cap De summa Trinit. & fide Cath. The testimonie also of Athanasius with his fellow Bishops of Egypt, of Thebaid, and Libia, in their Epistles to Pope Marcus, Liberius, and Felix. Likewise the testimonie of Hierome, In præf. in 4. Euāg. Item, Epist. 42. Tom. 1. Item, Epist. 4. Tom. 2. Of S. Ambrose. 1. Timo. 3. Of S. Austen to Boniface. Ad Bonif. contra duas Epist. Pelagian. Lib. 1. cap. 1. Item, Lib. 2. De baptis. cap. 1. Of Theodoritus in his Epistle to Pope Leo. Epist. commentar. in Pauli Epist. præfixa. Of Chrisostome, Epist. ad Innocentium, Tom. 5. &c. By which testimonies our aduersaries would proue S. Peter, and after him the Byshop of Rome to be called and taken for head of theChurche, chief Byshop, Prince & ruler of the whole Clergy. To all which obiections fully and exactly to aunswere in order, would require a whole volume by it selfe. In the meane time, leauing the rest to them vnto whō it doth more properly appertaine, MarginaliaAunswere by a distinction.briefly with this one short distinction I aūswere these and all such other like places, where S. Peter with his successours are called: head of the Churche, chief of Byshops, Prince of the Apostles, &c. In whiche places, this worde, head, chief, and Prince of the Apostles, may be taken two maner of wayes: to note either dominion, or els commendation MarginaliaCaput and Princeps, haue a doble vnderstandyng.For so we read sometyme Caput, and princeps to be wordes not of authoritie, but of excellencie, wherby is declared the chiefest and worthyest part among many partes, and not possessour and gouernour of the whole. Like as in the person of mā, the head is the principall part of the whole body, being endued with reason and furnished with most excellent senses, by the which the whole body of man is directed: so therof is deriued by a metaphor, to what mā or thing soeuer nature or condition hath geuen the greatest excellencie of gifts and properties aboue other partes or members of the same to be called of the sayd parties, Caput, or Princieps, head or Prince. And yet the same head or Prince so called, hath not alwayes dominion or iurisdiction of the rest. So we call in our vulgare speech the head or chief men of the Parish, who for their riches, wisedome, or place, are most specially noted: After like phrase of speech we call the head mā of the inquest, him that hath the first place. And yet neither they nor these haue any dominion or iurisdiction vpon the residue. In a schole the chiefest scholer in learnyng, is not therefore the maister or gouernour of his fellowes. MarginaliaHow Peter is princeps Apostolorum Princeps eloquntiæ Cicero. Princeps philosophorum Cratippus.Neither hath M. Cicero any title therby to clayme subiection and seruice of all other Oratours, because he is named Princeps eloquentiæ, & goeth before them in that kinde of phrase. The same Cicero. Lib. 1. offic. calleth Cratippum principem huius ætatis Philosophorum: as Homerus also may bee called Poetarum Principes: And yet neither Philosophers to Cratippus, nor Poetes to Homere owe any thyng els, but onely fame and prayse.

MarginaliaPetrus princeps et Coryphæus ApostolorūAnd what if S. Peter the blessed Apostle be called and counted of the old auncient Doctours, as head and Prince of the Apostles, whiche is as much as Coryphæus Apostolorum, for his excellent fayth, for his diuine confession and singular affection to the Lord Iesus: yet what interest or charge either hath he to chalenge ouer the Apostles, or the Pope after hym ouer all other Byshops and the whole Church of Christ, although the pope haue the like excellencie of Christes fayth, whiche Peter had, as would God he had? As concernyng these allegations therfore out of the Doctours, two thynges are to be obserued: first that neither these names and titles though they be geuen to Peter, doe geue him any state or dominion aboue other Apostles: nor yet the succession of him doth further any whit this celsitude and regalitie of the Pope to aduaunce hym aboue his fellow Archbishops, as he now doth.

And if our aduersayres would needes prouoke vs to the numberyng of testimonies, & deuidyng the house (speakyng of the writers and Councels of the primitiue age) for these aforesayd testimonies alledged on their side, I could on the contrary part recite out of the witnesse of Doctours, out of the exāples of coūcels, & practices of Emperours, no lesse then. 60. voyces much more repugnaunt agaynst their assertion, then there is for the Pope. The tractation wher of for this present I do refer either to them, that haue more leysure at this time to discourse them, or els omitte it to an other tyme, if the good pleasure of the Lord shall be, to graūt me further leysure in an other booke to intreate thereof at large, in such order as (if the Lord so graunt) shall appeare sufficient matter, to proue both by Doctors, general Coūcels, examples and hystories of tyme, that the Byshops of Rome, duryng the first. 500. yeares after Christ, although for the greatnes of the Empyre, were somewhat more magnified thē the other, and therfore were sought of many, and were flattered of some, and they them selues diuerse dyd set forth themselues more then they should: yet by the common consent of Churches, were stopped of their purpose, so that by the consensiō of the most part, within the compasse of that age the Byshops of Rome had not this regall state of title, iurisdiction, and fulnes of power, whiche now they vsurpe, but were taken as Archbyshops, or equall honour, of equall merite with other Archbyshops and rulers of the Church. And if any preferment was geuen vnto them some thyng aboue the rest: yet neither was it so geuē of all, nor of the most part: secondly neither was it so geuen of them for any such necessitie of Gods word, aut iure aliquo diuino, as whiche did so bind them therunto, MarginaliaCauses 13. of aduauncyng the sea of Rome.nor yet so much for the respect of Peter, and his succession: as for certaine other causes, and respectes, as may be gathered to the number of. 13.

Marginalia1.Of whiche the first is the greatnes of the Citie and monarchie of Rome.

Marginalia2.The second is the authoritie of the Emperour Constāntine the great, first of the Emperours cōuerted to the fayth, and rulyng in the same Citie, by whom the vniuersall libertie of the Church was first promoted, and the causes of the Byshops beyng then at variaunce, were committed partly to the Byshop of Rome, partly to other Bishops nere by to be decised, as appeareth Euseb. Lib. 10. cap. 5.

Marginalia3.The third was the Councel of Nice, which confirmed the preeminence of that Church to haue the ouersight of the Churches borderyng about it.

Marginalia4.The fourth cause of aduauncing the Churche of Rome was the vnquyet state of the Greeke church much troubled in those dayes with sectes, factions, and dissentions. wherof we may read, Socract. lib. 2. cap. 15. Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 8.

Marginalia5.The fift, when Synodes were called by other Metropolitanes, then if it chaunsed the Byshops of Rome to be absent, and their sentence beyng absent to be required, by the occasion therof they began at length to take their sentēce for a Canon or rule Ecclesiasticall, & therby to refuse other Synodes, where their decree or sentence was not required.

Marginalia6.An other cause was, that when any cōmon matter was in hand in other places, whatsoeuer was done, commonly the maner was to write to the Romaine Bishop for his approbation in the same, for publique vnitie and consent to be had in Christes Church: as appeareth Lib. 10. Epist. 78. Ambrosij ad Theophilum.

Marginalia7.Item, for that the testimonie somtymes of the Romane Byshop was wont in those dayes also to be desired, for admittyng teachers and Byshops in other Churches, wherof we haue example in Socrat. lib. 4. cap. 37.

Marginalia8.Moreouer this was a great setting vp of that Church, when as their sentence not onely was required, but also receaued diuers tymes of other Byshops. And whē Bishops of other prouinces were at any dissention among them selues, they of their owne accord, appealed to the Byshop of Rome, desiryng him to cite vp both parties, and to haue the hearyng and decising of the cause, as did Macarius and Hesychius send to Iulius then Byshop of Rome, &c.

Marginalia9.Item, in that certaine of the Arrianes, returnyng from their Arrianisme, offered vp and exhibited vnto the Bishops of Rome their libelles of repentaūce, and were of them receiued agayne, as Vrsatius and Valens did to Iulius. Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 24.

Marginalia10.The tenth cause was also, for that Gratianus the Emperour made a law, that all men should reteine that Religiō, whiche Damasus Byshop of Rome, and Peter Byshop of Alexandria did hold. Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 4.

Marginalia11.And also, if it happened the byshop of Rome to disalow the orderyng of any minister or ministers, the popes perceiuynge how diligent and ready they were to seeke their fauour, & to send vp their messengers to Rome, for their purgation, tooke therby no litle matter of exaltation. Theodoret. lib. 5. cap. 23.

Marginalia12.Besides these aforesayd, the Byshops of Rome had also an other artificiall practise, that in sendyng out their letters abroad, as they did to many, in all their Epistles (if the Epistles be theirs, and not foreged) euer they were harpyng of the greatnes of their name, and of their Apostolike sea, & of the primacie of S. Peter, their predecessour and Prince of all the Apostles &c. And this they vsed in euery letter, when soeuer they wrote to any, as appeareth in all their letters decretall, namely in the letters of Miltiades, Marcellus, and Marcus &c.

Marginalia13.Agayne if any of the East church directed any writyng to them, wherin any signification was contained of neuer so litle reuerence geuen vnto them (as learned men commonly vse for modesties sake) that was takē by & by and by and construed for playne subiection, and due obedience, as declareth the letter of Damasus, written to the Byshops of the East church, begynnyng thus: Quod debita reuerētia &c. in Englishe thus: but that your charitie yeldeth due reue