among you. &c. therefore. &c. And this is a better reason than you can well answere. If you could haue done it, you would not haue shifted it off with a vaine confutation, not of Musculus, but of your owne deuised argument.
Musculus his second reason is this. There is superioritie in the kingdome of God, and one aboue another, as there is in the celestiall spirites, in the starres, and in other states. For Peter is found in many places to haue bin chiefe among the rest, and therefore this is not the meaning of Christ, that none should be great or chiefe among Christians.
His third reason may be thus gathered. The very necessitie of our state requireth that some should be superiours and betters, as well in the Church, as in the common welth &c. therefore it is not Christes meaning to haue no superiours. &c.
In like manner doth he reason out of the. 12. of the Rom. 1. Cor. 12. Heb. 13. and of the parts and members of mans body: And in the end thus he concludeth: Therfore Christ dothe not require that in his kingdome all should be equall, but this he dothe require, that none should desire to be great. &c.
To these reasons you answer not one word, but shift them off by telling vs, that as common weales and families and Churches are preserued by inequalitie. &c. and as albeit the con∣suls of Roome. &c. which be to no purpose, and make directly against you. For not only in a family the maister is aboue the seruante, but one seruant also aboue another, wherevnto Christ himselfe alludeth Mat. 24. when he saith, who is a faithfull seruant whome his master hath made ruler ouer his houshold. &c. In like manner not only the father is aboue the sonne, but also in the same family one brother is aboue another: and euen in the scripture Gen. 49. and other places, it may be séene that prehemi∣nence of dignitie hath bin always (for the most part) giuen to the eldest: wherefore these similitudes help you not.
And whereas you séeme to graunt, that the pastour must be superiour to the peo∣ple, and yet one Pastour not to be aboue another, the words of Christ rather import the contrary: for the dominion that is here forbidden, is not of one minister ouer ano∣ther, but ouer the people of God, as the similitude of them that sit at the table, and of them that serue doth euidently declare: for who are they that sit at the table to be ser∣ued, but the people (which is the Church) in respect of whome the ministers are ser∣uants? Therefore this place is very vnfitly alleadged, to proue that there shoulde be no superioritie betwéene ministers: for suche superioritie in gouernment as by your owne confession may be in ministers ouer the people, may also be in one minister o∣uer another, for any thing that this place hath to the contrary.
But whether one minister ought to be aboue another or no, shal be discussed in his proper place.
What superioritie soeuer M. Musculus giueth vnto Peter ouer the rest, that ex∣ample is aptly applied to the iustifying of his exposition vpon this place, that we haue now in hand. But I must tell you that you do not truly translate the words of Euse∣bius concerning Peter. For this worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifyeth not only to speake before the rest, and in the name of the rest (as you translate it) but it signifyeth also principem in om∣ni re gerenda: a chiefe ruler or guide, in euery matter or businesse. Wherfore I say still that this interpretation of M. Musculus must needes be true, and that it may as well be alleadged to take away superioritie from Christian Princes, as it may from ecclesiasticall ministers.
This of M. Musculus that he saith, that Christ heere teacheth, what he ought to be in∣deede, that beareth rule ouer other, neither haue I before rehersed, nor you hitherto answered.