THE ROCK OF THE CHURCH Wherein the Primacy of S. Peter and of his Successors the Bishops of Rome is proved out of God's word. By Nicolas Saunder D. of divinity. The eternal Rock of the universal Church. Christ was the rock, an other foundation no man is able is put. 1. Cor. 3. & 10. The temporal Rock of the militant Church. Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church. Matth. 16. The continuance of this temporal Rock. In the Church of Rome the primacy of the Apostolic chair hath always flourished. August. in Epist. 162. Reckon even from the very seat of Peter: and in that rew of Fathers, consider, who succeeded the other. That is the rock which the proud gates of hell do not overcome. In Psal. count. part. Don. Tom. 7. LOVANII, Apud joannem Foulerum. Anno D. 1567. REgiae Maiestatis Privilegio concessum est Nicolao Sandro Sacrae Theologiae Professori, ut librum inscriptum, The Rock of the Church, per Typographum aliquem iuratum imprimere, ac impunè distrahere liceat. Datum Bruxellis 27. Febr. 1566. Subsig. Prats. TO THE RIGHT Worshipful M. Doctor Parker bearing the name of the archbishop of Canterbury, and to all other protestants in the realm of England, Nicolas Saunder wisheth perfect faith and charity in our Lord, declaring in this Preface, that the catholics (whom they call Papists) do pass the Protestants in all manner of Signs or Marks of Christ's true Church. I Beseech your worship not to mislike with me for omitting any part of your accustomed title in this my letter, sithence I do it not of any contempt, but only of conscience grounded upon God's word: as who am persuaded the religion presently authorized in the realm, and consequently your ministry therein, to be so far of from Christ's true religion, as it is far from Christ, to have his Church (which after the publication of the Gospel ought, Genes. 22.26.28. Psal. 2.44 75.88.144 Philip. 2. according to the prophecies, to be openly spread through out the world, and her Citizens ought to shine in the midst of the perverse nation, Isai. 54.60 Math. 28. of infideles, like stars, and to remain glorious for ever in many nations together) now first (after nine hundred years oppression as your own brethren do confess) to show itself abroad, and openly to be professed. So that although it could be showed that your faith had been always in the world (as it was not) yet in that (if at all it were) it lay hidden, Math. 5. it could not be the faith of Christ's true Church, which never ceased to be a City built upon a hill which can not be hidden. And he did set his candle upon a candelstick, not only to give light for a few hundred years: but to give light to all, Luc. 8. that either should come into his house or, tarry in his house. And seeing at all moments men in diverse countries came into God's house by faith and baptism, Isai. 2. & 62. Math. 28. and seeing likewise he is with his disciples all days until the end of the world, and not only liveth, but reigneth for ever, Luc. 1. regnabit. that is to say, abideth gloriously and royally in the house of jacob, which is the Church, doubtless his Church is for ever built upon a hill, and therefore it can not be hidden any one moment, and his light never can cease to shine, to th'end it may ever be true which Malachias the Prophet said: Malac. 1. From the rising of the son to his going down, my name is great among the gentiles. And yet seeing Christ's name is not great by them who believe falsely, (for they must needs also have naughty works, and so the name of God, Heb. 11. Isai. 52. Rom. 2. as Saint Paul saith, is rather blasphemed among the Gentiles, then glorified by evil men) it remaineth, that Christ's name must be great among the gentils through a good faith, openly giving light by the good works of true Christians, who may thereby cause God's name to be glorified, Math. 5. and by their good conversation may cause the Infidels to be converted unto Christ. 1. Cor. 7. 2. Pet. 3. Now for as much as your faith was not openly always professed in many nations together, but was altogether hidden before these fifty years, and so hidden, A Church under a bushel. that no history or Chronicle doth make mention of any congregation at all professing your faith from time to time in any Cities, Towns, Villages, or private houses of diverse provinces and countries at once: nothing can be justly said or alleged, why you should not renounce this obscure religion of yours, which is so slanderous to God's glorious name, and return again to that our Church, A Church upon a hill. which stood for ever upon the hill, and whose light was never so dimmed, or darkened, but that the very jews, Turks, Saracens, moors, and Tartarians, knew where we dwelled, and what we professed. I chose at this time to entreat with all sober Protestants the rather by your person (M. D. Parker) because I have heard of so much good nature in your worship, that it was not unlike, but he would voutesafe to hear what so ever should be reasonably said, specially touching God's word, and the practice of the primative Church, of which points my chief talk shallbe at this tyme. Many men have laboured to give diverse Signs and Marks of the true Church, to th'intent it being once known, all other controversies may give place to the pillar and sure stay of truth. 1. Tim. 3. But that it may appear to them, who do not willingly stop their ears against the truth, what notable advantage the catholics have over and above the Protestants in this behalf: I will show the truth of our Church to be so safe and clear, that hitherto it was not possible for the Protestants themselves to devise any such mark or sign of a true Church, the which doth not much rather make for us, then for them. God's word is not a sufficient mark of the true Church. They teach God's word to be the chief mark, whereby the true Church may be known, which yet can not well be so, because the mark whereby an other thing is known, ought itself to be most exactly known, whereas we are not agreed, what Gods word is. For some call only the written letter and the meaning thereof, God's word: others think many things to be God's word, which are not expressly written, but are revealed from God to the Church by the tradition of the Apostles, 2. Thess. 2 Heb. 8. & 10. 2. Cor. 3. and by the holy ghost, who hath written God's laws in our hearts, and there hath imprinted them. Also we are not agreed upon the written word of God, because the Protestants do not admit so many books of the old Testament, as the Catholics do. Thirdly the meaning of those books which we are agreed upon, is altogether in question between us. How then can that be a mark sufficient to show an other thing to us, which itself is not sufficiently known of us? All which reasons notwithstanding, the confidence of our cause is such, that I may grant the word of God (what soever it be) to be a sufficient mark, whereby God's Church may be known. And then I say, that every way God's word standeth more on our side, then against us. For if you mean by God word, God's word first with us. the written letter of the old and of the new Testament, we are before you in that behalf: because you have no assured Copies thereof, which were not preserved by the former Christians, whom ye call Papists, of them you took as your baptism so your Bible. By them not only the old and the new testament, but also the works of the ancient Fathers were copied out, printed, and laid up in libraries, and in other places whence they came to your hands. If then the having of God's word prove a true Church, that is the more true Church, which had it first, specially seeing we came not by it privily, or violently, but received it even at the Apostles hands. For after that day wherein S. Peter and S. Paul delivered God's word to the faithful Romans, the Church of Rome hath always kept it safe without either losing, or corrupting it. Again we believe and acknowledge more of the Bible than you do, More of God's word with us. by the books of Toby, of judith, of Wisdom, of Ecclesiasticus, and of the Maccabees. All which we account for Gods own word, according to the consent of many awcient † Aug. de doct. Christia. lib. 2. c. 8. Gelasius in Synod 70. episco. Concil. Florent. in fine-Trident. Session. 3. Fathers and counsels: whereas you call them Apocrypha, and so make them unable to decide any controversy about religion. Thirdly we do not only grant the Hebrew text of the old testament (such as may appear uncorrupted) and the Greek text of the new testament, to be God's word but we also acknowledge with the ancient Fathers, the † justin. in Apol. 2. Ireneus li. 3. c. 25. Euseb. de praeparat. evang. li. 8. c. 1. Aug. ep. .8 Greek translation of the Septuagints, More copies of God's word. and with the † Sessio. 3. Tridentine Council the common Latin translation (which so many hundred years hath been diligently expounded and preserved in the Latin Church) to be of full authority: Where as you give small credit to either of these translations, except (by your judgement) they agree with the first Hebrew and Greek copies. We then have God's word in more authentik tongues and copies, than you have. Fourthly we preach, expound, interpret, and translate God's word in all manner of tongues, Better use of God's word. better than you, because we do these things, not only by internal, but also by such external vocation and commission, as may be showed to have sprung from the Apostles, by the lineal and ordinary succession of our bishops and priests. Whereas you can fetch no higher commission, then from the common weal, which never received authority of Christ to make priests, or to send preachers: and yet how shall they preach, Rom. 10. if they be not sent? Concerning that you read God's word to the people at you Church service time in the vulgar tongues, Of God's word in vulgar tongues. it is no perfection at all on your side. For ye lack thereby the use of the better tongues, as of the Greek and Latin: which were sanctified on Christ's cross, Luc. 23. joan. 19 as for all other holy uses, so most specially for to serve God withal at the time of Sacrifice, wherein he requireth the very best in every kind to be offered unto Malac. 1. him, as to our dreadful Lord, and loving father. And who doubteth, but that a learned, a holy, and a common tongue, is more honourable, than a barbarous, a profane, and a private tongue? In so much, that in respect of the whole body of the Catholic Church (wherewith we specially communicate in our service and prayers) the vulgar tongues are much more to be accounted strange or unknown (which strange tongues only S. Paul doth least regard) than the common tongues, 1. Cor. 14. which were alone delivered to the very first Christian Church, by the Apostles themselves, in the East and west: not regarding the infinite multitude of vulgar tongues which were in particular provinces of the same countries. the Greek and Latin Church. For of the Greek tongue used in the East Churches, and of the Latin used in the west Churches, it came to pass, that it is all one to say, the Greek or the east Church, the Latin or the west Church. And surely seeing Christ being upon the Cross (whence the pattern of al● prayer and oblations is to be taken, sithence the Sacrifice which we offer● (saith Cyprian) is the passion of our Lord) whereas he knew right well, Li. 2. epi. 3 that the common people of the jews (the pure Hebrew tongue being either lost, or much decayed in common speech, every day more and more after the captivity of Babylon) could not understand him, Math. 27. Psal. 21. did yet recite the beginning of the Psalm (My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me) in Hebrew, and did not either by and by, or at all interpret the same in the vulgar tongue: need we to doubt, but that after his example, we may do the like in those tongues at our service, which Priests and Clerks do understand, though the common people do not understand the same? We use also vulgar tongues in our service. But lest there should be any one jot wherein to pass God's Catholic Church, we also have in certain countries, the use of vulgar tongues in the Church service, as in Dalmatia it is to be seen at this day, and the like is said to be in Assyria, and in Aethiopia, the Christians of which Countries do acknowledge the supremacy of the bishop of Rome. And although by this very means, Vulgar tongues cause barbarousness. those Countries are become the more barbaous (for thereby the Priests and Preachers can not read either the Greek or the Latin Doctors) yet this good ariseth to the whole Church of their loss, that it both hath all degrees of tongues (to wit, both, learned and vulgar) in her prayers, and by the example of those barbarous countries, she warneth the other more civil parts to avoid that mischief, whereby those other men fell into that reproach of barbarousness. Moreover, those Countries (some of which never knew any better than their own native tongue) have their service in the vulgar tongues by mere force and necessity, Necessity forceth those countries to use vulgar tongues. and that allowed by the good dispensation and toleration of the See Apostolic, without breach of unity: whereas the Protestant's having once had the Latin service, are fallen from Latin to English, that is to say, from the better to the worse, and that also by making a schism, joan. 19 and by dividing the coat of Christ (which was without any seam) into many parts, which thing the very unfaithful soldiers were afeard to do. Thus touching the written word and the use thereof, there are many causes, why we should be in better case than the Protestants, but none at all, why we should be in worse. If not only the written letter, but also the plain meaning of every proposition be to be considered, The meaning of God's word. Math. 26. we read it literally and plainly spoken, this is my body, and as the words do sound, so do we understand them. Why then is (this) which Christ pointeth unto, denied to be his body? jacob. 2. A man is justified of works, and not of faith only. Why then are good works done in a right faith, denied to justify? or why is only faith taught to justify? Rom. 2. The doers of the law shallbe justified. Why is the law than taught not to be able to be done, or kept? Rom. 5. By the obedience of one (which is Christ) many shallbe made just, that is to say, Constituentur. justice shallbe wrought or settled in many. Why then is it denied that we are made really just? Or why is it taught, that righteousness is only imputed to us, whereas S. Paul saith also, Rom. 5. the charity (or love) of God is spread in our hearts by the holy ghost which is given us. This spreading and stablishing of charity in our hearts, is more than a bare imputing of charity to us. Whose sins soever ye forgive, they shallbe forgiven them. joan. 20. Why are then the bishops and priests (who succeed the Apostles) denied to forgive sins? Luc. 22. He that is greater among you, let him be made as the younger. Why then deny you, that one was greater among the Apostles, or, that one still is greater among the bishops, their successors? Math. 16. Thou art Peter or a Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my Church. Why then is the militant Church denied to be built upon Saint Peter, and upon his successors in that chair and office? 2. Thes. 2. Keep the traditions which ye have learned either by word, or by our epistle. Chrysost. Hom. 69. ad Pop. Ant. Why then are traditions, yea though they be Apostolic (as the use of praying for the dead is) so despised, that the very name of tradition used in the better part, can not be suffered to be in the English Bible, though it be both in the Greek and in the Latin? He that joineth his virgin in marriage, doth well, 1. Cor. 7. and he that doth not join her, doth better. Why then is marriage made with you as good as the state of virginity whereas S. Paul maketh the state of virginity better? Vow ye, Psal. 75. and render your vows unto God. If thou wilt be perfit, Math. 10. go and sell all things which thou hast, and give them to the poor, and follow me. There are eunuchs, who have gelded themselves for the kingdom of heaven. Obey your rulers, Heb. 13. and be subjects unto them. Why then are the vows of poverty, of chastity, and of obedience (to all which the word of God exhorteth us) accounted unlawful? Or why are men exhorted, yea constrained not to perfoorm them? Do ye the worthy fruits of penance, saith Saint john. Luc. 3. Why then is satisfaction and penance despised with you? The husbands and the wives being two in one flesh, Ephes. 5. is a great Sacrament (or mystery, or a holy and secret sign) in Christ and in the Church. Why then is the marriage of faithful persons denied to be a Sacrament? Philip. 2. Work your salvation (saith S. Paul) with fear and trembling. Why then are your so presumptuous, as even by faith, to assure yourselves of your salvation? Or how can he fear, who is assured to be saved? Rom. 11. Or how can the deep secrets of God's predestination be ordinarily known in this life? Or is not faith an ordinary gift in the Church? Thus might I go through all the articles in controversy, and in every one I should find your side to be the farther of, and ours to be the near to the plain literal meaning of God's word. The circumstance and conference. If not only the plain understanding of any one sentence, but also the circumstance of the place, and the conference of God's word be necessary, have we not used it in every question which hath been hitherto handled? Here I must needs refer the reader to my treatise of the Supper of our Lord, In the x. and xii. chapters. namely in the fourth book, and to my book of Images in the v. and the xi. chapters. Item in this book, to the second and fourth chapters. For in this preface, it were over tedious to handle so long a matter. If you say, The best use of God's word sufficeth not alone I do not confer the places so as I ought to do, thereof riseth a new question, wherein we must have a new judge. For we believe and use the scriptures as well as you, and better to, as I have declared. Item we allege ●lain words: we show the circumstance to be for us: we confer one place with an other. If now all this will not ●nd the controversy, it is clear, that the only word of God, be it never so well handled, is no sufficient mark to show the truth. For this is all that can be d● about the word itself. Seeing then we must go farther, I say the heads of the Church, judges. Aug. count julianum lib. 2. the Counsels, the bishops, and the ancient Fathers must be the judges, whether we do well apply the holy scriptures, or no. For example: Math. 16. M. jewel saith, S. Peter is not this rock whereupon Christ said he would build his Church. 〈◊〉 say on the other side, In the 4. chap. that S. Peter is this rock. And I show it by the circumstance of the place, and by the conference of other holy scriptures. M. Iewe● must needs say, that I do not well confe● the holy scriptures. I take then for my judges, above sixten of the best doctors who expressly stand on my side, as 〈◊〉 will show in this present book. In the 4. chap. So th● this mark of the true Church also maketh clearly for us. And surely although the protestāns in words pretend to ha●● the consent of the ancient fathers: yet th●● in truth it is not so, this one thing m● sufficieiently declare, because whensoever ●anie occasion never so far set may serve, they do what they can to reject the Fathers partly by imputing errors to them, In his Reply P. 3. 49. & P. 10. as M jewel ordereth S Hilary partly by denying the work to be theirs as he saith of Dionysi the Ariopagite and of S. Chrisostō● Liturgy, et●aet. Another shift is, ●o allege the private opinion of some one against the consent of the rest, or to say that the fathers lived, when the time begun to be corrupted: and when all other things fail their plain doctrine and assertions of the faith, are illuded with a like figurative speech. If in deed the fathers made for them, they would not thus shift their hands of the fathers, but the more they could have, and the better they agreed and the plainer they spoke, the better they should be welcome. Well seeing the Prostestants (although falslly) yet commonly do allege the old fathers, The allegation of Fathers sufficeth not. and we also do allege them most plentifully, hereof it will follow that neither the only allegation of them is so able to end a controversy, that the simple and unlearned may be sure of the truth. For which cause we must join to the former marks, Tradition, and practise. the tradition and practice of God's Church, which being in every man's eyes and ears, can never deceive him. We think (saith Chrysostom) the tradition of the Church to be worthy of belief. In 7. Thessalon. Hom. 4. Is it a tradion? Ask no farther. This mark so evidently maketh for us, that the Protestants are constrained utterly to deny all credit unto it: for by this rule they are inexcusable who deny either the pope's supremacy, which ever was so universally practised, or the Sacrifice of the mass, or any like matter, which was and is generally received in the Church. But because many questions arise in the Church, Tradition doth not suffice in cases. rather depending of subtle points in divinity, then of evident custom and practice: if suddenly some learned men deny such An article of the faith, which before was not commonly preached of (as that the holy ghost proceedeth from the Son or any like) seeing here tradition faileth, and the preachers are divided: General Counsels. Math. 18. Act. 15. the Church hath used the mean of General councils, wherein the bishops of many country's meeting together, after sufficient debating, do publish the one part to be reputed heretical. Whereby all men do clearly know, what to follow, and what to avoid. Such a Council gathered together of late at Trent, published that to be the true faith, which we defend, and the contaary to be heretical. So that this mark is wholly ours. But for as much as it is very hurtful, Counsels do not suffice. for so many bishops to leave their cures so oft as any such question is moved, and also because their meeting is many times stayed by the occasion of battle, or of pestilence, or else for lack of their safeconduct out of whose countries, or by whose countries, or into whose country they should pass, and specially because when they are come together force and violence may be used as it was doen at the second Ephesine council, Leo epist. 24.25.26 and at Ariminum: it is necessary, to have some other more speedy, certain, and profitable way in the Church, whereby heresies may be sooner stayed, and God's people more quickly instructed in the truth. In respect of which considerations, Christ hath most notably provided, One high judge. that one chief pastor and high bishop S. Peter should be set by himself over the whole flock in earth to confirm his brethren, joan. 21. Luc. 22. and to feed them Of whose faith by praying for it, he hath assured us. In S. Peter's chair the bishop of Rome sitteth, who is well known to have given public sentence against the Protestants for our faith and Church, neither can the Protestants deny us the assurance of this mark. The which mark because it is of most weighty importance, as being the easiest way of all to find out the truth, and which serveth in all cases without any exception: I have made this treatise, to declare, that it is no less true, even according to God's word, than it is profitable and needful in all wise men's understanding. Here I might make an end, but that the Protestants affirm the lawful preaching of God's word, and the lawful administration of the Sacraments to be the thing whereby they will be tried, as though we need not a new judge to know what these terms do mean. For what call you lawful preaching, or administering? Preaching and Sacraments. That (say you) which is according to God's word. Very well. Are we not now come again to the first beginning of our talk? what call ye God's word? have I not proved (whatsoever it be) that it is much more with us, then with you? Add hereunto, seeing those are most lawful preachers who are most like unto the Apostles, Psal. 18. Rom. 10. (whose sound went into all the earth, and their words into the ends of the world) we are more like unto than, who within these nine hundred years by our preaching have converted Bohem, Saxony, Friesland, Prussia, Livonia, Denmark and diverse other countries, than you, who in the same time lived so under a bushel, that noman alive could hear you once peep. Again our Sacraments being more in number by five, then yours, were administered in the face of the world, even as the Apostles did administer them in jerusalem, Corinth, Rome, and in such other cities and places: whereas you had not one Church or known house of prayer in the whole earth. Persecution. The persecution (say you) of the Romish Antichrist oppressed us, which mark also you allege for the truth of your congregation. What masters? Antichristes' persecution shall dure but three years and a half. Dan. 7. Apoc. 13. And is the Pope Antichrist, whose persecution (as you say) hath dured these nine hundred years? Math. 16. Hell gates shall not prevail against the true Church. And yet is your congregation the true Church, against which you confess Antichrist so to have prevailed, that for many hundred years, no man could tell, whether any such Church were in the earth, or no? Surely hell gates prevailed not against us any one moment, Not to fail in persecution. although our Church hath been assaulted with all kinds of trouble: therefore this mark (that is to say, to stand safe and sound against hell gates) is a token, that ours is the true Church. For it is not persecution, but the conquering and prevailing against persecution, which is the true mark of God's Church. But seeing I promised to prove our Church the more true, We are persecuted. even by your own Marks, let us grant, that Church to be true, which is persecuted, yet I say that you rather have persecuted us, than we have persecuted you. For, I pray you Sir, when the child who lived in one house with his loving mother (as you did once in the same Catholic Church with us) goeth afterward out of the house, and saith, his mother is a strong whore (as you say by the Catholic church whence you are departed) if then the mother not being able by fair means to reconcile the child to her again, after long and oft warnings, do pronounce him a bastard member, and a renegade child doth the mother in this case persecute her child, or doth not the child rather persecute his mother? Note well. The child began the defection, the mother defendeth her possession and inheritance: and yet did we first persecute you? Remember what S. Augustin writeth in this matter, and that not of himself, but as taken out of S. Paul. Sara with her son Isaac doth signify the Church, Galat. 4. Agar with her son Ishmael doth signify carnal men, as heretics ●re. Now whereas we read, that Agar ●he handmaiden and Ishmael suffered grievous things at the hands of Sara, Genes. 2●. yet S. Paul considering, that Agar was not persecuted of Sara, before that she had through pride contemned her masters, doubted not to say, that Isaac suffered persecution of Ishmael. Galat. 4. As then (saith S. Paul) he that was according to the flesh (Ishmael) did persecute him who was according to the spirit (Isaac) so is it now also, ut qui possunt intelligant, Aug. epis. 48. to than they who are able may understand (saith S. Augustine) that the Catholic Church suffereth persecution by the pride and wickedness of carnal men whom she goeth about to amend by temporal troubles and terrors. And much more followeth in S. Augustine writing against the Danatists', who being departed from the Church then, as you are now, said then, as you do now, that the Catholics did persecute them, and therefore that they were the true Church. And surely if you can show, that we through pride departed from the obedience, which we once had oughed to you, then in deed we might be said to persecute you. But seeing certainly you were all once under the obedience of our Pastors (as Agar the handmaiden was under her masters Sara) and you through pride withdrew yourselves from us, Gene. 21. and made a new congregation of your own erecting: doubtless you are the Agarens and the Ismaelits but we being the children of Sara, are altogether persecuted of you, and so that mark showeth us (whom ye call papists) to be the true Church. Are there yet any more marks of the true Church behind? Antiquity. yes, saith the Protestant. For Antiquity is ours altogether. Now you seem to say somewhat. But if the Church of Christ be in all but one, seeing Antiquity is but the beginning or the ancient state of Christ's Church, if the end of the same Church make for us (as yourselves can not deny, but that these nine hundred years, we were more like to be that Church of Christ which must be spread through all nations, than you) it is not possible, that the beginning should make for you. For Christ's Church is ever like itself. If you appeal to particular examples, I say, the Christians in the primative Church communicated under one kind both at Emaus, Luc. 24. August. de consen. Euangel. li. 3. cap. 25. Theophil. in 24. luce Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 14. Math. 9 and at jerusalem, as the words of the holy scripture (which the ancient Fathers testify to appertain to the Sacrament of Christ's supper) do import. Item the Christians did then make and set up Images in the honour of Christ, as the most famous history of the Woman cured of her bloody issue, doth most evidently witness. An. D. 50. Dionysius (whom M. jewel confesseth to be an ancient writer, as it may, saith he, many ways well appear) maketh mention of a De Eccl. Hiera. c. 2 insufflation, of holy oil, of b Cap. 3 altars, incense, healthful sacrifice, of c Cap. 4. holy Chrism and of holy d Cap. 5. orders of priesthood, of the procession of e Cap. 6. monks blessed with the sign of the cross, shorn, and receiving a new garment, of f Cap. 7. praying for the faithful souls, of g In epist. ad Demophilum. confessing sins to a priest. All these things we have, but the Protestants know them not. An. D. 70. Ad Smyrnenses. Ignatius speaking of such a Sacrifice, as ought not to be offered without the bishop, must needs mean a public and external Sacrifice, for the making whereof a special minister was ordered. He would have the Emperor to obey the bishop, he speaketh of Virgins, Ad Phila. which had consecrated themselves to God. Ad Antiochum. And commendeth a certain appointed number of fasting days, to wit, forty, which fast we call the Lent. justinus witnesseth, An. Dom. 150. In Apologia 2. De coena. water to have been mingled with the wine, and, the Deacons to have carried the consecrated mysteries (as we also do) to them which were absent, which thing Calvin reputeth an abuse. Pius the first, De cons. distinct. 3. Nosse vos. Euseb li. 5. c. 23. et 24 Epiphan. Haer. 50. Aug. 29. decreed Easter day to be kept unifoormlie of all men: whereupon Pope Victor excommunicated the bishops of Asia for not obeying. And those who continued in their stubborness, were taken for heretics both of the Greeks and Latins. All doctrine is false and lying (saith Tertullian) which agreeth not with some Apostolic Church. An. D. 200 Our doctrine agreeth with the chief Apostolic Church of Rome: yours with none at all that is now in the earth. De Corona ad uxorem. It was the custom in those days, to make oblations for the dead the twelve months day: to go unto the Stations, Euseb lib. 6. c. 7. Paula. ad Marcel. to 1. Hierom. to visit holy places, and specially those of jerusalem, which custom dured from Christ's ascension until S. Hieroms' time, through all Christendom, and yet is called Pilgrimage of us. An. Dom. 250. De coena Do. Saint Cyprian confesseth the bread which our Lord gave to his disciples, being changed not in shape, but in nature, to have been made flesh. Confession to the priest. Serm 5. de lapsis. Item that even the consent in heart to commit a great sin was to be confessed apud Sacerdotes Dei before the priests of God. And that, forgiveness made by the priests is acceptable unto God. 2. Reg. 12. 2. Cor 2. Cyp. lib. 1. epist. 2. Item, that the temporal penance (which is due to God's justice after the fault is forgiven) might for just causes be forgiven by the bishop, Nicen. con. c. 11. which the Nicen council doth also decree. And that is it, which we now call a pardon. What should I here rehearse the reverence given in old time to a Euseb. li. 7 c. 15. S. james chair and to other Relics, the solemn dedicating of b Lib. 9 cap. 10. Churches, the strait life of c Ruffinus lib. 11. c. 4. eremites, the d Theodor. lib. 5. c. 21. driving away of devils by holy water, the authority of e Basil. de Spi. sancto c. 27. unwritten traditions, the use of f Hom. in 40. Mart. praying to Saints, the g Ambros. de poenit. lib. 1. c. 7. Sacrament of penance the h Epist. 33. name, sacrifice, and i de Sacra. lib. 4. c. 5. & 6. Canon of the Mass, the forgiving of sins by the priests when they k Chryso. lib. 3. de Sacerd. oynt the sick with oil in our Lord's name, the l Hieron. contra Vigilantium. lights burning whiles the Gospel was readen, that a bishop can not m Lib. 1. contra jovin. beget children in his bishoply vocation, that a fix or a certain, n Ad Furiam. number of prayers is prayers is prescribed, which serveth to confirm the use of our beads: that he can not be a priest, who hath had o Ad Gerontiam. two wives, that the p Ibidem. bishop of Rome used to answer the consultations or relations directed to him from the Counsels both of the East and of the West, that the q Augusti. in Psal. 37 fire of purgatory is more grievous, than whatsoever a man may suffer in this life? All these things were in the ancient Church: the same are in our Church: the same are not in the Protestants Church: How then can it be, that Antiquity should either help the Protestant's, or hinder us? As therefore we are assured of the mark of Antiquity: so let us go forward with certain other marks, which are no less peculiar to us. Among other things which stayed S. Augustine in the right faith, this was one, The name of a Catholic. Cont. epis. fundae. c. 4 because no heresy could obtain the name of the Catholic Church, although every heresy did much desire to obtain it. The reason is, for that heresies be but parts and peculiar sects of some one country, August de unit. eccles. c. 1. or the doctrine of a small time, whereas the word Catholic doth betoken a certain universal profession during from the beginning to the ending, and spread throughout. Those therefore who begun their doctrine after the Apostles time, Heretics were either named of their master, as the Arrians of Arrius, the Pelagians of Pelagius the Lutherans of Luther, the Caluinists of Calvin, or of some place where they lived (as the heresy of the Phrygians) or of the falsehood which they taught (as Quartadecimani, anabaptists, Aquarij) or of some like particular circumstance. But they were only called catholics, who kept the universal faith, which the Apostles had first taught, Catholic and which was continued always in the whole Church. To our purpose, I say the Protestants never had the name of Catholics, nor never shall have it, because they began after the Apostles time, to wit within these fifty years. But we so had once the name of catholics, that we shall never lose it. I do not only report me to all kind of histories and writers, who accounted for ever the flock and society of the Roman church for catholics ( a De obitu fratris. as S. Ambrose, b In Apol. cont. Ruffinum. S. Jerome and all manner of other Fathers do witness) but also I say our enemies confess this Mark to have been ours. Read the very title of M. jewels Reply, read it, I say, and see what God to his everlasting damnation (if he repent not) caused him to write there. The Title of M. jewels Reply. A Reply (saith he) unto M. Harding'S answer, by perusing whereof the discrete and diligent reader may easily see, the weak, and unstable grounds of the Roman religion, which of late hath been accounted Catholic. By I. jewelbishop of Sarisburie. Hear you not what he saith? The Roman religion of late hath been accounted Catholic. As men account a thing to be, so do they name it: those therefore who accounted the Roman Religion to be Catholic, named it also the Catholic Religion. But S. Augustine saith: Cont. epis. Manichai cap. 4. Tenet me in ecclesia Catholicae nomen, quod non sine causa inter tam multas haereses sic ista Ecclesia sola obtinuit, & cet. The very name of the Catholic Church holdeth me in the Church, the which name this Church alone hath not without a cause so obtained, among so many heresies: that whereas all heretics covet to be called catholics, yet if any stranger ask, where the Catholic communion is kept, no heretic dare show his own Church (or palace) or house. Behold, the true Church alone hath obtained the name of the Catholic Church, and no heresy could obtain the same. But we that are now called Papists, by Master jewels confession: were of late accounted Catholics, therefore we are the true Church, and we are not heretics at all. This Mark than standeth also on our side. Beside the name of Catholics, we also have the continual succession of bishops and priests, Succession or universality. Ibidem. ab ipsa sede Petri (as S. Augustine speaketh) usque ad praesentem Episcopatum, even from the very See of Peter, to the bishoply office which now is. Such a continual succession we show from S. Peter himself until Pius the fifth, who presently fitteth at Rome in Saint Peter's chair. The same Mark (as being one of the most evident of all others) is approved by S. a li. 3. c. 3 Ireneus, by b de prescript. Tertullian, by c Lib. 2. de schism. Optatus, and d Contra Luciferia. by S. Jerome. The Protestants on the other side neither have continual succession of bishops, nor yet of any preachers, nor of ●ny people that are known to have professed their faith. So that either no such congregation was, Math. 10. Rom. 1. & 10. 1. Pet. 3. or they were all dam●ed, because they were ashamed to confess the Gospel of Christ by their word and conversation before men. Mark well this point: I can not see, what can be reasonably answered unto it. Consider now (good Reader) the riches and pre-eminence of our cause above the Protestants 1. All these Marks Thew our Church to be true. We have God's word before them, 2. We have and believe more of it, than they 3. We have more authentic copies, even of those books, which they together with us do receive for God's word, 4. We have a more certain commission to use it in preaching, or otherwise, 5. We read it in more holy and profitable tongues, 6. We use it also in vulgar tongues without breach of unity, 7. The plain meaning thereof maketh for us, 8. The circumstance and conference thereof showeth our faith to be the truer, 9 The ancient Fathers verait agreeth with our doctrine. 10 The tradition and practice a● only with us. 11. General Counsels are only with us. 12. the unity of one chief● judge is only with us. 13. The lawful preaching of God's word and the lawful administration of the Sacraments is that, which we use. 14. Victory in persecution is ours. 15. Yea we are persecuted of the Protestant's our children as of whom they were baptised, and in whose universities they were brought up, and now they turn the weapons which we gave them, against us. 16. Antiquity and the practice of the primative Church is agreeable to that of our tyme. 17. The name of catholics by their confession is ours. 18. The continual succession a bishops we do show, and they can no● so much as pretend it. Rom. 3. Generally what have they which w● lack? have they a faith justifying? so have we but not justifying alone, Galat. 5. jacob. 2. but justifying with charity, which is as it were ●he life of faith. Ergo their iustificatiō●f faith alone, is a dead righteousness: ●urs is it which quickeneth to life e●erlasting. Have they two Sacraments? We have seven. 1. Pet. 2. Have they an inward priesthood whereby Christ is offered in ●heir hearts? we have an inward, and ●n † Isai. 61. & 66. 1. Tim. 4. Heb. 10 outward, whereby he is offered ●oth in our hearts, and in our hands. Do ●hey believe that Christ with one Sacrifice paid our ransom for ever? Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 10. & 11. We believe it, and show to the eye (under the form of bread) the self body sacrificed, and by offering and eating it sacramentally with our mouth, we are made partakers of the redemption which is in it. Is Christ with them the head and pastor of his Church? joan. 10. Ephes. 1. We do not only believe so, but we show it to be so by the real figure of one chief head and Pastor of his particular flock in earth, Heb. 10. whereby the eternal things are lively represented. Do lay men with them receive the communion under both kinds? even so do they with us by dispensation of the See Apostolic, in Austria, and in diverse other parts of Germany, both without schism, and also without injury of an other truth, which must confess one kind to contain as much as both, and therefore to suffice alone. And both kinds were instituted of Christ, Math. 26. rather to show by an unbloody sacrifice the nature of Christ's bloody sacrifice (where his soul and blood was a part from his body and flesh) then that any more is either contained or distributed by both, joan. 19 then by one alone. Heb. 13. Have you Marriage in great price? Not in so great as we, who teach it to be a Sacrament, which by the outward and visible sign of mutual consent in faithful persons signifieth the gracious unity of Christ and of his Church and whiles it signifieth such a singular grace, Ephes. 5. it partaketh of the grace whereof it is the sign. Yea but you allow Marriage in all kind of men? what? Even in those, Math. 19 who have gelded themselves for the kingdom of heaven? For they only who make the vow of chastity, can justly be said to geld themselves for the kingdom of heaven. Who geld themselves for the Kingdom of heaven. For he that abstaineth from Marriage without any vow, he is not yet gelded, sithence he may lawfully marry. But whoso hath gelded himself for the kingdom of heaven, is meant to be no more able to marry by the right of God's law, and in very conscience, them he is able by the course of nature to have a child, who either is borne, or by force is made an Eunuch. For these three kinds of eunuchs Christ doth compare together, Math. 19 expressly giving us to understand, that it is both praise worthy to vow chastity, and when it is once vowed, that by Gods own law there is no more possibility to return to the use of marriage, than it is possible for a gelded man to be restored again to that which he lacketh. By these few examples it may appear, that you have no manner of thing praise worthy, which we lack, whereas we have a great number of things both good and laudable, What things the protestāns lack. and (many of them) very necessary, all which you lack. You have no insufflations, no exorcism, no holy oil in baptism, no holy Chrism in bishoping, no external priesthood, no public sacrifice, no altars, no censing, no lights at your service, no Images in your Churches, no adoration, no reservation of Christ's body, no eremites, no Mūk● no virgins vealed and consecrated, no unwritten traditions, no communion with Saints, or with faithful souls, by praying to the one, or for the other, no Stations, no pilgrimages, no confession of sins to the priest, no forgiveness by the priest, no temporal satisfaction enjoined, nor the same remitted by pardon, no holy water, no holy vestments, no Relics of Martyrs, no extreme unction, no place of purgatory where their sins may be released after this life, who died in charity, but yet not without the det of temporal purgation. You say falsely) that all these things are nought: Galat. 1. praeterquam quod accepistis. but once we received them of our ancestors, and we justify them by God's word, and by the books of the ancient Fathers. If we ourselves had once had other things, and so had cast away those other and taken these (as you have taken, Note. upon your own heads) naked tables in stead of adorned altars, praying toward the south in stead of praying toward the East marriage of priests in stead of chastity, vulgar tongues in stead of holy and learned, the sacrifice of praising God by bare words, in stead of Mass which praised him by the consecration of Christ's own body with other like matters) then in deed there had been cause, why we might have feared our own deeds and inventions. But seeing we made no new religion, but keep the old: Philip 2. humility, obedience, and the keeping of unity is our fault, if we have any. Of such faults I believe noman shall give account but rather of pride, Rom. 1. 2. Cor 3. Galat. 5. of disobedience, of breaking unity, of making schisms, and of troubling the Church. Neither can it be justly replied of you that you do toward us in changing our religion, Dissimile. as Christ and the Apostles did toward the jewish synagogue. For Christ changed his own Religion (whereof himself was Lord) and not only theirs. But Luther is not that toward Christ, which Christ was toward Moses, neither hath Calvin that power to alter the state of Christ's Church, which Christ had to alter the Law. It must be understanded that in all Religions there is a law, which prescri●eth in what manner God shallbe served. The chief point of God's service consists ●n public Sacrifice. The Sacrifice dependeth of the Priesthood: for of whatsoever order the priest is, there after he maketh his sacrifice, whereupon S. Paul said: Heb. 7. The priesthood being transferred (or changed) it must needs be, ●hat the law be transferred or changed also. Now from Adam till Christ, ●here was in deed an increase of outward Sacraments and Ceremonies in diverse ages. But there was no change ●t all of the solemn and public Sacrifice. Genes. 14. For albeit Melchisedech ●rought forth his unbloody oblation, and blessed Abraham, yet it was done ●o show afore hand, after what sort Christ should make sacrifice in his supper, and not to abrogate the order and kind of bloody Sacrifices, Gene. 4.8 & 17. for they continued still, as Abel had begun with them. Likewise the Altars remained in use, as Noah had erected them. circumcision was kept with the law. And the law with the Temple of Solomon So that from the beginning of the world till Christ there was increasing of Ceremonies, but no taking away, no changing, no new making or altering of the public sacrifice. For the change thereof is of such importance, that God would his own Son to take flesh for the working of such a weighty matter, to th'end all men should understand, that God reserveth to his own self the appointment of the Religion wherewith he willbe served. And the Religion (as I showed before) consisteth chief in the public sacrifice and priesthood. Heb. 7. Psal. 109. Christ therefore being a priest after the order of Melchisedech, when he had proved his commission from God the Father by diverse notable miracles, Math. 26. in his last supper took bread and wine accordingly as Melchisedech had foreshown in a figure. He blessed brake, Genes. 14. and gave saying, take, eat, this is my body which is given for you, Luc. 22. do (or make) this thing for the remembrance of me. Facite. By which words the Apostles (and their successors in priesthood) have commission to make of bread and wine the body and blood of Christ even till the worlds end. Hiero. ad Heliodorum 1. Cor. 11. This then is the public and external sacrifice of the new testament, Ireneus li. 4. c. 32. August. in Psal. 33. Con. 1. De civit. Dei li. 17. c. 20 Cont. advers. legis lib. 1. c. 18. the which Sacrifice (saith S. Augustine) is now spread in the whole circuit of the earth, and, it is come in place (saith he) of all the sacrifices of the old testament, and is the Sacrifice of the Church. And all the world doth know, that both the Greek and Latin Church hath ever used this blessed mystery, as the Sacrifice prophesied of by Malachy and belonging peculiarly to the Christian people gathered out of all nations. Malac. 1. Now to think, that Luter and Calvin have power to alter and abrogate this public sacrifice (called now the Mass) it is to think, that Luther and Calvin are the same toward Christ, which Christ was toward Moses. For that is it which Christ meaneth saying: False Christ's. Math. 24 False Prophets, and false Christ's shall arise. Verily, because some shall come, who will arrogate that to themselves, which no creature can do beside Christ the Son of God, whose proper office and honour it is, to be of power to change the state and order of the public priesthood and sacrifice in God's Church. Idolatries. They then are idolaters, who supposing Luther and Calvin to be able to abrogate the former sacrifice and manner of service, and to set up a new form of public prayer, do therein make them to be fellows with Christ himself. But certainly they are false brethren and false Christ's. And whereas the Protestants pretend, that Lu●●er and Calvin do all things according to God's word (to omit now, that the one of them teacheth clean contrary doctrine to the other) they are so much the more to be abhorred: for as Christ in very truth in changing the Law fulfilled the old figures and the old prophecies even so they (taking Christ's power upon them) pretend falsely by changing Religion, Math. 5. to have their doings figured and prophesied of in the Gospel. But if there can be but one Christ, and he can be but once borne, and died but once: be ye assured, these men have no power to abrogate the Mass, or to take away the key of our ancient Religion. If any man say that our Mass is not that in deed, which we say it is: I answer, that as we never read the jewish Priests to have erred, concerning the substance of their public Sacrifice (because all the people Exod. 23. were bound to frequent it by Gods own commandment) so it is much less possible that the universal Church of Christ should err in that public act, wherein Christ himself (saith S. Cyprian) is the Sacrifice. Li. 2. epi. 3 in Sacrificio quod Christus est. Math. 28. No no masters, Antichrists ye may be, Christ ye can not be. He is with his Apostles (and their successors the bishops) all days until the world's end. This being so, reason would that all novelties laid a side, men should return to the old faith, and Church again. Whereunto if I am so bold as to exhort you, M. D. Parker, before all other, I trust you will not take it in evil part. For as my exhortation cometh of my well wishing to your worship, so I consider no Ecclesiastical person in all our Country is able to do more good in that behalf than you. Consider then for God's love in whose chair you sit, consider whence the first Bishop came who sat there, yea ●●rther consider what all your prede●ssours taught, only one excepted, of whom all good and zealous men must ●eedes be ashamed, Cranmer as who at the en●ing into his bishopric was wilfully forsworn to the Pope of Rome. It appeareth so by his Catechism. And afterwards changed his religion from Lu●heranisme, to the Sacramentary here●ie: And a little before his death, for a ●ew hours of temporal life sold his ●oore faith twice a day. Neither was he otherwise a wit●esse of your doctrine, than that desperation made him pretend to suffer that for religion, which he must needs suffer though he had changed his religion. That one desperate man then excepted who seemeth to have been of no religion) ●l your predecessors were of our faith. What speak I of your predecessors? All ●he bishops of the realm, yea all of the whole world were of the same belief with us, as it may right well appear, for ●hat all the Catholics in the world communicated with S. Gregory as wit● the best man, the greatest Doctor, the highest Bishop that lived in those days. Beda in histor. eccle. Gentis An glorum. Now S. Gregory sent S. Augustine to our Ancestors, from whos● time till the change which began a late all Christian men are known to hau● believed and professed that, which we do presently defend. If this holy fellowship be not that Catholic and Apostolic Church which i● all times and countries professed Christ's Gospel then go into the desert after wickliff and Hus go into the corners and privy inmost places of the house after the poor men of Lions. In deserto In penetralibus. And then for the space of certain hundred years together, ye can not name, what preachers or pastors your Church had. But thus to flee into privi places, and to lack open preachers, Math. 24 is directly against the word of God, prover. 8. and expressly against the commamment of our Saviour, Isai. 62. whose wisdom crieth in the tops of the ways and in the gates of the cities, whose whatchmē●ease not to speak both day and ●ight upon the walls of jerusalem, in whose house the candle standeth upon the candlestick to give light to all men, Math. 5. whose faith must be confessed with the mouth, Rom 10. & 1. Philip. 2. Psal. 44. whose gospel must not be blushed at, whose servants shine like stars, whose spouse being most beautiful through internal faith and charity, Circumamicta varietatibus is yet garnished about with variety of divers tongues which are daily heard to preach, and ceremonies, which are daily seen in God's service among the catholics. Memor ero nominis. Populi confitebuntur in aeternum. Which spouse also hath promised to be mindful of the name of Christ from generation to generation, in so much that, many people shall confess and give praise to God for ever age after age. If such a glorious, a manifest and a beautiful Church must be believed, then must wickliff, Hus, and their fellows be avoided, and our known, manifest, and in all generations most glorious Church must be embrace which never lacked a chief bishop i● S. Peter's chair with a number of bishops, and faithful nations obeying h● doctrine and government. The truth 〈◊〉 which Catholic Church and chair th● I might the more effectally persuade, The cause of this treatise. 〈◊〉 have taken in hand to prove the Supremacy of the bishop of Rome according to the reason and meaning o● God's word. The which point alone if i● be granted, all other controversies ar● superfluous. For all is concluded under one, if one be appointed the chief shepherd by God over all sithence every man must hear and obey the shepherds voice. joan. 10. I request most humbly of your patience to read, or to hear the whole treatise readen (which is not long) and not to condemn the matter before it be well understanded. If my discourse be doubtful, I am ready to make it plain. If it seem to fail in proof, a charitable answer made unto it shall show by the ●ply how strong the Arguments generally be, concerning the chief points. Thus taking my leave I wish as well 〈◊〉 your worship as I do to myself, beseeching you not to miscontrue my doings, ●ut to take them so charitably, as they ●re meant. For God is my witness, the ●hing I seek, is as well the reducing of ●hem to their Mother Church who are ●on a stray, as the staying of them who through man's frailty begin to doubt of their faith. Which effects God grant through jesus Christ our Lord to his own glory. Amen. The chapters of the Treatise following. 1 The state of the question. fol. 1. 2 That there is a primacy of spiritual government in the Church, and how it differreth from secular government. 16. 3 Of the diverse senses of these words, upon this rock I will build my Church. and which is most literal. 93. 4 These words (thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church) have this literal meaning, upon thee, o Peter, being made a rock, to th'end thou shouldest stoutly confess the faith, I will build my Church. 108. 5 The Fathers teach, that S. Peter is this rock. 136. 6 The reasons which the Fathers bring to declare why S. Peter was this rock. 155 7 The authorities alleged by M. jewel to prove, that S. Peter was not this rock, prove against himself. 171. 8 The conclusion of the former discourse and the order of the other which followeth. 189. 9 That S. Peter passeth far the other Apostles in some kind of Ecclesiastical dignity. 194. 10 That the Apostles beside the prerogative of their Apostleship, had also authority to be particular bishops. 204. ●● How far S. Peter did either excel, or ●s equal with the Apostles, in their A●stolike office. 2●0. ●● That S. Peter's prerogative above the ●her Apostles is most manifestly seen by ●s chief bishoply power. 232. ●● That the Pastoral authority of S. Pe●r was ordinary. 267. ●● That his ordinary authority belongeth to one bishop alone 279 ●● That the bishop of Rome is that one ●dinary pastor who succeedeth in S. ●e●rs chair. 305. ●● That the good Emperors and prints, did never think themselves supreme ●eads of the Church in spiritual causes. 378. ●● That the bishop of Rome is not An●christ himself. 421. ●8 That the bishop of Rome is not any ●ember of Antichrist, concerning his doctrine. 464. THE STATE OF THE QUESTION CONCERning the Supremacy of S. Peter, and of the Bishops of Rome after him. The First Chapter. IN writing to and fro, concerning the Supremacy of S. Peter and of the Bishops of Rome after him, great controversies are fallen out, the which to th'end they may be the better opened, I thought good to propose in order, the chief points of the said question. The Catholics believe, that the Bishop of Rome, sitting in S. Peter's chair is, by the appointment of Christ himself, the chief Pastor of the whole militant Church, whose voice every sheep ought to hearken unto. The Protestants on the other side deny, not only the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, nor only the Supremacy of S. Peter: but also they affirm, that there is no Primacy, nor any one chief government in the Church at al. Therefore the first Question must be, whether it be against ●he Word of God or no, that there should be in his Church any Primacy or chief Authority. The second is, whether S. Peter had the said Primacy, or no. The third, whether the Bishop of Rome had it after S. Peter. Concerning S. Peter, we fall again into divers new questions, as it shall now appear. When Simon the son of jona was first brought unto Christ by his brother Andrew, jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of jona, joan. 1. thou shalt be called Cephas, the which by interpretation is Peter, that is to say, a stone or a rock. Here is the promise made, that Simon shallbe called Peter, which name is derived of a rock or stone. verily, because he shall occupy that place in upholding the frame of Christ's militant Church, the which a stone occupieth in holding up the house which is built upon it. And when it pleased Christ to choose unto him his twelve Apostles, than he gave the said name unto Simon, surnaming him, Peter. Thirdly, Mar. 3. Luc. 6. when Simon having the Godhead of Christ revealed to him from heaven, had confessed the same, saying: Math. 16. Thou art Christ the son of the living God: then jesus answering, said unto him (alluding to his new name, joan. 21. and showing the reason thereof) And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And to thee I will give the Keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon the earth, it shallbe bound also in the heavens: And whatsoever thou shalt lose upon the earth, it shalls be loosed also in the heavens. By these words both the promise of Christ was fufilled, and the reason of the promise was also declared, concerning the new name, which was before spoken of. Neither do our adversaries deny these points, as I suppose. But the Catholics reason farther upon this place, in this wise: The name of Peter, which is derived of a rock or of a stone, was no sooner given to Simon, but also a new promise was made, Math. 16. that upon this Rock Christ would build his Church. Now the Catholics do say, that Peter himself is here called this rock, and that Christ promised to build his Church upon him. And because the building of Christ's church varieth not after his Gospel once planted, but is always like itself, the Catholics believe and teach, that when S. Peter died, a● other did succeed in his place, upon whom Christ's militant Church might be still so builded, as it had been once builded upon S. Peter. And for as much as the Bishop of Rome succeedeth S. Peter, the Catholics most constantly affirm, that the Bishop of Rome, who liveth for the time, is the rock which confesseth evermore Christ's true faith, upon which confession of the See of Rome, as upon a most sure Rock Christ's Church is built. The Protestant's being at a point to deny this later assertion, must needs affirm, that Peter himself is not called this Rock, but rather that either Christ alone, or the faith which Peter confesseth, is only called this rock. This sense is imperfect, but not false. So that they will have these words (upon this rock I will build my Church) to be only thus meant, upon this faith and confession of thine, wherein thou hast said to me (thou art Christ the son of the living God) upon this Rock, which I am, or upon this strong faith, which is confessed of me, I will build my Church: and wheresoever this faith is, there (say they) is the rock, upon which Christ buildeth his Church. The Catholics reply, that although the faith and confession of Christ's Godhead be in deed a most strong rock, whereupon the Church is built, yet that is not all which Christ meaneth at this time. For these words (Thou art Peter, and upon this rock, I will build my Church) have a respect unto three divers times: to the time passed (because they are spoken to him, who was promised to be called Peter) to the present time (because they are spoken to him, who now confesseth Christ's Godhead) to the time to come (because they are spoken to him, to whom Christ saith, he will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and upon whom he will hereafter build his Church) which thing he performed, when he said: Peter lovest thou me more than these? joan. 21. ●eede my sheep. For Christ's sheep ●re Christ's Church: And to be made ●he shepherd of them, is to have Christ's Church built upon him. And ●o be Peter, is to be this Rock. Solemus videre pastores sedere ●upra petram, & inde commissa ●ibi pecora custodire. We are want (saith S. Augustine) to see shepherds sit upon a rock, August in Io. tract. 46. and thence to keep the sheep committed to their charge. Thus we see, how well the Metaphor of the Rock doth agree with the Metaphor of feeding sheep. Therefore these words, upon this rock I will build my Church, are perfectly fulfilled, when it is said to Peter who is this Roke, feed my sheep. Now whereas this Proposition, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, is thus qualified with the person to whom it is spoken, and with the diversity of three several times, The sense of the protestāns lacketh three conditions of four. to take one part of these four away from all the other conditions, whereunto it belongeth, and to say, that the confession of Peter alone is the rock whereupon Christ will build his church, and thereby to deny Peter himself who maketh that confession, to be this rock, and to divide the confession from the promise going before, (which first of all wrought the effect thereof) and from the last fulfilling which ensued after: it is in deed a truth (for so much as is affirmed therein) but in respect of that which is denied, it is a main falsehood. The whole sense. But the Catholics (giving the whole sense of Christ's words, as they ought, and not diminisshing any part thereof) do teach, that, this Rock where upon Christ built his Church, is S. Peter, not barely and nakedly considered, but with ●spect of the promise past, of the pre●nt confession, and of the authority ●f feeding Christ's sheep which then ●as to come. And so, no man (be he never so faithful) is this rock whereupon Christ ●ath built his Church, except he be lawfully called to succeed in the authority and pastoral office of S. Peter. This thing than remaineth to be pro●ed in his due place. The Catholics teach also, joan. 2● that ●t was said to Peter alone, feed my sheep. And seeing no particular ●locke was named, it must needs be meant, that the whole flock, which for the time lived on the earth, was committed to Peter, even above all other, according as he loved Christ more than other. And for as much as the order of governing Christ's Church, which himself appointed, may not afterward be changed by man's invention, it ensueth, that always one chief shepherd must be made, who may feed the whole militant flock of Christ's sheep in earth above all other pastors, as Peter on●● did feed them above all, concerning the principal power which he received of Christ. Hereunto the Protestants reply, that Peter alone was not made the shephead of Christ's flock above al● others: but that in him Christ spoke to all the Apostles. The Catholics demand why the● Peter alone is spoken unto, and willed to feed Christ's sheep, in the presence of certain other Apostles, to none of whom Christ speaketh any thing thereof at this time? The Protestants answer, that every Apostle was made a pastor no less than Peter. Calvin and Beza in joan. cap. 21. But that he was namely spoken unto at this time, as one who had lost his office of Apostleship by denying his Master, and therefore as he denied thrice, so he was commanded thrice to ●●d Christ's sheep, to th' end he should ●ow that his fault is now forgiven, and ●●t he is restored to his Apostleship ●aine, so that he may feed Christ's ●●eep as well as Andrew or john, and ●●th no greater power than they. This answer is utterly false for three ●ses. First because Simon Peter had ●t lost his Apostleship by denying his Master. For although the fault see●eth to some men (who are cruel Iud●●s over the Apostles) worthy of de●adation: yet for somuch as the same ●as neither externally proved nor con●●ssed in judgement, nor stubbornly ●●fended, but rather was graciously ●rged by tears, it was verily forge●●n through mercy, before it came to 〈◊〉 punished by justice. In so much that ●tatus writeth thus: Lib. 7. de schiss. Petrus ter so●s negavit, & tamen bono vnita●s de numero Apostolorum sepa●ri non meruit. Peter alone denied thrice, and yet for the bene● of unity he deserved not to be separated from the number of t●● Apostles. Moreover if S. Peter b● once lost his Apostleship, yet before th● time he had been restored again the●● unto. For Christ after his resurrection entered into the place where his disciples were (the doors being shut) a● stood in the midst, and said, Pea●● unto you, As my father hath se● me, joan. 20. and I send you. When he had s● these things, he breathed, and said then: take ye the holy Ghost, who sins soever ye shall forgive, th● are forgiven them: and whose 〈◊〉 ever ye shall retain, they are retained. Now seeing it can not be denied, but that S. Peter was then present (for only Thomas is noted to have be●● absent from the disciples at that time● surely though Peter had lost once h● Apostleship, he had been restored befor● this time, and had been sent with Chr●ste● ●anctoritie, no less than any other ●●●stle. So that it was not needful for 〈◊〉 restoring of him to his Apostleship, ●t Christ should now say to him alone, ●●d my lambs, feed my sheep. But ra●●●r he being before equal with any ●●er of the Apostles by the commission of ●●ding and losing sins, of praeching, or ●ny like authority given before, was 〈◊〉 alone principally willed to feed Chri●●s sheep, and Christ's lambs, in such ●t, as no other Apostle was. Last of all, ●●mit, Peter had not been restored to 〈◊〉 Apostleship before this time: yet he ●●d been now restored to a greater au●●oritie, than any other Apostle had revived at any time. So that every way ●eter in th'end remaineth with the ●●eatest power. Against this my assertionate Protestants cry, that all th' Apostles ●●ere equal, and that john was the same ●hing which Peter was, Cyprian. de unit. Ecclesia. which thing S. Hieron, and S. Cyprian (say they) do witness ●nd the very practice of the Apostles, in so much that Paul, who was 〈◊〉 of the twelve, yet with stood S. Pet●● and reproved him. Our answer to this matter is, that Peter was not only an Apostle 〈◊〉 which office of Apostleship during ●ly for their lives, all the other were 〈◊〉 equals) but also both chief of the Apostles, and also an ordinary chief shepherd, or high bishop, wherein t●● were all inferiors to him, as being 〈◊〉 Apostles and Bishops under S. Pe●●● their chief Apostle and chief Bish●● their Primate and their head. T●● which my distinction shallbe exac●● proved by God's grace hereafter. 〈◊〉 thereto concerning S. Peter. More over, some men are so w●ful, that although they are driven 〈◊〉 confess, that S. Peter himself w● this rock, and chief pastor, upon who●● assured faith the militant Church w● once built, yet they will have no 〈◊〉 Bishop to be the same after him. Wherefore I have to prove, that both one Bishop for the time should have continu● the same pastoral power which S. ●●ter once had, and that the same is ●ne other beside the Bishop of Rome. 〈◊〉 Which point being once declared, it ●ill the better appear, what a blasphe●● it is unto Christ, to burden his Vi●●e in earth with the name and tyrannical power of that foul beast Anti●●rist: Who i● near to antichrist Whereas it shallbe right well pro●●d, that the Protestants of our time ●ome much near to the nature and condition of Antichrist, than any Pope of Rome ever did or can do. That there is a certain Primacy of spiritual government in the Church 〈◊〉 Christ (though not properly a lord●nes or heathenish dominion) An● what sort this Ecclesiastical Prim●●● differeth from the lordly gouern●●●● of secular Princes, and how it is pr●●sed by the Bishop of Rome. The. II. Chap. NO man properly can be Lo●● among the Christians, where are servants indifferently v●der the obedience of one true Lord 〈◊〉 Master jesus Christ, Math. 23. ●. Pet. 1. who hath crea●● them of nothing, and hath redem● them with his own blood. Whe●● upon our Saviour Christ said: Luce. 22. T●● Kings of the Nations have dominion over them, but you not so. Again he saith: Math. 20. The Prince's 〈◊〉 the nations have dominion ou● them. It shall not be so amon● you. 1. Pet. 5. And S. Peter did forbid 〈◊〉 fellow Priests, to usurp any domini●● over the Clergy: but he commaund● ●hem, to be an example and pattern of ●he flock. Upon which places we ●ay conclude, that Lordly dominion 〈◊〉 forbidden in the Church of Christ, ●ut not likewise all Ecclesiastical Pri●acie. For Dominion is properly the power ●f life and death upon slaves or bondmen, Dominion Math. 23. whereas we (in this spiritual government and kingdom of Christ) are ●ot servants one to the other, but brethren. But a kind of primacy is found ●uen among brethren. For whereas Ru●en had eleven brethren, Gen. 49. yet notwithstanding, his Father said of him. Reuben my first begotten, Thou ●rt my strength, and the beginning of my grief. The more excellent in gifts, and greater in ●ower. For Reuben should have ●ad received both the Priesthood and ●he Superiority over his brethren, if ●e had not wickedly demeaned himself toward his own Father. Neither only among brethren, but even among fellow servants there is found a certain Superiority, which is nothing else but that power, which it pleaseth the chief Lord to give to some one of his servants over all the rest. For the Lord of the house (as the Scripture witnesseth by a parable) appointeth and setteth a wise and faithful servant over his family, Math. 24. that he may give them meat in due time. To be appointed and set over a family, is to be chief in the family. And to be chief in the family, is to have the chiefdom, superiority and primacy in the family. Wherefore seeing our Saviour Christ (so farforth as concerneth his visible presence) taking a journey into a far Country which is heaven, hath like a wise Lord appointed and set one of his servants over his family, that is to say, over his Church, Luc. 12. saying to him: Feed my sheep, meaning that he should give every man his due portion, joan. 21. and just measure of wheat or of other victuals in convenient time: that servant so appointed and made ruler over this Militant Church, hath a certain primacy in consideration and respect of them, over whom he is made Primate and chief governor: albeit when we consider the majesty of our Master Christ, the very Primate still continueth altogether a suppliant and an humble servitor to him. As for other who under the chief ruler have the charge of particular parishes and Churches committed unto them, they have also in the same degree and sort, a certain Superiority, which S. Hierom calleth Exortem quandam & eminentem potestatem, In Dial. contra Luciferanos. a certain peerless and high power. If he be a Parish Priest, he is above any other in that parish. If he be a Bishop, he is above any other in that Diocese. Of such Rulers S. Paul saith: Obedite Prepositis vestris. Obey them who are set over you. Now it is to be known, that in any one parish, or in any one diocese, there never was but one ruler at once ordinarily. For thence come heresies and schisms (saith S. Cyprian) because one Priest in the Church for the time, Ad Cornel. Ep. 3. Lib. 1. and one judge in Christ's stead is not thought to be. If then the whole militant Church be also one certain particular body of a certain particular administration and condition (in respect of the triumphant Church, which is otherwise guided in heaven) it must needs follow, that over the whole militant house of God, one only master and governor is set, whom we all aught to obey as our chief ruler in earth. And so by the superiority, which experience showeth to belong to one in every parish, we come by the force of the same reason, to acknowledge one chief Postour in the great parish of this world. of which kind S. Peter was, whiles he lived. And that may well be perceived by the Gospel itself. For seeing the Evangelist S. Matthew repeating the names of the twelve Apostles, saith: Primus, Cap. 10. Simon qui dicitur Petrus, the first is Simon, who is called Peter, and afterwards reckoneth none neither second, nor third, nor fourth, undoubtedly by calling Peter (Primum) first, he meaneth that he was the first in dignity, and the chiefest among the Apostles, and that all the rest afterwards were to be equally esteemed. For, to be first where none is put as Second or Third, is to be first not by order of numbering, but only by dignity and pre-eminence, in somuch that the Ancient Fathers express the force of this word, Primus, First, by calling S. Peter the Prince or chief of the Apostles. And certes, where there is any in the Church of God, first in dignity, and chief in pre-eminence, there must needs be some primacy. Besides, if the Bishop of the old law was called in those days, Exod. 22. Princeps populi, The Prince of the people, and if S. Paul honoured Ananias with that name, even after the death of Christ, saying: Actor. 23. It is written, Thou shalt not curse (or revile) the Prince of thy people, how much more ought he both to be called, and to be also believed to be the chief governor and Prince of all Christian people, whom Christ hath appointed, and set over his family, joan. 21. saying: Feed my sheep? Only he must be circumspect, that he turn not his primacy into a tyranny, as the Gentiles and Princes of the world do. How be it, this also is to be considered, that neither the Prophets, nor the Evangelists are wont to be so careful of words, as of the sense and things themselves. Whereby it cometh to pass sometimes, that they give the name of God to such men as have by participation any divine or godly thing in them, as to judges, Exod. 22. Psal. 81. joan. 10. and to whom God vouchsafeth to speak. By like means it may be verified, that some Ecclesiastical persons have a certain dominion, in that respect verily, that by participation they receive a divine and heavenly thing that is to say, that power which Christ their liege Lord and natural Sovereign endued them withal, when he made them governors of his family. For among the holy orders of Angels, in like manner there is reckoned one, which is called of S. Paul Dominationes, Dominations, Coloss. 1. not because they have any dominion or sovereignty over other Angels (as servants in subjection unto them) because they receive that virtue and power of God (the only true Lord) which it pleaseth his Majesty to have annexed to that order, thereby to give forth some token and show of his infinite Lordship and power. Wherefore if some man not thinking peradventure of these controversies, nor weighing rather the thing then the bare word, hath at any time expressed the primacy of the Church, Dominus Lord, standeth sometime for Sir. with this word Dominion, or if any man do call a Bishop by the name of Lord we ought not for any such respect to make an, as though any proper or true dominion were challenged in the Church, of one towards an other. For as touching that which is properly called Dominion, we defend it not. But that there is a primacy in the Church that is the thing which we defend. The which Ecclesiastical primacy although it may evidently appear by that which is already said, yet it shall not be out of the way, to consider how one of those places which are alleged of our Adversaries, as if it did utterly forbid 〈◊〉 Superiority among the disciples, Luc. 22. ●●th clearly establish and confirm the ●●me. For whereas often times there ●ll a strife between the Disciples, ●ho should be the greater, once 〈◊〉 the way to Capharnaum: Marc. ●. an other ●●me when the Mother of the sons ●f zebedee desired that one of her children might sit at Christ's right and, and the other at his left hand: Marc. 10. And the third time, Luc. 22. after his last ●upper: albeit Christ always did dehort ●hem from expectation of that heathenish kind of dominion, which was used ●n the world, and always invited ●hem to humility, yet he never denied, ●ut that there should be one in deed greater among them, and he oftentimes signified, that the same should be ●. Peter, and that as well when he chose ●im to be the first Apostle, as when ●e said, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church and to thee I will give the kei● of heaven, Math. 16. & 17. and pay for thee an● me. If then you demand, how it happened, that this notwithstanding, th'Apostles strived who should be greater, 〈◊〉 that even after supper, when it had be● already said, Upon this rock I w●● build my Church: I answer, that, notwithstanding S. Peter was most like 〈◊〉 be preferred, yet whiles Christ lived i● the earth, it was in his free choice t● have appointed it otherwise. An● when the Apostles saw either S. Pete● called Satanas, Math. 16. Origen. in Math. tractat. 5. Ne maior non esset Petrus. Math. 20. Luc. 22. joan 13. that is an adversary, 〈◊〉 any special favour showed to any other man beside S. Peter so oft they doubte● (as Origenes also witnesseth) lest perhaps Peter should not be the greater as namely, when they saw the mother of the sons of zebedee entreating f●● her Children, and likewise when the● saw S. john at his last supper to lea●● upon his breast. Moreover being not yet repleni●ed with the spirit of Christ, it may ●el be, that although they believed S. ●eter should be the chief pastor, yet ●●ey might look for an other to be made ●e chief governor in secular causes. But when once Christ had said to ●●m a little before his ascension, Simō●●e son of jona dost thou love ●e more than these? joan. 21. Feed my ●●mbs, feed my sheep: after that ●●me all strife ceased, and Peter had the superiority established to him by all their ●●nfession. Yea the same question was in manner ended between Christ's last supper and ●is death, though not so plainly and expressly as afterward. For after his ●ast supper, Luc. 22. when they strived who ●ight seem to be greater, Christ having ●hewed, that some one of them was greater, ended his talk at the last with ●imon Peter, showing him to be that one. The which words of Chri●● rehearsed by S. Luke, that they m●● be made the plainer, I will compa●● them with the words of S. M●thew and S. Mark, spoken at an other time. And that I do, because all the places are huddled up by the Protestā● as if they were one and the same, In centur. Magdeburg. whereas they differ much. Math. 20. Marc. 10. S. Matthew and S. Mark rec●● only that Christ said to the Apostles (when they disdained at the son of zebedee) Whosoever among yo● willbe greater, let him be your servitor. And who so ever amon● you will be first, shallbe your servant. In which words we may consider two things: the first is, that if an● man will be greater, he is permitte● to be so, if yet he will keep the condition which followeth, verily to be 〈◊〉 servant to all the Disciples. For th● lowliness of spirit is the way to this tr●● greatness, whereof Christ now speaketh. And this kind of greatness may 〈◊〉 in those who are no Ecclesiastical ●●ficers at all. Because it consisteth 〈◊〉 the inward mind rather, then in ●●e outward power. But S. Luke witnesseth Christ to ●●ue said moreover: Luc. 22. Qui maior est 〈◊〉 vobis, fiat sicut minor, & qui ●●aecessor est, sicut ministrator. ●●e that is the greater among you, let ●●m be made as the younger, and he ●●at is the chief (or guide) as he that ministereth. In which words it appeareth evidently, there was one certain ●an greater than the other among ●●e Disciples. For whereas S. Ma●hew, and S. Mark speak indefinitely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ●ho so ever will be great, S. Luke ●aith not generally, who so ever wil●e great, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the greater among you. So that we find six differences between the woor● in S. Luke, Six differences. and those in the other E●gelists. For the other speak of any ma● whosoever he be. S. Luke of o● certain man, who by the article, is, as it were, pointed unto. For 〈◊〉 said article doth determinately she● some one a part from the rest. The other speak of a certain des●● to be great. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Who 〈◊〉 would, or coveteth to be great. 〈◊〉 Luke speaketh of the effect already present, for the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is to 〈◊〉 supplied to these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the which causeth the sense to be, H● that is the greater, and not he th● would be, or coveteth to be great. Thirdly, the other do speak (according to the Greek copies) of him th●● would be, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, great, and n● of him that is greater. S. Luke of hi● that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, greater among th● Apostles, and according to the greeks ●●ase (where the comparative stan●●●h for the Superlative) it is meant, ●hat is greatest among them all. ●al which differences, whereas in S. matthew and Mark, Christ only showeth humility to be the way to greatness in 〈◊〉 sight: in S. Luke he teacheth one ●●●tain man who is already greater, and ●●atest among them, to be made humble. 〈◊〉 For in S. Matthew and S. Mark, ●●e Nominative case to, sit, and, erit, 〈◊〉 him be, or, he shall be, is he only, ●ho would be great, and not he that is ●eat. Let him who would be great, 〈◊〉 a servant, that by serving he may be ●me great. But in S. Luke it is said: ●et him that is already the more great, 〈◊〉 made as it were a younger. Certain●● this man who being already the grea●●r, must be made as the younger, is not ●eant to be only great already by the virtue of humility, or by inward righteousness, but rather by power and authority. For whereas the Apostles stri●● who should be greatest in power, 〈◊〉 not who should be greatest in humi●●tie, Christ by pronouncing one amo●● them to be greatest, and by exhort●● him to be made as though he were 〈◊〉 lest doth evidently show that he means one of them to be already great 〈◊〉 power, and that if he willbe in all poin● the greatest, he must add humilit●● of his mind to the authority of 〈◊〉 office, which he already hath, either by the right of promise, or else by empress' gift. And so the man, who 〈◊〉 spoken of in S. Luke, is already grea● in office and dignity, and now he mo●● afterward be made humble in min● and soul. He hath his greatness by commission, and being made hūmbl● he must receive a new kind of greatness by grace. Thus in the other twain there ar● three degrees. A man first woul● be great, secondly he must be humble ●●d thirdly he then only is great when 〈◊〉 is humble. In S. Luke the man 〈◊〉 first great (without declaration made ●hether he would be so or no) and se●ndly he must behave himself humbly. ●hich if he will not do, he looseth not ●●s former greatness, but only he leeseth that greatness which is gotten by humility. The fourth difference is, that wher●● in S. Matthew he that would be great, 〈◊〉 willed to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a servant, in S. ●uke no such name of service is given 〈◊〉 him that is the greater. But he is ●illed to be as the younger, or as the ●ast. By which name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ●inor, younger, it is given us to understand, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, mayor, is not ●nly meant the greater, but also the el●er. Nor yet only meant the elder in ●eares, but also the greater in power, ●nd elder in office. For whereas the contention was, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Quis eorum videretur esse maior, which of them should seem to be the greater, or the greatest, it is certain that they strived not, who should be elder in years (for that was out of their reach) but they strived who should be greater and elder in power and Authority. And Christ not denying at all, that some one was greater, but only prescribing him how he should use his greatness, biddeth him be made as the younger. That is to say, as the underling, although in deed he be the elder. By which name of younger, Christ alludeth to the custom of the children of a Patriarch, or of a high Priest, among the jews: Gen. 49. Where the elder brother was Prior in donis, & mayor in imperio for most in gifts, and greatest in rule. And consequently the younger brother was less than his elder brother. Whereby we understand, that whereas the Disciples were all brethren, there was among them, as it were, an elder brother, who was greater in rule and foremost in gifts, who was S. Peter, Math, 10. as we read in S. Matthew: Primus Simon, qui dicitur Petrus. The first is Simon, who is called Peter. To whom S. Ambrose saith in this wise: Qui lapsus es antequam fleers, In Lucae. Cap 22. postquam flevisti erectus es, ut alios regeres, quite ipsum antè non ●xeras. Thou which didst slide before thou didst weep, after thou hast wept, art set upright, that thou shouldest rule others, who before hadst not ruled thyself. Lo, Peter did rule others: and how could he do that, except he were set over them in such sort, as a ruler is over them whom he ruleth? For although th'end of the ruling were better then that which was used among the nations, yet it was a true ruling and government. The fifth difference is, that whereas in the other two Evangelists, it is absolutely said, let him be a minister and 〈◊〉 servant, in S. Luke it is said, with a great moderation, let him be made as the younger, and as he that ministereth. So that the greatness is absolute, but the ministery is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it were a ministery, being in deed more truly a greatness (concerning the power) than a ministery. Because it is a greatness by the power and nature of his office, but a ministery by the good and humble use of the same. The which good use if it lack, the power of the office is not the less, but the merit of the person is the less. How were it possible for the use of a thing to be prescribed to him, who had not the thing itself? How can he that is greater, be made as the younger, if in deed he be not greater? It is utterly to deny the express word of God, if any man say, that there was not one certain man greater among th' Apostles, who might be made as the younger. It is, I say, the plain contradictory of ●hat which Christ speaketh, and therefore the maintainer of that opinion is ●n Antichrist. Last of all, the greater man whom S. Luke speaketh of, is evidently na●ed a little after. For when Christ had brought an example of his own humility, as who had ministered to them sitting down at the table, and had showed, that because they had continued with him in his temptations, they should ●at and drink at his table in heaven, ●e said immediately unto S. Peter, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to sift you, as it were wheat, but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not. And thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren. What other thing is it for S. Peter to confirm his brethren, but to practise and excercise his greatness over them? For he that doth confirm other, is the greater, and they who are confirmed are thereby inferiors to him, who confirmeth them. Thus we understand, that without all question S. Luke doth witness Christ to have described one certain man to be presently the greatest among the Disciples, who is exhorted to be made as their minister, and in the end by name is called Simon, which was the forename of S. Peter. And seeing the Bishops of Rome do sit in his chair, they are likewise the greatest among all their brethren and fellow Bishops, and aught to be made a● ministers, or youngers, for the perfitt use of their greatness, which is before committed to them at their election to that office, whether they do afterward use it well or no. For the power which God giveth to man for the commodity of the whole Church, never dependeth upon the good use of that man, lest while he as a private man doth misuse his dignity, the whole Church (which is of greater re●●ect) be deprived of her profit and utility. Wherefore by all these reasons it ●ust needs follow, that there is a Supremacy among the Apostles themselves (as it shall be afterward more directly proved) and consequently, ●uch more among their Successors, who having less grace and humility, would sooner make schisms, if one were ●ot set over them, whom they might all acknowledge and obei as their chief pastor. In so much that S. Ambrose writing upon this place of S. Luke, In Cap. 22 Lucae. generally saith: Caveamus, ne in perditionem aliqua inter nos de praelatione possit esse contentio. Si enim contendebant Apostoli, non excusationi obtenditur, sed cautioni proponitur. Let us beware, lest any strife of preferment may be among us to our destruction. For if the Apostles did strive, it is not an excuse to be pretended for us, but it is set forth to make us beware, et ideo unadatur omnibus forma sententiae, v● non de praelatione iactantia sit, sed de humilitate contentio, eô ꝙ se Dominus proponit imitandum. And therefore one form of sentence is given to all, that they should not boast of their preferment or prelateship, but that they should strive to be humble. Because our Lord hath set forth himself to be followed. Here S. Ambrose denieth not but that one is preferred before an other, yea rather he confesseth it, for he could not forbid any man to boast of his prelateship, except he were a prelate. Only this is common to all, that even the Prelates ought to strive with their inferiors, in lowliness, because Christ who is Lord of all, did minister to his own disciples, ad became the lowest and most humble of all other. S. Bede upon this present place of S. Luke writeth thus. In forma humilitatis obtinenda Maiores & praecessores, id est, doctores Ecclesiae non minima discretione opus habent, ut & bonis in nullo se praefecerant, & cùm pravorum culpa exigit, potestatem protinus sui prioratus agnoscant, ne enim presidentis animus ad elationem potestatis suae delectatione rapiatur, rectè per quendam sapientem dicitur: Ducem te constituerunt, noli ex●olli, sed esto in illis quasi unus ex ●llis. In keeping the form of lowliness the greater and more chief, that is to say, the Doctors and the teachers of the Church, have need of no small discretion, that they neither prefer themselves in any thing before good men, and when the fault of evil men so requireth, that by and by they may acknowledge the power of their prelateshippe. The same words are in S. Gregory. li. 1. ep. 24 For to the end the mind of the Precedent might not be puffed up with pride through the delight light of his own power, it is well said by a certain wise man: They have made the a captain, be not proud, but be among them as one of them. All this talk of S. Bede presupposeth a prelatship in the Church: and requireth also, that it be practised when the faults of evil men provoke their Superior, to use his authority. The chief point of the whole disputation is, that the Ecclesiastical primacy doth in all points imitate and resemble (as much as it possibly may) the Primacy of Christ, Luc. 22. who setteth forth himself as a perfect example of a true primacy even in this place of S. Luke. Therefore who so ever denieth the Superiority of him, who is the greatest among the Apostles, to be a true primacy in his kind, is blasphemous against Christ himself. For after that it was said: He that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he that is chief, as he ●hat ministereth, Christ intending to ●hew that the primacy of the Apostles, ●ould by no reason be greater, than that ●f Christ was, but that it ought rather ●o follow and to be like unto it: whether 〈◊〉 saith he) is greater, he that sitteth ●oun, or he that ministereth? Is not ●e that sitteth down? But I am in ●he midst of you as he that ministereth: as if he said, seeing none of you ●ay reasonably covet to be otherwise ●he greatest, than I am, and yet I being incomparably the greatest, do behave myself like one that ministereth, much less the greatest among you, may desire ●o be great after any other sort. Therefore in such sort the Apostles and their Successors ought (for their degree) to be servants and ministers in their Primacy, as (for his degree) Christ was in his own primacy, who after that he had washed their feet, said unto them: Do ye know what I have done unto you? joan. 13. Ye call me Master and Lord, and therein you say well: for I am your Master and Lord in deed. Wherefore seeing I, being your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye ought to wash one an others feet. For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done. Verily verily I say unto you, the servant is not greater than his Master, nor the Apostle more worthy than he that sent him. If ye know these things, ye shall be blessed if ye do them. Christ therefore, whereas he was most truly Lord and Master, having the Primacy in all points, Coloss. 1. yet notwithstanding he was a minister among his disciples. And after the same sort (as S. Gregory testifieth) Petrus authore Deo sanctae Ecclesiae principatum tenens, L. 1. ep. 24 etc. Peter having the Primacy of the holy Church ●y God's commission, refuseth to ●e overmuch reverenced of Cor●elius who did well. Actor. 9 Actor. 5. But when ●e found out the fault of Ananias ●nd Saphyra, Mox quanta poten●●a super caeteros excrevisset ostē●it. He showed strait how far ●e was grown in power above the rest. Will any man deny Christ to be Prince ●nd Lord of all? No, I suppose. For Christ died and rose again, Rom. 14. to ●his end that he might be Lord ●oth of the quick and of the dead. If then he that is Lord of all, could notwithstanding be as a minister without loss of his lordship, how much more easily may he that is not properly a Lord, but a chief ruler among his bre●hern, being set rather over their faults then over the men, how much more may he be as a servant and minister in that Primacy and Authority of his, without any hindrance to his superiority? Which being true, their error or rather malice is discovered, who think, that none can be chief among the faithful Christians, because it is written: that he must be as a minister, that will be first or chief. See I pray you their wise discourse. Thus they reason. To be a ruler, and as a younger, a chief governor, An Objection. and as a minister, are contrary and repugnant one to an other. If that be true, how was Christ both a Lord and as one that ministered? The answer. A Master, and as it were a minister? A Lord by nature, a minister by subjection. It is not said, he that is the greater, let him be a servant, but: let him be as a minister. If it be so, that Christ being absolutely Lord of all, was also notwithstanding as a minister: how much more may the Apostles and their successors being not properly Lords in deed, but only for the time appointed rulers over Christ's family, be in that kind both governors, and as servants? Governors over them, who for their faults deserve the rod (as S. Paul speaketh) ●nd as servants in the midst of them who deserve praise. 1. Cor. 4. 1. Thess. 5. Governors in ●eed, and servants by humility, Governors in office, and servants in consideration of the good end and use of their office. But what need many words? Doth not every good shepherd both ●ule his flock, and serve his flock? Doth ●e not judge between the fat sheep and ●he lean? yes verily. Ezec. 34 And Christ ●ould have Bishops, even after the ex●mple of shepherds, to be both rulers ●uer men endued with reason, and also ●o serve them with their spiritual food. Now look by what reason one man (being as it were Aries Dux gregis, a ●am who guideth the flock, is chief ru●●r over many men being as it were sheep who follow him: by the same reason, the ●ery self same guide may (as it were a ●apitaine ram) be again in subjection to ●n other guide, as being his shepherd. Therefore as Bishops are governors over their particular flocks, and servitors unto them: so one superior Bishop is both governor over many Bishops (as his one flock) and also servant unto them al. How sententiously was it said of Pope Leo? Qu●se quibusdam sit esse prepositum non molest ferat aliquem sibi essepraelatum. Ep. 82. ad Anastasium Thessalon. He that knoweth himself to be set over some men, let him n●● disdain to have some man preferred before himself. An Objection. But some man will say: They th● bear rule and dominion even among the Gentiles, do serve their subjects, i● that they provide to keep out their enemies, to conserve peace, to make laws and to punish malefactors. Wherefore seeing they have such a dominion, as may be called a ministery and service, not only that dominion, which practiseth a tyrannical power, and hath confidence in his own force, is inhibited to the Apostles and tHeir successors, but also all kind of primacy. For ●he clergy must be altogether unlike to ●he temporal governors. To answer this objection, The answer. in very deed I doubt not, but the end of that dominion which is practised among the gentiles ought to be such, that it should have a special eye to thepreseruation of ●he common weal. Gene. 10. Nenroth. But because at the first beginning Kings and Princes of ●he earth had not that end either only or specially before their eyes, but desired that dominion, and practised it also because it was a pleasant and lordlike pleasure to be a prince, and because the most part of Princes are prone to the worst, therefore our saviour Christ considering that which was first, and which happeneth most oftentimes, forbiddeth his Apostles and bishops such a dominion and superiority as is used among the Princes of the earth, and not altogether such as ought to be among them. Therefore it is not lawful for us to desire any primacy for the primacies sake, but for the traivaile, labour, and end for which the primacy is ordained of Christ. 1. Tim. 3. For he that desireth the office of a bishop, desireth a good work, and not a vain honour. Again albeit it be true, that some worldly princes take the dominion and sovereignty upon them for the profit of the common weal, yet it is more that Christ requireth of his Apostles and Bishops, who are bound no● only to see unto the common weal, but to the Christian common weal, of which end no worldly princes could think, when Christ spoke those words, because no Princes of the earth had received the faith of Christ at that time. Wherefore that commandment was specially given to the Apostles, that they should direct their primacy and superiority to the public commodity of faithful men, and to the salvation of their souls, to edify withal, 2. Cor. ●. and not to destroy. furthermore, albeit the King be faithful and also virtuous for his own person, yet it is not the kingly, but the priestly power, which God chose from the beginning to rule his people withal. Rom. 13. For although by his almighty goodness he ordained the Royal power, and made the state of Kings to serve both his eternal purpose, and also the common weal, 1. Pet. 2. and willed even the faithful to obey them, as being sent of God, yet we read not, that the making of Kings over Gods own people at the first, came of God by the way of his merciful grace and election, but by the way of his angry permission, and just judgement, Gen. 10. Hieron. in quaest. Hebrai. in suffering thereby the pains of their great sins to fall upon them. So Nenrod that strong hunter (the first King that we read of) either usurped his kingdom by force, or was advanced to it by evil men, without the gracious appointment of God. And when the people of Israel rejecting the government of Samuel the priest, 1. Reg. 8. would needs have a King over them, God accounted himself to be rejected of them: doubtless not because it was a sinful thing to have a King, but because it was a great dishonour to God (who had appointed priests to govern) to have his government changed. And it was less profit for their souls to be ruled by a King, then by a priest. ●. Reg. 8. For albeit a priest may be also nought, (as the sons of Samuel were) yet he can never be so hurtful and slanderous to eternal salvation, as the King may be: partly because the state and (as the world hath ever misjudged it) the right and law of a King is to be secular and worldly, In 1. Reg. lib. 4. c. 2. in so much that S. Gregory said: ea quae in iure regio continentur ●itanda potius quàm imitanda praedicuntur, the things which are contained in the law that concerneth the Kings, are foretold rather that they ●ay be avoided, then followed (whereas ●he law and state of a priest is to be spiritual and godly, and therefore it is always a more perfect state and profession:) partly also because the making ●f a King had his beginning from the fact and consent of men, working only according to the law of nations (allowed in deed by God) whereas the instituting of priests came directly from God himself. And who doubteth but that it may be sooner abused which men by good reason ordained, then that which God above all course of reason, instituted by grace only? In so much that the jews being provided for by God himself of a spiritual government, did sin grievously and were forsaken of God concerning their act of choosing afterward a temporal King, who should be above their high priest, whereupon Saint Gregory saith: In 1. Reg. lib. 4. c. 1. Meritò se abiectum Dominus conqueritur, meritò regiam dignitatem concedit indignatus. Tanta quidem erat iniquitas postulantium, ut cum illud peterent, per quod à Deo recederent, ex Dei judicio permitti posset, prohiberi non posset. Our Lord did worthily lament himself to be abjected. He being offended, did justly grant the Royal dignity▪ so great was the iniquity of the desirers, that (when they desired that, whereby they should go from God) by the judgement of God it might be permitted, but prohibited it could not be. But on the other side the first institution of Priests came not to God's people by their own invention, but directly from God himself, Genes. 4. ●. 22. to whom, Abel, Noë, Abraham, Aaron and his successors served in that office, by ●●e gracious election of God, until ●hrist, fulfilling the figure of Melchi●●dech, instituted in his last supper ●●e order of priesthood, Lucae 22. according to ●he state of the new testament, ge●ing power to his Apostles to make, ●nd by that mean to offer mystically ●is own body and blood, witnessing ●hereby how much more he gave them ●ll manner of necessary or profitable ●ower over the Church his mystical ●odie. For if his priests be so great, that ●hey have taken power to make his twne body with their holy mouth (as Saint Hierom speaketh) shall ●ow any man disdain, Ad Euagrium. to be under ●hat order, which God hath so excellently honoured? This much may be said for the whole order of priesthood. But after that the Apostles were made Priests, he ordained Saint Peter the general pastor an● high bishop of his whole flock, and he did it with such protestation of lo●● and charity, that it must needs be confessed, even by the despisers of Christ institution, that there was never lightly any act done in this world by the s●● of God, with showing of greater lo●● toward mankind, then at what time h● himself in his own person appointed v● a pastor and shepherd. Now this pastor being thus greater than the rest, is not only primate i● a far other sort then the Kings of the unfaithful nations, but also in a f●● more excellent kind, than the Christian Kings are. For to what Christian King did Christ ever say, joan. 20. As my father sent me I send thee, Math. 16. or, upon this rock I will build mi● Church, joan. 21. or, dost thou love me more than these? fede my sheep▪ feed my lambs? And yet is a King above priests▪ yea above the high pastor of Christ's flock? he is so in deed with them, who make less account of Christ's heavenvly institution and Officer, then of him that was first made either by the necessity of worldly calamities to keep away a greater evil from the common weal, or else by the wanton and proud affection of earthly men, ambitiously affecting tyrannical power. Let no man think that I despise the authority of Kings (God forbidden) but they are a good thing brought in mercifully somewhere to stay violent injuries and robberies, and other where permitted of God for our just punishment, 2. Cor. 5. and not any like thing to that divine order of pastors, which Christ ordained purposely for our reconciliation to God the father, and for the avoiding of all just punishment otherwise deserved. It was a King (as Saint Gregory In 1. Reg. lib. 4. c. 1 noteth) who divided the ten tribes from the Church of God, and made those by the just punishment of God to be idolaters, who so greedily preferred his government before the government of the priests. And are not we now in the same case, who for greediness to reject the Vicar of Christ, are come to prefer the secular and temporal power before the spiritual? the body before the soul, and earth before heaven? In 1. Reg. lib. 4. c. 1. Nonnulli (saith Saint Gregory) in tantum dementiae malum proficiunt, ut commovere ipsum etiam statum Ecclesiastici culminis non vereantur. There are some who are come to so great madness, that they are not a feared to move (and trouble) even the state itself of the Ecclesiastical (top, or) highest dignity of the Church. And a little after. His autem qui vivebant sub spiritali regimine, Ibidem. Regem petere, quid aliud est, quàm eandem spiritalem praelationem in secula●m dominationem transfer ge●re? For those that did live under the spiritual government, to require a King, ●hat other thing is it, then to go a●out to transfer the same spiritual pre●teship (or government) into a temporal dominion? If any man would deeply weigh with himself, that God chose such a secret and extraordinary way to ●●ue mankind, that no creature ●ould worck it beside his own Almighty Son, and that he coming ●nto the world, was so far from working his purpose by Kings and princes, that whereas it was most easy for him to have made many Kings and Princes at the beginning to believe in him, 1. Cor. 1. he rather chose the weakest things of the world to confound the strong things, and wrought the beginning and increase of his Church by the misbelief and persecution of princes: if he would be thin● himself, how far the poverty and humility of the Kingdom of heaven 〈◊〉 from the pomp and worldly distracti●● of Kings (Yea though they be Christia● and good also) he would much wond●● what sense in holy matters they have who dare make that princely state supreme head of the Church, which of 〈◊〉 states came last to the faith, and the pomp whereof is most contrary (of a●● other degrees) to the profession of the same. And yet what are they who persuade this matter? The inconstancy of the protestants. verily those who having justly reproved some lewd and proud bishops for their worldly pomp, afterward set up Kings in the bishop's places, yea above them also, as though any King had less worldly pomp than the bishops. Yea they also do it, who, protesting they will believe nothing but the express word of God, yet believe Kings to be the heads of the Church, ●hich they not only can not find in ●ods word, but they rather find there, 1. Reg. ●. ●at God was angry, when the government of the high priest ●as rejected, and a kingly government ●alled for. Moreover if by this precept (the ●ings of the nations have dominion over them, it shall not be so ●mong you) not only all tyrannical or ●ordly power of life and death, but also ●l spiritual primacy and superiority be forbidden to the Apostles over the whole militant Church, it is forbiddē●ikewise, that there should be any superior in any one part of the Church. For the parts (according to their degree) are of the same nature whereof the whole is. Therefore if the whole militant body may have no one head, much less any part thereof may have a head. If then no Apostle may be superior or primate in any part of the Church, much less any other Christian, man w●● is inferior to an Apostle, may be supreme governor in any one part of th● same Church. But every King in th● behalf, as he is a Christian, is inferio●● to the Apostles (for he is both tawg●● his faith of them, Matth. 28 and baptised by them and in spiritual matters he must be guided by them) therefore seeing the King may not be supreme governor of any part of Christ's Church, in that respect as he is a Christian man, if yet he shallbe supreme head of his own Christian realm by any mean at all, it must be by that power, which he either had before his Christianity, or beside it. For by his christianity it is not possible, that he should have any greater power than the Apostles had, joan. 20 who were sent into the world with Christ's authority. If then a King be supreme governor of the Church (where he is a King) besides his christianity, he is no otherwise supreme governor thereof, than any Ethnik prince might have been. And so it 〈◊〉 brought to pass by the doctrine of the Protestants, that an infidel King hath supreme power to visit, to reform, to ●orrect, and to depose any bishop within his own realm. The which argument when Antichrist, or the great Turk shall make unto the Protestant's, ●hey must needs yield unto it, and grant ●ī to be supreme head of their Church. Be it so, of their Church, but the Catholics shall still keep them under the spiritual government of the bishops and pastors which Christ hath instituted. To enter one degree farther in this matter, let us grant, that some King were so perfect, so poor in spirit, so chaste, so liberal, as ever any bishop or priest was required to be in God's law: What things a King can not do. can he yet baptise, can he consecrated Christ's body, can he forgive sins, can he preach, can he excommunicate, can he bless the people, can he judge of doctrine by his kingly authority? If he can not do these things, how can he be above the● (concerning these causes, who have received commission of God to do all these things? The Suprem governor, may practise any thing properly belonging to his government. It is not possible for a man 〈◊〉 have the supreme government in 〈◊〉 Ecclesiastical causes by lawful power a●● right, but that he should thereby ha●● also power and right, to execute any 〈◊〉 those things which belong to such Ecclesiastical causes as are under his g●uernment. Marck the point. I say not he is bound to execute every such matter as falleth under h●● government or that it is decent for hi● to do it: but that he may do it, an● hath right and power to do it, if he b● rightly the supreme governor in th● behalf. An example in civil Matters. For example: the King who 〈◊〉 supreme governor in the civil and temporal causes, hath under him judges, shreeves, majors, Capitains and constables. If his majesty will play the iudg● in Westminster hall, or the shrive in any sessions, or the Captain in war, he surely may do it concerning the right ●f his Kingdom. Yea he lacketh no ●ight nor lawful power to play the Soldier, the Tailor, the Mason, Car●enter, or Tanner, albeit he perhaps do lack the cunning or experience ●o exercise or practise those Arts, so as they ought to be practised. Likewise an archbishop or Private, who hath bishops, An example in Ecclesiastical matters. archdeacons, Officials, Priests, and Clerks under him, may by right of his Su●eriorie baptise any child, bless or give benediction, bury the dead, approve their last wills by his own fact, help a Priest to Mass, carry the cross in procession, dig the grave, and to be short, he may do any thing which any man may do, who is under his jurisdiction. If then the king have the right and power of Supreme government in all Ecclesiastical causes, The applying of the rule to our purpose. seeing it belongeth to the right and power of Ecclesiastical causes that a man may preach, baptise, bless, or give benediction to the people, and administer the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, and bind or loose sins: it must needs be, that the King even by that his supreamicy should also have power and right to preach, to baptize, to give benediction, to administer the sacrament of Christ's supper, and to bind or loose sins. A farther declaration. I say not, that he by his supremacy hath cunning either, to preach or to baptise, or to give benediction, or to administer the sacrament of Christ's supper, or to play the tailor or the mason: but that no law, right, and power doth, or can forbid him to do these things, if in these things he be the supreme governor, so that if he otherwise had cunning, he might with praise no less preach and baptize, and give benediction or administer the sacrament of Christ's supper, than he might build a house with his own hands, or cut a garment, if he were cunning ●herein. But now if all the world confess, 2. Para. 20 non est tui officij (o Rex) sed sacerdotum domini. ●hat à King by his kingly office doth ●ot only lack knowledge, but also hath no ●ight or power at all to preach, to baptize, to give benediction, or to consecrated the sacrament of Christ's supper, 〈◊〉 a although otherwise he be most cunning and excellently learned: (except ●e have the office of a priest also given ●im, and be lawfully sent and authorized by the imposition of the hand of priesthood) doubtless it ought to be confessed, 1. Tim. 4. that a King by his kingly office ●ath no right or supreme power at all in ecclesiastical causes (unless it be committed to him from the bishop.) And ●hat, as well because he of himself can ●ot practise those causes, though he would, (as even our adversaries confess) ●s also, because his power (be it never 〈◊〉 royal) reacheth not so high, as the ●ower of spiritual government appointed by Christ, doth. And surely no man by the commission which he only hath to rest or to prison men, may also hang them or burn them. For the lesser authority doth not comprehend the greater. Say now, M. Horn, whether to celebrate our Lord's supper, and to preach God's word, and to absolve or bind sins, it be a lesser or a greater ministry, than the King's authority? If it be lesser, you have reason on your side. For then a greater, power may comprehend it, being the lesser. But if it be incomparably greater to minister unto men the heavenly Sacraments, then to minister justice in temporal things, if that be a higher power which toucheth the soul then that which only toucheth the body, then by what means extend you the commission of a King (which hath to do with less matters) not only to the commission of a Priest, In the book against M. Feen●̄. but also above it? You bring many examples evil applied to make an appearance of somewhat. But they all concern matters of fact, which are for many circumstances subject to much wrangling. But either it was no good Prince, who meddled of his own authority, with disposing holy matters, Or if he were otherwise good, that deed was not good, Or if he did it well, he did it by commission from a Prophet or from a high Priest, Or he was deceived by flatterers, Or else being forced by necessity, which is under no law, he only sought the public peace in that his deed, and not to set himself ordinarily above the spiritual government. For howsoever the deeds of men be uncertain, deceitful, and unknown in all their particular circumstances, the word of God can not fail, which saith to Peter and to other Bishops after him, Feed my sheep. joan. 21. Here I ask whether the King or Emperor, who is christened, be Peter's sheep or no? If he be not, he is not only not above the Church, but he is not at all of the Church. If he be his sheep, than I say boldly, that as it is against the law of nature (which never can be wholly changed) for a sheep to rule his shepherd (in any manner of such sort, wherein he is the shepherd) even so it is utterly impossible for any King or Prince to be in any respect of Ecclesiastical government, above his own pastor, who soever he be for the time. And yet farther to make this matter more plain, be it that a Christian King doth take upon him the supreme government in Ecclesiastical matters. What if a bishop being called before him, Epist. 32. & sequent. say boldly (as S. Ambrose in a like case did) may it please your majesty to command my goods, my lands, my body, my life, it shallbe at your commandment. But as for the ordering and governing of my bishopric, I will not yield it to you, because Christ (and not your majesty) committed the same to me: what could that Christian King do to that bishop more than Nero or trajan might have done? Can he excommunicate him by his royal power? M. Horn will not say so. What is it then which he could do? might he put him in prison? so might Nero, and also the great Turk. By this mean it appeareth, that the King be he never so much christened, hath yet no power over the bishops soul. And yet all spiritual and ecclesiastical power toucheth the soul. Therefore the King hath no spiritual power over the bishop at all. Epist. 32. Si vel scripturarum seriem divinarum, vel vetera tempora retractemus, quis est qui abnuat in causa, in causa, inquam, fidei Episcopos solere de Imperatoribus, non Imperatores de Episcopis judicare? If we call to mind, either the process of holy scriptures, or the ancient times, who can deny, but that in a cause of faith, in a cause, I say, of faith bishops are wont to judge of Christian Emperors, and not Emperors of Bishops. If then the King have no Spiritual power over the Bishop, how shall he correct or depose the Bishop, according to any spiritual or ecclesiastical process of judgement? Shall he cause a Synod of Bishops to be gathered, that therein he may depose the said disobedient Bishop? Put case the Synod find him not worthy to be deposed, or else will not depose the said Bishop? How can the King come to exercise yet any spiritual power upon the Bishop? You will say, he shall constrain the Synod to depose him. Wherewith I pray you? By the spiritual sword, or by the temporal? Not by the spiritual. for it was never committed to the king, that whose sins he should retain, they should be retained. If then he shall obtain his purpose by the temporal sword, who seeth not, that the last resolution of the king's power is upon his temporal and secular jurisdiction, which he should have had, though he had not been a Christian. Therefore S. Augustine finding many ●imes great fault with the Donatists, Homil. de pastor. & in Psalm. cont part. Donatist. because they appealed from the judgement of Bishops to the Emperor, falleth even Constantin, who was then 〈◊〉 christian Prince, terraenun regem, an earthly king. In epist. 48 Datos sibi Episcopos ●udices apud terrenum regem accusaverunt. They accused the Bishops, who were assigned to be their judges before an earthly King. For albeit he was a Christian, yet his Kingly power was earthly, in respect of that heavenly power, which Christ brought with him, and gave to his Disciples. What do I stand about the words of men? A most plain demonstration of the dignity of high priests above the dignity of faithful princes even in the sight of God, is to be seen in the old Testament. Where God (who is no partial judge) assigneth a sacrifice for the sin of every degree of men according to their dignity even at his own altar. And first he beginneth with the high priest, Levitici 4 Sacerdos. saying: Si Sacerdos, qui unctus est peccaverit, delinquere faciens populum, offeret pro peccato suo vitulum. If the priest which is anointed shall sin, causing the people to sin, he shall offer a calf for his sin. The second degree, is not the prince, Turba omnis. but the whole people. Quôd si omnis turba filiorum Israel ignoraverint, offeret pro peccato suo vitulum. If the multitude of the children of Israel do amiss by ignorance, it shall offer a calf for his sin. After these two degrees cometh in the Prince's place, Princeps. Levitic. 4 si peccaverit princeps, offeret hostiam coram Domino, hircum etc. If the prince shall sin, he shall offer a he got in sacrifice before the Lord. Behold the prince is not only in the third place, both behind the high priest, and behind the whole multitude, but also his sacrifice is of less value, and of a base condition them theirs. For a he got was not so honourable a sacrifice, as a young ox or a calf. The fourth degree is, Anima. that if one of the common people sin, he shall offer a she got: Of this matter Philo writeth thus: Decebat principem privato homini praeferri vel in sacrificio, De victimis. sicut principi populum, quandoquidem totum est sua part maius. Pontificem verò aequiparari populo in expiatione impetrandáque peccatorum venia. Habetur tn is honour pontifici, non propter ipsum, sed quia minister est populi, publicè vota faciens soluenda totius gentis nomine. It became the prince to be preferred before a private man even in the sacrifice, as also the people to be preferred before the prince, because the whole is greater than the part. But it became the bishop, to be made equal with the people, in purging and in obtaining pardon of his sins. Howbeit that honour is given to the bishop not for his own sake, but because he is the minister of the people, making his prayers or vows publicly to be performed in the name of the whole nation. Mark the comparison, the prince is a minister of the people, as well as the bishop. But because the bishop is a minister in holy matters, he is preferred before the prince. In levit. quaest. 1. Theodoretus also writeth thereof: Docet quanta fit sacerdotij dignitas, quam universo populo parem facit. Principem autem qui praetergressus fuerit legem aliquam, non vitulum, sed hircum, aut caprum anniculum offerre jubet: tam procul abest à sacerdotali dignitate is, cui corporeum imperium commissum est. (God) doth teach how great the dignity of priesthood is, which (dignity) he made equal with the whole people. But he commandeth the prince that shall transgress any law, not to offer a calf, but a he got of one years age. so far is he, to whom corporal power is committed, behind the priestly dignity. If then the whole people be above the Prince (as who are able to choose and to make a Prince, when one lacketh) and yet the bishop be equal with the whole people, and also be set before it in the order of the law (as being made by God himself, and not able to be made by the people, because they can not consecrate a bishop or give him spiritual power) what impudence is this, to teach, that a prince by his own right and power may visit, judge, correct and depose a bishop, who is now well seen to be far greater in the sight of God, than the King himself? Let this much suffice to show that the bishoply or pastor all authority of the Church is not only distincted from the tyrannical kingdom of the unfaithful nations, but also from the moderate reign of what so ever Kings, though they be christened. One thing now is briefly to be touched, that, notwithstanding many Bishops be evil, and use not their Office well, yet they lose it not thereby, but still we are bound by Christ's commandment to do the things, Math. 23 not which they do, but which they say and teach to be done. For as S. Augustine teacheth, they that sit in the chair of unity (which I will prove hereafter to be the chair of S. Peter) are constrained to teach the doctrine of verity. And in deed whereas the office or power is one thing, and the use thereof an other thing, seeing the office is given before it be used, the evil use of it which ensueth afterward, can not make void the former power: And so without all question, the substance of the primacy remaineth safe and sure in ●he Apostles and their successors, although they practise not their Primacy ●n such sort as they ought to do. Whereupon it followeth, that it is ●arke false and ungodly, that these mē●each, saying, not only that all primacy 〈◊〉 forbidden in the Church of Christ, ●ut also that they lose their Primacy, who ceasing to preach, do abuse their office. For they in deed lose the merit of their Primacy, but not the self Primacy, so long as the Church doth tolerate and permit them in their places. Otherwise Caiphas being so evil a man as he was, joan, 1● Pontifex anni illius had not been the Bishop of that year, which yet the Gospel showeth to have been otherwise. As concerning (which some are wont to object) that the Bishop of Rome doth not govern as a Pastor, but doth bear a sovereignty as Princes of the world, it hath no colour of truth, whether they respect the manner of coming by this primacy, or the order i● practising the jurisdiction of it. First of all, no man succeedeth into that Chair by any right of inheritance, which is a common mean to get Domition among worldly princes. secondarily, that Chair is not obtained by any right of battle, or law of Arms, neither when it is void, it is permitted to him, that can first possess it, but it is given only by election. Besides, neither childd nor woman, nor infidel, nor catechumen or learner of the faih, can be chosen to be bishop of Rome, or of any other city, which is far otherwise in wordly Kingdoms. Distinct. 62. & 63. Actor. 1. Again, although the faithful people and the princes also may crave, desire and require a pastor or Bishop, and may give their consent to the choice of him, yet the right to choose as well ●he bishop of Rome as all other pastors, Act. 14. & 20. Tit. 1. 1. Pet. 5. Greg. lib. 1 ep 55. & 56. & 77. Concil. 8. c. 28. appertaineth only to ecclesiastical person's, as whose duty it is by God's law to ●lace and make priests in the cities and Churches where need is, to feed, to rule, ●o confirm, or to displace, or transfer, and generally to provide for the flock, as Paulus, Barnabas, Titus and other bishops have done, whereas the right of choosing 〈◊〉 Prince (where he is made by election) may as well or much more appertain to the common people, being the body of the realm, then to the clergy or to the nobility alone. When the bishop of Rome is thus chosen (that I may omit his temporal dominion, which is but an accessory to his bishopric) doubtless in his Ecclesiastical government he useth not that force and power which worldly Princes do. Greg lib. 1 ep. 45. distinct. 45. c. De judaeis. He compelleth no man by violence (no not so much as the jews that live in Rome) to baptism, or to embrace the catholic faith of Christ, whereas worldly princes may justly enforce the people whom they have under them, both to obey their laws, and to live after their custom and manner. Moreover the bishop of Rome (as bishop) never punisheth any of them with the material sword, who after baptism forsake the Church, but only with ecclesiastical censures. And to them also he cometh very slowly, and teacheth, that men must have recourse unto them none otherwise, 2. quaest. 1. multi. then to a medicine. For albeit he both plainly affirmeth, that heretics are worthy of all punishment, yea of violent death itself (and that according to God's word) yea although he permitteth, Deut. 13. and also (where he hath any temporal dominion) procureth schismatics and heretics to be punished with death, (partly because they are themselves unworthy to live for their own heinous fault, partly also because they should not infect others with their words, 2. Tim. 2. which creep and fret like a cancer) ●et notwithstanding he doth it not by himself, nor by others as a bishop and pastor of Christ's flock, but he doth it by the ministery of others, as a temporal prince and lord, Psal. 98. even as Moses' being one of the Priests of our Lord, was also master of the civil government, and a disposer of war and peace, Exod. 17. Deut. 31. as who commanded joshua to fight against Amalech, and to be his successor in the civil government. Now whereas the Protestants deny Moses to have been a priest, and that by pretence of the Hebrew text, they spaek therein against the express word of God, and against the most ancient and best learned Fathers. The word of God saith: Psal. ●8. Moses & Aaron in sacerdotibus eius. Moses and Aaron are among the priests of the Lord the Hebrew word is cohanin, the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Latin, sacerdotibus, which is to say, those who make sacrifice. In commentarijs psal. 98. S. Augustine reasoneth that he was Sacerdos, a Sacrificer, because whereas he was in all authority and power the very greatest among the jews, yet he could not be Mayor sacerdote, greater than he that hath power to sacrifice. S. Hierom (being I am sure as good an Hebrician, as M. Nowell) in his book against jovinian, Lib. 1. adversus jovinian. groundeth the Priesthood of Moses upon the same text of the Psalm, making a difference between Samuel the Levite, and Moses and Aaron, who were Bishops or high Priests. In oratione de Moyse & Aar. S. Gregory Nazianzene is of the same mind, yea Dionysius Areopagita confesseth Moses to have been Primum legalium sacerdotum mystem ac ducem, De Eccles. Hierar. c. 5. The first cunning master and guide of the Priest of the law, qui fratrem Aaron ad sacerdotale munus inungens, sub Deo principe sacerdotalem consecrationem pō●ificabiliter consummavit. Who ●nointing his brother Aaron to the Priestly office (under God the chief of all) finished the Priestly consecration, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Bisshoplike, or as Bishops are wont to do. Philo judeus writing three books of Moses' life, De vita Mosis. and having spoken before of his authority in civil matters, speaketh in the third of his Priesthood, which he could not justly do, except he had been a Priest. But what need many words? What thing doth in all the world belong to a Priest's office, which Moses did not? Exod. 20. He took the law of God, and taught it the people, he preached to them, he consecrated the high Bishop with his own hands, Exod. 28. & 29. he erected an altar, and offered public sacrifice, he did pour the blood upon the Altar, and sprinkled the garment of Aaron with it. And yet did he all these Priestly offices, being himself no Priest? I marvel thatneither the letter of God's word, nor the reason, and as it were, the soul thereof, nor the authority of wise and learned men can move the Protestants to confess, that Moses was in deed a priest and a sacrificer. But if it be clear, that he was both a priest and a civil governor, using the priestly office in his own person, and prescribing to others when they should fight, or punish malefactors: much more in the time of the new Testament, Heb. 10. which must needs be as perfect a state as the old law, it is lawful for a bishop, to have the right of both offices in him, governing the Ecclesiastical state by his own personal ministry and the outward cares by the help of wise men. Gregorius l. 1. epi. 24 Quisquis regendis fratribus praeest, vacare funditus à curis exterioribus non potest, sed tamen curandum magnopere est, ne ab iis immoderatè deprimatur. Who soever is set to rule his brethren, he can not utterly be void of external cares. But it is diligently to be provided, that he be not over pressed with them. But concerning the Ecclesiastical state, whereof I speak at this time, the bishop of Rome neither condemneth any man for heresy or schism to corporal death in his own person, nor teacheth, that any malefactors may be so condemned of any other ecclesiastical person. Which thing being not rightly understood of the most part of men, hath made them affirm, that the bishop of Rome in matters of faith persuadeth his religion with fire and sword. 23. quaest. 8. c. Sepe cum sequent. Which to be far otherwise, both the whole body of the Canon law declareth, and also experience testifieth. To go forward with our matter, this is the greatest difference between the primacy of the Church, and the dominion of wordly princes, that the temporal princes have power only over the bodies, whereas the rulers of the Church, Math. 18. 1. Cor. 5. have power upon men's souls. They give the bodies of wicked men to corporal death, these have power to cleanse the souls, and so to bring them to everlasting salvation. De Sacerdot. lib. 3. Whereupon Saint Chrysostom saith: Habent etiam terreni Principes vinculi potestatem, verùm corporum solùm. Id autem quod dico sacerdotum vinculum ipsam etiam animam contingit, atque ad coelos usque pervadit. The earthly princes have power to bind also, but only of the bodies. But the band of the priests whereof I speak, doth touch the very soul, and reacheth even to the heavens. And not without a cause. For our Lord said to Saint Peter: Math. 16. To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou bindest upon the earth, shallbe bound in the heavens, and whatsoever thou losest upon the earth, shallbe loosed ●n the heavens. To these words of Christ (which ●re derived to the Bishop of Rome by ●eanes of the chair of Saint Peter) ●he said bishop referreth all his power: ●nd exerciseth it upon the souls of mē●oth in his own person, and by others, Leo. ep. 82. who are called to sustain part of ●he Ecclesiastical care and charge ●hat is committed chiefly unto him, whereas notwithstanding, the Princes of the world appeal not ●o the law of the Gospel, neither ●n getting, nor in governing, nor ●n establishing their Dominion and power. Last of all, this is to be inquired and considered, whether the Bishop of Rome doth rule with such piety, lenity, affection, and desire to help others, and to bring them to Christ, that he may seem to minister and to serve, rather than to rule. And in good sooth, if he doth it not, as it is certain that he sinneth grievously, so (for any such respect) he loseth not his primacy, because the humility and mercy of the governor doth not so much appertain to the substance of his authority, joan. 11. Caiphas Pontifex. as to the true perfection and merit of the man. For like as they that preached Christ through envy and emulation (that they might raise adversity to S. Paul, Philip. 1. who was in Prison) were notwithstanding true preachers, albeit they preached with an evil intent and mind: so albeit the bishop of Rome did rule like a potentate, and did seek his own glory, and not the glory of God, yet thereof it can not be brought to pass, that he is not a true ruler and governor of the Church. But it would well follow that he were an evil ruler. Of which sort of men our Lord hath said: Do those things which they say, Matth. 23. but do not those things which they do. But what arrogant presumption is ●his, to think that the Pope doth good ●eedes with an evil mind? If he give ●●ntle answers to them that in mat●ers of doubt ask his counsel, if he send ●orth good decrees, if he reconcile such ●s are at variance, if he provide carefully for the necessary affairs of the church, why do we judge evil of that ●hich is well done? Or if he doth evil ●t any time, what malice is it to scorn ●t his nakedness, Genes. 9 and with laughter ●o discover his shame? It is evident to all that will see, that ●he bishop of Rome doth show that humility and zeal, which Christ requireth in the ruler of his Church. He calleth us nor bondslaves, nor servants, nor subjects, but all Princes he saluteth gently, as sons, and bishops, as brethren. And as for his own person, ●he writeth not himself, neither Lord, neither universal bishop, nor head of the Church, but servant of the servants of God. That even by his name he may give all men to understand, that he is that greatest and chief ruler, Luc. 22. who is, as it were, a minister and servant. And seeing he doth and saith that, which becometh the primate of the Church both to say, and to do, it is our part to judge his well doing, by that which is well said, rather than to sin against the holy ghost, whiles we desire to wrest that to an evil sense maliciously, which was spoken and meant by him charitably. ●f the diverse senses which are in the holy scripture and namely about these words (upon this rock I will build my Church) and which is the most literal and proper sense of them. The third Chap. AMONG many other things, wherein God's word passeth all other sciences, one is most notable, in that not only the syllables and words which are written there, do ●xpresse the meaning of the holy Ghost, ●ut also the things, which are told and ●eported by those words, do again signify and mean an other thing. We ●eade that Abraham had two sons, ●he one born of Sara the free-woman, ●he other of Agar the handmaiden. Which history being true in very deed according as the words do sound, doth again signify unto us a more deep mystery. The son of Sara doth betoken the new testament, Galath. 4. or the promise of God made to his true children by adoption▪ and Agar doth betoken the old testament, no less, then if it had been so written in express words. Likewise, whereas as David saith that the sound of the heavens is gone forth into all the earth, Psal. 18. meaning, that all men may by the very order and course of the heavens see the glory of God: S. Paul doubted not by the heavens to understand the Apostles and Preachers: Rom. 10. whose sound he teacheth, to have gone over all the earth. So that the new testament was given and printed in the old, not only according to the Prophecies there, which are fulfilled here, but also according to the figures there, 1. Cor. 10. which are verified here. And so the justice of God is marvelously revealed from faith to faith, Rom. 1. from patriarchs and Prophets to the Apostles and their disciples, from the law to the Gospel, joan. 1. from Moses to Christ, to th'end they should be inex●●sable, who beholding such a divine ●nd of writing, wherein things and ●eeds were ordained to be, as words ●nd letters unto us, would yet remain 〈◊〉 their incredulity. If then out of one sentence diverse ●●ue meanings may be gathered, we ●ust know farther, that both those me●ings be not a like principal, but one of ●hem is the foundation and ground of ●he other. And therefore although ●oth be found, as it were, in one building, yet seeing the one is before the o●her (at the least in the order of place) ●e must exactly know, which is the first meaning of the twain. Else we can ●euer be sure of the second, as the which ●acketh a sufficient ground to stay upon. The first meaning is that, Hieron. in Amos. c. 4. which the holy Ghost uttereth according to the first sense of the words: the which is now called Literal, because it ariseth of ●he written letter rightly understanded. The other sense, which is builded thereupon, is called spiritual because it is known rather by the spirit of God, then by the sound of the writer letter. Now it skilleth so much to know which is the literal and which is the spiritual sense of holy scripture, that the Literal sense is only of force to convince any adversary withal, Augu. ad Vincentium epist. 48. who believeth God's word, whereas the spiritual sense (except it be revealed by the holy Ghost) is such, as may be easily denied, because it hath no sufficient ground appearing outwardly to man. For there may be many spiritual senses given of some one sentence, and it is ever uncertain, which specially of them all is meant of God in that place. The literal sense of holy scripture is that, The literal sense. which is first meant by the holy Ghost, not always according to the grammatical sound, but according to the most plain meaning of the speaker. For example, when Christ saith unto Peter: To thee I will give the keys of ●he kingdom of heaven, the literal ●eaning is not, that Peter should releave any material keys of iron or of ●rasse. Keys. Isai. 22. Apoca. ●. & 3. But by the keys (according to the phrase of holy scripture) is meant the ●ower, authority and right which Christ will give Peter in his Church. For as ●hey, who have the keys of a house, may by right open or shut the doors of ●hat house: so Peter bathe right and power, to open or shut the kingdom of heaven to us. And as the delivering of the keys of a city among men, doth betoken the giving of the possession of that City to ●he governed by him, who receiveth the keys: even so Peter hath the militant Church, as it were, committed to his government in this life by Christ. So that the literal sense is, I will give thee the power and authority to govern my Church for the salvation of souls. Likewise when it is said, Math. 2●. thou art Peter, I call not the literal sense, thou art a rock or a graet stone, but thou art that toward my Church, which a stone is toward the house that is built upon that stone. It is farther to be considered, that the literal sense being once agreed upon, there lieth hidden in that sense many times an other more profound sense also, the which is not directly and plainly uttered, but it is inferred and gathered by the force of argument. God hath been called of old time the God of Abraham, Exod. 4. of Isaac and of jacob. Neither doth any man doubt of the first meaning of those words, which is, that God acknowledgeth himself to have chosen those three men to his servants, and doth witness, that they did in deed serve him. But that in these words there lieth hidden a strong argument, to prove the resurrection: by that, I say, dependeth of the literal sense also, but not such as is seen strait ways, but only it is conceived by discourse. For God is not the God of dead things. Math. 22. But he is God of Abraham: therefore Abraham is not dead. Abraham is a man consisting of body and soul. If Abraham then live and yet his body be dead, his body must rise again, to th'end God may justly be called the God of whole Abraham. ergo in that God is called the God of Abraham, it is showed (by discourse) that the bodies of men shallbe raised to life again. After this sort the consubstantiality of Christ with God the Father may be well proved out of the holy scriptures. joan. 1. Lucae 1. Math. 26. Item the perpetual virginity of our Lady, transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass, purgatory and divers other matters, 1. Cor. 10. Math. 12. which be not distinctly named there. At the length to come to our purpose, there are found in the ancient fathers at the four diverse senses of these words, upon this rock I will build my Church: of the which those only are of force to prove any thing by, which are literal. The first is, that the Church is meant to be built upon Christ. Retract. lib, 1. c. 21 And that S. Augustine doth follow, as a probable sense, but not as the only sense. For that in deed, but more also is meant in this place. The second is, that every Disciple of Christ is the rock whereupon the Church is built and that being the sense of Origen, Origenes in Math. is only spiritual, and therefore of no great force to prove any thing by. The third is, that Peter's faith or confession is this rock whereupon the Church is built, Chrysost. in Math. which is a true sense, but it is not all the whole sense of those words. The fourth and perfect sense is, that Peter concerning his office in God's Church, joan 1. Math. 16. joan. 21. that is to say, through the promise of Christ which is past, and the faithful confession of his godhead, which is presently made, and the power of feeding his ●hepe, which then was to come, is this ●ock upon which the Church is built. The first sense can not be all the whole sense, because then all the other three senses were void. For if the Church be meant to be only built upon Christ then is the Church built neither upon the faith of Peter nor upon Peter himself, nor upon any disciple of Christ. Again the word (thou) which goeth before doth not well agree with Christ, but only with Peter: Neither doth the word, I will build, aedificabo which folweth after, well agree with Christ alone. For it were not properly said at Caesarea where Christ then was, I will build my church upon Christ, upon whom it had been already built from the time of his incarnation. Concerning the second sense, no Disciple of Christ is there literally either spoken unto, or spoken of, beside Simon the Son of jona. Therefore the sense of Origen hath no sufficient ground in the letter of God's word. thirdly the faith, which Peter hath confessed, is not the only rock, whereupon the Church shallbe built. For then it had been built, upon the faith of john Baptist before this tyme. joan. 1. Again seeing the said faith hath been already confessed by Peter himself saying: Thou art Christ the Son of the living God, to what purpose is the building yet also differred? Why is it said, I will build my Church upon this Rock, and not rather, I have built it, or I do build it upon this Rock? For if two things only are necessary, the one, which may be the Rock or foundation, which is now said to be faith, the other, which is the building of the Church upon that Kocke: seeing the foundation is already laid, in that the faith is confessed: And seeing the Church is present (for Christ even then had a Church of his own) why is the building yet put of, until an other time, but that there is an other thing beside faith requisite to the same building? But if (as the very truth is) Peter himself, concerning his office, be pronounced this Rock, and that not only in respect of his faith (although it be a very principal point) but also in respect both of the promise past, wherein it was said (thou shall be called Peter) and of the authority of feeding Christ's sheep, which is to come: joan. 1. & 21. then all absurdities are avoided, and all the former truths are perfectly contained in this last sense. For if Peter be this rock, than Christ who made Peter to be this Rock, is much more proved thereby to be the rock himself. for the giver of any heavenvly power, hath much more that power in himself, than he that receiveth it. If Peter be this Rock in respect of his confession, than his confession. being in himself, is also concurring (as a certain rock for his part) unto the building of the Church. If Peter be the Rock, seeing he was not only a Disciple, but the captain Disciple of all that ever were: all other Disciples, which are contained in him as in the chief, may also be (for their part) this rock, whereupon the Church shallbe built. Seeing then this last sense is most perfect, and containeth all the other senses, not being itself fully contained in any of them, out of all controversy none other is so literal, so full, so true, as this, to wit, that Peter, confessing the true faith, with respect of such authority, as shallbe afterward given to him, is this Rock, whereupon the Church shallbe built. I wis●h in the sight of God that, malice being laid apart, any reasonable man would now consider, In his Reply. 221. what M. jewel and his adhearents have done in this behalf. He forsaking the most literal sense fall, and minglng three opinions (of ●hese four) in one, not regarding to ●tte every thing in his proper place, ●oth seek to confounded the Reader with ●he multitude of words, and with the ●ame of the Fathers, whom he most shamefully abuseth. But if there be truth in M. jewel, or ●n his adhearents, let him or any of ●hem descend particularly to discuss ●he meaning of Christ, with alcircumstances belonging thereunto as by God's grace I will do to my poor ability. And that the discourse, which followeth, may be the more easily perceived, this is the some of it. My intent is to prove, that not only Christ, nor only the faithful confession of Peter, but Peter himself with respect of his confession, and of such other authority as God gave him, was this Rock, whereupon Christ said he would build his Church, meaning that part of his Church which wandereth in this life. Christ promised Simon, that he should be called Peter, joan. 1. when he had not yet confessed, to th'end he might confess the more strongly as a rock. He named him Peter before he had confessed: Marci 3. so that he was this far forward in being the rock before his confession. When he had confessed, Christ pronounce him not only a rock, or a man of the steadfastness of the propriety of a rock in his faith, Math. 16. Apoc. 21. but also such a rock, whereupon he would build his Church. For every Apostle was a rock in his kind, but none beside Peter and the Successors in his office was this kind of Rock, whereof Christ now speaketh. That the confession of Peter might tarry immovable after Christ's ascension (for the Church should always need a visible rock) Christ prayed for Peter's faith, Lucae 22. even so far that he was ●idde to strengthen his brethren ●fter his conversion from the denial of ●hrist. Last of all, to show what kind of wrength Peter should give to his bre●hern, Christ bade him feed his lambs. The promise of the name of Peter was the first cause of Peter's being the Rock. The giving of the name was the performance of the promise. The confession of Christ's godhead was the fruit of the gift, and of the promise. The promise to have the Church built upon that Rock, was the reward of the confession. The prayer of Christ for Peter's faith, was the warrant of the perpetuity of his strong confession. The power to feed Christ's sheep was to make Peter such a rock, joan. 21. Luc. 10. as should stay up his Church by teaching and ruling the faithful, as whose voice the sheep should be bound to hear under pain of damnation. All these things concurring together, cause Peter to be this rock whereupon the militant Church is built. Whereof I will now entreat more at large. The FOUR Chap. diverse reasons are alleged to prove (chiefly by the circumstance and conference of holy scripture) that these words (thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church) have this literal meaning, upon thee, o Peter, being first made a rock, to th'end thou shouldest stoutly confess the faith, and so confessing it, I will build my Church. WHen our Lord first saw Simon the son of jona, beholding him, he said: thou art Simon the son of jona, joan. 1. thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation Peter, that is a great stone or a rock. By these words a new name is before hand promised to Simon, whereupon Saint Chrysostom saith: in joan. hom. 18. Honorificè de eo praedicit. Certa ●utem praedictio futurorum, im●ortalis Dei duntaxat opus est. Animaduertendum autem, quòd ●on omnia quae eventura ei erant ●oc primo congressu praedixit. Nō●enim appellavit eum Petrum, non dixit super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, sed dixit: Tu vo ●caberis Cephas. illud enim maioris erat & potestatis, nec non etiam auctoritatis. Christ doth forespeak honourably of him. For the certain foretelling of things to come, is the work only of the immortal God. It is to be noted, that Christ did not foretell at this first meeting all things which should come to pass afterward to him. The promise of the name goeth before the name. For he did not call him Peter neither did he say, upon this rock I will build my Church. But he said, Thou shalt be called Cephas. For that was both of more power, and also of more authority. Likewise S. Cyrillus: In joan. lib. 2. c. 2 Nec Simon fore iam nomen sibi, sed Petrus praedicit, vocabulo ipso commodè significans quòd in eo, tanquam in petra lapidéque firmissimo suam esset aedificaturus Ecclesiam. And he telleth a fore hand, that his name shallbe Peter, or a rock, and not now Simon, signifying, by the very word that he would build his Church on him, as on a rock and a most sure stone. Theophilact and Euthimius are of the same mind. In. 1. cap. joan. By these fathers we learn, that this prediction or promise of Peter's name, is a thing which agreeth with the building of the Church which is to come. These words then, Thou shalt be called Peter, are words of Prophecy or of promise. A word of promise spoken by God is effectual to worck all those means, which are necessary for the performance of it. For as when God had once said Sara uxor tua pariet tibi filium, Genes. 17. Sara thy wife shall bring thee forth a son, that self word (as S. Chry●●stom noteth) wrought both in Abra●am and in Sara the power and hability to beget and to conceive a child, In cap. 9 ad Rom. Genes. 21. notwithstanding that naturally through ●ld age they were unapt thereunto, ●ight so, these words Thou shalt be ●alled Peter, wrought in Simon the ●ffect whereby he might believe, and in due time like a rock confess Christ to ●e the Son of Cod, how far soever he bade naturally been otherwise from so high a grace. And as, though Abraham did accompany with his wife Sara for the begetting of Isaac, yet the birth of the child is not imputed to their lying together, but unto the word of promise, wherein it had been said. Genes. 17. Rom. 9 Sara shall bring thee forth a child: even so, albeit Simon be made Peter, to the end he may confess, and therefore not without confessing Christ to be the Son of God, yet his being Peter (concerning the efficient cause thereof) is no less to be imputed to this former word of promise, joan. 1. tho● shalt be called Peter, then unto the faithful confession which he made afterward of Christ's Godhead. For the first cause was the promise, and it wrought the second cause of the confession. This matter is put out of a●● question, if we consider, that this promise (●●ow shalt be called Peter) was fulfilled before the confession wa● made. For when Christ chose to hi● twelve Apostles, then as S. Marc● saith, Marc. 3. Luc. ●. he gave to Simon the name of Peter, and S. Luke telleth the same thing. Whereupon Euthimius writeth. Verefimile est (apud Joannem) Chrisstum dixisse vocandum esse Petrum nunc autem vocare eum Petrum. It is like to be true, that in Saint john Christ said, he should be called Peter: and that he now calleth him Peter. neither doth God use to give the name, without giving also the thing which is meant by the name. For his ●alling not words always have their ●ffect joined with them. Therefore when Simon was really ●amed Peter, than was he in deed made the rock. And seeing he had not as yet confessed, the confession which followeth, doth not either only or first make him to be the rock. But he is already by Christ's promise well entered to be made the rock, to th'end he may confess the more steadily and surely. And therefore his confession is a most sure rock, because it proceedeth from him who was before made the rock to th'end ●he should confess most steadyly. Whereupon when Christ asked, whom the faithful said him to be, than the rock did his duty. For (as Cyrillus saith) Peter as being the Prince and head of the rest, first cried out, In joan. lib. 12. ca 64. princeps & ca put. saying: thou art Christ the Son of the living God, to whom Christ answered, and I say to thee, thou art Peter, to wit, of the quality of a rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church. Lo, Peter cried out or confessed as being the head. He was then the head by some means, even before his confession, that is to say, by promise and name. This much being granted (the which is the very order and express drift of the Gospel) it will farther follow that seeing these words, Math. 16 upon this rock I will build my Church, depend upon these other: Thou art Peter, (for they are immediately inferred upon them, and joined to them with a copulative conjunction &, Et super hanc Petram. and) it will follow I say, that these words, upon this rock I will build my Church, are to be understanded according to these, thou art Peter. And seeing these words, thou art Peter, depend no less principally upon the former prophecy and promise of Christ wherein it was said, thou shalt be called Peter, then upon the confession which Simon made afterward of Christ's Godhead, it is certain, that the ●ther words also, upon this rock I will ●uild my Church (concerning the nature and order of a certain cause efficient) depend no less principally upon ●hose former words (thou shalt be called Peter) then upon the confession of Christ's godhead: so that the first coef●cient cause, why the Church is builded upon this rock, is not the present confession of Simon, but the vocation and pro●ise of Christ, which was long before made unto Simon. Which thing being ●rue, than Christ will build his Church upon this rock, not in deed without the grace of confessing, but yet not any rather by the force of the confession, then of the promise. joan. 1. For S. john Baptist confessed also but because he confessed, not as one that was promised to be this rock, the Church was not built upon him: but to Peter the promise was made before the confession, and it was the first cause of the confession therefore the promise was the chief and first cause of bvilding the church upon this role. If it were so, than the whole meaning of these words, The whole sense of Christ's words. upon this Rock I will build my Church, is this, upon him who therefore strongly and firmly confesseth my true faith, because he was before promised to be called this Rock, or (which is more) upon him who in part is already this rock, and promised to be called this rock, so confesseth my Godhead like a most sure Rock, upon him I will build my Church. The which most true and certain sense standing, the only confession of the faith maketh no man to be this Rock, whereupon Christ will build his Church, except it be a confession, which is wrought by the force of a promise to be called and made a rock going before it. The which promise (of being assured to be called Peter) for as much as it belonged literally to no Prophet, to no disciple, to no Apostle, but only to Simon the son of jona, for that cause, joan. 1. the whole militant Church is at this time promised to be built upon none other man's faith or confession, beside only upon the confession of S. Peter himself, and of those who succeed in Peter's chair. For (as God willing I shall prove hereafter) every bishop of Rome is that for his time unto the militant Church of Christ, which Peter once was. Christ then intending to confirm and to make perfect his promise, wherein he had said, thou shalt be called Peter, asked his Apostles, whom they thought, or rather said and confessed him to be. S. Peter having a revelation from God the father, to th'end Christ's former promise might be thoroughly and perfectly verified, saith: thou art Christ the Son of the living God, that is to say, thou art not only a prophet, or a some by adoption, but thou art the natural Son of the only true God. Here it is principally to be noted, that when S. Peter confessed Christ to be the Son of God, Peter confessed the rock. that then he confessed the rock of rocks, which only Christ is. Neither doth any man deny but that these words (thou art the Son of the living God) appertain only to jesus Christ. But our question is not of these words, but concerning the words which Christ spoke afterward unto Peter. For when Peter had confessed the chief rock, than that chief rock showed, that Peter had played also the rock saying to him after this sort: Hilarius de Trinit. lib. 6. Simon the Son of jona, thou art happy. as S. Peter said Christ to be the Son of God, so Christ calleth S. Peter the Son of jona, thereby declaring, that as Peter was naturally the Son of john his father, so Christ is the natural son of God his father and as Peter speaketh only to Christ at this time and to none other person: so doth Christ only speak to Peter, and to none other person. Christ after this meaning is alone the son of God, and Simon alone after this meaning is Peter. Christ goeth forward calling Peter happy, because flesh and blood did not reveal Christ's godhead unto him, but Christ's father who is in heaven. So that S. Peter only at this time had this high revelation, and to him only Christ directeth his words. And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter. What? was S. john, or S. Matthew the son of jona? no truly or had any other man in the earth this revelation at this time beside Simon the son of jona? no verily: if we consider the first and most literal sense. Thou only art Peter, Peter alone is this rock because thou alone both hadst this name promised to the when Christ first saw thee, thou alone hadst it given thee, when thou wast chosen an Apostle, and thou alone hast now confessed me to be God by nature, and to thee alone I say, Thou art Peter. It is otherwise most true that Christ is the rock, incomparably above Peter, Christ the rock. and that the whole universal church is built upon Christ far more excellently than any part thereof is built upon any mortal man. For if we did not believe so much of Christ, we could not now believe that he were able by his only word and promise to make Peter also to be a Rock in his kind. The confession is a rock. It is also true, that the confession of S. Peter is a rock, and in respect also of that confession, Simon is called Peter. And in respect of the same confession, the Church is built upon Simon. But as upon one who confesseth, because he had before the promise to be called Peter made to him, and the name itself given him. All things which are true, are not every where principally meant, or intended alone of the holy ghost. We now seek the literal and first maening of these words, upon this rock I will build my Church, and not of these, thou art Christ the son of the living God. In his Reply fol. 221. And yet M. jewel professing to dispute of these words, upon this rock I will build my Church, privily conveyeth the disputation from them, unto those other, Thou art Christ the Son of God. But I beseech the good Reader to mark the point, and not to suffer himself to be deceived in so weighty a matter. At the length to gather all my reasons together, I say, that the most literal sense of these words, upon this rock, is to signify, that upon S. Peter, as upon a man called by office to confess the true faith, Christ will build his Church. First, Vocaberis. 1. because he alone is promised to be called Peter. Secondly, Imposuit nomen. 2. because he alone at the choice of the twelve, is named Peter. Thirdly, because Christ speaketh to Simon the son of jona alone, Tibi. saying: Et ego dico tibi, and I say to thee. Thereby showing that the words which follow, belong to S. Peter alone. Fourthly, because Christ speaketh again to him, and of him alone, saying: Tu es Petrus, Thou art Peter. Tu es. I suppose there is a difference between, I am Peter, and, thou art Peter. Most true it is, that Christ is Peter, that is to say, a rock. And most true it is, that Simon in confessing Christ to be the son of God, confessed the principal and only natural rock. But now that truth is not first of all and chiefly uttered by Christ, although it were before uttered by Simon, but of Christ it is now said most literally, thou art, thou Isai, art Peter. Moreover, Thou, and This, do answer one to the other. Super hanc. Both are Pronouns, both show a thing really present to the understanding of the hearer. As therefore, Thou, appertaineth most certainly to S. Peter, so doth also the Pronoun, this, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock (which thou art) I will build my Church. Petrus and Petra, do most literally agree, Petram in so much that in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by which name Simon Peter is called, doth signify a Rock. And in Latin Petrus is named of Petra, as if a man said in English, thou art stony, or of the nature of a Rock, and upon this stone or rock I will build my Church. Who can deny but Thou and This, stony, and stone▪ be referred all to one person? Hitherto I have considered, thou, Conference. this, and rock, severally. Now let us join them altogether. It is first said, thou art Peter, to the intent it might be known whereunto the word (this rock) belongeth. For the nature of the Pronoun is, The pronoun. most properly to declare a certainty, either presently pointed unto before the eye, or next of all named and described. Thou art stony and upon this stone. Which this, If not this, which was last named? For albeit Christ be above all things the rock and corner stone, 1. Cor. 10. Ephes. 2. yet he was not at this time named so. This rock doth refer itself to one certain rock which is pointed unto one way or other. But no material rock is pointed unto naturally and in deed (for no such was then present or minded) therefore it is a Rock by a Metaphor which is described. He is a rock by a similitude. And seeing it is not only said, I will build upon a rock, but also upon this rock, that rock must be understanded to be such a one, as before was showed. But none was before showed, except he were named (for at this time all that is showed, is showed by words) so that for as much as it was said in words to S. Peter only, Thou art Peter, or a rock, when it followeth upon this rock, it must needs be meant most literally, Upon thee. upon thee will I build my Church. Yet not absolutely upon thee, as thou art a bare man, but as thou art Peter: and thou art Peter, to th'end thou shouldest confess me to be the son of God. And thou didst confess me, because I promised thee that thou shouldest be called Peter, and because my father did reveal it to thee, therefore upon this rock, which thou art made by Grace, I will build my Church. It is said in the time to come, Aedificabo. In Cant. conticorun expsello. I will build, which declareth a building as yet not perfectly made, but only promised, as also Theodoretus hath noted. But the Church was built upon Christ the great rock, concerning his divine nature from the beginning, and concerning his humane nature from the first moment of his incarnation. Wherefore that kind of building God's Church upon Christ, was already past. Likewise the confession of S. Peter, was already made and passed. But the building whereof Christ speaketh, is to come. I will or shall build my Church upon this Rock. Therefore this rock is meant chief at this time, S. Peter, in such respect as he may no less hereafter confess the true faith, than he had done already. Ecclesiam meam. Mark these words, my Church. It was Christ's Church already. It was his, when he spoke the words, and before also. He therefore doth not now speak of planting or founding it upon himself, but of making one to be the Rock and Head thereof, who hitherto was not the Rock and head but only by promise and hope. For whiles Christ was visible upon the earth, he governed all things, not only by his power, but also by his visible presence, by preaching and governing the flock in his own person, being for the time the visible Rock and Head. But when it pleased him to dedepart out of the world, than he said to S. Peter: joan. 21. Pasce agnos meos, pasce oves meas, Feed my lambs, feed my sheep. At which time that power of being the head stone of God's Militant Church, Holy scriptures are conferred. next unto Christ, was most perfectly given, which was before minded when ●t was said: upon this Rock I will ●uilo my Church. For, to be the Pastor and Governor of Christ's flock, and by the open confession of the faith to keep it from straying into false doctrines, and heresies, that is to be the rock, whereupon Christ will build his Church. Who seeth not, that so long as the chief shepherd is acknowledged, and obeyed, Cyp. ep. 3. lib. 1. all Christendom must needs believe and say one thing? Now by believing and worshipping one truth, the Church is built up from the lowest to the high●est, from earth to heaven. To show that this Rock is meant of S. Peter, it followeth: Et tibi dabo. and to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Behold, if this Rock were not meant to be S. Peter, Christ should in his words run in, and out, speaking now to S. Peter, and now to himself. He beginneth with S. Peter, saying: thou art Peter, he endeth with him, saying: and to thee will I give the keys, between which two sayings, these words (upon this rock) do stand. Which being so, reason would, that we draw not the middle words from the first and the last, but that we say, S. Peter concerning his office, whereby he beareth the keys, to be this Rock, whereupon Christ promiseth to build his Church. The property of a rock is, to withstand all tempests of floods and winds, Math. 7. and so neither to fail itself, and to strengthen the house built upon it. But Christ said in an other place to S. Peter: Luc. 22. Ego rogavi pro te, ut non deficiat fides tua. et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos. I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and thou being once converted, strengthen thy brethren. Behold, thou art Peter, because of my promise, Holy scriptures are conferred. and thereby thou didst receive the gift of the right faith, which thou hast confessed of me. I have prayed, that thy faith may not fail, yea it shall be so far from failing, that I bid thee, when thou art converted, to establish, confirm, and strengthen thy brethren. For of all thy brethren, thou art the chief and the strongest Rock, through my prayer. If then it be out of all question, that S. Peter's faith doth not fail, and that he hath power to strengthen his brethren, seeing these are the properties of a Rock, not to fail itself, Math. 7. but to strengthen the whole house built upon it, against rains, floods, and winds, it is evident by the order of Christ's words, by Grammar, by reason, and by conference of holy scriptures, that S. Peter is called This Rock, when it is said to him: Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church. It followeth: And hell gates shall not prevail against it. Epiphan. in Anchoratu. Origenes in Matth. That is to say, the power and strength of heresies shall prevail neither against thee, who art the Rock, nor against my Church. Not against thee, being the Rock, because I have prayed for Peter's faith: not against my Church, because so long as the Rock whereupon it is built, is sure, the Church itself, which standeth upon the same Rock, is sure also. These words can not be well referred to Christ only, the chief Rock. For it is Christ the chief Rock, who warranteth the assurance of the under Rock. And so it is Peter, who is assured, that hell gates shall not prevail against him, nor against the Militant Church, which is built upon him. join to these considerations the authority of Tertullian, of Hippolytus, of Origenes, S. Cyprian, S. Hilary, S. Basil. S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. Gregory, S. Hierom, S. Leo, S. Chrysostom, S. Cyrillus, Theodoretus, Prosper, Theophilact, with a great number of the Fathers of the fourth General Council, who teach, S. Peter to be this Rock as I will show anon. Neither do they only speak it, but they bring such reasons for S. Peter's being the Rock, as can agree to no man else, but to him, and to his successors in the same office. join the practice of fifteen hundred years, in which the seat of S. Peter standeth in Rome, and flourisheth like a most immovable Rock, among so many tyrants, heretics, and naughty Christians. join so many General Counsels, as have been in Christendom, which all have so acknowledged this Rock, Tripart. lib. 4. c. 9 which S. Peter is, that they were all either authorised by his Successors, or else for lack thereof disannulled as unlawful. Add to the former reasons, that if the Church were built only, or chiefllie upon the confession alone, it must needs have been built upon the confession of S. john Baptist, before it was built upon the confession of Peter. joan. 1. For john Baptist confessed Christ to be the Lamb of God who took away the sins of the world, before S. Peter, and in more words then S. Peter did. But the ground of Christ's building is the Rock, which Peter is, and S. john Baptist is not that kind of Rock. And the Church is now promised to be built upon his confession, who is first made the Rock, and who being the Rock, doth strongly confess. Remember also, that I showed in the former Chapter, how all the four senses, which the Fathers give of the foresaid words (upon this Rock I will build my Church) are perfitly contained in this one sense, wherein the church is promised to be built upon Peter. For so it is proved to be built upon Christ, because he is so universal a Rock of the whole Church, that he maketh Peter a particular Rock of the Militant Church. In Peter is the faith which he confessed, in him are all faithful Disciples comprehended. But in none other sense all the ancient Father's interpretation can be saved upright. Moreover, seeing it is clear, that to be the Rock, is to be a certain foundation of the Church (for Christ buildeth his house upon a Rock) sith all the Apostles are certain foundations of Gods beautiful City, Matth. 7. Apocalip. 21. and thereby they are also certain Rocks, upon which the Church is built: how can Peter be denied to be a Rock and foundation of the Church for his part? Now, that his part doth pass all other men's parts, I prove it most evidently, because the names of things are tokens of the things themselves, and that most specially, when God himself giveth the name, as now he hath done. For if the thing were not so before, as he nameth it, at the least his naming it so, maketh it to be that, which he nameth it. Therefore seeing only Peter after Christ beareth the name of a rock, it is out of all question, that the said name is a sign of his being the rock in some such sort, as none other Apostle is the rock. But the faithful are built upon the foundation of all the Apostles and Prophets (as S. Paul saith) and they are the Church of Christ: Ephes. 1. therefore the Church of Christ is much more notably built upon S. Peter above all others, because he is the rock and foundation above all others. And whereas by the power Apostolic all the Apostles were equal, certainly S. Peter is this rock, Leo serm. 2. de anniuers. assumpt. not only as an Apostle (wherein he had many fellows) but also as a chief bishop, and as the primate of all Bishops and Priests, wherein he was peerless, being the head and top of all others in that sense as I shall declare hereafter. In the which high priesthood only Peter hath a successor, who sitteth in the See of Rome, to continue a Rock for ever: sith Christ's militant Church needeth to be always built up by visible preaching and government. This my interpretation is not a little fortified by the prevarication of our adversaries. For they being at a point to deny, that Peter and his successors are this rock, whereupon the militant Church is built, are yet by no means agreed, what chief sense these words (upon this rock I will build my Church) ought to have. jewel in his Reply fol. ●21. But sometime they make Christ to be this rock, sometime the confession of the faith, sometime every disciple, not regarding what they grant or hold, so that the truth be denied. But it were reason they told us some one chief literal sense whereunto they would stand. Which if they did, all the world should perceive their vanity. For if all our reasons were not divided to answer diverse senses, as now they are, but were driven all to one purpose: that opinion of theirs should have been much more easily destroyed and utterly vanquished, which never the less is now sufficiently disproved by the circumstance and conference of holy scripture. It is proved out of the aunciene Fathers, that S. Peter is this rock, whereupon the Church was promised to be built, otherwise then M. jewel affirmeth. The V Chap. THE chief ground of our disputation, are the words of Christ spoken to Simon his Apostle, Matth. 16 wherein he said. Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church. By the force of which words the Catholics believe and teach, that S. Peter was made a rock, whereupon Christ would build his Church. And because it appeareth afterward, that the building of Christ's Church upon Saint Peter, was the making of him to be the chief shepherd of Christ's whole flock, the Catholics teach, that who soever succeedeth S. Peter in the office of the chief shepherd (as the bishop of Rome doth) that he is also the rock, whereupon Christ's Church is builded for the tyme. Against which doctrine M. jewel writeth after this sort. jewel. In the 4. Article. Pag. 221. For as much as they seem to make greatest account of those words of Christ, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, therefore for answer hereunto, understand thou, good Reader, that, the old Catholic Fathers have written and pronounced, not any mortal man as Peter was, but Christ himself the Son of God, to be this rock. Saunder. Note (good Reader) that we dispute not at this time, whether Christ be absolutely the chiefest and most principal rock, 1. Cor. 10. or no (for both sides confess that thing) but whether S. Peter for his part also, be not this Rock, whereof Christ at this time saith, upon this rock I will build my Church. M. jewel denieth S. Peter to be this rock. I will prove (God willing) directly against M. jewels words, that the old Catholic fathers have written and pronounced not only Christ the son of God, but also even such a mortal man as S. Peter was, to be this rock, whereof Christ at that time spoke. And that as well by their plain words, as by the reason of their own words. Yea also by the places which M. jewel allegeth for the contrary opinion. In Decree. epist. Tomo 1. Concilior. First, omitting to speak of Anacletus of Pius, of Fabianus, and of other holy bishops of Rome (whose testimonies are yet most unjustly rejected of ●he Protestant's, seeing they suffered death, and not only with their word, but also with their blood bare witness to Christ's name) I will only bring forth such authorities, as they themselves do not ●eiect. Tertullian saith: De praescriptioni adversus haret. Latuit aliquid Petrum aedificandae Ecclesiae Petram ●dictum? was any thing privy from Peter, being called the Rock of the Church, which was to be builded? Here is Peter affirmed to have been called Petra, the rock. The rock of the Church. Yea the rock of the Church, and of the Church which Christ intended to build: so that the building by Tertullians' judgement was yet to come, verily because it was perfectly built upon S. Peter, when Christ said unto him above all others, joan. 21. Plus his. feed my sheep. Now good Reader, confer this place of Tertullian with that which M. jewel affirmed, and see▪ what shall I call it? I say no more, but see that M. jewel w●● overseen, and trust him no more. De consummate. mundi. Hippolytus the martyr saith: Princeps Petrus, fidei petra, Peter is the chief, the rock of faith. Homil. 5. in Exod. Origenes calleth S. Peter Magnum illud Ecclesiae fundamentum, & petram solidissimam, super quam Christus fundavit Ecclesiam, that great foundation and most Massy and sound rock, whereupon Christ hath builded the Church. Lib. 1. epi. 3. & lib. 4 epist. 9 S. Cyprian agreeth with them, saying. Super Petrum aedificata à Domino fuerat ecclesia, the Church was built of our Lord upon Peter. Christ our Lord said, upon this rock will I build my Church. Saint Cyprian saith, our Lord hath built his Church upon Peter. Therefore S. Cyprian understood Peter to be this rock. And consequently some excellent old Catholic Fathers understood a mortal man, as S. Peter was to be this Rock whereof Christ speaketh. S. Hilary writeth: Libr. 6. de Trinit. Petrus aedi●cationi Ecclesiae subiacet. Peter ●eth under the building of the Church. To lie under the building, is to ●e the foundation, which foundation ●ither is a Rock, or in the steed of 〈◊〉 Rock to the house which is built vp●on it. Likewise in an other place he crieth: In cap. Math. 1●. 〈◊〉 in nuncupatione novi nomi●is soelix Ecclesiae fundamentum, dignáque aedificatione illius pe●ra, quae infernas leges dissolue●et. O happy foundation of the Church, in having the new name pronounced of thee, and o Rock worthy of the building of that (Church) which should undo the laws of hell. The new name is the name of Peter which was newly given to Simon, that he might be thereby the happy foundation and worthy Rock whereupon the Church should be built. Sermone 68 S. Ambrose reciting the authority of these words, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church, thereupon saith: Si ergo Petrus petra est, super quam aedificatur Ecclesia, recte prius pedes sanat, ut sicut in Ecclesia fidei fundamentum continet, ita & in homine membrorum fundamenta confirmet. Seeing then Peter is the rock whereupon the Church is built, he doth well to heal first the feet, that even as he doth contain the foundation of faith in the Church, so likewise in the man he may confirm the foundations of his members. In Concio. de poenit. S. Basil speaking of this very confession of S. Peter, writeth thus: Petrus petra est propter Christum petram. Largitur enim jesus suas dignitates. petra est, petram facit. Peter is a Rock through Christ the Rock. For jesus giveth to Peter his own dignities. He is the Rock, and maketh (an other) to be the Rock. What can be said more plainly against M. jewel? Not only Christ is the Rock, but he maketh Peter also a Rock. S. Hierom showeth by an example, Hieron. in Matt. 16. joan. 1. that as Christ being the light, gave to the Apostles, that they should be called the light of the world, Matt. 5. and as they had of our Lord other names: even so to Simon, who believed in Christ the Rock, he gave the name of Peter, and consequently he saith, that (according to the Metaphor of a Rock) it is well said to him, Super te. Upon thee Aedificabo Ecclesiam meam super te. I will build my Church upon thee. Behold, the Church was promised to be built upon a mortal man as Peter was. S. Chrysostom writeth thus: Ex Var. in Math. locis hom. 27. Princeps Apostolorum Petrus, super quem Christus fundavit Ecclesiam, verè immobilis petra, & firma confessio. Peter the Prince of the Apostles, upon whom Christ hath founded the Church, a very immovable Rock, and a strong confession. Note. It is much to be noted, that S. Chrysostom calleth S. Peter the confession: whereby we may understand, when S. Chrysostom saith in an other place, that the Church is built upon the faith of confession, he meaneth upon the faith of Peter confessing, or, making the confession. So that, not every man's, but Peter's confession is this rock, whereupon the Church is promised to be built. Epiphanius doubted not to write of S. Peter in this wise: In Anchoratu. Ipse Dominus constituit eum primum Apostolorum, petram firman, super quam Ecclesia Del aedificata est, & portae inferorum non valebunt adversus illam: portae autem inferorum sunt haereses & haeresiarchae. juxta omne enim modum in ipio firmata est fides qui accepit clavem coelorum. Our Lord himself did constitute him chief of the Apostles, a firm and sure Rock, upon which the Church of God is built, and the gates of hell shall not avail against it: for the gates of hell, are heresies, and the founders of heresies. For by all means the faith is established in him, who hath received the keys of heaven. And in that I may go forward with the Grecians, in Cyrillus we read: In joan. lib. 2. c. 12. Nec Simon fore iam nomen sibi sed Petrus praedicit, In eo. In him. vocabulo ipso commode significans, quòd in eo tanque in petra lapidéque firmissimo suam esset aedificaturus ecclesiam. Christ did foretell, that his name should not now be Simon, but Peter, signifying fitly by the very name, that he would build his church in him, as in a most sure stone and rock. And yet M. jewel could see none of these testimonies. Psellus is alleged of Theodoretus after this sort. Theodoret in Cant. Canticet. In Petro Apostolorum principe Dominus in Euamgelijs se ecclesiam suam aedificaturum promisit. Our Lord in the Gospels hath promised that he will build his Church in Peter the prince of the Apostles. In Peter. Note that these words which do promise a building, can not properly belong first of all to Christ: for upon him the Church was already built. In josaphat. & Barl. Damascene hath also this saying. Princeps Apostolorum Petrus, fidei petra. Peter the prince (or chief) of the Apostles, the rock of faith. In Luc. 22 How plain are these words of Theophilact, which he speaketh in Christ's name? post me, Ecclesiae petra es & firmamentum. Thou art the rock and stay of the Church after me. In. Matt. 16. Euthymius: fidei petra futurus es, siue, te ponam fundamentum credentium: aedificabo super te Ecclesiam meam. Thou shalt be the rock of faith, or, I will make thee the foundation of the faithful: upon thee I will build my Church. This much the Grecians. Let us now return to the Latins. S. Augustin did ever account it probable, In joan. Tractat. 124. to say, that the church was built upon Peter, but he doubted sometime, whether it were not safer to teach, that it was built upon Christ. For whereas both opinions are true, he knowing this later to be more true in itself (because Christ is a surer Rock than Peter) did use commonly to apply that his most sure doctrine unto this place of the Gospel, where yet S. Peter is more literally called this Rock. Therefore on the other side, when he considered that S. Ambrose made an Hymn, wherein S. Peter was called the Rock of the Church, then, in those books of his Retractations, which he wrote with most grave judgement, he allowed both senses for good, and Catholic. Retract. lib. 1. c, 21. contra ep. Donati. Such humility was in that pillar of the church. Dixi in quodam loco de Apostolo Petro, ꝙ in eo tanquam in petra fundata sit Ecclesia. Qui sensus etiam cantatur ore multorum in versibus beatissimi Ambrosii, ubi de gallo gallinaceo ait, hoc, ipsa petra ecclesiae, canente, culpam diluit. I said in a certain place of (his book written against the Epistle of Donatus) that, the church is founded in Peter the Apostle, The Church founded in Peter. as in a rock. The which sense is sung with the mouth of many men, in the verses or Hymns of the most blessed S. Ambrose, where he saith of the Cock: the very rock of the Church, did wash away his fault, The rock of the Church. when the Cock did crow. Thus both S. Ambrose, and S. Augustine, and the faithful who used to sing those verses, allow it for a right good sense (which M. jew. disalloweth) that a mortal man, as S. Peter was, is this rock, upon which Christ built his Church. And although S. Augustine had in many other places affirmed, that the Church was meant in these words to have been built upon Christ, rather than upon Peter (which, of itself is true, though not first meant in this place) yet he concludeth thus: Retract. lib. 1. c. 21. Harum duarum sententiarum quae sit probabilior, eligat lector. Let the Reader make his choice, whether of these two meanings is the more probable. Behold, S. Augustine judgeth it a probable sense, that the Church is built upon Peter, as also that it is built upon Christ: but which is the more probable, thathe leaveth to be judged of the Reader. Why doth M. jewel than without the assent of any old Father at all, deny that sense, whicb teacheth a mortal man as Peter was, to be this Rock, sithence as all the other Fathers, so S. Augustine doth not only believe it to be probable, but he doubteth whether it be not more probable than the other? And surely, In the former Chap. as the circumstance of the words give, I have showed above twenty reasons why it is more probable, that in those words, Peter is first and most literally called this Rock, and Christ is not so called there, but only by discourse and by the force of a necessary consequent. Prosper Aquitanicus affirmeth boldly of S. Peter: De vocation. gen. lib. 2. c. 28. in aeditione Lovaniensi. Haec fortissima petra ab illa principali petra communionem & virtutis sumpfit & nominis. This most strong rock did take the common enjoying both of virtue and of name from that principal rock. In anniuers. Assump. sermon. 3. Leo agreeth with him, who entreating upon these words, thou art Peter, saith: Cùm ego fim inviolabilis petra, tamen, & tu quoque petra es, quia mea virtute solidaris. Whereas I am the rock which can not be injuried, yet never the less, thou art also a rock, because thou art made firm by my strength. S. Gregory could not disagree from so many blessed Saints. Epistol. li. 6. epist. 37 Quis nesciat sanctam Ecclesiam in Apostolorum principis soliditate firmatam, quia firmitatem mentis traxit in nomine, ut Petrus à petra vocaretur? Who doth not know, that the holy Church is established in the steadfastness of the prince of the Apostles, because he took steadfastness of mind in his name, in that he was called Peter of Petra, a rock of a rock? When he saith, the Church to have been established in the strength of the prince of the Apostles, in that he declareth him to be this rock whereupon the Church is promised to be built. When he addeth, that he was called Petrus of petra, a rock of the rock, he showeth the reason how he came to be the rock: verily, because Christ the rock who gave him his name, gave him the strength also which did belong to the name. Let us conclude this matter at the last with the witness of six hundred fathers at once, Concil. Chalced. Act. 3. who in the fourth general Council teach thus: Petrus Apostolus est Petra & crepido ecclesiae Catholicae. Peter the Apostle is the Rock and top of the Catholic Church. What meant you then, M. jewel, to say, that the old Catholic Fathers have written and pronounced, not any mortal man, as Peter was, but Christ himself the Son of God to be this Rock? The old Fathers affirm both Christ, and Peter to be thee, Rock. Christ by nature, Peter by vocation and election. Christ to be both the Rock absolutely, and also by a consequent to be this Rock, whereupon the militant Church shallbe built: Peter to be this Rock, but not absolutely the Rock. But what? did not M. jewel know all this? that surely is scant likely, sith these things are so rive in the old Fathers, and so oft alleged by the new writers. Unless perhaps M. jewel readeth not the old Fathers, and trusteth not the new writers, and so be ignorant of these authorities. For in deed id appeareth by his doings, that either he never saw the originals, whence he citeth his testimonies (but only followeth blind note books made and collected by other his ancestors and masters in heresy) or else he is one of the most manifest falsifiers, that ever was in the Church. For willingly to bely so many Fathers at once as he now hath done, it is a malice not much less, than Simon Magus or any scholar of his had. I rather think, he saw not the originals. Howsoever it be, he is an horrible instrument of perdition to the children of perdition. O sir, Are Tertullian, Origenes, Cyprian, Hilary, Basil, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Hierom, Augustine, Chrysostom, Cyrillus, Damascenus, Psellus, Theodoretus, Theophilactus, Euthimius, Prosper, Leo, Gregorius, no ancient Fathers? Al they teach, a mortal man as Peter was (verily even Peter himself) by the gift of Christ to be this Rock, whereof it is said, upon this rock I will build my Church. What a liar now is he, who saith they do not so? their books be forth in print, let them be seen. If M. jewel be an impudent liar, let him either openly recant, or be avoided as a falsifier of God's Gospel, and of true religion: yea as one more worthy of a whetstone, then of a bishopric. But now let us consider also the reason, why the fathers confess the Church to have been built upon S. Peter. For every thing is made the plainer and surer, when the reason of it is known. The diverse reasons which the Fathers bring to declare, why S. Peter was this rock, do evidently show, that he was most literally this Rock, whereupon Christ would build his Church. The VI Chap. HE that giveth a cause of a thing done or said, showeth himself to be most fully persuaded concerning the truth of the thing: otherwise he would never endeavour, to find out the reasons, why that should be so doen or said, which he thought not to be done or said at all. Seeing then the ancient Fathers do show, why and how S. Peter is this Rock, whereupon the Church is built, it is impossible, that they should anything doubt thereof, and much less can they deny him to be this rock, whereupon Christ said he would build his Church. And yet M. jewel hath said most falsely, that they do write and pronounce not any mortal man as Peter was to be this Rock. To begin with S. Basil, he saith: Petrus Ecclesiae aedificationem in seipsum suscepit. Aduersus Eunomium lib. 2. Peter received the building of the Church upon himself. But why? propter fidei excellentiam, for the excellency of his faith. Behold his faith alone was not properly the Rock, but Peter was the Rock, and that not only for his faith (for then other faithful men might have been the like rock) but for the excellency of his faith. Two things then are necessary for being this Rock: that he be Peter, and that he have an excellent faith: to wit, such as none other had, as the which was promised most singularly, and for the continuance whereof Christ himself hath prayed. And because this faith was most excellent, Libr. 6. de Tainit. Saint Hilary teacheth farther, that, Supereminentem gloriam beatae fidei suae confessio●e promeruit. Peter by the confessing of his blessed faith, deserved a passing glory. Peter's faith had not excelled, if any man had been like to him, neither had Peter's glory passed for the confession of his faith, if any man had been like to him in glory. His glory was, to receive the building of the Church upon him for the excellency of his faith: therefore the Church was more singularly built upon him, then upon any other manels. S. Cyprian writeth of S. Peter Ecclesia quae una est, super unum, Ad jubaian. qui claves eius accepit Domini voce fundata est. The Church, which is one, is by the voice of our Lord founded upon one who hath received the keys of it. This reason can bear but one such Rock at once, as Peter was, for else the Church (as one) is not founded upon one, if there are more such rocks at once. Otherwise what can be said, why if there be many such rocks, there should not also be many Churches. But the Church being one, is built upon one: therefore that one (who is Peter) hath no fellow in that behalf, until after him, an other do succeed in that one office. Homil. de Pastor. S. Augustine discoursing upon those words of Christ, spoken to S. Peter: Feed my sheep, writeth thus: Dominus in ipso Petro unitatem commendavit, etc. Our Lord hath commended unity in S. Peter himself. uni dicitur. There were many Apostles, and it is said to one, feed my sheep. S. Augustin calleth the other Apostles also good shepherds, but S. Peter he calleth the one good shepherd, by whose one pastoral office, unity is commended and set forth, verily because it is meant, that, as many Pastors and particular flocks in this life, are under Peter one chief pastor, and in him ●hey all are one: even so all the states ●nd ages of the Church that ever have ●en, be, or shallbe, are under one chief pastor jesus Christ, and in him they ●al are one. But as all the ages of faithful men are one Church in Christ the chief pastor, because he in deed and in truth containeth them all under his unity: right so Peter should not be the chief one Pastor of all the particular flocks in respect of the other Apostles, except in deed he had power given him to feed them all within the compass of his one fold. S. Jerome having called S. Peter, Lib. 1. adverse. jovin. the Apostle of Christ, and the Rock, afterward confesseth to jovinian (who rejoiced to see a married man so honoured) that, Super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia. The Church is built upon Peter. Adding thereunto: Licet id ipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat, & cuncti claves regni coelorum accipiant, & ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur: tamen propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur ut capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasio. Albeit the self same thing in an other place be done upon all the Apostles, and all do receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church be fastened equally upon them: yet therefore one is chosen among twelve, that a head being made, the occasion of schism may be taken away. Three things are to be noted in this sentence. First, that the Church is so built upon Peter the Rock, that in the same place, where it is built upon Peter, the like is not done upon the other Apostles. Secondly, the Church is equally founded upon all the Apostles in an other place, joan. 20. to wit, when they are sent of Christ, as Christ was sent of his Father, to bind or to lose, and so forth. joan. 20. Thirdly, one is chosen head of the twelve to th'intent schism may be avoided. A man may say: if all be equal, The objection and answer. How is one head? This shall be more fully answered hereafter. I say for this time. All twelve as touching the office of the Apostlesship, were equal, and all were Rocks and heads of the whole Church. But being considered as particular Bishops and Pastors, whereby they had particular authority to teach some here, and some there (as now Bishops do every man in his own diocese) so, one was their head. How can it else be, that S. Jerome should agree with himself? all be equal, and one is the head. Can the head be equal with the other members? Or is it not highest of all, and chief of all? We must then say, that alare equal in the office of them apostleship, but Peter was otherwise appointed the chief Apostle and head in the Bisshoplie power, which every Apostle had, beside the Apostolic office, as it shall appear hereafter. In the mean time it is certain, that S. Hierom writeth: Hieron. adversus jovin. li. 2 Propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur, ut capite constituto schismatis occasio tollatur. Therefore among the twelve, one is chosen, to th'end a head being appointed, the occasion of schism may be taken away. And that there S. Jerome speaketh not of the Apostles own choice, but of Christ's own choosing, it appeareth evidently, when he saith afterward, that the good man●er (Christ) would not prefer S. john before S. Peter, Lib. 1. adverse. levin. lest he should cause so young a man to be envied at. Neither did it suffice, that during the Apostles time only, such a Rock and head should be appointed, for so much as the Church of God, neither ended in their time, And their successors in their bishoply authority having (without all controversy) less assurance of grace than they had, and being also far more in number, had more need (than the Apostles) of a head and of a perpetual Rock among them whereunto they might lean. So that Leo the great hath most just cause to say of S. Peter: In Anivers' assumpt. serm. 3. Super hoc Saxum, hanc soliditatem, & sortitudinem, aeternum construam templum, & Ecclesiae meae coelo inserenda sublimitas in huius firmitate consurget. Upon this stone, this soundness, and strength I will build an everlasting temple, and the height of my Church, which is to be graffed in heaven, shall rise in the strength of this Rock. S. Augustine affirmeth in many places, that S. Peter did represent the whole Church, according to which sense he writeth thus: Epist. 165. Petro totius Ecclesiae figuram gerenti Dominus ait, super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Our Lord saith unto Peter bearing the figure of the whole Church, Upon this Rock I will build my Church. So that he giveth this cause, why this much is said to Peter, verily because Peter beareth the figure of the whole Church. But how cometh it to pass, that Peter doth bear the figure of the whole Church? Surely because he is the head and Rock of the whole. For every prince doth bear the figure and as it were the general person of his subjects, and of them who are committed to his Charge. For that they all are, as it were, gathered together and united in him alone. And this to be the true meaning of S. Augustine, In joan. tract. 124 it appeareth evidently by his own words: Ecclesiae Petrus Apostolus propter Apostolatus sui primatum gerebat figurata generalitate personam. Peter the Apostle (by a generality which was figured) did hear the person of the Church by reason of the primacy of his Apostleship. Peter did bear the person of the Church, not as men carry burdens on their backs, but by a figured generality, that is to say, as a general officer. For he doth bear their persons, not naturally, but figuratively. To wit, by interpretation of the Law, and not by real extension of his body to be made so big as to uphold all their bodies, Generalitas figurata. S. Augustine calleth that a figured generality, when it is not ordinarily and naturally made, but when the law doth impute and take it so to be. For the Law interpreteth and expoundeth the chief officer of a common weal, to bear the person of the self common weal. And thereupon the head being present for the common weals behalf, the law worketh, as if the common weal itself were present, when the head alone is present. What was then Peter's office? The primacy of the Apostleship. He was first and chief, & propter Apostolatus sui primatum, Propter. and for the primacy of his Apostleship he signified all his flock in himself alone. so that he took the keys for all, and was the general Rock for every other particular Rock, and for that primacy of his he bore the figure of the Church. To show yet farther the force of this reason, the Reader must consider, that first, Peter is said to be the Rock, and therein to bear the person of the Church figurata generalitate, which is to say, as if he were in deed the general, or the whole mystical body of the Church, which yet he is not, but is only the officer thereof. Secondarily a reason is given, why Peter should signify or bear the figure of the whole Church more than any other. And the cause is, propter Apostolatus sui primatum, for the primacy of his Apostleship, that is to say, because he is chief. If this cause were not found in S. Augustine, the Protestants might have some pretence to say (as they do) verily, that Peter was not in deed the rock, nor head, but only that he is called so, to signify, that the whole Church is built upon Christ. But now Peter doth not signify the Church to be built upon Christ, as Peter is a man, nor as he is a faithful man, nor as he is an Apostle, but as he is the primate of the Apostles, propter Apostolatus sui primatum, for the primacy of his Apostleship. If he be not Primate in deed, he doth not signify that which S. Augustine teacheth. For all mystical significations in God's word be built upon a real truth. Gen. 8. Noë by offering clean beasts upon the altar, did signify the death of Christ. Therefore in deed Noë did offer upon the altar. Let it be taught to be a feigned thing, that Noë did offer those beasts, and that deed of his can not be a figure of Christ's death. For that which is not really true, is the figure of nothing. Therefore seeing the primacy of Peter is the cause why he beareth the person of the Church, and why he hath the Church built upon him, it is not only true, that Peter is the primate of the Apostles, and thereby of the whole Church, Note. but also he is (at the least in the order of nature) first the primate, before he doth bear the figure of the Church. For as if a man do bear the person of Gloucester in the parliament because he is Burges of that City, it is most necessarily true that he is first Burges, before he do so bear that person: even so if Peter bear the figure of the Church, because he is the primate, he is surely the primate before he bear the general person of the Church. When I say he is primate before, I mean not in time, but in course and order of nature. For first Peter is considered as made primate, and then we afterward consider, that upon his primacy the person of the Church is laid, although both things be done at once. Seeing then Peter could not bear this general person but only for those, whose officer and primate he was, it is evident, In joan. Tract. 12● that by this reason of S. Augustine, Peter was the general officer of the whole militant Church, even of S. john, and of S. james also, in such respect, as he took the keys for them. Not yet the keys of their Apostleship (which they took for themselves) but the keys of the chief pastoral office, jon. 21. within which the Apostles also were contained, in that respect as they were sheep, and of that one flock in earth, which was wholly committed to Peter. Thus have we many reasons, why S. Peter above all others was the rock, 1. the excellency of his faith, 2 the excellency of his glory, 3. the unity of the Church built upon him being one, 4. the signifying of Christ to be the one everlasting shepherd, 5. the eschewing of schisms, 6. the receiving of Ecclesiastical power for the whole Church. Which reasons if they be deepe● pondered (7.) they prove not only, that he was once the Rock, but that also an other like him must still be the Rock, whose excellent faith may direct the faithful, whose glory may cause the Church to be glorious, whose unity may keep the flock one, and keep away schisms, and signify still the unity of one everlasting head and one mystical body, whose general office may receive power to be distributed to every other member (in the outward ministery of the Church) as every one hath need thereof for the building up of the Church of God. Ephes. 4. For the building of the Church upon this rock (which S. Peter is) goeth still ●●rward, as it once began, sithence all the ●uilding is not yet ended, but is every ●ay a working. Endeavour once, M. Ie●el, to answer these reasons of the Fathers, and the lack of reason in your side shall strait appear. Words you can ●atch together, as other heretics have ●lon before you: but the examining of ●n authority with the reason thereof doth strait confound you. The Authorities alleged by M. jewel to prove that S. Peter was not this Rock, prove against himself, that S. Peter was this rock, although they prove, that there was an other kind of rock also beside him, which thing we deny not. The VII. Chap. jewel. The old Catholic Fathers have written and pronounced not any mortal man as Peter was, but Christ himself the Son of God to be this Rock. Saunder. There are two parts of this proposition, the one, that Christ is this Rock: Which we grant to be most true, and how it is true, we shall see hereafter. The other part of M. jewels assertion is, that, no mortal man (as Peter was) is this rock. This part, I say, he neither proveth, nor is able to prove. For I showed before, that above twenty ancient Fathers have taught, and have confirmed it by reason, that Peter was this rock. But let us hear M. jewel speak for himself. jewel. In locis veteris Testam. Gregorius Nyssenus saith: Thou art Peter, And upon rhiss Rock I will build my Church. He meaneth the confession of Christ. For he had said before, thou art Christ the Son of the living God. Saunder. It is not here said, that Peter was not this Rock, which was the chief thing that M. jewel ought to have proved. Yea I say farther, it is not here said, that Christ was this Rock: which was the other part of ●. jewels assertion. But only Nysse●us saith, that Christ meaneth to build ●is church upon the confession which Peter ●ade of him. And verily I believe so to. But Christ meaneth not to build his Church upon the confession, without all ●espect of S. Peter, but upon the con●ession which Peter had, and always should make, whiles in feeding Christ's flock, he should always teach thenche true faith of jesus Christ. So that ●f the confession of S. Peter be this rock, than S. Peter, who maketh it, is much more this rock. For no man's act of confessing can be greater than himself is, sithence it cometh from his soul and heart as from a certain spring or fountain, where God hath planted the grace thereof. Such Arguments then M. jewel bringeth to prove his fond assertion, as if he should say: there cometh Eloquence from the man, but the man is not eloquent. For he would prove, that S. Peter, who maketh the confession, is not the Rock, because his confession, which cometh from him, is the Rock. Whereas it is no less true, th● if Peter's confession be the Rock, Peter himself is also much more the Rock, than it is true, that if a man's Oration be eloquent, himself also is eloquent. For the virtue which either the oration or the confession hath, was before in the man himself, and proceeded from him. jewel. lib. 2. de Trinit. So saith S. Hilary: Haec e● una foelix fidei petra, quam Petrus ore suo confessus est. This is that only blessed Rock of faith, that Peter confessed with his mouth. Saunder. When shall we have honest dealing in you M. jewel? Did you not promise to prove, that the Rock spoken of in these words, Upon this Rock will I build my Church, was Christ and not Peter? But S. Hilary speaketh not of those words, but expressly of the other words which went afore, when Peter said: False conveyance. Thou art Christ the Son of the living God. And that would have appeared plain●, if you had not cut of the sentence. For after S. Hilary had said, this is ●e only happy Rock confessed by Peter's ●outh, it followeth immediately: Tu ●s filius Dei vivi, Thou art the Son ●f the living God. And whereas the ●ronoune, Haec petra, this Rock, was ●eferred to these words, False division. Thou art Christ the Son of the living God, ●he falsifier of all good writers, divided ●he Pronoune Demonstrative (Haec) from the Proposition which it should ●oint unto, and did cut of the sentence ●n the midst, making the ignorant ●eleue, that S. Hilary spoke of the rock whereupon Christ promised to build his Church, whereas he speaketh of the ●onely Rock, which is the Son of God. To make the matter plain, Peter saith to Christ: Thou art the Son of the living God, Matth. 16 this Rock wh●●● the Son of God is, Peter out of all contr●uersie is not. Neither did ever any Catholic say, that Peter was the nature Son of God, by whom all things we● made. But after that Peter had confessed this only blessed rock, than Christ said unto Peter: Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church. Of this later sentence, o● disputation is. And surely, S. Hilary denieth not Peter to be this kind of Rock, which we last spoke of but expressly confesseth it in his Commentaries upon S. Matthew, as I have showed already. In the V chap. But now S. Hilary speaketh only of that Rock which the Son of God is. So whereas there are two rocks, Christ and Peter, M. jewel would deceive us by conveying the one in stead of the other. But God hath detected his unhonest dealing. jewel. Again he saith, upon this Rock of Peter's confession is the building of the Church. Saunder. This place is abused as the ●ormer was. De Trinitate. lib. 6 For S. Hilary there in●reateth of these words: Thou art Christ the Son of the living God. And showeth, that Peter both believed and confessed Christ's Godhead. The confession of which Godhead is in deed the foundation of the Church, but that confession is one thing, and the answer to it is an other thing. The confession toucheth the honour of Christ, saying: Thou art the Son of God. The answer toucheth the honour of Peter, saying: Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church. Christ is the Rock that Peter confesseth, Two Rocks. and Peter is the Rock which Christ maketh. The confession, concerning the thing confessed, is a greater Rock than Peter. But concerning the thing who confessed, Peter is no less a rock, than his own act of confession was. Now when Christ saith: Upon this Rock I will build my Church, he meaneth not only, nor first of all literally, that he will hereafter build his Church upon the thing confessed, to wit, upon the Godhead of Christ which Pet●●●onfessed (for thereupon it was built already, Two buildings. even from the beginning of the world) but he meaneth, that he will build that Church (which was for ever built upon his Godhead, and was built upon his manhood ever sith his incarnation) that Church, I say, he will hereafter build, upon the inward faith and outward confession of S. Peter, whiles he by confessing the truth shall uphold, stay and establish all other faithful men. So that S. Hilary includeth S. Peter's person most necessarily under the confession of S. Peter. And so M. jewel telleth the tale always against himself, as liars do. jewel. Dial. 4. de trinit. S. Cyrillus: The Rock is nothing else but the strong and assured faith of the Disciple. Saunder. This is that I would have, M. jewel: for I said before, that Christ in saying, Upon this Rock I will build my Church, did not now only or most literally mean, so much upon the thing confessed, as upon the faith of the confessor, and now M. jewel confirmeth my saying. For the Rock is the faith of the Disciple. But the Disciple is S. Peter: therefore the faith which is the Rock, is the faith of S. Peter. Who hired M. jewel to bewray his own cause? When, I say, that Saint Peter is this Rock, I mean S. Peter believing, Saint Peter confessing, Saint Peter feeding his sheep, S. Peter strengthening his brethren. But yet every way S. Peter is the rock. And so it is true, Dial. 4. de trinit. that Cyrillus saith: the rock is nothing else but S. Peter's strong and assured faith. But S. Peter's faith is not Christ: therefore Christ (who is somewhat else beside the faith of the Disciple) is not now said to be that Rock, whereupon he will build his Church. And yet M. jewel saith that and nothing else. O trusty preacher to build a man's soul upon. Thus he reasoneth, not Peter, but Christ is this rock, because the Rock is nothing else, but the faith of the disciple: as though the faith were not in Peter who is the disciples? jewel. So likewise Chrysostom: upon this Rock, that is to say, upon this faith and this confession I will build my Church. Saunder. But he that believed and confessed was Peter, and not Christ, and Peter's faith and confession was in himself (as being revealed to him by God the Father) ergo S. Peter is the rock, in that God gave him grace to confess Christ to be the Son of God. You confound yourself, M. jewel, not caring, how your words agree, so that a show of somewhat be made. In the v. Chap. I showed also before, that S. Chrysostom nameth S. Peter himself a strong confession, so ●hat the name of confession doth necessarily include S. Peter within the meaning thereof. jewel. S. Augustine: De verbis Domini. Christ was the ●ock, upon which foundation Peter himself was also built. Saunder. Did you never know, M. jewel, that one Rock might be built upon an other? 1. Pet. 2. the lesser upon the greater? is not the house of God built of many stones? Christ is the chief Rock, 1. Cor. 10. the corner stone, upon him lieth S. Peter a rock in comparison of Christ very small, in comparison of us very great. Upon Saint Peter the rest of the Church which lived under him, was built, which also is a Rock aswell through Christ the Rock of Rocks, as through Peter the second Rock, and through itself, sith every man is according to his degree a lively stone concurring to the building up of the whole Church, which stones being joined together and fastened by faith and charity make also a Rock of themselves, Ephes. 2. beside that they are built upon the foundations of the Prophets and of the Apostles. One of these verities doth not imbar the other. jewel. S. Augustine addeth in Christ's person: I will not build myself upon thee, but I will build thee upon me. Saunder. It is but reason truly, that Peter be builded upon Christ, and that we also believe. But for as much as we are in the metaphor of building, doth not reason teach us, that when we have laid in the foundation of a house a mighty great stone, that the next which we lay upon it, should be also a very great one, yea (after the lowest) the very greatest of all? Doth any wise man, having laid in the foundation a stone of twenty cubits, place next upon it a stone of one or two inches? If not so, by all proportion, the second stone shallbe the greatest that can be gotten next unto the first. Dan. 7. Christ is so great a stone, that he hath filled the whole earth. I ask of M. jewel, who shallbe next unto Christ? my verdict is, that (in respect of the militant Church, which is daily a building on the earth) S. Peter is the next stone. Because God (who giveth his benefits most freely) vouchsafed first of all men to grant S. Peter this grace, joan. 21. to be the Pastor of his flock, Matth. 10 and the porter of his kingdom, next unto himself. Saint Peter being the next stone in building of the Church, unto Christ, is therefore a Rock, because he is built immediately upon the Rock. For in a body compacted together, every thing partaketh most entirely the nature of that, whereunto it is next joined. Note (good Reader) that we speak 〈◊〉 the whole Church, which hath 〈◊〉 the beginning of the world but only of that portion which liveth on the earth for the time. For thereof only Peter and his successors are the Rocks, whereas Christ is the Rock of Rocks, which uphouldeth the whole Church, and all the rocks that ever have been or shallbe in the Church from the beginning of the world, to the end thereof. jewel. All these Fathers be plain. Saunder. Against you, for as none of them deny Peter to be this Rock (which thing you have denied) so many affirm, that the confession of S. Peter, and his faith, is the Rock whereof Christ spoke. And yet seeing the faith of S. Peter is no greater than himself is, if his faith be the Rock, himself is also the Rock. jewel. In 16. Matth. None is so plain as Origen, he is the Rock, whosoever is the disciple of Christ. Saunder. In the 3. Chap. This kind of sense is not literal, as I showed before. But admit it were literal, yet seeing S. Peter is the disciple, yea the chef disciple of Christ (as S. Matthew saith: Primus Simon, qui dicitur Petrus. Simon is the first, Matth. 10 who is called Peter) surely M. jewel by your confession, Peter (next unto Christ) is the chief Rock. A man would think you were frantic, when you denying a mortal man (as Peter was) to be this Rock, yet afterward proved that every mortal man who is Christ's Disciple, is the Rock. jewel. Upon such a Rock all Ecclesiastical learning is built as Origen saith. Saunder. But S. Peter is such a rock: therefore upon S. Peter all Ecclesiastical learning is built. Who could wissh such an adversary as M. jewel is, who proveth altogether against himself? jewel. If thou think that the whole Church is built only upon Peter, what then wilt thou say of john the son of the thunder, Metth. 1● and of every of the Apostles, saith origen? Saunder. Master jewel left out in his English this word (illum) Petrum. A word left out. If thou think the whole Church to be only built upon that Peter, to wit, that Rock of stone, what wilt thou say of john, and of every of the Apostles? Origen saith, Peter is a Rock: which thing Master jewel denieth. But he is not only a Rock, and that we grant. But Master jewel saith, no mortal man but Christ himself is this rock: therefore I ask him, what he saith of S. john and of all the Apostles? Was not Saint john a mortal man? woe to this cause, M. jewel, whereof you are become the patron. God keep me from such an advocate, who shall need none other evidence against him to lose my cause withal, besides his own words. You say, the old Fathers have written, not any mortal man, but Christ himself the Son of God to be this Rock. Ex ore tuo te judico serve nequam. But S. john and S. Peter and every one of the Apostles is called here this rock (whereof being named in the sixteenth of S. Matthew, we dispute) and yet no Apostle is Christ the Son of God, therefore some mortal man is this Rock beside Christ the Son of God. jewel. Shall we dare to say, that the gates of hell shall not prevail only against Peter? or are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given only unto Peter, saith Origen. Saunder. It is enough, that the gates of hell shall least of all prevail against Peter. And he hath chiefly the keys of heaven. For as S. Peter of all the Apostles first confessed in the name of the whole Church, August. in joan. tractat. 124. so all that confess after him and by him (for all were in him, as in their primate and chief pastor) enjoy both his confession, and his reward. That as he was set over all the Church for ever, so others for their part were called into part, of the care. To conclude this matter, M. jewel should have proved, that S. Peter is not the Rock, whereupon Christ promised to build his Church. But he hath not done it, neither was he able to bring any one syllable out of the holy scriptures, nor any one saying out of the Doctors, which denied Peter to be this Rock. But he only hath ministered matter to me for the prouf of the contrary assertion. The conclusion of the former discourse, and the order of the other which followeth. The VIII. Chap. HItherto it hath been proved by most evident reasons of God's promise, of the circumstance, and of the conference of the holy scriptures, of the authority of the Fathers, and of the special reasons which moved them to think and write so, and last of all, by the refutation of M. jewels own words, that Saint Peter with such qualities and conditions as Christ endued him withal, is this rock, whereupon the Church was built. And because, look what kind of building the Church was once promised to have, that must still continue seeing the Church doth still tarry the same house of God: there must be always some one mortal man like unto Peter, who being first made a rock by election, may afterward by God's revelation still confess the faith for the whole Church, when so ever he is demanded or consulted, what is to be thought and believed in matters belonging to Christian religion. If then there must be some one such Rock upon whose authority the faithful men may ground themselves, it is not possible, that it should be any other man besides the bishop of Rome. First because he above all others is confessed of all sides to have been the first and chief in all assembles and meetings to whom (by M. jewels confession) the prerogative of the first place did belong to direct and order Bishops in their doings. In his Reply. 241. & 242. Secondly, because he only sitteth in Saint Peter's chair, and is his lawful successor. Thirdly, because the consent of the world hath taken it so, and so hath practised (in deed for ever) but even by our adversaries confession, from the time of Pope Zosimus and Leo, and so above a thousand years. And although (if I had no farther proof) this alone were never able to be avoided, yet I have so many other proofs, that I am more troubled what to leave unsaid, than I am to seek what may be said. I have chosen to speak of that point specially, which is of all other the most hard. For there is no greater objection against Saint Peter's Supremacy, then to say, The objection. that all the Apostles were the same thing which he was. The same Rock, the same Pastor, the same Confirmour of their brethren. Whereby he may seem, to have had no more, than they had, and consequently that all bishops are as good, as the successor of S. Peter. To which objection if I should only answer, The answer. by demanding of the Protestants, in what Gospel or holy scripture it were written, that every other Apostle was the same rock, which S. Matthew testifieth S. Peter to have been: seeing they have bound themselves to believe nothing which is not expressly written in the holy Scriptures, Matth. 10 & 16. they were not able so to reply, that their own conscience might justly be quiet. For if they brought me forth S. Cyprian, De unit. Eccles. or S. Hierom: it were sufficient for me to say, that they were no Evangelists. I show it written, thou shalt be called Cephas, and, thou art Peter, that is to say, a rock, or, of the quality of a rock. For as S. Hierom witnesseth, Lib. 1. ad Gal. c. 2. that which the Greeks and Latins call Petra, the Hebrews and Syrians call Cephan. Let them show it written, where S. Matthew, or S. john is called such a Rock, or is said to be of such a condition and quality that the Church shallbe built upon him. How unhappy are men now a days, that whereas they have most plain scriptures in all points for the Catholic faith, and none at all against the same, yet they pretend by the very scriptures to overcome the Catholics? And by the bare naming of God's word (which they neither understand, nor love) they have among peddlers won the spurs, and among the ignorant have gotten the opinion of knowledge. But seeing there is an infinite treasure in God's word, to prove those things whereby the Catholic faith is fortified, I will take upon me this one point, for this time, to show, by what means S. Peter exelled the other Apostles. wherein I will proceed in this order. It is certain, that S. Peter excelled the Apostles in some kind of honour and dignity. The Apostles had two kinds of dignity. The one proper to their Apostleship, the other common with all Bishops. How far S. Peter was above or equal with them in the Apostolic function. That S. Peter's great prerogative above the Apostles, is most manifestly known by his supremacy in the bishoply power of governing the Church of Christ. That S. Peter's bishoply authority was an ordinary power. That it must continue in some one bishop. That it is the Bishop of Rome, in whom S. Peter's ordinary power and supremacy resteth. That S. Peter passeth far the other Apostles in some kind of Ecclesiastical dignity. The IX. Chap. IF what soever authority any Apostle had, concerning the government of the Church, S. Peter had the same: and yet if beside he had very many things of greatest importance, promised and given to him alone, which no man else had: it is out of all controversy, that S. Peter passed a great way the other Apostles in some kind of Ecclesiastical dignity. Otherwise if he had no more authority than they, or if his privileges had been only personal (as the love was which our Saviour bore toward S. john who lay upon his breast at his last supper) certainly S. Peter should either have had nothing at all committed to him above and beside the rest of the Apostles, joan. 13. or it should have been only some temporal privilege, and not any such function, as had appertained to the perpetual establishment of Christ's Church. But now, Matth. 10 for so much as he is not only first among the twelve, but also he had the promise to be called Cephas or a, Rock, joan 1. before the twelve were chosen, and was really named Peter at the time of the choice: Marc. 3. And for so much as although both S. john Baptist had confessed Christ's godhead before, joan. 1. and Nathanael had said, thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel, yet only Peter's confession being made long after, was so highly rewarded, that Christ said to him alone, thou art Peter, Matth 16. and upon this Rock I will build my Church: For so much as the keys of the Kingdom of heaven are namely promised to Peter alone: Matth. 16 And whereas the tribute of didrachma was due for the first begotten of every family: Num. 3. josephus antiquit. li. 13. c. 12 Chrysost. in Matth. Hom. 59 Matth. 17 Yet Christ paid both for himself, and for S. Peter also, as being the underhead and first begotten of his family the Church: And for so much as Christ, although an other boat also were at hand, yet he taught the people out of S. Peter's boat, to show that in Peter's chair his doctrine should always be steadyly professed: Luc. 5. Ambro. in 5. ca Luc. And whereas all the Apostles were sure to be sifted of Satan, Lucae 22. yet the faith of Peter alone is prayed for, Leo serm. 2. de ●at. Petri & Pauli. that he being once converted might strenhgten his brethren. And when word of Christ's resurrection was sent to all the disciples, for so much as Peter both entered first into the Sepulchre, Luc. 24. and was not comprehended with the rest, but was severally named by himself, Marci 16. whiles the Angel said, tell his disciples, and Peter, In 24. ca Lucae. that he will go before you into Galilee: and as S. Ambrose thinketh, of men he was the first who saw Christ after his resurrection, (abeit some women had seen him before). And whereas the other Apostles sailed in the sea within the compass of a boat, joan. 21. Bernard. de consid. lib. 2. yet S. Peter alone walked upon the whole Sea, without any particular boat, betokenning, that the whole world (which is meant by the Sea) was ordinarily subject unto his jurisdiction: furthermore for so much as some other Apostles standing by, S. Peter alone is both showed to have loved Christ more than they, and he is alone commanded to feed Christ's sheep, joan. 21. August. ibidem. and to rule his lambs: yea for somuch as it is said to Peter alone not ably, extends manus tuas, and again tu me sequere, joan. 21. thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and, follow thou me, so that his particular kind of death by stretching forth his hands upon the cross, was principally prophesied of, by Christ himself: Peter answered always for the Apostles, joan. 6. Matth 16. as being the mouth of them all: and seeing after Christ's ascension, Act 1. Chrysost. in Acta. Hom. 3. Peter alone gave sentence upon judas, and pronounced him deposed from his bishopric, and that an other must be chosen in his place: seeing when the holy Ghost came down, Peter above all the rest first of all, Act. 2. taught the faith, Act. 2. and the multitude being converted, said to Peter, and to the other Apostles, but to Peter by name: what shall we do? Act. 2. Peter made answer for all, that they should repent and be baptised: Act. 3. seeing Peter did the first miracle after the coming of the holy Ghost, Ambros. serm. 68 and first healed the feet of the lame, because he being the Rock, showed mystically, that he stablissheth the feet of others: seeing Peter confessed Christ first, Act. 4. not only before private men, but also at the seat of judgement: seeing Peter saw the secrets of hearts, and whereas men laid their goods at the other Apostles feet also, Act. 5. yet Peter alone gave with fullness of power, sentence upon Ananias and Saphyra, cutting of their life with a word, Gregor. lib. 1. ep. 24. and thereby showing (as S. Gregory noteth) Quanta potentia super caeteros excrevisset, With how great power he had increased above the rest: seeing, Act. 5. although all the Apostles did also miracles, yet Feter was so famous above the rest, that men did put the sick and the weak in the streets to the end at the least, the shadow of Peter might come over them (which was the greatest miracle that ever is thought to have been done of man, seeing Peter did excommunicate and enjoin penance to Simon Magus the first heretic: Act. 8. Seeing he was the first after Christ's Ascension who raised a dead person to life (as he did Tabytha) Seeing he had first by vision, Act. 9 Act. 10. that the Gentiles also were called to believe in Christ, and God chose that the Gentiles should first of all hear the word of the Gospel by Peter's mouth, and should believe: Actor. 15. Seeing when Peter was in the prison, Act. 14. prayer was made in the Church for him with out intermission (which thing we read to have been so earnestly done for none other Apostle, albeit many were also in prison) when a sedition was among the Disciples, Act. 15. Theod. in ep. ad leonem. in so much that Paul and Barnabas (not for their own learning, but to signify what other Bishops should do afterward) came to the Apostles to jerusalem (to set a solution from Peter, as Theodoretus noteth, and told the controversy in the Council, than Peter did not only speak first, but also he gave a determinate sentence, Galat. 1. In comment. c. 1. ad gall. that the Gentiles should not be burdened with the law, and the whole multitude held their peace for a time: Chrysost. in acta. homil. 21. S. Paul himself came to jerusalem to see Peter, and that, as S. Ambrose saith, because he was Primus, first or chief among the Apostles, ad Solitar. vit. agent. August. de Sànctis. serm. 27. Leo Serm. 1. in Natt. Pet. & Pau. to whom the Lord had committed the care of Churches: seeing Peter was either alone, or first and chief in the greatest affairs as S. Chrysostom noteth most singularly: seeing he was sent to occupy with his chair, Rome the mother Church of the Roman province, as Athanasius calleth it, and the head City of all the world, Concil. Chalced. act. 3. and there to conquer all heretics by vanquishing Simon Magus the head of all Heretics, whom with his prayer he destroyed: seeing his chair and succession hath been acknowledged of all the Ancient Fathers, Bernard. epist. 190. and hath flourished there till this hour, without interruption of that faith, which S. Peter confessed and taught as the very experience doth bear witness: so many things so singularly belonging to the government of the whole Church, could never above all the other Apostles, have been so specially done or spoken about Saint Peter alone, if he bore not some other more excellent person than every of the other Apostles did. For as Christ is proved by S. Paul, to excel the Angels because God never said to any Angel as he said to Christ, Heb. 1. Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee: even so seeing Christ never said to any other Apostle, as he said to Peter: Thou shalt be called Peter, or, upon this rock will I build my church or, Matth. 16 to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: or, pay for thee and me: or, I have desired for thee, that thy faith fail not, Luc. 22. joan. 21. or, seed my sheep, and, rule my lambs: doubtless we may boldly conclude thereupon, that S. Peter in these praeeminences far excelled any other Apostle. For what so ever any other Apostle had, whether it were by vocation, joan. 1. Matth 10 & 18. & 28 joan. 20. or election, or authority to preach, to bind, to loose, to baptize, to be a bishop, to make a bishop, or to do any thing else, Serm. 3. in anivers assumpt. multa solus accepit Peter had all that as well as any of them, as also Leo the Great hath noted. Seeing then beside all that, he had many things which none other had, may they not seem to have lost their common senses who will have S. Peter to be no greater a prelate then any other Apostle was? If any wrangler not joining all these privileges together, but separating some one or two of them from the rest, do scoff at these proofs, let him know aforehand, that albe it some few alone would not have made a perfect proof, yet as they now are joined together, they prove exactly that S. Peter had some greater dignity than any other Apostle had. That the Apostles beside the prerogative of their Apostleship, had also the authority to be particular bishops, which thing their name also did signify in the old tyme. The X. Chap. FOR the better opening of that which followeth, I must declare the double office which the first prelate's had. Marci 3. Lucae 9 Christ called twelve unto him, whom he made Apostles, and he sent them to preach, and gave them power te heal diseases, Matth. 18. and to cast out devils. And he said to them: Whatsoever things ye shall bind upon the earth, they shallbe bound in heaven also. And whatsoever things ye shall lose upon the earth, they shallbe loosed in heaven also. And again after his resurrection, he said: joan. 20. As my Father hath sent me, and I send you▪ take ye the holy ghost. And, going into the whole world, Marc. 16. preach the Gospel to all creatures, teaching all nations, Matth. 28 and baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. And after Christ's ascension S. Mathias, Actor. 1. and after the coming of the holy Ghost S. Paul was taken into that holy office and vocation. Galat. 1. So that by their Commissions it is evident, that the Apostles were all sent into the whole world with singular authority. Now that beside this Apostolic function, Eusebius hist. lib. 2. c. 1. & lib. 3. c. 22. & 32. they had also power to be resident upon some one particular cure and flock, the example of S. james the Apostle doth declare, who is confessed by all manner of writers to have been Bishop of jerusalem. Yea Simon also an other of the Apostles is readen to have succeeded after S. james in the same Chair and Church. S. Peter likewise having sitten at Antioch seven years, Hieron. in Catalo. afterward transferred his seat unto Rome. Euseb. li. 3 c. 22. More over S. Peter made Euodius Bishop of Antioch, after his departure thence, and sent his disciple S. Marck to govern the Church at Alexandria. Greg, li. 6. epist. 37. Tit. 1. S. Paul appointed Titus' Bishop in Candia, and Timotheus Bishop of Ephesus, and the like was done by other Apostles in other countries. 1. Tim. 4. Therefore the Apostles had also the power to be and to make Bishops, Actor. 1. in so much that when S. Peter deprived judas of his Chair, he showed the prophecy to be fulfilled, Psal. 108. Ennodius in 2. Tom. Concil. Episcopatum eius accipiat alter. Let an other man take his Bishopric, or his office of a Bishop. For although every Bishop be not an Apostle, yet every of Christ's Apostles was or might be a Bishop. And because the bishoply power was most certainly contained within the compass of the Apostolic office, the very name of an Apostle came also to signify a bishop in the primative Church, as Theodoretus hath well declared. In cap. 3.1. ad Tim. Eosden olim vocabant presbyteros & Episcopos. Eos aunt qui nunc vocantur Episcopi, nominabant Apostolos, ꝓcedente autem tempore, nomen quidem Apostolatus reliquerunt ijs qui verè erant Apostoli, Episcopatus autem appellationem imposuerunt ijs, qui olim appellabantur Apostoli. Philip. ●. Ita Philippensium Apostolus erat Epaphroditus. vestrum, inquit Apostolun, & adiutorem necessitatis meae. Ita Cretensium Titus, & Asianorun Timotheus. Actor. 15 Ita ab Hierosolymis ijs ꝗ erant Antiochiae scripserunt Apost. & Presbyteri. In the old time they called the same men both priests, and bishops. But those which are now called bishops, they did call Apostles. And in process of time they left the name of Apostleship to those that were truly (and in deed) Apostles, and called them Bishops which (in the primitive Church) were called Apostles: so was Epaphroditus the Apostle of the Philippians. Philip. 2. Your Apostle (saith S. Paul) and the helper of my necessity. So was Titus (the Apostle) of those of Candie, and Timotheus of those of Asia. Act. 15. So did the Apostles and priests writ from Jerusalem, to those that were at Antioch. Seeing then the name of an Apostle, did contain both properly that extraordinary honour, which the true Apostles only had, and also that ordinary power, which all Bishops than had, and always should have, it is easy to understand, that when S. Jerome writeth concerning Bishops: Ad Euagrium. Omnes Apostolorum successores sunt: All are the successors of the Apostles, and when. In Psal. 44. Augustine saith, Pro Apostolis constituti sunt Episcopi, Bishops are made in steed of the Apostles, that they both (and all the other Fathers saying the like) do mean, that Bishops do succeed the Apostles, not in the Apostleship, but in their Bisshoplie authority, which also S. Ireneus calleth: Lib. 3. c. 3. suum ipsorum magisterij locum, their own place of teaching or of governing. If any man ask, why the Bisshoplie authority is so namely distincted by me from the Apostleship, sithence it was contained therein (as the lesser dignity within the greater) I answer, The putting away of an objection. that it is needful so to do, because when the Apostleship ceased, the other bishoply authority continued still. And yet if the Bisshoplie authority had only depended upon th' Apostolic function, it must needs have seized with it also. For when the whole Apostleship is ended, no part thereof can remain in his force, except it have an other ground to stand in, beside thapostleship, as the bishoply power had. Cyril. lib. 12. c. 64. This being so, when we read that Peter was head, prince, chief, first, and captain of the Apostles, it may according to the former distinction, either be meant, that he was both their head according to their excellent Apostolic dignity, and also according to their inferior authority of being particular Bishops, or else according to the only one consideration of the twain. How far S. Peter did either excel or was equal with the Apostles in their Apostolic office. Wherein divers objections are answered, which seem to make against S. Peter's Supremacy. The XI. Chap. WERE it not, that the Adversaries of the Catholic faith, do force me to entreat of this matter, I would think it a sin to enter into so curious a question. For what have we to do now with the Apostles equality or inequality, whereas it should have sufficed us, to follow the present state of the universal church which we find practised in our time, not searching out other things which are perhaps above our capacity. But seeing the equality of the Apostles, why this question is treated of. is now pretended against the universal faith which hath always given the primacy to Peter's Seat, it behoveth to answer thereunto, trusting that God will bear with the humble defendants, how so ever the wantonness of the other side stand in great danger to be punished for their schism, troublesomeness, and pride. I take it for a thing agreed upon, that S. Peter was the first of the Apostles, accordingly as S. Matthew reciting the name of the twelve Apostles, saith. Primus Simon, qui dicitur Petrus. Matt. 10. The first is Simon, who is called Peter. If than none other Apostle be first, beside Peter, and all that which is not first, must needs be somewhat behind that which is first, doubtless none other Apostle could be in all points, equal with Peter. If you say, the word, Primus, first, serveth only to keep the order of numbering, and not any whit to prefer Peter before the rest, I answer, that when Primus, the first, doth only stand to keep the order of numbering, sith the number at this time is twelve, S. Matthew should have gone forward with the second, the third, and the fourth, until he had come to twelve. But now seeing he doth not so, Primus is rather meant the first in dignity, then in order only. And surely it is worth the noting, that where as S. Andrew came to Christ before S. Peter, joan. 1. and brought afterward his brother Simon to Christ, yet S. Peter is set always, not only before S. Andrew, but before all the rest. In so much that whereas the other Apostles are never named orderly, but after diverse sorts, yet S. Peter keepeth always the first place. After Peter sometime Andrew is placed next, as in S. Matthew, Math. 10. Marc. 3. Act. 1. sometime james, as in S. Mark, sometime john, as in the Acts of the Apostles. And the Church as well in the Canon of the Mass, as in the Litanies and processions, placeth S. Paul, next unto S. Peter. But evermore in all these varieties, howsoever the order of the other Apostles be changed, seeing S. Peter is without exception every where preferred before them all: certainly that his primacy cometh neither by chance, nor by the choice of the writer, but by the very council and will of the holy Ghost, who thereby showeth S. Peter to have been absolutely the first, and chief even by the appointment of Christ himself, which no Evangelist might alter or change. Which to true the authority also of the ancient Fathers doth evidently convince. First because out of primus (the first) they have derived Primatus (which signifieth the chief authority, and not only the first place in order) accordingly as S. Augustine teacheth, In joan. Tract. 124 S. Peter to have represented the whole Church, propter primatum Apostolatus, for the primacy or chiefedom (that I may so speak) of the Apostleship. Dionys. c. 5. de Eccles. Hierarc. cyril. lib. 12. in joan. c. 64. Chrysost. in joan. Hom. 87. Hierom. in lib. 1. ad Gal. ca 2. Math. 10. And consequently thereunto, they call S. Peter commonly Principem, Corypheū, caput, verticem, ducen, & os Apostolorum, the prince or chief of the Apostles, the head, the top, the guide, and the mouth. By which words they declare themselves to take primus the first, for princeps, the chief, and for maximus the greatest (which word S. Hierom also useth) so that the meaning of S. Matthew is: The chief is Simon who is called Peter. Thus it is evident by the word of God, that Peter being chiefest, all the Apostles be not equal with him, except perhaps any man who is not chief, can be equal with him who is chief. If you ask, The question. wherein Peter was chief, or what he could do more than his follows, I say, that question also is curious. It becometh him, who will obey the Gospel, to believe, that S. Peter is the first or chief as he readeth in the Gospel, without demanding why or how he should be chief. But if the question were demanded humbly, thus I would think it might be answered. In the nature and order of the Apostleship, The answer. every Apostle was wholly equal with all the follows of his own order. The which is not only true in the Apostles, but also in Bishops, in priests, in Kings, in Dukes, in Knights, or in any other state of men. For there is a certain reason why a man is either an Apostle, or a King, or a duke, the which reason must needs be common to all that be of that degree and state. But there may be an other thing coincident to some degree of men, the which although it be not necessary for their being, yet it is necessary for their well being. And so whereas of twelve Apostles every one is equal in that office with the other, yet it was necessary for their good continuance in peace and unity, Optatus lib. 2. de schiss. Donatist. that one should be chief among them, lest whiles every one should draw a diverse way, the whole Church which ought to be but one body, should be torn in pieces, and be divided into many companies or bodies. Thus whereas all the Apostles were equal by the nature of their vocation, one was set over the rest by the providence of God, Matth. 10 and he was so set over them, that he was even at the first choice (though that were not thoroughly percaeved until Christ's resurrection) made first of all, and appointed for most of all, that there might be no moment, in the which unity should be miss in the Church. This reason is allowed of S. Cyprian, who having said concerning the nature of the Apostleship: De unitat. Ecclesiae. The rest of the Apostles were the same thing, which Peter also was, being all endued with equal fellowship of honour and power: addeth immediately, sed exordium ab unitate proficiscitur, ut ecclesia una monstretur. But the beginning proceedeth from unity, to th'end the Church may be showed one. S. Hierom likewise having said, Aduersus jovin. li. 1 albeit all the Apostles took the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church be fastened equally upon them all, addeth immediately, tamen propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur, ut capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasio. Yet therefore among the twelve one is chosen, that a head being made, the occasion of schism may be taken away. Lib. 2. de schism. Donatist. Optatus is of the same judgement, affirming that there is one singular chair wherein Peter did sit, that in it unity might be kept of all men, lest the other Apostles might every man challenge a chair to himself. Epi. 82. ad Anastasium Leo the great confesseth the same truth, saying: that whereas the choice of all the Apostles was like, yet is was given to one, that he might be above the rest. If then all were equal in office, and yet one was set over them to keep unity, he was not thereby an Apostle more than they, but he was greater than they. Not greater in his office, or in his Apostolic power: but greater in his prerogative of being head, and of making all them to be as one, whiles they were all content to obey him alone, rather than to make a schism. But now let us add to their doctrine an other truth, which is, that all the Apostles were so confirmed and established in grace, by taking the first fruits of the holy Ghost, Rom. 8. that it was not possible for them to err in faith, or to seduce others. For Christ said unto them: Ye know the spirit of truth, joan. 14. because he shall tarry with you, and he shallbe in you. Hereupon it will follow that the Apostles in their own persons needed no head, but that S. Peter was set over them, to give thereby a form and a pattern, that afterward when the personal privilege of the Apostles should cease, yet the rest, who should be the successors of the Apostles, might all obey one, who should succeed in Peter's place. Luc. 22. By whose assured faith (because Christ prayed for it) all they might be sure not to err in the faith. By this means it is easy to answer the objections which are made against the supremacy of S. Peter. For if S. Paul did aswell preach to the Gentiles, Galat. ●. as S. Peter did to the jews, he did it by the office and nature of his Apostleship which was to go into the whole world, Matth. 28 and to preach to every creature, 2. Cor. 11. and to have the care of all Churches lying upon him. And therefore S. Peter did also (as well before as afterward) preach unto the Gentiles with no less power then S. Paul: Act. 15. And S. Paul to the jews, no less then S. Peter. For the order, power and grace of their Apostleship was equal, as the degree and line of brethren is equal. But as God preferred in old time the eldest son to the priesthood, Genes. 49 and to a greater power in government, not by the force of the brotherhood, but by his own ordinance: even so whereas Peter and Paul were equal Apostles, yet Peter by the appointment of Christ was the head, not by force of the Apostleship but by the will of God, to show, that his Church was one, by having one pastor in it above the rest, as a Kingdom is one, by having one King in it: or as a house is one, by having one master in it. Again if S. Paul did reprove S. Peter concerning circumcision (as one that walked not according to the truth of the Gospel in his behaviour) S. Paul might do it, Galat. 2. both because they were fellows and brethren in the Apostolic office, and also for that he had the same holy Ghost which Peter had. But we must consider (as Tertullian in his book of prescriptions doth witness) that no doctrine of S. Peter's was then reproved as false, Conuersationis fuit vitium, non praedicationis. but only his behaviour concerning an outward fact of his, in that he having freely eaten before with the gentils without respect of keeping the Law of Moses, (wherein his deed was right good, and did witness, that he believed the observances of the old Law to bind noman) yet at the coming of jews, he did abstain and withdraw himself, as persuaded that he should do more good to the jews if he forbore certain meats to win his weak brethren. Likewise S. Augustine writeth: Neque enim negamus in hac sententia suisse iam Petrum, Epist. 19 ad Hieron in qua & Paulus fuit. Non itaque tunc eum, quid in ea re verum esset, docebat, sed eius simulationem, qua gentes iudaizare cogebantur, arguebat. Neither truly we do deny but that Peter was now in the same mind that Paul was. Therefore he did not then teach Peter, what was true in that cause: but he reproved his dissembling, whereby the Gentiles were compelled to play the jews. So that whereas S. Peter was no less persuaded than S. Paul, that Circumcision and the ceremonies of the Law must cease (as S. Peter himself pronounced at Jerusalem) And whereas S. Paul no less than he, Act. 15. had tolerated the observances of the law for a time, in circumciding Timotheus: the question is not, Act. 16. whether Circumcision ought to be abrogated, nor yet, whether it might be at all for a time permitted, but whether it might be now any more winked at, as hitherto it had been. For S. Paul believing the time to be now come that every man ought to profess his faith openly, concerning the abrogation of the old ceremonies, did reprove S. Peter's outward simulation, as by his fact, yielding longer time to the jews, than was profitable. And herein surely, S. Peter proved himself to be in deed the head of all the Apostles. For whereas Christ had said: he that is greater among you, Luc. 22. let him be made as the younger, or lesser, he in deed accomplished that precept, and yielded unto S. Paul's advise, as S. Cyprian, S. Augustine, and S. Gregory do testify. Nam nec Petrus, Cyprian. quem primum Dns elegit, in Epist ad Quintum & supet quem aedificavit Ecclesiam suam, cum secum Paulus de circumcisione disceptaret, postmodum vendicavit sibi aliquid insolenter, aut arroganter assumpsit, ut diceret se primatum tenere, & obtemperari a novellis & posteris sibi potius debere, nec de spexit Paulum, quòd Ecclesiae prius persecutor fuisset, sed consilium veritatis admisit. For Peter, whom our Lord chose to be first, and upon whom he did build his Church, did not when Paul did strive with him about Circumcision, afterward challenge or attribute any thing to himself insolently, or proudly, and say, that he had the primacy, and that he ought rather to be obeyed of Novices, and after comers: neither did he despise Paul, for that he was before a persecuter of the church: but he did admit the counsel of truth. By which words we perceive that S. Cyprian did not judge this reproving of S. Peter, to be any argument against his supremacy, but only to be a witness of S. Peter's humility and meekness. But as it was in deed true, that S. Paul had once persecuted the Church: so was it also true, that S. Peter held the Primacy, although (as S. Cyprian hath noted) he did not then allege it. S. Augustine likewise confesseth: De baptis. count Donat. lib. 2. cap. 1. In scriptures sanctis didicimus Apostolum Petrum, in quo primatus Apostolorum tam excellenti gratia praeeminet, aliter quam veritas postulabat de Circumcisione agere solitum, à posteriore Apostolo Paulo esse correctum. We have learned in the holy scriptures, that the Apostle Peter (in whom the Primacy of the Apostles appeareth above the rest by so excellent and gracious favour) that he accustoming to do otherwise concerning Circumcision then the truth did require, was corrected of Paul who was admitted after him to be an Apostle. S. Gregory stablisheth S. Peter's supremacy the more by the very same example of his humility in bearing gently the correction of his fellow Apostle. Quatenus qui primus erat in Apostolatus culmine, Gregorius in Ezech. Hom. 18. esset primus & in humilitate. That he who was chief in the top of th' Apostleship, might also be chief in lowliness: Ecce à minore suo reprehenditur, & reprehendi non dedignatur, non ad memoriam revocat, quòd primus in Apostolatum vocatus sit. Behold, Peter is reproved of his inferior, and he disdaineth not to be reproved. Neither doth he call to mind, that he first was called to the Apostleship. Consider good Reader, how far these Fathers were from this mind of the Protestants, to wit, that the reproving of S. Peter by S. Paul, did any thing withstand his primacy, whereas thereby they (never doubting of his supremacy in power) rather show him to have been chief every way, as well in grace, as in authority. S. Peter is reproved of S. Paul, and S. Peter praiseth the very same Epistles of S. Paul, 2. Pet. 3. in which he is reproved. Did ever Martin Luther, Zuinglius, or john Calvin, show any such lowliness toward their Superior, as S. Peter showed to his inferior? Zuinglius reproved Luther, concerning his doctrine of the real presence. But did Luther, trow you, praise Zuinglius for it? Except he praise a man, who doth excommunicate him, and pronounce him a sacramentary, and an heretic. And yet they were both brethren, and both apostles of this new Gospel. But, o Lord, how far of are they from the true Apostles? Their primacy was liker to that of Diotrephes, Epistola joan. 3. then to S. Peter's humble government. There is in these men no humility, but intolerable arrogancy, no yielding of the one to the other, but extreme defending of every man's own fantasy. And yet the Protestants bring this example of S. Peter and S. Paul, to defend their heathenish and heretical debate. Whereas the reproof of S. Peter, neither consisted in any false doctrine of his (as theirs doth) nor was defended stubbornly by him, as these men defend their errors even to death, and so they make them never able to be reconciled. The dissensions of the Caholikes. Matth. 5. In via. On the other side, although dissensions happen oftentimes among the Catholics (whiles they are in the way) yet they are like unto the Apostles in prosecuting them. For that always they are ready to yield one to the other even in this life, at the farthest, when the high judge shall give sentence for the one part. Deut. 17. And they all confess, that there is a mean and power in earth able to determine all controversies in Religion. But the dissensions of the Protestants are like to the dissensions of the life to come, which are immortal, nor never shallbe reconciled, because there can be no judge acknowledged in the way, to bring them at one, sithence they are at their ways end: after which time there is no place of reconciliation left, but the judge delivereth either the one party, Matth. 5. or both to be tormented for ever, if the greatness of the fault be such, as between Luther and Zuinglius it is. It is farther laid against the supremacy of S. Peter, that the Apostles sent him to lay hands upon those whom Philippus the Deacon had baptized: Act. 8. for by sending they will conclude him to be only equal with the Apostles, as though the Canons of a Cathedral Church may not choose their Dean or Bishop to go about certain business of the Chapter, whom therein they send to do those things, not as their inferior, but when the common good is to be procured, and no fault is to be punished, every man ought to yield up his superiority and to condescend to charity, Lib. 7. epist. 64. as S. Peter did. For as Gregory most wisely saith: when no fault requireth the contrary, all bishops according to the respect of humbleness, are equal. Briefly, th' Apostles were sent every of them equally into the whole world, but Peter beside that, was made chief, to th' end the unity of the Church might appear in one chief Apostle, and schisms might be avoided, not so much among the Apostles (where none could chance) as among others afterward, Leo epist. ●2. who should have less grace to keep unity, than the Apostles had. But in case th' Apostles had been so destitute of grace, that any one might have taught false doctrine, and stubbornly have defended the same: doubtless S. Peter might no less have deposed him, Actor. 1. than he did separate judas from the College of the Apostles, even after his death. And that had been always the true Catholic Church, which had followed S. Peter's doctrine. But now the privilege of the other Apostles, did nothing hinder S. Peter's chief power, who had sufficient authority to have controlled them, if they had lacked sufficient grace, to have taught only true doctrine. And although they had grace not to err, yet his power was not in deed the less thereby, but it had the less occasion to show itself upon the Apostles: 1. Tim. 1. Lex justo non est posita. even as the Law is not therefore the weaker, because it can not be practised upon the just men. That S. Peter's prerogative above the other Apostles is most manifestly seen by his chief bishoply power. The XII. Chap. IT is all ready showed, first, that S. Peter passed the Apostles a great way in some kind or other of Ecclesiastical power. secondly, that the Apostles had two kinds of power, one proper to their Apostleship, an other common to all Bishops. thirdly, that in the Apostolic office all the Apostles were in all points equal with S. Peter, saving only that above and beside his office, he was made by Christ the first and the chief of them all: to th'end unity might be always showed and kept by one captain Apostle, being also able to have strengthened them, but that they (prevented with grace) needed not his help. Now then it remainth to see, how far S. Peter passed the other Apostles in the state and degree of their bishoply power. Herein, I say, that whereas we may consider in a prelate either his order and office, or else the authority and jurisdiction of the same, the order and office of bishoply power was equally common, not only to all the Apostles, but likewise to all other bishops. For it is generally true which S. Hierom saith: Ad Euagrium. Vbicunque fuerit Episcopus, sive Romae, sive Eugubij, eiusdem meriti, eiusdem est & Sacerdotij. wheresoever a bishop be, whether at Rome (which is the head city of the world) or at Eugubium (which is a small town) he is of the same merit, and of the same priesthood. That is to say, every Bishop may as well preach, and minister the sacrament of confirmation or of priesthood (and much more all the other Sacraments) to his own citizens, or do any like matter belonging to his order, as the highest bishop in the world may. For the order is equally common to them al. And that is it which S. Cyprian saith, De unitate Eccles. Episcopatus unus est, cuius à singulis in solidum pars tenetur. The bishoply office is one, whereof every man holdeth a part for the whole, that is to say, every man doth partake the bishoply office wholly, and without diminution. For as every man hath for his part the whole nature of a man in himself, so hath every Bishop for his part the whole nature of a bishop in himself. This equality of bishoply order and office notwithstanding, the Apostles were in their bishoply prelateshippe and jurisdiction a great way behind S. Peter, because he had a higher and larger power of governing given to him over Christ's sheep, than any of the other had in that behalf. Touching then the superiority of S. Peter's jurisdiction, for as much as all the power he had, was either Apostolic, or bishoply, seeing he could not easily have more committed to him over the rest of the sheep by his Apostolic office, Math. 2●. than the other Apostles had (for each of them had charge over the whole Church, and (the government of their own persons excepted) what greater power could S. Peter have) if this notwithstanding, I prove evidently that Christ committed to S. Peter more Ecclesiastical power even over his sheep then to any other: it must needs be rather meant of more bishoply, then of more Apostolic power. And so albeit the power and jurisdiction of the Apostles over the rest of the sheep be equal, yet the power of bishops even over the same sheep is not equal. How prove I then, that S. Peter had more committed to his charge, than the other Apostles? Verily because Christ in the presence of S. john, S. james, and S. Thomas the Apostles, and of other three disciples said to Peter: Simon joannis diligis me plus his. joan. 21. Simon the son of john dost thou love me more than these? And surely, seeing S. john was among them, who was so tenderly beloved of Christ, that he was known by the name of the Disciple whom jesus loved, Ibidem. when Peter is asked, whether he love more than they, he is in effect asked, whether he love more, than any other Apostle or Disciple. Neither doth our Lord demand this question, as a thing whereof he doubted, but to instruct us, that Peter loved him more than the other. Whereupon S. Augustine concludeth: In joan. Tract. 24. Sciebat igitur Dominus, non solum quôd diligeret, verumetiam quôd plus illis diligeret eum Petrus. Therefore our Lord did know, that Peter did not only love (him) but also that he loved (him) more than they. And yet seeing Peter could not love Christ more than the other did, except Christ had first loved Peter more than he loved the other (for Peter's excellent love towards Christ must needs come of the former exceeding love of Christ toward Peter as the scripture itself doth teach us) it is out of all controversy, that Christ first loved S. Peter, 1. joan. 4. Prior dilexit nos. more than he loved any other man in the whole world. What? The question. more than he loved S. john? Or more than he loved his own Mother? I answer, An example that there are diverse considerations of love. Alexander the great had two friends, who loved him for diverse respects. The one called Craterus loved him as king, and looked to his honour in matters belonging thereunto. The other called Hephestion, loved his person, and diligently procured his health and private well doing. Whereupon King Alexander was wont to say, that Craterus loved the King, but Hephestion loved Alexander. Even so Christ loved his murder above all creatures, in the respect of that love which it pleased him (as her Son) to owe unto his Mother by the Law of nature. Exod. 20. And therein he loved her almost incomparably above S. Peter. Likewise he loved personally S. john the Evangelist, August. in joan. Tractat. 124. and S. john loved him more than other, in that he was a virgin by Christ's gift, as who had dedicated his body and soul to Christ alone. But in respect of Christ's flock which was to be fed and governed in the earth, in that respect, Christ loved S. Peter, and S. Peter him, more than others. The which distinction being kept, we may well say, that our Lady loved Christ (as the Son of God taking flesh of her own body) more than any other: and that S. john loved Christ (as the cause of his virginity, and the Athour of his chaste love) more than any other, and that S. Peter loved Christ (as the prince of pastors) more than any other, 1. Pet. 5. of which last kind of love Christ now speaketh, as it may well appear by his own words. For when S. Peter had answered, yea Lord, thou knowest, that I love thee, jesus said to him, feed my lambs. As who should say: for as much as thou in respect of my pastoral power, lovest me more than these, take more power than they to feed my lambs. For now sith Peter's love is the cause why Christ giveth him power to feed his lambs: according to the measure of the love, the measure of the feeding must be understanded. De temp. serm. 149. Dominus jesus (saith S. Augustine) respondenti amorem, commendat agnos suos, & dicit: pasce oves meas. tanquam diceret, quid retribues quia diliges me, dilectionem ostende in omnibus. To Peter answering that he loveth, our Lord jesus commendeth his lambs, and saith: Feed my sheep, as if he should say: what wilt thou render to me because thou lovest me? Show thy love toward the sheep. The same very sense S. Chrysostom giveth: In joan. Hom. 87. Si amas me, fratrum curam susci pias. If thou lovest me, or seeing thou lovest me take the care of thy brethren. If than the authority of feeding, be the reward of Peter's love, for as much as according to S. Augustine's judgement grounded upon the express word of God, Peter loved more than the other, Peter is now bid to show more love in taking cure of his brethren, than any other. Which thing because he can not do, except he receive more power and authority to feed his brethren, jacob. 1. than other have (for Peter can do no more in that behalf, then is from heaven committed to him) it doth invincibly follow, that Christ at this time giveth to Peter alone more power and authority to feed his sheep, than any other had, or can have. For the literal meaning of Christ's whole discourse, is none other thing, then to say, for as much as thou lovest me more than these, feed my sheep. In the compass or meaning of which words, it is not possible for any other Apostle to be comprehended equally with S. Peter. Note this reason. For if any other may feed equally with him, by the force of this commission, the same cause of feeding must be in him, which is named in this commission. That is to say, More than these. he must love more than these. But if any other do so, then hath Peter no commission to feed Christ's sheep, because he than doth not love more than they, seeing they must love more than he, or else no commission of feeding is given them. Who so ever hath this commission to feed Christ's sheep, he must first love Christ the prince of Pastors, more than these, as Peter now doth. And by (these) I showed before alth ' Apostles and disciples to be meant. Therefore they are all excluded from this authority whereof Christ speaketh presently: And yet seeing the sheep of the whole world are in other places committed to all Io● 7.20. the Apostles the which power (concerning all other beside the Apostles themselves) is so great, that this can be no greater, if these things be well conferred and weighed together, Note. we are forced to confess that this commission which giveth more authority over the sheep to one then to the rest, is not properly any Apostolic power (for then all the Apostles should have it equally) but it is an other kind of power which being perhaps not much inferior to the Apostolic authority, must still so remain in one above others (so long as the sheep of Christ do remain) as it is now given to one more than to other, because he loveth more than the other. This kind of power is now called the power of one chief Bishop or pastor: whereupon S. Augustine saith concerning this very text of scripture, and this one pastor S. Peter: Dominus in ipso Petro unitatem commendavit. Multi erant Apostoli, In hom. de pastor. c. 13. & uni dicitur, pasce oves meas. Absit ut desint modò boni pastors, sed omnes boni pastores in uno sunt, unum sunt. Our Lord hath commended unity in Peter himself. There were many Apostles, and it is said to one, feed my sheep. God forbidden, there should lack now good Pastors, but all they are in one, they are one. S. Augustine manifestly declareth hereby, that Saint Peter alone was spoken unto (among other causes) for this also, to signify (in himself, being one Pastor) the unity, which all Pastors have in Christ, De sanctis serm. 24 the Prince of Pastors. In uno Petro figurabatur unitas omnium Pastorun. The unity of all pastors was signified in Peter alone or in Peter being one Pastor. But whereas the unity of all good Pastors in Ghrist alone, is not literally expressed in this place of the holy scripture, but is only builded mystically upon the literal story of Peter, being made one shepherd: that mystical and allegorical sense is void, except this other literal sense be true. 1. Cor. 10. Gal. 4. Heb. 9 For all manner allegories are grounded upon some true and literal history. Therefore S. Peter is indeed made Pastor alone, who may contain all the Pastors of the earth in his unity, to the end he thereby may show that all the good Pastors which have been, be, or shallbe, are one in Christ the prince of Pastors. So that by S. Augustine's discourse it is clear two ways, that Peter hath no fellow in this pastoral office whereof Christ now speaketh. Both because he alone loveth more than other, and he is one pastor in earth for the time, to show that Christ is one everlasting pastor of his whole flock, both in earth and in heaven. From S. Augustine let us pass over to S. Chrysostom, who having taught, that Christ asketh, whether Peter loveth him (not to teach us that S. Peter loved him, but to inform us Quantae sibi curae sit gregis huius praefectura, how great care he taketh of the government of this flock) concludeth in this wise: lib. 2. de Sacerdoti● Petrum Christus authoritate praeditum esse voluit, acreliquos item Apostolos longè praecellere. Christ would have Peter to be endowed with authority, and also to pass a great way the other Apostles. Mark first, that it is praefectura gregis, the rule and government of the flock which Christ intendeth. secondly, that Christ would have Peter to be endowed not only with grace, and virtue, but with such authority, as did appertain to the feeding of Christ's sheep. Thirdly, that he would him to pass the Apostles: and wherein, I pray you, but in authority? For he passed them in that thing, wherewith he was endowed. But Christ endowed him with authority: therefore Peter passed the other Apostles in authority. Fourthly he passed them longè, a great way. He passed the Apostles in all other power after some certain sort, How S. Peter passed the Apostles. either because he had that power first, which was given them afterward, or else because he had that power ordinarily, which was extraordinarily given them, or else because, whereas they were heads of the sheep together with him (through their Apostleship) he was also their head, as being the prince and chief of the Apostles. But above all other respects, he passed them longè, a great, way in the power of feeding the sheep, as the chief bishop. In epist. ad Episc. per Viennensem provinc. constitut. So that Leo had just cause to say: Cûm Petro prae caeteris soluendi & ligandi sit tradita potestas, pascendarum tn̄ ovium cura specialius mandata est. Whereas the power of binding and losing is delivered to Peter above others, yet the care of feeding the sheep is more specially committed. Will you see how much more specially? Arnobius noteth none of the Apostles ever to have had the name of a Pastor given to him by Christ, beside S. Peter alone, to whom it was said, pasce oves meas, feed my sheep. That is to say, be thou the pastor of my sheep. Arnobius in Psalm. 138. joan. 10. Nullus Apostolorum nomen pastoris accepit. Solus enim Dominus jesus Christus dicebat: Ego sum Pastor bonus. & iterum: me, inquit, sequuntur oves meae. Hoc ergo nomen sanctum, & ipsius nominis potestatem post resurrectionem suam Petro poenitenti concessit, joan. 21. & ter negatus negatori suo hanc, quam solus habuit, tribuit potestatem. None of the Apostles hath received the name of a pastor. Four our Lord jesus Christ alone did say: I am a good pastor: and again he saith, My sheep do follow me. But this holy name and the power thereof after his resurrection he granted to Peter repenting, and being thrice denied, he did give unto him, who denied him, this power, which he alone had. Christ alone had the power to feed his own flock, this power he gave to Peter in such sort, as none other Apostles had it. For he gave to Peter the name of a Pastor, & ipsius nominis potestatem, and that power which the name did import. But as Arnobius said before, nullus Apostolorum nomen Pastoris accepit. None of the Apostles took the name of a pastor: therefore none of them took the power of feeding after such sort, as the name and power thereof was now given to Peter. And seeing every Apostle had authority before to feed all nations through his Apostleship: this feeding which is now given to Peter alone, and must be meant of some other power beside the Apostolic function, is doubtless meant of Peter's bishoply power. I beseech the discreet Reader neither to use cavils himself, nor to give care to them who love to wrangle. Here would M. jewel strait way show, that Christ gave many pastors and teachers to his Church, Ephes. 4. 1. Pet. 5. and that every Apostle did feed, of which things I deny no one. But I say there was beside the Apostleship a kind of feeding so peculiar to Peter, that no Apostle took (so specially as S. Peter did) either the name thereof, or the thing meant by the name. Which thing the holy scripture doth insinuate, when it showeth Peter to have loved more than other, and consequently according to the measure of his love to have taken the measure of feeding. In which sense Saint Chrysostom, S. Augustine, Leo and Arnobius do evidently agree. We must therefore confess a supereminent power of the pastoral office in Peter, that pre-eminence (say I) consisted in the ordinary power of being the chief shepherd. He that denieth my interpretation, must bring a better, which I marvel how he shall come by. But let us also consider the mind of S. Ambrose in this behalf. Ambros. in 24. ca Lucae. Who having said by S. Peter, that he was ubique aut solus, aut primus, every where either alone, or chief, at the last he cometh to speak of these words of Christ spoken to Peter, amas me, dost thou love me? Dominus interrogabat, non ut disceret, sed ut doceret, quem elevandus in coelum amoris sui nobis velut Vicarium relinquebat. Sic enim habes: Simon joannis diligis me? utique tu scis Domine quia amo te. Dicit ei jesus, pasce agnos meos. bene conscius sui non ad tempus assumptum, sed iamdudum Deo cognitum Petrus testificatur affectum. Quis est enim alius qui de se hoc facilè profiteri possit? Et ideo quia solus profitetur ex omnibus, omnibus antefertur. Our Lord asked, not to learn, but to teach him whom he, being to be assumpted into heaven, The Vicar of Christ's love. did leave to us as the Vicar of his love. For so thou readest. Simon the Son of jon, dost thou love me? Yea Lord thou knowest that I love thee. jesus said to him, feed my lambs. Peter being privy of a good conscience, doth testify his own affection not taken for the time, but already well known to God. For who else were able to profess this thing of himself? And because he alone among all professeth, he is preferred before all. First note well, that S. Ambrose compareth the love with the feeding. For he reasoneth always from the one to the other. secondly he saith, that Christ, in consideration that he should ascend into heaven, Vicar. taught him, whom he left the Vicar of his love. Behold if Peter be the Vicar of Christ, it is no wonder that the Pope sitting in Peter's chair, is called also the Vicar of Christ. Yea but (say you) he is the Vicar of his love, and not of his pastoral office. yes Sir, of both. For now S. Ambrose speaketh of that love, which consisted in having authority to feed the flock. For it followeth in S. Ambrose: Sic enim habes, for thus thou readest. And immediately he cometh to the power of feeding, which Christ gave unto Peter in the highest degree of any mortal pastor, because Peter loved more than other. Christ left to us a Vicar of his love, who was that? Peter. when was he left a Vicar? When Christ said, feed my lambs. The love then left to us was the power of feeding, which Peter had over us, and the Vicar of Christ's love was the Vicar of Christ's power, which he had to feed us. Although Christ our everlasting meat feed us always by his mighty power, joan. 6. yet when he should go corporally into heaven, he left us a Vicar of his corporal kind of feeding. His words do not now sound in our ears, as they did whiles he lived, in preaching, in teaching, in administering the Sacraments, in governing the Church, and in sending other to preach. Christ hath a Vicar, whom to that effect he loveth above all other, and who loveth him above all other: to that effect, I say, of feeding his flock. Moreover S. Ambrose noteth, that Peter omnibus antefertur, is preferred before all, why so? Quia solus profitetur ex omnibus. Because he alone of them all, doth profess. But why saith S. Ambrose that he alone doth profess? Might any other man profess, when Peter alone was asked? No verily. And so doth S. Ambrose mean, that Peter alone professeth his love, because he alone is asked whether he loved more than these. otherwise if S. john who stood by, had been asked, I think he was not guilty of any lack of loving Christ. But Christ intended to give unto Peter more love than the other had, even for this purpose, that he might receive a higher power to feed, than other had. Last of all, S. Ambrose noteth, as it were three degrees in the commission of Peter's authority of feeding, and that, according to the power of feeding thrice repeated. Agnus. Iam non agnos (ut primo) quodam lact vescendos, Cuicula. Ouis. nec oviculas (ut secundo) sed oves pascere iubetur, perfectiores ut perfectior gubernaret. (At the third time wherein our Lord said to Peter, pasce feed) he was not now bid to feed as it were with milk, the lambs (as at the first time) nor the smaller sheep, as at the second time, but the sheep, to th' end he being more perfect might govern the more perfect. It is now also to be noted, that S. Ambrose putteth the word gubernare, to govern, in steed of pascere, to feed. For in deed the shepherd hath authority to rule and govern his sheep. Peter then hath authority not only over the lambs, which are, as it were, the children, and the unlearned Christians, nor only over the smaller sheep, which yet are elder than the lambs (as the Christian lawyers, the learned physicians, the judges and Princes of Christendom) but also he hath power to govern even the sheep which are of most perfect age. Verily the ewes, Oues. the weathers, yea the rams themselves, which in divers places are captains of divers flocks. So that parissh Priests, bishops, archbishops and patriarchs are committed to the government of Peter alone. He is the vicar of Christ, in love and power of feeding: therefore as none was without the compass of Christ's fold, no more may he be without the compass of Peter's fold, who willbe reckoned in Christ's fold. De consid. ad Eugen. lib. 2. S. Bernard writing to Eugenius the Pope of Rome (whose books he that readeth, may well perceive he spoke it for no flattery) hath these words: Alij Pastores habent sibi assignatos greges, singuli singulos, tibi universi crediti, uni unus. Nec modò ovium, sed & Pastorum tu unus omnium pastor. Ex verbo Domini. unde probem, quaeris? Ex verbo Domini. Cui enim non dico Episcoporum, sed etiam Apostolorum sic absolute & indiscrete totae commissae sunt oves? Si me amas Petre, pasce oves meas. Quas? Illius aut illius populos civitatis, aut regionis, aut certi regni? Oues meas, inquit. Cui non planum, non designasse aliquas, sed assignasse omnes? nihil excipitur, ubi distinguitur nihil. Other pastors have flocks assigned to them, every pastor one flock: to thee all are committed, one flock to one shepherd. And not only of the sheep, but also of the pastors thou alone art the pastor. Dost thou ask, how I prove it? By the word of our Lord. God's word. For to whom (I say not only) of the Bishops, but also of the Apostles so absolutely and without distinction are all the sheep committed? If thou lovest me Peter, feed my sheep. Which sheep? whether the people of this, or of that city, or country, or of a certain kingdom? He saith, my sheep. To whom is it not evident, that Christ did not appoint out some, but assigned all? Nothing is excepted where nothing is distincted. This place needeth no declaration it is so full in all points. Wherefore I suppose it is by this time sufficiently proved, that S. Peter did excel a great way even his fellow Apostles in the pastoral authority of feeding Christ's flock. By which power S. james (otherwise S. Peter's equal) yet after he was once bishop of jerusalem, was thereby of necessity subject unto Peter, as who could not feed a part of that flock, which was wholly committed unto Peter, but by the acknowledging of Peter his general shepherd. In sign whereof S. Peter being not readen himself to have been ordained bishop of any other then of Christ, did yet with two other Apostles ordain S. james Bishop of jerusalem, Euseb. li. 2 cap. 1. as the Ecclesiastical history doth witness. In consideration of which S. Peter's bishoply power, Arnobius (who would never have called Peter the Apostle of the Apostles) yet doubted not to name him the Bishop of Bishops, and to confirm the same by this place of the Gospel, where Peter alone is made the pastor, whiles it is said to him, feed my sheep. And because his other words were alleged before, it may suffice now to hear him say this much only of S. Peter: Arnobius in Psalm. 138. Ecce Apostolo poenitenti succurritur, qui est Episcoporum Episcopus. Behold, the Apostle who is the Bishop of bishops, being penitent findeth secure. Can any thing be spoken more plainly? But you will say, In epist. ●. ad jacobum fra. Dom. that S. Clement giveth the very same title to S. james also. As though Saint james being the Archbishop of jerusalem, had not divers other bishops under him, of which bishops he might well be called the bishop. But S. Peter being alone called the pastor (as Arnobius showed before) and so being a bishop as he was a pastor, must be understanded, not only to be a bishop of some bishops (as every archbishop is) but also a bishop of all bishops, as noman at all is, beside S. Peter and his successors. But Peter being alone the pastor, is alone the bishop of the very Apostles also, in that behalf as they were bishops, and not in that respect as they were Apostles. Yea, but here an other may bring forth S. Cyprian, Ad Quintum de haeret. baptizand. who saith: Neque quisquam nostrûm Episcopum episcoporum se esse constituit. Neither doth any of us make himself a bishop of bishops. I pray you sir, what is this to the purpose? Because no man maketh himself a bishop of bishops, shall therefore Christ make no man a bishop of bishops? S. Cyprian speaketh of his own deed, and Arnobius speaketh of Christ's deed. But if Christ himself make noman a Bishop of bishops, how is then S. james called a bishop of bishops? Or was S. james that, which S. Peter could not be? Again, Saint Cyprian meaneth, that in matters, which are yet in controversy, no man may play the bishop of bishops in judging an other bishop: Or, in prescribing to him, what he shall believe in doubtful cases. But S. Augustine expounding this very place of S. Cyprian, De baptis. count Donanist. lib. 3. cap. 3. showeth it to be otherwise in matters which are already well known and thoroughly discussed in the Church. Moreover, Ibidem. See in omnibus humilians. Saint Cyprian in that place showeth his humility and his love of unity (as Saint Augustine hath well noted) in that he being in deed a Bishop of some bishops (because he was an archbishop) yet doth renounce to use his authority, whereas notwithstanding, if he had not been above other bishops, he should not have always both sitten, and spoken first in the provincial Council, as both he and his Ancestors also had done. Last of all, S. Cyprian doth most evidently confess, the Supremacy of S. Peter, by that which he writeth of his principal chair and succession, lib. i. ep. 3. et de unit. Eccles. as it shall appear afterward. At this time it sufficeth, that S. Peter is taught by Arnobius, to have been a Bishop of Bishops, which thing no Catholic Father did at any time deny. Lib. 7. de Schis. Yea on the other side Optatus feared not to write thus of S. Peter: Preferri apostolis omnibus meruit, & claves regni coelorum, communicandas coeteris, solus accepit. Peter deserved to be preferred before all the Apostles, and he alone took the keys of the kingdom of heaven to be communicated unto others. how the keys are communicated. This preferment in taking the keys to be communicated with others, is to be meant, concerning that while S. Peter alone was made the high Pastor and Bishop, thereby the keys were communicated to the other Apostles, in such sort as they all were Bishops, and not so as though he communicated the keys to them in respect that they were Apostles, for the Apostles took the keys belonging to their Apostolic office immediately of Christ, and not by the mediation of S. Peter. Accordingly as S. Paul teacheth himself to be an Apostle neither of men, Galat. 1. nor by a man, but by jesus Christ. Therefore, when Peter alone is said to have taken the keys, it is meant, that he alone as high Priest and chief Bishop, took the keys of his pastoral office, to be communicated by him to particular Bishops his inferiors. For as Leo writeth of his christian brethren: Petrum non solum Romanae sedis praesulem, Leo. Ser. 2. in anivers. assumpt. sed & omnium Episcoporum noverunt esse primatem. They know Peter to be not only the Bishop of the See of Rome, but also to be the Primate of all Bishops. This most plain sentence I suppose, needeth no declaration. But it showeth S. Peter beside his Apostolic office, to have a double power of governing the Church, one particular in the City of Rome, an other general over all bishops. Now such a primate of all bishops S. james was not, albeit he was a Bishop of some Bishops. To end this matter, let us hear the judgement of S. Gregory: Certè Petrus Apostolus primum membrum sanctae, Lib 4. ep. 38. & universalis Ecclesiae est. Paulus, Andreas, joannes, quid aliud quâm singularum sunt plebium capita? Surely Peter the Apostle is the chief member of the holy and universal Church. Paul, Andrew, john, what other thing are they, than each one the heads of particular Churches? Here S. Gregory meaneth not to say, that Saint Paul or S. Andrew could not preach in all the world (God forbidden) but only that (as bishops) they could have but this or that flock under them, In 1. Reg. lib. 4. c. 4. totius Ecclesiae principatum obtinuit. whereas otherwise Saint Gregory himself confesseth, that S. Paul obtained the chief government of the whole Church. And the like, all the other Apostles obtained by their Apostleship, without any division of flocks or Churches assigned by Christ. But Peter had the charge of the whole Church, not only as an Apostle, but also as a high Bishop. And therein only S. Gregory meaneth that he passed Paul, Andrew, or john. This much I trust may suffice them who will be satisfied, for proof that whereas every Apostle had in him the whole right of the Apostleship, and also the right of being a particular Bissshoppe: Saint Peter had not only those two Authorities, but also he had the right of the highest bishop in respect of all other bishops. He as a bishop, was the chief member of the whole militant Church (that is to say, to the head thereof) as S. Gregory teacheth. a Lib. 4. ep. 38. He was the bishop of bishops, saith Arnobius, b in Psal. 138. and the Primate of all prelate's, saith Leo. c. serm. 2. in anivers d lib. 2. ad Eugen. the pastor of all pastors, saith S. Bernard. He alone by the judgement of Arnobius was called of Christ a Pastor, because there was none other advanced to that power of feeding, which he received. He was preferred a great way before the Apostles in authority, lib. 2. de Sacerdotio saith d lib. 2. ad Eugen. S. Chrysostom. In him (being one Pastor) unity was signified, saith S. e in Psal. 138. e Homil. de pastor. Augustine. He was the vicar of Christ's love in feeding us, as S. f in Lucae. 24. Ambrose affirmed. Concerning this primacy of his bishoply power, in that sense, he was much more properly the guide, top, mouth, chief, and head of the Apostles, then in the Apostolic function. For whereas they were chosen Apostles equally with him, he alone was chosen high Pastor above them. All these things have been proved out of God's word, and out of the holy Fathers. Order now requireth, that I should show S. Peter's prerogative also by the continuance of his authority. That the pastoral or chief bishops authority of s. Peter was an ordinary authority, and therefore it must go for ever unto his successors, whereas the Apostolic authority being extraordinary, hath no successors in it. The Xiij. THe Apostles were instituted for a certain purpose, Matth. 23 Act. 1. verily to publish the Gospel, and to plant the faith of Christ in all nations, with a most absolute power and with an authority which never should be controlled. For, seeing S. Peter being one man alone, was not able to preach the Gospel at once in all places, nor by and by to govern diverse nations newly converted (as whose commission from Christ was not as then sufficiently known) Christ gave him twelve Companions, with as full authority over the sheep for the time, as he had, who having converted many countries to the faith, might commend them all as sheep to be fed of many pastors under one perpetual chief shepherd S. Peter. Who knoweth not, that it is much easier for one man to govern all the faith full (being once converted and well instructed) by the help of many inferior officers, than it is for him to subdue all those unto the faith, which being as yet infidels, are also dispersed into diverse quarters? But when the Apostles had spread the faith into all parts of the world, with the death of them, the Apostolic authority likewise was at an end. And that being confessed by our Adversaries, even this last year in a Confession printed at Zurich, needeth no farther proof. An. 1566. tit. 18. For they say: when the Churches were now established, the Apostles ceased to be. But that S. Peter must have successors, not in his Apostleship, but in his supremacy of being chief Bishop above all Bishops, that now is to be declared. Who so marketh the peculiar names of a Rock, of a Pastor, Matth. 16. joan. 21. Luc. 22. and of a Confirmer of his brethren, which are given by Christ to S. Peter alone: may well perceive, that S. Peter's supremacy being meant by those names, must necessarily continue for ever. If a rock be laid in the foundation of the house, to stay it up: out of all question, the rock must not be taken away, if we will have the house to stand. The Rock whereupon the whole Church is built from the beginning of the world to the end, 1. Cor. 3. & 10. Dan. 7. is Christ himself, but not only the whole Church, but also that part which liveth in the earth for the time, wherein vessels both of honour and of contumely are (which vessels of contumely are not in heaven) that part I, 2. Tim. 2. 1. Tim. 3. say, living on the earth is called the house of God, as S. Paul teacheth. Therefore it also must have a rock of his own sort and nature to lean unto. For as Christ alone is the universal Rock of that universal house, and the universal shepherd of that great flock: so beside him, God always erected some certain particular stones, and certain small Rocks in the earth, which might stay up that part of his house, which for the time wandered in this world. Such were Adam, Enos, Henoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, jacob, Math. 23. Moses, Aaron, and his successors, who sat in the chair of Moses until the coming of Christ. For always there was some visible Rock of the Church in this life, Deut. 17. who might be so strongly fastened in the faith of Christ the great Rock, that he (though not for his own, yet for the Church's sake) might be able to stay up other small stones which leaned unto him. Christ at the length having taken flesh, and walking visibly in this world, and preaching in the land of jewrie, did not only stay his universal house upon his Godhead (as he had ever done before) but now also he stayed the militant Church upon the visible example of his own life, and upon the preaching of his own sensible doctrine according to his manhood, even after the same rate, Deut. 18. as Moses did whiles he lived. Now in consideration that Christ would forsake this world concerning his visible conversation, and that he would go in his manhood to reign in heaven gloriously over the glorious part of his Church: he instituted an other particular Rock and shepherd, joan. 21. who by the outward preaching and confessing of his faith, might for his life time stay the militant Church of God in a right belief, as Abraham or Moses had done whiles they lived. Matth. 16 This particular militant Rock was S. Peter for the tyme. But when he died, he left behind him still a particular militant Church (I call it particular in respect of the universal Church which for ever was and shallbe) therefore some mortal man ought still to be in the earth, who may so uphold the militant Church by the assurance of his faith and confession, as S. Peter did once uphold the same: who likewise may still so confirm his brethren as S. Peter was once willed to confirm them. Matth. 23. All Christians are brethren among themselves, but all bishops are brethren in a nigher degree of holy government. The Rock therefore which shall strengthen both all the Christians, and namely all the bishops, must continue so long, as there are either bishops or Christians in the earth. The same reason is also found in the name of a pastor. For as the flock of sheep continueth after S. Peter's death, even so must such an other pastor (as S. Peter was) be made, who may still feed and rule the flock of Christ. whereupon S. Chrysostom saith: Lib. 2. de Sacerdot. Christus sanguinem fudit, ut pecudes eas acquireret, quarum curam tum Petro, tum Petri Successoribus committebat. Christ hath shed his blood, to get unto him those sheep, the cure of whom he did commit both to Peter, Peter's successors. and to the successors of Peter. In that very place it was were S. Chrysostom said, that Peter being endowed, Longè praecellere. with authority passed the other Apostles a great way. As therefore Peter in the authority of feeding, passed the other Apostles: so must the successors of Peter pass a great way the successors of the other Apostles which are all Bishops. For now Chrysostom confesseth, that the same care is committed to the successors of Peter, which was committed to Peter himself. Serm 2 in anivers. assumpt. With S. Chrysostom Pope Leo agreeth, saying: Soliditas illius fidei quae in Apostolorum principe est laudata, perpetua est. Et sicut permanet, ꝙ in Christo Petrus credidit, ita permanet, quod in Petro Christus instituit. The strength of that faith which was praised in the prince of th' Apostles is everlasting. And as that remaineth, which Peter believed in Christ (that is to say, the Godhead of Christ) so doth that remain, which Christ instituted in Peter, that is to say, a sure rock which may always confess the true faith of Christ. And Leo showing afterward, how that remaineth, which was ordained in S. Peter, Ibidem. he saith: In seed Petri sua vivit potestas, excellit authoritas. In the seat of Peter his power liveth, his authority exelleth. Therefore the authority of S. Peter, is an ordinary power, which hath an ordinary succession in Christ's Church. These reasons are so plain, so strong, so true, so forcible, that I muse what understanding, what wit, or sense they have, who granting Peter to have been the rock, whereupon the Church was built for the time (which thing they must needs grant, unless they will deny the express word of God, and the perpetual consent of all the Fathers) yet will not grant that an other like Rock should be substituted after S. Peter. Verily seeing the reason of S. Peter's confession, Vbi eadem ratio, idem iu●. and of his power is such as agreeth to an ordinary office of the Church, the office also of S. Peter's being a rock, of strengthening his brethren, and of feeding Christ's sheep, is an ordinary office, which hath and must continued so long as there is a Militant house of God in earth, and so long as either any brethren are who may be confirmed, or any sheep who need to be fed. And verily if S. Peter have no successors in his pastoral office, what mean a li. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus, b lib. 2. de schismate. Optatus, and c Ep. 165. S. Augustine by name to reckon up such successors of S. Peter as had lived till every of their age and tyme. Moreover, whereas noman (excepting the cases of necessity) may rightly preach to them to whom he is not sent: Rom. 10. if, as every particular pastor hath (as S. Cyprian teacheth) a portion of the flock assigned to his government, lib. 1. ep. 3 for which he shallbe accountable unto our Lord: so there be not some general pastor always in the Church, who, beside his particular charge, may send others to preach unto them, which are not yet converted, and who (when they are converted) may erect new Churches, and plant new bishoprics in those parties: (as S. Gregory did in England) if there be not some, Beda li. 1. c. 23. & 27. Tit. 1. who may (as Paul saith) correct the things which lack, and also control other bishops when they are negligent, and who may excommunicate even those Christians which live in no particular diocese, but being conversant among the jews or paynim, do there teach false doctrine, and thence do write heretical books or treatises: if, I say, there be not some general pastors, who may summon all other bishops to General or provincial Counsels, and may change the former positive laws of the Church, when either necessititie or charity requireth it, and who may either make two bishops where one was before, or unite two into one, Greg. li. 2. epist. 31. & 35. or commit the cure of any See or chair vacant to the next bishop, and so in all cases may provide for the benefit of Christ's flock: it will come to pass, that the house of God shall not be so well provided for, as other mean States and common weals are. But if there be a power in God's Church, whereby all the former cases may be well provided for, seeing it is clear, that the Apostolic power is ended: it must needs be the high pastoral power of S. Peter, which shall procure these affairs. And consequently the high pastoral office of S. Peter is an ordinary office, which ceased not with his own death, but is transferred to his Successors, as it shall farther appear in the next chapter saving one. That the ordinary authority of S. Peter's primacy belongeth to one Bishop alone. The XIIII. Chap. SAint Peter had not only the same power of binding and losing committed to him alone, which was given in common to all the Apostles, but also he (as the head of all Bishops) had it specified to him before they had it. For whereas their authority is showed to have been given in the eighteenth chapter of S. Matthew; Matth. 18. and in the twentieth of S. John: joan. 20. the authority of S. Peter is described and promised in the sixteenth of S. Matthew, Matth. 16 and it depended of the promise of Christ, wherein he said, thou shalt be called Peter, or the rock: the which promise was made (as it appeareth in S. John) not only before the Apostles were chosen, joan. 1. but also before they were called to be the Disciples of Christ. Ad iubaianum. In consideration whereof S. Cyprian might boldly say: Petro primus Dominus (super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam, & unde unitatis originem instituit, & ostendit) potestatem istam dedit, ut id solueretur in terris, quod ille soluisset. Our Lord did first give unto Peter (upon whom he built his Church, and from whom he did institute and show the original or beginning, of unity) this power, that what soever he did lose, it should be loosed in the earth. Notewel When one hath first that right and power alone, which afterward others have, if there be any ordinary power of that thing at all, it must needs be in him who hath it first. Ordinary Order. For whereas all ordinary power dependeth chiefly of order, and whereas in order nothing can be before that which is first: First one. seeing S. Peter had first of all the right of the keys of the kingdom of heaven in himself alone, Matth. 16. and seeing the power of the keys, that is to say, of forgiving and of retaining sins is ordinarily in the Church, it cannot be otherwise, but that ordinary power was first in S. Peter alone. Augustin in joan Tract. 124. If the pordinary power of binding and losing be once in one pastor alone, it must still continued (concerning that degree) in one alone, if it shall (at the least) remain still the same power. For if it be given to many, and be equal in them all, it is not now the same which was promised and given first to Peter alone, Monarchy, aristocraty, democraty. but an other kind of power, even as the government of one prince differreth in kind from the government which is equally common either to many, or to the whole people. it is clear that the Apostles had the same power over the sheep, which S. Peter had (concerning the exercise of all manner of binding, losing, joan. 20. preaching and baptizing) and yet their authority could not be the ordinary power which is in the Church (because they were many, whereas the ordinary power was promised before to one alone) it doth ensue, Mat. 16. that they had their authority delegated and specially appointed to them extraordinarily. The Apostles power was delegated for their lives only Therefore although they fed the flock of Christ as well as S. Peter, yet they did it by delegation, and by special commission: whereas S. Peter alone was the ordinary chief shepherd, according to whose pattern there must still be some one appointed to feed Christ's whole flock. No man is at this day, that which the Apostles were. No man is able to write us an other Gospel, or to increase the Canonical Epistles, or to warrant that he received the first fruits of the holy Ghost, Rom. 8. as the Apostles did. That authority died with them, and came to none other after them: and consequently, it was not ordinary, but only was committed to a few, during their own lives. But the ordinary authority of this high administration began in one alone, and therefore it must continue still in one alone. There must be still one Rock, Matth. 16 beside and above all petite Rocks. There must be still one shepherd, joan. 21. beside and above many petite shepherds. There must be still one greater than other, Luc. 22. who may be made as the younger, and for whose faith Christ hath prayed, to the end he may strengthen his brethren. And verily seeing (as S. Bernard saith) there is most perfection in unity, De consid. lib. 2. and in all division some imperfection is included: shall we think that Christ hath chosen to govern his Church in earth, rather in an unperfit, then in a perfect sort? Again, sithence the state of the new testament, must needs be more perfect, than the state of the Law, which brought nothing to perfection: Heb. 7. and yet seeing in the Law, the ordinary Pastor was one high Priest and Bishop (as Aaron and his seed after him) having many synagogues and Levites under his supreme government: Num. 3. what reason can bear, that the state of our visible Church should lack also in earth one high priest and bishop over many particular parishes and dioceses? Thus have we both natural reason, the example of the Law, and the institution of Christ for one chief Bishop. And that this was the mind of all the ancient Fathers also, it appeareth most evidently, because they give such a reason, why the Church was built upon S. Peter, the which reason (without an extraordinary appointment of God) can never agree, but only to one shepherd who may be above the rest. I say, without an extraordinary appointment of God, for that the Apostles being many, why twelve Apostles governed equally. and being all equal, did govern the church in a marvelous unity and concord, as if they had been all but one man. The which spirit of unity Christ gave them, that his institution (of twelve equal governors for the time) might well appear not to be slanderous or hurtful unto his Church. For he would never have sent many with equal authority into the whole world, except he had been able to make them govern with one mind, spirit, and heart. But seeing it were still a miraculous thing to see twelve, and much more to see many thousand bishops and rulers, being all equal, still to govern the whole Church in their equal authority without schism, (as the Apostles did) that Apostolic authority being only instituted for the better publishing of the faith, doth now cease, and one shepherd is ordinarily alone set over all, by whose general power it may appear, that Christ's Church is but one. For that is the reason which S. Cyprian bringeth, why Christ built his Church upon S. Peter. Ecclesia quae una est, super unum, qui claves eius accepit, Ad jubaianum. voce Dni fundata est: The church which is one, was founded by our Lord's voice upon one, who took the keys thereof. De simplicitate praelatorum. And again: Quamuis Apostolis omnibus, etc. tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, unitatis eiusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua authoritate disposuit. Although Christ after his resurrection giveth to all the Apostles like power, and saith: As my Father sent me, joan. 20. and I send you, take ye the holy Ghost: i● you do remit to any man his sins, they shallbe remitted: and to whom you shall retain them; they shallbe retained: yet to the end he might make unity manifest, he disposed by his authority the original of the same Unity beginning from one. Note, good Reader, that the Church was built upon one, both that it might be one by the institution and ordinance of Christ, and also that it might appear ●ne. That it might be one, unitatem disposuit, ut unitatem manifestae ret. that is to say, that all the faithful might be in this ●ife one visible flock, because they have ●n this life one visible chief shepherd, ●o whom if all obey, Cyprian. lib. 1. ep. 3. no schisms can ●e in the Church: that it might appear one, because this external unity of one flock under one shep●eard in this world, is a sign that the universal Church (which was, is, ●nd shall be) is in deed for ever one, through the one shepherd jesus Christ ●ho is alone the universal shepherd: whereas Peter had no more but that ●eece of the flock committed unto him, which was in the earth whiles he li●ed. But if Peter's chief authority, ●hall be now divided into many Bishops of equal power: then the militant Church, neither is one ●isible flock under one visible shep●eard, nor it doth not signify, that the universal Church was, and is, and shallbe one by jesus Christ: but rather it most falsely signifieth, that, as in earth there are thousands of flocks all equal, and all several: Note. so there are as many Christ's, and as many shepherds over the universal Church. Which signification seeing it is impious, and meet for heretics only, Matt. 24. who being many, and coming all in Christ's name, do make so many Christ's, as they are men: I exhort all men, who favour the only one universal head jesus Christ, to believe and profess only one general head of thi● flock of his which is in earth. For 〈◊〉 this militant flock is one, by one militant shepherd: so is the universal Church one flock and one body, through Iesu● Christ alone the universal shepherd and head. Lib. 2. de schism. Optatus showeth likewise, that S. Peter's chair was singularis, that is to say such a one, as had no fellow and why so? ut in una cathedra in qua sedit Petrus, unitas ab omnibus seruaretur, ne caeteri Apostoli singulas sibi quisque defenderent, ut iam schismaticus & peccator esset, qui contra singularem cathedram, alteram collocaret. Ergo cathedra unica quae est prima de dotibus, sedit prior Petrus. (Peter's chair was singularly one) to th'end unity might be kept of all men in that one chair, Unity kept in one chair wherein Peter sat. And that the other Apostles might not challenge every man a chair to himself: so that he should now be a schismatik and a sinner, who should place an other chair against the chair which hath no fellows. Peter then sat in the only chair, which is the chief dourie of those that belong to the Church. Can any thing be devised more plain? the Chair of Peter is one, singularis unae, unica. and only, and singular, wherein he being foremost sat, to th'end none other Apostle might erect a contrary chair to Peter's chair. Whereby he meaneth not, that any Apostle would so much as endeavour any such thing, but it was done, to th'end no successor of the Apostles might take any occasion to say: my chair is as good as Peter's. For an Apostle also did sit in my chair. For this cause, I say, Peter alone had the first chair and the singular chair, which had no fellow at all. S. Hierom also bringeth the self same reason, why S. Peter alone was the head and chief of all, Aduersus jovinian. lib. 1. saying: Propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur, ut capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasio. Therefore among twelve one is chosen, that a head being made, the occasion of schism might be taken away. But who was that one? Aetati delatum est, quia Petrus senior erat, ne magister bonus in joannem adolescentem causam praebere videretur invidiae. The age was preferred, because Peter was the elder, lest the good master (Christ) should seem to give occasion of envy, if he had chosen the young man Saint john. If then Peter was the one who was chosen, and if he was chosen of Christ to take away the occasion of schism: one chief pastor must still continue, still to take away the occasion of schism. for S. Peter was not made the Apostles head, as though the Apostles themselves had been in danger to make a schism (it were a madness to think so of those blessed vessels of God) but his primacy (as Leo doth record) was a plat form for other bishops, Serm. 3. in anniuers. assump. cunctis rectoribus Petri forma proponitur. who should have less grace, and would have more pride: that they might understand, how themselves ought not to disdain to have one head set over them, if the very Apostles had a head among them. For their deeds are our instruction. If then a head was set over the Apostles, for their sakes who should be pastors afterward, what extremity of folly is it, to make S. Peter alone a head over them, A fortiore who least of all needed a head: and to leave our weak prelates all without a head? Who (many of them) need not only a head, but also a diligent and a severe head. Here might I worthily fall into a common place, and show, that according to the saying of S. Cyprian, heresies have sprung of none other cause so much, Lib. 1. epistol. 3. as for that one judge hath not been acknowledged in the steed of Christ for the time, to whom the whole brotherhood might obey. The which saying if it be verified (even by M. jewels and M. Nowel's confession) in every particular diocese: how much more is it true, that the whole Church containing certain thousands of dioceses, must have one judge for the time, to whom the whole brotherhood should obey, to th'end heresies and schisms may be avoided? For if one judge be so necessary, that one little shear and diocese can not lack him, but that (whiles one parish priest disdaineth an other) the diocese falleth strait into a schism▪ can the whole Church being spread throughout the world lack the same one judge, A fortiore and yet not fall into schisms? Or shall the part be provided for, and shall the whole remain without so good a provision? But this argument is begun already between M. Dorman and M. Nowell. And we have many a day looked, what M. Nowell will answer to it. furthermore, we never found, nor shall find one word or syllable in the whole new testament, where it may appear, that ever Christ committed any particular company of the faithful men (who then lived) to any one apostle or disciple, who might be resident with them alone, as their only Pastor. The parts and members of Christ's whole militant flock which are now made here, and there, were instituted by th'apostolic and Ecclesiastical authority, not surely without the special providence and inspiration of the holy Ghost, Tit. 1. Act. 14. Leo. ep. 87 but yet not immediately by Christ, but through his will by man's authority. And therefore the bounds of any parrissh or diocese, may for probable causes be changed again by an other man, Greg. li. 2 ep. 31. who hath such like authority to change the bounds of parishes as they had, who first made them. Particular flocks than are voluntary, and likewise particular pastors. But one flock and one pastor, is of absolute necessity in the earth, and so doth S. Cyprian witness: Deus unus est & Christus unus, L. ep. 8. & una Ecclesia, & Cathedra una super Petrum Domini voce fundata. There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair, founded upon Peter by our Lord's voice. Behold, One Chair. this one chair which is founded upon Peter, must needs be meant of the one pastoral pre-eminence which Christ himself did institute in the militant Church. This matter standing so, shall we say that the Church of Christ continueth in the earth or no? If it do continue, shall Christ's own absolute institution continue above the virtuous, but yet voluntary institution of men? or shall the good and voluntary institution of man prevail more than the most perfect institution of Christ? Men made many particular flocks according as they thought most convenient for this or that place, and they did set over them many particular pastors, somewhere a Priest, and somewhere a Bishop. Christ made in all but one militant flock, which should consist both of jews and Gentiles, and did set over it Saint Peter one general shepherd. And there was made (even in earth after Christ's ascension) one sheepcote, joan. 21. joan, 10. and one shepherd. Shall now these many flocks, and many shepherds, which men appointed, continued still: and shall not the one flock, and the one shepherd which Christ assigned much more continue? Forasmuch as a flock of sheep is one by the force of one pastor, if the pastor in earth be not one, the flock in earth is not one. Credo unam Ecclesiam. But all men believe one militant church, which is the flock of Christ in earth: therefore all men ought to confess one militant shepherd of the same flock in earth also. For although the Church be one more ways then by one shepherd, yet if Christ had not meant, that his Church should be one flock, not only for having one faith, one baptism, Ephes. 4. or one spirit, but also for having one shepherd: he would never have said: There shallbe made one sheepcote, and one shepherd. joan. 10. But now, seeing he faith: I have other sheep, which are not of this fold (to wit, of the jews synagogue) and I must bring those, and they shall hear my voice, and there shallbe made one fold (or flock) and one shepherd: it is evident, that as the jews and the Gentiles, beside the unity to come in heaven, are one fold and one flock in this world: even so, that they have one temporal shepherd in this world, beside Christ the everlasting shepherd. Which thing sith it is so, is it possible, that any Protestant willbe so injurious to Christ, as to prefer the good institution of S. Paul (who planted one Church at Corinth, Rom. 16. Act. 14. an other at Ephesus, and the third at Athens) before the absolute and peerless institution of Christ, who in the whole earth planted one great Church, whereof he made one great shepherd under himself the universal shepherd? I see, that the Protestants talk much of God's word, but the word they speak of, is written in no Gospel. They will have many flocks and many shepherds to continue still, neither do we deny it, because it was so instituted by the Apostles: but the Catholics will much more have all these flocks to be only one church in earth, because they are all to be reduced unto the obedience of one chief shepherd in earth, which was the institution of Christ. Either let the text be named, where Christ did institute many parishes, and many dioceses, or seeing there is none such, and on the other side seeing we bring a plain text, where it is said to one pastor, joan. 21. feed my sheep, let not the order virtuously taken afterward by the Apostles be so maintained, that the former appointment of the Son of God be thereby made void. Either let both orders take place (as with the Catholics they do) or if one of the two shall needs be disappointed, let us rather have in all but one chief shepherd, as Christ immediately left the matter, then to have many, and not to have one. moreover to what other thing doth all the whole order of the Church tend in earth, but only to an unity? The whole government of the militant Church tendeth to unity. Why is one Curate in a parish set over many families and houses? Why is one Bishop in a diocese set over many parishes? Why is one Primate or Metropolitan in a province set over many Bishops? Why are all the primates of one quarter of the world, reduced under one Patriarch? but only evermore to show, that the government of the Church tendeth by many middle unities, Ep, 82. ad Anastasium Thessaly. to one supreme pastoral unity in this life. Whereupon Leo saith: Magna dispositione ꝓuisū est, ut essent in singulis provincijs singuli, quorum inter fratres haberetur prima sententia, & rursus quidam in ma●oribus urbibus constituti, sollicitudinem susciperent ampliorem, per quos ad unam Petri sedem universalis Ecclesiae cura conflueret, & nihil unquam a suo capite dissideret. It was ordained with great providence, that there should be in every province one, whose judgement (or sentence) might be chief among the brethren. And again, that certain being appointed in the greater Cities, See (M. jewel) who hath the cure of the universal Church. should take greater charge, by whom the cure of the universal Church might flow together to the one seat of Peter, and that nothing might at any time descent from his head. Lo, by may primates the cure of the whole cometh to him, who sitteth in S. Peter's See, which is at Rome. Again, seeing all Ecclesiastical institution and government of the Church came from Christ one way or other, it must needs be, Cyp. l●b. 1. epist. 3. that every bishop hath the portion of the flock (which he governeth) assigned to him by some order or other, taken by Christ himself. But Christ by his own express wor● assigned not, that S. Peter should rule any one piece of the Militant flock, and S. james an other, and S. john the third, but rather by his appointment, S. Peter might rule the self same flock, which S. john, or S. Paul, or S. james might, and contrariwise, they might rule the same flock which S. Peter did. For all were sent equally into the whole world. Matth. 28 Therefore except beside this common commending of the flock indifferently to all, S. Peter alone had been made the chief Pastor and head of the whole flock (as in deed he was) and that not only as an Apostle, joan. 21. but as a bishop and as one ordinary officer, the like whereof should for ever continued in the Church: we might boldly say, that the example of having any one ordinary Curate, Bishop, or Metropolitan, in any one parrissh or Diocese, or Province, were utterly without any example of Christ's institution in the Apostles themselves. And therefore (that equal institution of many pastors over on● flock only standing, which thing the protestants do maintain) it should invincibly follow, that seeing no devise of man is able to control the institution o● Christ, it were at this day much better, to have twelve or thirten curates in one parish and so many bishops in one diocese, then to have one alone. For Christ (if Peter alone were not above the Apostles in the chief pastoral dignity) made thirteen Apostles to be equal pastors and governors of the self same flock, Math. 18. & 2●. and that form of government, which Christ ordained, ought still to continue in every particular Church: for who dare change our Lord's institution? Cypri. lib. 1. epi. 3. & li. 4. epi. 2 Hieron. in 1. c. epist. ad Titum. But on the other side, if all the world confess, that now in one Church, there ought to be at one time, but one bishop, or one pastor, in so much that S. Hierom saith, in una civitate plures, ut nun cupantur, Episcopi esse non poterant: In one city there could not be many bishops, (according as a bishop is now taken to signify one that is above common priests) If whereas once many priests (according to S. Hieroms' mind) ruled one Church for a time equally, In. 1. epist. ad Titum. ut dissensicnun plantaria evelletentur. yet for the better avoiding of schisms, that government was changed, and one bishop was set over them all: seeing S. Hierom alloweth well the change, as being made for the better, and yet it could not have been for the better, if it had wholly lacked a form and pattern in that government, which Christ himself appointed to the Church: seeing the same S. Hierom saith, Lib. 1. adversus jovianum. that among twelve one was chosen, (and that by the good master Christ) to th'end the occasion of schism might be taken away: all these things (I say) well weighed and conferred together: I may most certainly conclude, that Christ did not only institute S. Peter to be as one chief pastor in the whole militant Church according to S. Hieroms' express meaning, but that also he did institute him alone as an ordinary officer, according to whose unity, every other Church should be at the length ruled by one curate or bishop. For as the twelve Apostles governed the flock for a time together with S. Peter extraordinarily, AEqualiter inter piures Ecclesiae cura dividitur. and S. Peter alone governed the whole flock ordinarily: so whiles the Apostles yet lived, some few parishes were governed extraordinarily by many pastors at once, as S. Hierom thinketh. But as we see most clearly, that the equal government of many pastors in any one parish or diocese in the whole world long before S. Hieroms' time was wholly expired: so we may as evidently perceive (if we be not given over to a blind heart) that the extraordinary government of the twelve Apostles, or of any other prelate's with equal power, was fourteen hundred years passed expired. And that now the only ordinary mean to govern God's Church, as well in the whole, as in the parts, is to have one pastor alone in every parish, and one chief pastor alone over the whole militant Church, the which one chief pastor is the bishop of Rome, as now it shallbe proved by God's grace. That the Bishop of Rome is that one ordinary pastor who succeedeth in S. Peter's chair, and is above all bishops according to the meaning of God's word. The XV. Chap. AS Sina, being a mountain in in Arabia, Galat. 4. is said of the Apostle to be joined, or to be nigh unto the earthly city of jerusalem, not so much for the nighness or affinity of the place, as for the likeness of condition (because the self same Law of Moses, which had been given in Sina, was afterward continued and preserved in jerusalem) And as by that mean the jews who (at the time of the Law first received) were not bound to jerusalem at all (as the which was then full of Idolatry) were afterward bound to come thither thrice every year, Exod. 23. because the high priesthood and temple was settled there, Deut. 17. as in the place which God chose: even so fareth it between the chief power, which Christ gave to S. Peter, and the Church or bishop of Rome. joan. 21. For albeit when the Church was built upon Peter, and when he was made chief pastor of the same, he were in Palestina, and not in Rome, and for that time was rather accounted the high bishop of the Circuncision, Galat. 2. that is to say, of the faithful jews, then of the Gentiles (who were not then converted from their Idolatry) yet for as much as the same S. Peter (whose primacy is plentifully set forth in God's word) at the length settled himself at Rome by God's appointment, Iren. lib. 3 cap. 3. Tertul. de prescript. and left a successor there: for this respect I may well affirm that the Bishop of Rome's Primacy is commended and warranted by Gods own word. And seeing it hath been already declared, that S. Peter alone, according to the first literal sense, was both the rock, Matth. 16 whereupon Christ promised to build his Church, and also the pastor, joan. 21. who as he loved Christ more than other, so he had authority to feed Christ's flock more than any other Bishop: Item that the power of Peter was ordinary, and must continue still in the Church of God: Item that it must continue in one chief shepherd only: Now if I show, that the Bishop of Rome is that one ordinary chief Shepherd, who succeedeth in the said Authority of Saint Peter, how can it be avoided, but that the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is avouched and taught by Gods own word? Egesippus lib. 3 c. 2. Iren. lib. 3 cap. 3. Euseb. histor. lib. 2. c. 14. First, not only all the histories, all holy writers, and the general tradition of all ages have testified, that S. Peter came to Rome (notwithstanding some brainesick men would now persuade the contrary) but also the self same thing is witnessed by the express word of God, when S. Peter saith in the end of his own epistle, Petrus in epist. 1. c. 5 salutat vos Ecclesia, quae est in babylon collecta. The Church which is gathered together in Babylon, saluteth you. For there he called Rome Babylon: Because as Babylon was named of the confusion of tongues, and had in it (whiles it was the seat of the monarchy) all manner of nations, and consequently all manner of vices: even so had Rome (being now the seat of the Roman Empire, when S. Peter wrote thence) all manner of tongues, of nations, and of vices in it. And of this mind was that Ancient Father Papias, Euseb. histor. lib. 2. c. 15. & Graecae scholia. and diverse other holy writers concerning the same place of S. Peter's epistle. Neither did S. Peter only come to Rome, and preach at Rome for a time, but he also died there, and so died there, that it appeared evidently God would have him die no where else. For whereas (according to the duty of the chief pastor) he came to Rome chiefly to save his flock there from the raging fury of Simon Magus the captain of all heretics (who began to be worshipped for a God in Rome) when by his prayer he had caused the devils who carried Simon Magus a long in the air, Euseb. li. 2 c. 13. & 14. & 15. Egesippus lib. 3. c. 2. to let him fall (whereupon his death ensued shortly after) the Emperor Nero (who took no small delight in the sorcery of Simon Magus) being sore offended with S. Peter's deed, sought strait ways his apprehension and destruction. At that time the Christians being very loath to be deprived of so good a pastor as S. Peter was, Amhros. post epist. 32. lib. 5 with much entreating and many tears prayed him to go out of the way, and to save himself. At whose request Saint Peter (otherwise unwilling thereunto) began to take his journey out of the city. But when he was come to the gate, he seeth Christ coming toward him, whom he adoring said, Domine quo vadis, Ambos. episto. lib. 5. post epi. 32 O Lord, whether goest thou? Christ said unto him, venio Romam iterum crucifigi. I come to Rome to be crucified again. Peter understood thereby, that Christ would suffer in him at Rome, who suffereth in every of his members, not by pain of body, but by compassion of pity, or rather by the greatness of glory which is gotten to him by the victorious death which his Saints are put unto. Upon this vision Peter returned again into the City of Rome, and being taken, he was put to death upon the cross with his head downward: so that Christ himself appointed Rome to be the place, where S. Peter should rest. This matter is witnessed, Lib. 5. post epist. 32. Egesip lib. 3. cap. 2. not only by Saint Ambrose, but also by Egesippus, who was a very ancient writer, even strait upon the time of the Apostles: albeit his work being translated into Latin, seemeth to have certain names of Cities added by him, who did translate it about the time of S. Ambrose, and of Ruffinus. Neither is it to be doubted, but S. Luke would have written the same appearing of Christ unto S. Peter (as well as he wrote the appearing of Christ unto S. Paul) if he had gone so far forward in his story of the Acts of the Apostles. Actor. 9 But seeing he did not continue his narration until the death of S. Peter, and of Saint Paul, we must needs credit those faithful ancient witnesses, who report the same. By which history we learn that Christ (who might easily have granted the the glory of Martyrdom to his Apostle in any other place) had a special regard that both he, Why S. Peter should die in Rome. and his fellow Apostle S. Paul, might die in Rome. Whereof I find diverse causes alleged in the Fathers. Augustini de sanctis serm. 27. One is, for the glory of the Apostles, ne alteri Roma deesset, that Rome might not lack to either of them, or that they might not lack the glory of the chief City Rome, concerning the place of their Martyrdom. An other is, for the destruction of superstition: Augustin. ibidem. ubi caput superstitionis erat, illic caput quiesceret sanctitatis. Et ubi gentilium principes habitabant, illic Ecclesiarum morerentur. That where the head of superstition was, there might be the head of holiness. And where the Princes of the Gentiles dwelled, there the Princes of the Church might die. The third cause is, for the honour of the west Church. Ibidem. Cum Dominus orientis regionem propria illustra verit passione, occidentis plagam ne quid minus esset, vice sui Apostolorum sanguine illuminare dignatus est. Et licet illius passio nobis sufficiat ad salutem, tamen etiam horum Martyrium nobis contulit ad exemplum. Whereas our Lord hath made the East part lightsome with his own passion: he vouchsafed in his steed (that it might be no less) to give light unto the west quarters by the blood of his Apostles. And albeit our Lord's passion sufficeth us for salvation, yet their martyrdom also hath done us good for example. The fourth cause is, Leo serm. 1. in natali Petri & Pauli. for the spreading of the Gospel: lux veritatis, quae in omnium gentium revelabatur salutem, efficacius se ab ipso capite, per totum mundi corpus effunderet. That the light of the truth (which was revealed for the salvation of all nations) might spread itself more effectuously from the very head through out the whole body. Now, forasmuch as God used the City of Rome as a most special mean, whereby to enlarge and spread his faith through all the world which obeyed that one city, it came also to pass, that the same city per sacram B. Petri sedem caput orbis affecta, Leo, ibidem. latius praesideret religione divina, quàm dominatione terrena. Being made the head of the world, through the holy See of S. Peter should rule more largely by God's religion, then by earthly dominion. Lib. 6. epist. 37. Petrus enim (saith S. Gregory) subli mavit sedem in qua etiam quiescere & praesentem vitam finire dignatus est. For Peter hath lifted up a high the See wherein he also vouchsafed to rest, and to end this present life. Mark, that the glory and prerogative of the Roman Church is most specially imputed to S. Peter. For although two Apostles died in one City, at one time, for one truth of Christ's Gospel: yet they left not two Chairs or successions there. Iren. lib. 3 cap. 3. August. ep. 162. 165. Neither is the Bishop of Rome called the successor of S. Paul, or said to sit in his chair, but only in the Chair of Peter, as the whole practice of the Church, and all the writings of the Fathers do witness. Whereby we are informed, that Rome is the place chosen by Christ himself, where S. Peter's Chair should rest. Ambros. lib. 5. post ep. 32. In Pontificali. For S. Peter returning to Rome upon the former vision, did before his death consecrate S. Clement bishop cui & Cathedram (saith Damasus) vel Ecclesiam omnem commisit, dicens. To whom he committed also his chair, or all the Church, saying: Sicut mihi gubernandi tradita est à Domino meo jesu Christo potestas ligandi soluendique, ita & ego tibi committo. etc. As the power of governing, of binding and losing, is committed to me of my Lord jesus Christ, even so I commit to thee also, that thou mayst ordain others by whom diverse causes may be disposed, and such acts (as be not meet for the Church) may be repelled, and thou must not be found given to the cares of this world, but only endeavour to give most leisure to prayer, and to preaching unto the people. Clemens in epist. 1. The like report S. Clement himself maketh of this commission, which S. Peter gave to him, whose Epistle Ruffinus turned into Latin above eleven hundred years past: Ruffinus in Praefatione Recognit. and in the preface which he maketh to the Recognitions of S. Clement, he so well declareth that Epistle of S. Clement to have been of full credit in his time, and before, that he answereth such objections as might seem to make against that which is said in it. Tertullian also confesseth, De prescript adversus haeret. that the Church of Rome doth show evidence, that S. Clement was ordained of Peter. And S. Hierom namely saith: In Catalogo. Plerique Latinorum secundum post Petrum Apostolum putant fuisse Clementem. The most part of the Latins think Clement to have been second (or next) after Peter the Apostle. And in an other place he saith: Aduersus jovin. Clemens successor Apostoli Petri scribit epistolas. Clemens the successor of Peter the Apostle writeth Epistles. Leo the second, Marianus, Scotus, and divers other, are of the same judgement. Now whereas Linus and Cletus by the life time of S. Peter (as Damasus and Ruffinus do witness) did administer many things belonging to the bishopric (as being in the exterior matters coadiutours of S. Peter) the Grecians, who were farther absent, Vbi supra and were less expert in the Roman affairs, supposed Linus to have been chosen next after S. Peter. Whereas Clement was only chosen, but Clement (as other think) yielded to Linus for a time, as to his elder. Howsoever that be, whether Linus or Clement practised that high authority, once S. Peter's Chair was settled at Rome, not without the special providence of Christ. In so much that Athanasius writeth, that S. Peter and Paul audierunt, In Apologia de fuga sua. oportere se Romae Martyrium subire, heard that they must suffer martyrdom at Rome. And what so ever hearing he meaneth, surely he meaneth it of a hearing which came from God, either by their own vision, or by some prophetical revelation, such as both they did well believe, and we also ought to credit. But to come near to our present purpose, S. Irenaeus speaking of the successions of bishops in those Churches which the Apostles had first instituted: calleth the Church of Rome Maximam, & antiquissimam, Lib. 3. adversus heresies. c. 3. & omnibus cognitam, à gloriosissimis duobus Apostolis, Petro & Paulo fundatam & constitutam. The greatest Church, and most ancient, and known to all men, being planted and settled by two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul. Ibidem. Ad hanc Ecclesiam, propter potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles. To this Church, for the mightier principality, or authority of government, every Church, that is to say, the faithful which are round about, must needs come or agree. Whereas then every Church hath a certain principality or authority of government committed to it by Christ, through which principality, it may preach the faith, Tit. 3. overcome sins, and heresies, and excommunicate open sinners and heretics: The Church of Rome being founded and planted by the most glorious Apostles hath potentiorem principalitatem a mightier principality than any other Church. For it is a wilful ignorance whereas Ireneus speaketh only of the successors and traditions of faithful Churches, In his Reply 244. for M. jewel to say (as he hath done) that the mightier principalty here mentioned is meant of the Civil Dominion and of the Roman Empire, as though Ireneus had spoken any syllable in that place of the Roman Empire. He spoke of the Churches which the Apostles had founded and instituted, The Church of Rome is the greatest. among which he calleth the Church of Rome maximam the graetest. Why so, but because it was founded of the greatest Apostle? and how founded? For if S. Peter had only made a bishop thereof, as he did of diverse other Churches: surely thereby it had not been greater than the other. But because he being the graetest of th' Apostles (as a Hist. lib. 2. cap. 14. Eusebius and S. b In epist. ad Galat. cap. 2. Hieron speak) left in Rome a Successor in his own primacy, that is to say, a rock, and a chief shepherd, as great as himself had been, therefore it was the greatest Church in the world. And thence cometh the primpality whereof this ancient father speaketh. Rome is the most ancient Church. S. Ireneus calleth the same Church of Rome antiquissiman the most ancient Church. how so? was not jerusalem and Antioch before it? yes verily in time of having a bishop and of professing the faith: but not in the perpetual honour and residence of the chief bishop. For Peter was the first and chief bishop of the new testament. In him was the root, the fountain, the head of all bishoply power, De simplicitate praelatorum. and from him (as S Cyprian witnesseth) priestly unity took his beginning touching the ministry of the new testament: and for that cause his successors being reckoned (as in deed they are) one with him, (concerning his office of feeding Christ's sheep) cause the Church of Rome still to be the most ancient and the mother Church of the Roman circuit, Metropolis ad Solitariam vitam agent. as also Athanasius doth name it: For this cause the mightier principality is in the Church of Rome. And for as much as the same succession of Peter is now at Rome which was in the time of Ireneus, the same Church is still the greatest and the most ancient Church whereunto all other faithful men ought to resort, by reason of the mightier principality or pre-eminence thereof. S. Cyprian confesseth the chair, that is to say, the authority of S. Peter to be at Rome. For whereas certain factious heretics sailed from Carthage to Rome as intending to complain upon S. Cyprian and the other bishops of Africa to Pope Cornelius: S. Cyprian writeth thus of that matter: Audent ad Petri Cathedram atque Ecclesiam principalem, Li. 1. epi. 3. unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, à schismaticis & prophanis literas far, nec cogitare eos esse Romanos, quorum fides Apostolo praedicante laudata est, Rom. 1. ad quos perfidia habere non possit accessum. They dare carry letters from schismatical and profane men, to the chair of Peter, Principal Church. and principal Church, whence the priestly unity began. Neither do they consider them to be Romans, whose faith is praised by the report of the Apostle, to whom infidelity can not have access. In this sentence all the privileges of S. Peter's supremacy are acknowledged to be at Rome. First, there is S. Peter's chair, to wit, his ordinary power of teaching and of judging ecclesiastical matters. Again, there is the principal church or flock of Christians: verily because they are governed by Cornelius the Bishop of Rome, who succeedeth in the pastoral office of the prince of the Apostles. For otherwise jerusalem might have seemed the mother Church to all Christians, were it not that S. Peter committing jerusalem to the government of S. james, carried his own authority with him, and left it all at Rome. Thirdly, how is it said, that the unity of priests or of bishops (for sacerdos containeth both dignities) begun at the Church of Rome, but because it hath the whole pastoral authority of Peter in whom the beginning of all ecclesiastical pre-eminence was, joan. 1. Matth. 16 because he first was promised to be called Peter, that is to say, the rock, and, to have the keys of the kingdom of heaven given to him? but take away S. Peter's prerogative, and the Church of Rome is not the beginning of priesthood, but rather jerusalem or Antioch. Fourthly, this word unity doth import that as Peter alone had in him the whole power of the chief shepherd in earth (which can be but one) so Cornelius the successor of Peter hath in him the same power: and so unity continueth still in the succession of Peter, not every unity, but priestly unity, because he sitteth in Rome, by whom and in whom all priests and bishops are one, whiles they all (concerning their government and jurisdiction) are overseen, are confirmed and fed of him, who is without fellows in his supremacy. furthermore when S. Cyprian saith, infidelity can have no access to the Romans, what other thing is that, then to say, Lucae 22, that in the church of Rome he ruleth, for whose faith Christ prayed? For what flock can be sure to be always safe from infidelity except it be warranted by jesus Christ the only safeguard of his Church? Add hereunto that the same S. Cyprian calleth Rome Ecclesiae catholicae matricem & radicem, Lib. 4. epist. 8. the mother and root of the Catholic Church. Verily because thence all bishoply authority of feeding Christ's flock did spring first, and is continually nourished and maintained. Did not S. Cyprian confess Cornelius to have received the appellation of Basilides lawfully out of Spain, Lib. 1. ep. 4 albeit he show also, that Basilides for his part, did unjustly appeal, and did deceive the Pope by false suggestion and evil report? Last of all, S. Cyprian requireth Stephanus the Pope, lib. 3. ep. 13 to depose Marcianus the Bishop of Arles in France. Which surely to do in an other province, is a sign that the Pope of Rome is above other Bishops. Thus did that holy Martyr defend both the right and the practice of the Church of Rome. The which thing is the more notable in S. Cyprian, Cyprianus contra epist. Stephani. because he otherwise dissenting from the opinion of Pope Stephanus (concerning the baptizing of such in the Catholic Church, as had been baptised before of the heretics) did not yet for the greedy defence of his own opinion, deny the prerogative of the Bishop of Rome, but therein showed, that not withstanding his private error, he kept still the unity of the Militant Church, in acknowledging the visible head thereof. Novatus taught falsely, that those who had once denied Christ, or had committed great and mortal sins, might not be admitted afterward, by Christian Priests or Bishops to do penance, nor to their old state of grace. With which heresy, a Christian Priest (who was named Hippolytus, Hippolytus. because he was torn in pieces with wild horses) was for the time deceived. But for as much as the said Hippolytus did otherwise love Christ so heartily, that he was content to die for his name: that the said death might not be unprofitable to him, God of his great mercy revealed to him, the true Catholic faith and religion before his death. The which true faith he did not keep to himself, but as well for the recompense of his own evil example, which he had given whiles he followed that heresy, as also for the instruction of others, he had grace to confess the same. For when he was now leaden to the place of his Martyrdom, the Christian people came about him, and asked which was the better religion, whether the Catholic, or else that of Novatus? to whom he answered thus: as Prudentius doth recite. Periste. phanon, in passione Hippoliti. Respondit: fugite o miseri execranda Novati Schismata, Catholicis reddite vos populis. una fides vigeat prisco quae condita templo est Quam Paulus retinet, quamque Cathedra Petri, His answer was: O flee the schisms of cursed Novats lore, And to the Cath'like folk and flock, Yourselves again restore. Let only one faith rule and rain, Kept in the Church of old, Which faith both Paul doth still retain, And Peter's Chair doth hold. Mark these degrees, avoid schisms and divisions. Before the time of Novatus, there was but one faith: after him, there began to be two faiths. He then divided the former faith. Avoid ye the division, and restore your selves to the Catholic people which were spread every where before Novatus was borne. Let one faith prevail. Which one? That which is in the most ancient Church. Which is that? The which Paul and the Chair of Peter keepeth. What is the Chair of Peter? The Bishop of Rome, who sitteth in that Chair. So that he goeth from Schism, to the Catholics, and he showeth where the Catholics are by one faith without division. That one faith is seen in the ancient Church, And is kept by the Bishops of Rome. May we not now say, according to the example of Hippolytus to our Country men, avoid the Schisms? May we not say, restore yourselves to the Catholic people? Fellow not the two faiths which are now stirring, but let that one faith prevail which is preserved in the ancient Church of Rome, and kept there in the Chair of Peter? Doth any man doubt, but that the Pope of Rome is elder than Luther, than wickliff, then Berengarius? Restore yourself then to the old faith, to the chair of Peter, therein you may rest without all fear. Let your Pastor S. Peter answer for you, if that See can deceive you: yea let Christ answer for you, if it be possible, either the faith of Peter, which he prayed for, to fail in itself, Luc. 22. or not to strengthen others. It is the Rock planted by Christ: build upon it without fear, and no floods or winds of heresy shall at any time overthrow your house. Matth. 7. Athanasius the second Patriarch in all the world, and in honour next unto the bishop of Rome, Paulus the archbishop of Constantinople, which seat afterward came to be preferred before the patriarch of Alexandria, Marcellus the bishop of Ancyra, Asclepas the bishop of Gaza, and Lucyanus the Bishop of Hadrianople, being all Grecians, all of the East Church, but so far distant one from the other, that there was no part of the East Church which to some of them did not belong: all these, I say, being expelled not by one or two, but by Counsels of other bishops, coming from diverse quarters met together at Rome, in the days of Pope julius, of whom Sozomenus (himself also a Grecian) writeth in this wise. Athanasius relinquens Alexandriam, Romam prosectus est. Tripart. lib. 4. c. 15 Contigit autem eodem tempore etiam Pau lun Constantinopolitanun Pontificem illuc una concurrere, & Marcellum Ancyrae, Asclepanque Gazae. Quasi subvertisset altar. Qui dum Arrianis esset adversus, calunniam passus ab his, quasi subvertisset altar damnatus est. Quasi subvertisset altar. Pro quo Gazeorū Ecclesia Quintiano committitur. Lucianus autem Hadrianopolite● Episcopus, ob aliam accusationem ecclesia sua privatꝰ, degebat in urbe Roma. Cognoscens ergo Romanus Episcopus crimina singulorum, & omnes Nicaeno Concilio concordare comperiens, Omnium curam gerens propter sedis propriae dignitatem. eos in communionem suscepit, tanquam omnium curam gerens propter sedis propriae dignitatem, singulisque reddidit suas Ecclesias, et orientalibus scripsit Episcopis, culpans ꝙ non rectè tractassent viros inculpabiles de suis Ecclesiis eos expellentes, & ꝙ constitutiones Niceni Concilij minime obseruarent. Adesse praecepit. Quorum paucos ad certam diem fibimet adesse praecepit, ut coram eis ostenderet justum se super illis protulisse decretum. Et deinceps non se passurum interminatus est, nisi ab huiusmodi turbis & novitate cessarent. Et ille quidem haec scripsit. Athanasius aunt & Paulus epistolas julij orientalibus Episcopis miserunt, & singulí eorum suas sedes adepti sunt. Athanasius leaving Alexandria, went unto Rome. It chanced him even at the same time to meet there Paul Bishop of Constantinople, and Marcellus of Ancyra, and Asclepas of Gaza. Which Asclepas being an adversary to the Arrians, suffered injury of them, and under the pretence, It was a great fault in the primitive Church, to overthrow an Altar. that he had overthrown an Altar, he was condemned. In whose steed the church of Gaza is committed to Quintianus. Also Lucianus the Bishop of Hadrianople, being deprived of his Church for an other accusation, did remain at Rome. The Bishop of Rome then discussing the crimes of every one, Note. and finding that they did all agree to the Nicene Council, The B. of Rome hath cure of al. for his own seats sake. did receive them into the Communion, as one that had cure of all, for the worthiness of his own See, and did restore to every of them their own Churches, writing also to the bishops of the East, and blaming them for that they had not well handled men not worthy of blame, in expelling them from their Churches, and (likewise blamed them) in that they had not observed the constitutions of the Nicene Council. of which (Arrian bishops) he commanded a few to appear before him at a certain day, to th'end he might show them, that he had justly given a decree or sentence upon them. And did threaten, that he would not longer suffer it, unless they would cease from these troubles and novelties. And thus he wrote. Now Athanasius and Paulus did send the letters to the bishops of the East, and every of them received his own See. Note first, that these were patriarchs, archbishops, and Bishops. secondly, that they were Grecians. Thirdly, that the Bishop of Rome did judicially inquire, what was laid ●gainst every one. fourthly, that he did it tanquam omnium curam gerens, as he that had the charge of all. fifthly, he had this charge, not only by the way of love and charity, but propter sedis propriae dignitatem. For the worthiness of his own See. Moreover he restored to every one his own Church and bishopric. Yea he did it not in, nor by bare word spoken only at his own house, or in his own city: but he wrote letters for execution thereof to the bishops of the East, reproving their sentence and judgement concerning these virtuous prelates. Besides this he cited some of the Bishops of the East to be present at Rome by a certain day, to see the equity of his Decree. Last of all, his decree was obeyed and every of the good Bishops (sending Pope julius his letters to the other bishops of the East) received their bishoprics again. Note well. If by the confession of the world the supremacy of Pope julius was not now acknowledged, I can not tell what can make a man known to be the supreme head of the militant Church. He judged the highest patriarchs next himself. He meadled with matters as far distant in places and provinces from him as lightly could be. He undid the judgement of provincial Counsels. He did these things by the prerogative of his own See. He was obeyed by the faithful Christians, and that even whiles the Council of Nice was yet fresh in every man's remembrance, so that no tyranny or usurping need to be feared. Anno D. 300. In Psalm. 106. Arnobius giveth a marvelous witness for the Church of Rome. Petrus in deserto huius seculi perambulans, quousque perveniret ad Romam, praedicavit baptismum jesu Christi, in quo universa flumina benedicuntur usque hody à Petro. Ipse exitus aquarum in sitim: Vsque hody. Exire ab Ecclesiae Petri est perire. ita ut qui exierit foras ab Ecclesia Petri, siti pereat. Peter wandering in the desert of this world, preached the baptism of jesus Christ until he came to Rome, Rome. in which (baptism) all floods (that is to say, Churches) are blessed of Peter even till this day. Till this day. He himself hath made thirsty (or dried up) the foorthrunnings of the waters: so that, who so goeth forth from the Church of Peter, he perisheth for thirst. This ancient writer in his Comments upon the psalms, understanding baptism by the name of floods and of waters, doth account those only to be baptized unto salvation, who are baptised in the floods which are blessed of Peter. That is to say, in the founts of those bishops and priests, who tarry in the unity of the successors of Peter. For except he spoke of Peter's successors, he could not say usque hody, even till this day. For whereas Arnobius lived about three hundred years after Peter, in saying, all floods are blessed of Peter until this day, He calleth every bishop of Rome Peter. he maeneth that all the ministries of baptism in the Church are still profitable to salvation, through that they are done in the unity and obedience of Peter's Church. But where is that Church of Peter? for soothe in Rome. For Peter wandered preaching Christ's baptism until he came to Rome. Rome. But at Rome he rested, thence the floods are blessed even till this day. But if any man of discretion be baptised in those floods, which are without the Church of Rome, he is without healthful water, because the grace of unity, and the participation of of Christ's mystical body the Church, is not given to him. For that grace is derived from Christ the chief head, by Peter the under head, unto all those who are made members of Christ's militant Church. Ita ut qui exierit foras ab ecclesia Petri, fiti pereat, so that he who goeth from the Church of Peter doth perish for thirst. Verily, because he lacketh the grace of the Catholic unity which is only preserved in Peter's Church as in the head Church, where it is first planted, and whence it is derived to all other Churches, which tarry in the unity thereof. Negare non potes (saith Optatus) scire te in urbe Roma Petro primo cathedram Episcopalem esse collatam, Contra Parmenia nun Dona. lib. 2. in qua sederit omnium Apostolorum caput Petrus, unde & Cephas appellatus est. In qua una cathedra unitas ab omnibus seruaretur. Thou canst not deny, but that thou knowest the bishoply chair to have been first given in the City of Rome unto Peter, Rome. wherein Peter the head of all the Apostles hath sitten. Whereof he was also called Cephas, in the which one chair unity might be kept of all men. Optatus writing against Parmenianus a Donatist, saith unto him: thou canst not deny, Thou camnest not deny. but that thou knowest Peter to have had first the chair at Rome. That heretic could not deny it, but now other heretics have profited so well in their faculty, that they are become doctors, in warranting that S. Peter was never at Rome. But in the old time it was a most famous, and a most confessed truth. Well, the chair then was at Rome. But whose chair? wherein Peter sat. what was Peter? the head of all the Apostles. How prove you that? because Christ named him Cephas, joan. 1. that is to say, a rock or stone. For the foundation is the head of the house, and the rock is the most sure and strong foundation. What is then the end, Note. why this chair is at Rome? to the end unity might be kept of all men in that one chair. It sufficed not to say, that unity might be instituted or begun: it must be kept and preserved still. Unity must be kept. But wherein? Whether only in faith hope, and charity? So in deed, but not only so, but in the Chair also. Yea, but in what soever Chair? Nay, in one Chair. Which one? In one chair. At Rome in that one, wherein Peter sat at Rome. Be they not blind, who can not see, what Optatus thought of the bishops of Rome? Yet it followeth, ut iam schismaticus esset, so that now he should be a schismatic, qui contra singularem Cathedram, alteram collocaret. Who should set an other Chair, against the singular Chair, which hath no fellow: not that there are no more Chairs, but that there are no more such Chairs as that of Rome is. After that Optatus had written this much, he goeth forward, showing, that the said singular and one Chair wherein Peter sat, did not only continue for Peter's time, but saith he: Petro successit Linus, The B. of Romr successors in Peter's one chair Lino successit Clemens. Linus succeeded to Peter, and Clement succeeded to Linus. and so he nameth the Bishops of Rome in order, until the time of Pope Siricius, who sat in the said Chair of S. Peter, in the days of Optatus. And because Siricius was fellow of the same Communion and faith whereof Optatus was, qui noster est socius. he thereby concludeth himself to be a Catholic, as in whose side the singular Chair of Peter is found, which is the chief gift and dourie, which the Militant Church hath. Contrariwise, seeing Parmenianus had no fellowship with the Chair of Peter, nor with his successors, Optatus concludeth him and his fellows, Contra Cathedram Petri militatis. to be schismatics. Hearken to this M. jewel, if any spiritual ears be at all unto you. He is a schismatic, who doth not communicate in Religion and faith with the Bishop of Rome: you do not communicate with him: therefore you are a schismatic: and consequently, your part (except you repent) is in hell fire with Core, Dathan, and Abyron. Num. ●0. God save us all thence, which must be obtained by returning to the unity of S. Peter's Chair at Rome. S. Hierom writing to Damasus concerning the faith in the Trinity saith thus in certain places of his Epistle: In Epist. ad Damasum. Mihi Cathedram Petri & fidem Apostolico ore laudatam censui consulendam. Successor Petri. Cum successore Piscatoris & discipulo crucis loquor. Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens, beatitudini tuae, id est, Super Cathedram Petri aedificata. est ad ecclesia. Cathedrae Petri communione consocior. Super illam Petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio. Quicunque extra hanc domum agnum comederit, profanus est. Si quis in arca Noë non fuerit, peribit regnant diluuio. Non novi Vitalem, Meletium respuo, ignoro Paulinum. Quicunque tecum non colligit, spargit: hoc est, qui Christi non est, Antichristi est. I thought best to ask council of the Chair of Peter, and of the faith praised by the mouth of the Apostle. Rom. 1. I speak with the Successor of the fisher, and with the disciple of the Cross. I, following none first but Christ, am joined in Communion with thy holiness, that is to say, with the Chair of Peter. I do know, that the Church is built upon that Rock. Whosoever shall eat the Lamb out of this house, he is profane. If any man be out of the Ark of Noë during the time of the flood he shall perish. I do not know Vitalis, I despise Miletius, I have no acquaintance with Paulinus. Who so ever doth not gather with thee, he doth scatter abroad, that is, he that is not of Christ, is of Antichrist. Who can deny, but that when he faith: he will ask council of S. Peter's Chair, he meaneth, that he will ask Council of Pope Damasus, who sitteth in his Chair. Every Pope of Rome is Peter's sucessour. The which Pope he calleth the successor of the fisher, and the Disciple of the Cross, that is to say, the successor of S. Peter, who was a fisher, and who died upon the Cross. When he saith: he followeth none as first or chief, but Christ: he well declareth, Christ absolutely first. what an infinite distance is between Christ, who is absolutely first and chief, and any other Pope or Bishop, who is not absolutely first, but only so first and chief, as S. Peter was. For we ask no more at any time, but that the Pope of Rome be confessed to be so great a bishop, as Saint Peter was. And as Peter was first after Christ, so after the same Christ, Saint Jerome placeth Damasus, and joineth himself in Communion with Damasus. That is to say (as himself expoundeth it) with the Chair of Peter. Note, I pray you, that Damasus the Pope, and the chair of Peter is alone. And the chair of Peter is the Rock (saith S. Hieron) whereupon the Church is built. Cathedrae Petri coniungor. Super illam petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio. I am joined with the Chair of Peter, Scio. to wit, of the Rock. Upon that Rock I know the Church to be built. There was no doubt of the matter it was a knowledge. Peter's Chair is the Rock To what point are we now come? Not only Peter, but the Chair of Peter is taught to be the Rock whereupon the Church is built. And by the Chair the Bishop of Rome is understanded, who sitteth in the Chair, as Damasus then did. He is profane (saith S. Hierom) who eateth the lamb without this house. Exod. 12. That is to say, there is but one house in all Christendom, and that house is there, where this Church is acknowledged. Who so eateth the Paschal lamb that is to say, who so receiveth the Sacraments, or is fed by preaching without that house, where the Pope is governor: he is profane, he is an Heretic and a schismatic, as Vitalis, Meletius and Paulinus were. The Chair of Peter, that is to say, the Church of Rome is the same to us, which the Ark of Noë was to him and to his children. He that is not in this fellowship of Rome, shall as surely perish at the day of judgement, as they did perish in the flood, who were without the Ark of Noë. Gen 7. By these means S. Hieron showeth what a necessary thing to salvation it is, that a man should tarry in that fellowship of Christians who believe and profess their belief as the Bishops of Rome do. It is not I that say it, but S. Hierom. Who generally giveth this rule: Whoso ever doth not gather with Damasus (who was Pope of Rome) he scattereth. What is it, to gather with Damasus? He expoundeth, that it is to be of Christ. What is it to scatter? To be of antichrist. What is Damasus? The Chair of Peter and the succession of the fisher. Who is with that succession at this day? The Catholics, The Catholics are with Peter. called now Papists, who are all and continue still one flock under one chief shepherd. They then are of Christ. Who scatter from the succession of Peter? The Protestants scatter from Peter. The Protestants, as who make more heads, and more shepherds all of equal authoirtie, without any one visible chief shepherd, and more houses without any one master. They then are of Antichrist. Epist. 166. Saint Augustine giveth us this rule. Coelestis magister, etc. The heavenly master maketh the people secure, concerning evil overseers, The Chair of healthful doctrine. lest for their sakes the chair of healthful doctrine should be forsaken, in the which Chair evil men are even constrained-to say good things. For the things which they speak, are not their own, but they are the things of God. We have then in the Church a chair of healthful doctrine. Happy were they, who finding that Chair, might at the lest be sure of the true doctrine of Christ. You will say perhaps, it is every Bishop's Chair. If that were so, every Bishop should be constrained to speak good things. How could then so many Bishops have been the inventors of heresies, as have been sith Christ's time? If every bishops Chair have not this privilege, to be constrained to speak the truth, and yet there be such a healhful Chair in the earth, as really, as ever the Chair of Moses was at jerusalem (the which example S. Augustine useth oftentimes to prove, Matth. 23 De Verb. Dom. serm 49. Ep. 166. Et homil. de Pastor. that such another Chair is in the Church) S. Augustine might have eased us of much pain, if he would have named us the said Chair. But let us see, whether we can not find it named in him. It followeth: Deus in Cathedra unitatis, Epist. 166. doctrinam posuit veritatis. God in the chair of unity, hath placed the doctrine of verity. This much than we have won toward the finding out of that chair, which is constrained to teach the things of God: Cathedra unitatis. it is the chair of unity. What is that to say? Verily not only, that it is one certain chair which itself tarrieth in unity, but also that it keepeth unity in all the states of the Church. For if God hath made us secure (as S. Augustine signified before) that we should not need to forsake the chair of the healthful doctrine, for the faults which are in the governors or teachers: doubtless he meaneth that to be the chair of unity, which must not be forsaken, but be followed and embraced. So that the chair of unity is that chair, which causeth unity not to be forsaken. For when all other Chairs agree with one principal chair, and confoorm themselves to it, that must needs be the chair of unity: and consequently, therein is the doctrine of verity. Then the chair of unity is that, wherein one pastor sitteth, in whom all other pastors in the earth are one. invenio omnes pastors bonos in uno pastore. Homil. de pastoribus. Non enim verè pastores boni desunt, sed in uno sunt. Multi sunt, qui divisi sunt: hîc unus praedicatur, quia unitas commendatur. I find (saith S. Augustine) all good pastors in one pastor. For truly good pastors do not lack, but they are in one. Those are many, who are divided: here one is praised, because unity is commended. Behold, the one pastor is to be sought for, in whom all other good pastors are one. But this one (say you) of whom S. Augustine here speaketh, is Christ himself. I confess: but Christ hath his chair and seat at the right hand of his Father in heaven, and therefore S. Augustine calleth not his chair now the chair of unity, wherein even evil men are constrained to speak good things. For in Christ's own chair at God's right hand there sitteth nor evil nor good man beside himself. The chair of unity is in the earth. The chair then of unity, wherein evil men speak good things, must be a chair placed in earth, wherein one pastor may sit, who may for the rate of his measure and ministry make other good pastors to be for the time one, in him being one, even as Christ maketh all good pastors, that ever have been or shallbe, to be for ever one in him, most singulary being one. Is there then an other kind of unity among pastors, beside that everlasting unity of all good men in Christ? Yea verily and of that other kind of unity S. Augustine saith: Ibidem. Imo verò Dominus & in ipso Petro unitatem commendavit. Multi erant Apostoli, & uni dicitur: Pasce oves meas. Absit ut desint modò boni pastors, sed omnes boni pastores in uno sunt, unum sunt. Yea our Lord hath also commended unity in S. Peter himself. There were many Apostles, and it is said to one, feed my sheep. God forbidden there should now lack good pastors, but all good pastors are in one, they are one thing. Thus, Unity is in s. Peter beside the unity which is in Christ, we have also found an unity in Saint Peter, and that unity was not only to tarry for his own time, but to be preserved in the Church for ever. There is a temporal unity in Saint Peter, and in his successors, by the which unity we come afterward to enjoy the everlasting unity which is in Christ. For Saint Peter (as the same S. Augustine doth witness) bore the figure of the whole Church, Epist. 165. and that, In joan. Tract. 224 propter Apostolatus sui primatum, by reason of the primacy of his Apostleship. Therefore as the Apostles have continually successors in their bishoply and pastoral ministry: so hath S. Peter the prince of the Apostles a continual successor in his primacy, and in his chair of unity, concerning the force of which succession S. Augustine justly saith: Contra epistolam fundamen. In Ecclesia me tenet ab ipsa sede Petri Apostoli, cui pascendas oves suas post resurrectionem Dominus commendavit, usque ad praesentem Episcopatum, successio Sacerdotum. Among other things, which stay me in the Church, the succession of priests from the very seat of Peter the Apostle (to whom our Lord commended his sheep to be fed after his resurrection) the succession (I say) of priests from Peter's seat to the present bishopric, doth stay me in the Church. Is there any man so proud, or so well liking with himself, who if S. Augustine were now alive, would not be glad to follow his judgement in stablishing his faith and conscience? He being within little more than four hundres years of Saint Peter's time, The succession of S. Peter stayed S. August. yet so much wondered at the continuance of Saint Peter's chair in the right faith (whereas all other successions had been spotted with heresies and schisms) that he confessed the succession of bishops in that Chair of Peter to have stayed him from being either a Maniche, or an Arrian, or any other thing, saving a Catholic. For he saw the promise of Christ so fulfilled in the successors of Saint Peter, he saw the doctrine of verity so well fortified in the Chair of unity, that it was no small force to strengthen him in his faith. In so much that he said in an other place: Si ordo Episcoporum sibi succedentium considerandus est, Epist. 165. quantò certius & verè salubriter ab ipso Petro numeramus, cui totius Ecclesiae figuram gerenti: Dominus ait, super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Et portae inferorum non vincent eam. Petro enim successit Linus, Lino Clemens. etc. If the rew of bishops one succeeding to the other, is to be considered, how much more safely, and in deed healthfully do we number from Peter himself? to whom bearing the figure of the whole Church, our Lord saith: upon this Rock I will buid my Church, Matth. 16 and the gates of hell shall not overcome it. For Linus succeeded to Peter, Clement to Linus: and so he goth forward, until he come to pope Anastasius, who was bishop of Rome in S Augustine's tyme. Who after all the pope's reckoned up in order, concludeth thus: In hoc ordine successionis nullus Donatista Episcopus invenitur. In this order of succession, no Donatist Bishop is found. If S. Augustine after four hundred years proved the Donatists to be far from the doctrine of verity, because in the chair of unity no Donatist was bishop, or because no bishop, A fortiore who succeeded in S. Peter's chair was a Donatist: what shall we say after a thousand five hundred years? Let us reckon up all the pope's from Saint Peter himself, until we come to pope Pius the fifth, (who in our days sitteth in S. Peter's chair, and is notable for virtue, learning, holiness, and the grace of working miracles) and in all that order of succession, we shall find never a Lutheran, never a Zwinglian, never a Caluinist, never an Anabaptist, or a Swenkfeldian. Who is then so mad as to go from S. Peter's Chair (to whom our Lord commended his sheep to be fed) to the upstart Chair of Luther, joan. 21. Calvin, or Zuinglius (to none of whom, nor to any predecessors of theirs, our Lord is readen to have commended his sheep) except he be more like unto the heretical Donatists, then unto the most wise and learned man S. Augustine, who after the Apostles, had scant ever his match in discerning the true faith from falsehood, and heresy or hypocrisy, from the Catholic religion. He presseth the Donatists every where with the breach of unity. And think you, that when they should come to talk with him, he would only say generally to them: Masters, you are to blame because you are gone from Christ the only one Pastor? If he should have come no near to the mark he shot at, they would quickly have answered: The talk of the Donatists. Sir, we love Christ, and believe him as well as you. We hold him for our only one Pastor, we obey his voice, why burden you us with forsaking him? It is you that have other Pastors: for you flee to the seat of Peter, and to his successors, whereas we content ourselves with the everlasting Pastor jesus Christ. I trow we are not without one Pastor, so long as we have him for our Pastor. But now S. Augustine talketh not only of Christ to them, nor only of that unity which is in Christ, but of that also, which is in the Church, and in the successors of S. Peter. And therefore in his Psalm which he made against the Donatists, having showed that the Prophets, albeit they saw most grievous faults in the clergy of Jerusalem, yet did not set up an other Altar, and an other Religion, nor did not break unity, saith at the length unto the Donatists: Venite fratres, In psalm count Par. Donati. si vultis ut inseramini in vite. dolour est cum vos videmus praecisos ita iacere. Numerate sacerdotes vel ab ipsa Petri sede. Et in ordine illo patrum quis cui successit videte. Ipsa est petra, quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae. Come ye, o brethren, if ye willbe graffed in the vine. It grieveth us when we see you lie thus cut of. Number ye the Bishops even from the very seat of Peter. and consider who succeeded whom, in that order. That self is the Rock which the proud gates of hell do not overcome. Is not this a marvelous witness for the Primacy of the See of Rome? First S. Augustin calleth the Donatists to unity. To Christ, say you: no doubt of that. But whereas the Donatists named Christ as fast as the Catholics, S. Augustine showeth them where unity is in this world, saying: number the Bishops even from the very seat of Peter. Ab ipsa Petri sede Behold the vine into which in this life we must be graffed. Behold the unity whereby we must hold. Number the bishops even from the self seat of Peter. Higher we can not go in this world. But let us number them. At the jest, let us see who succeeded the one after the other. Why should we see that succession, I pray you? Ipsa est petra. that See or succession is the rock. not only Christ, not only Peter, but the self See and succession of Peter is the Rock. The See of Peter is the Rock, Which Rock? that rock, which hell gates do not overcome. What S. Augustine? You are become a stark Papist. There was never Scholeman, Canonist, Popish priest, no there was never any Pope, who said more for the see of Rome then S. Augustin now hath said. That See or succession is the rock which hell gates do not overcome, and to be cut of from that See, is to be cut of from the vine, whence the branches receive life and nourishment. Who is now cut of from that See? Whether the catholics who lie in prison for the defence of it, or the Protestants, who call it the seat of Antichrist. To the See of Rome the two Counsels gathered against Pelagius in Africa and Numidia sent their decrees, Epist. 90. ut statutis nostrae mediocritatis etiam Apostolicae sed is adhibeatur autoritas, that the authority of th'apostolic See may be given to the decrees of our mediocrity: they add also the cause hereof, ꝓtuenda salute multorum, & quorundam ꝑuersitate etiam corrigenda for the defence of many men's salvation, and for the correction also of some men's frowardness. And whereas Pelagius was absolved in th'East (as it is to be thought, of those Bishops who understood not his crafty meaning) the Council of Carthage doth show that the Pope was the judge who ought to examine this question: Ibidem. Vtrum Pelagius episcopalibus gestis quae in Oriente confecta dicuntur, justè visus fuerit absolutus. Whether Pelagius seemeth justly to have been absolved by those Acts, which are said to have been made in the East by the Bishops. Neither is this required of the Pope only by the way of charity, but they require his holiness to take compassion of them pastoralibus visceribus, according to that mercy, which a Pastor ought to have toward his sheep. And after the absurdity of his opinions rehearsed, thus they conclude: Quaecunque alia ab eis obijciuntur, non dubitamus Venerationem tuam, cùm gesta Episcopalia perspexerit, quae in Oriente in eadem causa confecta dicuntur, id iudicaturum, unde omnes in Dei misericordia gaudeamus. What so ever things else are objected of them, we doubt not but your Reverence (when it hath examined th'Acts, which are said to have been made in this behalf of the bishops in the East) will judge (or will decree) that thing, whereof we may all rejoice in our Lord. The which Epistle of the Council of Carthage being received, Epist 91. Innocentius the Pope praiseth them, because antiquae traditionis exempla servants, keeping the examples of ancient tradition, they referred such matters to the judgement of the Bishop of Rome, scientes quid Apostolicae sedi debeatur, knowing what is due to the Apostolic See: cùm omnes hoc loco positi ipsum sequi desyderemus Apostolum, à quo ipse Episcopatus & tota authoritas nominis huius emersit: quem sequentes tam mala iam damnare novimus, quàm probare laudanda. For as much as all we that sit in this place, desire to follow the Apostle himself, from whom the Bisshoplie office itself, and all the authority of this name sprang: The which Apostle, we following, do now as wellknow how to condemn evil things, as to allow those things which are to be praised. What is it then, which the ancient tradition delivered? Epist. 91. Patres non humana sed divina decreuere sententia, ut quicquid de disiunctis remotisque provincijs ageretur, non prius ducerent finiendum, nisi ad huius sedis notitiam perveniret, ubi tota huius autoritate justa quae fuerit pronunciatio firmaretur, indèque sumerent ceterae Ecclesiae, velut de natali suo font aquae cuncte procederent. The Fathers (saith Innocentius) have decreed, not by man's, but by God's sentence, that what so ever was done in the Provinces or countries a far of, they should not account it before to be ended, except it came to the knowledge of this See, where (what so ever had been justly pronounced) it should be strengthened by the authority of this See, and thence other Churches should take it, as it were waters which should proceed or flow from their own native fountain. Likewise the Council of Milevitum wrote from Numidia to the same pope Innocentius: Epist. 92. Quia te Dominus gratiae suae praecipuae munere in sede Apostolica collocavit, magnis periculis infirmorum membrorum Christi pastoralem diligentiam quaesumus ad hibere digneris. Because our Lord hath placed you through the gift of his special grace in the See Apostolic, we beseech you, to use your pastoral diligence in the great dangers of the weak members of Christ. Marck here, that these bishops of Numidia speak to the Pope as to their pastor, and as to the pastor of the sheep which were under them, among which bishops it is evident, that S. Augustine was, who also writeth to Hilarius of the same matter in this wise: jam cùm ista scriberem, Epist. 94. cognoveramus in Ecclesia Carthaginensi adversus eos Episcopalis Concilij conditum fuisse Decretum, per epistolam sancto & venerabili Papae Innocentio dirigendum, & nos de Concilio Numidiae ad eandem Apostolicam sedem iam similiter scripseramus. Now whiles I wrote these things, we understood a Decree to have been made in the Church of Carthage by a Council of bishops, which was to be directed by an epistle unto the holy and reverend Pope Innocentius. And we likewise had written from the Council of Numidia to the same Apostolic See. It is then evident, that these two Counsels sent their Decrees to the See Apostolic (as also all other Counsels were wont to do) according to the most ancient tradition: and that as well because the See Apostolic was assured not to err (as being the Rock of the faith which was prayed for by Christ himself) as also to th'intent all Churches might receive the sooner that Decree, which were derived to them from the authority of their own head under Christ, and of their chief shepherd: and again because the heretics and theier followers might the sooner be either reconciled, or kept down, when it were once known, that the highest court in earth had condemned their opinions. Whereupon, the Fathers of the Milevitan Council say: Epist. 92. Arbitramus, adiuuante misericordia Domini Dei nostri jesu Christi, qui te & regere consulentem, & orantem exaudire dignatur, auctoritati sanctitatis tuae de sanctarum scripturarum authoritate depromptae, facilius eos qui tam perversa & perniciosa sentiunt, esse cessuros. We think these men, who have so evil and froward opinions, the pope's authority is taken out of the holy scriptures. will the sooner yield to the authority of your holiness, being taken out of the authority of the holy scriptures, by the help of the mercy of our Lord jesus Christ, who vouchsafeth both to rule you whiles you consult, and to hear you when you pray. Two things are specially to be noted in these words: one, that the authority of Pope Innocentius is taken out of the authority of the holy scriptures, verily because it may be proved by the word of God, that the bishop of Rome (who succeedeth S. Peter) is the high shepherd, whose voice all the faithful are bound to hear. The other point is, in that these Fathers affirm, that Christ ruleth the Pope at his consultation: alluding therein to the faith of S. Peter which was prayed for, Luc. 22. to th'end all his successors might not err in consulting about matters of Religion. To which epistle pope Innocentius made answer, praising them, because in doubtful matters they asked him what sentence or judgement was to be followed, Ep. 93. antiquae scilicet regulae formam secuti, quam toto semper ab orb mecum nostis esse seruatam. Ye followed (saith Innocentius) the pattern of the ancient rule which ye know as well as I, Note well. to have been always kept of the whole world. Mark, that Innocentius doubteth not to affirm, that the Fathers of the Council of Milivite (among whom Saint Augustine was) did know, that the whole world always used to refer doubtful matters to the See Apostolic, and that (as it followeth) praesertim quoties fidei ratio ventilatur, specially so oft as the matter of faith is discussed. If any man say, that the Pope in deed wrote so, but that he said not true: let him consider, that Saint Augustine doth also acknowledge and praise the Pope's answer in these words. Epist. 106. Scripsimus ad B. memoriae Papam Innocentium etc. We wrote to Pope Innocentius of blessed memory. Ad omnia ille nobis rescripsit, eodem modo quo fas erat, atque oportebat Apostolicae sedis Antistitem. He wrote again to us to every point in such sort, as it was right and as it became the Bishop of the Apostolic See. What can be now required more? Saint Augustine acknowledgeth the answer to have been meet for Saint Peter's successor: and yet shall the Protestants now a days be suffered to rail at that epistle, which Saint Augustine esteemed so much, that he maketh mention thereof with great commendation? Saint Augustine then doth confess, that, from all quarters of the world the Pope of Rome was wont even in the old time to be consulted, as being the general pastor, whose duty it was, to provide for the whole militant flock, the particular bishops themselves being comprised therein. I have been somewhat long about S. Augustine's doctrine, partly for the worthiness of the man, partly because I perceive, that our Adversaries pretend to give more credit to him, then to any other Father. But if S. Augustine be not clear for the Supremacy of the bishops of Rome, there was never nothing clear in him. Let this one place be added for a surplus to the rest. The bishop of Carthage (saith he) needed not to care for the multitude of his enemies, for so much as he saw himself to be joined in communion, as well with other countries, whence the Gospel came to Africa itself, as also with the Church of Rome, in qua semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit principatus, Epist. 162. in the which Roman Church the principate or primacy of the Apostolic chair hath always flourished: not only the chair of the Apostle S. Peter, but also the principal power of the Apostolic chair did not only stand in the Roman Church, but it flourished there: and that not only during S. Peter's life, or a little after, but semper, always. Happy then are we, who till this day communicate in faith with that Apostolic chair. And woe to them, that call the Apostolic chair, the Seat of Antichrist. To go forward with some other holy Fathers, In Lib. de ingratis. Prosper the Bishop of Regium being of the same time (though somewhat younger than S. Augustine) and speaking of the condemnation of the heretic Pelagius writeth thus touching the See of Rome. Pestem subeuntem prima recidit Sedes Roma Petri, quae pastoralis honoris facta caput mundo, quicquid non possicet armis, Religione tenet. Rome the See of Peter did first cut of (Pelagius) being a pestilence which then began to creep into the Church. The which Rome being made the head of pastoral honour unto the world, holdeth all that by religion, what so ever it doth not possess by the sword. Rome then is the Seat of Peter, the head of Bisshoplie honour, or of Pastoral power, the which reacheth farther, and hath more Christians subject to it, because the Vicar of Christ sitteth there, then ever it had through the mighty Empire thereof. The self same thing Prosper saith in an other place: De vocat. gentium. lib. 2. c. 16 Roma per Apostolici sacerdotij principatum amplior facta est arce religionis, quam solio potestatis. Rome through the chiefdom or primacy of the Apostoke Priesthood (or bishoply power) is made greater by the chief Castle (or Fortress) of Religion, then by the Throne of (Imperial) power. In anuiversa, assumpt. serm. 2. Leo the Great, having said that, in Saint Peter's Seat his own power liveth, his authority excelleth: in an other place showeth himself to have been the successor of S. Peter and therefore to be the precedent of the Church. For thus he writeth to julianus the Bishop. epist. 30. Memor sum, me sub illius nomine Ecclesiae praesidere, cuius à Domino jesu Christo est glorificata confessio, & cuius fides omnes haereses destruit. I am mindful, that I am President of the Church under his name, Matth. 16 whose confession was made glorious of our Lord jesus Christ, in epist. 82. & 87. and whose faith destroyeth all heresies. It were infinite, to bring all that Leo saith in this behalf. Eulogius the patriarch of Alexandria wrote to S. Gregory after this sense, Lib. 6. ep. 37. as S. Gregory himself doth report it. Suavissima mihi sanctitas vestra multa in epistolis suis de sancti Petri Apostolorum principis Cathedra locuta est, dicens quòd ipse in ea nunc usque in suis successoribus sedeat. Your most sweet Holiness hath said many things in his letters concerning the chair of S. Peter the prince of the Apostles, saying: that S. Peter himself sitteth it it even till this present time in his successors. And S. Gregory with great humility acknowledgeth it to be true, affirming in an other place that, Lib. 11. Ep. 54. the Apostolic See is head of all Churches. For the honour of our country I will not omit the testimony of S. Bede, who in a sermon made upon the Feast of a certain Abbate of England, named Benedictus, In Natali Benedicti, inter homilias hyemales de Sanctis. affirmeth him to have gone to Rome, ut ibi potius perfectam vivendi formam sumeret, ubi per summos Christi Apostolos totius Ecclesiae caput eminet eximium. That he might there rather take the perfect example of living, where the excellent head of the whole Church doth appear above the rest, through the highest Apostles of Christ. Whereas much more may be alleged, yet these few testimonies may suffice to prove, that the bishop of Rome is the Successor of S. Peter in his most principal and chief pastoral office. And surely if we may be deceived in any point of the faith, which is so well grounded in God's word, so uniformly confessed by the holy Fathers, and so notoriously practised in the Catholic Church, as the Supremacy of S. Peter, and of his successors in the See of Rome is: I can not devise, when a man may be sure of any article of his faith. But if there be a mean whereby a man may be sure of his belief, surely that mean whatsoever it be, shall well appear to be found in the proof of the supremacy of S. Peter and of his successors. That the good Christian Emperors and Princes, did never think themselves to be the Suprem Heads of the Church in Spiritual causes, but gave that honour to Bishops and Priests, and most specially to the See of Rome, for S. Peter's sake, as well before, as after the time of Phocas. The XVI. chap. An D. 246 PHilippus who was the first Christian Emperor, did so little think himself to have been the Head of the bishops in Spiritual causes throughout his Dominion, that whereas on Easter day he would have been at the Vigils and holy watches, and would have communicated of the holy Mysteries: the bishop of the place would not let him do it, Nisi consiteretur peccata sua. except he had first confessed his sins, and stood among them that did penance, and so by penance had washed away, the faults which were reported of him. Ferunt igitur libenter eum (saith Eusebius) quod à sacerdote imperatum fuerat suscepisse, eccles. histor. lib. 6. c. 25. apud Ruffinum. divinum sibi inesse metum, & fidem religionis plenissimam, rebus atque operibus comprobando. They say therefore, that he took gladly that which was enjoined to him of the Priest, Imperatum. making faith by the things and works, that the fear of God, and most full persuasion of Religion was in him. Is he chief in all causes, who in some must obey the Priest? the priest was above the Emperor in Ecclesiastical causes. Or can he that is supreme governor in all things and causes Ecclesiastical, have an other above him in puttng him back from the mysteries, and in enjoining him public penance, and in constraining him to confess his sins? Or is the coming to the Mysteries no cause Ecclesiastical, or Spiritual? Or is not the bishop or Priest, who in this cause governeth the Emperor, the Superior and governor of the Emperor in the same cause? Or is it not a kind of governing, to command him to stand back? to threaten him if he repine? to punish him, if he be stubborn? Yea, how to punish him? to come to him in a rod (as S. Paul speaketh) that is to say, 1. Cor. 4. in power and authority to beat or to correct. And is not he a governor who may justly beat the child? If then in prescribing confession, satisfaction, and abstinence from communion, the priest be the governor of the king: I ask, whether all other Ecclesiastical causes be greater or less than these are? Note an infallible argument against your Antichristian supremacy, The one part of the Dilemma. M. Nowell. If other Ecclesiastical causes be greater than these were, surely the Emperor or king, who is governed by a priest in the lesser Ecclesiastical causes, and therefore can not be supreme head in them, is much more to be governed by a priest in the greater causes of the same kind. And therefore he is much less supreme head in them. For if when one thing standeth above an other, I am to low to reach the lower: much more I am to low, to reach a higher than the other was. But if other Ecclesiastical causes be lesser than the suspending from communion, the other part. or the enjoining of public penance: then the bishop or priest, who is the governor of the Emperor or King in the greatest Ecclesiastical causes, is much more his governor in the lesser Ecclesiastical causes. Because the lesser are of the same order, kind, and kindred, whereof the greater are. As therefore he that is supreme head in the greatest temporal causes (as in judging over life and death) A similitude. is much more supreme head in the lesser temporal causes (as in judging over lands or goods) and as he that is not of sufficient authority to be supreme ruler in sitting judge upon men's lands or goods, can much less sit judge over their lives by any his former authority: even so neither the King, who can govern in the lesser causes, can by his Kingly power judge in the greater, nor the priest, who is the King's superior in the lesser, can possibly but much more be his superior in the greater. The removing of the objection. Or have we diverse Kind's of Ecclesiastical, and of spiritual causes? Be there never so many, the Act of parliament giveth the highest and the supreme government of them all, In all causes. unto the King. And yet the King lacketh not only practise, experience, or cunning, but also he lacketh spiritual and Ecclesiastical power to hear confessions, to absolve men from their sins, to enjoin penance, to consecrate the Sacrament of the altar, to Ordre bishops and priests by the Imposition of hands, or to excommunicate open sinners. Here Master jewel would say, that he never meant the prince should be supreme governor, either in administering, or in frequenting, or in directing others to frequent the holy mysteries, or in any like sacramental functions. Why then doth he and his fellows swear men, The oath of the supremacy. generally to acknowledge the secular Christian prince Supreme governor in all things and causes? Why doth he not rather declaim and speak with all his force, against that most impious and blasphemous oath? Yea so impious, that those Protestants, who most earnestly pressed the setting forth thereof, dare not now justify the form of it. Shall men in a Christian realm be sworn upon the holy Evangelists, to keep, believe, or acknowledge that which noman at all, no, not they who procured it, dare maintain? See, good Country men, see the discretion of your parliaments in matters of Religion. A men alive abhor from that act, which the Laity made and enacted, as a form so warily drawn, whereunto men might commit their everlasting salvation or damnation. Mark, I say, that M. Nowell, M. Horn, M. jewel dare not warrant the King to be suprem governor in all Ecclesiastical causes. But rather they confess, that a Bishop or Priest may, and aught to govern the King, concerning his coming to the Mysteries, and in such like matters. This much being said concerning Philippus the first Christian Emperor (who obeyed, but governed not the Bishop in Ecclesiastical matters) let us now go forward. An. Dom. 324. Constantinus the Great, perceiving the Bishops which came to the Synod at Nice, to have many quarrels and suits among themselves, appointed a day wherein every man should offer his complaint in writing, and when he had taken all their libels, without disclosing the contents of them, Ruffinus lib. 10. Eccles. histor. cap. 2. he said unto the bishops: Deus vos constituit Sacerdotes, & potestatem vobis dedit de nobis quoque judicandi, & ideo nos a vobis rectè iudicamur: vos autem non potestis ab hominibus judicari: propter quod Dei solius inter vos expectate judicium. God hath made you priests (or Sacrificers) and hath given you power to judge of us also. And therefore we are rightly judged of you. But ye can not be judged of men. For which cause expect ye (or tarry for) the judgement of God alone among you. This discourse of Constantine containeth three things worthy to be noted. First he saith, the bishops are Sacerdotes, Priests, or men that have public authority to make external sacrifice unto God for the whole Heb. 5. peoples sins. Secondly he saith, that they have power to judge even of the Emperor himself. And this their power of judging, dependeth of their power of priesthood. For the highest power may judge the lower. But no power can be higher than the power of a priest, because he is the minister of God in that office which most directly toucheth God's honour and service. Malac. 1. Whereupon S. Augustin having said: what was Moses if he were not a priest? In Psal. 98 giveth this reason of his words, Numquid maior Sacerdote esse poterat? Whether could he be greater than a priest? as who should say: seeing Moses' was the greatest officer among the Israelits, and yet he could not be greater than a priest, it must needs be, that he was a priest. The priests then of God being the greatest officers in earth have power to judge even of an Emperor, if any be in their parishes or Dioceses. Thirdly of these former points Constantine deduceth an other conclusion. that priests can not be judged of men. How then can they be judged of the Emperor? Neither doth it skill, that Constantine seemeth to have judged certain priests, or Ecclesiastical causes, when the Donatists appealed unto him: for he did it (as S. Augustine saith) à sanctis antistitibus postea veniam petiturus, In epistol. 162. as one that would afterward ask leave or pardon of the holy bishops. Who asketh leave or pardon for that, which he may do by his own power? He did it then through the importunate suit of heretics, for the peace of the Church: otherwise detesting them, that demanded his judgement after that the bishops had judged, Optat. li 2 August. in epist. 162. and finding great fault therewith himself, as Optatus, and S. Augustine also do witness. But take away importunity of heretics, and the commission, leave or pardon of the right bishops (who may for diverse respects, either commit certain Ecclesiastical causes to lay men, or wink for a time at such judgements) take away, I say, heresy and permission: and ordinarily it is against the law of God, that any secular Prince (who needeth the office of a priest for his reconciliation unto God) should sit judge upon him in causes of the Church, 2. Cor. 5. at whose hands he must receive the Sacraments of the Church, and by whose ministry his soul must be purged. Now if one priest do judge an other, that is God's judgement, Deut. 17. & Num. 3 and not the judgement of men. For God hath set one priest over an other, as the high priests was above the Levites in Moses' law, and as the Apostles whereof a higher degree, than the seventy Disciples, or then the seven Deacons. These words then of Constantine vos non potestis ab hominibus judicari, Ruffin. li. 1. cap. 2. ye (o priests of God) can not be judged of men, are thus meant: the order of priesthood is such, as is not subject to any secular or earthly jurisdiction. And seeing all the power of judgement, which even Christian Emperors or Kings have by their own state, is earthly and secular: it will follow, that no King or Emperor can by his own power judge a priest in priestly causes and in Ecclesiastical matters. That all the power of Emperors, though they be Christians, is secular, Constantine himself pronounceth, saying to the Donatists (as Optatus recordeth) Petitis á me in seculo judicium, De schism. Donatist. lib. 1. cùm ego ipse Christi judicium expectem. Ye ask of me judgement in the world, whereas I myself look for Christ's judgement. There are then two judgements: one in the world, an other of Christ. That is worldly or secular: Secular judgement this is heavenly or spiritual. Constantine had none other judgement but secular, because his sentence could bind no farther, then in this life. But Christ's judgement (which he excerciseth as well presently by his Priests and Ministers, joan. 20. as at the later day in his own person) is spiritual, Spirital judgement Matth. 16. In Coelis. and rather appertaineth to heaven, and to the life to come, then to this world. Again, that Constantine's judgement was earthly, S. Augustine in divers places declareth: saying of the very same Donatists: In ep. 162. Terrenum Regem suae causae judicem esse volverunt. They would an earthly King to be the judge of their cause. He meaneth there, Constantine the Christian Emperor, by the name of an earthly King. Hitherto I have showed, that Constantine believed and professed, that Bishops or Priests are not (ordinarily and where equity or conscience may take place) to be judged by secular Princes. Now it only remaineth to consider specially, the great honour which he gave to the See of S. Peter, and to his Successor the Bishop of Rome. First, I take it for most certain, that Constantinus the Great, Constantin baptised at Rome. was instructed and baptised of Sylvester the Pope of Rome, as not only most ancient witnesses, but even the very stones and pillars of marble do witness, which being erected in the Emperors own house (named Constantiniana) bear the name of his baptisterie, to wit, of the very place, wherein Constantinus was baptized. 1 in vita Syluestri in Pontificali. 2 De sex aetatibus. 3 in Chron. 4 lib. 2. Histor. Which thing also Pope Damasus, who lived not long after, and consequent lie. 2. S. Bede, 3. Ado, and Marianus Scotus affirm the same. Yea 4 Gregorius Turonensis, who lived long before, alludeth to the same story, in describing the baptism of King Chlodoveus. Neither only the Latins have thus avouched the truth, 5 In vita Constant. 6. Lib. 7. c. 35. 7 In Anna libus. but the Grecians also, as 5 Zonaras, 6 Nicephorus, 7 Cedrenus, not esteeming what Eusebius and some other moved by him, report in that behalf, as whom for his affection to the Arrian heresy they had suspected. Constantine then being baptised at Rome, and thereby instructed, that S. Peter had died there (to whom he built a fair Church in the hill named Vatican) and that he had left a successor in that See, Damasus in Pontif. who beside his bishopric of Rome, should have the chief pastoral cure over all the faithful: gave such reverence to the said Chair and See of S. Peter, that he thought it not convenient for him, to keep his ordinary court and Residence any more in that City, where the chief causes of all Christendom should be daily examined. In so much that he did not only protest his faith in Christ, and the honour due to S. Peter in express words, which are before the first Nicene Council (some of which words are likewise alleged at the second general Council kept at Nice) but also he in deed went out of the City of Rome with this intent, in Praefat. Concilij Niceni. to keep no more his Imperial residence in the same. Which thing is farther proved, in that he gave away his own Palace, dedicating it a Temple unto our Saviour (which temple standeth till this day) wherein also the Pope had aftetward a dwelling place. And who doth not perceive, that he departeth with the mind to return no more, who at his going, giveth his own house away? Add hereunto, In vitae Constantini. that Constantine went to seek a new dwelling place, as Zonaras reporteth, and at the last rested in Bizance, calling it of his own name, Constantinople, or new Rome. Why should Constantine thus advisedly deparete from the head City of all the world, the glory of his Empire, and the chief royalty of his inheritance, except he had been fully persuaded, that S. Peter and his successors the Bishops of Rome had been placed at Rome by the will of God, Serm 1. de Nativit. Pet. & Pauli. thence to publish the faith of Christ into all Countries (as Pope Leo saith) whereunto he would that his Imperial court should be no hindrance. For otherwise if he had yielded to a simple Bishop, there was a Bishop in Constantinople also, as in every other great City. But it was not every bishop to whom Constantine yielded, but the chief Bissbop of all, and the head of the whole Militant Church. Which Example of his all good Emperors following never kept afterward their court and ordinary residence in Rome, Zonara's in vita Constantis Nepotis Heraclij. all be it Constance perceiving more honour to be given to the Mother (which was Rome) then to the daughter (which was Constantinople) would have returned to Rome, but (as Zonaras declareth) without success. Which thing who so thinketh to have chanced with out the singular providence of God, may seem to think, that the world is governed by chance. To this fact of the Emperors (in their abstaining to keep their residence in Rome) let us join the express words also of divers good successors of Constantine the Great. For if any evil came between, it is no marvel, if they did hate so good a thing as the Primacy of the Church was. Concerning Constantius the heretic (who was the son of great Constantine) Athanasius complaineth, An. D. 360 that he and his adherents the Arrians, had no reverence toward the Bishop of Rome, In Epist. ad Solitar. vitam agentes. not considering vel quòd sedes illa apostolica esset, vel quôd Roma Metropolis esset ditionis Romanae: either that it was the Apostolic See, or else that Rome was the Mother city of the Roman circuit. So that we may see even from the beginning, that as the most faithful Emperors did always honour the Apostolic See of Rome, even so the heretics and worst men did always hate it, and despise it. For on the other side, in the midst of the Arrian heresy, the noble and virtuous Emperors, Gratianus, Valentinianus, and Theodosius doubted not to set forth a Law in these words: An. D. 386 leg. 1 Cod. de summa Trinitat. Cunctos populos, quos Clementiae nostrae regit imperium in tali volumus religione versari, quam D. Petrum Apostolum tradidisse Romanis, religio usque ad huc ab ipso insinuata declarat, quàmque Pontificem Damasum sequi claret, & Petrum Alexandria Episcopum, virum Apostolicae sanctitatis. We will all nations, which are governed by our Clemency, to live in such a religion, as the religion which is used from S. Peter till this day doth declare him to have delivered to the Romans, and which religion it is evident, that Pope Damasus and Peter the Bishop of Alexandria (a man of an Apostolic holiness) do follow. By this Law it is witnessed, first, that S. Peter delivered a certain religion to the Romans (as well concerning the Trinity, as other things) Secondly, that the said religion coming from S. Peter, was kept still in the Church of Rome. Thirdly, that it was kept specially by the perpetual succession of Bishops. For which cause Damasus the Bishop of Rome is named in the Law. After Damasus, a blessed Bishop of Alexandria, called Peter, is also named, not with the intent to show also that the Bishops of Alexandria, kept always the true faith (for at that moment Lucius a raging wolf, occupied the seat in Alexandria) but because this Peter of Alexandria who is now named, was in deed the true bishop of Alexandria, albeit he was now kept out of his Church by violence. Nicep. lib. 11. cap. 26 Whereas then there were two bishops of Alexandria, one who agreed with the bishop of Rome, an other who disagreed▪ because the said Peter did agree with Damasus, and fled out of prison to him, he is named with Damasus, and thereby the other bishop is insinuated to be an usurper. So that the whole force of the Decree resteth upon the tradition and succession of S. Peter at Rome, and of those who agree with him. If Peter of Alexandria had not followed that succession of S. Peter, he had no more been esteemed, than Lucius, Georgius, Gregorius or Dioscorus, An. Do. 4●4. Tom. 1. Concil. & distinct. 97. who being bishops of Alexandria, wree all heretics. Pope Bonifacius the first wrote to the Christian Emperor Honorius, in this wise: Mihi Deus noster meum Sacerdotium, vobis res humanas regentibus deputavit. Our God hath appointed my priesthood to me, whereas you do govern wordly matters. And in the same epistle he requireth the emperors help, not I warrant you for the disposing of his own priesthood, but for the conservation of the peace of the Church. To whom the Emperor promiseth his help, confessing that he received the writings of his blessedness with dew gratulation of reverence, Apostolatus tuus. desiring his Apostoleshippe to pray for the safeguard of his Empire. Honorius faith then was, that the Emperors were heads of the civil government for the defence of Ecclesiastical peace, and not supreme heads in all Ecclesiastical things and causes: to defend, I say, the laws of the Church made by bishops, and not to make new Ecclesiastical laws, whereunto to bishops should be subject against their wills. An. Dom. 450. Let us add hereunto, that which an Empress also writeth of the same matter for we may well believe that she wrote according to the faith of Church in her tyme. In epistol. Gallae Placidiae ante synodum Chalcedonens. Thus then Galla Placidia saith, concerning the Church of Rome. In Apostolica sede primus ille, ꝓ coelestes claves dignus fuit accipere, principatum Episcopatus ordinavit. He that was worthy to receive first the heavenly keys (that is S. Peter) hath ordained the primacy of the Bishoply office in the Apostolic See. If this be so, Peter was not only first and prince himself, but he also ordained the bishop of Rome to be the first and chief of bishops after him. Ad synodum Chalcedo. Domino meo Theodosio. etc. When I say, Peter ordained it, I mean, that Christ by Peter ordained it. Valentinian is of the same belief and judgement, saying: Fidem à nostris maioribus traditam debemus cum omni competenti devotione defendere, & dignitatem propriae venerationis B. Apostolo Petro intemeratam & in nostris temporibus conseruare, quatenus beatissimus Romanae civitatis episcopus, cui principatum Sacerdotij super omnes antiquitas contulit, locum habeat ac facultatem de fide & sacerdotibus judicare. We ought to defend with all competent devotion the faith delivered from our elders. And to conserve and keep in our times to the blessed Apostle S. Peter the dignity of his proper and own worship uncontrolled: so that the most blessed bishop of the City of Rome (to whom antiquity hath given above all me the cheefty of priesthood) may have place and power to judge of faith and of priests. Lo the honour that is given to the bishop of Rome, is given to Saint Peter: verily, because the bishop of Rome sitteth in his chair. And when the bishop of Rome is despised, the worship of S. Peter is stained. If the old time gave the primacy of priestod unto the bishop of Rome for S. Peter's sake, and that super omnes, over all men: if eleven hundred years ago, it was true to say, that Antiquity gave the chiefty of priestly power to the bishop of Rome: are not they new teachers, who after fourteen hundred years, go about to pluck, the primacy of priesthood from the bishop of Rome? An. Dom. 4.57. Act. 3. In Concil. Chalce●o. Autoritate Ro. Episcopi. Martianus likewise with Valentinian confesseth of the General Council which came together at Chalcedon, in ●●●●wise: Quae Synodus dum fidem diligenter inquirit authoritate beatissimi Leonis Episcopi aeternae urbis Romae, & religionis fundamenta constituit sanctae civitati, & Flaviano palmam mortis tribuit gloriosae. The which council whiles it maketh diligent inquisition concerning the faith, it both appointed the foundations of religion to the holy city (the Church) by the authority of most blessed Leo bishop of the everlasting City of Rome, By the authority of Pope Leo. and also gave to Flavianus the crown of a glorious death. All this was done by the authority of the bishop of Rome. And why by his authority, the same Martianus gave the cause thereof before, in an oration which he made in the fourth general council, Act. 1. Fol. 740. where he said of Leo the Pope, qui Apostolicum gubernat thronum, who governeth the See Apostolic. And it is well known he meant only the Apostolic see of S. Peter. An. D. 534 In Codicad● summa Trinit. For the honour of that See justinian writeth thus to john the second pope of Rome: Nos reddentes honorem Apostolicae sedi, & vestrae sanctitati (qdsemꝑ nobis in voto fuit, & est) & ut decet patrem, honorantes vestram beati tudinem, oina quae ad ecclesiarum statum pertinent, festinavimus ad notitiam defer vestrae sanctitatis. We rendering honour to the See Apostolic, and to your Holiness (the which thing ever was and is our desire) and we honouring your blessedness, as it becometh us to honour our Father, have hastened to bring to the knowledge of your Holiness all things which do appertain to the state of Churches. If the Pope be as a Father to the Emperor, and be so to be honoured: it is utterly impossible for the Emperor, who is, as it were, a Son, to be the supreme head or governor in spiritual causes of his spiritual Father. Again he saith: Nec enim patimur quicquam quod ad Ecclesiarum statum pertinet, quamuis manifestum & indubitatum sit quod movetur, ut non etiam vestrae innotescat sanctitati, Caput. quae caput est omnium sanctarum Ecclesiarum. Neither do we suffer any thing, that doth appertain to the state of the Churches (how manifest and undoubted so ever it be, which is called in question) but the same is also notified to your holiness, The Pope is head of all holy Churches who is the head of all holy Churches. If the Pope be head of all holy Churches, and therefore be made privy to all ordinances and laws which appertain to the state of Churches: it must needs follow, that the Church, whereof a King or Emperor shallbe suprem head, is no holy Church, but a profane synagogue and a malignant congregation, such as those of the Arrians, Donatists, and Pelagians were, who obeyed not the Bishop of Rome, nor such bishops as were of his fellowship, Who was the supreme head of the Heretics. but either julianus the Renegade, or Valens, or the Kings of the Goths, and of the Vandals, as the Histories of the Church do witness. Here the order and place requireth, that I should declare also, how Phocas the Emperor, An. Dom. 609. in the time of Pope Bonifacius the third, pronounced the See of Rome head of all churches, but the Protestants not able to deny the story, say: that now first the See of Rome began to be accounted the head of all Churches. A false assertion. Which thing shall appear as true as the rest of their doctrine is. For S. Gregory being before Bonifacius, An. Dom. 607. Lib. 11. epist. 54. saith of the See of Rome: Apostolica sedes omnium ecclesiarum caput est. The Apostolic See is Head of all Churches. Before him also the Bishop of Patara, An. 538. being a Grecian, said of Syluerius the Pope: Ille Papa est super Ecclesiam mundi totius, He is Pope over the Church of the whole world. An. 534. justinian writing to joannes the Pope (as I alleged before) calleth his holiness caput omnium Ecclesiarum, Head of all Churches. An. 486. Eugenius the Bishop of Carthage being an African, had said before justinian's time (as Victor writeth) Romana ecclesia caput est omnium ecclesiarum, Lib. 2. de persecute. Vandal. The Roman Church is the head of all Churches. Yea Prosper had written before Eugenius: Sedes Roma Petri, An. 460. De ingratis. quae pastoralis honoris facta caput mundo. Rome the See of Peter, which is made unto the world, An. 446. In nativit Petri & Paul. the head of pastoral honour. Leo the great, being elder than Prosper, preached thus: Roma per sacram B. Petri sedem caput orbis effecta. Rome by the holy seat of Peter, is made the head of the world▪ and again ꝑquos universalis ecclesiae cura ad unam b. Petri sedem confluit. Ad Anastas. ep. 82 By whom the cure of the universal church floweth to the one See of Peter, that nothing might at any time descent from his head. Now the fourth general Council, An. 456. albeit it was not elder in years than Leo, yet consisting of 630. Bishops gathered out of the whole world, it is worthy to be hearkened unto of all the Christian flock, as of most ancient and peerless authority. This great Council making relation to Pope Leo of such things as had been done there, Act. 3. Sancta & magna &c. writeth to him: Tu quidem sicut membris caput praeeras. Thou wast over us, as the head is over his members. And whereas the Church is compared to a vineyard, Isai. 5. they there confess, that unto Pope Leo vineae custodia à Saluatore commissa est, The keeping of the vineyard is committed of our Saviour. Note here, gentle Readers, that this famous, great, and learned Council referreth the matter to our Saviour, and not unto Phocas, or to any mortal man. The keeping of the vineyard is committed to the Pope of Rome by our Saviour himself. An. D. 426 Lib. 12. in joan. c. 64 If we shall go yet higher, when Cyrillus confesseth S. Peter to have been caput Apostolorum, the head of the Apostles: doth he not confess, the successors of S. Peter (who are the Bishops of Rome) to be much more the heads of the successors of the Apostles, which all bishops are? Shall we go from Cyrillus to S. Ambrose, An. D. 308 who writing upon S. Paul's epistle to Timothe, In c. 3. 1. epistol. ad Timoth. calleth Damasus (the bishop of Rome) the ruler or governor of that Church in his time, which Church is named of S. Paul the house of God, the pillar of truth, meaning, that Pope Damasus was governor of the whole Militant Church, and not only of any one parish or Diocese. And what other thing is it to be a temporal ruler of God's whole Church, Tripar. li. 4. c. 15. but to be the temporal head thereof? Saith not Sozomenus, that pope julius curam gessit omnium, propter sedis propriae dignitatem? He took the cure of all, for the worthiness of his own See? where all is comprised, what can be excepted? Optatus, An. D 370 Lib. 2. de schism. Donatist, who proveth S. Peter to have been head, because he was called of Christ Cephas, a rock (for the rock or foundation is that unto the house, which the head is to the body) doth thereby refer the primacy of S. Peter and of his successors to Christ himself. An. 300. If I shall go now to the Council of 300. Bishops held at Sinuessa, where although Marcellinus had confessed himself to have done Idolatry, yet all the Bishops answered: Prima sedes non iudicabitur à quoquam, Tom. 1. Concil. the first See shallbe judged of no man: will it not thereby appear, that the See of Rome being the first See was not preferred to that honour by any mortal man (otherwise he that had pferred it, might also have judged it) but was made head of all churches, by him who said to S. Peter: upon this rock I will build my Church? Matt. 16. It is not therefore Phocas, but jesus Christ, who making S. Peter the temporal foundation and head Pastor of the church, made the Bishop of Rome his successor. as I have declared before. Let us now go forward with other good Emperors and Kings, showing that not Phocas alone, but others also after him honoured the See Apostolic, as the highest power in the church of God. Constantinus the fourth, being a most Catholic Prince, Beda de sex aetat. mundi. procured the sixth general Council to be called, and therein confessed himself to have wondered at the relation of Pope Agatho, as if it had been the voice of Peter. Act. 18. Synod. 6. The same Emperor in the time of Benedictus the second Pope of that name, decreed: An 688. Platina in vita Benedict 2 ut deinceps quem clerus, populus exercitusque Romanus in Pontificem delegisset, eundem statim verum Christi vicarium esse omnes crederent. That from thence forward, whom the Clergy, people, and the Roman army should choose to be bishop, all men should strait believe him to be the true vicar of Christ. The true Vicaren of Christ. He saith not the Vicar of Phocas, or the Lieutenant of the Emperor, but the Vicar and Lieutenant of Christ. It was then the public faith not only in the Latin, but also in the Greek church, that who so was duly chosen Bishop of Rome, was Christ's own Vicar. An. Dom. 749. If the whole nobility and people of France, had not believed the Pope of Rome to be of such authority: for what purpose would they have sent to Rome to know the mind of Pope Zacharias, who should be King of France, whether Chilpericus, Paenè nullius potestatis. who had the bare name thereof, without exercising any kingly power in manner, or the great Stuard, Maior domus. who exercised the public office and power of the King without the name? In Chron. The Pope answered (as Ado testifieth) Regem potius illum debere vocari, qui rempublicam regeret. That he rather should be called the King, who ruled the common weal. Upon which answer, Pipinus was anointed King autoritate Apostolica & Fran corum electione (saith Sigebertus) by the Apostolic authority, In Chron. An. Dom. 750. and by the election of the French men. Neither may this so great credit, which the whole people and Nobility of France reposed in the See Apostolic, be rightly imputed to the sentence of Phocas, who before that, had declared the See of Rome to be head of all Churches. For even after this election of King Pipinus the first Emperor of the French men, or rather of the Germans (for the French men came out of Germany) Carolus Magnus, protesting his reverence to the See Apostolic, showeth, the cause why he honoureth it, to be the Chair of S. Peter, and not the judgement of Phocas. His words are these: In memoriam beati Petri Apostoli honoremus sanctam Romanam ecclesiam, & Apostolicam sedem: An. Dom. 806. 19 distinct. ut quae nobis sacerdotalis matter est dignitatis, ecclesiasticae esse debeat magistra rationis. Quare servanda est cum mansuetudine humilitas. et licet vix ferendum ab illa sancta sede imponatur jugum, tamen feramus, & pia devotione toleremus. Let us honour the holy Church of Rome, and the See Apostolic for the remembrance of blessed Peter the Apostle: The see of Rome is the mother of priestly Worship that as (the same See) is to us the mother of priestly dignity, so it may be the teacher of the Ecclesiastical trade. Wherefore humility is to be kept with meekness. And although a yoke be put upon us from the same holy See which is scant to be born, yet let us bear, and suffer it with godly devotion. Thus we see, that Carolus honoured the See of Rome, not for Phocas, but for S. Peter's sake. Ludovicus, who for his singular virtue and godliness was surnamed Pius, having been triatorouslie ordered by Adalgisus the Duke of Beneventum, Regino in Chron. An. 872. (who went about to kill him in his palace) and being afterward forced to swear, that he would not revenge that injury, was so far from taking himself to be the supreme head over the Bishop of Rome, that rather he was content to take absolution from his oath of john the pope, Authoritate Dei & Sancti Petri, by the authority (not of Phocas) but of God, and of Saint Peter. I would go forward to show at large the obedience of all good Emperors and Kings to the See Apostolic even till this day, but that it should be accounted a superfluous labour, sith, as I suppose, no man doth doubt of it. And verily concerning our own country, as above fourteen hundred years past, An. D. 188 Lucius the first Christian King of the Britan's, did send to Eleutherius the Bishop of Rome, to receive from thence by his authority the ordinary mean of administering the Sacraments for him and his realm: even so Ethelbert the first Christian King of the English Saxons took his faith and the government of the Church from the See of Rome (S. Gregory being then Pope) by our Apostle S. Augustine. An. D. 630 And the good King Osui of Northumberlund, Bedae lib. histo. Angli. 3. c. 29 and Ecbert the King of Kent, understanding that the Roman Church esset catholica & Apostolica Ecclesia, was the Catholic and the Apostolic Church, sent Wichardus with the consent of all the faithful of England to Rome, that having there taken the degré of an Archbishop, he might ordain bishops to all the Catholic Churches through Britanny. From that day forward it is evident by all our Chronicles (which at the least were made, before that schism and heresy began) that as every King, not only of England, but of all Christian Countries was best, and most given to godliness and to virtue: so was he most obedient and frindful to the bishop of Rome. And contrariwise, as every of them was most licentious, most given to extorsion, to tyranny, or to robling of Churches: so was he most disobedient to the See of Rome. So that as all the heathen Emperors, from Nero to the Renegat julianus, did always persecute the Apostolic See of Rome: and as afterward all the heretical Emperors did the same, as well those of Constantinople, as of the West, so contrariwise all the good Constantine's, the Theodosians, the Martians, Carolus, Ludovicus, Otho, and their good successors did so little think themselves the supreme heads over the bishops of Rome, and of the other Christians in spiritual causes: that contrary wise they obeyed them as their chief pastors, and as the Vicars of Christ, and the successors of S. Peter. And that they did, not only being a part every man in his own Realm, but also when that most famous battle against the Turks and Saracens was by the inspiration of the holy Ghost begun at one time by the Spaniards, Sigebertus in Chron. Anno Do. 1096. Gascons, Britan's, Normans, English, Scotish, and Frenchmen: by the Burgundions, Almains, Lumbards', and Italians, when diverse Dukes (as Godfrid of Lorraine, and Baiamund of Apulia) when diverse Earls (as Baldwin of Mons, one Robert of Flanders, and an other of Normandy, Stephen of Blese, and Raimund) when Hugh the brother of Philip the King of France took that most holy warfare in hand, when, I say, they were stirred up with one spirit, and heart, to recover the holy land: did not they show as well their own belief, as the universal faith of all their countries and nations, in that they had Hamarus the bishop of Podium set over them Apostolica authoritate by the Apostolic authority? And how marvelous success of victory had they, conquering as well Antioch as Jerusalem? It can be unknown to no man who readeth the old histories, what prosperity these realms have always had, which keeping themselves in the obedience of the See of Rome, kept also the faith which that Church professeth. In so much that Africa was invincible, until the Donatists, and the Pelagians had withdrawn the obedience thereof from the See of Rome. Neither was the Turk able to conquer the Grecians, either of Asia, or of Thracia, until after the council of Florence against their consent there given, they had again divided themselves from the society of the Pope. I will come near home. The English Saxons conquered the Britons for no cause rather, then because the Britons began to forsake the old faith, wherein Fugatius, Damianus and Germanus all coming as Legates and preachers from the Pope, had instructed them. Beda hist. Anglor. li. 2. cap. 2. For (as S. Bede testifieth) the Britons now had left the keeping and profession of Easter after the use of the Church of Rome (with whom the Catholic Church agreed therein) and began to keep it as the jews did. Yea also they ministered the sacrament of Baptism otherwise then the Church of Rome did. If then we continue again in this division and schism against the Church of Rome, we have to fear the like spoil and conquest, or some worse, and even of temporal calamity beside the everlasting damnation of those, who die without the society of S. Peter's See, who was made of Christ, and in his successors continueth still, the shepherd of the whole militant flock. Their doctrine who teach the bishop of Rome to be Antichrist himself, is confuted by the authority of God's word, and by the consent of the ancient Fathers. The XVII. Chap. ANtichrist doth signify the adversary or enemy of Christ our Saviour. Aug. in c. 2. episto. 1. joan. In which kind of malice as Lucifer the captain of all cursed rebels was the first and chief: so he was first named Satan, which is to say, an adversary. Satan. For as the goodness of God, not being content to send his prophets and priests to guide men to life everlasting, at the last sent his own son in man's flesh, thereby to work most effectually our salvation: so on the other side Satan, having procured as much as lay in him, that men should not believe in Christ, nor follow his prophets, shall at the lgenth attempt to possess a certain accursed man, by whom he may work his feats against Christ, so much the more hurtfully, how much the privier he shall lie, being covered and hidden both with man's flesh and with the very name of Christ. As therefore the Devil shall give his strength and power most specially to that cursed man: so the devils name is most specially given him also in the holy scripture. Where he is called of S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 2. Thess. 2 the Adversary, and S. john showeth whose adversary he is, 1. joan. 2. by naming him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is to say, that Antichrist who is most spitefully set against Christ, and is most certainly foretold to come, and aught most carefully to be eschewed of all Christians. For albeit every false teacher be a certain antichrist, or enemy of Christ, and therefore (as S. john saith) there are many Antichristes': 1. joan. 2. yet as there is one above other, so he saith of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you have heard, that the Antichrist cometh you have heard, not only that an Antichrist, but that the same one most notable Antichrist cometh. Now this singular Antichrist shall be suffered to come, why Antichrist is permitted partly for the trial and revealing of the invincible strength which God hath given to the elect, partly to show, how inexcusable the stubborn jews are, who pretending to believe the old Prophets, and to look for the true Messiah, yet having repelled jesus Christ, who most evidently was described in the Law and Prophets, shall in the end embrace the Devil himself, of whom all the Prophets hath willed them to beware. For S. Paul saith: 2. Thess. 2. Because they have not received the love of truth that they might be saved, therefore God shall send them the working of error, that they may believe lying. To the end all men may be judged, who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity. Thus, whereas there are three kinds of Antichrists, first the Devil, who is only a spirit, next, false teachers, thirdly he that being possessed of the Devil, shall in the end oppugn Christ's glory most of all in apparent show, and in outward working: The question. the question is not now, of the two first kinds, but only of the last. to wit, whether the Pope of Rome be this main and chief Antichrist, who was prophesied of to appear so singularly toward the end of the world. For some Protestants are grown to that excessive malice against the Church of Christ, that they doubt not to affirm, to preach, yea to set forth in print, that the chief pastor of the whole Church, to whom Christ commended his sheep and Lambs, is not only an arm, or hand of antichrist, but the very head and captain Antichrist himself, who shall be destroyed with the spirit of Christ's mouth. isaiah. 12. Among others, Bullinger one Henry Bullinger, and an other as wise as he, Gualther. called Rodulph Gaulter, each of them Ministers of Zurich, have set this doctrine abroad in books: whom I name the sooner, because their books are translated into the English tongue, as a special treasure to enrich fools withal: where as in deed, that blaspemouse doctrine is directly against the express word of God, as I will show hereafter. And verily, if God said generally of all his elect people, yea if it be said of the hard hearted jews: zacha. 2. He that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of his eye: if he said more specially concerning his Prophets and Priests: Psal. 104. touch not mine anointed, if his Apostles were near to him then any other, Luc. 22, because they tarried with him in his temptations, if among all the Apostles, S. Peter loved him best, joan. 21. and was best beloved of him (concerning the love which belongeth to the chief shepherd and pastor of his flock) if Christ provided by singular providence, that S. Peter should glorify him by suffering death upon the Cross in the City of Rome, if Saint Peter's Chair and the succession in the chief bishopric hath been acknouledged in Rome with great reverence, of a lib. 3. c. 3 S. Irenaeus, of b lib. 1. ep. 3 S. Cyprian, of c De Antichristo. Hippolytus the Martyr, of d Tripart. lib. 4. c. 15 & in ep. ad Solitar. Athanasius the Patriarch of Alexandria, and likewise of Paulus the archbishop of Constantinople, both being holy confessors, if e In Psal. 106. et 138 Arnobius, f lib. 2. de schismat. Optatus, S. g ad Damasum. Hierone. S. h 1. Tim. 3 Ambrose, i In Psal. contra Donatis●as. & in ep. 162. S. Augustin, with the rest of the holy Fathers, have so esteemed the said succession of Peter, that without the unity of that chair, they account no salvation, and in it, they reckon an assurance of the Catholic faith: if God hath prospered that succession against the envy of all heretics, and to the comfort of all Catholics in all ages: if thence, the faith of Chricte hath been dilated and spread into diverse countries: After all these gracious and miraculous works of Christ, to charge that See so well-beloved of God, not only with error (which yet is false) nor only with decreeing of heresies (which is impossible, Luc. 22. because Christ hath prayed for it) but to charge it even with the begetting, and nursing, and fostering up, and maintaining of Antichrist himself: it is (to speak in short words) to burden Christ himself with the bringing forth and with the commending of Antichrist unto the world. The raging madness of the Protestants not being content to burden the Apostolic see of Rome with abuses, or with mean errors, will needs have, not a friend or member of Antichrist, but the very head and captain of all the enemies of God to sit in S. Peter's own chair. And that is not only affirmed by bawds, and minstrels, and players, but also by Preachers and Doctors of this new divinity. And it is believed of ignorant men, as if it were an article of their faith. As though it had not been Christ only, who hath set Rome in so great honour, as it hath always had. Ambros. Lib. 5. It was not Antichrist, but jesus Christ, who made S. Peter to go thither, and to die there, and to have a perpetual succession of Bishops in that City, without any intermission or coming between of infidelity, or of professed heresy, from the beginning of our Christian profession even till this day. Vide Pontificale. It was not Antichrist, but Christ who gave the crown of martyrdom to almost forty bishops of Rome. Did Christ then prepare the way for Antichrist by the chief of all his Apostles? Can ye make none other man to be the forerunner of that cursed creature, besides the Son of God, and the redeemer of mankind? O blasphemous tongues, and cursed thoughts. Or tell me, whom have so many general Counsels, so many faithful Princes, and nations honoured all this while in the City of Rome? We say they have honoured Christ jesus in his Vicar. Ye say, they have committed fornication with Antichrist, ergo had Christ no man else, upon whom he might ꝑmit Antichrist to be built, but only upon the foundation of Peter, upon whom he built his own Church? Christ said, hell gates should not prevail neither against the rock (which was Peter, Math. 16. as it hath been evidently proved) nor against his Church, which was built upon the Rock. And yet have hell gates so far prevailed against the rock which was Peter, that even Antichrist himself doth sit in the seat of the Rock? Did Christ so much labour to prefer S. Peter, that in the end Antichrist might have a most honourable seat prepared by God himself, for his abominable enterprises? Are they worthy of the name of men, who fear not to avouch this detestable and blasphemous fable? Surely although the very filthiness of the doctrine being once understanded, be able to overthrow it, self for ever, yet that they may perceive I fight not against them with words only, but also with authorities and reasons, I will briefly declare out of the holy scriptures and ancient Fathers, why the Pope of Rome can not be Antichrist himself, as the Protestants do most impudently and unlearnedly teach? I must in deed confess the thing I speak of to be so hard, that no more can be said in it, than either God's word or the consent of the Catholic doctors hath revealed. Isai. 11. Dan. 8. & 9 & 11. Math. 24 joan. 5. & 1. epist. e. 2 2. Thess. 2 Apoca. 13 It is then the common and certain judgement of all holy writers, that Antichrist (who is so notably prophesied of in Isaias, in Daniel, in the Gospels, in S. Paul, and in the Apocalypse) is one certain man, But the Popes of Rome are not any one certain man, but their succession is the continuance of a certain office, in which some hundreds of men have succeeded one after the other: therefore the Popes of Rome are not Antichrist. As the name of Christ being given in the old time to many prophets, Psal. 104. priests and Kings (who were anointed for a figure of the truth which was to be fulfilled) did not hinder, but that there should come one certain singular person, who alone should be the saviour of mankind: 1. joan. 2. so the name of Antichrist being given to many wicked adversaries of Christ, and namely to all heretics, doth not hinder but rather helpeth to prove, that some one singular man shall come at the length, who shall pass all other men in setting himself against Christ. This comparison of mine is directly proved by the express word of God. For Christ saith unto the jews: joan 5. I came in the name of my Father, and ye received me not: if an other come in his own name, him ye will receive. Hieron. quaest. 11. ad Algasiam. Cyril. in joan. lib. 3 cap. 6. Chrysost. Hom. 40. in joan. Which words being confessed by the ancient Doctors, to be spoken prophetically of Antichrist, do prove that as Christ was one certain man, so Antichrist shallbe one certain man. The only odds is, that Christ cometh from God, but Antichrist from the devil. He to save, this to destroy. He to unite, this to divide and to distract. But in this they both agree, that each of them is one singular person. 2. Thes. 2. And this much S. Paul doth manifestly teach, saying: that the man of sin must be revealed before the day of judgement. The said man of sin is described in S. Paul, by the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the man, or that man, and not a man. For the man betokeneth one certain man by name, who is there called also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the wicked man, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the son of perdition, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the adversary, and not (as the English bible hath evil translated it) an adversary who is spoken of such as never came before, nor shall come after, who is called of S. john, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1. joan. 2. the Antichrist. The strength of the Greek article in this word, the man, Saint Cyrillus declareth in this wise: In joan. lib. 1. c. 4. Quum homo sine articulo dicitur, homo quispiam designatur: quando autem articulus accedit, unicum atque singularem hominem denotat. man.. When a man is named without the article, any man is meant: but when the article (the) is adjoined, The man. than it pointeth to one certain singular man. And of the same judgement all other learned Grecians are. Seeing then we read Antichrist to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not a man, but the man, or that man, not generally an Antichrist, but the Antichrist, or that Antichrist, by the judgement of the Fathers, one singular person is meant, and not a whole order and succession of many men, such as the pope's of Rome are. So that S. Hierom saith: In cap. 7. Dan. Putemus unum esse de hominibus, in quo totus Satanas habitaturus sit corporaliter. Let us think him to be (not the devil, or a spirit) but one of the kind of men, in whom Satan shall dwell corporally. Behold, he is one of the number of men, and not certain hundreds of men. In cap. 11. Dan. Again S. Hierom saith: As our Saviour had Solomon and other Saints for a figure of his coming: so Antichrist must be rightly believed to have had Antiochus the worst King, who persecuted the Saints, and defiled the temple, for a figure of him. Whereby we learn, that as there was one certain person jesus Christ: so he meant there should be one certain person, who should be Antichrist. S. Ambrose by distincting three kinds of Antichrist, In cap. 22. Lucae. of the which the second is the devil, the third is every heretic, showeth the first of all, to be that cursed, Antichrist, who shall fulfil the prophecies which are of him. Whom he numbereth in the first place, not because he passeth the devil his master and founder, in setting himself against Christ: but because in the name and nature of Antichrist, he passeth him: as only we mean by Antichrist, not generally an adversary, but such an adversary coming in flesh, as never walked in flesh beside him. In epist. 2 ad Thess. cap. 2. For S. Ambrose also in an other place saith of him, that as the son of God took flesh: so Satanas in homine apparebit, the devil shall appear in a man. He saith not, in hominibus, in men, as though they were many, but in homine, in a man, who is but one. S. Augustine also confessing many Antichristes' with S. john, De civita. Dei li. 20. cap. 19 called one of them, ipsum principem, the very head, and afterward illum novissimum Antichristum, the last Antichrist. The words (prince) and (last) agree to one only, and not to a whole succession of men in one state of life. In 2. Thessalon 2. S. Chrysostom having asked, who is the Antichrist of whom S. Paul spoke, answereth: homo quispiam omnem Satanae energiam adeptus, a certain man having in him all the strength of the devil. In eumdem locum Pauli Theodoretus saith, as the son of God took flesh to procure our salvation: so the devil chooseth a man to himself who may receive his whole working of mischief. In 13. job. li. 14. c. 11 S. Gregory agreeth with all the rest of the Fathers in these words Diabolus in ultimis temporibus illud vas perditionis ingredietur, quod Antichristus vocabitur. The devil in the last days shall enter into that vessel of perdition which shall be called Antichrist. With these Fathers agree Sedulius, In 2. ca 2. epist. ad Thessalo. Primasius, Haimo, Theophilact, and the writers of the Greek Commentaries gathered together by Oecumenius. All which witnesses may suffice for proof, that not the order and state of the bishops of Rome, but only one certain man is properly Antichrist, who shall set himself against Christ more singularly, then ever any heretic hath done hitherto. Again, whereas Antichrist is called of Saint Paul the adversary: it is meant, that he withstandeth Christ so much, that no man is able to withstand him more. He doth not therefore withstand only a piece of the faith, but he withstandeth the whole faith, denying jesus Christ to be God and man, or to be our mediator. Quaest. 11. ad Algasiam. For S. Hierom saith in commenting this place of S. Paul: Extollitur supra omne quod dicitur Deus, ut cunctarum gentium deos sive probatam omnem & veram religionem suo calcet pede. He is exalted above all that which is called God, that he may tread under his feet, the Gods of all Nations, or else, all true and approved religion. Again he saith out of the same Apostle, that God shall send not only operatorem, the worker of error, sed ipsam operationem, id est, fontem erroris, the very working, that is to say, the fountain of error. In Luc. 21 S. Ambrose affirmeth, that he shall dispute out of the scriptures, that he is Christ. What speak I of these small matters? Antichrist shall teach himself, and no man else, In 2. ad Thessa. hom. 3. to be God. Non enim ad Idololatriam adducet ille (saith Chrysostom) sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quispiam erit, quosuis deos pessundans, iubebitque seipsum pro deo coli ac venerari, & in templum dei collocari, non Hierosolymitanum solùm sed & in Ecclesias. He shall not lead or bring to Idolatry, but he shallbe one certain man so contrary and against God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he shall make himself equal with God, throwing down all Gods: and he will also command himself to be worshipped and adored, and to be placed in the temple of God, not only at Jerusalem, but in the Churches also. S. Ambrose accordeth therewith: Sciens enim venturum Dominum ad se comprimendum, In ep. aed Thess. nomen eius sibi usurpabit: & ut regnum eius verum videatur, attrahet secum ꝗ simul cum eo pereant, ut in domo Domini in sede sedeat Christi, & ipsum Deum se asserat, non filium Dei. Antichrist knowing, that our Lord shall come to beat him down, will usurp his name unto himself. And to the end his Kingdom may seem true, he will draw with him such as may perish together with him, that he may sit in the house of our Lord, in the seat of Christ, and may affirm himself to be very God and not the Son of God. thirdly, Antichrist shall not come, before the Roman Empire be clean taken away. for so much doth S. Paul signify by those words: And now ye know what withholdeth, or what letteth the coming of Antichrist, verily the Roman Empire, nisi venerit discessio primum, & revelatus fuerit homo peccati (Christ saith, he shall not come to judge the world) unless the departing come first, and the man of sin be revealed. Defectio. The departing is meant, when all nations and countries shall departed wholly from the Roman Empire. For that it must be a full departing, it appeareth, because it is the Emperor himself who stayeth the coming of Antichrist, and who must be taken out of the way. For thus we read in S. Paul: Tantum ut qui tenet, teneat, donec de medio fiat. Only that he who holdeth, may hold, until he be taken away, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth to hold, and to withhold, being of the Masculine gender, doth show the talk to be of a man. Verily of the Emperor, who both holdeth the Empire (as S. Augustine doth expound the word) and withholdeth or stoppeth the coming of Antichrist. De Civit. Dei. lib. 20 cap. 19 If any man ask why the Emperor of Rome should be said to stop the coming of Antichrist: thereof diverse reasons may be given, and which of those is most true, or how many are true, it is hard to judge, How many ways the Roman Empire may withhold the coming of Antichrist. because all prophecies and the reasons of them are obscure and dark, until they are fulfilled. The first cause may be, either the revelation of the holy Ghost, or the prophecies of Isai, of Daniel, and of such others by whom S. Paul might understand that Antichrist cometh not, until the Roman Empire be destroyed. And in this only sense, the Emperor is a stop unto Antichrist by the way of sign or token, because God hath given such a watchword, that Antichrict shall not rise, till the Roman Empire doth wholly fail. The second reason may be, the iniquity which is wrought by the Roman Empire, of the which iniquity, there is a certain measure known to God alone, until the fullness whereof, Antichrist can not come. And to this reason the text of S. Paul seemeth to agree in that it is said: that the mystery of iniquity worketh now. As who should say, when it hath done working, then is the coming of Antichrist ripe. S. a Lib. 5. Irenaeus, and S. b Ad Alga siam. quest. 11. Hierom also incline vehemently to this reason. The third reason may be, the strength of the Roman Empire, because whiles it dureth, Antichrist (who must rule temporally) can not have full obedience done to him: and so doth S. Chrysostom, In 2. Thes. Hom. 4. and many Grecians after him, take the matter. The last reason may be, for that God (after the conversion of the Emperors to the faith) hath caused most of them to serve him for the defence of his true faith and Church. The which defence whiles it standeth, Antichrist can not prevail. For a Lib. 3. de euangel. daemon. Eusebius, b in nati. Petri. serm. 3. Leo, c in epist. ad Valerian. Eucherius do affirm, the Roman Empire to have been provided for the propagation and preservation of the faith. It is possible truly, that in diverse reaspects all these reasons may be true. But how so ever it be, once, forasmuch as the Emperor withholdeth the coming of antichrist: so long as there is one who holdeth the Empire, Quaest. 11 ad Algasiam. Tom. 3. antichrist can not be in the Church of Christ. For Saint Jerome giveth this sense to Saint Paul's words: Non veniet Antichristus, nisi prius deleatur Romanum Imperium. Antichrist shall not come, unless the Roman Empire be first destroyed. And again: nisi fuerit Romanum imperium antè desolatum, Unless the Roman Empire be first desolated. And again: ut omnes gentes, quae Romano imperio subjacent, recedant ab eyes. That all those Nations, which are under the Roman Empire, may go or departed from them. S. Augustine (although he could not assure himself to understand perfectly this hard place of the Apostle) yet of this part, which I now speak of, thus he writeth: De Civit. Dei. lib. 20 cap. 19 Illud quod ait Apostolus, tantum qui modò tenet, teneat, donec de medio fiat, non absurdè de ipso Romano imperio creditur dictum, tanquam dictum sit: tantùm qui modò imperat, imperet, donec de medio fiat, id est, de medio tollatur, & tunc revelabitur iniquus, quem significari Antichristum nullus ambigit. That which the Apostle saith, only he that holdeth now, let him hold, until he be made away, is not absurdly believed to be said of the Roman Empire itself: as though it were said, only he that doth govern now, let him govern, until he be made away, that is, be taken away, and then shall be revealed that wicked man, whom no man doth doubt to be Antichrist. See what S. Augustin saith: let him rule who doth rule, until he be taken a way. Which is not only spoken of Nero by name (who then ruled) but of every successor of his, In 2. ad Thessa. 2. as Haimo expressly writeth. As if it were said, let the Emperor rule so long as he shall rule. And when he ceaseth to rule, Antichrist shall be revealed. How is then the Pope Antichrist, whereas there is as yet a Roman Emperor living? Hereunto S Chrysostom agreeth, saying: tantum quitenet in praesentia, donec è medio fiat. hoc est, quando è medio sublatum fuerit Romanum imperium, tum veniet ille, & non abs re. Donec enim imperij illius timor fuerit, nemo Antichristo statim subdetur. Quando verò istud fuerit destructum imperium, vacantem imperij principatum invadet, & tentabit ad se rapere & hominum & Dei imperium. Only he which holdeth presently, until he betaken away. That is, when the Roman Empire shallbe taken away, than he shall come: and not without cause. For so long as there is fear of that Empire, no man willbe strait ways subject to Antichrist. But when this Empire shallbe destroyed, he will invade the dignity of the Empire being void, and will assay to get unto himself the Empire of man and of God. In 2. Thessalo. 2. Haimo saith: Revelabitur congruo tempore Antichristus, postquam oina regna discesserint á Romano imperio. Antichrist shallbe revealed in a meet time, after that all kingdoms shall departed from the Roman Empire. Note, that all kingdoms must departed from the Roman Empire. If then it be clear, that Antichrist doth not come, until the Roman Empire be void, and all nations be gone from it: seeing Maximilian reigneth in it at this day, it is clear, that the pope of Rome is not Antichrist, who hath dured these fiften hundred years together with the Emperor, whereas Antichrist shall not come, until there be no more Roman Emperors. Let us go forward. Whensoever Antichrist cometh, his deeds and doctrine against Christ must be open and without all cloaking or dissembling. For S. Paul showeth a difference between Antichrist himself, and between the mystery of iniquity. Mysterium. For a mystery is as much to say, as a privy thing. And so the mystery of iniquity was the privy and close working of all impiety against Christ. Whereas on the other side he saith by Antichrist, revelabitur iniquus ille, Revelabitur. Hom. 4 that wicked man shallbe revealed, and made open. Whereupon S. Chrysostom saith: Neronem hîc dicit tanquam typum Antichristi gerentem. nam ille volebat reputari Deus. & benè dixit mysterium, hoc est, non apertè hoc agit (Nero) sicut ille Antichristus) acturus est, neque adeo perfricta front & impudenter. He saith, that Nero doth here bear the figure of Antichrist, for he would be taken as God. And he said very well, the mystery, that is to say, Nero doth not this openly, as he (that is to say, Antichrist) will do, neither with so brazen a face, and so impudently. In. 2. ca 2 ad Thessa. Theodoretus: Haereticos appellavit mysterium iniquitatis, ut qui habent celatum iniquitatis laqueum. Ipse enim (Antichristus) apertè à Deo abducit homines. quamobren etiam eius adventum revelationem vocavit Apostolus. Quod enim clanculum semper confirmabat, id palam & apertè praedicabit. He doth call heretics the mystery of iniquity, as whose iniquity is hidden. But Antichrist himself doth bring men from God openly, wherefore also the Apostle doth call his coming a revealing: for that which he did privily always confirm, he will preach openly and manifestly. Haymo and Theophilact are of the same mind. If then Antichrist shall oppugn Christ without all dissembling: how is it possible for the Popes to be Antichrist, who surely forbid no man in plain words to believe in Christ, nor yet deny any part either of the Gospel, or of the holy scriptures of the new testament. All which things Antichrist will not only do, but he will do them openly and plainly. Moreover seeing Antichrist shall say himself to be God, and yet no pope did ever say so: doubtless no pope can be Antichrist. An objection. M. jewel in his Reply. 258. I know here that a wrangling protestant wolud not fear to say, that the Pope accounteth himself God, because some gloss of the Canon law call him so, or make him equal with Christ. The answer. But in truth there is no gloze, that ever called the pope God in that sense, as though he were God by nature, but only God by the office which be beareth under Christ, as Moses was called the God of Pharaoh. Exod. 7. & 22. joan. 10. Psal. 81. And every judge is in the holy scripture called God. Now whereas the gloss alluding evidently to those texts, and to other which were made according to the example of them, do call the pope God by an equivocation, and that also by the example of God's word: is it not a marvelous desperate point for the Protestants to ground a doctrine, upon such an abuse and equivocation of a word. Now Antichrist must not only be called God of others, but he must extol himself above God, even after such sense as the blessed Trinity is God by nature. Whereupon Haimo saith: supra sanctam Trinitatem se extollet, In 2. Thessalon. 2 He will extol himself above the holy Trinity. Certainly no Pope did ever so much as dream to do any like thing, and much less do they profess it, but they profess only themselves to be the servants of them who serve God. The fift difference between the Pope and Antichrist may be, in that Antichrist shallbe received most specially of the jews, who as yet have not received the Pope at any tyme. Concerning this matter Christ himself said unto the jews: joan. 5 I came in my Father's name, and me ye have not received: if an other man come in his own name, him ye will receive. This other man is expounded to be Antichrist, by Saint a Ad Algasiam. Hierom, Saint b Hom. 4 in joan. Chrysostom, Saint c In 2. ad Thessalon. Ambrose, d Lib. 3. in joan. c. 6. Cyrillus, e In 2. ad Thessalon. 2. epi. c. 2. In 2. ad Thessa. Theodoretus, and all the other Fathers. And seeing the words are spoken to the jews, they also must receive Antichrist. And so much doth S. Paul teach also in his epistle to the Thessalonians. According to which sort S. Ambrose saith: Ex circumcisione aut circumcisum illum venire sperandum est, ut sit judaeis credendi illi fiducia. It is to be looked, that Antichrist shall come circumcided or of the circumcision, that the jews may have some confidence in believing him. Ad Algasiam. Faciet haec omnia (saith S. Hierom) non sua virtute, sed concessione Dei propter judaeos. He shall do all these things not by his own power, but by the permission of God, for the jews. Theodoretus: judaei eum expectant, & ei cùm advenerit credent. In 2. Thessalon. The jews do look for him, and when he cometh, they will believe him. Who seeth not, that the jews have not yet received the pope? yea rather as they hate Christ most of all, so do they hate his Vicar above all other Christians yea all most as much as the protestants themselves do hate him, as by whom they understand their religion and faith to be most hindered. The sixth difference is expressed in Daniel, where after the description of the four Empires it is said, that, the fourth beast (which is the Roman Empire) had ten horns, Dan. c. 7. I considered the horns. And behold an other little horn sprang out of the midst of them, and three of the first horns were pulled up before his face, and behold the eyes, as it were of a man, were in this horn, and a mouth speaking great things. In c. 7. Daniel. Upon this place, S. Hierom saith: Dicamus quod omnes scriptores Ecclesiastici tradiderunt. In consummatione mundi, quando regnum destruendum est Romanorum, decem futuros reges, qui orbem Romanum inter se dividant. Et undecimum surrecturum esse regem paruulum. Qui tres reges de decem regibus superaturus sit. Id est, Aegyptiorum regem, & Africa, & Aethiopiae, sicut in consequentibus manifestius dicemus. Let us say that which all the Ecclesiastical writers have lest by tradition. In the consummation of the world, when the kingdom of the Romans must be destroyed, there shallbe ten Kings, who will divide the Roman Empire or Dominion among themselves. And there shall arise the eleventh being a very little King. Who shall overcome three of those ten Kings, that is to say, the Kings of Egypt, and of Africa, and of Ethiopia, as we will declare more manifestly afterwards. Herewith Hippolytus and Theodoretus in his Comment upon the same Prophet agreeth. In homil. de Antic. But what need I writ their words, seeing S. Jerome confesseth it to be the opinion of all Ecclesiastical writers? Wherefore seeing the Pope hath not conquered to him the kingdoms of Egypt, Aethiop, and of Africa: who soever saith him to be that chief Antichrist who is prophesied of, is no Ecclesiastical writer, but a false Prophet and a seducer. The seventh difference is, that Antichrist shall puail in his reign but three years and a half. Daniel. 7. Sancti tradentur in manu eius usque ad tempus, & tempora, & dimidium temporis. The Saints shallbe delivered in his hand until a time (that is to say, one year) times (that is, two years more) and half a time, that is, half a year. And that we may be sure this interpretation to be true, it is noted of S. Augustin, that Daniel afterward numbereth the days, and in the apocalypse the months are also numbered, Apoc, 13. to wit, forty and two months. Daniel saith: From the time wherein the continual Sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation shallbe set up, days a thousand, Daniel. 12 two hundred, ninety. Where S. Hierom saith: Perspicuum est, tres istos & semis annos de Antichristi dici temporibus, qui tribus & semis amnis, hoc est mill ducentis nonaginta diebus sanctos persecuturus est. Et postea corruiturus in monte inclyto & sancto. It is evident, that these three years and an half, are said of the time of Antichrist, who shall persecute the saints three years and an half, that is, a thousand two hundred and nienty days, and afterward he shall fall in the glorious and holy hill. Of the same mind were Eusebius Caesariensis, Appollinarius Laodicenus, and Methodius, whom S. Hierom nameth at the end of the same Chapter. S. Irenaeus likewise saith: Iren. lib. 5. Aduersus haeres. Cùm vastauerit Antichristus omnia in hoc mundo, regnans annis tribus & mensibus sex, & sederit in templo Hierosolymis, tunc veniet Dominus, etc. When Antichrist reigning three years and six months shall have spoiled all things in this world, and shall sit in the Temple at jerusalem, them our Lord shall come. If Antichrist then prevaileth but three years and a half, seeing the Popes have kept their succession fifteen hundred years together, and have had their temporal power which is annexed to the bishopric even by the confession of our Adversaries, at the least these viii. or ix. hundred years, I can not see, what ground they have to teach the Pope to be Antichrist himself. I might add to these differences, that Helias shall come at the time of Antichrist, as a Serm. de Antich Hippolytus, b De civit. lib. 20. c. 19 S. Augustine, c in 2. Thessaly. S. Chrysostom, and d in 2. Thessaly. Theodoretus teach, who is not yet come, although the Pope's hath flourished so long. Item, that antichrist shall be born of the tribe of Dan, as a lib. 5. Irenaeus, b de Anti. Hippolytus, c in 2. Thessaly. Theodoretus, and S. d In 14. in job. 11. Gregory have written (whereas the Popes are of no such tribe) and also, that Antichrist cometh but even a little before the end of the world, as a Lib. 5. Irenaeus saith, and b Lib. 20. c. 19 S. Augustin, and c in 2. Thessaly. Theodoretus: In ipso tempore consummationis, in the very time of the last end. But either these former differences do suffice, or with them who have settled their hearts against the truth of God's word, and against the judgement of the Catholic fathers, no arguments at all will prevail. Whose infinite self will, if it be punished with infinite damnation, it is but the just judgement of God. Only I beseech him to stay their hearts, whiles yet the time of penance is not shut up I have not lightly spoken one word in this behalf without authority, because the matter is hard, and above man's capacity. In so much that S. Hierom, considering Daniel himself not to have perceived the mysteries, before they were expounded to him, writeth in this wise: In cap. Dan. 12. Si Propheta audivit, & non intellexit: quid faciunt hi qui signatum librum & usque ad tempus consummationis multis obscuritatibus involutum, praesumptione mentis edisserunt? If the Prophet did hear, and did not understand, what shall they do, who by presumption of the mind, do expound and declare the book sealed, and folded up with many obscurities until the time of consummation? Let now the Protestants speak without the book after their presumptuous fantasy, or else let them show us one ancient Father of the first six hundred years (among so many as have written) who said at any time, the Pope of Rome was or should be Antichrist. Dan. 7. joan. 5. 2. Thess. 2 Or if none can be named, yea if the Prophets, the Gospels, the Apostle describe Antichrist in such wise, that it is impossible for the Popes to be meant thereby: shall yet this furious opinion still prevail? It shall in deed, but with men possessed by some evil spirit, who have neither eyes at liberty to see, nor ears to hear, nor common sense to conceive either the word of God, or the consent of grave and learned men. God open the eyes of the blind, if it be his wil The argument of the Protestants. Now, whereas to make a show of somewhat, the Protestants allege, that Babylon is expounded by Tertullian to be Rome, and that Rome is called the harlot clothed with purple in Saint Jerome, and that there are the seven hills which are spoken of in the apocalypse, Apoc. 13. If these men care not what they say, or how they allege the Fathers, so that they may seem to the ignorant not to lack words: I can not envy them their small pleasure, which shallbe afterward recompensed with so bitter a sauce of eternal damnation. But if they seek the truth with a sincere conscience, they are well assured that Rome is called Babylon, not in respect of the Christians which are now there, but only in respect of the confusion of all tongues and all people which haunted thither in the time of th' Emperors. And then Rome was full of Idolatry, and did persecute the Saints, and did put to death above thirty of the first Bishops of Rome. So that Rome is called Babylon for persecuting the Bishops, and not for honouring them. For disobeying the Popes, and not for obeying them. Ad algaesiam. Again S. Hierom expoundeth the harlot clothed with red purple, namely to be that everlasting wordly Empire and monarchy, which (as the Romans dreamt) should continue still over the whole world. The which opinion (of the eternity of the Roman Empire) S. Hierom calleth the name of blasphemy which is written in the harlots' forehead. And in this respect the Roman Empire prepared a way for the abomination to come, which being once come to his ripeness, Antichrist shallbe revealed. One of the graetest signs of whose coming is the weakness of the Roman Empire. Which when it is clean taken away, then cometh Antichrist. But it is to be understanded (if I shall play the child with childish Divines) that the city of Rome at this day standeth not upon the seven hills, but as the Empire is gone from the city, so is the City gone from the hills, and standeth in the plain along by the rivers side, in the field, which sometime was called campus Martius. And so by the changing of the place the Protestants have lost their argument. The pope also doth sit for the most part on the other side of the river upon the hilnamed Vatican, hard by S. Peter's Church, The seven hills. by whom he holdeth his chair, not at all deriving his power from the seven hills, whereupon the seven Kings dwelled, or from the Roman Empire. But in deed the seven hills are well meant the fullness of pride and vain glory, which is in all the world, and specially in secular princes, Hereof I shall speak in the next chapter. to whom yet the protestants commit the supreme government of the Church, being thereby near to the state of Antichrist, than they are ware of. But let all our new brethren bring but one holy Father or ancient doctor (who hath been always accounted Catholic) who ever said, that the bishop of Rome should be Antichrist: or if none can be alleged, let this doctrine of theirs be accounted a profane novelty of words, 1. Tim. 6. which S. Paul would have to be avoided among good Christians. Not the Pope of Rome, but the Protestants themselves are the members of Antichrist by forsaking the Catholic Church, by setting up a new Church, and by teaching false doctrine against the Gospel of jesus Christ. The XVIII. chap. THis being once cleared, that the Pope of Rome can not be that notable Antichrist, who was so long before prophesied of, the next shift of the Protestants must be to say, that the Pope is at the lest a forerunner of that principal Antichrist. 1. joan. 2 Of which sort all such are, as by teaching false doctrine do promote his kingdom, who is the head and captain of all error and heresy. I am not ignorant, that if I should exactly handle this argument, I should run over all the articles which are at this day in controversy. For in every of them, he that holdeth the false part, is a member of Antichrist: and he that defendeth the truth, is of Christ. But for so much as that were an infinite labour, it shall suffice by a few general reasons to show the way unto him, who list to prosecute the said argument more fully. The first mark of an Antichristian. seeing we now speak not of paynim or jews, who are without the Church, but of heretics, who were once of the Church: the first way to know this kind of Antichristes' is, if we can show, that any man departed from the Catholic Church. For when Christ entreated of false Prophets and erroneous teachers, he said to his faithful Disciples, nolite exire, Matth. 24 go ye not out. As who should say, you are at this time within. If ye can tarry where you are, no danger can come to you. But all the peril is in going out after them, who preach otherwise then the Church believeth. 1. joan. 2. Of them S. john said, exierunt ex nobis, they went forth from us. Act. 15. Likewise the Apostles complain of them who went out from them, and preached the necessity of circumcision. Homil. de Pastor. And S. Augustine saith generally, exire haereticorum est. It is the point of heretics to go out. Who then went from the Church of these two? Did the Pope go out of the true Church, or did the Protestants? If the Pope went forth, whom did he leave behind him? where dwelled they whom he forsook? Let the country, the City, the town, the village, the Church, the chapel, the company of never so few men be named, from whom (being members of the true Church) the Pope went. For he that goeth out, goeth from some, and leaveth some behind him. But it can never be named, whom the pope left behind him in the true Church, when he went out of the said Church, because in deed he never went forth, but dwelled in the midst of all faithful Nations, being their guide and Pastor. Neither did he departed from the Grecians, but some of the Grecians for a time departed from him, upon the quarrel, of the proceeding of the holy Ghost from God the son. Which truth the Grecians unjustly denied. And therefore after a time upon better advise and conference, some of them came into that Church again, An. Dom. 1440. where the Pope remained head, as at the Council of Florence. And some other tarried without still, and died in the schism. But all this while the pope went not out of the Church. On the otherside we can all tell when a An. Do. 1044. Berengarius, b 1350. wickliff, c 1410. Hus, d 1517. Luther, e 1522. Zuinglius, f 1540 Calvin, and such others professed to go out the Roman Church. We know whom they left behind them within the Church: verily they left all Italy, all France, all Spain, all Polonia, all Hungary, all England, all Sicily, and so much of Germany in the Church, as went not out after them. If now it be the point of an heretical Antichrist, to go out of the faithful company of Christ: who is liker to be Antichrist, the Pope who departed from no company of Christ, or the Protestants, who departed from so many Christian nations, as now I named, and most of all the Sacramentaries, who departed also both from the Pope, and from the very Lutherans themselves? An objection. As for that vain brag, wherein they are wont to say, the pope departed from the Apostles and prophets: is it not as easy for us to say the self same thing unto them? The answer. when we speak of departing, we speak of the departing from the unity of such, as once lived together with us in one house of God: For then some go out, and some tarry within. As Arrius and Eusebius of Nicomedia departed out, and his bishop Alexander, with good Athanasius tarried still in the Church. Novatus went out, Cornelius tarried within. Pelagius went out, Saint Augustine and Saint Hierom followed him not, but tarried within. Even so Luther went out from the company with whom he once lived peaceably, and the pope tarried still within. Therefore Luther and his adhearents are heretics and the members of Antichrist. If it be said here, another objection answered. that the Apostles and disciples departed from the Chair of Moses, and yet were not heretics: I answer, that such examples make nothing for the departing of the Protestants from us, except they can bring such prophecies, and such evident miracles for their departing from us, as the Apostles brought and wrought for their departing from the jews. There should be but one such change of Religion in all the world, and because it was so hard a matter to make men forsake their former trade of serving God, it was not done without the coming down of the Son of God from heaven into the earth, Luc. 24. who showed by the Prophets, and by his very works, that the same one change of the whole religion, should then only be made, and never else. If now, Luther be the same to undo, Matth. 5. or to fulfil Christ's Law, which Christ was, in the dissolving or rather in fulfilling Moses' Law: then I have done, let Luther prevail. But if Luther may be an heretic, whereas he can not be Christ: surely the Argument of his departure, still concludeth him and all his to be members of Antichrist. Hitherto concerning the going out of the Church. The second mark of an Antichristian. secondly, he that goeth out of one Church (if he will be in any Church at all) either he goeth into an other Church, elder than that which he was in, or he maketh a new Church of his own. The Pope is not without a Church, but rather he is in the Roman Church, as who is head and pastor thereof. But he could not go into any other Church elder than his own. For S. Irenaeus confesseth the Roman church to be antiquissimam, Lib. 3. c. 3. the most ancient. Neither did he make a new Church of his own. For than it must needs be known which Pope it was, who erected this new Church. And of the Pope it must have taken a proper name, as the Arrian Church was named of Arrius, and the Church of the Donatists was named of Donatus. And the holy Martyr justinus fourteen hundred years past, gave this note, that all new sects be named by their Authors: justin. in tryphone. Exorientur multi pseudoc christi et pseudo apostoli, & multos seducent ò fidelibus. Et sunt inter nos distincti cognominibus. Denominati à quibusdam viris, ut quisque fuit author alicuius novae doctrinae & sententiae. Auctor novae doctrinae. Ex ijs alij vocantur Marciani, alij Basilidiani, alij Saturniniani: alij alio vocabulo, quisque à primo inventore sui dogmatis. There shall arise many false Christ's, False Christ's. and false Apostles, and they shall seduce many of the faithful. And they are distincted among us by their surnames: taking their names of certain men, as every one was author of any new doctrine and judgement. And of these some were called Marcianists, others Basilidians, others Saturninians: and other some with an other name, every one, of the first inventor of his opinion. In Apolog. secunda. To this rule Athanasius alludeth, saying: Meletius schisma fecit, adeo ut illius sectatores etiam nunc pro Christianis Meletiani vocitentur. Meletius made a schism, in so much that even at this time his followers are named Meletians, Lib. 4. c. 30 De vera sapient. in the steed of Christians. Cum Marcionite aut Arriani nominantur, Christiani esse desierunt. When they are named Marcionits, or Arrians, they have ceased to be Christians, saith Lactantius Firmianus. But now if all the Popes from S. Peter downward, should be named, the Protestants were not able to say, that either Anacletus, or Victor, or Calixtus, or Sozimus, or Leo, or Gregorius, or Bonifacius, or any other Pope began any new sect, or left any disciples who might be named after his proper name. And yet if the Popes did go out of the Church, it was some one or other, who did lead the dance. He had a certain name, he had a time to do it in, he had companions who followed him: otherwise there could be no such going out if there were no circumstance thereof. Seeing then it is not possible, to name any Pope, who first went out of the Church and made the Schism, nor to show any name given to his Disciples: it is clear, that it is only a vain fable, and slander feigned upon the Popes, without any truth at al. For no heresy began without an author. Who if he were unknown in some obscure sect, yet at the least the heresy was strait named of the country, or of the doctrine itself, or of some other notable circumstance. But when our enemies study to give us a name, eight or nine hundred years after, that we departed (as they say) from the true Church, what sign is that? Verily that they bely us. Now they name us Papists, and Romanists, and what they list. But, I pray you Masters, was there any man called Papa, by his proper name, or any called Romanus, who was our captain? Show the History, and we believe you. Or did ever any heresy tarry in the Church eight or nine hundred years wlthout a name given to it? Nay, I think, it can not be showed, that ever any heresy tarried eight or nine years without a name, whereby all the church might learn to beware of it. All these written against heresies. I appeal herein to antiquity, to Philaster, to Epiphanius, to S. Augustine, to Theodoretus, Damascenus, Euthimius, who all writing against heresies, never left any of them all, without a peculiar name. And in deed how could they else describe the heresy unto us, but by naming it? And yet those who now first after eight or nine hundred years, begin to have a name, have all this while remained without any proper name at all, which might show or describe any sect or heresy of theirs: and that, because it was not possible, to name that which was not. For we in deed are, and always were Catholics, and nothing else, what so ever spitefully mai● be invented and feigned upon us, without cause or ground, after so many hundred years: whereas a new sect hath strait a new name. But is it so, trow ye, with the Lutherans, the zwinglians, the Caluinists, and the Swenckfeldians? Do not their names show, who instituted and invented that sect? Can we not tell, in what year every of them began? How he went forward? And who succeeded in his Chair of Pestilence? The Protestants therefore going out of our Catholic Church, and leaving us within, did not go to any elder Church, either of the Grecians, or of Aethiopians or any like, but did set up a new synagogue, which was named of them. Wherefore they are heretics and members of Antichrist. another objection answered. Neither can they justly object (as they do foolishly endeavour) that we have also Benedictins, Franciscans, Dominicans, jesuits, and such other: for the rule of S. justinus then taketh place, when (as himself expressly saith) there is an author, or a beginner novae alicuius doctrinae & sententiae, of any new doctrine or judgement. Behold, it is not only a new name given of a special man, which name showeth an heresy: but it is a name given by reason of a new doctrine, and of a new judgement or sentence in God's religion. Saint Benedict or Saint Francis, A great heresy. Matth. 19 taught none other thing, but that it was good to forsake all that a man had, and to follow Christ. The which thing, because it is not easy to do perfectly without a guide, they declared, what way seemed best unto them to accomplish that Counsel of the Gospel. And that their institution was not fulfilled by their authority. But they submitted their order and rule unto the chief bishop, who allowed it for good and virtuous, so that, now their followers be named of their rule and obedience, and not of their doctrine, which in all points was Catholic, as the very written rule doth testify. It is then the property of heretics to go out of the Church. And the Protestant's are gone out. It is the property of captain heretics, to leave their own names to their scholars. Hereof some protestants are called Lutherans, other zwinglians, other Caluinists, other Hosiandrines and so forth: from both which conditions the pope's of Rome, and their adherents are free, as it hath been declared. The third mark of an Antichristian. THirdly, when heretics are once without the Church, they can not possibly agree: partly because the grace of God and the spirit of unity is not among them, partly because they are without one visible judge and head, and are all so proud and puffed up, that every man will be a master, so that no one of them will yield to the other. So the old heretics were divided as S. a Lib. 1. c. 30. Ireneus witnesseth. So the Arrians went strait into three diverse sects: as b heres. 73. Epiphanius declareth. And the like chanced to the Donatists, as S. c heres. 69. Augustine hath testified. But are the pope's, or the catholics in this case concerning their faith? Who can show a pope unlike his predecessors, or a Catholic disobedient to the pope? from the first to the last, their faith is one: their profession still the same: their government is all after one rate. Which thing could not possibly come to pass, except they were all directed by the God of peace, and by the spirit of unity. But on the otherside, how many sects are sprung in Germany alone, within these forty years? How do the Lutherans daily write and preach against the Caluinists? in so much that they were in arms of late in Antwerp the one against the other. How do the Anabaptists descent from them both? How cruelly do the civil Lutherans of Wittenberg persecute even with filthy and slanderous Images Flaccus Illyricus a stout and strait Lutheran? Neither can this matter be justly coloured (as it is to them who perish) by the example of the Apostles and disciples. how the catholics end their strife. Act. 15. For if any small disagreeing did fall out between them, it was first rather about some temporal fact, than any doctrine of the Gospel. As when Paul and Barnabas dissented in this point, whether Marck should go with them or no. Again, if the fact did touch in any point the doctrine of the Gospel, the one strait ways yielded to the other, Galat. 2. as S. Peter did yield unto S. Paul, who reproved him for a dissembling deed concerning the law of Moses. Or if the doctrine itself was called in doubt, strait ways a visible judge was chosen, who might end the strife: Act. 15. as when S. Paul and Barnabas came to jerusalem, to have the Apostles decree concerning the law of Moses not to bind any more. Thus the catholics also dissent sometime, either upon a fact, as whether it be best to reduce the keeping of Christmas to the shortest day in the year or no (which is of no great importance) or else the one yieldeth to the other who reproveth him, if the matter be plain: or if it be intricat, they both must under pain of damnation be content, to refer themselves to a visible judge in the earth, after whose determination their strife is at an end, as it was evidently seen in the matter of Clandestine Marriages at Trent. For among us he that obeyeth not the sentence of the high priest, is excommunicated, Deut. 17. and separated from our society. But Luther being reproved of his brethren at many meetings, did evermore stand in this matter of faith, against them, that the body of Christ was really present with the substance of braed. Zuinglius on the otherside, being reproved often times, yet died stubbornly in this opinion, that the body of Christ was present, not in truth, but in a sign and figure. As it is certain to us, that neither of those two is saved, so their faith must needs be monstrous, Note well. who believe that they both are saved. The contention was not of a matter which as yet was hidden or unrevealed. For what in all the world ought to have been, or was more known, than the supper of Christ? Which these fourteen hundred years hath been in daily practice, and therefore the whole doctrine concerning the substance of it, may not be unknown, no not to women and to young men. Moreover each of them said he was sure of the truth, and believed his opinion most constantly. And shall now both he be saved, who teacheth stubbornly even to death, that, in this sacramental bread the substance of Christ's body is present: and he also who teacheth stubbornly even to death, that in this sacramental bread, the substance of Christ's body is not present? If both these preachers defended the truth, what kind of religion is this, where contradictory articles are true at once? If the one was a false teacher even with stubbornness, he was therein a member of Antichrist. And seeing it must needs be, that the one did avouch false doctrine, and yet did warrant it for the true Gospel: we are sure, that one of the two, must needs be a member of Antichrist. And yet seeing the Pope's Catholic doctrine doth dissent from them both, which soever of two be an Antichrist, the Pope shall not be thereby in any danger to be an Antichrist together with any of them. Mark the reason well. It goeth not to this opinion, or to that, wherein there is no end of contention. But it concludeth a necessary sequel upon a confessed truth. If any man for false doctrine may be an enemy of Christ (as doubtless he may) he is that enemy, who teacheth most presumptuously his false doctrine. But of these two doctrines, it is the body of Christ, and, it is not the body of Christ, the one must needs be false. Therefore seeing Luther taught stoutly the one, and Zuinglius stoutly the other, either Luther or Zuinglius is an adversary of Christ. This point would be answered. But all the whole number of Protestants (a very few Illyricans excepted) account them both saved, and consequently, they justify the stubborn preachers of clean contrary doctrines: therefore the whole number of Protestants doth justify one who is an Antichrist. And therefore the whole number of Protestants is condemned of God, for justifying a false prophet, and for defending an evident member of Antichrist, as who teach evil to be good, woe to them, Isai. 5. and good to be evil. To you I speak, M. jewel: did not Luther teach false doctrine, when he said, that the body of Christ was really and substantially present with the substance of bread in the Sacrament of our Lord's supper? I know you believe his doctrine to be stark false in that behalf. Well, was he not warned thereof, not only by his own Catholic bishop, but also by Zuinglius a man of God, as you say? Did he not after a sharp warning or two, yet still defend his false doctrine many years together most stubbornly? Tit. 3. Therefore by Saint Paul's doctrine Luther was an heretic, and was to be avoided, as a man condemned by his own judgement. How do you avoid him, when in your Apology of the Church of of England, you justify him, as a man whom God raised after long darkness, to give fresh light unto the world? Call you then an error in religion the light of the Gospel? What was there I pray you, why the old false Prophets of the primitive Church, were accounted heretics the which is not also found in Martin Luther? Luther had all the properties of the old Heretics. Did they teach erroneous doctrine? So did he, even by your confession. Did they stand in it being warned? So did he. Did they die in it? So did he. Made they a schism for it? So did he. Left they scholars behind them, who bore their names? As though the Martinists and Lutherans, be not named of Martin Luther. Did their Schism hurt the peace of the Church? So doth this. Was their heresy condemned by General or Provincial Counsels? So was the doctrine of the Lutherans condemned at Trent, at Rome, at Magunce, at Colon, at Cambray, and where not? To be short, define an heretic for your life, how ever you can, and Luther shall be within the cumpasse of your definition. And yet shall you, that justify him, be saved? No surely, no more than they that justify the Nicolaits, or Monothelits. It will not now serve to say, that S. Cyprian died in his opinion of rebaptising those, who were baptised of heretics. For then, partly the Catholic faith in that point was not fully and universally revealed in any General Council, partly S. Cyprian did not die with such a stubbornness in this behalf, that he was ready to judge, or to excommunicate the contrary teachers as his own a ad Quintum. & ad jubaianun. Epistles, and S. b lib. 2. & 3. de baptismo cont. Donat. Augustin doth well prove at large. Neither would he have refused a judge even in earth, if occasion had been given to have come to the trial of the matter. But the question of our Lord's supper was universally known, and five hundred years past, it was defined in judgement at certain Counsels, even to the recantation of Berengarius, the first public maintainer thereof. And when the great general Council of Lateran had ended it, the whole Church was confirmed in their former belief. Now the definition of that great Council doth condenne both Luther and Zuinglius. Moreover, Luther and Zuinglius died with such a presumptuous stubbornness, that each of them refused any judge in the whole earth: because each of them said himself to be sure of the word of God, beside the which, each of them refused any judge at al. So that now no excuse in the world remaineth, but that either Luther, or Zuinglius must be an Antichrist. And that who so justifieth them both (as the Protestants and Sacramentaries do) is utterly damned for allowing one Antichrist at the least. The fourth mark of an Antichristian. The Fourth mark of an Antichrist, is, in that God suffereth as not Antichrist himself in his own person, so neither his ministers and false Prophets to continue or tarry long. For (as Christ said, Matth. 24. where he entreated of these matters) Except those days had been shortened, 2. Pet. 2. no flesh should be saved. And S. Peter saith: The perdition of false teachers sleepeth not. For in deed except God provided, that heresies might have a short reign, the whole faith would be in danger to be corrupted by them. And, I pray you, The short reign of Luther. see, how short a reign Luther had, who was the first false Prophet of our age. His heresy and doctrine is in manner, now come to remain only in two or three persons. For whereas his sect is only that which he himself taught, he was no sooner dead, but Philip Melancthon began to change his doctrine. The which thing so displeased Flaccus Illyricus, with a few others, that they took upon them the defence of their Master Luther, and thereby they are so hated in all the states and Cities of the Civil Lutherans (who are spread through most parts of Germany) that now it is not lawful for the said Illyricus, so much as to appear in those quarters, nor his books may not be openly sold at Lipsia or Wittenberg, except some few of them which are by name permitted. The short reign of Hosiander. Hosiander a Protestant taught in Prussia at Coninsperg, That God justifieth man only by his divine nature. And that the man justified, must be just with the very same justice, wherewith God is just in his own nature and substance. And whiles this Hosiander lived, Duke Albertus was altogether of his opinion, and favoured him above measure. But now at my being in Prussia, I learned, there were scant three men left, who openly maintained this sect. And the Duke was said to care now no more for it. And good reason why: for their heresies die with the inventors of them. As for Zuinglius opinion, The short reign of zuinglius it is utterly extinguished by the Caluinists. For Zuinglius and Oecolampadius thought these words: This is my body, directly to concern and to appertain to the bread, and only to make it a figure of Christ's body. Whereby he that should receive the same bread, might be put in mind of Christ's death. But Calvin hath affirmed the said words of Christ, not to be directed to the bread, but only to be a sermon, and a preaching made to the audience, which is present. Whereby the body of Christ is consecrated, not now in the bread, as in a sign (which Zuinglius believed) but in every man's heart by faith, and by the remembrance of Christ's death. And in the heart Christ is present (saith Calvin) not only by faith (as Zuinglius had taught) but really, and in very deed, whiles certain beams come from the flesh of Christ in heaven into his heart, who eateth with Caluins fantastical faith. The short reign of Calvin. Now as for Caluins own doctrine, it shall decay every hour, sithence he is once dead. Even already in Polonia it is overwhelmed with Trinitaries, josephits, and with those who circumcide themselves, and with diverse other blasphemies, whereunto those are now fallen, who were once calvin's Scholars. In England it is forsaken by his own scholars, who allow, defend, and both do swear themselves, and make other men to swear unto the supreme government of temporal Princes, over the spiritual Pastors in all things and causes by Act of parliament, In Amos. cap. 7. which thing Calvin accounted a beastly matter. Again, at Geneva, his doctrine is decayed. For whereas he believed, that Christ's soul went down into hell, even to the place where the souls are tormented in everlasting fire: In 2. Act. Apostol. Beza so much misliketh him therein, that he will have Christ's soul to go no lower then into the grave. The which opinion the English translation of the Acts of the Apostles made at Geneva, doth embrace. And concerning his opinion of the Sacrament (that I may omit, how vehemently Flacius Illyricus hath shaken it already in his books against Beza) it can not long stand, because the common sort can not understand it. And worthily, for that which is not true, is not able to be understanded, and his doctrine is altogether grounded upon imagination, without any assurance of God words. To be short, if the Anabaptists shall not by a worse heresy oppress the glory of Caluins' doctrine, or if all other means to destroy it should fail, at the lest by this one way it is sure to perish. For as the Marcionists, the Manichees, the Arrians, the Nestorians, the Eutychians, the Monothelites, the Pelagians, the Donatists, the image-breakers, were at the last all wrapped in Apostasy, and infidelity, and were swallowed up by the moors, the Saracens, and the Turcks: even so is it most certain, that if the Caluinists do scape other destructions, they shall perish in the end, either being made infidels, or being conquered of others. But in the mean time how safe standeth the See Apostolic? How many hundred years hath it dured, always like to itself? How unremovable is that rock? How doth the doctrine thereof flourish more and more every day? Truth, which is the daughter of time, hath now made many heretics to confess, that they thought so much could never have been said for the Apostolic See of Rome, as now they find. In so much that if all these things which are now revealed, had been known before, thousands of them would never have gone that way. But now either shame, or slewth, or covetousness or fear of worldly princes, or the hard profession of the Catholics, or desperation, causeth them to stop their eyes and their ears, lest perhaps they might see the truth, and be converted. joan. 1●. Yet God to show his almighty power, doth daily revoke some to his true Church, both in Germannie, and France, and I beseech him to do the like in our country of England also. The fifth mark of an Antichristian. THe fifth mark, whereby to know the forerunners of Antichrist is, if any man preach God's Word without commission rome his superiors. For such a one runneth before he be sent, and cometh of himself, as Antichrist shall do. Rom. 10. For how shall they preach, saith S. Paul, except they be sent? Now as Christ the head preacher of all, was sent of his Father visibly in flesh: so he visibly sent his Apostles, joan. 20. 2. Tim. 4. and they, by imposition of hands, sent others to preach. And their successors from age to age have sent others in the Catholic Church even till this day. So that all Catholic preachers are able to reduce their commlssion from step to step, until they come to Christ himself. But seeing Luther, Zuinglius, and Calvin rebelled against their own bishops, who are the successors of the Apostles, and seeing they were not sent of any in all the world, who had a known and public authority from the Apostles of Christ: it must needs follow, that they came of themselves, and were not lawfully sent at all. As for temporal magistrates, who are only sheep, and which can not preach themselves, can much less send others to preach. For no man can send an other to do that, which himself is not able to do: joan. 13. sith no Apostle or Legat is greater than he that sent him. And yet it was not possible for any temporal magistrate or any common weal to send Luther to preach, because they, who should have sent him, were (by his judgement) misbelevers, until he had converted them to a new faith. And so when he had first preached his doctrine, he was sent of no man in all the world, but came of himself, and therefore was an Antichrist, joan. 5. who cometh in his own name, as Christ hath taught. It is well known also, that Luther would not send Zuinglius to preach against himself. Neither would Zuinglius send Calvin to deface his own doctrine. And consequently every one of these is a false preacher, who cometh not from Christ, nor from his Apostles or their successors, as the Pope doth, who succeedeth lineally S. Peter, as it is known. The sixth mark of an Antichristian. THe sixth mark, whereby to know this brood of Antichrist, may be in that Antichrist himself being altogether carnal, shall prefer the temporal reign or sword, before the spiritual. A certain sign whereof this is, because he shall constrain men with force of arms, not only to keep their former faith (for that were lawful for him who is a true officer of God) but also to take a new faith, which thing no man would do, except he were of this mind, that men's consciences ought to yield to his violent force. And in deed when his master the devil said to Christ: Math. 4. If thou fall down and adore me, I will give thee all these things (showing all the kingdoms of the world) he declared himself to be of this mind, to pluck the service dew to God to himself, and to make us prefer the kingdoms of the world, before the faith of Christ. And therefore Antichrist who is ruled by the devil, shall put confidence also in an earthly Kingdom. And as Saint Paul saith, he shall come, in virtute, that is to say, 2. Thess. 2 in power and strength. Whereunto it is very agreeable, that his preachers also do prefer the jurisdiction of temporal princes, Note. In Horn against M. Fecknam. above the jurisdiction of the spiritual ministers of Christ, teaching that Kings are the supreme governors of Christ's Church: And that secular princes may visit, correct, reform, and depose any bishop in their own realms. Which is directly to say, that the power of the King is a higher and a greater power in God's Church, than the power of a bishop, or of a pastor. For as the lawyers know, and natural reason teacheth, Lege. 3. & 4. de Arbitris. nec par in parem potestatem habet, nec inferior in superiorem. Neither any equal hath power upon his equal, nor any inferior hath power upon his superior. But (say the Protestants) the temporal King may depose a bishop, and yet that he can not do justly, except he may first sit judge upon a bishop even as he is a bishop: and sit judge over him as he is a bishop, he can not, except he he be his superior: therefore it is the protestants doctrine, that a King's temporal power (for we speak not of that King who is also a bishop) is greater than a bishops power, which is spiriritual, and heavenly. What is this to say, but only that the body is above the soul, the civil policy above the Church of Christ, and the temporal reign above the Kingdom of heaven? This is a vehement mark to betray our new brethren by. For we speak not now of works or manners, that is to say, whether a man love the world more than God, or whether a pope be more greedy of his temporal iurisdistion, then of his spiritual duty. We speak not, I say, of these abuses (let him that hath them yea though he be a pope, look well to himself in that behalf) but we speak of doctrine at this tyme. The Pope teacheth, that every spiritual pastor is of a higher dignity, them any temporal officer, whatsoever he be. And that, because he is instituted of Christ for to help us toward life everlasting. The Protestants teach, Ephes. 4. that a Christian Emperor or King is above all spiritual pastors in his own realm, and may depose them by his own power: which is the very doctrine of Antichrist. For the Emperors and Kings, though they be Christians, may not yet in spiritual matters rule the bishops and pastors of God's people, What power the Christian price hath. but only they may with their temporal laws and power, defend the laws and ordinances which the bishops have already made, as Theodosius, and all other good Emperors used to do. But if they will use their princely power to change the old laws of the Church, or to make new laws in spiritual matters which were not before made by the priests, or to depose the ancient bishops, who have cure of their souls: then they are the members of Antichrist, as great Athanasius hath at large declared, in describing the heinous facts of the Arrians in his time: In epist. ad Solitar. vi tam agentes. who reporteth, that when Constantius the Emperor called Paulinus the Bishop of Trevers, Lucifer the bishop of Sardinia, Eusebius the bishop of Marcels, and Dionysius the bishop of Milan before him, willing them to subscribe against Athanasius, because it was his pleasure and his proceedings: those blessed bishops exhorted him, ne ecclesiastica corrumperet, neve Romanum imperium ecclesiasticis constitutionibus immisceret, that he should not corrupt Church matters, and that he should not mingle the Roman Empire with the Ecclesiastical ordinances. Here you see, that the Roman empire is discharged from meddling with Church matters. It is not only said, Arrians, or heretics, but it is said, the Roman Empire ought not to mingle itself with Ecclesiastical causes. Even a Bishop being an heretic is removed from Church matters: but an Emperor is not only removed from them, if he be an heretic, but also because he is an Emperor only, and not a Bishop. Only this hath been always the custom, that Emperors should be careful, to maintain the former constitutions of bishops, and the civil peace of the Church. For they being Christians, aught to use the sword, which they bear by God's appointment for the Church. But the outward and civil peace: and the Ecclesiastical constitutions (which touch the belief and the inward direction of the soul) are two things, much different: Apud Athan. ibidem. in so much that Pope Liberius said to the messenger of the same Emperor Constantius (as Athanasius also doth witness) after this sort: If the Emperor will needs interpose his care for the Ecclesiastical peace, Ecclesiastical peace. let an Ecclesiastical synod be made, longè à palatio. ubi nec Imperator praesto est, nec Comes se ingerit, nec judex minatur, Ecclesiastical synod. & caet. Let the Ecclesiastical meeting be made a great way of from the palace, where neither an Emperor is at hand, nor a County thrusteth in himself, nor a judge threateneth, but where the only fear of God, and the institution of the Apostles is sufficient. Thus he said, not that an Emperor might in no case be at a Council of bishops, but because he might not be there to use his Imperial authority in judging the bishops, or in prescribing what the Church shall decree or believe, but only in maintaining that which the bishops, according to the Apostolic institution, either have or shall agree upon. That Reverend Father Hosius, who after that he had suffered persecution for Christ's faith under Maximian, lived threescore years in the Church: being tempted by the same Constantius to subscribe against Athanasius, In epi, ad Solitar. vit. agent asketh first of him by letters, whether his brother Constans (the good and Catholic Emperor) did use to banish bishops or no? and then, whether Constans his brother, aliquando judicijs Ecclesiasticis intersuit, was at any time a meddler with the Ecclesiastical judgements? Ibidem. Last of all he saith to him: Ne te misceas Ecclesiasticis, neque nobis in hoc genere praecipe, sed potius ea à nobis disce. Tibi Deus imperium commisit, nobis, quae sunt Ecclesiae, concredidit: & quemad modum qui tuum etiam imperium malignis oculis carpit, contradicit ordinationi divinae, ita & tu cave, ne, quae sunt Ecclesiae ad te trahens, magno crimini obnoxius fias. Date (scriptum est) quae sunt Caesaris, Caesari, & quae Dei Deo. neque igitur fas est, nobis in terris imperium tenere, neque tu thymiamatum & sacrorum potestatem habes Imperator. Do thou not intermeddle with Ecclesiastical matters, neither do thou command what we shall do in this kind of matters, but rather learn them of us. God hath committed the Empire unto thee, and he hath put us in trust with ●hose things which concern the Church: and like as he that malignly ●arpeth thy Empire, doth gainsay the ordinance of God: so do thou take thede, lest, in taking unto thee those things which belong to the Church thou be made guilty of a great crime. It is written, Math. 22. give unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's, and unto God, those things that are Gods. Therefore it is neither lawful for us, to have the rule of the Empire in earth, neither haste thou (o Emperor) any power over the holy incense and sacrifices. Mark that it is rehearsed for a praise in the Catholic Emperor Constans, not to have meddled with Ecclesiastical judgements. Also Athanasius himself saith thus for his own part. In epist. ut antè. Si istud est judicium Episcoporum, quid common cum eo habet Imperator? & caet. quando judicium Ecclesiae authoritatem suam ab Imperatore cepit? & caet. Paulus Apostolus habebat amicos in Caesaris familia, & per eos in literis salutabat Philippenses, Philip. 4. non tamen eos in iudidicio socios assumpsit. If this be the judgement of bishops, what hath the Emperor to do with it? and contrariwise, if these judgements are gathered by the threatenings of the Emperor, what need is there of men, who have the title of bishops? When hath it been heard of, since the beginning of the world? Note. when did the judgement of the church take his authority from the Emperor? or when at any time was this acknouleged for a judgement? There have been very many synods heretofore, many judgements of the Church have been kept. But neither the Fathers went about to persuade these things to the prince, nor the Prince did show himself curious in the matters of the Church: Paul the Apostle had friends in Caesar's house, and did salute the Philippians in their name in his letters, yet did he not take them as his fellows in judgement. By this ye may perceive, that no Emperors at all, were they never so good, no County Palatines, or secular Lords, be they never so much faithful (as Constans was and those of th' Emperor's house of whom S. Paul speaketh) have yet any right or power, Philip. 4. to sit precedents in Ecclesiastical matters (otherwise then to keep civil order and peace) but only those, to whom God hath committed the cure of souls. In so much that Athanasius doubteth not by name to call Constantius the foreruner of Antichrist, because he being a secular prince, intermeddled with the spiritual government of the Church. Quid igitur Constantius quod Antichristi non sit, In epist. ubi antè. omisit aut quomodo ille in adventu suo non repererit sibi expeditam viam ad dolos ab isto praeparatam? Siquidem in locum ecclesiasticae cognitionis, suum palatium tribunal earum caufarum constituit, séque earum litium summum principem & authorem facit. What hath Constantius then omitted, that doth not appertain to Antichrist? Or how shall not Antichrist, when he cometh, find a fit way for him to all deceits, prepared by this man▪ For in steed of the Ecclesiastical judgement, The part of Antichrist. he appointeth his palace to be the place of judgement for their causes: and maketh himself the chiefest prince, and bearer out of those controversies. Ibidem ubi antè. And again Gravia sunt ista, & plusquam gravia, sed tamen istiusmodi, quae congruant in eum, qui Antichristi imaginem induerit. Quis enim videns eum in decernendo principem se facere Episcoporum, & praesidere judicijs Ecclesiasticis, non meritò dicat, illum eam ipsam abominationem desolationis esse, quae à daniel praedicta est? nam cùm circumamictus sit Christianismo, & caet. These things are grievous, and more than grievous, but yet they are such, as do well agree to him, who hath put on the the Image of Antichrist. For who, seeing him, in making a decree, to take upon him to be prince of the bishops, and to be precedent in Ecclesiastical judgements, may not worthily say, that he is the abomination of the desolation, which was foretold by Daniel? The property of antichrist For when he being clothed with Christianity, doth both enter into the holy places, and also being there, doth spoil Churches, abrogate the Canons, using force to make men observe and keep his (commandments) who will at any time dare say, that this is a quiet time to the Christians? and not rather a persecution? and such a persecution, as neither hath been before, nor perchance no man will at any time make again, but that son of iniquity (which is Antichrist.) Thus have we the determinate sentence of Athanasius: of Athanasius, I say the most notable bishop that ever was for virtue and learning, since the Apostles time. And his sentence is, that the Christian Emperor (and the like is of any Christian Prince) who taketh upon him to be prince of the bishops in making a decree, and to be precedent in Ecclesiastical judgements, is a member of that abominable desolation, whereof Daniel prophesied. Can any plainer sentence be wished for to conclude my present purpose? Neither was this doctrine only meant of an heretical Emperor: for the Catholic Emperor Constans is praised, for not meddling with Church matters. Philip. 4. Yea S. Paul is alleged, not to have communicated the Church matters with those good Christians of Caesar's house. I know with what wranglers I have to do. They will bring examples, to show that some Emperors have sitten in general Counsels, as Constantine the great, Martianus, and some others. But I answer, that they sat to keep good order, and to preserve peace and quietness among the bishops, specially, because the arch-heretics were commonly themselves great Prelates, as being the patriarchs of Antioch, or of Alexandria, or of Constantinople. Who (if the Emperor were not present) would use force in the stead of holy scriptures, as Dioscorus did, In the schismatical Ephesine Council. and Eusebius of Nicomedia in the time of the Arrians. For the preserving them of civil and ecclesiastical peace, the Emperor was present, and not as supreme judge in Ecclesiastical causes. S. Ambrose noteth, and thinketh, that even an heretical Emperor coming to years of discretion will be able to consider, In epi. 32. What manner of bishop M. Horn i●. qualis ille Episcopus sit, qui Laicis ius Sacerdotale substernit, what manner of bishop he is, who layeth the priestly right under the lay men's feet. And yet by giving of the most proud and most intolerable title of supreme Head or governor in all ecclesiastical causes to lay princes, all the religion used now in England wholly standeth. What bishops then are those of England, who making the secular prince their head put the priestly right under his feet? S. Augustine being fully persuaded, that nothing could be greater than a priest in the house of God, thereupon concludeth, that Moses must needs have been a priest for (saith he) nunquid maior sacerdote esse poterat, August. in Psalm. 98. Can he be greater than a priest? Yea Marry, saith M. Horn, he might have been a King or a secular Prince. But S. Augustine knew no such divinity. And yet the world, toward the coming of Antichrist is grown so wise, that these men have found now, that every Emperor, King, Prince, or Duke (who hath any temporal state of his own) is greater, even in Ecclesiastical causes, than the lawful successor of S. Peter. This, I say, is the divinity of England. For therein, our country maketh a peculiar Sect of his own, wherein they disagree, even from their fellow calvinists. But let them look to it as well as they will, they shall find it a badge of Antichrist, as Athanasius hath plainly affirmed. And when the day of trial cometh, it shall evidently appear, that those are most faithful subjects to the prince, who give him his due place of honour in God's Church, without derogation to that heavenvly power of bishops, which Christ himself came down from haven to plant, and whom he hath set even over the Kings themselves, joan. 21. as being the sheep of their folds. Theod. lib. 4. c. ●. Choose such a bishop in Milan (said the good Valentinian) cui nos quoque Imperij moderatores nostra subdamus syncerè capita. To whom we also being the governors of the Empire, may syncerlie submit our heads. And now such Antichristian bishops are chosen, Suidas in vita Leontij. as may make a lay man their supreme head. When Constantius was preferred before, and above the bishops, by flattering heretical prelates, than said Leontius most freely to him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & caet. I wonder that you being set, to dispose and govern one thing, do meddle with other things. You are chief ruler in warlike and civil matters, and you prescribe what bishops shall do in matters which belong to Bishops alone. When the captain of the heretical Emperor Valens required the priests and Deacons of Edessa, to embrace the emperors proceed (for it is a madness, saith he, to resist so mighty a prince and Lord) than Eulogius said mildly: Numquid unà cum Imperio, Theod. lib. 4. c. 17. & 1●. etiam ille Pontificatum est consecutus? Whether hath Valens together with his Empire obtained also the office of a bishop? Et pastorem habemus (saith Eulogius) & nutus illius sequimur. We both have a pastor, and his commandment we follow. Our Lord grant, that our country men may remember, that they have pastors, whose voice they ought to follow by Christ's commandment, even in matters of their faith: But Chris never commanded us, to follow any secular prince in our belief and religion. That precept remaineth for Antichrist, who setteth the world above the Church, and the earthly power above the heavenly. The seventh Mark of an Antichristian. THE seventh mark of the ministers of Antichrist is, to withstand the external and public sacrifice of Christ's Church. For as Antiochus the figure of Antichrist, 〈◊〉 1. & 4. caused the jewish temple to be shut up, and no sacrifice to be made externally unto God, for the space of three years, and as Antichrist, for his part fulfilling the foresaid shadow shall cause the continual sacrifice (of the new testament) to cease likewise for the space of three years and a half: Daniel. 12 so the forerunners of Antichrist, do show their master's badge as it were upon their sleeve, by taking away the external sacrifice of the new testament, and by destroying holy altars dedicated unto Christ's name, which have been erected and have continued even from the Apostles time till this day, throughout all nations, as the very form of all manner of ancient Churches, 1. Cor. 10 Heb. 12. Dionys. de Eccle. bi●rar. c. 3. and as all holy writers do declare. Yea, the prophet Malachi did so evidently foretell, that in all nations a clean external and public sacrifice (for thereof he spoke) should be made to Gods own name, that no man is able, to deny the plain word of God in that behalf, except he take the impudence of Antichrist upon him. For whereas the priests of the jews had offered polluted bread upon God's holy table and altar (which two names stand in Malachi to signify one thing, that is to say, Malac. 1. the place whereupon the sacrifice was offered) and whereas the said polluted offering of the jews was a dishonour to God's name among men (for otherwise God can not be dishonoured in himself) the Prophet doth show, that this dishonour done to God among the jews, shallbe recompensed and amended among the Gentiles: where God's name shallbe great, and a clean offering shallbe made unto him, not in one temple only, but in every place. Now let us compare these things together. The defects of the jews. The perfection of the Gentiles. 1 Ye (o priests) despise my name. 1 My name is great among the Gentiles. 2 Ye offer upon my altar (which was only in jerusalem.) 2 In every place there is sacrifice made to my name. Ye offer polluted bread, or the blind and lame. 3 A clean oblation is offered, or a fine cake of meal, for so the Hebrew word also doth signify. 4 Here lacked a clean outward sacrifice, whereof specially the prophet now speaketh. 4 Here the body and blood of Christ is meant, the most clean outward sacrifice that can be devised. 5 Here it is said, I will not accept the gift (or meat offering) at your hand. 5 It is meant on the otherside, that he will accept the clean oblation or fine meat offering of the Gentiles. 6 The talk is not here of their inward sacrifices. For they are as acceptable among the jews, as among the Gentiles. And are not known to men. 6 It is the outward sacrifice, which at this time is both rejected among the jews, and accepted among the Gentiles: as by which only God's name is either despised, or honoured among men, who see but the outward things. 7 Among the jews the Altar or table is rejected, with the meat upon it. 7 Among the Gentiles the table of our Lord is willed to be regarded, and the Altar whereof the jews can not eat. 8 Here God hath no pleasure, specially in the priests of the jews. 8 Here on the otherside the priests of the Gentiles are specially meant to be acceptable unto God. 9 That which lacketh in the jews concerning sacrifice. 9 Is meant to be supplie● among the Gentiles concerning sacrifice. 10 These have both inward and outward sacrifices: for there never lacked some just men among them, who might sacrifice inwardly. 10 Here may be more less there can not be therefore here must b● outward sacrifice also lest if these have ani● thing less, the word o● God be found false. 11 These men's outward sacrifice was shut up in one place, but not their inward sacrifice which Daniel made even at Babylon. 11 Therefore these men outward (and not only their inward) sacrific● is meant to be made in every place, because Churches and Altars are built unto the nam● of God in all nations. 12 Here lacked not prayers also, but they were not the kind of sacrifice which is now rejected, but they were joined with the chief ●crifice, as well among ●he jews as the Gentiles. 12 Neither among the gentiles do praiere lack, but neither they are the chief kind o● clean sacrifice which is prophesied of for they are no new kind of sacrifice, but are common to all that serve God. 13 The proper sacrifice ●f the jews is rejected, ●hich is made according 〈◊〉 the law of Moses and ●f the old testament. 13 The proper sacrifice of the Gentiles is accepted, which is made accoRding to the law of Christ and of the new testament. ●4 It is a sacrifice consisting in fact (and not in word only) which is ●eere rejected. 14 And here the sacrifice consists in fact, and not in word only: for Christ said: hoc facite do or make this thing. ●5 The very fire which devoured the sacrifice ●here is contemptible, but ●et it did really devour ●he thing that was through unto the altar. 15 The word of God which saith, this is my body, is the fire which devoureth the earthly substance of bread and wine brought unto the altar, the which word worketh that which it soundeth, and is honourable. 16 They are cursed who having a beast of the male kind, do not offer it, but rather do offer a spotted or weak one, as the rejected jews did. 16 We should likewise be cursed, it having Christ's bodiwe should not offer it, but rather should sa● our own righteousness 〈◊〉 be most principally th● clean oblation, wher● of the prophet speake●▪ Which yet the member of Antichrist do say▪ Read the prophet Malachi wit● diligence, and see whether the conference of the holy scripture doth not necessarily import this sense, which 〈◊〉 have now given And I have given it according to the uniform interpretati● of the ancient fathers, of whom no● one denieth the body and blood of Christ to be here meant, albeit some of them expound some part of this chapter of prayers and of inward righteousness, the which inward sacrifice is always to be joined with the unblodie outward sacrifice, or consecration, and oblation of Christ's body and blood: which is the new oblation of the new testament, with a Lib. 4. cap. ●. Ireneus, with whom b Demonst. evange li. 1. c. 10. Eusebi●, c In Malach. 1. S. Hierom, d Orat. 2. adversus judaeos. S. Chrysostom, e Lib. 4. c. 14. Da●ascene agree. Neither doth this our unbloody sacrifice derogate any jot to that one ●loody sacrifice of Christ's cross. For we ●onour that one sacrifice so much, that through the power of it, we believe the daily remembrance thereof, being made by the outward consecration of bread and wine into the same body and blood which was once offered upon the cross, to be necessarily a public sacrifice, because it is not possible, Note. but that every public and external fact, which is made by God's authority, to put us in mind of that great sacrifice once fulfilled on the cross, must also partake the nature of that sacrifice, whereof it is the remembrance. For if even the kill and burning of a calf was an external and public sacrifice because it signified that Christ should die for us: how infinitely more shall the body and blood of Christ, being made of bread and wine to signify his own death, be a public and an external sacrifice? And because in the said body of Christ, the whole merit of his priesthood and cross is still really contained (for he is a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech) whensoever that body is made present by consecration (as it is always at Mass) then, Heb. 7. seeing that substance is made present which even till this day (wheresoever it be, 2. joan. 2. or in earth) maketh God merciful to us, a propitiatory sacrifice in his kind is made, able to be applied to the use of the live and of the dead. Which doctrine, who so denieth upon pretence of a zeal to Christ's death, let him be well assured, he dishonoureth his death above measure, if whereas every sign externally made in calves, or goats which went before his death, was therefore a public external sacrifice: he will now deny the same honour to a sign of the same death, appointed to be made, even by Christ's own mouth and example in the self same body which died for us. I can not tarry any longer upon this matter because, it is not my principal purpose. The eight mark of an Antichristian. THE viii. mark of the false prophets of Antichrist is, to spoil Christ of his inheritance, which God gave him in all nations. For so a Psal. 2. David, b 60. & 61 Isaias, yea the c Luc. 14. Gospel doth teach. Neither is it only meant, that in diverse nations some or other shall, some at one, and other at an other time privily believe in Christ, but it is meant, Isai. 2. Psal. 44. Malac. 1. that many nations together shall profess Christ's religion and name outwardly and openly: for his name is great among the Gentiles, not in one nation only, but among many, nor surely by those who lie privy, but by those who are not ashamed to be known for Christians and for Catholics. For such only do honour the name of God, as be known to be of his Church. Math. 5. Isai. 2. Hereof, it is called a city which can not be hidden, a hill built in the top of hills, Psal. 18. Matth. 5. a tabernacle set in the son, a candle being light and set upon the candlestick, the children of light, Luc. 16. Matth. 13. the kingdom of Christ, who reigneth in the house of the spiritual jacob for ever. Yea it is called the crown of glory in the hand of God, Isai. 62. and the pride or magnificent joy of all ages from generation to generation. All which texts notwithstanding, the protestants will make us believe, that they are Christ's Church: whereas fifty years a go, there were not only not many nations of them, which professed their faith openly (so that God's name might thereby be great among the Gentiles) but there was not one nation, no not one city, not one town, not one whole village in all the wide world, where it may be showed, that they had one Church, or chapel, or house of public prayer under the son. And yet though they showed half a dozen such, it could not serve. Is this the glorious kingdom and common weal which Christ doth inherit? O unspeakable blasphemy unto his glorious name. Isai. 54. Gal. 4. The jewish synagogue was never half so base: whereas Christ's Church among the Gentiles was prophesied to pass it in number and greatness. And yet this misery of the Church (say they) dured eight or nine hundred years. Math. 16. Ergo so long hell gates prevailed against the Church of Christ. But on the other side, there can no moment of an hour be named, in the which we are not ready to show, that many, Note the true Church. yea very many nations professed openly, and outwardly practised Christ's true religion together with the pope of Rome, from S. Peter's time to this hour. O glorious City of God, and a kingdom prophesied of in all ages before Christ, worthy of his Son jesus, against which hell gates never did, nor never shall prevail. To this City and kingdom ye must all resort, who look to inherit the kingdom of heaven. The ninth Mark of an Antichristian. THE ninth mark of Antichristes' brotherhood is, the intolerable pride, whereby they make themselves only, the supreme judges of the right understanding of God's word, yea of the text also and of the letter thereof. For whereas it is not possible for any reasonable man to cite with good conscience any one text of holy scripture for his purpose, unless he judge first the same text to be convenient and agreeable to his intent, and therefore whereas nothing is so daily and hourly in practice, as to judge what understanding the word of God must have, these men make no man in the earth to be a good judge of the said word of God, beside themselves. And among themselves they make every woman and child a sufficient, yea the supreme judge in earth of Gods own word. Was there ever heard of any such pride, beside only in the members of Antichrist? Mark whether this be not true, by this example. 1. Cor. 7. It is written in S. Paul: Qui matrimonio iungit virginem suam, bene facit, & qui non iungit, melius facit. He that joineth his virgin in marriage, doth well, but he that doth not join (her in marriage) doth better. Upon this most plain text, we ground this doctrine, that, whereas both states are good and honest, yet virginity is a better state and more acceptable unto God than the state of marriage. No saith the Protestant. I take it no so, and why Sir I pray you? Is not facere melius, to do better? and doth not he better please God, who doth the better thing? And is it not said of S. Paul to be the better thing, not to join his virgin in Marriage? Nay but (saith the Protestant) by this word better, the Apostle meaneth not a thing better in the sight of God, but a thing better in the sight of the world. For he that is unmarried hath l●sse worldly care, and therefore he is in better case for an easy and pleasant life, but not in a better state of a more virtuous life. I answer, if melius be not meant better in the sight of God, neither is been meant well in the sight of Cod: But if he that joineth his virgin in Marriage doth well in the sight of God, he that doth not join her in marriage, doth better in the sight of God. Therefore my interpretation is the better. No, saith the Protestant, Beza ibidem. melius standeth for commodius this word better standeth for more commodious, and none otherwise. I say, it standeth also for more virtuously, and more godly. And that is the plain sense of the word of God. It is not so, saith he. Well, what shall we do? I say, it is so you say, it is not so. Will you take a judge? Yea (quoth he) if he judge according to the word of God. I pray you Sir, what is God's word concerning this point we now speak of? Is not our question, whether this word (better) doth signify better in the sight of God, as I say, or else better only according to the world, as you say? Is this question defined in God's word? We must confer Scriptures (saith he). A God's name. The more ye confer, the more plain it willbe, that Christ chose virginity for himself, not as for the better state according to the world (who therein sought no ease (but as better according to God, Math. 3. as who fulfilled in himself all righteousness. He gave the same state to his Mother, not for the quieter (for a sword of sorrow also went through her soul, Luc. 2. that is to say affliction and travail) but surely for the purer state, as being near to the nature of Angels, and of the blessed souls in heaven, Matth. 22 where no marriage is exercised. Also it is a mean to serve God with less distraction of the mind, 1. Cor. 7. as also S. Paul doth teach. Math. 29. Or how saith Christ, there are eunuchs who have gelded themselves, not for ease and worldly commodity, Propter regnum coelorum. as you say, but, for the kingdom of heaven: if it be not better towards God to live chaste, then in marriage? Thus if we went through the whole Bible, you should never be able to show, Heb. 13. that marriage is of equal dignity with virginity, though it be honourable in all, and an unspotted bed, and therefore be a right good state, the which only thing all the scriptures that you can bring do prove. What shall we then do? will our Protestant yield? to whom should I yield, saith he? At the least, to God's word, say I. no (saith he) you misunderstand God's word. Are you content to be tried by the ancient Fathers? If you be, Hiero. adver. jovin. Saint Jerome wrote against joviniam, who held this very error, to wit, that marriage and virginity were of equal merit. Saint Jerome (saith he) was to much affectionate to virginity. And I doubt not, but that he would say the like of your affection toward marriage, if he were alive. Whom then should we rather believe? you, who may hap to be damned, or him whom yourself doubteth not to be saved? But go to: like you then S. Augustin? he writeth thus: iovinianus ante paucos annos haereticus novus virginitatem S. Mariae destruebat: Cont duas epis. Pela. lib. 1. c. 2. & virginitati sacrae, nuptias fidelium coaequabat. jovinian a new heretic before a few years, did destroy the virginity of (our Lady) S. Marry: and made equal the marriage of the faithful with holy virginity. What say we to S. Augustine's judgement? He was a man (quoth he) and he might err. I cry you mercy, Sir: are you a God? Is it more like that he did err, than you? What if I show S. Chysostome to be of the same mind, as undoubtedly he is? what if I join to them S. Athanasius, S. Basil, S. Gregory Nazianzen, In Psalm. 127. Gregory Nyssen, S. Hilary, S. Bernard, and diverse others who with one accord prefer the state of virginity even in the sight of God, and that in whole treatises made of that argument? What if I show, that pope Siricius condemned jovinian with his companions in public consistory? Apud Ambros. epist. ●0. and that S. Ambrose praised him for it, and also condemned the same jovinian, even by the force of those words of S. Paul which affirm him to do better, 1. Cor. 7. who joineth not his virgin in marriage? What if I join also the practice of the whole Church, Universal practice. which in every nation under heaven hath built monasteries for virgins, and hath given the first place of honour and merit to the state of virginity? will you then yield at the least to this universal judgement of most best, grave, and wise men, who directed all their writings and doings according to God's word? No, no, he will never yield (if he once have the mark of Antichrist) whatsoever be brought forth to the contrary: and that because he crediteth himself and his own proper judgement, more than all the world beside. Is not this an untolerable pride, all this not withstanding, to tarry still in the former mind? And the very same tyranny do they exercise in every other question. Say holy scripture what it will, say the Fathers, say the Counsels what they list, howsoever the matter be practised, if they once judge otherwise, they will believe themselves, and remain still supreme judges over every man and every thing, without conforming themselves to any superior authority. Yea, what shall we say, if the Protestants will not only be supreme judges over the meaning of God's word, but also over the books themselves, and over the reading thereof? For beside that they reject the books of Toby, of Wisdom, and of the Maccabees, with certain other parts of holy scripture from the Canon of God's word, they also reject the epistle of S. james, and that was done not only by Martin Luther, who called it straminean, of no more force than a straw is, An. Dom. 1●66. Confessio edita Tiguri. but even this last year of our Lord there came forth a Confession of the faith printed at Zurich, whereunto all the Sacramentaries of Zuicherland, yea also the preachers of Geneva gave their assent and consent, as the title of the book doth witness. In which book it is said, that S. james is to be rejected, if he be contrary to S. Paul. The which heathenish saying doth presuppose, that S. james may be contrary to S. Paul, and in that case he is to be rejected, say they. Their words are, jacobus ille dixit, opera iustificare, non contradicens Apostolo, renciendus alioqui, Cap. ●. that fellow james said, that works do justify, not speaking against S. Paul, otherwise he were to be rejected. No man could say this much of S. james, but he who thought it possible for S. james epistle to be no holy scripture. Euseb. li. 1. cap. 23. For if it be clearly admitted (as it hath been always among true catholics) for holy scripture, than (if it could be contrary to S. Paul) it were no more true, that S. james should be deceived, then S. Saul. For of that which is confessed to be the word of God, there is no difference at all. But one Holy ghost speaketh with like authority in all his instruments, Psal. 44. whatsoever they be. Therefore this pestilent opinion is privily fostered among the Protestants, that S. james epistle is not the undoubted word of God, and thereof can they give none other reason, but because he is contrary to their devilish doctrine of only faith. A false. opinion. For whereas they say, that S. james meaneth, that works declare our justification before men, and do not in deed justify before God, it is stark false which they say. For he saith: What good shall it do, jacob. 2. if a man say himself to have faith, and have not works, shall his faith save him? Behold, he speaketh of works necessary to that justification, whereby we are saved before God, and not to that only, whereby we are declared just before men. For salvation dependeth of God only, and not of men at all. The which thing may be proved out of S. james by divers other arguments. For he speaking of Abraham (whom no man saw offering up his son beside God alone) saith, jacob. 2, that faith was made perfect of works, and concludeth generally, a man is justified of works, and not of faith only. And again, faith without works is dead. Therefore, if the Protestant's will have faith without works to justify, they will have a dead faith to justify. Whensoever S. Paul said that faith did justify, he meant of faith, Rom. 3. S. Paul's meaning. Galath. 5. which worketh by love, as himself hath declared. And when he saith, that faith justifieth without works, he meaneth, without works which go before justification, and not without charity or love of God, Rom. 5. which is spread in our hearts by the holy ghost, at the time when God loving us first, 1. joan. 4. maketh us believe, and also to love him: and so doth justify and rectify us which were his enemies before. The which love being infused to us with a right faith, doth cause us to bring forth such good works, Ephes. 2. as God hath prepared for us to walk in, and by those works our former justification is increased, and fortified, according as we read, Apoc. 22. qui justus est, iustificetur adhuc, he that is just, let him be justified as yet. Thus do all the Catholic Fathers expound the one Apostle, both by himself and by the other: In lib. de 〈◊〉 & operi. c. 14. in so much, that S. Augustine confesseth an old error to have sprung upon S. Paul's words to the Romans not well understanded, for which cause he testifieth, that S. james, S. Peter, S. john and S. Jude wrote their epistles all in commendation of charity, and of such good works as be joined with faith. And S. Paul in his epistle to the Corinthians, doth also well declare, what faith he would have to justify, for as much as he saith, all faith to do no good, 1. Cor. 13. if a man have not charity. Now when the Protestants perceived, that of all other, S. james was most plain against their only faith, they first did cast a smoke before men's eyes, as though his words might be defended. And yet when they considered that solution would not serve, they gave an other, that S. james is to be rejected, if he be contrary to S. Paul. Neither only do the Protestants make themselves judges over whole books and epistles of the Apostles, but also over the very letter of Christ's Gospel. For beside their wicked interpretations thereof, they find fault with the construction of the Evangelists, and bring the text itself in doubt. For whereas S. Luke witnesseth, Luc. 22. that Christ said in his last supper, this cup (is) the new testament in my blood which (that is to say, which cup) is shed for you: whereas the participle (shed) is manifestly referred in the Greek text of S. Luke unto (the cup) and not unto the name (blood) yet Beza translating the Greek words into Latin, In his notes upon that place of s. Luke readeth thus. Hoc poculum est nowm illud testamentum per sanguinem meum, qui pro vobis effunditur. He should have said, quod, and not, qui. This cup is that new testament by my blood, which (that is to say, which blood) is shed for you. S. Luke then readeth, which cup, but Beza readeth, Os impudens. which blood is shed for you. Was there ever any like impudence heard of, as to correct the very text of the holy Gospel? But perhaps Beza did find it so in some copies. No surely For he himself confesseth in his annotations printed at Geneva upon that place, in this wise: Omnes tamen vetusti nostri codices ita scriptum habebant. Yet all our old books had it so written, that is to say, so, as the Greek copies every where extant do read. In all which the participle (shed) can not be referred to the blood, but unto the cup. What is then the matter, why Beza would needs translate it otherwise? forsooth S. Luke (in this kind of reading) is directly against his sacrementary heresy. For S. Luke giveth us the words of Christ in this sense: This cup, that is to say, the liquor and drink contained in this cup, is the new Testament in my blood. the which liquor contained in the cup (being so the new testament in my blood) is shed for you. Mark well. But no liquor contained in the cup is shed for us, beside the substantial and real blood of Christ: therefore the liquor contained in the cup (after the words of Christ once spoken) is none other liquor, beside the substantial and real blood of Christ. To avoid this argument, Beza, who was at a point never to yield in his heresy, would needs signify, that S. Luke doth not well rehearse Christ's words, and therefore he himself hath rehearsed them better, if yet he shall be credited more than the Evangelist. But let us also see the words of Beza in his Comment upon this place. Qui pro vobis effunditur, In Oliua Rob Stephani. 1556. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Quum haec verba, si constructionem spectemus, necessariò non ad sanguinem, sed ad poculum pertinent, neque tamen de vino, nedum de poculo intelligi possint, aut manifestum est Solaecophanes, quum dicendum fuerit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: aut potius cum haec essent ad marginem annotata ex Matthaeo & Marco, postea in contextum irrepserunt. Whereas these words (which is shed for you) if we look to the construction, do necessarily appertain, not to the blood, Mark his confession. but to the cup, and yet they can not be understand of the wine and much less of the cup, either it is an evident appearance of incongrue speech (where that is readen in the nominative case, He correcteth S. Luke. which should have been readen in the dative) or rather, whereas these words were noted out of Matthew and Mark in the margin, they crept afterward into the text. See, for God's love, this man's own confession. First the participle (shed) in Greeke can not agree with noun (blood) because in Greek the participle is the nominative case, and blood is the dative case. Doth Beza confess this much, and yet doth he the contrary? O unspeakable malice! Again, the participle may and must agree with the noun (cup) with whom it is of the same case, gender and number. why then doth Beza refer the participle to an other noun? Thirdly, the participle can not be understanded of the wine: for wine was not shed for us, and that Beza confesseth. Fourthly, it can not be understanded of the material cup literally: for it can not be shed for us, as being no liquor, but gold, or silver, or some like massy stuff. All these things Beza confesseth. Well, what followeth then? in truth it only followeth, that the cup is neither meant the matter and stuff of the cup, nor the wine which now is no more in the cup, but it is meant, the blood in the cup made of the wine. For so the word cup standeth to signify that which is in the cup, Math. 26. Marc. 14. as all men know that have common sense: and that is in the cup, which Christ pronounced, saying: this is my blood, & cat. Therefore Beza should have confessed the fifth point, The true sense of S. Luke. to wit, that the blood of Christ contained substantially in the cup and made there present by changing the wine into it, is the new testament in Christ's blood, that is to say, it doth testify unto us, that Christ by his bloodshedding upon the cross is our sacrifice reconciling us to God. The which blood so mystically contained in the cup is shed for us, because the substance of that in the cup, and of that which is shed on the cross, is all one substance, the difference being only in the outward form, and not in the inward truth. So that, whereas Christ's blood was really shed for us on the cross in his own form, that which is mystically contained in the cup under the form of wine, is the self same blood, made also present after the sort of a mystical sacrifice, to represent in the truth of Christ's own substance made invisibly present, the great visible sacrifice openly made upon the Cross. This only was the whole meaning of S. Luke, the which thing if Beza would not have learned of the catholic church, he should have learned it of S. Luke at the least: for his words give that sense. But he would not learn it of S. Luke, because he had hated it in the Catholic Church, perhaps before he knew what S. Luke wrote. For these men profit more by spite, then by reading. They first chose to forsake the Church, and then if any thing make for the same Church, be it epistle be it gospel, it shall sooner be false Greek and false Latin to, than they will come into the Church again. I pray you, what a shameless point is this, to teach that S. Luke wrote false Greek, and did put the nominative case, in stead of the dative case? well, therein Beza would not stand over long. But he rather thinketh, that the words (which is shed for you) are not at all of the Gospel, but crept in, or were put in. O God All their ancient Greek copies have it, by his own confession: all our Greek and Latin copies have it also. Yea our mass book hath it to. And yet now we must think, that it is an error crept in. If this gloze may be admitted, every thing which in holy scripture maketh against the furious opinion of any member of Antichrist, shallbe a thing that out of the margin crept into the text. O Satanical pride of our ꝓrestants where is the obedience you pretend to God's word? where is the reverence, which ye ought to give, and we do in deed give to the blessed gospel of Christ? which reverence is so great among the Catoliks, that we dare not change a letter, nor a point, neither in the Greek, nor Latin copies, except we find it so in many ancient and well corrected books, and those well known to many witnesses, and that by the judgement of a Synod. But albeit all you know not so much, yet now learn, that your heads and your false preachers are so maliciously set, that if the gospel be not conformable to their commodity, and prejudicate opinion: be he Luke, be he james, be he john, he shallbe made as light of, as ever was any Pope of Rome. Look up at the last for Christ's sake, and consider that you are held captives of ravening wolves, who spoil your souls of all their spiritual treasures, and feed you with mere dreams, and fantasies, the which if you amend not before, at the hour of death, will bring you to desperation, and to everlasting fire of hell. Other places I could bring where the Protestants have thus abused Gods own word: but it would carry me to far away from my principal purpose. Only this I assure you of, The Pope hath no such custom, to say, S. Luke speaketh false Greek, or the words have crept out of the margin into the text, or if james be contrary to Paul, he must be rejected, or the Maccabees is no scripture with the Christians, because it is not in the Canon of the jews, but he keepeth all thing as he received them without any manner of change. The tenth mark of an Antichristian. WHat an infinite disputation would this be, if I should show particularly how the Protestants agree in doctrine with all the members of Antichrist? Eunomius (as s. Augustine witnesseth said, Ad quod vult her. 54. no sin should hurt a man if he were partaker of the faith which he taught. And are not the Protestant's secure of their salvation (whatsoever their works be) if they have that presumptuous faith which Luther taught them? We read in the Tripartite history, Lib. 2. c. 13 that Acesius the bishops of the novatians affirmed, that who so had sinned mortally after baptism, he might hot hope for remision of his sins by the priests, De Poenit. lib. 1. ca 7. but by God alone. Against which heresy of the novatians, S. Ambrose raesoneth, showing, that the priests have no less right given them to remit sins by penance, then by baptism. unum in utorque mysterium, there is one mystery (or sacrament) in both cases. Do not now all the Protestants deny the priests to have any right given them to forgive sins? Panopl li. 2. tit. 22 Euthymius writeth, that the Massalians denied baptism to pluck up the root of sins. Is not the same the opinion of the Protestants? taught not Aêrius, that we must not pray for the dead, nor keep solemnly the appointed fastings? and that there is no difference between a priest and a Bishop? August. by'r 53. Epiphan. haer. 75. which things both Epiphanius, and S. Augustine with the consent of all the catholics of their time, and all that followed after, witness to be heretical. And yet our Protestants teach the self same. S. Augustine reckoneth it an heresy in jovinian, Her. 22. because virginitatem sanctimonialium & continentiam sexus virilis in sanctis eligentibus celibem vitam, coniugiorum castorum atque fidelium meritis a daequabat. jovinian did make the virginity of Nuns and the continence of men, in those who chose to live chaste, equal with the merits of chaste and faith full marriages, whereas S. Augustine doth account virginity the higher state. But our Protestants hold the same heresy word for word. S. Hierom reputeth Vigilantius an heretic, for denying prayers to Saints, In lib. adversus Vigilantium and the giving of honour to holy relics. Are not these men of the same mind with Vigilantius? The Arrians would not believe the consubstantiality of the son, Hilar. de Synod. adversus Arrianos. because that word was not written in God's word: and how many things by the same pretence do the Protestants deny? Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 33. It is recited for a heinous impiety in Novatus the heretic, quòd Chrismatis signaculo non est consummatus. Because he was not consummated with the seal or sign of Chrism: do not our Protestants abhor Chrism, calling it greasing? Ruffin. lib. 11. cap. 3. Lucius the Arrian pesecuted the holy Monks, as our Protestants now do. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 16. Hieron. The montanists blasphemed the whole Church throughout the world: and the followers of Lucifer, said there was a stews made of the Church. Is not this the talk of our Protestant's? Aug. haer. 69. The Donatists said the Church was lost from the whole world, and preserved in afric alone: say not the Protestants worse, that the Church was once lost form the open face of the world, and was not preserved, but raised in Germany again? Neither will their most absurd opinion be excused, by saying, that some in every country were privily of their opinion. Rom. 10. For that is no true Church of Christ, which doth not so profess his faith, that it may be known to be Christ's Church: Rom. 1. for his Church is not a shamed of Christ and of his Gospel. The heretics called Severiani used the Law the Prophets, and the Gospels; Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 16. sed propria quadam interpretatione scripturarum sensum perverterunt. But they perverted the sense of the scriptures, by a certain peculiar interpretation. The same do the Protestants, who will neither admit the practice of the Church, nor the consent of the Fathers, against their own peculiar interpretation. It hath been always a trick of jews and heretics, to be still in hand with translating the holy scriptures, to th'end by much changing, Hieron. in Catal. in verbo Origenes. they might get some appearance to have the scriptures on their side. Such were Theodotion, Aquila, Symachus, all who forsook the Catholic faith, and translated the old bible upon a stomach conceived against the Church of God▪ and what end is there now of translating the scriptures into every tongue? Whereof although they that are learned take great profit (as also S. Hierom, and S. Augustine then did) yet it bringeth the word of God into an uncertainty, and to a confusion with them, who not being learned, see so great changes, that they know not what to take for the word of God. Why the Catholics confirmed at Trent the old latin translation. Against which mischief, the catholics judged it necessary without prejudice to other copies, either of Hebrew, or of Greek, to confirm the translation which hath been always used in the Latin Church, as whereof itself hath been a most faithful and diligent keeper. But whiles the Protestants pretend to appeal to the originals, and by many translations make the meaning of the originals more doubtful day by day, it must needs come shortly to pass, that none of them all willbe able to know, how the word of God is either pointed, or meant. It were a thing without end thus to prosecute every particular agreance of our new Protestants with the old prophets of Antichrist. But this one thing seemeth to gather all into one. The eleventh mark of an Antichristian. seeing that Antichrist is contrary to Christ, and Christ came to replenish men with grace, giving them diverse gifts, and spreading charity in their hearts: Antichrist on the otherside must go about, and always hath endeavoured by his members, to deny, to take away, and to make void, the supernatural graces which God hath given to his Church. Christ came to build, Tertull. de prescript. aduersu● haeret. Antichrist to puldown: Christ to gather into one, Antichrist to scatter abroad: Christ to enrich us. Antichrist to rob, and spoil us of our heavenly treasures. If then it appear, that the Protestants do spoil God's Church of certain graces, which the Pope doth diligently maintain: it must needs be, that the Protestants are the members of Antichrist, and that the Pope with his company, is the flock of Christ. De prescript. It hath been always the fashion of all heretics (as Tertullian saith) to destroy other men's buildings, as to undo that, which other men do. Ipsum opus eorum non de suo proprio aedificio venit, sed de veritatis destructione: nostra suffodiunt, ut sua aedificent. Their very work riseth not of their own building, but from the destroying of the truth. They undermine our things, that they may build up their own. And Hippolytus thinketh the seal of Antichrist to be nego, In Homi. de consume mat. sec. I deny. For as saith he) the devil did exhort the Martyrs to deny their God, who was crucified, so at the last day the seal of Antichrist and of his members shallbe, Nego creatorem coeli & terrae, nego baptisma, nego adorationem à me Deo praestarisoliatam. I deny the maker of heaven and of earth, I deny baptism, I deny the adoration which I was wont to do unto God. Thus in the old time, whereas the Apostles preached Christ to be true God and man, WHat the old heretic deny. Arrius denied his true Godhead, Martion and Valentinus and Manicheus denied his true manhood, Apollinaris is denied his true soul, the Monothelits denied his double will, the Donatists the Continuance of the universality of his Church, the Pelagians the necessity of God's grace, and the like may be said of all other heretics, whose opinions always detracted some perfection from Christ or from his Church. Now I will show, that the Protestants do the like in our tyme. For whereas the universal Church, as well by the preaching of the Apostles, as by the witness of Gods written word, was in possession of a public sacrifice, of priesthood, of seven Sacraments, as of most undoubted instruments of grace, and of diverse other godly and divine orders and Canons: have they any other Gospel, any other Church, or any other doctrine, then that which consisteth in denying, How many things the Protestants take away from the Church. joan. 1. and in taking away that which was before? The holy scriptures and Church taught, that a man being justified, is both really delivered from his sins, and really receiveth faith, hope, and charity. They deny our sins to be taken away by the lamb of God, who came for that purpose, saying, they tarry still, but only that they are not imputed. They teach also that no justice is at all made in us by spreading charity in our hearts, Rom. 5. whereas S. Paul saith, justi constituentur multi, many shallbe made just. But they only say justice is imputed to us. Again they five Sacraments of the seven. They deny that baptism remitteth our sins, or that baptism is necessary to children which are born of Ghristian parents. Augustin. epist. 106. Which was the heresy of the Pelagians: They deny the use of holy oil and of chrism. They deny the real presence of Christ's body, the adoration, and reservation thereof, the transubstantiation of the bread into his body, the unblody sacrifice of Christ's supper, the communion of one kind to be sufficient, and consequently they deny, that whole Christ in under each kind, and the mingling of water with the wine. And that one may receive alone, that Altars are lawful, that there are Priests of the new Testament, that Bishops are of any higher degree, than Priests, that there is any one bishop chief of all other: that Priests can forgive sins, but only may preach that they are forgiven: that it is lawful to appoint certain days of fasting, or the abstinence from certain meats for obedience, although God both willed Adam to abstain from a certain fruit, Genes. 2. and the jews to abstain from certain meats. They deny that it is lawful to pray to the Saints in heaven, or to pray for the faithful which died in Christ, wherein they deny any communion of prayer between the faithful which are alive, and their brethren who live out of this world with Christ. They deny the infallible authority of general Counsels, the visible succession of bishops, the place of purgation after this life, the remaining of pain after the sin is forgiven, the changing or pardoming of the said pain by the high bishop, the use and moderate honour of Images, the sign of the healthful cross, the making of a vow to live chaste, or to renounce all propriety of goods, or to live in obedience, the reverence done the relics of the blessed Martyrs, the use of prayer in the holy tongues, the universal tradition of unwritten verities, and to be short them deny the books of the old Bible such as are not in the Canon of the jews. These things and many other like whiles they deny, what other thing do they, than pull down the religion of Christ, which hath been a building these fourteen hundred years? And therein they prepare a way to Antichrist who in the end must deny all that they as yet leave undenied. For if they should openly deny every whit, 2 Thes. ●. than the mystery of iniquity should not be a working and many simple men should not have been deceived by them, who now are deceived, because they pretend to refoorme, and not to take away Christ's religion. But when the time is ripe, than the iniquity, which is now begun must be fulfilled, and so is the whole religion destroyed. I would this were not true. And yet it is possible that every Protestant knoweth not so much, because Satan the great captain of their army keepeth his Counsel to himself, knowing that how much the closer he worketh, the more hurt he is like to do. But God through mercy detecteth his snares, and warneth them, Genes. 1●. & 6. who willbe saved, to flee into the hill with Loth, and to the ship of the Church with Noah, there to provide for their eternal salvation which our Lord grant through his bitter passion. Amen. Finis. Librum istum de primatu Romani Pontificis & Petra Ecclesiae universalis legerunt viri sacrae Theologiae & Auglici idiomatis peritissimi, quibus judico meritò & tutò credendum esse, ut fine periculo, imo summa cum utilitate ewl gari possit. Cunerus Petri, P.S. Petri Lovanij 25. Februa. Anno. 1566. A BRIEF SOME OF THE chief points of this treatise. THE preface containeth the marks of the true Church. The difference between a dominion, and a primacy. 17. The Apostles strife concerning superiority is declared, 25. 26. 27. That there was one greater among the Apostles. 20. usque 37. To be a ruler and as a minister do not repugn. 46. 47. The pre-eminence of priests above Kings. 51. 52. & caet. A King can not be supreme governor in all ecclesiastical causes because by right and Law he can not practise all ecclesiastical causes 61. 64. 67. The high priest is preferred before the King by God's law. 72. 74. 76. The evil life of a bishop taketh not away his authority. 78. 79. The differences between the bishop of Rome and temporal princes. 80. usque 88 That Moses was a priest. 83. 84. 85. The literal sense of holy scripture. 96. The promise to be called Peter was the first cause why the church was built upon him. 110. The Protestants can not tell which is the first literal sense, of these words, upon this rock I will build my Church. 135. How Peter beareth the person of the Church. 165. The objections against S. Peter's supremacy, are answered, 219. usque 230. How Christ loved Peter above others. 237. The Church never lacked a visible rock. 270. 271. The whole government of the Church tendeth to unity. 299. Why S. Peter died at Rome. 313. 313. S. Augustins mind touching the supremacy of the Pope of Rome. 348. usque 372. A priest above the Emperor in ecclesiastical causes. 378. The oath of the royal supremacy is intolerable. 383. Constantine baptised at Rome. 391 Phocas did not first make the See of Rome head of all Churches. 405. usque 410. Why Antichrist is permitted to come. 423. Heretics depart from the Catholic Church. 469. Heretics being once departed out of the Church, have new names. 471. Why among the catholics some are called Franciscans, Dominicans, & caet. 477. Heretics can never agree. 479. The short reign of heretics 489 & caet. Heretics preach without commission. 496. Heretics do prefer the temporal reign or sword before the spiritual. 499. They are the members of Antichrist, who withstand the external and public sacrifice of Christ's Church. 518. Heretics deprive Christ of his glorious inheritance in many nations together. 517. The intolerable pride of heretics, in making themselves only judges of the right sense of God's word. 530. The Protestant's teach the same doctrine which the old heretics did. 553. The Protestants are the right members of Antichrist, in that they spoil God's Church of very many gifts and graces, and articles of the faith. 560. FINIS. Faults escaped in the printing. Page. Line. Faults. Corrections. 10. 10. shephead shepherd 23. 22. them) because them) but because 98. 22. resurrection: by resurrection by: 103. 24. confession. Being confession being 106. 13. steadfastness of steadfastness or of ●16. 9 and promised and being promised 145. 8. and in that and that 177. 21. the thing the man 186. 6. rock of rock or 195. 14. sbme some 208. 23. when. Augustine when Augustine 209. 11. high me by me 214. 1. to true. to be true 2●9. 17. in omnibus. in ovibus. 26●. 1. to the the 273. 15. was were was where 281. 6. the pordinary the ordinary 382. 7. can govern can not govern 426. 14. Conessours. Confessors 430. 13. teach? teach. 432. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 408. 1. out the out of the 496. 2. from 516. ●. haven heaven 539. 22. S. Saul. S. Paul 553. 21. bishops. bishop. I F RESP●●ITE VOLATILIA COELI ET PULLOS CORVORUM printer's device of John Foulerum