a windowe in a basket when hee was in great danger in Damascus doth prooue Paule to hee the head of the church Of the nineteenth I haue spoken before pag. 10. The twenteenth prerogatiue Paule went to Hierusalem to see Peter What must he therefore needes be head of the church Belike then for the three yeares wherein he sawe him not but went preaching into Arabia and to Damascus he confessed him not to be head but as if he had forgoten himselfe all this while hee now at the last yeldeth him seme reuerence But if he had done it in any such respect he would and should at 〈…〉 before he had taken his office vpon him haue had Peters alowance And thus much concerning Peters priuileges or prerogatiues which they alleage out of Gods booke Which although many of them are euident arguments of excellent graces that God had bestowed vpon him and great mercies which God shewed to him yet if master Bellarmine or any other will out of them conclude Peters supremacie the weaknesse of his argument will be seene of very children But yet because before he made Peters prerogatiues his second proofe of this his supremacie I haue thought it necessarie to reckon them for other confutation of them needeth not that all may see what weak proofes they doe bring for this their chiefe point of doctrine As for the other eight prerogatiues they are not worth speaking of Both because we may iustly doubt of the truth of many of them as being proued but by fabulous writings and also because if they were true it were not matteriall for the point in question And therefore letting them alone as rotten propes which will fall in pieces of themselues if any weight be layed vpon them I hasten to his third proofe that hee promised And that is out of the fathers And herein it is needles to examine euerie particular testimony Onely I will set downe in what sense the fathers truly may and often doe ascribe vnto Saint Peter many excellent titles that thereby examining the fathers and finding them to keepe within the bounds of gods word we may with reuerēce receiue them But if they passe those lists I trust master Bellarmine and al his friends will beare with vs if we reiect the doctrine of men as himselfe in this very booke before refuseth the iudgement of Origene and Theophilact and of others in other places First therefore this word in latine primatus which wee now call Supremacie but indeede doth signifie that I may make such a word Firstnesse is ascribed vnto Peter of the fathers in respect of time as in the place alleaged here out of Ciprian neither Peter saith Ciprian whom the Lord chose first and vpon whom he did build his church whereas Paul did afterward reason of circumcision did boast himselfe or did take vpon him any thing insolently or proudly saying he had the primacy and that new ones and aftercommers shall rather obay him him This place is alleadged by master Bellarmine often to proue Peters supremacy or iurisdiction ouer others But the wordes are very plaine that Cyprian speaketh of his being first not in dignity but in tune as appeareth not onely in that he saith he was first chosen but also by the wordes of newe ones or after-commers But maister Bellarmine wil say that Andrew was chosen before him to be an apostle and therefore that Cyprian was deceiued if so he meant It may so be For men may erre But the question is not nowe whether Cyprians iudgement herein be true or not but vpon what occasion or in what respect Cyprian giueth Peter the primacy which is most plainly in this place set downe to be in respect of time And so may other of the fathers in this respect vse this word and giue him this title And sometime this title of primacy is giuen vnto him in regarde of some excellent thinges that he was indued withall by reason whereof his fellowes and brethren amongst themselues and the fathers after might giue vnto him some kinde of reuerence in name or otherwise But this wil do no good for proofe of popish supremacy For they doe hold that Peter in his owne right and by that iurisdiction which by Gods word he hath is head of the church and hath the supremacy aboue all other We say that because of his gifts of zeale knowledge constancy or boldnes he was admitted and allowed to speake and to doe many things but that in his owne right he was but equall with the rest and as he calleth himselfe a fellowe elder with them that were meaner then apostles Therefore to be a chiefe man or a head man among them is not to prooue him to haue iurisdiction ouer them In all corporations or fellowships as aldermen in citties although in regarde of that place they are alike none more or lesse an alderman then another yet among them some are better esteemed of euen of themselues because of their learning wisedome dexterity in gouernement credit power or wealth not because they can in right claime it but because other doe for such things as they see in them yeelde it vnto them not that they haue power ouer them but onely they are of good accompt among them And thus much to proue that that is not sufficient which maister Bellarmine saith will serue the turne to proue that the fathers say that Peter was head or had primacy ouer y e church For neither his estimation in respect of his gifts neither if by voluntary subiection they did submit themselues vnto him it can proue him to haue right to rule ouer them And this they must proue or els they gaiue nothing to their cause that Peter by the word of God hath authority ouer the whole church and ouer the apostles And therefore it maketh no great matter what men say of Peters authority but how truely they grounde their sayings vpon Gods word And thus I trust it appeareth to the indifferent reader that the minor proposition of that argument which I haue set downe in the end of my answere vnto maister Bellarmine ninth chapter of this booke wherein consisteth the great strength of the popish Monarchy is not agreeable vnto the truth or catholike doctrine howsoeuer that church of Rome reioiceth in that title that is none of hers thereby deceiuing the world as if all that shee taught were sound and catholike The proposition is this that Christ gane iurisdiction vnto Peter ouer the vniuersal church The chiefest profes that either they all haue or that maister Bellarmine can alleadge is out of Saint Matthew the xvi where they say this iurisdiction is promised and Saint Iohn xxi where they say it is giuen which their interpretation as I haue shewed cannot stand with the text it selfe or the interpretations of the sounder fathers His second reason which consisteth of the prerogatiues which Saint Peter had is grounded either vpon
fables that deserue no credit or vpon impertiment matters that proue nothing to the purpose as if I be forced hereafter therto I doubt not by Gods grace with ease to proue His third and last reason is of it selfe sufficient to shew that themselues haue no great hope to proue it to be a catholike doctrine that is a doctrine taught and beleeued of all the godly or almost of all at all times in all places for Vincentius Lyrinensis thus defyneth catholike But the first authour that maister Bellarmine alleadgeth is more then two hundreth yeers after Christ So that the doctrine that cannot be proued to haue bene beleeued for two hundreth yeares in the purest times of the church cannot be called catholike or be said to haue the true antiquitie And yet there is nothing that soundeth so much in the mouthes of our aduersaries as Catholike Catholike Antiquitie Antiquitie whereas in trueth nothing can be catholike vnlesse it haue the true antiquitie And the true antiquitie must begin at God himselfe It must spring from him as from the first fountaine As most notably and more than once that ancient and learned father Tertullian hath said That there is nothing true but that onely which the church receiued of the apostles the apostles from Christ Christ from God And this is indeede ancient trueth and true antiquitie Now I must also take a view of the maior proposition which is this whatsoener iurisdiction Christ gaue to Peter and not to the rest of the apostles al that belongeth to the church of Rome And master Bellarmine beginneth to prooue this in his second Booke beginning with Peters being at Rome But whether he were there or not it maketh no great matter For it is laide of Paule and Marke and others that they were there also but that maketh them not supreame heades of the church But whereas he confidently affirmes that many of the fathers teach that Peter first of all preached to the Romanes and founded the church there because perchance he thereupon would inferre that he was then bishop of Rome it is not amisse to examin his proofe herein First that which he alleageth out of Iraeney that the church of Rome was founded by Peter and Paule maketh nothing for proofe of Peters first founding the church there for Iraeny maketh them both alike in that worke Neither by founding the church can be meant the first beginning of the same but rather that they by their testimony and death did confirme the godlie there and perfected and established the church that was already begunne by all likelihoode as after shall be shewed And whereas master Bellarmine addeth to Iraeny his own glose that is to say saith he first of Peter and after of Peter and Paule as it is affirmed without proofe so it may go without answere That which he reciteth out of Eusebius for Peters first preaching at Rome though he write First with great letters is not true In Musculus interpretation there are no like words to thē that are heere alleadged And that out of Arnobius who saith that Rome was conuerted to Christ because it sawe the fierie charets that Simon Magus had caused to bee blowen awaie with the blast of Peters mouth may well bee vnderstoode of the more plentifull conuersion of christians there not because there were none before For I will say nothing of the iust causes that may be alleadged to doubt of this storie alleadged out of Agisippus of Simon Magus his fierie charetes And Epiphanius is wrong delt withall by maister Bellarmine For whereas hee saieth that Peter and Paule were first apostles and bishops in Rome he maketh him saie that Peter and Paule were first in Rome thereupon inferring that first they preached there which Epiphanius saith not That which out of Chrysostome hee alleageth prooueth not Peter first to haue preached there as neither that out of Leo or Theodosius For Chrysostome saieth that hee did occupie the kingly citie Leo that hee was appointed to the chiefe place of the Romaine Empire and Theodosius speaketh of the religion deliuered by Peter But this doeth not proue that it was first deliuered by him Orosins and Gregorie of Turon say that Peter being there Christians beganne which may be vnderstoode of their more bolde profession of Christianitie then before For that there were christians before Peter came there are in my iudgement strong reasons to prooue Indeede Theodoret saith that great Peter first preached to them the doctrine of the gospell Perchance he meant that he not first of all but first of the apostles did preach the gospell there For Sadolet a Cardinall and a Romish catholike in his commentaries vpon Paules epistle to the Romaines doth thinke that the gospell was first preached and the church at Rome first assembled by some of the disciples that fled out of Iury. And he nameth Priscilla Aquila Andronicus and Iunia And in this respect it seemeth that Paule giueth this commendation vnto Andronicus and Iunia that they were notable among the apostles because their ministery was so necessary for the church there for he doeth not in anie other Epistle speake of them But in this epistle Sadolet saith that Saint Paule doth giue vnto them this great commendation that they might haue the better credite among the godly at Rome and the greater reuerence might be shewed towardes them in discussing and ending of these controuersies which were begunne amongst them and for staying of which Saint Paule doth write this Epistle as Sadolet confesseth And of these Primasius an ancient father saith in like sorte that Andronicus and Iunia were accounted notable amongst others that were sent to Rome by whom they might beleeue or by whose example they might haue beene confirmed Now if Peter had beene the first that preached there which master Bellarmine a papist affirmeth but Sadolet a Cardinall very confidentlie denieth Saint Paule who woulde not builde vppon anothers foundation as he writeth vnto the Romanes would not haue taken vpon him to haue decided their controuersies and to haue commended vnto them the ministerie of others also to that ende but would either not at all haue medled with them or haue put them in minde of Peter their Bishop But contrariwise hee challengeth them for his owne flocke and as belonging to his charge which wrong he would neuer haue offered to Saint Peter if he first had planted the church and his seat there Neither would the Iewes who in euery place were Peters especiall charge that were at Rome when Paule came thither bee so desirous to be instructed of Paule as they were if they had beene taught before by Peter and he had beene their Bishop and had beene there at this time for this Epistle was written long after they say that he was bishop of Rome or if they had knowne their owne bishop to be the vniuersall bishop or head of all
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
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
Allens which I haue to shew written I suppose with his owne hand to father D. P. Rectour of the English Colledge in Rome hee reporteth that M. George Gilbert came into Fraunce by the reuerend father Robert Parsons and other to kâ—epe himselfe vntill that Day What meane they by that Day What meaneth Allen to write it in great letters as a thing that should bee especially noted and did perchaunce good to him and such other viperlike traitours to thinke of it It was doubtlesse no other day then that which they hoped the rebellion in England the troubles in Ireland the Spanish fleete so long looked for and so much spoken of should haue brought vnto them Against such dayes of mischiefe they seeke to praepare men before by their reconciling as that letter of Bruise before mentioned and many other vnanswerable proofes doe teach vs. And therefore seeing that vnder praetence of reconciling men to God they doe in deede by all meanes possible deuote and tye them to serue the Pope and that insatiable tirant who haue a long time by many wicked and Popelike practises shewed themselues vtter enemies to our estate and Prince what reason can be yeelded why Princes may not by most seuere punishments preuent the perillous purposes of such secret conspiratours and knowen enemies May Popes vse pollicies to get authoritie which by no right they can claime and to keepe it when they haue obtained it as in this treatise it will appeare they did and may not Princes prouide for the safetie of their persons the establishing of their kingdomes and the maintenance of their ancient and lawfull dominions May vsurpers keepe that which wickedly they haue gotten and may not lawfull Kings and Queenes defend their true and right inheritance Or must they suffer such serpents within their kingdomes such snakes as it were in their bosomes Wee cannot let such fugitiue traitours as seeke the ruine of their natiue countrey to wish also that such ready meanes to effect their desires might not be hindred No we cannot hinder their attempting of the same by their seditious pamphlets But wee hope that all Christian princes that knowe these their lewd practises not trusting the songs of those Syrens will before it be too late seeke to preuent the meanes that they vse to bring them to passe Neither need they who cal themselues though vntruely Catholikes and maintaine the Romish religion within their Dominions feare so to doe For Allen himselfe if that bee his answere to the English Iustice dare not say it is a matter yet defined but disputable onely whether the Pope may excommunicate or depriue a Prince in case of haeresie or apostacie and consequently to absolue his subiects from their othe and obedience to him If this be a case yet not ouerruled in the Popes Consistorie or at the least in any general Council then euen Popish princes need not bee afraide to withstand by all meanes that they can such dangerous deceiuers as come in sheepes clothing making shewe of Religion but are in deede rauening wolues secretly working treason In so much as they who fauour but too well the Romish Religion beginne now to know and detest these rouing runnagates whose counsels are mischieuous whose doings are treacherous And because the very ground of this their brag that they suffer for conscience sake is this supremacie of the B. of Rome and his power ouer all not Bishops only but Princes also which they would haue to be an article of religion so to touch the conscience whereas it is in trueth but a matter of Popish pride and ambition for this cause haue I indeuoured in this treatise to proue that it hath no warrant in the word or in the writings of the approued and auncient fathers Neither can al the Iesuites and Seminary priestes in Rome and Rheimes bee able to shew the article of the Popes supremacie to be a Catholique doctrine and therefore it is not to be receiued by their own rules And because it bringeth not a litle light vnto the trueth to know by what practises they are become so great and to what ends they haue bent or how they haue imployed their power which they haue gotten by craft and shifts I haue therefore pointed vnto such meanes as they haue vsed to aduance their seat and to some of their doings whereby it doeth most plainly appeare that their only care hath bin to make themselues great and rich nothing at al regarding the glory of God or y e good of Christs flocke which they say is committed to them And this I haue done by ancient or their owne histories seldome standing vpon the credit onely of our owne writers vnlesse it bee in report of the actes of the later Popes which cannot be reported by any but such as were in or after their dayes But if I had more relied then I doe vpon the reportes of Protestant writers I should haue the example of our aduersaries for my defence This treatise I set forth vnder the defence of your honours name to whom I acknowledge my selfe especially bound in many respects Which to do I am the rather moued that to that inward witnes of a good conscience whereby I knowe your L. is incited with a continual care and vigilant eye to preuent the perilous practises of those busie brokers for that Catholique king as they call him other enemies to this Common wealth might also bee added that outwarde testimonie of trueth confirmed by proofe and practise of the purer times to incourage you with a constant increase in godly zeale to discharge stil the duetie that God who hath called you to that honour hath layde vpon you and requireth of you to the seruice of her Maiestie and safetie of her subiectes Most humbly I craue you to take in good part this simple token of a sincere affection and slender pledge of my vnfained heart And thus committing the happie successe of this my traueile to Gods good blessing to whose direction and defence I also leaue your Lordship in all your doings I humbly take my leaue at my house at Ryton in the Bishopricke of Durham †⧠To such as are learned among our aduersaries who seeme in singlenesse of soule to seeke after the trueth THE Lord is my witnesse whome I serue in my spirite and to whose gaine I am desirous to bestowe my talent and whose glory I studie to aduance by all such meanes as of his mercy he hath affoorded me that I haue not written this or any other treatise because I am desirous to contend for we haue no such custome nor the Churches of God much lesse to purchase prayse of learning wherein vnfainedly I acknowledge my want and weaknesse but onely for defence of the trueth which in this countrey of ours is quite forsaken of many by reason of ignorance in all sortes which hath possessed men through their owne negligence and carelesse securitie of their owne soules health and is
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
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
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
answered that the physition said it was not wholsome for him I will haue it saith he in despite of God At another time missing a peacock which he had commaunded to be kept colde against night hee burst into extremitie of choller whereupon a cardinall mouing him to be quiet What said he was God angry for an aple in so much as he cast our first parents out of paradice for that matter and may not I being his vicar be angrie for my peacock The irreligious heart of this prophane pope could neuer haue burst out iuto such blasphemies against God but that in his excesse of pride he esteemed himselfe as God or else in affection euen besotted with atheisme hee said as did the wicked in the prophet Dauid There is no God And so hee proued that to be most true that the same prophet saith in another place man being in honour hath no vnderstanding he is like to the beasts that perish And thus we see howe the bishop of Rome being drunken with too wel liking of himselfe in his authoritie and high estate did not only exalt himselfe by his names aboue al men but made himselfe equall euen with the most high But least the bishop of Rome should seeme to be but God in name and not in deede as a shadow without a bodie and title without authoritie as were Paul the third his archbishops that he sent to the council of Trent whome he was faine to maintaine with his poore almes that he bestowed vpon them he therefore sheweth his prerogatiue and telleth what power and might he hath that he may prooue himselfe to be like to her that said in her heart I will ascend aboue the height of the clouds and I will be like the most Highest If I would indeuour to set downe all that might be said of the pride of the bishop of Rome or at the least of his impudent affection of his claw-backs it were harder to find an outgate then an entrance this field is so large to wander in For what is it that the Pope can not doe Yea what can God himselfe doe more then hee If wee will trust flattering Lawyeares in their approued and allowed bookes he is Christs vitar generall ouer heauen earth and hell ouer angels good and bad yea they tell vs that the pope can doe whatsoeuer God can doe except sinne It seemeth that they meane God can sinne but the pope is so clad with holinesse and compassed about with righteous dealing as with a garment that hee can in no wise sinne such a staine cannot be in his flesh such a clog cannot hang at his backe O proud blasphemie Can that man of sinne for Saint Paul doubtlesse speaketh of him iustly so called because he is a stumbling block to others and a cause of sinne to many thousands and himselfe also often a seruant or rather a sincke of sinne can he I say be without sinne Yea they tell vs that he may and that by the authoritie of pope Symmacus who doth testifie that Saint Peter did bequeath the euerlasting gift of Merites together with the in heritance of innocencie to his posteritie In somuch as if they haue not merits enough yet that sufficeth that Saint Peter hath done He addeth the reason because he I thinke he meaneth Saint Peter either doth aduaunce them that are worthie or doth lighten such as are aduaunced Now if the pope himselfe will say that he in respect of his chaire hath a succession of innocencie it is no great maruel if his flatterers will say he cannot sinne But if all the popes and their parasites would crie it out neuer so loud yet so long as their owne stories are remaining they shal be proued liers Where are now these censurers and seuere forbidders of Gods writings Why vse they not their authoritie to represse such blasphemies The Romish church can take vpon them to prohibit the writings of godly men yea if there be but a note in the margent of the fathers word for word out of the fathers whereby the reader may perchaunce be directed more readily to see the iudgement of that father in some point in controuersie although it change not the meaning of that place yet our seuere censurers still commaund that it be left out But these horrible blasphemies whereof al men may iustly be a shamed are not once misliked of sound not out of time but are melodius musicke in the eares of such holie fathers Can we hope for any good from them that call light darknesse and darknesse light euil good and good euill I feare such bad trees can bring forth no good fruit But to come to some particular points Let vs see what this petty God doth take vpon him and how he plaieth the God indeede For as I haue said the bare name of God although it be far too much that it should be giuen him by others or acknowledged of himselfe wil not please him but he must also doe as God doth And first whereas Christ is our only lawmaker and master as Christ himselfe telleth vs and therfore Saint Iames also exhorteth vs that we be not many masters yet this Romish Rabby will be our master also not contenting himselfe to deliuer that which he receaued from God as did Christ and his apostles whose footsteps he should not be ashamed to follow but he will teach vs his owne lessons and deliuer vs his owne doctrines And although he pretend the direction of Gods spirit yet euen hereby it appeareth that this is but a lying pretence and coulour wherewith they would cloke all their heresies and superstitions For the spirit shal not speake of himselfe but whatsoeuer he shall heare that shall he speake Aud this reason our Sauiour Christ yeeldeth why the spirite shall lead vs into all truth because he shall teach nothing of his own but that which he shall heare Therefore all new doctrines euen whatsoeuer hath beene added in substance of doctrine vnto that which Christ and his apostles left vs sauoureth of another spirit and not of that spirit of God which shall teach or suggest nothing but that which he hath heard What a master then is that great master not in Israell but in Italy that bringeth in huge heapes of doctrine which themselues confesse onely to rest vpon mens traditions which they call traditions of the church and haue no good warrant or sure ground in the word of God Doeth he not take vpon him Gods office Doeth he not make himselfe herein equall with God It is most plaine it cannot be denied But the infatiable ambition of those holy fathers will not suffer them to content themselues with that excesse of pride in that they take vpon them as God to make lawes and giue rules to Gods church vnlesse they also control and correct as seemeth good to them those lawes which God hath set downe and those ordinances which he
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
if they cannot prooue it to be a doctrine generally receiued at all times euen in the dayes of the apostles and so by continuall succession constantly taught in the ages next folowing and so deliuered vs they do but too much abuse the simple to tel them that is catholike auncient that is but the dreame or late deuise of some later teachers Now I call them whatsoeuer antiquity they seeme to haue that swarue any thing from that which the auncient of daies hath taught or Christ who is our true antiquitie hath deliuered It behooueth therfore al christians to take heede of such as vnder pretence of being popish catholicks and vnder or colour of this glorious name which belongeth neither to them neither yet to their religion creepe into corners deceiue the ignorant seeke to make many of their profession by hauing onely in their mouths this worde catholike faith catholike religion catholike church whereas in truth as it seemeth that they being neither thought worthy of preferment at home neither yet finding that they looked for abroad euen as the cormorants gather where the carkas is to get their prey so these seeke their meate and maintenance by seducing such simple and sillie soules Neither doe I affirme that all are moued by these causes either to leaue their natiue countrie either to returne to sowe amongst her maiesties subiects this seede of seduction and sedition but they that doe trouble this Realme are for the most part such and moued by such reasons But as they can not proue by an catholike grounds their title to the supremacie to bee good so their practise is too bad and farre from that christian modestie and meekenesse which should be in Gods children For if saint Peter said truly that such as himselfe was should not as Lords beare rule ouer the Lords hereâ—age but be as examples to the flocke then howe can the pope claime that soueraigne authoritie ouer all kings and whom saint Peter calleth chiefe If none can enter into anie calling especiallie to haue the charge ouer the flocke of Christ vnlesse he be called therevnto as it is confessed by all men what reason can the bishops of Rome pretend why either they should without any warrant nay contrarie to the worde so exalt themselues aboue all other or so vnlawfully or rather by so vile practises and shifts as by violence and strife by buing and selling by falshood and craft by poisoning and murders by sorcerie and the diuels helpe get to be popes Or being placed in that proude place howe commeth it to passe that with so great boldnesse without feare without shame they prophane the maiestie of God and despise yea tread vnder foote the excellencie of man be he neuer so high Is this the fruit of their catholike doctrine Doe such lewde dealings become Christs vicar or Peters successour But to conclude seeing the popes title vnto the supremacie hath no shew of truth and seeing his exercise of the same is almost nothing else but a blaspheming of God and a defacing of all authoritie ordained by God raise and rouse vp your selues after your long sluggishnes O ye christian princes and magistrates shake off from your neckes this yoke of bondage wherein you serue that Italian priest Ioine your powers and strength togither Gather and call a free Councill in deed where the pope as a partie may plead his cause not sit as iudge Force him to content himselfe with that place which the worde of God will aâ—foord him If any more be giuen vnto him or any other yet let not the godly potentats giue vnto any as they haue done such reines of libertie but that they may knowe that authoritie to be but from man and that their power is not full or absolute but onely limited and that if they abuse the same they may and shall answere for their boldnesse according to the qualitie of their offence So shall you deliuer christendome from a heauie bondage your owne realmes from a most daungerous enemie and the church of God from a most manifest Antichrist So shall you vse your authoritie to the comfort of the godly as you should doe and as in dutie you are bound to Gods glorie and establishing of the Kingdome of Christ Now vnto the king euerlasting immortall inuisible vnto God onelie wise be honour and glorie for euer and euer Amen FINIS Iohn 10. 1 10. Mat. 22. 21 Rom. 13. 1. 1. Pet. 2. 13. Esa 1. 12. Rom. 2. 16. Matâ— 23. Answere to the English Iustice cap. 1. Among the letters taken with Car the Hispauiolised Scot. William Allen his letter Cap. 4. Matth. 25. 26. Philip 3. 16 2. Cor. 11. 13. De praescript 1. Pet. 1. 19. Heb. 9. 22. Heb. 9. 12. 10. 14. 2. Cor. 5. 20. Ad Pompeium contra epistolam Stephan Least necessary to saluation Most necessary in some other respects The popes supremacie an enemie to all princes The religion of Papists The popes suprâ—macie the decay of true religiòn Dist 40. cap. 51. Papa The Popes flattâ—reâ—s Praefat. in lib. dâ— Rom. pontif The Popes claim vniust The Church Triumphant Militant The question Whether monarchicall gouernement be best M. Bellarmines first argument to proue there must be one visible head Lib. de pontif Rom. 1. cap. 5. That is not of necessitie be â— gouernment for the Church that is best for other kingdomes De pontif Rom. liâ— 1. cap. 3. Christ king in his Church Reuel 19. 16. Ephes 1. 22. Dan. 7. 14. Psal 72. 8. A pastour in particular churches a particular head â— Sâ—m 8. 7 10. Two heades Bellar. lib. 1. de pontif Rom. c. 9. Pastors appointed of God The pope not of God De pontif Rom. lib. 2. cap. 12. The Popes pride His contempt of the sword of Gods word The Popes charge infinit Tertull. de praescientia haeretic M. Bellar. his second argument Argument 3. Answere Hebr. 8. 9 10. Aaron no figure of Peter The church not subiect to one hie priest De missa li. 1. c. 2 1. Kin. 17. Ionah 3. Arg. 4. Bellarm. Answere Praefat. in ps 139 De Immunit m. 6. e Quoniam Bell. arg 6. Answere Bell. arg 7. Answer Ruffin hist eccl lib. 1. cap. 9. Bellar. arg 8. Answere Prouer. 29. 2. Popish vnitie Psal 2. 2. Vnitie without supremacie Act. 15. â— De Rom pontif lib. 1. cap. 9. An argument against the visible head ouer the whole church The Papists argument for the supremacie De pontif Rom. lib. 1. cap 10. Whether Christ haue resigned his place Ephes 1. 22 and 4. 15. and 5. 23. Coloss 1. 18. Acts 4. 11. â—ad Popes Mat. 28. 25. Ioh 14. 16 17. De praescript haeretie De simplie prel Concil Carth. 6. Galced Concil Act. 16. Lib. â— cap. 3. Barenes of proofe for the supremacie De pontif Rom. li. 1. cap. 12. Mat. 16. 13. Iohn 1. 42. 1. Cor. 3. 11. Esy 28. 16. Bellarm maketh the Popethis stone or Peter