assigning Christ the head the husband of his bodie the church his spouse his wife in which thinges there can be no communion or fellowship Further this controuersie arising so often among his disciples who shoulde be the chiefest and our Sauiour Christ denying all superioritie at all times to any of them neither yet giuing any signification that Peter shoulde be their chiefe no not after his death and this their interpretation being such as causeth to giue that vnto man which is proper to GOD alone as faith and beliefe and to make diuerse bodies diuerse churches diuerse heades diuerse foundations when the holye Ghoste appointeth but one Church one head one foundation and last of all the Holye Ghoste assigning vnto Peter the ministerie of circumcision onely wée may iustly affirme the exposition of our Romish Cleargie to be contrarye to the expresse worde of GOD and rules of our faith I am not ignorant here of their blinde subtilties and distinctions whereby they would shift of the force of these reasons in making Christ natiuum reale fundamentum The naturall and substantiall foundation but Peter ministeriale fundamentum the ministeriall foundation here in earth that is that the ministerie and office of Peter is appoynted of GOD aboue the function of all the other Apostles to be that ministerie wherby he will builde his vniuersall Churche and gouerne it vppon whome and of whome all other Churches must hang and depende Which assertion to be most vntrue that any principall authoritie either for the buylding vp of the Church or gouernement thereof was by this place or any other committed vnto Peter aboue the other Apostles it may appeare by this that none of the Apostles either in their writings or doinges hath euer acknowledged any such thing but the contrarie accounting him but equall to others giuing him no preheminence aboue his fellowes For proofe hereof what can be more manifest than that Paul writeth to the Ephesians Ephes 2.19 where the Apostle of purpose speaking of the building of the Church and their Apostolicall function sayeth that nowe they were no more straungers and forrenners but citizens with the Saintes and of the housholde of GOD and that they were buylt vppon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Iesus Christ himselfe being the head corner stone By this worde foundation in this place he meaneth vndoubtedly the doctrine of the Apostles and wee see further that hee speaketh in generall of the Apostles in the plurall number not attributing any thing to any one of the Apostles as to a principall who shoulde be preferred in this buylding before others and besides he hath layde Christ the head corner stone vppon which the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets must worke vpon The same Apostle in the fourth Chapter of the same Epistle Ephe. 4.11.12 describinge what gyftes and functions GOD hath left to his Church for the building thereof hee sayeth Christ after his ascention gaue some to be Apostles some Prophets some Euangelistes some Pastours and teachers to the gathering together of the Saintes and buylding of the bodye of Christ but to haue appointed or giuen any generall and vniuersall Bishop or Pastour to that ende there is not one worde neither there nor in the first to the Corinthians where the Apostle declareth the diuersitie of giftes and functions GOD hath giuen to his Church 1. Cor. 12.28 Saint Iohn in the one and twentéeth of the Reuelation Apoc. 21.14 describing heauenly Hierusalem the Church of GOD buylt by the similitude of a Citie he maketh that the Wall of the citie had twelue foundations and in them the names of the lambes twelue Apostles Here wée see in this built citie of GOD nothing is giuen to Peter aboue the rest all are made equall the doctrine of all the Apostles is alike tearmed by the name of foundations and haue all share alike in the Walles of the Citie of GOD What cause is then why any prerogatiue should bee giuen to Peter more then to any other They shall eate and drinke at Gods table in his kingdome and sit and iudge the twelue Tribes of Israell alike as appeareth by Luke Luk. 22.30 which coulde not bee if principall power were giuen to Peter which they striue for ouer the whole Church And yet that this may appeare more manifest Let vs marke that Paul writeth in the 15. to the Romanes Rom. 15.20 where he sayth that hee enforceth himself to preach the Gospell where Christ had not beene preached and why least sayth hee I shoulde haue built vppon an other mans foundation 1. Cor. 3.10 And in the first to the Corinthians he testifieth that according to the grace of GOD giuen vnto him as a faithfull builder he had layde the foundation of the Church of Corinth If Paul in diuerse places did so preache the Gospell that he might not build vppon an other mans foundation if the Corinthians the buylding of GOD were founded by Paules ministerie then Peters ministerie is not necessarily the foundation of all Churches or else Paul challenged to himselfe more then he ought But if none of these testimonies were extant the Epistle to the Galathians were sufficient to conuince their assertion For it appeareth there that diuerse false Prophets and vaine glorious teachers went about to deface Paules doctrine and bring him out of credite and his disciples saying that Paul was not so excellent an Apostle as Peter and Iames were and the other Apostles that were conuersant with Christ while he liued here vppon earth that hee was since called to bee an Apostle therefore the other were rather to be followed and belieued than hee and so forth Paul vnderstanding and perceiuing this he goeth about to prooue that hee is no whit inferiour to Peter Iames or anye other the Apostles for that the Gospell hee taught hee receiued it not of man neither was hee taught it but by the reuelation of Iesus Christ Gal. 1. 2. Chap. After his calling hee went not of manye yeares to Ierusalem to learne any thing of the chiefe Apostles when hee came vp to Ierusalem it was to see Peter onely and to declare his consent and agreement in preaching of the Gospell because of sclaunders not to learne anye thinge of them that seemed to bee the chiefest Apostles Peter Iames and Iohn seeing the Gospell of vncircumcision was committed to him as the Gospell of circumcision was vnto Peter in that God which was mightie in the one was mighty also in the other they required no submission or obedience at Saint Paules handes or to doe any homage to any of them but they gaue vnto him the right hande of fellowship And further hee was so farre from acknowledging Peter his superiour or better That when he came to Antioche he withstoode him and rebuked him to his face for his dissimulation betweene the Iewes and Gentiles If this be well considered wee may well perceiue that Paul accounted not of Peter as
in this Rocke and hold the same fayth and confession Peter did Whosoeuer confesseth and beléeueth that Christ is the sonne of the liuing God as he did is a Peter Therfore Ierome vpon the sixt of Amos Ierom in 6. Amos Origen tract 1. in Math. termeth al Christs Apostles Peters And Origen plainly testifieth that if we affirme and confesse that Christ is the sonne of the liuing God as Peter did then are we Peters and shall obtaine the same felicitie that he hath obtayned because our confession and beléefe is al one and againe in the same place if wee confesse Christ to be the sonne of the liuing god the father reuealing it vnto vs it shal bee sayd of eche one of vs thou art Peter and vpon thee will I build my congregation euery man is Petra a Rock that is a follower of Christ Thus muche Origen By whome it is playne that Peter was so named because of the Rock he beléeued in not for that hée was to be the foundation of the church and that also that name to be tearmed a rocke is not agréeable to Peter alone but vnto all the faithfull and no maruaile for it is an vsuall thing for the properties of Christe to be attributed to all his children as christe is called a stone so are his people and seruauntes named lyuelye stones by participation as they are the lighte of the worlde and salte of the earth because the salt and lighte that they haue is deriued and procéedeth from him And as wée are called righteous because christe is our righteousnesse and wisedome so are wée tearmed Rockes because by him we are so made being the true perfecte and sounde Rocke Wherefore if Peter be pronounced blessed onely because of the confession hée made and that his name was chaunged from Simon vnto Peter for that cause alone and that his name agreeth to all christians who holde and make the same confession hée did as well as vnto him then is it apparante by the order and Sequel of the Texte and truth of the matter that the Rocke whereon christe will builde his churche is not the person of Peter no more then it is the person of anye other Apostle but that whereby both Peter and other faythfull shall be come both blessed and Peters For if wee marke the order and course of the Dialogue betweene Christ and his Disciples first wee may obserue that the Question is propounded not to Peter alone but generallye vnto all whome doe ye saye that I am And agayne Christ demaunded not what they thought of Peter but what they thoughte of him so that in the respect we cannot imagine any especiall thing ment and intended toward Peter more thē any other For in that he made aunswere alone that was in the person of them all to auoide confusion and declare vnitie Cyprianus de simpli praelat August serm 21. de verbo domini as Ciprian sayth he was but their mouth So also Austin saith Petrus saepe vnus respondit pro omnibus c. Peter oftentimes made aunswere for all the Lord asking and saying whome say ye that I am Peter answered Thou art the sonne of the liuing god he only gaue answere for many to declare vnity in many And what was the cōfessiō of Peter it was that Christ was the son of the liuing God this confessiō was approued commended of Christ not the person of Peter but in respect of the confession herewithall if wee marke what happened immediatly after the conclusion of the dialogue vnto Peter nothing can be more plaine than that Peter cannot be that rocke whereupon God will build his Church for that rocke must be such against which the gates of hell can not preuaile how can Peter then be that foundation who immediatly after this confession fell so grieuously that he was termed of our Sauiour Christ Satan For Peter diswading him from going vp to Ierusalem to accomplish the worke of our redemption he saide vnto him away from mée Satan thou sauourest not the things that are of God but the things that are of men And afterwarde he denyed abiured his Master he was farre therefore from being that vnmouable rocke which could not be shaken such an one against which the gates of hell could not preuaile so then to conclude this pointe if the change and alteration of the word and construction may argue the meaning of a diuerse thing when otherwise the selfe same worde might haue better and plainlyer declared that so weightie and necessarie an article of our faith as they make that is of Peters supremacie if the blessednesse of Peter and the name be obtained of Christ and that the same be not only proper to Peter but vnto all who shal in like manner lay holde vpon that rocke and professe the same faith if the whole course of the dialogue be directed not to know Peters opinion alone but of them all what they thought not of Peter but of our Sauiour Christ and to confirme them in that firme and stedfast faith they had in him against all troubles and persecutions that should after ensue and with all to haue a publike testimonie of them all that they had a better and truer opinion of him then the common multitude if the rocke wheron Gods Church must be founded must be such an one as cannot be shaken by any force and subtiltie of Satan and Peter as hath appeared was so weakened at diuerse times that he was ouercome almost for euer I may well saye that euen the wordes and circumstance of the place doth euict that Peter is not made that petra the rocke vpon the which the Church is to be built But yet that this may be further out of doubt if we well weigh the assertion of our Romish Catholikes we shal finde it to be contrarie to the expresse wordes of the Scripture and the doctrine of the holie Ghost in other places yea and to the analogie and rules of faith Saint Paul in the 1. to the Corinthians 1. Cor. finding fault with the Corinthians who were deuided by choosing to themselues sundrie doctors and teachers whome they would heare and followe Some saying I am Paules another I am Apollos another I am Cephas the fourth I am Christes he flatly setteth downe 1. Cor. 3.11 that fundamentum aliud nemo ponere potest preter id quod positum est Iesum Christum Other foundation can no man lay then that which is laid which is Iesus Christ If onely Christ be the foundation and no other If neither Paul nor Apollo nor Cephas ought to be so accompted how can they challenge this prerogatiue vnto Peter being denyed so expressely vnto him or vnto any other Paul affirmeth Eph. 1.22 that GOD had made all things subiect vnder Christes feete and appointed him aboue all things the head of the Churche which is his bodie and of what kinde of bodie that he declareth also in the fifth of
of his head or chiefe of the Church naming Iames and Iohn pillers of the Church as well as hee and not yelding to him any thing aboue him selfe In the seconde to the Corinthians 1. Cor. 11.5 Paul declareth that he thinketh himselfe nothing inferiour vnto the chiefest Apostles Peter in his Epistles he neuer challengeth any superioritie neither by title nor by doctrine he maketh Christ the electe precious and chiefe corner stone and all the faithfull liuing stones of the spirituall house a like hee claymeth not ciuill gouernement or that Kinges and Princes ought to bee subiect vnto him as the Pope doeth but commaundeth all Subiectes to bee obedient vnto their Princes and gouernours he termeth him selfe but compresbyterum a fellowe elder with the rest and exhorteth his fellow ministers not to be as Lordes ouer Gods heritage in his whole writing he doth not imperiously commaund but humbly exhorteth not to be ouerlong in this it cannot be thought that Paul and Peter and the rest of the Apostles hauing so fully and plentifully taught all thinges appertaining to the Church of God yea euen the least functions that they would in all their writings haue concealed so great weightie and necessarie point as this of Peters supremacie and one general head vnder Christ for the gouernment of his Church being suche as it is made of thē that whosoeuer acknowledgeth it not cannot be saued Now if this which I haue taughte by the opinion and iudgement of the Apostles shall appeare also by their practise and dealing towarde Peter what can be required further for the ouerthrow of their interpretation And for a perfect view hereof let vs but consider the whole order and manner of the firste councell holden of the Apostles in the 15. Actor 15.5 of the actes there it is mentioned that certaine variance and dissention falling oute by reason some of the sect of the Phariseis vrged the obseruation of circumcision and other ceremonies of the law as necessarye to saluation it was determined that Paule and Barnabas should go vp to the Apostles Elders at Ierusalem about this question At their cōming the matter being declared the Apostles Elders assēbled together to reason of the matter after much debating Peter arose and declared what God had reuealed vnto him cōcerning this point meaning at Cornelius conuersion After him arose Paul Barnabas who also tolde their opinion what God had opened vnto thē Thirdly ariseth Iames hee approueth the former iudgemēt confirmeth it by the scriptures and hauing done so giueth aduise to send their determination in writing concerning the questiō it was taken approued the Apostles and elders the whole congregatiō sent chosen men namely Barnabas paul with their letters First here is to be obserued that it is not mentioned that Peter sūmoned this Councel by his authoritie but it is done by the consent of the Apostles and elders contrary to that prerogatiue the Pope chalēgeth to himselfe Peter although he spake first alone yet followeth it not that he was therefore accounted the chéefest for neither spake he only and often times in great Councels the lowest and yongest begin first the eldest head of all speaketh last Secondly in the assemblye after Peter had opened his mind and al the rest had don last of al not Peter but Iames pronounced the sentence whiche belonged to the head and President of the Councell Thirdly the Legats embassadors which were sent were not appointed by Peter nor sent by his authoritie after the maner of the Pope but they were chosen by all the Apostles and Elders the whole congregation and sent by them Fourthly the stile of the letter doth argue they gaue no preheminence to Peter aboue other in this assemblie for thus it runneth The Apostles Elders and Brethren send greeting c. For as much as we haue heard c. It séemed good to vs when we were come together to send chosen men to you c. it séemed good to the holy ghost vnto vs to lay no more burthen c. Thus we sée how the whole action is made common to them all equallye none named or preferred before another in anye respecte farre diuerse from the Popes determination and stile of his letters the tenour of which runneth much otherwise Act. 8.24 Besides in the eight of the Acts when the Apostles heard that Samaria had receiued the Gospell the Apostles sent Peter and Iohn to confirme them whiche sending declareth plainelye that they did not acknowledge him as a superiour and in that he obeieth and followeth he declareth himselfe to bee but their fellow For be it that Eckius sayth true that oftentimes the chéefest of the company be sent in matters yet there is no Senate nor councell that will send their chéefe and gouernour And the same Apostle in the 11 Acts Act. 11.3 being reproued for going to Cornelius he excuseth and cleareth himself giuing a reason of that his doing And of Paul in the second to the Galathians Gal. 2.11 he was reprooued to his face for that he was worthye of rebuke wherefore to conclude if neither in planting of the church of God neither in deciding of controuersies in matters of religion neither in enioyning commaunding thinges to be done neither yet by any title dutie seruice or signification of dealing Peter either bare himselfe or the rest receiued him as their head and vniuersall Bishop but contrariwise both he vsed him selfe and they made themselues equall in all their doings vnto him I maye iustlye conclude that euen the opinion and practise of the Apostles and primitiue churche doth manifestly conuict the interpretation of the Papists in this place making Peter the rock foundation and heade of Gods Churche to bée most vntrue This point notwithstanding by this I haue already said it be sufficiently proued yet for diuers mens further contentation let vs sée howe the auntiente and learned Fathers haue expounded this place whether by this worde Petra they haue vnderstoode the person of Peter or him whom Peter confessed whiche was Christ Chrysostom in the 55 Chrys hom 55. in Mat. Homily vpon Mathew expoundeth Petra to be the faith and confession Super hanc Petram .i. in hac fide confessione aedificabo ecclesiam that is vppon this Fayth and Confession I will build my Church and vpon the 32 Psalm Statuit pedes nostros super petram id est super fidem c that is he hath set our féete vpon the rocke that is vpon Faith Chrys super Psal 52. for Fayth in Christ may well be called a Rocke which cannot be broken wherefore when Peter had declared and sayd thou art the sonne of the liuing God Christ immediatelye added thou art peter and vpon this rock I wil build my church Thus it is apparāt Chrysostom toke not the person of Peter to be that rock here mentioned but that which Peter reposed his beléefe in
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