The Lorde when he woulde giue lawes of woorshipping to his people, in the things that were indifferent, of shauing and cutting, and apparell wearing, sayth to his people, that they should not do so, and so, bicause the Gentiles did so, yea euen in those things, the vse whereof was otherwise verie profitable, and incommodious to forbeare, he woulde haue them notwithstanding to absteyne from, as from swines flesh, Conies. &c. to the ende that he might haue them seuered as appeareth by S. Paule, by a great and high wall from other Nations.* 1.1
And therefore it is verie vnlike that S. Peter woulde frame the ministerie of the Gospel (which is no ceremonie but of the substance of the gospel.) by the example of the heathenish and ydolatrous functions.
If one had sayde that the Lorde had shapen this common wealth by the paterne of other com∣mon wealthes, although it had bene most vntrue (all other flourishing common wealthes of A∣thens, Lacedemon, and Rome, borowing their good lawes of the Lordes common wealth) yet had it beene more tollerable: but to say he framed the ministerie of the Gospell by the Priesthoode of Idolatrie, is to fet chastitie out of Sodome, and to seeke for heauen in hell.
And if so be that the Lord had delighted in this Hierarchie, he woulde rather haue taken of his owne, than borowed of others: of his owne Church, than of the Synagog of Satan. For vnder the law besydes the Leuites there were Priests and aboue them a high Priest.
God gaue vnto the Israelites a king, though other Nations had so in like maner.* 1.2 And he ordeyned degrées of Priests among them, to offer vnto him Sacrifices though the Gentiles had the like: and what inconuenience could there come by placing Arch∣byshops (which shoulde faythfully preache the worde of God, and carefully gouerne the Church of Christ) euen in those places where there were Archiflamines, who did de∣face Christianitie, and persecute the Christians? For by these meanes there could no harme come vnto them, as there might haue done to the Israelites by vsing of such things of the Gentiles as he forbad vnto them, but the contrarie: For this was a meanes to plucke them from all their superstition and Idolatrie. Neither is this in any respect a framing of the ministerie of the Gospell by the examples of Idolatrous & heathnish functions. Except you will say also that bycause the Gentiles had Flamines, and the Christians had Bishops, therefore the Christian Bishops were framed according to the example of the Gentiles Flamines. If you cannot say so truely in Bishops, ney∣ther can you iustly affirme it of Archbishops: for the reason is all one. Do you thinke this to be a good collection: where in the Popes time there was a Massing priest, now is there placed a Minister of the Gospell, Ergo the ministerie of the Gospell is framed according to the example of Massing priests? And yet thus do you conclude, that by∣cause there are nowadays Archbishops where before there were Archiflamines, therfore the ministerie of the Gospell is framed according to the heathnish and ydolatrous functions.