A retentiue, to stay good Christians, in true faith and religion, against the motiues of Richard Bristow Also a discouerie of the daungerous rocke of the popish Church, commended by Nicholas Sander D. of Diuinitie. Done by VVilliam Fulke Doctor of diuinitie, and Maister of Pembroke hall in Cambridge.
Fulke, William, 1538-1589.

The seuenth Chapter.

THE authorities alleadged by M. Iwell, to proue that * Peter was not this Rock, proue against him self that Pe∣ter was this Rocke, although they proue that there was an o∣ther kinde of Rock also beside him, which thinge wee denye not.

THE first authoritie is Gregorius Nyssenus in loc. vet. test. Thou art Peter, and vpon this rock I will * build my church. He meaneth the confession of Christ. For he had sayd before: Thou art Christe the sonne of the liuing God.
M. S. replieth that it is neither said, that Peter was not this Rock: nor that Christ was this rock. But that the confession of Peter was the Rock, whiche he graunteth, and therefore Peter much rather muste be the rock. For his confession which commeth from his soule and heart, as from a fountaine or springe, is greater then the acte of confession. Firste I deny his Argument: because Page  221 Peters confession came neither from his soule nor hart, but from God, which reuealed the trueth vnto him, as Christ saith. Flesh and bloode &c. Secondly I say, Gre∣gory meaneth by Peters confession, him which Peter confessed, namely Christe which is the onely Rocke of the Church, whereon the whole Church is builded, as his wordes doe sounde, for he had sayde before: Thou art Christ &c.

But M. Sander reasoning like a learned Clarke, fin∣deth faulte with M. Iewels argumente, comparing it to this: There commeth eloquence from a man but he is not elo∣quent: Peters confession is the Rocke, therefore Peter is not the Rocke. Would a man thinke that a Doctor in Diui∣tie, should either be so ignoraunt in the Arte of reaso∣ning, or so impudent in peruerting a good reason, that a very Childe might reproue, either the one or the o∣ther? I appeale to Logicians, whether this reason of M. Iewels: The Rock commeth from Peter by confession, Ergo, Peter is not the Rock: be like this argument Elo∣quence commeth from Cicero, therefore Cicero is not Eloquence, and not as M. Sand. inferreth: Ergo, Cicero is not Eloquent. But he hath another Example. A mans Oration is eloquent. therefore the man him selfe is eloquent: So Peters confssion is the Rocke, therefore Peter h••selfe is the Rocke. I deny the resemblance, for there is resem∣bled the Adiectiue in the one, and the substantiue in the other. But thus he shoulde compare them, Tuilyes de∣fence of Mylo is an eloquent oration: therefore Tully is an eloquent Oration, which reasoning is no more absurde, then this of M. Sand. Peters confession is the Rocke, therefore Peter is the Rocke. Contrarywise you may reason: Peters confession was the Rock, therefore Peter was Rockey or stony.

The seconde authoritie is Hilarie. Haec vna est &c.

This is that onely blessed rock of Faith that Peter con∣fessed with his mouth. M. Sander caueleth, that this is not spoken vpon the wordes said to Peter, but vpon the wordes spoken by Peter.
But beside that the whole Page  222 context of the place is against him, both in that, lib. 2. De trinit. and also lib. 6. Super hanc confessionis Petram ecclesiae edifiato est, vpon this Rock of confession is the building of the Church, which M. Sand. would auoyde by bringing in of two rocks, Christ & Peter:
the particle exclusiue shutteth him cleane out of the dores, for Hillarie sayth not, that Christe is a Rocke, but that he is the onely Rocke. Therefore this is but one Rocke and one building, and not as M. Sand. sayth two Rocks and two buildings, for aswell hee might say two Chur∣ches. Now where Hilarie vpon Mathew acknowled∣geth Peter to be a rock and foundation of the Church, it is answeared before, that he was one of the xii. foun∣dations spoken of Apoc. 21. in a farre other meaning then Christ is the onely Rock.

The 3. authoritie is, Cyrillus Dial, 4. de trini.

The rock is nothing else, but the strong & assured faith of the dis∣ciple.
This saith M. S. is that I would haue, for this disci∣ple was S. Peter, and the rock here spoken of is nothing else, but S. Peters faith, therfore it is not Christ. Nay ra∣ther the rock is nothing but S. Peters faith, therfore it is not his person & so no mortall man. For those woordes, nothing but Peters faith, do not exclude Christ because faith cannot be without necessary relation vnto Christ, but they exclude the person of Peter as a mortall man, because flesh & blood reuealed not this confession vnto him, but the Heauenly father.

The 4. authorite is Chrysostome. Vpon this Rocke, that is, vpon this faith and this confession I will builde my church.
M. San. saith, he that beleeued & confessed was Peter and not Christ, ergo the rock is Peter & not Christ. Although this argument haue no consequence in the world, yet to admitte that it doth followe, I will reply thus, but he that beleeued and confessed was not Peter onely, therefore Peter onely was not this rock.

The 5. is Aug. de verbis dom. Christe was the rocke vpon which foundation Peter him selfe was also builte.
M. San. asketh if one Rock may not be built vpon ano∣nother, Page  203 as Peter vpon Christ? yes verily, but Peter none otherwise then the reste of the Apostles, who were all foundation stones, laid vpon the great corner stone or onely foundation Rock Iesus Christ.

S. Augustine againe addeth in Christes person.

I wil not builde my selfe vpon thee, but I wil build thee vpon me. M San. following the allegory of building cōfesseth that Christ is the first & greatest stone, vpon which by all proportion, the seconde stone that should be laide, must be greatest that can be gotten next the first.
If this be so, it is meruaile the Angel which shewed vnto Iohn the building of the heauenly Ierusalem, shewed him not this second stone by it selfe, but the xij. stones lying e∣qually one by an other vppon the maine foundation. Apo. 21. whereby we see that M. Sand. vttereth nothing but the visions of his owne head.

The 6. is Origines in 4. sentence in 16. Mat.

He is •••• rock whosoeuer is the disciple of Christ. M. S. reciteththis sēse as not literal, & seing Peter is a disciple, & the first, he wil proue Peter next to christ, to be ye chief rock.
In deed according to this sense it must needes be, that Peter is one principall rock, among so many thousand rocks, but because he is named first in the Catalogue of the Apo∣stles, it is a sory reason to make him so to excel, that he is one rock that beareth al the rest. But M. Iewel is fran∣tike in M. San opinion, that denying any mortall man to be this rock, nowe proueth euery mortall man that is Christs disciple to be this Rock. Nay rather M. Sand. is brainsick, that cannot vnderstand this reason, euery Christian is such a rock as Peter was, therefore Peter in being a rock was not made Pope or hed of the vniuersal church.
Origines procedeth, vpon such a rock all eccle∣siasticall learning is built. But S. Peter is such a Rock, (saith Maister Sander) ergo vppon him all ecclesiasticall learning is built.
VVho would wish such an aduersary as M. Iewel is, who proueth altogither against him selfe? Nay who can beare such an impudent caueler that findeth a knot in a rush; For your conclusion is graunted (M. Sand. that all eccle∣siasticall Page  226 learning is builte vppon S. Peter, but so it is builte vpon euery true Disciple of Christe by Origens iudgement.

Againe Origine sayth: If thou thinke that the whole Church is built onely vpon Peter, what then wilte thou say of Iohn the sonne of thonder, and of euery of the Apostles?
First M. Sand. chargeth the Bishop for lea∣uing out in English this worde Illum, so that he shoulde haue saide, vpon that Peter, whereby he accuseth him to deny, that Peter is a Rock, whiche is an impudente lye. Secondly when this authoritie doth vtterly ouer∣throwe his whole building of the popish rocke, he can say nothing, but that Iohn was a mortall man, and so were all the Apostles aswel as Peter, therfore M. Iewel saide not truely, that the olde sathers haue written, not any mortall man, but Christe himselfe to be this Rock, when Iohn and all the Apostles be rockes. As though there were no difference betwene the onely founda∣tion and rocke of the whole Church, which is Christ, & all the other stones that are built vpon it.

Last of all Origen sayth: Shall we dare to say, that the gates of hell shall not preuayle onely against Peter? or are the keyes of the kingdom of heauen giuen onely to Peter?
M. Sander aunswereth, It is enough that the gates of hell shall least of all preuayle against Peter, he hath chiefly the keyes of heauen. But what reason hath he for this im∣pudent assertion? Peter of all the Apostles first confes∣sed in the name of the whole Church. Admit this were true, as it can neuer be proued, that this was the first time that any of the Apostles confessed Christ: yet no primacy of superiority is hereby gayned. if the sentence as Origen expounded it, perteyneth to euery faithfull disciple: What aduauntage M. Sander hath taken of the Bishops allegations, let the readers iudge.