Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 1 · Chapter 9
CAP. IX.
To defende, that the doctors, as they be confessed to be ours in very many pointes, so they be ours in all pointes, and the Protestants Bristowe.in no point. All the doctors sayings that he alledgeth, are examined and answered.
The first part of his doctors, generally his challenging words.
I confesse not the doctors to be yours in very manye points, nor simply in fewe pointes, nor all in any point Fulke.of controuersie, but graunting that for a fewe errours, which you hauehave common with them, in which you also farre exceede them, as in prayers for the dead, prayers to saintes, some superstitious or superfluous ceremonies, I affirme that in the greatest and chiefest pointes of controuersie, they are either all with vsus, or not one against vsus.
2 A generall answere to his challenge, declaring that … neede not to answere his doctors particularly.Bristowe.
His first reason is, because I sayde: wee stande for authoritie Fulke.onelyonly to the iudgement of the holy scriptures, which scriptures in the chapter going before, he hath satisfied. But how he hath satisfied them, let the indifferent readers iudge. And seeing the Papistes offer to stād to their iudgement in all things, and wee refuse them not as witnesses vntounto the truth, in most things, he is not discharged in reason of answering my doctors.
His second reason is, for yt I do answere all mine own doctors for him, if it be wel considered: & what is your consideration? In that I confesse them to hauehave helde with you the very same points, for which wee must bee condemned (no remedie) as differing from the doctors in the greatest pointes. What are those I pray you? Bristowe answereth. For why doeth he saye, that we are against the honor of God, & against the offices of Christ, but because wee holde inuocation of saints, and worshipping of their reliques? yes sir, for other more grosse idolatrie and defacing of the kingdome, priesthod, and propheticall office of Christe, and for holding these two pointes more absurdly and grossely then any of the doctors did. Againe, why doth he say, that we are against the authoritie of Gods worde, but because we hold with traditions, as the doctors did? I aunswere, the doctors held with no traditions that were proued to be against the written worde of God, they made not the decrees of Councels and Popes, of equall autoritie with the worde of God as you do.
But of one of the greatest pointes he repeateth my wordes, in which I say expressely: I confesse with M. Allen, that the old writers, not only knewe, but also hauehave expressed the value of our redemption by Christ, in such wordes, as it is not possible that the Popish satisfaction can stande with them. And yet on the other side (saith Bristowe) see what followeth immediatly. Against the value of which redemption, if they hauehave vttered any thing, by the worde of satisfaction, or any thing else, we may lawfully reiect their authoritie, not onelyonly though they be doctors of the church, but also if they were angels from heauen. But what I pray you concludeth Bristowe of these two sayings. His wordes followe immediatly: So that nowe we no more neede to defende against him, that wee are not contrarie to the doctors, then that the doctors are not contrary to them selues. As though it were impossible for men to be contrarie to themselues. And yet I say no more of them, then of the angels, that they are contrary to the trueth in this point, but that if they were, wee might reiect them as lawfully as the angels, if they brought another gospell. Last of all he sayth: Wee neede not defend that we are contrarie to our selues in the same. For in what wordes the doctors speake thereof, the same do wee. Neither is the antecedent true, nor if it were, doth the argument followe. For you will not saye as the olde writers doe, that through the redemption of Christ, a man is iustified before God by faith onelyonly. without respect of his workes or merites. And where you vse the doctors wordes, you either vse them in a contrary sense, or else elude them with additions & distinctions, neither grounded on the Scriptures nor on the olde doctors, but inuented out of your owne hereticall braines. After which manner it is easie to defēd that they say nothing against any heresie, which they doe not condemne by name, although they plainly aduouche the trueth, against such errour.
3 I ioygne with him neuerthelesse particularly.Bristowe.
Although they ascribe not infallibilitie to a fewe, Fulke.but onelyonly to the vniforme consent of the doctours, yet he is content to ioyne vppon this issue, that the protestants hauehave not against them for any one article at all, so much as any one doctour at all. Howe he auoydeth mine euidence, you shall see in that which followeth:
The second parte. Of his doctors particularly: First, whether they expound any scripture against vsus.Bristowe.
As touching antichrist, I sayd, Pur. 249. The seat of antichrist was apointed to be set vp in the Latin church Fulke.according to the reuelation of Saint Iohn, and the exposition of Ireneus, who iudged yt Lateinos was yt number of ye beasts name spokē of Apoc. 13. To this Bristo… answereth, here are two ragged conclusiōs. The first, antichrist was appointed to be set vp in the Latin church, ergo the Pope of Rome is antichrist. No sir, I made no such argument, but of the authoritie of Irenaeus I proued, that the seat of antichrist was appointed to be set vp in the Latine church, and therfore superstition was somewhat forwarder then in the Greeke church. The other conclusion (sayeth Bristowe) is this: Irenaeus iudged that Lateinos should be the name of antichrist, (as Iesus was and is the name of Christ) ergo, he iudged that antichrist was apointed to be set vp in the Latin church: I answere, the antecedent is yours Master Bristowe, and not mine. For I sayd not, that Irenaeus iudged that Lateinus should be the name of antichrist, as Iesus is the name of Christ, as though antichrist should be a singular man: For Irenaeus sayeth it, in respect of his kingdome, which should be in the Latine part of the world: V…lde verisimile est, quoniam verissimum regnum hoc hab… vocabulum. It is verie like, because the moste true kingdome hath that name, which was the kingdome of the Romanes. Therefore wee must seeke in the Romane kingdome for antichist: in which kingdome hauehave reigned hitherto Emperours and Popes. Emperours hauehave beene heathenish & Christened: the heathenish it could not be, because antichrist must sit in the Church, and they were altogether without. Of the Emperours, some were Catholike, and some hereticall. The Catholike no man will charge: the hereticall Emperors were no false Prophets, as antichrist must be a false teacher, that with lying signes and wonders shall deceiue the world: wherefore it remaineth that of all that hauehave hitherto reigned in the Latine Empire, the Pope must bee that principall antichrist. For Caluine and Luther, whome Bristowe fondly nameth to be in the Latine Churche) neuer bare rule in the Latine kingdome. Bristowes last refuge is, that Irenaeus did not so iudge. Hee onelyonly sayeth, it is very like to be so. I aske no more but his iudgement of the likelyhod: For I knowe hee reciteth other names, which hauehave in them the same number, as Euan, Teitan, and in the ende will pronounce certeinly of none, holding, that it is better to expect the fulfilling of the Prophecy, then to pronounce rashly of any. But seeing antichrist is alreadie reuealed, and all the prophecy of his apostasie and seduction accomplished, wee doubt not to ioyne to that auncient likelyhod of Irenaeus, the later likelyhodes of the same name agreeing in number with Lateinos in Greeke, Romiith in Hebrewe, not neglecting Ecclesia Italica. The consent of all which names, signifying the region, the citie, the kingdom, beare so harde vponupon the Pope & the popish church of Rome, that Bristowe, though he laye both his shoulders to it, shall neuer be able to remoue it.
Secondly I sayde of Hierom, Pur. 373. Hee was not such a slaue to the church of Rome, yt whatsoeuer pleased the bishops of that see, he was readie to accept: For then he would not hauehave beene so bold to call Rome the purple whore of Babylon, Praef. ad Paul. in lib. Didym. Bristow replyeth: as though when he calleth Rome so, or when Augustine calleth it the Westerne Babylon, they meane the church of Rome. I sayed not they meane the church of Rome, as it was in their time, but that antichrist shoulde sit at Rome, whome the scripture sayeth, must sit in the temple or Church of God, 2. Thes. 2. Neither doeth Augustine meane it of the empire, but of antichrist, which should arise in the Romane empire. Neither doeth Hierom meane of ye Paganisme of Rome, that remained in his time, which in ye place by Brist. cited ad Marcell. Ep. 16. he testifieth to hauehave ben trovnder feete, but of the purple whore sitting aloft, vponupon the rose coulered beast, of the wine of whose fornication, all nations were made drunken, of the blasphemie written in her forehead, of the seuen hilles &c. although in his tyme, he confesse there was the churche of God, the tryumphe of the Apostles and Martyrs, &c. & gentilitate calcata & Gentilitie being troaden vnderunder feete, the Christian name dayly lifting it selfe aloft. But that Hierom in doubtes did seeke for resolution of Damasus bishop of Rome, and that all other must likewise doe. Bristowe citeth his Epistle ad Damasum. To…. 2. in which he consulteth with Damasus, whether hee should vse the name of Hippostasis, and saith further, that whosoeuer gathereth not with Damasus, doth scatter: that is to saye, whoso is not Christes is antichrists, I aunswere, all this was well, so long as Damasus was a Catholike bishop, but that Saint Hierome was not readie to accept whatsoeuer it pleased the bishop of Rome, it is manifest by that he affirmeth Liberius to hauehave subscribed to the Arrians, in Catal. script. which he would neuer hauehave done, if he had thought it impossible for the bishop of Rome to erre, or necessarie for him to followe the bishop of Romes doctrine in all things. The place cited ad Damasum with answere to it, is in my confutation of Saunders Rocke, Cap. 15. And therefore the saying of Leo Epist. 89. That Christ tooke Peter into the participation of the vndiuided vnitie, proueth not, that it is all one to be Peters and to be Christes, when Peter erreth from Christe, and much lesse, that it is all one (as Bristowe sayeth) to be in vnitie with Peter and his successours, meaning the Popes, and to be in vnitie with Christ, from whome, not onelyonly all Popes in matter now of controuersie doe. But diuerse of the Bishops & Popes of Rome hauehave beene deuided into horrible and confessed errours and heresies, of both partes: as Gentilisme, Arrianisme, Eu…ichianisme, Menothelitisme, Sadduceisme.
Againe, I saide Pur. 320. Which of your prelates wil follow Ambrose in his cōmentarie vpō the Apocalipse, where he interpreteth the whore of Babylon to be the citie of Rome? whose wordes Bristow wil recite for me. This whore doth betoken in some places Rome in special, which then did persecute ye church of God: in some places in generall, the citie of the diuel, that is to saye, the whole body of the reprobat. Bristowe asketh if it be not a perillous point to touch the citie of Rome in saint Iohns time, when it did persecute the church of Rome? As though S. Iohn telleth a storie of his owne time, and not a prophecy of the time to come. Ambrose therfore, or whosoeuer writeth that cōmentarie, interpreteth that prophecy, Cap. 17. to be fulfilled of the citie of Rome: which was not onelyonly of persecution, but of seduction. But the vndoubted Ambrose (if you remember, sayeth Bristowe) of the church of Rome sayeth: In al things I couet to followe the Romane church, De sac. lib. 3. Cap. 1. but yet that he was not bounde to followe the church of Rome, he sayeth immediately after: Sed tamen & nos homine sensum habemus, &c. But yet we being men, hauehave vnderstanding. Therefore, that which is more rightly obserued elsewhere, we also do rightly obserue. We follow the Apostle Peter him selfe, we sticke vntounto his deuotion, what doth the church of Rome answere to this? Verily, Peter him selfe, which was a priest of the church of Rome, is author to vsus of this assertion. In this Chapter he noteth an error of the church of Rome in yt they vsed not to wash mens feete in baptisme. Vniustly indeede, he vrgeth that ceremonie as necessarie, but yet he sheweth, that his iudgement was, that the church of Rome might receiue a custome contrarie to y• scripture.
Beside this (saith Bristow) he calleth Peter the first & the foundation in the verie same place, where say you, Pur. 320 he affirmeth, that Peter is not the foundation. Howsoeuer I deale with my reader, you deale vnfaithfully with me: for my wordes are these: He affirmeth ye not Peter, but the faith & the confession of Peter, is the foundation of the church: and that the primacy of Peter was a primacie of faith, not of honour, of confession, not of autoritie or higher order. De incaern. dom. Ca. 4. & 5. Ambrose his words are, Cap. 4. Vos autem &c. But what do you say of mee? Immediatly (Peter) being not vnmindful of his place, he exercised the primacy: The primacie of confessing truely, not of honor, the primacie of faith, not of order or degree. And Cap. 5. Faith is ye foundation of the church. For it was not said of Peters flesh, but of his faith, that the gates of death shal not preuailc against it, his confession ouercommeth hel. The former of these places, Brist. corrupteth by adding this worde, worldly, to the words of Ambrose, honor, & degree, a… though Ambrose had meant, that Peter excelled in eccle siasticall honor & degree, being equal to his fellowes in worldly honour and degree. But such folly was farr frō Ambrose, to say Peter was not better then the rest of the Apostles in worldly honor & degree, when neither Peter nor the rest had any worldly honour or degree of dignitie at all. But he expresseth wherein all his primacie was, when he sayeth, he was first in confession, first in protestation of his faith, not being therefore of greater honor or higher degree then his fellowes, who all helde the same faith and confession. And this of Peters person, neuer a worde of his successours, which yet are not onelyonly the bishops of Rome, when they were at the best, but all other bishops are the successors of the Apostles, Hierom, Euagrius which succession cannot be esteemed by places, in which the Apostles sat in person, but by authoritie of teaching receiued from them with soundnes of doctrine.
To the later place (Bristow saith) the diuel may preuaile against the fleshe of a Pope: but his faith, but his confession (as well in all articles that be nowe in cōtrouersie, as in those at that time) wil stand, when they shall all be sonke downe into their due place. But Saint Ambrose speaketh not of eueryevery bishop of Romes faith and confession, but onelyonly of the singular faith and confession of Peter: Thou art Christe the sonne of the liuing God, which is against all sectes and heresies. Dies me citius &c. the day should sooner faile mee then the names of heretikes and diuers sectes. Yet this faith is generall against them all, that Christ is the sonne of God both sempiternall of his father, and also borne of the virgine. Let nowe the reader iudge, whether of vsus hath dealt more faithfully with Saint Ambrose.
Fourthly he gathereth, that I saye in diuerse places: that Irenaeus, Polycrates, Dionysius, Alexandrinus, Cyprianus, the Councell of Africa, and Socrates the historiographer, did preach or write against the Popes authoritie, when it first began to aduance it selfe, in Victor, Cornelius Stephanus, Anastasius, Innocentius, Zozimus, Bonifacius & Celestinus.
To this Bristow answereth: First, that all these Popes by my confession were of the true church, therfore I am against my selfe in making other Popes to be antichrist, for claiming such authoritie as these did. Whereto I replye, the former bishops did but begin a little in comparison to discouer the mysterie of iniquitie, those later Popes that are antichrists, did openly shewe them selues in the temple of God as God, and therefore great difference. Secondly, Bristowe answereth, that all those writers did communicate with those Popes: therefore our separation cannot be excused. I replye, their ambitious vsurpation tended not to heresie, and therfore they were content to admonish them, but the latter Popes, from whome we dissent, are fallen into open heresie and apostasie. Thirdly, he saith, that no one of these writers wrote against the Popes authoritie, as he wil shewe of Irenaeus, Polycrates, Dionysius, & Cyprian, Cap. 10. in 28. demaunde, where I will shewe that they did write against such vniust authoritie as those bishops did claime.
Yet concerning Saint Cyprian in this place, hee sayeth, that hee exhorteth Cornelius to bee as stout in not loosing certeine African heretikes, as their owne bishop had beene in bynding of them. By which hee woulde hauehave men thinke, that Cornelius had authoritie to vndoe, that which Cyprian had done, as the Pope in these dayes taketh vponupon him. But Cyprian yeldeth to no such authoritie, but maruelleth that Cornelius was anye thing moued with the threatening of those heretiks, to receiue them into his chur…, vnderunder pretence that Cyprian had not written to him immediatly of the constitution of Fortunatus a counterfeit bishop by a fewe heretikes, counting it sufficient that Cornelius knewe before, that they were excommunicated by the bishops of Africa, saying of their gadding to Rome, Cùm statutum sit, &c. Seing it is decreede of vsus all, and that it is meete & also right, that eueryevery mans cause shoulde be heard there, wher his crime is committed: and a portion of the flock is ascribed to eueryevery pastor, which eueryevery one should rule and gouerne as he will giuegive an account of his doing to the Lord, verily, they ouer whome we are set, must not gad about, nor with their subtile & craftie rash, craze the concord of the bishops, which cleueth together. But there to plead their cause, wher both they may hauehave accusers & witnesses of their crime, except to a fewe desperate men & castawayes, the authoritie of the bishops placed in Africa seemeth to be lesse, which hauehave alreadie iudged of them, & by the weight of their iudgement condemned their conscience bounde with the snares of many trespasses. Their cause already hath beene heard: the sentence is alreadie pronounced of them, neither is it congruent to the censure of priests to be reprehended by Leuits of mouable & inconstant minde, &c. You see that Cyprian meant nothing lesse, than to giuegive Cornelius bishop of Rome authoritie, to reuerse the sentence of the bishops of Africa, whose authoritie he iudged to be nothing lesse then the bishops of Rome or other places.
Moreouer Bristow saith that Cyprian doth also note in S. Stephan some little negligence, but much more wilful obreption, in those two lapsed bishops of Spaine, Basilides & Martialis, who had concealed from him the trueth, that in their supplication they should hauehave expressed, which because they did not, he saith well, that their restitution by the Pope could not stand them in steed against their former deposition by the bishop… of their owne prouince. This which so plainly maketh for the Popes authoritit (saveth Bristowe) you are so blinde to bring against it.
Not so blinde but I can see, that you acknowledge …e Pope i… …udgement of bynding and loosing may …re. But what I pray you maketh this for the Pope? you …eane perhaps, that Cyprian doeth graunt by impli…ation, if the foresaide errour had not deceiued Stepha…s, he had full authoritie to hauehave restored those two … apsed bishops. But Cyprian sayeth not so, you hearde …efore what his iudgement was of them that were condemned in one Prouince, that their sentence could not …e reuersed in another, but if they woulde returne to the Church, they should there be receiued vppon their …epentance, where they were first condemned, and in this 4. Epistle he sayeth: Quare etsi, &c. wherefore although some of our fellowe bishops there hauehave been (moste welbeloued brethren) which thinke the diuine discipline is to be neglected, and doe rashly communicate with Basilides and Martialis, this thing ought not to trouble our faith. You see, that he reproueth Stephanus and such as tooke his parte, for neglect of diuine discipline, in communicating with those heretikes which were lawfully condemned in their owne prouince, and therefore coulde not by any other bee restored.
As concerning the Councels of Africa & Mileuis, (sayeth Bristowe) the question between them and those other fiue Popes, was not about the matters of the vniuersall church, as for example, matters of faith. No was, is not the Popes authoritie of you counted a matter of faith, and of the vniuersall church? although they agreed in all other matters. But Bristow shameth not to say, it was not about the Popes authoritie in receiuing of bishops appeales, but what order the Nicene Councel had taken therein. As though that counterfeit Canon was not alledged, to iustifie the Popes authoritie in receiuing such appeales. But there are examples you saye, of appeales, and namely of the Patriarkes of Alexandria and Constantinople, but of which Patriarks & to whom you shewe not. yea, S. Augustine him selfe, you say. vseth it as a plea: That Cecilianus was readie to pleade his cause before other churches out of Africa. Ep. 162. This prooueth not, that Cecilianus, although trusting in the innocēcy of his cause, refused no indifferent iudges: yet that he appealed to the Church of Rome, and least of all to the singular iudgment of the Bishop of Rome, but to all other churches. And the appeales that were made in his cause were made to ye Emperour, and from ye Bishop of Rome, being once delegate of the Emperour to heare his cause with other Bishops, vntounto him the seconde time, who gaue aliud uidicium Arelatense aliorum scilicet Episcoporum &c. an other iudgement of A relate, of other Bishops, as it is plaine in the same Epistle.
But such appeales were lawfull, (saith Bristow) by the councell Sardicense cap. 7. in the same Carthage councell cap. 3. whose authoritie none of those Africane Bishops did denie, for the same Bishops were of it, that were of the Nicene: and Sainct Augustine chap. 7. did expresly admitte in the Canon of the inferiori appealing from their own… Bishops. In deede in the 3. chap. of the 6. Councell of Carthage, that forged Canon of Bishops appeales was aledged, which is nowe read for the 7. Canon of the Sardicense councell, but it was alledged as a canon of the Nicene Councell, and if it had beene a true canon of Sardica Councell, why did not those Bishops alledge it as a Canon of Sardica, as well as the other Canon of the inferiors appealing from their owne Bishop vntounto the Bishops next adioyning, seeing the Bishops of Africa and S. Augustine himselfe, were so ready to yeelde to the authoritie of the Councell of Sardica. Therefore it appeareth, that the Canon of bishops appeales to Rome being first forged as a Canon of the Nicene Councell, when it could not find any setling there, was afterwarde foysted in the Sardicen Councell.
Thirdly (saith Bristow) these appeales were lawfull by the Nicene Councell also, wherevppon you say verie insolently trusting ouermuch your lying Lutherā frinds, the Magdeburgiens that S. Augustine & his fellowes tooke those Popes with plaine forgery of the Canons of Nice, and fetched them ouer the coles meetely wel for it. Bristow will still defend yt forged Canon, for other there is none in the Nicen councell yt alloweth such appeales. As for ye Magdeburgiens I neuer read thē: but ye report of ye councels gathered by Peter Crab, I hauehave read … dosen yeares before I wrote against Allen. And in the end of the African Councel I read this Epistle of ye councell to Celestinus byshop of ye citie of Rome. Domino dilectissimo & honorabili fratri Celestino, &c. To our most welbeloued lord & honorable brother Celestinus. We Aurelius, Palatinus, Antonius, Tutus, Seruus dei, Terentius, Fortunatus, Martinus, Ianuarius, Optatus, Celticius, Donatus, Theasius, Vincentius, Fortunatianus, and the rest which were present in ye vniuersal Africā councel of Carthage: We wold hauehave wished if as thy holynes hath insinuated by letters sent by our fellow elder Leo, that you reioyced of the comming of Appiarius: so we also might send with gladnes these writings of his purgation. Verily both our and your chearfulnes should be now more certaine, neither might seeme too much hasted and ouerspeedy which as yet had gon before aswell of one to bee heard as of one that is alredy heard. Surely when our ho ly brother, and fellow bishop, Faustinus came vntounto vsus, we gathered a Councell, and beleeued that he was therfore sent with him, that as by his helpe he had beene before restored to the Eldership, so rrow by his labour he might hauehave beene purged of so great crimes as are obiected by the Tabracenes, whose so great & so heynous wicked factes, the examinatiō of the course of our councell hath found out; that the saide persons hoped for patronage rather then iudgment, and the aide of a defender rather then the iustice of an examiner. For first of al, how much he withstoode ye whole congregatiō, offering dayly diuers iniuries as one that mainteined ye priuileges of the Romaine Church, and that would be receiued into communion of vsus, whom thy holynes (beleeuing that he had appealed, which he was not able to proue) had restored to the communion, which neuerthelesse was not lawfull, and thou maist know also better by the reading of the actes. Notwithstanding holding a most painfull iudgment by the space of three dayes, when being verie much troubled, wee inquired of diuerse thinges obiected vntounto him, GOD the righteous iudge, strong, and long suffering, to our great profite hath cutte off either the delayes of our fellowe Byshop Faustinus, or the craftie shiftes of Appiarius himselfe, by which hee went about to hide his filthinesse, not to bee named. For his more vile and stinking obstinacie being subdued, by which he would hauehave ouerwhelmed so great and filthie myre with impudencie, our GOD strayning his conscience, and publishing euen vntounto men, the secrete crimes which he did alreadie condemne, which were as it were wrapped close in his hearte, sodainely this craftie denyer brake forth into confession of all the wicked factes that were obiected against him: And at length, of his owne accorde conuicted himselfe of all those incredible reproches, and turned into mourning euen our hope by which wee both beleeued and wished that hee might hauehave beene purged of so shamefull blottes, but that hee mitigated this our heauinesse, with one onelyonly comfort that both he discharged vsus from the labour of longer inquirie, and also prouided for his woundes such a medicine as it was, although it were by vnwilling confession, and his owne conscience striuing against it, our Lorde and brother. Therefore reseruing our dutie of due salutation wee earnestly desire you that henceforwarde you doe not easily admitte vntounto your hearing, such as come from hence, nor that you wil any more receiue into communion those yt are excommunicated by vsus, because your worship may easily perceiue, that this matter is also defined in the Nicene Councell. For although the prouision seeme to be there made of inferiour Clarkes, or lay men, yet howe much more woulde it, that the same shoulde be obserued concerning Byshops: that being suspended from the communion in their prouince, they shoulde not seeme by your holynesse, either ouerhastily or vnduely, to be restored to the communion. Also let your holynesse refuse the Iewde refuges, or shiftes of Priestes, and other clarkes as it is meete for you to do, because that by no decree of the fathers, this is taken away from the Church of Africa, and the decrees of Nice hauehave most manifestly committed them, whether they bee clarkes of inferior degree, or whether they be Bishops themselues vntounto their owne Metropolitanes. For most wisely and iustly they foresawe, that all businesses should be ended in their owne places where they began, and that the grace of the holy ghost, shoulde not be wanting to eueryevery prouince, whereby equitie by the priests of Christ might both be seene wisely, & also held most constantly, especially because it is graunted to euerie man, if he shalbe offended with the iudgement of them that shall heare his cause, to appeale to the Councels of his owne prouince, or else to a generall councell. Except peraduenture there be any man which beleeueth, that our GOD can inspire the iustice of examination and triall, into any one man whomsoeuer, and doth denie the same to innumerable priestes gathered together in councell. Or howe can the same iudgement giuen beyonde the sea, be stedfast and sure, vntounto which the necessarie persons of witnesses, either for infirmitie of sexe, or of age, or for many other letts that may happen, cannot bee brought? for that any iudges shoulde be sent as it were from the side of your holynesse, we finde it decreed in no Synod of the fathers: For that decree which you sent vntounto vsus long agoe, by our saide fellowe Bishop Faustinus, as a decree of the Nicene councell, in the truer councell copies which are receiued of the Nicene councell, being sent vntounto vsus, out of the authenticall copie, by holy Cyrillus our fellowe Byshop of the Church of Alexandria, and by the worshipfull Atticus Byshop of Constantinople, which also hauehave beene sent from vsus before this time, by Innocentius priest, and Marcellus subdeacon (by whom they were directed from them to vsus) vntounto Bishoppe Bonifacius of worshipfull memorie, your predecessour in which wee coulde finde no such matter. Also your clarks as executors of your commaūdemēts, neither send ye, nor graunt yee, to any that shall require them: least we should seeme to bring the smokie pride of the world, into the Church of Christ, which to them that desire to see God, sheweth forth the light of simplicitie, and the day of humilitie, for touching our brother Faustinus (now that Appiarius a man to bee lamented is remoued out of the Church of Christ for his vnspeable wickednesse) we are sure that (sauing the honestie & moderation of thy holinesse) thy brotherly louelove will not suffer him to remaine any longer in Africa: And written with an other hande, our Lord preserue your ho lynesse, praying for vsus in long life, Lorde brother.
Thus hauehave I set downe the whole Epistle, though it be somwhat long, that the English reader may see, and iudge of ye whole matter in controuersie betweene ye Bishops of Rome, and all the bishops, of all the countries of Africa which was ye third part of the world, and howe truely Bristow first denyeth ye forgerie which was proued by copies sent from Alexandria & Constantinople, out of ye authentical copie of the Councell of Nice. Secondly yt he saith ye same matter in questiō for appeales, was decreed by ye councell of Sardica, when this Epistle affirmeth, y•, by no decrees of any Synod, any such thing was appointed, but ye cleane contrary by the councell of Nice defined. Thirdly where he saith, those African fathers had smal cause to stand so much with the Popes in those appeales, that they shew great cause. Fourthly, where Bristow saith, that by this their doing nothing can be inferred against the Popes authoritie aboue prouinciall Councels, more then against a generall Councels authoritie aboue a prouinciall, when they shewe the last appeale to be permitted to any man that findeth himselfe grieued, vntounto the general councels. Fiftly, where he saith yt popish kings & bishops, at this day stand wt the Popes in ye right of giuing benefices, appeales &c. with his owne good leaue, wtout any preiudice to his superiority, I aunswere, ye bishops of Africa, wtout the Popes leaue, & against his wil, decreed, yt whosoeuer did appeale out of Africa, shoulde not be receiued into communiō of any in Africa. What the Pope of seruile feare is constrained at this day to yeald, least he shoulde be vtterly forsaken of all, as hee is of most, it is nothing to the purpose.
But I am moste ridiculous, in Bristowes iudgement, where I alledge Socrates the Nouatian, speaking against Pope Celestinus, for taking away the Nouatians Churches in Rome, and counting it a point of forren Lordshippe, not of Priesthoode. Thus the Papistes defame such as write plainely against them, Eusebius they make an Arrian, Socrates a Nouatian, euen as he diffamed Saint Paule in the last Chapter, with much pricking of bodily lust. But what cause hath hee to charge Socrates with the heresie of Nouatus? He alledgeth none at al, neither is he able euer to proue the crime. In deed Socrates liuing at such time, as ye Nouatians ioyning in faith of the holy Trinitie with the Catholikes against the Arrians, Macedonians, and such other heretikes, were not so odious, speaketh lesse sharply of them, then of other heresies. Yet alwayes he accounteth them among heretikes: As Lib. 5. Cap. 19. Ab eo tempore quo Nouatiani, &c. Euer since the time that the Nouatians departed from ye Church. Is it like that Socrates was a Nouatian, when he confesseth that they were departed from the Church? Likewise hauing spoken of the diuisions that were in the Catholike Churche, he commeth to speake of the schismes that were among heretikes, and nameth the Arrians, Nouatians, Macedonians and Eunomians Supr. & Trip. Hist. lib. 9. cap. 36. Thus much for the credite of Socrates: nowe to the matter: where Bristowe saith, he counted it a point of forren Lordship to expell ye Nouatians, &c it is false. But he sheweth the cause, why Celestinus coulde not preuaile to doe any good with them, his wordes are: Verumillos invidia corripuit Romano episcopai… iam olim perinde atque Alexandrino vltra Sacerdotii limites ad externum dominai…m progresso. But enuie tooke hold of them, because ye Bishoprik of Rome, long before euen as the Bishoprike of Alexandria, was proceeded beyond the bandes of Priesthoode into forren Lordship. Finally yt Socrates blameth the immoderate authoritie of S. Chrysostom, he doth it not alone, but other writers as much as he, & Socrates reporteth more of his seuerity toward his own cleargie, thē toward ye Nouatiās of whō he was counted too much a fauourer, & therfore Socrates writeth, that some iudged, that he was iustly deposed Eo quòd multas Ecclesias Novatianorum, Quartodecimanorū, & aliorum tulisset haereticorum. Because he had borne with many Churches of the Nouatians, Quartodecimanes and other heretikes. Trip. Hist. lib. 10. cap. 20. Last of all whereas I alledged againste the Popes supremacie, the decree of the Aphrican councell Cap. 6. that no Bishoppe of the first see, should be called highest Priest, or Prince of Priests, but onelyonly Bishop of the first see: Bristowe saith, it perteyneth onelyonly to the Primates of Affrica, and concerneth not the titles, much lesse the primacie of the Bishop of Rome. But the trueth is, that it was made specially to represse the ambition of the Romane Prelates, and therfore in the end of the Canon, as it is conteined in the decrees, Dist. 99. cap. Primae. it is added, Vniversalis autem, nec etiam Romanus pontifex app…lletur, and let none, no not the Bishop of Rome be called vniuersall. By which it is manifest that his titles and authoritie also are commanded to be kept within their owne bounds, and not to be acknowledged to hauehave any thing to doe in the Churches of Affrica, by commandement or authoritie such as then was claymed. But the Affricanes (saith Bristowe) as appeareth in Saint Augustines workes, neuer called him Bishop of the first see, but Bishop of the Apostolike see. Although Saint Augustines workes can not bee witnesse, howe the Affricanes called him alwayes: yet what gayneth the Pope or Bristowe for him by this? What if they neuer called him primate or Bishop of the first see? (for other inferior Bishoppes were called Bishoppes of the second see.) The councel forbadde them to giuegive any other titles of authoritie beside this Bishop of the first see, it did not binde them that they should of necessitie call them by that title. For it was sufficient to cal them the Bishops of Carthage, of Alexandria, of Rome, of Antioche, &c. And that they called the Romane Prelate Bishop of the Apostolike see of Rome, they gaue him no more authoritie ouer the Churches of Affrica, then when they called the Bishop of Hierusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, or of any other Churches founded by the Apostles Bishoppe of the see Apostolike. Thus my Doctours (for any thing Bristowe can bring) remaine constant witnesses of my side, against the vsurped and Antichristian authoritie of the Bishop of Rome.