A69075:2072
Christian religion
Christian religion: substantially, methodically[e,] [pla]inlie, and profitably treatisedChristian religion: substantially, methodicalli[e,] [pla]inlie, and profitablie treatised
London: printed by Felix Kingston for Thomas Man, 1611
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
No verily: for howsoever they say Peter was Bishop of Rome, yet indeed that cannot be proved by Scripture; rather the contrary: for if Peter had been at Rome when Paul was there, amongst many others he would not have forgotten to make mention of him, upon divers occasions he had thereof. Especially he would not have wrapped him in the common charge, that all had forsaken him. Also his proper charge being amongst the Jews, who were never frequent, or many in Rome: and after the few that were there, banished from thence, what likelihood is there that Peter would most reside there where he had least to do? And if he had been there, yet would he not be Bishop there; the Bishopric being a degree of Ministry far under the Apostleship whereunto he was called.
No verily: for howsoeuer they say Peter was Bishop of Rome, yet indeed that cannot be proued by Scripture; rather the contrarie: for if Peter had been at Rome when Paul was there, amongst many others hee would not haue forgotten to make mention of him, vpon diuers occasions he had thereof. Especially he would not haue wrapped him in the common charge, that all had forsaken him. Also his proper charge being amongst the Iewes, who were neuer frequent, or many in Rome: and after the few that were there, banished from thence, what likelihood is there that Peter would most reside there where hee had least to do? And if he had been there, yet would he not be Bishop there; the Bishopricke being a degree of Ministerie far vnder the Apostleship wherunto he was called.
But grant he were Bishop of Rome; doth it follow thereof that the Bishop of Rome must be his successor?
But grant hee were Bishop of Rome; doth it follow thereof that the Bishop of Rome must bee his successor?
No: for first it should have been but a personal right. And secondly, if it belonged to his successors, Jerusalem and Antioch, where he sat before he is supposed to sit at Rome, might challenge it as well as they of Rome. Neither can his death, which they suppose to have been at Rome, give that privilege to him above them, more then the death of Christ privileged Jerusalem, which by the just judgement of God for the same cause was made an heap of stones. And thirdly, if it did belong to his successors