of their popes But if popes may be charged with heresie how can we thinke but that in their talke in their sermons if they did preach and vpon all such occasions as were offered vnto them they would by foure means or other commend that which they liked of and condemne the contrary And their very words when they speake of matters of faith are indeede instructions to all and their examples also are publike instructions to y â— whole church Neither must we imagine that those holy fathers forsooth had one religion in secret and an other that they would publish Therefore if we proue that they did erre I trust also it will followe that this errour was a stumbling blocke to the church and that they may erre when they giue lessons to all the church Lastly let vs consider the foundation whereupon they raise this building Because Christ said vnto Peter Simon Simon behold Sathan hath desired to sift you as wheat But I haue praied for thee that thy faith should not faile To whom was this said To Peter although not to him alone as before out of Theophilact I haue shewed But Peter immediatly after erred so as that he thrise denied his maister as Saint Luke in the same chapter sheweth yea and that as Saint Matthew reporteth with cursing and swearing Whereby it most plainly appeareth that Christ did not pray that Peter or the rest of the apostles should be free from all infirmities and should as it were put of the nature of man but that finally he or they should not fall from the faith But I cannot but maruell here at maister Bellarmine that he cannot see that Peters faith at this time failed For euen handling these words and this fact of Peters we know not saith he that Peters faith euer failed He feared at the question which the damosell asked of him he denied his master and that with cursing and swearing Did he this for feare No doubt he did it for feare What was the cause of so great feare Was it not weaknesse and want of faith Had he litle faith when hee feared drowning in so much as Christ reprouing him said O thou of litle faith why diddest thou doubt And can master Bellarmine find no want of faith in his so excessiue feare that he forswore his master Peter therefore notwithstanding Christs prayer both could and did erre And shall we thinke the pope to be more holy of a more sanctified nature of a sounder iudgement then Peter was They will not so say themselues therefore they also may erre But for master Bellarmines subtill distinction betweene perseuerance and not failing making not failing and not falling all one but perseuerance to be such as that a man may fall and yet by rising againe is said still to perseuere I confesse it is more subtil then sound For perseuering and continuing is all one and continuance hath no ceasing or intermission And further I must put the godly reader in remeÌ„brance that if this were granted to Peter that the pope doth claime that he could not erre yet must he proue himselfe to be Peters successor and that the priuilege is also successiue to that seat before he caÌ„ by these wordes prooue his infallible iudgement And what they can do for these points I haue shewed before their great weaknes if it be but weaknes in so great light and sunshine of truth not to see y â— right way I omit of purpose many popes to whom â—rrour is imputed by some ancient histories I come to Honorius of whome it is written by many histories that he was a Monothelite whose heresie was that Christ God and man had but one will And to omitte all the ancient Records that may be aleadged to prooue him so to be I rest specially vpon Melchior Canus his confession in his theologicall places and one proofe vrged by him amongst many others For hee doth not onely acknowledge Honorius to bee an hereticke but also telleth vs how Adrian the second in the first action of the eighth generall councill confesseth that Honorius was by the Greeke church condemned as a hereticke and that Agathe bishop of Rome consented vnto the same his condemnation In which argument although master Bellarmine dessent vtterly from Melchior Canus yet hee is not any thing able to take away the waight of that reason but that Honorius although a pope must be pronounced and holden for an hereticke euen by the detree of a generall councill What should I speake of the errour that was most apparent in those seditious popes Steuen the sixth and Sergius the third against Formosus another pope now long dead And against the dooings and decrees of pope Theodore and Iohn the tenth Steuen reuoked whatsoeuer Formosus had done vp a councill called belike for that purpose Iohn the tenth afterwards maketh good the dooings of Formosus disamulling that that Steuen did yea their â—â—ntention was so great that they commaunded such as had taken orders of one that they should as if these first orders were nothing worth take orders of another These thinges are reported by all histories and therefore are also confessed of themselues that are our aduersaries If pope Formosus did not erre then Steuen that dâ—â—lt so hardly with him and so disannulled his dooings and decrees did erre If Steuen did right then Iohn who afterwardes vndid all that he had done did wrong Yea they disannulled the very orders that the popes that were their aduersaries had giuen Which thing maister Bellarmine in his fourth Booke and twelfth chapter confesseth to be a matter of faith Therefore heere the pope erred in faith No saith he this is onely a matter of fact it is not decreed by any of them Let vs marke out question that is whether the Pope may erre or not Maister Bellarmine saieth these Popes did wrong but they decreed nothing of disanulling those orders which men booke of their predecessours and therefore erred not in iudgement Sigebert saieth that Steuen decreed that Formosus his ordinations were or should be voyne Platina saieth that Iohn the tenth iudged amisse because hee iudged that they must take orders againe that did take orders of Formosus So Iacob Bergomensis and Stella agree with Platina These therefore condemne Steuen the sixt to erre 〈◊〉 iudgement and so doe manifestly 〈◊〉 that the pope did erre and confute maister Bellarmine his answere to this obiection Iohn the two and 〈◊〉 pope of that name did not beleeue onely but euen teach that the soules should not see God before the latter day as master Bellarmine himself confesseth But it was saith he no heresie in him so to teach because there was not then anie decree or destinction of the church for that point If it true master Bellarmâ—◠〈…〉 heresie 〈…〉 not defined it A thing defined in the scriptures set downe in Gods word and plainly taught in Gods booke may I perceiue
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
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
to prooue that the pope cannot erre But euery bodie may see by his doubtfull setting it downe that he cannot well tell what to affirme of it For he will not consent with such Romish catholicks as teach that the pope may erre and also teach heresie if hee define any thing out of a councill And hee dare not agree with Pighius but reiecteth his opinion who although that the pope cannot be an hereticke or teach heresie openly though he alone define of any thing But master Bellarmine will walke in a middle path which is this that whether the Pope may bee an hereticke or not he cannot set down any heresie to be beleeued of the whole church wherein this conditionall manner of speaking if or whether he be an hereticke or not doeth shewe his doubtfulnesse in this question But because he is perchance in the next chapters especially in the fift chapter of a more resolute opinion I vrge not this point any further But this is his flat resolution that when the pope teacheth the whole church hee cannot erre by any meanes in the thing belonging to faith No neither yet in precepts of manners which are prescribed to the whole church and which are of things necessarie to saluation or for such things as are of themselues good or euill Further also hee affirmeth that it is proueable and may godlily be beleeued for I set downe his words that hee can not onely not erre as hee is pope but also as hee is a particular man hee cannot hee an hereticke in beleeuing any thing obstinatly against the faith Whereby it appeareth plainly that master Bellarmine holdeth that the pope can neither erre at all in faith or precept of maners as he teacheth the whole church neither can he be an obstinat hereticke as he is but a priuat man not considering him as pope Against which doctrine I briefely oppose 2. or 3. arguments The first is that which immediatly before I touched Hee may sinne they deny it not therefore he may also fall into heresie Which thus I proue The selfesame spirit which is the spirit of truth is also the spirit of sanctification as powerfull to worke the one effect as the other And he that praied not for Peter alone but for al the apostles that their faith should not faile although the words Sathan desired to sift you are directed to Peter as to one perchance bolder then the rest and proud of the promises that were made to keepe him vnder as Theoph. writeth euen he I say prayeth also for all vnto his father That he would sanctifie them with his truth The same father also from whom must come the spirit of truth will as Dauid assureth vs guide the humble in his way which thing the same prophet often praieth for because of our selues we are not sufficient so much as to thinke a good thought but our sufficiency is of God And why doth Gods spirit lighten our harts and instruct our consciences if not to the end that we should be fruitful in holines and righteousnes Yea the holy ghost doth not worke in vs any knowledge according to that promise the church of Rome so much claimeth but that therewith also it reformeth vs it doth not giue faith but that withall it doth purifie vs. Yea it frameth vnto obedience all such as it traineth to vnderstanding And therefore it is said that faith doth purifie our harts By this knowledge Wee all behâ—lde as in a mirrour the glory of the Lord with open face and are changed into the same image from glory to glory as it were by the spirite of the Lord. And so new mindes make new men and lightened hearts will bring foorth godly life For it is a hard matter that he that beleeueth well 〈…〉 euill as Saint Augustine doth testifie Yea and a little before in the same sermon Same Augustine teacheth that faith in latine being called fides consisteth of two sillables the first signifieth doing the other saying so that if a maÌ„ say he beleeueth do saith this holy father as thou saist and that is faith Whereby hee sheweth that there is no true faith but it is exercised in doing the workes of the spirit Iâ— then the same spirit giue knowledge or faith and godlinesse of life and true faith 〈…〉 from good 〈…〉 if it be it is but a dead faith and godly conuersation is as necessary for euery Christian as true religion I maruell that maister Bellarmine or any other shame not to tell vs that the bishops of Rome cannot erre from the right path of knowledge as if they were wholy lead by Gods spirite whereas manie of them haue wholy wandred out of the waies of godly life as men nothing guided but quite forsaken of that holy Ghost And therefore this I suppose may serue for my first argument Such as are not lead by Gods spirite to liue godly are not taught by the same but many of the Bishops of Rome are not lead by Gods spirite to liue godly therefore many of them are not taught by the same and by consequent they may erre For they haue no colour of not erring but that only that they claime the direction of that spirite that was neuer promised to such prophane prelates nor cannot lodge in such sinkes of sinne My second argument is this Pope Adrian the sixt did teach that the pope may be an heretike and teach heresie And this doctrine was defendet by him and others as maister Bellarmine himselfe confesseth so that he would haue it to bee beleeued of all And no man can denie but that it is a question of faith especiallie in the Church of Rome whether the pope maie erre or not Thus then I reason Adrian the sixt Pope of that name did either say that which was false or that which was true If he said false then he beeing a pope was deceiued in iudgement in a matter of faith and such a matter as he woulde shoulde bee receiued vniuersally as a catholicke doctrine and so the pope hath erred If hee saie true then is it also euicted by his testimonie that the pope may erre For he affirmeth it so So that whether hee lie or speake the trueth it is sufficient to prooue that which I indeuour to proue For if hee lie himselfe erreth if he say true other may erre The thirde argument shall bee of the examples of such as did erre I say of such bishops of Rome as haue beene by their owne stories noted for heretickes I will not speake any thing of pope Marcellinus who sacrificed to Idols as also stories doe testifie bicause it is said that he repented him therof But yet we may learne out of him that if a pope may fall to such frailety as to commit so grosse Idolatry which is a greater sinne then to fall into many of the heresies that are condemned by that name of the fathers he may also erre
Chrisostome and Cirill but this I trust is sufficient to shew the vanity of his answere which is so flatte against the words of those fathers For they speake of that faith because it hath respect vnto Christ and master Bellarmine would haue it imagined that they commend this faith as it commeth from Peter and because it is his And that master Bellarmine would seeme out of Hillary to confirme wherein yet hee sheweth no plaine dealing For whereas Hillary saith after by the confession of his happie faith hee deserued a high place or rather as the older copies doe read exceeding glorie master Bellarmine doth not only out of this doubtfull reading gather the strength of his argument preferring the new reading before the olde coppie in that paint disclaiming from antiquity but also to better his bad cause whereas Hillary himselfe sheweth in plaine wordes that this exceeding glorie is this that he thrise heard these wordes feede my sheepe yet hee woulde make vs beleeue that it consisteth in this that Peter is the head foundation and key carier Fie vpon poperie that euer it shoulde so stiflie bee maintained and yet cannot bee defended but by lying and falsifying And thus hauing answered the most forcible proofes that master Bellarmine bringeth to proue that the church must bee built vpon Peter I would on the other side wish him to consider how weake a foundation he and his fellowes doe builde vpon For Peter did not only by euill councell seeke to hinder his master Christ in the worke of our redemption for which hee was bitterly reprooued go behinde me Sathan thou art saith Christ an offence vnto me because thou vnderstandest not the thinges that are of God but the thinges that are of men but also afterwardes denie his master Christ and that with cursing and swearing but hauing receiued the spirit of God and beeing inabled as much as euer he was to the worke of the Lord yet by Peters fault Barnabas and other were brought into dissimulation so that they walked not the right waie to the truth of the gospell And therefore he was withstood euen to his face by Paule because hee was worthie to bee blamed So that euen then if there had beene no better or surer foundation to haue builded the church vpon then Peter the building might well haue runne to one side But thankes bee vnto God that we haue a surer rocke But what will he and his fellowes saie to that most grosse absurditie that followeth this their doctrine For if Peter be the foundation of the church what answere will they make to them that thinke the time was when the church was only in the virgin Mary Vpon what foundation was the church then builded Yea what foundation of the church was before Peter was borne or thought of in the time of the law Yea what foundation in all the time before the lawe when there was not so much as a high priest among the people Then was there a church as all men confesse and therefore it must needes also then haue a foundation but it could not be Peter For hee had these wordes spoken vnto him almost 4000. yeares after the church began And could it stand and florish so manie yeares builded only vpon Christ the sure foundation and shall we nowe thinke that this foundation beginneth to shrinke or is lesse able to vphold this building so that it must needes haue Saint Peter to helpe to holde it vppe for feare of falling God forbid that euer christians should haue so foolish thoughts and yet these and such like absurdities must folow this doctrine But to conclude this point I reason thus That only must be the foundation of the church now which was in the time of the lawe and before the law but then there was no other foundation but Christ therefore now there must be no other I meane no other especial or particular foundation My maior or first proposition is grounded vpon Maister Bellarmines wordes For going about to proue that the monarchy must be in the church he yeeldeth this reason because in Christs time it was gouerned by one and if now it be not so gouerned then it is not the same church or the same citty of God Now thus I reason for proofe of my maior If the not hauing of that outward forme of gouernement can make that it is not the same church how much more if any thing be added to the foundation but saith he the not hauing of the same outward gouernment doth make it to be not the same church therfore much more if it be altered in the foundation And to saie that the church now in the time of grace is not all one with that church that was before Christ or that then there was anie other foundation besides Christ is nothing els then to deny Christ to be a corner stone that ioyneth together both sides of the house making of both one By which the minor of my argument is verified Thus I trust to the indifferent reader it may appeare that as this interpretation of these wordes vpon this rocke I will builde my church that is vpon Peter is not catholike so the doctrine that followeth therupon is absurd Let vs now consider what weight there is in his second argument whith hee wringeth out of the word of building Wherein he affirmeth and in truth doth but affirme for he can proue nothing at all that to builde is to rule Indeede he alleadgeth three fathers which say Peter was Pastor of the church or ruled all the church but is this a good argument Peter did rule the whole church therefore to builde is to rule Such a shew of proofe may perchance seeme glorious in the eies of them that haue no loue to the truth but they are too too foolish that will be caught with such baites That to build is not to rule I proue thus A man buildeth to haue a house that he may rule and he cannot rule but that first the house must be made So that indeede building in the house ceaseth when ruling beginneth when the house is made then is it ruled With much like dexterity he will proue that the foundation doth rule the house In the ende if you will heare him he will make you beleeue that the house ruleth the maister not the maister the house But let vs grant Maister Bellarmine this which so earnestly he seeketh for Let vs yeelde that to builde is to rule what is then out of these wordes to be gathered Vpon this rocke I will build that is I will rule my church This we see Christ is the ruler and not Peter of the church Then let vs go forwarde that we may see what help vnto this popish supremacy the wordes following do bring vnto thee will I giue saith Christ the keies of the kingdome of heauen c. Here Maister Bellarmine is very earnest to proue that these keies were deliuered
to Peter but that we deny not But it is Maister Bellarmines bad hap many times to take great paines fortify where y â— enimy assaulteth him not to prooue that which no body denieth That we may ioine in some issue we will easily confesse that the keies were deliuered to Peter What then Were they deliuered to him alone No Maister Bellarmine himselfe confesseth and that oftentimes neither can he deny it if he would the fathers doe so generally affirme it that this great authority was committed to all the Apostles Wherein then do we dissent Forsooth Maister Bellarmine telleth vs that the other Apostles had this authority but as Christes legates or by especiall commission but to be vnder Peter Whereas Peter had it as his ordinary iurisdiction Now this he should proue but he leaueth it with a bare affirmation so that you are not bound to beleeue him But we see that which here is promised vnto Peter alone whether because he alone tooke vpon him to answere Christes question or that Christ therein would signifie the vnity of the church as some of the fathers affirme or because he was a figure of the church as Saint Augustine saith that I say which is here promised to him alone is in Matthewe xviii promised to all and that Maister Bellarmine himselfe cannot deny although he affirme it to be in all but Peter a legantine in him an ordinary power And this promise is perfourmed to all Iohn the xx in these words receiue the holy ghost whose sinnes soeuer ye remit they are remitted and whose sinnes yee retaine they are retained And Theophilact doth expound these wordes of Matthew the sixteenth which here I haue in hand by this place of saint Iohn saying that in that place of saint Mathew that is promised that is here giuen and that this power belongeth vnto all What can be more plaine to prooue that although Christ spake vnto Peter onely in that first place to thee will I giue the keies yet they were giuen to all Why should we then trust the bare assertions of maister Bellarmine or any other that the keies are not in like maner giuen to all when wee see that Gods worde maketh no difference betweene them But master Bellarmine because we goe about trewly with Theophilact to expound this promise to thee I wil giue the keies by that of Iohn whose sinnes so euer ye remit they are remitted c. would faine make vs beleeue if we will trust him of his bare word that Theophilact and we are deceiued and that Christ in these words of saint Iohn doth onely giue power of order whereas in Mathew he promiseth power of Iurisdiction And the better to perswade vs he telleth vs that to keepe a mans sinnes is not a matter of so great power as to bind a mans sinnes And yet saint Ambrose whose credit is far aboue maister Belarmines doth vse the words of remitting loosing retaining and binding indifferently the one for the other And therefore this is but a blinde cauill to keepe the light of the truth vnder a bushell If we prooue out of Cyprian that all the Apostles were of like honour and power They were saith he alike in their apostleship and had all one authoritie ouer christian people but were not alike among themselues The wordes of Cyprian haue no limitation but maketh all of like power and of like honour But maister Bellarmine like false mates that doe wash and clippe the coyne whereby they make it of lesse value so doeth hee by such sâ—eights seeke to diminish the force of such authorities as are brought against him But what reason hath hee so to expound Saint Cyprian Because hee saieth in that Booke that beginning proceedeth from a vnity to shew that the church is one Thus then doeth hee reason The Church proceedeth from one or from vnitie Therefore Peter is aboue all the Apostles Let other iudge of his argument I see not out of this how he can prooue that Peter hath such superioritie ouer the Apostles as that hee may exercise iurisdiction ouer them which is that the church of Rome must prooue if Peters supremacie shal do them good Seeing therefore it appeareth by that which hath beene spoken that not Peter onely but all the apostles in like manner receiued the keies as Saint Hierome testifieth that is power to retaine or remit to binde and loose although it were saide to Peter To thee I will giue the keies yet it is manifest that for his sake onely it was not spoken or the vse of the keies to him onlie was not promised but in and by him Christ spake to all without giuing lesse power to them or more to him And thus much concerning this question to whom the keies were giuen Nowe must we see what these keies are that so we may examine what that is which they say is giuen to Peter in this promise Maister Bellarmine affirmeth that they all vnderstande by the keies the soueraigne or chiefe pnwer ouer the whole church And that it must so be he proueth thus In the Prophet Esay is described the deposing of one high priest and placing of an other by the deliuering of the keies And the keies of the house of Dauid will I lay vpon his shoulder and hee shall open and none shall shut and he shall shut and no man shall open Sincere dealing would become all men especially in Gods cause which is farre from maister Bellarmine as in many other places so heere also For Eliachim of whom the promise was made in this place was not hie priest Indeede Azariah was high priest in the dayes of Ezechiah Neither yet was there euer any such high priest as Shebnah whome God threateneth in that place Whosoeuer marketh either the pedigree of priests in the scriptures or in Iosephus hee shall finde it to bee most false and vntrue that heere maister Bellarmine so boldly affirmeth But this Eliachim was one of the princes whome Ezechiah sent to Rabsache whome in that place the Septuagint do call the Ruler of the house as also in the seuen and thirtieth verse of that chapter And the prophet Esay in the six and thirtie chapter and two and twentieth verse they call him the Maister of the housholde And indeede the Hebrew words do teach him to be one that was ouer the house as also Saint Hierome yea and their owne old translation doe translate those words of Esay And Saint Hierome in his commentaries vppon that place calleth him maister or ouerseer of the house And so Iosephus also doth witnes that he was one of Ezechias especially frends as it may also appeare in that he sent him to Rabsache and his lieutenant or vicegerent or doer for him let the indifferent reader now iudge whether this be good dealing in master Bellarmine thus to abuse the simplicitie of his reader and the credulitie of
to haue a limitation And first this worde my sheepe which maister Bellarmine maketh the chiefe strength of his argument doth make much for that interpretation which I take to be the true and natui all sence of the place When the meaning of our sauiour Christ is to speake of that generall charge ouer all then he vttereth it in other wordes Go teach all nations and againe going into the whole world preach the gospell vnto euery creature But here is no such generall charge but onely feede my sheepe What are these sheepe that Christ calleth my sheepe We knowe that Christ after a speciall meaning calleth the Iewes his people and his sheepe He saieth he is not sent but to the lost sheepe of the house of Israell And as though in comparison of the Iewes he made no account of the gentiles he saith it is not meete to take the childrens bread meaning the saluation that was sent to the Israelites and cast it to the dogges Therefore Christ by this worde my sheepe meaneth as it should seeme the people to whome he especially was sent amongst whom he was borne to whom hee preached as also Maister Bellarmine for that preferreth Poters ministerie among the Iewes and amongst whom hee died that is the Iewes And besides the manner of sending of his Apostles vnto their generall charge whereof I haue already spoken which is farre differing from this the very office that we know was laide vpon Peter doeth much confirme this interpretation For Saint Paule saith that the gospell ouer the circumcision was committed to him as the gospell ouer the vncircumcision was committed to Peter Wee see therefore that Peter had a peculiar charge and calling to bee the apostle of the Iewes Which is proofe strong enough to prooue that Christ neuer meant to commit anie such generall charge ouer all the world vnto him vnlesse we will imagine that Christ did first he knew not what and afterwardes reuoked his former commission I saie this limitation of Peter especiallie although not onlie to one peculiar people is as it were a reuocation of his former vniuersall calling if any such had beene or rather because indeed none such was it is insteede of a commentarie vpon these wordes feede my sheepe to teach vs how to vnderstand them Feed my sheep that is the Iewes whom I haue especially committed to thee as I also tooke paines almost wholy and only among them Furthermore also when Saint Paule telleth vs that the gospell ouer the vncircumcision was committed to him as vnto Peter the gospell was committed ouer the circumcision his meaning is to tell vs that Christ hath as well placed him ouer the Gentiles as Peter ouer the Iewes And therefore of himselfe he saith that he was seperated vnto the gospell of Iesus Christ because God commanded them to seperate vnto him Paule and Barnabas to the worke whereunto hee had called them And what this worke is is another place declared depart for I will send thee farre hence vnto the Gentiles Which his calling to the Gentiles hee also speaketh of vnto the Galathians assuring himselfe that God called him to that office But now for Peter we must not doubt but that hee also was called of God For they are not to be heard that woulde make vs beleeue that it was but a couenant among themselues that Peter should preach to the Iewes Paule to the Gentiles but Paule doth assure himselfe of his calling in that he that was mightie in Peter was mightie in him also Saint Hierom on the Galathians lib. 1. cap. 2. very well writeth One and the selfesame Christ committed to mee the gospell of the vncircumcision speaking in the person of Paule who committed to Peter the gospell of the circumcision If then Peter was by Christ called to this apostleshippe where was it when in what woordes In all the Scripture there is not auie one place but this wherein he is called by Christ to this ministerie ouer the Iewes And therefore Christes sheepe are rather that peculiar people that were as no man denieth committed to Peter then the whole world whereof in Scripture they haue no probable coniecture And this interpretation I maruell that Maister Bellarmine hath not sought to confute seeing it is about two hundreth and seuentie yeare olde Perchaunce hee thought it rested vppon stronger reason then hee was able to conuince or confute and therefore hee let it alone Other argumentes are also alleadged to disprooue this supremacie of Peter ouer all and to shew that these words feede my sheepe cannot giue vnto him anie such soueraignty Saint Paule acknowledged no such subiection to him when hee doth not only pronounce that hee learned nothing of them that seemed to be chiefe but also withstoode Peter in the face because he was worthy to be reproued Out of which wordes howe lightlie so euer Maister Bellarmine woulde cast them off with this distinction that they were fellowes in preaching but not in gouerning as though the preaching of the woorde and the practise or gouernement according to the same were then seperated yet Saint Ambrose and Theophilact vpon this place doe teach that there was no inequality betweene them and that Paule was nothing inferiour to Peter And marke howe absurdly he woulde daube vppe the matter it is nothing to me saith S. Paule to the Galath 2. 6. what ones they were once that seemed to be somewhat Which he expoūdeth as if he had saide howe vile soeuer they were in time past what was that to mee I conferred with them for now they are great apostles If Saint Paule had so meant he woulde not haue said that they seeme to be somewhat but that they indeede are somewhat And thus master Bellarmine rather than he will say nothing will peruert the very sense of scripture for these wordes no doubt are expounded by those that followe in that verse they that seemed to bee somewhat gaue nothing to me Saint Paule also without asking leaue of Peter did exercise iurisdiction among the Corinthians against an incestuous person he giueth counsell concerning virgins he did set order among them concerning prayer and the eucharist And hee called to Miletum the elders of Ephesus to giue them commaundement or aduise concerning the church there And yet master Bellarmine would make vs beleeue that the iurisdiction was in Peter onely authoritie to preach in the rest together with him Againe the apostles I say the twelue not Peter did call together the christians to appoint deacons We must beleeue saith master Bellarmine that Peter deuised this or agreed to it And why must we beleeue that Peter was author of that act seeing there is not one word to warrant it Why should we imagine that rather of him then of another As for consenting we are sure he consented for it was done by a generall consent Peter and Iohn were sent by the rest to Samaria to instruct them
church of Rome we should discredit that which hath so long beene receaued especially seeing the counsell of Chalcedon the matter on both sides being discussed and heard did giue vnto the church of Constantinople as great priuiledges as the church of Rome had Which they woulde not haue done but that they sawe Paschasinus his allegation for his maister the bishop of Rome for he was one of his legates to be forged Nay if that Rome had gotten this prerogatiue by Gods lawe as nowe the papistes teach without wickednesse they coulde not haue done it Then these words of that canon of the Nicen council Because the bishop of Rome hath such like custome must also haue a newe interpretation For whereas Ruffinus who liued if not in yet very neare the dayes of the Nicene councill doeth plainely expound howe in those dayes they tooke the sence and meaning of those wordes namely that the Bishoppe of Rome should haue cure of the churches that belonged to the suburbs thereof Maister Bellarmine that commeth many hundreds of yeares after will in no wise like of that exposition because he imagineth it to be too narrow a compasse for the proud pope But hee must remember that when these limittes were appointed vnto him the Bishops not of Rome onely but of other places also were other manner of men than now they are for the most part And it seemeth that these limittes were laide vpon them rather as a burden thē sought and sued for as an honour And that the godly and learned men who sought especially the good of the church did cause this diuision of those places to be made for the better keeping of vnitie in the church appointing vnto euery one of these primates or patriarches such to bee in some respect vnder their charge as they sawe were for such considerations as were best knowen vnto them most likely to shew themselues willing to be ruled by them Yea. and the lesse compasse or circuite of iurisdiction might perchaunce bee appoynted to the Bishop of Rome because that thorowe great recourse of people of all places vnto that Citty beeing the imperiall Citty hee was so troubled with many matters of al mens that he might not so well intend and looke to a great charge of his owne And I knowe not why maister Bellarmine should so alter as hee doth the worde parilis into talis but to gaine as much credite as he can to his interpretation For parlis consuetudo which are the wordes vsed by the Councill is an equall custome and hath respect to that which is saide of the Bishop of Alexandria So that this is the meaning of those wordes that Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis should be vnder the Bishop of Alexandria because the Bishop of Rome hath such like custome or a custome equall to that But the exposition that maister Bellarmine would haue to stand for good is that the bishop of Rome had such a custome to appoint the Bishop of Alexandria those limittes which interpretation howe forced it is how it cannot aptly be gathered out of the words of the councill I referre it to the indifferent Reader to consider And because this word parilis equall custome will not stand with Maister Bellarmines sense he truneth it away and in steede thereof would vse a word more indifferent for him And so good Reader thou mayest see how Master Bellarmine most absurdly reiecteth the plaine and old interpretation of this canon which Ruffinus affordeth vs and would haue vs beleeue a new glose of his owne that must quite alter the sense and adde much to the wordes of the text it selfe And yet when antiquitie serueth their turne none crie out for Antiquitie more than they They go about to discredite our doctrine because it is newe onely and yet theirs we see here is both new and naught and yet are not they ashamed to bragge that all that they teach is catholike The second Councill alleaged by Maister Bellarmine is the Councill of Constantinople of which hee saieth out of Theodoret that they came together in that place by the commaundement of the Popes letters sent to them by the Emperour The more I reade Maister Bellarmine the more I find and mislike his euill dealing who handleth Gods cause nothing sincerely but walketh in the same as in this his argument may easily appeare with a deceitfull heart For first to make the matter seeme more plaine on his side then in deede it is hee saith that they came to Constantinople at the commandement of the Popes letters but Theodoret speaketh nothing of any commaundement but vpon the Popes letter The like also is in the letters themselues that are set downe in the Councill For it seemeth that Damasus whether it were vpon desire he had to christian vnity and agreement in religion or else because he sawe the emperour Theodosius bent to haue a councill and he was perchance desirous to seeme to haue some saying in that matter or for any other consideration whatsoeuer wrote vnto the Emperour about a Councill But if the Pope might haue called a Councill hee woulde then haue directed his commaundements vnto the Bishoppes to assemble not to the emperor what these letters were it is not knowen If they were to require and intreate the emperour to call a Councill it maketh nothing for proofe of master Bellarmines argument or the popes power If it were to commaund the emperour to send his letters to them or to cause them to be summoned it were in deede somewhat like vnto the sawcy and vnmannerly writings of these prowd prelates of our time but then neither the Pope burst so to commaund neither the emperour did owe or would performe any such seruice or duety to him But the report of the Councill it selfe as it is deliuered vnto vs by themselues _ doth sufficiently declared that all was done in that councill at the commaundement of the emperour First he commaunded that the Bishops should come out of euery bishopricke to Constantinople as he that gathered the councils together teacheth out of Theodoret. The emperour desired them to haue a care of that they had in hand And out of Socrates he sheweth that the emperour called also the Macedonian heretickes because he had good hope that they also might be vnited to the Church Moreouer out of Theodoret that the emperour consulted with Nectarius what course were best for quietnesse in the church they came to the emperour to take some good order in these matters he questioned with the heretikes concerning the the triall of the matters in question he tooke order that both partes should set downe their minde in writing hee tooke that they had written prayed earnestly to God to direct him to chuse the truth tore the writings of the heretickes allowed or receiued onely that docrine that taught the equalitie of the persons He also allowed the Nouatians their churches in the city because they were in this point constant
praefat iâ— lib. de pontif Rom. Acts and Monument Christ only the stone Mat. 21 42. Rom. 9. 33. Ephes 2. 14 15 16 10. Act. 4 12. 1 pet 2. 6. Ephes 2. 14. 21. Bellarmines blasphemies Esay 8. 14. Matt. 21. 44. Coloss 2. 19. Apocal. 21. 14. Ephes 2. 20. How the Apostles are foundations Amb. on these words Ephes 2. Theoph. Eph. 2. Chrysost in Eph. 〈◊〉 6. Hom. 8. In Ioh Tract 124. Retract lib. 1. cap. 21. De pontif Rom. lib. 1. cap. 10 De locis Theolog lib. 6. The Papists belie the Chalcedon councell Act. 3. Act. 16. The papists doe shift oft the fathers De trinit lib. 6. Ambros in Luâ— lib. 6. cap. 9. Bellarmine dealeth subtelly out of â—iillary The weakenes of Peter to be a foundation Matth. 16. 23. Matth. 26. 74. Gal. 2. 13 14. Peter not the foundation That is now that alwaies was the foundation De Pontif. Rom. â— 1. cap. 9. Rat. 5. De Pontif. Rom. lib. 1. cap. 11. Bellar. his 2. Arg. to build is to rule Answere Lib. 1. cap. 1â— To whom the keies were giuen Ibidem The keies by commission By ordinary iurisdiction In Ioh. Tract 124. Matth. 18. 18. lib. 1. cap. 12. Iohn 20 23. That the promise Mâ—t 16. belongeth to all the Apostles Power of Order Iurisdiction To binde and retaine sin is al one â—e poenitentia lib 1 cap. 2. Bellar. his shifts De simpl prel Bellar. argument hath no necessaâ—y coâ—sequence Cont. Iouin li. â— What these keâ—â— are De pontif Rom. li. 1. cap. 13. Beliarmines 1. argument to proue the keis to signifie rule ouer the whole church Esay 22. 22. Bellarm. falsifieth the scripture 2. Chron. 31. 10. 2. Kings 18. 18. Antiq. li. 10. ca. 1. Bellarm. â— arg Answere 1. Cor. 4. 1. Daniel 2. Bellarm. 3. argument out of the Fathers Chrysostome examined In Mat hom 55. Ibidem In Matt. hom 38 An argument against this exposition of the Papists Theoph in Mat. 16. Mat. 16. 18. An argument to proue my minor Iohn 20 23. De Pontif. Rom lib. 1. cap. 12. 13. A reply against Bellarmines answer to the maior Bellarm. cap. 12 13. lib. 1. â—epoenitentia lib. 1. cap. 2. Cent. 2. lib. 1. ca. 7. col 526. The argument out of the Centuries against supremacie Bellarmines answere co it examined De prescription aduerlus haerer Heretickes and Papistes charge thopostles with ignorance Artic. 18. Against Luther Thapostles stroue not for supremacie after Christes resurrection Matth. 18. 1. Mark 9. 34. Luke 9. 46. Luk. 22. 24. Iohn 13. 13. Matth. 20. 24. Mark 10. 41. Matth. 17. 12. They contended not because they suspected Peters supremacie Math. 10. 37. 41 Luk. 22. 26. Bellar argument to prooue Christ to haue told Peter he should be chiefe In Math. how 66 Bellann depontif Ro. li 3. c. 34. Iohn 21. Bellarm 2. argument our of scripture answered Answere Li 1 cap. 12. De pastorib uâ— cap. 13. The charge of feeding belongeth to all alike Ier. 48. 10. 1. Cor. 15. 10. Theoph. in Ioh. cap. 21. De pontifi Rom. lib. 1. cap. 15. To rule and to haue chiefe rule not all one Lib. 1. cap 16. Bellar his Arg. to proue Peter to be a vniuersall past Answere Lib. 2. cap. 8. 2. Tim. 4. 16. This charge feed my sheepe hath a limitation Matth. 28. 19â— Mark 16. 15. Christes peculiar sheepe Matth. 15. 24. Lib. 1. cap. 16. Gal. 2. 7. Rom. 1. 1. Actes 13. 2. Act. 22. 21. Gal. 1. 16. Arguments against Peters supremacy Gal. 2. Argument 2. 1. Cor. 5. 3. 1. Cor. 7. 25. 1. Cor. 11. c. 14. Argument 3. Act. 6. 2. Bellarmine his reply Answere Act. 8. 14. Argument 4. Bellarm. reply Answere Lib. 1. cap. 10. Bellarmine his second sort of argument from Peters prerogatiue De Rom. pontif lib. 1. cap. 17. 18. c. Iohn 1. 42. Galath 2. 9. Iohn 17. Marke 16. Iohn 20. Verse 23. Verse 24. Act. 2. Act. 3. Act. 5. Act. 16. 18. Act. 28. 8. Act. 13. 11. Act. 14. â— Act. 9. 32. Act. 1â— Act. 12. 5. 2. Cor. 11. 33. Galat. 1. 18. Verse 14. Lib. 1. cap. 10. How the fathers ascribe much vnto Peter Cap. 12. First in time De pontit Rom. lib. 1. cap. 25. Cypr ad Quintinum vel Quintum Iob. 1. 39. 40. First in respect of some execllent graces 1. Pet. 5. 1. Head men haue not alwaies in their own right iurisdiction ouer other Lib. 1. cap. 25. Pag. 12. Vincent Lyrin Bellar. his 3. arg for the supremacy is out of the fathers De praescript aduers haeretic The consutation of the maior for popish supremacy set downe pa. 11. De Rom. pontif lib. 2. cap. 2. Whether Peter first preached at Rome Iraen lib 3. c. 3. Iraeny his place examined Euseb li. 2. hist 14. Euseb his place examined Contra gentes lib. 2. Arnob. answered Heref. 27. Epipha answered Other of the fathers answered In psal 48. Serm 1. de natali Apostolorum Paul Oros li. hist 7. c. 6. Turonens li 1. Histor ca. 25. Ad Rom. cap. 1. Peter preached not first at Rome Sadol ad Rom. cap. 16. Rom. 16. 7. Primas ad Rom. Rom. 15. 20. Rom. 15. 15. 1â— Act. 21. 22. Bellar. obiect Answere Bellar 2. obiect Answere The story of Simon Magus his â—iery clâ—tetes a fable Whether Peter died at Rome Lib. 2. cap. 3. Canus lib. 6. loc Theol. cap. 8. Whether Peter were bishop of Rome 25 yeares Lib. 2. cap. 4. Bellar. first arg Pag. 13. 14. Answere Bellarm 2. arg Answere Arg. 3. Bellarm out of fathers Why the fathers did not much gainfay Peters being bishop of Rome In Iof. cap. 20. Hom. 85. To beleeue that Peter was bishop of Rome is no catholicke saith Peters being bishop of Rome not proued by the word Lib. 2. cap. 12. The first fathers knew no such thing Ignatius knew not Peters supremacy Ign. ad Trallia ad Romanes Ign. ad Ephes Igo ad Simrna Ign. ad Philad Iustinus apol â— Euseb hist eoâ—â— li. 2. cap. 2â— Iren. li. 3. ca. 3. De prescriptionbus aduersus heret Clement first bishop of Rome Peters chaire Moses chaire Mat. 23. 2. Obiection Answere Lib. 3. cap. 1. cont Maâ—cio 1 â— heres 27. Euseb li. 2. ca. 25. Conell Tom. 1. ne Petro. Li. 3. cap. 〈…〉 A third reason Galat. 2. 7. Li. 2. c. 5. Bell. 06. Bellar. ob 2. Answere Lib. 2. cap. 12. Bellarm. his triumphing before the victorie Pag. 56. â— Argument to the bishop of Rome his succession to Peter to be vncertaine Li. 2. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 12. Marcel epist ad Antioch A rotte a prop of supermacie Markâ— 16. 15. A vniuersall bishop must not be a sitter but â—ther a runner Whether it be needefull that Peter haue a successour Bellarm. would match with an 〈◊〉 aduersary Lib. 2. cap. 12. Pag. 5. c. 1. Cor. 12. 2â— Bellarmines argument to prouâ— that Peter must haue a successoâ— Li. 2. 〈◊〉 12 â—â—g 5 Answere Arg. of bellarm
by the doctrine of the church of Rome be gainsaide without danger of heresie so long as man hath not approued the same The lessons I perceiue that God teacheth vs must not bee counted the doctrines of the church vntill the bishop of Rome or some councill haue set downe some order therein Well howsoeuer the wise maisters of Rome will define what shall be heresie yet I trust they will graunt that hee erred in iudgement because he taught then that which not only the scriptures gainesay but euen the papistes themselues will confesse to be erronious But what should I stand in particular examples If it bee true that both Melchior Canus and Bellarmine confesse especially Canus that both the seuenth and the eight sinodes did condemne as an hereticke Honorius the pope doth it not appeare manifestly thereby that they made no doubt whether a pope might erre or not It is not a question amongst them they heare of his doctrine they condemne it as erronious Neither did Formosus his friends vse any such argument to hinder Steuen his cruell dealings against Formosus or Steuens friends to mitigate the rage of Iohn the tenth against Steuen they saide not thus Formosus was a pope and Steuen was a pope they cannot erre No it is a doctrine of later growth and of a newer stamp Maister Bellarmine answereth that those two councels that are before mentioned did thinke that the pope as a priuate man might erre Wherein although he consent not with himselfe who thinketh that he cannot erre as before I said yet would he thereby if he could take away the strength of the argument But he laboureth all in vaine for how doth it appeare that the councels thought of any such matter There is no shew no likelihoode of it No wordes to induce him so to thinke As for that which he saith of Honorius his letters that they condemned him of heresie because of that which they found in his letters I maruell maister Bellarmine hath so soone forgotten himselfe as to alleadge it Seeing himselfe in the beginning of the eleuenth chapter doth first doubt of the credit of those letters and secondlie he denieth that any error is in the same contained Doeth maister Bellarmine thinke the fathers of those councels to haue beene so simple that they could not iudge of Honorius his writings whether they were hereticall or not aswell as himselfe Or will he imagine that they were so rash that they would condemne him without cause If he in his epistles had no errour as maister Bellarmine affirmeth almost in the beginning of his eleuenth chapter why doth he heere affirme that for his epistles and the heresies which therein he maintained he was condemned of those councels If he were an hereticke as by very many testimonies it doth appeare why doth maister Bellarmine seeke so to free him from that fault and to take from him that staine Euen because he would as wel as he can defend that most vntrue doctrine of the church of Rome that the pope cannot erre And yet their owne law supposeth that the pope may erre and confesseth that for heresie he may be reproued But in this as almost in euery point wherein they dissent from vs they shew how little they are in deed according to their name that they woulde faine be called by For they call themselues catholickes as if the doctrine that they teach or beleeue were catholicke that is vniuersâ—allie receiued And yet in this controuersie they are not agreed how to defend it or what to say of it Gerson of Paris Almain Alphonsus all of them papistes and pope Adrian the sixt himselfe are of one mind Albert Pighius an other papist of an other Bellarmine and his maisters make a third sect And yet these men reproue vs for difference in opinion bragge of their owne vnity and must needs be thought to haue a catholike faith But to conclude seeing the giftes of the spirite whether of sanctification or of truth are giuen vnto men according to measure and not in fulnes for to Christ only God giueth the spirite not by measure and therefore he speaketh without errour Gods words seeing that pope Adrian the sixt hath assured vs that popes may erre and we haue it plainely recorded in their owne histories and confessed by many of themselues that they haue erred lastly seeing they haue been euen by councils condemned of heresie and their owne lawe prouideth and taketh order for popes that doe erre and the Church of Rome is not yet resolued how to defend the cantrarie we may I trust hauing so good warant euen from their owne frends without any note of heresie affirme that popes may erre Yea what is there in them but errour They wander out of the wayes of truth and of godlinesse So that in that accursed companie we may see that to be most true that where there is a boundance of sinne there God iustly may and often times in his iudgements doth cast such into the deepth of errour that they who had no desire to liue according to the light that did shine vnto them in seruing the Lord in true holinesse should be cast into the dungeon of ignorance as vnworthie to inioy that light which they so vnthankefully refused of that grace which they so wickedly abused The matter then being thus that neither Peter had any such iurisdiction ouer the whole church as is claimed by the church of Rome neither if he had it he could or for any euidence that yet is shewed he did bequeathe it to the Romish church and lastly seeing that church if any such priuiledge had beene lawfully to her deuolued hath committed such things as would haue forfeted a better right then euer shee had in that vniuersall authoritie it doth I trust appeare to the indifferent Reader that their claime is vniust their title false and that they haue no colour of interest from Christ whose ouely possession that is that they would haue But it is no new thing in the church of Rome to bring in false euidence to prooue a forged claime They did so in the council of Carthage when by vntrue copies of the council of Nice they sought the soueraignty ouer all other churches For Alipius a bishop in that council affirmeth twise that they could not find in the decrees of the Nicen councill any such thing as they aleaged for the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome Nouatus also another bishop saith we reade no such thing in the Nicen councill The fathers therefore of that council did decree that messengers should be sent to Constantinople Alexandria and Antioch as Alipius had inoued them to get the true copies For they hauing read many bookes of the council of Nice yet could neuer read in any latine or yet in any Greeke copies that they had that which the bishop of Rome his legat did alleage To trie the truth therfore they sent and sought that they