Conference Between Rainolds and Hart

Yes: We have no other English for sacerdos.

Where S. Austin addeth then touching Jerome, that nether he must be contemned because he was presbyter : what here shall presbyter be? Will you make S. Austin's speech so unsavory, as to tell the heretic, that he ought to reverence Irenaeus, Cyprian, Ambrose, and the rest, because they were Priests; and not contemn Jerome because he was a Priest ?

Nay, I would translate here, presbyter, a Priest : but, for sacerdotes, I would say Bishops. For that is S. Austin's meaning in these places where he doth name them sacerdotes.

So your translator doth. But the word Bishop is our English of episcopus. And what if episcopus chance to come in too, with sacerdos, and presbyter ? How will you express them? As where in the Canons collected by Isidore touching the order of keeping Councils, he saith that sacerdotes first must enter in, and after them presbyteri: your Lawyer noteth on it, Vide vt sacerdotes vocet episcopos veteri more, quem ignorantes plerique presbyteros sacerdotes appellari promiscue stulie opinantur. Wherein, if you translate sacerdotes, Bishops, and presbyteros, Priests : then your Lawyer saith (which were a wise speech) that Isidore calleth Bishops Bishops, after the old manner, which many not knowing do foolishly think that Priests are called Bishops indifferently.

Such sentences cannot be well expressed in English▪ but the Latin words must be kept in them.

But it is behooveful for our English men to have them in English, that they may know your Latin abuses of Rome. For this is meant thereby, that the ancient writers are wont to note Bishops by the name of Priests: which many not knowing do foolishly think that the name of Priests is used indifferently for the same that Elders. A lesson for your Rhemists, who make them all one, although not of foolishness so much as of fraud: to the intent that Elders, that is to say, Ministers of the new testament, may be thought Priests, that is to say, Ministers ordained to sacrifice, as your Mass-priests be. For color and maintenance of the which error, the countenance of proof that you pretend out of the Fathers is the less by thus much, that they were accustomed to give the name of Priests, not generally to Elders, but to Bishops only. Wherefore to avoid confusion of things, which the confusion of words might ingender, in that we are to treat off: I will (by your leave) call presbyter an Elder, as our translations do; that I may distinguish it from the name of Priest, both as it is used by you for a Mass-priest, and as it is used by the Fathers for a Bishop. So to come at length back again to that which I was in hand with, of the second sort of the Bishops of Rome, that, when they were grown to their fattest plight, they were but Archbishops of a Princely diocese, not universal Popes and Patriarchs of the whole world: the Elders (as I said) ordained by the Apostles in every Church, through every city, chose one amongst themselves whom they called Bishop, to be the President of their company, for the better handling and ordering of things in their assemblies and meetings, wherein they provided by common counsel and consent for the guiding of the flock of Christ committed to them. Which point of care and wisdom the Bishops following also, knowing that where counsels want the people falleth, but in the amplenes of counselors there is health, had their meetings likewise for conference together when things of greater weight required more advise: and they chose to be their President therein the Bishop of the chiefest city in the province, whom they called the Metropolitan. For a province, as they termed it, was the same with them, that a shire is with us: and the shire-town as you would say of the province was called metropolis, that is the mother-city. In which, as the Judges and Justices with us do hear at certain times the causes of the whole shire: so the ruler of the province with them did minister justice, and made his abode there ordinarily. Whereupon by reason that men for their business made great concourse thither: the church was wont to furnish it (of godly policy) with the worthyest Bishop, endued with gifts above his brethren. And they reposed in him such affiance, that they did not only commit the Presidentship of their assemblies to him: but agreed also that none through all the province should be made Bishop without his consent, nor any waightyer matter be done by them without him. Now the Roman Empire was governed in such sort, that as the Queens Majesty appointeth Lieutenants over sundry greater parts of her dominion, a Lord Deputy of Ireland, and the Lord Presidents of Wales, and of the North: so the Emperor divided his to sundry officers, the Earl of the East, the Lord Presidents of Egypt, of Italy, and so forth, whose circuites had many provinces within them, and were called dioceses. Through occasion whereof the Bishops of those cities in which these Lieutenants of the Emperor were resiant, ( the state ecclesiastical following the civil,) did grow in power too. Nether were they only named Archbishops and Patriarchs of the diocese, that is, the chiefest Bishops and Fathers of that circuit which the Lieutenant ruled: but also they obtained that the Metropolitans of the provinces in their diocese should be likewise subject and obedient to them, as Bishops were to Metropolitans. So the Archbishop and Patriarke of Antioch had perogatives given him through the diocese of the East, wherein were seven provinces. So nothing could be doon in the diocese of Egypt, ( which under the Archbishop had ten Metropolitans ) without the consent of the Archbishop and Patriarke of Alexandria. So it was granted to the Archbishop and Patriarke of Constantinople, that the Metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thracia, ( within the which there were eight and twenty provinces) should be ordained by him. Finally, so was it decreed that if a Bishop had any matter of controversy with the Metropolitan of his own province, the Patriarke of the diocese should be judge thereof : as also if any man did receive injury of his own Bishop, or Metropolitan. Thus were the Roman Popes (as they are called now) first Bishops over Elders within their own city; next, Metropolitans over Bishops within their own province ; then Archbishops, and Patriarchs over Metropolitans within their own diocese. And this is the Princely diocese, which I meant, when I said that the Pope in the time of Pelagius was become Archbishop of a Princely diocese; but he was yet but an Archbishop: he was not universal Pope and Patriarke of the whole world. For although the Patriarke of Constantinople, being puffed up because in his city not the Emperors Lieutenants were resiant, as in the rest, but the Emperor himself, aspired to be therefore Soueraine of the rest, and as the Emperor counted himself Lord of the world, so would he be called Patriarke of the world : yet the Roman Patriarchs Pelagius, and Gregory, did withstand his pride, and neither would themselves take so much upon them, nor agree that any Patriarke should do it. Wherefore when Pelagius ordained that if any Metropolitan sent not to the see of Rome to show his faith, and receive the pall, he should be deprived: Pelagius must be thought to have made that ordinance for all Metropolitans within his own diocese, not throughout the world. The testimony of Gregory which yourself alleged touching the Bishop of Salonae is a proof thereof. For, that my Bishops (saith he) should despise me, I impute it to my sins : and, if the causes of Bishops committed to me be dealt with thus, alas what shall I do?

Nay, although he say, Bishops committed to me, and, my Bishops : yet is that no proof that only certain Bishops were of his diocese. For he might signify all Bishops by those words, as being all his subjects.

The Patriarchs of Antioch, and Alexandria will deny that; or rather Gregory him • else. For him self exhorting them to withstand the pride of the Patriarke of Constantinople, who would be universal Patriarke: stand ye strong (saith he) and keep all the Bishops subject to your charge from defiling them selves with consent to this pride. Where by it is manifest that only certain Bishops were subject to his charge : whom he termed his Bishops, and, Bishops committed to him. And this appeareth further by that which Diaconus writeth in his life: that, when there were Bishoprikes void in his diocese, he desired Bishops of another diocese (who were destitute) to take them; as the Bishop of Smyrna to take a Bishoprike in Sicilia. Howbeit, if Gregory and Pelagius both had meant generally of all Metropolitans through the whole world, that they should be allowed by the Popes consent: yet neither wou • d that prove the Popes of the second sort to have avouched that sovereignty of power over Bishops which your last sort of Popes doth, and toucheth their supremacy most. For they of the second taught that all Bishops ought to be chosen by the people and clergy : them selves requiring only the confirming of Metropolitans by their consent, if that be granted. Where these of the last do claim to them selves the right not of confirming alone, but of choosing too, both Metropolitans and Bishops : and bind them by oath (for more assurance of their State) to observe and cause to be observed by others, the Papal reservations, provisions, and mandates, by which they work this tyranny.

It is more requisite that the Popes in our time should reserve Bishoprikes to their own bestowing, that they may provide good Pastors for the Church, then it was of old. And therefore less marvel if they choose them selves such as they know fit, and will have the confirming of such as other choose : though their predecessors (when the days were better) did neither choose any, nor confirm all. But the Popes supremacy standeth not so much in making Church-officers, as in judging Church-causes. And therein the second sort of Popes avouched as much as the last. For Innocentius the first answering the letters of the Council of Mileuis, who had written to him about the error of the Pelagians, doth praise them for referring the matter unto him: and I think (saith he) that as oft as a matter of faith is called in question, all our brethren and fellow-bishops ought not but to refer it unto Peter, that is, the author of their name and honor, as now your charity hath doon.

Th • se words of Innocentius may prove (M. Hart) that he claimed a preeminence of knowledge for your Peter, not a sovereignty of power: a preeminence of knowledge, to resolve the Church-questions; not a sovereignty of power, to decide the Church-causes. For matters of faith are to be defined by the rule of faith, that is, by the scriptures: and the right opening of the scriptures lieth not in power, but in knowledge. Which you may learn by Gratian in the Canon law, saying, that the Fathers are preferred before the Popes in expounding of scriptures, because they pass them in knowledge: the Popes before the Fathers in deciding of causes, because they pass them in power.

That distinction of causes and questions of the Church is but a shift of sophstrie to cast a mist upon y ^e truth. For though the Church-causes, as Gratian speaketh of them, do concern persons, the innocent to be acquitted, or offenders to be condemned : yet questions of faith (which you call Church-questions ) are Church-causes too in a general sense. As one of the third sort of Popes saith, that greater causes of the Church, chiefly such as touch the articles of faith, are to be referred to the See of Peter. And this was the meaning of Innocentius the first. For, in his letters to the Council of Carthage written to like effect on the same occasion, he saith, that the Fathers decreed by the sentence not of man, but of God, that whatsoever was doon in provinces far of, they thought that it ought not to be concluded before it came to the notice of the See of Rome.

It is true that questions of matters touching faith are causes of the Church: but they are not such causes as quicken the Papacie. The causes touching persons, which Zosimus, Boniface, and Caelestine did deal for, when they would have it lawful for Bishops & Elders to appeal to Rome, are those which Popes must live by. And the same Councils of Carthage and Mileuis, whom Innocentius wrote too, did know, and show this difference, when they desired the Popes consent in that of faith, but forbadde the causes of Bishops and Elders to come unto him by appeals. Wherefore that distinction of the Church-causes, and the Church-questions, is not a shift of sophistry to cast a mist upon the truth, but a point of truth to clear y ^e mist of your sophistry. For your Jesuit citeth those texts of Innocentius to prove the Popes supremacy. Whereas he claimeth judgment, to resolve the douts ; or (that is less,) authority, to approve the doctrine ; not a sovereign power to hear and determine the causes of the Church.

Nay, his words are general to the Council of Carthage, that whatsoever was doon in provinces far off, it should come to the notice of the See of Rome before it were concluded.

But if you do rack that word [whatsoever] so far beyond his drift: you make him more greedy then the last sort of Popes, who claim the greater causes of the Church only. Wherefore, as when S. Paul saith, all things are lawful for me, he meaneth not all thing • s absolutely, and simply, but all indifferent things, according to the point which he treateth of: so must you apply the words of Innocentius not to whatsoever touching Church-causes, but to matters of faith called into question ; which, the Popes being learned then and Catholic, the Christian Churches used to refer to them, that the truth approved by their consent and judgment might for their authority find the greater credit & freer passage against heretics.

What say you then to Leo the great, or rather to S. Gregory : who had the Church-causes, even such as touched persons, referred to their See, and willed them to be so, as their epistles show.

In deed Leo, and Gregory are somewhat large that way. Though Leo, as the diocese of the Roman Patriarke was lesser in his time, then afterward in Gregory's : so had fewer of them. Gregory had more: yet he had not all.

Not all : but all the greater. And that is as much as the last sort of Popes claim.

But they claim all the greater, through the whole world, which Gregory neither had nor claimed.

No? Is it not manifest by all his Epistles that he dealt with the causes of Bishops in Italy, Spain, France, Afric, Corsica, Sardinia, Sicilia, Dalmatia, and many countries mo?

Yet he dealt neither with all the greater causes, nor through the whole world. And this very show of the names of countries, by which your Irish champion doth think the Popes supremacy to be clearly proved, is a demonstration in truth to disprove it. For, rehersing only those which you have named, with England, Ireland, Corcyra, and Greece, and saying y ^t Gregory did practice the supremacy over their Bishops, and Churches, though neither proving so much, but admit he proved it: yet, in bringing only the names and proofs of these, he showeth that Gregory did not practice it over the Bishops and Churches of Thracia, Mysia, Scythia, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, Armenia, Pamphylia, Lydia, Pisidia, Lycaonia, Phrygia, Lycia, Caria, Hellespontus, Egypt, Jury, Phoenicia, Syria, Silicia, Cyprus, Arabia, Mesopotania, Isauria, with the rest of the countries subject to the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

Though S. Gregory speak not of these particularly: yet he showeth in general his supremacy over them. For whereas the Patriarke (saith he) doth confess himself to be subject to the See Apostolic: if any fault be found in Bishops, I know not what Bishop is not subject to it. Behold, not only Bishops, but the Patriarchs also subject to the Pope, by S. Gregory's judgment: yea by their own confession.

Nay, it was not a Patriarke but a Primate, who confessed that. And a Primate is but a Bishop of the first and chiefest See in a Province ; that is, a Metropolitan.

It was Primas Byzancenus, that is to say, the Patriarke of Constantinople: as it is expounded in the gloss on Gratian. For Constantinople was called Byzantium first.

Gratian and his gloss were deceived both. For primas Byzacenus (or Byzancenus, if you read it so) is Primate of Byzacium ( called Byzantium too) which was a province of Afric, and therefore had a Primate, as Councils of that country show. Whom, and not the Patriarke of Constantinople, to have been meant by Gregory : it is now declared in your Gratian too. The Patriarke was too lofty to confess himself subject to the Pope: he sought to make the Pope his subject.

Perhaps he had sought it before, but not then. For certainly S. Gregory, saying, that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the See of Rome, addeth, that Eusebius the Bishop of the same city doth confess it still.

There was no Eusebius Bishop of that city in all Gregory's time. And they who were Bishops, first John, then Cyriacus, did usurp the title of universal Patriarke, as Gregory himself declareth. Wherefore either Gregory wrote more then was true, to cheer up his subjects: or some hath chopped into him that which he wrote not, to advance the credit of the See of Rome. But howsoever he thought all Bishops subject to it if any fault be found in them, perhaps as S. Peter was subject to S. Paul, and Christians are one to another, to be reproved by their brethren when they do offend; but if he meant more, as perhaps he did of a good will to his See: yet he meant not that which toucheth the point of the Popes supremacy, given you to prove, to weete, that Bishops causes through the whole world must be referred to him. And hereof himself is a sufficient witness, in that he overruleth the case by the law of Justinian the Emperor. For, if any man (saith he) accuse a Bishop for whatsoever cause: let the cause be judged by his Metropolitan. If any man gainsay the Metropolitans judgment, let it be referred to the Archbishop and Patriarke of that diocese, and let him end it according to the canons and laws.

The causes of Bishops (I grant) must first be heard of their Metropolitans ; and next, of their Patriarchs. Yet if the Patriarchs judgment be misliked too: then may the party grieved appeal to the Pope, and so they come to him last.

Gregory meant not so, but that the last judge thereof should be the Patriarke: as did Justinian also. Which they show plainly, by saying, Let him end it according to the canons and laws. For both the canons of that Council which referred the causes of Bishops to the Patriarchs, did mention thē as the last Judges: & the laws of Emperors which granted appeals from Metropolitans to them, granted no appeal from them to any other ; nay, for bad expressly all appealing from them.

Yet even there S. Gregory giveth a special privilege and preeminence to the Pope above other Patriarchs. For he addeth, that if a Bishop have no Metropolitan nor Patriarke at all: then is his cause to be heard and determined by the See Apostolic, which is the head of all Churches.

True: he addeth that beyond the canons of Councils, and the laws of Emperors. But in the mean season, he yieldeth that the causes of Bishops, who were subject to any other Patriarke, must not be referred to the Popes See. Whereby it is evident that not all their causes through the whole world were claimed by S. Gregory. And herewithal by this place it may be noted too, that when he nameth the See and Church of Rome the head of all Churches, he meaneth it of excellency for sundry gifts above them, not of the supremacy for power to govern them. Which answereth the question that you made before vpō the same title: If the Church of Rome be the head of all Churches, why not the Bishop of Rome the head of all Bishops ? For the name of head is given to that Church in respect of others: as if the city of London should be called in England▪ the head of all cities. The Lord Mayor of London might chance to have a favorer, who would ask thereon: If the city of London be the head of all cities, why not the Mayor of London the head of all Mayors? But I know no Mayor so simple in England, that upon this sophism would yield himself a subject to the Lord Mayor of London.

Yet yourselves grant, y ^• Zosimus, Boniface, & Caelestinus, did claim the right of appeals to be made to thē in the causes of Bishops through the whole world. Who being Popes before Gregory, almost two hundred years: it followeth that they of the second sort did avouch as much for the Popes supremacy in judging Church-causes, as their successors of the last do, which you denied.

And I deny it still: neither doth that prove it. For the last sort claimeth all the greater causes of the church. Wherein they comprehend not only the causes of Bishops and the Clergy, but of all estates, as many as do fall within the reserved cases, as they call them. And because these cases by the ancient Councils should be all determined within their own • Provinces, not referred to Rome: therefore no Council may prescribe a law (they say) to bind them. But the other, whom you named of the second sort, did neither take upon them such power over Councils, nor claim appeals in causes of any, but of Bishops, or Clergy at the most. As for y ^e cases which Popes reserve now from ordinary Judges to their own Exchequer: the seconde sort of Popes was so far from doing it, that they were in their graves many hundred years before the sent thereof was felt. Wherefore you ouerreach • d yourself, M. Hart, when you said that the Bishop of Rome hath always used the practice of the supremacy. For it is apparent by this which I have shown, that not one of them for the space of six hundred years after Christ did ever either use it, or claim it as his right.

Yes: they heard the causes of Clergy-men appealing to them, and held that they might do so. Wherefore they claimed the supremacy, and used it too.

Which reason is as good, as if a Kentish Gentleman should say that all the County of Kent is his own, because he hath a Lordship in the Weald of Kent.

What? do you account it so small a matter, that Clergy-men, yea Bishops should appeal to them out of all provinces through the whole world?

A goodly Lordship and large. But nothing so large as the Weald of Kent, much less as all Kent. There are many Lordships mo within the County, which the ancient Popes neither had, nor claimed. One Lordship of being subject to no man, no not to the Emperor. An other, of having power over Princes to excommunicate and depose them. An other, of binding Bishops, Metropolitans, and Patriarchs with an oth to be their faithful subjects. An other, of giving Church-livings and offices unto whom they list. An other, of breaking the bands of all Councils with dispensations and decrees. An other, of reserving cases to their See. Whereof (to pass the rest, which you may find recorded in their Rolls, and Chancery ) since they neither challenged nor possessed any: they bore not themselves as Lord's of the whole County; I mean, they neither claimed nor used the supremacy.

But will you grant that so much then of the suprepremacie as they claimed or used, belongeth to their See, and is theirs of right.

No. For the exception which I made against them was of two branches: one, that they avouch not the supremacy of the Pope; the other, that they avouch more, through affection, then is true and right. And this is very manifest not only by the dealings of them whom I named: but also by the writings of them whom you alleged.

Of the third sort of Popes if you mean: they may be refused perhaps with greater show of reason. But they, whom I alleged, of the second sort, were holy men, and Saints.

The Apostles of Christ (I hope) were Saints too. Yet hath the spirit of God set down for our instruction that they did not only desire superiority, but also strive about it. Innocentius, Leo, Gelasius, Vigilius, Pelagius, and Gregory, the men whō you alleged, were not greater then the Apostles. And the praise which they give to their See of Rome, doth so exceed the truth: that it beareth evident marks of their affection. You might have perceived it in that which you cited out of Innocentius concerning the Fathers and the sentence of God: by which (he saith) they decreed, that, whatsoever was done in provinces far off, it should not be concluded before it came to the notice of the See of Rome. For what were the Fathers who decreed that? where is the sentence of God, by which they did it? Though this is the least of many friendly speeches, which not Innocentius only, but the rest too (as I have shown in Leo, ) do lend their Church & Peter. Yea, some flat repugnant to the holy scripture: and that, confessed by yourselves. For they say that all Churches took their beginning from the Roman. The holy scripture maketh Jerusalem the spring of them. They say that all Bishops had their honor and name from Peter. The holy scripture teacheth, that many had it from other Apostles, not from him. They say that the Church of Rome hath neither spot, norwrinckle, nor any such thing. The holy scripture showeth y ^t the Church is san • ctified, & framed to be hereafter not having spot, or wrinkle or any such thing, whē Christ shall make it glorious & triumphant in heaven: not, but that it hath such, while it is militant on the earth. Which is so apparent, that not the Fathers only, but Thomas of Aquine also, and D Stapleton confess it. Wherefore howsoever holy men they were of the second sort of Popes which you alleged: it cannot be denied but they had affections, and yielded thereunto as men. Howbeit the third sort (I grant) are best worthy to be excepted against for this fault. For it is a small thing with them to use speeches repugnant to the Scripture: but they must abuse, yea, coin scripture too, for maintenance of their Papal port. They can teach the Church that the Pope may offer to confirm Archbishops upon this condition, if they will be sworn to him: because whē Christ committed his sheep unto Peter, he did condition with him, saying, if thou love me, feed my sheep. They can teach the Church that the Pope hath power over all powers, & Princes of the earth, & none hath power over him, because the spiritual man judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no mā. They can teach the Church that Christ ordained Peter and Peters successors to be his vicars, who, (by the testimony of the book of kings) must needs be so obeyed, that he who obeieth them not, must die the death: and, as it is read otherwhere, He that forsaketh the Bishop of Rome's chair cannot be in the Church.

That which is cited out of the book of kings, is in the book of Deuteronomy. The text is true scripture, though the place mistaken. And, though it belong not to the Pope immediately.

Nay, never go about to salve it, M. Hart. That of Deuteronomy we have already handled. Pope Leo y ^e tenth and his Council of Lateran had a strong affection to make the Popes Kings, when they alleged the book of kings for Deuteronomy, & Deuteronomy for the Papacie. But whatsoever you think of the third, or seconde, or any sort of Popes: it is against all law both of God, and man, that they should be witnesses in their own matter. And therefore if your proof of their supremacy be no better: the jury will cast you, out of all controversy. For if I should bear witness of myself (saith Christ) my witness were not true. None are fit witnesses in their own causes : no not though they were as worthy mē as Scipio was amongst y ^e Romans. It were a bad plea in Westminster Hall: John a Noke must have this land; for John a Noke saith so. The Canonistes themselves, when Popes allege Popes for proof of certain pointes touching their supremacy, do note, that it is a familiar kind of proof : meaning such belike, as that in the common proverb, Ask my fellow if I be a thief. Which they might note the better, because it is evident that the Popes have stretched out their own frindges in laying claim to large power, as great Divines among you, have written in these very terms.

The power, which they claimed, hath seemed over large to envious and malicious men. But it was no more then their right and due. Which because you think not sufficiently proved by the Popes themselves: I will prove it farther by the words and testimonies of other ancient Fathers.

Of whom?

Of the chiefest of them, both Greek and Latin. For it was the prerogative of the Popes office that made S. Bernard seek to Innocentius the third, Epist. 190. S. Austin and the Bishops of Afric to Innocentius the first, and to Caelestinus, Epist. 90.92.95. S. Chrysostom to the said Innocentius, Epist. 1. & 2. S. Basil, to the Pope in his time, Epist. 52. S. Jerome, to Damasus, Epist. 57.58. tom. 2. and other likewise to others: that by them they might be confirmed in faith and ecclesiastical regiment.

If you bring such witnesses to prove the Popes supremacy: I must request the jury to have an eye to the issue. For some of these Fathers desired to be helped by their advise, and counsel; some by their authority, and credit; some by both. By their advise, and counsel▪ as Jerome, of Damasus. By their authority & credit: as Chrysostom, of Innocentius. By both: as Basel, Austin, and the Bishops of Afric, of the Popes in their time. Bernard somewhat more. But he lived yesterday, in comparison of the rest: and therefore not to be numbered amongst the ancient Fathers. Though neither he by this point proveth the Papacy. And what his judgment was thereof I have declared. Now for them, first, who asked the advise and counsel of the Pope: I will tell you a story, which (I pray) consider of. Theodosius the Emperor desirous to procure the peace of y ^e Church, consulted with Nectarius the Patriarke of Constantinople, what way might best be taken for ending controversies of religion. The Patriarke imparted the matter to Agelius a Nouatian Bishop. The Bishop to Sisinius, a reader in his church. The reader gave advise and counsel to the Patriarke. Which the Patriarke liked of, and shown it to the Emperor: the Emperor embraced it, and dealt according thereunto.

You would infer hereof that the ancient Fathers might ask the Popes counsel, and yet not acknowledge him to be their supreme head.

True: as the Emperor might of the Patriarke; the Patriarke, of the Bishop; the Bishop of the reader.

The case is not like. For it was the personal wisdom, virtue, learning, or faith of these men, which made them to be sought to. But that, which made the Fathers seek to the Popes, was the prerogative of their office:

Wherein they could not err, as you heard say at Reims. But you who distinguish the office of the Popes from their personal faith and gifts in this sort, must be put in mind that by the same reason Sergius the Patriarke of Constantinople sought to Pope Honorius, in respect not of his personal wisdom, virtue, learning or faith, but of his office too. And so shall yourself be forced to confess, that either the Pope may err in consultations, which he dealeth with by reason of his office, as Pope Honorius did: or, the Fathers seeking to the Popes for counsel, did seek in respect of their personal gifts, that they were learned and godly Pastors; as many sought to Austin then, to Calvin lately, though neither of them were Pope.

Nay: it is certain that S. Jerome sought to Damasus for his office sake. For he speaketh namely of the chair of Peter : that is, the See Apostolic committed to Damasus.

But withal he speaketh of the inheritance of the Fathers, that is, the Christian faith, which Damasus kept uncorrupted. And therefore he sought to him as a godly learned, not as a Pastor only: not for his office sake alone, but for his person, succeeding as in place, so in doctrine to Peter. Though in whatsoever respect and consideration Jerome sought to Damasus : his seeking to be resolved in a point of faith, doth not import sovereignty of power, as I have shown. Much les doth the counsel that Basel asked, import it, about asswaging of their troubles. Least of all, that Austin, and the Bishop of Afric: who, under show of asking counsel of Innocentius, in truth gave him counsel, for fear least the Pelagians should have seduced him to their error. Wherefore the ancient Fathers, who sought advise of Popes, prove not the Popes supremacy. No more do they in deed who sought to further others, or relieve themselves, by the Popes authority. For authority & power differ: that such, as are their brethren's superiors in the one, may be their inferiors or equals in the other. As we agreed, if you remember.

It may be so, I grant. But they, whom I named, sought to Innocentius the first and other Popes, as to supreme heads of all the Church in power, not as to their superiors in authority only.

Their own words and deeds argue the contrary. For Chrysostom 14. being called into judgment by his enemies, namely, by the Bishop of Alexandria & others assembled in a Council, did appeal from them to a general Council, and (as himself speaketh thereof) to just judgment. Whereby he declareth that the lawful power of judging his cause belonged to the Council, and not to the Pope.

But when he was deprived and cast out of his Bishoprike, notwithstanding his appealing to the general Council, he requested the Pope to write that those things being wrongfully done were of no force, as in deed they were not, and that they who did him such wrong, might be punished.

But in this request he dealt with the Pope as with a member only of the general Council, to which he had appealed: a member, in power ; a principal member, in authority. For in praying him above the rest to write: he shown that he thought him to be of greater credit then other of his brethren. But, in appealing to them all jointly, not to him alone: he shown that the right of judging the matter belonged, not to him, but to them in common. Which is plainer yet by that he saith farther of Bishops in several, that they are forbidden by laws of the Fathers to take on thē the judging of such as are without the limites of their diocese. Wherefore the preeminence which Chrysostom gave the Pope, was of authority, not of power. The same I say of Basil, or rather himself saith it, desiring, that the Pope would use his own authority in sending men to succor them.

You do us great injury, by this new distinction of authority and power. For Basil meant power, when he named authority.

You will not say so, if you weigh the ground and circumstances of his speech. For the Eastern Churches being pestered with the Arian heresy by means of the Emperor Valens, an Arian, who persecuted the Catholics: the Churches of the West (under Valentinian, a Catholic Emperor) did flourish with sincerity of faith and faithful Bishops. Whereupon S. Basil conferring with Athanasius (both Bishops of the East) about their Churches state, saith, that the consent of the Western Bishops is the only way & means to help it, in his judgment. For if they would show that zeal for our Churches, which they did for one or two being taken among them selves in error: it is likely (saith he) that they should do us good, by reasō that the rulers would regard and reverence the credit of their multitude: & the people everywhere would follow them without gainsaying. Now this, whereto he wished a multitude of Bishops first, is the same that afterward he sought to the Pope for. Whom he prayed to deal himself in the matter, & use his own authority in choosing and sending fit men to that purpose, because the Western Bishops could not do it easily by a common conference and decree of Council. So that he desired a Councils aide chiefly, because their consent & multitude had greater credit : as in his epistle to the Western Bishops themselves he saith again. It was not power therefore, but credit, and reputation that S. Basil meant in suing to be succoured by the authority of the Pope. Which you must needs grant, unless you will say that he thought the Council to be above the Pope in power, against your Trent -doctrine of the Popes supreme power over the whole Church. As for S. Austin and the Bishops of Afric: it is too manifest that they kept this new distinction, as you term it. For of the two Popes whom you say they sought to: they desired the one to assist them with his authority ; the other, not to challenge power in their Church causes. A great fault of yours: to say, that S. Austin and the Bishops of Afric sought to Caelestinus for the prerogative of his office, when they dealt against his usurped prerogative. Greater, if you did it wittingly and willingly. Wherof your Annotations do give strong suspicion, in that having quoted all the other places, they l •• ue this vnquoted, least the reader should find the fraud.

I was not at the finishing of our Annotations. They who set them down, knew their own meaning: and will (I warrant you) maintain it. But what a souerainty y ^e Fathers yielded to the Pope it may appear by this, (as D. Stapleton showeth,) that they thought no Council to be of any force unless he confirmed it. For the Fathers assembled in the Council of Nice, (the first general Council) sent their epistle to Pope Sylvester, beseeching him to ratify and confyrme with his consent whatsoever they had ordained.

The Council of Nice had no such fancy of the Pope. Their epistle is forged: and he, who forged it, was not his crafts-master. For one of the Fathers pretended to have written it is Macarius Bishop of Constantinople. Whereas Constantinople had not that name yet in certain years after the date of this epistle, but was called Bizantium : neither was Macarius Bishop of Bizantium at that time, but Alexander. Moreover, they are made to request the Pope that he will assemble the Bishops of his whole city. Which is a droonken, speech, since the Bishops of his whole city were but one; & that one was himself. Unless they used y ^e word [city] as the Pope (answering them in like sort) that he conferred with the Bishops of the whole city of Italy. And so it is more sober, but no more seemly for the Council of Nice. Finally, neither Eusebius, (who was at the Council) nor Rufinus, nor Socrates, nor Theodoret, nor Sozomen, nor other ancient writers do mention any such thing. Only Peter Crabbe (the setter forth of it) had it out of a library of Friers at Coolein. But whence had the Friars it?

The Fathers of the Council of Constantinople (the second general Council) wrote to Pope Damasus for his consent to their decrees. And that is witnessed by Theodoret.

It is, and so witnessed, that it overthroweth the Popes sovereignty, which D. Stapleton would prove by it. For they wrote jointly to Damasus, Ambrose, Britto, Valerian, Ascholius, Anemie, Basel, and the rest of the Western Bishops assembled in a Council at Rome. Nor only to them, but to the Emperor Theodosius. Yea, to Theodosius in several, and more forcibly. For they requested him to confirm and ratify their decrees and ordinances. Wherefore if the Pope have such a supremacy, whose consent and liking thereof they desired▪ what supremacy hath the Emperor, whom they besought to ratify them, and to confirm them?

Nay: your own distinction of power and authority, doth serve well and fitly to this of the Emperor. For their decrees and ordinances of doctrine, were true; and of discipline, good; though he had not confirmed them. But more would accept of them as good and true, through his word & countenance. As we see that many do frame themselves to Princes judgments. Wherefore it was the Emperors authority and credit, for which they desired his confirmation of their decrees: not for any sovereignty of power that he had in matters of religion.

Not for any sovereignty of power that he had to make matters true, of false; or good, of evil: but to make his subjects use them as good, and true, being so in deed. Which perhaps the Fathers of the Council meant too. But your own answer may teach you to mend your imagination of that they wrote to Pope Damasus. For the doctrine of Christ, which they decreed, was true; & the discipline, good; though he had not consented to it. But more would accept of it as good, & true, through his agreement and allowance. As we see that many do follow the minds of Bishops. Wherefore it was the Popes authority and credit, for which they desired his consent to their decrees: not for any sovereignty of power that he had in matters of religion. Which is plain by their craving not of him alone, but of other Bishops to like thereof also, that the Christian faith being agreed upon, and love confirmed amongst them, they might keep the Church from schisms and dissensions.

All Bishops might allow the decrees of Councils by consenting to them. But the Pope confirmed them in special sort. For S. Cyril saith of the third general Council of Ephesus, that Pope Caelestinus wrote agreeably to the Council, and confirmed all things that were done therein.

S. Cyril saith not that of Caelestinus, but of Sixtus. Howbeit, if he had: yet this would prove authority still, and not power. As Prosper noteth well that the Nestorian heresy was specially withstood by the industry of Cyril, and the authority of Caelestinus. But these very words of Cyril, touching Sixtus, do overthrow your fancy conceived on the Popes confirming of Councils. For, the Council of Ephesus was of force and strength in Caelestinus time by your own confession. Notwithstanding Sixtus, who succeeded him, did confirm it afterward. In deed y ^e truth dependeth neither of Coūcel, nor of Pope: though, whē Popes & Councils were good & godly minded, they were chosen vessels and instruments of God to set forth the truth. For as Joshua said to all the tribes of Israel, even to the Priests also assembled in a Council, If it seem evil to you to serve the Lord, choose you whom you will serve, whether the God's which your Fathers served, or the God's of the Amorites; but I and my house will serve the Lord ▪ so the right faith and religion of Christ is firm of it self, and ought to be embraced of every Christian with his household, whether it please the tribes, that is, the Church, or no. But the Church is named the pillar and ground of truth in respect of men, because it beareth up the truth, and confirmeth it, through preaching of the word, by the ministry of Priests in the old testament, and Bishops in the new, whom therefore Basil termeth the pillars and ground of truth. Now, the more there be of these who maintain it, and the greater credit they have amongst men: the stronger and surer the truth doth seem to be, and many yield the sooner to it. For which cause the doctrine of Barnabas and Paul, though assuredly true, yet was confirmed by James, Peter, and John, who were counted to be pillars ; yea, by the Council of the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem : and being so confirmed was received more redily and gladly both at Antioch, and in other cities ; in so much that the Churches were stablished in the faith, and increased in number daily. The men of God therefore, who in ancient time were assembled together to uphold the truth, desired the consent, some time of all Bishops, as in the Council of Serdica ; sometime of the Pope, as in the Council of Carthage: not for that they thought that else their decrees should be of no force, but because they knew that the consent of such would add the greater credit to them. And, that general Councils, if they had desired the Pope to confirm them, which all of them did not, but if they had done so, yet must have done it in this consideration: you may see by a pillar and ground of your Council of Trent, even Andradius. Who not only voucheth that most learned mē do most wisely think it, as Alfonsus namely: but allegeth also Cardinal Turrecremata, the chiefest patron of the Pope, for proof of the same, or rather of a farther point. For if there should happen such a case (saith the Cardinal) that all the Fathers assembled in a general Council should make a decree touching any matter of faith with one accord, and the Pope alone gainesaied that decree: men ought (in my judgment) to obey the Council therein, and not the Pope. And why? Because the judgment of so many Fathers of a general Council seemeth to be justly and worthily preferred before the judgment of one man in a matter of faith. Wherevpon he addeth that the Council then is above the Pope, not in power of jurisdiction, but in authority of judgment to discern things, and in ampleness of knowledge. Thus it is apparent by your own Doctors, that, to confirm Councils importeth an authority the Pope had, not power : and that he was not sovereign in authority neither, no not as much as equal, but inferior to them. So far is it off from proving his supremacy.

Though Councils be above the Pope in authority, after the opinion of Cardinal Turrecremata : yet you see he setteth the Pope above them in power of jurisdiction, wherein his supremacy doth principally stand. And that did the Fathers acknowledge by their deeds too. For Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria, Paul of Constantinople, Asclepas of Gaza, Marcellus of Ancyra, Lucian of Adrianople, and very many other Bishops of the East, being driven out of their Churches by the Arians, did appeal to the Pope, as ecclesiastical stories show.

The stories show it not: but he, who saith they show it, showeth that he dealeth with them in this point, as in the former with S. Cyril. Hath he abused you so often, and will you never cease to credit him?

The stories show that they came to Rome to Pope Julius, and he for the prerogative and dignity of his See restored them to their Churches, perceiving that the Arians had deprived them wrongfully.

The dignity and prerogative of the See of Rome, in restoring them, was but of authority, and honor, not of power. For the power of hearing and judging their cause did rest in the Council assembled then at Rome. Which Julius himself, and Athanasius both do testify. Athanasius, who speaking thereof ascribeth it plainly to the Council. Julius, who being reproved by the Arians for ouerthwarting that which they had done in their Council, answereth that the doings of a former Council may lawfully be sifted and examined in another ; that themselves had offered to have the cause debated so in just judgment, and thereto had requested a Council to be called ; that Athanasius and the rest appeared at the Council, and they who should have also appeared made defaute ; that hereupon the Council finding their iniquity, relieved the parties wrongfully oppressed ; to be short, that whatsoever he dealt or wrote therein, he did it on the Councils judgment, and consent, not on his own head. Wherefore it was not the Pope, but the Council, that heard and determined the causes of Bishops, whether at first, or on appeals. Such power of jurisdiction nether did Julius claim, nor Athanasius give him.

Yes: there is another epistle of Julius, wherein he claimed such power, and that upon the canons of the Council of Nice.

I told you of epistles which seemed to be written by some of the Popes horse-keepers or cookes. This is one of them. It should be the very same, that I alleged, extant in Athanasius. But it is no liker it, then black is to white. The canons, which it coineth with the image and superscription of the Nicene Fathers, bewray the lewdness of it. The more, because Julius in the same epistle (as Athanasius hath it) citeth their authority for the Council above the Pope, who in this are cited for the Pope above the Council. Wherefore since Athanasius hath his right epistle, as it is confessed: you must be content to let the other go for a counterfeit.

Yet Socrates & Sozomē report, that Julius wrote in his epistle to the Arians, that whereas they called not him unto the Council, therein they did unlawfully: because it was provided by a law of the Church, that things which were decreede and done without the Popes consent should be void.

If Julius had written so to the Arians: Julius had written a manifest untruth. For by the Nicene Canons (which were the chiefest laws of the Church at that time) it was ordered, that Councils should be kept yearly twice in every province. To all which it were ridiculous to say that they must call the Pope: or that they might do nothing there but what he liked of. But Socrates and Sozomen did mistake Julius, as Stapleton doth now. And whereas he had said, know ye not that this is the manner and custom that ye should write to us first, that hence might be decreed the thing which is just? they thought that he had spoken of himself, belike, and had meant the Pope by the word [us,] by which he meant the Council. For he wrote that epistle in the Councils name, as Athanasius noteth: and himself showeth it by saying straight before, ye ought to have written unto all us, that so that which is just might be decreed by all.

Whatsoever you conceue of the doings and writings of Athanasius and Julius : yet can you not deny but Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople appealed to Pope Leo from the Council of Ephesus deposing him unjustly. And so did Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus too▪ For the Emperor Valentinian witnesseth the one; and Theodoret himself, the other.

Flauianus appealed from the Council of Ephesus: but to a greater and a more lawful Council, not to Pope Leo. Which appeareth by an epistle of Leo himself, complaing to the Emperor Theodosius of the fewness and oppression of the Bishops in the Council of Ephesus ; and desiring that a general Council might be kept, because Flauianus had appealed. You must add therefore the Empresse Placidia to the Emperor Valentinian: and with the ones words of appealing to Leo, take that the other saith, to Leo and to all the Bishops of these partes. So Leo, and the Bishops being joined together, will make the Council of Chalcedon : by the which Council the cause of Flauianus and his appeal was judged. The same Council also did judge Theodorets cause; & finding him guiltless restored him to his See. Wherefore since the Council was judge of the appeal : if he appealed to Leo, and not to the Council, it was an oversight. Unless perhaps he did not appeal as to a higher judge▪ that might restore him; but as to a man of learning and authority, whose credit and judgment might help to prove him not guilty. And this doth the tenor of his request pretend. Though asking wi • hall the advise of Leo, whether he shall bear that wrongful deprivation, or seek to be restored : he seemeth to have thought of a further matter. Which yet he toucheth so, in speaking of troubling men, and craving Leos prayers : that it is evident it lay not in Leo alone to restore him. Wherefore, the most that you may well imagine of an appeal made by Theodoret to Leo for remedy of the wrong done him, is, that Leo took his bill of appeal to prefer it to the Council whereof he was President. As with us in England the bills are put up to the Speaker of the Parliament, that he may inform the Parliament thereof, not as though himself had sovereign power to pass them.

Then you grant that Leo was President of the Council, as in deed he was, and head of the Bishops therein, as themselves say. Which showeth that they counted the Pope their supreme head.

You will find more heads, then the Popes shoulders will be content to bear, if you make such reasons. First, the Bishop of Corduba. For Hosius was President of the Council of Nice : nor of Nice only, but also of Serdica, and of many others. Next, the Bishop of Antioch, or whosoever he were that had the room in the Council of Constantinople. For the Pope had it not. Thirdly, the Bishop of Alexandria.

Nay, Cyril, who had it in the third general Council, was Deputy therein to Pope Caelestinus, as Euagrius writeth.

Caelestinus joined his authority to Cyrils. But Cyril was President, as well as Caelestinus, in more men's judgment then Euagrius. Howbeit, if he were not: yet Alexandria will have a head still. For Dioscorus was President in the next of Ephesus : neither he alone but also the Bishops of Jerusalem and Cesarea. Wherefore if the Presidentship of a general Council do make a supreme head : then Corauba in Spain, Alexandria in Egypt, Jerusalem in Jewry, and other cities of the East may claim the supreme headship as well as Rome in Italy. The Pope will be loath to have so many partners. But to deliver him from that fear, or rather the Church from his tyranny, and the truth from your sophism: there is a distinction in Cardinal Turrecremata which is worth the noting upon this very point. The Presidētship of Councils (he saith) is twofold: one, of honor; another, of power. Presidentship of honor, is, to have preeminēce in place, to propose things, to direct the actions, to give definitive sentence according to the voices and judgment of the Council▪ Presidentship of power is to have the right, not only of directing, but of ruling their doings also, and to conclude of matters after his own judgment, though the greater part of the Council like it not, yea, though no part like it. Now the Popes supremacy challengeth this Presidentship of power in Councils, as though he alone were soue • aine judge there: which appeareth by his practice in the Council of Vienna, and by the Cardinals doctrine with the chiefest Papists. But that, which the general Council of Chalcedon gave unto Leo in naming him their head, was the Presidentship of honor : as himself shown in his Legates and Deputies, who used all the Bishops as their fellow-judges, and concluded nothing but what they agreed of. Wherefore the Presidentship, which they gave to Leo, was no Papal sovereignty: neither did they acknowledge him in that particular, much less the Pope in general, to be their supreme head.

The Fathers did in general acknowledge the Pope, and taught us to acknowledge him, our universal Patriarke and Bishop of the Catholic Church : nay (to use yet more the words of the most ancient Fathers) our Prince, the head of all Churches, the top and the chief of the Apostolic company, or (as Epiphanius speaketh) the chiefest, the teacher of the whole world, the ruler of the house of God, another father of the household, and the first begotten; whose seat (as the most excellent Divine, S. Austin saith) hath the preeminence of a higher room in the pastoral watch-tower which is common to all Bishops. And will any man desire greater proofs of the Popes supremacy?

If any man do: he must take the pains to seek them somewhere else. Sure he is not like to find them in your Stapleton. For these are the chiefest of all in his treasury. Which therefore he culled out, and sent them for a present to Gregory the thirteenth: to show what good words they give of his Holiness for his liberality toward the English Seminaries. But he presenteth him with one title more, which you have omitted: and yet doth it advance him above all the rest.

None of the titles which the Fathers give him. Belike you mean that of the Emperor.

No: I mean that of his own, Supremum in terris Numen. In deed it hath no Fathers testimony to prove it. But as in this title he playeth the notable flatterer with the Pope: so, in the rest, the notable sophister with you. For the titles of our Prince, the top, the chief and chiefest of the Apostolic company, the teacher of the whole world, another father of the household, and the first begotten : are given by Optatus, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, and a bastard Austin, to Peter, not to the Pope. Stapleton alleging them saith that he useth the words of the Fathers. That is cunningly spoken. For it is true he useth their words, though not their meaning. As for the title of universal Patriarke : the Council of Chalcedon (which he quoteth for it) gave it not to the Pope neither.

No? did not Theodore and certain others there give it to Pope Leo.

A few poor suitors, in their supplications to him and the Council, did seek his favor with it. But neither the Council nor any one Bishop of the Council gave it him.

They gave it him, at least by their consent, & judgment. For they would have reproved it when they heard it read in the supplications, if they had not allowed of it.

Say you so? what think you then of y ^e Council of Lateran? where the Pope is told (and that, in a Sermon) that to him is given all power in heaven and in earth ; yea, which is more, that he hath all power above all powers both of heaven and of earth. Did the Council allow of these blasphemous speeches? They did not reprove them.

But the Council of Chalcedon did offer themselves the title of universal Patriarke to Pope Leo, as S. Gregory writeth: they did not only hear it given him by others.

S. Gregory affirmeth it to be a new, a proud a pompous, a profane, a rash, perverse, foolish, abominable, wicked, and superstitious title: a name of singularity, of arrogancy, of blasphemy. The Council of Chalcedon was a company of six hundred Bishops and thirty, sound in religion, and zealous of the glory of God. You must pardon me, if I discredit rather the word of one Gregory : then think that six hundred and thirty such Bishops did offer to commit so great iniquity and folie. For neither is there any proof of that offer in any part of the Council, which is wholly extant: and that which made Gregory to misreport the Bishop of Constantinople, might induce him likewise to misreport these Bishops too. Wherein his affection may be the more suspected, because he saith farther, that it was offered to his predecessors not only by the Council, but also by the Fathers following. The names (it is likely) of these Fathers following should have been forth coming, if they had been at hand, the matter being so important. Howbeit if they, and the Council both, had not only offered it, but given it also: yet might they have given it in respect of lesser preeminence then the Papacie. Which it must needs be the Council should have done: for else they had contradicted their own decrees and actions. And the Pope himself gave it to the Patriarke of Constantinople, as a title of honor (I trow) and not of power. Wherefore the first title, put upon the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, inferreth not the Popes supremacy. Much less doth the next, alleged out of Cyprian. For although Cornelius, a godly Bishop of Rome, be there named Bishop of the Catholic Church : yet is he so named, not as the word [Catholic] signi •• eth universal, but as it signif • eth right believing, holding the Catholic faith. Wherefore it maketh no more for his supremacy, then for Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria, and other Catholic Bishops, who all are named Bishops of the Catholic Church.

A particular Church may be called Catholic in respect of the Catholic faith which it professeth. And so was Athanasius Bishop of the Catholic Church of Alexandria.

And Cornelius Bishop of the Catholic church of Rome.

Nay: he was Bishop of the Catholic Church of the whole world, not of the city of Rome only. For it followeth in the same place, that there ought to be one Bishop in the Catholic Church.

That is, in the Catholic Church of the city of Rome. For Cornelius himself, in whose epistle that is written, saith other where (entreating of the same matter) that there ought to be one Bishop in the Catholic Church, wherein there are six and forty Elders and seven Deacons. Now in a Synod which then was held at Rome, there were above threescore Elders and Deacons : how many hundred more through the whole world? Wherefore since six and forty Elders and seven Deacons, were not all the Elders and Deacons of the world, but of the city of Rome: it followeth that the Catholic Church wherein he saith there ought to be one Bishop, was the Catholic Church of the city of Rome, not of the whole world. And, that this was meant in that of Cornelius, it is very plain by the occasion of his speech: as also by the canon of the Council of Nice made on that occasion. For the Church being troubled at that time with the schism and heresy of Novatus : the Novatians refusing the communion of the Catholics, ordained new Bishops for their heretical synagogues and schismatical conventicles. Whereby it came to pass that in one city there were two Bishops, a Catholic, and an heretic: as in Rome, Cornelius and Nouatianus; in Carthage, Cyprian, and Fortunatus. The Catholics therefore, communicating in faith and love with Cornelius, called him Bishop of the Catholic Church : condemning the Novatians as heretics, and schismatics, with their Bishop Nouatianus. And as they said farther, that there ought to be one Bishop in a Catholic Church, according to the ancient order as I shown: so was it decreed by the Nicene Council touching the Novatians who became Catholics, that, if a Bishop of theirs were converted the Catholic Church having a Bishop; he should not enjoy a Bishops room, but an Elders, least that there should be two Bishops in a city. Wherefore the Bishopric of the Catholic Church, in the time of Cornelius, was the charge that every Catholic Bishop had. Neither meant they more who said that there ought to be but one Bishop in a Catholic Church, then S. Chrysostom did, saying to Sisinius Bishop of the Novatians in Constantinople, A city may not have two Bishops.

But S. Cyprian writeth, that neither heresies nor schisms have sproong of any other fountain, then of this, that the Priest of God is not obeyed: and that one Priest for the time in the Church, and one judge for the time in steed of Christ is not regarded. To whom, if the whole brotherhoode would be obedient according to God's teachings: then no man would make anything ado against the company of Priests. Wherein, by one Priest, he meaneth one Bishop ; and, by one Bishop, Cornelius the Pope, to whom he writeth those words. So that he confesseth the Pope to be the Bishop of the whole Church, and teacheth men to think of him, as one judge for the time in Christ's steed.

You err still in the same point. The Church wherein Cyprian requireth obedience unto one Bishop and judge in Christ's steed, is the particular Church of every city, not the universal. For he speaketh it on occasion of injury offered to himself by the Novatians in Carthage: who there had ordained a new Bishop against him, as their fellows did in Rome, against Cornelius. And as the words before, and after, do show that he meaneth it of all Catholic Bishops, ech in his own charge: so the whole discourse & circumstances argue that he applieth it to himself, not to Cornelius. Chiefly, that, of a Bishop approved to his people in the Bishopric four years. Which can by no means agree to Cornelius, who was not three years Bishop. Or if, because Cyprian doth write it to the Pope, you have such a prejudice that it is the Popes peculiar: you may know that he writeth the same to another expressly of himself; Thēce have schisms & heresies sproong, & do spring, that the Bishop, which is one, and ruleth the church, is despised by the proud presumption of certain men. Wherefore though your Rhemists and other of the Popes friends do plie the box with that saying of one Priest & one judge for the time in Christ's steed : yet in very truth it maketh as much for the Bishop of Rochester, as for the Bishop of Rome. The more is Stapletons blame: who knowing and confessing the same not only otherwhere, but in this very work of his principles too; yet in the ende thereof abridgeth it to the Pope. Maruell, that in his preface to Gregory he past it. He might have alleged it better then he hath The head of all Churches. Which title is given in Victor to the Church of Rome, not to the Bishop: and toucheth less the Papacie there, then in S. Gregory ; in whom it doth not prove it, as I have declared. Marry, that which followeth is of greater show, out of Ambroses commentary on S. Paul to Timothy: where Damasus (the Bishop of Rome in his time) is called ruler of the Church. But, first, whatsoever he were who wrote that, it was not S. Ambrose the famous Bishop of Milan : on whom are falsely fathered the commentaries on S. Paul, as your Divines of Louan do observe and testify. Next, the words themselves which are in that author on mention of the house of God, [the ruler whereof at this day is Damasus,] are not (in my judgment) the authors own words, but a gloss crept in amongst them. For whereas S. Paul, writing unto Timothy, declared why he did so, to weete, that thou mayst know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God : the commentary thereon doth expound it thus, I write unto thee that thou mayest know how to govern the Church, which is the house of God; that whereas all the world is God's, yet the Church is called his house. [the ruler whereof at this day is Damasus,] For the world is naught, troubled with sundry errors. Therefore the house of God and truth must of nece • sitie be said to be there, where he is feared according to his will. In the which words, if that of [Damasus] were omitted, the l • ter clawse containing a reason of the former would cleave thereunto more suantly and fitly. Which maketh me to think that it was not pitched in thetext by the author, but found a • hinke and so came in; as another gloss of [Damasus successor] hath done into Optatus. And I think it the rather, because some are persuaded by manifold conference, (as your Louanists note,) that the book of questions of the old and new testament entitled to S. Austin, & this to S. Ambrose are the same authors. For he, who wrote that book, was not alive (of lykelihoode) when Damasus was Pope. Howbeit, if he were too, and of a kind • ffection to Rome, where he lived, thought good to mention him: the words which he useth in Latin, [cuius hodie rector est Damasus.] might mean that Damasus was [a ruler of the Church] not, as you english it [the ruler.] Which to have been so, it appeareth farther by the word [at this day,] spoken with a relation to the days of Timothy : that as he did govern the Church in Paul's time, so at that present was Damasus ruler of it. Wherefore since Timothy was placed at Ephesus to set that Church in order, not to rule the whole: Damasus might be called a ruler of the Church, in that he was Bishop of the Church of Rome, as S. Ambrose termeth him, though he were not the ruler of the universal. S. Austin is the last o • them whose testimonies you cited▪ And, the preeminence of a higher room, whereof he made mention to Boniface y ^e first, importeth a prerogative of honor over others, not sovereignty of power. A prerogative of honor ; according to the canon of the first Council of Constantinople : which gave that prerogative to the See of Rome, because that city reigned. Not sovereignty of power ; as it is evident by the Council of Afric : where he denied that to the same Boniface, to whom he granted this preeminence. It was therefore only the dignity of place, which S. Austin meant by the higher room. As else where, having named Cyprian, Olympius, and other ancient writers, he saith that Innocentius was after them in time, before them in place : because they were Bishops of inferior cities; and he of the Roman.

Nay: but S. Austin saith in plain terms, that the principality of the Apostolic See had floorished in that Church still.

But S. Austin addeth in as plain terms, that Bishops may reserve their cases to the judgment of their fellow-bishops, chiefly of the Apostolic Church : and that a general Council is above the Pope in judging of those causes too. Which is a clear proof that by the principality of the Apostolic See he meant the Church of Rome to be chief of other Churches (as I said) in honor, not in power. For in power, all others, at least the Apostolic, (that is, in which the faith of Christ had been taught by the Apostles themselves) are made equal with it. But amongst all, in which the Apostles themselves had taught the faith, the Roman for honor & credit had the chiefty. And thus have I discharged myself of my promise: which was, that I would yield unto the Popes supremacy, if you proved it by the sayings and judgment of the Fathers, alleged and applied rightly. For none of all thē which you have alleged, neither of any other church, nor of the Roman itself, doth avouch it. Whereby the shameless vanity of Bristow may be seen: who, being not contented to say of all the Fathers, that they were Papists ; addeth that in familiar talk among our selves we are not afeard plainly to confess it. The Lord, who is witness of our thoughts, and speeches, knoweth that we are lewdly sclaundered herein. And for mine own part, I am so far off from confessing plainly that they were all Papists : that I have plainly declared and confirmed not one of them to have been. For the very being and essence of a Papist consisteth in opinion of the Popes supremacy. But the Popes supremacy was not allowed by any of the Fathers. Not one then of all the Fathers was a Papist. Wherefore, if you have the Fathers in such reverent regard and estimatiō, as you pretend, M. Hart : let, if not the Scriptures, yet the Fathers move you to forsake Papistry ; and give to every pastor and church their own right, whereof Christ hath possessed them, and the Pope hath robbed them.

The Church doth acknowledge the doctrine of the Popes supremacy to be catholic. Wherefore you do evil to touch it with the name of Papistry. For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.

The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, in office, and duty: and the Priest is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. But as there were Priests, who did not their message in showing God's will: so there may be Churches, which shall not uphold and mainetayne the truth.

Nay, that is true still, which the Church teacheth. For S. Paul saith not that it ought to be the pillar & ground of the truth, but that it is so.

Neither doth Malachi say, that the Priest ought to be the messenger of the Lord of hosts, but that he is so. And what is the occasion whereupon S. Paul saith that? and to whom?

To Timothy: that he might know how he ought to converse in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God.

The Church then, which Timothy was conversant in, and must behave himself according to his charge in government thereof, is called (by S. Paul ) the pillar and ground of the truth.

It is: and what then?

But the Church which Timothy was conversant in, was the Church of Ephesus. The Church of Ephesus then is called the pillar and ground of the truth. Now the Church of Ephesus hath condemned the doctrine of the Popes supremacy : nor only that Church, but other of the East too. Wherefore, if that be true still which the Church teacheth, because S. Paul calleth it the pillar and ground of the truth: the doctrine of the Popes supremacy is wicked, and Papistry is heresy.

The Churches of the East have erred therein. But the West alloweth it for catholic doctrine. And all the ancient Churches both of East and West did subscribe to it, until schism and heresy had severed them one from the other.

That speech is as true as was the former of the Fathers. For, except the crew of the Italian faction, who have advanced the Pope that they might reign with him, all Christian Churches have condemned his usurped sovereignty, and do till this day.

All Christian Churches ? who did ever say so before you? or what one witness have you of it?

The Pastors and Doctors, in Synods and Councils, wherein they took order for their Church-government, ech in their several ages. For, to begin with the ancientst, and so come down to our own: it was (in Cyprians time) ordained by them all that every man's cause should be heard there, where the fault was committed.

That must be understood of the first handling of causes, not the last. For they might be heard at Rome vpō appeals, if, being heard at home first, the parties were not satisfied.

The cause of the parties mentioned in Cyprian, was heard at home already by the Bishops of Afric, who excommunicated them. Yet he reproveth them for running to Rome. Wherefore the ordinance, that he groundeth on, did provide for hearing and determining of causes both first, last, and all; against such as appealed (if you so term it) to Rome. Which he maketh plainer yet, in that he calleth those Rome -appealers home, if upon repentance they seek to be restored; and saith, that they ought to plead their cause there where they may have accusers and witnesses of their fault, and that other Bishops ought not to retract things done by them of Afric: unless a few lewd & desperate persons think the Bishops of Afric to have less authority, by whom they were judged already, and condemned.

When Cyprian denieth that the Bishops of Afric are of less authority : you must not imagine that he compareth them with the Bishop of Rome, but with the Bishops of France, Spain, Greece or Asia, and chiefly of Num • dia.

You were better say, as a Jesuit doth, that Cyprian hath no such thing: then answer so absurdly. For it is too manifest that he compareth them with such, as the parties, whom they▪ had condemned, did run to for remedy. And that was Cornelius Bishop then of Rome. It was ordained therefore by all the Bishops of Afric, Italy, and others in the primitive Church that the Pope should not be the supreme judge of ecclesiastical causes.

Why doth S. Cyprian then desire Pope Stephen to depose Martian, a Nouatian heretic, Bishop of Arle in France: and to substitute another in his room, a Catholic?

Nay, why do your men say that S. Cyprian doth so, whereas he doth not? For he desireth Stephen to write to the Bishops of France to depose him : and to the province and people of Arle, to choose a new. Both which things are disproofes of the Popes supremacy. Who neither could depose Bishops at that time; as also the Cardinal of Aliaco noteth, misliking that the Pope alone doth now depose them, which then a Synod did: neither, when a Bishop was orderly deposed, could he create another; but the people of the city and Bishops of the province chose him. Yea, a Bishop chosen by them, was lawful Bishop, though the Pope confirmed him not; yea, though he disallowed him: as it is declared by a Council of Afric against the same Pope Stephen. Wherefore Cyprian meant not that he might depose and substitute a Bishop: but ought to give his neighbors counsel to do it, for the common duty that every pastour oweth to all the sheep of Christ, to help them when they are in danger. And thus since the ordinances of the primitive Church deharred the Pope from the sovereign power of judging, deposing, & creating Bishops, nor from this only but other ecclesiastical causes, as I shown: it followeth that the primitive Church did deny the supremacy of y ^e Pope; or, to say it with the words of Cardinal Siluius, Before the Council of Nice men lived ech to himself, and there was small regard had to the Church of Rome.

Yet there was a Counc • l holden at Sinuessa ( or Suessa, as some say) before the Council of Nice. And there, whē Marcellinus the Pope was accused for offering incense unto idols: the Bishops said that he might be judged of no man. Which is a manifest token of their allowing his supremacy.

That Council is a counterfeit. As you may perceive by that it reporteth that Diocletian the Emperor did talk at Rome with Marcellinus, and brought him to idolatry. Whereas Diocletian was then at Nicomedia, about a thousand miles off. Besides that, Diocletians war against the Persians was ended certain years before the time of that Council. Yet the Council saith that Diocletian, being in that war, heard of it. There is another Council of the same stamp, holden under Pope Sylvester at Rome, about the time that Constantine was cleansed of his lepros • e : that is to say, never. Amongst the canons whereof, ( those which begin with Nemo enim, ) there is one Nemo enim to that effect, that yours of Sinuessa. But what the true Bishops of the primitive church thought of judging him, they shown by their judgment of his fellow at Antioch, Paulus Samosatenus : whom the Bishops and Elders of his own province did excommunicate and depose; against your Councils lie, that No man ever judged his bishop. Wherefore to return to the primitive Churches ordinances and rules from these devises Papal of Councils never holden: the first general Council assembled at Nice did keep the Pope under in his former state. For they ordained that Bishops should be made by Bishops of their own province, requiring no consent of his thereunto: neither did they give the hearing and determining of causes unto him, but unto the Bishops of the province too; commanding the ancient canon to be kept, that none should receive them to the communion who were excommunicated and condemned by others.

True: if they were justly condemned and excommunicate. But if their own Bishop had dealt unjustly with them upon some displeasure, and removed them from the communion wrongfully; which you cannot deny but that he might do: then reason requireth that they should have remedy. Now the remedy thereof is by appeal to the Pope.

This remedy was devised by new Physicians, that lacked work: it increaseth diseases. The Nicene Physicians foreseeing the danger, provided another and better remedy for them.

Better? what is that?

The cause to be heard in a Synod of Bishops, so to be decided by their common judgment. For let it be examined (say they) whether the Bishop have excommunicated them upon a way wardnesse, or grudge, or too much rigor. Whereof that there may be due examination, we have thought good that in every province two synods should be kept yearly: to the intent, that in common (all Bishops of the province being gathered together) such things may be examined. And so, whosoever shall be found in fault, and to have been dealt with justly by the Bishop: lett them be holden of all for excommunicate; till it shall seem good to the Synod of Bishops to give more gentle sentence of them.

I grant, the Council of Nice doth bring matters first from the Bishop to the Synod. But if the Synod also do give unjust sentence: then is the Pope left for the last refuge.

The Council meant not so: but that the last refuge should be the Synod still. For they do not say, till it shall seem good to the Bishop of Rome, but, to the Synod of Bishops, to give more gentle sentence of them. Yea, even the particular honor and preeminence of his, which they mention, is a plain token that they dreamed not of such a general power. For it followeth straight in the next canon, Let old customs be kept, they that are in Egypt, and Libya, and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alexandria have the preeminence of all these: because such is the custom of the Bishop of Rome too. Likewise also in Antioch, and in other provinces, let the Churches enjoy their dignities and perogatives. Which words of the Council grounding on the custom of the Bishop of Rome, that as he had preeminence of all the Bishops about him, so Alexandria and Antioch should have of all about thē, and likewise other churches, (as the Metropolitan,) ech in their own provinces : do show, that the Pope neither had preeminence of all through the world before the Nicene Council, nor ought to have greater preeminence (by their judgment) then he before time had.

Nay, the Council did not limit the preeminence and power of the Church of Rome by those words: but they followed rather it as a pattern, in advancing others. For the Nicene Council, (saith Nicolas the first) durst not make any decree of that Church: as knowing that nothing could be given her above her desert; yea, that she had all things by the grant of Christ. And if the Councils canons be diligently marked, you shall find doubtless, that they gave no increase to the church of Rome: but rather took example of the form thereof for that which they would give to the church of Alexandria.

Pope Nicolas, endeavoring to prove his supremacy by records of Councils, some impudently forged, as the Council of Sinuessa ; some lewdly misexpounded, as the Council of Chalcedon : not knowing what to say well of the Council of Nice, doth shape this answer to it, for lack of a better. But as a drunken man that hath a giddy head, entēding to go one way sometimes, doth reel another: so fareth it with him. For, in saying that they took example of the form of the Church of Rome for that which they would give to the Church of Alexandria : he granteth that as the Bishop of Alexandria had but the preeminence of all thereabout, no more had the Bishop of Rome. And seeing that example is allowed therein, and made a pattern of the rest: it followeth that the Council thereby did decree that the Bishop of Rome should keep within those limits. Which to be the purport of that Nicene canon: not only singular authors, Rufinus, and Cusanus, but a general Council also hath declared. In deed the very sticking of your own men in it, like birds in the lyme, may show that in the sight of sense and common reason it maketh directly against the Popes supremacy. For Gratian having set it down, as he found it, Let the old custom hold in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, that the bishop of Alexandria have rule of all these; because the Bishop of Rome too hath the like custom : the gloss on him expoundeth it, like, that is, like in some things, because they both depose Bishops; or say, the Bishop of Rome, that is, of Cōstātinople. Of which expositions, the former being dangerous, that any may depose Bishops, beside the Pope: a gloss upon that gloss alloweth the later of Constantinople, & saith it is the better in the judgment of Hue. But Hue was deceived. For though Constantinople were called new Rome within a few years after: yet nether was it called Rome, nor Constantinople, at the time that y ^e canon, whereof we speak, was made. Carranza therefore helpeth it w ^t an old edition, shown him by a Cardinal : which in steed of these words, the Bishop of Rome, had, the Metropolitā. And this would serve fitly to take away the scruple (as he saith it doth) of them who have thought that the Bishop of Rome is made equal with other Metropolitans by that canon. But because it goeth against the consent of most ancient copies of the Popes own and others, Andradius reproveth it: and, keeping the name of the Bishop of Rome, saith, that by his custom, his judgment is meant. A hard interpretation, and flat against the text: which, authorising and approving the custom of the Bishop of Alexandria, because the Bishop of Rome hath that custom too, doth ground them both upon old customs, not one upon the others judgment. Wherefore the Jesuits (the perfiters of Popery) have concluded now, that the beginning of the canon wanteth : what? this, The Church of Rome hath still had the primacy.

And good reason why. For it is cited so in the Council of Chalcedon.

So they say: but falsely. And that with a pretty shift of legi • rdemaine. For whereas Paschasinus (the Popes Legate there) bringing forth that canon to the Popes behoove, had set this title over it, [ That the Church of Rome hath still had the primacy: ] the Jesuits suppressing quite the word [That] do allege the rest as a part of the canon.

Perhaps they thought the word [That] to be superfluous.

They might have thought the whole title to be so, if they had marked that which followeth in the Council. For the same canon being recited straight out of another copy by Constantine the Secretary, hath no word thereof. But to leave the dealing of the Popes legate with the beginning of the canon : the Jesuits cannot scape out of the midst of it, no more then their complices. For the Roman reader is entangled in it as fast as Pope Nicolas, whose form he relieth on. The abridgement of controversies doth lie by his side too, with brauer show, but lesser strength.

Whether that title were added to the canon by the Popes Legate, or were a part thereof, it maketh no matter. The primacy named in it was given to the Pope by the Council of Nice. For though in the common volumes of Councils there be but twenty canons of theirs extant now: yet they made fourscore. By many of the which the Pope is autorised to judge all greater causes, as Julius declareth. Yea, the fourscore canons whole were found of late at Alexandria in the Arabian tongue: and turned into Latin out of the Arabian by a learned Jesuit. Therein are Patriarchs said to rule all their subjects, as the Pope is head of all Patriarchs, like Peter: to whom all power is given over all Christian Princes, and over all their people's, as being Christ's vicar over all nations of the earth.

That of Pope Julius I have already shown to be a bastard ympe. The canons cited in it, are • att after kind. Contius, your lawyer, saith that their bastardy is proved even by this, that no man, no not Gratian himself durst allege them. No dout, if the Pope had laid them up so, as the counterfeit Julius sweareth that he did: Pope Zosimus, and the rest, who made such add with the Bishops of Afric about the Nicene Council, would have found and shown them. But the Arabian canons which the Jesuit brought from Alexādria, may suffice to give or take a deaths wound of them. For those which Julius citeth, are not in the Arabian. That which the Arabian hath, is not in Julius.

Though Julius cite not that of the Popes supremacy, which the Arabian hath: yet might it be true. And certes the credit of the Arabian copy must needs be very great. Chi • fly since it agreeth in the perfect number of the Nicene canons. For they were fourscore: as Athanasius writeth. Who sent to Pope Marcus for the full copies of them, when the Arians had burnt them at Alexandria.

And Pope Marcus sent thē him. Whereby is disclosed the forgery of both their writings. For the books which the Arians burnt at Alexandria, were burnt in the time of Constantius the Emperor: as appeareth by the complaint of the right Athanasius, being driven out thence. Now Marcus the Pope was dead about an eyght or nine years before, in the time of Constantine: as Jerome recordeth.

But other Fathers speak of sundry things decreed by the Nicene Council, (as you may see in Cope, ) whereof there is no mention in the twenty canons that are extant now.

Neither in the fourscore canons of the Arabian. Wherefore if the sundry things, which they speak of, do prove all sundry canons: the Arabian canon, which Harpsfields Cope allegeth for the Popes supremacy, may chance to prove a counterfeit. Nay, it must prove so, because it is a canon: if you believe the Fathers. For they had only twenty: even the same that we have. S Austin and above two hundred Bishops of Afric acknowledged no mo. Caecilian, the Bishop of Carthage brought no mo from the Council it self, whereat he was present. S. Cyril the Bishop of Alexandria, & Atticus the Bishop of Constantinople, affirm there were no mo. Rufinus, who hath registered them in his story, delivereth no mo. Finally, S. Isidore, a curious sercher of them, saith, they were just so many. As for other Fathers, if they show anything to have been decreed by the Nicene Council, which is not in these canons, as they do certain: the canons & decrees of the council of Trent may teach you that some things might be decreed besides, and yet the canons be but twenty.

What say you then to that which Zosimus alleged in the Council of Carthage, touching appeals of Bishops to the Bishop of Rome ? For that is called a canon of the Nicene Council, and not a decree.

I say, that it was neither decree nor canon of it: as the Bishops of Afric answered, and proved. Yea the Roman reader, the chief of your Jesuits, is of the same opinion: adding that he thinketh that Zosimus did call it a canon of the Nicene Council, because it is a canon of the Council of Serdica, and those two Councils were esteemed as one, and bound up together in the Popes library. Wherefore since the Council of Nice made no canons but the common twenty, and they speak against the supremacy of the Pope, even by the Arabians own interpretation: whatsoever either Arabian or Roman hath coined to the contrary, that must needs be counterfeit; and the Pope is guilty of theft and oppression by verdit of that famous Council. Whereto the Council of Antioch doth join their verdit too. For they say, as the Nicene, not only concerning the making of Bishops, but also the determining of causes of the Church. In so much, that if a Bishop being accused, the Bishops of the province agree not about him, some judging with him, some against : yet refer they not the matter to the Pope, but will the Metropolitan to call some other Bishops out of the next province, that they may judge together, and decide the controversy. But if all the Bishops of the province agree and give one sentence of him: then may he be judged no more by any other, (no not by the Pope,) but that must stand which they have said.

Yet the Council of Serdica cannot be denied to have made with us. For there it was ordained, that, if a Bishop, deprived by the Bishops of his own province, appealed to the Pope: the Pope, if he thought good, might write to the Bishops who were near that province, that they should examine the matter diligently, and give right judgment of it; or send him self also some from his own side, to judge together with them.

When this was alleged by the Popes legate, in his behalf, at Carthage: the Bishops of Afric said (after long search) that they found it not ordained by any Council. Which moved a Doctor of your own to write, that it may be douted whether the Council of Serdica ordained it or no. And since at that Council there were not many less than forty Bishops of Afric, who brought home the canons thereof, as it is likely: his dout hath reason for it Unless peradventure, because in the fountain and spring of that canon Julius is named, in whom the Council had a special affiance for his dealing against the Arians : therefore the Bishops of Afric thought it to have been givē personally to Julius, not to Popes in general; and so to have died with him, not lived with them. But if it were ordained indeed by the Council, in respect of him, as Pope, not as Julius : yet they, who avouch it to prove the Popes supremacy, do make as good a reason, as if a man should claim the whole city of London, because he hath the lease of a house in Hogsdon. For the Council of Serdica tieth him in all pointes, (save only in this,) to his own province, as well as other Bishops ; and in this, it showeth that he had it not of right before time, but now by that grant; neither doth it grant him to judge of the causes, but to commend the judgment thereof to the Synod, or (at the most) to be a fellow-judge with thē; and they, in whose causes it granteth him so much, are Bishops, none else. Howbeit, even this too, that he should send some from his own side to judge of their causes together with the Synod, was repealed afterward, and the whole committed to Synods of the province, or diocese, if the province served not. Belike, upon experience of some harm ensuing: as a husband man (in Sicily ) having rid stones out of his ground, was troubled so with mire, that he lost his corn till he had laid them in again. For the general Council of Constantinople did forbid the Bishops of a diocese (such as Egypt, containing many provinces) to meddle with the Churches without their own limits: and command that things in every province should be ordered by the Synod of the province, according to the canons of the Nicene Council.

But they gave the primacy of honor to the Bishop of Constantinople after the Bishop of Rome. Which showeth that the Bishop of Rome in their judgment was over all in primacy.

In primacy of honor, M. Hart, not of power: as I have often said. For in power they made him equal with his brethren, enclosing them all within their own limits ▪ and appointing the causes of Bishops to be judged eche by his own Synod, first, of the province ; then, of the diocese ; without mention of the Pope. Yet in honor, they set him highest; Constantinople, next: as the very words of the Council sh • w. It is true, that this height and preeminence of honor was a cause that moved him to lust for greater power too, and means that lift him up unto it. For as murderers in Italy are wont to fly to sanctuaries to escape punishment, and Romulus received runagates at Rome to advance his state: so disorderly persons not able to maintain their faults against justice in their own province, did run to the Pope ; and ambitious heads, whether of Popes themselves, or of some about thē, aspired to greater rule under pretense of privileges of the Church of Rome. But as general Councils had provided general salves against such evils: so the Councils of provinces and dioceses applied them to this particular sore for safety of their Churches. For it was decreed by the Council of Mileuis, that, if any Elder, or Deacon, or clergy-man of inferior state appealed to the Pope: no man in Afric should communicate with him. The Council of Carthage showeth that they had often decreed the same of Bishops. And when yet they could not avoid the shameless shifts of tumultuous brains, who made Rome their refuge; and Zosimus in the quarrel of Apiarius an Elder would have his Bishop Urban to be excommunicated, or appear at Rome : the Bishops of all the provinces of Afric did debate the matter with him and his successors, Boniface, and Caelestine, for the space of four or five years together. In fine, when the true and authentical copies of the Nicene Council, whereon the Pope grounded, were gotten out of the East; and thereby the falsehood of his plea appeared: the Council of Afric told him, that he should not meddle with the causes of men in their provinces; nor receive any such to the communion as they had excommunicate. For the Council of Nice (said they) did consider wisely and uprightly that all matters ought to be determined in the places in which they began: as being persuaded that the grace of the holy ghost would not be wanting to any province, whereby the Christian Bishops might both wisely see, and constantly maintain the right. Chiefly, since it is lawful for any, if he like not the sentence of his judges, to appeal to the Synods of his own province: yea, or farther also to a general Synod. Unless there be any perhaps who will imagine, that our God can inspire the trial of right into one man, and deny it to a great number of Bishops assembled in a Synod. And so going forward with proof that the Pope ought not to judge their causes, either at Rome, himself; or by his Legates sent from Rome: they touched his attempt in modest sort, but at the quick, condemning it of pride, & smokie stateliness of the world.

I marvel if the Council of Afric wrote thus, as you report of it. For Torrensis citeth an epistle of theirs to prove the Popes supremacy.

Torrensis citeth it with as much sincerity, as another Jesuit doth the four general Councils : both foully abusing the show of some words against the drift and meaning of their whole sentences. For the Council of Afric, though bearing a while with the Popes claim till the Nicene canons (whereby he claimed) were searched, yet at length condemned it, as I have shown: and of the four general Councils, as the former two did enclose the Pope within his own province, or diocese at the most; so did the two later, of Eph • sus and Chalcedon, confirming the decrees and canons of the former.

Nay, doubtless at Chalcedon, the Judges, having heard the former canons read, said that they perceived all primacy & principal honor to be due to the Pope thereby.

But they added that the Patriarke of Constantinople ought to be vouchsafed of the same perogatives and primacy of honor. As the C • uncell also it self allotted equal perogatives to them both: ordaining thereupon, that Constantinople should be magnified in ecclesiastical matters as well as Rome, and be next unto it. Wherein it is manifest that they meant preeminence of honor, not of power. For themselves decreed that the highest judge of ecclesiastical persons should be the Patriarke of the diocese, or of Constantinople. Whereby they gave greater power to the Patriarke of Constantinople, whom they authorised to deal in every diocese ; then to the Roman Patriarke, whom they tied to his own. In so much that y ^e Greeks say that all dioceses of the whole world were subject to their Patriarke by the Council of Chalcedon. At least if the Council ha • an eye to power, and not to honor only, in willing them to be magnified : yet that is a disproof still of y ^e Popes supremacy. As you may learn by Gratian. Who seeking to prove it by the same canon renewed in the Council of Constantinople, hath helped it with a negative: and where the Council said, Let Constantinople be magnified as well as Rome ; he allegeth it, let not Constantinople be magnified as well as Rome.

The Council, which that canon was renewed in, is untruly called y ^e sixth general Council. For they made no canons.

Yet a Council made them in Constantinople, with credit of a general. And the next general Council did confirm them. Which thereby disproved the Popes supremacy too. Yea, again the next defined of the Pope, as of other Patriarchs: and that upon the ground of the famous Nicene. To be short, the visible Monarchy of the Church was never allowed to him by any Council, general, or provincial: until the East Churches were rent from the West, and the Italian faction did bear the sway in Councils.

What mean you to say so? whereas the Council of Lateran under Innocētius did approve it flatly: the Patriarchs of the Churches of Constantinople and Jerusalem being present.

Not the right Patriarchs, I trow. Though if they had been: yet might the Italians make decrees in Lateran at Rome without them. But nether did that Council approve the Popes Monarchy. For the Popes Monarchy is a full and absolute sovereignty of power over the whole Church. Wherevpon the principal proctours of it teach, that not a general Council is above the Pope, but the Pope above the Coūcel. For they (saith Father Robert ) who hold that the Council is above the Pope; do make him like a Duke of Venice: above every magistrate and senatour in several, not above the whole Senate. But he is above the whole Church absolutely, and above the general Council: so that he acknowledgeth no judge on earth above him. Now, the sovereignty of ordinary power given to the Pope over all Churches by the Council of Lateran under Innocentius, was but as it were a Dukedom of Venice: over every Church and Bishop in several, not over the whole Church. A signorie of great state: but not a Popes Monarchy. His Monarchy was neither allowed by that Council, nor by any other for many ages after: nay, it was condemned expressly by the Council of Constance, & of Basil. The first, that allowed it, was the Council of Lateran under Leo the tenth: a thousand five hundred and syxteene years after Christ.

Nay, the Council of Florence had allowed it a fourscore years before: the Greek and Latin Bishops subscribing both thereto.

But in such sort, that your Roman reader, though making the most thereof for the Popes credit, was fain • yet to say, that the Council of Florence did not define it so expressly. In truth the Greek Bishops answered of themselves, for they might not treat thereof without consent (they said) of their whole Church, but of themselves they answered, that the Pope ought to have the same perogatives, that he had before the time of their dissension. Which is a great presumption, that when they subscribed to more then the same, it was not of themselves. Chiefly since they came besides so constrainedly to that which they did, and refused to obey the Pope when they had done it. But Leo the tenth with his Italian faction in Lateran defined it. From whom the University of Parise appealed straight to a Council; and condemned his Lateran doctrine and decree: as the Universities of L • uan, of Coolein, of Vienna, and of Cracouia had done before also. The consent therefore of Pastors and Doctors throughout all Christendom hath disallowed the Popes Monarchy. And that which the Pastors and Doctors delivered was the religion of their Churches. Whereby you may see the truth of that I said, that, except the crew of the Italian faction, all Christian Churches have condemned his usurped sovereignty.

Truly (I must confess) I see more probability on your side then I did. But in that you said that all Christian Churches have condemned it, and do till this day, you forgot yourself, who granted before, that by the Trent-doctrine the Pope is above the Council. For the doctrine agreed on by the Council of Trent (which you call the of Trent -doctrine) is held by Catholic Christians through the whole Church at this day.

I said, that all Christian Churches have condemned it, and do, except the crew of the Italian faction. Which speech agreeth well with that I said before of the Council Trent. For the Trent-doctrine of the Popes supremacy, is that which the Italian faction at Trent did ouerbea • e the rest in. As Claudius Espencaeus, a Divine of Parise, a Doctor of your own witnesseth: saying, that Ludouicus the Cardinal of Arle did complain justly at the Council of Basil, that look what the Italian nation liketh of, that is decreed in Councils; & this is that Helena which did prevail of late at Trent. Now, that which the Cardinal Ludouicus spake of, was, that in Councils not only Bishops but Elders too should have voices, as of old time they had: for if Bishops only have voices, (saith the Cardinal) then shall that be done that shall seem good to the Italian nation, which alone hath ether mo Bishops, or as many, as all other nations have. For every baggage-town hath a Bishop there. And these buggage-Bishops, of whom there were more at the Council of Trent then of all other nations, did allow that doctrine. Though neither they perhaps allowed it in heart, but were induced by Papal means to yield unto it. For the answer of Vargas touching the Popes supremacy, (made at Rome, and published, for instruction of the Council assembled then at Trent ) doth show that there was some sticking at the matter. And your stories note, that the Pope is foully afraid of general Councils, left they should hurt his State: and cometh like a bear to the stake (as they say) when he is drawn to summon them. What a do was made before he could be brought to grant that the Council of Trent should go forward? And while the Council lasted, he kept good rule at Rome: but brake loose whē it was ended. Besides, it being ended twenty years ago, there hath been none since: nether (I believe) is like to be in hast. Where yet there should be one every ten years, by their own decree. All evident tokens, that the Pope himself doth think that Bishops under him like not his supremacy: and would cut it shorter if they might have power and authority to do it. Which if they would do, though being sworn to maintain it; yea, and to maintain the reservations, the provisions, & other excesses of it: is it not manifest that they disallow it, or detest it rather?

Our ancestors allowed it ever since the time that by S. Gregory's means they were first converted to the faith of Christ, till King Harries days, when heresy did root it out.

Our ancestors had a reverent opinion of the Pope, long after S. Gregory, for S. Gregory's sake: and honored him above all Bishops. But when he began to reach out the paws of his supremacy over thē, in giving Church-livings▪ and handling Church-causes, and executing Church-censures: they were so far frō liking it, that they made laws against it two hundred years ago. Even in Queen Mary's time, when they restored that stoompe of his usurped power which they had rooted out under King Henry the eight: they provided that he should have no more but that stoompe, & kept the former laws in force against him still. Wherefore though our ancestors gave him great preeminence of honor, some of power too: yet the most they gave him was but a Venice -Dukedom; his Monarchy they never allowed to this day. Which may be said likewise of other Christian Churches that honored him on like occcasiō: as our neighbors of France, & Germany. For ech of them shown their mislike and hatred of the Popes supremacy, by supplications & complaints offered to their Princes. Yea, France made laws against it: which might have continued; had not the Gentiles raged & broken the bands a sunder. And these, of whose judgments I have spoken hitherto, are such as yourselves do hold for Catholic Christians. The rest, Christians also, though you cal them heretics, and schismatics, yet Christians, the Churches of Greece and Asia, in the East; in the North, of Moscouie ; in the South of Ethiopia ; in the West, of Boheme, Province, Piemont heretofore, & the reformed Churches that are at this day in England, Scotland, France, Germany, Flaunders, Suitzerland, and so forth throughout Europe, set less by the Pope then the former did. That I might say justly, that, except the crew of the Italian factiō, (wherein I comprehend the Jesuits, and their complices, men Italianate, ) all Christian Churches have condemned the Popes supremacy, & do till this day. Wherefore if the matter were to be tried by the will of men: so many thousands of them, Pastors and Doctors, Synods and Councils, Universities and Churches, through all ages, in all countries, of all sorts, and states, might suffice to put the Pope from his supremacy. At least they might make you to blush, M. Hart, who have said in writing, that all men did grant it him without resistance, & it was never denied him. But since it must be tried by the word of God, and it is not written in the book of life. I conclude, that it is not a citizen of Jerusalem, but a child of Babylon, which they shall be blessed who dash against the stones. And thus have I shown that the former point, on which you refuse to communicate with us in prayers and religion, ought to bring you rather to us, then draw you from us. It remaineth now that we sift the later: of the faith professed in the Church of England. Which if it be found to be the Catholic faith, as in truth it will: then is there no cause but you must needs yield, that we may go together into the house of the Lord.

Nay, first, why do you take the supremacy from the Pope, and give it to the Prince who is less capable of it?

The supremacy, which we take from the Pope, M. Hart, we give to no mortal creature, Prince, nor other. But the Pope having seized on part of Christ's right, part of Princes, part of Bishops, part of people's & Churches; as the chough (in Aesope ) did trick up himself with the feathers of other birds: the feather, which the Romish chough had of our Princes, we have taken from him, and given it to her Majesty to whom it belonged; according to the lesson of our heavenly Master, Geue to Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and to God the things which are God's.

It is not Caesar's right to be the supreme governor of all his dominions in things spiritual and temporal. But this is the supremacy which you give our sovereign Lady Queen Elisabeth. Therefore you give the Prince more thē i • the Princes.

To have the preeminence over all rulers in government of matters touching God and man within his own dominions, is to be supreme governor of all his dominions in things spiritual and temporal. But it is Caesar's right to have the preeminence over all rulers in government of matters touching God and man within his own dominions. Therefore that is the Princes which we give the Prince.

The Prince hath preeminence over all rulers within his own dominions in government of matters touching man, not God. For nether he nor any of the rulers under him may deal in them both.

They may. For the civil magistrate is ordained to punish them that do evil, and praise them that do well. But the evil to be punished, and the good to be praised, compriseth all duties, not only towards man, but towards God also. Therefore the civil magistrate is ordained to govern in duties touching God and man.

The good that we must follow, and evil that we must fly, compriseth duties to them both. But that which the civil magistrate must deal with, is good and evil in things of men, not of God; in civil cases, not religion.

The scripture saith the contrary. For it showeth that offenders in cases of religion, idolaters, blasphemers, false prophets, & profaners of holy things, are to be punished. But the punishment of these is committed to him who beareth not the sword in vain. Then is the civil magistrate to punish evil doers in things concerning God. Now, wherein he hath to punish, and reward, therein he hath to govern. He hath to govern therefore in things concerning God and man.

Why saith the scripture then, that the high Priest, (the Priest, not the Prince) is ordained for mē in those things that pertain to God.

To do them, M. Hart : as it followeth in the text, that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. For this is the peculiar duty of the Priests. Which if the Prince meddle with, as Ozias did, who would have burnt incense, upon the altar of incense, a thing enjoined to Priests only: then transgresseth he the bounds of his office, and provoketh vengeance of the Lord upon him. But to provide by civil punishments, and orders, that Priests do their duty in things concerning God, nor only Priests, but people too: it is the Princes charge; and so is he ordained to deal in things of God. For, when Michah had an idols chapel in his house, with a vestiment, and images: in those days (saith the scripture) there was no King in Israel, but every man did that which was good in his own eyes. And again, In those days there was no King in Israel, when the men of Dan got that idolatrous stuff, with an idolatrous Priest, and went a whooring after it. Which being said in like sort when adultery was committed, and with adultery, murder: doth show, that as the subjects should have been restrained from murder, and adultery, so from idolatry too by the Princes sword; since all these sins reigned, not for want of a Priest, but of a King in Israel. And this appeareth farther by the examples of the Kings: of whom some are touched for that they took not away the hie places ; & some are commended for taking them away. Yea, King Hezekiah commanding first the Levites and Priests to do their duty, afterward the people to come and serve the Lord; finally, thē both to reform themselves for maintenance of religion: is said to have cleaved to the Lord therein, and kept his commandments which lie commanded Moses. A manifest proof, that whereas the King is willed (by Moses ) to keep all the words of the law to do them : the Lord meant thereby, that he ought to keep them, not only as a private man, but as a King, by seeking and providing that all his subjects did their duties, both to God and man. Wherefore, since y ^e supremacy which we give our Prince in things ecclesiastical, is to deal therein as Hezekiah, not Ozias ; not to preach the word, minister the sacraments, celebrate the prayers, or practice discipline of the Church, but to provide that these things be done, as they ought, by them whem God hath called thereto: we give to Caesar no more then is Caesar's. The greater is your Masters fault, and his cōfederates, who reprove the oth of the Queens supremacy, as wicked and ungodly. For every lawful Prince is the supreme governor of his own subjects in things spiritual and temporal. Wherefore to be sworn to this of her Majesty, is but to acknowledge her the lawful Prince. And the Parliament might take an oth of English men for Elisabeth our Queen, against the Pope usurping part of her right: as well as Jehoiada of the men of Judah for Joash their King, against Athaliah y ^t usurped his State.

My Master layeth open the weakness of y ^e grounds which you pretend for Princes right out of the Scriptures. For Caesar was an Heathen when Christ & his Apostles did teach the faithful to obey him. So that, if he were supreme governor of his subjects in things spiritual and temporal: then must he be obeyed as in temporal matters, so in spiritual too.

True. And therefore Paul appealed to him, as knowing that the Jews ought to have obeyed him, if he had judged with the truth.

The Jews had accused Paul of sedition, as well as of heresy. And therefore his case was not spiritual merely. But if the Heathen Emperor were to be obeyed in spiritual matters: then must the Christians have sacrificed to idols. For so he did command them.

Why? If the heathen Emperor had commanded them to bear false witness against their neighbor, or to condemn the innocent thereby, as Jezebel did: must Christians have obeyed him?

No: because, in things forbidden by God, that is a general rule, that we must rather obey God then men.

Then as the Heathen Emperor must not be obeyed if he commanded things unjust, and yet was supreme governor (you grant) in temporal matters: so in spiritual matters might he have that sovereignty; yet not to be obeyed, if he commanded things ungodly.

But Princes are so mighty that if they command them, men will obey them commonly. As whē the King of Babylon commanded men to worship the image of gold, there were but three who disobeyed him.

The better were those three tried: and through their trial God glorified. Wherefore though Princes cōman • not things godly, as nether honest, always: we must not therefore rob them of sovereignty therein; but help them with our prayers, that they may govern us in godliness & honesty.

Yet experience showeth, that, if they have this sovereignty, religion will be changed often with change of rulers. As if is the • urpitude of our nation through the whole world, that of four Princes who have succeeded one another, the first kept the ancient faith, though not the Papacie: the next abolished both; the third restored both again; & both again are now abolished, by her Majesty: all within the compass of about thirty years▪

So in the realm of Judah, though not in so • ew years, the father, King Achaz, burnt incense in y ^• hi • places; the son, Hezekiah, did abolish them; the nephew, Manasseh, restored them again; and Josiah, his nephew, abolished thē again. Yet the Prophets were not moved by these changes to deny their sovereignty in matters of religion. And better it is for us to have changed so, by means of our godly Josiah, and Hezekiah, that noble child her Majesty's brother, & her Majesty: then to have continued unchanged, as our ancestors; under the Pope, as Jonathan. Nor was it such turpitude for the nation of the Jews to have had religion reformed by two Kings, though in a few years it caused sundry alterations: as for the nation of the Romans to have kept idolatry without alteration, under high Priests, for a thousand years together.

Well. Whatsoever opinion you have of the Princes supremacy: your own Century-writers cōtrol it in general; & Calvin, in particular, the grant thereof to King Harrie. For they both reprove the title of head. And it is all one to be head of the Church, & to be chief governor of causes ecclesiastical.

Calvin reproveth not the title of head as y ^e Protestants granted it, but that sense thereof which Popish Prelates gave, namely Stephen Gardener : who did urge it so, as if they had meant thereby, that the king might do things in religion according to his own will, and not • ee thē d • on according to God's will. In like sort is the headship of the Church controlled by the Century-writers. For they say that Princes ought not to be heads, to coin forms of religiō, & frame new points of faith, as Jeroboam did his calves. So what they mislike, y ^• we grant not to Princes. What we grant to Princes, that they mislike not. Nay, the Century-writers do give the same supremacy to our Prince that we do: nor only to ours, but to all in general. Which Calvin also doth. Nor only he, or they: but the reformed Churches whole with one consent. I might say, even your own men too. Yea, even yourself too, M. Hart. For when, upon occasion of speech that I had with you touching this point (before we did enter into conference by writing,) I brought you M. Nowels answer to Dorman, wherein he hath confuted pithily and plainly the cavils which your Master blancheth out of Calvin and the ancient Fathers against the Queens supremacy, requesting you to read it over: you told me (having read it) that you had mistaken our doctrine • of that point; and that, if we gave the Prince no greater sovereignty, then M. Nowell doth, you did agree with us.

Indeed I had thought (& so do many take it) that you meant to give as much to y ^e Prince by y ^e title of y ^e supremacy, as we do to the Pope. Where you give no more me thinks by M. Nowel, thē S. Austin doth, who saith that Kings do serve God in this, as Kings, if in their own realm they cōmaūnd good things, & forbid evil; not only concerning the civil state of mē, but the religion of God also. And thus much I subscribe too.

Will you proceed then to y ^e later point, wherein you would prove (you said) that the faith which we pro • esse in England is not the Catholic faith.

I have proved it already in part. For y ^e Catholic faith is y ^e which we profess in y ^e Church of Rome. You profess not y ^e . As y ^e points y ^t you have touched by y ^e way, of scriptures, of traditions, of merits, of sacraments, of Priesthoode, of the Mass, the real presence, the worship of Saints, & sundry others show. But I will cōfer no farther hereof, unless I have greter assurance of my life.

Assurance of your life to proceed in cōferēce (by God's grace) you have. At least, as great assurance as hitherto you have had. But you should rather say, you will confer no farther unless you had better assurance of your cause. For that is the catholic faith which the Apostles did preach to all nations. The Apostles preached that which is written in the holy scriptures. Therefore, that, which is written, is the catholic faith. But the faith, which we profess, is all written. The faith which we profess then, is the Catholic faith. And this should appear • as well in other pointes, as in those already touched, if you would sift them. The Lord grant you grace to consider of it: that whatsoever become of your life temporal, you may have assurance of eternal life, through knowledge of his holy truth.