tie, who one minister shoulde be aboue an other minister: One bishop in his degree aboue an other byshop to deale in hys dioces: or one Archbishop aboue an other Archbishop. MarginaliaOrder kept in the churche, and what true order is.And this is to kepe an order duely and truely in the church, according to the true nature & definition of order by the authoritie of August.li. De ciuit. dei. MarginaliaAug. de civit. dei. li. 19. ca. 13.
Order definedWhere he thus defineth that which we call order: Ordo. est parium dispariumq; rerum sua cuique loca tribuens dispositio.  

Order (saith he) is a discretion or disposition geuen to all thinges, according as they are matches, or not matches, proporcionally to euery one his own right and proper place.

[Back to Top]

This definition of Saint Austen standing, with the thinges before premised, now here ioyneth the question betwene vs and the Papistes, whether the Metropolitane church of Rome, with the Archbishop of the same, ought to be preferred before other metroplitane churches, and Archbishops through vniuersal christendome, or not? To the aunswer whereof, if the voyce of Order might here be heard, it would say: geue to thinges that be matches and like, like honour: to thinges vnlyke, vnlike honour. &c. Wherefore, seing the sea of Rome is a patriarchal sea, appointed by the primitiue church, and the bishop therof an Archbishop, limited within his own bordering churches, which the councell of Nice calleth surburbicas ecclesias, as other Archbishops be: hee ought therfore orderly to haue the honour of an Archbishop (ordering him selfe therafter) and such outwarde preheminence as to other Archbishops is due. More if he doo require, he breaketh the rule of right order, he falleth into presumption, and doth wrong vnto his felowes, & they also do wrong vnto themselues, whosoeuer they be, feeding hys humour of ambition, geueth more vnto hym then the foresayde rule of Order doth require. For so much as they yeld to him more thē is his right, so much they take from them selues, which is due to them. MarginaliaEx Regist. tro Grego. li. 4. ep. 32And the same is the cause, why both Gregory and Pelagius hys predecessor reprehendeth them, whiche gaue to the Archbishop of Constantinople, that, which now the byshop of Rome claymeth to him selfe, charging thē with the breache of Order in these wordes: Ne dum priuatum aliquod daretur vni, honore debito sacerdotes priuarentor vniuersi,  

MarginaliaEx epist. 2 Pelagij. 2. Dist. 99. c 4. Nullusthat is: least that whyle any singular thing is geuen to one person, all other priestes be depriued of their due honour. And for the like cause Pelagius exhorteth that no priest doo geue to anye one Archbishop, the name of vniuersal bishop, ne sibi debitum subtrahat cū alteri honorem offert indebitum.   That is: least (saith he) in so doing, he take from himselfe hys due honor, while he yeldeth that, which is not due to an other. And also in the same epistle: Quia si summus patriarcha vniuersalis dicitur, patriarcharum nomen cæteris derogatur.   For (sayth he) if he be called the chiefe vniuersal patriarche, thē is the name of Patriarches derogated frō other. &c. Wherfore as is sayde, seing the bishop of Rome is an Archbishop, as other be: Order geueth, that he shoulde haue the dignity, which to Archbishops is due, whatsoeuer is added more, is derogation to the rest. And thus much concerning distinction of degrees, and order in geueing to euery degree his place and honour.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaThe secōde aunsweare to the obiection, before mouedThe second reason or answer to the obiection before moued, pag. 20. is this: that being graunted to the Papistes, that the Doctors aforesayd, speaking of the principallity of the church of Rome, do meane not onelye of the inward vertues of that church, but also of the outward autority and iurisdiction of the same, aboue other churches: yet the cause wherefore they did attribute so much to the church, is to be expended, which was thys, as before was alledged out of the councel of Calcedon, cap. 28 διὰ τὸ βασιλεύειν τὴν πόλιν ἐκείνην.  

, MarginaliaEx concil. Calce. c. 28that is: for þ^e rule and impery which that city of Rome had then aboue other cities, which cause being outward and carnal, wasneither then cause sufficient, and now ceasing, importeth not to vs the like effect, according as they say: Sublata causa, tollitur effectus.   So that by the reason thereof, the foresayd principallity of the Churche of Rome, dyd not hold then, iure diuino, sed humano. And as it holdeth by mans lawe, so by mans lawe may be repealed agayne.

[Back to Top]

Wherfore, be it admitted, that both the Pope sitteth and succeedeth in the chayre of Peter, and also that he is the bishop of the greatest city in the world: yet it followeth not therby, that he shoulde haue rule & lordship ouer al other bishops and churches of the worlde. For first touching the succession of Peter, many things are to be considered.

[Back to Top]

Marginaliadertayn demaūdes for the Papistes to aunswere vnto.Fyrst, whether Peter sat, and hadde hys chayre in Rome, or not?

Secondly, whether he sat there as Apostle, or as byshop?

Thirdly, whether the sitting in the outwarde seat of Peter maketh successour of Peter?

Fourthly, whether he sitteth in the chayre and seate of Peter, which sitteth not in the doctrine of Peter?

Fiftly, whether the succession of Peter maketh rather an a Apostle, then a Bishop, and so shoulde we call the Pope, þ^e Apostle of Rome, & not the bishop of Rome?

Sixtly, whether ecclesiastical functions ought to bee estemed by ordinary succession of place, or by Gods secrete callyng or sending?

Seuenthly and lastly, whether it stand by scripture, any one successiō at al to be pointed in Christes church, or why more from Peter, then from other Apostles?

Al which interrogatories, being wel discussed (which would aske a long proces) it shoulde well appeare what litle hold the Pope hath to take this state vpon hym, aboue al other churches, as he doth. In the meane tyme, thys one argument by the way maye suffice, in steede of many, for our aduersaries to answer to, at their conuenient laysure. Which argument thus I forme and frame in Camestres.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaAn argumente prouing the popes of this latter church of Rome not to be successors of Peter.

Ca	All the true successors of Peter sit in the chayre of the doctrine of Peter & other apostles vniformely.
mes	No popes of thys latter church of Rome, syt in the chaire of S. Peters and other Apostles doctrine vniformely.
tres	Ergo no popes of this latter church of Rome, be the true succesors of Peter

[Back to Top]

And when they haue wel perused the Minor of thys argument, and haue wel conferred together the doctrine taught them of S. Peter, with the doctrine taught now by the popes, of iustification of a Christen man, of the office of the lawe, of the strengthe and largenes of synne, of mens merites, of free wyl, of workes of supererogation, of setting vp images, or seuen sacramentes, of auricular confession, of satisfactiō, of sacrifice of the Masse, of communicating vnder one kind, of eleuating and adoring the sacramental elementes, of latine seruice, of inuocation, of prohibition of meates, and mariage, of vowing chastity, of sectes and rules of diuers religions, of indulgences and pardons: also wyth theyr doctrine taught now of Magistrates, of the fulnes of power, and regality of the sea of Rome, with manye other like to these. &c. then wyll I be glad to heare what they wyl say to the premisses.

[Back to Top]

Secondly, if they woulde proue by the allegation of the Doctors Ireneus, Ambrose, Austen, Theodoritus aforesayde, the bishop of Rome to be the chiefe of all Byshops therfore, because the city whereof he is bishop, is chiefe and principal aboue al other churches, that consequent is to be denyed. For it followeth not (taking as I sayd, the principallity of that Church, to stand διὰ τὸ βασιλεύειν τὴν πόλιν, that is, vpon the principall dominion of that Cyty) no more then thys consequent followeth.

[Back to Top]