A Survey of the Popes Supremacy, Part 1 (1 of 3)

A Survey of the Popes Supremacy · Part 1 (1 of 3)

p. 1The firſt part of the Suruey of the Popes Supremacie, wherein is a triall of his Title.

ALthough there is not (in mine opinion)Leaſt neceſſary to ſaluation. any one Article in controuerſie by knowledge whereof leſſe benefit redoundeth to the church of Chriſt, or leſſe comfort to the afflicted conſcience of the ſorrowfull ſinner, than this of the ſupremacie of the Biſhop of Rome: yet (if I be not deceiued) there is not any one point more conuenient to be handled,Moſt neceſſary in ſome other reſpects. or more neceſſarie to be intreated vponupon, of ſuch as ſincerely louelove the trueth of God, or hearty obedience vntounto ſoueraigne magiſtrates, than is the ſame. Firſt, for the iuſtifying of the godly, and more than needefull lawes of chriſtian Princes, which they are forced to make,The popes ſupremacie an enemie to all princes. to baniſh and abandon all forraine power that themſelues may ſit faſter in that ſeate, and the more quietly and ſafely inioy that ſoueraigntie, wherein God hath placed them, which is much hazarded and endangered by this ſubtile, but falſe perſwaſion, which wholly poſſeſſeth the heartes of many, that if they will be ſaued, and auoide the danger of damnation, they muſt ſtedfaſtly beleeue, that the Biſhop of Rome is the vniuerſall Biſhop, hauing authoritie ouer all, that he is the head of the church, and the generall ſhepheard of Chriſt his flocke. For that man of ſinne, hauing ſo bewitched the hearts of his fauorites, that they are once perſuaded, that it is good religion ſo to beleeue, p. 2and that to defend this his pride, is chriſtian conſtancie: what ſhameleſſe villanies will not they thinke to be lawfull practiſes? what cruell murders will not they account to be commendable attempts? what vnnaturall deuiſes and drifts wil not they eſteeme moſt godly and catholike vertues? I neede not ſtand long in dilating this point. Our natiue ſoile hath too much and too lamentable experience of ſuch vnkindly ſlips. Who when they did, and do owe to their countrey wherein they were bred and brought vp, the ſweete fruit of louelove to her, and ſacred obedience to her lawes, bring forth almoſt nothing elſe, but the ſowre grapes of treaſons and treacheries. Which all ſpring out of this bad roote, that they falſly perſwade themſelues, that they owe their chiefe obedience to the Biſhop of Rome, whoſe commaundements if they obey, and follow his directions, and hearken to his perſwaſions, then muſt they ſuffer no princes, with qnietneſſe to enioy their ancient and vndoubted inheritance, and rightfull crownes, but ſuch as will be tenants at will, to their lawleſſe maſter. Which, the more I doe thinke of it, the more (I feare) we hauehave no great hope as yet to be free from ſuch villainous practiſes, as may bring danger vntounto her Maieſtie, and ruine to this realme: becauſe I ſee that ſtubburne Recuſants (who if they hauehave any conſcience in religion, it is very ſtrange, for many of them ſhew little conſcience in any thing elſe) wilfull Papiſts (I ſay) are not in ſome reaſonable maner forced in this point, to ſhew their obedient and dutiful hearts, but may freely without controlment, profeſſe themſelues enemies to the truth that we acknowledge. For how can there be any certainety to this eſtate, that is ſo peſtered with a great number of falſe hearted ſubiects, whoſe very religion,The religion of Papiſts. is to be deuoted to him and to the maintainance of his kingdome, that is grieued at nothing more than at our happineſſe, neither ſeeketh any thing ſo much as our deſtruction?

To plucke away therefore this viſard of Religion, from this their diſobedient and diſſolute affection, I thinke it to be the duetie of eueryevery good chriſtian, according to our calling and talents wholy to indeuour our ſelues. And as this dutifull affection of chriſtian obedience ſhould effectually moue vsus vntounto this attempt, ſo the very ruine of religion, and the decay of all true deuotion which foloweth that perſwaſion, ſhould for…e vsus to make haſte to take this ſtumbling blocke out of the way of the ſimple, leſt at vnwares running p. 3thereupon, they ſhould make ſhipwracke of their faith. For the Biſhop of Rome by this his pretended priuiledge,The popes ſupr… macie the decay of true religiòn. doeth take vponupon him to make lawes to binde the conſcience, to adde to Gods word, to diſpence againſt the ſame, to chop and change religion it ſelfe, as ſeemeth good to him, to doe and vndoe at his owne pleaſure. And do he neuer ſo much hurt in the church of Chriſt, yet no man muſt ſay,Diſt. 40. cap. 51. Papa. Sir, why do you ſo? And thus hauing gotten by this prowd name, his fulnes of power, he hath filled all chriſtendome with horrible ſuperſtitions. I ſpeake not heere of the prophane, or rather blaſphemous praiſes,The Popes flatt… re…s. which the flatterers of this vniuerſall Biſhop do giuegive to him, to make the world, not ſo much to reuerence him as a B. as to honour him rather almoſt as a god. Which if it had bin done onelyonly by his Canoniſts, who liued in the dayes of darkeneſſe, and ſaw not ſo much as men now do, yet the fault and folly had bin very great. But that maſter Bellarmine, a man doubtleſſe learned, in ſo cleare light of the trueth as now ſhineth, ſhould ſo farre ouerſhoote himſelfe as he doeth in this point, in his Preface to his bookes of the biſhop of Rome:Praefat. in lib. d… Rom. pontif. it maketh me not a little to wonder at his groſſe folly, and to deteſt his irreligious flattery. But of this more ſhall be ſaid hereafter if God permit.

Seeing therefore the truth of this doctrine is ſo neceſſary, both for the ſinceritie of religion, and alſo for the quietneſſe of common wealths: my deſire & purpoſe is, if God giuegive good ſucceſſe thereunto, to ſhew and proue that the Biſhop of Rome maketh herein an vniuſt claime,The Popes claim vniuſt. and hath poſſeſſed himſelfe of an vntrue Title. To come therefore to the point in controuerſie.The Church. The holy catholike church, the ſpiritual houſe of God, the myſtical body of Chriſt, comprehendeth two ſortes of members.Triumphant. Some that are triumphing in heauen:Militant. others that are here trauelling vponupon the earth: ſome profiting (as ſaint Auguſtine ſaith) in this life, others perfited in an other.The queſtion. Now the queſtion is, whether this part of the catholike church that is here wandering in this vale of miſery, which is called militant (for here is the place of ſtriuing, elſe-where the place of crowning) muſt needes hauehave the Biſhop of Rome to bee the head thereof? This is it that they vntruly, and without any good warrant do affirme. This is it which iuſtly, and vponupon good ground (as I truſt it ſhall appeare) we deny. Maſter Bellarmine laboureth very much to prooue, that the gouernement of one ouer all, is p. 4the beſt,Whether monarchicall gouernement be beſt. M. Bellarmines firſt argument to proue there muſt be one viſible head. indeuouring thereby to prooue, that if it be beſt in ciuill regiment, it ſhould alſo be the beſt gouernment in the church, as it appeareth in his Bookes of the biſhop of Rome. Howſoeuer the monarchicall regiment within eueryevery kingdome or country is liked of: yet that vniuerſal rule of one ouer al hath not bin thought good of at any time,Lib. de pontif. Rom. 1. cap. 5. That is not of neceſsitie be … gouernment for the Church that is beſt for other kingdomes.Rom 1 as may appeare by thoſe great monarchies ſo commended vntounto vsus in hiſtories. To whoſe ſubiection kingdomes and nations did not ſubiect themſelues willingly, but were ſubdued to them by might. Neither is it neceſſary, that that kind of gouernement, which is thought beſt for worldly kingdomes, whoſe Lawmakers are men, and whoſe lawes are alwayes new to be made, as new inconueniences do ariſe in the common-wealth: and to be ſhort, whoſe glory is here in this world, ſhould alſo be moſt conuenient for the church of God, whoſe kingdome is not worldly, whoſe beauty is not outward or external. But to knit vp this point with one argument, thus I reaſon. That kind of gouernement is fitteſt for the church, that bringeth moſt profit to them that are gouerned, but maſter Bellarmine confeſſeth,De pontif. Rom. li…. 1. cap. 3. that the mixed gouernement is moſt profitable, therefore it is fitteſt.

But becauſe it pleaſeth maſter Bellarmine ſo well, that one ſhould beare rule ouer the whole church, let him and his fellowes ſubmit hemſelfe to Chriſt that King of kings and Lord of lords,Chriſt king in his Church. Reuel. 19. 16. Epheſ. 1. 22. Dan. 7. 14. Pſal. 72. 8.Rev 19:16Eph 1:22Dan 7:14Ps 72:8 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.A paſtour in particular churches a particular head. 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 vsus 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.…. S…m. 8. 7, 10. But as the children of Iſrael, not contenting themſelues with that forme of gouernment whereby God gouerned them, would needes hauehave a king as other nations had: euen ſo will the papiſts hauehave 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,Two heades. ſhould hauehave two heades, that is to ſay p. 5Chriſt, 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.Bellar. lib. 1. de pontif. Rom. c. 9.Rom 9 For ſo maſter Bellarmine affirme…, 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 appointed of God. paſtors we are ſure are ordained of God, euen of him that apointed Chriſt to be head of the church.The pope not of God. But that the biſhop of Rome is head of the church by Gods word, maſter Belarmine himſelfe denieth.De pontif. Rom. lib. 2. cap. 12. Secondly the paſtor contenteth himſelfe with the miniſtrie of the word and ſacraments, and ſuch eccleſiaſticall cenſures as the word affordeth him.The Popes pride. But the biſhop of Rome deſpiſeth all power, abuſeth all magiſtrates, yea almoſt treadeth vnderunder foote the maieſtie of the mightieſt monarches. As for the ſword of the word either he thinkes it not ſharp enough,His contempt of the ſword of Gods word. 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.The Popes charge infinit. 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 vponupon 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,Tertull. de praeſcientia haeretic. 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.M. Bellar. his ſecond argument. Now for that which maſter Bellarmine affirmeth of the heauenly hoſt, that they hauehave in heauen another head beſides Chriſt, and therefore that the church vponupon earth ought ſo to hauehave: his proofe is more vncertaine, and hard to be knowen, then that he p. 6ſhould ſeeke thereupon to ground any argument. But the church in the old Teſtament had one high prieſt,Argument 3. therefore ſaith maſter Bellarmine the church of Chriſt muſt hauehave ſo. For that church was a figure of Chriſts church.Anſwere. If maſter Bellarmine his argument ſhall goe for currant, wee muſt alſo hauehave but one Temple, for they might not hauehave any moe, they might offer but in one place, and many ſuch things were commaunded vntounto them, vntounto 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.Hebr. 8. 9, 10.Heb 8:9Heb 8:10 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly, but alſo of that which they call the ſacrifice of the maſſe, which how vntrue it is I hauehave 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. Aaron no figure of 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 vntounto 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, vponupon the earth. But what if I ſhould denie to Bellarmine, that this was the gouernment of the church before Chriſt,The church not ſubiect to one hie prieſt. De miſſa li. 1. c. 2 or that they were not at that time all vnderunder 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 vntounto 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, p. 7and others, yet maſter Bellarmine cannot ſhew, that there was amongſt them, a hie prieſt, but eueryevery 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 vnderunder him? The widow of Sarepta as appeareth by her ſtory,1. Kin. 17.1 Kgs 17 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. Ionah 3.Jonah 3And yet none of theſe were commaunded to be vnderunder the ſubiection of the hie prieſt. Which thing being well cooſidered of, wee may conclude, that if the gouernment of one ouer the whole church, were not thought neceſſarie for any people, before ſuch time as Moyſes had deliuered ſuch laws to the Iſraelits from God, after they were come out of Egypt, neither yet afterward for any but only for the Iews as by the examples alleadged may appeare, out of this I ſay wee may gather, that neither then was the whole church commaunded to be vnderunder the gouernment of one, and alſo that it was not a pattern of gouernment for the church nowe, but onelyonly a figure of Chriſt to them, to whome all things almoſt were deliuered in figures and ſhadowes.Arg. 4. Bellarm. But maſter Bellarmines fourth argument hath yet leſſe weight then any of the reſt. The church ſaith hee is compared to an Armie, to Mans body, or a beutifull woman, to a kingdome, a Sſheepfold, a houſe, Noahs arke, but no armie without a generall, no body without a head, no wife without a huſband, no kingdome without a king, no ſhipfold without a ſheapheard, no houſe without a ſteward, no ſhip but hath a maſter. We grant all this,Anſwere. and as Saint Auguſtine ſaith of the head ſo we may ſay of all theſe ſimilitudes for Chriſt can not be called a head,Praefat. in pſ. 139 if there be no body whereof he ſhould be head. And theſe names are beſtowed vponupon the church, and belong vntounto her no otherwiſe then as we hauehave reſpect vntounto Chriſt, that is our general, head, huſband, king, ſheapheard, houſeholder, and ſhipmaſter. And I cannot but muſe at the great ignorance or wilfulneſſe that maſter Bellarmine ſheweth in this argument, who knowing the nature of relatiues to be ſuch as that the one of them dependeth on the other, ſo that the one cannot be without the other: & knowing alſo that the wife is ſo called in reſpect of her huſband, and the huſbād ſo called in reſpect that he hath a wife: yet he ſhames not to p. 8affirme, that the church here vponupon earth may well be compared to a wife, not hauing reſpect to Chriſt her huſband. It may be his meaning is, to rake again out of the chenel, that filthy & blaſphemous cannon,De Immunit. m. 6. e Quoniam. wherein the pope maketh claime to be the huſbaud of the church, which title the ſcriptures aſcribe to Chriſt onelyonly. To his fifth argument and his third I anſwered together: his ſixth argument is this.Bell. arg. 6. Biſhops are well ſet to hauehave authoritie ouer Miniſters, Archbiſhops ouer Biſhops, therefore alſo there muſt be one ouer all others.Anſwere. But this proueth not that which fame hee would proue, that by Gods word one muſt hauehave rule ouer al. Seuenthly (ſaith maſter Bellarmine) the church muſt ſtill increaſe,Bell. arg. 7. but it can not increaſe vnleſſe one man bee aboue the reſt to take this care, therefore one muſt be chiefe aboue all other. And cannot the church increaſe except one be among the reſt to commaund all others?Anſwer. Who commaunded Saint Paul to preach as he did in many places? Not Peter. But they will ſay he was extraordinarily called. And they that are extraordinarily called muſt now by the popes lawes be allowed by the pope.

But to let this paſſe,Ruffin. hiſt. eccl. lib. 1. cap. 9. Parthia to Thomas, Aethiopia to Matthew, India to Bartholomew were appointed to preach in, not at Peters commandement but by lot. Not Peter, but Thomas moued thereunto by God ſent Thadde vntounto Edeſſa. So that we ſee Maiſter Bellarmines minor propoſition to be very falſe. For the kingdome of Chriſt may well be increaſed without the Popes ſupremacie. As then it was, ſo now I ſay it may be, yea and is increaſed mightely, although the Pope doe not onelyonly grieue at it, but alſo ſtriue againſt it.Bellar. arg. 8. Laſtly there muſt be vnity in faith (ſaieth Maiſter Bellarmine) but that cannot be, vnleſſe all be vnderunder one, therefore one muſt hauehave the rule ouer all.Anſwere. In deede it cannot be denied, but that one man being of authority in the church of God, may manie times doe much good, either to confirme the godly, or daunt the courage of the contentious. But if this authority bee beſtowed vppon the vngodly, it doeth much hurt, and it is then found true that the wiſeman ſaieth.Prouer. 29. 2.Prov 29:2 When the wicked beare rule the people ſigh. Neither can we hauehave a better example of this, then in the Biſhops of Rome that hauehave beene theſe many hundred of yeares, who to get the ſoueraignty aboue all authority, omitte no practiſes, ſhame not of anie treacheries, ſpare not anie ſhedding of bloud, but forget all dutie, all nature, all humani…ie, all chriſtianitie, p. 9ſo that they may hauehave the commaunding of all the world. And for their vnitie in faith,Popiſh vnitie. it is a kinde of vnitie, but in hypocriſie not in veritie. Againſt Gods vndoubted word, againſt Chriſt and his office,Pſal. 2. 2. Vnitie without ſupremacie.Ps 2:2 his merit and ſatiſfaction, euen ſuch a vnitie as Dauid ſpeaketh of, againſt the Lord and againſt his anointed. But can there be no vnity in faith, but where there is ſupremacie in authoritie? Yes, if wee marke the hiſtories wee ſhall finde, that there was neuer ſo good conſent in ſound doctrine, as when this ſupremacie was not hatched. A queſtion concerning circumciſion, fell among the chriſtians, in the Apoſtles time.Act. 15. ….Acts 15 The matter was referred vntounto the Apoſtles. The Apoſtles and elders came together to looke to this matter. After much diſputation Peter gaue his iudgement of gods goodnes towardes the Gentiles. To that end alſo Paul and Barnabas told howe wonderfullie God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And laſt of all Iames concluded, according to whoſe direction the matter was defined. Now what ſupremacie was in this counſell. The Papiſts tell vsus that Peter was chiefe here, but this is but a bold aſſertion, vow of all proofe. For firſt the wordes doe not ſhew that Peter called them together but the contrary rather Which Saint Luke would not hauehave omitted, if Peter by anie ſuperiour authoritie that he had ouer them, had called them. Neither did Peter ſpeake firſt. For before he ſpake there was much diſputation, neither did he giuegive definitiue ſentence in the counſell, but Saint Iames, as doth eaſily appeare to them that …ompare the words that he did ſpeake, with the Epiſtle that they did write, concerning the matter in controuerſie. So that if there were then anie chiefe it was Saint Iames, and not Saint Peter. The like alſo I might ſhew out of ſome other of the firſt counſels following. Of which becauſe I ſhall hauehave better occaſion after to intreat, I truſt this may ſuffice, to ſhewe that without ſupremacie, vnitie in faith may be maintained, and therefore that the minor propoſition in this argument is falſe. And thus hauehave I briefly r…ne ouer the arguments, that are alleadged by Maiſter Bellarmine to proue this ſoueraigne Monarchy,De Rom pontif. lib. 1. cap. 9. which he ſaith muſt be in Gods church, rather pointing to them, then proſecuting anie of them. Againſt all which I wilt oppoſe one onelie argument, which I would deſire Maiſter Bellarmine or ſome friend of his,An argument againſt the viſible head ouer the whole church. at their good leiſure to anſwere. No inuiſible body, can hauehave a viſible head, for that were a monſter in nature. But the vniuerſall or catholike church is an inuiſible bodie, p. 10for things that are vniuerſall are not ſeene with the eie, but conceaued in the minde and vnderſtanding. Therefore the catholike church muſt not hauehave 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 hauehave 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 whatſoeuerThe Papiſts argument for the ſupremacie. iuriſdiction Chriſt gaue to Peter and not to the reſt of the Apoſtles, all that belongeth to the church of Rome: but Chriſt gaue vntounto 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 onelyonly 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,De pontif. Rom. lib. 1. cap 10. Whether Chriſt hauehave reſigned his place. 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 vntounto Saint Peter? If hee hauehave 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. Epheſ. 1. 22 and 4. 15. and 5. 23. Coloſs. 1. 18.Eph 1:22Eph 4:15Eph 5:23Col 1:18Yea Saint Peter himſelfe, ſeemeth not to know ſo much. For when hee calleth him the head corner ſtone,Acts 4. 11.Acts 4:11 he meaneth doubtleſſe in the building of Gods ſpirituall houſe, which is the church. And yet maſter Bellarmine ſeemeth to tell vsus … when hee telleth vsus that Saint Peter is head in Chriſts place: For Chriſt muſt leaue his place before S. Peter can be in his place.…ad Popes. A meaner place would very well hauehave contented Saint Peter. As for many of them who in our fathers dayes and ours, hauehave 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 p. 11with his church now, then hee was with the people of the Iewes, when he was conuerſant vponupon the earth. For he that promiſed that hee would be with vsus alwaies,Mat. 28. 25. Ioh 14. 16, 17.Matt 28:25John 14:16John 14:17 euen vntounto the end of the world, and that hee would pray the father, and he ſhould giuegive vsus another comforter, which ſhould abide with vsus for euer, enen the ſpirit of truth he I ſay by the ſame ſpirit whom he hath made his vicar generall,De praeſcript. haeretie. 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 eueryevery 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 vponupon 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,De ſimplie. prel. that not onelyonly ſome priuat men as Cyprian hauehave thought all the Apoſtles, to be of as great honour and power as was Peter, but euer ſome councils hauehave 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.Concil. Carth. 6. 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 onelyonly by their diligent indeuour, but alſo by aleaging falſe canons of the Nicen councill, thinking thereby to hauehave 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.Galced. Concil. Act. 16.Acts 16 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 p. 12finding, that there was not there anie ſuch decree, did ordaine that the biſhop of Conſtantinople, ſhould hauehave 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 hauehave 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 theLib. …. cap. 3. 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 ſuprem… 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 vponupon a ſure ground. Let vsus therefore examine his proofes, and trie the waight of his reaſons.

This moſt neceſſarie controuerſie,Barenes of proofe for the ſupremacie. 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 vsus, or probable coniectures to perſwade vsus, then ſtrong argumentes to prooue, or ſufficient reaſons to conuince and force vsus to beleeue. I ſaie they hauehave but one authority of Scripture that they reſt vponupon, becauſe that place out of the ſixteenth of Saint Matthewes goſpel,De pontif. Rom. li. 1. cap. 12. 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 vsus ſee what iuriſdiction is promiſed in the one, and then alſo p. 13what is giuen in the other vntounto Peter. Mat. 16. 13.Matt 16:13Our 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 vntounto him, happie art thou Simon the ſonne of Iona, for fleſh and bloud hath not opened that vntounto thee, but my father which is in heauen. And I ſay alſo vntounto thee that thou art Peter, and vponupon this rocke I will build my church, and the gates of hell ſhall not preuaile againſt it. And I will giuegive vntounto 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 vponupon 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.Iohn. 1. 42.John 1:42 Thou ſhalt ſhew thy ſelfe ſo to be indeede, and that I hauehave 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 vponupon Peter, as vponupon a foundation. Yet I truſt hee will not deny, that Chriſt is ſuch a foundation, as there is no other, becauſe S. Paul telleth vsus,1. Cor. 3. 11.1 Cor 3:11 that other foundation can no mā lay, thē that is laid▪ which is Ieſus Chriſt Of this foundation God ſpeaketh by his prophet Eſay, Eſy. 28. 16.behold I wil lay in Sion a ſtone, a tried p. 14ſtone, a pretious corner ſtone, a ſure foundation. Then this being graunted that Chriſt is this ſpeciall foundation, and the onelyonly 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,Bellarm, maketh the Popethis ſtone, or Peter praefat. i… lib. de pontif, Rom. which is onelyonly verified of Chriſt, and of him onelyonly 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 onelyonly is. This diſcourſe of his, maketh me remember frier Toittis, Acts and Monument.otherwiſe called frier Paternoſter, who vponupon a great controuerſie that aroſe in Scotland concerning the lords prayer, whether it might be ſaid vntounto 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 eueryevery petition might be made vntounto the ſaints, vntil he came to the fourth petition, wherein hee was faine to confeſſe, that the ſaints cannot giuegive vsus 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 vntounto that Romiſh ſeate, that which belongeth vntounto Chriſt onelyonly, 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 hauehave thought that, a p. 15man ſo learned as maſter Bellarmine in theſe our dayes, wherein knowledge aboundeth,Chriſt only the ſtone. Mat. 21 42. Rom. 9. 33. Epheſ. 2. 14, 15, 16, 10. Act. 4 12. 1 pet. 2. 6.Matt 21:42Rom 9:33Eph 2:14Eph 2:15Eph 2:16Eph 2:10Acts 4:12Acts 4:1 would euer hauehave 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 onelyonly 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 vntounto the church of Rome. For ſeeing the ſcriptures with ſo great conſent, do acknowlege Chriſt to be that tried and and precious corner ſtone,Epheſ. 2. 14.Eph 2:14 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,21. which is a thing that not one but Chriſt can performe, let vsus knowe, that to giuegive 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,Bellarmines blaſphemies, Eſay 8. 14. Matt. 21. 44.Isa 8:14Matt 21:44 adding, that this their Romiſh church is the ſtone of offence, and ſtumbling blocke, vponupon 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 …ayly from her: and that ſuch as doe ſo, hauehave 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 vntounto maſter Bellarmines argument againe: VponUpon 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 hauehave ſhewed out of ſaint Paules epiſtle to the Epheſians, and thus Chriſt onelyonly is the foundation of his church, as hee is alſo the head, whereof all the bodie furniſhed and knit p. 16together with ioints and bands, increaſeth with the increaſing of God.Coloſs. 2. 19.Col 2:19 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.Apocal. 21. 14. Epheſ. 2. 20.Rev 21:14Eph 2:20 And ſo doth the apoſtle ſay that the church is built vponupon the fonndation of the Apoſtles and prophets, Ieſus Chriſt himſelfe beeing the chiefe corner ſtone.How the Apoſtles are foundations. 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:Amb. on theſe words Epheſ. 2. Theoph. Eph. 2.Eph 2 yet are they not ſuch foundations as can hold vp this building: but ſuch onelyonly 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.Chryſoſt. in Eph. … 6.Eph 6 And that which Chryſoſtome writeth vponupon this place, is in my iudgement a ſtrong argument, againſt this ſecondarie foundation, which they ſay Peter is, becauſe he will hauehave the building ſo coupled wit… t…e foundation, as that there ſhalbe nothing between them. But moſt plainely in his commentaries vponupon the epiſtle to the Corinthians he will hauehave nothing betweene vsus and Chriſt, no diſtance betweene the head and the bodie.Hom. 8. 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 vponupon the foundation, it falleth. Howe then can we hauehave any ſecondary foundation in the church of God, without the ruine of the whole church.

The Apoſtles therefore may well bee foundations (as I hauehave before ſaide, either becauſe that they are (as it were) the firſt ſtones that are layed, vponupon 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. p. 17So 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 hauehave him a foundation, neither hath he prooued it by that which he vrgeth out theſe words, vponupon 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, In Ioh Tract. 124. & Retract. lib. 1. cap. 21.vponupon 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 vsus, 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,De pontif. Rom. lib. 1. cap. 10 De locis Theolog. lib. 6. The Papiſts belie the Chalcedon councell. 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 p. 18that ſeat aboue all others, as may appeare in that place, eſpecially in the ſixteenth action of that council,Act. 3. Act. 16.Acts 3Acts 16 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, The papiſts doe ſhift oft the fathers.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,De trinit. lib. 6. vponupon the rocke of this paſtours confeſſion, but VponUpon 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. Ambroſ. in Lu…. lib. 6. cap. 9.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 vsus there, that whoſoeuer ouercommeth the fleſh, is a foundation in the church, and ſpeaking of this rocke, he would that euerie one ſhould hauehave 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 vntounto Chriſt, and maſter Bellarmine would hauehave 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,Bellarmine dealeth ſubtelly out of …iillary. 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 vsus beleeue, that it conſiſteth in this that Peter is the head, foundation and key carier. Fie vponupon poperie, that euer it ſhoulde ſo p. 19ſtiflie 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 vponupon Peter: I would on the other ſide wiſh him to conſider how weake a foundation he and his fellowes doe builde vponupon. For Peter did not only by euill councell,The weakenes of Peter to be a foundation. Matth. 16. 23.Matt 16:23 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 vntounto 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,Matth. 26. 74.Matt 26:74 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,Gal. 2. 13, 14.Gal 2:13Gal 2:14 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 hauehave builded the church vponupon then Peter, the building might well hauehave runne to one ſide. But thankes bee vntounto God that we hauehave a ſurer rocke.Peter not the foundation. 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? VponUpon 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 hauehave a foundation, but it could not be Peter. For hee had theſe wordes ſpoken vntounto him almoſt 4000. yeares after the church began. And could it ſtand and floriſh ſo manie yeares, builded only vponupon 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 hauehave Saint Peter to helpe to holde it vppe, for feare of falling? p. 20God forbid that euer chriſtians ſhould hauehave ſo fooliſh thoughts, and yet theſe and ſuch like abſurdities muſt folow this doctrine. But to conclude this point I reaſon thus.That is now that alwaies was the foundation. 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 vponupon Maiſter Bellarmines wordes.De Pontif. Rom. …. 1. cap. 9. Rat. 5. 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 vponupon this rocke I will builde my church, that is vponupon Peter, is not catholike, ſo the doctrine that followeth therupon is abſurd. Let vsus now conſider what weight there is in his ſecond argument whith hee wringeth out of the word of building.De Pontif. Rom. lib. 1. cap. 11. Bellar. his 2. Arg. to build is to rule. 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,Anſwere. therefore to builde is to rule? Such a ſhew of proofe, may perchance ſeeme glorious in the eies of them that hauehave no louelove 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 hauehave a houſe, that he may rule, and he cannot p. 21rule, 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 vsus grant Maiſter Bellarmine this which ſo earneſtly he ſeeketh for. Let vsus yeelde that to builde is to rule, what is then out of theſe wordes to be gathered? VponUpon 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 vsus go forwarde, that we may ſee what help vntounto this popiſh ſupremacy, the wordes following do bring: vntounto thee will I giuegive (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: Lib. 1. cap. 1….but that we deny not. But it is Maiſter Bellarmines bad hap, many times to take great paines fortify, where y^• 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?To whom the keies were giuen. 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 vsus that the other Apoſtles had this authority,Ibidem. The keies by commiſsion. but as Chriſtes legates, or by eſpeciall commiſſion, but to be vnderunder Peter. Whereas Peter had it as his ordinary iuriſdiction.By 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 vntounto Peter alone, whether becauſe he alone tooke vponupon 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,In Ioh. Tract. 124. 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,Matth. 18. 18. lib. 1. cap. 12.Matt 18:18 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 p. 22words receiue the holy ghoſt,Iohn 20 23. That the promiſe M…t 16. belongeth, to all the Apoſtles.John 20:23 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 hauehave 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 vntounto all. What can be more plaine to prooue, that although Chriſt ſpake vntounto Peter onelyonly in that firſt place, to thee will I giuegive 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 giuegive the keies, by that of Iohn whoſe ſinnes ſo euer ye remit they are remitted, &c. would faine make vsus 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 onelyonly giuegive power of order, whereas in Mathew he promiſeth power of Iuriſdiction. And the better to perſwade vsus,Power of Order Iuriſdiction he telleth vsus, 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 vnderunder a buſhell.

If we prooue out of Cyprian, To binde and retaine ſin is al one …e poenitentia lib 1, cap. 2. Bellar. his ſhifts. De ſimpl prel.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 hauehave 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 ſ…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 p. 23proceedeth from one or from vnitie: Therefore Peter is aboue all the Apoſtles.Bellar. argument hath no neceſſa…y co…ſequence. 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 onelyonly, but all the apoſtles in like manner receiued the keies,Cont. Iouin. li. … 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 giuegive the keies, yet it is manifeſt that for his ſake onelyonly 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,What theſe ke… are. that ſo we may examine, what that is which they ſay is giuen to Peter in this promiſe.

Maiſter Bellarmine affirmeth,De pontif. Rom. li. 1. cap. 13. Beliarmines 1. argument to proue the keis to ſignifie rule ouer the whole church. Eſay 22. 22.Isa 22:22 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 vponupon his ſhoulder, and hee ſhall open and none ſhall ſhut,Bellarm. falſifieth the ſcripture. 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,2. Chron. 31. 10.2 Chr 31:10 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, 2. Kings 18. 18.2 Kgs 18:18whome in that place the Septuagint do call the Ruler of the houſe, as alſo in the ſeuen and thirtieth verſe p. 24of 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.Antiq. li. 10. ca. 1. 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 hauehave 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 onelyonly proclaime that all may heare it, the weakneſſe of his cauſe, but alſo that his indeuour is, to keepe vnderunder the truth, that it appeare not. And thus much to lay open his falſhood in his firſt reaſon: Now let vsus ſee the weakeneſſe of his ſecond.

To binde and looſe (ſaieth hee) is to commaunde,Bellarm. …. arg. 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 hauehave beene vttered in plainer termes.Anſwere. For this authoritie of binding and looſing is ſo committed vntounto 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 p. 25in his reueiled word hath already ſet downe. And alſo the word of diſpenſing, though it may perchaunce hauehave a good vnderſtanding, as if thereby we meane the meane the ordering and beſtowing of the word,1. Cor. 4. 1.1 Cor 4:1 in reſpect whereof, the miniſters are called ſtewards or diſpoſers of the ſecrets of God: ſo muſt we take heede, that thereby we giuegive 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 vntounto, 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.Daniel 2.Dan 2 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 hauehave 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 eueryevery miniſter ſhould ſo doe, and not Peter onelyonly. And all this is doone by the miniſtery of the word in eueryevery paſtours ſeuerall charge, if the miniſter be faithfull in his office. Seeing his ſecond argument concludeth nothing againſt vsus, what doth his third and laſt argument?Bellarm. 3. argument out of the Fathers. He promiſeth by the fathers to proue, that theſe keis are a ſoueraigne and chiefe authoritie ouer the whole church. What, will he bring vsus a catholike erpoſition, receaued by all or moſt of the godly learned, at all times, in all places, agreed vponupon with one conſent? For otherwiſe it is not catholike. No. But hee telleth vsus of two of the fathers onelyonly. 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 vsus.

As for Chriſoſtom who is the other witnes that muſt prooue p. 26that by the keies Chriſt meaneth this vinuerſal iuriſdiction:Chryſoſtome examined. In Mat, hom. 55. 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 vntounto Peter the reuelation of the ſonne. But the ſonne gaue vntounto 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 hauehave 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 vntounto the father in power, he ſheweth that he wrought, if not more mightely, yet as powerfull in Peter as the father did.

And vponupon 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.Ibidem, 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.In Matt. hom. 38 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 hauehave 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 hauehave admoniſhed, it is one thing to hauehave an excellency or ſuperioritie among others in ſome reſpects of other mens yeldings: another thing to hauehave iuriſdiction, of his owne p. 27right 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.An argument againſt this expoſition of the Papiſts. Againſt the interpretation of the popiſh church thus I reaſon. If theſe keis belong to all them, that hauehave 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 vntounto all ſuch as Theaphilact doth teſtifie,Theoph, in Mat. 16.Matt 16 therefore no ſuch chiefe authoritie is ſignified thereby. For my minor propoſition that eueryevery biſhop or paſtour hath ſuch authoritie, or ſuch keis, beſides the teſtimonie of Theophilact, we hauehave moſt plaine proofe out of Gods word.Mat. 16. 18. An argument to proue my minor. Iohn 20, 23.Matt 16:18John 20:23 Whatſoeuer is promiſed Mathew the ſixteenth chapter in theſe words, I will giuegive 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,De Pontif. Rom, lib. 1. cap. 12. 13. 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,A reply againſt Bellarmines anſwer to the maior, and yet hath no ground of his deniall, but this onelyonly, 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 onelyonly 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 giuegive 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 hauehave ſet remitting againſt retaining,Bellarm. cap. 12 & 13. lib. 1. …epoenitentia lib. 1. cap. 2. 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 p. 28nowe for defence of popery, ſuch ſtuffe muſt ſerue the turne, when they hauehave no better. And heere I cannot but maruell at maſter Bellarmine his anſwere vntounto this argument out of the centuries.Cent. 2. lib. 1. ca. 7. col. 526. The argument out of the Centuries againſt ſupremacie. For they that wrote thoſe bookes reaſon thus, if in theſe wordes, to thee will I giuegive the keies &c. there were promiſed any ſupremacie, the Apoſtlles could not hauehave doubted which of them ſhould hauehave beene chiefe, but they doubted of this, therefore there was not in thoſe wordes any ſuch ſupremacie promiſed.Bellarmines anſwere co it examined. 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 hauehave 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 hauehave 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,De preſcription, aduerlus haerer. Heretickes and Papiſtes charge thopoſtles with ignorance. Artic. 18. 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 vntounto the auncient doctrine,Againſt Luther. 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 p. 29what 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.Thapoſtles ſtroue not for ſupremacie after Chriſtes reſurrection. 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,Matth. 18. 1. Mark. 9. 34. Luke. 9. 46. Luk. 22. 24. Iohn. 13. 13. Matth. 20. 24. Mark. 10. 41.Matt 18:1Mark 9:34Luke 9:46Luke 22:24John 13:13Matt 20:24Mark 10:41 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 vntounto 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, giuegive 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.Matth. 17. 12.Matt 17:12 For the grounde of this their conceite, is that they imagined the paying of the tribute money to hauehave beene before this contention. For they ſurmiſe that becauſe Chriſt ſaid paie for mee and thee, therefore p. 30the reſt of the apoſtles, ſuſpected that Peter ſhoulde hauehave 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, They contended not becauſe they ſuſpected Peters ſupremacie.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, Math. 10. 37.Matt 10:37which afterwardes they ſhewed more plainely,41 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 eueryevery 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 hauehave ſaide to them when they did ſtriue, contend no more, for I hauehave 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.Luk. 22. 26. Bellar, argument to prooue Chriſt to hauehave told Peter he ſhould be chiefe.Luke 22:26 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, hauehave ſette downe the true meaning of the wordes, and not take aduantage, to peruert the true meaning, and deceiue p. 31the 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 hauehave, 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.In Math. how, 66 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 hauehave ſeene, howe little hee can prooue by the firſt of his two places of ſcripture. Now let vsus trie what weight the other teſtimonie hath.Bellann. depontif. Ro. li 3. c. 34. Iohn 21.John 21 And this is drawen alſo out of the wordes of our ſauiour Chriſt to Peter, who when he had thrice aſked of him,Bellarm, 2. argument our of ſcripture anſwered. whether hee loued Chriſt, and ſtil he anſwered, that hee did louelove him, hee willeth him to feede his ſheepe. Now theſe wordes (ſaieth maiſter Bellarmine) are ſpoken to Peter onelyonly.Anſwere. It is true. But that Leſſon is not giuen to Peter onelyonly. For, to all the apoſtles it belongeth, to feede Chriſts ſheepe,Li, 1, cap. 12. 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, De paſtorib u… cap. 13.was this charge of feeding Chriſts ſheepe committed. And therefore Saint Auguſtine will hauehave Chriſt to be the onelyonly 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 louelove is in them.

But what ſhould I ſtand vponupon this point? It is more plaine, p. 32then that maiſter Bellarmine himſelfe can deny it, although he would blinde the eies of the ſimple with this diſtinction,The charge of feeding belongeth to all alike. 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,Ier. 48. 10.Jer 48:10 (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,1. Cor. 15. 10.1 Cor 15:10 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, Theoph. in Ioh. cap. 21.John 21but that I may ſay with Theophilact vponupon theſe wordes. Let Biſhops and preachers heare, what is commended vntounto them.

Feede (ſaith Chriſt) my ſheepe, bring with thee thy miniſterie, if thou wile ſet foorth thy louelove to the great ſheepehearde. Then alſo maiſter Bellarmine will proue out of theſe wordes and that eaſilie as he ſaieth,De pontifi Rom. lib. 1. cap. 15. that Peter hereby hath the chiefe power.To rule and to hauehave chiefe rule not all one. But indeede he onelyonly prooueth that to feede is to rule, whereas he promiſeth to proue with eaſe, that to feed is to hauehave 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,Lib. 1. cap 16. 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 vsus ſee what force is in his notable reaſon, for himſelfe ſo calleth it, he ſo well liketh of it.Bellar his Arg. to proue Peter to be a vniuerſall paſt. 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,Anſwere. for he knewe that he p. 33could not doe, but onelyonly 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 hauehave 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,Lib. 2. cap. 8. 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.2. Tim. 4. 16.2 Tim 4:16 No man ſaith Saint Paul aſſiſted mee, all men forſooke mee, that is ſaieth he none of them that ſhould hauehave 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 hauehave 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,This charge feed my ſheepe hath a limitation. that out of theſe wordes, and ſome other circumſtances, great reaſons may be gathered, to ſhewe Peters authority in theſe wordes to hauehave 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,Matth. 28. 19… Mark, 16. 15.Matt 28:19 and againe going into the whole world, preach the goſpell vntounto eueryevery creature. But here is no ſuch generall charge but onelyonly feede my ſheepe.Chriſtes peculiar 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,Matth. 15. 24.Matt 15:24 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 p. 34hee preached,Lib. 1. cap. 16. (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 vntounto their generall charge, (whereof I hauehave already ſpoken) which is farre differing from this, the very office that we know was laide vponupon Peter, Gal. 2. 7.Gal 2:7doeth 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 vntounto 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 vponupon theſe wordes, feede my ſheepe, to teach vsus how to vnderſtand them. Feed my ſheep, that is the Iewes, whom I hauehave eſpecially committed to thee, as I alſo tooke paines almoſt wholy and only among them.

Furthermore alſo when Saint Paule telleth vsus that the goſpell ouer the vncircumciſion, was committed to him, as vntounto Peter the goſpell was committed ouer the circumciſion, his meaning is to tell vsus, 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 vntounto the goſpell of Ieſus Chriſt,Rom. 1. 1. Actes. 13. 2.Rom 1:1Acts 13:2 becauſe God commanded them, to ſeperate vntounto him Paule and Barnabas, to the worke whereunto hee had called them. And what this worke is,Act. 22. 21.Acts 22:21 is another place declared, depart for I will ſend thee, farre hence vntounto the Gentiles. Which his calling to the Gentiles,Gal. 1. 16.Gal 1:16 hee alſo ſpeaketh of vntounto 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 vsus beleeue that it was but a couenant among themſelues, that Peter ſhould preach to the Iewes; Paule to the Gentiles, p. 35but 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 hauehave 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,Arguments againſt Peters ſupremacy. and to ſhew that theſe words feede my ſheepe, cannot giuegive vntounto him anie ſuch ſoueraignty. Saint Paule acknowledged no ſuch ſubiection to him,Gal. 2.Gal 2 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 vponupon 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 p. 36are great apoſtles. If Saint Paule had ſo meant, he woulde not hauehave 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. Argument. 2. 1. Cor. 5. 3. 1. Cor. 7. 25. 1. Cor. 11. &c. 14.1 Cor 5:31 Cor 7:251 Cor 11did 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 giuegive them commaundement or aduiſe concerning the church there. And yet maſter Bellarmine would make vsus beleeue, that the iuriſdiction was in Peter onelyonly, authoritie to preach in the reſt together with him.Argument. 3. Act. 6. 2. Bellarmine his reply. Anſwere.Acts 6:2 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, Act. 8. 14. Argument. 4.Acts 8:14to 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 vsus that ſending doth not import alwaies a ſubiection in him that is ſent:Bellarm. reply, yet if he had beene their ſuperior, it is to be thought they would rather hauehave deſired him to take order for them of Samaria, Anſwere.then hauehave 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 vntounto 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.

p. 37But 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 giuegive glorie vntounto God.

Hauing thus examined I truſt ſufficiently, the chiefeſt thinges alleadged by Maiſter Bellarmine, concerning theſe two places of Scripture, which eſpecially they reſt vponupon: I muſt alſo brieflie examine his ſecond ſort of proofes which hee promiſed to vſe,Lib. 1. cap. 10. Bellarmine his ſecond ſort of argument from Peters prerogatiue. and that is grounded vponupon 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, De Rom. pontif. lib. 1. cap. 17. 18. &c.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,Iohn. 1. 42.John 1:42 before they aſcribe vntounto 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 hauehave beene placed otherwiſe then firſt, but Saint Paule who knew well enough what place he ſhould giuegive to Peter, Galath. 2. 9.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.Iohn. 17.John 17 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 p. 38giuegive the headſhip of the church,Marke 16. Iohn 20.Mark 16John 20 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 vntounto 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 giuegive 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 vponupon 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 hauehave chalenged that priuiledge. Not Peter, but they, appointed two.Verſe 23. Verſe 24. They prayed. They alſo gaue them lots not Peter.