of kings and Lord of lords whom God hath appointed to be the head of the church of whose kingdome there shall be no end whose dominion shall be from sea to sea and from the riuer to the ends of the land so that no continuance of time no distance of place shall hinder his gouernment An inuisible head of an inuisible body Or else in particular churches let him behold a visible pastor ouer a visible flocke which is also a kinde of Monarchy But this one head which is Christ cannot content the church of Rome although notwithstanding his absence from vs in the flesh there is no want either in his will or might but that he is able and readie at all times to direct and defend his flocke But as the children of Israel not contenting themselues with that forme of gouernment whereby God gouerned them would needes haue a king as other nations had euen so will the papists haue a visible monarche one ruler of the whole church as one King is ruler ouer a whole Kingdome And if we tell them that it is a monster in nature that the church which is but one should haue two heades that is to say Christ whome we all acknowledg to be the head thereof and the pope whom they make their visible and ministeriall head then they reply that in that Christ is head of the church it doth no more hinder the supremacie of the bishop of Rome then it taketh away the bishop and ministers out of the church For so master Bellarmine affirmeâ— as if bishops and ministers were vniuersall heads as the pope would be And can master Bellarmine see no difference betweene the calling of pastors and teachers and of the pope Is hee so blinde or bleareied in beholding the brightnesse of their glorious Bishoppe that hee can see no difference betweene these two pastors we are sure are ordained of God euen of him that apointed Christ to be head of the church But that the bishop of Rome is head of the church by Gods word master Belarmine himselfe denieth Secondly the pastor contenteth himselfe with the ministrie of the word and sacraments and such ecclesiasticall censures as the word affordeth him But the bishop of Rome despiseth all power abuseth all magistrates yea almost treadeth vnder foote the maiestie of the mightiest monarches As for the sword of the word either he thinkes it not sharp enough or else he is too proude to drawe it for preaching is too base a thing for so proude a prelate but with his temporall sword he florisheth lustily Againe the pastor hath his flock in a litle compasse so that he may in some measure discharge his dutie amongst them he may feede with the bread of life the hungrie soules he may strengthen the feeble comfort the weake seeke the lost and bring whom the wandring sheep But the bishop of Rome in chalenging authoritie ouer all places and persons and seeking to bee head ouer all churches doth both meddle with other mens charges and laieth vpon his owne shoulders an importable burthen Thus I trust it appeareth that this argument standeth still vnanswered Christ is the head of his church Christ I say whom God the father appointed to that office and who is able to vndergoe this charge because he hath the holy ghost to be his Housband man to dresse his vine his Vicar or leieutenant to looke to his charge the pope therefore who is neither appointed to it nor able to doe it is not Now for that which master Bellarmine affirmeth of the heauenly host that they haue in heauen another head besides Christ and therefore that the church vpon earth ought so to haue his proofe is more vncertaine and hard to be knowen then that he should seeke thereupon to ground any argument But the church in the old Testament had one high priest therefore saith master Bellarmine the church of Christ must haue so For that church was a figure of Christs church If master Bellarmine his argument shall goe for currant wee must also haue but one Temple for they might not haue any moe they might offer but in one place and many such things were commaunded vnto them vnto which it were absurd to tie christians Whereby we may see that in all things that church was not a figure of ours Then also the leuiticall priest was a figure not of any ministeriall head of Christs church but of Christ himselfe as the apostle to the Hebrews doth proue in sondrie chapters And here master Bellarmine sheweth rather a desire to maintain his errors then to yeld to the truth For without all reason hee affirmeth that Aaron was not onely a figure of Christ but of Peter also and his successors sauing that to auouch his vntruth hee setteth downe another namely that the leuiticall sacrifices were figurs not of Christ onely but also of that which they call the sacrifice of the masse which how vntrue it is I haue shewed elsewhere But if it were true that those sacrifices were figures of both must it needs follow that Aaron also must be the figure of Christ and Peter It hath no necessitie And moreouer to answere both this and his fifth argument The church was at that time contained within the bonds of Iewry or at the least hee was but hie priest vnto them that were circumcised As also in Christ his time the church consisted but of a few persons and therefore it cannot be necessarily concluded that if the church then was gouerned by one when it was in a small corner of the world it should now be so likewise when it is scattered in many places vpon the earth But what if I should denie to Bellarmine that this was the gouernment of the church before Christ or that they were not at that time all vnder one hie priest For more then 2500. yeares the church was not gouerned by one hie priest which master Bellarmine himselfe doth not greatly denie in this place especially limiting this hie priest vnto that time when there was some forme of gouernment established amongst them after they were come out of Egypt For vntill that time as himselfe confesseth the heads of their houses were priests And although there were many good men at one time as Seth Enosh and others yet master Bellarmine cannot shew that there was amongst them a hie priest but euery one was chiefe in his owne familie But what if it appeare that then when there was a hie priest yet al Gods people were not bound to be vnder him The widow of Sarepta as appeareth by her story had a sure faith in God so that wee may say shee might well be accounted the child of God Naaman also the syrian did belong to the church of God And no doubt but God had many people among the Niniuites who repented at the preaching of Ionah And yet none of these
his at their good leisure to answere No inuisible body can haue a visible head for that were a monster in nature But the vniuersall or catholike church is an inuisible bodie for things that are vniuersall are not seene with the eie but conceaued in the minde and vnderstanding Therefore the catholike church must not haue a visible head But all this that Maister Bellarmine hath hitherto spoken of the necessity of hauing one supreme gouernour of the whole church is rather an inducement to make men thinke that they haue some reason for this supremacie in the church then any strong argument whereby they thinke to cary away the weight of the matter But the very strength and staie of this their doctrine is contained in this one syliogisme whatsoeuer iurisdiction Christ gaue to Peter and not to the rest of the Apostles all that belongeth to the church of Rome but Christ gaue vnto Peter iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall church and not to the rest of the Apostles therefore the Bishop or church of Rome hath iurisdiction ouer all churches or ouer the vniuersall church And in this argument is contained not onely all that Maister Bellarmine can say but all that they all can alleadge for this matter and therefore it is the more diligently to be examined And to beginne with the minor wherein is affirmed what iurisdiction or power ouer others Peter had Maister Bellarmine doth confidently and plainely affirme That Saint Peter is appointed of Christ himselfe in Christ his place the head and prince of the church or these are his verie words What is Christ wearie of his office hath hee giuen ouer his interest hath he resigned his right vnto Saint Peter If hee haue so done it is more then Saint Paul knew who after that Christ had left the world yet still he tooke Christ for the head of the church as appeareth by his epistle to the Ephesians and to the Colossians Yea Saint Peter himselfe seemeth not to know so much For when hee calleth him the head corner stone he meaneth doubtlesse in the building of Gods spirituall house which is the church And yet master Bellarmine seemeth to tell vs 〈◊〉 when hee telleth vs that Saint Peter is head in Christs place For Christ must leaue his place before S. Peter can be in his place A meaner place would very well haue contented Saint Peter As for many of them who in our fathers dayes and ours haue bragged that they are Peters successors deserue not to bee dog-driuers out of a poore parish church wherein godly christians are assembled much lesse to be vniuersall bishops ouer the whole world Neither standeth the church of Christ now in neede of any such lieutenant seeing Christ is much more effectually with his church now then hee was with the people of the Iewes when he was conuersant vpon the earth For he that promised that hee would be with vs alwaies euen vnto the end of the world and that hee would pray the father and he should giue vs another comforter which should abide with vs for euer enen the spirit of truth he I say by the same spirit whom he hath made his vicar generall as before I aleaged out of Tertullian doth husband the earth of our hearts to make them fruitfull and is Christs vicar in all places with all persons to supply all their wants So that hee which in respect of his bodily presence could at no time be but in one place by the piercing power of his spirit is at once euery where And therefore is he much more present now in the spirit then before in the flesh because before he could be at once but with a few of the faithfull whereas now he is withal at one instant It is therefore ouermuch boldnes in master Bellarmine either to thrust Christ out of his office to lay the same vpon Peter or else to imagine that Christ is not better able by his spirit then by the pope to execute the same His iudgement is also very hard wherein he pronounceth that to say that saint Peters supremacy is not instituted by Christ it is not a simple errour but a detestable heresie This I am sure of that not onely some priuat men as Cyprian haue thought all the Apostles to be of as great honour and power as was Peter but euer some councils haue thought that the B. of Rome who thinketh by succession from Peter he hath as good right thereto as Peter had yet had not from Christ any right to the supremacy For the sixt council of Carthage where Faustinus and others were legats from the pope would not yeld that souerainty to the bishop of Rome although his legats did most earnestly seeke it not onely by their diligent indeuour but also by aleaging false canons of the Nicen councill thinking thereby to haue deceiued them And although this were a great foile to the church of Rome yet their ambitious and aspiring minds would not suffer them to be quiet but within a little time after they attempt the like in the counsell of Chalcedon Paschasinus and Lucentius being the popes legates Paschasinus alleaged a decree as if it had beene out of the Nicen councill That the the church of Rome always had the supremacie but the councell finding that there was not there anie such decree did ordaine that the bishop of Constantinople should haue as great euen such like priuiledges as the bishop of Rome had Which had beene more wickedlie ordained of them if Rome by Christ had the supremacie then wee maie imagine so manie godlie fathers assembled togither would haue done Yea that we maie knowe that at that time if bishops of Rome had anie priuiledge aboue other bishops they did not thinke it was so by Christs institution they set downe the reason why the church of Rome was more honoured then the rest Euen because it was the imperiall citie as also Ireny long before them did testifie And this made the fathers of the councell of Chalcedon the bolder to yeeld to Constantinople which they called newe Rome such priuiledges because it was now become also an imperiall citie Thus wee see these learned writers Ireny and Ciprian and all the fathers of these two councels learned and manie did not thinke nor would confesse that this supremâ—cie was Christes institution and yet master Bellarmines sharpe penne hath prickt them all with one dash as guiltie not of simple errour but of pestilent heresie Nowe wee must needes imagine that he would neuer burst out into these excessiue speeches as if hee were rauished and besides himselfe as in these two pointes mentioned it maie appeare vnlesse his opinion rested vpon a sure ground Let vs therefore examine his proofes and trie the waight of his reasons This most necessarie controuersie as the church of Rome esteemeth it hath not in all the scriptures anie good warrant euen in master Bellarmines owne opinion
but in one place For as concerning those prerogatiues which after he speaketh off they are rather motiues to drawe vs or probable coniectures to perswade vs then strong argumentes to prooue or sufficient reasons to conuince and force vs to beleeue I saie they haue but one authority of Scripture that they rest vpon because that place out of the sixteenth of Saint Matthewes gospel is but a promise as master Bellarmine himselfe confesseth of that which was afterwardes giuen when Christ commaunded him to feede his sheepe so that one is not perfect without the other But let vs see what iurisdiction is promised in the one and then also what is giuen in the other vnto Peter Our Sauiour Christ inquiring of his disciples what opinion other men had of him they answered some saie that thou art Iohn Baptist some Elias some Ieremias or one of the Prophetes and asking of them what they thought of him Simon Peter answered thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God And Iesus answered and saide vnto him happie art thou Simon the sonne of Iona for flesh and bloud hath not opened that vnto thee but my father which is in heauen And I say also vnto thee that thou art Peter and vpon this rocke I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it And I will giue vnto thee the keies of the kingdome of heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt bind in earth shall be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose in earth shall bee loosed in heauen These are the wordes that must strengthen and stay this stately building of the popes supremacie or else it is like to fall Out of which master Bellarmine draweth two argumentes First that Saint Peter is the foundation secondly that hee is the key carier of the church and therefore that hee must bee the supreme head of the church The first is taken out of these wordes Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke I will build my church The plaine meaning of which words I take to be this When first I tooke thee to be an Apostle I said thou shouldest bee called Cephas which is by interpretation a stone Thou shalt shew thy selfe so to be indeede and that I haue named thee so truly for in this confession that thou hast made of me thou shalt hereafter continue so cōstant that thou shalt die in it And therefore because thou shalt bee so constant thou art Peter or Cephas indeede As for this confession that thou hast made all my faithfull people shall settle and staie themselues thereupon in all conflictes of conscience so that no terrour of hell shall bee able to discourage or disamaie them But master Bellarmine out of this doth gather that the church is built vpon Peter as vpon a foundation Yet I trust hee will not deny that Christ is such a foundation as there is no other because S. Paul telleth vs that other foundation can no mā lay thē that is laid which is Iesus Christ Of this foundation God speaketh by his prophet Esay behold I wil lay in Sion a stone a tried stone a pretious corner stone a sure foundation Then this being graunted that Christ is this speciall foundation and the onely sure ground-worke in this building I trust it will be the easier to know what place belongeth to Peter but the later of these two places by mee alleaged which is onely verified of Christ and of him onely meant most prophanely doth master Bellarmine apply to saint Peter and so to the church of Rome that very particularly making it thestone tried with persecutions with heresies which the pride of the Greeke church with stiffenesse of some emperors with schismes with wicked popes The corner stone that ioyneth into one church the Iewes and the Gentils The pretious stone because she is rich in ceremonies and sacramentes in pardons in councils in interpretation of scriptures and such like And last of all the sure foundation But here master Bellarmine is forced to graunt that Peter is but a secondary foundation and not the principall foundation for that Christ onely is This discourse of his maketh me remember frier Toittis otherwise called frier Paternoster who vpon a great controuersie that arose in Scotland concerning the lords prayer whether it might be said vnto the Saints or not beeing intreated as a man belike most sufficient to deale in the matter comming into the pulpit at Saint Andrews where this controuersie was began in particular to shew how euery petition might be made vnto the saints vntil he came to the fourth petition wherein hee was faine to confesse that the saints cannot giue vs our daily bread and so with shame bewrayed his owne folly and the feeblenesse or rather the falsnes of his cause Euen so master Bellarmine robbing Christ of his ornaments that hee may decke therewith that whorish synagogue which vntrewly he callet Peters seate hauing besides all learning nay contrarie to the sinceritie of a christian diuine most blasphemously applied vnto that Romish seate that which belongeth vnto Christ onely and is one of his most especiall and peculiar markes whereby hee is set foorth as the promised sauiour that he should be the corner stone tried and precious Yet is he in the end forced to confesse that the sure foundation cannot be found but in Christ although he would seeme to apply that title to that seate also I would hardly haue thought that a man so learned as master Bellarmine in these our dayes wherein knowledge aboundeth would euer haue abused Gods sacred word in such sort That this is only true in Christ our Sauior Christ himselfe out of the Prophet Dauid teacheth S. Paul agreeth to the same not only writing to the Ronanes but also to the Ephesians shewing how he onely can be as a corner stone gathering and knitting together the Iewes and Gentiles S. Peter also himselfe maketh Christ to be this stone It is not a sufficient excuse for master Bellarmine that he acknowledgeth that the prophet Esay speaketh especially of Christ and then to apply it vnto the church of Rome For seeing the scriptures with so great consent do acknowlege Christ to be that tried and and precious corner stone and therefore doe call him the corner stone because he hath made of Iew and Gentile one breaking downe the stop of the partition wall In whom all the building coupled together groweth to a holy temple in the Lord which is a thing that not one but Christ can performe let vs knowe that to giue this title to any other is to rob Christ of his glory And yet as though master Bellarmine had not powred out already blasphemies ynow he prosecuteth wickedly that which absurdly he hath begun adding that this their Romish church is the stone of offence and stumbling blocke vpon which stone he that falleth shall be broken but on whomsoeuer it shall fall it shall grinde him to
powder But howsoeuer it pleaseth master Bellarmine to bragge of the might and maiesty of the church of Rome we see that the hath lost many kingdomes that sometime serued her And where her power is greatest we see that many fall â—ayly from her and that such as doe so haue no cause to repent it but that God aideth them with his wonderfull and mercifull hand and prosecuteth them with many blessings But to returne vnto master Bellarmines argument againe Vpon this rocke I will build my church The foundation of a house hath two respects First it holdeth vp the whole building which being coupled together in it groweth to be an house as before I haue shewed out of saint Paules epistle to the Ephesians and thus Christ onely is the foundation of his church as hee is also the head whereof all the bodie furnished and knit together with ioints and bands increaseth with the increasing of God This foundation or head none can be but Christ Secondly the fonndation is as it were a direction and rule for the building of the rest of the house For it must be made according to the length and breadth of the foundation In which respect the Apostles are called foundations in the reuelation foundations I say in this church of God And so doth the apostle say that the church is built vpon the fonndation of the Apostles and prophets Iesus Christ himselfe beeing the chiefe corner stone And whether they be called foundations in respect of their doctrine as Saint Ambrose thinketh or because they were first layed in the building as Theophilact seemeth to affirme yet are they not such foundations as can hold vp this building but such onely as by their doctrine and fayth must be a patterne and platforme for all other builders to builde by that they goe not out of that rule and square which is most fit for Gods house And thus we confesse that Saint Peter is a foundation as also all the Apostles are And that which Chrysostome writeth vpon this place is in my iudgement a strong argument against this secondarie foundation which they say Peter is because he will haue the building so coupled witâ— tâ—e foundation as that there shalbe nothing between them But most plainely in his commentaries vpon the epistle to the Corinthians he will haue nothing betweene vs and Christ no distance betweene the head and the bodie As he proueth by examples of the head and the bodie the branch and the tree the building and the foundation For if the head be from the body but the thicknesse of a sword it dieth If the branch be cut from the tree neuer so litle it withereth If the house be not ioyned vpon the foundation it falleth Howe then can we haue any secondary foundation in the church of God without the ruine of the whole church The Apostles therefore may well bee foundations as I haue before saide either because that they are as it were the first stones that are layed vpon Christ in this building or because of their doctrine whereupon our faith is grounded but otherwise we can not admitte them all or any one of them whether Peter or any other to be a foundation in this building So that al the paines that master Bellarmine taketh to proue that this rocke must needs signifie Peter himselfe is more than needeth for we wil confesse that he and the rest of the Apostles are foundations in the church But if after some more peculiar sort he wil haue him a foundation neither hath he prooued it by that which he vrgeth out these words vpon this rocke neither yet by that vniuersall consent of the church that he braggeth of For the fathers do in sundry sorts expound these words som by this rocke vnderstand Peter as he was an apostle and teacher of the word of God And so may the fathers be vnderstoode that are in this chapter alleaged by master Bellarmine For he can not reason thus He is called a foundation therefore he is a foundation after some other manner than the other Apostles Some by this rocke vnderstand Christ whom Peter confessed So doth saint Augustine vpon this rocke which thou hast confessed saith he I will build my church now the rocke that hee confessed was Christ There are also sundry that by this rocke vnderstand the confession that Peter made as Hillarie Ambrose Chrysostome and Cyril But none of these interpretations can please our Romish rabbies but that only that makes Peter the foundation in Christs place which can not out of any of these expositions be gathered S. Augustine master Bellarmine saith was deceiued because he knew not the Hebrew tongue but yet saint Augustines words teach vs that in his time this place was not by consent of the godly so expounded as now the Papists expound it but only that there were sundry expositions of sundry men and that saint Augustine liked this of his best How happeneth it then that maister Bellarmine with a great cracke saieth hee hath the consent of the whole church Where is their catholike doctrine euen in this point that which now the church of Rome teacheth was not in saint Augustines dayes catholike But to to proue this doctrine to be catholike he saith The whole Councell of Chalcedon wherein were 630. fathers call Peter the Rocke and Bancke of the church so also saith Melchior Canus But both of them by shamelesse lies do seeke to abuse the simplicity of the ignorant Paschasinus or Paschasius he only said so who was Legat there for Leo bishop of Rome and sought by all meanes possible to aduance that seat aboue all others as may appeare in that place especially in the sixteenth action of that council and yet these men doe not shame to say that the whole council said so As for that other sence of those words receiued by Hillary Ambrose Chrysostome and Ciril which take Peters confession to be that rocke master Bellarmine would shift that off with this answere that they only speak of that faith that Peter as a pastor of the church had not of the faith without respect of Peters person And yet Hillary saith not vpon the rocke of this pastours confession but Vpon this rocke of confession And also not this mans faith but This faith is the foundation of the Church by reason of this faith the gates of hell can do nothing against it this faith hath the keies of the kingdome of heauen Saint Ambrose in the words alleadged by master Bellarmine speaketh also of faith absolutely without hauing respect to Peter as also he doth in sundry other places of that booke Yea he telleth vs there that whosoeuer ouercommeth the flesh is a foundation in the church and speaking of this rocke he would that euerie one should haue within himselfe this rocke which cannot be vnderstood of this confession as it hath respect to Peter The like also may bee said for
Chrisostome and Cirill but this I trust is sufficient to shew the vanity of his answere which is so flatte against the words of those fathers For they speake of that faith because it hath respect vnto Christ and master Bellarmine would haue it imagined that they commend this faith as it commeth from Peter and because it is his And that master Bellarmine would seeme out of Hillary to confirme wherein yet hee sheweth no plaine dealing For whereas Hillary saith after by the confession of his happie faith hee deserued a high place or rather as the older copies doe read exceeding glorie master Bellarmine doth not only out of this doubtfull reading gather the strength of his argument preferring the new reading before the olde coppie in that paint disclaiming from antiquity but also to better his bad cause whereas Hillary himselfe sheweth in plaine wordes that this exceeding glorie is this that he thrise heard these wordes feede my sheepe yet hee woulde make vs beleeue that it consisteth in this that Peter is the head foundation and key carier Fie vpon poperie that euer it shoulde so stiflie bee maintained and yet cannot bee defended but by lying and falsifying And thus hauing answered the most forcible proofes that master Bellarmine bringeth to proue that the church must bee built vpon Peter I would on the other side wish him to consider how weake a foundation he and his fellowes doe builde vpon For Peter did not only by euill councell seeke to hinder his master Christ in the worke of our redemption for which hee was bitterly reprooued go behinde me Sathan thou art saith Christ an offence vnto me because thou vnderstandest not the thinges that are of God but the thinges that are of men but also afterwardes denie his master Christ and that with cursing and swearing but hauing receiued the spirit of God and beeing inabled as much as euer he was to the worke of the Lord yet by Peters fault Barnabas and other were brought into dissimulation so that they walked not the right waie to the truth of the gospell And therefore he was withstood euen to his face by Paule because hee was worthie to bee blamed So that euen then if there had beene no better or surer foundation to haue builded the church vpon then Peter the building might well haue runne to one side But thankes bee vnto God that we haue a surer rocke But what will he and his fellowes saie to that most grosse absurditie that followeth this their doctrine For if Peter be the foundation of the church what answere will they make to them that thinke the time was when the church was only in the virgin Mary Vpon what foundation was the church then builded Yea what foundation of the church was before Peter was borne or thought of in the time of the law Yea what foundation in all the time before the lawe when there was not so much as a high priest among the people Then was there a church as all men confesse and therefore it must needes also then haue a foundation but it could not be Peter For hee had these wordes spoken vnto him almost 4000. yeares after the church began And could it stand and florish so manie yeares builded only vpon Christ the sure foundation and shall we nowe thinke that this foundation beginneth to shrinke or is lesse able to vphold this building so that it must needes haue Saint Peter to helpe to holde it vppe for feare of falling God forbid that euer christians should haue so foolish thoughts and yet these and such like absurdities must folow this doctrine But to conclude this point I reason thus That only must be the foundation of the church now which was in the time of the lawe and before the law but then there was no other foundation but Christ therefore now there must be no other I meane no other especial or particular foundation My maior or first proposition is grounded vpon Maister Bellarmines wordes For going about to proue that the monarchy must be in the church he yeeldeth this reason because in Christs time it was gouerned by one and if now it be not so gouerned then it is not the same church or the same citty of God Now thus I reason for proofe of my maior If the not hauing of that outward forme of gouernement can make that it is not the same church how much more if any thing be added to the foundation but saith he the not hauing of the same outward gouernment doth make it to be not the same church therfore much more if it be altered in the foundation And to saie that the church now in the time of grace is not all one with that church that was before Christ or that then there was anie other foundation besides Christ is nothing els then to deny Christ to be a corner stone that ioyneth together both sides of the house making of both one By which the minor of my argument is verified Thus I trust to the indifferent reader it may appeare that as this interpretation of these wordes vpon this rocke I will builde my church that is vpon Peter is not catholike so the doctrine that followeth therupon is absurd Let vs now consider what weight there is in his second argument whith hee wringeth out of the word of building Wherein he affirmeth and in truth doth but affirme for he can proue nothing at all that to builde is to rule Indeede he alleadgeth three fathers which say Peter was Pastor of the church or ruled all the church but is this a good argument Peter did rule the whole church therefore to builde is to rule Such a shew of proofe may perchance seeme glorious in the eies of them that haue no loue to the truth but they are too too foolish that will be caught with such baites That to build is not to rule I proue thus A man buildeth to haue a house that he may rule and he cannot rule but that first the house must be made So that indeede building in the house ceaseth when ruling beginneth when the house is made then is it ruled With much like dexterity he will proue that the foundation doth rule the house In the ende if you will heare him he will make you beleeue that the house ruleth the maister not the maister the house But let vs grant Maister Bellarmine this which so earnestly he seeketh for Let vs yeelde that to builde is to rule what is then out of these wordes to be gathered Vpon this rocke I will build that is I will rule my church This we see Christ is the ruler and not Peter of the church Then let vs go forwarde that we may see what help vnto this popish supremacy the wordes following do bring vnto thee will I giue saith Christ the keies of the kingdome of heauen c. Here Maister Bellarmine is very earnest to proue that these keies were deliuered
to Peter but that we deny not But it is Maister Bellarmines bad hap many times to take great paines fortify where y â— enimy assaulteth him not to prooue that which no body denieth That we may ioine in some issue we will easily confesse that the keies were deliuered to Peter What then Were they deliuered to him alone No Maister Bellarmine himselfe confesseth and that oftentimes neither can he deny it if he would the fathers doe so generally affirme it that this great authority was committed to all the Apostles Wherein then do we dissent Forsooth Maister Bellarmine telleth vs that the other Apostles had this authority but as Christes legates or by especiall commission but to be vnder Peter Whereas Peter had it as his ordinary iurisdiction Now this he should proue but he leaueth it with a bare affirmation so that you are not bound to beleeue him But we see that which here is promised vnto Peter alone whether because he alone tooke vpon him to answere Christes question or that Christ therein would signifie the vnity of the church as some of the fathers affirme or because he was a figure of the church as Saint Augustine saith that I say which is here promised to him alone is in Matthewe xviii promised to all and that Maister Bellarmine himselfe cannot deny although he affirme it to be in all but Peter a legantine in him an ordinary power And this promise is perfourmed to all Iohn the xx in these words receiue the holy ghost whose sinnes soeuer ye remit they are remitted and whose sinnes yee retaine they are retained And Theophilact doth expound these wordes of Matthew the sixteenth which here I haue in hand by this place of saint Iohn saying that in that place of saint Mathew that is promised that is here giuen and that this power belongeth vnto all What can be more plaine to prooue that although Christ spake vnto Peter onely in that first place to thee will I giue the keies yet they were giuen to all Why should we then trust the bare assertions of maister Bellarmine or any other that the keies are not in like maner giuen to all when wee see that Gods worde maketh no difference betweene them But master Bellarmine because we goe about trewly with Theophilact to expound this promise to thee I wil giue the keies by that of Iohn whose sinnes so euer ye remit they are remitted c. would faine make vs beleeue if we will trust him of his bare word that Theophilact and we are deceiued and that Christ in these words of saint Iohn doth onely giue power of order whereas in Mathew he promiseth power of Iurisdiction And the better to perswade vs he telleth vs that to keepe a mans sinnes is not a matter of so great power as to bind a mans sinnes And yet saint Ambrose whose credit is far aboue maister Belarmines doth vse the words of remitting loosing retaining and binding indifferently the one for the other And therefore this is but a blinde cauill to keepe the light of the truth vnder a bushell If we prooue out of Cyprian that all the Apostles were of like honour and power They were saith he alike in their apostleship and had all one authoritie ouer christian people but were not alike among themselues The wordes of Cyprian haue no limitation but maketh all of like power and of like honour But maister Bellarmine like false mates that doe wash and clippe the coyne whereby they make it of lesse value so doeth hee by such sâ—eights seeke to diminish the force of such authorities as are brought against him But what reason hath hee so to expound Saint Cyprian Because hee saieth in that Booke that beginning proceedeth from a vnity to shew that the church is one Thus then doeth hee reason The Church proceedeth from one or from vnitie Therefore Peter is aboue all the Apostles Let other iudge of his argument I see not out of this how he can prooue that Peter hath such superioritie ouer the Apostles as that hee may exercise iurisdiction ouer them which is that the church of Rome must prooue if Peters supremacie shal do them good Seeing therefore it appeareth by that which hath beene spoken that not Peter onely but all the apostles in like manner receiued the keies as Saint Hierome testifieth that is power to retaine or remit to binde and loose although it were saide to Peter To thee I will giue the keies yet it is manifest that for his sake onely it was not spoken or the vse of the keies to him onlie was not promised but in and by him Christ spake to all without giuing lesse power to them or more to him And thus much concerning this question to whom the keies were giuen Nowe must we see what these keies are that so we may examine what that is which they say is giuen to Peter in this promise Maister Bellarmine affirmeth that they all vnderstande by the keies the soueraigne or chiefe pnwer ouer the whole church And that it must so be he proueth thus In the Prophet Esay is described the deposing of one high priest and placing of an other by the deliuering of the keies And the keies of the house of Dauid will I lay vpon his shoulder and hee shall open and none shall shut and he shall shut and no man shall open Sincere dealing would become all men especially in Gods cause which is farre from maister Bellarmine as in many other places so heere also For Eliachim of whom the promise was made in this place was not hie priest Indeede Azariah was high priest in the dayes of Ezechiah Neither yet was there euer any such high priest as Shebnah whome God threateneth in that place Whosoeuer marketh either the pedigree of priests in the scriptures or in Iosephus hee shall finde it to bee most false and vntrue that heere maister Bellarmine so boldly affirmeth But this Eliachim was one of the princes whome Ezechiah sent to Rabsache whome in that place the Septuagint do call the Ruler of the house as also in the seuen and thirtieth verse of that chapter And the prophet Esay in the six and thirtie chapter and two and twentieth verse they call him the Maister of the housholde And indeede the Hebrew words do teach him to be one that was ouer the house as also Saint Hierome yea and their owne old translation doe translate those words of Esay And Saint Hierome in his commentaries vppon that place calleth him maister or ouerseer of the house And so Iosephus also doth witnes that he was one of Ezechias especially frends as it may also appeare in that he sent him to Rabsache and his lieutenant or vicegerent or doer for him let the indifferent reader now iudge whether this be good dealing in master Bellarmine thus to abuse the simplicitie of his reader and the credulitie of
his frends who hee hopeth wil not examine that he writeth whether it haue weight or not but will take all for gold that hee giueth if it looke yelow Thus against all truth to affirme Eliachim to be hie priest is too bad And to offer by such proofe as could not but be vncertain euen to himselfe to proue so waighty a matter whereupon so great controuersie in religion hangeth doth not onely proclaime that all may heare it the weaknesse of his cause but also that his indeuour is to keepe vnder the truth that it appeare not And thus much to lay open his falshood in his first reason Now let vs see the weakenesse of his second To binde and loose saieth hee is to commaunde and to punish and to dispence and to remitte But Peter coulde binde and loose What nowe will Maister Bellarmine conclude Therefore saith hee hee is iudge and prince of all that are in the church we will not much stand with him in his maior although it might haue beene vttered in plainer termes For this authoritie of binding and loosing is so committed vnto the church that the power to do it is tied not to the man but to the ministerie not to the materiall church but to the word And therefore wee cannot simply say that to bind and loose is to commaund or punish but to commaund according to the word and to punish according to the direction of it For wee must not imagine that God must be the executioner of our owne decrees or tyed to allowe of our iudgements but that wee are the proclaimers of his iudgements and must pronounce what God in his reueiled word hath already set downe And also the word of dispensing though it may perchaunce haue a good vnderstanding as if thereby we meane the meane the ordering and bestowing of the word in respect whereof the ministers are called stewards or disposers of the secrets of God so must we take heede that thereby we giue not to any man saint Peter or any other libertie to dispense at their pleasure and to order as they will the people of God For as magistrates if they do not gouerne according to law abuse their authoritie and doe degenerate into tyrants so ministers of the word if they swarue from the word are but seducers The maior I say beeing rightly vnderstood wee doe yeld vnto and the minor is also true that Peter could binde and loose But master Bellarmines conclusion doth not agree with these propositions neither can it folow if they be graunted It hangeth no better together then Daniels image of sundrie mettalles that could not long hold together But this must be master Bellarmines conclusion to bind and loose is to commannd punish dispense and remit in such sort as I haue alreadie shewed but saint Peter could binde and loose therefore saint Peter might commaund punish dispense and remit as hath beene shewed This must be master Bellarmines conclusion but this will not serue master Bellarmines turne For euery minister should so doe and not Peter onely And all this is doone by the ministery of the word in euery pastours seuerall charge if the minister be faithfull in his office Seeing his second argument concludeth nothing against vs what doth his third and last argument He promiseth by the fathers to proue that these keis are a soueraigne and chiefe authoritie ouer the whole church What will he bring vs a catholike erposition receaued by all or most of the godly learned at all times in all places agreed vpon with one consent For otherwise it is not catholike No. But hee telleth vs of two of the fathers onely And the one of them being himselfe a pope and in such times as that before his dayes this superioritie ouer all had bin sundrie wayes sought for by the Bishop of Rome his credit is in this point not much worth against vs. As for Chrisostom who is the other witnes that must prooue that by the keies Christ meaneth this vinuersal iurisdiction First he reasoneth in that very place where these words are against the Arrians or some such heretikes as made Christ not equall to the father aud insulteth against them by occasion of this place The father saith hee gaue vnto Peter the reuelation of the sonne But the sonne gaue vnto him partly that hee might sowe through the whole earth this reuelation both of the father and of the sonne partly that he being a mortall man should be indued with heauenly power and haue the keis of the kingdome of heauen And it foloweth there in Chrisostom how then is he lesse that wrought this in Peter So then to proue Christ to be equall vnto the father in power he sheweth that he wrought if not more mightely yet as powerfull in Peter as the father did And vpon this occasion he thus amplifieth this excellency of Peter as also he doth a litle before in respect of that vniuersall church that Christ committed to him which charge the rest also had For all the apostles were generall Preachers wheresoeuer God called them And therefore Chrisostom doth say of them all not of Peter only that they were the teachers of the world And in another place that there were two paires of the apostles that held this headship And yet Peter might better then any of the rest be called the pastour or head of the church that were of the twelue because the charge of the Iewes wheresoeuer they were in any place were cōmitted to him without any limitation of nation or countrie wherein they liued Seeing therefore his proofes whereby he indeuoureth to proue these keis to signifie that vniuersall and soueraigne authoritie ouer the whole church are either so false or faultie that they are not worth alleaging as are his two reasons taken out of scripture or so feeble that they can haue no strength as this out of Chrisostome I see no reason why we should yeld either to scripturs so falsly or foolishly applyed or much lesse to the sayings of men so hardly construed For as before I haue admonished it is one thing to haue an excellency or superioritie among others in some respects of other mens yeldings another thing to haue iurisdiction of his owne right and interest ouer all other The first we confesse was in Peter but that wil nothing at all helpe the Pope or the iurisdiction of the church of Rome Against the interpretation of the popish church thus I reason If these keis belong to all them that haue ovtained that grace of God to be called to the function of a bishop I speake not of the hononr but of the office then is no chiefe authoritie signifieth thereby for where many are equall there is no man chiefe But these keies belong vnto all such as Theaphilact doth testifie therefore no such chiefe authoritie is signified thereby For my minor proposition that euery bishop or pastour hath such authoritie or such
keis besides the testimonie of Theophilact we haue most plaine proofe out of Gods word Whatsoeuer is promised Mathew the sixteenth chapter in these words I will giue thee the keis is performed Iohn the twentieth chapter in these words whose sinnes ye remit they are remitted and whose sinnes ye retaine they are retained but in Saint Iohn no chiefe power is giuen but such as is generall and common to all the apostles therefore in Saint Mathew there is not promised any chiefe power but such as is common to them all and so to all pastours in them My minor needeth no proofe for it is confessed by master Bellarmine But master Bellarmine denieth my maior and yet hath no ground of his deniall but this onely that he taketh it not be all one to binde and to retaine sinnes or sinners and to loose or remit Which subtil difference the fathers did not see And therefore Theophilact doth not onely expound this place of Matthew the sixteenth chapter by that place out of Saint Iohn the twentieth chapter making this later to bee a perfourmance of that promise I will giue thee the keies but also hee flattely there opposeth remitting to binding whereas by master Bellarmines doctrine if hee had beene brought vp in his schoole he should haue set remitting against retaining and not against binding For saith hee it is a greater matter to binde then to retaine to loose then to remit Saint Ambrose also maketh to binde and to retaine to remitte and to loose all one For whilest the puritie of doctrine in some measure remayned this subtile Sophistirie was vnknowen in Gods church But nowe for defence of popery such stuffe must serue the turne when they haue no better And heere I cannot but maruell at master Bellarmine his answere vnto this argument out of the centuries For they that wrote those bookes reason thus if in these wordes to thee will I giue the keies c. there were promised any supremacie the Apostlles could not haue doubted which of them should haue beene chiefe but they doubted of this therefore there was not in those wordes any such supremacie promised Maister Bellarmine maketh no question but that they doubted of it for there was among them some contention about that matter but for the maior hee answereth that the apostles did not vnderstande plainelie that there was anie promise made to Peter vntill after that Christ rose againe but then they suspected some such matter and that made them striue Is it not great boldnes in master Bellarmine in so waightie matters to bring no other warrant but his foolish fancie Or to answere such an vnanswerable argument by such silly shiftes They knewe not saith master Bellarmine that Christ made such promise to Peter vntill after Christ was risen againe But if it had beene an article of such importance as now it is made why shoulde they not haue knowne it They heard what Christ said to Peter they heard the promise of the keies and this is asmuch as our Romish Rabbines can nowe bring for their proofe If they vnderstoode it not so as master Bellarmine heere confesseth they did not what newe reuelation haue our newe Romish teachers to assure this to be the meaning of those wordes But they seeme to be whelpes of one haire with those hereticks whome Tertullian reprooueth because they saide the apostles knewe not all thinges that if their doctrine were not agreeable to that which the Apostles taught they might the lesse bee condemned As Bishoppe Fisher not knowing better howe to excuse their additions vnto the auncient doctrine which the church of Rome hath brought in saith that later wits knowe thinges better then before they did Well master Bellarmine you see confesseth that the apostles vnderstoode not then that promise as nowe the papistles doe When did they reforme their iudgement Where in what place doe they shew any signification that they euer vnderstood it otherwise If they neither vnderstood it so before Christs resurrection neither yet gaue anie signification afterwardes by woorde or deede by their writings or examples that their knowledge was in this pointe reformed howe can wee saie that they euer tooke that to bee Christes meaning But the first of these is confessed as before is shewed by Maister Bellarmine the latter they cannot shewe Therefore it maie be gathered that the apostles neuer vnderstood the words of Christ as the papistes doe And howe doeth hee prooue that which hee boldlie affirmeth that then they suspected such a thing Or that after Christes resurrection they did striue It is mentioned in the storie of the gospell that twise they did striue who shoulde be chiefe Of both which times the three Euangelistes doe make report And Saint Iohn also in his gospell seemeth to pointe vnto the latter strife when hauing washed his Apostles feete Christ giueth them good lessons of humilitie But that after Christes resurrection they did consende for this it cannot bee prooued For both these times were before his death And therefore I cannot but maruell that Maister Bellarmine will bring such proofelesse stuffe to open light as though hee imagined that his counterfaite coyne must goe for currant And whereas afterwardes hee alleadgeth out of Origen Chrysostóme and Hierome that the apostles did striue amongst themselues because they suspected this supremacie of Peter himselfe doeth not in this giue credite to these fathers For if it bee true that maister Bellarmine saide before that this suspition was not vntill Christ was risen then howe is this true that they affirme that they suspected thus much when they did striue first of all Which was at the least about a yeare and a halfe before Christ rose againe Neither doe these fathers heerein deserue to bee beleeued For the grounde of this their conceite is that they imagined the paying of the tribute money to haue beene before this contention For they surmise that because Christ said paie for mee and thee therefore the rest of the apostles suspected that Peter shoulde haue some superiority ouer them and grudged at it But this their imagination as it is farre from the thought of the apostles for any thing that may be gathered so is it flatly confuted by the scripture For this contention was before the tribute money was demaunded namely in the way before they came to Capernaum as is most plaine in the euangelist saint Markes gospel the ninth chapter and three and thirtie and foure and thirtie verses And the tribute was not demaunded before they were entred into Capernaum and into a house there Matthew the seuenteenth chapter and xxv verse Therefore that suspition of supremacie was not the cause of their contention which maister Bellarmine woulde prooue out of these fathers But perchance rather that ambitious affection that was in Iames and Iohn the sonnes of Zebedee which afterwardes they shewed more plainely in asking that one might sit at his
right hand and the other on his left hand was cause of their strife And indeed the euangelist concerning this saith that the other tenne disdained at them for it But the other contention that was among the apostles is not saide to be against Peter as this is said to be against Iames and Iohn But it seemeth that euery one would be aboue other and no suspition then that Peter shoulde be aboue all And whereas they that wrote those Bookes called the Centuries alleadge that if there had beene in Peter any such Supremacy Christ woulde haue saide to them when they did striue contend no more for I haue made Peter chiefe amongst you but say they hee spake no such wordes Now master Bellarmine will prooue that Christ tolde them that Peter was appointed to bee chiefe And howe He that is greatest among you saieth Christ let him bee as the least and the chiefe as he that serueth Therefore saieth Maister Bellarmine it is plaine that one is called chiefe If hee had meant that the trueth should appeare hee woulde by comparing this place with others where the same thing or storie is reported haue sette downe the true meaning of the wordes and not take aduantage to peruert the true meaning and deceiue the simple Reader For Matthew in his twentieth chapter and twentie sixe and twentie seuen verses and Marke in his tenth chapter and fortie three and fortie foure verses reporting this storie doe plainely teach that Christ doeth not speake of any chiefenesse that was among them but that they woulde haue or desired For they say not if any be but if any would be chiefe so reproouing their ambitious affection and teacheth them rather to indeuour to be humble Because as Chroysostome saieth hee that seeketh Supremacie shameth himselfe And therefore neuer any I suppose before Maister Bellarmine out of these wordes of Christ hath gathered this proclaiming of Peters superioritie Hitherto wee haue seene howe little hee can prooue by the first of his two places of scripture Now let vs trie what weight the other testimonie hath And this is drawen also out of the wordes of our sauiour Christ to Peter who when he had thrice asked of him whether hee loued Christ and stil he answered that hee did loue him hee willeth him to feede his sheepe Now these wordes saieth maister Bellarmine are spoken to Peter onely It is true But that Lesson is not giuen to Peter onely For to all the apostles it belongeth to feede Christs sheepe and therefore are all Pastours and Sheepeheards Yea it is confessed by maister Bellarmine in his answere to an authoritie alleadged out of Cyprian that all the apostles were like in apostolike power and had euen the same authoritie ouer christian people If they had the selfe same authoritie ouer christians that Peter had which here he confesseth then to the rest as well as to Peter was this charge of feeding Christs sheepe committed And therefore Saint Augustine will haue Christ to be the onely good sheepheard and that all other are good in him and are equall in this their worke for he maketh no difference But Christ feedeth they also feede yea enen when they feede hee feedeth and Christ saith that then he feedeth in them because his voice is in them and his loue is in them But what should I stand vpon this point It is more plaine then that maister Bellarmine himselfe can deny it although he would blinde the eies of the simple with this distinction that it is principallie spoken to Peter but in some sort to all What was Peter bound to feede more diligently then the rest of the Apostles Christes sheepe None may be negligent in this office And he that doth the worke of the Lord especially this worke negligently is accursed by Gods owne mouth We must all doe it to the vttermost of our power And Saint Paul was not afraid to saie that he laboured more aboundantly then all the Apostles meaning in the preaching of the word So that it seemeth that this office was not especially committed to Peter but that I may say with Theophilact vpon these wordes Let Bishops and preachers heare what is commended vnto them Feede saith Christ my sheepe bring with thee thy ministerie if thou wile set foorth thy loue to the great sheepehearde Then also maister Bellarmine will proue out of these wordes and that easilie as he saieth that Peter hereby hath the chiefe power But indeede he onely prooueth that to feede is to rule whereas he promiseth to proue with ease that to feed is to haue the chiefe rule But you must heare with him the brightnesse of Peters chaire at Rome hath so daseled his eies that he cannot espie so small a misse But the weight of all consisteth in the last point that he handleth concevning this place and therefore about it he bestoweth some more labour And first he affirmeth that he is sure and certaine that euen all christians yea euen the Apostles themselues are as sheepe committed to Peter For his trifling coniectures of the difference betweene lambes and sheep they are not worth speaking of But let vs see what force is in his notable reason for himselfe so calleth it he so well liketh of it Christ most manifestly saieth he committeth to Peter all those sheepe of which he may say they are mine but he may saie so of all christians therefore all christians are Peters sheep If maister Bellarmine had good store of strong reasons to proue his assertion he would neuer make so much of so blunt a weapon For he can neuer proue his maior Christ saide not feede all my sheepe for he knewe that he could not doe but onely feede my sheepe Now this is as the Logicians doe tearme it an Indestuite proposition Which hath no limitation but may be vnderstoode as occasion serueth so that to make it more particular or generall we must haue regarde to the circumstances of the place And is it not verie strange that he which here will make a vniuersall proposition of that that is not so to force out of it an argument where in truth there is none will be as bolde at another time to make of a vniuersall proposition a particular No man saith Saint Paul assisted mee all men forsooke mee that is saieth he none of them that should haue helped me with the Emperour And so he applieth perchance to one or two that the apostle speaketh doubtlesse of all that professed religion then at Rome as though he were euen the creatour of Lodgicke and would haue it as his creature to frame it selfe to serue his turne But to come to the point As he affirmeth all euen the apostles by these wordes to be committed to Peter so I doe confidently pronounce that out of these wordes and some other circumstances great reasons may be gathered to shewe Peters authority in these wordes
to haue a limitation And first this worde my sheepe which maister Bellarmine maketh the chiefe strength of his argument doth make much for that interpretation which I take to be the true and natui all sence of the place When the meaning of our sauiour Christ is to speake of that generall charge ouer all then he vttereth it in other wordes Go teach all nations and againe going into the whole world preach the gospell vnto euery creature But here is no such generall charge but onely feede my sheepe What are these sheepe that Christ calleth my sheepe We knowe that Christ after a speciall meaning calleth the Iewes his people and his sheepe He saieth he is not sent but to the lost sheepe of the house of Israell And as though in comparison of the Iewes he made no account of the gentiles he saith it is not meete to take the childrens bread meaning the saluation that was sent to the Israelites and cast it to the dogges Therefore Christ by this worde my sheepe meaneth as it should seeme the people to whome he especially was sent amongst whom he was borne to whom hee preached as also Maister Bellarmine for that preferreth Poters ministerie among the Iewes and amongst whom hee died that is the Iewes And besides the manner of sending of his Apostles vnto their generall charge whereof I haue already spoken which is farre differing from this the very office that we know was laide vpon Peter doeth much confirme this interpretation For Saint Paule saith that the gospell ouer the circumcision was committed to him as the gospell ouer the vncircumcision was committed to Peter Wee see therefore that Peter had a peculiar charge and calling to bee the apostle of the Iewes Which is proofe strong enough to prooue that Christ neuer meant to commit anie such generall charge ouer all the world vnto him vnlesse we will imagine that Christ did first he knew not what and afterwardes reuoked his former commission I saie this limitation of Peter especiallie although not onlie to one peculiar people is as it were a reuocation of his former vniuersall calling if any such had beene or rather because indeed none such was it is insteede of a commentarie vpon these wordes feede my sheepe to teach vs how to vnderstand them Feed my sheep that is the Iewes whom I haue especially committed to thee as I also tooke paines almost wholy and only among them Furthermore also when Saint Paule telleth vs that the gospell ouer the vncircumcision was committed to him as vnto Peter the gospell was committed ouer the circumcision his meaning is to tell vs that Christ hath as well placed him ouer the Gentiles as Peter ouer the Iewes And therefore of himselfe he saith that he was seperated vnto the gospell of Iesus Christ because God commanded them to seperate vnto him Paule and Barnabas to the worke whereunto hee had called them And what this worke is is another place declared depart for I will send thee farre hence vnto the Gentiles Which his calling to the Gentiles hee also speaketh of vnto the Galathians assuring himselfe that God called him to that office But now for Peter we must not doubt but that hee also was called of God For they are not to be heard that woulde make vs beleeue that it was but a couenant among themselues that Peter should preach to the Iewes Paule to the Gentiles but Paule doth assure himselfe of his calling in that he that was mightie in Peter was mightie in him also Saint Hierom on the Galathians lib. 1. cap. 2. very well writeth One and the selfesame Christ committed to mee the gospell of the vncircumcision speaking in the person of Paule who committed to Peter the gospell of the circumcision If then Peter was by Christ called to this apostleshippe where was it when in what woordes In all the Scripture there is not auie one place but this wherein he is called by Christ to this ministerie ouer the Iewes And therefore Christes sheepe are rather that peculiar people that were as no man denieth committed to Peter then the whole world whereof in Scripture they haue no probable coniecture And this interpretation I maruell that Maister Bellarmine hath not sought to confute seeing it is about two hundreth and seuentie yeare olde Perchaunce hee thought it rested vppon stronger reason then hee was able to conuince or confute and therefore hee let it alone Other argumentes are also alleadged to disprooue this supremacie of Peter ouer all and to shew that these words feede my sheepe cannot giue vnto him anie such soueraignty Saint Paule acknowledged no such subiection to him when hee doth not only pronounce that hee learned nothing of them that seemed to be chiefe but also withstoode Peter in the face because he was worthy to be reproued Out of which wordes howe lightlie so euer Maister Bellarmine woulde cast them off with this distinction that they were fellowes in preaching but not in gouerning as though the preaching of the woorde and the practise or gouernement according to the same were then seperated yet Saint Ambrose and Theophilact vpon this place doe teach that there was no inequality betweene them and that Paule was nothing inferiour to Peter And marke howe absurdly he woulde daube vppe the matter it is nothing to me saith S. Paule to the Galath 2. 6. what ones they were once that seemed to be somewhat Which he expoūdeth as if he had saide howe vile soeuer they were in time past what was that to mee I conferred with them for now they are great apostles If Saint Paule had so meant he woulde not haue said that they seeme to be somewhat but that they indeede are somewhat And thus master Bellarmine rather than he will say nothing will peruert the very sense of scripture for these wordes no doubt are expounded by those that followe in that verse they that seemed to bee somewhat gaue nothing to me Saint Paule also without asking leaue of Peter did exercise iurisdiction among the Corinthians against an incestuous person he giueth counsell concerning virgins he did set order among them concerning prayer and the eucharist And hee called to Miletum the elders of Ephesus to giue them commaundement or aduise concerning the church there And yet master Bellarmine would make vs beleeue that the iurisdiction was in Peter onely authoritie to preach in the rest together with him Againe the apostles I say the twelue not Peter did call together the christians to appoint deacons We must beleeue saith master Bellarmine that Peter deuised this or agreed to it And why must we beleeue that Peter was author of that act seeing there is not one word to warrant it Why should we imagine that rather of him then of another As for consenting we are sure he consented for it was done by a generall consent Peter and Iohn were sent by the rest to Samaria to instruct them
how happened it that they would send him if hee might commaund them all Had the Apostles authoritie to send him Then was not he aboue them Had they no authority Then did they abuse him which is not to be thought of so godly men as they were And howsoeuer maister Bellarmine would salue the matter in telling vs that sending doth not import alwaies a subiection in him that is sent yet if he had beene their superior it is to be thought they would rather haue desired him to take order for them of Samaria then haue sent him But I am sure the pope now would not take in good part that his colledge of Cardinals should send him about any such businesse Neither is that argument brought to prooue a subiection in him vnto them but that hee is not their ruler or that they owe him no subiection And therefore Maister Bellarmine his answere that sending doth not alwaies signifie subiection is nothing But I am wearie in spending time about his trifling cauils who though he cannot soundly refell the argumentes that are against their doctrine yet will hee not confesse the truth and so giue glorie vnto God Hauing thus examined I trust sufficiently the chiefest thinges alleadged by Maister Bellarmine concerning these two places of Scripture which especially they rest vpon I must also brieflie examine his second sort of proofes which hee promised to vse and that is grounded vpon the prerogatiues that are ascribed to Peter Wherein I shall bee the shorter because many of them are rather to make a shewe of proofe then worth alleadging The changing of his name from Simon to Peter when hee was first called prooueth not that hee was made head of the Church For hee had that name about three yeares and a halfe before they ascribe vnto him this headshippe Likewise that he is commonlie named first is a weake proofe For if that shoulde signifie his headship then shoulde it neuer haue beene placed otherwise then first but Saint Paule who knew well enough what place he should giue to Peter nameth Iames before him He walked on the waters It is true but what is out of that concluded Is hee therefore the head of the church Not so Fourthlie hee first of all knew the hie misteries of our faith say they if he did can that make him heade of the church It cannot Fiftlie it is saide the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it That is the church as the fathers teach almost with one consent and therefore that is the catholicke exposition But that which out of Origen hee alleadgeth because it is contrarie to the text and testimonie of the most of the godlie is iustlie reiected And for that they woulde prooue the supremacie because Christ saide to Peter pay for mee and thee is answered page thirty-sixe That hee praide for Peter it is not singular for hee praieth for all that the father hath giuen him If hee will confirme his brethen it is no maruell because hee that had more experience then others of his owne weakenesse is fittest to make others seeke for true strength and not to trust to their owne that will deceiue them But hee first of all the Apostles saw Christ after his resurrection what then If that maie giue the headship of the church Marie Magdalene shoulde bee the head for shee sawe Christ first yea although Peter and Iohn did runne to seeke for him yet hee woulde not appeare first vnto Peter to take away the very strength of this their argument If Christ washed the feete of Peter first if I say for it may iustly bee doubted of must that giue him the supremacy The like argument may be gathered out of that that Christ foretelleth Peter of his death Actes the first chapter and thirteenth verse And for the twelfth prerogatiue where he maketh Peter as the good man of the house to gather together into one place the companie of Disciples it is grounded vpon a fiction For there is not one word that hee gathered them But there is somewhat to bee gathered against Peters Supremacy For although hee mooued them to appoint one in Iudas his roome yet hee appointed not one as the Pope woulde very readily haue chalenged that priuiledge Not Peter but they appointed two They prayed They also gaue them lots not Peter If maister Bellarmine would reply that these actions yet must be performed by one and by likelihoode this one shoulde be Peter wee will not sticke to graunt him so much But if Peter had beene supreame head of the church heere had beene good occasion to haue named him as direttor in these actions which wee see is not done The thirteenth prerogatiue Peter first preached after the receiuing of the holieghost This maketh not him Supreame head And herein the Popes can not claime to bee Peters successours Hee wrought the first myracle but the text ioyneth Iohn with Peter which shoulde not haue beene doone if it had beene any argument for Peters supremacie to haue it thought that hee wrought the first miracle For the fifteenth prerogatiue commeth the destruction of Ananias and Saphira which was by that power that GOD gaue not to Peter onely but to them all Marke the sixeteenth chapter and seuenteenth and eighteenth verses yea and also vnto Saint Paul although hee were not one of the twelue For euen by the same power Paule cast out of a maide a spirite of diuination and healed the father of Publius that lay sicke of a feuer and a flixe and strooke Elymas with blindenesse healed one borne Iame at Lystra The sixteenth prerogatiue is taken out of the ninth chapter of the Actes of the Apostles where Peters diligence in preaching is commended in that hee trauelled throughout all quarters Which the Popes friends for very shame should neuer haue spoken of For if so bee that his diligence be an argument of his supremacie as they faine would make it then why is not the Popes supine negligence in that function as strong an argument against this Supremacie Wee will admit although it iustly may be doubted of that which is the ground of this seuenteenth prerogatiue that Peter first did preach vnto the Gentiles And must that needs prooue that hee is therefore head of the church I am sure that master Bellarmine himselfe will confesse that it is no necessarie argument But prayer was made without ceasing vnto God for him It is a token that the Church seeing the persecution that nowe beganne against the godly and that Peter also a woorthy minister of the worde and a great apostle was in danger was very carefull for his preseruation But this doeth not prooue him to be the head of the church no more then the care that the godly had ouer Saint Paule Actes the seuenteenth chapter and tenth verse in sending him away to Berea by night for his better safety or letting him downe by
a windowe in a basket when hee was in great danger in Damascus doth prooue Paule to hee the head of the church Of the nineteenth I haue spoken before pag. 10. The twenteenth prerogatiue Paule went to Hierusalem to see Peter What must he therefore needes be head of the church Belike then for the three yeares wherein he sawe him not but went preaching into Arabia and to Damascus he confessed him not to be head but as if he had forgoten himselfe all this while hee now at the last yeldeth him seme reuerence But if he had done it in any such respect he would and should at 〈…〉 before he had taken his office vpon him haue had Peters alowance And thus much concerning Peters priuileges or prerogatiues which they alleage out of Gods booke Which although many of them are euident arguments of excellent graces that God had bestowed vpon him and great mercies which God shewed to him yet if master Bellarmine or any other will out of them conclude Peters supremacie the weaknesse of his argument will be seene of very children But yet because before he made Peters prerogatiues his second proofe of this his supremacie I haue thought it necessarie to reckon them for other confutation of them needeth not that all may see what weak proofes they doe bring for this their chiefe point of doctrine As for the other eight prerogatiues they are not worth speaking of Both because we may iustly doubt of the truth of many of them as being proued but by fabulous writings and also because if they were true it were not matteriall for the point in question And therefore letting them alone as rotten propes which will fall in pieces of themselues if any weight be layed vpon them I hasten to his third proofe that hee promised And that is out of the fathers And herein it is needles to examine euerie particular testimony Onely I will set downe in what sense the fathers truly may and often doe ascribe vnto Saint Peter many excellent titles that thereby examining the fathers and finding them to keepe within the bounds of gods word we may with reuerēce receiue them But if they passe those lists I trust master Bellarmine and al his friends will beare with vs if we reiect the doctrine of men as himselfe in this very booke before refuseth the iudgement of Origene and Theophilact and of others in other places First therefore this word in latine primatus which wee now call Supremacie but indeede doth signifie that I may make such a word Firstnesse is ascribed vnto Peter of the fathers in respect of time as in the place alleaged here out of Ciprian neither Peter saith Ciprian whom the Lord chose first and vpon whom he did build his church whereas Paul did afterward reason of circumcision did boast himselfe or did take vpon him any thing insolently or proudly saying he had the primacy and that new ones and aftercommers shall rather obay him him This place is alleadged by master Bellarmine often to proue Peters supremacy or iurisdiction ouer others But the wordes are very plaine that Cyprian speaketh of his being first not in dignity but in tune as appeareth not onely in that he saith he was first chosen but also by the wordes of newe ones or after-commers But maister Bellarmine wil say that Andrew was chosen before him to be an apostle and therefore that Cyprian was deceiued if so he meant It may so be For men may erre But the question is not nowe whether Cyprians iudgement herein be true or not but vpon what occasion or in what respect Cyprian giueth Peter the primacy which is most plainly in this place set downe to be in respect of time And so may other of the fathers in this respect vse this word and giue him this title And sometime this title of primacy is giuen vnto him in regarde of some excellent thinges that he was indued withall by reason whereof his fellowes and brethren amongst themselues and the fathers after might giue vnto him some kinde of reuerence in name or otherwise But this wil do no good for proofe of popish supremacy For they doe hold that Peter in his owne right and by that iurisdiction which by Gods word he hath is head of the church and hath the supremacy aboue all other We say that because of his gifts of zeale knowledge constancy or boldnes he was admitted and allowed to speake and to doe many things but that in his owne right he was but equall with the rest and as he calleth himselfe a fellowe elder with them that were meaner then apostles Therefore to be a chiefe man or a head man among them is not to prooue him to haue iurisdiction ouer them In all corporations or fellowships as aldermen in citties although in regarde of that place they are alike none more or lesse an alderman then another yet among them some are better esteemed of euen of themselues because of their learning wisedome dexterity in gouernement credit power or wealth not because they can in right claime it but because other doe for such things as they see in them yeelde it vnto them not that they haue power ouer them but onely they are of good accompt among them And thus much to proue that that is not sufficient which maister Bellarmine saith will serue the turne to proue that the fathers say that Peter was head or had primacy ouer y e church For neither his estimation in respect of his gifts neither if by voluntary subiection they did submit themselues vnto him it can proue him to haue right to rule ouer them And this they must proue or els they gaiue nothing to their cause that Peter by the word of God hath authority ouer the whole church and ouer the apostles And therefore it maketh no great matter what men say of Peters authority but how truely they grounde their sayings vpon Gods word And thus I trust it appeareth to the indifferent reader that the minor proposition of that argument which I haue set downe in the end of my answere vnto maister Bellarmine ninth chapter of this booke wherein consisteth the great strength of the popish Monarchy is not agreeable vnto the truth or catholike doctrine howsoeuer that church of Rome reioiceth in that title that is none of hers thereby deceiuing the world as if all that shee taught were sound and catholike The proposition is this that Christ gane iurisdiction vnto Peter ouer the vniuersal church The chiefest profes that either they all haue or that maister Bellarmine can alleadge is out of Saint Matthew the xvi where they say this iurisdiction is promised and Saint Iohn xxi where they say it is giuen which their interpretation as I haue shewed cannot stand with the text it selfe or the interpretations of the sounder fathers His second reason which consisteth of the prerogatiues which Saint Peter had is grounded either vpon
fables that deserue no credit or vpon impertiment matters that proue nothing to the purpose as if I be forced hereafter therto I doubt not by Gods grace with ease to proue His third and last reason is of it selfe sufficient to shew that themselues haue no great hope to proue it to be a catholike doctrine that is a doctrine taught and beleeued of all the godly or almost of all at all times in all places for Vincentius Lyrinensis thus defyneth catholike But the first authour that maister Bellarmine alleadgeth is more then two hundreth yeers after Christ So that the doctrine that cannot be proued to haue bene beleeued for two hundreth yeares in the purest times of the church cannot be called catholike or be said to haue the true antiquitie And yet there is nothing that soundeth so much in the mouthes of our aduersaries as Catholike Catholike Antiquitie Antiquitie whereas in trueth nothing can be catholike vnlesse it haue the true antiquitie And the true antiquitie must begin at God himselfe It must spring from him as from the first fountaine As most notably and more than once that ancient and learned father Tertullian hath said That there is nothing true but that onely which the church receiued of the apostles the apostles from Christ Christ from God And this is indeede ancient trueth and true antiquitie Now I must also take a view of the maior proposition which is this whatsoener iurisdiction Christ gaue to Peter and not to the rest of the apostles al that belongeth to the church of Rome And master Bellarmine beginneth to prooue this in his second Booke beginning with Peters being at Rome But whether he were there or not it maketh no great matter For it is laide of Paule and Marke and others that they were there also but that maketh them not supreame heades of the church But whereas he confidently affirmes that many of the fathers teach that Peter first of all preached to the Romanes and founded the church there because perchance he thereupon would inferre that he was then bishop of Rome it is not amisse to examin his proofe herein First that which he alleageth out of Iraeney that the church of Rome was founded by Peter and Paule maketh nothing for proofe of Peters first founding the church there for Iraeny maketh them both alike in that worke Neither by founding the church can be meant the first beginning of the same but rather that they by their testimony and death did confirme the godlie there and perfected and established the church that was already begunne by all likelihoode as after shall be shewed And whereas master Bellarmine addeth to Iraeny his own glose that is to say saith he first of Peter and after of Peter and Paule as it is affirmed without proofe so it may go without answere That which he reciteth out of Eusebius for Peters first preaching at Rome though he write First with great letters is not true In Musculus interpretation there are no like words to thē that are heere alleadged And that out of Arnobius who saith that Rome was conuerted to Christ because it sawe the fierie charets that Simon Magus had caused to bee blowen awaie with the blast of Peters mouth may well bee vnderstoode of the more plentifull conuersion of christians there not because there were none before For I will say nothing of the iust causes that may be alleadged to doubt of this storie alleadged out of Agisippus of Simon Magus his fierie charetes And Epiphanius is wrong delt withall by maister Bellarmine For whereas hee saieth that Peter and Paule were first apostles and bishops in Rome he maketh him saie that Peter and Paule were first in Rome thereupon inferring that first they preached there which Epiphanius saith not That which out of Chrysostome hee alleageth prooueth not Peter first to haue preached there as neither that out of Leo or Theodosius For Chrysostome saieth that hee did occupie the kingly citie Leo that hee was appointed to the chiefe place of the Romaine Empire and Theodosius speaketh of the religion deliuered by Peter But this doeth not proue that it was first deliuered by him Orosins and Gregorie of Turon say that Peter being there Christians beganne which may be vnderstoode of their more bolde profession of Christianitie then before For that there were christians before Peter came there are in my iudgement strong reasons to prooue Indeede Theodoret saith that great Peter first preached to them the doctrine of the gospell Perchance he meant that he not first of all but first of the apostles did preach the gospell there For Sadolet a Cardinall and a Romish catholike in his commentaries vpon Paules epistle to the Romaines doth thinke that the gospell was first preached and the church at Rome first assembled by some of the disciples that fled out of Iury. And he nameth Priscilla Aquila Andronicus and Iunia And in this respect it seemeth that Paule giueth this commendation vnto Andronicus and Iunia that they were notable among the apostles because their ministery was so necessary for the church there for he doeth not in anie other Epistle speake of them But in this epistle Sadolet saith that Saint Paule doth giue vnto them this great commendation that they might haue the better credite among the godly at Rome and the greater reuerence might be shewed towardes them in discussing and ending of these controuersies which were begunne amongst them and for staying of which Saint Paule doth write this Epistle as Sadolet confesseth And of these Primasius an ancient father saith in like sorte that Andronicus and Iunia were accounted notable amongst others that were sent to Rome by whom they might beleeue or by whose example they might haue beene confirmed Now if Peter had beene the first that preached there which master Bellarmine a papist affirmeth but Sadolet a Cardinall very confidentlie denieth Saint Paule who woulde not builde vppon anothers foundation as he writeth vnto the Romanes would not haue taken vpon him to haue decided their controuersies and to haue commended vnto them the ministerie of others also to that ende but would either not at all haue medled with them or haue put them in minde of Peter their Bishop But contrariwise hee challengeth them for his owne flocke and as belonging to his charge which wrong he would neuer haue offered to Saint Peter if he first had planted the church and his seat there Neither would the Iewes who in euery place were Peters especiall charge that were at Rome when Paule came thither bee so desirous to be instructed of Paule as they were if they had beene taught before by Peter and he had beene their Bishop and had beene there at this time for this Epistle was written long after they say that he was bishop of Rome or if they had knowne their owne bishop to be the vniuersall bishop or head of all
others And thus I trust that notwithstanding all that out of some doubtfull sentences of ancient writers maister Bellarmine hath gathered yet this point is not so cleere for the church of Rome as they would perswade the world that it is But rather the contrary appeareth most true that Peter was not the first that preached at Rome As for that which maister Bellarmine doth alleadge concerning Saint Markes gospell that it is written at Rome according to that which Saint Peter preached if wee grant it it doth not proue yet that Peter first of any other preached at Rome It only proueth that hee did preach there which by way of admittance only for the present wee will not much â—and against As for that which hee saieth of the ouercomming of Simon Magus by Peter euen this one thing maie sufficiently shew that it is but fabulous that Saint Luke who tooke vpon him to write the actes and doings of the Apostles doth very carefully write the miracles that were wrought by them as he that marketh may easily perceiue and doeth also recorde things done many yeares after this was supposed to bee done yet doeth not so much as make any mention of this conflice betweene Saint Peter and Simon Magus although in the eight Chapter where he reporteth some talke betweene Simon Magus and Peter very good occasion had beene offered neither yet Saint Marke Saint Peters owne disciple writing at Rome mentioneth it And therefore howsoeuer some of the ancient writers being deceiued by Egisippus haue thought of this fable yet I haue I trust good reason and sufficient warrant not to credit the same Now whether Peter died at Rome or not which is the next point that is handled by maister Bellarmine I will not much gaine say it because I would especially stand vpon the most materiall pointes that belong to the proofe of their maior proposition which is that Peters prerogatiues belong to the bishop of Rome if wee will beleeue the papists by Christs institution And herein I would craue of the indifferent reader without partiasity to iudge whether this their doctrine of Peters beeing Bishop of Rome twenty and fiue yeares be a catholicke doctrine or not For maister Bellarmine maketh a proud but a false brag that it hath the testimony and consent of all the ancient writers As for his first reason whereby he will proue him to bee bishop there because of the dignity or great account that hath beene alwaies made of the church of Rome it is very weake For the Church of Rome was accounted off more then others as before I shewed out of the councel of Chalcedon Ireny because Rome was the imperiall citie And no doubt also but that greater concourse of learned men in that respect was there then els where which must needes cause that place to bee in better estimation So that of this cannot Peters being Bishoppe there bee concluded Secondly whereas hee will prooue that he was Bishoppe of Rome because where he was bishop after that he leste Antioche it cannot be shewed this his proofe is like the former For seeing he was an apostle what necessitie is there that he must be bishop in some peculiar seate or place Where was Paule bishop It appeareth by the story of the Scripture that he was no where bishop And why then should wee of necessity make S. Peter a biâ—hop in some chaire Maister Bellarmines third argument which is the testimony of the fathers hee imagineth will beare all downe before it But first wee must consider that the fathers were content at the first to receiue this thing as a truth without any great examination of it because it was but a matter of story and so not much materiall whether hee were bishop of Rome or not But if they had beene in our daies and seene what necessary doctrine the church of Rome inferreth thereupon that it is a doctrine that we must beleeue or els wee cannot be saued that Peter was bishop of Rome and of the whole Church and then for that the bishop of Rome is Peters successour in that vniuersall bishopricke and that by Christes institution and that this must be beleeued vpon paine of damnation No doubt but euen those godly fathers who seeme most to speake of that chaire of Peter woulde haue saide as Chrysostome writeth of Moses chaire wee must not now saith he speake of the Priestes sitting in Moses chaire but in Christes chaire hee I say and the rest would haue proclaimed it lowde inough that they are the true Bishops not that sit in Peters chaire but in Christs chaire But I haue sundry strong argumentes to induce not my selfe onlie but I trust euen others also to be assuredly perswaded I will not saie that Peter was not Bishoppe of Rome but that it is not a Catholicke Religion so to be leeue And first I will constantly affirme that master Bellarmine and all the Iesuites that take his part shal not be able to prooue that the fathers of the first two hundreth yeares that are of good account or credite for in this case I except what their Popes and counterfet fathers haue written or taught that Peter was Bishop of Rome Which beeing prooued it is as cleare as the noone day that is this not catholicke doctrine Themselues must needes confesse it Now for proofe of it first that in the Scriptures we haue no such things taught it is most plaine And Maister Bellarmine himselfe who would faine haue it beleeued yet dareth not affirme of this anie thing els then that it maie be that the Lord did openly command that Peter should so place his chaire at Rome that absolutely the bishoppe of Rome should succeede him And there hee addeth that howsoeuer the matter is it is not so by the first institution And as in the scriptures this thing hath no ground so the fathers that liued in the daies of the apostles and next after them doe not acknowledge any such matter Ignatius who was Saint Iohns scholler maie be a good witnes in this behalfe All whose Epistles if we search and sift we shall not finde any thing in them that teacheth vs this point of popery but rather the contrary And yet he writing vnto sundry and informing them in the most principall points of religion and such things as were most necessary for christians to know yea and among other to the Romanes themselues must needes haue informed them of this vniuersall bishop and of Peters chaire if he had knowen of anie such matter in his seconde Epistle which is ad Tiallianos I commaund not saith he as an apostle and to the Romanes I commaund not these thinges as Peter and Paule In both places hee had good occasion to haue vrged them with Peters supremacie but especially he should haue put the Romanes in minde of Peter if hee had beene their bishop And should
haue said I doe not inioyne you these thinges as Peter who was your bishop But the greatest matter that he espieth in Peter and Paule is that they are apostles And writing vnto the Ephesians he moueth them to depende vpon their bishop as the Church hangeth vpon the Lord and the Lord vpon his father How happeneth that in this reckoning of these goodly couples the Ephesians and their bishoppe the church and Christ Christ and God there is not any mention of Peter or his successour Doubtlesse as yet this conceit was not hatched which yet more plainely maie be seene in that exhortation that he maketh to the Saintes in Smirna to honour God as the maker and Lorde of all but their bishoppe for that he speaketh of their owne bishop the whole epistle sheweth as the high priest the Image of God and the most excellent thing in the Church Nowe I pray yon what account is here of Peters chaire or of his succession Not one word This also in his epistle is to be obserued that hee seemeth to make more especiall account of Paul then of Peter As writing to the Philadelphians he saith Be ye folowers of Paul and the other Apostles as they folowed Christ which it is to be thought he would not haue don if Peter had beene in such account then as since he is said to be Nowe for Iustinus Martir who wrote about the yeare 147. doth neuer so much as make mention of Peter being bishop of Rome although in his second Apologie he maketh mention of Simon Magus how hee was honoured at Rome but not of his fierie chariots destroied by Peter as some doe whereof I spake before Seeing therefore Iustinus hauing so good an occaston and writing and dwelling in Rome as by Hierom it appeareth speaketh not one worde of it there neither yet afterwards in the end of the apologie wherein he sheweth the sinne of christianitie it is likely that Rome was not then knowen to be either Peters chaire or the bishop thereof to bee vniuersall bishop Eusebius writeth of Denis of Corinth who florished about the yeare one hundred seuentie and foure howe hee did write vnto the Romans and yet nothing is there of Peter that he was bishop there but onely that Peter and Paul did plant the church there And in the same place Eusebius reporteth of Caius who as he saith was made bishop of Rome after Zephirinus which Zephirinus died the yeare of the Lord two hundred and twentie that he writing vnto Proclus an hereticke put him in minde of the monuments of the Apostles that he could shew Whereas hee might haue made a better bragge to hane serued for his purpose if hee could haue told them of Peters chaire But as yet there was no such matter knowen As for that which master Bellarmine himselfe aleageth out of Irenie it proueth nothing for him For in saying that Peter and Paul together did found a church there he ascribeth nothing to Peter alone And Tertulian that was about 200. yeares after Christ doth seeme rather to make Clement the first bishop of Rome so litle doth he dreame of Peters chaire or bishoprick there Neither yet doth Cyprian plainly affirme that Peter was bishop of Rome He doth somtime indeede call that church Peters chaire in respect of the doctrine that Peter taught and published which at that time was beleeued at Rome which also perchance he in Rome confirmed by his death As also our Sauiour Christ speaketh of Moses chaire and saith that the priests did sit in Moses his chaire so long as they taught the lawe that Moses from God deliuered to them But as for Moses hee neuer came neere the place where Ierusalem was built to establish any chaire there And thus we see that in all these ancient fathers who liued more then two hundred yeares after Christ for Ciprian florished about two hundred and fiftie yeares after Christ there is no plaine proofe of Peters being bishop of Rome And excepting Ciprians words who if he allude vnto the words of our sauiour Christ as he seemeth to do can make no more for the opinion of the church of Rome then any of the rest there is nothing in them all that hath any likelyhood of proofe of the thing in controuersie But if any man answere that it is no good argument thus to reason Such men haue not written that Peter was bishop of Rome therefore hee was not bishop there I reply that if this that out of them hath beene said doe not substantially prooue that Peter was not bishop of Rome as if the allegations be wel considered of they are strong presumptions yet doe they inuincibly prooue that for this space of more then two hundred yeares they cannot shew of any authentike author that hath acknowledged Peter to be bishop of Rome Yea the first that is aleaged by master Bellarmine is Ireny who liued after Christ not much lesse then two hundred yeares And therefore this doctrine doth easily appeare not to be catholike and the godly fathers which slace haue affirmed that he was bishop of Rome either do so call him in respect of the worke of a bishop which if he were there by his care of Gods flocke and constancie in his truth he did shew or else they teach that which had not bin taught in the dayes next vnto the apostles times A second argument that vnanswerably prooueth this to be no catholike doctrine is the dissenting of y ◠most anciēt authors that they alleage from themselues in this point wherin they affirme that Peter was bishop of Rome For Ireny who is first alleaged of master Bellarnine Tertulian whome in the second place he produceth then also Epiphanius and Dionysius bishop of Corinth out of Eusebius do al with one consent ioyne Peter and Paul together I say not Peter onely so that vnto the one as well as vnto the other belongeth that dignitie by their records And Damasus himselfe a pope I maruel if he would erre in this point saith that Peter came to Rome Nero being emperour which must be at the least twelue yeares after the reckoning that is nowe holden for good in the church of Rome And Eusebius doth aleage out of Origen how Peter in the latter end of his life came to Rome and therefore he is not like to be Bishoppe there xxv yeares This doubtfulnesse and vnconstancie of their deliuering this doctrine is an infalible argument that there was not in those times any catholike doctrine taught of this matter but that men might thinke thereof as they saw cause But now it is no lesse then heresie to denie that Peter was Bishoppe of Rome Now if vnto this that hath bin said we adde the vocation or office of Saint Peter recorded in the holy Scripture that he should be the Apostle of the circumcision whereof that euer he was discharged all the Iesuites in Rome and Rheimes
will neuer be able out of Gods register booke to shew And one the other side that the singular care that the Apostle Saint Paul who willingly woulde not build vpon another mans foundation sheweth himselfe to haue ouer the Romans more then ouer any other euen as if they were his peculiar charge as iu the first and fifteenth chapters of that epistle appeareth I trust there is no man of indifferent iudgement but will thinke that we haue great reason to stay our selues and not rashly vpon euerie shew of the newnesse of fathers to runne and consent vnto such opinions as haue no shew of the ancient antiquitie no agreement among themselues no colour of probabilitie in the worde of God but the contrarie rather Neither is that any answere to my second argument which master Bellarmine doth saie that the disagreement about the time of Peters comming vnto Rome doeth not prooue that he came not at Rome at all For my intent is not directly to proue that Peter came not to Rome as bishop of Rome but that this was not a catholike doctrine for two hundred or almost three hundred yeeres after Christ and this disagreement doth proue that substantiallie So that it must bee another answere that must take awaie the strength of this argument or else it standeth vnaswered Neither is that example that he bringeth of the vncertaintie of the time of Christes death fit to proue the matter in question For all are agreed that Christ died but that Peter was bishop of Rome is not certaine And therefore the thing it selfe beeing doubted of the vncertaine setting downe of the circumstances will make it lesse credited I am not ignorant that godly learned men haue set downe manie moe arguments to prooue that Peter was not bishop of Rome and that maister Bellarmine bestoweth sixe or seuen chapters to answere the same as well as he can But my purpose being to trie as well as I can how catholike their doctrine is I content my selfe at this time with these fewe For to striue what might bee spoken of this matter were an infinite labour But whilest I indeuour to goe forward I am forced a while to stay and muse at the immoderate boldnesse of maister Bellarmine who vpon so weake proofe will make so certaine a conclusion For purposing to shewe the bishoppe of Rome is a vniuersall bishop hee thus beginneth Hitherto we haue plainly shewed that the Bishoppe of Rome is Peters successour in the Bishopricke of Rome Nowe considering with my selfe the weakenesse of the two postes that must vpholde this building I though he might haue something at the least mistrusted his owne cause For if Peter were at Rome and first preached there doth that proue that therefore the Bishop of Rome is his successour But by that meanes all they that came afterward in the places where he preached shall bee all his successours and not onely the pope The second ground of this considerate conclusion is that he imagineth that Peter was Bishop of Rome and so died But the vanitie of his arguments I haue discouered before I trust sufficiently Therefore this bolde assertion I will requite with this Sillogisme and so proceed If it be not certaine that Peter was Bishop of Rome then must this succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter needes be vncertaine But it is vncertaine as I haue shewed by better reason then master Bellarmine hath shewed that Peter was bishop there Therefore I conclude this succession also must needs be vncertaine But before I begin to examine Bellarmines euidence wherby he will proue the pope to haue supremacie ouer all the church the Reader must bee put in minde of that which before I haue said whereby the very ground of this supremacie is shaken if I be not deceiued namely it is with good reasons I trust denied that Peter had that supremacie ouer the whole church And if he had it not how can the bishop of Rome haue it from him Againe we must consider how this hangeth togither If Peter had that vniuersall charge and was bishop of Rome also that therefore they that doe succeede him in the bishopricke of Rome must in like manner that vniuersall charge But let vs heare M. Bellarmines reasons But the foure first I of purpose omit bicause they are either directed against Nilus his opinion who graunted as master Bellarmine saieth of him that Peter had this vniuersall charge ouer the whole church but denieth it to the bishop of Rome and therefore those arguments touch vs little or else they are answered before in this treatise But he hauing proued after his maner against Nilus that seeing Peter had this supremacie hee must needes haue a successour in the same At the length he commeth to proue that the B. of Rome is this his successor reasoning thus either the bishop of Antioch or of Rome must be Peters successor in the supremacie ouer the whole church But the bishop of Antioch can not chalenge it therefore Rome must succeed in this vniuersall bishopricke That Antioch cannot haue it he shews because Peter resigned that bishopricke before he died I will not here examin or cal forth your witnesses in what place ye find that Peter gaue ouer to the bishop of Antioch which you say hee had But I will aske a question of you by what right he could resigne it ouer and leaue the charge that God committed vnto him and so forsake the flocke whereof you are made ouerseer You must either holde your peace or else tell vs some tale of a bastarde Epistle of pope Marcellus which commaunded him so to doe And is it inough that Marcellus who liued about three hundred yeares after this thing was done should say that Christ commaunded him to doe it and produce no witnesse alleadge no proofe set downe no circumstances Thus we see that this supremacie doeth stande but vpon a tottering foundation It may also be doubted whether if he had a vniuersall charge ouer the whole church he might take vpon him a particular charge either at Rome or Antioch For our Sauiour Christ giueth direction to his Apostles whose charge was vniuersall Goe into the whole worlde preach the Gospell vnto euerie creature For although it is written of some of the Apostles that they were bishops in certaine places yet that is no answere to this obiection because they were not vniuersall bishops and therefore must needes haue their seate somewhere I say in some particular charge For hee that is an vniuersall Bishop and hath allotted vnto him a seate or chaire is vnproperly called vniuersall It were more expedient for him in respect thereof to bee running yea or rather flying then to bee sitting But to answere master Bellarmines argument His Maior proposition is gathered of a false supposition For if it bee not graunted that Peter must needes haue one to succeede him in this vniuersall charge then you see that
there is no necessitie that his seate wherein hee must bee succeeded is either at Rome or Antioch But wee denie first that Peter himselfe had this vniuersall charge And in this respect wee thinke it a verie needlesse matter for vs to beate our heades about his successour in the same But I pray you what meaneth this that master Bellarmine taking in hande to write of the controuersies of these tymes and to impugne and withstande them that in these dayes doe speake agaynst his Popes supremacie doth so suddenlie turne his backe vppon them and incounter with Nilus who is much more friendlie to him in this matter chen we can bee For whereas hee hath promised to prooue that the Bishop of Rome dooth succeede Peter in the vniuersall Bishopricke by Gods lawe and by reason of succession his arguments onely intend and prooue thus much Peter had this vniuersall charge and therefore another must haue it also And that Peter had it hee saieth Nilus dooth graunt it But that is it that wee denie and master Bellarmines store will not affoorde him one argnment agaynst vs directlie except hee haue anie confidence in the two last the fifth and the sixt And for the sixt as also his other arguments that may any thing touch vs they are answered almost in the beginning of this Treatise Let vs then see what strength this argument hath that so much of the weight of the cause must rest vppon Saint Paule saith the church is one body but he head can not say to the feete I haue no neede of you therefore the Church must haue another head vpon earth besides Christ If the argument be hard fauoured and mishapen and ill tied together and agree like strings al out of tune blame him that make it so For master Bellarmine doth so reason These are his wordes The church is one body and hath her kinde of head here vppon earth besides Christ as appeareth out of 1. Corinthians and the twelfth chapter In which place after that the Apostle Saint Paule hath said that the church is one body hee addeth The head cannot say to the feet I haue no need of you Which his reason if it be drawen into a forme of argument must as I thinke be formed into such a monstrous shape as you haue seene But to omit the shape of his argument let vs see what substaunce there is in it And if it bee examined it hath as little found matter as good making For out of these wordes of Saint Paule the head can not say to the feete I haue no neede of you hee thus inferreth but Christ may say that hee standeth in neede of none of vs therefore by this head heere Christ can not be meant Is not this very clarkely handled of maister Bellarmine to apply that vnto Christ our head in the church which S. Paul speaketh of the head of a naturall bodie whereof he hath borrowed a similitude to teach how necessary the members of Christ his mysticall body are one to an other so that none may without wronging himselfe despise another which collection of M. Bellarmine is most plainely against the text it selfe and the iudgement of all good expositours Nay I suppose I neede except no expositor but maister Bellarmine himselfe And yet we haue in that very place an other argument of his For a man may see that he was sore pained in trauaile of this argument For seeeing no way how to deliuer it well he was faine to heape vp much stuffe in few lines for al this matter is contained in little more then eight short lines to make a shew as though he had much to say when as that which he said is farre worse then iust nothing Well let vs view his argument One head besides Christ there must be but there is no other then Peter therefore Peter must be the head We flatly deny that we need any head but Christ as before I haue proned Lastly Peter dying the church must not want a head therefore Peter must haue a successor But this argument supposeth that Peter is the head of the vniuersall church which they cannot prooue and vntill they can prooue it we will content our selues with Christ our head Thus we see how master Bellarmines fift argument as a plenteous spring sendeth forth three streames but there is no cleare water in any of them but bad couers of a bad messe And what is all this to the bishop of Rome if Peter must haue a successour For as we deny Peters supremacie so may wee doubt whether he might be a bishop being not an apostle only as were the rest but an apostle of the Iewes wheresoeuer they were we doubt of his resignation of the bishopricke of Antioch if he were at any time bishop there we doubt of his being bishop of Rome and lastly whether this succession must needes belong to the bishops of Rome if Peter had it for it might bee personall in Peter And master Bellarmine who in other questions is plentifull of his reasons and will make some reasonable shew of proofe in this greatest matter and which it especially behoueth him to prooue is so barren that he hath almost nothing to say no reason to alleage although by his promise he made vs looke for great matters And yet when all is done he must either haue vs to graunt him the thing that is in question which we cannot doe or else he can say nothing to it But there are many strong reasons that moue vs to denie that Peter had any such vniuersall authoritie ouer all Christs flock or that any man the bishop of Rome or any other should haue such supremacie First the greatnesse of the change which is far aboue the abilitie of many much lesse can any one performe it Secondly that our sauiour Christ doth shew a litle before his death as appeareth in Saint Iohns gospell a fatherly affection and tender care to comfort his disciples being pensiue because of his departure and yet neuer vseth this argument or giueth them this commaundement that Peter should be their head and they should obay him Although good oportunitie was offered to haue spoken of it if it had beene so when Christ told them that it was expedient that he should departe He doth not then tell them that Peter must be in his place and supply his roome or that one should haue general charge of his church But on the contrarie he appointeth his vicar and vicegerent euen his spirit to supply his want Who can be in all places at once in euery particular church yea in euery particular member of the church to comfort instruce direct defend and to do to and for the godly whatsoeuer is needefull or expedient for them Thirdly the apostles after Christ ascension and Saint Luke that writeth the acts of the apostles make no mention of such a supremacie in Peter vnlesse we could
borow master Bellarmines spectacles by which hee can spie that one pope is contained in these words one bodie and one spirit as he doth also find out the supremacie plainely set downe in these words hee gaue some to be apostles and yet more plainly if we may beleeue him in the epistle to the Corinthians he hath ordained in the church first apostles then prophets Now let them that can picke that soueraigne Supremacie out of those wordes say so But for my part I confesse my sight is so dimme that I can not see so farre into that mill stone These and such like reasons beeing compared with their proofs out of scripture which make nothing for them vnlesse they be sore wrested from their naturall and true meaning doe euen proclame it to the world that this doctrine of the popes supremacie is nothing else but a deuise of mans braine a fruit of his pride And thus to thinke I am the ealelier perswaded when I see how master Bellarmine toileth himselfe to set downe the state of the question For although in the beginning almost of this twelfth chapter he promised to prooue that the bishop of Rome is by the lawe of God successor vnto Peter in the supremacie of the vniuersall church yet afterwards he confesseth that the church of Rome hath not this succession by Christs first institution of this succession and that perchaunce for so he speaketh to testifie how loth hee is to confesse the truth plainly though he cannot denie it perchance he saith it cannot be proued by the lawe of God that the bishop of Rome as he is bishop of Rome is Peters successor And yet although it cannot be proued to be decreed by Gods lawe it is saith hee a thing that belongeth to the catholike faith For saith hee to be of the fayth and to be by Gods lawe is not all one for it is not by Gods lawe that Paul should haue a cloke hee might haue said as much also for Tobias dog yet this must be beleeued I would not haue thought that Pauls cloke had beene such a necessarie relique but I remember that Balthasar Cossa who was pope Iohn the three and twentieth of that name gained well by Peters cloke when time was for by casting it vpon his owne shoulders he made himselfe pope But can master Bellarmine find no better stuffe to perswade vs to beleeue the popes supremacie They make it a matter of damnation not to beleeue the supremacie of the pope And is it of as great necessitie to beleeue that Paul had a cloke If master Bellarmine be so perswaded I lament his follie If hee thinke otherwise why doth hee bring it to prooue that to beleeue the supremacie of the bishop of Rome is a pointe of the catholike faith although by Gods lawe this supremacie cannot be prooued And as they stagger in setting downe by what authoritie right or lawe they claime this soueraigntie so they haue no great proofe for their manner of this their dignite whether it be personall or not By Christs first institution master Bellarmine telleth vs it was personal If Christ made it personall who could change that estate and make it successionall master Bellmine answereth that it was personall generall or publike so that it belonged to him and his successors Whether that can be called personall that is to say belonging to the person onely which belongeth also to his successours let the indifferent Reader iudge But how is this prooued that Christ gaue this prerogatiue to him and his Master Bellarmine saith so often times especially in the twelfth chapter of his first booke but his proofe is litle else then his affirmation Againe hee saieth that this succession is made both personall and locall by Peters dying bishop of Rome But as alreadie I haue proued that doctrine of Peters beeing at Rome bishop is not so certaine that christians may build their faith thereupon So that we see there building is altogether vpon the sand their proofe weake their reasons obscure and their places nothing pregnant for that they are brought And I maruell that nowe it should be counted heresie not to beleeue the Romish bishop to be by Gods lawe supreame head of the whole church seeing that in the yeare of our Lord God one thousand fiue hundred and twentie Albert by the goodnesse of God cardinall priest of the holy church of Rome of the title of Saint Chrysogon Arbhbishop of the holy churches of Magdeburge and Mentz primat of Germany and prince elector gouernour of Halberstade and marques of Brandenburge for these litles hee giueth himselfe in an epistle writen to Luther sheweth himselfe griued and displeased that some diuines of good accoumpt did so earnestly contend for their friuolous opinions and trifling questions namely of the power of the bishop of Rome whether it be by Gods lawe or by mans lawe And of free will and many other such toyes not much concerning a christian man This cardinall you see thinketh it not worth contending for And I am verely perswaded many moe will bee of his mind vnlesse they see better matter then master Bellarmine canne bring to prooue it to be by Gods lawe But although hee haue no store of Scripture for him yet hath hee great hope in councilles and fathers And I assured my selfe that the councilles if hee will trust them will most plainly decide this question whether that superiority that the church of Rome challengeth ouer all other churches be by Gods law or mans law as hereafter it shall if God will appeare Nowe therefore to examine maister Bellarmines next proofe which is out of the counsels And the first counsel that he alleageth is the Nicen counsel not that which themselues haue deliuered to vs as authenticall and true in the tomes of counsels set foorth by themselues but to serue this turne we must haue a new addition and a strange interpretation not that which agreeth best with the words and is thought most true of them that liued neare vnto the daies of that counsell First therefore we must adde saith maister Bellarmine to the beginning of the sixt canon the church of Rome alwaies had the supremacy And why must those wordes be added Paschasinus forsooth a bishop in the counsell of Chalcedon did so cite that canon He did so but he was legate for Leo then bishop of Rome that did alleadge it by Aetius Archdeacon of Constantinople he was disproued who read not onely the coppy of the canon by a also the approbation of the same counsell and canon by a counsell holden at Constantinople of 150. bishops Nectarius being bishop there But one found out a greeke coppy of that counsellong since and in that saith maister Bellarmine those wordes are If the coppies that we haue haue thus long beene thought true and good I see no reason why for some one greeke coppy which might very well be falsified by some fauorite of the
The greatest bishop and yet not he but Liberius was then bishop of Rome And for this name head as I haue shewed it is nothing strange in all societies to haue a heade man and yet he not to haue iurisdiction ouer them By all which it appeareth howe weake an argument may be drawen from these names which may be common to so many to proue the supremacy which the bishop of Rome challengeth to himselfe onely Nowe maister Bellarmine hauing wrung what he can which is not much out of the fathers of the greeke church commeth to the latin writers to try what gleanings he can get among them Whom I doubt not but we shall finde speaking very reuerently of the church of Rome as in truth it well deserued because that the bishop of Rome although he began very soone to encroche somewhat vpon other mens right and to enlarge his power yet he vsed his greatnesse and authority for a long time to the maintenance of true religion the comfort of the distressed and to withstande by himselfe and other the bishops of the West church the heresies that troubled especially the East churches In al which things we know that by their place for that they were bishops of the Imperiall city and the authority that they were come vnto by fauour of the Emperours they were as it were ringleaders vnto others so that although they were moued sometimes to these good things by a desire that they had to be medling in all matters which was one of the waies whereby they came to their greatnes yet in that they did good vnto the church the godly did both commend them and also beare with them although sometime they were too forward and stept too farre before others But when they would haue had this authority confirmed to them in councils and established as a law of the church then did the ancient fathers wisely withstand their vnlawfull desires as the vi councils of Carthage and the councill of Chalcedon doe plainly proue So that the godly learned fathers of those times partly to incourage them in their well doing did giue them due commendation when they deserued it and partly for quietnesse sake and the peace of the church did wincke at many of their inordinate proceedings and vnorderly attempts so long as they were but their priuate actions yet would not the iurisdiction of the vniuersall church And these things being well remembred I may I trust be shorter in answering to the particular places And first for the place out of Cyprian which maister Bellarmine prosecuteth in many words as he is forced to doe that he may get out of him but a shew of an argument It is answered in few words For indeede maister Bellarmine groundeth vpon a false principle which I dare not say that he could not but see his errour but it is maruell if he can be ignorant of it The wordes wherein he especially trusteth are these This commeth to passe that heresies growe in the church whilst there is no returning to the beginning of the truth neither is the head sought for neither is the doctrine of our heauenly maister kept Nowe by this word head he vnderstandeth the head of the church whom he maketh Peter Whereas it is most certaine that Cyprian doth meane nothing els here then in another place where he endeuoureth to perswade after the same maner and by that very argument where by the head he meaneth that which the apostles taught For saith he if we returne to the head and beginning of the tradition of the apostles mans errour ceaseth And there he teacheth vs by a similitude howe we should come to the heade by the similitude I say of a conduct wherein if the water faile we goe to the head of it that is to the fountaine and so from thence examine the want of the water so saith he must Gods priestes goe to the beginning when there is any question of Religion And that he meaneth that head in this place the very wordes by him alleadged do prooue because the former wordes put vs in minde of returning to the originall or beginning of the trueth and the wordes that follow leade vs to the heauenly doctrine Well then the head in this place doth signifie the spring and fountain from which our doctrine must beginne and so master Bellarmines argument is quite ouerthrowen And hauing proued that he buildeth his reason vpon a false ground I trust I neede not bestow any more labour to prosecute him in his wandering wordes Optatus is the second who speaketh nothing to helpe this desperate cause For although he commend vnto vs that one chaire in respect of the vnitie of doctrine for all the priests nowe saith Chrysostome must sit not vpon Moses chaire but vpon Christs chaire yet in the wordes alleadged by master Bellarmine he addeth and we haue proued that that is ours by Peter Optatus a bishop in Affrike not of Rome sitteth in Peters chaire Therefore Peters chaire and the popes chaire are not all one vnlesse their doctrine be one It is not tied to Rome or to that church But alluding to that place of Moses his chaire which our Sauiour Christ speaketh of because the Scribes and Pharises taught that which Moses did teach Optatus also saith that he doth sit in Peters chaire because hee taught that which Peter did confesse and teach Yea and he prooueth by this argument against the Donatists who taught that they onely were the church that the church is also where he taught because euen there is Peters chaire so that if Optatus your owne witnesse speake truly then you haue maruellously abused the world for many yeares in making them beleeue that S. Peters chaire is at Rome onely But Saint Ambrose seemeth somewhat plainer then the rest in that first place alleadged by maister Bellarmine The church is called Gods house whereof Damasus is a ruler this day But yet the words do not import any such thing as may prooue the Supremacie of the Bishop of Rome For wee will not deny that the Bishop of Rome is a ruler in the church but that he is the only ruler we can not graunt But Saint Ambrose expounding those wordes of Paule wherein he teacheth Timothie how to behaue himself in Gods house takes occasion to shew both what is Gods house namely the church and who they are that are rulers in Gods house namely the bishops or pastours to whom the ministery is committed And to make this plaine by an example he setteth before vs the house of God at Rome which is the church there and the ruler of Gods house there who is Damasus their bishop If any man aske how it commeth to passe that he rather nameth Damasus then any other bishop Sundry reasons of it may be yeelded First Ambrose himselfe was a bishop in Italy for Milaine is in Italy vnder the popes wings and therefore the bishop of Rome was the most
of their popes But if popes may be charged with heresie how can we thinke but that in their talke in their sermons if they did preach and vpon all such occasions as were offered vnto them they would by foure means or other commend that which they liked of and condemne the contrary And their very words when they speake of matters of faith are indeede instructions to all and their examples also are publike instructions to y â— whole church Neither must we imagine that those holy fathers forsooth had one religion in secret and an other that they would publish Therefore if we proue that they did erre I trust also it will followe that this errour was a stumbling blocke to the church and that they may erre when they giue lessons to all the church Lastly let vs consider the foundation whereupon they raise this building Because Christ said vnto Peter Simon Simon behold Sathan hath desired to sift you as wheat But I haue praied for thee that thy faith should not faile To whom was this said To Peter although not to him alone as before out of Theophilact I haue shewed But Peter immediatly after erred so as that he thrise denied his maister as Saint Luke in the same chapter sheweth yea and that as Saint Matthew reporteth with cursing and swearing Whereby it most plainly appeareth that Christ did not pray that Peter or the rest of the apostles should be free from all infirmities and should as it were put of the nature of man but that finally he or they should not fall from the faith But I cannot but maruell here at maister Bellarmine that he cannot see that Peters faith at this time failed For euen handling these words and this fact of Peters we know not saith he that Peters faith euer failed He feared at the question which the damosell asked of him he denied his master and that with cursing and swearing Did he this for feare No doubt he did it for feare What was the cause of so great feare Was it not weaknesse and want of faith Had he litle faith when hee feared drowning in so much as Christ reprouing him said O thou of litle faith why diddest thou doubt And can master Bellarmine find no want of faith in his so excessiue feare that he forswore his master Peter therefore notwithstanding Christs prayer both could and did erre And shall we thinke the pope to be more holy of a more sanctified nature of a sounder iudgement then Peter was They will not so say themselues therefore they also may erre But for master Bellarmines subtill distinction betweene perseuerance and not failing making not failing and not falling all one but perseuerance to be such as that a man may fall and yet by rising againe is said still to perseuere I confesse it is more subtil then sound For perseuering and continuing is all one and continuance hath no ceasing or intermission And further I must put the godly reader in remeÌ„brance that if this were granted to Peter that the pope doth claime that he could not erre yet must he proue himselfe to be Peters successor and that the priuilege is also successiue to that seat before he caÌ„ by these wordes prooue his infallible iudgement And what they can do for these points I haue shewed before their great weaknes if it be but weaknes in so great light and sunshine of truth not to see y â— right way I omit of purpose many popes to whom â—rrour is imputed by some ancient histories I come to Honorius of whome it is written by many histories that he was a Monothelite whose heresie was that Christ God and man had but one will And to omitte all the ancient Records that may be aleadged to prooue him so to be I rest specially vpon Melchior Canus his confession in his theologicall places and one proofe vrged by him amongst many others For hee doth not onely acknowledge Honorius to bee an hereticke but also telleth vs how Adrian the second in the first action of the eighth generall councill confesseth that Honorius was by the Greeke church condemned as a hereticke and that Agathe bishop of Rome consented vnto the same his condemnation In which argument although master Bellarmine dessent vtterly from Melchior Canus yet hee is not any thing able to take away the waight of that reason but that Honorius although a pope must be pronounced and holden for an hereticke euen by the detree of a generall councill What should I speake of the errour that was most apparent in those seditious popes Steuen the sixth and Sergius the third against Formosus another pope now long dead And against the dooings and decrees of pope Theodore and Iohn the tenth Steuen reuoked whatsoeuer Formosus had done vp a councill called belike for that purpose Iohn the tenth afterwards maketh good the dooings of Formosus disamulling that that Steuen did yea their â—â—ntention was so great that they commaunded such as had taken orders of one that they should as if these first orders were nothing worth take orders of another These thinges are reported by all histories and therefore are also confessed of themselues that are our aduersaries If pope Formosus did not erre then Steuen that dâ—â—lt so hardly with him and so disannulled his dooings and decrees did erre If Steuen did right then Iohn who afterwardes vndid all that he had done did wrong Yea they disannulled the very orders that the popes that were their aduersaries had giuen Which thing maister Bellarmine in his fourth Booke and twelfth chapter confesseth to be a matter of faith Therefore heere the pope erred in faith No saith he this is onely a matter of fact it is not decreed by any of them Let vs marke out question that is whether the Pope may erre or not Maister Bellarmine saieth these Popes did wrong but they decreed nothing of disanulling those orders which men booke of their predecessours and therefore erred not in iudgement Sigebert saieth that Steuen decreed that Formosus his ordinations were or should be voyne Platina saieth that Iohn the tenth iudged amisse because hee iudged that they must take orders againe that did take orders of Formosus So Iacob Bergomensis and Stella agree with Platina These therefore condemne Steuen the sixt to erre 〈◊〉 iudgement and so doe manifestly 〈◊〉 that the pope did erre and confute maister Bellarmine his answere to this obiection Iohn the two and 〈◊〉 pope of that name did not beleeue onely but euen teach that the soules should not see God before the latter day as master Bellarmine himself confesseth But it was saith he no heresie in him so to teach because there was not then anie decree or destinction of the church for that point If it true master Bellarmâ—◠〈…〉 heresie 〈…〉 not defined it A thing defined in the scriptures set downe in Gods word and plainly taught in Gods booke may I perceiue
might get the true copies of that Nicen council from those places making no doubt but if those copies did agree which came from thence they must be most true as they all acknowledge writing to pope Boniface When the copies came they could finde no such thing Is it not then very plaine that the Bishop of Rome his legate vsed false writings for proofe of a bad cause But maister Bellarmine telleth vs that Saint Augustine and all they of they council mistooke the matter being deceaued by ignorance because they knew not what the council of Sardis did set downe concerning that point The question is whether the council of Nice did giue superiority ouer all other to the bishop of Rome as his legates did affirme And it is most plaine that it did not And therefore that which is in the councill of Sardis which if we shall beleeue the booke of councils set forth by Peter Crab a frier and a papist was at the least fortie yeares after the councill of Nice it maketh nothing to iustifie them and excuse their falsehoode that for the decrees of the Nicen council doe alleadge that which was ordained in that council of Sardis And of that council of Sardis it may truly be said as in the Lateran council or at the least in the Tripartit worke added vnto it complaint is made that now adaies it is harde to finde either olde or newe councils insomuch as the authour doth there maruell that the church of Rome hath beene so negligent in that pointe as not to take order for the better keeping of them Augustine writeth of that council of Sardis that is was an Arrian council holden against Athanasius The time also when it was kept is very vncertaine Yea almost al the circumstances argue great doubtfulnes of that council They that write the story of that council doe write thereof so diuersly both for the number of bishops assembled there and also concerning the Arrians being there which some affirme some deny that therby we may learn how little credit is to be giuen to it for to ground any vncertain or doubtful doctrine vpon y â— it might haue credit But that which maister Bel. doth afterwards say is yet more absurd For hauing affirmed that he is indeed perswaded that these canons which the church of Rome alleadgeth for her supremacy are not in the Nicen couecil but onely in that of Sardis yet he thinketh that Zozimus and Boniface two bishops of Rome did therefore name them the decrees of the Nicen council because they were both written together in a booke at Rome the ignoraunce whereof did much trouble the fathers as he saith Can master Bellarmine suppose that those fathers whose earnest indeuour was at that time to keepe the decrees of the councill of Nicen were ignorant what was to be accounted of that council or what articles belonged to the same Or is it likely that the copies of the councill of Nice shoulde bee more perfect at Rome so many hundreds of miles distant from Nice then at Constantinople which is hard by it or at Antioch or Alexandria not so far distant from it Or doth he thinke it reason that one Romish and another vnknowen copie writen perchance with that councill of Nice by some that sought thereby to increase the dignitie of the church of Rome of set purpose to bring it to that credit that it should be accounted as parcel of the council of Nice can he I say thinke it reason that those two copies should correct and control so many of better credit by a great deale then they are No these are but shifts to blind mens eies and indeede but bables for fooles to play withall Master Bellarmine doth also labour in this place very earnestly to prooue that the council had many decrees moe then those that are in the first tome of councils set forth by Peter Crab or spoken of by Ruffâ—nus To what end is all this Forsooth to excuse his holy fathers that they should not be thought to giue counters for gold or lead for siluer But how can hee excuse them for that they added to the begining of the sixt canon that the church of Rome hath alwaies had the supremacie in which false tricke Paschasinus Legate vnto the Bishop of Rome was taken in the council of Chalcedon For it is not the translation out of Greeke of Dionyse an Abbat almost three hundred yeares after that council was kept that Alan Cope speaketh of and master Bellarmine before hath aleaged for his defence that can haue credit against so many authenticall copyes so diligently sought and sent for so carefully examined by so many hundreds of learned men and so faithfully deliuered for discussing euen of this controuersie for Paschasinus hauing alleadged in that councill of Chalcedon for his maister the Bishoppe of Rome the wordes before mentioned was by those copies disprooued And whereas maister Bellarmine doth set downe this as the intent of the Bishop of Rome in the Councill of Carthage that he meant to shew that not onely all men might appeale to him but also that it were expedient for the church that so they should do Marke how directly the councill of Carthage doeth oppose it selfe against the Pope therein in their epistle which hath this title The Epistle of the Affrican Council to pope Celestine bishop of the citie of Rome For whereas master Bellarmine did confesse that the causes of inferiour ministers might be heard at home but Bishops must be heard at Rome this councill in this epistle saith directly contrary vsing it as an argument from the lesse to the greater If say they the causes of inferior clarks by the councill of Nice are prouided for how much more is it ordered then that bishops if they be excommunicate in their prouince shall not of your Holinesse be hastily or rashly or against order thought to be restored to the communion Thy will him to banish from him such as seeke such wicked refuges because say they the Nicene decrees haue plainely committed not inferiour clarkes onely but also the Bishops to their metropolitanes They assure themselues that no prouince shall want the grace of Gods spirit to order these things And that euerie man may if he mislike of the iudgement of them that haue heard his cause appeale to a councill either prouinciall or generall no wordes of appealing to the pope Unlesse a man will imagine say they that God will grant his spirite of triall of matters to euery one and deny it to all assembled in a Councill And further they alleadge that the trueth of matters examined farre from home can hardly be found out by reason that witnesses can not well be carried so farre For as for the legates à latere that should come from the popes side for examination of such matters they vtterly mislike as a thing not to be found in any of the synods of the
hath established in making that sin which he calleth honourable and forbidding that which he hath commanded as appeareth in their forbidding certaine persons to marry And on the contrary wheras Christ reproued Peter for drawing his sword euen in defence of his master yet Peters successor and Christs vicar as he tearmeth himselfe commendeth it as a most acceptable sacrifice to God and meritorius of the remission of sinnes if in the defence of the pope or reuenge of his enemies and they are all his enemies that will not be his slaues they fight againgst christian princes yea and rebell against their naturall and soueraigne magistrates Of the which because I shall God willing haue better occasion to speake after I only would haue you nowe to remember that furious fellow Iulius the second of whom it is written that he gaue forgiuenes of sinnes to any that would kill a Frenchman And it seemeth that some cause of his deadly hatred against the French was this Iulius this iolly pope was sworne when he was chosen pope as many stories testifie that he should call a generall council within two yeares But he not regarding either oath or duety was so farre from calling of a councill that as much as he could he hindered the same And thereupon nine Cardinals leauing him came to Millan and appointed a councill to be kept at Pysa whither the Emperour and French king did send their Ambassadours Now when otherwise hee could not hinder the council hee purposed as a friend of his telleth vs to rule it by warres so that he made the councill to goe to Millaine for feare A great fight beeing vpon Easter day betweene the French and this woorthy warriour the French men gaue his a great ouerthrowe Whereupon he stirred vp against them all that he could the Venetians Heluetians Italians Spaniards So wel did he seeke for peace and insue it as Saint Peter commandeth him whose successour he calleth himselfe So much did he regarde that promise that our Sauiour Christ himselfe whose Vicar he would seeme to be did make Blessed are the peace makers for they shalbe called Gods children And so lightly did he set by that commaundement that Christ hath giuen against our affectionat and vnlawfull reuenges Resist not euill but whosoeuer shall smite thee on the right cheeke turne to him the other also So that this pope doth promise the reward of remission of sinnes for dooing that which Gods law doth flattely forbid and the law of nature doth vtterly condemne Is not this to take vppon him against God himselfe Is not this to commaund when he forbiddeth and to forbid when he commaundeth Againe God hath giuen vs a plaine and flat commandement that we should doe nothing but that which he biddeth Wee must not so much as turne to the left hand of our corrupt affections or superstitious seruices which our selues condemne or to the right hand of our good intentions and deuotions wherein we please our naturall man very well His word only must be our rule and square Doth not then the bishop of Rome controll this and such like commandements of God when he saith in expresse wordes ye shall haue other rules of religion other articles of faith otherwayes to worship God by traditions of the apostles and of the church vnwritten verities decrees decretalles briefes and buls councils and precepts of the church Is not this to transgresse Gods commandement by our owne traditions and to make it of none authoritie Is not this to teach as doctrines mens precepts Yea is not this to say with those lawlesse lordes wee are they that ought to speake who is Lord ouer vs Thirdly in that the pope may as hee and his fauourites falsely affirme allowe of the scriptures whether they shall be authenticall or not Doth he not thereby take vpon him to be aboue God whose word is not authentical vnlesse the pope allow of it If you doubt whether the Bishop of Rome be so shamelesse or not as so to say consider first what Siluester Prierias a frier and maister of the popes pallace writeth in his articles or foundations that he setteth downe against Luther Whosoeuer saith he resteth not vpon the doctrine of the church and bishop of Rome as vpon an iufallible rule of faith from whence euen the holy scripture doeth drawe strength and authoritie is an heretike like vnto which is that also of Eckius without the authority of the church the very scriptures are not authenticall And let not their doctrine only be examined wherein they teach that the pope is virtually the church as doth that frier Prierias in the place before alleadged in his second foundation but also yea and that especially the practise of that church so to refer al things to the pope in such things that he according to that fulnesse of knowledge which is in that sacred casket of his holy brest which pope Paule the second did first boast of must iudge of all things so that as he saith so it must be and there must no reason be asked of his doing Whereby it appeareth that the Pope being the church and as we see hauing the ful authoritie to do what he will in the church of Rome they tell vs that the scripture hath no authoritie or strength but from him And I pray you then who is greater hee that maketh the word authenticall or hee that hath his word approoued Is not he that doth approoue it so God must be vnder the pope that holy God vnder a vile sinfull man Fourthly the pope will take vpon him to dispence with or rather against the word of God and to allow that which God manifestly condemneth and is expresly against gods holy law For proofe whereof I neede not alleadge the false testimony of his flattering lawyers that giue him that power to dispense against the apostle and so against gods word but we may see his practise which doth sufficiently testifie that he thinketh he may dispense with the wicked and vnnaturall vncouering of the shame of them that are neare of kinne And he hath done contrary to this flat commaundement giuen by God against marying with vncle or aunt In which case he did dispense in the marriage of his catholike sonne Philip King of Spaine who as in his vnrighteous ambition hee hath no measure so in his vnnaturall iust he hath as it seemeth no shame but to his Lord he shall stand or fall before whome it shall be tried one day whether the popes bull can stand betweene God and him for breach of Gods lawe Yea pope Martine the fifth as is alleaged in a booke called Brutum fulmen out of Anthony of Florence and others did dispense with one to marry his owne sister whereas God saieth thou shalt not vncouer the shame of thy sister But what can not the pope do He can make wrong right say they And wee knowe that hee can