A Survey of the Popes Supremacy, Part 1 (2 of 3)

A Survey of the Popes Supremacy · Part 1 (2 of 3)

p. 38If 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 hauehave 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.Acts 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.Acts 3 but the text ioyneth Iohn with Peter, which ſhoulde not hauehave beene doone, if it had beene any argument for Peters ſupremacie,Act. 5.Acts 5 to hauehave 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 onelyonly, but to them all, Marke the ſixeteenth chapter, and ſeuenteenth and eighteenth verſes: yea, and p. 39alſo vntounto Saint Paul although hee were not one of the twelue.Act. 16. 18.Acts 16:18 For euen by the ſame power Paule caſt out of a maide a ſpirite of diuination,Act. 28. 8.Acts 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.Acts 13:11Acts 14Acts 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 hauehave 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….Acts 1 that Peter firſt did preach vntounto 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 vntounto 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.Acts 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. 33.2 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 hauehave ſpoken before, pag. 10. The twenteenth prerogatiue, Paule went to Hieruſalem to ſee Peter. What,Galat. 1. 18.Gal 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 p. 40had taken his office vponupon him hauehave 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 vponupon 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 hauehave 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 vponupon 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 vntounto Peter. OnelyOnly I will ſet downe in what ſenſe the fathers truly may, and often doe, aſcribe vntounto 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 vsus, 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 vntounto 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 vponupon whom he did build his church, whereas Paul did afterward reaſon of circumciſion,Cypr ad Quintinum vel Quintum. did boaſt himſelfe, or did take vponupon him any thing inſolently or proudly, ſaying he had the primacy, and that new ones, and aftercommers ſhall rather obay him. him.

p. 41This 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 onelyonly 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.Job 1:39Job 1:40 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 vponupon 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 giuegive him this title. And ſometime this title of primacy is giuen vntounto 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 giuegive vntounto 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. 1.1 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 hauehave not alwaies in their own right iuriſdiction ouer other. or a head man among them, is not to prooue him to hauehave 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 vntounto them, not that they hauehave power ouer them, but onelyonly they are of good accompt among them.

And thus much to proue, that that is not ſufficient, which p. 42maiſter 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 vntounto him, it can proue him to hauehave 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 vponupon Gods word. And thus I truſt it appeareth to the indifferent reader, that the minor propoſition of that argument which I hauehave ſet downe in the end of my anſwere vntounto maiſter Bellarmine ninth chapter of this booke,Pag. 12. wherein conſiſteth the great ſtrength of the popiſh Monarchy, is not agreeable vntounto 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 vntounto Peter, ouer the vniuerſal church. The chiefeſt profes that either they all hauehave, 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 hauehave 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 vponupon fables, that deſerue no credit, or vponupon 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 hauehave 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 hauehave bene beleeued for two hundreth yeares, in the pureſt times of the church, cannot be called catholike, or be ſaid to hauehave the p. 43true 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 hauehave 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 onelyonly 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 p. 44that 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 hauehave 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.Rom 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 vponupon 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.Rom 16:7And in this reſpect, it ſeemeth that Paule giueth this commendation vntounto 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 giuegive vntounto them, this great commendation, that they might hauehave the better credite among the godly at Rome, and the greater reuerence, might be ſhewed towardes p. 45them, 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 hauehave 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.Rom 15:20 Saint Paule, who woulde not builde vppon anothers foundation, as he writeth vntounto the Romanes, would not hauehave taken vponupon him to hauehave decided their controuerſies, and to hauehave commended vntounto them the miniſterie of others alſo to that ende, but would either not at all hauehave medled with them, or hauehave put them in minde of Peter their Biſhop.Rom. 15. 15. 1….Rom 15:15Rom 15:1 But contrariwiſe hee challengeth them for his owne flocke, and as belonging to his charge, which wrong he would neuer hauehave offered to Saint Peter, if he firſt had planted the church and his ſeat there. Neither would the Iewes (who in eueryevery 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.Acts 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.

p. 46As 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 vponupon 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, hauehave thought of this fable: yet I hauehave 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 vponupon 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.

p. 47Secondly 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 vponupon 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 hauehave 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 hauehave proclaimed it lowde inough, that they are the true Biſhops not that ſit in Peters chaire, but in Chriſts chaire.

But I hauehave 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 hauehave written or taught) that Peter was Biſhop of Rome. Which beeing prooued, it is as cleare p. 48as 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 hauehave no ſuch things taught, it is moſt plaine. And Maiſter Bellarmine himſelfe, who would faine hauehave 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 vsus this point of popery, but rather the contrary. And yet he writing vntounto 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 hauehave 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 hauehave vrged them with Peters ſupremacie, but eſpecially he ſhould hauehave put the Romanes in minde of Peter, if hee had beene their biſhop. And ſhould hauehave 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 vntounto the Epheſians, Ign. ad Epheſ.he moueth them to depende vponupon their biſhop, as the Church hangeth vponupon the Lord, and the Lord vponupon 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 p. 49owne 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 hauehave 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 vntounto the Romans, and yet nothing is there of Peter, that he was biſhop there, but onelyonly, 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 vntounto Proclus an hereticke, put him in minde of the monuments of the Apoſtles that he could ſhew. Whereas hee might hauehave made a better bragge, to hane ſerued for his purpoſe, if hee could hauehave 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 p. 50there. 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.Matt 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 vntounto 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 hauehave 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 hauehave 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 vntounto 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 p. 51was 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 onelyonly, ſo that vntounto the one as well as vntounto 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 vntounto 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.Gal 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 vponupon another mans foundation) ſheweth himſelfe to hauehave 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 hauehave great reaſon to ſtay our ſelues, and not raſhly vponupon euerie ſhew of the newneſſe of fathers, to runne and conſent vntounto ſuch opinions, as hauehave 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 vntounto Rome, doeth not prooue that he came not at Rome at all.

p. 52For 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, hauehave 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 vponupon 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 hauehave 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 hauehave 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 onelyonly 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 hauehave diſcouered before (I truſt) ſufficiently.Pag. 56. &…. Therefore this bolde aſſertion I will requite p. 53with 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 hauehave 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 hauehave ſupremacie ouer all the church, the Reader muſt bee put in minde of that which before I hauehave 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 hauehave 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 vsus 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 vsus 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 hauehave 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 hauehave 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 vntounto him, and ſo p. 54forſake the flocke whereof you are made ouerſeer. You muſt either holde your peace,Marcel. epiſt. ad Antioch. or elſe tell vsus 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 vponupon a tottering foundation. It may alſo be doubted, whether if he had a vniuerſall charge ouer the whole church, he might take vponupon 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.Mark 16:15 preach the Goſpell vntounto 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 hauehave 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 vntounto 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 hauehave a ſucceſſour. For if it bee not graunted, that Peter muſt needes hauehave 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 vsus 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, p. 55that the Biſhop of Rome dooth ſucceede Peter in the vniuerſall Biſhopricke by Gods lawe, and by reaſon of ſucceſſion: his arguments onelyonly intend and prooue thus much: Peter had this vniuerſall charge, and therefore another muſt hauehave 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 vsus directlie, except hee hauehave 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 vsus,Pag. 5. &c. they are anſwered almoſt in the beginning of this Treatiſe. Let vsus 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 hauehave a ſucceſſo….1 Cor 12:2 I hauehave no neede of you: therefore the Church muſt hauehave another head vponupon 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 hauehave 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 hauehave ſeene.

But to omit the ſhape of his argument, let vsus 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 hauehave no neede of you) hee thus inferreth, but Chriſt may ſay, that hee ſtandeth in neede of none of vsus: therefore by this head heere Chriſt can not be meant. Is not this very clarkely handled of maiſter Bellarmine, to apply that vntounto 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, p. 56ſo 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 hauehave 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 vsus 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 hauehave proned. Laſtly,pag. 6. 12, 13. bellarm. his 3. and laſt argum. Peter dying, the church muſt not want a head: therefore Peter muſt hauehave 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 hauehave 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 vsus looke for great matters. And yet when all is done, he muſt either hauehave vsus to graunt him the thing that is in queſtion, which we cannot doe, or elſe he can ſay nothing to it.

p. 57But there are many ſtrong reaſons that moue vsus 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 hauehave ſuch ſupremacie. Firſt the greatneſſe of the change, which is 1far aboue the abilitie of many, much leſſe can any one performe it. Secondly, that our ſauiour Chriſt doth ſhew a litle before 2his 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 hauehave ſpoken of it,Iohn 16. 7.John 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 hauehave general charge of his church. But on the contrarie he appointeth his vicar and vicegerent euen 3his ſpirit to ſupply his want.Iohn 14. 16.John 14:16 Who can be in all places at once,The ſpirit is Chriſts vicar. in eueryevery particular church, yea in eueryevery 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 4Luke 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.Eph 4:4 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. 28.1 Cor 12:28he 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 p. 58I 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 vntounto 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 hauehave a cloke (hee might hauehave ſaid as much alſo for Tobias dog) yet this muſt be beleeued. I would not hauehave 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 vponupon his owne ſhoulders, he made himſelfe pope.

But can maſter Bellarmine find no better ſtuffe to perſwade vsus 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 hauehave no great proofe for their manner of this their dignite, whether it be perſonall or not. By Chriſts firſt inſtitution maſter Bellarmine telleth vsus it was perſonal.

If Chriſt made it perſonall who could change that eſtate and make it ſucceſſionall? maſter Bellmine anſwereth, that it p. 59was 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 onelyonly 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 hauehave 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 vponupon 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 hauehave 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 p. 60the 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 hauehave deliuered to vsus as authenticall and true, in the tomes of counſels ſet foorth by themſelues: but to ſerue this turne, we muſt hauehave 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 vntounto 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 onelyonly 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 hauehave, hauehave 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 giuegive vntounto the church of Conſtantinople as great priuiledges as the church of Rome had. Which they woulde not hauehave 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 hauehave done it.

Then theſe words of that canon of the Nicen council (Becauſe the biſhop of Rome hath ſuch like cuſtome) muſt alſo hauehave a newe interpretation, For whereas Ruffinus, who liued, if p. 61not 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 hauehave 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 hauehave. But hee muſt remember, that when theſe limittes were appointed vntounto him, the Biſhops, not of Rome onelyonly, 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 vponupon 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 vntounto eueryevery one of theſe primates or patriarches, ſuch to bee in ſome reſpect vnderunder their charge, as they ſawe were (for ſuch conſiderations as were beſt knowen vntounto 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 vntounto 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 vnderunder 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 hauehave 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 p. 62is, 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 vsus, and would hauehave vsus 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 onelyonly, 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 vponupon 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 vponupon deſire he had to chriſtian vnity, and agreement in religion, or elſe becauſe he ſawe the emperour Theodoſius bent to hauehave a councill, and he was perchance deſirous to ſeeme to hauehave ſome ſaying in that matter, or for any other conſideration whatſoeuer, wrote vntounto the Emperour about a Councill. But if the Pope might hauehave called a Councill, hee woulde then hauehave directed his commaundements vntounto 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 p. 63maketh 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 vntounto 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 vntounto vsus 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 eueryevery biſhopricke to Conſtantinople, as he that gathered the councils together teacheth out of Theodoret. Hiſt. li. 5. ca. 6.The emperour deſired them to hauehave 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 onelyonly 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 hauehave churches, neither be permitted to preach of the faith (a good lawe to be earneſtly thought vponupon 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 vntounto vsus, 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.

p. 64The 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, hauehave you quite fallen out with truth, and made a league with falſhood?Yet more falſhoode in Bellar. hauehave 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 vponupon ſuch conditions as (not the pope) the council did ſet them downe, vponupon 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 hauehave ſpoken of.

p. 65And 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 onelyonly 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.Acts 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 vnderunder 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 p. 66by 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.Acts 3 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.Acts 16 who did alſo ſeeke afterwardes, by falſifyiug the coppies of the councill of Nice to procure the ſupremacie vntounto his maiſter, and therfore we muſt not ground our faith vponupon 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 hauehave a care (as indeed eueryevery man ſhould hauehave) 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, p. 67to 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 vntounto 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 vntounto 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.Acts 16 that he, as biſhoppe of Rome, had ſupremacy ouer the whole church, then woulde they not hauehave giuen vntounto the biſhop of Conſtantinople, equall priuiledges with Rome, and ſo hauehave 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 p. 68in 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 vntounto 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 vsus, 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 hauehave that ſupremacy by Gods word, as before I hauehave ſpoken.Pag. 14. Neither would they in any wiſe permit ſuch power vntounto him, although he ſought it earneſtly, and ſhamefullie in the councell of Chalcedon.Act. 16.Acts 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 hauehave 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 vntounto their owne ſeate, then either in truth they could claime, or in chriſtian humility they could take vponupon them.

p. 69And 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 hauehave 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 vsus, 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 vsus. For epiſtles or letters (ſuch are thoſe writings altogither almoſt which are alleadged againſt vsus) are vponupon ſundry particular occaſions written, whereby the writers might happely be forced to ſay more for the credite of that ſeate, then themſelues would hauehave 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 vsus 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 vntounto 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.

p. 70The 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 hauehave 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 vntounto 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 hauehave 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 onelyonly 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 hauehave ſhewed, but he neuer ſaide that all were bound to ſubmit themſelues to that church,Dog. 83. as maiſter Bellarmine and his partakers, would p. 71hauehave 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 hauehave 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 hauehave 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 hauehave better proofe. For this will not warrant that ſoueraigne authority of the biſhop of Rome. Thirdly, that which maiſter Bellarmine would tell vsus 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 giuegive an accompt of their errour and fault. But if that proue the ſupremacy of the biſhop of Rome, then muſt Athanaſius alſo hauehave that ſupremacy as well as he, for it followeth immediatly after, that they vſed the ſelfe ſame proofes that they repented of their errour vntounto 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 hauehave 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 p. 72their offence to hauehave 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 vntounto them. And this is the part of eueryevery 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 hauehave care of all churches, that you ſhould helpe vsus. 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 eueryevery chriſtian, as Baronius a papiſt telleth vsus. 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. 28.2 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 vntounto 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 hauehave 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 hauehave, doth exerciſe the power that he hath.

And the excerciſing of his power beganne ſomewhat ſoone in p. 73that 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 vnderunder 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 vntounto their charge, rather then to ouer …ooke them. So then this care that the biſhop of Rome ſhould hauehave ouer all churches we wiſh alſo that hee would hauehave. 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 vponupon 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 vntounto 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 p. 74to 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 hauehave done, if hee had taken his authoritie to hauehave beene ſuch, as now the church of Rome would hauehave it imagined) but to the generall council. And not hee onelyonly 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 hauehave declared vntounto vsus 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 hauehave filled all with tumults: yet if they will hauehave 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 vntounto 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 p. 75doe 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 hauehave him to hauehave ſoeuraigne iuriſdiction ouer the whole church? Or if hee thinke him meete to deale in his owne matter, muſt he needs giuegive 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 vponupon 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 onelyonly 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 vsus, 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 vsus ſee what p. 76Theodoret 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.Acts 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 vntounto, 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 hauehave 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 hauehave it by poſſeſſion, ſo many hauehave come to the church of Rome for helpe, when they were diſtreſſed.