haue graunted that vnto him, or haue offered it to the Bishop of Rome before? or if they had, howe could it be possible for him alone to serue all Churches, without any felow Bishop to helpe him? And where this foresaid clerke standeth so much vpon the wordes of S. Gregory: Solus Episcopus Gregory therfore shall expound Gregory, and one Solus shall declare another. Wherfore if this diuine (whatsoeuer he be Doctour or Bacheler) either knoweth not, or would learne, what (onely Byshop) meaneth in this place: an other place of the sayde Gregory may instruct him, where Gregory wryting to Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria,MarginaliaEx. Epist. Greg. 36. Lib. 4.geueth this reason, why he refused the same title offered to him (which then was offered to the sayde Iohn Patriarche of Constantinople) saying: Quia videlicet si vnus Patriarcha vniuersalis dicitur, Patriarcharum nomen cœteris derogatur, sed absit hoc. &c.  

That is to say: For if one alone woulde be called Patriarch vniuersall, then should the name of Patriarches be derogated from all other. &c. Wherby two things are to be noted: First what thing it was which the Patriarche of Constantinople did seeke; for Gregory here findeth not other fault, but with the same which was geuen to Iohn, which was to be called Patriarche vniuersal. The seconde thing to be noted, is the cause why Gregory did rebuke this title, both geuen to Iohn, and offered to him; because (sayeth he) if one take vpon him the name of vniuersall Patriarch, then is the name Patriarche taken from the rest. As who would say: if I should take vpon me to be named vniuersal Patriarch, then should there be no other Patriarche, but I shoulde be Byshop Patriarche alone. And here commeth in your Solus Episcopus. &c.

[Back to Top]

Furthermore, the same Gregory speaking of the sayde Solus, in an other place by,MarginaliaEx Epist. Greg. 38. Lib. 4.seemeth to declare there what he meaneth by this Solus here, in these wordes as follow: vt & nulli subesse, & solus omnibus præesse videretur  

. That is to say: so that he would be subiect to none, and would be chieftain to all other alone. &c. And so by this place, may the other place be expounded, vt solus Episcopus sit is, qui solus inter Episcopos præesse appetat. That is, he that seeketh to be as bishop alone, who alone seeketh to be extolled aboue other byshops. But to be short in a matter that needeth not many wordes: he that thus cauilleth vpon this place Solus Episcopus in Gregory, must be desired here not to take Solus alone, but ioyne with all the word going before, which is, despectis fratribus; by the which might seeme sufficiently declared, what Gregory ment by Solus Episcopus, meaning, that to despise other bishops, & to diminish their honor, to set vp his owne, & to be subiect to none, but to preferre him selfe inequally before al other, is as much as to be counted bishop alone. And thus much touching this obiection.

[Back to Top]

An other obiection of our aduersaries is this:MarginaliaAn other obiection resolued.although (say they) no Byshop of Rome was euer called, or would be called by the name of vniuersal Bishop: yet it followeth not therefore, that they be not, or ought not to be heades of the vniuersall Church. Their reason is this:

[Back to Top]

As S. Peter had the charge of the whole Church (by the testimonie of Gregory) committed vnto him, although he were not called vniuersall Apostle:

So no more absurde it is, for the Pope to be called the head of the whole Church, and to haue the charge thereof, although he be not called vniuersall Byshop. &c.

Wherein is a double vntruth to be noted.MarginaliaA double vntrueth in one Popish argument.First in that they pretend Peter to be the head, & to haue the charge of the whole Church:MarginaliaPeter how he had charge and not charge of the Church. The first vntrueth in this argument.if we take here (charge or head) for dominion or mastership vpō or aboue the Church, in all cases iudiciarie, both spirituall & temporal: for the wordes of the Scripture be plaine. Non dominantes in clerum 1. Pet. Vos autem non sic. Luke. 22. That is. Not as maisters ouer the Clergy. &c. but you not so. &c. Againe that the Churche is greater, or rather the head of Peter it is cleare: 1 Corrin. 3. All thinges are yours, whether it be Paule, or Apollo, or Cephas: either the world, death, or life, you be Christes, Christ is Gods. &c. In which wordes the dignitie of the Churche no doubt is preferred aboue the Apostles,MarginaliaThe dignitie of the Church aboue the Apostles.and aboue Cephas also. Moreouer as the dignitie of the wise is aboue the seruant, so must needes the honour and worthines of the Churche (being the spouse of Christ) surmount the state of Peter or other Apostles, which be but seruants to Christ and to the Churche; yea and though they were Princes of the Church, yet after the minde of Baldus: Magis attenditur persona intellectualis, quàm organica.  

MarginaliaVide Baldum consi. 169. lib. 3 Secundum nouam impressionem. Et secund. vete consi. 359. lib. 1. Proofes and reasons that there was no inequallitie of preheminence among the Apostles.Otherwise if by this word (charge) he ment only the office and diligence of teaching: to that I aunswere: The same Lord that sayde to Peter, feede my sheepe, said also to the other, go & preach this Gospell to al nations. And he that said to Peter: what soueuer thou loosest, said also to the other: whatsoeuer ye remit in the earth. Moreouer, if the matter goe by preaching, Paul the Apostle laboured more therin, then euer did Peter by his owne confession: Plus laboraui, also suffered more for the same, Plus sustinui, neither was his doctrine lesse sound. Yea and in one point he went before Peter, & was teacher and schoolmaister vnto Peter, whereas Peter was by him iustly corrected. Gal. 2. Furthermore, teaching is not always nor in all things a point of maistership, but sometime a point of seruice.MarginaliaOffice of teaching geueth no dominion, farther then in his book.As if a Frenchman should be put to an Englishman to teach him French, although he excelleth him in that kind of facultie, yet it followeth not therefore, that he hath fulnes of power vpō him, to appoint his diet, to rule his houshold, to prescribe his lawes, to stinte his lands, and such other. Wherfore seing in trauail in teaching, in paines of preaching, in gifts of tongs, in largenes of commission, in operation of miracles, in grace of vocation, in receauing the holy Ghost, in vehemencie of tormentes and death for Christes name, the other Apostles were nothing inferiour to Peter: Why Peter then should claime any special prerogatiue aboue the rest, I vnderstād no cause.MarginaliaPeter in no poynt excelleth the rest of the Apostles.As in deed he neuer claimed any, but the patrons of the Apostolicall sea do claime it for him, which he neuer claimed himselfe; neither if he were here, would no lesse abhorre it with soule and conscience, then we do now: & yet our abhorring now is not for any malice of person, or any vantage to our selues, but only the vehemencie of truth, & zeale to Christ and to his congregation. Moreouer, if these men would needes haue Peter to be the Curate and ouersear of the whole vniuersall Church (which was too much for one man to take charge vpon) and to be Prince of al other Apostles, then would I faine learne of them, what meaneth (Dextræ societatis)MarginaliaDextra societatis.the right hand of societie betwene Peter, Paul, & Barnabie, mentioned, Gal. 2. What taking of hands is there betwene subiects & their Prince, in way of fellowship? Or where fellowship is, what maistership is there? Or againe, what state of maistership is it like, that Christ would geue to Peter; who beyng in deede maister of all, tooke such little maistership vpon himselfe, and that not only in inward affection, but also in outward fact? Although I am not ignorant that Peter in places of the Gospell hath his commendation, neither doe I denie Peter to bee worthy of the same. But yet these wordes of commendation, geue to him no state of superioritie, or iurisdiction vpon all other, to haue all vnder his subiection. As if a Schoolemaister should haue more special charge to some one of his scholers for his riper towardnes: yet this geueth him no fulnes of authoritie, or power coactiue vpō the rest, vnlesse by special admission he be deputed therunto. Whereof, nothing can be gathered of Peter; for if it bee true that S. Augustine saith,MarginaliaAugust. in præfat. psal. 103.that such things as were spokē to Peter, haue no lightsome vnderstanding, except they be referred to the church, wherof Peter did beare a figure: thē hath þ^e person of Peter nothing to claime by these woordes, but all redoūdeth to the church; which being ment by Peter, hath power by this reason, both ouer the person of Peter, and all other persons in the Lord.

[Back to Top]

But here stumbleth in an argument of our aduersarie againe, which he in the margent of his booke calleth an inuincible argument drawen out of the bowels of S. Iohn Chrisostome. Lib. 2. De Sacerd.MarginaliaAnswere to an inuincible argument prouing by Chrisostōe the whole Church to be committed to S. Peter.Wherby he supposeth to haue giuen a shrewd blow to the Protestants, and to haue gotten Hectors victory vpon a certaine English prisoner taken in plain field, and of all such as take his part. The text onely of Chrysostome he reciteth, but maketh no argument, albeit he maketh mentiou of an inuincible argumēt in the margent. But because he either wist not, or list not to shew his cunning therein, I wil forme that in argumēt for him which he would haue done, but did not: and so will forme it (the Lord willing) as he himselfe must of necessitie bee driuen to do, if the matter euer come to the triall of act, and not to the trifling of wordes. First, he taketh his text out of Chrysostome, as followeth:MarginaliaChrisost. Lib 2. de sacred.for what cause, I pray you, did Christ shed his bloud? Truely, to redeeme those sheep, whose charge he committeth to Peter, and to Peters successours. Vpon this place of Chrysostome. this Clarke taketh his medium, Christes suffring. His conclusion is, that all which Christ died for, were committed to Peter, Wherfore the forme of the argument must needes stand thus in the third figure.

[Back to Top]

Christ suffred for all men.

Christ suffered for them whome he committed to Peter.

Ergo, All that Christ dyed for, were committed to Peter.MarginaliaA Popishe perilous paralogisme.

If this be the forme of his insoluble argument, as it seemeth to be, by the order of his reasoning, & also must needs be, taking that medium, and making that conclusion as he doth, (for els in the first figure, and first moode, the text of Chrisostome will not serue him) then must the forme and