in iudgement Liberius a pope 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 or was an heretike The question is whether the pope may er or not Now our aduersaries draw vs from the questiō not answering whether Liberius did erre or not but they tell vs that he was no heretike and that he taught no heresie And admit he did neither of these two I meane that he neither became an heretike neither yet taught heresie yet he may erre Yea Liberius did fouly erre in that externall action whereby our aduersaries confesse that he consented to the banishment of Athanasius and in communicating with those two Arrians Valence Visacius and by help of Arrians get again to be bishop of Rome deposing Felix For to er is to wander or go out of the right way whether it be for ignorance or feare or through any other affection he that steppeth aside doth erre And because this giueth great light to al that is to be said of this question it shal not be amisse somewhat more throughly to consider of the same First you see that whereas their doctrine is briefly deliuered that the pope cannot erre they wil haue it thus to be vnderstooed the pope cannot be an heretike that is he cannot continue obstinatly in heresie nor he cannot teach heresie when he giueth generall precepts that should belong to the whole church For that is the meaning both of Melchior Canus in his Theological places and of maister Bellarmine in this place before alleadged The intent also of their doctrine is to commend vnto vs that their Italian head as a fit head for to guide the vniuersal church and able to be ahead to the whole body Nowe therefore let vs see how well their doctrine and their meaning agree together For the head of the church should be such as should in nothing no not for a time leade the body of the church awry But the church may be led into many foolish opinions strange conceites and dangerous doctrines euen by such as cannot be called heretikes For an heretike is he as Saint Augustine telleth vs that being of any euill and corrupt opinion in the church and being reproued or monished to amend resisteth stubbornly and will not reforme his contagious and perilous doctrines but defendeth the same and is drawen to deuise or follow such opinions for his own profit especially for his own glory and to aduance himselfe Now who seeth not that a man in place of credite and authoritie as the bishop of Rome hath beene by such bad means as he hath vsed these many yeares may wonderfully indamage and indanger the church of God before any body wil or dare reprooue him for any opinions that he will holde And when he is found fault withall as he must be before they can count him an heretike how many subtile shifts can euil men haue to continue a long time in their wicked opinions without reuoking the same or reforming themselues and yet to auoide the danger of being accounted stubborne or obstinate The Pelagians against whom saint Augustine writeth many bookes did turne many waies their lewd opinions changed often in some shewe of words their positions and did adde as by reason they were forced and by arguments compelled some such wordes vnto their errours as that thereby they might auoide the note of contumacy and deceiue the more vnder a shew of truth as may appeare by saint Augustine who confesseth plainly that if their meaning were not knowen to be euill their wordes could well enough haue beene borne withall Admit then that a bishop of Rome being of such absolute authority as now they are could as cunningly as did the Pelagians couer and cloake an heresie Might not he be an heretike many yeares before he would be driuen to recant And might not he then by such meanes bring irreparable hurt to the church of God Thus we see that as by this doctrine that the pope cannot erre they goe about to assure vs that the head which they haue set ouer the church cānot deceiue vs if we wil be lead by him so their interpretation of that their position argueth in them great doubtfulnes y t they dare not defend their own fayings vnlesse they may expound their words after this manner that the pope cannot erre that is he cannot obstinately or stubbornly teach as a doctrine to be receiued of the whole church any heresie And I pray you what safety can the godly finde in following such a head as when he hath guided them into many errours yet he will not stubbornly stand in defence of them Such may wel be compared to souldiers that by the rash leading of an vnskilfull captaine are brought into the hands of their enemies and when the captaine seeth his folly he would faine mend it if he coulde and is sory for that he hath done But what helpeth this his late repentance the distressed souldiers nothing at all Euen so that the bishop of Rome cannot continue in his errour if it were true that he had some such priuiledge it might be good for himselfe But such a head is for others very dangerous because y ◠not all they who are seduced by such mens instruction or example are also reduced by their recantation or amendment as appeareth by multitudes of examples And so we see that this their interpretation standeth not with either their common receiued doctrine or with their intent and meaning which is to promise safety from errour vnto them that receiue that head Whereas in truth their meaning is to tell vs that the pope may be of a wrong iudgement but if he be much vrged he cannot be obstinate he wil not stand to it And whereas they defend that the pope cannot teach heresie as a doctrine publikely to be receiued in some respect I thinke it to be most true For seldome or neuer are there any popes that can teach either truth or heresie They cannot preach they cannot with wholesome doctrine feede their flocke they cannot deuide the foode of life and breake the bread of the word vnto Gods houshold seruants For want of knowledge they cannot of themselues doe much either in defence of truth or to maintaine errour But this exposition will not please them They haue another meaning For when they tell vs that the pope cannot be an heretike when he teacheth the whole church their meaning is plaine enough that in particular iudgements they may erre but not in their generall decrees or preachings or instructions Which they are forced to say for the auoiding of such inconueniences as might growe by defending the doing of many
others And thus I trust that notwithstanding all that out of some doubtfull sentences of ancient writers maister Bellarmine hath gathered yet this point is not so cleere for the church of Rome as they would perswade the world that it is But rather the contrary appeareth most true that Peter was not the first that preached at Rome As for that which maister Bellarmine doth alleadge concerning Saint Markes gospell that it is written at Rome according to that which Saint Peter preached if wee grant it it doth not proue yet that Peter first of any other preached at Rome It only proueth that hee did preach there which by way of admittance only for the present wee will not much â—and against As for that which hee saieth of the ouercomming of Simon Magus by Peter euen this one thing maie sufficiently shew that it is but fabulous that Saint Luke who tooke vpon him to write the actes and doings of the Apostles doth very carefully write the miracles that were wrought by them as he that marketh may easily perceiue and doeth also recorde things done many yeares after this was supposed to bee done yet doeth not so much as make any mention of this conflice betweene Saint Peter and Simon Magus although in the eight Chapter where he reporteth some talke betweene Simon Magus and Peter very good occasion had beene offered neither yet Saint Marke Saint Peters owne disciple writing at Rome mentioneth it And therefore howsoeuer some of the ancient writers being deceiued by Egisippus haue thought of this fable yet I haue I trust good reason and sufficient warrant not to credit the same Now whether Peter died at Rome or not which is the next point that is handled by maister Bellarmine I will not much gaine say it because I would especially stand vpon the most materiall pointes that belong to the proofe of their maior proposition which is that Peters prerogatiues belong to the bishop of Rome if wee will beleeue the papists by Christs institution And herein I would craue of the indifferent reader without partiasity to iudge whether this their doctrine of Peters beeing Bishop of Rome twenty and fiue yeares be a catholicke doctrine or not For maister Bellarmine maketh a proud but a false brag that it hath the testimony and consent of all the ancient writers As for his first reason whereby he will proue him to bee bishop there because of the dignity or great account that hath beene alwaies made of the church of Rome it is very weake For the Church of Rome was accounted off more then others as before I shewed out of the councel of Chalcedon Ireny because Rome was the imperiall citie And no doubt also but that greater concourse of learned men in that respect was there then els where which must needes cause that place to bee in better estimation So that of this cannot Peters being Bishoppe there bee concluded Secondly whereas hee will prooue that he was Bishoppe of Rome because where he was bishop after that he leste Antioche it cannot be shewed this his proofe is like the former For seeing he was an apostle what necessitie is there that he must be bishop in some peculiar seate or place Where was Paule bishop It appeareth by the story of the Scripture that he was no where bishop And why then should wee of necessity make S. Peter a biâ—hop in some chaire Maister Bellarmines third argument which is the testimony of the fathers hee imagineth will beare all downe before it But first wee must consider that the fathers were content at the first to receiue this thing as a truth without any great examination of it because it was but a matter of story and so not much materiall whether hee were bishop of Rome or not But if they had beene in our daies and seene what necessary doctrine the church of Rome inferreth thereupon that it is a doctrine that we must beleeue or els wee cannot be saued that Peter was bishop of Rome and of the whole Church and then for that the bishop of Rome is Peters successour in that vniuersall bishopricke and that by Christes institution and that this must be beleeued vpon paine of damnation No doubt but euen those godly fathers who seeme most to speake of that chaire of Peter woulde haue saide as Chrysostome writeth of Moses chaire wee must not now saith he speake of the Priestes sitting in Moses chaire but in Christes chaire hee I say and the rest would haue proclaimed it lowde inough that they are the true Bishops not that sit in Peters chaire but in Christs chaire But I haue sundry strong argumentes to induce not my selfe onlie but I trust euen others also to be assuredly perswaded I will not saie that Peter was not Bishoppe of Rome but that it is not a Catholicke Religion so to be leeue And first I will constantly affirme that master Bellarmine and all the Iesuites that take his part shal not be able to prooue that the fathers of the first two hundreth yeares that are of good account or credite for in this case I except what their Popes and counterfet fathers haue written or taught that Peter was Bishop of Rome Which beeing prooued it is as cleare as the noone day that is this not catholicke doctrine Themselues must needes confesse it Now for proofe of it first that in the Scriptures we haue no such things taught it is most plaine And Maister Bellarmine himselfe who would faine haue it beleeued yet dareth not affirme of this anie thing els then that it maie be that the Lord did openly command that Peter should so place his chaire at Rome that absolutely the bishoppe of Rome should succeede him And there hee addeth that howsoeuer the matter is it is not so by the first institution And as in the scriptures this thing hath no ground so the fathers that liued in the daies of the apostles and next after them doe not acknowledge any such matter Ignatius who was Saint Iohns scholler maie be a good witnes in this behalfe All whose Epistles if we search and sift we shall not finde any thing in them that teacheth vs this point of popery but rather the contrary And yet he writing vnto sundry and informing them in the most principall points of religion and such things as were most necessary for christians to know yea and among other to the Romanes themselues must needes haue informed them of this vniuersall bishop and of Peters chaire if he had knowen of anie such matter in his seconde Epistle which is ad Tiallianos I commaund not saith he as an apostle and to the Romanes I commaund not these thinges as Peter and Paule In both places hee had good occasion to haue vrged them with Peters supremacie but especially he should haue put the Romanes in minde of Peter if hee had beene their bishop And should
haue said I doe not inioyne you these thinges as Peter who was your bishop But the greatest matter that he espieth in Peter and Paule is that they are apostles And writing vnto the Ephesians 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
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 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 Damasus beeing pope was accused of whoredome whereof hauing cleared himselfe it is not vnlikely but that S. Ambrose did the rather take this occasion to pull al suspition out of other mens minds by giuing this testimony of him Another cause also may be added that as it seemeth he was as learned as any bishop of Rome before him For which S. Ambrose himself a being a learned man might then rather delight in naming him The rest of the places out of S. Ambrose haue no waight at all Satyrus did aske the bishop whether he agreed with the Catholicke bishops that is with the Church of Rome He meaneth by catholicke bishops such as held the catholicke faith that then was maintained at Rome If it be a good argument to say Rome is a catholicke church therefore it must gouerne all the churches in the world then will this also be a good argument Hippo was a catholicke church so was Millaine so are also the churches that we haue allowed in England by authority therefore they were and ours are heads ouer all others And that master Bellarmine will not allow But he asketh why the bishops are not catholickes that agree not with the church of Rome if it 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 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 And Athanasius in his creede speaketh in this sence of a catholike faith Yea the name of catholike was also as it were a note of their profession That whereas the Donatists gloried that they onely had the true church the catholikes on the contrary would be known by their name that in any place of the world they might be of the true church Yea there were Emperours that made a lawe 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 as their law doth testifie Yea Sozomen reporteth of a lawe made by the Emperour that all should beleeue the lawe deliuered by Peter the head of the apostles but howe he may be called head of the apostles I haue shewed before and that nowe Damasus bishop of Rome and Peter of Alexandria doe holde and that they onely that worship the trinitie with like honoure should be called the catholike church And doeth maister Bellarmine to make his bad proofe seeme better aske howe they may be called catholikes that agree with the church of Rome vnlesse it be in this respect that they take it to be the head of the catholike church heere are catholikes we see and yet not bound to beleeue that head After he alleadgeth two other places of like force The effect of them is that he woulde followe the paterne of the church of Rome So woulde I also if I had liued in those daies when they sincerely held the faith committed to them by Gods worde And he doubtlesse if he sawe the superstition and Idolatry and treasons that vnder coulour of religion are hatched there in our daies he would thinke euen the cotten ruines of Rome to bee ouer good to bee a cage for so badde birdes But to follow their example is not to yeelde vnto them power ouer vs. To go forward out of saint Ierome hee reasoneth thus Saint Ierome for pope Damasus answered the Synodicall consultations of the East and West therefore they that sought for answere from the seate of Rome in their matters acknowledged the superioritie thereof If I should tell Maister Bellarmine againe that Maister Caluine in his time and Maister Beza in his time haue answered more matters and questions that came from sundry of the reformed Churches and some particular men then many of the popes of that time yet I am sure he wil neuer confesse them to be vniuersall Bishoppes for that No more neede wee graunt to him that the Pope is a vniuersall Bishop because many questions were mooued to him Againe Saint Hierome confesseth himselfe to be Damasus his sheepe and that hee is of communion with him Alas what childish proofes are these May not Hierome confesse himselfe to depend vpon Damasus but that hee must thereby tie all others likewise to be subiect vnto him It is a shame for men so to deceiue the world aud to hasten euen their owne damnation by abusing the simple in such sort They crie it out in euery corner that there is no saluation to be hoped for vnlesse they doe acknowledge the Bishoppe of Rome to bee head of their Church and yet are they not able to yeelde so much as one good reason out of the Scriptures or ancient writers of the purer age for proofe of their doctrine It must bee beleeued as an article of faith and yet they coulde shewe no ground no warrant for it Out of saint Augustine is alleadged that in the Church of Rome 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 Pelagians which maruellously troubled Palestine and Affrike Now out of this will he conclude the popes Supremacie But saint Augustine himselfe denyeth that hee had any such meaning in that he was one of that sixt councill of Carthage that so stiffely denied supremacie vnto the pope seeking it so earnestly and by very false practises And the Bishop of Rome was then of great abilitie to doe good as also any other may be and yet not haue iurisdiction ouer them that seeke for that good at his hands I would haue them
hath established in making that sin which he calleth honourable and forbidding that which he hath commanded as appeareth in their forbidding certaine persons to marry And on the contrary wheras Christ reproued Peter for drawing his sword euen in defence of his master yet Peters successor and Christs vicar as he tearmeth himselfe commendeth it as a most acceptable sacrifice to God and meritorius of the remission of sinnes if in the defence of the pope or reuenge of his enemies and they are all his enemies that will not be his slaues they fight againgst christian princes yea and rebell against their naturall and soueraigne magistrates Of the which because I shall God willing haue better occasion to speake after I only would haue you nowe to remember that furious fellow Iulius the second of whom it is written that he gaue forgiuenes of sinnes to any that would kill a Frenchman And it seemeth that some cause of his deadly hatred against the French was this Iulius this iolly pope was sworne when he was chosen pope as many stories testifie that he should call a generall council within two yeares But he not regarding either oath or duety was so farre from calling of a councill that as much as he could he hindered the same And thereupon nine Cardinals leauing him came to Millan and appointed a councill to be kept at Pysa whither the Emperour and French king did send their Ambassadours Now when otherwise hee could not hinder the council hee purposed as a friend of his telleth vs to rule it by warres so that he made the councill to goe to Millaine for feare A great fight beeing vpon Easter day betweene the French and this woorthy warriour the French men gaue his a great ouerthrowe Whereupon he stirred vp against them all that he could the Venetians Heluetians Italians Spaniards So wel did he seeke for peace and insue it as Saint Peter commandeth him whose successour he calleth himselfe So much did he regarde that promise that our Sauiour Christ himselfe whose Vicar he would seeme to be did make Blessed are the peace makers for they shalbe called Gods children And so lightly did he set by that commaundement that Christ hath giuen against our affectionat and vnlawfull reuenges Resist not euill but whosoeuer shall smite thee on the right cheeke turne to him the other also So that this pope doth promise the reward of remission of sinnes for dooing that which Gods law doth flattely forbid and the law of nature doth vtterly condemne Is not this to take vppon him against God himselfe Is not this to commaund when he forbiddeth and to forbid when he commaundeth Againe God hath giuen vs a plaine and flat commandement that we should doe nothing but that which he biddeth Wee must not so much as turne to the left hand of our corrupt affections or superstitious seruices which our selues condemne or to the right hand of our good intentions and deuotions wherein we please our naturall man very well His word only must be our rule and square Doth not then the bishop of Rome controll this and such like commandements of God when he saith in expresse wordes ye shall haue other rules of religion other articles of faith otherwayes to worship God by traditions of the apostles and of the church vnwritten verities decrees decretalles briefes and buls councils and precepts of the church Is not this to transgresse Gods commandement by our owne traditions and to make it of none authoritie Is not this to teach as doctrines mens precepts Yea is not this to say with those lawlesse lordes wee are they that ought to speake who is Lord ouer vs Thirdly in that the pope may as hee and his fauourites falsely affirme allowe of the scriptures whether they shall be authenticall or not Doth he not thereby take vpon him to be aboue God whose word is not authentical vnlesse the pope allow of it If you doubt whether the Bishop of Rome be so shamelesse or not as so to say consider first what Siluester Prierias a frier and maister of the popes pallace writeth in his articles or foundations that he setteth downe against Luther Whosoeuer saith he resteth not vpon the doctrine of the church and bishop of Rome as vpon an iufallible rule of faith from whence euen the holy scripture doeth drawe strength and authoritie is an heretike like vnto which is that also of Eckius without the authority of the church the very scriptures are not authenticall And let not their doctrine only be examined wherein they teach that the pope is virtually the church as doth that frier Prierias in the place before alleadged in his second foundation but also yea and that especially the practise of that church so to refer al things to the pope in such things that he according to that fulnesse of knowledge which is in that sacred casket of his holy brest which pope Paule the second did first boast of must iudge of all things so that as he saith so it must be and there must no reason be asked of his doing Whereby it appeareth that the Pope being the church and as we see hauing the ful authoritie to do what he will in the church of Rome they tell vs that the scripture hath no authoritie or strength but from him And I pray you then who is greater hee that maketh the word authenticall or hee that hath his word approoued Is not he that doth approoue it so God must be vnder the pope that holy God vnder a vile sinfull man Fourthly the pope will take vpon him to dispence with or rather against the word of God and to allow that which God manifestly condemneth and is expresly against gods holy law For proofe whereof I neede not alleadge the false testimony of his flattering lawyers that giue him that power to dispense against the apostle and so against gods word but we may see his practise which doth sufficiently testifie that he thinketh he may dispense with the wicked and vnnaturall vncouering of the shame of them that are neare of kinne And he hath done contrary to this flat commaundement giuen by God against marying with vncle or aunt In which case he did dispense in the marriage of his catholike sonne Philip King of Spaine who as in his vnrighteous ambition hee hath no measure so in his vnnaturall iust he hath as it seemeth no shame but to his Lord he shall stand or fall before whome it shall be tried one day whether the popes bull can stand betweene God and him for breach of Gods lawe Yea pope Martine the fifth as is alleaged in a booke called Brutum fulmen out of Anthony of Florence and others did dispense with one to marry his owne sister whereas God saieth thou shalt not vncouer the shame of thy sister But what can not the pope do He can make wrong right say they And wee knowe that hee can
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
these priuileges Which being so many in number as they were the common welth did not onely find a want of such as should help to beare the burthens that were to be laied vpon the same but also they by their multitude were able to make a great party to attempt any thing that they would take in hand And by the large possessions which many of these had they could draw many folowers to be on their side And this I take to be the reason that Boniface the eight as Marcilius Patiuinus writeth was so desirousto inlarge and increase the number of his clergy that he would haue all such as had married a maide and contented themselues but with one wife should be of his clergie Now their exemptions streching to all the clergie I pray you what subiects should be left vnto the king for him to commaund and rule for his owne safetie and the gard of his common wealth It was therefore a great post and piller of poperie to bring these immunities to the clergie and a meane to maintaine it the better Both because it imboldned themselues to doe much mischiefe and also it drew many to be of their societies And so as it was a double dammage to the ciuil estate So was it a double prop to vphold the kingdome of the pope and therefore dangerous moe wayes then one Well thus far we are nowe come in this proofe of popish practises that wee see their subâ—â— shiftes to bring themselues to this high estate It is not vnknowen to vs how wickedly they haue abused their authoritiÌ„e in pride intollerable couecousnesse insaâ—iable and malice vnmeasurable And lastly their gouernment being so very deuilish and detested almost of al yet how and by what means they haue maintained the same That is to say I haue opened their subtil shifts wherby they became so great and secondly their practises and proceedings in this their greatnesse thirdly their cunning and compasses to keepe themselues great the meanes which for the most part they haue vsed to get into this nest which they haue built so high and to â—eepe themselues in the same My meaning is not so lay open their wickednesse of life so long as it is but their priuate fault let them stand or â—all to their owne Lord he against whom they offend shall call them to account But that onely that belongeth to the question of the popes supremacie which now I haue taken in hand to suruey and to the abuse either in getting or in vsing of it that onelie did I purpose to intreate of And hereunto am I forced by double necessitie First because it is one part of the popiâ—h practises But especially to stoppe the mouthes of them whose sight is so quicke towards others as that they can espie a small mote in their eie In our church they can find no ministerie no succession no sacraments all is wrong they see nothing but faults The great beame that troubleth their owne eye they cannot see But as men sightlesse and sencelesse they imagine all is well with them all is catholike Catholike church catholike faith catholike religion catholike doctrine And yet if the matter be well examined neither their church neither yet their faith haue any shew of catholike in them As I trust it is euident to see in this Suruey of the Popes Supremacie that their doctrine is not catholike their doings are not christian like Let vs examine whether that which they teach vs concerning this point haue bene taught likewise of al the godly learned or at the least of the most of them at all times in all places constantly and of set purpose not by the way as we terme it in handling some other matter often and plainely For these are the properties that Viucentius Lyrinensis an old father requireth in that doctrine that is catholike and true That Peter was otherwise a foundation in the building of the church of Christ then were other of the Apostles it is not a catholike doctrine That Christ gaue to Peter onely the keies of the kingdome of heauen it is not by these rules a catholike faith That the feeding of Christs sheep in the whole world or the gouernment of the whole church was commited to Peter onely or especially is most catholikely taught so that not one of all these points of their religion which are indeede the ground-worke whereupon they raise this their stately building of the popes supremacie can be called catholike as is before shewed But if they could prooue these things to be catholike as they will neuer be able to doe yet haue they not obtained their purpose For how is this conueyed to the bishop of Rome if it were in Peter It is not catholikely beleeued that he was bishop of Rome neither yet that he conueyed his estate or interest ouer the whole church if any such had beene in him to the bishop of Rome Or if all this could be proued yet remaineth one point that were able to ouerthrow all For it is not receiued as a catholike doctrine that the Bishop of Rome cannot erre or that for sinne and errour the priuileges which the church of Rome claimes if they had any such could not be forfeited as well in them as in other churches In all which pointes if I haue nor sufficiently prooued that the church of Rome teacheth false doctrine and repugnant to the Scriptures wherein I submit my selfe to the iudgement of the indifferent Reader yet I trust that the aduersaries them selues must needes confesse that these cannot be prooued to be catholike doctrines But on the contrary a man may easily see if hee marke the storie of times that these things which are the only pillers to vphold this popish kingdom were neuer thought vpon in the Apostles times or the ages next to them that is to say in the purer times of the primitiue church But when heresies began to trouble the church and men began to separat them selues from the vnity of faith more boldly and more openly then at the first they did And it pleased God to continue in some reasonable sort sinceritie and trueth of religion in the church of Rome then beganne that seate to be called Peters chaire not because Peter sate there but because that notable confession that Peter made and the faith that he preached was there established and soundly kept and maintained as before I haue shewed out of Optaâ—us and others that Peters chaire signifieth his doctrine And as after the sunne is once set darkenesse groweth still more and more so that the furder from sunne set vntill it be readie to rise againe the greater is the darknesse euen so the farder men were from those purer times the furder did they wander from the wayes of truth and the grosser was the ignorance that they were in So as that which at the first was not once thought vpon yet was it at the last affirmed of some very constantly and boldly But
endangered by this subtile but false perswasion which wholly possesseth the heartes of many that if they will be saued and auoide the danger of damnation they must stedfastly beleeue that the Bishop of Rome is the vniuersall Bishop hauing authoritie ouer all that he is the head of the church and the generall shepheard of Christ his flocke For that man of sinne hauing so bewitched the hearts of his fauorites that they are once persuaded that it is good religion so to beleeue and that to defend this his pride is christian constancie what shamelesse villanies will not they thinke to be lawfull practises what cruell murders will not they account to be commendable attempts what vnnaturall deuises and drifts wil not they esteeme most godly and catholike vertues I neede not stand long in dilating this point Our natiue soile hath too much and too lamentable experience of such vnkindly slips Who when they did and do owe to their countrey wherein they were bred and brought vp the sweete fruit of loue to her and sacred obedience to her lawes bring forth almost nothing else but the sowre grapes of treasons and treacheries Which all spring out of this bad roote that they falsly perswade themselues that they owe their chiefe obedience to the Bishop of Rome whose commaundements if they obey and follow his directions and hearken to his perswasions then must they suffer no princes with qnietnesse to enioy their ancient and vndoubted inheritance and rightfull crownes but such as will be tenants at will to their lawlesse master Which the more I doe thinke of it the more I feare we haue no great hope as yet to be free from such villainous practises as may bring danger vnto her Maiestie and ruine to this realme because I see that stubburne Recusants who if they haue any conscience in religion it is very strange for many of them shew little conscience in any thing else wilfull Papists I say are not in some reasonable maner forced in this point to shew their obedient and dutiful hearts but may freely without controlment professe themselues enemies to the truth that we acknowledge For how can there be any certainety to this estate that is so pestered with a great number of false hearted subiects whose very religion is to be deuoted to him and to the maintainance of his kingdome that is grieued at nothing more than at our happinesse neither seeketh any thing so much as our destruction To plucke away therefore this visard of Religion from this their disobedient and dissolute affection I thinke it to be the duetie of euery good christian according to our calling and talents wholy to indeuour our selues And as this dutifull affection of christian obedience should effectually moue vs vnto this attempt so the very ruine of religion and the decay of all true deuotion which foloweth that perswasion should forâ—e vs to make haste to take this stumbling blocke out of the way of the simple lest at vnwares running thereupon they should make shipwracke of their faith For the Bishop of Rome by this his pretended priuiledge doeth take vpon him to make lawes to binde the conscience to adde to Gods word to dispence against the same to chop and change religion it selfe as seemeth good to him to doe and vndoe at his owne pleasure And do he neuer so much hurt in the church of Christ yet no man must say Sir why do you so And thus hauing gotten by this prowd name his fulnes of power he hath filled all christendome with horrible superstitions I speake not heere of the prophane or rather blasphemous praises which the flatterers of this vniuersall Bishop do giue to him to make the world not so much to reuerence him as a B. as to honour him rather almost as a god Which if it had bin done onely by his Canonists who liued in the dayes of darkenesse and saw not so much as men now do yet the fault and folly had bin very great But that master Bellarmine a man doubtlesse learned in so cleare light of the trueth as now shineth should so farre ouershoote himselfe as he doeth in this point in his Preface to his bookes of the bishop of Rome it maketh me not a little to wonder at his grosse folly and to detest his irreligious flattery But of this more shall be said hereafter if God permit Seeing therefore the truth of this doctrine is so necessary both for the sinceritie of religion and also for the quietnesse of common wealths my desire purpose is if God giue good successe thereunto to shew and proue that the Bishop of Rome maketh herein an vniust claime and hath possessed himselfe of an vntrue Title To come therefore to the point in controuersie The holy catholike church the spiritual house of God the mystical body of Christ comprehendeth two sortes of members Some that are triumphing in heauen others that are here trauelling vpon the earth some profiting as saint Augustine saith in this life others perfited in an other Now the question is whether this part of the catholike church that is here wandering in this vale of misery which is called militant for here is the place of striuing else-where the place of crowning must needes haue the Bishop of Rome to bee the head thereof This is it that they vntruly and without any good warrant do affirme This is it which iustly and vpon good ground as I trust it shall appeare we deny Master Bellarmine laboureth very much to prooue that the gouernement of one ouer all is the best indeuouring thereby to prooue that if it be best in ciuill regiment it should also be the best gouernment in the church as it appeareth in his Bookes of the bishop of Rome Howsoeuer the monarchicall regiment within euery kingdome or country is liked of yet that vniuersal rule of one ouer al hath not bin thought good of at any time as may appeare by those great monarchies so commended vnto vs in histories To whose subiection kingdomes and nations did not subiect themselues willingly but were subdued to them by might Neither is it necessary that that kind of gouernement which is thought best for worldly kingdomes whose Law-makers are men and whose lawes are alwayes new to be made as new inconueniences do arise in the common-wealth and to be short whose glory is here in this world should also be most conuenient for the church of God whose kingdome is not worldly whose beauty is not outward or external But to knit vp this point with one argument thus I reason That kind of gouernement is fittest for the church that bringeth most profit to them that are gouerned but master Bellarmine confesseth that the mixed gouernement is most profitable therefore it is fittest But because it pleaseth master Bellarmine so well that one should beare rule ouer the whole church let him and his fellowes submit hemselfe to Christ that King
keis besides the testimonie of Theophilact we haue most plaine proofe out of Gods word Whatsoeuer is promised Mathew the sixteenth chapter in these words I will giue thee the keis is performed Iohn the twentieth chapter in these words whose sinnes ye remit they are remitted and whose sinnes ye retaine they are retained but in Saint Iohn no chiefe power is giuen but such as is generall and common to all the apostles therefore in Saint Mathew there is not promised any chiefe power but such as is common to them all and so to all pastours in them My minor needeth no proofe for it is confessed by master Bellarmine But master Bellarmine denieth my maior and yet hath no ground of his deniall but this onely that he taketh it not be all one to binde and to retaine sinnes or sinners and to loose or remit Which subtil difference the fathers did not see And therefore Theophilact doth not onely expound this place of Matthew the sixteenth chapter by that place out of Saint Iohn the twentieth chapter making this later to bee a perfourmance of that promise I will giue thee the keies but also hee flattely there opposeth remitting to binding whereas by master Bellarmines doctrine if hee had beene brought vp in his schoole he should haue set remitting against retaining and not against binding For saith hee it is a greater matter to binde then to retaine to loose then to remit Saint Ambrose also maketh to binde and to retaine to remitte and to loose all one For whilest the puritie of doctrine in some measure remayned this subtile Sophistirie was vnknowen in Gods church But nowe for defence of popery such stuffe must serue the turne when they haue no better And heere I cannot but maruell at master Bellarmine his answere vnto this argument out of the centuries For they that wrote those bookes reason thus if in these wordes to thee will I giue the keies c. there were promised any supremacie the Apostlles could not haue doubted which of them should haue beene chiefe but they doubted of this therefore there was not in those wordes any such supremacie promised Maister Bellarmine maketh no question but that they doubted of it for there was among them some contention about that matter but for the maior hee answereth that the apostles did not vnderstande plainelie that there was anie promise made to Peter vntill after that Christ rose againe but then they suspected some such matter and that made them striue Is it not great boldnes in master Bellarmine in so waightie matters to bring no other warrant but his foolish fancie Or to answere such an vnanswerable argument by such silly shiftes They knewe not saith master Bellarmine that Christ made such promise to Peter vntill after Christ was risen againe But if it had beene an article of such importance as now it is made why shoulde they not haue knowne it They heard what Christ said to Peter they heard the promise of the keies and this is asmuch as our Romish Rabbines can nowe bring for their proofe If they vnderstoode it not so as master Bellarmine heere confesseth they did not what newe reuelation haue our newe Romish teachers to assure this to be the meaning of those wordes But they seeme to be whelpes of one haire with those hereticks whome Tertullian reprooueth because they saide the apostles knewe not all thinges that if their doctrine were not agreeable to that which the Apostles taught they might the lesse bee condemned As Bishoppe Fisher not knowing better howe to excuse their additions vnto the auncient doctrine which the church of Rome hath brought in saith that later wits knowe thinges better then before they did Well master Bellarmine you see confesseth that the apostles vnderstoode not then that promise as nowe the papistles doe When did they reforme their iudgement Where in what place doe they shew any signification that they euer vnderstood it otherwise If they neither vnderstood it so before Christs resurrection neither yet gaue anie signification afterwardes by woorde or deede by their writings or examples that their knowledge was in this pointe reformed howe can wee saie that they euer tooke that to bee Christes meaning But the first of these is confessed as before is shewed by Maister Bellarmine the latter they cannot shewe Therefore it maie be gathered that the apostles neuer vnderstood the words of Christ as the papistes doe And howe doeth hee prooue that which hee boldlie affirmeth that then they suspected such a thing Or that after Christes resurrection they did striue It is mentioned in the storie of the gospell that twise they did striue who shoulde be chiefe Of both which times the three Euangelistes doe make report And Saint Iohn also in his gospell seemeth to pointe vnto the latter strife when hauing washed his Apostles feete Christ giueth them good lessons of humilitie But that after Christes resurrection they did consende for this it cannot bee prooued For both these times were before his death And therefore I cannot but maruell that Maister Bellarmine will bring such proofelesse stuffe to open light as though hee imagined that his counterfaite coyne must goe for currant And whereas afterwardes hee alleadgeth out of Origen Chrysostóme and Hierome that the apostles did striue amongst themselues because they suspected this supremacie of Peter himselfe doeth not in this giue credite to these fathers For if it bee true that maister Bellarmine saide before that this suspition was not vntill Christ was risen then howe is this true that they affirme that they suspected thus much when they did striue first of all Which was at the least about a yeare and a halfe before Christ rose againe Neither doe these fathers heerein deserue to bee beleeued For the grounde of this their conceite is that they imagined the paying of the tribute money to haue beene before this contention For they surmise that because Christ said paie for mee and thee therefore the rest of the apostles suspected that Peter shoulde haue some superiority ouer them and grudged at it But this their imagination as it is farre from the thought of the apostles for any thing that may be gathered so is it flatly confuted by the scripture For this contention was before the tribute money was demaunded namely in the way before they came to Capernaum as is most plaine in the euangelist saint Markes gospel the ninth chapter and three and thirtie and foure and thirtie verses And the tribute was not demaunded before they were entred into Capernaum and into a house there Matthew the seuenteenth chapter and xxv verse Therefore that suspition of supremacie was not the cause of their contention which maister Bellarmine woulde prooue out of these fathers But perchance rather that ambitious affection that was in Iames and Iohn the sonnes of Zebedee which afterwardes they shewed more plainely in asking that one might sit at his
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
borow master Bellarmines spectacles by which hee can spie that one pope is contained in these words one bodie and one spirit as he doth also find out the supremacie plainely set downe in these words hee gaue some to be apostles and yet more plainly if we may beleeue him in the epistle to the Corinthians he hath ordained in the church first apostles then prophets Now let them that can picke that soueraigne Supremacie out of those wordes say so But for my part I confesse my sight is so dimme that I can not see so farre into that mill stone These and such like reasons beeing compared with their proofs out of scripture which make nothing for them vnlesse they be sore wrested from their naturall and true meaning doe euen proclame it to the world that this doctrine of the popes supremacie is nothing else but a deuise of mans braine a fruit of his pride And thus to thinke I am the ealelier perswaded when I see how master Bellarmine toileth himselfe to set downe the state of the question For although in the beginning almost of this twelfth chapter he promised to prooue that the bishop of Rome is by the lawe of God successor vnto Peter in the supremacie of the vniuersall church yet afterwards he confesseth that the church of Rome hath not this succession by Christs first institution of this succession and that perchaunce for so he speaketh to testifie how loth hee is to confesse the truth plainly though he cannot denie it perchance he saith it cannot be proued by the lawe of God that the bishop of Rome as he is bishop of Rome is Peters successor And yet although it cannot be proued to be decreed by Gods lawe it is saith hee a thing that belongeth to the catholike faith For saith hee to be of the fayth and to be by Gods lawe is not all one for it is not by Gods lawe that Paul should haue a cloke hee might haue said as much also for Tobias dog yet this must be beleeued I would not haue thought that Pauls cloke had beene such a necessarie relique but I remember that Balthasar Cossa who was pope Iohn the three and twentieth of that name gained well by Peters cloke when time was for by casting it vpon his owne shoulders he made himselfe pope But can master Bellarmine find no better stuffe to perswade vs to beleeue the popes supremacie They make it a matter of damnation not to beleeue the supremacie of the pope And is it of as great necessitie to beleeue that Paul had a cloke If master Bellarmine be so perswaded I lament his follie If hee thinke otherwise why doth hee bring it to prooue that to beleeue the supremacie of the bishop of Rome is a pointe of the catholike faith although by Gods lawe this supremacie cannot be prooued And as they stagger in setting downe by what authoritie right or lawe they claime this soueraigntie so they haue no great proofe for their manner of this their dignite whether it be personall or not By Christs first institution master Bellarmine telleth vs it was personal If Christ made it personall who could change that estate and make it successionall master Bellmine answereth that it was personall generall or publike so that it belonged to him and his successors Whether that can be called personall that is to say belonging to the person onely which belongeth also to his successours let the indifferent Reader iudge But how is this prooued that Christ gaue this prerogatiue to him and his Master Bellarmine saith so often times especially in the twelfth chapter of his first booke but his proofe is litle else then his affirmation Againe hee saieth that this succession is made both personall and locall by Peters dying bishop of Rome But as alreadie I haue proued that doctrine of Peters beeing at Rome bishop is not so certaine that christians may build their faith thereupon So that we see there building is altogether vpon the sand their proofe weake their reasons obscure and their places nothing pregnant for that they are brought And I maruell that nowe it should be counted heresie not to beleeue the Romish bishop to be by Gods lawe supreame head of the whole church seeing that in the yeare of our Lord God one thousand fiue hundred and twentie Albert by the goodnesse of God cardinall priest of the holy church of Rome of the title of Saint Chrysogon Arbhbishop of the holy churches of Magdeburge and Mentz primat of Germany and prince elector gouernour of Halberstade and marques of Brandenburge for these litles hee giueth himselfe in an epistle writen to Luther sheweth himselfe griued and displeased that some diuines of good accoumpt did so earnestly contend for their friuolous opinions and trifling questions namely of the power of the bishop of Rome whether it be by Gods lawe or by mans lawe And of free will and many other such toyes not much concerning a christian man This cardinall you see thinketh it not worth contending for And I am verely perswaded many moe will bee of his mind vnlesse they see better matter then master Bellarmine canne bring to prooue it to be by Gods lawe But although hee haue no store of Scripture for him yet hath hee great hope in councilles and fathers And I assured my selfe that the councilles if hee will trust them will most plainly decide this question whether that superiority that the church of Rome challengeth ouer all other churches be by Gods law or mans law as hereafter it shall if God will appeare Nowe therefore to examine maister Bellarmines next proofe which is out of the counsels And the first counsel that he alleageth is the Nicen counsel not that which themselues haue deliuered to vs as authenticall and true in the tomes of counsels set foorth by themselues but to serue this turne we must haue a new addition and a strange interpretation not that which agreeth best with the words and is thought most true of them that liued neare vnto the daies of that counsell First therefore we must adde saith maister Bellarmine to the beginning of the sixt canon the church of Rome alwaies had the supremacy And why must those wordes be added Paschasinus forsooth a bishop in the counsell of Chalcedon did so cite that canon He did so but he was legate for Leo then bishop of Rome that did alleadge it by Aetius Archdeacon of Constantinople he was disproued who read not onely the coppy of the canon by a also the approbation of the same counsell and canon by a counsell holden at Constantinople of 150. bishops Nectarius being bishop there But one found out a greeke coppy of that counsellong since and in that saith maister Bellarmine those wordes are If the coppies that we haue haue thus long beene thought true and good I see no reason why for some one greeke coppy which might very well be falsified by some fauorite of the
The greatest bishop and yet not he but Liberius was then bishop of Rome And for this name head as I haue shewed it is nothing strange in all societies to haue a heade man and yet he not to haue iurisdiction ouer them By all which it appeareth howe weake an argument may be drawen from these names which may be common to so many to proue the supremacy which the bishop of Rome challengeth to himselfe onely Nowe maister Bellarmine hauing wrung what he can which is not much out of the fathers of the greeke church commeth to the latin writers to try what gleanings he can get among them Whom I doubt not but we shall finde speaking very reuerently of the church of Rome as in truth it well deserued because that the bishop of Rome although he began very soone to encroche somewhat vpon other mens right and to enlarge his power yet he vsed his greatnesse and authority for a long time to the maintenance of true religion the comfort of the distressed and to withstande by himselfe and other the bishops of the West church the heresies that troubled especially the East churches In al which things we know that by their place for that they were bishops of the Imperiall city and the authority that they were come vnto by fauour of the Emperours they were as it were ringleaders vnto others so that although they were moued sometimes to these good things by a desire that they had to be medling in all matters which was one of the waies whereby they came to their greatnes yet in that they did good vnto the church the godly did both commend them and also beare with them although sometime they were too forward and stept too farre before others But when they would haue had this authority confirmed to them in councils and established as a law of the church then did the ancient fathers wisely withstand their vnlawfull desires as the vi councils of Carthage and the councill of Chalcedon doe plainly proue So that the godly learned fathers of those times partly to incourage them in their well doing did giue them due commendation when they deserued it and partly for quietnesse sake and the peace of the church did wincke at many of their inordinate proceedings and vnorderly attempts so long as they were but their priuate actions yet would not the iurisdiction of the vniuersall church And these things being well remembred I may I trust be shorter in answering to the particular places And first for the place out of Cyprian which maister Bellarmine prosecuteth in many words as he is forced to doe that he may get out of him but a shew of an argument It is answered in few words For indeede maister Bellarmine groundeth vpon a false principle which I dare not say that he could not but see his errour but it is maruell if he can be ignorant of it The wordes wherein he especially trusteth are these This commeth to passe that heresies growe in the church whilst there is no returning to the beginning of the truth neither is the head sought for neither is the doctrine of our heauenly maister kept Nowe by this word head he vnderstandeth the head of the church whom he maketh Peter Whereas it is most certaine that Cyprian doth meane nothing els here then in another place where he endeuoureth to perswade after the same maner and by that very argument where by the head he meaneth that which the apostles taught For saith he if we returne to the head and beginning of the tradition of the apostles mans errour ceaseth And there he teacheth vs by a similitude howe we should come to the heade by the similitude I say of a conduct wherein if the water faile we goe to the head of it that is to the fountaine and so from thence examine the want of the water so saith he must Gods priestes goe to the beginning when there is any question of Religion And that he meaneth that head in this place the very wordes by him alleadged do prooue because the former wordes put vs in minde of returning to the originall or beginning of the trueth and the wordes that follow leade vs to the heauenly doctrine Well then the head in this place doth signifie the spring and fountain from which our doctrine must beginne and so master Bellarmines argument is quite ouerthrowen And hauing proued that he buildeth his reason vpon a false ground I trust I neede not bestow any more labour to prosecute him in his wandering wordes Optatus is the second who speaketh nothing to helpe this desperate cause For although he commend vnto vs that one chaire in respect of the vnitie of doctrine for all the priests nowe saith Chrysostome must sit not vpon Moses chaire but vpon Christs chaire yet in the wordes alleadged by master Bellarmine he addeth and we haue proued that that is ours by Peter Optatus a bishop in Affrike not of Rome sitteth in Peters chaire Therefore Peters chaire and the popes chaire are not all one vnlesse their doctrine be one It is not tied to Rome or to that church But alluding to that place of Moses his chaire which our Sauiour Christ speaketh of because the Scribes and Pharises taught that which Moses did teach Optatus also saith that he doth sit in Peters chaire because hee taught that which Peter did confesse and teach Yea and he prooueth by this argument against the Donatists who taught that they onely were the church that the church is also where he taught because euen there is Peters chaire so that if Optatus your owne witnesse speake truly then you haue maruellously abused the world for many yeares in making them beleeue that S. Peters chaire is at Rome onely But Saint Ambrose seemeth somewhat plainer then the rest 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 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 or pastours to whom the ministery is committed And to make this plaine by an example he setteth before vs the house of God at Rome which is the church there and the ruler of Gods house there who is Damasus their bishop If any man aske how it commeth to passe that he rather nameth Damasus then any other bishop Sundry reasons of it may be yeelded First Ambrose himselfe was a bishop in Italy for Milaine is in Italy vnder the popes wings and therefore the bishop of Rome was the most
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
drinke and would not admitte that great monarch to his speech The fourth day with much adoe by the intreaty of a gentlewoman who could do somwhat with the pope and at the suite of some others his holinesse forsooth was content he should be admitted vnto his presence And though this y e emperor his submissiō was such as was thought too lowly and abiect by the nobles of Italy insomuch as they purposed to depose Henry the fourth from the empire as bringing a staine to the same by his ouer humble yeelding vnto the popes excessiue pride yet could it not satisfie the pope For he notwithstanding all that the emperour had doone purposed to bestow the empire vpon Rafe ◠of Sweueland And therefore sent to him the crown emperial with this verse written about it The Rocke to Peter this crowne gaue And Peter bids that Rafe it haue This Henry that was most villainously abused by that prowde beast and his successors is he of whome Paulus Langius bringeth the testimonie of Otho Frisingensis that he was the first emperor of Rome that he could find although he marked diligently in reading that euer was excommunicated or depriued of his kingdome by the bishop of Rome For as Sigebertus saieth this onely new doctrine I wil not call it hereste saith he was not yet bred that the priestes shoulde teach the people that vnto wicked kings they owe no subiection Yea though they haue sworne fidelitie to them yet they owe them no fidelitie neither that they are not to bet called periured that stand against the king but whosoeuer obeyeth the king is to be accounted an excommunicate person but he that is against himlis absolued from all fault and periurie If Sigebert had liued in our times what would he haue said when hee should see this new heresie not onely stiffely and stubbornly yet slenderly and verie vnlearnedly maintained for catholike doctrine by that vnnaturall traitor Allen and his fellowes and a new practise also agreeable thereunto put in bre and highly commended to poison shoote or by any meanes to kill such as the popes will say are heretikes as all are that wil not stoupe vnder his yoke Wel about 500. yeres since it was new heresie for it is verie neare so long since Sigebert did write And therefore it is not that poore proofe of Tho◠of Aquine a man that liued in the dayes of corruption or of Francis of Toledo some seditious papist of our time or of that late Councill of Lateran not much aboue 300. yeares since that can make it a Catholike doctrine But to end this storie of Henrie the fourth Paschalis who was not long after Gregorie did not only prosecute the matter with all extremitie against he said Emperour whilest hee was aliue as did Gregorie before him but euen after he was dead they who for good will and that common dutie that we owe to them that are departed did burie him could neuer haue peace or fauour of pope Paschalis the second vntill they had taken vp his bodie and cast it into the fields Is not this popelike charitie Is not this diuelish enuie a most sure demonstration that they are not led by the spirit of God But to bee short this one thing I dare affirme and I proclaime it to the shame of all them that loue poperie that if you search all stories and peruse all Chronicles and call to remembrance all things that you haue read heard or seene you shall neuer find any that professe the name of Christ be they neuer so rude or sauage not any Turke Iew or infidell wil attempt things so vnnaturall so contrarie to the law of God so far beyond the compasse of humanitie as papists doe and wil do yea and many of the popes themselues haue don and thought they might doe Our late daies giue vs so many examples to proue this to be true that wee need not looke vnto these former stories You see how vnereuerently they haue dealt with these most honourable princes And did not pope Alexander the third as intollerably hehaue himselfe as any man could do when hee making the Emperour lie downe at his feete did treade vppon the necke of the Lords annointed which was woorse then to cut off the lap or a peece of his garment for doing whereof Dauid accused himselfe to haue done wrong But this pope I say treading vpon the necke of Fredericke the first of that name emperour did most prophanely and blasphemously abuse these words of the Psalme Thou shalt walke vpon the lion and aspe the yong lion and the dragon shalt thou tread vnder foot Thereby proclaiming that he he neither had any feare of God or reuerence of the supreme maiestie in earth I omit of purpose to speake of Gelasius the second and Calixtus the second against Henrie the fift the vnnaturall sonne of Henrie the fourth Nether do I rehearse the vngodly dealings of these and some other against manie kings and princes Yea I passe ouer also with silence that villainous treason that Alexander the third wrought and practised with the Turke against this Fredericke the first which had beene the finall destruction of the emperour if the Turke had not beene more mercifull then the pope was faithfull For the pope desiring the death of the emperor moued the Turke to dispatch him as he loued his owne quietnes and withall sent him a liuely counterfet or picture of the emperor wherby he might know him if he came into his hands by which also the emperor being taken of the Turks was knowne when he came before the great Turke For hee brought forth the said picture which y e pope had sent him therby prouing him to be Frederick and withall he shewed the popes letter mouing him to destroy the emperor and therby did it appeare to all that heard thereof that the pope was a traitor to Gods cause the emperors person But I am weary of raking in these chanels And this which is already said is I trust sufficient to point vnto the vnreuerent vnhonest vnchristian proceedings which these godles and prophane vgly monsters vsed after y ◠once they came to their height of honor abusing the colour and pretence of religion and holines to hide their violent and bilanous practises And makng that seuere censure and sharpe chasticement which is onely to be vsed in Gods causes and that vpon the greatest occasions as a very fooles bable wherewith they strike euery one that doth not folowe their vnbridled wilfullnesse But their intollerable and impotent pride doth yet more appeare if we consider their dooings nearer home For you see howe after they had gotten that authoritie which long they sought euen as a man that aimeth at his marke so did they practise and deuise what they could against the soueraine maiestie vpon earth as if all their care were bent to bring him lower as indeede they did spoyling him by litle