The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4 · Chapter 6
The .vi. Chapter. ¶Of the Supremicie of the See of Rome.
HItherto we hauehave rehersed those orders of the Chirch, whiche were in the gouernement of the olde Chirch: but afterwarde corrupted in tymes, and from thensefoorthe more and more abused, doo nowe in the Popishe Chirche reteyne onelyonly their name, and in dede are nothyng els but visours: that by comparison the godly reader might iudge, what manner of Chirch the Romanists hauehave, for whoes sake they make vsus schismatikes, because we hauehave departed frō it. But as for the hed and top of the whole order, that is to say, the supremicie of the see of Rome, wherby they trauaile to proue that they only hauehave the catholike Chirch, we hauehave not yet touched it: because it toke beginning neither frō the institution of Christ, nor from the vse of the old Chirch, as those former partes did: whiche we hauehave shewed to hauehave so proceded from antiquitie, that by wickednesse of tymes they are vtterly degenerate, and hauehave put on alltogether a newe forme. And yet they go about to persuade the worlde, that this is the chiefe and in a maner onelyonly bonde of the vnitie of the Chirch, if we cleaue to the see of Rome, and continue in the obedience therof. They rest (I say) principally vppon this stay, when they will take away the Chirche from vsus, and claime it to themselues, for that they kepe the head, vponupon whiche the vnitie of the Chirch hangeth, and withoute whiche the Chirche muste needes fall asunder and bee broken in pieces. For thus they thynke, that the Chirche is as it were a maimed and headlesse body, vnlesse it be subiect to the see of Rome, as to her head. Therfore when they talke of their Hierarchie, they a…way take their beginnyng at this principle: that the Bishop of Rome (as the vicar of Christe, whyche is the head of the Chirche) is in his steede President of the vniuersall Chirche: and that otherwyse the Chirche is not well ordred, vnlesse that See doo holde the Supremicie aboue all other. Therfore this also is to bee examined, of what sort it is: that we may omitt nothyng that perteineth to a iust gouernement of the Chirche.
Let this therfore be the principall point of the question: Whether it be necessary for the true forme of Hierarchie (as they call it) or ecclesiasticall order that one See should be aboue the other bothe in dignitie and in power, that it may be the heade of the whole bodye. But we make the Chirche subiect to to vniust lawes, if we laye this necessitie vppon it, without the worde of God. Therfore if the aduersaries will proue that whiche they require, they must first shew that this disposition was ordeined by Christ. For this purpose they alledge out of the lawe the hye priesthode, also the hye iudgement, which God did institute at Hierusalem. But it is easy to geue a solution, and that many wayes, if one way doo not satisfie them. First no reason compelleth to extende that to the whole worlde, which was profitable in one nation: yea rather, the order of one nation and of the whole worlde shall be farre different. Because the Iewes were on ech side compassed with idolatrers: that they should not be diuersely drawen with varietie of religions, God appointed the place of worshippyng him in the middest part of the lande: there he ordeined ouer them one head Bishop, whom they should all hauehave regard vntounto, that they might be the better kepte together in vnitie. Now, when religion is spred abroade into the whole worlde, who doeth not see that it is altogether an absurditie, that the gouernemēt of the East and west be geuē to one man? For it is in effect as much as if a mā should affirme, that the whole worlde ought to be gouerned by one ruler, because one piece of lande hath no mo rulers but one. But there is yet an other reason, why that ought not to be made an example to be folowed. No man is ignorant that that hie Bishop was a figure of Christ. Now, sins the priesthode is remoued, that right must also be remoued. But to whom is it remoued? Truely, not to the Pope (as he himself is so bold shamelessely to boast,Hebr. vii.xii. when he draweth this title to himselfe: but to Christe, whiche as he alone susteineth this office, without any vicar or successor, so he resigneth the honor to none other. For the priesthode consisteth not in doctrine onelyonly, but in the appeasyng of God, which Christe hath fully wrought by his death, and in that intercession whiche he nowe vseth with his Father.
There is therfore no cause why they should bynd vsus by this example, as by a perpetuall rule, whiche wee hauehave seen to be enduryng but for a tyme.Mat. xvi.xviii. Ioh. xxi.xv. Out of the new testament they hauehave nothing to bryng foorth for proofe of their opinion, but that it was saied to one: Thou art Peter, and vponupon this stone I will builde my Chirche. Agayne, Peter, Louest thou me? Fede my shepe. But admittyng that these be strong proues, they must first shewe, that he whiche is commaunded to fede the flocke of Christ, hath power cōmitted to him ouer all Chirches: & that to bynd and to lose is nothing els but to be ruler of all the world. But as Peter had receiued the commaūdement of the Lord,i. Pe. v.ij. so he exhorteth all other priestes to fede the Chirch. Hereby we may gather, that by this sayeng of Christ, there was either nothyng geuen to Peter more then to the rest, or that Peter did egally cōmunicate with other the power that he had receiued.Iohn. xx.…xiii. But, that we striue not vainly, we hauehave in an other place a cleare exposition out of the mouthe of Christ, what is to bynd and to lose: that is to say, to reteine and to forgeue sinnes. But the maner of binding and loosing, both the whole Scripture ech where sheweth, and Paule very wel declareth,ii. Cor. v, xviii. & x.xvi. when he saith that the ministers of the Gospel, hauehave cōmaundement to reconcile men to God and also hauehave power to punishe them that refuse this benefite.
How shamefully they wrest those places, that make mention of binding and loosing, I both hauehave already shortly touched, and a litle hereafter I shal hauehave occasion to declare more at large. Now it is good to se onelyonly, what they gather of that famous answere of Christ to Peter. He promised hym the keyes of the kyngdome of heauen: he sayed that whatsoeuer he bounde in earth, shoulde be bounde in heauen. If we agree vponupon the worde keyes, and the maner of binding, all contention shall by and by cesse. For the Pope himselfe wil gladly geue ouer the charge enioined to the Apostles, which being ful of trauaile and griefe, should shake from hym his pleasures, without gaine. Forasmuch as the heauens are opened vntounto vsus by the doctrine of the Gospell, it is with a very fit metaphore expressed by ye name of keies. Now, men are bound and loosed in no other wise, but when faith reconcileth some to God, & their own belefe bindeth other some. If the Pope did take thys onelyonly vpō him: I thinke there wil be no mā yt would either enuye it or stryue about it. But because this successiō being trauailsome & nothing gaineful pleaseth not ye Pope, hereupō groweth ye beginning of the cōtentiō, what Christ promised to Peter. Therfore I gather by ye very mater it selfe, yt there is nothing meant by ye dignitie of the office of an Apostle, which can not be seuered from ye charge. For if that definition whiche I hauehave rehearsed, be receiued (which can not but shamelesly be reiected) here is nothing geuen to Peter, yt was not also commō to his other fellowes: because otherwise there should not only wrong be done to ye persons▪ but the very maiestie of doctrine should halt. They crye out on the other side: what auaileth it, I pray you, to run vpō thys rocke? For they shal not proue, but as the preaching of one same Gospell was enioyned to al ye Apostles, so they were also al alike furnished wt power to bynde and loose.Mat. xviii xx. Iohn. xx.xxiii. Christ (say they) appointed Peter Prince of ye whole Chirch, when he promised yt he would geue hym ye keyes. But yt which he then promised to one, in an other place he gaue it also to al the rest, and deliuered it as it were into their handes. If the same power were graunted to al, which was promised to one, wherin shal he be aboue hys felowes? Herein (say they) he excelleth, because he receiued it both in common together wyth them, and seuerally by hymselfe, which was not geuen to the other, but in cōmon. What if I answere wt Ciprian and Augustine, that Christ did it not for this purpose, to prefer one mā before other, but so to set out the vnitie of the Chirche.De sim. cleri. For thus sayeth Ciprian, yt God in the person of one gaue ye keyes to all, to signifie ye vnitie of all: & that the rest were ye same thyng that Peter was, endued with like partaking both of honor and power: but that the beginning is takē at vnitie, that the Chirche of Christ may be shewed to be one. Augustine saieth: If there were not in Peter a misterie of the Chirche,Homil. in Ioh. l. Homil. xi. the Lorde would not say to hym, I wil geue thee the keyes. For if this was sayed to Peter, the Chirche hath them not: but if ye Chirche hauehave them, thē Peter, when he receiued ye keyes, betokened ye whole Chirch. And in an other place. When they were al asked, only Peter answered, thou art Christ: & it is said to him, I wil geue thee ye keies, as though he alone had receiued the power of binding and loosing: wheras both he being one said the one for al, and he receiued the other with al, as bearing the persō of vnitie. Therfore one for al, because there is vnitie in all.
But this, Thou art Peter, and vponupon this rocke I will bilde my Chirche,Mat. xvi.xviii. is no where red spoken to any other. As though Christ spake there any other thing of Peter, than that which Paule and Peter himselfe speaketh of all Christians. For Paule maketh Christ the chiefe and corner stone,Eph. ii.xx vponupon which they are bilded together that growe into a holy temple to the Lorde. And Peter biddeth vsus to be liuely stones which being founded vponupon that chosen and precious stone,i. Pe. ii.v. doe by this ioynt and coupling together with our God, cleaue also together among our selues. He (say they) aboue the rest: because he hath the name peculiarly. In dede I do willingly graunt this honor to Peter, that in the bilding of the Chirch he be placed among the first, or (if they will hauehave this also) the first of al the faithfull: but I will not suffer them to gather therupon, that he should hauehave a Supremicie ouer the reste. For what manner of gathering is this? He excelleth other in feruentnesse of zele, in learning, & courage: therfore he hath power ouer them. As thoughe we might not with better color gather, that Andrew is in degree before Peter, because he went before him in time, and brought him to Christ. But I passe ouer this.Ioh. i.xl. ….xlii. Let Peter truely hauehave the first place: yet there is great difference betwene the honor of degree and power. We see that the Apostles cōmonly graūted this to Peter, yt he should speake in assē blies, and after a certaine maner goe before them wt propounding, exhorting, and admonishing: but of hys power we rede nothing at all.
Howbeit we be not yet come to dispute of yt pointe: only at this presēt I would proue, that they do to fondly reasō, when by the only name of Peter they would bilde an Empire ouer the whole Chirche. For those olde follies wherwith they went aboute to deceiue at the beginning, are not worthy to be rehearsed, much lesse to be confuted, yt the Chirche was bilded vponupon Peter, because it was sayd vponupon thys rocke. &c. But some of the Fathers hauehave so expounded it. But when the whole Scripture cryeth out to the contrary, to what purpose is their authoritie alleged agaynst God? Yea, why do we stryue aboute the meaning of these wordes, as though it were darke or doutful, whē nothyng can be more plainly nor more certaynly spoken?Mat. xvi.xvi. Peter had confessed in his own and hys brethrens name, that Christ is the sōne of God. Upon thys rocke Christ bildeth his Chirche: because it is (as Paule sayeth) the only fundation, beside which there can be layed none other. Neyther do I here therfore refuse the authoritie of the Fathers, because I wante their testimonies, if I listed to allege them:i. Cor. iii.xi. but (as I hauehave saied) I will not with contending about so cleare a mater trouble the reders in vayne, specially sith thys point hath been long agoe diligently enough handeled and declared by men of our side.
And yet in dede no man can better assoyle this question, than the Scripture it selfe, if we compare all the places, where it teacheth, what office and power Peter had among the Apostles, howe he behaued hymselfe, and howe he was accepted of them. Runne ouer all that remaineth written, you shall finde nothing ells, but that he was one of the .xii. egal with the rest, and their felowe, but not their Lorde.Act. xv.v. He doeth in dede propounde to the counsell, if any thyng be to be done, and geueth warning what is mete to be done: but therewithall he heareth other, and doth not onelyonly graunte them place to speake their minde, but leaueth the iudgement to them: when they had determined,i. Pet. v.i. he folowed and obeyed. When he writeth to the Pastors, he doth not commaunde them by authoritie, as Superior: but he maketh them his companions, and gently exhorteth them, as egalles are wont to doe.Ac. xi.iii. When he was accused for that he had gone in to the Gentiles, although it were without cause, yet he answered and purged hym selfe. When he was commaunded by hys felowes,Acte. viii, xxiiii. to goe with Iohn into Samaria, he refused not. Wheras the Apostles did send hym, they did therby declare that they helde hym not for their superior. Wheras he obeyed and toke vponupon hym the embassage committed to him, he did therby confesse, that he had a felowship with them, and not an authoritie ouer them.Gala. i.xviii. &. ii.viii. If none of these thynges were, yet the onelyonly Epistle to the Galathians may easily take al doutyng from vsus: where almost in twoo whole Chapters together Paul trauayleth to proue nothyng ells, but that he hymselfe was egall to Peter in honor of Apostleship. Then he rehearseth that he came to Peter, not to professe subiection, but onelyonly to make their consent of doctrine approued by testimonie to all men: and that Peter himselfe required no such thyng, but gaue hym hys ryghte hande of felowship, to worke in common together in the Lordes vineyarde: and that there was no lesser grace geuen to hym among ye Gentiles, than to Peter among the Iewes: Finally that when Peter dealt not very faithfully, he was corrected by him, and obeyed his reprouing. All these thynges doe make playne, either that there was an equalitie betwene Paule and Peter, or at least that Peter had no more power ouer the rest, than they had ouer hym. And (as I hauehave already sayed) Paule of purpose laboureth about this, that none shoulde preferre before him in the Apostleship either Peter, or Iohn, which wer fellowes, not Lordes.
But, to graunte them that whiche they require concerning Peter, that is that he was the Prince of the Apostles, and excelled the reste in dignitie: yet there is no cause why they shoulde of a singular example make an vniuersal rule, and draw to perpetuitie that which hath been ones done: sith there is a farre differing reasō. One was chiefe among the Apostles: forsoth, because they were fewe in number. If one were the chiefe of .xii. men, shall it therfore folow that one oughte to be made ruler of a hundred thousande men? It is no maruell that .xii. had one among them that should rule them al: For nature beareth thys, & the wit of men requireth this, that in eueryevery assembly, although they be all egall in power, yet there be one as a gouernour, whom the rest may hauehave regard vntounto. There is no court wythout a Consul: no session of iudges wt out a pretor, or propoūder, no company wtout a ruler, no felowship wt out a master. So should it be no absurditie, if we cōfessed yt the Apostles gaue to Peter such a Supremicie. But ye which is of force among fewe, is not by & by to be drawē to ye whole worlde, to ye ruling wherof no one mā is sufficiēt. But (sai thei) this hath place no lesse in ye whole vniuersalitie of nature, thā in al ye partes, yt there be one soueraigne hed of al. And herof (and God wil) they fetch a profe frō cranes and bees, which alway choose to themselues one guide, not many. I allowe in dede the examples which they bryng forth: but do bees resort together out of all the world to choose thē one kyng? eueryevery seueral kyng is content wt hys own hyue. So among cranes, eueryevery heard hath their own king. What ells shall they proue hereby, but that eueryevery Chirche ought to hauehave their own seueral Bishop appoynted them? Then they cal vsus to ciuile examples. They allege that saying of Homere, It is not good to hauehave many gouernours: & such thynges as in like sense are red in prophane wryters to ye cōmēdation of Monarchie. The answer is easy. For Monarchie is not praysed of Ulysses in Homere, or of any other, in this meanyng, as though one ought to be Emperor of the whole world: but they meane to shewe that one kingdome can not holde twoo kynges: and that power (as he calleth it) can abide no companion.
But let it be, as they wil, yt it is good & profitable that ye whole worlde be holdē vnderunder Monarchie, which yet is a very great absurditie: but let it be so: yet I wil not therfore graūt yt the same should take place in the gouernement of ye Chirch. For the Chirche hath Christ her onelyonly head, vnderunder whoes dominiō we al cleaue together, acording to yt order and ye forme of policie which he hath prescribed. Therefore they doe a great wrong to Christ,Eph. iiii.xv. when by ye pretense they wil hauehave one mā to be ruler of ye vniuersal Christ, because it cā not be wtout a hed. For Christ is the hed, of whom ye whole body coupled & knit together in eueryevery ioint, wher with one ministreth to an other, according to ye working of eueryevery member in the measure therof, maketh encrease of ye body. Se you not, how he setteth all men wythout exception in the body, & leaueth the honor & name of hed to Christ alone? Se you not how he geueth to eueryevery member a certayne measure, & a determined and limited function: whereby both the perfection of the grace & the soueraigne power of gouernance may remayne wyth Christ onelyonly? Neyther am I ignorante what they are wont to cauill, when this is obiected against them: they say yt Christ is properly called the only hed, because he alone reigneth by hys owne authoritie & in hys own name: but yt thys nothyng wtstandeth, but that there may be vnderunder hym an other ministerial hed (as they terme it) that may be his vicegerent in earth. But by this cauillatiō they preuaile nothing, vnlesse they first shew yt this ministerie was ordeined by Christe. For ye Apostle teacheth, yt the whole ministratiō is dispersed through ye members, & that ye power floweth frō yt one heauēly hed. Or if they will hauehave it any plainlier spokē,Ep. i.xxii. &. iiii.xv, &. v.xiii. Colos. i.xviii. &. ii.x. sith ye Scripture testifieth ye Christ is ye hed, and claimeth yt honor to him alone, it ought not to be transferred to any other, but whō Christ himselfe hath made his vicar. But yt is not onelyonly no where redde, but also may be largely confuted by many places.
Paule somtimes depainteth vntounto vsus a liuely image of the Chirche, of one head he maketh there no mention. But rather by hys description we maye gather,Eph. iiii.x. that it is disagreing from the institution of Christe. Christe at his ascending toke from vsus the visible presence of hymselfe: yet he went vp to fulfill all thynges. Now therefore the Chirche hath hym yet presente, and alway shall hauehave. When Paule goeth aboute to shewe the meane wherby he presenteth hymselfe,Eph. iiii.vii &. xi. he calleth vsus backe to the ministeries which he vseth. The Lorde (sayeth he) is in vsus al, according to the measure of grace that he hath geuen to eueryevery mēber. Therfore he hath appointed some Apostles, some Pastors, some Euangelistes, other some Teachers &c. Why doth he not say, that he hath set one ouer all, to be his vicegerente? For the place require … principally, and it could by no meanes hauehave been omitted, if it ha…n true. Christ (saieth he) is with vsus. Howe? by the ministerie of men, whom he hath appointed to gouerne the Chirche. Why not rather by the ministeriall hed, to whom he hath committed his stede? He nameth vn…: but in God, and in the fayth of Christe. He assigneth to mē nothing but common ministerie, and to eueryevery one a particular measure. In tha… commendation of vnitie, after that he had saied that there is one body, one Spirite, one hope of calling, one God, one Faith, one Baptisme, why hath he not also immediatly added one chiefe Bishop, that may holde the Chirche together in vnitie? For nothing could hauehave been more fytly spoken, if it had been true. Lette that place be diligently weyed. It is no doute but that he meante there altogether to represente the holye and spirituall gouernemente of the Chirche, whiche they that came after called Hierachie. As for Monarchie among ministers, he not only nameth none, but also sheweth that there is none. It is also no doute but that he meant to expresse the manner of conioyning, whereby the faythful cleaue together with Christ their hed. There he not only speaketh of no ministerial hed, but appointeth to eueryevery of the mēbers a particular working, according to the measure of grace distributed to eueryevery one. Neither is there any reason why they should suttelly dispute of the comparison of the heauenly and earthly Hierarchie. For it is not safe to know beyonde measure of it. And in framing thys gouernemente we must folow no other figure, thā the Lord himselfe hath painted out in his worde.
Now, although I graunt them an other thing, which thei shal neuer winne by profe before sober men, that the supremicie of ye Chirche was so stablished in Peter, that it should alway remayne by perpetuall succession: yet how wil they proue, that his seate was so placed at Rome, that whosoeuer is Bishop of that Chirche, should be set ouer the whole worlde? By what right do they binde this dignitie to the place, which is geuen without mention of place? Peter (say they) liued & died at Rome. What did Christ himselfe? Did not he, while he liued, exercise his Bishoprike, and in dyeng fulfill the office of Priesthode, at Hierusalem? The Prince of Pastors, the soueraigne Bishop, the hed of the Chirche, could not purchase honor to the place: and could Peter, that was farre inferior to him? Are not these follies more than childishe? Christe gaue the honor of supremicie to Peter: Peter sate at Rome: therfore he there placed the see of Supremicie. By thys reason, the Israelites in olde tyme myght hauehave set the seate of Supremicie in the desert,Deute. xxxiiii.v. where Moses the chiefe Teacher and Prince of Prophetes executed his ministerie and dyed.
Lette vsus see howe trimly they reason. Peter (saye they) hadde the Supremicie among the Apostles: therefore the Chirche where he sate oughte to hauehave that priuilege. But where sate he firste? At Antioche, saye they. Therfore the Chirche of Antioche doth rightly claime to it selfe the supremicie. They cōfesse that it was in old time the first: but they say, that in remouing thense, he remoued to Rome the honor that he had brought with hym. For there is an Epistle vnderunder the name of Pope Marcellus to the Bishops of Antioche,x…. ques…. i. cap. where he saieth thus: Peters seate was at the beginning with you, which afterward by the Lordes commaundement was remoued hether. So the Chirch of Antioche, which was ones the chiefe, hath geuē place to ye see of Rome. But by what Oracle had that good man learned, that the Lord so commaūded? For if this cause be to be determined by the law, it is necessary that they answere, whether they wil hauehave this priuilege to be personal, or real, or mirt. For it must be one of these three. If they say yt it is personal, then it belongeth nothing to the place. If they say yt it is real, thē whē it is ones geuē to ye place, it is not takē away by resō either of the death or departure of ye persō. It remaineth therfore yt thei must sai it is mixt: but thē yt place shal not be simply to be cōsidered, vnlesse ye persō do also agre. Let them choose which soeuer they wil, I will by & by inferre & easily proue, yt Rome can by no meane take ye supremicie vponupon it selfe.
But be it, yt as (they triflingly say) ye supremecie was remoued from Antioche to Rome: yet why did not Antioche kepe ye secōde place? For if Rome hauehave therfore ye first place, because Peter sate there to ye ende of his life: to whō shal ye seconde place rather be graūted, thā where he had his first seate? How came it to passe then, yt Alexandria went before Antioche? How agreeth it, yt the Chirch of one disciple should be aboue the seate of Peter? If honor be due to eueryevery Chirche, according to ye worthinesse of ye founder, what shal we say also of the other Chirches? Paul nameth three,Gal. ii.ix. yt semed to be pillers, Iames, Peter and Iohn. If ye first place wer geuē to ye see of Rome, in ye honor of Peter: dooe not ye sees of Ephesus & Hierusalē, where Iohn & Iames sate, deserue ye seconde and thirde place? But among ye Patriarches Hierusalē had the laste place: Ephesus could not sit so much as in the vttermost corner. And other Chirches wer left out, both al those yt Paule founded, & those that the other Apostles wer rulers of. The seate of Marke, which was but one of their disciples, obteined the honor. Therfore they must either cōfesse that yt was a preposterous order, or they must graunt vsus yt this is not a perpetual rule, yt there be due to eueryevery Chirche the same degree of honor which the founder had.
Howbeit, as for yt which they report of Peters sitting in ye Chirch of Rome, I see not what credit it oughte to hauehave. Truely that whiche is in Eusebius, that he ruled there fyue and twenty yeares, is very easily confuted. For it is euident by the firste and seconde Chapter to the Galathians, that about .xx. yeares after the death of Christ, he was at Hierusalem,Gala. i.xviii. Gal, ii.i. and yt thē he went to Antioche: where howe long he was, is vncertayne. Gregorie reckeneth seuen yeares, and Eusebius twentie and fyue. But from the death of Christ, to the ende of Neroes Empire, (in whoes tyme they say that he was slayne) there shalbe founde but thirty and seuen yeres. For the Lord suffered vnderunder Tiberius, the eightenthe yeare of his Empire. If you rebate twentie yeares duryng the whiche Paule is wytnesse that Peter dwelte at Hierusalem, there wyll remayne but seuentene yeres at the most, which must now be deuided betwene twoo Bishoprykes. If he taried long at Antioche he coulde not sitte at Rome, but a very little while. Whiche thyng we maye yet also more plainely proue. Paule wrote to the Romaines, when he was in his iourney going to Hierusalem,Ro. xv.xv where he was taken and from thense broughte to Rome. It is likely that this Epistle was written fower yeres before that he came to Rome. Therein is yet no mention of Peter, which should not hauehave been left out, if Peter had ruled that Chirche.Ro. xvi.ii Yea and in the ende also, when he rehearseth a greate number of the Godly, whom he biddeth to be saluted, where verily he gathereth together all those that he knewe, he yet sayth vtterly nothing of Peter. Neither is it nedefull here to make a long or curious demonstration to men of sounde iudgement: for the mater it selfe, and the whole argument of the Epistle crieth out, that he should not hauehave ouerpassed Peter, if he had been at Rome.
Then Paule was brought prisoner to Rome. Luke reporteth that he was receiued of the brethren,Acte. lass. xvi. of Peter he saieth nothing. He wrote from thense to many Chirches: and in some places also he writeth salutatiōs in the names of certaine: but he doth not in one worde shewe that Peter was there at that tyme. Who, I praye you, shal thinke it likely, yt he could hauehave passed him ouer with silence,Phi. ii.xx. if he had been present? Yea to ye Philippians, where he sayed that he had none that so faythfully loked vntounto the worke of the Lord, as Timothee, he complayned that they did all seke their owne.ii. Timo. iiii.xvi. And to the same Timothee he maketh a more greuous complaynte, that none was with him at hys fyrst defense, but all forsoke hym: where therefore was Peter then? For if they saye that he was then at Rome, how greate a shame doeth Paule charge him with, that he was a forsaker of the Gospell? For he speaketh of the beleuers: because he addeth, God impute it not vntounto them. Howe long therefore, and in what tyme dyd Peter kepe that seate? But it is a constant opinion of writers, that he gouerned that Chirche euen to his death. But among the writers themselues it is not certayne who was hys successor, because some saye Linus, and other some saye Clement. And they tell many fonde fables, of the disputation had betwene him and Simon the magician. And Augustine sticketh not to confesse, when he entreateth of Superstitions,Aug. ad Sannar. that by reason of an opinion rashly conceiued, there was a custome growen in vse at Rome, that they shoulde not faste that daye that Peter gott the victory of Simon the magician. Finally the doinges of that tyme are so entangled with diuersitie of opinions, that we ought not rashly to beleue where we finde any thyng wrytten. And yet by reason of thys consente of writers, I stryue not agaynst thys, that he dyed there: but yet that he was Bishop there, and specially a long tyme, I can not be perswaded, neither do I muche passe vponupon that also: forasmuche as Paule testifieth that Peters Apostleshyp did peculiarly belong to the Iewes, and hys owne to vsus. Therefore that that felowship which they couenanted betwene themselues, maye be confirmed with vsus, or rather that the ordinance of the Holy ghost may stande in force among vsus, we oughte to hauehave respecte rather to the Apostleship of Paule than of Peter. For the Holy ghost so diuided the prouinces betwene them, that he appointed Peter to the Iewes, and Paule to vsus. Now therefore let the Romanistes goe and seke their supremicie ells where than in the worde of God, where it is founde not to be grounded.
Now let vsus come to the olde Chirche, that it may also be made to appeare plainly, that our aduersaries doe no lesse causelesly & falsly boast of the consent therof, than they doe of the witnesse of the word of God. When therefore they bragg of that principle of theirs, that the vnitie of the Chirche can not otherwise be kept together, but if there be one supreme hed in earth, to whom all the members may obey, and that therfore the Lorde gaue the supremicie to Peter, and from thense forth to the see of Rome by right of succession, that the same should remaine in it to the ende: they affirme, that thys hath been alwaye obserued from the beginning. But forasmuch as they wrōgfully wrest many testimonies. I wil first say this aforehande, that I deny not but that the olde writers do eche where geue great honor to the Chirche of Rome, and dooe speake reuerētly of it. Which I thinke to be done specially for thre causes. For yt same opinion, which I wote not how was growen in force, that it was founded & ordeined by the ministerie of Peter, much auailed to procure fauor & estimation vntounto it. Therfore in the Easte partes it was for honors sake called the see Apostolike. Secondlye, when the hed of the Empire was there, and yt therefore it was likely, that in that place were men more excellente both in learning and wisedome, and skill, and experience of many thynges, than any where ells: there was worthily consideration had therof, that both the honor of the citie, and also the other more excellent giftes of God should not seme to be despised. There was beside these also a thirde thing, yt when the Chirches of the Easte, and of Grecia, yea and of Africa, were in tumultes among themselues wt disagrementes of opinions, y• Chirch of Rome was quieter and lesse full of troubles than the rest. So came it to passe, that the godly and holy Byshops, being driuē out of their seates, did oftentimes flee thether as into a Sanctuarie or certaine hauen. For as ye Westerne men are of lesse sharpenesse & swiftnesse of witt, than ye Asians or Africans be, so much are they lesse desirous of alteratiōs. Thys therfore added much authoritie to ye Chirch of Rome, that in those doutefull times it was not so troubled as the reste, and did holde the doctrine ones deliuered them, faster than al ye rest as we shal by and by better declare. For these three causes (I say) it was had in no small honor, and commended with many notable testimonies of the olde writers.
But when oure aduersaries will thereupon gather that it hath a supremicie and soueraigne power ouer other Chirches, they do to much amisse, as I hauehave already said. And that the same maye the better appeare, I will firste brefely shewe what the olde fathers thought of this vnitie which they enforce so earnestly. Hierome, writīg to Nepotianus, after that he had recited many examples of vnitie, at the laste descended to ye Hierarchie of the Chirch. Eche Bishop of eueryevery seueral Chirch, eche Archepriest, eche Archedeacon, and al ye ecclesiastical order, do rest vponupon their own rulers. Here a Romaine Priest speaketh, he cōmendeth vnitie in the ecclesiastical order: why doeth he not rehearse that al Chirches are knit together wt one hed as wt one bonde? Nothing could hauehave more fitly serued the matter yt he had in hand: and it can not be sayed yt it was for forgetfulnesse, yt he omitted it: for he would hauehave done nothīg more willingly if ye matter had suffred him. He saw therfore wtout dout, that yt is ye true reasō of vnitie which Ciprian excellētly wel describeth in these wordes:De simpl…. pre. The bishoprike is one, wherof eche hath a part wholly: and the Chirche is one, whiche is with encrease of fruitefulnesse more largely extended into a multitude. Like as there are many sunbeames, and one light: and many branches of a tree, but one body grounded on a fast holdyng roote: and like as from one fountain flowe many streames, and though the multitude seme to be diuersely spread abrode with largenesse of ouerflowyng plētie, yet the vnitie is kept whole in the original: so the Chirch also being ouerspread with the light of the Lord, extendeth her beames abroade throughout the whole worlde, yet is it but one that is eche where poured foorth, and the vnitie of the body is not seuered: she spreadeth her branches ouer the whole worlde, she sendeth out her ouerflowing streames: yet is there but one head and one beginnyng &c. Afterward. The spouse of Christ can not be an adultresse: she knoweth one onelyonly house, she kepeth the holinesse of one onelyonly chamber with chast shamfastnesse. You see how he maketh the vniuersal bishoprik to be Christ onelyonly, which comprehendeth the whole Chirch vnderunder him: and saith that all they that execute the office of Bishop vnderunder this hed, hauehave their partes therof wholly. Where is the supremicie of the see of Rome, if the whole byshoprike remayne with Christe onelyonly, and eche Bishop hath his part therof wholly? These thynges therfore make to this purpose, that the reader may vnderstande by the way, that the olde fathers were vtterly ignorant of that principle, whiche the Romanistes doo take for confessed and vndouted, concerning the vnitie of an earthly head in the Hierarchie of the Chirche.