Answer to Reynolds Book, Chapter 7
CHAP. 7.
Of M. Iewels chalenge.
IT much offendeth you,Pag. 129. &c. M. Rainolds, that I will ſeeme to vpholde the chalenge, which that learned and godly Biſhop of Sariſbury, M. Iewell, did once make againſt your ſide. But as the authour thereof, while he liued, maintained the ſame moſt truelie & worthelie againſt your betters, ſo I hauehave no cauſe to be afraid of anie thing, that can be alleadged in diſproofe of it, by you, or your companions, who may not rightlie be compared with D. Harding, and ſuch others, as then toke part with him againſt the Biſhop. And you may be aſhamed to make mention of that chalenge, which you hauehave ſo long agoe giuen ouer, as a deſperat cauſe, wherein the chiefeſt aduerſarie could not make ſhewe of proofe, without vſing the teſtimonies of forged & counterfeite writers, as Amphilochius, Clemens, Abdias, Hippolytus, and ſuch others, whereof no more accounte is to be made, then of fables, and ſhameles forgeries. Such were the chiefeſt proofes, which D. Harding was able to bring, and whatſoeuer he brought, hath bene fullie anſwered in the Replie by the Biſhop himſelfe: which booke as yet though it hath bene in ſome parts nipped at by diuers, yet throughlie confuted was it neuer. What you can doe in this caſe maie eaſilie be geaſſed: & God knoweth, full litle hauehave you done to any purpoſe, as ſhall appeare.
Your beginning is of an other matter.Pag. 130. &c. For this queſtion of Peters being at Rome, M. Iewell made not anie parte of his chalenge, knowing well enough, that this might eaſelie be prooued by teſtimonie of fathers a greate manie. And this was I not ignorant of neither, when I ſaid, that no Papiſt can prooue, that Peter indeede was at Rome. For albeit I know that diuerſe hauehave ſo written, ſince the Apoſtles times, yet can I not receaue this as a ſufficient proofe, neither yet ought you, there being againſt it ſo manie reaſons out of ſcripture,All Popiſh religion hangeth vponupon a twine threed of Perers being & ſitting at Rome: which can not be prooued, nay rather is diſprooued by the ſcriptures. whereof euerie one hath more weight, then all the teſtimonies of fathers alledged. You know, and can not denie that your wholl Church & religion is built vponupon Peters ſitting at Rome: which being a matter of ſuch conſequence, as that the wholl is vpholden, and ſuſtained theruppon, ſo as if it ſhake, all is in danger, if it fal, al is cleane ouerthrowen: it ought to be made manifeſt to al Chriſtians, that Peter was at Rome, by greater proofe and warrant, then is in the writings of men, which being as good as anie of that nature can be afforded, is not of ſufficient ſtrength to ſtay the conſcience deſirous to be ſoundlie and perfectly reſolued in points of faith and religion: but now further being by ſundry teſtimonies of holie ſcriptures vtterly diſcredited, it muſt be thought that they hauehave ſmall conſcience of truth, or regard of their euerlaſting eſtate, that hang the ſaluation of their ſouls vponupon ſo vncertaine and rotten a ſtay. The firſt reporter of Peters being at Rome was Papias, a man of mean credit & authority in the Church of God,Euſeb. lib. 3. ca. 39. and as Euſebius writeth of him, a father of diuerſe fables: a fit father of your faith. Of him Hegeſippus receaued this, and of Hegeſippus others, as in writing hiſtories the latter follow thoſe that went before: ſo that this wholl matter is grounded vppon Papias word, for which your pope hath good cauſe to giuegive him thankes. Now the ſcriptures in many places weigh ſo ſtrongly on the other ſide, that if manie a thouſand ſuch as Papias ſhould tell vsus Peter was at Rome, their reporte were not to be truſted. Peter promiſed to remaine with the Iewes,Gal. 2.9. and be their Apoſtle: and Paul aſſigneth vntounto him the Apoſtleſhip of the circumciſion.Gal. 2.8. If Peter were Biſhop of Rome, how was this promiſe kept? Saint Paul writeth an epiſtle to the Romanes, wherin he ſaluteth many perſons by name, but of Saint Peter he maketh no mention: and from Rome he writeth manie epiſtles at ſundrie times, and ſendeth ſalutations to the Churches from many faithful, but of Saint Peter in none he ſpeaketh euer a word. Doubtles it was becauſe Saint Peter was not there.Genebr. Chre… nol. l. 3. ſaecu. 1. And if he had bene Biſhop, as your men affirme, twentie fiue yeares almoſt, it may be thought ſtraunge how it could come to paſſe, that when Saint Paull writ to Rome, and came him ſelfe to Rome, and taried at Rome, writing from thence ſo manie epiſtles, S. Peter ſhould euer be abſent for his charge.
Other arguments might I vſe againſt this common opinion of Peters ſitting and dying at Rome. But as you loſe all, if you can not prooue him to hauehave bene Biſhop there, ſo though you could prooue it, and we ſhould of neceſſitie confeſſe it, yet had you gained nothing at all. For though it muſt nedes follow if Peter were not Biſhop of Rome, that all your religion is falſe flowing from that head, yet being graunted that Peter had bene Biſhop there, it maketh neither hotte nor colde for proofe of anie point in queſtion betweene vsus.pag. 133. Liui. decad. 4. lib. 5. Of this therfore no more now.
The largenes of the chalenge containing in number ſeauen and twentie articles of controuerſie, you labour to extenuate, by an old hiſtorie recorded in Liuie of Titus Falminius hoſt, who by diuerſe maners of dreſſing and preparing one onelyonly kinde of meate, furniſhed his table with great varietie of diſhes. And would you beare vsus downe, Maſter Rainolds, that this multitude of articles is but of one matter, drawne forth into ſundrie partes, by skilful varying and mincing the ſame? If anie will looke vponupon them, he ſhall ſoone be hable to controll you. The firſt of Priuate maſſe, the ſecond of receiuing in one kinde, the third of common praiers in an vnknowen tongue, the fourth of the Popes ſupremacy, the fift of the reall preſence, the ſeuenth of eleuation, the eight of Adoration, the ninthe of Hanging the Sacrament vnderunder a Canopy, the tenth of Accidents without ſubiect, the fourtenth of worſhiping Images, the fiftenth of reading the ſcriptures in the vulgar tongue, the ſeauententh of the ſacrifice of the maſſe: can you denie that theſe controuerſies, being the arguments of ſeuerall articles, are diuerſe and differing one from an other? And are not theſe waightie pointes, generall heads, principall queſtions, great miſteries, and keies, as Maſter Iewel calleth them, of your religion? ſome of the other articles (I graunt) hauehave more affinitie together, yet not ſo great, except in one or two, but that they maie in reaſon and nature be diſtinguiſhed, and ſtand each by them ſelues without neceſſarie ſupport or defenſe, from others. And what though there had bene a nearer reſpect betweene them, might they not therefore be propounded and handled ſeuerally? The manner of your owne ſchooles, and controuerſie lectures, prooue the contrarie, wherin euerie queſtion according to the ſubiect matter is deuided into ſundrie articles, and euerie article hath a ſpecial treatiſe. Your tale therefore of the Calcidian hoſte, who entertained the Romane Captaine with one onelyonly kinde of meat dreſſed diuerſly, commendeth the cunning of that cooke, but ſerueth nothing to your purpoſe, though you ſet it out with as great ſhew as you can.
Three articles you acknowledge to be of weight,pag. 138. The primacy of the Pope, thereall preſence, and the ſacrifice: wherein you hauehave vttered your iudgement of the reſt, that they are not of ſuch weight as your Church would hauehave them to be eſteemed. And of theſe three you might with as good reaſon except the two latter, & ſo make the firſt onelyonly a matter of weight. For that indeede is the ſubſtantiall point, in mainteance wherof all your labours are beſtowed. Otherwiſe were it not for defenſe of your Popes wicked, vnreaſonable, Antichriſtian monarchy, you could eaſily agree with vsus for theſe two, & all the reſt, I doubt not. But what thinke you then M. R. of priuat Maſſe? Is it a thing of no weight as here you would hauehave it accounted? there is not, I ſuppoſe, any thing in your Church more vſed, or better liked. Your halfe communion, your latine ſeruice, your Images, your keeping the ſcriptures in a tongue vnknowen to the people, and other ſuch heads of your Romiſh religion, are they of no weight? are they trifles? are they not worth the ſtriuing for? Then let your men giuegive ouer all defenſe of them, let priuate maſſes be aboliſhed, let the communion be adminiſtred in bothe kindes, according to Chriſts inſtitution, let the publike praiers be ſaid in the tongue that eueryevery country vſeth, let Images be burned and Idolatrie forbidden, let it be lawfull for the people of all countries to read the ſcriptures in their owne language, let there be no controuerſie about the other articles. For while you ſtand ſo ſtifly in maintenance of all theſe and others, you cannot truely ſaie, and beare vsus in hand, they are not of waight in your account.
That Maſter Iewell promiſed to giuegive ouer and ſubſcribe,Pag. 140. if anie of thoſe articles could be prooued by ſcriptures, councels, or Doctors, within 600. yeares after Chriſt, it was not becauſe he meant euer to ſubſcribe to your doctrine, or was vnſtaied in his religion, but of a moſt aſſured knowledge and reſolute perſuaſion that you were vtterlie deſtitute in this behalfe of all truth and antiquitie, as indeed you are. Otherwiſe you maie remember that our religion is grounded onelie vponupon the holy ſcriptures of God: and therefore though you brought againſt vsus writers and fathers neuer ſo manie for theſe matters, as you can bring not one of credite and age, yet will we neuer ſubſcribe vntounto you, hauing once ſubſcribed to the certaine trueth of God reuealed vntounto vsus in his holie, perfect, & written word, by which al ſentences, opinions, and writings of men whatſoeuer, muſt be examined.
Now commeth M. Rainolds to auouch the truth of theſe three notable articles,pag. 142. &c. out of auncient writers againſt the Biſhop of Sariſburies chalenge: & firſt of the Popes ſupremacy. Where (good Reader) I pray the conſider the wrangling and cauilling ſpirit of this ſophiſter.Such tricks of vntrue dealing hath M. R. vſed many. Maſter Iewell in that ſermon wherein he bad defiance to the Popiſh ſectaries, ſpeaking againſt their priuate maſſe, and ſingle communion, and hauing prooued by euident teſtimonies of antiquitie the contrary vſe and practiſe of the Church, in the end nameth ſundry Biſhops and Doctors of the Church, of whome he ſaith we hauehave learned theſe hereſies, as our aduerſaries account them. Among other he reckeneth Anacletus, and Sixtus, that were Biſhops of Rome. Maſter Rainolds taking vponupon him to prooue the Popes ſupreme authoritie by the ſame witneſſes that M. Iewell here alledgeth, bringeth in the decretall epiſtles ſet forth vnderunder the names of theſe two Byſhops, which no man of wit, or iudgement can once imagine to hauehave bene written by them, they are ſo fooliſh & vnlearned: but yet the Church of Rome maketh no ſmall reckening of them, being the beſt euidences ſhe hath to ſhew for her vnlawfull & tyrannical vſurpation. To what purpoſe M.R. doe you obiect thoſe Epiſtles in the cauſe of ſupremacie againſt M. Iewel ſpeaking of priuate maſſe and halfe communion? HaueHave you thus ſolde your ſelfe to deuiſe crafty ſleights, that you may abuſe the ſimplicity of your Reader? Maſter Iewell ſpeaketh of one thing, & for proofe thereof appealeth to thoſe two Biſhops amonge others: you bring againſt him their forged writings for an other matter,Replie Arciela 4. Diuiſ. 3. wherein Maſter Iewell himſelfe hath alreadie ſhewed his iudgement of them.
But you ſaie,Pag. 145. what other bookes hath he ſeene of theirs beſide theſe epiſtles? And what though he hath not ſene any? what though there are none to be ſeene? might not he therfore ſay that we hauehave learned of them this doctrine, which no man can doubt, but they followed, and practiſed, and left to their ſucceſſours behinde them? for it being the cleare doctrine of Chriſt, and his Apoſtles, thoſe godlie and faithfull Biſhops ſo neare the Apoſtles time departed not from it.De conſec. dict. 2 peracta. And a Biſhop of Rome, Calixtus by name, reporteth that the Apoſtles ordained, and it was the practiſe of the Romane Church, that after conſecration, all ſhould communicate, vnleſſe they would incurre excommunication. It is but loſſe of time to anſwere ſuch palpable cauillation, as this booke hath almoſt nothing els. And were it not for regarde I hauehave to the godlie, that deſire the aduerſarie may be anſwered, though neuer ſo vnworthie of anſwere in reſpect of himſelfe, & might be offended, if he ſhould paſſe without anſwere, I could eaſilie hauehave ſuffered M.R. to hauehave enioyed quietlie the fruits of his labours, and otherwiſe ſpent my time more profitablie to my ſelfe and others.
Next in like manner S. Leo, and S. Gregorie, two other Biſhops of Rome,Pag. 147. &c. but long after, are obiected: and M. R. tranſlateth out of the Centuries a great deale, to ſhewe that by confeſſion of the more famous & learned Proteſtants (as he ſaith) the Romane ſea had primacie ouer all Churches in Chriſtendome.
True it is that the Centurie writers in that Chapter doe largelie and plainlie diſcouer the myſtery of iniquity,Cent. 5. cap. 7. Col. 774. &c. that in thoſe daies did mightelie worke for the obtaining of that vniuerſall primacie, which afterwards with much endeuour was gotten. And as the Church of Rome was then in great eſtimation and authoritie, farre beyond other Churches; ſo the Biſhops of that ſea vſed all occaſion to encreaſe the credite and prerogatiue thereof, eſpecially this Leo, and Gregorie alſo not a litle. All this, as it is in the Centuries diſcourſed, we confeſſe, and withall iuſtlie miſlike and condemne that ambition in thoſe Biſhops: but what gather you hereof M. R. for your purpoſe? doth this prooue the Popes ſupremacie?Great and many vntrueths auouched by M.R. doth this diſprooue Maſter Iewells chalenge? Doe the learned Proteſtants alſo confeſſe the ſame? what notable and ſhameles vntruthes are theſe? Not one of all theſe examples alledged, doth argue the Popes vniuerſall power or headſhip ouer Chriſts Church, nor commeth neere vntounto it. That Leo calleth it the chiefeſt Church: that he requireth Anatolius Archbiſhop of Conſtantinople to make relation vntounto him, if anie matter of controuerſie ſhould ariſe: that he willeth Maximus Archbiſhop of Antioche to write to the ſea Apoſtolike, how the Churches there encreaſe: that he reprooued other Biſhops, if they did ought amiſſe: that he appointed in ſome places orders, and ceremonies, and did theſe and manie other ſuch things, as in his epiſtles is manifeſt, although he tooke vponupon him more then he might or ought, & for aduauncement of his owne ſeat, encroched much vponupon the libertie of other Churches, yet neuer ment he to make himſelfe vniuerſall Biſhop,Though Leo delt in moe matters then appertained to him, yet was he farre from the top of the papal ſupremacie. and head of the Church, which your Pope claimeth, and M. Iewell denieth. This was his endeauour to lift his chaire aboue the reſt, to be accounted a chiefe Biſhop, to be had in greateſt regard, to procure to his ſeate a principall reuerence, to obtaine priuiledges, and prerogatiues aboue others: but of this pontifical power, & vniuerſal iuriſdiction, which afterwards your Popes vſurped, he neuer dreamed, for ought that you hauehave alledged, or can furthermore alledge out of his Epiſtles. And though you could, what had you greatlie gained againſt M. Iewell, who requireth a lawfull and irrefragable teſtimonie, his being partiall, as in his owne matter, and for his owne commoditie? Yet how farre Leo was from the papall ſupremacie, may in one example appeare, that he had not authoritie to call a councell, but was faine to be an humble ſuter to the Emperour,Epiſt. 33. that he would by his commandement ſummone a councell of Biſhops in Italie: (which yet he obtained not) that the ſame Leo fell on his knees before Ʋalentinian: Leo was of mean iuriſdiction and authoritie in reſpect of the pope.to hauehave a councell that a Councell by the Emperour Martian being called at Chalcedon, he laboured inſtantlie to hauehave it ſomewhat differred vntil a more conuenient time, & could not preuaile. Doth it not euidently hereby appeare, that he was not accounted, neither by the Emperour, nor the Byſhops of Chriſtendom, Head of the Church, & vniuerſall Biſhop? And this is the thing in controuerſie, wherof you hauehave not ſhewed anie proofe as yet, for all your childiſh bragging: and what you will hereafter doe, I need not greatlie ſtand in doubte.
For your demonſtration following, which you full ignorantlie and vainelie commend,Pag. 150. comparing it to the brightnes of the ſunne in a ſommers daie, hath no light at all in it, to ſhew that thing, which you hauehave taken in hand to prooue, no more then the moone in the wane giueth light to paſſengers at midnight. And doubtles vnles the Lord had in his diſpleaſure towards you, bereaued you of common iudgement and reaſon, you could not yeald your vnderſtanding captiue to ſuch looſe and light perſwaſion. The queſtion in controuerſie is, whether the Pope were acknowledged for head of the vniuerſall Church within ſix hundred yeares after Chriſt.Cent. 5. p. 781.782. This you ſay appeareth by the confeſſion of the Centurye writers: and ſo you tranſlate out of them many authorities, which being all put in one, conclude nothing to this purpoſe in the end. They ſhew how the Popes hauehave laboured to get ſuperioritie to themſelues, eſpecially in the example of Leo, who as he was learned and eloquent, and ſtoutlie mainteined the Catholike faith againſt Eutyches, ſo is he trulie noted of ambition more then beſeemed the miniſter of Chriſt. But admitting the Popes teſtimonie for the Popes primacie, what hauehave you found in the Centuries againſt Maſter Iewell? that they warned Biſhops of other prouinces to come to generall councels? this is not the thing we require. Let them write to whome, and whither they liſt: this officious writing prooueth not vniuerſalitie and ſupremacie of power, as any man maie eaſilie vnderſtand. That Leo could not appoint a Councell, that he ſued to the Emperour to call a Councel, that the Councell was gathered by the Emperours, not by the Popes authoritie, I hauehave alreadie ſhewed. What maketh then the writing of a fewe letters to prooue the Popes power in ſummoning councells? that they were preſidents in generall councels? And can you or dare you auouch that this was ſo in all generall councells? And though it were, what matter maketh it for your purpoſe? A generall councell muſt hauehave a preſident: which preſidencie if it were graunted to the Biſhop of Rome in reſpecte of his place, which was the firſt amongſt Biſhops, will you of your wiſdome hereof gather, that he was Ʋniuerſall Biſhop, and head of the Church? A ſenſleſſe and franticke concluſion. That he confirmed generall Councells? This is like the reſt, a worthy reaſon forſooth. All Biſhops were bound to maintaine and approoue the godly decrees of councells, that ſo hereſies might be repreſſed, and the puritie of religion preſerued. Is it then a great maruell, if the Biſhop of Rome, that was accounted firſt and chiefe, confirmed good councels, and diſanulled wicked? whoe is he that hath the reaſon of a man, that will hereof conclude in ſadnes and ſobriety the popes ſupremacy? If M.R. be blinded, it is no wonder. All this, and ten times as much, can not prooue that the Pope is the head of Chriſts Church, or that he was ſo eſteemed in the primitiue age: and therefore that you alleadge out of Luther, that before Bonifacius the third, in the daies of wicked Phocas the Emperour, the Biſhops of Rome had no greater authoritie then other Biſhops, is true. For albeit they had gotten greater priuiledges of honour and other preferments, partlie through the reuerent opinion, which the Emperours & Biſhops had of them, partlie by their owne ſeeking, as appeareth in ſtories moſte euidentlie, yet ſoueraintie of power, and iuriſdiction ouer the wholl Church had they none, vntill Phocas the tyrant beſtowed it vponupon Boniface the Pope, a worthy founder of the Popes Antichriſtian ſupremacie.
How Leo behaued himſelfe in magnifiing his owne dignitie aboue meaſure,pag. 154. &c. is to plaine by his writings: ſo as although he thought nothing leſſe, then of that pontificall ſupremacie and authoritie which afterward in that ſeat of Antichriſt was erected, yet hath his pride bene iuſtlie and worthelie reprooued, for claiming more honour then belonged vntounto him. But you muſt remember that all authoritie and honour is not that vniuerſall ſupremacie of power, which your Pope chalengeth and vſurpeth: the which neither Leo deſired, nor yet Gregorie the great, who ſucceeded him in that ſea almoſt two hundred yeares after, did exerciſe, for anie thing that you hauehave alledged in proofe thereof.
The Centurie Collectours declare indeed how that myſtery of iniquity wrought and encreaſed then in the Romane ſea,Centur. 6. p. 425. in that the Biſhops thereof tooke vponupon them more rule and authoritie ouer their brethren, then they ought: and namelie this Gregorie, in whome the vertue & godlines of Romane Biſhops died. But hauehave you found in the Centuries ſuch plaine proofes ot the Popes ſupremacie, as you affirme? Firſt, you bring nothing, but the ſpeaches or practiſes of Gregorie, Gregorie the great was no Pope, ſuch as the l…tter popes hauehave bene. Regiſt. lib. 11. …p. 54.who was a Biſhop of Rome: ſecondly you can not thereof gather that he was vniuerſall Biſhop, or head of the Church. For that he calleth the Apoſtolicall ſea head of all Churches, he meaneth nothing elſe, but that it was the chiefe Churhc,Lib. 7. ep. 62. which is confeſſed. That he ſaith, the Church of Conſtantinople is ſubiect to the Apoſtolicall ſea, whoe denieth this? but what ſubiection meane you, M. R? that the Romane Church had power ouer the Church of Conſtantinople, to commaund, ordaine, diſanull at her pleaſure? that is vtterlie falſe, and diſprooued by all ſtories that hauehave written, teſtifiing that the Church of Conſtantinople accounted her ſelfe equall in all priuiledges too the Romane, ſaue only that the Roman in order was the firſt. That he intermedled in the doings of certaine Biſhops of diuerſe prouinces, it is euident: but not in all Churches of all prouinces ouer the world. For the Church of Chriſtendome was then deuided into partes, & the ſame were aſſigned to the gouernment of Patriarches. The Romane prouince was greateſt, containing the Churches of the weſt: wherein Gregorie had authoritie, not by Gods worde, but by appointment of man: and yet his authoritie was no other, but the ſame that the other Patriarchs practiſed in their prouinces, & namelie S. Chryſoſtome long before Gregorie ouer Thrace, al Aſia, and Pontus, as Theodoretus writeth.Theod. lib. 5. cap. 28. What can you alledge more for Gregorie, then I can for Chryſoſtome? Gregory reprooued & corrected Biſhops of Cicilie, Africke, Spaine: Chryſoſtome puniſhed and depoſed Biſhops of Thrace, of Pontus, of Aſia. Hereof is concluded no leſſe the ſupremacie of Chryſoſtōme, then of Gregorie: ſuch notable demonſtrations can you make.
Yea how much S. Gregorie alwaies abhorred that tyrannicall ſupremacie,Pag. 159. &c. which your Pope of long time hath vſurped ouer the Church,S. Gregorie was not onelie himſelfe no vniuerſall pope, but hath alſo in plaine words condemned both that office & title vniuerſallie. is manifeſt, in that he ſo often & ſo bitterlie inueicth againſt the name of vniuerſall Biſhop: which he would not hauehave done, condemning it whollie as moſt wicked, vnlawfull, ambitious, profane, Antichriſtian, if he had thought his owne epiſcopall gouernment and iuriſdiction had extended ouer all Churches. For as Iohn of Conſtaninople chalenged that name, in the ſame ſenſe & meaning doth Gregorie reiect it: but Iohn meant onelie thereby to make himſelfe a chiefe Biſhop ouer all Biſhops, and to bring vnderunder his iuriſdiction the wholl Church of Chriſt: and therefore it is euident, that S. Gregorie vtterlie miſliked, that anie Biſhop whoſoeuer ſhould hauehave an vniuerſall authority ouer the whol Church, which is to bring the Church in ſubiection vnderunder him.
That this was the meaning of that title of vniuerſsall Biſhop, S. Gregorie himſelfe doth teſtifie in theſe words, who by the name of vniuerſall, Lib. 4. epiſt. 38.goeth about to make ſubiect to himſelfe all the members of Christ. And doth not you Pope affirme, profeſſe, defend, proclaime by all meanes poſſible, that all the members of Chriſt muſt be ſubiect to him, and that no hope of ſaluation remaineth for anie, but ſuch as continue in his obedience? Then denie if you can, but that the ſelfe ſame authoritie which Saint Gregory reprooued in Iohn of Conſtantinople your popes hauehave approoued in themſelues, euen this laſt 13. Gregorie, who latelie deceaſed: and therefore by iudgement of S. Gregorie manie hundred yeares agoe they are Antichriſtian Biſhops,The popes of Rome with their vniuerſall ſupremacie long ſince condemned by Saint Gregorie a Biſhop of Rome. and not Catholike paſtors of Chriſtes Church. Wrangle all ye can,S. Gregorie hath plainlie condemned your Popes for taking vponupon them both the name, and office of vniuerſall Biſhops. Andreas Fricius, whom here againe you alledge, I hauehave not to deale with all: what thing was meant by this name of vniuerſall Biſhop may better be learned of S. Gregorie himſelfe, whoe knewe beſt the meaning thereof. If you require further proofe, conſider that S. Gregorie reporteth alſo that the councell of Chalcedon offered that name to Leo, Lib. 4. cap. 32.but he would not accept of it. Did the Councell meane to take from all other Biſhops of the world, yea themſelues, all biſhoplie grace and power? what madnes is it thus to thinke? what impudencie to ſtand in maintenance thereof, as you doe?
Futher, when the Biſhop of Alexandria Eulogius, in a letter called Gregorie vniuerſal Pope, Lib. 7. epiſt. 30. Indict. 1.meant he to depriue him-ſelfe of all biſhoplie authoritie? Nothing leſſe. And yet Saint Gregorie reprooueth him for ſo writing, and will not ſuffer himſelfe to be ſo called. The name then ſignifieth that vniuerſall authoritie ouer all Biſhops and Chriſtians, which Iohn claimed, and your Popes obtained, and long practized, and will not yet giuegive ouer. This was vnlawfull in Iohn: this Gregorie condemned not onelyonly in others, but in the Biſhops of Rome alſo: therefore your Popes by witnes of S. Gregorie a Pope, are clearely conuicted of vnlawful and Antichriſtian vſurpation. If your Pope refuſeth this name of vniuerſal Biſhop, why doth Bellarmine, his greateſt diuine,Cou…reon. 3. Queſt. 4. recken this for one of the Popes names of dignitie? but chieflie why doth the Pope miſlike the name, and allowe the thing ſignified by the name?
Concerning the two other articles,pag. 164. &c. of Reall preſence, and ſacrifice, you are content to ſaie litle, which in effect is nothing. For what hauehave you brought to prooue either of theſe your opinions? you tell vsus Saint Gregorie was a Prieſt, and ſaid Maſſe according to your popiſh faſhion: but whe will beleeue your report, you hauehave tolde vsus ſo manie vntruthes? That Bibliander calleth him the patriarch of ceremonies: that Melancthon ſaieth, he horriblie profaned the communion: that Illyricus rehearſeth out of a popiſh writer certaine of his miracles about the ſacrament: that Paulus Vergerius hath written a booke againſt his trifles & fables: that M. Bale preferreth Latimer before Auſten the monke, whome he ſent into England: that the Biſhop of Wincheſter. M. Horne calleth this Auſten a buſſard:It is not Auſten that he calleth ſo, but Bonifacius whome they name the Apoſtle of Germanie. what maketh all this (I beſeech you) againſt Master Iewells chalenge? how conclude you hereof your Real preſence, or your ſacrifice of the Maſſe? ſurely your maſters that ſet you on worke, and made you an inſtrument to publiſh theſe thinges, abuſed you much, that you might abuſe others more.
To Luthers iudgement of Saint Auguſtine, pag. 166.that after the Apoſtles the Church had not more excellent and worthy doctor then he, I willinglie ſubſcribe: but Luther accuſeth the ſacramentaries (as he calleth them) for mangling and abuſing him in the queſtion of Reall preſence: herein I hauehave nothing to anſwere in Luthers defenſe. Saint Auguſtine teacheth no otherwiſe of Chriſtes preſence in the ſacrament then we do, as by the large treatiſes that hauehave bene written of this matter, doth appeare: yea neither Zuinglius, nor Caluin, nor anie other of our ſide, hath more fullie and directlie written a gainſt the Real and corporal preſence of Chriſt in the ſupper, then S. Auſten hath in ſundrie places. That Luther iudged otherwiſe, it was his errour, which he retained of his olde leauen, wherewith in time of papiſtrie his iudgement was corrupted. Hereof what argument can you frame againſt M. Iewell? ſome thing would you faine ſaie, but your words hauehave no pith of reaſon in them.
Saint Chryſoſtome (you ſaie) hath written ſix bookes of Prieſthood, pag. 168.and none of miniſterhood: verilie this is a verie poore argument for the ſacrifice of your Maſſe. If this reaſon holde from the authoritie of Chryſoſtome, I truſt the like will not be denied, taken from the authority of the ſcriptures. In the new Teſtament, Miniſters are named ſix and ſix times, prieſts in your ſenſe neuer: therefore no Prieſthood remaineth, and ſo by conſequence no ſacrifice. But concerning the name of Prieſt, how it hath bene vſed of the auncient writers, not in the proper and naturall ſenſe, but after the common cuſtome of ſpeach, I hauehave alreadie before declared. Thus hauehave you M. Rainolds vttered all your skill in confutation of the Biſhop of Sariſburies chalenge. Howbeit if D. Harding were aliue, I ſuppoſe he would thinke you had deſerued ſmall thankes. Medle no more M. Rainolds in this matter: the more ye ſtirre, the leſſe ye preuaile: your learning is not much, your iudgement is leſſe, you are but a weake inſtrument to deale with him, whom D. Harding could not match. M. Iewells chalenge is prooued wiſe, true, learned, to the praiſe of Gods trueth, ſhame of papiſtrie, and worthie commendation of that famous Biſhop, whoſe memorie is euerlaſting, and moſt honourable among the godlie.