Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	apostle_n	church_n	world_n	2,391	5	4.7872	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A20944	A defence of the Catholicke faith contained in the booke of the most mightie, and most gracious King Iames the first, King of Great Britaine, France and Ireland, defender of the faith. Against the answere of N. Coeffeteau, Doctor of Diuinitie, and vicar generall of the Dominican preaching friars. / Written in French, by Pierre Du Moulin, minister of the word of God in the church of Paris. Translated into English according to his first coppie, by himselfe reuiewed and corrected.; Defense de la foy catholique. Book 1-2. English	Du Moulin, Pierre, 1568-1658.; Sanford, John, 1564 or 5-1629.	1610 (1610)	STC 7322; ESTC S111072	293,192	506

that they should not offer to chuse their Bishop without his commaundement After which Leo the ninth Sigonius pa. 372. Platina In Clemente 11. Nicholas the second Honorius the second were elected according to the same rule Sigonius in the yeare 1064. saith that Hanno the Archbishop gaue Pope Alexander a checke for entring vpon the Papacy without the penalty of Henry the Emperour Quam sedem multos iam per annos nemo nisi a rege probatus ausus esset attingere vnto which seate none saith he for these many yeares hath presumed to approach without the Kings approbation The same Hildebrand which was called Gregory the seuenth the scourge of Emperours was confirmed by Henry the fourth in the yeare 1075. who hauing first dared to incite the Almaines and Italians to reuolt from the Emperour and infinite warres being kindled thereby vnder this Henry and his successors it would be ouer-long to reckon vp how many Popes haue beene degraded and how many Anti-Popes created by the Emperours By which confusion and warlike broils continuing for one hundred or six score yeares the Papacy grew to a farre greater greatnesse then it maintaines at this day for it is within these two or three hundred yeares fallen wel-neare halfe way from the height and State wherein it stood The King of great Britaine hauing alleadged some of these testimonies Mr. Coeffeteau makes after his fashion a superficiall answere and saith That in the beginning it was not so Fol. 16. pag 2 And he saith well for in the beginning the Bishop of Rome medled not with the election of the Emperours hee did not pull downe Kingdomes he imposed no Annates or tyrannous impositions vpon the Clergy hee intermedled not with temporall affaires neither did his Ecclesiastical authority extend farther then the Churches and parishes in the Suburbs that is no farther then the Prouost-ship and Iurisdiction of the Citie of Rome he was not called the Monarch of the world nor the head of the Vniuersall Church nor God vpon the earth nor did he weare a triple Crowne nor made the Kings to kisse his feet nor did he vaunt that he could not erre in matter of faith but as fast as the Emperours did fall so fast did the Popes rise and I assure my selfe that the Pope would rather renounce his succession of S. Peter then the Donation of Charlemaine Secondly Coeffeteau saith That in the first ages the Christian Emperours did not enterprise such matters no not the Constantines or Theodosij Here then wee must learne him some skill in historie Betweene Constantine the great and Theodosius the first Valentinian was Emperour whose royall assent concurred in the election of Ambrose Bishop of Millaine a Prelate more reuerenced at that time then the Bishop of Rome Ruffinus speakes plainely in his second booke the eleuenth chapter The desire of the people being reported to the Emperour hee gaue commandement that their desire should be accomplished Socrates hath the same Lib. 4 cap. 25. The Emperour Theodosius chose Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople for as Sozomen testifieth he commaunded the Bishop to write downe in a paper their names whom they thought worthy reseruing the choyce vnto himselfe and hauing cast his eye ouer the list of such as were named among all the rest hee made choice of Nectarius Now wee are to vnderstand that the Bishop of Constantinople was not then inferiour to the Bishop of Rome in any respect Of which we could produce 780. witnesses to wit those hundred and fiftie Bishops which were in the first Councel of Constantinople vnder Theodosius and the sixe hundred and thirty Bishops in the Councell of Calcedon in which Councels there are expresse Canons to that purpose The third Canon of the Councell of Constantinople speakes in this tenour a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Bishop of Constantines Citie hath prerogatiues of honour next after the Bishop of Rome because it is new Rome Which Canon attributing to the Bishop of Rome priority of rancke not in respect of the See but in regard of the cheife Citie is expounded at large in the Councell of Calcedon in these wordes in the eighteenth Canon b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Fathers haue very rightly giuen the preheminence to the See of auncient Rome because the City was the Seate of the Empire So the hundred and fifty Bishops of the Councell of Calcedon beloued of God moued with the same reasons haue transferred the same preheminence to the seat of c That is to say Constantinople New-Rome thinking it reason that the City honoured with the Empire and with the presence of the Senate and enioying the same priuiledges as ancient Rome being the Seate of the Empire did and being after it the next should in matters Ecclesiasticall haue equall aduancement For then the See of Rome had the precedency without any authority or Iurisdiction aboue the rest iust as one Counseller of State goes before another that is equall in Commission with him This excellent Canon hath beene shamefully falsified in the Romane mane Decree in the Canon Renouantes the two and twentieth Distinction where in stead of Etiam in Ecclesiasticis our Aduersaries haue thrust in Non ●amen in Ecclesiasticis Hereupon I conclude that if Theodosius being at Constantinople had a hand in the election of the Bishop of Constantinople he might as well meddle with the election of the Bishoppe of Rome in case hee should be present in Rome And indeede Coeffeteau confesseth that the Emperour Constantius medled both with the election of Foelix and with the deposing of Liberius Bishop of Rome but he saith that he was an Arrian and that S. Hilarie cal'd him Antichrist which notwithstanding disables not the authority of this example for if Liberius had beene then an Arrian as hee became afterwards no man could haue thought it strange that Constantius had expelled him and aduanced another of the Orthodoxe faith into his roome S. Hilary blamed him not because he medled with the deposing or election of a Bishop but because in Liberius he persecuted the truth which may be as well said of the Kings of the Gothes fauourers of Arrianisme which made and vnmade the Bishop of Rome at their pleasure And it is principally to be considered that the Emperours tooke lesse heede to the choosing of the Roman Bishops as long as they preached the Gospell themselues and were contented with the office of being Pastors of the City of Rome and did not thrust their Ecclesiasticall sicle into the temporall haruest But assoone as they began to speake bigge and to meddle with ciuill affaires and that when matters were doubtfully ballanced they were like a great stone in one of the scales who can wonder if the Emperours b●gan then to looke about that none of an aduerse faction were brought in to that See against themselues That which Coeffeteau subioyneth makes nothing to the purpose to wit That the Emperours of the East continued

him be deposed Or if he be a Lay-man let him be excommunicated Would they thus haue spoken if they had beleeued the Pope to haue beene their Superiour or the Church of Rome cheefe ouer other Churches and that it could not erre That the Passages of the Fathers alleadged by Coeffeteau for the Primacy of S. Peter are partly false Fol. 77. 78. partly maymed and partly impertinent FRom this point Doctor Coeffeteau passeth ouer to the Primacy of S. Peter Fol. 76. howbeit before he commeth thereto he giueth in passing by a blow to his Holinesse affirming that he is not Lord ouer any Towne thus doth he dispute the Souerainty of the City of Rome Wee leaue themselues to cleare this doubt and end this Processe He alleadgeth then for the Primacy of S. Peter the 11. Homily of S. Chrysostome and that very falsely for in all the Homily there is no mention of S. Peter nor of his Primacy But Bellarmine did deceiue him out of whom Coeffeteau copied his allegations This other is like it S. Cyprian saith Coeffeteau affirmeth Hoc erant vtique caeteri Apostoli quod Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis sed exordium ab vn●tate profici● cit●r v●●●●●●sia vna monstretur that the other Apostles were certainly the same that S. Peter was fellowes and partners of his honour and of his power but the beginning proceedeth from Vnitie and therefore the Primacy was giuen to S. Peter the true reading is this the Apostles inde de were the same things that S. Peter was hauing ONE EQVALL SOCIETY In honour and in power but the beginning was made by one to shew the vnity of the Church Coeffeteau hath razed out the word EQVAL which troubled him and hath clapt on a Tayle of a sentence which is not in Cyprian and therefore the Primacy was giuen to S. Peter S Cyprian had said a little before that Iesus Christ after his resurrection gaue a like power to his Apostles and yet to shew the vnity of the Church he so disposed by his authority that the fountaine of this vnity should begin from one That is to say that he gaue to all his Apostles an equall power but to shew that the Church is one he gaue his power first vnto one namely to Peter and afterwards gaue equall power to the rest With like falshood he dealeth with S. Ierome Fol. 78. pag. 2. lib 1. against Iouinian whom he thus alleadgeth One is chosen among the twelue to the end that there being one head established all occasion of Schisme might be taken away At dicis super Petrū fundatur Ecclesia licet id ipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claues regni coelorum accipiant ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur●sed vnus eligitur vt capite constituto seismatist ollatur occasio But he omitteth the wordes that went before thou tellest me that the Church is founded vpon S. Peter notwithstanding that the same is done vpon al the other Apostles and that all do receiue the keyes of the Kingdom of heauen and that vpon them the stability of the Church is EQVALLY grounded whence appeareth that the Head and cheefe of which he speaketh is nothing else but a superiority in ranke without any Iurisdiction and power ouer his fellowes seeing that they had all the Keyes alike and were alike the foundations of the Church VVhich may serue to the end we may not trouble our selues with examining the rest of his falsifications for solution of all the rest of Coeffeteaus quotations in which S. Peter is called head and first among the Apostles S. Austen indeede in the beginning of his second booke of Baptisme which place Coeffeteau alleadgeth calleth S. Peter the first of the Apostles but he saith also in the same place that for all that he did not presume that the new-commers Nee Petrus quē primum Dominus elegit super quem aedificauit Ecclesiā suam cum secum Paulus de circumcisione disceptaret postmodum vindicauit sibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assumpsit vt diceret se primatum tenere obtemperari à nouellis posteris sibi potius debcri and latter Apostles were to yeelde him obedience The same S. Austen as he is alleadged in the 24. Cause Quaest 1. Canon Quodcunque speaketh thus S. Peter when he receiued the Keyes represented the Church if then all the good were signified in the person of Peter so were all the wicked also signified in the person of Iudas Seeing then that S. Peter was the same among the faithful that Iudas was among the wicked it followeth that as Iudas was not the head of the wicked to haue power and Iurisdiction ouer them but onely was the most remarkeable among them so S. Peter should be such a one among the beleeuers He might haue had perhaps a priority eyther in age or in vertue or in zeale or in eloquence or in preseance and taking the first place but yet without Dominion or power of Iurisdiction As touching that which somtimes he saith that the Church is founded vpon S. Peter we shall see hereafter that he retracted that ouer sight afterwards and we haue heard before S. Ierome to haue said that the Church is Equally founded vpon all the Apostles As for that which he saith that he that is without the Communion of the Church is to be accounted prophane and that he that is without the Arke shall perish in the floud the same may be said of euery other Church which holdeth the true Orthodox Doctrine yea of the least of the faithfull for that a man cannot separate and withdraw himselfe from him but by renouncing the truth Now in the quarrell which then was in debate Damasus maintained the truth and sounder opinion Whether the Pope may erre in faith or no. TO that which the King of great Britaine denieth that there is any Monarch of the Church on earth whose wordes ought to be held for laws who hath the gift to be able not to erre Fol. 80. Coeffeteau thus answereth We know that the Pope is a sinfull man as another man is and therefore may erre in Doctrine and Manners if we consider him in particular but in the quality of S. Peters Successour hee cannot teach any thing contrary to piety This is it which is commonly said that the Pope indeede may erre as he is a man and a particular Doctor but not as he is Pope Or that he may erre in manners but not in faith Cap. licet titulo 2 de Constitutioni in 6. They say also that he may erre in the question de facto but not in the question de Iure For as Boniface the eighth saith the Pope hath all law and right in the chest of his breast A man had neede of a good stomach to digest this And I doe not see how all this can agree For

vnto the 15. verse of the 21. chapter Seauen dayes after his arriuall he is taken and to auoyd the violence of the Iewes he appealeth vnto Caesar when he came to Rome he preached there two yeares Acts 28.30 and there suffered Martyrdome as we may easily gather out of the 2. Timothy Chapter 4. verse 6. and by the subscription of the Epistle From whence it appeareth that the Epistle to the Romanes could not be written aboue three yeares before his death and not to be too strict let vs admit that it might be 4. yeares let vs now shew that S. Peter had not beene at Rome when S. Paul wrote this Epistle for that is prooued by the fifteenth chapter of the said Epistle to the Romanes where Saint Paul saith that he is resolued to goe to Rome whereof he rendreth this reason to wit I study to set forth the Gospell not in those places where mention hath beene already made of Iesus Christ to the end faith he that I build not vpon another mans foundation He presupposeth then that neyther S. Peter nor any Apostle had till that time laid nay foundation in the Church of Rome otherwise S. Paul going thither soone after should haue built vpon anothers ground-worke The renowne and credite and the mutual conference and conuersation of the Christian strangers with the Romanes had sowen the Christian Religion at Rome but before S. Pauls comming thither there was not any forme of a Church gouerned S. Paul laid the first foundation as is manifest by the place alleadged This being thus gained let vs end the rest of the combat The Kings Maiesty of England hath aduisedly noted that the Apostle S. Paul did excommunicate the incestuous person of his owne authority the spirit of the Corinthians ioyning with his spirit without making or medling with S. Peters spirit Coeffeteau here answereth that by the spirit S. Paul meant not authority but knowledge and declaration of will as Beza expoundeth it I aunswere that this declaration of will was done by vertue of the power and authority which he had as he addeth in the wordes following In the name of our Lord Iesus and by his power so calleth he that power which Christ had giuen him and which hee denieth to haue receiued from any man Gal. 1. v. 1. and chap. 2. v. 6. n = * They which were the cheef brought nothing vnto it But saith Coeffe●eau it is not necessary at all times to expresse all the functions of the Church nor the Primacy of S. Peter it being sufficient to beleeue it Then say I if he omitted it in this place and neuer thelesse beleeued it you must then shew vs some other place wherehe confesseth that he beleeued it Coeffoteau goeth further and saith Coeff fol. 89. That in the Letters of the Councell of Ierusalem the decision was made by the authority of the whole Assembly without speaking of Peter Acts 15.23 because the Letters were sent in the name of all the company n = * The apostles and the Elders brethren to the brethren that are of the Gentils in Antiochia Besides it is sufficient that elsewhere S. Peter is called cheefe by the Oracle of truth and that Peter himselfe speaketh first To this I say that if in these dayes a Councell where the Pope were present should write Letters to decide a Controuersie it would be thought very strange if in those Letters there were no mention made of the Pope Againe we cannot finde that the Oracle of truth did euer giue vnto S. Peter any power or Iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles Furthermore in this Councell Peter spake as a man that gaue his aduise or iudgement but it was Iames that spake last and pronounced the finall decision as President in the action But among all the reasons alleadged by the King of great Britaine that is most witty and forcible which is drawne from the first chapter of the first to the Corinthes which hath not beene yet noted by any other S. Paul had founded the Church of Corinth and had laboured mightily but after his departure from them they fell to faction and partaking one saying I am of Paul another of Apollo and another of Peter Those that said they were of Paul had a desire rather to become his followers then Peters it appeareth then that S. Paul had not taught them to acknowledge S. Peter to be his Superior and to be the head of the vniuersall Church for if he had so taught them they would neuer haue resisted and withstood that his instruction Neyther is it possible that any man would oppose himselfe herein against S. Paul thinking in so doing to become his Disciple or that he would not beleeue him to the end he might become his follower This is not onely absurde but it is also impossible from this argument so aptly collected Coeffeteau being vnable to comprehend the force thereof is driuen to shifts and querkes cleane from the purpose To as little purpose is it when he saith that Caluine speaking of the Controuersie betweene Paul and Peter Coeff fol. 90. Gal. 2. did not inferre a Preference of S. Paul before S. Peter but onely an equalitie for his Maiestie doth not intend a preheminence of S. Paul aboue S. Peter in generall but onely in this particular action Forasmuch as iustly to reprehend is a thing more noble then to be reprehended and to teach better then to learne I also adde that it is very likely that if S. Peter had had his Cardinals about him or a guard of Swyssers and Light Horsemen See Crysostome vpon chap. 1. to the Galathians he would not haue suffered S. Paul to haue withstood him to his face But follow on the line and leauell of S. Pauls purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it will lead you directly to the truth that S. Pauls drift was to meete with and to preuent the mis-regard which some had of his Apostleship which some held to be of an inferior ranck because he was none of the twelue but came after them Against this opinion of theirs he iustly armeth himselfe and saith in the very beginning of his Epistle that he is an Apostle not of men nor by man but by Iesus Christ where he teacheth vs sufficiently that hee had no commission from S. Peter And chap. 2. verse 6. he saith that they that seemed to be in estimation added nothing vnto him He saith that the charge was diuided betweene him and Peter to him were the Gentiles committed euen as to Peter those of the circumcision that Iames Peter and Iohn who were accounted the Pillars gaue him the right hand of Fellowship that he withstood Peter to his face when he came to Antioch Petrum solum nominant sibi comparat quia primatum ipse accepit ad fundandam Ecclesiam se quoque pari modo electum vt primatum haberet in fundandis gentis um Ecclesijs and went not the right

cryme but because Pipin was more capable of gouernement then he How many Emperours and Kings vnfit to gouerne were there before this Childericke whose Crownes the Popes neuer touched But this Pope flattered Pipin to the end to be succoured by him against the Lumbards who kept him in seruitude Now to shut vp this whole matter seeing that the Pope doth challenge to himselfe this power ouer Kings who is it that hath giuen it vnto him Is it from the vnwritten worde Is it a custome authorised by the time or suffered by Princes or slid it along by the fauour and sleepinesse of an age that liued in darkenesse Or if God hath giuen him this power let him produce his Title let him shew the clauses of this Donation 2. Againe If Christ left a Successour or Lieftenant here on earth it is certayne that he can exercise no other charge then that which Iesus Christ did being in the world Now he did neuer degrade Kings nor translate Empyres Nay how is it like he would haue done that seeing that he could not be intreated to become a Iudge betweene priuate men in a Controuersie that was of ciuill nature He that teacheth vs to yeelde tribute to Caesar is it likely that hee would haue left a Lieftenant that should make Caesar himselfe tributary 3. If it be so that S. Peter or any other Apostle had this power ouer Kingdomes where dooth it appeare that euer he exercised it And to what end serueth an authority without the execution Or where did this power of the Bishops ouer the temporality of Kings lie couring all this while that it should need to be rouzed vp some eleuen hundred yeares after Iesus Christ 4 Moreouer It is God that giueth Kings and Princes their power as Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar though an Infidel Dan. 2.37 Thou O King art a King of Kings because the God of heauen hath giuen thee a Kingdome and power and strength and glory And the Apostle Rom. 13.1 hath tolde vs that all powers are ordayned of God Now that which God giueth man cannot take away Let the Pope take away if it please him that which himselfe hath giuen let him take his Cardinals redde hattes Archbishops pals if euer he gaue any without money Let him giue out against them that holde Benefices from him that their Benefices are deuolted vnto him by lapse but let him abstaine from the Crowes of Kings let him not touch the Lords annoynted 5. Adde hereunto those passages which the King of great Britaine hath learnedly obserued in his Apology by which he proueth that God willeth that his pleople yeelde obedience to Kings euen to Infidels So in the 27. of Ieremie Submit your neckes vnder the yoake of the King of Babell and serue him and his people and cap. 29. Seeke the peace of the Citie whether I haue carried you and pray for it for in her peace you shall haue peace This was farre from mouing them to reuolt Thus did the Israelites obey Pharaoh And euen then when the Kings of Iuda were Idolaters as Ahaz and Manasse yet did the High Priests neuer for all that incite the people to Rebellion The Emperour Nero was a prodigious monster for all kinde of wickednesse notwithstanding S. Paul would haue men to obey him for conscience sake Rom. 13.1 Timoth. 1. and for feare of offending God But wee now a dayes stand vpon better termes for if wee ought to obey a Prince that is a Pagan euen for conscience sake in Ciuill causes how much more one that is truely a Christian And if a Tygre that hath climed to the top of the Empire how much more a Prince that is wise and mercifull who preserueth the liues of those that desire his death And if we may not obey any man that leadeth and commaundeth a mutiny and treason how much lesse ought we to obey the Pope whose Empire is founded vpon the ruines of the Gospell and who being prodigall of the blood of those who are his draweth persecution vpon them to the end that they for him may loose goods and life yea and life eternall Now if any man vnwilling to enter this list shal say that this is a matter of pollicy and that we prye into matters of State such a one by his tergiuersation wil more ouerthrow the Popes power then if hee had expresly fought against it For if this power be a point without the compasse of Religion it followeth thereupon that it is not sounded vpon the word of God And if God had spoken of it in his worde it were a point of Religion to beleeue it The Pope then is to blame for making such bragges of his keyes in this case if it be nothing but a matter of pollicy and such as hath no sparke of Diuinity in it which thing Pope Clement the fift doth couertly confesse in the extrauagant Meruit Meruit Charissimi filij nostri Philippi regis Francorum c. where he declareth that he doth not vnderstand that the extrauagant Vnam Sanctam of Boniface the eight which giueth to the Pope soueraigne power ouer the Temporalties of Kingdomes as well as ouer the Spiritualtie could bring any preiudice to the Kingdome of France to make it more subiect to the Church of Rome then before it was but reintegrateth the said Kingdome into the same estate that it was before the abouesaid definition of Boniface and that in acknowledgement of the merites of King Philip the faire albeit hee had somewhat rudely accorded matters with Boniface Let the Reader weigh and consider this point aduisedly For in this extrauagant which Bellarmine dooth approue and commend Pope Boniface foundeth his pretensions ouer the Temporalties of Princes vppon many passages of the word of God He meaneth then that his right is by the lawe of God where against King Philip hedoth maintaine that in temporal things he is subiect to no man Within a while after Clement the fift passed it so in fauor of the King and exempted him from the rigour of this Bull the Pope then made bolde to dispense with the law of God or if on the other side it be nothing else but an humane positiue law then Boniface dealt very wickedly in seeking to ground it vppon the holy Scripture But why shall Fraunce alone be exempted from this yoake and other Kingdomes shall be enforced to beare it Could Philips merites dispense with him for obeying the word of God produced by Boniface These Popes make a Religion of waxe depending vpon the conditions of the times and the traine of their affaires and make it a prop of their Dominion they stretch it and shorten it like a stirrup leather fitting not their wils to Religion but Religion to their will Now if Philip had bin Master of Rome and absolutecommander in Italy the Bishops of Rome would haue thrown themselues on their knees before him as did Pope Adrian in the second Counsell of Nice 2. Act. and would haue called

offend against the Maiesty of God And in the booke of the Penitentiary Taxe in the chapter of Absolutions the falsifying of Letters Apostolical is taxed at seuenteene groats whereas for a man to company with his mother but at fiue groates onely Seeing then that about this inequality of the Keyes which giueth a superiority to S. Peter aboue the other Apostles our aduersaries cannot defend themselues by any authority out of the holy Scripture let vs see whether wee can furnish our selues with any places directly against it 1 I say then that if the Apostles had not the Keyes of heauen nor the power to binde and lose but subordinately vnder S. Peter the Apostle S. Paul should haue spoken very vnaduisedly in saying 2. Cor. 11.5 I thinke that I haue not in any thing beene inferiour to the rest of the Apostles when hee sayth in any thing he admitteth no exception 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Adde hereunto that if he had beene subiect to S. Peter he should much haue forgotten himselfe when Galat. 2. he said that there was no difference betweene him and those that seemed to bee the chiefe for then there must needes haue been great difference betwixt their charges 3 And againe this that he speaketh is yet much more That those who were in the greatest account among the Apostles added nothing vnto him whereas doubtlesse S. Peter would at the least haue giuen authority to S. Pauls charge if it had depended from the authority of S. Peter 4 But cheefely that which Paul addeth is worthy of consideration that the charge of preaching to those of the vncircumcision was in as large a maner committed vnto him as that of the circumcision was vnto Peter See here how they parted the labour betwixt them it fel vnto S. Peters lot to preach vnto the Iewes and S. Pauls to preach vnto the Gentiles a thing that would be ridiculous and strange now a dayes if any Bishop should seeke to diuide the charge of gouerning Churches betweene him and the Pope or should send the Pope to preach in Almaine or Spaine to conuert the Iewes 5 It is also worth the noting that S. Paul in the same place verse 9. naming those three Apostles Iames Cephas and Iohn placeth Cephas which is Peter after Iames. Now in these our dayes if a man should speake thus The Bishop of Lyons the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Ambrun men would holde him for a madde man But S. Paul in setting Peter betweene others he sheweth that he had not yet learned that S. Peter was chiefe of the Church vniuersall or that he had iurisdiction ouer the rest of the Apostles For their last assault and encounter they produce the wordes of Iesus Christ vnto Peter Feede my Lambes which wordes they haue made wonderfull fruitfull and full of many consequences for thus they expound them Thou Peter and thy Successours Popes of Rome feede you alone all my lambes and doe you take vpon you a soueraignty ouer all other Pastors How many strange and venterous Glosses are here on the Text And how haue they peeced out this latchet to make it reach home For though Iesus Christ doe expresly commaund Peter to feede his sheepe yet he excludeth not the other Apostles They are all called Pastors and all faithfull Bishops and Ministers are enioyned to feed the Church of God Acts 20.28 True it is that S. Peter was Pastor of all the sheepe of Iesus Christ throughout the world but so were likewise the other Apostles For S. Paul also 2. Cor. 11. verse 28. saith that he hath the care of all Churches their charge was to walke and to haue an eye euery where for thus saith Iesus to them all Acts 1. And you shall be witnesses vnto me to the very endes of the earth And hereupon S. Augustine is very plaine in the thirtieth chapter of his booke of the christian combate When the Lord saith vnto Peter Cum dicit Petro amas me pasce oues meas idem dixit caeteris Louest thou me feede my sheepe he saith the same vnto all But why speaketh he to him alone Because not long before he onely had denyed him He onely that fel had onely neede to be raised vp and to be re established in his charge for otherwise a man might well haue called his Apostleship into question And why doth he rehearse the same wordes vnto him thrice Because he had denied the Lord three times as many fals so many restorings These be not raisings of him vnto dignity but strengthnings of his infirmity As saith S. Augustine Treatis 123. vpon S. Iohn A triple deniall is recompenced with a threefold confession Redditur negationi trina confessio ne minus amori lingua seruiat quam timori c. to the end that his tongue might serue him no lesse to declare his loue then it had done in disclosing his feare In the meane time albeit all the Apostles had a generall care ouer all Churches yet this doth not hinder but that each of them might haue a peculiar charge besides their generall S. Paul was charged with instructing the Gentils and S. Peter with teaching the Iewes and it appeareth not that this his commission was at any time changed and that in stead of being the speciall Teacher of the Iewes he was made Bishop of Rome Besides that his dwelling at Rome could not well haue sorted and agreed with the teaching of the Iewes Act. 18.11 who now were banished from Rome vnder Claudius the Emperor which was the very time of S. Peters preaching during which time he visited the Iewes scatteredinto Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Bithinia and into all Asia as appeareth by the first verse of his first Epistle This was somewhat too farre from his Bishopricke of Rome and nothing sutable with the dignity of the Monarch of the Vniuersall Church We will not here contend whether S. Peter were euer at Rome for albeit this History be full of darknesse yet I am enclyned to beleeue that he suffered Martyrdome at Rome because Tertullian Eusebius and others doe affirme the same But yet the day-light is not more cleare then it is euident that stayed there but a very small time and not twenty fiue yeares as our aduersaries doe calculate One proofe shall serue to be added to those which are alleadged by others We graunt then that S. Peter and S. Paul did suffer Martyrdome at Rome vpon one and the same day as Eusebius and some others affirme This being so we will shew most plainly that S. Peter had not yet beene at Rome three yeares before his death For S. Paul being to depart from Corinth to goe towards Ierusalem wrote an Epistle to the Romanes as appeareth by the subscription of his Epistle dated from Corinth and by the fiue and twentieth verse of the fifteenth Chapter Now I goe vp to Ierusalem His voyage to Ierusalem is described in the 18 19 and 20. chapters of the Acts