MarginaliaAn. 1555. Iuly.is, to haue something sent to you cōcerning the vsurped authoritie of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, MarginaliaThe Pope proued to be the great Antichrist spoken of by the Apostles.which is vndoubtedly that great Antichrist of whom the Apostles doe so much admonishe vs, that you may haue aswell something the more to stay you on, as also wherwith to answere the aduersaries, because you may perchaūce therin be somthing apposed. To satisfy this your desire I wil briefly goe about, and so, that I wil by gods grace, fully set forth the same, to enarme you to wythstād the assaults of the Papists herein, if you marke well and read ouer againe that which I now wryte.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaThe Pope displacing Christ.The Papists do place in preeminence ouer the whole church the Pope, thereby vnplacing CHRIST which is the head of the church, that geueth life to the whole body, and by his spirite doth make liuely euery member of the same. This they doe without all scriptures. For where they bring in this spokē to Peter: feede my sheepe,MarginaliaThe wordes of Christ to Peter, Feede my shepe, expounded. I would gladly know whether this was not commaunded vnto others also. As for that (which perchaunce they wyll vrge) that hee spake to Peter by name, if they had any learning, they would easely perceaue how that it was not for any such cause as they pretend, but rather by a threefold commaundement, to restore to him the honour of an Apostle, which he had lost by his threefold denyall. And how dare they interprete this worde, my sheepe, my Lambes, to be the vniuersall church of CHRIST? I trow a man might easely by the *Marginalia* Argument.Christ bidding Peter to fede his flocke, made him head ouer the vniuersall Church: Ergo, Peter bidding the pastors to fede the flocke of Christ, made them also heades ouer the vniuersall church.like reason proue that Peter himself had resigned that which CHRIST had geuen to him, in exhorting his fellowe pastours to feede the flocke of CHRIST. Is not this prety stuffe? Because CHRIST saith to Peter, feede my sheepe, therefore he ought to rule the vniuersall and whole church of CHRIST? If Peter doe truely wryte vnto others that they should doe the like, that is, feede CHRISTES flocke, either he translateth his right and authority committed to him vppon them, or els he doth participate, or communicate with them: so that folishly they goe about to establishe that which hath no ground.MarginaliaAb vna exponente ad suam exclusiuam non valet cōsequentia.  

Christ made Peter a shepheard: Ergo Christ made Peter only the chiefe shepheard of hys shepe.Peter in dede was a shepheard of the sheepe, but such a one as bestowed his labour on them so farre, as he could stretch him self by his ministery. But the papistes prate that hee had full power ouer all Churches: Wherein they may see Paule to improue them, for els he had done vniustly in denying them the superiour place. Howbeit, who euer yet red that Peter did take any thing vpon him ouer Churches committed vnto other men? Was not he sēt of the church, and sent as one not hauing rule ouer the rest? MarginaliaPeter was excellent for his giftes, and not for the place where he sat.I graunt that he was an excellent instrument of God, and for the excellency of his gifts, whē soeuer they mette together, place therfore was commonly geuen vnto him. But what is this to the purpose, to make him ruler and head ouer all the whole church, because he was so ouer a small congregation?

[Back to Top]

But be it so that Peter had as much geuen to him as they do affirme: Who yet wil graunt that Peter had a patrimony geuen for his heires? He hath left (say the Papistes) to his successours, the self same right which he receaued. MarginaliaArgument.
Peter left the title which he receaued to hys successours. Peter receaued the title of Sathan: Ergo Peter lefte the title of Sathan to his successours.Oh Lord God, then must his successour be a Sathan: for he receaued that title of CHRIST him selfe. I would gladly haue the Papists to shew me one place of succession mencioned in the Scriptures. I am sure that when Paule purposely painteth out the whole adminystration of the Church, he neither maketh one head, nor any enheritable Primacye, and yet he is altogether in commendation of vnitye. After he hath made mention of one God the father, of one CHRIST, of one spirit, of one body of the Church, of one faith, and of one baptisme, then he describeth the meane and manner how vnitye is to bee kept: namely because vnto euery pastour is grace geuen after the measure wherewith CHRIST hath endued them. MarginaliaNo mention of succession nor primacie inheritable, in all the scripture.Where I pray you is now any title of Plenitudinis potestatis, of fulnes of power? When he calleth home euery one vnto a certaine measure, why did he not forthwith say, one Pope? Which thing he could not haue forgotten, if the thing had bene as the papists make it.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaNo cause why any perpetuity of primacie should belong to Rome, more then to other places.But let vs graunt that perpetuitie of the Primacye in the Church was established in Peter: I would gladly learne why the seate of the Primacy should be rather at Rome, thē elswhere. Mary say they, bicause Peters Chair was at Rome. This is euen like to this, that MarginaliaAs Peters chayre was in Rome: So Moses chayre was in the wildernes: Ergo the principalitie of the Iewish church should be in the wildernes.because Moses the greatest Prophet, and Aaron the first priest exercised theyr offices vnto their death in the desert, therefore the principallest place of the Iewish Church should be in the wildernes. But graunt them theyr reason, that it is good. What shold Antioch claime? For Peters Chaire was there also: wherein Paule gaue him a checke, which was vnsemely and vnmanerly done of Paule, that would

[Back to Top]

not geue place to his president and better.

No say the Papists, Rome must haue this authoritye because Peter died there. But what if a man should by probable coniectures shewe, that MarginaliaPeter had no Bishopricke at Rome.it is but a fable, which is fained of Peters Bishoprike at Rome? Read how Paule doth salute very many priuate persones when he writeth to the Romaines. Three yeres after his Epistle made, he was brought to Rome prisoner. Luke telleth, that he was receaued of the brethren, and yet in all these, is no mention at all of Peter, which then by theyr storyes was at Rome. Belike he was proude, as the Pope and Prelates be, or els he would haue visited Paule. MarginaliaConiectures that Peter was not at Rome.Paule being in prison in Rome, did wryte diuers Epistles, in which he expresseth the names of many which were in comparison of Peter, but rascall personages, but of Peter he speaketh neuer a word. Surely if Peter had beene there, this silence of him had bene suspicious. In the second Epistle to TimothyMarginalia2. Tim. 4. Paule complaineth that no man was with him in his defence, but all had left him. If Peter had bene then at Rome, as they write, then eyther Paule had belyed him, or Peter had played his Peters parte. Luke. 23. In an other place,MarginaliaPhil. 2. how doth he blame all that were with him, only Timothy excepted? Therefore we may well doubt whether Peter was at Rome bishop as they prate: for all this time, and long before, they say that Peter was Bishop there.

[Back to Top]

But I wil not styrre vp coles in this matter. If Rome be the chief Seate because Peter dyed there, why should not Antioch bee the second?MarginaliaIf Peters Chayre make the primacie. Why might not Antioch clayme as much as Rome, where he satte first? Why should not Iames and Iohn which were taken with Peter to bee as pillers, Why (I say) should not theyr Seates haue honour next to Peters Seate? Is not this geare prepostorous, that Alexandria where Marke (which was but one of the Disciples) was Byshop, should bee preferred before Ephesus where Iohn the Euāgelist taught & was Bishop, & before Ierusalē where not only Iames taught & died Byshop, but also CHRIST IESVS our Lord and hygh Priest for euer? by whom beyng Maister (I hope) honour should be geuen to his Chaire, more then to the Chayre of his Chaplaines.

[Back to Top]

I nede to speake nothyng how that Paul telleth Peters Apostleshyp to concerne rather Circūcision or the Iewes,MarginaliaPeters Apostleship was ouer the circūcised, and not ouer the Gentiles. and therfore properly perteineth not to vs. Neither do I neede to bryng in Gregorius the first Byshop of Rome, which was about the yeare of our Lord. 600. Who plainly in his workes doth write, that this title of Primacy, and to be head ouer all Churches vnder CHRIST, is a title meete and agreyng onely to Antichrist,MarginaliaThe title of primacy, a foretoken of Antichrist. and therfore he calleth it a prophane, a mischieuous, and an horrible title. Whom should we beleue now, if we wil neither beleue Apostle nor Pope.

[Back to Top]

If I should go about to tell how this name was first gotten by Phocas, I should be to long.MarginaliaHow the title of primacie first came vp, and by whom. I purpose God willyng, to set it forth at large in a worke which I haue begun of Antichrist, if God for his mercies sake geue me lyfe to finish it. For this present therfore I shall desire your Ladyship to take this in good part. MarginaliaIf they will nedes make the Bishop of Rome the supreame head, they must first proue him a Bishop in dede and not in name.If they will nedes haue the Byshop of Rome to be acknowledged for the head of þ^e Church, then will I vrge them þ^t they shall geue vs a Byshop. But they obtrude vnto vs a butcher rather, or a biteshepe then a bishop. They bragge of Peters succession, of CHRISTES vicar, this is alwayes in their mouth. But alas, how can we call him CHRISTES Vicar that resisteth CHRIST, oppugneth his veritye, persecuteth his people, and like a Prelate preferreth him selfe aboue God and man? How, or wherein doth the Pope and CHRIST agree? How supplieth he Peters ministery, that boasteth of his succession? Therfore to begin withall, which I will vse presently for a conclusyon, if the Papists will haue the bishop of Rome supreme head of the church of CHRIST in earth, they must afore they attaine this, geue vs a Bishop in deede, and not in name.MarginaliaThe B. of Rome seemeth in dede rather a Butcher then a Bishop. For whosoeuer he be that wil make this the bond of vnity, what soeuer the bishop of Rome be, surely thys must nedes follow, that they doe nothing els but teach a most wicked defection, and departing from CHRIST.

[Back to Top]

But of this, if God lend me life, I purpose to speake more at large hereafter. Nowe will I betake your Ladiship vnto the tuition of God our father, and CHRIST our only head pastour and keper, to whome see that you cleaue by true faith which depēdeth only vpon the word of God, which if you do folow as a lanterne to your fete, and a light to your steppes, you shall then auoide darkenes, and the daungerous deepes whereinto the papists are fallen by the iust iudgement of God, & seeke to bring vs into the same dungeon with them, that the blinde fol-

[Back to Top]