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
are not possible for man to vtter yet did he not therefore broche anye new reuelations or dreames but confirmed his doctrine by the testimonie of the law and the Prophets He exhorteth his scholer Timothie 1. Tim. 4.13 to giue attendance vnto reading to exhortation to doctrine to learning and to continue therein to saue himselfe and them that should heare him God reuealed vnto Peter and the rest of the Apostles that he was the sonne of the liuing God but by preaching so vnto Cleophas and the other Disciple going to Emaus Luc. 24.45 expounding the Law and the Prophets hée opened the doctrine of his passion God opened the heart of Lidia conuerted her vnto Christianitie but by Paules ministerie Wherefore although God reuealeth all thinges Act. 16.14 yet is not the spirite to be seuered from the word neither yet the word from the spirite God doth vse both these instruments ioyntly And thus much for the first part The second point I sayd we had to consider was what the foundation and rocke is wherevpon the Church of God is builte for that is expressed in the 18 verse Thou art Peter and vpon this rock I will builde my Church and the gates of hel shal not ouercome it Concerning the true meaning and sence of these wordes what it is that Christ appointeth to be that rock wherevpon he will build his Church there is no small variance betwéen vs and the church of Rome We according to the tenor of the rest of the scriptures and circumstance of the place affirme that Christ by this word Petra a Rocke meaneth that whiche Peter confessed whiche was Christe himselfe But the Popishe Cleargie to establishe the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome and his superioritie power and dominion ouer all other churches hath applied this saying of our Sauioure Christ vnto Peter alone making him that Rocke whereof Christ here speaketh against which the gates of Hell cannot preuaile affyrming that Christ in this place hath giuen by these wordes a certayne chiefetie and preheminence to Peter aboue all other Apostles and made him the foundation and heade of his church here in earth and his vicar generall for the gouernmente thereof enduing him with especiall power and authoritie aboue all others Whiche exposition as also Article of Religion to bee most vntrue being the mayne poste of their religion and suche an Article of fayth the whiche who beléeueth not as they saye cannot bée saued and this place being vsed of them all especiallye aboue all others as the cheefest for the confirmation of the Supremacye and authoritie of the Bishop of Rome it shall not bee amisse being apparante sithens this Progresse that howsoeuer this Doctrine hath bene heretofore beaten downe that notwithstanding it remayneth rooted in many mens mindes it shall be expedient to shew and declare this their interpretation to be erroneous and their collection vaine and friuolous Which I will doe first by the very words and circumstaunce of the place Secondly by that this their exposition is contrarye to the expresse wordes of the Scripture and rules of Fayth Thirdely by the opinion and practise of the Apostles And last of all by the iudgement and interpretation of the antient and learned Fathers and practise of their age Firste that euen the verye wordes of the Texte do argue that when Christ sayth vppon this Rocke I will builde my Church by this worde Petra a Rocke hée meaneth not the person of Peter the Apostle but that which Peter confessed which was Christe it maye appeare by this in that it pleased the holye Ghoste the Euangelist shoulde alter and chaunge the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when as hee mighte haue vsed the selfe same worde to expresse that their meaning to make Peter the Rock wherevpon he would build his church for although the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doe agrée in significatiō in that both of them by interpretatiō doth signifi a stone or rock yet the alteration chāge of the word in propriety of spéech termination in gender in construction of persō doth import that the holy ghost by these diuerse words would mean a diuers thing For the one word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is nomen atticum after the proprietie of the Attike tongue the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is nomen communis linguae after the propriety of the vulgar tōgue the one word is the masculine gender the other the feminine the persō in cōtruction differeth for from the second person he goeth to the third he saith not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vpō thée Peter but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vpon this rock By this varietie and change it is plain the Euangelist ment to expresse some diuerse thing otherwise it néeded not to haue made any alteration at all there is no doubte therefore but the holye ghost vpon purpose did alter and chaunge the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen to auoyde that erroure that mighte bée gathered thereof if Christe woulde haue taughte vs in this place so weightye an Article of oure Fayth as that is as they make it that Peter muste bée the Heade of the Churche vppon whome excepte wée bée builte we cannot bée saued hée woulde not in declaration thereof so haue varied from his ordinarie name hée gaue him séeing it mighte so well haue serued the turne and by whiche hée mighte playnely haue declared this grounde of Fayth Wherefore by the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meante not the Person of Peter but Christe whome Peter confessed and beléeued on For whiche cause Peter immediatelye before in the former verse was pronounced blessed by our sauioure Christe for that GOD had opened and reuealed vnto him that Christe was the sonne of the liuing GOD and further for the knowledge and beleefe hereof hée did not onely terme him blessed but hée also gaue him another name that whereas before hée was called Simon Bar Iona hée shoulde nowe bée named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a Rocke according as hée had promised in the firste of Iohn because hée knewe and beléeued in the Rocke vpon whiche not onlye hée but the whole Churche of GOD shoulde bee builte For hée was so named of Christ not because hée shoulde bée Petra the rock wherevppon the Congregation of God shoulde bée builded but hée was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because hee was builte vpon that Rocke whereon the Churche should be founded Petra whiche is the Rocke as Augustine August serm 21. de verbo domini sayth hath not his name of Peter but Peter of Petra the Rocke as Christ hath not his name of a Christian but a Christian of Christe Ierom in 8. Math. and Sainte Ierome affirmeth that Peter had his name of Petra whiche is Christ whiche name agréeth not onely to the person of Peter but vnto all Christians and faythfull people which beléeue
also at Ierusalem and at Antioche as appeareth in the actes of the Apostles why should not then the Bishops of Ierusalem and Antioche be accounted Peters successours as well as the Bishop of Rome If it be because Peter suffred there so did Paul also and surely that is but a meane reason to make Rome the Sea of Peters succession because that citie put him to death But wherein are the Bishops of Rome his successours whether in his Apostleship or in his Bishoprike not in the former for then must they immediatly be called to that office of God Secondly their duetie must be to preache to all nations for both these properties be required to make an Apostle as may appeare Gal. 1. Matth. 28. Gal. 1. Matth. â—8 But neither of these are agréeable to the Bishop of Rome being neither immediatly called of God neither executing the office of an Apostle in going about to preache to all nations he cannot be his successour in his Bishopricke for neither doeth hee take vppon him the office of a Bishop to be tyed to a certaine charge and besides how can he be successour to Peter in that which Peter was not he was by office an Apostle not a Bishop And further if we will beléeue auncient writers Irenaeus contra Valent. Peter was neuer Bishop of Rome for Irenaeus and Eusebius say that Paul and Peter founded the Church of Rome and that Linus by them was appointed the first Bishop Then succeded him Anacletus and thirdly Clemens And Tertullian Tert. lib. 10. de pres heret nameth Clemens the first Bishop of Rome appointed by Peter as Policarpus was the Bishop of Smirna appointed by Iohn Thus although Tertullian agreeth not with Irenaeus and Eusebius in appointing the first Bishop yet it is euident that neither of them accounted of Peter as of the Bishop of Rome but as of an Apostle who taught there as Paul did also So that the Pope cannot be Peters successour in his Bishopricke because hee was neuer Bishop of Rome If hee saye hee is his successour in his doctrine if he were able to iustifie that it woulde beare some colour But if the quite contrarie be prooued then is that allegation nothinge and besides that ought to be common to all Bishops and therefore by that he can challenge no prerogatiue I might declare at large howe farre he is from succéeding Peter in many respects but that were too large a fielde to enter in but euen as all those be not the children of Abraham which come of Abraham concerning the flesh but those that doe the workes of Abraham euen so those are not to be estéemed the successours of Peter or any of the Apostles which followe them in place or in name but those which followe them in their faith and doctrine which thing if they can shewe they doe we will in parte graunt them to be successours to the Apostles I will not stande longer vppon this point I trust that which I haue sayd shal be sufficient for the confirmation of the second part part I tooke in hande to prooue Nowe I will hasten vnto the third There remaineth then the third parte to discusse which was what the power commission is that was giuen to Peter in this place when it is saide to him To thee wil I giue the keyes of the kingdom of Heauen whatsoeuer thou shalt binde on earth shal be bounde in Heauen c. which wordes being spoken vnto Peter giuing him by expresse wordes the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen and the authoritie of binding and loosing thereby they haue inferred some speciall authoritie and prerogatiue to haue bene giuen to Peter aboue all other by our Sauiour Christ in this place Wherefore concerning the interpretation and sense of these wordes séeing there is no agréement betwéene vs the church of Rome in that they saye that hereby Peter was endewed with speciall commission aboue all other the Apostles we contrariwise doe affirme that that which was spoken vnto him was spoken to all the rest alike For the better examination of this it shal be necessarie for vs to consider these two pointes First vnto whome these wordes were spoken whether vnto Peter alone or principally as the Papistes woulde haue it or vnto all in generall Secondly what is that power and authoritie which was giuen vnto Peter for in neither of these points do wee agree with them For the first that although these wordes were directed to Peter alone yet that thereby our Sauiour Christ meant not to giue him any speciall priuilege or prerogatiue aboue his fellowes but to endew them al with the like authoritie first both the wordes and circumstance of the place and the doctrine of the scriptures in other places doth declare it and secondly the iudgement and opinion of the auncient learned fathers doth approue the same That the whole course and circumstance of the place doeth euict this promise gift of our Sauiour Christ to appertaine to them all it may be apparant by this First that the question of our Sauiour Christ is propounded to theÌ„ all Whome do ye say that I am and therefore he requireth not the opinion of Peter alone but of them all that their knowledge and opinion of him may better agree and be more constant truer perfecter than the opinion of the common people which before they had declared vnto him And the aunswere also Peter made was not in his owne person alone but for them all So sayeth Austine as was alleaged of mee before The Lorde asking and saying saith he Whome do ye saye that I the sonne of man am Peter aunswereth Thou art the sonne of the liuing God one gaue aunswere for many The conclusion of the dialogue appertaineth also vnto all for in the ende Christ forbad not onely Peter to tell any bodie that he was Iesus that Christ but he charged them all to tell that to no man So that the beginning of the dialogue the middest and the ending appertaining to all why then shoulde any speciall thing be attributed to any one aboue others by these wordes Besides that which is spoken here alone to Peter in the singular number in the 18. Chapter is spoken to all in the plurall number Verily I saie vnto you whatsoeuer ye binde in earth shall be bound in Heauen and whatsoeuer ye loose in earth shal be loosed in Heauen Here equall authoritie is giuen to all in the same wordes But let vs obserue further that Christ saith here Dabo I will giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen and so forth Here the keyes are promised but not giuen If then Christ when he perfourmed this promise gaue not any special power to Peter but endued them all with the like shall we imagine here any special thing giuen him to be preferred before others in the 20. of Iohn Iohn 20. where Christ perfourmed this after his resurrection he committed this power and