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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Optatus is the ſecond who ſpeaketh nothing to helpe this deſperate cauſe.Contrr Parmenion. li. 2. For although he commend vntounto vsus that one chaire in reſpect of the vnitie of doctrine (for all the prieſts nowe ſaith Chryſoſtome muſt ſit,Hom. 85. in Iob. 20.Job 20 not vponupon Moſes chaire, but vponupon Chriſts chaire) yet in the wordes alleadged by maſter Bellarmine he addeth, and we hauehave proued that that is ours by Peter. Optatus a biſhop in Affrike (not of Rome) ſitteth in Peters chaire. Therefore Peters chaire and the popes chaire are not all one, vnleſſe their doctrine be one. It is not tied to Rome, or to that church. But alluding to that place of Moſes his chaire which our Sauiour Chriſt ſpeaketh of, becauſe the Scribes and Phariſes taught that which Moſes did teach.Matth. 23. 2.Matt 23:2 Optatus alſo ſaith that he doth ſit in Peters chaire, becauſe hee taught that which Peter did confeſſe and teach.Optatus againſt Peters chaire at Rome onelyonly. Yea, and he prooueth by this argument againſt the Donatiſts (who taught, that they onelyonly were the church) that the church is alſo where he taught, becauſe euen there is Peters chaire: ſo that if Optatus your owne witneſſe ſpeake truly, then you hauehave maruellouſly abuſed the world for many yeares, in making them beleeue that S. Peters chaire is at Rome onelyonly. But Saint Ambroſe ſeemeth ſomewhat plainer then the reſt,Amb. in epiſt. 1. Timoth. 3.1 Tim 3 in that firſt place alleadged by maiſter Bellarmine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 93And this was performed when Abiathar was put out of the35 prieſthoode by Salomon, and Zadoc was made Prieſt in his ſteede.2. Kings 2. 27, 352 Kgs 2:272 Kgs 2:35 And of this Zadoc it is ſaid by God himſelfe, by that meſſenger or man of God that was ſent to Eli. I will builde him (meaning Zadoc) a ſure houſe,1. Sam. 2. 35.1 Sam 2:35 and he ſhall walke before mine annointed for euer. And yet (as is before declared) the prieſthoode was taken from his line alſo, ſo that there were diuers hie prieſts that were not of his houſe. If nowe God in his iuſt iudgement might, and in his vpright and faultleſſe iuſtice did, take from them, that which they might as aſſuredly hauehave claimed to themſelues and their poſteritie, as euer Peter might claime ſuch ſoueraigne iuriſdiction, to him and his ſucceſſours, ſo that they hauehave their light put out, and their candleſticke remooued: how much leſſe may they claime any perpetuitie to rule ouer Gods people, that can pretend almoſt no colour of title for the ſame?God left Silo. What, is Rome any better then Silo? It pleaſed God there to dwell many yeeares, he made it as it were his tent among men,1. Sam. 4. Pſal. 78. 60. Ier. 7. 12.1 Sam 4Ps 78:60Jer 7:12 God calles it his place, where hee ſet his name at the beginning. And yet was it in the ende made a by-word among the people, that God when hee will threaten his grieuous wrath,14 ſaieth hee will doe as hee did to Silo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ſelfeſame ſpirit which is the ſpirit of truth,The ſpirit that teacheth truth doth alſo ſanctifie. is alſo the ſpirit of ſanctification, as powerfull to worke the one effect as the other. And he that praied not for Peter alone but for al the apoſtles that their faith ſhould not faile, although the words Sathan deſired to ſift you are directed to Peter (as to one perchance bolder then the reſt, and proud of the promiſes that were made) to keepe him vnderunder, as Theoph. writeth euen he I ſay prayeth alſo for all vntounto his father,Theo. in Luc. 22. Ioh. 17. 17. Ioh. 14. 16, 17. Pſal. 25. 9. 2. Cor. 3. 5.Luke 22John 17:17John 14:16John 14:17Ps 25:92 Cor 3:5 That he would ſanctifie them with his truth. The ſame father alſo, from whom muſt come the ſpirit of truth, will as Dauid aſſureth vsus, guide the humble in his way, which thing the ſame prophet often praieth for) becauſe of our ſelues, we are not ſufficient ſo much as to thinke a good thought but our ſufficiency is of God. And why doth Gods ſpirit lighten our harts, and inſtruct our conſciences, if not to the end that we ſhould be fruitful in holines and righteouſnes. Yea the holy ghoſt doth not worke in vsus any knowledge, according to that promiſe the church of Rome ſo much claimeth, but that therewith alſo it reformeth vsus, it doth not giuegive faith, but that withall it doth purifie vsus. Yea it frameth vntounto obedience all ſuch, as it traineth to vnderſtanding. And therefore it is ſaid that faith doth purifie our harts.

By this knowledge, Wee all beh…lde as in a mirrour the glory of the Lord, Act. 15. 9. 2. Cor. 3. 18.Acts 15:92 Cor 3:18with open face, and are changed into the ſame image, from glory to glory, as it were by the ſpirite of the Lord. And ſo new mindes make new men, and lightened hearts, will bring foorth godly life. For it is a hard matter that he that beleeueth well, … (euill as Saint Auguſtine) doth teſtifie.Auguſt. de tempore ſerm. 237. Yea and a little before in the ſame ſermon Same Auguſtine teacheth, that faith in latine being called fides, conſiſteth of two ſillables, the firſt ſignifieth doing, the other ſaying. ſo that if a mā ſay he beleeueth, do (ſaith this holy father) as thou ſaiſt, and that is faith. Whereby hee ſheweth that there is no true faith but it is exerciſed in doing the workes of the ſpirit. I… then the ſame ſpirit giuegive knowledge or faith, and godlineſſe of life, and true faith … from good … if p. 101it be, it is but a dead faith) and godly conuerſation, is as neceſſary for eueryevery Chriſtian, as true religion. I maruell that maiſter Bellarmine or any other ſhame not to tell vsus, that the biſhops of Rome cannot erre from the right path of knowledge, (as if they were wholy lead by Gods ſpirite) whereas manie of them hauehave wholy wandred out of the waies of godly life, as men nothing guided, but quite forſaken of that holy Ghoſt. And therefore this I ſuppoſe may ſerue for my firſt argument.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now therefore let vsus yeld that honour to him onelyonly whome God hath ſealed,Iohn 6. 27. eph. 1 22. matth. 17. 5. 1. pet. 2. 25.John 6:27 that he be acknowledged the head of his church, the lawe maker to his people, the ſheapheard to his flocke. Let vsus receaue no other vicar to ſnpply his roome,Ioh. 14. 16, 17.John 14:16John 14:17 but that ſpirit of truth which God our gracious father ſhall giuegive, and which ſhall abide with vsus for euer. But as for them, that without any good warrant of Gods word, or ſufficient calling from God, claime to be as kings, and louelove to liue as lords ouer Gods heritage, deteſt them as the proud off-ſpring of Corah, Dathan and Abiram, 1. Pet. 5 3. 1. Sam. 2. Num. 16. 2.1 Pet 5:31 Sam 2Num 16:2or rather as the wicked ſonnes of Ely that did as themſelues would: yea as men that are enemies to Gods lawes, vſurpers of Chriſts office, deſpiſers of all authoritie, abuſers of all maieſtie, and therefore moſt perillous plagnes to chriſtian princes. And thus much to examine how iuſt a title the pope hath, or how iuſt a claime he may make, to be ſupreame head of the Church.