proueth not the gouernors to be rulers one ouer another wherefore this collection is not only vaine but also ridiculus that Peter should haue authoritie to gouerne Patriarches Archbishops and Bishops aswell as Parishe priests because he must feed y e sheep of Christ I wil not here stand to discus how properly y e distinctioÌ„ of lambs litle sheep sheep is obserued by Ambrose but taking it according as he distinguisheth it yet heere is nothing giuen to Peter but primacie of loue or as else where he sayth of order but of authoritie singular heâ—re is nothing at al. And that his conclusioÌ„ declareth sufficiently Et idio quasi perfecto in omnibus quem caro iamreueâ— are non posset a gloria passionis corona decernitur And therfore a crown is decreed to him as to one perfect in all things whome the fleshe could not call back from the glory of suffering This conclusion M. S. as his manner is hath left out by which it is apparant that Ambrose inferreth no singularitie of authoritie in Peter as more perfet theÌ„ the rest of the Apostles but as perfect in such degre as the rest of the Apostles which were likewise prepared to martyrdoÌ„ were equal w t him therin The testimony of Bernard a late wâ—iter though he were no flatterer yet I receiue not as of one which was deceiued with the common error of his time But in signe that Peter was generall Shepheard saith M. San. it is not read that he was ordained bishop of any other then of Christ yet did he with two other Apostles ordaine S. Iames byshop of Ierusalem as Eus. lib. 2. cap. â— writeth There is no dout but Iames was acknowlâ—dged by the Apostles to be appointed by the holy ghoste to remaine at Ierusalem though not as a pâ—rticuler bishop but as an Apostle of the whole Church But as we read not that Peter was made Bishop by any man so we read not that he was made Byshop by Christ. Yet Arâ—obius in Psa. 138. saith he was made a Bishop of Bishops Ecce Apostolo p. enitenti succurritur qui est episcoporum episcopus Behold the Apostle beeing penitent is succoured which is a Bishop of Bishops He asketh if any thing could be spoken more plainly yes verely you had need of plainer speaches then this to proue that hee was byshop of the Apostles For admit that he was an ouerseer of particular bishops as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signiâ—ie yet it followeth not that he was â—n ouerseer or Byshop of the Apostles In which sense Clemens also if the Epistle were not counterfaite might iustly call Iames a Byshop of Byshops not as M. Sand. aunsweareth that he was an Archbishop of inferior Byshops but an Apostle ouerseer of particuler Bishops That Cyprian ad Quintum sayth Neque quisquam c Neither doeth any of vs make him selse a Byshoppe of Byshops He aunsweareth that although no man may make himselfe yet Christe may make a man Bishop of Byshopes but where findeth he that Christe maketh the Pope a Byshop of Byshoppes Howe Peter might bee called a Byshop of Byshoppes I haue shewed before But the Councell of Carth. 3. Cap. 26. forbiddeth that the Byshop of Rome or any other Primate shoulde be called the Prince of Priests or highest Priest or by any such lyke name but only the Byshop of the first seate Yet Optatus feared nor to write thus lib. 7. de schism of S. Peter Preferri apostolis omnibus meruit c. He deserued to be preferred before all the Apostles and he alone receiued the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen to be communicated vnto the reste Maâ—ster Sander confessing and truely that the Apostles tooke the Keyes belonging to their Apostolike office immediatly of Christe saith they receiued the Keyes of their Byshoplike office of Peter But what lock was there that they could not open and shut by their Aopstolike Key When Christe sayth Whatsoeuer you binde or loose whose sinnes soeuer you forgiue or retayne which was the power of their Apostolike Keyes If the Apostolike Keyes were so sufficient what neede they any Byshoplike Keyes Into these absurdities both he Optatus doe followe whiles the one will vrge a prerogatiue of Peter the other will forge a Byshoplike office in the Apostles whereof the Scripture giueth vs no instruction As for Leo and Gregorye Byshoppes of Rome although they were not come to the full pryde of Antichrist yet the mysterie of iniquitie hauing wrought in that seate neere fiue or sixe hundreth yeeres before them and then greatly increased they were so deceiued with the longe continuaunce of error that they thought the dignitie of Peter was much more ouer the reste of his fellowe Apostles then the holy Scriptures of God against which no continuaunce of error cann prescribe doth either allow or beare with all Wherefore although he haue some shewe out of the olde writers yet hath he nothing directly to prooue that Peter did excell the other Apostles in Byshoplike authoritie and out of the worde of God no one â—ote or tytle that Peter as a Byshop excelled the other Apostles not as Apostles but as Byshops The 13 Chapter THat the pastorall and chiefe Byshops authoritie of Saint Peter was an ordinary authoritie and there fore it must goe for euer vnto his successors where as the Apostolike authoritie beeing extraordinary hath no successors in it The Church neuer lacked a visible rocke THat y e office of Apostles which had general charge to preach ouer the whole world is ceased with the Apostles liues it is in deede graunted of vs but that theyre Apostolike authoritie was extraordinary or that all their authoritie is so determined that it hath no successors in it wee doe vtterly deny For the same authoritie of preaching of ministring the Sacraments of binding and loosing which the Apostles had is perpetuall in the Church in the Byshops and elders which are all successors of the Apostles And if the Apostolike authoritie hath no successors in it what meaneth the Pope almoste in euery Bul and decretall Epistle to brag so much of the Apostolike authoritie to ground all things Apostolica Authoritate by the Apostolike authoritie By which it is euident that M. Sand. new distinction of Apostolike and Byshoplike authoritie in the Apostles is not acknowledged by the Popes them selues but inueÌ„ted lately by such as he is to haue a starting hole to seeme to auoid such arguments and authorites as proue all the Apostles equall in authoritie But let vs vs see what reasons he hath to proue that S. Peters Pastorall authoritie was ordinary and muste goe to his successors more then the Pastoral authoritie of euery Apostle First S. Peter being but one man was not able to preach to all men at once nor to gouerne nations newely conuerted the refore hee had twelue companions adioyned to him But the worlde beeing conuerted it is easy for the Pope without such fellowes to
continence so renounced the world that they possessed nothing in proper As testifieth Epiphanius and Augustine And Philaster affirmeth that they absteyned also from cating of flesh So that all thinges considered Aerius mainteyned the doctrine of the Papistes as much as of the Protestantes That our preachers in pulpits praise God for the founders of colledges and schooles of learning by name what maketh this for allowance of their religion God is to be praised for such benefits as he hath bestowed vpon his church or any members thereof euen by Turks and Heathen men Wherfore this is a very slow motiue vnto Popery For whether the founders were good or euill men and what intent soeuer they had their benefits are now vsed to the glory of God therefore God for them and their benefits is greatly to be praised The 37. motiue hath neuer a demaund that I can aptly referre vnto it The only knowne vndoubted mother of Christs children for a thousand yeares together The church is euerlasting and visible The Popish church hath not only bene y e only known church and vndoubted mother of Christes children for these thousand yeares First because it is not of so many yeares continuaunce the mysterie of iniquitie hauing not bene in highest degree of wickednesse before the councell of Constance where notwithstanding the institution of Christ and the practise of the primitiue church the communion of the Lordes bloud was taken from the people Secondly the Popish church was neuer acknowledged by all the true children of Christes church for their mother which was a steppemother and a persecuter of them Thirdly the Popish church was neuer y e only reputed church or mother of Christs children of all them that professe Christianitie for the churches of the East as great and as large as she was in the West woulde neuer so accompt the Popish steppedame of Rome but did separate them selues from her communion Fourthly the Catholike church of Christes members dispersed ouer all the world vnder the tyranny both of the Turke the Pope haue in all times protested that y e Romish Apostolical synagoge is the whore of Babylon and see of Antichrist The places of Mich. 4. and Esa 61. which he citeth to proue that the church must be alwayes visible you shall finde aunswered with many other in mine ouerthrow of Stapletons fortres lib. 1. cap. 13. And wheras Bristow confesseth that a mist may hide an hil that is neuer so high from some wicked sighted men that are without it but neuer from them that are within it no meruaâ—le if the spirituall church of Christ being lifted vp aboue the top of all hills not in worldly glory but euen vnto heauenly dignitie hath long remained hid from them that haue no spirituall eyes at all But Bristow thinketh it strauÌ„ge that a mist should continue a thousand yeres together Then I aske him what hath hindered the greatest parte of all the worlde seduced by Mahometistrie and Gentilitie that for these thousand yeres they haue not seene the height of the Popish church If he say not a mist about their church but a blindnesse in the others eyes to be the cause the same I aunswere for the Catholike dispersed church of Christ which the Papistes pretend that this thousand yeares they could not see Although as I haue often sayd Papistry is not halfe so olde in the greatest heresies and absurdities which now she maynteyneth The 38. motiue is the 24. demaund also the 48. and the 17. Celebration operation of Christes death The sacrifice of Bristow the masse Priestâ—oode VVhere Christ worketh Only faytâ— Exorcising of deuills In the Popish churchis no celebration but a derogation of the merite of Christs death by the blasphemous sacrifice of the masse But Bristow in the 24. demaunde asketh vs whether we be content to trie religion by the Priesthood that hath bene froÌ„ the beginning of Christs church I answere that we must first consent of the name of Priest and Priesthoode whereof also in the same demaunde he cauilleth that we haue chaunged the name therefore haue chaunged the order The name I say of Priesthood Priest must be coÌ„sidered either according to the Etymologie deriuation or els according to the present vse thereof And according to the deriuation we coÌ„fesse y t this word Priest coÌ„ming of the greeke word Presbyteros signifieth the same oâ—der which is instituted by God like as the word Bishop câ—mming of Episcopus for which if any man vse the name of Elder superintendent he varieth nothing in the worlde from the signification of Presbyter and Episcopus and much lesse setteth vp a new order as Bristow most vainly doth cauill For in that sence we abhorre not the name of Priest Bishop But when according to the present vse this word Priest is takeÌ„ for him which in greke is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Latine Sacerdos that is one appointed to offer a special sacrifice for which our English tongue hath none other worde but Priest as Bristow doth well confesse In this sence we deny that we haue any speciall Priesthoode or Priestes among vs but the only Priesthoode and high Priest our Lorde and Sauiour Iesus Christ and the generall Priesthoode that is common to all the Saynctes of God Apoc. 16. But in the former sence we haue the same office of Bishoppe Elder or Priest which being ordeyned by the holy Ghost hath continewed in the church vntill this time But this will Bristowe disproue by two reasons First that auncient Bishoppes and Priestes were made by Bishoppès and Priestes and not by Kinges and Queenes secondly they were made to offer sacrifice and euen for the deade Concerning the first it is true that the auncient Priestes were so ordeyned but it is a most impudent slaunder that we are made Bishoppes or Priests by Kinges or Queenes For the worlde knoweth we are ordeyned by the Bishoppes and Elders of the church and not by the Prince But that the auncient Bishoppes and Elders of the church since Christ were ordeyned to offer sacrifice for the quicke and the dead it is vtterly false For albeit the auncient writers vnproperly vsed the names of Priest and sacrifice yet did they neuer meane to set vp a newe Priesthoode or sacrifice to ouerthrowe the only true Priesthode and sacrifice of Christes death as in many places of their writinges most manifestly doth appeare but only they did continew a memory of the sacrifice of Christes death in the celebration of the Lordes supper Chris. ad Heb. cap. 10. Hom. 17. and a sacrifice of prayse and thankesgeuing August De ciuit Dei lib. 10. cap 6. Hoc est sacrificium Christianorum multi vnum corpus sumus in Christo quod etiam Sacramento altaris fidelibus noto frequentat ecclesia vbi ei demonstratur quod in ea oblatione quam offâ—rt ipsa offeratur This sayth Augustine speaking of the sacrifice of thankesgeuing is the
nothinge els but an impudent and vnskillfull quarelling against Beza wheras you Papists defend against the manifest institution of the cuppe the practise of the primitiue Church the communion in one kind of bread onely Con. Const. Sess. 13. 21. The tenth marke of an Antichristian is to agree with the members of Antichrist which are heretikes To agree with them in heresie is a poynt of Antichristianisme I confesse but not to agree with them in any thing For euery heresy affirmeth things that are true But let vs see in what points of heresie he chargeth vs to agree with the olde heretikes First Eunomius sayde that no sinne should hurt him if he were partaker of the faith which he taught so the Protestants saye of their faith Yea sir but their faith is not Eunomius faith yet they say not that no sinne shall hurt them but no sinne shall condemne them so say you Papistes of your popish faith Secondly Acesius the Nouatian Bishop affirmed that mortall sinnes committed after baptisme might not be forgiueÌ„ of the Priest but of God alone The Protestants deny the Priest to haue any right to forgiue sinnes This is a lowd lye false sclaunder for we hold that the minister of God hath authoritie to forgiue all sinnes that God will forgiue according to the power giuen to them Ioan. 20 But you Papistes agree with the heretike in this poynt that you deny the Priest to forgiue all sinnes according to the power giuen but haue your casus Episcopales Papales by which you abridge the power giuen by Christ. Thirdly the Messalians denyed that baptisme doth plucke vp the roote of sinnes the same is the opinioÌ„ of the ProtestaÌ„ts The Protestants haue none opinion common with the Messalians who affirmed that our owne merits satisfaction with prayers continual were necessary for plucking vp the roote of sinnes whereas we affirme that baptisme saueth vs according to the Scripture 1. Pet. 3. 21. by forgiuenes of our sinnes whereby euen the roote of sinne is plucked vp although coÌ„cupiscense remayne after the acte of baptisme which you Papistes also confesse to remayne to be the roote of sinne although you graunt it not to be sinne But we limit not the effect of baptisme to the time passed before y e acte of baptisme onely as you doe but extend it to our aeternall saluation he that beleueth is baptised shall be saued Marke 16. 16. Therefore you Papists both in this in your coÌ„tinual lipplabor maintained in your Abbeyes agree with the Messalians Fourthly AErius taught that we must not pray for the dead nor keepe the accustomed fastings that there is no difference betwene a Priest a Bishop The superstition of praying for the dead was iustly reproued by AErius so was the fast of custom and decree rather then of consideration for the first that praied for the dead were heretikes Montanists as Tertullian his sect the first that made prescript lawes of fasting was Montanus the heretike also as Eusebius witnesseth lib. 5. cap. 18. Of the third opinion was Hierom Euagrio affirming that the distinction was made by men and not by God Fifthly Iouinian iudged virginitie equall with mariage so doe the Protestants I haue shewed before howe it is equall and how it is superior Sixtly S. Hierom reproueth Vigilantius of heresie for denying prayer to Sainctes and giuing honour to reliques For praying to Sainctes there is no mention in S Hierom the immoderate honoring of reliques was iustly reproued and yet it was not then the one halfe of that it hath bene since Hieronym although he rather rayle then reason against Vigilantius as â—rasmus hath noted yet he desendeth not the adoratioâ— or worshipping but the reuerent estimation of reliques Seuenthly the Arrians would not beleue the consubstantiality of the same because that word was not written in the Scripture So do the Protestants deny many thinges vpon the like pretence This is a meere sclaunder for we stande vpon the sence of the Scripture and not the wordes onely Eightly Eusebius noteth it for an haynous impietie in Nouatus that he was not consummate with crisme which the Protestants call greasing In deede Cornelius Bishop of Rome reporteth that Nouatus was baptised in tyme of necessitie being very like to dye Iacens in lecto pro necessitate perfusus sit nec reliqua in eo quâ— baptismum subsequi solent solemniter adimpleta sunt nec signaculo Chrismatis consummatus sit vnde nec spiritum sanctum vnquam potuerit promereri Lying in his bed according to the necessitie he was baptised nether were the other things that are wont to follow baptisme solemnly fullfilled nether was he consummate with y e seale of Chrisme wherby he could neuer obtayne the holy Ghost First I saye this is noted as no impietie in Nouatus but as a defect of necessitie Secondly that the Chrisme which Cornelius speaketh of was ether a seale of the extraordinarye gifts of the holy Ghost which in some remayned in the Church vntill that tyme or els he magnifieth that ceremony intollerably to deny the holy ghost to such as had it not being none of the institution of Christ and contrary to that the Papistes them selues hold at this day Ninethly Lucius the Arrian persecuted holy Monkes so doe the Protestants Nay they punish none but filthy idle Idolaters and hypocrites Tenthly the Montanists and Luciferians sayd there was a stewes made of the Church They sayde so falsly when the Churche was chaste but Esaye say de truely how is the faithfull citie become an whore when the Church of Israell was so in deede Eleuenthly the Donatists sayd the Church was lost from all the world preserued only in Africa So say the Protestants that the Church was lost in all partes of the world and raysed vp againe in Germany The Protestants say not so For the Churche hath bene scattered ouer the face of the earth since the first preaching of the Apostles vnto this day But the Papistes saye that the Church was lost out of all the world and preserued only in a part of Europe when of all partes in the world onely a part of Europe which is the least part of the world was subiect to the Church of Rome Tweluethly the Seuâ—rians vsed the law and the Prophets but they peruerted the sense of the Scriptures by a certayne peculiar interpretation of their owne So doe the Protestants Nay so do the Papistes that submitte all vnderstanding of the Scripture be it neuer so playne to the interpretation of their Pope and popish Church as the commaundement of Images forbidden and the cuppe to be receyued of all doe most manifestly declare Lastly it hath alwayes bene a tricke of Iewes and heretikes to be still in hande with translating holy Scriptures that by chaunging they may get some appearance of Scripture on their side as Theodotion Aquila Symmachus So doe the ProtestaÌ„ts now Hieronym was no heretike yet did he
Church c. of Christe of God him selfe and calleth Princes his vassalles c. of which blasphemies his Cannon Lawes are stuffed full And therefore it is too farre in the day for M. Sander to make vs thinke there is no difference betweene white and black Pride and Humilitie Gentlenesse and Crueltie Holynesse and hypocrisie fayth and falshode vice and vertue The thirde Chapter OF the diuerse senses whiche are in the holy Scripture and namely about these woordes vppon this Rocke I will builde my Church and which is the moste literall and proper sense of them TO contende about the diuersitie of senses it were to take vppe a newe controuersie I admitte that whiche Maister Sander confesseth the lyter all sense onely to be of force to conuince the aduersary And the literall sense not to bee alwayes according to the grammaticall sounde of the wordes but according to the moste playne meaning of the speaker As when Christe sayeth to Peter â—o thee I will giue the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen hee meaneth not materiall Keyes of Yron but authoritie in the Kingdome of Heauen as Keyes are deliuered by the Maister to his Stuard but not as keyes of a citie are deliuered which betoken the giuing of possession of that Citie to be gouerned by him which receiueth the Keyes as Maister Sander sayth For that was no part of Christes meaning to resigne the gouernment of his Church to Peter for such giuing of Keyes is of the subiectes to their Superior but to make him one of the Stuardes of his great house to open and shut according to his apoyntment Otherwise onely Christ hath the key of Dauid which openeth and no man shutteth and shutteth and no man openeth Apocalips 3. verse 7. Likewise when he sayth Thou art Peter I confesse and agree with Maister Sander that the lyterall sence is not thou art a naturall stone but thou art that towarde my Churche whiche a stone is towarde the house that is builded vppon that stone But so that Peter is not the onely foundation nor the Corner stone which is onely Christe but one of the twelue stones of the foundation as it may more playnely appeare in the Apocalips the 21. Chapter and the 14. verse Furthermore I confesse that what soeuer by necessary conclusion may be gathered of any true literal sense is of equall authoritie in the word of God with that w c is expressed in playne words As the consubstantialitie of Christ with God the Father the blessed trinitie and such like But whereas M. Sand. ioygneth to these not onely the perpetuall virginitie of the virgine Mary which is not certainly though probably to be gathered but also transubstantiation the sacrifice of the Masse and Purgatory against which the sense of the scripture is manifest I will not admit them for examples But to come to his purpose he findeth in the auncient Fathers foure diuerse senses of these woordes vpon this Rocke I will builde my Church whereof three hee reiecteth as vnperfect which haue auncient writers as he confesseth for their Authors the last hee hath no auncient writer to defende The firste that Christe is that Rock on whome the Church is builded which Augustine holdeth The second that euery Disciple of Christ is the rock which is Origens opinion The third that Peters faith or confeffion is the rock which is Chrysostoms iudgement The fourth which is his owne and therefore he calleth it the perfecte sense is that Peter concerning his office in Gods Church through the promise of Christ which is past and the faithfull confession of his Godhead which is presently made and the power of feeding his Sheepe which then was to come is this Rocke vpon which the Church is builte Heere I wishe the reader to note that the Papiste reiecteth three senses of three seuerall auncient writers and maketh the fourth him selfe that you may see with what equitie they exclaime againste vs if vppon neuer so good ground we departe from the interpretation of the auncient Fathers But nowe let vs see what reasons hee hath to confute these three Doctors oppinions as vnsufficient interpretations Firste he sayeth If Augustines sense were true all the three other shoulde be voyde In deede his owne sense vnderstanding Peter to be a singular Rocke more then the other Apostles is made voyde thereby as it is false But the other two may stande very well well with Augustines meaning for hee meaneth not Christe barely but Christe whome Peter and euery true Disciple of Fayth confesseth to be the rocke of the Church Neither doth the worde thou hinder this sense Seeing Augustine vnderstandeth Peter to be a denominatiue a Petra of the stone nor the woorde I will builde for notwithstanding he hadde begunn to builde his Church before yet hee woulde builde stil and that more magnificall then before The sence of Origine hee reiecteth as not literall vppon which I will not stande The sense of Chrysostome hee refuseth sayinge the Fayth of Peter is not the onely Rocke wherevpon the Churche shall be builded for then it had beene buylte vppon the Fayth of Iohn Baptiste before this time A pythy argumente as though there is any more then one Fayth Ephesians 4. verse 5. whiche is the same in Peter and in Iohn and in all the other Apostles the same I saye in kinde not in number Neither did Chrysostome meane that the singulare Fayth of Peter were the Rock of the Church but the same one Fayth and confession embraced of euery member thereof That he sayeth I will builde whereas hee had already begunne to builde and did then presently build What inconuenience is it but in a quarrellers minde Hee speaketh of the Future tenses to signifie the great amplyfication of his Church which he woulde make by the preaching of the Apostles But of all senses Maister Saunder lyketh his owne beste asperfect and contayning all the other therein For first sayth he if Peter be the Rocke then Christe that made him is much more as the geeuer and authour of his power But I deny that Christe did giue the same that he is him self that is to be the onely singular foundaâ—ion Rocke and corner stone of his Church Secondly he sayth if Peter in respecte of his confession be a Rock then his confession is a Rocke But then say I they that make the same confession are as much a Rock as he Thirdely he sayth if Peter beeing captaine Disciple of all that euer were be a Rock then all other Disciples that are contayned in him as in y e chiefe may also be this Rock Who had thought Peter had bene such an vniuersal thing to containe al disciples in him Doth not this containe manifest blasphemie to make all Disciples contained in Peter whiche are contayned onely in Christe as the members in their mystirall body whereof hee onely is chiefe heade Soueraigne Captaine or what other name of superioritie can bee deuised But nowe that hee hath
person so no mortall man For those woordes nothing but Peters faith do not exclude Christ because faith cannot be without necessary relation vnto Christ but they exclude the person of Peter as a mortall man because flesh blood reuealed not this confession vnto him but the Heauenly father The 4. authorite is Chrysostome Vpon this Rocke that is vpon this faith and this confession I will builde my church M. San. saith he that beleeued confessed was Peter and not Christ ergo the rock is Peter not Christ. Although this argument haue no consequence in the world yet to admitte that it doth followe I will reply thus but he that beleeued and confessed was not Peter onely therefore Peter onely was not this rock The 5. is Aug. de verbis dom Christe was the rocke vpon which foundation Peter him selfe was also builte M. San. asketh if one Rock may not be built vpon anonother as Peter vpon Christ yes verily but Peter none otherwise then the reste of the Apostles who were all foundation stones laid vpon the great corner stone or onely foundation Rock Iesus Christ. S. Augustine againe addeth in Christes person I wil not builde my selfe vpon thee but I wil build thee vpon me M San. following the allegory of building coÌ„fesseth that Christ is the first greatest stone vpon which by all proportion the seconde stone that should be laide must be greatest that can be gotten next the first If this be so it is meruaile the Angel which shewed vnto Iohn the building of the heauenly Ierusalem shewed him not this second stone by it selfe but the xij stones lying equally one by an other vppon the maine foundation Apo. 21. whereby we see that M. Sand. vttereth nothing but the visions of his owne head The 6. is Origines in 4. sentence in 16. Mat. He is â—â—â—â— rock whosoeuer is the disciple of Christ. M. S. reciteththis seÌ„se as not literal seing Peter is a disciple the first he wil proue Peter next to christ to be y e chief rock In deed according to this sense it must needes be that Peter is one principall rock among so many thousand rocks but because he is named first in the Catalogue of the Apostles it is a sory reason to make him so to excel that he is one rock that beareth al the rest But M. Iewel is frantike in M. San opinion that denying any mortall man to be this rock nowe proueth euery mortall man that is Christs disciple to be this Rock Nay rather M. Sand. is brainsick that cannot vnderstand this reason euery Christian is such a rock as Peter was therefore Peter in being a rock was not made Pope or hed of the vniuersal church Origines procedeth vpon such a rock all ecclesiasticall learning is built But S. Peter is such a Rock saith Maister Sander ergo vppon him all ecclesiasticall learning is built VVho would wish such an aduersary as M. Iewel is who proueth altogither against him selfe Nay who can beare such an impudent caueler that findeth a knot in a rush For your conclusion is graunted M. Sand. that all ecclesiasticall learning is builte vppon S. Peter but so it is builte vpon euery true Disciple of Christe by Origens iudgement Againe Origine sayth If thou thinke that the whole Church is built onely vpon Peter what then wilte thou say of Iohn the sonne of thonder and of euery of the Apostles First M. Sand. chargeth the Bishop for leauing out in English this worde Illum so that he shoulde haue saide vpon that Peter whereby he accuseth him to deny that Peter is a Rock whiche is an impudente lye Secondly when this authoritie doth vtterly ouerthrowe his whole building of the popish rocke he can say nothing but that Iohn was a mortall man and so were all the Apostles aswel as Peter therfore M. Iewel saide not truely that the olde sathers haue written not any mortall man but Christe himselfe to be this Rock when Iohn and all the Apostles be rockes As though there were no difference betwene the onely foundation and rocke of the whole Church which is Christ all the other stones that are built vpon it Last of all Origen sayth Shall we dare to say that the gates of hell shall not preuayle onely against Peter or are the keyes of the kingdom of heauen giuen onely to Peter M. Sander aunswereth It is enough that the gates of hell shall least of all preuayle against Peter he hath chiefly the keyes of heauen But what reason hath he for this impudent assertion Peter of all the Apostles first confessed in the name of the whole Church Admit this were true as it can neuer be proued that this was the first time that any of the Apostles confessed Christ yet no primacy of superiority is hereby gayned if the sentence as Origen expounded it perteyneth to euery faithfull disciple What aduauntage M. Sander hath taken of the Bishops allegations let the readers iudge The eight chapter THe conclusion of the former discourse and the order of the other which followeth THe conclusion consisteth of 7. poynctes In the first he repeateth what he woulde haue men thinke he hath gained in his former discourse concerning Peter to be the Rock of the Church where on it is builte In the second for continuaunce of the building promised there must be alwayes some mortall man which beeing made the same Rocke by election and afterwarde by reuelation shoulde make the same confession whensoeuer hee is demaunded or consulted in matters of Religion If this were true there were no necessitie of the holy Scriptures neither yet of Synodes and Councelles if one Pope were abe to resolue all the demaundes mooued by all menne of the worlde In the thirde he sayeth if there muste be some such one Rocke it is not possible it shoulde be any other but the Bishop of Rome First because he alone hath beene the firste and chiefe in all assemblyes Secondly he only sitteth in Peters Chaire Thirdly and the consent of the world hath taken him so euer indeede but by the aduersaryes confession aboue a thousande yeeres But God be thanked the Churche hath no neede of any such Rock neither is any such taught Ephe. the fourth where the order of the building thereof and of all necessary builders of Fayth and doctrine are fully sette foorth And the three reasons are all false in manner and forme as they are vniuersally set downe as in their proper places shalbe shewed In the the fourth he gloryeth that he hath chosen to proue that poynte which of all other is moste hard That all the Apostles were not the same thinge that Peter was And firste he will aske in what Gpspell or holye Scripture it is written that euery other Apostle was the same Rocke which Sainct Mathewe testifyeth Sainct Peter to haue beene I answeare not onely by necessary collection out of many places of Scripture whiche he him selfe acknowledgeth to be the literall
sense as well as that which followeth the sounde of wordes it is proued but also in plaine wordes of Sainct Paul Ephe. the second verse 20. Where the Churche is builded vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophetes Iesus Christ beeing the head corner stone And Apo. 21 verse 14. Where the twelue precious stones the foundations of the wall of the Cittie had on them the names of the xij Apostles of the Lambe The 5. is either thus or nothing at all for it is not noted in him as the other bee If Cyprian or Hierome were alleadged for this equallitie it were sufficient for him to say they were no Euangelists For he sheweth it written thou shalt be called Cephas and thou art Peter You see these men that bragge of the Doctors will be holden by them as long as they liste The 6. whereas all holy Scriptures is on the popish Catholicks side he lamenteth the vnhappines of these dayes in w c men altogither vnlearned in them by the bare naming of Gods word haue among Pedlers won their spurres and amonge the ignoraunt haue gotten the opinion of knowledge As truely as none but Pedles and ignoraunt men imbrace this doctrine which we teach so truely all Scriptures be on M. Sand. side Among so many Princes noble men and excellent learned men as at this day acknowledge this doctrine to be the trueth M. Sanders head was very sleepy when he could see none but Pedlers and ignoraunt persons The seuenth he will take vpon him to shew by what meanes Sainct Peter excelled the other Apostles and sheweth in what order he will proceede which seeing it is contained worde for worde in the titles of the seuen Chapters next following I though it needelesse heere to rehearse The ninthe Chapter THat Saincte Peter passeth farre the other Aposlles in some kinde of ecclesiasticall dignitie THat S. Peter had some excellent gieftes peraduenture more then some of the Apostles that he had greate dignity among the Apostles may easely be graūted but that he had auctority ouer them such as the Pope claymeth ouer all Bishops is of vs vtterly denyed Neitherd oeth any one nor all together of M. Sāders 34. argumentes proue that he had one iote of auctority ouer his brethren 1 He was first in order of nombring of the twelue Apostles 2 He was promised to be called Cephas before the twelue were chosen 3. He was named Peter at the time of the choise ergo he hadde the Popes auctoritie ouer them Who would graunt the consequence of these arguments Let vs see what the other be 4 It was sayd to him alone thou art Peter vppon this rocke I will build my Church I deny that it was said to him alone for all the Apostles were likewise rockes vppon which he would build his Church The like I say of the 5. that the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were promised to him alone for euery one of the Apostles receiued thē aswel as he being or dained with equal power of binding losing of remit ing retayning sinnes Mat. 18. 18 Ioan. 20. 23. Notwithstanding the wordes at one time were spoken to Peter alone yet did they giue him no singular auctority The 6 Christ payed tribute for Peter as vnder head of his family ergo he was greater then the rest A fond argument This Didrachma was payd for euery man in the City where he dwelt because Peter had a house and a family in the Cytie Christ payed for him with whom he lodged and him selse But if you drawe it into an allegorie These absurdities will follow First that Christ maketh his Church and splrituall kingedome subiect to tribute yea to Moses lawe by which that kind of tribute was due Secondly you deuide Christes church into two householdes Didrachma was to be payde for the heade or firste borne of euery house And you shewe your ignoraunce in referring this payment to Num. 3. which was only for the firste borne wheras this was for all men And for the firste borne was dewe fiue siccles whereof euery one was halfe an Vnee of Siluer at the leaste whereas Didrachma contayning but two Drachmaes whereof euery one was equall with the Romane pennie coulde be but xvj pence at the moste of our monie It is a strong argument that the payment of trybute which argueth subiection should make Peter so greate a Lorde that he should be out of all subiection which if Chrysostome had considered hee woulde not haue grounded Peters primacie vppon so friuolus an Argument The seuenth Christe preached out of Saincte Peters Bote to shew that in his Chaire his doctrine should alwayes be stedfastly professed An Argument to be answeared either with laughing or hissing The 8. Though all the Apostles were to be sifted yet Peters Fayth alone is prayed for This is vtterly false for Christe prayed for all his Apostles fayth Ioh. 17. if specially for Peter it was in respecte of his greater daunger and not in respect of his greater dignitie The 9. Peter firste entred into the Sepulchre ergo he was made pope He entred for farther confirmation of his Fayth concerning Christes resurrection this maye be imputed to diligence but not to dignitie 10 The Angell sayth Tel his Disciples and Peter naming him seuerally because of his shamefull fall he had more neede of comforte The 11. Ambrese thinketh Peter was the first man that saw him Nay rather the Souldiors which kept the graue saw him before Peter the women also which would geue them dignity aboue Peter if firste seeing were a matter to argue dignity or auctority of the seer The 12. onely S. Peter walked on the Sea that signifieth the worlde to be his iurisdiction As he walked by Fayth so by weakenesse of fayth he beganne to sinke And the Sea that he walked on was but a lake or meere therfore cannot well signifie the whole worlde beside the argument is as sure as if it were bound with a strawe 13 S. Peter is shewed to haue loued Christe more then the reste and is alone commaunded to feede his sheepe He had good cause to loue him more because greater sinnes were forgiuen him but it is false that he onely was commaunded to feed Christes sheepe for all the Apostles were likewise commaunded 14 It is saido to Peter thou shalte stretch foorth thy hands and followe thou mee by which a particular kinde of death on the crosse is prophecied A violent death but no particular kinde of death is shewed by these wordes And although it were yet Peter in beeing Crucifyed was made no greater then Andrewe who was crucifyed also if the storyes of both be true 15 Peter aunsweared alwayes for the Apostles ergo hee was chiefe No more then the foreman of the Iewrye although it is not true that he alwayes aunsweared for the rest for sometime Thomas sometime Philip sometime Iudas aunsweared Iohn 14. 16 Peter pronounced Iudas Iscariot deposed That was by speciall instinct