authoritie he promised here vnto al equally in these wordes Peace be vnto you as my father sent me euen so sende I you when he had said that he breathed vpon them they receiued the holy Ghost adding Whose soeuer sinnes ye remit they are remitted vnto thē whose soeuer sinnes ye retain they are retained Here we sée he giueth his peace vnto them al he breatheth on them all they all receiue the holy ghost alike they are al endewed with the same power of forgiuing reteining sins Where is then Peters prerogatiue especially now when it should specially haue bin specified But what if any principall authoritie and power had béene giuen to Peter by Christ here what doth that belong to the Bishop of Rome where is Peters will and testament by which he hath bequeathed his keyes rather vnto him than vnto the Bishops of Ierusalem or Antioche by what Scripture can they proue that Christ hath made them rather Peters successours in this authoritie and commission then other Bishops If the keyes were promised giuen to Peter alone and to none of the other Apostles howe dare they giue them vnto the Bishops of Rome There is not one worde in the Scripture of their succession by inheritance Seing then that neither the course of the dialogue nor yet the authoritie and function is other that is here giuen then was giuen to all the Apostles of Christ himselfe afterwarde in like manner and that although some more speciall and excellent office was cōmitted to Peter then to any other Apostle yet that the B. of Rome cannot claim that more than any other Bishop it maketh nothing for the establishing of the supreme power ouer the vniuersall Church of God which the Pope arrogateth vnto himself But let vs sée what the auncient learned fathers thinke on this point That which Origen writeth is most plaine against them which think any speciall thing was giuen to Peter An soli Petro dantur claues regni coelorum c. Doest thou thinke that the keyes of the kingdom were only giuē to Peter and to no other neither any other should receiue them If these words were not common to all men as they are I will giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen how can al these sayings things which are applyed to Peter before be common to all men For Christ thus spake in common to them all Whome do ye saye that I am and Peter answered in the name of all Doeth he not vtter the same in plainer wordes in the 20. of Iohn saying to all the Apostles Ioan. 20. and breathing vpō them receiue the holie Ghost whose sinnes ye forgiue c. They were all of like authoritie with Peter Thus much Origen then which wordes what can be more plaine Cyprian Cyp. de simp praelat also in his booke de simplicitate Prelatorum against the Nouatians confirmeth this The Lord sayth he saith vnto Peter thou art Peter The Lord after his resurrection gaue vnto his Apostles like power yet to declare the vnitie he disposed the originall of vnitie beginneth at one The rest of the Apostles were euen the same that Peter was endewed with like fellowship both of honour and power but the beginning procéedeth of vnitie to declare one Church Basil Basil 23. cap. de vita solit also sayeth Christus Petrum post se suae Ecclesiae pastorem constituit c. Christ appointed Peter to be Pastor of his Church after and so consequently giueth the same power and authoritie to all Pastours and doctours a token whereof is this that all Pastours doe equally binde and lose as they list as well as he Augustine de Agone Christiano Cap. 32. Cum Petro dicitur pasce oues meas omnibus dicitur When it is sayde to Peter féede my shéepe Aust de Agon Christ cap. 31. cap. 32. it is saide to all And in the 31. Chapter Wretched men while in Peter they vnderstande not Christ which is the rocke and while they wil not beléeue that the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen are giuen vnto the Church not vnto Peter alone they haue lost the keyes out of their handes and in another place hee sayeth the Churche which is founded in Christ Aug. tract 124. saper hath taken the keyes of him so that not Peter onely but the whole Church receiued the keyes of him Beda Beda sayeth the power of bynding and loosing although it seeme to be giuen onely vnto Peter without doubt this is to bee knowen that it is giuen also vnto the other Apostles Haymo one of their owne doctors well weighing the text affirmeth contrarie vnto them Wee must not thinke sayeth hee that vnto blessed Peter alone this power was giuen but as hee for all aunswered Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God so in the person of one all heard whatsoeuer thou shalt binde in earth c. Cyrill Cyr. in Ioan. li. 3. cap. 20. Christ gaue full power vnto the Apostles and vnto others that succeeded them in the Churches To conclude then if by the testimonyes of the auncient and learned fathers Christ gaue full and like power to all his Apostles If the rest of the Apostles were the same that Peter was endewed all with like honour and power If Christes wordes were common to all the rest If all Pastours doe equally binde and loose as well as Peter then is there no speciall priuilege giuen vnto Peter aboue others by this place Wherefore I trust this first poynt is manifest by the circumstance of the place and opinion of ancient writers that there is no speciall prerogatiue or function giuen vnto Peter that was not committed to all that whatsoeuer was spoken by Christ here vnto Peter did not belong here vnto him only but to them al in common Now secondly haue wee to consider what was that power authoritie that was giuē vnto Peter here that was to haue the keyes of the kingdom of heauen the authoritie of binding loosing but herein haue wee to weigh what is meant contained in these words how farre they ought to stretch For the B. of Rome claimeth by right of succession inheritance whatsoeuer power iurisdiction was giuen vnto Peter therfore by the vertue of these wordes promise of Christ claimeth al power authoritie whatsoeuer may be contained included in these speaches Hereof hath he challenged to himselfe to be aboue kings Princes to haue the authoritie of consecrating deposing them to be aboue all general councels to haue fulnes of power to expound the scriptures to whose determination the Church of God must necessarily stand to haue authoritie to dispense with Gods worde to make that lawfull which before was vnlawfull to haue absolute frée power to decree whatsoeuer he liketh of and that of the church is to be obserued as an heauenly Oracle that he hath power to giue heauen to throwe downe into
Augustine Aug. 21. de verbis Dom. in this place writeth thus Super hanc Petram quaÌ„ confessus es c. that is vpon this rock which thou hast confessed vpoÌ„ this Rock which thou hast acknowledged saying thou art the son of the liuing God I will build my congregation vpon my selfe I will build my church vpon my self I will build the not my self vpon thee for they that would haue meÌ„ build vpon meÌ„ said I hold of Paul another I hold of Apollo another I of Cephas which is Peter but other which would not be built vpon Peter but vpoÌ„ the rock said I hold of Christ Againe in another place Super hanc Petram quam confessus est aedificabo ecclesiam Idem in Ioan. tract 124. c that is vpon this rock which thou hast confessed I wil build my church for the rocke was Christ vpoÌ„ which fouÌ„datioÌ„ Peter himselfe was built for other foundation then that which is laid caÌ„ no maÌ„ lay which is Christ Iesus the church therfore that is founded on Christ hath takeÌ„ the keyes of the kingdome of heaueÌ„ of him I omit that which he writeth also in his booke against the Iewes Pagans Idem contra Iud. Pag. Arti. and Adrians where he also expoundeth this place after this maner By this it appeareth how he expouÌ„ded this rock here meÌ„tioned not to bee Peter but Christ himselfe Gregor missenus saith Tu es Petrus Greg. Misse in tesiimâ—nijs delectis ex veteri testamento c. Thou art Peter vpon this Rock I will build my Church he meaneth saith he the confession of Christ for he had sayd before thou art the sonne of the liuing God And Hilarius Hilar. lib. 4. de Trini Petra nihil aliud est quaÌ„ firma et inconcussa discipuli fides The rock is nothing else but the strong and assured faith of the Disciple What can be plainer then that which Origen writeth vpon this place If wée confesse sayth he Christe to bee the sonne of God the Father reuealing it vnto vs it shall be sayd to ech one of vs thou art Peter Orig. tract in Math. and vppon this Rocke will I build my Congregation euery maÌ„ is Petra that is a disciple of Christ vpoÌ„ such a rock all ecclesiastical learning is builte if thou thinke that the whole church is only builte vpon Peter what wilt thou saye of Iohn the sonne of thunder and of the other Apostles And further indéede it was spoken to Peter vpon this Rocke I will builde my Congregation Notwithstanding it is spoken in like maner of all the other Apostles and to all faithfull and perfite because they are all Peters and Rockes and vpon al them and the Prophets is Christs Church built and the gates of hell shal not preuayle agaynst any of them Wherefore if they will giue credit to Origen who was within 235 yeres after Christ that that which was sayd to Peter shall be sayde to euery Faithfull man making the like confession and that this which was spoken to Peter here was spoken to all the Apostles and to all Faithfull and perfite men in like maner Then is here nothing attributed more vnto Peter then vnto any of the other Apostles Gregorie Greg. lib. 4.33 Epist was himselfe Bishop of Rome and whome our Romish Cleargie woulde haue to chalenge this dignitie and prerogatiue they giue vnto Peter hée of this place and diuerse others which they vse as moste weightie to confirme Peters and the Popes Supremacie inferreth the quite contrary For he reasoneth thus to Peter it was sayde Louest thou me féede my shéepe Satan hath desired to sifte thée but I prayed that thy Faith may not faile thou being conuerted strengthen thy Brethren thou art Peter and vpon this Rocke will I build my church to thée I will giue the keyes of the kingdome of heaueÌ„ whatsoeuer c. and he concludeth in the ende notwithstanding Peter is not called Vniuersall Bishop This one man hath lefte sufficient witnesse behind him to condemn in Peter and in all Bishops of Rome both the name of that dignitie and superioritie and also the authoritie and iurisdiction which the Pope doth claime vnto himselfe by vertu of this place For first how sharply and bitterly writeth he against this that eyther Iohn the Bishop of Constantinople or any other Bishop shoulde clayme or tearm himself to be the vniuersall Bishop of the whole Church in his Epistles First in his fourth booke he tearmeth this Title and name a new a proude Greg. lib 4. Epist 32. Ep. 38. Ep. 39. a pompous name In his 38 Epistle of the same booke a rash foolish peruerse name a name of errour In the Epistle following a wicked name a name of vanitie a name of Hypocrisie a name of blasphemie Lib. 6. epi. 2. In his sixte booke and 2 Epistle a puffe of arrogancie and in the 24 Epistle of the same Booke a superstitious and vngodly name So farre then in his iudgement is it from being agréeable to Gods will for any Bishop to claime this name that he accounteth it a most vngodly and impious thing and not only the name of modesty and humility is thus disalowed of him as some woulde beare vs in hande but the very office authority iurisdiction that is claimed thereby for otherwise the reasons he vseth were of no force Lib. 4.38 for in the 38 Epistle of his 40 Booke hée reasoneth thus What answere wilt thou make vnto Christ at the trial of the last iudgement that goest about vnder the name of an Vniuersall Bishop to subdue all his members vnto thée Here he condemneth the name for that hee whiche desireth it goeth aboute to subdue all the members of Christe vnto him Whiche in verye déede is broughte to passe not by the verye name but by the power signifyed by the name His Comparison in the thirtith Epistle of the same Booke Li. 4.30 Epi. where he resembleth him to Lucifer that affecteth the name cannot condemne the name onlye but the thing also because it was not Lucifers desyre onelye to bee named God but also to sitte in his seate and execute his Dominion When as in that place hee sayeth that Iohn Bishop of Constantinople challenging that Title doeth Contra Euangelicam Doctrinam against the meaning of the Gospell against Saint Peter the Apostle agaynste the Ordinaunce of the Canons agaynst the faith agaynste all the Churches of GOD agaynst GOD himselfe and many other thinges more in anye mans iudgement that maye bée sufficiente by his authoritie to disallow the name and the office not onely in Iohn the Bishop of Constantinople but also in any other Bishop that shall clayme it For that some séeke to auoyde it in posting ouer this whole writing to bée against Iohn the B. of Constantinople as though Gregorie had misliked this name of vniuersal Bishop in him so ambitiously gréedily séeking for it not if it had ben
giuen to his own Sea of Rome this is but a méere shift For thus he sayth in 32 Epistle Nullus Romanorum Episcoporum hoc singularitatis nomeÌ„ sibi assumpsit Greg. Epi. 32 None of the Bishops of Rome euer receued this name of singularitie And againe Nullus predecessoruÌ„ meoruÌ„ hoc tam profano vocabulo vti consensit None of my Predecessours euer consented to vse this vngodlye name Nos hunc oblatum honorem nolâ—mus suscipere We will not take this honour offered vnto vs and in very déede no more he would for in his seueth Booke hee findeth fault with Eulogius the Patriarch of Constantinople Lib. 7.30 for terming him in the preface of his Epistle the vniuersall Pope and for saying as you commanded requiring him to doe so no more and not to vse any suche tearmes So that he disaloweth that name and authoritie to be giuen to himselfe as well as to the Bishop of Constantinople This that Gregorie did to disallow the authoritie of Vniuersall Bishop in anye was not onely done by him but also by diuers other learned and godly Bishops yea and by Councels First that is cleare which Cyprian that godlye man and martir of God writeth in his Oration he made in the Councell of Carthage concerning this poynt it remaineth saith Cyprian that euerye one speake of this thing what hée thinketh For there is none of vs that maketh himselfe Bishop of Bishops or that doth by tyrannicall feare driue his Fellowes to obey of necessitie seing euerye Bishop at his pleasure hath frée libertye and power of his owne will as if he could not be iudged of another neyther yet himselfe iudge any other let vs all waite for the iudgement of our sauiour Christ who only and alone hath power to make vs gouernours of his Church and iudge of oure doing Thus Cyprian denieth to anye to chalenge to himselfe to be Bishop of Bishops that is to bee vniuersall Bishop to haue power and authoritie ouer the rest to compell them to obay and to iudge of them he giueth frée libertie to all Bishops alike in that and giueth that preheminence to Christ alone whose of right it is Pela Ep. 99 That which Pelagius also writeth who was before Gregorie is playne Let none of the Patriarkes sayth he at any time vse this name of vniuersalitie because if one Patriarke be called vniuersall the name of Patriarch is thereby taken awaye from the other But let this be farre from the Faithfull The wordes of pelagius and Gregorie be so plaine that Edmundus Rufus writing agaynste Molinaeus the Lawyer cannot tell how to auoyde them he is driuen to interprete this worde vniuersalis singularis the vniuersall Bishop that is the singuler and only Bishop But God wot this poore shift will not serue the turne for the gréeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop of the whole habitable worlde quite ouerthroweth that for it cannot bee expounded the onelye Bishop The disliking of this preheminence and power which the Bishop of Rome nowe challengeth to himselfe was not only gaynsayde by their Bishops priuate opinions but euen by Councels â—onc Carth. â—an 26. For in the Councell of Carthage it was decréede that the Bishop of the firste Sea bee not called the chéefe of Priestes or the high Priest or by any other like name but onelye the Bishop of the first Sea by whiche name hee was tearmed not for any principalitie or power he had aboue the other Patriarkes but because the Romane Empire was the chéefe therefore the Bishop of that sea was tearmed by that name and tooke the place in Councels at that tyme and yet had no further authoritie then the Patriarche of Constantinople Alexandria or Antioche I omitte the Councell of Hippo Rhegius Conc. Hippo cap. 27. Conc. Africa cap. 92. and of Africa by which it appeareth too manifestlye what was the iudgemente of the Churche at those tymes concerning the geuing any principall power or prerogatiue to the Bishop of Rome aboue all others It is playne by the Historye of tymes that they neuer heald any suche Article that it was of the necessitie of saluation to beléeue the whole Churche of GOD must bée vnder one heade one generall of whome they must depende they would neuer yéelde or consent to any suche decrée or constitution It is well knowne how that Gregory the first Bishop of Rome of that name called Iohn the Bishop of Constantinople the forerunner of Anti-Christ for ambitiouslye desyring to be supreme heade Greg. lib. 2 Cap. 194. and to bee called the vniuersall Bishop of the World that was habitable Halfe a score yeare after or little more Boniface the third of that name obtayned through the helpe of Phocas the Emperoure whome hée had helped vnto the Empire by killing Mauritius the former Emperour his wife his brother and his sonne with many other to bee named or ordeined Pope or summus Pontifex the high Bishop which authoritie encreased afterward more more vntill it came to the highest pride So that apparant it is that the Churches of God for the space of foure hundred yeares and more after the death of our Sauiour Christ neuer taught or receiued any such doctrine either out of this place of Mathew or anye other that Christ hath left after his ascension an head of his vniuersal church here in earth or appointed an vniuersall Pastor of the whole congregation vnder him Ecclesiasticall ambition begate this office first and mans constitutions and Traditions hath only confirmed the same This I trust I haue sufficiently declared according as I promised both by the interpretatioÌ„s of the antient and learned Fathers of this place of Mathew and by their generall opinion concerning the appointing of an Vniuersall Bishop ouer Gods Churche as also by the practise of that age in that behalfe Wherein I am the more sparing because it hath bene at large declared of others in this age that there is no necessitye in this worde Petra in this place to make Peter the Foundation of the Congregation of Christe and so consequentlye his Successoure but lette vs graunte thus muche that Peter was made that Rocke that hée were the chéefe and Prince of the Apostles how doth it followe therefore that the Bishop of Rome is the Foundation and the chéefe of all Bishops It wil be saide that the Bishop of Rome is Peters successour therefore whatsoeuer prerogatiue was giuen vnto Peter was also giuen to him First besides this consequent followeth not not to driue them to prooue that euer Peter was at Rome which they are not able by any sound proofe out of the Scripture being great presumptions to the contrary neither yet by any agreement of Ecclesiasticall writers not agréeing of the tyme of his comming or abode there I woulde gladly knowe why and wherein the Bishop of Rome is rather accounted Peters successour then any other Bishop If it be because Peter was at Rome so was he