ALthough there is not (in mine opinion)Least necessary to saluation. a­ny one Article in controuersie by know­ledge whereof lesse benefit redoundeth to the church of Christ, or lesse comfort to the afflicted conscience of the sorrowfull sinner, than this of the supremacie of the Bishop of Rome: yet (if I be not decei­ued) there is not any one point more con­uenient to be handled,Most necessary in some other respects. or more necessarie to be intreated vpon, of such as sincerely loue the trueth of God, or hearty obedience vn­to soueraigne magistrates, than is the same. First, for the iustify­ing of the godly, and more than needefull lawes of christian Prin­ces, which they are forced to make,The popes supre­macie an enemie to all princes. to banish and abandon all for­raine power that themselues may sit faster in that seate, and the more quietly and safely inioy that soueraigntie, wherein God hath placed them, which is much hazarded and endangered by this sub­tile, but false perswasion, which wholly possesseth the heartes of many, that if they will be saued, and auoide the danger of damna­tion, they must stedfastly beleeue, that the Bishop of Rome is the vniuersall Bishop, hauing authoritie ouer all, that he is the head of the church, and the generall shepheard of Christ his flocke. For that man of sinne, hauing so bewitched the hearts of his fauorites, that they are once persuaded, that it is good religion so to beleeue, [Page 2] and that to defend this his pride, is christian constancie: what shamelesse villanies will not they thinke to be lawfull practises? what cruell murders will not they account to be commendable at­tempts? what vnnaturall deuises and drifts wil not they esteeme most godly and catholike vertues? I neede not stand long in dila­ting this point. Our natiue soile hath too much and too lamenta­ble experience of such vnkindly slips. Who when they did, and do owe to their countrey wherein they were bred and brought vp, the sweete fruit of loue to her, and sacred obedience to her lawes, bring forth almost nothing else, but the sowre grapes of treasons and treacheries. Which all spring out of this bad roote, that they falsly perswade themselues, that they owe their chiefe obedience to the Bishop of Rome, whose commaundements if they obey, and follow his directions, and hearken to his perswasions, then must they suffer no princes, with qnietnesse to enioy their ancient and vndoubted inheritance, and rightfull crownes, but such as will be tenants at will, to their lawlesse master. Which, the more I doe thinke of it, the more (I feare) we haue no great hope as yet to be free from such villainous practises, as may bring danger vnto her Maiestie, and ruine to this realme: because I see that stubburne Recusants (who if they haue any conscience in religion, it is very strange, for many of them shew little conscience in any thing else) wilfull Papists (I say) are not in some reasonable maner forced in this point, to shew their obedient and dutiful hearts, but may free­ly without controlment, professe themselues enemies to the truth that we acknowledge. For how can there be any certainety to this estate, that is so pestered with a great number of false hearted sub­iects, whose very religion,The religion of Papists. is to be deuoted to him and to the main­tainance of his kingdome, that is grieued at nothing more than at our happinesse, neither seeketh any thing so much as our destruc­tion?

To plucke away therefore this visard of Religion, from this their disobedient and dissolute affection, I thinke it to be the duetie of euery good christian, according to our calling and talents who­ly to indeuour our selues. And as this dutifull affection of christi­an obedience should effectually moue vs vnto this attempt, so the very ruine of religion, and the decay of all true deuotion which fo­loweth that perswasion, should for [...]e vs to make haste to take this stumbling blocke out of the way of the simple, lest at vnwares run­ning [Page 3] thereupon, they should make shipwracke of their faith. For the Bishop of Rome by this his pretended priuiledge,The popes supr [...] ­macie the decay of true religiòn. doeth take vpon him to make lawes to binde the conscience, to adde to Gods word, to dispence against the same, to chop and change religion it selfe, as seemeth good to him, to doe and vndoe at his owne plea­sure. And do he neuer so much hurt in the church of Christ, yet no man must say,Dist. 40. cap. 51. Papa. Sir, why do you so? And thus hauing gotten by this prowd name, his fulnes of power, he hath filled all christen­dome with horrible superstitions. I speake not heere of the pro­phane, or rather blasphemous praises,The Popes flatt [...] ­re [...]s. which the flatterers of this vniuersall Bishop do giue to him, to make the world, not so much to reuerence him as a B. as to honour him rather almost as a god. Which if it had bin done onely by his Canonists, who liued in the dayes of darkenesse, and saw not so much as men now do, yet the fault and folly had bin very great. But that master Bellarmine, a man doubtlesse learned, in so cleare light of the trueth as now shi­neth, should so farre ouershoote himselfe as he doeth in this point, in his Preface to his bookes of the bishop of Rome:Praefat. in lib. d [...] Rom. pontif. it maketh me not a little to wonder at his grosse folly, and to detest his irreligi­ous flattery. But of this more shall be said hereafter if God per­mit.

Seeing therefore the truth of this doctrine is so necessary, both for the sinceritie of religion, and also for the quietnesse of common wealths: my desire & purpose is, if God giue good successe there­unto, to shew and proue that the Bishop of Rome maketh herein an vniust claime,The Popes claim vniust. and hath possessed himselfe of an vntrue Title. To come therefore to the point in controuersie.The Church. The holy catho­like church, the spiritual house of God, the mystical body of Christ, comprehendeth two sortes of members.Triumphant. Some that are triumph­ing in heauen:Militant. others that are here trauelling vpon the earth: some profiting (as saint Augustine saith) in this life, others perfited in an other.The question. Now the question is, whether this part of the catholike church that is here wandering in this vale of misery, which is cal­led militant (for here is the place of striuing, else-where the place of crowning) must needes haue the Bishop of Rome to bee the head thereof? This is it that they vntruly, and without any good warrant do affirme. This is it which iustly, and vpon good ground (as I trust it shall appeare) we deny. Master Bellarmine labou­reth very much to prooue, that the gouernement of one ouer all, is [Page 4] the best,Whether monar­chicall gouerne­ment be best. M. Bellarmines first argument to proue there must be one visible head. indeuouring thereby to prooue, that if it be best in ciuill regiment, it should also be the best gouernment in the church, as it appeareth in his Bookes of the bishop of Rome. Howsoeuer the monarchicall regiment within euery kingdome or country is liked of: yet that vniuersal rule of one ouer al hath not bin thought good of at any time,Lib. de pontif. Rom. 1. cap. 5. That is not of ne­cessitie be [...] go­uernment for the Church that is best for other kingdomes. as may appeare by those great monarchies so com­mended vnto vs in histories. To whose subiection kingdomes and nations did not subiect themselues willingly, but were subdued to them by might. Neither is it necessary, that that kind of gouerne­ment, which is thought best for worldly kingdomes, whose Law­makers are men, and whose lawes are alwayes new to be made, as new inconueniences do arise in the common-wealth: and to be short, whose glory is here in this world, should also be most con­uenient for the church of God, whose kingdome is not worldly, whose beauty is not outward or external. But to knit vp this point with one argument, thus I reason. That kind of gouernement is fittest for the church, that bringeth most profit to them that are go­uerned, but master Bellarmine confesseth,De pontif. Rom. li [...]. 1. cap. 3. that the mixed gouerne­ment is most profitable, therefore it is fittest.

But because it pleaseth master Bellarmine so well, that one should beare rule ouer the whole church, let him and his fellowes submit hemselfe to Christ that King of kings and Lord of lords,Christ king in his Church. Reuel. 19. 16. Ephes. 1. 22. Dan. 7. 14. Psal. 72. 8. whom God hath appointed to be the head of the church, of whose kingdome there shall be no end, whose dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the riuer to the ends of the land: so that no conti­nuance of time, no distance of place, shall hinder his gouernment; An inuisible head of an inuisible body.A pastour in par­ticular churches a particular head. Or else in particular churches let him behold a visible pastor, ouer a visible flocke, which is also a kinde of Monarchy. But this one head which is Christ, cannot content the church of Rome, although notwith­standing his absence from vs in the flesh, there is no want either in his will or might, but that he is able and readie, at all times to direct and defend his flocke. [...]. S [...]m. 8. 7, 10. But as the children of Israel, not contenting themselues with that forme of gouernment whereby God gouerned them, would needes haue a king as other nations had: euen so will the papists haue a visible monarche, one ruler of the whole church, as one King is ruler ouer a whole King­dome. And if we tell them that it is a monster in nature, that the church which is but one,Two heades. should haue two heades, that is to say [Page 5] Christ, whome we all acknowledg to be the head thereof, and the pope, whom they make their visible and ministeriall head: then they reply, that in that Christ is head of the church, it doth no more hinder the supremacie of the bishop of Rome, then it taketh away the bishop and ministers out of the church.Bellar. lib. 1. de pontif. Rom. c. 9. For so master Bellarmine affirme [...], as if bishops and ministers were vniuersall heads, as the pope would be. And can master Bellarmine see no difference, betweene the calling of pastors and teachers, and of the pope? Is hee so blinde or bleareied, in beholding the bright­nesse of their glorious Bishoppe, that hee can see no difference be­tweene these two:Pastors appoin­ted of God. pastors we are sure are ordained of God, euen of him that apointed Christ to be head of the church.The pope not of God. But that the bishop of Rome is head of the church by Gods word, master Bel­armine himselfe denieth.De pontif. Rom. lib. 2. cap. 12. Secondly the pastor contenteth himselfe with the ministrie of the word and sacraments, and such ecclesi­asticall censures as the word affordeth him.The Popes pride. But the bishop of Rome despiseth all power, abuseth all magistrates, yea almost treadeth vnder foote the maiestie of the mightiest monarches. As for the sword of the word either he thinkes it not sharp enough,His contempt of the sword of Gods word. or else he is too proude to drawe it (for preaching is too base a thing for so proude a prelate) but with his temporall sword he florisheth lustily. Againe, the pastor hath his flock in a litle compasse, so that he may in some measure discharge his dutie amongst them, he may feede with the bread of life the hungrie soules, he may streng­then the feeble, comfort the weake, seeke the lost, and bring whom the wandring sheep.The Popes charge infinit. But the bishop of Rome in chalenging au­thoritie ouer all places and persons, and seeking to bee head ouer all churches, doth both meddle with other mens charges, and lai­eth vpon his owne shoulders an importable burthen. Thus I trust it appeareth, that this argument standeth still vnanswered Christ is the head of his church, Christ I say whom God the fa­ther appointed to that office, and who is able to vndergoe this charge,Tertull. de prae­scientia haeretic. because he hath the holy ghost to be his Housband man, to dresse his vine, his Vicar or leieutenant to looke to his charge: the pope therefore, who is neither appointed to it, nor able to doe it, is not.M. Bellar. his se­cond argument. Now for that which master Bellarmine affirmeth of the heauenly host, that they haue in heauen another head besides Christ, and therefore that the church vpon earth ought so to haue: his proofe is more vncertaine, and hard to be knowen, then that he [Page 6] should seeke thereupon to ground any argument. But the church in the old Testament had one high priest,Argument 3. therefore saith master Bellarmine the church of Christ must haue so. For that church was a figure of Christs church.Answere. If master Bellarmine his argu­ment shall goe for currant, wee must also haue but one Temple, for they might not haue any moe, they might offer but in one place, and many such things were commaunded vnto them, vnto which it were absurd to tie christians. Whereby we may see that in all things that church was not a figure of ours. Then also the leuiti­call priest was a figure not of any ministeriall head of Christs church but of Christ himselfe as the apostle to the Hebrews doth proue in sondrie chapters.Hebr. 8. 9, 10. And here master Bellarmine sheweth rather a desire to maintain his errors, then to yeld to the truth. For without all reason hee affirmeth, that Aaron was not onely a figure of Christ, but of Peter also, and his successors, sauing that to auouch his vntruth, hee setteth downe another; namely that the leuiticall sacrifices, were figurs not of Christ onely, but also of that which they call the sacrifice of the masse, which how vntrue it is I haue shewed elsewhere. But if it were true, that those sacrifices were figures of both, must it needs follow, that Aaron also must be the figure of Christ and Peter. Aaron no figure of Peter. It hath no necessitie. And moreouer to answere both this and his fifth argu­ment.

The church was at that time contained within the bonds of Iewry, or at the least hee was but hie priest vnto them that were circumcised. As also in Christ his time the church consisted but of a few persons and therefore it cannot be necessarily concluded, that if the church then was gouerned by one, when it was in a small corner of the world, it should now be so likewise, when it is scat­tered in many places, vpon the earth. But what if I should denie to Bellarmine, that this was the gouernment of the church before Christ,The church not subiect to one hie priest. De missa li. 1. c. 2 or that they were not at that time all vnder one hie priest? For more then 2500. yeares the church was not gouerned by one hie priest, which master Bellarmine himselfe doth not greatly de­nie in this place, especially limiting this hie priest vnto that time when there was some forme of gouernment established amongst them, after they were come out of Egypt: For vntill that time as himselfe confesseth, the heads of their houses were priests. And although there were many good men at one time as Seth, Enosh, [Page 7] and others, yet master Bellarmine cannot shew, that there was a­mongst them, a hie priest, but euery one was chiefe in his owne familie. But what if it appeare that then when there was a hie priest, yet al Gods people were not bound to be vnder him? The widow of Sarepta as appeareth by her story,1. Kin. 17. had a sure faith in God, so that wee may say shee might well be accounted the child of God. Naaman also the syrian did belong to the church of God. And no doubt but God had many people among the Niniuites, who repented at the preaching of Ionah. Ionah 3. And yet none of these were commaunded to be vnder the subiection of the hie priest. Which thing being well coosidered of, wee may conclude, that if the gouernment of one ouer the whole church, were not thought necessarie for any people, before such time as Moyses had deli­uered such laws to the Israelits from God, after they were come out of Egypt, neither yet afterward for any but only for the Iews as by the examples alleadged may appeare, out of this I say wee may gather, that neither then was the whole church commaunded to be vnder the gouernment of one, and also that it was not a pat­tern of gouernment for the church nowe, but onely a figure of Christ to them, to whome all things almost were deliuered in fi­gures and shadowes.Arg. 4. Bellarm. But master Bellarmines fourth argument hath yet lesse weight then any of the rest. The church saith hee is compared to an Armie, to Mans body, or a beutifull woman, to a kingdome, a Ssheepfold, a house, Noahs arke, but no armie without a generall, no body without a head, no wife without a husband, no kingdome without a king, no shipfold without a sheapheard, no house without a steward, no ship but hath a master. We grant all this,Answere. and as Saint Augustine saith of the head so we may say of all these similitudes for Christ can not be called a head,Praefat. in ps. 139 if there be no body whereof he should be head. And these names are bestowed vpon the church, and belong vnto her no o­therwise then as we haue respect vnto Christ, that is our general, head, husband, king, sheapheard, householder, and shipmaster. And I cannot but muse at the great ignorance or wilfulnesse that master Bellarmine sheweth in this argument, who knowing the nature of relatiues to be such as that the one of them dependeth on the other, so that the one cannot be without the other: & know­ing also that the wife is so called in respect of her husband, and the husbād so called in respect that he hath a wife: yet he shames not to [Page 8] affirme, that the church here vpon earth may well be compared to a wife, not hauing respect to Christ her husband. It may be his meaning is, to rake again out of the chenel, that filthy & blasphe­mous cannon,De Immunit. m. 6. e Quoniam. wherein the pope maketh claime to be the husbaud of the church, which title the scriptures ascribe to Christ onely. To his fifth argument and his third I answered together: his sixth argument is this.Bell. arg. 6. Bishops are well set to haue authoritie ouer Ministers, Archbishops ouer Bishops, therefore also there must be one ouer all others.Answere. But this proueth not that which fame hee would proue, that by Gods word one must haue rule ouer al. Se­uenthly (saith master Bellarmine) the church must still increase,Bell. arg. 7. but it can not increase vnlesse one man bee aboue the rest to take this care, therefore one must be chiefe aboue all other. And can­not the church increase except one be among the rest to commaund all others?Answer. Who commaunded Saint Paul to preach as he did in many places? Not Peter. But they will say he was extraor­dinarily called. And they that are extraordinarily called must now by the popes lawes be allowed by the pope.

But to let this passe,Ruffin. hist. eccl. lib. 1. cap. 9. Parthia to Thomas, Aethiopia to Mat­thew, India to Bartholomew were appointed to preach in, not at Peters commandement but by lot. Not Peter, but Thomas mo­ued thereunto by God sent Thadde vnto Edessa. So that we see Maister Bellarmines minor proposition to be very false. For the kingdome of Christ may well be increased without the Popes su­premacie. As then it was, so now I say it may be, yea and is in­creased mightely, although the Pope doe not onely grieue at it, but also striue against it.Bellar. arg. 8. Lastly there must be vnity in faith (saieth Maister Bellarmine) but that cannot be, vnlesse all be vnder one, therefore one must haue the rule ouer all.Answere. In deede it cannot be de­nied, but that one man being of authority in the church of God, may manie times doe much good, either to confirme the godly, or daunt the courage of the contentious. But if this authority bee bestowed vppon the vngodly, it doeth much hurt, and it is then found true that the wiseman saieth.Prouer. 29. 2. When the wicked beare rule the people sigh. Neither can we haue a better example of this, then in the Bishops of Rome that haue beene these many hundred of yeares, who to get the soueraignty aboue all authority, omitte no practises, shame not of anie treacheries, spare not anie shedding of bloud, but forget all dutie, all nature, all humani [...]ie, all christiani­tie, [Page 9] so that they may haue the commaunding of all the world. And for their vnitie in faith,Popish vnitie. it is a kinde of vnitie, but in hypocrisie not in veritie. Against Gods vndoubted word, against Christ and his office,Psal. 2. 2. Vnitie without supremacie. his merit and satisfaction, euen such a vnitie as Dauid spea­keth of, against the Lord and against his anointed. But can there be no vnity in faith, but where there is supremacie in authoritie? Yes, if wee marke the histories wee shall finde, that there was neuer so good consent in sound doctrine, as when this supremacie was not hatched. A question concerning circumcision, fell among the chri­stians, in the Apostles time.Act. 15. [...]. The matter was referred vnto the A­postles. The Apostles and elders came together to looke to this matter. After much disputation Peter gaue his iudgement of gods goodnes towardes the Gentiles. To that end also Paul and Bar­nabas told howe wonderfullie God had wrought among the Gen­tiles by them. And last of all Iames concluded, according to whose direction the matter was defined. Now what supremacie was in this counsell. The Papists tell vs that Peter was chiefe here, but this is but a bold assertion, vow of all proofe. For first the wordes doe not shew that Peter called them together but the contrary ra­ther Which Saint Luke would not haue omitted, if Peter by anie superiour authoritie that he had ouer them, had called them. Nei­ther did Peter speake first. For before he spake there was much disputation, neither did he giue definitiue sentence in the counsell, but Saint Iames, as doth easily appeare to them that [...]ompare the words that he did speake, with the Epistle that they did write, con­cerning the matter in controuersie. So that if there were then anie chiefe it was Saint Iames, and not Saint Peter. The like also I might shew out of some other of the first counsels following. Of which because I shall haue better occasion after to intreat, I trust this may suffice, to shewe that without supremacie, vnitie in faith may be maintained, and therefore that the minor proposition in this argument is false. And thus haue I briefly r [...]ne ouer the argu­ments, that are alleadged by Maister Bellarmine to proue this so­ueraigne Monarchy,De Rom pontif. lib. 1. cap. 9. which he saith must be in Gods church, rather pointing to them, then prosecuting anie of them. Against all which I wilt oppose one onelie argument, which I would desire Maister Bellarmine or some friend of his,An argument a­gainst the visible head ouer the whole church. at their good leisure to answere. No inuisible body, can haue a visible head, for that were a monster in nature. But the vniuersall or catholike church is an inuisible bo­die, [Page 10] for things that are vniuersall are not seene with the eie, but conceaued in the minde and vnderstanding. Therefore the catholike church must not haue a visible head. But all this that Maister Bel­larmine hath hitherto spoken, of the necessity of hauing one su­preme gouernour of the whole church, is rather an inducement, to make men thinke that they haue some reason for this supremacie in the church, then any strong argument, whereby they thinke to cary away the weight of the matter. But the very strength and staie of this their doctrine is contained in this one syliogisme whatsoeuerThe Papists argu­ment for the su­premacie. iurisdiction Christ gaue to Peter and not to the rest of the Apo­stles, all that belongeth to the church of Rome: but Christ gaue vnto Peter iurisdiction, ouer the vniuersall church and not to the rest of the Apostles: therefore the Bishop or church of Rome hath iurisdiction ouer all churches, or ouer the vniuersall church. And in this argument is contained, not onely all that Maister Bellar­mine can say, but all that they all can alleadge for this matter, and therefore it is the more diligently to be examined. And to beginne with the minor, wherein is affirmed what iurisdiction or power o­uer others Peter had, Maister Bellarmine doth confidently and plainely affirme,De pontif. Rom. lib. 1. cap 10. Whether Christ haue resigned his place. That Saint Peter is appointed of Christ him­selfe, in Christ his place, the head and prince of the church, or these are his verie words. What, is Christ wearie of his office? hath hee giuen ouer his interest, hath he resigned his right vnto Saint Peter? If hee haue so done, it is more then Saint Paul knew, who after that Christ had left the world, yet still he tooke Christ for the head of the church, as appeareth by his epistle to the Ephesians and to the Colossians. Ephes. 1. 22 and 4. 15. and 5. 23. Coloss. 1. 18. Yea Saint Peter himselfe, see­meth not to know so much. For when hee calleth him the head corner stone,Acts 4. 11. he meaneth doubtlesse in the building of Gods spiri­tuall house, which is the church. And yet master Bellarmine see­meth to tell vs [...] when hee telleth vs that Saint Peter is head in Christs place: For Christ must leaue his place before S. Peter can be in his place. [...]ad Popes. A meaner place would very well haue contented Saint Peter. As for many of them who in our fathers dayes and ours, haue bragged that they are Peters successors, de­serue not to bee dog-driuers out of a poore parish church wherein godly christians are assembled much lesse to be vniuersall bishops ouer the whole world. Neither standeth the church of Christ now in neede of any such lieutenant, seeing Christ is much more effec­tually [Page 11] with his church now, then hee was with the people of the Iewes, when he was conuersant vpon the earth. For he that promised that hee would be with vs alwaies,Mat. 28. 25. Ioh 14. 16, 17. euen vnto the end of the world, and that hee would pray the father, and he should giue vs another comforter, which should abide with vs for euer, enen the spirit of truth he I say by the same spirit whom he hath made his vicar generall,De praescript. haeretie. as before I aleaged out of Tertullian, doth husband the earth of our hearts to make them fruitfull, and is Christs vicar in all places, with all persons, to supply all their wants. So that hee which in respect of his bodily presence could at no time be but in one place, by the piercing power of his spirit, is at once euery where. And therefore is he much more present now in the spirit, then before in the flesh, because be­fore he could be at once but with a few of the faithfull, whereas now he is withal at one instant. It is therefore ouermuch bold­nes in master Bellarmine, either to thrust Christ out of his of­fice, to lay the same vpon Peter, or else to imagine that Christ is not better able by his spirit, then by the pope, to execute the same. His iudgement is also very hard, wherein he pronounceth that to say, that saint Peters supremacy is not instituted by Christ, it is not a simple errour, but a detestable heresie. This I am sure of,De simplie. prel. that not onely some priuat men as Cyprian haue thought all the Apostles, to be of as great honour and power as was Peter, but euer some councils haue thought, that the B. of Rome, who thinketh by succession from Peter, he hath as good right thereto as Peter had, yet had not from Christ any right to the supremacy.Concil. Carth. 6. For the sixt council of Carthage where Fausti­nus and others were legats from the pope, would not yeld that souerainty to the bishop of Rome, although his legats did most earnestly seeke it, not onely by their diligent indeuour, but also by aleaging false canons of the Nicen councill, thinking there­by to haue deceiued them. And although this were a great foile to the church of Rome, yet their ambitious and aspiring minds would not suffer them to be quiet, but within a little time after, they attempt the like in the counsell of Chalcedon.Galced. Concil. Act. 16. Paschasinus and Lucentius being the popes legates, Paschasinus alleaged a decree, as if it had beene out of the Nicen councill, That the the church of Rome always had the supremacie, but the coun­cell [Page 12] finding, that there was not there anie such decree, did ordaine that the bishop of Constantinople, should haue as great, euen such like priuiledges as the bishop of Rome had. Which had beene more wickedlie ordained of them, if Rome by Christ had the supremacie, then wee maie imagine so manie godlie fathers assembled togither would haue done. Yea that we maie knowe, that at that time if bishops of Rome, had anie priuiledge aboue other bishops, they did not thinke it was so by Christs instituti­on, they set downe the reason, why the church of Rome was more honoured then the rest. Euen because it was the imperiall citie as also Ireny long before them did testifie.

And this made the fathers of the councell of Chalcedon theLib. [...]. cap. 3. bolder, to yeeld to Constantinople (which they called newe Rome) such priuiledges, because it was now become also an imperiall citie. Thus wee see these learned writers Ireny and Ciprian, and all the fathers of these two councels, learned and manie did not thinke, nor would confesse, that this suprem [...] ­cie was Christes institution, and yet master Bellarmines sharpe penne hath prickt them all with one dash as guiltie not of simple errour, but of pestilent heresie. Nowe wee must needes ima­gine, that he would neuer burst out into these excessiue spee­ches, as if hee were rauished, and besides himselfe (as in these two pointes mentioned it maie appeare) vnlesse his opinion re­sted vpon a sure ground. Let vs therefore examine his proofes, and trie the waight of his reasons.

This most necessarie controuersie,Barenes of proofe for the supremacie. as the church of Rome e­steemeth it, hath not in all the scriptures anie good warrant, euen in master Bellarmines owne opinion, but in one place. For as concerning those prerogatiues which after he speaketh off, they are rather motiues to drawe vs, or probable coniectures to per­swade vs, then strong argumentes to prooue, or sufficient rea­sons to conuince and force vs to beleeue. I saie they haue but one authority of Scripture that they rest vpon, because that place out of the sixteenth of Saint Matthewes gospel,De pontif. Rom. li. 1. cap. 12. is but a promise as master Bellarmine himselfe confesseth, of that which was af­terwardes giuen, when Christ commaunded him to feede his sheepe, so that one is not perfect without the other. But let vs see what iurisdiction is promised in the one, and then also [Page 13] what is giuen in the other vnto Peter. Mat. 16. 13. Our Sauiour Christ inquiring of his disciples what opinion other men had of him, they answered, some saie that thou art Iohn Baptist, some Elias, some Ieremias, or one of the Prophetes, and asking of them what they thought of him, Simon Peter answered thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God. And Iesus answered and saide vnto him, happie art thou Simon the sonne of Iona, for flesh and bloud hath not opened that vnto thee, but my father which is in heauen. And I say also vnto thee that thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it. And I will giue vnto thee the keies of the kingdome of heauen, and whatsoeuer thou shalt bind in earth, shall be bound in heauen, and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose in earth, shall bee loosed in heauen. These are the wordes that must strengthen and stay this stately building of the popes supremacie, or else it is like to fall. Out of which master Bel­larmine draweth two argumentes. First that Saint Peter is the foundation, secondly that hee is the key carier of the church, and therefore that hee must bee the supreme head of the church. The first is taken out of these wordes, Thou art Peter and vp­on this rocke I will build my church. The plaine meaning of which words I take to be this. When first I tooke thee to be an Apostle, I said thou shouldest bee called Cephas which is by in­terpretation a stone.Iohn. 1. 42. Thou shalt shew thy selfe so to be indeede, and that I haue named thee so truly, for in this confession that thou hast made of me thou shalt hereafter continue so cōstant that thou shalt die in it. And therefore because thou shalt bee so con­stant thou art Peter or Cephas indeede. As for this confession that thou hast made, all my faithfull people shall settle and staie themselues thereupon, in all conflictes of conscience, so that no terrour of hell shall bee able to discourage or disamaie them.

But master Bellarmine out of this doth gather that the church is built vpon Peter, as vpon a foundation. Yet I trust hee will not deny, that Christ is such a foundation, as there is no other, be­cause S. Paul telleth vs,1. Cor. 3. 11. that other foundation can no mā lay, thē that is laid▪ which is Iesus Christ Of this foundation God spea­keth by his prophet Esay, Esy. 28. 16. behold I wil lay in Sion a stone, a tried [Page 14] stone, a pretious corner stone, a sure foundation. Then this being graunted that Christ is this speciall foundation, and the onely sure ground-worke in this building, I trust it will be the easier to know, what place belongeth to Peter but the later of these two places by mee alleaged,Bellarm, maketh the Popethis stone, or Peter praefat. i [...] lib. de pontif, Rom. which is onely verified of Christ, and of him onely meant, most prophanely doth master Bellarmine apply to saint Peter, and so to the church of Rome, & that very particularly: making it thestone tried with persecu­tions, with heresies which the pride of the Greeke church, with stiffenesse of some emperors, with schismes, with wicked popes, The corner stone that ioyneth into one church, the Iewes and the Gentils, The pretious stone because she is rich in ceremo­nies, and sacramentes, in pardons, in councils, in interpretation. of scriptures and such like: And last of all the sure foundation. But here master Bellarmine is forced to graunt, that Peter is but a secondary foundation and not the principall foundation, for that Christ onely is. This discourse of his, maketh me remem­ber frier Toittis, Acts and Monu­ment. otherwise called frier Paternoster, who vpon a great controuersie that arose in Scotland concerning the lords prayer, whether it might be said vnto the Saints or not, beeing intreated (as a man belike most sufficient) to deale in the mat­ter, comming into the pulpit at Saint Andrews where this controuersie was, began in particular to shew how euery peti­tion might be made vnto the saints, vntil he came to the fourth petition, wherein hee was faine to confesse, that the saints can­not giue vs our daily bread, and so with shame bewrayed his owne folly, and the feeblenesse, or rather the falsnes of his cause. Euen so master Bellarmine, robbing Christ of his ornaments that hee may decke therewith, that whorish synagogue, which vntrewly he callet Peters seate, hauing besides all learning, nay contrarie to the sinceritie of a christian diuine, most blas­phemously, applied vnto that Romish seate, that which belong­eth vnto Christ onely, and is one of his most especiall and pecu­liar markes whereby hee is set foorth as the promised sauiour, that he should be the corner stone, tried, and precious: Yet is he in the end forced to confesse, that the sure foundation cannot be found but in Christ, although he would seeme to apply that ti­tle, to that seate also. I would hardly haue thought that, a [Page 15] man so learned as master Bellarmine in these our dayes, where­in knowledge aboundeth,Christ only the stone. Mat. 21 42. Rom. 9. 33. Ephes. 2. 14, 15, 16, 10. Act. 4 12. 1 pet. 2. 6. would euer haue abused Gods sacred word in such sort. That this is only true in Christ, our Sauior Christ himselfe, out of the Prophet Dauid teacheth. S. Paul a­greeth to the same, not only writing to the Ronanes, but also to the Ephesians, shewing how he onely can be as a corner stone, gathering and knitting together the Iewes and Gentiles. S. Peter also himselfe maketh Christ to be this stone. It is not a sufficient excuse for master Bellarmine, that he acknowledgeth, that the prophet Esay speaketh especially of Christ, and then to apply it vnto the church of Rome. For seeing the scriptures with so great consent, do acknowlege Christ to be that tried and and precious corner stone,Ephes. 2. 14. and therefore doe call him the corner stone, because he hath made of Iew and Gentile one, breaking downe the stop of the partition wall. In whom all the building coupled together, groweth to a holy temple in the Lord,21. which is a thing that not one but Christ can performe, let vs knowe, that to giue this title to any other, is to rob Christ of his glory. And yet as though master Bellarmine had not powred out al­ready blasphemies ynow, he prosecuteth wickedly, that which absurdly he hath begun,Bellarmines blasphemies, Esay 8. 14. Matt. 21. 44. adding, that this their Romish church is the stone of offence, and stumbling blocke, vpon which stone he that falleth shall be broken, but on whomsoeuer it shall fall, it shall grinde him to powder. But howsoeuer it pleaseth master Bellarmine, to bragge of the might and maiesty of the church of Rome, we see that the hath lost many kingdomes, that some­time serued her. And where her power is greatest, we see that many fall [...]ayly from her: and that such as doe so, haue no cause to repent it, but that God aideth them with his wonder­full and mercifull hand, and prosecuteth them with many bles­sings.

But to returne vnto master Bellarmines argument againe: Vpon this rocke I will build my church. The foundation of a house hath two respects: First, it holdeth vp the whole build­ing, which being coupled together in it, groweth to be an house, as before I haue shewed out of saint Paules epistle to the Ephe­sians, and thus Christ onely is the foundation of his church, as hee is also the head, whereof all the bodie furnished and knit [Page 16] together with ioints and bands, increaseth with the increasing of God.Coloss. 2. 19. This foundation or head none can be but Christ. Secondly the fonndation is as it were a direction and rule, for the building of the rest of the house. For it must be made, ac­cording to the length and breadth of the foundation. In which respect the Apostles are called foundations in the reuelation, foundations I say in this church of God.Apocal. 21. 14. Ephes. 2. 20. And so doth the apostle say that the church is built vpon the fonndation of the Apostles and prophets, Iesus Christ himselfe beeing the chiefe corner stone.How the Apo­stles are founda­tions. And whether they be called foundations in respect of their doctrine as Saint Ambrose thinketh, or because they were first layed in the building, as Theophilact seemeth to affirme:Amb. on these words Ephes. 2. Theoph. Eph. 2. yet are they not such foundations as can hold vp this building: but such onely as by their doctrine and fayth, must be a patterne and platforme, for all other builders to builde by, that they goe not out of that rule and square, which is most fit for Gods house. And thus we confesse that Saint Peter is a foundation as also all the Apostles are.Chrysost. in Eph. [...] 6. And that which Chrysostome writeth vpon this place, is in my iudgement a strong argument, against this secondarie foundation, which they say Peter is, because he will haue the building so coupled wit [...] t [...]e foundation, as that there shalbe nothing between them. But most plainely in his commentaries vpon the epistle to the Corinthians he will haue nothing betweene vs and Christ, no distance betweene the head and the bodie.Hom. 8. As he proueth by ex­amples of the head and the bodie, the branch and the tree, the building and the foundation. For if the head be from the body, but the thicknesse of a sword it dieth. If the branch be cut from the tree, neuer so litle, it withereth. If the house be not ioyned vpon the foundation, it falleth. Howe then can we haue any secondary foundation in the church of God, without the ruine of the whole church.

The Apostles therefore may well bee foundations (as I haue before saide, either because that they are (as it were) the first stones that are layed, vpon Christ, in this building, or because of their doctrine whereupon our faith is grounded, but otherwise, we can not admitte them all, or any one of them, whether Peter, or any other, to be a foundation, in this building. [Page 17] So that al the paines that master Bellarmine taketh, to proue, that this rocke must needs signifie Peter himselfe, is more than needeth: for we wil confesse, that he and the rest of the Apostles, are foundations in the church. But if after some more peculiar sort, he wil haue him a foundation, neither hath he prooued it by that which he vrgeth out these words, vpon this rocke, neither yet by that vniuersall consent of the church that he braggeth of. For the fathers do in sundry sorts expound these words, som by this rocke vnderstand Peter as he was an apostle, and teacher of the word of God. And so may the fathers be vnderstoode that are in this chapter alleaged by master Bellarmine. For he can not reason thus: He is called a foundation, therefore he is a foundation after some other manner than the other Apostles. Some by this rocke vnderstand Christ whom Peter confessed. So doth saint Augustine, In Ioh Tract. 124. & Retract. lib. 1. cap. 21. vpon this rocke which thou hast con­fessed (saith he) I will build my church: now the rocke that hee confessed was Christ. There are also sundry that by this rocke vnderstand the confession that Peter made, as Hillarie, Am­brose, Chrysostome and Cyril. But none of these interpreta­tions can please our Romish rabbies, but that only that makes Peter the foundation in Christs place, which can not out of any of these expositions be gathered. S. Augustine, master Bellar­mine saith, was deceiued, because he knew not the Hebrew tongue: but yet saint Augustines words teach vs, that in his time this place was not by consent of the godly, so expounded as now the Papists expound it, but only that there were sundry ex­positions of sundry men: and that saint Augustine liked this of his best. How happeneth it then that maister Bellarmine with a great cracke saieth hee hath the consent of the whole church? Where is their catholike doctrine euen in this point, that which now the church of Rome teacheth, was not in saint Augustines dayes catholike. But to to proue this doctrine to be catholike, he saith,De pontif. Rom. lib. 1. cap. 10 De locis Theo­log. lib. 6. The Papists be­lie the Chalce­don councell. The whole Councell of Chalcedon wherein were 630. fathers call Peter the Rocke and Bancke of the church so also saith Melchior Canus. But both of them by shamelesse lies do seeke to abuse the simplicity of the ignorant. Paschasi­nus or Paschasius he only said so, who was Legat there for Leo, bishop of Rome, and sought by all meanes possible, to aduance [Page 18] that seat aboue all others, as may appeare in that place, especi­ally in the sixteenth action of that council,Act. 3. Act. 16. and yet these men doe not shame to say that the whole council said so. As for that other sence of those words receiued by Hillary, The papists doe shift oft the fa­thers. Ambrose, Chryso­stome and Ciril, which take Peters confession to be that rocke, master Bellarmine would shift that off with this answere, that they only speak of that faith, that Peter as a pastor of the church had, not of the faith without respect of Peters person. And yet Hillary saith not,De trinit. lib. 6. vpon the rocke of this pastours confession, but Vpon this rocke of confession. And also not this mans faith, but This faith is the foundation of the Church, by reason of this faith, the gates of hell can do nothing against it, this faith hath the keies of the kingdome of heauen. Ambros. in Lu [...]. lib. 6. cap. 9. Saint Ambrose in the words alleadged by master Bellarmine, speaketh also of faith absolutely, without hauing respect to Peter, as also he doth in sundry other places of that booke. Yea he telleth vs there, that whosoeuer ouercommeth the flesh, is a foundation in the church, and speaking of this rocke, he would that euerie one should haue within himselfe this rocke, which cannot be vnderstood of this confession as it hath respect to Peter. The like also may bee said for Chrisostome and Cirill, but this I trust is sufficient to shew the vanity of his answere, which is so flatte against the words of those fathers. For they speake of that faith, because it hath respect vnto Christ, and master Bellarmine would haue it imagined that they commend this faith as it commeth from Peter and because it is his. And that master Bellarmine would seeme out of Hillary to confirme,Bellarmine dea­leth subtelly out of [...]iillary. wherein yet hee sheweth no plaine dealing. For whereas Hillary saith after, by the confession of his happie faith, hee deserued a high place, or rather as the older copies doe read exceeding glorie, master Bellarmine doth not only out of this doubtfull reading gather the strength of his argument, preferring the new reading before the olde coppie, in that paint disclaiming from antiquity; but also to better his bad cause, whereas Hillary himselfe sheweth in plaine wordes, that this exceeding glorie is this, that he thrise heard these wordes, feede my sheepe, yet hee woulde make vs beleeue, that it consisteth in this that Peter is the head, founda­tion and key carier. Fie vpon poperie, that euer it shoulde so [Page 19] stiflie bee maintained, and yet cannot bee defended, but by lying and falsifying.

And thus hauing answered, the most forcible proofes that ma­ster Bellarmine bringeth, to proue that the church must bee built vpon Peter: I would on the other side wish him to consider how weake a foundation he and his fellowes doe builde vpon. For Peter did not only by euill councell,The weakenes of Peter to be a foundation. Matth. 16. 23. seeke to hinder his master Christ in the worke of our redemption, for which hee was bit­terly reprooued, go behinde me Sathan, thou art (saith Christ) an offence vnto me, because thou vnderstandest not the thinges that are of God, but the thinges that are of men, but also af­terwardes denie his master Christ,Matth. 26. 74. and that with cursing and swearing: but hauing receiued the spirit of God, and beeing inabled as much as euer he was, to the worke of the Lord, yet by Peters fault, Barnabas and other were brought into dissi­mulation, so that they walked not the right waie,Gal. 2. 13, 14. to the truth of the gospell. And therefore he was withstood euen to his face by Paule, because hee was worthie to bee blamed. So that euen then, if there had beene no better or surer foundation, to haue builded the church vpon then Peter, the building might well haue runne to one side. But thankes bee vnto God that we haue a surer rocke.Peter not the foundation. But what will he and his fellowes saie, to that most grosse absurditie that followeth this their doctrine? For if Peter be the foundation of the church, what answere will they make to them, that thinke the time was when the church was only in the virgin Mary? Vpon what foundation was the church then builded? Yea what foundation of the church was, before Peter was borne or thought of in the time of the law? Yea what foundation in all the time before the lawe, when there was not so much as a high priest among the people. Then was there a church as all men confesse, and therefore it must needes also then haue a foundation, but it could not be Peter. For hee had these wordes spoken vnto him almost 4000. yeares after the church began. And could it stand and florish so manie yeares, builded only vpon Christ the sure foundation, and shall we nowe thinke that this foundation beginneth to shrinke, or is lesse able to vphold this building, so that it must needes haue Saint Peter to helpe to holde it vppe, for feare of falling? [Page 20] God forbid that euer christians should haue so foolish thoughts, and yet these and such like absurdities must folow this doctrine. But to conclude this point I reason thus.That is now that alwaies was the foundation. That only must be the foundation of the church now, which was in the time of the lawe and before the law, but then there was no other foundation but Christ, therefore now there must be no other. I meane no other especial or particular foundation. My maior or first proposition is grounded vpon Maister Bellarmines wordes.De Pontif. Rom. [...]. 1. cap. 9. Rat. 5. For going a­bout to proue that the monarchy must be in the church, he yeel­deth this reason, because in Christs time it was gouerned by one, and if now it be not so gouerned, then it is not the same church, or the same citty of God.

Now thus I reason for proofe of my maior. If the not ha­uing of that outward forme of gouernement can make that it is not the same church, how much more if any thing be added to the foundation, but saith he, the not hauing of the same outward go­uernment, doth make it to be not the same church, therfore much more if it be altered in the foundation. And to saie that the church now in the time of grace is not all one with that church that was before Christ, or that then there was anie other foundation be­sides Christ, is nothing els then to deny Christ to be a corner stone, that ioyneth together both sides of the house, making of both one. By which the minor of my argument is verified. Thus I trust to the indifferent reader it may appeare, that as this in­terpretation of these wordes vpon this rocke I will builde my church, that is vpon Peter, is not catholike, so the doctrine that followeth therupon is absurd. Let vs now consider what weight there is in his second argument whith hee wringeth out of the word of building.De Pontif. Rom. lib. 1. cap. 11. Bellar. his 2. Arg. to build is to rule. Wherein he affirmeth, (and in truth doth but affirme, for he can proue nothing at all) that to builde is to rule. Indeede he alleadgeth three fathers which say Peter was Pa­stor of the church, or ruled all the church, but is this a good argu­ment, Peter did rule the whole church,Answere. therefore to builde is to rule? Such a shew of proofe, may perchance seeme glorious in the eies of them that haue no loue to the truth, but they are too too foolish that will be caught with such baites. That to build is not to rule I proue thus.

A man buildeth to haue a house, that he may rule, and he can­not [Page 21] rule, but that first the house must be made. So that indeede building in the house ceaseth, when ruling beginneth, when the house is made, then is it ruled. With much like dexterity he will proue that the foundation doth rule the house. In the ende if you will heare him, he will make you beleeue, that the house ruleth the maister, not the maister the house. But let vs grant Maister Bellarmine this which so earnestly he seeketh for. Let vs yeelde that to builde is to rule, what is then out of these wordes to be gathered? Vpon this rocke I will build, that is I will rule my church. This we see, Christ is the ruler (and not Peter) of the church. Then let vs go forwarde, that we may see what help vn­to this popish supremacy, the wordes following do bring: vnto thee will I giue (saith Christ) the keies of the kingdome of heauen &c. Here Maister Bellarmine is very earnest to proue, that these keies were deliuered to Peter: Lib. 1. cap. 1 [...]. but that we deny not. But it is Maister Bellarmines bad hap, many times to take great paines fortify, where y^• enimy assaulteth him not, & to prooue that which no body denieth. That we may ioine in some issue, we will easily confesse that the keies were deliuered to Peter. What then? Were they deliuered to him alone?To whom the keies were giuen. No Maister Bellarmine himselfe confesseth and that oftentimes, neither can he deny it if he would, the fathers doe so generally affirme it, that this great authority was committed to all the Apostles. Wherein then do we dissent? Forsooth Maister Bellarmine telleth vs that the o­ther Apostles had this authority,Ibidem. The keies by commission. but as Christes legates, or by especiall commission, but to be vnder Peter. Whereas Peter had it as his ordinary iurisdiction.By ordinary iuris­diction. Now this he should proue, but he leaueth it with a bare affirmation, so that you are not bound to beleeue him. But we see that which here is promised vnto Peter alone, whether because he alone tooke vpon him to answere Christes question, or that Christ therein would signifie the vnity of the church, as some of the fathers affirme, or because he was a figure of the church,In Ioh. Tract. 124. as Saint Augustine saith, that I say which is here promised to him alone is in Matthewe xviii. promised to all, and that Maister Bellarmine himselfe cannot deny,Matth. 18. 18. lib. 1. cap. 12. although he affirme it to be in all but Peter, a legantine, in him an ordinary power.

And this promise is perfourmed to all Iohn the xx. in these [Page 22] words receiue the holy ghost,Iohn 20 23. That the promise M [...]t 16. belong­eth, to all the Apostles. whose sinnes soeuer ye remit, they are remitted, and whose sinnes yee retaine, they are retained. And Theophilact doth expound these wordes of Matthew the sixteenth (which here I haue in hand) by this place of saint Iohn saying, that in that place of saint Mathew that is promised, that is here giuen, and that this power belongeth vnto all. What can be more plaine to prooue, that although Christ spake vnto Peter onely in that first place, to thee will I giue the keies, yet they were giuen to all? Why should we then trust the bare as­sertions of maister Bellarmine, or any other, that the keies are not in like maner giuen to all, when wee see, that Gods worde maketh no difference betweene them. But master Bellarmine, because we goe about trewly with Theophilact to expound this promise to thee I wil giue the keies, by that of Iohn whose sinnes so euer ye remit they are remitted, &c. would faine make vs beleeue if we will trust him of his bare word, that Theophi­lact and we are deceiued, and that Christ in these words of saint Iohn, doth onely giue power of order, whereas in Mathew he promiseth power of Iurisdiction. And the better to per­swade vs,Power of Order Iurisdiction he telleth vs, that to keepe a mans sinnes, is not a matter of so great power, as to bind a mans sinnes. And yet saint Ambrose, whose credit is far aboue maister Bel­armines, doth vse the words of remitting & loosing, retai­ning and binding indifferently the one for the other. And there­fore this is but a blinde cauill, to keepe the light of the truth vn­der a bushell.

If we prooue out of Cyprian, To binde and re­taine sin is al one [...]e poenitentia lib 1, cap. 2. Bellar. his shifts. De simpl prel. that all the Apostles were of like honour and power. They were (saith he) alike in their apostleship, and had all one authoritie ouer christian people, but were not alike among themselues. The wordes of Cypri­an haue no limitation, but maketh all of like power, and of like honour. But maister Bellarmine like false mates that doe wash and clippe the coyne, whereby they make it of lesse value so doeth hee by such s [...]eights seeke to diminish the force of such authorities as are brought against him But what reason hath hee so to expound Saint Cyprian? Because hee saieth in that Booke, that beginning proceedeth from a vnity to shew, that the church is one. Thus then doeth hee reason. The Church [Page 23] proceedeth from one or from vnitie: Therefore Peter is aboue all the Apostles.Bellar. argument hath no necessa­ [...]y co [...]sequence. Let other iudge of his argument, I see not out of this how he can prooue, that Peter hath such superiori­tie ouer the Apostles, as that hee may exercise iurisdiction ouer them, which is that the church of Rome must prooue, if Peters supremacie shal do them good.

Seeing therefore it appeareth by that which hath beene spo­ken, that not Peter onely, but all the apostles in like manner re­ceiued the keies,Cont. Iouin. li. [...] as Saint Hierome testifieth that is power to retaine or remit, to binde and loose, although it were saide to Peter, To thee I will giue the keies, yet it is manifest that for his sake onely it was not spoken, or the vse of the keies, to him onlie was not promised, but in and by him, Christ spake to all, without giuing lesse power to them or more to him. And thus much concerning this question to whom the keies were giuen. Nowe must we see what these keies are,What these ke [...] are. that so we may exa­mine, what that is which they say is giuen to Peter in this pro­mise.

Maister Bellarmine affirmeth,De pontif. Rom. li. 1. cap. 13. Beliarmines 1. ar­gument to proue the keis to signi­fie rule ouer the whole church. Esay 22. 22. that they all vnderstande by the keies, the soueraigne or chiefe pnwer ouer the whole church. And that it must so be he proueth thus. In the Prophet Esay is described the deposing of one high priest, and placing of an other by the deliuering of the keies. And the keies of the house of Dauid will I lay vpon his shoulder, and hee shall open and none shall shut,Bellarm. falsifi­eth the scripture. and he shall shut, and no man shall open. Sin­cere dealing would become all men, especially in Gods cause, which is farre from maister Bellarmine, as in many other pla­ces, so heere also. For Eliachim of whom the promise was made in this place,2. Chron. 31. 10. was not hie priest. Indeede Azariah was high priest in the dayes of Ezechiah. Neither yet was there e­uer any such high priest as Shebnah, whome God threateneth in that place. Whosoeuer marketh either the pedigree of priests in the scriptures, or in Iosephus, hee shall finde it to bee most false and vntrue, that heere maister Bellarmine so boldly affir­meth.

But this Eliachim was one of the princes whome Ezechiah, sent to Rabsache, 2. Kings 18. 18. whome in that place the Septuagint do call the Ruler of the house, as also in the seuen and thirtieth verse [Page 24] of that chapter. And the prophet Esay in the six and thirtie chap­ter and two and twentieth verse, they call him the Maister of the housholde. And indeede the Hebrew words do teach him to be one that was ouer the house, as also Saint Hierome yea and their owne old translation doe translate those words of Esay. And Saint Hierome in his commentaries vppon that place calleth him maister or ouerseer of the house.Antiq. li. 10. ca. 1. And so Iosephus also doth witnes that he was one of Ezechias especi­ally frends (as it may also appeare in that he sent him to Rab­sache) and his lieutenant or vicegerent, or doer for him, let the indifferent reader now iudge, whether this be good dealing in master Bellarmine, thus to abuse the simplicitie of his reader, and the credulitie of his frends, who hee hopeth wil not examine that he writeth, whether it haue weight or not, but will take all for gold, that hee giueth, if it looke yelow. Thus against all truth to affirme Eliachim to be hie priest is too bad. And to offer by such proofe as could not but be vncertain euen to himselfe, to proue so waighty a matter, whereupon so great controuersie in religion hangeth, doth not onely proclaime that all may heare it, the weaknesse of his cause, but also that his indeuour is, to keepe vnder the truth, that it appeare not. And thus much to lay open his falshood in his first reason: Now let vs see the weakenesse of his second.

To binde and loose (saieth hee) is to commaunde,Bellarm. [...]. arg. and to punish, and to dispence, and to remitte. But Peter coulde binde and loose. What nowe will Maister Bellarmine con­clude. Therefore (saith hee) hee is iudge and prince of all that are in the church, we will not much stand with him in his maior, although it might haue beene vttered in plainer termes.Answere. For this authoritie of binding and loosing is so committed vnto the church, that the power to do it, is tied not to the man but to the ministerie, not to the materiall church, but to the word. And therefore wee cannot simply say that to bind and loose, is to commaund or punish, but to commaund according to the word, and to punish according to the direction of it. For wee must not imagine, that God must be the executioner of our owne decrees, or tyed to allowe of our iudgements, but that wee are the proclaimers of his iudgements, and must pronounce what God [Page 25] in his reueiled word hath already set downe. And also the word of dispensing, though it may perchaunce haue a good vnder­standing, as if thereby we meane the meane the ordering and bestowing of the word,1. Cor. 4. 1. in respect whereof, the ministers are called stewards or disposers of the secrets of God: so must we take heede, that thereby we giue not to any man, saint Peter or any other, liber­tie to dispense at their pleasure, and to order as they will the people of God. For as magistrates if they do not gouerne ac­cording to law, abuse their authoritie and doe degenerate into tyrants: so ministers of the word, if they swarue from the word, are but seducers. The maior I say beeing rightly vnderstood wee doe yeld vnto, and the minor is also true, that Peter could binde and loose. But master Bellarmines conclusion doth not a­gree with these propositions neither can it folow, if they be graunted.Daniel 2. It hangeth no better together then Daniels image of sundrie mettalles, that could not long hold together. But this must be master Bellarmines conclusion to bind and loose, is to commannd, punish, dispense, and remit, in such sort as I haue alreadie shewed, but saint Peter could binde and loose, therefore saint Peter might commaund, punish, dispense and re­mit, as hath beene shewed. This must be master Bellarmines conclusion, but this will not serue master Bellarmines turne: For euery minister should so doe, and not Peter onely. And all this is doone by the ministery of the word in euery pastours seuerall charge, if the minister be faithfull in his office. Seeing his second argument concludeth nothing against vs, what doth his third and last argument?Bellarm. 3. argu­ment out of the Fathers. He promiseth by the fathers to proue, that these keis are a soueraigne and chiefe authoritie ouer the whole church. What, will he bring vs a catholike erpositi­on, receaued by all or most of the godly learned, at all times, in all places, agreed vpon with one consent? For otherwise it is not catholike. No. But hee telleth vs of two of the fathers onely. And the one of them being himselfe a pope, and in such times as that before his dayes this superioritie ouer all, had bin sundrie wayes sought for by the Bishop of Rome: his credit is in this point not much worth against vs.

As for Chrisostom who is the other witnes that must prooue [Page 26] that by the keies Christ meaneth this vinuersal iurisdiction:Chrysostome examined. In Mat, hom. 55. First he reasoneth in that very place where these words are, against the Arrians or some such heretikes, as made Christ not equall to the father, aud insulteth against them by occasion of this place. The father (saith hee) gaue vnto Peter the reuelation of the sonne. But the sonne gaue vnto him partly that hee might sowe through the whole earth, this reuelation both of the father and of the sonne: partly that he being a mortall man, should be indued with heauenly power, and haue the keis of the kingdome of heauen. And it foloweth there in Chrisostom, how then is he lesse, that wrought this in Peter? So then to proue Christ to be equall vnto the father in power, he sheweth that he wrought, if not more mightely, yet as powerfull in Peter as the father did.

And vpon this occasion he thus amplifieth this excellency of Peter, as also he doth a litle before in respect of that vniuersall church that Christ committed to him, which charge the rest also had. For all the apostles were generall Preachers, wheresoeuer God called them.Ibidem, And therefore Chrisostom doth say of them all, not of Peter only, that they were the teachers of the world. And in another place that there were two paires of the apostles that held this headship.In Matt. hom. 38 And yet Peter might better then any of the rest, be called the pastour or head of the church, that were of the twelue, because the charge of the Iewes wheresoeuer they were in any place, were cōmitted to him without any limitation of nation or countrie wherein they liued. Seeing therefore his proofes whereby he indeuoureth to proue these keis to signifie that vniuersall and soueraigne authoritie ouer the whole church, are either so false or faultie that they are not worth alleaging, as are his two reasons taken out of scripture, or so feeble that they can haue no strength, as this out of Chrisostome: I see no reason why we should yeld either to scripturs, so falsly or foolish­ly applyed, or much lesse to the sayings of men, so hardly con­strued.

For as before I haue admonished, it is one thing to haue an excellency or superioritie among others in some respects of other mens yeldings: another thing to haue iurisdiction, of his owne [Page 27] right and interest, ouer all other. The first we confesse was in Peter, but that wil nothing at all helpe the Pope, or the iu­risdiction of the church of Rome.An argument a­gainst this expo­sition of the Pa­pists. Against the interpretation of the popish church thus I reason. If these keis belong to all them, that haue ovtained that grace of God, to be called to the functi­on of a bishop, (I speake not of the hononr, but of the office) then is no chiefe authoritie signifieth thereby, (for where many are e­quall there is no man chiefe) But these keies belong vnto all such as Theaphilact doth testifie,Theoph, in Mat. 16. therefore no such chiefe au­thoritie is signified thereby. For my minor proposition that e­uery bishop or pastour hath such authoritie, or such keis, besides the testimonie of Theophilact, we haue most plaine proofe out of Gods word.Mat. 16. 18. An argument to proue my minor. Iohn 20, 23. Whatsoeuer is promised Mathew the sixteenth chapter in these words, I will giue thee the keis, is performed Iohn the twentieth chapter, in these words, whose sinnes ye re­mit they are remitted, and whose sinnes ye retaine they are retai­ned: but in Saint Iohn, no chiefe power is giuen, but such as is generall and common to all the apostles, therefore in Saint Mathew there is not promised any chiefe power, but such as is common to them all,De Pontif. Rom, lib. 1. cap. 12. 13. and so to all pastours in them. My minor needeth no proofe for it is confessed by master Bellarmine. But master Bellarmine denieth my maior,A reply against Bellarmines an­swer to the ma­ior, and yet hath no ground of his deniall, but this onely, that he taketh it not be all one to binde and to retaine sinnes or sinners, and to loose or remit. Which subtil difference the fathers did not see. And therefore Theophilact doth not onely expound this place of Matthew the sixteenth chapter by that place out of Saint Iohn the twen­tieth chapter, making this later to bee a perfourmance of that promise, I will giue thee the keies, but also hee flattely there opposeth remitting to binding, whereas by master Bellarmines doctrine, if hee had beene brought vp in his schoole, he should haue set remitting against retaining,Bellarm. cap. 12 & 13. lib. 1. [...]epoenitentia lib. 1. cap. 2. and not against binding. For (saith hee) it is a greater matter to binde, then to re­taine, to loose then to remit. Saint Ambrose also maketh to binde and to retaine, to remitte, and to loose all one. For, whilest the puritie of doctrine in some measure remayned, this subtile Sophistirie was vnknowen in Gods church. But [Page 28] nowe for defence of popery, such stuffe must serue the turne, when they haue no better. And heere I cannot but maruell at master Bellarmine his answere vnto this argument out of the centuries.Cent. 2. lib. 1. ca. 7. col. 526. The argument out of the Cen­turies against supremacie. For they that wrote those bookes reason thus, if in these wordes, to thee will I giue the keies &c. there were promi­sed any supremacie, the Apostlles could not haue doubted which of them should haue beene chiefe, but they doubted of this, there­fore there was not in those wordes any such supremacie promi­sed.Bellarmines an­swere co it exa­mined. Maister Bellarmine maketh no question but that they doubted of it, for there was among them some contention a­bout that matter, but for the maior hee answereth, that the apo­stles did not vnderstande plainelie that there was anie promise made to Peter, vntill after that Christ rose againe, but then they suspected some such matter and that made them striue. Is it not great boldnes in master Bellarmine, in so waightie matters, to bring no other warrant but his foolish fancie? Or to answere such an vnanswerable argument, by such silly shiftes? They knewe not saith master Bellarmine that Christ made such pro­mise to Peter vntill after Christ was risen againe. But if it had beene an article of such importance as now it is made, why shoulde they not haue knowne it? They heard what Christ said to Peter, they heard the promise of the keies, and this is as­much as our Romish Rabbines can nowe bring for their proofe. If they vnderstoode it not so, as master Bellarmine heere con­fesseth they did not, what newe reuelation haue our newe Ro­mish teachers, to assure this to be the meaning of those wordes? But they seeme to be whelpes of one haire, with those hereticks whome Tertullian reprooueth,De prescription, aduerlus haerer. Heretickes and Papistes charge thopostles with ignorance. Artic. 18. because they saide the apostles knewe not all thinges, that if their doctrine were not agreeable to that which the Apostles taught, they might the lesse bee con­demned. As Bishoppe Fisher, not knowing better howe to excuse their additions vnto the auncient doctrine,Against Luther. which the church of Rome hath brought in, saith that later wits knowe thinges better then before they did.

Well, master Bellarmine you see confesseth, that the apo­stles vnderstoode not then, that promise as nowe the papistles doe. When did they reforme their iudgement? Where, in [Page 29] what place doe they shew any signification, that they euer vnder­stood it otherwise? If they neither vnderstood it so before Christs resurrection, neither yet gaue anie signification afterwardes, by woorde or deede, by their writings or examples, that their knowledge was in this pointe reformed, howe can wee saie, that they euer tooke that to bee Christes meaning? But the first of these is confessed (as before is shewed) by Mai­ster Bellarmine, the latter they cannot shewe. Therefore it maie be gathered that the apostles neuer vnderstood the words of Christ as the papistes doe.Thapostles stroue not for suprema­cie after Christes resurrection. And howe doeth hee prooue that which hee boldlie affirmeth, that then they suspected such a thing? Or that after Christes resurrection they did striue. It is mentioned in the storie of the gospell,Matth. 18. 1. Mark. 9. 34. Luke. 9. 46. Luk. 22. 24. Iohn. 13. 13. Matth. 20. 24. Mark. 10. 41. that twise they did striue who shoulde be chiefe.

Of both which times the three Euangelistes doe make re­port. And Saint Iohn also in his gospell, seemeth to pointe vnto the latter strife, when hauing washed his Apostles feete, Christ giueth them good lessons of humilitie. But that after Christes resurrection they did consende for this, it cannot bee prooued. For both these times were before his death. And therefore I cannot but maruell, that Maister Bellarmine will bring such proofelesse stuffe to open light, as though hee ima­gined, that his counterfaite coyne, must goe for currant. And whereas afterwardes hee alleadgeth out of Origen, Chrysostóme and Hierome, that the apostles did striue a­mongst themselues, because they suspected this supremacie of Peter, himselfe doeth not in this, giue credite to these fa­thers.

For if it bee true that maister Bellarmine saide before, that this suspition was not vntill Christ was risen, then howe is this true that they affirme that they suspected thus much, when they did striue first of all. Which was at the least about a yeare and a halfe, before Christ rose againe. Neither doe these fa­thers heerein deserue to bee beleeued.Matth. 17. 12. For the grounde of this their conceite, is that they imagined the paying of the tri­bute money to haue beene before this contention. For they surmise that because Christ said paie for mee and thee, therefore [Page 30] the rest of the apostles, suspected that Peter shoulde haue some superiority ouer them, and grudged at it. But this their ima­gination, as it is farre from the thought of the apostles (for any thing that may be gathered) so is it flatly confuted by the scrip­ture. For this contention was before the tribute money was demaunded, namely, in the way before they came to Caper­naum, as is most plaine in the euangelist saint Markes gospel, the ninth chapter, and three and thirtie and foure and thirtie ver­ses. And the tribute was not demaunded before they were en­tred into Capernaum, They contended not because they suspected Peters supremacie. and into a house there, Matthew the se­uenteenth chapter and xxv. verse. Therefore that suspition of su­premacie was not the cause of their contention, which maister Bellarmine woulde prooue out of these fathers. But perchance rather that ambitious affection that was in Iames and Iohn the sonnes of Zebedee, Math. 10. 37. which afterwardes they shewed more plainely,41 in asking that one might sit at his right hand, and the other on his left hand, was cause of their strife. And indeed the euangelist concerning this saith, that the other tenne disdai­ned at them for it. But the other contention that was among the apostles is not saide to be against Peter, as this is said to be against Iames and Iohn. But it seemeth that euery one would be aboue other, and no suspition then, that Peter shoulde be a­boue all.

And whereas they that wrote those Bookes called the Centuries, alleadge, that if there had beene in Peter any such Supremacy, Christ woulde haue saide to them when they did striue, contend no more, for I haue made Peter chiefe amongst you: but (say they) hee spake no such wordes: Now master Bellarmine will prooue, that Christ tolde them, that Peter was appointed to bee chiefe.Luk. 22. 26. Bellar, argument to prooue Christ to haue told Pe­ter he should be chiefe. And howe? He that is greatest among you (saieth Christ) let him bee as the least, and the chiefe as he that serueth. Therefore (saieth Maister Bellar­mine) it is plaine, that one is called chiefe. If hee had meant that the trueth should appeare, hee woulde, by com­paring this place with others where the same thing or storie is reported, haue sette downe the true meaning of the wordes, and not take aduantage, to peruert the true meaning, and de­ceiue [Page 31] the simple Reader. For Matthew in his twentieth chap­ter and twentie sixe and twentie seuen verses, and Marke in his tenth chapter, and fortie three and fortie foure verses reporting this storie, doe plainely teach, that Christ doeth not speake of any chiefenesse that was among them, but that they woulde haue, or desired. For they say not, if any be, but if any would be chiefe, so reproouing their ambitious affection, and teacheth them rather to indeuour to be humble.In Math. how, 66 Because, as Chroyso­stome saieth, hee that seeketh Supremacie shameth himselfe. And therefore neuer any I suppose before Maister Bellarmine out of these wordes of Christ, hath gathered this proclaiming of Peters superioritie.

Hitherto wee haue seene, howe little hee can prooue by the first of his two places of scripture. Now let vs trie what weight the other testimonie hath.Bellann. depon­tif. Ro. li 3. c. 34. Iohn 21. And this is drawen also out of the wordes of our sauiour Christ to Peter, who when he had thrice asked of him,Bellarm, 2. argu­ment our of scripture answered. whether hee loued Christ, and stil he answered, that hee did loue him, hee willeth him to feede his sheepe. Now these wordes (saieth maister Bellarmine) are spoken to Peter onely.Answere. It is true. But that Lesson is not giuen to Peter onely. For, to all the apostles it belongeth, to feede Christs sheepe,Li, 1, cap. 12. and therefore are all Pastours and Sheepe­heards.

Yea, it is confessed by maister Bellarmine in his an­swere to an authoritie alleadged out of Cyprian, that all the a­postles were like in apostolike power, and had euen the same authoritie ouer christian people. If they had the selfe same au­thoritie ouer christians that Peter had, which here he confesseth, then to the rest as well as to Peter, De pastorib u [...] cap. 13. was this charge of feeding Christs sheepe committed. And therefore Saint Augustine will haue Christ to be the onely good sheepheard, and that all o­ther are good in him, and are equall in this their worke, for he maketh no difference. But Christ feedeth, they also feede, yea enen when they feede hee feedeth, and Christ saith that then he feedeth in them, because his voice is in them, and his loue is in them.

But what should I stand vpon this point? It is more plaine, [Page 32] then that maister Bellarmine himselfe can deny it, although he would blinde the eies of the simple with this distinction,The charge of feeding belon­geth to all alike. that it is principallie spoken to Peter, but in some sort to all. What, was Peter bound to feede more diligently then the rest of the A­postles, Christes sheepe? None may be negligent in this office. And he that doth the worke of the Lord,Ier. 48. 10. (especially this worke) negligently, is accursed by Gods owne mouth. We must all doe it to the vttermost of our power. And Saint Paul was not afraid to saie,1. Cor. 15. 10. that he laboured more aboundantly then all the A­postles meaning in the preaching of the word. So that it see­meth that this office was not especially committed to Peter, Theoph. in Ioh. cap. 21. but that I may say with Theophilact vpon these wordes. Let Bi­shops and preachers heare, what is commended vnto them.

Feede (saith Christ) my sheepe, bring with thee thy mini­sterie, if thou wile set foorth thy loue to the great sheepehearde. Then also maister Bellarmine will proue out of these wordes and that easilie as he saieth,De pontifi Rom. lib. 1. cap. 15. that Peter hereby hath the chiefe power.To rule and to haue chiefe rule not all one. But indeede he onely prooueth that to feede is to rule, whereas he promiseth to proue with ease, that to feed is to haue the chiefe rule.

But you must heare with him, the brightnesse of Peters chaire at Rome hath so daseled his eies, that he cannot espie so small a misse. But the weight of all consisteth in the last point that he handleth concevning this place,Lib. 1. cap 16. and therefore about it he bestoweth some more labour. And first he affirmeth that he is sure and certaine, that euen all christians, yea euen the Apo­stles themselues, are as sheepe committed to Peter. For his trifling coniectures of the difference betweene lambes and sheep, they are not worth speaking of. But let vs see what force is in his notable reason, for himselfe so calleth it, he so well liketh of it.Bellar his Arg. to proue Peter to be a vniuersall past. Christ most manifestly (saieth he) committeth to Peter all those sheepe, of which he may say they are mine, but he may saie so of all christians, therefore all christians are Peters sheep. If maister Bellarmine had good store of strong reasons to proue his assertion, he would neuer make so much of so blunt a wea­pon. For he can neuer proue his maior.

Christ saide not feede all my sheepe,Answere. for he knewe that he [Page 33] could not doe, but onely feede my sheepe. Now this is as the Logicians doe tearme it an Indestuite proposition. Which hath no limitation, but may be vnderstoode as occasion serueth, so that to make it more particular or generall, we must haue re­garde to the circumstances of the place. And is it not verie strange, that he which here will make a vniuersall proposition of that that is not so,Lib. 2. cap. 8. to force out of it an argument, where in truth there is none, will be as bolde at another time to make of a vniuersall proposition a particular.2. Tim. 4. 16. No man saith Saint Paul assisted mee, all men forsooke mee, that is saieth he none of them that should haue helped me with the Emperour. And so he applieth perchance to one or two, that the apostle speaketh doubtlesse of all that professed religion then at Rome, as though he were euen the creatour of Lodgicke, and would haue it as his creature, to frame it selfe, to serue his turne.

But to come to the point. As he affirmeth all euen the apo­stles by these wordes to be committed to Peter: so I doe con­fidently pronounce,This charge feed my sheepe hath a limitation. that out of these wordes, and some other circumstances, great reasons may be gathered, to shewe Peters authority in these wordes to haue a limitation. And first this worde my sheepe, which maister Bellarmine maketh the chiefe strength of his argument, doth make much for that interpreta­tion, which I take to be the true and natui all sence of the place. When the meaning of our sauiour Christ, is to speake of that generall charge ouer all, then he vttereth it in other wordes, Go teach all nations,Matth. 28. 19 [...] Mark, 16. 15. and againe going into the whole world, preach the gospell vnto euery creature. But here is no such generall charge but onely feede my sheepe.Christes peculiar sheepe. What are these sheepe that Christ calleth my sheepe? We knowe that Christ after a spe­ciall meaning, calleth the Iewes his people and his sheepe. He saieth he is not sent,Matth. 15. 24. but to the lost sheepe of the house of Israell.

And as though in comparison of the Iewes, he made no ac­count of the gentiles, he saith it is not meete to take the chil­drens bread, (meaning the saluation that was sent to the Israe­lites) and cast it to the dogges. Therefore Christ by this worde my sheepe meaneth (as it should seeme) the people to whome he especially was sent, amongst whom he was borne, to whom [Page 34] hee preached,Lib. 1. cap. 16. (as also Maister Bellarmine for that preferreth Poters ministerie among the Iewes) and amongst whom hee died, that is the Iewes.

And besides the manner of sending of his Apostles vnto their generall charge, (whereof I haue already spoken) which is farre differing from this, the very office that we know was laide vpon Peter, Gal. 2. 7. doeth much confirme this interpretation. For Saint Paule saith that the gospell ouer the circumcision was com­mitted to him, as the gospell ouer the vncircumcision was commit­ted to Peter. Wee see therefore that Peter had a peculiar charge and calling, to bee the apostle of the Iewes. Which is proofe strong enough, to prooue that Christ neuer meant, to commit anie such generall charge ouer all the world vnto him, vnlesse we will imagine, that Christ did first he knew not what, and afterwardes reuoked his former commission. I saie this li­mitation of Peter, especiallie, although not onlie, to one peculi­ar people, is as it were a reuocation, of his former vniuersall cal­ling, if any such had beene, or rather because indeed none such was, it is insteede of a commentarie vpon these wordes, feede my sheepe, to teach vs how to vnderstand them. Feed my sheep, that is the Iewes, whom I haue especially committed to thee, as I also tooke paines almost wholy and only among them.

Furthermore also when Saint Paule telleth vs that the gos­pell ouer the vncircumcision, was committed to him, as vnto Pe­ter the gospell was committed ouer the circumcision, his mea­ning is to tell vs, that Christ hath as well placed him ouer the Gentiles, as Peter ouer the Iewes. And therefore of himselfe he saith that he was seperated vnto the gospell of Iesus Christ,Rom. 1. 1. Actes. 13. 2. because God commanded them, to seperate vnto him Paule and Barnabas, to the worke whereunto hee had called them. And what this worke is,Act. 22. 21. is another place declared, depart for I will send thee, farre hence vnto the Gentiles. Which his calling to the Gentiles,Gal. 1. 16. hee also speaketh of vnto the Galathians, assuring himselfe that God called him to that office.

But now for Peter, we must not doubt, but that hee also was called of God. For they are not to be heard, that woulde make vs beleeue that it was but a couenant among themselues, that Peter should preach to the Iewes; Paule to the Gentiles, [Page 35] but Paule doth assure himselfe of his calling in that he that was mightie in Peter, was mightie in him also. Saint Hierom on the Galathians lib. 1. cap. 2. very well writeth, One and the selfesame (Christ) committed to mee the gospell of the vncir­cumcision, (speaking in the person of Paule) who committed to Peter the gospell of the circumcision. If then Peter was by Christ called to this apostleshippe, where was it, when, in what woordes? In all the Scripture there is not auie one place but this, wherein he is called by Christ to this ministerie ouer the Iewes. And therefore Christes sheepe, are rather that peculiar people that were (as no man denieth) committed to Peter, then the whole world, whereof in Scripture, they haue no probable coniecture. And this interpretation, I mar­uell that Maister Bellarmine hath not sought to confute, seeing it is about two hundreth and seuentie yeare olde. Per­chaunce hee thought it rested vppon stronger reason, then hee was able to conuince or confute, and therefore hee let it alone.

Other argumentes are also alleadged to disprooue this su­premacie of Peter ouer all,Arguments a­gainst Peters su­premacy. and to shew that these words feede my sheepe, cannot giue vnto him anie such soueraignty. Saint Paule acknowledged no such subiection to him,Gal. 2. when hee doth not only pronounce, that hee learned nothing of them that see­med to be chiefe, but also withstoode Peter in the face because he was worthy to be reproued.

Out of which wordes howe lightlie so euer Maister Bel­larmine woulde cast them off, with this distinction that they were fellowes in preaching, but not in gouerning (as though the preaching of the woorde, and the practise or gouernement according to the same were then seperated) yet Saint Am­brose and Theophilact vpon this place doe teach, that there was no inequality betweene them, and that Paule was nothing inferiour to Peter.

And marke howe absurdly he woulde daube vppe the mat­ter, it is nothing to me saith S. Paule to the Galath. 2. 6. what ones they were once that seemed to be somewhat. Which he ex­poūdeth as if he had saide, howe vile soeuer they were in time past, what was that to mee? I conferred with them, for now they [Page 36] are great apostles. If Saint Paule had so meant, he woulde not haue said that they seeme to be somewhat, but that they in­deede are somewhat. And thus master Bellarmine, rather than he will say nothing, will peruert the very sense of scripture: for these wordes, no doubt, are expounded, by those that followe in that verse, they that seemed to bee somewhat gaue nothing to me.

Saint Paule also without asking leaue of Peter. Argument. 2. 1. Cor. 5. 3. 1. Cor. 7. 25. 1. Cor. 11. &c. 14. did exercise iurisdiction among the Corinthians, against an incestuous per­son, he giueth counsell concerning virgins, he did set order a­mong them concerning prayer and the eucharist. And hee called to Miletum the elders of Ephesus to giue them commaunde­ment or aduise concerning the church there. And yet master Bellarmine would make vs beleeue, that the iurisdiction was in Peter onely, authoritie to preach in the rest together with him.Argument. 3. Act. 6. 2. Bellarmine his reply. Answere. Againe the apostles I say the twelue (not Peter) did call together the christians to appoint deacons. We must beleeue (saith master Bellarmine) that Peter deuised this or agreed to it. And why must we beleeue that Peter was author of that act, seeing there is not one word to warrant it? Why should we imagine, that rather of him then of another? As for consenting we are sure he consented, for it was done by a generall consent. Peter and Iohn were sent by the rest to Samaria, Act. 8. 14. Argument. 4. to instruct them how happened it that they would send him, if hee might commaund them all? Had the Apostles authoritie to send him? Then was not he aboue them. Had they no authority? Then did they abuse him, which is not to be thought of so godly men as they were. And howsoeuer maister Bellarmine would salue the matter, in telling vs that sending doth not import alwaies a subiection in him that is sent:Bellarm. reply, yet if he had beene their superior, it is to be thought they would rather haue desired him to take or­der for them of Samaria, Answere. then haue sent him. But I am sure the pope now would not take in good part, that his colledge of Cardinals should send him about any such businesse. Neither is that argument brought to prooue a subiection in him vnto them, but that hee is not their ruler, or that they owe him no subiection. And therefore Maister Bellarmine his answere that sending doth not alwaies signifie subiection is nothing.

[Page 37] But I am wearie in spending time about his trifling cauils, who though he cannot soundly refell the argumentes that are a­gainst their doctrine, yet will hee not confesse the truth, and so giue glorie vnto God.

Hauing thus examined I trust sufficiently, the chiefest thinges alleadged by Maister Bellarmine, concerning these two places of Scripture, which especially they rest vpon: I must also brieflie examine his second sort of proofes which hee promi­sed to vse,Lib. 1. cap. 10. Bellarmine his second sort of argument from Peters preroga­tiue. and that is grounded vpon the prerogatiues that are ascribed to Peter. Wherein I shall bee the shorter, because many of them, are rather to make a shewe of proofe, then worth alleadging. The changing of his name from Simon to Peter, De Rom. pontif. lib. 1. cap. 17. 18. &c. when hee was first called, prooueth not that hee was made head of the Church. For hee had that name about three yeares and a halfe,Iohn. 1. 42. before they ascribe vnto him this headshippe. Likewise that he is commonlie named first, is a weake proofe. For if that shoulde signifie his headship, then shoulde it neuer haue beene placed otherwise then first, but Saint Paule who knew well enough what place he should giue to Peter, Galath. 2. 9. nameth Iames before him. He walked on the waters. It is true, but what is out of that concluded? Is hee therefore the head of the church? Not so. Fourthlie hee first of all knew the hie miste­ries of our faith say they: if he did, can that make him heade of the church? It cannot. Fiftlie it is saide the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it. That is the church as the fathers teach almost with one consent, and therefore that is the catholicke ex­position. But that which out of Origen hee alleadgeth, be­cause it is contrarie to the text, and testimonie of the most of the godlie, is iustlie reiected.

And for that they woulde prooue the supremacie because Christ saide to Peter pay for mee and thee, is answered page thirty-sixe. That hee praide for Peter it is not singular, for hee praieth for all that the father hath giuen him.Iohn. 17. If hee will confirme his brethen, it is no maruell, because hee that had more experience then others of his owne weakenesse, is fittest to make others seeke for true strength and not to trust to their owne, that will deceiue them. But hee first of all the Apostles saw Christ, after his resurrection, what then? If that maie [Page 38] giue the headship of the church,Marke 16. Iohn 20. Marie Magdalene shoulde bee the head, for shee sawe Christ first, yea although Peter and Iohn did runne to seeke for him, yet hee woulde not ap­peare first vnto Peter, to take away the very strength of this their argument. If Christ washed the feete of Peter first (if I say, for it may iustly bee doubted of) must that giue him the supremacy?

The like argument may be gathered out of that that Christ foretelleth Peter of his death, Actes the first chapter and thir­teenth verse.

And for the twelfth prerogatiue, where he maketh Peter as the good man of the house, to gather together into one place the companie of Disciples, it is grounded vpon a fiction. For, there is not one word, that hee gathered them: But there is somewhat to bee gathered against Peters Supremacy. For, although hee mooued them to appoint one in Iudas his roome, yet hee appointed not one, as the Pope woulde very readily haue chalenged that priuiledge. Not Peter, but they, ap­pointed two.Verse 23. Verse 24. They prayed. They also gaue them lots not Pe­ter.

If maister Bellarmine would reply that these actions yet must be performed by one, and by likelihoode this one shoulde be Peter, wee will not sticke to graunt him so much. But if Peter had beene supreame head of the church, heere had beene good occasion to haue named him as direttor in these actions, which wee see is not done.

The thirteenth prerogatiue Peter first preached after the receiuing of the holieghost.Act. 2. This maketh not him Supreame head.

And herein the Popes can not claime to bee Peters succes­sours. Hee wrought the first myracle,Act. 3. but the text ioyn­eth Iohn with Peter, which shoulde not haue beene doone, if it had beene any argument for Peters supremacie,Act. 5. to haue it thought, that hee wrought the first miracle.

For the fifteenth prerogatiue commeth the destruction of Ananias and Saphira, which was by that power that GOD gaue, not to Peter onely, but to them all, Marke the sixe­teenth chapter, and seuenteenth and eighteenth verses: yea, and [Page 39] also vnto Saint Paul although hee were not one of the twelue.Act. 16. 18. For euen by the same power Paule cast out of a maide a spirite of diuination,Act. 28. 8. and healed the father of Publius, that lay sicke of a feuer and a flixe and strooke Elymas with blindenesse, hea­led one borne Iame at Lystra.

The sixteenth prerogatiue is taken out of the ninth chap­ter of the Actes of the Apostles,Act. 13. 11. Act. 14. [...]. Act. 9. 32. where Peters diligence in preaching is commended, in that hee trauelled, throughout all quarters. Which the Popes friends for very shame should neuer haue spoken of. For, if so bee that his diligence be an ar­gument of his supremacie, as they faine would make it, then why is not the Popes supine negligence in that function, as strong an argument against this Supremacie?

Wee will admit (although it iustly may be doubted of) that which is the ground of this seuenteenth prerogatiue,Act. 1 [...]. that Peter first did preach vnto the Gentiles. And must that needs prooue that hee is therefore head of the church? I am sure that master Bellarmine himselfe will confesse, that it is no neces­sarie argument. But prayer was made without ceasing vnto God for him.

It is a token that the Church (seeing the persecution that nowe beganne against the godly, and that Peter also a woorthy minister of the worde, and a great apostle was in dan­ger) was very carefull for his preseruation. But this doeth not prooue him to be the head of the church,Act. 12. 5. no more then the care that the godly had ouer Saint Paule, Actes the seuen­teenth chapter and tenth verse, in sending him away to Be­rea, by night, for his better safety, or letting him downe by a windowe in a basket,2. Cor. 11. 33. when hee was in great danger in Damascus, doth prooue Paule to hee the head of the church.

Of the nineteenth I haue spoken before, pag. 10. The twen­teenth prerogatiue, Paule went to Hierusalem to see Peter. What,Galat. 1. 18. must he therefore needes be head of the church? Belike then for the three yeares wherein he sawe him not,Verse 14. but went (preaching) into Arabia and to Damascus he confessed him not to be head, but as if he had forgoten himselfe all this while, hee now at the last, yeldeth him seme reuerence. But if he had done it in any such respect, he would and should at [...], before he [Page 40] had taken his office vpon him haue had Peters alowance. And thus much concerning Peters priuileges or prerogatiues which they alleage out of Gods booke. Which although many of them are euident arguments of excellent graces, that God had be­stowed vpon him, and great mercies which God shewed to him, yet if master Bellarmine or any other, will out of them con­clude Peters supremacie, the weaknesse of his argument will be seene of very children. But yet because before he made Peters prerogatiues his second proofe of this his supremacie, I haue thought it necessarie to reckon them, (for other confutation of them needeth not) that all may see what weak proofes they doe bring, for this their chiefe point of doctrine. As for the other eight prerogatiues, they are not worth speaking of: Both be­cause we may iustly doubt of the truth of many of them, as being proued but by fabulous writings: and also because if they were true, it were not matteriall for the point in question. And there­fore letting them alone as rotten propes which will fall in pieces of themselues, if any weight be layed vpon them, I hasten to his third proofe that hee promised. And that is out of the fathers. And herein it is needles to examine euerie particular testimony.Lib. 1. cap. 10. How the fathers ascribe much vn­to Peter. Onely I will set downe in what sense the fathers truly may, and often doe, ascribe vnto Saint Peter many excellent titles, that thereby examining the fathers, and finding them to keepe within the bounds of gods word, we may with reuerēce receiue them. But if they passe those lists, I trust master Bellarmine and al his friends will beare with vs, if we reiect the doctrine of men, as himselfe in this very booke before, refuseth the iudge­ment of Origene and Theophilact, Cap. 12. and of others in other places. First therefore this word in latine primatus which wee now call Supremacie, but indeede doth signifie (that I may make such a word) Firstnesse, is ascribed vnto Peter of the fa­thers in respect of time as in the place alleaged here out of Ci­prian, First, in time. De pontit. Rom. lib. 1. cap. 25. neither Peter (saith Ciprian) whom the Lord chose first, and vpon whom he did build his church, whereas Paul did after­ward reason of circumcision,Cypr ad Quin­tinum vel Quin­tum. did boast himselfe, or did take vp­on him any thing insolently or proudly, saying he had the prima­cy, and that new ones, and aftercommers shall rather obay him. him.

[Page 41] This place is alleadged by master Bellarmine often, to proue Peters supremacy or iurisdiction ouer others. But the wordes are very plaine that Cyprian speaketh, of his being first, not in dignity, but in tune, as appeareth not onely in that he saith he was first chosen, but also, by the wordes of newe ones or after­commers. But maister Bellarmine wil say,Iob. 1. 39. 40. that Andrew was chosen before him to be an apostle, and therefore, that Cyprian was deceiued, if so he meant. It may so be. For men may erre. But the question is not nowe, whether Cyprians iudgement herein be true or not, but vpon what occasion, or in what respect Cyprian giueth Peter the primacy, which is most plainly in this place set downe to be in respect of time. And so may other of the fathers in this respect vse this word, and giue him this ti­tle. And sometime this title of primacy is giuen vnto him in re­garde of some excellent thinges that he was indued withall,First in respect of some execl­lent graces. by reason whereof, his fellowes and brethren amongst themselues, and the fathers after, might giue vnto him some kinde of reue­rence, in name or otherwise. But this wil do no good for proofe of popish supremacy. For they doe hold, that Peter in his owne right, and by that iurisdiction which by Gods word he hath, is head of the church, and hath the supremacy aboue all other. We say that because of his gifts of zeale, knowledge, constancy, or boldnes, he was admitted and allowed to speake and to doe, many things,1. Pet. 5. 1. but that in his owne right, he was but equall with the rest and as he calleth himselfe a fellowe elder, with them that were meaner then apostles.

Therefore to be a chiefe man,Head men haue not alwaies in their own right iurisdiction ouer other. or a head man among them, is not to prooue him to haue iurisdiction ouer them. In all cor­porations or fellowships, as aldermen in citties, although in regarde of that place, they are alike, none more or lesse an al­derman then another: yet among them, some are better estee­med of, euen of themselues, because of their learning, wise­dome, dexterity in gouernement, credit, power, or wealth, not because they can in right claime it, but because other doe for such things as they see in them, yeelde it vnto them, not that they haue power ouer them, but onely they are of good accompt among them.

And thus much to proue, that that is not sufficient, which [Page 42] maister Bellarmine saith will serue the turne, to proue that the fathers say that Peter was head,Lib. 1. cap. 25. or had primacy ouer y^e church. For neither his estimation in respect of his gifts, neither if by voluntary subiection they did submit themselues vnto him, it can proue him to haue right to rule ouer them. And this they must proue, or els they gaiue nothing to their cause, that Peter by the word of God, hath authority ouer the whole church, and ouer the apostles. And therefore it maketh no great matter, what men say of Peters authority, but how truely they grounde their sayings vpon Gods word. And thus I trust it appeareth to the indifferent reader, that the minor proposition of that ar­gument which I haue set downe in the end of my answere vnto maister Bellarmine ninth chapter of this booke,Pag. 12. wherein con­sisteth the great strength of the popish Monarchy, is not agree­able vnto the truth, or catholike doctrine, howsoeuer that church of Rome, reioiceth in that title that is none of hers, thereby de­ceiuing the world, as if all that shee taught were sound and ca­tholike.

The proposition is this that Christ gane iurisdiction vnto Peter, ouer the vniuersal church. The chiefest profes that either they all haue, or that maister Bellarmine can alleadge, is out of Saint Matthew the xvi. where they say this iurisdiction is pro­mised, and Saint Iohn xxi. where they say it is giuen, which their interpretation as I haue shewed cannot stand with the text it selfe or the interpretations of the sounder fathers. His second reason which consisteth of the prerogatiues which Saint Peter had, is grounded either vpon fables, that deserue no credit, or vpon impertiment matters, that proue nothing to the purpose, as if I be forced hereafter therto, I doubt not by Gods grace with ease to proue. His third and last reason, is of it selfe sufficient to shew, that themselues haue no great hope to proue it to be a ca­tholike doctrine, that is a doctrine taught and beleeued of all the godly,Vincent. Lyrin. or almost of all, at all times, in all places, for Vincentius Lyrinensis thus defyneth catholike. But the first authour that maister Bellarmine alleadgeth,Bellar. his 3. arg. for the suprema­cy, is out of the fathers. is more then two hundreth yeers after Christ. So that the doctrine that cannot be proued, to haue bene beleeued for two hundreth yeares, in the purest times of the church, cannot be called catholike, or be said to haue the [Page 43] true antiquitie. And yet there is nothing that soundeth so much in the mouthes of our aduersaries as Catholike, Catholike, An­tiquitie, Antiquitie, whereas in trueth nothing can be catho­like vnlesse it haue the true antiquitie: And the true antiquitie must begin at God himselfe. It must spring from him as from the first fountaine. As most notably, and more than once, that ancient and learned father Tertullian hath said,De praescript. ad­uers. haeretic. That there is nothing true, but that onely which the church receiued of the a­postles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God. And this is indeede ancient trueth, and true antiquitie.

Now I must also take a view of the maior proposition which is this,The consutation of the maior for popish supremacy set downe pa. 11. De Rom. pontif. lib. 2. cap. 2. whatsoener iurisdiction Christ gaue to Peter, and not to the rest of the apostles, al that belongeth to the church of Rome. And master Bellarmine beginneth to prooue this in his second Booke, beginning with Peters being at Rome. But whether he were there or not, it maketh no great matter. For it is laide of Paule, and Marke, and others, that they were there also, but that maketh them not supreame heades of the church. But, whereas he confidently affirmes,Whether Peter first preached at Rome. that many of the fathers teach, that Peter first of all preached to the Romanes, and founded the church there, because perchance he thereupon would inferre, that he was then bishop of Rome: it is not amisse to examin his proofe herein.

First,Iraen. lib 3. c. 3. Iraeny his place examined. that which he alleageth out of Iraeney, that the church of Rome was founded by Peter and Paule, maketh nothing for proofe of Peters first founding the church there: for Iraeny ma­keth them both alike in that worke. Neither by founding the church can be meant the first beginning of the same, but rather, that they by their testimony and death, did confirme the godlie there, and perfected and established the church that was already begunne by all likelihoode, as after shall be shewed.

And whereas master Bellarmine addeth to Iraeny his own glose, that is to say (saith he) first of Peter, and after of Peter and Paule, as it is affirmed without proofe, so it may go with­out answere.

That which he reciteth out of Eusebius for Peters first prea­chingEuseb. li. 2. hist. 14. Euseb his place examined. at Rome (though he write First with great letters) is not true. In Musculus interpretation there are no like words to thē [Page 44] that are heere alleadged. And that out of Arnobius, who saith that Rome was conuerted to Christ,Contra gentes lib. 2. Arnob. answered. because it sawe the fierie charets that Simon Magus had caused, to bee blowen awaie with the blast of Peters mouth, may well bee vnderstoode of the more plentifull conuersion of christians there, not because there were none before. For I will say nothing of the iust causes that may be alleadged, to doubt of this storie alleadged out of Agi­sippus of Simon Magus his fierie charetes. And Epiphanius is wrong delt withall by maister Bellarmine. For whereas hee saieth,Heref. 27. Epipha. answered. that Peter and Paule were first apostles and bishops in Rome, he maketh him saie, that Peter and Paule were first in Rome,Other of the fa­thers answered. thereupon inferring, that first they preached there, which Epiphanius saith not. That which out of Chrysostome hee al­leageth, prooueth not Peter first to haue preached there, as nei­ther that out of Leo or Theodosius. In psal. 48. Serm 1. de natali Apostolorum. For Chrysostome saieth, that hee did occupie the kingly citie, Leo that hee was appointed to the chiefe place of the Romaine Empire, and Theodosius speaketh of the religion deliuered by Peter. But this doeth not proue,Paul. Oros. li. hist. 7. c. 6. Turonens. li, 1. Histor, ca. 25. that it was first deliuered by him. Orosins and Gregorie of Turon say, that Peter being there, Christians beganne, which may be vnderstoode of their more bolde profession of Christianitie then before. For that there were christians before Peter came, there are in my iudgement strong reasons to prooue. Indeede Theodoret saith,Ad Rom. cap. 1. Peter preached not first at Rome. Sadol. ad Rom. cap. 16. that great Peter first preached to them the doc­trine of the gospell. Perchance he meant that he (not first of all) but first of the apostles, did preach the gospell there. For Sadolet a Cardinall and a Romish catholike, in his commentaries vpon Paules epistle to the Romaines, doth thinke that the gospell was first preached, and the church at Rome first assembled, by some of the disciples that fled out of Iury. And he nameth Priscilla, A­quila, Andronicus and Iunia. Rom. 16. 7. And in this respect, it seemeth that Paule giueth this commendation vnto Andronicus and Iu­nia, that they were notable among the apostles, because their ministery was so necessary for the church there, (for he doeth not in anie other Epistle speake of them.) But in this epistle Sado­let saith that Saint Paule doth giue vnto them, this great com­mendation, that they might haue the better credite among the godly at Rome, and the greater reuerence, might be shewed to­wardes [Page 45] them, in discussing and ending of these controuersies, which were begunne amongst them, and for staying of which Saint Paule doth write this Epistle as Sadolet confesseth. And of these Primasius an ancient father saith in like sorte,Primas. ad Rom. that Andronicus and Iunia were accounted notable amongst others that were sent to Rome, by whom they might beleeue, or by whose example they might haue beene confirmed. Now if Peter had beene the first that preached there, which master Bellarmine a papist affirmeth, but Sadolet a Cardinall very confidentlie denieth,Rom. 15. 20. Saint Paule, who woulde not builde vppon anothers foundation, as he writeth vnto the Romanes, would not haue taken vpon him to haue decided their controuersies, and to haue commended vnto them the ministerie of others also to that ende, but would either not at all haue medled with them, or haue put them in minde of Peter their Bishop.Rom. 15. 15. 1 [...]. But contrariwise hee challengeth them for his owne flocke, and as belonging to his charge, which wrong he would neuer haue offered to Saint Pe­ter, if he first had planted the church and his seat there. Nei­ther would the Iewes (who in euery place were Peters espe­ciall charge) that were at Rome, when Paule came thither, bee so desirous to be instructed of Paule as they were,Act. 21. 22. if they had beene taught before by Peter, and he had beene their Bishop and had beene there at this time (for this Epistle was written long after they say that he was bishop of Rome) or if they had knowne their owne bishop, to be the vniuersall bishop or head of all others.

And thus I trust, that notwithstanding all that out of some doubtfull sentences of ancient writers, maister Bellarmine hath gathered, yet this point is not so cleere for the church of Rome, as they would perswade the world that it is. But rather the con­trary appeareth most true, that Peter was not the first that prea­ched at Rome. As for that which maister Bellarmine doth al­leadge concerning Saint Markes gospell,Bellar. obiect. that it is written at Rome, according to that which Saint Peter preached: if wee grant it,Answere. it doth not proue yet that Peter first of any other prea­ched at Rome. It only proueth that hee did preach there which by way of admittance only for the present wee will not much [...]and against.

[Page 46] As for that which hee saieth of the ouercomming of Simon Magus by Peter, Bellar, 2. obiect. euen this one thing maie suffi­ciently shew that it is but fabulous, that Saint Luke, who tooke vpon him to write the actes and doings of the Apostles,Answere. The story of Si­mon Magus his [...]iery cl [...]tetes a fable. & doth very carefully write the miracles that were wrought by them, as he that marketh may easily perceiue: and doeth also recorde things done many yeares after this was supposed to bee done: yet doeth not so much as make any mention of this conflice be­tweene Saint Peter and Simon Magus, although in the eight Chapter where he reporteth some talke betweene Simon Ma­gus and Peter, very good occasion had beene offered, neither yet Saint Marke Saint Peters owne disciple, writing at Rome mentioneth it. And therefore howsoeuer some of the ancient wri­ters, being deceiued by Egisippus, haue thought of this fable: yet I haue I trust good reason and sufficient warrant not to cre­dit the same.

Now whether Peter died at Rome or not,Whether Peter died at Rome. Lib. 2. cap. 3. which is the next point that is handled by maister Bellarmine, I will not much gaine say it, because I would especially stand vpon the most ma­teriall pointes, that belong to the proofe of their maior proposi­tion, which is, that Peters prerogatiues, belong to the bishop of Rome (if wee will beleeue the papists) by Christs institution. And herein I would craue of the indifferent reader,Canus. lib. 6. loc. Theol. cap. 8. without par­tiasity to iudge, whether this their doctrine of Peters beeing Bi­shop of Rome twenty and fiue yeares be a catholicke doctrine or not.Whether Peter were bishop of Rome. 25 yeares.

For maister Bellarmine maketh a proud but a false brag, that it hath the testimony and consent of all the ancient writers.Lib. 2. cap. 4. Bellar. first arg. As for his first reason whereby he will proue him to bee bishop there, because of the dignity or great account that hath beene alwaies made of the church of Rome,Pag. 13. 14. Answere. it is very weake. For the Church of Rome was accounted off more then others (as before I shew­ed out of the councel of Chalcedon & Ireny) because Rome was the imperiall citie. And no doubt also but that greater concourse of learned men, in that respect was there then els where; which must needes cause that place, to bee in better estimation. So that of this cannot Peters being Bishoppe there bee conclu­ded.

[Page 47] Secondly whereas hee will prooue that he was Bishoppe of Rome,Bellarm, 2. arg. because where he was bishop after that he leste Antio­che it cannot be shewed,Answere. this his proofe is like the former. For seeing he was an apostle, what necessitie is there, that he must be bishop in some peculiar seate or place? Where was Paule bishop? It appeareth by the story of the Scripture, that he was no where bishop.Arg. 3. Bellarm, out of fathers. And why then should wee of necessity make S. Peter a bi [...]hop in some chaire? Maister Bellarmines third argument, which is the testimony of the fathers, hee imagineth will beare all downe before it. But first wee must consider that the fathers were content at the first,Why the fathers did not much gainfay Peters being bishop of Rome. to receiue this thing as a truth without any great examination of it, because it was but a matter of story, and so not much materiall whether, hee were bishop of Rome or not. But if they had beene in our daies, and seene what necessary doctrine the church of Rome inferreth thereupon, that it is a doctrine that we must beleeue, or els wee cannot be saued, that Peter was bishop of Rome, and of the whole Church, and then for that the bishop of Rome is Peters successour, in that vniuersall bishopricke, and that by Christes institution, and that this must be beleeued vpon paine of damna­tion: No doubt but euen those godly fathers who seeme most to speake of that chaire of Peter, In Iof. cap. 20. Hom. 85. woulde haue saide as Chryso­stome writeth of Moses chaire, wee must not now (saith he) speake of the Priestes sitting in Moses chaire, but in Christes chaire, hee I say, and the rest would haue proclaimed it lowde inough, that they are the true Bishops not that sit in Peters chaire, but in Christs chaire.

But I haue sundry strong argumentes to induce not my selfe onlie,To beleeue that Peter was bishop of Rome is no catholicke saith. but I trust euen others also, to be assuredly per­swaded (I will not saie that Peter was not Bishoppe of Rome) but that it is not a Catholicke Religion so to be leeue.

And first I will constantly affirme, that master Bellarmine and all the Iesuites that take his part, shal not be able to prooue, that the fathers of the first two hundreth yeares, that are of good account or credite (for in this case I except what their Popes and counterfet fathers haue written or taught) that Peter was Bishop of Rome. Which beeing prooued, it is as cleare [Page 48] as the noone day, that is this not catholicke doctrine. Them­selues must needes confesse it.Peters being bi­shop of Rome, not proued by the word. Now for proofe of it, first that in the Scriptures we haue no such things taught, it is most plaine. And Maister Bellarmine himselfe, who would faine haue it be­leeued: yet dareth not affirme of this anie thing els, then that it maie be that the Lord did openly command,Lib. 2. cap. 12. that Peter should so place his chaire at Rome, that absolutely the bishoppe of Rome should succeede him. And there hee addeth, that howsoeuer the matter is, it is not so by the first institution. And as in the scrip­tures this thing hath no ground,The first fathers knew no such thing. Ignatius knew not Peters supre­macy. so the fathers that liued in the daies of the apostles, and next after them, doe not acknowledge any such matter. Ignatius who was Saint Iohns scholler maie be a good witnes in this behalfe. All whose Epistles if we search and sift, we shall not finde any thing in them, that teacheth vs this point of popery, but rather the contrary. And yet he writing vnto sundry, and informing them in the most principall points of religion, and such things as were most necessary for christians to know, yea, and among other to the Romanes themselues, must needes haue informed them of this vniuersall bishop and of Pe­ters chaire,Ign. ad Trallia, & ad Romanes. if he had knowen of anie such matter: in his seconde Epistle which is ad Tiallianos I commaund not saith he as an apostle, and to the Romanes I commaund not these thinges as Peter and Paule. In both places hee had good occasion to haue vrged them with Peters supremacie, but especially he should haue put the Romanes in minde of Peter, if hee had beene their bishop. And should haue said I doe not inioyne you these thinges as Peter, who was your bishop. But the greatest matter that he espieth in Peter and Paule, is that they are apostles. And writing vnto the Ephesians, Ign. ad Ephes. he moueth them to depende vpon their bishop, as the Church hangeth vpon the Lord, and the Lord vpon his father.

How happeneth that in this reckoning of these goodly cou­ples the Ephesians and their bishoppe, the church and Christ, Christ and God, there is not any mention of Peter or his succes­sour? Doubtlesse as yet this conceit was not hatched, which yet more plainely maie be seene in that exhortation that he ma­keth to the Saintes in Smirna to honour God as the maker and Lorde of all,Igo. ad Simrna. but their bishoppe (for that he speaketh of their [Page 49] owne bishop the whole epistle sheweth) as the high priest the Image of God, and the most excellent thing in the Church. Nowe I pray yon what account is here of Peters chaire or of his succession? Not one word. This also in his epistle is to be obserued, that hee seemeth to make more especiall account of Paul then of Peter. Ign. ad Philad. As writing to the Philadelphians, he saith Be ye folowers of Paul and the other Apostles as they folowed Christ, which it is to be thought he would not haue don, if Peter had beene in such account then, as since he is said to be. Nowe for Iustinus Martir who wrote about the yeare 147. doth neuer so much as make mention of Peter being bishop of Rome, although in his second Apologie he maketh mention of Simon Magus how hee was honoured at Rome (but not of his fierie chariots destroied by Peter, Iustinus apol. [...] as some doe, whereof I spake be­fore.) Seeing therefore, Iustinus hauing so good an occaston, and writing and dwelling in Rome as by Hierom it appeareth speaketh not one worde of it there, neither yet afterwards in the end of the apologie, wherein he sheweth the sinne of christiani­tie, it is likely that Rome was not then knowen, to be either Peters chaire, or the bishop thereof to bee vniuersall bishop. Eusebius writeth of Denis of Corinth,Euseb. hist. eo [...] li. 2. cap. 2 [...]. who florished about the yeare one hundred seuentie and foure, howe hee did write vnto the Romans, and yet nothing is there of Peter, that he was bishop there, but onely, that Peter and Paul did plant the church there. And in the same place Eusebius reporteth of Caius, who (as he saith) was made bishop of Rome after Ze­phirinus) which Zephirinus died the yeare of the Lord two hundred and twentie) that he writing vnto Proclus an hereticke, put him in minde of the monuments of the Apostles that he could shew. Whereas hee might haue made a better bragge, to hane serued for his purpose, if hee could haue told them, of Peters chaire. But as yet there was no such matter knowen. As for that which master Bellarmine himselfe aleageth out of Irenie, it proueth nothing for him. For in saying, that Peter and Paul together did found a church there,Iren. li. 3. ca. 3. De prescription­bus aduersus he­ret. he ascribeth no­thing to Peter alone. And Tertulian that was about 200. yeares after Christ doth seeme rather to make Clement the first bishop of Rome,Clement first bishop of Rome. so litle doth he dreame of Peters chaire, or bi­shoprick [Page 50] there. Neither yet doth Cyprian plainly affirme, that Peter was bishop of Rome. He doth somtime indeede call that church Peters chaire in respect of the doctrine that Peter taught and published,Peters chaire. which at that time was beleeued at Rome, which also perchance he in Rome confirmed by his death. As also our Sauiour Christ speaketh of Moses chaire,Moses chaire, Mat. 23. 2. and saith that the priests did sit in Moses his chaire, so long as they taught the lawe, that Moses from God deliuered to them. But as for Moses hee neuer came neere the place where Ierusalem was built, to establish any chaire there. And thus we see, that in all these ancient fathers, who liued more then two hundred yeares after Christ (for Ciprian florished about two hundred and fiftie yeares after Christ) there is no plaine proofe of Peters being bishop of Rome. And excepting Ciprians words, (who if he allude vnto the words of our sauiour Christ as he seemeth to do, can make no more for the opinion of the church of Rome, then any of the rest) there is nothing in them all, that hath any like­lyhood of proofe of the thing in controuersie. But if any man answere that it is no good argument thus to reason.Obiection. Such men haue not written that Peter was bishop of Rome, there­fore hee was not bishop there:Answere I reply, that if this that out of them hath beene said, doe not substantially prooue, that Peter was not bishop of Rome, (as if the allegations be wel conside­red of, they are strong presumptions) yet doe they inuincibly prooue, that for this space of more then two hundred yeares, they cannot shew of any authentike author, that hath acknow­ledged Peter to be bishop of Rome. Yea the first that is alea­ged by master Bellarmine is Ireny, who liued after Christ not much lesse then two hundred yeares. And therefore this doc­trine, doth easily appeare not to be catholike, and the godly fa­thers which slace haue affirmed, that he was bishop of Rome, either do so call him in respect of the worke of a bishop, which (if he were there) by his care of Gods flocke, and constancie in his truth he did shew, or else they teach that which had not bin taught in the dayes next vnto the apostles times. A second ar­gument that vnanswerably prooueth this to be no catholike doc­trine, is the dissenting of y^• most anciēt authors that they alleage, from themselues in this point, wherin they affirme that Peter [Page 51] was bishop of Rome. For Ireny, who is first alleaged of master Bellarnine, Lib. 3. cap. 1. cont. Ma [...]cio. 1 [...] heres. 27. Euseb. li. 2. ca. 25. Tertulian, whome in the second place he produceth, then also Epiphanius and Dionysius bishop of Corinth out of Eusebius do al with one consent ioyne Peter and Paul together, I say not Peter onely, so that vnto the one as well as vnto the other belongeth that dignitie by their records. And Damasus himselfe a pope (I maruel if he would erre in this point) saith that Peter came to Rome Nero being emperour,Conell. Tom. 1. ne Petro. Li. 3. cap. [...] which must be at the least twelue yeares, after the reckoning that is nowe hol­den for good, in the church of Rome. And Eusebius doth aleage out of Origen, how Peter in the latter end of his life came to Rome, and therefore he is not like to be Bishoppe there xxv. yeares. This doubtfulnesse and vnconstancie of their deliuering this doctrine, is an infalible argument that there was not in those times, any catholike doctrine taught of this matter, but that men might thinke thereof, as they saw cause. But now it is no lesse then heresie to denie that Peter was Bishoppe of Rome.

Now if vnto this that hath bin said,A third reason. we adde the vocation or office of Saint Peter recorded in the holy Scripture, that he should be the Apostle of the circumcision,Galat. 2. 7. whereof, that euer he was discharged, all the Iesuites in Rome and Rheimes, will neuer be able, out of Gods register booke to shew. And one the other side, that the singular care that the Apostle Saint Paul (who willingly woulde not build vpon another mans founda­tion) sheweth himselfe to haue ouer the Romans, more then o­uer any other, euen as if they were his peculiar charge, (as iu the first and fifteenth chapters of that epistle appeareth) I trust there is no man of indifferent iudgement, but will thinke that we haue great reason to stay our selues, and not rashly vpon e­uerie shew of the newnesse of fathers, to runne and consent vn­to such opinions, as haue no shew of the ancient antiquitie, no agreement among themselues, no colour of probabilitie in the worde of God, but the contrarie rather. Neither is that any answere to my second argument,Li. 2. c. 5. Bell. 06. (which master Bellarmine doth saie) that the disagreement about the time of Peters com­ming vnto Rome, doeth not prooue that he came not at Rome at all.

[Page 52] For my intent is not directly to proue, that Peter came not to Rome as bishop of Rome, but that this was not a catholike doctrine for two hundred, or almost three hundred yeeres after Christ, and this disagreement doth proue that substantiallie. So that it must bee another answere that must take awaie the strength of this argument, or else it standeth vnaswered. Nei­ther is that example that he bringeth of the vncertaintie of the time of Christes death, fit to proue the matter in question. For all are agreed that Christ died,Bellar. ob. 2. Answere. but that Peter was bishop of Rome is not certaine. And therefore the thing it selfe beeing doubted of, the vncertaine setting downe of the circumstances, will make it lesse credited. I am not ignorant that godly lear­ned men, haue set downe manie moe arguments, to prooue that Peter was not bishop of Rome, and that maister Bellar­mine bestoweth sixe or seuen chapters to answere the same as well as he can. But my purpose being to trie as well as I can how catholike their doctrine is, I content my selfe at this time with these fewe. For to striue what might bee spoken of this matter, were an infinite labour. But whilest I indeuour to goe forward, I am forced a while to stay, and muse at the immode­rate boldnesse of maister Bellarmine, who vpon so weake proofe, will make so certaine a conclusion. For purposing to shewe the bishoppe of Rome is a vniuersall bishop,Lib. 2. cap. 12. Bellarm. his tri­umphing before the victorie. hee thus beginneth. Hitherto we haue plainly shewed, that the Bi­shoppe of Rome is Peters successour in the Bishopricke of Rome.

Nowe considering with my selfe, the weakenesse of the two postes that must vpholde this building, I though he might haue something at the least mistrusted his owne cause. For if Peter were at Rome, and first preached there, doth that proue, that therefore the Bishop of Rome is his successour? But by that meanes all they that came afterward in the places where he preached shall bee all his successours, and not onely the pope.

The second ground of this considerate conclusion, is, that he imagineth that Peter was Bishop of Rome, and so died. But the vanitie of his arguments I haue discouered before (I trust) sufficiently.Pag. 56. & [...]. Therefore this bolde assertion I will requite [Page 53] with this Sillogisme, and so proceed.

If it be not certaine that Peter was Bishop of Rome, then must this succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter, Argument to the bishop of Rome his succes­sion to Peter to be vncertaine. needes be vncertaine.

But it is vncertaine as I haue shewed by better reason then master Bellarmine hath shewed, that Peter was bishop there:

Therefore I conclude, this succession also, must needs be vncertaine.

But before I begin to examine Bellarmines euidence, wher­by he will proue the pope to haue supremacie ouer all the church, the Reader must bee put in minde of that which before I haue said, whereby the very ground of this supremacie is shaken (if I be not deceiued) namely it is with good reasons (I trust) de­nied, that Peter had that supremacie ouer the whole church. And if he had it not, how can the bishop of Rome haue it from him? Againe, we must consider how this hangeth togither. If Peter had that vniuersall charge, and was bishop of Rome also, that therefore they that doe succeede him in the bishopricke of Rome, must in like manner that vniuersall charge.

But let vs heare M. Bellarmines reasons. But the foure first I of purpose omit, bicause they are either directed against Nilus his opinion,Li. 2. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 12. who graunted (as master Bellarmine saieth of him) that Peter had this vniuersall charge ouer the whole church, but denieth it to the bishop of Rome, and therefore those arguments touch vs little, or else they are answered before in this treatise. But he hauing proued (after his maner) against Nilus, that seeing Peter had this supremacie, hee must needes haue a successour in the same. At the length he commeth to proue that the B. of Rome is this his successor, reasoning thus: either the bishop of Antioch, or of Rome, must be Peters successor in the supremacie ouer the whole church. But the bishop of Antioch can not chalenge it: therefore Rome must succeed in this vniuersall bishopricke. That Antioch cannot haue it he shews, because Pe­ter resigned that bishopricke before he died. I will not here exa­min or cal forth your witnesses, in what place ye find, that Peter gaue ouer to the bishop of Antioch which you say hee had. But I will aske a question of you, by what right he could resigne it ouer, and leaue the charge that God committed vnto him, and so [Page 54] forsake the flocke whereof you are made ouerseer. You must either holde your peace,Marcel. epist. ad Antioch. or else tell vs some tale of a bastarde Epistle of pope Marcellus, which commaunded him so to doe.

And is it inough that Marcellus, A rotte a prop of supermacie. who liued about three hun­dred yeares after this thing was done, should say that Christ commaunded him to doe it, and produce no witnesse, alleadge no proofe, set downe no circumstances? Thus we see that this supremacie doeth stande but vpon a tottering foundation. It may also be doubted, whether if he had a vniuersall charge ouer the whole church, he might take vpon him a particular charge, either at Rome, or Antioch. For our Sauiour Christ giueth direction to his Apostles, whose charge was vniuersall, Goe into the whole worlde,Mark [...] 16. 15. preach the Gospell vnto euerie creature. For although it is written of some of the Apostles, that they were bishops in certaine places, yet that is no answere to this obiection, because they were not vniuersall bishops, and there­fore must needes haue their seate somewhere, I say in some par­ticular charge.A vniuersall bi­shop must not be a sitter, but [...]ther a runner. For hee that is an vniuersall Bishop, and hath allotted vnto him a seate or chaire, is vnproperly called vniuersall. It were more expedient for him in respect thereof, to bee running, yea, or rather flying then to bee sitting. But to answere master Bellarmines argument. His Maior pro­position is gathered of a false supposition.Whether it be needefull that Peter haue a suc­cessour. For if it bee not graunted, that Peter must needes haue one to succeede him in this vniuersall charge, then you see that there is no neces­sitie, that his seate wherein hee must bee succeeded, is either at Rome or Antioch.

But wee denie first, that Peter himselfe had this vniuer­sall charge. And in this respect, wee thinke it a verie needlesse matter, for vs to beate our heades about his successour in the same, But I pray you, what meaneth this, that master Bellarmine taking in hande to write of the controuersies of these tymes, and to impugne and withstande them, that in these dayes doe speake agaynst his Popes supremacie,Bellarm. would match with an [...] aduersary. doth so suddenlie turne his backe vppon them, and incounter with Nilus, who is much more friendlie to him in this matter chen we can bee?Lib. 2. cap. 12. For whereas hee hath promised to prooue, [Page 55] that the Bishop of Rome dooth succeede Peter in the vniuer­sall Bishopricke by Gods lawe, and by reason of succession: his arguments onely intend and prooue thus much: Peter had this vniuersall charge, and therefore another must haue it also. And that Peter had it, hee saieth Nilus dooth graunt it. But that is it that wee denie, and master Bellarmines store will not affoorde him one argnment agaynst vs directlie, ex­cept hee haue anie confidence in the two last, the fifth, and the sixt.

And for the sixt, as also his other arguments that may any thing touch vs,Pag. 5. &c. they are answered almost in the beginning of this Treatise. Let vs then see what strength this argument hath, that so much of the weight of the cause must rest vppon. Saint Paule saith the church is one body, but he head can not say to the feete,1. Cor. 12. 2 [...]. Bellarmines ar­gument to prou [...] that Peter must haue a successo [...]. I haue no neede of you: therefore the Church must haue another head vpon earth besides Christ. If the ar­gument be hard fauoured and mishapen, and ill tied together, and agree like strings al out of tune, blame him that make it so. For master Bellarmine doth so reason. These are his wordes. The church is one body,Li. 2. [...] 12 [...]g. 5 and hath her kinde of head here vppon earth besides Christ, as appeareth out of 1. Corinthians and the twelfth chapter. In which place, after that the Apostle Saint Paule hath said, that the church is one body, hee addeth: The head cannot say to the feet, I haue no need of you. Which his reason, if it be drawen into a forme of argument, must (as I thinke) be formed into such a monstrous shape as you haue seene.

But to omit the shape of his argument, let vs see what sub­staunce there is in it. And if it bee examined, it hath as little found matter,Answere. as good making. For, out of these wordes of Saint Paule (the head can not say to the feete, I haue no neede of you) hee thus inferreth, but Christ may say, that hee standeth in neede of none of vs: therefore by this head heere Christ can not be meant. Is not this very clarkely handled of maister Bellarmine, to apply that vnto Christ our head in the church which S. Paul speaketh of the head of a naturall bodie, whereof he hath borrowed a similitude, to teach how necessary the members of Christ his mysticall body, are one to an other, [Page 56] so that none may without wronging himselfe despise another? which collection of M. Bellarmine is most plainely against the text it selfe, and the iudgement of all good expositours: Nay, I suppose I neede except no expositor but maister Bellarmine himselfe. And yet we haue in that very place an other argu­ment of his. For a man may see that he was sore pained in tra­uaile of this argument. For, seeeing no way how to deliuer it well, he was faine to heape vp much stuffe in few lines, (for al this matter is contained in little more then eight short lines) to make a shew as though he had much to say, when as that which he said is farre worse then iust nothing. Well, let vs view his argument.Arg. of bellarm, the 2. One head besides Christ there must be, but there is no other then Peter: therefore Peter must be the head. We flat­ly deny that we need any head but Christ, as before I haue pro­ned. Lastly,pag. 6. 12, 13. bellarm. his 3. and last argum. Peter dying, the church must not want a head: therefore Peter must haue a successor. But this argument sup­poseth that Peter is the head of the vniuersall church, which they cannot prooue, and vntill they can prooue it, we will con­tent our selues with Christ our head.

Thus we see how master Bellarmines fift argument, as a plenteous spring sendeth forth three streames, but there is no cleare water in any of them, but bad couers of a bad messe. And what is all this to the bishop of Rome, if Peter must haue a successour? For, as we deny Peters supremacie, so may wee doubt whether he might be a bishop, being not an apostle only, as were the rest, but an apostle of the Iewes, wheresoeuer they were, we doubt of his resignation of the bishopricke of Antioch, if he were at any time bishop there, we doubt of his being bishop of Rome: and lastly, whether this succession must needes be­long to the bishops of Rome if Peter had it: for it might bee personall in Peter. And master Bellarmine, who in other que­stions is plentifull of his reasons, and will make some reaso­nable shew of proofe in this greatest matter,bellarm. barren of reasons. and which it espe­cially behoueth him to prooue, is so barren, that he hath almost nothing to say, no reason to alleage, although by his promise he made vs looke for great matters. And yet when all is done, he must either haue vs to graunt him the thing that is in questi­on, which we cannot doe, or else he can say nothing to it.

[Page 57] But there are many strong reasons that moue vs to denie that Peter had any such vniuersall authoritie ouer all Christs flock,Peter had not charge ouer the whole church. or that any man, the bishop of Rome, or any other should haue such supremacie. First the greatnesse of the change, which is 1 far aboue the abilitie of many, much lesse can any one performe it. Secondly, that our sauiour Christ doth shew a litle before 2 his death,Chap. 13. 14, 15, 16. as appeareth in Saint Iohns gospell, a fatherly affec­tion, and tender care to comfort his disciples, being pensiue be­cause of his departure, and yet neuer vseth this argument, or giueth them this commaundement, that Peter should be their head, and they should obay him. Although good oportunitie was offered to haue spoken of it,Iohn 16. 7. if it had beene so when Christ told them that it was expedient that he should departe. He doth not then tell them that Peter must be in his place, and supply his roome, or that one should haue general charge of his church. But on the contrarie he appointeth his vicar and vicegerent e­uen 3 his spirit to supply his want.Iohn 14. 16. Who can be in all places at once,The spirit is Christs vicar. in euery particular church, yea in euery particular mem­ber of the church, to comfort, instruce, direct, defend, and to do to and for the godly, whatsoeuer is needefull or expedient for them. Thirdly the apostles after Christ ascension, and Saint 4 Luke that writeth the acts of the apostles make no mention of such a supremacie in Peter, vnlesse we could borow master Bel­larmines spectacles, by which hee can spie that one pope is con­tained in these words,Ephes. 4 4. De pontif. Rom. li. 1. cap. 9. Verse 11. one bodie, and one spirit, as he doth also find out the supremacie plainely set downe in these words, hee gaue some to be apostles: and yet more plainly if we may be­leeue him in the epistle to the Corinthians, 1. Cor. 12. 28. he hath ordained in the church first apostles, then prophets. Now let them that can picke that soueraigne Supremacie out of those wordes say so.

But for my part I confesse my sight is so dimme, that I can not see so farre into that mill stone. These and such like rea­sons, beeing compared with their proofs out of scripture which make nothing for them vnlesse they be sore wrested, from their naturall and true meaning, doe euen proclame it to the world, that this doctrine of the popes supremacie, is nothing else but a deuise of mans braine, a fruit of his pride. And thus to thinke [Page 58] I am the ealelier perswaded, when I see how master Bellar­mine toileth himselfe, to set downe the state of the question For although in the beginning almost of this twelfth chapter he promised to prooue that the bishop of Rome, is by the lawe of God,Bellarm, not so good as his word successor vnto Peter in the supremacie of the vniuers­all church, yet afterwards he confesseth that the church of Rome hath not this succession by Christs first institution of this succession, and that perchaunce (for so he speaketh to testi­fie how loth hee is to confesse the truth plainly, though he can­not denie it) perchance he saith it cannot be proued by the lawe of God, that the bishop of Rome, as he is bishop of Rome is Peters successor. And yet although it cannot be proued to be decreed by Gods lawe, it is saith hee a thing that belongeth to the catholike faith. For (saith hee) to be of the fayth, and to be by Gods lawe, is not all one, for it is not by Gods lawe that Paul should haue a cloke (hee might haue said as much also for Tobias dog) yet this must be beleeued. I would not haue thought that Pauls cloke had beene such a necessarie re­lique, but I remember that Balthasar Cossa, who was pope Iohn the three and twentieth of that name,Stella Iacob. Bergom. gained well by Pe­ters cloke when time was, for by casting it vpon his owne shoulders, he made himselfe pope.

But can master Bellarmine find no better stuffe to per­swade vs to beleeue the popes supremacie? They make it a matter of damnation not to beleeue the supremacie of the pope. And is it of as great necessitie to beleeue that Paul had a cloke? If master Bellarmine be so perswaded, I la­ment his follie. If hee thinke otherwise, why doth hee bring it to prooue that to beleeue the supremacie of the bishop of Rome, is a pointe of the catholike faith, although by Gods lawe this supremacie cannot be prooued? And as they stag­ger in setting downe by what authoritie right or lawe they claime this soueraigntie: so they haue no great proofe for their manner of this their dignite, whether it be personall or not. By Christs first institution master Bellarmine telleth vs it was per­sonal.

If Christ made it personall who could change that estate and make it successionall? master Bellmine answereth, that it [Page 59] was personall, generall, or publike, so that it belonged to him and his successors. Whether that can be called personall, that is to say belonging to the person onely which belongeth also to his successours let the indifferent Reader iudge. But how is this prooued that Christ gaue this prerogatiue to him and his?Li. 1. cap. 12. Master Bellarmine saith so often times, especially in the twelfth chapter of his first booke, but his proofe is litle else then his af­firmation.

Againe, hee saieth, that this succession is made both per­sonall and locall, by Peters dying bishop of Rome. But as al­readie I haue proued, that doctrine of Peters beeing at Rome bishop is not so certaine, that christians may build their faith thereupon: So that we see there building is altogether vpon the sand, their proofe weake, their reasons obscure, and their places nothing pregnant for that they are brought. And I mar­uell that nowe it should be counted heresie, not to beleeue the Romish bishop to be by Gods lawe supreame head of the whole church,Tom. 2. Luth. fol. 45. seeing that in the yeare of our Lord God one thousand fiue hundred and twentie Albert by the goodnesse of God, cardinall priest of the holy church of Rome, of the title of Saint Chrysogon, A cardinal coun­teth the Popes supremacie but a toy. Arbhbishop of the holy churches of Magdeburge and Mentz, primat of Germany and prince elector, gouernour of Halberstade, and marques of Brandenburge (for these litles hee giueth himselfe) in an epistle writen to Luther, sheweth himselfe griued and displeased, that some diuines of good accoumpt, did so earnestly contend for their friuolous opinions and trifling questions, namely of the power of the bishop of Rome, whether it be by Gods lawe, or by mans lawe? And of free will, and many other such toyes, not much concerning a christian man.

This cardinall you see thinketh it not worth contending for. And I am verely perswaded many moe will bee of his mind, vnlesse they see better matter then master Bellar­mine canne bring, to prooue it to be by Gods lawe. But al­though hee haue no store of Scripture for him yet hath hee great hope in councilles and fathers. And I assured my selfe that the councilles, if hee will trust them, will most plainly decide this question, whether that superiority that [Page 60] the church of Rome challengeth ouer all other churches, be by Gods law or mans law, as hereafter it shall (if God will) ap­peare. Nowe therefore to examine maister Bellarmines next proofe which is out of the counsels.Lib. 1. cap 13. And the first counsel that he alleageth, is the Nicen counsel, not that which themselues haue deliuered to vs as authenticall and true, in the tomes of coun­sels set foorth by themselues: but to serue this turne, we must haue a new addition, and a strange interpretation not that which agreeth best with the words,Bellar. arg. out of the Nicen counsel Canon. 6. and is thought most true of them that liued neare vnto the daies of that counsell. First therefore we must adde (saith maister Bellarmine) to the beginning of the sixt canon, the church of Rome alwaies had the supremacy. And why must those wordes be added? Paschasinus forsooth a bishop in the counsell of Chalcedon did so cite that canon.Action. 16, The bishop of Rome a forgerer. He did so, but he was legate for Leo then bishop of Rome that did alleadge it, & by Aetius Archdeacon of Constantinople he was disproued, who read not onely the coppy of the canon, by a also the approbation of the same counsell, and canon, by a counsell holden at Constantinople, of 150. bishops, Nectarius being bi­shop there.

But one found out a greeke coppy of that counsellong since and in that saith maister Bellarmine those wordes are. If the coppies that we haue, haue thus long beene thought true and good, I see no reason why for some one greeke coppy, which might very well be falsified by some fauorite of the church of Rome, we should discredit that which hath so long beene recea­ued: especially seeing the counsell of Chalcedon, the matter on both sides being discussed and heard, did giue vnto the church of Constantinople as great priuiledges as the church of Rome had. Which they woulde not haue done, but that they sawe Paschasinus his allegation, for his maister the bishop of Rome (for he was one of his legates) to be forged. Nay if that Rome had gotten this prerogatiue by Gods lawe, as nowe the papistes teach,Canon. 6. without wickednesse they coulde not haue done it.

Then these words of that canon of the Nicen council (Because the bishop of Rome hath such like custome) must also haue a newe interpretation, For whereas Ruffinus, who liued, if [Page 61] not in, yet very neare the dayes of the Nicene councill, doeth plainely expound,Hist. li. 1. cap. 6. howe in those dayes they tooke the sence and meaning of those wordes, namely, that the Bishoppe of Rome should haue cure of the churches that belonged to the sub­urbs thereof: Maister Bellarmine that commeth many hun­dreds of yeares after, will in no wise like of that exposition, be­cause he imagineth it to be too narrow a compasse for the proud pope.Other maner of Popes in those dayes then now we haue. But hee must remember, that when these limittes were appointed vnto him, the Bishops, not of Rome onely, but of o­ther places also, were other manner of men, than now they are for the most part. And it seemeth that these limittes were laide vpon them, rather as a burden, thē sought and sued for as an ho­nour.

And that the godly and learned men, who sought especi­ally the good of the church, did cause this diuision of those pla­ces to be made, for the better keeping of vnitie in the church, ap­pointing vnto euery one of these primates or patriarches, such to bee in some respect vnder their charge, as they sawe were (for such considerations as were best knowen vnto them) most likely to shew themselues willing to be ruled by them. Yea. and the lesse compasse or circuite of iurisdiction might perchaunce bee appoynted to the Bishop of Rome, because that thorowe great recourse of people of all places vnto that Citty, beeing the imperiall Citty, hee was so troubled with many matters of al mens, that he might not so well intend and looke to a great charge of his owne.

And I knowe not why maister Bellarmine should so alter as hee doth the worde parilis into talis, but to gaine as much credite as he can to his interpretation. For, parlis consuetudo which are the wordes vsed by the Councill,Bellar. changeth the words of the canon. is an equall cu­stome, and hath respect to that which is saide of the Bishop of Alexandria. So that this is the meaning of those wordes, that Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, should be vnder the Bishop of Alexandria, because the Bishop of Rome hath such like cu­stome, or a custome equall to that. But the exposition that maister Bellarmine would haue to stand for good, is, that the bishop of Rome had such a custome to appoint the Bishop of Alexandria those limittes, which interpretation howe forced it [Page 62] is, how it cannot aptly be gathered out of the words of the coun­cill, I referre it to the indifferent Reader to consider. And be­cause this word parilis equall custome, will not stand with Maister Bellarmines sense, he truneth it away, and in steede thereof would vse a word more indifferent for him. And so (good Reader) thou mayest see how Master Bellarmine most absurd­ly reiecteth the plaine and old interpretation of this canon which Ruffinus affordeth vs, and would haue vs beleeue a new glose of his owne, that must quite alter the sense, and adde much to the wordes of the text it selfe. And yet when antiquitie ser­ueth their turne: none crie out for Antiquitie more than they. They go about to discredite our doctrine, because it is newe onely, and yet theirs we see here, is both new and naught, and yet are not they ashamed to bragge, that all that they teach is catholike.

The second Councill alleaged by Maister Bellarmine, Concil. Constan. Histor. li. 5. ca. 9. Bellarm. a falfifi­ [...] of antiquitie. is the Councill of Constantinople, of which hee saieth out of Theodoret, that they came together in that place by the com­maundement of the Popes letters sent to them by the Empe­rour. The more I reade Maister Bellarmine, the more I find and mislike his euill dealing, who handleth Gods cause no­thing sincerely, but walketh in the same (as in this his argu­ment may easily appeare) with a deceitfull heart. For first to make the matter seeme more plaine on his side then in deede it is, hee saith, that they came to Constantinople at the comman­dement of the Popes letters: but Theodoret speaketh nothing of any commaundement, but vpon the Popes letter. The like also is in the letters themselues that are set downe in the Coun­cill. For it seemeth that Damasus, whether it were vpon de­sire he had to christian vnity, and agreement in religion, or else because he sawe the emperour Theodosius bent to haue a coun­cill, and he was perchance desirous to seeme to haue some say­ing in that matter, or for any other consideration whatsoeuer, wrote vnto the Emperour about a Councill. But if the Pope might haue called a Councill, hee woulde then haue directed his commaundements vnto the Bishoppes to assemble, not to the emperor, what these letters were it is not knowen. If they were to require and intreate the emperour to call a Councill, it [Page 63] maketh nothing for proofe of master Bellarmines argument, or the popes power. If it were to commaund the emperour to send his letters to them, or to cause them to be summoned, it were in deede somewhat like vnto the sawcy and vnmannerly writings of these prowd prelates of our time, but then neither the Pope burst so to commaund, neither the emperour did owe, or would performe any such seruice or duety to him. But the report of the Councill it selfe (as it is deliuered vnto vs by themselues,_ doth sufficiently declared that all was done in that councill,Concil, tom. [...]. The emperour had all the com­maunding in that councill. at the commaundement of the emperour. First, he commaunded that the Bishops should come out of euery bishopricke to Con­stantinople, as he that gathered the councils together teacheth out of Theodoret. Hist. li. 5. ca. 6. The emperour desired them to haue a care of that they had in hand. And out of Socrates he sheweth, that the emperour called also the Macedonian heretickes, because he had good hope that they also might be vnited, to the Church.

Moreouer out of Theodoret, that the emperour consulted with Nectarius, what course were best for quietnesse in the church, they came to the emperour to take some good order in these matters, he questioned with the heretikes, concerning the the triall of the matters in question: he tooke order that both partes should set downe their minde in writing, hee tooke that they had written, prayed earnestly to God to direct him to chuse the truth, tore the writings of the heretickes, allowed or recei­ued onely that docrine that taught the equalitie of the persons. He also allowed the Nouatians their churches in the city, be­cause they were in this point constant. And out of Sozomen, that the emperour made a lawe, that heretickes shoulde neither haue churches, neither be permitted to preach of the faith (a good lawe to be earnestly thought vpon and practised in these our dayes) nor ordaine bishops or others. All these things be­ing set downe in the Bookes of Councils, by them deliuered vn­to vs, who can thinke that Master Bellarmine, who alleadgeth this Councill for strength of his cause (and that falsely also) wherein all things are so direct against him, would see the truth, if it were neuer so plaine before him. The third councill is that which was assembled at Ephesus, & that also M. Bellar. (belike by some wonderful attractiue vertue) wil draw to his side.

[Page 64] The third Councill (saith he) as Euagrius doth witnesse, saith that it deposeth Nestorius, by the commaundement of Caelestine bishop of Rome. How now master Bellarmine, haue you quite fallen out with truth, and made a league with falshood?Yet more fal­shoode in Bellar. haue you purposed still to abuse your reader, by most shamelesse affirming that which is not true? The counsell said, we, by the necessitie aswel of the canons, as also of the epistle of the most holy father, our felow minister Celestine bishop of Rome compelled &c. Where is this that master Bellarmine affirmeth? Celestine bishop of Rome wrote perchance to shew his detestation of the heresie of Nestorius, and they willing to doe him that honour, that they would seeme much to esteeme of his zeale in faith, that beeing so farre distant in place, he would be vnited as it were to them in their iudgement against Nestorius, they shew that they were mooued much by his let­ters, and incouraged to proceede against Nestorius. But here is no word of any commaundement that he gaue them, but ra­ther the contrarie. For they call him their felow minister, and so acknowledge not him to be a commaunder ouer them. Yea and in a mandate to Philip priest, vicar or vicegerent to Ce­lestine then bishop of Rome, and others sent to Constantinople, they tell the popes vicar plainly, and his felowes thus: Wee will your holinesse to vnderstand, that if you despise any of these things, neither this holy synode will ratifie it, neither shall you be permitted to be pertaker of our communion. Yea and before, that council directeth euen the popes legate and the rest, that if the emperour sent for them, they must in any wise be o­bedient to his commaundement, and must not refuse to goe, (which doctrine were heresie in our dayes) but they should not agree with Iohn of Antioch and the rest, but vpon such condi­tions as (not the pope) the council did set them downe, vpon the paine aforesaid.

And that this Councill was assembled by the Empe­rours, is in many places declared: as out of Euagrius that it was at the appointment of Theodosius the younger, and after by the commaundement of the most religious Empe­rours. The like is also testified, in the superscription of the for­mer mandate, that I haue spoken of.

[Page 65] And it is also worth noting that the councill writing to the Emperours, for the credite of their councill, doeth not vrge that the pope is head there (but indeede they craue that Cirill and Memnon, not Cirill onely whom they say the pope Cele­stine deputed for him be restored to them again that their coun­cill be not without a head) but they say that Celestine Arch­bishop of Rome,Pag. 588. doth sit ioyned with them there, he doth assi­dere sit I say with them, not praesidet, he ruleth not, he cou­troleth not the councill, and so it is also said of Aphrica and Illyricum that they assident sit with the councill. And out of this that hath beene spoken as also by such other thinges as in that councill are recorded, we may gather what truth is in that also, that maister Bellarmine alleadgeth of an Epistle sent by the councill to Celestine, reseruing the cause of Iohn of Anti­och as more doubtfull to be decided by the bishoppe of Rome. But as I finde not any such Epistle in that councill, so this is plainely written, in the report that the councill maketh of their doings to the Emperours, that they excommunicated Iohn (of Antioch) the president of the Apostatas councill,Pag. 588. and them that were with him: and depriued them of all priestly ministery, and reuoked all their vnlawfull doings. If this be to referre his cause to the pope, let the world iudge.

Then he commeth to the council of Chalcedon, The fourth Coun­cill alleadged by Bellarmine. and that ma­keth for him too, if we wil trust him; but in examining it, we shal finde it much like the rest, directly against the supremacy of the bishop of Rome.Act. 1. For first in the beginning of that councill it is declared that it is gathered by the decree of the most godly and faithfull Emperours Valentinian and Martian who also pro­fesseth that he desired to be there to confirme the faith,Pag. 740. wherein were iudges appointed to moderate their doings and sayings, and to conclude their articles, not the pope, or his legates, (for they as it appeareth in this councill, were at the com­maundement of these iudges, as well as others, but lay men, officers vnder the Emperour. It will be hard then for maister Bellarmine, in respect of some fewe excellent names that may be giuen to Leo bishop of Rome, whereof also it may be he was worthy in respect of some good parts that were in him, it will I say bee harde, by such names, to proue his supremacie [Page 66] by this councell, which hath almost done what it can, in preiudice of any such prerogatiue that he might claime.The councell of Chalcedon a­gainst the supre­macy. For if it belong not to him to call councils, neither to rule in them when they are called, he hath but little supremacie ouer others. And we see in this councell both these things are done by others, and not by him.

But what doth Maister Bellarmine finde in this councill for the popes supremacy?Bellarm, his rea­sons out of this councill. Lib. 1. cap. 12. That in that, the pope Leo is called the bishop of the vniuersall church. This tale hee hath tolde but a little before, (perchance that maketh him more perfect in it) say­ing that three letters are sent from the East church to Leo bishop of Rome, and in them all he is called the pope of the vniuersall church, there are indeede foure such letters euen togither, to the bishop of Rome, and the councill of Chalcedon, and in none of them is he called the pope of the vniuersall church, but only the vniuersall archbishop or patriarch.

But there is a great difference betweene a vniuersall bishop, and a bishop of the vniuersall church.Act. 3. pag. 858. But such misses are smal faults, with master Bellarmine. Indeede Paschasinus the popes owne legat doth call him pope of the vniuersall church,Act. 16. who did also seeke afterwardes, by falsifyiug the coppies of the councill of Nice to procure the supremacie vnto his maister, and therfore we must not ground our faith vpon his wordes. But for that name of vniuersall bishop which is often giuen to the bishop of Rome,Vniuersall bishop not only the popes name. it is not yet a name peculiar to him, as a great friende of theirs,Annal. An. 187. and at this day in great account among them, doth tell them, namely Caesar Baronius in his history. For out of him they may learne that Eleutherius a pope himselfe, in a decretall epistle of his, written to the bishops of France, calleth them vni­uersall bishops,Epist. ad Philad. as Ignatius calleth the bishop of Philadelphia, the bishop of the common church, and so Gregory Nazianzen speaketh of Athanasius bishop of Alexandria. Which Baroni­us seemeth thus to vnderstand, that they ought to haue a care (as indeed euery man should haue) of the good of the whole church. And these names of head of the church,To whom these names belong. vniuersall bishop, and such like, were doubtlesse at the first graunted to such as were most worthy men in the church, in respect of their learning and skill that they had, or their trauell and diligence that they vsed, [Page 67] to benefit the vniuersall Church. And by this meanes, was it more commonly giuen to the bishops of Rome then to others, because they, in regard of the place or city wherein they were, had moe occasions of doing good offered vnto them, and moe op­portunities, by reason of his neerenesse to the Emperour, to so­licite such matters.

And in this sorte is it giuen for a rewarde of well deseruing, and to incourage them that were able,How these names are now vsed. to doe their vttermost in­deuour, to benefit the church. But now it is a name tied to one chaire, in which for the most part doe sit of the vnworthiest men that are in the church. So that if a man consider howe little good they doe in the church, and how much hurt, wee shall thinke that a ring of gold will better become a sowes snowt, then they beseeme that honourable title, or it them. And as for that which the councill doth write vnto Leo, saying, that he is appointed of our Sauiour to keepe his vine, they speake it not in respect of his being bishop of Rome, but in consideration of his excellent giftes of learning and other good graces, wherewith God hath indued him. And that this is their meaning it doth plainely ap­peare, by those things that afterwardes in that councill they did. For if they had meant by those wordes,Act. 16. that he, as bishoppe of Rome, had supremacy ouer the whole church, then woulde they not haue giuen vnto the bishop of Constantinople, equall priui­ledges with Rome, and so haue taken from Rome, that which Christ gaue (as they pretend) to the bishop thereof. Thus to be short, in this one councill, we see this supremacy had three no­table checkes. It was called by the Emperours, and modera­ted by lay Iudges, and the bishop of Constantinople made e­quall to him of Rome.

The fift councill that is heere alleadged,The fift councell alleadged by Bellarm. is the fifth Con­stantinople councill. But this can bring litle credite to their cause, seeing it may iustly be doubted, whether euer there were any such or not. For besides that mistrust which the very title of that councill, which is in the second tombe of Councils doth worke in them that reade it,Concil. tom. 2. because it cannot be set downe when, or in what popes dayes it was celebrated, but that it was about the time of Agapetus, Siluerius, and Vigilius: I say besides the vncertainety of it that there appeareth,Anno. 552. Functius one skilfull [Page 68] in histories hath noted, that this is not once spoken of in the Con­stantinople histories. And therefore it is not likely that any such councell, was kept there. Neither yet can the rest of the coun­cels alleadged by maister Bellarmine stande him in any steede. For we will not deny, but after that once the pope had gotten in­to that proud chaire, almost all did yeeld vnto him honour and re­uerence, some for feare,Later councels are not in this cause indifferent. some for flattery, vntill they had made him little inferiour to God himslfe. And therefore wee iustly reiect the councels that were gathered since his power was so greate, and his pride so vntollerable, that by some meanes or o­ther hee would be honoured as himselfe thought good. And therefore the second councell of Nice which was about the yeare seuen hundred eighty nine, the lateran about the yeare one thou­sand two hundred and fifteene. That of Lions about the yeare one thousand two hundred seuenty and foure, and that of Flo­rence about the yeare one thousand foure hundred thirty nine, are no fit witnesses against vs, who doe not deny but that the Pope sometime by faire meanes, sometime by foule, sometime by flat­tery, sometime by threatning, sometime by force, sometime by craft, and alwaies by euill dealing, hath gotten to bee in sorte as yee see, supreame head of the Church.

But we say that he is not so by the word of God, which hee claimeth to be, and maister Bellarmine promised to proue, but he cannot doe it. Neither was he accounted in the purer times of the Church, to haue that supremacy by Gods word, as before I haue spoken.Pag. 14. Neither would they in any wise permit such pow­er vnto him, although he sought it earnestly, and shamefullie in the councell of Chalcedon.Act. 16. After the councels maister Bellarmin will bring in popes to beare witnesse on his side.Popes are suspec­ted witnesses. But honester men then many of them were, are not to be heard in their owne cause. Yea and although many of them were good men, and were profitable members in Christes church, yet because they were men, they might haue such infirmities as doe follow the na­ture of man, and might (especially not seeing the inconuenience and ruine of the church, which the pride of that seate hath brought forth) ascribe more vnto their owne seate, then either in truth they could claime, or in christian humility they could take vpon them.

[Page 69] And for the first popes, which all they that write of this mat­ter recken vp in great numbers, I trust we shal not hereafter bee troubled with their names, because maister Bellarmine hath gi­uen them a reasonable good discharge.Lib. 2. cap. 14. For he confesseth that in their writings there are some errours, neither dare he affirme that they may not be doubted of: and as for the rest of them, because wee haue seene euen almost from the beginning of any credite that they had, some sparkes of their pride, now and then to glitter and burst forth in their importunate seeking, or too rea­dy accepting of that that belonged not to them: as in equity we are not bound, so neither in discretion should we, when the cause concerneth not vs, but Gods truth, heare what they can say for themselues, against the same. Neither are their writings for the most part any such, as that by them wee may iudge throughlie what they did thinke.What maner of writings of popes are alleadged a­gainst vs. For epistles or letters (such are those wri­tings altogither almost which are alleadged against vs) are vp­on sundry particular occasions written, whereby the writers might happely be forced to say more for the credite of that seate, then themselues would haue said, if that occasion had not beene offered. But this I am sure of, they for the most part speake far otherwise, and more plainely in that point, then doe the other an­cient writers of their time, and that maketh me thinke that they did speake for themselues, and were somewhat pricked forward, with a purpose to aduance their seat.Bellarm. proofe out of Greeke fathers. Lib. 2. cap. 15. Inscript. Epist. ad Rom. Ignatius answe­red. Therefore letting them passe as partiall in this cause, let vs come to this next proofe, which is out of the greeke fathers.

And first commeth in Ignatius who writeth to the church that ruleth (for I will admit the worst that Maister Bellarmine or any other can alleadge ont of this place) in the Romane region. But will Maister Bellarmines logicke conclude that therefore the church of Rome hath supremacy ouer the whole church? He must first bring the vniuersall church within the place of the Ro­man region before that can be Out of Ireny he hath these words.Lib. 3. cap. 3. For vnto this church for the more mighty principality (speaking of the church of Rome) it is necessary that the whole church doe come,Ireny exami­ned. that is the faithful from al places, in which alwaies of them that are from all places, is kept that tradition which is from the Apostles.

[Page 70] The wordes as you may see are somewhat hard, by reason that he who translated Ireny out of greeke, did here, as in many other places translate him very darkely. But I haue englished them word for word. His meaning is, that they that come from other places of the world, be it neuer so farre off, yet doe not alter the tradition that the apostles left vnto them, and yet many must needes come thither, because that in respect that Rome is the Imperiall citty, the church also hath the more mighty principa­lity, and so in deciding of causes hath the more reuerence and authority. And thus doth he proue that to be true, that in the be­ginning of that chapter he said, that it is an easie matter for him (that will) to see the tradition of the apostles manifested through the whole world, because that from whence soeuer they do come, yet still they keepe one tradition.

By this argument doth Ireny confute the heretikes, because the tradition of the apostles being kept in all places (not only in the church of Rome although because it was best known, or most famous, he bringeth that for example) yet no such doctrine as the heretikes speake of, is taught among them. But nowe maister Bellarmines vnseasonable collection out of this place, is very farre from Irenies meaning. That it is necessary (saith he) that all churches should hang of the church of Rome. He proueth first by that which goeth before, because principality is giuen to this church: secondly of that which followeth, because hitherto al in that church haue kept the faith that is in being vnited,Bellarm. arg. out of Ireny exa­mined. and cleaning to that church, as the head and mother. These are maister Bellarmines words. But first he saith wrong of Ireny that he should indeuour to proue such necessity in comming to the church of Rome, especiall taking, as here he doth for a bounden duty. For it is maister Bellarmines meaning to make the church of Rome, the onely church that must heare all great matters, de­cide all doubtfull questions, and commande all other churches. But Ireny his meaning is, that all other men had occasion, to seeke rather of that church then of any other for helpe and directi­on, because that in respect of the greatnes of the citty, the church there was in some greater accompt, as before I haue shewed, but he neuer saide that all were bound to submit themselues to that church,Dog. 83. as maister Bellarmine and his partakers, would [Page 71] haue him be thought to speake. Secondly he must speake more plainely what he meaneth by this, that principality is giuen to the church of Rome.Principality in I­reny how to bee vnderstood. For if he meane that men yeeld great reue­rence to the church of Rome, we yeelde that in the primitiue church they did so, & that iustly, because the true faith was there sincerely kept, but this principality will not please maister Bel­larmine, or proue his intent. And if Ireny had meant that this principality had beene giuen by Christ, a man of meane vnder­standing will easily thinke that he would haue spoken it in more plaine tearmes.

But what neede I to vse many words? the place it selfe is plaine. For the more mighty principality (saith Ireny,) if he had thought of the supremacy of the bishop of Rome, he would haue said most mighty principality. For more mighty princi­pality doth but make him better then others in some respect, not aboue all others which he claimeth to be. So that to proue his intent he must haue better proofe. For this will not warrant that soueraigne authority of the bishop of Rome. Thirdly, that which maister Bellarmine would tell vs out of this place, that all churches must be vnited and cleaue to this church of Rome, as their head & mother, hath at all no ground of Irenies words. And thus we see howe he doth racke and rent the wordes out of their plaine sence, to serue for his purpose, which being wel wei­ed of, make rather against them, and their supremacy. Epipha­nius is his third witnes,Heres. 68. Epiphanius exa­mined. who reporteth that Vrsarius and Va­lens two Arrian bishops being conuerted, did go to Iulius bi­shop of Rome, to giue an accompt of their errour and fault. But if that proue the supremacy of the bishop of Rome, then must Athanasius also haue that supremacy as well as he, for it followeth immediatly after, that they vsed the selfe same proofes that they repented of their errour vnto Athanasius. So that the intent and cause of their going to pope Iulius, or pope Athana­sius (for he is there so called) was not to acknowledge his supre­macy, but as it was known that they had erred, so woulde they haue it well knowen that they reuoked their heresie. Nei­ther did they craue pardon of their offence,Athan. Apolog. 2. of Iulius bishop of Rome (which out of Athanasius he endeuoured to proue) be­cause he had authority ouer all persons, but because they knew [Page 72] their offence to haue beene against the whole church, they were desirous that the bishop of Rome for his parte, as a principall member of the church but not a head aboue all, should not im­pute that fault vnto them. And this is the part of euery christi­an man or woman, hauing made a generall fault, whereby ma­ny godly are offeuded, to make also a publike satisfaction for the same. And cannot this be done to pope Iulius, but we must make him head of the church? Athanasius also his letter to pope Fe­lix is alleadged,Athanas. epist. to Felix pope. Bellarm. argu. out of Athan. exami­ned. wherein Athanasius being much distressed of the Arrians, and wrongfully dealt withall, and not hauing any hope that the greeke Church coulde helpe him, the Emperour himselfe being an Arrian, the rather to mooue the bishoppe of Rome to pity his case saith thus. For this cause God hath pla­ced you and your predecessours Apostolicke prelates, in the towre of height, and hath charged you to haue care of all chur­ches, that you should helpe vs. That God by meanes of Con­stantine and other good Emperours, aduanced high the Bishop of Rome we deny not. And we also knowe, that those good bi­shops did much good with that their authority to the church of God, and were a great reliefe to the oppressed, a comforte to the troubled, and a good stay for religion. We yeeld moreouer that a care ouer the whole church a belongeth not to the bishop of Rome only,Annal. Ann. 187. but to euery christian, as Baronius a papist telleth vs. And as Saint Paule saith of himselfe, although hee were not an vni­uersall Bishop, or pope ouer all the church, yt that he had a care ouer all the Churches.2. Cor. 11. 28. Which care as it shoulde be in all, yet it should be greatest in them, whom God hath beautified with greatest graces of power, wisedome, knowledge, credite or any other thing, whereby they may doe good to others. So that the effect of Athanasius his wordes vnto Felix is, that as God hath inabled him, so also he should apply his greatnesse to doe him good.

We doe not yet see the Bishop of Rome to haue iurisdiction ouer the whole church, but that the greatnesse that hee hath, hee should vse it to the comfort of the godly. But indeede the Bi­shop of Rome in steed of the care that he should haue, doth exer­cise the power that he hath.

And the excercising of his power beganne somewhat soone in [Page 73] that chaire. And therefore the fathers in the sixt council of Car­thage as it seemeth, were moued in the canons of the Nicen council to alter one worde. For hauing agreed in the ninth canon or chapter of that council of Carthage to heare the Nicen decrees read, when they come to the sixt chapter, where the Nicen council hath, that the bishop of Alexandria should hane power ouer the churches of Lybia, Egipt, & Pentapolis, as the bishop of Rome hath within his libertie,Care for power. in steede of the word power, they read care? Which no doubt those godly fathers did, because they sawe how immoderately, and by what bad shifts, they did then seeke to bring vnder their subiection all o­thers. And therefore by this meanes they would teach them to whome they did graunt such honorable places, that they were called rather to a burden, then to an honour, to looke vnto their charge, rather then to ouer [...]ooke them. So then this care that the bishop of Rome should haue ouer all churches we wish also that hee would haue. And yet we doe not hereby make him, the bishop of the vniuersall church.De sententia Di­onys. Alex. episc. And for the third place out of Athanatius, it hath lesse waight then any of the rest. For be­cause some accused the bishop of Alexandria to the bishop of Rome, therefore he concludeth that the bishop of Rome is chiefe iustice aboue all, and may take vpon him to iudge all matters: but accusations are for the most priuat.Accusations prooue no iuris­diction. And who can hinder but that any may make complaint to a man that hath nothing to doe in the matter? And many such complaints wil be made, to such as will be willing to heare all matters, as were many of the B. of Rome,Epist. 52. Bellarm. argum. out of Basil. to increase their owne power. That which is alea­ged out of Basil, is a request that Basil did purpose to make to the bishop of Rome, like vnto that which Athanasius made to Felix, and therefore one answere doth serue them both. But in that epistle Basil calleth Athanasius the Top of all christi­ans, which name they would faine should be peculiar to their pope.Carmine de vita sua. Nazianzen exa­mined. That out of Gregorie Nazianzene was not woorth blotting of so much paper, For hee saieth the Citie of Rome beareth sway ouer the whol world, what is that to the church of Rome?

And that that is alleaged out of Chrysostom in the first place is not much material, because Chrisostome maketh that request [Page 74] to the B. of the west church, and not to Innocentius alone. Yea, & not Chrysostom only in the same his epistle, but Socrates al­so in his historie testifieth, that Chrysostom appealed from his aduersaries (not to the pope which he would doubtlesse haue done, if hee had taken his authoritie to haue beene such, as now the church of Rome would haue it imagined) but to the generall council. And not hee onely appealed to a council, but the multi­tude also were readie to make a tumult for him, and said it was meete the matter should be heard (not by the pope) but in a generall council.Epist. 2. ad In­nocent. Secondly out of Chrysostom he alleageth these words, we alwayes thanke you, for that you haue de­clared vnto vs your fatherly good will. What will the chari­table affection of the pope, prooue him to be head of the whole church? If it will not, this will doe no good, his third place is this,Ibidem. I intreate your watchfullnesse, that although they haue filled all with tumults: yet if they will haue their desease healed, they be neither afflicted, neither put out of mens com­panie.

Must the bishop of Rome bee the supreame head, or else this request be in vaine? He being, as it is alwaies confessed, of great authoritie, (although not so great as they imagine) might either by intreating, or by authority winne many to be of his minde, and so hinder the excommunication of Chrysostomes ad­uersaries. So that none of these arguments can conclude for the popes supremacie as we see. And yet they wring whatso­euer is said or done to the church of Rome,Why the East churches sought to the West. as if it were a strong proofe for supremacie. Whereas the godly of the east church being thus distressed, were in policie forced (and not for religi­ous causes) to seeke for helpe of the West church, and of the bishop of Rome for their owne quietnesse. And this doth appeare most plainly, in an epistle that Basil writeth vnto the bishop of the west church for their helpe,Epist. 61. and especially by the aduise that hee giueth to Athanasius to that end, wherein hee sheweth that there is no way for their safetie, but to cause the bishops of the West church to take good parte with them. And then if they chance to seeke for this at the popes hand,Epist. 48. by and by without all doubt hee must be head of the church. It maketh me weary euen but to reade their arguments. They [Page 75] doe so force their authorities that they bring, and so vnnaturally apply them,Epist. 10. Cyril exan. [...]. that it is tediousnesse to thinke of it. Such is that also that foloweth out of Ciril. For Ciril did thinke that if Ne­storius would not reuoke his heresies within the time limited by Celestine bishop of Rome, all men ought to shunne his compa­nie, as a person excommunicat and deposed.Epist. 18. And writing to Celestinnus, he doth desire to know of him, whether he thinke good, that men shuld yet communicat which Nestorius, or they should shunne his company. And what if Ciril sawe that in Ce­lestine, that he thought him worthie to be especially regarded in these matters, doth it thereupon folow, that he would haue him to haue soeuraigne iurisdiction ouer the whole church? Or if hee thinke him meete to deale in his owne matter, must he needs giue him power ouer all men, in all causes? Master Bellarmine must make new logicke, before he can prooue such bad conclu­sions.

But then to mend the matter, he bringeth in an authoritie that is not to be found in the Author that he doth aleage for it. But wee must take it vpon the credit of Thomas of Aquine. They shew that they want proofe, when they would faine call againe the things that are not to helpe their cause. As for Tho­mas we know welenough his good will to the church of Rome. For he would not onely ra [...]e out of the earth these sentences of Ciril, Locorum Theol. li. 6. cap. 5. but also as Canus reporteth of him, hee speaketh of one Maximius that saieth much for the authoritie of the bishop of Rome. Yea and he findeth much out of the council of Chalce­don. Cap. 6.

In which councill the Bishop of Rome, had his authoritie (that he sought for) much abridged. Yet I say Thomas hath found out euen in that council good stuffe, to confirme the au­thoritie of the bishop of Rome,Li. 5. ep. 14. ad Nais. that ueuer came to our hands. And no meruel: for Melchior Canus telleth vs, that Gregorie complaineth that in his dayes they were blotted out by heretiks. And I pray you, howe then did Thomas of Aquine come by them,Forged writings. who was after Gregorie almost seuen hundred yeares? Thus you may see howe they seeke by forged writings that which by authorities of credit, they can not maintaine. Well then let fained Ciril goe, and let vs see what [Page 76] Theodoret saith. He as others before him had done craueth the Popes helpe against Dioscorus. Epist. ad Leo­nem papam. And Leo the pope did for him what he could, we deny not. But yet before the councell of Chal­cedon would restore Theodoret to his place againe,Act. 8. he was for­ced by the whole councell, to shew his detestation of Nestorius, Eutiches, and all heretickes although the pope had receiued him to communion before.

And heere before I goe any further this one note I thinke necessary to be added, concerning many of the former testimo­nies.Marke what writings the church of Rome alleadgeth for her supremacy. That because they are drawen from the priuate Epistles of men distressed, seeking for helpe, and therefore they might wel be forced to write with as great humility as they could deuise to write, for to obtaine succour: it is no reason that these their for­ced petitions, and priuate requests, should be accounted as rules for catholicke religion.Lib. 3. cap. 8. Sozomen exa­mined. Then commeth in Sozomen in which he mistaketh both the place (alleadging the seuenth chapter for the eighth an errour easily committed) and the matter. For although Iulius bishop of Rome, did thinke well of the dignity of his seat, yea and in respect of his mightinesse that hee was now growen vnto, partly by the goodnesse of former Emperours, but chiefly through the dissentions of the east or greeke churches, hee was in duty also bound more then others to haue a great care ouer all churches: yet that his supremacy was not then acknowledged that very Chapter shall sufficiently testifie. For there it is re­ported, how that the bishops of the east churches (to whom Iulius had written somewhat sharpely, in the behalfe of Athanasius and others that fled to him) did make answere to Iulius, with a letter ful of tauntes and threatnings, and shewed that their chur­ches were as great and as many as his: finding fault also with Iulius for receiuing such to his communion, and such other things. So that wee see that they did not account the Bishop of Rome as supreame head of the church: neither doth Sozo­men say that Iulius his seat came to that dignity by Christes in­stitution, or by Gods law, which Bellarmine tooke in hand to proue, but hath not brought one testimony of the fathers that can performe that promise.The church of Rome pleadeth possession, not by right. They plead as the Lawyers say in pos­sessorio, they say they haue it by possession, so many haue come to the church of Rome for helpe, when they were distressed.

[Page 77] In thus many cases popes haue intermedled in other bishops charges. So they tell vs what they haue done. But the que­stion is how iustly, by what right, law or authority, they haue done many of the things that they haue done. We would haue them plead de petitorio. Let them proue their right. For it is true that long since the pride of this seat did beginne, abusing Gods good liberality, and the fauour of godly princes towarde them, still increasing in that ambitious humour, vntill they had set themselues aboue all. Which authority when they had once gotten, they did shew themselues vnsatiable and cruell, despising all authority, and making their wil to be in steede of law, as shal God willing in the proofe of their practise, which is the seconde part of this treatise, be declared. But it doth not followe, they haue done this,Concil. tom. 2. therefore they haue done well in so doing. That which is alleadged out of Acutius that Simplician the pope had care ouer all churches is much to the commendation of Sim­plician, that he had so due regard of his dutie, but this prooueth him not to haue authority ouer all because he had, or at the least should haue care ouer all.Liberatus in br [...] ­uiatio. But I muse what maister Bellarmine meaneth to tell vs a tale out of Liberatus, of a namelesse bishop of Patara. What matter is it to vs, or what strength can it bring to his cause, to know what he or other men, not knowen in the church of God, for their learning, iudgement, zeale, or such other vertues as are necessary for them that shoulde be witnesses in matters of religion, doe thinke or say? Much such proofe might be had out of the legend of lies. But that will neuer proue their doctrince to be catholicke.

Lastly the woordes of Iustitian in that hee calleth the pope Iohn the seconde,Epist. ad Ioh. Co­dice primo titulo. head of all holy churches may well bee admit­ted, as in former times that name head was often vsed, yea, and is still of vs. A man of good dexterity or countenance is called a head man among others although hee hath not authority ouer them. But such a head as now the pope is become, that will con­troll all bishops, yea depose emperours, dispence with Gods word, make new laws in the church, & haue his saying in all mat­ters, Iustinian himself could not haue liked. And it must be mar­ked, that we deny not, but a bishop of Rome (as also another mā) may welbe called head of the church, if they be indewed with [Page 78] such gifts as are to the benefit of the whole church. But we de­ny, both that the name is or ought to be peculiar to the church of Rome,How we deny the pope to be head of the church. or the bishop thereof only: and also that the authority which by that and such like names he challengeth vnto him is to­lerable in him or in any other. For indeede our contention is, whether the bishoppe of Rome haue supremacy ouer the whole church or not. Now excellent names were giuen vnto men in times past,Tom. 2 pag. 162. Pag. 263 as the name of pope, Baronius a great papist of our time, confesseth was common to all bishops.Russin. Hist. lib. 2. cap. 28. The like he also writeth of the name of vniuersall bishop. And Athanasius was called Pontifex maximus. The greatest bishop, and yet not he, but Liberius was then bishop of Rome. And for this name head (as I haue shewed) it is nothing strange in all societies, to haue a heade man, and yet he not to haue iurisdiction ouer them. By all which it appeareth, howe weake an argument may be drawen from these names which may be common to so many, to proue the supremacy which the bishop of Rome challengeth to himselfe onely.

Nowe maister Bellarmine hauing wrung what he can (which is not much) out of the fathers of the greeke church, commeth to the latin writers, to try what gleanings he can get among them. Whom I doubt not but we shall finde speaking very reuerently of the church of Rome,Bellar. arg. out of latine writers. as in truth it well deserued, because that the bishop of Rome (although he began very soone to encroche somewhat vpon other mens right, and to enlarge his power) yet he vsed his greatnesse and authority for a long time, to the main­tenance of true religion the comfort of the distressed, and to with­stande by himselfe, and other the bishops of the West church, the heresies that troubled especially the East churches. In al which things we know that by their place, for that they were bishops of the Imperiall city, and the authority that they were come vnto, by fauour of the Emperours, they were as it were ringleaders vnto others: so that although they were moued sometimes to these good things, by a desire that they had to be medling in all matters, which was one of the waies whereby they came to their greatnes: yet in that they did good vnto the church, the godly did both commend them, and also beare with them, although some­time they were too forward, and stept too farre before others. [Page 79] But when they would haue had this authority confirmed to them in councils, and established as a law of the church, then did the ancient fathers, wisely withstand their vnlawfull desires, as the vi. councils of Carthage, Why and howe although the la­tine fathers did reuerence the bi­shop of Rome. and the councill of Chalcedon doe plainly proue. So that the godly learned fathers of those times, partly to incourage them in their well doing, did giue them due commendation when they deserued it, and partly for quietnesse sake and the peace of the church, did wincke at many of their inordinate proceedings, and vnorderly attempts, so long as they were but their priuate actions; yet would not the iurisdiction of the vniuersall church. And these things being well remembred, I may I trust be shorter in answering to the particular places. And first for the place out of Cyprian, Lib 2. cap. 16. Dè Vnit Eccl. alias simp. prelat. which maister Bellar­mine prosecuteth in many words as he is forced to doe, that he may get out of him but a shew of an argument. It is answered in few words. For indeede maister Bellarmine groundeth vpon a false principle, which I dare not say that he could not but see his errour, but it is maruell if he can be ignorant of it.

The wordes wherein he especially trusteth are these.Cyprian exami­ned. This commeth to passe (that heresies growe in the church) whilst there is no returning to the beginning of the truth, neither is the head sought for, neither is the doctrine of our heauenly maister kept. Nowe by this word head he vnderstandeth the head of the church whom he maketh Peter.

Whereas it is most certaine that Cyprian doth meane nothing els here, then in another place where he endeuoureth to perswade after the same maner and by that very argument, where by the head he meaneth that which the apostles taught. For saith he if we returne to the head and beginning of the tradition of the a­postles, mans errour ceaseth. And there he teacheth vs by a similitude howe we should come to the heade, by the simili­tude I say of a conduct, wherein if the water faile we goe to the head of it, that is, to the fountaine, and so from thence examine the want of the water: so saith he, must Gods priestes goe to the beginning when there is any question of Religion. And that he meaneth that head in this place, the very wordes by him al­leadged do prooue, because the former wordes put vs in minde of returning to the originall or beginning of the trueth, and the [Page 80] wordes that follow, leade vs to the heauenly doctrine. Well then, the head in this place doth signifie the spring and fountain, from which our doctrine must beginne, and so master Bellar­mines argument is quite ouerthrowen. And hauing proued that he buildeth his reason vpon a false ground, I trust I neede not bestow any more labour to prosecute him in his wandering wordes.

Optatus is the second who speaketh nothing to helpe this desperate cause.Contrr Parme­nion. li. 2. For although he commend vnto vs that one chaire in respect of the vnitie of doctrine (for all the priests nowe saith Chrysostome must sit,Hom. 85. in Iob. 20. not vpon Moses chaire, but vpon Christs chaire) yet in the wordes alleadged by master Bellar­mine he addeth, and we haue proued that that is ours by Peter. Optatus a bishop in Affrike (not of Rome) sitteth in Peters chaire. Therefore Peters chaire and the popes chaire are not all one, vnlesse their doctrine be one. It is not tied to Rome, or to that church. But alluding to that place of Moses his chaire which our Sauiour Christ speaketh of, because the Scribes and Pharises taught that which Moses did teach.Matth. 23. 2. Optatus also saith that he doth sit in Peters chaire, because hee taught that which Peter did confesse and teach.Optatus against Peters chaire at Rome onely. Yea, and he prooueth by this ar­gument against the Donatists (who taught, that they onely were the church) that the church is also where he taught, because euen there is Peters chaire: so that if Optatus your owne wit­nesse speake truly, then you haue maruellously abused the world for many yeares, in making them beleeue that S. Peters chaire is at Rome onely. But Saint Ambrose seemeth somewhat plainer then the rest,Amb. in epist. 1. Timoth. 3. in that first place alleadged by maister Bellarmine.

The church is called Gods house, whereof Damasus is a ruler this day. But yet the words do not import any such thing, as may prooue the Supremacie of the Bishop of Rome. For, wee will not deny that the Bishop of Rome is a ruler in the church, but, that he is the only ruler we can not graunt. But Saint Ambrose expounding those wordes of Paule wherein he teacheth Timothie how to behaue himself in Gods house,Ambrose answe­red. takes occasion to shew, both what is Gods house, namely, the church, and who they are that are rulers in Gods house, namely, the bi­shops [Page 81] or pastours to whom the ministery is committed. And to make this plaine by an example, he setteth before vs the house of God at Rome, which is the church there, and the ruler of Gods house there, who is Damasus their bishop. If any man aske how it commeth to passe that he rather nameth Damasus then a­ny other bishop? Sundry reasons of it may be yeelded. First Ambrose himselfe was a bishop in Italy (for Milaine is in Ita­ly) vnder the popes wings, and therefore the bishop of Rome was the most famous bishop and better knowne to his people then any of the other patriarches, and therefore fittest for an ex­ample.

Secondly there had beene a very great schisme or strife about the popedome,Platina in the life of Damasus. one Vrsicinus standing for it against Damasus, so that many of both sides were slaine in the very church in stri­uing for it. But Damasus in the end obtaining the popedome Saint Ambrose to testifie his owne perswation, and to assure o­thers that Damasus and not Vrsicmus was bishop of Rome, although he stood for it, doth take occasion heere to name him.

Thirdly,Platina. Damasus beeing pope was accused of whoredome whereof hauing cleared himselfe, it is not vnlikely but that S. Ambrose did the rather take this occasion to pull al suspition out of other mens minds, by giuing this testimony of him. Another cause also may be added, that as it seemeth he was as learned as any bishop of Rome before him. For which S. Ambrose him­self a being a learned man, might then rather delight in naming him.

The rest of the places out of S. Ambrose haue no waight at all.Orat. in Satyrum Satyrus did aske the bishop, whether he agreed with the Catholicke bishops, that is with the Church of Rome. He mea­neth by catholicke bishops, such as held the catholicke faith, that then was maintained at Rome. If it be a good argument to say Rome is a catholicke church, therefore it must gouerne all the churches in the world: then will this also be a good argument, Hippo was a catholicke church, so was Millaine, so are also the churches that we haue allowed in England by authority, there­fore they were, and ours are heads ouer all others. And that ma­ster Bellarmine will not allow. But he asketh why the bishops are not catholickes that agree not with the church of Rome, if it [Page] be not because Rome is the head of the catholike church? I maruell much that maister Bellarmine whose wordes go for o­racles with many, will shew himselfe so ignorant of that he al­leadgeth. For if hee had read but the wordes that immediatly doe follow,Bellarmines ig­norance or false­hood. the reason is, there rendered why he asked that que­stion, namely because the church there was in a schisme. For one Lucifer had seperated himself from their communion. Lo here M. Bellarm. he dreameth not of any headship of that church, but asketh this question whether he helde the faith that then was preached at Rome.Athanasius. And Athanasius in his creede speaketh in this sence of a catholike faith. Yea the name of catholike was also as it were a note of their profession. That whereas the Do­natists gloried, that they onely had the true church, the catho­likes on the contrary would be known by their name, that in a­ny place of the world, they might be of the true church. Yea there were Emperours that made a lawe,The name of Ca­tholike. that whosoeuer belee­ued the one godhead in trinity and equal maiesty of the father, the sonne, and the holy ghost should be called Christians, and Catholikes, Lib. 7. cap. 4. as their law doth testifie. Yea Sozomen repor­teth of a lawe made by the Emperour that all should beleeue the lawe deliuered by Peter the head of the apostles (but howe he may be called head of the apostles I haue shewed before) and that nowe Damasus bishop of Rome, and Peter of Alexandria doe holde and that they onely that worship the trinitie with like honoure, should be called the catholike church. And doeth mai­ster Bellarmine to make his bad proofe seeme better, aske howe they may be called catholikes, that agree with the church of Rome, vnlesse it be in this respect, that they take it to be the head of the catholike church? heere are catholikes we see and yet not bound to beleeue that head.

After he alleadgeth two other places of like force.De Sacram, li. 3. cap. 1. The effect of them is, that he woulde followe the paterne of the church of Rome. So woulde I also if I had liued in those daies, when they sincerely held the faith committed to them by Gods worde. And he doubtlesse, if he sawe the superstition, and Idolatry, and treasons, that vnder coulour of religion, are hat­ched there in our daies, he would thinke euen the cotten ruines of Rome, to bee ouer good, to bee a cage for so badde birdes. [Page] But to follow their example, is not to yeelde vnto them pow­er ouer vs.

To go forward, out of saint Ierome hee reasoneth thus: Saint Ierome for pope Damasus answered:Epist, ad Alg. de Monogam. the Synodicall consultations of the East and West, therefore they that sought for answere from the seate of Rome in their matters acknow­ledged the superioritie thereof. If I should tell Maister Bel­larmine againe, that Maister Caluine in his time, and Mai­ster Beza in his time, haue answered more matters and questi­ons that came from sundry of the reformed Churches, and some particular men, then many of the popes of that time, yet I am sure he wil neuer confesse them to be vniuersall Bishoppes, for that. No more neede wee graunt to him, that the Pope is a vniuersall Bishop,Ad Damas. ep. de nomine hypostas. because many questions were mooued to him. Againe, Saint Hierome confesseth himselfe to be Da­masus his sheepe, and that hee is of communion with him. Alas, what childish proofes are these? May not Hierome confesse himselfe to depend vpon Damasus, but that hee must thereby tie all others likewise to be subiect vnto him? It is a shame for men so to deceiue the world, aud to hasten euen their owne damnation by abusing the simple in such sort. They crie it out in euery corner, that there is no saluation to be hoped for, vnlesse they doe acknowledge the Bishoppe of Rome to bee head of their Church: and yet are they not able to yeelde so much as one good reason out of the Scriptures or ancient wri­ters of the purer age for proofe of their doctrine. It must bee beleeued as an article of faith, and yet they coulde shewe no ground, no warrant for it.

Out of saint Augustine is alleadged, that in the Church of Rome,Epist. 162. the principalitie of Peters chaire hath alwayes flou­rished. Augustine and Optatus as they were in one time, so were they of one minde. And as before out of Optatus I she­wed, and that by Christes testimony, that the Apostles chaire is his doctrine, so here doeth it signifie. And saint Augustine his meaning is, that Rome hath especially kept the Apostles doctrine or faith, the which in Saint Augustines dayes, might truely bee verified. Againe, out of Saint Augustine epist. 92. he desireth pope Innocent to helpe them against the [Page 84] Pelagians, which maruellously troubled. Palestine and Af­frike.

Now out of this will he conclude the popes Supremacie. But saint Augustine himselfe denyeth that hee had any such meaning, in that he was one of that sixt councill of Carthage that so stiffely denied supremacie vnto the pope, seeking it so ear­nestly, and by very false practises. And the Bishop of Rome, was then of great abilitie to doe good, as also any other may be, and yet not haue iurisdiction ouer them that seeke for that good at his hands. I would haue them to bring some plaine proofe, and not so to stand vpon strange coniectures.Epist. 157. Againe, Sozi­mus bishop of Rome willed hini to go to a councill at Cesarea, and hee therefore saide that hee must needes goe. If Sozimus did commaund, and Augustine would not stand vpon his right in such a matter, where perchance his going might be profitable to Gods church, yet that would not make Sozimus head of the church. No, at that time they did not gather any such hard con­clusions. For although they would not refuse to do good, euen being more imperiously commaunded then reason would, yet supremacie (as I haue shewed) they would not acknowledge in the Bishop of Rome, but rather were content to bee at great charges to conuince the popes falshoode.

In the last two places saint Augustine commendeth the bishop of Rome,Ad Bonis, l. 1. c. 1. in that being so high as he was, yet he would be friendly to them that were humble or lowe, and then con­fesseth euery Bishoppe to be high, yet him to be higher. A man may be friend to them that are lower then he is: and one Bi­shop may be higher than others, and yet not haue iurisdiction ouer them.Prosper de ingr. Higher, I say in gifts, credite, place or many o­ther waies.

In England we see differences of bishoprickes,Prosper exami­ned. where yet the one hath not iurisdiction ouer the other. Now for Prosper, it were hard if his poeticall amplifications should be able to car­ry away the weight of so great a cause. But for his words if he say that Rome is Peters seat in respect of the doctrine that there was taught and maintained, as before Optatus and Augu­stine (of whome he was a great follower) haue done, wee yeelde vnto him. Otherwise I leaue the godly Reader to the [Page 85] arguments before alleadged, to consider what he should think concerning this point, whether Peter was Bishop there or not. And where he saith that Rome is made vnto the world the head of pastorall honour, wee yeelde vnto that also, that at that time there was no church, that either more sincerely did keepe that which the apostles taught, or had more credit and authoritie a­mongst other churches then Rome had, in respect that she was able and willing to do good vnto many other.

But where he saith that what by armes shee could not, by re­ligion shee hath subdued: is not simply true. For there are ma­nie that neuer were nor will be (by likely hood) subdued to Ro­mish religion. But in some respect we also confesse that to be so, in that religion subdueth the heart, and winneth the affection of men to bee subiect, whereas that outward force can onely preuaile against the outward man.De persecution [...] Wandalica. Now for Victor Vticen­sis who calleth the church of Rome head of all other churches, I haue often shewed that it may truly so be called in respect of the authoritie which by many occasions it had goten, not in re­spect of any inrisdiction that Christ gaue vnto it, more then to o­ther. The next is Vyncentius Lirinensis, Vincent. Lyri­nens. in commo­nit. who alluding vnto the name, or indeede rather giuing vnto Rome that name, that was commonly giuen vnto it, saith that the head of the world gaue testimonie vnto it (meaning the council of Ephesus.) You see saith master Bellarmine that the bishop of Rome is called head of the world.Vincent wrung to a wrong sense. Nay you see howe our popes catholiks in­croch more and more, for that vnsatiable gulfe of the church, of Rome, which will neuer haue honour and authoritie enough. Who euer before master Bellarmine hath called the pope the head of the world? He hath wont to be but head of the church. But I feare that if his kingdome continue a while Acharonta mouebit, hee will keepe a stir in hell also. But Vincensius giu­eth no such name to Iulius bishop of Rome. He would not be so iniurious to the ciuil authoritie he had learned better then so, to giue to Caesar that that belongeth to Caeser, and to God that that is Gods, although the church of Rome might quite blotte out of their bookes that lesson, for any regarde that they haue to keepe it.

As for Vincentius, his meaning is plaine enough to them [Page 86] that will see the trueth. For hauing spoken of sundry places from whence learned men came to that councill of Ephesus, first out of the East, then also out of the West churches, he nameth Iulius bishop of the citty of Rome, which citty he cal­leth the head of the worlde, as immediately after he calleth Carthage one of the South, and Millaine one of the North, the sides of the world.

But if he had made so very great accompt of the church of Rome, as in these daies men would haue vs to doe, he would haue had perchance some more regard in placing that church in some other order, then to make it almost the last that he men­tioneth.

Out of Cassiodor a senatour and a great officer in Rome maister Bellarmine alleadgeth somewhat.Lib. 11. Epist. 2. ad Ioh. papam. You (saieth he to Iohn Bishop of Rome) sit as watchmen ouer christian people, as you are called father you loue all.

I see nothing heere that can helpe maister Bellarmine or his cause. For who euer did thinke otherwise, then that the Bishoppe of Rome, was a watchman ouer christian peo­ple? Or who will say that the Pope hath not or at the least shoulde haue a fatherly affection towardes all?If he commende his cure, how proueth that his power? Well it fol­loweth. It is our part to looke to somewhat, you looke to all.

Cassiodor liuing vnder the popes nose, is content either by this praising of him to teach him what care he indeede should haue, not onely to doe good to the people of Rome where he was Bishop, but also as occasions should be offered to helpe o­thers also. Or els it may be that hee giueth him greater praise then he deserueth.

But what is this for the popes supremacy? Must not the building needes fall that standeth vpon such weake propes? Much like is that which followeth that the seat which is pope Iohns peculiar place, is giuen generally to the whole worlde, that is as I take it to doe good to all. If a Romane magi­strate to the bishop of Rome doe extoll more then in truth he may, the power of that citty, or els tell how farre their benefits doe extende, must this be so strained and wrung to prooue su­premacie?

[Page 87] The last testimony alleadged by maister Bellarmine dothValentinianus Theodos. in prae­amb. Concil. Chalcedonens. so little helpe his cause, that if he had done wisely he should ne­uer haue spoken of it. For by that Epistle and others that are set before that councill of Chalcedon it may easily appeare, that Leo Bishop of Rome did then bestirre him vsing the discen­tion of the East church as a meane to increase his owne autho­ritie. For it is most plaine and cannot be denied, that after­wardes in that councill,Leo earnestly seeketh supre­macy. by his legates, he sought the supre­macy very earnestly and in sundry of his Epistles disanulleth that the councill did against it. And in these Epistles he ma­keth mone to many to procure Theodosius the Emperour to stand his friend.

An [...] in this Epistle here cited by maister Bellarmine, Va­lentinian sheweth howe Leo came vnto him, told him of the di­uision of the East church, and great troubles there. For in­deede Flauianus a catholike bishop was deposed by Diosco­rus, and so cruelly handled, that he died thereof within three daies.

Well Valentinian maketh petition to Theodosius, That (the bishop of Rome) may haue place and power, to iudge of the faith and of the priests. Which request made by Va­lentinian, in the letter which Valentinian confesseth that Leo requested him to write, so iumping with that which afterwards Leo in the councill practised, may much perswade vs to thinke, that he solicited Valentinian the Emperour, either plainly or couertly, to moue this in his behalfe. Well then this being but a request made that it may so be, that cannot proue that it was so, but contrary.

And what reason doth Valentinian the Emperour an espe­ciall friend to the bishop of Rome, vse to commend his suite. An­tiquity gaue him principality of priesthood ouer all. Wherein I first note that not Christ, but ancient custome, is pretended to haue priuiledged him.

And here againe marke howe this agreeth with that which was afterwards in the council of Chalcedon obiected by Pas­chasnus, Supremacy clai­med by custome not by gods law. legate for Leo this bishop of Rome. The church of Rome (saith Paschasinus) alwaies had the supremacy.Act. 16. But this his allegation was proued false.

[Page 88] But the allegations of Valentinian the popes solicitour in this cause, and of Poschasimus the popes legate being so like, it maketh me the bolder to coniecture, that they were both for­ged in one shop, because they haue both one stampe.

Thus haue I taken a view of all such testimonies as are al­leadged by maister Bellarmine out of them, that liued within 600. yeares of Christ, for to establish the pride of that Romish seat. I haue of purpose omitted iii. or iiii. by him alleadged, because they wrote after the time that Phocas that murthering traitor, (who killed Mauritius his Lorde and maister for his Empire, hauing first killed before his face his wife and fiue of his children,) had granted vnto Boniface bishop of Rome third of that name, to be supreme head ouer the whole church. Where­in although I haue endeuoured to be short, yet I trust it plainly enough appeareth to them that will not shut their eies against the truth, that although the church of Rome had indeede in re­gard of her constancy in the truth, and power which shee grewe vnto by many occasions, being in the imperiall citty, great au­thority amongst all other churches: and although learned men were by their distressed estates forced many times in their priuat seates, to yeelde to that church more interest to meddle in their matters, then of right it had: yet it cannot appeare by any thing that they bring out of any approued record, within the compasse of those yeares, that the church of Rome was either by Gods lawe, appointed the head ouer others, which is indeede the point that they should proue, or that by common consent of the godly it was so catholickly receiued. And yet if this latter could haue more apparent proofe, then euer Rome or Rhemes can afforde in this cause, they should gaine nothing, but that good men haue either ordained or tolerated such a state. Which howsoeuer it might seeme tolerable, when many good men possessed that place: yet that the church, should be subiect to such as nowe for the most part sit in that seat, no christian heart can well endure it. But now this labour being taken in hand, to trie the popes title vnto the supremacy, or how he pleadeth, or what claime he can make: I must needes giue warning to the christian reader, to marke how that as maister Bellarmine hath said little, or ra­ther nothing at all, to prooue this authority of the bishop of [Page 89] to be grounded vpon Gods lawe: so be hath not brought one council within the said six hundred yeres or any thing sufficient­ly materiall out of the fathers of that time to proue that by mans lawe he was decreed so to be, but onely somtimes perchance by particular men vsed, as if he had authoritie ouer all. And shall this be accounted a catholike doctrine, that neither God nor man, for six hundred yeares after Christ, commaunded to be be­leeued? If there come no better euidence then master Bellar­mine can bring, without all doubt the pope will be found, to be but an intruder into other mens right, a vsurper of other mens iurisdiction.

But master Bellarmine will helpe his former want, with a new supply.Li. 1. cap. 17. Obiect. of Bellar. He affirmeth very boldly, as hee doth often in other matters, that we knowe neither the time wherein, neither the author by whom, this supremacie had beginning. Yet it may be that we shall gesse shrewdly at it.Answere. But first wee must vnderstand that the roote of this supremacie that is the pride and ambition of heart that was in many of the popes, was ly­ing long in the ground before it did sprowt and plainly shew it selfe, and when it grew that it might be seene, yet was it not perfected in a long time after. But it did plainly shew it selfe in the time of Phocas of whome I spake before. For he with much adoe ordained,Plat. in Bonif. 3. that the bishop of Rome should be called and counted the head of all churches, as many of the popes frends tell vs, and among other Platina. A very fitt patron, for so proude a prelat. And after that the pope had gotten by the emperours decree, this glorious title, yet he could not present­ly get quiet possession of the same, but the bishop of Constanti­nople did still striue for that name.Omph. annot. in Bonif. 3. Vntil at the length, they were both content to winke, and the one to suffer the other to be be called vniuersall bishop. So that both of them had that name, and were so called. And nowe the bishop of Rome hauing ob­taiued thus much in the west church, that hee in all councils and meetings was chiefe, and that they should submit themselues to him. Before it was long hee had taken so good roote aud be­gane to grow so mighty, that he durst alter and chaunge, giue to and take from men at his pleasure, and to turne all things vp­side downe, yea and in the end, to cheeke the greatest monarchs. [Page 90] But of these matters I shall if God will haue better occasion to intreate in the second parte of this treatise. Now I will only say that they were comme to such power as Platina writeth of Boniface the eight,Plat. in Bonif. that they would rather put feare into the hearts of emperours, kings, princes, nations, and people then religion. And thus when they had bene in increasing and grow­ing in strength, for the space of at the least eight hundred yeares, at length in the council of Florence we find this their soueraigne and supreme power confirmed in these words.Concil. Florent. We define that the holy apostolike seat, and bispp of Rome hath the suprema­cie in the whole world. So that although we cannot perfectly say, when this poyson of pride beganne in the church of Rome, yet you see we can perfectly enough tel when it beganne to shew it selfe, and when it was made an ecclesiasticall drecrees. Neither is that of any waight which master Bellarmine alleag­eth out of Gregorie to the contrarie,Lib. 7. epist. 63. that the church of Constan­tinople is vnder the church of Rome. For he cannot meane thereby the church of Rome should haue supreame authori­tie ouer it and all other churches, seeing that no man more then Gregorie inueieth against the name of vniuersall bishop, but his meaning is onely this, that the church of Constantinople is not of so good account or authoritie in meetings or assemblies as that of Rome. Which beeing applied to our question proueth nothing. For to prooue that the church of Rome may sit, or go, or write his name, before the bishop of Constantino­ple, is not to prooue him to haue iurisdiction ouer him. That which out of Iustinian he alleageth,Pag. 98. is answered before, as that also that hee bringeth out of the epistle of Valentinian to Theodosius, sauing that master Bellarmine incrocheth some­what, and taketh more then is giuen him.Pag. 112. For where Va­lentinian saith that Antiquitie hath giuen that to Rome, master Bellarmine seeth that will not serue his turne, to prooue it to haue beene from Christ, from whom onely they can claime it, if by the lawe of God they will haue it, and there­fore hee saith not as Valentinian doth that it hath beene of old time,Bellarmine ad­deth to Valenti­nians words, or changeth them. but alwayes. And so wresteth his words quite out of tune. And it is but a foolish shift whereby they seeke to per­vert the truth and by these forced gloses, to corrupt the words of [Page 91] almost all stories, when they denied Phocas first to haue giuen supremacie to the pope,Bellar. lib. 2. de pontif. Rom. c. 17 he did (if you will trust master Bellar­mine) but declare it and did not giue it. Platina saith that the pope obtained this of Phocas to be called and counted head,In Bonif. 3. and so doth Sigebert: Cron. Euseb. and Eusebius saith that by the consent of Pho­cas it was so instituted. And Beneuenutus Imolensis a storie cō ­mended by pope Pius the second, by his adding to the same, the liues of foure emperors, saith that Phocas first obtained that Rome should be head of all churches. If he First obtained this title to Rome, if he did institute it, if the pope obtained this of Phocas, then let the indifferent reader iudge, how vntrewly master Bellarmine saith that Phocas did but declare this thing, and that it was before. Yea what needed this any declaration of of the emperour, if the church had receiued it as a catholike doc­trine. Or if it be not a catholike doctrine, what meaneth master Bellarmine, to make so false braggs as he sometimes doth, of the consent of fathers in this doctrine. And thus I trust I haue layed open the vanitie of the proofe, and the weake­nesse of the argument, whereby they indeuoure to strengthen and establish, the tyranous soueraigntie of the church of Rome. For if Peter had no such iurisdiction ouer others, hee could not giue it to any other. If his beeing bishop of Rome, haue not any such ground, but that it may iustly be doubted of, and strong presumptions to the contrarie: then is not the popes succession of Peter, so certaine, as they would haue it thought. Yea and if Peter were bishop of Rome and if hee had such soueraigntie: howe do they proue that it is bequeathed to them, to what per­son, howe in what words, at what time, in what place, be­for what witnesses? Al which things how weakely they prooue, hitherto I haue declared. And yet to goe further, admitte, that Peter had such iurisdiction, which cannot bee prooued, but I admit I say that hee had it, admit also that hee could, and did, leaue the same to the bishop of Rome, which we also iustly denie: must it therefore cleaue so fast to that chaire in Rome,If iurisdiction were had, yet it might be lost. that it can not for any cause bee altered? Must it be so hereditarie to his successours, if they had beene his successours that are bishops of Rome, that they could not forfet it for any [Page 92] terspasse, that it may not be taken from them, for any offence? God forbid that wee should be so foolish, as to tie God to anie place or people, to any sect or succession in such sort, as that howsoeuer men doe abuse his graces, or their owne callings, yet still they must haue the place that once they haue gotten, and they must serue him in that place, whether he will or not, as though they had it by euerlasting patent.Exod. 28. 1. Did not God chuse to be his hie priest Aaron, and his sonnes by name Nadab, A­bihu, Eleazar and Ithamar to serue in the priestes office? No man can deny it. And yet Nadab and Abihu for offering onely with strange fire (many greater offences then that,Leuit. 10. 1. Priests for their sinnes punished. are com­mitted in the church of Rome) were burnt with fire from hea­uen, to shew that God is not so in bondage to them whome hee hath placed in such roomes, that hee must haue their seruice whether hee will or not. Yea, and didde the priesthoode conti­nue alwayes in Aarons line, vntill the very time that the Le­uiticall priesthoode was vtterly abolished? No verily. For Herod set vp priests at his pleasure, when he came to be made king of Iewry, so that then the line of Aaron was vtterly ex­tinct, concerning the priesthoode, and they that afterwards were priests were not of the same. Where then is the choice that God made of Aarons posteritie to serue him? And what greater pro­mise can the church of Rome finde made vnto Peter (I say not to them, for they had none made) then was made vnto Phi­nehas, euen a couenant of the priests office for euer? [...]um. 25. 13. And yet we see this was not onely altered now, when the priesthoode was quite gone from Aarons posteritie, but also euen long be­fore, when the priesthoode was giuen vnto Eli that was the son of Ithamar, and taken from the posteritie of Phinehas, so that, not so much as his sonne succeeded him.

And concerning Eli the priest,1. [...]. 2. 30. the priest, the Lord had said, that he and his house should haue walked before God for euer, (meaning in the priestes office.) But when God saw how Eli did wincke at the great disorders of his sonnes, whereby Gods seruice was hindered,31 then hee let Eli to vnderstand, that hee would cutte off his authoritie, and stirre himselfe vp a faithfull Priest, that shoulde doe according to his heart, and according to his minde.

[Page 93] And this was performed when Abiathar was put out of the35 priesthoode by Salomon, and Zadoc was made Priest in his steede.2. Kings 2. 27, 35 And of this Zadoc it is said by God himselfe, by that messenger or man of God that was sent to Eli. I will builde him (meaning Zadoc) a sure house,1. Sam. 2. 35. and he shall walke before mine annointed for euer. And yet (as is before declared) the priesthoode was taken from his line also, so that there were di­uers hie priests that were not of his house. If nowe God in his iust iudgement might, and in his vpright and faultlesse iu­stice did, take from them, that which they might as assuredly haue claimed to themselues and their posteritie, as euer Peter might claime such soueraigne iurisdiction, to him and his suc­cessours, so that they haue their light put out, and their can­dlesticke remooued: how much lesse may they claime any per­petuitie to rule ouer Gods people, that can pretend almost no colour of title for the same?God left Silo. What, is Rome any better then Silo? It pleased God there to dwell many yeeares, he made it as it were his tent among men,1. Sam. 4. Psal. 78. 60. Ier. 7. 12. God calles it his place, where hee set his name at the beginning. And yet was it in the ende made a by-word among the people, that God when hee will threaten his grieuous wrath,14 saieth hee will doe as hee did to Silo.

And againe,Ierem. 26. 6. I will make this house like Silo, and will make this city a curse to all the nations of the earth: because he forsooke the habitation of Silo,Psal. 78. 60. the tabernacle where he dwelt among men. Let them that would so faine tie vs to that Ro­mish chaire, shew that euer God sate so in it, or said so much of it, as hee hath spoken of Silo, and when they haue so done, yet can they haue no greater interest in God than Silo had,Ierem. 7. 12. from which God departed, for the wickednesse of the people of Israel. And shall we thinke that hee will rest in that pollu­ted nest, or dwell in that vncleane denne, where Gods name is most horribly blasphemed, with superstitions and idolatries a­boue measure? If hee haue forsaken Israel, can hee delight in Italy.

If hee haue left Ierusalem, will hee tarry at Rome? For euen Ierusalem that holy citie:Ierusalem for sin forsaken, and the temple. nay, the Temple there, which was the glory of that people, and the wonder of the worlde, [Page 94] which had so many promises of Gods fauour, so many tokens of Gods good liking of it, (for the Lorde had chosen Zion, and loued to dwell therein, saying, This my rest for euer, heere will I dwell, for I haue a delight therein) Psalme one hundred thirtie two, the thirteene and foureteene verses, euen that Temple (I say) which God himselfe commaunded to bee made, and chose for his ownne house, was not only destroyed by the Babylonians, and afterwards being built againe) by the Romaines, so that not one stone was left vppon an other, but also God left the place it selfe, and cast off that people, for being a people vnto him, as the Apostle Saint Paule to the Romanes in the eleuenth chapter telleth vs, and experience proclaimeth it. Yea, where is the promise concerning the flesh that was made vnto Abraham, I will bee thy God, and the God of thy seede? Genesis the seuenteenth chapter and seuenth verse. What is become of that peculiar people of God, the Lordes owne inheritance, the people that he chose to set his name among them, the vine that hee brought out of Egypt? Were they not many times for their sinnes, a pray vnto their enemies, a reproch among the people? Hath not the wild bore out of the wood so deuoured the same, that not so much as one roote of it is knowen to grow there? In so much as the pro­phet Esay in their names maketh a iust and true complaint saying, The people of thy holinesse haue possessed it but a little while, for our aduersaries haue troden downe thy sanctuarie: We haue beene as they ouer whom thou neuer barest rule, and vpon whom thy name was not called, Esay the sixtie three chap­ter and eighteene and nineteene verses. What then, is the pro­mise of God of none effect? Will not God be as good as his word? Yes doubtlesse, he can not lie, hee will not deceiue vs. But all such promises haue a secret condition of seruing God to be vnderstoode.

And if we on our part (I will not say performe the conditi­on, for we can not doe it) but if we will striue and indeuoure earnestly to fulfill it, no doubt but hee will assist vs with his good grace, and embrace vs, with his endlesse and infinit mer­cies. But if we hearken onely to that he promiseth, and re­garde not that which he requireth, we deceiue our selues with a [Page 95] vaine expectation of that that belongeth not to vs.A similitude. God dealeth with vs as a good maister dealeth with his seruant. First hee hireth him to be his seruant, and whatsoeuer promises of good turnes he afterwardes maketh vnto him, they depend vpon that first couenant, if he serue him diligently. If then a master pro­mise to his seruant, to do him some great pleasure, may that seruant neglect his dutie, loiter & linger about his worke, leaue his businesse vndone, despise his maisters commaundement and yet say within himselfe, my maister oweth me a good turne? He may not, there is no reason to moue him to it. If then the church of Rome claime such promises and priuiledges to belong to them, as they pretend they haue, yet they might long since, by the abusing of their authority, and other good graces and gifts of God, haue forfeited, and lost the same. As we haue to see most plainly in the example of the Leuits who were of Aarons time, to whom it did belong by right of inheritance as it were, and succession to be priests vnto God.Leuiticall priests for sin disgraded. Ezech. 44. 12. And yet when they sinned a­gainst the Lord, and had no regard to keepe couenant with him, of them he saith I haue lift vp my hand against them, and they shall beare their iniquity, and they shall not come neare vnto me, to doe the office of the priest vnto me, neither shall they come neare vnto any of my holy things, in the most holy place, but they shall beare their shame, and their abominations which they haue committed. The like depriuation from their charge, and disgrading them of their priesthoode,Hos. 4. 6. we reade of in Hosea the prophet: Because thou hast refused knowledge, I wil also refuse thee that thou shalt be no priest to me, and seeing thou hast for­gotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

May he cast off his priestes, whome himselfe appointed to be his priestes, who had that office by succession, and there­fore we cannot doubt of their calling?The popes cal­ling is many times by wicked meanes. And yet must hee be tied to them that by briberie, violence and many vile prac­tises, as poysenings, couenantes with the Deuill, and such other lewde meanes, doe possesse that seate, and there­fore haue noe shewe of lawfull calling, and when they are in it, doe nothing lesse then set foorth Gods trueth, main­taine his glorie. or thinke of Gods lawe? No no, he is nowe as free as euer he was, to chuse him such seruantes, [Page] as are according to his owne heart he is no more bound to dwell still at Rome, then hee was not to remoue from Ierusalem. The one place is alreadie destroied with a perpetuall destructi­on: For the other vnlesse it amend, there is reserued a more heauie iudgement. And vpon this point I haue staied some­what the longer, not onely for their sakes that imagin the pope cannot erre or be remoued, but to admonish euen vs also, that professe the gospell that vnlesse we repent, wee shall all perish likewise.Luke 13. 3. We are the figtree, for which the dresser of the vine­yard,Luke 13. 6. 7. An admonition [...] to the professors of the gospel. intreateth that yet this fourth yeare we may be spared (for we haue beene three long yeares, yea three times twelue yeares vnfruitfull. Our owner looked for figes but we yeld none, for grapes,Esay 5. but we beare none, but sower ones.) Now is the time wherein much digging, and dunging, is bestowed vpon vs. If we continue still fruitfesse, as we haue beene, there is no hope of mercie, but without sparing we must be cut downe. and so shall be cast into the vuquenchable fire. And this is in trueth a more christian and necessarie collection, and more agreeable to Gods iustice and to the whole course of scripture,Leuit. 26. Deut. 28. 2, Thessa. 1. 5, 6, 7 which promi­seth good things, to them that walke in the feare of God, and threatneth Gods wrath, to them that are disobedient, and delight in sinne:Praes [...]t. in lib. pontif. Rom. then that which master Bellarmine gathereth, out of the sinnes and schisms of the popes. For hereby will he proue, that the church of Rome is the true church, because they haue had very many most grieuous schismes, euen among the popes themselues (now where is the vnitie that so much they bragge of?)

And because there haue beene many wicked popes, amongst whome himselfe nameth Steuen the sixt Leo the fifth Christo­pher the first,Bad Popes are as pearles to beautifie the church of Rome. Sergius the third, Iohn the twelfth, with others not a few as his owne words are. And yet notwithstanding that they haue had many vices (as hee saith) the glorie of that seate is increased, and amplified thereby greatly. Indeede such pear­les, doe best become such swines snowts. But what maketh master Bellarmine to like the better of the Romish church, and the rather to be induced to imagin, that it is a true church, because euen the heades thereof, haue beene so bad compa­nions, and so abounding in all wickednesse?

[Page] Forsooth because if the bishop of Rome had not beene of Gods appointment (saith he) and that church the true church, it coulde not haue stood and continued so long, being so full fraught with so many sinnes. But that is it that is in question whether the church of Rome be the true church or not. We deny it, wee finde not in it the ancient faith, the doctrine of the apostles, the sincere word. Wee see not there, the pure administration of Gods holy Sacraments. They teach vs outward hypocrisie for true holines, foolish toyes, for spirituall worshipping.

These and such like things doe strongly perswade vs, that God hath done to Rome as he hath done to Silo and to Ierusa­lem long since, and will he prooue it to be the true church because the bishops are euill? Now if the name and outward shew of a church, haue so blinded the eies of maister Bellarmine, that hee will, that it must needs be as it is called, that is to say, the catho­licke church,The name of the church is often where the church is not. I would haue him looke to Ierusalem, how in the time of Christ, when the church was in them that followed Christ, yet the name and outward glory of the church, remained with the priests, and that company, which were the greatest ene­mies to Christ and his church.

As therefore we see not in the church of Rome when we try their doctrines, any probability that they are the true church of Christ: so we set this downe as the infallible course of his iudg­ments, with whom it is counted a righteous thing, to set him­selfe against such as delight in sinne, that he that spared not the angels that left their first estate, neither delighted in his owne people whom he had brought out of Aegypt when they sinned a­gainst him,Iude. 5. 6. will haue no pleasure in the church of Rome any lon­ger, then shee hath pleasure in his law,Reuel. 2. 5, 16. Reuel. 3. 16. but will remooue their candlesticke, fight against them with the sword of his mouth, and spew them out, when they reiect his truth.

Thus then we see that God left the priests, whom he had ap­pointed, the people, whom he had brought out of Aegypt, and ta­ken to be his peculiar inheritance, the place, that hee had chosen, the temple, that hee commaunded to be made, because of their sinnes.

Let these things make vs with indifferent iudgement, and without partialitie to trie, whether God be also departed from [Page 98] that church of Rome or not. For there is no doubt, but if any people whatsoeuer, sinnes as they did, they may also be puni­shed as they were: But that church of Rome hath sinned, in as abundant measure, as euer did Ierusalem, as themselues and their owne stories doe shew, therefore why should they flatter themselues imagining that God will not deale with her, as he hath dealt with others.

And here wee may consider howe vntrue that popish po­sition is, that the church of Rome, or the Bishoppe of Rome can not erre. Can hee sinne? They confesse that hee can not. Yea, and their owne sinnes doe record such sinnes of theirs, as ascend vp before the Lord, and cry vnto God for vengeance. No doubt then but such may erre, and fall into heresies also. For it is truely said of Saint Augustine, that men by their sinnes doe fall into heresies, and heresies are the very punish­ment for sinne. For he that is the iust iudge, must needes poure foorth his wrath,Rom. 1. 18. vpon such as detaine the truth in vn­righteousnesse, and vpon such as knowe God by his workes, but will not glorifie,Verse 21. 23. him as God, and therefore in their excesse of folly doe turne the glorie of the incorruptible God, into the similitude of corruptible man, yea and of things most base and vile, for man to worship.

Thus then wee see howe sinne deserueth, that God in his wrath shoulde strike with blindnesse, such as do delight therein. For when the loue of the trueth is not receiued, God sendeth vnto such as refuse the trueth, strong illusions, that they should beleeue lies, Thessalo. 2. 10. 11. And if you would haue ex­ample thereof, none is better then Salamon, who was for wisedome the wonder of the world, and yet when he gaue him­selfe to sinne with women, he was by that meanes drawen to i­dolatrie: In somuch as Nehemiah, 1. Kinb. 12. 4. fearing lest for the like offence, the like iudgement of God, should fall vpon the people of his time,Nehem, 13. 26 warneth them by the example of Salomon to take heede. Did not (saith he) Salomon king of Israel sinne by those things? And Sathan knew well enough, that this was the readiest way, to drawe men to idolatrie, (which is deede dete­stable heresie) by moouing them to carnall and filthie adulte­rie.

[Page 99] Therfore also he preuaileth against Gods people by that wic­ked practise.Num. 25. 1. Shall wee then thinke, that the church of Rome, (whose sinnes are greater then were the sinnes of Sodome and Gomorah) cannot be left vnto it selfe, and plunged in errour? Or that the pope cannot erre, whose wicked doings are as ex­cessiue as his power is great? Master Bellarmine in his booke of the bishop of Rome, taketh great paine to prooue that the pope cannot erre. But euery bodie may see by his doubtfull setting it downe, that he cannot well tell what to affirme of it. For he will not consent with such Romish catholicks as teach that the pope may erre, and also teach heresie, if hee define any thing out of a councill.De pontif. Ro [...] li. 4. cap. 2. And hee dare not agree with Pighius, but reiecteth his opinion, who although that the pope cannot be an hereticke, or teach heresie openly though he alone define of any thing.

But master Bellarmine will walke in a middle path which is this: that whether, the Pope may bee an hereticke or not, he cannot set down any heresie, to be beleeued of the whole church, wherein this conditionall manner of speaking, (if or whether he be an hereticke or not) doeth shewe his doubtfulnesse in this question. But because he is perchance in the next chapters e­specially in the fift chapter of a more resolute opinion, I vrge not this point any further. But this is his flat resolution,Li. 4. de Rom. pontif. cap. 3 that when the pope teacheth the whole church hee cannot erre by any meanes, in the thing belonging to faith. No neither yet in pre­cepts of manners,cap. 5 which are prescribed to the whole church, and which are of things necessarie to saluation, or for such things as are of themselues good or euill. Further also hee affirmeth that it is proueable, and may godlily be beleeued (for I set downe his words) that hee can not onely not erre, as hee is pope, but also as hee is a particular man, hee cannot hee an hereticke, in beleeuing any thing obstinatly against the faith. Whereby it appeareth plainly that master Bellarmine holdeth, that the pope can neither erre at all, in faith or precept of maners, as he teacheth the whole church: neither can he be an ob­stinat hereticke as he is but a priuat man, not considering him as pope.

Against which doctrine I briefely oppose 2. or 3. arguments.

[Page 100] The first is that which immediatly before I touched. Hee may sinne they deny it not:That the pope may erre. Arg. 1. therefore he may also fall into here­sie. Which thus I proue.

The selfesame spirit which is the spirit of truth,The spirit that teacheth truth doth also sancti­fie. is also the spirit of sanctification, as powerfull to worke the one effect as the other. And he that praied not for Peter alone but for al the a­postles that their faith should not faile, although the words Sa­than desired to sift you are directed to Peter (as to one perchance bolder then the rest, and proud of the promises that were made) to keepe him vnder, as Theoph. writeth euen he I say prayeth also for all vnto his father,Theo. in Luc. 22. Ioh. 17. 17. Ioh. 14. 16, 17. Psal. 25. 9. 2. Cor. 3. 5. That he would sanctifie them with his truth. The same father also, from whom must come the spirit of truth, will as Dauid assureth vs, guide the humble in his way, which thing the same prophet often praieth for) be­cause of our selues, we are not sufficient so much as to thinke a good thought but our sufficiency is of God. And why doth Gods spirit lighten our harts, and instruct our consciences, if not to the end that we should be fruitful in holines and righteous­nes. Yea the holy ghost doth not worke in vs any knowledge, ac­cording to that promise the church of Rome so much claimeth, but that therewith also it reformeth vs, it doth not giue faith, but that withall it doth purifie vs. Yea it frameth vnto obedience all such, as it traineth to vnderstanding. And therefore it is said that faith doth purifie our harts.

By this knowledge, Wee all beh [...]lde as in a mirrour the glory of the Lord, Act. 15. 9. 2. Cor. 3. 18. with open face, and are changed into the same image, from glory to glory, as it were by the spirite of the Lord. And so new mindes make new men, and lightened hearts, will bring foorth godly life. For it is a hard matter that he that beleeueth well, [...] (euill as Saint Augustine) doth testifie.August. de tem­pore serm. 237. Yea and a little before in the same sermon Same Augustine teacheth, that faith in latine being called fides, con­sisteth of two sillables, the first signifieth doing, the other saying. so that if a mā say he beleeueth, do (saith this holy father) as thou saist, and that is faith. Whereby hee sheweth that there is no true faith but it is exercised in doing the workes of the spirit. I [...] then the same spirit giue knowledge or faith, and godlinesse of life, and true faith [...] from good [...] if [Page 101] it be, it is but a dead faith) and godly conuersation, is as neces­sary for euery Christian, as true religion. I maruell that maister Bellarmine or any other shame not to tell vs, that the bi­shops of Rome cannot erre from the right path of knowledge, (as if they were wholy lead by Gods spirite) whereas manie of them haue wholy wandred out of the waies of godly life, as men nothing guided, but quite forsaken of that holy Ghost. And therefore this I suppose may serue for my first argu­ment.

Such as are not lead by Gods spirite to liue godly are not taught by the same: but many of the Bishops of Rome are not lead by Gods spirite to liue godly, therefore many of them are not taught by the same, and by consequent they may erre. For they haue no colour of not erring, but that only that they claime, the direction of that spirite, that was neuer promised to such prophane prelates, nor cannot lodge in such sinkes of sinne. My second argument is this.

Pope Adrian the sixt did teach,Arg 2. to proue the pope may erre. that the pope may be an he­retike, and teach heresie. And this doctrine was defendet by him and others,De pontif. Rom. li 4. cap. 2. as maister Bellarmine himselfe confesseth, so that he would haue it to bee beleeued of all. And no man can denie, but that it is a question of faith, especiallie in the Church of Rome, whether the pope maie erre or not. Thus then I rea­son. Adrian the sixt Pope of that name, did either say that which was false, or that which was true. If he said false, then he beeing a pope was deceiued in iudgement, in a matter of faith, and such a matter as he woulde shoulde bee receiued vni­uersally, as a catholicke doctrine, and so the pope hath erred. If hee saie true, then is it also euicted by his testimonie, that the pope may erre. For he affirmeth it so. So that whether hee lie or speake the trueth, it is sufficient to prooue that which I in­deuour to proue. For if hee lie himselfe erreth, if he say true o­ther may erre.

The thirde argument shall bee of the examples of such as did erre:Arg. 3. To prooue that the pope may erre. I say of such bishops of Rome, as haue beene by their owne stories,Marcellinus. Damasus in pon­tificali. noted for heretickes. I will not speake any thing of pope Marcellinus, who sacrificed to Idols, as also stories doe testifie, bicause it is said that he repented him therof. But yet we [Page 102] may learne out of him, that if a pope may fall to such frailety as to commit so grosse Idolatry, which is a greater sinne then to fall into many of the heresies, that are condemned (by that name) of the fathers, he may also erre in iudgement.

Liberius a pope,Liberius. Hieron, in cron. did not only consent to the condemnation of Athanasius, that great learned and catholike father, as ma­ny ancient histories doe report, and our aduersaries deny not, but also did communicate with two notable Atrian heretikes, which was a great offence to the godly, and an incouraging of those heretikes. But maister Bellarmine answereth that neither he taught any heresy,Lib. 4. de Pontif. Rom. cap. 9. or was an heretike. The question is, whether the pope may er or not. Now our aduersaries draw vs from the questiō,The papists an­swere not direct­ly to the question whether the pope may erre. not answering whether Liberius did erre or not, but they tell vs that he was no heretike, and that he taught no heresie. And admit he did neither of these two, I meane that he neither became an heretike, neither yet taught heresie: yet he may erre. Yea Liberius did fouly erre, in that externall action, whereby our aduersaries confesse that he consented to the banishment of A­thanasius, Bellar. de Rom. Pontif, li. 4. ca. 9. and in communicating with those two Arrians Va­lence Visacius, and by help of Arrians get again to be bishop of Rome, deposing Felix. For to er is to wander or go out of the right way, whether it be for ignorance or feare, or through any other affection, he that steppeth aside doth erre. And because this giueth great light, to al that is to be said of this question: it shal not be amisse somewhat more throughly to consider of the same. First you see that whereas their doctrine is briefly deliuered that the pope cannot erre: they wil haue it thus to be vnderstooed, the pope cannot be an heretike, that is, he cannot continue obstinatly in heresie, nor he cannot teach heresie, when he giueth generall precepts that should belong to the whole church. For that is the meaning both of Melchior Canus, in his Theological pla­ces,Lib. 6. cap. 8. and of maister Bellarmine in this place before alleadged. The intent also of their doctrine, is to commend vnto vs that their Italian head, as a fit head, for to guide the vniuersal church, and able to be ahead to the whole body.

Nowe therefore let vs see how well their doctrine, and their meaning agree together. For the head of the church should be such, as should in nothing, no not for a time leade the body of the [Page 103] church awry. But the church may be led into many foolish opi­nions, strange conceites,The difference betweene errour and heresie. De ciuit. dei Li. 18. cap. 51. and dangerous doctrines euen by such as cannot be called heretikes. For an heretike is he (as Saint Augustine telleth vs) that being of any euill and corrupt opi­nion in the church, and being reproued, or monished to amend, resisteth stubbornly, and will not reforme his contagious and pe­rilous doctrines, but defendeth the same, and is drawen to deuise or follow such opinions, for his own profit, especially for his own glory, and to aduance himselfe.

Now who seeth not, that a man in place of credite and au­thoritie, as the bishop of Rome hath beene (by such bad means as he hath vsed these many yeares, may wonderfully indamage and indanger the church of God, before any body wil or dare re­prooue him, for any opinions that he will holde? And when he is found fault withall (as he must be before they can count him an heretike) how many subtile shifts can euil men haue, to con­tinue a long time in their wicked opinions, without reuoking the same, or reforming themselues, and yet to auoide the dan­ger of being accounted stubborne or obstinate. The Pelagians against whom saint Augustine writeth many bookes did turne many waies their lewd opinions,Contra 2 Epist. Pelag. l. 4. 5. 6. changed often (in some shewe of words) their positions, and did adde (as by reason they were forced, and by arguments compelled) some such wordes vnto their errours, as that thereby they might auoide the note of contumacy, and deceiue the more vnder a shew of truth, as may appeare by saint Augustine, who confesseth plainly, that if their meaning were not knowen to be euill, their wordes could well enough haue beene borne withall. Admit then that a bishop of Rome, being of such absolute authority as now they are, could as cunningly as did the Pelagians, couer and cloake an heresie. Might not he be an heretike many yeares, before he would be driuen to recant? And might not he then by such meanes, bring irreparable hurt to the church of God?

Thus we see, that as by this doctrine that the pope cannot erre, they goe about to assure vs, that the head which they haue set ouer the church, cānot deceiue vs, if we wil be lead by him: so their interpretation of that their position, argueth in them great doubtfulnes, & y^t they dare not defend their own fayings, vnlesse [Page 104] they may expound their words after this manner, that the pope cannot erre, that is he cannot obstinately or stubbornly teach (as a doctrine to be receiued of the whole church) any heresie. And I pray you what safety can the godly finde in following such a head,A similitude. as when he hath guided them into many errours, yet he will not stubbornly stand in defence of them? Such may wel be compared to souldiers, that by the rash leading of an vnskilfull captaine are brought into the hands of their enemies, and when the captaine seeth his folly, he would faine mend it if he coulde, and is sory for that he hath done.

But what helpeth this his late repentance, the distressed soul­diers? nothing at all. Euen so that the bishop of Rome cannot continue in his errour (if it were true that he had some such pri­uiledge) it might be good for himselfe: But such a head is for o­thers very dangerous, because y^• not all they who are seduced by such mens instruction or example, are also reduced by their re­cantation or amendment, as appeareth by multitudes of exam­ples. And so we see that this their interpretation standeth not with either their common receiued doctrine, or with their intent and meaning which is to promise safety from errour, vnto them that receiue that head. Whereas in truth their meaning is to tell vs that the pope may be of a wrong iudgement, but if he be much vrged he cannot be obstinate, he wil not stand to it. And whereas they defend,Bellar. de Rom. Pontif. li. 4. c. 3. that the pope cannot teach heresie as a do­ctrine publikely to be receiued, in some respect I thinke it to be most true.Popes no tea­chers. For seldome or neuer are there any popes, that can teach either truth or heresie. They cannot preach, they cannot with wholesome doctrine feede their flocke, they cannot deuide the foode of life, and breake the bread of the word, vnto Gods houshold seruants. For want of knowledge, they cannot of themselues doe much either in defence of truth, or to maintaine errour. But this exposition will not please them. They haue another meaning. For when they tell vs, that the pope cannot be an heretike, when he teacheth the whole church, their mea­ning is plaine enough, that in particular iudgements they may erre, but not in their generall decrees, or preachings or instructi­ons. Which they are forced to say, for the auoiding of such in­conueniences, as might growe by defending the doing of many [Page 105] of their popes. But if popes may be charged with heresie, how can we thinke but that in their talke,Popes doings or sayings may be hurtful to many. in their sermons (if they did preach,) and vpon all such occasions as were offered vnto them, they would by foure means or other, commend that which they liked of, and condemne the contrary? And their very words when they speake of matters of faith, are indeede instructions to all: and their examples also, are publike instructions to y^• whole church. Neither must we imagine that those (holy fathers for­sooth) had one religion in secret, and an other that they would publish. Therefore if we proue that they did erre, I trust also it will followe, that this errour was a stumbling blocke to the church, and that they may erre when they giue lessons to all the church.

Lastly let vs consider the foundation whereupon they raise this building.Luke 22. 31. 32. Because Christ said vnto Peter, Simon Simon. behold Sathan hath desired to sift you as wheat. But I haue praied for thee that thy faith should not faile. To whom was this said? To Peter, although not to him alone, as before out of Theophilact I haue shewed. But Peter immediatly after erred,Peter after this prayer erred. Matth. 26, 74. so as that he thrise denied his maister, as Saint Luke in the same chapter sheweth, yea and that as Saint Matthew re­porteth, with cursing and swearing. Whereby it most plainly appeareth, that Christ did not pray that Peter or the rest of the apostles, should be free from all infirmities, and should as it were put of the nature of man, but that finally he or they, should not fall from the faith. But I cannot but maruell here at mai­ster Bellarmine, that he cannot see that Peters faith at this time failed.De Rom. pontif. li. 4. cap. 3. For euen handling these words, and this fact of Peters, we know not saith he, that Peters faith euer failed. He feared at the question which the damosell asked of him,Whether Peters faith failed. he denied his master, and that with cursing and swearing. Did he this for feare? No doubt he did it for feare. What was the cause of so great feare?Matth. 14. 31. Was it not weaknesse and want of faith? Had he litle faith, when hee feared drowning, in so much as Christ re­prouing him said, O thou of litle faith why diddest thou doubt? And can master Bellarmine find no want of faith, in his so ex­cessiue feare, that he forswore his master? Peter therefore not­withstanding Christs prayer both could and did erre. And shall [Page 106] we thinke the pope to be more holy, of a more sanctified nature, of a sounder iudgement, then Peter was? They will not so say themselues, therefore they also may erre. But for master Bellarmines subtill distinction,Lib. 4. cap. 3. betweene perseuerance and not failing, making not failing and not falling all one, but perse­uerance to be such, as that a man may fall, and yet by rising a­gaine, is said still to perseuere: I confesse it is more subtil, then sound. For perseuering and continuing is all one, and continu­ance hath no ceasing or intermission.

And further I must put the godly reader in remēbrance, that if this were granted to Peter, that the pope doth claime, that he could not erre: yet must he proue himselfe to be Peters successor, and that the priuilege is also successiue, to that seat, before he cā by these wordes prooue his infallible iudgement. And what they can do for these points, I haue shewed before their great weak­nes,Many popes haue erred. Honorius. if it be but weaknes, in so great light and sunshine of truth, not to see y^• right way. I omit of purpose many popes to whom [...]rrour is imputed by some ancient histories. I come to Hono­rius of whome it is written by many histories that he was a Mo­nothelite, whose heresie was, that Christ God and man had but one will.

And to omitte all the ancient Records,Lib. 6. cap. 8. that may be alead­ged to prooue him so to be, I rest specially vpon Melchior Canus his confession in his theologicall places, and one proofe vrged by him amongst many others. For hee doth not onely acknowledge Honorius to bee an hereticke, but also telleth vs, how Adrian the second, in the first action of the eighth ge­nerall councill, confesseth that Honorius was by the Greeke church condemned as a hereticke, and that Agathe bishop of Rome, consented vnto the same his condemnation. In which argument although master Bellarmine Lib. 4. cap. 11. dessent vtterly from Melchior Canus, yet hee is not any thing able to take away the waight of that reason, but that Honorius although a pope, must be pronounced, and holden for an hereticke, euen by the de­tree of a generall councill.

What should I speake of the errour that was most apparent in those seditious popes Steuen the sixth,The errour of Steuen and o­ther Popes. and Sergius the third, against Formosus another pope, now long dead. And against [Page 107] the dooings and decrees of pope Theodore, and Iohn the tenth. Steuen reuoked whatsoeuer Formosus had done vp a councill called belike for that purpose, Iohn the tenth afterwards ma­keth good the dooings of Formosus, disamulling that that Steuen did, yea, their [...]ntention was so great, that they commaunded such as had taken orders of one, that they should (as if these first orders were nothing worth) take orders of ano­ther.

These thinges are reported by all histories, and therefore are also confessed of themselues, that are our aduersaries. If pope Formosus did not erre, then Steuen that d [...]lt so hard­ly with him, and so disannulled his dooings and decrees, did erre. If Steuen did right, then Iohn who afterwardes vn­did all that he had done, did wrong. Yea they disannulled the very orders that the popes that were their aduersaries had gi­uen. Which thing maister Bellarmine in his fourth Booke and twelfth chapter confesseth to be a matter of faith. There­fore heere the pope erred in faith. No (saith he) this is onely a matter of fact, it is not decreed by any of them. Let vs marke out question, that is, whether the Pope may erre or not.

Maister Bellarmine saieth, these Popes did wrong, but they decreed nothing of disanulling those orders, which men booke of their predecessours, and therefore erred not in iudge­ment. Sigebert saieth, that Steuen decreed,Sigebere, chron. that Formosus his ordinations were or should be voyne.Plat. in Iohn 10. Platina saieth, that Iohn the tenth iudged amisse, because hee iudged that they must take orders againe, that did take orders of Formosus. So Iacob Bergomensis and Stella, agree with Platina. These therefore condemne Steuen the sixt to erre [...] iudgement, and so doe manifestly [...] ▪ that the pope did erre, and confute maister Bellarmine his answere to this obiection. Iohn the two and [...] pope of that name did not beleeue onely, but euen teach, that the soules should not see God before the latter day, as master Bellarmine himself confesseth. But it was (saith he) no heresie in him so to teach,Lib. 4. cap. 14. What is heres [...] in the church of Rome. because there was not then anie decree or destinction of the church for that point: If it true master Bellarm [...] [...] heresie [...] not defined it? [Page 108] A thing defined in the scriptures, set downe in Gods word, and plainly taught in Gods booke, may (I perceiue) by the doctrine of the church of Rome, be gainsaide without danger of heresie, so long as man hath not approued the same.

The lessons (I perceiue) that God teacheth vs, must not bee counted the doctrines of the church, vntill the bishop of Rome, or some councill haue set downe some order therein. Well how­soeuer the wise maisters of Rome will define what shall be here­sie, yet I trust they will graunt that hee erred in iudgement, be­cause he taught then, that which not only the scriptures gainesay, but euen the papistes themselues will confesse to be erroni­ous.

But what should I stand in particular examples?Canus. lib. 6. c 8. Arg. 4. that the pope may erre. If it bee true that both Melchior Canus and Bellarmine confesse, espe­cially Canus, that both the seuenth and the eight sinodes did con­demne as an hereticke Honorius the pope, doth it not appeare manifestly thereby, that they made no doubt, whether a pope might erre or not? It is not a question amongst them, they heare of his doctrine, they condemne it as erronious. Neither did Formosus his friends vse any such argument, to hinder Steuen his cruell dealings against Formosus, or Steuens friends to mi­tigate the rage of Iohn the tenth against Steuen, they saide not thus, Formosus was a pope, and Steuen was a pope, they can­not erre. No it is a doctrine of later growth, and of a newer stamp.

Maister Bellarmine answereth that those two councels that are before mentioned,Lib. 4. cap. 11. Lib. 4. cap. 6. Bellar, answere again [...]his owne doctrine. did thinke that the pope as a priuate man might erre. Wherein although he consent not with himselfe, who thinketh that he cannot erre as before I said: yet would he thereby if he could, take away the strength of the argument. But he laboureth all in vaine, for how doth it appeare that the coun­cels thought of any such matter. There is no shew, no likeli­hoode of it.Bellar. chargeth the fathers with vniust dealing. No wordes to induce him so to thinke. As for that which he saith of Honorius his letters, that they condemned him of heresie because of that which they found in his letters. I maruell maister Bellarmine hath so soone forgotten himselfe as to alleadge it. Seeing himselfe in the beginning of the eleuenth chapter, doth first doubt of the credit of those letters, and second­lie [Page 109] he denieth that any error is in the same contained. Doeth maister Bellarmine thinke the fathers of those councels, to haue beene so simple, that they could not iudge of Honorius his wri­tings, whether they were hereticall or not, aswell as himselfe? Or will he imagine that they were so rash, that they would con­demne him without cause? If he in his epistles had no errour, as maister Bellarmine affirmeth almost in the beginning of his ele­uenth chapter, why doth he heere affirme, that for his epistles, and the heresies which therein he maintained, he was condemned of those councels? If he were an hereticke as by very many testi­monies it doth appeare, why doth maister Bellarmine seeke so to free him from that fault, and to take from him that staine? E­uen because he would (as wel as he can) defend that most vntrue doctrine of the church of Rome, that the pope cannot erre.Arg. 5. that the pope may erre. Si papa. dist. 40. And yet their owne law supposeth that the pope may erre, and confes­seth that for heresie he may be reproued. But in this, as almost in euery point wherein they dissent from vs, they shew how little they are in deed, according to their name, that they woulde faine be called by. For they call themselues catholickes, as if the doc­trine that they teach, or beleeue were catholicke, that is vniuer­s [...]allie receiued.The difference in opinion a­mongst papiss. Bellar. de Rom. pontif. lib. 4. ca. 2. And yet in this controuersie they are not a­greed how to defend it, or what to say of it. Gerson of Paris, Almain Alphonsus all of them papistes, and pope Adrian the sixt himselfe, are of one mind, Albert Pighius an other papist of an other.

Bellarmine and his maisters make a third sect. And yet these men reproue vs for difference in opinion, bragge of their owne v­nity, and must needs be thought to haue a catholike faith. But to conclude seeing the giftes of the spirite whether of sanctification or of truth, are giuen vnto men according to measure,The conclusion of this point whether the pope may erre, Iohn, 3. 34. and not in fulnes (for to Christ only God giueth the spirite not by measure, and therefore he speaketh (without errour) Gods words: seeing that pope Adrian the sixt, hath assured vs that popes may erre, and we haue it plainely recorded in their owne histories, and con­fessed by many of themselues, that they haue erred: lastly seeing they haue been, euen by councils condemned of heresie, and their owne lawe prouideth and taketh order for popes that doe erre, and the Church of Rome is not yet resolued, how to defend the [Page 110] cantrarie: we may I trust hauing so good warant, euen from their owne frends, without any note of heresie affirme, that popes may erre. Yea what is there in them but errour? They wander out of the wayes of truth and of godlinesse. So that in that accursed companie, we may see that to be most true, that where there is a boundance of sinne, there God iustly may, and often times in his iudgements doth, cast such into the deepth of errour, that they who had no desire to liue according to the light, that did shine vnto them, in seruing the Lord in true holinesse, should be cast into the dungeon of ignorance, as vnworthie to inioy that light which they so vnthankefully refused, of that grace which they so wickedly abused. The matter then being thus, that neither Peter had any such iurisdiction ouer the whole church, as is claimed by the church of Rome: neither if he had it, he could, or (for any euidence that yet is shewed) he did bequeathe it to the Romish church, and lastly seeing that church if any such priuiledge, had beene lawfully to her de­uolued, hath committed such things, as would haue forfeted a better right, then euer shee had in that vniuersall au­thoritie: it doth (I trust) appeare to the indifferent Reader, that their claime is vniust, their title false, and that they haue no colour of interest from Christ, whose ouely possession that is, that they would haue. But it is no new thing in the church of Rome, to bring in false euidence to prooue a forged claime.Concil. Cartha­ginens. 6. They did so in the council of Carthage when by vntrue copies of the council of Nice they sought the soueraignty ouer all o­ther churches. For Alipius a bishop in that council affirmeth twise that they could not find in the decrees of the Nicen coun­cill any such thing as they aleaged,Cap. 4 for the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome. Nouatus also another bishop saith, we reade no such thing in the Nicen councill.Cap. 6 The fathers therefore of that council did decree, that messengers should be sent to Con­stantinople, Alexandria and Antioch as Alipius had inoued them to get the true copies.Cap. 4 Epist. concil. [...]. ad Bonif. For they hauing read many bookes of the council of Nice, yet could neuer read in any latine, or yet in any Greeke copies that they had, that which the bishop of Rome his legat did alleage. To trie the truth therfore, they sent and sought, that they might get the true copies of that Nicen [Page 111] council from those places, making no doubt, but if those copies did agree which came from thence, they must be most true, as they all acknowledge writing to pope Boniface. When the co­pies came, they could finde no such thing. Is it not then very plaine that the Bishop of Rome his legate vsed false writings, for proofe of a bad cause?

But maister Bellarmine telleth vs that Saint Augustine and all they of they council mistooke the matter,De Rom. Pontif. Lib. 2 cap. 25. being deceaued by ignorance, because they knew not what the council of Sardis did set downe concerning that point. The question is whether the council of Nice did giue superiority ouer all other to the bi­shop of Rome, as his legates did affirme? And it is most plaine that it did not. And therefore that which is in the councill of Sardis, (which if we shall beleeue the booke of councils, set forth by Peter Crab a frier and a papist, was at the least fortie yeares after the councill of Nice) it maketh nothing to iusti­fie them,The council of Sardis cannot be alleadged for the Nicen. and excuse their falsehoode, that for the decrees of the Nicen council, doe alleadge that which was ordained in that council of Sardis.

And of that council of Sardis, it may truly be said, as in the Lateran council, or at the least in the Tripartit worke added vn­to it,Lib. 3. cap. 10. complaint is made, that now adaies it is harde to finde either olde or newe councils, insomuch as the authour doth there maruell, that the church of Rome hath beene so negli­gent in that pointe, as not to take order for the better keeping of them.

Augustine writeth of that council of Sardis that is was an Arrian council,Contra Cresco, lib. 3. cap. 34. holden against Athanasius. The time also when it was kept is very vncertaine. Yea almost al the circumstances argue great doubtfulnes of that council. They that write the story of that council, doe write thereof so diuersly, both for the number of bishops assembled there, and also concerning the Ar­rians being there, which some affirme, some deny, that therby we may learn how little credit is to be giuen to it, for to ground any vncertain or doubtful doctrine vpon, y^• it might haue credit. But that which maister Bel. doth afterwards say, is yet more absurd. For hauing affirmed that he is indeed perswaded, that these ca­nons (which the church of Rome alleadgeth for her supremacy.) [Page 112] are not in the Nicen couecil, but onely in that of Sardis, yet he thinketh that Zozimus and Boniface two bishops of Rome, did therefore name them the decrees of the Nicen council, because they were both written together in a booke at Rome,Whether that booke at Rome may by likeli­hoode be truer than the bookes of the Greeke church. the igno­raunce whereof did much trouble the fathers as he saith. Can master Bellarmine suppose that those fathers, whose earnest in­deuour was at that time to keepe the decrees of the councill of Nicen, were ignorant what was to be accounted of that coun­cil, or what articles belonged to the same? Or is it likely that the copies of the councill of Nice shoulde bee more perfect at Rome so many hundreds of miles distant from Nice, then at Constantinople which is hard by it, or at Antioch or Alex­andria not so far distant from it? Or doth he thinke it reason, that one Romish and another vnknowen copie, writen perchance with that councill of Nice, by some that sought thereby to increase the dignitie of the church of Rome, of set purpose to bring it to that credit, that it should be accounted as parcel of the council of Nice: can he I say thinke it reason that those two copies should correct and control, so many of better credit by a great deale, then they are. No, these are but shifts to blind mens eies, and indeede but bables for fooles to play withall. Master Bellarmine doth also labour in this place very earnestly to prooue that the council had many decrees moe then those that are in the first tome of councils set forth by Peter Crab, or spo­ken of by Ruff [...]nus. To what end is all this? Forsooth to ex­cuse his holy fathers, that they should not be thought to giue counters for gold, or lead for siluer. But how can hee excuse them,Conc. Nicen. c. 6. for that they added to the begining of the sixt canon, that the church of Rome hath alwaies had the supremacie, in which false tricke Paschasinus Legate vnto the Bishop of Rome,Act. 16. was taken in the council of Chalcedon? For it is not the translation out of Greeke of Dionyse an Abbat, almost three hundred yeares after that council was kept, that Alan Cope speaketh of, and master Bellarmine before hath aleaged for his defence,Li. 2. cap. 13. that can haue credit against so many authenti­call copyes, so diligently sought and sent for, so carefully exa­mined by so many hundreds of learned men, and so faithfully deliuered for discussing euen of this controuersie: for Pascha­sinus [Page 113] hauing alleadged in that councill of Chalcedon for his maister the Bishoppe of Rome the wordes before mentio­ned,The popes legate taken with falsi­fying. was by those copies disprooued. And whereas maister Bellarmine doth set downe this as the intent of the Bishop of Rome in the Councill of Carthage,Li. 2. cap. 25. that he meant to shew, that not onely all men might appeale to him, but also that it were expedient for the church, that so they should do. Marke how di­rectly the councill of Carthage doeth oppose it selfe against the Pope therein, in their epistle which hath this title, The Epi­stle of the Affrican Council to pope Celestine bishop of the citie of Rome. Conc. Afric. cap. 5 For, whereas master Bellarmine did confesse that the causes of inferiour ministers might be heard at home, but Bishops must be heard at Rome: this councill in this epi­stle saith directly contrary,No appeales to the pope. vsing it as an argument from the lesse to the greater: If (say they) the causes of inferior clarks by the councill of Nice are prouided for, how much more is it ordered then, that bishops if they be excommunicate in their pro­uince, shall not of your Holinesse be hastily, or rashly, or against order thought to be restored to the communion? Thy will him to banish from him, such as seeke such wicked refuges, because (say they) the Nicene decrees haue plainely committed, not in­feriour clarkes onely, but also the Bishops to their metropo­litanes. They assure themselues, that no prouince shall want the grace of Gods spirit, to order these things. And that euerie man may, if he mislike of the iudgement of them that haue heard his cause, appeale to a councill either prouinciall, or generall (no wordes of appealing to the pope.) Unlesse a man will ima­gine (say they) that God will grant his spirite of triall of mat­ters to euery one, and deny it to all assembled in a Councill. And further, they alleadge that the trueth of matters examined farre from home, can hardly be found out, by reason that wit­nesses can not well be carried so farre. For, as for the legates à latere that should come from the popes side, for examination of such matters, they vtterly mislike, as a thing not to be found in any of the synods of the fathers.

Thus we see, that in as plaine termes as they can deuise, this Councill doeth oppose themselues to that which the Bishop of Rome did seeke to obtaine. And thus it appeareth, how vn­truely [Page 114] the church of Rome hath delt very long since, to exalt her selfe aboue others, and to maintaine her owne pride. And how shee hath in the times of those learned fathers, beene bridled in their councils. Wherein they haue set downe lawes, to miti­gate and keepe vnder their immoderate affections, how soeuer they would sometimes write or speake of them, or to them that were bishops of Rome for the peace of the church, and the reue­rence of the persons being men often times indued with very good gifts, and such as by their acquaintance and credit, being in the imperiall citie, did helpe many that were distressed.

Now therefore let vs yeld that honour to him onely whome God hath sealed,Iohn 6. 27. eph. 1 22. matth. 17. 5. 1. pet. 2. 25. that he be acknowledged the head of his church, the lawe maker to his people, the sheapheard to his flocke. Let vs receaue no other vicar to snpply his roome,Ioh. 14. 16, 17. but that spirit of truth which God our gracious father shall giue, and which shall abide with vs for euer. But as for them, that without any good warrant of Gods word, or sufficient calling from God, claime to be as kings, and loue to liue as lords ouer Gods heritage, detest them as the proud off-spring of Corah, Dathan and A­biram, 1. Pet. 5 3. 1. Sam. 2. Num. 16. 2. or rather as the wicked sonnes of Ely that did as them­selues would: yea as men that are enemies to Gods lawes, v­surpers of Christs office, despisers of all authoritie, abusers of all maiestie, and therefore most perillous plagnes to christian princes. And thus much to examine how iust a title the pope hath, or how iust a claime he may make, to be supreame head of the Church.

NOw that it plainly appeareth in the first part of this Treatise, to them that doe not wincke with their eyes against the trueth, that this Supremacie that the Bishop of Rome most prowdely abu­seth, hath not any ground in the worde of God, as is seene, partely by the weakenesse of their owne arguments, and partly because the fathers being assembled together in their generall councils, some of them more then foure hundred and fiftie yeares after Christ haue taught vs the contrarie: it is ne­cessary for the better vnderstanding of this matter, yea for the more detestation of their vniust authoritie, that something bee said of the second part of this Treatise, which is a proofe or exa­mination of the popes practises. But herein I must consider of two pointes. First, how, and by what meanes, they got vn­to that high estate wherein nowe they are. Secondly, after what manner they haue vsed themselues in the same. In fewe wordes how they haue ruled. And because the church of Rome was not sodainely, or in one instant aduanced to this place of ex­cessiue pride and insatiable ambition, wherein she now challen­geth [Page 116] rule and dominion, ouer al that professe christianitie: it wil not be amisse, but a thing very pertinent to this my purpose, to see by what steps the pope hath come to such height, & by what practises, he hath attained to such honour. Whereas therefore the godly fathers of the primitiue church, did many times stand in neede of the help or counsel,Helping the di­stressed churches in their neede. or comfort, of the good Bishops of Rome, that were in their times, and as occasions fell out, were forced somtimes to flee to them for succor, who also found reliefe at their hands very often: the ages succeeding, did inter­pret this charitable affection, and performance of christian duety in these godly Bishops of Rome, to be not so much tokens of the loue towards all, as of their power ouer all. And yet a man may be as good as he will to them, ouer whom he hath no pow­er at al. Although therefore we neither can nor will deny, that which the Author of the Apologie for the English Seminaries doth so confidently pronounce, that the famous fathers called for aide, comfort, and counsell in their distresses of the bishop of Rome: yet iustly we may, and for the true [...]hs sake, we must af­firme, that this seeking for these causes to the bishop of Rome doth not prooue him to haue authoritie ouer all, but onely that at such times, he had better meanes to helpe the distressed then they that sought vnto him, had to releeue themselues. But ma­ny times the godly are forced to flie for aide (as these men did whom the Apology nameth) as Cypr. Atha. Chrys. Aug. Basil, Ierom, Miletius & Theod. to men worse thē themselues as Ia­cob to Laban, from the wrath of Esau, and Dauid to the Phili­stins, to auoide Sa [...]s rage, and Ioseph with Christ, to escape the bloudy hands of Herod, went into Egypt.Gen. 28. 1. Sam. 21. 10. Matth. 2. 14. But if any man desire more particularly to be informed, in y^e special causes that moued these godly men, to make sute to the B. of Rome, let him reade that learned answer, that Bilson hath made vnto the said apologie, & he is too wilfull, if he be not satisfied for this point. Now some B. of Rome, though otherwise good men, were pufe vp with some prowd conceit of their authoritie, when they saw such famous and godly men, were driuen to seeke for their help, as it may appeare by their owne words, if they be their words, which go abroad in their name, for their Epistles and decrees. As Damasus in his fourth epistle, writing vnto prosper the B. [Page 117] of the first seat in Numidia,Concil. Tom. 1. and other bishops, commendeth thē, that in all matters that may be doubtfull, they refer themselues to him,Ad Hemerium Terracon. epum. Concil. Tom. 1. as to the head, to giue them answere. And it is no great maruell though Damasus woulde write or speake much for the dignity of his place, for comming to the which he did striue, euen to the death of a great number of christians.Decret. Innocen. Tom. 1. Concil. Siricius then com­meth next after him, who taketh vpon him to threaten to pro­nounce sentence against such, as wil do otherwise then he would haue them. And Innocentius writing to the bishops of macedo­ny, findeth himselfe grieued, and thinketh that that church of Rome, to which he telleth them they shoulde haue regard, as to their head, is wronged because they did not at the first, yeelde to his iudgement. The like might be said of many other of them. Whereby appeareth, that they who at the first were intreated by some godly men, by such means as God had giuen them to help them in their need, at the length tooke vpon them to commaund others, to stand to their orders and decrees. Insomuch as they also gaue out their decrees, which they would binde al to obserue as partly appeareth in Siricius and Innocentius, and partly also in others, it will be more plaine.Epist. ad Hefich, Tom. Concil. [...]. It sauoureth of too great an arroga [...]y, that Zosimus another pope threatneth seuerity, if a­ny despise the apostolike authority. So did Leo, so did pope a af­terward. What should I seeke to speak of euery one, their own decrees and decrxtals, do sufficently beare witnes that within a short time they were become so imperious ouer others, that they would not leaue men (farre better and more holy then them­selues, and better able to direct those bishops of Rome, then the B. were to aduise them) such I say they would not leaue to their own liberty in any thing, but for euery thing, euen the least mat­ters that were, they must follow the direction of that church of Rome, & must haue a decree for it. Which bondage greater then that of Egypt,Their bu [...] [...] of mens [...] [...]ences. howe miserable a slauery it was, let the worlde iudge, whē a man might iustly doubt of euery thing that he did, & haue some scruple of cōscience in al things. For by this means it came to passe, (that the number of their ordinaunces being al­most infinite) men should alwaies be in danger to breake some of them. Which was then a means to get them authority, & after­wards occasion of great gaine.

[Page 118] And thus we see two steppes laide, to help them vp to this their desired honour. The one is a voluntary submitting to them for aide,The two first steps to the popes supremacy. councill, and comfort. The second, a forcible subiecting of others to them, by decrees, and commandements. But yet they could not get so high by far as they did looke, or at the least so farre as now they haue climed. For as in more then 300. yeares whilest they were in persecution, they had no such proud hearts for any thing that we can read in any credible authors:) so for al­most 300. yeares more, they did but feede themselues in their own honour, and got what credit and authority they coulde by their own deuises and pollicies. Howbeit they could not get any vniuersal or general consent of other bishops, to giue them that authoritie.

But contrary wise not onely some councils as that which is called Mileuitanum and that sixt of Carthage, Conncils against supremacy. and that other of Chalcedon, did stiffely withstand him therein, but also the bi­shop or patriarch of Constantinople, who in y^e council of Chal­cedon, was made of equal authority with the bishop of Rome, did earnestly striue to get the supremacy,Constantinople stroue for it. ouer Rome and all o­thers. And by al likelihood he had preuailed, if Mauritius the the Emperour, (who as some stories report tooke part with the patriarch of Constantinople) had not beene cut of cruelly, by Phocas that did succeede him in the empire. So that hereby the pride of the bishops of Rome was somewhat hindered, and this authority which nowe he claimeth was almost taken from him. And he that soone after, did write himselfe vniuersall bishop, or rather bishop of the vniuersal church, and head of the church, had almost beene subiect to the patriarch of Constantinople. So that in good time did the popes thinke, that that vnnaturall and sauage bloud sheader Phocas, did cut his maisters throate: seeing that by Phocas his meanes,Ph [...]as his de­cre [...] they got that supremacy de­creed on their side, that the bishops of Rome should be called and counted, supreme heads of the church. So now this proud decree of this cruel Emperour,The [...] step vnto the popes supremacy. is the third step vnto their intollerable pride. The bishop of Rome hauing thus gotten, some sure foo­ting in this proud chaire, controlleth bishops, calleth councils which before the Emperour had wont to doe, and in all othe such things, doth shewe his authority, in his writings and let­ters, [Page 119] for the most part calling himselfe the head of the vniuersal church, stil creeping thus higher and higher, yet not openly but couertly and by little and little: vntill at the length he got him a fourth step.The fourth step. He depriueth the Emperour of ha­uing any thing to doe in the popes election. For hauing as much authority as he could yet ouer bishops, and that by the Emperours decree, he sought to pull his necke out of the coller, wherein the Emperour did hold him. For he thought it was a burden to bee in such subiection to the Emperour, that vnlesse he would confirme the election, he could not be pope.

Therefore whereas Constantine the fourth Emperour of that name, being moued (as the stories report) by the godlinesse of Benedict the second, bishop of Rome so called, did ordaine that he that was chosen pope, by the cleargy, people and army of Romans, without any confirmation of the emperour or his lieu­tenant, should be accompted pope: whereas before it might not be without the emperours leaue, who had, as also the kings of France especially, a chusing voice in the electing of the pope, if we wil beleeue a story written by a Frier,Ioh Rioche compend. Hist, a fast friend to the church of Rome, called Rioche who wrote in our times: after­wards the Emperours would haue resumed their own right a­gaine, perchance because that after Benedict they found none such, but some successours of his, that behaued themselues too arrogantly and insolently, against their Lorde and maister, but they coulde by no meanes get it into their handes to keepe it, though Leo the viii. and some other yeelded vnto him. For the succeeding popes many of them did stil incroche more and more, debarring the Emperour of his right in their election, vntill a­bout 400. yeares after that the bishops of Rome had gotten this from the Emperour, Alexander the 2. pope not willing to striue against his maister,Benno a Card. of the life and acts of Hildebrand. did publikely protest in the pulpit, that he would not be pope vnlesse the Emperour woulde con­firme him, whereof he said he would write vnto the Emperour. When Hildebrand who was after pope and called Gregory the seuenth heard this, hardly being able to hold his hands, whi­lest masse was in doing immediatly masse being ended, before the pope could put of his massing garments, he taketh him into a secret place, and buffeteth him well fauouredly, and tooke such order, that within a while Alexander the second died, and made [Page 120] roome for Hildebrand to sit in his chaire. And this reward did pope Gregory the seuenth, bestow vpon his predecessour Alex­ander the second, because he would restore to the emperour, that which wrongfully they kept from him, and performe vnto him some piece of duty. And yet they thought they were not high e­nough, neither yet that this their authority was sure enough vn­to them. And therefore they thought good to deuise some means how this authority which already they had might be confirmed to them, minding yet to mount higher, as God willing shall af­ter be declared.

But to make sure that they had done,The profe of the supremacy out of gods wo [...]d weake and suspected. sometimes they would seeme to haue this authority from Christ. But their proofe is nothing plaine, & although they alleadge some words of Christ for proofe, yet, the apostles did neuer make any mention of anie supremacy, the fathers of the first times, did neuer commende it vnto vs, in the councils they seeme rather to fetch their autho­rity from the ordinance of man, then from Gods word. For what meaneth it els, that the legates to the B. of Rome, both in the councill of Carthage and Chalcedon, doe so earnestly vrge the decrees of the Nicen councill, if that which now they bring out of Gods booke, had beene knowen to be sufficient proofe of the supremacy? What needed they so notoriously to falsifie the council? What needed the fathers to take such paines, and to be at such cost, as to send for true copies of that council, to Con­stantinople, Alexandria, and Antioche, to trie whether the fa­thers in that council of Nice, had giuen such power to the bi­shop of Rome, if in these words, To thee will I giue the keies of the kingdome of heauen, Christ had promised, or in these, feed my sheepe. Christ had giuen, such fulnes of power ouer all o­thers, to the bishop of Rome? Seeing therefore that proofe see­med not strong enough in those times, the graunt which they had from Phocas, did them no great good, to shewe what right they had to that supremacy, (although thereby they got possessi­on thereof:) For if by his gift they claimed, then they confessed this their authority to be from man,Phocas his de­cree they thought a reason scarce homest enough. and that from too wickes and bloudy a murdering man, to doe any great good in Christ his church, or for setting downe of any order whereby all should be ruled. Then also it might haue beene called in question, whe­ther [Page 121] he by his authoritie, could subiect all men for euer, to that church of Rome or not. To make their title therefore as good as they could, they deuised another helpe.

They fained this gift to be from Constantine, The donation Constantine. the first em­perour that publickly allowed of christian profession. And they make him to giue, not onely his palace of Lateran, and many other temporallties, to the bishop of Rome, as master Bellar­mine would haue it thought, but they bring him in speaking these words,Ce pontif. Rom. Lib. 4. cap. 17. & lib. 5. cap. 9. We decreeing doe ordaine that he (the bishop of Rome) shall haue the supremacie as well ouer the foure principall seates of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Ierusalem, as also ouer, all churches in the whole earth. And that the pope for the time being, of that holy church of Rome, shall be hier, and Prince of all princes in the world. Is this onely to giue temporalties? But the falshood of the donation of Constantine, doth shine more bright then the noone day, although the papists make great account of the same. Yea Melchior Canus altogether a papist, yet he did either see more, or dealt plaiulier, in this matter then did master Bellarmine. For although he be loth to denie it, or to diminish the credit of it, yet he bringeth moe reasons against it, then hee with all his felowes can be able to answere. So that we neede not seeke for arguments out of Laurentius Valla, or others to confute it. For euen hee hath giuen it a more deadly wound, then can be healed againe. He confesseth that the lawyers take it to be but a fained matter, and therfore cal it chaffe, for it is indeed so called in their owne distinctions. He acknowledgeth that Eusebius, Ruffinus, Theodoret, Socrates, Sozomenus, Eutropius, Victor, and other authors of credit, who most diligently wrote all that Constantine did, haue not onely made no mention of that donation, but also doe affirme that he so deuided his empire among his three sonnes, as that the one of them had Italie. And that Ammianus Marcellinus in his fifteenth booke writeth, that Constantius (Constantines sonne) had the rule of the citie (of Rome) and made Leontius his liuetenant there. And lastly, that all Histories record, that many Empe­rours after that time ruled in Italie, yea and in Rome. What can be more plaine? Their owne Lawyeares confesse it to be [Page 122] fained, no good story recordeth it but y^e contrary. Rome after this gift, was the imperial citty and seat. Therefore either Constan­tine gaue no such thing from him and his heires, or his gift was nothing worth. Melch [...] or Canus also doubteth of the very foun­dation of this fable,Ibidem. which is the leprosie whereof they faine that Constantine was healed, plainly affirming, that in any good author he readeth no such thing. But not he only doubteth here­of, but long before him, it hath beene spied by Anthonius B. of Florence in his history,Pant. 1. Tit. 8. c. 1. L. 3. of catholike concord. by Volateran writing of Constantine, & by the cardinal Nicolas Cusam a fast friend and faithful to that Romish church, that this donation was not in the old coppies of Grecians decrees. And therfore when it was added, themselues accompted it but chaffe and no good corne. And these and such reasons made Pius the second pope of that name, to maruell in a certaine dialogue, written by him being a Cardinall, that the Lawyers were so mad, as to make any question of that matter, which neuer was.

And that wee may see,Themselues a­gree not to what pope it was gi­uen. how all things in this donation of Constantine are but fained, whereas the donation maketh Siluester the Pope to whome this gift was giuen, yet in another place,Caus. 12. q. 1. ca. faturam. the same thing is said to be giuen vnto Melchia­des, that was bishop before Siluester. And he is made to speake, as though it had beene done before his time also. And yet this Melchiades was pope, about two or three yeares, before Con­stantine was Emperour,Cron. Euseb. and died long before he gaue peace and quietnes to Christians, as in the Cronicle of Eusebius, who lined in those daies, it may appeare. What needeth this point of their doctrine any aduersary. Themselues doe fully confute one another, And the prouerb is in this found true, when theeues fal out, true men come by their goods. For these decrees if they be well considered, it is not hard to spie falshood in them both. And therefore we may take heede how we trust them, seeing that in these two we see plainly, how the one is contrarie to the o­ther, and both contrary to the truth. There are also some impos­sibilities in the said donation, which doe sufficiently prooue it, to be but a fraudulent deede.Impossibilities in the donation. For the occasion of this gift is there set downe. Namely that Constantine beeing baptised is healed of his leprosie, and thereupon giueth these things to Siluester, [Page 123] of whome he was baptised. And yet besids many other ancient histories of good credit, Saint Hierom doth plainly write, that he was baptised at the latter end of his life, and that not of Sil­uester bishop of Rome, for hee was dead and also Marke that succeded him, but of Eusebius bishop of Nicomedia, some six or seauen yeares after Siluester was dead. How then could these things be giuen to Siluester at the baptisme of Constantine, Siluester being dead so long before? Or howe at his baptisme in Rome, when he was baptised in Nicomedia, the chiefe citie of Bithinia, many hundred miles distant from Rome? But it is strange that they are so impudent, as to name Constantino­ple at this time for one of the principall seats of bishops, as in this donation they do, which was called not by that name before Constantine in the tenth yeare of his raigne did build it, but while Siluester and Marke his successor liued it was called Bi­zance.

And about twentie or thirty yeares after the death of Con­stantine, was there a councill at Constantinople, Conci. Constant. 1. cap. 2. wherein y^t sea of Constantinople obtained to be next in account to Rome which before y^t time was no patriarchal church. And it is plaine by stories that at Constantinople, ther was either no church at all, or else very secret, vntill about the latter end of Constan­tines time. For that very yeare that he was baptised many of Constantinople were baptised in somuch as Nicephorus mak­eth mention of aboue twelue thousand men besides women and children,Niceph. li. 7. c. 34. that were baptised there at once. And Constantine himselfe doth much reioyce,Theod. li. 1. ca. 16 in a letter that he writeth to Eu­sebius, that in that citie which himselfe did build, and did beare his name, a very great mumber were become christians, and for that cause hee taketh care, that they might haue churches built for them. So that as yet wee see they had not their churches much lesse can wee imagine, that then they had any Bishops, that would looke for so high a place among others. And therefore euen hereby appeareth the falshood and folly of this forged donation.

There are also in the same donation some things that sauor of the pride that afterwardes appeareth in the bishop of Rome, but was not then in them. For that donation falsely attributed [Page 124] to Constantine, doth giue vnto the bishop of Rome, greater principality of power, then this kingly or roial maiesty had, and an Imperiall authority.

Nowe howe manifestly false this is, wee may very easily marke, if we doe consider either the stile, that the Bishoppes of Rome that then were, did vse, when they wrote vnto their bre­theren, or their maner of behauionr, when they came amongst them, or the authoritie which the Nicen council, that was in the time of Constantine gaue vnto them, but equall with the patri­arches of Alexandria and Antioch, and euery one of them to looke to their owne charge (among whome if there were any in­equalitie, the priuiledges of the bishop of Rome, had not so large a compasse by far, as the other patriarches) or the soue­raignty which Constantine the emperour did still keepe and ex­erccise, in, and ouer, not Rome onely, but the whole church, not in ciuil matters onely, but in calling of councils, command­ing the bishops, comforting the godly, reprouing the hereticks, and in directing how and after what maner, they would debate and determine matters in the council. To be short, if we re­member how some of the councils, of which I haue often spo­ken alreadie, did stifly denie to the bishop of Rome, for lesse su­perioritie then by this graunt they might challenge, it will easily appeare, that they knewe not then of any such priuiledges, that Constantine had graunted vnto that seat. For if then any such superioritie or supremacie had beene due vnto them, the fa­theres of those times, who often stoode in neede of their helpe, would neuer so flatly haue withstoode their indeuours. And themselues also would haue beene as readie by themselues or their legats, to haue pleaded the donation of Constantine, if then it had beene thought vpon, as they were to coine new canons of the Nicen council. They pride therefore that in this grant appeareth, doth proclaime to the world, that it sauoureth not of that christian modestie, that was for the most part in the bishops of those times, but it is some bastard of a later breede. And of that spirit of ambition, doth that also sauour, that is said that the pope should be prince of al priests, and aboue al churches in the world. But this is confuted in that which before hath vin spoken. For long after this the bishop of Rome, yea and that by [Page 125] vnlawful meanes sometime, did seeke for that preheminence, but it would not be graunted vnto them: how beit one thing in this donation I cannot but remember you of, because it sheweth in my iudgement, that this forgery was committed but of late yeares in comparison, euen after that they had brought the em­perours vnder their subiection, and did beare all the sway in the citie of Rome. And that is this, that they bring in the emperour yelding the imperiall citie into the popes hands, and that as though it were not fitt or seemely, that the earthly emperour should dwell there, where the heauenly emperour (saith he) hath placed the head of christian religion. Can there be any greater disgrace to worldly princes, then to make them vnworthie to be neighbours to that proud priest of Rome? Can they lift vp themselues by any meanes hier in pride against man, then so to aduaunce and esteeme of themselues, aboue the greatest monar­ches in the world? Did Constantine vse to speake or write so? Did he thinke himselfe vnworthie to be neere them? They that are but indifferently acquainted with the stories of Constantine, doe know that he loued ful wel, to be not only neere to bishops, but euen among them also. But they that forged this fable, would haue the world to thinke, that either they are more holy, then euer were the leuiticall priests: or else that that good em­perour his scepter, sworde, and crowne, were more vnholy and prophane, then those ensignes of gouernment that belonged to the kings ouer the Iewes. And what else doe all those imperi­all ornaments, crownes, scepters, miter, coller, clocke, cote, banners, and such like signifie, which there they say are giuen to them, but that this forgerie was committed, after that the proud popes did so ouercrow the emperours, that they became but as it were their seruants? For it was far from Constan­tines minde to make him selfe their seruant as afterwards the emperours were. And the popes that then were had other mat­ters to doe, and other thoughts possessed their hearts, then that they could be caried away, to such vaine deuises. They were scarsly out of one persecution, being freed from it by Constan­tine but that they fell into another that troubled the church maruelously, namely the Arrian heresie, against which the good bishops, did then oppose themselues with might and maine. [Page 126] And as these things doe sauour of the pride of latter times, so some things also sauour of superstition, more then as yet was crept into the church. For Constantine, in this his donation which they impudently ascribe vnto him, doth giue for the main­tenance of lights in the church of saint Peter and Paul, his pos­sessions in the east, west, north and south, and by name he recko­neth vp many countries, where he had giuen his possessions, for the maintenaunce of those lights. But in deed it appeareth that he did bestow his reuenues vpon more necessary things as in the building of churches, whereunto christians might resorte to serue God, and in calling the Nicen council, for the determining of some questions in religion. As for lights if then they vsed any yet such large deuotion in such toies and trifles is a plaine fruit of latter daies of ignorance.

Thus there is almost no kinde of thing granted vnto themThe imitation of the emperours court for officers in that dotation, but is a good argument to conuince their fal­shoode. The apish imitation of the emperours court, for offi­cers and attendants, that is there graunted, doth also shew that it was not deuised in the daies of the humble popes: & the proud cardinalles, who are these their stately officers were not yet found.

Many other exceptions might be made to that pretended do­nation, and many moe reasons might haue beene brought a­gainst it, but this that is said, had beene more then enough, in so plaine a matter, had it not beene that many of the popish writers, haue pleased themselues so well in their forged fol­lie.

Hetherto we haue seene howe the popes haue made of the voluntarie suites that the godly made to the bishops of Rome, beeing forced thereto by some extremities, necessarie sub­iection, and out of their requests, they gather a professi­on of obedience. Then also how they gote the decree of Pho­cas one their side. And lastly, howe they got the right of confirming the bishops of Rome, out of the emperours hands, pretending for these and all other their fulnesse of power, some­times the words of our Sauiour Christ. But to supply the want of helpe which there they find (for in trueth they make not for that excessiue pride of the Bishop of Rome) they pretend [Page 127] (although without any colour of truth) a gift of these and other their priuiledges, from Constantine the great.

But nowe let vs looke further into their practises. Did they now content themselues, when they had the commaund­ing of all bishops, and had gotten this name, that is vnfitte for any man to be called, Head of the vniuersall Churches? Could they content themselues with this excessiue honour? No. They must yet goe one steppe higher. For hitherto the Bishoppes of Rome were subiect to the Emperours, as may very well bee prooued by their owne epistles. Gregory, who did so bitterly inueigh against the proude name of vniuersall bishop, that Iohn patriarch of Constantinople tooke vpon him, him selfe being a bishop of Rome, giueth many euident testimonies of this subie­ction, which the popes did acknowledge to the emperors.Lib, 2. epist. 100, As most notably in an Epistle to Mauritius the emperour, hee calleth the emperour his lord very often, yea he abaseth himselfe as vnworthie to speake to his lord, he being but dust and a very worme. He acknowledgeth himselfe subiect to the emperours commanndement, that he oweth him duetie and obedience, his vnworthie suppliant and seruant. I omit many other that were afore him.

And out of an infinite number of testimonies that hee doth afforde, I haue taken but one, and yet that such a one as doeth sufficiently prooue what reckoning the bishops of Rome, at that time made of the emperours. And yet now we see some pride beganne to shew it selfe in the church. For euen now was that a great strife for the name of vniuersall Bishop. And that yet euen then did this learned father and Bishoppe of Rome acknowledge himselfe to bee an vnderling to the Emperours, yea, and after that Phocas had giuen the Bishop of Rome that priuiledge to bee head of the Church, almost a hundreth yeeres,Tom. concil. 2. concil. 6. Act. 4. Agatho a Bishop of Rome doeth write two godly Letters vnto Constantine the fourth, Heraclius and Tybe­rius Emperours, wherein very often hee calleth them his Lordes,Epist. 2. professeth his obedience, excuseth their not send­ing some from the Councill to them, as they had commaun­ded, yea, and themselues to bee vnto the Emperours seely or simple seruants. But in the end this seemed a grieuous yoke [Page 128] and a heavy burden.The sift step to supremacy, the debasing of princes. They said within themselues we will not haue this Emperour to rule ouer vs, we are they that ought to speake, who is Lord ouer vs. But this because it was a very hard attempt, it must needes be long in working. As in deede it was, many hundred yeares.

The first that I remember, that did disgrace in any respect the Emperour,Platina in const. was pope Constantine who was not ashamed to suffer Iustinian the Emperour to kisse his feete, which after grewe to be the greatest office of curtesie that the pope woulde shew to the greatest monarchs, to admit them to that base inter­tainment, which also continueth to this day.In Constantin. Of him writeth Onuphrius in his annotations vpon Platina. Constantine first of any bishop of Rome, durst withstand Philippicus the greeke Emperour to his face openly.

Perchance because Iustinian that was Emperour next before Philippicus, had kissed his feete, it made him the bolder with his successour. The pretence that Constantine tooke holde vpon to withstand the emperour was this. Philippicus vpon good war­rant out of Gods word,The controuersie concerning ima­ges. did forbid images, and commande them to be abolished, in which the idolatrous bishop Constantine did withstand him. Afterward Leo the third being Emperour, and maintaining that good cause against images, Gregory the se­cond that was successour vnto Constantine, tooke greater mat­ters in hand against the emperour. For he tooke from Leo what­soeuer belonging to the empire, the Longobards had left in all Italy An. 729. I report these stories out of Onuphrius, a great friend to the pope, and Romish church. He also in the same place speaking of another pope Gregory the third who was next after the second telleth how he sought for aide of the French, against those Longobards. For indeede he reiecting his natural prince, to whom in duty he was bound, the Emperour, did seeke as al­ready he had gotten to be aboue al bishops, so in the end, to be a­boue al princes and potentates in the earth. Whereof Gregory the third in this place layeth a good foundation, in reiecting an old maister, for a new friend. Yea he doth excommunicat Leo the Emperour, and depriue him to his empire, as Platina repor­teth. Thus we see how the pope hath by little and little,In Greg. 3. gotten to master the Emperour himselfe. For as in these popes, the be­ginning [Page 129] hereof was laid, so afterwards it grewe more and more vntil at the length the emperours were but their vassals and at their commandement. But how they vsed this their immoderat power must be afterwards declared, if God wil. Now as this vnsatiable ambition, must needs be odious vnto, and hated of that mightiest monarch,Reuel. 19. 16. Math. 28. 18. King of Kings and Lorde of Lordes, to whom al power in heauen and earth is giuen (for if he could not abide that his apostles should so much as reason among thē ­seluesMark. 9. 33. 35. who should be chiefe, howe much lesse can he abide that they should despise his lieutenants,Their practises to keepe them great still. to aduance themselus?) so did they assure themselues, that it would be enuied at, and spited of men. And here therefore they want not their practises, to keepe them in this highest estate, to controll and command euen whom they wil, at their pleasures.

First because none should be so bold as to speake any thingEpitom. Eron. against their pride, it was made by pope Pius the second periury or against the oath of a bishop,Pcriury to speake truth of the pope to speake and thing against the pope be it neuer so true. It may be also that his meaning was to make the pope to be esteemed as neere of kinne to God himselfePresat. in Expos. Simbol. Apostol. as might be. For the expounder of the creede in Ciprians works saith the like of God, that it is dangerous to speake the truth of him. But his meaning is that our weaknes and wants will not let vs so speake of him as we should: And the popes feare is, that if we speake truth of him we must speake otherwise then he would haue vs, or were for his honesty. Nowe bishops hauing their tongues and pens thus bridled, who durst venture to finde any fault? If for them to speak the truth be periury what should it be thought in others? And thus because he saw, that to haue the truth of popes doings known, it would be a burning shame, he full wisely laieth this blocke in that way, and thus maketh vp that gappe.

And after commeth in to serue their turne that fulnesse of au­thority,Power of the keies. and power of the keies, which they would so seeme to haue from Christ as that none but they should rule that sterne, none but they, should haue that iurisdiction. So that if they curse none can blesse, if they excommunicate, none may absolue, if they binde, no man may loose.

Wherein they challenge so great priuiledge, that they can [Page 130] worke thereby against the law of God, the lawe of nature, the law of nations.Releasing sub­iects of their duty of obedience. They can (if you will that they will tell you) release the subiectes, from the bond of obedience, which they owe to their magistrates, and the children, they can cause to rebell a­gainst their parents.

A perilons practise is this for all princes estates, thus to lead the people on the blind side, as to make them beleeue, that to re­bel is to obey and to dishonour their superiours, is an acceptable sacrifice to God.

By these their powerfull keies,Immunities of the clergy. they also open the dore of im­munities and priuiledges of the clergy, whereby they are exempt from all corrections and punishmentes, vnlesse forsooth it please his holines, to deliuer them to the secular power, to make them his hangmen.

But of their owne authority they may not touch him, because they are (say they) the Lordes annointed. By which meanes they grew to great sawcines, and the state was not a little in­dangered thereby in many places.

They had also another practise to maintaine their pride,Shrift. and hold them in their high seate: That is auricular confession, or that which we call shrift. For vnder colour of being ghostly fa­thers, the Popes subtill and sworne friendes, had accesse to prin­ces, had conference with their counsellours, had knowledge of their secrets, had opportunity to practise with their false and faithlesse subiectes, and they might, and did take al occasions, by terrifying the consciences of princes, in respect of their sinnes, which they made knowne to them, as if there were no hope of mercy at the hands of God, if first they were not reconciled to the Holy Father the Pope, and the holy mother the Church of Rome.

And thus were they euery way distressed, their consciences being intangled, and their estates indangered. But one of their most subtill shiftes was the taking away of knowledge from the people. Whereby they became as men, that walked in the darke,Ignorance. in an vnknowne way. They neuer knewe whether they did right or wrong. They knew not their own duty. They were taught to beleeue as the church beleeued.

Now although they heard much of the church of Rome, yet [Page 131] for the most parte they were not acquainted with it. So that the church that must be their direction,What it is in the Romish lan­guage to beleeue the church. must be their parson or vicar or perchance their bishop. Who if he would leade them out of the way, they must needs go wrong. Because their light of knowledge, was quite put out.

The Scriptures were either quite taken from them,The scriptures ether quite taken away, or corrup­ted. and mens dreames and deuises deliuered, to the lay people insteede of them: or els they were so corrupted, with foolish gloses, and so mingled, with mens traditions, that the true sence and mea­ning of them was stil vnder a bushell, so that it gaue no light at all to them.

Nowe they not knowing their duty, which God had com­maunded them to performe to magistrates, howe easily might they be drawen aside from the same? Yea they through ig­norance, not beeing able to put a difference betweene trueth and falsehoode, howe readily might they be moued to thinke it to be true that they doe say vnto them, who were onely re­puted and taken for holy Church, that the Pope is Christes Vicar: that he is so much more excellent then any worldly po­tentate, as the soule is better then the body: that there is no lesse difference betweene the glory of the Emperour and the pope, then is betweene the brightnesse of the Sunne and of the Moone. The pope being like the Sunne, and the Empe­rour compared to the. Moone which hath her light from the Sunne.

These and other such like blasphemies against the maie­sty, whome God hath placed vpon earth, were accompted good doctrine, and strong proofes through want of knowledge. And this very effect that ignorance did worke, whereby the ve­ry brokers for the church of Rome, did see themselues and their masters esteemed halfe as Gods, and their messages receiued more readily, and more constantly kept, and more willingly o­beied, then gods word by a great deale, made them to proclaime so lowde, and so stiffly to maintaine, that ignorance is the mo­ther of deuotion.

And why should they not,Ignorance say they mother of deuotion. when they see that princes are readye, by reason of their ignoraunce in Gods trueth, [Page 132] to be led and guided by such blind guides, euen to the hazarding of their kingdoms? And the people therby are withdrawen from al duty, so that they may leade both prince and people, as Elisha led the Syrians euen into their enemies hands. [...]. Kings 6, 19.

And as this ignorance hath beene a great cause that the pope hath mightily preuailed, and aduaunced his seate farre high­er than became one of his coate, and yet his pride was neuer spied of many:Ignorance at this day cause of much euill. euen so at this day for want of knowledge the people are most easily drawen, to worship euen the very name of Holy Father, and to sucke the breasts of the holy mother the Romish church. Whose doctrines, if they could examine, whose spirites if they coulde trie, whose horrible blasphemies against Gods trueth, and vnnaturall cruelties against Gods saints, if they could with indifferent iudgement consider of, if (I say) the Lord in mercy would vouchsafe them that knowledge, they would euen hate the name of a Romish catholike, and feare to be of that company and crew, that so plainely, and stubburnely reiecteth Gods commaundement, despiseth Gods magistrates, deceiueth Gods people, and leadeth them in the waies of death and damnation: There are also some other meanes and practi­ses, whereby the popes drawe the people into great admiration of them.Pardons and agnus deis. Namely, their pardons and indulgences, their agnus Dei, and such other trash and trumpery, whereby they perswade the simple ones, that they can effectually and really pardon their sinnes, which is Gods office onely, take away their iniquities, deliuer them from damnation, and shield them from all euill. And who would not giue all that he hath, if he might attaine to these benefites? who would not sell the whole earth to winne heauen? Who would not loose his life, to saue his soule? But the sunne-shine of knowledge would easily driue away all such mists. And they who in their blindenesse do esteeme that man of sinne that sitteth at Rome, to be more then halfe a god, and see nothing but greatnesse in him,Marke 8. 24. as the blinde man of Beth­saida, who before he saw perfectly saw men walking like trees, (so great they seemed in his eies▪) yet when God shall take a­way that veile of blindnesse, and heale that infirmitie in them, they shall then see, the bishop of Rome as he is indeede, to be an enemy to God and man, a subuerter of estates, a foe to prin­ces, [Page 133] a snare to subiects, and a very corrupter of true christianitie and godlines.

And thus much of the shifts and sleights that the Bishop of Rome vsed to come to his greatnesse, by little and little, grow­ing to that that now we see. Sometime vsing flattery, falshood and forgery, yea, and afterwards bringing the emperour vnder by plaine force and feare: alwaies taking aduantages and opor­tunities, when emperors were either otherwise imployed in af­faires, or hated for their life, or some way so distressed, that they could not withstand him and his partakers, then would hee most earnestly pursue and persecute them, vntill he had his wil, which I trust will appeare plainely in the discourse that now I am to enter into, which is as it were a trial and search of the doings of the bishop of Rome and of his behauiour, after that he beganne to be so mightie.

Now to take a good and sufficient suruey of the popes Su­premacie, it is not inough to trie his Title, to see his euidence, and consider of his proof, neither yet to acquaint our selues with his shifts and practises, wherby he hath gotten himself into that very high seate and fulnes of power,Declarat. contra Nauar. & Con [...]. (as Sixtus Quintus spea­keth) which they would seeeme to claime by right, and wherein now they play more than rex, of which two points I haue spo­ken before: but it is also (in my iudgement) very necessary, that we looke somewhat into his doings, and examine how hee hath ruled and raigned, what good he hath done to the church, what profit he hath brought to the christian common-wealth. When God did see the continuall rebellion of his people, that they would by no meanes be reclaimed from sinne, and howe little good it had wrought in them, that they had beene very lately in a grieuous captiuitie: he then by his prophet Zachary chapter 11. verse. 16. threatneth vnto them this great and grieuous plague, that he will raise vp a sheepeheard in the land, which shall not looke for the thing that is lost, nor seeke the tender lambes, nor heale that that is hurt, nor feede that that standeth vp, but he shall eate the flesh of the fat, and teare their clawes in peeces. And that there were such sheepeheardes amongst the people of Israel, and that wo and destruction belonges to them, God by his prophet Ezechiel chapter 34. verses 2, 3, 4. doeth [Page 134] testifie, pronouncing wo to the shepheards that feed themselues, eate the fat,A potterne of the holy father of Rome. cloth thēselues with the wooll, kil them that are fed, but feed them not, they strengthen not the weake, they heale not the sicke, binde not vp the broken, bring not againe that which was driuen away, seeke not the lost, but rule them with crueltie and rigor: I neuer reade or thinke of this description of an euill shepheard, but I see (me thinkes) therein a right paterne of po­pish gouernment. Neither doe I at any time earnestly enter into scanning of that regiment, that is vnder that most holy fa­ther, but I remember how the holy ghost painteth out these proude, cruel and idoll shepeheards. The one seemeth to bee so right a paterne of the other, as if they were all one thing, and no difference at all betweene them: or as if the Spirite of God did both foresee and foreshew the most holy father, in that glasse of the most vnholy shepheard. But that it may the better appeare that he that would be accounted the herd of Christs flocke, doth but seek for to satisfie his own pride, profit and pleasure, not ha­uing any due regard, either to Gods glorie, or the good of them whom he calleth his sheepe: let vs consider, how violently and impotently, his immoderat affection doth carry him, to say & do as himself liketh best, both against God and man, and how inso­lently he beareth sway in Christ his church. And first to beginne with his names and titles,Lib. 2. cap. 31. out of the which M. Bellarmine wil prooue, that the Bishop of Rome is Peters successour, in the whole or vniuersall church. For that he tooke in hand to proue, But I on the contrary by those names shall (by Gods grace) plainely prooue, [...]. 2. cap. 12. that he robbeth Christ of his ornaments, and taketh from him his titles that belong to him onely. And first he calleth himselfe head of the vniuersall church, which name so properly belongeth vnto Christ, that we cannot giue it to any o­ther, without great wrong, both to the head and the body of the church. To the head, in that the office which God the father laid vpon Christ, in appointing him ouer all things the head to the church,Ephes. 1. shuld be bestowed vpon a sinful man: to the body which is Christs church, because by that meanes it should haue but an idle head, euery way vnable to performe the dueties of a head. I deny not but the church of Rome, for 4 or 5 hundred yeres af­ter Christ, might iustly be called the head of the church, that is a [Page 135] ring leader to other churches in respect of religion which remai­ned more sincere there then elsewhere for many yeares, neither was that church so troubled with heresies as were others. I confes also that som of the bishops of Rome, for their forward­nesse, learning, and paines, imployed to the benefit of the church, might worthely be called in some sence heads of the church, as in the first parte of this treatise I haue shewed. Then will some man say, what is then the fault which you charge the bishop of Rome withall, in calling himselfe the head of the vniuersall church? First that he maketh that name proper to him and his seate, which many times more iustly belonged vnto others, who for their learning and trauel, for the church of God, deserued much better of Gods church then any pope of them al.

Further also that it is not, that signification of the name head, that will satisfie the popes ambitious humour, thereby to be counted a man, onely able or fit to guide and direct others, but he will so be a head, that hee must commaund, forbid, bind, loose, retaine, remit, dispence, denie, doe, and vndoe, as his vnbridled affection, should carie him. Which soueraigne power ouer the church or any parte of the church, we cannot find that God gaue vnto any man, either Peter, or Paul, yea or to Christ himselfe as man onely (for he was taught of his father what to doe, and what to say) much lesse then would his vicar of Rome, if he had but one sparke of christian humilitie, claime such abso­lute power, ouer the whole earth. Seeing therefore by this name head, hee chalengeth greater power then either any good man would haue in Gods church (for the godly can be content to speake of God as God teacheth them, and to doe as hee woulde haue them) or is fit for any man to haue, as his vnruly doings do sufficiently declare: we iustly denie, that euer any bishop of Rome, was of the godly called the head of the church, in that sence that it is now vsed, as their doings doe plainly teach vs. As for the name Papa or pope it was a common name to all bishops as is confessed by Baronius, yea and graunted also in this place by master Bellarmine himselfe. And it signifieth as much as father or grandfather, so that it seemeth, that it was first giuen vnto bishops by godly christians, who did honour and reuerence them for their calling. And why may not this [Page 136] name, be aptly giuen to any diligent bishoppe or pastour, in the church of god?Lib. 2. cap. 31. No master Bellarmine wil haue this name after a more particular maner to be giuen to the bishop of Rome, then to any other.Match. 23. 9. Then we must learne of Christ not to call any man our father vpon earth. For there is but one, our father which is in heauen. And therefore if he wil otherwise be our father then man may be our father, let him seeke for other children, for to such a father we owe no obedience.

The name of vniuersal bishop,Vniuersall bish. Actione. 3. was giuen in the councill of Chalcedon to the bishop of Rome, maister Bellarmine telleth vs. We deny it not. But without a fauourable and good vnder­standing, that title may be very odious. For euen Gregory him­selfe a bishop of Rome, and no man more vehemently, inueieth against that proud title in many plaids. His places are so com­monly alleadged that I neede not come to any particular.Bellar ans. to that we obiect out of the odious name of vniner­sal bishop. But Bellarmine going about to deliuer this title, from all suspition of antichristian ambition, telleth vs that this name vniuersall bi­shop may be taken in two sorts. One way that a vniuersall bi­shop should signifie an only bishop,Vniuersal bishop an only bishop. that is such a one as woulde haue none to be bishop but himfelfe onely. And such a vniuersall bishop saith master Bellarmine Saint Gregory condemneth. And doth he not otherwise condemne Iohn of Constantinople his pride, but because he would haue no bishop but himselfe? No master Bellarmine the stories are more plaine,A reply against that answere. then that such shifts may go for currant. The controuersie was, whether the bishop of Constantinople should be as now the bishop of Rome is in his owne account, a bishop aboue al bishops.

Read all the histories and it wil easily appeare, his indeuour was only to haue the commanding of other bishops. Neither could he be called vniuersal, if he were the only bishop but ra­ther the singular bishop. But master Bellarmine bringeth two or three testimonies out of Gregory wherein he complaineth that Iohn patriarch of Constantinople would be bishop alone. Gregories meaning is plaine enough, that he saith he would on­ly be bishop, because he only would haue the commanding of all, that others should indeede be his suffraganes, and at his com­mandement which reason of Gregory against that title of vni­uersall bishop, if it be wel marked, giueth I thinke a wound vn­curable [Page 137] to the church of Rome. A soueraigne authoritie in one to commaund all (saith he) is to take away all bishops but that one onely, but such soueraigne authoritie ouer bishops the pope doth chalenge in this name of vniuersall bishop, as experience teacheth: therefore he maketh him selfe the onely bishop. And this is the thing that Gregorie so mislyketh in Iohn bishop of Constantinople, therefore I cannot see how it can be tolerable in him of Rome. But one may be called a vniuersall bishop (saith he) in another sence, as he hath a care of the whole church, and so the Pope may be called a vniuersall Bishop. But here­in master Bellarmine giueth very litle authoritie to the bishop of Rome.Tom 2. anno 187 For this generall care belongeth not onely to euery Bishop, but also to euery Christian as Caesar Paronius doeth plainly confesse,De bonis operib. in part. li. 2. c. 24. of whom master Bellarmine doth write, that he is a singular good man, and without all doubt most learned. And therefore I trust hee will by him be perswaded, to let this name of vniuersall bishop be a name that may belong to mo then to him of Rome, and so not to make it his peculiar title. A fourth name of his,Most holy, is that hee is called most holy. And here master Bellarmine doth maruelously insult ouer master Luther for insinuating that the names of most high, and most holy, had not beene hard of in the dayes of Gregorie. Master Luther said not so, master Bellarmine onely feared that he ment some such matter, and therefore quareleth with him and telleth him that he lieth.Conc. Chale. actione 3. obiect. Answer. Well, Leo the pope is called most holy in three seue­rall titles, that three Graecians wrote to him. It is true master Bellarmine, and in the same action in a great number of places besids, the bishops yelding their consent, do call him most holy. He is there also called holy, and why would not that name holy, which is there also giuen to him,The title of Most holy giuen to sundry. as well content the bishop of Rome now, as to be called most holy? Or why should that be a peculiare name to him alone, that was giuen in that place as well to others as to him? For Anatolius the patriarch of Con­stantinople, is often called most holy. Yea and the council writeth vnto Dioscorus patriarch of Alexandria, whome they depriued of his dignitie, because he was a manitainer of Futiches that notable heretick, yet I say, the conncill writing vnto him, doe call him also most holy. And whosoeuer marketh [Page 138] that councill, shall see no titles more common, then most holy, most blessed or happie, mow beloued of God, and such like. Neither were these things giuen vnto them as names to conti­nue to them and their seate, but onely such titles, as they thought well bestowed vpon such persons, as they vsed them to. As Leo bishop of Rome, who although he were not without his infirmi­ries, yet sure he was a man of great gifts. And they in aboun­dance of affection towardes him, called him most holy. Must it therefore be a name hereditary to that sinfull and shamelesse broode that since hath sprong vp in that place? It were absurd to thinke, that coniurers, inchaunters, poyseners, adulterers, and such ruffians and rakehelles, should be called by right of their seat most holy. And yet now nothing more common then this title. His fauourites must not speake of him, but with this tearme of most holy. Looke all his bulles and writings, and you shall see, that hee that is most vnholy before God and men, yet by a lying stile must be called most holy. Yea to doubt whether it be a fit name for his holinesse forsooth or not, is a sinne more to be punished then the breach of Gods lawe if it be true that Gentiletus writing against the council of Trent re­porteth of a bishop that was put out of his bishopricke,Li. 5. Nullitate 11 because in that council he misliked that the pope should be called most holy, and God in the scriptures is called but holie. And indeede he might iustly mislike it, if he duely considered that in God hee could not see any thing like vnto sinne, in the pope almost no sparke of goodnesse in these latter ages. And, this I take to be the reason why master Bellarmine, doth not place among the fifteene names that he hath found out for the pope, this name most holy, because in respect of his vnholinesse, he thinketh it pitie to bestow that name vpon him. And therefore he should the rather haue borne with master Luther, if hee did maruell that the popes flatterers, would so prophane that holy title, in bestowing it vpon so vnholy men, as for the most parte they haue all beene, which these many hundred of yeares haue sit in that seate. Or at the least hee would not haue giu­en the lie to master Luther, for signifying that Saint Gregorie would haue misliked the abuse of that name in these dayes. As for the name of Christs vicar,Christs vicor. which is also one of his com­mon [Page 139] title, wee would not much sticke to bestow it vpon him our selues,Christ hath ma­ny vicars. if he would content himselfe with that place where­in he is, or else should be (if he were as he ought to be) the vicar of Christ. For euerie pastor is in his owne charge, Christs vicar,2. Cor. 5. [...]0. and must in Christs steede be a messenger from God, and pray the people to be reconciled to God. But this is too small a benefice for this prowd prelate, too litle a compasse for his ambi­tious minde. He will be vicar generall. All the world must be his diocesse, all people are his flocke. But wee cannot yeeld him that title, we cannot displace him whome Christ hath as­signed to that Rome, euen whilest he was vpon earth, and pro­mised to send in his place,The spirit Christ vicat generall. Ioh. 14. 16, 17. euen the spirit of truth, that euer abi­ding comforter. His eies see our wants, his eares heare all our cries, yea our sighes, and groanes, are not hidden from him. He is worthie to be Christs vicar generall, because hee is with the church in all places, yea if it bee in prisons and dungeons. But this vicar of Rome, as he can not be euery where if he would, so in such places he will not be if he could. His predeces­sors indeede, that neuer sought so proud titles, suffered much for Christes sake.

But now the case is altered.Father. All men must suffer his wrongs and violence. His name of father how it can be bestowed vpon him I cannot see, vnlesse it be for getting of bastards and so their own stories will report vnto vs, that many of them haue beene fathers as Iohn. 12. Alexander the sixt, and many other. But seeing spirituall fathers,Iames 1. 18. 1. Pet. 1. 23. must beget children to God by the word of truth, and by the seede not mortall, but by the immortall seede of the worde of God which seede they loue not to sowe (for a preaching pope in our dayes is as a blacke swan) they cannot therefore get spirituall children vnto God, & therefore as I said before I cannot see, that they can be spirituall fathers. If they be called fathers in respect of their age, and so it be vsed as a name of reuernce, wee enuie then not that name in such sort, so that they take it not from other, to make it proper to them. And these are the names which are commonly giuen in our days to the B. of Rome. As for the rest of his titles because we hear them not attributed to popes now, I omit. Sauing that I must put you in remembrance of one blasphemous name, which although it [Page 140] be not a name by which he is commonly called, yet it is giuen to him as his due, and master Bellarmine because he would not haue him to leese it, doth tel vs it is his name. He is therefore called the bridegroome of the church.The bridgroome of the church. Vbi peticulum, de electione in sexto. Which name master Bel­larmine saith was giuen to him by a generall council holden at Lyons it was Anno. 1215. more then twelue hundreth yeares after Christ.

But as it seemeth, it was neuer worthy to be reckoned a­mong the councils. For we haue it not in the tomes of councils. Yea and the pope Boniface the eight doth challenge to himselfe that proud name,Cap. Quoniam de Immunit. m, 6. we not minding to neglect our iustice, and the iustice of our spouse or wife the church (saith he) what shall this holy church which is likened to a body, because it can haue but one head, to a house, because it can haue but one foundation, to an army, because it can haue but one captaine or generall, to a turtle doue, because it can haue but one mate, to a kingdoem, be­cause it can haue but one king, to a sheepfold, because it can haue but one sheepheard, to a wife, because it can haue but one husbād, shall shee I say now forsake the husband of her youth, or at the least keepe him and another too? Who euer heard that an honest woman could at one time haue two husbands? or an honest hus­band haue together two wiues since Christ his time? [...] Cor. 11. 2. Or how can the holy church, that chast virgine, who is coupled to Christ, be the wife of that vicar of Rome? God is a ielous God, Christ is a ielous husband, his wife must loue none but him. Shee ther­fore can haue no other husband. Saint Bernard telleth pope Eu­genius, that the church is his masters wife.Epist. 237. It is for him en­ough to be the friend of the bridegroome, he must not call his masters bestebloued, his own prince, but a prince. Yea (saith he) thou must challenge in her nothing to be thine.

But master Bellarmine telleth vs,Bellar. answ. to that place of Bernard. that saint Bernard did let Eugenius to vnderstand, that he is not the true and chiefe hus­band of the church. We confesse it, neither he is, nor any man excepting Christ can be the churches true husband.The reply against his answere. And this is also as true, that the church because she is chast, can haue but Christ her one only husband.Ioh. 3. 29. August. in Ioh. Tract. 13. And this is it, that Iohn the bap­tist meaneth when he saith, that he that hath the bride, is the bridegroome. I haue her not (saith he) what am I then? The [Page 141] friend of the bridegroome. Thus doth S. Augustin bring Iohn the Baptist acknowledging that he hath no right in the bride­goomes wife, but is only a friend to the bridegroome. As also he maketh the bridegroome him only, that is lord ouer the whole earth. And he maketh his argument strong against Donatus, be­cause the church hath but one husband, which is Christ, therefore Donatus is not that husband, nor can be. But if master Bellar­mines distinction might serue that Christ is chiefe and yet there may be an other vnder him, Donatus might as well haue clai­med to be that husband then, that the pope doth claime now to be. But it was not then known, that one honest woman, might haue two husbands. Chrysostome asso and Theophilact and all the ancient fathers make Christ the onely husband, yea and Chrysostome thinketh,Hom. 28. that he needeth fauourably to interpret that, that Iohn calleth himselfe the friend of the bridegroome, shewing that he meant not thereby to make himselfe equall to Christ, but only to expresse the greatnes of his ioy. For a friend reioiceth more then a seruant. What would he haue said then to these sawcy mates, who thinke too base a thing for them to be but friends to the bridegroome, but the bridegroome and they must haue all one wife? I cannot therfore maruel much at their flattering lawyers, that wil make the pope and Christ to haue but one consistory or seat of iudgement.Panorm. in l. li­cet de electione extra ex hosti­ensi. Marke I pray you the vicar before his parson, the pope before Christ. The pope and Christ, make but one consistory. But this I take to be somewhat tolerable.The pope and Christ haue one wife, make one consistory. If they both haue but one wife, they may sit in one seat. But I muse that master Bellarmine with great silence, doth passe ouer one of the names, that y^e pope is now best known by, and is more ancient, then many of the names that he spea­keth of.Seruant of Gods seruants. the seruant of Gods seruants. Which name they lear­ned of Gregory the first to giue themselues. It may be that master Bellarmine, was ashamed his master should come so neere in name to wicked Ham first called seruant of seruants,Gen. 9. 25. or that he seeth all their doings so directly contrary to y^t name, that he thinketh it not a name due to them, or fit for them. For what mockery is it, to write themselues seruants of Gods seruants, perchance sometime in the selfe same letters, wherein they will command, controll, correct, condemne the mightiest monarches [Page 142] vnder heauen, Gregory would thereby haue taught them mo­destie, humility, meeknes, and such other christian vertues, yea, and also a painefull diligence for the good of the church, as if in all things they should carefully seek, not their own profit or pre­ferment, but Gods glory, and the benefit of Gods people (for seruants worke not for themselues but for their master.) They keeping still the name, by that outward profession of lowlinesse and industry, seeke to cast a mist before the eies of the ignorant, that they shall not see them, when they shew themselues in truth so proude and presumptuous againe all men, so lither and loy­tering in their pastorall functiō as if they were enimies to man­kind, and had no care at al of their owne duty.

But now let vs see to what end M.Why these names are giuen to the Pope. Bellarmine doth intitle the B. of Rome to those names of Head, Pope, vniuersall Bi­shop, Christs vicar, Father and Bridegroome, euen to this end, that he may prooue him to haue the charge of the whole church. I on the other side shew, that these are not his titles, they are not his ornaments, they belong to Christ most of them, and on­ly to him, if the be vnderstoode in peculiar sorte, as master Bel­larmine would haue them. They may be giuen, after some sort, to all pastors. But the B. of Rome cannot abide to be but like others, he must be sigular and fellowlesse, or else nothing can content him. Therefore I out of these names which hee so cha­lengeth to himselfe, do prooue his pride and presumption aboue men, thus to extoll himselfe so excessiuely aboue others, yea, and blasphenues against Christ, thus to wring from him, his office and priuileges, and to make the world to beleeue, they are his owne. And this is one of the effects that followed of this ful­nesse of power which by little and little (as before I shewed) the Pope aspired and attained vnto. And euer as he grew in pow­er, so did he in pride also, vntil he could not tell how to call him­selfe, or what name he should giue himselfe, that his greatnesse thereby might sufficiently be expressed: yet all these proude ti­tles coulde not satisfie or content the proude humour of many of these Popes, but that they grew to farther impiety and grea­ter, if greater may be. For, as in these names they made the whole church to be (not Christs) but as it were their owne in­heritance, and their owne house, with which, and wherein they [Page 143] thought they might do as themselues would, and they incroched also exceedingly vpon Christ his right: so at the length, they came to that contempt of God and godlines, that their parasites would giue vnto them,The Pope god. and they could be content to take the ho­nour that was due to God only. They wil not so much as leaue to God his name, but euen that is bestowed vpon the pope. To beleeue (saith one) that our lord god the pope,Extrauag. Iob. 22. could not do this thing, is to be counted heresie. And another saith, When the pope dissolueth a marriage it must be thought to be Gods doing onely, because the pope being chosen according to the cannons, is god vpon earth. And another, Innocentius the third, The Pope heere vpon earth supplieth the roome, not of pure man, but of a true God. And lest it should be thought, that the Ca­nonists did giue more honour vnto the pope herein, then hee was content to take upon him:Dist. 96. [...]. Satic. pope Nicholas himselfe, doeth claime for him and his seate, great immunitie and freedome, because the good emperour Constantine (saieth he) did call the pope god. And yet this holy father playeth but the crafty mate, for that Constantine did speake of al bishops (alluding to that, I haue said,Psal. 82, 1, 6. ye are gods: And God standeth in the assemblie of gods, and iudgeth among gods, the prophet speaking there of Princes and Iudges) that doeth hee applie to himselfe alone. Whosoeuer readeth that which is alleadged out of an Epistle of Gregorie vnto Mauritius the Emperour,Caus. 11. q. 1. cap. Sacerdotibus. shall find this false dealing of Pope Nicholas to make himselfe a god after som other sort, then Constantine there calleth al bishops gods. The Iewes were superstitious, so as they durst not name that name of God Iehouah, for feare of offending that great god: The popes are sawcie, that make no scruple at all to take to themselues that name, of the which we ought not to speake or thinke, but with great reuerence. Whether nowe are the honester, the Iewes, or the Pope. The Iewes were too scru­pulous. But the Popes yet, that haue cast off all reuerence of the maiestie of God, are farre more blame worthy. And this very name (as I suppose) that they called themselues gods, did so imbolden some of them, to set so little by God. As for example, Pope Iulius. not the second, that was the lustie warriour, but the third, that filthie beast, if Stories doe [Page 144] speaketh truely of him. He loueth porke very well, and when by the commandement of his phisition,Act Rom. pontif. Ioh. [...]a. porke was not serued at his table, being angrie for it, one answered that the physition said it was not wholsome for him.Popes saucy with God. I will haue it saith he in de­spite of God. At another time missing a peacock which he had commaunded to be kept colde against night, hee burst into ex­tremitie of choller, whereupon a cardinall mouing him to be quiet, What said he was God angry for an aple, in so much as he cast our first parents out of paradice for that matter, and may not I being his vicar, be angrie for my peacock? The irreligi­ous heart, of this prophane pope, could neuer haue burst out, iuto such blasphemies against God, but that in his excesse of pride he esteemed himselfe as God, or else in affection euen be­sotted with atheisme, hee said as did the wicked in the prophet Dauid. Psal. 53. 1. There is no God. And so hee proued that to be most true,Ps [...]l. 49. 20. that the same prophet saith in another place, man being in honour hath no vnderstanding, he is like to the beasts that perish. And thus we see howe the bishop of Rome, being drunken, with too wel liking of himselfe in his authoritie and high estate, did not only exalt himselfe by his names aboue al men, but made himselfe equall euen with the most high. But least the bishop of Rome, should seeme to be but God in name, and not in deede, as a shadow without a bodie, and title without authoritie, (as were Paul the third his archbishops that he sent to the council of Trent,Cono. Trident. li, 2. [...]. 1. num. 3. whome he was faine to maintaine with his poore almes, that he bestowed vpon them:) he therefore sheweth his preroga­tiue, and telleth what power and might he hath, that he may prooue himselfe, to be like to her, that said in her heart, I will ascend aboue the height of the clouds,Esa. 14. 14. and I will be like the most Highest.

If I would indeuour to set downe all that might be said of the pride of the bishop of Rome or at the least of his impudent affection of his claw-backs, it were harder to find an outgate then an entrance, this field is so large to wander in. For what is it that the Pope can not doe? Yea what can God himselfe doe more then hee? If wee will trust flattering Lawyeares, in their approued and allowed bookes, he is Christs vitar gene­rall ouer heauen, earth, and hell, ouer angels good and bad, [Page 145] yea they tell vs, that the pope can doe whatsoeuer God can doe, except sinne. It seemeth that they meane God can sinne, but the pope is so clad with holinesse, and compassed about with righteous dealing as with a garment, that hee can in no wise sinne, such a staine cannot be in his flesh, such a clog cannot hang at his backe. O proud blasphemie! Can that man of sinne (for Saint Paul doubtlesse speaketh of him) iustly so called,2. Thessal, 2. 3. because he is a stumbling block to others, and a cause of sinne to many thousands, and himselfe also often a seruant or rather a sincke of sinne, can he (I say) be without sinne? Yea they tell vs that he may,Dist. 40. cap. Non nor. and that by the authoritie of pope Symmacus, who doth testifie that Saint Peter did bequeath the euerlasting gift of Merites, together with the in heritance of innocencie to his posteritie. In somuch as if they haue not merits enough, yet that sufficeth that Saint Peter hath done. He addeth the rea­son, because he (I thinke he meaneth Saint Peter) either doth aduaunce them that are worthie, or doth lighten such as are ad­uaunced. Now if the pope himselfe will say, that he in respect of his chaire, hath a succession of innocencie, it is no great mar­uel if his flatterers will say he cannot sinne.

But if all the popes and their parasites, would crie it out neuer so loud, yet so long as their owne stories are remain­ing they shal be proued liers. Where are now these censurers and seuere forbidders of Gods writings? Why vse they not their authoritie to represse such blasphemies? The Romish church,Ind. expurgat. can take vpon them to prohibit the writings of godly men, yea if there be but a note in the margent of the fathers, word for word out of the fathers, whereby the reader may perchaunce be directed more readily, to see the iudgement of that father in some point in controuersie, although it change not the meaning of that place yet our seuere censurers still com­maund that it be left out. But these horrible blasphemies, whereof al men may iustly be a shamed, are not once misliked of, sound not out of time, but are melodius musicke in the eares of such holie fathers. Can we hope for any good from them, that call light darknesse, and darknesse light, euil good, and good e­uill? I feare such bad trees, can bring forth no good fruit. But to come to some particular points.

[Page 146] Let vs see what this petty God, doth take vpon him, and how he plaieth the God indeede? For as I haue said the bare name of God (although it be far too much, that it should be giuen him by others, or acknowledged of himselfe) wil not please him, but he must also doe as God doth. And first whereas Christ is our on­ly lawmaker and master, as Christ himselfe telleth vs, and ther­fore Saint Iames also exhorteth vs that we be not many ma­sters:Matth. 23. 8. Iam. 3. 1. yet this Romish Rabby will be our master also, not con­tenting himselfe,The pope tea­cheth vs of his owne. to deliuer that which he receaued from God, as did Christ and his apostles, (whose footsteps he should not be a­shamed to follow) but he will teach vs his owne lessons, and de­liuer vs his owne doctrines. And although he pretend the di­rection of Gods spirit,obiection. yet euen hereby it appeareth, that this is but a lying pretence and coulour, wherewith they would cloke all their heresies and superstitions.Answere. Ioh. 16. 13. What the spirit teacheth. For the spirit shal not speake of himselfe, but whatsoeuer he shall heare, that shall he speake. Aud this reason our Sauiour Christ yeeldeth why the spirite shall lead vs into all truth, because he shall teach nothing of his own, but that which he shall heare. Therefore all new doctrines, euen whatsoeuer hath beene added in substance of doctrine, vnto that which Christ and his apostles left vs, sauoureth of another spirit, and not of that spirit of God, which shall teach or suggest nothing, but that which he hath heard. What a master then, is that great master, not in Israell, but in Italy, that bringeth in huge heapes of doctrine, which themselues confesse onely to rest vpon mens traditions, which they call traditions of the church, and haue no good warrant, or sure ground in the word of God? Doeth he not take vpon him Gods office? Doeth he not make himselfe herein equall with God? It is most plaine, it cannot be denied. But the infatiable ambition of those holy fathers, will not suffer them to content themselues with that excesse of pride, in that they take vpon them as God, to make lawes,The pope con­troleth gods word. Heb 13. 4. 1. Cor. 7. 2. 9. and giue rules to Gods church, vnlesse they also control and correct as seemeth good to them, those lawes which God hath set downe, and those ordinances which he hath established in making that sin which he calleth honourable, and forbidding that which he hath commanded, as appeareth in their forbidding certaine persons to marry.

[Page 147] And on the contrary wheras Christ reproued Peter for draw­ing his sword, euen in defence of his master,Mat. 26. 52. 53. yet Peters successor, and Christs vicar, as he tearmeth himselfe, commendeth it as a most acceptable sacrifice to God,Killing of prin­ces meritorious in the popes court. and meritorius of the remission of sinnes, if in the defence of the pope, or reuenge of his enemies (and they are all his enemies that will not be his slaues) they fight againgst christian princes, yea and rebell, against their natu­rall and soueraigne magistrates. Of the which because I shall God willing haue better occasion to speake after, I only would haue you nowe to remember that furious fellow Iulius the se­cond,Interdictum reg­ni franciae p, 67. of whom it is written that he gaue forgiuenes of sinnes to any that would kill a Frenchman. And it seemeth that some cause of his deadly hatred against the French was this. Iulius this iolly pope was sworne when he was chosen pope as many stories testifie, that he should call a generall council within two yeares.

But he not regarding either oath or duety, was so farre from calling of a councill, that as much as he could he hindered the same. And thereupon nine Cardinals leauing him, came to Millan, and appointed a councill to be kept at Pysa, whither the Emperour and French king did send their Ambassadours. Now when otherwise hee could not hinder the council, hee pur­posed, as a friend of his telleth vs,Rioche Compe [...] ▪ temporum in Iulio. 2. to rule it by warres, so that he made the councill to goe to Millaine for feare. A great fight beeing vpon Easter day betweene the French and this woorthy warriour: the French men gaue his a great ouer­throwe.

Whereupon he stirred vp against them, all that he could, the Venetians, 1. Pet. 3. 11. Heluetians, Italians, Spaniards. So wel did he seeke for peace and insue it, as Saint Peter commandeth him, whose successour he calleth himselfe.

So much did he regarde that promise, that our Saui­our Christ himselfe,Mat. 5. 9. (whose Vicar he would seeme to be) did make. Blessed are the peace makers for they shalbe called Gods children. And so lightly did he set by that commaundement that Christ hath giuen against our affectionat and vnlawfull reuen­ges. Resist not euill:Mat. 5. [...]. but whosoeuer shall smite thee on the right cheeke, turne to him the other also. So that this pope [Page 148] doth promise the reward of remission of sinnes, for dooing that, which Gods law doth flattely forbid, and the law of nature doth vtterly condemne. Is not this to take vppon him against God himselfe? Is not this to commaund when he forbiddeth, and to forbid when he commaundeth? Againe, God hath giuen vs a plaine and flat commandement,Deuter. 12. 32 that we should doe nothing but that which he biddeth. Wee must not so much as turne to the left hand of our corrupt affections, or superstitious seruices, which our selues condemne, or to the right hand, of our good in­tentions and deuotions wherein we please our naturall man ve­ry well. His word only must be our rule and square. Doth not then the bishop of Rome controll this and such like commande­ments of God, when he saith in expresse wordes: ye shall haue other rules of religion, other articles of faith, otherwayes to worship God, by traditions of the apostles, and of the church, vnwritten verities,Doctrines be­side the word. decrees, decretalles, briefes and buls, coun­cils and precepts of the church? Is not this to transgresse Gods commandement by our owne traditions, and to make it of none authoritie?Matth. 15. 3, 6. 9 Is not this to teach as doctrines, mens precepts? Yea, is not this to say with those lawlesse lordes, wee are they that ought to speake,Psalm. 12. 4. who is Lord ouer vs? Thirdly, in that the pope may (as hee and his fauourites falsely affirme) allowe of the scriptures, whether they shall be authenticall or not. Doth he not thereby take vpon him to be aboue God, whose word is not authentical vnlesse the pope allow of it. If you doubt whe­ther the Bishop of Rome be so shamelesse or not, as so to say, consider first what Siluester Prierias a frier, and maister of the popes pallace writeth in his articles or foundations that he set­tethLuth. tom. 1. downe against Luther. Whosoeuer (saith he) resteth not vpon the doctrine of the church and bishop of Rome, as vpon an iufallible rule of faith, from whence euen the holy scripture doeth drawe strength and authoritie, is an heretike, like vnto which is that also of Eckius, Loc. com. de eccl. without the authority of the church, the very scriptures are not authenticall. And let not their doc­trine only be examined, wherein they teach, that the pope is vir­tually the church, as doth that frier Prierias in the place before alleadged in his second foundation, but also (yea and that espe­cially) the practise of that church, so to refer al things to the pope [Page 149] in such things, that he according to that fulnesse of knowledge, which is in that sacred casket of his holy brest, which pope Paule the second did first boast of,Dist. 40. c. si p [...]p. must iudge of all things, so that as he saith, so it must be, and there must no reason be asked of his doing. Whereby it appeareth that the Pope being the church, and as we see, hauing the ful authoritie to do what he will in the church of Rome, they tell vs that the scripture hath no authori­tie or strength but from him? And I pray you then who is grea­ter? hee that maketh the word authenticall, or hee that hath his word approoued? Is not he that doth approoue it? so God must be vnder the pope, that holy God, vnder a vile sinfull man. Fourthly, the pope will take vpon him to dispence with, or ra­ther against the word of God, and to allow that which God ma­nifestly condemneth, and is expresly against gods holy law. For proofe whereof, I neede not alleadge the false testimony of his flattering lawyers, that giue him that power to dispense against the apostle, and so against gods word: but we may see his prac­tise, which doth sufficiently testifie, that he thinketh he may dis­pense, with the wicked and vnnaturall vncouering of the shame of them, that are neare of kinne, And he hath done contrary to this flat commaundement giuen by God against marying with vncle or aunt.Leuit. 20. 20. In which case he did dispense in the marriage of his catholike sonne Philip King of Spaine, who, as in his vn­righteous ambition hee hath no measure, so in his vnnaturall iust, he hath (as it seemeth) no shame: but to his Lord he shall stand or fall, before whome it shall be tried one day, whether the popes bull can stand betweene God and him, for breach of Gods lawe. Yea, pope Martine the fifth (as is alleaged in a booke called Brutum fulmen, out of Anthony of Florence and others) did dispense with one, to marry his owne sister, where­as God saieth, thou shalt not vncouer the shame of thy sister. But what can not the pope do? He can make wrong right, say they:Leuit. 18. 9. And wee knowe, that hee can make that which is right wrong. For hee can (as they tell vs) doe all things aboue right, against right, and without right. Yea, hee is lorde of lordes, and hath the authoritie of the King of kings, ouer his subiects. But what will you more?

To doubt of the popes power it is no lesse then sacrilege. As [Page 150] also it is alleadged out of Thomas of Aquine against the errors of the grecians question 66. That to say that the pope hath not supremacy ouer the whole church, is like the errour of them, that say the holighost proceeds not from the sonne. But such are here­tickes against the godhead as it cannot be denied,Yo' doubt of the popes supremacie is heresie against God. and therefore doubtlesse by the iudgement of Thomas of Aquine, they that do but doubt of the popes supremacy are hereticks against the god­head.

And is this that Thomas of Aquine, that glorious Saint and clarke, whose only sentence weigheth more, then all the pro­testantes wits and wordes in the worlde,In his inuectiue answer to the English Iustice. as saith in a spitefull pamphlet our weeping cardinall of England, who can neuer bee merry, vntill be see the ruine and desolation of his naturall con­try.

In which respect I pray God hartely, that hee may nightly water his bed with teares, and moysten alwaies his breade with weeping rather then he should see, or his eies behold, the destruc­tion of this land, which he and such other tigers whelps so gree­dely gape for. And I doubt not, but our good God, which hath hitherto very often, not mercifully onely, but miraculouslie also and mightely preserued and vpholden, the only proppe and staie of this our flourshing lande, will still pleade her cause against all her foes,our sins deserue great plagues. and preserue her soule the soule of his turtle Doue against all their secret and malitious practises. I confesle indeede, that our sinnes which abound daily more and more, doe iustly deserue, that this pretious iewel, should be tak­en from vs. And it is onely Gods mercie, that hath preserued vs these many yeares, euen his free and great mercie. But if we could turne to the Lord vnfainedly, we neede neither feare the suites or teares, nor traiterous deuises, of such hipocrites, neither yet the might or malice of all those conspirators. But if the Lord should as in iustice he may giue vs ouer to be a prey vnto their teeth, yet the truth of our cause is grounded still vpon Gods word. And the Israelites were Gods people still, al­though when they rebelled against the Lord, hee did sometimes deliuer them to be punished, euen of his owne enemies, and wicked ones.

And I beseech the Lorde make vs more patiently to beare [Page 151] his deserued wrath if it shall please him to lay it vpon vs, then we haue vsed thankfully his vndeserued grace and fauour, which hetherto he hath shewed vnto vs, and continued amongst vs. And thus much by occation of that vndue commendation, that Allen giueth vnto Thomas of Aquin. But him and such like I leaue to their owne fancies. And to the godly I say onely with Saint Iames, my bretheren haue not the faith of our glo­rious Lord Iesus Christ,Iames 2. 1. in respect of persons. Let our cares be attentiue to marke, and our hearts ready bent to receaue that which in due examination we find to be well spoken, without beholding of the person, or regarding any thing more, then the word that is taught. And thus haue I briefly shewed, how this vniust authoritie which the pope chalengeth and into the which most craftely hee crept, is in part most lewdly, by him a­bused, not onely in that he claimeth to haue a proude name ouer his bretheren, and the whole church, but also that he dare match himselfe with God, and directly to oppose himselfe against his will.

But as in many things much, so in nothing more doth the bishop of Rome darken Gods glorie, or thrust himselfe into Gods place, then, in that he being himselfe a sinfull man, yea a seruant to sinne, euen set and sold to doe wickedly, dareth yet take vpon him to forgiue sinne:The pope forgi­ueth sinnes. And that not as one that would preach and proclame, vnto the penitent sinners Gods grace and mercy, but as one that commendeth vnto the people his owne power to pardon and forgiue men their offences. Wherein hee first offendeth,God onely can pardon sinnes. in that he taketh more vpon him, then belongeth to him, or to any man. For, seeing our sinne­full act, whether it be against God or man, is therefore imputed to vs as siune, and is indeede sinne, because it is a breach of Gods Lawe; it is very absurde to imagine that any man can dispense with vs for this sinne,1. Iohn 3. 4. but only that good God, against whose lawe we haue transgressed. And for this cause the godly when their sinne was vnto them a heauy burthen, haue made their suite and mone vnto God, because he onely can heale that sore, and helpe that sickenesse, as that one example of Dauid in steed of many, may prooue vnto vs, Psal. 51. 1. Haue mercy vpon me O Lord according to thy great mercie, and according [Page 152] to the multitude of thy compassions,Tibi soli peceaui. put away mine iniquities. And although his sinnes were exceeding great (as after he con­fesseth) yet because none could pardon them but God only, ther­fore euen to him he commeth, against whom he had offended, to him,Iob. 14. 4. he confesseth his fault, of him, he seeketh for release, to him, he sueth for pardon. For of all men it is true that Iob saith who can make that cleane, that is conceiued of vncleane seede? there is not one. And therefore God proclaimeth by his prophet E­say. I,Esa. 43. 25. euen I, am he that putteth away thine iniquities, for mine owne sake, and will not remember thy sinnes. And first we bowe the knees of our heart, to our good God, yeelding vnto him immortall thankes and praise, who dealeth thus gratiou­fly with vs vnwoorthy and sinnefull wretches, as that hee doth not onely freely forgiue vs, for Christ his sake, all our sinnes, and blot out all our offences, and put away all our transgressi­ons, with an assured purpose, neuer to cal them to remembrance, or to charge vs with them in his iust iudgement: but also for the better quieting,The ministery of [...]econciliation. of our fearefull and troubled consciences, hath giuen power and commandement to his ministers, by proclai­ming to the penitent this his free pardon ministerially to heale the soule wounded with sinne, to bind vp the broken and contrite heart, and to raise by form the pit of despaire, them whom the clog of conscience accused of sinne had pressed downe. This, e­uen this, we acknowledge to be an vnestimable benefit, and a great fauour, that God sheweth to vs vile wretches, that that mercy which he hath sealed vp for vs in heauen, he hath caused to be made known here on earth, by the ministery of the gospel. And this is all the power that is giuen to man, to proclaime vn­to vs that pardon,Esa. 1. 18. that God only giueth. To tell vs, that if our sinnes were as crimson, they (being for Christ his sake pardo­ned) shal be as white as snow, and if they were like scarlet, they shalbe as wooll. But either to thinke or say, that any man can giue any pardon, is too absurd. I cannot therefore but maruel at the church of Rome, and the bishops thereof, tha they shame not, as it were to thrust themselues into Gods place, and to take vpon them to doe, that, which none can doe but God only. They appo [...]t their I [...]ylies, and proclaime pardon of all their sins, to suth as come to Rome, in the time of that solemne feast. In [Page 153] like manner to such as deuoutly say so many praiers before such an image, or goe in pilgrimage to such a place. They send a­broad into all places, their pardons and indulgences, making of them plaine marchandies. So that men or women, may for a litle mony, buie a pardon for their greatest sinnes, as they im­agine. Is not this an easie way for rich men to get to heauen?Popery a doctrine of licentiosnesse. Is not this the very fountaine of all licentious liuing, to teach that men for mony, may make their peace with God, and sa­tisfie for their sinnes? And yet the church of Rome, that shame­lesse harlot, dare charge our doctrine of iustification by fayth (taught first by Christ himselfe,Ioh. 3. 1 [...]. Rom. 3. 28. afterwards by his apostles especially Saint Paul in plaine words) to be a doctrine of liber­tie. What shall we then say of this wicked doctine, or rather of this blasphemous marchandies, whereby leaue to sinne, is sold as commonly for mony, as old boots and shoes are sold in London streets, for beesoms or broome? The first I suppose that opened this shop of these popish wares was Boniface the eight,Plat. in Bonif. 8. who gaue full pardon of all sinnes, marke not of some sinnes, but of all, to them that visited the place, where the a­postles were. And after the world was filled with such trash, pardons were promised to them that would fight against the Turke, yea pardons for them that would fight against the popes enemies. But my meaning is not to stand vpon these points in particular, but rather to point vnto them. Yet I can not omit how that Clement the sixth pope of that name, did perswade himselfe so well of his power and authoritie in this behalfe,Sleid. li. 21. that he gaue commaundement and charge vnto the Angels, that if any died comming to Rome to the Iubilie, which he had ap­pointed to be kept euery fifteth yeare, whereas Boniface had appointed it to be kept but euery hundred yeare,Plat. in Clem. 6 the Angels I say, should carry the soules of such straight way to heauen. What durst not these men presume to doe, that durst like Gods take vpon them, to commaund euen the Angels, to be at their becke? Well, against these their blasphemies which haue no warrant no colour in the word, I only aske of them, who can for­giue sinne but God onely?Marke 2. 7. 1. Pet. 1. 18, 19. Let them proue it by scripture, let them point vnto him out of Gods worde. If man could doe it, what neede so precious a price, so great a ransom, as not gold [Page 154] nor siluer, but the blood of that vnspotted Lambe Christ Ie­sus.

An other great abuse there is in this there wicked doctrine. They promise their indulgesnce generall to al that die in the de­fenceAnother abuse. The generall pro­mise of pardon. of christians against the Turke. Yea they often sell their pardons to any that will buie them, as Bale out of Crantzius reportes,Act. Rom. pontif. Mart. 5. that some did in Saxonie, in the time of pope Martine the first. What excuse can they make, or what pretence can they vse, to make this haue any shew of lawfulnesse? God in the scripture still criieth turne vnto me,Pardon to the penitent, and promiseth forgiuenesse to the penitent, hee threatneth the vngodly, that they shall haue no peace.Esay 48. 22. But not one testimonie, not one example cannot be alleaged, to proue that any man or woman receaue forgiuenesse of sins, vnlesse they first be sorie for the same, which commonly cannot be in sodaine death in the wars, and the pardoners rather require money then amending for the same.Luke 7. Luke 19. 8. The sinful woman had pardon for her sins, but shee hated them. Zache likewise, but he was become a new man.Matth. 16. 75. Peters denying of Christ was for­giuen him, but by weeping hee testified his sorow for the same. The like may be said of many other, whome I for shortnesse o­mit.

Wickedly therefore doeth the Pope giue his pardon of sinnes, not seeing sorrow for sinnes, or purpose of amendment in them, that buy or inioy those their pardons. So Alexander the fifth did wickedly abuse the words of Christ,Plaeina. being at point of death: my peace I giue to you, my peace I leaue with you, as though he could giue that peace.

But if he haue beeue so sawcie with God, how shall he behaue himselfe thinke you towards men? For that is another point which is neeessarie to be considered. Whereby it will appeare that as by subtilty he entred, so with much pride and more then barbarous cruelty he hath raigned. I told you before, how that when he had first by the emperors means got the bishops vnder him, he neuer rested vntil he had not onely thrust the emeperour from hauing any thing to doe in this election: but also brought them vnder his yoke, that they could not be confirmed in the empire but by him. Now what folowed of this must be de­clared. First he did striue earnestly, to keepe all that he had got­ten, [Page 155] and if any emperour hauing indeede in him any noble heart, would seeke to recouer his ancient libertie in some part, and to free himselfe, from that Romish Egypt, and slauish seruitude, wherein that proud Pharo (vnmindfull of Gods graces to him, or his duetie to others) did seeke to detaine him: then would the proud pope, viis & modis, by al meanes that possible he could deuise, so persecute and afflict such, as if he were set vp of God, to be a pledge to all christian princes, and (as were the Cananits vnto the Israelites) pricks in their eies,Num. 33. 55. and continuall thornes, and whips in their sides. And this may euidently appeare out of innumerable examples. The church of Rauenna did not vpon Phoeas his decree, submit it selfe to the church of Rome, or ac­knowledge it to be her head. The patriarch thereof thought himselfe to vne as great at Rauenna, as the pope was at Rome.

But Theodorus although he willingly would haue kept thatFunct. Cronol an 686. ancient priuiledge, yet for feare submited himselfe to Donus then bishop of Rome, about the yeare of the Lord six hundred seuentie and seuen.The popes con­tention with his brethren. But Felix beeing after patriarch of Ra­uenna, and desirous to stand in his auncient priuiledges, mouen the people to the same. So that by all meanes they sought to shake off the bishop of Rome his heauie yoke. Leo then bishop of Rome stirred vp Iustinian the second Emperour of that name, by slaughter, siege spoile, and such violent meanes, to subiect that patriarch to his seate. And Felix who sought to recouer his liberties, had his eies thrust out with a hot burning Iron, as out of Sabelicus and Nauclerus it is reported. But the pope is not more earnest, to maintaine his supremacie ouer bishops (although this hea [...] was too too feruent, that the patri­arch, for this popes pride should haue his eies burnt out) then he was to hold fast, aud to increase daily, that authoritie which by most impdent and vngodly meanes hee had gotten, not onely ouer all princes and kings, but euen ouer the Empe­rour himselfe, the greatest monarch that is in all christen­dome.

The emperour had wont in the primitiue churches, to haue a great saying in the chosing of bishops, especially such as were [Page 156] bishops of Rome, as all histories make mention, and is more euident,The Emperours debarred for ha­uing any thing to do in the election of the Pope. then that it needeth proofe, and more plaine, then that it may be doubted of. But when the popes came to their ouer great authoritie, they began somewhat more boldly, to take vp­on them to occupie that roome without leaue of the Empe­rour.

Adrian the first therefore being B. of Rome, and hee think­ing himselfe much beholding to Charles the great, for defend­ing him and his church, from the violence of enemies, did in a council holden at Rome by the emperor and the pope,Sigeb. Cronic. [...]nno 773. make this vniuersall decree, that the emperour should haue right to chuse the pope, and to order the apostolike seat, and to haue the digni­tie or preheminence of principalitie. I would all our English papists, and specially the fugitiue traitours, that would for this cause make the happy and quiet gouernment, which Eng­land hath vnder our most gratious princesse, a long time comfor­tably inioyed, (because we giue vnto her maiestie the title of su­macie) seeme odiuos to others,A pope acknow­ledgeth the em­perour to haue supremacie. and vnlawfull to our selues, I would I say they would marke, what pope Adrian and the v­niuersall council (for so doth Sigebert there call it) doe yeeld to Charles the great, then emperour, that he should haue the prin­cipality and supremacie. And further it is there decreed, that the archbishop and bishop through euery prouince, shall be inuested by him, and that no man shall be once so bold as to conse­crate him, whome the king doth not commend and institute and that vpon paine of excommunication. And if hee reforme not himselfe, his goods to be forfeited, and himselfe to be bani­shed.

A necessary Lawe doubtlesse for our dayes, both in re­spect of the lawe it selfe, and also in regard of the punish­ment which is to be layed vpon offendours▪ And the more to be accounted of, because it is de [...]ised by such, as I hope they will not saie can erre or cannot say they seeke their bloud. Wel, notwithstanding this decree set downe by councill, as you haue hard, Steuen the fourth bishop of Rome, and next but one to this Adrian the first (who by a conucil cōfirmed to the emperour this authoritie)Dist. 63. C. Quia sanct. Rom. doth not onely debar the emperour, for medling in election of the pope, but also accurseth all them, that by the [Page 157] emperours consent do obtaine any church. And for the lowder proclaming of his pride, most lewdly hee compareth his vniust and rash desanulling of that iust decree, made by Adrian and the council,Pope Steuen the fourth abuseth scripture. with Ezechias his godly abolishing of the high places, the serpent, and such other things as were idolatrously abused by the Israelltes. He alone I say without a council, re­uoketh that which the council had commaunded. Pope Pascha­lis the first succeeding this Steuen, had not the consent of the em­perour, and therefore sent his embassadours vnto the emperour Lodouike, to excuse the matter, and to make him beleeue, that he was forced by the clergie and people to take the popedome on him. The emperorbeing of a very mild nature, yet willing to retaine that priuiledge willed them not afterward to informe the emperours authoritie, but to keepe in their election the decrees of their elders. Now the emperour being forced for the repres­sion of some that rebelled against him, to send Lotharius his sonne into Italy there to remaine: Paschalis the pope inuested the said Lotharius in the empire. But hee being gone to his fa­ther into Fraunce for greater aid, some of his most trusty frends, were in the meane time killed euen in the palace of Lateran, Rioche Compe [...], temporum. their eies first put out, onely because they were fast and faith­full to Lotharius. The pope was commonly supposed to be guiltie, or at the least to be acquainted, with this outragious dealing of the Romans. And although by other he denied the fact, yet did he acquite them that had done that deede, and pro­nounced them that were slaine, to haue beene guiltie of treason. But howsoeuer it was, the emperour seeing belike the popes wholy bent, to depriue him vtterly of any consent in the election of the pope, doth himselfe yeeld it into their hands, making it lawfull for the popes to take that place vpon them, being cho­sen by the clargie and people of Rome,Dist. 63. C Ego Ludouicus. without the emperours consent not long after him commeth Nicholas the first, who se­ing the emperour so easily to be chrust from his right, which was euen by the bishop of Rome,The emperor put from their coun­cils by the pope. Dist. 96. C. Vbi­na [...]. in a council giuen to him in e­lecting of the pope, thought hee would incroach somewhat fur­ther, and doth wholy debar him, of hauing any thing, to doe, or being at or in their council, vnlesse it be when matters of faith be in handling.Dist. 28. C. Con­sulendum. And further he did decree (to cut his power yet [Page 156] shorter) that no lay man whatsoeuer,Dist. 28. C. con­su [...]end [...]m [...]l [...]gie not to be iudged by lay men. Funct. An. 885. should somuch as iudge of Priests, or enquire how they liue. And although Nicholas the first, durst not as yet goe plainlie to worke, but rather by craftie meanes sought to diminish the Emperours power, yet within lesse than thirtie yeares after it was decreed, by Adrian the third, that the Emperours consent should not he regarded, in electing the Bishop of Rome, but the voices or election of the Cleargie, and people therein should be free.

Now by this exemption which the Romans had from the Emperour, that hee had nothing to doe in their elections: as they were without feare of his displeasure, so were they without care of doing in their elections as they ought, and by that means preferred many vnworthie of that place. Wherefore pope Leo the eight,Dist. 63. in Sy­nodo. The emperours tight restored. in a Synod holden at Rome did decree, that Otho then Emperour, and his successours after him, should elect, not the pope onely, but also the chiefe officers of Rome, or bishops, and that onelie with his consent these must be counted lawfull. And if any shall goe about to infringe this decree, he is excom­municate. If he continue therein, he shall be perpetually bani­shed, or haue extreame punishment. How long this decree was kept which was nowe by two Councils at Rome, and by two popes, Adrian the first decreed, & this Leo the eight confirmed, it is not certaine.The Romish shif [...] to debar the em­peror for main­taining his right in the elections. But I am sure that not long after, it was accounted simonie, for anie man to take anie bishopricke, or be­nefice, being instituted thereto by anie lay man. And this was especially laboured by Hildebrand, as soone as euer hee came to haue any thing to doe for the popes, that the Emperour or lay men, should haue nothing to doe, in the election of the pope. And because alreadie two Councils had giuen to the Empe­rours that authoritie, they that followed would not altogether and directly, controll the decree of the Councils, but more craftily they so handle the matter, that by a very generall decree, forbidding all lay men to meddle with elections, or to inttest the cleargie, or rather threatning the cleargie, that will receiue anie ecclesiasticall promotion at the handes of anie lay man, they imagine that they annihilate that, which more particularlie, giueth to the Emperour that power. And indeed most busie to bring this about, was Hildebrand, (that firebrand of much [Page 157] mischiefe) who beeing pope, (for that is hee that was called Gregorie the seuenth) it was almost the greatest sinne that a pope could commit, to seeke to haue his election confirmed by the Emperour.

But before the time of this Gregorie the seuenth his papa­cie, as Pantalcon reporteth,Panta. ex blondo. Clement the second, went also a­bout to debarre the people of Rome, for hauing anie thing to doe in electing the Pope. And thus the bishoppes of Rome, euer repining and grudging, that the emperour (whose power they feared) might bee a bridle vnto them, or rather a deserued scourge for their vngodly life, or any other lay man, should haue anie thing to do in their election, at the length did bring to passe, that neither cleargie nor people,Election by Cardinals. nor emperour should chuse the pope: but onely such of the cleargie as were called Cardinals. And the first that euer was chosen pope by the Cardinals, was Gelasius the second. For we reade not of anie so elected before him. Paschalis the second (who was next after him) was,Plat in Pasch. 2. as Platina writeth of him, despised of the people, chosen of the cleargie,Plat. in Gelas. 2. praised of the Cardinals. But of this he saith, that hee was chosen by generall consent of the Cardinals, and so doeth Rioche a frier, an historiographer of our time. Well nowe the bishop of Rome hath shaken off his yoke, he is now lawlesse and peerlesse, he plaieth now the part of an vntaught and vnru­ly iade, that hauing cast his rider, striketh at him with his heeles. For, freeing himselfe from the emperours gouernment, he goeth about to bring the emperour to be in seruitude vnder him. And therefore first,The emperour confirmed by the Pope. Plat. in Innoc. 3. he goeth about to confirme the emperours elec­tion, as it were not sufficient without his approbation, as In­nocent the third confirmed the election of Otho. Wherin yet by the way, y^• practise of these prelats is to be noted.A popelike policie. For they would cōmonly intend themselues to medle, when by reason of some di­uisiō, they hoped their taking part wold be acceptable. As in this case. For there was a diuision about chusing the emperor, some inclining to Frederick, some to Otho. Acts Rom. pontif. But afterward they came to that boldnesse that we reade that godlesse wretch Iohn 22. or 21. as some reckon did excommunicat Lewes of Bauaria empe­ror, because he tooke vpō him the empire, without the approbati­on of his holinesse: which was decreed by Clement that was [Page 160] next before him, as Bale out of Marius alleadgeth. For, al­though the electours by their election, might giue him power to be King of the Romans, yet could he not now haue the name of an Emperour, but by the pope. And thus wee see how vp­on a sudden, he that but a litle before, could not be pope, but by the approbation of the emperour, is now so great, as that the emperour can not be emperour, but by his leaue. Now hauing gotten thus high, his ambition yet had no end, his pride had no measure, his rage had no bridle. For, as he had now either frau­dulently, or violently, or rather both waies obtained thus much, that he must confirme the emperour before he might haue that title: so did he also take vpon him (O intollerable presumption) soone after,The popes con­troll emperours. Brut, [...]ulmen ex Nau [...]l. Es [...]c. 28. [...] to controll him euen this highest maiestie in this worlde, if he did but write his name before the pope, as Adrian the fourth did Fred▪ the second.

Thus we see the pope hath set himselfe in Gods seate, as Tyrus saieth of her selfe, His throne is placed in the cloudes, and his nest made very high. Now what means haue they vsed to clime vp into the same? For you must vnderstand, that impo­tent affections haue driuen them forward, so impudently to seek for this honor. Which if it do not appeare, in that which hath al­ready bin said: yet in that that foloweth, I trust it wil be as clear as the noone day. For many vngodly & vnlawfull practise they haue vsed, (but what doe I giue them such termes, as doe no­thing expresse their doings?)Many vile means to get the papacy Many detestable and deuilish de­uises they haue had, to intrude themselues into that seate, and to setle themselues in that throne. Yea I may (I suppose) boldly affirme, that a man shal not reade in any histories, or finde in any records, of any state or sort of men, be they neuer so pro­phane, that haue vsed more vile and vilanous wayes to obtaine their desire, then the popes haue doone to mount into that chaire. It should not be so I confesse, but yet it is so: The greater is their sinne, the more is their shame. No man shall take vnto him any honour and especially so great honour, but he that is called of God as was Aron. And whosoeuer doth not enter in by the doore into the sheepfold,Hebr. 5. 4. None should without calling take any place. Ioh. 10. 1, 10. but climeth vp another way, is but a theefe and a robber. And the theefe commeth not but to steale, and to kill, and to destroie. God by his prophet Ieremie [Page 161] doth often complaine of such prophets, as would runne, when they were not sent,Ier. 14. 13. Ier. 23. 21. Ier. 29. 8. and would prophecie, although the Lorde spake not to them. And therefore that which they said vnto the people, was but lies, a false vision, and the deceitfulnes of their owne heart. But the true prophets neuer came but when God sent them. And therefore they doe commonly publish and pro­claime their commission in these words, The word of the Lord came to me, which is more common in the sermons of the pro­phets, then that I neede to point vnto the particular places. Our Sauiour Christ,Ioh. 6. 38. Ioh. 1. 19 when hee came, was sent of the Father. And for that cause, the Iewes sent priests and Leuites to Iohn the Baptist, to know what he was, what calling hee had in the church, and by what authoritie he did that which he did. And as Christ himselfe was sent of the Father, so he sendeth his A­postles, As my Father sent me,Ioh. 20. 21. so send I you. As for Paule who was then a persecuter, when the other Apostles were sent to preach, yet when Christ purposed to haue his seruice in the ministery, he called him, and that not strangely onely, saying to him from heauen,Act. 9. 4. 1. Cor. 15. 10. Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? but effe­ctually also, insomuch as he afterwards laboured more aboun­dantly than they all. Whereby it is plaine, that God would neuer haue the ministery of any in his church, but that he called them lawfully thereunto. Neither is it enough for a man to knowe that his calling is good, I meane his office or function which hee taketh in hand, vnlesse hee haue within him the testi­monie of his owne conscience to assure him, that hee is called to that function, not onely by the outward calling lawfully, but also by the inward calling of the spirit effectually. And this is the meaning of those Canonists, (who otherwise are shamelesse in flattering the pope) who dare thus affirme,Bald. In 6. l. Im­petrata C. Sen­tentiam rescindi non posse. Num. [...] as doth Bald. The pope (saith he) being chosen according to the canons, is a God vpon earth, but not being chosen canonically, is a diuel, not hauing the keis of the kingdome of heauen, but of hell. And as Felinus saith, [...]elin. in l. 4. de iu­reiuran. extra in principio. Dist. 79 C. Si quis pecunia. Plat. in Nico [...]. he is not apostolicall, but apostaticall: which words Felinus hath borrowed out of Gratian his decrees, and Gratian out of pope Nicholas the second. For pope Nicholas hauing deposed pope Benedict the tenth, who as he alleadgeth came in by symony, called a councill at Laterane, and doeth [Page 162] there ordaine, that he shall be accounted apostaticall, and not a­postolicall, who by mony, fauour of men, tumult of the people, or of the soldiers, or by any other way then by the agreeing, and canonicall election, of the cardinals, is made pope. We see then what manner of election there should be. What manner of e­lections they haue, and after what sort they come to be popes it is now to be declared, which shall be performed God willing out of auncient histories: that the world may see, not what Luther or Caluine, or any of vs in these our dayes, doe say of their wicked practises, but what hath beene spoken and written of them, that by violence and intrusion, haue entered into that seate.

Platina himselfe (no Lutheran) telleth vs that when Dama­sus was chosen pope,Plat. in Damaso. there was a great schisme in the church: for one Vrsicinius, Li. 4. oist. c. 29 li. 6. cap. 23. or as Socrates calleth him Vrsinus or as Sozo­men in his ecclesiasticall historie calleth him Vrsatius being at that time in election, gote himselfe to be made pope, by the meanes of his frends.

And whilest neither of them would giue place to the other, but both desired that place, they fell first to words, and after words to blowes, in such sort, that euen in the church many were slaine on both sides (some say to the number of one hun­dred thirtie seuen. And as there was no regarde of the place (for this inocent blod was shed in the church) so neither spared they the very women or any sexe.Hieron. in cron. The disorder was so notorious, as that Maximinus at that time gouernour of the citie, did for the same put to death many both of the laitie, and of the clargie also.

Howe shall wee find heere the agreeing or consenting election that before I haue spoken of,Socrat. hist. eccl. li. 4. ca. 62. where we see such not dissenting in words onely, but also such disorder in blowes, yea bloud, by striuing to get into that glorious chaire? Not long after Boniface the first being chosen by some to be pope,Plat. in Bonif. 1. Sigeb. Crou. ano­ther sort did chuse in another church of Rome, another pope, one Eulalius. And so litle agreement there was in that e­lection, nay so great dissention and so much discord after­wards, that Honorius the emperour for feare of greater in­conuenience, was forced to turne them both out of the citie. [...]as [...]ie. tempor. [Page 163] Afterwards when Symachus was by some chosen pope, other did chuse one Laurence: Plat. in Sy [...]. Bergom. the contention was very great, and made a very great diuision betweene the senators of Rome, and the people also.

Theodoricus then being King of the east Gothes, and at this time ruler in Italy,A king maketh a pope. placed Symachus pope. But with­in four yeares after, this Laurence seeking to displace Syma­chus, and to be pope as before he would haue beene, Theodo­rick sent one Peter a bishop to to displace them both, and to sit in that chaire himselfe. Simachus found meanes that both Lau­rence and Peter, were condemned to be banished. Whereupon there was amongst them a great slaughter, wherein neither vir­gines nor priests were spared as the stories report. Yea some re­port, namely Rioch a papist,Rioche. a frier, and a late writer, that this sedition and murder continued three yeares, betweene him that was, and that other that would haue beene pope. Neither was Boniface the second chosen pope by a consonant consent,Plat. in Bonif. [...]. but great contention there was for eight and twentie dayes,fascic. tempor. or as some write for eight and thirtie dayes: vntill at length by the death of Dioscorus (who was chosen by a contrarie faction) the strife was ended.

Sergius the first was also chosen very hardly, as writeth Bergomates, Bergomates fascicul. tempor. and as an other story saith, in his election, there was great dissention. For some would haue Paschalis, other would chuse Theodore. But the gouernour of the citie and of the souldiers,A pope made by the gouernour. to pretient further mischiefe, did appoint Sergius to be pope. Constantine the second of that name, was by force put into that seate,Bergomates Stella. by the helpe of Desiderius king of Lombar­dy, and others: who bringing to Rome an army made him pope, being a meere lay man,A lay man made pope. and not hauing taken any orders be­fore. But perchaunce they will readily except against him, because that Platina and others account him not in the number of popes.

It is true that Platina doeth not reckon him amongest the Popes, although he was in that place more than a yeare. But it seemed that they did not call in question his manner of chu­sing (for that had beene a thing growen very common before, not to haue consent of them that vsed to choose them) but as [Page 164] Platina reporteth, is was obiected vnto him, that he not hauing taken order,Plat. in Steph. 3. was content to take vpon him to be pope, when he answered that the people forced him thereto, the council seemed to pitie him. But when the next day he defended himselfe, by the examples of Sergius who was made archbishop of Rauen­na, and Stephan bishop of Naples, being meere lay men, then they were angry at him, and proceeded against him. Because therefore we see not any mislike that they had of him, but onely that he was not within orders: I see not but that he may well enough be reckoned among them, that by violence possessed that seate,Bargom. fascic. tempor. and therefore not lawfully. What should I speake of Eugenius the second, that in a schisme was made pope? Or of Martin the second, (whome Oniforus calleth Marius) who by euil meanes came to be pope, and as Platina seemeth to re­port, by mouing sedition against Iohn the ninth.Blat. in M. 2. Whether he were suspected of the death of the said Iohn or not I knowe not.Abbas Vrsp. But the Abbat of vrsperg reporteth that the pope had poyson giuen him and also a blowe with a beetle or mall, whereof he died.

Nowe whether these be the euill meanes whereof the hi­stories speake, by which pope Martin came to be pope I can­not affirme. But many popes haue vsed as had meanes as afterwards (God willing) shall appeare. Not long after pope Christopher, Platina Bergomat. Rioche. thought it was too long before he could get into that proude set. For feare therefore lest he might goe quite without it, if he quickely got it not, he traiterously moued sedition against pope Leo the fifth, that made great account of him, and tooke the said Leo when he had beene pope but fortie dayes, and so gote into the place, as Rioche affirmeth by contention, and euill meanes. But nowe these Romish rabbies I would haue to open me one riddle. Platina hauing set downe this historie learneth by this experience that it is most true,Platina in Leo. 5. that dignities are rather dignified or com­mended by men, then men by them. As the Censorship (saith hee) of Rome at the first as a meane office, was no­thing set by, but when the chiefe men of the citie, tooke that office vpon them, then the greatest citizens thought them­selues almost vnhappie, if in their life they inioied not that office. [Page 165] What Platina meaneth by this I cannot tell, vnlesse he think­eth the bishop of Rome at the first, was not in such estimation or account as afterwads hee grew to. But that so it was I haue before declared. For from mean beginning he is now growen to be a captions controler of the greatest princes. And this (as it seemeth) Platina thinketh to be the reason, why the bishopricke of Rome (which was perchance in the beginning not worth suing for) was afterwards by so great contention and fighting sought for. And so men haue dignified that seat, and not that seat the men. And the place hath gotten authoritie by the bishops, not the bishops by the place. Which in my iudgement doth somewhat ouerthwart that fulnesse of power, and that con­tinuall spring of spirituall graces, which they would make vs beleeue, floweth from that chaire and that power which they say it hath from Christ himselfe.

Next after Christopher commeth Sergius the third.Rioche. fascic. tempor. He displaced Christopher by the helpe of Lotharuis the king and sate in his place and cast him into prison. Now how himselfe was made pope, Platina can tell you, who saith that he perse­cuted Formosus his faction,Platina in Serg. by whome he was before hindred, from being pope (for hee thought he waited to long for so good a place.) And thereupon Platina comparing the popes then, with the first that were, findeth them nothing like. For in times past, they refused that place being offered vnto them. But now saith he, they seeke it by briberie, and ambition, and euill meanes. They gaue themselues to prayer, and to teach. These not regarding Gods seruice giue themselues to tyran­ous crueltie, that after they may the more freely fulfill their lusts, whē no man dare control thē. Thus saith Platina of them. Not long after commeth Iohn the eleuenth a worthie pre­late for such a place. He was bastard sonne to pope Laudo, howe holy his ellection was,Bale ex Petro Premonstratens. howe canonically hee was chosen is worth the hearing. Theodora a shamelesse harlot, that ruled all Rome, was greatly in loue with this Iohn, as soone as shee saw him. And shee hauing for a time inioyed his companie and liking well of the same, first made him bishop of Bondnia, after archbishop of Raue [...]a, and lastly bishop of Rome, and was not this thinke you a canonicall election. [Page 166] But whether this harlot Theodore did violently place this pope (which especially belongeth to my matter in hand) or that she by fauour obtained consent of the electours, it is not certain. But by lawfull meanes, it is certaine he came not to it. There was also another pope Iohn after him, thrust into that rowme, who although he be not numbred among the popes, yet because he was bastard sonne to pope Sergius the third, hee is woorth speaking of, in respect of the good stocke he came of. Therefore Theodora that famous harlot, had a daughter maried to Guy Marques of Thuscia, her name was Marozia. Who following the good conditions of her mother, by pope Sergius had a ba­stard, whom she and her husband (hauing dispatched pope Iohn the eleuenth by stopping his mouth with a pillow) made pope, and hee was called Iohn the twelfth. Thus did Marozia kill her mothers paramour, that shee might make her husbands bastard sonne (by pope Sergius) pope in his roume. And thus we see howe this seat, wherein they will make vs beleeue, that none can sit but most holy fathers, is become a denne for most prophane and godlesse ruffians and rakehels.

Iohn the twelfth by the their owne account,Rioche fasci, t [...]m, [...]ergom. was also intru­ded into that place, by meanes of his father, who was thought to bee Albert, or Albericke king of Italie. But howsoeuer he came to it, he when he was in it, was such a ruffianly com­panion, and so vicious, as that it is written, that euen from his youth he was starke naught, and was not ashamed openly to keepe harlots. So youthfull he was, that in him began that by-worde, As merrie as pope Iohn. He came of a good race. For Marozia (of whom before I spake) was his grandmother,Act. Roman, pontif. And as his entrance was not good, so yet his going out was too bad: for some say the diuell killed him euen in his adul­terie, being in bed with an other mans wife:Fasciul. temp. Bergom. Rioche. some affirme it was the womans husband, but that hee was killed euen in his filthinesse, all agree. And was not this a holy Father? Nei­ther did Boniface the seuenth get into this seate the right way, but malis artibus, by euill meanes, as all stories almost speake.

And of the popes that were about this time doeth the sto­riePlat. fascicul. temp. called Fasciculus temporum giue this note, That in [Page 167] these daies the bishops of Rome were slaine,Platina. fascicul temp. Popes murthe­red, but not mar [...]ired. as well as in the primitiue Church, but yet they are not Martyrs, as were the other. Their deathes were like, but the cause vnlike. And of this pope Boniface the seuenth manie stories report,A pope, a theefe. that hee committed theft, and sacriledge, stealing from Saint Peters Church, all the Treasure and Iewels, and sold them at Constantinople, to make money thereof, wherewith hee procured some friendship at his returne, with more safetie to sit in that proude seate.

Among these also,Rioche. may Gregorie the fifth be reckoned, who for fauour of the Emperour was made pope, or as Platina saieth, by the othoritie of Otho the Emperour, and as Fasci­culus temporum saieth, at his request, Bergomates saieth the Emperour did will and commaund him to take it vpon him. Benedict the ninth entred vniustly,fascicul. temp. and fearing that hee could not keepe the papacie, hee solde it to Iohn the Archdeacon. But of him I must speake after Siluester the third was intru­ded either by Symonie or ambition,Rioche. or for hatred of Benedict the ninth.

Benedict the tenth entered by force and briberie.B [...]rgom. As for Gre­gorie the tenth, how canonicallie he was chosen, it may be seene by the olde verses that were made of his election, whereby it appeareth that the discorde of the brethren, made him (who was an Archdeacon before) father of fathers. For the place (I meana the popedome) was nowe so much desired, and so ambitiouslie sought for, that the Cardinals manie times, would for a long time bee diuided, and could not agree about the chusing of the holie father.

As immediatelie after the death of Innocent the fourth,Rioche, and also after the death of Clement the fourth, they dissen­ted almost two full yeares at either time, before they coulde agree of one. And this latter time doubtlesse they had staied longer, but that for shame they were forced to choose one, be­cause Philip the French king, and Charles were they pre­sent.

So likewise, before Nicholas, the 3. could he chosen, the cardi­nals were diuided 6.Rioche. months, & he being dead, the 2. families of y^e Vrsins & Annibals, did for 5. mōths space make such a breach [Page] among them, as that they could not agree of any. And before Celestine the fift could be chosen pope, the cardinals disagreed two yeeres and three moneths, or, as other say, two yeeres and six moneths.Bergomate [...] fascicul. tempor. And when he was chosen Bergomates saith, it was in scorne & disdaine of Nicholas that was next before him. And indeed his simplicitie is said to be such, by al y^t write of him, that themselues could not be ignorant, that he was not likely, to be the fittest for that place. After the death of Benedict the eleuenth the cardinalles were more then a whole yeere before they could chuse an other.fascicu. tempor. Rioche. Elections in worldly respects. For they did not seeke to chuse the fittest, but som desired to haue an Italian, y^t would be friendly to Boniface his friends. Other would haue one that should be friendly to the French King. Thus we see how in their election, they main­tained a faction. And at the last by fauour of the French king, and at his request,Rioche. was Clement the fift. Next after Clement the fift commeth Iohn the two and twentieth. The cardinalles hauing beene diuided two yeeres and three moneths, when they could not agree of any, they gaue power to him, to name him that should be pope. But he contrary to their expectation, did name or chuse himselfe, and so was made pope. How canonical­ly he was chosen let the Reader iudge. Because others would not,Bergomates Stella. he set himselfe in that seate. And so did Iohn the three and twentieth: for lying at Bononia, more like a lord then a legate, and hauing with him a great army, he threatned the cardinals to be euen with them, vnlesse they chose such a one as hee liked of. They naming sundry, he would like of none. Then they desi­red him to tell them whom he would haue. Bring mee, saith he, Peters cloake, and I will giue it to him that shall be pope. They did so. He cast it vpon his own shoulders and said, I am pope. I omit to speake of the great schisme and contention that was for the papacie, that beganne betweene Clement the se­uenth and Vrban the sixt,fascicul. tempor. which continued 39. yeeres, Fascicu­lus temporum saith 40. which also was occasiō of great blood­shed among christians. Wherein christendome was so diuided, that the most godly and learned did not knowe which was that pope, whom they might acknowledge for the head of the church. In what a distressed case was the church at that time, when it i­magined, it must needes haue a pope for a head, and could not [Page] tell where to haue him:De authorie. co [...] cil li. 2. cap. 19. The church some time headlesse. for a doubtfull pope is no pope saith master Bellarmine. As also before I haue shewed that many times there was no pope for many moneths, yea sometimes for some yeres, because the cardinals could not agree among them­selues. Yea after Nicholas the first there was no pope as some say for eight yeeres and almost eight months:Platina. Iacob. Bergom. how then did the church for want of a head.

Thus haue I briefly runne ouer many of them, whome in ancient histories I find by fighting or force, or other hard means to haue intruded themselues, or else by contention and strife to haue beene placed by other in the popedome. And not one that so climeth vp by the window, can be saide lawfully to be chosen to the same.

But as these by force, so by falshoode other came to the same.Platina. Vigilius was made pope at the earnest suite of Theo­dora the empresse, with this promise, that when hee was made pope, hee woulde reuoke Anthemius, making him againe the patriarch of Constantinople, and displace Menas a godly bishop. Now Anthemiu was an Eutychian, and so did de­fend, that there was in Christ but one nature. True it is, that he being made pope would not performe that promise, wherein he did well. But if hee had not by such subtile shifts sought to be pope he had done better. But it seemeth, howsoeuer he afterwardes constantly refused to do that euill (perchance be­ing put in minde of his offence by Siluerius) yet hee had a ve­ry ambitious minde, and sought long before to haue beene pope,Epist. Siluer. Tom. concil. 2. in principio. Bergom. Platina. as appeareth by a letter that Siluerius the pope his next predecessour wrote vnto him. Wherein he chargeth him, that contrary to the Canons he sought to be successour vnto Boni­face.

Martine also the second, a proude pope and ambitious, by moouing trouble to Iohn his predecessour, and getting him cast in prison, thought (perchance) the sooner to get into that place. But howsoeuer it was, it is written of him, that by e­uill and indirect meanes he came to that place, and by craft or deceit (as Bale writeth.)

As for Honorius the second, Platina telleth vs how he came to that seate.

[Page 170] For Leo Breake-bread, a great man in Rome (Calixtus the second being dead) gaue charge vnto the Cardinals,Platina. Act. Rom pontif. not to be too hastie to chuse a pope, but that they should tarie three daies, to consider more deliberately of the matter, and to peruse the Canons. He indeuoured in the meane time to procure the place to one Lambert bishop of Ostia. The Cardinals perceiuing his subtiltie, did chuse one whom they called Celestine. The people were verie desirous to haue a Saxon the cardinal of S. Steuen, and also the said Break-bread, seemed willing to haue the same, the rather to get the people to bee fauourable to him whom he would haue, seeing the Cardinals had chosen one, against their minde. And by this subtiltie of Breake-bread was Honorius made pope. Frier Rioche saieth, perchaunce Honorius was not consenting to this canuasing to make him pope. Whether he were or not it maketh no great matter. I looke not nowe, what the parties are, but whether the election were lawfull, the choise free, and with willing consent, and how he entered. But Platina himselfe misliketh the election.

I had almost forgotten Boniface the eight,Platina. Bergom, Rioche. a man as well worthie to be remembred, for his subtill dealing, to get Rome for him to sit in the popes seat, as any other. For he caused a man secretly to hide himselfe in the chamber of (elestine the fifth, who was a verie seellie simple man, who in the night time, should, as if he were an Angell sent from God to instruct him, admonish pope Celestine, if he would be saued, to giue ouer the papacie. Celestine not mistrusting any falshoode, but thinking it was a voice from God himselfe, gaue ouer the papacy. Vrban the sixt likewise was thus chosen,Iacob. Bergom. & The people required an I­talian pope. The Cardinals to please the people, promised to do what they could, and asking aduise of one Bartholomew bishop of Bar, he gaue counsel that they should choose one for the pre­sent, to pacifie them, that they might haue the name. And then going to another place, they should chuse another, that should be pope in deede. Whereupon they chose him to be pope in name. Which when they had done hee kept it in deed. And therefore Stella and others, [...]uic. l. 20. in fine call him craftie. But in craft Paul the third was not inferiour to any, who (as is reported by Francis Guic­ciardine a papist too in his historie of Italie) that the Cardinals [Page 171] might be the more willing to chuse him to be pope, in hope that he would soone be dead, did by art iucrease the opinion of weak­nesse, which by reason of his age, (for he was lxvii. yeares olde) they had conceiued of him. But for all his feigned weakenesse, he liued pope more then xv. yeares. A longer time then common­ly the popes of these latter times are suffered to liue.

An other kind of cunning also there is,Popes chosen by symony and bri­berie. when by bribery and gifts they will buy, that which their desert can neuer procure vn­to them. And this symonicall subtiltie, was sometime their lad­der, whereby they must climbe vp into that chaire, which is set higher, then they otherwise would be able to get into. Pla­tina writeth that Formosus g [...]t to be pope by bribery rather then vertue.Platina. But what speake I of Formosus, Bergomates and Stella, writing vpon Romanus that was pope soone after For­mosus, doe shew the practise of popes of those times to get the popedome.Bergom. Stella. For of Romanus they say, that he came not to it by ambition, and briberie, as did many of the popes of those dayes. I haue spoken before of Boniface the seuenth, who stole the trea­sure, and most precious iewels out of S. Peters church, that he might be the better able to bride, as all stories report. As for Be­nedict the ninth if he solde the popedome, Gregorie the sixth bought it. In deed Platina and other doe say, that he sold it, or gaue it ouer, let the indifferent reader iudge whether is more likely that he did.Sigeb. Cron. But Sigebert doeth psaiulie say, that this Benedict was a Symoniacke, or got the popedome by simonie. And in Eusebius his Chronicle it is written,Euseb. cron. that Theophylact (belike that was Benedicts name) did sell the Papacie to Iohn a Priest. And this bargaining and badde dealing made plentie of Popes at this good time. For some write, that Henrie the Emperour deposed at this time fiue Popes, and made a sixth.

And that the world may see howe good choise they made. It is written that one of them (Sigebert saith Benedict, but Fasciculus temporū saith Gregorie the sixt) was so vnlearned, that hee was faine to get one chosen to say Masse, and play the Pope in the church,Fascic. tempot. while himselfe might play the pope abroad. Now I pray you which of these popes was the heade of the church: the praying pope, or the playing pope.

[Page 172] The church that hath so bad heades must needes be sicke of the headach,Esay 19. 14. and troubled with a phrensie, or gidi [...]es, as indeede the Romish church is. For it would not otherwise so manifest­ly oppose it selfe against Christ, as it doth. By what meanes Clement the third came to be pope I cannot tell. But Richard the first king of England,Act. and Mon. Anno 1190. Mat. Paris. made a great complaint of the pope, and his court for their symonie. And Mathew of Paris re­porteth, how he emptied the bags, and lightned the cariages of Iohn the bishop of Norwich, who sought to him to be dispen­sed withall for a vowe (as it seemeth) that he had made, to go to the holy land. But of that kinde of symonie, that author complaineth bitterly, in many places, against many popes. I might also speake of the euil entrance of Iulius the second, who by his great power which men feared,Guic. hist. Ital. N. 6. and his bribes that he gaue, and promises of bishopricks and such other promotions which he made, got to be pope, although otherwise a man for sturdie and surly nature loued of none, misliked of all. But let vs see what other meanes they haue, when violence, craft, and simonie, will not serue. They haue an Italian figge, to hasten them that are popes to giue place to them that would be.

It is reported by the writers of histories,Platina [...] Rioche. that Damasus the second sent such a hastie messenger, to call away Clement the second, his predecessour. For he thought he taried too long, and yet he stayed in that seat scarse nine monthes. A litle before Clement, was Iohn the ninteenth sommoned in such sort, when he had beene pope litle more then three monethes.bale act. Rom. pontif. But for Clement Benno the cardinall writeth that hee was rather poysoned by Brazutus that godlesse wretch and that Helde­brand that firebrand of much mischiefe,ben. de vita & gestis Hildeb. procured to doe many such feats. For within thirteene yeares, he poisoned six popes, Clement the second Damasus the second, Leo the ninth, Vic­tor the second, Steuen the tenth, and Nicolas the second. So that if any but Gregorie were chosen this Gerard Brazutus was readie straight way to giue him a drinke that did them litle good. So [...]hat poysoning seemeth at that time, to be but a popelike practise,De pontif. Rom. [...]. 5. cap. 13. if wee will beleeue Cardinall Benno. But master Bellarmine endeuoureth as much as hee can, to [Page 173] impaire the credit of that history. And to that end he gathe­reth all that he can find out of other histories,bellar. obiect. against benno. either in disprayse of Henry the fourth the emperour, against whom pope Gre­gory the seuenth did vndutifully and vnchristianly oppose him­selfe. And also picketh out all the prayses of Gregory the se­uenth, to make him seeme another manner of man, then Ben­no reporteth him to be.Answere. But Benno liued in the time of Gre­gorie and therefore he could be an eye-witnes of many things. He was a cardinall and therefore by likelihood, howsoeuer he misliked of the doings of the man, yet he would not vntrewly report any thing, that might be a staine to that church. But if he had written any thing falsly, it is not to be thought, but that some or other historiographer of those times, would haue proued that cardinall Benno had but slaundered, and would haue written against him. Which master Bellarmine hath not shewed there. And therefore that which he hath said doth onely prooue, that the emperour had his faults, and that the writers of those times, would rather lay the cause of Gregories im­moderate pride and tyrannie vpon the wicked doings of the emperour, then vpon the proud and vnruly affections of the pope. Pope Alexander the sixth a sea and sincke of sinne, and as it were nothing but a masse of wickednesse, was belike ve­ry skilfull in this tricke.Guic. hist. Ital. li. 1. And yet I neuer heard that euer he poysoned any popes, but one onely, and that was himselfe. He came to be pope as other in those dayes, by indirect and euill meanes. For he bought with mony, and obtained, by promising the promotions that he was possessed of vnto others their voices, and so was made pope. Though he was of so bad disposition, as that Ferdinand king of Naples (though he were neuer seem to weepe, at the death of any of his children) when he heard that he was chosen pope, wept, and with teares said to his wife, that hee would be a great enemy not to Italy only, but euē to al christen­dome. And thus doth Guicciardine and Italian describe him that there was in that man no sincerity,A popelike man. shame, truth, faith, religion: but insaciableauarice, immoderate ambition, more then barbar­ous cruelty, a most earnest desire to aduaunce by any meanes his children that were not few, & som of them as bad as their father. Is not this thinke you a popelike prelate? Did not the cardinals [Page 174] that sold their voyces, to make him pope, find out a holy father to sit in that chaire? And such are, O ye papists, such are too too many of the heads of your church of Rome, of later yeares. But to returne. For I haue a litle disgressed to shew his canonicall entrance, and his popelike vertues. If he entred not by poysen­ing, yet he did practise it very much. And hee had a sonne Va­lentine a bastard as hee had many (sixe children in all Platina speaketh of) who was first made cardinall by his father,Guic. hist. Ita, l. 6 yet afterwards he turned his cote, and became a duke. His father and he minding to sup in a garden (where the sonne also purpo­sed to poyson Adrian a cardinall, that ought the garden) this Valentine sent thether bottels of poysoned wine, with charge that none should drinke thereof, before himselfe came. But the pope his father being drie, called for wine. And because none was brought from the popes pallice, Valentines seruāt, giueth to the p [...]pe of that wine, thinking his master had forbidden that any should drinke thereof, because it was some principall wine. As the pope was drinking, his sonne Valentine com­meth in, his father giueth to him of the same wine. The father died of the same. Wee may note in him Gods iust iudgement. For the pope and his sonne did vse to poyson many,A pope a poiso­ner poisoned by his sonne. not so much for reuenge, or in respect of their safetie, to dispatch so their e­nemies (although euen that is but a cowardly vilanie) but to get their goods, although they neuer wronged them. As the rich cardinall of Saint Angelo. Yea euen their dearest frends, if they were rich they would serue so, as they did the cardinals of Capua, and Mantua. But that kind of death that they had brought many vnto, the pope himselfe then tasted of, and the sonne very hardly escaped, but his being sicke at that time was a meruelous ouerthrow of his estate. Yea we see how they that were conspirers together, to poyson many, did now shew their skill, one vpon another. The sonne poysoning the father, for he sent the poysoned bottels.The father and sonne poison one another. And the father poysoning the son, for he gaue him poyson to drinke. And so where some other by poysoning their predecessours made roome for themselues: Alexander the sixth, by poysoning himselfe made roome for an­other. And if they thinke none of these practises sure enough, then will they fall downe and worship him, who when he had [Page 175] shewed Christ all the kingdomes of the worlde,Matth. 4. 8, 9. and the glorie thereof, he said to him, (though they are not his to giue) all these will I giue thee, if thou wilt fall downe and worship me.Platina. Platina himselfe (who is loth to speake the woorst by Popes, vnlesse the truth thereof be so plaine, that it cannot well bee denied) repor­teth of Siluester the second, that he gaue himselfe to the diuell, vpon condition the diuell would make him Pope. Must it not needes be a good head of the Church, that is of the diuels owne chusing?

Cardinall Benno writeth the like also of Iohn the ninteenth,Ben. de gest. Hil. who came next after Siuester, and of Benedict the 9, who as he saith, was by the diuell choked in a wood. But I of purpose let passe many of these examples. For I haue beene much longer then I had purposed, in these practises of the popes, to get into this chaire. If I should come to the election of popes in these our times is it not as easie to see, as the sunne at noon day, that there is almost none chosen to that seat, but by fauour, briberie, suite, or to please and pleasure some princes, or in respect of some faction? Is not this the spêciall care that they haue in their e­lections, who is fittest to maintaine their owne pride, and most likelie to serue their owne turne? Are all their popes chosen now canonically, without respect of any thing, but to chuse the fittest? If the greatest friends that the Romish church hath, were so shamelesse that they would say so, yet their owne heart within them, would tell them that they lie. Well then, if to bee thrust into that place by others, or to intrude themselues, if to get it by fighting and brawling, by poisoning and killing, by bitter con­tention and strife, by craft and falshood, by briberie and gifts, by murthering and mischiefe: To bee short, if to climbe into it by helpe of the diuell, and by such horrible wickednesse, as Christi­an eares cannot well endure to heare, be to enter in at the doore, and to be chosen canonically, then we will confesse that mame of the popes haue entered well. But if this be to come as a theefe, and a murtherer, then what meaneth the church of Rome, so to [...]ag of their succession, which euen by their owne lawes (set downe a little before) hath so often, and so notoriously beene in­terrupted? What meane these factours and brokers for Simon Magus, that briber and sorcerer, to vauat themselues, to be suc­cessuors [Page 176] to Simon Peter? These are such heads, as the church of Rome can affoord vs. These are they, that we must call most holy fathers. These, euen these are they that cannot erre, if you will trust the church of Rome. And yet in all that they doe, there is nothing but erring, out of the right way. They are like men, that pretending to shoote at a marke, turne their backe of it, and shoote the cleane contrarie way. And as they are content to vse any meanes be it neuer so vnlawfull, to get into that seat, so when they are gotten once into it, they are be­come lawlesse and shamelesse, as by some examples shall be shewed. Honorius the third, did very sawcely oppose himselfe against the emperour Fredericke the second (as also did some other of his felowes) and did excommunicate him and depriued him of his imperiall dignitie.Plat. in Honor. 3. Act. Rom. pont. in Honor. 3. And Bale telleth vs that the cause why the pope delt so hardly with him, was for that he de­fended his owne right in Apulia and Cicily. And out of Marius he reporteth, that the pope did maintaine and cherish, certaine of the emperours rebels and seditious subiects so that the empe­rour, could not punish them as they deserued. The names of those traiters were Mathew and Thomas, who kept from him forceably some of his castels and possessions,Abbas Vrsperg. in freder. 2. whom when the emperour had subdued they fled to the pope: who intertained those traiters against their lord and master. Whereof because (as he had great cause) hee complained it seemeth that hereupon he did excommunicate him. But Gregorie the ninth that came next after him, was far more cruel then he against the emperour, continuing the sentence of excommunication against him, which Honorius had pronounced,Plat. in Greg. 9 vpon pretence that al his commaun­dement, hee did not goe to the holy land. Neither could any reasonable excuse serue to mitigate the mad moode of that Lu­ciferian pope against the emperour. For by the emperours letters, the contents whereof are to be seene in Abbas Vrsper­gensis, and in Mathew of Paris, it appeareth that the empe­rour was sick, in somuch as hauing vndertaken the iorney, by reason of his sicknesse, hee was forced to returne againe. But it is plaine enough to them that marke the sequel, that the pope did but picke a quarrel against the emperour, that he might in­uade his possessions. The emperour seeing this saucie pope, [Page 177] so cruely and couetously bent against him, consulted with some of the Romans (with such I say as were of principall account a­mong them) how he might bind the people of Rome, to ac­knowledge themselues to be his subiects, which he brought to pas. Then the pope sent forth against the emperor, another thun­dercracke of excommunication. For which his insolent fact, the pope by the people was forced to flee out of Rome. And durst not returne in two yeares. Now the emperour to please the pope went to the holy land as they call it. But the pope doth now shew himselfe to haue had no other meaning, in sending him to fight for the holy land,2. Sam. 1 [...]. then Dauid had, when hee com­maunded Ioab to place Vriah in the strength of the enemies battel, and that he and his people should flee, leauing Vriah to be slaine of the enemie. So the pope commaunded the emperour (the sawcie seruant his lord & master) to fight against y^e Turke. But to what end? Had he any true zeale against Gods enemies? Had he a sincere heart, and vnfained affection, to increase the kingdome of Christ, no no. It seemeth he much more desired the destruction of the emperour and intruding himselfe into his dominions, then the recouering of the holy land. For the empe­rour being at Acon, hauing passed according to the popes plea­sure, into that land to fight against the Turke: the pope by all meanes possible did stay his soldiers, and such as were to passe ouer to aide the emperour, and fight in that quarrel, not suffe­ring them to goe. And nowe the emperour being where the pope would haue him, he (the pope I meane) bestoweth huge masses of mony, in hiring of soldiers to inuade the emperours dominion, stirring vp the traitours before mentioned Mathew and Thomas against him, and so subdueth to himselfe that which belonged to the emperour. What a godles and shameles parte was this, by excommunications to force the emperour, vnder pretence of holy warre, to leaue his dominions, and then most wrongfully to inuade the same? And when the emperour being there, had made an honorable peace betweene the Christi­ans and the Soldan, hauing gotten restitution of certain things, that the Soldan had woon, he of his good nature wrote vnto the pope, to certifie him of these newes, which he thought, would haue bin ioyfull to al christians. But that proud priest, as he had [Page 178] before contemptuously refused to heare, or admit into his pre­sence the emperours embassadours,The pope a shamelesse liar. so did hee nowe reiect his letters, and cast them from him. he also caused it to be publi­shed abroad that the emperour was dead, thinking thereby the rather to discourage the emperours faithfull subiectes, and to make them yeelde vnto him. And to the end that this lying re­port should not be crossed,A murderer. Act. Rom. pontif. in Greg. 9. the pope caused the messengers that brought the letters to be killed. Thus we see how Gods vicar beyond all shame, and without all shew of reason doth whollie oppose himselfe against Gods ordinance, namely the emperor. These things are largely set downe by Abbas Vrsp. before na­med, but especially by Mathew of Paris, who in a letter writ­ten to Richard earle of Cornewall by Fredericke the emperor of the report of all the popes dealing with the saide emperour,Mathew Paris. Hen. 3. fol. 676. The causes of the popes hatred a­gainsit the empe­rour fol. 673. sheweth the principall cause of all this malice that the pope had against him, was, because he refused to permit the pope to set downe order concerning Lumbrardy: for the pope desired to haue that matter compromitted to him simply, without any excepti­on or reseruation of any right to himselfe. Which if the emperor would haue yeelded vnto, and so haue lost Lumbardy, as there the emperour doth testifie, he might haue wonne the Popes fa­uour. For hee promised him faithfully (if the faith of a Pope be any thing worth) that hee woulde not onely doe nothing a­gainst him, but he would also giue vnto him towards he main­tenance of his warres, the tenth of all christendome. The pope also woulde faine haue bestowed a neece of his vppon the em­perours sonne Henry, Paris. 1107. which because the emperour would not hearken vnto (for his nobles tooke scorne that the pope shoulde make that offer) for this and the other cause before alleadged, the pope misliking the emperour, did picke all quarrels against him and did thrice excommunicate him,In Greg. 9. and as Iohn Bale out of this Mat. Paris allegeth, did promise eternall life to al them that would fight against the emperour. As if so cursed a creature had it to bestow at his pleasure: or as if rebellion against Gods or­dinance might looke for so good and great a recompence.

I might enter into a large and wide fielde of the notorious o [...]stinacie and vnlawful dealing which sundry of the popes haue vsed against their lords & emperors. But I haue staid somwhat [Page 179] long in this example, because it appeareth by the stories, that as their dealing against him was lewd and cruel, so the cause was their owne priuate matters, which caried them with an vndride­led affection to do whatsoeuer they could mischieuously deuise, if they had power to put it in execution, not regarding what im­pietie they cōmitted against God, or what wrong against man, or what disgrace the brought to themselues, an their place, so they might worke their wil.The vexation against the em­perour Henry the fourth. What should I here speake of the great troubles that Gregorie the 7, Victor the 3, Vrban the 3, and Paschal the 2 wrought against Henry the 4 the empe­ror excommunicating him, discharging his subiects of their obe­dience they ought to him, yea stirring vp vnnaturally his owne natural sonne against him? How rude and sauage crueltie was that which Gregorie the seuenth that vnmanerly fellow, shew­ed vnto the emperour at the towne called Canusium,Greg. 7. his bar­barous pride. when hee made the emperour, that was willing to submit himselfe (be­ing by extremitie forced therto) to wait at his gates, three daies continually in the extremitie of a sharpe winter,Sleid. de mon. l. [...] Rioche cem­pend. histor. barefoote and bare legged, without meate or drinke, and would not admitte that great monarch to his speech. The fourth day, with much adoe, by the intreaty of a gentlewoman (who could do somwhat with the pope) and at the suite of some others, his holinesse for­sooth was content he should be admitted vnto his presence. And though this y^e emperor his submissiō was such, as was thought too lowly and abiect by the nobles of Italy, insomuch as they purposed to depose Henry the fourth from the empire,Sleid. de mon. l. [...] as brin­ging a staine to the same, by his ouer humble yeelding vnto the popes excessiue pride: yet could it not satisfie the pope. For he notwithstanding all that the emperour had doone, purposed to bestow the empire vpon Rafe [...]. of Sweueland. And therefore sent to him the crown emperial with this verse written about it:

This Henry that was most villainously abused, by that prowde beast and his successors, is he of whome Paulus Lan­gius bringeth the testimonie of Otho Frisingensis, that he was the first emperor of Rome that he could find (although he mar­ked diligently in reading) that euer was excommunicated, or [Page 180] depriued of his kingdome by the bishop of Rome. [...]geb. Cron. anno 1088. For, as Si­gebertus saieth, this onely new doctrine, I wil not call it he­reste (saith he) was not yet bred, that the priestes shoulde teach the people, that vnto wicked kings they owe no subiection. Yea, though they haue sworne fidelitie to them, yet they owe them no fidelitie, neither that they are not to bet called periured, that stand against the king, but whosoeuer obeyeth the king, is to be accounted an excommunicate person: but he that is against himlis absolued from all fault and periurie. If Sigebert had li­ued in our times, what would he haue said, when hee should see this new heresie, not onely stiffely and stubbornly, yet slenderly and verie vnlearnedly maintained for catholike doctrine,The answer to english iustice cap. 4. by that vnnaturall traitor Allen and his fellowes, and a new practise also agreeable thereunto put in bre and highly commended, to poison, shoote, or by any meanes to kill, such as the popes will say are heretikes (as all are that wil not stoupe vnder his yoke.) Wel, about 500. yeres since, it was new heresie (for it is verie neare so long since Sigebert did write.) And therefore it is not that poore proofe of Tho [...] of Aquine, a man that liued in the dayes of corruption, or of Francis of Toledo, some seditious pa­pist of our time, or of that late Councill of Lateran, not much a­boue 300. yeares since, that can make it a Catholike doctrine. But to end this storie of Henrie the fourth, Paschalis who was not long after Gregorie, did not only prosecute the matter with all extremitie, against he said Emperour whilest hee was aliue, as did Gregorie before him:Malice against the emperour be­ing dead. [...]rant. li. 5. c. 24. Abbas Vriperg. [...]. 1106. but euen after he was dead, they who for good will, and that common dutie that we owe to them that are departed, did burie him, could neuer haue peace or fa­uour of pope Paschalis the second, vntill they had taken vp his bodie, and cast it into the fields. Is not this popelike charitie? Is not this diuelish enuie, a most sure demonstration that they are not led by the spirit of God? But to bee short, this one thing I dare affirme, and I proclaime it to the shame of all them that loue poperie: that if you search all stories, and peruse all Chro­nicles, and call to remembrance all things that you haue read, heard, or seene, you shall neuer find any that professe the name of Christ, be they neuer so rude or sauage, not any Turke, Iew or infidell, wil attempt things so vnnaturall, so contrarie to the law [Page 181] of God, so far beyond the compasse of humanitie, as papists doe and wil do, yea and many of the popes themselues haue don, and thought they might doe. Our late daies giue vs so many exam­ples, to proue this to be true, that wee need not looke vnto these former stories. You see how vnereuerently they haue dealt with these most honourable princes. And did not pope Alexander the third as intollerably hehaue himselfe as any man could do, when hee making the Emperour lie downe at his feete, did treade vp­pon the necke of the Lords annointed, which was woorse then to cut off the lap or a peece of his garment,1. Sam. 24. 6. (for doing whereof, Dauid accused himselfe to haue done wrong.) But this pope, I say,funct. cro. 116 [...]. treading vpon the necke, of Fredericke the first of that name emperour, did most prophanely and blasphemously abuse these words of the Psalme, Psal. 91. 13. Thou shalt walke vpon the lion and aspe, the yong lion and the dragon, shalt thou tread vnder foot. There­by proclaiming that he he neither had any feare of God, or reue­rence of the supreme maiestie in earth. I omit of purpose to speake of Gelasius the second,Gelasius. Calixt. 2. against Hen. 5. and Calixtus the second, against Henrie the fift, the vnnaturall sonne of Henrie the fourth. Ne­ther do I rehearse the vngodly dealings of these and some other against manie kings and princes. Yea I passe ouer also with si­lence, that villainous treason that Alexander the third wrought and practised,Act. Rom. pon­tif. Alex. 3. with the Turke, against this Fredericke the first which had beene the finall destruction of the emperour, if the Turke had not beene more mercifull,The pope a trai­tor to the empe­rour. then the pope was faith­full. For the pope desiring the death of the emperor, moued the Turke to dispatch him, as he loued his owne quietnes: and with­all sent him a liuely counterfet or picture of the emperor, wherby he might know him if he came into his hands, by which also the emperor being taken of the Turks, was knowne when he came before the great Turke. For hee brought forth the said picture which y^e pope had sent him, therby prouing him to be Frederick, and withall he shewed the popes letter, mouing him to destroy the emperor, and therby did it appeare to all that heard thereof, that the pope was a traitor to Gods cause, & the emperors person. But I am weary of raking in these chanels. And this which is already said, is I trust, sufficient to point vnto the vnreuerent vnhonest, & vnchristian proceedings which these godles and pro­phane [Page 182] vgly monsters vsed, after y^• once they came to their height of honor: abusing the colour and pretence of religion and holines, to hide their violent and bilanous practises: And makng that se­uere censure and sharpe chasticement,Excommunica­tion abused. (which is onely to be vsed in Gods causes, and that vpon the greatest occasions,) as a very fooles bable, wherewith they strike euery one, that doth not folowe their vnbridled wilfullnesse. But their intollerable and impotent pride, doth yet more appeare, if we consider their dooings nearer home. For you see howe after they had gotten that authoritie which long they sought, euen as a man that ai­meth at his marke, so did they practise and deuise what they could, against the soueraine maiestie vpon earth, as if all their care were bent, to bring him lower as indeede they did, spoyling him by litle and litle of his dominions, and so lessening his power, and at the last despising his authoritie, and wringing it out of his hands as hath beene shewed. And as hee could not a­bide any to be his better or superior so far of,The popes dea­lings against the regiment in Rome. so likewise he could not suffer any to haue any gouernment exempt from him, neere him in the citie of Rome, and therefore were they also sundrie times repining and striuing against those magistrats which in Rome had the gouernment of the citie. For hauing brought the emperour to hold of him (for the emperour, say the Cano­nists now, holdeth his empier of the pope, and therefore he is bound to swere homage and fealty to the pope, as the vassal is voūd to his lord) hauing I say so subiected the greatest, he taketh scorne that any should sit vnder his nose, and not be vnder him. And therefore pope Leo the third sending certaine presents vnto Charles the great,Rob. Ba [...]nes. in Leo 3. The popes seeke to subiect the citie to them. made vnto him suite and obtained it, that the people of Rome should be sworne to be subiect vnto him.

And so from that time, which was about the yeare 796. vntil the time of Innocent the second about the yeare 1139 they continued in subiection to the bishop of Rome, being gouerned at his appointment 343 yeares.Ioh. Stella in In. 2. But being warie belike of his Tyranicall gouernment, they made vnto themselues a pre­tor & senators to rule them, concerning their ciuile gouernment, as in times past they had wont to haue. For indeed this Inno­cent was a wonderful proud pope, of whom it is writen in a [Page 183] booke called Burtum Fulmen, brutum fulmen ex cron. Hi [...]s. A prowde pope. and alleaged out of two histories, that in the Lateran church at Rome, he painted Lotharius the emperour prostrate at his feete, and his vassal or seruant receauing of him the imperiall crowne. And by this picture, were verses written, wherein the emperour is made his seruant, and it is said that the pope giueth him the crowne as though he could not haue it but by his gift. His pride being so immode­rate against the emperour, it is not like he could keepe any mea­sure with such as were inferiors, and so did they shake of his in­tolerable yoke.

Nowe the pope not knowing presently how for to amend himselfe or to hinder their purpose, yet thought he would so bri­dle them,C 17. q. 4. cap. [...] quis suadente. Laying violent hands vpon a clergie man. as that his clergie should be free from their rule. He gathereth therefore a council in Lateran, where he caused it to be decreed, that whosoeuer should lay violent hands vpon a clergieman (though he be but a psalmist saith glosse there, whom the Dist. 23 calleth a singer cap. Psalmista. and the Dist. 21. cap. Cleros maketh next the dog driuer and doorekeeper) should so be accursed, that (vnlesse it were in time of death) he might not be absolued of any, but the pope onely. For this cause also Onuphrius writeth that the people of Rome were excommunicated,In Innocent. 2. and put for euer from chusing the popes, and by that meanes, that the election of the pope came to the cardi­nals. But Platina as I haue before noted saith, that Gelasius the second was chosen by the cardinalles, who was before this Inocent. Well, Lucius the second pope of that name, although he had great cause to haue though of other matters (for at that time there was a maruelous great plague,Stella. whereof of his prede­cessor Celestine the second died, as also himselfe was taken away by it) yet his proude stomacke, not being able to beare the gouernment that then was in Rome, [...]unct an. 11143. cronolog. by a pretor and sena­tors, sought to alter it. The pretor or Alderman maior whose name was Iordan told the pope, that al the [...]egalities belonging to the citie as well without as within the walles belonged to him being pretor by reson of his office, & that y^e pope had hither­to occupied the same by meanes of Charles the great. But he de­maunded his owne right, willing the pope to content himselfe, as his ancetours had done, with first [...]ruites, tithes and offerings.

[Page 184] But his holinesse, being as vnwilling to learne a good lesson, of Iorden the pretor or Alderman of Rome, as were the Pharises to be taught of him, whom Christ made to see, (Thou arte say they altogether borne in sinne,Ioh. 9. 14. and teachest thou vs?) Deuised more mischiefe against the Romans then did the Pharises against that man, that durst teach them, for they did but cast him out of their synagogue, that is they did perchance excommunicate him. But this holy pope, who should be to others, an example of patience and forgiuing our enemies, had this deuise,Rob. Barnes. The popes cruell and godlesle purpose. that watching a time when they were all gathe­red together in council, the Pretor, Senators, and all the chiefe of the citie, the pope gathered his soldiers, and set vpon the ca­pitoll, (the place where they were assembled) thinking either to haue destroyed them all, or else to haue driuen them out of the citie.

But the Romanes hearing of this pope-like enterprise,Lucius the se­cond stoned to death. ar­med themselues vpon a sodaine, and running to the capitoll, did so pelt with stones the pope himselfe, that within a few dayes after he died. Whether of the plague as before out of Stella I aleaged, or of these bates it maketh no great matter. For they were rid as it seemeth of a furious foole, and saued the liues of their chiefe men, and for a time retained their libertie. This doth Robert Barnes reporte out of Naucler. Sum. Anton. and Iacob. Colum. Now this question betweene the Romans and the bishop of Rome continued in doubtfull case as appeareth by frier Rioch and others for a season, namely whilest Eugeni­us the third, Anaslasius the fourth, and Adrian the fourth liued, the Romans seeking to haue their liberties of choosing their ma­gistrates, confirmed vnto them by the popes, the popes on the other side repining against that which the Romans did. Yet in the time of Alexander the third they came to this agreement that the magistrates chosen by the Romans, should not meddle with their office, vntill they had beene sworne to be faithfull to the church of Rome and the pope. And thus this controuersie, that was betweene the citie of Rome,Rioche. com­pend. his [...]o [...]ar. Plat. in Alex. 3. Plat. Stella. and the pope, for fiftie yeares, was agreed. But Lucius the third being perchance proude then Alexander his predecessor (whose pride yet was intollerable) not content to suffer so much as the name of Con­suls [Page 185] in Rome went aboue to abolish the same, and had gotten to him some of the Romans. But the citizens rose against him, expelled him out of the citie and put out the eies of certaine, that fauoured his attempt.

Thus we see, how the bishops of Rome, to the end that their authoritie might the more smoothly proceede without control­ment, did seeke to take these rubs out of their waie. Hitherto we haue in part seene, in what sort the bishops of Rome being come to their hieght haue deale with their betters, and how roughly they haue handled them. But perchance their friends wil excuse them, because that by doing as they haue done, they haue defen­ded (will they say) the rights and priuileges of the church of Rome. But howe will they excuse the slauish seruitude, wher­unto they brought the greatest princes?Reuel. 19. 10. an [...] 21. Saint Iohn offered to fall downe before the Angell, but the angell would not suffer him to worship him, I am (saith he) thy fellow seruant, worship God. But these vile wretches, will suffer kings and empe­rours to kisse their feete. Constantine the pope was the first that euer accepted of this honour done to him by Iustinian the emperour.Plat. in Constan. 1. papa. And then Stephan the second, whose feete Pipin the french king did kisse. But afterwards this grew to be so or­dinarie a matter, that the kissing of an old fooles foule feete, is the greatest honour that can be done to the greatest prince at Rome.

And Pope Steuen hauing gotten into his handes the ex­archie of Rauenna,plat. in Steph. 2. & Zachar. whereby he became great in Italy, and al by the meanes of the said Pipin, whom he also rewarded by making him king of Fraunce,Abbas Vrsperg. in Pipino. an. 754. thrusting Childrick the true lawfull king into a monastery, and intruding Pipin in his roome, he now in triumphing manner is carried vpon mens shoulders. And he is the first that I knew of any of the popes, that thought the earth too good, to beare so wicked a lumpe as himselfe was. For I trust hee thought it not too base to touch his sacred feet. Well, the reason of his doings is not for vs to search, but he was first carried of mens shoulders.Epit. histor. Neither will I here inquire of the cause of deposing the right king of Fraunce, whether it were iust or not, although no cause could make it a iust fact in him, that had nothing to doe with it. Onely this will I [Page 186] say, that where master Bellar. would make the insufficiencie of the French kings,Lib. 2. de pont. Rom. cap. 17. to be the cause why either Zachary, or Ste­uen that was next after him, did depose the French king from his rightfull crowne, yet Platina whose words I rather beleeue then master Bellarmine, Plat. in Zachar. confesseth that Pipin being greedie of a kingdome, sent his embassadours to the pope, that he would by his authoritie, confirme vnto him the kingdome of Fraunce. Whereunto the pope agreed, in respect of such former good turnes, as hee had receiued of that house. And so by the popes authoritie the kingdome of Fraunce is adiudged to Pipin the yeare of our Lord seuen hundred fiftie and three. Thus much Platina. Whereby it appeareth that the ambition of Pipin, and wrong dealing of the bishop of Rome, was a cause that Childe­rick was deposed. But to returne to my matter againe, we see what pope it was,The pope caried on mens shoul­ders. that was first so proude, that he could not let his owne legs carrie him. But it was set downe afterwards for a lawe, vnto which the emperour must be also obedient if he will not be rebellious to the decrees of the church. And it is de­creed that the emperour himselfe, if he be by, must helpe to carry that loytring lubber. For thus I reade it cited out of their owne booke of ceremonies.The emperour must carry him. Although the emperour, or any other be he neuer so great a personage, be by, hee shall carry vpon his shoulders a litle while,Cer. l. sect. 2. fol. 35. a. Fol. 26. b. the chaire and the pope. And againe it is decreed in the same place, that the most noble lay man shall carry the end or traine of the pluuiall that the pope weareth, be it the emperour or any king. What a slauerie is this, that he by his vngodly and wicked ordinances, doth tie princes vnto, as though they were his very staues. Why should he looke that emperours should be his hacknie horses, to cadge him vp and downe? Or what reason hath he, what warrant out of the scripture? What example in Gods booke, or of any good man so to disg [...]ace and deface the anointed of the Lord, whom he as well as others, should seeke by all meanes to honour and reue­rence?

Yet let vs see what more reuerence these proud prelats can suffer to be done vnto them.Princes leade his horse. Pipin the new made Frence king, did teach the pope a very euill vse. For he slattering the pope, that hee might make him more frendly to him, in [Page 187] assuring him of his kingdome, meeting him three miles from his lodging,plat. in Steph. 2. alighteth from his horse, and leadeth the popes horse all the way, not leauing him vntill he had brought the pope to his lodging.

It is also recorded that another time the king of Eng­land on the one side, and the French king on the other per­formed him that seruice.Bale in Ale. 3. ex Rob Mont. cion. Sigeb. an. 1164. Sacrar. Carem. l. 1. sect. 5. & sect. 2. fol. 35. But what neede I seeke for the parti­cular examples? This is also a booke case, It is alreadie or­dered. That the emperour shall leade his horse, and kings shall goe before him, as performing their seruice to this earth­ly God, or God on earth. But yet we haue not seene his fullnesse in pride.Holding the stir­top to the pope. Emperours holde the popes stirrep Rob. Barns. Ioh. Bale. For the emperour if he be by when the pope alighteth, must hold his stirop. So did Frederick Barbarossa the emperour vnto the pope Adrian the fourth, although he had no great thankes for his labour.The emperour held the wrong stirrop. For hee chanced to hold the the wrong stirop, the pope was so offended thereat, that when the bishop of Bamberg, in the name of the emperour, had by a pithy oration signified his ioy for the popes presence,The pope is very angry for it. the pope replied that he heard indeede words of gladnesse, but he could not by deedes perceaue any such thing. And his reason was because the emperour held not his right stirrop. The emperour although angry, yet smiling answered, that he vsed not to hold any bodies stirrop, and that made him the lesse skilfull. For he was the first, whose stirrop he held. And for that time they parted, neither of them being well pleased. But the next day the emperour made amends for his former offence. holding the right stirrop. And the same emperour Frederick, did after­wards also hold the stirrop to pope Alexander the third, (a cruel and shamelesse enemie to the said emperour) as appeareth by a letter which master Fox in his Actes and Monuments aleadgeth out of Roger Houeden and William of Gisbo­rough.

In which Letter it doeth most plainely appeare, not one­ly that the Emperour did holde his stirrop, for the pope con­fesseth so much in writing vnto the Archebishoppe of Yorke and to the Bishop of Durham, and would haue them to re­ioyce for the good successe of the church (for the church is much increased when the popes stirrop is holden by such) but also he [...] [Page] cause they said to Moses and Aaron, that they tooke too much on them, seeing all the people were holy: howe great then shall their iudgement be, that abuse all, euen the mightiest Monar­chees, at their pleasure? Doest thou see (O Peter) thy suc­cessour, and thou O sauing Christ, behold thy vicar? Marke well howe farr the pride of the seruant of thy seruants, is gone vp,Vrsperg. saith an Abbat long since, and therefore I trust no Luthe­ran, no Caluenist, no Hugonot, but a flat papist, and yet spea­keth this in detestation of the pride of popes, and namely of pope Boniface the eight, who the second day of his Iubilie, apparelled like an Emperour,The pride of Bonif. 8. with a sword carried before him, cried aloude,August. Bene­veu. in Alberto. Beholde two swordes, as the same Abbat re­porteth. Who when Albert Duke of Austria, came to him to be confirmed in the Empire, whereunto he was chosen, tooke the Crowne and set it vpon his owne heade, and tying the sworde to his owne side,Act. Roman. pontif. Rioche. Beneuenut. ibid. sayd, I am the Emperour. Or as Frier Rioche a friend to popes writeth, I onelie am Empe­rour, who boastingly woulde call him selfe key-carryer of heauen. And therefore hee is worthilie called a famous pope, and a magnificall tyrant of priests.

Nowe if wee search and trie from whence hee hath anie warrant for this his Luciferian behauiour against God and man, what can hee answere? Hee hath no commaundement, nor any proofe or approbation of it in Gods worde, no example of the godlie.obedience to princes. Christ and his Apostles shewed all dutifull obe­dience to magistrates, and exhorted also others to doe the like. Cesar must haue his due, whether in obedience or tribute, or feare, or honour, or anie thing else, if wee will obey the com­maundement of Christ and his Apostles, or followe their ex­ample, or beleeue their saying, when hee telleth vs that the A­postles shoulde not haue such dominion,Matth. 22. 21. matth. 17. 27. Matth. 20, 25, 26 or exercise such autho­ritie, as the Lordes of the Gentiles did exercise ouer them. He commendeth loue,Ioh. 13. 34, 35. matth. 5. 9. math. 11. 29. Popes seeke pre­heminence. and pronounceth the [...]eacemakers bles­sed, and would haue vs to learne of him to bee meeke and lowly in heart. But the pope finding nothing in all these that serueth or fitteth his humour, taketh his patterne of Diotrephes, who loued to haue the preheminence.3 Ioh 9. matth. 23. 6, 7. Or of the Scribes and Pha­rises, who loued the chiefe place in feastes, and to haue the [Page] chiefe seate in the assemblies, and greetings in the market, and to be called of men Rabbi, Rabbi. Yea, Christ and his Apo­stles tooke great paines in preaching, spared not for labour, fea­red not for daunger, preaching in season and out of season, suf­fered all things, indured all things, seeking Gods glorie and not their owne.Popes no prea­chers. Whereas on the contrarie, the popes cannot, or will not vse to preach. They haue inough to doe to deuise howe they may subdue Emperours, bring vnder their yoke the neckes of Kings, set vp their chaire of pestilence, aboue all the thrones in the earth. This is their care, their studie, their whole endeour.Plat. in Paschal. [...] Stella. And therefore Paschalis the second, although he would not be pope, vnlesse the people would first giue some rare testimonie of his diuine election, for they must cite three times Saint Peter hath chosen to bee pope Rainer, for that was his name before, an excellent good man, O fond hypocrite, yet when he had taken it vpon him, it was done with many cere­monies, to make him seeme more glorious. For hauing gotten this double conquest,Popelike attire. first in that he got to be pope, secondly that hee made the people giue such a testimonie of him that he was so worthie a man, he thus addresseth himselfe to his triumph.

First he putteth on him a crimson robe,Plat. in Pasch. 2. an ornament vpon his head, and so waited on by the people and cleargie, vpon a white horse he rideth to the south gate of the pallace of Laterane, and entering into the pallace, hee putteth about him a girdle, at which were hanging seuen keies,Plat. in Paul. 2. and seuen seales, and holdeth his scepter in his hand. But Paul the secondthought not this bra­uerie sufficient to set forth his glorie,Costlines of at­tire. and therefore he much in­creased the costlines of these ornaments, especially for the miter which hee wore vpon his head, buying the most precious stones that he could heare of to adorne and decke the same. And least his withered face, should not be somewhat sutable, he would also as some report (for so Platina telleth vs) paint it.Paul the second did paint his fa [...]. And he also saith, that hee had a great delight to shewe himselfe to straungers, and woulde keepe them manie times in the Citie, that they might beholde and wonder at him. And indeede they had iust cause to wonder at him, that he who by his calling shoulde haue beene an example of modestie, a light to shine vnto other, and salt to season them that were vnsauerie and by his age, [Page 192] should haue beene past those toyes, and childish vaine conceits, should so farre forget himselfe, that he would not only decke his body with more precious attire then was seemely for him, who should haue beene to other a patterne of all christian humilitie: but also paint his face more like a wanton Iesabell than a sober bishop.

And thus I trust it appeareth, how insolently and stately the bishops of Rome haue behaued themselues, hauing by very vn­iust meanes gotten to that greatnes wherein they are. I might by infinite examples haue shewed this to be true. For all sto­ries are full of their insolent doings. But my indeuour is only to shew, that as they claime by an vniust title, so they do in ma­ny respects abuse their greatnesse. Which hitherto I haue pro­ued, because so saw [...]ily they match themselues with God, spurn against the highest authoritie, & magnifie themselues in al their behauiour. The stories also do point out vnto vs their incredi­ble auarice, and more then greedy couetousnesse, which is so in­satiable that no summes of money can satisfie, no kingdomes can stanch the same. It is a world to consider, what large and am­ple dominions they haue gotten into their hands, what landes and territories. Whereinto they hauing intruded themselues, by setting princes together by the eares, or such other subtile practises: and yet would seeme somtime to hold the same by the gift of Constantine, sometime from Charles the great, some­time from his son Lewes. But from whom they should claime to holde their possessions. they are not yet fully resolued as it seemeth. But how great soeuer their possessions are, or howe they holde them, I am not purposed to examine. My purpose is rather to shew how little contented they are with all that they haue, and how still they haue new deuises, and other practises, to get money into their coffers.Barns. Bale. [...]inctius. Henry the second (or as some reckon) the third, had built a church in Bamberg, and was de­sirous to haue it made a bishops sea: hee requested the pope to do so much at his request. Now this pope rested wholy of the good will of the emperour Henry. And yet would he not at his request do so much,The popes aua­rice maketh him vnthankeful. but that also he would benefit himselfe: and so was content to do it vpon couenant, that that church should giue him yeerely a hundred markes, and a white horse with his

[Page 193] But what should we enter into any particulars in this point? What bishop could get his alowance or confirmation to any bishopricke,Confyrmation to bishoprikes. without great summes of money? Then the arch­bishops haue their palles not without infinite charges.Archb. palles. Won­derfull sums of money,Vacations. haue in the time of vacation of bishop­rickes, and other spirituall promotions, beene carried to Rome, from Germany, Fraunce, this our country and other places, as the manifold complaints and greeuances do manifestly declare. And besides these summes which they got by ecclesiasticall liuings, they had many other wayes to picke mens purses. Purgatorie was a gainfull deuise,Purgatory. the fire therof, did much good to the popes kitchin.Pardons. Pardons were good to no vse, but to make them rich that gaue them, or carried them. Especially those pardons which Leo the the tenth sent abroad. They which cari­ed them made the world beleeue,Bale in Leone [...] ex christ. mas. that whosoeuer would giue tenne shillings for a pardon, should for the same deliuer what soule soeuer he would out of purgatorie.Holy warres or against the Tur [...] Vnder pretence also of fighting against the Turke, and recouering the holy land, they gathered great summes.Licenses, &c. What should I speake of licenses, qualifications, dispensations, and such like meanes to get mo­ney? If I should but out of our English histories, paint out the greedie worme of that church of Rome, you would thinke it were a gulf vnsatiable both the horsleaches daughters in one that alwayes crieth giue, giue, and can neuer haue enough. It is a bitter and grieuous complaint that Frederick the second empe­rour of that name, maketh against the church of Rome, shew­ing how the fire of her auarice is so kindled,Mat. Par. fol. 469. that the goods of the clargie not being able to suffice, they feare not to disinherit, and make to pay tribute to them, emperours, kings, and princes. Whose words hee saith are sweete as hony, and as soft as oyle, but they are insatiable bloudsuckers. He doth put our countri­men in rememberance of that which Innocent the third a pope had done, swalowing after the Romish fashion, with an vn­toward gaping, whatsoeuer was fattest. And with many such words, hee setteth forth the miserable estate of England, which was (saith he) the prince of all prouinces. He speaketh of the time of king Iohn, as himselfe sheweth, of the which dayes also did the nobles of England complaine bitterly, because he did [Page 194] subiect himselfe to the pope, and so brought their land into a mi­serable slauerie.Mat. par. fo. 373. And as it were, speaking vnto the pope, they charge him, that he beareth with king Iohn, to the ende that all things might be swallowed vp of the gulfe of the Romish aua­rice. Neither is the pope Honorius the third ashamed to con­fesse this fault,paris 438. Romea greedie gulfe by a popes confession. by his Otho. For in his letters hee confesseth, that there can be no dispatch in the court of Rome, without great expences and gifts, and acknowledgeth that this is an old staine to that church. And for to take away this slaunder, he & his cardinals had deuised a good way (as he thought) which is, that he might haue in euery cathedrall church two prebends, and such like of abbeis.Gift of ecclesi­astical prefer­ments. And this is an other way that the pope hath to inrich himselfe by. And very often did the bishoppes of Rome, seeke by such means to prouide for their friends, or such as would buy their letters. So did Innocent the fourth write to the abbat of S. Albans, for a kinsman of his, for a benefice in Lincolne diocesse,paris. 1085. belonging to the gift of that church of saint Albans, called Wengraue, and for the next besides it that shuld fall. Yea he did sometime write for children. Whereupon there grew a great contention, betweene the bishop of Lincolne Ro­bert Grosted, A pope a seller of benefices. Paris. 1206. and the pope Innocent the fourth, whome A­lexander the fourth his next successour called the seller of be­nefices. Pope Innocent was so offended with this Bishop of Lincolne, for withstanding his lewd and wicked couetousnesse, that when he heard that the Bishop of Lincolne was dead,Paris. 1178. The popes spite against the bish. of Lincolne be­ing dead. hee purposed presently to write to the king of England, not to suf­fer him to be buried in the church, but to be cast out, thereby to disgrace him as much as he possibly could. Besides these, they haue yet other wayes to get money. They send in their ambas­sadours or legates,Ben [...]uolences. which when they are once well setled with­in the land, they send to bishops, abbates, or such as they knew to be of wealth, for so much money as they thought good to get. But the least gaine came not to the church of Rome, by that vniust decree of Innocent the fourth,The goods of the clearkes [...] n [...]etstate the popes share paris. 959. whereby it was prouided, that the goods of clarkes that died intestate, should go to the bi­shop of Rome. But it were too tedious a matter to come parti­cularly to euery point, of the popes greedines. It was a thing generally misliked and spoken against: yea this their miserable [Page 195] greedinesse, as Mat. of Paris witnesseth, was the chiefe cause why the Greeke church departed from the Latine church.paris. 622. The popes coue­tousnes cause of diuision between the cast and west churches. For, an archbishop of the Greeke church comming to pope Gregory the ninth to be confirmed in his archbishopricke by him, coulde not obtaine his desire, vnlesse he would promise much money. He seeing that, detesting their greedinesse departed, and tolde this to sundry of the nobilitie. There were other also that re­ported as euill or worse of that they had seene and knowen at Rome, and so they would haue no more to do with the west church.

In like manner did the same pope behaue himselfe in hea­ring the matter betweene Walter elect archbishop of Can­terbury on the one side, and the king and sundry bishops on the other side. And although it were obiected against the archbi­shop by the king and the bishops, that in sundry respectes hee was vnfit,paris. 468. namely, that hee had defloured a Nunne, and gotten children by her, and the king was very earnestly bent against him, the pope also confessed that he was vnlearned, yet coulde not the king and the bishops get the pope to be fauorable in that good cause,paris. 474. Bribeue. vntill such time as the kings embassadors, fearing lest the pope would make him archbishop of Canterbury, that was altogether vnworthy of such a place, promised to the pope the tenth of all moueables through England. Whereupon the pope being so well hired, was content, not to place a wicked man in the sea of Canterbury.pag. 48 [...]. And the pope, to shew that it was the reward that made him, and that he looked for perfour­mance thereof, he sent into England to demaund the same, and it was graunted according to the promise that was made vnto him.

These and such other corruptions and extortions of the Bi­shops of Rome, made them so odious to the king of England and his nobles,popes pollute the places where they remaine, paris. 1068. that they thought be defiled and polluted the place where he dwelt. And therefore when pope Innocentius the fourth, requested the king, that hee woulde permit him to lie at Burdeaur in Gascoigne, which then belonged to the king of England, he and his Nobles thought that it was too neere to England, and that corruptions would come thence into Eng­land. And Robert Grosted B. of Lincolne durst boldly say to [Page 196] the pope and in his hearing, O money, money, how much canst thou doe especially in the court of Rome,Paril. pa. 1027. which as it is said in another place,pag. 686. is alwaies gaping, alwaies greedie. But indeed great sums haue him gathered out of this realme, which haue gone to the pope,Tag. 299. insomuch that king Iohn did affirme to the pope Innocent the third, almost threatning him for some euill dealing, and telleth him that hee hath more commoditie out of the Realme of England,The pope had much out of England. then out of all countries on this side the Alpes. And therefore Innocent the third had woont to say of England,England the pops garden of delight It is in truth our garden of delight (saieth hee) a well that can neuer be drawne drie, and where there is great abundance, there of much, much may be gotten. Indeed hee and his fellowes had gotten out of this garden, manie sweete poses, and were much refreshed with the water, that they drew out of this well.

But where is that pastorall care, that these Bishoppes should haue had ouer Christs flocke, or which they at the least pretended to haue, in their Bulles and writings? Where is their reioycing at the zeale and godlinesse of the people? As is their studie, so is their ioy. Their studie is how to get and winne temporall possessions, they reioyce when they haue got­ten the same.

I haue hitherto proued this especially by our owne stories, because they should most moue vs to consider, what bondage and slauerie we haue beene brought vnto, and giue vs warning to take heede, how wee subiect our selues to them, who vnder pretence of holinesse, doe not onely deuoure widowes houses, but euen infinite treasures, yea and princes kingdomes also. Other kingdomes were not free from these pollings, as may appeare by the stories of Fraunce, and other places. For what place is there, [...] an. 1364. whither the pawes and clawes, of that couetous Woolfe haue not reached. Charles the fourth, keeping a diet at Mentz, where were the electours, and other Princes of Germanie, thither also came the Popes Legat, in the name of Innocentius the sixth, begging some contribution. The Em­perour hauing heard what the Legat demaunded, aunswered, that the pope got much money out of Germanie, but he sought not to reforme any thing that was amisse in the cleargie.

[Page 197] And not long after, Gregorie the eleuenth demaunded a tenth of all the cleargie men through the empire,Pataleipom. Visp. but the bishops electours, would not yeeld to the pilling of their cleargie, in such sort.fol 321. But yet as the Abbat of Ursperg singeth them as it were a song, and willeth them to reioyce, because that money which so well they loue, commeth so fast vnto them, and they haue store of that which so much they thirsted: euen so by their prolling, and pilling in euerie corner, they get into their handes infinite treasure.Christ and his v [...] ­car compared. Nowe if we looke vpon our Sauiour Christ, and compare him and his Vicar of Rome together, wee shall easilie finde they are no more like then light and darkenesse. Christ hath not whereon to lay his head, he had nothing. They haue all things,1 Luc. 9. 5 [...]. euen the worlde at will. He tooke great paines to preach the Gospell,2 They liue in all ease and pleasure, and neuer preach the most of them.3 He trauelled on foot from place to place, from the one side of Iewrie to the other, The pope if he goe but to S. Peters church, must bee borne vpon the shoul­ders of the greatest potentates.4 Christ had in his traine but a fewe fishers, or men despised, Their pallaces and traines ex­ceede in pompe and pride,Luc. 12. 14. the courts of princes. He being re­quested, would not meddle with diuiding of land betweene two brethren,5 The pope intrudeth himselfe, yea and chalengeth it to be his right, to haue to doe in temporall dominions, to throwe downe, to set vp, to place and displace, not in small inheri­tances onelie, but in the greatest Monarchies. As is seene in the Empire it selfe, which he translated from the Grecians, to the French, and againe from the French to the Germanes, and woulde nowe if possibly he coulde bestowe the same vppon the Spaniard, taking it from the Germanes, (as it seemeth) by such aydes as hee yeeldeth vnto him, in his most ambitious and tyrannicall attempts.

To be short,6 our Sauiour Christ himselfe did perfourme all dutie, and honour, vnto princes, by whose example, and of whom, Saint Peter learned that lesson also, which hee faithfully taught and deliuered to other: Submit your selues to all manner ordinaunce of man for the Lordes sake,1. Pet. 2. 1 [...]. whether it be vnto the king, as vnto the superiour or chiefe, or vnto go­uernours.

[Page 198] And againe, in the same chapter, Honour the King. But what doth Christs bad vicar,Vers. 17. and Peters proud succesior? He seeketh by all meanes that he can, to increase his owne glorie and riches, and that with the staine and reproch, with the decay and impouerishing of the mightiest monarches, as hath alreadie beene sufficiently (I trust) declared, and might be prooued by a thousand mo testimonies. But if you will behold a true patern of the affections,fox Act. & Mon. ex 2. hist. manu­scrip. that these holy fathers beare to the emperours and kings, set before your eies pope Celestine the third sit­ting in his chaire of estate, making Henry the sixt the emperour cast himselfe downe at his feete. And he (whose hands per­chance were too holy to performe so base an office) taking the crowne betweene his feete, (O scorne of all scornes) did with his feete, crowne both the emperour, and his wife the em­presse. And when he had so doone, with his feete he cast from his head the crowne againe. For it is meate and drinke to them (not to doe the will of God as it was to Christ to doe the will of him that sent him) but so to play with princes,Iohn. 4. 34. to bring them into contempt, and to let the world see, howe scornefully they can vse them.

Let such as loue the truth, and haue desire to saue their owne soules, thinking earnestly of these matters. If the do­ings of the bishops of Rome for many hundred yeares, be not plaine contrarie to that which our sauiour Christ and his apo­stles did and taught, I craue no credit. But if they be, let no man, no woman be so simple, in a matter of so great importance, as by shew of good words (in which yet there is no truth, no sinceritie, nothing but hipocrisie) to be carried away and deuo­ted vnto a church, in name holy, but indeede most prophane, in name a mother, but in truth a froward stepmother: or to a pope insatiable in couetousnesse, proude and ambitions, and to all countries and princes pernitious and pestilent. Nowe as their arrogancie (since they came to such excessiue greatnes) was into­lerable, their greedinesse vnsatiable, so their mischieuous malice hath beene vnmesurable. This appeareth most plainly, not only in their dealings with others,The malice of popes one to­wards another. but also in their had doings one of them against another. Who can without wonder or detestation, heare of the cruel parts that were commited by Steuen the sixt [Page 199] against the dead body of pope Formosus? For he was not con­tent to reuoke his acts, and disanul his decrees, (although he preferred him to be a bishop) but like a cruell and vnthankfull churle,Rioche. hee caused his dead bodie to be taken vp out of the graue (O holy charitie) and that in his presence, he drew it about the citie, put on it popelike aparrel, set it in Peters chaire, then he caused to be taken from him his popelike garment, and put vp­on him lay mans clothes, he cut off two of his singers Vrsper­gensis saith three, and his head, and cast them into Tyber, and commaunded the rest of his bodie to be buried in the lay mens buriall.

All stories almost with full consent, doe declare and de­test this beastly crueltie.Stella. The cause that hee pretended was, that he was periured (I would haue thought a pope might not haue made so foule a fault, and yet because pope Steuen who cannot erre, hath charged him with it, I must beleeue it.) So there is one periured as is proued by substanciall witnesse, and an other accounted euen barbarous almost of all histories. Yea the stories that are most addicted vnto poperie and superstition, doe much complaine of the diuision which this wrought in the church, and of the crooked dealing of these cankered karles. For Theodore the second, that came next (but one) after this Steuen, although he was pope but twentie dayes, yet was loth not to make one in this skirmish, (for hee had no vertue in him saith the storie) he approued against all that Formosus had done, and so set himselfe against Steuen his faction. Then came Iohn the tenth, who yet tooke great parte with Formosus. And when many of the Romans were displeased thereat, he left Rome, and went to Rauenna, where he called a councill, and there did not onely reuiue as it were Formosus his decrees, disanulling, yea casting into the fire, that which Steuen had done against Formosus, sunct. anno 900. but he also concluded in the council, that Steuen iudged amis. Now you Romish catholiks whether may a pope erre or not? Steuen did in a council reuoke Formosus his acts. Pope Iohn saith it was wrongfully done, so that by his iudge­ment, both Steuen and his council, did erre in iudgement. Yea and Iohn futher ordained, that they who tooke orders of Steuen should againe take orders.

[Page 200] Not long after came Sergius the third who tooke vp the dead and mangled body of Formosus and did execution thereupon,Iacob. Bergom. as if Formolus had beene aliue and commaunded the headlesse corps, as not worthie of buriall, to be cast into the riuer. And lastly, hee made the orders that hee gaue to be of none effect. Iustly therefore did Iacob. Stella in Be. 4. Bergemensis complaine and out of him Iohn Stella of Venice. Such was the euil hap of that age, that all vertue through mens slothfulnesse, was decayed as well in the head as in the members. But why was Sergius so mortall an enemie to Formosus? The cause of Ser­gius his enemie against Formosus. Formosus when he was pope could not well abide him, and therefore he according to his po­pish charitie delt thus with his dead bodie. And dare these men tell vs of diuision among some members of our churches, when we see in their owne stories their heads, so putting and butting one of them against another with the hornes of the beast?Iacob. Bergom. Iohn the twelfth a wicked wretch euery way, confessed to be by all stories, and that euen from his youth he was defiled with all naughtinesse (to let passe his other popelike qualities too bad to speake of) because the cardinals complained of him to the empe­rour, and desire his helpe, hee tooke some of them, and cut off one of their noses, the others had, with the which it was sup­posed he wrote letters against the pope, he put out some of their eies,sunct. an 962. cut out other of their tongues, their members and fingers. Pope Boniface the twelfth a man qualified much like his felowes,Platina. stole after he was pope all the principall iewels out of Saint Peters church, and left Rome for a time vntill he had sold at Constantinople all that he had filched away,A pope a chiefe. and then re­turning hoped by money (whereof he had now good store) to pa­cifie the citizens that were displeased with him (for he was for his wickednes hated of them.)s [...]nctius. But there was one Iohn a cardinall of good account that hindred him therein, some say that this Iohn was chosen pope in his roome. Wherefore him he tooke and put out his eies. Now where is the vnitie and good agreement, that our Romish catholiks now a dayes do beare vs in hand, hath bin alwayes in the church of Rome? If by vnitie they meane christian charitie their sauage crueltie crieth out their shame. If they meane consent in doctrine,Papi [...]s discent­ [...] doctrine. their infinit and diuers opinions, whether the virgin Marie were voide of originall [Page 201] sinne, which matter was a great while, full hotly handled. A­gaine what it is that is ment by these words (this is my body) what this word (This) hath relation vnto. Thirdly, what is that, wherein is that which may be seene in the bread, as colour and fashion, or to speake as they doe, what subiect hath those accidents? These and many other sach points might be reher­sed, wherein perchance they will neuer agree hereafter, as yet they haue neuer doone. Well, what malice they haue shewed one towards another we haue seene. How they haue done to­wards other it may partly appeare in that which I haue said be­fore in their proud and earnest pursuing of princes, vnto whom they would neuer be reconciled vnlesse the princes would let them haue their will.The cruel malice of Iohn. Iohn the fifteenth or (if pope Ioan be not reckoned) the fourteenth was taken of some noble men of Rome, and kept in prison eleuen monethes. At the length by the helpe of Otho the emperour being deliuered, and the chiefe of them being sharply punished by Otho, Peter the pretor or chiefe man of the citie, who was in the conspiracie, the emperour de­liuered to the pope, perchance to trie how readie he would be ac­cording to the commaundement of Christ, to loue his ene­mies and them that hate him.Bale Act. pontif. Rom. But pope Iohn (although the emperour had sharply punished many by death, other by confis­cation of all their goods, others by banishment, and so might somewhat haue mittigated the raging furie of the pope) yet I say pope Iohn, deliuereth the prisoner to the tormentor, with charge to shaue his beard (for to disgrace him) to pull off his gar­ments, to hang him by the heare of the head, for a whole day to­gether then was he set vpon an asse, his face being turned to the hinder parts, and his hands tied vnder the taile of the asse, and so led vp and downe the citie,Platina. well scorged with whips, almost vntill he was dead,funct. and so banished into Germany. There was one Gregorie a pope whom Henrie the fifth emperour had made pope. But Calixtus the second when he came to be pope, and the emperour and he were agreed, pursueth this Gregorie not content to depose him onely,Rioche in Hen. 5. (for a reasonable reuenge can­not satisfie their mischiuous malice) but let him vpon a Camell (that this fine sight might the better be seene) turning his face to the taile, which was to him for a bridle as the author saith, and so [Page 202] carried him in triumph to Rome. But to shew his proud and insolent dealings against princes, and his malitious persecuting and pursuing of them. What neede we to produce examples of forraine countries, or former times? We haue amongst vs, in our dayes, better proofe thereof, then either we desire, or they can denie.

Is it not too proude and insolent a part, for either Pius the fifth,Popes dealings with Princes now. or Sixtus the sith, to call our soueraigne Queene and most gratious prince Elizabeth, whom God hath mercifully placed amongst vs, and ouer vs, and mightely and maruelously defen­ded, from innumerable popish practises: and Henry king of Nauarre, and nowe also the French king, hereticks, schisma­ticks, and I know not by what names of reproch, he not pro­uing, no nor daring to offer any reasonable triall, or lawfull way to prooue the same? Why is hee afraid to haue religion tried by a free generall council? Why doth he hinder it by all meanes that he can?Popes religion not catholike The question is whether his religion, that (I say) which he commendeth to christians, and commaundeth to be onely, (and that vpon paine of death) beleeued is true or not. We denie it, we ha [...]e vnanswerable arguments for vs. The religion that he would haue vs to content our selues with­all, is not catholike, that is, it is not preached or taught at all times, in all places, with full consent, as he and his frends must confesse, when it is examined. It hath not any sufficient war­rant out of Gods booke, which onely should be the ground of our relgion. Nay, it is so contrarie to Gods written words, that it is impossible that that which God in the scripture tea­cheth vs, and that which the popish church requireth of vs, should both be true. As for Gods worde we know it cannot lie. And therfore we haue great cause to say, that that which is cont­rarie to it, cannot be true. Again, the church of Rome (as they al confesse) prooueth many points of their religion by traditions onely, that is to say, by the doctrines of men only. These things we alleage. Admit that it were not euidently true that we say. Is it not good reason yet that we should be heard, howe we can prooue that we alleage? Were it not fit that before indifferent iudges the matter should be tried? For why should the pope, that is a principall partie in this controuersie, or his legats that [Page 203] are his sworne adherents and seruants, take vpon them to be iudges in their owne cause? We accuse them of Idolatrie, superstition, many heresies, manifest breach of Gods lawe, des­pising of Gods word, yea of plaine apostacie from the true faith. Shall we euer imagine, that they will pronounce sentence a­gainst themselues? And confesse themseules guiltie of these great crimes? No no, as we are not so foolish as once to hope, that they who with tooth and naile, seek to maintaine their owne pride, will so subiect themselues to Christs yoke, so we are not so mad as to thinke them to be fit iudges, to pronounce whether the truth be on our side or theirs. For we knowe, that they will not speake for vs, because they will neuer speake against them­selues.

Let them then permitte this question that is amongst vs to be tried by a free council. Let the matters in controuersie be de­bated, let the reasons on both sides be heard, and wayghed: let indifferent iudges be appointed, such as sincerly sighing, in singlenes of hart, seek to know the truth, & serue the Lord. Thē will it appeare who teach the tru religion. But this can neuer be tried by such ouer-ruled conuenticles as that of Trent, wherein indeed the protestants were admitted to speake. But they might say but placet, wee are content with that you haue done. They might not set downe their reasons against Romish errorn, they might not be heard to dispute. But that was before concluded in som priuat meeting of a few popish diuines, & alowed at Rome for catholike doctrine, and thence sent to the council to haue ap­probatian of them that durst not denie it, to that they might say Amen. Yea, and what they could haue said, the council wold not greatly haue regarded as it seemeth. For Clement the se­uenth, when the emperour Charles the fift, and the French king were earnest with the said Clement, to haue a free generall conncil permitted,Gentil. exami­ned. wherein matters might maturely be discussed on both sides,Concil. Trident. li. 1. he answered, that was a perillous matter and pre­iudiciall, that the protestants should be suffered to dispute of those things, that had beene before co [...]cluded by councils. As though God by his word, were not sufficient to giue lawes to his church, or that he should be tied to the iudgements of men. Not that we thinke the auncient lawfull councils to be against [Page 204] vs: but because that vnder the name of generall Councils, they bring in their later wicked and vngodly conuenticles, of the times wherein corruption grew more and more in the Church, which Councils haue concluded manie things, that were ne­uer heard of in the purer age: wee would therefore let them vnderstand,How councils must be reiected. that as manie of their councils are worthily reiec­ted, so euen the best are not to be bleeued, but as they consent with Gods vndoubted and infallible worde. And that this was the bondage of that Councill of Trent, which our aduersaries would so faine haue so much accounted of, it appeareth by Sley­don in his historie. Brocard who was one in that councill, wri­ting vpon the Apocalipse, Gentillet and Caluin, against that council. How thē dare those arrogant popes, whose doctrine can not abide the touch, whose decrees do shun the light, condemne princes for heretikes, or enemies to the catholike faith, & yet will not permit their faith and religion, to be laid to the rule & square of the catholike doctrine?Dialog. 3. Theodoret saith truly. The decrees of the church must be tried and proued, not pronounced as an o­uer ruled case, or as a sentence of a Iudge. And shall we then receiue as an Oracle from God, that which is deliuered vnto vs after this maner, the church of Rome, or the bishop of Rome hath said it? God forbid. We will trie the spirits whether they bee of God.1. Iohn 4. 1. 1. Thes. 5. 21. We seeke to trie all their doctrines, that we may holde fast that which is good. This then, I say, is an euident argument of arrogant insolencie, in Pius 5. and Sixtus, 5. that so wickedlie they dare presume, as to giue such slaunderous names, to princes that professe so vndoubted a truth, as then they both did, and yet our most gracious Soueraigne dooth. But to depriue them of their kingdomes, to release their sub­iects from their bonde of obedience, to dispose of their domini­ons, according to their pleasures, as they would doe if they could, is as intollerable pride, as their predecessours before did euer vs to other. And so maliciouslie to prosecute this their conceiued mischiefe, as they haue done these manie yeares, whi [...]h open tumult, with secrete conspiracies, with poysoning of some principall Princes,Popish practises. with murthering of other by other meanes, with prepairing the hearts of doubtfull subiects, agaynst the time of inuasion to take their part, (for all these things are com­mon [Page 205] to the pope, and his white sonne the king of Spaine, (they are their continuall meditations) dooth not this sufficientlie proue their cruell malice? So that their proude practises, and cruell purposes (which are two of the fruits, of the suprema­cie of the popes that I haue spoken of) are plaine enough, euen in our dayes, we may see with our eyes the proofe of the same, by (almost) dayly examples. But their greedie mindes, and couetous affections, doe not appeare to vs so plainely, as vnto our fathers, vnto whom they were an intollerable burthen, as I haue shewed before. And although we nothing doubt, but the fat morsels, which they vnderstand their predecessours haue plucked from this land, doe make the popes that haue beene in our dayes, more eager to get such like againe: yet God ha­uing deliuered vs from the rauening pawes and iawes of that Romish Lion (the Lord make vs truly thankefull, and in life fruitfull, for this his inestimable mercie) we feele not the griefe of his exactions. But this I trust, sufficeth to decalre, that the power which the pope vnlawfully hath gotten, he vnreasonably abuseth, making it a wicked and vngodly meane to crowe ouer princes, to fill his coffers, and to execute his reuenges. And now that the pope was come to that, that hee might doe euen what he would, to satisfie his proude, greedie and cruell lusts, he thought it good for him to dwel and continue alwayes, in that lawlesse estate. And therefore did he, not onely striue by all the power and policie that he had, and with all his indeuour to main­taine the same, for the time present, but also did prouide some meanes to maintaine it as hee hoped for euer. And to performe this they haue had no small helpe by priuileges,Priuileges and immunities. and grauntes from princes, who at the first when bishops of Rome, and o­thers also, did applie themselues in some measure to per­fourme their duetie, were willing to the better incouraging of them, to goe on forwardes in well doings, and that those worldly things, should not be to them any let or hinderance in their callings, that were a burthen vnto other, they were willing I say to exempt them from such seruices and duties, as they re­quired of other to be don vnto them. And because that at the first when Christianity began to increase and grow mightie, no doubt many that were secret enemies,Cause of many of the immunities. and yet durst not (when the Em­perors [Page 206] had by law established the christian profession) accuse any man for their religion, would then lay other faults to their char­ges, and obiect other crimes to bring the Gospel into contempt, as appeareth by Tertullian, Iustin the Martyr, and others that they did, when religion was yet professed in corners. Now it is not vnlikely, but that godly princes to exempt them from such flaunders and reproches, would commit the hearing of those ac­cusations vnto such as were of best credite among themselues, that when their enemie did see that their accusations were not like to be fauoured, vnlesse they were sufficiently proued, they might be discouraged, from defaming them with vniust reports. But howsoeuer these immunities were graunted vnto them at the first, or on what consideration, I wil not precisely set downe. But afterwards I am sure they tooke them as their owne right, and that they did alwayes belong vnto them. And therefore when as the Emperour would haue taken vpon him to haue iudged of some causes of cleargie men,Dist. 96. cap. [...]imperator. pope Iohn sheweth that hee must not so doe, and telleth him boldly, but falsely, that the almigh­tie God will haue the clearkes and priests of Christian religion, to be ordered, examined, and receiued when they returne from er­rour, not by publike lawes, or powers of this world, but of bi­shops and priests. Christian emperors (saith he) must submit their executions to prelates, and not preferre them. Whereupon the glosse doth gather, that the cleargie was neuer vnder the se­cular power, and therfore that all the constitutions that are made, that clearks should not be iudged by any but by bishops, are but declarations, [...]ist. [...]6. C. Nun­ [...]uam. of that their former right. And in the same distinc­tion the verie next chapter, that pope Iohn is not ashamed to af­firme, that Christian princes were woont to be obedient to bi­shops, and to how downe their neckes to them. And afterwards there is in Gratian a whole treatise to this purpose,Caus. 11. [...]. 1. c. Nemo. to proue that (as is their alledged out of Caius the Pope) no man must pre­sume so much as to accuse, before a secular iudge, a bishop or any clearke. I need not alledge to this end many testimonies. These are as plaine as need to be. He that would see mo testimonies to this effect, let him looke the first question of the eleueuh cause in Gratian, he shall see it affirmed with full mouth. But how vn­truly in a word may be declared.

[Page 207] And first how false that is which he affirmeth,Shamelesse li [...] that princes haue alwaies submitted themselues vnto priests, there is no co­lour of truth in it, if we examine the shamelesse lie, either by the scriptures, or by the examples of the emperors and kings in the primitiue church.Magistrates commaund priests. Aa [...]on. For Moses was the ciuill magistrate, and Aaron was the priest. Did Moses submit himselfe to Aaron? No, did he not rather on the contrarie reprooue him, as at other times, so especially concerning the golden calfe,Exod 32. 21. which he caused to be made? And did not Aaron in token of his submission to Moses, call him his Lord? And why did God deliuer the law. and the order for all the sacrifices and ceremonies, and all the seruices that were commaunded, rather by Moses to Aaron, and the people, Moses being the ciuill magistrate, then by the ministerie of Aaron, who was appointed to be the priest? Did not God hereby testifie, [...]od. 28. that he would haue the ciuill magistrate to haue a speciall regard, vnto the things that belong to Gods seruice.Apiathar. Was not Abiathar the high priest at the commaunde­ment of Salomon, when at the commaundement of Salomon the king,2. Kings 2. 26, 27. he was put from the office of the high priest, and the king made Zadocke high priest in his roome. But out of manie examples let these suffice,Verse 35. for the time before Christ. S. Paul when he saith,Rom. 13. 1. Let euerie soule be subiect to the higher powers, teacheth vs, that we must not looke that they should submit them selues vnto vs, but how sincerely we should obey them. And what is meant by the higher powers saint Peter telleth vs, that the king is chiefe,1. Pet. 2. 13, 14. then other gouernours vnder him. And these are the superiour powers which saint Paul meaneth of, as if need were might hee proued by all antiquitie. If we looke vpon the bishops that were in the time of Constantine, and a good while after, their stories will teach vs, that they as humbly as they could submitted themselues to Emperours and princes, called them Lordes, intreated them with all submission. Yea, and Leo the third pope of that name,Plat. in Leone 3. eight hundred yeares after Christ, his life and conuersation were inquired vpon, by Charles the great the emperor. All which things do plainly proue, that it is most false that Gratian out of many of them doth affirme, that the Emperours Christian, did alwaies submit themselues vnto the bishops.

[Page 208] And the selfe-same examples also doe plainly declare, that the clergie may not be accused onely before ciuil magistrats, but punished also by them according to the qualitie of their offence. Neither did our sauiour Christ (whose immunities and exempti­ons I suppose they will confesse, were as great as any may claime) when hee was standing before Pilate to be iudge, plead that they might not meddle with him, neither yet Saint Paul, when he stoode before Festus, Act. 25. 11. who if there had beene any such priuiledge belonging vnto clergie men, would at the least haue claimed it, that others might haue by their examples alleaged the like.

But saint Paul in appealing vnto Cesar, dooth giue vs a strong argument to prooue,Princes may iudge the cleargie. that princes may middle with such as they call clergie men. But of the matter it selfe there is no iust cause of doubt. Neither can it be proued, that such immu­nities and exemptions are grounded vpon any testimonie of Scripture, but rather are most contrarie to that subiection, to magistrats, that they commaund, and God requireth. But by those priuileges there came to the ciuil estate dubble damage.The hurt of those exemptions. First because thereby euil subiects were maruelously imboldned to doe whatsoeuer the bishop of Rome, that very baine of true christian obedience, would set them to doe, for inlarging his liberties. As among as infinit mumber of examples, that one of Thomas Becket that archtraitor of England, (and yet forsooth a Romish saint and martyr) doth sufficiently declare. For how traiterously he sought to in fringe the auncient liberties,Paris. pag. 135. of his and our natiue countrie (to the maintenence whereof he was al­so sworne) yea how leudly he stoode in defence of the liberties that they claime vnto clergie men, and that in an vnhonest cause (for Philip Brocke, a canon of Bedford being accused and tri­ed of m [...]rder, gaue euil words to the iudges, and the archbishop would not suffer him to be punished by the ciuil magistrate) how stifly he set himselfe against the king, to the mislike of most of the bishops in the land,In vita Hen. 3. Mathew of Paris (though otherwise a well­willer of his) doth plainly set downe. Yea what safetie may kings haue to their persons, or what quietnesse in their domi­nions if they who are called clergie men, may within any prin­ces dominions, execute against them, the popes rash and vniust [Page 209] decrees, without punishment of them that beare the sword? If vnquiet heades, and rebellious persons, may deuise and practise what they thinke good, to follow their owne lust, and get vnto themselues the raines of libertie, and when these things shall a­ny way breake out, they may not be examined by princes or ma­gistrates, or accused before such authoritie? In this respect therefore, that by such immunities bad men were much imbold­ned, either to performe the popes commaundements, or their owne desires: princes had the lesse abilitie and oportunitie to shake off that yoke of more than Egyptiacal bondage which the pope laid vpon them. For, if they once indeuoured to attempt any such thing, they had within their realm (euen such as shuld by christian duty, and very naturall affection be their strength & aid) them that vnder pretence of obedience to the vicar of Rome would make faint the hearts of the princes friends, and mighti­ly strengthē the hands of his worst sort of subiects. And no mar­uell though in the dayes of deepe darknes or ignorance, this le­prousie did so infect and spread, for we, among whom the light of Gods trueth doth shine in some reasonable manner in many places,Iesuites and priests peril [...]ous. and in great abundance in some, yet cannot be rid of that scabbe. For though God in his tender mercy towards vs, hath banished out of this land, that prowd authoritie of the pope, and giuen vnto vs, as an inestimable treasure, the true libertie of conscience, and ministery of the word: yet because our princes and magistrates are farre short of that zeale that was commen­ded in godly kings, and should be in christian magistrates, and we our selues euen the whole body of the subiects, do not walke according to our calling, or worke according to our profession, but detaine the trueth in vnrighteousnesse:Rom. 1. 18. euen for our sins I say doubtles it commeth to passe, that there are so many Cana­nites in our land, waiting still, as occasion may serue, to bee prickes in our eyes,Numb. 33. 55. and thornes to pricke vs in our sides, so that though their power will not serue yet to cast vs out of the land: yet they can find meanes enough to grieue vs in the land. It is our sinne also that bringeth in among vs, these that creepe not into widowes houses onely, but into the houses of men, especi­ally women that are simple and ignorant, and laden with sinne, many of them withdrawing them from the true knowledge of [Page 210] God, and duty towards their magistrates, I meane the Iesuits and seminary priests, a kind of people as necessary and commo­dious to liue among good subiects, or in any quiet common­wealth, as the frogges, lice, f [...]ies and grashoppers of Egypt were,H [...]od 8. [...]xod. 10. Iesuits and Priest [...] the locust. Reuil. 9. 3. or as caterpillers are for fruit, corne or grasse. They seeme to be the very locusts, that came out of the darke smoke that is­sued out of the botomlesse pit, whose sting is secret like the scor­pions, teaching rebellion to princes, vnder colour of obedience to the pope. They are nimble, and want no courage, like hor­ses prepared to the battell.7 They are crowned with the honou­rable name of Iesuites, and haue faces like men in external pro­fession of obedience and trueth.8 They seeme like vnto women (that is) not like to do hurt, but yet obstinate and stiffe they are, in that they take in hand, and cruel and mightie to doe much [...]urt,9 among them that receaue them. They are armed with the habergeon, of authoritie from Rome. They are lifted vp with the wings of proude conceit of their owne knowledge, where­by they make a noise, as though they could beare downe all be­fore them.10. Lastly they haue a king set ouer them, for the kings that are ouer other subiects are not good enough to rule this crowned companie. The pope is their king, him they serue, to him they yeld their obedience. And their trauel is to make other also to become his subiects. Whose fiue monethes, that is the time of whose contiunance among vs, is not yet expired, be­cause our sinnes (as I haue said, and must say againe and again) our sinnes prolong the time of our chasticement.The multitude of clergie men and women. The second inconuenience that these immunities (granted the clergie men) did bring vnto ciuil estates, was the i [...]finit swarmes of subiects that were accounted of that number. For besides their clarkes, regular and irregular, which grew to maruelous great multi­tudes, they had their lesser orders which had also their part in these priuileges. Which being so many in number as they were, the common welth did not onely find a want of such, as should help to beare the burthens, that were to be laied vpon the same: but also they by their multitude, were able to make a great party, to attempt any thing that they would take in hand. And by the large possessions which many of these had, they could draw many folowers to be on their side. And this I take to be the rea­son [Page 211] that Boniface the eight (as Marcilius Patiuinus writeth) was so desirousto inlarge and increase the number of his clergy, that he would haue all such as had married a maide, and conten­ted themselues but with one wife,Part. 2. 6. [...]. should be of his clergie. Now their exemptions streching to all the clergie, I pray you what subiects should be left vnto the king, for him to commaund and rule for his owne safetie, and the gard of his common wealth? It was therefore a great post and piller of poperie, to bring these immunities to the clergie, and a meane to maintaine it the better. Both because it imboldned themselues to doe much mis­chiefe, and also it drew many to be of their societies. And so as it was a double dammage to the ciuil estate. So was it a double prop to vphold the kingdome of the pope, and therefore dangerous moe wayes then one. Well, thus far we are nowe come in this proofe of popish practises, that wee see their sub [...] shiftes to bring themselues to this high estate. It is not vn­knowen to vs how wickedly they haue abused their authoritīe, in pride intollerable, couecousnesse insa [...]iable, and malice vn­measurable. And lastly their gouernment being so very deuilish and detested almost of al, yet how and by what means they haue maintained the same. That is to say, I haue opened their subtil shifts, wherby they became so great, and secondly their practises and proceedings in this their greatnesse, thirdly their cunning and compasses to keepe themselues great, the meanes, which for the most part they haue vsed to get into this nest, which they haue built so high and to [...]eepe themselues in the same.

My meaning is not so lay open their wickednesse of life, so long as it is but their priuate fault,Rom. 14. 4. let them stand or [...]all to their owne Lord, he against whom they offend, shall call them to ac­count. But that onely that belongeth to the question of the popes supremacie, which now I haue taken in hand to suruey, and to the abuse either in getting, or in vsing of it, that onelie did I purpose to intreate of. And hereunto am I forced by double necessitie. First, because it is one part of the popi [...]h prac­tises. But especially to stoppe the mouthes of them whose sight is so quicke towards others, as that they can espie a small mote in their eie. In our church they can find no ministerie, no successi­on, no sacraments, all is wrong, they see nothing but faults.

[Page 212] The great beame that troubleth their owne eye, they cannot see. But as men sightlesse and sencelesse, they imagine all is well with them, all is catholike. Catholike church, catholike faith, catholike religion, catholike doctrine. And yet, if the matter be well examined neither their church, neither yet their faith, haue any shew of catholike in them. As (I trust) it is euident to see, in this Suruey of the Popes Supremacie, that their doctrine is not catholike, their doings are not christian like. Let vs ex­amine whether that which they teach vs concerning this point, haue bene taught likewise of al the godly learned, or at the least of the most of them,Whether the do­ctrine of supre­macie be catho­like. at all times in all places, constantly, and of set purpose, not by the way (as we terme it) in handling some other matter, often, and plainely. For these are the properties that Viucentius Lyrinensis an old father, requireth in that do­ctrine, that is catholike and true. That Peter was otherwise a foundation in the building of the church of Christ, then were o­ther of the Apostles, it is not a catholike doctrine. That Christ gaue to Peter onely the keies of the kingdome of heauen, it is not by these rules a catholike faith. That the feeding of Christs sheep in the whole world, or the gouernment of the whole church, was commited to Peter onely, or especially, is most catholike­ly taught: so that not one of all these points of their religion, which are indeede the ground-worke, whereupon they raise this their stately building of the popes supremacie, can be called ca­tholike (as is before shewed.) But if they could prooue these things to be catholike, as they will neuer be able to doe, yet haue they not obtained their purpose. For, how is this conueyed to the bishop of Rome, if it were in Peter. It is not catholikely beleeued, that he was bishop of Rome: neither yet that he con­ueyed his estate or interest ouer the whole church (if any such had beene in him) to the bishop of Rome. Or if all this could be proued, yet remaineth one point that were able to ouerthrow all. For it is not receiued as a catholike doctrine, that the Bi­shop of Rome cannot erre, or that for sinne and errour, the pri­uileges which the church of Rome claimes, if they had any such, could not be forfeited, as well in them as in other churches.

In all which pointes, if I haue nor sufficiently prooued, that the church of Rome teacheth false doctrine and repugnant to [Page 213] the Scriptures (wherein I submit my selfe to the iudgement of the indifferent Reader:) yet (I trust) that the aduersaries them selues must needes confesse, that these cannot be prooued, to be catholike doctrines. But on the contrary a man may easily see, if hee marke the storie of times, that these things which are the only pillers to vphold this popish kingdom, were neuer thought vpon in the Apostles times, or the ages next to them, that is to say, in the purer times of the primitiue church. But when here­sies began to trouble the church, and men began to separat them selues from the vnity of faith, more boldly, and more openly then at the first they did. And it pleased God to continue in some reasonable sort, sinceritie and trueth of religion in the church of Rome:Peters chaire. then beganne that seate to be called Peters chaire (not because Peter sate there) but because that notable confession that Peter made, and the faith that he preached, was there esta­blished, and soundly kept and maintained, (as before I haue shewed out of Opta [...]us and others) that Peters chaire signifieth his doctrine. And as after the sunne is once set, darkenesse gro­weth still more and more, so that the furder from sunne set vn­till it be readie to rise againe, the greater is the darknesse: euen so the farder men were from those purer times, the furder did they wander, from the wayes of truth, and the grosser was the ignorance that they were in. So as that which at the first was not once thought vpon, yet was it at the last affirmed of some very constantly and boldly. But if they cannot prooue it to be a doctrine generally receiued at all times euen in the dayes of the apostles, and so by continuall succession constantly taught in the ages next folowing, and so deliuered vs: they do but too much abuse the simple, to tel them that is catholike & auncient that is but the dreame or late deuise of some later teachers. Now I call them whatsoeuer antiquity they seeme to haue, that swarue any thing from that, which the auncient of daies hath taught, or Christ who is our true antiquitie, hath deliuered. It behooueth therfore al christians to take heede of such, as vnder pretence of being popish catholicks,Ignat. epist. ad Philadelph. and vnder or colour of this glo­rious name (which belongeth neither to them, neither yet to their religion) creepe into corners, deceiue the ignorant, seeke to make many of their profession,Beware of sen [...] ­narie priests. by hauing onely in their mouths [Page 214] this worde catholike faith, catholike religion, catholike church, whereas in truth, as it seemeth, that they being neither thought worthy of preferment at home, neither yet finding that they loo­ked for abroad, euen as the cormorants gather where the carkas is, to get their prey: so these seeke their meate and mainte­nance by seducing such simple and sillie soules. Neither doe I affirme, that all are moued by these causes, either to leaue their natiue countrie, either to returne to sowe amongst her maiesties subiects, this seede of seduction and sedition, but they that doe trouble this Realme, are for the most part such, and moued by such reasons. But as they can not proue by an catholike grounds their title to the supremacie to bee good: so their prac­tise is too bad, and farre from that christian modestie and meeke­nesse, which should be in Gods children. For if saint Peter said truly, that such as himselfe was, should not as Lords (beare rule) ouer the Lords here [...]age,1. P [...] 5. 3. but be as examples to the flocke: then howe can the pope claime that soueraigne authoritie ouer all kings,1. Pet. 2. 13. and whom saint Peter calleth chiefe. If none can en­ter into anie calling, especiallie to haue the charge ouer the flocke of Christ, vnlesse he be called therevnto, as it is confessed by all men: what reason can the bishops of Rome pretend, why either they should without any warrant, nay contrarie to the worde, so exalt themselues aboue all other, or so vnlawfully, or rather by so vile practises and shifts, as by violence and strife, by buing and selling, by falshood and craft, by poisoning and murders, by sorcerie and the diuels helpe, get to be popes? Or being placed in that proude place, howe commeth it to passe that with so great boldnesse, without feare, without shame, they prophane the ma­iestie of God, and despise, yea tread vnder foote the excellencie of man, be he neuer so high. Is this the fruit of their catholike doc­trine? Doe such lewde dealings become Christs vicar, or Peters successour? But to conclude, seeing the popes title vnto the su­premacie hath no shew of truth:Conclusion. and seeing his exercise of the same, is almost nothing else but a blaspheming of God, and a defacing of all authoritie ordained by God:Exhortation to ch [...]istian princes. raise and rouse vp your selues after your long sluggishnes (O ye christian princes and magistrates) shake off from your neckes this yoke of bon­dage, wherein you serue that Italian priest. Ioine your powers [Page 215] and strength togither. Gather and call a free Councill in deed, where the pope as a partie may plead his cause, not sit as iudge. Force him to content himselfe with that place which the worde of God will a [...]foord him. If any more be giuen vnto him, or any other, yet let not the godly potentats giue vnto any as they haue done such reines of libertie, but that they may knowe that autho­ritie to be but from man, and that their power is not full or ab­solute, but onely limited: and that if they abuse the same, they may and shall answere for their boldnesse, according to the qua­litie of their offence. So shall you deliuer christendome from a heauie bondage, your owne realmes from a most daungerous enemie, and the church of God from a most manifest Antichrist. So shall you vse your authoritie to the comfort of the godly, as you should doe,Tim. 17. and as in dutie you are bound to Gods glo­rie, and establishing of the Kingdome of Christ. Now vnto the king euerlasting, immortall, inuisible, vnto God onelie wise, be honour and glorie for euer and euer. Amen.