The First Chapiter.

IN writing to and fro, concerning the Supre­macie of S. Peter and of the Bishops of Rome after him, great con­trouersies are fallen out, the which to th'end they may be the better opened, I thought good to propose in order, the chief points of the said question.

The Catholiques beleue, that the Bishop of Rome, sitting in S. Peters Chaier is, by the appointment of Christ himself, the chief Pastour of the whole militant Church, whose voice euery sheepe ought to hearken vnto.

The Protestants on the other side denie, not only the Supremacie of the [Page 2] Bishop of Rome, nor onlie the Supre­macie of S. Peter: but also they affirme, that there is no Primacie, nor any one chief gouernment in the Church at al. 1 Therefore the first Question must be, whether it be against [...]he Word of God or no, that there shoulde be in his Church any Primacie or chief Au­thoritie.

2 The second is, whether S. Peter had the said Primacie, or no.

3 The third, whether the Bishop of Rome had it after S. Peter.

Concerning S. Peter, we fal againe into diuers new questiōs, as it shal now appeare.

When Simon the sonne of Iona was first brought vnto Christ by his brother Andrew, Iesus loking vpon him, said: Thou art Simon the sonne of Io­na, Ioan. 1. thou shalt be called Cephas, the vvhich by interpretation is Peter, that is to say, a stone or a rocke. Here is the promise made, that Simon [Page 3] shalbe called Peter, which name is de­riued of a rocke or stone. Verelie, be­cause he shal occupie that place in vp­holding the frame of Christes militant Church, the which a stone occupieth in holding vp the house which is built vpon it. And when it pleased Christ to chose vnto him his twelue Apostles, then he gaue the said name vnto Simō, surnaming him, Peter. Thirdly,Mar. 3. Luc. 6. when Simon hauing the Godhead of Christ reuealed to him from heauē, had confessed the same, saying:Math. 16. Thou art Christ the son of the liuing God: then Iesus answering, said vnto him (alluding to his new name,Ioan. 21. and shew­ing the reason thereof) And I saye vnto thee, that thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke vvil I build my Church, and the gates of hel shal not preuaile against it. And to thee I wil geue the Keies of the kingdome of heauen. And what­soeuer thou shalt bind vpon the [Page 4] earth, it shalbe bound also in the heauens: And vvhatsoeuer thou shalt loose vpon the earth, it shals be loosed also in the heauens.

By these wordes both the promise of Christ was fufilled, ād the reason of the promise was also declared, concerning the new name, which was before spo­ken of. Neither do our aduersaries de­nie these points, as I suppose. But the Catholiques reason farther vpon this place, in this wise: The name of Peter, which is deriued of a rock or of a stone, was no soner geuen to Simon, but also a new promise was made,Math. 16. that vpō this Rocke Christ would builde his Church. Now the Catholikes doe say, that Peter himself is here called this rock, and that Christ promised to build his Church vpō him. And because the building of Christes church varieth not after his Gospel once planted, but is al­waies like it self, the Catholikes beleue and teach, that when S. Peter died, a [...] [Page 5] other did succeede in his place, vpon whom Christes militant Church might be still so builded, as it had been once builded vpō S. Peter. And for as much as the Bishop of Rome succedeth S. Pe­ter, the Catholikes most constantly af­firme, that the Bishop of Rome, who li­ueth for the time, is the rocke which cōfesseth euermore Christes true faith, vpon which confession of the See of Rome, as vpō a most sure Rock Christes Church is built. The Protestāts be­ing at a point to denie this later asserti­on, must nedes affirme, that Peter him­selfe is not called this Rock, but rather that either Christ alone, or the faith which Peter confesseth, is only called this rocke.This sēse is imper­fit, but not false. So that they wil haue these wordes (vpon this rocke I wil build my Church) to be onely thus meant, vpon this faith and confession of thine, wherein thou hast said to mee (thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God) vpon this Rocke, which I am, [Page 6] or vpon this strong faith, which is con­fessed of me, I wil build my Church: and whersoeuer this faith is, there (say thei) is the rocke, vpon which Christ buil­deth his Church.

The Catholikes replie, that although the faith and confessiō of Christes God­head be in deede a most strong rocke, whereupon the Church is built, yet that is not al which Christ meaneth at this time. For these wordes (Thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke, I wil build my Church) haue a respect vn­to three diuers times: to the time past (because they are spoken to him, who was promised to be called Peter) to the present time (because they are spoken to him, who now confesseth Christes Godhead) to the time to come (because they are spoken to him, to whom Christ saith, he wil geue the keies of the king­dome of heauen, and vpon whom he wil hereafter build his Church) which thing he performed, when he said: Pe­ter [Page 7] louest thou me more thē these? Ioan. 21. [...]eede my sheep. For Christes sheepe [...]re Christes Church: And to be made [...]he shepheard of them, is to haue Christes Church built vpon him. And [...]o be Peter, is to be this Rocke.

Solemus videre pastores sedere [...]upra petram, & inde commissa [...]ibi pecora custodire. We are wōt (saith S. Augustine) to see shep­heards sit vpon a rocke, August in Io. tract. 46. and thēce to keepe the sheepe commited to their charge. Thus we see, how wel the Metaphore of the Rocke dooth agree with the Metaphore of feeding sheepe.

Therefore these wordes, vpon this rocke I vvil build my Church, are perfectly fulfilled, when it is saide to Peter who is this Roke, feede my sheepe.

Now wheras this Propositiō, Thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke I will build my Church, is thus qua­lified [Page 8] with the person to whom it is spo­kē, and with the diuersitie of three se­ueral times,The sense of the protestāts lacketh three cō ­ditions of fovver. to take one part of these foure away from all the other conditi­ons, whereunto it belongeth, and to say, that the confession of Peter alone is the rocke whereupon Christ wil build his church, and thereby to denie Peter him selfe who maketh that confession, to be this rocke, and to diuide the con­fession from the promise going before, (which first of all wrought the effect thereof) and from the last fulfilling which ensued after: it is in deede a truthe (for so muche as is affirmed therein) but in respect of that which is denied, it is a maine falshood.

The vvhole sense.But the Catholiques (geuing the whole sense of Christes woordes, as they ought, and not diminisshing any parte thereof) doe teache, that, this Rocke vvhere vpon Christ built his Church, is S. Peter, not bare­ly and nakedly considered, but with [Page 9] [...]spect of the promise past, of the pre­ [...]nt confession, and of the auctoritie [...]f feeding Christes sheepe which then [...]as to come.

And so, no mā (be he neuer so faith­ [...]ul) is this rocke whereupon Christ [...]ath built his Church, except he be [...]awfully called to succede in the autho­ [...]itie and pastoral office of S. Peter.

This thing then remaineth to be pro­ [...]ed in his due place.

The Catholiques teache also,Ioan. 2 [...] that [...]t was said to Peter alone, feede my sheepe. And seeing no particular [...]locke was named, it must needes be meant, that the whole flocke, which for the time liued on the earth, was committed to Peter, euen aboue all other, according as he loued Christ more then other.

And for as much as the order of gouerning Christes Church, which himself appoīted, may not afterward be changed by mans inuention, it insueth, [Page 10] that alwayes one chief shepheard must be made, who may feede the whole mi­litant flock of Christes sheepe in earth aboue al other pastours, as Peter on [...] did feede them aboue al, concerning the principal power which he receiued of Christ.

Hereunto the Protestantes replie, that Peter alone was not made the shephead of Christes flocke aboue al [...] others: but that in him Christ spake to al the Apostles.

The Catholiques demaund why the [...] Peter alone is spoken vnto, and willed to feed Christes sheepe, in the presence of certaine other Apostles, to none of whom Christ speaketh any thing ther­of at this time?

The Protestants answere, that euery Apostle was made a pastour no lesse thē Peter.Caluin and Beza in Ioan. cap. 21. But that he was namely spoken vnto at this time, as one who had lost his office of Apostleship by denying his Master, and therefore as he denied [Page 11] thrise, so he was commaūded thrise to [...]d Christes sheep, to th' end he should [...]ow that his fault is now forgeuen, and [...]t he is restored to his Apostleship [...]aine, so that he may feede Christes [...]eep as wel as Andrew or Iohn, and [...]th no greater power then they.

This answere is vtterly false for three 1 [...]ses. First because Simon Peter had [...]t lost his Apostleship by denying his Master. For although the fault see­ [...]eth to some men (who are cruel Iud­ [...]s ouer the Apostles) worthy of de­ [...]adation: yet for somuch as the same [...]as neither externally proued nor con­ [...]ssed in iudgement, nor stubbornely [...]fended, but rather was gratiouslie [...]rged by teares, it was verely forge­ [...]n through mercy, before it came to [...] punished by iustice. In so much that [...]tatus writeth thus:Lib. 7. de schis. Petrus ter so­ [...]s negauit, & tamen bono vnita­ [...]s de numero Apostolorum sepa­ [...]ri non meruit. Peter alone de­nied [Page 12] thrise, and yet for the bene [...] of vnitie he deserued not to be s [...] perated from the number of t [...] Apostles. Moreouer if S. Peter b [...] once lost his Apostleship, yet before th [...] time he had ben restored againe the [...] vnto. For Christ after his resurrecti [...] entred into the place where his disc [...] ples were (the doores being shut) a [...] stood in the middest, and said, Pea [...] vnto you, As my father hath se [...] me,Ioan. 20.and I send you. Whē he had s [...] these things, he breathed, and said thē: take ye the holy Ghost, who sinnes soeuer ye shal forgeue, th [...] are forgeuen them: and whose [...] euer ye shal retaine, they are retained. Now seing it can not be d [...] nied, but that S. Peter was thē presen [...] (for only Thomas is noted to haue be [...] absent from the disciples at that time [...] surely though Peter had lost once h [...] Apostleship, he had ben restored befor [...] this time, and had ben sent with Chr [...] ste [...] [Page 13] [...]anctoritie, no lesse then any other [...]stle. So that it was not nedeful for [...] restoring of him to his Apostleship, [...]t Christ shuld now say to him alone, [...]d my lambs, feed my sheep. But ra­ [...]r he being before equall with any [...]er of the Apostles by the cōmissiō of [...]ding and loosing syns, of praeching, or [...]ny like authoritie geuē before, was [...] alone prīcipally willed to feed Chri [...]s sheep, and Christes lambs, in such [...]t, as no other Apostle was. Last of al, [...]mit, Peter had not ben restored to [...] Apostleship before this time: yet he [...]d ben now restored to a greater au­ [...]oritie, than any other Apostle had re­ [...]iued at any time. So that euery way [...]eter in th'end remaineth with the [...]eatest power. Against this my assertiō [...]e Protestants cry, that al th' Apostles [...]ere equal, and that Iohn was the same [...]hing which Peter was,Cyprian. de vnit. Ecclesia. which thing S. Hierō, and S. Cypriā (say they) do witnes [...]nd the very practise of the Apostles, [Page 14] in so much that Paule, who was [...] of the twelue, yet with stood S. Pet [...] and reproued him.

Our answer to this matter is, that Peter was not onely an Apostle [...] which office of Apostleship during [...] ly for their liues, al the other were [...] equalles) but also both chief of the A [...] stles, and also an ordinarie chief sh [...] heard, or high byshop, wherein t [...] were al inferiors to him, as being [...] Apostles and Bishops vnder S. Pe [...] their chief Apostle and chief Bish [...] their Primate and their head. T [...] which my destinction shalbe exac [...] proued by Gods grace hereafter. [...] therto concerning S. Peter.

More ouer, some men are so w [...] ful, that although they are driuen [...] confesse, that S. Peter him selfe w [...] this rocke, and chief pastour, vpō who [...] assured faith the militant Church w [...] once buylt, yet they will haue no [...] Bishop to be the same after him. Whe [...] fore [Page 15] I haue to proue, that both one Bi­ [...]op for the time should haue continu­ [...] the same pastoral power which S. [...]ter once had, and that the same is [...]ne other beside the Bishop of Rome. [...] Which point being once declared, it [...]ill the better appere, what a blasphe­ [...] it is vnto Christ, to burden his Vi­ [...]e in earth with the name and tyran [...]cal power of that foule beast Anti­ [...]rist:Vho i [...] neere to antichrist Whereas it shalbe right wel pro [...]d, that the Protestants of our time [...]ome much nere to the nature and condition of Antichrist, then any Pope of Rome euer did or can doe.

That there is a certaine Primacie of [...] ritual gouernement in the Church [...] Christ (though not properly a lord [...] nes or heathenish dominion) An [...] what sort this Ecclesiastical Prim [...] differeth from the lordly gouern [...] of secular Princes, and how it is pr [...] sed by the Bishop of Rome. The .II. Chap.

NO man properly can be Lo [...] emong the Christians, where [...] are seruants indifferently v [...] der the obedience of one true Lord [...] Master Iesus Christ,Math. 23. [...]. Pet. 1. who hath crea [...] them of nothing, and hath redem [...] them with his owne bloud. Whe [...] vpon our Sauiour Christ said:Luce. 22. T [...] Kings of the Nations haue dom [...] nion ouer them, but you not so. Againe he saith:Math. 20. The Princes [...] the nations haue dominion ou [...] them. It shal not be so amon [...] you. 1. Pet. 5. And S. Peter did forbid [...] fellow Priestes, to vsurpe any domini [...] ouer the Clergie: but he cōmaund [...] [Page 17] [...]hem, to be an example and paterne of [...]he flocke. Vpon which places we [...]ay conclude, that Lordly dominion [...] forbidden in the Church of Christ, [...]ut not likewise all Ecclesiastical Pri­ [...]acie.

For Dominion is properly the power [...]f life and death vpon slaues or bond­ [...]en,Dominiō Math. 23. wheras we (in this spiritual go­ [...]ernment and kingdom of Christ) are [...]ot seruants one to the other, but [...]rethrē. But a kind of primacie is foūd [...]uen among brethrē. For whereas Ru­ [...]en had eleuen brethren,Gen. 49. yet notwith­standing, his Father said of him.

Ruben my first begotten, Thou [...]rt my strength, and the begin­ [...]ing of my grief. The more ex­ [...]ellent in giftes, and greater in [...]ovver. For Ruben should haue [...]ad receiued both the Priesthood and [...]he Superioritie ouer his brethren, yf [...]e had not wickedly demeaned him­selfe toward his owne Father.

Neither onely among brethren, but euen among fellow seruaunts there is found a certaine Superioritie, which is nothing els but that power, which it pleaseth the chief Lord to geue to some one of his seruaunts ouer al the rest. For the Lord of the house (as the Scri­pture witnesseth by a parable) appoin­teth ād setteth a wise and faithful ser­uaūt ouer his familie,Math. 24. that he may geue them meat in due time. To be appoin­ted and sette ouer a familie, is to be chief in the familie. And to be chief in the familie, is to haue the chiefdom, su­perioritie and primacie in the familie.

Wherefore seing our Sauiour Christ (so farforth as concerneth his visible presence) taking a iorney into a farre Countrie which is heauen, hath like a wise Lord appointed and set one of his seruants ouer his familie, that is to say, ouer his Church,Luc. 12. saying to him: Feed my sheepe, meaning that he should geue euery man his due portiō,Ioan. 21. and iust [Page 19] measure of wheat or of other victuals in conuenient time: that seruaunt so appointed and made ruler ouer this Militant Church, hath a certain pri­macie in consideration and respect of them, ouer whome he is made Primate and chief gouernour: albeit when we consider the maiestie of our Maister Christ, the very Primate stil continu­eth altogether a suppliant and an hūble seruitour to him.

As for other who vnder the chief ruler haue the charge of particular pa­rishes and Churches committed vnto them, they haue also in the same degree and sort, a certaine Superioritie, which S. Hierom calleth Exortem quandā & eminentem potestatem, In Dial. cōtra Lu­ciferanos. a cer­taine perelesse and high power.

If he be a Parish Priest, he is aboue any other in that parish. If he be a Bi­shop, he is aboue any other in that Dio­cese. Of such Rulers S. Paul saith: Obedite Prepositis vestris. Obey [Page 20] them who are sette ouer you. Now it is to be knowen, that in any one pa­rish, or in any one diocese, there neuer was but one ruler at once ordinarily.

For thence come heresies and schi­smes (saith S. Cyprian) because one Priest in the Church for the time,Ad Cor­nel. Ep. 3. Lib. 1. and one iudge in Christes stede is not thought to be.

If then the whole militant Church be also one certaine particular body of a certayne particular administration and condition (in respecte of the tri­umphant Church, which is otherwise guided in heauen) it must nedes fol­low, that ouer the whole militant house of God, one only master and gouernour is set, whom we al ought to obey as our chief ruler in earth. And so by the superioritie, which experience shew­eth to belong to one in euerie parish, we come by the force of the same rea­son, to acknowledge one chief Postour in the great parish of this world. of [Page 21] which kind S. Peter was, whiles he liued.

And that may well be percei­ued by the Gospell it selfe. For see­ing the Euangelist S. Mathew repe­ting the names of the twelue Apostles, saith: Primus, Cap. 10. Simon qui dicitur Petrus, the first is Simō, who is called Peter, and afterwards reckoneth none neither second, nor third, nor fourth, vndoubtedly by calling Peter (Pri­mum) first, he meaneth that he was the first in dignitie, and the chiefest among the Apostles, and that al the rest afterwardes were to be equallie estemed.

For, to be first where none is put as Second or Third, is to be first not by order of numbring, but onely by dignitie and preeminence, in somuch that the Auncient Fathers expresse the force of this woorde, Primus, First, by calling S. Peter the Prince or chief of the Apostles. And certes, [Page 22] where there is any in the Church of God, first in dignitie, and chief in prae­eminence, there must needes be some primacie.

Besides, if the Bishop of the old law was called in those daies,Exod. 22. Princeps populi, The Prince of the people, and if S. Paul honoured Ananias with that name, euen after the death of Christ, saying:Actor. 23. It is written, Thou shalt not curse (or reuile) the Prince of thy people, how much more ought he both to be called, and to be also beleued to be the chief gouernour and Prince of al Christian people, whom Christ hath appointed, and sette ouer his fa­milie,Ioan. 21. saying: Feede my sheepe? Onely he must be circumspect, that he turne not his primacie into a tyrannie, as the Gētiles and Princes of the world doe.

How be it, this also is to be conside­red, that neither the Prophets, nor the Euangelists are wont to be so carefull [Page 23] of woordes, as of the sense and things [...]hemselues. Wherby it commeth to passe sometimes, that they geue the name of God to such mē as haue by par­ticipation any diuine or godly thing in them, as to Iudges,Exod. 22. Psal. 81. Ioan. 10. and to whom God vouchsafeth to speake. By like meanes it may be verified, that some Ecclesia­stical persons haue a certaine dominiō, in that respect verely, that by partici­pation they receiue a diuine and hea­uenly thing that is to say, that power which Christ their liege Lord and na­tural Soueraigne indued them withal, when he made them gouernours of his familie. For among the holy orders of Angels, in like manner there is re­kened one, which is called of S. Paule Dominationes, Dominations,Coloss. 1. not because they haue any dominion or so­ueraintie ouer other Angels (as ser­uants in subiection vnto them) because they reciue that vertue and power of God (the onelie true Lord) which it plea­seth [Page 24] his Maiestie to haue annexed to that order, thereby to geue forth some token and shew of his infinite Lord­ship and power.

Wherefore if some man not thin­king peraduenture of these controuer­sies, nor weighing rather the thing then the bare word, hath at any time expressed the primacy of the Church,Dominus Lord, stā ­deth somtime for Sir. with this worde Dominion, or if any mā do cal a Bishop by the name of Lord we ought not for any such respect to make an hurly burly, as though any pro­per or true dominiō were challenged in the Church, of one towards an other. For as touching that which is properly called Dominiō, we defend it not. But that there is a primacie in the Church that is the thing which we defend. The which Ecclesiastical primacie although it may euidently appere by that which is already said, yet it shal not be out of the way, to consider how one of those places which are alleaged of our Ad­uersaries, [Page 25] as yf it did vtterly forbid [...] Superioritie among the disciples,Luc. 22. [...]th cleerely stablish and confirme the [...]me.

For whereas often times there [...]ll a strife betweene the Disciples, [...]ho shoulde be the greater, once 1 [...] the way to Capharnaum:Marc. [...]. an other [...]me when the Mother of the sonnes 2 [...]f Zebede desired that one of her chil­ [...]ren might sitte at Christes right and, and the other at his left hand:Marc. 10. 3 And the third time,Luc. 22. after his last [...]upper: albeit Christ always did dehort [...]hem from expectation of that heathe­ [...]ish kind of dominiō, which was vsed [...]n the worlde, and alwaies inuited [...]hem to humilitie, yet he neuer denied, [...]ut that there should be one in deede [...]reater among them, and he often­ [...]imes signified, that the same should be [...]. Peter, and that as wel when he chose [...]im to be the first Apostle, as when [...]e said, Thou art Peter, and vpon [Page 26] this rocke I wil build my Church and to thee I vvil geue the kei [...] of heauen, Math. 16. & 17. and paie for thee an [...] mee.

Yf then you demaund, how it happened, that this notwitstanding, th'Apostles striued who should be greater, [...] that euen after supper, whē it had be [...] already said, Vpon this rocke I vv [...] build my Church: I answer, that, no [...] withstanding S. Peter was most like [...] be preferred, yet whiles Christ liued i [...] the earth, it was in his free choise t [...] haue appointed it otherwise. An [...] when the Apostles saw either S. Pete [...] called Satanas, Math. 16. Origen. in Math. tractat. 5. Ne maior nō esset Pe­trus. Math. 20. Luc. 22. Ioan 13. that is an aduersarie, [...] any special fauour shewed to any othe [...] man beside S. Peter so oft they doubte [...] (as Origenes also witnesseth) lest perhaps Peter should not be the greater as namely, when they saw the mother of the sonnes of Zebede intreating f [...] her Children, and likewise when the [...] saw S. Iohn at his last supper to lea [...] [Page 27] vpon his breast.

Moreouer being not yet repleni­ [...]ed with the spirit of Christ, it may [...]el be, that although they beleued S. [...]eter should be the chief pastour, yet [...]ey might loke for an other to be made [...]e chief gouernour in secular causes.

But when once Christ had said to [...]m a little before his ascension, Simō [...]e sonne of Iona doest thou loue [...]e more then these? Ioan. 21. Feede my [...]mbs, feed my sheepe: after that [...]me al strife ceased, and Peter had the [...]periority stablished to him by al their [...]nfession.

Yea the same question was in maner [...]nded betwen Christes last supper and [...]is death, though not so plainely and [...]xpreslie as afterward. For after his [...]ast supper,Luc. 22. when they striued who [...]ight seme to be greater, Christ hauing [...]hewed, that some one of them was [...]reater, ended his talke at the last with [...]imon Peter, shewing him to be that [Page 28] one. The which woordes of Chri [...] rehearsed by S. Luke, that they m [...] be made the plainer, I will compa [...] them with the woordes of S. M [...] thew and S. Marke, spoken at an othe [...] time.

And that I doe, because all the places are hudled vp by the Protestā [...] as if they were one and the same,In centur. Magde­burg. whe [...] as they differ much.

Math. 20. Marc. 10.S. Mathew and S. Marke rec [...] onely that Christ said to the Apostle [...] (when they disdained at the sonne of Zebede) Whosoeuer among yo [...] wilbe greater, let him be your se [...] uitour. And vvho so euer amon [...] you vvil be first, shalbe your seruant. In which words we may conside [...] two things: the first is, that if an [...] man wil be greater, he is permitte [...] to be so, if yet he wil kepe the condition which foloweth, verely to be [...] seruaunt to al the Disciples. For th [...] lowlines of spirit is the way to this tr [...] [Page 29] greatnes, wherof Christ now speaketh.

And this kinde of greatnesse may [...] in those who are no Ecclesiasticall [...]ficers at all. Because it consisteth [...] the inward minde rather, then in [...]e outward power.

But S. Luke witnesseth Christ to [...]ue said moreouer:Luc. 22. Qui maior est [...] vobis, fiat sicut minor, & qui [...]aecessor est, sicut ministrator.

[...]e that is the greater among you, lett [...]m be made as the yonger, and he [...]at is the chief (or guide) as he that [...]inistreth.

In which woordes it appeareth [...]idently, there was one certaine [...]an greater then the other among [...]e Disciples. For whereas S. Ma­ [...]hew, and S. Marke speake indefi­ [...]itely [...],

[...]ho so euer will be greate, S. Luke [...]aith not generally, who so euer wil­ [...]e greate, but [...], the [...]reater among you. So that we finde [Page 30] six differencies between the woor [...] in S. Luke,Six diffe­rencies. and those in the other E [...] gelists.

1 For the other speake of any ma [...] whosoeuer he be. S. Luke of o [...] certaine man, who by the artickle, is, as it were, pointed vnto. For [...] said article doth determinately she [...] some one a part from the rest.

2 The other speake of a certaine des [...] to be greate. [...], Who [...] vvould, or coueteth to be great. [...] Luke speaketh of the effect already pr [...] sent, for the Participle [...], is to [...] supplied to these woordes, [...] the which causeth the sense to be, H [...] that is the greater, and not he th [...] would be, or coueteth to be great.

3 Thirdly, the other doe speake (according to the Greeke copies) of him th [...] woulde be, [...], great, and n [...] of him that is greater. S. Luke of hi [...] that is [...], greater among th [...] Apostles, and according to the Greek [...] [Page 31] [...]ase (where the comparatiue stan­ [...]h for the Superlatiue) it is meant, [...]hat is greatest among them all.

[...]al which differences, whereas in S. [...]thew and Mark, Christ only sheweth [...]militie to be the way to greatnes in [...] sight: in S. Luke he teacheth one [...]tain mā who is already greater, and [...]atest among them, to be made hūble. [...] For in S. Mathew and S. Marke, [...]e Nominatiue case to, sit, and, erit, [...] him be, or, he shal be, is he onely, [...]ho would be great, and not he that is [...]eat. Let him who would be great, [...] a seruant, that by seruing he may be [...]me great. But in S. Luke it is said: [...]et him that is alredy the more great, [...] made as it were a yonger. Certain­ [...] this mā who being already the grea­ [...]r, must be made as the yonger, is not [...]eant to be onely great already by the [...]ertue of humilitie, or by inward righ­ [...]eousnes, but rather by power and au­ [...]horitie.

For whereas the Apostles stri [...] who should be greatest in power, [...] not who should be greatest in humi [...] tie, Christ by pronouncing one amo [...] them to be greatest, and by exhort [...] him to be made as though he were [...] least doth euidently shew that he me [...] neth one of them to be already great [...] power, and that if he wilbe in al poin [...] the greatest, he must adde humilit [...] of his minde to the authoritie of [...] office, which he already hath, eith [...] by the right of promise, or els by e [...] presse gift. And so the man, who [...] spoken of in S. Luke, is already grea [...] in office and dignitie, and now he mo [...] afterward be made humble in min [...] and soule. He hath his greatness [...] by commission, and being made hūmbl [...] he must receiue a new kind of greatne [...] by grace.

Thus in the other twaine there ar [...] three degrees. A man first woul [...] be great, secondly he must be humble [Page 33] [...]d thirdly he then only is great whē [...] is humble. In S. Luke the man [...] first great (without declaratiō made [...]hether he would be so or no) and se­ [...]ndly he must behaue him self hūbly. [...]hich if he wil not doe, he looseth not [...]s former greatnes, but onely he lee­ [...]th that greatnes which is gotten by [...]umilitie.

The fourth difference is, that wher­ [...] 4 in S. Mathew he that would be great, [...] willed to be [...], a seruant, in S. [...]uke no such name of seruice is geuen [...] him that is the greater. But he is [...]illed to be as the yonger, or as the [...]ast. By which name of [...], [...]inor, yonger, it is geuen vs to vnder­ [...]and, that [...], maior, is not [...]nly meant the greater, but also the el­ [...]er. Nor yet only meant the elder in [...]eares, but also the greater in power, [...]nd elder in office.

For whereas the contention was, [...], Quis [Page 34] eorum videretur esse maior, which of them should seme to be the greater, or the greatest, it is certaine that they striued not, who shoulde be elder in yeares (for that was out of their reach) but they striued who should be greater and elder in power and Authoritie.

And Christ not denying at al, that some one was greater, but onely pre­scribing him how he should vse his greatnesse, biddeth him be made as the yonger. That is to say, as the vn­derling, although in deed he be the el­der. By which name of yonger, Christ alludeth to the custom of the childern of a Patriarch, or of a high Priest, a­mong the Iewes:Gen. 49. Where the elder brother was Prior in donis, & ma­ior in imperio for most in gifts, and greatest in rule. And consequent­ly the yonger brother was lesse then his elder brother.

Wherby we vnderstand, that wher­as the Disciples were all brethern, [Page 35] there was among them, as it were, an elder brother, who was greater in rule and formost in gifts, who was S. Peter,Math, 10. as we read in S. Mathew: Primus Simon, qui dicitur Petrus. The first is Simon, who is called Peter.

To whom S. Ambrose saith in this wise: Qui lapsus es antequam fleres, In Lucae. Cap 22. postquam fleuisti erectus es, vt ali­os regeres, quite ipsum antè non [...]xeras. Thou which diddest slide before thou didst weep, after thou hast wept, art set vpright, that thou shoul­dest rule others, who before hadst not ruled thy self. Lo, Peter did rule others: and how could he doe that, except he were set ouer them in such sort, as a ru­ler is ouer them whom he ruleth?

For although th'end of the ruling were better then that which was vsed among the nations, yet it was a true ruling and gouernement.

The fifth difference is, that wheras 5 in the other two Euangelists, it is abso­lutely [Page 36] said, let him be a minister and [...] seruaunt, in S. Luke it is said, with a great moderation, let him be made as the yonger, and as he that ministreth. So that the greatnes is absolute, but the ministerie is [...], as it were a ministe­rie, being in deed more truely a great­nesse (concerning the power) then a ministerie. Because it is a greatnesse by the power and nature of his office, but a ministerie by the good and humble vse of the same. The which good vse if it lacke, the power of the office is not the lesse, but the merite of the per­son is the lesse.

How were it possible for the vse of a thing to be prescribed to him, who had not the thing it self? How can he that is greater, be made as the yonger, if in deede he be not greater? It is vtterly to denie the expresse woorde of God, if any man say, that there was not one certain man greater amōg th' Apo­stles, who might be made as the yonger. [Page 37] It is, I say, the plaine contradictorie of [...]hat which Christ speaketh, and ther­fore the mainteiner of that opinion is [...]n Antichrist.

Last of al, the greater man whom 6 S. Luke speaketh of, is euidentlie na­ [...]ed a litle after. For when Christ had brought an example of his owne humi­litie, as who had ministred to them sit­ting downe at the table, and had she­wed, that because they had continued with him in his tentatiōs, thei should [...]at and drinke at his table in heauen, [...]e said immediately vnto S. Peter, Si­mon, behold Satan hath desired to sift you, as it were wheat, but I haue prayed for thee, that thy faith faile not. And thou beeng once conuerted, confirme thy brethrē. What other thing is it for S. Peter to confirme his brethren, but to practise and excercise his greatnes ouer them? For he that doth confirme other, is the greater, and they who are confirmed [Page 38] are thereby inferiours to him, who con­firmeth them.

Thus we vnderstand, that with­out al question S. Luke doth witnesse Christ to haue described one certaine man to be presently the greatest among the Disciples, who is exhorted to be made as their minister, and in the end by name is called Simon, which was the forename of S. Peter. And seeing the Bishoppes of Rome doe sitte in his chaire, they are likewise the greatest among all their brethern and fellow Bishoppes, and ought to be made a [...] ministers, or yongers, for the perfitt vse of their greatnesse, which is before committed to them at their election to that office, whether they doe after­ward vse it wel or no.

For the power which God geueth to man for the commoditie of the whole Church, neuer dependeth vppon the good vse of that mā, lest while he as a priuate mā doth misuse his dignity, the [Page 39] whole Church (which is of greater re­ [...]ect) be depriued of her profit and vti­ [...]tie. Wherefore by al these reasons it [...]ust needes follow, that there is a Su­ [...]remacie among the Apostles them­ [...]elues (as it shall be afterward more [...]irectly proued) and consequently, [...]uch more among their Successours, who hauing lesse grace and humilitie, would soner make schismes, if one were [...]ot set ouer them, whom they might al [...]cknowlege ād obei as their chief pastor.

In so much that S. Ambrose wri­ [...]ing vpō this place of S. Luke,In Cap. 22 Lucae. generaly saith: Caueamus, ne in perditio­nē aliqua inter nos de praelatione possit esse contentio. Si enim cō ­tendebant Apostoli, non excusa­tioni obtenditur, sed cautioni pro­ponitur. Let vs beware, lest any strife of preferment maie be among vs to our destruction. For if the Apostles did striue, it is not an ex­cuse to be pretended for vs, but it is set [Page 40] foorth to make vs beware, et ideo vnadatur omnibus forma sententiae, v [...] non de praelatione iactantia sit, sed de humilitate contentio, eô ꝙ se Dominus proponit imitandum. And therefore one fourme of sentēce is geuē to al, that they should not boast of their preferment or prelateship, but that they should striue to be hum­ble. Because our Lord hath sett foorth him self to be folowed.

Here S. Ambrose denieth not but that one is preferred before an other, yea rather he confesseth it, for he could not forbid any man to boast of his pre­lateship, except he were a prelate. Onely this is common to al, that euen the Prelates ought to striue with their inferiours, in lowlines, because Christ who is Lord of al, did minister to his own disciples, ad became the lowest and most humble of al other.

S. Bede vpon this present place of S. Luke writeth thus. In forma hu­militatis [Page 41] obtinenda Maiores & praecessores, id est, doctores Eccle­siae non minima discretione opus habēt, vt & bonis in nullo se praefe [...]rant, & cùm prauorum culpa exi­git, potestatem protinus sui prio­ratus agnoscant, ne enim presidē ­tis animus ad elationem potesta­tis suae delectatione rapiatur, rectè per quendam sapientem dicitur: Ducem te constituerunt, noli ex­ [...]olli, sed esto in illis quasi vnus ex [...]llis. In keping the fourme of low­lines the greater and more chief, that is to say, the Doctours and the teachers of the Church, haue need of no smal di­screation, that they neither preferre them selues in any thing before good men, and when the fault of euil men so requireth, that by and by they may acknowledge the povver of their prelateshippe. The same vvordes are in S. Gregorie. li. 1. ep. 24 For to the end the minde of the President might not be puffed vp with pride through the de­light [Page 42] light of his owne power, it is wel said by a certaine wise man: They haue made the a capitain, be not proud, but be amōg them as one of them. Al this talke of S. Bede presupposeth a prelatship in the Church: and requireth also, that it be practised whē the faults of euil men prouoke their Superiour, to vse his authoritie.

The chief point of the whole di­sputation is, that the Ecclesiastical pri­macie doth in all points imitate and resemble (as much as it possiblie may) the Primacie of Christ,Luc. 22. who setteth foorth him selfe as a perfit example of a true primacie euen in this place of S. Luke.

Therefore who so euer denieth the Superioritie of him, who is the grea­test among the Apostles, to be a true primacie in his kinde, is blasphemouse against Christ him selfe. For after that it was said: He that is grea­test among you, let him be as the [Page 43] yonger, and he that is chief, as he [...]hat ministreth, Christ intending to [...]hew that the primacie of the Apostles, [...]ould by no reason be greater, then that [...]f Christ was, but that it ought rather [...]o follow ād to be like vnto it: whether [...] saith he) is greater, he that sitteth [...]oun, or he that ministreth? Is not [...]e that sitteth doune? But I am in [...]he midst of you as he that mini­ [...]treth: as if he said, seeing none of you [...]ay reasonably couet to be otherwise [...]he greatest, then I am, and yet I being [...]ncomparably the greatest, doe behaue my self like one that ministreth, much lesse the greatest among you, may desire [...]o be great after any other sort.

Therefore in such sort the Apo­stles and their Successours ought (for their degree) to be seruants and mi­nisters in their Primacie, as (for his degree) Christ was in his own primacy, who after that he had washed their feete, said vnto them: Do ye knovv [Page 44] vvhat I haue done vnto you? Ioan. 13. Ye cal me Maister and Lord, and therein you say vvel: for I am your Maister and Lord in deed. Wher­fore seeing I, being your Lord and Maister, haue vvashed your feete, ye ought to vvash one an others feete. For I haue geuen you an example, that you should doe as I haue don. Verely verily I say vnto you, the seruāt is not greater then his Maister, nor the Apostle more vvorthy then he that sent him. If ye knovve these things, ye shal be blessed if ye doe them.

Christ therefore, whereas he was most truly Lord and Maister, hauing the Primacie in al points, Coloss. 1. yet not­withstanding he was a minister among his disciples. And after the same sort (as S. Gregorie testifieth) Petrus au­thore Deo sanctae Ecclesiae princi­patum tenens, L. 1. ep. 24 &c. Peter hauing the Primacie of the holy Church [Page 45] [...]y Gods commission, refuseth to [...]e ouermuch reuerēced of Cor­ [...]elius vvho did vvel. Actor. 9. Actor. 5. But vvhen [...]e found out the fault of Ananias [...]nd Saphyra, Mox quanta poten­ [...]a super caeteros excreuisset ostē ­ [...]it. He shewed straight how farre [...]e was growē in power aboue the rest. Wil any man denie Christ to be Prince [...]nd Lord of al? No, I suppose. For Christ died and rose againe, Rom. 14. to [...]his end that he might be Lorde [...]oth of the quick and of the dead.

If then he that is Lord of al, could notwithstāding be as a minister with­ [...]ut losse of his lordship, how much more easilie may he that is not properlie a Lord, but a chief ruler among his bre­ [...]hern, being set rather ouer their faults then ouer the men, how much more may he be as a seruant and minister in that Primacie and Authoritie of his, without any hinderance to his superio­rite? Which being true, their er­rour [Page 46] or rather malice is discouered, who think, that none cā be chief among the faithful Christiās, because it is writen: that he must be as a minister, that vvilbe first or chief. See I pray you their wise discourse. Thus they reason.

To be a ruler, and as a yonger, a chief gouernour,An Ob­iection. and as a minister, are con­trarie and repugnant one to an other.

If that be true, how was Christ both a Lord and as one that ministred?The an­svvere. A Maister, and as it were a mini­ster? A Lord by nature, a mini­ster by subiection. It is not said, he that is the greater, let him be a ser­uaunt, but: let him be as a mini­ster. If it be so, that Christ being ab­solutely Lord of al, was also notwith­standing as a minister: how much more may the Apostles and their successours being not proprely Lords in deed, but only for the time appointed rulers ouer Christes familie, be in that kind both gouernours, and as seruants? Gouer­nours [Page 47] ouer them, who for their faults [...]eserue the rod (as S. Paul speaketh) [...]nd as seruants in the middest of them who deserue praise.1. Cor. 4. 1. Thess. 5. Gouernours in [...]eed, and seruants by humilitie, Gouer­ [...]ours in office, and seruants in conside­ [...]ation of the good end and vse of their [...]ffice. But what need many woords? Doth not euery good shepheard both [...]ule his flock, and serue his flock? Doth [...]e not iudge betwen the fat sheep and [...]he leane? Yeas verely.Ezec. 34 And Christ [...]ould haue Bishops, euen after the ex­ [...]mple of shepheards, to be both rulers [...]uer men indued with reason, ānd also [...]o serue them with their spiritual food. Now look by what reason one man (be­ [...]ng as it were Aries Dux gregis, a [...]am who guideth the flock, is chief ru­ [...]r ouer many mē being as it wer sheep who follow him: by the same reason, the [...]ery self same guide may (as it were a [...]apitaine ram) be again in subiectiō to [...]n other guide, as being his shepheard.

Therfore as Bishops are gouernour [...] ouer their particular flockes, and ser­uitours vnto them: so one superiou [...] Bishop is both gouernour ouer many Bishops (as his one flock) and also ser­uant vnto them al. How sententi­ouslie was it said of Pope Leo? Qu [...] se quibusdam sit esse prepositum non moleste ferat aliquem sibi essepraelatum. Ep. 82. ad Anastasiū Thessalon. He that knoweth himse [...] to be sette ouer some men, let him n [...] disdaine to haue some man preferred be­fore himselfe.

An Ob­iection.But some man will saie: They th [...] beare rule and dominion euen among the Gentils, doe serue their subiects, i [...] that they prouide to keep out their en­nemies, to cōserue peace, to make lawes and to punnish malefactours. Where­fore seing they haue such a dominion, as maie be called a ministerie and ser­uice, not onely that dominion, which practiseth a tyrannical power, and hath confidence in his owne force, is inhibi­ted [Page 49] to the Apostles and tHeir succes­sours, but also al kinde of primacie. For [...]he clergy must be altogether vnlike to [...]he temporal gouernours.

To answere this obiection,The an­svvere. in very deede I doubt not, but the end of that dominion which is practised among the gentils ought to be such, that it should haue a special eye to thepreseruation of [...]he common weale.Gene. 10. Nēroth. But because at the first beginning Kings and Princes of [...]he earth had not that end either on­ly or specially before their eys, but desi­red that dominion, and practised it al­so because it was a pleasaunt and lord­like pleasure to be a prince, and because the most part of Princes are prone to the worst, therefore our sauiour Christ considering that which was first, and which happeneth most oftentimes, for­biddeth his Apostles and bisshops such a dominion and superiority as is vsed among the Princes of the earth, and not altogeather such as ought to be a­mong [Page 50] them. Therefore it is not lawful for vs to desire any primacie for the primacies sake, but for the traiuaile, la­bour, and end for which the primacie is ordeyned of Christ.1. Tim. 3. For he that desireth the office of a bishop, desireth a good worck, and not a vaine honour.

Againe albeit it be true, that some wordly princes take the dominion and soueraintie vpon them for the profite of the common weale, yet it is more that Christ requireth of his Apo­stles and Bisshops, who are bound no [...] onely to see vnto the common weale, but to the Christian common weale, of which end no wordly princes could thincke, when Christ spake those words, because no Princes of the earth had receaued the faith of Christ at that time.

Wherefore that commaundement was specially geuen to the Apostles, that they should direct their primacie [Page 51] and superioritie to the publick commo­ditie of faithfull men, and to the salua­tion of their sowles, to edifie withal, 2. Cor. [...]. and not to destroye.

Farthermore, albeit the King be faithfull and also vertuouse for his own person, yet it is not the kinglie, but the priestlie power, which God chose from the beginning to rule his people withall.Rom. 13. For although by his almightie goodnes he ordeined the Royal power, and made the state of Kings to serue both his eternal purpose, and also the cō ­mon weale,1. Pet. 2. and willed euen the faith­full to obey them, as being sent of God, yet we reade not, that the making of Kings ouer Gods owne people at the first, came of God by the way of his mercifull grace and election, but by the way of his angrie permission, and iust iudgement,Gen. 10. Hieron. in quaest. Hebrai. in suffering thereby the paines of their great synnes to fall vpon them.

So Nērod that strong hunter (the [Page 52] first King that we reade of) either vsurped his kingdom by force, or was auaunced to it by euil men, without the graciouse appointement of God. And when the people of Israël reiecting the gouernment of Samuel the priest, 1. Reg. 8. wold nedes haue a King ouer them, God accompted himself to be re­iected of them: doutlesse not because it was a synneful thing to haue a King, but because it was a great dishonour to God (who had appointed priests to go­uern) to haue his gouernment changed. And it was lesse profit for their sow­les to be ruled by a King, then by a priest.

[...]. Reg. 8.For albeit a priest may be also naught, (as the sonnes of Samuel were) yet he can neuer be so hurtful and slaunderouse to eternal saluation, as the King may be: partly because the state and (as the world hath euer misiudged it) the right and law of a King is to be secular and wordly,In 1. Reg. lib. 4. c. 2. in so much that S. Gregorie said: [Page 53] ea quae in iure regio continentur [...]itanda potius quàm imitāda prae­dicuntur, the things which are con­ [...]eined in the law that concerneth the Kings, are foretold rather that they [...]ay be auoided, then folowed (whereas [...]he law and state of a priest is to be spi­rituall and godly, and therefore it is [...]lwaies a more perfit state and profes­sion:) partly also because the making [...]f a King had his beginning from the fact and consent of men, working only according to the law of nations (allo­wed in dede by God) whereas the insti­ [...]uting of priestes came directly from God him self. And who douteth but that it may be soner abused which men by good reason ordeined, then that which God aboue al course of reason, instituted by grace only? In so much that the Iewes being prouided for by God himfelf of a spiritual gouernment, did synne greuously and were forsaken of God concerning their act of choosing [Page 54] afterward a temporal King, who shuld be aboue their high priest, wherevpon Saint Gregorie saith:In 1. Reg. lib. 4. c. 1. Meritò se ab­iectum Dominus conqueritur, meritò regiam dignitatem conce­dit indignatus. Tanta quidem erat iniquitas postulātium, vt cum illud peterent, per quod à Deo recederent, ex Dei iudicio per­mitti posset, prohiberi non pos­set. Our Lord did worthely lament himself to be abiected. He being of­fended, did iustly graunt the Royall dignitie▪ so great was the iniquitie of the desirers, that (when they desired that, whereby they should goe from God) by the iudgement of God it might be permitted, but prohibited it could not be.

But on the other side the first in­stitution of Priests came not to Gods people by their own inuention, but di­rectly from God himself,Genes. 4. [...].22. to whome, A­bel, Noë, Abraham, Aaron and [Page 55] his successours serued in that office, by [...]e gratiouse election of God, vntill [...]hrist, fulfilling the figure of Melchi­ [...]dech, instituted in his last supper [...]e order of priesthood,Lucae 22. according to [...]he state of the new testament, ge­ [...]ing power to his Apostles to make, [...]nd by that meane to offer mystically [...]is own body and blood, witnessing [...]hereby how much more he gaue them [...]ll manner of necessarie or profitable [...]ower ouer the Church his mystical [...]odie.

For yf his priests be so great, that [...]hey haue taken power to make his [...]wne body with their holy mowth (as Saint Hierom speaketh) shall [...]ow any man disdaine,Ad Eua­grium. to be vnder [...]hat order, which God hath so excel­ [...]ently honoured? This much may be said for the whole order of priest­hood.

But after that the Apostles were made Priests, he ordeyned [Page 56] Saint Peter the general pastour an [...] high bishop of his whole flock, and he did it with such protestation of lo [...] and charitie, that it must needes be cō ­fessed, euen by the despisers of Christe institutiō, that there was neuer light­ly any act don in this world by the s [...] of God, with shewing of greater lo [...] toward mankind, then at what tyme h [...] himfelf in his own person appointed v [...] a pastour and shepheard.

Now this pastour being thus grea­ter then the rest, is not only primate i [...] a far other sort then the Kings of the vnfaithfull nations, but also in a f [...] more excellent kinde, then the Chri­stian Kings are. For to what Christi­an King did Christ euer say,Ioan. 20. As my father sent me I send thee, Math. 16. or, v­pon this rock I will build mi [...] Church, Ioan. 21. or, doest thow loue me more then these? fede my shepe▪ feede my lambs?

And yet is a King aboue priests▪ [Page 57] yea aboue the high pastour of Christes flock? he is so in dede with them, who make lesse accompt of Christes heauēly institution and Officer, then of him that was first made either by the ne­cessitie of wordly calamities to kepe away a greater euil from the common weale, or els by the wanton and proud affection of earthly men, ambitiously af­fecting tyrannical power.

Let no man thinck that I despise the authoritie of Kings (God forbid) but thei are a good thing brought in mercifully sumwhere to staye violent iniuries and robberies, and other where permitted of God for our iust punishment,2. Cor. 5. and not any like thing to that diuine order of pastours, which Christ ordeined purposely for our re­conciliation to God the father, and for the auoiding of al iust punishment o­therwise deserued.

It was a King (as Saint GregorieIn 1. Reg. lib. 4. c. 1 noteth) who deuided the ten tribes [Page 58] from the Churche of God, and made those by the iust punishment of God to be idolatours, who so greedely pre­ferred his gouernment before the go­uerment of the priests. And are not we now in the same case, who for greedines to reiect the Vicar of Christ, are come to preferre the secular and temporall power before the spirituall? the body before the sowle, and earth before heauen?

In 1. Reg. lib. 4. c. 1. Nonnulli (saith Saint Gregory) in tantum dementiae malum pro­ficiunt, vt commouere ipsum etiā statum Ecclesiastici culminis non vereantur. There are some who are come to so great madnes, that they are not a feard to moue (and trouble) euen the state it self of the Ecclesia­stical (toppe, or) highest dignitie of the Churche. And a little after. His autem qui viuebant sub spi­ritali regimine, Ibidem. Regem petere, quid aliud est, quàm eandem spi­ritalem [Page 59] praelationem in secula­ [...]m dominationem transferre ge­ [...]re?

For those that did liue vnder the spi­ [...]tual gouernment, to require a King, [...]hat other thyng is it, then to goe a­ [...]out to transfer the same spiritual pre­ [...]teship (or gouernment) into a tempo­ [...]al dominion?

Yf any man would deepely weigh with himself, that God chose such a [...]ecret and extraordinarie way to [...]ue mankinde, that no creature [...]ould worck it beside his owne Al­mightie Sonne, and that he comming [...]nto the world, was so farre from working his purpose by Kings and prin­ces, that whereas it was most easie for him to haue made manie Kings and Princes at the beginning to beleue in him,1. Cor. 1. he rather chose the weakest things of the world to confound the strong things, and wrought the beginning and increase of his [Page 60] Church by the misbeliefe and persec [...] tion of princes: if he would be thin [...] himself, how farre the pouerty and h [...] militie of the Kingdome of heauen [...] from the pompe and wordly distracti [...] of Kings (Yea though thei be Christia [...] and good also) he wold much wond [...] what sense in holy matters thei haue who dare make that princely state s [...] preme head of the Church, which of [...] states came last to the faith, and the pomp whereof is most contrary (of a [...] other degrees) to the profession of the same.

And yet what are they who per­suade this matter?The incō ­stancie of the pro­testants. verely those who hauing iustly reproued some lewd and proud bishops for their wordly pompe, afterward set vp Kings in the bishops places, yea aboue them also, as though any King had lesse wordly pompe then the bishops. Yea they also doe it, who, protesting thei will beleue nothing but the expresse word of God, yet beleue [Page 61] Kings to be the heads of the Church, [...]hich they not only can not find in [...]ods word, but thei rather finde there,1. Reg. [...]. [...]at God was angrie, when the [...]ouernment of the highe priest [...]as reiected, and a kingly gouernment [...]alled for.

Moreouer yf by this precept (the [...]ings of the nations haue domi­ [...]ion ouer them, it shall not be so [...]mong you) not only all tyrannical or [...]ordly power of life and death, but also [...]l spiritual primacie and superioritie be forbidden to the Apostles ouer the whole militant Church, it is forbiddē [...]ikewise, that there should be any supe­riour in any one part of the Church. For the parts (accordīg to their degree) are of the same nature whereof the whole is. Therefore if the whole mi­litant body may haue no one head, much lesse any part thereof may haue a head.

If then no Apostle may be superiour or primate in any parte of the Church, [Page 62] much lesse any other Christian, mā w [...] is inferiour to an Apostle, may be s [...] preme gouernour in any one part of th [...] same Church. But euery King in th [...] behalf, as he is a Christian, is inferio [...] to the Apostles (for he is both tawg [...] his faith of them,Matth. 28 and baptized by them and in spiritual matters he must be guided by them) therefore seing the King may not be supreame gouernour of any parte of Christes Church, in that respect as he is a Christian mā, if yet he shalbe supreame head of his own Chri­stian realme by any meane at all, it must be by that power, which he either had before his Christianity, or beside it. For by his christianity it is not possible, that he shold haue any greater power then the Apostles had,Ioan. 20 who were sent into the world with Christes authority.

If then a King be supreme gouernour of the Church (where he is a King) besi­des his christianity, he is no otherwise supreame gouernour thereof, then any [Page 63] Ethnik prince might haue bē. And so it [...] brought to passe by the doctrine of the [...]rotestāts, that an infidel King hah su­ [...]reme power to visite, to reforme, to [...]orrect, and to depose any bishop [...]ithin his own realm. The which ar [...]umēt whē Antichrist, or the great Turk shal make vnto the Protestāts, [...]hey must nedes yeld vnto it, and graūt [...]ī to be supreame head of their Church. Be it so, of their Church, but the Ca­ [...]holikes shal stil keepe them vnder the [...]piritual gouernmēt of the bisshops and [...]astours which Christ hath instituted.

To enter one degree farther in this matter, let vs graunt, that some King were so ꝑfit, so poore in spirit, so chast, so liberal, as euer any bishop or priest was required to be in Gods law:VVhat things a King cā not doe. cā he yet ba­ptize, cā he cōsecrate Christes body, can he forgeue synnes, can he preache, can he excommunicate, can he blesse the people, can he iudge of doctrine by his kingly authority? If he can not doe [Page 64] these things, how can he be aboue the [...] (cōcerning these causes, who haue receaued cōmission of God to doe all thes [...] things?The Su­prem go­uernour, may pra­ctise any thing properly be­longing to his go­uernmēt. It is not possible for a man [...] haue the supreame gouernment in [...] Ecclesiastical causes by lawful power a [...] right, but that he should thereby ha [...] also power and right, to execute any [...] those things which belong to such Ec­clesiastical causes as are vnder his g [...] uernment. Marck the point.

I say not he is bound to execut [...] euery such matter as falleth vnder h [...] gouernment or that it is decent for hi [...] to doe it: but that he may doe it, an [...] hath right and power to doe it, if he b [...] rightly the supream gouernour in th [...] behalf.An exā ­ple in ci­uil Mat­ters. For example: the King who [...] supream gouernour in the ciuil and tē poral causes, hath vnder him Iudges, shriues, maiors, Capitains and consta­bles. If his maiesty will plaie the iudg [...] in Westminster hal, or the shriue in any sessions, or the Capitain in warre, he [Page 65] surelie may doe it concerning the right [...]f his Kingdome. Yea he lacketh no [...]ight nor lawfull power to play the Sol­ [...]iour, the Tailour, the Mason, Car­ [...]enter, or Tanner, albeit he perhappes doe lacke the cunning or experience [...]o exercise or practise those Artes, so as they ought to be practised.

Likewise an Archbisshoppe or Pri­uate, who hath Bisshoppes,An exā ­ple in Ec­clesiasti­cal mat­ters. Arche­deacons, Officials, Priests, and Clerks vnder him, may by right of his Su­ [...]eriorie baptize anie childe, blesse or geue benediction, burie the dead, ap­proue their last wils by his own fact, helpe a Priest to Masse, cary the crosse in procession, digge the graue, and to be shorte, he maie doe anie thing which anie man may doe, who is vnder his iurisdiction.

If then the king haue the right and power of Supreme gouernement in al Ecclesiastical causes,The ap­plying of the rule to our purpose. seing it belongeth to the right and power of Ecclesiastical [Page 66] causes that a man may preache, baptize, blesse, or geue benedictiō to the people, and administer the sacrament of Chri­stes body and blood, and binde or loose synnes: it must needes be, that the King euen by that his supreamicy should also haue power and right to preache, to baptise, to geue benediction, to admini­ster the sacrament of Christes supper, and to binde or loose synnes.

A farther declara­tion.I say not, that he by his supremacie hath cunning either, to preache or to baptize, or to geue benediction, or to administer the sacrament of Christes supper, or to play the tailer or the ma­son: but that no law, right, and power doth, or can forbid him to doe these things, if in these things he be the su­preme gouernour, so that if he other­wise had cunning, he might with praise no lesse preache and baptise, and geue benediction or administer the sa­crament of Christes supper, then he might build a howse with his own hāds, [Page 67] or cutte a garment, yf he were cūning [...]herein.

But now if all the world confesse,2. Para. 20 non est tui officij (ô Rex) sed sacer­dotū do­mini. [...]hat à King by his kinglie office doth [...]ot only lack knowlege, but also hath no [...]ight or power at al to preache, to bap­ [...]ze, to geue benediction, or to conse­ [...]rate the sacrament of Christes supper, [...] a although otherwise he be most cun­ [...]ing and excellently lerned: (except [...]e haue the office of a priest also geuen [...]im, and be lawfullie sent and authori­ [...]d by the imposition of the hand of [...]riesthood) doutlesse it ought to be con­ [...]essed,1. Tim. 4. that a King by his kinglie office [...]ath no right or supreme power at all in [...]cclesiastical causes (vnlesse it be com­ [...]itted to him from the bisshop.) And [...]hat, as wel because he of him self can [...]ot practise those causes, though he wold, (as euen our aduersaries cōfesse) [...]s also, because his power (be it neuer [...] roial) reacheth not so high, as the [...]ower of spiritual gouernmēt appointed [Page 68] by Christ, doth. And surely no man by the commission which he onely hath to rest or to prison men, maie also hang them or burn them. For the lesser au­thority doth not cōprehend the greater.

Say now, M. Horn, whether to cele­brate our Lords supper, and to preache Gods word, and to absolue or bind sins, it be a lesser or a greater ministery, thē the Kings authoritie? If it be lesser, you haue reason on your side. For then a greater, power may comprehend it, be­ing the lesser. But if it be incompara­blie greater to minister vnto men the heauenly Sacraments, then to minister iustice in temporal things, if that be a higher power which toucheth the soule then that which only toucheth the bo­dy, then by what meanes extend you the commission of a King (which hath to do with lesse maters) not only to the commission of a Priest,In the booke ag [...]inst M. Feen [...] ̄. but also aboue it?

You bring many examples euil appli­ed to make an apparance of somewhat.

But they al concerne matters of fact, which are for many circumstances sub­iect to much wrangling. But either it was no good Prince, who medled of his 1 own authority, with disposing holy mat­ters, Or if he were otherwise good, that 2 deed was not good, Or if he did it wel, 3 he did it by cōmission from a Prophet or frō a high Priest, Or he was deceiued by 4 flatterers, Or els being forced by necessity, 5 which is vnder no law, he only sought the publike peace in that his deed, and not to set himself ordinarily aboue the spiritual gouernmēt. For howsoeuer the deeds of men be vncertaine, deceitful, ād vnknowen in al their particular cir­cūstances, the word of God can not fail, which saith to Peter and to other Bis­hops after him, Feed my sheep. Ioan. 21.

Here I aske whether the King or Emperour, who is christened, be Peters sheep or no? If he be not, he is not on­ly not aboue the Church, but he is not at all of the Churche. If he be his [Page 70] sheepe, then I say boldly, that as it is against the law of nature (which neuer can be wholie changed) for a shepe to rule his shepheard (in anie manner of such sort, wherein he is the shepheard) euen so it is vtterly impossible for anie King or Prince to be in anie respect of Ecclesiastical gouernment, aboue his own pastour, who soeuer he be for the time.

And yet farther to make this mat­ter more plaine, be it that a Christian King doth take vpō him the supreame gouernment in Ecclesiastical matters. What if a bishop being called before him,Epist. 32. & sequēt. say boldlie (as S. Ambrose in a like case did) may it please your maiestie to cōmaund my goods, my lāds, my body, my life, it shalbe at your cōmandemēt. But as for the ordering and gouerning of my bishoprike, I will not yeld it to you, because Christ (and not your ma­iestie) committed the same to me: what could that Christian King doe to that [Page 71] bishop more thē Nero or Traian might haue done? Could he excommunicate him by his roial power? M. Horn will not say so. What is it thē which he could doe? might he putte him in prison? so might Nero, and also the great Turk.

By this meane it appeareth, that the King be he neuer so much christened, hath yet no power ouer the Bisshops soule. And yet al spiritual and ecclesia­stical power towcheth the sowle. There­fore the King hath no spiritual power o­uer the bishop at all.Epist. 32. Si vel scriptu­rarum seriem diuinarum, vel ve­tera tempora retractemus, quis est qui abnuat in causa, in causa, in­quam, fidei Episcopos solere de Imperatoribus, non Imperatores de Episcopis iudicare? If we call to mind, either the processe of holy scri­ptures, or the auncient tymes, who can denie, but that in a cause of faith, in a cause, I say, of faith bishops are wōt to iudge of Christian Emperours, and [Page 71] not Emperours of Bisshops.

If then the King haue no Spirituall power ouer the Bisshop, how shal he co­rect or depose the Bisshop, according to any spiritual or ecclesiastical processe of iudgement? Shall he cause a Synod of Bisshops to be gathered, that therin he may depose the said disobediēt Bishop? Put case the Synod find him not wor­thy to be deposed, or els wil not depose the said Bisshop? How cā the King come to exercise yet any spiritual power vpō the Bisshop? You wil say, he shal con­strain the Synod to depose him. Where­with I pray you? By the spiritual sword, or by the temporal? Not by the spiritu­al. for it was neuer committed to the king, that whose sinnes he should retaine, they should be retained.

If then he shal obteine his purpose by the temporal sword, who seeth not, that the last resolution of the kings po­wer is vpon his temporal and secular iurisdictiō, which he should haue had, [Page 72] though he had not ben a Christian.

Therefore S. Augustine finding many [...]imes great fault with the Donatists,Homil. de pastor. & in Psalm. cont part. Donatist. [...]ecause they appealed frō the iudge­ment of Bishops to the Emperor, [...]alleth euen Constantin, who was then [...] christian Prince, terraenū regem, an earthly king.In epist. 48 Datos sibi Episcopos [...]udices apud terrenū regē accusa­uerūt. They accused the Bisshops, who were assigned to be their iudges before an earthly King. For albeit he was a Christian, yet his Kinglie power was earthlie, in respect of that heauenly po­wer, which Christ brought with him, and gaue to his Disciples. What doe I stande about the woordes of menne?

A most plaine demonstration of the dignity of high priests aboue the digni­tie of faithful princes euen in the sight of God, is to be sene in the olde Testa­ment. Where God (who is no parcial Iudge) assigneth a sacrifice for the syn [Page 74] of euerie degree of men according to their dignitie euen at his own altar. 1 And first he beginneth with the highe priest, Leuitici 4 Sacerdos. saying: Si Sacerdos, qui vn­ctus est peccauerit, delinquere fa­ciens populum, offeret pro pec­cato suo vitulum. If the priest which is anoynted shall synne, causing the peo­ple to synne, he shall offer a calf for his synne.

2 The second degree, is not the prin­ce,Turba oīs. but the whole people. Quôd si om­nis turba filiorum Israel ignoraue­rint, offeret pro peccato suo vitu­lum. Yf the multitude of the childern of Israel do amisse by ignorance, it shal offer a calf for his synne.

After these two degrees cometh in 3 the Princes place,Princeps. Leuitic. 4 si peccauerit prin­ceps, offeret hostiam coram Do­mino, hircum etc. If the prince shall synne, he shal offer a hee gote in sacrifi­ce before the Lord. Behold the prince is not only in the third place, both be­hind [Page 75] the highe priest, and behinde the whole multitude, but also his sacrifice is of lesse valew, and of a baser conditiō thē theirs. For a hee gote was not so honourable a sacrifice, as a yong oxe or a calfe.

The fourth degree is,Anima. that if one of 4 the common people synne, he shal offer a shee gote: Of this matter Philo wri­teth thus: Decebat principem pri­uato homini praeferri vel in sacri­ficio, De victi­mis. sicut principi populū, quan­doquidem totum est sua parte ma­ius. Pontificem verò aequiparari populo in expiatione impetran­dá (que) peccatorū venia. Habetur tn̄ is honor pontifici, non propter ip­sum, sed quia minister est populi, publicè vota faciens soluenda to­tius gentis nomine. It became the prince to be preferred before a priuate man euen in the sacrifice, as also the people to be preferred before the prince, because the whole is greater [Page 75] then the part. But it became the bis­hop, to be made equal with the people, in purging and in obteyning pardon of his synnes. Howbeit that ho­nor is geuē to the bishop not for his own sake, but because he is the minister of the people, making his praiers or vowes publikely to be performed in the name of the whole nation. Marke the comparison, the prince is a minister of the people, as wel as the bishop. But because the bishop is a minister in holy matters, he is preferred before the prince.

In Leuit. quaest. 1.Theodoretus also writeth thereof: Docet quanta fit sacerdotij digni­tas, quam vniuerso populo parem facit. Principem autem qui praeter­gressus fuerit legem aliquam, non vitulum, sed hircum, aut caprū an­niculum offerre iubet: tam procul abest à sacerdotali dignitate is, cui corporeū imperiū cōmissum est. (God) doth teach how great the dignity [Page 76] of priesthod is, which (dignity) he made equal with the whole people. But he cō ­maundeth the prince that shall trans­gresse any lawe, not to offer a calf, but a he gote of one yeres age. so farre is he, to whom corporal power is committed, behind the priestly dignitie.

If then the whole people be aboue the Prince (as who are hable to chose and to make a Prince, when one lac­keth) and yet the bishop be equal with the whole people, and also be set be­fore it in the order of the law (as being made by God himself, and not hable to be made by the people, because they can not consecrate a bishop or geue him spi­ritual power) what impudency is this, to teache, that a prince by his own right and power maie visit, iudge, correct and depose a bishop, who is now well sene to be farre greater in the sight of God, then the King himself? Let this much suffise to shew that the Bishoplie or pastor all authoritie of the Church [Page 80] [...] [Page 81] [...] [Page 78] is not only distincted frō the tyrannical kingdome of the vnfaithful natiōs, but also from the moderate reigne of what so euer Kings, though they be christe­ned.

One thing now is brieflie to be tou­ched, that, notwithstanding many Bi­shops be euil, and vse not their Office wel, yet they loose it not thereby, but stil we are bound by Christes cōmaun­demēt to do the things, Math. 23 not which they doe, but which they say and teach to be done. For as S. Augu­stine teacheth, they that sitte in the chaire of vnitie (which I wil proue hereafter to be the chaire of S. Peter) are constrained to teach the do­ctrine of veritie.

And in deed whereas the office or power is one thing, and the vse ther­of an other thing, seing the office is ge­uen before it be vsed, the euil vse of it which insueth afterward, cā not make void the former power: And so with­out [Page 79] al question, the substance of the [...]rimacie remaineth safe and sure in [...]he Apostles and their successours, al­ [...]hough thei practise not their Primacie [...]n such sort as they ought to doe.

Whereupon it foloweth, that it is [...]arke false and vngodly, that these mē [...]each, saying, not only that al primacie [...] forbidden in the Church of Christe, [...]ut also that they leese their Primacie, who ceasing to preach, doe abuse their [...]ffice. For they in deed leese the me­rite of their Primacie, but not the self Primacie, so long as the Church doth [...]olerate and permit them in their pla­ces. Otherwise Caiphas being so euil a man as he was,Ioan, 1 [...] Pontifex anni illius had not been the Bi­shop of that yeare, which yet the Go­spel sheweth to haue ben otherwise.

As concerning (which some are wont to obiect) that the Bishoppe of Rome doth not gouerne as a Pastor, but doth beare a soueraintie as Princes of the world, it hath no colour of truth, [Page 80] whether thei respect the manner of coming by this primacy, or the order i [...] practising the iurisdiction of it.

1 First of al, no man succedeth into that Chaire by any right of inheari­tance, which is a common mean to get Domition among worldly princes.

2 Secondarilie, that Chaire is not obteined by any right of battaile, or lawe of Armes, neither when it is voide, it is permitted to him, that can first possesse it, but it is geuen onely by election.

3 Besides, neither childd nor woman, nor infidel, nor catechumen or learner of the faih, can be chosen to be bisshop of Rome, or of any other citie, which is farre otherwise in wordlie King­domes.

Distinct. 62. & 63. Actor. 1.Againe, although the faithfull peo­ple and the princes also may craue, de­sire and require a pastoure or Bisshop, and may geue their cōsent to the choise of him, yet the right to choose as well [Page 81] [...]he bishop of Rome as al other pastours,Act. 14. & 20. Tit. 1. 1. Pet. 5. Greg. lib. 1 ep 55. & 56. & 77. Concil. 8. c. 28. [...]pperteineth only to ecclesiastical per­ [...]ons, as whose dutie it is by Gods law to [...]lace and make priests in the cities and Churches where nede is, to fede, to rule, [...]o confirm, or to displace, or trāsfer, and generally to prouide for the flock, as Paulus, Barnabas, Titus and other bishops haue dō, whereas the right of choosing [...] Prince (where he is made by election) may as well or much more apperteine to the common people, being the body of the realme, then to the clergie or to the nobilitie alone.

When the bishop of Rome is thus chosen (that I may omitte his temporal dominion, which is but an accessorie to his bishoprike) doutlesse in his Ec­clesiasticall gouernment he vseth not that force and power which world­lie Princes doe.Greg lib. 1 ep. 45. distīct. 45. c. De Iu­daeis. Hee compelleth no man by violence (no not so much as the Iewes that liue in Rome) to baptisme, or to embrace the catholike [Page 82] faith of Christ, whereas worldly prin­ces may iustly enforce the people whom they haue vnder them, both to obey their lawes, and to liue after their cu­stome and manner.

6 Moreouer the bishop of Rome (as bishop) neuer punisheth any of them with the material sword, who after baptisme forsake the Church, but onlie with ecclesiastical censures. And to them also he cometh very slowlie, and teacheth, that men must haue recourse vnto them none otherwise,2. quaest. 1. multi. then to a medicine. For albeit he both plainlie affirmeth, that hereticks are worthy of all punishment, yea of violent death it self (and that according to Gods word) yea although he permitteth,Deut. 13. and al­so (where he hath any temporal domi­nion) procureth schismatikes and he­retikes to be punished with death, (partlie because they are themselues vnworthie to liue for their own hei­nous fault, partly also because they shuld [Page 83] not infect others with their words,2. Tim. 2. which creepe and fret like a cancre) [...]et notwithstanding he doth it not by himselfe, nor by others as a bishop and pastour of Christes flock, but he doth it by the ministerie of others, as a tempo­ral prince and lord,Psal. 98. euen as Moyses being one of the Priests of our Lord, was also master of the ciuil go­uernment, and a disposer of warre and peace,Exod. 17. Deut. 31. as who commaunded Iosue to fight against Amalech, and to be his successour in the ciuil gouernment.

Now whereas the Protestants deny Moyses to haue ben a priest, and that by pretense of the Hebrew text, they spaek therein against the expresse word of God, and against the most auncient and best lerned Fathers.

The word of God saith:Psal. [...]8. Moyses & Aaron in sacerdotibus eius. Moyses and Aaron are among the priests of the Lord the Hebrew word is cohanī, the Greeke [...], the Latin, sacerdo­tibus, [Page 84] which is to say, those who make sacrifice.In cōmen­tarijs psal. 98. S. Augustine reasoneth that he was Sacerdos, a Sacrificer, because whereas he was in al authoritie and power the very greatest among the Ie­wes, yet he could not be Maior sacer­dote, greater then he that hath po­wer to sacrifice.

S. Hierom (being I am sure as good an Hebrician, as M. Nowel) in his booke against Iouinian,Lib. 1. ad­uersus Io­uinian. groundeth the Priesthood of Moyses vpon the same text of the Psalme, making a differēce betwen Samuel the Leuite, and Moy­ses and Aaron, who were Bisshops or high Priests.

In oratio­ne de Moyse & Aar.S. Gregorie Nazianzene is of the same minde, yea Dionysius Areopagi­ta confesseth Moyses to haue ben Pri­mum legalium sacerdotum my­stem ac ducem, De Eccles. Hierar. c. 5. The first cunning master and guid of the Priest of the law, qui fratrem Aaron ad sacerdotale munus inūgens, sub Deo principe [Page 85] sacerdotalem consecrationem pō ­ [...]ificabiliter consummauit. Who [...]nointing his brother Aaron to the Priestlie office (vnder God the chief of al) finished the Priestly consecra­tion, [...], Bisshoplike, or as Bisshops are wont to doe.

Philo Iudeus writing three bokes of Moyses life, De vita Mosis. and hauing spoken be­fore of his authoritie in ciuil matters, speaketh in the third of his Priesthod, which he could not iustly doe, except he had ben a Priest. But what neede many woordes? What thing doth in al the world belong to a Priests office, which Moyses did not?Exod. 20. He toke the law of God, ād taught it the people, he prea­ched to them, he consecrated the high Bishop with his own hands,Exod. 28. & 29. he erected an altar, and offered publike sacrifice, he did poure the bloud vpon the Altar, and sprinckled the garment of Aaron with it. And yet did he al these Priest­lie offices, being himself no Priest?

I marueile thatneither the letter of Gods word, nor the reason, and as it were, the sowle thereof, nor the autho­rity of wise and lerned men can moue the Protestants to confesse, that Moyses was in dede a priest and a sacrificer. But if it be cleare, that he was both a priest and a ciuil gouernour, vsing the priestlie office in his own person, and prescribing to others when thei shuld fight, or punish malefactours: much more in the tyme of the new Testamēt,Heb. 10. which must nedes be as perfit a state as the old law, it is lawful for a bishop, to haue the right of both offices in him, gouerning the Ecclesiastical state by his own personal ministery ād the outward cares by the help of wise mē.Gregorius l. 1. epi. 24 Quisquis regēdis fratribus praeest, vacare funditus à curis exterioribus non po­test, sed tamen curandum magno­pere est, ne ab iis immoderatè de­primatur. Who soeuer is set to rule his brethern, he can not vtterly be uoide of [Page 87] [...]xternal cares. But it is diligently to be [...]rouided, that he be not ouer pressed with them.

But concerning the Ecclesiasticall state, whereof I speake at this tyme, the bishop of Rome neither condemneth any man for heresie or schisme to cor­poral death in his own person, nor tea­cheth, that any malefactours may be so condemned of any other ecclesiasticall person. Which thing being not rightly vnderstood of the most part of mē, hath made them affirme, that the bishop of Rome in matters of faith persuadeth his religiō with fier and sworde.23. quaest. 8. c. Sepe cū sequēt. Which to be farre otherwise, both the whole body of the Canon law declareth, and also experience testifieth.

To goe forward with our matter, this is the greatest difference betwene the primacie of the Church, and the do­minion of wordlie princes, that the tē ­poral princes haue power only ouer the bodies, whereas the rulers of the [Page 88] Church,Math. 18. 1. Cor. 5. haue power vpon mens soules. They geue the bodies of wicked men to corporal death, these haue power to cleanse the soules, and so to bring them to euerlasting saluation.

De Sacer­dot. lib. 3.Wherupon Saint Chrysostom saith: Habent etiam terreni Principes vinculi potestatem, verùm cor­porum solùm. Id autem quod di­co sacerdotum vinculum ipsam etiam animam contingit, atque ad coelos vsque peruadit. The earthlie princes haue power to bind also, but only of the bodies. But the bād of the priests whereof I speake, doth touche the very sowle, and reacheth euen to the hea­uens. And not without a cause. For our Lord said to Saint Peter:Math. 16. To thee I will geue the keyes of the kingdom of heauen: and what­soeuer thow bindest vpon the earth, shalbe bound in the hea­uens, and whatsoeuer thow loo­sest vpon the earth, shalbe loosed [Page 89] [...]n the heauens.

To these words of Christ (which [...]re deriued to the Bisshop of Rome by [...]eanes of the chaier of Saint Peter) [...]he said bishop referreth all his power: [...]nd exerciseth it vpon the soules of mē [...]oth in his own person, and by others,Leo. ep. 82. who are called to susteine part of [...]he Ecclesiasticall care and charge [...]hat is committed chiefelie vnto him, whereas nothwithstanding, the Princes of the world appeale not [...]o the lawe of the Gospell, neither [...]n getting, nor in gouerning, nor [...]n establishing their Dominion and power.

Last of al, this is to be inquired and cōsidered, whether the Bishop of Rome doth rule with such pietie, lenitie, af­fection, and desire to helpe others, and to bring them to Christ, that he may seme to minister and to serue, rather then to rule. And in good sooth, yf he doth it not, as it is certain that he [Page 90] synneth greuouslie, so (for any such re­spect) he leeseth not his primacie, be­cause the humilitie and mercie of the gouernour doth not so much appertaine to the substance of his authoritie,Ioan. 11. Caiphas Pontifex. as to the true perfection and merite of the man.

For like as they that preached Christ through enuie and emulatiō (that they might raise aduersitie to S. Paule,Philip. 1. who was in Prison) were notwithstanding true preachers, albeit they preached with an euill intent and minde: so al­beit the bishop of Rome did rule like a potentate, and did seeke his own glorie, and not the glorie of God, yet thereof it can not be brought to passe, that he is not a true ruler and gouernour of the Church. But it wold wel follow that he were an euil ruler. Of which sort of men our Lord hath said: Do those things which they say, Matth. 23. but doe not those things which they doe.

But what arrogant presumption is [Page 91] [...]his, to thinck that the Pope doth good [...]eedes with an euill minde? If he geue [...]ntle answeres to them that in mat­ [...]ers of dout aske his counsell, if he send [...]orth good decrees, if he reconcile such [...]s are at variaunce, yf he prouide care­ [...]llie for the necessarie affaires of the [...]hurch, whie doe we iudge euil of that [...]hich is well done? Or yf he doth euill [...]t any tyme, what malice is it to scorne [...]t his nakednesse,Genes. 9. and with lawghter [...]o discouer his shame?

It is euident to all that will see, that [...]he bishop of Rome doth shew that hu­militie and zeale, which Christ requi­ [...]eth in the ruler of his Church. He cal­leth vs nor bondslaues, nor seruaunts, nor subiects, but all Princes he saluteth gentlie, as sonnes, and bishops, as bre­thern. And as for his owne person, [...]he writeth not himself, neither Lord, neither vniuersal bishop, nor head of the Church, but seruaunt of the ser­uaunts of God. That euen by his [Page 92] name he may geue al men to vnder­stand, that he is that greatest and chefe ruler,Luc. 22. who is, as it were, a mi­nister and seruaunt.

And seing he doth and saith that, which becometh the primate of the Church both to say, and to doe, it is our parte to iudge his well doing, by that which is well said, rather then to synne against the holie ghost, whiles we desire to wrest that to an euill sense ma­litiouslie, which was spoken and meant by him charitablie.

[...]f the diuerse senses which are in the holy scripture and namely about these words (vpon this rock I wil build my Church) and which is the most literal and proper sense of them. The third Chap.

AMONG manie other things, wherein Gods word passeth all other sciences, one is most nota­ [...]le, in that not only the syllables and words which are writen there, doe [...]xpresse the meaning of the holy Ghost, [...]ut also the things, which are told and [...]eported by those words, doe againe sig­nifie and meane an other thing. We [...]eade that Abraham had two sonnes, [...]he one born of Sara the freewoman, [...]he other of Agar the handmaiden. Which historie being true in very dede according as the words doe sound, doth againe signifie vnto vs a more deepe mysterie.

The son of Sara doth betoken the new testament,Galath. 4. or the promise of God [Page 94] made to his true childern by adoption▪ and Agar doth betoken the old testa­ment, no lesse, then if it had ben so wri­ten in expresse words. Likewise, wher­as as Dauid saith that the sound of the heauens is gon foorth into all the earth, Psal. 18. meaning, that al men may by the very order and course of the hea­uens see the glory of God: S. Paul dou­bted not by the heauens to vnder­stand the Apostles and Preachers:Rom. 10. whose sound he teacheth, to haue gon ouer al the earth.

So that the new testament was ge­uen and printed in the old, not only ac­cording to the Prophecies there, which are fulfilled here, but also according to the figures there,1. Cor. 10. which are verified here. And so the iustice of God is marueilouslie reuealed from faith to faith, Rom. 1. from Patriarches and Prophets to the Apostles and their disciples, frō the law to the Gospel,Ioan. 1. from Moyses to Christ, to th'end they should be inex­ [...]sable, [Page 95] who beholding such a diuine [...]nd of writing, wherein things and [...]eeds were ordeined to be, as wordes [...]nd letters vnto vs, would yet remain [...] their incredulitie.

If then out of one sentence diuerse [...]ue meanings may be gathered, we [...]ust know farther, that both those me­ [...]ings be not a like principal, but one of [...]hem is the foundation and ground of [...]he other. And therefore although [...]oth be found, as it were, in one buil­ [...]ing, yet seing the one is before the o­ [...]her (at the least in the order of place) [...]e must exactly know, which is the first meaning of the twaine. Els we can [...]euer be sure of the secōd, as the which [...]acketh a sufficient groūd to staie vpon.

The first meaning is that,Hieron. in Amos. c. 4. which the holy Ghost vttereth according to the first sense of the woords: the which is now called Literal, because it ariseth of [...]he writen letter rightly vnderstan­ded. The other sense, which is buil­ded [Page 96] therevpon, is called spiritual be­cause it is knowen rather by the spirit of God, then by the sound of the writer letter. Now it skilleth so much to know which is the literal and which is the spiritual sense of holie scripture, that the Literal sense is onely of force to conuince any aduersarie withal,Augu. ad Vincentiū epist. 48. who beleueth Gods word, whereas the spi­ritual sense (except it be reuealed by the holy Ghost) is such, as may be easilie denied, because it hath no sufficient ground appering outwardly to man. For there may be many spiritual senses ge­uen of some one sentence, and it is euer vncertain, which speciallie of them al is meant of God in that place.

The literal sense of holy scripture is that,The literal sense. which is first meant by the holie Ghost, not alwaies according to the grā ­matical sound, but according to the most plaine meaning of the speaker. For example, when Christ saith vnto Pe­ter: To thee I wil giue the keies of [Page 97] [...]he kingdom of heauen, the literal [...]eaning is not, that Peter should re­ [...]eaue any material keyes of iron or of [...]rasse.Keyes. Isai. 22. Apoca. [...]. & 3. But by the keyes (according to the [...]hrase of holy scripture) is meant the [...]ower, authoritie ād right which Christ wil geue Peter in his Church. For as [...]hey, who haue the keyes of a house, may by right open or shut the dores of [...]hat howse: so Peter bath right and power, to open or shutte the kingdom of heauen to vs.

And as the deliuering of the keyes of a citie among men, doth betokē the geuing of the possession of that City to [...]he gouerned by him, who receiueth the keyes: euen so Peter hath the militant Church, as it were, committed to his go­uernment in this life by Christ. So that the literal sense is, I wil geue thee the power and autority to gouern my Church for the saluatiō of soules.

Likewise when it is said,Math. 2 [...]. thou art Peter, I call not the literall sense, [Page 98] thou art a rock or a graet stone, but thou art that toward my Church, which a stone is toward the house that is built vpon that stone.

It is farther to be considered, that the literal sense being once agreed vpō, there lyeth hidden in that sense manie times an other more profoūd sense also, the which is not directly and plainly vttered, but it is inferred and gathe­red by the force of argument. God hath ben called of old tyme the God of A­braham, Exod. 4. of Isaac and of Iacob. Neither doth any man dout of the first meaning of those words, which is, that God acknowlegeth himself to haue cho­sen those three men to his seruants, and doth witnesse, that they did in deede serue him.

But that in these words there lyeth hidden a strong argument, to proue the resurrectiō: by that, I say, dependeth of the literal sense also, but not such as is sene straight waies, but onlie it is con­ceaued [Page 99] by discourse. For God is not the God of dead things. Math. 22. But he is God of Abraham: therefore Abraham is not dead. Abraham is a man consi­sting of body and sowle. If Abraham then liue and yet his bodie be dead, his bodie must rise againe, to thēd God maie iustly be called the God of whole A­braham. ergo in that God is called the God of Abraham, it is shewed (by dis­course) that the bodies of men shalbe reised to life againe.

After this sort the consubstan­tiality of Christ with God the Father maie be well proued out of the holie scriptures.Ioan. 1. Lucae 1. Math. 26. Item the perpetual virgi­nitie of our Ladie, transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the masse, purgatorie and diuers other matters,1. Cor. 10. Math. 12. which be not di­stinctly named there.

At the length to come to our pur­pose, there are found in the auncient fa­thers at the lest foure diuerse senses of these words, vpon this rock I will [Page 100] build my Church: of the which those onlie are of force to proue any thing by, which are literal.

1 The first is, that the Church is meāt to be built vpon Christ. Retract. lib, 1. c. 21 And that S. Augustine doth follow, as a probable sense, but not as the only sense. For that in dede, but more also is meant in this place.

2 The second is, that euery Disciple of Christ is the rock whervpō the Church is built ād that being the sense of Origē,Origenes in Math. is only spirituall, and therefore of no great force to proue any thing by.

3 The third is, that Peters faith or cō ­fession is this rock whervpō the Church is built,Chrysost. in Math. which is a true sense, but it is not al the whole sense of those words.

4 The fourth and perfit sense is, that Peter cōcerning his office in Gods Chur­che,Ioan 1. Math. 16. Ioan. 21. that is to say, through the promise of Christ which is past, and the faithful confession of his godhead, which is pre­sently made, and the power of feedīg his [Page 101] [...]hepe, which then was to come, is this [...]ock vpon which the Church is built.

The first sense can not be all the whole sense, because then all the other three senses were void. For if the Church be meant to be only built vpon Christ then is the Church built neither vpon the faith of Peter nor vpon Peter himself, nor vpō any disciple of Christ.

Againe the word (thou) which goeth before doth not wel agree with Christ, but only with Peter: Neither doth the word, I wil build, aedificabo which fol­weth after, well agree with Christ a­lone. For it were not properly saied at Cesarea where Christ then was, I will build my [...]hurch vpon Christ, vpō whome it had ben alreadie built from the time of his incarnation.

Concerning the second sense, no Disciple of Christ is there literallie either spoken vnto, or spoken of, be­side Simon the Sonne of Iona.

Therefore the sense of Origen hath no [Page 102] sufficient ground in the letter of Gods word.

Thirdlie the faith, which Peter hath confessed, is not the onlie rocke, where­vpon the Church shalbe built. For thē it had ben built, vpon the faith of Iohn Baptist before this tyme.Ioan. 1. Againe seing the said faith hath bene already confes­sed by Peter himself saying: Thou art Christ the Sōne of the liuing God, to what purpose is the building yet also differred? Why is it said, I will build my Church vpon this Rocke, and not rather, I haue built it, or I do build it vpon this Rocke?

For if two things only are necessary, the one, which maie be the Rocke or foundation, which is nowe said to be faith, the other, which is the building of the Church vpon that Kocke: seing the foundation is alreadie laid, in that the faith is confessed: And seing the Church is present (for Christ euen thē had a Church of his owne) why is the [Page 103] building yet putte of, vntill an other tyme, but that there is an other thing besyde faith requisite to the same buil­ding?

But if (as the very truth is) Peter himselfe, concerning his office, be pro­noūced this Rock, and that not only in respect of his faith (although it be a very principal point) but also in respect both of the promise past, wherein it was said (thow shall be called Peter) and of the authoritie of feeding Chri­stes sheepe, which is to come:Ioan. 1. & 21. then all absurdities are auoided, and all the for­mer truthes are perfitlie conteined in this last sense.

For if Peter be this rock, then Christ 1 who made Peter to be this Rocke, is much more proued thereby to be the rock himself. for the geuer of any hea­uēly power, hath much more that power in himselfe, then he that receaueth it. If Peter be this Rock in respect of his confession, then his confession.

being in himself, is also cōcurring (as a certain rock for his part) vnto the buil­ding 3 of the Church. If Peter be the Rock, seing he was not only a Disciple, but the captain Disciple of al that euer were: al other Disciples, which are cō ­teined in him as in the chief, may also be (for their part) this rocke, where­vpon the Church shalbe built.

Seing then this last sense is moste perfit, and conteineth al the other sen­ses, not being it selfe fully conteined in any of them, out of al controuersie none other is so literal, so ful, so true, as this, to witte, that Peter, confessing the true faith, with respect of such au­toritie, as shalbe afterward geuen to him, is this Rocke, wherevpon the Church shalbe built. I wis [...]h in the sight of God that, malice being layd apart, any reasonable man would nowe consider,In his Replie. 221. what M. Iewel and his adhea­rents haue done in this behalf.

He forsaking the most literal sense [Page 105] fall, and minglng three opinions (of [...]hese foure) in one, not regarding to [...]tte euerie thing in his proper place, [...]oth seeke to confoūd the Reader with [...]he multitude of words, and with the [...]ame of the Fathers, whome he moste [...]hamefully abuseth.

But if there be truth in M. Iewel, or [...]n his adhearents, lette him or anie of [...]hem descend particularlie to discusse [...]he meaning of Christ, with alcircum­stances belonging thervnto as by Gods grace I wil do to my poore ability. And that the discourse, which foloweth, may be the more easily perceaued, this is the somme of it.

My intent is to proue, that not only Christ, nor onlie the faithful con­fession of Peter, but Peter himselfe with respecte of his confession, and of such other authoritie as God gaue him, was this Rocke, wherevpon Christ saied he would builde his Churche, meanyng that [Page 106] part of his Church which wandereth in this life.

1 Christ promised Simon, that he should be called Peter, Ioan. 1. when he had not yet confessed, to thend he might confesse the more stronglie as a rocke.

2 He named him Peter before he had confessed:Marci 3. so that he was this farre for­ward in being the rocke before his con­fession.

3 When he had confessed, Christ pro­uoūced hī not only a rock, or a mā of the stedfastnes of the propriety of a rock in his faith,Math. 16. Apoc. 21. but also such a rock, wherevpō he wold build his Church. For euerie Apostle was a rock in his kind, but none beside Peter and the Successours in his office was this kind of Rocke, whereof Christ now speaketh.

4 That the confession of Peter might tarie immoueable after Christes ascen­sion (for the Church should alwaies neede a visible rock) Christ praied for Peters faith,Lucae 22. euen so farre that he was [Page 107] [...]idde to strengthen his brethern [...]fter his conuersion from the denial of [...]hrist.

Last of all, to shew what kind of 5 [...]rength Peter should geue to his bre­ [...]hern, Christ bad him feede his lambs.

The promise of the name of Peter 1 was the first cause of Peters being the Rocke.

The geuing of the name was the 2 [...]erformance of the promise.

The confession of Christes godhead 3 was the fruit of the gift, and of the promise.

The promise to haue the Church 4 built vpon that Rock, was the reward of the confession.

The praier of Christ for Peters faith, 5 was the warrant of the perpetuitie of his strong confession.

The power to feede Christes sheepe 6 was to make Peter such a rock,Ioan. 21. Luc. 10. as should stay vp his Church by teaching and ru­ling the faithfull, as whose voice the [Page 108] sheep should be bound to heare vnder paine of damnation.

Al these things concurring togea­ther, cause Peter to be this rock wher­vpon the militāt Church is built. Wher­of I wil now intreat more at large.

The IIII. Chap. Diuerse reasons are alleaged to proue (cheefely by the circumstance and cō ­ference of holy scripture) that these words (thou art Peter, and vpon this rock I wil build my Church) haue this literal meaning, vpō the, o Peter, being first made a rock, to thend thou shoul­dest stoutlie confesse the faith, and so confessing it, I wil build my Church.

WHen our Lord first saw Si­mon the son of Iona, behol­ding him, he said: thou art Simon the son of Iona, Ioan. 1. thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by in­terpretatiō Peter, that is a great stone or a rocke. By these words a new name is before hand promised to Simon, wherevpon Saint Chrysostom saith:in Ioan. hom. 18. Honorificè de eo praedicit. Certa [Page 109] [...]utem praedictio futurorum, im­ [...]ortalis Dei duntaxat opus est. Animaduertendum autem, quòd [...]on omnia quae euentura ei erant [...]oc primo cōgressu praedixit. Nō [...]enim appellauit eum Petrum, non dixit super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, sed dixit: Tu vo [...]caberis Cephas. illud enim maio­ris erat & potestatis, nec nō etiam auctoritatis. Christ doth forespe [...]k ho­norably of him. For the certaine fore­telling of things to come, is the worck only of the immortal God. It is to be no­ted, that Christ did not foretel at this first meeting al thīgs which shuld come to passe afterward to hī.The pro­mise of the name goeth be­fore the name. For he did not cal hī Peter neither did he say, vpon this rocke I will build my Church. But he said, Thou shalt be called Cephas. For that was both of more power, ād also of more autority. Likewi­se S. Cyrillꝰ:In Ioan. lib. 2. c. 2 Nec Simō fore iā nomē sibi, sed Petrus praedicit, vocabulo [Page 110] ipso commodè significans quòd in eo, tanquam in petra lapidéque firmissimo suam esset aedificatu­rus Ecclesiam. And he telleth a fore hand, that his name shalbe Peter, or a rock, and not now Simon, sig­nifiyng, by the very word that he wold build his Church on him, as on a rock and a most sure stone. Theophilact and Euthimius are of the same mind.In. 1. cap. Ioan.

By these fathers we lerne, that this prediction or promise of Peters name, is a thing which agreeth with the buil­ding of the Church which is to come. These words then, Thou shalt be cal­led Peter, are words of Prophecie or of promise. A word of promise spoken by God is effectual to worck all those meanes, which are necessarie for the performāce of it. For as when God had once said Sara vxor tua pariet tibi filiū, Genes. 17. Sara thy wife shal bring thee foorth a son, that self word (as S. Chry­ [...]stom [Page 111] noteth) wrought both in Abra­ [...]am and in Sara the power and habi­ [...]itie to begette and to conceaue a child,In cap. 9. ad Rom. Genes. 21. [...]otwithstāding that naturally through [...]ld age they were vnapt therevnto, [...]ight so, these words Thou shalt be [...]alled Peter, wrought in Simon the [...]ffect whereby he might beleue, and in due tyme like a rock confesse Christ to [...]e the Sonne of Cod, how far soeuer he bad naturally bene otherwise from so highe a grace.

And as, though Abraham did ac­company with his wife Sara for the be­getting of Isaac, yet the birth of the child is not imputed to their lying toge­ther, but vnto the word of promise, wherin it had bē said.Genes. 17. Rom. 9. Sara shal bring thee foorth a child: euen so, albeit Si­mon be made Peter, to the end he maie confesse, and therefore not without cō ­fessing Christ to be the Son of God, yet his being Peter (concerning the efficiēt cause thereof) is no lesse to be imputed [Page 112] to this former word of promise,Ioan. 1. tho [...] shalt be called Peter, then vnto the faithful confessiō which he made after­ward of Christes Godhead.

For the first cause was the promise, and it wrought the second cause of the confession. This matter is put out of a [...] question, if we consider, that this pro­mise ( [...]ow shalt be called Peter) was fulfilled before the confession wa [...] made. For when Christ chose to hi [...] twelue Apostles, then as S. Marc [...] saieth,Marc. 3. Luc. [...]. he gaue to Symon the name of Peter, and S. Luke telleth the same thing. Whervpon Euthimius writeth. Verefimile est (apud Ioannē) Chrisstum dixisse vocandum esse Petrū nunc autem vocare eum Petrum. It is like to be true, that in Saint Iohn Christ said, he should be called Pe­ter: and that he now calleth him Pe­ter. neither doth God vse to geue the name, without geuing also the thing which is meant by the name. For his [Page 113] [...]alling not words alwaies haue their [...]ffect ioyned with them.

Therefore when Simon was reallie [...]amed Peter, then was he in deede made the rock. And seing he had not as yet confessed, the confession which followeth, doth not either only or first make him to be the rock. But he is al­readie by Christes promise well entred to be made the rocke, to thend he maie confesse the more stedilie and surely.

And therefore his confession is a most sure rock, because it procedeth from him who was before made the rock to thend [...]he should confesse most stedily. Where­vpon when Christ asked, whom the faithful said him to be, then the rock did his dutie. For (as Cyrillus saith) Peter as being the Prīce and head of the rest, first cried out, In Ioan. lib. 12. ca. 64. prin­ceps & ca put. saying: thou art Christ the Son of the li­uing God, to whom Christ answered, and I say to thee, thou art Peter, to witte, of the qualitie of a rock, and vpō [Page 114] this rock I wil build my Churche.

Lo, Peter cried out or confessed as being the head. He was then the head by some meanes, euen before his confession, that is to say, by promise and name. This much being graunted (the which is the very order and expresse drift of the Gospel) it wil farther follow that seing these words,Math. 16 vpō this rock I wil build my Church, depend vpon these other: Thou art Peter, (for they are īmediatly inferred vpō thē, ād ioy­ned to them with a copulatiue coniun­ctiō &, Et super hanc Pe­tram. and) it wil follow I say, that these words, vpō this rock I wil build my Church, are to be vnderstanded ac­cording to these, thou art Peter.

And seing these words, thou art Peter, depend no lesse principally vpon the former prophecie and promise of Christ wherein it was said, thou shalt be called Peter, then vpon the con­fession which Simon made afterward of Christes Godhead, it is certein, that the [Page 115] [...]ther words also, vpō this rock I wil [...]uild my Church (cōcerning the na­ [...]ure and order of a certain cause effici­ [...]nt) depend no lesse principally vpon [...]hose former words (thou shalt be called Peter) then vpon the confession of Christes godhead: so that the first coef­ [...]cient cause, why the Church is builded vpon this rock, is not the present cōfes­ [...]iō of Simon, but the vocation and pro­ [...]ise of Christ, which was long before made vnto Simon. Which thing being [...]rue, then Christ wil build his Church vpon this rock, not in dede without the grace of cōfessing, but yet not any rather by the force of the confession, then of the promise.Ioan. 1. For S. Iohn Baptist cōfessed also but because he confessed, not as one that was ꝓmised to be this rock, the Church was not built vpō him: but to Peter the ꝓmise was made before the cōfessiō, and it was the first cause of the cōfessiō ther­fore the promise was the chief and first cause of buildīg the church vpō this role.

If it were so, then the whole mea­ning of these words,The vvhole sense of Christes vvords. vpon this Rock I will build my Church, is this, vpō him who therefore stronglie and firmly confesseth my true faith, be­cause he was before promised to be called this Rocke, or (which is more) vpon him who in part is al­readie this rock, and promised to be called this rocke, so confesseth my Godhead like a most sure Rocke, vpon him I will build mie Church.

The which most true and certein sense standing, the only confessiō of the faith maketh no man to be this Rocke, whervpō Christ will build his Church, except it be a confession, which is wrought by the force of a promise to be called and made a rock going before it. The which promise (of being assured to be called Peter) for as much as it be­longed literally to no Prophet, to no dis­ciple, to no Apostle, but only to Simon [Page 117] the son of Iona, for that cause,Ioan. 1. the whole militant Church is at this tyme promi­sed to be built vpon none other mans faith or confession, beside only vpon the confessiō of S. Peter himself, and of those who succede in Peters chaire. For (as God willing I shal proue hereafter) eue­ry bishop of Rome is that for his time vnto the militant Church of Christ, which Peter once was.

Christ then intending to confirme and to make perfit his promise, wherein he had said, thou shalt be called Pe­ter, asked his Apostles, whom they thought, or rather said and cōfessed him to be. S. Peter hauing a reuelation from God the father, to thend Christes for­mer promise might be throughly and perfitly verified, saith: thou art Christ the Son of the liuing God, that is to say, thou art not only a prophet, or a Sō by adoption, but thou art the natural Son of the only true God.

Here it is principally to be noted, that [Page 116] [...] [Page 117] [...] [Page 118] when S. Peter cōfessed Christ to be the Son of God,Peter cō ­fessed the rocke. that then he cōfessed the rock of rocks, which only Christ is. Neither doth any man deny but that these words (thou art the Son of the liuing God) appertein only to Ie­sus Christ. But our questiō is not of these words, but cōcerning the words which Christ spake afterward vnto Peter. For when Peter had confessed the chefe rock, then that chefe rock shewed, that Peter had played also the rock saying to him after this sort:Hilarius de Trinit. lib. 6. Simon the Son of Iona, thou art happy. as S. Peter said Christ to be the Son of God, so Christ calleth S. Peter the Son of Iona, ther­by declarīg, that as Peter was naturally the Son of Iohn his father, so Christ is the natural son of God his father and as Peter speaketh ōly to Christ at this tyme and to none other person: so doth Christ only speake to Peter, and to none other person. Christ after this meanīg is alone the son of God, ād Simō alone after this meanīg is Peter. Christ goeth forward [Page 119] callīg Peter happy, because flesh ād blud did not reueale Christes god­head vnto him, but Christes father who is in heuē. So that S. Peter ōly at this time had this high reuelatiō, ād to hī ōly Christ directeth his words. And I say vnto thee, that thou art Peter. What? was S. Iohn, or S. Mathew the son of Iona? no truly or had any other man in the earth this reuelatiō at this time beside Simō the son of Iona? no verely: yf we consider the first and most literal sense. Thou ōly art Peter,Peter a­lone is this rock because thou a­lone both hadst this name ꝓmised to the when Christ first sawe thee, thou alone haddest it geuē thee, when thou wast chosen an Apostle, and thou alone hast now cōfessed me to be God by nature, ād to thee alone I say, Thou art Peter.

It is otherwise most true that Christ is the rock, incōparably aboue Peter,Christ the rock. and that the whole vniuersal church is built vpō Christ far more excellētly then any part thereof is built vpō any mortal mā. [Page 120] For yf we did not beleue so much of Christ, we could not now beleue that he were able by his only word and promise to make Peter also to be a Rock in his kind.

The con­fession is a rock.It is also true, that the confessiō of S. Peter is a rock, ād in respect also of that confession, Simō is called Peter. And in respect of the same cōfessiō, the Church is built vpon Simon. But as vpon one who confesseth, because he had before the promise to be called Peter made to him, and the name it self geuen him. Al things which are true, are not euery where principally meant, or intended alone of the holy ghost.

We now seeke the literal and first maening of these words, vpō this rock I wil build my Church, and not of these, thou art Christ the son of the liuing God. In his Reply fol. 221. And yet M. Iewel pro­fessing to dispute of these words, vpō this rock I wil build my Church, priuily conueieth the disputation from [Page 121] them, vnto those other, Thou arte Christ the Sonne of God. But I beseech the good Reader to marke the point, and not to suffer him selfe to be deceiued in so weightie a mater.

At the length to gather al my rea­sons togeather, I saie, that the most literal sense of these wordes, vpō this rocke, is to signifie, that vpon S. Pe­ter, as vpon a man called by office to cō ­fesse the true faith, Christ wil build his Church.

First,Vocabe­ris. 1. because he alone is promi­sed to be called Peter.

Secondly,Imposuit nomen. 2. because he alone at the choise of the twelue, is named Peter.

Thirdly, because Christ speaketh 3 to Simon the sonne of Iona alone, Tibi. saying: Et ego dico tibi, and I say to thee. Therby shewing that the words which follow, belong to S. Peter alone.

Fourthly, because Christ speaketh 4 againe to him, and of him alone, saying: Tu es Petrus, Thou art Peter.Tu es. I sup­pose [Page 122] there is a difference betwene, I am Peter, and, thou art Peter. Most true it is, that Christ is Peter, that is to say, a rocke. And most true it is, that Si­mon in confessing Christ to be the sonne of God, confessed the principal and only natural rocke. But now that truth is not first of al and chieflie vttered by Christ, although it were before vttered by Simō, but of Christ it is now said most literally, thou art, thou Isai, art Peter.

5 Moreouer, Thou, and This, doe answere one to the other.Super hanc. Both are Pronounes, both shew a thing reallie present to the vnderstanding of the hearer. As therefore, Thou, apper­teineth most certainely to S. Peter, so doth also the Pronoun, this, Thou art Peter, and vpon this rock (which thou art) I wil build my Churh.

6 Petrus and Petra, doe most lite­rallie agree,Petram in so much that in Greeke [...], by which name Simon Peter is called, doth signifie a Rock. And in [Page 123] Latine Petrus is named of Petra, as if a man said in English, thou arte stonie, or of the nature of a Rock, and vpon this stone or rock I wil build my Church. Who can denie but Thou and This, stonie, and stone▪ be re­ferred al to one person?

Hitherto I haue considered, thou, Confe­rence. this, and rock, seuerally. Now let vs ioyne them altogether. It is first sayed, thou art Peter, to the intent it might be knowen whereunto the word (this rock) belongeth. For the nature of the Pronoun is,The Pro­noune. most properly to declare a certainty, either presently pointed vn­to before the eye, or next of al named and described. Thou art stony and vpō this stone. Which this, If not this, which was last named? For albeit Christ be aboue al things the rock ād corner stone, 1. Cor. 10. Ephes. 2. yet he was not at this time na­med so. This rock doth refer it self to one certain rock which is poīted vn­to one way or other. But no material [Page 124] rocke is pointed vnto naturally and in deede (for no such was then present or minded) therefore it is a Rocke by a Metaphore which is described.He is a rock by a simili­tude.

And seing it is not only sayd, I wil build vpon a rocke, but also vpon this rocke, that rock must be vnderstan­ded to be such a one, as before was she­wed. But none was before shewed, except he were named (for at this time al that is shewed, is shewed by words) so that for as much as it was saied in wordes to S. Peter only, Thou art Pe­ter, or a rocke, when it foloweth vpō this rocke, it must needes be meant most literally,Vpon thee. vpon thee wil I build my Church. Yet not absolutely vpon thee, as thou art a bare mā, but as thou art Peter: and thou art Peter, to th'end thou shouldest confesse mee to be the sonne of God. And thou diddest con­fesse mee, because I promised thee that thou shouldest be called Peter, and be­cause my father did reueale it to thee, [Page 125] therefore vpon this rocke, vvhich thou arte made by Grace, I will build my Church.

It is said in the time to come,Aedifi­cabo. In Cant. conticorū expsello. I wil build, which declareth a building as yet not perfitly made, but onely promi­sed, as also Theodoretus hath noted. But the Church was built vpon Christ the great rocke, concerning his diuine na­ture from the beginning, and concer­ning his humaine nature from the first moment of his incarnation. Wher­fore that kind of building Gods Church vpon Christ, was already past. Like­wise the confession of S. Peter, was al­ready made and past.

But the building whereof Christ speaketh, is to come. I will or shall build my Church vpon this Rocke. Therefore this rocke is meant chief­ly at this time, S. Peter, in such re­spect as he may no lesse hereafter con­fesse the true faith, then he had done alreadie.

Ecclesiā meam.Mark these wordes, my Church. It was Christes Church alreadie. It was his, when he spake the words, and before also. He therefore doth not now speak of planting or founding it vpon him self, but of making one to be the Rock and Head thereof, who hitherto was not the Rock and head but onely by promise and hope.

For whiles Christ was visible vpon the earth, he gouerned al things, not onely by his power, but also by his vi­sible presence, by preaching and gouer­ning the flocke in his owne person, be­ing for the time the visible Rock and Head.

10 But when it pleased him to de­depart out of the world, then he sayed to S. Peter:Ioan. 21. Pasce agnos meos, pa­sce oues meas, Feede my lambes, feede my sheepe. At which time that power of being the head stone of Gods Militant Churche,Holy scriptures are con­ferred. nexte vnto Christe, was moste perfectlye ge­uen, [Page 127] which was before minded when [...]t was said: vpon this Rock I will [...]uilo my Church.

For, to be the Pastour and Gouer­nour of Christs flock, and by the open confession of the faith to keepe it from straying into false doctrines, and here­sies, that is to be the rock, wherevpon Christ wil build his Church. Who seeth not, that so long as the chief shepherd is acknowleged, and obeyed,Cyp. ep. 3. lib. 1. all Chri­stendome must needes beleue and say one thing? Now by beleuing and woorshipping one truth, the Church is built vp from the lowest to the high­ [...]est, from earth to heauen.

To shewe that this Rock is meant of S. Peter, it foloweth:Et tibi dabo. and to thee I will geue the keyes of the king­dome of heauen. Behold, if this Rock were not meant to be S. Peter, Christ should in his wordes runne in, and out, speaking now to S. Peter, and now to him selfe.

He beginneth with S. Peter, saying: thou art Peter, he endeth with him, saying: and to thee wil I geue the keies, betwen which two sayings, these wordes (vpon this rocke) do stand. Which being so, reason would, that we drawe not the middle wordes from the first and the last, but that we saye, S. Peter concerning his office, wherby he beareth the keies, to be this Rock, wherevpon Christ promiseth to build his Church.

The property of a rocke is, to with­stand al tempestes of fluddes and winds, Math. 7. and so neither to faile it selfe, and to strengthen the house built vpō it. But Christ said in an other place to S. Peter:Luc. 22. Ego rogaui pro te, vt non deficiat fides tua. et tu aliquā ­do conuersus confirma fratres tu­os. I haue praied for thee that thy faith faile not, and thou being once cō ­uerted, strengthen thy brethern.

Behold, thou art Peter, because of [Page 129] my promise,Holy scriptures are cōfer­red. and therby thou diddest re­ceiue the gift of the right faith, which thou hast cōfessed of mée. I haue prayed, that thy faith may not faile, yea it shal be so farre from failing, that I bidde thée, when thou art conuerted, to sta­blish, confirme, and strengthen thy brethern. For of all thy Bre­thern, thou art the chief and the strōg­est Rock, through my prayer.

Yf then it be out of all question, that S. Peters faith doth not faile, and that he hath power to strengthen his brethern, seeing these are the proper­ties of a Rocke, not to faile it selfe,Math. 7. but to strengthen the whole howse built vppon it, against raines, fluddes, and windes, it is euident by the order of Christes wordes, by Grammar, by reason, and by conference of holie scri­ptures, that S. Peter is called This Rocke, when it is sayed to him: Thou art Peter, and vppon this Rock I wil build my Church.

13 It followeth: And hel gates shal not preuaile against it. Epiphan. in Ancho­ratu. Origenes in Matth. That is to say, the power and strength of heresies shal preuaile neither against thée, who art the Rock, nor against my Church. Not against thée, being the Rock, be­cause I haue prayed for Peters faith: not against my Church, because so lōg as the Rocke whervpon it is built, is sure, the Church it self, which standeth vpō the same Rock, is sure also. These words can not be wel referred to Christ only, the chief Rock. For it is Christ the chief Rocke, who warranteth the assurance of the vnder Rocke. And so it is Pe­ter, who is assured, that hel gates shall not preuail against him, nor against the Militant Church, which is built vp­pon him.

14 Ioyne to these considerations the au­thoritie of Tertullian, of Hippolytus, of Origenes, S. Cyprian, S. Hilarie, S. Ba­sil. S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. Gre­gorie, S. Hierom, S. Leo, S. Chrysostom, [Page 131] S. Cyrillus, Theodoretus, Prosper, The­ophilact, with a greate number of the Fathers of the fourth General Coūcel, who teach, S. Peter to be this Rock as I wil shew anon.

Neither doe they onely speak it, but 15 they bring such reasons for S. Peters be­ing the Rocke, as can agree to no man els, but to him, and to his successours in the same office.

Ioyne the practise of fiftene hūdred 16 yeres, in which the seat of S. Peter stan­deth in Rome, ād florisheth like a most immoueable Rocke, among so many ty­rās, heretikes, and naughty Christians.

Ioyne so many General Councels, as 17 haue ben in Christendome, which all haue so acknowleged this Rock, Tripart. lib. 4. c. 9. which S. Peter is, that they were all either aucthorised by his Successours, or els for lacke thereof disanulled as vnlaw­full.

Adde to the former reasons, that 18 if the Churche were built onely, or [Page 132] chiefllie vpon the confession alone, it must needs haue been built vppon the confession of S. Iohn Baptist, before it was built vppon the confession of Pe­ter.Ioan. 1. For Iohn Baptist confessed Christ to be the Lambe of God who tooke a­waye the synnes of the worlde, before S. Peter, and in moe woordes then S. Peter did. But the ground of Chri­stes building is the Rocke, which Pe­ter is, and S. Iohn Baptist is not that kinde of Rock. And the Churche is now promised to be builte vppon his confession, who is first made the Rock, and who being the Rock, doth strongly confesse.

19 Remember also, that I shewed in the former Chapiter, how al the foure senses, which the Fathers geue of the foresaid wordes (vpon this Rock I wil build my Church) are perfitely conteined in this one sense, wherein the church is promised to be built vppon Peter. For so it is proued [Page 133] to be built vppon Christ, because he is so vniuersall a Rocke of the whole Churche, that he maketh Peter a par­ticular Rocke of the Militant Church. In Peter is the faith which he con­fessed, in him are all faithful Disciples comprehended. But in none other sense al the auncient Fathers interpre­tation can be saued vpright.

Moreouer, seeing it is cleere, that 20 to be the Rock, is to be a certain foun­dation of the Churche (for Christe buildeth his house vppon a Rocke) sith al the Apostles are certaine foundaci­ons of Gods beautifull Citie,Matth. 7. Apoca­lip. 21. and there­by they are also certeine Rockes, vppon whiche the Churche is built: how can Peter be denyed to be a Rock and foun­dation of the Churche for his part?

Now, that his parte doth passe all o­ther mennes partes, I proue it moste euidentlie, because the names of things are tokens of the things them selues, and that moste speciallie, when God [Page 134] himselfe geueth the name, as now he hath done. For yf the thing were not so before, as he nameth it, at the least his naming it so, maketh it to be that, which he nameth it.

Therefore seing onely Peter after Christ beareth the name of a rocke, it is out of all question, that the said name is a signe of his being the rock in some such sort, as none other Apostle is the rocke. But the faithfull are built vpon the foundation of all the Apostles and Prophets (as S. Paul saith) and thei are the Church of Christ:Ephes. 1. therefore the Church of Christ is much more notably built vpon S. Peter aboue all others, because he is the rocke and foundation aboue al others.

And whereas by the power Apo­stolike al the Apostles were equal, cer­tainly S. Peter is this rock,Leo serm. 2. de an­niuers. as­sumpt. not only as an Apostle (wherein he had manie fellowes) but also as a chefe bishop, and as the primate of all Bisshops and [Page 135] Priests, wherin he was perelesse, being the head and top of all others in that sense as I shal declare hereafter. In the which highe priesthod only Peter hath a successour, who sitteth in the See of Rome, to continue a Rock for euer: sith Christes militant Church needeth to be alwaies built vp by visible preaching and gouernment.

This my interpretation is not a litle 21 fortified by the preuarication of our ad­uersaries. For they being at a point to deny, that Peter and his successours are this rock, whereupō the militāt Church is built, are yet by no meanes agreed, what chiefe sense these words (vpon this rocke I wil build my Church) ought to haue.Ievvel in his Reply fol. [...]21. But sometime they make Christ to be this rocke, sometyme the confession of the faith, sometyme euerie disciple, not regarding what they graunt or hold, so that the truth be denied.

But it were reason they told vs some [Page 136] one chefe literal sense wherevnto they wold stand. Which if they did, all the world should perceaue their vanitie. For if all our reasons were not diuided to answere diuerse senses, as now they are, but were driuen al to one purpose: that opinion of theirs should haue ben much more easily destroyed and vtterly vanquished, which neuer the lesse is now sufficiently disproued by the circū ­stance and cōference of holy scripture.

It is proued out of the aunciene Fathers, that S. Peter is this rock, whereupon the Church was promised to be built, otherwise then M. Iewel affirmeth. The V. Chap.

THE chiefe ground of our dispu­tation, are the words of Christ spoken to Simon his Apostle,Matth. 16 wherin he said. Thou art Peter, and vpon this Rocke I will build mie Church. By the force of which words [Page 137] the Catholicks beleue and teache, that S. Peter was made a rock, wherevpon Christ would build his Church.

And because it appereth after­ward, that the building of Christes Churche vppon Saint Peter, was the making of him to be the chiefe shep­heard of Christes whole flock, the Ca­tholicks teache, that who soeuer succe­deth S. Peter in the office of the cheefe shepherd (as the bisshop of Rome doth) that he is also the rock, whereupō Chri­stes Church is builded for the tyme. Against which doctrine M. Iewel writeth after this sort.

Ievvel.In the 4. Article. Pag. 221. For asmuch as they seme to make greatest accōpt of those words of Christ, thou art Peter, and vpon this rock I wil build my Church, there­fore for answere hereunto, vnderstand thou, good Reader, that, the old Ca­tholike Fathers haue writen and pro­nounced, not any mortal man as Pe­ter was, but Christ himself the Son of God, to be this rock.

Sander. Note (good Reader) that we dispute not at this tyme, whether Christ be absolutely the chiefest and most principal rock,1. Cor. 10. or no (for both sydes confesse that thing) but whether S. Pe­ter for his part also, be not this Rocke, whereof Christ at this tyme saith, vpō this rock I wil build my Church. M. Iewel denieth S. Peter to be this rock. I wil proue (God willing) direct­lie against M. Iewels words, that the old Catholike fathers haue writen and pronounced not only Christ the son of God, but also euen such a mortal man as S. Peter was, to be this rock, whereof Christ at that time 1 spake. And that as well by their plaine 2 words, as by the reason of their owne 3 words. Yea also by the places which M. Iewel alleageth for the contrarie opinion.

In Decre. epist. To­mo 1. Cō ­cilior.First, omitting to speake of Ana­cletus of Pius, of Fabianus, and of other holie bishops of Rome (whose testimo­nies [Page 139] are yet most vniustly reiected of [...]he Protestāts, seing thei suffred death, and not onlie with their word, but also with their blud bare witnesse to Chri­stes name) I wil only bring forth such [...]uthorities, as they themselues doe not [...]eiect.

Tertullian saith:De prae­scriptioni aduersus haret. Latuit aliquid Pe­trum aedificandae Ecclesiae Petram [...]dictū? was any thing priuie from Pe­ter, being called the Rocke of the Church, which was to be builded? Here is Peter affirmed to haue ben cal­led Petra, the rocke. The rock of the Church. Yea the rocke of the Church, and of the Church which Christ intended to build: so that the building by Tertullians iudgement was yet to come, verilie because it was per­fitly built vpon S. Peter, when Christ said vnto him aboue al others,Ioan. 21. Plus his. fede my shepe.

Now good Reader, confer this place of Tertullian with that which M. Iewel affirmed, and see▪ what shal I call it? I [Page 140] say no more, but see that M. Iewel w [...] ouerseen, and trust him no more.

De con­summat. mundi.Hippolitus the martyr saith: Prin­ceps Petrus, fidei petra, Peter is the chiefe, the rock of faith.

Homil. 5. in Exod.Origenes calleth S. Peter Magnum illud Ecclesiae fundamentum, & petram solidissimam, super quam Christus fundauit Ecclesiam, that great foundation and most Massy and sound rock, wherevpon Christ hath builded the Church.

Lib. 1. epi. 3. & lib. 4 epist. 9.S. Cyprian agreeth with them, saying. Super Petrum aedificata à Domino fuerat ecclesia, the Church was built of our Lord vppon Peter. Christ our Lord said, vpon this rock will I build my Church. Saint Cy­prian saieth, our Lord hath built his Church vpon Peter. Therefore S. Cyprian vnderstoode Peter to be this rock. And consequently some excellēt old Catholique Fathers vnderstode a mortal man, as S. Peter was to be this [Page 141] Rocke whereof Christ speaketh.

S. Hilarie writeth:Libr. 6. de Trinit. Petrus aedi­ [...]cationi Ecclesiae subiacet. Peter [...]eth vnder the building of the Chur­ [...]he. To lie vnder the building, is to [...]e the foundation, which foundation [...]ither is a Rocke, or in the steed of [...] Rock to the house which is built vp­ [...]on it.

Likewise in an other place he crieth:In cap. Math. 1 [...]. [...] in nuncupatione noui nomi­ [...]is soelix Ecclesiae fundamentum, dignáque aedificatione illius pe­ [...]ra, quae infernas leges dissolue­ [...]et. O happy foundation of the Church, in hauing the new name pronounced of thee, and o Rocke worthie of the building of that (Church) which should vndoe the lawes of hel. The new name is the name of Peter which was newlie geuen to Simon, that he might be thereby the happie foundation and worthie Rock where­vpon the Church should be built.

Sermone 68.S. Ambrose reciting the authority of these wordes, Thou art Peter, and vpon this Rocke wil I builde my Church, therevpon saith: Si ergo Petrus petra est, super quam aedi­ficatur Ecclesia, recte prius pe­des sanat, vt sicut in Ecclesia fidei fundamentū continet, ita & in ho­mine membrorū fundamenta cō ­firmet. Seing then Peter is the rock wherevpō the Church is built, he doth wel to heale first the feete, that euen as he doth conteine the foundacion of faith in the Church, so likewise in the man he may confirme the founda­cions of his members.

In Concio. de poenit.S. Basil speaking of this very cōfessi­on of S. Peter, writeth thus: Petrus petra est propter Christum petrā. Largitur enim Iesus suas dignita­tes. petra est, petram facit. Peter is a Rock through Christ the Rocke. For Iesus geueth to Peter his own dignities. He is the Rocke, and maketh [Page 143] (an other) to be the Rock. What can be said more plainly against M. Ie­wel? Not onely Christ is the Rocke, but he maketh Peter also a Rock.

S. Hierom sheweth by an example,Hieron. in Matt. 16. Ioan. 1. that as Christ being the light, gaue to the Apostles, that they should be cal­led the light of the world, Matt. 5. ād as they had of our Lord other names: euen so to Simon, who beleeued in Christe the Rock, he gaue the name of Peter, and consequently he saith, that (according to the Metaphore of a Rock) it is wel said to him,Super te. Vpō thée Aedificabo Ecclesiam meam super te. I will builde my Church vpon thée. Behold, the Church was promised to be built vpon a mor­tal man as Peter was.

S. Chrysostom writeth thus:Ex Var. in Math. lo­cis hom. 27. Prin­ceps Apostolorum Petrus, super quem Christus fundauit Ecclesiā, verè immobilis petra, & firma cō ­fessio. Peter the Prince of the Apo­stles, vpon whom Christ hath foūded [Page 144] the Church, a very immouable Rocke, and a strong confession.

Note.It is much to be noted, that S. Chry­sostome calleth S. Peter the confessi­on: whereby we may vnderstande, when S. Chrysostome saith in an other place, that the Church is builte vppon the faith of confession, he meaneth vpon the faith of Peter confessing, or, making the confession. So that, not eue­rie mans, but Peters confession is this rock, wherevpon the Church is promi­sed to be built.

Epiphanius doubted not to write of S. Peter in this wise:In Ancho­ratu. Ipse Dominus cōstituit eū primū Apostolorū, pe­tram firmā, super quā Ecclesia Del aedificata est, & portae inferorū non valebunt aduersus illā: portae autē inferorū sunt haereses & haeresiar­chae. Iuxta oēm enim modū in ipio firmata est fides (qui) accepit clauem coelorū. Our Lord himself did consti­tute him chief of the Apostles, a firme [Page 145] and sure Rock, vpon which the Church of God is builte, and the gates of hell shall not auaile against it: for the gates of hel, are heresies, and the foūders of heresies. For by al meanes the faith is established in hī, who hath receiued the keies of heauen.

And in that I may goe forewarde with the Greciās, in Cyrillus we read:In Ioan. lib. 2. c. 12. Nec Simon fore iam nomen sibi sed Petrus praedicit, In eo. In him. vocabulo ipso commode significans, quòd in eo tan (que) in petra lapidé (que) firmissimo suam esset aedificaturus ecclesiam. Christ did foretel, that his name shuld not now be Simon, but Peter, signifieng fitly by the very name, that he would build his church in hī, as in a most sure stone ād rock. And yet M. Iewel could see none of these testimonies.

Psellus is alleged of Theodoretus after this sort.Theodoret in Cant. Canticet. In Petro Apostolorū prī ­cipe Dominus in Euāgelijs se ec­clesiā suam aedificaturū promisit. [Page 146] Our Lord in the Gospels hath promi­sed that he wil build his Church in Peter the prince of the Apostles. In Peter. Note that these wordes which do pro­mise a building, can not properly belōg first of all to Christ: for vpon him the Church was already built.

In Iosa­phat. & Barl.Damascene hath also this saying. Princeps Apostolorum Petrus, fi­dei petra. Peter the prince (or chief) of the Apostles, the rock of faith.

In Luc. 22How plaine are these words of The­ophilact, which he speaketh in Christes name? post me, Ecclesiae petra es & firmamentum. Thou art the rock and staie of the Church after me.

In. Matt. 16.Euthymius: fidei petra futurus es, siue, te ponā fundamētū credentiū: aedificabo super te Ecclesiā meam. Thou shalt be the rock of faith, or, I wil make thee the foundation of the faith­ful: vpon thée I will build my Church. This much the Grecians.

Let vs now retourne to the Latins. [Page 147] S. Augustin did euer accōpt it probable,In Ioan. Tractat. 124. to say, that the church was built vpō Peter, but he doubted sometime, whe­ther it were not safer to teach, that it was built vpon Christ. For whereas both opinions are true, he knowing this later to be more true in it self (because Christ is a surer Rock then Peter) did vse commonly to applie that his moste sure doctrine vnto this place of the Go­spel, where yet S. Peter is more lite­rally called this Rock.

Therefore on the other side, when he considered that S. Ambrose made an Hymne, wherin S. Peter was called the Rock of the Church, then, in those bookes of his Retractations, which he wrote with most graue iudgemēt, he al­lowed both senses for good, and Catho­like.Retract. lib. 1. c, 21. cōtra ep. Donati. Such humility was in that pillor of the church. Dixi in quodā loco de Apostolo Petro, ꝙ in eo tan (quam) in petra fundata sit Ecclesia. Qui sensus etiā cantatur ore multorū in versi­bus [Page 148] beatissimi Ambrosii, vbi de gallo gallinaceo ait, hoc, ipsa petra ecclesiae, canēte, culpā diluit. I said in a certain place of (his book writē a­gainst the Epistle of Donatus) that, the church is foūded in Peter the Apostle, The Church foūded in Peter. as in a rock. The which sense is sung with the mouth of many men, in the verses or Hymnes of the most bles­sed S. Ambrose, where he saith of the Cock: the very rock of the Church, did wash away his fault, The rock of the Church. when the Cock did crow.

Thus both S. Ambrose, and S. Augu­stine, ād the faithful who vsed to sing those verses, allow it for a right good sense (which M. Iew. disalloweth) that a mortal man, as S. Peter was, is this rock, vpon which Christ built his Church. And although S. Augustine had in many other places affirmed, that the Church was meant in these words to haue ben built vpon Christ, rather then vpon Peter (which, of it selfe is [Page 149] true, though not first meant in this place) yet he concludeth thus:Retract. lib. 1. c. 21. Harum duarum sententiarum quae sit pro­babilior, eligat lector. Let the Reader make his choise, whether of these twoo meanings is the more pro­bable.

Behold, S. Augustine iudgeth it a probable sense, that the Churche is built vppon Peter, as also that it is built vpon Christe: but whiche is the more probable, thathe leaueth to be iudged of the Reader. Why doth M. Iewel than without the assente of any old Father at al, deny that sense, whicb teacheth a mortal man as Peter was, to be this Rocke, sithens as all the o­ther Fathers, so S. Augustine doth not onely beleue it to be probable, but he doubteth whether it be not more probable then the other?

And surely,In the former Chap. as the circūstance of the woordes geue, I haue shewed aboue twenty reasons why it is more probable, [Page 150] that in those words, Peter is first and most literally called this Rock, and Christ is not so called there, but onely by discourse and by the force of a neces­sarie consequent.

Prosper Aquitanicus affirmeth boldlie of S. Peter:De voca­tion. gen. lib. 2. c. 28. in aeditio­ne Loua­niensi. Haec fortissima petra ab illa principali petra com­munionem & virtutis sumpfit & nominis. This most strong rocke did take the cōmon enioying both of vertue and of name from that principal rock.

In anni­uers. As­sump. ser­mon. 3.Leo agreeth with him, who intrea­ting vpō these words, thou art Peter, saith: Cùm ego fim inuiolabilis pe­tra, tamē, & tu quo (que) petra es, quia mea virtute solidaris. Wheras I am the rock which cā not be īiuried, yet ne­uer the lesse, thou art also a rock, be­cause thou art made firm by my strēgth.

S. Gregorie could not disagree from so manie blessed Saints.Epistol. li. 6. epist. 37 Quis nesciat sanctam Ecclesiam in Apostolorū principis soliditate firmatam, quia [Page 151] firmitatem mentis traxit in nomi­ne, vt Petrus à petra vocaretur? Who doth not know, that the holy Chur­che is established in the stedfastnes of the prince of the Apostles, because he tooke stedfastnes of minde in his name, in that he was called Peter of Petra, a rock of a rocke?

When he saith, the Church to haue ben stablished in the strength of the prince of the Apostles, in that he declareth him to be this rock where­vpon the Church is promised to be built. When he addeth, that he was cal­led Petrus of petra, a rock of the rock, he sheweth the reason how he came to be the rock: verily, because Christ the rock who gaue him his name, gaue him the strength also which did belong to the name.

Lette vs conclude this matter at the last with the witnesse of six hun­dred fathers at once,Concil. Chalced. Act. 3. who in the fourth general Councel teache thus: Petrus [Page 152] Apostolus est Petra & crepido ec­clesiae Catholicae. Peter the Apo­stle is the Rocke and toppe of the Ca­tholik Church.

What meant you then, M. Iewel, to say, that the olde Catholique Fathers haue writen and pronounced, not any mortal man, as Peter was, but Christ himselfe the Sonne of God to be this Rocke? The old Fathers affirm both Christ, and Peter to be the, Rocke. Christ by nature, Peter by vocation and election. Christ to be both the Rocke absolutelie, and also by a conse­quent to be this Rocke, wherupon the militant Church shalbe built: Peter to be this Rocke, but not absolutely the Rocke.

But what? did not M. Iewel know all this? that surely is scant likelie, sith these things are so riue in the old Fa­thers, and so oft alleaged by the new writers. Vnlesse perhaps M. Iewel rea­deth not the old Fathers, and trusteth [Page 153] not the new writers, ād so be ignorāt of these authorities. For in dede id appea­reth by his doings, that either he neuer saw the originals, whence he citeth his testimonies (but onlie followeth blind note bookes made and collected by other his auncestours and masters in he­resie) or els he is one of the most ma­nifest falsifiers, that euer was in the Church.

For willinglie to belie so manie Fathers at once as he now hath done, it is a malice not much lesse, then Simon Magus or any scholar of his had. I ra­ther thinck, he saw not the originals. Howsoeuer it be, he is an horrible in­strument of perdition to the childern of perdition. O syr, Are Tertullian, Ori­genes, Cyprian, Hilarie, Basil, Epipha­nius, Ambrose, Hierom, Augustine, Chrysostome, Cyrillus, Damascenus, Psellus, Theodoretus, Theophilactus, Euthimius, Prosper, Leo, Gregorius, no auncient Fathers?

Al they teache, a mortal mā as Pe­ter was (verily euen Peter him self) by the gift of Christ to be this Rock, whereof it is said, vpon this rock I wil build my Church. What a lyer now is he, who saith they doe not so? their bookes be foorth in print, let them be sene. If M. Iewel be an impudēt lier, let him either openly recant, or be auoi­ded as a falsifier of Gods Gospel, and of true religion: yea as one more worthy of a whetstone, then of a bishopricke.

But now lette vs consider also the reason, why the fathers confesse the Church to haue ben built vpon S. Peter. For euery thing is made the plai­ner and surer, when the reason of it is knowen.

The diuerse reasons which the Fathers bring to declare, why S. Peter was this rock, doe euidently shew, that he was most literally this Rocke, whereupon Christ would build his Church. The VI. Chap.

HE that geueth a cause of a thing done or said, sheweth himself to be most fully persuaded concer­ning the truthe of the thinge: other­wise he would neuer indeuour, to find out the reasons, why that should be so dō or said, which he thought not to be don or said at all. Seing then the auncient Fathers do shew, why and how S. Peter is this Rocke, wherevpon the Church is built, it is impossible, that they should anything dout thereof, and much lesse can they denie him to be this rocke, wherevpon Christ said he would build his Church.

And yet M. Iewel hath said most falsely, that they doe write and pronounce not any mortal man as [Page 156] Peter was to be this Rocke.

To beginne with S. Basil, he saith: Petrus Ecclesiae aedificationem in seipsum suscepit. Aduersus Eunomiū lib. 2. Peter receaued the building of the Church vpon him­self. But why? propter fidei excel­lentiam, 1 for the excellencie of his faith.

Behold his faith alone was not pro­perlie the Rocke, but Peter was the Rocke, and that not onlie for his faith (for then other faithful mē might haue ben the like rock) but for the excellen­cie of his faith.

Two things then are necessarie for being this Rocke: that he be Peter, and that he haue an excellent faith: to wit, such as none other had, as the which was promised most singularly, and for the continuance whereof Christ himself hath praied.

2 And because this faith was most excellent,Libr. 6. de Tainit. Saint Hilarie teacheth far­ther, that, Supereminentem glo­riam [Page 157] beatae fidei suae confessio­ [...]e promeruit. Peter by the con­fessing of his blessed faith, deserued a passing glorie. Peters faith had not excelled, yf anie man had ben like to him, neither had Peters glorie passed for the confession of his faith, yf any man had bene like to him in glorie. His glorie was, to receaue the building of the Church vppon him for the excellencie of his faith: therefore the Churche was more singularlie built vppon him, then vpon any other manels.

S. Cyprian writeth of S. Peter Ec­clesia quae vna est, super vnum, Ad Iuba­ian. qui claues eius accepit Domini 3 voce fundata est. The Church, which is one, is by the voice of our Lord foū ­ded vppon one who hath receaued the keies of it.

This reason can beare but one such Rocke at once, as Peter was, for els the Church (as one) is not founded vpon [Page 158] one, if there are moe such rocks at once. Otherwise what can be saied, why if there be many such rocks, there should not also be many Churches. But the Churche beinge one, is built vppon one: therefore that one (who is Peter) hath no fellow in that behalf, vntil af­ter him, an other doe succede in that one office.

Homil. de Pastor.S. Augustine discoursing vpō those wordes of Christ, spoken to S. Peter: Feed my sheep, writeth thus: Do­minus in ipso Petro vnitatem cō ­mendauit, &c. Our Lorde hath cōmended vnitie in S. Peter him­self. Vni dici­tur. There were many Apostles, ād it is said to one, feed my shepe. S. Augustin calleth the other Apostles also good shepherds, but S. Peter he cal­leth the one good shephearde, by whose one pastoral office, vnitie is com­mended and set forth, verely because it is meant, that, as many Pastours and particular flocks in this life, are vnder [Page 159] Peter one chief pastour, and in him [...]hey al are one: euen so all the states [...]nd ages of the Church that euer haue [...]en, be, or shalbe, are vnder one chief [...]astour Iesus Christ, and in him they [...]al are one.

But as al the ages of faithful mē are one Church in Christ the chief pastour, because he in deed and in truth contei­neth them al vnder his vnitie: right so Peter shuld not be the chief one Pastor of al the particular flocks in respect of the other Apostles, except in deede he had power geuen him to feede them all within the compasse of his one folde.

S. Hierome hauing called S. Peter,Lib. 1. ad­uers. Iouī. the Apostle of Christ, and the Rock, afterward confesseth to Iouinian (who reioysed to see a maried man so honou­red) that, Super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia. The Church is built vpon Peter. Adding therevnto: Licet id ipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat, & cuncti claues re­gni [Page 160] coelorum accipiāt, & ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo soli­detur: tamē propterea inter duo­decim vnus eligitur vt capite con­stituto schismatis tollatur occasio. Albeit the self same thing in an other place be done vpon al the Apostles, and al doe receiue the keyes of the kingdom of heauen, and the strength of the Church be fastened equally vpō them: yet therefore one is chosen among twelue, that a head being made, the occasion of schisme may be taken away.

Three things are to be noted in this sentence. First, that the Church is so built vpon Peter the Rocke, that in the same place, where it is built vp­on Peter, the like is not done vppon the other Apostles.

Secondly, the Church is equally foū ­ded vpon al the Apostles in an other place,Ioan. 20. to witte, when they are sent of Christ, as Christ was sent of his Father, [Page 161] to bind or to loose, and so foorth.Ioan. 20.

Thirdly, one is chosen head of the twelue to th'intent schisme may be auoided. A man may say: if al be equal,The ob­iection and an­svvere. How is one head? This shall be more fully answered hereafter. I say for this time. Al twelue as touching the office of the Apostlesship, were equal, and all were Rockes and heades of the whole Church. But being considered as par­ticular Bisshops and Pastours, wherby they had particular authority to teach some here, and some there (as now Bisshops doe euery man in his own dio­cese) so, one was their head.

How can it els be, that S. Hierome shuld agree with himself? al be equal, and one is the head. Can the head be e­qual with the other mēbers? Or is it not highest of al, ād chief of al? We must thē say, that alare equal in the office of thē apostleship, but Peter was otherwise ap­pointed the chief Apostle and head in the Bisshoplie power, whiche euery [Page 162] Apostle had, beside the Apostolike office, as it shal appeare hereafter.

In the mean time it is certain, that S. Hierom writeth:Hieron. aduersus Iouin. li. 2 Propterea inter duodecim vnus eligitur, vt capite constituto schismatis occasio tol­latur. Therefore among the twelue, one is chosen, to th'end a head being appointed, the occasion of schism may be taken away. And that there S. Hierome speaketh not of the Apostles owne choise, but of Christes own choosing, it appeareth euidentlie, when he saith afterwarde, that the good man [...]er (Christ) would not prefer S. Iohn before S. Peter, Lib. 1. ad­uers. leuī. least he should cause so yong a man to be enuied at.

Neither did it suffise, that during the Apostles time onely, such a Rocke and head should be appointed, for so muche as the Churche of God, ney­ther 1 ended in their time, And their suc­cessours in their Bisshoply autoritie ha­uing [Page 163] (without al controuersie) lesse as­surance 2 of grace then they had, and be­ing also farre more in nūber, had more 3 need (then the Apostles) of a head and of a perpetual Rocke among them wherunto they might leane.

So that Leo the great hath most iust cause to say of S. Peter:In Aniuers assumpt. serm. 3. Super hoc Saxum, hanc soliditatem, & sor­titudinē, aeternū construam tēplū, & Ecclesiae meae coelo inserenda sublimitas in huius firmitate con­surget. Vpon this stone, this soundnes, and strength I wil build an euerlasting temple, and the heigth of my Church, which is to be graffed in heauen, shall rise in the strength of this Rock.

S. Augustine affirmeth in many places, that S. Peter did represent the whole Churche, according to whiche sense he writeth thus:Epist. 165. Petro totius Ecclesiae figuram gerēti Dominus ait, super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Our Lord sayth [Page 164] vnto Peter bearing the figure of the whole Churche, Vppon this Rock I wil build my Churche. So that he geueth this cause, why this muche is sayed to Peter, verely because Peter beareth the figure of the vvhole Church.

But how commeth it to passe, that Peter doth bear the figure of the whole Churche? Surely because he is the head and Rocke of the whole. For euerie prince doth beare the figure and as it were the generall person of his subiectes, and of them who are com­mitted to his Charge. For that they all are, as it were, gathered togea­ther and vnited in him alone. And this to be the true meaning of S. Au­gustine,In Ioan. tract. 124 it appeareth euidentlie by his own wordes: Ecclesiae Petrus Apo­stolus propter Apostolatus sui primatum gerebat figurata generali­tate personā. Peter the Apostle (by a generalitie which was figured) did [Page 165] hear the person of the Church by reasō of the primacy of his Apostleship.

Peter did beare the person of the Churche, not as menne cary burthens on their backs, but by a figured genera­litie, that is to say, as a general officer. For he doth beare their persons, not na­turallie, but figuratiuely. To witte, by interpretation of the Law, and not by real extension of his body to be made so big as to vphold al thir bodies,Generali­tas figu­rata. S. Augu­stine calleth that a figured generalitie, when it is not ordinarilie and natural­lie made, but when the lawe doth im­pute and take it so to be.

For the Lawe interpreteth and ex­poundeth the chiefe officer of a com­mon weal, to bear the person of the self cōmon weal. And therupon the head being present for the cōmon weals be­halfe, the law worketh, as if the com­mon weale it selfe were present, when the head alone is present. What was thē Peters office? The primacy of the [Page 166] Apostleship. He was first and chiefe, & propter Apostolatus sui pri­matum, Propter. and for the primacie of his Apostleship he signified all his flock in him self alone. so that he tooke the keies for al, and was the general Rocke for euery other particular Rocke, and for that primacie of his he bare the fi­gure of the Churche.

To shew yet farther the force of this reason, the Reader must consyder, that first, Peter is said to be the Rocke, and therein to beare the person of the Church figurata generalitate, which is to say, as if he were in deede the ge­neral, or the whole mystical bodie of the Church, which yet he is not, but is only the officer thereof.

Secondarily a reason is geuen, why Peter should signifie or beare the fi­gure of the whole Church more then any other. And the cause is, propter Apostolatus sui primatum, for the primacie of his Apostleship, that is [Page 167] to say, because he is chiefe. If this cause were not found in S. Augustine, the Protestants might haue some pretense to say (as they doe) verelie, that Peter was not in deede the rock, nor head, but onlie that he is called so, to signifie, that the whole Church is built vpon Christ.

But now Peter doth not signifie the Church to be built vpon Christ, as Pe­ter is a man, nor as he is a faithful mā, nor as he is an Apostle, but as he is the primate of the Apostles, prop­ter Apostolatus sui primatum, for the primacie of his Apostleship. If he be not Primate in deede, he doth not signifie that which S. Augustine tea­cheth.

For all mystical significatiōs in Gods word be built vpon a real truthe.Gen. 8. Noë by offering cleane beasts vpon the altar, did signifie the death of Christ. There­fore in deede Noë did offer vppon the altar. Let it be taught to be a feined thing, that Noë did offer those beasts, [Page 168] and that dede of his can not be a figure of Christes death. For that which is not reallie true, is the figure of no­thing.

Therefore seing the primacie of Pe­ter is the cause why he beareth the per­son of the Church, and why he hath the Church built vpon him, it is not only true, that Peter is the primate of the Apostles, and therby of the whole Church,Note. but also he is (at the least in the order of nature) first the primate, before he doth beare the figure of the Church.

For as if a man do beare the person of Glocester in the Parleament because he is Burges of that Citie, it is most ne­cessarilie true that he is first Burges, before he doe so beare that person: euen so if Peter beare the figure of the Church, because he is the primate, he is surelie the primate before he beare the general person of the Church. Whē I say he is primate before, I meane [Page 169] not in time, but in course and order of nature. For first Peter is considered as made primate, and then we afterward consider, that vpō his primacy the per­son of the Church is layed, although both things be done at once.

Seing then Peter could not beare this general person but only for those, whose officer and primate he was, it is euident,In Ioan. Tract. 12 [...] that by this reason of S. Au­gustine, Peter was the general officer of the whole militant Church, euen of S. Iohn, and of S. Iames also, in such respect, as he toke the keies for them. Not yet the keies of their Apostle­shippe (which they tooke for them selues) but the keies of the chiefe pa­storal office,Ion. 21. within which the Apo­stles also were cōteined, in that respect as they were shepe, ād of that one flock in earth, which was wholy committed to Peter.

Thus haue we many reasons, whie S. Peter aboue al others was the rocke, [Page 170] 1 1. the excellency of his faith, 2 the 2 excellency of his glorie, 3. the vnity of 3 the Church built vppon him being one, 4 4. the signifying of Christ to be the one 5 euerlasting shepherd, 5. the eschuing of 6 schismes, 6. the receauing of Ecclesia­stical power for the whole Church.

Which reasons if they be deepe [...] 7 pondered (7.) they proue not only, that he was once the Rocke, but that also an other like him must still be the Rocke, whose excellent faith may direct the faithfull, whose glorie maie cause the Churche to be gloriouse, whose vnitie maie kepe the flocke one, and kepe away schismes, and signifie stil the vnitie of one euerlasting head and one mysticall bodie, whose generall office may receaue power to be distributed to euerie other member (in the outward ministerie of the Church) as euery one hath neede thereof for the building vp of the Church of God.Ephes. 4.

For the building of the Church vpō [Page 171] this rock (which S. Peter is) goeth still [...]rward, as it once began, sithens al the [...]uilding is not yet ended, but is euerie [...]ay a working. Endeuour once, M. Ie­ [...]el, to answer these reasons of the Fa­thers, and the lack of reason in your syde shal straight appere. Words you can [...]atch together, as other hereticks haue [...]lon before you: but the examining of [...]n authority with the reason thereof doth straight confound you.

The Authorities alleaged by M. Iewel to proue that S. Peter was not this Rock, proue against himself, that S. Peter was this rock, although they proue, that there was an other kind of rock also besyde him, which thing we deny not. The VII. Chap.

The old Catholike Fathers haue writen and pronounced not any mortal man as Peter was, but Christ himself the Sonne of God to be this Rocke.

There are two parts of this proposition, the one, that Christ is this Rock: Which we graunt to be most true, and how it is true, we shall see here­after. The other part of M. Iewels asser­tion is, that, no mortal mā (as Peter was) is this rock. This part, I say, he neither proueth, nor is able to proue. For I shewed before, that aboue twenty auncient Fathers haue taught, and haue confirmed it by reason, that Peter was this rock. But let vs heare M. Ie­wel speake for him self.

In locis veteris Testam. Gregorius Nyssenus saith: Thou art Peter, And vpon rhis Rock I wil build my Church. He meaneth the confession of Christ. For he had said before, thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God.

It is not here said, that Peter was not this Rocke, which was the chiefe thing that M. Iewel ought to haue proued. Yea I say farther, it is not here said, that Christ was this [Page 173] Rocke: which was the other part of [...]. Iewels assertion. But only Nysse­ [...]us saith, that Christ meaneth to build [...]is church vpō the cōfessiō which Peter [...]ade of hī. And verely I beleue so to.

But Christ meaneth not to build his Church vpon the confession, without al [...]espect of S. Peter, but vpon the con­ [...]ession which Peter had, and alwaies should make, whiles in feeding Chri­stes flock, he should alwaies teache thē [...]he true faith of Iesus Christ. So that [...]f the confession of S. Peter be this rock, then S. Peter, who maketh it, is much more this rock. For no mans act of con­fessing can be greater then himself is, sithens it cometh from his soule ād hart as frō a certein spring or foūtaine, where God hath planted the grace thereof.

Such Arguments then M. Iewel bringeth to proue his fond assertion, as if he should say: there commeth Elo­quence from the man, but the man is not eloquent. For he woulde proue, [Page 174] that S. Peter, who maketh the confes­sion, is not the Rock, because his confession, which commeth from him, is the Rock. Whereas it is no lesse true, th [...] if Peters confession be the Rock, Peter himselfe is also much more the Rocke, then it is true, that if a mans Orati [...] be eloquent, himself also is eloquent. For the vertue which either the ora­tion or the confession hath, was before in the man himself, and proceded from him.

lib. 2. de Trinit. So saith S. Hilarie: Haec e [...] vna foelix fidei petra, quam Petrus ore suo confessus est. This is that only blessed Rock of faith, that Peter con­fessed vvith his mouth.

When shal we haue ho­nest dealing in you M. Iewel? Did you not promise to proue, that the Rock spoken of in these words, Vpon this Rock wil I build my Church, was Christ and not Peter? But S. Hilarie speaketh not of those wordes, but ex­presly [Page 175] of the other words which went [...]fore, when Peter said:False con­ueiance. Thou art Christ the Son of the liuing God. And that would haue appeared plain­ [...], if you had not cut of the sentence.

For after S. Hilarie had said, this is [...]e only happy Rock confessed by Peters [...]outh, it followeth immediately: Tu [...]s filius Dei viui, Thou art the Son [...]f the liuing God. And whereas the [...]ronoune, Haec petra, this Rock, was [...]eferred to these wordes,False di­uision. Thou arte Christ the Son of the liuing God, [...]he falsifier of al good writers, diuided [...]he Pronoune Demonstratiue (Haec) [...]rom the Proposition which it should [...]oint vnto, and did cut of the sentence [...]n the middest, making the ignorante [...]eleue, that S. Hilarie spake of the rock wherevpon Christ promised to builde his Church, whereas he speaketh of the [...]onely Rock, which is the Sonne of God.

To make the mater plaine, Peter saith to Christ: Thou art the Sonne [Page 176] of the liuing God, Matth. 16 this Rocke wh [...] the Son of God is, Peter out of al cōtr [...] ­uersie is not. Neither did euer any Ca­tholike say, that Peter was the nature Sonne of God, by whom al things we [...] made. But after that Peter had con­fessed this only blessed rock, then Christ said vnto Peter: Thou art Peter, ād vpon this Rocke wil I builde my Church. Of this later sentence, o [...] disputation is.

And surely, S. Hilarie denieth not Peter to be this kind of Rocke, which we last spake of but expresly confesseth it in his Cōmentaries vpō S. Mathew, as I haue shewed already.In the V. chap. But now S. Hi­larie speaketh only of that Rock which the Son of God is. So wheras there are two rocks, Christ and Peter, M. Iewel would deceiue vs by conueying the one in stede of the other. But God hath de­tected his vnhonest dealing.

Again he saith, vpō this Rock of Peters cōfession is the building of the Church.

This place is abused as the [...]ormer was.De Trini­tate. lib. 6 For S. Hilarie there in­ [...]reateth of these wordes: Thou art Christ the Son of the liuing God. And sheweth, that Peter both beleued and confessed Christes Godhead. The confession of which Godhead is in deed the foundation of the Church, but that confession is one thing, and the answer to it is an other thing. The confessi­on toucheth the honor of Christ, saying: Thou art the Sonne of God. The answere toucheth the honour of Peter, saying: Thou art Peter, and vppon this Rock I wil build my Church.

Christ is the Rocke that Peter con­fesseth,Tvvo Rocks. and Peter is the Rocke which Christ maketh. The confession, con­cerning the thing confessed, is a grea­ter Rock then Peter. But concerning the thing who cōfessed, Peter is no lesse a rock, then his own act of cōfession was.

Now when Christ saith: Vppon this Rock I wil build my Church, [Page 178] he meaneth not only, nor first of al lite­rally, that he will hereafter build his Church vppon the thing confessed, to wit, vpon the Godhead of Christ which Pet [...] [...]onfessed (for therevpon it was built already,Tvvo buildings. euen from the beginning of the world) but he meaneth, that he wil build that Church (which was for euer built vpon his Godhead, and was built vpon his manhood euer sith his incarnation) that Church, I say, he wil hereafter build, vpon the inward faith ād outward confessiō of S. Peter, whiles he by confessing the truth shal vphold, staie ād stablish al other faithful mē. So that S. Hilarie includeth S. Peters per­son most necessarily vnder the cōfession of S. Peter. And so M. Iewel telleth the tale alwaies against him self, as liers do.

Dial. 4. de trinit. S. Cyrillus: The Rocke is nothing els but the strong and assu­red faith of the Disciple.

This is that I would haue, M. Iewel: for I said before, that Christ [Page 179] in saying, Vppon this Rock I will build my Church, did not now onely or most literallie meane, so muche vp­pon the thing confessed, as vppon the faith of the confessour, and now M. Iewel confirmeth my saying.

For the Rocke is the faith of the Disciple. But the Disciple is S. Pe­ter: therefore the faith which is the Rock, is the faith of S. Peter.

Who hiered M. Iewel to bewraye his owne cause? When, I say, that Saint Peter is this Rocke, I meane S. Peter beleeuing, Saint Peter con­fessing, Saint Peter feeding his sheepe, S. Peter strengthning his bre­thern. But yet euery way S. Peter is the rocke. And so it is true,Dial. 4. de trinit. that Cy­rillus saith: the rock is nothing els but S. Peters strong and assured faith. But S. Peters faith is not Christ: therefore Christe (who is somewhat els beside the faith of the Disciple) is not now said to be that Rocke, where­vppon [Page 180] he wil build his Church. And yet M. Iewel saith that and nothing els.

O trustie preacher to build a mans sowle vpon. Thus he reasoneth, not Pe­ter, but Christ is this rocke, because the Rocke is nothing els, but the faith of the disciple: as though the faith were not in Peter who is the disciples?

So likewise Chrysostom: vpō this Rock, that is to saie, vpō this faith and this confession I wil build mie Church.

But he that beleued and confessed was Peter, and not Christ, and Peters faith and confession was in himselfe (as being reuealed to him by God the Father) ergo S. Peter is the rocke, in that God gaue him grace to confesse Christ to be the Sonne of God. You confound your self, M. Iewel, not caring, how your words agree, so that a shew of sumwhat be made.In the v. Chap. I shewed also before, that S. Chrysostom nameth [Page 181] S. Peter himself a strong confession, so [...]hat the name of confession doth ne­ [...]essarily include S. Peter within the meaning thereof.

S. Augustine: De verbis Domini. Christ was the [...]ock, vpon which foundation Peter himself vvas also built.

Did you neuer know, M. Iewel, that one Rocke might be built vpō an other?1. Pet. 2. the lesser vpon the grea­ter? is not the house of God built of many stones? Christ is the chiefe Rocke,1. Cor. 10. the corner stone, vpō him lieth S. Peter a rock in comparison of Christ verie smal, in comparison of vs verie great. Vpon Saint Peter the rest of the Church which liued vnder him, was built, which also is a Rocke aswel through Christ the Rocke of Rocks, as through Peter the second Rocke, and through it self, sith euery man is according to his degree a liuelie stone concurring to the building vp of the whole Church, which stones being ioyned together and faste­ned [Page 182] by faith and charitie make also a Rocke of themselues,Ephes. 2. besyde that they are built vpon the foundations of the Prophets and of the Apostles. One of these verities doth not imbarre the other.

S. Augustine addeth in Chri­stes person: I wil not build my self vpō the, but I wil build thee vpon me.

It is but reason trulie, that Peter be builded vpon Christ, and that we also beleue. But for asmuch as we are in the metaphore of building, doth not reason teache vs, that when we haue layed in the foundation of a house a mightie great stone, that the next which we laye vpon it, should be also a verie great one, yea (after the lowest) the very greatest of all? Doth any wise man, hauing laid in the foundation a stone of twentie cubittes, place next vpon it a stone of one or two ynches?

If not so, by all proportion, the se­cond stone shalbe the greatest that can [Page 183] be gotten next vnto the first.Dan. 7. Christ is so great a stone, that he hath filled the whole earth. I ask of M. Iewel, who shalbe next vnto Christ? Mie verdit is, that (in respect of the mili­tant Church, which is dayly a building on the earth) S. Peter is the next stone. Because God (who geueth his bene­fits most freelie) voutsafed first of all men to graunt S. Peter this grace,Ioan. 21. to be the Pastour of his flocke,Matth. 10 and the porter of his kingdom, next vnto him­self.

Saint Peter being the next stone in building of the Church, vnto Christ, is therefore a Rocke, because he is built immediatlie vppon the Rocke. For in a bodie compacted together, euerie thing partaketh most intierlie the na­ture of that, wherevnto it is next ioy­ned.

Note (good Reader) that we speake [...] the whole Church, which hath [...] the beginning of the worlde but [Page 184] onely of that portion which liueth on the earth for the time. For thereof onely Peter and his successours are the Rocks, whereas Christ is the Rocke of Rockes, which vphouldeth the whole Church, and al the rocks that euer haue ben or shalbe in the Church from the beginning of the worlde, to the ende thereof.

Al these Fathers be plaine.

Against you, for as none of them denie Peter to be this Rocke (which thing you haue denied) so ma­ny affirme, that the confession of S. Pe­ter, and his faith, is the Rock whereof Christ spake. And yet seeng the faith of S. Peter is no greater then himselfe is, if his faith be the Rock, him selfe is also the Rock.

In 16. Matth. None is so plaine as Origen, he is the Rock, vvhosoeuer is the di­sciple of Christ.

In the 3. Chap.This kind of sense is not literal, as I shewed before. But admit it [Page 185] were literal, yet seeng S. Peter is the disciple, yea the chef disciple of Christ (as S. Mathew saith: Primus Simō, (qui) dicitur Petrus. Simon is the first,Matth. 10 who is called Peter) surely M. Iewel by your confession, Peter (next vnto Christ) is the chief Rock. A man would thinke you were frantike, when you denying a mortal man (as Peter was) to be this Rock, yet afterward proued that euery mortal man who is Christes Di­sciple, is the Rocke.

Vppon such a Rock al Ec­clesiastical learning is built as Origen saith.

But S. Peter is such a rock: therefore vppon S. Peter al Ecclesiasti­cal learning is built. Who could wissh such an aduersarie as M. Iewel is, who proueth altogether against himself?

If thou think that the vvhol Church is built only vpō Peter, vvhat then vvilt thou say of Iohn the sonne of the thunder, Metth. 1 [...] and of euery of the [Page 186] Apostles, saith origen?

Maister Iewel left out in his English this woorde (illum) Petrum. A vvord left out. If thou thincke the whole Churche to be onelie built vppon that Peter, to witte, that Rocke of stone, what wilt thou saie of Iohn, and of euerie of the Apostles? Ori­gen saith, Peter is a Rocke: which thing Maister Iewel denieth. But he is not only a Rocke, and that we graunt.

But Maister Iewel saith, no mortal man but Christ himself is this rocke: therefore I aske him, what he saith of S. Iohn and of al the Apostles? Was not Saint Iohn a mortal man? wo to this cause, M. Iewel, whereof you are become the patrone. God kepe me from such an aduocate, who shall nede none other euidence against him to lese my cause withal, besides his owne words.

You saie, the old Fathers haue [Page 187] writen, not anie mortal man, but Christ himselfe the Sonne of God to be this Rock. Ex ore tuo te iu­dico serue nequam. But S. Iohn and S. Peter and euerie one of the Apostles is called here this rock (whereof being named in the sixtenth of S. Matthew, we dispute) and yet no Apostle is Christ the Son of God, therefore some mortal man is this Rocke besyde Christ the Sonne of God.

Shall we dare to saie, that the gates of hell shall not preuaile onlie against Peter? or are the keyes of the kingdome of heauen geuen only vnto Peter, saith Origen.

It is inowgh, that the gates of hell shall least of all preuaile against Peter. And he hath chefelie the keyes of heauen.

For as S. Peter of all the Apost­les first confessed in the name of the whole Churche,August. in Ioan. tra­ctat. 124. so al that confesse after him and by him (for all were in him, as in their primate and chiefe pastour) [Page 188] enioye both his confession, and his re­ward. That as he was sette ouer al the Church for euer, so others for their parte were called into parte, of the care.

To conclude this matter, M. Iewel should haue proued, that S. Peter is not the Rocke, wherevpon Christ promised to build his Churche. But he hath not done it, neither was he able to bring any one syllable out of the holie scriptures, nor anie one saying out of the Doctours, which denied Pe­ter to be this Rocke. But he only hath ministred matter to me for the prouf of the contrarie assertion.

The conclusion of the former discourse, and the order of the other which fol­loweth. The VIII. Chap.

HItherto it hath bene proued by moste euident reasons of Gods 1 promise, of the circumstance, and of the conference of the holy scrip­tures, of the authoritie of the Fathers, and of the special reasons which moued them to thinck and write so, and last of all, by the refutation of M. Iewels own words, that Saint Peter with such qualities and conditions as Christ in­dued him withal, is this rock, where­vpon the Church was built.

And because, looke what kinde of 2 building the Churche was once ꝓmised to haue, that must still continue seing the Churche doth still tarie the same howse of God: there must be alwaies some one mortal man like vnto Peter, who being first made a rock by election, [Page 190] may afterward by Gods reuelation stil confesse the faith for the whol Church, when so euer he is demaunded or con­sulted, what is to be thought and bele­ued in maters belonging to Christian religion.

1 If then there must be some one such Rock vpon whose authoritie the faith­full menne may grounde them selues, it is not possible, that it should be any other manne besides the Bisshoppe of Rome.

First because he aboue al others is cō ­fessed of al sides to haue ben the first ād chief in al assembles and meetings to whome (by M. Iewels confession) the prerogatiue of the first place did belong to directe and order Bis­shops in their doings. In his Replie. 241. & 242.

Secondly, because he onely sitteth in Saint Peters chaier, and is his law­ful successour.

Thirdly, because the consent of the world hath taken it so, ād so hath pra­ctised [Page 191] (in deed for euer) but euen by our Aduersaries confession, frō the tyme of Pope Zosimus and Leo, and so aboue a thousand yeares.

And although (if I had no far­ther 4 proufe) this alone were neuer able to be auoided, yet I haue so many other proufes, that I am more trou­bled what to leaue vnsayed, then I am to seeke what may be said.

I haue chosen to speak of that point speciallie, whiche is of all other the moste hard. For there is no grea­ter obiection against Saint Peters Su­premacie, then to saye,The obie­ction. that all the Apostles vvere the same thinge which he vvas. The same Rocke, the same Pastour, the same Confir­mour of their brethern. Whereby he may seeme, to haue had no more, then they had, and consequentlie that all Bisshoppes are as good, as the succes­sour of S. Peter.

To which obiection if I should only [Page 192] answere,The an­svvere. by demaunding of the Prote­stantes, in what Gospel or holy scripture it were writen, that euery other Apo­stle was the same rock, which S. Ma­thew testifieth S. Peter to haue bene: seeing they haue bound themselues to beleue nothing which is not expreslie writen in the holy Scriptures,Matth. 10 & 16. they were not able so to replie, that their owne conscience might iustlie be quiet.

For if they brought me foorth S. Cy­prian,De vnit. Eccles. or S. Hierom: it were sufficient for me to say, that they were no Euan­gelists. I shew it writen, thou shalt be called Cephas, and, thou art Pe­ter, that is to say, a rocke, or, of the qua­litie of a rocke. For as S. Hierom wit­nesseth,Lib. 1. ad Gal. c. 2. that which the Greeks and La­tins cal Petra, the Hebrewes and Syri­ans cal Cephan. Let them shew it writen, where S. Mathew, or S. Iohn is called such a Rock, or is said to be of such a condition and qualitie that the Church shalbe built vpon him.

How vnhappy are men now a daies, 6 that whereas they haue moste plaine scriptures in al pointes for the Catho­like faith, and none at al againste the same, yet they pretend by the very scri­ptures to ouercomme the Catholikes?

And by the bare naming of Gods worde (whiche they neither vnder­stand, nor loue) they haue among ped­lers won the spurs, and amonge the ig­norant haue gottē the opinion of knou­ledge. But seing there is an infinit trea­sure in Gods word, to proue those things whereby the Catholike faith is fortifi­ed, I wil take vpon me this one point, 7 for this time, to shew, by what meanes S. Peter exelled the other Apostles. wherein I wil procede in this order. 1

It is certaine, that S. Peter excel­led the Apostles in some kind of honor and dignitie.

The Apostles had two kinds of dig­nitie. 2 The one proper to their Apostle­ship, the other cōmon with al Bishops.

3 How far S. Peter was aboue or equal with them in the Apostolike functiō.

4 That S. Peters great prerogatiue aboue the Apostles, is most manifestlie knowen by his supremacie in the bisho­plie power of gouerning the Churche of Christ.

5 That S. Peters bishoplie authoritie was an ordinarie power.

6 That it must continue in some one bisshop.

7 That it is the Bishop of Rome, in whom S. Peters ordinarie power and supremacie resteth.

That S. Peter passeth far the other Apo­stles in some kinde of Ecclesiasticall dignitie. The IX. Chap.

IF what soeuer authoritie any Apo­stle had, concerning the gouernment of the Church, S. Peter had the same: and yet if besides he had verie manie [Page 195] things of greatest importance, promised and geuen to him alone, which no man els had: it is out of all controuersie, that S. Peter passed a great way the other Apostles in some kind of Ecclesiasticall dignitie. Otherwise if he had no more authoritie then they, or if his priuileges had bene only personal (as the loue was which our Sauiour bore toward S. Iohn who laie vpon his brest at his last sup­per) certeinlie S. Peter should either haue had nothing at all committed to him aboue and beside the reast of the Apostles,Ioan. 13. or it should haue ben onlie some temporall priuilege, and not any such function, as had apperteined to the perpetual stablishment of Christes Church.

But now,Matth. 10 for so much as he is not 1 onelie first among the twelue, but also he had the promise to be called 2 Cephas or a, Rocke,Ioan 1. before the twelue were chosen, and was really named Pe­ter 3 at the tyme of the choise:Marc. 3. And for [Page 196] so much as although both S. Iohn Bap­tist had confessed Christes godhead be­fore,Ioan. 1. and Nathanael had said, thou art the Son of God, thou art the Kīg of Israel, yet only Peters confessiō being made long after, was so highlie rewar­ded, that Christ said to him alone, thou 4 art Peter, Matth 16. and vpon this Rocke I 5 will build my Church: For so much as the keyes of the Kingdom of heauen are namely promised to Peter 6 alone:Matth. 16 And whereas the tribute of di­drachma was due for the first begotten of euery familie:Num. 3. Iosephus antiquit. li. 13. c. 12 Chrysost. in Matth. Hom. 59. Matth. 17 Yet Christ paid both for himself, and for S. Peter also, as being the vnderhead and first begottē of his familie the Church: And for so much as Christ, although an other bote also were at hand, yet he taught the 7 people out of S. Peters bote, to shew that in Peters chaire his doctrine shuld alwaies be stedily professed:Luc. 5. Ambro. in 5. ca. Luc. And wher­as 8 al the Apostles were sure to be sif­ted of Sathan,Lucae 22. yet the faith of Peter [Page 197] alone is praied for,Leo serm. 2. de [...]at. Petri & Pauli. that he being once conuerted might strenhgten his bre­thern. And when word of Christes resurrectiō was sent to al the disciples, for so much as Peter both entred first 9 into the Sepulchre,Luc. 24. and was not com­prehended with the rest, but was se­uerallie 10 named by himself,Marci 16. whiles the Angel said, tel his disciples, and Pe­ter, 11 In 24. ca. Lucae. that he wil goe before you into Ga­lilee: and as S. Ambrose thincketh, of men he was the first who saw Christ after his resurrection, (abeit some we­men had sene him before). And where­as 12 the other Apostles sailed in the sea within the cumpasse of a bote,Ioan. 21. Bernard. de consid. lib. 2. yet S. Pe­ter alone walked vpon the whole Sea, without any particular bote, betoken­ning, that the whole world (which is meant by the Sea) was ordinarilie sub­iect vnto his iurisdictiō: Farthermore 13 for so much as some other Apostles stan­ding by, S. Peter alone is both shewed to haue loued Christ more then they, [Page 198] and he is alone cōmaūded to feed Chri­stes shepe,Ioan. 21. August. ibidem. and to rule his lābs: yea for somuch as it is said to Peter alone not a­blie, 14 Extendes manus tuas, and a­gain tu me sequere, Ioan. 21. thou shalt stretch foorth thy hands, and, follow thou mee, so that his particular kind of death by stretching foorth his hands vpon the crosse, was principally prophecied of, by 15 Christ himself: Seing Peter answered alwaies for the Apostles,Ioan. 6. Matth 16. as being the 16 mouth of them al: and seing after Chri­stes ascension,Act 1. Chrysost. in Acta. Hom. 3. Peter alone gaue sentēce vpon Iudas, and pronounced him de­posed from his Bisshoprike, and that an other must be chosen in his place: se­ing 17 when the holy Ghost came downe, Peter aboue al the rest first of al,Act. 2. taught 18 the faith,Act. 2. ād the multitude being cōuer­ted, said to Peter, and to the other A­postles, 19 but to Peter by name: what shal we doe? Act. 2. Seing Peter made 20 answere for al, that they should repent and be baptized:Act. 3. seing Peter did the [Page 199] first miracle after the comming of the holy Ghost,Ambros. serm. 68. and first healed the feete of the lame, because he being the Rocke, shewed mysticallie, that he stablissheth the feet of others: seing Peter confes­sed 21 Christ first,Act. 4. not only before priuate men, but olso at the seat of Iudgement: seing Peter saw the secretes of hartes, 22 and whereas menne laied their goods at the other Apostles feet also,Act. 5. yet Pe­ter alone gaue with fulnesse of power, sentence vppon Ananias and Saphy­ra, cutting of their life with a word,Gregor. lib. 1. ep. 24. and thereby shewing (as S. Gregorie noteth) Quanta potentia super caeteros excreuisset, With how great power he had encreased aboue the rest:23 seeing,Act. 5. although al the Apostles did also miracles, yet Feter was so fa­mouse aboue the reast, that men did putte the sicke and the weake in the streats to the end at the least, the sha­dow of Peter might come ouer them (which was the greatest miracle that [Page 200] euer is thought to haue bene done of 24 man, seeing Peter did excommunicate and enioyne penance to Simon Ma­gus 25 the first heretike:Act. 8. Seeing he was the first after Christes Ascension who 26 reised a dead person to life (as he did Tabitha) Seeing he had first by vision,Act. 9. Act. 10. that the Gentils also were called to be­leue in Christ, and God chose that the 27 Gentils shoulde first of al heare the vvorde of the Gospell by Peters 28 mouth, and should beleue: Actor. 15. Seeing when Peter was in the prison,Act. 14. prayer was made in the Church for him with out intermission (which thing we read to haue ben so earnestly done for none other Apostle, albeit many were also 29 in prison) Seing when a sedition was among the Disciples,Act. 15. Theod. in ep. ad leo­nem. in so much that Paul and Barnabas (not for their own learning, but to signifie what other Bi­shops should do afterward) came to the Apostles to Ierusalē (to set a solutiō frō Peter, as Theodoretus noteth, and told [Page 201] the controuersie in the Councell, then Peter did not only speake first, but also 30 he gaue a determinate sentence,Galat. 1. In cōment. c. 1. ad gal. that the Gentils should not be burthened with the law, and the whole multitude held their peace for a time:Chrysost. in acta. homil. 21. Seing S. 31 Paul himself came to Ierusalem to see Peter, and that, as S. Ambrose saith, because he was Primus, first or chiefe 32 among the Apostles,ad Solitar. vit. agent. August. de Sànctis. serm. 27. Leo Serm. 1. in Natt. Pet. & Pau. to whom the Lord had committed the care of Churches: seing Peter was either alone, or first and chief in the greatest affaires as S. Chrysostom noteth most singularly: se­ing he was sent to occupie with his chaire, Rome the mother Church of the Romaine prouince, as Athanasius cal­leth it, and the head Citie of all the 33 world,Concil. Chalced. act. 3. and there to conquere all here­ticks by vāquisshing Simon Magus the head of al Heretikes, whom with his prayer he destroyed: seing his Chayer 34 and succession hath ben acknowleged of al the Aūcient Fathers,Bernard. epist. 190. and hath flori­shed [Page 202] there till this hower, without interruption of that faith, whiche S. Peter confessed and taught as the ve­rie experience doth beare witnesse: so many things so singularlie belon­ging to the gouernement of the whole Churche, could neuer aboue al the o­ther Apostles, haue bene so speciallie done or spoken about Saint Peter alone, if he bare not some other more excel­lent person then euerie of the other A­postles did.

For as Christ is proued by S. Paule, to excell the Angels because God neuer saied to anye Angell as he saied to Christ,Heb. 1. Thou art my Sonne, this daie I haue begotten thee: euen so seeing Christ neuer saied to anie other Apostle, as he saied to Peter: Thou shalt be called Peter, or, vp­on this rock wil I build my church or,Matth. 16 to thée I will geue the keies of the kingdome of heauen: or, paie for thee and me: or, I haue desiered [Page 203] for thee, that thy faith faile not, Luc. 22. Ioan. 21. or, seed my sheepe, and, rule my lambes: doubtlesse we may boldelie conclude therevppon, that S. Peter in these praeeminences farre excelled any other Apostle.

For what so euer any other Apostle had, whether it were by vocation,Ioan. 1. Matth 10 & 18. & 28 Ioan. 20. or election, or authoritie to preache, to binde, to loose, to baptise, to be a Bis­shoppe, to make a Bisshoppe, or to doe any thing els,Serm. 3. in aniuers assumpt. multa so­lus accepit Peter had al that as wel as any of them, as also Leo the Great hath noted.

Seing then beside al that, he had ma­ny things which none other had, may they not seme to haue lost their cōmon senses who wil haue S. Peter to be no greater a prelate then any other Apo­stle was?

If any wrāgler not ioyning al these priuileges together, but separating som one or two of thē frō the rest, do scoffe at these proufs, let hī know aforehād, that [Page 204] albe it some few alone would not haue made a perfit proufe, yet as they now are ioyned together, they proue exactly that S. Peter had som greater dignity then any other Apostle had.

That the Apostles besyde the preroga­tiue of their Apostleship, had also the authoritie to be particular bishops, which thing their name also did signi­fie in the old tyme. The X. Chap.

FOR the better opening of that which followeth, I must declare the double office which the first prelates had.Marci 3. Lucae 9. Christ called twelue vnto him, whome he made Apostles, and he sent them to preache, and gaue them power te heale diseases,Matth. 18. and to cast out diuels. And he said to them: What­soeuer thīgs ye shall bind vpō the earth, they shalbe bound in heauē also. And whatsoeuer things ye [Page 205] shall loose vpon the earth, they shalbe loosed in heauen also. And again after his resurrectiō, he said:Ioan. 20. As my Father hath sent me, and I send you▪ take ye the holy ghost. And, going into the whole worlde, Marc. 16. preach the Gospel to al creatures, teaching all nations, Matth. 28 and baptizīg them in the name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holie Ghost.

And after Christes ascension S. Mathias,Actor. 1. and after the coming of the holy Ghost S. Paule was taken into that holy office and vocatiō.Galat. 1. So that by their Commissions it is euident, that the Apostles were all sent into the whole world with singular auctority.

Now that beside this Apostolike function,Eusebius hist. lib. 2. c. 1. & lib. 3. c. 22. & 32. they had also power to be resi­dent vpō some one particular cure and flock, the example of S. Iames the Apo­stle doth declare, who is confessed by all maner of writers to haue ben Bisshop [Page 208] [...] [Page 209] [...] [Page 206] of Ierusalē. Yea Simon also an other of the Apostles is readen to haue succeded after S. Iames in the same Chaire and Church. S. Peter likewise hauing sitten at Antioche seuē yeres,Hieron. in Catalo. afterward trās­ferred his seat vnto Rome.

Euseb. li. 3 c. 22.More ouer S. Peter made Euodius Bishop of Antioche, after his departure thence, and sent his disciple S. Marck to gouern the Church at Alexandria.Greg, li. 6. epist. 37. Tit. 1. S. Paul appointed Titus Bishop in Cā ­dia, and Timotheus Bishop of Ephesus, and the like was don by other Apostles in other countries.1. Tim. 4. Therfore the Apost­les had also the power to be and to make Bishops,Actor. 1. in so much that when S. Peter depriued Iudas of his Chaire, he shewed the prophecy to be fulfilled,Psal. 108. Ennodius in 2. Tom. Concil. Epi­scopatū eius accipiat alter. Let an other man take his Bishoprike, or his office of a Bisshop.

For although euery Bishop be not an Apostle, yet euery of Christes Apostles was or might be a Bishop. And because [Page 207] the bishoply power was most certainly conteined within the compasse of the Apostolike office, the verie name of an Apostle came also to signifie a bishop in the primatiue Church, as Theodoretus hath wel declared.In cap. 3.1. ad Tim. Eosdē olim voca­bāt presbyteros & Episcopos. Eos aūt (qui) nūc vocantur Episcopi, no­minabāt Apostolos, ꝓcedēte autē tēpore, nomen quidē Apostolatus reliquerūt ijs (qui) verè erāt Apostoli, Episcopatus autē appellationē im­posuerūt ijs, qui olim appellabātur Apostoli. Philip. [...]. Ita Philippēsiū Aposto­lus erat Epaphroditus. vestrū, in (qui)t Apostolū, & adiutorē necessitatis meae. Ita Cretēsiū Titꝰ, & Asianorū Timotheꝰ. Actor. 15 Ita ab Hierosolymis ijs ꝗ erāt Antiochiae scripserūt Apost. & Presbyteri. In the old time they called the same men both priests, and bishops. But those which are now called bishops, they did cal Apostoles. And in processe of tyme they left the name of [Page 208] Apostleship to those that were truely (and in deed) Apostles, and called them Bisshops which (in the primitiue Church) were called Apostles: so was Epaphroditus the Apostle of the Phi­lippians.Philip. 2. Your Apostle (saith S. Paul) and the helper of my necessitie. So was Titus (the Apostle) of those of Candie, and Timotheus of those of Asia.Act. 15. So did the Apostles and priestes write from Hierusalem, to those that were at Antioche.

Seing then the name of an Apostle, did conteine both properly that extra­ordinarie honour, which the true Apo­stles only had, and also that ordinary power, which al Bisshops then had, and alwaies should haue, it is easie to vn­derstand, that when S. Hierome wri­teth concerning Bisshops:Ad Eua­grium. Omnes A­postolorum successores sunt: All are the successours of the Apostles, and when.In Psal. 44. Augustine saith, Pro Apo­stolis constituti sunt Episcopi, Bi­shops [Page 209] are made in steed of the Apo­stles, that they both (and al the other Fathers saying the like) do mean, that Bisshops doe succede the Apostles, not in the Apostleship, but in their Bis­shoplie authority, which also S. Ireneus calleth:Lib. 3. c. 3. suum ipsorū magisterij lo­cum, their owne place of teaching or of gouerning.

If any man aske, why the Bisshoplie authority is so namely distincted hy me from the Apostleship, sithens it was conteined therein (as the lesser dignity within the greater) I answere,The put­ting a­vvay of an obie­ction. that it is nedeful so to doe, because when the Apostleship ceased, the other Bisshoply authoritie continued stil. And yet yf the Bisshoplie authoritie had onely de­pended vpō th' Apostolik functiō, it must nedes haue seased with it also. For whē the whole Apostleship is ended, no part therof cā remain in his force, except it haue an other groūd to stand in, beside thapostleship, as the bishoply power had.

Cyril. lib. 12. c. 64.This being so, when we reade that Peter was head, prince, chief, first, and capitain of the Apostles, it may according to the former distinction, either be meant, that he was both their head according to their excellent Apostolike dignitie, and also according to their in­feriour authoritie of being particular Bisshops, or els according to the onely one consideration of the twaine.

How farre S. Peter did either excell or was equall with the Apostles in their Apostolik office. Wherin diuers ob­iections are answered, which seeme to make against S. Peters Supremacie. The XI. Chap.

WERE it not, that the Ad­uersaries of the Catholicke faith, do force me to intreat of this mater, I would think it a sinne to enter into so curiouse a question. For what haue wee to doe nowe with the [Page 211] Apostles aequalitie or inequalitie, wher­as it should haue suffised vs, to follow the present state of the vniuersal churche which we finde practised in our time, not searching out other things which are perhaps aboue our capacitie. But seing the aequalitie of the Apostles,vvhy this question is treated of. is now pretended against the vniuersal faith which hath alwaies geuē the pri­macie to Peters Seate, it behoueth to answere therevnto, trusting that God wil beare with the humble defendāts, how so euer the wantonnesse of the o­ther side stand in great daunger to be punished for their schism, troublesom­nesse, and pride.

I take it for a thing agreed vpō, that S. Peter was the first of the Apostles, accordingly as S. Mathew reciting the name of the twelue Apostles, saith. Primus Simō, qui dicitur Petrus. Matt. 10. The first is Simō, who is called Peter.

If then none other Apostle be first, beside Peter, and al that which is not [Page 206] [...] [Page 207] [...] [Page 208] [...] [Page 209] [...] [Page 210] [...] [Page 211] [...] [Page 212] first, must nedes be somewhat bebinde that which is firste, doubtlesse none o­ther Apostle could be in al pointes, e­qual with Peter.

If you say, the word, Primus, first, serueth only to kepe the order of nū ­bring, and not any whit to prefer Pe­ter before the rest, I answere, that whē Primus, the first, doth only stande to kepe the order of numbring, sith the number at this time is twelue, S. Ma­thew should haue gon forward with the second, the third, and the fourth, vn­til he had come to twelue. But nowe seing he doth not so, Primus is rather meant the first in dignitie, then in or­der onely.

And surely it is worth the noting, that where as S. Andrewe came to Christ before S. Peter,Ioan. 1. and brought af­terwarde his brother Simon to Christe, yet S. Peter is set alwaies, not onely be­fore S. Andrew, but before al the reast. In so much that wheras the other Apo­stles [Page 213] are neuer named orderly, but af­ter diuerse sortes, yet S. Peter keepeth alwaies the first place.

After Peter sometime Andrewe is placed next, as in S. Matthew,Math. 10. Marc. 3. Act. 1. some­time Iames, as in S. Mark, sometime Iohn, as in the Actes of the Apostles. And the Church as well in the Canon of the Masse, as in the Litanies ād pro­cessions, placeth S. Paule, nexte vnto S. Peter.

But euermore in al these varieties, howsoeuer the order of the other Apo­stles be changed, seing S. Peter is with­out exception euery where preferred before them al: certainely that his pri­macie cometh neither by chance, nor by the choise of the writer, but by the ve­ry councel and will of the holy Ghost, who thereby sheweth S. Peter to haue bene absolutely the first, and chiefe e­uen by the appointment of Christ him­selfe, which no Euangelist might alter or change.

Which to true the authoritie also of the auncient Fathers doth euidentlie conuince. First because out of primus (the first) they haue deriued Prima­tus (which signifieth the chiefe autho­ritie, and not onlie the first place in or­der) accordinglie as S. Augustine tea­cheth,In Ioan. Tract. 124 S. Peter to haue represented the whole Churche, propter primatum Apostolatus, for the primacie or chiefedom (that I may so speake) of the Apostleship.Dionys. c. 5. de Ec­cles. Hie­rarc. Cyrill. lib. 12. in Io­an. c. 64. Chrysost. in Ioan. Hom. 87. Hierom. in lib. 1. ad Gal. ca. 2. Math. 10.

And consequentlie therevnto, they call S. Peter commonlie Principem, Corypheū, caput, verticem, ducē, & os Apostolorum, the prince or chiefe of the Apostles, the head, the top, the guide, and the mouth. By which words they declare themselues to take primus the first, for princeps, the chiefe, and for maximus the grea­test (which word S. Hierom also vseth) so that the meaning of S. Matthew is: The chiefe is Simon who is called [Page 215] Peter. Thus it is euident by the word of God, that Peter being chefest, al the Apostles be not equal with him, ex­cept perhaps anie mā who is not chiefe, can be equal with him who is chiefe.

If you aske,The que­stion. wherein Peter was chiefe, or what he could doe more then his followes, I say, that question also is curiouse. It becometh him, who will obey the Gospel, to belieue, that S. Peter is the first or chiefe as he readeth in the Gospel, without demaunding why or how he should be chiefe. But yf the questiō were demaunded humbly, thus I would thincke it might be answered.

In the nature and order of the Apostleship,The an­svvere. euery Apostle was wholy equal with all the followes of his owne order. The which is not only true in the Apostles, but also in Bishops, in priests, in Kings, in Dukes, in Knightes, or in any other state of men. For there is a certain reason why a man is either an Apostle, or a King, or a duke, the which [Page 216] reason must nedes be common to all that be of that degree and state.

But there may be an other thing co­incident to some degree of men, the which although it be not necessarie for their being, yet it is necessarie for their well being. And so whereas of twelue Apostles euery one is equal in that of­fice with the other, yet it was neces­sary for their good cōtinuance in peace and vnity,Optatus lib. 2. de schis. Do­natist. that one should be chiefe a­mong them, lest whiles euery one shuld draw a diuerse way, the whole Church which ought to be but one body, should be torne in pieces, and be diuided into manie companies or bodies.

Thus whereas al the Apostles were equal by the nature of their vocation, one was set ouer the rest by the proui­dēce of God,Matth. 10 and he was so set ouer thē, that he was euen at the first choise (though that wer not throughly percae­ued vntil Christs resurrectiō) made first of al, and appointed for most of all, that [Page 217] there might be no momēt, in the which vnity should be missed in the Church.

This reason is allowed of S. Cyprian, who hauing said cōcerning the nature of the Apostleship:De vnitat. Ecclesiae. The rest of the Apostles wer the same thīg, which Peter also was, being all indued with equal fellowship of honour and power: addeth immediatlie, sed exordiū ab vnitate proficiscitur, vt ecclesia vna mōstretur. But the be­ginning procedeth from vnity, to thēd the Church may be shewed one.

S. Hierom likewise hauing said,Aduersus Iouin. li. 1 albeit al the Apostles toke the keyes of the kingdom of heauen, and the strēgth of the Church be fastened equally vpō thē al, addeth īmediatly, tamen propterea inter duodecim vnus eligitur, vt capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasio. Yet therfore amōg the twelue one is cho­sen, that a head being made, the occasiō of schism may be taken away.

Lib. 2. de schism. Donatist.Optatus ys of the same iudgemēt, af­firming that there is one singular chair wherein Peter did sit, that in it vnitie might be kept of al men, lest the other Apostles might eue­rie man chalenge a Chaier to him­self.

Epi. 82. ad AnastasiūLeo the great confesseth the same truthe, saying: that whereas the choise of al the Apostles was like, yet is was geuen to one, that he might be aboue the rest.

If then all were equal in office, and yet one was set ouer them to kepe vnity, he was not thereby an Apostle more then they, but he was greater then they. Not greater in his office, or in his Apostolike power: but greater in his prerogatiue of being head, and of making all thē to be as one, whiles they were all content to obey him alone, ra­ther then to make a schism.

But now let vs ad to their doctrine an other truthe, which is, that all the [Page 219] Apostles were so confirmed and sta­blished in grace, by taking the first fruits of the holy Ghost, Rom. 8. that it was not possible for them to erre in faith, or to seduce others. For Christ said vnto them: Ye know the spirit of truthe, Ioan. 14. because he shall tarie with you, and he shalbe in you.

Hereupon it will follow that the A­postles in their owne persons needed no head, but that S. Peter was set ouer them, to geue thereby a forme and a paterne, that afterward when the personal priuilege of the Apostles shuld cease, yet the rest, who should be the successours of the Apostles, might al obey one, who shuld succede in Peters place.Luc. 22. By whose assured faith (because Christ prayed for it) al they might be sure not to erre in the faith.

By this meanes it is easie to answere the obiections which are made against the supremacie of S. Peter. For if S. Paul did aswel preache to the Gentils,Galat. [...]. [Page 220] as S. Peter did to the Iewes, he did it by the office and nature of his Apostleship which was to goe into the whole worlde, Matth. 28 and to preache to euery creature, 2. Cor. 11. and to haue the care of al Churches lying vpon him. And ther­fore S. Peter did also (as wel before as afterward) preache vnto the Gentils with no lesse power then S. Paule:Act. 15. And S. Paule to the Iewes, no lesse then S. Peter.

For the order, power and grace of their Apostleship was equal, as the degree and line of brethern is equall. But as God preferred in old time the eldest sonne to the priesthood,Genes. 49 and to a greater power in gouernment, not by the force of the brotherhed, but by his own ordinance: euen so whereas Peter and Paule were equal Apostles, yet Pe­ter by the appointment of Christ was the head, not by force of the Apostleship but by the will of God, to shew, that his Church was one, by hauing one pastour [Page 221] in it aboue the reast, as a Kingdom is one, by hauing one King in it: or as a house is one, by hauing one master in it.

Again if S. Paule did reproue S. Peter cōcerning circūcision (as one that walked not accordīg to the truth of the Gospel in his behauior) S. Paul might do it,Galat. 2. both because they were fellowes and brethern in the Apostolike office, and also for that he had the same holie Ghost which Peter had. But we must consyder (as Tertullian in his booke of prescriptions doth witnesse) that no do­ctrine of S. Peters was then reproued as false,Conuersa­tionis fuit vitium, nō praedica­tionis. but onlie his behauiour concer­ning an outward fact of his, in that he hauing freelie eaten before with the Gentills without respect of keeping the Law of Moyses, (wherein his deede was right good, and did wit­nesse, that he belieued the obseruan­ces of the olde Lawe to bind noman) yet at the comming of Iewes, he did [Page 222] abstein and withdraw himselfe, as per­swaded that he should do more good to the Iewes if he forbare certain meats to winne his weake brethern.

Likewise S. Augustine writeth: Neque enim negamus in hac sen­tentia suisse iā Petrum, Epist. 19. ad Hieron in qua & Paulus fuit. Non itaque tunc eū, quid in ea re verum esset, docebat, sed eius simulationem, qua gentes iudaizare cogebantur, arguebat. Neither truly we do deny but that Peter was now in the same mind that Paul was. Therefore he did not then teach Peter, what was true in that cause: but he reproued his dissembling, whereby the Gentils were compelled to plaie the Iewes.

So that wheras S. Peter was no lesse perswaded then S. Paul, that Circumci­sion ād the ceremonies of the Law must cease (as S. Peter himself pronounced at Hierusalē) And wheras S. Paul no lesse then hé,Act. 15. had tolerated the obseruāces of [Page 223] the law for a time, in circūciding Ti­motheus: the question is not,Act. 16. whether Circumcision ought to be abrogated, nor yet, whether it might be at al for a time permitted, but whether it might be now any more winked at, as hither­to it had bene.

For S. Paul beleuing the time to be now com that euery man ought to pro­fesse his faith openly, concerning the a­brogation of the old ceremonies, did reproue S. Peters outward simulation, as by his fact, yelding lōger time to the Iewes, then was profitable.

And herein surely, S. Peter proued himself to be in deed the head of al the Apostles. For whereas Christ had said: he that is greater among you, Luc. 22. let him be made as the yonger, or les­ser, he in deed accomplisshed that pre­cept, and yelded vnto S. Pauls aduise, as S. Cyprian, S. Augustine, and S. Gre­gorie doe testifie.

Nam nec Petrus, Cyprian. quem primum [Page 224] Dn̄s elegit, in Epist ad Quintum & supet quē aedificauit Ecclesiam suam, cum secum Pau­lus de circumcisione disceptaret, postmodum vendicauit sibi ali­quid insolenter, aut arroganter as­sumpsit, vt diceret se primatū te­nere, & obtemperari a nouellis & posteris sibi potius debere, nec de spexit Paulum, quòd Ecclesiae pri­us persecutor fuisset, sed consiliū veritatis admisit. For Peter, whom our Lord chose to be firste, and vppon whom he did build his Church, did not when Paul did striue with him about Circumcisiō, afterward chalenge or at­tribute any thing to him self insolently, or proudlie, and saye, that he had the primacy, ād that he ought rather to be obeyed of Nouices, and after commers: neither did he despise Paul, for that he was before a persecuter of the church: but he did admit the counsail of truth.

By which wordes we perceiue that S. Cyprian did not iudge this reprouing [Page 225] of S. Peter, to be any argument against his supremacie, but only to be a witnesse of S. Peters humilitie and mekenesse. But as it was in deed true, that S. Paul had once persecuted the Church: so was it also true, that S. Peter held the Pri­macie, although (as S. Cyprian hath no­ted) he did not then allege it.

S. Augustine likewise confesseth:De baptis. cont. Do­nat. lib. 2. cap. 1. In scripturis sanctis didicimus A­postolum Petrū, in quo primatus Apostolorum tam excellenti gra­tia praeeminet, aliter quam veritas postulabat de Circumcisione age­re solitum, à posteriore Apostolo Paulo esse correctum. We haue learned in the holy scriptures, that the Apostle Peter (in whom the Pri­macie of the Apostles appeareth aboue the rest by so excellent and gra­tiouse fauour) that he accustoming to doe otherwise concerning Circumcision then the truth did require, was cor­rected of Paule who was admitted af­ter [Page 226] him to be an Apostle.

S. Gregorie stablisheth S. Peters supremacy the more by the very same ex­ample of his humilitie in bearing gent­ly the correction of his fellow Apostle. Quatenus qui primus erat in Apostolatus culmine, Gregorius in Ezech. Hom. 18. esset primus & in humilitate. That he who was chief in the top of th' Apostleship, might also be chief in lowlinesse: Ecce à minore suo reprehenditur, & reprehendi non dedignatur, non ad memori­am reuocat, quòd primus in Apo­stolatum vocatus sit. Behold, Peter is reproued of his inferiour, and he disdaineth not to be reproued. Nei­ther dooth he call to mind, that he first was called to the Apostleship.

Consider good Reader, how far these Fathers were from this minde of the Protestants, to witte, that the repro­uing of S. Peter by S. Paule, did anie thing withstand his primacie, whereas thereby they (neuer doubting of his su­premacie [Page 227] in power) rather shew him to haue ben chiefe euery way, as well in grace, as in authoritie.

S. Peter is reproued of S. Paule, and S. Peter praiseth the verye same Epi­stles of S. Paule,2. Pet. 3. in which he is repro­ued. Didde euer Martin Luther, Zuinglius, or Iohn Caluin, shewe any such lowlinesse towarde their Su­periour, as S. Peter shewed to his in­feriour?

Zuinglius reproued Luther, con­cerning his doctrine of the real pre­sence. But did Luther, trow you, praise Zuinglius for it? Except he praise a man, who doth excommunicate him, and pronounce him a Sacramentarie, and an heretike. And yet they were both brethern, and both apostles of this new Gospell. But, ô Lorde, how farre of are they from the true Apostles?

Their primacie was liker to that of Diotrephes,Epistola Ioan. 3. then to S. Peters humble gouernment.

There is in these men no humility, but intollerable arrogancie, no yelding of the one to the other, but extrem defending of euery mans own phantasie. And yet the Protestants bring this example of S. Peter and S. Paul, to defend their heathenish and heretical debate.

Whereas the reproufe of S. Peter, nei­ther consisted in any false doctrine of his (as theirs doth) nor was defended stubbornly by him, as these men defend their errours euen to death, and so they make them neuer able to be recōciled.

The dis­sensions of the Ca­holikes. Matth. 5. In via.On the other side, although dissenti­ons happen oftentimes among the Ca­tholikes (whiles they are in the waie) yet they are like vnto the Apostles in prosecuting them. For that alwaies they are ready to yelde one to the other euen in this life, at the farthest, when the high Iudge shall geue sentence for the one part.Deut. 17. And they all confesse, that there is a mean ād power in earth able to determine al controuersies in [Page 229] Religion. But the dissentions of the Protestants are like to the dissentions of the life to come, which are immortal, nor neuer shalbe reconciled, because there can be no Iudge acknowleged in the way, to bring them at one, sithens they are at their waies end: after which time there is no place of reconciliation left, but the iudge deliuereth either the one partie,Matth. 5. or both to be tormented for euer, if the greatnesse of the faulte be such, as betwen Luther and Zuinglius it is.

It is farther laid against the supre­macy of S. Peter, that the Apostles sent him to lay handes vppon those whome Philippus the Deacon had Baptized:Act. 8. for by sending they wil conclude him to be onely equal with the Apostles, as though the Canons of a Cathedrall Church may not choose their Deane or Bisshop to go about certaine busines of the Chapter, whom therein they sende to doe those things, not as their infe­riour, [Page 230] but when the common good is to be procured, and no fault is to be punis­shed, euery man ought to yeld vp his su­periority and to condescend to charity,Lib. 7. e­pist. 64. as S. Peter did. For as Gregorie most wisely saith: whē no fault requireth the cōtrarie, all bishops according to the respect of humblenes, are equal.

Briefly, th' Apostles were sent euery of them equally into the whole world, but Peter beside that, was made chiefe, to th' end the vnitie of the Church might appeare in one chief Apostle, and schis­mes might be auoided, not so much a­mong the Apostles (where none could chance) as among others afterwarde,Leo epist. [...]2. who should haue lesse grace to kepe v­nitie, then the Apostles had. But in case th' Apostles had ben so destitute of grace, that any one might haue taught false doctrine, and stubbornly haue de­fended the same: doubtlesse S. Peter might no lesse haue deposed him,Actor. 1. then [Page 231] he did separate Iudas from the College of the Apostles, euen after his death.

And that had bene alwaies the true Catholike Church, which had followed S. Peters doctrine.

But now the priuilege of the other Apostles, did nothing hinder S. Peters chiefe power, who had sufficient auto­ritie to haue controlled them, if they hadde lacked sufficient grace, to haue taught onely true doctrine. And al­though they had grace not to erre, yet his power was not in deed the lesse ther­by, but it had the lesse occasion to shew it selfe vpon the Apostles:1. Tim. 1. Lex iusto non est posita. euen as the Law is not therefore the weaker, because it can not be pra­ctised vppon the iust men.

That S. Peters prerogatiue aboue the o­ther Apostles is most manifestly sene by his chief bishoplie power. The XII. Chap.

1 IT is al ready shewed, first, that S. Peter passed the Apostles a great way in some kinde or other of Ec­clesiastical power.

2 Secondlie, that the Apostles had two kinds of power, one proper to their Apostleship, an other common to al Bisshops.

3 Thirdlie, that in the Apostolike office all the Apostles were in all points equal with S. Peter, sauing onlie that aboue and beside his office, he was made by Christ the first and the chiefe of thē all: to thend vnitie might be alwaies shewed and kept by one capitain Apo­stle, being also able to haue strength­ned thē, but that they (preuented with grace) needed not his help.

4 Now thē it remainth to see, how far [Page 233] S. Peter passed the other Apostles in the state and degree of their bishoply power. Herein, I say, that whereas we may consider in a prelate either his or­der and office, or els the authoritie and Iurisdiction of the same, the order and office of bishoply power was equally cō ­mon, not only to all the Apostles, but likewise to al other bishops.

For it is generally true which S. Hierom saith:Ad Eua­grium. Vbicun (que) fuerit Epis­copus, siue Romae, siue Eugubij, eiusdem meriti, eiusdem est & Sa­cerdotij. Whersoeuer a bishop be, whe­ther at Rome (which is the head citie of the world) or at Eugubium (which is a small town) he is of the same merit, and of the same priesthod. That is to say, euerie Bisshop may as wel preache, and minister the sacrament of confir­matiō or of priesthod (and much more all the other Sacraments) to his owne Citisens, or doe any like matter belon­ging to his order, as the highest bishop [Page 234] in the world may. For the order is e­quallie common to them al.

And that is it which S. Cyprian saith,De vnita­te Eccles. Episcopatus vnus est, cuius à singulis in solidū pars tenetur. The bishoplie office is one, whereof euerie man holdeth a part for the whole, that is to say, euery mā doth partake the bis­hoplie office wholy, and without dimi­nution. For as euery man hath for his part the whole nature of a man in him­selfe, so hath euery Bishop for his part the whole nature of a bisshop in hīself.

This equalitie of bishoply order and office notwithstanding, the Apostles were in their bishoply prelateshippe and Iurisdiction a great way behīd S. Peter, because he had a higher and lar­ger power of gouerning geuen to him ouer Christes shepe, then any of the o­ther had in that behalfe. Touching then the superiority of S. Peters iurisdi­ction, for asmuch as all the power he had, was either Apostolike, or bishoply, [Page 235] seing he could not easily haue more cō ­mitted to hī ouer the rest of the shepe by his Apostolike office,Math. 2 [...]. then the other Apostles had (for ech of thē had charge ouer the whole Church, and (the gouer­ment of their owne persons excepted) what greater power could S. Peter haue) if this notwithstandig, I proue euidētly that Christ committed to S. Peter more Ecclesiastical power euē ouer his shepe then to anie other: it must needes be rather meant of more bishoply, then of more Apostolike power. And so albeit the power and iurisdictiō of the Apost­les ouer the rest of the shepe be equal, yet the power of bishops euen ouer the same shepe is not equal. How proue I thē, that S. Peter had more cōmitted to his charge, thē the other Apostles? Ve­rily because Christ in the presence of S. Iohn, S. Iames, ād S. Thomas the Apost­les, ād of other three disciples said to Peter: Simō Ioānis diligis me plꝰ his. Ioan. 21. Simon the son of Iohn doest thou loue [Page 236] me more then these? And surely, seing S. Iohn was among them, who was so tenderly beloued of Christ, that he was knowen by the name of the Di­sciple whom Iesus loued, Ibidem. when Pe­ter is asked, whether he loue more thē they, he is in effect asked, whether he loue more, then any other Apostle or Disciple.

Neither doth our Lord demaunde this question, as a thing whereof he doubted, but to instruct vs, that Peter loued him more then the other. Where­vpon S. Augustine concludeth:In Ioan. Tract. 24. Scie­bat igitur Dominus, nō solū quôd diligeret, verumetiam quôd plus illis diligeret eum Petrus. There­fore our Lord did know, that Peter did not onely loue (him) but also that he lo­ued (him) more then they.

And yet seing Peter could not loue Christ more then the other did, except Christ had first loued Peter more then he loued the other (for Peters excellēt [Page 237] loue towards Christ must nedes come of the former exceding loue of Christ toward Peter as the scripture it selfe doth teache vs) it is out of all contro­uersie, that Christ first loued S. Peter,1. Ioan. 4. Prior di­lexit nos. more then he loued any other man in the whole world. What?The que­stion. more then he loued S. Iohn? Or more then he lo­ued his own Mother?

I answere,An exāple that there are diuerse cō ­siderations of loue. Alexander the great had two frindes, who loued him for diuerse respects. The one called Craterus loued him as king, and loked to his honour in matters belonging there­vnto. The other called Hephestion, loued his ꝑson, and diligently ꝓcured his health ād priuate wel doing. Whereupō King Alexander was wont to saie, that Craterus loued the King, but Hephestion loued Alexander. Euē so Christ loued his Morther aboue all creatures, in the respect of that loue which it pleased him (as her Sonne) to [Page 238] owe vnto his Mother by the Law of nature.Exod. 20. And therein he loued her al­most incōparablie aboue S. Peter. Like­wise he loued personally S. Iohn the E­uangelist,August. in Ioan. Tra­ctat. 124. and S. Iohn loued him more then other, in that he was a virgin by Christes gift, as who had dedicated his bodie and soule to Christ alone.

But in respect of Christes flock which was to be fed ād gouerned in the earth, in that respect, Christ loued S. Peter, and S. Peter him, more thē others. The which distinction being kept, we maie well say, that our Lady loued Christ (as the Sonne of God taking flesh of her own bodie) more then any other: and that S. Iohn loued Christ (as the cause of his virginitie, and the Athour of his chast loue) more then any other, and that S. Peter loued Christ (as the prince of pastours) more then anie other,1. Pet. 5. of which last kind of loue Christ now spea­keth, as it may wel appeare by his owne words.

For whē S. Peter had answered, yea Lord, thou knowest, that I loue thee, Iesus said to hī, fede my lābs. As who should saie: for asmuch as thou in respect of my pastoral power, louest me more then these, take more power then they to feede my lambs. For now sith Peters loue is the cause why Christ geueth him power to feede his lambs: ac­cording to the measure of the loue, the measure of the feeding must be vnder­standed.De temp. serm. 149. Dominus Iesus (saith S. Au­gustine) respondenti amorē, com­mendat agnos suos, & dicit: pasce oues meas. tanquam diceret, quid retribues quia diliges me, dilectio­nem ostende in omnibus. To Peter answering that he loueth, our Lord Ie­sus commendeth his lambs, and saith: Feede my shepe, as if he should say: what wilt thou render to me because thou louest me? Shew thy loue toward the shepe.

The same verie sense S. Chrysostom [Page 240] geueth:In Ioan. Hom. 87. Si amas me, fratrū curā susci pias. If thou louest me, or seing thou lo­uest me take the care of thy brethern. Yf then the authority of feeding, be the reward of Peters loue, for asmuch as ac­cordīg to S. Augustines iudgemēt groū ­ded vpō the expresse word of God, Peter loued more thē the other, Peter is now bid to shew more loue in taking cure of his brethern, then any other. Which thing because he can not doe, except he receiue more power and authoritie to feed his brethern,Iacob. 1. then other haue (for Peter can doe no more in that behalfe, then is from heauē committed to him) it doth inuinciblie follow, that Christ at this time geueth to Peter alone more povver and authority to feede his sheepe, then any other had, or can haue.

For the literal meaning of Christes whole discourse, is none other thing, then to say, for as muche as thou louest me more then these, feede my sheepe. [Page 241] In the cumpasse or meaning of which wordes, it is not possible for any other Apostle to be comprehended aequallie with S. Peter.Note this reason. For if any other may feed aequallie with him, by the force of this commission, the same cause of fee­ding must be in him, which is named in this commission. That is to say,More thē these. he must loue more then these. But if any other doe so, then hath Peter no commission to feed Christes sheepe, be­cause he then doth not loue more then they, seing they must loue more then he, or els no cōmissiō of feeding is geuē thē.

Who so euer hath this commission to feed Christes sheep, he must first loue Christ the prince of Pastours, more thē these, as Peter now doth. And by (these) I shewed before alth' Apostles and disciples to be meant. Therefore they are al excluded from this authoritie wherof Christ speaketh presentlie: And yet seing the sheepe of the whole worlde are in other places committed to allIo [...] 7.20. [Page 242] the Apostles the which power (con­cerning al other beside the Apostles them selues) is so great, that this cā be no greater, if these things be wel con­ferred and weighed together,Note. we are forced to confesse that this commission whiche geueth more authoritie ouer the sheepe to one then to the reast, is not proprely anie Apostolike power (for then al the Apostles should haue it aequally) but it is an other kind of power which being perhaps not much inferi­our to the Apostolike authoritie, must stil so remaine in one aboue others (so long as the shepe of Christ doe remain) as it is now geuen to one more then to other, because he loueth more then the other.

This kind of power is now called the power of one chiefe Bisshop or pastour: wherevpon S. Augustine saith cōcer­ning this very text of scripture, and this one pastour S. Peter: Dominus in ipso Petro vnitatem commen­dauit. [Page 243] Multi erant Apostoli, In hom. de pastor. c. 13. & vni dicitur, pasce oues meas. Ab­sit vt desint modò boni pastores, sed omnes boni pastores in vno sunt, vnum sunt. Our Lord hath cō ­mended vnity in Peter himself. There were many Apostles, and it is said to one, feed my shepe. God forbid, there shoulde lacke now good Pastours, but al they are in one, they are one.

S. Augustine manifestly declareth hereby, that Saint Peter alone was spo­ken vnto (among other causes) for this also, to signifie (in him selfe, be­ing one Pastour) the vnitie, which al Pastours haue in Christ,De sanctis serm. 24 the Prince of Pastours. In vno Petro figuraba­tur vnitas omniū Pastorū. The vni­ty of al pastours was signified in Peter alone or in Peter being one Pastour.

But whereas the vnitie of all good Pastours in Ghrist alone, is not literal­lie expressed in this place of the holy scripture, but is onely builded mystical­lie [Page 244] vpon the literal storie of Peter, be­ing made one shepheard: that mystical and allegorical sense is void, except this other literal sense be true.1. Cor. 10. Gal. 4. Heb. 9. For al ma­ner allegories are grounded vpon some true and literal historie. Therefore S. Peter is indeed made Pastour alone, who may conteine al the Pastours of the earth in his vnitie, to the ende he thereby may shew that al the good Pa­stours which haue ben, be, or shalbe, are one in Christ the prince of Pastours.

So that by S. Augustines discourse it is cleare two waies, that Peter hath no fellow in this pastoral office whereof Christ now speaketh. Both because he alone loueth more then other, and he is one pastour in earth for the time, to shew that Christ is one euerlasting pastour of his whole flock, both in earth and in heauen.

From S. Augustine let vs passe o­uer to S. Chrysostome, who hauinge taught, that Christe asketh, whether [Page 245] Peter loueth him (not to teache vs that S. Peter loued him, but to informe vs Quantae sibi curae sit gregis hu­ius praefectura, how greate care he taketh of the gouernment of this flock) concludeth in this wise:lib. 2. de Sacerdoti [...] Petrū Chri­stus authoritate praeditum esse vo­luit, acreliquos item Apostolos lōgè praecellere. Christe would haue Peter to be indowed with authoritie, and also to passe a great waie the other Apostles.

Marke first, that it is praefectura gregis, the rule and gouernement of the flocke which Christ intendeth.

Secondlie, that Christe would haue Peter to be indowed not onely with grace, and vertue, but with such au­thoritie, as did apperteine to the fee­ding of Christes sheep.

Thirdly, that he would him to passe the Apostles: and wherein, I pray you, but in authoritie? For he passed them in that thinge, wherewith he [Page 246] was indowed. But Christ indowed him with authority: therefore Peter passed the other Apostles in authoritie.

4 Fourthly he passed them longè, a great way.

He passed the Apostles in al other power after some certain sort,Hovv S. Peter pas­sed the Apostles. either be­cause he had that power first, which was geuen them afterward, or els because he had that power ordinarily, which was extraordinarily geuen them, or els because, whereas they were heads of the shepe together with him (tho­rough their Apostleshippe) he was also their head, as being the prince and chefe of the Apostles. But aboue all other respects, he passed them longè, a great, way in the power of feeding the shepe, as the chiefe bisshop.

In epist. ad Episc. per Viennēsem prouinc. constitut.So that Leo had iust cause to saye: Cûm Petro prae caeteris soluendi & ligandi sit tradita potestas, pas­cendarum tn̄ ouiū cura specialius mandata est. Whereas the power of [Page 247] bindīg and loosing is deliuered to Peter aboue others, yet the care of feeding the shepe is more specially com­mitted. Will you see how much more specially?

Arnobius noteth none of the Apo­stles euer to haue had the name of a Pastour geuen to him by Christ, beside S. Peter alone, to whome it was said, pasce oues meas, feede mie sheepe. That is to say, be thou the pastour of my sheepe.Arnobius in Psalm. 138. Ioan. 10. Nullus Apostolorum no­men pastoris accepit. Solus enim Dominus Iesus Christus dicebat: Ego sum Pastor bonus. & iterum: me, inquit, sequuntur oues meae. Hoc ergo nomen sanctum, & ip­sius nominis potestatem post re­surrectionem suam Petro poeni­tenti concessit, Ioan. 21. & ter negatus ne­gatori suo hāc, quam solus habuit, tribuit potestatem.

None of the Apostles hath receaued the name of a pastour. Four our Lord [Page 248] Iesus Christ alone did saie: I am a good pastour: and againe he saith, My shepe doe follow me. But this holy name and the power thereof after his resurrection he graunted to Peter repenting, and being thrise denied, he did geue vnto him, who denied him, this power, which he alone had. Christ alone had the power to feede his owne flocke, this power he gaue to Peter in such sort, as none other Apostles had it.

For he gaue to Peter the name of a Pastour, & ipsius nominis potesta­tem, and that power which the name did import. But as Arnobius said be­fore, nullus Apostolorum nomen Pastoris accepit. None of the Apost­les toke the name of a pastour: there­fore none of them toke the power of feeding after such sort, as the name and power thereof was now geuē to Peter. And seing euery Apostle had authority before to feede all nations through his [Page 249] Apostleship: this feeding which is now geuen to Peter alone, and must be meāt of some other power beside the Aposto­like function, is doutlesse meant of Pe­ters bishoply power.

I beseche the discreete Reader nei­ther to vse cauils himself, nor to geue care to them who loue to wrāgle. Here would M. Iewel straight way shew, that Christ gaue manie pastours and teachers to his Church,Ephes. 4. 1. Pet. 5. and that euery Apostle did feede, of which things I deny no one. But I say there was beside the Apostleship a kind of feeding so peculiar to Peter, that no Apostle toke (so specially as S. Peter did) either the name thereof, or the thing meant by the name.

Which thing the holy scripture doth insinuate, when it sheweth Peter to haue loued more then other, and con­sequentlie according to the measure of his loue to haue taken the measure of feeding. In which sense Saint Chry­sostom, [Page 250] S. Augustine, Leo and Arno­bius doe euidētly agree. We must ther­fore confesse a supereminent power of the pastoral office in Peter, that pree­minence (say I) consisted in the ordina­rie power of being the chief shepherd. He that denieth my interpretation, must bring a better, which I marueile how he shall come by.

But lette vs also consyder the mind of S. Ambrose in this behalf.Ambros. in 24. ca. Lucae. Who ha­uing said by S. Peter, that he was vbi (que) aut solus, aut primus, euery where either alone, or chiefe, at the last he cometh to speake of these woordes of Christ spoken to Peter, amas me, doest thou loue me?

Dominus interrogabat, non vt disceret, sed vt doceret, quem eleuandus in coelum amoris sui nobis velut Vicarium relinque­bat. Sic enim habes: Simon Ioan­nis diligis me? vti (que) tu scis Domine quia amo te. Dicit ei Iesus, pasce [Page 251] agnos meos. bene conscius sui nō ad tempus assumptum, sed iamdu­dum Deo cognitum Petrus testi­ficatur affectum. Quis est enim a­lius qui de se hoc facilè profiteri possit? Et ideo quia solus profite­tur ex omnibus, oībus antefertur. Our Lord asked, not to lerne, but to teache him whō he, being to be assum­pted into heauen,The Vi­car of Christes loue. did leaue to vs as the Vicar of his loue. For so thou readest. Simon the Son of Ion, doest thou loue me? Yea Lord thou knowest that I loue thee. Iesus said to him, feede mie lambs. Peter being priuy of a good con­science, doth testifie his own affection not taken for the time, but already wel knowen to God. For who els were able to professe this thing of himself? And because he alone among all professeth, he is preferred before all.

First note well, that S. Ambrose compareth the loue with the feeding. For he reasoneth alwaies from the one [Page 252] to the other.

Secondlie he saieth, that Christ, in consideration that he shoulde as­cend into heauen,Vicare. taught him, whome he left the Vicar of his loue. Behold if Peter be the Vicar of Christ, it is no wonder that the Pope sitting in Peters chaire, is called also the Vicar of Christ. Yea but (say you) he is the Vicare of his loue, and not of his pastoral office. Yeas Syr, of both.

For now S. Ambrose speaketh of that loue, which consisted in hauing au­thority to fede the flock. For it foloweth in S. Ambrose: Sic enim habes, for thus thou readest. And immediatly he commeth to the power of feeding, which Christ gaue vnto Peter in the highest degree of any mortall pastour, because Peter loued more then other. Christ left to vs a Vicar of his loue, who was that? Peter. when was he leaft a Vicar? When Christ said, feede mie lambs. The loue then left to vs was [Page 253] the power of feeding, which Peter had ouer vs, and the Vicar of Christes loue was the Vicare of Christes power, which he had to feede vs.

Although Christ our euerlasting meate fede vs alwayes by his migh­tie power,Ioan. 6. yet when he should goe cor­porallie into heauen, he leaft vs a Vi­car of his corporall kinde of feeding.

His woordes doe not nowe sound in our eares, as they did whiles he liued, in preaching, in teaching, in admini­string the Sacraments, in gouerning the Churche, and in sending other to preache. Christ hath a Vicar, whome to that effect he loueth aboue all other, and who loueth him aboue all other: to that effect, I saye, of feeding his flocke.

Moreouer S. Ambrose noteth, that Peter omnibus antefertur, is prefer­red before al, why so? Quia solus pro­fitetur ex omnibus. Because he alone of them al, doth professe. But why saith [Page 254] S. Ambrose that he alone doth pro­fesse? Might any other man professe, when Peter alone was asked? No ve­rilie. And so dooth S. Ambrose meane, that Peter alone professeth his loue, because he alone is asked whether he loued more thē these. otherwise if S. Iohn who stoode by, had ben asked, I thinke he was not giltie of any lack of louing Christ. But Christ intended to geue vnto Peter more loue then the o­ther had, euen for this purpose, that he might receiue a higher power to feed, then other had.

Last of al, S. Ambrose noteth, as it were three degrees in the commissiō of Peters autority of feeding, and that, accordīg to the power of feeding thrise repeated.Agnus. Iā non agnos (vt primo) quodam lacte vescendos, Cuicula. Ouis. nec oui­culas (vt secundo) sed oues pasce­re iubetur, perfectiores vt perfe­ctior gubernaret. (At the third time wherein our Lord said to Peter, pasce [Page 255] feed) he was not now bid to feede as it were with milke, the lambes (as at the first time) nor the smaller sheep, as at the second time, but the sheep, to th' end he being more perfit might gouern the more perfit.

It is now also to be noted, that S. Ambrose putteth the worde gubernare, to gouerne, in steed of pascere, to feed. For in deed the shepheard hath autho­ritie to rule and gouerne his sheepe.

Peter then hath autority not only ouer the lambes, which are, as it were, the childern, and the vnlearned Christiās, nor only ouer the smaller sheep, which yet are elder then the lambes (as the Christian lawyers, the learned physici­ons, the Iudges and Princes of Chri­stendom) but also he hath power to go­uern euen the sheep which are of most perfit age. Verely the ewes,Oues. the wea­thers, yea the rams themselues, which in diuers places are capitaines of diuers flocks. So that parissh Priests, Bisshops, [Page 256] Archebisshoppes and Patriarches are committed to the gouernement of Pe­ter alone. He is the vicar of Christe, in loue and power of feeding: there­fore as none was without the cum­passe of Christes folde, no more may he be without the cumpasse of Peters fold, who wilbe reckened in Christes fold.De consid. ad Eugen. lib. 2.

S. Bernard writing to Eugenius the Pope of Rome (whose bookes he that readeth, may wel perceue he spake it for no flatterie) hath these wordes: Alij Pastores habent sibi assigna­tos greges, singuli singulos, tibi vniuersi crediti, vni vnus. Nec modò ouium, sed & Pastorum tu vnus omnium pastor. Ex verbo Domini. Vnde pro­bem, quaeris? Ex verbo Domini. Cui enim nō dico Episcoporum, sed etiā Apostolorū sic absolute & indiscrete totae commissae sunt o­ues? Si me amas Petre, pasce oues meas. Quas? Illius aut illius popu­los ciuitatis, aut regionis, aut certi [Page 257] regni? Oues meas, inquit. Cui non planū, non designasse aliquas, sed assignasse omnes? nihil excipitur, vbi distinguitur nihil.

Other pastours haue flocks assigned to them, euery pastour one flock: to thee all are committed, one flock to one she­pheard. And not only of the sheepe, but also of the pastours thou alone art the pastour. Doest thow aske, how I proue it? By the word of our Lord. Gods vvoord. For to whome (I say not onely) of the Bisshops, but also of the Apostles so absolutelie and without distinction are all the shepe committed? If thou lo­uest me Peter, feede mie shepe. Which shepe? whether the people of this, or of that citie, or countrie, or of a certaine kingdom? He saieth, mie shepe. To whom is it not euident, that Christ did not appoint out some, but as­signed all? Nothing is excepted where nothing is distincted.

This place needeth no declara­tion [Page 258] it is so full in al points. Wherefore I suppose it is by this time sufficiently proued, that S. Peter did excell a great way euen his fellow Apostles in the pastoral authoritie of feeding Christes flock. By which power S. Iames (other­wise S. Peters equal) yet after he was once bishop of Ierusalem, was thereby of necessitie subiect vnto Peter, as who could not feede a parte of that flocke, which was wholie committed vnto Peter, but by the acknowleging of Pe­ter his general shepheard.

In signe whereof S. Peter being not readen himselfe to haue ben ordei­ned bishop of any other then of Christ, did yet with two other Apostles orde in S. Iames Bishop of Ierusa­lem, Euseb. li. 2 cap. 1. as the Ecclesiastical historie doth witnesse. In consideration of which S. Peters Bishoplie power, Arnobius (who would neuer haue called Peter the Apostle of the Apostles) yet dou­ted not to name him the Bisshop of [Page 259] Bishops, and to confirme the same by this place of the Gospel, where Peter alone is made the pastour, whiles it is said to him, feede my shepe.

And because his other woordes were alleaged before, it maie suffise now to heare him saie this much onelie of S. Peter:Arnobius in Psalm. 138. Ecce Apostolo poe­nitenti succurritur, qui est Epis­coporum Episcopus. Behold, the Apostle who is the Bisshop of Bis­shoppes, being penitent findeth suc­cour. Could anie thing be spoken more plainlie?

But you will say,In epist. [...]. ad Iacobū fra. Dom. that S. Clement ge­ueth the verie same title to S. Iames also. As though Saint Iames being the Archbishop of Ierusalē, had not diuers other bishops vnder hī, of which bishops he might wel be called the bishop. But S. Peter being alone called the pastour (as Arnobiꝰ shewed before) ād so being a bishop as he was a pastour, must be vnderstanded, not onely to be a bishop [Page 258] [...] [Page 259] [...] [Page 260] of some bishops (as euery Archebishop is) but also a bishop of all bishops, as noman at al is, beside S. Peter and his successours. But Peter being alone the pastour, is alone the bishop of the very Apostles also, in that behalf as they were bishops, and not in that respect as they were Apostles.

Yea, but here an other may bring forth S. Cyprian,Ad Quin­tum de haeret. bapti­zand. who saith: Neque quisquam nostrûm Episcopū epis­coporum se esse constituit. Nei­ther doth any of vs make himself a bis­shop of bishops. I pray you sir, what is this to the purpose? Because no man maketh himself a bishop of bishops, shall therefore Christ make no man a bishop of bishops? S. Cyprian speaketh of his own dede, and Arnobius spea­keth of Christes dede. But if Christ himself make noman a Bishop of bis­shops, how is then S. Iames called a bis­shop of bishops? Or was S. Iames that, which S. Peter could not be?

Again, Saint Cyprian meaneth, that in matters, which are yet in con­trouersie, no man may plaie the bis­shop of bisshoppes in iudging an other bishoppe: Or, in prescribing to him, what he shall beleue in doutfull cases. But S. Augustine expounding this verie place of S. Cyprian,De baptis. cont. Do­nanist. lib. 3. cap. 3. sheweth it to be otherwise in matters which are alreadie well knowen and throughly discussed in the Church.

Moreouer,Ibidem. Se in omnibus humi­lians. Saint Cyprian in that place sheweth his humilitie and his loue of vnitie (as Saint Augu­stine hath well noted) in that he being in deede a Bishop of some Bis­shoppes (because he was an Arche­bisshop) yet doth renounce to vse his authoritie, whereas notwithstan­ding, if he had not ben aboue other Bisshoppes, he should not haue alwaies both sitten, and spoken first in the pro­uincial Coūcel, as both he and his Aun­cestours also had done.

Last of al, S. Cyprian doth most eui­dentlie confesse, the Supremacie of S. Peter, by that which he writeth of his principal Chaier and succession,lib. i. ep. 3. et de vnit. Eccles. as it shal appeare afterward. At this time it suffiseth, that S. Peter is taught by Arnobius, to haue ben a Bishop of Bishops, which thing no Catho­like Father did at any time denie.Lib. 7. de Schis. Yea on the other side Optatus feared not to write thus of S. Peter: Preferri apo­stolis omnibus meruit, & claues regni coelorum, communicandas coeteris, solus accepit. Peter deser­ued to be preferred before al the Apo­stles, and he alone toke the keyes of the kingdome of heauen to be communica­ted vnto others.

hovv the keies are cōmuni­cated.This preferment in taking the keies to be communicated with others, is to be meante, concerning that whiles S. Peter alone was made the high Pastor and Bisshop, therby the keyes were cō ­municated to the other Apostles, in [Page 263] such sorte as they all were Bisshops, and not so as though he communicated the keies to them in respecte that they were Apostles, for the Apostles toke the keies belonging to their Aposto­like office immediately of Christ, and not by the mediation of S. Peter. Ac­cordingly as S. Paul teacheth him selfe to be an Apostle neither of men, Galat. 1. nor by a man, but by Iesus Christ.

Therefore, when Peter alone is said to haue taken the keies, it is meante, that he alone as high Priest and chiefe Bisshop, took the keies of his pastorall office, to be cōmunicated by him to par­ticular Bisshops his inferiours. For as Leo writeth of his christian brethern: Petrum non solum Romanae sedis praesulem, Leo. Ser. 2. in aniuers. assumpt. sed & omnium Episcoporum nouerunt esse primatem.

They know Peter to be not only the Bi­shop of the See of Rome, but also to be the Primate of al Bisshops. This most plaine sentence I suppose, nedeth [Page 264] no declaration. But it sheweth S. Pe­ter beside his Apostolike office, to haue a dubble power of gouerning the Chur­ch, one particular in the Citie of Rome, an other general ouer al Bisshoppes. Now such a primate of al Bisshoppes S. Iames was not, albeit he was a Bishop of some Bishops.

To end this mater, let vs heare the iudgement of S. Gregorie: Certè Pe­trus Apostolus primum membrū sanctae, Lib 4. ep. 38. & vniuersalis Ecclesiae est. Paulus, Andreas, Ioannes, quid aliud quâm singularum sunt ple­bium capita? Surely Peter the A­postle is the chiefe member of the holy and vniuersal Churche. Paule, An­drew, Iohn, what other thing are they, then eche one the heades of particular Churches? Here S. Gregory meaneth not to saie, that Saint Paul or S. Andrew coulde not preache in all the worlde (God forbid) but onely that (as Bis­shoppes) they coulde haue but this or [Page 265] that flocke vnder them,In 1. Reg. lib. 4. c. 4. totius Ec­clesiae principatū ob­tinuit. whereas otherwise Sainte Gregorie him selfe confesseth, that S. Paule obteined the chiefe gouernmēt of the whol Church.

And the like, all the other Apo­stles obteined by their Apostleshippe, without anye diuision of flockes or Churches assigned by Christe. But Peter hadde the charge of the whole Churche, not onely as an Apostle, but also as a high Bisshop. And therein on­lie S. Gregorie meaneth that he passed Paule, Andrew, or Iohn.

This much I trust may suffise them who will be satisfied, for proufe that whereas euery Apostle had in him the whole right of the Apostleshippe, and also the right of being a particular Bis­sshoppe: Saint Peter had not only those two Authorities, but also he had the right of the highest Bisshoppe in re­spect of all other Bisshoppes. He as a Bisshoppe, vvas the chiefe mem­ber of the whole militant Church [Page 266] (that is to saie, to the head thereof) as S. Gregorie teacheth.Lib. 4. ep. 38. He was the bisshop of bisshops, saith Arnobi­us,in Psal. 138. and the Primate of al prelates, saith Leo.serm. 2. in aniuers lib. 2. ad Eugen. the pastor of al pastors, saith S. Bernard. He alone by the iudgement of Arnobius was called of Christ a Pastor, because there was none other aduaunced to that power of feedinge, which he receiued. He was prefer­red a greate way before the Apo­stles in authoritie, lib. 2. de Sacerdotio saithlib. 2. ad Eugen. S. Chryso­stome. In him (being one Pastour) vnitie was signified, saith S.in Psal. 138. Homil. de pastor. Augustine. He was the vicare of Christes loue in feeding vs, as S.in Lucae. 24. Ambrose affirmed. Cōcerning this primacie of his Bisshop­ly power, in that sense, he was much more properly the guide, toppe, mouth, chief, and head of the Apostles, then in the Apostolike function. For where­as they were chosen Apostles aequally with him, he alone was chosen high Pastour aboue them. Al these things [Page 267] haue ben proued out of Gods word, and out of the holy Fathers.

Order now requireth, that I should shew S. Peters prerogatiue also by the continuance of his authoritie.

That the pastoral or chiefe Bisshops au­thoritie of s. Peter was an ordinary authoritie, and therefore it must goe for euer vnto his successours, whereas the Apostolike authoritie being extraor­dinarie, hath no successours in it. The Xiij.

THe Apostles were instituted for a certain purpose,Matth. 23 Act. 1. verilie to pub­lish the Gospel, and to plant the faith of Christe in al nations, with a most absolute power and with an auto­ritie which neuer should be control­led.

For, seing S. Peter being one man [Page 268] alone, was not able to preach the Gospel at once in al places, nor by and by to go­uern diuerse nations newly conuerted (as whose commission from Christ was not as then sufficientlie knowen) Christ gaue him twelue Companions, with as full authoritie ouer the sheepe for the time, as he had, who hauing conuerted manie countries to the faith, might commend them all as sheep to be fedde of many pastours vnder one perpetuall chiefe shepheard S. Peter.

Who knoweth not, that it is muche easier for one mā to gouern al the faith full (being once conuerted and wel in­structed) by the helpe of many inferi­our officers, then it is for him to sub­due al those vnto the faith, which be­ing as yet infidels, are also dispersed in­to diuerse quarters? But when the Apostles had spread the faith into all partes of the world, with the death of them, the Apostolike authoritie like­wise was at an end. And that being [Page 269] confessed by our Aduersaries, euen this last yere in a Confession printed at Zurich, needeth no farther proufe.An. 1566. tit. 18. For they saie: when the Churches wer now stablished, the Apostles ceased to be. But that S. Peter must haue suc­cessours, not in his Apostleship, but in his supremacie of being chiefe Bisshop aboue al Bisshops, that now is to be de­clared.

Who so marketh the peculiar names of a Rock, of a Pastour, Matth. 16. Ioan. 21. Luc. 22. and of a Cō ­firmer of his brethern, whiche are geuen by Christ to S. Peter alone: may wel perceiue, that S. Peters supremacie being meant by those names, must ne­cessarilie continue for euer. If a rock be laid in the foundation of the house, to staie it vp: out of al question, the rock must not be taken awaie, if we will haue the house to stand.

The Rocke wherevpon the whole Church is built from the beginning of the world to the end,1. Cor. 3. & 10. Dan. 7. is Christ him­self, [Page 270] but not onlie the whole Churche, but also that part which liueth in the earth for the tyme, wherin vessels both of honour and of cōtumelie are (which vessels of contumelie are not in heauē) that part I,2. Tim. 2. 1. Tim. 3. say, liuing on the earth is called the house of God, as S. Paule teacheth. Therefore it also must haue a rock of his own sort and nature to leane vnto.

For as Christ alone is the vniuer­sal Rocke of that vniuersal howse, and the vniuersal shepheard of that great flocke: so besyde him, God alwaies ere­cted some certain particular stones, ād certain smal Rockes in the earth, which might stay vp that part of his house, which for the time wandered in this worlde. Such were Adam, Enos, Henoch, Noe, Abraham, Isaac, Ia­cob, Math. 23. Moyses, Aaron, and his succes­sours, who sate in the chaire of Moyses vntil the cōming of Christ. For alwaies there was some visible Rocke of the [Page 271] Churche in this life,Deut. 17. who might be so strongly fastened in the faith of Christ the great Rocke, that he (though not for his own, yet for the Churches sake) might be able to staie vp other small stones which leaned vnto him.

Christ at the length hauing taken flesh, and walkīg visibly in this world, ād preachīg in the lād of Iewrie, did not only stay his vniuersal house vpon his Godhead (as he had euer done before) but nowe also he staied the militant Church vpon the visible example of his own life, and vpon the preaching of his own sensible doctrine according to his manhod, euen after the same rate,Deut. 18. as Moyses did whiles he liued.

Now in consyderation that Christ would forsake this world concerning his visible conuersation, and that he would goe in his manhood to raigne in heauen gloriously ouer the glorious part of his Church: he instituted an other particular Rock and shepheard,Ioan. 21. who by [Page 272] the outward preaching and confessing of his faith, might for his life tyme stay the militant Church of God in a right belefe, as Abraham or Moyses had don whiles they liued.

Matth. 16This particular militant Rocke was S. Peter for the tyme. But when he died, he left behind him still a particu­lar militant Church (I call it particu­lar in respect of the vniuersall Church which for euer was and shalbe) ther­fore some mortal man ought still to be in the earth, who may so vphold the militant Church by the assurance of his faith and confessiō, as S. Peter did once vphold the same: who likewise may stil so confirm his brethern as S. Peter was once willed to confirm them.Matth. 23. Al Chri­stians are brethern among themselues, but al bishops are brethern in a nigher degree of holy gouernment.

The Rocke therefore which shall strengthen both al the Christians, and namely al the bishops, must continew [Page 273] so long, as there are either bishoppes or Christiās in the earth. The same reason is also foūd in the name of a pastor. For as the flocke of shepe continueth after S. Peters death, euen so must such an other pastour (as S. Peter was) be made, who may stil fede and rule the flock of Christ. wherevpon S. Chrysostom saith:Lib. 2. de Sacerdot. Christus sanguinem fudit, vt pe­cudes eas acquireret, quarum cu­ram tum Petro, tum Petri Succes­soribus committebat. Christ hath shed his blood, to gette vnto him those shepe, the cure of whome he did com­mitte both to Peter,Peters succes­sours. and to the suc­cessours of Peter.

In that verie place it was were S. Chrysostom said, that Peter being in­dowed, Lōgè prae­cellere. with authority passed the other Apostles a great waie. As therefore Peter in the authoritie of feeding, passed the other Apostles: so must the successours of Peter passe a great way the successors of the other [Page 274] Apostles which are al Bisshops. For now Chrysostome confesseth, that the same care is committed to the succes­sours of Peter, which was committed to Peter himself.

Serm 2 in aniuers. assumpt.With S. Chrysostom Pope Leo agree­eth, saying: Soliditas illius fidei quae in Apostolorū prīcipe est laudata, perpetua est. Et sicut permanet, ꝙ in Christo Petrus credidit, ita per­manet, quod in Petro Christus in­stituit. The strēgth of that faith which was praised in the prince of th' Apostles is euerlasting. And as that remaineth, which Peter beleued in Christ (that is to say, the Godhed of Christ) so doth that remain, which Christ instituted in Pe­ter, that is to say, a sure rock which may alwaies cōfesse the true faith of Christ.

And Leo shewing afterward, how that remaineth, which was ordeined in S. Peter,Ibidem. he saith: In sede Petri sua viuit potestas, excellit authoritas. In the seat of Peter his power liueth, [Page 275] his authoritie exelleth. Therefore the authoritie of S. Peter, is an ordinarie power, which hath an ordinary succes­sion in Christes Church.

These reasons are so plaine, so strōg, so true, so forceable, that I muse what vnderstanding, what wit, or sense they haue, who graunting Peter to haue ben the rock, wherevpon the Churche was built for the time (which thing they must needs graunt, vnlesse they will denie the expresse word of God, ād the perpetual consent of all the Fathers) yet will not graunt that an other like Rocke shoulde be substituted after S. Peter.

Verely seing the reason of S. Peters confession,Vbi eadem ratio, idē iu [...]. and of his power is such as a­greeth to an ordinary office of the Churche, the office also of S. Peters being a rock, of strēgthning his brethren, and of feedīg Christes sheep, is an ordinary of­fice, which hath ād must cōtinue so lōg as there is a Militant house of God [Page 276] in earth, and so long as either any bre­thern are who may be confirmed, or any shepe who nede to be fed.

And verily if S. Peter haue no suc­cessours in his pastorall office, what meaneli. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus, lib. 2. de schismate. Optatus, and Ep. 165. S. Augustine by name to reckon vp such successours of S. Peter as had liued til euery of their age and tyme.

Moreouer, whereas noman (ex­ceptīg the cases of necessity) may rightly preache to them to whom he is not sent:Rom. 10. if, as euerie particular pastour hath (as S. Cyprian teacheth) a portion of the flocke assigned to his gouer­ment, lib. 1. ep. 3 for which he shalbe accōp­table vnto our Lord: so there be not some general pastour alwaies in the Churche, who, beside his particular charge, may send others to preache vn­to them, which are not yet conuerted, and who (when they are conuerted) may erect new Churches, and plant new bishoprikes in those parties: (as S. Gre­gorie [Page 277] did in England) if there be not some,Beda li. 1. c. 23. & 27. Tit. 1. who maie (as Paule saieth) cor­rect the things which lack, and also controll other Bisshoppes when they are negligent, and who may excom­municate euen those Christians which liue in no particular diocese, but being conuersant among the Iewes or pai­nims, do there teache false doctrine, and thence do write hereticall bookes or treatises: if, I say, there be not some general pastours, who may som­mon all other Bisshoppes to Generall or prouinciall Councels, and maie change the former positiue lawes of the Chur­che, when either necessititie or chari­tie requireth it, and who maie either make two Bisshoppes where one was before, or vnite two into one,Greg. li. 2. epist. 31. & 35. or commit the cure of any See or chaire vacant to the next bishop, and so in all cases may prouide for the benefite of Chri­stes flock: it will come to passe, that the house of God shall not be so well proui­ded [Page 278] for, as other meane States and cō ­mon weales are.

But if there be a power in Gods Churche, whereby all the former cases maie be well prouided for, seing it is clere, that the Apostolike power is ended: it must nedes be the high pasto­ral power of S. Peter, which shall pro­cure these affaires. And consequently the high pastoral office of S. Peter is an ordinary office, which ceased not with his own death, but is tranferred to his Successours, as it shal farther appere in the next chapiter sauing one.

That the ordinarie authority of S. Peters primacy belonge [...]h to one Bisshop a­lone. The XIIII. Chap.

SAint Peter had not only the same power of binding and loosing com­mitted to him alone, which was geuen in common to all the Apostles, but also he (as the head of all Bishops) had it specified to him before they had it. For whereas their authority is she­wed to haue ben geuen in the eightēth chapiter of S. Matthew;Matth. 18. and in the twenteth of S. Ihon:Ioan. 20. the authority of S. Peter is described and promised in the sixtenth of S. Matthew,Matth. 16 and it de­pended of the promise of Christ, wher­in he said, thou shalt be called Pe­ter, or the rock: the which promise was made (as it appereth in S. Ihon) not on­ly before the Apostles were chosen,Ioan. 1. but also before they were called to be the Disciples of Christ.

Ad iubai­anum.In consideration whereof S. Cyprian might boldly say: Petro primus Do­minus (super quem aedificauit Ec­clesiam, & vnde vnitatis originem instituit, & ostendit) potestatem istam dedit, vt id solueretur in ter­ris, quod ille soluisset. Our Lord did first geue vnto Peter (vpon whome he built his Church, and from whome he did institute and shew the original or beginning, of vnity) this power, that what soeuer he did loose, it should be loosed in the earth.

NotevvelWhen one hath first that right and power alone, which afterward others haue, if there be any ordinary power of that thing at al, it must nedes be in him who hath it first.Ordinary Order. For whereas all or­dinary power dependeth chefelie of or­der, and whereas in order nothing can be before that which is first:First one. seing S. Peter had first of all the right of the keyes of the kingdom of heauē in him­self alone,Matth. 16. and seing the power of the [Page 281] keyes, that is to saie, of forgeuing and of reteining synnes is ordinarily in the Church, it cānot be otherwise, but that ordinary power was first in S. Peter alone.Augustin in Ioan Tract. 124.

If the pordinary power of binding ād loosing be once in one pastour alone, it must stil cōtinue (cōcernīg that degree) in one alone, if it shal (at the least) re­maine stil the same power. For if it be geuen to many, and be equal in them al, it is not now the same which was pro­mised and geuen first to Peter alone,Monar­chie, ari­stocratie, democra­tie. but an other kinde of power, euen as the gouernment of one prince differ­reth in kind frō the gouernment which is equally common either to manie, or to the whole people.

Seing it is cleere that the Apostles had the same power ouer the sheep, which S. Peter had (cōcerning the ex­ercise of all manner of binding, loosing,Ioan. 20. preaching and baptising) and yet their autoritie could not be the ordinarie [Page 282] power which is in the Church (because they were manie, wheras the ordinary power was ꝓmised before to one alone) it doth insue,Mat. 16. that they had their au­thority delegated ād specially appoin­ted to them extraordinarily.The Apostles po­vver vvas de­legated for their liues only Therefore although they fed the flock of Christ as wel as S. Peter, yet they did it by dele­gatiō, and by special cōmissiō: wheras S. Peter alone was the ordinarie chiefe shepheard, according to whose patern there must still be some one appointed to feed Christes whole flock.

No man is at this day, that which the Apostles were. No man is able to write vs an other Gospel, or to in­crease the Canonical Epistles, or to warrant that he receiued the first fruits of the holy Ghost, Rom. 8. as the Apostles did. That authority died with them, and came to none other after them: ād consequentlie, it was not ordinarie, but onely was committed to a few, du­ring their owne liues. But the ordinary [Page 283] authoritie of this highe administra­tion beganne in one alone, and there­fore it must continew still in one a­lone. There must be still one Rock, Matth. 16 beside and aboue all petite Rockes.

There must be still one shepheard,Ioan. 21. be­syde and aboue many petite shepheards. There must be still one greater then other, Luc. 22. who may be made as the yon­ger, and for whose faith Christ hath prayed, to the end he may strengthen his brethern.

And verily seing (as S. Bernard saith) there is most perfection in vnitie, De consid. lib. 2. and in al diuision some imperfection is included: shal we thinck that Christ hath chosen to gouern his Churche in earth, rather in an vnperfit, then in a perfit sort? Again, sithēs the state of the new testament, must needs be more per­fit, then the state of the Lawe, which brought nothing to perfection: Heb. 7. and yet seing in the Law, the ordinary Pastour was one high Priest ād Bishop [Page 284] (as Aaron and his sede after him) ha­uing manie synagoges and Leuits vn­der his supreme gouernmēt:Num. 3. what rea­son can beare, that the state of our visi­ble Church should lacke also in earth one highe priest and bishop ouer manie particular parishes and dioceses? Thus haue we both natural reason, the exā ­ple of the Law, and the institution of Christ for one cheefe Bishop.

And that this was the mind of all the auncient Fathers also, it appeareth most euidentlie, because they geue such a reason, whie the Church was built vpon S. Peter, the which reason (with­out an extraordinarie appointement of God) cā neuer agree, but onlie to one shepheard who may be aboue the rest. I say, without an extraordinarie ap­pointment of God, for that the Apostles being manie,vvhy tvvelue Apostles gouerned equally. and being all equal, did gouern the church in a maruelouse v­nitie and concord, as if thei had ben al but one man. The which spirit of vnity [Page 285] Christ gaue them, that his institution (of twelue equall gouernours for the time) might wel appere not to be slaun­derouse or hurtful vnto his Churche. For he would neuer haue sent manie with equal authoritie into the whole world, except he had ben able to make them gouern with one minde, spirit, ād hart.

But seing it were stil a miraculouse thing to see twelue, and much more to see manie thousand bisshops and rulers, being al equal, stil to gouern the whole Church in their equal authoritie with­out schisme, (as the Apostles did) that Apostolike authority being only insti­tuted for the better publishing of the faith, doth now cease, and one shepherd is ordinarily alone set ouer al, by whose general power it may appere, that Chri­stes Churche is but one.

For that is the reason which S. Cy­prian bringeth, why Christ built his Churche vppon S. Peter. Ecclesia quae [Page 286] vna est, super vnū, qui claues eius accepit, Ad Iubai­anum. voce Dn̄i fundata est: The church which is one, was foūded by our Lords voice vpon one, who toke the keies therof.De simpli­citate praelatorum. And againe: Quāuis A­postolis omnibus, &c. tamen vt vnitatem manifestaret, vnitatis e­iusdem originē ab vno incipientē sua authoritate disposuit. Although Christ after his resurrection geueth to al the Apostles like power, and saith: As my Father sent mee, Ioan. 20. and I send you, take ye the holy Ghoste: i [...] you doe remitte to anie man his sinnes, they shalbe remitted: and to whom you shall retaine them; they shalbe reteined: yet to the end he myght make vnitie manifest, he disposed by his authority the original of the same Vnitie beginning frō one.

Note, good Reader, that the Church was built vpon one, both that it might be one by the institution and ordināce [Page 287] of Christ, and also that it might appere [...]ne. That it might be one,Vnitatem disposuit, vt vnitatē manifestae ret. that is to say, that all the faithful might be in this [...]ife one visible flocke, because they haue [...]n this life one visible chief shepheard, [...]o whome if al obey,Cyprian. lib. 1. ep. 3. no schismes can [...]e in the Churche: that it might ap­ [...]eare one, because this externall v­ [...]itie of one flocke vnder one shep­ [...]eard in this world, is a signe that the [...]niuersall Churche (whiche was, is, [...]nd shall be) is in deed for euer one, [...]hrough the one shepheard Iesus Christ [...]ho is alone the vniuersal shepheard: whereas Peter had no more but that [...]eece of the flocke cōmitted vnto him, whiche was in the earth whiles he li­ [...]ed.

But if Peters chiefe authoritie, [...]hall be now diuided into manie Bis­hoppes of aequall power: then the Militante Churche, neither is one [...]isible flocke vnder one visible shep­ [...]eard, nor it dooth not signifie, that [Page 288] the vniuersal Church was, and is, and shalbe one by Iesus Christ: but rather it most falselie signifieth, that, as in earth there are thowsands of flocks all equal, and al seueral:Note. so there are as manie Christs, and as manie shepheards ouer the vniuersal Church. Which significa­tiō seing it is impiouse, ād meete for he­reticks only,Matt. 24. who being many, and com­ming al in Christes name, do make so many Christs, as they are mē: I exhorte all men, who fauour the only one vni­uersal head Iesus Christ, to beleue and professe only one general head of thi [...] flock of his which is in earth. For [...] this militant flock is one, by one militāt shepheard: so is the vniuersal Church one flock and one body, through Iesu [...] Christ alone the vniuersal shepheard and head.

Lib. 2. de schism.Optatus sheweth likewise, that S. Pe­ters chaire was singularis, that is to say such a one, as had no fellow and why so? vt in vna cathedra in qua sedit [Page 289] Petrus, vnitas ab omnibus serua­retur, ne caeteri Apostoli singulas sibi quis (que) defenderent, vt iā schis­maticus & peccator esset, qui con­tra singularem cathedram, alteram collocaret. Ergo cathedra vnica quae est prima de dotibꝰ, sedit prior Petrus. (Peters chaire was singularlie one) to thend vnity might be kept of all men in that one chaire, Vnitie kept in one chair wher­in Peter sat. And that the other Apo­stles might not chalenge euery man a chaire to himself: so that he should now be a schismatik and a synner, who shuld place an other chaire against the chaire which hath no fellowes. Peter then satte in the onely chaire, which is the chiefe dourie of those that belong to the Church.

Could any thing be deuised more plaine? the Chaire of Peter is one, singularis vnae, vnica. and onely, and singular, where­in he being formost satte, to thend none other Apostle might erect a con­trarie [Page 290] chaire to Peters chaire. Where­by he meaneth not, that any Apostle would so much as indeauour any such thing, but it was don, to thend no suc­cessour of the Apostles might take any occasion to say: Mie chaire is as good as Peters. For an Apostle also did sitte in my chaire. For this cause, I say, Peter alone had the first chaire and the singular chaire, which had no fellow at all.

S. Hierom also bringeth the selfe same reason, why S. Peter alone was the head and chief of all,Aduersus Iouinian. lib. 1. saying: Prop­terea inter duodecim vnus eligi­tur, vt capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasio. Therefore among twelue one is chosen, that a head being made, the occasion of schism might be taken away. But who was that one? Aetati delatum est, quia Petrus senior erat, ne magister bonus in Ioannem adolescentem causam praebere videretur inuidiae. The [Page 291] age was preferred, because Peter was the elder, lest the good master (Christ) should seme to geue occasion of enuie, if he had chosen the yong man Saint Iohn.

If then Peter was the one who was chosen, and if he was chosen of Christ to take away the occasion of schisme: one chiefe pastour must still continew, stil to take away the occasion of schism. for S. Peter was not made the Apost­les head, as though the Apostles them­selues had ben in daunger to make a schisme (it were a madnes to thinck so of those blessed vessels of God) but his primacie (as Leo doth record) was a plat foorme for other bisshoppes,Serm. 3. in anniuers. assump. cūctis re­ctoribus Petri for­ma propo­nitur. who should haue lesse grace, and would haue more pride: that they might vnder­stand, how themselues ought not to dis­daine to haue one head sette ouer thē, if the very Apostles had a head a­mong them. For their dedes are our instruction.

If then a head was set ouer the Apo­stles, for their sakes who should be pa­stours afterward, what extreamitie of follie is it, to make S. Peter alone a head ouer them,A fortiore who least of al needed a head: and to leaue our weake prelats al without a head? Who (many of them) neede not only a head, but also a diligēt and a seuere head.

Here might I worthely fall into a commō place, and shew, that according to the saying of S. Cyprian, heresies haue sprong of none other cause so much, Lib. 1. epi­stol. 3. as for that one iudge hath not bene acknowledged in the steede of Christ for the tyme, to whō the whole brotherhod might obey. The which saying if it be veri­fied (euen by M. Iewels and M. Nowels confession) in euery particular diocese: how much more is it true, that the whole Churche conteining certaine thowsands of dioceses, must haue one iudge for the tyme, to whome the [Page 293] whole brotherhod should obeie, to thend heresies and schismes may be auoided?

For if one iudge be so necessarie, that one litle shere and diocese can not lack him, but that (whiles one parish priest disdaineth an other) the diocese falleth straight into a schism▪ can the whole Church being spread through­out the world lack the same one iudge,A fortiore and yet not fall into schismes? Or shall the part be prouided for, and shall the whole remain without so good a proui­sion? But this argument is begon al­redie betwene M. Dorman and M. Nowel. And we haue manie a day looked, what M. Nowel wil answere to it.

Farthermore, we neuer found, nor shall finde one woorde or syllable in the whole new testament, where it maie appeare, that euer Christ com­mitted anie particular companie of the faithfull men (who then liued) to [Page 294] any one apostle or disciple, who might be residēt with thē alone, as their only Pastor. The partes and mēbers of Christes whol militāt flock which are now made here, ād there, were instituted by th'A­postolike and Ecclesiastical authoritie, not surely without the special pro­uidence and inspiration of the ho­ly Ghost, Tit. 1. Act. 14. Leo. ep. 87 but yet not immediately by Christ, but through his wil by mans authoritie. And therefore the bounds of any parrissh or diocese, may for pro­bable causes be changed againe by an o­ther man,Greg. li. 2 ep. 31. who hath such like authori­tie to change the bounds of parisshes as they had, who first made them.

Particular flocks then are volunta­rie, and likewise particular pastours. But one flock and one pastour, is of ab­solute necessitie in the earth, ād so doth S. Cyprian witnesse: Deus vnus est & Christus vnus, L. ep. 8. & vna Ecclesia, & Cathedra vna super Petrū Do­mini voce fundata. There is one God [Page 295] and one Christ, and one Church, ād one chaire, foūded vpō Peter by our Lords voice. Behold,One Chaire. this one chair which is foūded vpon Peter, must nedes be ment of the one pastoral preeminence which Christ him self did institute in the militant Church.

This mater standing so, shal we say that the Church of Christ continueth in the earth or no? If it doe continue, shal Christes owne absolute institution continue aboue the vertuouse, but yet voluntarie institution of men? or shal the good and voluntarie institution of mā preuail more thē the most perfit in­stitutiō of Christ? Men made many par­ticular flocks according as they thought most conuenient for this or that place, and they did set ouer them many parti­cular pastours, somwhere a Priest, and somewhere a Bishop. Christe made in al but one militant flock, which should consist both of Iewes and Gentils, and did set ouer it Saint Peter one general shep­heard. [Page 296] And there was made (euen in earth after Christes ascension) one sheepcote, Ioan. 21. Ioan, 10. and one shepheard.

Shall now these many flocks, and manie shepheards, which men appointed, cō ­tinue stil: ād shal not the one flock, and the one shepherd which Christ assigned much more continue? Forasmuch as a flock of sheep is one by the force of one pastor, if the pastor in earth be not one, the flock in earth is not one.Credo v­nam Ec­clesiam. But al mē beleue one militāt church, which is the flock of Christ in earth: therfore al men ought to cōfesse one militāt shepheard of the same flock in earth also. For al­though the Churche be one moe wayes then by one shepherd, yet if Christ had not meant, that his Churche should be one flock, not only for hauing one faith, one baptisme,Ephes. 4. or one spirit, but also for hauing one shepheard: he would neuer haue said: There shalbe made one sheepcote, and one shepheard.

Ioan. 10.But now, seing he faith: I haue o­ther [Page 297] sheepe, which are not of this fold (to wit, of the Iewes synagog) and I must bring those, and they shal heare my voice, and there shalbe made one fold (or flocke) and one shepheard: it is euident, that as the Iewes and the Gentils, beside the vnitie to come in heauen, are one fold and one flock in this world: euen so, that they haue one temporal shepheard in this world, beside Christe the euerlasting shepheard.

Which thing sith it is so, is it possi­ble, that any Protestant wilbe so iniu­riouse to Christ, as to preferre the good institution of S. Paule (who planted one Church at Corinth,Rom. 16. Act. 14. an other at E­phesus, and the third at Athens) before the absolute and perelesse institution of Christ, who in the whole earth plāted one great Church, wherof he made one great shepheard vnder himself the v­niuersal shepheard?

I see, that the Protestantes talke [Page 298] much of Gods word, but the word they speak of, is writen in no Gospel.

They will haue many flockes and many shepheards to continue stil, nei­ther doe we denie it, because it was so instituted by the Apostles: but the Ca­tholikes wil much more haue all these flocks to be only one church in earth, be­cause thei are al to be reduced vnto the obedience of one chiefe shepheard in earth, which was the institution of Christ. Either let the text be named, where Christe did institute many pa­rishes, ād many dioceses, or seing there is none such, and on the other side seing we bring a plain text, where it is said to one pastour,Ioan. 21. feed my sheep, let not the order vertuouslie taken afterward by the Apostles be so mainteined, that the former appointment of the Sonne of God be thereby made voide. Either let both orders take place (as with the Ca­tholikes they doe) or if one of the two shal needs be disapointed, let vs rather [Page 299] haue in al but one chiefe shepheard, as Christ immediatly left the mater, then to haue many, and not to haue one.

Moreuer to what other thing doth al the whole order of the Church tend in earth, but only to an vnity?The vvhol gouernmēt of the militant Churche tēdeth to vnitie. Why is one Curate in a parish set ouer many fami­lies and houses? Why is one Bishop in a diocese set ouer many parishes? Why is one Primate or Metropolitane in a prouince set ouer many Bishops? Why are al the primates of one quarter of the world, reduced vnder one Patriarch? but only euermore to shew, that the gouernmēt of the Church tēdeth by many midle vnities,Ep, 82. ad Anastasiū Thessal. to one supream pastoral vnity in this life. Whervpō Leo saith: Magna dispositione ꝓuisū est, vt essēt in singulis prouincijs singuli, quorū inter fratres haberetur pri­ma sentētia, & rursus quidā in ma­ [...]oribus vrbibus cōstituti, sollicitu­dinē susciperēt ampliorē, per quos ad vnā Petri sedē vniuersalis Ec­clesiae [Page 300] cura conflueret, & nihil vn­quam a suo capite dissideret. It was ordeined with great prouidence, that there should be in euery prouince one, whose iudgemēt (or sentēce) might be chief among the brethern. And again, that certain being apoīted in the grea­ter Cities,See (M. Ievvel) vvho hath the cure of the vni­uersal Church. should take greater charge, by whom the cure of the vniuersal Churche might flow togeather to the one seat of Peter, and that no­thing might at any time dissent frō his head. Lo, by may primates the cure of the whole cometh to him, who sitteth in S. Peters See, which is at Rome.

Again, seing al Ecclesiastical in [...]itu­tiō and gouernmēt of the Church came from Christ one way or other, it must needs be,Cyp. l [...]b. 1. epist. 3. that euery bishop hath the portiō of the flock (which he go­uerneth) assigned to him by some order or other, takē by Christ himself. But Christ by his own expres wor [...] assigned not, that S. Peter should rule [Page 301] any one peece of the Militant flocke, and S. Iames an other, and S. Iohn the third, but rather by his appointment, S. Peter might rule the self same flock, whiche S. Iohn, or S. Paule, or S. Iames might, and contrariwise, they might rule the same flock which S. Peter did. For all were sente aequallie into the whole world.Matth. 28

Therefore except beside this cōmon commending of the flock indifferentlie to al, S. Peter alone had bene made the chiefe Pastour and head of the whole flock (as in deed he was) and that not onely as an Apostle,Ioan. 21. but as a Bisshoppe and as one ordinarie officer, the like wherof should for euer cōtinue in the Church: we might boldlie saie, that the exāple of hauing any one ordinary Cu­rate, Bisshop, or Metropolitane, in anie one parrissh or Diocese, or Prouince, were vtterly without anie example of Christes institution in the Apostles themselues. And therefore (that aequall [Page 302] institution of many pastours ouer on [...] flock only standing, which thīg the pro­testants doe maintein) it should inuincibly folow, that seing no deuise of man is able to controll the institution o [...] Christ, it were at this day much better, to haue twelue or thirten curates in one parish and so many bishoppes in one diocese, then to haue one alone.

For Christ (if Peter alone were not aboue the Apostles in the chiefe pa­storal dignitie) made thirteen Apost­les to be equal pastours and gouerners of the self same flock,Math. 18. & 2 [...]. and that foorm of gouernment, which Christ ordeined, ought stil to continue in euery particu­lar Church: for who dare change our Lords institution?Cypri. lib. 1. epi. 3. & li. 4. epi. 2 Hieron. in 1. c. epist. ad Titum.

But on the other side, if all the world confesse, that now in one Church, there ought to be at one time, but one bishop, or one pastour, in so much that S. Hierom saith, in vna ciuitate plu­res, [Page 303] vt nun cupantur, Episcopi esse non poterant: In one city there could not be manie bishops, (according as a bishop is now taken to signifie one that is aboue common priests) If whereas once manie priests (according to S. Hie­roms minde) ruled one Church for a tyme equally,In. 1. epist. ad Titum. vt dissen­sicnū plantaria euelletentur. yet for the better auoiding of schismes, that gouernment was chā ­ged, and one bishop was set ouer them al: seing S. Hierom alloweth well the change, as being made for the better, and yet it could not haue ben for the better, if it had wholy lacked a foorm and patern in that gouernment, which Christ hīself appointed to the Churche: seing the same S. Hierom saith,Lib. 1. ad­uersus Io­uianum. that among twelue one was chosen, (ād that by the good master Christ) to thend the occasion of schisme might be taken away: al these thīgs (I say) well weighed and conferred togeather: I may most certainly conclude, that Christ did not only institute S. Pe­ter [Page 304] to be as one chiefe pastour in the whole militant Church according to S. Hieroms expresse meaning, but that also he did institute him alone as an ordinarie officer, according to whose vnity, euery other Church should be at the lēgth ruled by one curate or bishop. For as the twelue Apostles gouerned the flock for a tyme togeather with S. Peter extraordinarily,AEquali­ter inter piures Ec­clesiae cura diuiditur. and S. Peter a­lone gouerned the whole flock ordina­rily: so whiles the Apostles yet liued, some few parishes were gouerned ex­traordinarily by many pastours at once, as S. Hierom thinketh. But as we see most clerely, that the equall gouern­ment of many pastours in any one pa­rish or diocese in the whole world lōg before S. Hieroms tyme was wholy ex­pired: so we may as euidently perceaue (if we be not geuen ouer to a blind hart) that the extraordinarie gouern­ment of the twelue Apostles, or of any other prelates with equal power, was [Page 305] fiften hundred yeres past expired. And that now the onely ordinarie meane to gouerne Gods Churche, as well in the whole, as in the parts, is to haue one pastour alone in euery parish, and one chefe pastour alone ouer the whole mi­litant Church, the which one chiefe pa­stour is the bisshop of Rome, as now it shalbe proued by Gods grace.

That the Bishop of Rome is that one or­dinarie pastour who succedeth in S. Peters chaire, and is aboue al bishops according to the meaning of Gods word. The XV. Chap.

AS Sina, being a mountaine in in Arabia, Galat. 4. is said of the Apostle to be ioyned, or to be nighe vn­to the earthly city of Ierusalem, not so much for the nighnes or affinity of the place, as for the likenes of conditiō (because the self same Law of Moyses, which had ben geuen in Sina, was af­terward [Page 306] continued and preserued in Ierusalem) And as by that meane the Iewes who (at the tyme of the Lawe first receaued) were not bound to Ie­rusalem at all (as the which was then full of Idolatrie) were afterward boūd to come thyther thrise euery yeare, Exod. 23. because the highe priesthood and tem­ple was setled there,Deut. 17. as in the place which God chose: euen so fareth it betwene the chiefe power, which Christ gaue to S. Peter, and the Church or bis­shop of Rome.

Ioan. 21.For albeit when the Church was built vpon Peter, and when he was made chiefe pastour of the same, he were in Palestina, and not in Rome, ād for that tyme was rather accompted the highe bishop of the Circūcision,Galat. 2. that is to say, of the faithfull Iewes, then of the Gentils (who were not then cōuer­ted frō their Idolatrie) yet for asmuch as the same S. Peter (whose primacie is plentifully set foorth in Gods worde) at [Page 307] the length setled himselfe at Rome by Gods appointment,Iren. lib. 3 cap. 3. Tertul. de praescript. and left a successour there: for this respect I may wel affirm that the Bishop of Romes Primacy is cōmended and warranted by Gods own worde.

And seing it hath ben already de­clared, that S. Peter alone, according to the first litteral sense, was both the rock, Matth. 16 wherevpon Christ promised 1 to build his Church, and also the pa­stour,Ioan. 21. who as he loued Christ more 2 then other, so he had authoritie to feede Christes flocke more then anie other Bisshop: Item that the 3 power of Peter was ordinarie, and must continue still in the Church of God: Item that it must continue in 4 one chiefe shepheard onlie: Now if I shew, that the Bisshop of Rome is that one ordinarie chiefe Shep­heard, who succedeth in the said Au­thoritie of Saint Peter, how can it be auoided, but that the Supremacie [Page 308] of the Bishop of Rome is auouched and taught by Gods owne word?

Egesippus lib. 3 c. 2. Iren. lib. 3 cap. 3. Euseb. hi­stor. lib. 2. c. 14.First, not only al the histories, all holy writers, and the general tradition of all ages haue testified, that S. Peter came to Rome (notwithstanding some brainesick men woulde now persuade the contrarie) but also the selfe same thing is witnessed by the expresse word of God, when S. Peter saith in the end of his own epistle,Petrus in epist. 1. c. 5 salutat vos Ecclesia, quae est in Babylone col­lecta. The Church which is gathered together in Babylon, saluteth you. For there he called Rome Babylon: Be­cause as Babylon was named of the cō ­fusion of tongs, and had in it (whiles it was the seat of the monarchy) al maner of nations, and consequētly al maner of vices: euen so had Rome (being now the seat of the Romane Empire, when S. Peter wrote thence) al maner of ton­ges, of nations, and of vices in it. And of this mind was that Auncient Fa­ther [Page 309] Papias, Euseb. hi­stor. lib. 2. c. 15. & Graecae scholia. and diuerse other holie writers concerning the same place of S. Peters epistle.

Neither did S. Peter only come to Rome, and preache at Rome for a tyme, but he also died there, ād so died there, that it appered euidently God would haue him die no where els. For where­as (according to the duty of the chiefe pastour) he came to Rome chiefely to saue his flocke there from the raging furie of Simon Magus the capitaine of al heretiks (who began to be wor­shipped for a God in Rome) whē by his praier he had caused the deuils who ca­ryed Simon Magus a long in the ayer,Euseb. li. 2 c. 13. & 14. & 15. Egesippus lib. 3. c. 2. to let him fall (whereupon his death in­sued shortlie after) the Emperour Ne­ro (who toke no small delight in the sorcerie of Simon Magus) being sore offended with S. Peters dede, sought straight waies his apprehension and de­struction.

At that tyme the Christians being [Page 310] verie loth to be depriued of so good a pastour as S. Peter was,Amhros. post epist. 32. lib. 5 with much intreating and many teares praied him to goe out of the way, and to saue him­selfe. At whose requeste Saint Peter (otherwise vnwilling therevnto) beganne to take his iourney out of the citie.

But when he was come to the gate, he seeth Christ comming toward him, whome he adoring said, Domine quo vadis, Ambos. e­pisto. lib. 5. post epi. 32 O Lord, whether goest thow? Christ said vnto him, venio Romam iterum crucifigi. I come to Rome to be crucified againe. Peter vnderstoode thereby, that Christ would suffer in him at Rome, who suffereth in euery of his members, not by paine of bodie, but by compassion of pitie, or rather by the greatenes of glorie which is gotten to him by the victoriouse death which his Saints are put vnto.

Vpon this vision Peter returned againe into the Citie of Rome, and [Page 311] being taken, he was putte to death vppon the crosse with his head down­ward: so that Christ himselfe appoin­ted Rome to be the place, where S. Pe­ter should rest.

This matter is witnessed,Lib. 5. post epist. 32. Egesip lib. 3. cap. 2. not onelie by Saint Ambrose, but also by Egesippus, who was a very auncient writer, euen straight vpon the tyme of the Apostles: albeit his worcke being translated into Latin, seemeth to haue certain names of Cities added by him, who did translate it about the tyme of S. Ambrose, and of Ruffinus.

Neither is it to be douted, but S. Luke would haue writen the same appearing of Christ vnto S. Peter (as wel as he wrote the appearing of Christ vnto S. Paule) if he had gon so farre forward in his storie of the Acts of the Apostles.Actor. 9. But seing he did not conti­nue his narration vntill the death of S. Peter, and of Saint Paule, we must needes credit those faithfull auncient [Page 312] witnesses, who reporte the same. By which historie we learne that Christe (who might easilie haue graunted the the glory of Martyrdom to his Apostle in any other place) had a special regard that both hee,Vvhy S. Peter shuld die in Rome. and his fellow Apostle S. Paul, might die in Rome. Where­of I find diuerse causes alleaged in the Fathers.

1 Augustini de sanctis serm. 27.One is, for the glory of the Apostles, ne alteri Roma deesset, that Rome might not lacke to either of them, or that they might not lacke the glory of the chiefe Citie Rome, concerning the place of their Martyrdom.

2 An other is, for the destruction of superstition:Augustin. ibidem. Vt vbi caput super­stitionis erat, illic caput quiesce­ret sanctitatis. Et vbi gentiliū prin­cipes habitabant, illic Ecclesiarum morerentur. That where the head of superstition was, there might be the head of holines. And where the Princes of the Gentils dwelt, there the [Page 313] Princes of the Church might die. 3

The third cause is, for the honour of the west Church.Ibidem. Cum Dominus orientis regionem propria illustra uerit passione, occidentis plagam ne quid minus esset, vice sui Apo­stolorum sanguine illuminare di­gnatus est. Et licet illius passio no­bis sufficiat ad salutem, tamen eti­am horum Martyrium nobis con­tulit ad exemplū. Whereas our Lord hath made the East part lightsom with his owne passion: he voutsafed in his steed (that it might be no lesse) to geue light vnto the west quarters by the bloud of his Apostles. And albeit our Lords passion suffiseth vs for saluation, yet their Martyrdome also hath done vs good for example.

The fourth cause is,Leo serm. 1. in nata­li Petri & Pauli. for the spreading 4 of the Gospel: Vt lux veritatis, quae in omnium gentium reuelabatur salutem, efficacius se ab ipso capi­te, per totum mundi corpus effun­deret. [Page 314] That the light of the truthe (which was reuealed for the saluation of al nations) might spread it self more effectuouslie frō the very head through out the whole bodie.

Now, forasmuch as God vsed the Ci­tie of Rome as a most special meane, wherby to enlarge and spread his faith through al the world which obeied that one citie, it came also to passe, that the same citie per sacrā B. Petri sedē ca­put orbis affecta, Leo, ibidē. latius praesideret religione diuina, quàm dominati­one terrena. Being made the head of the worlde, through the holy See of S. Peter shuld rule more largely by Gods religion, then by earthly dominion.

Lib. 6. epist. 37. Petrus enī (saith S. Gregorie) subli mauit sedē in qua etiā quiescere & praesentē vitā finire dignatus est.

For Peter hath lifted vp a high the See wherin he also voutsafed to reast, and to end this present life. Marke, that the glory and prerogatiue of the Romaine [Page 315] Church is most speciallye imputed to S. Peter.

For although two Apostles died in one Citie, at one time, for one truthe of Christes Gospel: yet they left not two Chaiers or successions there.Iren. lib. 3 cap. 3. August. ep. 162. 165. Neither is the Bisshop of Rome called the succes­sour of S. Paul, or said to sit in his chair, but onely in the Chaire of Peter, as the whole practise of the Church, and all the writings of the Fathers doe witnesse.

Whereby we are infourmed, that Rome is the place chosen by Christ him selfe, where S. Peters Chaire shoulde reast.Ambros. lib. 5. post ep. 32. In Ponti­ficali. For S. Peter retourninge to Rome vppon the former vision, didde before his death consecrate S. Clement Bisshoppe cui & Cathedram (saieth Damasus) vel Ecclesiam omnem commisit, dicens. To whome he com­mitted also his chaire, or al the Chur­che, sayinge: Sicut mihi guber­nandi tradita est à Domino meo [Page 316] Iesu Christo potestas ligandi sol­uendi (que), ita & ego tibi committo. &c. As the power of gouerning, of bin­ding and loosing, is committed to mée of my Lord Iesus Christ, euen so I com­mit to thée also, that thou maist ordein others by whom diuerse causes maie be disposed, and such acts (as be not meet for the Church) may be repelled, and thou must not be found geuen to the cares of this world, but onely endeuour to geue most leisure to prayer, and to preaching vnto the people.

Clemens in epist. 1.The like report S. Clement himselfe maketh of this commission, whiche S. Peter gaue to him, whose Epistle Ruf­finus turned into Latine aboue eleuen hundred yeres past:Ruffinus in Praefati­one Reco­gnit. and in the preface whiche he maketh to the Recognitions of S. Clement, he so wel declareth that Epistle of S. Clement to haue bene of ful credit in his time, and before, that he answereth such obiections as might seme to make against that which is said [Page 317] in it. Tertullian also cōfesseth,De prae­script ad­uersus hae­ret. that the Church of Rome doth shew eui­dence, that S. Clement was ordeined of Peter.

And S. Hierom namely saith:In Cata­logo. Pleri (que) Latinorū secundū post Petrū Apostolū putant fuisse Clemētem. The most part of the Latins think Clement to haue ben second (or next) after Peter the Apostle. And in an other place he saith:Aduersus Iouin. Clemens successor Apostoli Petri scribit epistolas. Clemens the successour of Peter the Apostle wri­teth Epistles. Leo the second, Maria­nus, Scotus, and diuers other, are of the same iudgement. Now wheras Linus and Cletus by the life time of S. Peter (as Damasus and Ruffinus do witnesse) did administer many things belonging to the Bisshoprike (as being in the ex­terior matters coadiutours of S. Peter) the Grecians, who were farther absent,Vbi supra and were lesse expert in the Romaine affaires, supposed Linus to haue bene [Page 318] chosen next after S. Peter. Whereas Clement was onely chosen, but Cle­ment (as other think) yelded to Linus for a time, as to his elder.

Howsoeuer that be, whether Linus or Clement practised that high auto­ritie, once S. Peters Chaire was setled at Rome, not without the special pro­uidence of Christ. In so much that A­thanasius writeth, that S. Peter and Paule audierūt, In Apolo­gia de fu­ga sua. oportere se Romae Martyrium subire, heard that they must suffer martyrdom at Rome. And what so euer hearing he mea­neth, surely he meaneth it of a hearing which came from God, either by their owne vision, or by some prophetical re­uelation, such as both they did wel be­leue, and we also ought to credite.

But to come neare to our present purpose, S. Irenaeus speaking of the suc­cessions of Bisshoppes in those Chur­ches whiche the Apostles had first instituted: calleth the Church of Rome [Page 319] Maximam, & antiquissimam, Lib. 3. ad­uersus he­reses. c. 3. & omnibus cognitam, à gloriosissi­mis duobus Apostolis, Petro & Paulo fundatam & constitutam.

The greatest Churche, and most aun­ciente, and knowen to all menne, being planted and setteled by twoo moste gloriouse Apostles, Peter and Paule.Ibidem.

Ad hanc Ecclesiam, propter potentiorem principalitatem, ne­cesse est omnem conuenire Ec­clesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt vn­dique fideles. To this Church, for the mightier principalitie, or au­thoritie of gouernement, euery Chur­che, that is to saie, the faithful which are round about, must needes come or agree.

Whereas then euerie Churche hath a certaine principalitie or au­thoritie of gouernemente committed to it by Christe, throughe whiche principalitie, it maie preache the [Page 320] faith,Tit. 3. ouercom synnes, and heresies, and excommunicat open synners and here­ticks: The Church of Rome being foun­ded and planted by the most gloriouse Apostles hath potentiorem prin­cipalitatem a mightier principalitie then any other Church. For it is a wil­full ignorance whereas Ireneus spea­keth only of the successours and traditions of faithfull Churches, In his Re­ply 244. for M. Iewel to say (as he hath don) that the mightier principalty here mentio­ned is meant of the Ciuil Dominiō and of the Roman Empire, as though Ire­neus had spoken any syllable in that place of the Roman Empire.

He spake of the Churches which the Apostles had founded and instituted,The Churche of Rome is the grea­test. among which he calleth the Church of Rome maximā the graetest. Why so, but because it was founded of the greatest Apostle? ād how foūded? For if S. Peter had only made a bishop thereof, as he did of diuerse other Churches: surely [Page 321] therby it had not ben greater then the other. But because he being the graetest of th' Apostles (asHist. lib. 2. cap. 14. Eusebiꝰ ād S.In epist. ad Galat. cap. 2. Hie­rō speake) left in Rome a Successour in his own primacy, that is to say, a rock, ād a chief shepherd, as great as hīself had bē, therfore it was the greatest Church in the worlde. And thence cometh the prīpality wherof this aūciēt father spea­keth.Rome is the most auncient Churche. S. Ireneus calleth the same Chur­che of Rome ātiquissimā the most aū ­cient Church. how so? was not Ierusalē and Antioche before it? Yeas verily in time of hauīg a bishop ād of ꝓfessing the faith: but not in the ꝑpetual honor ād residēce of the chief bishop. For Peter was the first ād chief bishop of the new testamēt. In him was the roote, the fountain, the head of al bishoply power,De simpli­citate praelatorum. ād frō hī (as S Cyprian witnesseth) priestly vnity toke his beginning touching the ministery of the new testament: and for that cause his successors being reckoned (as in deede they are) one with him, [Page 322] (concerning his office of feeding Chri­stes sheepe) cause the Church of Rome stil to be the most auncient and the mother Church of the Romaine cir­cuit,Metropo­lis ad So­litariam vitam a­gent. as also Athanasius doth name it: For this cause the mightier princi­palitie is in the Church of Rome. And for as much as the same succession of Peter is now at Rome which was in the tyme of Ireneus, the same Church is still the greatest and the most aunci­ent Church wherunto all other faithful mē ought to resort, by reson of the mightier principality or preeminēce therof.

S. Cyprian confesseth the chaire, that is to say, the authority of S. Peter to be at Rome. For whereas certain factiouse hereticks sailed from Carthage to Rome as intending to complaine vpon S. Cy­prian and the other bishops of Afrik to Pope Cornelius: S. Cyprian writeth thus of that matter: Audent ad Petri Cathedrā atque Ecclesiam prin­cipalem, Li. 1. epi. 3. vnde vnitas sacerdota­lis [Page 323] exorta est, à schismaticis & pro­phanis literas ferre, nec cogita­re eos esse Romanos, quorum fi­des Apostolo praedicante laudata est, Rom. 1. ad quos perfidia habere non possit accessum. They dare carie let­ters from scismatical and prophane mē, to the chair of Peter, Principal Church. and principal Church, whence the priestly vnity began. Neither do they consider them to be Romans, whose faith is praised by the report of the Apostle, to whome in­fidelitie can not haue accesse.

In this sentence al the priuileges of S. Peters supremacy are acknowleged to be at Rome.

First, there is S. Peters chaire, to 1 wit, his ordinary power of teaching and of iudging ecclesiastical matters.

Again, there is the prīcipal church 2 or flock of Christiās: verily because they are gouerned by Cornelius the Bisshop of Rome, who succedeth in the pastoral office of the prince of the Apostles. [Page 324] For otherwise Ierusalem might haue seemed the mother Church to all Chri­stians, were it not that S. Peter com­mitting Ierusalē to the gouernment of S. Iames, caried his own autoritie with him, and left it all at Rome.

3 Thirdly, how is it said, that the vnity of priests or of bishops (for sacer­dos cōteineth both dignities) begā at the Church of Rome, but because it hath the whol pastoral autority of Peter in whō the beginnīg of al ecclesiasticall p̄eminēce was,Ioan. 1. Matth. 16 because he first was ꝓmised to be called Peter, that is to say, the rock, ād, to haue the keies of the kīgdō of heauē geuē to hī? but take away S. Peters prerogatiue, ād the Church of Rome is not the beginnīg of priesthod, but rather Ierusalem or Antioche.

4 Fourthly, this word vnity doth im­port that as Peter alone had in him the whole power of the chief shepheard in earth (which can be but one) so Corne­lius the successour of Peter hath in him [Page 325] the same power: and so vnity cōtinueth stil in the succession of Peter, not euery vnity, but priestly vnity, because he sit­teth in Rome, by whom and in whō al priestes ād bishops are one, whiles they al (concerning their gouernment and iurisdiction) are ouerseen, are cōfirmed and fed of him, who is without fellowes in his supremacy.

Farthermore when S. Cyprian saith, 5 infidelity cā haue no accesse to the Romās, what other thing is that, then to say,Lucae 22, that in the church of Rome he ruleth, for whose faith Christ praied? For what flock cā be sure to be alwaies safe frō infidelity except it be warrāted by Iesus Christ the only safegard of his Church? Adde hereunto that the same 6 S. Cyprian calleth Rome Ecclesiae ca­tholicae matricē & radicē, Lib. 4. e­pist. 8. the mo­ther and roote of the Catholik Church. Verily because thēce al bishoply autority of feedīg Christes flock did sprīg first, ād is cōtinually nourished ād mainteined.

7 Did not S. Cyprian confesse Cornelius to haue receiued the appellation of Ba­silides lawfully out of Spaine,Lib. 1. ep. 4 albeit he shew also, that Basilides for his part, did vniustly appeal, and did deceiue the Pope by false suggestion and euil report?

8 Last of al, S. Cyprian requireth Ste­phanus the Pope,lib. 3. ep. 13 to depose Marcia­nus the Bisshop of Arles in Fraunce. Whiche surely to doe in an other pro­uince, is a signe that the Pope of Rome is aboue other Bisshops. Thus did that holy Martyr defend both the right and the practise of the Church of Rome.

9 The which thing is the more nota­ble in S. Cyprian,Cyprianus contra e­pist. Ste­phani. because he otherwise dissenting from the opiniō of Pope Ste­phanus (concerning the baptizing of such in the Catholike Churche, as had ben baptized before of the heretiques) did not yet for the gredy defense of his own opinion, denie the prerogatiue of the Bisshop of Rome, but therein she­wed, that not withstanding his pri­uate [Page] error, he kept stil the vnitie of the Militant Church, in acknowleging the visible head therof.

Nouatus taught falsely, that those who had once denied Christe, or had committed greate and mortall sinnes, might not be admitted afterwarde, by Christian Priestes or Bisshops to do pe­naunce, nor to their old state of grace. With which heresie, a Christian Priest (who was named Hippolytus,Hyppoli­tus. because he was torne in peeces with wild hor­ses) was for the time deceiued. But for asmuch as the said Hippolytus did otherwise loue Christ so hartelie, that he was cōtent to die for his name: that the said death might not be vnprofita­ble to him, God of his great mercie re­uealed to him, the true Catholike faith and religion before his death. The whiche true faith he did not keepe to him self, but as wel for the recompense of his own euil example, which he had geuen whiles he followed that heresie, [Page 328] as also for the instruction of others, he had grace to confesse the same.

For when he was now leaden to the place of his Martyrdom, the Christian people came about him, ād asked which was the better religiō, whether the Ca­tholike, or els that of Nouatus? to whom he answered thus: as Prudentius doth recite.

1 Marke these degrees, auoid schi­smes and diuisions. Before the time [Page 329] of Nouatus, there was but one faith: after him, there began to be two faiths. He then diuided the former faith.

Auoid ye the diuisiō, ād restore your 2 selues to the Catholik peple whi­che were spread euery where before Nouatus was borne. Let one faith 3 preuail. Which one? That which is in the most aūcient Church. Which 4 is that? The which Paul ād the Chair of Peter kepeth. What is the Chaire 5 of Peter? The Bisshop of Rome, who sitteth in that Chaire. So that he goeth from Schism, to the Catholikes, and he sheweth where the Catholikes are by one faith without diuision. That one faith is sene in the auncient Churche, And is kept by the Bisshops of Rome.

May we not now say, according to the exāple of Hippolitus to our Country mē, auoid the Schismes? May we not say, restore your selues to the Ca­tholike people? Follow not the two faiths whiche are now stirring, but [Page 330] let that one faith preuaile which is preserued in the auncient Churche of Rome, and kept there in the Chaire of Peter? Doth any man doubt, but that the Pope of Rome is elder then Luther, then Wiclef, then Berengarius? Re­store your self then to the old faith, to the chaire of Peter, therein you maie reast without al feare. Let your Pa­stour S. Peter answere for you, if that See can deceiue you: yea let Christ an­swere for you, if it be possible, either the faith of Peter, which he praied for, to faile in it selfe, Luc. 22. or not to streng­then others. It is the Rocke planted by Christ: build vpon it without feare, and no fluddes or windes of heresie shall at anie time ouerthrowe your house.Matth. 7.

Athanasius the second Patriarch in all the world, and in honour next vnto the Bisshoppe of Rome, Pau­lus the Archbisshoppe of Constantino­ple, whiche seate afterwarde came to [Page 331] be preferred before the Patriache of Alexandria, Marcellus the Bis­shoppe of Ancyra, Asclepas the Bis­shoppe of Gaza, and Lucyanus the Bi­shoppe of Hadrianople, being al Gre­cians, all of the East Churche, but so farre distant one from the other, that there was no part of the East Churche whiche to some of them did not be­long: all these, I saie, being expelled not by one or two, but by Councels of other Bisshoppes, comming from di­uerse quarters met together at Rome, in the daies of Pope Iulius, of whome Sozomenus (him selfe also a Grecian) writeth in this wise.

Athanasius relinquens Alexandriam, Romam prosectus est. Tripart. lib. 4. c. 15 Cō ­tigit autem eodē tempore etiā Pau lū Cōstantinopolitanū Pōtificem illuc vna cōcurrere, & Marcellum Ancyrae, Asclepā (que) Gazae. Quasi sub­uertisset altare. Qui dū Arrianis esset aduersus, calūniam passus ab his, quasi subuertisset al­tare [Page 332] dānatus est. Quasi subuertisset altare. Pro quo Gazeo­rū Ecclesia Quintiano cōmittitur. Lucianus autem Hadrianopolite [...] Episcopus, ob aliā accusationē ec­clesia sua priuatꝰ, degebat in vrbe Roma. Cognoscens ergo Roma­nus Episcopus crimina singulorū, & omnes Nicaeno Concilio con­cordare cōperiens, Omnium curam ge­rens pro­pter sedis propriae dignitatem. eos in cōmuni­onem suscepit, tanquā omniū curā gerens propter sedis propriae dignitatē, singulis (que) reddidit suas Eccle­sias, et oriētalibꝰ scripsit Episcopis, culpans ꝙ nō rectè tractassent vi­ros inculpabiles de suis Ecclesiis eos expellentes, & ꝙ cōstitutiones Niceni Concilij minime obserua­rēt. Adesse praecepit. Quorū paucos ad certā diē fi­bimet adesse praecepit, vt corā eis ostēderet iustū se super illis protu­lisse decretū. Et deīceps nō se pas­surū interminatꝰ est, nisi ab huius­modi turbis & nouitate cessarent. Et ille quidē haec scripsit. Athana­sius [Page 333] aūt & Paulus epistolas Iulij o­rientalibus Episcopis miserunt, & singulí eorū suas sedes adepti sūt.

Athanasius leauing Alexandria, wēt vnto Rome. It chaūced him euē at the same time to meet there Paul Bishop of Constātinople, and Marcellus of An­cyra, and Asclepas of Gaza. Which As­clepas being an aduersarie to the Arri­ans, suffered iniurie of them, ād vnder the pretēce,It vvas a great falt in the primitiue Churche, to ouer­throvv an Alter. that he had ouerthrowē an Altar, he was cōdemned. In whose steed the church of Gaza is cōmitted to Quintianus. Also Lucianus the Bisshop of Hadrianople, being depriued of his Church for an other accusation, did re­maine at Rome.

The Bisshop of Rome then discussing the crimes of euery one,Note. ād finding that they did al agree to the Nicene Coun­cel,The B. of Rome hath cure of al. for his ovvn seats sake. did receiue them into the Cōmu­nion, as one that had cure of al, for the worthines of his own See, ād did restore to euery of them their own [Page 334] Churches, writing also to the bishops of the East, and blaming thē for that they had not well handled men not worthy of blame, in expelling them from their Churches, and (likewise blamed them) in that they had not obserued the cōsti­tutions of the Nicene Coūcel. of which (Arrian bishops) he commaunded a few to appere before him at a certain day, to thend he might shew them, that he had iustly geuen a decree or sen­tence vpon them. And did threaten, that he would not longer suffer it, on­lesse they would cease frō these trobles and nouelties. And thus he wrote. Nowe Athanasius and Paulus did send the letters to the bisshops of the East, and euery of them receaued his owne See.

1 Note first, that these were patri­arches, Archebishops, and Bisshops.

2 Secondlie, that they were Grecians.

3 Thirdly, that the Bisshop of Rome did iudicially inquire, what was laied [Page 335] [...]gainst euery one.

Fourthlie, that he did it tanquam 4 omnium curam gerens, as he that had the charge of all.

Fifthlie, he had this charge, not onlie 5 by the way of loue and charity, but pro­pter sedis propriae dignitatem. For the worthines of his own See.

Moreouer he restored to euery one his 6 own Church ād bishoprik. Yea he did it not in hucker mucker, nor by bare word spoken only at his own howse, or in his own citie: but he wrote letters for ex­ecution 7 thereof to the bishops of the East, reprouing their sentence and iud­gement concerning these vertuouse prelats.

Besides this he cited some of the Bis­shops 8 of the East to be present at Rome by a certain daie, to see the equitie of his Decree.

Last of al, his decree was obeyed and 9 euery of the good Bishops (sendīg Pope Iulius his letters to the other bisshops [Page 336] of the East) receaued their bishopriks againe.

Note vvel.If by the confession of the world the supremacy of Pope Iulius was not now acknowledged, I can not tell what can make a man knowen to be the su­preme head of the militant Church. He iudged the highest patriarches next himself. He meadled with matters as far distant in places and prouinces frō him as lightly could be. He vndid the iudgement of prouincial Councels. He did these things by the prerogatiue of his own See. He was obeyed by the faith­full Christians, and that euen whiles the Councell of Nice was yet fresh in euery mans remembrance, so that no tyrannie or vsurping nede to be feared.

Anno D. 300. In Psalm. 106.Arnobius geueth a marueilouse witnesse for the Church of Rome. Pe­trus in deserto huius seculi per­ambulās, quousque perueniret ad Romam, praedicauit baptismum Iesu Christi, in quo vniuersa flu­mina [Page 337] benedicuntur vsque hodie à Petro. Ipse exitus aquarū in sitim: Vsque hodie. Exire ab Ecclesiae Petri est perire. ita vt qui exierit foras ab Ecclesia Petri, siti pereat. Peter wandering in the desert of this world, preached the baptim of Iesus Christ vntil he came to Rome, Rome. in which (baptism) al fluds (that is to say, Churches) are blessed of Peter euen til this day. Til this daye. He hīself hath made thirsty (or dried vp) the foorthrūnings of the waters: so that, who so goeth foorth from the Church of Peter, he perisheth for thirst.

This auncient writer in his Cōmēts vpon the psalmes, vnderstanding bap­tism by the name of fluds and of wa­ters, doth accompt those only to be bap­tised vnto saluation, who are baptized in the fluds which are blessed of Peter. That is to say, in the founts of those bishops ād priests, who tary in the vnity of the successors of Peter. For except he spake of Peters successors, he could not say vsque hodie, euen til this daie. [Page 338] For wheras Arnobius liued about three hundred yeres after Peter, in saying, al fluds are blessed of Peter vntil this day, He cal­leth euery bi [...]op of Rome Peter. he maeneth that al the ministeries of baptism in the Church are still profi­table to saluation, through that they are don in the vnity and obedience of Pe­ters Church.

But wher is that Church of Peter? for soth in Rome. For Peter wādered prea­ching Christes baptism vntil he came to Rome. Rome. But at Rome he rested, thence the fluds are blessed euen til this day. But if any man of discrea­tion be baptized in those fluds, which are without the Church of Rome, he is without healthfull water, because the grace of vnity, and the participation of of Christes mysticall body the Church, is not geuen to him. For that grace is deriued from Christ the chief head, by Peter the vnder head, vnto all those who are made mēbers of Christes mi­litāt Church. Ita vt qui exierit foras [Page 339] ab ecclesia Petri, fiti pereat, so that he who goeth from the Church of Peter doth perish for thirst. Verily, because he lacketh the grace of the Catholik vnity which is ōly preserued in Peters Church as in the head Church, where it is first planted, and whence it is deriued to all other Churches, which tarie in the vnity thereof.

Negare nō potes (saith Optatus) scire te in vrbe Roma Petro pri­mo cathedram Episcopalem esse collatam, Contra Parmenia nū Dona. lib. 2. in qua sederit omnium Apostolorū caput Petrus, vnde & Cephas appellatus est. In qua vna cathedra vnitas ab omnibus serua­retur. Thou canst not deny, but that thou knowest the bishoply chair to haue bene first geuen in the Citie of Rome vnto Peter,Rome. wherein Peter the head of al the Apostles hath sitten. Where­of he was also called Cephas, in the which one chaire vnity might be kept of all men.

Optatus writing against Parmenia­nus a Donatist, saith vnto him: thou canst not deny, Thou cā ­nest not deny. but that thou kno­west Peter to haue had first the chair at Rome. That heretick could not deny it, but now other hereticks haue profited so well in their facultie, that they are become doctours, in war­rātīg that S. Peter was neuer at Rome. But in the old tyme it was a most fa­mouse, and a most confessed truth. Wel, the chair thē was at Rome. But whose chair? wherin Peter satte. what was Peter? the head of al the Apostles. How proue you that? because Christ named him Cephas, Ioan. 1. that is to say, a rock or stone. For the foundation is the head of the howse, and the rock is the most sure and strong foundation. What is then the end,Note. why this chaire is at Rome? to the end vnity might be kept of al men in that one chaire.

It suffised not to say, that vnitie might be instituted or begun: it must [Page 341] be kept and preserued still. Vnity must be kept. But wherein? Whether only in faith hope, and charitie? So in dede, but not one­lie so, but in the Chaire also. Yea, but in what soeuer Chaire? Nay, in one Chaire. Which one?In one chaire. At Rome in that one, wherein Peter sate at Rome. Be they not blind, who can not see, what Optatus thought of the bisshops of Rome? Yet it followeth, vt iam schis­maticus esset, so that now he should be a schismatike, qui contra singu­larem Cathedram, alteram collo­caret. Who should sette an other Chaire, against the singular Chaire, which hath no fellow: not that there are no more Chaires, but that there are no more such Chaires as that of Rome is.

After that Optatus had writē this much, he goeth forward, shewing, that the said singuler and one Chair wher­in Peter satte, did not onelie conti­new for Peters tyme, but saieth he: [Page 342] Petro successit Linus, The B. of Romr successors in Peters one chair Lino suc­cessit Clemens. Linus succeded to Peter, and Clement succeded to Linus. and so he nameth the Bisshops of Rome in order, vntil the time of Pope Sirici­us, who sate in the said Chaire of S. Peter, in the daies of Optatus. And because Siricius was fellow of the same Communion and faith whereof Opta­tus was,qui noster est socius. he therby concludeth himself to be a Catholike, as in whose side the singular Chaire of Peter is found, which is the chiefe gift and dou­rie, which the Militant Churche hath.

Contrariwise, seing Parmenianus had no fellowship with the Chaire of Peter, nor with his successours, Opta­tus concludeth him and his fellowes,Cōtra Ca­thedram Petri mi­litatis. to be schismatikes. Hearken to this M. Iewel, if any spiritual eares be at al vn­to you. He is a schismatike, who doth not communicate in Religion and faith with the Bisshop of Rome: you doe not [Page 343] cōmunicate with him: therfore you are a schismatike: and consequentlie, your part (except you repent) is in hel fyre with Core, Dathan, and Abyron.Num. [...]0. God saue vs al thence, whiche must be ob­teined by returning to the vnitie of S. Peters Chaire at Rome.

S. Hierom writing to Damasus con­cerning the faith in the Trinitie saith thus in certain places of his Epistle:In Epist. ad Dama­sum. Mihi Cathedram Petri & fidē A­postolico ore laudatam censui cō ­sulendam. Successor Petri. Cum successore Pisca­toris & discipulo crucis loquor.

Ego nullum primum nisi Christū sequens, beatitudini tuae, id est, Super Ca­thedram Petri aedi­ficata. est ad ec­clesia. Ca­thedrae Petri cōmunione cōsocior. Super illam Petram aedificatā Ec­clesiam scio. Quicun (que) extra hāc domum agnum comederit, profa­nus est. Si quis in arca Noë nō fu­erit, peribit regnante diluuio. Nō noui Vitalem, Meletium respuo, ignoro Paulinum. Quicunque te­cum [Page 344] non colligit, spargit: hoc est, qui Christi non est, Antichristi est. I thought best to aske councell of the Chaire of Peter, and of the faith prai­sed by the mouth of the Apostle.Rom. 1. I speake with the Successour of the Fis­sher, ād with the disciple of the Crosse. I, folowing none first but Christe, am ioyned in Communion with thy holy­nesse, that is to say, with the Chaire of Peter. I do know, that the Church is built vpon that Rock. Whosoeuer shal eate the Lambe out of this house, he is prophane. If any man be out of the Ark of Noë during the time of the flud he shal perish. I doe not know Vita­lis, I despise Miletius, I haue no ac­quaintance with Paulinus. Who so e­uer doth not gather with thée, he doth scatter abrode, that is, he that is not of Christ, is of Antichrist.

Who can denie, but that when he faith: he wil aske councel of S. Pe­ters Chaire, he meaneth, that he wil [Page 345] aske Councel of Pope Damasus, who sitteth in his Chaire.Euerie Pope of Rome is Peters su­cessour. The which Pope he calleth the successor of the fissher, and the Disciple of the Crosse, that is to say, the successour of S. Peter, who was a fissher, and who died vppon the Crosse. When he saith: he followeth none as first or chiefe, but Christ: he wel declareth,Christ ab­solutely first. what an infinite di­stāce is betwen Christ, who is absolute­lie first and chief, and any other Pope or Bishop, who is not absolutely firste, but onely so first and chiefe, as S. Pe­ter was. For we aske no more at a­nie time, but that the Pope of Rome be confessed to be so great a Bisshoppe, as Saint Peter was. And as Peter was first after Christe, so after the same Christe, Saint Hierome placeth Damasus, and ioyneth him selfe in Communion with Damasus. That is to say (as himself expoundeth it) with the Chaire of Peter.

Note, I pray you, that Damasus the [Page 346] Pope, and the chaire of Peter is alone. And the Chaier of Peter is the Rocke (saith S. Hierō) whervpon the Church is built. Cathedrae Petri cōiungor. Super illam petrā aedificatā Eccle­siā scio. I am ioyned with the Chair of Peter,Scio. to wit, of the Rock. Vppō that Rock I knowe the Church to be built. There was no doubt of the mat­ter it was a knowledge.

Peters Chair is the RockTo what point are we now come? Not only Peter, but the Chair of Pe­ter is taught to be the Rock whervpon the Church is built. And by the Chaire the Bisshop of Rome is vn­derstanded, who sitteth in the Chaire, as Damasus then did. He is prophane (saith S. Hierom) who eateth the lamb without this house. Exod. 12. That is to saie, there is but one house in al Christendō, and that house is there, where this Churche is acknowleged. Who so ea­teth the Paschal lambe that is to saie, who so receiueth the Sacraments, [Page 347] or is fedde by preaching without that house, where the Pope is go­uernour: he is prophane, he is an Heretike and a schismatike, as Vita­lis, Meletius and Paulinus were.

The Chaire of Peter, that is to saie, the Church of Rome is the same to vs, which the Ark of Noë was to him ād to his childern. He that is not in this fellowship of Rome, shall as surely pe­rish at the daie of iudgement, as they did perish in the flud, who were with­out the Ark of Noë.Gen 7. By these means S. Hierō sheweth what a necessary thing to saluation it is, that a man should ta­rie in that fellowshippe of Christians who beleue and professe their belief as the Bishops of Rome doe.

It is not I that say it, but S. Hierom. Who generally geueth this rule: Who­so euer doth not gather with Da­masus (who was Pope of Rome) he scatereth. What is it, to gather with Damasus? He expoundeth, that it is [Page 348] to be of Christe. What is it to scat­ter? To be of Antichriste. What is Damasus? The Chaire of Peter and the succession of the fissher. Who is with that succession at this daie? The Catholikes,The Ca­tholikes are vvith Peter. called now Papistes, who are all and continue still one flock vn­der one chiefe shepheard. They then are of Christe. Who scatter from the succession of Peter?The Pro­testantes scatter frō Peter. The Protestants, as who make moe heads, and moe shepheards all of equall authoirtie, with­out anie one visible chiefe shepheard, and moe houses without anie one ma­ster. They then are of Antichrist.

Epist. 166.Saint Augustine geueth vs this rule. Coelestis magister, &c. The heauenly maister maketh the peo­ple secure, concerning euil ouer­seers, The Chaire of healthful doctrine. lest for their sakes the chair of helthful doctrine should be for­saken, in the whiche Chaire euill men are euen constrained-to saie good things. For the thinges [Page 359] which they speake, are not their owne, but they are the things of God.

We haue then in the Church a chair of healthful doctrine. Happy were they, who finding that Chaire, might at the lest be sure of the true doctrin of Christ.

You wil say perhaps, it is euery Bi­shops Chaire. If that were so, euery Bi­shop should be cōstreined to speak good things. How could then so many Bi­shops haue ben the inuentours of here­sies, as haue ben sith Christes time? If euerie Bisshops Chaire haue not this priuilege, to be constrained to speake the truthe, and yet there be suche a healhful Chaire in the earth, as really, as euer the Chaire of Moyses was at Ie­rusalem (the which example S. Augu­stine vseth oftētimes to proue,Matth. 23 De Verb. Dom. serm 49. Ep. 166. Et homil. de Pastor. that such another Chair is in the Church) S. Au­gustine might haue eased vs of muche paine, if he would haue named vs the said Chaire.

But lette vs see, whether we can not find it named in him. It followeth: Deus in Cathedra vnitatis, Epist. 166. doctri­nā posuit veritatis. God in the chaire of vnity, hath placed the doctrine of verity. This much then we haue won toward the finding out of that chaire, whiche is constrained to teache the things of God:Cathedra vnitatis. it is the chair of vnity. What is that to say? Verily not only, that it is one certain chaire which it selfe tarieth in vnity, but also that it kepeth vnity in all the states of the Churche.

For if God hath made vs secure (as S. Augustine signified before) that we should not nede to forsake the chaire of the healthfull doctrine, for the faults which are in the gouernours or tea­chers: doutlesse he meaneth that to be the chaire of vnity, which must not be forsaken, but be followed and embra­ced. So that the chaire of vnity is that chaire, which causeth vnity not to be forsaken. For when all other Chaires [Page 351] agree with one principall chaire, and confoorm themselues to it, that must nedes be the chaire of vnity: and cō ­sequently, therein is the doctrine of ve­ritie.

Then the chaire of vnity is that, wherin one pastour sitteth, in whome all other pastours in the earth are one. Inuenio omnes pastores bonos in vno pastore. Homil. de pastoribus. Non enim verè pa­stores boni desunt, sed in vno sunt. Multi sunt, qui diuisi sunt: hîc vnus praedicatur, quia vnitas commen­datur. I find (saith S. Augustine) al good pastours in one pastour. For truly good pastours do not lacke, but they are in one. Those are many, who are diui­ded: here one is praised, because vnitie is commended.

Behold, the one pastour is to be sought for, in whom al other good pastours are one. But this one (say you) of whome S. Augustine here speaketh, is Christ him­self. I confesse: but Christ hath his chaire [Page 352] and seate at the right hand of his Fa­ther in heauen, and therefore S. Au­gustine calleth not his chaire now the chair of vnity, wherein euen euil mē are constrained to speake good things. For in Christes own chaire at Gods right hand there sitteth nor euil nor good man beside himself.

The chair of vnity is in the earth.The chair then of vnity, wherein e­uil men speake good things, must be a chair placed in earth, wherein one pa­stour may sitte, who may for the rate of his measure and ministery make other good pastors to be for the time one, in hī being one, euen as Christ maketh all good pastours, that euer haue bē or shal­be, to be for euer one in him, most singu­lary being one.

Is there then an other kind of vni­ty among pastours, beside that euerla­sting vnity of all good men in Christ? Yea verily ād of that other kīd of vnity S. Augustine saith:Ibidem. Imo verò Domi­nus & in ipso Petro vnitatem cō ­mendauit. [Page 353] Multi erant Apostoli, & vni dicitur: Pasce oues meas. Absit vt desint modò boni pasto­res, sed omnes boni pastores in vno sunt, vnum sunt. Yea our Lord hath also commended vnity in S. Pe­ter himself. There were many Apo­stoles, and it is saied to one, feede mie sheepe. God forbid there should nowe lack good pastours, but al good pastours are in one, they are one thing.

Thus,Vnity is in s. Peter beside the vnity which is in Christ, we haue also found an vnitie in Saint Peter, and that vnitie was not onely to tarie for his own tyme, but to be preserued in the Churche for euer.

There is a temporall vnitie in Saint Peter, and in his successours, by the which vnitie we come afterward to enioye the euerlasting vnitie which is in Christ. For Saint Peter (as the same S. Augustine doth witnesse) bare the figure of the whole Churche, Epist. 165. [Page 354] and that,In Ioan. Tract. 224 propter Apostolatus sui primatum, by reason of the primacy of his Apostleship.

Therefore as the Apostles haue con­tinually successours in their bishoplie and pastoral ministery: so hath S. Peter the prince of the Apostles a continual successour in his primacie, and in his chaire of vnitie, concerning the force of which succession S. Augustine iust­ly saith:Contra epistolam fundamē. In Ecclesia me tenet ab ipsa sede Petri Apostoli, cui pascē ­das oues suas post resurrectionem Dominus commendauit, vsque ad praesentem Episcopatum, succes­sio Sacerdotum. Among other things, which stay me in the Churche, the succession of priests from the very seat of Peter the Apostle (to whom our Lord commended his shepe to be fed after his resurrection) the suc­cessiō (I say) of priests from Peters seat to the present bishoprik, doth stay me in the Churche.

Is there any man so proud, or so wel liking with him self, who if S. Augu­stine were now aliue, woulde not be glad to follow his iudgement in sta­blishing his faith and conscience? He being within litle more then fower hundres yeres of Saint Peters tyme,The suc­cession of S. Peter staied S. August. yet so much wondered at the continu­ance of Saint Peters chaire in the right faith (whereas all other succes­sions had bene spotted with heresies and schismes) that he confessed the succession of Bisshoppes in that Chair of Peter to haue stayed him from being either a Maniche, or an Arrian, or any other thing, sa­uing a Catholike.

For he sawe the promise of Christ so fulfilled in the successours of Saint Peter, he saw the doctrine of ve­ritie so wel fortified in the Chaire of vnitie, that it was no small force to strengthen him in his faith. In so much that he saied in an other place: [Page 356] Si ordo Episcoporum sibi succe­dentium considerandus est, Epist. 165. quan­tò certius & verè salubriter ab ip­so Petro numeramus, cui totius Ecclesiae figuram gerenti: Domi­nus ait, super hanc petram aedifica­bo Ecclesiam meam. Et portae in­ferorum non vincent eam. Petro enim successit Linus, Lino Cle­mens. &c.

If the rew of bishops one succeding to the other, is to be considered, how much more safely, and in dede health­fully doe we number from Peter him self? to whom bearing the figure of the whole Churche, our Lord saieth: vpon this Rock I wil buid my Churche, Matth. 16 and the gates of hel shall not o­uercome it. For Linus succeded to Peter, Clement to Linus: and so he goth forward, vntil he come to pope A­nastasius, who was bisshop of Rome in S Augustines tyme.

Who after all the popes reckoned [Page 357] vp in order, concludeth thus: In hoc ordine successionis nullus Dona­tista Episcopus inuenitur. In this order of succession, no Donatist Bisshop is found. If S. Augustine after four hūdred yeres proued the Donatists to be far from the doctrine of veritie, because in the chair of vnity no Dona­tist was bishop, or because no bishop,A fortiore who succeded in S. Peters chair was a Donatist: what shal we say after a thou­sand fiue hundred yeres?

Lette vs reckon vp all the popes from Saint Peter himselfe, vntill we come to pope Pius the fifth, (who in our dayes sitteth in S. Peters chaire, and is notable for vertue, learning, holinesse, and the grace of working miracles) and in all that order of suc­cession, we shall finde neuer a Lu­theran, neuer a Zuinglian, neuer a Caluinist, neuer an Anabaptist, or a Swenkfeldian.

Who is then so madde as to go from [Page 358] S. Peters Chaire (to whom our Lorde commended his sheep to be fed) to the vpstart Chaire of Luther,Ioan. 21. Caluin, or Zuinglius (to none of whome, nor to anie predecessours of theirs, our Lorde is readen to haue cōmended his sheep) except he be more like vnto the here­tical Donatists, then vnto the moste wise and learned man S. Augustine, who after the Apostles, had scant euer his match in discerning the true faith from falsehod, and heresie or hypocrisy, from the Catholike religion.

He presseth the Donatists euerie where with the breache of vnitie.

And think you, that when they shuld come to talk with him, he would onely say generally to them: Maisters, you are to blame because you are gon from Christ the onely one Pastour? If he should haue come no nere to the mark he shot at, they would quickly haue an­swered:The talk of the Donatists. Syr, we loue Christ, and beleue him as wel as you. We hold him for our [Page 359] onely one Pastour, we obey his voice, why burdē you vs with forsaking him? It is you that haue other Pastours: for you flee to the seat of Peter, and to his successours, whereas we content our selues with the euerlasting Pastour Ie­sus Christ. I trow we are not without one Pastour, so long as we haue him for our Pastour.

But now S. Augustine talketh not only of Christ to them, nor onely of that vnitie which is in Christ, but of that also, which is in the Churche, and in the successours of S. Peter. And ther­fore in his Psalm which he made agaīst the Donatists, hauing shewed that the Prophets, albeit they saw most grieuous faults in the clergie of Hierusalem, yet did not set vp an other Altar, and an other Religion, nor did not break vni­tie, saith at the length vnto the Do­natists:

Venite fratres, In psalme cont. Par. Donati. si vultis vt in­seramini in vite. dolor est cum vos [Page 360] videmus praecisos ita iacere. Nu­merate sacerdotes vel ab ipsa Pe­tri sede. Et in ordine illo patrum quis cui successit videte. Ipsa est petra, quā nō vincūt superbae infe­rorū portae. Come ye, ô brethern, if ye wilbe graffed in the vine. It grieueth vs whē we see you lie thus cut of. Nū ­ber ye the Bisshops euē from the very seat of Peter. and cōsider who succeded whō, in that order. That self is the Rock which the proud gates of hel doe not ouercome.

Is not this a marueilouse witnesse for the Primacie of the See of Rome? First S. Augustin calleth the Donatists to vnitie. To Christ, say you: no doubt of that. But wheras the Donatists na­med Christ as fast as the Catholikes, S. Augustine sheweth them where vnity is in this world, saying: number the Bishops euē from the very seat of Peter. Ab ipsa Petri sede Behold the vine into which in this life we must be graffed. Behold the [Page 361] vnitie wherby we must hold. Nūber the bishops euē frō the self seate of Peter. Higher we can not go in this world. But let vs nūber them. At the lest, let vs see who succeded the ōe after the other. Why shuld we see that successiō, I pray you? Ipsa est pe­tra. that See or successiō is the rock. not only Christ, not only Peter, but the self See and successiō of Peter is the Rocke.The See of Peter is the Rock, Which Rock? that rock, which hell gates do not ouercome. What S. Augustine? You are becom a stark Papist. There was neuer Scholemā, Canonist, Popish priest, no there was neuer any Pope, who said more for the see of Rome then S. Augustin now hath sayd. That See or successō is the rock whiche hel gates doe not ouercome, and to be cut of from that See, is to be cut of frō the vine, whēce the brāches receiue life and nourishmēt. Who is now cut of from that See? Whether the Catholiks who lie in prison for the defense of it, [Page 362] or the Protestantes, who cal it the seat of Antichrist.

To the See of Rome the two Coūcels gathered agaīst Pelagius in Africa ād Numidia sent their decrees,Epist. 90. vt statu­tis nostrae mediocritatis etiā Apo­stolicae sed is adhibeatur autoritas, that the authority of th'Apostolike See may be geuē to the decrees of our mediocrity: they adde also the cause herof, ꝓtuēda salute multorū, & quorundā ꝑuersitate etiā corrigēda for the defense of many mēs saluation, and for the correctiō also of som mens frowardnes.

And wheras Pelagius was absolued in th'East (as it is to be thought, of those Bishops who vnderstood not his crafty meaning) the Coūcel of Carthage doth shew that the Pope was the iudge who ought to examin this questiō:Ibidem. Vtrum Pelagius episcopalibꝰ gestis quae in Oriēte cōfecta dicūtur, iustè visus fuerit absolutus. Whether Pelagius seemeth iustly to haue ben absolued by [Page 363] those Acts, which are said to haue bene made in the East by the Bisshops.

Neither is this required of the Pope only by the way of charitie, but they re­quire his holinesse to take cōpassion of thē pastoralibus visceribꝰ, accordīg to that mercy, which a Pastor ought to haue toward his sheep. And after the absurdity of his opiniōs rehearsed, thus they cōclude: Quaecun (que) alia ab eis obijciuntur, non dubitamus Ve­nerationem tuam, cùm gesta Epi­scopalia perspexerit, quae in Oriē ­te in eadem causa confecta dicun­tur, id iudicaturum, vnde omnes in Dei misericordia gaudeamus. What so euer things els are obiected of them, we dout not but your Reuerēce (whē it hath examined th'Acts, which are said to haue bene made in this be­halfe of the Bisshoppes in the East) wil iudge (or will decree) that thing, wherof we may al reioyse in our Lord.

The whiche Epistle of the Councel [Page 364] of Carthage being receiued,Epist 91. Innocen­tius the Pope praiseth thē, because an­tiquae traditionis exēpla seruātes, keeping the examples of auncient tra­dition, they referred such matters to the iudgemēt of the Bisshop of Rome, scientes quid Apostolicae sedi de­beatur, knowing what is due to the A­postolike See: cùm omnes hoc loco positi ipsum sequi desyderemus Apostolum, à quo ipse Episcopa­tus & tota authoritas nominis hu­ius emersit: quē sequentes tā ma­la iam damnare nouimus, quàm probare laudāda. For as much as all we that sit in this place, desire to fol­low the Apostle him self, from whom the Bisshoplie office it selfe, and all the authoritie of this name sprang: The whiche Apostle, we following, doe now as wellknow how to condemn euil things, as to allowe those things which are to be praised.

What is it then, whiche the aunci­ent [Page 365] tradition deliuered?Epist. 91. Patres non humana sed diuina decreuere sē ­tentia, vt quicquid de disiunctis remotisque prouincijs ageretur, non prius ducerent finiēdum, nisi ad huius sedis notitiā perueniret, vbi tota huius autoritate iusta quae fuerit pronunciatio firmaretur, in­dèque sumerent ceterae Ecclesiae, velut de natali suo fōte aquae cūcte procederent. The Fathers (saith Innocentius) haue decreed, not by mans, but by Gods sentence, that what so euer was done in the Prouin­ces or countries a farre of, they should not accompt it before to be ended, ex­cept it came to the knowledge of this See, where (what so euer had bene iustly pronoūced) it should be strēg­thened by the autoritie of this See, and thence other Churches shoulde take it, as it were waters which should proceede or flowe from their owne na­tiue fountaine.

Likewise the Councel of Mileui­tum wrote from Numidia to the same pope Innocentius:Epist. 92. Quia te Dominus gratiae suae praecipuae munere in sede Apostolica collocauit, mag­nis periculis infirmorū mēbrorum Christi pastoralē diligentiā quaesu­mus ad hibere digneris. Because our Lord hath placed you through the gift of his special grace in the See Apo­stolike, we beseche you, to vse your pastorall diligēce in the great daun­gers of the weake members of Christ.

Marck here, that these bishops of Numidia speak to the Pope as to their pastour, and as to the pastour of the shepe which were vnder them, amōg which bishops it is euident, that S. Au­gustine was, who also writeth to Hila­rius of the same matter in this wise: Iam cùm ista scriberem, Epist. 94. cognoue­ramus in Ecclesia Carthaginensi aduersus eos Episcopalis Concilij conditum fuisse Decretum, per [Page 367] epistolam sancto & venerabili Pa­pae Innocentio dirigendum, & nos de Concilio Numidiae ad eandem Apostolicam sedem iam similiter scripseramus. Now whiles I wrote these things, we vnderstode a Decree to haue bē made in the Church of Car­thage by a Councel of bishops, which was to be directed by an epistle vnto the holy and reuerend Pope Innocen­tius. And we likewise had writen from the Councel of Numidia to the same Apostolike See.

It is then euident, that these two Councels sent their Decrees to the See Apostolike (as also all other Councels were wont to doe) according to the most auncient tradition: and that as 1 wel because the See Apostolike was assured not to erre (as being the Rocke of the faith which was prayed for by Christ himselfe) as also to th'intent all 2 Churches might receaue the soner that Decree, which were deriued to them [Page 368] from the authority of their own head vnder Christ, and of their chiefe shep­heard: 3 and again because the heretiks and theier followers might the soner be either reconciled, or kept downe, when it were once knowen, that the highest court in earth had condemned their opinions.

Wherupon, the Fathers of the Mile­uitan Councel say:Epist. 92. Arbitramus, ad­iuuante misericordia Domini Dei nostri Iesu Christi, qui te & regere consulentem, & orantem exaudi­re dignatur, auctoritati sanctitatis tuae de sanctarum scripturarū au­thoritate depromptae, facilius eos qui tā peruersa & perniciosa sen­tiunt, esse cessuros. We thinck these men, who haue so euil and froward opi­nions,the popes autority is taken out of the holy scri­ptures. wil the soner yeld to the au­thority of your holinesse, being ta­kē out of the authority of the holy scriptures, by the help of the mercy of our Lord Iesus Christ, who voutsafeth [Page 369] both to rule you whiles you consulte, and to heare you when you pray.

Two things are specially to be noted in these words: one, that the autho­rity of Pope Innocentius is taken out of the authoritie of the holy scriptures, verily because it maie be proued by the woorde of God, that the bishop of Rome (who succedeth S. Pe­ter) is the highe shepheard, whose voice al the faithful are boūd to heare. The other point is, in that these Fathers affirm, that Christ ruleth the Pope at his consultatiō: alluding therein to the faith of S. Peter which was praied for,Luc. 22. to thend al his successours might not erre in consulting about matters of Re­ligion.

To which epistle pope Innocentius made answer, praising them, because in doutfull matters they asked him what sentence or iudgement was to be follo­wed,Ep. 93. antiquae scilicet regulae formā secuti, quam toto semper ab orbe [Page 370] mecum nostis esse seruatam. Yee followed (saith Innocentius) the pa­terne of the auncient rule which ye know as wel as I, Note vvel. to haue ben al­waies kept of the whole world.

Marke, that Innocentius douteth not to affirme, that the Fathers of the Councell of Miliuite (among whome Saint Augustine was) did know, that the whole worlde alwayes vsed to referre doutfull matters to the See Apostolike, and that (as it followeth) praesertim quoties fi­dei ratio ventilatur, specially so oft as the matter of faith is discussed.

If anie man saie, that the Pope in dede wrote so, but that he said not true: lette him consyder, that Saint Augustine doth also acknowledge and praise the Popes answer in these words.Epist. 106. Scripsimus ad B. memoriae Pa­pam Innocentium &c.

We wrote to Pope Innocentius of blessed memorie. Ad omnia ille [Page 371] nobis rescripsit, eodem modo quo fas erat, atque oportebat A­postolicae sedis Antistitem. He wrote again to vs to euery point in such sort, as it was right and as it be­came the Bisshop of the Aposto­like See.

What can be now required more? Saint Augustine acknowlegdeth the answere to haue ben mete for Saint Pe­ters successour: and yet shal the Prote­stants now a dayes be suffered to raile at that epistle, which Saint Augu­stine estemed so much, that he ma­keth mention thereof with great com­mendation? Saint Augustine then doth confesse, that, from all quarters of the worlde the Pope of Rome was wont euē in the old tyme to be consulted, as being the general pastour, whose duty it was, to prouide for the whole militant flocke, the particular bishops them selues being comprised therein.

I haue ben somewhat long about S. Augustines doctrine, partlie for the worthines of the man, partly because I perceaue, that our Aduersaries pretend to geue more credit to him, then to any other Father. But if S. Augustine be not cleere for the Supremacy of the bis­shops of Rome, ther was neuer nothing cleere in him. Let this one place be added for a surpluse to the rest.

The bisshop of Carthage (saith he) needed not to care for the multitude of his ennemies, for so much as he saw hī ­selfe to be ioyned in communion, as wel with other countries, whence the Gos­pel came to Afrike it self, as also with the Church of Rome, in qua semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit prīci­patus, Epist. 162. in the which Roman Church the principate or primacy of the Aposto­like chaire hath alwaies florished: not only the chair of the Apostle S. Peter, but also the principal power of the A­postolik chaire did not only stand in the [Page 373] Roman Church, but it florished there: and that not only during S. Peters life, or a litle after, but semper, alwaies. Happy then are we, who til this day cō ­municate in faith with that Aposto­like chaire. And wo to them, that cal the Apostolik chaire, the Seat of An­tichrist.

To goe forward with some other holy Fathers,In Lib. de ingratis. Prosper the Bishop of Re­gium being of the same tyme (though sumwhat yoūger then S. Augustine) and speaking of the condemnation of the heretike Pelagius writeth thus tou­ching the See of Rome.

Pestem subeuntem prima reci­dit Sedes Roma Petri, quae pasto­ralis honoris facta caput mundo, quicquid non possicet armis, Re­ligione tenet. Rome the See of Peter did first cut of (Pelagius) being a pe­stilence which then began to crepe in­to the Churche. The which Rome being made the head of pastoral [Page 374] honour vnto the world, holdeth al that by religion, what so euer it doth not possesse by the sword.

Rome then is the Seate of Peter, the head of Bisshoplie honour, or of Pa­storal power, the which reacheth far­ther, and hath moe Christians subiect to it, because the Vicare of Christe sit­teth there, then euer it had through the mightie Empire thereof.

The selfe same thing Prosper saith in an other place:De vocat. gentium. lib. 2. c. 16 Roma per Apo­stolici sacerdotij principatum am­plior facta est arce religionis, quā solio potestatis. Rome through the chiefedome or primacie of the Apo­stoke Priesthood (or Bisshoplie power) is made greater by the chiefe Castell (or Fortresse) of Religion, then by the Throne of (Imperiall) power.

In anui­uersa, as­sumpt. serm. 2.Leo the Greate, hauing saied that, in Saint Peters Seat his own power liueth, his authoritie excel­leth: [Page 375] in an other place sheweth him­selfe to haue bene the successour of S. Peter and therefore to be the president of the Churche. For thus he writeth to Iulianus the Bisshop.epist. 30.

Memor sum, me sub illius no­mine Ecclesiae praesidere, cuius à Domino Iesu Christo est glorifi­cata confessio, & cuius fides om­nes haereses destruit. I am mind­full, that I am Praesident of the Chur­che vnder his name,Matth. 16 whose confessi­on was made gloriouse of our Lorde Iesus Christe,in epist. 82. & 87. and whose faith de­stroieth al heresies. It were infi­nite, to bring all that Leo saith in this behalfe.

Eulogius the Patriarche of Alex­andria wrote to S. Gregorie after this sense,Lib. 6. ep. 37. as S. Gregory himself doth report it. Suauissima mihi sanctitas ve­stra multa in epistolis suis de san­cti Petri Apostolorum principis Cathedra locuta est, dicens quòd [Page 376] ipse in ea nunc vsque in suis suc­cessoribus sedeat. Your most swete Holinesse hath said manie things in his letters concerning the chair of S. Peter the prince of the Apostles, saying: that S. Peter himself sitteth it it euen til this present tyme in his succes­sours. And S. Gregory with great hu­mility acknowlegeth it to be true, af­firming in an other place that,Lib. 11. Ep. 54. the A­postolike See is head of all Chur­ches.

For the honour of our country I wil not omit the testimony of S. Bede, who in a sermon made vpon the Feast of a certain Abbate of England, named Benedictus, In Natali Benedicti, inter homilias hye­males de Sanctis. affirmeth him to haue gon to Rome, vt ibi potius perfectā viuendi formam sumeret, vbi per summos Christi Apostolos totius Ecclesiae caput eminet eximium. That he might there rather take the perfit example of liuing, where the excellēt head of the whole Chur­che [Page 377] doth appere aboue the reast, through the highest Apostles of Christ.

Whereas much more may be allea­ged, yet these few testimonies may suf­fise to proue, that the bishop of Rome is the Successour of S. Peter in his most principal and chiefe pastoral office. And surely if we may be deceaued in any point of the faith, which is so wel groū ­ded in Gods word, so vniformly cōfessed by the holy Fathers, and so notoriously practised in the Catholike Churche, as the Supremacy of S. Peter, and of his successours in the See of Rome is: I can not deuise, when a man may be sure of any article of his faith.

But if there be a meane whereby a man may be sure of his belefe, surely that meane whatsoeuer it be, shall wel ap­peare to be found in the prouf of the supremacy of S. Peter and of his succes­sours.

That the good Christian Emperours and Princes, did neuer thinke them selues to be the Suprem Heads of the Churh in Spiritual causes, but gaue that ho­nour to Bisshops and Priests, and most speciallie to the See of Rome, for S. Peters sake, as wel before, as after the time of Phocas. The XVI. chap.

An D. 246PHilippus who was the first Chri­stian Emperour, did so litle think him selfe to haue bene the Heade of the Bisshoppes in Spirituall causes throughout his Dominion, that wher­as on Easter daie he would haue bene at the Vigils and holy watches, and would haue communicated of the holy Mysteries: the Bisshope of the place would not lette him doe it,Nisi consi­teretur peccata sua. except he hadde first confessed his sinnes, and stood amōg them that did penance, and so by penance had washed awaie, the faults which were reported of him.

Ferunt igitur libenter eum [Page 379] (saith Eusebius) quod à sacerdote imperatum fuerat suscepisse, eccles. hi­stor. lib. 6. c. 25. apud Ruffinum. diui­num sibi inesse metum, & fidem religionis plenissimam, rebus at­que operibus comprobando. They saie therefore, that he toke gladly that whiche was inioyned to him of the Priest,Imperatū. making faith by the things and workes, that the feare of God, and most full persuasion of Religion was in him.

Is he chief in al causes, who in some must obey the Priest?the priest vvas a­boue the Emperor in Eccle­siastical causes. Or can he that is supreme gouernour in all things and causes Ecclesiastical, haue an other a­boue him in puttng him back from the mysteries, and in enioyning him publik penaunce, and in constreining him to confesse his sinnes? Or is the comming to the Mysteries no cause Ecclesiasti­cal, or Spiritual? Or is not the Bis­shoppe or Priest, who in this cause go­uerneth the Emperour, the Superi­our and gouernour of the Emperour in the same cause? Or is it not a [Page 380] kind of gouerning, to command him to stand back? to threaten him if he re­pine? to punish him, if he be stub­borne?

Yea, how to punish him? to come to him in a rod (as S. Paule speaketh) that is to say,1. Cor. 4. in power and authoritie to beate or to correct. And is not he a gouernour who may iustly beate the child? If then in prescribing confessiō, satisfaction, and abstinence from com­munion, the priest be the gouernour of the king: I ask, whether al other Eccle­siastical causes be greater or lesse then these are?

Note an infallible argument against your Antichristian supremacy,The one parte of the Dilē ­ma. M. No­wel. If other Ecclesiasticall causes be greater then these were, surely the Em­perour or king, who is gouerned by a priest in the lesser Ecclesiasticall cau­ses, and therefore can not be supreme head in them, is much more to be go­uerned by a priest in the greater cau­ses [Page 381] of the same kind. And there­fore he is much lesse supreme head in them.

For if when one thing standeth aboue an other, I am to low to reache the lower: much more I am to low, to reache a higher then the other was. But if other Ecclesiastical causes be les­ser then the suspending from commu­nion,the other part. or the inioyning of publike pe­nance: then the bishop or priest, who is the gouernour of the Emperour or King in the greatest Ecclesiastical cau­ses, is much more his gouernour in the lesser Ecclesiasticall causes. Be­cause the lesser are of the same order, kind, and kinred, whereof the greater are.

As therefore he that is supreme head in the greatest temporall causes (as in iudging ouer life and death)A simili­tude. is much more supreme head in the lesser temporall causes (as in iudging ouer lands or goods) and as he that is not of [Page 382] sufficient authority to be supreme ruler in sitting iudge vppon mens lands or goods, can much lesse sitte iudge ouer their liues by anie his former autho­ritie: euen so neither the King, who can gouern in the lesser causes, can by his Kingly power iudge in the greater, nor the priest, who is the Kings supe­riour in the lesser, can possibly but much more be his superiour in the grea­ter.

The re­mouing of the ob­iection.Or haue we diuerse Kinds of Ec­clesiastical, and of spiritual causes? Be there neuer so manie, the Act of par­liament geueth the highest and the supreme gouernment of them all,In al cau­ses. vnto the King.

And yet the King lacketh not one­lie practise, experience, or cunning, but also he lacketh spirituall and Ec­clesiasticall power to heare confessions, to absolue men from their synnes, to inioyne penance, to consecrate the Sa­crament of the altar, to Ordre bishops [Page 383] and priestes by the Imposition of hādes, or to excommunicate open synners.

Here Master Iewel wolde say, that he neuer meant the prince should be supreme gouernour, either in admi­nistring, or in frequenting, or in dire­cting others to frequent the holy my­steries, or in any like sacramental fun­ctions.

Why then doth he and his fellowes sweare men,The othe of the su­premacy. generally to acknowledge the secular Christian prince Supreme gouernour in all things and cau­ses? Why doth he not rather declame and speake with all his force, against that most impiouse and blasphemouse othe? Yea so impiouse, that those Protestants, who most earnestly pres­sed the setting foorth therof, dare not now iustifie the foorm of it.

Shall men in a Christian realme be sworen vpon the holy Euangelistes, to keepe, beleue, or acknowledge that which noman at all, no, not they who [Page 384] procured it, dare mainteine? See, good Countrie men, see the discretiō of your parlaments in matters of Religion. A men aliue abhorre from that act, which the Laity made and enacted, as a form so warely drawen, wherevnto men might commit their euerlasting salua­tion or damnation.

Mark, I say, that M. Nowel, M. Horn, M. Iewel dare not warrant the King to be suprem gouernour in al Ec­clesiastical causes. But rather they con­fesse, that a Bisshop or Priest may, and ought to gouerne the King, concerning his comming to the Mysteries, and in such like matters. This much being said cōcerning Philippus the first Chri­stian Emperour (who obeyed, but go­uerned not the Bisshop in Ecclesiasti­cal matters) let vs now goe forward.

An. Dom. 324.Constantinus the Great, perceiuing the Bisshops which came to the Synod at Nice, to haue many quarels and sutes among them selues, appoynted a [Page 385] day wherein euery man should offer 3 his complaint in writing, and when he had takē al their libels, without disclo­sing the contents of them,Ruffinus lib. 10. Ec­cles. histor. cap. 2. he said vnto the bishops: Deus vos constituit Sa­cerdotes, & potestatē vobis dedit de nobis quo (que) iudicandi, & ideo nos a vobis rectè iudicamur: vos autē nō potestis ab hominibus iu­dicari: propter quod Dei solius in­ter vos expectate iudicium. God hath made you priests (or Sacrificers) and hath geuen you power to iudge of vs also. And therefore we are right­ly iudged of you. But yee can not be iudged of men. For which cause expect yee (or tary for) the iudgemēt of God alone among you.

This discourse of Constantine con­teineth three thinges worthie to be noted. First he saith, the bishoppes 1 are Sacerdotes, Priestes, or men that haue publik authority to make ex­ternall sacrifice vnto God for the whole Heb. 5. [Page 386] 2 peples synnes. Secondly he saieth, that they haue power to iudge euen of the Emperour himself. And this their power of iudging, dependeth of their power of priesthod. For the high­est power may iudge the lower. But no power can be higher then the power of a priest, because he is the minister of God in that office which most directly tou­cheth Gods honour and seruice.Malac. 1.

Wherupon S. Augustin hauing said: what was Moyses if he were not a priest? In Psal. 98 geueth this reason of his words, Nūquid maior Sacerdote esse po­terat? Whether could he be greater then a priest? as who should say: seing Moyses was the greatest officer amōg the Israelits, and yet he could not be greater then a priest, it must nedes be, that he was a priest.

The priestes then of God being the greatest officers in earth haue power to iudge euen of an Emperour, if any be in their parishes or Dioceses.

Thirdly of these former points Cōstā ­tine 3 deduceth an other conclusion. that priestes can not be iudged of mē. How then can they be iudged of the Emperour? Neither doth it skill, that Constantine seemeth to haue iudged certaine priests, or Ecclesiastical causes, when the Donatists appealed vnto hī: for he did it (as S. Augustine saieth) à sanctis antistitibus postea veni­am petiturus, In epistol. 162. as one that would after­ward aske leaue or pardon of the holy bisshops.

Who asketh leaue or pardon for that, which he may doe by his owne power? He did it then through the importunat sute of heretickes, for the peace of the Church: otherwise detesting them, that demaunded his iudgement after that the bishoppes had iudged,Optat. li 2 August. in epist. 162. and finding great fault therewith himself, as Op­tatus, and S. Augustine also doe wit­nesse. But take away importunity of he­retikes, and the commission, leaue or [Page 388] pardon of the right bishoppes (who may for diuerse respectes, either committe certain Ecclesiasticall causes to lay mē, or winck for a tyme at such iudgemēts) take away, I say, heresie and permis­sion: and ordinarily it is against the law of God, that any secular Prince (who needeth the office of a priest for his reconciliation vnto God) should sitte iudge vpon him in causes of the Churche,2. Cor. 5. at whose handes he must receaue the Sacramentes of the Chur­che, and by whose ministery his soule must be purged.

Now if one priest doe iudge an other, that is Gods iudgement,Deut. 17. & Num. 3 and not the iudgement of men. For God hath sette one priest ouer an other, as the high priestes was aboue the Leuites in Moyses lawe, and as the Apostles wereof a higher degree, then the se­uenty Disciples, or then the seuen Dea­cons.

These woordes then of Constantine [Page 389] vos non potestis ab hominibus iudicari, Ruffin. li. 1. cap. 2. yee (ô priestes of God) can not be iudged of men, are thus meant: the order of priesthood is such, as is not subiect to anie secular or earthly iurisdiction. And seing all the power of iudgement, which euen Christian Emperours or Kinges haue by their own state, is earthly and secular: it wil follow, that no King or Emperour can by his owne power iudge a priest in priestlie causes and in Ecclesiasticall matters.

That all the power of Emperours, though they be Christians, is secular, Constantine himself pronounceth, say­ing to the Donatists (as Optatus recor­deth) Petitis á me in seculo iudi­cium, De schism. Donatist. lib. 1. cùm ego ipse Christi iudiciū expectem. Yee aske of me iudgement in the world, whereas I my self looke for Christes iudgement.

There are then two iudgements: one in the world, an other of Christ. That [Page 390] is worldly or secular:Secular iudgemēt this is heauenly or spiritual. Constantine had none other iudgement but secular, because his sen­tence could binde no farther, then in this life.

But Christes iudgement (which he excerciseth as wel presently by his Prie­stes and Ministers,Ioan. 20. as at the later day in his own person) is spirituall,Spirital iudgemēt Matth. 16. In Coelis. and ra­ther apperteineth to heauen, and to the life to come, then to this world.

Againe, that Constantines iudge­ment was earthlye, S. Augustine in diuers places declareth: saing of the very same Donatists:In ep. 162. Terrenum Re­gem suae causae iudicem esse volue­runt. They would an earthly King to be the iudge of their cause. He mea­neth there, Constantine the Chri­stian Emperour, by the name of an earthly King.

Hitherto I haue shewed, that Con­stantine beleued and professed, that Bi­shops or Priestes are not (ordinarilie [Page 391] and where aequitie or conscience maie take place) to be iudged by secular Princes. Now it onely remaineth to con­sider specially, the great honour which he gaue to the See of S. Peter, and to his Successour the Bisshop of Rome.

First, I take it for moste certaine, that Constantinus the Great,Constātin baptized at Rome. was in­structed and baptized of Syluester the Pope of Rome, as not onely most aunci­ent witnesses, but euē the very stones ād pillers of marble doe witnesse, which being erected in the Emperors owne house (named Constantiniana) beare the name of his baptisterie, to witte, of the verie place, wherein Constan­tinus was baptised.1 in vita Syluestri in Pontifi­cali. 2 De sex aetatibus. 3 in Chrō. 4 lib. 2. Histor.

Whiche thing also Pope Damasus, who liued not long after, and consequēt lie. 2. S. Bede, 3. Ado, and Marianus Scotus affirme the same. Yea 4 Grego­rius Turonensis, who liued long before, alludeth to the same storie, in descri­bing the baptism of King Chlodoueus.

Neither only the Latines haue thus auouched the truth,5 In vita Cōstant.6. Lib. 7. c. 35.7 In Anna libus. but the Greciās al­so, as 5 Zonaras, 6 Nicephorus, 7 Cedre­nus, not esteming what Eusebius and some other moued by him, reporte in that behalfe, as whom for his affection to the Arrian heresie they had suspe­cted.

Constantine then being baptized at Rome, and thereby instructed, that S. Peter had died there (to whome he built a faire Church in the hil named Vaticane) and that he had left a succes­sour in that See,Damasus in Pontif. who beside his Bisshop­rike of Rome, should haue the chiefe pastoral cure ouer al the faithfull: gaue such reuerence to the saied Chaire and See of S. Peter, that he thought it not conuenient for him, to keep his ordina­rie courte and Residence anie more in that Citie, where the chiefe causes of all Christendome should be daily exa­mined.

In so muche that he did not onely [Page 393] protest his faith in Christ, and the ho­nour due to S. Peter in expresse words, which are before the first Nicene Coū ­cel (some of whiche wordes are like­wise alleged at the second general Coū ­cel kept at Nice) but also he in deede went out of the Citie of Rome with this intent,in Praefat. Concilij Niceni. to keep no more his Impe­riall residence in the same.

Which thīg is farther proued, in that he gaue away his owne Palaice, dedi­cating it a Temple vnto our Sauiour (which temple standeth till this daie) wherein also the Pope had aftetward a dwelling place. And who doth not perceiue, that he departeth with the mind to returne no more, who at his going, geueth his own house away?

Adde herevnto,In vitae Constantini. that Constan­tine went to seeke a newe dwelling place, as Zonaras reporteth, and at the last reasted in Bizance, calling it of his owne name, Constantinople, or new Rome. Why should Constantine [Page 394] thus aduisedly deparete from the head Citie of al the world, the glorie of his Empire, and the chiefe roialtie of his inheritance, except he had bene fullie perswaded, that S. Peter and his suc­cessours the Bisshops of Rome had bene placed at Rome by the wil of God,Serm 1. de Natiuit. Pet. & Pauli. thēce to publish the faith of Christ into al Countries (as Pope Leo saieth) wherevnto he would that his Imperi­al court should be no hinderance. For otherwise if he had yelded to a simple Bisshop, there was a Bisshop in Constā ­tinople also, as in euery other great Ci­tie. But it was not euery Bisshoppe to whome Constantine yealded, but the chiefe Bissbop of all, and the heade of the whole Militāt Church. Which Exā ple of his al good Emperours following neuer kept afterward their courte and ordinarie residence in Rome,Zonaras in vita Constan­tis Nepo­tis Hera­clij. al be it Constance perceiuing more honour to be geuen to the Mother (which was Rome) then to the daughter (whiche [Page 395] was Constantinople) woulde haue re­turned to Rome, but (as Zonaras de­clareth) without successe. Which thing who so thinketh to haue chanced with out the singular prouidence of God, may seme to think, that the world is gouer­ned by chance.

To this fact of the Emperors (in their absteining to keepe their residence in Rome) let vs ioyn the expresse wordes also of diuers good successours of Con­stantine the Greate. For if anie euil came betwene, it is no marueil, if thei did hate so good a thing as the Prima­cie of the Church was.

Concerning Constantius the here­tike (who was the sonne of great Con­stantine) Athanasius complaineth,An. D. 360 that he and his adherents the Arri­ans, had no reuerence toward the Bis­shop of Rome,In Epist. ad Solitar. vitam agen­tes. not consideringe vel quòd sedes illa apostolica esset, vel quôd Roma Metropolis esset diti­onis Romanae: either that it was the [Page 396] Apostolike See, or els that Rome was the Mother citie of the Roman circuit. So that we may see euen from the be­ginning, that as the most faithful Em­perours did alwaies honour the Apo­stolike See of Rome, euen so the here­tikes and worste men did alwaies hate it, and despise it.

For on the other side, in the midst of the Arrian heresie, the noble and vertuouse Emperors, Gratianus, Va­lentinianus, and Theodosius doub­ted not to sette foorth a Lawe in these woordes:An. D. 386 leg. 1 Cod. de summa Trinitat. Cunctos populos, quos Clementiae nostrae regit imperium in tali volumus religione versari, quam D. Petrum Apostolū tradi­disse Romanis, religio vs (que) ad huc ab ipso insinuata declarat, quàm (que) Pontificē Damasū sequi claret, & Petrū Alexādriae Episcopū, virum Apostolicae sanctitatis. We wil al nations, which are gouerned by our Clemē ­cy, to liue in such a religiō, as the reli­giō [Page 397] which is vsed from S. Peter til this day doth declare him to haue deliuered to the Romans, ād which religiō it is euidēt, that Pope Damasus ād Peter the Bishop of Alexandria (a mā of an Apostolik holines) doe follow.

By this Law it is witnessed, first, that 1 S. Peter deliuered a certain religiō to the Romans (as wel concerning the Trinitie, as other things)

Secondly, that the said religion cō ­ming 2 from S. Peter, was kept stil in the Church of Rome.

Thirdly, that it was kept speciallie 3 by the perpetual succession of Bi­shops. For which cause Damasus the Bisshop of Rome is named in the Law. After Damasus, a blessed Bisshop of Alexandria, called Peter, is also na­med, not with the intent to shewe also that the Bisshops of Alexandria, kept alwayes the true faith (for at that momēt Lucius a raging wolf, occupied the seat in Alexandria) but because [Page 398] this Peter of Alexandria who is now named, was in deede the true bishop of Alexandria, albeit he was now kept out of his Church by violence.

Nicep. lib. 11. cap. 26Whereas then there were two bis­shops of Alexandria, one who agreed with the bishop of Rome, an other who disagreed▪ because the said Peter did agree with Damasus, and fled out of prison to him, he is named with Da­masus, and therby the other bishop is insinuated to be an vsurper. So that the whole force of the Decree resteth vpon the tradition and succession of S. Pe­ter at Rome, and of those who agree with him.

If Peter of Alexandria had not followed that succession of S. Peter, he had no more ben esteemed, then Lu­cius, Georgius, Gregorius or Di­oscorus, An. Do. 4 [...]4. Tom. 1. Cō ­cil. & di­stinct. 97. who being bishops of Alex­andria, wree al heretiks.

Pope Bonifacius the first wrote to the Christian Emperour Honorius, [Page 395] in this wise: Mihi Deus noster meū Sacerdotium, vobis res humanas regentibus deputauit. Our God hath appointed mie priesthood to me, wher­as you doe gouern woordlie matters.

And in the same epistle he requireth the Emperours help, not I warrant you for the disposing of his own priesthod, but for the conseruation of the peace of the Churche. To whome the Empe­rour promiseth his help, confessing that he receaued the writings of his blessednes with dew gratulation of reuerence, Apostola­tus tuus. desiring his Apostole­shippe to pray for the safegard of his Empire.

Honorius faith then was, that the Emperours were heads of the ciuill gouernment for the defense of Ecclesiastical peace, and not supreme heads in all Ecclesiasticall things and causes: to defend, I say, the lawes of the Churche made by bishops, and not to make new Ecclesiastical lawes, wherū ­to [Page 400] to bishoppes should be subiect against their wils.

An. Dom. 450.Let vs adde hereunto, that which an Empresse also writeth of the same matter for we may wel beleue that she wrote according to the faith of Church in her tyme.In epistol. Gallae Pla­cidiae ante synodum Chalcedo­nens. Thus then Galla Placi­dia saith, concerning the Churche of Rome. In Apostolica sede primus ille, ꝓ coelestes claues dignus fuit accipere, principatum Episcopa­tus ordinauit. He that was worthy to receaue first the heauenly keyes (that is S. Peter) hath ordeined the prima­cy of the Bishoply office in the A­postolik See. If this be so, Peter was not only first and prince himself, but he also ordeined the bishop of Rome to be the first and chief of bishops after him. Ad synodū Chalcedo. Domino meo Theo­dosio. &c. When I say, Peter ordeined it, I meane, that Christ by Peter ordei­ned it. Valentinian is of the same belefe and iudgement, saying: Fidem à no­stris maioribus traditam debemus [Page 401] cum omni competenti deuotione defendere, & dignitatem propriae venerationis B. Apostolo Petro intemeratam & in nostris tempo­ribus conseruare, quatenus beatis­simꝰ Romanae ciuitatis episcopus, cui principatum Sacerdotij super omnes antiquitas contulit, locum habeat ac facultatem de fide & sa­cerdotibus iudicare. We ought to de­fend with all competent deuotion the faith deliuered from our elders. And to conserue and keepe in our tymes to the blessed Apostle S. Peter the dignity of his proper and owne worship vncon­trolled: so that the most blessed bishop of the City of Rome (to whome [...]nti­quity hath geuen aboue al me the cheefty of priesthood) may haue place and power to iudge of faith and of priests.

Lo the honour that is geuen to the bishop of Rome, is geuen to Saint Pe­ter: verily, because the bishop of Rome [Page 402] sitteth in his chaire. And when the bishop of Rome is despised, the worship of S. Peter is stained. If the old tyme gaue the primacy of priestod vnto the bishop of Rome for S. Peters sake, and that super omnes, ouer al men: if ele­uen hundred yeres agoe, it was true to say, that Antiquity gaue the chiefty of priestly power to the bishop of Rome: are not they new teachers, who after fiften hundred yeres, goe a­bout to pluck, the primacy of priesthod from the bishop of Rome?

An. Dom. 4.57. Act. 3. In Concil. Chalce [...]o. Autorita­te Ro. E­piscopi.Martianus likewise with Valenti­nian confesseth of the General Councel which came togeather at Chalcedon, in [...]wise: Quae Synodus dum fi­dem diligenter inquirit authori­tate beatissimi Leonis Episcopi aeternae vrbis Romae, & religionis fundamenta constituit sanctae ci­uitati, & Flauiano palmam mortis tribuit gloriosae. The which councel whiles it maketh diligent inquisition [Page 403] concerning the faith, it both appointed the foundations of religion to the holy city (the Church) by the authoritie of most blessed Leo bishop of the euerlasting City of Rome, By the authority of Pope Leo. and also gaue to Flauianus the crown of a glo­riouse death. Al this was done by the autority of the bishop of Rome. And why by his autority, the same Martianus gaue the cause therof before, in an oratiō which he made in the fourth general councel,Act. 1. Fol. 740. where he said of Leo the Pope, qui Apostolicū gubernat thronū, who gouerneth the See Apostolike. And it is well knowen he ment only the Apostolike see of S. Peter.An. D. 534 In Codicad [...] summa Trinit.

For the honour of that See Iustiniā writeth thus to Iohn the secōd pope of Rome: Nos reddētes honorē Apo­stolicae sedi, & vestrae sanctitati (qd­semꝑ nobis in voto fuit, & est) & vt decet patrē, honorātes vestrā beati tudinē, oīa quae ad ecclesiarū statū pertinēt, festinauimus ad notitiam [Page 404] deferre vestrae sanctitatis. We ren­dering honour to the See Aposto­like, and to your Holines (the whiche thing euer was and is our desire) and we honouring your blessednes, as it be­commeth vs to honour our Father, haue hastened to bring to the know­ledge of your Holines all things which doe appertein to the state of Churches.

If the Pope be as a Father to the Emperour, and be so to be honoured: it is vtterly impossible for the Emperour, who is, as it were, a Sonne, to be the supreme head or gouernour in spiritual causes of his spiritual Father.

Againe he saith: Nec enim pa­timur quicquā quod ad Ecclesiarū statū pertinet, quamuis manifestū & indubitatum sit quod mouetur, vt nō etiam vestrae innotescat san­ctitati, Caput. quae caput est omnium san­ctarum Ecclesiarū. Neither doe we suffer anie thing, that doth apper­teine to the state of the Churches [Page 405] (how manifest ād vndoubted so euer it be, which is called in question) but the same is also notified to your holines,The Pope is head of all holie Churches who is the head of al holy Churches.

If the Pope be head of al holy Chur­ches, and therfore be made priuie to all ordinances ād lawes which apperteine to the state of Churches: it must needes follow, that the Church, wherof a King or Emperour shalbe suprem head, is no holy Church, but a profane Synagog ād a malignāt congregation, such as those of the Arrians, Donatists, and Pelagi­ans were, who obeyed not the Bisshop of Rome, nor suche bisshops as were of his fellowship,Vvho vvas the supreme head of the He­retikes. but either Iulianus the Renegate, or Valens, or the Kings of the Gothes, and of the Vandals, as the Histories of the Church doe witnesse.

Here the order and place requireth, that I should declare also, how Pho­cas the Emperour,An. Dom. 609. in the time of Pope Bonifacius the third, pronounced the See of Rome head of al churches, [Page 406] but the Protestants not able to deny the storie, sai: that now first the See of Rome began to be accōpted the head of al Churches. A false assertion. Which thīg shal appere as true as the rest of their doctrine is.

For S. Gregorie being before Bonifa­cius,An. Dom. 607. Lib. 11. epist. 54. saith of the See of Rome: Apo­stolica sedes omnium ecclesiarum caput est. The Apostolike See is Head of all Churches.

Before him also the Bishop of Pata­ra, An. 538. being a Grecian, said of Syluerius the Pope: Ille Papa est super Eccle­siam mūdi totius, He is Pope ouer the Church of the whole world.

An. 534.Iustiniā writing to Ioannes the Pope (as I alleged before) calleth his holines caput omnium Ecclesiarum, Head of al Churches.

An. 486.Eugenius the Bishop of Carthage be­ing an African, had said before Iustini­ans time (as Victor writeth) Romana ecclesia caput ē omniū ecclesiarū, Lib. 2. de persecut. Vandal. The Roman Churche is the head of all [Page 407] Churches.

Yea Prosper had writē before Eu­genius: Sedes Roma Petri, An. 460. De ingra­tis. quae pa­storalis honoris facta caput mūdo. Rome the See of Peter, which is made vnto the world,An. 446. In natiuit Petri & Paull. the head of pastoral honour. Leo the great, being elder thē Prosper, preached thus: Roma per sa­crā B. Petri sedē caput orbis effe­cta. Rome by the holy seat of Peter, is made the head of the world▪ and again ꝑquos vniuersalis ecclesiae cura ad vnā b. Petri sedē cōfluit. Ad Ana­stas. ep. 82 By whō the cure of the vniuersal church floweth to the one See of Peter, that nothīg might at any time dissent from his head.

Now the fourth general Coūcel,An. 456. albeit it was not elder in yeres then Leo, yet cōsisting of 630. Bisshops gathered out of the whol world, it is worthy to be harkened vnto of al the Christiā flock, as of most aūcient and perelesse authoritie.

This great Councel making relatiō to Pope Leo of such things as had bene [Page 408] done there,Act. 3. Sancta & magna &c. writeth to him: Tu qui­dem sicut membris caput praeeras. Thou wast ouer vs, as the head is ouer his mēbers. And wheras the Church is cōpared to a vineyard, Isai. 5. they there cō ­fesse, that vnto Pope Leo vineae custo­dia à Saluatore commissa est, The keping of the vineyeard is committed of our Sauiour. Note here, gentle Rea­ders, that this famouse, great, and lear­ned Councell referreth the matter to our Sauiour, and not vnto Phocas, or to any mortal man. The keeping of the vineyard is committed to the Pope of Rome by our Sauiour himself.

An. D. 426 Lib. 12. in Ioan. c. 64If we shal goe yet higher, when Cy­rillus confesseth S. Peter to haue ben caput Apostolorum, the head of the Apostles: doth he not confesse, the suc­cessors of S. Peter (who are the Bishops of Rome) to be much more the heads of the successours of the Apostles, which al bishops are?

Shall we goe from Cyrillus to S. Am­brose, An. D. 308 who writing vpon S. Pauls epi­stle to Timothe,In c. 3. 1. epistol. ad Timoth. calleth Damasus (the bisshop of Rome) the ruler or gouer­nour of that Church in his tyme, which Church is named of S. Paul the howse of God, the pillour of truthe, meaning, that Pope Damasus was gouernour of the whole Militant Church, and not only of any one parish or Diocese. And what other thing is it to be a tēporal ruler of Gods whole Church, Tripar. li. 4. c. 15. but to be the temporal head thereof? Saith not Sozomenus, that pope Iulius curā gessit omniū, prop­ter sedis propriae dignitatem? He toke the cure of all, for the worthinesse of his own See? where al is comprised, what can be excepted?

Optatus,An. D 370 Lib. 2. de schism. Donatist, who proueth S. Peter to haue bē head, because he was called of Christ Cephas, a rock (for the rock or founda­tion is that vnto the house, which the head is to the body) doth thereby refer [Page 410] the primacie of S. Peter and of his suc­cessours to Christ him selfe.

An. 300.If I shal goe now to the Councel of 300. Bisshops held at Sinuessa, where although Marcellinus had confessed him selfe to haue done Idolatrie, yet all the Bisshops answered: Prima sedes non iudicabitur à quoquam, Tom. 1. Concil. the first See shalbe iudged of no man: wil it not therby appere, that the See of Rome beig the first See was not preferred to that honor by any mortal mā (otherwise he that had p̄ferred it, might also haue iudged it) but was made head of al churches, by him who said to S. Peter: vpon this rock I wil build my Churche? Matt. 16. It is not therefore Phocas, but Iesus Christ, who making S. Peter the tem­poral foūdation and head Pastor of the church, made the Bisshop of Rome his successour. as I haue declared before.

Let vs now goe forward with other good Emperours ād Kīgs, shewing that not Phocas alone, but others also after [Page 411] hī honoured the See Apostolike, as the highest power in the church of God.

Constātinus the fourth, being a most Catholike Prince,Beda de sex aetat. mundi. procured the sixth general Councel to be called, ād therin cōfessed himself to haue wōdred at the relation of Pope Agatho, as if it had bē the voice of Peter.Act. 18. Synod. 6. The same Emperor in the time of Benedictus the second Pope of that name, decreed:An 688. Platina in vita Benedict 2 vt dein­ceps quē clerus, populus exerci­tus (que) Romanus in Pontificē dele­gisset, eūdē statim verum Christi vicariū esse omnes crederēt. That frō thence forward, whom the Clergy, peo­ple, and the Roman armie should chose to be bishop, all men should straight beleue him to be the true vicare of Christ. The true Vicarē of Christ. He saith not the Vicare of Pho­cas, or the Lieutenant of the Emperor, but the Vicar and Lieutenāt of Christ.

It was then the publicke faith not onlie in the Latine, but also in the Greeke church, that who so was duely [Page 412] chosen Bisshop of Rome, was Christes own Vicare.

An. Dom. 749.Yf the whole nobilitie and people of Fraunce, had not beleued the Pope of Rome to be of such authorie: for what purpose would they haue sent to Rome to know the mind of Pope Zacharias, who should be King of Fraunce, whe­ther Chilpericus,Paenè nul­lius pote­statis. who hadde the bare name thereof, without exercising any kingly power in maner, or the greate Stuard,Maior domus. who exercised the publik office and power of the King without the name?

In Chron.The Pope answered (as Ado testifi­eth) Regem potius illum debere vocari, qui rempublicam regeret. That he rather should be called the King, who ruled the common weal. Vpō which answere, Pipinus was anointed King autoritate Apostolica & Frā corum electione (saith Sigebertus) by the Apostolike authoritie,In Chron. An. Dom. 750. and by the election of the Frenche men. Neither [Page 413] may this so great credite, whiche the whole people and Nobilitie of France reposed in the See Apostolike, be righ­ly imputed to the sentence of Phocas, who before that, had declared the See of Rome to be head of al Churches. For euen after this election of King Pipi­nus the first Emperour of the French men, or rather of the Germans (for the French men came out of Germanie) Carolus Magnus, protesting his re­uerence to the See Apostolike, she­weth, the cause why he honoureth it, to be the Chaire of S. Peter, and not the iudgement of Phocas. His wordes are these:

In memoriam beati Petri Apo­stoli honoremus sanctam Roma­nam ecclesiā, & Apostolicā sedē: An. Dom. 806. 19. distīct. vt quae nobis sacerdotalis mater est dignitatis, ecclesiasticae esse de­beat magistra rationis. Quare ser­uāda est cū mansuetudine humili­tas. et licet vix ferēdū ab illa sancta [Page 414] sede imponatur iugum, tamen fe­ramꝰ, & pia deuotione toleremus. Let vs honor the holy Church of Rome, and the See Apostolike for the remē ­brance of blessed Peter the Apostle:The see of Rome is the mo­ther of priestly Vvorship that as (the same See) is to vs the mo­ther of priestlie dignitie, so it may be the teacher of the Ecclesiasticall trade. Wherefore humility is to be kept with meekenes. And although a yoke be putte vppon vs from the same holy See which is scant to be born, yet lette vs beare, and suffer it with godly deuo­tion.

Thus we see, that Carolus honou­red the See of Rome, not for Phocas, but for S. Peters sake.

Ludouicus, who for his singular vertue and godlines was surnamed Pius, hauing ben triatorouslie ordered by Adalgisus the Duke of Beneuen­tum, Regino in Chron. An. 872. (who went about to kill him in his palaice) and being afterward for­ced to sweare, that he wold not reuenge [Page 415] that iniury, was so far from taking him­selfe to be the supreme head ouer the Bisshop of Rome, that rather he was content to take absolution from his oth of Iohn the pope, Authoritate Dei & Sancti Petri, by the authority (not of Phocas) but of God, and of Saint Peter.

I woulde goe forward to shew at large the obedience of all good Empe­rours and Kings to the See Apostolik euen till this day, but that it shoulde be accompted a superfluouse labour, sith, as I suppose, no man doth doubt of it.

And verilie concerning our own countrie, as aboue fourtene hundred yeres past,An. D. 188 Lucius the first Chri­stian King of the Britans, did send to Eleutherius the Bisshop of Rome, to receaue from thence by his authori­ty the ordinary meane of administring the Sacraments for him and his realm: euē so Ethelbert the first Christian [Page 416] King of the English Saxons toke his faith and the gouernment of the Church from the See of Rome (S. Gre­gorie being thē Pope) by our Apostle S. Augustine.An. D. 630 And the good King Osui of Northumberlūd,Bedae lib. histo. An­gli. 3. c. 29 and Ecbert the King of Kent, vnderstāding that the Romā Church esset catholica & Apostoli­ca Ecclesia, was the Catholik and the Apostolike Church, sent Wichardus with the consent of al the faithfull of England to Rome, that hauing ther takē the degré of an Archbishop, he might ordein bisshops to all the Ca­tholike Churches through Britannie.

From that day forward it is euident by al our Chronicles (which at the least were made, before that schism and he­resie began) that as euery King, not only of Englād, but of all Christian Coūtries was best, ād most geuē to godlines and to vertue: so was he most obedient and frindful to the bishop of Rome. And cō ­trariewise, as euery of them was most [Page 417] licentious, most geuen to extorsion, to tyrannie, or to robling of Churches: so was he most disobedient to the See of Rome.

So that as all the heathen Empe­rours, frō Nero to the Renegat Iulia­nus, did alwaies persecute the Apo­stolike See of Rome: and as after­ward al the heretical Emperours did the same, as wel those of Cōstantinople, as of the West, so contrarywise all the good Constantines, the Theodosians, the Martiās, Carolus, Ludouicus, Otho, and their good successours did so little thīck themselues the supream heads ouer the bishops of Rome, and of the other Chri­stians in spiritual causes: that contrarie wise they obeied them as their chiefe pastours, and as the Vicars of Christ, ād the successours of S. Peter.

And that they did, not only being a part euery man in his own Realm, but also when that most famouse battell a­gainst the Turkes and Saracens was [Page 418] by the inspiration of the holy Ghost be­gun at one tyme by the Spaniards,Sigebertus in Chron. Anno Do. 1096. Gas­cons, Britans, Normans, English, Sco­tish, and Frenchmen: by the Burgun­dions, Almains, Lumbards, and Ita­lians, when diuerse Dukes (as Godfrid of Lorrain, and Baiamund of Apulia) whē diuerse Erles (as Baldwin of Mōs, one Robert of Flanders, and an other of Normandy, Stephē of Blese, and Rai­mund) when Hugh the brother of Philip the King of Fraunce toke that most holy warfare in hand, when, I say, they were stirred vppe with one spirit, and hart, to recouer the holy land: did not they shew as wel their own belief, as the vniuersal faith of al their coun­tries and nations, in that they had Hamarus the bishop of Podium sette ouer them Apostolica authoritate by the Apostolike authoritie?

And how marueilouse successe of victory had they, conquering as well Antioche as Hierusalem? It can be [Page 419] vnknowen to no man who readeth the old histories, what prosperity these realmes haue alwaies had, which ke­ping them selues in the obediēce of the See of Rome, kept also the faith which that Church professeth. In so much that Afrike was inuincible, vntil the Dona­tists, and the Pelagians had withdra­wen the obedience therof frō the See of Rome. Neither was the Turke able to cōquer the Greciās, either of Asia, or of Thracia, vntil after the coūcel of Florence against their consent there geuē, they had again diuided themselues frō the society of the Pope.

I wil come nere home. The English Saxons conquered the Britons for no cause rather, then because the Britons began to forsake the old faith, wherein Fugatius, Damianus and Germanus all coming as Legates and preachers from the Pope, had instructed them.Beda hist. Anglor. li. 2. cap. 2. For (as S. Bede testifieth) the Britons now had left the keping and profession of Easter [Page 420] after the vse of the Church of Rome (with whome the Catholike Church agreed therein) and began to keepe it as the Iewes did. Yea also they mini­stred the sacrament of Baptism other­wise then the Church of Rome did.

If then we continue again in this diuision and schism against the Church of Rome, we haue to feare the like spoil and conquest, or some worse, and euen of temporal calamity beside the euerla­sting damnatiō of those, who die with­out the society of S. Peters See, who was made of Christ, and in his successours continueth stil, the shepheard of the whole militāt flocke.

Their doctrine who teache the bishop of Rome to be Antichrist himself, is con­futed by the authority of Gods word, and by the consent of the auncient Fa­thers. The XVII. Chap.

ANtichrist doth signifie the ad­uersary or ennemy of Christ our Sauiour.Aug. in c. 2. episto. 1. Ioan. In which kinde of ma­lice as Lucifer the capitaine of all cursed rebels was the first and chiefe: so he was first named Satan, which is to say, an aduersary.Satan. For as the goodnes of God, not being content to send his pro­phets and priests to guide men to life euerlasting, at the last sent his owne sonne in mans flesh, thereby to worke most effectuallie our saluation: so on the other side Satan, hauing procu­red as much as laie in him, that men should not belieue in Christ, nor fol­low his prophets, shal at the lgenth at­tempt to possesse a certain accursed mā, [Page 416] [...] [Page 417] [...] [Page 418] [...] [Page 419] [...] [Page 420] [...] [Page 421] [...] [Page 422] by whome he may worke his feates a­gainst Christ, so muche the more hurt­fullie, how much the priuier he shal ly, being couered ād hiddē both with mās flesh ād with the very name of Christ.

As therefore the Deuil shall geue his strength and power most specially to that cursed man: so the Deuils name is most speciallie geuen him also in the holie scripture. Where he is called of S. Paul [...],2. Thess. 2 the Aduersary, and S. Iohn sheweth whose aduersarie he is,1. Ioan. 2. by naming him [...], which is to saie, that Antichrist who is most spitfully set against Christ, and is most certeinely foretold to come, and ought moste carefullie to be eschewed of all Christians.

For albeit euerie false teacher be a certaine Antichriste, or ennemie of Christ, and therefore (as S. Iohn saith) there are manie Antichristes: 1. Ioan. 2. yet as there is one aboue other, so he saith of hī [...], you [Page 423] haue heard, that the Antichrist cōmeth you haue heard, not only that an An­tichrist, but that the same one most notable Antichrist cometh.

Now this singular Antichrist shal be suffered to come,vvhy An­tichrist is permited partlie for the trial and reuealing of the inuincible strēgth which God hath geuē to the elect, part­lie to shew, howe inexcusable the stub­born Iewes are, who pretending to be­leue the old Prophets, and to looke for the true Messias, yet hauing repelled Iesus Christ, who most euidently was described in the Lawe and Prophetes, shal in the end imbrace the Diuel him selfe, of whome all the Prophetes hath willed them to beware.

For S. Paule saith:2. Thess. 2. Because they haue not receued the loue of truth that they might be saued, therfore God shal send them the working of erroure, that they may beleue lying. To the end al men may be iudged, who haue not beleued [Page 424] the truthe, but haue consented to iniquitie.

Thus, wheras there are three kinds of Antichrists, first the Deuil, who is only a spirit, next, false teachers, third­lie he that being possessed of the Deuil, shal in the end oppugne Christes glory most of al in apparent shew, and in out­ward working:The que­stion. the question is not now, of the two first kinds, but ōly of the last. to wit, whether the Pope of Rome be this main and chief Antichrist, vvho vvas prophecied of to ap­pere so singularlie toward the end of the worlde. For some Protestants are growen to that excessiue malice a­gainst the Churche of Christe, that they doubt not to affirme, to preache, yea to sette foorth in print, that the chiefe pastour of the whole Churche, to whom Christ commended his sheep and Lambes, is not onely an arme, or hand of Antichriste, but the verie head and capitaine Antichrist him­selfe, [Page 425] who shal be destroyed with the spirit of Christes mouth.Isay. 12.

Among others,Bullinger one Henrie Bul­linger, and an other as wise as he,Gualter. cal­led Rodulph Gaulter, ech of them Ministers of Zurich, haue set this do­ctrine abrode in bookes: whom I name the soner, because their books are trā ­slated into the English tongue, as a spe­ciall treasure to enriche fooles with­all: where as in deed, that blaspemouse doctrin is directly against the expresse word of God, as I wil shew hereafter.

And verilie, if God said generallie of all his elect people, yea if it be said of the hard harted Iewes:zacha. 2. He that tou­cheth you, toucheth the apple of his eye: if he said more speciallie concerning his Prophets and Priests:Psal. 104. touche not mine anointed, if his Apostles were nere to him then any other,Luc. 22, because they taried with him in his tenta­tions, if among all the Apostles, S. Peter loued him best, Ioan. 21. and was best [Page 426] beloued of him (concerning the loue which belongeth to the chief shepherd and pastour of his flock) if Christ proui­ded by singular prouidēce, that S. Peter should glorifie him by suffering death vpon the Crosse in the Citie of Rome, if Saint Peters Chaire and the succession in the chiefe Bisshoprike hath bene ac­knouledged in Rome with greate reuerence, oflib. 3. c. 3 S. Irenaeus, oflib. 1. ep. 3 S. Cyprian, ofDe Anti­christo. Hippolytus the Martyr, ofTripart. lib. 4. c. 15 & in ep. ad Solitar. Atha­nasius the Patriarch of Alexandria, ād likewise of Paulus the Archebisshoppe of Constantinople, both being holy Cō- essours, ifIn Psal. 106. et 138 Arnobius,lib. 2. de schismat. Optatus, S.ad Da­masum. Hierone. S.1. Tim. 3 Ambrose,In Psal. cōtra Do­natis [...]as. & in ep. 162. S. Augu­stin, with the rest of the holy Fathers, haue so estemed the saied succession of Peter, that without the vnitie of that Chaier, they accompt no saluati­on, and in it, they recken an assurance of the Catholique faith: if God hath prospered that succession against the enuie of al heretiques, and to the com­forte [Page 427] of all Catholiques in all ages: if thence, the faith of Chricte hath ben dilated and spread into diuerse coun­tries: After al these gratiouse and mi­raculouse woorkes of Christ, to charge that See so welbeloued of God, not on­ly with errour (whiche yet is false) nor onely with decreeing of heresies (whiche is impossible,Luc. 22. because Christ hath praied for it) but to charge it euen with the begetting, and nursing, and fostering vp, and mainteining of Anti­christ himself: it is (to speake in short words) to burden Christ himself with the bringing foorth and with the com­mēding of Antichrist vnto the world.

The raging madnes of the Prote­stants not being content to burden the Apostolike see of Rome with a­buses, or with meane errours, will nedes haue, not a frind or member of Antichrist, but the very head and ca­pitaine of al the ennemies of God to sit in S. Peters own chair. And that is not [Page 428] onely affirmed by bawdes, and min­strels, and plaiers, but also by Preachers and Doctours of this new diuinitie.

And it is beleued of ignorant men, as if it were an article of their faith. As though it had not bene Christ onelie, who hath set Rome in so great honour, as it hath alwaies had.Ambros. Lib. 5. It was not An­tichrist, but Iesus Christ, who made S. Peter to goe thither, and to die there, and to haue a perpetual succession of Bi­shops in that Citie, without any inter­mission or coming betwen of infidelity, or of professed heresie, from the begin­ning of our Christian profession euen til this daie.Vide Pon­tificale. It was not Antichrist, but Christ who gaue the crowne of Mar­tyrdome to almost fortie Bisshoppes of Rome. Did Christ thē prepare the way for Antichrist by the chiefe af al his A­postles? Could ye make none other man to be the forerūner of that cursed crea­ture, besides the Sonne of God, and the redemer of mankind? O blasphemouse [Page 429] tongues, ād cursed thoughts. Or tel me, whom haue so many general Coūcels, so many faithful Princes, ād nations honored al this while in the Citie of Rome? We say they haue honored Christ Iesus in his Vicare. Yee say, they haue cōmit­ted fornicatiō with Antichrist, ergo had Christ no mā els, vpon whom he might ꝑmit Antichrist to be built, but only vpō the foūdation of Peter, vpon whom he built his own Church? Christ said, hell gates should not preuail neither a­gainst the rock (which was Peter,Math. 16. as it hath ben euidently proued) nor a­gainst his Church, which was built vpon the Rock. And yet haue hel gates so far preuailed against the rock which was Peter, that euen Antichrist him­self doth sit in the seat of the Rock?

Did Christ so muche labour to pre­ferre S. Peter, that in the end Anti­christ might haue a moste honourable seat prepared by God himselfe, for his abhominable enterprises?

Are they worthy of the name of men, who feare not to auouche this dete­stable and blasphemous fable? Surely al­though the verie filthines of the do­ctrine being once vnderstanded, be hable to ouerthrowe it, self for euer, yet that they may perceaue I fight not a­gainst them with words only, but also with authorities and reasons, I will briefely declare out of the holy scriptu­res and auncient Fathers, why the Pope of Rome can not be Antichrist him­self, as the Protestants doe most impu­dētly and vnlernedly teache? I must in dede cōfesse the thīg I speake of to be so hard, that no more can be said in it, thē either Gods word or the consent of the Catholike doctours hath reuealed.

Isai. 11. Dan. 8. & 9. & 11. Math. 24 Ioan. 5. & 1. epist. e. 2 2. Thess. 2 Apoca. 13It is then the common and certain iudgement of all holy writers, that An­tichrist (who is so notablie prophecied of in Isaias, in Daniel, in the Gospels, in S. Paule, and in the Apocalipse) is one certaine man, But the Popes of Rome [Page 431] are not any one certaine man, but their succession is the continuāce of a certain office, in which some hundreds of men haue succeded one after the other: ther­fore the Popes of Rome are not Anti­christ.

As the name of Christ being geuen in the olde tyme to many prophetes,Psal. 104. priests and Kings (who were anoynted for a figure of the truthe which was to be fulfilled) did not hinder, but that there should come one certain singular person, who alone should be the sauiour of mankind:1. Ioan. 2. so the name of Antichrist being geuen to many wicked ad­uersaries of Christ, and namely to all hereticks, doth not hinder but ra­ther helpeth to proue, that some one singular man shall come at the lengthe, who shall passe all other men in setting himself against Christ.

This comparison of mine is directly proued by the expresse word of God. For Christ saith vnto the Iewes:Ioan 5. I came in [Page 432] the name of my Father, and ye re­ceaued me not: if an other come in his owne name, him ye will re­ceaue. Hieron. quaest. 11. ad Alga­siam. Cyril. in Ioan. lib. 3 cap. 6. Chrysost. Hom. 40. in Ioan. Which wordes being confessed by the auncient Doctours, to be spo­ken prophetically of Antichrist, doe proue that as Christ was one certain man, so Antichrist shalbe one certain mā. The only ods is, that Christ cometh from God, but Antichrist from the deuil. He to saue, this to destroie. He to vnite, this to diuide and to distract. But in this they both agree, that eche of them is one singular person.

2. Thes. 2.And this much S. Paule doth ma­nifestly teache, saying: that the man of synne must be reuealed before the day of iudgemēt. The said man of synne is described in S. Paule, by the article [...], the man, or that man, and not a man. For the man betokeneth one certain man by name, who is there called also [...], the wicked man, [...], the son of perdition, [...], [Page 433] the aduersary, and not (as the En­glish bible hath euill translated it) an aduersarie who is spoken of such as ne­uer came before, nor shall come after, who is called of S. Iohn, [...],1. Ioan. 2. the Antichrist.

The strength of the Greeke article in this word, the man, Saint Cyril­lus declareth in this wise:In Ioan. lib. 1. c. 4. Quum homo sine articulo dicitur, homo quispiam designatur: quando au­tem articulus accedit, vnicum at­que singularem hominem deno­tat. Man. When a man is named without the article, any man is meant: but whē the article (the) is adioyned,The mā. then it pointeth to one certaine singular man. And of the same iudgement all other lerned Grecians are.

Seing then we reade Antichrist to be called [...], and [...], not a man, but the man, or that man, not generallie an Antichrist, but the Antichrist, or that Antichrist, by the [Page 434] iudgement of the Fathers, one singular person is meant, and not a whole order and succession of many men, such as the popes of Rome are. So that S. Hie­rom saith:In cap. 7. Dan. Putemus vnū esse de ho­minibus, in quo totus Satanas ha­bitaturus sit corporaliter. Lette vs thinck him to be (not the deuil, or a spi­rit) but one of the kinde of men, in whome Satan shall dwell corporallie. Behold, he is one of the number of men, and not certain hundreds of men.

In cap. 11. Dan.Againe S. Hierom saith: As our Sauiour had Salomon and other Saints for a figure of his cōming: so Antichrist must be rightly be­leued to haue had Antiochus the worst Kinge, who persecuted the Saints, and defiled the tēple, for a figure of him. Whereby we lern, that as there was one certain person Iesus Christ: so he meant there should be one certain person, who should be An­tichrist.

S. Ambrose by distincting three kinds of Antichrist,In cap. 22. Lucae. of the which the second is the deuil, the third is euery heretik, sheweth the first of all, to be that cursed, Antichrist, who shall ful­fill the prophecies which are of him. Whom he numbreth in the first place, not because he passeth the deuil his ma­ster and founder, in setting himself a­gainst Christ: but because in the name and nature of Antichrist, he passeth hī: as only we mean by Antichrist, not ge­nerally an aduersary, but such an aduer­sary comming in flesh, as neuer walked in flesh beside him.In epist. 2 ad Thess. cap. 2. For S. Ambrose also in an other place saith of him, that as the sonne of God toke flesh: so Sata­nas in homine apparebit, the deuil shall appere in a man. He saith not, in hominibus, in men, as though they were many, but in homine, in a man, who is but one.

S. Augustine also confessing manie Antichristes with S. Iohn,De ciuita. Dei li. 20. cap. 19. called one [Page 436] of them, ipsum principem, the verie head, and afterward illum nouissi­mum Antichristum, the last An­tichrist. The woordes (prince) and (last) agree to one onelie, and not to a whole succession of men in one state of life.

In 2. Thessalon 2.S. Chrysostom hauing asked, who is the Antichrist of whome S. Paule spake, answereth: homo quispiā om­nem Satanae energiam adeptus, a certaine man hauing in him all the strength of the diuel.

In eūdem locū PauliTheodoretus saith, as the sonne of God toke flesh to procure our saluation: so the deuil chooseth a man to himself who may receaue his whole working of mischeife.

In 13. Iob. li. 14. c. 11S. Gregorie agreeth with al the rest of the Fathers in these woordes Dia­bolus in vltimis temporibus illud vas perditionis ingredietur, quod Antichristus vocabitur. The deuill in the last daies shall enter into that [Page 437] vessel of perdition whiche shal be called Antichrist.

With these Fathers agree Sedu­lius, In 2. ca. 2. epist. ad Thessalo. Primasius, Haimo, Theophi­lact, and the writers of the Greeke Commentaries gathered togeather by Oecumenius. All which witnesses may suffise for proufe, that not the order and state of the Bisshoppes of Rome, but onelie one certaine man is proper­ly Antichrist, who shal sette him­self against Christ more singularly, then euer any heretike hath donne hither­to.

Againe, whereas Antichrist is 2 called of Saint Paule the aduersarie: it is meant, that he withstandeth Christ so much, that no man is able to withstand him more. He doth not therefore withstand onelie a piece of the faith, but he withstandeth the whole faith, denying Iesus Christ to be God and man, or to be our mediatour.

Quaest. 11. ad Alga­siam.For S. Hierom saith in commenting this place of S. Paul: Extollitur supra omne quod dicitur Deus, vt cun­ctarum gentium deos siue proba­tam omnem & veram religionem suo calcet pede. He is exalted aboue al that which is called God, that he may tread vnder his feet, the Gods of al Na­tions, or els, al true and approued re­ligion. Again he saith out of the same Apostle, that God shal send not only operatorem, the worker of errour, sed ipsam operationem, id est, fon­tem erroris, the very working, that is to saie, the fountaine of errour.

In Luc. 21S. Ambrose affirmeth, that he shall dispute out of the scriptures, that he is Christ. What speak I of these smal mat­ters? Antichrist shal teache himself, and no man els,In 2. ad Thessa. hom. 3. to be God. Non enim ad Idololatriam adducet ille (saith Chrysostom) sed [...] quispiam erit, quosuis deos pessundans, iu­bebitque seipsum pro deo coli ac [Page 439] venerari, & in templum dei collo­cari, nō Hierosolymitanum solùm sed & in Ecclesias. He shal not lead or bring to Idolatrie, but he shalbe one certaine man so contrary and against God, [...] that he shal make him self aequall with God, throwing downe al Goddes: and he wil also commaund himselfe to be worshipped and adoured, and to be placed in the temple of God, not only at Hierusalem, but in the Churches also.

S. Ambrose accordeth therewith: Sciēs enim venturum Dominum ad se comprimēdum, In ep. aed Thess. nomen eius sibi vsurpabit: & vt regnum eius verum videatur, attrahet secum ꝗ simul cum eo pereant, vt in domo Domini in sede sedeat Christi, & ipsum Deum se asserat, non filium Dei. Antichrist knowing, that our Lord shal come to beate him downe, wil vsurpe his name vnto himselfe.

And to the end his Kingdome maie seme true, he will draw with him such [Page 440] as may perish together with him, that he may sit in the house of our Lorde, in the seat of Christe, and may affirme him selfe to be very God and not the Sonne of God.

3 Thirdlie, Antichrist shal not come, before the Roman Empire be clean ta­ken away. for so much doth S. Paule si­gnifie by those words: And now ye know what withholdeth, or what letteth the cōming of Antichrist, verily the Roman Empire, nisi vene­rit discessio primū, & reuelatus fu­erit homo peccati (Christ saith, he shal not come to iudge the world) vn­lesse the departing come first, and the man of sinne be reuealed.

Defectio.The departing is meant, when all nations and coūtries shal depart whol­lie from the Romā Empire. For that it must be a ful departing, it appeareth, be­cause it is the Emperour himselfe who staieth the cōming of Antichrist, and who must be taken out of the way. For [Page 441] thus we read in S. Paul: Tantū vt qui tenet, teneat, donec de medio fiat. Onely that he who holdeth, may hold, vntil he be taken awaie,

[...], which signifieth to hold, and to withhold, being of the Mascu­line gender, doth shew the talk to be of a man. Verilie of the Emperour, who both holdeth the Empire (as S. Augu­stine doth expounde the worde) and withholdeth or stoppeth the cōming of Antichrist.De Ciuit. Dei. lib. 20 cap. 19. If any man aske whie the Emperour of Rome shoulde be saied to stop the comming of Antichrist: there­of diuerse reasons may be geuen, and which of those is most true, or how ma­ny are true, it is hard to iudge,Hovv manie vvaies the Ro­man Em­pire may vvith­hold the cōming of Anti­christ. because al prophecies and the reasons of them are obscure and darke, vntil they are fulfilled.

The first cause may be, either the re­uelation of the holie Ghost, or the pro­phecies of Isai, of Daniel, and of such o­thers by whō S. Paul might vnderstād [Page 442] that Antichrist cometh not, vntil the Roman Empire be destroied. And in this only sense, the Emperour is a stop vnto Antichrist by the way of signe or token, because God hath geuen suche a watchword, that Antichrict shal not rise, til the Roman Empire doth who­lie faile.

2 The second reason may be, the ini­quity which is wrought by the Roman Empire, of the which iniquitie, there is a certaine measure knowen to God alone, vntil the fulnes whereof, An­tichrist can not come. And to this rea­son the text of S. Paul semeth to agree in that it is said: that the mystery of iniquitie worketh now. As who should say, when it hath done wor­king, then is the coming of Antichrist ripe. S.Lib. 5. Irenaeus, and S.Ad Alga siam. quest. 11. Hierom also incline vehemently to this reason.

3 The third reason may be, the strēgth of the Roman Empire, because whiles it dureth, Antichrist (who must rule tē ­porally) [Page 443] can not haue ful obedience done to him: and so doth S. Chrysostome,In 2. Thes. Hom. 4. and manie Grecians after him, take the matter.

The last reason may be, for that God 4 (after the conuersion of the Emperours to the faith) hath caused most of them to serue him for the defense of his true faith and Church. The which defense whiles it standeth, Antichrist can not preuaile. ForLib. 3. de euangel. demon. Eusebius, in nati. Petri. serm. 3. Leo, in epist. ad Vale­rian. Eu­cherius doe affirme, the Roman Em­pire to haue bene prouided for the pro­pagation and preseruation of the faith. It is possible truely, that in diuerse rea­spects al these reasons may be true.

But how so euer it be, once, for­asmuch as the Emperour withholdeth the comming of Antichriste: so long as there is one who holdeth the Em­pire,Quaest. 11 ad Alga­siam. Tom. 3. Antichriste can not be in the Churche of Christ. For Saint Hie­rome geueth this sense to Saint Paules wordes: Non veniet Antichristus, [Page 444] nisi prius deleatur Romanum Im­perium. Antichrist shal not come, vnlesse the Roman Empire be first de­stroyed. And againe: nisi fuerit Ro­manum imperium antè desolatū, Vnlesse the Roman Empire be first de­solated. And againe: vt omnes gē ­tes, quae Romano imperio subia­cent, recedant ab eis. That al those Nations, which are vnder the Roman Empire, may goe or depart from them.

S. Augustine (although he could not assure himselfe to vnderstand per­fectlie this hard place of the Apostle) yet of this part, which I now speake of, thus he writeth:De Ciuit. Dei. lib. 20 cap. 19. Illud quod ait A­postolus, tantū qui modò tenet, te­neat, donec de medio fiat, non ab­surdè de ipso Romano imperio creditur dictum, tanquam dictum sit: tantùm qui modò imperat, impe­ret, donec de medio fiat, id est, de medio tollatur, & tūc reuelabitur iniquus, quē significari Antichri­stum [Page 445] nullus ambigit. That which the Apostle saith, onely he that hol­deth now, let him hold, vntil he be made away, is not absurdly beleued to be said of the Roman Empire it self: as though it were saied, only he that doth gouern now, let him gouern, vntil he be made away, that is, be taken away, and then shal be reuealed that wicked man, whome no man doth doubt to be Antichrist.

See what S. Augustin saith: let him rule who doth rule, vntil he be taken a way. Which is not only spoken of Nero by name (who then ruled) but of euerie successour of his,In 2. ad Thessa. 2. as Haimo expresselie writeth. As if it were said, let the Em­perour rule so long as he shall rule.

And when he ceaseth to rule, Anti­christ shal be reuealed.

How is then the Pope Antichrist, whereas there is as yet a Roman Em­perour liuing? Herevnto S Chry­sostom agreeth, saying: tantū quitenet [Page 446] in praesentia, donec è medio fiat. hoc est, quando è medio sublatum fuerit Romanum imperium, tum veniet ille, & non abs re. Donec enim imperij illius timor fuerit, ne­mo Antichristo statim subdetur. Quando verò istud fuerit destru­ctum imperium, vacantem impe­rij principatum inuadet, & tenta­bit ad se rapere & hominum & Dei imperium. Only he which hol­deth presently, vntill he betaken away. That is, when the Romā Empire shal­be taken away, then he shal come: and not without cause. For so long as there is feare of that Empire, no man wilbe straight waies subiect to Antichrist. But whē this Empire shalbe destroied, he will inuade the dignity of the Em­pire being voyd, and will assay to gette vnto himself the Empire of man and of God.

In 2. Thessalo. 2.Haimo saith: Reuelabitur con­gruo tempore Antichristus, post­quā [Page 447] oīa regna discesserint á Ro­mano imperio. Antichrist shalbe re­uealed in a meete tyme, after that all kingdoms shall depart from the Ro­man Empire.

Note, that all kingdoms must depart from the Roman Empire. If then it be cleere, that Antichrist doth not come, vntill the Roman Empire be voide, ād all nations be gon from it: seing Maxi­milian reigneth in it at this day, it is cleere, that the pope of Rome is not An­tichrist, who hath dured these fiftē hū ­dred yeres together with the Empe­rour, whereas Antichrist shall not come, vntill there be no moe Roman Emperours.

Lette vs goe foreward. Whensoe­uer Antichrist cometh, his dedes and doctrine against Christ must be opē and without all cloking or dis­sembling. For S. Paule sheweth a difference betwene Antichrist himself, and betwen the mystery of iniquity. Mysteriū. [Page 448] For a mysterie is as much to say, as a priuie thing. And so the mystery of ini­quitie was the priuy and close working of all impiety against Christ. Whereas on the other side he saith by Antichrist, reuelabitur iniquus ille, Reuelabi­tur. Hom. 4 that wicked man shalbe reuealed, and made open. Wherevpon S. Chrysostom saith: Ne­ronem hîc dicit tanquam typum Antichristi gerentem. nam ille volebat reputari Deus. & benè dixit mysterium, hoc est, non apertè hoc agit (Nero) sicut ille Antichri­stus) acturꝰ est, ne (que) adeo perfricta fronte & impudenter. He saith, that Nero doth here beare the figure of An­tichrist, for he would be taken as God. And he said verie well, the myste­rie, that is to say, Nero doth not this openly, as he (that is to say, Antichrist) will doe, neither with so brasen a face, and so impudently.

In. 2. ca. 2 ad Thessa.Theodoretus: Haereticos appel­lauit mysterium iniquitatis, vt qui [Page 449] habēt celatum iniquitatis laqueū. Ipse enim (Antichristus) apertè à Deo abducit homines. quamobrē etiam eius aduentum reuelationē vocauit Apostolus. Quod enim clanculum semper confirmabat, id palam & apertè praedicabit. He doth cal hereticks the mystery of iniquity, as whose iniquity is hidden. But Anti­christ himself doth bring men frō God openly, wherefore also the Apostle doth call his comming a reuealing: for that which he did priuily alwaies confirm, he wil preache openly and ma­nifestly. Haymo and Theophilact are of the same minde.

If then Antichrist shal oppugne Christ without al dissembling: how is it possible for the Popes to be Anti­christ, who surelie forbidde no man in plaine woordes to beleue in Christ, nor yet denie anie part either of the Gospell, or of the holie scriptures of the new testament.

All which things Antichrist will not only doe, but he will doe them openlie and plainly. Moreouer seing Anti­christ shall say himself to be God, and yet no pope did euer say so: doutlesse no pope can be Antichrist.

An obie­ction. M. Ievvel in his Re­ply. 258.I know here that a wrāgling protestāt wolud not feare to say, that the Pope accompteth himself God, because some gloses of the Canon law call him so, or make him aequall with Christ.

The an­svver.But in truthe there is no glose, that euer called the pope God in that sense, as though he were God by nature, but only God by the office which be beareth vnder Christ, as Moyses was called the God of Pharao. Exod. 7. & 22. Ioan. 10. Psal. 81. And euery iudge is in the holy scripture called God.

Nowe whereas the gloses allu­ding euidentlie to those texts, and to other which were made according to the example of them, doe call the pope God by an aequiuocation, and that also [Page 451] by the example of Gods word: is it not a marueilouse desperat point for the Protestantes to ground a doctrine, vp­pon such an abuse and aequiuocation of a word.

Now Antichrist must not onlie be called God of others, but he must extoll himself aboue God, euen after such sense as the blessed Trinity is God by nature. Wherevpon Haimo saith: supra sanctā Trinitatē se extollet, In 2. Thessalon. 2 He wil extol himself aboue the holie Trinitie. Certeinly no Pope did euer so much as dreame to doe any like thing, and much lesse do they professe it, but they professe only themselues to be the seruaunts of them who serue God.

The fifte differēce betwene the Pope 5 and Antichrist may be, in that An­tichrist shalbe receaued most specially of the Iewes, who as yet haue not receaued the Pope at any tyme. Concerning this matter Christ himselfe said vnto the Iewes:Ioan. 5 I came in my Fathers [Page 452] name, and me yee haue not recea­ued: if an other man come in his own name, him yee will receaue. This other man is expounded to be Antichrist, by SaintAd Al­gasiam. Hierom, SaintHom. 4 in Ioan. Chrysostom, SaintIn 2. ad Thessalon. Ambrose,Lib. 3. in Ioan. c. 6. Cyril­lus,In 2. ad Thessalon. 2. epi. c. 2. In 2. ad Thessa. Theodoretus, and all the other Fathers. And seing the woordes are spoken to the Iewes, they also must receaue Antichrist. And so much doth S. Paule teache also in his epistle to the Thessaloniās. According to which sort S. Ambrose saith: Ex circumci­sione aut circumcisum illum veni­re sperandum est, vt sit Iudaeis cre­dendi illi fiducia. It is to be looked, that Antichrist shal come circumcided or of the circūcisiō, that the Iewes may haue some confidence in beleuing him.

Ad Alga­siam. Faciet haec omnia (saieth S. Hie­rom) non sua virtute, sed conces­sione Dei propter Iudaeos. He shal doe al these things not by his owne po­wer, but by the permission of God, for [Page 453] the Iewes. Theodoretus: Iudaei eū ex­pectāt, & ei cùm aduenerit credēt. In 2. Thessalon. The Iewes doe looke for him, and whē he cometh, they wil beleue him.

Who seeth not, that the Iewes haue not yet receaued the pope? yea rather as they hate Christ most of al, so doe thei hate his Vicar aboue all other Christiās yea al most as much as the protestantes them selues do hate him, as by whome they vnderstand their religiō and faith to be most hindred.

The sixth difference is expressed in 6 Daniel, where after the description of the foure Empires it is saied, that, the fourth beast (which is the Ro­man Empire) had ten horns, Dan. c. 7. I con­sydered the horns. And be­holde an other litle horn sprang out of the middest of them, and three of the first horns were pul­led vppe before his face, and be­hold the eyes, as it were of a man, were in this horn, and a mouth [Page 452] [...] [Page 453] [...] [Page 454] speaking great things.

In c. 7. Daniel.Vppon this place, S. Hierom saith: Dicamus quod omnes scriptores Ecclesiastici tradiderunt. In con­summatione mundi, quando re­gnum destruendum est Romano­rum, decem futuros reges, qui or­bem Romanum inter se diuidant. Et vndecimum surrecturum esse regem paruulum. Qui tres reges de decem regibus superaturus sit. Id est, Aegyptiorum regem, & A­fricae, & Aethiopiae, sicut in conse­quentibus manifestius dicemus.

Let vs saie that which al the Eccle­siastical writers haue lest by tradi­tion. In the consummation of the world, when the kingdom of the Ro­mans must be destroyed, there shalbe ten Kings, who wil diuide the Roman Empire or Dominion among themsel­ues. And there shal arise the eleuēth being a very litle King. Who shal ouer­come three of those ten Kings, that is to [Page 455] saie, the Kings of Egipt, and of Afrike, and of Ethiopia, as we wil declare more manifestlie afterwards.

Herewith Hippolytus and Theodo­retus in his Comment vpon the same Prophet agreeth.In homil. de Antic. But what neede I write their wordes, seing S. Hierome confesseth it to be the opinion of al Ec­clesiastical writers? Wherefore seing the Pope hath not conquered to him the kingdomes of Egipt, Aethiop, and of Affrike: who soeuer saith him to be that chiefe Antichrist who is prophe­cied of, is no Ecclesiastical writer, but a false Prophet and a seducer.

The seuenth difference is, that Anti­christ 7 shal p̄uail in his reign but three yeres and a halfe.Daniel. 7. Sancti tradentur in manu eius vsque ad tempus, & tempora, & dimidium temporis.

The Saints shalbe deliuered in his hād vntil a time (that is to saie, one yere) times (that is, two yeres more) and half a time, that is, halfe a yere. And that [Page 456] we may be sure this interpretation to be true, it is noted of S. Augustin, that Daniel afterward nūbreth the daies, ād in the Apocalips the moneths are also nūbred,Apoc, 13. to wit, forty and two moneths.

Daniel saith: Frō the time wher­in the continual Sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abhominati­on of desolatiō shalbe set vp, daies a thowsand, Daniel. 12 two hundred, nientie. Where S. Hierom saith: Perspicuum est, tres istos & semis annos de Antichristi dici temporibus, qui tri­bus & semis ānis, hoc est mille du­centis nonaginta diebus sanctos persecuturus est. Et postea corrui­turus in monte inclyto & sancto. It is euident, that these three yeres ād an halfe, are said of the time of Anti­christ, who shal ꝑsecute the saints three yeres ād an half, that is, a thousand two hūdred ād nienty daies, and afterward he shal fal in the glorious and holy hil. Of the same mind were Eusebius Cae­sariensis, [Page 457] Appollinarius Laodicenus, and Methodius, whō S. Hierom nameth at the end of the same Chapiter.

S. Irenaeus likewise saith:Iren. lib. 5. Aduersus haeres. Cùm va­stauerit Antichristus omnia in hoc mundo, regnans annis tribus & mensibus sex, & sederit in templo Hierosolymis, tunc veniet Domi­nus, &c. When Antichrist reigning three yers and six moneths shall haue spoyled all things in this worlde, and shal sit in the Temple at Ierusalem, thē our Lord shal come. If Antichrist then preuaileth but three yeres and a halfe, seing the Popes haue kept their succes­sion fiftene hūdred yeres together, and haue had their tēporal power which is annexed to the bishoprik euē by the cō ­fession of our Aduersaries, at the least these viij. or ix. hūdred yeres, I can not see, what ground they haue to teache the Pope to be Antichrist himself.

I might adde to these differen­ces, that Helias shal come at the [Page 456] [...] [Page 457] [...] [Page 458] time of Antichrist, asSerm. de Antich Hippolytus,De ciuit. lib. 20. c. 19 S. Augustine,in 2. Thessal. S. Chrysostome, andin 2. Thessal. Theodoretus teache, who is not yet come, although the Popes hath floris­shed so long.

9 Item, that Antichriste shall be born of the tribe of Dan, aslib. 5. Irenae­us,de Anti. Hippolytus,in 2. Thessal. Theodoretus, and S.In 14. in Iob. 11. Gregorie haue written (wheras the Popes are of no suche tribe) and also, that Antichrist cometh but euen a litle before the end of the world, asLib. 5. 10 Irenaeus saith, andLib. 20. c. 19 S. Augustin, andin 2. Thessal. Theodoretus: In ipso tempore cō ­summationis, in the verie time of the last end. But either these former differences doe suffise, or with them who haue settled their hartes against the truth of Gods worde, and againste the iudgement of the Catholike fathers, no arguments at al wil preuail. Whose infinite selfe will, if it be punisshed with infinite damnation, it is but the iust iudgement of God. Onelie I be­seche [Page 459] him to staie their harts, whiles yet the time of penance is not shut vp

I haue not lightlie spoken one word in this behalfe without authoritie, be­cause the matter is harde, and aboue mans capacitie. In so muche that S. Hierom, considering Daniel him selfe not to haue perceued the mysteries, be­fore they were expounded to him, writeth in this wise:In cap. Dan. 12. Si Prophe­ta audiuit, & non intellexit: quid faciunt hi qui signatum librum & vsque ad tempus consummationis multis obscuritatibus inuolutum, praesumptione mentis edisserunt? Yf the Prophet did heare, and did not vnderstand, what shal they doe, who by presumption of the minde, do expoūd and declare the book sealed, and folded vppe with many obscurities vntil the time of consummation?

Let now the Protestants speak with­out the booke after their presumptuous phantasie, or els let them shew vs one [Page 460] auncient Father of the first six hun­dred yeres (among so many as haue writē) who said at any time, the Pope of Rome was or should be Anti­christ.

Dan. 7. Ioan. 5. 2. Thess. 2Or if none can be named, yea if the Prophets, the Gospels, the Apo­stle describe Antichrist in suche wise, that it is impossible for the Popes to be meant thereby: shal yet this furious o­pinion stil preuaile? It shal in deed, but with men possessed by some euil spi­rit, who haue neyther eyes at libertie to see, nor eares to heare, nor com­mon sense to conceiue either the word of God, or the consent of graue and ler­ned men. God opē the eyes of the blind, if it be his wil.

The argument of the Pro­testants.Now, whereas to make a shewe of somwhat, the Protestants alleage, that Babylon is expounded by Tertullian to be Rome, and that Rome is cal­led the harlet clothed with purple in Saint Hierome, and that there are [Page 461] the seuen hils whiche are spokē of in the Apocalips, Apoc. 13. If these men care not what they saie, or how they allege the Fathers, so that they may seeme to the ignorant not to lack wordes: I can not enuie them their small pleasure, which shalbe afterward recompensed with so bitter a sauce of aeternal damnation.

But if they seek the truthe with a syncere cōscience, thei are wel assured that Rome is called Babilō, not in respect of the Christians which are now there, but ōly in respect of the cōfusiō of al tongs ād al peple whiche haunted thither in the time of th' Emperors. And then Rome was ful of Idolatry, ād did persecute the Saints, and did put to death aboue thirty of the first Bisshops of Rome. So that Rome is called Babylon for persecuting the Bishops, and not for honouring them. For disobeying the Popes, and not for obey­ing them.

Ad algae­siam.Againe S. Hierom expoundeth the harlet clothed with red purple, na­mely to be that euerlasting wordlie Empire and monarchie, which (as the Romans dreamed) should continue stil ouer the whole world. The which opi­nion (of the eternity of the Roman Empire) S. Hierom calleth the name of blasphemy which is writen in the harlets forhead. And in this re­spect the Romā Empire prepared a way for the abhomination to come, which being once come to his ripenes, Anti­christ shalbe reuealed. One of the grae­test signes of whose comming is the weakenes of the Romā Empire. Which when it is cleane taken away, then co­meth Antichrist.

But it is to be vnderstanded (if I shall play the child with childish Diui­nes) that the city of Rome at this daie standeth not vppon the seuen hils, but as the Empire is gonne from the city, so is the City gonne from the hils, [Page 463] and standeth in the plaine along by the riuers side, in the field, which sometime was called campus Martius. And so by the changing of the place the Prote­stants haue lost their argument.

The pope also doth sitte for the most part on the other side of the riuer vp­pon the hilnamed Vatican, hard by S. Peters Churche,The seuē hils. by whom he holdeth his chaire, not at all deriuing his power from the seuen hils, whereupon the se­uen Kings dwelt, or from the Roman Empire.

But in dede the seuen hils are well meant the fulnes of pride and vaine glorie, which is in all the worlde, and specially in secular princes,Herof I shal speak in the next cha­piter. to whom yet the protestants committ the supreame gouernment of the Church, being ther­by nere to the state of Antichrist, then they are ware of. But lette all our new brethern bring but one holy Father or auncient doctour (who hath ben al­waies accompted Catholike) who euer [Page 464] said, that the bishop of Rome should be Antichrist: or if none can be alleaged, let this doctrine of theirs be accompted a ꝓphane nouelty of words, 1. Tim. 6. which S. Paule would haue to be auoided a­mong good Christians.

Not the Pope of Rome, but the Prote­stants themselues are the members of Antichrist by forsaking the Catholike Church, by setting vp a new Church, and by teaching false doctrine against the Gospel of Iesus Christ. The XVIII. chap.

THis being once cleered, that the Pope of Rome can not be that notable Antichrist, who was so lōg before prophecied of, the next shift of the Protestants must be to say, that the Pope is at the lest a forerunner of that principal Antichrist.1. Ioan. 2 Of which sort all such are, as by teaching false doctrine do promote his kingdō, who is the head and capitaine of all errour and heresie.

I am not ignorant, that if I should ex­actly handle this argument, I should runne ouer all the articles which are at this day in controuersie. For in euery of them, he that holdeth the false part, is a mēber of Antichrist: ād he that de­fendeth the truthe, is of Christ. But for so much as that were an infinite la­bour, it shall suffise by a few generall reasons to shew the way vnto him, who list to prosecute the said argumēt more fully.