A SURVEY OF THE POPE'S SUPREMACY.  
Wherein is a trial of his title, and a proof of his practices: and in it are examined the chief arguments that M. BELLARMINE hath, for defence of the said supremacy, in his books of the bishop of Rome.  
By FRANCIS BUNNY sometime fellow of Magdalene College in Oxford.  Hos. 8. 4. They have set up a king, but not by me, they have made princes but I knew it not. 
AT LONDON, Printed by Valentine Simmes for Ralph jacson dwelling in Paul's Churchyard at the sign of the white Swan. 1595.   

To the right Honourable his very good Lord, HENRY Earl of Huntingdon, Baron of Hastings, lord Hungerford, Buttrois, and Molleignes, Knight of the most Noble Order of the Garter, L. Precedent of the Council at York, & lord Lieutenant in these North parts under her Majesty FRANCIS BUNNY wisheth increase of all graces here, and everlasting life elsewhere.  
COnsidering with myself (right Honourable) how many that have some desire to wake in right ways and perfect paths, are seduced and misled, and that willingly, having this persuasion once settled in their hearts, that the bishop of Rome is their head here upon earth, whom they ought to obey: Seeing also on the other side, not a few, that cloak and colour many their treacheries and treasons, when they suffer as evil doers for their wicked purposes and practices, as if for their conscience sake they were thus dealt withal; I thought I could not bestow time better, then if by any means possible, I might by my pain & travel, light the candle of truth to them that are in darkness and ignorance, and discover the hypocrisy of the other sort, who under pretence of conscience, do against all conscience and duty. Both which parts, my desire hath been to perform in this treatise. For if by trial of the Pope's title, and examining his evidence I prove that he maketh an unjust claim, to the supremacy over the whole Church of Christ: and if in view of his doings, and proof of his practice it may plainly appear, 
john 10. 1, 10.  that as he like a thief entered into that honour that now he enjoyeth, so in the same he playeth the thief in deed, & doth nothing else but rob and steal, and kill: I hope then the simple, and so the better sort of the two, will not so readily as they have done rest upon him, in whom they shall see neither warrant, power to have his fullness of power, nor any Christianlike moderation to use the same: And as for the other sort, they will find no cause for them to crack of their conscience, when it shall appear to the world, that it is not upon any sure ground, neither stayed upon any good foundation. For doubtless, if a good conscience do give unto Caesar that that is Caesar's or belongeth to him, 
Mat. 22. 21  whether obedience, tribute, or any thing else, as Christ commandeth: If it make subjects to subject their very souls to the higher powers, as S. Paul biddeth, 
Rom. 13. 1.  and frameth us to submit ourselves to all manner ordinance of man for the lords sake, as Saint Peter willeth: 
1. Pet. 2. 13.  And if these duties of inferiors towards their superiors, must be performed for conscience sake, as the same Apostle exhorteth us, and S. Paul also, Rom. 13. 5. I pray you what conscience can there be in denying their obedience to their Sovereign, and giving it to another? or in preferring him whom their selves have made their prince and king, that Romish priest, before such as God hath set over us? doubtless, if in conscience we be bound to obey God, then can no man have so much as a show of conscience, so to rob God's magistrates of that authority that he giveth them, as doth the church of Rome. Men sometime will make conscience where none is, as these men do, in tying themselves to keep other laws than God hath given them. And if their sin were no greater than so, yet should they have no more thanks at God's hand, than the jews had for such will-worshippings, who when they looked to merit by such works, 
Esa. 1. 12.  it was said unto them, Who hath required these things at your hands? But seeing the judgement wherein we and our works must be tried, 
Rom. 2. 16.  shall be according to the Gospel: that must be the touch stone, the rule and the square to prove us, not our good intentions, devotions, or the doctrines of men whatsoever. 
Mat●. 23.  The Pharisees made conscience in washing before meat, and many such like things: but they are reproved of Christ, because they were so careful to keep those their own traditions, so little regarding Gods commandments; and yet their cleansings might seem to be some imitation of God's law. But with what forehead can the church of Rome pretend any conscience in doing that which is expressly against that honour which God commandeth to be given to magistrates, and contrary to the humble duty that good bishops of the purer age did always perform? It is not therefore conscience carefully settled on God's word, that any of them doth suffer for: but for their doings that are expressly against the same. For howsoever the answer to the English justice (as also other their words and writings) would seem to justify that Catholic crew, 
Answer to the English justice. cap. 1.  as if they dealt nothing in matters of 〈…〉 the evidence that hath been sufficiently and plentifully given, and proved against them, do plainly declare their unnatural treasons. Yea and that reconciling which themselves confess to be the principal work of their Priest among us, and whereof the writer of the forenamed answer, sayeth that it can nothing at all, touch or trouble the quiet of our Country: yet because it is a uniting (of them that are reconciled) unto the Pope: (who is not only a special enemy to our most gracious Sovereign, but also a tyrannous tormentor of all such as will not hold their kingdoms of him, as many Stories do prove) it is therefore a withdrawing of them, from their duty and obedience towards her Majesty, whensoever the Pope shall so command. Yea one whom themselves trust in great matters (called Bruise I suppose, 
Among the letters taken with Car the Hispaviolised Scot  for the book I have not by me) writing to the Duke of Parma, and reporting of the labours of such Seminary Priests as were among them in Scotland, showeth that as they convert the souls of such as they deal withal so even then in the same instant they do affectionate them to the Catholic King. What plainer words can there be to show to what end this reconciling tendeth? You see Popery and treason must be taught together, they must be as twins, they must grow together, and go together, foot by soote. Yea now a days it is not right Popery, unless it bring forth some treachery. What hath their Catholic K. (a gulf that will never be satisfied) to do, with them that are subjects to the King of Scots? yea I would sane know what Allen himself and his brother Parsons do mean by these words (until that Day?) For in a letter of father Will. 
William Allen his letter.  Allens, which I have to show (written I suppose with his own hand) to father D. P. rector of the English College in Rome, he reporteth that M. George Gilbert came into France, by the reverend father Robert (Parsons) and other, to krepe himself until that Day. What mean they by that Day? What meaneth Allen to write it in great letters, as a thing that should be especially noted, and did perchance good to him and such other viperlike traitors, to think of it? It was doubtless no other day then that, which they hoped, the rebellion in England, the troubles in Ireland, the Spanish fleet so long looked for, and so much spoken of, should have brought unto them. Against such days of mischief they seek to praepare men before by their reconciling, as that letter of Bruise before mentioned, and many other unanswerable proofs do teach us. And therefore seeing that under praetence of reconciling men to God, they do in deed by all means possible devote and tie them to serve the Pope, and that insatiable tyrant, who have a long time, by many wicked and Popelike practices, showed themselves utter enemies to our estate and Prince: what reason can be yielded, why Princes may not by most severe punishments, prevent the perilous purposes of such secret conspirators, and known enemies? May Popes use policies to get authority, which by no right they can claim, and to keep it when they have obtained it, (as in this treatise it will appear they did:) and may not Princes provide for the safety of their persons, the establishing of their kingdoms, and the maintenance of their ancient and lawful dominions? May usurpers keep that which wickedly they have gotten, and may not lawful Kings and Queens defend their true and right inheritance? Or must they suffer such serpents within their kingdoms, such snakes as it were in their bosoms. We cannot let such fugitive traitors, as seek the ruin of their native country, to wish also that such ready means to effect their desires, might not be hindered. No we cannot hinder their attempting of the same, by their seditious pamphlets. But we hope that all Christian princes, that know these their lewd practices, not trusting the songs of those Sirens, will before it be too late, seek to prevent the means that they use to bring them to pass. Neither need they who call themselves (though untruly) Catholics, and maintain the Romish religion within their Dominions, 
Cap. 4.  fear so to do. For Allen himself (if that be his answer to the English justice) dare not say it is a matter yet defined, but disputable only, whether the Pope may excommunicate or deprive a Prince in case of heresy or apostasy, and consequently to absolve his subjects from their oath and obedience to him. If this be a case yet not overruled in the Pope's Consistory, or at the least in any general Council; then even Popish princes need not be afraid to withstand by all means that they can, such dangerous deceivers as come in sheeps clothing, making show of Religion, but are in deed ravening wolves, secretly working treason. In so much as they who favour but too well the Romish Religion, begin now to know and detest these roving runagates, whose counsels are mischievous, whose doings are treacherous. And because the very ground of this their brag, that they suffer for conscience sake, is this supremacy of the B. of Rome, and his power over all, not Bishops only, but Princes also: which they would have to be an article of religion, & so to touch the conscience, whereas it is in truth, but a matter of Popish pride and ambition: for this cause have I endeavoured in this treatise, to prove that it hath no warrant in the word, or in the writings of the approved and ancient fathers. Neither can all the jesuits and Seminary priests in Rome and Rheimes, be able to show the article of the Pope's supremacy, to be a Catholic doctrine, and therefore it is not to be received by their own rules. And because it bringeth not a little light unto the truth, to know by what practices they are become so great, and to what ends they have bend, or how they have employed their power which they have gotten by craft and shifts: I have therefore pointed unto such means as they have used to advance their seat, and to some of their doings. whereby it doth most plainly appear, that their only care hath been to make themselves great and rich, nothing at all regarding the glory of God, or the good of Christ's flock, which they say is committed to them. And this I have done by ancient or their own histories, seldom standing upon the credit only of our own writers, unless it be in report of the acts of the later Popes, which cannot be reported by any but such as were in, or after their days. But if I had more relied than I do, upon the reports of Protestant writers, I should have the example of our adversaries for my defence. This treatise I set forth under the defence of your honour's name, to whom I acknowledge myself especially bound in many respects. Which to do I am the rather moved, that to that inward witness of a good conscience, whereby I know your L. is incited with a continual care, and vigilant eye, to prevent the perilous practices of those busy brokers for that Catholic king (as they call him) & other enemies to this Common wealth, might also be added that outward testimony of truth, confirmed by proof and practice of the purer times, to encourage you with a constant increase in godly zeal, to discharge still the duty, that God (who hath called you to that honour) hath laid upon you, and requireth of you, to the service of her Majesty, and safety of her subjects. Most humbly I crave you to take in good part this simple token of a sincere affection, and slender pledge of my unfeigned heart. And thus committing the happy success of this my travail to God's good blessing, to whose direction and defence I also leave your Lordship in all your doings, I humbly take my leave at my house at Ryton in the Bishopric of Durham. [❀]   

❧ To such as are learned among our adversaries, who seem in singleness of soul to seek after the truth.  
THE Lord is my witness whom I serve in my spirit, and to whose gain I am desirous to bestow my talon, and whose glory I study to advance, by all such means as of his mercy he hath afforded me, that I have not written this, or any other treatise, because I am desirous to contend, for we have no such custom, nor the Churches of God: much less to purchase praise of learning, wherein unfeignedly I acknowledge my want and weakness: but only for defence of the truth, which in this country of ours, is quite forsaken of many, by reason of ignorance in all sorts, which hath possessed men through their own negligence and careless security of their own soul's health, and is cherished and increased, through softness and sufferance of some superiors. For if such gifts of knowledge or utterance, as God dareth us, be they great or little, be given us to edify and do good unto others: then let us use the same to his greatest glory and gain, for fear of his heavy displeasure, if when he call us to a reckoning, we be found not to have occupied to our master's profit, because he will be angry with such as hide their talon in their napkin. 
Matth. 25. 26.  But if we abuse these his good graces, to darken therewith the light of the truth, and to increase the mists of error, how fierce shall be his wrath? how hard shall be our judgement? For if to be negligent to maintain the truth, be blameworthy: how great then is their sin that impugn the same, and that with those weapons that God hath bestowed upon them to defend it withal? Let us therefore, my wandering brethren from the plain paths, let us I say remember for what we strive. Is it not for the truth? where may it be found? In God's eternal and undoubted word. What is this word? we truly affirm it with many of the Fathers to be contained in the Scriptures of the old and new Testament. But of your unwritten verities, you have just cause to doubt. If therefore there be in you any love to this truth, for the which you say you strive, any care of God's glory, any regard of the ignorant who are (the Lord knoweth, soon led the wrong way) any due respect to your own soul's health, 
Philip 3. 16  or any fear of God's just wrath: let us proceed by one rule, that we may mind one thing. Follow not I pray you, those false apostles, those crafty workmen that can transform themselves into Angels of light. 
2. Cor. 11. 13.  Deal plainly and truly in God's cause, yea, let us on both sides weigh the goodness of the proofs not cavilling about words, the truth of the matter, not the manner of handling of it. If we speak of antiquity, let it be most ancient. For that is truest, but by and by came in heresies: so that that only which was first, can be true, as upon good ground Tertullian affirmeth. 
De prescript.  If we bring the Fathers, let them be of the soundest, and those not maimed nor mangled. Neither must we rest upon any of their doctrines, but such as have their warrant in the word, and being taught of them by a general consent, do justly obtain the name of Catholic. And for sundry points of your religion, I can never be persuaded, but such among you as have any unfeigned desire to attain to true godliness, do even within yourselves confess and acknowledge, that many things which are commended to the simple, as holy and helpful for the saving of their souls, whatsoever show of godliness they may seem to have, are yet far from the power thereof. For it cannot be, that any man or woman that maketh due account of the price of our redemption, the ransom for our sins, the precious blood of that lamb without spot Christ jesus, 
1. Pet. 1. 19  can ever become so sottish as to think, that observing of days, abstaining from some meats, buying of bulls, pardons, hallowed grains, and Agnus this, offering to saints, pilgrimages, going barefoot, with haircloth next the skin, cross, or any such like bodily and trifling exercises or works, may ever be thought of worth, to make any recompense for our offences. If without shedding of blood there could be no remission, 
Heb. 9 22. Heb. 9 12. & 10. 14.  (and that the blood of Christ) by which we are freed for ever, from the danger of sin, and have eternal redemption, what can these trifling toys help us therein? yea, what blasphemy is it to match them in this work, with that inestimable and peerless price? Now therefore as Ambassadors from Christ, 
2. Cor. 5. 20.  as though God did beseech you through us, we pray you in Christ's stead, not only to be reconciled to God (whom you have grievously offended:) but also that you will deal plainly with God's people, and sound and sincerely in matters of religion: return from whence you have strayed so long, and so far, yield to the truth, give glory to God. Led them not any longer into the pit of error, whom Christ hath bought with so rich a ransom. Hid not the truth from them henceforth with those false vizards of antiquity and universality, which can never be proved to be in the Romish religion. And seeing yourselves, if you have any consciences, must confess that many things are amiss in that you teach: be content to follow the godly and wise counsel which Cyprian giveth, that we should go back to the head, 
Ad Pompeium contra epistolam Stephan.  if any thing be wrong in religion, and so try where the fault is. As if the water fail, we will begin at the conduit, and so from thence search where it stoppeth: so we must saith he, come to that was taught in the beginning by Christ and his Apostles. And this he saith, is the readiest way to leave errors, and to find out the truth. Let us than I pray you walk in that way, let us use that man, to reform religion. But if you have sold your tongues & pens to serve the Pope, and as much as in you lieth to maintain superstition: you shall find us by God's grace ready at all times, to answer whatsoever you shallbe able to say. And although I be not worthy to carry the books of many among us, that are accounted and known to be learned: yet will I (encouraged by the goodness of the cause) apply my time and study, and slender ability to that end, knowing those hours to be most happily spent, that are employed to the glory of God, the benefit of the Church, and the furtherance of the Gospel. Wherein that you may join with us, I pray God if it be his good will, to turn your hearts, & open your eyes to see & know that which now you strive against. As for your secret practices against God and his people, the Lord for Christ his sake confound them, and bring them to nought. So be it. (*)   

The first part of the Survey of the Pope's Supremacy, wherein is a trial of his Title.  
ALthough there is not (in mine opinion) 
Least necessary to salvation.  any one Article in controversy by knowledge whereof less benefit redoundeth to the church of Christ, or less comfort to the afflicted conscience of the sorrowful sinner, than this of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome: yet (if I be not deceived) there is not any one point more convenient to be handled, 
Most necessary in some other respects.  or more necessary to be entreated upon, of such as sincerely love the truth of God, or hearty obedience unto sovereign magistrates, than is the same. First, for the justifying of the godly, and more than needful laws of christian Princes, which they are forced to make, 
The pope's supremacy an enemy to all princes.  to banish and abandon all foreign power that themselves may sit faster in that seat, and the more quietly and safely enjoy that sovereignty, wherein God hath placed them, which is much hazarded and endangered by this subtle, but false persuasion, which wholly possesseth the hearts of many, that if they will be saved, and avoid the danger of damnation, they must steadfastly believe, that the Bishop of Rome is the universal Bishop, having authority over all, that he is the head of the church, and the general shepherd of Christ his flock. For that man of sin, having so bewitched the hearts of his favourites, that they are once persuaded, that it is good religion so to believe, and that to defend this his pride, is christian constancy: what shameless villainies will not they think to be lawful practices? what cruel murders will not they account to be commendable attempts? what unnatural devices and drifts will not they esteem most godly and catholic virtues? I need not stand long in dilating this point. Our native soil hath too much and too lamentable experience of such unkindly slips. Who when they did, and do owe to their country wherein they were bred and brought up, the sweet fruit of love to her, and sacred obedience to her laws, bring forth almost nothing else, but the sour grapes of treasons and treacheries. Which all spring out of this bad root, that they falsely persuade themselves, that they own their chief obedience to the Bishop of Rome, whose commandments if they obey, and follow his directions, and hearken to his persuasions, then must they suffer no princes, with qnietnesse to enjoy their ancient and undoubted inheritance, and rightful crowns, but such as will be tenants at will, to their lawless master. Which, the more I do think of it, the more (I fear) we have no great hope as yet to be free from such villainous practices, as may bring danger unto her Majesty, and ruin to this realm: because I see that stubborn Recusants (who if they have any conscience in religion, it is very strange, for many of them show little conscience in any thing else) wilful Papists (I say) are not in some reasonable manner forced in this point, to show their obedient and dutiful hearts, but may freely without controlment, profess themselves enemies to the truth that we acknowledge. For how can there be any certainty to this estate, that is so pestered with a great number of false hearted subjects, whose very religion, 
The religion of Papists.  is to be devoted to him and to the maintenance of his kingdom, that is grieved at nothing more than at our happiness, neither seeketh any thing so much as our destruction?  
To pluck away therefore this vizard of Religion, from this their disobedient and dissolute affection, I think it to be the duty of every good christian, according to our calling and talents wholly to endeavour ourselves. And as this dutiful affection of christian obedience should effectually move us unto this attempt, so the very ruin of religion, and the decay of all true devotion which followeth that persuasion, should for●e us to make haste to take this stumbling block out of the way of the simple, lest at unwares running thereupon, they should make shipwreck of their faith. For the Bishop of Rome by this his pretended privilege, 
The pope's supremacy the decay of true religiòn.  doth take upon him to make laws to bind the conscience, to add to God's word, to dispense against the same, to chop and change religion itself, as seemeth good to him, to do and undo at his own pleasure. And do he never so much hurt in the church of Christ, yet no man must say, 
Dist. 40. cap. 51. Papa.  Sir, why do you so? And thus having gotten by this proud name, his fullness of power, he hath filled all christendom with horrible superstitions. I speak not here of the profane, or rather blasphemous praises, 
The Pope's flatterer's.  which the flatterers of this universal Bishop do give to him, to make the world, not so much to reverence him as a B. as to honour him rather almost as a god. Which if it had been done only by his Canonists, who lived in the days of darkness, and saw not so much as men now do, yet the fault and folly had been very great. But that master Bellarmine, a man doubtless learned, in so clear light of the truth as now shineth, should so far overshoot himself as he doth in this point, in his Preface to his books of the bishop of Rome: 
Praefat. in lib. d● Rom. pontiff.  it maketh me not a little to wonder at his gross 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 sincerity of religion, and also for the quietness of common wealths: my desire & purpose is, if God give good success thereunto, to show and prove that the Bishop of Rome maketh herein an unjust claim, 
The Pope's claim unjust.  and hath possessed himself of an untrue Title. To come therefore to the point in controversy. 
The Church.  The holy catholic church, the spiritual house of God, the mystical body of Christ, comprehendeth two sorts of members. 
Triumphant.  Some that are triumphing in heaven: 
Militant.  others that are here traveling upon the earth: some profiting (as saint Augustine saith) in this life, others perfected in an other. 
The question.  Now the question is, whether this part of the catholic church that is here wandering in this vale of misery, which is called militant (for here is the place of striving, elsewhere the place of crowning) must needs have the Bishop of Rome to be the head thereof? This is it that they untruly, and without any good warrant do affirm. This is it which justly, and upon good ground (as I trust it shall appear) we deny. Master Bellarmine laboureth very much to prove, that the government of one over all, is the best, 
Whether monarchical government be best. M. Bellarmine's first argument to prove there must be one visible head.  endeavouring thereby to prove, that if it be best in civil regiment, it should also be the best government in the church, as it appeareth in his Books of the bishop of Rome. Howsoever the monarchical regiment within every kingdom or country is liked of: yet that universal rule of one over all hath not been thought good of at any time, 
Lib. de pontiff. Rom. 1. cap. 5. That is not of necessity be ● government for the Church that is best for other kingdoms.  as may appear by those great monarchies so commended unto us in histories. To whose subjection kingdoms and nations did not subject themselves willingly, but were subdued to them by might. Neither is it necessary, that that kind of government, which is thought best for worldly kingdoms, whose Lawmakers are men, and whose laws are always new to be made, as new inconveniences do arise in the commonwealth: and to be short, whose glory is here in this world, should also be most convenient for the church of God, whose kingdom is not worldly, whose beauty is not outward or external. But to knit up this point with one argument, thus I reason. That kind of government is fittest for the church, that bringeth most profit to them that are governed, but master Bellarmine confesseth, 
De pontiff. Rom. li●. 1. cap. 3.  that the mixed government is most profitable, therefore it is fittest.  
But because it pleaseth master Bellarmine so well, that one should bear rule over the whole church, let him and his fellows submit hemselfes to Christ that King of kings and Lord of lords, 
Christ king in his Church. Revel. 19 16. Ephes. 1. 22. Dan. 7. 14. Psal. 72. 8.  whom God hath appointed to be the head of the church, of whose kingdom there shall be no end, whose dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the land: so that no continuance of time, no distance of place, shall hinder his government; An invisible head of an invisible body. 
A pastor in particular churches a particular head.  Or else in particular churches let him behold a visible pastor, over a visible flock, which is also a kind of Monarchy. But this one head which is Christ, cannot content the church of Rome, although notwithstanding his absence from us in the flesh, there is no want either in his will or might, but that he is able and ready, at all times to direct and defend his flock. 
●. S●m. 8. 7, 10.  But as the children of Israel, not contenting themselves with that form of government whereby God governed them, would needs have a king as other nations had: even so will the papists have a visible monarch, one ruler of the whole church, as one King is ruler over a whole Kingdom. And if we tell them that it is a monster in nature, that the church which is but one, 
Two heads.  should have two heads, that is to say Christ, whom we all acknowledge to be the head thereof, and the pope, whom they make their visible and ministerial head: then they reply, that in that Christ is head of the church, it doth no more hinder the supremacy of the bishop of Rome, than it taketh away the bishop and ministers out of the church. 
Bellar. lib. 1. de pontiff. Rom. c. 9  For so master Bellarmine affirme●, as if bishops and ministers were universal heads, as the pope would be. And can master Bellarmine see no difference, between the calling of pastors and teachers, and of the pope? Is he so blind or bleareied, in beholding the brightness of their glorious Bishop, that he can see no difference between these two: 
Pastors appointed of God.  pastors we are sure are ordained of God, even of him that appointed Christ to be head of the church. 
The pope not of God.  But that the bishop of Rome is head of the church by God's word, master Belarmine himself denieth. 
De pontiff. Rom. lib. 2. cap. 12.  Secondly the pastor contenteth himself with the ministry of the word and sacraments, and such ecclesiastical censures as the word affordeth him. 
The Pope's pride.  But the bishop of Rome despiseth all power, abuseth all magistrates, yea almost treadeth under foot the majesty of the mightiest monarchs. As for the sword of the word either he thinks it not sharp enough, 
His contempt of the sword of God's word.  or else he is too proud to draw it (for preaching is too base a thing for so proud a prelate) but with his temporal sword he flourisheth lustily. Again, the pastor hath his flock in a little compass, so that he may in some measure discharge his duty amongst them, he may feed with the bread of life the hungry souls, he may strengthen the feeble, comfort the weak, seek the lost, and bring whom the wandering sheep. 
The Pope's charge infinite.  But the bishop of Rome in challenging authority over all places and persons, and seeking to be head over all churches, doth both meddle with other men's charges, and layeth upon his own shoulders an importable burden. Thus I trust it appeareth, that this argument standeth still unanswered Christ is the head of his church, Christ I say whom God the father appointed to that office, and who is able to undergo this charge, 
Tertull. de praescientia heretic.  because he hath the holy ghost to be his Husband man, to dress his vine, his Vicar or leieutenant to look to his charge: the pope therefore, who is neither appointed to it, nor able to do it, is not. 
M. Bellar. his second argument.  Now for that which master Bellarmine affirmeth of the heavenly host, that they have in heaven another head besides Christ, and therefore that the church upon earth ought so to have: his proof is more uncertain, and hard to be known, then that he should seek thereupon to ground any argument. But the church in the old Testament had one high priest, 
Argument 3.  therefore saith master Bellarmine the church of Christ must have so. For that church was a figure of Christ's church. 
Answer.  If master Bellarmine his argument shall go for currant, we must also have but one Temple, for they might not have any more, they might offer but in one place, and many such things were commanded unto them, unto which it were absurd to tie christians. Whereby we may see that in all things that church was not a figure of ours. Then also the levitical priest was a figure not of any ministerial head of Christ's church but of Christ himself as the apostle to the Hebrews doth prove in sundry chapters. 
Hebr. 8. 9, 10.  And here master Bellarmine showeth rather a desire to maintain his errors, then to yield to the truth. For without all reason he affirmeth, that Aaron was not only a figure of Christ, but of Peter also, and his successors, saving that to avouch his untruth, he setteth down another; namely that the levitical sacrifices, were figures not of Christ only, but also of that which they call the sacrifice of the mass, which how untrue it is I have showed elsewhere. But if it were true, that those sacrifices were figures of both, must it needs follow, that Aaron also must be the figure of Christ and Peter. 
Aaron no figure of Peter.  It hath no necessity. And moreover to answer both this and his fifth argument.  
The church was at that time contained within the bonds of jewry, or at the least he was but high priest unto them that were circumcised. As also in Christ his time the church consisted but of a few persons and therefore it cannot be necessarily concluded, that if the church than was governed by one, when it was in a small corner of the world, it should now be so likewise, when it is scattered in many places, upon the earth. But what if I should deny to Bellarmine, that this was the government of the church before Christ, 
The church not subject to one hie priest. De missa li. 1. c. 2  or that they were not at that time all under one high priest? For more than 2500. years the church was not governed by one high priest, which master Bellarmine himself doth not greatly deny in this place, especially limiting this high priest unto that time when there was some form of government established amongst them, after they were come out of Egypt: For until that time as himself confesseth, the heads of their houses were priests. And although there were many good men at one time as Seth, Enosh, and others, yet master Bellarmine cannot show, that there was amongst them, a high priest, but every one was chief in his own family. But what if it appear that then when there was a high priest, yet all God's people were not bound to be under him? The widow of Sarepta as appeareth by her story, 
1. Kin. 17.  had a sure faith in God, so that we may say she might well be accounted the child of God. Naaman also the syrian did belong to the church of God. And no doubt but God had many people among the Ninivites, who repent at the preaching of jonah. 
jonah 3.  And yet none of these were commanded to be under the subjection of the high priest. Which thing being well coosidered of, we may conclude, that if the government of one over the whole church, were not thought necessary for any people, before such time as Moses had delivered such laws to the israelites from God, after they were come out of Egypt, neither yet afterward for any but only for the jews as by the examples alleged may appear, out of this I say we may gather, that neither then was the whole church commanded to be under the government of one, and also that it was not a pattern of government for the church now, but only a figure of Christ to them, to whom all things almost were delivered in figures and shadows. 
Arg. 4. Bellarm.  But master Bellarmine's fourth argument hath yet less weight than any of the rest. The church saith he is compared to an Army, to Man's body, or a beautiful woman, to a kingdom, a Ssheepfold, a house, Noah's ark, but no army without a general, no body without a head, no wife without a husband, no kingdom without a king, no shipfold without a shepherd, no house without a steward, no ship but hath a master. We grant all this, 
Answer.  and as Saint Augustine saith of the head so we may say of all these similitudes for Christ can not be called a head, 
Praefat. in ps. 139  if there be no body whereof he should be head. And these names are bestowed upon the church, and belong unto her no otherwise then as we have respect unto Christ, that is our general, head, husband, king, shepherd, householder, and shipmaster. And I cannot but muse at the great ignorance or wilfulness that master Bellarmine showeth in this argument, who knowing the nature of relatives to be such as that the one of them dependeth on the other, so that the one cannot be without the other: & knowing also that the wife is so called in respect of her husband, and the husband so called in respect that he hath a wife: yet he shames not to affirm, that the church here upon earth may well be compared to a wife, not having respect to Christ her husband. It may be his meaning is, to rake again out of the chenel, that filthy & blasphemous cannon, 
De Immunit. m. 6. e Quoniam.  wherein the pope maketh claim to be the husbaud of the church, which title the scriptures ascribe to Christ only. To his fifth argument and his third I answered together: his sixth argument is this. 
Bell. arg. 6.  Bishops are well set to have authority over Ministers, Archbishops over Bishops, therefore also there must be one over all others. 
Answer.  But this proveth not that which fame he would prove, that by God's word one must have rule over al. Seventhly (saith master Bellarmine) the church must still increase, 
Bell. arg. 7.  but it can not increase unless one man be above the rest to take this care, therefore one must be chief above all other. And cannot the church increase except one be among the rest to command all others? 
Answer.  Who commanded Saint Paul to preach as he did in many places? Not Peter. But they will say he was extraordinarily called. And they that are extraordinarily called must now by the pope's laws be allowed by the pope.  
But to let this pass, 
Ruffin. hist. eccl. lib. 1. cap. 9  Parthia to Thomas, Aethiopia to Matthew, India to Bartholomew were appointed to preach in, not at Peter's commandment but by lot. Not Peter, but Thomas moved thereunto by God sent Thadde unto Edessa. So that we see Master Bellarmine's minor proposition to be very false. For the kingdom of Christ may well be increased without the Pope's supremacy. As than it was, so now I say it may be, yea and is increased mightily, although the Pope do not only grieve at it, but also strive against it. 
Bellar. arg. 8.  Lastly there must be unity in faith (saith Master Bellarmine) but that cannot be, unless all be under one, therefore one must have the rule over all. 
Answer.  In deed it cannot be denied, but that one man being of authority in the church of God, may many times do much good, either to confirm the godly, or daunt the courage of the contentious. But if this authority be bestowed upon the ungodly, it doth much hurt, and it is then found true that the wiseman saith. 
Prover. 29. 2.  When the wicked bear rule the people sigh. Neither can we have a better example of this, then in the Bishops of Rome that have been these many hundred of years, who to get the sovereignty above all authority, omit no practices, shame not of any treacheries, spare not any shedding of blood, but forget all duty, all nature, all humanity, all christianity, so that they may have the commanding of all the world. And for their unity in faith, 
Popish unity.  it is a kind of unity, but in hypocrisy not in verity. Against God's undoubted word, against Christ and his office, 
Psal. 2. 2. Unity without supremacy.  his merit and satisfaction, even such a unity as David speaketh of, against the Lord and against his anointed. But can there be no unity in faith, but where there is supremacy in authority? Yes, if we mark the histories we shall find, that there was never so good consent in sound doctrine, as when this supremacy was not hatched. A question concerning circumcision, fell among the christians, in the Apostles time. 
Act. 15. ●.  The matter was referred unto the Apostles. The Apostles and elders came together to look to this matter. After much disputation Peter gave his judgement of god's goodness towards the Gentiles. To that end also Paul and Barnabas told how wonderfully God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And last of all james concluded, according to whose direction the matter was defined. Now what supremacy was in this counsel. The Papists tell us that Peter was chief here, but this is but a bold assertion, vow of all proof. For first the words do not show that Peter called them together but the contrary rather Which Saint Luke would not have omitted, if Peter by any superior authority that he had over them, had called them. Neither did Peter speak first. For before he spoke there was much disputation, neither did he give definitive sentence in the counsel, but Saint james, as doth easily appear to them that compare the words that he did speak, with the Epistle that they did write, concerning the matter in controversy. So that if there were then any chief it was Saint james, and not Saint Peter. The like also I might show out of some other of the first counsels following. Of which because I shall have better occasion after to entreat, I trust this may suffice, to show that without supremacy, unity in faith may be maintained, and therefore that the minor proposition in this argument is false. And thus have I briefly r●●ne over the arguments, that are alleged by Master Bellarmine to prove this sovereign Monarchy, 
De Rom pontiff. lib. 1. cap. 9  which he saith must be in God's church, rather pointing to them, than prosecuting any of them. Against all which I wilt oppose one only argument, which I would desire Master Bellarmine or some friend of his, 
An argument against the visible head over the whole church.  at their good leisure to answer. No invisible body, can have a visible head, for that were a monster in nature. But the universal or catholic church is an invisible body, for things that are universal are not seen with the eye, but conceived in the mind and understanding. Therefore the catholic church must not have a visible head. But all this that Master Bellarmine hath hitherto spoken, of the necessity of having one supreme governor of the whole church, is rather an inducement, to make men think that they have some reason for this supremacy in the church, than any strong argument, whereby they think to carry away the weight of the matter. But the very strength and stay of this their doctrine is contained in this one syliogisme whatsoever 
The Papists argument for the supremacy.  jurisdiction Christ gave to Peter and not to the rest of the Apostles, all that belongeth to the church of Rome: but Christ gave unto Peter jurisdiction, over the universal church and not to the rest of the Apostles: therefore the Bishop or church of Rome hath jurisdiction over all churches, or over the universal church. And in this argument is contained, not only all that Master Bellarmine can say, but all that they all can allege for this matter, and therefore it is the more diligently to be examined. And to begin with the minor, wherein is affirmed what jurisdiction or power over others Peter had, Master Bellarmine doth confidently and plainly affirm, 
De pontiff. Rom. lib. 1. cap 10. Whether Christ have resigned his place.  That Saint Peter is appointed of Christ himself, in Christ his place, the head and prince of the church, or these are his very words. What, is Christ weary of his office? hath he given over his interest, hath he resigned his right unto Saint Peter? If he have so done, it is more than Saint Paul knew, who after that Christ had left the world, yet still he took Christ for the head of the church, as appeareth by his epistle to the Ephesians and to the Colossians. 
Ephes. 1. 22 and 4. 15. and 5. 23. Coloss. 1. 18.  Yea Saint Peter himself, seemeth not to know so much. For when he calleth him the head corner stone, 
Acts 4. 11.  he meaneth doubtless in the building of God's spiritual house, which is the church. And yet master Bellarmine seemeth to tell us 〈◊〉 when he telleth us that Saint Peter is head in Christ's place: For Christ must leave his place before S. Peter can be in his place. 
●ad Popes.  A meaner place would very well have contented Saint Peter. As for many of them who in our father's days and ours, have bragged that they are Peter's successors, deserve not to be dog-drivers out of a poor parish church wherein godly christians are assembled much less to be universal bishops over the whole world. Neither standeth the church of Christ now in need of any such lieutenant, seeing Christ is much more effectually with his church now, than he was with the people of the jews, when he was conversant upon the earth. For he that promised that he would be with us always, 
Mat. 28. 25. Ioh 14. 16, 17.  even unto the end of the world, and that he would pray the father, and he should give us another comforter, which should abide with us for ever, enen the spirit of truth he I say by the same spirit whom he hath made his vicar general, 
De prescript. haeretie.  as before I alleged out of Tertullian, doth husband the earth of our hearts to make them fruitful, and is Christ's vicar in all places, with all persons, to supply all their wants. So that he which in respect of his bodily presence could at no time be but in one place, by the piercing power of his spirit, is at once every where. And therefore is he much more present now in the spirit, than before in the flesh, because before he could be at once but with a few of the faithful, whereas now he is withal at one instant. It is therefore overmuch boldness in master Bellarmine, either to thrust Christ out of his office, to lay the same upon Peter, or else to imagine that Christ is not better able by his spirit, then by the pope, to execute the same. His judgement is also very hard, wherein he pronounceth that to say, that saint Peter's supremacy is not instituted by Christ, it is not a simple error, but a detestable heresy. This I am sure of, 
De simply. prel.  that not only some private men as Cyprian have thought all the Apostles, to be of as great honour and power as was Peter, but ever some councils have thought, that the B. of Rome, who thinketh by succession from Peter, he hath as good right thereto as Peter had, yet had not from Christ any right to the supremacy. 
Concil. Carth. 6.  For the sixth council of Carthage where Faustinus and others were legates from the pope, would not yield that sovereignty to the bishop of Rome, although his legates did most earnestly seek it, not only by their diligent endeavour, but also by alleging false canons of the Nicen council, thinking thereby to have deceived them. And although this were a great foil to the church of Rome, yet their ambitious and aspiring minds would not suffer them to be quiet, but within a little time after, they attempt the like in the counsel of Chalcedon. 
Galced. Concil. Act. 16.  Paschasinus and Lucentius being the pope's legates, Paschasinus alleged a decree, as if it had been out of the Nicen council, That the the church of Rome always had the supremacy, but the council finding, that there was not there any such decree, did ordain that the bishop of Constantinople, should have as great, even such like privileges as the bishop of Rome had. Which had been more wickedly ordained of them, if Rome by Christ had the supremacy, than we may imagine so many godly fathers assembled together would have done. Yea that we may know, that at that time if bishops of Rome, had any privilege above other bishops, they did not think it was so by Christ's institution, they set down the reason, why the church of Rome was more honoured than the rest. Even because it was the imperial city as also Ireny long before them did testify.  
And this made the fathers of the council of Chalcedon the 
Lib. ●. cap. 3.  bolder, to yield to Constantinople (which they called new Rome) such privileges, because it was now become also an imperial city. Thus we see these learned writers Ireny and Cyprian, and all the fathers of these two counsels, learned and many did not think, nor would confess, that this supremacy was Christ's institution, and yet master Bellarmine's sharp pen hath pricked them all with one dash as guilty not of simple error, but of pestilent heresy. Now we must needs imagine, that he would never burst out into these excessive speeches, as if he were ravished, and besides himself (as in these two points mentioned it may appear) unless his opinion rested upon a sure ground. Let us therefore examine his proofs, and try the weight of his reasons.  
This most necessary controversy, 
Barenes of proof for the supremacy.  as the church of Rome esteemeth it, hath not in all the scriptures any good warrant, even in master Bellarmine's own opinion, but in one place. For as concerning those prerogatives which after he speaketh off, they are rather motives to draw us, or probable conjectures to persuade us, then strong arguments to prove, or sufficient reasons to convince and force us to believe. I say they have but one authority of Scripture that they rest upon, because that place out of the sixteenth of Saint Matthewes gospel, 
De pontiff. Rom. li. 1. cap. 12.  is but a promise as master Bellarmine himself confesseth, of that which was afterwards given, when Christ commanded him to feed his sheep, so that one is not perfect without the other. But let us see what jurisdiction is promised in the one, and then also what is given in the other unto Peter. 
Mat. 16. 13.  Our Saviour Christ enquiring of his disciples what opinion other men had of him, they answered, some say that thou art john Baptist, some Elias, some jeremias, or one of the Prophets, and ask of them what they thought of him, Simon Peter answered thou art Christ the son of the living God. And jesus answered and said unto him, happy art thou Simon the son of jona, for flesh and blood hath not opened that unto thee, but my father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind in earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt lose in earth, shall be loosed in heaven. These are the words that must strengthen and stay this stately building of the pope's supremacy, or else it is like to fall. Out of which master Bellarmine draweth two arguments. First that Saint Peter is the foundation, secondly that he is the key carrier of the church, and therefore that he must be the supreme head of the church. The first is taken out of these words, Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church. The plain meaning of which words I take to be this. When first I took thee to be an Apostle, I said thou shouldest be called Cephas which is by interpretation a stone. 
john. 1. 42.  Thou shalt show thyself so to be indeed, and that I have named thee so truly, for in this confession that thou hast made of me thou shalt hereafter continue so constant that thou shalt die in it. And therefore because thou shalt be so constant thou art Peter or Cephas indeed. As for this confession that thou hast made, all my faithful people shall settle and stay themselves thereupon, in all conflicts of conscience, so that no terror of hell shall be able to discourage or disamaie them.  
But master Bellarmine out of this doth gather that the church is built upon Peter, as upon a foundation. Yet I trust he will not deny, that Christ is such a foundation, as there is no other, because S. Paul telleth us, 
1. Cor. 3. 11.  that other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid▪ which is jesus Christ Of this foundation God speaketh by his prophet Esay, 
Esy. 28. 16.  behold I will lay in Zion a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation. Then this being granted that Christ is this special foundation, and the only sure groundwork in this building, I trust it will be the easier to know, what place belongeth to Peter but the later of these two places by me alleged, 
Bellarm, maketh the Popethis' stone, or Peter praefat. i● lib. de pontiff, Rom.  which is only verified of Christ, and of him only meant, most profanely doth master Bellarmine apply to saint Peter, and so to the church of Rome, & that very particularly: making it thestone tried with persecutions, with heresies which the pride of the Greek church, with stiffness of some emperors, with schisms, with wicked pope's, The corner stone that joineth into one church, the jews and the Gentiles, The precious stone because she is rich in ceremonies, and sacraments, in pardons, in councils, in interpretation. of scriptures and such like: And last of all the sure foundation. But here master Bellarmine is forced to grant, that Peter is but a secondary foundation and not the principal foundation, for that Christ only is. This discourse of his, maketh me remember friar Toittis, 
Acts and Monument.  otherwise called friar Paternoster, who upon a great controversy that arose in Scotland concerning the lords prayer, whether it might be said unto the Saints or not, being entreated (as a man belike most sufficient) to deal in the matter, coming into the pulpit at Saint Andrews where this controversy was, began in particular to show how every petition might be made unto the saints, until he came to the fourth petition, wherein he was feign to confess, that the saints cannot give us our daily bread, and so with shame bewrayed his own folly, and the feebleness, or rather the falseness of his cause. Even so master Bellarmine, robbing Christ of his ornaments that he may deck therewith, that whorish synagogue, which untruly he callet Peter's seat, having besides all learning, nay contrary to the sincerity of a christian divine, most blasphemously, applied unto that Romish seat, that which belongeth unto Christ only, and is one of his most especial and peculiar marks whereby he is set forth as the promised saviour, that he should be the corner stone, tried, and precious: Yet is he in the end forced to confess, that the sure foundation cannot be found but in Christ, although he would seem to apply that title, to that seat also. I would hardly have thought that, a man so learned as master Bellarmine in these our days, wherein knowledge aboundeth, 
Christ only the stone. Mat. 21 42. Rom. 9 33. Ephes. 2. 14, 15, 16, 10. Act. 4 12. 1 pet. 2. 6.  would ever have abused Gods sacred word in such sort. That this is only true in Christ, our Saviour Christ himself, out of the Prophet David teacheth. S. Paul agreeth to the same, not only writing to the Ronanes, but also to the Ephesians, showing how he only can be as a corner stone, gathering and knitting together the jews and Gentiles. S. Peter also himself maketh Christ to be this stone. It is not a sufficient excuse for master Bellarmine, that he acknowledgeth, that the prophet Esay speaketh especially of Christ, and then to apply it unto the church of Rome. For seeing the scriptures with so great consent, do acknowledge Christ to be that tried and and precious corner stone, 
Ephes. 2. 14.  and therefore do call him the corner stone, because he hath made of jew and Gentile one, breaking down the stop of the partition wall. In whom all the building coupled together, groweth to a holy temple in the Lord, 
21.  which is a thing that not one but Christ can perform, let us know, that to give this title to any other, is to rob Christ of his glory. And yet as though master Bellarmine had not powered out already blasphemies enough, he prosecuteth wickedly, that which absurdly he hath begun, 
Bellarmine's blasphemies, Esay 8. 14. Matt. 21. 44.  adding, that this their Romish church is the stone of offence, and stumbling block, upon which stone he that falleth shall be broken, but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder. But howsoever it pleaseth master Bellarmine, to brag of the might and majesty of the church of Rome, we see that the hath lost many kingdoms, that sometime served her. And where her power is greatest, we see that many fall ●ayly from her: and that such as do so, have no cause to repent it, but that God aideth them with his wonderful and merciful hand, and prosecuteth them with many blessings.  
But to return unto master Bellarmine's argument again: Upon this rock I will build my church. The foundation of a house hath two respects: First, it holdeth up the whole building, which being coupled together in it, groweth to be an house, as before I have showed out of saint Paul's epistle to the Ephesians, and thus Christ only is the foundation of his church, as he is also the head, whereof all the body furnished and knit together with joints and bands, increaseth with the increasing of God. 
Coloss. 2. 19  This foundation or head none can be but Christ. Secondly the foundation is as it were a direction and rule, for the building of the rest of the house. For it must be made, according to the length and breadth of the foundation. In which respect the Apostles are called foundations in the revelation, foundations I say in this church of God. 
Apocal. 21. 14. Ephes. 2. 20.  And so doth the apostle say that the church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. 
How the Apostles are foundations.  And whether they be called foundations in respect of their doctrine as Saint Ambrose thinketh, or because they were first laid in the building, as Theophilact seemeth to affirm: 
Amb. on these words Ephes. 2. Theoph. Eph. 2.  yet are they not such foundations as can hold up this building: but such only as by their doctrine and faith, must be a pattern and platform, for all other builders to build by, that they go not out of that rule and square, which is most fit for God's house. And thus we confess that Saint Peter is a foundation as also all the Apostles are. 
Chrysost. in Eph. 〈◊〉 6.  And that which chrysostom writeth upon this place, is in my judgement a strong argument, against this secondary foundation, which they say Peter is, because he will have the building so coupled wit● t●e foundation, as that there shallbe nothing between them. But most plainly in his commentaries upon the epistle to the Corinthians he will have nothing between us and Christ, no distance between the head and the body. 
Hom. 8.  As he proveth by examples of the head and the body, the branch and the tree, the building and the foundation. For if the head be from the body, but the thickness of a sword it dieth. If the branch be cut from the tree, never so little, it withereth. If the house be not joined upon the foundation, it falleth. How then can we have any secondary foundation in the church of God, without the ruin of the whole church.  
The Apostles therefore may well be foundations (as I have before said, either because that they are (as it were) the first stones that are laid, upon Christ, in this building, or because of their doctrine whereupon our faith is grounded, but otherwise, we can not admit them all, or any one of them, whether Peter, or any other, to be a foundation, in this building. So that all the pains that master Bellarmine taketh, to prove, that this rock must needs signify Peter himself, is more than needeth: for we will confess, that he and the rest of the Apostles, are foundations in the church. But if after some more peculiar sort, he will have him a foundation, neither hath he proved it by that which he urgeth out these words, upon this rock, neither yet by that universal consent of the church that he braggeth of. For the fathers do in sundry sorts expound these words, some by this rock understand Peter as he was an apostle, and teacher of the word of God. And so may the fathers be understood that are in this chapter alleged by master Bellarmine. For he can not reason thus: He is called a foundation, therefore he is a foundation after some other manner than the other Apostles. Some by this rock understand Christ whom Peter confessed. So doth saint Augustine, 
In Ioh Tract. 124. & Retract. lib. 1. cap. 21.  upon this rock which thou hast confessed (saith he) I will build my church: now the rock that he confessed was Christ. There are also sundry that by this rock understand the confession that Peter made, as Hilary, Ambrose, chrysostom and Cyril. But none of these interpretations can please our Romish rabbiss, but that only that makes Peter the foundation in Christ's place, which can not out of any of these expositions be gathered. S. Augustine, master Bellarmine saith, was deceived, because he knew not the Hebrew tongue: but yet saint Augustine's words teach us, that in his time this place was not by consent of the godly, so expounded as now the Papists expound it, but only that there were sundry expositions of sundry men: and that saint Augustine liked this of his best. How happeneth it then that master Bellarmine with a great crack saith he hath the consent of the whole church? Where is their catholic doctrine even in this point, that which now the church of Rome teacheth, was not in saint Augustine's days catholic. But to to prove this doctrine to be catholic, he saith, 
De pontiff. Rom. lib. 1. cap. 10 De locis Theolog. lib. 6. The Papists bely the Chalcedon council.  The whole Council of Chalcedon wherein were 630. fathers call Peter the Rock and Bank of the church so also saith Melchior Canus. But both of them by shameless lies do seek to abuse the simplicity of the ignorant. Paschasinus or Paschasius he only said so, who was Legat there for Leo, bishop of Rome, and sought by all means possible, to advance that seat above all others, as may appear in that place, especially in the sixteenth action of that council, 
Act. 3. Act. 16.  and yet these men do not shame to say that the whole council said so. As for that other sense of those words received by Hillary, 
The papists do shift oft the fathers.  Ambrose, chrysostom and Ciril, which take Peter's confession to be that rock, master Bellarmine would shift that off with this answer, that they only speak of that faith, that Peter as a pastor of the church had, not of the faith without respect of Peter's person. And yet Hillary saith not, 
De trinit. lib. 6.  upon the rock of this pastors confession, but Upon this rock of confession. And also not this man's faith, but This faith is the foundation of the Church, by reason of this faith, the gates of hell can do nothing against it, this faith hath the keys of the kingdom of heaven. 
Ambros. in Lu●. lib. 6. cap. 9  Saint Ambrose in the words alleged by master Bellarmine, speaketh also of faith absolutely, without having respect to Peter, as also he doth in sundry other places of that book. Yea he telleth us there, that whosoever overcometh the flesh, is a foundation in the church, and speaking of this rock, he would that every one should have within himself this rock, which cannot be understood of this confession as it hath respect to Peter. The like also may be said for chrysostom and Cirill, but this I trust is sufficient to show the vanity of his answer, which is so flat against the words of those fathers. For they speak of that faith, because it hath respect unto Christ, and master Bellarmine would have it imagined that they commend this faith as it cometh from Peter and because it is his. And that master Bellarmine would seem out of Hillary to confirm, 
Bellarmine dealeth subtly out of ●iillary.  wherein yet he showeth no plain dealing. For whereas Hillary saith after, by the confession of his happy faith, he deserved a high place, or rather as the older copies do read exceeding glory, master Bellarmine doth not only out of this doubtful reading gather the strength of his argument, preferring the new reading before the old copy, in that paint disclaiming from antiquity; but also to better his bad cause, whereas Hillary himself showeth in plain words, that this exceeding glory is this, that he thrice heard these words, feed my sheep, yet he would make us believe, that it consisteth in this that Peter is the head, foundation and key carrier. Fie upon popery, that ever it should so stiffly be maintained, and yet cannot be defended, but by lying and falsifying.  
And thus having answered, the most forcible proofs that master Bellarmine bringeth, to prove that the church must be built upon Peter: I would on the other side wish him to consider how weak a foundation he and his fellows do build upon. For Peter did not only by evil council, 
The weakness of Peter to be a foundation. Matth. 16. 23.  seek to hinder his master Christ in the work of our redemption, for which he was bitterly reproved, go behind me Satan, thou art (saith Christ) an offence unto me, because thou understandest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men, but also afterwards deny his master Christ, 
Matth. 26. 74.  and that with cursing and swearing: but having received the spirit of God, and being enabled as much as ever he was, to the work of the Lord, yet by Peter's fault, Barnabas and other were brought into dissimulation, so that they walked not the right way, 
Gal. 2. 13, 14.  to the truth of the gospel. And therefore he was withstood even to his face by Paul, because he was worthy to be blamed. So that even then, if there had been no better or surer foundation, to have builded the church upon than Peter, the building might well have run to one side. But thanks be unto God that we have a surer rock. 
Peter not the foundation.  But what will he and his fellows say, to that most gross absurdity that followeth this their doctrine? For if Peter be the foundation of the church, what answer will they make to them, that think the time was when the church was only in the virgin Mary? Upon 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 law, when there was not so much as a high priest among the people. Then was there a church as all men confess, and therefore it must needs also then have a foundation, but it could not be Peter. For he had these words spoken unto him almost 4000 years after the church began. And could it stand and flourish so many years, builded only upon Christ the sure foundation, and shall we now think that this foundation beginneth to shrink, or is less able to uphold this building, so that it must needs have Saint Peter to help to hold it up, for fear of falling? God forbidden that ever christians should have so foolish thoughts, and yet these and such like absurdities must follow this doctrine. But to conclude this point I reason thus. 
That is now that always was the foundation.  That only must be the foundation of the church now, which was in the time of the law and before the law, but then there was no other foundation but Christ, therefore now there must be no other. I mean no other especial or particular foundation. My mayor or first proposition is grounded upon Master Bellarmine's words. 
De Pontif. Rom. ●. 1. cap. 9 Rat. 5.  For going about to prove that the monarchy must be in the church, he yieldeth this reason, because in Christ's time it was governed by one, and if now it be not so governed, than it is not the same church, or the same city of God.  
Now thus I reason for proof of my mayor. If the not having of that outward form of government 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 having of the same outward government, doth make it to be not the same church, therefore much more if it be altered in the foundation. And to say 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 any other foundation besides Christ, is nothing else then to deny Christ to be a corner stone, that joineth 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 appear, that as this interpretation of these words upon this rock I will build my church, that is upon Peter, is not catholic, so the doctrine that followeth thereupon is absurd. Let us now consider what weight there is in his second argument which he wringeth out of the word of building. 
De Pontif. Rom. lib. 1. cap. 11. Bellar. his 2. Arg. to build is to rule.  Wherein he affirmeth, (and in truth doth but affirm, for he can prove nothing at all) that to build is to rule. Indeed he allegeth 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, 
Answer.  therefore to build is to rule? Such a show of proof, may perchance seem glorious in the eyes of them that have no love to the truth, but they are too too foolish that will be caught with such baits. That to build is not to rule I prove thus.  
A man buildeth to have a house, that he may rule, and he cannot rule, but that first the house must be made. So that indeed building in the house ceaseth, when ruling beginneth, when the house is made, then is it ruled. With much like dexterity he will prove that the foundation doth rule the house. In the end if you will hear him, he will make you believe, that the house ruleth the master, not the master the house. But let us grant Master Bellarmine this which so earnestly he seeketh for. Let us yield that to build is to rule, what is then out of these words to be gathered? Upon this rock 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 us go forward, that we may see what help unto this popish supremacy, the words following do bring: unto thee will I give (saith Christ) the keys of the kingdom of heaven etc. Here Master Bellarmine is very earnest to prove, that these keys were delivered to Peter: 
Lib. 1. cap. 1●.  but that we deny not. But it is Master Bellarmine's bad hap, many times to take great pains fortify, where the enemy assaulteth him not, & to prove that which no body denieth. That we may join in some issue, we will easily confess that the keys were delivered to Peter. What then? Were they delivered to him alone? 
To whom the keys were given.  No Master Bellarmine himself confesseth and that oftentimes, neither can he deny it if he would, the fathers do so generally affirm it, that this great authority was committed to all the Apostles. Wherein then do we dissent? Forsooth Master Bellarmine telleth us that the other Apostles had this authority, 
Ibidem. The keys by commission.  but as Christ's legates, or by especial commission, but to be under Peter. Whereas Peter had it as his ordinary jurisdiction. 
By ordinary jurisdiction.  Now this he should prove, but he leaveth it with a bare affirmation, so that you are not bound to believe him. But we see that which here is promised unto Peter alone, whether because he alone took upon him to answer Christ's question, or that Christ therein would signify the unity of the church, as some of the fathers affirm, or because he was a figure of the church, 
In joh. Tract. 124.  as Saint Augustine saith, that I say which is here promised to him alone is in Matthew xviii. promised to all, and that Master Bellarmine himself cannot deny, 
Matth. 18. 18. lib. 1. cap. 12.  although he affirm it to be in all but Peter, a legantine, in him an ordinary power.  
And this promise is performed to all john the xx. in these words receive the holy ghost, 
john 20 23. That the promise M●t 16. belongeth, to all the Apostles.  whose sins soever ye remit, they are remitted, and whose sins ye retain, they are retained. And Theophilact doth expound these words of Matthew the sixteenth (which here I have in hand) by this place of saint john saying, that in that place of saint Matthew that is promised, that is here given, and that this power belongeth unto all. What can be more plain to prove, that although Christ spoke unto Peter only in that first place, to thee will I give the keys, yet they were given to all? Why should we then trust the bare assertions of master Bellarmine, or any other, that the keys are not in like manner given to all, when we see, that God's word maketh no difference between them. But master Bellarmine, because we go about truly with Theophilact to expound this promise to thee I will give the keys, by that of john whose sins so ever ye remit they are remitted, etc. would feign make us believe if we will trust him of his bare word, that Theophilact and we are deceived, and that Christ in these words of saint john, doth only give power of order, whereas in Matthew he promiseth power of jurisdiction. And the better to persuade us, 
Power of Order jurisdiction  he telleth us, that to keep a man's sins, is not a matter of so great power, as to bind a man's sins. And yet saint Ambrose, whose credit is far above master Belarmines', doth use the words of remitting & losing, retaining and binding indifferently the one for the other. And therefore this is but a blind cavil, to keep the light of the truth under a bushel.  
If we prove out of Cyprian, 
To bind and retain sin is all one ●e poenitentia lib 1, cap. 2. Bellar. his shifts. De simple prel.  that all the Apostles were of like honour and power. They were (saith he) alike in their apostleship, and had all one authority over christian people, but were not alike among themselves. The words of Cyprian have no limitation, but maketh all of like power, and of like honour. But master Bellarmine like false mates that do wash and clip the coin, whereby they make it of less value so doth he by such s●eights seek to diminish the force of such authorities as are brought against him But what reason hath he so to expound Saint Cyprian? Because he saith in that Book, that beginning proceedeth from a unity to show, that the church is one. Thus then doth he reason. The Church proceedeth from one or from unity: Therefore Peter is above all the Apostles. 
Bellar. argument hath no necessary consequence.  Let other judge of his argument, I see not out of this how he can prove, that Peter hath such superiority over the Apostles, as that he may exercise jurisdiction over them, which is that the church of Rome must prove, if Peter's supremacy shall do them good.  
Seeing therefore it appeareth by that which hath been spoken, that not Peter only, but all the apostles in like manner received the keys, 
Cont. jovin. li. ●  as Saint Hierome testifieth that is power to retain or remit, to bind and loose, although it were said to Peter, To thee I will give the keys, yet it is manifest that for his sake only it was not spoken, or the use of the keys, to him only was not promised, but in and by him, Christ spoke to all, without giving less power to them or more to him. And thus much concerning this question to whom the keys were given. Now must we see what these keys are, 
What these ke●● are.  that so we may examine, what that is which they say is given to Peter in this promise.  
Master Bellarmine affirmeth, 
De pontiff. Rom. li. 1. cap. 13. Beliarmines' 1. argument to prove the keys to signify rule over the whole church. Esay 22. 22.  that they all understand by the keys, the sovereign or chief pnwer over the whole church. And that it must so be he proveth thus. In the Prophet Esay is described the deposing of one high priest, and placing of an other by the delivering of the keys. And the keys of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder, and he shall open and none shall shut, 
Bellarm. falsifieth the scripture.  and he shall shut, and no man shall open. Sincere dealing would become all men, especially in God's cause, which is far from master Bellarmine, as in many other places, so here also. For Eliachim of whom the promise was made in this place, 
2. Chron. 31. 10.  was not high priest. Indeed Azariah was high priest in the days of Ezechiah. Neither yet was there ever any such high priest as Shebnah, whom God threateneth in that place. Whosoever marketh either the pedigree of priests in the scriptures, or in josephus, he shall find it to be most false and untrue, that here master Bellarmine so boldly affirmeth.  
But this Eliachim was one of the princes whom Ezechiah, sent to Rabsache, 
2. Kings 18. 18.  whom in that place the Septuagint do call the Ruler of the house, as also in the seven and thirtieth verse of that chapter. And the prophet Esay in the six and thirty chapter and two and twentieth verse, they call him the Master of the household. And indeed the Hebrew words do teach him to be one that was over the house, as also Saint Hierome yea and their own old translation do translate those words of Esay. And Saint Hierome in his commentaries upon that place calleth him master or overseer of the house. 
Antiq. li. 10. ca 1.  And so josephus also doth witness that he was one of Ezechias especially friends (as it may also appear in that he sent him to Rabsache) and his lieutenant or vicegerent, or doer for him, let the indifferent reader now judge, whether this be good dealing in master Bellarmine, thus to abuse the simplicity of his reader, and the credulity of his friends, who he hopeth will not examine that he writeth, whether it have weight or not, but will take all for gold, that he giveth, if it look yellow. Thus against all truth to affirm Eliachim to be high priest is too bad. And to offer by such proof as could not but be uncertain even to himself, to prove so weighty a matter, whereupon so great controversy in religion hangeth, doth not only proclaim that all may hear it, the weakness of his cause, but also that his endeavour is, to keep under the truth, that it appear not. And thus much to lay open his falsehood in his first reason: Now let us see the weakness of his second.  
To bind and loose (saith he) is to command, 
Bellarm. ●. arg.  and to punish, and to dispense, and to remit. But Peter could bind and loose. What now will Master Bellarmine conclude. Therefore (saith he) he is judge and prince of all that are in the church, we will not much stand with him in his mayor, although it might have been uttered in plainer terms. 
Answer.  For this authority of binding and losing is so committed unto the church, that the power to do it, is tied not to the man but to the ministery, not to the material church, but to the word. And therefore we cannot simply say that to bind and loose, is to command or punish, but to command according to the word, and to punish according to the direction of it. For we must not imagine, that God must be the executioner of our own decrees, or tied to allow of our judgements, but that we are the proclaimers of his judgements, and must pronounce what God in his revealed word hath already set down. And also the word of dispensing, though it may perchance have a good understanding, as if thereby we mean the mean the ordering and bestowing of the word, 
1. Cor. 4. 1.  in respect whereof, the ministers are called stewards or disposers of the secrets of God: so must we take heed, that thereby we give not to any man, saint Peter or any other, liberty to dispense at their pleasure, and to order as they will the people of God. For as magistrates if they do not govern according to law, abuse their authority and do degenerate into tyrants: so ministers of the word, if they serve from the word, are but seducers. The mayor I say being rightly understood we do yield unto, and the minor is also true, that Peter could bind and loose. But master Bellarmine's conclusion doth not agree with these propositions neither can it follow, if they be granted. 
Daniel 2.  It hangeth no better together then daniel's image of sundry metals, that could not long hold together. But this must be master Bellarmine's conclusion to bind and loose, is to commanded, punish, dispense, and remit, in such sort as I have already showed, but saint Peter could bind and loose, therefore saint Peter might command, punish, dispense and remit, as hath been showed. This must be master Bellarmine's conclusion, but this will not serve master Bellarmine's turn: For every minister should so do, and not Peter only. And all this is done by the ministry of the word in every pastors several charge, if the minister be faithful in his office. Seeing his second argument concludeth nothing against us, what doth his third and last argument? 
Bellarm. 3. argument out of the Fathers.  He promiseth by the fathers to prove, that these keys are a sovereign and chief authority over the whole church. What, will he bring us a catholic erposition, received by all or most of the godly learned, at all times, in all places, agreed upon with one consent? For otherwise it is not catholic. No. But he telleth us of two of the father's only. And the one of them being himself a pope, and in such times as that before his days this superiority over all, had been sundry ways sought for by the Bishop of Rome: his credit is in this point not much worth against us.  
As for Chrisostom who is the other witness that must prove that by the keys Christ meaneth this vinuersal jurisdiction: 
chrysostom examined. In Mat, hom. 55.  First he reasoneth in that very place where these words are, against the Arrians or some such heretics, as made Christ not equal to the father, and insulteth against them by occasion of this place. The father (saith he) gave unto Peter the revelation of the son. But the son gave unto him partly that he might sow through the whole earth, this revelation both of the father and of the son: partly that he being a mortal man, should be endued with heavenly power, and have the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And it followeth there in Chrisostom, how then is he less, that wrought this in Peter? So then to prove Christ to be equal unto the father in power, he showeth that he wrought, if not more mightily, yet as powerful in Peter as the father did.  
And upon this occasion he thus amplifieth this excellency of Peter, as also he doth a little before in respect of that universal church that Christ committed to him, which charge the rest also had. For all the apostles were general Preachers, wheresoever God called them. 
Ibidem,  And therefore Chrisostom doth say of them all, not of Peter only, that they were the teachers of the world. And in another place that there were two pairs of the apostles that held this headship. 
In Matt. hom. 38  And yet Peter might better than any of the rest, be called the pastor or head of the church, that were of the twelve, because the charge of the jews wheresoever they were in any place, were committed to him without any limitation of nation or country wherein they lived. Seeing therefore his proofs whereby he endeavoureth to prove these keys to signify that universal and sovereign authority over the whole church, are either so false or faulty that they are not worth alleging, as are his two reasons taken out of scripture, or so feeble that they can have no strength, as this out of chrysostom: I see no reason why we should yield either to scriptures, so falsely or foolishly applied, or much less to the sayings of men, so hardly construed.  
For as before I have admonished, it is one thing to have an excellency or superiority among others in some respects of other men's yeldings: another thing to have jurisdiction, of his own right and interest, over all other. The first we confess was in Peter, but that will nothing at all help the Pope, or the jurisdiction of the church of Rome. 
An argument against this exposition of the Papists.  Against the interpretation of the popish church thus I reason. If these keys belong to all them, that have outained that grace of God, to be called to the function of a bishop, (I speak not of the hononr, but of the office) then is no chief authority signifieth thereby, (for where many are equal there is no man chief) But these keys belong unto all such as Theaphilact doth testify, 
Theoph, in Mat. 16.  therefore no such chief authority is signified thereby. For my minor proposition that every bishop or pastor hath such authority, or such keys, besides the testimony of Theophilact, we have most plain proof out of God's word. 
Mat. 16. 18. An argument to prove my minor. john 20, 23.  Whatsoever is promised Matthew the sixteenth chapter in these words, I will give thee the keys, is performed john the twentieth chapter, in these words, whose sins ye remit they are remitted, and whose sins ye retain they are retained: but in Saint john, no chief power is given, but such as is general and common to all the apostles, therefore in Saint Matthew there is not promised any chief power, but such as is common to them all, 
De Pontif. Rom, lib. 1. cap. 12. 13.  and so to all pastors in them. My minor needeth no proof for it is confessed by master Bellarmine. But master Bellarmine denieth my mayor, 
A reply against Bellarmine's answer to the mayor,  and yet hath no ground of his denial, but this only, that he taketh it not be all one to bind and to retain sins or sinners, and to lose or remit. Which subtle difference the fathers did not see. And therefore Theophilact doth not only expound this place of Matthew the sixteenth chapter by that place out of Saint john the twentieth chapter, making this later to be a performance of that promise, I will give thee the keys, but also he flattely there opposeth remitting to binding, whereas by master Bellarmine's doctrine, if he had been brought up in his school, he should have set remitting against retaining, 
Bellarm. cap. 12 & 13. lib. 1. ●epoenitentia lib. 1. cap. 2.  and not against binding. For (saith he) it is a greater matter to bind, then to retain, to lose then to remit. Saint Ambrose also maketh to bind and to retain, to remit, and to lose all one. For, whilst the purity of doctrine in some measure remained, this subtle Sophistirie was unknown in God's church. But now for defence of popery, such stuff must serve the turn, when they have no better. And here I cannot but marvel at master Bellarmine his answer unto this argument out of the centuries. 
Cent. 2. lib. 1. ca 7. col. 526. The argument out of the Centuries against supremacy.  For they that wrote those books reason thus, if in these words, to thee will I give the keys etc. there were promised any supremacy, the Apostlles could not have doubted which of them should have been chief, but they doubted of this, therefore there was not in those words any such supremacy promised. 
Bellarmine's answer to it examined.  Master Bellarmine maketh no question but that they doubted of it, for there was among them some contention about that matter, but for the mayor he answereth, that the apostles did not understand plainly that there was any promise made to Peter, until after that Christ rose again, but then they suspected some such matter and that made them strive. Is it not great boldness in master Bellarmine, in so weighty matters, to bring no other warrant but his foolish fancy? Or to answer such an unanswerable argument, by such silly shifts? They knew not saith master Bellarmine that Christ made such promise to Peter until after Christ was risen again. But if it had been an article of such importance as now it is made, why should they not have known it? They heard what Christ said to Peter, they heard the promise of the keys, and this is as much as our Romish Rabbins can now bring for their proof. If they understood it not so, as master Bellarmine here confesseth they did not, what new revelation have our new Romish teachers, to assure this to be the meaning of those words? But they seem to be whelps of one hair, with those heretics whom Tertullian reproveth, 
De prescription, adverlus haerer. Heretics and Papists charge thopostles with ignorance. Artic. 18.  because they said the apostles knew not all things, that if their doctrine were not agreeable to that which the Apostles taught, they might the less be condemned. As Bishop Fisher, not knowing better how to excuse their additions unto the ancient doctrine, 
Against Luther.  which the church of Rome hath brought in, saith that later wits know things better than before they did.  
Well, master Bellarmine you see confesseth, that the apostles understood not then, that promise as now the papistles do. When did they reform their judgement? Where, in what place do they show any signification, that they ever understood it otherwise? If they neither understood it so before Christ's resurrection, neither yet gave any signification afterwards, by word or deed, by their writings or examples, that their knowledge was in this point reform, how can we say, that they ever took that to be Christ's meaning? But the first of these is confessed (as before is showed) by Master Bellarmine, the latter they cannot show. Therefore it may be gathered that the apostles never understood the words of Christ as the papists do. 
Thapostles strove not for supremacy after Christ's resurrection.  And how doth he prove that which he boldly affirmeth, that then they suspected such a thing? Or that after Christ's resurrection they did strive. It is mentioned in the story of the gospel, 
Matth. 18. 1. Mark. 9 34. Luke. 9 46. Luk. 22. 24. john. 13. 13. Matth. 20. 24. Mark. 10. 41.  that twice they did strive who should be chief.  
Of both which times the three Evangelists do make report. And Saint john also in his gospel, seemeth to point unto the latter strife, when having washed his Apostles feet, Christ giveth them good lessons of humility. But that after Christ's resurrection they did consende for this, it cannot be proved. For both these times were before his death. And therefore I cannot but marvel, that Master Bellarmine will bring such proofelesse stuff to open light, as though he imagined, that his counterfeit coin, must go for currant. And whereas afterwards he allegeth out of Origen, Chrysostóme and Hierome, that the apostles did strive amongst themselves, because they suspected this supremacy of Peter, himself doth not in this, give credit to these fathers.  
For if it be true that master Bellarmine said before, that this suspicion was not until Christ was risen, then how is this true that they affirm that they suspected thus much, when they did strive first of all. Which was at the least about a year and a half, before Christ rose again. Neither do these fathers herein deserve to be believed. 
Matth. 17. 12.  For the ground of this their conceit, is that they imagined the paying of the tribute money to have been before this contention. For they surmise that because Christ said pay for me and thee, therefore the rest of the apostles, suspected that Peter should have some superiority over them, and grudged at it. But this their imagination, as it is far from the thought of the apostles (for any thing that may be gathered) so is it flatly confuted by the scripture. For this contention was before the tribute money was demanded, namely, in the way before they came to Capernaum, as is most plain in the evangelist saint Marks gospel, the ninth chapter, and three and thirty and four and thirty verses. And the tribute was not demanded before they were entered into Capernaum, 
They contended not because they suspected Peter's supremacy.  and into a house there, Matthew the seventeenth chapter and xxv. verse. Therefore that suspicion of supremacy was not the cause of their contention, which master Bellarmine would prove out of these fathers. But perchance rather that ambitious affection that was in james and john the sons of Zebedee, 
Math. 10. 37.  which afterwards they showed more plainly, 
41  in ask that one might sit at his right hand, and the other on his left hand, was cause of their strife. And indeed the evangelist concerning this saith, that the other ten disdained at them for it. But the other contention that was among the apostles is not said to be against Peter, as this is said to be against james and john. But it seemeth that every one would be above other, and no suspicion then, that Peter should be above all.  
And whereas they that wrote those Books called the Centuries, allege, that if there had been in Peter any such Supremacy, Christ would have said to them when they did strive, contend no more, for I have made Peter chief amongst you: but (say they) he spoke no such words: Now master Bellarmine will prove, that Christ told them, that Peter was appointed to be chief. 
Luk. 22. 26. Bellar, argument to prove Christ to have told Peter he should be chief.  And how? He that is greatest among you (saith Christ) let him be as the least, and the chief as he that serveth. Therefore (saith Master Bellarmine) it is plain, that one is called chief. If he had meant that the truth should appear, he would, by comparing this place with others where the same thing or story is reported, have set down the true meaning of the words, and not take advantage, to pervert the true meaning, and deceive the simple Reader. For Matthew in his twentieth chapter and twenty six and twenty seven verses, and Mark in his tenth chapter, and forty three and forty four verses reporting this story, do plainly teach, that Christ doth not speak of any chiefenesse that was among them, but that they would have, or desired. For they say not, if any be, but if any would be chief, so reproving their ambitious affection, and teacheth them rather to endeavour to be humble. 
In Math. how, 66  Because, as Chroysostome saith, he that seeketh Supremacy shameth himself. And therefore never any I suppose before Master Bellarmine out of these words of Christ, hath gathered this proclaiming of Peter's superiority.  
Hitherto we have seen, how little he can prove by the first of his two places of scripture. Now let us try what weight the other testimony hath. 
Bellann. depontif. Ro. li 3. c. 34. john 21.  And this is drawn also out of the words of our saviour Christ to Peter, who when he had thrice asked of him, 
Bellarm, 2. argument our of scripture answered.  whether he loved Christ, and still he answered, that he did love him, he willeth him to feed his sheep. Now these words (saith master Bellarmine) are spoken to Peter only. 
Answer.  It is true. But that Lesson is not given to Peter only. For, to all the apostles it belongeth, to feed Christ's sheep, 
Li, 1, cap. 12.  and therefore are all Pastors and Shepherds.  
Yea, it is confessed by master Bellarmine in his answer to an authority alleged out of Cyprian, that all the apostles were like in apostolic power, and had even the same authority over christian people. If they had the self same authority over christians that Peter had, which here he confesseth, then to the rest as well as to Peter, 
De pastorib u● cap. 13.  was this charge of feeding Christ's sheep committed. And therefore Saint Augustine will have Christ to be the only good shepherd, and that all other are good in him, and are equal in this their work, for he maketh no difference. But Christ feedeth, they also feed, yea enen when they feed he feedeth, and Christ saith that then he feedeth in them, because his voice is in them, and his love is in them.  
But what should I stand upon this point? It is more plain, than that master Bellarmine himself can deny it, although he would blind the eyes of the simple with this distinction, 
The charge of feeding belongeth to all alike.  that it is principally spoken to Peter, but in some sort to all. What, was Peter bound to feed more diligently than the rest of the Apostles, Christ's sheep? None may be negligent in this office. And he that doth the work of the Lord, 
jer. 48. 10.  (especially this work) negligently, is accursed by Gods own mouth. We must all do it to the uttermost of our power. And Saint Paul was not afraid to say, 
1. Cor. 15. 10.  that he laboured more abundantly than all the Apostles meaning in the preaching of the word. So that it seemeth that this office was not especially committed to Peter, 
Theoph. in joh. cap. 21.  but that I may say with Theophilact upon these words. Let Bishops and preachers hear, what is commended unto them.  
Feed (saith Christ) my sheep, bring with thee thy ministery, if thou wile set forth thy love to the great shepherd. Then also master Bellarmine will prove out of these words and that easily as he saith, 
De pontifi Rom. lib. 1. cap. 15.  that Peter hereby hath the chief power. 
To rule and to have chief rule not all one.  But indeed he only proveth that to feed is to rule, whereas he promiseth to prove with ease, that to feed is to have the chief rule.  
But you must hear with him, the brightness of Peter's chair at Rome hath so dazzled his eyes, that he cannot espy so small a miss. But the weight of all consisteth in the last point that he handleth conceuning this place, 
Lib. 1. cap 16.  and therefore about it he bestoweth some more labour. And first he affirmeth that he is sure and certain, that even all christians, yea even the Apostles themselves, are as sheep committed to Peter. For his trifling conjectures of the difference between lambs and sheep, they are not worth speaking of. But let us see what force is in his notable reason, for himself so calleth it, he so well liketh of it. 
Bellar his Arg. to prove Peter to be a universal past.  Christ most manifestly (saith he) committeth to Peter all those sheep, of which he may say they are mine, but he may say so of all christians, therefore all christians are Peter's sheep. If master Bellarmine had good store of strong reasons to prove his assertion, he would never make so much of so blunt a weapon. For he can never prove his mayor.  
Christ said not feed all my sheep, 
Answer.  for he knew that he could not do, but only feed my sheep. Now this is as the Logicians do term it an Indestuite proposition. Which hath no limitation, but may be understood as occasion serveth, so that to make it more particular or general, we must have regard to the circumstances of the place. And is it not very strange, that he which here will make a universal proposition of that that is not so, 
Lib. 2. cap. 8.  to force out of it an argument, where in truth there is none, will be as bold at another time to make of a universal proposition a particular. 
2. Tim. 4. 16.  No man saith Saint Paul assisted me, all men forsook me, that is saith he none of them that should have helped me with the Emperor. And so he apply perchance to one or two, that the apostle speaketh doubtless of all that professed religion then at Rome, as though he were even the creator of logic, and would have it as his creature, to frame itself, to serve his turn.  
But to come to the point. As he affirmeth all even the apostles by these words to be committed to Peter: so I do confidently pronounce, 
This charge feed my sheep hath a limitation.  that out of these words, and some other circumstances, great reasons may be gathered, to show Peter's authority in these words to have a limitation. And first this word my sheep, which master Bellarmine maketh the chief strength of his argument, doth make much for that interpretation, which I take to be the true and natui all sense of the place. When the meaning of our saviour Christ, is to speak of that general charge over all, than he uttereth it in other words, Go teach all nations, 
Matth. 28. 19● Mark, 16. 15.  and again going into the whole world, preach the gospel unto every creature. But here is no such general charge but only feed my sheep. 
Christ's peculiar sheep.  What are these sheep that Christ calleth my sheep? We know that Christ after a special meaning, calleth the jews his people and his sheep. He saith he is not sent, 
Matth. 15. 24.  but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.  
And as though in comparison of the jews, he made no account of the gentiles, he saith it is not meet to take the children's bread, (meaning the salvation that was sent to the Israelites) and cast it to the dogs. Therefore Christ by this word my sheep meaneth (as it should seem) the people to whom he especially was sent, amongst whom he was borne, to whom he preached, 
Lib. 1. cap. 16.  (as also Master Bellarmine for that preferreth Poters' ministery among the jews) and amongst whom he died, that is the jews.  
And besides the manner of sending of his Apostles unto their general charge, (whereof I have already spoken) which is far differing from this, the very office that we know was laid upon Peter, 
Gal. 2. 7.  doth much confirm this interpretation. For Saint Paul saith that the gospel over the circumcision was committed to him, as the gospel over the uncircumcision was committed to Peter. We see therefore that Peter had a peculiar charge and calling, to be the apostle of the jews. Which is proof strong enough, to prove that Christ never meant, to commit any such general charge over all the world unto him, unless we will imagine, that Christ did first he knew not what, and afterwards revoked his former commission. I say this limitation of Peter, especially, although not only, to one peculiar people, is as it were a revocation, of his former universal calling, if any such had been, or rather because indeed none such was, it is instead of a commentary upon these words, feed my sheep, to teach us how to understand them. Feed my sheep, that is the jews, whom I have especially committed to thee, as I also took pains almost wholly and only among them.  
Furthermore also when Saint Paul telleth us that the gospel over the uncircumcision, was committed to him, as unto Peter the gospel was committed over the circumcision, his meaning is to tell us, that Christ hath as well placed him over the Gentiles, as Peter over the jews. And therefore of himself he saith that he was separated unto the gospel of jesus Christ, 
Rom. 1. 1. Acts. 13. 2.  because God commanded them, to separate unto him Paul and Barnabas, to the work whereunto he had called them. And what this work is, 
Act. 22. 21.  is another place declared, depart for I will send thee, far hence unto the Gentiles. Which his calling to the Gentiles, 
Gal. 1. 16.  he also speaketh of unto the Galathians, assuring himself that God called him to that office.  
But now for Peter, we must not doubt, but that he also was called of God. For they are not to be heard, that would make us believe that it was but a covenant among themselves, that Peter should preach to the jews; Paul to the Gentiles, but Paul doth assure himself of his calling in that he that was mighty in Peter, was mighty in him also. Saint Hierom on the Galathians lib. 1. cap. 2. very well writeth, One and the self-same (Christ) committed to me the gospel of the uncircumcision, (speaking in the person of Paul) who committed to Peter the gospel of the circumcision. If then Peter was by Christ called to this apostleship, where was it, when, in what words? In all the Scripture there is not avie one place but this, wherein he is called by Christ to this ministery over the jews. And therefore Christ's sheep, are rather that peculiar people that were (as no man denieth) committed to Peter, than the whole world, whereof in Scripture, they have no probable conjecture. And this interpretation, I marvel that Master Bellarmine hath not sought to confute, seeing it is about two hundredth and seventy year old. Perchance he thought it rested upon stronger reason, than he was able to convince or confute, and therefore he let it alone.  
Other arguments are also alleged to disprove this supremacy of Peter over all, 
Arguments against Peter's supremacy.  and to show that these words feed my sheep, cannot give unto him any such sovereignty. Saint Paul acknowledged no such subjection to him, 
Gal. 2.  when he doth not only pronounce, that he learned nothing of them that seemed to be chief, but also withstood Peter in the face because he was worthy to be reproved.  
Out of which words how lightly so ever Master Bellarmine would cast them off, with this distinction that they were fellows in preaching, but not in governing (as though the preaching of the word, and the practice or government according to the same were then separated) yet Saint Ambrose and Theophilact upon this place do teach, that there was no inequality between them, and that Paul was nothing inferior to Peter.  
And mark how absurdly he would daub up the matter, it is nothing to me saith S. Paul to the Galath. 2. 6. what ones they were once that seemed to be somewhat. Which he expoundeth as if he had said, how vile soever they were in time past, what was that to me? I conferred with them, for now they are great apostles. If Saint Paul had so meant, he would not have said that they seem to be somewhat, but that they indeed are somewhat. And thus master Bellarmine, rather than he will say nothing, will pervert the very sense of scripture: for these words, no doubt, are expounded, by those that follow in that verse, they that seemed to be somewhat gave nothing to me.  
Saint Paul also without ask leave of Peter. 
Argument. 2. 1. Cor. 5. 3. 1. Cor. 7. 25. 1. Cor. 11. etc. 14.  did exercise jurisdiction among the Corinthians, against an incestuous person, he giveth counsel concerning virgins, he did set order among them concerning prayer and the eucharist. And he called to Miletum the elders of Ephesus to give them commandment or advise concerning the church there. And yet master Bellarmine would make us believe, that the jurisdiction was in Peter only, authority to preach in the rest together with him. 
Argument. 3. Act. 6. 2. Bellarmine his reply. Answer.  Again the apostles I say the twelve (not Peter) did call together the christians to appoint deacons. We must believe (saith master Bellarmine) that Peter devised this or agreed to it. And why must we believe 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 general consent. Peter and john were sent by the rest to Samaria, 
Act. 8. 14. Argument. 4.  to instruct them how happened it that they would send him, if he might command them all? Had the Apostles authority to send him? Then was not he above them. Had they no authority? Then did they abuse him, which is not to be thought of so godly men as they were. And howsoever master Bellarmine would salve the matter, in telling us that sending doth not import always a subjection in him that is sent: 
Bellarm. reply,  yet if he had been their superior, it is to be thought they would rather have desired him to take order for them of Samaria, 
Answer.  then have sent him. But I am sure the pope now would not take in good part, that his college of Cardinals should send him about any such business. Neither is that argument brought to prove a subjection in him unto them, but that he is not their ruler, or that they own him no subjection. And therefore Master Bellarmine his answer that sending doth not always signify subjection is nothing.  
But I am weary in spending time about his trifling cavils, who though he cannot sound refel the arguments that are against their doctrine, yet will he not confess the truth, and so give glory unto God.  
Having thus examined I trust sufficiently, the chiefest things alleged by Master Bellarmine, concerning these two places of Scripture, which especially they rest upon: I must also briefly examine his second sort of proofs which he promised to use, 
Lib. 1. cap. 10. Bellarmine his second sort of argument from Peter's prerogative.  and that is grounded upon the prerogatives that are ascribed to Peter. Wherein I shall be the shorter, because many of them, are rather to make a show of proof, then worth alleging. The changing of his name from Simon to Peter, 
De Rom. pontiff. lib. 1. cap. 17. 18. etc.  when he was first called, proveth not that he was made head of the Church. For he had that name about three years and a half, 
john. 1. 42.  before they ascribe unto him this headshippe. Likewise that he is commonly named first, is a weak proof. For if that should signify his headship, then should it never have been placed otherwise then first, but Saint Paul who knew well enough what place he should give to Peter, 
Galath. 2. 9  nameth james before him. He walked on the waters. It is true, but what is out of that concluded? Is he therefore the head of the church? Not so. fourthly he first of all knew the high mysteries of our faith say they: if he did, can that make him head of the church? It cannot. fiftly it is said the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. That is the church as the fathers teach almost with one consent, and therefore that is the catholic exposition. But that which out of Origen he allegeth, because it is contrary to the text, and testimony of the most of the godly, is justly rejected.  
And for that they would prove the supremacy because Christ said to Peter pay for me and thee, is answered page thirty-sixe. That he prayed for Peter it is not singular, for he prayeth for all that the father hath given him. 
john. 17.  If he will confirm his brethrens, it is no marvel, because he that had more experience than others of his own weakness, is fittest to make others seek for true strength and not to trust to their own, that will deceive them. But he first of all the Apostles saw Christ, after his resurrection, what then? If that may give the headship of the church, 
Mark 16. john 20.  Marry Magdalene should be the head, for she saw Christ first, yea although Peter and john did run to seek for him, yet he would not appear first unto Peter, to take away the very strength of this their argument. If Christ washed the feet of Peter first (if I say, for it may justly be doubted of) must that give him the supremacy?  
The like argument may be gathered out of that that Christ foretelleth Peter of his death, Acts the first chapter and thirteenth verse.  
And for the twelfth prerogative, where he maketh Peter as the good man of the house, to gather together into one place the company of Disciples, it is grounded upon a fiction. For, there is not one word, that he gathered them: But there is somewhat to be gathered against Peter's Supremacy. For, although he moved them to appoint one in judas his room, yet he appointed not one, as the Pope would very readily have challenged that privilege. Not Peter, but they, appointed two. 
Verse 23. Verse 24.  They prayed. They also gave them lots not Peter.  
If master Bellarmine would reply that these actions yet must be performed by one, and by likelihood this one should be Peter, we will not stick to grant him so much. But if Peter had been supreme head of the church, here had been good occasion to have named him as direttor in these actions, which we see is not done.  
The thirteenth prerogative Peter first preached after the receiving of the holieghost. 
Act. 2.  This maketh not him Supreme head.  
And herein the Popes can not claim to be Peter's successors. He wrought the first miracle, 
Act. 3.  but the text joineth john with Peter, which should not have been done, if it had been any argument for Peter's supremacy, 
Act. 5.  to have it thought, that he wrought the first miracle.  
For the fifteenth prerogative cometh the destruction of Ananias and Saphira, which was by that power that GOD gave, not to Peter only, but to them all, Mark the sixteenth chapter, and seventeenth and eighteenth verses: yea, and also unto Saint Paul although he were not one of the twelve. 
Act. 16. 18.  For even by the same power Paul cast out of a maid a spirit of divination, 
Act. 28. 8.  and healed the father of Publius, that lay sick of a fever and a flux and struck Elymas with blindness, healed one borne jame at Lystra.  
The sixteenth prerogative is taken out of the ninth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, 
Act. 13. 11. Act. 14. ●. Act. 9 32.  where Peter's diligence in preaching is commended, in that he traveled, throughout all quarters. Which the Pope's friends for very shame should never have spoken of. For, if so be that his diligence be an argument of his supremacy, as they feign would make it, then why is not the Pope's supine negligence in that function, as strong an argument against this Supremacy?  
We will admit (although it justly may be doubted of) that which is the ground of this seventeenth prerogative, 
Act. 1●.  that Peter first did preach unto the Gentiles. And must that needs prove that he is therefore head of the church? I am sure that master Bellarmine himself will confess, that it is no necessary argument. But prayer was made without ceasing unto God for him.  
It is a token that the Church (seeing the persecution that now began against the godly, and that Peter also a worthy minister of the word, and a great apostle was in danger) was very careful for his preservation. But this doth not prove him to be the head of the church, 
Act. 12. 5.  no more than the care that the godly had over Saint Paul, Acts the seventeenth chapter and tenth verse, in sending him away to Berea, by night, for his better safety, or letting him down by a window in a basket, 
2. Cor. 11. 33.  when he was in great danger in Damascus, doth prove Paul to he the head of the church.  
Of the nineteenth I have spoken before, pag. 10. The twentieth prerogative, Paul went to Jerusalem to see Peter. What, 
Galat. 1. 18.  must he therefore needs be head of the church? Belike then for the three years wherein he saw him not, 
Verse 14.  but went (preaching) into Arabia and to Damascus he confessed him not to be head, but as if he had forgotten himself all this while, he now at the last, yieldeth him seem reverence. But if he had done it in any such respect, he would and should at 〈…〉, before he had taken his office upon him have had Peter's allowance. And thus much concerning Peter's privileges or prerogatives which they allege out of God's book. Which although many of them are evident arguments of excellent graces, that God had bestowed upon him, and great mercies which God showed to him, yet if master Bellarmine or any other, will out of them conclude Peter's supremacy, the weakness of his argument will be seen of very children. But yet because before he made Peter's prerogatives his second proof of this his supremacy, I have thought it necessary to reckon them, (for other confutation of them needeth not) that all may see what weak proofs they do bring, for this their chief point of doctrine. As for the other eight prerogatives, they are not worth speaking of: Both because we may justly doubt of the truth of many of them, as being proved but by fabulous writings: and also because if they were true, it were not material for the point in question. And therefore letting them alone as rotten propes which will fall in pieces of themselves, if any weight be laid upon them, I hasten to his third proof that he promised. And that is out of the fathers. And herein it is needles to examine every particular testimony. 
Lib. 1. cap. 10. How the fathers ascribe much unto Peter.  Only I will set down in what sense the fathers truly may, and often do, ascribe unto Saint Peter many excellent titles, that thereby examining the fathers, and finding them to keep within the bounds of gods word, we may with reverence receive them. But if they pass those lists, I trust master Bellarmine and all his friends will bear with us, if we reject the doctrine of men, as himself in this very book before, refuseth the judgement of Origene and Theophilact, 
Cap. 12.  and of others in other places. First therefore this word in latin primatus which we now call Supremacy, but indeed doth signify (that I may make such a word) firstness, is ascribed unto Peter of the fathers in respect of time as in the place alleged here out of Cyprian, 
First, in time. De pontit. Rom. lib. 1. cap. 25.  neither Peter (saith Cyprian) whom the Lord chose first, and upon whom he did build his church, whereas Paul did afterward reason of circumcision, 
Cypr ad Quintinum vel Quintum.  did boast himself, or did take upon him any thing insolently or proudly, saying he had the primacy, and that new ones, and aftercomers shall rather obey him. him.  
This place is alleged by master Bellarmine often, to prove Peter's supremacy or jurisdiction over others. But the words are very plain that Cyprian speaketh, of his being first, not in dignity, but in tune, as appeareth not only in that he saith he was first chosen, but also, by the words of new ones or after-comers. But master Bellarmine will say, 
job. 1. 39 40.  that Andrew was chosen before him to be an apostle, and therefore, that Cyprian was deceived, if so he meant. It may so be. For men may err. But the question is not now, whether Cyprians judgement herein be true or not, but upon what occasion, or in what respect Cyprian giveth Peter the primacy, which is most plainly in this place set down to be in respect of time. And so may other of the fathers in this respect use this word, and give him this title. And sometime this title of primacy is given unto him in regard of some excellent things that he was endued withal, 
First in respect of some execllent graces.  by reason whereof, his fellows and brethren amongst themselves, and the fathers after, might give unto him some kind of reverence, in name or otherwise. But this will do no good for proof of popish supremacy. For they do hold, that Peter in his own right, and by that jurisdiction which by God's word he hath, is head of the church, and hath the supremacy above all other. We say that because of his gifts of zeal, knowledge, constancy, or boldness, he was admitted and allowed to speak and to do, many things, 
1. Pet. 5. 1.  but that in his own right, he was but equal with the rest and as he calleth himself a fellow elder, with them that were meaner than apostles.  
Therefore to be a chief man, 
Head men have not always in their own right jurisdiction over other.  or a head man among them, is not to prove him to have jurisdiction over them. In all corporations or fellowships, as aldermen in cities, although in regard of that place, they are alike, none more or less an alderman than another: yet among them, some are better esteemed of, even of themselves, because of their learning, wisdom, dexterity in government, credit, power, or wealth, not because they can in right claim it, but because other do for such things as they see in them, yield it unto them, not that they have power over them, but only they are of good account among them.  
And thus much to prove, that that is not sufficient, which master Bellarmine saith will serve the turn, to prove that the fathers say that Peter was head, 
Lib. 1. cap. 25.  or had primacy over the church. For neither his estimation in respect of his gifts, neither if by voluntary subjection they did submit themselves unto him, it can prove him to have right to rule over them. And this they must prove, or else they gain nothing to their cause, that Peter by the word of God, hath authority over the whole church, and over the apostles. And therefore it maketh no great matter, what men say of Peter's authority, but how truly they ground their sayings upon God's word. And thus I trust it appeareth to the indifferent reader, that the minor proposition of that argument which I have set down in the end of my answer unto master Bellarmine ninth chapter of this book, 
Pag. 12.  wherein consisteth the great strength of the popish Monarchy, is not agreeable unto the truth, or catholic doctrine, howsoever that church of Rome, rejoiceth in that title that is none of hers, thereby deceiving the world, as if all that she taught were sound and catholic.  
The proposition is this that Christ gave jurisdiction unto Peter, over the universal church. The chiefest profess that either they all have, or that master Bellarmine can allege, is out of Saint Matthew the xvi. where they say this jurisdiction is promised, and Saint john xxi. where they say it is given, which their interpretation as I have showed cannot stand with the text itself or the interpretations of the sounder fathers. His second reason which consisteth of the prerogatives which Saint Peter had, is grounded either upon fables, that deserve no credit, or upon impertinent matters, that prove nothing to the purpose, as if I be forced hereafter thereto, I doubt not by God's grace with ease to prove. His third and last reason, is of itself sufficient to show, that themselves have no great hope to prove it to be a catholic doctrine, that is a doctrine taught and believed of all the godly, 
Vincent. Lyrin.  or almost of all, at all times, in all places, for Vincentius Lyrinensis thus defineth catholic. But the first author that master Bellarmine allegeth, 
Bellar. his 3. arg. for the supremacy, is out of the fathers.  is more than two hundredth years after Christ. So that the doctrine that cannot be proved, to have been believed for two hundredth years, in the purest times of the church, cannot be called catholic, or be said to have the true antiquity. And yet there is nothing that soundeth so much in the mouths of our adversaries as Catholic, Catholic, Antiquity, Antiquity, whereas in truth nothing can be catholic unless it have the true antiquity: And the true antiquity must begin at God himself. It must spring from him as from the first fountain. As most notably, and more than once, that ancient and learned father Tertullian hath said, 
De prescript. adverse. heretic.  That there is nothing true, but that only which the church received of the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God. And this is indeed ancient truth, and true antiquity.  
Now I must also take a view of the mayor proposition which is this, 
The consutation of the mayor for popish supremacy set down pa. 11. De Rom. pontiff. lib. 2. cap. 2.  whatsoever jurisdiction Christ gave to Peter, and not to the rest of the apostles, all that belongeth to the church of Rome. And master Bellarmine beginneth to prove this in his second Book, beginning with Peter's being at Rome. But whether he were there or not, it maketh no great matter. For it is laid of Paul, and Mark, and others, that they were there also, but that maketh them not supreme heads of the church. But, whereas he confidently affirms, 
Whether Peter first preached at Rome.  that many of the fathers teach, that Peter first of all preached to the Romans, and founded the church there, because perchance he thereupon would infer, that he was then bishop of Rome: it is not amiss to examine his proof herein.  
First, 
Iraen. lib 3. c. 3. Iraeny his place examined.  that which he allegeth out of Iraeney, that the church of Rome was founded by Peter and Paul, maketh nothing for proof of Peter's first founding the church there: for Iraeny maketh them both alike in that work. Neither by founding the church can be meant the first beginning of the same, but rather, that they by their testimony and death, did confirm the godly there, and perfected and established the church that was already begun by all likelihood, as after shall be showed.  
And whereas master Bellarmine addeth to Iraeny his own gloze, that is to say (saith he) first of Peter, and after of Peter and Paul, as it is affirmed without proof, so it may go without answer.  
That which he reciteth out of Eusebius for Peter's first preaching 
Euseb. li. 2. hist. 14. Euseb his place examined.  at Rome (though he write First with great letters) is not true. In Musculus interpretation there are no like words to them that are here alleged. And that out of Arnobius, who saith that Rome was converted to Christ, 
Contra gentes lib. 2. Arnob. answered.  because it saw the fiery charets that Simon Magus had caused, to be blown away with the blast of Peter's mouth, may well be understood of the more plentiful conversion of christians there, not because there were none before. For I will say nothing of the just causes that may be alleged, to doubt of this story alleged out of Agisippus of Simon Magus his fiery charetes. And Epiphanius is wrong dealt withal by master Bellarmine. For whereas he saith, 
Heref. 27. Epipha. answered.  that Peter and Paul were first apostles and bishops in Rome, he maketh him say, that Peter and Paul were first in Rome, 
Other of the fathers answered.  thereupon inferring, that first they preached there, which Epiphanius saith not. That which out of chrysostom he allegeth, proveth not Peter first to have preached there, as neither that out of Leo or Theodosius. 
In psal. 48. Serm 1. de natali Apostolorum.  For chrysostom saith, that he did occupy the kingly city, Leo that he was appointed to the chief place of the Roman Empire, and Theodosius speaketh of the religion delivered by Peter. But this doth not prove, 
Paul. Oros. li. hist. 7. c. 6. Turonens. li, 1. Histor, ca 25.  that it was first delivered by him. Orosins and Gregory of Turon say, that Peter being there, Christians began, which may be understood of their more bold profession of Christianity then before. For that there were christians before Peter came, there are in my judgement strong reasons to prove. Indeed Theodoret saith, 
Ad Rom. cap. 1. Peter preached not first at Rome. Sadol. ad Rom. cap. 16.  that great Peter first preached to them the doctrine of the gospel. Perchance he meant that he (not first of all) but first of the apostles, did preach the gospel there. For Sadolet a Cardinal and a Romish catholic, in his commentaries upon Paul's epistle to the Romans', doth think that the gospel was first preached, and the church at Rome first assembled, by some of the disciples that fled out of Jewry. And he nameth Priscilla, Aquila, Andronicus and junia. 
Rom. 16. 7.  And in this respect, it seemeth that Paul giveth this commendation unto Andronicus and junia, that they were notable among the apostles, because their ministry was so necessary for the church there, (for he doth not in any other Epistle speak of them.) But in this epistle Sadolet saith that Saint Paul doth give unto them, this great commendation, that they might have the better credit among the godly at Rome, and the greater reverence, might be showed towards them, in discussing and ending of these controversies, which were begun amongst them, and for staying of which Saint Paul doth write this Epistle as Sadolet confesseth. And of these Primasius an ancient father saith in like sort, 
Primas. ad Rom.  that Andronicus and junia were accounted notable amongst others that were sent to Rome, by whom they might believe, or by whose example they might have been confirmed. Now if Peter had been the first that preached there, which master Bellarmine a papist affirmeth, but Sadolet a Cardinal very confidently denieth, 
Rom. 15. 20.  Saint Paul, who would not build upon another's foundation, as he writeth unto the Romans, would not have taken upon him to have decided their controversies, and to have commended unto them the ministery of others also to that end, but would either not at all have meddled with them, or have put them in mind of Peter their Bishop. 
Rom. 15. 15. 1●.  But contrariwise he challengeth them for his own flock, and as belonging to his charge, which wrong he would never have offered to Saint Peter, if he first had planted the church and his seat there. Neither would the jews (who in every place were Peter's especial charge) that were at Rome, when Paul came thither, be so desirous to be instructed of Paul as they were, 
Act. 21. 22.  if they had been taught before by Peter, and he had been their Bishop and had been there at this time (for this Epistle was written long after they say that he was bishop of Rome) or if they had known their own bishop, to be the universal bishop or head of all others.  
And thus I trust, that notwithstanding all that out of some doubtful sentences of ancient writers, master Bellarmine hath gathered, yet this point is not so clear for the church of Rome, as they would persuade 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 master Bellarmine doth allege concerning Saint Marks gospel, 
Bellar. object.  that it is written at Rome, according to that which Saint Peter preached: if we grant it, 
Answer.  it doth not prove yet that Peter first of any other preached at Rome. It only proveth that he did preach there which by way of admittance only for the present we will not much ●and against.  
As for that which he saith of the overcoming of Simon Magus by Peter, 
Bellar, 2. object.  even this one thing may sufficiently show that it is but fabulous, that Saint Luke, who took upon him to write the acts and doings of the Apostles, 
Answer. The story of Simon Magus his ●iery cl●tetes a fable.  & doth very carefully write the miracles that were wrought by them, as he that marketh may easily perceive: and doth also record things done many years after this was supposed to be done: yet doth not so much as make any mention of this conflice between Saint Peter and Simon Magus, although in the eight Chapter where he reporteth some talk between Simon Magus and Peter, very good occasion had been offered, neither yet Saint Mark Saint Peter's own disciple, writing at Rome mentioneth it. And therefore howsoever some of the ancient writers, being deceived by Egisippus, have thought of this fable: yet I have I trust good reason and sufficient warrant not to credit the same.  
Now whether Peter died at Rome or not, 
Whether Peter died at Rome. Lib. 2. cap. 3.  which is the next point that is handled by master Bellarmine, I will not much gain say it, because I would especially stand upon the most material points, that belong to the proof of their mayor proposition, which is, that Peter's prerogatives, belong to the bishop of Rome (if we will believe the papists) by Christ's institution. And herein I would crave of the indifferent reader, 
Canus. lib. 6. loc. Theol. cap. 8.  without partiasity to judge, whether this their doctrine of Peter's being Bishop of Rome twenty and five years be a catholic doctrine or not. 
Whether Peter were bishop of Rome. 25 years.   
For master Bellarmine maketh a proud but a false brag, that it hath the testimony and consent of all the ancient writers. 
Lib. 2. cap. 4. Bellar. first arg.  As for his first reason whereby he will prove him to be bishop there, because of the dignity or great account that hath been always made of the church of Rome, 
Pag. 13. 14. Answer.  it is very weak. For the Church of Rome was accounted off more than others (as before I showed out of the council of Chalcedon & Ireny) because Rome was the imperial city. And no doubt also but that greater concourse of learned men, in that respect was there then else where; which must needs cause that place, to be in better estimation. So that of this cannot Peter's being Bishop there be concluded.  
Secondly whereas he will prove that he was Bishop of Rome, 
Bellarm, 2. arg.  because where he was bishop after that he lest Antioch it cannot be showed, 
Answer.  this his proof is like the former. For seeing he was an apostle, what necessity is there, that he must be bishop in some peculiar seat or place? Where was Paul bishop? It appeareth by the story of the Scripture, that he was no where bishop. 
Arg. 3. Bellarm, out of fathers.  And why then should we of necessity make S. Peter a bishop in some chair? Master Bellarmine's third argument, which is the testimony of the fathers, he imagineth will bear all down before it. But first we must consider that the fathers were content at the first, 
Why the fathers did not much gainfay Peter being bishop of Rome.  to receive this thing as a truth without any great examination of it, because it was but a matter of story, and so not much material whether, he were bishop of Rome or not. But if they had been in our days, and seen what necessary doctrine the church of Rome inferreth thereupon, that it is a doctrine that we must believe, or else we cannot be saved, that Peter was bishop of Rome, and of the whole Church, and then for that the bishop of Rome is Peter's successor, in that universal bishopric, and that by Christ's institution, and that this must be believed upon pain of damnation: No doubt but even those godly fathers who seem most to speak of that chair of Peter, 
In jof. cap. 20. Hom. 85.  would have said as chrysostom writeth of Moses chair, we must not now (saith he) speak of the Priests sitting in Moses chair, but in Christ's chair, he I say, and the rest would have proclaimed it loud enough, that they are the true Bishops not that sit in Peter's chair, but in Christ's chair.  
But I have sundry strong arguments to induce not myself only, 
To believe that Peter was bishop of Rome is no catholic saith.  but I trust even others also, to be assuredly persuaded (I will not say that Peter was not Bishop of Rome) but that it is not a Catholic Religion so to believe.  
And first I will constantly affirm, that master Bellarmine and all the jesuits that take his part, shall not be able to prove, that the fathers of the first two hundredth years, that are of good account or credit (for in this case I except what their Popes and counterfeit fathers have written or taught) that Peter was Bishop of Rome. Which being proved, it is as clear as the noon day, that is this not catholic doctrine. Themselves must needs confess it. 
Peter's being bishop of Rome, not proved by the word.  Now for proof of it, first that in the Scriptures we have no such things taught, it is most plain. And Master Bellarmine himself, who would feign have it believed: yet dareth not affirm of this any thing else, then that it may be that the Lord did openly command, 
Lib. 2. cap. 12.  that Peter should so place his chair at Rome, that absolutely the bishop of Rome should succeed him. And there he addeth, that howsoever the matter is, it is not so by the first institution. And as in the scriptures this thing hath no ground, 
The first fathers knew no such thing. Ignatius knew not Peter's supremacy.  so the fathers that lived in the days of the apostles, and next after them, do not acknowledge any such matter. Ignatius who was Saint john's scholar may be a good witness in this behalf. All whose Epistles if we search and sift, we shall not find any thing in them, that teacheth us this point of popery, but rather the contrary. And yet he writing unto sundry, and informing them in the most principal points of religion, and such things as were most necessary for christians to know, yea, and among other to the Romans themselves, must needs have informed them of this universal bishop and of Peter's chair, 
Ign. ad Trallia, & ad Romans.  if he had known of any such matter: in his second Epistle which is ad Tiallianos I command not saith he as an apostle, and to the Romans I command not these things as Peter and Paul. In both places he had good occasion to have urged them with Peter's supremacy, but especially he should have put the Romans in mind of Peter, if he had been their bishop. And should have said I do not enjoin you these things as Peter, who was your bishop. But the greatest matter that he espieth in Peter and Paul, is that they are apostles. And writing unto the Ephesians, 
Ign. ad Ephes.  he moveth them to depend upon their bishop, as the Church hangeth upon the Lord, and the Lord upon his father.  
How happeneth that in this reckoning of these goodly couples the Ephesians and their bishop, the church and Christ, Christ and God, there is not any mention of Peter or his successor? Doubtless as yet this conceit was not hatched, which yet more plainly may be seen in that exhortation that he maketh to the Saints in Smirna to honour God as the maker and Lord of all, 
Igo. ad Simrna.  but their bishop (for that he speaketh of their own bishop the whole epistle showeth) as the high priest the Image of God, and the most excellent thing in the Church. Now I pray yond what account is here of Peter's chair or of his succession? Not one word. This also in his epistle is to be observed, that he seemeth to make more especial account of Paul then of Peter. 
Ign. ad Philad.  As writing to the Philadelphians, he saith Be ye followers of Paul and the other Apostles as they followed Christ, which it is to be thought he would not have done, if Peter had been in such account then, as since he is said to be. Now for justinus Martyr who wrote about the year 147. doth never so much as make mention of Peter being bishop of Rome, although in his second Apology he maketh mention of Simon Magus how he was honoured at Rome (but not of his fiery chariots destroyed by Peter, 
justinus apol. ●  as some do, whereof I spoke before.) Seeing therefore, justinus having so good an occaston, and writing and dwelling in Rome as by Hierom it appeareth speaketh not one word of it there, neither yet afterwards in the end of the apology, wherein he showeth the sin of christianity, it is likely that Rome was not then known, to be either Peter's chair, or the bishop thereof to be universal bishop. Eusebius writeth of Denis of Corinth, 
Euseb. hist. eo●● li. 2. cap. 2●.  who flourished about the year one hundred seventy and four, how he did write unto the Romans, and yet nothing is there of Peter, that he was bishop there, but only, 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 year of the Lord two hundred and twenty) that he writing unto Proclus an heretic, put him in mind of the monuments of the Apostles that he could show. Whereas he might have made a better brag, to have served for his purpose, if he could have told them, of Peter's chair. But as yet there was no such matter known. As for that which master Bellarmine himself allegeth out of Irenie, it proveth nothing for him. For in saying, that Peter and Paul together did found a church there, 
Iren. li. 3. ca 3. De prescriptionbus adversus heret.  he ascribeth nothing to Peter alone. And Tertulian that was about 200. years after Christ doth seem rather to make Clement the first bishop of Rome, 
Clement first bishop of Rome.  so little doth he dream of Peter's chair, or bishopric there. Neither yet doth Cyprian plainly affirm, that Peter was bishop of Rome. He doth sometime indeed call that church Peter's chair in respect of the doctrine that Peter taught and published, 
Peter's chair.  which at that time was believed at Rome, which also perchance he in Rome confirmed by his death. As also our Saviour Christ speaketh of Moses chair, 
Moses chair, Mat. 23. 2.  and saith that the priests did sit in Moses his chair, so long as they taught the law, that Moses from God delivered to them. But as for Moses he never came near the place where jerusalem was built, to establish any chair there. And thus we see, that in all these ancient fathers, who lived more than two hundred years after Christ (for Cyprian flourished about two hundred and fifty years after Christ) there is no plain proof of Peter's being bishop of Rome. And excepting Cyprian's words, (who if he allude unto the words of our saviour Christ as he seemeth to do, can make no more for the opinion of the church of Rome, than any of the rest) there is nothing in them all, that hath any likelihood of proof of the thing in controversy. But if any man answer that it is no good argument thus to reason. 
Objection.  Such men have not written that Peter was bishop of Rome, therefore he was not bishop there: 
Answer  I reply, that if this that out of them hath been said, do not substantially prove, that Peter was not bishop of Rome, (as if the allegations be well considered of, they are strong presumptions) yet do they invincibly prove, that for this space of more than two hundred years, they cannot show of any authentic author, that hath acknowledged Peter to be bishop of Rome. Yea the first that is alleged by master Bellarmine is Ireny, who lived after Christ not much less than two hundred years. And therefore this doctrine, doth easily appear not to be catholic, and the godly fathers which slace have affirmed, that he was bishop of Rome, either do so call him in respect of the work of a bishop, which (if he were there) by his care of God's flock, and constancy in his truth he did show, or else they teach that which had not been taught in the days next unto the apostles times. A second argument that unanswerably proveth this to be no catholic doctrine, is the dissenting of the most ancient authors that they allege, from themselves in this point, wherein they affirm that Peter was bishop of Rome. For Ireny, who is first alleged of master Bellarnine, 
Lib. 3. cap. 1. cont. Ma●cio. 1 ● heres. 27. Euseb. li. 2. ca 25.  Tertulian, whom in the second place he produceth, than also Epiphanius and Dionysius bishop of Corinth out of Eusebius do all with one consent join Peter and Paul together, I say not Peter only, so that unto the one as well as unto the other belongeth that dignity by their records. And Damasus himself a pope (I marvel if he would err in this point) saith that Peter came to Rome Nero being emperor, 
Conell. Tom. 1. ne Petro. Li. 3. cap. 〈…〉  which must be at the least twelve years, after the reckoning that is now holden for good, in the church of Rome. And Eusebius doth allege out of Origen, how Peter in the latter end of his life came to Rome, and therefore he is not like to be Bishop there xxv. years. This doubtfulness and unconstancy of their delivering this doctrine, is an infallible argument that there was not in those times, any catholic doctrine taught of this matter, but that men might think thereof, as they saw cause. But now it is no less than heresy to deny that Peter was Bishop of Rome.  
Now if unto this that hath been said, 
A third reason.  we add the vocation or office of Saint Peter recorded in the holy Scripture, that he should be the Apostle of the circumcision, 
Galat. 2. 7.  whereof, that ever he was discharged, all the jesuits in Rome and Rheimes, will never be able, out of God's register book to show. And one the other side, that the singular care that the Apostle Saint Paul (who willingly would not build upon another man's foundation) showeth himself to have over the Romans, more than over any other, even as if they were his peculiar charge, (as in the first and fifteenth chapters of that epistle appeareth) I trust there is no man of indifferent judgement, but will think that we have great reason to stay ourselves, and not rashly upon every show of the newness of fathers, to run and consent unto such opinions, as have no show of the ancient antiquity, no agreement among themselves, no colour of probability in the word of God, but the contrary rather. Neither is that any answer to my second argument, 
Li. 2. c. 5. Bell. 06.  (which master Bellarmine doth say) that the disagreement about the time of Peter's coming unto Rome, doth not prove that he came not at Rome at all.  
For my intent is not directly to prove, that Peter came not to Rome as bishop of Rome, but that this was not a catholic doctrine for two hundred, or almost three hundred years after Christ, and this disagreement doth prove that substantially. So that it must be another answer that must take away the strength of this argument, or else it standeth unaswered. Neither is that example that he bringeth of the uncertainty of the time of Christ's death, fit to prove the matter in question. For all are agreed that Christ died, 
Bellar. ob. 2. Answer.  but that Peter was bishop of Rome is not certain. And therefore the thing itself being doubted of, the uncertain setting down of the circumstances, will make it less credited. I am not ignorant that godly learned men, have set down many more arguments, to prove that Peter was not bishop of Rome, and that master Bellarmine bestoweth six or seven chapters to answer the same as well as he can. But my purpose being to try as well as I can how catholic their doctrine is, I content myself at this time with these few. For to strive what might be spoken of this matter, were an infinite labour. But whilst I endeavour to go forward, I am forced a while to stay, and muse at the immoderate boldness of master Bellarmine, who upon so weak proof, will make so certain a conclusion. For purposing to show the bishop of Rome is a universal bishop, 
Lib. 2. cap. 12. Bellarm. his triumphing before the victory.  he thus beginneth. Hitherto we have plainly showed, that the Bishop of Rome is Peter's successor in the Bishopric of Rome.  
Now considering with myself, the weakness of the two posts that must uphold this building, I though he might have something at the least mistrusted his own cause. For if Peter were at Rome, and first preached there, doth that prove, that therefore the Bishop of Rome is his successor? But by that means all they that came afterward in the places where he preached shall be all his successors, and not only the pope.  
The second ground of this considerate conclusion, is, that he imagineth that Peter was Bishop of Rome, and so died. But the vanity of his arguments I have discovered before (I trust) sufficiently. 
Pag. 56. & ●.  Therefore this bold assertion I will requite with this syllogism, and so proceed.  
If it be not certain that Peter was Bishop of Rome, then must this succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter, 
Argument to the bishop of Rome his succession to Peter to be uncertain.  needs be uncertain.  
But it is uncertain as I have showed by better reason than master Bellarmine hath showed, that Peter was bishop there:  
Therefore I conclude, this succession also, must needs be uncertain.  
But before I begin to examine Bellarmine's evidence, whereby he will prove the pope to have supremacy over all the church, the Reader must be put in mind of that which before I have said, whereby the very ground of this supremacy is shaken (if I be not deceived) namely it is with good reasons (I trust) denied, that Peter had that supremacy over the whole church. And if he had it not, how can the bishop of Rome have it from him? Again, we must consider how this hangeth together. If Peter had that universal charge, and was bishop of Rome also, that therefore they that do succeed him in the bishopric of Rome, must in like manner that universal charge.  
But let us hear M. Bellarmine's reasons. But the four first I of purpose omit, because they are either directed against Nilus his opinion, 
Li. 2. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 12.  who granted (as master Bellarmine saith of him) that Peter had this universal charge over the whole church, but denieth it to the bishop of Rome, and therefore those arguments touch us little, or else they are answered before in this treatise. But he having proved (after his manner) against Nilus, that seeing Peter had this supremacy, he must needs have a successor in the same. At the length he cometh to prove that the B. of Rome is this his successor, reasoning thus: either the bishop of Antioch, or of Rome, must be Peter's successor in the supremacy over the whole church. But the bishop of Antioch can not challenge it: therefore Rome must succeed in this universal bishopric. That Antioch cannot have it he shows, because Peter resigned that bishopric before he died. I will not here examine or call forth your witnesses, in what place ye find, that Peter gave over to the bishop of Antioch which you say he had. But I will ask a question of you, by what right he could resign it over, and leave the charge that God committed unto him, and so forsake the flock whereof you are made overseer. You must either hold your peace, 
Marcel. epist. ad Antioch.  or else tell us some tale of a bastard Epistle of pope Marcellus, which commanded him so to do.  
And is it enough that Marcellus, 
A rot a prop of supermacie.  who lived about three hundred years after this thing was done, should say that Christ commanded him to do it, and produce no witness, allege no proof, set down no circumstances? Thus we see that this supremacy doth stand but upon a tottering foundation. It may also be doubted, whether if he had a universal charge over the whole church, he might take upon him a particular charge, either at Rome, or Antioch. For our Saviour Christ giveth direction to his Apostles, whose charge was universal, Go into the whole world, 
Mark● 16. 15.  preach the Gospel unto every creature. For although it is written of some of the Apostles, that they were bishops in certain places, yet that is no answer to this objection, because they were not universal bishops, and therefore must needs have their seat somewhere, I say in some particular charge. 
A universal bishop must not be a sitter, but ●ther a runner.  For he that is an universal Bishop, and hath allotted unto him a seat or chair, is unproperly called universal. It were more expedient for him in respect thereof, to be running, yea, or rather flying then to be sitting. But to answer master Bellarmine's argument. His Mayor proposition is gathered of a false supposition. 
Whether it be needful that Peter have a successor.  For if it be not granted, that Peter must needs have one to succeed him in this universal charge, than you see that there is no necessity, that his seat wherein he must be succeeded, is either at Rome or Antioch.  
But we deny first, that Peter himself had this universal charge. And in this respect, we think it a very needless matter, for us to beat our heads about his successor in the same, But I pray you, what meaneth this, that master Bellarmine taking in hand to write of the controversies of these times, and to impugn and withstand them, that in these days do speak against his Pope's supremacy, 
Bellarm. would match with an 〈◊〉 adversary.  doth so suddenly turn his back upon them, and encounter with Nilus, who is much more friendly to him in this matter chen we can be? 
Lib. 2. cap. 12.  For whereas he hath promised to prove, that the Bishop of Rome doth succeed Peter in the universal Bishopric by God's law, and by reason of succession: his arguments only intend and prove thus much: Peter had this universal charge, and therefore another must have it also. And that Peter had it, he saith Nilus doth grant it. But that is it that we deny, and master Bellarmine's store will not afford him one argnment against us directly, except he have any confidence in the two last, the fifth, and the sixth.  
And for the sixth, as also his other arguments that may any thing touch us, 
Pag. 5. etc.  they are answered almost in the beginning of this Treatise. Let us then see what strength this argument hath, that so much of the weight of the cause must rest upon. Saint Paul saith the church is one body, but he head can not say to the feet, 
1. Cor. 12. 2●. Bellarmine's argument to prou● that Peter must have a successor.  I have no need of you: therefore the Church must have another head upon earth besides Christ. If the argument be hard favoured and misshapen, and ill tied together, and agree like strings all out of tune, blame him that make it so. For master Bellarmine doth so reason. These are his words. The church is one body, 
Li. 2. 〈◊〉 12 ●●g. 5  and hath her kind of head here upon earth besides Christ, as appeareth out of 1. Corinthians and the twelfth chapter. In which place, after that the Apostle Saint Paul hath said, that the church is one body, he addeth: The head cannot say to the feet, I have no need of you. Which his reason, if it be drawn into a form of argument, must (as I think) be form into such a monstrous shape as you have seen.  
But to omit the shape of his argument, let us see what substance there is in it. And if it be examined, it hath as little found matter, 
Answer.  as good making. For, out of these words of Saint Paul (the head can not say to the feet, I have no need of you) he thus inferreth, but Christ may say, that he standeth in need of none of us: therefore by this head here Christ can not be meant. Is not this very clerkly handled of master Bellarmine, to apply that unto Christ our head in the church which S. Paul speaketh of the head of a natural body, whereof he hath borrowed a similitude, to teach how necessary the members of Christ his mystical body, are one to an other, so that none may without wronging himself despise another? which collection of M. Bellarmine is most plainly against the text itself, and the judgement of all good expositors: Nay, I suppose I need except no expositor but master Bellarmine himself. And yet we have in that very place an other argument of his. For a man may see that he was sore pained in travail of this argument. For, seing no way how to deliver it well, he was feign to heap up much stuff in few lines, (for all this matter is contained in little more than eight short lines) to make a show as though he had much to say, when as that which he said is far worse than just nothing. Well, let us view his argument. 
Arg. of bellarm, the 2.  One head besides Christ there must be, but there is no other than Peter: therefore Peter must be the head. We flatly deny that we need any head but Christ, as before I have proned. Lastly, 
pag. 6. 12, 13. bellarm. his 3. and last argum.  Peter dying, the church must not want a head: therefore Peter must have a successor. But this argument supposeth that Peter is the head of the universal church, which they cannot prove, and until they can prove it, we will content ourselves with Christ our head.  
Thus we see how master Bellarmine's fift argument, as a plenteous spring sendeth forth three streams, but there is no clear water in any of them, but bad covers of a bad mess. And what is all this to the bishop of Rome, if Peter must have a successor? For, as we deny Peter's supremacy, so may we doubt whether he might be a bishop, being not an apostle only, as were the rest, but an apostle of the jews, wheresoever they were, we doubt of his resignation of the bishopric of Antioch, if he were at any time bishop there, we doubt of his being bishop of Rome: and lastly, whether this succession must needs belong to the bishops of Rome if Peter had it: for it might be personal in Peter. And master Bellarmine, who in other questions is plentiful of his reasons, and will make some reasonable show of proof in this greatest matter, 
bellarm. barren of reasons.  and which it especially behoveth him to prove, is so barren, that he hath almost nothing to say, no reason to allege, although by his promise he made us look for great matters. And yet when all is done, he must either have us to grant him the thing that is in question, which we cannot do, or else he can say nothing to it.  
But there are many strong reasons that move us to deny that Peter had any such universal authority over all Christ's flock, 
Peter had not charge over the whole church.  or that any man, the bishop of Rome, or any other should have such supremacy. First the greatness of the change, which is far above the ability of many, much less can any one perform it. Secondly, that our saviour Christ doth show a little before his death, 
Chap. 13. 14, 15, 16.  as appeareth in Saint john's gospel, a fatherly affection, and tender care to comfort his disciples, being pensive because of his departure, and yet never useth this argument, or giveth them this commandment, that Peter should be their head, and they should obey him. Although good opportunity was offered to have spoken of it, 
john 16. 7.  if it had been so when Christ told them that it was expedient that he should depart. He doth not then tell them that Peter must be in his place, and supply his room, or that one should have general charge of his church. But on the contrary he appointeth his vicar and vicegerent even his spirit to supply his want. 
john 14. 16.  Who can be in all places at once, 
The spirit is Christ's vicar.  in every particular church, yea in every particular member of the church, to comfort, instruce, direct, defend, and to do to and for the godly, whatsoever is needful or expedient for them. Thirdly the apostles after Christ ascension, and Saint Luke that writeth the acts of the apostles make no mention of such a supremacy in Peter, unless we could borrow master Bellarmine's spectacles, by which he can spy that one pope is contained in these words, 
Ephes. 4 4. De pontiff. Rom. li. 1. cap. 9 Verse 11.  one body, and one spirit, as he doth also find out the supremacy plainly set down in these words, he gave some to be apostles: and yet more plainly if we may believe him in the epistle to the Corinthians, 
1. Cor. 12. 28.  he hath ordained in the church first apostles, than prophets. Now let them that can pick that sovereign Supremacy out of those words say so.  
But for my part I confess my sight is so dim, that I can not see so far into that mill stone. These and such like reasons, being compared with their proofs out of scripture which make nothing for them unless they be sore wrested, from their natural and true meaning, do even proclaim it to the world, that this doctrine of the pope's supremacy, is nothing else but a devise of man's brain, a fruit of his pride. And thus to think I am the ealelier persuaded, when I see how master Bellarmine toileth himself, to set down the state of the question For although in the beginning almost of this twelfth chapter he promised to prove that the bishop of Rome, is by the law of God, 
Bellarm, not so good as his word  successor unto Peter in the supremacy of the universal church, yet afterwards he confesseth that the church of Rome hath not this succession by Christ's first institution of this succession, and that perchance (for so he speaketh to testify how loath he is to confess the truth plainly, though he cannot deny it) perchance he saith it cannot be proved by the law of God, that the bishop of Rome, as he is bishop of Rome is Peter's successor. And yet although it cannot be proved to be decreed by God's law, it is saith he a thing that belongeth to the catholic faith. For (saith he) to be of the faith, and to be by God's law, is not all one, for it is not by God's law that Paul should have a cloak (he might have said as much also for Tobias dog) yet this must be believed. I would not have thought that Paul's cloak had been such a necessary relic, but I remember that Balthasar Cossa, who was pope john the three and twentieth of that name, 
Stella jacob. Bergom.  gained well by Peter's cloak when time was, for by casting it upon his own shoulders, he made himself pope.  
But can master Bellarmine find no better stuff to persuade us to believe the pope's supremacy? They make it a matter of damnation not to believe the supremacy of the pope. And is it of as great necessity to believe that Paul had a cloak? If master Bellarmine be so persuaded, I lament his folly. If he think otherwise, why doth he bring it to prove that to believe the supremacy of the bishop of Rome, is a point of the catholic faith, although by God's law this supremacy cannot be proved? And as they stagger in setting down by what authority right or law they claim this sovereignty: so they have no great proof for their manner of this their dignity, whether it be personal or not. By Christ's first institution master Bellarmine telleth us it was personal.  
If Christ made it personal who could change that estate and make it successional? master Bellmine answereth, that it was personal, general, or public, so that it belonged to him and his successors. Whether that can be called personal, that is to say belonging to the person only which belongeth also to his successors let the indifferent Reader judge. But how is this proved that Christ gave this prerogative to him and his? 
Li. 1. cap. 12.  Master Bellarmine saith so often times, especially in the twelfth chapter of his first book, but his proof is little else then his affirmation.  
Again, he saith, that this succession is made both personal and local, by Peter's dying bishop of Rome. But as already I have proved, that doctrine of Peter's being at Rome bishop is not so certain, that christians may build their faith thereupon: So that we see there building is altogether upon the sand, their proof weak, their reasons obscure, and their places nothing pregnant for that they are brought. And I marvel that now it should be counted heresy, not to believe the Romish bishop to be by God's law supreme head of the whole church, 
Tom. 2. Luth. fol. 45.  seeing that in the year of our Lord God one thousand five hundred and twenty Albert by the goodness of God, cardinal priest of the holy church of Rome, of the title of Saint Chrysogon, 
A cardinal counteth the Pope's supremacy but a toy.  Arbhbishop of the holy churches of Magdeburge and Mentz, primate of Germany and prince elector, governor of Halberstade, and marquis of Brandenburge (for these litles he giveth himself) in an epistle written to Luther, showeth himself grieved and displeased, that some divines of good account, did so earnestly contend for their frivolous opinions and trifling questions, namely of the power of the bishop of Rome, whether it be by God's law, or by man's law? And of free will, and many other such toys, not much concerning a christian man.  
This cardinal you see thinketh it not worth contending for. And I am verily persuaded many more will be of his mind, unless they see better matter than master Bellarmine can bring, to prove it to be by God's law. But although he have no store of Scripture for him yet hath he great hope in councils and fathers. And I assured myself that the councils, if he will trust them, will most plainly decide this question, whether that superiority that the church of Rome challengeth over all other churches, be by God's law or man's law, as hereafter it shall (if God will) appear. Now therefore to examine master Bellarmine's next proof which is out of the counsels. 
Lib. 1. cap 13.  And the first counsel that he allegeth, is the Nicen counsel, not that which themselves have delivered to us as authentical and true, in the tomes of counsels set forth by themselves: but to serve this turn, we must have a new addition, and a strange interpretation not that which agreeth best with the words, 
Bellar. arg. out of the Nicen counsel Canon. 6.  and is thought most true of them that lived near unto the days of that counsel. First therefore we must add (saith master Bellarmine) to the beginning of the sixth canon, the church of Rome always had the supremacy. And why must those words be added? Paschasinus forsooth a bishop in the counsel of Chalcedon did so cite that canon. 
Action. 16, The bishop of Rome a forger.  He did so, but he was legate for Leo then bishop of Rome that did allege it, & by Aetius Archdeacon of Constantinople he was disproved, who read not only the copy of the canon, by a also the approbation of the same counsel, and canon, by a counsel holden at Constantinople, of 150. bishops, Nectarius being bishop there.  
But one found out a greek copy of that counsellong since and in that saith master Bellarmine those words are. If the copies that we have, have thus long been thought true and good, I see no reason why for some one greek copy, which might very well be falsified by some favourite of the church of Rome, we should discredit that which hath so long been received: especially seeing the counsel of Chalcedon, the matter on both sides being discussed and heard, did give unto the church of Constantinople as great privileges as the church of Rome had. Which they would not have done, but that they saw Paschasinus his allegation, for his master the bishop of Rome (for he was one of his legates) to be forged. Nay if that Rome had gotten this prerogative by God's law, as now the papists teach, 
Canon. 6.  without wickedness they could not have done it.  
Then these words of that canon of the Nicen council (Because the bishop of Rome hath such like custom) must also have a new interpretation, For whereas Ruffinus, who lived, if not in, yet very near the days of the Nicene council, doth plainly expound, 
Hist. li. 1. cap. 6.  how in those days they took the sense and meaning of those words, namely, that the Bishop of Rome should have cure of the churches that belonged to the suburbs thereof: Master Bellarmine that cometh many hundreds of years after, will in no wise like of that exposition, because he imagineth it to be too narrow a compass for the proud pope. 
Other manner of Popes in those days then now we have.  But he must remember, that when these limits were appointed unto him, the Bishops, not of Rome only, but of other places also, were other manner of men, than now they are for the most part. And it seemeth that these limits were laid upon them, rather as a burden, than 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 division of those places to be made, for the better keeping of unity in the church, appointing unto every one of these primates or patriarchs, such to be in some respect under their charge, as they saw were (for such considerations as were best known unto them) most likely to show themselves willing to be ruled by them. Yea. and the less compass or circuit of jurisdiction might perchance be appointed to the Bishop of Rome, because that thorough great recourse of people of all places unto that City, being the imperial City, he was so troubled with many matters of all men's, that he might not so well intent and look to a great charge of his own.  
And I know not why master Bellarmine should so alter as he doth the word parilis into talis, but to gain as much credit as he can to his interpretation. For, parlis consuetudo which are the words used by the Council, 
Bellar. changeth the words of the canon.  is an equal custom, and hath respect to that which is said of the Bishop of Alexandria. So that this is the meaning of those words, that Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, should be under the Bishop of Alexandria, because the Bishop of Rome hath such like custom, or a custom equal to that. But the exposition that master Bellarmine would have to stand for good, is, that the bishop of Rome had such a custom to appoint the Bishop of Alexandria those limits, which interpretation how forced it is, how it cannot aptly be gathered out of the words of the council, I refer it to the indifferent Reader to consider. And because this word parilis equal custom, will not stand with Master Bellarmine's sense, he truneth it away, and in steed thereof would use a word more indifferent for him. And so (good Reader) thou mayest see how Master Bellarmine most absurdly rejecteth the plain and old interpretation of this canon which Ruffinus affordeth us, and would have us believe a new gloze of his own, that must quite alter the sense, and add much to the words of the text itself. And yet when antiquity serveth their turn: none cry out for Antiquity more than they. They go about to discredit our doctrine, because it is new only, and yet theirs we see here, is both new and nought, and yet are not they ashamed to brag, that all that they teach is catholic.  
The second Council alleged by Master Bellarmine, 
Concil. Constan. Histor. li. 5. ca 9 Bellarm. a falfifi●● of antiquity.  is the Council of Constantinople, of which he saith out of Theodoret, that they came together in that place by the commandment of the Pope's letters sent to them by the Emperor. The more I read Master Bellarmine, the more I find and mislike his evil dealing, who handleth God's cause nothing sincerely, but walketh in the same (as in this his argument may easily appear) with a deceitful heart. For first to make the matter seem more plain on his side then in deed it is, he saith, that they came to Constantinople at the commandment of the Pope's letters: but Theodoret speaketh nothing of any commandment, but upon the Pope's letter. The like also is in the letters themselves that are set down in the Council. For it seemeth that Damasus, whether it were upon desire he had to christian unity, and agreement in religion, or else because he saw the emperor Theodosius bent to have a council, and he was perchance desirous to seem to have some saying in that matter, or for any other consideration whatsoever, wrote unto the Emperor about a Council. But if the Pope might have called a Council, he would then have directed his commandments unto the Bishops to assemble, not to the emperor, what these letters were it is not known. If they were to require and entreat the emperor to call a Council, it maketh nothing for proof of master Bellarmine's argument, or the pope's power. If it were to command the emperor to send his letters to them, or to cause them to be summoned, it were in deed somewhat like unto the saucy and unmannerly writings of these proud prelate's of our time, but then neither the Pope burst so to command, neither the emperor did owe, or would perform any such service or duty to him. But the report of the Council itself (as it is delivered unto us by themselves, _ doth sufficiently declared that all was done in that council, 
Council, tom. ●. The emperor had all the commanding in that council.  at the commandment of the emperor. First, he commanded that the Bishops should come out of every bishopric to Constantinople, as he that gathered the councils together teacheth out of Theodoret. 
Hist. li. 5. ca 6.  The emperor desired them to have a care of that they had in hand. And out of Socrates he showeth, that the emperor called also the Macedonian heretics, because he had good hope that they also might be united, to the Church.  
Moreover out of Theodoret, that the emperor consulted with Nectarius, what course were best for quietness in the church, they came to the emperor to take some good order in these matters, he questioned with the heretics, concerning the the trial of the matters in question: he took order that both parts should set down their mind in writing, he took that they had written, prayed earnestly to God to direct him to choose the truth, tore the writings of the heretics, allowed or received only that doctrine that taught the equality of the persons. He also allowed the Novatians their churches in the city, because they were in this point constant. And out of Sozomen, that the emperor made a law, that heretics should neither have churches, neither be permitted to preach of the faith (a good law to be earnestly thought upon and practised in these our days) nor ordain bishops or others. All these things being set down in the Books of Councils, by them delivered unto us, who can think that Master Bellarmine, who allegeth this Council for strength of his cause (and that falsely also) wherein all things are so direct against him, would see the truth, if it were never so plain before him. The third council is that which was assembled at Ephesus, & that also M. Bellar. (belike by some wonderful attractive virtue) will draw to his side.  
The third Council (saith he) as Euagrius doth witness, saith that it deposeth Nestorius, by the commandment of Celestine bishop of Rome. How now master Bellarmine, have you quite fallen out with truth, and made a league with falsehood? 
Yet more falsehood in Bellar.  have you purposed still to abuse your reader, by most shameless affirming that which is not true? The counsel said, we, by the necessity aswell of the canons, as also of the epistle of the most holy father, our fellow minister Celestine bishop of Rome compelled etc. Where is this that master Bellarmine affirmeth? Celestine bishop of Rome wrote perchance to show his detestation of the heresy of Nestorius, and they willing to do him that honour, that they would seem much to esteem of his zeal in faith, that being so far distant in place, he would be united as it were to them in their judgement against Nestorius, they show that they were moved much by his letters, and encouraged to proceed against Nestorius. But here is no word of any commandment that he gave them, but rather the contrary. For they call him their fellow minister, and so acknowledge not him to be a commander over them. Yea and in a mandate to Philip priest, vicar or vicegerent to Celestine then bishop of Rome, and others sent to Constantinople, they tell the pope's vicar plainly, and his fellows thus: We will your holiness to understand, that if you despise any of these things, neither this holy synod will ratify it, neither shall you be permitted to be partaker of our communion. Yea and before, that council directeth even the pope's legate and the rest, that if the emperor sent for them, they must in any wise be obedient to his commandment, and must not refuse to go, (which doctrine were heresy in our days) but they should not agree with john of Antioch and the rest, but upon such conditions as (not the pope) the council did set them down, upon the pain aforesaid.  
And that this Council was assembled by the Emperors, is in many places declared: as out of Euagrius that it was at the appointment of Theodosius the younger, and after by the commandment of the most religious Emperors. The like is also testified, in the superscription of the former mandate, that I have spoken of.  
And it is also worth noting that the council writing to the Emperors, for the credit of their council, doth not urge that the pope is head there (but indeed they crave that Cirill and Memnon, not Cirill only whom they say the pope Celestine deputed for him be restored to them again that their council be not without a head) but they say that Celestine Archbishop of Rome, 
Pag. 588.  doth sit joined with them there, he doth assidere sit I say with them, not praesidet, he ruleth not, he coutroleth not the council, and so it is also said of Aphrica and Illyricum that they assident sit with the council. And out of this that hath been spoken as also by such other things as in that council are recorded, we may gather what truth is in that also, that master Bellarmine allegeth of an Epistle sent by the council to Celestine, reserving the cause of john of Antioch as more doubtful to be decided by the bishop of Rome. But as I find not any such Epistle in that council, so this is plainly written, in the report that the council maketh of their doings to the Emperors, that they excommunicated john (of Antioch) the precedent of the Apostatas council, 
Pag. 588.  and them that were with him: and deprived them of all priestly ministry, and revoked all their unlawful doings. If this be to refer his cause to the pope, let the world judge.  
Then he cometh to the council of Chalcedon, 
The fourth Council alleged by Bellarmine.  and that maketh for him too, if we will trust him; but in examining it, we shall find it much like the rest, directly against the supremacy of the bishop of Rome. 
Act. 1.  For first in the beginning of that council it is declared that it is gathered by the decree of the most godly and faithful Emperors Valentinian and Martian who also professeth that he desired to be there to confirm the faith, 
Pag. 740.  wherein were judges appointed to moderate their doings and sayings, and to conclude their articles, not the pope, or his legates, (for they as it appeareth in this council, were at the commandment of these judges, as well as others, but lay men, officers under the Emperor. It will be hard then for master Bellarmine, in respect of some few excellent names that may be given to Leo bishop of Rome, whereof also it may be he was worthy in respect of some good parts that were in him, it will I say be hard, by such names, to prove his supremacy by this council, which hath almost done what it can, in prejudice of any such prerogative that he might claim. 
The council of Chalcedon against the supremacy.  For if it belong not to him to call councils, neither to rule in them when they are called, he hath but little supremacy over others. And we see in this council both these things are done by others, and not by him.  
But what doth Master Bellarmine find in this council for the pope's supremacy? 
Bellarm, his reasons out of this council. Lib. 1. cap. 12.  That in that, the pope Leo is called the bishop of the universal church. This tale he hath told but a little before, (perchance that maketh him more perfect in it) saying that three letters are sent from the East church to Leo bishop of Rome, and in them all he is called the pope of the universal church, there are indeed four such letters even together, to the bishop of Rome, and the council of Chalcedon, and in none of them is he called the pope of the universal church, but only the universal archbishop or patriarch.  
But there is a great difference between a universal bishop, and a bishop of the universal church. 
Act. 3. pag. 858.  But such misses are small faults, with master Bellarmine. Indeed Paschasinus the pope's own legate doth call him pope of the universal church, 
Act. 16.  who did also seek afterwards, by falsifyiug the copies of the council of Nice to procure the supremacy unto his master, and therefore we must not ground our faith upon his words. But for that name of universal bishop which is often given to the bishop of Rome, 
Universal bishop not only the pope's name.  it is not yet a name peculiar to him, as a great friend of theirs, 
Annal. An. 187.  and at this day in great account among them, doth tell them, namely Caesar Baronius in his history. For out of him they may learn that Eleutherius a pope himself, in a decretal epistle of his, written to the bishops of France, calleth them universal bishops, 
Epist. ad Philad.  as Ignatius calleth the bishop of Philadelphia, the bishop of the common church, and so Gregory Nazianzen speaketh of Athanasius bishop of Alexandria. Which Baronius seemeth thus to understand, that they ought to have a care (as indeed every man should have) of the good of the whole church. And these names of head of the church, 
To whom these names belong.  universal bishop, and such like, were doubtless at the first granted to such as were most worthy men in the church, in respect of their learning and skill that they had, or their travel and diligence that they used, to benefit the universal Church. And by this means, was it more commonly given to the bishops of Rome then to others, because they, in regard of the place or city wherein they were, had more occasions of doing good offered unto them, and more opportunities, by reason of his nearness to the Emperor, to solicit such matters.  
And in this sort is it given for a reward of well deserving, and to encourage them that were able, 
How these names are now used.  to do their uttermost endeavour, to benefit the church. But now it is a name tied to one chair, in which for the most part do sit of the unworthiest men that are in the church. So that if a man consider how little good they do in the church, and how much hurt, we shall think that a ring of gold will better become a sows snout, than they beseem that honourable title, or it them. And as for that which the council doth write unto Leo, saying, that he is appointed of our Saviour to keep his vine, they speak it not in respect of his being bishop of Rome, but in consideration of his excellent gifts of learning and other good graces, wherewith God hath endued him. And that this is their meaning it doth plainly appear, by those things that afterwards in that council they did. For if they had meant by those words, 
Act. 16.  that he, as bishop of Rome, had supremacy over the whole church, then would they not have given unto the bishop of Constantinople, equal privileges with Rome, and so have taken from Rome, that which Christ gave (as they pretend) to the bishop thereof. Thus to be short, in this one council, we see this supremacy had three notable checks. It was called by the Emperors, and moderated by lay judges, and the bishop of Constantinople made equal to him of Rome.  
The fift council that is here alleged, 
The fift council alleged by Bellarm.  is the fifth Constantinople council. But this can bring little credit to their cause, seeing it may justly be doubted, whether ever there were any such or not. For besides that mistrust which the very title of that council, which is in the second tomb of Councils doth work in them that read it, 
Concil. tom. 2.  because it cannot be set down when, or in what pope's days it was celebrated, but that it was about the time of Agapetus, Silverius, and Vigilius: I say beside the uncertainty of it that there appeareth, 
Anno. 552.  Functius one skilful in histories hath noted, that this is not once spoken of in the Constantinople histories. And therefore it is not likely that any such council, was kept there. Neither yet can the rest of the counsels alleged by master Bellarmine stand him in any steed. For we will not deny, but after that once the pope had gotten into that proud chair, almost all did yield unto him honour and reverence, some for fear, 
Later counsels are not in this cause indifferent.  some for flattery, until they had made him little inferior to God himself. And therefore we justly reject the counsels that were gathered since his power was so great, and his pride so untolerable, that by some means or other he would be honoured as himself thought good. And therefore the second council of Nice which was about the year seven hundred eighty nine, the lateran about the year one thousand two hundred and fifteen. That of Lions about the year one thousand two hundred seventy and four, and that of Florence about the year one thousand four hundred thirty nine, are no fit witnesses against us, who do not deny but that the Pope sometime by fair means, sometime by foul, sometime by flattery, sometime by threatening, sometime by force, sometime by craft, and always by evil dealing, hath gotten to be in sort as ye see, supreme head of the Church.  
But we say that he is not so by the word of God, which he claimeth to be, and master Bellarmine promised to prove, but he cannot do it. Neither was he accounted in the purer times of the Church, to have that supremacy by God's word, as before I have spoken. 
Pag. 14.  Neither would they in any wise permit such power unto him, although he sought it earnestly, and shamefully in the council of Chalcedon. 
Act. 16.  After the counsels master Bellarmin will bring in pope's to bear witness on his side. 
Pope's are suspected witnesses.  But honester men than many of them were, are not to be heard in their own cause. Yea and although many of them were good men, and were profitable members in Christ's church, yet because they were men, they might have such infirmities as do follow the nature of man, and might (especially not seeing the inconvenience and ruin of the church, which the pride of that seat hath brought forth) ascribe more unto their own seat, then either in truth they could claim, or in christian humility they could take upon them.  
And for the first pope's, which all they that writ of this matter reckon up in great numbers, I trust we shall not hereafter be troubled with their names, because master Bellarmine hath given them a reasonable good discharge. 
Lib. 2. cap. 14.  For he confesseth that in their writings there are some errors, neither dare he affirm that they may not be doubted of: and as for the rest of them, because we have seen even almost from the beginning of any credit that they had, some sparks of their pride, now and then to glitter and burst forth in their importunate seeking, or too ready accepting of that that belonged not to them: as in equity we are not bound, so neither in discretion should we, when the cause concerneth not us, but God's truth, hear what they can say for themselves, against the same. Neither are their writings for the most part any such, as that by them we may judge throughlie what they did think. 
What manner of writings of pope's are alleged against us.  For epistles or letters (such are those writings altogether almost which are alleged against us) are upon sundry particular occasions written, whereby the writers might happily be forced to say more for the credit of that seat, than themselves would have said, if that occasion had not been offered. But this I am sure of, they for the most part speak far otherwise, and more plainly in that point, then do the other ancient writers of their time, and that maketh me think that they did speak for themselves, and were somewhat pricked forward, with a purpose to advance their seat. 
Bellarm. proof out of Greek fathers. Lib. 2. cap. 15. Inscript. Epist. ad Rom. Ignatius answered.  Therefore letting them pass as partial in this cause, let us come to this next proof, which is out of the greek fathers.  
And first cometh in Ignatius who writeth to the church that ruleth (for I will admit the worst that Master Bellarmine or any other can allege on't of this place) in the Roman region. But will Master Bellarmine's logic conclude that therefore the church of Rome hath supremacy over the whole church? He must first bring the universal church within the place of the Roman region before that can be Out of Ireny he hath these words. 
Lib. 3. cap. 3.  For unto this church for the more mighty principality (speaking of the church of Rome) it is necessary that the whole church do come, 
Ireny examined.  that is the faithful from all places, in which always of them that are from all places, is kept that tradition which is from the Apostles.  
The words as you may see are somewhat hard, by reason that he who translated Ireny out of greek, did here, as in many other places translate him very darkly. But I have englished them word for word. His meaning is, that they that come from other places of the world, be it never so far off, yet do not alter the tradition that the apostles left unto them, and yet many must needs come thither, because that in respect that Rome is the Imperial city, the church also hath the more mighty principality, and so in deciding of causes hath the more reverence and authority. And thus doth he prove that to be true, that in the beginning of that chapter he said, that it is an easy matter for him (that will) to see the tradition of the apostles manifested through the whole world, because that from whence soever they do come, yet still they keep one tradition.  
By this argument doth Ireny confute the heretics, because the tradition of the apostles being kept in all places (not only in the church of Rome although because it was best known, or most famous, he bringeth that for example) yet no such doctrine as the heretics speak of, is taught among them. But now master Bellarmine's unseasonable collection out of this place, is very far from Irenies' meaning. That it is necessary (saith he) that all churches should hang of the church of Rome. He proveth first by that which goeth before, because principality is given to this church: secondly of that which followeth, because hitherto all in that church have kept the faith that is in being united, 
Bellarm. arg. out of Ireny examined.  and cleaning to that church, as the head and mother. These are master Bellarmine's words. But first he saith wrong of Ireny that he should endeavour to prove such necessity in coming to the church of Rome, especial taking, as here he doth for a bounden duty. For it is master Bellarmine's meaning to make the church of Rome, the only church that must hear all great matters, decide all doubtful questions, and command all other churches. But Ireny his meaning is, that all other men had occasion, to seek rather of that church then of any other for help and direction, because that in respect of the greatness of the city, the church there was in some greater account, as before I have showed, but he never said that all were bound to submit themselves to that church, 
Dog. 83.  as master Bellarmine and his partakers, would have him be thought to speak. Secondly he must speak more plainly what he meaneth by this, that principality is given to the church of Rome. 
Principality in Ireny how to be understood.  For if he mean that men yield great reverence to the church of Rome, we yield that in the primitive church they did so, & that justly, because the true faith was there sincerely kept, but this principality will not please master Bellarmine, or prove his intent. And if Ireny had meant that this principality had been given by Christ, a man of mean understanding will easily think that he would have spoken it in more plain terms.  
But what need I to use many words? the place itself is plain. For the more mighty principality (saith Ireny,) if he had thought of the supremacy of the bishop of Rome, he would have said most mighty principality. For more mighty principality doth but make him better than others in some respect, not above all others which he claimeth to be. So that to prove his intent he must have better proof. For this will not warrant that sovereign authority of the bishop of Rome. Thirdly, that which master Bellarmine would tell us out of this place, that all churches must be united and cleave to this church of Rome, as their head & mother, hath at all no ground of Irenies' words. And thus we see how he doth rack and rend the words out of their plain sense, to serve for his purpose, which being well weighed of, make rather against them, and their supremacy. Epiphanius is his third witness, 
Heres. 68 Epiphanius examined.  who reporteth that Vrsarius and Valens two Arrian bishops being converted, did go to julius bishop of Rome, to give an account of their error and fault. But if that prove the supremacy of the bishop of Rome, then must Athanasius also have that supremacy as well as he, for it followeth immediately after, that they used the self same proofs that they repent of their error unto Athanasius. So that the intent and cause of their going to pope julius, or pope Athanasius (for he is there so called) was not to acknowledge his supremacy, but as it was known that they had erred, so would they have it well known that they revoked their heresy. Neither did they crave pardon of their offence, 
Athan. Apolog. 2.  of julius bishop of Rome (which out of Athanasius he endeavoured to prove) because he had authority over all persons, but because they knew their offence to have been against the whole church, they were desirous that the bishop of Rome for his part, as a principal member of the church but not a head above all, should not impute that fault unto them. And this is the part of every christian man or woman, having made a general fault, whereby many godly are offeuded, to make also a public satisfaction for the same. And cannot this be done to pope julius, but we must make him head of the church? Athanasius also his letter to pope Felix is alleged, 
Athanas. epist. to Felix pope. Bellarm. argu. out of Athan. examined.  wherein Athanasius being much distressed of the Arrians, and wrongfully dealt withal, and not having any hope that the greek Church could help him, the Emperor himself being an Arrian, the rather to move the bishop of Rome to pity his case saith thus. For this cause God hath placed you and your predecessors Apostolic prelate's, in the tower of height, and hath charged you to have care of all churches, that you should help us. That God by means of Constantine and other good Emperors, advanced high the Bishop of Rome we deny not. And we also know, that those good bishops did much good with that their authority to the church of God, and were a great relief to the oppressed, a comfort to the troubled, and a good stay for religion. We yield moreover that a care over the whole church a belongeth not to the bishop of Rome only, 
Annal. Ann. 187.  but to every christian, as Baronius a papist telleth us. And as Saint Paul saith of himself, although he were not an universal Bishop, or pope over all the church, it that he had a care over all the Churches. 
2. Cor. 11. 28.  Which care as it should be in all, yet it should be greatest in them, whom God hath beautified with greatest graces of power, wisdom, knowledge, credit or any other thing, whereby they may do good to others. So that the effect of Athanasius his words unto Felix is, that as God hath enabled him, so also he should apply his greatness to do him good.  
We do not yet see the Bishop of Rome to have jurisdiction over the whole church, but that the greatness that he hath, he should use it to the comfort of the godly. But indeed the Bishop of Rome in steed of the care that he should have, doth exercise the power that he hath.  
And the excercising of his power began somewhat soon in that chair. And therefore the fathers in the sixth council of Carthage as it seemeth, were moved in the canons of the Nicen council to alter one word. For having agreed in the ninth canon or chapter of that council of Carthage to hear the Nicen decrees read, when they come to the sixth chapter, where the Nicen council hath, that the bishop of Alexandria should have power over the churches of Lybia, Egypt, & Pentapolis, as the bishop of Rome hath within his liberty, 
Care for power.  in steed of the word power, they read care? Which no doubt those godly fathers did, because they saw how immoderately, and by what bad shifts, they did then seek to bring under their subjection all others. And therefore by this means they would teach them to whom they did grant such honourable places, that they were called rather to a burden, then to an honour, to look unto their charge, rather than to over ●ooke them. So then this care that the bishop of Rome should have over all churches we wish also that he would have. And yet we do not hereby make him, the bishop of the universal church. 
De sententia Dionys. Alex. episc.  And for the third place out of Athanatius, it hath less weight than any of the rest. For because some accused the bishop of Alexandria to the bishop of Rome, therefore he concludeth that the bishop of Rome is chief justice above all, and may take upon him to judge all matters: but accusations are for the most private. 
Accusations prove no jurisdiction.  And who can hinder but that any may make complaint to a man that hath nothing to do in the matter? And many such complaints will be made, to such as will be willing to hear all matters, as were many of the B. of Rome, 
Epist. 52. Bellarm. argum. out of Basil.  to increase their own power. That which is alleged out of Basil, is a request that Basil did purpose to make to the bishop of Rome, like unto that which Athanasius made to Felix, and therefore one answer doth serve them both. But in that epistle Basil calleth Athanasius the Top of all christians, which name they would feign should be peculiar to their pope. 
Carmine de vita sua. Nazianzen examined.  That out of Gregory Nazianzene was not worth blotting of so much paper, For he saith the City of Rome beareth sway over the whole world, what is that to the church of Rome?  
And that that is alleged out of Chrysostom in the first place is not much material, because chrysostom maketh that request to the B. of the west church, and not to Innocentius alone. Yea, & not Chrysostom only in the same his epistle, but Socrates also in his history testifieth, that Chrysostom appealed from his adversaries (not to the pope which he would doubtless have done, if he had taken his authority to have been such, as now the church of Rome would have it imagined) but to the general council. And not he only appealed to a council, but the multitude also were ready to make a tumult for him, and said it was meet the matter should be heard (not by the pope) but in a general council. 
Epist. 2. ad Innocent.  Secondly out of Chrysostom he allegeth these words, we always thank you, for that you have declared unto us your fatherly good will. What will the charitable affection of the pope, prove him to be head of the whole church? If it will not, this will do no good, his third place is this, 
Ibidem.  I entreat your watchfulness, that although they have filled all with tumults: yet if they will have their disease healed, they be neither afflicted, neither put out of men's company.  
Must the bishop of Rome be the supreme head, or else this request be in vain? He being, as it is always confessed, of great authority, (although not so great as they imagine) might either by entreating, or by authority win many to be of his mind, and so hinder the excommunication of Chrysostom's adversaries. So that none of these arguments can conclude for the pope's supremacy as we see. And yet they wring whatsoever is said or done to the church of Rome, 
Why the East churches sought to the West.  as if it were a strong proof for supremacy. Whereas the godly of the east church being thus distressed, were in policy forced (and not for religious causes) to seek for help of the West church, and of the bishop of Rome for their own quietness. And this doth appear most plainly, in an epistle that Basil writeth unto the bishop of the west church for their help, 
Epist. 61.  and especially by the advise that he giveth to Athanasius to that end, wherein he showeth that there is no way for their safety, but to cause the bishops of the West church to take good part with them. And then if they chance to seek for this at the pope's hand, 
Epist. 48.  by and by without all doubt he must be head of the church. It maketh me weary even but to read their arguments. They do so force their authorities that they bring, and so unnaturally apply them, 
Epist. 10. Cyril exan. ●.  that it is tediousness to think of it. Such is that also that followeth out of Ciril. For Ciril did think that if Nestorius would not revoke his heresies within the time limited by Celestine bishop of Rome, all men ought to shun his company, as a person excommunicate and deposed. 
Epist. 18.  And writing to Celestinnus, he doth desire to know of him, whether he think good, that men should yet communicate which Nestorius, or they should shun his company. And what if Ciril saw that in Celestine, that he thought him worthy to be especially regarded in these matters, doth it thereupon follow, that he would have him to have soeuraigne jurisdiction over the whole church? Or if he think him meet to deal in his own matter, must he needs give him power over all men, in all causes? Master Bellarmine must make new logic, before he can prove such bad conclusions.  
But then to mend the matter, he bringeth in an authority that is not to be found in the Author that he doth allege for it. But we must take it upon the credit of Thomas of Aquine. They show that they want proof, when they would feign call again the things that are not to help their cause. As for Thomas we know well enough his good will to the church of Rome. For he would not only ra●e out of the earth these sentences of Ciril, 
Locorum Theol. li. 6. cap. 5.  but also as Canus reporteth of him, he speaketh of one Maximius that saith much for the authority of the bishop of Rome. Yea and he findeth much out of the council of Chalcedon. 
Cap. 6.   
In which council the Bishop of Rome, had his authority (that he sought for) much abridged. Yet I say Thomas hath found out even in that council good stuff, to confirm the authority of the bishop of Rome, 
Li. 5. ep. 14. ad Nais.  that never came to our hands. And no marvel: for Melchior Canus telleth us, that Gregory complaineth that in his days they were blotted out by heretics. And I pray you, how then did Thomas of Aquine come by them, 
Forged writings.  who was after Gregory almost seven hundred years? Thus you may see how they seek by forged writings that which by authorities of credit, they can not maintain. Well then let feigned Ciril go, and let us see what Theodoret saith. He as others before him had done craveth the Pope's help against Dioscorus. 
Epist. ad Leonem papam.  And Leo the pope did for him what he could, we deny not. But yet before the council of Chalcedon would restore Theodoret to his place again, 
Act. 8.  he was forced by the whole council, to show his detestation of Nestorius, Eutiches, and all heretics although the pope had received him to communion before.  
And here before I go any further this one note I think necessary to be added, concerning many of the former testimonies. 
Mark what writings the church of Rome allegeth for her supremacy.  That because they are drawn from the private Epistles of men distressed, seeking for help, and therefore they might well be forced to write with as great humility as they could devise to write, for to obtain succour: it is no reason that these their forced petitions, and private requests, should be accounted as rules for catholic religion. 
Lib. 3. cap. 8. Sozomen examined.  Then cometh in Sozomen in which he mistaketh both the place (alleging the seventh chapter for the eighth an error easily committed) and the matter. For although julius bishop of Rome, did think well of the dignity of his seat, yea and in respect of his mightiness that he was now grown unto, partly by the goodness of former Emperors, but chief through the dissensions of the east or greek churches, he was in duty also bound more than others to have a great care over all churches: yet that his supremacy was not then acknowledged that very Chapter shall sufficiently testify. For there it is reported, how that the bishops of the east churches (to whom julius had written somewhat sharply, in the behalf of Athanasius and others that fled to him) did make answer to julius, with a letter full of taunts and threatenings, and showed that their churches were as great and as many as his: finding fault also with julius for receiving such to his communion, and such other things. So that we see that they did not account the Bishop of Rome as supreme head of the church: neither doth Sozomen say that julius his seat came to that dignity by Christ's institution, or by God's law, which Bellarmine took in hand to prove, but hath not brought one testimony of the fathers that can perform that promise. 
The church of Rome pleadeth possession, not by right.  They plead as the Lawyers say in possessorio, they say they have it by possession, so many have come to the church of Rome for help, when they were distressed.  
In thus many cases pope's have intermeddled in other bishop's charges. So they tell us what they have done. But the question is how justly, by what right, law or authority, they have done many of the things that they have done. We would have them plead de petitorio. Let them prove their right. For it is true that long since the pride of this seat did begin, abusing Gods good liberality, and the favour of godly princes toward them, still increasing in that ambitious humour, until they had set themselves above all. Which authority when they had once gotten, they did show themselves unsatiable and cruel, despising all authority, and making their will to be in steed of law, as shall God willing in the proof of their practice, which is the second part of this treatise, be declared. But it doth not follow, they have done this, 
Concil. tom. 2.  therefore they have done well in so doing. That which is alleged out of Acutius that Simplician the pope had care over all churches is much to the commendation of Simplician, that he had so due regard of his duty, but this proveth him not to have authority over all because he had, or at the least should have care over all. 
Liberatus in br●uiatio.  But I muse what master Bellarmine meaneth to tell us a tale out of Liberatus, of a nameless bishop of Patara. What matter is it to us, or what strength can it bring to his cause, to know what he or other men, not known in the church of God, for their learning, judgement, zeal, or such other virtues as are necessary for them that should be witnesses in matters of religion, do think or say? Much such proof might be had out of the legend of lies. But that will never prove their doctrince to be catholic.  
Lastly the words of justitian in that he calleth the pope john the second, 
Epist. ad joh. Codice primo titulo.  head of all holy churches may well be admitted, as in former times that name head was often used, yea, and is still of us. A man of good dexterity or countenance is called a head man among others although he hath not authority over them. But such a head as now the pope is become, that will control all bishops, yea depose emperors, dispense with God's word, make new laws in the church, & have his saying in all matters, justinian himself could not have liked. And it must be marked, that we deny not, but a bishop of Rome (as also another man) may welbe called head of the church, if they be endued with such gifts as are to the benefit of the whole church. But we deny, both that the name is or aught to be peculiar to the church of Rome, 
How we deny the pope to be head of the church.  or the bishop thereof only: and also that the authority which by that and such like names he challengeth unto him is tolerable in him or in any other. For indeed our contention is, whether the bishop of Rome have supremacy over the whole church or not. Now excellent names were given unto men in times past, 
Tom. 2 pag. 162. Pag. 263  as the name of pope, Baronius a great papist of our time, confesseth was common to all bishops. 
Russin. Hist. lib. 2. cap. 28.  The like he also writeth of the name of universal bishop. And Athanasius was called Pontifex maximus. The greatest bishop, and yet not he, but Liberius was then bishop of Rome. And for this name head (as I have showed) it is nothing strange in all societies, to have a head man, and yet he not to have jurisdiction over them. By all which it appeareth, how weak an argument may be drawn from these names which may be common to so many, to prove the supremacy which the bishop of Rome challengeth to himself only.  
Now master Bellarmine having wrung what he can (which is not much) out of the fathers of the greek church, cometh to the latin writers, to try what glean he can get among them. Whom I doubt not but we shall find speaking very reverently of the church of Rome, 
Bellar. arg. out of latin writers.  as in truth it well deserved, because that the bishop of Rome (although he began very soon to encroach somewhat upon other men's right, and to enlarge his power) yet he used his greatness and authority for a long time, to the maintenance of true religion the comfort of the distressed, and to withstand by himself, and other the bishops of the West church, the heresies that troubled especially the East churches. In all which things we know that by their place, for that they were bishops of the Imperial city, and the authority that they were come unto, by favour of the Emperors, they were as it were ringleaders unto others: so that although they were moved sometimes to these good things, by a desire that they had to be meddling in all matters, which was one of the ways whereby they came to their greatness: yet in that they did good unto the church, the godly did both commend them, and also bear with them, although sometime they were too forward, and stepped too far before others. But when they would have had this authority confirmed to them in councils, and established as a law of the church, than did the ancient fathers, wisely withstand their unlawful desires, as the vi. councils of Carthage, 
Why and how although the latin fathers did reverence the bishop of Rome.  and the council of Chalcedon do plainly prove. So that the godly learned fathers of those times, partly to encourage them in their well doing, did give them due commendation when they deserved it, and partly for quietness sake and the peace of the church, did wink at many of their inordinate proceed, and unorderly attempts, so long as they were but their private actions; yet would not the jurisdiction of the universal church. And these things being well remembered, I may I trust be shorter in answering to the particular places. And first for the place out of Cyprian, 
Lib 2. cap. 16. Dè unit Eccl. alias simp. prelate.  which master Bellarmine prosecuteth in many words as he is forced to do, that he may get out of him but a show of an argument. It is answered in few words. For indeed master Bellarmine groundeth upon a false principle, which I dare not say that he could not but see his error, but it is marvel if he can be ignorant of it.  
The words wherein he especially trusteth are these. 
Cyprian examined.  This cometh to pass (that heresies grow 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 heavenly master kept. Now by this word head he understandeth the head of the church whom he maketh Peter.  
Whereas it is most certain that Cyprian doth mean nothing else here, then in another place where he endeavoureth to persuade after the same manner and by that very argument, where by the head he meaneth that which the apostles taught. For saith he if we return to the head and beginning of the tradition of the apostles, man's error ceaseth. And there he teacheth us by a similitude how we should come to the head, by the similitude I say of a conduct, wherein if the water fail we go to the head of it, that is, to the fountain, and so from thence examine the want of the water: so saith he, must God's priests go to the beginning when there is any question of Religion. And that he meaneth that head in this place, the very words by him alleged do prove, because the former words put us in mind of returning to the original or beginning of the truth, and the words that follow, lead us to the heavenly doctrine. Well then, the head in this place doth signify the spring and fountain, from which our doctrine must begin, and so master Bellarmine's argument is quite overthrown. And having proved that he buildeth his reason upon a false ground, I trust I need not bestow any more labour to prosecute him in his wandering words.  
Optatus is the second who speaketh nothing to help this desperate cause. 
Contrr Parmenion. li. 2.  For although he commend unto us that one chair in respect of the unity of doctrine (for all the priests now saith chrysostom must sit, 
Hom. 85. in job. 20.  not upon Moses chair, but upon Christ's chair) yet in the words alleged by master Bellarmine he addeth, and we have proved that that is ours by Peter. Optatus a bishop in Africa (not of Rome) sitteth in Peter's chair. Therefore Peter's chair and the pope's chair are not all one, unless their doctrine be one. It is not tied to Rome, or to that church. But alluding to that place of Moses his chair which our Saviour Christ speaketh of, because the Scribes and Pharisees taught that which Moses did teach. 
Matth. 23. 2.  Optatus also saith that he doth sit in Peter's chair, because he taught that which Peter did confess and teach. 
Optatus against Peter's chair at Rome only.  Yea, and he proveth by this argument against the Donatists (who taught, that they only were the church) that the church is also where he taught, because even there is Peter's chair: so that if Optatus your own witness speak truly, than you have marvelously abused the world for many years, in making them believe that S. Peter's chair is at Rome only. But Saint Ambrose seemeth somewhat plainer than the rest, 
Amb. in epist. 1. Timoth. 3.  in that first place alleged by master Bellarmine.  
The church is called God's house, whereof Damasus is a ruler this day. But yet the words do not import any such thing, as may prove the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. For, we will not deny that the Bishop of Rome is a ruler in the church, but, that he is the only ruler we can not grant. But Saint Ambrose expounding those words of Paul wherein he teacheth Timothy how to behave himself in God's house, 
Ambrose answered.  taketh occasion to show, both what is God's house, namely, the church, and who they are that are rulers in God's house, namely, the bishops or pastors to whom the ministry is committed. And to make this plain by an example, he setteth before us the house of God at Rome, which is the church there, and the ruler of God's house there, who is Damasus their bishop. If any man ask how it cometh to pass that he rather nameth Damasus then any other bishop? Sundry reasons of it may be yielded. First Ambrose himself was a bishop in Italy (for Milan is in Italy) under the pope's wings, and therefore the bishop of Rome was the most famous bishop and better known to his people then any of the other patriarchs, and therefore fittest for an example.  
Secondly there had been a very great schism or strife about the popedom, 
Platina in the life of Damasus.  one Vrsicinus standing for it against Damasus, so that many of both sides were slain in the very church in striving for it. But Damasus in the end obtaining the popedom Saint Ambrose to testify his own persuasion, and to assure others that Damasus and not Vrsicmus was bishop of Rome, although he stood for it, doth take occasion here to name him.  
Thirdly, 
Platina.  Damasus being pope was accused of whoredom whereof having cleared himself, it is not unlikely but that S. Ambrose did the rather take this occasion to pull all suspicion out of other men's minds, by giving 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 have no weight at all. 
Orat. in Satyrum  Satyrus did ask the bishop, whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is with the Church of Rome. He meaneth by catholic bishops, such as held the catholic faith, that then was maintained at Rome. If it be a good argument to say Rome is a catholic church, therefore it must govern all the churches in the world: then will this also be a good argument, Hippo was a catholic church, so was Milan, so are also the churches that we have allowed in England by authority, therefore they were, and ours are heads over all others. And that master Bellarmine will not allow. But he asketh why the bishops are not catholics that agree not with the church of Rome, if it be not because Rome is the head of the catholic church? I marvel much that master Bellarmine whose words go for oracles with many, will show himself so ignorant of that he allegeth. For if he had read but the words that immediately do follow, 
Bellarmine's ignorance or falsehood.  the reason is, there rendered why he asked that question, namely because the church there was in a schism. For one Lucifer had separated himself from their communion. Lo here M. Bellarm. he dreameth not of any headship of that church, but asketh this question whether he held the faith that then was preached at Rome. 
Athanasius.  And Athanasius in his creed speaketh in this sense of a catholic faith. Yea the name of catholic was also as it were a note of their profession. That whereas the Donatists gloried, that they only had the true church, the catholics 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 Emperors that made a law, 
The name of Catholic.  that whosoever believed the one godhead in trinity and equal majesty of the father, the son, and the holy ghost should be called Christians, and Catholics, 
Lib. 7. cap. 4.  as their law doth testify. Yea Sozomen reporteth of a law made by the Emperor that all should believe the law delivered by Peter the head of the apostles (but how he may be called head of the apostles I have showed before) and that now Damasus bishop of Rome, and Peter of Alexandria do hold and that they only that worship the trinity with like honour, should be called the catholic church. And doth master Bellarmine to make his bad proof seem better, ask how they may be called catholics, that agree with the church of Rome, unless it be in this respect, that they take it to be the head of the catholic church? here are catholics we see and yet not bound to believe that head.  
After he allegeth two other places of like force. 
De Sacram, li. 3. cap. 1.  The effect of them is, that he would follow the pattern of the church of Rome. So would I also if I had lived in those days, when they sincerely held the faith committed to them by God's word. And he doubtless, if he saw the superstition, and Idolatry, and treasons, that under colour of religion, are hatched there in our days, he would think even the cotton ruins of Rome, to be over good, to be a cage for so bad birds. But to follow their example, is not to yield unto them power over us.  
To go forward, out of saint Jerome he reasoneth thus: Saint Jerome for pope Damasus answered: 
Epist, ad Alg. de Monogam.  the Synodical consultations of the East and West, therefore they that sought for answer from the seat of Rome in their matters acknowledged the superiority thereof. If I should tell Master Bellarmine again, that Master calvin in his time, and Master Beza in his time, have answered more matters and questions that came from sundry of the reformed Churches, and some particular men, than many of the pope's of that time, yet I am sure he will never confess them to be universal Bishops, for that. No more need we grant to him, that the Pope is a universal Bishop, 
Ad Damas'. ep. de nomine hypostas.  because many questions were moved to him. Again, Saint Hierome confesseth himself to be Damasus his sheep, and that he is of communion with him. Alas, what childish proofs are these? May not Hierome confess himself to depend upon Damasus, but that he must thereby tie all others likewise to be subject unto him? It is a shame for men so to deceive the world, and to hasten even their own damnation by abusing the simple in such sort. They cry it out in every corner, that there is no salvation to be hoped for, unless they do acknowledge the Bishop of Rome to be head of their Church: and yet are they not able to yield so much as one good reason out of the Scriptures or ancient writers of the purer age for proof of their doctrine. It must be believed as an article of faith, and yet they could show no ground, no warrant for it.  
Out of saint Augustine is alleged, that in the Church of Rome, 
Epist. 162.  the principality of Peter's chair hath always flourished. Augustine and Optatus as they were in one time, so were they of one mind. And as before out of Optatus I showed, and that by Christ's testimony, that the Apostles chair is his doctrine, so here doth it signify. And saint Augustine his meaning is, that Rome hath especially kept the Apostles doctrine or faith, the which in Saint Augustine's days, might truly be verified. Again, out of Saint Augustine epist. 92. he desireth pope Innocent to help them against the Pelagians, which marvelously troubled. Palestine and Africa.  
Now out of this will he conclude the pope's Supremacy. But saint Augustine himself denieth that he had any such meaning, in that he was one of that sixth council of Carthage that so stiffly denied supremacy unto the pope, seeking it so earnestly, and by very false practices. And the Bishop of Rome, was then of great ability to do good, as also any other may be, and yet not have jurisdiction over them that seek for that good at his hands. I would have them to bring some plain proof, and not so to stand upon strange conjectures. 
Epist. 157.  Again, Sozimus bishop of Rome willed hini to go to a council at Caesarea, and he therefore said that he must needs go. If Sozimus did command, and Augustine would not stand upon his right in such a matter, where perchance his going might be profitable to God's church, yet that would not make Sozimus head of the church. No, at that time they did not gather any such hard conclusions. For although they would not refuse to do good, even being more imperiously commanded then reason would, yet supremacy (as I have showed) they would not acknowledge in the Bishop of Rome, but rather were content to be at great charges to convince the pope's falsehood.  
In the last two places saint Augustine commendeth the bishop of Rome, 
Ad Bonis, l. 1. c. 1.  in that being so high as he was, yet he would be friendly to them that were humble or low, and then confesseth every Bishop to be high, yet him to be higher. A man may be friend to them that are lower than he is: and one Bishop may be higher than others, and yet not have jurisdiction over them. 
Prosper de ingr.  Higher, I say in gifts, credit, place or many other ways.  
In England we see differences of bishoprics, 
Prosper examined.  where yet the one hath not jurisdiction over the other. Now for Prosper, it were hard if his poetical amplifications should be able to carry away the weight of so great a cause. But for his words if he say that Rome is Peter's seat in respect of the doctrine that there was taught and maintained, as before Optatus and Augustine (of whom he was a great follower) have done, we yield unto him. Otherwise I leave the godly Reader to the arguments before alleged, to consider what he should think concerning this point, whether Peter was Bishop there or not. And where he saith that Rome is made unto the world the head of pastoral honour, we yield unto that also, that at that time there was no church, that either more sincerely did keep that which the apostles taught, or had more credit and authority amongst other churches than Rome had, in respect that she was able and willing to do good unto many other.  
But where he saith that what by arms she could not, by religion she hath subdued: is not simply true. For there are many that never were nor will be (by likely hood) subdued to Romish religion. But in some respect we also confess that to be so, in that religion subdueth the heart, and winneth the affection of men to be subject, whereas that outward force can only prevail against the outward man. 
De persecutions Wandalica.  Now for Victor Vticensis who calleth the church of Rome head of all other churches, I have often showed that it may truly so be called in respect of the authority which by many occasions it had gotten, not in respect of any jurisdiction that Christ gave unto it, more than to other. The next is Vyncentius Lirinensis, 
Vincent. Lyrinens. in commonit.  who alluding unto the name, or indeed rather giving unto Rome that name, that was commonly given unto it, saith that the head of the world gave testimony unto it (meaning the council of Ephesus.) You see saith master Bellarmine that the bishop of Rome is called head of the world. 
Vincent wrung to a wrong sense.  Nay you see how our pope's catholics' encroach more and more, for that unsatiable gulf of the church, of Rome, which will never have honour and authority enough. Who ever before master Bellarmine hath called the pope the head of the world? He hath wont to be but head of the church. But I fear that if his kingdom continue a while Acharonta movebit, he will keep a stir in hell also. But Vincensius giveth no such name to julius bishop of Rome. He would not be so injurious to the civil authority he had learned better than so, to give to Caesar that that belongeth to Caeser, and to God that that is Gods, although the church of Rome might quite blot out of their books that lesson, for any regard that they have to keep it.  
As for Vincentius, his meaning is plain enough to them that will see the truth. For having spoken of sundry places from whence learned men came to that council of Ephesus, first out of the East, than also out of the West churches, he nameth julius bishop of the city of Rome, which city he calleth the head of the world, as immediately after he calleth Carthage one of the South, and Milan one of the North, the sides of the world.  
But if he had made so very great account of the church of Rome, as in these days men would have us to do, he would have had perchance some more regard in placing that church in some other order, then to make it almost the last that he mentioneth.  
Out of Cassiodor a senator and a great officer in Rome master Bellarmine allegeth somewhat. 
Lib. 11. Epist. 2. ad joh. papam.  You (saith he to john Bishop of Rome) sit as watchmen over christian people, as you are called father you love all.  
I see nothing here that can help master Bellarmine or his cause. For who ever did think otherwise, then that the Bishop of Rome, was a watchman over christian people? Or who will say that the Pope hath not or at the least should have a fatherly affection towards all? 
If he commend his cure, how proveth that his power?  Well it followeth. It is our part to look to somewhat, you look to all.  
Cassiodor living under the pope's nose, is content either by this praising of him to teach him what care he indeed should have, not only to do good to the people of Rome where he was Bishop, but also as occasions should be offered to help others also. Or else it may be that he giveth him greater praise than he deserveth.  
But what is this for the pope's supremacy? Must not the building needs fall that standeth upon such weak propes? Much like is that which followeth that the seat which is pope john's peculiar place, is given generally to the whole world, that is as I take it to do good to all. If a Roman magistrate to the bishop of Rome do extol more then in truth he may, the power of that city, or else tell how far their benefits do extend, must this be so strained and wrung to prove supremacy?  
The last testimony alleged by master Bellarmine doth 
Valentinianus Theodos. in praeamb. Concil. Chalcedonens.  so little help his cause, that if he had done wisely he should never have spoken of it. For by that Epistle and others that are set before that council of Chalcedon it may easily appear, that Leo Bishop of Rome did then bestir him using the dissension of the East church as a mean to increase his own authority. For it is most plain and cannot be denied, that afterwards in that council, 
Leo earnestly seeketh supremacy.  by his legates, he sought the supremacy very earnestly and in sundry of his Epistles disannulleth that the council did against it. And in these Epistles he maketh moan to many to procure Theodosius the Emperor to stand his friend.  
An● in this Epistle here cited by master Bellarmine, Valentinian showeth how Leo came unto him, told him of the division of the East church, and great troubles there. For indeed Flavianus a catholic bishop was deposed by Dioscorus, and so cruelly handled, that he died thereof within three days.  
Well Valentinian maketh petition to Theodosius, That (the bishop of Rome) may have place and power, to judge of the faith and of the priests. Which request made by Valentinian, in the letter which Valentinian confesseth that Leo requested him to write, so jumping with that which afterwards Leo in the council practised, may much persuade us to think, that he solicited Valentinian the Emperor, either plainly or covertly, to move this in his behalf. Well then this being but a request made that it may so be, that cannot prove that it was so, but contrary.  
And what reason doth Valentinian the Emperor an especial friend to the bishop of Rome, use to commend his suit. Antiquity gave him principality of priesthood over all. Wherein I first note that not Christ, but ancient custom, is pretended to have privileged him.  
And here again mark how this agreeth with that which was afterwards in the council of Chalcedon objected by Paschasnus, 
Supremacy claimed by custom not by gods law.  legate for Leo this bishop of Rome. The church of Rome (saith Paschasinus) always had the supremacy. 
Act. 16.  But this his allegation was proved false.  
But the allegations of Valentinian the pope's solicitor in this cause, and of Poschasimus the pope's legate being so like, it maketh me the bolder to conjecture, that they were both forged in one shop, because they have both one stamp.  
Thus have I taken a view of all such testimonies as are alleged by master Bellarmine out of them, that lived within 600. years of Christ, for to establish the pride of that Romish seat. I have of purpose omitted three or iiii. by him alleged, because they wrote after the time that Phocas that murdering traitor, (who killed Mauritius his Lord and master for his Empire, having first killed before his face his wife and five of his children,) had granted unto Boniface bishop of Rome third of that name, to be supreme head over the whole church. Wherein although I have endeavoured to be short, yet I trust it plainly enough appeareth to them that will not shut their eyes against the truth, that although the church of Rome had indeed in regard of her constancy in the truth, and power which she grew unto by many occasions, being in the imperial city, great authority amongst all other churches: and although learned men were by their distressed estates forced many times in their private seats, to yield to that church more interest to meddle in their matters, then of right it had: yet it cannot appear by any thing that they bring out of any approved record, within the compass of those years, that the church of Rome was either by God's law, appointed the head over others, which is indeed the point that they should prove, or that by common consent of the godly it was so catholicly received. And yet if this latter could have more apparent proof, than ever Rome or Rheims can afford in this cause, they should gain nothing, but that good men have either ordained or tolerated such a state. Which howsoever it might seem tolerable, when many good men possessed that place: yet that the church, should be subject to such as now for the most part sit in that seat, no christian heart can well endure it. But now this labour being taken in hand, to try the pope's title unto the supremacy, or how he pleadeth, or what claim he can make: I must needs give warning to the christian reader, to mark how that as master Bellarmine hath said little, or rather nothing at all, to prove this authority of the bishop of to be grounded upon God's law: so be hath not brought one council within the said six hundred years or any thing sufficiently material out of the fathers of that time to prove that by man's law he was decreed so to be, but only sometimes perchance by particular men used, as if he had authority over all. And shall this be accounted a catholic doctrine, that neither God nor man, for six hundred years after Christ, commanded to be believed? If there come no better evidence than master Bellarmine can bring, without all doubt the pope will be found, to be but an intruder into other men's right, a usurper of other men's jurisdiction.  
But master Bellarmine will help his former want, with a new supply. 
Li. 1. cap. 17. Object. of Bellar.  He affirmeth very boldly, as he doth often in other matters, that we know neither the time wherein, neither the author by whom, this supremacy had beginning. Yet it may be that we shall guess shrewdly at it. 
Answer.  But first we must understand that the root of this supremacy that is the pride and ambition of heart that was in many of the pope's, was lying long in the ground before it did sprout and plainly show itself, and when it grew that it might be seen, yet was it not perfected in a long time after. But it did plainly show itself in the time of Phocas of whom I spoke before. For he with much ado ordained, 
Plat. in Bonif. 3.  that the bishop of Rome should be called and counted the head of all churches, as many of the pope's friends tell us, and among other Platina. A very fit patron, for so proud a prelate. And after that the pope had gotten by the emperors decree, this glorious title, yet he could not presently get quiet possession of the same, but the bishop of Constantinople did still strive for that name. 
Omph. annot. in Bonif. 3.  Until at the length, they were both content to wink, and the one to suffer the other to be be called universal bishop. So that both of them had that name, and were so called. And now the bishop of Rome having obtaived thus much in the west church, that he in all councils and meetings was chief, and that they should submit themselves to him. Before it was long he had taken so good root and began to grow so mighty, that he durst alter and change, give to and take from men at his pleasure, and to turn all things upside down, yea and in the end, to cheek the greatest monarches. But of these matters I shall if God will have better occasion to entreat in the second part of this treatise. Now I will only say that they were come to such power as Platina writeth of Boniface the eight, 
Plat. in Bonif.  that they would rather put fear into the hearts of emperors, kings, princes, nations, and people than religion. And thus when they had been in increasing and growing in strength, for the space of at the least eight hundred years, at length in the council of Florence we find this their sovereign and supreme power confirmed in these words. 
Concil. Florent.  We define that the holy apostolic seat, and bispp of Rome hath the supremacy in the whole world. So that although we cannot perfectly say, when this poison of pride began in the church of Rome, yet you see we can perfectly enough tell when it began to show itself, and when it was made an ecclesiastical drecrees. Neither is that of any weight which master Bellarmine allegeth out of Gregory to the contrary, 
Lib. 7. epist. 63.  that the church of Constantinople is under the church of Rome. For he cannot mean thereby the church of Rome should have supreme authority over it and all other churches, seeing that no man more than Gregory inveigheth against the name of universal bishop, but his meaning is only this, that the church of Constantinople is not of so good account or authority in meetings or assemblies as that of Rome. Which being applied to our question proveth nothing. For to prove that the church of Rome may sit, or go, or write his name, before the bishop of Constantinople, is not to prove him to have jurisdiction over him. That which out of justinian he allegeth, 
Pag. 98.  is answered before, as that also that he bringeth out of the epistle of Valentinian to Theodosius, saving that master Bellarmine encroacheth somewhat, and taketh more than is given him. 
Pag. 112.  For where Valentinian saith that Antiquity hath given that to Rome, master Bellarmine seethe that will not serve his turn, to prove it to have been from Christ, from whom only they can claim it, if by the law of God they will have it, and therefore he saith not as Valentinian doth that it hath been of old time, 
Bellarmine addeth to Valentinians words, or changeth them.  but always. And so wresteth his words quite out of tune. And it is but a foolish shift whereby they seek to pervert the truth and by these forced gloss, to corrupt the words of almost all stories, when they denied Phocas first to have given supremacy to the pope, 
Bellar. lib. 2. de pontiff. Rom. c. 17  he did (if you will trust master Bellarmine) but declare it and did not give it. Platina saith that the pope obtained this of Phocas to be called and counted head, 
In Bonif. 3.  and so doth Sigebert: 
Cron. Euseb.  and Eusebius saith that by the consent of Phocas it was so instituted. And Benevenutus Imolensis a story commended by pope Pius the second, by his adding to the same, the lives of four emperors, saith that Phocas first obtained that Rome should be head of all churches. If he First obtained this title to Rome, if he did institute it, if the pope obtained this of Phocas, then let the indifferent reader judge, how untruly master Bellarmine saith that Phocas did but declare this thing, and that it was before. Yea what needed this any declaration of of the emperor, if the church had received it as a catholic doctrine. Or if it be not a catholic doctrine, what meaneth master Bellarmine, to make so false brags as he sometimes doth, of the consent of fathers in this doctrine. And thus I trust I have laid open the vanity of the proof, and the weakness of the argument, whereby they endeavour to strengthen and establish, the tyrannous sovereignty of the church of Rome. For if Peter had no such jurisdiction over others, he could not give it to any other. If his being bishop of Rome, have not any such ground, but that it may justly be doubted of, and strong presumptions to the contrary: then is not the pope's succession of Peter, so certain, as they would have it thought. Yea and if Peter were bishop of Rome and if he had such sovereignty: how do they prove that it is bequeathed to them, to what person, how in what words, at what time, in what place, before what witnesses? All which things how weakly they prove, hitherto I have declared. And yet to go further, admit, that Peter had such jurisdiction, which cannot be proved, but I admit I say that he had it, admit also that he could, and did, leave the same to the bishop of Rome, which we also justly deny: must it therefore cleave so fast to that chair in Rome, 
If jurisdiction were had, yet it might be lost.  that it can not for any cause be altered? Must it be so hereditary to his successors, if they had been his successors that are bishops of Rome, that they could not forfeit it for any terspasse, that it may not be taken from them, for any offence? God forbidden that we should be so foolish, as to tie God to any place or people, to any sect or succession in such sort, as that howsoever men do abuse his graces, or their own callings, yet still they must have the place that once they have gotten, and they must serve him in that place, whether he will or not, as though they had it by everlasting patent. 
Exod. 28. 1.  Did not God choose to be his high priest Aaron, and his sons by name Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar to serve in the priests office? No man can deny it. And yet Nadab and Abihu for offering only with strange fire (many greater offences than that, 
Levit. 10. 1. Priests for their sins punished.  are committed in the church of Rome) were burnt with fire from heaven, to show that God is not so in bondage to them whom he hath placed in such rooms, that he must have their service whether he will or not. Yea, and did the priesthood continue always in Aaron's line, until the very time that the Levitical priesthood was utterly abolished? No verily. For Herod set up priests at his pleasure, when he came to be made king of jewry, so that then the line of Aaron was utterly extinct, concerning the priesthood, and they that afterwards were priests were not of the same. Where then is the choice that God made of Aaron's posterity to serve him? And what greater promise can the church of Rome find made unto Peter (I say not to them, for they had none made) then was made unto Phinehas, even a covenant of the priests office for ever? 
●um. 25. 13.  And yet we see this was not only altered now, when the priesthood was quite gone from Aaron's posterity, but also even long before, when the priesthood was given unto Eli that was the son of Ithamar, and taken from the posterity of Phinehas, so that, not so much as his son succeeded him.  
And concerning Eli the priest, 
1. 〈◊〉. 2. 30.  the priest, the Lord had said, that he and his house should have walked before God for ever, (meaning in the priests office.) But when God saw how Eli did wink at the great disorders of his sons, whereby God's service was hindered, 
31  than he let Eli to understand, that he would cut off his authority, and stir himself up a faithful Priest, that should do according to his heart, and according to his mind.  
And this was performed when Abiathar was put out of the 
35  priesthood by Solomon, and Zadoc was made Priest in his steed. 
2. Kings 2. 27, 35  And of this Zadoc it is said by God himself, by that messenger or man of God that was sent to Eli. I will build him (meaning Zadoc) a sure house, 
1. Sam. 2. 35.  and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever. And yet (as is before declared) the priesthood was taken from his line also, so that there were divers high priests that were not of his house. If now God in his just judgement might, and in his upright and faultless justice did, take from them, that which they might as assuredly have claimed to themselves and their posterity, as ever Peter might claim such sovereign jurisdiction, to him and his successors, so that they have their light put out, and their candlestick removed: how much less may they claim any perpetuity to rule over God's people, that can pretend almost no colour of title for the same? 
God left Silo.  What, is Rome any better than Silo? It pleased God there to dwell many yeeares, he made it as it were his tent among men, 
1. Sam. 4. Psal. 78. 60. jer. 7. 12.  God calls it his place, where he set his name at the beginning. And yet was it in the end made a byword among the people, that God when he will threaten his grievous wrath, 
14  saith he will do as he did to Silo.  
And again, 
jerem. 26. 6.  I will make this house like Silo, and will make this city a curse to all the nations of the earth: because he forsook the habitation of Silo, 
Psal. 78. 60.  the tabernacle where he dwelled among men. Let them that would so feign tie us to that Romish chair, show that ever God sat so in it, or said so much of it, as he hath spoken of Silo, and when they have so done, yet can they have no greater interest in God than Silo had, 
jerem. 7. 12.  from which God departed, for the wickedness of the people of Israel. And shall we think that he will rest in that polluted nest, or dwell in that unclean den, where God's name is most horribly blasphemed, with superstitions and idolatries above measure? If he have forsaken Israel, can he delight in Italy.  
If he have left jerusalem, will he tarry at Rome? For even jerusalem that holy city: 
jerusalem for sin forsaken, and the temple.  nay, the Temple there, which was the glory of that people, and the wonder of the world, which had so many promises of God's favour, so many tokens of Gods good liking of it, (for the Lord had chosen Zion, and loved to dwell therein, saying, This my rest for ever, here will I dwell, for I have a delight therein) Psalm one hundred thirty two, the thirteen and fourteen verses, even that Temple (I say) which God himself commanded to be made, and chose for his ownne house, was not only destroyed by the Babylonians, and afterwards being built again) by the Romans', so that not one stone was left upon an other, but also God left the place itself, and cast off that people, for being a people unto him, as the Apostle Saint Paul to the Romans in the eleventh chapter telleth us, and experience proclaimeth it. Yea, where is the promise concerning the flesh that was made unto Abraham, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed? Genesis the seventeenth chapter and seventh verse. What is become of that peculiar people of God, the Lords own inheritance, the people that he chose to set his name among them, the vine that he brought out of Egypt? Were they not many times for their sins, a pray unto their enemies, a reproach among the people? Hath not the wild bore out of the wood so devoured the same, that not so much as one root of it is known to grow there? In so much as the prophet Esay in their names maketh a just and true complaint saying, The people of thy holiness have possessed it but a little while, for our adversaries have trodden down thy sanctuary: We have been as they over whom thou never barest rule, and upon whom thy name was not called, Esay the sixty three chapter and eighteen and nineteen verses. What then, is the promise of God of none effect? Will not God be as good as his word? Yes doubtless, he can not lie, he will not deceive us. But all such promises have a secret condition of serving God to be understood.  
And if we on our part (I will not say perform the condition, for we can not do it) but if we will strive and endeavour earnestly to fulfil it, no doubt but he will assist us with his good grace, and embrace us, with his endless and infinite mercies. But if we hearken only to that he promiseth, and regard not that which he requireth, we deceive ourselves with a vain expectation of that that belongeth not to us. 
A similitude.  God dealeth with us as a good master dealeth with his servant. First he hireth him to be his servant, and whatsoever promises of good turns he afterwards maketh unto him, they depend upon that first covenant, if he serve him diligently. If then a master promise to his servant, to do him some great pleasure, may that servant neglect his duty, loiter & linger about his work, leave his business undone, despise his masters commandment and yet say within himself, my master oweth me a good turn? He may not, there is no reason to move him to it. If then the church of Rome claim such promises and privileges to belong to them, as they pretend they have, yet they might long since, by the abusing of their authority, and other good graces and gifts of God, have forfeited, and lost the same. As we have to see most plainly in the example of the levites who were of Aaron's time, to whom it did belong by right of inheritance as it were, and succession to be priests unto God. 
Levitical priests for sin disgraded. Ezech. 44. 12.  And yet when they sinned against the Lord, and had no regard to keep covenant with him, of them he saith I have lift up my hand against them, and they shall bear their iniquity, and they shall not come near unto me, to do the office of the priest unto me, neither shall they come near unto any of my holy things, in the most holy place, but they shall bear their shame, and their abominations which they have committed. The like deprivation from their charge, and disgrading them of their priesthood, 
Hos. 4. 6.  we read of in Hosea the prophet: Because thou hast refused knowledge, I will also refuse thee that thou shalt be no priest to me, and seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.  
May he cast off his priests, whom himself appointed to be his priests, who had that office by succession, and therefore we cannot doubt of their calling? 
The pope's calling is many times by wicked means.  And yet must he be tied to them that by bribery, violence and many vile practices, as poysening, covenants with the Devil, and such other lewd means, do possess that seat, and therefore have no show of lawful calling, and when they are in it, do nothing less than set forth God's truth, maintain his glory. or think of God's law? No no, he is now as free as ever he was, to choose him such servants, as are according to his own heart he is no more bound to dwell still at Rome, than he was not to remove from jerusalem. The one place is already destroyed with a perpetual destruction: For the other unless it amend, there is reserved a more heavy judgement. And upon this point I have stayed somewhat the longer, not only for their sakes that imagine the pope cannot err or be removed, but to admonish even us also, that profess the gospel that unless we repent, we shall all perish likewise. 
Luke 13. 3.  We are the figtree, for which the dresser of the vineyard, 
Luke 13. 6. 7. An admonition● to the professors of the gospel.  entreateth that yet this fourth year we may be spared (for we have been three long years, yea three times twelve years unfruitful. Our owner looked for figes but we yield none, for grapes, 
Esay 5.  but we bear none, but sour ones.) Now is the time wherein much digging, and dunging, is bestowed upon us. If we continue still fruitfesse, as we have been, there is no hope of mercy, but without sparing we must be cut down. and so shall be cast into the vuquenchable fire. And this is in truth a more christian and necessary collection, and more agreeable to God's justice and to the whole course of scripture, 
Levit. 26. Deut. 28. 2, Thessa. 1. 5, 6, 7  which promiseth good things, to them that walk in the fear of God, and threateneth God's wrath, to them that are disobedient, and delight in sin: 
Praes●t. in lib. pontiff. Rom.  then that which master Bellarmine gathereth, out of the sins and schisms of the pope's. For hereby will he prove, that the church of Rome is the true church, because they have had very many most grievous schisms, even among the pope's themselves (now where is the unity that so much they brag of?)  
And because there have been many wicked pope's, amongst whom himself nameth Steven the sixth Leo the fifth Christopher the first, 
Bad Popes are as pearls to beautify the church of Rome.  Sergius the third, john the twelfth, with others not a few as his own words are. And yet notwithstanding that they have had many vices (as he saith) the glory of that seat is increased, and amplified thereby greatly. Indeed such pearls, do best become such swine's snouts. But what maketh master Bellarmine to like the better of the Romish church, and the rather to be induced to imagine, that it is a true church, because even the heads thereof, have been so bad companions, and so abounding in all wickedness?  
Forsooth because if the bishop of Rome had not been of God's appointment (saith he) and that church the true church, it could not have stood and continued so long, being so full fraught with so many sins. But that is it that is in question whether the church of Rome be the true church or not. We deny it, we find not in it the ancient faith, the doctrine of the apostles, the sincere word. We see not there, the pure administration of God's holy Sacraments. They teach us outward hypocrisy for true holiness, foolish toys, for spiritual worshipping.  
These and such like things do strongly persuade us, that God hath done to Rome as he hath done to Silo and to jerusalem long since, and will he prove it to be the true church because the bishops are evil? Now if the name and outward show of a church, have so blinded the eyes of master Bellarmine, that he will, that it must needs be as it is called, that is to say, the catholic church, 
The name of the church is often where the church is not.  I would have him look to jerusalem, how in the time of Christ, when the church was in them that followed Christ, yet the name and outward glory of the church, remained with the priests, and that company, which were the greatest enemies to Christ and his church.  
As therefore we see not in the church of Rome when we try their doctrines, any probability that they are the true church of Christ: so we set this down as the infallible course of his judgements, with whom it is counted a righteous thing, to set himself against such as delight in sin, that he that spared not the angels that left their first estate, neither delighted in his own people whom he had brought out of Egypt when they sinned against him, 
jude. 5. 6.  will have no pleasure in the church of Rome any longer, than she hath pleasure in his law, 
Revel. 2. 5, 16. Revel. 3. 16.  but will remove their candlestick, fight against them with the sword of his mouth, and spew them out, when they reject his truth.  
Thus than we see that God left the priests, whom he had appointed, the people, whom he had brought out of Egypt, and taken to be his peculiar inheritance, the place, that he had chosen, the temple, that he commanded to be made, because of their sins.  
Let these things make us with indifferent judgement, and without partiality to try, whether God be also departed from that church of Rome or not. For there is no doubt, but if any people whatsoever, sins as they did, they may also be punished as they were: But that church of Rome hath sinned, in as abundant measure, as ever did jerusalem, as themselves and their own stories do show, therefore why should they flatter themselves imagining that God will not deal with her, as he hath dealt with others.  
And here we may consider how untrue that popish position is, that the church of Rome, or the Bishop of Rome can not err. Can he sin? They confess that he can not. Yea, and their own sins do record such sins of theirs, as ascend up before the Lord, and cry unto God for vengeance. No doubt then but such may err, and fall into heresies also. For it is truly said of Saint Augustine, that men by their sins do fall into heresies, and heresies are the very punishment for sin. For he that is the just judge, must needs pour forth his wrath, 
Rom. 1. 18.  upon such as detain the truth in unrighteousness, and upon such as know God by his works, but will not glorify, 
Verse 21. 23.  him as God, and therefore in their excess of folly do turn the glory of the incorruptible God, into the similitude of corruptible man, yea and of things most base and vile, for man to worship.  
Thus than we see how sin deserveth, that God in his wrath should strike with blindness, such as do delight therein. For when the love of the truth is not received, God sendeth unto such as refuse the truth, strong illusions, that they should believe lies, Thessalo. 2. 10. 11. And if you would have example thereof, none is better than Solomon, who was for wisdom the wonder of the world, and yet when he gave himself to sin with women, he was by that means drawn to idolatry: In somuch as Nehemiah, 
1. Kinb. 12. 4.  fearing lest for the like offence, the like judgement of God, should fall upon the people of his time, 
Nehem, 13. 26  warneth them by the example of Solomon to take heed. Did not (saith he) Solomon king of Israel sin by those things? And Satan knew well enough, that this was the readiest way, to draw men to idolatry, (which is deed detestable heresy) by moving them to carnal and filthy adultery.  
Therefore also he prevaileth against God's people by that wicked practice. 
Num. 25. 1.  Shall we then think, that the church of Rome, (whose sins are greater than were the sins of Sodom and Gomorah) cannot be left unto itself, and plunged in error? Or that the pope cannot err, whose wicked doings are as excessive as his power is great? Master Bellarmine in his book of the bishop of Rome, taketh great pain to prove that the pope cannot err. But every body may see by his doubtful setting it down, that he cannot well tell what to affirm of it. For he will not consent with such Romish catholics as teach that the pope may err, and also teach heresy, if he define any thing out of a council. 
De pontiff. Ro● li. 4. cap. 2.  And he dare not agree with Pighius, but rejecteth his opinion, who although that the pope cannot be an heretic, or teach heresy openly though he alone define of any thing.  
But master Bellarmine will walk in a middle path which is this: that whether, the Pope may be an heretic or not, he cannot set down any heresy, to be believed of the whole church, wherein this conditional manner of speaking, (if or whether he be an heretic or not) doth show his doubtfulness in this question. But because he is perchance in the next chapters especially in the fift chapter of a more resolute opinion, I urge not this point any further. But this is his flat resolution, 
Li. 4. de Rom. pontiff. cap. 3  that when the pope teacheth the whole church he cannot err by any means, in the thing belonging to faith. No neither yet in precepts of manners, 
cap. 5  which are prescribed to the whole church, and which are of things necessary to salvation, or for such things as are of themselves good or evil. Further also he affirmeth that it is provable, and may godlily be believed (for I set down his words) that he can not only not err, as he is pope, but also as he is a particular man, he cannot he an heretic, in believing any thing obstinately against the faith. Whereby it appeareth plainly that master Bellarmine holdeth, that the pope can neither err at all, in faith or precept of manners, as he teacheth the whole church: neither can he be an obstinate heretic as he is but a private man, not considering him as pope.  
Against which doctrine I briefly oppose 2. or 3. arguments.  
The first is that which immediately before I touched. He may sin they deny it not: 
That the pope may err. Arg. 1.  therefore he may also fall into heresy. Which thus I prove.  
The self-same spirit which is the spirit of truth, 
The spirit that teacheth truth doth also sanctify.  is also the spirit of sanctification, as powerful to work the one effect as the other. And he that prayed not for Peter alone but for all the apostles that their faith should not fail, although the words Satan desired to sift you are directed to Peter (as to one perchance bolder than the rest, and proud of the promises that were made) to keep him under, as Theoph. writeth even he I say prayeth also for all unto his father, 
Theo. in Luc. 22. joh. 17. 17. joh. 14. 16, 17. Psal. 25. 9 2. Cor. 3. 5.  That he would sanctify them with his truth. The same father also, from whom must come the spirit of truth, will as David assureth us, guide the humble in his way, which thing the same prophet often prayeth for) because of ourselves, we are not sufficient so much as to think a good thought but our sufficiency is of God. And why doth God's spirit lighten our hearts, and instruct our consciences, if not to the end that we should be fruitful in holiness and righteousness. Yea the holy ghost doth not work in us any knowledge, according to that promise the church of Rome so much claimeth, but that therewith also it reformeth us, it doth not give faith, but that withal it doth purify us. Yea it frameth unto obedience all such, as it traineth to understanding. And therefore it is said that faith doth purify our hearts.  
By this knowledge, We all beh●lde as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, 
Act. 15. 9 2. Cor. 3. 18.  with open face, and are changed into the same image, from glory to glory, as it were by the spirit of the Lord. And so new minds make new men, and lightened hearts, will bring forth godly life. For it is a hard matter that he that believeth well, 〈…〉 (evil as Saint Augustine) doth testify. 
August. de tempore serm. 237.  Yea and a little before in the same sermon Same Augustine teacheth, that faith in latin being called fides, consisteth of two syllables, the first signifieth doing, the other saying. so that if a man say he believeth, do (saith this holy father) as thou sayst, and that is faith. Whereby he showeth that there is no true faith but it is exercised in doing the works of the spirit. I● then the same spirit give knowledge or faith, and godliness of life, and true faith 〈…〉 from good 〈…〉 if it be, it is but a dead faith) and godly conversation, is as necessary for every Christian, as true religion. I marvel that master Bellarmine or any other shame not to tell us, that the bishops of Rome cannot err from the right path of knowledge, (as if they were wholly lead by God's spirit) whereas many of them have wholly wandered out of the ways of godly life, as men nothing guided, but quite forsaken of that holy Ghost. And therefore this I suppose may serve for my first argument.  
Such as are not lead by God's spirit to live godly are not taught by the same: but many of the Bishops of Rome are not lead by God's spirit to live godly, therefore many of them are not taught by the same, and by consequent they may err. For they have no colour of not erring, but that only that they claim, the direction of that spirit, that was never promised to such profane prelate's, nor cannot lodge in such sinks of sin. My second argument is this.  
Pope Adrian the sixth did teach, 
Arg 2. to prove the pope may err.  that the pope may be an heretic, and teach heresy. And this doctrine was defendet by him and others, 
De pontiff. Rom. li 4. cap. 2.  as master Bellarmine himself confesseth, so that he would have it to be believed of all. And no man can deny, but that it is a question of faith, especially in the Church of Rome, whether the pope may err or not. Thus than I reason. Adrian the sixth Pope of that name, did either say that which was false, or that which was true. If he said false, than he being a pope was deceived in judgement, in a matter of faith, and such a matter as he would should be received universally, as a catholic doctrine, and so the pope hath erred. If he say true, then is it also evicted by his testimony, that the pope may err. For he affirmeth it so. So that whether he lie or speak the truth, it is sufficient to prove that which I endeavour to prove. For if he lie himself erreth, if he say true other may err.  
The third argument shall be of the examples of such as did err: 
Arg. 3. To prove that the pope may err.  I say of such bishops of Rome, as have been by their own stories, 
Marcellinus. Damasus in pontificali.  noted for heretics. I will not speak any thing of pope Marcellinus, who sacrificed to Idols, as also stories do testify, because it is said that he repent him thereof. But yet we may learn out of him, that if a pope may fall to such frailty as to commit so gross Idolatry, which is a greater sin then to fall into many of the heresies, that are condemned (by that name) of the fathers, he may also err in judgement.  
Liberius a pope, 
Liberius. Hieron, in cron.  did not only consent to the condemnation of Athanasius, that great learned and catholic father, as many ancient histories do report, and our adversaries deny not, but also did communicate with two notable Atrian heretics, which was a great offence to the godly, and an encouraging of those heretics. But master Bellarmine answereth that neither he taught any heresy, 
Lib. 4. de Pontif. Rom. cap. 9  or was an heretic. The question is, whether the pope may oer or not. Now our adversaries draw us from the question, 
The papists answer not directly to the question whether the pope may err.  not answering whether Liberius did err or not, but they tell us that he was no heretic, and that he taught no heresy. And admit he did neither of these two, I mean that he neither became an heretic, neither yet taught heresy: yet he may err. Yea Liberius did foully err, in that external action, whereby our adversaries confess that he consented to the banishment of Athanasius, 
Bellar. de Rom. pontif., li. 4. ca 9  and in communicating with those two Arrians Valence Visacius, and by help of Arrians get again to be bishop of Rome, deposing Felix. For to err is to wander or go out of the right way, whether it be for ignorance or fear, or through any other affection, he that steppeth aside doth err. And because this giveth great light, to all that is to be said of this question: it shall not be amiss somewhat more thoroughly to consider of the same. First you see that whereas their doctrine is briefly delivered that the pope cannot err: they will have it thus to be understooed, the pope cannot be an heretic, that is, he cannot continue obstinately in heresy, nor he cannot teach heresy, when he giveth general precepts that should belong to the whole church. For that is the meaning both of Melchior Canus, in his Theological places, 
Lib. 6. cap. 8.  and of master Bellarmine in this place before alleged. The intent also of their doctrine, is to commend unto us that their Italian head, as a fit head, for to guide the universal church, and able to be ahead to the whole body.  
Now therefore let us 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 lead the body of the church awry. But the church may be led into many foolish opinions, strange conceits, 
The difference between error and heresy. De civit. dei Li. 18. cap. 51.  and dangerous doctrines even by such as cannot be called heretics. For an heretic is he (as Saint Augustine telleth us) that being of any evil and corrupt opinion in the church, and being reproved, or monished to amend, resisteth stubbornly, and will not reform his contagious and perilous doctrines, but defendeth the same, and is drawn to devise or follow such opinions, for his own profit, especially for his own glory, and to advance himself.  
Now who seethe not, that a man in place of credit and authority, as the bishop of Rome hath been (by such bad means as he hath used these many years, may wonderfully endamage and endanger the church of God, before any body will or dare reprove him, for any opinions that he will hold? And when he is found fault withal (as he must be before they can count him an heretic) how many subtle shifts can evil men have, to continue a long time in their wicked opinions, without revoking the same, or reforming themselves, and yet to avoid the danger of being accounted stubborn or obstinate. The Pelagians against whom saint Augustine writeth many books did turn many ways their lewd opinions, 
Contra 2 Epist. Pelag. l. 4. 5. 6.  changed often (in some show of words) their positions, and did add (as by reason they were forced, and by arguments compelled) some such words unto their errors, as that thereby they might avoid the note of contumacy, and deceive the more under a show of truth, as may appear by saint Augustine, who confesseth plainly, that if their meaning were not known to be evil, their words could well enough have been borne withal. Admit then that a bishop of Rome, being of such absolute authority as now they are, could as cunningly as did the Pelagians, cover and cloak an heresy. Might not he be an heretic many years, before he would be driven to recant? And might not he then by such means, bring irreparable hurt to the church of God?  
Thus we see, that as by this doctrine that the pope cannot err, they go about to assure us, that the head which they have set over the church, cannot deceive us, if we will be lead by him: so their interpretation of that their position, argueth in them great doubtfulness, & that they dare not defend their own faying, unless they may expound their words after this manner, that the pope cannot err, that is he cannot obstinately or stubbornly teach (as a doctrine to be received of the whole church) any heresy. And I pray you what safety can the godly find in following such a head, 
A similitude.  as when he hath guided them into many errors, yet he will not stubbornly stand in defence of them? Such may well be compared to soldiers, that by the rash leading of an unskilful captain are brought into the hands of their enemies, and when the captain seethe his folly, he would feign mend it if he could, and is sorry for that he hath done.  
But what helpeth this his late repentance, the distressed soldiers? nothing at all. Even so that the bishop of Rome cannot continue in his error (if it were true that he had some such privilege) it might be good for himself: But such a head is for others very dangerous, because that not all they who are seduced by such men's 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 received doctrine, or with their intent and meaning which is to promise safety from error, unto them that receive that head. Whereas in truth their meaning is to tell us that the pope may be of a wrong judgement, but if he be much urged he cannot be obstinate, he will not stand to it. And whereas they defend, 
Bellar. de Rom. Pontif. li. 4. c. 3.  that the pope cannot teach heresy as a doctrine publicly to be received, in some respect I think it to be most true. 
Pope's no teachers.  For seldom or never are there any pope's, that can teach either truth or heresy. They cannot preach, they cannot with wholesome doctrine feed their flock, they cannot divide the food of life, and break the bread of the word, unto God's household servants. For want of knowledge, they cannot of themselves do much either in defence of truth, or to maintain error. But this exposition will not please them. They have another meaning. For when they tell us, that the pope cannot be an heretic, when he teacheth the whole church, their meaning is plain enough, that in particular judgements they may err, but not in their general decrees, or preachings or instructions. Which they are forced to say, for the avoiding of such inconveniences, as might grow by defending the doing of many of their pope's. But if pope's may be charged with heresy, how can we think but that in their talk, 
Pope's doings or sayings may be hurtful to many.  in their sermons (if they did preach,) and upon all such occasions as were offered unto them, they would by four means or other, commend that which they liked of, and condemn the contrary? And their very words when they speak of matters of faith, are indeed instructions to all: and their examples also, are public instructions to the whole church. Neither must we imagine that those (holy father's forsooth) had one religion in secret, and an other that they would publish. Therefore if we prove that they did err, I trust also it will follow, that this error was a stumbling block to the church, and that they may err when they give lessons to all the church.  
Lastly let us consider the foundation whereupon they raise this building. 
Luke 22. 31. 32.  Because Christ said unto Peter, Simon Simon. behold Satan hath desired to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee that thy faith should not fail. To whom was this said? To Peter, although not to him alone, as before out of Theophilact I have showed. But Peter immediately after erred, 
Peter after this prayer erred. Matth. 26, 74.  so as that he thrice denied his master, as Saint Luke in the same chapter showeth, 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 marvel here at master Bellarmine, that he cannot see that Peter's faith at this time failed. 
De Rom. pontiff. li. 4. cap. 3.  For even handling these words, and this fact of Peter's, we know not saith he, that Peter's faith ever failed. He feared at the question which the damosel asked of him, 
Whether Peter's faith failed.  he denied his master, and that with cursing and swearing. Did he this for fear? No doubt he did it for fear. What was the cause of so great fear? 
Matth. 14. 31.  Was it not weakness and want of faith? Had he little faith, when he feared drowning, in so much as Christ reproving him said, O thou of little faith why didst thou doubt? And can master Bellarmine find no want of faith, in his so excessive fear, that he forswore his master? Peter therefore notwithstanding Christ's prayer both could and did err. And shall we think the pope to be more holy, of a more sanctified nature, of a sounder judgement, than Peter was? They will not so say themselves, therefore they also may err. But for master Bellarmine's subtle distinction, 
Lib. 4. cap. 3.  between perseverance and not failing, making not failing and not falling all one, but perseverance to be such, as that a man may fall, and yet by rising again, is said still to persevere: I confess it is more subtle, then sound. For persevering and continuing is all one, and continuance hath no ceasing or intermission.  
And further I must put the godly reader in remembrance, that if this were granted to Peter, that the pope doth claim, that he could not err: yet must he prove himself to be Peter's successor, and that the privilege is also successive, to that seat, before he can by these words prove his infallible judgement. And what they can do for these points, I have showed before their great weakness, 
Many pope's have erred. Honorius.  if it be but weakness, in so great light and sunshine of truth, not to see the right way. I omit of purpose many pope's to whom ●rrour is imputed by some ancient histories. I come to Honorius of whom it is written by many histories that he was a Monothelite, whose heresy was, that Christ God and man had but one will.  
And to omit all the ancient Records, 
Lib. 6. cap. 8.  that may be alleged to prove him so to be, I rest specially upon Melchior Canus his confession in his theological places, and one proof urged by him amongst many others. For he doth not only acknowledge Honorius to be an heretic, but also telleth us, how Adrian the second, in the first action of the eighth general council, confesseth that Honorius was by the Greek church condemned as a heretic, and that Agathe bishop of Rome, consented unto the same his condemnation. In which argument although master Bellarmine 
Lib. 4. cap. 11.  dessent utterly from Melchior Canus, yet he is not any thing able to take away the weight of that reason, but that Honorius although a pope, must be pronounced, and holden for an heretic, even by the detree of a general council.  
What should I speak of the error that was most apparent in those seditious pope's Steven the sixth, 
The error of Steven and other Popes.  and Sergius the third, against Formosus another pope, now long dead. And against the doings and decrees of pope Theodore, and john the tenth. Steven revoked whatsoever Formosus had done up a council called belike for that purpose, john the tenth afterwards maketh good the doings of Formosus, disamulling that that Steven did, yea, their contention was so great, that they commanded such as had taken orders of one, that they should (as if these first orders were nothing worth) take orders of another.  
These things are reported by all histories, and therefore are also confessed of themselves, that are our adversaries. If pope Formosus did not err, than Steven that d●●lt so hardly with him, and so disannulled his doings and decrees, did err. If Steven did right, than john who afterwards undid all that he had done, did wrong. Yea they disannulled the very orders that the pope's that were their adversaries had given. Which thing master Bellarmine in his fourth Book and twelfth chapter confesseth to be a matter of faith. Therefore here the pope erred in faith. No (saith he) this is only a matter of fact, it is not decreed by any of them. Let us mark out question, that is, whether the Pope may err or not.  
Master Bellarmine saith, these Popes did wrong, but they decreed nothing of disannulling those orders, which men book of their predecessors, and therefore erred not in judgement. Sigebert saith, that Steven decreed, 
Sigebere, chron.  that Formosus his ordinations were or should be voyne. 
Plat. in john 10.  Platina saith, that john the tenth judged amiss, because he judged that they must take orders again, that did take orders of Formosus. So jacob Bergomensis and Stella, agree with Platina. These therefore condemn Steven the sixth to err 〈◊〉 judgement, and so do manifestly 〈◊〉▪ that the pope did err, and confute master Bellarmine his answer to this objection. john the two and 〈◊〉 pope of that name did not believe only, but even teach, that the souls should not see God before the latter day, as master Bellarmine himself confesseth. But it was (saith he) no heresy in him so to teach, 
Lib. 4. cap. 14. What is heres●● in the church of Rome.  because there was not then any decree or distinction of the church for that point: If it true master Bellarm●● 〈…〉 heresy 〈…〉 not defined it? A thing defined in the scriptures, set down in God's word, and plainly taught in God's book, may (I perceive) by the doctrine of the church of Rome, be gainsaid without danger of heresy, so long as man hath not approved the same.  
The lessons (I perceive) that God teacheth us, must not be counted the doctrines of the church, until the bishop of Rome, or some council have set down some order therein. Well howsoever the wise masters of Rome will define what shall be heresy, yet I trust they will grant that he erred in judgement, because he taught then, that which not only the scriptures gainsay, but even the papists themselves will confess to be erroneous.  
But what should I stand in particular examples? 
Canus. lib. 6. c 8. Arg. 4. that the pope may err.  If it be true that both Melchior Canus and Bellarmine confess, especially Canus, that both the seventh and the eight synods did condemn as an heretic Honorius the pope, doth it not appear manifestly thereby, that they made no doubt, whether a pope might err or not? It is not a question amongst them, they hear of his doctrine, they condemn it as erroneous. Neither did Formosus his friends use any such argument, to hinder Steven his cruel dealings against Formosus, or Steuens friends to mitigate the rage of john the tenth against Steven, they said not thus, Formosus was a pope, and Steven was a pope, they cannot err. No it is a doctrine of later growth, and of a newer stamp.  
Master Bellarmine answereth that those two counsels that are before mentioned, 
Lib. 4. cap. 11. Lib. 4. cap. 6. Bellar, answer again ●his own doctrine.  did think that the pope as a private man might err. Wherein although he consent not with himself, who thinketh that he cannot err as before I said: yet would he thereby if he could, take away the strength of the argument. But he laboureth all in vain, for how doth it appear that the counsels thought of any such matter. There is no show, no likelihood of it. 
Bellar. chargeth the fathers with unjust dealing.  No words to induce him so to think. As for that which he saith of Honorius his letters, that they condemned him of heresy because of that which they found in his letters. I marvel master Bellarmine hath so soon forgotten himself as to allege it. Seeing himself in the beginning of the eleventh chapter, doth first doubt of the credit of those letters, and secondly he denieth that any error is in the same contained. Doth master Bellarmine think the fathers of those counsels, to have been so simple, that they could not judge of Honorius his writings, whether they were heretical or not, aswell as himself? Or will he imagine that they were so rash, that they would condemn him without cause? If he in his epistles had no error, as master Bellarmine affirmeth almost in the beginning of his eleventh chapter, why doth he here affirm, that for his epistles, and the heresies which therein he maintained, he was condemned of those counsels? If he were an heretic as by very many testimonies it doth appear, why doth master Bellarmine seek so to free him from that fault, and to take from him that stain? Even because he would (as well as he can) defend that most untrue doctrine of the church of Rome, that the pope cannot err. 
Arg. 5. that the pope may err. Si papa. dist. 40.  And yet their own law supposeth that the pope may err, and confesseth that for heresy he may be reproved. But in this, as almost in every point wherein they descent from us, they show how little they are in deed, according to their name, that they would feign be called by. For they call themselves catholics, as if the doctrine that they teach, or believe were catholic, that is vniuers●allie received. 
The difference in opinion amongst papiss. Bellar. de Rom. pontiff. lib. 4. ca 2.  And yet in this controversy they are not agreed how to defend it, or what to say of it. Gerson of Paris, Almain Alphonsus all of them papists, and pope Adrian the sixth himself, are of one mind, Albert Pighius an other papist of an other.  
Bellarmine and his masters make a third sect. And yet these men reprove us for difference in opinion, brag of their own unity, and must needs be thought to have a catholic faith. But to conclude seeing the gifts of the spirit whether of sanctification or of truth, are given unto men according to measure, 
The conclusion of this point whether the pope may err, john, 3. 34.  and not in fullness (for to Christ only God giveth the spirit not by measure, and therefore he speaketh (without error) Gods words: seeing that pope Adrian the sixth, hath assured us that pope's may err, and we have it plainly recorded in their own histories, and confessed by many of themselves, that they have erred: lastly seeing they have been, even by councils condemned of heresy, and their own law provideth and taketh order for pope's that do err, and the Church of Rome is not yet resolved, how to defend the cantrarie: we may I trust having so good warrant, even from their own friends, without any note of heresy affirm, that pope's may err. Yea what is there in them but error? They wander out of the ways of truth and of godliness. So that in that accursed company, we may see that to be most true, that where there is abundance of sin, there God justly may, and often times in his judgements doth, cast such into the depth of error, that they who had no desire to live according to the light, that did shine unto them, in serving the Lord in true holiness, should be cast into the dungeon of ignorance, as unworthy to enjoy that light which they so unthankfully refused, of that grace which they so wickedly abused. The matter then being thus, that neither Peter had any such jurisdiction over the whole church, as is claimed by the church of Rome: neither if he had it, he could, or (for any evidence that yet is showed) he did bequeath it to the Romish church, and lastly seeing that church if any such privilege, had been lawfully to her devolved, hath committed such things, as would have forfeited a better right, then ever she had in that universal authority: it doth (I trust) appear to the indifferent Reader, that their claim is unjust, their title false, and that they have no colour of interest from Christ, whose only possession that is, that they would have. But it is no new thing in the church of Rome, to bring in false evidence to prove a forged claim. 
Concil. Carthaginens. 6.  They did so in the council of Carthage when by untrue copies of the council of Nice they sought the sovereignty over all other churches. For Alipius a bishop in that council affirmeth twice that they could not find in the decrees of the Nicen council any such thing as they alleged, 
Cap. 4  for the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Novatus also another bishop saith, we read no such thing in the Nicen council. 
Cap. 6  The fathers therefore of that council did decree, that messengers should be sent to Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch as Alipius had inoved them to get the true copies. 
Cap. 4 Epist. council. 〈◊〉. ad Bonif.  For they having read many books of the council of Nice, yet could never read in any latin, or yet in any Greek copies that they had, that which the bishop of Rome his legate did allege. To try the truth therefore, they sent and sought, that they might get the true copies of that Nicen council from those places, making no doubt, but if those copies did agree which came from thence, they must be most true, as they all acknowledge writing to pope Boniface. When the copies came, they could find no such thing. Is it not then very plain that the Bishop of Rome his legate used false writings, for proof of a bad cause?  
But master Bellarmine telleth us that Saint Augustine and all they of they council mistook the matter, 
De Rom. Pontif. Lib. 2 cap. 25.  being deceived by ignorance, because they knew not what the council of Sardis did set down concerning that point. The question is whether the council of Nice did give superiority over all other to the bishop of Rome, as his legates did affirm? And it is most plain that it did not. And therefore that which is in the council of Sardis, (which if we shall believe the book of councils, set forth by Peter Crab a friar and a papist, was at the least forty years after the council of Nice) it maketh nothing to justify them, 
The council of Sardis cannot be alleged for the Nicen.  and excuse their falsehood, that for the decrees of the Nicen council, do allege that which was ordained in that council of Sardis.  
And of that council of Sardis, it may truly be said, as in the Lateran council, or at the least in the Tripartit work added unto it, 
Lib. 3. cap. 10.  complaint is made, that now adays it is hard to find either old or new councils, insomuch as the author doth there marvel, that the church of Rome hath been so negligent in that point, as not to take order for the better keeping of them.  
Augustine writeth of that council of Sardis that is was an Arrian council, 
Contra Cresco, lib. 3. cap. 34.  holden against Athanasius. The time also when it was kept is very uncertain. Yea almost all the circumstances argue great doubtfulness of that council. They that writ the story of that council, do write thereof so diversly, both for the number of bishops assembled there, and also concerning the Arrians being there, which some affirm, some deny, that thereby we may learn how little credit is to be given to it, for to ground any uncertain or doubtful doctrine upon, that it might have credit. But that which master Bel. doth afterwards say, is yet more absurd. For having affirmed that he is indeed persuaded, that these canons (which the church of Rome allegeth for her supremacy.) are not in the Nicen covecil, but only in that of Sardis, yet he thinketh that Zozimus and Boniface two bishops of Rome, did therefore name them the decrees of the Nicen council, because they were both written together in a book at Rome, 
Whether that book at Rome may by likelihood be truer than the books of the Greek church.  the ignorance whereof did much trouble the fathers as he saith. Can master Bellarmine suppose that those fathers, whose earnest endeavour was at that time to keep the decrees of the council of Nicen, were ignorant what was to be accounted of that council, or what articles belonged to the same? Or is it likely that the copies of the council of Nice should be more perfect at Rome so many hundreds of miles distant from Nice, then at Constantinople which is hard by it, or at Antioch or Alexandria not so far distant from it? Or doth he think it reason, that one Romish and another unknown copy, written perchance with that council of Nice, by some that sought thereby to increase the dignity of the church of Rome, of set purpose to bring it to that credit, that it should be accounted as parcel of the council of Nice: can he I say think it reason that those two copies should correct and control, so many of better credit by a great deal, than they are. No, these are but shifts to blind men's eyes, and indeed but babbles for fools to play withal. Master Bellarmine doth also labour in this place very earnestly to prove that the council had many decrees more than those that are in the first tome of councils set forth by Peter Crab, or spoken of by Ruff●nus. To what end is all this? Forsooth to excuse his holy fathers, that they should not be thought to give counters for gold, or lead for silver. But how can he excuse them, 
Conc. Nicen. c. 6.  for that they added to the beginning of the sixth canon, that the church of Rome hath always had the supremacy, in which false trick Paschasinus Legate unto the Bishop of Rome, 
Act. 16.  was taken in the council of Chalcedon? For it is not the translation out of Greek of Dionyse an Abbot, almost three hundred years after that council was kept, that Alan Cope speaketh of, and master Bellarmine before hath alleged for his defence, 
Li. 2. cap. 13.  that can have credit against so many authentical copies, so diligently sought and sent for, so carefully examined by so many hundreds of learned men, and so faithfully delivered for discussing even of this controversy: for Paschasinus having alleged in that council of Chalcedon for his master the Bishop of Rome the words before mentioned, 
The pope's legate taken with falsifying.  was by those copies disproved. And whereas master Bellarmine doth set down this as the intent of the Bishop of Rome in the Council of Carthage, 
Li. 2. cap. 25.  that he meant to show, that not only all men might appeal to him, but also that it were expedient for the church, that so they should do. Mark how directly the council of Carthage doth oppose itself against the Pope therein, in their epistle which hath this title, The Epistle of the African Council to pope Celestine bishop of the city of Rome. 
Conc. Afric. cap. 5  For, whereas master Bellarmine did confess that the causes of inferior ministers might be heard at home, but Bishops must be heard at Rome: this council in this epistle saith directly contrary, 
No appeals to the pope.  using it as an argument from the less to the greater: If (say they) the causes of inferior clarks by the council of Nice are provided for, how much more is it ordered then, that bishops if they be excommunicate in their province, shall not of your Holiness be hastily, or rashly, or against order thought to be restored to the communion? Thy will him to banish from him, such as seek such wicked refuges, because (say they) the Nicene decrees have plainly committed, not inferior clerks only, but also the Bishops to their Metropolitans. They assure themselves, that no province shall want the grace of God's spirit, to order these things. And that every man may, if he mislike of the judgement of them that have heard his cause, appeal to a council either provincial, or general (no words of appealing to the pope.) Unless a man will imagine (say they) that God will grant his spirit of trial of matters to every one, and deny it to all assembled in a Council. And further, they allege that the truth of matters examined far from home, can hardly be found out, by reason that witnesses can not well be carried so far. For, as for the legates a latere that should come from the pope's side, for examination of such matters, they utterly mislike, as a thing not to be found in any of the synods of the fathers.  
Thus we see, that in as plain terms as they can devise, this Council doth oppose themselves to that which the Bishop of Rome did seek to obtain. And thus it appeareth, how untruly the church of Rome hath dealt very long since, to exalt herself above others, and to maintain her own pride. And how she hath in the times of those learned fathers, been bridled in their councils. Wherein they have set down laws, to mitigate and keep under their immoderate affections, how soever they would sometimes write or speak of them, or to them that were bishops of Rome for the peace of the church, and the reverence of the persons being men often times endued with very good gifts, and such as by their acquaintance and credit, being in the imperial city, did help many that were distressed.  
Now therefore let us yield that honour to him only whom God hath sealed, 
john 6. 27. eph. 1 22. matth. 17. 5. 1. pet. 2. 25.  that he be acknowledged the head of his church, the law maker to his people, the shepherd to his flock. Let us receive no other vicar to snpply his room, 
joh. 14. 16, 17.  but that spirit of truth which God our gracious father shall give, and which shall abide with us for ever. But as for them, that without any good warrant of God's word, or sufficient calling from God, claim to be as kings, and love to live as lords over God's heritage, detest them as the proud offspring of Corah, Dathan and Abiram, 
1. Pet. 5 3. 1. Sam. 2. Num. 16. 2.  or rather as the wicked sons of Ely that did as themselves would: yea as men that are enemies to God's laws, usurpers of Christ's office, despisers of all authority, abusers of all majesty, and therefore most perilous plagnes to christian princes. And thus much to examine how just a title the pope hath, or how just a claim he may make, to be supreme head of the Church.   

The second part of the Survey of the Pope's Supremacy, which is, a proof of his Practices.  
NOw that it plainly appeareth in the first part of this Treatise, to them that do not wink with their eyes against the truth, that this Supremacy that the Bishop of Rome most proudly abuseth, hath not any ground in the word of God, as is seen, partly by the weakness of their own arguments, and partly because the father's being assembled together in their general councils, some of them more than four hundred and fifty years after Christ have taught us the contrary: it is necessary for the better understanding of this matter, yea for the more detestation of their unjust authority, that something be said of the second part of this Treatise, which is a proof or examination of the pope's practices. But herein I must consider of two points. First, how, and by what means, they got unto that high estate wherein now they are. Secondly, after what manner they have used themselves in the same. In few words how they have ruled. And because the church of Rome was not suddenly, or in one instant advanced to this place of excessive pride and insatiable ambition, wherein she now challengeth rule and dominion, over all that profess christianity: it will not be amiss, but a thing very pertinent to this my purpose, to see by what steps the pope hath come to such height, & by what practices, he hath attained to such honour. Whereas therefore the godly fathers of the primitive church, did many times stand in need of the help or counsel, 
Helping the distressed churches in their need.  or comfort, of the good Bishops of Rome, that were in their times, and as occasions fell out, were forced sometimes to flee to them for succour, who also found relief at their hands very often: the ages succeeding, did interpret this charitable affection, and performance of christian duty in these godly Bishops of Rome, to be not so much tokens of the love towards all, as of their power over all. And yet a man may be as good as he will to them, over whom he hath no power at al. Although therefore we neither can nor will deny, that which the Author of the Apology for the English Seminaries doth so confidently pronounce, that the famous fathers called for aid, comfort, and counsel in their distresses of the bishop of Rome: yet justly we may, and for the truths' sake, we must affirm, that this seeking for these causes to the bishop of Rome doth not prove him to have authority over all, but only that at such times, he had better means to help the distressed than they that sought unto him, had to relieve themselves. But many times the godly are forced to fly for aid (as these men did whom the Apology nameth) as Cypr. Atha. Chrys. Aug. Basil, jerom, Miletius & Theod. to men worse than themselves as jacob to Laban, from the wrath of Esau, and David to the Philistines, to avoid Sa●●s rage, and joseph with Christ, to escape the bloody hands of Herod, went into Egypt. 
Gen. 28. 1. Sam. 21. 10. Matth. 2. 14.  But if any man desire more particularly to be informed, in the special causes that moved these godly men, to make suit to the B. of Rome, let him read that learned answer, that Bilson hath made unto the said apology, & he is too wilful, if he be not satisfied for this point. Now some B. of Rome, though otherwise good men, were pufe up with some proud conceit of their authority, when they saw such famous and godly men, were driven to seek for their help, as it may appear by their own words, if they be their words, which go abroad in their name, for their Epistles and decrees. As Damasus in his fourth epistle, writing unto prosper the B. of the first seat in Numidia, 
Concil. Tom. 1.  and other bishops, commendeth than, that in all matters that may be doubtful, they refer themselves to him, 
Ad Hemerium Terracon. epum. Concil. Tom. 1.  as to the head, to give them answer. And it is no great marvel though Damasus would write or speak much for the dignity of his place, for coming to the which he did strive, even to the death of a great number of christians. 
Decret. Innocen. Tom. 1. Concil.  Siricius then cometh next after him, who taketh upon him to threaten to pronounce sentence against such, as will do otherwise then he would have them. And Innocentius writing to the bishops of macedony, findeth himself grieved, and thinketh that that church of Rome, to which he telleth them they should have regard, as to their head, is wronged because they did not at the first, yield to his judgement. The like might be said of many other of them. Whereby appeareth, that they who at the first were entreated by some godly men, by such means as God had given them to help them in their need, at the length took upon them to command others, to stand to their orders and decrees. Insomuch as they also gave out their decrees, which they would bind all to observe as partly appeareth in Siricius and Innocentius, and partly also in others, it will be more plain. 
Epist. ad Hefich, Tom. Concil. ●.  It savoureth of too great an arrogancy, that Zosimus another pope threateneth severity, if any despise the apostolic authority. So did Leo, so did pope a afterward. What should I seek to speak of every one, their own decrees and decrxtals, do sufficiently bear witness that within a short time they were become so imperious over others, that they would not leave men (far better and more holy than themselves, and better able to direct those bishops of Rome, than the B. were to advise them) such I say they would not leave to their own liberty in any thing, but for every thing, even the least matters that were, they must follow the direction of that church of Rome, & must have a decree for it. Which bondage greater than that of Egypt, 
Their bu● 〈◊〉 of men's 〈…〉 sciences.  how miserable a slavery it was, let the world judge, when a man might justly doubt of every thing that he did, & have some scruple of conscience in all things. For by this means it came to pass, (that the number of their ordinances being almost infinite) men should always be in danger to break some of them. Which was then a means to get them authority, & afterwards occasion of great gain.  
And thus we see two steps laid, to help them up to this their desired honour. The one is a voluntary submitting to them for aid, 
The two first steps to the pope's supremacy.  council, and comfort. The second, a forcible subjecting of others to them, by decrees, and commandments. But yet they could not get so high by far as they did look, or at the least so far as now they have climbed. For as in more than 300. years whilst they were in persecution, they had no such proud hearts for any thing that we can read in any credible authors:) so for almost 300. years more, they did but feed themselves in their own honour, and got what credit and authority they could by their own devices and policies. Howbeit they could not get any universal or general consent of other bishops, to give them that authority.  
But contrary wise not only some councils as that which is called Milevitanum and that sixth of Carthage, 
Conncils against supremacy.  and that other of Chalcedon, did stiffly withstand him therein, but also the bishop or patriarch of Constantinople, who in the council of Chalcedon, was made of equal authority with the bishop of Rome, did earnestly strive to get the supremacy, 
Constantinople strove for it.  over Rome and all others. And by all likelihood he had prevailed, if Mauritius the the Emperor, (who as some stories report took part with the patriarch of Constantinople) had not been cut of cruelly, by Phocas that did succeed him in the empire. So that hereby the pride of the bishops of Rome was somewhat hindered, and this authority which now he claimeth was almost taken from him. And he that soon after, did write himself universal bishop, or rather bishop of the universal church, and head of the church, had almost been subject to the patriarch of Constantinople. So that in good time did the pope's think, that that unnatural and savage bloodshedder Phocas, did cut his masters throat: seeing that by Phocas his means, 
Ph●●as his decree 〈…〉  they got that supremacy decreed on their side, that the bishops of Rome should be called and counted, supreme heads of the church. So now this proud decree of this cruel Emperor, 
The 〈◊〉 step unto the pope's supremacy.  is the third step unto their intolerable pride. The bishop of Rome having thus gotten, some sure footing in this proud chair, controlleth bishops, calleth councils which before the Emperor had wont to do, and in all oath such things, doth show his authority, in his writings and letters, for the most part calling himself the head of the universal church, still creeping thus higher and higher, yet not openly but covertly and by little and little: until at the length he got him a fourth step. 
The fourth step. He depriveth the Emperor of having any thing to do in the pope's election.  For having as much authority as he could yet over bishops, and that by the emperors decree, he sought to pull his neck out of the collar, wherein the Emperor did hold him. For he thought it was a burden to be in such subjection to the Emperor, that unless he would confirm the election, he could not be pope.  
Therefore whereas Constantine the fourth Emperor of that name, being moved (as the stories report) by the godliness of Benedict the second, bishop of Rome so called, did ordain that he that was chosen pope, by the clergy, people and army of Romans, without any confirmation of the emperor or his lieutenant, should be accounted pope: whereas before it might not be without the emperors leave, who had, as also the kings of France especially, a choosing voice in the electing of the pope, if we will believe a story written by a Friar, 
Ioh Rioche compend. Hist,  a fast friend to the church of Rome, called Rioche who wrote in our times: afterwards the Emperors would have resumed their own right again, perchance because that after Benedict they found none such, but some successors of his, that behaved themselves too arrogantly and insolently, against their Lord and master, but they could by no means get it into their hands to keep it, though Leo the viii. and some other yielded unto him. For the succeeding pope's many of them did still encroach more and more, debarring the Emperor of his right in their election, until about 400. years after that the bishops of Rome had gotten this from the Emperor, Alexander the 2. pope not willing to strive against his master, 
Benno a Card. of the life and acts of Hildebrand.  did publicly protest in the pulpit, that he would not be pope unless the Emperor would confirm him, whereof he said he would write unto the Emperor. When Hildebrand who was after pope and called Gregory the seventh heard this, hardly being able to hold his hands, whilst mass was in doing immediately mass being ended, before the pope could put of his massing garments, he taketh him into a secret place, and buffeteth him well favouredly, and took such order, that within a while Alexander the second died, and made room for Hildebrand to sit in his chair. And this reward did pope Gregory the seventh, bestow upon his predecessor Alexander the second, because he would restore to the emperor, that which wrongfully they kept from him, and perform unto him some piece of duty. And yet they thought they were not high enough, neither yet that this their authority was sure enough unto them. And therefore they thought good to devise some means how this authority which already they had might be confirmed to them, minding yet to mount higher, as God willing shall after be declared.  
But to make sure that they had done, 
The proof of the supremacy out of gods wo●d weak and suspected.  sometimes they would seem to have this authority from Christ. But their proof is nothing plain, & although they allege some words of Christ for proof, yet, the apostles did never make any mention of any supremacy, the fathers of the first times, did never commend it unto us, in the councils they seem rather to fetch their authority from the ordinance of man, then from God's word. For what meaneth it else, that the legates to the B. of Rome, both in the council of Carthage and Chalcedon, do so earnestly urge the decrees of the Nicen council, if that which now they bring out of God's book, had been known to be sufficient proof of the supremacy? What needed they so notoriously to falsify the council? What needed the fathers to take such pains, and to be at such cost, as to send for true copies of that council, to Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, to try whether the fathers in that council of Nice, had given such power to the bishop of Rome, if in these words, To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, Christ had promised, or in these, feed my sheep. Christ had given, such fullness of power over all others, to the bishop of Rome? Seeing therefore that proof seemed not strong enough in those times, the grant which they had from Phocas, did them no great good, to show what right they had to that supremacy, (although thereby they got possession thereof:) For if by his gift they claimed, than they confessed this their authority to be from man, 
Phocas his decree they thought a reason scarce homest enough.  and that from too wickes and bloody a murdering man, to do any great good in Christ his church, or for setting down of any order whereby all should be ruled. Then also it might have been called in question, whether he by his authority, could subject all men for ever, to that church of Rome or not. To make their title therefore as good as they could, they devised another help.  
They feigned this gift to be from Constantine, 
The donation Constantine.  the first emperor that publicly allowed of christian profession. And they make him to give, not only his palace of Lateran, and many other temporallties, to the bishop of Rome, as master Bellarmine would have it thought, but they bring him in speaking these words, 
Ce pontiff. Rom. Lib. 4. cap. 17. & lib. 5. cap. 9  We decreeing do ordain that he (the bishop of Rome) shall have the supremacy as well over the four principal seats of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and jerusalem, as also over, all churches in the whole earth. And that the pope for the time being, of that holy church of Rome, shall be hire, and Prince of all princes in the world. Is this only to give temporalties? But the falsehood of the donation of Constantine, doth shine more bright than the noon day, although the papists make great account of the same. Yea Melchior Canus altogether a papist, yet he did either see more, or dealt plainlier, in this matter than did master Bellarmine. For although he be loath to deny it, or to diminish the credit of it, yet he bringeth more reasons against it, than he with all his fellows can be able to answer. So that we need not seek for arguments out of Laurentius Valla, or others to confute it. For even he hath given it a more deadly wound, then can be healed again. He confesseth that the lawyers take it to be but a feigned matter, and therefore call it chaff, for it is indeed so called in their own distinctions. He acknowledgeth that Eusebius, Ruffinus, Theodoret, Socrates, Sozomenus, Eutropius, Victor, and other authors of credit, who most diligently wrote all that Constantine did, have not only made no mention of that donation, but also do affirm that he so divided his empire among his three sons, as that the one of them had Italy. And that Ammianus Marcellinus in his fifteenth book writeth, that Constantius (Constantine's son) had the rule of the city (of Rome) and made Leontius his lieutenant there. And lastly, that all Histories record, that many Emperors after that time ruled in Italy, yea and in Rome. What can be more plain? Their own Lawyeares' confess it to be feigned, no good story recordeth it but the contrary. Rome after this gift, was the imperial city and seat. Therefore either Constantine gave no such thing from him and his heirs, or his gift was nothing worth. Melch● or Canus also doubteth of the very foundation of this fable, 
Ibidem.  which is the leprosy whereof they feign that Constantine was healed, plainly affirming, that in any good author he readeth no such thing. But not he only doubteth hereof, but long before him, it hath been spied by Antonius B. of Florence in his history, 
Pant. 1. Tit. 8. c. 1. L. 3. of catholic concord.  by Volateran writing of Constantine, & by the cardinal Nicolas Cusam a fast friend and faithful to that Romish church, that this donation was not in the old copies of Grecians decrees. And therefore when it was added, themselves accounted it but chaff and no good corn. And these and such reasons made Pius the second pope of that name, to marvel in a certain dialogue, written by him being a Cardinal, that the Lawyers were so mad, as to make any question of that matter, which never was.  
And that we may see, 
Themselves agree not to what pope it was given.  how all things in this donation of Constantine are but feigned, whereas the donation maketh Silvester the Pope to whom this gift was given, yet in another place, 
Caus. 12. q. 1. ca faturam.  the same thing is said to be given unto Melchiades, that was bishop before Silvester. And he is made to speak, as though it had been done before his time also. And yet this Melchiades was pope, about two or three years, before Constantine was Emperor, 
Cron. Euseb.  and died long before he gave peace and quietness to Christians, as in the Chronicle of Eusebius, who lined in those days, it may appear. What needeth this point of their doctrine any adversary. Themselves do fully confute one another, And the proverb is in this found true, when thieves fall out, true men come by their goods. For these decrees if they be well considered, it is not hard to spy falsehood in them both. And therefore we may take heed how we trust them, seeing that in these two we see plainly, how the one is contrary to the other, and both contrary to the truth. There are also some impossibilities in the said donation, which do sufficiently prove it, to be but a fraudulent deed. 
Impossibilities in the donation.  For the occasion of this gift is there set down. Namely that Constantine being baptized is healed of his leprosy, and thereupon giveth these things to Silvester, of whom he was baptized. And yet besides many other ancient histories of good credit, Saint Hierom doth plainly write, that he was baptized at the latter end of his life, and that not of Silvester bishop of Rome, for he was dead and also Mark that succeeded him, but of Eusebius bishop of Nicomedia, some six or seven years after Silvester was dead. How then could these things be given to Silvester at the baptism of Constantine, Silvester being dead so long before? Or how at his baptism in Rome, when he was baptized in Nicomedia, the chief city of Bithynia, many hundred miles distant from Rome? But it is strange that they are so impudent, as to name Constantinople at this time for one of the principal seats of bishops, as in this donation they do, which was called not by that name before Constantine in the tenth year of his reign did build it, but while Silvester and Mark his successor lived it was called Bizance.  
And about twenty or thirty years after the death of Constantine, was there a council at Constantinople, 
Conci. Constant. 1. cap. 2.  wherein that sea of Constantinople obtained to be next in account to Rome which before that time was no patriarchal church. And it is plain by stories that at Constantinople, there was either no church at all, or else very secret, until about the latter end of Constantine's time. For that very year that he was baptized many of Constantinople were baptized in somuch as Nicephorus maketh mention of above twelve thousand men besides women and children, 
Niceph. li. 7. c. 34.  that were baptized there at once. And Constantine himself doth much rejoice, 
Theod. li. 1. ca 16  in a letter that he writeth to Eusebius, that in that city which himself did build, and did bear his name, a very great number were become christians, and for that cause he taketh care, that they might have churches built for them. So that as yet we see they had not their churches much less can we imagine, that then they had any Bishops, that would look for so high a place among others. And therefore even hereby appeareth the falsehood and folly of this forged donation.  
There are also in the same donation some things that savour of the pride that afterwards appeareth in the bishop of Rome, but was not then in them. For that donation falsely attributed to Constantine, doth give unto the bishop of Rome, greater principality of power, than this kingly or royal majesty had, and an Imperial authority.  
Now how manifestly false this is, we may very easily mark, if we do consider either the style, that the Bishops of Rome that then were, did use, when they wrote unto their brethren, or their manner of behavionr, when they came amongst them, or the authority which the Nicen council, that was in the time of Constantine gave unto them, but equal with the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, and every one of them to look to their own charge (among whom if there were any inequality, the privileges of the bishop of Rome, had not so large a compass by far, as the other patriarchs) or the sovereignty which Constantine the emperor did still keep and exerccise, in, and over, not Rome only, but the whole church, not in civil matters only, but in calling of councils, commanding the bishops, comforting the godly, reproving the heretics, and in directing how and after what manner, they would debate and determine matters in the council. To be short, if we remember how some of the councils, of which I have often spoken already, did stiffly deny to the bishop of Rome, for less superiority then by this grant they might challenge, it will easily appear, that they knew not then of any such privileges, that Constantine had granted unto that seat. For if then any such superiority or supremacy had been due unto them, the fathers of those times, who often stood in need of their help, would never so flatly have withstood their endeavours. And themselves also would have been as ready by themselves or their legates, to have pleaded the donation of Constantine, if then it had been thought upon, as they were to coin new canons of the Nicen council. They pride therefore that in this grant appeareth, doth proclaim to the world, that it savoureth not of that christian modesty, that was for the most part in the bishops of those times, but it is some bastard of a later breed. And of that spirit of ambition, doth that also savour, that is said that the pope should be prince of all priests, and above all churches in the world. But this is confuted in that which before hath vin spoken. For long after this the bishop of Rome, yea and that by unlawful means sometime, did seek for that pre-eminence, but it would not be granted unto them: howbeit one thing in this donation I cannot but remember you of, because it showeth in my judgement, that this forgery was committed but of late years in comparison, even after that they had brought the emperors under their subjection, and did bear all the sway in the city of Rome. And that is this, that they bring in the emperor yielding the imperial city into the pope's hands, and that as though it were not fit or seemly, that the earthly emperor should dwell there, where the heavenly emperor (saith he) hath placed the head of christian religion. Can there be any greater disgrace to worldly princes, then to make them unworthy to be neighbours to that proud priest of Rome? Can they lift up themselves by any means higher in pride against man, than so to advance and esteem of themselves, above the greatest monarchs in the world? Did Constantine use to speak or write so? Did he think himself unworthy to be near them? They that are but indifferently acquainted with the stories of Constantine, do know that he loved full well, to be not only near to bishops, but even among them also. But they that forged this fable, would have the world to think, that either they are more holy, then ever were the levitical priests: or else that that good emperor his sceptre, sword, and crown, were more unholy and profane, than those ensigns of government that belonged to the kings over the jews. And what else do all those imperial ornaments, crowns, sceptres, mitre, collar, clock, cote, banners, and such like signify, which there they say are given to them, but that this forgery was committed, after that the proud pope's did so overcrow the emperors, that they became but as it were their servants? For it was far from Constantine's mind to make himself their servant as afterwards the emperors were. And the pope's that then were had other matters to do, and other thoughts possessed their hearts, then that they could be carried away, to such vain devices. They were scarcely out of one persecution, being freed from it by Constantine but that they fell into another that troubled the church marvelously, namely the Arrian heresy, against which the good bishops, did then oppose themselves with might and main. And as these things do savour of the pride of latter times, so some things also savour of superstition, more than as yet was crept into the church. For Constantine, in this his donation which they impudently ascribe unto him, doth give for the maintenance of lights in the church of saint Peter and Paul, his possessions in the east, west, north and south, and by name he reckoneth up many countries, where he had given his possessions, for the maintenance of those lights. But in deed it appeareth that he did bestow his revenues upon more necessary things as in the building of churches, whereunto christians might resort to serve God, and in calling the Nicen council, for the determining of some questions in religion. As for lights if then they used any yet such large devotion in such toys and trifles is a plain fruit of latter days of ignorance.  
Thus there is almost no kind of thing granted unto them 
The imitation of the emperors court for officers  in that dotation, but is a good argument to convince their falsehood. The apish imitation of the emperors court, for officers and attendants, that is there granted, doth also show that it was not devised in the days of the humble pope's: & the proud cardinals, who are these their stately officers were not yet found.  
Many other exceptions might be made to that pretended donation, and many more reasons might have been brought against it, but this that is said, had been more then enough, in so plain a matter, had it not been that many of the popish writers, have pleased themselves so well in their forged folly.  
Hitherto we have seen how the pope's have made of the voluntary suits that the godly made to the bishops of Rome, being forced thereto by some extremities, necessary subjection, and out of their requests, they gather a profession of obedience. Then also how they got the decree of Phocas one their side. And lastly, how they got the right of confirming the bishops of Rome, out of the emperors hands, pretending for these and all other their fullness of power, sometimes the words of our Saviour Christ. But to supply the want of help which there they find (for in truth they make not for that excessive pride of the Bishop of Rome) they pretend (although without any colour of truth) a gift of these and other their privileges, from Constantine the great.  
But now let us look further into their practices. Did they now content themselves, when they had the commanding of all bishops, and had gotten this name, that is unfit for any man to be called, Head of the universal Churches? Can they content themselves with this excessive honour? No. They must yet go one step higher. For hitherto the Bishops of Rome were subject to the Emperors, as may very well be proved by their own epistles. Gregory, who did so bitterly inveigh against the proud name of universal bishop, that john patriarch of Constantinople took upon him, himself being a bishop of Rome, giveth many evident testimonies of this subjection, which the pope's did acknowledge to the emperors. 
Lib, 2. epist. 100,  As most notably in an Epistle to Mauritius the emperor, he calleth the emperor his lord very often, yea he abaseth himself as unworthy to speak to his lord, he being but dust and a very worm. He acknowledgeth himself subject to the emperors commandment, that he oweth him duty and obedience, his unworthy suppliant and servant. I omit many other that were afore him.  
And out of an infinite number of testimonies that he doth afford, I have taken but one, and yet that such a one as doth sufficiently prove what reckoning the bishops of Rome, at that time made of the emperors. And yet now we see some pride began to show itself in the church. For even now was that a great strife for the name of universal Bishop. And that yet even then did this learned father and Bishop of Rome acknowledge himself to be an underling to the Emperors, yea, and after that Phocas had given the Bishop of Rome that privilege to be head of the Church, almost a hundredth years, 
Tom. concil. 2. council. 6. Act. 4.  Agatho a Bishop of Rome doth write two godly Letters unto Constantine the fourth, Heraclius and Tiberius' Emperors, wherein very often he calleth them his Lords, 
Epist. 2.  professeth his obedience, excuseth their not sending some from the Council to them, as they had commanded, yea, and themselves to be unto the emperors silly or simple servants. But in the end this seemed a grievous yoke and a heavy burden. 
The sift step to supremacy, the debasing of princes.  They said within themselves we will not have this Emperor to rule over us, we are they that ought to speak, who is Lord over us. But this because it was a very hard attempt, it must needs be long in working. As in deed it was, many hundred years.  
The first that I remember, that did disgrace in any respect the Emperor, 
Platina in const.  was pope Constantine who was not ashamed to suffer justinian the Emperor to kiss his feet, which after grew to be the greatest office of courtesy that the pope would show to the greatest monarches, to admit them to that base entertainment, which also continueth to this day. 
In Constantin.  Of him writeth Onuphrius in his annotations upon Platina. Constantine first of any bishop of Rome, durst withstand Philippicus the greek Emperor to his face openly.  
Perchance because justinian that was Emperor next before Philippicus, had kissed his feet, it made him the bolder with his successor. The pretence that Constantine took hold upon to withstand the emperor was this. Philippicus upon good warrant out of God's word, 
The controversy concerning images.  did forbid images, and command them to be abolished, in which the idolatrous bishop Constantine did withstand him. Afterward Leo the third being Emperor, and maintaining that good cause against images, Gregory the second that was successor unto Constantine, took greater matters in hand against the emperor. For he took from Leo whatsoever belonging to the empire, the Longobards had left in all Italy An. 729. I report these stories out of Onuphrius, a great friend to the pope, and Romish church. He also in the same place speaking of another pope Gregory the third who was next after the second telleth how he sought for aid of the French, against those Longobards. For indeed he rejecting his natural prince, to whom in duty he was bound, the Emperor, did seek as already he had gotten to be above all bishops, so in the end, to be above all princes and potentates in the earth. Whereof Gregory the third in this place layeth a good foundation, in rejecting an old master, for a new friend. Yea he doth excommunicate Leo the Emperor, and deprive him to his empire, as Platina reporteth. Thus we see how the pope hath by little and little, 
In Greg. 3.  gotten to master the Emperor himself. For as in these pope's, the beginning hereof was laid, so afterwards it grew more and more until at the length the emperors were but their vassals and at their commandment. But how they used this their immoderate power must be afterwards declared, if God wil Now as this unsatiable ambition, must needs be odious unto, and hated of that mightiest monarch, 
Revel. 19 16. Math. 28. 18.  King of Kings and Lord of Lords, to whom all power in heaven and earth is given (for if he could not abide that his apostles should so much as reason among themselves 
Mark. 9 33. 35.  who should be chief, how much less can he abide that they should despise his lieutenants, 
Their practices to keep them great still.  to advance themselves?) so did they assure themselves, that it would be envied at, and spited of men. And here therefore they want not their practices, to keep them in this highest estate, to control and command even whom they will, at their pleasures.  
First because none should be so bold as to speak any thing 
Epitome. Eron.  against their pride, it was made by pope Pius the second perjury or against the oath of a bishop, 
Pcriury to speak truth of the pope  to speak and thing against the pope be it never so true. It may be also that his meaning was to make the pope to be esteemed as near of kin to God himself 
Presat. in Expos. Simbol. Apostol.  as might be. For the expounder of the creed in Cyprian's works saith the like of God, that it is dangerous to speak the truth of him. But his meaning is that our weakness and wants will not let us so speak of him as we should: And the pope's fear is, that if we speak truth of him we must speak otherwise then he would have us, or were for his honesty. Now bishops having their tongues and pens thus bridled, who durst venture to find any fault? If for them to speak the truth be perjury what should it be thought in others? And thus because he saw, that to have the truth of pope's doings known, it would be a burning shame, he full wisely layeth this block in that way, and thus maketh up that gap.  
And after cometh in to serve their turn that fullness of authority, 
Power of the keys.  and power of the keys, which they would so seem to have from Christ as that none but they should rule that stern, none but they, should have that jurisdiction. So that if they curse none can bless, if they excommunicate, none may absolve, if they bind, no man may lose.  
Wherein they challenge so great privilege, that they can work thereby against the law of God, the law of nature, the law of nations. 
Releasing subjects of their duty of obedience.  They can (if you will that they will tell you) release the subjects, from the bond of obedience, which they own to their magistrates, and the children, they can cause to rebel against their parents.  
A perilous practice is this for all princes estates, thus to lead the people on the blind side, as to make them believe, that to rebel is to obey and to dishonour their superiors, is an acceptable sacrifice to God.  
By these their powerful keys, 
Immunities of the clergy.  they also open the door of immunities and privileges of the clergy, whereby they are exempt from all corrections and punishments, unless forsooth it please his holiness, to deliver them to the secular power, to make them his hangmen.  
But of their own authority they may not touch him, because they are (say they) the Lords anointed. By which means they grew to great sauciness, and the state was not a little endangered thereby in many places.  
They had also another practice to maintain their pride, 
Shrift.  and hold them in their high seat: That is auricular confession, or that which we call shrift. For under colour of being ghostly fathers, the Pope's subtle and sworn friends, had access to princes, had conference with their counsellors, had knowledge of their secrets, had opportunity to practise with their false and faithless subjects, and they might, and did take all occasions, by terrifying the consciences of princes, in respect of their sins, which they made known to them, as if there were no hope of mercy at the hands of God, if first they were not reconciled to the Holy Father the Pope, and the holy mother the Church of Rome.  
And thus were they every way distressed, their consciences being entangled, and their estates endangered. But one of their most subtle shifts was the taking away of knowledge from the people. Whereby they became as men, that walked in the dark, 
Ignorance.  in an unknown way. They never knew whether they did right or wrong. They knew not their own duty. They were taught to believe as the church believed.  
Now although they heard much of the church of Rome, yet for the most part they were not acquainted with it. So that the church that must be their direction, 
What it is in the Romish language to believe the church.  must be their parson or vicar or perchance their bishop. Who if he would lead them out of the way, they must needs go wrong. Because their light of knowledge, was quite put out.  
The Scriptures were either quite taken from them, 
The scriptures either quite taken away, or corrupted.  and men's dreams and devices delivered, to the lay people instead of them: or else they were so corrupted, with foolish gloss, and so mingled, with men's traditions, that the true sense and meaning of them was still under a bushel, so that it gave no light at all to them.  
Now they not knowing their duty, which God had commanded them to perform to magistrates, how easily might they be drawn aside from the same? Yea they through ignorance, not being able to put a difference between truth and falsehood, how readily might they be moved to think it to be true that they do say unto them, who were only reputed and taken for holy Church, that the Pope is Christ's Vicar: that he is so much more excellent than any worldly potentate, as the soul is better than the body: that there is no less difference between the glory of the Emperor and the pope, then is between the brightness of the Sun and of the Moon. The pope being like the Sun, and the Emperor compared to the. Moon which hath her light from the Sun.  
These and other such like blasphemies against the majesty, whom God hath placed upon earth, were accounted good doctrine, and strong proofs through want of knowledge. And this very effect that ignorance did work, whereby the very brokers for the church of Rome, did see themselves and their masters esteemed half as Gods, and their messages received more readily, and more constantly kept, and more willingly obeyed, than gods word by a great deal, made them to proclaim so loud, and so stiffly to maintain, that ignorance is the mother of devotion.  
And why should they not, 
Ignorance say they mother of devotion.  when they see that princes are ready, by reason of their ignorance in God's truth, to be led and guided by such blind guides, even to the hazarding of their kingdoms? And the people thereby are withdrawn from all duty, so that they may lead both prince and people, as Elisha led the Syrians even into their enemy's hands. 
●. Kings 6, 19   
And as this ignorance hath been a great cause that the pope hath mightily prevailed, and advanced his seat far higher than became one of his coat, and yet his pride was never spied of many: 
Ignorance at this day cause of much evil.  even so at this day for want of knowledge the people are most easily drawn, to worship even the very name of Holy Father, and to suck the breasts of the holy mother the Romish church. Whose doctrines, if they could examine, whose spirits if they could try, whose horrible blasphemies against God's truth, and unnatural cruelties against God's saints, if they could with indifferent judgement consider of, if (I say) the Lord in mercy would vouchsafe them that knowledge, they would even hate the name of a Romish catholic, and fear to be of that company and crew, that so plainly, and stubbornly rejecteth God's commandment, despiseth Gods magistrates, deceiveth God's people, and leadeth them in the ways of death and damnation: There are also some other means and practices, whereby the pope's draw the people into great admiration of them. 
Pardons and agnus deis.  Namely, their pardons and indulgences, their agnus Dei, and such other trash and trumpery, whereby they persuade the simple ones, that they can effectually and really pardon their sins, which is God's office only, take away their iniquities, deliver them from damnation, and shield them from all evil. And who would not give all that he hath, if he might attain to these benefits? who would not sell the whole earth to win heaven? Who would not lose his life, to save his soul? But the sunshine of knowledge would easily drive away all such mists. And they who in their blindness do esteem that man of sin that sitteth at Rome, to be more than half a god, and see nothing but greatness in him, 
Mark 8. 24.  as the blind man of Bethsaida, who before he saw perfectly saw men walking like trees, (so great they seemed in his eyes▪) yet when God shall take away that veil of blindness, and heal that infirmity in them, they shall then see, the bishop of Rome as he is indeed, to be an enemy to God and man, a subverter of estates, a foe to princes, a snare to subjects, and a very corrupter of true christianity and godliness.  
And thus much of the shifts and sleights that the Bishop of Rome used to come to his greatness, by little and little, growing to that that now we see. Sometime using flattery, falsehood and forgery, yea, and afterwards bringing the emperor under by plain force and fear: always taking advantages and opportunities, when emperors were either otherwise employed in affairs, or hated for their life, or some way so distressed, that they could not withstand him and his partakers, than would he most earnestly pursue and persecute them, until he had his will, which I trust will appear plainly in the discourse that now I am to enter into, which is as it were a trial and search of the doings of the bishop of Rome and of his behaviour, after that he began to be so mighty.  
Now to take a good and sufficient survey of the pope's Supremacy, it is not enough to try his Title, to see his evidence, and consider of his proof, neither yet to acquaint ourselves with his shifts and practices, whereby he hath gotten himself into that very high seat and fullness of power, 
Declarat. contra Navar. & Con●●.  (as Sixtus Quintus speaketh) which they would seem to claim by right, and wherein now they play more than rex, of which two points I have spoken before: but it is also (in my judgement) very necessary, that we look somewhat into his doings, and examine how he hath ruled and reigned, what good he hath done to the church, what profit he hath brought to the christian commonwealth. When God did see the continual rebellion of his people, that they would by no means be reclaimed from sin, and how little good it had wrought in them, that they had been very lately in a grievous captivity: he then by his prophet Zachary chapter 11. verse. 16. threateneth unto them this great and grievous plague, that he will raise up a shepherd in the land, which shall not look for the thing that is lost, nor seek the tender lambs, nor heal that that is hurt, nor feed that that standeth up, but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces. And that there were such shepherds amongst the people of Israel, and that woe and destruction belongs to them, God by his prophet Ezechiel chapter 34. verses 2, 3, 4. doth testify, pronouncing woe to the shepherds that feed themselves, eat the fat, 
A potterne of the holy father of Rome.  cloth themselves with the wool, kill them that are fed, but feed them not, they strengthen not the weak, they heal not the sick, bind not up the broken, bring not again that which was driven away, seek not the lost, but rule them with cruelty and rigour: I never read or think of this description of an evil shepherd, but I see (me thinks) therein a right pattern of popish government. Neither do I at any time earnestly enter into scanning of that regiment, that is under that most holy father, but I remember how the holy ghost painteth out these proud, cruel and idol shepherds. The one seemeth to be so right a pattern of the other, as if they were all one thing, and no difference at all between them: or as if the Spirit of God did both foresee and foreshow the most holy father, in that glass of the most unholy shepherd. But that it may the better appear that he that would be accounted the herd of Christ's flock, doth but seek for to satisfy his own pride, profit and pleasure, not having any due regard, either to God's glory, or the good of them whom he calleth his sheep: let us consider, how violently and impotently, his immoderate affection doth carry him, to say & do as himself liketh best, both against God and man, and how insolently he beareth sway in Christ his church. And first to begin with his names and titles, 
Lib. 2. cap. 31.  out of the which M. Bellarmine will prove, that the Bishop of Rome is Peter's successor, in the whole or universal church. For that he took in hand to prove, But I on the contrary by those names shall (by God's grace) plainly prove, 
〈◊〉. 2. cap. 12.  that he robbeth Christ of his ornaments, and taketh from him his titles that belong to him only. And first he calleth himself head of the universal church, which name so properly belongeth unto Christ, that we cannot give it to any other, without great wrong, both to the head and the body of the church. To the head, in that the office which God the father laid upon Christ, in appointing him over all things the head to the church, 
Ephes. 1.  should be bestowed upon a sinful man: to the body which is Christ's church, because by that means it should have but an idle head, every way unable to perform the duties of a head. I deny not but the church of Rome, for 4 or 5 hundred years after Christ, might justly be called the head of the church, that is a ring leader to other churches in respect of religion which remained more sincere there then elsewhere for many years, neither was that church so troubled with heresies as were others. I confess also that some of the bishops of Rome, for their forwardness, learning, and pains, employed to the benefit of the church, might worthily be called in some sense heads of the church, as in the first part of this treatise I have showed. Then will some man say, what is then the fault which you charge the bishop of Rome withal, in calling himself the head of the universal church? First that he maketh that name proper to him and his seat, which many times more justly belonged unto others, who for their learning and travel, for the church of God, deserved much better of God's church then any pope of them al.  
Further also that it is not, that signification of the name head, that will satisfy the pope's ambitious humour, thereby to be counted a man, only able or fit to guide and direct others, but he will so be a head, that he must command, forbidden, bind, lose, retain, remit, dispense, deny, do, and undo, as his unbridled affection, should carry him. Which sovereign power over the church or any part of the church, we cannot find that God gave unto any man, either Peter, or Paul, yea or to Christ himself as man only (for he was taught of his father what to do, and what to say) much less than would his vicar of Rome, if he had but one spark of christian humility, claim such absolute power, over the whole earth. Seeing therefore by this name head, he challengeth greater power then either any good man would have in God's church (for the godly can be content to speak of God as God teacheth them, and to do as he would have them) or is fit for any man to have, as his unruly doings do sufficiently declare: we justly deny, that ever any bishop of Rome, was of the godly called the head of the church, in that sense that it is now used, as their doings do plainly teach us. As for the name Papa or pope it was a common name to all bishops as is confessed by Baronius, yea and granted also in this place by master Bellarmine himself. And it signifieth as much as father or grandfather, so that it seemeth, that it was first given unto bishops by godly christians, who did honour and reverence them for their calling. And why may not this name, be aptly given to any diligent bishop or pastor, in the church of god? 
Lib. 2. cap. 31.  No master Bellarmine will have this name after a more particular manner to be given to the bishop of Rome, then to any other. 
Match. 23. 9  Then we must learn of Christ not to call any man our father upon earth. For there is but one, our father which is in heaven. And therefore if he will otherwise be our father then man may be our father, let him seek for other children, for to such a father we own no obedience.  
The name of universal bishop, 
Universal bish. Actione. 3.  was given in the council of Chalcedon to the bishop of Rome, master Bellarmine telleth us. We deny it not. But without a favourable and good understanding, that title may be very odious. For even Gregory himself a bishop of Rome, and no man more vehemently, inveigheth against that proud title in many plaids. His places are so commonly alleged that I need not come to any particular. 
Bellar ans. to that we object out of the odious name of uninersal bishop.  But Bellarmine going about to deliver this title, from all suspicion of antichristian ambition, telleth us that this name universal bishop may be taken in two sorts. One way that a universal bishop should signify an only bishop, 
Universal bishop an only bishop.  that is such a one as would have none to be bishop but himself only. And such a universal bishop saith master Bellarmine Saint Gregory condemneth. And doth he not otherwise condemn john of Constantinople his pride, but because he would have no bishop but himself? No master Bellarmine the stories are more plain, 
A reply against that answer.  then that such shifts may go for currant. The controversy was, whether the bishop of Constantinople should be as now the bishop of Rome is in his own account, a bishop above all bishops.  
Read all the histories and it will easily appear, his endeavour was only to have the commanding of other bishops. Neither could he be called universal, if he were the only bishop but rather the singular bishop. But master Bellarmine bringeth two or three testimonies out of Gregory wherein he complaineth that john patriarch of Constantinople would be bishop alone. Gregory's meaning is plain enough, that he saith he would only be bishop, because he only would have the commanding of all, that others should indeed be his suffragans, and at his commandment which reason of Gregory against that title of universal bishop, if it be well marked, giveth I think a wound uncurable to the church of Rome. A sovereign authority in one to command all (saith he) is to take away all bishops but that one only, but such sovereign authority over bishops the pope doth challenge in this name of universal bishop, as experience teacheth: therefore he maketh himself the only bishop. And this is the thing that Gregory so misliketh in john bishop of Constantinople, therefore I cannot see how it can be tolerable in him of Rome. But one may be called a universal bishop (saith he) in another sense, as he hath a care of the whole church, and so the Pope may be called a universal Bishop. But herein master Bellarmine giveth very little authority to the bishop of Rome. 
Tom 2. anno 187  For this general care belongeth not only to every Bishop, but also to every Christian as Caesar Paronius doth plainly confess, 
De bonis operib. in part. li. 2. c. 24.  of whom master Bellarmine doth write, that he is a singular good man, and without all doubt most learned. And therefore I trust he will by him be persuaded, to let this name of universal bishop be a name that may belong to more than to him of Rome, and so not to make it his peculiar title. A fourth name of his, 
Most holy,  is that he is called most holy. And here master Bellarmine doth marvelously insult over master Luther for insinuating that the names of most high, and most holy, had not been hard of in the days of Gregory. Master Luther said not so, master Bellarmine only feared that he meant some such matter, and therefore quareleth with him and telleth him that he lieth. 
Conc. Chale. actione 3. object. Answer.  Well, Leo the pope is called most holy in three several titles, that three Grecians wrote to him. It is true master Bellarmine, and in the same action in a great number of places besides, the bishops yielding their consent, do call him most holy. He is there also called holy, and why would not that name holy, which is there also given to him, 
The title of Most holy given to sundry.  as well content the bishop of Rome now, as to be called most holy? Or why should that be a peculiar name to him alone, that was given in that place as well to others as to him? For Anatolius the patriarch of Constantinople, is often called most holy. Yea and the council writeth unto Dioscorus patriarch of Alexandria, whom they deprived of his dignity, because he was a manitainer of Futiches that notable heretic, yet I say, the conncill writing unto him, do call him also most holy. And whosoever marketh that council, shall see no titles more common, then most holy, most blessed or happy, mow beloved of God, and such like. Neither were these things given unto them as names to continue to them and their seat, but only such titles, as they thought well bestowed upon such persons, as they used them to. As Leo bishop of Rome, who although he were not without his infirmiries, yet sure he was a man of great gifts. And they in abundance of affection towards him, called him most holy. Must it therefore be a name hereditary to that sinful and shameless brood that since hath sprung up in that place? It were absurd to think, that conjurers, enchanters, poisoners, adulterers, and such ruffians and rakehells, should be called by right of their seat most holy. And yet now nothing more common than this title. His favourites must not speak of him, but with this term of most holy. Look all his bulls and writings, and you shall see, that he that is most unholy before God and men, yet by a lying style must be called most holy. Yea to doubt whether it be a fit name for his holiness forsooth or not, is a sin more to be punished then the breach of God's law if it be true that Gentiletus writing against the council of Trent reporteth of a bishop that was put out of his bishopric, 
Li. 5. Nullitate 11  because in that council he misliked that the pope should be called most holy, and God in the scriptures is called but holy. And indeed he might justly mislike it, if he duly considered that in God he could not see any thing like unto sin, in the pope almost no spark of goodness in these latter ages. And, this I take to be the reason why master Bellarmine, doth not place among the fifteen names that he hath found out for the pope, this name most holy, because in respect of his unholiness, he thinketh it pity to bestow that name upon him. And therefore he should the rather have borne with master Luther, if he did marvel that the pope's flatterers, would so profane that holy title, in bestowing it upon so unholy men, as for the most part they have all been, which these many hundred of years have sit in that seat. Or at the least he would not have given the lie to master Luther, for signifying that Saint Gregory would have misliked the abuse of that name in these days. As for the name of Christ's vicar, 
Christ's vicar.  which is also one of his common title, we would not much stick to bestow it upon him ourselves, 
Christ hath many vicar's.  if he would content himself with that place wherein he is, or else should be (if he were as he ought to be) the vicar of Christ. For every pastor is in his own charge, Christ's vicar, 
2. Cor. 5. ●0.  and must in Christ's steed be a messenger from God, and pray the people to be reconciled to God. But this is too small a benefice for this proud prelate, too little a compass for his ambitious mind. He will be vicar general. All the world must be his diocese, all people are his flock. But we cannot yield him that title, we cannot displace him whom Christ hath assigned to that Rome, even whilst he was upon earth, and promised to send in his place, 
The spirit Christ vicat general. joh. 14. 16, 17.  even the spirit of truth, that ever abiding comforter. His eyes see our wants, his ears hear all our cries, yea our sighs, and groans, are not hidden from him. He is worthy to be Christ's vicar general, because he is with the church in all places, yea if it be in prisons and dungeons. But this vicar of Rome, as he can not be every where if he would, so in such places he will not be if he could. His predecessors indeed, that never sought so proud titles, suffered much for Christ's sake.  
But now the case is altered. 
Father.  All men must suffer his wrongs and violence. His name of father how it can be bestowed upon him I cannot see, unless it be for getting of bastards and so their own stories will report unto us, that many of them have been fathers as john. 12. Alexander the sixth, and many other. But seeing spiritual fathers, 
james 1. 18. 1. Pet. 1. 23.  must beget children to God by the word of truth, and by the seed not mortal, but by the immortal seed of the word of God which seed they love not to sow (for a preaching pope in our days is as a black swan) they cannot therefore get spiritual children unto God, & therefore as I said before I cannot see, that they can be spiritual fathers. If they be called fathers in respect of their age, and so it be used as a name of reverence, we envy then not that name in such sort, so that they take it not from other, to make it proper to them. And these are the names which are commonly given in our days to the B. of Rome. As for the rest of his titles because we hear them not attributed to pope's now, I omit. Saving that I must put you in remembrance of one blasphemous name, which although it be not a name by which he is commonly called, yet it is given to him as his due, and master Bellarmine because he would not have him to lose it, doth tell us it is his name. He is therefore called the bridegroom of the church. 
The bridegroom of the church. Vbi peticulum, de electione in sexto.  Which name master Bellarmine saith was given to him by a general council holden at Lions it was Anno. 1215. more than twelve hundredth years after Christ.  
But as it seemeth, it was never worthy to be reckoned among the councils. For we have it not in the tomes of councils. Yea and the pope Boniface the eight doth challenge to himself that proud name, 
Cap. Quoniam de Immunit. m, 6.  we not minding to neglect our justice, and the justice of our spouse or wife the church (saith he) what shall this holy church which is likened to a body, because it can have but one head, to a house, because it can have but one foundation, to an army, because it can have but one captain or general, to a turtle dove, because it can have but one mate, to a kingdoem, because it can have but one king, to a sheepfold, because it can have but one shepherd, to a wife, because it can have but one husband, shall she I say now forsake the husband of her youth, or at the least keep him and another too? Who ever heard that an honest woman could at one time have two husbands? or an honest husband have together two wives since Christ his time? 
● Cor. 11. 2.  Or how can the holy church, that chaste virgin, who is coupled to Christ, be the wife of that vicar of Rome? God is a jealous God, Christ is a jealous husband, his wife must love none but him. She therefore can have no other husband. Saint Bernard telleth pope Eugenius, that the church is his master's wife. 
Epist. 237.  It is for him enough to be the friend of the bridegroom, he must not call his masters bestebloved, his own prince, but a prince. Yea (saith he) thou must challenge in her nothing to be thine.  
But master Bellarmine telleth us, 
Bellar. answ. to that place of Bernard.  that saint Bernard did let Eugenius to understand, that he is not the true and chief husband of the church. We confess it, neither he is, nor any man excepting Christ can be the churches true husband. 
The reply against his answer.  And this is also as true, that the church because she is chaste, can have but Christ her one only husband. 
joh. 3. 29. August. in joh. Tract. 13.  And this is it, that john the baptist meaneth when he saith, that he that hath the bride, is the bridegroom. I have her not (saith he) what am I then? The friend of the bridegroom. Thus doth S. Augustin bring john the Baptist acknowledging that he hath no right in the bridegoomes' wife, but is only a friend to the bridegroom. As also he maketh the bridegroom him only, that is lord over the whole earth. And he maketh his argument strong against Donatus, because the church hath but one husband, which is Christ, therefore Donatus is not that husband, nor can be. But if master Bellarmine's distinction might serve that Christ is chief and yet there may be an other under him, Donatus might as well have claimed to be that husband then, that the pope doth claim now to be. But it was not then known, that one honest woman, might have two husbands. chrysostom asso and Theophilact and all the ancient fathers make Christ the only husband, yea and chrysostom thinketh, 
Hom. 28.  that he needeth favourably to interpret that, that john calleth himself the friend of the bridegroom, showing that he meant not thereby to make himself equal to Christ, but only to express the greatness of his joy. For a friend rejoiceth more than a servant. What would he have said then to these saucy mates, who think too base a thing for them to be but friends to the bridegroom, but the bridegroom and they must have all one wife? I cannot therefore marvel much at their flattering lawyers, that will make the pope and Christ to have but one consistory or seat of judgement. 
Panorm. in l. licet de electione extra ex hostiensi.  Mark I pray you the vicar before his parson, the pope before Christ. The pope and Christ, make but one consistory. But this I take to be somewhat tolerable. 
The pope and Christ have one wife, make one consistory.  If they both have but one wife, they may sit in one seat. But I muse that master Bellarmine with great silence, doth pass over one of the names, that the pope is now best known by, and is more ancient, than many of the names that he speaketh of. 
Servant of God's servants.  the servant of God's servants. Which name they learned of Gregory the first to give themselves. It may be that master Bellarmine, was ashamed his master should come so near in name to wicked Ham first called servant of servants, 
Gen. 9 25.  or that he seethe all their doings so directly contrary to that name, that he thinketh it not a name due to them, or fit for them. For what mockery is it, to write themselves servants of God's servants, perchance sometime in the self same letters, wherein they will command, control, correct, condemn the mightiest monarchs under heaven, Gregory would thereby have taught them modesty, humility, meekness, and such other christian virtues, yea, and also a painful diligence for the good of the church, as if in all things they should carefully seek, not their own profit or preferment, but God's glory, and the benefit of God's people (for servants work not for themselves but for their master.) They keeping still the name, by that outward profession of lowliness and industry, seek to cast a mist before the eyes of the ignorant, that they shall not see them, when they show themselves in truth so proud and presumptuous again all men, so lither and loitering in their pastoral function as if they were enemies to mankind, and had no care at all of their own duty.  
But now let us see to what end M. 
Why these names are given to the Pope.  Bellarmine doth entitle the B. of Rome to those names of Head, Pope, universal Bishop, Christ's vicar, Father and Bridegroom, even to this end, that he may prove him to have the charge of the whole church. I on the other side show, that these are not his titles, they are not his ornaments, they belong to Christ most of them, and only to him, if the be understood in peculiar sort, as master Bellarmine would have them. They may be given, after some sort, to all pastors. But the B. of Rome cannot abide to be but like others, he must be sigular and fellowless, or else nothing can content him. Therefore I out of these names which he so challengeth to himself, do prove his pride and presumption above men, thus to extol himself so excessively above others, yea, and blasphenues against Christ, thus to wring from him, his office and privileges, and to make the world to believe, they are his own. And this is one of the effects that followed of this fullness of power which by little and little (as before I showed) the Pope aspired and attained unto. And ever as he grew in power, so did he in pride also, until he could not tell how to call himself, or what name he should give himself, that his greatness thereby might sufficiently be expressed: yet all these proud titles could not satisfy or content the proud humour of many of these Popes, but that they grew to farther impiety and greater, if greater may be. For, as in these names they made the whole church to be (not Christ's) but as it were their own inheritance, and their own house, with which, and wherein they thought they might do as themselves would, and they encroached also exceedingly upon Christ his right: so at the length, they came to that contempt of God and godliness, that their parasites would give unto them, 
The Pope god.  and they could be content to take the honour that was due to God only. They will not so much as leave to God his name, but even that is bestowed upon the pope. To believe (saith one) that our lord god the pope, 
Extravag. job. 22.  could not do this thing, is to be counted heresy. And another saith, When the pope dissolveth a marriage it must be thought to be Gods doing only, because the pope being chosen according to the cannons, is god upon earth. And another, Innocentius the third, The Pope here upon earth supplieth the room, not of pure man, but of a true God. And lest it should be thought, that the Canonists did give more honour unto the pope herein, than he was content to take upon him: 
Dist. 96. ●. Satic.  pope Nicholas himself, doth claim for him and his seat, great immunity and freedom, because the good emperor Constantine (saith he) did call the pope god. And yet this holy father playeth but the crafty mate, for that Constantine did speak of all bishops (alluding to that, I have said, 
Psal. 82, 1, 6.  ye are gods: And God standeth in the assembly of gods, and judgeth among gods, the prophet speaking there of Princes and judges) that doth he apply to himself alone. Whosoever readeth that which is alleged out of an Epistle of Gregory unto Mauritius the Emperor, 
Caus. 11. q. 1. cap. Sacerdotibus.  shall find this false dealing of Pope Nicholas to make himself a god after some other sort, than Constantine there calleth all bishop's gods. The jews were superstitious, so as they durst not name that name of God jehovah, for fear of offending that great god: The pope's are saucy, that make no scruple at all to take to themselves that name, of the which we ought not to speak or think, but with great reverence. Whether now are the honester, the jews, or the Pope. The jews were too scrupulous. But the Popes yet, that have cast off all reverence of the majesty of God, are far more blame worthy. And this very name (as I suppose) that they called themselves gods, did so embolden some of them, to set so little by God. As for example, Pope julius. not the second, that was the lusty warrior, but the third, that filthy beast, if Stories do speaketh truly of him. He loveth pork very well, and when by the commandment of his physician, 
Act Rom. pontiff. joh. ●a.  pork was not served at his table, being angry for it, one answered that the physician said it was not wholesome for him. 
Pope's saucy with God.  I will have it saith he in despite of God. At another time missing a peacock which he had commanded to be kept cold against night, he burst into extremity of choler, whereupon a cardinal moving him to be quiet, What said he was God angry for an apple, in so much as he cast our first parents out of paradise for that matter, and may not I being his vicar, be angry for my peacock? The irreligious heart, of this profane pope, could never have burst out, iuto such blasphemies against God, but that in his excess of pride he esteemed himself as God, or else in affection even besotted with atheism, he said as did the wicked in the prophet David. 
Psal. 53. 1.  There is no God. And so he proved that to be most true, 
Ps●l. 49. 20.  that the same prophet saith in another place, man being in honour hath no understanding, he is like to the beasts that perish. And thus we see how the bishop of Rome, being drunken, with too well liking of himself in his authority and high estate, did not only exalt himself by his names above all men, but made himself equal even with the most high. But least the bishop of Rome, should seem to be but God in name, and not in deed, as a shadow without a body, and title without authority, (as were Paul the third his archbishops that he sent to the council of Trent, 
Cono. Trident. li, 2. 〈◊〉. 1. num. 3.  whom he was feign to maintain with his poor alms, that he bestowed upon them:) he therefore showeth his prerogative, and telleth what power and might he hath, that he may prove himself, to be like to her, that said in her heart, I will ascend above the height of the clouds, 
Esa. 14. 14.  and I will be like the most Highest.  
If I would endeavour to set down all that might be said of the pride of the bishop of Rome or at the least of his impudent affection of his clawbacks, 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 do? Yea what can God himself do more than he? If we will trust flattering Lawyeares', in their approved and allowed books, he is Christ's vitar general over heaven, earth, and hell, over angels good and bad, yea they tell us, that the pope can do whatsoever God can do, except sin. It seemeth that they mean God can sin, but the pope is so clad with holiness, and compassed about with righteous dealing as with a garment, that he can in no wise sin, such a stain cannot be in his flesh, such a clog cannot hang at his back. O proud blasphemy! Can that man of sin (for Saint Paul doubtless speaketh of him) justly so called, 
2. Thessaly, 2. 3.  because he is a stumbling block to others, and a cause of sin to many thousands, and himself also often a servant or rather a sink of sin, can he (I say) be without sin? Yea they tell us that he may, 
Dist. 40. cap. Non nor.  and that by the authority of pope Symmacus, who doth testify that Saint Peter did bequeath the everlasting gift of Merits, together with the in heritance of innocency to his posterity. In somuch as if they have not merits enough, yet that sufficeth that Saint Peter hath done. He addeth the reason, because he (I think he meaneth Saint Peter) either doth advance them that are worthy, or doth lighten such as are advanced. Now if the pope himself will say, that he in respect of his chair, hath a succession of innocency, it is no great marvel if his flatterers will say he cannot sin.  
But if all the pope's and their parasites, would cry it out never so loud, yet so long as their own stories are remaining they shall be proved liars. Where are now these censurers and severe forbidders of God's writings? Why use they not their authority to repress such blasphemies? The Romish church, 
Ind. expurgat.  can take upon them to prohibit the writings of godly men, yea if there be but a note in the margin of the fathers, word for word out of the fathers, whereby the reader may perchance be directed more readily, to see the judgement of that father in some point in controversy, although it change not the meaning of that place yet our severe censurers still command that it be left out. But these horrible blasphemies, whereof all men may justly be a shamed, are not once misliked of, sound not out of time, but are melodius music in the ears of such holy fathers. Can we hope for any good from them, that call light darkness, and darkness light, evil good, and good evil? I fear such bad trees, can bring forth no good fruit. But to come to some particular points.  
Let us see what this petty God, doth take upon him, and how he playeth the God indeed? For as I have said the bare name of God (although it be far too much, that it should be given him by others, or acknowledged of himself) will not please him, but he must also do as God doth. And first whereas Christ is our only lawmaker and master, as Christ himself telleth us, and therefore Saint james also exhorteth us that we be not many masters: 
Matth. 23. 8. jam. 3. 1.  yet this Romish Rabbi will be our master also, not contenting himself, 
The pope teacheth us of his own.  to deliver that which he received from God, as did Christ and his apostles, (whose footsteps he should not be ashamed to follow) but he will teach us his own lessons, and deliver us his own doctrines. And although he pretend the direction of God's spirit, 
objection.  yet even hereby it appeareth, that this is but a lying pretence and colour, wherewith they would cloak all their heresies and superstitions. 
Answer. joh. 16. 13. What the spirit teacheth.  For the spirit shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak. And this reason our Saviour Christ yieldeth why the spirit shall lead us into all truth, because he shall teach nothing of his own, but that which he shall hear. Therefore all new doctrines, even whatsoever hath been added in substance of doctrine, unto that which Christ and his apostles left us, savoureth 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 Israel, but in Italy, that bringeth in huge heaps of doctrine, which themselves confess only to rest upon men's traditions, which they call traditions of the church, and have no good warrant, or sure ground in the word of God? Doth he not take upon him God's office? Doth he not make himself herein equal with God? It is most plain, it cannot be denied. But the insatiable ambition of those holy fathers, will not suffer them to content themselves with that excess of pride, in that they take upon them as God, to make laws, 
The pope controleth god's word. Heb 13. 4. 1. Cor. 7. 2. 9  and give rules to God's church, unless they also control and correct as seemeth good to them, those laws which God hath set down, and those ordinances which he hath established in making that sin which he calleth honourable, and forbidding that which he hath commanded, as appeareth in their forbidding certain persons to marry.  
And on the contrary whereas Christ reproved Peter for drawing his sword, even in defence of his master, 
Mat. 26. 52. 53.  yet Peter's successor, and Christ's vicar, as he termeth himself, commendeth it as a most acceptable sacrifice to God, 
Killing of princes meritorious in the pope's court.  and meritorius of the remission of sins, if in the defence of the pope, or revenge of his enemies (and they are all his enemies that will not be his slaves) they fight afore christian princes, yea and rebel, against their natural and sovereign magistrates. Of the which because I shall God willing have better occasion to speak after, I only would have you now to remember that furious fellow julius the second, 
Interdictum regni franciae p, 67.  of whom it is written that he gave forgiveness of sins to any that would kill a Frenchman. And it seemeth that some cause of his deadly hatred against the French was this. julius this jolly pope was sworn when he was chosen pope as many stories testify, that he should call a general council within two years.  
But he not regarding either oath or duty, was so far from calling of a council, that as much as he could he hindered the same. And thereupon nine Cardinals leaving him, came to Milan, and appointed a council to be kept at Pysa, whither the Emperor and French king did send their Ambassadors. Now when otherwise he could not hinder the council, he purposed, as a friend of his telleth us, 
Rioche Compe●▪ temporum in julio. 2.  to rule it by wars, so that he made the council to go to Milan for fear. A great fight being upon Easter day between the French and this worthy warrior: the French men gave his a great overthrow.  
Whereupon he stirred up against them, all that he could, the Venetians, 
1. Pet. 3. 11.  Helvetians, Italians, Spaniards. So well did he seek for peace and ensue it, as Saint Peter commandeth him, whose successor he calleth himself.  
So much did he regard that promise, that our Saviour Christ himself, 
Mat. 5. 9  (whose Vicar he would seem to be) did make. Blessed are the peace makers for they shallbe called Gods children. And so lightly did he set by that commandment that Christ hath given against our affectionate and unlawful revenges. Resist not evil: 
Mat. 5. 〈◊〉.  but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. So that this pope doth promise the reward of remission of sins, for doing that, which Gods law doth flattely forbid, and the law of nature doth utterly condemn. Is not this to take upon him against God himself? Is not this to command when he forbiddeth, and to forbid when he commandeth? Again, God hath given us a plain and flat commandment, 
Deuter. 12. 32  that we should do nothing but that which he biddeth. We must not so much as turn to the left hand of our corrupt affections, or superstitious services, which ourselves condemn, or to the right hand, of our good intentions and devotions wherein we please our natural man very well. His word only must be our rule and square. Doth not then the bishop of Rome control this and such like commandments of God, when he saith in express words: ye shall have other rules of religion, other articles of faith, otherways to worship God, by traditions of the apostles, and of the church, unwritten verities, 
Doctrines beside the word.  decrees, decretals, briefs and bulls, councils and precepts of the church? Is not this to transgress God's commandment by our own traditions, and to make it of none authority? 
Matth. 15. 3, 6. 9  Is not this to teach as doctrines, men's precepts? Yea, is not this to say with those lawless lords, we are they that ought to speak, 
Psalm. 12. 4.  who is Lord over us? Thirdly, in that the pope may (as he and his favourites falsely affirm) allow of the scriptures, whether they shall be authentical or not. Doth he not thereby take upon him to be above God, whose word is not authentical unless the pope allow of it. If you doubt whether the Bishop of Rome be so shameless or not, as so to say, consider first what Silvester Prierias a friar, and master of the pope's palace writeth in his articles or foundations that he setteth 
Luth. tom. 1.  down against Luther. Whosoever (saith he) resteth not upon the doctrine of the church and bishop of Rome, as upon an iufallible rule of faith, from whence even the holy scripture doth draw strength and authority, is an heretic, like unto which is that also of Eckius, 
Loc. come. de eccl.  without the authority of the church, the very scriptures are not authentical. And let not their doctrine only be examined, wherein they teach, that the pope is virtually the church, as doth that friar Prierias in the place before alleged in his second foundation, but also (yea and that especially) the practice of that church, so to refer all things to the pope in such things, that he according to that fullness of knowledge, which is in that sacred casket of his holy breast, which pope Paul the second did first boast of, 
Dist. 40. c. si p●p.  must judge of all things, so that as he saith, so it must be, and there must no reason be asked of his doing. Whereby it appeareth that the Pope being the church, and as we see, having the full authority to do what he will in the church of Rome, they tell us that the scripture hath no authority or strength but from him? And I pray you then who is greater? he that maketh the word authentical, or he that hath his word approved? Is not he that doth approve it? so God must be under the pope, that holy God, under a vile sinful man. Fourthly, the pope will take upon him to dispense with, or rather against the word of God, and to allow that which God manifestly condemneth, and is expressly against gods holy law. For proof whereof, I need not allege the false testimony of his flattering lawyers, that give him that power to dispense against the apostle, and so against god's word: but we may see his practice, which doth sufficiently testify, that he thinketh he may dispense, with the wicked and unnatural uncovering of the shame of them, that are near of kin, And he hath done contrary to this flat commandment given by God against marrying with uncle or aunt. 
Levit. 20. 20.  In which case he did dispense in the marriage of his catholic son Philip King of Spain, who, as in his unrighteous ambition he hath no measure, so in his unnatural just, he hath (as it seemeth) no shame: but to his Lord he shall stand or fall, before whom it shall be tried one day, whether the pope's bull can stand between God and him, for breach of God's law. Yea, pope Martin the fifth (as is alleged in a book called Brutum fulmen, out of Anthony of Florence and others) did dispense with one, to marry his own sister, whereas God saith, thou shalt not uncover the shame of thy sister. But what can not the pope do? He can make wrong right, say they: 
Levit. 18. 9  And we know, that he can make that which is right wrong. For he can (as they tell us) do all things above right, against right, and without right. Yea, he is lord of lords, and hath the authority of the King of kings, over his subjects. But what will you more?  
To doubt of the pope's power it is no less than sacrilege. As also it is alleged out of Thomas of Aquine against the errors of the grecians question 66. That to say that the pope hath not supremacy over the whole church, is like the error of them, that say the holy-ghost proceeds not from the son. But such are heretics against the godhead as it cannot be denied, 
Ye doubt of the pope's supremacy is heresy against God.  and therefore doubtless by the judgement of Thomas of Aquine, they that do but doubt of the pope's supremacy are heretics against the godhead.  
And is this that Thomas of Aquine, that glorious Saint and clerk, whose only sentence weigheth more, than all the protestants wit and words in the world, 
In his invective answer to the English justice.  as saith in a spiteful pamphlet our weeping cardinal of England, who can never be merry, until be see the ruin and desolation of his natural country.  
In which respect I pray God heartily, that he may nightly water his bed with tears, and moisten always his bread with weeping rather then he should see, or his eyes behold, the destruction of this land, which he and such other tigers whelps so greedily gape for. And I doubt not, but our good God, which hath hitherto very often, not mercifully only, but miraculously also and mightily preserved and upholden, the only prop and stay of this our flourishing land, will still plead her cause against all her foes, 
our sins deserve great plagues.  and preserve her soul the soul of his turtle Dove against all their secret and malicious practices. I confess indeed, that our sins which abound daily more and more, do justly deserve, that this precious jewel, should be taken from us. And it is only God's mercy, that hath preserved us these many years, even his free and great mercy. But if we could turn to the Lord unfeignedly, we need neither fear the suits or tears, nor traitorous devices, of such hypocrites, neither yet the might or malice of all those conspirators. But if the Lord should as in justice he may give us over to be a prey unto their teeth, yet the truth of our cause is grounded still upon God's word. And the Israelites were God's people still, although when they rebelled against the Lord, he did sometimes deliver them to be punished, even of his own enemies, and wicked ones.  
And I beseech the Lord make us more patiently to bear his deserved wrath if it shall please him to lay it upon us, than we have used thankfully his undeserved grace and favour, which hitherto he hath showed unto us, and continued amongst us. And thus much by occasion of that undue commendation, that Allen giveth unto Thomas of Aquin. But him and such like I leave to their own fancies. And to the godly I say only with Saint james, my brethren have not the faith of our glorious Lord jesus Christ, 
james 2. 1.  in respect of persons. Let our cares be attentive to mark, and our hearts ready bend to receive that which in due examination we find to be well spoken, without beholding of the person, or regarding any thing more, than the word that is taught. And thus have I briefly showed, how this unjust authority which the pope challengeth and into the which most craftily he crept, is in part most lewdly, by him abused, not only in that he claimeth to have a proud name over his brethren, and the whole church, but also that he dare match himself with God, and directly to oppose himself against his will.  
But as in many things much, so in nothing more doth the bishop of Rome darken God's glory, or thrust himself into God's place, then, in that he being himself a sinful man, yea a servant to sin, even set and sold to do wickedly, dareth yet take upon him to forgive sin: 
The pope forgiveth sins.  And that not as one that would preach and proclaim, unto the penitent sinners Gods grace and mercy, but as one that commendeth unto the people his own power to pardon and forgive men their offences. Wherein he first offendeth, 
God only can pardon sins.  in that he taketh more upon him, then belongeth to him, or to any man. For, seeing our sinful act, whether it be against God or man, is therefore imputed to us as sin, and is indeed sin, because it is a breach of God's Law; it is very absurd to imagine that any man can dispense with us for this sin, 
1. john 3. 4.  but only that good God, against whose law we have transgressed. And for this cause the godly when their sin was unto them a heavy burden, have made their suit and moan unto God, because he only can heal that sore, and help that sickness, as that one example of David in steed of many, may prove unto us, Psal. 51. 1. Have mercy upon me O Lord according to thy great mercy, and according to the multitude of thy compassions, 
Tibi soli peceavi.  put away mine iniquities. And although his sins were exceeding great (as after he confesseth) yet because none could pardon them but God only, therefore even to him he cometh, against whom he had offended, to him, 
job. 14. 4.  he confesseth his fault, of him, he seeketh for release, to him, he sueth for pardon. For of all men it is true that job saith who can make that clean, that is conceived of unclean seed? there is not one. And therefore God proclaimeth by his prophet Esay. I, 
Esa. 43. 25.  even I, am he that putteth away thine iniquities, for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins. And first we bow the knees of our heart, to our good God, yielding unto him immortal thanks and praise, who dealeth thus graciously with us unworthy and sinful wretches, as that he doth not only freely forgive us, for Christ his sake, all our sins, and blot out all our offences, and put away all our transgressions, with an assured purpose, never to call them to remembrance, or to charge us with them in his just judgement: but also for the better quieting, 
The ministry of reconciliation.  of our fearful and troubled consciences, hath given power and commandment to his ministers, by proclaiming to the penitent this his free pardon ministerially to heal the soul wounded with sin, to bind up the broken and contrite heart, and to raise by form the pit of despair, them whom the clog of conscience accused of sin had pressed down. This, even this, we acknowledge to be an unestimable benefit, and a great favour, that God showeth to us vile wretches, that that mercy which he hath sealed up for us in heaven, he hath caused to be made known here on earth, by the ministry of the gospel. And this is all the power that is given to man, to proclaim unto us that pardon, 
Esa. 1. 18.  that God only giveth. To tell us, that if our sins were as crimson, they (being for Christ his sake pardoned) shall be as white as snow, and if they were like scarlet, they shallbe as wool. But either to think or say, that any man can give any pardon, is too absurd. I cannot therefore but marvel at the church of Rome, and the bishops thereof, than they shame not, as it were to thrust themselves into God's place, and to take upon them to do, that, which none can do but God only. They appoint their I●●ylies, and proclaim pardon of all their sins, to such as come to Rome, in the time of that solemn feast. In like manner to such as devoutly say so many prayers before such an image, or go in pilgrimage to such a place. They send abroad into all places, their pardons and indulgences, making of them plain merchandise. So that men or women, may for a little money, buy a pardon for their greatest sins, as they imagine. Is not this an easy way for rich men to get to heaven? 
Popery a doctrine of licentiosnesse.  Is not this the very fountain of all licentious living, to teach that men for money, may make their peace with God, and satisfy for their sins? And yet the church of Rome, that shameless harlot, dare charge our doctrine of justification by faith (taught first by Christ himself, 
joh. 3. 1●. Rom. 3. 28.  afterwards by his apostles especially Saint Paul in plain words) to be a doctrine of liberty. What shall we then say of this wicked doctrine, or rather of this blasphemous merchandise, whereby leave to sin, is sold as commonly for money, as old boots and shoes are sold in London streets, for beesoms or broom? The first I suppose that opened this shop of these popish wares was Boniface the eight, 
Plat. in Bonif. 8.  who gave full pardon of all sins, mark not of some sins, but of all, to them that visited the place, where the apostles were. And after the world was filled with such trash, pardons were promised to them that would fight against the Turk, yea pardons for them that would fight against the pope's enemies. But my meaning is not to stand upon these points in particular, but rather to point unto them. Yet I can not omit how that Clement the sixth pope of that name, did persuade himself so well of his power and authority in this behalf, 
Sleid. li. 21.  that he gave commandment and charge unto the Angels, that if any died coming to Rome to the jubilee, which he had appointed to be kept every fifth year, whereas Boniface had appointed it to be kept but every hundred year, 
Plat. in Clem. 6  the Angels I say, should carry the souls of such strait way to heaven. What durst not these men presume to do, that durst like Gods take upon them, to command even the Angels, to be at their beck? Well, against these their blasphemies which have no warrant no colour in the word, I only ask of them, who can forgive sin but God only? 
Mark 2. 7. 1. Pet. 1. 18, 19  Let them prove it by scripture, let them point unto him out of God's word. If man could do it, what need so precious a price, so great a ransom, as not gold nor silver, but the blood of that unspotted Lamb Christ jesus.  
another great abuse there is in this there wicked doctrine. They promise their indulgesnce general to all that die in the defence 
Another abuse. The general promise of pardon.  of christians against the Turk. Yea they often sell their pardons to any that will buy them, as Bale out of Crantzius reports, 
Act. Rom. pontiff. Mart. 5.  that some did in Saxony, in the time of pope Martin the first. What excuse can they make, or what pretence can they use, to make this have any show of lawfulness? God in the scripture still criieth turn unto me, 
Pardon to the penitent,  and promiseth forgiveness to the penitent, he threateneth the ungodly, that they shall have no peace. 
Esay 48. 22.  But not one testimony, not one example cannot be alleged, to prove that any man or woman receive forgiveness of sins, unless they first be sorry for the same, which commonly cannot be in sudden death in the wars, and the pardoners rather require money then amending for the same. 
Luke 7. Luke 19 8.  The sinful woman had pardon for her sins, but she hated them. Zache likewise, but he was become a new man. 
Matth. 16. 75.  Peter's denying of Christ was forgiven him, but by weeping he testified his sorrow for the same. The like may be said of many other, whom I for shortness omit.  
Wickedly therefore doth the Pope give his pardon of sins, not seeing sorrow for sins, or purpose of amendment in them, that buy or enjoy those their pardons. So Alexander the fifth did wickedly abuse the words of Christ, 
Plaeina.  being at point of death: my peace I give to you, my peace I leave with you, as though he could give that peace.  
But if he have been so saucy with God, how shall he behave himself think you towards men? For that is another point which is neeessarie to be considered. Whereby it will appear that as by subtlety he entered, so with much pride and more than barbarous cruelty he hath reigned. I told you before, how that when he had first by the emperor's means got the bishops under him, he never rested until he had not only thrust the emeperour from having any thing to do in this election: but also brought them under his yoke, that they could not be confirmed in the empire but by him. Now what followed of this must be declared. First he did strive earnestly, to keep all that he had gotten, and if any emperor having indeed in him any noble heart, would seek to recover his ancient liberty in some part, and to free himself, from that Romish Egypt, and slavish servitude, wherein that proud Pharo (unmindful of God's graces to him, or his duty to others) did seek to detain him: then would the proud pope, viis & modis, by all means that possible he could devise, so persecute and afflict such, as if he were set up of God, to be a pledge to all christian princes, and (as were the Cananits unto the Israelites) pricks in their eyes, 
Num. 33. 55.  and continual thorns, and whips in their sides. And this may evidently appear out of innumerable examples. The church of Ravenna did not upon Phoeas his decree, submit itself to the church of Rome, or acknowledge it to be her head. The patriarch thereof thought himself to une as great at Ravenna, as the pope was at Rome.  
But Theodorus although he willingly would have kept that 
Funct. Cronol an 686.  ancient privilege, yet for fear submitted himself to Donus then bishop of Rome, about the year of the Lord six hundred seventy and seven. 
The pope's contention with his brethren.  But Felix being after patriarch of Ravenna, and desirous to stand in his ancient privileges, moven the people to the same. So that by all means they sought to shake off the bishop of Rome his heavy yoke. Leo then bishop of Rome stirred up justinian the second Emperor of that name, by slaughter, siege spoil, and such violent means, to subject that patriarch to his seat. And Felix who sought to recover his liberties, had his eyes thrust out with a hot burning Iron, as out of Sabelicus and Nauclerus it is reported. But the pope is not more earnest, to maintain his supremacy over bishops (although this hea● was too too fervent, that the patriarch, for this pope's pride should have his eyes burnt out) than he was to hold fast, and to increase daily, that authority which by most impdent and ungodly means he had gotten, not only over all princes and kings, but even over the Emperor himself, the greatest monarch that is in all christendom.  
The emperor had wont in the primitive churches, to have a great saying in the choosing of bishops, especially such as were bishops of Rome, as all histories make mention, and is more evident, 
The Emperors debarred for having any thing to do in the election of the Pope.  then that it needeth proof, and more plain, then that it may be doubted of. But when the pope's came to their over great authority, they began somewhat more boldly, to take upon them to occupy that room without leave of the Emperor.  
Adrian the first therefore being B. of Rome, and he thinking himself much beholding to Charles the great, for defending him and his church, from the violence of enemies, did in a council holden at Rome by the emperor and the pope, 
Sigeb. Cronic. ●nno 773.  make this universal decree, that the emperor should have right to choose the pope, and to order the apostolic seat, and to have the dignity or pre-eminence of principality. I would all our English papists, and specially the fugitive traitors, that would for this cause make the happy and quiet government, which England hath under our most gracious princess, a long time comfortably enjoyed, (because we give unto her majesty the title of sumacie) seem odivos to others, 
A pope acknowledgeth the emperor to have supremacy.  and unlawful to ourselves, I would I say they would mark, what pope Adrian and the universal council (for so doth Sigebert there call it) do yield to Charles the great, than emperor, that he should have the principality and supremacy. And further it is there decreed, that the archbishop and bishop through every province, shall be invested by him, and that no man shall be once so bold as to consecrate him, whom the king doth not commend and institute and that upon pain of excommunication. And if he reform not himself, his goods to be forfeited, and himself to be banished.  
A necessary Law doubtless for our days, both in respect of the law itself, and also in regard of the punishment which is to be laid upon offenders▪ And the more to be accounted of, because it is de●ised by such, as I hope they will not say can err or cannot say they seek their blood. Well, notwithstanding this decree set down by council, as you have hard, Steven the fourth bishop of Rome, and next but one to this Adrian the first (who by a conucil confirmed to the emperor this authority) 
Dist. 63. C. Quia sanct. Rom.  doth not only debar the emperor, for meddling in election of the pope, but also accurseth all them, that by the emperors consent do obtain any church. And for the louder proclaiming of his pride, most lewdly he compareth his unjust and rash desanulling of that just decree, made by Adrian and the council, 
Pope Steven the fourth abuseth scripture.  with Ezechias his godly abolishing of the high places, the serpent, and such other things as were idolatrously abused by the Israelltes. He alone I say without a council, revoketh that which the council had commanded. Pope Paschalis the first succeeding this Steven, had not the consent of the emperor, and therefore sent his ambassadors unto the emperor Lodouike, to excuse the matter, and to make him believe, that he was forced by the clergy and people to take the popedom on him. The emperorbeing of a very mild nature, yet willing to retain that privilege willed them not afterward to inform the emperors authority, but to keep in their election the decrees of their elders. Now the emperor being forced for the repression of some that rebelled against him, to send Lotharius his son into Italy there to remain: Paschalis the pope invested the said Lotharius in the empire. But he being gone to his father into France for greater aid, some of his most trusty friends, were in the mean time killed even in the palace of Lateran, 
Rioche Compe●, temporum.  their eyes first put out, only because they were fast and faithful to Lotharius. The pope was commonly supposed to be guilty, or at the least to be acquainted, with this outrageous dealing of the Romans. And although by other he denied the fact, yet did he acquit them that had done that deed, and pronounced them that were slain, to have been guilty of treason. But howsoever it was, the emperor seeing belike the pope's wholly bend, to deprive him utterly of any consent in the election of the pope, doth himself yield it into their hands, making it lawful for the pope's to take that place upon them, being chosen by the clergy and people of Rome, 
Dist. 63. C Ego Ludovicus.  without the emperors consent not long after him cometh Nicholas the first, who seeing the emperor so easily to be chrust from his right, which was even by the bishop of Rome, 
The emperor put from their councils by the pope. Dist. 96. C. Vbina●.  in a council given to him in electing of the pope, thought he would encroach somewhat further, and doth wholly debar him, of having any thing, to do, or being at or in their council, unless it be when matters of faith be in handling. 
Dist. 28. C. Consulendum.  And further he did decree (to cut his power yet shorter) that no lay man whatsoever, 
Dist. 28. C. consu●end ●m ●l●●gie not to be judged by lay men. Funct. An. 885.  should somuch as judge of Priests, or inquire how they live. And although Nicholas the first, durst not as yet go plainly to work, but rather by crafty means sought to diminish the emperors power, yet within less than thirty years after it was decreed, by Adrian the third, that the emperors consent should not he regarded, in electing the Bishop of Rome, but the voices or election of the Clergy, and people therein should be free.  
Now by this exemption which the Romans had from the Emperor, that he had nothing to do in their elections: as they were without fear of his displeasure, so were they without care of doing in their elections as they ought, and by that means preferred many unworthy of that place. Wherefore pope Leo the eight, 
Dist. 63. in Synodo. The emperors tied restored.  in a Synod holden at Rome did decree, that Otho then Emperor, and his successors after him, should elect, not the pope only, but also the chief officers of Rome, or bishops, and that only with his consent these must be counted lawful. And if any shall go about to infringe this decree, he is excommunicate. If he continue therein, he shall be perpetually banished, or have extreme punishment. How long this decree was kept which was now by two Councils at Rome, and by two pope's, Adrian the first decreed, & this Leo the eight confirmed, it is not certain. 
The Romish shif● to debar the emperor for maintaining his right in the elections.  But I am sure that not long after, it was accounted simony, for any man to take any bishopric, or benefice, being instituted thereto by any lay man. And this was especially laboured by Hildebrand, as soon as ever he came to have any thing to do for the pope's, that the Emperor or lay men, should have nothing to do, in the election of the pope. And because already two Councils had given to the Emperors that authority, they that followed would not altogether and directly, control the decree of the Councils, but more craftily they so handle the matter, that by a very general decree, forbidding all lay men to meddle with elections, or to inttest the clergy, or rather threatening the clergy, that will receive any ecclesiastical promotion at the hands of any lay man, they imagine that they annihilate that, which more particularly, giveth to the Emperor that power. And indeed most busy to bring this about, was Hildebrand, (that firebrand of much mischief) who being pope, (for that is he that was called Gregory the seventh) it was almost the greatest sin that a pope could commit, to seek to have his election confirmed by the Emperor.  
But before the time of this Gregory the seventh his papacy, as Pantalcon reporteth, 
Panta. ex blondo.  Clement the second, went also about to debar the people of Rome, for having any thing to do in electing the Pope. And thus the bishops of Rome, ever repining and grudging, that the emperor (whose power they feared) might be a bridle unto them, or rather a deserved scourge for their ungodly life, or any other lay man, should have any thing to do in their election, at the length did bring to pass, that neither clergy nor people, 
Election by Cardinals.  nor emperor should choose the pope: but only such of the clergy as were called Cardinals. And the first that ever was chosen pope by the Cardinals, was Gelasius the second. For we read not of any so elected before him. Paschalis the second (who was next after him) was, 
Plate in Pasch. 2.  as Platina writeth of him, despised of the people, chosen of the clergy, 
Plat. in Gelas. 2.  praised of the Cardinals. But of this he saith, that he was chosen by general consent of the Cardinals, and so doth Rioche a friar, an historiographer of our time. Well now the bishop of Rome hath shaken off his yoke, he is now lawless and peerless, he playeth now the part of an untaught and unruly jade, that having cast his rider, striketh at him with his heels. For, freeing himself from the emperors government, he goeth about to bring the emperor to be in servitude under him. And therefore first, 
The emperor confirmed by the Pope. Plat. in Innoc. 3.  he goeth about to confirm the emperors election, as it were not sufficient without his approbation, as Innocent the third confirmed the election of Otho. Wherein yet by the way, the practise of these prelates is to be noted. 
A popelike policy.  For they would commonly intend themselves to meddle, when by reason of some division, they hoped their taking part would be acceptable. As in this case. For there was a division about choosing the emperor, some inclining to Frederick, some to Otho. 
Acts Rom. pontiff.  But afterward they came to that boldness that we read that godless wretch john 22. or 21. as some reckon did excommunicate Lewes of Bavaria emperor, because he took upon him the empire, without the approbation of his holiness: which was decreed by Clement that was next before him, as Bale out of Marius allegeth. For, although the electors by their election, might give him power to be King of the Romans, yet could he not now have the name of an Emperor, but by the pope. And thus we see how upon a sudden, he that but a little before, could not be pope, but by the approbation of the emperor, is now so great, as that the emperor can not be emperor, but by his leave. Now having gotten thus high, his ambition yet had no end, his pride had no measure, his rage had no bridle. For, as he had now either fraudulently, or violently, or rather both ways obtained thus much, that he must confirm the emperor before he might have that title: so did he also take upon him (O intolerable presumption) soon after, 
The pope's control emperors. Brut, ●ulmen ex Naval. Es●c. 28. ●  to control him even this highest majesty in this world, if he did but write his name before the pope, as Adrian the fourth did Ferd▪ the second.  
Thus we see the pope hath set himself in God's seat, as Tyrus saith of herself, His throne is placed in the clouds, and his nest made very high. Now what means have they used to climb up into the same? For you must understand, that impotent affections have driven them forward, so impudently to seek for this honour. Which if it do not appear, in that which hath already been said: yet in that that followeth, I trust it will be as clear as the noon day. For many ungodly & unlawful practice they have used, (but what do I give them such terms, as do nothing express their doings?) 
Many vile means to get the papacy  Many detestable and devilish devices they have had, to intrude themselves into that seat, and to settle themselves in that throne. Yea I may (I suppose) boldly affirm, that a man shall not read in any histories, or find in any records, of any state or sort of men, be they never so profane, that have used more vile and villainous ways to obtain their desire, than the pope's have done to mount into that chair. It should not be so I confess, but yet it is so: The greater is their sin, the more is their shame. No man shall take unto him any honour and especially so great honour, but he that is called of God as was Aron. And whosoever doth not enter in by the door into the sheepfold, 
Hebr. 5. 4. None should without calling take any place. joh. 10. 1, 10.  but climbeth up another way, is but a thief and a robber. And the thief cometh not but to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. God by his prophet jeremy doth often complain of such prophets, as would run, when they were not sent, 
jer. 14. 13. jer. 23. 21. jer. 29. 8.  and would prophecy, although the Lord spoke not to them. And therefore that which they said unto the people, was but lies, a false vision, and the deceitfulness of their own heart. But the true prophets never came but when God sent them. And therefore they do commonly publish and proclaim their commission in these words, The word of the Lord came to me, which is more common in the sermons of the prophets, then that I need to point unto the particular places. Our Saviour Christ, 
joh. 6. 38. joh. 1. 19  when he came, was sent of the Father. And for that cause, the jews sent priests and Levites to john the Baptist, to know what he was, what calling he had in the church, and by what authority he did that which he did. And as Christ himself was sent of the Father, so he sendeth his Apostles, As my Father sent me, 
joh. 20. 21.  so send I you. As for Paul who was then a persecuter, when the other Apostles were sent to preach, yet when Christ purposed to have his service in the ministry, he called him, and that not strangely only, saying to him from heaven, 
Act. 9 4. 1. Cor. 15. 10.  Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? but effectually also, insomuch as he afterwards laboured more abundantly than they all. Whereby it is plain, that God would never have the ministry of any in his church, but that he called them lawfully thereunto. Neither is it enough for a man to know that his calling is good, I mean his office or function which he taketh in hand, unless he have within him the testimony of his own conscience to assure him, that he is called to that function, not only by the outward calling lawfully, but also by the inward calling of the spirit effectually. And this is the meaning of those Canonists, (who otherwise are shameless in flattering the pope) who dare thus affirm, 
Bald. In 6. l. Impetrata C. Sententiam rescindi non posse. Num. ●  as doth Bald. The pope (saith he) being chosen according to the canons, is a God upon earth, but not being chosen canonically, is a devil, not having the keys of the kingdom of heaven, but of hell. And as Felinus saith, 
●elin. in l. 4. de iureiuran. extra in principio. Dist. 79 C. Si quis pecunia. Plat. in Nico●.  he is not apostolical, but apostatical: which words Felinus hath borrowed out of Gratian his decrees, and Gratian out of pope Nicholas the second. For pope Nicholas having deposed pope Benedict the tenth, who as he allegeth came in by simony, called a council at Lateran, and doth there ordain, that he shall be accounted apostatical, and not apostolical, who by money, favour of men, tumult of the people, or of the soldiers, or by any other way then by the agreeing, and canonical election, of the cardinals, is made pope. We see then what manner of election there should be. What manner of elections they have, and after what sort they come to be pope's it is now to be declared, which shall be performed God willing out of ancient histories: that the world may see, not what Luther or Caluine, or any of us in these our days, do say of their wicked practices, but what hath been spoken and written of them, that by violence and intrusion, have entered into that seat.  
Platina himself (no Lutheran) telleth us that when Damasus was chosen pope, 
Plat. in Damaso.  there was a great schism in the church: for one Vrsicinius, 
Li. 4. oist. c. 29 li. 6. cap. 23.  or as Socrates calleth him Vrsinus or as Sozomen in his ecclesiastical history calleth him Vrsatius being at that time in election, goat himself to be made pope, by the means of his friends.  
And whilst neither of them would give place to the other, but both desired that place, they fell first to words, and after words to blows, in such sort, that even in the church many were slain on both sides (some say to the number of one hundred thirty seven. And as there was no regard of the place (for this innocent blood was shed in the church) so neither spared they the very women or any sex. 
Hieron. in cron.  The disorder was so notorious, as that Maximinus at that time governor of the city, did for the same put to death many both of the laity, and of the clergy also.  
How shall we find here the agreeing or consenting election that before I have spoken of, 
Socrat. hist. eccl. li. 4. ca 62.  where we see such not dissenting in words only, but also such disorder in blows, yea blood, by striving to get into that glorious chair? Not long after Boniface the first being chosen by some to be pope, 
Plat. in Bonif. 1. Sigeb. Crou.  another sort did choose in another church of Rome, another pope, one Eulalius. And so little agreement there was in that election, nay so great dissension and so much discord afterwards, that Honorius the emperor for fear of greater inconvenience, was forced to turn them both out of the city. 
●as●ie. tempor.  Afterwards when Symachus was by some chosen pope, other did choose one Laurence: 
Plat. in Sy●. Bergom.  the contention was very great, and made a very great division between the senators of Rome, and the people also.  
Theodoricus then being King of the east Goths, and at this time ruler in Italy, 
A king maketh a pope.  placed Symachus pope. But within four years after, this Laurence seeking to displace Symachus, and to be pope as before he would have been, Theodorick sent one Peter a bishop to to displace them both, and to sit in that chair himself. Simachus found means that both Laurence and Peter, were condemned to be banished. Whereupon there was amongst them a great slaughter, wherein neither virgins nor priests were spared as the stories report. Yea some report, namely Rioch a papist, 
Rioche.  a friar, and a late writer, that this sedition and murder continued three years, between him that was, and that other that would have been pope. Neither was Boniface the second chosen pope by a consonant consent, 
Plat. in Bonif. ●.  but great contention there was for eight and twenty days, 
fascic. tempor.  or as some writ for eight and thirty days: until at length by the death of Dioscorus (who was chosen by a contrary faction) the strife was ended.  
Sergius the first was also chosen very hardly, as writeth Bergomates, 
Bergomates fascicul. tempor.  and as an other story saith, in his election, there was great dissension. For some would have Paschalis, other would choose Theodore. But the governor of the city and of the soldiers, 
A pope made by the governor.  to pretient further mischief, did appoint Sergius to be pope. Constantine the second of that name, was by force put into that seat, 
Bergomates Stella.  by the help of Desiderius king of Lombardy, and others: who bringing to Rome an army made him pope, being a mere lay man, 
A lay man made pope.  and not having taken any orders before. But perchance they will readily except against him, because that Platina and others account him not in the number of pope's.  
It is true that Platina doth not reckon him amongst the Popes, although he was in that place more than a year. But it seemed that they did not call in question his manner of choosing (for that had been a thing grown very common before, not to have consent of them that used to choose them) but as Platina reporteth, is was objected unto him, that he not having taken order, 
Plat. in Steph. 3.  was content to take upon him to be pope, when he answered that the people forced him thereto, the council seemed to pity him. But when the next day he defended himself, by the examples of Sergius who was made archbishop of Ravenna, and Stephan bishop of Naples, being mere lay men, than they were angry at him, and proceeded against him. Because therefore we see not any mislike that they had of him, but only that he was not within orders: I see not but that he may well enough be reckoned among them, that by violence possessed that seat, 
Bargom. fascic. tempor.  and therefore not lawfully. What should I speak of Eugenius the second, that in a schism was made pope? Or of Martin the second, (whom Oniforus calleth Marius) who by evil means came to be pope, and as Platina seemeth to report, by moving sedition against john the ninth. 
Blat. in M. 2.  Whether he were suspected of the death of the said john or not I know not. 
Abbas Vrsp.  But the Abbot of vrsperg reporteth that the pope had poison given him and also a blow with a beetle or mall, whereof he died.  
Now whether these be the evil means whereof the histories speak, by which pope Martin came to be pope I cannot affirm. But many pope's have used as had means as afterwards (God willing) shall appear. Not long after pope Christopher, 
Platina Bergomat. Rioche.  thought it was too long before he could get into that proud set. For fear therefore lest he might go quite without it, if he quickly got it not, he traitorously moved sedition against pope Leo the fifth, that made great account of him, and took the said Leo when he had been pope but forty days, and so got into the place, as Rioche affirmeth by contention, and evil means. But now these Romish rabbiss I would have to open me one riddle. Platina having set down this history learneth by this experience that it is most true, 
Platina in Leo. 5.  that dignities are rather dignified or commended by men, than men by them. As the Censorship (saith he) of Rome at the first as a mean office, was nothing set by, but when the chief men of the city, took that office upon them, than the greatest citizens thought themselves almost unhappy, if in their life they enjoyed not that office. What Platina meaneth by this I cannot tell, unless he thinketh the bishop of Rome at the first, was not in such estimation or account as afterwads he grew to. But that so it was I have before declared. For from mean beginning he is now grown to be a captions controller of the greatest princes. And this (as it seemeth) Platina thinketh to be the reason, why the bishopric of Rome (which was perchance in the beginning not worth suing for) was afterwards by so great contention and fight sought for. And so men have dignified that seat, and not that seat the men. And the place hath gotten authority by the bishops, not the bishops by the place. Which in my judgement doth somewhat overthwart that fullness of power, and that continual spring of spiritual graces, which they would make us believe, floweth from that chair and that power which they say it hath from Christ himself.  
Next after Christopher cometh Sergius the third. 
Rioche. fascic. tempor.  He displaced Christopher by the help of Lotharuis the king and sat in his place and cast him into prison. Now how himself was made pope, Platina can tell you, who saith that he persecuted Formosus his faction, 
Platina in Serg.  by whom he was before hindered, from being pope (for he thought he waited to long for so good a place.) And thereupon Platina comparing the pope's then, with the first that were, findeth them nothing like. For in times past, they refused that place being offered unto them. But now saith he, they seek it by bribery, and ambition, and evil means. They gave themselves to prayer, and to teach. These not regarding God's service give themselves to tyrannous cruelty, that after they may the more freely fulfil their lusts, when no man dare control them. Thus saith Platina of them. Not long after cometh john the eleventh a worthy prelate for such a place. He was bastard son to pope Laudo, how holy his election was, 
Bale ex Petro Premonstratens.  how canonically he was chosen is worth the hearing. Theodora a shameless harlot, that ruled all Rome, was greatly in love with this john, as soon as she saw him. And she having for a time enjoyed his company and liking well of the same, first made him bishop of Bondnia, after archbishop of Raue●●a, and lastly bishop of Rome, and was not this think you a canonical election. But whether this harlot Theodore did violently place this pope (which especially belongeth to my matter in hand) or that she by favour obtained consent of the electors, it is not certain. But by lawful means, it is certain he came not to it. There was also another pope john after him, thrust into that room, who although he be not numbered among the pope's, yet because he was bastard son to pope Sergius the third, he is worth speaking of, in respect of the good stock he came of. Therefore Theodora that famous harlot, had a daughter married to Guy Marquis of Thuscia, her name was Marozia. Who following the good conditions of her mother, by pope Sergius had a bastard, whom she and her husband (having dispatched pope john the eleventh by stopping his mouth with a pillow) made pope, and he was called john the twelfth. Thus did Marozia kill her mother's paramour, that she might make her husband's bastard son (by pope Sergius) pope in his room. And thus we see how this seat, wherein they will make us believe, that none can sit but most holy fathers, is become a den for most profane and godless ruffians and rakehells.  
john the twelfth by the their own account, 
Rioche fasci, t●m, ●ergom.  was also intruded into that place, by means of his father, who was thought to be Albert, or Albericke king of Italy. But howsoever he came to it, he when he was in it, was such a ruffianly companion, and so vicious, as that it is written, that even from his youth he was stark nought, and was not ashamed openly to keep harlots. So youthful he was, that in him began that by-word, As merry as pope john. He came of a good race. For Marozia (of whom before I spoke) was his grandmother, 
Act. Roman, pontiff.  And as his entrance was not good, so yet his going out was too bad: for some say the devil killed him even in his adultery, being in bed with an other man's wife: 
Fasciul. temp. Bergom. Rioche.  some affirm it was the woman's husband, but that he was killed even in his filthiness, all agree. And was not this a holy Father? Neither did Boniface the seventh get into this seat the right way, but malis artibus, by evil means, as all stories almost speak.  
And of the pope's that were about this time doth the story 
Plat. fascicul. temp.  called Fasciculus temporum give this note, That in these days the bishops of Rome were slain, 
Platina. fascicul temp. Pope's murdered, but not mar●ired.  as well as in the primitive Church, but yet they are not Martyrs, as were the other. Their deaths were like, but the cause unlike. And of this pope Boniface the seventh many stories report, 
A pope, a thief.  that he committed theft, and sacrilege, stealing from Saint Peter's Church, all the Treasure and jewels, and sold them at Constantinople, to make money thereof, wherewith he procured some friendship at his return, with more safety to sit in that proud seat.  
Among these also, 
Rioche.  may Gregory the fifth be reckoned, who for favour of the Emperor was made pope, or as Platina saith, by the othoritie of Otho the Emperor, and as Fasciculus temporum saith, at his request, Bergomates saith the Emperor did will and command him to take it upon him. Benedict the ninth entered unjustly, 
fascicul. temp.  and fearing that he could not keep the papacy, he sold it to john the Archdeacon. But of him I must speak after Silvester the third was intruded either by Simony or ambition, 
Rioche.  or for hatred of Benedict the ninth.  
Benedict the tenth entered by force and bribery. 
B●rgom.  As for Gregory the tenth, how canonically he was chosen, it may be seen by the old verses that were made of his election, whereby it appeareth that the discord of the brethren, made him (who was an Archdeacon before) father of fathers. For the place (I meana the popedom) was now so much desired, and so ambitiously sought for, that the Cardinals many times, would for a long time be divided, and could not agree about the choosing of the holy father.  
As immediately after the death of Innocent the fourth, 
Rioche,  and also after the death of Clement the fourth, they dissented almost two full years at either time, before they could agree of one. And this latter time doubtless they had stayed longer, but that for shame they were forced to choose one, because Philip the French king, and Charles were they present.  
So likewise, before Nicholas, the 3. could he chosen, the cardinals were divided 6. 
Rioche.  months, & he being dead, the 2. families of the Vrsins & Annibals, did for 5. month's space make such a breach among them, as that they could not agree of any. And before Celestine the fift could be chosen pope, the cardinals disagreed two years and three months, or, as other say, two years and six months. 
Bergomate● fascicul. tempor.  And when he was chosen Bergomates saith, it was in scorn & disdain of Nicholas that was next before him. And indeed his simplicity is said to be such, by all that write of him, that themselves could not be ignorant, that he was not likely, to be the fittest for that place. After the death of Benedict the eleventh the cardinals were more than a whole year before they could choose an other. 
fascicu. tempor. Rioche. Elections in worldly respects.  For they did not seek to choose the fittest, but some desired to have an Italian, that would be friendly to Boniface his friends. Other would have one that should be friendly to the French King. Thus we see how in their election, they maintained a faction. And at the last by favour of the French king, and at his request, 
Rioche.  was Clement the fift. Next after Clement the fift cometh john the two and twentieth. The cardinals having been divided two years and three months, when they could not agree of any, they gave power to him, to name him that should be pope. But he contrary to their expectation, did name or choose himself, and so was made pope. How canonically he was chosen let the Reader judge. Because others would not, 
Bergomates Stella.  he set himself in that seat. And so did john the three and twentieth: for lying at Bononia, more like a lord then a legate, and having with him a great army, he threatened the cardinals to be even with them, unless they chose such a one as he liked of. They naming sundry, he would like of none. Then they desired him to tell them whom he would have. Bring me, saith he, Peter's cloak, and I will give it to him that shall be pope. They did so. He cast it upon his own shoulders and said, I am pope. I omit to speak of the great schism and contention that was for the papacy, that began between Clement the seventh and Vrban the sixth, 
fascicul. tempor.  which continued 39 years, Fasciculus temporum saith 40. which also was occasion of great bloodshed among christians. Wherein christendom was so divided, that the most godly and learned did not know which was that pope, whom they might acknowledge for the head of the church. In what a distressed case was the church at that time, when it imagined, it must needs have a pope for a head, and could not tell where to have him: 
De authority. co●cil li. 2. cap. 19 The church some time headless.  for a doubtful pope is no pope saith master Bellarmine. As also before I have showed that many times there was no pope for many months, yea sometimes for some years, because the cardinals could not agree among themselves. Yea after Nicholas the first there was no pope as some say for eight years and almost eight months: 
Platina. jacob. Bergom.  how then did the church for want of a head.  
Thus have I briefly run over many of them, whom in ancient histories I find by fight or force, or other hard means to have intruded themselves, or else by contention and strife to have been placed by other in the popedom. And not one that so climbeth up by the window, can be said lawfully to be chosen to the same.  
But as these by force, so by falsehood other came to the same. 
Platina.  Vigilius was made pope at the earnest suit of Theodora the empress, with this promise, that when he was made pope, he would revoke Anthemius, making him again the patriarch of Constantinople, and displace Menas a godly bishop. Now Anthemiu was an Eutychian, and so did defend, that there was in Christ but one nature. True it is, that he being made pope would not perform that promise, wherein he did well. But if he had not by such subtle shifts sought to be pope he had done better. But it seemeth, howsoever he afterwards constantly refused to do that evil (perchance being put in mind of his offence by Silverius) yet he had a very ambitious mind, and sought long before to have been pope, 
Epist. Silver. Tom. concil. 2. in principio. Bergom. Platina.  as appeareth by a letter that Silverius the pope his next predecessor wrote unto him. Wherein he chargeth him, that contrary to the Canons he sought to be successor unto Boniface.  
Martin also the second, a proud pope and ambitious, by moving trouble to john his predecessor, and getting him cast in prison, thought (perchance) the sooner to get into that place. But howsoever it was, it is written of him, that by evil and indirect means he came to that place, and by craft or deceit (as Bale writeth.)  
As for Honorius the second, Platina telleth us how he came to that seat.  
For Leo Breake-bread, a great man in Rome (Calixtus the second being dead) gave charge unto the Cardinals, 
Platina. Act. Rom pontiff.  not to be too hasty to choose a pope, but that they should tarry three days, to consider more deliberately of the matter, and to peruse the Canons. He endeavoured in the mean time to procure the place to one Lambert bishop of Ostia. The Cardinals perceiving his subtlety, did choose one whom they called Celestine. The people were very desirous to have a Saxon the cardinal of S. Steven, and also the said Break-bread, seemed willing to have the same, the rather to get the people to be favourable to him whom he would have, seeing the Cardinals had chosen one, against their mind. And by this subtlety of Breake-bread was Honorius made pope. Friar Rioche saith, perchance Honorius was not consenting to this canvasing to make him pope. Whether he were or not it maketh no great matter. I look not now, what the parties are, but whether the election were lawful, the choice free, and with willing consent, and how he entered. But Platina himself misliketh the election.  
I had almost forgotten Boniface the eight, 
Platina. Bergom, Rioche.  a man as well worthy to be remembered, for his subtle dealing, to get Rome for him to sit in the pope's seat, as any other. For he caused a man secretly to hide himself in the chamber of (elestine the fifth, who was a very seellie simple man, who in the night time, should, as if he were an Angel sent from God to instruct him, admonish pope Celestine, if he would be saved, to give over the papacy. Celestine not mistrusting any falsehood, but thinking it was a voice from God himself, gave over the papacy. Vrban the sixth likewise was thus chosen, 
jacob. Bergom.  & The people required an Italian pope. The Cardinals to please the people, promised to do what they could, and ask advise of one Bartholomew bishop of Bar, he gave counsel that they should choose one for the present, to pacify them, that they might have the name. And then going to another place, they should choose another, that should be pope in deed. Whereupon they chose him to be pope in name. Which when they had done he kept it in deed. And therefore Stella and others, 
●uic. l. 20. in fine  call him crafty. But in craft Paul the third was not inferior to any, who (as is reported by Francis Guicciardine a papist too in his history of Italy) that the Cardinals might be the more willing to choose him to be pope, in hope that he would soon be dead, did by art iucrease the opinion of weakness, which by reason of his age, (for he was lxvii. years old) they had conceived of him. But for all his feigned weakness, he lived pope more than xv. years. A longer time then commonly the pope's of these latter times are suffered to live.  
another kind of cunning also there is, 
Pope's chosen by simony and bribery.  when by bribery and gifts they will buy, that which their desert can never procure unto them. And this simonical subtlety, was sometime their ladder, whereby they must climb up into that chair, which is set higher, than they otherwise would be able to get into. Platina writeth that Formosus g●t to be pope by bribery rather than virtue. 
Platina.  But what speak I of Formosus, Bergomates and Stella, writing upon Romanus that was pope soon after Formosus, do show the practice of pope's of those times to get the popedom. 
Bergom. Stella.  For of Romanus they say, that he came not to it by ambition, and bribery, as did many of the pope's of those days. I have spoken before of Boniface the seventh, who stole the treasure, and most precious jewels out of S. Peter's church, that he might be the better able to bride, as all stories report. As for Benedict the ninth if he sold the popedom, Gregory the sixth bought it. In deed Platina and other do say, that he sold it, or gave it over, let the indifferent reader judge whether is more likely that he did. 
Sigeb. Cron.  But Sigebert doth psaiulie say, that this Benedict was a Symoniacke, or got the popedom by simony. And in Eusebius his Chronicle it is written, 
Euseb. cron.  that Theophylact (belike that was benedict's name) did sell the Papacy to john a Priest. And this bargaining and bad dealing made plenty of Popes at this good time. For some write, that Henry the Emperor deposed at this time five Popes, and made a sixth.  
And that the world may see how good choice they made. It is written that one of them (Sigebert saith Benedict, but Fasciculus temporum saith Gregory the sixth) was so unlearned, that he was feign to get one chosen to say Mass, and play the Pope in the church, 
Fascic. tempot.  while himself might play the pope abroad. Now I pray you which of these pope's was the head of the church: the praying pope, or the playing pope.  
The church that hath so bad heads must needs be sick of the headache, 
Esay 19 14.  and troubled with a frenzy, or gidi●es, as indeed the Romish church is. For it would not otherwise so manifestly oppose itself against Christ, as it doth. By what means Clement the third came to be pope I cannot tell. But Richard the first king of England, 
Act. and Mon. Anno 1190. Mat. Paris.  made a great complaint of the pope, and his court for their simony. And Matthew of Paris reporteth, how he emptied the bags, and lightened the carriages of john the bishop of Norwich, who sought to him to be dispensed withal for a vow (as it seemeth) that he had made, to go to the holy land. But of that kind of simony, that author complaineth bitterly, in many places, against many pope's. I might also speak of the evil entrance of julius the second, who by his great power which men feared, 
Guic. hist. Ital. N. 6.  and his bribes that he gave, and promises of bishoprics and such other promotions which he made, got to be pope, although otherwise a man for sturdy and surly nature loved of none, misliked of all. But let us see what other means they have, when violence, craft, and simony, will not serve. They have an Italian fig, to hasten them that are pope's to give place to them that would be.  
It is reported by the writers of histories, 
Platina● Rioche.  that Damasus the second sent such a hasty messenger, to call away Clement the second, his predecessor. For he thought he tarried too long, and yet he stayed in that seat scarce nine months. A little before Clement, was john the nineteenth summoned in such sort, when he had been pope little more than three months. 
bale act. Rom. pontiff.  But for Clement Benno the cardinal writeth that he was rather poisoned by Brazutus that godless wretch and that Heldebrand that firebrand of much mischief, 
been. de vita & gestis Hildeb.  procured to do many such feats. For within thirteen years, he poisoned six pope's, Clement the second Damasus the second, Leo the ninth, Victor the second, Steven the tenth, and Nicolas the second. So that if any but Gregory were chosen this Gerard Brazutus was ready strait way to give him a drink that did them little good. So ●hat poisoning seemeth at that time, to be but a popelike practice, 
De pontiff. Rom. ●. 5. cap. 13.  if we will believe Cardinal Benno. But master Bellarmine endeavoureth as much as he can, to impair the credit of that history. And to that end he gathereth all that he can find out of other histories, 
bellar. object. against benno.  either in dispraise of Henry the fourth the emperor, against whom pope Gregory the seventh did undutifully and unchristianly oppose himself. And also picketh out all the praises of Gregory the seventh, to make him seem another manner of man, than Benno reporteth him to be. 
Answer.  But Benno lived in the time of Gregory and therefore he could be an eye-witness of many things. He was a cardinal and therefore by likelihood, howsoever he misliked of the doings of the man, yet he would not untruly report any thing, that might be a stain to that church. But if he had written any thing falsely, it is not to be thought, but that some or other historiographer of those times, would have proved that cardinal Benno had but slandered, and would have written against him. Which master Bellarmine hath not showed there. And therefore that which he hath said doth only prove, that the emperor had his faults, and that the writers of those times, would rather lay the cause of Gregory's immoderate pride and tyranny upon the wicked doings of the emperor, then upon the proud and unruly affections of the pope. Pope Alexander the sixth a sea and sink of sin, and as it were nothing but a mass of wickedness, was belike very skilful in this trick. 
Guic. hist. Ital. li. 1.  And yet I never heard that ever he poisoned any pope's, but one only, and that was himself. He came to be pope as other in those days, by indirect and evil means. For he bought with money, and obtained, by promising the promotions that he was possessed of unto others their voices, and so was made pope. Though he was of so bad disposition, as that Ferdinand king of Naples (though he were never seem to weep, at the death of any of his children) when he heard that he was chosen pope, wept, and with tears said to his wife, that he would be a great enemy not to Italy only, but even to all christendom. And thus doth Guicciardine and Italian describe him that there was in that man no sincerity, 
A popelike man.  shame, truth, faith, religion: but insaciableavarice, immoderate ambition, more than barbarous cruelty, a most earnest desire to advance by any means his children that were not few, & some of them as bad as their father. Is not this think you a popelike prelate? Did not the cardinals that sold their voices, to make him pope, find out a holy father to sit in that chair? And such are, O ye papists, such are too too many of the heads of your church of Rome, of later years. But to return. For I have a little disgressed to show his canonical entrance, and his popelike virtues. If he entered not by poisoning, yet he did practise it very much. And he had a son Valentine a bastard as he had many (six children in all Platina speaketh of) who was first made cardinal by his father, 
Guic. hist. Ita, l. 6  yet afterwards he turned his cote, and became a duke. His father and he minding to sup in a garden (where the son also purposed to poison Adrian a cardinal, that aught the garden) this Valentine sent thither bottles of poisoned wine, with charge that none should drink thereof, before himself came. But the pope his father being dry, called for wine. And because none was brought from the pope's pallice, Valentine's servant, giveth to the p●pe of that wine, thinking his master had forbidden that any should drink thereof, because it was some principal wine. As the pope was drinking, his son Valentine cometh in, his father giveth to him of the same wine. The father died of the same. We may note in him God's just judgement. For the pope and his son did use to poison many, 
A pope a poisoner poisoned by his son.  not so much for revenge, or in respect of their safety, to dispatch so their enemies (although even that is but a cowardly villainy) but to get their goods, although they never wronged them. As the rich cardinal of Saint Angelo. Yea even their dearest friends, if they were rich they would serve so, as they did the cardinals of Capua, and Mantua. But that kind of death that they had brought many unto, the pope himself then tasted of, and the son very hardly escaped, but his being sick at that time was a marvelous overthrow of his estate. Yea we see how they that were conspirers together, to poison many, did now show their skill, one upon another. The son poisoning the father, for he sent the poisoned bottles. 
The father and son poison one another.  And the father poisoning the son, for he gave him poison to drink. And so where some other by poisoning their predecessors made room for themselves: Alexander the sixth, by poisoning himself made room for another. And if they think none of these practices sure enough, then will they fall down and worship him, who when he had showed Christ all the kingdoms of the world, 
Matth. 4. 8, 9  and the glory thereof, he said to him, (though they are not his to give) all these will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. 
Platina.  Platina himself (who is loath to speak the worst by Popes, unless the truth thereof be so plain, that it cannot well be denied) reporteth of Silvester the second, that he gave himself to the devil, upon condition the devil would make him Pope. Must it not needs be a good head of the Church, that is of the devils own choosing?  
Cardinal Benno writeth the like also of john the nineteenth, 
Ben. de gest. Hil.  who came next after Sivester, and of Benedict the 9, who as he saith, was by the devil choked in a wood. But I of purpose let pass many of these examples. For I have been much longer than I had purposed, in these practices of the pope's, to get into this chair. If I should come to the election of pope's in these our times is it not as easy to see, as the sun at noon day, that there is almost none chosen to that seat, but by favour, bribery, suit, or to please and pleasure some princes, or in respect of some faction? Is not this the spêciall care that they have in their elections, who is fittest to maintain their own pride, and most likely to serve their own turn? Are all their pope's chosen now canonically, without respect of any thing, but to choose the fittest? If the greatest friends that the Romish church hath, were so shameless that they would say so, yet their own heart within them, would tell them that they lie. Well then, if to be thrust into that place by others, or to intrude themselves, if to get it by fight and brawling, by poisoning and killing, by bitter contention and strife, by craft and falsehood, by bribery and gifts, by murdering and mischief: To be short, if to climb into it by help of the devil, and by such horrible wickedness, as Christian ears cannot well endure to hear, be to enter in at the door, and to be chosen canonically, than we will confess that mame of the pope's have entered well. But if this be to come as a thief, and a murderer, than what meaneth the church of Rome, so to ●●ag of their succession, which even by their own laws (set down a little before) hath so often, and so notoriously been interrupted? What mean these factors and brokers for Simon Magus, that briber and sorcerer, to vavat themselves, to be successuors to Simon Peter? These are such heads, as the church of Rome can afford us. These are they, that we must call most holy fathers. These, even these are they that cannot err, if you will trust the church of Rome. And yet in all that they do, there is nothing but erring, out of the right way. They are like men, that pretending to shoot at a mark, turn their back of it, and shoot the clean contrary way. And as they are content to use any means be it never so unlawful, to get into that seat, so when they are gotten once into it, they are become lawless and shameless, as by some examples shall be showed. Honorius the third, did very sawcely oppose himself against the emperor Frederick the second (as also did some other of his fellows) and did excommunicate him and deprived him of his imperial dignity. 
Plat. in Honor. 3. Act. Rom. pont. in Honor. 3.  And Bale telleth us that the cause why the pope dealt so hardly with him, was for that he defended his own right in Apulia and Sicily. And out of Marius he reporteth, that the pope did maintain and cherish, certain of the emperors rebels and seditious subjects so that the emperor, could not punish them as they deserved. The names of those traiters were Matthew and Thomas, who kept from him forcibly some of his castles and possessions, 
Abbas Vrsperg. in freder. 2.  whom when the emperor had subdued they fled to the pope: who entertained those traiters against their lord and master. Whereof because (as he had great cause) he complained it seemeth that hereupon he did excommunicate him. But Gregory the ninth that came next after him, was far more cruel than he against the emperor, continuing the sentence of excommunication against him, which Honorius had pronounced, 
Plat. in Greg. 9  upon pretence that all his commandment, he did not go to the holy land. Neither could any reasonable excuse serve to mitigate the mad mood of that Luciferian pope against the emperor. For by the emperors letters, the contents whereof are to be seen in Abbess Vrspergensis, and in Matthew of Paris, it appeareth that the emperor was sick, in somuch as having undertaken the journey, by reason of his sickness, he was forced to return again. But it is plain enough to them that mark the sequel, that the pope did but pick a quarrel against the emperor, that he might invade his possessions. The emperor seeing this saucy pope, so cruelly and covetously bend against him, consulted with some of the Romans (with such I say as were of principal account among them) how he might bind the people of Rome, to acknowledge themselves to be his subjects, which he brought to pass. Then the pope sent forth against the emperor, another thundercracke of excommunication. For which his insolent fact, the pope by the people was forced to flee out of Rome. And durst not return in two years. Now the emperor to please the pope went to the holy land as they call it. But the pope doth now show himself to have had no other meaning, in sending him to fight for the holy land, 
2. Sam. 1●.  than David had, when he commanded joab to place Vriah in the strength of the enemy's battle, and that he and his people should flee, leaving Vriah to be slain of the enemy. So the pope commanded the emperor (the saucy servant his lord & master) to fight against the Turk. But to what end? Had he any true zeal against God's enemies? Had he a sincere heart, and unfeigned affection, to increase the kingdom of Christ, no no. It seemeth he much more desired the destruction of the emperor and intruding himself into his dominions, than the recovering of the holy land. For the emperor being at Acon, having passed according to the pope's pleasure, into that land to fight against the Turk: the pope by all means possible did stay his soldiers, and such as were to pass over to aid the emperor, and fight in that quarrel, not suffering them to go. And now the emperor being where the pope would have him, he (the pope I mean) bestoweth huge masses of money, in hiring of soldiers to invade the emperors dominion, stirring up the traitors before mentioned Matthew and Thomas against him, and so subdueth to himself that which belonged to the emperor. What a godless and shameless part was this, by excommunications to force the emperor, under pretence of holy war, to leave his dominions, and then most wrongfully to invade the same? And when the emperor being there, had made an honourable peace between the Christians and the Sultan, having gotten restitution of certain things, that the Sultan had won, he of his good nature wrote unto the pope, to certify him of these news, which he thought, would have been joyful to all christians. But that proud priest, as he had before contemptuously refused to hear, or admit into his presence the emperors ambassadors, 
The pope a shameless liar.  so did he now reject his letters, and cast them from him. he also caused it to be published abroad that the emperor was dead, thinking thereby the rather to discourage the emperors faithful subjects, and to make them yield unto him. And to the end that this lying report should not be crossed, 
A murderer. Act. Rom. pontiff. in Greg. 9  the pope caused the messengers that brought the letters to be killed. Thus we see how God's vicar beyond all shame, and without all show of reason doth wholly oppose himself against God's ordinance, namely the emperor. These things are largely set down by Abbess Vrsp. before named, but especially by Matthew of Paris, who in a letter written to Richard earl of Cornwall by Frederick the emperor of the report of all the pope's dealing with the said emperor, 
Matthew Paris. Hen. 3. fol. 676. The causes of the pope's hatred againsit the emperor fol. 673.  showeth the principal cause of all this malice that the pope had against him, was, because he refused to permit the pope to set down order concerning Lumbrardy: for the pope desired to have that matter compromitted to him simply, without any exception or reservation of any right to himself. Which if the emperor would have yielded unto, and so have lost Lombary, as there the emperor doth testify, he might have won the Pope's favour. For he promised him faithfully (if the faith of a Pope be any thing worth) that he would not only do nothing against him, but he would also give unto him towards he maintenance of his wars, the tenth of all christendom. The pope also would feign have bestowed a niece of his upon the emperors son Henry, 
Paris. 1107.  which because the emperor would not hearken unto (for his nobles took scorn that the pope should make that offer) for this and the other cause before alleged, the pope misliking the emperor, did pick all quarrels against him and did thrice excommunicate him, 
In Greg. 9  and as john Bale out of this Mat. Paris allegeth, did promise eternal life to all them that would fight against the emperor. As if so cursed a creature had it to bestow at his pleasure: or as if rebellion against God's ordinance might look for so good and great a recompense.  
I might enter into a large and wide field of the notorious obstinacy and unlawful dealing which sundry of the pope's have used against their lords & emperors. But I have stayed somewhat long in this example, because it appeareth by the stories, that as their dealing against him was lewd and cruel, so the cause was their own private matters, which carried them with an undrideled affection to do whatsoever they could mischievously devise, if they had power to put it in execution, not regarding what impiety they committed against God, or what wrong against man, or what disgrace the brought to themselves, an their place, so they might work their wil 
The vexation against the emperor Henry the fourth.  What should I here speak of the great troubles that Gregory the 7, Victor the 3, Vrban the 3, and Paschal the 2 wrought against Henry the 4 the emperor excommunicating him, discharging his subjects of their obedience they ought to him, yea stirring up unnaturally his own natural son against him? How rude and savage cruelty was that which Gregory the seventh that unmannerly fellow, showed unto the emperor at the town called Canusium, 
Greg. 7. his barbarous pride.  when he made the emperor, that was willing to submit himself (being by extremity forced thereto) to wait at his gates, three days continually in the extremity of a sharp winter, 
Sleid. de mon. l. ● Rioche cempend. histor.  barefoot and bare legged, without meat or drink, and would not admit that great monarch to his speech. The fourth day, with much ado, by the entreaty of a gentlewoman (who could do somewhat with the pope) and at the suit of some others, his holiness forsooth was content he should be admitted unto his presence. And though this the emperor his submission was such, as was thought too lowly and abject by the nobles of Italy, insomuch as they purposed to depose Henry the fourth from the empire, 
Sleid. de mon. l. ●  as bringing a stain to the same, by his over humble yielding unto the pope's excessive pride: yet could it not satisfy the pope. For he notwithstanding all that the emperor had done, purposed to bestow the empire upon Rafe ●. of Sweveland. And therefore sent to him the crown imperial with this verse written about it: 
The Rock to Peter this crown gave,  
And Peter bids that Ralph it have.   
This Henry that was most villainously abused, by that proud beast and his successors, is he of whom Paulus Langius bringeth the testimony of Otho Frisingensis, that he was the first emperor of Rome that he could find (although he marked diligently in reading) that ever was excommunicated, or deprived of his kingdom by the bishop of Rome. 
●geb. Cron. anno 1088.  For, as Sigebertus saith, this only new doctrine, I will not call it hear (saith he) was not yet bred, that the priests should teach the people, that unto wicked kings they own no subjection. Yea, though they have sworn fidelity to them, yet they own them no fidelity, neither that they are not to bet called perjured, that stand against the king, but whosoever obeyeth the king, is to be accounted an excommunicate person: but he that is against himlis absolved from all fault and perjury. If Sigebert had lived in our times, what would he have said, when he should see this new heresy, not only stiffly and stubbornly, yet slenderly and very unlearnedly maintained for catholic doctrine, 
The answer to english justice cap. 4.  by that unnatural traitor Allen and his fellows, and a new practice also agreeable thereunto put in bre and highly commended, to poison, shoot, or by any means to kill, such as the pope's will say are heretics (as all are that will not stoop under his yoke.) Well, about 500 years since, it was new heresy (for it is very near so long since Sigebert did write.) And therefore it is not that poor proof of Tho● of Aquine, a man that lived in the days of corruption, or of Francis of Toledo, some seditious papist of our time, or of that late Council of Lateran, not much above 300. years since, that can make it a Catholic doctrine. But to end this story of Henry the fourth, Paschalis who was not long after Gregory, did not only prosecute the matter with all extremity, against he said Emperor whilst he was alive, as did Gregory before him: 
Malice against the emperor being dead. ●rant. li. 5. c. 24. Abbas Vriperg. 〈◊〉. 1106.  but even after he was dead, they who for good will, and that common duty that we own to them that are departed, did bury him, could never have peace or favour of pope Paschalis the second, until they had taken up his body, and cast it into the fields. Is not this popelike charity? Is not this devilish envy, a most sure demonstration that they are not led by the spirit of God? But to be short, this one thing I dare affirm, and I proclaim it to the shame of all them that love popery: that if you search all stories, and peruse all Chronicles, and call to remembrance all things that you have read, heard, or seen, you shall never find any that profess the name of Christ, be they never so rude or savage, not any Turk, jew or infidel, will attempt things so unnatural, so contrary to the law of God, so far beyond the compass of humanity, as papists do and will do, yea and many of the pope's themselves have done, and thought they might do. Our late days give us so many examples, to prove this to be true, that we need not look unto these former stories. You see how unereverently they have dealt with these most honourable princes. And did not pope Alexander the third as intolerably hehave himself as any man could do, when he making the Emperor lie down at his feet, did tread upon the neck of the Lords anointed, which was worse than to cut off the lap or a piece of his garment, 
1. Sam. 24. 6.  (for doing whereof, David accused himself to have done wrong.) But this pope, I say, 
funct. cro. 116●.  treading upon the neck, of Frederick the first of that name emperor, did most profanely and blasphemously abuse these words of the Psalm, 
Psal. 91. 13.  Thou shalt walk upon the lion and asp, the young lion and the dragon, shalt thou tread under foot. Thereby proclaiming that he he neither had any fear of God, or reverence of the supreme majesty in earth. I omit of purpose to speak of Gelasius the second, 
Gelasius. Calixt. 2. against Hen. 5.  and Calixtus the second, against Henry the fift, the unnatural son of Henry the fourth. Nether do I rehearse the ungodly dealings of these and some other against many kings and princes. Yea I pass over also with silence, that villainous treason that Alexander the third wrought and practised, 
Act. Rom. pontiff. Alex. 3.  with the Turk, against this Frederick the first which had been the final destruction of the emperor, if the Turk had not been more merciful, 
The pope a traitor to the emperor.  than the pope was faithful. For the pope desiring the death of the emperor, moved the Turk to dispatch him, as he loved his own quietness: and withal sent him a lively counterfeit or picture of the emperor, whereby he might know him if he came into his hands, by which also the emperor being taken of the Turks, was known when he came before the great Turk. For he brought forth the said picture which the pope had sent him, thereby proving him to be Frederick, and withal he showed the pope's letter, moving him to destroy the emperor, and thereby did it appear to all that heard thereof, that the pope was a traitor to God's cause, & the emperor's person. But I am weary of raking in these channels. And this which is already said, is I trust, sufficient to point unto the unreverent unhonest, & unchristian proceed which these godless and profane ugly monsters used, after that once they came to their height of honour: abusing the colour and pretence of religion and holiness, to hide their violent and bilanous practices: And makng that severe censure and sharp chastisement, 
Excommunication abused.  (which is only to be used in God's causes, and that upon the greatest occasions,) as a very fools babble, wherewith they strike every one, that doth not follow their unbridled wilfulness. But their intolerable and impotent pride, doth yet more appear, if we consider their doings nearer home. For you see how after they had gotten that authority which long they sought, even as a man that aimeth at his mark, so did they practise and devise what they could, against the sovereign majesty upon earth, as if all their care were bend, to bring him lower as indeed they did, spoiling him by little and little of his dominions, and so lessening his power, and at the last despising his authority, and wring it out of his hands as hath been showed. And as he could not abide any to be his better or superior so far of, 
The pope's dealings against the regiment in Rome.  so likewise he could not suffer any to have any government exempt from him, near him in the city of Rome, and therefore were they also sundry times repining and striving against those magistrates which in Rome had the government of the city. For having brought the emperor to hold of him (for the emperor, say the Canonists now, holdeth his empire of the pope, and therefore he is bound to swear homage and fealty to the pope, as the vassal is vound to his lord) having I say so subjecteth the greatest, he taketh scorn that any should sit under his nose, and not be under him. And therefore pope Leo the third sending certain presents unto Charles the great, 
Rob. Ba●nes. in Leo 3. The pope's seek to subject the city to them.  made unto him suit and obtained it, that the people of Rome should be sworn to be subject unto him.  
And so from that time, which was about the year 796. until the time of Innocent the second about the year 1139 they continued in subjection to the bishop of Rome, being governed at his appointment 343 years. 
joh. Stella in In. 2.  But being wary belike of his Tyrannical government, they made unto themselves a praetor & senators to rule them, concerning their civil government, as in times past they had wont to have. For indeed this Innocent was a wonderful proud pope, of whom it is written in a book called Burtum Fulmen, 
brutum fulmen ex cron. Hi●s. A proud pope.  and alleged out of two histories, that in the Lateran church at Rome, he painted Lotharius the emperor prostrate at his feet, and his vassal or servant receiving of him the imperial crown. And by this picture, were verses written, wherein the emperor is made his servant, and it is said that the pope giveth him the crown as though he could not have it but by his gift. His pride being so immoderate against the emperor, it is not like he could keep any measure with such as were inferiors, and so did they shake of his intolerable yoke.  
Now the pope not knowing presently how for to amend himself or to hinder their purpose, yet thought he would so bridle them, 
C 17. q. 4. cap. ● quis suadente. Laying violent hands upon a clergy man.  as that his clergy should be free from their rule. He gathereth therefore a council in Lateran, where he caused it to be decreed, that whosoever should lay violent hands upon a clergieman (though he be but a psalmist saith gloss there, whom the Dist. 23 calleth a singer cap. Psalmista. and the Dist. 21. cap. Cleros maketh next the dog driver and doorekeeper) should so be accursed, that (unless it were in time of death) he might not be absolved of any, but the pope only. For this cause also Onuphrius writeth that the people of Rome were excommunicated, 
In Innocent. 2.  and put for ever from choosing the pope's, and by that means, that the election of the pope came to the cardinals. But Platina as I have before noted saith, that Gelasius the second was chosen by the cardinals, who was before this Innocent. Well, Lucius the second pope of that name, although he had great cause to have though of other matters (for at that time there was a marvelous great plague, 
Stella.  whereof of his predecessor Celestine the second died, as also himself was taken away by it) yet his proud stomach, not being able to bear the government that then was in Rome, 
●unct an. 11143. cronolog.  by a praetor and senators, sought to alter it. The praetor or Alderman mayor whose name was jordan told the pope, that all the ●egalities belonging to the city as well without as within the walls belonged to him being praetor by reason of his office, & that the pope had hitherto occupied the same by means of Charles the great. But he demanded his own right, willing the pope to content himself, as his ancestors had done, with first ●ruites, tithes and offerings.  
But his holiness, being as unwilling to learn a good lesson, of Iorden the praetor or Alderman of Rome, as were the Pharisees to be taught of him, whom Christ made to see, (Thou art say they altogether borne in sin, 
joh. 9 14.  and teachest thou us?) Devised more mischief against the Romans than did the Pharisees against that man, that durst teach them, for they did but cast him out of their synagogue, that is they did perchance excommunicate him. But this holy pope, who should be to others, an example of patience and forgiving our enemies, had this devise, 
Rob. Barnes. The pope's cruel and godlesle purpose.  that watching a time when they were all gathered together in council, the Praetor, Senators, and all the chief of the city, the pope gathered his soldiers, and set upon the capitol, (the place where they were assembled) thinking either to have destroyed them all, or else to have driven them out of the city.  
But the Romans hearing of this pope-like enterprise, 
Lucius the second stoned to death.  armed themselves upon a sudden, and running to the capitol, did so pelt with stones the pope himself, that within a few days after he died. Whether of the plague as before out of Stella I alleged, or of these bats it maketh no great matter. For they were rid as it seemeth of a furious fool, and saved the lives of their chief men, and for a time retained their liberty. This doth Robert Barnes report out of Naucler. Sum. Anton. and jacob. Colum. Now this question between the Romans and the bishop of Rome continued in doubtful case as appeareth by friar Rioch and others for a season, namely whilst Eugenius the third, Anaslasius the fourth, and Adrian the fourth lived, the Romans seeking to have their liberties of choosing their magistrates, confirmed unto them by the pope's, the pope's on the other side repining against that which the Romans did. Yet in the time of Alexander the third they came to this agreement that the magistrates chosen by the Romans, should not meddle with their office, until they had been sworn to be faithful to the church of Rome and the pope. And thus this controversy, that was between the city of Rome, 
Rioche. compend. his●o●ar. Plat. in Alex. 3. Plat. Stella.  and the pope, for fifty years, was agreed. But Lucius the third being perchance proud than Alexander his predecessor (whose pride yet was intolerable) not content to suffer so much as the name of Consuls in Rome went above to abolish the same, and had gotten to him some of the Romans. But the citizens rose against him, expelled him out of the city and put out the eyes of certain, that favoured his attempt.  
Thus we see, how the bishops of Rome, to the end that their authority might the more smoothly proceed without controlment, did seek to take these rubs out of their way. Hitherto we have in part seen, in what sort the bishops of Rome being come to their hieght have deal with their betters, and how roughly they have handled them. But perchance their friends will excuse them, because that by doing as they have done, they have defended (will they say) the rights and privileges of the church of Rome. But how will they excuse the slavish servitude, whereunto they brought the greatest princes? 
Revel. 19 10. an● 21.  Saint john offered to fall down before the Angel, but the angel would not suffer him to worship him, I am (saith he) thy fellow servant, worship God. But these vile wretches, will suffer kings and emperors to kiss their feet. Constantine the pope was the first that ever accepted of this honour done to him by justinian the emperor. 
Plat. in Constan. 1. papa.  And then Stephan the second, whose feet Pippin the french king did kiss. But afterwards this grew to be so ordinary a matter, that the kissing of an old fools foul feet, is the greatest honour that can be done to the greatest prince at Rome.  
And Pope Steven having gotten into his hands the exarchy of Ravenna, 
plat. in Steph. 2. & Zachar.  whereby he became great in Italy, and all by the means of the said Pippin, whom he also rewarded by making him king of France, 
Abbas Vrsperg. in Pipino. an. 754.  thrusting Childrick the true lawful king into a monastery, and intruding Pippin in his room, he now in triumphing manner is carried upon men's shoulders. And he is the first that I knew of any of the pope's, that thought the earth too good, to bear so wicked a lump as himself was. For I trust he thought it not too base to touch his sacred feet. Well, the reason of his doings is not for us to search, but he was first carried of men's shoulders. 
Epit. histor.  Neither will I here inquire of the cause of deposing the right king of France, whether it were just or not, although no cause could make it a just fact in him, that had nothing to do with it. Only this will I say, that where master Bellar. would make the insufficiency of the French kings, 
Lib. 2. de pont. Rom. cap. 17.  to be the cause why either Zachary, or Steven that was next after him, did depose the French king from his rightful crown, yet Platina whose words I rather believe then master Bellarmine, 
Plat. in Zachar.  confesseth that Pippin being greedy of a kingdom, sent his ambassadors to the pope, that he would by his authority, confirm unto him the kingdom of France. Whereunto the pope agreed, in respect of such former good turns, as he had received of that house. And so by the pope's authority the kingdom of France is adjudged to Pippin the year of our Lord seven hundred fifty and three. Thus much Platina. Whereby it appeareth that the ambition of Pippin, and wrong dealing of the bishop of Rome, was a cause that Childerick was deposed. But to return to my matter again, we see what pope it was, 
The pope carried on men's shoulders.  that was first so proud, that he could not let his own legs carry him. But it was set down afterwards for a law, unto which the emperor must be also obedient if he will not be rebellious to the decrees of the church. And it is decreed that the emperor himself, if he be by, must help to carry that loitering lubber. For thus I read it cited out of their own book of ceremonies. 
The emperor must carry him.  Although the emperor, or any other be he never so great a parsonage, be by, he shall carry upon his shoulders a little while, 
Cer. l. sect. 2. fol. 35. a. Fol. 26. b.  the chair and the pope. And again it is decreed in the same place, that the most noble lay man shall carry the end or train of the plwiall that the pope weareth, be it the emperor or any king. What a slavery is this, that he by his ungodly and wicked ordinances, doth tie princes unto, as though they were his very staves. Why should he look that emperors should be his hackney horses, to cadge him up and down? Or what reason hath he, what warrant out of the scripture? What example in God's book, or of any good man so to disgrace and deface the anointed of the Lord, whom he as well as others, should seek by all means to honour and reverence?  
Yet let us see what more reverence these proud prelates can suffer to be done unto them. 
Princes lead his horse.  Pipin the new made Frence king, did teach the pope a very evil use. For he flattering the pope, that he might make him more friendly to him, in assuring him of his kingdom, meeting him three miles from his lodging, 
plat. in Steph. 2.  alighteth from his horse, and leadeth the pope's horse all the way, not leaving him until he had brought the pope to his lodging.  
It is also recorded that another time the king of England on the one side, and the French king on the other performed him that service. 
Bale in Ale. 3. ex Rob Mont. tion. Sigeb. an. 1164. Sacrar. Carem. l. 1. sect. 5. & sect. 2. fol. 35.  But what need I seek for the particular examples? This is also a book case, It is already ordered. That the emperor shall lead his horse, and kings shall go before him, as performing their service to this earthly God, or God on earth. But yet we have not seen his fullness in pride. 
Holding the stirtop to the pope. emperors hold the pope's stirrep Rob. Barns. joh. Bale.  For the emperor if he be by when the pope alighteth, must hold his stirrup. So did Frederick Barbarossa the emperor unto the pope Adrian the fourth, although he had no great thanks for his labour. 
The emperor held the wrong stirrup.  For he chanced to hold the the wrong stirrup, the pope was so offended thereat, that when the bishop of Bamberg, in the name of the emperor, had by a pithy oration signified his joy for the pope's presence, 
The pope is very angry for it.  the pope replied that he heard indeed words of gladness, but he could not by deeds perceive any such thing. And his reason was because the emperor held not his right stirrup. The emperor although angry, yet smiling answered, that he used not to hold any body's stirrup, and that made him the less skilful. For he was the first, whose stirrup he held. And for that time they parted, neither of them being well pleased. But the next day the emperor made amends for his former offence. holding the right stirrup. And the same emperor Frederick, did afterwards also hold the stirrup to pope Alexander the third, (a cruel and shameless enemy to the said emperor) as appeareth by a letter which master Fox in his Acts and Monuments aleadgeth out of Roger Hoveden and William of Gisborough.  
In which Letter it doth most plainly appear, not only that the Emperor did hold his stirrup, for the pope confesseth so much in writing unto the archbishop of York and to the Bishop of Durham, and would have them to rejoice for the good success of the church (for the church is much increased when the pope's stirrup is holden by such) but also he cause they said to Moses and Aaron, that they took too much on them, seeing all the people were holy: how great then shall their judgement be, that abuse all, even the mightiest Monarchees, at their pleasure? Dost thou see (O Peter) thy successor, and thou O saving Christ, behold thy vicar? Mark well how far the pride of the servant of thy servants, is gone up, 
Vrsperg.  saith an Abbot long since, and therefore I trust no Lutheran, no Caluenist, no Huguenot, but a flat papist, and yet speaketh this in detestation of the pride of pope's, and namely of pope Boniface the eight, who the second day of his jubilee, appareled like an Emperor, 
The pride of Bonif. 8.  with a sword carried before him, cried aloud, 
August. Beneveu. in Alberto.  Behold two sword, as the same Abbot reporteth. Who when Albert Duke of Austria, came to him to be confirmed in the Empire, whereunto he was chosen, took the Crown and set it upon his own head, and tying the sword to his own side, 
Act. Roman. pontiff. Rioche. Benevenut. ibid.  said, I am the Emperor. Or as Friar Rioche a friend to pope's writeth, I only am Emperor, who boastingly would call himself key-carryer of heaven. And therefore he is worthily called a famous pope, and a magnifical tyrant of priests.  
Now if we search and try from whence he hath any warrant for this his Luciferian behaviour against God and man, what can he answer? He hath no commandment, nor any proof or approbation of it in God's word, no example of the godly. 
obedience to princes.  Christ and his Apostles showed all dutiful obedience to magistrates, and exhorted also others to do the like. Cesar must have his due, whether in obedience or tribute, or fear, or honour, or any thing else, if we will obey the commandment of Christ and his Apostles, or follow their example, or believe their saying, when he telleth us that the Apostles should not have such dominion, 
Matth. 22. 21. matth. 17. 27. Matth. 20, 25, 26  or exercise such authority, as the Lords of the Gentiles did exercise over them. He commendeth love, 
joh. 13. 34, 35. matth. 5. 9 math. 11. 29. Pope's seek pre-eminence.  and pronounceth the peacemakers blessed, and would have us to learn of him to be meek and lowly in heart. But the pope finding nothing in all these that serveth or fitteth his humour, taketh his pattern of Diotrephes, who loved to have the pre-eminence. 
3 Ioh 9 matth. 23. 6, 7.  Or of the Scribes and Pharisees, who loved the chief place in feasts, and to have the chief seat in the assemblies, and greetings in the market, and to be called of men Rabbi, Rabbi. Yea, Christ and his Apostles took great pains in preaching, spared not for labour, feared not for danger, preaching in season and out of season, suffered all things, endured all things, seeking God's glory and not their own. 
Pope's no preachers.  Whereas on the contrary, the pope's cannot, or will not use to preach. They have enough to do to devise how they may subdue Emperors, bring under their yoke the necks of Kings, set up their chair of pestilence, above all the thrones in the earth. This is their care, their study, their whole endeour. 
Plat. in Paschal. ● Stella.  And therefore Paschalis the second, although he would not be pope, unless the people would first give some rare testimony of his divine election, for they must cite three times Saint Peter hath chosen to be pope Rainer, for that was his name before, an excellent good man, O fond hypocrite, yet when he had taken it upon him, it was done with many ceremonies, to make him seem more glorious. For having gotten this double conquest, 
Popelike attire.  first in that he got to be pope, secondly that he made the people give such a testimony of him that he was so worthy a man, he thus addresseth himself to his triumph.  
First he putteth on him a crimson rob, 
Plat. in Pasch. 2.  an ornament upon his head, and so waited on by the people and clergy, upon a white horse he rideth to the south gate of the palace of Lateran, and entering into the palace, he putteth about him a girdle, at which were hanging seven keys, 
Plat. in Paul. 2.  and seven seals, and holdeth his sceptre in his hand. But Paul the secondthought not this bravery sufficient to set forth his glory, 
costliness of attire.  and therefore he much increased the costliness of these ornaments, especially for the mitre which he wore upon his head, buying the most precious stones that he could hear of to adorn and deck the same. And lest his withered face, should not be somewhat suitable, he would also as some report (for so Platina telleth us) paint it. 
Paul the second did paint his fa●●.  And he also saith, that he had a great delight to show himself to strangers, and would keep them many times in the City, that they might behold and wonder at him. And indeed they had just cause to wonder at him, that he who by his calling should have been an example of modesty, a light to shine unto other, and salt to season them that were unsavoury and by his age, should have been past those toys, and childish vain conceits, should so far forget himself, that he would not only deck his body with more precious attire than was seemly for him, who should have been to other a pattern of all christian humility: but also paint his face more like a wanton jesabel than a sober bishop.  
And thus I trust it appeareth, how insolently and stately the bishops of Rome have behaved themselves, having by very unjust means gotten to that greatness wherein they are. I might by infinite examples have showed this to be true. For all stories are full of their insolent doings. But my endeavour is only to show, that as they claim by an unjust title, so they do in many respects abuse their greatness. Which hitherto I have proved, because so saw●ily they match themselves with God, spurn against the highest authority, & magnify themselves in all their behaviour. The stories also do point out unto us their incredible avarice, and more than greedy covetousness, which is so insatiable that no sums of money can satisfy, no kingdoms can staunch the same. It is a world to consider, what large and ample dominions they have gotten into their hands, what lands and territories. Whereinto they having intruded themselves, by setting princes together by the ears, or such other subtle practices: and yet would seem sometime to hold the same by the gift of Constantine, sometime from Charles the great, sometime from his son Lewes. But from whom they should claim to hold their possessions. they are not yet fully resolved as it seemeth. But how great soever their possessions are, or how they hold them, I am not purposed to examine. My purpose is rather to show how little contented they are with all that they have, and how still they have new devices, and other practices, to get money into their coffers. 
Barns. Bale. ●inctius.  Henry the second (or as some reckon) the third, had built a church in Bamberg, and was desirous to have it made a bishop's sea: he requested the pope to do so much at his request. Now this pope rested wholly of the good will of the emperor Henry. And yet would he not at his request do so much, 
The pope's avarice maketh him unthankful.  but that also he would benefit himself: and so was content to do it upon covenant, that that church should give him yearly a hundred marks, and a white horse with his  
But what should we enter into any particulars in this point? What bishop could get his allowance or confirmation to any bishopric, 
confirmation to bishoprics.  without great sums of money? Then the archbishops have their palles not without infinite charges. 
Archb. palles.  Wonderful sums of money, 
Vacations.  have in the time of vacation of bishoprics, and other spiritual promotions, been carried to Rome, from Germany, France, this our country and other places, as the manifold complaints and grievances do manifestly declare. And besides these sums which they got by ecclesiastical livings, they had many other ways to pick men's purses. Purgatory was a gainful devise, 
Purgatory.  the fire thereof, did much good to the pope's kitchen. 
Pardons.  Pardons were good to no use, but to make them rich that gave them, or carried them. Especially those pardons which Leo the the tenth sent abroad. They which carried them made the world believe, 
Bale in Leone ●● ex christ. mas.  that whosoever would give ten shillings for a pardon, should for the same deliver what soul soever he would out of purgatory. 
Holy wars or against the Tur●  Under pretence also of fight against the Turk, and recovering the holy land, they gathered great sums. 
Licenses, etc.  What should I speak of licenses, qualifications, dispensations, and such like means to get money? If I should but out of our English histories, paint out the greedy worm of that church of Rome, you would think it were a gulf unsatiable both the horseleeches daughters in one that always crieth give, give, and can never have enough. It is a bitter and grievous complaint that Frederick the second emperor of that name, maketh against the church of Rome, showing how the fire of her avarice is so kindled, 
Mat. Par. fol. 469.  that the goods of the clergy not being able to suffice, they fear not to disinherit, and make to pay tribute to them, emperors, kings, and princes. Whose words he saith are sweet as honey, and as soft as oil, but they are insatiable bloodsuckers. He doth put our countrymen in remembrance of that which Innocent the third a pope had done, swallowing after the Romish fashion, with an untoward gaping, whatsoever was fattest. And with many such words, he setteth forth the miserable estate of England, which was (saith he) the prince of all provinces. He speaketh of the time of king john, as himself showeth, of the which days also did the nobles of England complain bitterly, because he did subject himself to the pope, and so brought their land into a miserable slavery. 
Mat. par. fo. 373.  And as it were, speaking unto the pope, they charge him, that he beareth with king john, to the end that all things might be swallowed up of the gulf of the Romish avarice. Neither is the pope Honorius the third ashamed to confess this fault, 
paris 438. Romea greedy gulf by a pope's confession.  by his Otho. For in his letters he confesseth, that there can be no dispatch in the court of Rome, without great expenses and gifts, and acknowledgeth that this is an old stain to that church. And for to take away this slander, he & his cardinals had devised a good way (as he thought) which is, that he might have in every cathedral church two prebends, and such like of abbeys. 
Gift of ecclesiastical preferments.  And this is an other way that the pope hath to enrich himself by. And very often did the bishops of Rome, seek by such means to provide for their friends, or such as would buy their letters. So did Innocent the fourth write to the abbot of S. Alban, for a kinsman of his, for a benefice in Lincoln diocese, 
paris. 1085.  belonging to the gift of that church of saint Alban, called Wengrave, and for the next besides it that should fall. Yea he did sometime write for children. Whereupon there grew a great contention, between the bishop of Lincoln Robert Grosted, 
A pope a seller of benefices. Paris. 1206.  and the pope Innocent the fourth, whom Alexander the fourth his next successor called the seller of benefices. Pope Innocent was so offended with this Bishop of Lincoln, for withstanding his lewd and wicked covetousness, that when he heard that the Bishop of Lincoln was dead, 
Paris. 1178. The pope's spite against the bish. of Lincoln being dead.  he purposed presently to write to the king of England, not to suffer him to be buried in the church, but to be cast out, thereby to disgrace him as much as he possibly could. Besides these, they have yet other ways to get money. They send in their ambassadors or legates, 
Benevolences.  which when they are once well settled within the land, they send to bishops, abbates, or such as they knew to be of wealth, for so much money as they thought good to get. But the least gain came not to the church of Rome, by that unjust decree of Innocent the fourth, 
The goods of the clearkes● n●etstate the pope's share paris. 959.  whereby it was provided, that the goods of clerks that died intestate, should go to the bishop of Rome. But it were too tedious a matter to come particularly to every point, of the pope's greediness. It was a thing generally misliked and spoken against: yea this their miserable greediness, as Mat. of Paris witnesseth, was the chief cause why the Greek church departed from the Latin church. 
paris. 622. The pope's covetousness cause of division between the cast and west churches.  For, an archbishop of the Greek church coming to pope Gregory the ninth to be confirmed in his archbishopric by him, could not obtain his desire, unless he would promise much money. He seeing that, detesting their greediness departed, and told this to sundry of the nobility. There were other also that reported as evil or worse of that they had seen and known at Rome, and so they would have no more to do with the west church.  
In like manner did the same pope behave himself in hearing the matter between Walter elect archbishop of Canterbury on the one side, and the king and sundry bishops on the other side. And although it were objected against the archbishop by the king and the bishops, that in sundry respects he was unfit, 
paris. 468.  namely, that he had deflowered a Nun, and gotten children by her, and the king was very earnestly bend against him, the pope also confessed that he was unlearned, yet could not the king and the bishops get the pope to be favourable in that good cause, 
paris. 474. Bribeve.  until such time as the king's ambassadors, fearing lest the pope would make him archbishop of Canterbury, that was altogether unworthy of such a place, promised to the pope the tenth of all movables through England. Whereupon the pope being so well hired, was content, not to place a wicked man in the sea of Canterbury. 
pag. 48●.  And the pope, to show that it was the reward that made him, and that he looked for performance thereof, he sent into England to demand the same, and it was granted according to the promise that was made unto him.  
These and such other corruptions and extortions of the Bishops of Rome, made them so odious to the king of England and his nobles, 
pope's pollute the places where they remain, paris. 1068.  that they thought be defiled and polluted the place where he dwelled. And therefore when pope Innocentius the fourth, requested the king, that he would permit him to lie at Burdeaur in Gascoigne, which then belonged to the king of England, he and his Nobles thought that it was too near to England, and that corruptions would come thence into England. And Robert Grosted B. of Lincoln durst boldly say to the pope and in his hearing, O money, money, how much canst thou do especially in the court of Rome, 
Paril. pa. 1027.  which as it is said in another place, 
pag. 686.  is always gaping, always greedy. But indeed great sums have him gathered out of this realm, which have gone to the pope, 
Tag. 299.  insomuch that king john did affirm to the pope Innocent the third, almost threatening him for some evil dealing, and telleth him that he hath more commodity out of the Realm of England, 
The pope had much out of England.  then out of all countries on this side the Alps. And therefore Innocent the third had wont to say of England, 
England the pops garden of delight  It is in truth our garden of delight (saith he) a well that can never be drawn dry, and where there is great abundance, there of much, much may be gotten. Indeed he and his fellows had gotten out of this garden, many sweet poses, and were much refreshed with the water, that they drew out of this well.  
But where is that pastoral care, that these Bishops should have had over Christ's flock, or which they at the least pretended to have, in their Bulls and writings? Where is their rejoicing at the zeal and godliness of the people? As is their study, so is their joy. Their study is how to get and win temporal possessions, they rejoice when they have gotten the same.  
I have hitherto proved this especially by our own stories, because they should most move us to consider, what bondage and slavery we have been brought unto, and give us warning to take heed, how we subject ourselves to them, who under pretence of holiness, do not only devour widows houses, but even infinite treasures, yea and princes kingdoms also. Other kingdoms were not free from these pollings, as may appear by the stories of France, and other places. For what place is there, 
〈◊〉 an. 1364.  whither the paws and claws, of that covetous Wolf have not reached. Charles the fourth, keeping a diet at Mentz, where were the electors, and other Princes of Germany, thither also came the Pope's Legate, in the name of Innocentius the sixth, begging some contribution. The Emperor having heard what the Legate demanded, answered, that the pope got much money out of Germany, but he sought not to reform any thing that was amiss in the clergy.  
And not long after, Gregory the eleventh demanded a tenth of all the clergy men through the empire, 
Pataleipom. Visp.  but the bishop's electors, would not yield to the pilling of their clergy, in such sort. 
fol 321.  But yet as the Abbot of Ursperg singeth them as it were a song, and willeth them to rejoice, because that money which so well they love, cometh so fast unto them, and they have store of that which so much they thirsted: even so by their prowling, and pilling in every corner, they get into their hands infinite treasure. 
Christ and his v●car compared.  Now if we look upon our Saviour Christ, and compare him and his Vicar of Rome together, we shall easily find they are no more like than light and darkness. Christ hath not whereon to lay his head, he had nothing. They have all things, 
1 Luc. 9 5●.  even the world at will. He took great pains to preach the Gospel, 
2  They live in all ease and pleasure, and never preach the most of them. 
3  He traveled on foot from place to place, from the one side of jewrie to the other, The pope if he go but to S. Peter's church, must be borne upon the shoulders of the greatest potentates. 
4  Christ had in his train but a few fishers, or men despised, Their palaces and trains exceed in pomp and pride, 
Luc. 12. 14.  the courts of princes. He being requested, would not meddle with dividing of land between two brethren, 
5  The pope intrudeth himself, yea and challengeth it to be his right, to have to do in temporal dominions, to throw down, to set up, to place and displace, not in small inheritances only, but in the greatest Monarchies. As is seen in the Empire itself, which he translated from the Grecians, to the French, and again from the French to the Germans, and would now if possibly he could bestow the same upon the Spaniard, taking it from the Germans, (as it seemeth) by such aids as he yieldeth unto him, in his most ambitious and tyrannical attempts.  
To be short, 
6  our Saviour Christ himself did perform all duty, and honour, unto princes, by whose example, and of whom, Saint Peter learned that lesson also, which he faithfully taught and delivered to other: Submit yourselves to all manner ordinance of man for the lords sake, 
1. Pet. 2. 1●.  whether it be unto the king, as unto the superior or chief, or unto governors.  
And again, in the same chapter, Honour the King. But what doth Christ's bad vicar, 
Vers. 17.  and Peter's proud succesior? He seeketh by all means that he can, to increase his own glory and riches, and that with the stain and reproach, with the decay and impoverishing of the mightiest monarchs, as hath already been sufficiently (I trust) declared, and might be proved by a thousand more testimonies. But if you will behold a true pattern of the affections, 
fox Act. & Mon. ex 2. hist. manuscrip.  that these holy father's bear to the emperors and king's, set before your eyes pope Celestine the third sitting in his chair of estate, making Henry the sixth the emperor cast himself down at his feet. And he (whose hands perchance were too holy to perform so base an office) taking the crown between his feet, (O scorn of all scorns) did with his feet, crown both the emperor, and his wife the empress. And when he had so done, with his feet he cast from his head the crown again. For it is meat and drink to them (not to do the will of God as it was to Christ to do the will of him that sent him) but so to play with princes, 
john. 4. 34.  to bring them into contempt, and to let the world see, how scornfully they can use them.  
Let such as love the truth, and have desire to save their own souls, thinking earnestly of these matters. If the doings of the bishops of Rome for many hundred years, be not plain contrary to that which our saviour Christ and his apostles did and taught, I crave no credit. But if they be, let no man, no woman be so simple, in a matter of so great importance, as by show of good words (in which yet there is no truth, no sincerity, nothing but hypocrisy) to be carried away and devoted unto a church, in name holy, but indeed most profane, in name a mother, but in truth a froward stepmother: or to a pope insatiable in covetousness, proud and ambitions, and to all countries and princes pernicious and pestilent. Now as their arrogancy (since they came to such excessive greatness) was intolerable, their greediness unsatiable, so their mischievous malice hath been unmeasurable. This appeareth most plainly, not only in their dealings with others, 
The malice of pope's one towards another.  but also in their had doings one of them against another. Who can without wonder or detestation, hear of the cruel parts that were committed by Steven the sixth against the dead body of pope Formosus? For he was not content to revoke his acts, and disannul his decrees, (although he preferred him to be a bishop) but like a cruel and unthankful churl, 
Rioche.  he caused his dead body to be taken up out of the grave (O holy charity) and that in his presence, he drew it about the city, put on it popelike apparel, set it in Peter's chair, than he caused to be taken from him his popelike garment, and put upon him lay man's clothes, he cut off two of his singers Vrspergensis saith three, and his head, and cast them into Tiber, and commanded the rest of his body to be buried in the lay men's burial.  
All stories almost with full consent, do declare and detest this beastly cruelty. 
Stella.  The cause that he pretended was, that he was perjured (I would have thought a pope might not have made so foul a fault, and yet because pope Steven who cannot err, hath charged him with it, I must believe it.) So there is one perjured as is proved by substantial witness, and an other accounted even barbarous almost of all histories. Yea the stories that are most addicted unto popery and superstition, do much complain of the division which this wrought in the church, and of the crooked dealing of these cankered karles. For Theodore the second, that came next (but one) after this Steven, although he was pope but twenty days, yet was loath not to make one in this skirmish, (for he had no virtue in him saith the story) he approved against all that Formosus had done, and so set himself against Steven his faction. Then came john the tenth, who yet took great part with Formosus. And when many of the Romans were displeased thereat, he left Rome, and went to Ravenna, where he called a council, and there did not only revive as it were Formosus his decrees, disannulling, yea casting into the fire, that which Steven had done against Formosus, 
sunct. anno 900.  but he also concluded in the council, that Steven judged amiss. Now you Romish catholics' whether may a pope err or not? Steven did in a council revoke Formosus his acts. Pope john saith it was wrongfully done, so that by his judgement, both Steven and his council, did err in judgement. Yea and john further ordained, that they who took orders of Steven should again take orders.  
Not long after came Sergius the third who took up the dead and mangled body of Formosus and did execution thereupon, 
jacob. Bergom.  as if Formolus had been alive and commanded the headless corpse, as not worthy of burial, to be cast into the river. And lastly, he made the orders that he gave to be of none effect. justly therefore did jacob. 
Stella in Be. 4.  Bergemensis complain and out of him john Stella of Venice. Such was the evil hap of that age, that all virtue through men's slothfulness, was decayed as well in the head as in the members. But why was Sergius so mortal an enemy to Formosus? 
The cause of Sergius his enemy against Formosus.  Formosus when he was pope could not well abide him, and therefore he according to his popish charity dealt thus with his dead body. And dare these men tell us of division among some members of our churches, when we see in their own stories their heads, so putting and butting one of them against another with the horns of the beast? 
jacob. Bergom.  john the twelfth a wicked wretch every way, confessed to be by all stories, and that even from his youth he was defiled with all naughtiness (to let pass his other popelike qualities too bad to speak of) because the cardinals complained of him to the emperor, and desire his help, he took some of them, and cut off one of their noses, the others had, with the which it was supposed he wrote letters against the pope, he put out some of their eyes, 
sunct. an 962.  cut out other of their tongues, their members and fingers. Pope Boniface the twelfth a man qualified much like his fellows, 
Platina.  stole after he was pope all the principal jewels out of Saint Peter's church, and left Rome for a time until he had sold at Constantinople all that he had filched away, 
A pope a chief.  and then returning hoped by money (whereof he had now good store) to pacify the citizens that were displeased with him (for he was for his wickedness hated of them.) 
s●nctius.  But there was one john a cardinal of good account that hindered him therein, some say that this john was chosen pope in his room. Wherefore him he took and put out his eyes. Now where is the unity and good agreement, that our Romish catholics' now a days do bear us in hand, hath been always in the church of Rome? If by unity they mean christian charity their savage cruelty crieth out their shame. If they mean consent in doctrine, 
Papi●●s descents doctrine.  their infinite and divers opinions, whether the virgin Marie were void of original sin, which matter was a great while, full hotly handled. Again what it is that is meant by these words (this is my body) what this word (This) hath relation unto. Thirdly, what is that, wherein is that which may be seen in the bread, as colour and fashion, or to speak as they do, what subject hath those accidents? These and many other such points might be rehearsed, wherein perchance they will never agree hereafter, as yet they have never done. Well, what malice they have showed one towards another we have seen. How they have done towards other it may partly appear in that which I have said before in their proud and earnest pursuing of princes, unto whom they would never be reconciled unless the princes would let them have their will. 
The cruel malice of john.  john the fifteenth or (if pope joan be not reckoned) the fourteenth was taken of some noble men of Rome, and kept in prison eleven months. At the length by the help of Otho the emperor being delivered, and the chief of them being sharply punished by Otho, Peter the praetor or chief man of the city, who was in the conspiracy, the emperor delivered to the pope, perchance to try how ready he would be according to the commandment of Christ, to love his enemies and them that hate him. 
Bale Act. pontiff. Rom.  But pope john (although the emperor had sharply punished many by death, other by confiscation of all their goods, others by banishment, and so might somewhat have mitigated the raging fury of the pope) yet I say pope john, delivereth the prisoner to the tormentor, with charge to shave his beard (for to disgrace him) to pull off his garments, to hang him by the hear of the head, for a whole day together then was he set upon an ass, his face being turned to the hinder parts, and his hands tied under the tail of the ass, and so led up and down the city, 
Platina.  well scourged with whips, almost until he was dead, 
funct.  and so banished into Germany. There was one Gregory a pope whom Henry the fifth emperor had made pope. But Calixtus the second when he came to be pope, and the emperor and he were agreed, pursueth this Gregory not content to depose him only, 
Rioche in Hen. 5.  (for a reasonable revenge cannot satisfy their mischievous malice) but let him upon a Camel (that this fine sight might the better be seen) turning his face to the tail, which was to him for a bridle as the author saith, and so carried him in triumph to Rome. But to show his proud and insolent dealings against princes, and his malicious persecuting and pursuing of them. What need we to produce examples of foreign countries, or former times? We have amongst us, in our days, better proof thereof, then either we desire, or they can deny.  
Is it not too proud and insolent a part, for either Pius the fifth, 
Pope's dealings with Princes now.  or Sixtus the sith, to call our sovereign Queen and most gracious prince Elizabeth, whom God hath mercifully placed amongst us, and over us, and mightily and marvelously defended, from innumerable popish practices: and Henry king of Navarre, and now also the French king, heretics, schismatics, and I know not by what names of reproach, he not proving, no nor daring to offer any reasonable trial, or lawful way to prove the same? Why is he afraid to have religion tried by a free general council? Why doth he hinder it by all means that he can? 
Pope's religion not catholic  The question is whether his religion, that (I say) which he commendeth to christians, and commandeth to be only, (and that upon pain of death) believed is true or not. We deny it, we ha●e unanswerable arguments for us. The religion that he would have us to content ourselves withal, is not catholic, that is, it is not preached or taught at all times, in all places, with full consent, as he and his friends must confess, when it is examined. It hath not any sufficient warrant out of God's book, which only should be the ground of our religion. Nay, it is so contrary to Gods written words, that it is impossible that that which God in the scripture teacheth us, and that which the popish church requireth of us, should both be true. As for God's word we know it cannot lie. And therefore we have great cause to say, that that which is contrary to it, cannot be true. Again, the church of Rome (as they all confess) proveth many points of their religion by traditions only, that is to say, by the doctrines of men only. These things we allege. Admit that it were not evidently true that we say. Is it not good reason yet that we should be heard, how we can prove that we allege? Were it not fit that before indifferent judges the matter should be tried? For why should the pope, that is a principal party in this controversy, or his legates that are his sworn adherents and servants, take upon them to be judges in their own cause? We accuse them of Idolatry, superstition, many heresies, manifest breach of God's law, despising of God's word, yea of plain apostasy from the true faith. Shall we ever imagine, that they will pronounce sentence against themselves? And confess themseules guilty of these great crimes? No no, as we are not so foolish as once to hope, that they who with tooth and nail, seek to maintain their own pride, will so subject themselves to Christ's yoke, so we are not so mad as to think them to be fit judges, to pronounce whether the truth be on our side or theirs. For we know, that they will not speak for us, because they will never speak against themselves.  
Let them then permit this question that is amongst us to be tried by a free council. Let the matters in controversy be debated, let the reasons on both sides be heard, and weighed: let indifferent judges be appointed, such as sincerely sighing, in singleness of heart, seek to know the truth, & serve the Lord. Then will it appear who teach the true religion. But this can never be tried by such overruled conventicles as that of Trent, wherein indeed the protestants were admitted to speak. But they might say but placet, we are content with that you have done. They might not set down their reasons against Romish errorn, they might not be heard to dispute. But that was before concluded in some private meeting of a few popish divines, & allowed at Rome for catholic doctrine, and thence sent to the council to have approbatian of them that durst not deny it, to that they might say Amen. Yea, and what they could have said, the council would not greatly have regarded as it seemeth. For Clement the seventh, when the emperor Charles the fift, and the French king were earnest with the said Clement, to have a free general conncil permitted, 
Gentil. examined.  wherein matters might maturely be discussed on both sides, 
Concil. Trident. li. 1.  he answered, that was a perilous matter and prejudicial, that the protestants should be suffered to dispute of those things, that had been before concluded by councils. As though God by his word, were not sufficient to give laws to his church, or that he should be tied to the judgements of men. Not that we think the ancient lawful councils to be against us: but because that under the name of general Councils, they bring in their later wicked and ungodly conventicles, of the times wherein corruption grew more and more in the Church, which Councils have concluded many things, that were never heard of in the purer age: we would therefore let them understand, 
How councils must be rejected.  that as many of their councils are worthily rejected, so even the best are not to be bleeved, but as they consent with God's undoubted and infallible word. And that this was the bondage of that Council of Trent, which our adversaries would so feign have so much accounted of, it appeareth by Sleydon in his history. Brocard who was one in that council, writing upon the Apocalypse, Gentillet and Caluin, against that council. How then dare those arrogant pope's, whose doctrine can not abide the touch, whose decrees do shun the light, condemn princes for heretics, or enemies to the catholic faith, & yet will not permit their faith and religion, to be laid to the rule & square of the catholic doctrine? 
Dialog. 3.  Theodoret saith truly. The decrees of the church must be tried and proved, not pronounced as an over ruled case, or as a sentence of a judge. And shall we then receive as an Oracle from God, that which is delivered unto us after this manner, the church of Rome, or the bishop of Rome hath said it? God forbidden. We will try the spirits whether they be of God. 
1. john 4. 1. 1. Thes. 5. 21.  We seek to try all their doctrines, that we may hold fast that which is good. This then, I say, is an evident argument of arrogant insolency, in Pius 5. and Sixtus, 5. that so wickedly they dare presume, as to give such slanderous names, to princes that profess so undoubted a truth, as than they both did, and yet our most gracious Sovereign doth. But to deprive them of their kingdoms, to release their subjects from their bond of obedience, to dispose of their dominions, according to their pleasures, as they would do if they could, is as intolerable pride, as their predecessors before did ever us to other. And so maliciously to prosecute this their conceived mischief, as they have done these many years, whi●h open tumult, with secret conspiracies, with poisoning of some principal Princes, 
Popish practices.  with murdering of other by other means, with prepairing the hearts of doubtful subjects, against the time of invasion to take their part, (for all these things are common to the pope, and his white son the king of Spain, (they are their continual meditations) doth not this sufficiently prove their cruel malice? So that their proud practices, and cruel purposes (which are two of the fruits, of the supremacy of the pope's that I have spoken of) are plain enough, even in our days, we may see with our eyes the proof of the same, by (almost) daily examples. But their greedy minds, and covetous affections, do not appear to us so plainly, as unto our fathers, unto whom they were an intolerable burden, as I have showed before. And although we nothing doubt, but the fat morsels, which they understand their predecessors have plucked from this land, do make the pope's that have been in our days, more eager to get such like again: yet God having delivered us from the ravening paws and jaws of that Romish Lion (the Lord make us truly thankful, and in life fruitful, for this his inestimable mercy) we feel not the grief of his exactions. But this I trust, sufficeth to decalre, that the power which the pope unlawfully hath gotten, he unreasonably abuseth, making it a wicked and ungodly mean to crow over princes, to fill his coffers, and to execute his revenges. And now that the pope was come to that, that he might do even what he would, to satisfy his proud, greedy and cruel lusts, he thought it good for him to dwell and continue always, in that lawless estate. And therefore did he, not only strive by all the power and policy that he had, and with all his endeavour to maintain the same, for the time present, but also did provide some means to maintain it as he hoped for ever. And to perform this they have had no small help by privileges, 
Privileges and immunities.  and grants from princes, who at the first when bishops of Rome, and others also, did apply themselves in some measure to perform their duty, were willing to the better encouraging of them, to go on forwards in well doings, and that those worldly things, should not be to them any let or hindrance in their callings, that were a burden unto other, they were willing I say to exempt them from such services and duties, as they required of other to be done unto them. And because that at the first when Christianity began to increase and grow mighty, no doubt many that were secret enemies, 
cause of many of the immunities.  and yet durst not (when the Emperors had by law established the christian profession) accuse any man for their religion, would then lay other faults to their charges, and object other crimes to bring the Gospel into contempt, as appeareth by Tertullian, justin the Martyr, and others that they did, when religion was yet professed in corners. Now it is not unlikely, but that godly princes to exempt them from such flanders and reproaches, would commit the hearing of those accusations unto such as were of best credit among themselves, that when their enemy did see that their accusations were not like to be favoured, unless they were sufficiently proved, they might be discouraged, from defaming them with unjust reports. But howsoever these immunities were granted unto them at the first, or on what consideration, I will not precisely set down. But afterwards I am sure they took them as their own right, and that they did always belong unto them. And therefore when as the Emperor would have taken upon him to have judged of some causes of clergy men, 
Dist. 96. cap. ●imperator.  pope john showeth that he must not so do, and telleth him boldly, but falsely, that the almighty God will have the clerk and priests of Christian religion, to be ordered, examined, and received when they return from error, not by public laws, or powers of this world, but of bishops and priests. Christian emperors (saith he) must submit their executions to prelate's, and not prefer them. Whereupon the gloss doth gather, that the clergy was never under the secular power, and therefore that all the constitutions that are made, that clerks should not be judged by any but by bishops, are but declarations, 
●ist. ●6. C. Nun●uam.  of that their former right. And in the same distinction the very next chapter, that pope john is not ashamed to affirm, that Christian princes were wont to be obedient to bishops, and to how down their necks to them. And afterwards there is in Gratian a whole treatise to this purpose, 
Caus. 11. ●. 1. c. Nemo.  to prove that (as is their alleged out of Caius the Pope) no man must presume so much as to accuse, before a secular judge, a bishop or any clerk. I need not allege to this end many testimonies. These are as plain as need to be. He that would see more testimonies to this effect, let him look the first question of the eleveuh cause in Gratian, he shall see it affirmed with full mouth. But how untruly in a word may be declared.  
And first how false that is which he affirmeth, 
Shameless li●●  that princes have always submitted themselves unto priests, there is no colour of truth in it, if we examine the shameless lie, either by the scriptures, or by the examples of the emperors and kings in the primitive church. 
Magistrates command priests. Aa●on.  For Moses was the civil magistrate, and Aaron was the priest. Did Moses submit himself to Aaron? No, did he not rather on the contrary reprove him, as at other times, so especially concerning the golden calf, 
Exod 32. 21.  which he caused to be made? And did not Aaron in token of his submission to Moses, call him his Lord? And why did God deliver the law. and the order for all the sacrifices and ceremonies, and all the services that were commanded, rather by Moses to Aaron, and the people, Moses being the civil magistrate, then by the ministery of Aaron, who was appointed to be the priest? Did not God hereby testify, 
●●od. 28.  that he would have the civil magistrate to have a special regard, unto the things that belong to God's service. 
Apiathar.  Was not Abiathar the high priest at the commandment of Solomon, when at the commandment of Solomon the king, 
2. Kings 2. 26, 27.  he was put from the office of the high priest, and the king made Zadocke high priest in his room. But out of many examples let these suffice, 
Verse 35.  for the time before Christ. S. Paul when he saith, 
Rom. 13. 1.  Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, teacheth us, that we must not look that they should submit themselves unto us, but how sincerely we should obey them. And what is meant by the higher powers saint Peter telleth us, that the king is chief, 
1. Pet. 2. 13, 14.  than other governors under him. And these are the superior powers which saint Paul meaneth of, as if need were might he proved by all antiquity. If we look upon the bishops that were in the time of Constantine, and a good while after, their stories will teach us, that they as humbly as they could submitted themselves to Emperors and princes, called them Lords, entreated them with all submission. Yea, and Leo the third pope of that name, 
Plat. in Leone 3.  eight hundred years after Christ, his life and conversation were inquired upon, by Charles the great the emperor. All which things do plainly prove, that it is most false that Gratian out of many of them doth affirm, that the emperors Christian, did always submit themselves unto the bishops.  
And the self-same examples also do plainly declare, that the clergy may not be accused only before civil magistrates, but punished also by them according to the quality of their offence. Neither did our saviour Christ (whose immunities and exemptions I suppose they will confess, were as great as any may claim) when he was standing before Pilate to be judge, plead that they might not meddle with him, neither yet Saint Paul, when he stood before Festus, 
Act. 25. 11.  who if there had been any such privilege belonging unto clergy men, would at the least have claimed it, that others might have by their examples alleged the like.  
But saint Paul in appealing unto Cesar, doth give us a strong argument to prove, 
Prince's may judge the clergy.  that princes may middle with such as they call clergy men. But of the matter itself there is no just cause of doubt. Neither can it be proved, that such immunities and exemptions are grounded upon any testimony of Scripture, but rather are most contrary to that subjection, to magistrates, that they command, and God requireth. But by those privileges there came to the civil estate double damage. 
The hurt of those exemptions.  First because thereby evil subjects were marvelously emboldened to do whatsoever the bishop of Rome, that very bane of true christian obedience, would set them to do, for enlarging his liberties. As among as infinite number of examples, that one of Thomas Becket that arch-traitor of England, (and yet forsooth a Romish saint and martyr) doth sufficiently declare. For how traitorously he sought to in fringe the ancient liberties, 
Paris. pag. 135.  of his and our native country (to the maintenence whereof he was also sworn) yea how lewdly he stood in defence of the liberties that they claim unto clergy men, and that in an unhonest cause (for Philip Brock, a canon of Bedford being accused and tried of m●rder, gave evil words to the judges, and the archbishop would not suffer him to be punished by the civil magistrate) how stiffly he set himself against the king, to the mislike of most of the bishops in the land, 
In vita Hen. 3.  Matthew of Paris (though otherwise a well-willer of his) doth plainly set down. Yea what safety may kings have to their persons, or what quietness in their dominions if they who are called clergy men, may within any prince's dominions, execute against them, the pope's rash and unjust decrees, without punishment of them that bear the sword? If unquiet heads, and rebellious persons, may devise and practise what they think good, to follow their own lust, and get unto themselves the rains of liberty, and when these things shall any way break out, they may not be examined by princes or magistrates, or accused before such authority? In this respect therefore, that by such immunities bad men were much emboldened, either to perform the pope's commandments, or their own desires: princes had the less ability and opportunity to shake off that yoke of more than Egyptiacal bondage which the pope laid upon them. For, if they once endeavoured to attempt any such thing, they had within their realm (even such as should by christian duty, and very natural affection be their strength & aid) them that under pretence of obedience to the vicar of Rome would make faint the hearts of the prince's friends, and mightily strengthen the hands of his worst sort of subjects. And no marvel though in the days of deep darkness or ignorance, this leprosy did so infect and spread, for we, among whom the light of God's truth doth shine in some reasonable manner in many places, 
jesuits and priests perilous.  and in great abundance in some, yet cannot be rid of that scab. For though God in his tender mercy towards us, hath banished out of this land, that proud authority of the pope, and given unto us, as an inestimable treasure, the true liberty of conscience, and ministry of the word: yet because our princes and magistrates are far short of that zeal that was commended in godly kings, and should be in christian magistrates, and we ourselves even the whole body of the subjects, do not walk according to our calling, or work according to our profession, but detain the truth in unrighteousness: 
Rom. 1. 18.  even for our sins I say doubtless it cometh to pass, that there are so many Canaanites in our land, waiting still, as occasion may serve, to be pricks in our eyes, 
Numb. 33. 55.  and thorns to prick us in our sides, so that though their power will not serve yet to cast us out of the land: yet they can find means enough to grieve us in the land. It is our sin also that bringeth in among us, these that creep not into widows houses only, but into the houses of men, especially women that are simple and ignorant, and laden with sin, many of them withdrawing them from the true knowledge of God, and duty towards their magistrates, I mean the jesuits and seminary priests, a kind of people as necessary and commodious to live among good subjects, or in any quiet commonwealth, as the frogs, lice, f●ies and grasshoppers of Egypt were, 
Hood 8. ●●xod. 10. jesuits and Priest's the locust. Revil. 9 3.  or as caterpillars are for fruit, corn or grass. They seem to be the very locusts, that came out of the dark smoke that issued out of the bottomless pit, whose sting is secret like the scorpions, teaching rebellion to princes, under colour of obedience to the pope. They are nimble, and want no courage, like horses prepared to the battle. 
7  They are crowned with the honourable name of jesuits, and have faces like men in external profession of obedience and truth. 
8  They seem like unto women (that is) not like to do hurt, but yet obstinate and stiff they are, in that they take in hand, and cruel and mighty to do much ●urt, 
9  among them that receive them. They are armed with the habergeon, of authority from Rome. They are lifted up with the wings of proud conceit of their own knowledge, whereby they make a noise, as though they could bear down all before them. 
10.  Lastly they have a king set over them, for the kings that are over other subjects are not good enough to rule this crowned company. The pope is their king, him they serve, to him they yield their obedience. And their travel is to make other also to become his subjects. Whose five months, that is the time of whose contiunance among us, is not yet expired, because our sins (as I have said, and must say again and again) our sins prolong the time of our chastisement. 
The multitude of clergy men and women.  The second inconvenience that these immunities (granted the clergy men) did bring unto civil estates, was the infinite swarms of subjects that were accounted of that number. For besides their clerks, regular and irregular, which grew to marvelous great multitudes, they had their lesser orders which had also their part in these privileges. Which being so many in number as they were, the common wealth did not only find a want of such, as should help to bear the burdens, that were to be laid upon 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 followers to be on their side. And this I take to be the reason that Boniface the eight (as Marcilius Pativinus writeth) was so desirousto enlarge and increase the number of his clergy, that he would have all such as had married a maid, and contented themselves but with one wife, 
Part. 2. 6. ●.  should be of his clergy. Now their exemptions stretching to all the clergy, I pray you what subjects should be left unto the king, for him to command and rule for his own safety, and the guard of his common wealth? It was therefore a great post and pillar of popery, to bring these immunities to the clergy, and a mean to maintain it the better. Both because it emboldened themselves to do much mischief, and also it drew many to be of their societies. And so as it was a double damage to the civil estate. So was it a double prop to uphold the kingdom of the pope, and therefore dangerous more ways than one. Well, thus far we are now come in this proof of popish practices, that we see their sub●● shifts to bring themselves to this high estate. It is not unknown to us how wickedly they have abused their authoritine, in pride intolerable, covecousnesse insa●iable, and malice unmeasurable. And lastly their government being so very devilish and detested almost of all, yet how and by what means they have maintained the same. That is to say, I have opened their subtle shifts, whereby they became so great, and secondly their practices and proceed in this their greatness, thirdly their cunning and compasses to keep themselves great, the means, which for the most part they have used to get into this nest, which they have built so high and to keep themselves in the same.  
My meaning is not so lay open their wickedness of life, so long as it is but their private fault, 
Rom. 14. 4.  let them stand or ●all to their own Lord, he against whom they offend, shall call them to account. But that only that belongeth to the question of the pope's supremacy, which now I have taken in hand to survey, and to the abuse either in getting, or in using of it, that only did I purpose to entreat of. And hereunto am I forced by double necessity. First, because it is one part of the popish practices. But especially to stop the mouths of them whose sight is so quick towards others, as that they can espy a small mote in their eye. In our church they can find no ministery, no succession, no sacraments, all is wrong, they see nothing but faults.  
The great beam that troubleth their own eye, they cannot see. But as men sightless and senseless, they imagine all is well with them, all is catholic. Catholic church, catholic faith, catholic religion, catholic doctrine. And yet, if the matter be well examined neither their church, neither yet their faith, have any show of catholic in them. As (I trust) it is evident to see, in this Survey of the Pope's Supremacy, that their doctrine is not catholic, their doings are not christian like. Let us examine whether that which they teach us concerning this point, have been taught likewise of all the godly learned, or at the least of the most of them, 
Whether the doctrine of supremacy be catholic.  at all times in all places, constantly, and of set purpose, not by the way (as we term it) in handling some other matter, often, and plainly. For these are the properties that Viucentius Lyrinensis an old father, requireth in that doctrine, that is catholic 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 catholic doctrine. That Christ gave to Peter only the keys of the kingdom of heaven, it is not by these rules a catholic faith. That the feeding of Christ's sheep in the whole world, or the government of the whole church, was committed to Peter only, or especially, is most catholicly taught: so that not one of all these points of their religion, which are indeed the groundwork, whereupon they raise this their stately building of the pope's supremacy, can be called catholic (as is before showed.) But if they could prove these things to be catholic, as they will never be able to do, yet have they not obtained their purpose. For, how is this conveyed to the bishop of Rome, if it were in Peter. It is not catholicly believed, that he was bishop of Rome: neither yet that he conveyed his estate or interest over the whole church (if any such had been in him) to the bishop of Rome. Or if all this could be proved, yet remaineth one point that were able to overthrow all. For it is not received as a catholic doctrine, that the Bishop of Rome cannot err, or that for sin and error, the privileges which the church of Rome claims, if they had any such, could not be forfeited, as well in them as in other churches.  
In all which points, if I have nor sufficiently proved, that the church of Rome teacheth false doctrine and repugnant to the Scriptures (wherein I submit myself to the judgement of the indifferent Reader:) yet (I trust) that the adversaries themselves must needs confess, that these cannot be proved, to be catholic doctrines. But on the contrary a man may easily see, if he mark the story of times, that these things which are the only pillars to uphold this popish kingdom, were never thought upon in the Apostles times, or the ages next to them, that is to say, in the purer times of the primitive church. But when heresies began to trouble the church, and men began to separat themselves from the unity of faith, more boldly, and more openly then at the first they did. And it pleased God to continue in some reasonable sort, sincerity and truth of religion in the church of Rome: 
Peter's chair.  then began that seat to be called Peter's chair (not because Peter sat there) but because that notable confession that Peter made, and the faith that he preached, was there established, and sound kept and maintained, (as before I have showed out of Opta●us and others) that Peter's chair signifieth his doctrine. And as after the sun is once set, darkness groweth still more and more, so that the further from sun set until it be ready to rise again, the greater is the darkness: even so the farther men were from those purer times, the further did they wander, from the ways of truth, and the grosser was the ignorance that they were in. So as that which at the first was not once thought upon, yet was it at the last affirmed of some very constantly and boldly. But if they cannot prove it to be a doctrine generally received at all times even in the days of the apostles, and so by continual succession constantly taught in the ages next following, and so delivered us: they do but too much abuse the simple, to tell them that is catholic & ancient that is but the dream or late devise of some later teachers. Now I call them whatsoever antiquity they seem to have, that serve any thing from that, which the ancient of days hath taught, or Christ who is our true antiquity, hath delivered. It behoveth therefore all christians to take heed of such, as under pretence of being popish catholics, 
Ignat. epist. ad Philadelph.  and under or colour of this glorious name (which belongeth neither to them, neither yet to their religion) creep into corners, deceive the ignorant, seek to make many of their profession, 
Beware of sen●narie priests.  by having only in their mouths this word catholic faith, catholic religion, catholic 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, even as the cormorants gather where the carcase is, to get their prey: so these seek their meat and maintenance by seducing such simple and silly souls. Neither do I affirm, that all are moved by these causes, either to leave their native country, either to return to sow amongst her majesties subjects, this seed of seduction and sedition, but they that do trouble this Realm, are for the most part such, and moved by such reasons. But as they can not prove by an catholic grounds their title to the supremacy to be good: so their practice is too bad, and far from that christian modesty and meekness, which should be in God's children. For if saint Peter said truly, that such as himself was, should not as Lords (bear rule) over the Lord's here●age, 
1. P●● 5. 3.  but be as examples to the flock: then how can the pope claim that sovereign authority over all kings, 
1. Pet. 2. 13.  and whom saint Peter calleth chief. If none can enter into any calling, especially to have the charge over the flock of Christ, unless he be called thereunto, as it is confessed by all men: what reason can the bishops of Rome pretend, why either they should without any warrant, nay contrary to the word, so exalt themselves above all other, or so unlawfully, or rather by so vile practices and shifts, as by violence and strife, by buing and selling, by falsehood and craft, by poisoning and murders, by sorcery and the devils help, get to be pope's? Or being placed in that proud place, how cometh it to pass that with so great boldness, without fear, without shame, they profane the majesty of God, and despise, yea tread under foot the excellency of man, be he never so high. Is this the fruit of their catholic doctrine? Do such lewd dealings become Christ's vicar, or Peter's successor? But to conclude, seeing the pope's title unto the supremacy hath no show of truth: 
Conclusion.  and seeing his exercise of the same, is almost nothing else but a blaspheming of God, and a defacing of all authority ordained by God: 
Exhortation to ch●istian princes.  raise and rouse up yourselves after your long sluggishness (O ye christian princes and magistrates) shake off from your necks this yoke of bondage, wherein you serve that Italian priest. join your powers and strength together. Gather and call a free Council in deed, where the pope as a party may plead his cause, not sit as judge. Force him to content himself with that place which the word of God will afford him. If any more be given unto him, or any other, yet let not the godly potentates give unto any as they have done such reins of liberty, but that they may know that authority to be but from man, and that their power is not full or absolute, but only limited: and that if they abuse the same, they may and shall answer for their boldness, according to the quality of their offence. So shall you deliver christendom from a heavy bondage, your own realms from a most dangerous enemy, and the church of God from a most manifest Antichrist. So shall you use your authority to the comfort of the godly, as you should do, 
Tim. 17.  and as in duty you are bound to God's glory, and establishing of the Kingdom of Christ. Now unto the king everlasting, immortal, invisible, unto God only wise, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.  
FINIS.