A GODLY SERMON: Preached before the Queen's most excellent Majesty, upon the 17. 18. 19 verses of the 16. Chapter of S. Matthew:  
Wherein is contained the conclusion of a Dialogue between Christ and his Disciples: Showing briefly that the authority which the Pope of Rome doth challenge to himself, is unlawfully usurped.  
Very necessary for these perilous times wherein the simple may perceive their intolerable impiety, usurping that office and action, which ever appertained unto Christ only.  
Published at the request of sundry godly and well disposed persons.  
¶ Imprinted at London by john Windet for john Perin, and are to be sold at his shop in Paul's churchyard, at the sign of the Angel   

A godly Sermon preached before the Queen's most excellent Majesty, upon the 17. 18. 19 verses of the 16. Chapter of S. Matthew.  Matth. Chap. 16. vers. 17. 
17 And jesus answered, and said to him: Blessed art thou Simon the son of jonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.  
18 And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church: and the gates of hell shall not overcome it.  
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, shallbe bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt lose on earth, shallbe loosed in heaven.  
THese words which I have read (right honourable, & beloved in our saviour Christ) contain the conclusion of a Dialogue, between Christ and his disciples. For we read immediately before in the thirteenth verse of this sixtéenth Chapter, that when jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi: our Saviour Christ, partly to make trial of the faith, knowledge, and profiting of his disciples: having been now so long taught by him, and seen so great & wonderful miracles: and partly to learn whether they conceived any better of him than the common multitude: as also to cause them to make a confession of their faith and belief in him, in which he might strengthen and confirm them against all troubles and persecutions that were after to ensue: he demanded of them all, this question, whom do men say that I the son of man am. Answer was made by them, that some said he was john Baptist, 
Matth. 14.2.  for so surmised the Herodians, as appeareth in the 14. of this Gospel. Where it is said, that when Herod the Tetrarch, who had beheaded john Baptist, heard of the fame of jesus, he said unto his servants, this is john Baptist, that is risen again from the dead, and therefore great works are wrought by him. Some said he was Elias, being deceived partly by the Prophecy of Malachi, misunderstoode, who had prophcied that Eliah the Prophet should be sent before the coming of the great and fearful day of the 
Malach. 4.5.  Lord, partly, by the like spirit they perceived in Christ that was in Elias, as the free liberty of rebuking vices in the scribes and pharisees, the power of working miracles, raising up the dead to life again, as Elias did. Some other thought him to be Hieremias because he bore a figure of Christ, and for that it was said of him, Behold this day have I set thee over the nations, and over the kingdoms, 
jerem. 1.9.  to pluck up, and to root out, and to destroy and throw down, to build and to plant: which was in very deed, truly to be performed in Christ. And they that thought him none of these, yet because of his doctrine (for he taught them as having authority, 
Matth. 7.29.  not as the Scribes) and for his life and miracles they accounted him as one of the Prophets. Christ hearing this, to draw out a more certain and excellent confession out of his disciples than this was, he further demanded of them all, but whom say ye that I am: as though he should have said, whatsoever other men do think of me, or howsoever they be distracted in opinions, you who ought to have better knewledge of me, whom do ye think me to be. Then answered Simon Peter in the name of all the rest: thou art Christ the son of the living God. Christ rejoicing at this true perfect and constant confession that Peter had made, as it were in recompense and commendation thereof, he burst out into these words: Blessed art thou Simon the son of jonas, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my father which is in heaven, etc. Which words are even the conclusion of that Dialogue between Christ and his disciples, and do contain the approbation and commendation of Peter's confession. In the which many things do offer themselves to our considerations, but for this present time and occasion, in these three verses, three especial points may be here observed by us. The first from whence Peter had this knowledge & faith of Christ, that he was the son of the living God. Secondarily, what is the foundation and rock, whereupon the Church of God was built. Thirdly, what the power, authority, & commission was, that is given unto Peter in this place. The first point is declared in the first verse of this text by two means, first by removing and denying those things, which might seem to be the cause & yet are not, as flesh and blood. Secondarily, by expressing the true and perfect cause, which was the revelation of Almighty GOD. For the first, by flesh and blood is meant here, the nature of man, and all his gifts that he hath naturally, as his wit, understanding, and will: for so it is taken in sundry other places of the holy Scriptures, as in the first of Saint john's Gospel, 
joan. 1.12.  where he saith that such as received Christ, they were borne not of blood nor of the will of flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And in the first to the Galathians, 
Galath. 1. 1●  where he testifieth, that when it pleased God to reveal his son in him, that he should preach him among the Gentiles, he communicated not with flesh and blood, and in like manner, in the sixth to the Ephesians, 
Ephes. 6.12.  exhorting us to put on all the armour of God, that we might be able to stand against the assaults of the devil, because we wrestle not against flesh & blood, but against principalities, and powers, etc. In which places as in diverse others also, by flesh and blood is meant nothing but the nature of man, and whatsoever is in him by his natural birth and procreation, so that this phrase and manner of speech used of our Saviour Christ here in this place doth signify and declare unto us, that this knowledge of Christ, & confession of faith, which Peter made, he had it not of himself, neither by any means of man, but from above, by the manifestation and revelation of God, who had opened this great mystery, and given him this faith. This doctrine overthroweth the judgement and opinion of the Heathen Philosophers, Pelagian heretics, and of the church of Rome, who wholly or in part ascribe the cause of all knowledge of God, of our faith, of the good works we do, either to the light of nature, force of reason, or free will and industry of man, contrary not only to this testimony of Christ here in this place, which depriveth man of all knowledge of Christ, but also unto the whole tenor of the Scripture in other places, where both generally and in particular sort, is taken away all understanding and perseverance, in matters appertaing unto faith, religion, and the true knowledge of God. First, for proof hereof, that it is generally denied unto man of himself, or by the reach of his own wit and understanding to attain to the knowledge of Christ, & those things which appertain to the kingdom of God, what can be more plain than that Paul testifieth to the contrary in the first of the Corinth's, 
1. Cor. 2.  and the second Chapter, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The natural man is not able to perceive the things of the spirit of God. The natural man, that is the man that hath no farther knowledge than he hath by the light of nature, whose knowledge, and judgement is not lightened and cleared by the spirit of God (for so is this term expounded by Jude in his Epistle, in the 19 verse 
jude. 19 v. ) that that man perceiveth not these things which appertain unto the spirit of God, For proof hereof he adjoineth two reasons, the one is because spiritual things are foolishness unto him: the other, that he cannot know those things, because they are spiritually discerned, that is they cannot be known but of them that are endued with the spirit of God. For as Paul testifieth, 
1. Cor. 2.11.  as no man knoweth the things of man, save the Spirit of a man which is within him: even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the spirit of God, and therefore in the same Chapter he showeth, 
vers. 9  that those things which God hath prepared for them that love him, are such as eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard, neither yet hath entered into the mind of man, so that neither by the outward senses, nor yet by the understanding of man, we are able to conceive the things of God, but it is the spirit of God which openeth them unto us, which searcheth all things, yea the bottom of God's secrets. 
1. Cor. 2.10.  In respect of this great ignorance in us, and want of power and ability to perceive, the mysteries of God's kingdom and of our salvation, the holy Ghost hath by most notable terms and Epithets, whereby he describeth the nature of man, declared unto us, how utterly we be void of all knowledge and judgement in spiritual matters. What can more effectually, and significantly, show forth that unto us, then for us to be termed darkness itself, which is done not in a few places of the holy Scriptures, as in the first of Saint john's Gospel, where it is said, that that life which was the light of man shined in darkness, 
john. 1.5.  but darkness was not able to comprehend it that was man. Saint Paul thereof draweth an exhortation in his Epistle to the Ephesians 
Ephes. 5 8.  to persuade them unto newness of life, that forasmuch as they were sometime in darkness, meaning before their conversion, and receiving of the Gospel of Christ, now being light, being illuminated by the spirit of God through the preaching of his word, therefore they should walk as the children of light. And in the second to the Corinthians, 
2. Cor. 4.6.  setting forth the power and efficacy of the word he setteth down, that as God in the creation of the world, commanded the light to shine out of darkness, so hath he shined in the hearts of his ministers, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of god in the face of jesus Christ. Where the comparison is to be noted, which the Apostle maketh, that as God in the beginning of the world, created light out of darkness, so hath he done in the hearts of his ministers, that by the preaching of the Gospel, that light might shine to others to lighten them, that they might see the glory of God in Christ. Wherefore even as before God said: Let there be light, there was no light, but mere darkness, even so before God work in us by his word and spirit, there is nothing in us, but mere ignorance and darkness, no light to behold the glory of God in Christ. No marvel therefore if Saint Paul being called to preach the Gospel do tell Agrippa the King, 
Act. 26.18.  that God hath called him to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, or if Saint Peter compare the doctrine of the Prophets as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, 
2. Pet. 1.19.  and compare the preaching of the Gospel unto the dawning of the day, and the day star arising in our hearts. Hereby may it appear, what we ought to judge of ourselves to be nothing but ignorance & darkness, to be void of all light & knowledge of Christ, until by the working of his spirit he openeth himself unto us. Before which time as Paul testifieth, we walk as the Gentiles in the vanity of our mind, 
Ephes. 4.17.  having our understanding darkened, being stranger from the life of God, through the ignorance in us, because of the hardness of our hearts. Thus useth the Spirit of God, to paint out the estate of man, before God beginneth to work our regeneration to ascribe ignorance & blindness unto our minds, dullness and hardness unto our hearts, yea, and that a stony hardness, as appeareth by Ezechiel, 
Ezech. 11.19  where he promiseth that in mercy he will take away our stony hearts. And under the person of the jews Isaiah 
Esa. 48.4.  sayeth, that we are all obstinate, that our necks are as Iron sinews and our brows as brows of brass, that is not flexible unto the yoke of God's commandments, and past all shame to commit wickedness. Therefore the holy Ghost, describing the corruption of our nature doth term us not only sick, weakened or infected with sin, but even to be dead in sin. For so Paul to the Ephesians, where he setteth out the grace of Christ, 
Ephes. 2.1.  affirmeth that he hath quickened us that were dead in trespasses and sins.  
And in like manner, in the second to the Colossians: 
2. Coloss 13  that us which were dead in sins, and in the uncircumcision of our flesh, hath he quickened together with him forgiving our trespasses. These manner of terms and epithets, whereby it hath pleased God in his holy word, to express both the utter want of knowledge, in matters of faith, and the corruption of our minds and manners is diligently to be observed by us, by reason of the doctrine of the Romish clergy, who although they teach, that Adam through his fall, lost part of that excellent knowledge of pure and heavenly things wherewith he was endued at his first creation, & was greatly wounded both in mind and will through his disobedience, and that now he is not able to perceive & do these things which God commandeth him to understand & practise without the help of God: yet do they not ascribe that whole ignorance and blindness unto the mind of man, neither yet that deadly wound of sin, whereby all power and ability to attain either to the knowledge of God, or practise of righteousness, is taken from us, which by these titles of right they ought. Our light with them in heavenly matters is in some part darkened, but not clean put out, our understanding diminished, but not extinguished, the image of God, it was appaired, but not utterly defaced, the free will of man to good, it was wounded & weakened, but not quite taken away. But further we say, that our knowledge is become plain ignorance, our light, darkness, our righteousness sinfulness, our liberty and freedom, servitude and bondage, the image of God, the image of Satan, that we are not only deprived of all goodness, but further defiled with all naughtiness, that our former power and ability was not only shaken and weakened through the fall of our first parents, but that we are utterly become unable & impotent, to know or do any good thing, and of all ability and readiness to commit all sin and wickedness. Most just then and true is that accusation wherewith Paul chargeth all mankind in general, 
Rom. 3.10.  that there is none righteous no not one, that there is none that understandeth none that seeketh God, that all are gone out of the way, that we are become altogether abominable, that there is none that doth good, no not one, our mouth to be as an open sepulchre, our tongues to be used to deceit, the poison of asps to be under our lips, our mouth to be full of cursing and bitterness, our feet to be swift to shed blood, nothing but calamity and destruction to be in our ways, that we know not the way of peace, no fear of God to be before our eyes. Thus it is apparent what the Apostle S. Paul thought both of jew and Gentile, and in them of all men considered in himself, to be corrupt abominable without understanding, and thereof he concludeth he could not be justified by the law, but by faith in jesus Christ. So that evident it is, saving to him that will not know how the spirit of God hath in general most plainly and plentifully deprived the whole progeny of man of all knowledge of God 〈◊〉 all goodness, yea of all ability to attain thereunto, yet for our further assurance herein, & that this thing may be yet more manifest and clear unto us, the holy ghost hath not only in this general sort, as I say in the beginning taught this doctrine, but hath even in particular so denied that unto us, as it cannot but compel every man to confess the truth thereof. For to the obtaining or doing of any thing there be three things requisite, the mind to think and conceive it, the will to achieve it, and the execution thereof. And if any of these points be wanting, what can be performed or done by us, but neither to do, nor to will, neither yet to think, lieth in our power, how far are we therefore from having power or ability, either to come to the knowledge of Christ, or to do any good thing. The first, Christ himself witnesseth in the first of john, 
joan. 15.5.  Sine me nihil potestis facere, without me ye are able to do nothing. Saint Augustine 
August. in joan.  weigheth & presseth these words notably: Non enim (inquit) sine me difficulter potestis etc. Christ saith Austin: saith, not without me ye can hardly do any thing, neither said he without me ye cannot absolve, or finish any thing, or do any matter of great weight, but he saith simply without me ye can do nothing. The power therefore to do any thing is flatly denied man in this place by the judgement of that ancient and learned father. In like manner to will any thing, lieth not in us, but it cometh by the operation and working of God's spirit. So testifieth the Apostle Paul in the second to the Philippians, 
Philip, 2.13.  it is God which worketh in us both the will and the deed, and that even of his good pleasure, that is of his mere mercy and good will toward us. If by the gifts and power of nature we were able to do this, the Apostle would not ascribe it to the particular operation of God, especially in them that be justified. But yet further what seemeth more free and at our liberty then thought, yea, even that also is denied us, for to think any good thing, lieth not in us. So sayeth the Apostle Paul in the second to the Corinth's: 
●. Cor. 3.5.  We are not sufficient of ourselves, to think any thing as of ourselves, but all our sufficiency is of God. Wherefore, if both in general sort, the scripture thus determineth the natural man to be nothing but darkness, that in him there is no understanding, that his heart is as hard as a stone, that of himself he is dead in sin and unrighteousness, that he is not able to perceive those things, which appertain to the spirit of God, that they cannot once enter into his heart or mind: but also in particular sort doth deny him the power to do, to will, or to think any thing, we may well conclude against the Philosophers, Pelagians, and Papists with our Saviour Christ, that flesh & blood hath not revealed either to Peter, or to any other of the children of God, neither yet can do, either in whole or in part, that Christ is the living God, which confession containeth the sum of Christian religion. What then is the true and perfect cause of this knowledge, whensoever we attain thereunto, that is expressed also unto us by Christ in the Evangelist, to be God, who openeth & revealeth this unto us: for as he denieth it to flesh and blood, so doth he ascribe the cause thereof to his Father which is in Heaven. For confirmation whereof although many, I may say infinite testimonies may be brought out of the holy Scriptures, yet for that the declaration of the former point, hath been the proof of this in so clear a matter, it shall be sufficient to avouch one or two manifest places, for the further establishing thereof. Among other, that which is said by Ezechiel, must needs most manifestly, and clearly declare and prove this point. For the Prophet showing what great mercies and benefits he would bestow upon his people, he promiseth a new heart will I give you, a new spirit will I put within you, & I will take the stony heart out of your body, and will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall éepe my judgements and do them. 
Ezech. 36, 26  In which words Ezechiel attributeth the whole work of our regeneration unto the gift of God, he it is that taketh away that old & stony heart, whereby we are given to all iniquity, and hardness from giving ear unto any commandment of God, & he giveth a new heart, an heart of flesh, whereby we become apt to receive the commandments of God, & a new spirit, which leadeth us, both to the knowledge of the will of God, and to the obedience thereof. Likewise Moses in Deuteronomie, 
Deut. 36.6.  setting forth the great goodness of God to his people Israel, he ascribeth the circumcision of the heart to the operation and working of the Lord. For God promiseth, that if they return unto him, and obey his voice, the Lord God shall circumcise their hearts, and the heart of their seed after them, that they may love the Lord their God with all their heart, with all their soul. And to conclude this matter which needeth no further proof, that which the Evangelist Saint john writeth in the first of his Gospel, 
joan. 1.12.  how jumpeth it with this that our Evangelist affirmeth here, and how evidently doth it confirm both those points we have hereto stood upon, where he assereth that such as received Christ & believed in his name, were borne not of blood, nor of the will of flesh, nor of the will of man but of God. By which words both the knowledge of Christ, and the believing in his name is denied to man, & given to God alone. The very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used here of our Evangelist, being well weighed doth sufficiently argue, that all heavenly things are hid from us, until they be opened and manifested by God. For this word being attributed unto God, doth signify a revealing by him of such things as were quite before hidden from our knowledge & understanding. Now if this general doctrine shall be proved by particular example, 
Deut. 29.30.  what can be required for the further certainty and truth hereof. Moses in the 29. of Deut. obbraideth the people of Israel for their oblivion & forgetfulness of the graces & mercy's god had showed them in the land of Egypt, yet therewithal he there noteth, that they could not take any profit by these things but through the working & goodness of God. Ye have seen, saith Moses, all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, unto Pharaoh & unto all his servants, & unto all his land. The great temptations which thine eyes have seen those great miracles & wonders, yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, & eyes to see, and ears to hear unto this day. And in the 13. of Math. Christ having taught many things by parables, his disciples came to him and demanded why he spoke thus in parables, he made answer, 
Mat. 13.30.  because it is given to you, to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given, therefore speak I unto them in parables because they seeing do not see, & hearing they hear not, neither understand etc. Thus we see how the people of Israel although they saw the great wonders & miracles, which God did for them in Egypt, notwithstanding they reap no commodity thereby, because the Lord did not open their eyes to behold them to profit, neither yet their ears to attend unto such things, or their heart & mind to conceive the goodness of God, & obedience & thankfulness, which they ought to perform unto God therefore. The disciples of Christ, they understood the doctrine of Christ, they profited & increased in knowledge thereby, but why or by what means? because to them it was given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God. The jews they were not able to perceive the doctrine of Christ, they learned nothing thereby, but rather be came more blind & obstinate, the reason is added, because to them it is not given. So that it wholly dependeth upon the gift of God. Cleophas and the other disciple in the 24. Chapter of Luke, 
Luc. 24.27.45.  when Christ overtook them going to Emaus, although Christ rebuked them for their slowness in believing all that the Prophets had spoken. And accompanying them began at Moses and the Prophets, and interpreted unto them in all the Scriptures the things which were written of him, yet were their eyes so holden that they knew him not, whom before they had often seen, neither yet understood they the Scriptures until such time as God opened their eyes and understanding both to know him and understand the Scripture. Even as the disciples of our Saviour Christ had no knowledge, no understanding until God gave it them: so fareth it with all the rest of the children of God, hear they never so much his Apostles preach, yea, Christ himself personally sounding in their ears: yet except the Lord open our hearts and minds, as he did Lydia the sick woman's in the Acts, 
Act. 16.14.  it availeth not one jot, wherefore flesh and blood revealeth not Christ unto us, but our Father which is in heaven. It remaineth now we weight and consider, what commodity and profit we ought to reap by this doctrine, & to what use it ought to serve us. First, if God be the author and fountain and sole giver of all knowledge, faith and all other heavenly gifts, it must kindle in us, an earnest and fervent desire to prayer, to desire him to give us knowledge and faith, and understanding, for that otherways we cannot attain thereunto. The consideration of this heretofore, hath moved the saints of God, to be fervent in prayer unto almighty God for the obtaining of these graces. Among others, how often and how vehemently doth the Prophet David pray for this at God's hands, as in the 119 Psal. 
Psal. 1 19, 18.27, 33, 34, 35, 36.  Open thou mine eyes O Lord, that I may see the wondrous things of thy law, make me to understand the way of thy commandments, so shall I talk of thy wondrous works. And again: Teach me O Lord the way of thy statutes, and I shall keep it unto the end, give me understanding, and I shall keep thy law, make me to go into the path of thy commandments, incline my heart to thy testimonies, etc. and in the 51. Psalm, 
Psalm. 51.  that God would make him a clean heart, and renew a right spirit with in him, that he would thoroughly wash him and cleanse him from his sin. And the Apostle S. Paul prayeth not only for himself, but for the Church of the Ephesians, 
Ephe. 1.16, 17.18.  that the GOD of our Lord jesus Christ, the father of glory might yield unto them the spirit of wisdom and understanding, through the knowledge of him that the eyes of their understanding may be lightened, that they may know the hope of his calling, and what the riches of his glorious inheritance is in the Saints. These things as the opening of the eyes, the understanding of the way of God's commandments, the making us to go in the path of them, the creating of a clean heart, the renewing of a right spirit, the cleansing of sin, the inclination of our hearts to his testimonies, they would not have craved so constantly at God's hand, by earnest and humble prayer if they had not been persuaded they came only from him, to be his mere gifts. secondly, as the meditation of this ought to make us to pray to obtain, so having attained by his goodness to any of these benefits, it should excite us also to thankfulness after the example of all God's Children, and of our saviour Christ, who giveth thanks to his father Lord of heaven and earth, 
Mat. 11.20  because he had hid his gospel from the wise and men of understanding, and had opened it to babes. thirdly having received any light of knowledge and graces of GOD, we must have a great care in using them to increase his gifts in us, to provoke God through our thankfulness to bestow his mercies in most humble manner upon us. 
Mat. 13.12.  For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away, even that which he hath, it cannot, neither ought it to engender sloothfulnesse in us, because GOD giveth and worketh all in all: for most true and excellent is that warning which saint Augustine giveth in his Book De correptione & gratia. 
Aug. de Correptio: & gratia. cap. 2.  Non se itaque fallant qui dicunt, ut quid nobis predicatur, etc. That is: Let not (saith Augustine) them deceive themselves, who say, Wherefore is it preached and taught us, to eschew evil, and to do good, if we do it not, but it be GOD which worketh in us, both the will and the deed, but rather let the faithful know that they are led with the spirit of God, that they may do, that they ought to do, and when they have done it, they may give thanks to him that caused them, for they are driven to the end they should endeavour to work, not that they should do nothing themselves. Fourthly, and last of all this putteth us in mind of our own want and imperfection of our blindness and ignorance, whereby we are driven to acknowledge our own misery, to humble ourselves before the Lord, to praise God in his gifts, we see in our brother, and not to contemn and despise them whom we see to want, nor to be proud and lofty for any thing in us, but to give the whole praise and glory to God alone. Thus noteth Augustine very well in his book De bono perseverantiae. Cap. 63 & 6, Nos volumus, sed Deus operatur in nobis velle, 
August. de bono perscuerantiae. cap. ●3 & 6  nos operamur, sed Deus operatur in nobis, etc. that is: We will, but God worketh in us to will, we do, but God worketh in us the deed after his good pleasure, this is profitable for us to believe and to say, that is godly and true, that our confession may be humble and lowly, & the whole may be given to God, and in his sixth chapter of the same book he saith, Tutiores vivimus si totum Deo damus, non autem nos illi ex part, & nobis ex part committimus, we live or deal the safelier if we give the whole to God, and not partly to him, and partly to ourselves. The Apostle S. Paul hereof beateth down the pride and vainglory of the Corinthian Doctors in that whatsoever they had they had received it of God. For so he reasoneth, 
1. Cor. 4, 7.  What hast thou that thou hast not received, if thou hast received, why rejoicest thou as though thou hadst not received it? If the knowledge of this doctrine, work these effects in us, then shall we have learned this lesson, that Christ here teacheth us, to good purpose otherwise it shall avail us no more than to see the meat whereof we may not feed, shall nourish our bodies, or to behold the gold which we may not use, shall serve our turn. To conclude, on this part one only caveat is to be given, that we take heed, that we abuse not this doctrine and manner of speech, as the Euthusiasts, Anabaptists, and the family of Love, to the contemning or neglecting of the preaching of the word of God, who for as much as here and in diverse places beside, it is said that God revealeth the mysteries of his kingdom unto us, and worketh all things by his holy spirit, thereof have they condemned the vocal preaching of the word, and have fled to private inspirations, & revelations, dreams, and fantasies, whereby they have been lead into divers dangerous heresies. But we must this learn & understand, that although god revealeth his will unto us, and worketh both knowledge & faith by his holy spirit, yet doth he it not, but by that means he hath appointed, that is by the ministery of his word, and therefore isaiah 
isaiah. 59.21.  the Prophet joineth in the promise of God made, both the word and the spirit together. My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of the seed of thy seed (saith the Lord) from henceforth for ever. Where we see he joineth both the word & the spirit together, they are not to be sundered. The Apostle Paul plainly teacheth to the Romans, 
Rom. 10.14.17.  that no man can believe in him of whom he hath not heard, and that they cannot hear without a preacher, that faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. And in the 4 to the Ephesians, 
Ephe 4.10.  he testifieth, that when Christ ascended up into heaven, he led captivity captive, & gave gifts unto men, that he therefore gave some to be Apostles, some prophets, and some Evangelists, & some pastors, and teachers, to what end? he expresseth it to that gathering together of the saints, for the work of the ministry, & for the building up of the body of Christ. If belief & faith in him cannot come but by hearing the word of god preached, & his ministers in his church be appointed by him, that the saints might have all things necessary to the edifying of the body of Christ, what impiety is in these anabaptistical spirits either to condemn or neglect this so excellent not only an instrument, but even the sole ordinary means God hath appointed to his church, to work our salvation. Paul in the 5 to the Thessalonians, 
Thes. 5.19.  giveth warning that we quench not the spirit, but therewithal he joineth that we despise not prophesying, he himself though he was rapt up unto the third Heaven, where he heard words which cannot be spoken, 
2. Cor. 12.2.  which are not possible for man to utter, yet did he not therefore broche any new revelations or dreams, but confirmed his doctrine by the testimony of the law and the Prophets. He exhorteth his scholar Timothy 
1. Tim. 4.13.  to give attendance unto reading, to exhortation, to doctrine, to learning, and to continue therein to save himself and them that should hear him. God revealed unto Peter and the rest of the Apostles, that he was the son of the living God, but by preaching so unto Cleophas and the other Disciple going to Emaus, 
Luc. 24.45.  expounding the Law and the Prophets, he opened the doctrine of his passion. God opened the heart of Lydia, converted her unto Christianity, but by Paul's ministery. Wherefore although God revealeth all things, 
Act. 16.14.  yet is not the spirit to be severed from the word, neither yet the word from the spirit, God doth use both these instruments jointly. And thus much for the first part.  
The second point I said we had to consider was, what the foundation and rock is, whereupon the Church of God is built for that is expressed in the 18 verse. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not overcome it. Concerning the true meaning and sense of these words, what it is that Christ appointeth to be that rock, whereupon he will build his Church, there is no small variance between us and the church of Rome. We according to the tenor of the rest of the scriptures, and circumstance of the place affirm, that Christ by this word Petra a Rock, meaneth that which Peter confessed, which was Christ himself. But the Popish Clergy to establish the authority of the Bishop of Rome, and his superiority, power and dominion over all other churches, hath applied this saying of our saviour Christ unto Peter alone, making him that Rock, whereof Christ here speaketh, against which the gates of Hell cannot prevail, affirming that Christ in this place hath given by these words a certain chiefty and pre-eminence to Peter above all other Apostles, and made him the foundation and head of his church here in earth and his vicar general for the government thereof, enduing him with especial power and authority above all others. Which exposition as also Article of Religion, to be most untrue being the main post of their religion, and such an Article of faith, the which who believeth not, (as they say) cannot be saved, and this place being used of them all, especially above all others, as the chiefest for the confirmation of the supremacy, and authority of the Bishop of Rome: it shall not be amiss, being apparent sithence this Progress, that howsoever this Doctrine hath been heretofore beaten down, that notwithstanding it remaineth rooted in many men's minds, it shall be expedient to show and declare this their interpretation to be erroneous, and their collection vain and frivolous. Which I will do first by the very words and circumstance of the place. Secondly by that, this their exposition is contrary to the express words of the Scripture, and rules of Faith. thirdly, by the opinion and practice of the Apostles. And last of all by the judgement, and interpretation of the ancient and learned Fathers, and practise of their age. first, that even the very words of the Text do argue, that when Christ saith upon this Rock I will build my Church, by this word Petra a Rock, he meaneth not the person of Peter the Apostle, but that which Peter confessed, which was Christ it may appear by this in that it pleased the holy Ghost, the Evangelist should alter and change the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when as he might have used the self same word to express that their meaning to make Peter the Rock whereupon he would build his church, for although the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do agree in signification, in that both of them by interpretation doth signify a stone or rock: yet the alteration & change of the word in propriety of speech & termination in gender, & in construction of person doth import that the holy ghost by these diverse words would mean a divers thing. For the one word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is nomen atticum, after the propriety of the Attic tongue, the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is nomen communis linguae, after the propriety of the vulgar tongue, the one word is the masculine gender, the other the feminine, the person in contruction differeth, for from the second person he goeth to the third, he saith not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, upon thee Peter, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon this rock By this variety and change it is plain the Evangelist meant to express some diverse thing, otherwise it needed not to have made any alteration at all, there is no doubt therefore but the holy ghost upon purpose, did alter and change the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even to avoid that error that might be gathered thereof, if Christ would have taught us in this place so weighty an Article of our Faith, as that is, (as they make it,) that Peter must be the Head of the Church, upon whom except we be built we cannot be saved, he would not in declaration thereof, so have varied from his ordinary name he gave him, seeing it might so well have served the turn, and by which he might plainly have declared this ground of Faith. Wherefore by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant not the Person of Peter, but Christ, whom Peter confessed and believed on. For which cause Peter immediately before in the former verse, was pronounced blessed by our saviour Christ, for that GOD had opened and revealed unto him, that Christ was the son of the living GOD, and further for the knowledge and belief hereof, he did not only term him blessed, but he also gave him another name, that whereas before he was called Simon Bar jona, he should now be named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is a Rock, according as he had promised in the first of john, because he knew and believed in the Rock, upon which not only he, but the whole Church of GOD should be built. For he was so named of Christ, not because he should be Petra the rock, whereupon the Congregation of God should be builded, but he was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he was built upon that Rock whereon the Church should be founded. Petra which is the Rock (as Augustine 
August. serm. 21. de verbo domini.  saith) hath not his name of Peter, but Peter of Petra the Rock, as Christ hath not his name of a Christian, but a Christian of Christ, 
jerom in 8. Math.  and saint Jerome affirmeth that Peter had his name of Petra, which is Christ, which name agreeth not only to the person of Peter, but unto all Christians and faithful people, which believe in this Rock, and hold the same faith and confession Peter did. Whosoever confesseth and believeth that Christ is the son of the living God, as he did, is a Peter. Therefore Jerome upon the sixth of Amos, 
jerom in 6. Amos. Origen. tract. 1. in Math.  termeth all Christ's Apostles peter's: And Origen plainly testifieth, that if we affirm and confess that Christ is the son of the living God as Peter did, then are we peter's, and shall obtain the same felicity that he hath obtained because our confession and belief is all one, and again in the same place, if we confess Christ to be the son of the living god, the father revealing it unto us, it shall be said of each one of us, thou art Peter, and upon thee will I build my congregation, every man is Petra a Rock, that is, a follower of Christ. Thus much Origen, By whom it is plain that Peter was so named because of the Rock he believed in, not for that he was to be the foundation of the church: and that also, that name to be termed a rock is not agreeable to Peter alone, but unto all the faithful, and no marvel, for it is an usual thing for the properties of Christ to be attributed to all his children, as christ is called a stone, so are his people and servants named lively stones by participation, as they are the light of the world, and salt of the earth, because the salt and light that they have is derived and proceedeth from him. And as we are called righteous, because christ is our righteousness and wisdom, so are we termed Rocks because by him we are so made, being the true, perfect and sound Rock. Wherefore if Peter be pronounced blessed, only because of the confession he made, and that his name was changed from Simon unto Peter, for that cause alone, and that his name agreeth to all christians, who hold and make the same confession he did, as well as unto him, then is it apparent by the order and Sequel of the Text, and truth of the matter, that the Rock whereon christ will build his church, is not the person of Peter, no more than it is the person of any other Apostle, but that whereby both Peter, and other faithful, shall be come both blessed and peter's. For if we mark the order and course of the Dialogue between Christ, and his Disciples first we may observe, that the Question is propounded not to Peter alone, but generally unto all, whom do ye say that I am. And again, Christ demanded not what they thought of Peter, but what they thought of him, so that in the respect we cannot imagine any especial thing meant, and intended toward Peter more than any other. For in that he made answer alone, that was in the person of them all, to avoid confusion and declare unity, 
Cyprianus de simpli. praelat. August. serm. 21. de verbo domini.  as Cyprian saith, he was but their mouth, So also Austin saith Petrus saepe unus respondit pro omnibus, etc. Peter oftentimes made answer for all, the Lord ask and saying whom say ye that I am, Peter answered, Thou art the son of the living god, he only gave answer for many, to declare unity in many. And what was the confession of Peter, it was that Christ was the son of the living God, this confession was approved & commended of Christ, not the person of Peter, but in respect of the confession, herewithal if we mark what happened immediately after the conclusion of the dialogue unto Peter, nothing can be more plain than that Peter cannot be that rock whereupon God will build his Church, for that rock must be such against which the gates of hell can not prevail, how can Peter then be that foundation, who immediately after this confession fell so grievously, that he was termed of our Saviour Christ, Satan. For Peter dissuading him from going up to jerusalem, to accomplish the work of our redemption, he said unto him, away from me Satan, thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men. And afterward he denied & abjured his Master, he was far therefore from being that unmovable rock, which could not be shaken, such an one against which the gates of hell could not prevail, so then to conclude this point, if the change and alteration of the word and construction may argue the meaning of a diverse thing, when otherwise the self same word might have better and plain declared that so weighty and necessary an article of our faith, as they make that is of Peter's supremacy, if the blessedness of Peter and the name be obtained of Christ, and that the same be not only proper to Peter, but unto all who shall in like manner lay hold upon that rock and profess the same faith, if the whole course of the dialogue be directed not to know Peter's opinion alone, but of them all, what they thought, not of Peter, but of our Saviour Christ, and to confirm them in that firm and steadfast faith, they had in him against all troubles and persecutions, that should after ensue, and with all to have a public testimony of them all, that they had a better and truer opinion of him, than the common multitude, if the rock whereon God's Church must be founded, must be such an one as cannot be shaken by any force and subtlety of Satan, and Peter as hath appeared, was so weakened at diverse times, that he was overcome almost for ever. I may well say, that even the words, and circumstance of the place, doth evict that Peter is not made that petra the rock upon the which the Church is to be built. But yet that this may be further out of doubt, if we well weigh the assertion of our Romish Catholics, we shall find it to be contrary to the express words of the Scripture, and the doctrine of the holy Ghost in other places, yea, and to the analogy and rules of faith. Saint Paul in the 1. to the Corinthians, 
1. Cor.  finding fault with the Corinthians, who were divided by choosing to themselves sundry doctors and teachers, whom they would hear and follow. Some saying I am Paul's, another, I am Apollo's, another, I am Cephas, & the fourth, I am Christ's, he flatly setteth down, 
1. Cor. 3.11.  that fundamentum aliud nemo ponere potest, preter id quod positum est, jesum Christum. Other foundation can no man lay then that which is laid, which is jesus Christ. If only Christ be the foundation and no other: If neither Paul, nor Apollo, nor Cephas, aught to be so accounted, how can they challenge this prerogative unto Peter, being denied so expressly unto him or unto any other. Paul affirmeth, 
Eph. 1.22.  that GOD had made all things subject under Christ's feet, and appointed him above all things the head of the Church, which is his body, and of what kind of body that he declareth also in the fifth of the same Epistle, of his flesh & his bones, for saith he, Christ nourisheth and cherisheth his Church, 
Ephe. 5.30.  because we are members of his body, flesh and bones, wherefore if the Church be the body of Christ, and God hath appointed Christ to be the head thereof, and that head be of the same nature and substance, of the same flesh and bone, the rest of the body is: what cause is there to make any other head, except we should think either that one head not to be sufficient to give life, and to rule the body, or to be too mighty and of too great rule and authority, and therefore do adjoin another thereunto, as when two Consuls or Caesares be created of one place, the one to abridge the others power and might. But neither of these inconveniences can be feared in Christ, and therefore we need not to assign another head to his body. Besides the head of the Church is that part of the body which giveth life, nourisheth and augmenteth the whole body of the faithful unto eternal life, but who doth or can perform this but only Christ? even as a man cherisheth his own flesh, so nourisheth he the Church which consisteth of his own flesh and bone as the Apostle Paul testifieth, he therefore is the only head. There is the same reason between Christ and his church, that is between man and wife, as the same Apostle testifieth, for as the husband is the wives head, so Christ is the head of the church, as the church is in subjection to Christ: so the wives to their husbands. As Christ loved his church, so wives their husbands. As wives are their husbands flesh: so is the church the flesh of Christ. So that then, he that is the head of the church is the husband and spouse thereof. For, therefore he is the head because he is the husband, but there is but one husband therefore whosoever shall make any other head of the church than Christ, must also make another husband, if another husband, than an adulterer and the church an harlot, for one wife cannot have two bridegrooms or husbands, Paul saith of the Corinthians, I have prepared you for one husband, to present you a pure virgin to Christ, & john Baptist in the Evangelist john sayeth, he is the bridegroom & his Apostles be the only ministers & friends of the bridegroom, they are only the makers of the marriage between Christ & his church. How can Peter then be accounted as the head of God's church, Christ himself being the head and the husband thereof? Let him therefore be esteemed as a minister, & friend of the spouse, as Christ himself hath termed him and all the rest of the Apostles, and no further. And surely it is not lightly to be regarded, that after Christ had said to Peter, thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church, whereby they would establish a chiefty & pre-eminence given him over all other the Apostles and congregation of God, arising this controversy among them, which of them should be the greatest, and that even then, when he was ready to go to suffer, & departed from them, supposing (as it should seem) after the departure of Christ, some one of them should be chief, and bear rule over the rest: even than our Saviour Christ beateth down utterly, that conceit and imagination of theirs, showing that rule and sovereignty belongeth unto Kings and Princes. The Kings of the Gentiles they reign, they bear rule, they are called gracious Lords. But ye shall not be so, it shall not be so among you, whosoever willbe the chief among you, let him be your servant, and he setteth himself an example before them, that he came not to have service done unto him, but to serve, and to give his life for the redemption of many. Hereby although it were the especial purpose of our Saviour Christ to take away that ambition which reigned in his disciples by reason they dreamt to obtain by him an earthly and terrestrial kingdom, notwithstanding being so often occasioned to declare through their desire of sovereignty and rule, and especially before his death & passion, whom after his death he would leave his deputy and vicegerent of whom they should depend and be governed, it may give just occasion to think, that as when he was conversant with them in flesh, he would not give any supremacy or pre-eminence to any one more than to another, but made them all equal, so also after his ascension he would have them so continue, especially the reason of Christ being such as is appliable to the whole course of this life. This strife and contention would not have risen, if they had known at any time Christ had appointed Peter their chief & governor, or else might easily have been ended, if answer had been made by Christ, that Peter was he who should be in his stead after his death. But what if this doctrine of theirs be contrary to the grounds of our faith, shall we think then their interpretation to be true, if Peter be the rock whereon the church is to be built, then must the church also believe in Peter, for the church cannot be built but by faith and belief, but to believe in Peter is to ascribe that to the creature, which only is to be yielded unto the creator, and therefore it cannot want great impiety to give this unto Peter which they do. Besides the church of God containeth the whole company of the faithful, even from the beginning of the world unto the end, why then if Peter be the rock of the whole and universal church of Christ, then must the faithful that were before Peter was born be founded upon Peter and depend on him as their head, but to affirm that, I think cannot want absurdity, therefore except you will make even the visible church of God to have had many visible heads, this their assertion must prove but a vain imagination. If we further call to mind that which Paul writeth of Peter, that he was the Apostle of the jews only, and Paul himself the Apostle of the Gentiles, can Peter be accounted the foundation and head of the universal church, when as to preach unto the Gentiles belonged not to him? this reason driveth Cardinal Poole into such straits, that whereas other of his adherents say, Peter was appointed head of the church here, other immediately after his resurrection, he is compelled to say, that Peter's supremacy took no place before Paul's conversion, for that before that Peter could not represent the person of Christ, and leave twelve Apostles to figure unto us the twelve tribes of Israel. Wherefore these things being well weighed together, first, that the Apostle flatly setteth down that no man can, or aught to lay any other foundation than Christ himself, the Corinthians seeking especially to depend upon some one principally, as their chief teacher, I denying it to be lawful for them to depend upon Cephas himself, who was Peter. Secondly, assigning Christ the head, the husband of his body the church, his spouse, his wife, in which things there can be no communion or fellowship. Further, this controversy arising so often among his disciples, who should be the chiefest, and our Saviour Christ denying all superiority at all times to any of them, neither yet giving any signification that Peter should be their chief, no not after his death, and this their interpretation being such as causeth to give that unto man which is proper to GOD alone, as faith and belief, and to make diverse bodies, diverse churches, diverse heads, diverse foundations, when the holy Ghost appointeth but one Church, one head, one foundation, and last of all the Holy Ghost assigning unto Peter, the ministery of circumcision only, we may justly affirm the exposition of our Romish Clergy, to be contrary to the express word of GOD and rules of our faith.  
I am not ignorant here of their blind subtleties and distinctions, whereby they would shift of the force of these reasons, in making Christ natiwm & real fundamentum: The natural and substantial foundation, but Peter ministeriale fundamentum, the ministerial foundation here in earth: that is, that the ministery and office of Peter is appointed of GOD above the function of all the other Apostles, to be that ministery whereby he will build his universal Church, and govern it: upon whom, and of whom all other Churches must hang and depend. Which assertion to be most untrue, that any principal authority, either for the building up of the Church, or government thereof, was by this place or any other committed unto Peter above the other Apostles, it may appear by this that none of the Apostles, either in their writings or doings, hath ever acknowledged any such thing, but the contrary, accounting him but equal to others, giving him no pre-eminence above his fellows. For proof hereof, what can be more manifest, than that Paul writeth to the Ephesians, 
Ephes. 2.19.  where the Apostle of purpose speaking of the building of the Church, and their Apostolical function, sayeth, that now they were no more strangers and foreigners, but citizens with the Saints, and of the household of GOD, and that they were built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, jesus Christ himself being the head corner stone. By this word foundation in this place, he meaneth undoubtedly the doctrine of the Apostles, and we see further, that he speaketh in general of the Apostles in the plural number, not attributing any thing to any one of the Apostles, as to a principal, who should be preferred in this building before others: and beside, he hath laid Christ, the head corner stone, upon which the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets must work upon. The same Apostle in the fourth Chapter of the same Epistle, 
Ephe. 4.11.12.  describing what gifts and functions GOD hath left to his Church, for the building thereof he sayeth Christ after his ascension gave some to be Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors and teachers, to the gathering together of the Saints, and building of the body of Christ: but to have appointed or given any general and universal Bishop, or Pastor, to that end, there is not one word, neither there, nor in the first to the Corinthians, where the Apostle declareth the diversity of gifts and functions, GOD hath given to his Church. 
1. Cor. 12.28  Saint john in the one and twentéeth of the Revelation, 
Apoc. 21.14.  describing heavenly Jerusalem the Church of GOD built by the similitude of a City, he maketh that the Wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the lambs twelve Apostles. Here we see in this built city of GOD, nothing is given to Peter above the rest, all are made equal, the doctrine of all the Apostles is alike, termed by the name of foundations, and have all share alike in the Walls of the City of GOD What cause is then why any prerogative should be given to Peter more than to any other. They shall eat and drink at God's table in his kingdom, and sit and judge the twelve Tribes of Israel alike, as appeareth by Luke, 
Luk. 22.30.  which could not be, if principal power were given to Peter which they strive for, over the whole Church.  
And yet, that this may appear more manifest. Let us mark that Paul writeth in the 15. to the Romans, 
Rom. 15.20.  where he saith, that he enforceth himself to preach the Gospel, where Christ had not been preached, and why? least, saith he, I should have built upon an other man's foundation. 
1. Cor. 3.10.  And in the first to the Corinthians, he testifieth, that according to the grace of GOD given unto him, as a faithful builder, he had laid the foundation of the Church of Corinth. If Paul in diverse places did so preach the Gospel, that he might not build upon an other man's foundation, if the Corinthians the building of GOD, were founded by Paul's ministery, than Peter's ministery is not necessarily the foundation of all Churches, or else Paul challenged to himself more than he ought. But if none of these testimonies were extant, the Epistle to the Galathians were sufficient to convince their assertion. For it appeareth there, that diverse false Prophets, and vain glorious teachers, went about to deface Paul's doctrine, and bring him out of credit and his disciples, saying that Paul was not so excellent an Apostle as Peter and james were, and the other Apostles, that were conversant with Christ while he lived here upon earth, that he was since called to be an Apostle, therefore the other were rather to be followed and believed than he, and so forth. Paul understanding and perceiving this, he goeth about to prove, that he is no whit inferior to Peter, james, or any other the Apostles, for that the Gospel he taught, he received it not of man, neither was he taught it, but by the revelation of jesus Christ. 
Gal. 1. & 2. Chap.  After his calling, he went not of many years to jerusalem, to learn any thing of the chief Apostles, when he came up to jerusalem, it was to see Peter only, and to declare his consent and agreement in preaching of the Gospel, because of slanders, not to learn any thing of them that seemed to be the chiefest Apostles.  
Peter, james, and john, seeing the Gospel of uncircumcision was committed to him, as the Gospel of circumcision was unto Peter, in that God, which was mighty in the one, was mighty also in the other, they required no submission or obedience at Saint Paul's hands, or to do any homage to any of them, but they gave unto him, the right hand of fellowship. And further, he was so far from acknowledging Peter his superior or better. That when he came to Antioch he withstood him and rebuked him to his face, for his dissimulation, between the jews and Gentiles. If this be well considered, we may well perceive that Paul accounted not of Peter, as of his head, or chief of the Church, naming james and john pillars of the Church as well as he, and not yielding to him any thing above himself.  
In the second to the Corinthians, 
1. Cor. 11.5.  Paul declareth that he thinketh himself nothing inferior unto the chiefest Apostles. Peter, in his Epistles, he never challengeth any superiority, neither by title nor by doctrine, he maketh Christ the elect precious and chief corner stone, and all the faithful living stones of the spiritual house a like, he claimeth not civil government, or that Kings and Princes ought to be subject unto him as the Pope doth, but commandeth all Subjects to be obedient unto their Princes and governors, he termeth himself but compresbyterum, a fellow elder with the rest, and exhorteth his fellow ministers not to be as Lords over God's heritage, in his whole writing he doth not imperiously command, but humbly exhorteth, not to be overlong in this, it cannot be thought, that Paul and Peter, and the rest of the Apostles having so fully and plentifully taught all things, appertaining to the Church of God, yea even the least functions, that they would in all their writings have concealed so great, weighty and necessary point, as this of Peter's supremacy and one general head under Christ, for the government of his Church, being such as it is made of them, that whosoever acknowledgeth it not, cannot be saved. Now if this which I have taught by the opinion and judgement of the Apostles, shall appear also by their practice and dealing toward Peter, what can be required further for the overthrow of their interpretation. And for a perfect view hereof, let us but consider the whole order and manner of the first council holden of the Apostles in the 15. 
Actor. 15.5.  of the acts: there it is mentioned, that certain variance and dissension falling out by reason some of the sect of the Phariseis, urged the observation of circumcision, and other ceremonies of the law, as necessary to salvation, it was determined that Paul and Barnabas should go up to the Apostles & Elders at jerusalem, about this question. At their coming the matter being declared the Apostles & Elders assembled together to reason of the matter, after much debating, Peter arose and declared what God had revealed unto him, concerning this point, meaning at Cornelius conversion. After him arose Paul & Barnabas, who also told their opinion, & what God had opened unto them. Thirdly ariseth james, he approveth the former judgement, confirmeth it by the scriptures, and having done so, giveth advise to send their determination in writing concerning the question, it was taken & approved, & the Apostles and elders, & the whole congregation sent chosen men, namely Barnabas & paul, with their letters. First here is to be observed, that it is not mentioned that Peter summoned this Council by his authority, but it is done by the consent of the Apostles and elders, contrary to that prerogative the Pope challengeth to himself. Peter although he spoke first alone, yet followeth it not that he was therefore accounted the chiefest, for neither spoke he only and often times in great Counsels, the lowest and youngest begin first, the eldest & head of all speaketh last. Secondly, in the assembly after Peter had opened his mind, and all the rest had done, last of all, not Peter, but james pronounced the sentence, which belonged to the head and Precedent of the Council. Thirdly, the Legates & ambassadors which were sent, were not appointed by Peter, nor sent by his authority, after the manner of the Pope, but they were chosen by all the Apostles and Elders, & the whole congregation, and sent by them. Fourthly the style of the letter doth argue, they gave no pre-eminence to Peter above other in this assembly, for thus it runneth: The Apostles, Elders and Brethren send greeting, etc. For as much as we have heard, etc. It seemed good to us, when we were come together, to send chosen men to you, etc. it seemed good to the holy ghost & unto us, to lay no more burden, etc. Thus we see how the whole action is made common to them all equally, none named, or preferred before another, in any respect, far diverse from the Pope's determination, and style of his letters, the tenor of which runneth much otherwise. 
Act. 8.24.  Besides in the eight of the Acts, when the Apostles heard that Samaria had received the Gospel, the Apostles sent Peter and john to confirm them, which sending declareth plainly, that they did not acknowledge him as a superior, and in that he obeyeth and followeth, he declareth himself to be but their fellow. For be it that Eckius saith true, that oftentimes the chiefest of the company be sent in matters, yet there is no Senate nor council that will send their chief and governor. And the same Apostle in the 11 Acts, 
Act. 11.3.  being reproved for going to Cornelius, he excuseth and cleareth himself, giving a reason of that his doing. And of Paul in the second to the Galathians, 
Gal. 2.11.  he was reproved to his face, for that he was worthy of rebuke, wherefore to conclude, if neither in planting of the church of God, neither in deciding of controversies in matters of religion, neither in enjoining & commanding things to be done, neither yet by any title, duty, service or signification of dealing, Peter either bare himself, or the rest received him as their head and universal Bishop, but contrariwise both he used him self, and they made themselves equal in all their doings unto him: I may justly conclude that even the opinion and practice of the Apostles and primitive church, doth manifestly convict the interpretation of the Papists in this place, making Peter the rock, foundation, and head of God's Church to be most untrue. This point notwithstanding by this I have already said, it be sufficiently proved, yet for divers men's further contentation, let us see how the ancient and learned Fathers, have expounded this place, whether by this word Petra they have understood the person of Peter, or him whom Peter confessed, which was Christ. Chrysostom in the 55 
Chrys. hom. 55. in Mat.  Homily upon Matthew, expoundeth Petra to be the faith and confession. Super hanc Petram i in hac fide & confession aedificabo ecclesiam, that is, upon this Faith and Confession I will build my Church, and upon the 32 Psalms, Statuit pedes nostros super petram id est super fidem, etc. that is he hath set our feet upon the rock, that is upon Faith, 
Chrys. super Psal. 52.  for Faith in Christ may well be called a Rock which cannot be broken, wherefore when Peter had declared and said, thou art the son of the living God, Christ immediately added, thou art peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. Thus it is apparent Chrysostom took not the person of Peter to be that rock here mentioned, but that which Peter reposed his belief in. Augustine 
Aug. 21. de verbis Dom.  in this place writeth thus. Super hanc Petram quam confessus es, etc. that is, upon this rock which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying thou art the son of the living God, I will build my congregation, upon myself I will build my church, upon myself I will build the, not myself upon thee, for they that would have men build upon men said, I hold of Paul, another I hold of Apollo, another I of Cephas which is Peter, but other which would not be built upon Peter but upon the rock, said I hold of Christ. Again in another place Super hanc Petram quam confessus est aedificabo ecclesiam, 
Idem in joan. tract. 124.  etc. that is, upon this rock which thou hast confessed I will build my church, for the rock was Christ, upon which foundation Peter himself was built, for other foundation then that which is laid, can no man lay, which is Christ jesus, the church therefore that is founded on Christ, hath taken the keys of the kingdom of heaven of him. I omit that which he writeth also in his book against the Jews Pagans, 
Idem contra jud. Pag. & Arti.  and adrian's where he also expoundeth this place after this manner. By this it appeareth how he expounded this rock here mentioned, not to be Peter but Christ himself. Gregor. missenus saith, Tu es Petrus, 
Greg. Miss. in tesiim●nijs, delectis ex veteri testamento.  etc. Thou art Peter, & upon this Rock I will build my Church, he meaneth, saith he, the confession of Christ, for he had said before, thou art the son of the living God. And Hilarius, 
Hilar. lib. 4. de Trini.  Petra nihil aliud est quam firma et inconcussa discipuli fides. The rock is nothing else but the strong and assured faith of the Disciple. What can be plainer than that which Origen writeth upon this place. If we confess (saith he) Christ to be the son of God, the Father revealing it unto us, it shall be said to each one of us, thou art Peter, 
Orig. tract. in Math.  and upon this Rock will I build my Congregation, every man is Petra that is a disciple of Christ, upon such a rock all ecclesiastical learning is built, if thou think that the whole church is only built upon Peter, what wilt thou say of john the son of thunder, and of the other Apostles. And further indeed it was spoken to Peter, upon this Rock I will build my Congregation: Notwithstanding, it is spoken in like manner of all the other Apostles, and to all faithful and perfit because they are all peter's, and Rocks, and upon all them and the Prophets, is Christ's Church built, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against any of them. Wherefore if they will give credit to Origen who was within 235 years after Christ, that, that which was said to Peter, shall be said to every Faithful man, making the like confession, and that this which was spoken to Peter here, was spoken to all the Apostles, and to all Faithful and perfit men in like manner. Then is here nothing attributed more unto Peter, then unto any of the other Apostles. Gregory 
Greg. lib. 4.33. Epist.  was himself Bishop of Rome, and whom our Romish Clergy would have to challenge this dignity and prerogative, they give unto Peter, he of this place and diverse others which they use, as most weighty to confirm Peter's and the Pope's Supremacy, inferreth the quite contrary. For he reasoneth thus, to Peter it was said, Lovest thou me, feed my sheep, Satan hath desired to sift thee, but I prayed that thy Faith may not fail, thou being converted, strengthen thy Brethren, thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my church, to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, whatsoever, etc. and he concludeth in the end, notwithstanding Peter is not called Universal Bishop. This one man hath left sufficient witness behind him to condemn in Peter, and in all Bishops of Rome, both the name of that dignity and superiority, and also the authority and jurisdiction which the Pope doth claim unto himself by virtue of this place. For first how sharply and bitterly writeth he against this, that either john the Bishop of Constantinople, or any other Bishop should claim or term himself to be the universal Bishop of the whole Church in his Epistles: First in his fourth book he termeth this Title and name, a new, a proud, 
Greg. lib 4. Epist 32. Ep. 38. Ep. 39  a pompous name. In his 38 Epistle of the same book, a rash, foolish, perverse name, a name of error. In the Epistle following, a wicked name, a name of vanity, a name of Hypocrisy, a name of blasphemy. 
Lib. 6. epi. 2.  In his sixth book and 2 Epistle, a puff of arrogancy and in the 24 Epistle of the same Book a superstitious and ungodly name. So far then in his judgement is it from being agreeable to Gods will, for any Bishop to claim this name, that he accounteth it a most ungodly and impious thing, and not only the name, of modesty and humility is thus disallowed of him, as some would bear us in hand, but the very office, authority & jurisdiction that is claimed thereby, for otherwise the reasons he useth were of no force, 
Lib. 4.38.  for in the 38 Epistle of his 40 Book he reasoneth thus. What answer wilt thou make unto Christ, at the trial of the last judgement, that goest about under the name of an Universal Bishop to subdue all his members unto thee. Here he condemneth the name, for that he which desireth it, goeth about to subdue all the members of Christ unto him. Which in very deed is brought to pass not by the very name, but by the power signified by the name. His Comparison in the thirtieth Epistle of the same Book, 
Li. 4.30. Epi.  where he resembleth him to Lucifer, that affecteth the name, cannot condemn the name only, but the thing also, because it was not Lucifer's desire only to be named God, but also to sit in his seat, and execute his Dominion. When as in that place he sayeth that john Bishop of Constantinople, challenging that Title, doth Contra Euangelicam Doctrinam against the meaning of the Gospel, against Saint Peter the Apostle, against the Ordinance of the Canons, against the faith, against all the Churches of GOD, against GOD himself, and many other things more in any man's judgement that may be sufficient, by his authority to disallow the name, and the office, not only in john the Bishop of Constantinople, but also in any other Bishop that shall claim it. For that some seek to avoid it, in posting over this whole writing to be against john the B. of Constantinople, as though Gregory had misliked this name of universal Bishop in him so ambitiously & greedily seeking for it, & not if it had been given to his own Sea of Rome, this is but a mere shift. For thus he saith in 32 Epistle, Nullus Romanorum Episcoporum hoc singularitatis nomen sibi assumpsit. 
Greg. Epi. 32  None of the Bishops of Rome ever received this name of singularity. And again Nullus predecessorum meorum hoc tam profano vocabulo uti consensit, None of my Predecessors ever consented to use this ungodly name, Nos hunc oblatum honorem nol●mus suscipere, We will not take this honour offered unto us, and in very deed no more he would, for in his seven Book he findeth fault with Eulogius the Patriarch of Constantinople, 
Lib. 7.30.  for terming him in the preface of his Epistle the universal Pope, and for saying (as you commanded) requiring him to do so no more, and not to use any such terms. So that he disalloweth that name and authority to be given to himself as well as to the Bishop of Constantinople. This that Gregory did, to disallow the authority of Universal Bishop in any, was not only done by him, but also by divers other learned and godly Bishops, yea and by Counsels. First, that is clear which Cyprian that godly man and martyr of God writeth in his Oration he made in the Council of Carthage concerning this point, it remaineth, saith Cyprian, that every one speak of this thing what he thinketh. For there is none of us that maketh himself Bishop of Bishops, or that doth by tyrannical fear drive his Fellows to obey of necessity, seeing every Bishop at his pleasure, hath free liberty and power of his own will, as if he could not be judged of another, neither yet himself judge any other, let us all wait for the judgement of our saviour Christ, who only and alone hath power to make us governors of his Church, and judge of our doing. Thus Cyprian denieth to any to challenge to himself to be Bishop of Bishops, that is to be universal Bishop, to have power and authority over the rest, to compel them to obey, and to judge of them he giveth free liberty to all Bishops alike in that, and giveth that pre-eminence to Christ alone, whose of right it is. 
Pela. Ep. 99  That which Pelagius also writeth, who was before Gregory is plain. Let none of the patriarchs, saith he, at any time use this name of universality, because if one Patriarch be called universal, the name of Patriarch is thereby taken away from the other, But let this be far from the Faithful. The words of pelagius and Gregory be so plain, that Edmundus Rufus writing against Molinaeus the Lawyer, cannot tell how to avoid them, he is driven to interpret this word universalis singularis, the universal Bishop, that is the singular and only Bishop. But God wots, this poor shift will not serve the turn, for the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Bishop of the whole habitable world quite overthroweth that, for it cannot be expounded the only Bishop. The disliking of this pre-eminence and power which the Bishop of Rome now challengeth to himself, was not only gaynsayde by their Bishop's private opinions, but even by Counsels. 
●onc. Carth. ●an. 26.  For in the Council of Carthage it was decreed, that the Bishop of the first Sea be not called the chief of Priests, or the high Priest or by any other like name, but only the Bishop of the first Sea, by which name he was termed, not for any principality or power, he had above the other patriarchs but because the Roman Empire was the chief, therefore the Bishop of that sea was termed by that name, and took the place in Counsels at that time, and yet had no further authority, than the patriarch of Constantinople, Alexandria, or Antioch, I omit the Council of Hippo Rhegius, 
Conc. Hippo cap. 27. Conc. Africa. cap. 92.  and of Africa, by which it appeareth too manifestly, what was the judgement of the Church at those times, concerning the giving any principal power or prerogative to the Bishop of Rome above all others. It is plain by the History of times, that they never healed any such Article, that it was of the necessity of salvation, to believe the whole Church of GOD must be under one head, one general, of whom they must depend, they would never yield or consent to any such decree or constitution. It is well known how that Gregory the first Bishop of Rome of that name called john the Bishop of Constantinople the forerunner of Antichrist, for ambitiously desiring to be supreme head, 
Greg. lib. 2 Cap. 194.  and to be called the universal Bishop of the World that was habitable. Half a score year after, or little more, Boniface the third of that name, obtained through the help of Phocas the Emperor, whom he had helped unto the Empire, by killing Mauritius the former Emperor, his wife, his brother, and his son, with many other, to be named or ordained Pope, or summus Pontifex, the high Bishop, which authority increased afterward more & more, until it came to the highest pride. So that apparent it is, that the Churches of God, for the space of four hundred years, and more after the death of our Saviour Christ, never taught, or received any such doctrine, either out of this place of Matthew, or any other that Christ hath left after his ascension an head of his universal church here in earth, or appointed an universal Pastor of the whole congregation under him. Ecclesiastical ambition begat this office first, and man's constitutions and Traditions hath only confirmed the same. This I trust, I have sufficiently declared according as I promised, both by the interpretations of the ancient and learned Fathers of this place of Matthew, and by their general opinion, concerning the appointing of an Universal Bishop over God's Church, as also by the practice of that age in that behalf. Wherein I am the more sparing, because it hath been at large declared of others in this age, that there is no necessity in this word Petra, in this place to make Peter the Foundation of the Congregation of Christ, and so consequently his successor, but let us grant thus much, that Peter was made that Rock, that he were the chief, and Prince of the Apostles how doth it follow therefore, that the Bishop of Rome is the Foundation and the chief of all Bishops. It will be said that the Bishop of Rome is Peter's successor, & therefore whatsoever prerogative was given unto Peter, was also given to him. First besides this consequent followeth not, not to drive them to prove that ever Peter was at Rome, which they are not able by any sound proof out of the Scripture, being great presumptions to the contrary, neither yet by any agreement of Ecclesiastical writers, not agreeing of the time of his coming or abode there: I would gladly know why and wherein the Bishop of Rome is rather accounted Peter's successor, than any other Bishop. If it be because Peter was at Rome, so was he also at jerusalem, and at Antioch as appeareth in the acts of the Apostles, why should not then the Bishops of jerusalem and Antioch be accounted Peter's successors, as well as the Bishop of Rome. If it be because Peter suffered there, so did Paul also, and surely that is but a mean reason to make Rome the Sea of Peter's succession, because that city put him to death. But wherein are the Bishops of Rome his successors, whether in his Apostleship, or in his Bishopric, not in the former, for than must they immediately be called to that office of God. Secondly, their duty must be to preach to all nations: for both these properties be required to make an Apostle as may appear Gal. 1. Matth. 28. 
Gal. 1. Matth. ●8.  But neither of these are agreeable to the Bishop of Rome, being neither immediately called of God, neither executing the office of an Apostle in going about to preach to all nations, he cannot be his successor in his Bishopric, for neither doth he take upon him the office of a Bishop to be tied to a certain charge, and beside, how can he be successor to Peter in that which Peter was not, he was by office an Apostle, not a Bishop. And further, if we will believe ancient writers, 
Irenaeus contra Valent.  Peter was never Bishop of Rome, for Irenaeus and Eusebius say, that Paul and Peter founded the Church of Rome, and that Linus by them was appointed the first Bishop. Then succeeded him Anacletus, and thirdly Clemens. And Tertullian 
Tert. lib. 10. de pres. heret.  nameth Clemens the first Bishop of Rome, appointed by Peter, as Policarpus was the Bishop of Smirna appointed by john. Thus although Tertullian agreeth not with Irenaeus and Eusebius in appointing the first Bishop, yet it is evident, that neither of them accounted of Peter as of the Bishop of Rome, but as of an Apostle, who taught there as Paul did also. So that the Pope cannot be Peter's successor in his Bishopric, because he was never Bishop of Rome. If he say, he is his successor in his doctrine, if he were able to justify that it would bear some colour. But if the quite contrary be proved, then is that allegation nothing, and besides that aught to be common to all Bishops, and therefore by that he can challenge no prerogative.  
I might declare at large how far he is from succeeding Peter in many respects, but that were too large a field to enter in, but even as all those be not the children of Abraham, which come of Abraham concerning the flesh, but those that do the works of Abraham, even so those are not to be esteemed the successors of Peter, or any of the Apostles, which follow them in place or in name, but those which follow them in their faith and doctrine, which thing if they can show they do, we will in part grant them to be successors to the Apostles. I will not stand longer upon this point, I trust that which I have said shallbe sufficient, for the confirmation of the second part part I took in hand to prove. Now I will hasten unto the third.  
There remaineth then the third part to discuss, which was, what the power & commission is that was given to Peter in this place, when it is said to him: To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shallbe bound in Heaven, etc. which words being spoken unto Peter & giving him by express words the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and the authority of binding and losing, thereby they have inferred some special authority and prerogative to have been given to Peter above all other by our Saviour Christ in this place. Wherefore concerning the interpretation and sense of these words seeing there is no agreement between us & the church of Rome, in that they say, that hereby Peter was endued with special commission above all other the Apostles, & we contrariwise do affirm that, that which was spoken unto him was spoken to all the rest alike. For the better examination of this, it shallbe necessary for us to consider these two points: First, unto whom these words were spoken, whether unto Peter alone, or principally, as the Papists would have it, or unto all in general. Secondly, what is that power and authority which was given unto Peter, for in neither of these points do we agree with them. For the first, that although these words were directed to Peter alone, yet that thereby our Saviour Christ meant not to give him any special privilege or prerogative above his fellows, but to endue them all with the like authority, first, both the words and circumstance of the place, and the doctrine of the scriptures in other places doth declare it: and secondly the judgement and opinion of the ancient & learned fathers, doth approve the same. That the whole course and circumstance of the place doth evict this promise & gift of our Saviour Christ, to appertain to them all, it may be apparent by this. First, that the question of our Saviour Christ is propounded to them all. Whom do ye say that I am, and therefore he requireth not the opinion of Peter alone, but of them all, that their knowledge and opinion of him, may better agree, and be more constant, truer, & perfecter than the opinion of the common people, which before they had declared unto him. And the answer also Peter made, was not in his own person alone, but for them all. So sayeth Austin as was alleged of me before: The Lord ask and saying (saith he) Whom do ye say that I the son of man am? Peter answereth: Thou art the son of the living God, one gave answer for many. The conclusion of the dialogue appertaineth also unto all: for in the end Christ forbade not only Peter to tell any body, that he was jesus that Christ, but he charged them all to tell that to no man. So that the beginning of the dialogue, the midst, and the ending, appertaining to all, why then should any special thing be attributed to any one above others by these words. Besides that which is spoken here alone to Peter in the singular number in the 18. Chapter, is spoken to all in the plural number. Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye bind in earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever ye lose in earth, shallbe loosed in Heaven. Here equal authority is given to all in the same words. But let us observe further, that Christ saith here, Dabo, I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and so forth. Here the keys are promised but not given. If then Christ when he performed this promise, gave not any special power to Peter, but endued them all with the like, shall we imagine here any special thing given him to be preferred before others, in the 20. of john, 
john. 20.  where Christ performed this after his resurrection, he committed this power and authority he promised here unto all equally in these words: Peace be unto you, as my father sent me, even so send I you, & when he had said that, he breathed upon them, & they received the holy Ghost, adding Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, & whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. Here we see he giveth his peace unto them all: he breatheth on them all: they all receive the holy ghost alike: they are all endued with the same power of forgiving & retaining sins. Where is then Peter's prerogative? especially now when it should specially have been specified. But what if any principal authority and power had been given to Peter by Christ here, what doth that belong to the Bishop of Rome: where is Peter's will and testament, by which he hath bequeathed his keys, rather unto him than unto the Bishops of jerusalem or Antioch, by what Scripture can they prove that Christ hath made them rather Peter's successors in this authority and commission than other Bishops. If the keys were promised, & given to Peter alone, and to none of the other Apostles, how dare they give them unto the Bishops of Rome. There is not one word in the Scripture of their succession by inheritance. Seeing then that neither the course of the dialogue, nor yet the authority and function is other, that is here given, then was given to all the Apostles of Christ, himself afterward in like manner, and that although some more special and excellent office was committed to Peter, then to any other Apostle, yet that the B. of Rome cannot claim that more than any other Bishop, it maketh nothing for the establishing of the supreme power over the universal Church of God which the Pope arrogateth unto himself. But let us see what the ancient & learned fathers think on this point. That which Origen writeth is most plain against them which think any special thing was given to Peter. An soli Petro dantur claves regni coelorum etc. Dost thou think that the keys of the kingdom were only given to Peter and to no other, neither any other should receive them? If these words were not common to all men as they are (I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven) how can all these sayings & things which are applied to Peter before be common to all men. For Christ thus spoke in common to them all, Whom do ye say that I am? and Peter answered in the name of all. Doth he not utter the same in plainer words in the 20. of john saying to all the Apostles, 
joan. 20.  and breathing upon them: receive the holy Ghost, whose sins ye forgive, etc. They were all of like authority with Peter. Thus much Origen, than which words, what can be more plain. Cyprian 
Cyp. de simp. praelat.  also in his book de simplicitate Prelatorum against the novatians confirmeth this. The Lord (saith he) saith unto Peter, thou art Peter. The Lord after his resurrection gave unto his Apostles like power, yet to declare the unity, he disposed the original of unity beginneth at one. The rest of the Apostles were even the same that Peter was, endued with like fellowship both of honour and power, but the beginning proceedeth of unity to declare one Church. Basil 
Basil. 23. cap. de vita solit.  also sayeth: Christus Petrum post se suae Ecclesiae pastorem constituit etc. Christ appointed Peter to be Pastor of his Church after, and so consequently giveth the same power and authority to all Pastors and doctors, a token whereof is this that all Pastors, do equally bind and lose as they list, as well as he. Augustine, de Ago Christiano Cap. 32. Cum Petro dicitur pasce oves meas, omnibus dicitur. When it is said to Peter feed my sheep, 
Aust. de Agon. Christ. cap. 31. & cap. 32.  it is said to all. And in the 31. Chapter: Wretched men while in Peter they understand not Christ which is the rock, and while they will not believe that the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, are given unto the Church (not unto Peter alone) they have lost the keys out of their hands, and in another place he sayeth, the Church which is founded in Christ, 
Aug. tract. 124. saper  hath taken the keys of him, so that not Peter only, but the whole Church received the keys of him. Beda 
Beda.  sayeth, the power of binding and losing, although it seem to be given only unto Peter, without doubt this is to be known, that it is given also unto the other Apostles. Haymo, one of their own doctors well weighing the text affirmeth contrary unto them. We must not think, sayeth he, that unto blessed Peter alone this power was given. but as he for all answered, Thou art Christ the son of the living God, so in the person of one, all heard, whatsoever thou shalt bind in earth, etc. cyril, 
Cyr. in joan. li. 3. cap. 20.  Christ gave full power unto the Apostles and unto others that succeeded them in the Churches. To conclude then, if by the testimonies of the ancient and learned fathers, Christ gave full and like power to all his Apostles. If the rest of the Apostles were the same that Peter was, endued all with like honour and power. If Christ's words were common to all the rest. If all Pastors do equally bind and lose as well as Peter, then is there no special privilege given unto Peter above others by this place. Wherefore I trust this first point is manifest by the circumstance of the place and opinion of ancient writers that there is no special prerogative or function given unto Peter, that was not committed to all, & that whatsoever was spoken by Christ here unto Peter did not belong here unto him only, but to them all in common. Now secondly have we to consider what was that power & authority that was given unto Peter here, that was to have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the authority of binding & losing, but herein have we to weigh what is meant & contained in these words & how far they ought to stretch. For the B. of Rome claimeth by right of succession & inheritance whatsoever power & jurisdiction was given unto Peter, & therefore by the virtue of these words, & promise of Christ, claimeth all power & authority, whatsoever may be contained & included in these speeches. Hereof hath he challenged to himself to be above kings & Princes, to have the authority of consecrating & deposing them, to be above all general counsels to have fullness of power to expound the scriptures, to whose determination the Church of God must necessarily stand, to have authority to dispense with God's word, to make that lawful which before was unlawful, to have absolute, & free power to decree whatsoever he liketh of, and that of the church is to be observed as an heavenly Oracle, that he hath power to give heaven, to throw down into hell whom he will, that he hath power to assoil men's sins, and to deliver them both a pena & culpa, both from the fault & penalty, and to retain and keep them at his pleasure, that he may bind and lose above all other Bishops: for he may lose whom other Bishops bind: he may bind whom other Bishops lose: but whom he bindeth or looseth can no man assoil or bind, but only he himself: for Bulls, pardons, indulgencies, anathematizations and all the rest of such trishtrash, hath been founded upon this power and prerogative he challengeth unto himself by this place, the refutation of which particular points being too ample a matter to be handled at this time, and besides having sufficiently both in this second part, and also in the third, declared and proved that no prerogative is given unto Peter above others by this place, that his ministery was endued with no greater power and authority than the ministery of the rest of the Apostles, it shallbe needless to deal with them at this present, only that is needful to show what is meant by the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the authority of binding and losing. By the keys is meant nothing else here but the preaching of the Gospel, and herein we agree with Chrysostom, 
Crysostom.  that sayeth, they are the knowledge of the Scriptures, with Tertullian 
Tertullian.  which termeth them to be the interpretation of the law, and with Eusebius, 
Eusebius.  that they are the word of GOD. and very well may the preaching of the word be expressed by the Metaphor of a key. For as by it we are let into the house, so by the preaching of the word, are we brought into the Church and household of GOD, and have access to his kingdom. For Christ being the door, as Saint john testifieth, by whom we must enter, if we will be saved, and the ladder, by which we must ascend up into heaven, as appeareth by jacobs' dream, and the preaching of the Gospel, opening and manifesting unto us Christ, as Paul witnesseth, that unto him the least of all Saints was given this grace, that he should preach among the Gentiles, the unsearchable riches of Christ, and being the means, whereby we are reconciled unto Christ, Paul terming his ministery therefore the ministery of reconciliation, the publishing and preaching of Christ and his Gospel, may well therefore be termed a key. This Metaphor is used of our Saviour Christ in the same sense. Woe be to you interpreters of the law, 
Luc. 12.52.  for you have taken away the key of knowledge. Ye entered not in yourselves, and them that came ye forbade, in which words our Saviour Christ termeth the true interpretation of the law and preaching of the Gospel, the key of knowledge. For it was that the Scribes & Pharises did suppress & adulterate. It is apparent enough, that the word of God, according to the sundry effects and properties thereof hath sundry names. So for that it increaseth and multiplieth, it is called seed, for that it cutteth the heart, and divideth the flesh from the Spirit, it is called a Sword. For that it taketh us, and encloseth us, and bringeth us together, it is called a net. For that it washeth us clean it is called water. For that it inflameth us, it is called fire. For that it feedeth us it is called bread: even so for that it openeth & giveth us an entrance into the house, it is called a key. This house is the kingdom of heaven: Christ is the door: the word of God is the key, and Preachers the key bearers. So sayeth Chrysostom: 
Chrys. opere ●nperfect. cap. 23.  The key bearers be the Priests, to whom is committed the teaching of the word, and of the expounding of the Scriptures: So then, that by the Metaphor of the key, the Evangelist should declare that Christ committed unto his Apostles, the preaching of his word, by which his Church should be gathered together, and built upon Christ the rock, is no strange speech, but very fit and significant, to declare that unto us, and hereby also he showeth that he hath committed unto them a great office and weighty function, and that he putteth them in chief place and authority. For he hath the chiefest authority in the house or city to whom the keys are committed, and who hath authority to let out and let in by them. To this end God useth this Metaphor in the Prophet Esay, 
Isa. 22.22.  when he promiseth to Eliachim the chief power and authority in the King Ezechias house, saying: with my garments I will  him, with my girdle I will strengthen him, and the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder, so he shall open, and no man shall shut. Hereby have we to learn, that as those to whom this charge is committed to bear the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, aught to have a great care of the well ordering of them, so we must also with no less carefulness and reverence, embrace and receive them. The use of these keys is in more particular manner declared by our Saviour Christ, when as he saith that whatsoever he bindeth on earth shall be bound in heaven, etc. by the power of binding and losing is meant that which is expressed by Saint john. Whose sins ye forgive, they are forgiven him, 
joan. 20.  and whose sins ye retain, they are retained, for when our sins are forgiven, we are loosed from them, & when they are not forgiven, we remain bound in them, these things are brought to pass in us by the ministery of his word, and by the virtue and power thereof. So saith Jerome, 
Hieron. isaiah. lib. 6 〈…〉  whatsoever ye lose in earth, shall be loosed in Heaven, the Apostles lose them by the word of God, and testimonies of the scriptures, and exhortations unto virtue. And Ambrose, Sins be forgiven by the word of God, the expounder thereof is the Levite and Priest. 
Ambr. de Cain & Abel. cap. 4.  The Prophet isaiah prophesying the sending of Christ, saith that the Lord had anointed him that he should preach the Gospel to the poor, that he should heal the broken hearted and preach deliverance to the Captive, recovering of sight to the blind, and setting at liberty them that are loosed: so that to bind and lose, to forgive and retain sins, is a property and effect of the word of God preached. For that publisheth unto us remission of sins, worketh in us mortification, delivereth us from the power of Satan, and restoreth unto us the liberty and freedom of the children of God, which things be brought to pass, not by the bare publishing and hearing of the word, but when as by faith we lay hold upon the sweet promises, and great benefits which be offered us in Christ, which be delivered unto us by his ministers, as by his Legates, for remission of sins is in the Priest, as in the messenger, in the word of God as in the instrument, and in the penitent, as in the receiver. So that the offering hereof is in the minister, but the effect and force thereof in the sinner. But for as much as they offer the merits of Christ, and full pardon to such as have lowly and contrite hearts, and do unfeignedly repent themselves, pronouncing unto the same a sure and undoubted forgiveness of their sins, and hope of everlasting life, therefore they are said to bind and lose, to retain and forgive sins, not because God hath endued his ministers with this absolute power to forgive and retain them at their pleasure, as our popish Priests would bear us in hand, for that he hath reserved unto him alone, and it only belongeth unto him. Even the very malicious Scribes and Phariseis knew this, for when as Christ had said unto the man sick of the Palsy, son thy sins are forgiven, they not acknowledging him to be God, said among themselves, 
Marc. 2.5.  this man blasphemeth, who can forgive sins but God only. And God by the Prophet isaiah 
isaiah.  challengeth this unto himself, I even I am he that putteth away thine iniquity, even as to create, to alter & change the heart, to destroy body and soul belongeth only unto God, and so also to forgive and retain sins. The ancient Fathers have judged that the Priest ought to have no right to challenge any authority to forgive sins. Ambrose 
Ambr. li. 9 Epist. 76.  saith, it is not the Ambassador, it is not the Messenger, but the Lord himself hath saved his people. He remaineth one, for this cannot be common to any man with Christ to forgive sins, that is only the office of Christ who hath borne the sins of the world. And Austin, 
August.  God gave the ministery of forgiving of sins to his servants, but the power thereof he retained to himself. 
August. de scalis Paradisi.  So in another place, the office of baptizing God hath granted unto many: the power and authority of forgiving sins, he hath reserved to himself alone. Saint Jerome expounding this place very well declareth what power and commission is given to God's ministers in this behalf. 
Hierony.  We read in scriptures that the Lepers are bidden to show themselves unto the Priest, that if they be Lepers, they should be so made of the Priest, not that the Priest do make the leprous or unclean, but that they have knowledge of the leprous and clean person, that they are able to judge who is clean or unclean, even therefore as the Priest maketh the clean or unclean, so doth the Bishop here bind and lose, hereby we see that Jerome thought Ministers had no further power, then to declare them to be lose or bound, even as the Priests in the time of the law, had no power but to judge and pronounce the man either clean or unclean, but not to cleanse them, or to make them unclean. So saith Bonaventura, 
Bonaventura.  they did cleanse because they showed the clean. Peter Lombard, 
Pet. Lumb.  one of their own Doctors, saith, having well weighed this matter. Christ gave to priest's authority to bind or lose, that is to declare to men they be bound or lose: What therefore the authority of binding and losing, the forgiving and retaining of sins is, that is given to the ministers of God, it is apparent not to have given full power to absolve and bind of themselves at their will, but to publish that pardon that God in Christ offereth us, which if we take hold on by faith then we are assoiled, if we contemn it our sins are retained to our condemnation, and because he hath committed the publishing of forgiveness of sins unto his ministers, therefore his ministers are said to forgive and retain, not because the power thereof resteth in themselves, as our popish priests would challenge: For therefore have they made the Priest to hold a consistory, and to be a judge over the sins of the people, and to drive them to make particular confession of their secret sins unto the Priest, that they may absolve them, and enjoin them a penance answerable to their offence. Howsoever they go about to cloak and colour the matter, in very deed they take upon them that which is proper to God to judge of the weight & grievousness of sins to appoint and allot to every one a just satisfaction, to change eternal pains into temporal, to have the disposing of the merits of Christ, even as the Executors have the disposing of dead men's goods, as though Christ were not, or knew not after his death, how to bestow them, to give Heaven and throw down to Hell, whom they will, to rehearse the particular blasphemies and impieties, which by the keys of heaven, and authority of binding and losing they claim, they have run into, although it were profitable, to consider the abominations of that Church, yet lest I should grow infinite, it shallbe sufficient to have but lightly touched these things. Thus I trust I have sufficiently declared, first that God revealeth the knowledge of all heavenly things, secondly that not Peter, but Christ is the Rock whereon God doth build his Church, and last of all that the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the authority of binding and losing consisteth in the preaching of his word. God of his mercy grant unto us, the revealing of his Christ, and to be built upon him the true rock, and the opening of the kingdom of heaven, by the preaching of his word, that we may obtain that blessedness, which Christ hath prepared for them that truly acknowledge and confess him, To whom with the Father and the holy Ghost be all honour and glory, and power, now and for evermore, Amen.