rock, which is Chrysostom's judgment.

The fourth, which is his own, and therefore he calleth it the perfect sense, is, that Peter concerning his office in God's Church, through the promise of Christ which is past, and the faithful confession of his Godhead, which is presently made, and the power of feeding his Sheep, which then was to come, is this Rock upon which the Church is builte. Here I wish the reader to note, that the Papist rejecteth three senses of three several ancient writers, and maketh the fourth him self, that you may see, with what equity they exclaim against us, if upon never so good ground, we depart from the interpretation of the ancient Fathers. But now let us see what reasons he hath to confute these three Doctors oppinions as insufficient interpretations.

Firste he saith, If Augustine's sense were true, all the three other should be void, In deed his own sense, understanding Peter to be a singular Rock, more then the other Apostles is made void thereby, as it is false. But the other two may stand very well well with Augustine's meaning, for he meaneth not Christ barely, but Christ whom Peter and every true Disciple of Faith confesseth, to be the rock of the Church, Neither doth the word thou, hinder this sense. Seeing Augustine understandeth Peter to be a denominatiue a Petra, of the stone, nor the word, I will build, for notwithstanding he had begunn to build his Church before, yet he would build still, and that more magnificall then before.

The sense of Origin he rejecteth, as not literal upon which I will not stand.

The sense of Chrysostom he refuseth, saying, the Faith of Peter is not the only Rock, whereupon the Church shall be built, for then it had been buylte upon the Faith of John Baptist before this time. A pythy argument, as though there is anymore then one Faith Ephesians 4. verse 5. which is the same in Peter and in John, and in all the other Apostles, the same I say in kind, not in number. Neither did Chrysostom mean, that the singular Faith of Peter were the Rock of the Church, but the same one Faith and confession embraced of every member thereof.

That he saith I will build, whereas he had already begun to build, and did then presently build, What inconvenience is it but in a quarrellers mind. He speaketh of the Future tenses, to signify the great amplyfication of his Church which he would make by the preaching of the Apostles.

But of all senses Master Saunder lyketh his own best, asperfect and containing all the other therein. For first saith he, if Peter be the Rock, then Christ that made him is much more, as the geeuer and author of his power. But I deny that Christ did give the same that he is himself, that is, to be the only singular founda • ion, Rock, and corner stone of his Church.

Secondly he saith, if Peter in respect of his confession be a Rock, then his confession is a Rock. But then say I, they that make the same confession are as much a Rock as he.

Thirdely he saith, if Peter being captain Disciple of all that ever were, be a Rock, then all other Disciples that are contained in him as in y ^e chief, may also be this Rock. Who had thought Peter had been such an universal thing to contain all disciples in him? Doth not this contain manifest blasphemy? to make all Disciples contained in Peter, which are contained only in Christ, as the members in their mystirall body, whereof he, only is chief head, Sovereign, Captain, or what other name of superiority can be devised.

But now that he hath made such a monstrous iumbling of three opinions in one, he is not ashamed to charge Master Jewel, for leaving the moste literal sense, and mingling three, opinions of these four in one, as though his sense which is farthest of from the meaning of Christ, were the only or moste literal sense. But seeing he wisheth Master Jewel or any of us to discuss the meaning of Christ particularly with all circumstances, for my parte considering all circumstances, I think the most simple and plain meaning of Christ is, that Peter it a Rock or stone, upon which the Church is builded, but none otherwise, then everyone of the Apostles is, Ephe, 2. and 20. verse, and in the Apocalypse the 21. chapter and 14. verse. Of which M. Sander also confesseth everyone to be a Rock in his kind.

But now let us see the five circumstances, by which Master Saunder will prove Peter for to be such a Rock, as none of all the rest of the Apostles is but he.

The first, Christ promised Simon before he confessed, that he should be called Peter, which was the first cause of being the Rock John I. Admit this to be a promise, & not an imposition of a name, in respect of the gifts of fortitude & constancy where with he would endue him, this proveth him not to be a singular rock.

The second, he was named Peter before he confessed, which was the performaunce of the promise. Mark. 3. I dout not but that he had confessed Christ before he was made an Apostle, although he had not made that solemn confession expressed in Matthew 16. Wherefore this circumstance is a frivolous argument. And his brother Andrew which first brought him to Christ, confessed Jesus to be the Messias before Peter was come to Christ.

The third, 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 rock, whereupon he would build his church, which was the reward of his confession.

But all the Apostles made the same confession, therefore the same reward was given to all, that they should everyone be a rock or stone, on which the church should be built.

The fourth, Christ prayed that Peters faith might not fail, which was the warrant of the perpetuity of his strong confession Luc. 22. Christ prayed for all his Apostles John. 17. the special prayer for Peter, was in respect of his greater weakness, when he was left to him self.

The last, to show what strength Peter should give, to his brethren after his conversion, Christ bad him feed his lambes, whereby he was made such a rock, whereby he should stay up his church, by teaching & ruling y ^e faithful, as whose voice the sheep should be bound to hear in pain of damnation. First I answer, that the strength or confirmation which he should give to his brethren, was not all one, with his feeding of the lambes, but was used to the strengthening of his weak brethren, the rest of the Apostles whom after his marvelous conversion, he did mightily confirm, though in his fall he was shown to be the weakest of all. Then I say, the feeding of the sheep of Christ, was committed to him with the rest of the Apostles, in which he had no prerogative of authority given, but an earnest charge, to show his greater love, by greater diligence in his office. So that hitherto Peter is none otherwise a rock, then everyone of the Apostles is.

The fourth Chapter.

FIrst it is to be remembered, that M. Samder in the chapter before, rejecting the interpretatiō of three of the greatest Doctors of the church, Origen, Augustine, and Chrysostom, not only is bound in equity, to give us the same liberty which he taketh him self, but also to confess, that these three principal doctors, following other senses, then his, were ignorant of that which he & all other Papists, make to be the chief article of Christian faith, namely of the supremacy of Peter, when they acknowledged not Peter to be the rock whereupon Christ would build his church, and therefore would never have subscribed to his book, which he instituteth the rock of the church. But now to the argument of this chapter. Chrysostomis cited to prove, that, where Christ saith to Peter, thou art Simon the son of Jonah, thou shalt be called Cepha, which is by intepretation Peter, a new name is promised to Simon, in John. Hom. 18. Honorifice &c. Christ doth forespeake honorably of him. For the certain foretelling of things to come, is the work only of the immortal God. It is to be noted, that Christ did not foretell at this first meeting all things which should come to pass afterward to him. For he did not call him Peter, neither did he say, upon this rock will I build my church. But he said, thou shalt be called Cephas. For that was both of more power, and also of more authority. There is nothing in this sentence, but that we may willingly admit, Peter was not yet instructed that he might be one of the twelve foundations of the church, as he was afterward. And that Chrysostom judged no singular thing to be granted, by that saying of Christ Mat. 16. to Peter, appeareth, by his words in Euang. Ioann. Praef. Where he applieth the same to John.

But he reasoneth substantially, when he saith thou only art the rock, because thou alone hadst this name &c. promised, thou alone hadst it given, thou alone didst confess me & to thee alone I say thou art Peter. As though a man may not have a name, whose signification is common to many. Solomon alone was promised to be called and was called Jedediah, that is the beloved of God, shall we therefore reason that Solomon only was beloved of God, as for that he only confessed, I have shown before, that it is false, for Christ saying, thou art Peter, meaneth not to say thou only art a rock, but thou well aunswerest thy name, which signifieth a rock or stone, and I will in deed use thee as a rock or stone, to build my church upon, yet not meaning the person, but the office and doctrine of his Apostleship.

But now hath M. Sander no less then 21. reasons, to prove that Peter is the rock, here spoken of, w ^c although they may for the most parte be easily avoided, yet I will grant that Peter is one of the twelve stones, whereupon the church is built, but not the only stone.

Therefore his first four 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 saith of him alone, thou art Peter, therefore Simon alone is the rock of the church, let him prove the consequence if he can. The next 5. which prove that these words are to be referred to Peter, although that they be not very strong, yet I grant the words may be aptly referred to Peter, the reasons are 1. upon the pronoun. The 2 the word rock 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 deny, that Christ. (by saying to Peter, Feede my Lambes, feed my sheep) made him the head stone of God's militant Church next unto Christ.

The eleventh, that Peter is shown to be the Rock spoken of, by giving of the Keys, I confess: ebut seeing the keys are given to all the Apostles, this proveth Peter to be none otherwise a Rock, then everyone of them, That John receued the Keys I shown even now out of Chysostome.

The twelfth, that the property of a Rock in constant withstanding of tempests, agreeth with Peter, I grant and so it doth to the rest of the Apostles, for whom Christ prayed as he did for Peter, who also strengthened and confirmed their brethren as Peter did.

The 13. I confess that hell gates shall not prevail against the Church, nor against any member thereof, which is a small reason to make Peter supreme head thereof.

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

The 15. their reason also when I see them, to derive Peters authority to his successors, I will waighe likewise.

The 16. the practice of 1500. years I deny.

The 17. I deny that all general councils, or any general council for 600. years after Christ, acknowledged Peter to be the rock in that sense, the Papists do now.

The 18. if the confession of Peter be the rock, yet it is none inconvenience, that the church should be built theron, which began to be built on the same confession offered by John the Baptist.

The 19. though you confound the diverse senses given by the fathers in your fourth sense, yet that proveth not your sense to be true.

The 20. seeing the Apostles are certain foundations and rocks upon which the church is built, I confess that Peter must needs be one, but that he was the most principal rock in respect of his name Peter, which is a stone, I say it followeth no more then that Solomon was best of all men beloved of God, because of that name Jedediah, which signifieth beloved of God.

The 21. that all the Protestants do not agree in the interpretation of these words (upon this rock I will build my church) it proveth not your exposition, to be true, for neither do all the old Doctors, nor yet the new Papists agree in one, & the same interpretation of this text. And oftentimes it may invincibly be proved, that an heresy hath no ground out of such a text of Scripture, although the true and natural sense thereof cannot be found at all.

The fifth Chapter.

THat Peter was a rock or stone, upon which the church was built, is granted of us, but that he alone was a rock for the whole church to be built vpō, we deny, and M. Jewel rightly affirmeth, that the old Catholic fathers have written and pronounced not any mortal man as Peter was, but Christ him self the son of God, to be this rock, whereon y ^t whole church is built. But M. Sander will prove (if he can) out of the old writers, that not only Christ is the chief rock, but Peter also is another rock, so that the church by his doctrine, is built upon two rocks, and this he will show, 1. by their words, 2. their reasons, 3. & by the same places which M. Jewel allegeth for the contrary opiniō.

The decretal epistles of Anacletus, Pius, Fabianus, &c. which in his own conscience he knoweth to be forged, he omitteth, and beginneth with Tertullian De praescrip. adverse. haeres. Latuit aliquid Petrum aedisicādae ecclesiae Petram dictum? Was anything hid from Peter which was called a rock of the church which was to be built? This is granted that he was a rock or stone, whereon the church is built, and the same Tertullian in his book de pudicitia saith, of this whole text, that this was conferred to Peter Personally, and pertaineth to none other, but such as he was, namely an Apostle or Prophet.

But Hippolytus saith: Princeps Petrus, fideipetra. Peter is chief, a rock of faith. He meaneth a strong preacher of faith not a rock whereon faith is built.

Origen's in Exod. Ho. 5. calleth S. Peter Magnum illud &c. That great foundation and most sound rock, whereupon Christ hath built his church.

Next he citeth Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 3. & lib. 4. Ep. 9 which saith that the church was built upon Peter. Which we confess as upon one of the foundation stones, but the same Cyprian De simplicitate praelatorum saith.

Consequently he citeth Hilary lib 6. de trinit. Petrus &c. Peter lieth under the building of the church and in ca. Math. 16. O in nuncupatione &c. O happy foundation of the church in having the new name pronounced, and ô rock worthy of the building of that church, which should dissolve the laws of hell.

S. Ambrose hath the next place, whom he citeth Scr. 66. Si ergo &c. If Peter then be a rock upon which the church is built, he doth well to heal first the feet, that even as he doth contain the foundation of faith in the church, so in the man he may confirm the foundation of his members.

S. Basil is alleged in Conc • de paenit. Petrus petra est &c. Peter is a rock through Christ the rock. For Jesus giveth his own dignities, he is a rock and maketh a rock. This proveth not Peter to be the only rock of the militant church, as M. Sander would make him.

After him he citeth Jerome in 16. Math. AEdificabo ecclesiam mean super te, I will build my church upon thee. Behold saith M. Sander the church promised to be built upon a mortal man. If he say true, Christ saith in vain that flesh and blood made him not Peter.

The place of Cyrillus which followeth, I have set down, and answered iu the chapter before.

After him Theodoretus allegeth Psellus. In Petro &c. In Peter the prince of the Apostles, our Lord in the Gospel's hath promised that he will build his Church. Damasc • n and Euthymius later writers are alleged to the like effect, all which prove nothing but that Peter is a rock, which we confess as everyone of the Apostles is.

Thē followeth Augustine in his retractations, which leaveth it to the choice of the reader, whether he will understand Peter figuring the person of the Church, to be the rock spoken of by Christ, or Christ whō he confessed. But that Peter as Bishop of Rome, should be the rock he saith nothing. Again leaving it to the readers choice, he showeth he had no such persuasion of the rock 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 rock, which we grant without controversy.

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

Petrus Apostolus est petra & crepido Ecclesiae. Peter the Apostle is a rock and a shore of the Church, which M. Sander translateth the top of the Church. In deed the legats of the Bishop of Rome uttered such words, which may be well understood as all the rest of the fathers, that Peter was one of the twelve foundations of the Church. But that the council acknowledged not the Bishop of Rome to have such authority as is pretended, appeareth by the 16. action of the Chalcedon council, where notwithstanding the B. of Rome's Legates reclaimed, & Leo him self refused to consent, yet by the whole council it was determined that the Archbishop of Constantinople should have equal authority with the Archbishop of Rome in the East, only the title of priority or senioritie reserved to the Bishop of Rome.

To conclude, M, Jewel said truly, for all M. Sanders vain & childishinsulting & impudent railing, y ^t no mor tall mā, but Christ only is the rock & foundation of the Church, albeit that Peter & all the Apostles in respect of their office, & doctrine, were foundation stones whereon the Church was built, Jesus Christ being the corner stone and only one general foundation.

The sixth chapter.

THat he was a stone or rock, whereon the Church is built, hath been often granted, but that he only was such a stone is still denied. First Basil aduersus Euno. lib. 2. is cited, with his reason Petrus &c. Peter received the building of the Church upon him self, for the excellencye of his faith. I answer, so did the other Apostles for the excellencye of their faith, for continuance whereof, Christ prayed as well as for Peters faith. John. 17.

The 2. Hilary de trinit. lib. 6. saith Supereminentem &c. Peter by confession of his blessed faith, deserved an exceeding glory.

The 3. Cyprian ad Iubaianum: Ecclesia quae est vna &c. The Church which is one, is founded by our Lord's voice, upon one which hath received the keys of it. This reason (saith he) can bear but one such rock, for if there were more rocks at once, there should be more churches

The 4. Augustine Hom. de pastoribus, Dominus &c. Our Lord hath commended unity in Peter him self: there were many Apostles, and it is say d • to one, feed my sheep. Here he will have Peter to represent Christ, the only good shepherd: although the words import no such thing, but only a mystery of unity, which is but friuolously gathered by the author of that book, or homely, untruly ascubed to S. Augustine: where yet he will not have Peter to be the head, but to bear a figure of the body of Christ, which is the Church. Whereupon his words follow soon after.

The 5. reason is uttered by Jerome aduersus Iouinianum lib. 1. answering the objection of Jovinian, and intending to prove that John the virgins was as excellent as Peter the married man. At dicis, &c. But thou sayst, the Church is built upon Peter: Albeit the self same thing in another place, be done upon all the Aposiles, & all do receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church be grounded equally upon them, yet therefore one is chosen among twelve, that a head being made, the occasion of schism may be taken away. Here he would have three things to be noted. First that the Church is so built upon Peter the rock, that in the same place where it is built upon Peter, the like is not done upon the other Apostles. But seeing he him self before urged the future tense, I will build, this collection is false. Christ promiseth that he will build his Church upon Peter, but when he buildeth, he useth all the Apostles as well as Peter.

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

Thirdly that one is chosen head to avoid schism.

But if all be equal, he as keth how one may be head? I answer, even as the foreman of the Jury in some respects is chief, and yet they are all equal. But he answereth they are equal in authority, as Apostles, but not as Bishops. But seeing the office of every Apostle is above the office of every Bishop, it will follow, that every Apostle as Apostle, is above Peter as Bishop of Rome, which were a perilous matter for Master Sander to admit. Howbeit concerning this distinction of his, more is to be said in a more proper place. In the mean time, he urgeth, that Peter was chosen of Christ to be head, to avoid strife and schism, which reason seeing it holdeth always, there ought always one head to be chosen, to be a head and perpetual rock, by succession. I answer the reason of avoiding schisms, may gain so much, that in every Church, such as the first of the Apostles was, such an head for such purpose may be chosen, but it will not enforce one head being a mortal man, over all the Church, which no one man can keep in unity, and how convenient the headship of the Romish Church is to avoid schisms, let so many schisms as have been made even for the attaining of the same headship, bear witness. Whereof one continued 39 years.

As for Leo Bishop of Rome, it is well known, he was too much addicte to maintain the dignity of his Sea, and yet he was far from the tyranny which the later bishops usurped and practiced under pretence of Peters supremacy. His words ate cited in Ann. ass. ser. 3. Super hoc Saxum &c. Vppon this stone, this soundness and strength, I will build an everlasting temple, and the hight of my Church, which is to reach to Heaven, shall rise in the strength of this Rock. A great extolling of Peter, usual to the Bishops of Rome, but yet no more is said of him then may be truly faide upon everyone of the Apostles.

The 6. reason is uttered by Augustine. Ep. 165. Petro totins ecclesiae figuram. &c. Our Lord said to Peter bearing the figure of the whole Church. upon this rock I will build my church. And again in John Tr. 124. Ecclesiae &c. Peter the Apostle by a generality that was figured, did bear the person of the Church, by reason of the primacy of his Apostleship. Here he maketh much ado about his primacy, by reason whereof he beareth the figure of all the Church, willing to infer that because he was primate of the Apostles, and in respect of his primacy represented the whole Church, therefore he was sovereign ruler and general officer of the whole militant Church. But it followeth not, that everyone which is made an atturney or Proxei to receive a thing for a whole comminaltie, is thereby made general ruler of all that comminaltie.

The Papists them selves in the Council of Basel discharge us of this conclusion, where they agree to the sentence of John Patriarch of Antiochia which citeth Augustine to witness that Peter received the Keys as minister of the Church.

By this sentence it is plain, that Christ after Augustine's mind, preferred not Peter in power before all the rest, but to receive equal power with the rest, he made him as it were the Attornye of the rest. So that all these reasons duly considered, the sayings of the Doctors which affirm Peter to be a rock or stone, on which the Church is built, do not prove that he was an only foundation of the whole Church, but with the rest of the apostles, he was one and the first of the twelve stones, whereon the Church was founded, and that in respect of his office and doctrine, not of his person, as he wasa mortal man.

The seventh Chapter.

But M. Sander reasoning like a learned Clarke, findeth fault with M. Jewels argument, comparing it to this: There cometh eloquence from a man but he is not eloquent: Peters confession is the Rock, therefore Peter is not the Rock. Would a man think that a Doctor in Diuitie, should either be so ignorant in the Art of reasoning, or so impudent in perverting a good reason, that a very Child might reprove, either the one or the other? I appeal to Logicians, whether this reason of M. Jewels: The Rock cometh from Peter by confession, Ergo, Peter is not the Rock: be like this argument Eloquence cometh from Cicero, therefore Cicero is not Eloquence, and not as M. Sand. inferreth: Ergo, Cicero is not Eloquent. But he hath another Example. A man's Oration is eloquent. therefore the man him self is eloquent: So Peters conf • ssion is the Rock, therefore Peter h •• self is the Rock. I deny the resemblance, for there is resembled the Adjective in the one, and the substantive in the other. But thus he should compare them, Tuilyes defense of Mylo is an eloquent oration: therefore Tully is an eloquent Oration, which reasoning is no more absurd, then this of M. Sand. Peters confession is the Rock, therefore Peter is the Rock. Contrarywise you may reason: Peters confession was the Rock, therefore Peter was Rockey or stony.

The seconde authority is Hilary. Haec vna est &c.

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

S. Augustine again addeth in Christ's person.

The 6. is Origines in 4. sentence in 16. Mat.

The eight chapter.

THe conclusion consisteth of 7. poynctes. In the first he repeateth what he would have men think, 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 continuance of the building promised, there must be always some mortal man, which being made the same Rock by election, and afterward by revelation, should make the same confession, whensoever he is demanded, or consulted in matters of Religion. If this were true there were no necessity of the holy Scriptures, neither yet of Synods and Councelles, if one Pope were abe to resolve all the demands moved by all men of the world.

In the third he saith, if there must be some such one Rock, it is not possible it should be any other but the Bishop of Rome: First, because he alone hath been the first and chief in all assemblies. Secondly, he only sitteth in Peters Chair. Thirdly, and the consent of the world hath taken him so, ever indeed, but by the adversaries confession above a thousand years. But God be thanked, the Church hath no need of any such Rock, neither is any such taught. Ephe. the fourth, where the order of the building thereof, and of all necessary builders of Faith and doctrine are fully set forth. And the three reasons are all false, in manner and form as they are universally set down, as in their proper places shall be shown.

In the the fourth he glorieth, that he hath chosen to prove that point which of all other is moste hard. That all the Apostles were not the same thing that Peter was. And first he will ask in what Gospel or holy Scripture it is written, that every other Apostle was the same Rock, which Saint Matthew testifieth Saint Peter to have been. I answer, not only by necessary collection out of many places of Scripture, which he him self acknowledgeth to be the literal sense, as well as that which followeth the sound of words, it is proved, but also in plain words of Saint Paul Ephe. the second, verse. 20. Where the Church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ being the head corner stone. And Apo. 21 verse. 14. Where the twelve precious stones, the foundations of the wall of the City, had on them the names of the xii. Apostles of the Lamb.

The 5. is either thus or nothing at all, for it is not noted in him as the other be. If Cyprian or Jerome were alleged for this equallitie, it were sufficient for him to say, they were no Evangelists. For he showeth it written: thou shalt be called Cephas and thou art Peter. You see these men that brag of the Doctors, will be holden by them, as long as they list.

The 6. whereas all holy Scriptures is on the popish Catholics side, he lamenteth the unhappiness of these days, in w ^c men altogether unlearned in them, by the bare naming of God's word, have among Pedlers won their spurs, and among the ignorant have gotten the opinion of knowledge. As truly as none but Pedles and ignorant men embrace this doctrine which we teach, so truly all Scriptures be on M. Sand. side. Among so many Princes, noble men, and excellent learned men as at this day acknowledge this doctrine to be the truth: M. Sanders head was very sleepy, when he could see none, but Pedlers and ignorant persons.

The seventh he will take upon him to show, by what means Saint Peter excelled the other Apostles, and showeth in what order he will proceed, which seeing it is contained word for word in the titles of the seven Chapters next following, I though it needless here to rehearse.

The ninthe Chapter.

THat S. Peter had some excellent gieftes, peradventure more then some of the Apostles, that he had great dignity among the Apostles, may easily be granted, but that he had authority over them, such as the Pope claymeth over all Bishops, is of us utterly denied.

Neitherd oeth any one, nor all together, of M. Samders 34. arguments, prove that he had one jot of authority over his brethren.

1 He was first in order of nombring of the twelve Apostles.

2 He was promised to be called Cephas, before the twelve were chosen.

3. He was named Peter at the time of the choice, ergo he had the Popes authority over them. Who would grant the consequence of these arguments? Let us see what the other be.

4 It was said to him alone, thou art Peter, & upon this rock I will build my Church. I deny that it was said to him alone, for all the Apostles were likewise rocks, upon which he would build his Church. The like I say of the 5. that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were promised to him alone, for everyone of the Apostles received thē as well as he, being or dained with equal power of binding & losing, of remit ing & retaining sins. Mat. 18. 18, John. 20. 23. Notwithstanding the words at one time were spoken to Peter alone, yet did they give him no singular authority.

The 6 Christ paid tribute for Peter, as under head of his family. ergo he was greater then the rest, A fond argument. This Didrachma was paid for every man in the City where he dwelt, & because Peter had a house and a family in the Cytie, Christ paid for him with whom he lodged, and him self. But if you draw it into an allegory. These absurdities will follow.

First, that Christ maketh his Church and splrituall kingdom subject to tribute, yea, to Moses law, by which that kind of tribute was due.

Secondly you devide Christ's church into two householdes, Didrachma was to be paid, for the head or first borne of every house. And you show your ignorance in referring this payment to Num. 3. which was only for the first borne, whereas this was for all men. And for the first borne was dew five siccles, whereof everyone was half an Vnee of Silver at the lease, whereas Didrachma containing but two Drachmaes. whereof everyone was equal with the Roman penny could be but xvj. pence at the moste of our monie.

It is a strong argument, that the payment of trybute which argueth subjection, should make Peter so great a Lord, that he should be out of all subjection, which if Chrysostom had considered, he would not have grounded Peters primacy upon so friuolus an Argument.

The seventh, Christ preached out of Saint Peters Bote, to show that in his Chair, his doctrine should always be steadfastly professed. An Argument to be answered either with laughing or hissing.

The 8. Though all the Apostles were to be sifted, yet Peters Faith alone is prayed for. This is utterly false, for Christ prayed for all his Apostles faith. John. 17. if specially for Peter, it was in respect of his greater danger, and not in respect of his greater dignity.

The 9. Peter first entered into the Sepulcher, ergo he was made pope. He entered for farther confirmation of his Faith concerning Christ's resurrection, this may be imputed to diligence but not to dignity.

10, The Angel saith, Tel his Disciples and Peter, naming him severally because of his shameful fall, he had more need of comfort.

The 11. Ambrese thinketh Peter was the first man that saw him. Nay rather the Souldiors which kept the grave saw him before Peter, & the women also, which would give them dignity above Peter, if first seeing were a matter to argue dignity. or authority of the seer.

The 12. only S. Peter walked on the Sea, that signifieth the world to be his jurisdiction. As he walked by Faith, so by weakness of faith he began to sink. And the Sea that he walked on, was but a lake or mere, & therefore cannot well signify the whole world, beside, the argument is as sure as if it were bound with a straw.

13 S. Peter is shown to have loved Christ more then the rest, and is alone commanded to feed his sheep. He had good cause to love him more, because greater sins were forgiven him, but it is false, that he only was commanded to feed Christ's sheep, for all the Apostles were likewise commanded.

14 It is saido to Peter, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands and follow thou me, by which a particular kind of death on the cross is prophesied. A violent death, but no particular kind of death is shown by these words. And although it were, yet Peter in being Crucifyed, was made no greater then Andrew, who was crucified also, if the stories of both be true,

15 Peter answered always for the Apostles, ergo he was chief. No more then the foreman of the Iewrye, although it is not true, that he always answered for the rest, for sometime Thomas, sometime Philip, sometime Judas answered. John. 14.

16 Peter pronounced, Judas Iscariot deposed. That was by special instinct of the holy Ghoste, and by no ordinary authority.

17 After the sending of the holy Ghost, Peter above all the rest, first taught the faith. Chrysostom and Cyril saith, he did it by the consent of all the rest, who all stood up together with him, although one spake to avoid confusion, when the Apology was made to answer the slanderous scoffers. But before that, they taught everyone a like.

18 The multitude converted, said to Peter and to the other Apostles, but to Peter by name: What shall we do. If this prove anything, it proveth the equallitie of the Apostles, that having heard one man preach they demand not of him alone, but of all the rest with him, what they shall do?

19 Peter made answer for all, that they should repent & be baptized. It was good reason seeing he made the apology for all.

20 Peter did the first miracle after the coming of the holy Ghost and by healing the lames feet shown mystically, that he was the rock to establish the feet of other. I answer, John healed him as much as Peter, by Peters own confession Act. 3. 12. and the lame man's acknowledging the benefit to be received equally from both, in holding Peter and John.

21 Peter confessed Christ first not only before private mē, but at the seat of judgment. Act. 4. It is false that Peter confessed Christ first before private men, and at the seat of judgment, he confesseth equally with John.

22 Peter alone gave sentence with fullness of power upon Ananias and Saphyra. Not by ordinary power, but by special revelation, and direction of the holy Ghost, whatsoever Gregory a partial judge in this case doth gather.

23 Peter was so famous above the rest, that his shadow was sought, to heal the diseased. This was a singular and personal gift, which the Pope hath not, therefore it pertaineth nothing to him.

24 Peter did excommunicate & enjoin penance to Simon Magus the first heretic. Peter denounced God's judgment against him, but not by way of excommunication, & yet the argument is naught, as all the rest are, though the antecedents were granted.

25 Peter was the first that raised a dead body to life, namely Tabitha after Christ's ascētiō. This is neither proved to be true, neither if it were, should Peter thereby have greater authority, then his fellow Apostles which likewise raised the dead and peradventure before Peter, although S. Luke make no mention of them.

26 Peter had first by vision that the Gentiles were called to believe in Christ. This is false for Paul had that in vision before him. Act. 9. &. 26. 17.

27 God chose that the Gentiles should first of all hear the word of the Gospel by Peters mouth, and should belecue. Acts. 15. This is false, for Peter saith not, first of all, but of old time. And the Eunuche of AEthiopia, was baptized by Philippe before Cornclius of Peter.

28 Prayer was made for Peter, by the church, which was not so earnestly made for any other Apostle that we read of. Their earnest prayer for Peter, is set forth to show that God at their prayer delivered Peter, not that Peter was thereby shown to be greater in authority.

29 Paul and Barnabas came to Jerusalem to the Apostles to fitch a solution from Peter. Act. 15. as Theodoret noteth. But S. Luke noteth, that they came to all the Apostes and Elders at Jerusalem, and not to Peter only, nor for his solution, but for the solution of the council.

30 In the council Act. 15. Peter did not only speak first but also gave the determinate sentence. Both the partes of this proposition are false, for Saint Luke testifieth, there was great disputation before Saint Peter spake, also Sayncte James as President of the council, gave the definitive sentence, according to whose words, the synodicall Epistle, was written in the name of all the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem.

31 Saint Paul came to Jerusalem to see Peter as Chrysostom saith because he was primus first or chief? But Saint Paul him self affirmeth in the same place, and diverse other, that he was equal with Peter, and the highest Apostles. Galatians 2. 8. 2. Corinthians 12. 11.

32 Peter was either alone or first & chiefest in the greatest affairs of the church. The greatest affaire of the church was the preaching unto the Gentiles in which Peter was neither alone, nor first, nor chiefest. But Paul chiefest. Gal. 2.

33 Peter was sent to Rome to occupy with his chair the mother church of the Roman province and chief city of the world, and there vanquished Simon Magus the head of heretics. &c. All this is vncerteyne being not found in the Scriptures, but those stories which report it, convinced by Scriptures, to be false in diverse circumstances.

34 Peters chair and succession hath been acknowledged of all ancient fathers &c. Although the see of Rome appointed for the scate of Antichrist, hath of old been very ambitious, yet it is a fable, that hath been acknowledged by all ancient fathers to have the authority, which the Bishops thereof, have claimed. For Irenaeus rebuked Victor, for usurping. All the Bishops of Africa in council, withstood Innocentius, Zozimus, Boniface, and Caebastinus, alleging for their authority a counterfeit decree of the council of Nic • , as we have shown before in the first treatise, the like may be said of the councils of Chalcedon, of Constantinople, the 5. &c. which withstood the Bishoppe of Rome's authority in such cases as he pretended prerogative.

To conclude, neither any one, nor altogether of these 34. reasons, prove Peter to be greater in authority, then the rest of the Apostles, and much less the Bishoppe of Rome to be greater then Bishops of other seats.

The tenth Chapter.

THat the Apostles beside the prerogative of their Apostleshippe, had also the authority to be particular Bishops, which thing their name also did signify in the old time.

ALthough the Apostles had all such authority, as every particular Bishop hath, yet had they not two offices, but one Apostleship. No more then a King although he have all authority that every Constable hath, is thereby both a King and a Constable, but a King only. Neither doth their staying or as he calleth it residence, in some particular city, prove that the Apostles either were or might be Bishops, that is give over their generally charge and take upon them a particular, or still retaining their general charge, to exercise the office of a Bishoppe any longer, then until the church was perfectly gathered, where they remained. For although the holy Ghost distinguished their universal charge into several partes, to avoid confusion, as in making Peter chief Apostle of the circumcision, and Paul of the Gentiles, yet were they not thereby made Bishops. And although the consent of writers is, that James was Bishoppe of Jerusalem, yet following the course of the Scriptures, we must hold that Iamesby decree of the holy Ghost, was appointed to stay there, not as a Bishoppe, but as an Apostle for the conversion of the Jews, which not only out of all Jury, but out of all partes of the world, came thither ordinarily to worship. Of S. Peters sitting at Antioch as Bishoppe, we find nothing in the Scriptures, and less of his removing to Rome. But we find that when Peter came to Antioch, Paul withstood him to his face, and reproved him openly, which he might not well have done, if Peter had been supreme head of the church, & in his own see as M. Sander doth fantasie.

Where he allegeth the text & Episcopatum eius accipiat alter, and let another take his Bishoprike, to prove that Judas and so the Apostles were Bishops, it is too childish & fond an argument, seeing the Greek word, which S. Luke useth & the Hebrew word which the Prophet useth, signifieth generally a charge or office, and not such a particular office of a Bishoppe, as now we speak of.

He citeth farther Theodorete in 3. cap. 1. ad Tim. to prove y ^t the name of an Apostle in the primitive church did signify such a Bishoppe. But howe greatly Theodoret was deceived, appeareth by this, that he citeth for proof Philip. 2. Epaphroditus to be the Apostle of the Philippensians, because S. Paul saith of him Epaphroditus your Apostle, and my helper: whereas he meaneth that he was their messenger, using the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the general signification for a messenger, and not for the name of such an officer as an Apostle or Bishoppe. He nameth also Titus and Timothy which in the Scripture, are never called Apostles, likewise the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem, which were in deed the true Apostles of Christ's immediate sending, and not Bishops ordained by men. And whereas Jerome saith, that all Bishops be successors of the Apostles, he meaneth manifestly in authority, within their several charges, and not that the Apostles were Bishops. Likewise where Augustine saith, that the Bishops were made in steed of the Apostles, it rather proveth that the Apostles, were no Bishops, for then if the Apostles were Bishops, he should say, Bishops were made in steed of Bishops.

The last reason is, that if the office of Bishops had not been distinct in the Apostles, frō their Apostleship, that office would have ceased with the Apostleshippe, for the whole being taken away no parte can remain, except it had another ground to stand in, beside the Apostleshippe, as the Bishoppely power had. In deed if the Apostleshippe had ceased before Bishops had been ordained, Bishoplike power would have ceased with it: but seeing the Apostles ordained Bishops and Elders in every congregation, to continue to the worlds ende, the Bishops office hath not ceased, though the office of the Apostles is expired. Wherefore seeing neither by Scripture, reason, nor Doctors, this distinction of offices in the Apostles, can be proved, when Peter is called head, Prince, chief, first, Capteyne of the Apostles by Cyril, or any ancient writer, we must understand, as Ambrose teacheth a primacy of confession or faith, not of honor or degree de incar. dom cap. 4.

The 11. chapter.

HOw far S. Peter did ether excel or was equal with the Apostles in their Apostolic office. Where in diverse objections are answered, which seem to make against S. Peters supremacy.

BVt that necessity enforceth him, M. Sander thinketh it sin of curiosity to inquire of that equality or inequality of the Apostles, where as it should suffice us to follow the present state of the universal Church practiced in our time. As though the universal Church of any time, did ever acknowledge the Pope to be supreme head, although a great part of the world hath of long time so taken him. He thinketh it out of contronersie, that S. Peter was the first of the Apostles as S. Matthew saith, primus, the first, Simon which is called Peter. And he is not content that he was first in the order of numbering, but he will have him first in dignity, because he is always named first. But that is nether true, nor a good reason if it were true, because he is named first, therefore he is of greatest dignity. But Gal. 2. 9 James and Cephas & John are said to have been pillars of the Church, and yet Paul equal with them. Although if we granted greatest dignity to Peter, yet thereupon did not follow greatest authority. For these three Apostles last named, were of greatest dignity among the Apostles, yet not of greater authority then the rest. And although the ancient fathers of the word primus, have derived the name of primatus, or primacy, yet have they also expressed, wherein this primacy doth consist, namely not in authority but in order, nether doth those names Prince, chief, head, top, guide, mouth, greatest of the Apostles, used by some of them, signify his authority over them, but his dignity amongst them.

But if you ask him wherein Peter was chief? He answereth •••• question is curious. For in y ^e nature & order of the apostleship, every Apostle was equal with all his fellows, & so is every Bishop Priest, King, Duke, Knight with everyone of his degree. If this be as he saith, then was Peter chief, nether as Apostle nor Bishoppe. But there may be another thing (saith he) coincident to some degree of men, not necessary for the being, but for their well being. One therefore was set over the Apostles, for vanities sake, and to avoid schisms as Cyprian & Jerome write in places before cited. This must needs be a primacy of order and not of authority, for among men of equal authority, as he confesseth the Apostles were, one may be chosen as the President or Primate, to avoid confusion, the austerity remaining equal to everyone, but one cannot be preferred in authority to remain still equal with his fellows in authority.

But whereas Optatus lib. 2. de schism. Don. & Leo ad A • astas. Ep. 82. are cited to prove that the same primacy which Peter some time (but yet not always) had among the Apostles, should be retained in succession of his chair to maintain unity among all men, it hath no ground in the holy Scriptures, and yet those good men were far from imagining such an absolute power of Peters successor, as M. Sander defendeth in the Pope, although sometimes he do handle it so nicely, as it might seem to be a thing of nothing, wherein the Pope is above his fellow Bishops, where I said, that Peter had not always the primacy of order among the Apostles, it is proved, both by the 15. of the Acts, where James was President of the council, & Gal. 2. not only where James is named before Peter, but also where Peter abstained and separated him self, after certain came from James, fearing them of the circumcifion, left he should have been evil thought of, as he was before for keeping company with Cornelius. and in diverse other places of the Acts of the Apostles.

But M. Sander will add another truth, to the former doctrine of Peters primacy, namely that seeing the Apostles needed no head, because they were not in danger of error, the head was appointed over them for an example of the Church afterward, when that personal privilege of the Apostles ceased to be in their successors. But how will he prove that the privilege of not erring, hath continued in Peters successors, more then in the successors of all the Apostles. Forsooth because Christ prayed that Peters faith might not fail, that he might confirm his brethren. I have often shown that he prayed for the perseverance of all his Apostles, and the cause of his special prayer for Peter, was proper to Peters person, therefore cannot be drawn to his successors. And what madness is it, to defend that the Pope cannot err? when Pope Honorius was condemned for an heretic both by the 6. Council of Constantinople, and by the decree of Leo 2. Bishop of Rome confirming the same council. Act. 18. Ep. Leon. 2. ad Constant.

But M. Sander concludeth, to answer the argument of the equality of the Apostles, that Paul was equal with Peter in Apostleship: but by the appointment and will of Christ, Peter was head, to show that his Church having one Pastor in it above the rest, is one, as a kingdom one, by having one king in it. Howbeit we find the will of God for the supremacy and headship of Christ, over all his Church, to make it one, in the holy Scriptures, when of Peters headship or supremacy there is never a word And Paul saith, that he was nothing inferior to the highest Apostles, 2. Cor. 2. if nothing absolutely, then was not Peter his superior in any respect.

That Paul reprehended Peter, M. Sander saith, he might do it by equality of his Apostleship. If that be so, why may not every Bishop reprehende the Pope by equality of Bishoprike. If you grant they may, then have you so many Canones against you, as you can never save their authority and abide by your confession. But this fault you say, with Tertullian, was of conversation, not of preaching, that Peter might not seem to have erred in doctrine. Neuertheles it cannot be excused, but Peter also erred in doctrine. Not in the general doctrine of the abolishing of the law, or of Christian liberty, but of bearing too much with the Jews, in prejudice of the Gentiles, whom he compelled to Judaism, & in derogation of the truth of Paul's doctrine, which dissimulation he entered not into, for any wordly respect, but because he was d • ceyued in opinion, thinking that in that case he ought so to have done, before he being reprehended by Paul, saw the inconvenience, and then myldely yielded to the correction. But in this humble submission saith Master Sanders, Peter proved him self to be the head of all the Apostles, seeing Christ had said, he that is greater among you let him be as the lesser. In deed • he shown herein such greatness, as Christ commendeth, but no headeship or authority over his brethren. Cyprian ad Quintum, saith he, did not judge this reproving of Peter, to be an argument against his supremacy, but a witness of his humility, but he giveth us this much to understand, that if he had challenged primacy, he had taken upon him arrogantly, his words are these.

Hereupon he taketh occasion to inueye against the pride of Luther, Zwinglius, Calvin &c. and their bitter dissensions, showing how far they are unlike to the Apostles. It is not to be doubted, that they were many degrees inferior to the virtue and holmes of the Apostles, but yet as well in humility as all other virtues, if they come not nearer to them, then the Pope, and his pompous Clergye, let God and all indifferent men be Judges.

Moreover where as it is objected against the supremacy of Peter, that the Apostles sent him to lay hands upon those whom Philip the Deacon had baptized: he answereth, that proveth no more their equality, then when the Canones of a Cathedral Church do chose their Dean or Bishop, to go about business of the chapter, it proveth the Dean and Bishop to be inferior to the Canons. But by his favor, where the Dean or Bishop are sent about business, it argueth the Bishop and Dean in respect of those business, to be inferior to the whole chapiter, as Peter & John were to the whole College of the Apostles, though the Bishop or Dean in other respects, be superior to the Canons, and Peter and John were equal to everyone of the Apostles.

Wherefore M. Sanders conclusion is upon a false supposition, that Peter had authority to depose the Apostles, if they had fallen as Judas did, therefore the Pope hath the like over Bishops. For nether had Peter any singular authority to depose any of his fellow Apostles, no more then he had to chose one in place of Mathias, nor the Bishop of Rome over other Bishops ever had of right, but by concession, election, or usurpation.

The 12. chapter.

THat S. Peters prerogative above the other Apostles, is most manifestly seen • by his chief Bishoply power. Howe Christ loved Peter above others.

M. Sander fantasying that he hath proved Peter superior to the Apostles, not in their Apostleship, but in his Byshoply degree, doth yet again distinguish the order and office of a Bishop from the authority and jurisdiction of the same. And in order and office he confesseth that all Byshopps of the world, are equal as Jerome saith, ad Euagrium, and Cyprian De vnitate eccles • e, but not in authority. But seeing he rehearseth the testimony of Jerome imperfectly, I will set it down at large, that you may see whether it will bear his distinction.

But now the greatest matter resteth, to prove how S. Peter had more committed to his charge then the rest of the Apostles, and that he taketh on him to prove, by this reason. Peter loved Christ more then all the rest of the Apostles, therefore he gave him greater authority in feeding his sheep, then to the rest, But I deny the argument. For Peter loved Christ more then the rest, because Christ had forgiven him greater sin • es, then to the rest, Luc. 7. 47. In consideration whereof, he required greater diligence in doing his office, but gave him not a greater charge or authority.

Now where M. Sander reasoneth, that Peter loved Christ most, because Christ first loved him most, and Christ loved him most, because he would make him governor of his Church, it is a shameful petition or begging of that which is in question. For the nearest cause of Peters greater love, was the greater mercy which he found, which mercy proceeding from the love of God as the first & infinite cause, can have no higher, superior, or former cause. But Peter in respect of greater love shown to him, in that greater sin was forgiven him, was bound to show greater love toward Christ, which he required to be shown in feeding his sheep, yet this proveth not, that greater authority was given him, or that he did feed more then all men. For S. Paul saith truly of him self, I have labored more then they all, 1. Cor. 15. 10. whereby it appeareth, that Peter as a man, was not equal with Christ in the effect of excellent love, which was in him in comparable. And whereas M. Sander talketh so much of his commission of feeding, I say these words feed my sheep &c. be not words of a new commission, but words of exhortation, that he show exceeding diligence in the commission equally delivered to all the Apostles: As my father hath sent me, so I send you. John. 20 21.

But the ancient fathers expound it so, that it might seem to be a singular commission to Peter. It cannot be denied but diverse of the ancient fathers, otherwise godly and learned, were deceived in opinion of Peters prerogative, which appeareth not in the Scriptures, but was challenged by the Bishops of Rome, which seemed to have a show of some benefit of unity to the Church, so long as the Empire continued at Rome, & the Bishops of that •• ie retained the substance of Catholic religion: yet did they never imagine, that such blasphemous & tyrannical authority, yea such false & heretical doctrine, as afterward was maintained under the pretence of that prerogative, should or ought to have been defended thereby. But let us see what M. Sander can say, out of the aun • ient writers. August in Hom. de past. cap. 13. writeth: Dominus &c. Our Lord hath commended unity in Peter him self. There were many Apostles, and it is said to one, feed my sheep. God forbid there should now lack good pastors, but all good pastors are in one, they are one. This maketh nothing for Peters authority over the rest, but only the author supposeth the unity of all Pastors to be allegorically signified, in that Christ speaketh that to one, which is common to all good sheepeheardes, namely to feed his sheep. And again de sanct hom. 24 In vno Petro &c. The unity of all pastors was figured in one Peter. So might it well be without giving Peter authority over all Pastors. Chrysostom is the next: lib. 2. de sacerdotio. who saith that Christ did ask whether Peter loved him, not to teache us y ^t Peter loved him, but to inform us quanti sibi curae sit gregis huius praefectura. howe great care he taketh of the government of this flock. Here he would have us mark, that Chrysostom calleth it a rule & government of the flock, which Christ intendeth. Yea sir, we see it very well, but you would make us blind, if we could not see, that Chrysostom speaketh not of a general rule, granted to Peter only, but of the government of every Church by every Pastor. And therefore you dance naked in a net, when you allege the words following absolutely, as though they pertained to Peter only. Petrum Christus authoritate praeditum esse voluit, &c. whereas Chrysostom speaking to every Priest, & showing how careful he ought to be in his office, in respect of his high calling & the excellent dignity thereof, saith:

But Arnobius is a less partial witness then Leo a Bishop of Rome, & he upon the Psal. 138. writeth thus. Nullus Apostolorum nomen &c. None of the Apostles received the name of a Pastor. For our Lord Jesus Christ alone said. I am the good pastor, & again my sheep follow me. Therefore this holy name, & the power of this name, after his resurrection he granted to Peter repenting. And he that was thryse denied, gave to his denyer, that power which he had alone. Arnobius (saith he) noteth none of the Apostles ever to have had the name of a pastor given to him by Christ, beside S. Peter alone. But I demand of M. S. where he hath in Arnobius this word ever? For he saith, y ^t Peter had this name after y ^e resurrection w ^c none of y ^e Apostles had before. He writeth against the Novatians w ^c denied help to such as repented after baptism, proving by example of Peter, that they are to be received, seeing Christ gave him greater dignity after his repentance, then he had before his fall. But that Peter had greater authority thē the rest of the Apostles he never thought or said. M. Sander cutteth of both the head and the tail. In this discourse lest the meaning of Arnobius might appear, for thus he writeth: Dicis cert • baptizatis non debere poenitentibus subueniri Ecce Apostolo poenitenti succurritur, qui est Episcoporum Episcopus, & may • r gradus additur ploranti, quam sublatus est deneganti. Quod vt doceam, illud est endo, quod nullus Apostolorū nomen Pasioris accepit. &c. In deed thou sayst that such as repent being baptized ought not to be helped. Behold the Apostle repenting is helped, which is a Bishop of Bishops, and a greater degree is restored to him weeping then was taken from him denying. Which that I may teach, this I show, that none of the Apostles received the name of a shepherd, &c. Again in the ende following the words before cited by M. Sander he saith, vt non s • lum recuperasse quod amiserat, probaretur, verum etiam & multo amplius poenitendo, quam negand • perdiderat acquisisse. He gave his denyer that power which before his resurrection he alone had: That he might be proved not only to have recovered that which he lost, but also to have gotten much more by repenting, then he lost by denying. This speaketh Arnobius of the general authority which Peter had over all the Church, as every Apostle had likewise, & was a Bishop and overseer of Bishops as well as Peter, and a Pastor of the universal Church, which thing Arnobius never did deny. These therefore be M. Sanders arguments, none of the Apostles had the name of a Pastor before Christ's resurrection, ergo they never had it. Peter was called to greater dignity after his fall then he had before, ergo he was greater then his fellow Apostles. Again Peter was a Bishop or an overseer of Bishops, ergo he was Bishop over the Apostles.

Next Arnobius is cited Ambrose in 24. Luc. Who first aid, that Peter was everywhere, ether alone or first And thē upon these words, Peter dost thou love me, saith: Dominus interrogat &c. Our Lord asked net to learn, but to teach whō he being to be l • fted up into heaven, did leave to us as the Vicare of his love. For so thou hast •• . Simon thou son of John, doest thou l • ue me? Yea Lord thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith to him, feed my lambes. Peter being privy of a good conscience, doth testify his own affection, not taken for the time, but already well known to God. For who else were able to profess this thing of him self. A • d because he alone amongst all professeth, he is preferred before all. M. Sander omitteth the conclusion. Major enim omnibus charitas. For the greatest of all is Chari • ie.

So Peter is hereby declared to have the greatest love, but not to have the greatest authority. M. Sander urgeth that he is the Vicar of Christ's love and pastoral office. The one indeed Ambrose saith, the other Sander saith but is not able to prove: no not by that which followeth in the same place of Ambrose, that Peter had committed to him to feed, not only the Lambes with milk, as at the first, nor yet the little sheep, as at the seconde time, but the sheep, to the end that he being more perfect, might govern the more perfect. For everyone of the Apostles had the same charge to feed the sheep of Christ, and not the Lambes or little sheep only. Neither doth the word of government help him. For every Apostle had the like government over the whole flock w ^c Peter hath, and there is an ordinary government in every particular church, 1. Co. 12. w ^c proveth not the governors to be rulers one over another, wherefore this collection is not only vain, but also ridiculus, that Peter should have authority to govern Patriarchs, Archbishops and Bishops as well as Parishe priests, because he must feed y ^e sheep of Christ, I will not here stand to discus how properly y ^e distinctiō of lambs little sheep & sheep, is observed by Ambrose, but taking it according as he distinguisheth it, yet here is nothing given to Peter but primacy of love, or as else where he saith of order, but of authority singular, he • re is nothing at all.

But in sign that Peter was general Shepherd, 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 ordain S. James bishop of Jerusalem as Eus. lib. 2. cap. • writeth. There is no dout but James was acknowl • dged by the Apostles to be appointed by the holy ghost to remain at Jerusalem, 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 Bishop by Christ.

Yet Ar • obius in Psa. 138. saith he was made a Bishop of Bishops. Ecce Apostolo p. enitenti succurritur qui est episcoporum episcopus. Behold the Apostle being penitent is succoured, which is a Bishop of Bishops. He asketh if anything could be spoken more plainly? yes verily, you had need of plainer speeches then this, to prove that he was bishop of the Apostles. For admit that he was an overseer of particular bishops, as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth signi • ie, yet it followeth not that he was • n overseer or Bishop of the Apostles. In which sense Clemens also (if the Epistle were not counterfeit) might justly call James a Bishop of Bishops, & not as M. Sand. aunsweareth that he was an Archbishop of inferior Bishops, but an Apostle overseer of particular Bishops.

That Cyprian ad Quintum saith: Neque quisquam &c Neither doeth any of us make him self a Byshoppe of Bishops. He aunsweareth that although no man may make himself, yet Christ may make a man Bishop of Byshopes, but where findeth he that Christ maketh the Pope a Bishop of Bishops? Howe Peter might be called a Bishop of Bishops, I have shown before But the Council of Carth. 3. Cap. 26. forbiddeth that the Bishop of Rome, or any other Primate should be called the Prince of Priests, or highest Priest, or by any such like name, but only the Bishop of the first seat.

Yet Optatus feared nor to write thus, lib. 7. de schism. of S. Peter. Preferri apostolis omnibus meruit &c. He deserved to be preferred before all the Apostles, and he alone received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to be communicated unto the rest. Ma • ster Sander confessing and truly, that the Apostles took the Keys belonging to their Apostolic office immediately of Christ, saith they received the Keys of their Byshoplike office of Peter. But what lock was there, that they could not open and shut by their Aopstolike Key? When Christ saith, Whatsoever you bind or loose, & whose sins soever you forgive or retain, which was the power of their Apostolic Keys? If the Apostolic Keys were so sufficient, what need they any Byshoplike Keys? Into these absurdities both he & Optatus do follow, whiles the one will urge a prerogative of Peter, the other will forge a Byshoplike office in the Apostles, whereof the Scripture giveth us no instruction.

As for Leo and Gregory Bishops of Rome, although they were not come to the full pride of Antichrist, yet the mystery of iniquity having wrought in that seat, near five or six hundredth years before them, and then greatly increased, they were so deceived with the longe continuance of error, that they thought the dignity of Peter was much more over the rest of his fellow Apostles, then the holy Scriptures of God, (against which no continuance of error cann prescribe) doth either allow or bear with all. Wherefore although he have some show out of the old writers, yet hath he nothing directly to prove that Peter did excel the other Apostles in Byshoplike authority, and out of the word of God no one • ote or title, that Peter as a Bishop excelled the other Apostles, not as Apostles, but as Bishops.

The 13 Chapter.

THat the pastoral and chief Bishops authority of Saint Peter, was an ordinary authority, and there fore it must go forever unto his successors, where as the Apostolic authority being extraordinary hath no successors in it. The Church never lacked a visible rock.

THat y ^e office of Apostles, which had general charge to preach over the whole world, is ceased with the Apostles lives, it is in deed granted of us: but that theyre Apostolic authority was extraordinary, or that all their authority is so determined, that it hath no successors in it, we do utterly deny. For the same authority of preaching, of ministering the Sacraments, of binding and loosing, which the Apostles had is perpetual in the Church, in the Bishops and elders, which are all successors of the Apostles. And if the Apostolic authority, hath no successors in it, what meaneth the Pope almost in every Bul and decretal Epistle, to brag so much of the Apostolic authority, & to ground all things Apostolica Authoritate by the Apostolic authority. By which it is evident, that M. Sand. new distinction of Apostolic and Byshoplike authority in the Apostles, is not acknowledged by the Popes them selves, but invented lately by such as he is, to have a starting hole, to seem to avoid such arguments and authorites, as prove all the Apostles equal in authority.

But let us us see what reasons he hath to prove, that S. Peters Pastoral authority was ordinary, and must go to his successors, more then the Pastoral authority of every Apostle. First S. Peter being but one man was not able to preach to all men at once, nor to govern nations newely converted, the refore he had twelve companions adjoined to him.

But the world being converted, it is easy for the Pope without such fellows, to govern all the faithful, by help of many inferior officers. As though the Church had not inferior officers in the Apostles time. If S. Peter then was not able to rule, w ^c had such great gifts much less the Pope, which is nothing comparable with him in gifts, & is often a wicked man & an here tike is able to govern all the Church, for he hath not so great an help of the conversion of the world, as he hath a want of Peters gracious gifts, meet for such a government.

Secondly he would have us mark, the peculiar names of a Rock, of a pastor, & of a confirmer of his brethren, which are givē by Christ to S. Peter alone, which argue that Peters supremacy must necessarily continue forever. But who will grant to M. S. that Christ gave these peculiar names to Peter alone, indeed that which is ment by the names is ordinary and perpetual in the Church. Peter was a Rock, not his person, but his doctrine that remaineth still in the Church, he was a shephearde and confirmer of his brethren, and there be now many shepherds and confirmers of their brethren.

Thirdly he saith the Church never wanted a visible rock on the earth, beside the eternal Rock Christ: who in this life might be so strongly fastened in the Faith of Christ the great Rock, that he (though not for his own sake, yet for the Churches sake) might be able to stay up all other small stones, which joined unto him, until Christ came in the flesh, who likewise appointed Saint Peter and his successors to be this ordinary rock, as Adam Enos Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron and his successors, who sat in the chair of Moses until the coming of Christ. Against this I say, that the church militant on earth, hath her foundation in heaven, and not on earth, therefore the church hath not a visible rock in earth. Again it is not true, that someone, hath always been this visible rock on earth. For who was greater Abraham or Melchizedek? out of all controversy Melchizedek, then was not Abraham the only rock. After the death of Jacob and the twelve Patriarchs, who was the visible rock until Moses was called. And yet had God a church among the Jews all that time.

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

What were Jason, Menclaus, Lysimachus by the report of the book of Machabes? Was not Caiaphas & Annas Sadducees by the testimony of S. Luke Act. 5. and of Josephus? Where is then the visible rock, whose faith never failed &c? we see there was none such before Christ, therefore there need to be none such after him.

His fourth reason is, of the name of a pastor, which signifieth an ordinary office, for as the sheep continue after S. Peters death, so must there be also a shepherd, as Peter was. But how proveth he that Peter was an only shepherd? forsooth Chrysostom saith lib. 2. de sacerdotio. Christus sanguinem &c. Christ hath shed his blood to purchase those sheep, the care of whom he did commit both to Peter & to Peters successors. But whom doth Chrysostom take for Peters successors? the Bishops of Rome only? No verily but all true pastors of the church as his words going before do manifestly declare: Neque enim tum volebat testatum esse quantum à Petro amaretur, siquidem id multis nobis argument is constabat.

As for Leo a Bishop of Rome I have often protested that he was more addicted to the dignity of his see, then the Scripture would bear him, and therefore was overruled and resisted, in the general council of Chalcedon.

His fifth argument is a rule of law, where the same reason is, the same right ought to be. The reason of Peters confession and power is such as agreeth to any ordinary office, of the church, therefore the office of Peter being a rock, of strengthening his brethren and feeding Christ's sheep, is an ordinary office. But I say, that Peters confession made him not a rock, but declared him so to be, being appointed of Christ for one of the twelve foundations of the church, the office of strengthening and feeding as it was not singular in Peter, so it is not ordinary that it should be singular in any man.

His sixth reason, Irenaeus, Optatus, and Augustine did reckon up such successors of Peter, as had lived till eu • rie of their ages or times. Therefore Peter had successors in his pastoral office. It is not denied, but he had them, and other Bishops also successors in his pastoral office, at least the Bishops of Antioch, whereby your own cofession he was Bishoppe, before he came to Rome. Therefore his succession was not singular to the Bishops of one see.

His seventh reason, no man may preach to them to whom he is not sent, therefore there must be a general pastor to send other to preach, to them that are not converted, to plant new Bishoprikes, to control them that are negligent, to supply the things that lack: to excommunicate such as live in no diocese &c. For sending he quoteth Rom. 10. where mention is only of the sending of God, and of the sending by men. But all his questions and doubts, may be answered. Either the whole church in general councils, or every particular church in their synodes, as they shall see most expedient, may send preachers as the Apostles and Elders sent Peter and John into Samaria & order all such matters, as he imagineth must be done only by the Pope. But he asketh who shall summon all other Bishops to general or provincial councils. And I ask him, who summoned, the four great & principal general councils? and so many provincial councils, but the Emperors and Princes in whose dominion they were gathered? So that here is no necessary affairs of the church that doth require one general pastor or Pope of Rome when all things may and have been done best of all without him.

As for placing of Bishops, in sees vacant, uniting of two Bishoprikes in one, or dividing one into two, may better be done by the authority of those churches, with consent of their Princes, who seeth and knoweth what is needful in those cases, then by one which sitting in his chair at Rome, requireth half a years travel, from some parte of the world, to him, before he can be advertised of the case, and yet must understand it by hear say, 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 likelihood, that Christ would make such a general sheepehearde over all his flock, as many thousand sheep, which live under the Sophi, the Cham, the Turk, can have none access unto, for such things as are supposed necessary to be had and to be obtained from him only. Wherefore if the Pope were head of the church, such as by cruelty of tyrants are cut from him should be cut from the body of the church. Yea if Hethenish tyrants could so much prevail, as they do in hindering this government of the Pope, (pretended to be so n • cessarie) the gates of hell might prevail against the church, contrary to the promise of Christ.

The fourteenth Chapter.

THat the ordinary authority of S. Peters primacy belongeth to one Bishop alone. The whole government of the church tendeth to unity.

COncerning Peters primacy, as there is little in the Scriptures, whereupon it may be gathered, so I have shown, that it was not in him perpetual. For there are greater arguments to prove the primacy of James. Agayne the greatest show of Peters primacy, that we read of in the Scriptures, is the primacy or head Apostleshippe of the circumcision. So that if one Bishoppe should succeed him, in that primacy, he must be chief Bishoppe over the Jews, and not over the Gentiles. For the chief Apostleshippe over the Gentiles, was by God committed to Paul. Galat. 2. 7. & 8. But if M. Sander say, as he doth in another place, that the Pope succeedeth both these Apostles, and therefore hath both their authority. First he overthroweth his own rock of the church, which he will have to be Peter alone. Secondly his argument of unity, which he urgeth in this chapter he subuerteth, if the Popes authority be derived from two heads. Thirdly he destroyeth his own distinction of Bishoplike and Apostolic authority, if the Apostolic authority of Paul should descend to the Pope by succession.

Now let us consider what weighty reasons he hath, to prove the title of this chapter. S. Peters authority was specified before the authority was given to the rest, of binding & loosing. Mat. 18. Therefore seeing it was first in him alone, it ought to descend to one Bishop alone. But let M. Sander show, where it was given to him alone, or promised to him alone ether. For the promise thou shalt be called Peter, gave him no authority, nor yet the performance thereof: Thou art Peter. But still the authority is promised, I will build, I will give, (I reason as M. Sander doth of the Future tense) which promise being made Math. 16. is performed Math. 18. not to Peter only, but to all the rest, and so all authority is given in common Io • an. 20.

But S. Cyprian ad Iubaianum, saith, that Christ gave the authority first to Peter. Petro primus Dominus (super quem aedificauit ecclesiam, & vnitatis originem instituit & ostendit) potestatem istam dedit, vt id solueretur in terris, quod ill soluisset. This doth M. Sander translate, Our Lord did first give unto Peter &c. Whereas he should say:

The second reason is, that the most perfect government is meet for the Church, but most perfection is in unity, therefore there ought to be one chief governor of all. This one chief governor is our Savior Christ, ruler both in heaven & in earth. Who ascending into heaven, did not appoint one Pope over all his church, but Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, Pastors and teachers, that we might all meet in the unity of faith, and grow into a perfect man. Eph. 4. 11. & 12.

The third reason is, that the state of the new Testament, must be more perfect then the law, but in the law, there was one high pastor, the high Priest on earth, therefore there must be one now also and much rather. I answer we have him in deed, our chief Bishop & high Priest, of whom the Aaronicall Priest, was but a shadow, namely Jesus Christ, whose government is nothing less perfect and beneficial to his church in that he sitteth in heaven, and hath as before is cited left an ordinary ministry on earth in many Pastors and teachers over every several congregation and not in one Pope over all, which could not possibly either know, or attend to decide, the one thousand parte of controversies, which are determined by y ^e authority of Christ's law, and such ministers as he hath ordained.

The fourth reason is of authority. Cyprian ad Iubaianum: Ecclesia quae vna est &c. The church which is one was founded by our Lord's voice upon one, which received the keys thereof. And again, de simplicitat. praelat. Quamsis &c. Although Christ after his resurrection giveth equal power to all his Apostles and saith: as my father sent me so do I send you: receive the holy Ghost. If you remit to any man his sins they shall be remitted. And if you r • teine them, they shall be retained, yet that he might show the unity, he disposed by his authority, the original of that unity, beginning of one.

The like thing teacheth Optatus lib. 2. de schism. Vt in • na &c. That in one chair in which Peter sat, unity might be kept of all men, least the rest of the Apostles should everyone challenge a chair to him self: so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner, that against a singular chair, should place another. Therefore in that one chair which is chief in gifts, Peter sat first. His meaning is to defend the unity of the church against the Donatists, but of the authority of Peters chair over all other Bishops chairs, if he had spoken anything M. Sander would not have concealed it, which doth us great wrong to think that we cannot distinguish a chair of unity, from a chair of authority.

The place of Jerome cont. Iouin. lib. 1. hath been answered once or twice, showing that among the Apostles which were equal, Peter was chosen to be primate, to avoid contention, which was a primacy of order and not of authority. As for the collection of Lco Bishoppe of Rome, that Peters primacy was a platform, for other Bishops to understand, that they must have a Bishop over them, if the very Apostles had an head among them, sauoreth of the ambition incident to that see, which was appointed to be the seat of Antichrist. Although neither Leo him self, challēged so much as the Pope doth now, neither the Bishops of his time, would yield unto him in so much as he challenged. For beside the whole general council of Chalcedon, that concluded against him, about the privileges of the Bishop of Constantinople, wherein they made him equal with the Bishoppe of Rome, the title of seniority only reserved, it appeareth by his Epistles, that many Bishops acknowledged not such primacy over them, as he claimed, whereof he complameth in diverse of his Epistles.

The place of Cyprian lib. 1. Epist. 3. that heresies have sprong because one Judge is not acknowledged in ste • de of Christ, for the time, to whom the whole brotherhood might obey He cannot deny but it is meant of Cyprian of one Judge in every diocese. But he reasoneth a fortiori, that there ought to be much rather one Judge over all the world. Howbeit I have shown the in consequence of this argument, by example of one Pysician, one Schoolmaster, one Judge in temporal matters over the whole world, to whom it is as impossible to discharge such an office over all, as it is profitable for one such to be in every town. He saith that particular flocks, are voluntary, and likewise particular pastors, but one flock and one pastor, is of absolute necessity on earth. In deed the limites of particular flocks, and the persons of particular pastors, are left to the appointment and choice of the church. But that there should be particular flocks and pastors, it is of God's ordination, though God by his Apostles appointed it to be so, yet is it of as absolute necessity, while the church is dispersed in diverse places of the world, as that there is one flock and one shepherd over all Jesus Christ, and yet he is not ashamed to challenge us pag. 298. Let the text be named where. Christ did institute many parishes? Whereas he him self, pag. 294. quoteth. Tit. 1. & Act. 14. which places prove, that Christ did institute many parishes, except he will say the Apostles did it without the institution of Christ, which he confesseth they did not without the special inspiration of the holy Ghost or else will say, that the inspiration of the holy Ghost in the ordinance of many parishes, differeth from the institution of Christ. But he that wrangleth thus impudently and unreasonably, aga • nst the plain institution of many parishes by Christ, bringeth a plain text where it is said, Feede me sheep to one pastor.

Hath this man any foreheade think you, that calleth this a plain text to prove that there should be one sheepehearde upon earth over all the flock, because Christ upon special occasion exhorted one man to feed his flock? Are all things that were spoken to him singular unto him? Christ said to him and to none other of the Apostles, come after me Satan, thou art an offense to me, for thou sauerest not the things that are of God but of men. Christ said to Peter and to none other, put up thy sword into thy scaberd, Christ said to Peter and to none other, thou wilt deny me thrice. O painted rock of the Popish Church, that hath no better ground then this saying feed my sheep when he that challengeth authority hereby of all other feedeth least, and poisoneth most.

But let us return and see what authority of old fathers he hath to prove one pastoral preeminence over all the church. Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 8. Deus. vnus est, & Christus vnus, & vna ecclesia, & Cathedra vna super petram Domini voice fundata. There is one God, and one Christ, and one church, and one chair founded upon Peter by our Lord's voice. Hear I say first of all, that he doth falsify Saint Cyprians words turning pe • ram into petrum, so that his saying is, There is one chair by our Lord's voice founded on the rock. An other altar or a new Priesthoode cannot be appointed beside one altar and one Priesthoode. Whosoever gathereth elsewhere scattereth abroad &c.

But if the word were petrum and not petram, yet the whole discourse of that Epistle showeth, that Cyptian meaneth by these words to set forth not the past oral preeminence of one man over the whole church, but one Bishop in every diocese. For he writeth against five Elders or Priests, which had chosen one Felicissimus a schismatic, to be Bishop in Carthage against him.

But what other malicious ignorance, or shameless impudence is this, that he perverteth the saying of Christ of him self, to the Pope? There shall be one sheepfold & one shepherd. John. 10 Yet see his reason. A flock of sheep is one by force of one pastor, therefore if the Pastor on earth be not one, the flock is not one on earth. If this argument be good, howe is the flock one upon earth, when there is no Pope? For the see hath been void diverse times, many days, many months, & sometime many years. Howe was the flock one, when there were two or three Popes at once and that so often, and so long together? Therefore the flock on earth is one by that one only shepherd Jesus Christ, whose divine voice all the sheep hear, though in his humanity, he be ascended into heaven, and not by any one mortal man, to whom they cannot be gathered, nether being so far abroad dispersed, can hear his voice.

And the whole order of the church on earth, tendeth to an unity in Christ, & not in one man whatsoever, as one general pastor. For if that one should be an heretic, and all the church tend to unity in him, the whole church should be wrapped in heresy with him. That diverse Popes have been heretics as Libe • ius, Anastasi • s, Vigil • us, Honorius, John the 23. in known condemned heresies, it is too manifest by records of antiquity, that it should be denied, wherefore Christ instituted no such ordinary authority, to be limited in one successiō that it should have preeminence & imisdiction over all the church. Seeing unity is best maintained in doctrine by his word, in government, by the discipline by him appointed. And unity in truth cannot be had at the hands of a man, which is a liar, & experience showeth that the jurisdiction which the Bishoppe of Rome hath claimed, hath been occasion of most and greatest schisms and dissensions that have been in particular churches, whē no man would obey his ordinary pastors and Bishops without the appealing to the see of Rome, beside so many schisms as have been in the same see, which have set all the Christian world together by the cares, while they were divided in factions, some holding with one Pope, and some with another, and some with the third, and some with none of them all.

The 15. Chapter.

THat the Bishop of Rome is that one ordinary pastor who succeedeth in S. Peters chair, and is above all Bishops according to the meaning of God's word. Why S. Peter died at Rome. S. Augustine's mind touching the supremacy of the Pope of Rome.

THe first reason is, that although Peter at the first was rather high Bishoppe of the circumcision, thē of the Gentiles, yet because he did at length settle him self at Rome by God's appointment, and left a successor there, he saith he may well affirm, that the Bishop of Rome's primacy is warranted by God's word. A strange kind of warantise, for to omit that the primacy over the Gentiles by God's word, is given to another, namely to Paul, from whom he can never prove, that it was taken afterward. Where hath he any word of God to prove, that by his appointment, Peter settled himself at Rome, and appointed there a successor? He quoteth Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. who reporteth that Linus the first Bishop of Rome was ordained not by Peter only, but by Peter & Paul the Apostles, who founded the Church there, even as Polycarpus by the Apostles in Asia, was made bishop in Smyrna, which Church with the Church of Ephesus founded by Paul, and continued by John the Apostles, he citeth as witnesses alike, with the Church of Rome, of the tradition of the Apostles, against Valentinus and Marcion which being void of Scriptures, bragged of the tradition of the Apostles. But of Peters primacy, or his successors over all Bishops, Irenaeus saith not a word. No more doth Tertullian, whom likewise he quoteth, de praescrip. but even as Irenaeus would have the tradition of the Apostles, against those heretics that boasted of it, to be tried by the confession of those Churches that were founded by the Apostles.

His second reason is, upon a false supposition, that he hath already proved, Peter alone to be the rock, to have chief authority in feeding &c. all which things are untrue.

That Peter came to Rome, he is not content that it be testified by all ancient Ecclesiastical writers. But he saith it is witnessed by the express word of God. 1. Pet. 5. The Church which is gathered together in Babylon saluteth you. Although the history of Peters coming to Rome, and sitting there 25. years, testified by so many writers, is proved false, in many circumstances, by the plain word of God, yet I am content to admit, that he came thither, toward the later ende of Ne roes reign. But that in his Epistle, he sent salutations from Rome, I cannot admit: seeing that in such manner of salutations, men use not to write allegorically, albeit, that in the revelation of Saint John 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 city of that name in Egypt, where Mark was with him, whō the consent of antiquity affirmeth, to have been Bishop of Alexandria a city of Egypt also, who could not have been with him at Rome. Seeing it is manifest by the first and seconde of the Epistle to the Galatians, and by diverse of Saint Paul's Epistles, that if ever Peter was at Rome, it was but a short time in the later ende of Nero his Empire. Whereas Mark died in the eyght year of his reign, before Peter could be at Rome. For in the tenth year Paul was brought prisoner to Rome, Saint Luke accompanying him, who would not have omitted to show, that Peter was there to have met him, as the rest of the brethren did, if he had then been at Rome. Agayne Paul in so many Epistles as he writeth from Rome, sending salutations from mean personages, would not have omitted mention of Peter, if he had been there. Saint Luke then affirming that he tarried two years in prison at Rome, which must be until the twelfe year of Nero, it followeth that if Peter came, he came very late to Rome within two year before his death, at which time it was not possible, that Mark which was dead four years before, could be at Rome with him, wherefore Babylon in that text cannot be taken for Rome.

Another reason of the Popes supremacy he maketh, that Peter not only came thither, but also died there. A simple reason, why the city of Rome should have that prerogative, because she murdered y ^e Apostles. Rather might Ierusalē claim it, in which Christ the head of all died. After this he telleth the fable out of the counterfeit Egesippus, of Simon Magus flying in the air, & the Emperor Nero his great delight in his sorcerye. The credit of Egesippus he desendeth, by blaming his translator for adding names of cities, which had none such when Egesippus lived. But that Simon Magus shown no experiment ofsorcerye before Nero, as this counterfeit Egesippus reporteth it is plain, by Plinius lib. 30. cap. 2. nature. Histor. who showing how desirous Nero was, and what means he had to have trial thereof, yet never could come by any. It was a practice of old time, to fain such fables, for love of the Apostles, as Tertullian witnesseth, de baptis. of a Priest of Asia, that was convicted & confessed, that he feigned for the love of Paul, a writing unto Tecla, in which many absurd things were contained. Again so many Apocriphall gospells, epistles, itineraryes and passions, as are counterfaited under the name of Apostles, and ancient fathers, who knoweth not to be fables and false inventions. Amonge which this fable of Simon Magus and Peter is one. That S. Luke maketh no mention of Peters death, he preventeth the objection, because he continued not his story so far: which doubt (saith he) he would not have omitted, if he had gone so far fo • ward in his story. But seeing he brought Paul to Rome, both in his journey, and in his history, why maketh he no mention of Peters being there? which if their story were true, must have sit there twenty years before. To omit therefore the four causes, why Peter should die at Rome, whereof three are taken out of a counterfeit, August. de sa ctis, hom. 27. the 4. out of Leo & Gregory Bishops of Rome: he cometh to decyde the controversy between the Greeks & Latins, who was first successor of Peter, Linus or Clemens, taking parte with them that affirm, Clemens although Irenaeus the most ancient writer of any that is extant, name Linus who was not a Grecian far of, but a Frenchmam at Lions near hand to Italy, whose authority although he reject, in naming Linus to be ordained Bishop by both the Apostles, yet he glorieth much that he calleth the Church of Rome. Maximam & antiquissimam, &c. The greatest and the most ancient, & known to all men, founded and settled by two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul. And again, Adhanc Ecclesiam &c. To this Church by reason of the mightier principality, every Church, that is, the faithful that are everywhere must needs agree. But he proceedeth and showeth the cause why.

Secondly I answer, that Irenaeus speaketh coniunctly, it is sophistical to understand severally. He saith there is no Church of such greatness, so ancient, and so well known, as the Church of Rome.

From this blind collection out of Irenaeus, he cometh down groping to Cyprian, who speaking of certain factious heretics, that sailed from Carthage to Rome, to complain of Saint Cyprian and other Bishops of Afric to Pope Cornelius. Lib. 1. Ep. 3. ad Cor. Audent & ad Petri, &c. They dare carry letters from sch • smaticall and profane men unto the chayer of Peter, and the principal Church, from whence the priestly unity began, Nether consider that they are Romans, whose faith is pray sed by the report of the Apostle unto whom falsehood can have none access.

In this saying we must note the privileges of S. Peters supremacy, to be at Rome. 1. This is S. Peters chayer, that is his ordinary power of teaching, &c. Nay rather the Bishops seat, which he and Paul did set up there as Irenaeus showeth, li. 3. ca. 3. 2. There is the principal Church, because the Bishop of Rome succeedeth the prince of the Apostles. Nay rather, because it is the greatest Church, being gathered in the greatest city of the world, as Irenęus also calleth it. 3. The priestly unity began not in Rome but in Peter, therefore there is the whole authority of Peter. The argument is naught, the beginning of unity proveth not authority. 4. this word unity doth import, that as Peter alone had in him the whole power of the cbiefe shepherd, so Cornelius his successor hath in him the same power. This argument is of small importance, for nether had Peter alone such power, nor any of his successors. 5. where he saith infidelity can have no access to the Romans, what other thing is it, then to say 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 world. John. 17. Beside this, Master Sander translateth perfidia which signifieth falsehood or false dealing, infidelity, secondly that which Cyprian saith of all the faithful Romans, he draweth to his Pope, thirdly where Cyprian showeth howe longe they shall continue without falsehood, namely so long as they retain the faith praised by the Apostle, he maketh it perpetual to the sea of Rome:

The 6. We must add heareto, that Cyprian calleth Rome Ecclesiae Catholicae matricem & radicem, the mother & root of the Catholic church. lib 4. Epist. 8. we find not Rome so called there, we find that Cyprian & his fellows, exhorted all such troublesome persons, as went over sea, & carried false tales, Vt Ecclesiae Catholicae matricē & radi • em agnoscerent & tenerent, that they would acknowledge & hold the mother and root of the Catholic Church, by which words, they dissuaded them from ioygninge with schismatics, who being condemned in one Church, would gad up and down for absolution in another.

The 7. did not S. Cyp. confess Cornelius to have received the appellation of Rasilides lawfully, out of Spain • 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 Bishop of Rome, Cyprian & 36. bishops with him, determine the same restitution to be void & of none effect:

Here is no lawful appellation spoken of, but the Bishope of Rome's sentence pronounced void, and he blamed for his negligence and rashness, to medle with matters whereof he could have no knowledge, by means of distance of place. But if M. San. reply, that he is not reproved for taking such appellations, he must hear what Cyprian saith of such appellations which began to be used in his days, unto Cornelius B. of Rome immediately after the words cited by him. lib. 1 epi. 3. of those schismatics that were so bold as to sail to Rome, and carry letters as above.

The 8. note out of Cyprian is, That he required Stephanus the Pope, to depose Marcianus the Bishop of Arles in France, which to dee in another province is a sign that the Pope of Rome is above other Bishops. If it were true that M. Sander showeth, it might prove the Bishop of Rome, to be a Primate or Metropolitan, it could not prove him to be a Bishop over all the world. But it is utterly false, that he saith, Cyprian required the Pope Stephan to depose him, for he was deposed by the judgment of all the Bishops of the Weste Church: Ab v • iuersis sacerdotibus iudicatus, condemned of all the Priests, only he exhorteth Stephan of Rome, which was negligent in this behalf, to join with the rest of the Bishops of France in ordering of another Bishop in his stead, who long since hath been excommunicated and deposed from his place, for taking parte with Nouatiane the Heretike.

The 9. note is, That notwithstanding Cyprian dissented from Pope Stephanus in opinion concerning the baptizing of suchas had ben baptized by here • kes, yet he denied not his prerogative. but kept still the unity of the militant Church, in acknowledging the visible head thereof. He quoteth his ep. Contra Stephan, wherein is no word of acknowledging the Popes prerogative, but contrary wise every child may see, that seeing he did boldly dissent in opinion frō the B. of Rome, & wrote against him, he held no such prerogative of that sea, as the Papists now maintain, that the bishop of Rome cannot err. In deed Cyprian professeth, that notwithstanding he differed from him in opinion, yet he would not depar • e from the unity of the Church, but what is this for acknowledging of a visible head, whereof M. S. speaketh much, but Cyprian never a word, neither in that place, nor in any of all his works.

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

No dout this was a good exhortation, so longe as the temple of Peter a • d Paul at Rome did hold the old catholic faith: from which seeing the Pope is now fled, we may not honor the empty chair of Peter, to think there is his faith, where his doctrine is not.

After Hippolitus, followeth Sozomenus, who reporteth that Athanasius and certain other Bishops of the Greek Church came to Rome to Julius the byshopp there, to complain that they were unjustly deposed by the Arians. Wherevpon the Bishop of Rome finding them upon examination to agree with the Nicene council did re • eiue them into the communion as one that had care of them all, for the worthiness of his own See, and did restore to every of them their own Churches. &c. Here M. Sander hath his 9 observations, he delighteth much in that number. But it shall not need to stand upon them, it is confessed that in Sozomenus time, the writer of this story, who judgeth of things done according to the present state in which he lived, the sea of Rome was grown into great estimation, and counted the first See or principal in dignity of all Bishops Seas in the world. Yea, it is true that Socrates a writer of Historyes as well as he saith, That long before his time, the Bishops Sea of Rome as well as of Alexandria, was grown beyond the bands of Pr • esthood, into a foreign Lordship & dominion. Soc. lib. 7. cap. 11. But if we consider the records of the very time in which Julius lived, we shall not find that the dignity of his Sea was such, as that he had such authority as Sozomenus aseribeth to him, and much less 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, acknowledgeth no such dignity of his Sea lib. 3. to. 1. And Sozomenus himself testifieth that the Bishops of the East, derided & contemned his commandments. lib. 3. Cap. 8. & cap. 11. they were as bold to depose him with the bishops of the West, as he was to check them, that they called not him to their council. Wherein as I confess, they did evil, yet thereby they shown evidently, that the Christian world in those days, did not acknowledge the usurpation of the bishop of Rome, as M. Sander saith they did. Neither durst they eaer to dissent from him, if it had been a Catholic doctrine received in the Church, that the Bishop of Rome is head of the Church, Bishop of all Bishops, Judge of all causes, and one which cannot err. As for Athanasius, Paulus, &c. and other Bishops being tossed to and fro, by their enemies, no marvel if they were glad to find any comfort at the Bishop of Rome's hands, having first sought to the Emperors for refuge, of whom sometime they were helped̄, sometime they wer hindered as informatiō was given either for them or against thē.

But Arnobius he saith giveth a marvelous witness for the church of Rome in Psa. 106. Petrus in deserto. &c Peter wandering in the desert of this world, until he came to Rome, preached the baptism of Jesus Christ in whom all floods are blessed from Peter unto this day. He hath made the going forth of the waters into thirst, so that he which shall go forth of the Church of Peter shall perish for thirst.

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 chair was given in the city of Rome, in which Peter the head of all the apostles hath sit: wherofhe was also called Cephas, in which chair unity might be kept of all men, so that he should be a scismatike w ^c should place any other chair against the singular chair. Unto Peter succeeded Linus, unto Linus succeeded Clemens, & so nameth all the Bishops until Siricius which lived in his time, of whom he saith, Qui noster est socius, which is our fellow. In this sentence Optatus laboreth to prove against the Donatists which were schismatics, that there is but one Catholic church frō which they were departed. He useth the argument of unity commended in Peters chair whom he calleth head of the Apostles in respect of unity, & not of authority, which appeareth by this that in the end he accounteth Syricius bishop of Rome and Peters successor, not head of all Churches nor universal Bishop of all Bishops, but Socius noster, our fellow or companion, as one consenting with him in the unity of that Church, which was first planted by the Apostles, and not as a general governor of the universal Church of Christ. Wherefore although Optatus do more thē was necessary urge this argument of the unity of Peters Chair, yet his meanining was not to set forth an vnrepr ouable authority thereof, such as the Pope now challengeth, but only to make it the beginning of unity.

At length he cometh to S. Jerome in an Epistle to Damasus, out of which he gathereth diverse sentences. M • hi cathedram &c. I thought it best to ask council of the Chair of Peter, & of the saith praised by the mouth of the Apostle. I speak with the successor of a fisher, and with a difciple of the cross. I following none first but Christ, am joined in communion with thy blessedness, that is with the Chair of Peter. Upon that Rock, I know the Church to be built. Whosoever shall eat the Lamb out of this house he is unholy. If any man l • e out of the Ark of Noah during the time of the Floude, he shall perish. I know not V • atis, I despise Melitius, I have no acquaintance with Paulinus, whosoever doth not gather with thee, he doth scatter abroad, that is, he that is not of Christ, is of Antichrist. The conclusion openeth all the matter as longe as Damasus Bishop of Rome, gathereth with Christ, that is mayntameth true doctrine, Jerome will gather with him, who professed before that he would follow none as first, but Christ, For he would not have gathered with Liberius Byshoppe of Rome, whom he confesseth to have subscrybed to the Arians that were Hereukes in Catal. Script. ecclesi. What mockery is it then to draw the commendations of a good Catholic Bishop maintaining true Doctrine, to every Byshoppe sitting in that seat, agreeing neither in doctrine nor manners with that Christian predecessor.

Augustine must succeed Jerome, who in his 166. Epistle giveth us this rule. Caelestis magister. &c. The Heavenly master maketh the people secure, concerning evil overseers, lest for their sakes the Chair of healthfu • l doctrine should be sorsaken, in which Chair evil men are ever constrained to say good things, for the things which they speak are not their own. But they are the things of God.

Here saith Master Sander we have a Chair of healthful doctrine, and that is afterward called the Chair of unity, therefore it is not the Chair of every Bishop, which are many, and of which many have been Heretics, but the only chair of the bishop of Rome, in which Chair the Pope be he never so evil, is constrained to say good things and cannot err. But seeing I have often proved that many Bishops sitting in that Chair of Rome have spoken evil things, and were filthy Heretics, it followeth, that this is not a wooden Chair that Augustine speaketh of, but the Chair of true doctrine, such as the Chair of Moses was, in which not only Aaron and his successors, but even the Scrybes and Pharisees did sit, having the authority of Moses, while they uttered nothing but that which God delivered by Moses. But when they preached false doctrine they did not sit in the chair of Moses, but in the chair of pestilence, as the Pope & all other heretics do. He talketh much of unity in S, Peter, in his chair, sea • e and succession, as though any of these, were worth a straw, without unity in S. Peters doctrine, which was the doctrine of Christ.

But Saint Augustine Contr epist fundament confesseth that the successiō of priests from Saint Peter unto this present time stayed him in the Catholic Church. It is true, he confesseth that this succession among many things was one that stayed him.

Likewise rehearsing the same things in a manner against the Donatists which Master Sander hath not omitted. Epist. 165.

But if the authority of one man as Saint Augustine was, seem little M. San. bringeth the two councils gatheredin Africa & Numidia, against the Pelagiās which sent their decrees to the Sea of Rome, That the authoriof the Apostol • ke Sea might be given to them Epi. 19. if they required the B. of Rome to agree with thē in the truth, what pretog • tiue of supremacy do they grant unto him? Nay rather they do p • iu • lie reprehend him, that he had so long suffered the Pelagian poison to be spread under his nose in Europe, and the doctriue neither called to examination, nor confuted, yea rather seemed to consent to the den of the bishops of the East, that Pelagius was justly absolved. But Pope Innocentius himself praiseth them Ep 91. that they had kept the customs of the old tradition, in referring the matter to his Sea and saith, That the sathers not by human but by divine sentence have decreed that whatsoever was done in the provinces a far of, they should not account it before to be ended, except it came to the knhwledge of this sea, where whatsoever had been justly pronounced should be coufirmed by the authority of this sea, and those other churches should take it as it were waters which should flow from their own native fountain. We know the ambitious Ep. of Innocentius if it be not counterfeted, because many patches thereof are found in other decretal epistles but we deny that y ^e authority which he pretended, was acknowledged by these two councils, yes saith M. S. the fathers of the Mileuitan council say: Arbitramur &c. We think these men that have so pernicious and froward opinions will give pla • e more easily to the authority of your holiness, being taken out of the authority of the holy Scriptures, by help of the mercy of our lord Jesus Christ which • ouch •• feth to rule you when you consult & to hear you whē you pray by these words they show, that they hope y ^e here tikes being reproved by the B. of Rome out of the woe • d of God, will the rather give place, w ^t out imagining, that the B. of Rome's authority is so stablished by the scriptures that whatsoever he decree contrary to thescriptures the same should be embraced But a farther confirmatiō of the epistle of Innoce. he bringeih out of Aug. Ep. 106. Where he saith, Pope Innocent did write an answer to the Bishops in all things, as it became the prelate of the Apostolic sea. But these words neither prove that epistle to be written by Innocent, nor if it were, do allow his pretended auth ority, because that was no matter whereof they required his answer. But to put it out of dout. Both these Councils have decreed against the usurpation of the Romish sea. As the council Mileuitan cap. 22. decreed that no man should appeele out of Africa, under pain of excommunication.

The last authority cited out of Augustine, is, Epistle 162. speaking of the Church of Rome. In qua semper Apostolicae cathedrae viguit principatus. In which always the principality of the Apostolic chair hath flourished. A matter often confessed that the fathers especially of the later times since Constantine advanced the Church in wealth & dignity, esteemed the church of Rome as the principal Sea in dignity, but not in absolute authority, such as in process of time the Bishops of Rome claimed and usurped. For even the same Augustine with 216. Bishops refused to yield to the Bishop of Rome, claiming by a counterfaire Canon of the Council of Nice, to have authortie to receive appeals out of Africa. Epi. con. Aphr. ad Bonifac. which they cou • pte an intolerable pride and presumption, and in Epist. cont. Aphri. ad Coelesti •• m fumosum typum seculi, A smokey pride of the world which the Pope claimed and an absurd authority, that one mā should be better able to examine such causes, then so many Bishops, of the province where the controversy began, and by the old Cannons should be ended.

To Augustine he joineth Prosper Bishop of Rhegiū in Italy which affirmeth in lib de ingrat. that Rome the see of Peter was the first that did cut of the pestilence of Pelagius, which Rome being made head unto the world of pastoral honor holdeth by religion whatsoever it doth not possess by war. And again. Rome through the primacy of the Apostolic Priesthoode, is made greater by the castle of religion, then by the throne of power. First how untruly he boasteth that the see of Peter, was the first that did cut of the heresy of Pelagius you may ease y see, by that the council of Africa did before condemn it, & had somewhat a do to persuade Innocentius Bishop of Rome to it. Whereby you see, that Prosper was over partial to the see of Rome, to whom yet he ascribeth a principallity or primacy of honor, not of power or authority.

The testimonies of Leo & Gregory B • shops of Rome as always, so now I deem to be unmeet to be heard in their own cause, though otherwise they were not the worst men, yet great furtherers of the authority of Antichrist, which soon after their days, took possessiō of the chair, which they had helped to prepare for him. The last testimony out of Beda which lived under the tyranny of Antichrist, I will not stand upon, M. Sander may have great store of such late writers to affirm the Popes supremacy.

The 16. Chapter.

THat the good Christian Emperors and Princes, did never think thē selves to be the supreme heads of the church in spiritual causes, but gave 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 above the Emperor in Ecclesiastical causes. The oath of the royal supremacy, is intolerable. Constantine was baptized at Rome. Phocas did not first make the see of Rome head of all churches.

COncerning the supremacy of our sovereign, which this traitorous Papist doth so maliciously disdain, although it be expounded sufficiently by her Majesty in her injunction, not to be such as he most slanderously doth deform it, yet I will here, as I have done diverse times before in answer to these Papists, profess, that we ascribe no supremacy to our Prince, but such as the word of God alloweth in the godly Kings of the Old Testament, and the church hath acknowledged in the Christian Emperors and Princes under the New Testament.

First therefore we ascribe to our Prince no absolute power, in any Ecclesiastical causes, such as the Pope challengeth, but subject unto the rules of God's word. Secondly we ascribe no supremacy of knowledge in Ecclesiastical matters to our Prince, but affirm that she is to learn of the Bishops and teachers of the church, both in matters of faith and of the government of the church. Thirdly we allow no confusion of callings, that the Prince should presume to preach, to minister the Sacraments, to excommunicate, &c. which pertain not to her office. But the supremacy we admit in Ecclesiastical causes, is authority over all persons to command, and by laws to provide, that all matters Ecclesiastical, may be ordered and executed according to the word of God. And such is the true meaning of the oath, that he calleth blasphemous and intolerable. And as for examples of honor given to the Bishops by Christian Princes, which he bringeth forth, they deny not this supremacy, nor make anything against it.

The first is of the Emperor Philippus, counted of some for the first Christian Emperor, although it be not like to be true, yet admitting the story written by Eusebius to be so. This Prince without due repentance, offered him self to receive the holy mysteries, & being refused by the Bishop of the place, took it patiently, & submitted him self to the discipline & order of y ^e church. I answer, this example toucheth not the authority he had in ecclesiastical causes. For in receiving of the Sacraments, the Prince differeth not from a private person.

But he pusheth at M. Nowell with a two horned argument, called a dilemma. If the Priest in these causes, be superior to y ^t Emperor, other causes be greater or lesser then these. If they be greater, the Emperor which is not supreme governor over the lesser causes, cannot be in the greater, if they be lesser, then the Priest w ^c governeth the Emperor, in greater causes, must needs govern him in lesser causes. These horns are easily avoided not by distinctiō of the causes, but of the governments. The government of the Prince is one, & of the Priest another: this spiritual, the other external, & therefore no contrariety between them. For put the case, that Philippus had seen the Bishop profane the sacrament, in ministering to infidels, or otherwise uncertainly behaving him self in his office, might he not justly have punished him, as supreme governor over the Bishoppe even in those matters? I say not to do them, but to see that they be well done, and to punish the offenders. Neither is the meaning of the oath any other. And according to this meaning, M. Nowell, M. Horne and M. Jewel dare warrant the King to be supreme governor in all Ecclesiastical causes, although it please M. Sander to say, the contrary of them. Whose traiterous quarreling upon the words of the oath, ought not to trouble any man's conscience, when the meaning is publikelie testified both by the Prince, and by the whole consent of the church.

The next example is of Constantine the great, which in the Synod of Nice, when the Bishops had offered unto him bills of complaint, one against another, without disclosing the contents of them, he said, as Ruffinus reporteth lib. 10. cap. 2. Deus vos constituit sacerdotes &c. God hath made you Priests, and hath given you power to judge of us also, and therefore we are rigtly judged of you, but ye cannot be judged of m̄e. For which cause, expect ye the judgment of God alone among ye. Here M. Sander noteth, first, that he calleth them Priests, whereby he would prove, they had power to offer external sacrifice, which is a simple reason, for then all Christian men & women within the Scripture are called Priests, have the same power. Secondly he confesseth, they have power to judge the Emperor, for none can be greater then a Priest: In their challenge and spiritual government, the Emperor meaneth, and not as the Popish church practiced, to dispose the Emperor. Thirdly, that Priests cannot be judged of mē. If this be so, one Priest cannot be judged of another, and where is then the Popes supremacy, but he answereth, if one Priest judge another, it is God's judgment, and not the judgment of men, because God hath set one Priest above another. O blockish answer: as though God hath not set one Prince above all his subjects. You see howe Popish Priests advance them selves, to the honor of God, and withdraw their obedience from God's Lieutenaunts on earth. An undoubted note of Antichristians. You will ask me then, what sense these words have, you cannot be judged of men? I answer either they are meant, as Saint Paul speaketh, of the uprightness of his conscience in doing of his office, which is not subject to the judgment of men, or else Ruffinus as he was a bold reporter, frameth the Emperors words, accord • ng to that estimation which he would have men to have of the clergy. For it is certain by records of Constantine time, that he did judge Bishops and took upon him as supreme governor in ecclesiastical causes, Master Sander confesseth, he judged certain Priests, or ecclesiastical causes, but he did it as Augustine saith, Epist. 162. as one that would afterward ask pardon of the holy Bishops, at the importunity of the Donatists: And as Optatus recordeth he said, Deschis. lib. 1. Petitis à me &c. Ye ask of me judgment in the world, whereas I myself look for Christ's judgment. And Augustine reproveth the Donatists that they would have an earthly King to be judge of their cause. In deed the importunity of the Donatists was wicked who would so refer the matter to the Emperor, y ^t without knowledge of ecclesiastical persons, who were only meet judges in respect of knowledge in that case, they would have y ^e cause decided. But the Emperor acknowledging his auctoririe appointed judges ecclesiastical persons, first the Bishop of Rome Melchiades, whom he commanded with other Bishops to hear 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 companions judgment, he appointed other delegates, as Augustine also witnesseth. Ep. 162.

First he taketh it for most certain, that Constantine was baptized by Sylvester, which is an impudent lie and forged fable, as is manifest by Eusebius, who lived in his time and after him, who knew him familiarly, and affirmeth that he was baptized in his journey towards Jordan, where he had purposed to have been baptized, if God had spared him life. But this manifest testimony of Eusebius, Master Sander refuseth, becau • e he was suspected for affection to the Arian heresi • . Beside that he was unjustly suspected, what reason is it, to discredit his story, who wrote at such time, as many thousands alive could disprove him, for any affection to that heresy, whereto the baptism of Constantine pertained nothing in the world? As for the stones and pillars of marble, in which any such matter is graven, bearing the name of his baptistry except Master Sander could prove, that they were set up in his time, are simple witnesses against the history of Eusebius, which lived in his time. Nether the forged pontifical of Damasus, nor the writings of Beda. Ado, Marianus, Gregorius Turenēsis, Zonarus, Nicephorus late writers, following the fable of the Romish Church, are of any credit in respect of Eusebius, and the eldest writers of the Ecclesiastical story, that agree with Eusebius that he was not baptized many years after Sylvester was dead.

And concerning the donation of Constantine, it is too absurd for any wise man to defend, which hath been so long before disproved by Laurentius Valla, no enemy of the Romish religion, although a discouerer of that fable. Agayne his forsaking of the city of Rome, and building of Constantinople, is as great a fable, for although he bewtified Byzantium, and made it an imperial city, as placed conveniently to keep the Oriental Empire, yet he forsook not Rome, but still retained it as the chief see of his Empire, so did the Emperors that followed him, until (after it was wasted by the barbarous nations,) they made less accompt of it. And therefore although Constance the Nephew of Heraclius could not conveniently remove thither, yet he removed frō thence what he thought good, by which it appeared he had authority in the city, by the providence of God and not by chance, as M. Sander dreameth, that he was prohibited by God's providence in respect of the Popes supremacy, or else the world should be governed by chance.

But leaving Constantine the father, we must come to Constantius his son which was an Arian, of whom Athanasius complaineth, that he had no reverence of the Bishop of Rome Ep. ad Solit. vit. agen. nether considering that it was an Apostolic see, nor that Rome was the mother city of the Roman Empire. There were other Apostolikes sees beside Rome, and the Christian world was larger then the Roman Empire, therefore this maketh nothing for the singular prerogative of that see.

But the noble Emperors Gratianus, Valentinianus & Theodosius made a law, lege 1. Cod. de sum. trinit That all their people should continue in that religion, as the religion which is used from S. Peter unto this day doth declare him to have delivered to the Romans, and which it is evident that Bishop Damasus doth follow, and Peter Bishop of Alexandria a man of Apostolic holiness. This law proveth, that the Emperors had authority in Ecclesiastical causes. And that they joined the Patriarch of Rome with the Patriarch of Alexandria, not because he of Alexandria agreed with him of Rome, but because they both agreed with Peter, and Peter with Christ.

From these Emperors, he cometh to Boniface, who writing to the Emperor Honorius, and humbly desiring his aid to appease the tumults of his Church, useth these words.

To Honorius he joineth Galla Placidia the Emperesse in her epistle to Theodosius, set before the council of Chalcedon, Assirming that Peter ordained the primacy of the Bishoply office in the see Apostolic. Thus wrote the Emperesse or her Secretary, and so it was taken in that time. The like saith Valentinianus in his Epistle to Theodosius his father, that antiquity gave the chief • y of priestly power to the Bishop of the city of Rome. And Martianus with Valentinian confess that the Synod of Chalcedon inquired of the faith by the authority of Leo Bishop of the everlasting city of Rome. Add hereunto that the council it self confesseth Act. • . that Leo was over them as the head over the members. All these prove in deed a primacy of the Bishop of Rome acknowledged in those days, but not such a primacye as is now claimed. For the same council and Emperors decreed that the see of Constantinople in the East should have the same authority that the see of Rome had in the West, the title of senioritie only reserved to the Bishop of Rome. Although the Bishop of Rome, Leo by letters and his legats in the council cried out against it as loud as they could. Cont. Chal act. 16. namely Lucentius cried. Sedes Apostolica &c, The Apostolic sea ought not to be abased in our presence &c. but all the synod and the Judges continued in their decree.

The saying of Justinian in cod de sum. trinit. is examined and answered in the 69. article of M. Sanders treatise which is the true Church, before his book of Images, as also the sayings of the Bishop of Patara, of Eugenius Bishop of Carthage, and Gregory Bishop of Rome. The report of the council of Sinuessa is too full of corruption and confusion to be credited for authentical authority.

And yet it is plain that Marcellinus the Bishop of Rome was convicted by witnesses to have committed Idolatry, before he confessed the sin, and received sentence of condemnation and accursing of the Synod, howsoever that patche is thrust in after the Acts of the council, prima sedes, &c. the first see is not judged of any, which in every counterfeit decretal epistle almost must have a place.

To prove that Phocas did not first make the see of Rome head of all Churches, when the history is plain he did, M. Sander bringeth in these and such like alledgged before, which acknowledged a certain primacy of the see of Rome. And certain it is the Bishops of Rome before Phocas time, affected a great primacy, which of many was acknowledged, but yet never absolutely, never without controversy, until Phocas for a great sum of money received of Boniface the third, strake the stroke, and made the decree, for which in all popish writers he is highly praised: although in the Greek church his decree was not long observed. Touching the examples of Emperors and Princes of later times, although I could show they have often resisted the Pope, yet I know many may be alleged that have submitted them selves to his Antichristian tyranny, which I will not stand to examine, because they can be no prejudice to the truth approved by examples of the eldest age. As for the history of Lucius king of Britain, that sent to Eleutherius for preachers, if it were true, it maketh nothing for the supremacy of the romish Bishop. I will therefore conclude this chapter, with a saying of Socrates in proe. lib. 5. to show what authority he judged them perours to have in Ecclesiastical matters.

The 17. chapter.

THeir doct • ine who teach the Bishop of Rome to be A •• ichrist him self is confuted by the authority of God's word, and by the consent of ancient fathers. Why Antichrist is permitted to come.

AFter he hath shown his opinion, what manner a one Antichrist shall be, & alleged •••• cause of his coming out of S. Paul 2. Thes. 2. because men have not received the love of the truth, that they might be saved, God shall send thē the working of error, y ^t they may believe lying, &c. he stormeth out of measure against the Protestants, for that they can find no place to settle Antichrist in, but in the see of Rome, so beautified & dignified by Christ, and all the primitive Church: But seeing Antichrist is appointed to sit in the temple of God, which is a higher place then S. Peters chayer, it is no marvel if Satan have thrust him into that see, which of old time was accounted the top and castle of all religion.

But let us see his reasons taken out of God's word, by which it is proved, that the Pope cannot be Antichrist him self. The first is, because in S. Paul he is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. the man of sin which signifieth one singular man, and not a number of men in succession, and this is affirmed to be the Greek article in this word man, by Cyrillus in John. lib. 1. cap. 4. But how friendly Cyrillus was deceived, you shall see, by some examples, even out of the New Testament. In S. Matthew cap. 12. 35. you have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . A good man out of the good treasure of his heart, and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth &c. where no one singular man is meant.

In S. Mark cap. 2. verse. 27. The Sabbath was made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for man & not man for the Sabbath. In S. Luke cap. 4. verse. 4. Not with bread only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a man shall live, but by every word of God. S. Paul. 2. Tim. 3. ver. 17. That the man of God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be perfect and prepared to every good work. These places and an hundredth more which might be brought, do prove, howe vain the argument is thatis taken of the nature of the Greke article. Nether is Jerome or any of the ancient writers to be heard without authority 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. Jerome in Dani. cap. 7. saith we must not think that Antichrist should be a Devil, but one of the kind of men in whom Satan should dwell. This proveth not that he should be a singular man, no more then the fourth beast, which signifieth the Romane Empire, out of which he should rise, should be one singular Emperor. No more doth it prove that because Antiochus was a figure of him, he must be but one man. And as little that Ambrose in 2. The. 2, saith, Satan shall appear in homine, in a man, which may signify the kind of men and not one singular person. Likewise Augustine calling Antichrist the Prince, and last Antichrist, meaneth no one person for the words Prince and last, may agree to a whole succession of men in one state, as well as the words king and beast, to a whole succession of Emperors in Daniel. To conclude, there is not one whom he nameth, that denieth Antichrist to be a whole succession of mē, in one state of devilish government. And Irenaeus thinketh it probable of the Roman kingdom, lib. 5.

The second argument is, that Antichrist is called the adversary, & therefore is the greatest enemy of Christ, denying Jesus Christ to be God and man, or to be our Mediator. I answer, the Pope doth so, denying the office of Christ, although with the devils, he confess in words, Jesus to be the holy one of God, and to be Christ the son of God. Mark 1. 24. Luke. 4. 41. his divinity the Pope denieth, by denying his only power in saving, his wisdom in his word to be only sufficient, his goodness in the virtue of his death to take away both pain and guylt of sin, which he arrogateth to him self by his blasphemous pardons. Christ's humanity he denieth by his transubstantiation, his mediation, in which he is principally Christ, he denieth by so many means of salvation as he maketh, beside Christ videlicet man's merits, ceremonies invented by man, pardons, a new sacrifice of the Mass, &c.

The third argument is, that Antichrist shall not come, before the Roman Empire be clean taken away. For that which Saint Paul saith, ye know what withholdeth, &c. Although it be not necessary to expound this of the Roman Empire, yet following the old writers that so understood it, I say the Roman Empire was removed before Antichrist the Pope was thoroughly enstalled. For beside that the see of the Empire was removed from Rome, the government it self was in a manner clean removed, the title of the Roman Emperor only remaining, at last another Empire by the Pope was erected in Germany, whereof little beside a name remaineth at this day, the Pope claiming authority of both the swords, and he that is the Emperor in title, if he have no lands of his own inheritance, scarce equal with a Duke by dominion of his Empire.

The fourth argument is, that the deeds & doctrine of Antichrist against Christ, must be open and without all dissimulation, because Saint Paul maketh a difference between the mystery of iniquity, and the open showing of Antichrist. I answer, they are open to all faithful Christians, although they be hid from such as be deceived by Antichrist. Here M. Sander answereth to that which he supposeth might be objected, that some glosses of y ^e canon law, call the Pope God, or make him equal with Christ, yea they call him God above all God's: but he thinketh to avoid it by saying, they call him not God by nature, but by office under Christ, where they say he is equal with Christ. This bla • phemy will not so easily be excused. Nether is it to be thought that any man will ever cal him self God by nature. But to omit these flattering glosses of the canon law, doth not the Pope exalt himself above all that is called God and worshipped as God. When he commandeth to abstain from meats and marriage, whereof God hath created the one and instituted the other, as good and holy, for greater goodness and holiness then God created or instituted in them. Doth he not exalt him self above God the redeemer, when he affirmeth his redemption to be, ether only from sins committed before baptism, • or only from the guilt of sin whereas his popish pardons can absolve from both. Doth he not extol him self above God the holy Ghost, when he taketh upon him to sanctify the creatures of the world, otherwise then God hath sanctified them to apply the merits of Christ, otherwise then God's holy spirit worketh application by faith, &c.

The 5. argument is, that Antichrist should be received moste specially of the Jews, of which he bringeth the opinion of diverse old writers, but because the Scripture saith no such thing, 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 John. 5 I came in my fathers name, and ye have not received me, if another come in his own name ye will receive him. This other man saith M. S. is Antichrist, and so expounded by the ancient fathers. I answer they have no ground of this exposition. For Theudas the Egyptian, Cocabas, and such like, deceived the Jews in their own 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 Jerome, shall subdue 3. kings, the kings of Egypt, Africa, and Ethiopia, which seeing the Pope hath not done, he is not Antichrist, I answer, Nether Jerome nor any Ecclesiastical writer, whom he followeth, hath any directition out of the Scripture, for this interpretation, wherefore it is more like, that the Emperor is the little horn which first diminishing as it were a third parte of the strength of the fourth beast, at length began utterly to oppress & destroy it, I mean y ^e common wealth of Rome.

The 7. reason is, Antichrist shall prevail in his reign but 3. years & an half, Dan 7. which time the Apocal • se calleth 42. months. I answer, this time must not be limited by measure of man, but as God hath appointed it. Daniel nameth no years, but a time, times, & half a time. And Jerome in his accompt of 1293 days differeth from S. John Apoc. 12. 6. who setteth them down 1260. days.

The 8. reason is, that Helias shall come at the time of Antichrist, as Hippolitus, Augustine, Jerome & Theodoret teach, who is not yet come, although the Pope have long flourished. I answer, The Scripture speaketh of no coming of Helias, but of Christ's two witnesses, which have never failed in the greatest heat 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.

The 10. argument is, that Antichrist shall not come before the later ende of the world as August ne and Theodoretus judged. but Gregory seeing the ambition of John of Constantinople affirmed, that the time of the revelation of Antichrist was even at hand, and that the same John was the forerunner of Antichrist, and Antichrist should shortly be reucaled, & an army of Priests should wait upon him. Now seeing he, whosoever took that which John refused, by Gregory's judgment should be Antichrist, and it is certain, that Pope Boniface the 3. soon after the death of Gregory and his successors, usurped not only that, but more also, it is certain by Gregoryes prophecy, that the Pope is Antichrist. Who being within the 600. years, answereth to M. Sanders fond challenge. And although none within that compass had pointed out the see of Rome, yet the fulfilling of the prophecy in the later times, did sufficiently declare who it should be. And most of the ancient writers name Rome to be the see of Antichrist. Although they could not foresee that the Bishoprike of that see should degenerate into the tyranny of Antichrist. M. Sander answereth, that Tertullian and Jerome, call Rome Babylon, because of the confusion of tongues of di • ersenations, that haūted thither in time of the Emperors. And the Rome was full of Id • any, and did perse • ute the Saints and namely more t •• n 30 Bishops of Rome. The reason of tongnes is very absurd, and not given by any of those writers. As for Idolatry and persecuting of Saints, although it might be said in time of Irenaeus, and Tertullian, yet could it not be said in the days of Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, Primasius, and a number that lived in time of the Christian Emperors. And whereas Jerome ad Algasiam, expoundeth the name of blasphemy written in the foreheade of the purple harlet to be Rome everlasting, it agreeth very well unto the see of the Popedom, which they boast to be eternal, although the Empire of Rome shall be clean taken away. For M. Sander him self liketh well the title given by Martianus and Valentinianus to Leo, whom they call Bishop of the everlasting city of Rome. cap. 16.

But whereas Rome is the city built upon seven hills, spoken of in the Apocalypse cap 17. M. Sander counteth it a childi • he argument, to prove the see of Antichrist to be there, for that the city is now gone from the hills, and standeth in the plain of Campus Martius, and the Pope sitteth on the other side of the river, upon the hill Vatican hard by Saint Peters Church, by whom he holdeth his chair, not at all deriving his power from the seven hills, &c. But if the Pope sit now in another Rome, then Peter the Apostle satte, howe will Master Sander persuade us, that he fitteth in the chair of Peter. For that Rome where Peter satte, was builded upon seven Hilles, and not gone down into the plain of Campus Martins, nor over the River. Beside this it is plain, that although the people have removed their habitations from the hills, yet the Pope hath not, for on them be still to this day his Churches, Monasteryes, & courts. For on the Mounte Caelius be the monastery of Sainte Gregory, the church of John and Paul, the Hospital of our Savior, the round Church, the great Minster of Lateran, in which are said, to be the heads of the Aposiles Peter and Paul, and the goodlyest buildings in the world, where the Bishops of Rome dwelled until the time of Nicolas the seconde, which was almost eleven hundredth years after Christ.

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

The Mount Exquilinus, hath the Church of Saint Peter himself surnamed Ad vincula.

The Mounte Viminalis hath the Church of S. Laurence in Palisperna, and S. Potentiana.

The Mount Tarpeius or Capitoline, hath an house of Friars Minors called Ara Coeli. And there did Boniface the ninth build a fair house of Brick for keeping of Courtes.

The Mount Palatinus, is a place called the great Palace, and hath an old Church of S. Nicolas and of S. Andrew.

The Mounte Quirinalis is not altogether void of habitation, to which appertaineth the Church of S. Maria de populo.

The city with 7. hills is still the see of Antichrist, described by S. John at such time as those 7, hills were most of alinhabited & garnished with sumptuous buildings. But M. S. to darken the prophesy saith, Those 7. hills be the fullness of pride in secular princes, to whom the Protestants commit the supreme government of the church. I will not speak of this contumely that he bloweth out against Christian Princes, neither will I' stand to prove that 7. hills in that place are taken literally, which is an easy matter because 7. hills are the exposition of 7. heads of y ^e beast, but how will M. S or all the Papists in the world deny the city of Rome to be that Babylon and see of Antichrist, When the Angel in the last verse of the chapter saith, And the woman which thou sawest is that great city which hath dominiō over the Kings of the earth: which if any man say was any other City then Rome, all learning and learned men will cry out against him. The see being found, it is easy to find the person by S. Paul's description, and this note especially that excludeth the heathen tyrants, he shall 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 & affirm still, that the Pope is that man of sin & Son of perdttion, the adversary that lifteth up himself above all that is called God, and shall be destroyed by the spirit of the Lord's mouth, & by the glory of his coming.

The 18. Chapter.

NOT the Pope of Rome, but the Protestants them selves are the members of Antichrist, by forsaking the Catholic Church, by setting up a new Church and by teaching salse doctrine against the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Heretics depart from the Catholic Church. Heretics being once departed out of the Church, have new names. Why among the Catholics some are called Franciscans, Dominicanes, &c. Heretics can never agree The short reign of Heretics. Heretics preach without commission. Heretics do prefer the temporal reign or sword before the spiritual. They are the members of Antichrist, who withstand the external and publke sacrifice of Christ's Church. Heretics deprive Christ of his glorious inheritance in many nations together. The intolerable pride of Heretics, in making them selves only Judges of the righte sense of God's word. The Protestants teach the same doctrine which the old Heretics did. The Protestants are the right members of Antichrist, in that they spo • le God's Church of very many gifts & graces & articles of the faith.

HE maketh 11. marks of an Antichristian. The 1. is. They depart from the church as all her • ti • s do. I answer, the Protestants have not depart • d from the Church of Christ, but are gone out o • the Church of Antichrist, 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 driven into the wilderness, Apoc. 22. 6. But M Sand would have 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 manifest.

And Saint Paul prophes • ed of the great Apostasy and departing from Christ, which Antichrist should make. 2 • hess 2. to him self & his own doctrine, as Irenaeus doeth expound it. •• b. 5. & Basi. Ep. 71. which all nations people's & tongues should embrace. Ap •• . 18. 3. therefore it were no marvel, if no place could be named, altogether void of the insection of Ant • christ, especially seeing the Church her self was driven into the desert, that is out of the sight of men. yet there is no donbt, but God preserved his Church, though in small numbers, both in the East & in the West. And namely one parte of the Church of God was in Britain, both in Wales and Scotland, not subject to the Pope, nor acknowledging his authority, at such time, as Augustine the monk came from Pope Gregory, & so con • nued longe after the revelation of Antichrist. Bed. Hist. lib. 2. cap. 2. lib. 3. cap. 25. And no doubt but the like was in many corners of the world.

The 2. mark of an Antechristian he maketh, to have new names after they be gone out of the Church, as, Lutherans, Zwinglians, &c. whereas they have none but Catholics, yes verily, the name of the Popish Church & Papists, is as ancient as the name of Luther & Luthe • ans, & more ancient to. M. Sand. saith we give them these names of spite, eyght or nine hundredth ye • res since the papacy Began. The like I say of them, who call us Lutherans &c. of mere malice, when we are nothing but Christians, wherefore the trial must be in the doctrine, which either sort profess, and not in names.

The Christians of the Arians were called Homousians, Athanasians. &c. but the doctrine of the Cathotholike Christians ag • eeing with the words of God proved them to be no s • ctaryes nor Hetetikes, so doth our doctrine justify us what names soever be devised against us. But Ma • ster Sander would have us to show a man, whose p • oper name was Papa or Romanus as though many Heretics were not called of their hearisie or place from whence they came, and not of proper names of men. Angelici, Apostolici, Barbarita, Cathari, Collyridiani, En • ratitae, Patripassiani and a great number more were called of their heresy, Cataphryges, Pepuziani and such like were called of the place where they were. Wherefore the name of Papists and Romanists agreeth • ith the example of old heretics. As for the longe tarrying, large spreadinge, and strange commng in of the Popish heresy is therefore without example, in all points like, because Ant • christ is not a common pettit heretic, but the greatest and most dangerous enemy that ever the Gospel had.

The names of Benedictines, Fraunciscanes &c. Master Sander would excuse, because these sects maintain no doctrine, dissenting frō the Pope, but all seek the perfectiou of the Gospel by diverse ways, as though there were any other way but Jesus Christ. Saint Paul 1. Cor. 1. condemneth the holding of Peter, of Paul, of Apollo, when the Doctrine was all one, and counteth them schismatics, that so did. And the purer P • imatiue church, condemned such apish immitators of the Apostles in forsaking all things and possessing nothing, in abstaining from Marriage &c. for Heretics, and called them Apostolicos, witness Epiphan. Cont. Aposto. haer, 61.

The third Mark of an Antichristian, is, dissagreement among Heretics: and here not content to charge us with the dissagreeing of Anabaptists from us, he amplysieth the dissention between Luther and Zwinglius, about the presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, for which contradiction, he thinketh it must needs follow that one of them is an Antichrist.

I answer every error stifely maintained, maketh not an Heretike, except it be in an article of faith necessary to salvation.

Cyprian against the Byshopps of Rome Stephanus and Cornelius, held an error in Baptism, as great as that same of Luther, dissenting from Zwinglius in the Supper of the Lord, yet is not Cypryan accounted for an Heretike. Master Sander replieth and saith, that Cyprian was not so stubborn, that he would excommunicate them that held the contrary.

Luther also and Zwinglius, although they could not be reconciled in opinions, yet agreed to abstain from contention, at Marpurge Anno domini. 1529 Sleid. lib. 6. Master Sander saith, further, that in the contention of Cyprian, and Stephanus, the Catholic Faythe was not fully and universally received in any general Council. But he forgetteth that the Byshoppe of Rome was one party, whose judgment should have ended the striefe if his authority had been such then, as he usurped moste ambiciously afterward.

Now where as he defendeth the Papists for their unity, which he saith, could not be without the spirit of God, I answer he might as well defend the Doctrine of the Mahometistes, where is greater unity then ever there was among the Papists: who to omit an hundredth small contentions of the schoolmen, are not yet agreed, of the greatest question of all, whether the Pope be above the council or the council above the Pope. For seeing some of the Papists, make the Popes determination to be the rule of truth, other make the council, there is no unity among the Papists in truth, when they are not agreed what is the only rule of truth: whereas we all agree, that the word of God is the only rule of truth, whereby we would have all doctrine tried and examined.

The fourth mark of an Antichrist, is, to reign but a short time, and here he would have us to mark howe Luther's kingdom is come to an ende, whose doctrine Melancthon hath changed although Illyricus would defend it. What depe root y ^e doctrine of God delivered by Luther, hath taken, it is so well known, that it cannot be dissembled. Neither hath Melancthon departed from him, except it were in his opinion of the real presence. Wherefore this is a great impudency, to triūphe over the decay of Luthets doctrine, which daily increaseth, to the overthrow of the Popish kingdom.

The fall of Hosiander an heretic, no man either marueleth or pitieth. The doctrine of Zwinglius and Oecolampadius of the Sacrament is the same that Calvin teacheth, as every wise man doth know, and their learned works shall live and be in honor, when the Popes decretalls and his Mass books &c. shall stop mustard pots, and be put to viler uses.

Neither is Calvin's doctrine failed, by our oath of supremacy, for Calvin in the right sense of it, taught the same supremacy of Christian Princes which we swear to acknowledge, in our sovereign.

Neither doth Beza teache any otherwise of the descending of Christ into hell, then Calvin did, nor otherwise expounded the place of the Psalm, cited in Acts the 2. then Calvin doth, as all men that will read them both may see, notwithstanding the shameless cavil of M. Sander.

The long continuance of the Popish kingdom, is a small cause to brag of, when it being sound enemy to the kingdom of Christ, is now entered so far into destruction, out of which it shall never escape, although Master Sander saith it doth flourish, when it is banished out of so many regions and daily decreaseth in every place, God's holy name be praised therefore.

The fifth mark of Antichrist (he saith) is to preach without commission, as Luther did, who was sent of none. I answer in the state of the church, so miserably deceived, as it was in his time, God sendeth extraordinarily, immediately from him self, as Helias & Helizaeus & the Prophets were sent to the Jews & Israelites, which were not of the Priests & ordinary teachers, so Christ sent his Apostles and Evangelists. And so was Luther and such as he sent to repair the ruins of the church. And yet the Papists have small advantage against the calling of Luther, seeing he was a Doctor, authorised to preach in that church, where he first began, which after he had reformed the abuses thereof, and restored true doctrine in many points banished, by the false doctrine of Antichrist. The same reformed church hath ever since sent forth ordinary pastors and teachers and shall do to the end of the world.

The sixth mark of an Antichrist is, that heretics prefer the temporal sword before the spiritual. And therefore Antichrist shall by force of arms compel men to a new faith, for he shall come as S. Paul saith in virtute, that is to say in power or strength. O impudent falsifier of the holy Scripture, doth not Saint Paul say that his coming shall be according to the efficacy of Satan in all power & signs and lying wonders, & in all deceitfulness of unrighteousness, 2. Thes. 2. by which is shown seduction by false doctrine, but he shall maintain his kingdom by cruelty, as it is manifest in the Revelation cap. 13. & 17. &c. But M. Sander hath a great quarrel against the B. of Winchester for saying in his book against Feckenham, that the civil Magistrate, may visit, correct, reform and depose any Bishop in their own realm. Which is directly to say that the power of the King is higher and greater in God's church, then the power of a Bishop. And what inconvenience is this, in things pertaining to his office, seeing that the Bishops power in his spiritual office of preaching ministering &c. is confessed to be above the King? Hereby we make the body above the soul (saith M. Sander) the temporal reign above the kingdom of heaven. Not a whit, no more thē Solomon in deposing Abiather, & Christiā Emperors in deposing proud Bishops of Rome. Only this we say, that M. Sander dissembleth. The cause must be just, for which • King should depose a Bishop or pastor, for! think there is equal right in deposing of the greatest Bishop, & the poorest Priest from his benefice. This latter was always lawful by the common laws upon just cause. Now if the cause be just, it must be either manifest or doubtful. If it be manifest as Abiathers was for murder, treason, adultery, &c. the King observing the process of the law, as in all other men's causes, may proceed against a Bishop. If the cause be doubtful, it is either for life or doctrine. The trial of the Bishops life, ought to be as all other men's are, with due consideration of his accusers. The trial of doctrine is not in the Kings knowledge ordinarily but in the knowledge of the eccle siasticall state, who are judges of the doctrine by reason of their knowledge, & to depose him from his ministry 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 offense deserve it. But that in spiritual matters the King should rule y ^e Bishops, & pastors otherwise then God's word would have them ruled, none of us did ever affirm: for that were tyranny & not Christian government. And of such tyranny of Constantius the Arian Emperor, doth Athanasius complain: In Episi. ad sol. vit. agent. and show the judgment & answers of the Christian Bishops, Paulinus, Lucifer, Eusebius, Dionysius, Liberius, Hosius, unto him, when he would have enforced them to subscribe against Athanasius, for defending the eternal divinity of our Savior Christ.

But yet the same Athanasius, appealed, him self, to the godly Emperor Constantine the great, although in the end the Emperor being carried away by multitude of false witnesses, as any mortal mā may be, & deceived, as David was about Mephibosheth, gave wrong sentence against him Socr. lib. 1. ca. 34. And whē the same Emperor in his letters before, threatened to depose him, if he were disobedient, he never repined but acknowledged his authority.

But Ambrose saith Ep. 32. that even an heretical Emperor coming to years of discretion, will be able to consider, what manner a Bishop he is, who layeth the Priestly right under the lay men's feet. By which (saith M. Sander) you may see what manner a Bishop M. Horne and his fellows be, w ^c give the most proud & intolerable title of supreme head & governor, to lay Princes. I answer in giving this title, they mean to take nothing from the right of the clergy, & confess with Augustine, that there is no greater then a Priest in his office, although Moses after the distinction was no Priest, but a civil Magistrate & in his calling above Aaron, that was high Priest. And although M. Sander say, this is the divinity of England only, to acknowledge the Prince to be chief governor, he saith most untruly, for all learned men of all countries, do acknowledge the same, in such sort as we do in England, and not as he in Flanders, either dreameth or slandereth us to do. For we confess with Valentinian the good Emperor, that the Prince must submit his head to his godly pastor, in matters pertaining to his spiritual power Theodor. lib. 4. cap. 5. And yet we allow the same Valentinian writing to the Bishops of Asia and Phrigia Theodor. lib. 4. cap. 8.

The seventh mark of Antichrist is, the withstanding of the external and public sacrifice of the church, by which he meaneth the sacrifice of the Mass. Nay rather it is a setting up of a new altare & sacrifice propitiatory, against the only propitiatory sacrifice of Christ's death once offered, by which one oblation he hath made perfect forever, them that are sanctified Heb. 10. The auctor of this sacrifice, which is the Pope, he is in deed Antichrist the son of perdition.

But Master Sander for proof of the sacrifice of the Mass, allegeth the prophecy of Malachi cap. 1. with 16. fond comparisons of the defectes of the Jews, and the perfection of the Gentiles, which he affirmeth to be the uniform interpretation of the ancient fathers, of whom no one denieth the body and blood of Christ to be here meant, albeit some of them expoundeth this prophecy of prayers and inward righteousness which are always joined with the unbloody sacrifice. I answer no one of the ancient fathers, understandeth this prophecy of the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, otherwise then of a sacrifice of praise and thanks giving, for proof whereof, I must refer the reader to mine answer to M. Heskins lib. 1. cap. 33. 34. 35. & 36. where he shall find the places of the Doctors set down, which are by M. Sander in place only quoted.

But one other strange reason of M. Sander to prove the sacrament of the Lord's supper to be a sacrifice propitiatory, I may not omit because I remember not that I have read it before. Every public and external fact which is made by God's authority to put us in mind of that grea • sacrifice, once fulfilled on the cross, m • s • e also be partaker of the nature of that Sacrifice whereof it is a remembrance. As if the killing of a Calf, which signified the death of Christ, was an external sacrifice, how infinitely more shall the body and blood of Christ being made of bread and wine, to signify his own death be a public and external sacrifice.

This reason M. Sander maketh no small account of. But how beastly an absurdity his principle is you shall easily perceive, if you consider, that Baptism is a public and external fact made by God's authority, to put us in mind of the death and bloodshedding of Christ, yet no man was ever so mad, to say baptism is a sacrifice. Again the Calf that was killed was by God's appointment a sacrifice of the only & singular sacrifice of Christ's death, & not by virtue of the signification, for the Jews had other ceremonies then sacrifices, which did signify the death of Christ: But the Lord's supper is not by God's appointment a sacrifice, therefore the signification cannot make it so.

The 8. mark of the false prophets of Antichrist, is to spoil Christ of his inheritance, which God gave him in all nations, as the Protestants do, Which for 8. or 9. hundred years, cannot show any nation, town or village, church or chapel in the wide world, where they had public prayer. I answer, seeing the spirit speaketh expressly, of a general Apostasy, and of the flying of the Church into the desert, it is no more derogation to the inheritance of Christ, that his Church among many nations was in persecution under Antichrist for 7. or 8. hundred years, then that the same was in persecutiō under the heathen Emperors, for 300. years and more. For the nations were then the inheritance of Christ, in as glorious wise as when the Church flourished in outward peace under the Christiā Emperors. Yet was there towns & countries, not only in France, Italy, and Germany, but also in the east parte of the world, great nations, among w ^c Christ had a visible Church, which were never subject to the church of Rome. If M. S. reply that they held some errors which we deny, as prayer for the dead &c. I answer, holding the only foundation Jesus Christ, they might be true Christians, although they were infected with some such errors as these.

The 9. Mark of Antichrist is, intolerable pride, to make him self judge of the sense of God's word, and of the text also. I allow this mark, & it agreeth to none that ever was so aptly, as to the Pope, whom the Papists affirm, that he cā not err in the sense of the Scripture, who affirm that he hath authority to receive & reject what books of Scripture he will. But M. Samder saith this note agreeth to us, and that we make our selves judges of the sense of God's word, and of the text. But we utterly deny that: for we make the spirit of God in his word, judge of the interpretation. No saith M. Sander, & bringeth an example of these word's of S. Paul. He that joineth his virgin in marriage doth well, and he that joineth her not doth better. Here upon (saith he) we ground this doctrine, Virginitie is a better state and more acceptable to God, then the state of marriage. This we grant in some respect, as the Apostle speaketh, but not simpyl. The question is of these words, he doth better what is meant thereby: M. Sander chargeth us to say, that S. Paul meaneth he doth better in the sight of the world, which is an impudentlye, and therefore all his foolish dialogisme, is a fighting with his own shadow. Beza expoundeth he doth better that is more commodiously, not in respect of the world, but in respect of godliness, for the reasons before alleged by S. Paul, & S. Paul him self 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 absolutely and simply, to prefer virginity above marriage, as a thing of it self more acceptable to God, it is plain by these words. First he saith, of virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord. But he hath a commandment, to prefer those things that are most acceptable to the Lord. Secondly he saith: I suppose this to be good for the present necessity, by which words he doth emply, that it is not always & absolutely better, but at sometimes & in some respects, for them that have the gift of continence, and for none other. So we hold virginity to be better then marriage, according to the meaning of the best ancient writers, whereof some were too great extollers of virginity, yet not like the Papists.

But M. Sander saith the Protestants make them selves Judges, not only of the meaning of God's word, but also of the books them selves. For they reject not only the book of wisdom, Toby & the Maccabees, with other such books, but also the Epistle of S. James. Nay rather the Pope is Antichrist, for receiving these books of Wisdom, Toby, Maccabees, w ^c were never received of the church of the Israelites, nor of the vniuersalchurch of Christ for Canonical Scripture, as I have often shown. And as touching y ^e Epistle of S. James, it is a shameless slander of him to say, that the Protestants reject it, but we must hear his reason. First Luther calleth it a strawen Epistle. So Luther called the Pope supreme head of the church, and the Mass a sacrifice propitiatory, if Protestants be charged to hold whatsoever Luther sometime held, and after repented. But the confession of Zurich with the consent of the churches of Heluetia and Sabaudia, writeth thus, of it. Jacobus ill dixit &c. That James said, that works do justify, not speaking against Saint Paul, otherwise he were to be rejected. Here saith M. Samder, they think it possible, that S. James might be contrary to Saint Paul, and so his Epistle to be no holy Scripture. A wise collectiō I promise you. S. Paul him self said. If I myself or an Angel from heaven, should preach any other Gospel then you have already received, let him be accursed. Ergo S. Paul thought it was possible, y ^t him self or an Angel should be auctor of a new Gospel, & so his preaching should not be y ^e Gospel. Who seeth not y ^e madness of this cōsequēce.

But S. James his epistle (he saith) hath always been clearly admitted among true Catholics, & for witness hereof he quoteth most impudenly Euseb. lib. 1. ca. 23. in which book and chapter, Eusebius clearly affirmeth that it is a counterfeit epistle. I say not this to allow the judgment of Eusebius, but to show the impudency of M. Sander. But he saith we reject S. James because he is contrary to our deuilesh doctrine of only faith. We teach only faith none otherwise, thē the apostle teacheth, that a man is justified by faith, without works. We teach not that a man is justified by a dead faith, which is void of good works, but by a living faith which worketh by love. We say with Saint James, if a man say he have faith and hath not works, his faith shall not save him. For Abrahams faith, which was imputed to him for righteousness by God, was not without good works, as appeared by his obedience in offering his son, wherein God tried him, neither to know him, nor to justify him, whom he knew and justified before, but to show his obedience & to justify him before men. So it is true that S. James saith a man is justified of works and not of faith only. For a solitary srutles faith doth not justify before God, but a faith which is fruteful in good works is the only instrument to apprehend justification, and the works as Augustine saith follow and show a justified man they go not before to justify. Thus our doctrine agreeth very well with the Epistle of S. James & Saint Paul's doctrine, wherefore we have no need to reject the Epistle of Saint James, as contrary to our doctrine.

But the Protestants do not only make them selves judges of the whole books, but also over the very letter (saith he) of Christ's Gospel finding fault with the construction of the Evangelists, and bring the text it self in doubt. Example hereof he bringeth Beza in his annotations upon Luk 22. of the words: This cup is the new Testament in my blood which is shed for you. In which text, because the word blood in the Greke, is the dative case, the other word that followeth is the nominative case, Beza supposeth that S. Luke useth a figure called Soloecophanes, which is appearance of incongruity, or else that the last word which is shed for you, might, by error of writers, being first set in the margin out of Matthew & Mark, be removed into the text. Hereupon M. Sander out of all order & measure, raileth upon Beza & upon all Protestants. But I pray you good Sir, shall the only opinion of Beza, & that but a doubtful opiniō, in dite all the Protestants in the world of such high treason against the word of God? For what gaineth Beza by this interpretation? Forsooth the Greek text is contrary to his Sacramentary heresy. For thus he should translate it: This cup is the new Testament in my blood which cup is shed for you. Not the cup of gold or silver (saith he) but the liquor in that cup, which is not wine because wine was not shed for us, but the blood of Christ. Why then the sense is this. This blood in the cup which is shed for you is the new Testament in my blood. What sense in the world cā these words have? 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 new Testament in his blood, which was shed for us, which sense no man can deny, but he that will deny the manifest word of God. Neither doth the vulgare Latin translation give any other sense, although M. Sander is not ashamed to say it doth. The vulgare Latin text is this. Hic est calix nouum Testamētum in sanguine meo qui pro vobis fundetur. What grammarian in construing, would refer qui to calix and not rather to sanguine. Again Erasmus translateth it even as Beza. Hoc poculum nouum Testamentum per sanguinem meum qui pro vobis • ffundit • r. Now touching the conjecture of Beza, that those words by error of the scrivener, might be removed from the margent into the text, is a thing that sometime hath happened as most learned men agree, in the 27. of Matthew where the name of Jeremiah is placed in y ^e text, for that w ^c is in Zacharias, & yet neither of the Prophets was named by the Evangelist, as in most ancient records it is testified. The like hath been in the first of Mark, where the name of Isaiah is set in some Greek copies, and followed in your vulgare translation, for that which is cited out of Malachi which name was not set down by the Evangelist, but added by some unskillful writer, & is reproved 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, useth Soloe cophanes w ^c is an appearance of incōg • uity, and yet no incongruitie. Wherein I cannot marvel more at your malice (M. Sander) then at your ignorance, which put no difference between soloecismus & soloecophanes, but even as spitefully as unlearnedly, you affirm that Beza should teach, that S. Luke wrote false Greek, whereas Soloecophanes is a figure used of the most eloquent writers that ever took pen in hand, even Cicero, Demosthenes, Greek and Latin, profane and divine, and even of S. Luke him self in other places, whereof for examples, I refer you to Budaeus upon the word Soloecophanes. The apparance of incongruitie is, that it seemeth, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is the nominative case, should agre with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is the dative case, whereas in deed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used as a relative for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as it is often, and the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which wanteth, is understood, as it is commonly in the Greek tongue, and so the translation must be hoc poculum nouum Testamentum est in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis effunditur, or effusus est. So that this is nothing else, but an impudent and unskillful quarreling, against Beza, whereas you Papists defend against the manifest institution of the cup, & the practice of the primitive Church, the communion in one kind of bread only Con. Const. Sess. 13. 21.

The tenth mark of an Antichristian is to agree with the members of Antichrist, which are heretics. To agree with them in heresy is a point of Antichristianism, I confess, but not to agree with them in anything. For every heresy affirmeth things that are true. But let us see in what points of heresy he chargeth us to agree with the old heretics. First Eunomius said, that no sin should hurt him, if he were partaker of the faith which he taught, so the Protestants say of their faith. Yea sir, but their faith is not Eunomius faith, & yet they say not that no sin shall hurt them, but no sin shall condemn them: & so say you Papists of your popish faith.

Secondly Acesius the Nouatian Bishop affirmed, that mortal sins committed after baptism, might not be forgivē of the Priest, but of God alone. The Protestants deny the Priest to have any right to forgive sins. This is a loud lie & false slander, for we hold that the minister of God, hath authority to forgive all sins, that God will forgive, according to the power given to them John. 20 But you Papists agree with the heretic in this point, that you deny the Priest to forgive all sins according to the power given, but have your casus Episcopales & Papales, by which you abridge the power given by Christ.

Thirdly, the Messalians denied that baptism doth pluck up the root of sins, the same is the opiniō of the Protestants. The Protestants have none opinion common with the Messalians, who affirmed that our own merits & satisfaction with prayers continual were necessary for plucking up the root of sins, whereas we affirm, that baptism saveth us according to the Scripture 1. Pet. 3. 21. by forgiveness of our sins, whereby even the root of sin is plucked up, although cōcupiscense remain after the act of baptism, which you Papists also confess to remain & to be the root of sin, although you grant it not to be sin. But we limit not the effect of baptism, to the time passed before y ^e act of baptism only, as you do, but extend it to our eternal salvation: he that believeth & is baptized shall be saved. Mark 16. 16. Therefore you Papists both in this & in your continual lipplabor maintained in your Abbeys, agree with the Messalians.

Fourthly, AErius taught, that we must not pray for the dead, nor keep the accustomed fastings, & that there is no difference between a Priest & a Bishop. The superstition of praying for the dead, was justly reproved by AErius, so was the fast of custom and decree rather then of consideration, for the first that prayed for the dead were heretics, Montanists, as Tertullian & his sect, the first that made prescript laws of fasting, was Montanus the heretic also, as Eusebius witnesseth lib. 5. cap. 18. Of the third opinion was Jerome Euagrio, affirming that the distinction was made by men and not by God.

Fifthly, Jovinian judged virginity equal with marriage, so do the Protestants. I have shown before howe it is equal, and how it is superior.

Sixthly, S. Jerome reproveth Vigilantius of heresy, for denying prayer to Saints, and giving honor to relics. For praying to Saints, there is no mention in S Jerome, the immoderate honoring of relics was justly reproved, and yet it was not then the one half of that it hath been since. Hieronym, although he rather rail then reason against Vigilantius, as • rasmus hath noted: yet he desendeth not the adoratio • or worshipping, but the reverent estimation of relics.

Seventhly, the Arians would not believe the consubstantiality of the same, because that word was not written in the Scripture. So do the Protestants deny many things upon the like pretence. This is a mere slander. for we stand upon the sense of the Scripture, and not the words only.

Ninthly, Lucius the Arian persecuted holy Monks, so do the Protestants. Nay they punish none but filthy, idle, Idolaters, and hypocrites.

Tenthly, the Montanists and Luciferians said there was a stews made of the Church. They said so falsely when the Church was chaste. but Isaiah say de truly: how is the faithful city become an whore, when the Church of Israel was so in deed.

Eleventhly, the Donatists said the Church was lost from all the world, & preserved only in Africa. So say the Protestants that the Church was lost in all partes of the world, and raised up again in Germany. The Protestants say not so. For the Church hath been scattered over the face of the earth, since the first preaching of the Apostles unto this day. But the Papists say that the Church was lost out of all the world and preserved only in a part of Europe, when of all partes in the world only a part of Europe, which is the least part of the world, was subject to the Church of Rome.

Tweluethly, the Seu • rians used the law and the Prophets, but they perverted the sense of the Scriptures by a certain peculiar interpretation of their own. So do the Protestants. Nay so do the Papists, that submit all understanding of the Scripture, be it never so plain, to the interpretation of their Pope, and popish Church: as the commandment of Images forbidden, and the cup to be received of all, do most manifestly declare.

Lastly, it hath always been a trick of Jews and heretics to be still in hand with translating holy Scriptures, that by changing they may get some appearance of Scripture on their side, as Theodotion, Aquila, Symmachus. So do the Protestants now. Hieronym was no heretic, yet did he translate the Scriptures both into Latin and into the Dalmatian tongue. And the Papists have played the part of Antichristian heretics, to confirm the vulgare Latin translation, which is so manifestly corrupt and false, contrary to the truth of the Hebrew and Greek texts upon pretence of avoiding vncertaynty of translations, whereas there is none so bad as that.

I might here run through a great number of the old heresies, in which the Papists consent with the ancient Heretics. The Valentinians in their cross. Montanistes in their purgatory, and prescript fastings. Carpocratians in their images. The Hemerobaptists in their holy water. The Offenes and Marcosianes in their relics and strange tongue in prayers. The Heracleanites in anointing them that are ready to die. The Caians in praying to angels. The Archonticks in their coūterfaite mōkery. The Marcionists in extolling virginity & fasting, & in permitting women to Baptize. The Enctatits in abstaining from flesh. The Apostoliks in their vow of continence. The Cyrians in worshipping the virgins Mary. The Pelagians in their opinion of merits and freewill. The Eutychians in denying the truth of Christ his body. The Anthromorphites in making Images of God, and many other, but that I have done it elsewhere, more at large. But of these, Epiphanius, Augustine, and others are witnesses.

The 11. and last mark is, that Antichristians should go about to make void, and deny the supernatural graces which God hath given to his Church, so that the seal of Antichrist by Hippolitns judgment should be Nego I deny. So do the Protestants which deny five sacraments of the church, the sacrifice of the Mass. &c. And so maketh rehearsal of a greatnumber of popish errors, which indeed we deny, because they be contrary to the truth of God's word. Among which he rehearseth some false and shameless slanders, as, that we deny our sins to be taken away by the Lamb of God, saying they tarry still but that they are not imputed. In deed, if we say we have no sin, we deceive our selves, and the truth is not in us. But we say all the sins that we have, are taken away, when they are not laid to our charge.

Secondly he chargeth us to teach, That no justice is at all made in us by spreading charity in our hearts, Whereas S. Paul saith Rom. 5. many shall be made just: but they say only that Justice shall be imputed. We say with Saint Paul Rom. 5. that being justified by faith we have peace with God, rejoicing in hope, which doth not confound us in the midst of afflictions, because the love of God is poured forth in our hearts. I mean the love of God toward us, and not our love toward him. We say likewise with Saint Paul, that by the obedience of one which is Christ, many shall be made righteous. But howe can we be made righteous by obedience of Christ, but that his obedience is imputed and made perfect unto us? O putide and absurd slanders.

He chargeth us thirdly, that we deny Baptism, to remit our sins, which is false, except as Saint Peter denieth the work wrought to save us. 1. Pet. 3. verse 21. not the washing of the filth of the body, but the answer of a good conscience unto Almighty God.

Fourthly, he chargeth us to deny that Baptism is necessary to Children, which are borne of Christian Parentes wherein he lieth moste impudently: although we agree not with the Papists that the Infantes of Christians excluded by necessity from Baptism, are damned. In which error although Augustine was, yet he is no more to be followed, then in another error, about the same infantes, to whom both he and Pope Innocentius thought the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper as necessary as the Sacrament of Baptism, affirming that Infantes which have not received the Lord's Supper were damned. Contra duas Episto.

To conclude, we deny nothing that they can prove to be true, but such matters as we prove by the only rule of truth to be false. But the Pope showeth himself to be Antichrist, which denieth all the soueraignitie of the office and prerogative of Christ.

He denieth that Christ is the only head of his universal Church in Heaven and in earth.

He denieth that Christ only is a Prieste, according to the order of Melchizedek.

He denieth that Christ only is our Mediator, as well of intercession, as of redemption,

He denieth that Christ's word is sufficient for our salvation.

He denieth that the sacrifice of Christ his death is the only purgation of our sins.

He denieth that the merits of Christ are our only justification.

He denieth that God only is to be prayed unto.

He denieth the verity of Christ's body by his transubstantiation.

Finally he denieth all honor and glory to be dew only to God by Jesus Christ, and therefore he is none other, but even that detestable monster Antichrist whom I beseech the Lord, speadely to confound and abolish by the spirit of his mouth which is his holy word, and by the brightness of his coming.