to shew his cunnyng therin, I wil forme that in argumēt for him, which he would haue done, but did not: and so will forme it (the Lorde willyng) as he him selfe must of necessitie be driuen to do, if the matter euer come to the triall of acte, and not to the triflyng of wordes. First, he taketh his text out of Chrysostome, as foloweth: MarginaliaChrisost. Lib. 2. de sacerd.for what cause, I pray you, did Christ shed his bloud? Truly to redeme those shepe, whose charge he committed to Peter, and to Peters successors. Vpon this place of Chrisostome, this clarke taketh his medium, Christes sufferyng. His conclusion is, that all whiche Christ dyed for, were committed to Peter. Wherefore the forme of the argument must needes stād thus in the third figure.

MarginaliaA Popish parilous paralogisme.Christ suffered for all men.

Christ suffered for them whom he cōmitted to Peter.

Ergo, All that Christ died for, where cōmitted to Peter.

If this be the forme of hys insoluble argument, as it semeth to be, by the order of his reasonyng, and also must needes be, takyng that medium, and making that conclusion as he doth, (for els in the first figure, and first moode, the text of Chrysostome wil not serue him) then must the forme and violence of this inexpugnable argument be denyed, for that it breaketh the rules of Logike, making his conclusion vniuersall, whiche in that figure must needes be particular, either affirmatiue, or negatiue. And so this argument inuincible falleth into one of these two straytes, þ^t either cōcludyng thus, the forme will not serue him: or cōcludyng in an other figure, the wordes of Chrysostome will not aunswere to his purpose, the proue that all the world was committed to Peter. Whiche proposition as it is straunge in Scripture: so neither is it the proposition of Chrysostome. And though it were, yet both without inconuenience might be graunted of vs, and beyng graunted, serueth his purpose nothyng, so long as the proposition is not exceptiue, excludyng other Apostles. For the wordes of Chrisostome doe not so sound, that the whole world was committed to Peter onely and to none other. Likewise then as it may be well affirmed of vs, that the world was committed to Peter, MarginaliaThe world was cōmitted as well to other Apostles as to Peter.so can it not be denyed of them, that the world was also committed to Iohn, Iames, Barthelmewe, Paule, Barnabe, and other all and singular Apostles. For he that sayd to Peter, feede my sheepe, sayd also to all and singulare his Apostles: Goe into all the worlde and preach, &c. Mat. vlt. MarginaliaA place of Chrisostome examined by s. Paule.Moreouer for asmuch as this man collecteth out of Chrysostome that the whole world was committed to Peter, how shall we then ioyne this meanyng of Chrysostome with S. Paule, which sayth that the Gospell was committed to Peter ouer the circumcision, as was to Paul ouer the vncircumcision? And here an aunswer to this doughtye argument, both to the forme and matter therof, albeit concernyng the matter, here lacketh much to be sayd more of Peters successours in the text of Chrisostome. MarginaliaThe successours of Peter.By the whiche successors, is not ment the Byshop of Rome onelye (as the Papists would beare vs in hand) but all such true and faythfull Pastors, whom the Lordes calling sendeth, and setteth ouer his flocke, whersoeuer, or whatsoeuer they be. For as Peter beareth a representation of the Church, by the testimony of Augustin Ioan. tract. 124. Præfat. in Psal. 108: so the successors of Peter, be all faithfull Pastors and ouerseers of Christes Church, to whom Christ our Lord hath committed the charge of his flocke. Wherfore they are not a litle deceaued, whiche lookyng vpon the rocke onely of the person, and not the rocke of confession (contrary to the rule of Hilary De Trini. lib. 6) MarginaliaHIlarius. Lib. 6.doe tye the Apostleshyp or rocke of Peter to one onely Byshop, & the successiō of Peter, to one onely sea of Rome: where as this beyng a spirituall office, and not carnall, hath no such carnall race or discent after any worldly or locall vnderstandyng: but hath a more misticall meanyng, after a spirituall sense of succession, such as Hierome speaketh of, Epist. ad. Euagrium. Omnes, inquit, Apostolorum successores sunt. &c. MarginaliaHierony. Epist. ad Euagrium.That is: All, sayth he (speakyng of Byshops) be successours of the Apostles. &c.

Of like force and fashion, and out of the same figure, the same author patcheth moreouer an other argument, prouyng that the Byshop of Rome was tituled the head of Christes Church, in the primitiue tyme of the olde aūciters, before the age of Gregory. His argument procedeth thus, in the third figure.

MarginaliaAn argumēt of the Papistes.
Saint Peter was called by the auncient fathers, head
of Christes church.
Saint Peter was Byshop of Rome:
Ergo the Byshop of Rome was called head of the
Churche, in the old auncient time.

MarginaliaAunswere to the argument.This argument expository, being clouted vp in the third figure, and concludyng singularly, hath rather a shew of an argument, then maketh any necessary conclusion, standing vpon no moode in the sayd figure, if the authour therof were put to his triall. Albeit to leaue the forme, and to come to the matter of the argumēt: First how will he well dispatch him selfe of the Maior, & proue vs that S. Peter, although he were at Rome, and taught at Rome, and suffered at Rome: yet that he was Byshop and proper Ordinary of that Citie & speciall Sea of Rome? MarginaliaOrosius. Tertul. lib de præscript. aduers. hære. Cipria. lib. 1. epist. 3. Hier. in catal. & Epist. 42.As touchyng the allegation of Abdias, Orosius, Ado, Tertullian, Ciprian, Hierome, Optatus, & Austen, brought forth for his most aduauntage, to proue his Maior: thus I aūswer, cōcernyng Orosius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Hierome, and Austen, that where they speake of S. Peters chayre, or plantyng the fayth at Rome, straightway thys man argueth therupon, that Peter was Byshop of Rome. But that doth not clarckely follow. For the office of the Apostles was to plant the fayth in all places, and in euery region, yet were they not Byshops in euery region. And as for the chayre, as it is no differēce essentiall that maketh a Bishop (for so much as a Doctor may haue a chayre, and yet be no Byshop) so can not he conclude by the chayre of Peter, that S. Peter was Byshop of Rome. For all this proueth no farther, but that Peter was at Rome, and there taught the fayth of Christ, as Paule did also, and peraduenture in a chayre likewise: yet we say not that Paule was therfore Byshop of Rome. But that he was there as an Apostle of Christ, whether he taught there standyng on his feete, or sittyng in a chayre. In the Scripture commonly the chayre signifieth doctrine or iudgement, as sittyng also declareth such as teach or iudge, whether they sit in the chayre of Moses, or in the chayre of pestilence. Plantyng likewise is a worde Apostolicall, and signifieth not onely the office of a Bishop. Wherfore it is no good consequent, he sat, he taught, he plāted at Rome, his chayre and seate was at Rome: Ergo he was Bishop of Rome. And thus much touchyng Orosius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Austen.

As for Abdais, Ado, Optatus, and suche other, although we should haue much wrōg offred, and neuer should make an ende, if we should be prest with the autoritie of euery one that could or did moue pen, in all the whole first age of the Church, to be our iudges in euery Ecclesiasticall matter: and much more wrong should haue, if the authors either corrupted, or counterfayted, should be layd vnto vs, speakyng not in the same sense, or in the same toung, or in the same time wherin they wrote: yet to helpe and to salue the autorities of these authors so much as we may, I aūswer to their allegations, with this distinction of a Byshop, which is to be taken either generally or specially. MarginaliaA double taking of the word, Byshop.After the first, a Byshop is he to whomsoeuer the publicke cure and charge of soules is committed, without any limitation of place. And so the name of Byshop is coincident with the office of Apostle, or any publicke Pastor, Doctor, or Curator of the vniuersall flocke of Christ. And thus may Paule, Peter, or any other of the Apostles be called Byshops. MarginaliaChrist him selfe a Byshop.So also is Christ hym selfe by expresse word called xxx and xxx, that is, Bishop, and Pastor. 1. Peter. 2. And thus may Peter wel be named a Byshop of these foresayd authors after this maner of takyng. But this publicke and generall charge vniuersally ouer the whole, without limitation, ceased after Christ, & the Apostles. For then were Byshops by places and prouinces appointed, to haue speciall ouersight of some particular flocke or prouince, and so to be resident and attendant onely vpon the same.

The other diuersitie of this name Byshop, is to be takēn after a more speciall sorte, which is, when any person orderly called, is assigned namely and specially to some one certain place, citie, or prouince, wherunto he is onely bound to employ his office and charge, and nowhere els, accordyng to the old Canons of the Apostles, and of the Councell of Nice. MarginaliaCanon. Apost. 13. 14. 34.
Con. Nice. Cap. 15.
Concil. Antioch. cap. 3. 13.And this Byshop differyng from the other, is called, Episcopus intitulatus, hauyng his name of his Citie or Dioces. And thus we deny that Peter the Apostle was euer Byshop elected, installed, or intituled to the Citie of Rome, neither doth Optatus, Abdias, Ado, or Hierome affirme the same. MarginaliaPeters beyng at Rome.And ifAdo say that Peter was Byshop of Rome. 25. yeares, vntill the last yeare of Nero, that is easely refuted, both by the Scriptures and histories: for so we vnderstande by the declaration of Saibt Paule, Gal. 1. 2. that. 14, yeares after his conuersion, Saint Paule had Peter by the hand at Hierusalem.

Moreouer, the sayd Paule in the foresayde Epistle witnesseth, that þ^e charge Apostolicall was cōmitted vnto Peter ouer the Circumcised, and so was he intituled. Also S. Paule writyng to the Romanes, in his manifold salutations to them in Rome, maketh no mention there of S. Peter, whiche doubtlesse should not haue bene vnremembred, if he had bene then in Rome. Agayne S. Peter datyng his