there was great contention about the supremacy and jurisdiction of Rome. Zosimus, the Roman bishop, had received into the communion of the church without any examination, one that came to complain to him from Africa, named Apiarius, a priest whom the metropolitan with the council of Africa had worthily excommunicated. Upon this, Zosimus, after having received and shewed favour to Apiarius, who had appealed to him, sends to the council his messengers, with these requests: that Apiarius, whom he had absolved might be received of them again, and that it might be lawful for bishops or priests to appeal from the sentence of their metropolitans, and also of the council, to the see of Rome; that if any priest or deacon were wrongfully excommunicated by the bishops of their own province, it should be lawful for them to remove the hearing and judging of their cause to their neighbouring bishops; and that Urban their bishop, should either be excommunicated, or sent to Rome, unless he would correct those things that were to be corrected, &c. For the proof whereof, Zosimus alleged the words (as he pretended) of the Nicene council. The council of Carthage hearing this, and remembering no such thing in the council of Nice, and yet not suspecting the bishop of Rome, to dare wrongfully to falsify the words of that council, writes to Zosimus, declaring that they never read, in their common Latin copy of the Nicene council, any such canon, yet for quietness sake, they would observe the same until they might procure the original copies of that council to be sent to them from Constantinople, Alexandria, and from Antioch. In like effect afterward they wrote to Pope Boniface I., who succeeded Zosimus. And thirdly, also to Celestine, who shortly after succeeded Boniface.

In the meantime, this council sent to Atticus, patriarch of Constantinople, and to Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, for the authentic copies in Greek of the Nicene council, which being sent unto them, and they finding in the true originals no such canon, as the bishop of Rome had falsely forged, they wrote a sharp letter to Celestine, bishop of Rome, in which they styling him "brother bishop," they declare to him, that they had perused all the copies of the council of Nice, and could find no such canon as he and his predecessors had falsely alleged, and reciting the sixth canon, declared that the decrees of the Nicene council had committed all and singular persons ecclesiastical, as well bishops as others, unto the charge of their metropolitans.

Wherefore they declared that it was not convenient to bring their matters over to Rome; neither was it to be found in the decrees of any council that any legates should be sent from Rome to them, to decide in their matters. And they therefore exhorted the bishop of Rome, not to introduce the swelling pride of the world into the church of Christ, which church sheweth and giveth the light of simplicity and of humility to such as love God, &c. In these letters, moreover, it is signified that Apiarius, whom the bishop of Rome had absolved and received to the communion of the church, was afterwards found culpable, and therefore the council proceeded against him, brought him to open confession of his faults, and so enjoined him due penance for his demerits, notwithstanding the absolution and inconsiderate clearing of the bishop of Rome before proceeding.

In short, out of this council of Carthage these points are to be gathered. First, that the bishops of Rome were glad to receive such as came to them for succour. 2. That their pride was increased thereby, thinking and seeking to have all under their subjection.

3. To the intent to allure others to seek them from their being ready to release and acquit this Apiarius as guiltless, although he was afterwards found culpable by his own confession.

4. How that contrary to the acts and doings of the Romish bishop, this council condemned him, whom the bishop of Rome had absolved, little respecting the proceedings of the Romish church.

5. How the bishops of old time, have been falsifiers of ancient councils and writings, whereby it may be suspected, that they who were not ashamed to falsify and corrupt the council of Nice, would not stick to abuse and

falsify the decretal epistles and writings of particular bishops and doctors for their own advantage, as they have often done.

6. In this council, whereat Augustine was present, and where the president Aurelius was called Papa, the bishop of Rome was called expressly in their letters merely bishop of the city of Rome.

7. The dominion of this Roman patriarch, in this council of Carthage, was cut so short, that it was neither permitted to them of Africa to appeal over the sea to him, nor for him to send over his legates to them for ending their controversies. By which it may sufficiently appear, that the bishop of Rome in those days was not at all admitted to be the chief of all other bishops, nor the head of the universal church of Christ on earth, &c.

8. We hear in this council, causes or reasons given, why it is not necessary, nor yet convenient for all foreign causes to be brought to one universal head or judge.

9. Lastly, by the said council of Carthage, we hear a virtuous exhortation given to the bishop of Rome, that he would not induce the meek and humble church of Christ to fume and swell with the pride of the world, as has been described. In this, or in some other council of Carthage, it was moreover provided by express law, and also specified in the pope's decrees, that no bishop of the first seat, should be called the prince of priests, or the chief priest, or any such like thing.

Not long before this council, there was celebrated in Africa another council, at which also Augustine was present, where it was decreed under pain of excommunication, that no minister or bishop should appeal over the sea to the bishop of Rome. Whereby it may appear that the bishop of Rome at this time was not universally called by the term of oecumenical or universal bishop, but bishop of the first seat; so that if there were any preferment therein, it was in the reverence of the place, and not in the authority of the person.

These titles then, as Bishop, Metropolitan, the Bishop of the first See, Primate, Patriarch, Archbishop; that is to say, chief bishop, or head bishop to other bishops of his province, we deny not that they were in the old time applied, and might be applied to the bishop of Rome, like as the same were also applied to other patriarchs in other chief cities and provinces.

As touching the name likewise of the high priest, or high priesthood, neither do I deny that it has been found in old monuments and records of ancient times: but in such wise and sort as it has been common to bishops indifferently, and not singularly attributed to any one bishop or see.

And thus much as touching the name or title of high priest, or supreme bishop. Which title as I do not deny it to have been used in the manner and form aforesaid; so do I deny this title, as it is now used in Rome, to have been used, or usually received during all the primitive time of the church, that is, six hundred years after Christ; after the manner of that authority and glory, which in these days is used and is given to the same; until the time of Phocas, the wicked emperor, which was after the year 608. Which title as it is too glorious for any one bishop in the church of Christ to use: so is it not to be found in any of the approved and most ancient writers of the church; namely these, Cyprian, Basil, Fulgentius, Chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Tertullian : but rather written against by the same. And therefore not without cause it is written and testified of Erasmus, who speaking of the said name, denies plainly the same to be heard of among the old writers.

The same is also to be affirmed of other presumptuous titles of like ambition, as the Head of the Universal Church, the Vicar of Christ in earth, Prince of Priests, with such like which all be new found terms, strange to the ears of the old primitive writers and councils, and not received openly and commonly before the time of Boniface III., and the Emperor Phocas.

Now remains the name of the pope, which being a word which signifies as much as father, was then used, not as proper only to the bishop of Rome, but common to all other bishops or personages of worthy excellency. But now this name is so restrained and abused, that not

only is it appropriated to the bishop of Rome, but also distinguishes the authority and pre-eminence of that bishop alone from all other bishops, for which cause it is now worthily come into contempt and execration.

Although it cannot be denied, but some in the primitive time began privately to pretend to that proud and wicked title of universal bishop, as Menna, and especially John patriarch of Constantinople, who calling a council at Constantinople, went about to dignify his throne by the consent of the council, and the emperor of Constantinople, and obtained the same; as appears in the fifth general council of Constantinople, act the first, where both Menna and also John in the said council are titled "Universal Patriarchs." Concerning which title although it was then used in Constantinople through the sufferance of the emperors, being then willing to have their imperial city advanced; yet this title was not in the city of Rome. And in Constantinople it stood in force only by man's law. Neither the bishop of Rome, nor any of the Western churches did acknowledge, but rather did oppose the same: namely, Pelagius II., and Gregory I., both bishops at that time of Rome. Pelagius writing to all bishops says plainly in these words, "that no patriarch should take the name of universality at any time, because that if any be called universal, the name of patriarch is derogatory from all other. But let this be far from all faithful men, to will to take that thing to him, whereby the honour of his brethren is diminished. Wherefore the said Pelagius charges all such bishops, that none of them in their letters will name any patriarch to be universal." What can be more evident than these words of Pelagius, who was bishop of Rome next before Gregory? (A.D. 583). In like manner or more plainly, and more earnestly writes also Gregory, proving that no man ought to be called universal bishop. With sharp words and rebukes, detesting the same title, calling it new, foolish, proud, perverse, wicked, profane, and that to consent unto it, is as much as to deny the faith. He added further and saith, that whoever goes about to extol himself above other bishops, in so doing followeth the act of Satan, to whom it was not sufficient to be counted equal or like unto other angels. In his epistles how oft does he repeat and declare the same to be directly against the gospel, and ancient decrees of councils; affirming that none of his predecessors did ever usurp to himself that stile or title, and concludes that whoever doth so, declares himself to be a forerunner of antichrist, &c.

But Gregory, confirming the sentence of Pelagius, had no small conflicts about this title, both with the patriarch, and with the emperor of Constantinople. The history is thus; after John had been made a patriarch of Constantinople, by his flattery and hypocrisy, and had obtained of the emperor to be extolled above other bishops, with the name of universal patriarch, and that he would write to Gregory then bishop of Rome, for his consent concerning the same, Gregory abiding still in his constancy, did set himself stoutly against the antichristian title, and would give it no place. Gregory perceiving the Emperor Maurice to be displeased with him about the matter, writes to Constantina, the enpress, arguing and declaring in his letters, that the presumption and pride of him to be universal patriarch, was both against the rule of the gospel, and decrees of the canons; Damely, the sixth canon of the Nicene council, and the novelty of that new found title to declare nothing else, but that the time of antichrist was near. Upon this Maurice, the emperor, taking displeasure with him, calls home his soldiers from Italy, and incites the Lombards against the Romans, who, with their king, set upon the city of Rome, and besieged it for a whole year, Gregory, notwithstanding, still remaining in his former constancy. After these afflictions, Eulogius, patriarch of Alexandria, writes to Gregory, and in his letters, names him universal pope: which Gregory refuses, and answers as follows:

"Behold in the preface of your epistle directed to me, ye have used a word of a proud name, calling me universal pope, which I pray your holiness you will cease hereafter to do, for that is derogated from you, whatsoever is attributed to another more than right and rea

son requireth. As for me I seek not mine advancement in words, but in manners: neither do I account that any honour wherein the honour of my brethren I see to be hindered: for my honour I take to be the honour of the universal church: my honour is the whole and perfect vigour of my brethren. Then am I honoured when to no man is denied the due honour which to him belongeth. For if your holiness call me universal pope, in so doing you deny yourself to be that, which ye affirm me to be, universal: but that God forbid. Let these words therefore go, which do nothing but puff up vanity, and wound charity, &c.".

It were too long to insert here all such letters of his concerning this matter, but these shall appear more largely hereafter in the body of the history, when we come to the year and time of Gregory, which was well nigh six hundred years after Christ. In the mean time this is sufficient to declare, how the church of Rome with the form and manner of their title of universal supremacy now used and maintained, has utterly swerved from the ancient steps of the primitive church of Rome. Now let us see what the adversary has to object again for the title of their universality, or rather singularity. One objection of our adversaries is this; although (say they) no bishop of Rome was ever called, or would be called by the name of universal bishop, yet it follows not, therefore, that they are not, or ought not to be heads of the universal church. Their reason is this:

As St. Peter had the charge of the whole church committed unto him, although he were not called universal apostle :

So no more absurd it is for the pope to be called the head of the whole church, and to have the charge thereof, although he be not called universal bishop, &c.

Wherein is a double untruth to be noted: first, in that they pretend Peter to be the head, and to have the charge of the whole church: if we take here (charge or head) for dominion or mastership upon or above the church in all cases judiciary, both spiritual and temporal: for the words of the Scripture are plain, "Not as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock," 1 Pet. v. 3; and "But ye shall not be so, but he that is greatest among you let him be as the younger, and he that is chief as he that doth serve," Luke xxii. 26. Again, that the church is greater, or rather the head of Peter, it is clear, 1 Cor. iii. 22, "All things are yours, whether it be Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or death, or life, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's," &c. In which words the dignity of the church no doubt is preferred above the apostles, and above Cephas also. Moreover, as the dignity of the wife is above the servant, so must needs the honour and worthiness of the church (being the spouse of Christ) surmount the state of Peter or other apostles, which be but servants to Christ and to the church. The same Lord that said to Peter, "Feed my sheep," said also to the other, "Go and preach this gospel to all nations." And he that said to Peter, "Whatsoever thou loosest,' said also to the other, "Whatsoever ye remit in the earth." Moreover, if the matter go by preaching, Paul the apostle laboured more therein, than ever did Peter by his own confession, 1 Cor. xv. 10; also suffered more for the same, 2 Cor. xi. 23; neither was his doctrine less sound. Yea, and in one point he went before Peter, and was teacher and schoolmaster unto Peter, whereas Peter was by him justly corrected, Gal. ii. 11. Furthermore, teaching is not always nor in all things a point of mastership, but sometimes a point of service. As if a Frenchman should be put to an Englishman to teach him French, although he excels him in that kind of knowledge; yet it follows not, therefore, that he has fulness of power upon him, to appoint his diet, to rule his household, to prescribe his laws, to stint his lands, and such other. Wherefore seeing in travel of teaching, in pains of preaching, in gifts of tongues, in largeness of commission, in operation of miracles, in grace of vocation, in receiving the Holy Ghost, in vehemency of torments, and death for Christ's name, the other apostles were nothing inferior to Peter: why Peter then should claim any special prerogative above the rest, I under

с

stand no cause. As, indeed, he never claimed any: but | the patrons of the apostolical see do claim that for him, which he never claimed himself: neither if he were here, would he less abhor it with soul and conscience than we do now: and yet our abhorring now is not for any malice of person, or any vantage to ourselves, but only the vehemency of truth, and zeal to Christ and to his Church. Moreover, if these men would needs have Peter to be the curate and overseer of the whole universal church (which was too much for one man to take charge of) and to be prince of all other apostles, then would I fain learn of them, what means the right hand of fellowship between Peter, Paul, and Barnabas, mentioned Gal. ii. 9. What taking of hands is there between subjects and their prince, in way of fellowship? Or where fellowship is, what mastership is there? Or, again, what state of mastership is it like that Christ would give to Peter, who being indeed master of all, took such little mastership upon himself, and that not only in inward affection, but also in outward act? Although I am not ignorant that Peter in divers places of the gospel has his commendation, neither do I deny Peter to be worthy of the same. But yet these words of commendation give to him no state of superiority, or jurisdiction over all others, to have all under his subjection.

They produce another argument, proving, that the bishop of Rome was entitled the head of Christ's church, in the primitive time.

St. Peter, they argue, was called by the ancient fathers, head of Christ's church ;-And as St. Peter was bishop of Rome:-Therefore, the bishop of Rome was called head of the church in the old ancient time.

How can they prove that St. Peter, although he were at Rome, and taught at Rome, and suffered at Rome, yet was bishop and proper ordinary of that city of Rome? As to the places of the fathers, to prove this, I answer concerning Orosius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, and Augustine, that where they speak of St. Peter's chair, or planting the faith at Rome, straightway the papist argues thereupon, that Peter was bishop of Rome. But that does not clearly follow. For the office of the apostles was to plant the faith in all places, and in every region, yet were they not bishops in every region. And as for the chair, as it is no difference essential that maketh a bishop (for so much as a doctor may have a chair, and yet be no bishop) so they cannot conclude by the chair of Peter, that St. Peter was bishop of Rome. All this proves no more, but that Peter was at Rome, and there taught the faith of Christ, as Paul did also, and peradventure in a chair likewise : yet we say not that Paul was therefore bishop of Rome, but that he was there as an apostle of Christ, whether he taught there standing on his feet, or sitting in a chair. In the Scripture commonly the chair signifies doctrine or judgment, as sitting also declares such as teach or

(1) Barrow, of whose celebrated "Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy," Archbishop Tillotson said, "He hath exhausted the subject and hath said enough to silence this controversy for ever," has thus expressed himself on this point.

"The discourses of those men, have evinced that it is hard to assign the time when Peter was at Rome, and that he could never long abide there. For,

"The time which old tradition assigneth of his going to Rome, is rejected by divers learned men, even of the Roman party.

"He was often in other places, sometimes at Jerusalem, sometimes at Antioch, sometimes at Babylon, sometimes at Corinth, sometimes, probably at each of those places unto which he directeth his catholic epistles. Among which, Epiphanius saith, that Peter did often visit Pontus and Bithynia.

"And that he seldom was at Rome, may well be collected from St. Paul's writings, for he, writing at different times, one epistle to Rome and divers epistles from Rome, as that to the Galatiansthat to the Ephesians that to the Phillipiansand that to the Colossians and the Second to Timothy, doth never mention him sending any salutation to him or from him.

"Particularly St. Peter was not there when St. Paul mentioning Tichicus, Onesimus, Aristarchus, Marcus and Justus, addeth, These alone my fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God, have been a comfort unto me,' Col. iv. 11.

"He was not there when St. Paul said, At my first defence no man stood with me, but all men forsook me.' 2 Tim. iv. 16.

"He was not there immediately before St. Paul's death, When the time of his departure was at hand,' when he telleth Timothy that All the brethren did salute him,' and naming divers of them omitteth Peter. 2 Tim. iv. 21.

judge, whether they sit in the chair of Moses, or in the chair of pestilence. Planting likewise is a word apostolical, and signifies not the office of a bishop only. Wherefore it is no good argument to say that he sate, he taught, he planted at Rome, his chair and seat was at Rome, and that, therefore, he was bishop of Rome.

As for Abdias, Ado, Optatus, and others, I answer with this distinction of a bishop, which is to be taken either generally or specially. And first, generally, a bishop is he to whomsoever the public cure and charge of souls is committed, without any limitation of place. And so the name of bishop is co-incident with the office of apostle, or any public pastor, doctor, or curate, of the universal flock of Christ. And thus may Paul, Peter, or any other of the apostles be called bishops. So also is Christ himself by express word called bishop and pastor, 1 Peter ii. 25. And thus may Peter well be named a bishop. But this public and general charge universally over the whole, without limitation, ceased after Christ and the apostles. For then were bishops appointed by places and provinces, to have special oversight of some particular flock or province, and so to be resident and attendant only upon the same.

The other view of this name bishop, is to be taken after a more special sort, which is, when a person is assigned specially to some one certain place, city, or province, where he is bound to employ his office and charge, and no where else, according to the old canons of the apostles, and of the council of Nice. And this bishop differing from the other, bears the name of his city or diocese. And thus we deny that Peter the apostle was ever bishop elected, installed, or intituled to the city of Rome. And if Ado say that Peter was bishop of Rome five and twenty years, until the last year of Nero, that is easily refuted both by the scriptures and histories: for so we understand by the declaration of St. Paul, Gal. ii. 1. that fourteen years after his conversion, St. Paul had Peter by the hand at Jerusalem.

Moreover, Paul witnesses that the charge apostolical was committed to Peter over the circumcised, Gal. ii. 7. Also, St. Paul writing to the Romans, in his salutations to them in Rome, makes no mention of St. Peter, who, doubtless, should not have been forgotten, if he had then been in Rome. Again, St. Peter dating his epistle from Babylon, was not then at Rome."

Furthermore, histories record that Peter was at Pontus five years, then at Antioch seven years. How could he then be five-and-twenty years at Rome? Finally, where our adversary says, that St. Peter was there five-and-twenty years, until the last year of Nero; how can that stand, when St. Paul suffering under Nero was put to death the same day twelve month, that is, a whole year after Peter? But especially, how agrees this with Scripture, that Christ should make Peter an apostle universal to walk in all the world? "Go ye into

"Which things being considered, it is not probable St. Peter would assume the Episcopal Chair at Rome, he being little capable to reside there, and for that other needful affairs would have forced him to leave so great a church destitute of their pastor,

"Had he done so, he must have given a bad example of nonresidence, a practice that would have been very ill relished in the primitive church."

(2) It was during the life of our Author, John Fox, that the Rhemish Testament was published, and though he little thought that the Papists would identify Babylon with Rome, yet his "Acts and Monuments," were scarcely before the world, when the Rhemish Annotators-finding no evidence in the Scriptures to prove that Peter was ever at Rome-did actually fasten upon the dating of his first epistle from Babylon, and explain it as a mystic name for Rome!

Cartwright-who was a contemporary of Fox, and wrote his "Confutation of the Rhemists," &c. during the lifetime of our Martyrologist, thus writes:

"That Peter sat not at Rome is confirmed in that Peter writeth from Babylon, which to be Babylon in Chaldea, and not in Italy, this is an evident reason, for that this Babylon was a place of principal abode of the Jews, towards whom Peter's charge specially lay, Gal. ii. 7. Whereas at this time, the Jews were not suffered to make their abode in Rome, Acts, xviii. 2. Whereunto may be added that, writing to the dispersed Jews, and making rehearsal of divers countries wherein they were, he leaveth out Chaldea, which, considering the great numbers that remained there, still after the return into Judea out of Captivity, he would never have done, unless Chaldea were the place from whence he wrote his epistles."-Cartwright in loc. [ED.]

all the world," Mark xvi. 15.; and "ye shall be witnesses unto the uttermost part of the earth," Acts i. 8. And our papists would needs make him a sitting bishop, and locate him at Rome. How accord these-apostle and bishop-to go and to sit—to all nations and at Rome -together?

Now, the second untruth in the argument is, that because Peter was the head of the church, therefore, the pope must also be the head of the church, although he was not called universal bishop for a long time. But this we deny, yea, the matter denies itself by their own position; for the title of universal bishop was not received at Rome, but refused to the time of Gregory; then it must necessarily be granted that the bishops of Rome, before Gregory, had not the charge of the whole church, neither could be admitted, by that reason, to be heads of the church. For, as there can be no head but that which is universal to the whole body, so none can have charge of the whole, but he must needs be universal to all parts of that whereof he has the charge. Wherefore, if a bishop be he who has the charge of all souls in his diocese, then he whose charge extends to all churches, and who must render account for every christian soul within the whole world, to him cannot be denied the name of a universal bishop, having the office of a universal bishop. Or if he be not a universal bishop, he cannot then have the charge of the whole, that is, of all the churches of Christ. This word, universal, in the Greek writers, signifies that which we in our English tongue call catholic; yet I suppose our adversaries here will not take universal in that sense. For after that meaning, as we do not deny that the bishops of Rome may be universal bishops, so neither can they deny but other bishops may also be as universal, that is, as catholic as they. But such as more distinctly discuss this matter, define universal or catholic by three things, to wit, by time, place, and person. So that whatever extends itself to all times, all places, and all persons, that is properly universal or catholic. And contrariwise, what is to be called universal or catholic, reaches to all those three, comprehending all places, times, and persons, or else it is not to be called properly universal or catholic. And thus there are three things which most commonly we call catholic or universal; that is, the church which is called the catholic church; faith, which is called the catholic faith; a man whom also we call a catholic man, because these three extend themselves so, that no time, place, nor person is excluded. Which three conditions, if they altogether concur in the charge of the bishop of Rome, then is it a universal charge, and he a universal bishop; if not, then is his charge neither universal, nor he the head of the church, nor yet universal bishop. For how these three can be separated, I cannot see, except they prove it more evidently than they have done.

And thus much to the objection of our adversaries, arguing, that as St. Peter, not being called universal apostle, was yet the head of the universal church; so the pope, although he was not first called universal bishop, had, and might have the charge of the whole church, and was the universal head of the same.

Our adversaries, notwithstanding, do busy themselves to prove out of Theodoret, Ireneus, Ambrose, and Augustine; that the see of Rome, having the pre-eminence and principality, hath been honoured above all other churches; arguing that Ireneus, Ambrose, Augustine, and Theodoret affirm that the church of Rome is the chief of all other churches; and that therefore, the bishop and head of that church is chief and head over all bishops, and head over all other churches.

But this conclusion is to be denied, for the excellency of the church or place does not always argue the excellency of the minister or bishop, nor yet necessarily causes the same. For in matters of the church which are spiritual, all pre-eminence stands upon spiritual and inward gifts, as faith, piety, learning, and godly knowledge, zeal and fervency in the Holy Ghost, unity of doctrine, &c. which gifts many times may excel in a church where the minister or bishop is inferior to bishops or ministers of other churches. As the most famous school in a realm has not always the most famous

schoolmaster, nor does it make him thereby more excellent in learning than all others. So if our adversaries do mean by this pre-eminence of the church of Rome, such inward gifts of doctrine, faith, unity, and peace of religion; then, I say, the excellency hereof does not argue the excellency of the bishop But here our adversaries will reply again and say, that the pre-eminence of the church of Rome is not meant here so much by inward gifts and endowments belonging to a christian church, as by outward authority and dominion over other churches. Whereto is to be answered: what necessity is there? or where did our papists learn, to bring into the spiritual church of Christ, this outward form of civil policy? that, as the Roman emperors in times past governed over all the world, so the Roman bishop must have his monarchy upon the universal clergy, to make all other churches to stoop under his subjection? And where then are the words of our Saviour?" But it shall not be so among you." If they say there must needs be distinction of degrees in the church, and superiority must be granted for the discipline of the church, for quieting of schisms, for setting orders, for commencing convocations and councils, &c. Against this superiority we stand not, and therefore we yield to our superior powers, kings, and princes, our due obedience, and to our lawful governors under God of both governments, ecclesiastical and temporal. Also in the ecclesiastical state, we take not away the distinction of degrees, such as are appointed by the primitive church, or by the scripture allowed, as patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, ministers, and deacons. In which degrees, as we grant diversity of office, so we admit diversity of dignity. For, as we give to the minister place above the deacon, to the bishop above the minister, to the archbishop above the bishop, so we see no cause of inequality, why one minister should be above another minister; one bishop in his degree above another bishop, to deal in his diocese; or one archbishop above another archbishop. And this is to keep an order duly and truly in the church.

If he re

Now here joins the question between us and the papists, whether the metropolitan church of Rome, with the archbishop of the same, ought to be preferred before other metropolitan churches and archbishops, through universal christendom, or not? To the answer whereof, if the voice of order might here be heard, it would say, give to things that be equal and similar, equal honour; to things unequal and dissimilar, unequal honour, &c. Wherefore, seeing the see of Rome is a patriarchal see, appointed by the primitive church, and the bishop thereof and archbishop limited within his own bordering churches, which the council of Nice calls suburban churches, as other archbishops be; he ought, therefore, to have the honour of an archbishop and such outward preeminence as is due to other archbishops. quires more, he breaks the rule of right order, he falls into presumption, and does wrong unto his equals; and they also do wrong unto themselves, who, feeding his ambition, give more to him than the rule of order requires. For so much as they yield to him more than is his right, so much they take from themselves. And this is the reason why both Gregory and Pelagius reprehend them, who gave to the archbishop of Constantinople that which now the bishop of Rome claims to himself, charging them with the breach of order in these words, "Lest that while any singular thing is given to one person, all other priests be deprived of their due honour." And Pelagius exhorts that no priest give to any archbishop the name of universal bishop, "Lest in so doing he take from himself his due honour, while he yields that which is not due to another." And also in the same epistle, "If he be called the chief universal patriarch, then is the name of patriarch derogated from others," &c. Wherefore, seeing the bishop of Rome is an archbishop, order requires that he should have the dignity which to archbishops is due; whatever is added more, is derogatory to the rest. And thus much concerning distinction of degrees, and order in giving to every degree his place and honour.

Wherefore, even if it be admitted that the pope sits and succeeds in the chair of Peter and also that he is

the bishop of the greatest city in the world, yet it follows not that he should have rule and lordship over all other bishops and churches of the world. For, first, touching the succession of Peter, many things are to be considered ::--

I. Whether Peter sat and had his chair in Rome or not?

II. Whether he sat there as an apostle, or as a bishop?

III. Whether the sitting in the outward seat of Peter makes successors of Peter?

IV. Whether he sits in the chair and seat of Peter who sits not in the doctrine of Peter?

V. Whether the succession of Peter makes rather an apostle than a bishop, and so we should call the pope the apostle of Rome, and not the bishop of Rome?

VI. Whether ecclesiastical functions ought to be esteemed by ordinary succession of place, or by God's secret calling and sending?

VII. Whether it stand by scripture, that any succession at all is appointed in Christ's church, or why more from Peter than from other apostles?

All which being well discussed, it would appear what little reason the pope has to take this state upon him, above all other churches. In the meantime this one argument may suffice, instead of many, for our adversaries to answer at their convenient leisure.

All the true successors of Peter sit in the chair of the doctrine of Peter, and other apostles uniformly,-but no popes of this latter church of Rome sit in the chair of St. Peter's and other apostles' doctrine uniformly,— and therefore no popes of this latter church of Rome are the true successors of Peter.

And when they have well perused this argument, and have well compared together the doctrine taught them by St. Peter, with the doctrine taught now by the popes, of justification of a christian-man, of the office of the law, of the strength and largeness of sin, of men's merits, of free-will, of works of supererogation, of setting up images, of seven sacraments, of auricular confession, of satisfaction, of sacrifice of the mass, of communicating under one kind, of elevating and adoring the sacramental elements, of Latin service, of invocation, of prohibition of meats and marriage, of vowing chastity, of sects and rules of divers religions, of indulgences and pardons: also of their doctrine now taught concerning magistrates, of the fulness of power of the see of Rome, with many other things like to these, then will I be glad to hear what they shall say.

And if they would prove by Ireneus, Ambrose, Augustine, and Theodore, the bishop of Rome to be the chief of all bishops, because the city whereof he is bishop, is the chief and principal above all other churches, it followeth no more than this ::

London is the chief city in all England; and therefore the bishop of London is the chiefest of all bishops in this realm.

Which argument were derogatory to the archbishops both of Canterbury and York.

Yea, to grant yet more to our adversaries, that these fathers in giving principality to Rome, referred to the succession from Peter, and not to the greatness of the city yet their argument will fail if it be rightly considered; thus,

The apostolical see of Rome, having succession from Peter, with the bishops thereof, was chief of all other churches in the primitive time: therefore, the apostolical see of Rome, with the bishops thereof, having succession from Peter, ought now to be the chief of all other churches.

This might follow, if the times were like, or if succession which gave the cause of pre-eminence, were the same now, which it was then. But now the time and succession does not correspond, for then succession was as well in apostolical doctrine as in apostolical place. Now the succession of apostolical doctrine has long ceased in the apostolical see: and nothing remains but only place, which is the least matter of true spiritual and apostolical succession.

Besides these objections, our adversaries object against us examples of the primitive time of the church, testimonies of general councils, and opinions of ancient writers taken out of the book of councils, and epistles decretal, whereby their intent is to prove the foresaid terms (of the head of the church, ruler of the church, chief of all other priests) to be applied not only to Peter, but also to the bishop of Rome within the compass of the primitive time. To all which objections fully and exactly to answer in order, would require a whole volume by itself. In the meantime, leaving the rest to them, to whom it more properly appertains, I answer with this short distinction these and all such like places where St. Peter with his successors are called head of the church, chief of bishops, prince of the apostles, &c. In which places this word head, chief, and prince of the apostles, may be taken two manner of ways to note either dominion or else commendation. For we read sometimes head and chief, to be words not of authority, but of excellency, whereby is declared the chief and worthiest among many, and not the possessor and governor of the whole. Like as in the person of man, the head is the principal part of the whole body, being endued with reason, and furnished with senses, by which the whole man is directed; so there is derived a metaphor, that to what man nature or condition has given the greatest excellency of gifts, he is called head or chief. And yet he has not always dominion or jurisdiction of the rest. So we call in our common speech those, the head or chief men of the parish, who for their riches, wisdom, or place, are most specially noted: after like phrase of speech we call the head man of the inquest, him that has first place: and yet neither of these have any dominion or jurisdiction over the rest. In a school the chief scholar in learning, is not therefore the master or governor of his fellows. Neither has Cicero any title to claim subjection of all other orators, because he is named the prince of eloquence; and though Homer may be also called prince of poets, yet poets owe not to Homer anything but fame and praise.

And what if Peter be called and counted as head and prince of the apostles, for his excellent faith, for his divine confession, and singular affection to the Lord Jesus yet what right has he to challenge authority over the apostles, or the pope after him over all other bishops and the whole church of Christ, even though the pope should have the like excellency of Christ's faith which Peter had, as would to God he had.

And if our adversaries provoke us to the numbering of testimonies, and dividing the house (speaking of the writers and councils of the primitive age) for these testimonies alleged on their side, I could recite out of the witness of doctors, out of the examples of councils, and practices of emperors, no less than sixty voices, much more opposed to their assertion. But I refer it either to them that have more leisure at this time, or else omit it to another time, if the good pleasure of the Lord shall be to grant me further leisure in another book to treat thereof at large in such order, as shall appear sufficient to prove by the doctors, general councils, examples and histories that the bishops of Rome, during the first five hundred years after Christ, although for the greatness of the empire, they were somewhat more magnined than the others, and therefore were sought, and were flattered, and they did set forth themselves more than they should; yet by the common consent of the churches they were stopped of their purpose, so that by the consent of the most part, within that age, the bishops of Rome had not this state of title, jurisdiction and power which they now usurp, but were taken as archbishops of equal honour, of equal merit with other archbishops and rulers of the church. And if any preference was given to them above the rest, yet neither was it so given by all nor by the most part; secondly, neither was it so given by them for any such necessity of God's word, as did bind them thereto, nor yet so much for respect of Peter and his succession, as for certain other causes and respects, as may be gathered to the number of thirteen.

I. The greatness of the city and monarchy of Rome.