fables that deserue no credit or vpon impertiment matters that proue nothing to the purpose as if I be forced hereafter therto I doubt not by Gods grace with ease to proue His third and last reason is of it selfe sufficient to shew that themselues haue no great hope to proue it to be a catholike doctrine that is a doctrine taught and beleeued of all the godly or almost of all at all times in all places for Vincentius Lyrinensis thus defyneth catholike But the first authour that maister Bellarmine alleadgeth is more then two hundreth yeers after Christ So that the doctrine that cannot be proued to haue bene beleeued for two hundreth yeares in the purest times of the church cannot be called catholike or be said to haue the true antiquitie And yet there is nothing that soundeth so much in the mouthes of our aduersaries as Catholike Catholike Antiquitie Antiquitie whereas in trueth nothing can be catholike vnlesse it haue the true antiquitie And the true antiquitie must begin at God himselfe It must spring from him as from the first fountaine As most notably and more than once that ancient and learned father Tertullian hath said That there is nothing true but that onely which the church receiued of the apostles the apostles from Christ Christ from God And this is indeede ancient trueth and true antiquitie Now I must also take a view of the maior proposition which is this 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 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 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 preaching at Rome though he write First with great letters is not true In Musculus interpretation there are no like words to thē that are heere alleadged And that out of Arnobius who saith that Rome was conuerted to Christ 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 that Peter and Paule were first apostles and bishops in Rome he maketh him saie that Peter and Paule were first in Rome thereupon inferring that first they preached there which Epiphanius saith not That which out of Chrysostome hee alleageth prooueth not Peter first to haue preached there as neither that out of Leo or Theodosius 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 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 that great Peter first preached to them the doctrine of the gospell Perchance he meant that he not first of all but first of the apostles did preach the gospell there For Sadolet a Cardinall and a Romish catholike in his commentaries vpon Paules epistle to the Romaines doth thinke that the gospell was first preached and the church at Rome first assembled by some of the disciples that fled out of Iury. And he nameth Priscilla Aquila Andronicus and Iunia And in this respect it seemeth that Paule giueth this commendation vnto Andronicus and Iunia that they were notable among the apostles because their ministery was so necessary for the church there for he doeth not in anie other Epistle speake of them But in this epistle Sadolet saith that Saint Paule doth giue vnto them this great commendation that they might haue the better credite among the godly at Rome and the greater reuerence might be shewed towardes them in discussing and ending of these controuersies which were begunne amongst them and for staying of which Saint Paule doth write this Epistle as Sadolet confesseth And of these Primasius an ancient father saith in like sorte that Andronicus and Iunia were accounted notable amongst others that were sent to Rome by whom they might beleeue or by whose example they might haue beene confirmed Now if Peter had beene the first that preached there which master Bellarmine a papist affirmeth but Sadolet a Cardinall very confidentlie denieth Saint Paule who woulde not builde vppon anothers foundation as he writeth vnto the Romanes would not haue taken vpon him to haue decided their controuersies and to haue commended vnto them the ministerie of others also to that ende but would either not at all haue medled with them or haue put them in minde of Peter their Bishop But contrariwise hee challengeth them for his owne flocke and as belonging to his charge which wrong he would neuer haue offered to Saint Peter if he first had planted the church and his seat there Neither would the Iewes who in euery place were Peters especiall charge that were at Rome when Paule came thither bee so desirous to be instructed of Paule as they were 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
powder But howsoeuer it pleaseth master Bellarmine to bragge of the might and maiesty of the church of Rome we see that the hath lost many kingdomes that sometime serued her And where her power is greatest we see that many fall â—ayly from her and that such as doe so haue no cause to repent it but that God aideth them with his wonderfull and mercifull hand and prosecuteth them with many blessings But to returne vnto master Bellarmines argument againe Vpon this rocke I will build my church The foundation of a house hath two respects First it holdeth vp the whole building which being coupled together in it groweth to be an house as before I haue shewed out of saint Paules epistle to the Ephesians and thus Christ onely is the foundation of his church as hee is also the head whereof all the bodie furnished and knit together with ioints and bands increaseth with the increasing of God This foundation or head none can be but Christ Secondly the fonndation is as it were a direction and rule for the building of the rest of the house For it must be made according to the length and breadth of the foundation In which respect the Apostles are called foundations in the reuelation foundations I say in this church of God And so doth the apostle say that the church is built vpon the fonndation of the Apostles and prophets Iesus Christ himselfe beeing the chiefe corner stone And whether they be called foundations in respect of their doctrine as Saint Ambrose thinketh or because they were first layed in the building as Theophilact seemeth to affirme yet are they not such foundations as can hold vp this building but such onely as by their doctrine and fayth must be a patterne and platforme for all other builders to builde by that they goe not out of that rule and square which is most fit for Gods house And thus we confesse that Saint Peter is a foundation as also all the Apostles are And that which Chrysostome writeth vpon this place is in my iudgement a strong argument against this secondarie foundation which they say Peter is because he will haue the building so coupled witâ— tâ—e foundation as that there shalbe nothing between them But most plainely in his commentaries vpon the epistle to the Corinthians he will haue nothing betweene vs and Christ no distance betweene the head and the bodie As he proueth by examples of the head and the bodie the branch and the tree the building and the foundation For if the head be from the body but the thicknesse of a sword it dieth If the branch be cut from the tree neuer so litle it withereth If the house be not ioyned vpon the foundation it falleth Howe then can we haue any secondary foundation in the church of God without the ruine of the whole church The Apostles therefore may well bee foundations as I haue before saide either because that they are as it were the first stones that are layed vpon Christ in this building or because of their doctrine whereupon our faith is grounded but otherwise we can not admitte them all or any one of them whether Peter or any other to be a foundation in this building So that al the paines that master Bellarmine taketh to proue that this rocke must needs signifie Peter himselfe is more than needeth for we wil confesse that he and the rest of the Apostles are foundations in the church But if after some more peculiar sort he wil haue him a foundation neither hath he prooued it by that which he vrgeth out these words vpon this rocke neither yet by that vniuersall consent of the church that he braggeth of For the fathers do in sundry sorts expound these words som by this rocke vnderstand Peter as he was an apostle and teacher of the word of God And so may the fathers be vnderstoode that are in this chapter alleaged by master Bellarmine For he can not reason thus He is called a foundation therefore he is a foundation after some other manner than the other Apostles Some by this rocke vnderstand Christ whom Peter confessed So doth saint Augustine vpon this rocke which thou hast confessed saith he I will build my church now the rocke that hee confessed was Christ There are also sundry that by this rocke vnderstand the confession that Peter made as Hillarie Ambrose Chrysostome and Cyril But none of these interpretations can please our Romish rabbies but that only that makes Peter the foundation in Christs place which can not out of any of these expositions be gathered S. Augustine master Bellarmine saith was deceiued because he knew not the Hebrew tongue but yet saint Augustines words teach vs that in his time this place was not by consent of the godly so expounded as now the Papists expound it but only that there were sundry expositions of sundry men and that saint Augustine liked this of his best How happeneth it then that maister Bellarmine with a great cracke saieth hee hath the consent of the whole church Where is their catholike doctrine euen in this point that which now the church of Rome teacheth was not in saint Augustines dayes catholike But to to proue this doctrine to be catholike he saith The whole Councell of Chalcedon wherein were 630. fathers call Peter the Rocke and Bancke of the church so also saith Melchior Canus But both of them by shamelesse lies do seeke to abuse the simplicity of the ignorant Paschasinus or Paschasius he only said so who was Legat there for Leo bishop of Rome and sought by all meanes possible to aduance that seat aboue all others as may appeare in that place especially in the sixteenth action of that council and yet these men doe not shame to say that the whole council said so As for that other sence of those words receiued by Hillary Ambrose Chrysostome and Ciril which take Peters confession to be that rocke master Bellarmine would shift that off with this answere that they only speak of that faith that Peter as a pastor of the church had not of the faith without respect of Peters person And yet Hillary saith not vpon the rocke of this pastours confession but Vpon this rocke of confession And also not this mans faith but This faith is the foundation of the Church by reason of this faith the gates of hell can do nothing against it this faith hath the keies of the kingdome of heauen Saint Ambrose in the words alleadged by master Bellarmine speaketh also of faith absolutely without hauing respect to Peter as also he doth in sundry other places of that booke Yea he telleth vs there that whosoeuer ouercommeth the flesh is a foundation in the church and speaking of this rocke he would that euerie one should haue within himselfe this rocke which cannot be vnderstood of this confession as it hath respect to Peter The like also may bee said for
to Peter but that we deny not But it is Maister Bellarmines bad hap many times to take great paines fortify where y â— enimy assaulteth him not to prooue that which no body denieth That we may ioine in some issue we will easily confesse that the keies were deliuered to Peter What then Were they deliuered to him alone No Maister Bellarmine himselfe confesseth and that oftentimes neither can he deny it if he would the fathers doe so generally affirme it that this great authority was committed to all the Apostles Wherein then do we dissent Forsooth Maister Bellarmine telleth vs that the other Apostles had this authority but as Christes legates or by especiall commission but to be vnder Peter Whereas Peter had it as his ordinary iurisdiction Now this he should proue but he leaueth it with a bare affirmation so that you are not bound to beleeue him But we see that which here is promised vnto Peter alone whether because he alone tooke vpon him to answere Christes question or that Christ therein would signifie the vnity of the church as some of the fathers affirme or because he was a figure of the church as Saint Augustine saith that I say which is here promised to him alone is in Matthewe xviii promised to all and that Maister Bellarmine himselfe cannot deny although he affirme it to be in all but Peter a legantine in him an ordinary power And this promise is perfourmed to all Iohn the xx in these words receiue the holy ghost whose sinnes soeuer ye remit they are remitted and whose sinnes yee retaine they are retained And Theophilact doth expound these wordes of Matthew the sixteenth which here I haue in hand by this place of saint Iohn saying that in that place of saint Mathew that is promised that is here giuen and that this power belongeth vnto all What can be more plaine to prooue that although Christ spake vnto Peter onely in that first place to thee will I giue the keies yet they were giuen to all Why should we then trust the bare assertions of maister Bellarmine or any other that the keies are not in like maner giuen to all when wee see that Gods worde maketh no difference betweene them But master Bellarmine because we goe about trewly with Theophilact to expound this promise to thee I wil giue the keies by that of Iohn whose sinnes so euer ye remit they are remitted c. would faine make vs beleeue if we will trust him of his bare word that Theophilact and we are deceiued and that Christ in these words of saint Iohn doth onely giue power of order whereas in Mathew he promiseth power of Iurisdiction And the better to perswade vs he telleth vs that to keepe a mans sinnes is not a matter of so great power as to bind a mans sinnes And yet saint Ambrose whose credit is far aboue maister Belarmines doth vse the words of remitting loosing retaining and binding indifferently the one for the other And therefore this is but a blinde cauill to keepe the light of the truth vnder a bushell If we prooue out of Cyprian that all the Apostles were of like honour and power They were saith he alike in their apostleship and had all one authoritie ouer christian people but were not alike among themselues The wordes of Cyprian haue no limitation but maketh all of like power and of like honour But maister Bellarmine like false mates that doe wash and clippe the coyne whereby they make it of lesse value so doeth hee by such sâ—eights seeke to diminish the force of such authorities as are brought against him But what reason hath hee so to expound Saint Cyprian Because hee saieth in that Booke that beginning proceedeth from a vnity to shew that the church is one Thus then doeth hee reason The Church proceedeth from one or from vnitie Therefore Peter is aboue all the Apostles Let other iudge of his argument I see not out of this how he can prooue that Peter hath such superioritie ouer the Apostles as that hee may exercise iurisdiction ouer them which is that the church of Rome must prooue if Peters supremacie shal do them good Seeing therefore it appeareth by that which hath beene spoken that not Peter onely but all the apostles in like manner receiued the keies as Saint Hierome testifieth that is power to retaine or remit to binde and loose although it were saide to Peter To thee I will giue the keies yet it is manifest that for his sake onely it was not spoken or the vse of the keies to him onlie was not promised but in and by him Christ spake to all without giuing lesse power to them or more to him And thus much concerning this question to whom the keies were giuen Nowe must we see what these keies are that so we may examine what that is which they say is giuen to Peter in this promise Maister Bellarmine affirmeth that they all vnderstande by the keies the soueraigne or chiefe pnwer ouer the whole church And that it must so be he proueth thus In the Prophet Esay is described the deposing of one high priest and placing of an other by the deliuering of the keies And the keies of the house of Dauid will I lay vpon his shoulder and hee shall open and none shall shut and he shall shut and no man shall open Sincere dealing would become all men especially in Gods cause which is farre from maister Bellarmine as in many other places so heere also For Eliachim of whom the promise was made in this place was not hie priest Indeede Azariah was high priest in the dayes of Ezechiah Neither yet was there euer any such high priest as Shebnah whome God threateneth in that place Whosoeuer marketh either the pedigree of priests in the scriptures or in Iosephus hee shall finde it to bee most false and vntrue that heere maister Bellarmine so boldly affirmeth But this Eliachim was one of the princes whome Ezechiah sent to Rabsache whome in that place the Septuagint do call the Ruler of the house as also in the seuen and thirtieth verse of that chapter And the prophet Esay in the six and thirtie chapter and two and twentieth verse they call him the Maister of the housholde And indeede the Hebrew words do teach him to be one that was ouer the house as also Saint Hierome yea and their owne old translation doe translate those words of Esay And Saint Hierome in his commentaries vppon that place calleth him maister or ouerseer of the house And so Iosephus also doth witnes that he was one of Ezechias especially frends as it may also appeare in that he sent him to Rabsache and his lieutenant or vicegerent or doer for him let the indifferent reader now iudge whether this be good dealing in master Bellarmine thus to abuse the simplicitie of his reader and the credulitie of
right hand and the other on his left hand was cause of their strife And indeed the euangelist concerning this saith that the other tenne disdained at them for it But the other contention that was among the apostles is not saide to be against Peter as this is said to be against Iames and Iohn But it seemeth that euery one would be aboue other and no suspition then that Peter shoulde be aboue all And whereas they that wrote those Bookes called the Centuries alleadge that if there had beene in Peter any such Supremacy Christ woulde haue saide to them when they did striue contend no more for I haue made Peter chiefe amongst you but say they hee spake no such wordes Now master Bellarmine will prooue that Christ tolde them that Peter was appointed to bee chiefe And howe He that is greatest among you saieth Christ let him bee as the least and the chiefe as he that serueth Therefore saieth Maister Bellarmine it is plaine that one is called chiefe If hee had meant that the trueth should appeare hee woulde by comparing this place with others where the same thing or storie is reported haue sette downe the true meaning of the wordes and not take aduantage to peruert the true meaning and deceiue the simple Reader For Matthew in his twentieth chapter and twentie sixe and twentie seuen verses and Marke in his tenth chapter and fortie three and fortie foure verses reporting this storie doe plainely teach that Christ doeth not speake of any chiefenesse that was among them but that they woulde haue or desired For they say not if any be but if any would be chiefe so reproouing their ambitious affection and teacheth them rather to indeuour to be humble Because as Chroysostome saieth hee that seeketh Supremacie shameth himselfe And therefore neuer any I suppose before Maister Bellarmine out of these wordes of Christ hath gathered this proclaiming of Peters superioritie Hitherto wee haue seene howe little hee can prooue by the first of his two places of scripture Now let vs trie what weight the other testimonie hath And this is drawen also out of the wordes of our sauiour Christ to Peter who when he had thrice asked of him whether hee loued Christ and stil he answered that hee did loue him hee willeth him to feede his sheepe Now these wordes saieth maister Bellarmine are spoken to Peter onely It is true But that Lesson is not giuen to Peter onely For to all the apostles it belongeth to feede Christs sheepe and therefore are all Pastours and Sheepeheards Yea it is confessed by maister Bellarmine in his answere to an authoritie alleadged out of Cyprian that all the apostles were like in apostolike power and had euen the same authoritie ouer christian people If they had the selfe same authoritie ouer christians that Peter had which here he confesseth then to the rest as well as to Peter was this charge of feeding Christs sheepe committed And therefore Saint Augustine will haue Christ to be the onely good sheepheard and that all other are good in him and are equall in this their worke for he maketh no difference But Christ feedeth they also feede yea enen when they feede hee feedeth and Christ saith that then he feedeth in them because his voice is in them and his loue is in them But what should I stand vpon this point It is more plaine then that maister Bellarmine himselfe can deny it although he would blinde the eies of the simple with this distinction that it is principallie spoken to Peter but in some sort to all What was Peter bound to feede more diligently then the rest of the Apostles Christes sheepe None may be negligent in this office And he that doth the worke of the Lord especially this worke negligently is accursed by Gods owne mouth We must all doe it to the vttermost of our power And Saint Paul was not afraid to saie that he laboured more aboundantly then all the Apostles meaning in the preaching of the word So that it seemeth that this office was not especially committed to Peter but that I may say with Theophilact vpon these wordes Let Bishops and preachers heare what is commended vnto them Feede saith Christ my sheepe bring with thee thy ministerie if thou wile set foorth thy loue to the great sheepehearde Then also maister Bellarmine will proue out of these wordes and that easilie as he saieth that Peter hereby hath the chiefe power But indeede he onely prooueth that to feede is to rule whereas he promiseth to proue with ease that to feed is to haue the chiefe rule But you must heare with him the brightnesse of Peters chaire at Rome hath so daseled his eies that he cannot espie so small a misse But the weight of all consisteth in the last point that he handleth concevning this place and therefore about it he bestoweth some more labour And first he affirmeth that he is sure and certaine that euen all christians yea euen the Apostles themselues are as sheepe committed to Peter For his trifling coniectures of the difference betweene lambes and sheep they are not worth speaking of But let vs see what force is in his notable reason for himselfe so calleth it he so well liketh of it Christ most manifestly saieth he committeth to Peter all those sheepe of which he may say they are mine but he may saie so of all christians therefore all christians are Peters sheep If maister Bellarmine had good store of strong reasons to proue his assertion he would neuer make so much of so blunt a weapon For he can neuer proue his maior Christ saide not feede all my sheepe for he knewe that he could not doe but onely feede my sheepe Now this is as the Logicians doe tearme it an Indestuite proposition Which hath no limitation but may be vnderstoode as occasion serueth so that to make it more particular or generall we must haue regarde to the circumstances of the place And is it not verie strange that he which here will make a vniuersall proposition of that that is not so to force out of it an argument where in truth there is none will be as bolde at another time to make of a vniuersall proposition a particular No man saith Saint Paul assisted mee all men forsooke mee that is saieth he none of them that should haue helped me with the Emperour And so he applieth perchance to one or two that the apostle speaketh doubtlesse of all that professed religion then at Rome as though he were euen the creatour of Lodgicke and would haue it as his creature to frame it selfe to serue his turne But to come to the point As he affirmeth all euen the apostles by these wordes to be committed to Peter so I doe confidently pronounce that out of these wordes and some other circumstances great reasons may be gathered to shewe Peters authority in these wordes
a windowe in a basket when hee was in great danger in Damascus doth prooue Paule to hee the head of the church Of the nineteenth I haue spoken before pag. 10. The twenteenth prerogatiue Paule went to Hierusalem to see Peter What must he therefore needes be head of the church Belike then for the three yeares wherein he sawe him not 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 had taken his office vpon him haue had Peters alowance And thus much concerning Peters priuileges or prerogatiues which they alleage out of Gods booke Which although many of them are euident arguments of excellent graces that God had bestowed vpon him and great mercies which God shewed to him yet if master Bellarmine or any other will out of them conclude Peters supremacie the weaknesse of his argument will be seene of very children But yet because before he made Peters prerogatiues his second proofe of this his supremacie I haue thought it necessarie to reckon them for other confutation of them needeth not that all may see what weak proofes they doe bring for this their chiefe point of doctrine As for the other eight prerogatiues they are not worth speaking of Both because we may iustly doubt of the truth of many of them as being proued but by fabulous writings and also because if they were true it were not matteriall for the point in question And therefore letting them alone as rotten propes which will fall in pieces of themselues if any weight be layed vpon them I hasten to his third proofe that hee promised And that is out of the fathers And herein it is needles to examine euerie particular testimony Onely I will set downe in what sense the fathers truly may and often doe ascribe vnto Saint Peter many excellent titles that thereby examining the fathers and finding them to keepe within the bounds of gods word we may with reuerēce receiue them But if they passe those lists I trust master Bellarmine and al his friends will beare with vs if we reiect the doctrine of men as himselfe in this very booke before refuseth the iudgement of Origene and Theophilact and of others in other places First therefore this word in latine primatus which wee now call Supremacie but indeede doth signifie that I may make such a word Firstnesse is ascribed vnto Peter of the fathers in respect of time as in the place alleaged here out of Ciprian neither Peter saith Ciprian whom the Lord chose first and vpon whom he did build his church whereas Paul did afterward reason of circumcision did boast himselfe or did take vpon him any thing insolently or proudly saying he had the primacy and that new ones and aftercommers shall rather obay him him This place is alleadged by master Bellarmine often to proue Peters supremacy or iurisdiction ouer others But the wordes are very plaine that Cyprian speaketh of his being first not in dignity but in tune as appeareth not onely in that he saith he was first chosen but also by the wordes of newe ones or after-commers But maister Bellarmine wil say that Andrew was chosen before him to be an apostle and therefore that Cyprian was deceiued if so he meant It may so be For men may erre But the question is not nowe whether Cyprians iudgement herein be true or not but vpon what occasion or in what respect Cyprian giueth Peter the primacy which is most plainly in this place set downe to be in respect of time And so may other of the fathers in this respect vse this word and giue him this title And sometime this title of primacy is giuen vnto him in regarde of some excellent thinges that he was indued withall by reason whereof his fellowes and brethren amongst themselues and the fathers after might giue vnto him some kinde of reuerence in name or otherwise But this wil do no good for proofe of popish supremacy For they doe hold that Peter in his owne right and by that iurisdiction which by Gods word he hath is head of the church and hath the supremacy aboue all other We say that because of his gifts of zeale knowledge constancy or boldnes he was admitted and allowed to speake and to doe many things 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 or a head man among them is not to prooue him to haue iurisdiction ouer them In all corporations or fellowships as aldermen in citties although in regarde of that place they are alike none more or lesse an alderman then another yet among them some are better esteemed of euen of themselues because of their learning wisedome dexterity in gouernement credit power or wealth not because they can in right claime it but because other doe for such things as they see in them yeelde it vnto them not that they haue power ouer them but onely they are of good accompt among them And thus much to proue that that is not sufficient which maister Bellarmine saith will serue the turne to proue that the fathers say that Peter was head or had primacy ouer y e church For neither his estimation in respect of his gifts neither if by voluntary subiection they did submit themselues vnto him it can proue him to haue right to rule ouer them And this they must proue or els they gaiue nothing to their cause that Peter by the word of God hath authority ouer the whole church and ouer the apostles And therefore it maketh no great matter what men say of Peters authority but how truely they grounde their sayings vpon Gods word And thus I trust it appeareth to the indifferent reader that the minor proposition of that argument which I haue set downe in the end of my answere vnto maister Bellarmine ninth chapter of this booke wherein consisteth the great strength of the popish Monarchy is not agreeable vnto the truth or catholike doctrine howsoeuer that church of Rome reioiceth in that title that is none of hers thereby deceiuing the world as if all that shee taught were sound and catholike The proposition is this that Christ gane iurisdiction vnto Peter ouer the vniuersal church The chiefest profes that either they all haue or that maister Bellarmine can alleadge is out of Saint Matthew the xvi where they say this iurisdiction is promised and Saint Iohn xxi where they say it is giuen which their interpretation as I haue shewed cannot stand with the text it selfe or the interpretations of the sounder fathers His second reason which consisteth of the prerogatiues which Saint Peter had is grounded either vpon
by the doctrine of the church of Rome be gainsaide without danger of heresie so long as man hath not approued the same The lessons I perceiue that God teacheth vs must not bee counted the doctrines of the church vntill the bishop of Rome or some councill haue set downe some order therein Well howsoeuer the wise maisters of Rome will define what shall be heresie yet I trust they will graunt that hee erred in iudgement because he taught then that which not only the scriptures gainesay but euen the papistes themselues will confesse to be erronious But what should I stand in particular examples 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 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 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 he denieth that any error is in the same contained Doeth maister Bellarmine thinke the fathers of those councels to haue beene so simple that they could not iudge of Honorius his writings whether they were hereticall or not aswell as himselfe Or will he imagine that they were so rash that they would condemne him without cause If he in his epistles had no errour as maister Bellarmine affirmeth almost in the beginning of his eleuenth chapter why doth he heere affirme that for his epistles and the heresies which therein he maintained he was condemned of those councels If he were an hereticke as by very many testimonies it doth appeare why doth maister Bellarmine seeke so to free him from that fault and to take from him that staine Euen because he would as wel as he can defend that most vntrue doctrine of the church of Rome that the pope cannot erre And yet their owne law supposeth that the pope may erre and confesseth that for heresie he may be reproued But in this as almost in euery point wherein they dissent from vs they shew how little they are in deed according to their name that they woulde faine be called by For they call themselues catholickes as if the doctrine that they teach or beleeue were catholicke that is vniuersâ—allie receiued And yet in this controuersie they are not agreed how to defend it or what to say of it Gerson of Paris Almain Alphonsus all of them papistes and pope Adrian the sixt himselfe are of one mind Albert Pighius an other papist of an other Bellarmine and his maisters make a third sect And yet these men reproue vs for difference in opinion bragge of their owne vnity and must needs be thought to haue a catholike faith But to conclude seeing the giftes of the spirite whether of sanctification or of truth are giuen vnto men according to measure and not in fulnes for to Christ only God giueth the spirite not by measure and therefore he speaketh without errour Gods words seeing that pope Adrian the sixt hath assured vs that popes may erre and we haue it plainely recorded in their owne histories and confessed by many of themselues that they haue erred lastly seeing they haue been euen by councils condemned of heresie and their owne lawe prouideth and taketh order for popes that doe erre and the Church of Rome is not yet resolued how to defend the cantrarie we may I trust hauing so good warant euen from their owne frends without any note of heresie affirme that popes may erre Yea what is there in them but errour They wander out of the wayes of truth and of godlinesse So that in that accursed companie we may see that to be most true that where there is a boundance of sinne there God iustly may and often times in his iudgements doth cast such into the deepth of errour that they who had no desire to liue according to the light that did shine vnto them in seruing the Lord in true holinesse should be cast into the dungeon of ignorance as vnworthie to inioy that light which they so vnthankefully refused of that grace which they so wickedly abused The matter then being thus that neither Peter had any such iurisdiction ouer the whole church as is claimed by the church of Rome neither if he had it he could or for any euidence that yet is shewed he did bequeathe it to the Romish church and lastly seeing that church if any such priuiledge had beene lawfully to her deuolued hath committed such things as would haue forfeted a better right then euer shee had in that vniuersall authoritie it doth I trust appeare to the indifferent Reader that their claime is vniust their title false and that they haue no colour of interest from Christ whose ouely possession that is that they would haue But it is no new thing in the church of Rome to bring in false euidence to prooue a forged claime 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 for the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome Nouatus also another bishop saith we reade no such thing in the Nicen councill 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 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 council from those places making no doubt but if those copies did agree which came from thence they must be most true as they all acknowledge writing to pope Boniface When the copies came they could finde no such thing Is it not then very plaine that the Bishop of Rome his legate vsed false writings for proofe of a bad cause But maister Bellarmine telleth vs that Saint Augustine and all they of they council mistooke the matter being deceaued by ignorance because they knew not what the council of Sardis did set downe concerning that point The question is whether the council of Nice did giue superiority ouer all other to the bishop of Rome as his legates did affirme And it is most plaine that it did not And therefore that which is in the councill of Sardis which if we shall beleeue the booke of councils set forth by Peter Crab a frier and a papist was at the least fortie yeares after the councill of Nice it maketh nothing to iustifie them and excuse their falsehoode that for the decrees of the Nicen council doe alleadge that which was ordained in that council of Sardis And of that council of Sardis it may truly be said as in the Lateran council or at the least in the Tripartit worke added vnto it 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 holden against Athanasius The time also when it was kept is very vncertaine Yea almost al the circumstances argue great doubtfulnes of that council They that write the story of that council doe write thereof so diuersly both for the number of bishops assembled there and also concerning the Arrians being there which some affirme some deny that therby we may learn how little credit is to be giuen to it for to ground any vncertain or doubtful doctrine vpon y â— it might haue credit But that which maister Bel. doth afterwards say is yet more absurd For hauing affirmed that he is indeed perswaded that these canons which the church of Rome alleadgeth for her supremacy are not in the Nicen couecil but onely in that of Sardis yet he thinketh that Zozimus and Boniface two bishops of Rome did therefore name them the decrees of the Nicen council because they were both written together in a booke at Rome 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 Ruffâ—nus To what end is all this Forsooth to excuse his holy fathers that they should not be thought to giue counters for gold or lead for siluer But how can hee excuse them for that they added to the begining of the sixt canon that the church of Rome hath alwaies had the supremacie in which false tricke Paschasinus Legate vnto the Bishop of Rome 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 that can haue credit against so many authenticall copyes so diligently sought and sent for so carefully examined by so many hundreds of learned men and so faithfully deliuered for discussing euen of this controuersie for Paschasinus hauing alleadged in that councill of Chalcedon for his maister the Bishoppe of Rome the wordes before mentioned 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 that he meant to shew that not onely all men might appeale to him but also that it were expedient for the church that so they should do Marke how directly the councill of Carthage doeth oppose it selfe against the Pope therein in their epistle which hath this title The Epistle of the Affrican Council to pope Celestine bishop of the citie of Rome For whereas master Bellarmine did confesse that the causes of inferiour ministers might be heard at home but Bishops must be heard at Rome this councill in this epistle saith directly contrary vsing it as an argument from the lesse to the greater If say they the causes of inferior clarks by the councill of Nice are prouided for how much more is it ordered then that bishops if they be excommunicate in their prouince shall not of your Holinesse be hastily or rashly or against order thought to be restored to the communion Thy will him to banish from him such as seeke such wicked refuges because say they the Nicene decrees haue plainely committed not inferiour clarkes onely but also the Bishops to their metropolitanes They assure themselues that no prouince shall want the grace of Gods spirit to order these things And that euerie man may if he mislike of the iudgement of them that haue heard his cause appeale to a councill either prouinciall or generall no wordes of appealing to the pope Unlesse a man will imagine say they that God will grant his spirite of triall of matters to euery one and deny it to all assembled in a Councill And further they alleadge that the trueth of matters examined farre from home can hardly be found out by reason that witnesses can not well be carried so farre For as for the legates à latere that should come from the popes side for examination of such matters they vtterly mislike as a thing not to be found in any of the synods of the
and litle of his dominions and so lessening his power and at the last despising his authoritie and wringing it out of his hands as hath beene shewed And as hee could not abide any to be his better or superior so far of so likewise he could not suffer any to haue any gouernment exempt from him neere him in the citie of Rome and therefore were they also sundrie times repining and striuing against those magistrats which in Rome had the gouernment of the citie For hauing brought the emperour to hold of him for the emperour say the Canonists now holdeth his empier of the pope and therefore he is bound to swere homage and fealty to the pope as the vassal is vouÌ„d to his lord hauing I say so subiected the greatest he taketh scorne that any should sit vnder his nose and not be vnder him And therefore pope Leo the third sending certaine presents vnto Charles the great made vnto him suite and obtained it that the people of Rome should be sworne to be subiect vnto him And so from that time which was about the yeare 796. vntil the time of Innocent the second about the yeare 1139 they continued in subiection to the bishop of Rome being gouerned at his appointment 343 yeares But being warie belike of his Tyranicall gouernment they made vnto themselues a pretor senators to rule them concerning their ciuile gouernment as in times past they had wont to haue For indeed this Innocent was a wonderful proud pope of whom it is writen in a booke called Burtum Fulmen and alleaged out of two histories that in the Lateran church at Rome he painted Lotharius the emperour prostrate at his feete and his vassal or seruant receauing of him the imperiall crowne And by this picture were verses written wherein the emperour is made his seruant and it is said that the pope giueth him the crowne as though he could not haue it but by his gift His pride being so immoderate against the emperour it is not like he could keepe any measure with such as were inferiors and so did they shake of his intolerable yoke Nowe the pope not knowing presently how for to amend himselfe or to hinder their purpose yet thought he would so bridle them as that his clergie should be free from their rule He gathereth therefore a council in Lateran where he caused it to be decreed that whosoeuer should lay violent hands vpon a clergieman though he be but a psalmist saith glosse there whom the Dist 23 calleth a singer cap. Psalmista and the Dist 21. cap. Cleros maketh next the dog driuer and doorekeeper should so be accursed that vnlesse it were in time of death he might not be absolued of any but the pope onely For this cause also Onuphrius writeth that the people of Rome were excommunicated and put for euer from chusing the popes and by that meanes that the election of the pope came to the cardinals But Platina as I haue before noted saith that Gelasius the second was chosen by the cardinalles who was before this Inocent Well Lucius the second pope of that name although he had great cause to haue though of other matters for at that time there was a maruelous great plague whereof of his predecessor Celestine the second died as also himselfe was taken away by it yet his proude stomacke not being able to beare the gouernment that then was in Rome by a pretor and senators sought to alter it The pretor or Alderman maior whose name was Iordan told the pope that al the â—egalities belonging to the citie as well without as within the walles belonged to him being pretor by reson of his office that y e pope had hitherto occupied the same by meanes of Charles the great But he demaunded his owne right willing the pope to content himselfe as his ancetours had done with first â—ruites tithes and offerings But his holinesse being as vnwilling to learne a good lesson of Iorden the pretor or Alderman of Rome as were the Pharises to be taught of him whom Christ made to see Thou arte say they altogether borne in sinne and teachest thou vs Deuised more mischiefe against the Romans then did the Pharises against that man that durst teach them for they did but cast him out of their synagogue that is they did perchance excommunicate him But this holy pope who should be to others an example of patience and forgiuing our enemies had this deuise that watching a time when they were all gathered together in council the Pretor Senators and all the chiefe of the citie the pope gathered his soldiers and set vpon the capitoll the place where they were assembled thinking either to haue destroyed them all or else to haue driuen them out of the citie But the Romanes hearing of this pope-like enterprise armed themselues vpon a sodaine and running to the capitoll did so pelt with stones the pope himselfe that within a few dayes after he died Whether of the plague as before out of Stella I aleaged or of these bates it maketh no great matter For they were rid as it seemeth of a furious foole and saued the liues of their chiefe men and for a time retained their libertie This doth Robert Barnes reporte out of Naucler Sum. Anton. and Iacob Colum. Now this question betweene the Romans and the bishop of Rome continued in doubtfull case as appeareth by frier Rioch and others for a season namely whilest Eugenius the third Anaslasius the fourth and Adrian the fourth liued the Romans seeking to haue their liberties of choosing their magistrates confirmed vnto them by the popes the popes on the other side repining against that which the Romans did Yet in the time of Alexander the third they came to this agreement that the magistrates chosen by the Romans should not meddle with their office vntill they had beene sworne to be faithfull to the church of Rome and the pope And thus this controuersie that was betweene the citie of Rome and the pope for fiftie yeares was agreed But Lucius the third being perchance proude then Alexander his predecessor whose pride yet was intollerable not content to suffer so much as the name of Consuls in Rome went aboue to abolish the same and had gotten to him some of the Romans But the citizens rose against him expelled him out of the citie and put out the eies of certaine that fauoured his attempt Thus we see how the bishops of Rome to the end that their authoritie might the more smoothly proceede without controlment did seeke to take these rubs out of their waie Hitherto we haue in part seene in what sort the bishops of Rome being come to their hieght haue deale with their betters and how roughly they haue handled them But perchance their friends wil excuse them because that by doing as they haue done they haue defended will they say the rights and priuileges of the church
his malitious persecuting and pursuing of them What neede we to produce examples of forraine countries or former times We haue amongst vs in our dayes better proofe thereof then either we desire or they can denie Is it not too proude and insolent a part for either Pius the fifth or Sixtus the sith to call our soueraigne Queene and most gratious prince Elizabeth whom God hath mercifully placed amongst vs and ouer vs and mightely and maruelously defended from innumerable popish practises and Henry king of Nauarre and nowe also the French king hereticks schismaticks and I know not by what names of reproch he not prouing no nor daring to offer any reasonable triall or lawfull way to prooue the same Why is hee afraid to haue religion tried by a free generall council Why doth he hinder it by all meanes that he can The question is whether his religion that I say which he commendeth to christians and commaundeth to be onely and that vpon paine of death beleeued is true or not We denie it we haâ—e vnanswerable arguments for vs. The religion that he would haue vs to content our selues withall is not catholike that is it is not preached or taught at all times in all places with full consent as he and his frends must confesse when it is examined It hath not any sufficient warrant out of Gods booke which onely should be the ground of our relgion Nay it is so contrarie to Gods written words that it is impossible that that which God in the scripture teacheth vs and that which the popish church requireth of vs should both be true As for Gods worde we know it cannot lie And therfore we haue great cause to say that that which is contrarie to it cannot be true Again the church of Rome as they al confesse prooueth many points of their religion by traditions onely that is to say by the doctrines of men only These things we alleage Admit that it were not euidently true that we say Is it not good reason yet that we should be heard howe we can prooue that we alleage Were it not fit that before indifferent iudges the matter should be tried For why should the pope that is a principall partie in this controuersie or his legats that are his sworne adherents and seruants take vpon them to be iudges in their owne cause We accuse them of Idolatrie superstition many heresies manifest breach of Gods lawe despising of Gods word yea of plaine apostacie from the true faith Shall we euer imagine that they will pronounce sentence against themselues And confesse themseules guiltie of these great crimes No no as we are not so foolish as once to hope that they who with tooth and naile seek to maintaine their owne pride will so subiect themselues to Christs yoke so we are not so mad as to thinke them to be fit iudges to pronounce whether the truth be on our side or theirs For we knowe that they will not speake for vs because they will neuer speake against themselues Let them then permitte this question that is amongst vs to be tried by a free council Let the matters in controuersie be debated let the reasons on both sides be heard and wayghed let indifferent iudges be appointed such as sincerly sighing in singlenes of hart seek to know the truth serue the Lord. TheÌ„ will it appeare who teach the tru religion But this can neuer be tried by such ouer-ruled conuenticles as that of Trent wherein indeed the protestants were admitted to speake But they might say but placet wee are content with that you haue done They might not set downe their reasons against Romish errorn they might not be heard to dispute But that was before concluded in som priuat meeting of a few popish diuines alowed at Rome for catholike doctrine and thence sent to the council to haue approbatian of them that durst not denie it to that they might say Amen Yea and what they could haue said the council wold not greatly haue regarded as it seemeth For Clement the seuenth when the emperour Charles the fift and the French king were earnest with the said Clement to haue a free generall conncil permitted wherein matters might maturely be discussed on both sides he answered that was a perillous matter and preiudiciall that the protestants should be suffered to dispute of those things that had beene before coâ—cluded by councils As though God by his word were not sufficient to giue lawes to his church or that he should be tied to the iudgements of men Not that we thinke the auncient lawfull councils to be against vs but because that vnder the name of generall Councils they bring in their later wicked and vngodly conuenticles of the times wherein corruption grew more and more in the Church which Councils haue concluded manie things that were neuer heard of in the purer age wee would therefore let them vnderstand that as manie of their councils are worthily reiected so euen the best are not to be bleeued but as they consent with Gods vndoubted and infallible worde And that this was the bondage of that Councill of Trent which our aduersaries would so faine haue so much accounted of it appeareth by Sleydon in his historie Brocard who was one in that councill writing vpon the Apocalipse Gentillet and Caluin against that council How theÌ„ dare those arrogant popes whose doctrine can not abide the touch whose decrees do shun the light condemne princes for heretikes or enemies to the catholike faith yet will not permit their faith and religion to be laid to the rule square of the catholike doctrine Theodoret saith truly The decrees of the church must be tried and proued not pronounced as an ouer ruled case or as a sentence of a Iudge And shall we then receiue as an Oracle from God that which is deliuered vnto vs after this maner the church of Rome or the bishop of Rome hath said it God forbid We will trie the spirits whether they bee of God We seeke to trie all their doctrines that we may holde fast that which is good This then I say is an euident argument of arrogant insolencie in Pius 5. and Sixtus 5. that so wickedlie they dare presume as to giue such slaunderous names to princes that professe so vndoubted a truth as then they both did and yet our most gracious Soueraigne dooth But to depriue them of their kingdomes to release their subiects from their bonde of obedience to dispose of their dominions according to their pleasures as they would doe if they could is as intollerable pride as their predecessours before did euer vs to other And so maliciouslie to prosecute this their conceiued mischiefe as they haue done these manie yeares whiâ—h open tumult with secrete conspiracies with poysoning of some principall Princes with murthering of other by other meanes with prepairing the hearts of doubtfull subiects agaynst the time of inuasion to take
the 2. pag. 6. 12 13. bellarm his 3. and last argum bellarm barren of reasons Peter had not charge ouer the whole church Chap. 13. 14 15 16. Iohn 16. 7. Iohn 14. 16. The spirit is Christs vicar Ephes 4 4. De pontif Rom. li. 1. cap. 9. Verse 11. 1. Cor. 12. 28. Bellarm not so good as his word Stella Iacob Bergom Li. 1. cap. 12. Tom. 2. Luth. fol. 45. A cardinal counteth the Popes supremacie but a toy Lib. 1. cap 13. Bellar. arg out of the Nicen counsel Canon 6. Action 16 The bishop of Rome a forgerer Canon 6. Hist li. 1. cap. 6. Other maner of Popes in those dayes then now we haue Bellar. changeth the words of the canon Concil Constan Histor li. 5. ca. 9. Bellarm. a falfifiâ—â— of antiquitie Concil tom â— The emperour had all the commaunding in that councill Hist li. 5. ca. 6. Yet more falshoode in Bellar. Pag. 588. Pag. 588. The fourth Councill alleadged by Bellarmine Act. 1. Pag. 740. The councell of Chalcedon against the supremacy Bellarm his reasons out of this councill Lib. 1. cap. 12. Act. 3. pag. 858. Act. 16. Vniuersall bishop not only the popes name Annal. An. 187. Epist ad Philad To whom these names belong How these names are now vsed Act. 16. The fift councell alleadged by Bellarm. Concil tom 2. Anno. 552. Later councels are not in this cause indifferent Pag. 14. Act. 16. Popes are suspected witnesses Lib. 2. cap. 14. What maner of writings of popes are alleadged against vs. Bellarm. proofe out of Greeke fathers Lib. 2. cap. 15. Inscript Epist ad Rom. Ignatius answered Lib. 3. cap. 3. Ireny examined Bellarm. arg out of Ireny examined Dog 83. Principality in Ireny how to bee vnderstood Heres 68. Epiphanius examined Athan. Apolog. 2. Athanas epist to Felix pope Bellarm. argu out of Athan. examined Annal. Ann. 187. 2. Cor. 11. 28. Care for power De sententia Dionys Alex. episc Accusations prooue no iurisdiction Epist 52. Bellarm. argum out of Basil Carmine de vita sua Nazianzen examined Epist 2. ad Innocent Ibidem Why the East churches sought to the West Epist 61. Epist 48. Epist 10. Cyril exan â— Epist 18. Locorum Theol. li. 6. cap. 5. Cap. 6. Li. 5. ep 14. ad Nais Forged writings Epist ad Leonem papam Act. 8. Marke what writings the church of Rome alleadgeth for her supremacy Lib. 3. cap. 8. Sozomen examined The church of Rome pleadeth possession not by right Concil tom 2. Liberatus in brâ—uiatio Epist ad Ioh. Codice primo titulo How we deny the pope to be head of the church Tom. 2 pag. 162. Pag. 263 Russin Hist lib. 2. cap. 28. Bellar. arg out of latine writers Why and howe although the latine fathers did reuerence the bishop of Rome Lib 2. cap. 16. Dè Vnit Eccl. alias simp prelat Cyprian examined Contrr Parmenion li. 2. Hom. 85. in Iob. 20. Matth. 23. 2. Optatus against Peters chaire at Rome onely Amb. in epist 1. Timoth. 3. Ambrose answered Platina in the life of Damasus Platina Orat. in Satyrum Bellarmines ignorance or falsehood Athanasius The name of Catholike Lib. 7. cap. 4. De Sacram li. 3. cap. 1. Epist ad Alg. de Monogam Ad Damas ep de nomine hypostas Epist 162. Epist 157. Ad Bonis l. 1. c. 1. Prosper de ingr Prosper examined De persecutionâ— Wandalica Vincent Lyrinens in commonit Vincent wrung to a wrong sense Lib. 11. Epist 2. ad Ioh. papam If he commende his cure how proueth that his power Valentinianus Theodos in praeamb Concil Chalcedonens Leo earnestly seeketh supremacy Supremacy claimed by custome not by gods law Act. 16. Li. 1. cap. 17. Obiect of Bellar. Answere Plat. in Bonif. 3. Omph. annot in Bonif. 3. Plat. in Bonif. Concil Florent Lib. 7. epist 63. Pag. 98. Pag. 112. Bellarmine addeth to Valentinians words or changeth them Bellar. lib. 2. de pontif Rom. c. 17 In Bonif. 3. Cron. Euseb If iurisdiction were had yet it might be lost Exod. 28. 1. Leuit. 10. 1. Priests for their sinnes punished â—um 25. 13. 1. 〈◊〉 2. 30. 31 35 2. Kings 2. 27 35 1. Sam. 2. 35. God left Silo. 1. Sam. 4. Psal 78. 60. Ier. 7. 12. 14 Ierem. 26. 6. Psal 78. 60. Ierem. 7. 12. Ierusalem for sin forsaken and the temple A similitude Leuiticall priests for sin disgraded Ezech. 44. 12. Hos 4. 6. The popes calling is many times by wicked meanes Luke 13. 3. Luke 13. 6. 7. An admonitionâ— to the professors of the gospel Esay 5. Leuit. 26. Deut. 28. 2 Thessa 1. 5 6 7 Praesâ—t in lib. pontif Rom. Bad Popes are as pearles to beautifie the church of Rome The name of the church is often where the church is not Iude. 5. 6. Reuel 2. 5 16. Reuel 3. 16. Rom. 1. 18. Verse 21. 23. 1. Kinb 12. 4. Nehem 13. 26 Num. 25. 1. De pontif Roâ— li. 4. cap. 2. Li. 4. de Rom. pontif cap. 3 cap. 5 That the pope may erre Arg. 1. The spirit that teacheth truth doth also sanctifie Theo. in Luc. 22. Ioh. 17. 17. Ioh. 14. 16 17. Psal 25. 9. 2. Cor. 3. 5. Act. 15. 9. 2. Cor. 3. 18. August de tempore serm 237. Arg 2. to proue the pope may erre De pontif Rom. li 4. cap. 2. Arg. 3. To prooue that the pope may erre Marcellinus Damasus in pontificali Liberius Hieron in cron Lib. 4. de Pontif. Rom. cap. 9. The papists answere not directly to the question whether the pope may erre Bellar. de Rom. Pontif li. 4. ca. 9. Lib. 6. cap. 8. The difference betweene errour and heresie De ciuit dei Li. 18. cap. 51. Contra 2 Epist Pelag. l. 4. 5. 6. A similitude Bellar. de Rom. Pontif. li. 4. c. 3. Popes no teachers Popes doings or sayings may be hurtful to many Luke 22. 31. 32. Peter after this prayer erred Matth. 26 74. De Rom. pontif li. 4. cap. 3. Whether Peters faith failed Matth. 14. 31. Lib. 4. cap. 3. Many popes haue erred Honorius Lib. 6. cap. 8. Lib. 4. cap. 11. The errour of Steuen and other Popes Sigebere chron Plat. in Iohn 10. Lib. 4. cap. 14. What is heresâ—â— in the church of Rome Canus lib. 6. c 8. Arg. 4. that the pope may erre Lib. 4. cap. 11. Lib. 4. cap. 6. Bellar answere again â—his owne doctrine Bellar. chargeth the fathers with vniust dealing Arg. 5. that the pope may erre Si papa dist 40. The difference in opinion amongst papiss Bellar. de Rom. pontif lib. 4. ca. 2. The conclusion of this point whether the pope may erre Iohn 3. 34. Concil Carthaginens 6. Cap. 4 Cap. 6 Cap. 4 Epist concil 〈◊〉 ad Bonif. De Rom. Pontif. Lib. 2 cap. 25. The council of Sardis cannot be alleadged for the Nicen. Lib. 3. cap. 10. Contra Cresco lib. 3. cap. 34. Whether that booke at Rome may by likelihoode be truer than the bookes of the Greeke church Conc. Nicen. c. 6. Act.
haue said I doe not inioyne you these thinges as Peter who was your bishop But the greatest matter that he espieth in Peter and Paule is that they are apostles And writing vnto the Ephesians he moueth them to depende vpon their bishop as the Church hangeth vpon the Lord and the Lord vpon his father How happeneth that in this reckoning of these goodly couples the Ephesians and their bishoppe the church and Christ Christ and God there is not any mention of Peter or his successour Doubtlesse as yet this conceit was not hatched which yet more plainely maie be seene in that exhortation that he maketh to the Saintes in Smirna to honour God as the maker and Lorde of all but their bishoppe for that he speaketh of their owne bishop the whole epistle sheweth as the high priest the Image of God and the most excellent thing in the Church Nowe I pray yon what account is here of Peters chaire or of his succession Not one word This also in his epistle is to be obserued that hee seemeth to make more especiall account of Paul then of Peter As writing to the Philadelphians he saith Be ye folowers of Paul and the other Apostles as they folowed Christ which it is to be thought he would not haue don if Peter had beene in such account then as since he is said to be Nowe for Iustinus Martir who wrote about the yeare 147. doth neuer so much as make mention of Peter being bishop of Rome although in his second Apologie he maketh mention of Simon Magus how hee was honoured at Rome but not of his fierie chariots destroied by Peter 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 who florished about the yeare one hundred seuentie and foure howe hee did write vnto the Romans and yet nothing is there of Peter that he was bishop there but onely that Peter and Paul did plant the church there And in the same place Eusebius reporteth of Caius who as he saith was made bishop of Rome after Zephirinus which Zephirinus died the yeare of the Lord two hundred and twentie that he writing vnto Proclus an hereticke put him in minde of the monuments of the Apostles that he could shew Whereas hee might haue made a better bragge to hane serued for his purpose if hee could haue told them of Peters chaire But as yet there was no such matter knowen As for that which master Bellarmine himselfe aleageth out of Irenie it proueth nothing for him For in saying that Peter and Paul together did found a church there 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 so litle doth he dreame of Peters chaire or bishoprick there Neither yet doth Cyprian plainly affirme that Peter was bishop of Rome He doth somtime indeede call that church Peters chaire in respect of the doctrine that Peter taught and published 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 and saith that the priests did sit in Moses his chaire so long as they taught the lawe that Moses from God deliuered to them But as for Moses hee neuer came neere the place where Ierusalem was built to establish any chaire there And thus we see that in all these ancient fathers who liued more then two hundred yeares after Christ for Ciprian florished about two hundred and fiftie yeares after Christ there is no plaine proofe of Peters being bishop of Rome And excepting Ciprians words who if he allude vnto the words of our sauiour Christ as he seemeth to do can make no more for the opinion of the church of Rome then any of the rest there is nothing in them all that hath any likelyhood of proofe of the thing in controuersie But if any man answere that it is no good argument thus to reason Such men haue not written that Peter was bishop of Rome therefore hee was not bishop there I reply that if this that out of them hath beene said doe not substantially prooue that Peter was not bishop of Rome as if the allegations be wel considered of they are strong presumptions yet doe they inuincibly prooue that for this space of more then two hundred yeares they cannot shew of any authentike author that hath acknowledged Peter to be bishop of Rome Yea the first that is aleaged by master Bellarmine is Ireny who liued after Christ not much lesse then two hundred yeares And therefore this doctrine doth easily appeare not to be catholike and the godly fathers which slace haue affirmed that he was bishop of Rome either do so call him in respect of the worke of a bishop which if he were there by his care of Gods flocke and constancie in his truth he did shew or else they teach that which had not bin taught in the dayes next vnto the apostles times A second argument that vnanswerably prooueth this to be no catholike doctrine is the dissenting of y ◠most anciēt authors that they alleage from themselues in this point wherin they affirme that Peter was bishop of Rome For Ireny who is first alleaged of master Bellarnine Tertulian whome in the second place he produceth then also Epiphanius and Dionysius bishop of Corinth out of Eusebius do al with one consent ioyne Peter and Paul together I say not Peter onely so that vnto the one as well as vnto the other belongeth that dignitie by their records And Damasus himselfe a pope I maruel if he would erre in this point saith that Peter came to Rome Nero being emperour which must be at the least twelue yeares after the reckoning that is nowe holden for good in the church of Rome And Eusebius doth aleage out of Origen how Peter in the latter end of his life came to Rome and therefore he is not like to be Bishoppe there xxv yeares This doubtfulnesse and vnconstancie of their deliuering this doctrine is an infalible argument that there was not in those times any catholike doctrine taught of this matter but that men might thinke thereof as they saw cause But now it is no lesse then heresie to denie that Peter was Bishoppe of Rome Now if vnto this that hath bin said we adde the vocation or office of Saint Peter recorded in the holy Scripture that he should be the Apostle of the circumcision whereof that euer he was discharged all the Iesuites in Rome and Rheimes
will neuer be able out of Gods register booke to shew And one the other side that the singular care that the Apostle Saint Paul who willingly woulde not build vpon another mans foundation sheweth himselfe to haue ouer the Romans more then ouer any other euen as if they were his peculiar charge as iu the first and fifteenth chapters of that epistle appeareth I trust there is no man of indifferent iudgement but will thinke that we haue great reason to stay our selues and not rashly vpon euerie shew of the newnesse of fathers to runne and consent vnto such opinions as haue no shew of the ancient antiquitie no agreement among themselues no colour of probabilitie in the worde of God but the contrarie rather Neither is that any answere to my second argument which master Bellarmine doth saie that the disagreement about the time of Peters comming vnto Rome doeth not prooue that he came not at Rome at all For my intent is not directly to proue that Peter came not to Rome as bishop of Rome but that this was not a catholike doctrine for two hundred or almost three hundred yeeres after Christ and this disagreement doth proue that substantiallie So that it must bee another answere that must take awaie the strength of this argument or else it standeth vnaswered Neither is that example that he bringeth of the vncertaintie of the time of Christes death fit to proue the matter in question For all are agreed that Christ died but that Peter was bishop of Rome is not certaine And therefore the thing it selfe beeing doubted of the vncertaine setting downe of the circumstances will make it lesse credited I am not ignorant that godly learned men haue set downe manie moe arguments to prooue that Peter was not bishop of Rome and that maister Bellarmine bestoweth sixe or seuen chapters to answere the same as well as he can But my purpose being to trie as well as I can how catholike their doctrine is I content my selfe at this time with these fewe For to striue what might bee spoken of this matter were an infinite labour But whilest I indeuour to goe forward I am forced a while to stay and muse at the immoderate boldnesse of maister Bellarmine who vpon so weake proofe will make so certaine a conclusion For purposing to shewe the bishoppe of Rome is a vniuersall bishop hee thus beginneth Hitherto we haue plainly shewed that the Bishoppe of Rome is Peters successour in the Bishopricke of Rome Nowe considering with my selfe the weakenesse of the two postes that must vpholde this building I though he might haue something at the least mistrusted his owne cause For if Peter were at Rome and first preached there doth that proue that therefore the Bishop of Rome is his successour But by that meanes all they that came afterward in the places where he preached shall bee all his successours and not onely the pope The second ground of this considerate conclusion is that he imagineth that Peter was Bishop of Rome and so died But the vanitie of his arguments I haue discouered before I trust sufficiently Therefore this bolde assertion I will requite with this Sillogisme and so proceed If it be not certaine that Peter was Bishop of Rome then must this succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter needes be vncertaine But it is vncertaine as I haue shewed by better reason then master Bellarmine hath shewed that Peter was bishop there Therefore I conclude this succession also must needs be vncertaine But before I begin to examine Bellarmines euidence wherby he will proue the pope to haue supremacie ouer all the church the Reader must bee put in minde of that which before I haue said whereby the very ground of this supremacie is shaken if I be not deceiued namely it is with good reasons I trust denied that Peter had that supremacie ouer the whole church And if he had it not how can the bishop of Rome haue it from him Againe we must consider how this hangeth togither If Peter had that vniuersall charge and was bishop of Rome also that therefore they that doe succeede him in the bishopricke of Rome must in like manner that vniuersall charge But let vs heare M. Bellarmines reasons But the foure first I of purpose omit bicause they are either directed against Nilus his opinion who graunted as master Bellarmine saieth of him that Peter had this vniuersall charge ouer the whole church but denieth it to the bishop of Rome and therefore those arguments touch vs little or else they are answered before in this treatise But he hauing proued after his maner against Nilus that seeing Peter had this supremacie hee must needes haue a successour in the same At the length he commeth to proue that the B. of Rome is this his successor reasoning thus either the bishop of Antioch or of Rome must be Peters successor in the supremacie ouer the whole church But the bishop of Antioch can not chalenge it therefore Rome must succeed in this vniuersall bishopricke That Antioch cannot haue it he shews because Peter resigned that bishopricke before he died I will not here examin or cal forth your witnesses in what place ye find that Peter gaue ouer to the bishop of Antioch which you say hee had But I will aske a question of you by what right he could resigne it ouer and leaue the charge that God committed vnto him and so forsake the flocke whereof you are made ouerseer You must either holde your peace or else tell vs some tale of a bastarde Epistle of pope Marcellus which commaunded him so to doe And is it inough that Marcellus who liued about three hundred yeares after this thing was done should say that Christ commaunded him to doe it and produce no witnesse alleadge no proofe set downe no circumstances Thus we see that this supremacie doeth stande but vpon a tottering foundation It may also be doubted whether if he had a vniuersall charge ouer the whole church he might take vpon him a particular charge either at Rome or Antioch For our Sauiour Christ giueth direction to his Apostles whose charge was vniuersall Goe into the whole worlde preach the Gospell vnto euerie creature For although it is written of some of the Apostles that they were bishops in certaine places yet that is no answere to this obiection because they were not vniuersall bishops and therefore must needes haue their seate somewhere I say in some particular charge For hee that is an vniuersall Bishop and hath allotted vnto him a seate or chaire is vnproperly called vniuersall It were more expedient for him in respect thereof to bee running yea or rather flying then to bee sitting But to answere master Bellarmines argument His Maior proposition is gathered of a false supposition For if it bee not graunted that Peter must needes haue one to succeede him in this vniuersall charge then you see that
of their popes But if popes may be charged with heresie how can we thinke but that in their talke in their sermons if they did preach and vpon all such occasions as were offered vnto them they would by foure means or other commend that which they liked of and condemne the contrary And their very words when they speake of matters of faith are indeede instructions to all and their examples also are publike instructions to y â— whole church Neither must we imagine that those holy fathers forsooth had one religion in secret and an other that they would publish Therefore if we proue that they did erre I trust also it will followe that this errour was a stumbling blocke to the church and that they may erre when they giue lessons to all the church Lastly let vs consider the foundation whereupon they raise this building Because Christ said vnto Peter Simon Simon behold Sathan hath desired to sift you as wheat But I haue praied for thee that thy faith should not faile To whom was this said To Peter although not to him alone as before out of Theophilact I haue shewed But Peter immediatly after erred 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 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 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 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 we thinke the pope to be more holy of a more sanctified nature of a sounder iudgement then Peter was They will not so say themselues therefore they also may erre But for master Bellarmines subtill distinction 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 remeÌ„brance 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 caÌ„ by these wordes prooue his infallible iudgement And what they can do for these points I haue shewed before their great weaknes if it be but weaknes in so great light and sunshine of truth not to see y â— right way I omit of purpose many popes to whom â—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 that may be aleadged to prooue him so to be I rest specially vpon Melchior Canus his confession in his theologicall places and one proofe vrged by him amongst many others For hee doth not onely acknowledge Honorius to bee an hereticke but also telleth vs how Adrian the second in the first action of the eighth generall councill confesseth that Honorius was by the Greeke church condemned as a hereticke and that Agathe bishop of Rome consented vnto the same his condemnation In which argument although master Bellarmine 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 and Sergius the third against Formosus another pope now long dead And against the dooings and decrees of pope Theodore and Iohn the tenth Steuen reuoked whatsoeuer Formosus had done vp a councill called belike for that purpose Iohn the tenth afterwards maketh good the dooings of Formosus disamulling that that Steuen did yea their â—â—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 dâ—â—lt so hardly with him and so disannulled his dooings and decrees did erre If Steuen did right then Iohn who afterwardes vndid all that he had done did wrong Yea they disannulled the very orders that the popes that were their aduersaries had giuen Which thing maister Bellarmine in his fourth Booke and twelfth chapter confesseth to be a matter of faith Therefore heere the pope erred in faith No saith he this is onely a matter of fact it is not decreed by any of them Let vs marke out question that is whether the Pope may erre or not Maister Bellarmine saieth these Popes did wrong but they decreed nothing of disanulling those orders which men booke of their predecessours and therefore erred not in iudgement Sigebert saieth that Steuen decreed that Formosus his ordinations were or should be voyne Platina saieth that Iohn the tenth iudged amisse because hee iudged that they must take orders againe that did take orders of Formosus So Iacob Bergomensis and Stella agree with Platina These therefore condemne Steuen the sixt to erre 〈◊〉 iudgement and so doe manifestly 〈◊〉 that the pope did erre and confute maister Bellarmine his answere to this obiection Iohn the two and 〈◊〉 pope of that name did not beleeue onely but euen teach that the soules should not see God before the latter day as master Bellarmine himself confesseth But it was saith he no heresie in him so to teach because there was not then anie decree or destinction of the church for that point If it true master Bellarmâ—◠〈…〉 heresie 〈…〉 not defined it A thing defined in the scriptures set downe in Gods word and plainly taught in Gods booke may I perceiue