Conference Between Rainolds and Hart

All these trees I see, and many shrubs besides. But I see no stuff in any of them all for your demonstration.

No? Then will I make it plainer from point to point. First, all the Popes are either pastors or hirelinges. Next, pastors and hirelinges do all teach the truth. Thirdly, I conclude▪

Stay. I doubt of the first: or rather I doubt not of it. For although the ancient Popes (as they are called) were pastors for the most part, and hirelinges now and then some: yet after, there succeeded many thieves and robbers : and so they do till this day.

Mark what you say: [succeeded.] For I grant that in schisms and contentions about the Popedom, a part of the electors sometimes hath set up one, who was a thief and a robber, as Nouatian against Cornelius, and Vrsicinus against Damasus. But he whom so they set up, was an Antipope, as historians do call him, not a Pope. They are Popes, who by the line of orderly succession have followed one another from Peter until our time: whose names are enrolled both in Chronicles, and Tables, by Pontacus, Onuphrius, Genebrard, Bristow, and many other learned men. And them I mean only, when I say that all Popes are either pastors, or hirelinges.

And them I mean too, when I say that many thieves and robbers have succeeded. Though sometimes the Antipope had better right to the room, then he whom your Chronicles and tables count Pope, whose might did ouerbeare the right: as Felix, elected in the Council of Basel ; then Eugenius, who surprised him. But, I let go these blemishes of the Papal line. And of the lawful Popes, the line of whose succession your Chronicles and Tables do paint and praise so highly, as a certain mark whereby the Catholic church and faith may be known: of them I say, that many have been thieves & robbers.

I prove that in saying so you say untruly. For they are thieves, and robbers, who enter not in by the door into the sheepfold, but clime up another way. But all the Popes have entered in by the door into the sheepfold. Therefore not one of them hath been a thief and a robber.

Into what sheepfold they entered, I know not. But this I know that many of them entered in by that, which Philip said all castles might be conquered by, if an asse laden therewith might enter in. Is this to enter in by the door, or by the loouer? as Jupiter did to Danae in a shower of gold?

You mean them perhaps, of whom you shown before, that they were monstrous men, or rather beasts and monsters: who did get the Popedom (I grant) the most of them by bribery and evil means. But the fault both of that and of their corrupt lives is to be laid rather on the German Emperors, then on y ^e See of Rome. For (as D. Genebrard hath noted very well) the Popes, for the space almost of seven score years and ten, from John the eight to Leo the ninth, about a fifty Popes did revolt wholly from the virtue of their ancestors, and were Apostaticall rather then Apostolical. Of this so great wickedness the German Emperors are guilty: who did oppress the Church so, that (orderly elections being set apart) they appointed Popes at their lust, and often times for money and couenantes; and the Pope elected would not take the Popedom before the Emperor had confirmed him. Yea some did get into the see by force or bribery. Wherefote it is no marvel, if they were monstrous and so many in so few years, and died so quickly, since that they entered in, not by the door, but by a postern gate. For they were not chosen after the manner of their ancestors, but intruded by the Emperors. Only five amongst so great a number of Popes (and they but meanly) are praised.

This is well and wisely noted by your Genebrard. Many Popes were monstrous: but the faute thereof was in the German Emperors. This will stop the mouths of the German heretics, who do praise those Emperors. But here you grant withal, that fifty Popes or there about did not enter in by the door. Wherein you grant (by consequent) that they were thieves and robbers. You said that I spake untruly when I said so. Is it become a truth now?

They were thieves and robbers : but they were not Popes.

They do go for Popes in all your Chronicles, and Tables.

Because they kept the room, and were called so. The name of Popes is given them by D. Genebrard too: but he accounteth them usurpers, and so doth mean it improperly. For properly they only are Popes, who have the Popedom by lawful succession. But these men had it not by lawful succession. Therefore they were not Popes, as we must speak of Popes now. And this is declared plainly by D. Genebrard: who having said, that the Popes of that time were monsters, as intruded rather by the Emperors then elected ; doth add, these are the fruits of the Church oppressed by tyrants, and of elections taken from it. Yea, the lawful succession was here disordered also: as in the Synagogue of old time under the Antiochi, a little before the Machabes. This blemish let the writers of the Centuries acknowledge to have sproong from the German Emperors, whom they praise so greatly. For they had taken the right of the Church to themselves, and did provide for it by the right of Herod. Thus far D. Genebrard. Whereby you may see that although he grant they were thieves and robbers, yet he denieth they were Popes : for they did not succeed lawfully.

Genebrard was blinded with spite against the Centuries, and Emperors of Germany, when he sewed these fig-leaves to cover the nakedness of his cause. For the fifty Popes (let me call them so, that my speech may be the plainer,) the fifty Popes, whom you grant to have been thieves and robbers, because they were usurpers rather, then successors, as being not chosen after the manner of their ancestors, but intruded by the Emperors: the fifty Popes began in the year of Christ eight hundred eighty & four, when John the eighth died; and ended in the year a thousand forty and eight, when Leo the ninth succeeded. Now the Emperors had no more so do in the Popes election, for the later half of that time; then they had before, when Popes were good, (in Genebrards ei • ,) and their succession lawful. And for the former half thereof; they had less. For, about the year five hundred & fifty, when Justinian the Emperor had recovered Italy from the Goths, his enemies, who long had reigned there: it was provided, y ^t none should be ordained Pope (though elected) before that his election were confirmed by the Emperor. Which order was taken for y ^e peace & safety both of the country & the State: least, the Emperors being absent out of Italy, abiding at Constantinople, the Pope (whose authority was grown to be great) if he should mislike the State, or be factious, might entice both Rome and Italy to revolt from them to their enemies, as Justinian was persuaded that Pope Siluerius sought to do. This order continued until the year six hundred eighty and six: about the which time the Emperor released the Pope from that bond. But afterward the Pope did bind himself again unto it. For in the year seven hundred seventy and three, Pope Adrian the first gave to Charles the great, the right and authority of choosing the Pope and ordering the See of Rome: and he gave it with consent of a Council of Bishops, not of his own fancy. The decreee of which Council did stand in strength and virtue above a hundred years, until the time of the fifty Popes. For in the year eight hundred eighty and five, Pope Adrian the third made a contrary decree: to weete, that in creating of Popes they should not wait for the consent of the Emperor, but the voices of the clergy and people should be free. Neither had any Emperor that prerogative after, till the year nine hundred sixty and three, when it was restored again unto Otho. Now in the mean time the monsters came in, Formosus, Boniface, Stephen, Romanus, Theodore, John the ninth, Christopher, Sergius, and finally that monster of monsters John the twelfth. Of whom there was not one appointed by the Emperor. And yet (to see the spirit of a Popish zeal how it will • besotte men,) Genebrard, having written that Sergius did imprison his predecessor Christopher and commanded the body of Formosus to be digged out of his grave and beheaded, doth add this note upon it: No marvel if these Popes were monstrous; for they were not chosen after the manner of their ancestors, but intruded by the Emperors. Whereas your Chronicles show that Sergius conspiring against his predecessor Christopher (as Christopher had conspired against his predecessor Leo ) did force him to renounce the Popedom on one day, & himself the next day did stall him • else in it. So that not as much as the presence of the Emperors ambassadors was stayed for at his consecration, (which yet by order should have been, to hinder violence and offenses:) mu • h less was he intruded (as Genebrard saith) by the Emperor. But when John the twelfth had gotten the room, then the which there could not a wretcheder thing possess it, unless the devil himself should hold it in person: the Emperor Otho being earnestly sued too by the Romans to set the Church in better order, caused the Bishops of Italy with others, and the Roman clergy, to be assembled in a Council. Wherein after that they had deposed John, and chosen Leo the eight, all, with one consent: Pope Leo, with the whole clergy, and people of Rome, did grant unto Otho and his successors forever, the power of choosing the Pope. The cause which moved him to stablish this order, was, that no such monsters might sit in Peters seat as there had before. For, he considered, that since the time that Adrian the third had taken away that power from the Emperors, and left it to the people and clergy: the foul and inordinate ambition of the Romans had filled the Church with beasts, the city with tumults, and the elections with vilanie. He saw that this outrage must be repressed some way. He thought no bridle fitter, then that the decree of Adrian the first, who gave the right of choosing the Pope to the Emperor, should be revived. And so he proposed the matter to the Council: and the Council agreed upon it. Wherefore the former half of the fifty monsters were not intruded by the Emperors. If the later were: whose was the faute? the Emperors? or the Popes and Councils, who gave the Emperor that right? But in deed they were not. For, although the Romans had sworn to Otho that they would never choose Pope without his consent, and his sons: yet by and by they turned to their old bent, like a deceitful bow. Howbeit in his days they could not have their purpose. For when they cast out Leo, and brought in John again, and chose one after him too: Otho by force of arms made them repent it, and redressed it. But in his sons days they went thorough with it. His nephew had a stroke in the choice of one or two: but they were of the better sort. It was the Romans choice that thrust the monsters in. Of whom we may esteem what the rest were by their head, and tail; Boniface, and Benedict. Boniface the seventh, who came in by bribery, was cast out by violence, went away with sacrilege, made money of his Church-robberies, and therewith got again the Popedom. Benedict the ninth, who when he was thrown out for his unworthiness, and Siuester placed in his steed; he, by help of the faction which had made him Pope, threw Sylvester out again: and fearing that men's stomachs would not brook him long (they did so loath him and abhor him) he set the Popedom to sale, and Gregory the sixth bought it. These dealings of Gregory, Sylvester, and Benedict, three most ugly monsters (as they are called by Platina ) stirred up the Emperor Henry the second to look unto the Church, as Otho had done. Whereupon, when he was come into Italy, Pope Gregory went unto him: and offered him a precious diademe to win his favor. But he nevertheless assembled together a Council of Bishops: who having examined the cause of Pope Gregory, & found that money made him Pope, judged him unlawfully made, & so he was deprived for Simony. Then, in consultation about a new Pope, when the Romans themselves did not name any, y ^e Emperor named a German, Suidiger, a Bishop commended for his skil & virtue: who being approved by them all was chosen Pope, & called Clemens. By whom & by another Council held at Rome y ^e same power was given to Henry again for ordering of y ^e Popedom, y ^t was before to Otho. So neither did the Emperors intrude y ^e later monsters of the fifty Popes : no more then the former. For there is but one of the fifty after Clemens, and he none of the monsters; (though Genebrard make him one, because the Emperor chose him:) nor had the Romans needed to have been troubled with him, but that Clemens the German took some Italian drugs amongst them. Nay, the Emperors were so far from intruding of monsters: that they did extrude them, and were the chiefest means to rid the Church of them. Which as it is evident by the whole course of their lives and stories so Carolus Sigonius in his story of Italy (no partial man against the Popes) doth bear the Emperors this witness, and layeth the blame of those monsters upon the Romans themselves. The noble men (saith he) of Rome, to advance their own private power, corrupted them to whom the Popes election belonged: and thereby filled the Church (almost two hundred years together) with grievous seditions, and shameful evils, and disorders. These were the Marques Albert, and Alberike, his son, a Consul, the Earls of Thusculum▪ & they who were of their kin, or by their means had grown to wealth. Who, either bribing the people and clergy with money, or spoiling them of the ancient liberty of the election by whatsoever other means, preferred at their lust their kinsmen, or friends, men commonly nothing like to the former Popes in holiness and good order. For the repressing of whose outrage, Pope Leo the eighth revived the law, which had been made by Adrian the first, and repealed by the third: that no Pope elected should undertake the Popedom without the Emperors consent. Which law being taken away by occasion that the room was sought ambitiously in the city, and purchased by bribes▪ the state of the Church was put again in great danger through the private lusts of the same factions. To provide therefore a remedy for these things, Henry the Emperor came into Italy: as hereupon Sigonius showeth. And so you may see the lewdness of Genebrard, that shameless parasite of the Popes who without all reverence both of God and man, doth rail, lie, and falsify stories, to deface the Emperors, and cross the writers of the Centuries. For he saith, that the Emperors did, as wild boares, eat up the vineyard of the Lord : the stories say, that they delivered it from wild boares. The stories say, that the monsters of the Popes were chosen by the Romans them selves: he saith, that they came in by intrusion of the Emperors. The stories say, that the Emperors, who hunted out those beasts, were virtuous and lawful Princes: he calleth them tyrants ; nor only them, but also many good Emperors moe, who meddled with the Popes election. Finally, the stories say, that the Emperors were allowed by Popes and Councils to do it: he saith that they usurped it by the right of Herod. And yet him self recordeth, and that in the same Chronicle too, that Pope Adrian with a Council, Pope Leo with a Council, Pope Clemens with a Council, did grant it unto Charles, Otho, and Henry the Emperors. I have read of an envious man, who was content to lose one of his own eyes, that another might lose both. Genebrard is gone farther. For he is content to put out both his own eyes, that the writers of the Centuries may put out one of theirs. That they may acknowledge them selves to have praised the German Emperors unjustly : he granteth both that Popes with Councils have erred, and that their succession wa • broken off a great while. Wherein if you say the same with him, M. Hart : I am glad of it. But your fellows (I fear me) will not allow that you say, if you allow that he saith.

No body saith that the succession of Popes was broken off : nor that the Popes may err and Councils. For as Genebrard taketh it, Leo the eighth and Clemens the second were not Popes.

But Adrian the first was, as Genebrard taketh it, and that one of the best Popes. Yet he did grant as much to Charles the Emperor, as Leo did to Otho, as Clemens did to Henry. And if it be true that they were not Popes, whom yet the Roman clergy with many Bishops chose: then the Popes succession, which is almost the only eye of your Cyclops, will be clean put out by the devise of this No-body. And how shall the writings of our Countriemen, Sanders, & Bristow and Rishton, and such others do then? who make the Popes succession y ^e chiefest bulwark of your Church, a certain mark that never faileth? And what will No-body him self say to the third book of his Chronicle: where he wrote that Peters succession shall endure in the Church of Rome until the end of the world ? Was this true when he wrote the third book? and was it false when he wrote the fourth?

D. Genebrard (whom you shall prove to be some-body ere you have done, though you be flouting him with No-body, ) doth show by the one place his meaning in the other. For since he wrote that Peters succession shall endure in the Church of Rome until the end of the world : it is plain he meant not that it was broken of at any time absolutely, and simply. Wherefore, in that he addeth about the fifty Popes, that the lawful succession was disordered then : he meant that it was broken but in some sort, as it were; or (to say the truth) rather bruised, then broken; not interrupted, but disturbed. For neither Genebrard saith, nor any Catholic writer else, but that the succession of Popes hath continued, and shall unto the end.

Then I mistook his meaning, touching the succession ; and yours, touching the Popes. For I thought that you had denied that they were Popes, who were thieves and robbers. Now I perceive you meant not absolutely, and simply, that they were not Popes ; but that they were not Popes after a kind of sort : they were cracked Popes, as you would say, and not sound; or perhaps (in truth) rather crazed, then cracked. Yet the reason which you brought why they were not Popes, doth stand in force against them still. For it is true, as you said, that they did not succeed lawfully. Wherefore, either lawful succession is not necessary unto your succession: or the crazed Popes were no Popes at all. They did succeed Simon, but Simon the sorcerer, and not Simon Peter. Howbeit you must count them Simon Peters successors for your successions sake. Else you spoil your Church of her gayest ornament, through which y ^e unskillful are most enamored of her. Beside that neither would it help your cause a whit in trial of the issue. For sithence the Pope hath ouermaistred the Emperors, and thrust from his election, first them, then the people, afterward the clergy; & brought it to a few Cardinals: there have been as monstrous Popes as were before, (still I except John, ) and have come in as unlawfully.

There were many tumults and schisms in the Church, chiefly through the Emperors means, before that the matter could be brought about to that perfection and ripeness which it is now at. But things began to mend from that time of disorder. For by the virtue of Leo the ninth, and the Popes following, that usurpation was taken from the Emperor Henry the fourth, although with great sturres. And so was the See Apostolic of Rome restored to her ancient brightness and beauty. Whereof our own days have seen the proof and trial in many good Popes, elected lawfully, no doubt: Pius the fourth, Pius the fifth, and him who reigneth now, Gregory the thirteenth, a most loving father of the Churches children.

Whether that these Popes, or other, have been good ; and their elections lawful: it is not the question. Perhaps you praise them for affection: perhaps they have been good, as Popes. For Popes in our days are praised for their goodness, when they surpass not the wickedness of other men : as a good historian, who knew and loved them well, doth note in Clemens the seventh. Marcellus the second died the two and twenteeth day of his Popedom not without suspicion of poison, (saith your Genebrard, ) because some men thought that he would be to good. Pius the fourth, Pius the fifth, and Gregory the thirteenth have held the Popedom longer. If they were good Popes : I trust they were not too good. As for their electious : the days are yet too young to see the faithful stories of them. But, if they were chosen as their predecessors, according to the custom of the Church of Rome: then by y ^e elections of Pius the third, Julius the second, Leo the tenth, Clemens the seventh, and Cardinal Woolseis letters suing to succeed Clemens, wise men may conjecture▪ how lawfully they were chosen. You say that there were many tumults, and schisms, chiefly through the Emperors means, before the Popes election could be wrested from them, and brought to the Cardinals: but after that time, things began to mende. In deed they have mended, as sower ale doth in summer. For of thirty schisms in the Church of Rome (so many as no Church can boast of besides▪) the worst and the longest hath been since that time, even the nine and twentieth: which lasted by the space of fifty years together, first, with two Popes at once; then, with three. And, if the Emperor Sigismund had not been, through whose means the Council of Constance was assembled, and the three removed: by this time your Church might have had as many Popes, as (in the Revelation) the scarlet coloured beast hath heads. But to leave the Emperors, and prove the point in question, that since the Popes were chosen only by the Cardinals there have been as monstrous Popes as were before, and have come in as unlawfully: there are so many examples, that it is hard to make choice, or know where to begin amongst them. Let him be the first, who compiled part of the canon law, and that lusty decretal of the Popes supremacy, even Boniface y ^e eighth. Who being inflamed with desire of the Popedom, induced Pope Caelestin, a simple man to resign it; whether by persuading him, that he was not able to weelde a charge so weighty, or by procuring some to sound unto him in the night a voice as it were from heaven, that, if he would be saved he must resign the Popedom, or by both these practices, but he induced him to resign it: and not looking to be called by God, as was Aaron, he got it to him self by unorderly means, all that ambition could devise. Neither did he govern it better, then he got it. For being a man of intolerable pride, and thirsting after gold unspeakably, he bore himself as Lord of spiritual things and temporal throughout the whole world. He took upon him at his lust to give and take away kingdoms; to banish men, and to restore them: and sought to breed terror rather then religion in the minds of Emperors, of Kings, of Princes, of people's and of nations. He was the first author of your year of Jubiliee, proclaiming full remission ofsinnes, to all them, who came in pilgrimage to Rome, (a great gain to him and his:) and at that Jubiliee he shown himself in his solemnities, one day attired like a Pope, another like an Emperor, and having a naked sword before him, he sat and said with loud voice, Behold the two swords here. He cast his predecessor Caelestine into prison, and brought him there unto his grave. He vexed the country of Italy with wars, and nourished discords amongst them. He said that both the land and persons of the Scots belonged to his Chapel, that under that pretense he might trouble England, and cite king Edward to his judgment. He refused to accept of Albert chosen Emperor by the Princes of Germany, because they made choice without his authority, who had (he said him self) the right ofboth swords. He deprived the French king of his kingdom upon displeasure; and moved the king of England to make war against him; and granted to Albert that he should be Emperor, on condition that he would take the realm of France also, and thrust the lawful king out of it. And more he would have done of such Papal affairs, unless the French king to tame his pride had took him prisoner: whereupon he died within a few days for grief. This is that Boniface, ofwhom the saying goeth: He entered like a fox, he reigned like a lyon, he died like a dog. An other like to him, but in another kind, is John the three and twenteeth. Who got (while he was Cardinal) a great deal of money, and finding the Cardinals somewhat poor and needy gave them gentle rewards. Whereupon they, seeing him to be a liberal man, made him Pope for it. But that liberality was his chiefest virtue. For, he was fitter for the campe, then for the Church; for profane things, then for the service of god; as knowing no faith nor religion at all: an oppressor of y ^e poor, a persecutor of justice, a mainteiner of the wicked, a sanctuary of Simony, an ofscouring of vices, given wholly to sleep & to fleshly lusts, wholly contrary to the life and manners of Christ, a mirror of dishonest and infamous behavior, & a deviser, a profound deviser of all vilanies: in a word, so lewd and wretched a caitiff, that amongst them who knew his conversation he was called commonly a devil incarnate. Yet these most holy Lord's Boniface and John, are nothing in comparison of Alexander the sixth. For, although they both did get the triple crown corruptly: yet they conveyed it closely. Alexander the sixth did buy the voices of many Cardinals openly, partly with money, partly with promises of his offices and livings, chiefly the voice of Cardinal Ascanio : for which he did covenant to give the chiefest office of the Court of Rome, and Churches, and castles, and a palace full of movable goods of marvelous great value. According unto which beginning he went forward: and proved (as it was thought he would) most pernicious to Italy and all Christendom. For though he excelled in sharpness of wit, in judgment, in eloquence, and was very careful and quick in matters of importance: yet he passed far these virtues with his vices, manners most beastly, not sincerity, not modesty, not truth, not faith, not religion, covetousness insatiable, immeasurable ambition, cruelty more then barbarous, & a most fervent desire of advancing (by whatsoever means) his children, of whom he had many, and amongst them one (that to execute lewd devises there might not want lewd instruments) no less abhominable in any point then his father. Such a serpent held the seat of S. Peter for the space of ten years, until his own venoome killed him. For when he & his son and heir, the Duke of Ualence, had purposed to poison a Cardinal whom they were to sup with, (as commonly they used not only their enemies, but also their friends, yea nearest friends which had riches, that themselves might be enriched with their spoils:) the Duke had sent thither flagons of wine poisoned, by a servant whom he made not privy to the matter, vut willed him to give them no man. The Pope coming into the Cardinals before supper time, the weather being hot, he thirsty, called for wine. Now, because his own provision for supper was not come from the palace yet, the servant of the Duke gave him of that wine, which he thought his may • ter had willed to be kept for himself as the best. Whereof while he was drinking, his son, the Duke came in: and thinking the wine to be his fathers own, he drank of it too. So the Pope was carried suddenly for dead home to the palace: and the next day he was carried dead (after the manner of the Popes) into S. Peters Church: black, swollen, and ugly: most manifest signs of poison. All Rome did run together to his dead carcass with wonderful joy: no man being able to satisfy his eyes with beholding a ser • ent dispatched and quelled, that had poisoned all the world with his outrageous ambition, and pestilent treachery, and with all examples of horrible cruelty, of monstrous lust, and of incredible covetousness in selling without difference things holy and profane.

I skill not greatly of these stories: and it may • e douted whether they be true. For men are prone commonly to think and speak evil: specia • lie of such as are of high calling. Howbeit, if they be true: what is that to us? The Popes may err in manners, we grant, but not in doctrine. Neither if a man be naught in conversation, is therefore his religion naught. Judas an Apostle, Nicolas a Deacon; the one betrayed Christ, the other bred the Nicolaitans : both fa • tie in their lives; but the Christian faith, which they professed is not fautie. There be, that write also reports very shameful of your Doctors and Pastors: of Calvin, that he committed a detestable sin; of Bucer, that he denied Christ at his death. Which things are as odious, as those that you rehearse of this or that Pope. But if I should urge them, you would reject them as impertinent.

In deed the truth of God doth not depend of men's manners. Many Jews, inferior in life to many Paynims: many Christians, to many Jews. Neither did I mention the Popes to that purpose. Howbeit, where you call the truth of their stories (which I touched) into doubt, and match them with reports that some men have written of Bucer and Calvin : it is the part of wise men, to weigh (as judges do in witnesses,) who writeth, what, of whom. The law alloweth not that a man's enemy shall be a witness against him. No enemy more deadly, then he, who beareth hatred for quarrel of religion: as the Samaritans to the Jews. Such hatred is borne to Bucer and Calvin, by Lindan and Bolsecke, the authors of those lewd reports. And a farther hatred by Bolsecke to Calvin : because when he would have troubled Geneva with erroneous doctrine, Calvin did set himself openly against him; the ministers of Geneva reproved him by word and writing; the magistrates of Geneva did banish him out of their city. On like cause whereof when he was driven twice out of the coasts of Berna too, and things fell not out to his mind amongst the Protestants: he revolted from them again to the Papists, and returned to Popery as a dog to his vomit. Wherefore they do injury to Calvin and Bucer, who believe so heinous matters against them upon no better proof then Lindans word, or Bolseckes : chiefly, since the knowledge of many, who were present at the death of Bucer, of infinite who either lived with Calvin, or read his godly writings, wherein he liveth still, may clear them from the cankered spite of one enemy in all indifferent judges eyes. But the things which I did mention of your Popes are witnessed not by enemies, but by friends; not one, but many; most like to know the truth, and to report thereof no worse, then they knew. For stories do consent that Boniface the eighth was such a threeformed beast, as I declared. The Council of Constance examined and found John the three and twenteeth to be a sink of sins, a Devil in carnate, as they called him. Of Alexander the sixth I said not a word more then is in Guicciardin, a gentleman, who lived at the same time and wrote the story of it: an Italian by nation, by religion a Papist, the Popes lieutenant by his office, a faithful captain to his State, a bitter enemy to the Lutherans. And Guicciardins report of him is confirmed by two Italians mo, Iouius, and Onuphrius. Who, though in certain of the Popes lives, they do blanch their histories, of love and devotion; yet they consent with Guicciardin in Alexander the sixth: saving that, where Guicciardin saith he would have poisoned one Cardinal at his last supper, they say that he intended to have poisoned sundry. Now these were sworn freends to them, of whom they wrote: they were not Lindans, and Bolseckes. They sought not of malice what they might write against them: but they wrote the truth by the law of history. They did not misreport them to revenge themselves. Calvin had touched Bolsecke: the Popes had not so them. They were not requested and sued to by Protestants to set forth their works in print against the Popes: as Bolsecke was by Papists ( his Lord's and friends, ) against Calvin. If I had gone about to touch in such sort your Popes with odious matters: I could have made mention of a young stripling created Bishop by a Pope; and another, whom a Pope made his first Cardinal; and Lucretia, a Popes daughter, he liker to Tarquinius, then she to Lucretia ; and Aloisius, a Popes son, worthy of his father; with other vilanies more notorious; all proved by more credible witnesses then Bolseckes. But I neither ripped up all that I might, (many things they have done, which a shamefa • t adversary would be loath to open:) neither did I speak of anything but that, which yourselves do, or must, confess of necessity. And therefore when I spake of faithless wicked Popes▪ I said not a word either of Joan, the whore; or of Hildebrand, the traitor: because you take exception, for Hildebrand, that they who write much evil of him did it to please his enemy; for Joan, that she was harlot to Pope John the twelfth, so that John and Joan were not two Popes, but one. As for that you say that if all the stories were true, they are impertinent, since you defend the doctrine of Popes and not their manners▪ that answer other where is fit, and to purpose; but here it cometh out of season. For, the point in question touching the Popes was, whether any of them had been thieves & robbers. You granted that about a fifty of them were so; and monsters too, not only thieves : but the fault thereof you said was in the Emperors, who intruded them. I replied, that since the Cardinals did choose them, there have been as monstrous of them as were before, and that have come in as unlawfully. For proof hereof I named Boniface the eighth, John the three and twenteeth, and Alexander the sixth: who were Popes then when the election by Cardinals was grown to the perfitest, the first a thirteen hundred, the next a fourteen hundred, the last a fifteen hundred years after Christ. That these were monstrous, their whole lives do show: that they came in unlawfully, their entrances. That they were as monstrous, and came in as unlawfully, as the fifty Popes : I will not prove, unless you force me; for comparisons are odious. And here I must add, least I be accused as partial to the Emperors, that although I clear them from intruding those Popes, yet I clear them not from all fault therein. For it was a fault in them, that they suffered such vilaines to enjoy the room: as it is well noted by your own historian, who saith, that great licentiousness did bring forth those monsters, no Prince then repressing the wicked deeeds of men. Of the which fault the later Emperors also (I speak it with reverence, as of Princes, not of Tyrants,) have been, and do continue guilty. But to conclude the point, if he be a thief & a robber, who entereth in unlawfully into the sheepfold; then many of your Popes have been thieves and robbers. Yet take I not advantage of that which you have said about the fifty Popes. For so, not only they, but all the rest might prove thieves.

Nay you were best to say that the Saints them selves, Martyrs, and Confessors, and Doctors, were thieves. For the ancient Popes were all Saints, but one, from Peter to Honorius, until above six hundred years after Christ.

Were they so? What mean you then to endite them of so great a crime? Where was your Genebrards wit, when he wrote of the fifty Popes ? For if they did enter in not by the door, but by a postern gate, because when they were chosen they would not take the Popedom until the Emperor had confirmed them : how may y ^e Saints, as Gregory namely, be excused, who entered in the same way? And if these were thieves, because they entered in by the Emperors consent: what were their predecessors, who entered in by the people's? For the Emperor Friderike had reason when he said, that himself, as king, ought to be chief in choosing the Bishop of his own city. Wherefore if the people had voices in the choice of him: why not the German Emperor? who then was king of Rome, though now the Pope be. And if they were thieves too, because the people chose them, and not the clergy only: what have y ^e Popes been these four hundred years, whom neither the Emperor, nor people, nor clergy, but only a few Cardinals have chosen? See you not how all the Popes are brought in danger by you, to be thieves? But (as I said) I mean not to take this advantage. It sufficeth me, first, that many of them purchased the Popedom with bribery and corruption, as I have shown by their stories: next, that all such purchasers are (by their own law) not Apostolical, but Apostaticall, that is to say, revolters from the faith of Christ, not successors of the Apostles. For hereof it followeth that many, not only Antipopes, but Popes, and they elected, not intruded, have been thieves and robbers, by your own definition. Wherefore, not all Popes are pastors, or hirelinges. And so the demonstration by which you promised to prove out of the scripture, that Popes cannot err in doctrine, is fallen.

But as D. Stapleton doth define a thief out of S. Cyprians words: no Pope can be a thief. For he is a thief, who succeeding no man, is ordained of himself. Now, it is manifest that the Popes, all, both have succeeded others, and were ordained by others. Yet, though some of them were thieves, and robbers, in D. Genebrards sense: they could not err in doctrine. Such is the force of succession.

Why? Is the force, I say not of succession, but of lawful succession, such, that they, who have it, cannot err in doctrine? May not true Bishops and pastors teach heresy, as Arius, Nestorius, and Samosatenus did?

Yes: they may. But then they become wolves, as you heard out of D. Stapleton. They are not thieves and robbers.

Then the Popes succession doth not warrant them but that they may be wolves. Which is as much to my purpose, as if you said, thieves, and robbers. And in very truth, unless D. Stapleton had slubbered up that place of scripture (in S. John ) to make it serve for his succession: it would be apparent that Christ meant the same by thieves and robbers, that you by wolves. For when the Pharisees had spoken much against him, and sought by persuasion and excommunication to lead away the people: he (to make the faithful wise against their practices) declareth both his office and person in a parable, wherein he compareth God's chosen to sheep, and him self to a shepherd. And by that occasion he advertiseth them of three sortes of teachers, which meddle with the flock of God: the first, a shepherd ; the second, a hireling ; the third, a thief and a robber. A shepherd entereth in by the door into the sheepfold, and careth for the sheep so, that when the wolf cometh, he standeth in their defense, adventuring his life for them. A hireling entereth in, as the shepherd doth, but careth not for the sheep: and therefore in the time of danger he fleeth, and leaveth them to be scattered. A thief and a robber neither entereth in by the door, as they: and he cometh to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. These three sortes of teachers are mentioned by Christ, perhaps to touch the Pharisees by the way covertly, but manifestly to clear himself, whom they reproved as a false teacher, that is (in this similitude,) as a thief & a robber. Which s • launder to confute, he showeth himself to be • a shepherd, neither a shepherd hireling, but a good shepherd, that is, a true and godly teacher. And to this end he noteth two differences between a shepherd and a thief : the one, in their doctrine; the other, in their ende. In their doctrine; that a thief entereth not in by the door, the lawful way: but the shepherd entereth in by the door, that is, he preacheth Christ. For Christ is the door : and by him the shepherd leadeth his sheep in, and out, to feed them and save them. In their ende, that a thief cometh to steal, kill, destroy, that is, to spoil them of their life, of life spiritual and eternal: but the shepherd cometh that they may have life, and have it in abundance. Whereby it is evident that Christ did mean the same by thieves and robbers here, which other where by false Prophets : Beware of false Prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. For else, neither they could have been noted well by the property of wolves, that is, to kill & destroy : neither had his doctrine and division of teachers been perfect to his purpose: neither were his answer fit against the Pharisees, who touched him as a seducer, and not as an intruder; not for succession, but for doctrine. If you believe not me that this is the natural meaning of the text, you may believe S. Austin, who saith, that to enter into the shepefold by the door, is, to preach Christ: whom who so preach not rightly, they are thieves and robbers. Of these, for example, he nameth Arius : who yet succeeded lawfully as D. Stapleton granteth, though he count him a wolf, and not a thief and a robber, upon a point that Austin saw not. In which point his fancy carried him so far, that whereas Austin said, we must love the Pastor, tolerate the hireling, beware of the thief, he would add to Austin, and drive away the wolf : as though S. Austin meant not [the wolf] by [the thief;] and [drive away,] by [beware;] belike nor Christ neither, when he said beware of wolves. How much more seemly had it been for Stapleton to have followed Austin (with your best interpreters) then so to have corrected him.

He doth not correct him so much, as vary from him: and that not on his own, but on S. Cyprians judgment, a Father most ancient. Whose definition if he liked better then he did Austin's: why might he not take it?

Good reason, if it were as true as S. Austin's. But what is that definition?

A thief is he, who climeth up another way, that is, (as Cyprian writeth,) who succeeding no man is ordained of him self.

These words are Cyprians words: but the definition is Stapletons definition. For Cyprian doth not write them more of a thief, then of a wolf.

He writeth them of Nouatian, who entered not in by the door into the shepefold, but climbed up another way. Therefore he writeth them of a thief.

He writeth them of Nouatian, who was a false prophet, and came in sheep's clothing, but inwardly was a rauener. Therefore he writeth them of a wolf. For Cyprian doth count Nouatian the heretic, both a thief, and a wolf. Which proveth that sense that I gave thereof, against your distinction who sever wolves from thieves. But Stapleton in handling this place of Cyprian doth play us three feats: which if they be marked, will show with what art so many sayings of the Fathers are interlaced in his books. First he changeth the words. For where it is in Cyprian, a se ipso ortus est, arose of him self: Stapleton doth read it, a se ipso ordinatus est, is ordained of him self.

It hath been heretofore read so in some printes.

It hath so: but amiss. For Nouatian was ordained of others, though unlawfully: as Eusebius showeth, and Cyprian did know. Wherevpon, that fa • tie reading is amended in the later printes out of written copies: and a note reproving it (least it creep in again) is left by Pamelius. Whose edition since Stapleton praiseth as best corrected, and followeth it for advantage: to change a word of it here, in such sort, it was a seat and had a purpose. But the second seat doth excel this. For, because Cyprian saith of a thief, that he succeeding no man arose of him self: Stapleton doth take him as though he had defined a thief by those words. Whereof he would have the reader to conceive that they who have succession, and are ordained lawfully, cannot be thieves : a thing which Cyprian meant not. But therein he dealeth with the words of Cyprian as if a man should say to define a doctor: a doctor is he, who interpreteth the scriptures, that is (as Cyprian writeth) who doth corrupt the gospel, and is a false expounder of it. For these are Cyprians words, and spoken of Nouatian Doctors. But they were not spoken to define a doctor. For then they should be verified as well of all doctors, as they be of Doctor Stapleton. Yet he who should define a doctor so, to prove him one, and that out of Cyprian: should serve him such a seat as he doth serve a thief, and take him in the snare which him self hath framed.

As though that of thieves some might be good, and some naught. There may be so of doctors.

No. But, as doctors, some are good, some are naught; and since that both these qualities are incident into doctors, a doctor should not be defined by either of them: so thieves, some succeed, some do not succeed; and since that both these qualities are incident into thieves, no one of them can open the nature of a thief, nor both in deed pithily. Wherefore to say in defining a thief, that he succeedeth no man: it is a iuggling seat, which converteth accidents into the shape of substance, and maketh essence of a quality. A seat that is used much by D. Stapleton, & doth amaze the simple who see not the sleight: where they who discern the conveyance of it, esteem it as a feat of sophistry. But the third seat, is a seat of folly. For when he had made four kinds of teachers, the first, pastors ; the next, hirelings; the third, thieves ; the last, wolves ; and granted that they all are called to that office by lawful succession, excepting thieves only: he divideth hirelings into two sortes; and having proved that both of them do teach the truth, concludeth thereupon, that an undoubted certainty of doctrine and faith is knit to succession. Then the which what kind of legierdemaine can be more fond? to say in the conclusion, that they who by lawful succession are teachers, do surely teach the truth, because that hirelings do, and pastors : when he had shown before that not only they do succeed lawfully, but also wolves, who teach errors.

It was not his meaning that succession alone hath vnd • uted certainty of doctrine and faith, but, succession with unity. For other-where he saith, that to this prerogative of Bishops and Priests, there are required two conditions: one, that they be lawfully ordained, least they be thieves, who enter in not by the door; another, that being lawfully ordained they keep and hold unity, least they become wolves of pastors.

Then is not truth of doctrine knit necessarily to succession it self: no not though it be lawful and Apostolic succession.

I grant: but with unity.

Then is there much vanity in Stapletons discourses, and in his vaunt more vanity, that in spite of heretics a sure undoubted certainty of doctrine and faith is knit to the very succession of the Apostles, to the succession it self. And you, by retaining this unity with Stapleton, have razed to the ground that prerogative of the Pope, whereon you built his supremacy. For if unity with succession have undoubted certainty of doctrine and faith: all Pastors keeping unity are as free from error in doctrine, as the Pope is. And so if not to err in doctrine be a privilege & proof of the supremacy: all Pastors have as high supremacy by this unity, as the Pope hath. The Pope, I can tell you, will not like this unity. How much the more wisely (me thought) you dealt before, when, laying the foundation of the prerogative Papal, you removed this unity out of the chair, that His unity might sit in it. For whereas S. Austin saith, that God hath set the doctrine of truth in the chair of unity, meaning of all pastors and teachers of the Church which held the faith with • oncord against the sect and schism of Donatists: you applied that saying to the chair of the Pope, displacing altogether both unity and other pastors. Wherein though you forsook the steps of D. Stapleton, who proveth by that very saying of S. Austin, that all Priests and Bishops, whether they be pastors or hirelinges, teach the truth: yet you followed that which you had received of your Divines at Reims. For they do so apply it to the Popes prerogative. Belike the great benefits flowing from the Pope to the Rhemish Seminary did move them to adventure somewhat in his quarrel more then D. Stapletons heart did • erue him too.

No more, then in truth and conscience they might. For though in deed that saying of S. Austin were meant of all Bishops that held the faith with concord; which our Divines of Reims (I warrant you) knew well enough: yet they might apply it to the Pope, as chiefly belonging unto him, the fountain (as it were) of unity.

But they do apply it to the Pope, as only belonging unto him. For they allege it to prove the prerogative and privilege of the Pope, that howsoever he do in person, yet he cannot err in office. Liberius (say they) in persecution might yield, Marcellinus for fear might commit idolatry, Honorius might fall to heresy, and more then all this, some Judas might creep into the office, and yet all this without prejudice of the office and seat, in which (saith S. Austin) our Lord hath set the doctrine of truth. If your Divines of Reims knew that S. Austin wrote this of all Bishops that held the faith with concord: their sin is the greater. For, that which he made common to the unity of all : they nippe it as proper to the singular seat of one. And, that which he spake in general of wicked bishops who say good things and do evil : they abridge it to Popes. As who say that Popes only could be wicked : not other Bishops also.

If there were perhaps either a slip ofmemory, or other oversight in citing of S. Austin's words, the matter is not great, so long as the thing is true which they be cited for: namely, that the Pope may err in person, not in office; as a private man, not as Pope.

The matter is so great, that the track thereof will find us out that, which by this distinction you seek to steal away. For you say that the Pope cannot err in office, though he may in person. And why? Because, although his person be wicked: yet in the seat hath God set the doctrine of truth, as S. Austin saith. But as S. Austin saith it, all Bishops, be they good or evil, pastors or hirelinges, do sit in that seat. So that none of them can err in office neither, by consequence of your reason. Wherefore if the Pope cannot err, as Pope: a Bishop cannot err, as Bishop. But you will not say (I think) that a Bishop cannot err, as Bishop. Therefore you must yield, that the Pope may err, as Pope.

What if I said that a Bishop cannot err, as Bishop? I could maintain it after a sort.

I doubt not of that. But you should mar the Popes privilege: which if you do-

Nay, I say it not. The fault of your argument is rather in the former part: I mean, in the ground thereofwhich you said as out of S. Austin, that the office and seat, wherein God hath set the doctrine of truth, is common to all Bishops. For, though he may seem to have so thought in that epistle: yet in the next before it, he giveth that prerogative to the See of Rome.

Unless your Divines of Reims do abuse him. For out of that epistle they teach us this lesson. God preserveth the truth of Christian religion in the Apostolic See of Rome, which is in the new Law answerable to the chair of Moses, notwithstanding the Bishops of the same were never so wicked of life: yea though some traitor as ill as Judas were Bishop thereof, it should not be prejudicial to the Church, and innocent Christians, for whom our Lord providing said, Doo that which they say, but do not as they do. August. Epist. 165. Now, in the epistle alleged and quoted for proof of this lesson, S. Austin saith the very same, which in the other, of wicked Bishops in general; though applying it in particular to the Bishops of Rome, if any of them had been wicked. Your Divines of Reims, leave out the general words: that simple men may think he meant a special privilege of the See of Rome. Whereto they note in the margent: The See of Rome preserved in truth. And upon other like places: The dignity of the See of Rome. And that which passeth all, they say that in the new law the See of Rome is answerable to the chair of Moses: the Apostolic See of Rome. I was of opinion (before I saw these glosses of theirs upon the Testament, ) that Stapleton had passed all the Popes retayners in abusing Scriptures and Fathers for the Papacy. But now I perceive and confess, that as Jerusalem did justify her sister Sodom : so the Divines of Reims have justified their brother Stapleton. For Stapleton, as he hath dealt with greater truth and honesty then they, in many other pointes▪ so hath he shown in this of Scribes and Pharisees sitting in Moses chair, both, that the text is meant of wicked Bishops, all such as say and do not, and, that S. Austin giveth that sense of the text. But the Divines of Reims have set down S. Austin's name, and words so, as if he had thought that to be Scribes and Pharisees had been a peculiar grace unto the Popes. And, under color of his authority, and judgment, they force the scriptures also to it, saying, that the chair of Moses in the old law was that the See of Rome is now, The See of Rome is answerable to the chair of Moses. Which sentence is so gross, that unless they had hoped to find swine in England, whom any dung would please that savored of the Pope, they would not have durst to lay it on the scriptures, no not though their hearts had been as fat as brawn, and their faces as hard as adamant.

What mean you to slander a college of so learned Divines in such sort? Doth not S. Austin mention the See and Bishops of Rome in all the places which they cite, both in the epistles, and against Petilian?

Not in all: in some he doth. But doth he mention him in any of them so, as though the chair of Moses were proper unto him, and he alone should sit in it?

Perhaps, not expressly: yet he doth impliedly, and by a consequent. For else why made he special mention of him more then of others?

Because he had occasion to speak of him specially through the objections of his adversaries. Yet he maketh mention of other Sees and Bishops too, as of Jerusalem. But, the scripture witnesseth that all men are liars. If I should hence avouch that the Pope is a liar: would you say that I avouch the Pope alone to to be a liar, and not the Turk also?

The Pope may lie by nature▪ but God by grace can free him from it.

The question is, what God doth: not what he can do.

But as he can, so he doth, by privilege of the See of Rome.

As true as Austin saith it. Such a proof, such a privilege.

S. Austin may have said it, if not in the former places, yet in the other, For certes D. Genebrard, to prove that the Pope may be an heretic in person, but cannot err judicially, doth bring forth a reason from the chair, that is, the See, and quoteth him for it. For the force (saith he) of the chair is such, that it constraineth them to speak good things and true, who do not good, nor think true: neither doth it suffer them to teach their own things, but the things of God. Augustine. lib. 4. de dectr. Christ cap. 27. & epist. 166.

Of the two places, whence he gathereth this, the former agreeth fully with the later; the later is the same that your Divines of Reims abuse, as I have shown. In both S. Austin speaketh of wicked Bishops generally, not specially of the Pope. In both he meaneth the office of teaching by [the chair:] the office, committed not to one Bishop, but to all. If Genebrard do take [the chair] in this sense: how proveth it your privilege? If he mean the See of Rome by [the chair:] then is there a conspiracy of Prophets among you, as there was among the Jews, and Genebrard is one of them.

It is not likely that S. Austin used the name of the chair, for the office of teaching, which is common to all Bishops, as well to hirelinges, as to pastors. For he saith that the chair constraineth them to speak good things and true: the chair constraineth them. How are they constrained but by a special grace for the benefit of the Church? And in what Bishops may this grace be shown, but in the Popes only?

S. Austin, as he noteth that grace in the Popes, so doth he show it in all other Catholic Bishops of his time, whose doctrine the Donatists (against whom he writeth) did not reprove, but their manners. He calleth the chair, (in which they all sit) the chair of wholesome doctrine : and saith, they are constrained to speak good things in it. He openeth the cause why they are constrained : to weete, that although they seek their own things; yet they are afraid, and dare not teach their own things, out of the pulpit of that Church in which sound doctrine is established. So that the special grace, whereby they are constrained to speak good things and true: is an ungracious grace, whereby they are induced to seek their wealth or honor. For, they preach Christ for ear • hly commodities, of money, or dignities, and the praise of man. The love of which things is so mighty with them, that it doth move them effectually and forcibly to preach in such sort as is fit to get or keep the things which they love. And hereupon S. Austin saith, they are constrained and enforced to it: as Paul said to Peter that he constrained the Gentiles to do like the Jews, because by his example he moved them effectually; as Laelius told his friends that they constrained him to grant them a thing, which they by earnest suite entreated. For that he used the word [contstrain] in that sense: himself hath declared other-where, by saying, that shepeheardes (he meaneth hirelinges ) will they, nill they, will say the words of God that they may come to milk and wool. The speech may seem harsh, that shepeheardes will they, nill they, will say the words of God: but he speaketh so, to note that the love of milk and of wolle, that is, of commodities, constraineth them to feed the sheep with God's word, whether they like of it, or no. Now because the doing hereof is in, and by, their office of teaching, which the chair betokened, as, the chair of Moses : therefore he saith that Moses chair did contstrain the Scribes and Pharisees to say good things ; and that amongst Christians, hirelinges are constrained to say them in the chair too. As if I should say, when in the Church of England a Papist preacheth against Popery, a worldling against worldliness, an hypocrite against hypocrisy, (which sometimes they do:) the pulpit constraineth them to preach so. You should mistake me, if you should imagine that I mean our pulpit hath a special grace to keep all preachers still from error. Even so do they S. Austin, who dream of such a chair in his words. Howbeit, if you think that a chair with him is of greater force, then a pulpit with us: yet you cannot think but that his words spoken of the Scribes and Pharisees are meant of all Bishops, who say and do not. For so he expoundeth the Scribes and Pharisees often, even in the same book which your Rhemists allege. Wherefore if the Pope by virtue of the chair cannot err as Pope: then another Bishop cannot err as Bishop by virtue of the same chair. But any other Bishop, you grant, may err as Bishop. Therefore you must grant, the Pope may err as Pope.

Nay, I will grant rather that S. Austin erred, and laid a false ground: if he do impart the privilege of the chair to all other Bishops as well as to the Pope.

Then you must grant withal that Genebrard and your Rhemists have abused S. Austin, to bring him as for that, which he is flat against. But I will defend S. Austin in a truth: and prove that the argument which I have grounded on him is so sure and sound, that you must needs grant it, unless you will be froward willfully. For what think you, first: may a Bishop err as Bishop?

Who doth deny it?

There is one in Plato who saith that a magistrate cannot err, as magistrate; nor a Prince, as Prince.

Not a Prince? Why?

Because a Prince is, as it were, a physician of the common wealth: and a physician cannot err, as physician. For in that he erreth, he misseth of his art. Wherefore, by want of physic he erreth, not by physic. And so (to speak exactly) no artificer can err: at the least he cannot err as an artificer. For he which erreth, erreth because he hath not skill enough, and not because he hath skill.

But yet an artificer may err in practice of his art: as a physician, in curing sick men: a Prince, in ruling the common wealth. And therefore, me thinketh, that shift is but a quidditie. For an artificer may be justly said to err as an artificer, when he doth err in that which he dealeth with in respect of his art. At least, if he err not therein as an artificer, he erreth as an evil artificer.

That is true, as an evil artificer.

Then your man in Plato must amend his speech: and say, that a Prince may err as an evil Prince, though he cannot, as good; and a magistrate, as an evil magistrate.

And of a physician he must amend it too: and say, that a physician if he cure not the sick well, doth err as an evil physician.

He must so.

Likewise if an auditor do miss in casting of accounts: he erreth as an evil auditor.

An evil auditor.

And if a cook do miss in dressing of meat, he erreth as an evil cook; a tailor in making garments, as an evil tailor; a shoomaker in making shoes, as an evil shoomaker.

What else? and all artificers after the same sort.

Nor only artificers, as they are called commonly, but all, in whose functions skill and art is needful for the discharge of them: whether they be civil, as lawiers, judges, counseilors; or ecclesiastical, as deacons, pastors, doctors. Doo you not mean so?

I mean of all such, except the Pope only.

You prevent me before you need. I come not to the Pope yet.

No: but I see what you go about. You would fish out of me, that a Pope may err as an evil Pope.

You are too suspicious. I meant to conclude, that a Bishop may err as an evil Bishop For it is a Bishops duty, to divide the word of truth aright. If he err, in dividing it: he erreth in a point of the Bishops duty. Shall we say that he erreth as an evil Bishop?

We must so, it seemeth, by proportion to the rest.

But perhaps we have dealt too hardly with the rest. And now in Bishops I perceive it. For would you call S. Austin, and S. Cyprian, evil Bishops?

Evil? God forbid.

Yet they have erred sometimes in dividing the word of truth: as you confess of the one; the other showeth of himself. And we do all offend in many things. Even the best physician doth err sometimes in curing; the best Prince, in ruling. Through defaute, I grant: because they are not good enough. And to speak exactly, there is none good, but one, even God. But if we speak as men are commonly wont: we may not call the best, evil. Wherefore I am loath to say, that a Bishop erreth as an evil Bishop, if he err in dividing the word of truth. I had rather say, that he erreth as Bishop offending in a point of duty. And so would I mitigate our speeches of the rest: not to call them evil, whom all account good; but to note that good, in men, hath imperfection.

Doo so, if you list.

Then we will bid the sophister in Plato farewell: and say that a magistrate may err, as magistrate: and a Prince, as Prince.

I was of that mind at the first.

And a Doctor, as Doctor; & a Bishop, as Bishop.

True: and likewise the like.

Is not the Pope a Bishop? the Bishop of Rome, I trow.

I thought that hither you would at last. And therefore I did purposely except him by name. For it is true in all Bishops, save in the Bishop of Rome.

I know you did except him: but with what reason? For if it be true in general of Princes, that they may err as Princes; it followeth in special that any Prince may err as Prince: the Queen of England, as Queen; the King of Scotland, as King; the German Emperor, as Emperor; and so forth all the rest, whose office is Princely. This you grant. Doo you not?

Yes, it is so in Princes, I grant.

Then, in like sort, if it be true of Bishops that they may err as Bishops, it followeth that any Bishop may err as Bishop: the Patriarke of Venice, as Patriarke: the Cardinal of Alba, as Cardinal; the Pope of Rome, as Pope; and so forth all the rest, whose office is Bishoply. Doth not reason teach you, that you must grant this also?

No. Because the state and condition of Bishops is not like to Princes in this consideration. For amongst Princes there is none priuileged by virtue of his office not to err, as Prince. But amongst Bishops the Pope of Rome is priuileged not to err, as Pope.

The date of this privilege is out, M. Hart : it cannot serve you now. For yourself misliked Thrasymachus in Plato as shifting with a quidditie, for saying that a Prince cannot err as Prince.

And I mislike him still.

You confessed also, that an artificer may be justly said to err as an artificer, when he doth err in that which he dealeth with in respect of his art.

I did so. What then?

And you thought it meet, that we should say a Bishop erreth as Bishop, when he erreth in a peint of the Bishops duty.

And this I grant too.

How can you deny then, but the Pope may justly be said to err as Pope, when he erreth in a point of y ^e Popes duty? And since a point thereof, is, to divide the word of truth aright, belonging to him, as to all Bishops, by the chair & seat, that is, the office of teaching, wherein God hath set them: the Pope is not priuileged by virtue of the chair from erring as Pope, more then all Bishops are priuileged as Bishops. That, if another Bishop may err notwithstanding as Bishop, which you grant: you must needs grant the Pope may also err as Pope. Yea, though all Popes were pastors or hirelinges, and none of them thieves : yet might they err as Popes too. For S. Austin and S. Cyprian erred, as Bishops. Yet they were pastors both.

Nay, the Pope certainly cannot err as Pope, that is to say, in office: though he may in person, as Pope Honorius did.

Nay in Pope Honorius you are cast certainly. For I have proved now that he wrote that as Pope, which he was condemned for: and therefore erred as Pope.

It may seem he wrote it as Pope, & so erred. But that is not enough to prove that y ^e Pope may err in office, as I take it.

To prove it then more fully: let us see first, what is the office of the Pope, that so it may appear whether he may err in office, or no. S. Peter the Apostle writing unto Elders, by whom he meaneth Bishops and all who have the charge of souls (as you acknowledge:) Feede ye, saith he, the flock of God which is committed to you, taking care for it, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; not as though you were Lord's over God's heritages, but that ye may be ensamples to the flock. Wherein he chargeth them to preach the word of God, and lead a godly life: that they may feed the Church both with doctrine and example. This is the Popes office, I think, if he be a Bishop: for it doth touch them all. But what think you of it, least I lose my labor through an [except the Pope:] doth it touch all Bishops, or all save him only?

It doth touch them all.

The Council of Trent hath made two decrees against the sin of non-residence ; in the later whereof it proveth that all they who have the charge of souls are bound to be resident, because they ought to feed their flock with the word, with sacraments, with prayers, and with good works; and feed it so they cannot, if they forsake it, as hirelinges, and be not resident upon it. Beside the which necessary consequence of reason, the term whereby S. Peter doth note the care, that they should take, importeth as much. For it signifieth to look too, & as it were to watch over: to look, as shepherds to the flock, which they must day and night, where there are wolves and wild beasts: to watch as watchmen in the city, a needful thing in peace, but in war specially. Wherefore since every flock of Christ is in danger of the wolf, that is the devil, who seeketh whom he may devour ; and Satan with his Angels, even with spiritual wickednesses, is still in war against the faithful: it followeth that all Bishops ought to be resident on their charge, all pastors to attend their flocks, all watchmen to regard their cities. Doo you allow of this too?

So: as the Council hath decreede it.

By your confession then upon the scripture, with the Council, the office of a Bishop requireth three things: that he preach faithfully, that he live uprightly, and that he be resident on his charge. But the Bishop of Rome may err in each of these. Therefore in office he may err. How say you? May he not?

He cannot err in them all.

He may err in office, if he may err in any of them: for each of them toucheth his office, you grant. But I prove, in them all. And to begin with the last: he may be non-resident. For he was so by the space of threescore and ten years together: all the which time, seven Popes, who followed one another, Clemens the fifth, John the two and twenteeth, Benedict the twelfth, Clemens the sixth, Innocent the sixth, Urban the fifth, & Gregory the eleventh, abode first at Lions in France, then at Avigno, and never came as much as once to Rome. Is not this true?

Yet you may not say that they were non-residents. For the Pope hath charge over the whole world, not over Rome only. So that wheresoever he abideth, he is resident.

And wheresoever he abideth not, he is non-resident. Will not that follow? For he that hath two benefices smaller then Rome, is not resident on y ^e one, if he be resident on y ^e other. And whatsoeueryou imagine of y ^e Popes residence upon the whole world: unless he be resident at Rome, he is non-resident. Which himself acknowledged, even Gregory the eleventh, the last of the seven: who therefore went at length from Avigno to Rome. For the chiefest cause that moved him thereto, was the speech of a certain Bishop. Whom when he had asked, why he went not to his charge, from which a Pastor ought not to be so long absent: the Bishop answered him, And why most holy Father, go not you to yours ? The Pope was not so wise to reply, as you do, that the whole world was his charge: but being moved with the just reproof of his fault he went to Rome straight. And when after his death the Cardinals were to choose a new Pope: the clergy and people of Rome beseeching them to choose an Italian (least, if a French m • n were chosen, the Court should into France again) said, that it was me • te the Pope should be resident upon the Papal See. Whereby you may perceive that the Pope, and clergy, and people of Rome thought the Pope non-resident when he abode in France. What think you? that he was so? or that they erred who thought so?

You are too full of questions, by which you seek to entangle me. Go forward with you • argument: and when you have done, I will answer to it.

I seek not to entangle you, but with the truth: wherein I wish your company. But if I should go forward alone, till I had done; my pains might be perhaps either fruitless or needless. Wherefore I must desire you to go forward with me, and answer to my question, whether you think the seven Popes were non-residents.

They were Frenchmen all, and, upon a fancy belike to their country, they abode in France to the great hurt of Italy and Rome. They might have done better to have stayed at Rome still: but what then?

That is as much (in gentler words) as if you said; they did amiss in it. The Pope may offend then in that point of duty which requireth residence. The next, of godly life, he may offend in also. Which I have proved already by sundry examples: but if you will you shall have more, Urban the sixth, and Boniface the ninth▪

It is superfluous to rehearse more of their stories. We grant, as I have said, that they may err in manners. And in deed non-residence is a fault rather of manners, then of doctrine. Wherefore though they may err in residence and life: they cannot err in doctrine. And that is it, which we defend.

I speak not of their doctrine now, but of their office. In two pointes whereof you grant that they may err. The third is as manifest. For he which now is Pope, Gregory the thirteenth, preacheth not at all. If he preach not at all: he preacheth not faithfully. If he preach not faithfully: then may he err in that point too.

How know you, that he preacheth not?

Your self did tell me so; and it is the likelier, because they, who commend him, commend him for a lawyer and not for a Divine.

But his predecessor Pius the fifth did visit often times the Churches of the city, and preached to the clergy, as Surius noteth of him.

That is a greater proof, that the Popes use not commonly to preach. For Surius doth likewise note of him also, that he suffered fewer Courtisans in Rome, and them in streets less famous : because they dwelt before in the hie streets & gorgeous houses in great number. And peradventure Surius who praiseth Pius for his preaching, made the most of it. Pope Pius was alive, when Frier Surius praised him. Moreover Surius reckoneth this amongst his praises, that in a procession he was not carried on men's shoulders (as Popes are wont to be) but he went a foot to the great edifying of the people. Small preaching of the Pope may be praised as great: when his going a foot shall edify the people so. Neither yet doth Surius report of his preaching more then to the clergy. Of sermons to the people he giveth him this praise, that he vouchsafed them of his presence at solemn times. Belike he did edify the people enough with going a foot. But if Pope Pius had preached to the people as well as to the clergy: one swallow makes not summer; his preaching had not done his duty. M. Pacie, Secretary to king Henry the eighth, and his Embassador in Italy, (a man who saw farther into the state of Popes, then Surius ) doth write that Pope Julius the second was requested to make one Giles, (a learned Frier,) Cardinal. To the which intent whē it was alleged that the man had learning & preached diligently: nay marry, quoth the Pope, that is the only reason, why I cannot make him Cardinal with safe conscience, that he may preach the word of God the better still, which he might not if he were Cardinal. For that is very far from the dignity and custom of Cardinals, (saith Pacie, ) and therefore Pope Julius, as he was a Pastor most careful of the flock, would not agree to that request. Now, if it be so strange for Cardinals to preach: what think you of the Popes them selves, who are more occupied with affairs of state, and may less attend so base things as preaching? As the example showeth of the same Julius. Who bending all his powers ( as soon as he had bought the Popedom) partly to recover, and partly to enlarge the patrimony of Peter, that is the Popes dominion temporal: he moved war against the Lord's of Bononie, Perusium, & the land about, against the Venetians, the Duke of Ferrara, the State of Genua, and the French king. Wherein to have his purposes, he gave himself wholly to the conveyance of devises, confederacies, practices, with Princes, people's, Signories, English, French, Spanish, Dutch, Swizzers, Italian, and set them all by the ears together. Neither did he wage these wars, by others only, that himself might preach the mean while at Rome : but himself was present at some of them in person. Amongst which he bore himself most valiantly at the siege of Mirandula. Whether he came twice, in the deep of winter, through great cold, and snow, and did a captains duty both in words, and deeds: yea, pitched his tent so near the town wall, that the shot of the artillery had twice almost killed him; it killed two even fast by him. And surely (saith Guicciardin ) it was a thing worth the noting, and very strange to men's eyes, that the king of France, a secular Prince, fresh of age, strong of body, brought up in armor from his youth, should rest himself at home, dealing by captains, in a war which was made chiefly against him: and of the other side to see that the Pope the vicar of Christ in earth, an old man, and sickly, and brought up pleasurably at ease, should come in person to a war which he had made against Christians, and come into the campe unto a base town: where putting himself (as a captain of soldiers) to labors & perils, he retained nothing of a Pope but only the robes, and the name. To be short, the captain, the Pope (I would say,) was troubled so with warring that he had no leisure to think of making sermons. Some do write of him, that when he was going once out of Rome against the French men with an army, he cast S. Peters keys into the river of Tiber, saying, since Peters keys cannot defend us, let us try what the sword of Paul will do. Which though peradventure it be but a jest, yet showeth it a truth, that Julius did labor to advance his Church by war in things temporal, which he should have edified by godliness in things spiritual, that is, for Peters keys, he took the sword of Paul : not that sword of Paul whereof he saith, the weapons of our warfare are not carnal ; but that sword with which Pope Nero did behead S. Paul. All Popes have not had so much to do with war, as Julius the second: nor all so much with peace, as Gregory the thirtenth. But for these thousand years, almost, they have been proling to keep their State, or to increase it: and for these last five hundred, since the Roman Church, of small, weak, and (in a manner) a handmaid of the Emperors, is become the lady of Emperors, nay, of all, (as Onuphrius writeth,) they have been troubled more about it. Wherefore though some of them, it may be, have preached, sometimes, for a fashion, at solemn feasts, after the order of their book of ceremonies: yet that which the duty of a faithful pastor & steward doth require to give the household meat in season, to teach both publicly and privately, to be instant in season & out of season, to improve, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine : they were entangled so with the affairs of this life, that they could not do it. At least, if you say, that they, who did preach, discharged faithfully the whole duty: with what face can you say it ofthem, who preached not, as Gregory the lawyer, and Julius the warrior?

You are not sure that neither of them did ever preach. But if they were not able to preach by them selves: yet they might preach by others. And so I am sure that our most holy Father Gregory the thirtenth doth faithfully discharge that duty.

By others? What meaneth that?

As if a man that oweth money, should procure his freend, or send his servant, to pay it: he payeth it by another, because another payeth it for him. Princes have their officers in peace, in war their captains. Them selves do not all things which they are said to do: and yet in deed they do them, because they do them by others.

O: by others. I understand it. You mean as Pope Julius, though he were in the campe, and warred by him self: yet he was in the pulpit, and preached by Frier Giles. And when Pope Leo the tenth (next after Julius ) made Frier Giles Cardinal, that he might hold his peace: then other Friers stepped up in his room, and Pope Leo preached by them in like sort, while by himself he played the wanton. But Christ when he commanded Peter to feed his sheep : meant not that he should take his Princely sportes and pleasures in Belvedere by him self, and preach the word of God by others. If you think the Pope may be discharged so for this point of a Bishops duty: it was an oversight that you forgot it in the former. For you might say as well, that if he be not resident by him self, he may by others: and if he live not godly by him self, he may by others. And thus, although the Pope be damned by himself: yet with your distinction he may be saved also. He may be saved by others.

The case in these things is not like. For all are bound to lead a godly life by them selves: and he, who is not resident by himself, is not resident.

So he, who doth not preach by himself, doth not preach. For therefore is a pastor bound to personal residence, that he may attend his flock by himself, & preach unto it personally. Which you may learn by the decree of the Council of Lateran made against non-residence, & pluralities, a root of it. Because (saith the Council) some men through exceeding covetousness do seek to get diverse dignities ecclesiastical, and benefices mo then one, against the ordinances of holy rules and canons, so that being scarce able to execute & discharge one office they take unto them selves the stipendes of many: we command straitly that this be not done hereafter. When therefore a benefice or charge ecclesiastical is to be bestowed, let such a person be sought for it, as may be resident on the place, and perform the duty thereof by him self. The cause then why persons are charged to be resident, is, that they may perform the duty ( serve the cure, as it is termed) by them selves, and not by vicars. Wherefore if they may preach (which is the duty ) by others: they may be resident by others. To say they maybe resident by others, were ridiculous. It is no reason therefore to hold that they may preach by others.

No? What say you then to those rules of law: A man may do that by another, which he may do by him self, and, he that doth a thing by another, it is as well as if he do it by him self?

I say that rules of law must be expounded by the law, whence they are taken: and there are few of them which suffer not exception. As here we have to weigh, that men may commit some things to others to be done, some things they may not. A thing which they may commit unto others, if they do it by others, it is as if them selu • s had done it. So Princes by their Council, their Lieutenantes, their officers do look unto their state, and minister justice and judgment. So men in law-matters do deal by atturneyes; in traffic, by factors; in household, by servants: in all affairs of life, by friends, whom they do put in trust. But if a thing be such as you ought of duty to do it personally yourself: then you do amiss if you commit it to another, and, though another do it, your are not discharged. As, for example, amongst workmen there is a great difference both of wit, and nature, and knowledge, and instruction. A man who desireth to have a fair and strong house, chooseth him a workman, whom he knoweth to be a wise and skillful builder, and covenanteth with him to build his house thus and thus. If this builder do not build the house himself, but get another to do it: he hath built it by another, but he hath not discharged his duty. Why? Because the owner did regard his skill, when he made choice of him, and meant that himself should be the builder of it. The like may be observed in Noble men and Counselors, whom Princes put in trust with matters of importance. For when they are chosen to do this or that in respect of their industry (as the law doth term it) that is of special virtues by which they are the fitter unto this or that: their allegiaunce bindeth them to do it them selves; they may not do it by others. As, the Earl of Warwick, when the Queens Majesty appointed him General over the army, which she sent against the Rebels in the North ( Whom Pius the fifth, your preaching Pope, had stirred up:) he might not send another General in his steed; himself in person was to go; because to that charge, his prowess, his valure, his wisdom, his faith, his industry was chosen. Now, the Church of God is a spiritual house : and his people must fight against the Rebels of the North, I mean, the flesh, the world, the devil. Christ, the Lord of the house, and Prince of the people, hath ordained Bishops to be the builders of the one, and captains of the other. And he hath chosen them in respect of their industry, that is, that they be wise, righteous, holy, temperate, modest, watchful, apt to teach, fit as you would say to build an house, and guide an army. But he that is so chosen must discharge the duty by him self, and not by others: according to the law, whence your rules are taken. Wherefore those rules of law cannot discharge Bishops, and therefore not the Popes, from preaching by themselves in person.

That law, which your exception against my rules is grounded on, hath an exception too. For it saith, that he, whose industry is chosen, may not commit that charge unto another, which is committed unto him, unless it be expressed in the tenor of the commissiō, that he may do the thing by him self, or by another.

True. But this exception hath nothing to your purpose. For it is not expressed in the tenor of the commission, which Christ hath made to Bishops, that they may do their duty by them selves, or by others.

Why, then if a Bishop be sick, extremely sick, so that he is not able to move out of his bed, much less to come into the pulpit: yet he is bound still to preach by him self, because it is his duty.

Nay, if he be sick, it is his duty then not to preach by him self. God hath laid another duty upon him, to look to his health that he may do his former duty: or, (if his appointed time be fulfilled,) to think upon a higher duty. But by this reason no Christian is bound to come to Church by him self. For he is not bound if he be sick extremely. Neither hath the Pope need to preach by others. For, if he be sick that he cannot preach, he is discharged before God: yea, although no other do preach in his steed.

But it is better yet, if he supply his room by others.

Be it better. What then?

If sickness may excuse him: then imprisonment may.

And banishment, and death, and whatsoever difficulty, whereby God depriveth him of power to preach. What then?

And why may not then the great affairs of the Churches state excuse him too?

What else? As Pope Julius, that he may lie in campe to beat Mirandula to the ground; that he may recover Rauenna, and Ceruia ; that he may conquer Placentia, and Parma ; that he may raise England, and Spain, against France; France, and Germany, against Venice; Venice, and Rome, against Genua ; them both, and others, against Ferrara; Italy, against it self; the Swizzers, against all; saving that the Swizzers plaid the Swizzers with him, that is, for lack of pay and food they forsook him.

You take a delight in discovering still the frailties of the Popes, as cursed Cham did the priuities of his father Noah. The great affairs that I meant of the Churches state, are the affairs of religion & government of the Church throughout all Christendom: whereof the charge belongeth unto them by duty, and doth greatly busy them.

How far I am from Cham, and your Pope from Noah : I could declare easily, if it pertained to my purpose. But I am the willinger to bear this reproach, because, when S. Bernard reproved the corruptions of the Court of Rome, he did incur it too, and hath defended me against it. For that which he said on lesser occasion, I may more justly say on greater: I speak things naked, nakedly; neither discover I privy shame, but open shamelessenes I reprove. I would to God that these things were done privately, and in chambers. I would that we alone had seen them and heard them. I would that the Noes of our time had left us some what whereby we might cover them in part. Now, when all men see that which is a common talk throughout the world: shall we alone hold our peace? My head is bruised round about; the blood doth gush out on all sides; and shall I think that I must cover it? Whatsoever I lay thereon, it will be bloodied: and it will turn to greater shame and confusion, that I should seek to cover that which cannot be covered. These things S. Bernard wrote about the time of Pope Eugenius the third, (above four hundred years ago,) when Popes either had, or made a semblaunce of more honesty. What would he have written, if he had lived since, under Boniface the eighth, or Urban the sixth, or Boniface the ninth, or John the three and twenteeth, or Paul the second, or Alexander the sixth, or Leo the tenth, or him of whom I talked last, the warrior Julius ? Wherefore if I should seek to cover them now, when in Bernard's time they could not be covered: the shame which he feared might fall upon me, and mine own conscience would condemn me. Look you to it, M. Hart, who sooth up those men of sin in their iniquities; and call their furies, frailties ; and make a Noah, of a Nimrod ; and bring the fall of Saints to excuse the willful outrages of thieves and robbers. You say that you meant by the great affairs of the Churches state, the affairs of religion and government of the Church throughout all Christendom. Whatsoever you meant: that is the truth which I shown by the affairs of Pope Julius. For in the Popes language, the name of [the Church] doth signify the Papacie, that is, the dominion and princehood of the Pope, in things both temporal and spiritual. So that when Julius warred, either to recover, or to enlarge y ^e bounds of his dominion temporal, then was he about the affairs of the Church. And this is apparent by the Ita • ian history written of those affairs: wherein Faenza, and the cities which he requireth the Venetians to restore unto him, are called cities of the Church ; and when he seazeth on them by force or composition, they return to the government and obedience of the Church ; and if his martial feats do stick in some distress, though things go hard (quoth Julius) yet God will help his Church ; and the means by which, the ends whereto he fighteth, are invested all with the Churches title, the captains of the Church, and armies of the Church, against the Churches enemies, & rebels to the Church; the Churches horsemen; the Churches footmen, the Churches subjects, the Churches vasals : in a word, the things which the Pope possesseth, they are the Churches state; the Churches state is said to be in peril and danger, when he is like to lose somewhat; he bindeth the Spanish king to find him yearly three hundred men of arms to defend the Churches state; he sendeth word to sundry princes, that the French king will bring a mighty host to oppress the Churches state ; the French king offereth to the Emperor, that he will help him by force of arms to get Rome and all the Churches state, as belonging by right and reason to the Empire. This is the state in deed, about the affairs whereof the Popes are busied. The affairs of religion and government of the Church throughout all Christendom, are but pretenses and pillars to support this state. For, as Bernard wrote of the Court of Rome, that they who went thither to multiply their church-promotions, should there find favorers of their lusts; not that the Romans care greatly how things go, but because they greatly love bribes, and follow rewards : so men ofskill and judgment, who knew the Popes thoroughly, and faithfully set forth their lives, have opened this secret and mystery of their state, (as it hath been menaged since it grew to majesty,) that they mind the propping of their own kingdom, while they pretend the worship of Christ, as Herod did. Pope Iulilius (saith his story) did pretend godliness and zeal of religion: but it was ambition that moved him to his warlike enterprises. When I name Pope Julius, I name him for example. For he was neither first nor last of those Herodes. But you may guess the rest by one.

In deed they have warred, I grant, in time of need: and why should they not? Though I will not defend ambition in any of them. But this I will defend that they might lawfully provide for the maintenance of their state temporal. For what saith S. Paul? If any man have not care of his own, and specially of his domesticals: he hath denied the faith, and is worse then an infidel. Wherefore you must consider that the Pope susteineth a double person as it were: the one of a Prince, the other of a Bishop. As a Prince, he governeth his temporal dominion: as a Bishop, his spiritual. His spiritual charge is all the church of Christ: his temporal, a part of it. And so, though both of them concern after a sort the state of the Church: yet his affairs spiritual, which stretch through all Christendoom, do differ from his temporal, which touch the Church of Rome chiefly. For example, Leo the ninth, a very good Pope, above five hundred years since, when the Normans spoiled the land of the Church and he had cursed them for it, but could not conquer them by curses: he got of the Emperor a strong band of soldiers, whom he lead in person himself against the varletes, and met them in the field manfully. At the same time Michael the Patriarke of Constantinople denied the supremacy of the Church of Rome, and claimed it to his own See. Whereof when Pope Leo heard, he sent three legats to Constantinople, to root out that heresy. Now the former of these things he did as Prince, against the Normans, who set upon his temporal dominion with arms: the later, as Bishop, against the Patriarke, who taught heresy, a point of his spiritual charge. Affaires of this later sort let me name (for difference sake) the Church-affairs ; the former, the affairs of state. And so it shall appear, what injury you do them, whom spitefully you call Herodes. For you say that the affairs which they are busied about, are their affairs of state. Whereas in very truth the affairs of the Church do busy them a great deal more: to see that the Catholic religion be taught, that errors be suppressed; to provide dioceses of good and learned Bishops, and parishes of able pastors: to hear appeals, determine causes, receive supplications, excommunicate the wicked, absolve the repentant: to do the whole function of supreme heads of the Church. And may not these affairs so weighty in charge, in number so many, be a just excuse for them if they preach not? Or will you slander them that they omit that duty for their state-affairs, when they omit it for the Church ?

I would to God you were able to prove that I slander them, and speak more spitefullie then truly ofthem. Better had it been and would be for poor Christians: of whom they have murdered more souls, nay more thousands of souls, in one country, with their Herodian practices; then Herod murdered bodies through his whole dominion. And this have they doon by that profane policy, wherewith I justly charged them: even by pretending the Churches state, to plant their own; and using the shows of government spiritual to get them temporal advancement. For under the coolour of binding and loosing, the credit of forgiving sins, the title of S. Peters keys, their ordering of the whole Church, and highest power in all Church-causes : they have raised up y ^e tower of their Papacie with the spoils of Christendom, and have devoured men as bread, and sold the poor for silver, that they might make themselves strong in power and rich in wealth. The first, and chiefest means, whereby they finished this work, and having built the walls by climbing up above Bishops, did lay the roof of it by climbing up above Emperors, was excommunication. Which they, not content to use against their Souerains as a spiritual ceasure, did rack it to a civil punishment; removing them, not only from the communion of the faithful, but also from dominion and rule over their subjects; and putting them, as from the Church, so from the Empire too. When Emperor Leo the third, desirous to abolish the worship of Images (which then was creeping in) had caused them to be defaced, and thereupon did punish some who withstood it: Pope Gregory the second did excommunicate him in that Papal sort, forbidding the Italians to pay him tribute, or obey him. Upon this sentence and inhibition of the Pope, a great part of Italy rebelled against their Emperor resiant at Constantinople, and laid violent hands upon his Deputies & Lieutenants, of whom they slew two, and put out the eyes of the third. By reason of which uproar and tumults ensuing, part of the country, that rebelled, was conquered by the king of Lombardie: Rome and the dominion of the Roman Dukedom fell unto the Pope. So the Pope, who till that time had been a Bishop only, became a Prince by treason. But the Emperor sent another Deputy into Italy to stay those attempts. Who entering into league with the king of Lombards, they joined hosts together and besieged Rome. The Pope perceiving that the garrisons and munitions wherewith he had fenced and fortified the city, were not strong enough to make his party good against them: trusting on the king of Lombards devotion, he went out with a solemn procession unto him, and with many sweet words of Peter and Paul, Princes of the Apostles, who with their precious blood had consecrated the church of Rome, and will the godly virtuous catholic king of Lombards hurt the city of that church? and draw on him the vengeance of Peter and Paul? he did entreat the king to give the siege over, and make the Deputy and him friends. Afterwarde a Duke one of the kings subjects, intending to revolt from him, did join in league and freendship with the Roman Prince, Pope Gregory the third, and on the affiance thereof he rebelled. The king having recovered his Dukedom by arms, pursued the Duke to Rome. The Pope, not willing to deliver the rebel, nor able to defend the city against the king who thereupon besieged it, dealt (as his predecessor had doon) by supplication. But finding the matter to be past entreaty, and hoping for no aide in Italy: he sent to Charles Martell, the king of Frances hye steward, desiring him to help the church against the Lombard. Which Charles by an embassage did, & raised the siege. Now when Charles died, his son named Pipine suc • ceded him in office: who, because Chilperike (that was king then) did no part of the kingly duty, but left the charge and burden thereof unto him, he took thereby occasion to make himself king. Which to bring about with greater credit and authority, the Popes advise was asked. Pope Zechariah made answer, that he, who did execute the duty of the king ought to be king rather, then he who did not execute it. Whereupon the French men chose Pipine to be king: the Pope released them of their oth to Chilperike. About a two years after, the king of Lombardy having woon Rauenna, (which city was the seat of the Empire in Italy, ) thought it meet that Rome and the Roman Dukedom should now be subject to him, who reigned in the imperial city, as it had been afore time to the Emperor. In this consideration he moved war against Stephen, the successor of Zechariah. Pope Stephen remembering his predecessors benefit bestowed on king Pipine, went to him into France: and putting him in mind of Zacharias' good turn, prayed him to undertake the quarrel of S. Peter, and of the common wealth of Rome against the Lombards. Yea in an assembly of the Nobles of France, whom Pipine called together to know what they would say thereto: the Pope did not on • lie exhort them to war, that they might recover Rauenna and the Emperors land from the Lombards, but also was importu •• te with them that they should not restore it to the Emperor. For (he said) the Emperor was unworthy of it, because he had forsaken the defense of Italy, and was an enemy to the Church. But if that king Pipine would either do the duty of a thankful man, or provide for his soul health, or reward the Popes labor: he should bestow Rauenna, and the dominion of it, with the rest of that dition, by way of gift, upon S. Peter. This sermon as soon as Pope Stephen had made, the French men agreed to war against the Lombards & Pipine protested that if he conquered them, he would ( for obtaining the forgiveness of his sins) give Rauenna with the dominion and dition joining to it, unto S. Peter & his successou • s. According to which vow when he was come into Italy, and the Emperor sent him Ambassadors with presents, desiring him, if he recovered that dition and dominion, to grant it unto him, and not unto the Pope: he answered that being moved thereunto not with human rewards, but with desire of meriting the favor of God, he had received the church of Rome into protection, because he was persuaded that it would be available to the salvation of his soul, and the forgiveness of his sins: and since he had sworn that he would grant & give it unto S. Peter and his successors, therefore he must perform it. Which as he said, so he did. Neither did he give it unto them more willingly, then his son Charles the great confirmed the gift, and added more to it, when he had made a full conquest of the Lombards, & brought into subjection the kingdom of Italy. Howbeit though the Popes were now become mighty, with spoils of the Emperor, and had cast off his yoke from them: yet were they still subject to Charles the great, king of Italy and France, whom afterward they called the Emperor of the Romans, as the other the Greek Emperor. For though Charles gave the countries to the Pope: yet he reserved the right, sovereignty, and roialtie thereof, to him self. And when (his race decaying) Otho the great had gotten the Italian kingdom: Rome, and the rest of the Popes dominions, regarded the Pope, as Prince of the common wealth, but the king (or Emperor) as their sovereign Lord ; and did yield tributes and services to him. So that the Pope was but a vasall to the Emperor, and held of him in fee. The chiefest means whereby they cast of this yoke also, was excommunication, not Christian but Papal excommunication, such as they had practiced against the Greek Emperor. Pope Gregory the seventh was the beast that did it. The occasion was the giving of Bishoprics and church-livings, which the Popes themselves had granted to the Emperors, Charles, and Otho : yea the giving of the Bishopric of Rome, and choosing Popes. But when they had gotten of them that they sought, and were grown lusty and fat by their means: they saw that the giving of Bishoprics and church-livings did abate that power, to which they aspired. Wherefore under color that the Emperors gave them not freely, but for money: they taught that lay men ought not to give them at all, and cursed both the givers and receivers of them. Hereupon there arose great strife between the Pope, and the Emperor Henry the third: in the flames whereof Pope Gregory the seventh did ( by the right of S. Peters authority) deprive him of his whole Empire, discharge his subjects of their oth, and forbid them to obey him. The Princes of Germany not knowing the bounds either of S. Peters authority, or of the Popes, thought them selves bound to disobey their Emperor, and so rebelled against him. Pitifull and lamentable were the griefs and contumelies which the poor Emperor was fain to endure between the Pope and Papists, while sundry ways he sought to retain his state. But in fine Rodulph, a Duke, one of his subjects, was chosen Emperor against him. The Pope, to strengthen Rodulph, sent him a kingly crown: and pricking him forward to defend valiantly the Church against Henry, did grant ( in the name of Peter and Paul ) a pardon and forgiveness of all sins both in this life, and in the life to come, to all that were obedient and faithful unto him. When that would not s • rue, (for the new Emperor was stain by Henry in the field;) his own natural children were raised against their father: first Conrade, the eldest; then Henry, the next. Which Henry spoiled him at last of the Empire, and brought him to such misery, that he was fain to beg meat and drink of the Bishop of Spier, in a Church which him self had built, promising to earn it, by doing there a clerks duty, for he could serve the quire. And not obtaining that, he pined away, and died for sorrow. This dreadful example of Henry the third advanced much the credit of the Popes authority. The more, because that when Vecilo, the chiefest Bishop of the Germans, had denied in the time of those sturres and troubles, that the Emperor might be deprived of his crown and kingdom by y ^e Pope: there was a Council gathered, in which (y ^e Popes legate being present at it) Vecilo was condemned of heresy for that opinion. For when the doctrine also was received (besides the practice) that the Pope might lawfully depose kings and Emperors: it made the tallest cedars of Libanus to shake, and to fear the bramble, least fire should come out from him and consume them. Which appeared in Henry the fourth, the next Emperor. Who, though he began to tread his fathers steppes, and took Pope Paschal prisoner, whereby they grew to composition confirmed by the Popes oath, that Bishops and Abbats chosen by free voices should be invested with ring and staf • e by the Emperor without Simony, and being so invested might lawfully receive consecration of their archbishop; but he who were chosen by the clergy, and people, and not invested by the Emperor, should be consecrated of no man: yet when he was set at liberty again, and breaking his covenants 〈…〉 with open perjury, condemned both the grant which he had made to the Emperor, and the Emperor himself, and that with the consent of many Bishops of sundry prou ••• es in two Councils held at Rome; the Emperor, afraid of his fathers ende, was glad to surrender the grant of Pope Paschal into the hands of Pope Calistus, and to restore him the possessions and royalties of S. Peter. Thus was the Pope n • w become at the least the Emperors peer. One policy there is left, whereby he became the Emperors Lord. When Charles the great, king of • raunce by inheritance, of Italy by conquest, had after great benefits bestowed on the Papacie restored Pope Leo cast out by the Romans, and come himself in person to Rome to see him settled: the Pope in recompense and token of a thankful mind thought good to honor him with the title of Emperor. Which he did with ioly ceremonies and solemnity, laying an imperial robe upon his body, a crown of gold upon his head, anointing him (as Sadok did Solomon ) with oil, the people crying out thrice with joyful shoutes, God save Charles the great, the godly Emperor of the Romans. This honor, the posterity of Charles which succeeded him, sometimes the Pope desired them, sometimes themselves desired and used to receive with the like solemnity and holy pomp at Rome, as their father had. In process of time the race of Charles lost the kingdom of Italy: and Otho the German got it (as Charles did) by conquest. Otho was crowned Emperor with the like solemnity. And, from that time forward, he that was king of Germany held also the kingdom of Italy with the western Empire, and therefore did receive three crowns: one of Germany at Aken, by the Bishop of Men's ; another of Italy at Milan, by the Bishop of Milan ; the third of the Empire at Rome by the Pope. Neither did he use the title of Emperor before the Pope had crouned him: but was called the king of Germany and Italy, or, the king of Romans, and Emperor appointed. But the Pope, as a wise and politic Prince, turned this point of ceremony into a point of substance, when he saw his time: and because he gave the title of Emperor, and set a crown on Emperors heads; he sought to persuade men that he gave the Empire and right of the crown. The time fit to do it was when the troubles of the two Henries, and the Councils sentence against Bishop Vecilo, had bred an opinion that the Pope had right to depose Emperors. For thereof men would gather that he had right to make them also. Wherefore when Lotharius, the next after the Henries, was crowned Emperor at Rome : Pope Innocent the second, who set the crown upon him, caused the doing of it to be painted on a wall in his palace of Lateran, and under the picture these verses to be written.

So finely by the Popes painting, and poetrie, was the seat wrought, and as it were the wheel of things turned about: that, whereas the Pope before held his Princedom of the Emperor in fee: now must the Emperor be thought to hold his Empire of the Pope in • ee. For though it be said that Painters and Poets may fain by authority : yet he and his mates, w • o feigned this pageant, did mean it should be taken for a matter of truth. The proof whereof appeared not many years after in the next Emperor that was crowned at Rome, even Friderike the first. The Pope who crowned him (it was Pope Nicolas Break-spear, called Adrian the fourth,) sending by occasion two legates unto him, Rowland, and Bernard, Cardinals, with letters concerning the thing for which he sent them: did mention therein what honorable courtesy he had shown the Emperor, and given him this benefit, that he bestowed the crown of the Empire on him. Which letters being read, the Emperor and his Nobles took it very evil that the Pope should write that he had given the Emperor the crown of the Empire by way of a benefit. And fearing least thereby he should mean that, which some avouched also commonly, that the kings of Germany do obtain the Empire by the benefit of the Popes, (for the picture & verses in the Palace of Lateran did plainly signify as much:) they could not contain their grief, but they must needs say, that the Empire is not the Popes benefit. To whom when Cardinal Rowland, one of the legates, replied, And whose is it then, if it be not the Popes? Otho, the County Palatine, standing by, was moved so with that speech, that he drew his sword and would have slain the Cardinal. But the Emperor stayed him, and willed the legates to get them back to Rome straight, and signified by letters throughout all Germany what embassage the Pope had sent him: adding that he acknowledged the Empire to be given him by God alone, and by the Princes who had chosen him ; and therefore desired them, that they would not suffer the majesty of the Empire, so worthily gotten by their ancestors, to be impaired by their default. The Pope, understanding by the return of his legates both in what peril they had been, and what the Emperor answered: wrote letters thereupon to the Bishops of Germany, wherein he willed them to deal with the Emperor & make him do his duty. The Bishops spake unto him, & he answered them, y ^t he obeyed the Pope gladly: but the crown of the Empire he accounted him self to have received of God chiefly, and next of the Princes Electors of Germany; his regal coronation, of the Bishoppe of Cooleine; his imperial, of the Pope. As for the Cardinals whom the Pope had sent: he forbad them to go forward, because he found that they had brought letters from the Pope to the endamaging of the Empire. Heretofore the Empire hath lifted up the Church: but now the Church (saith he) doth press down the Empire. It began with painting: thence it came to writing: now is the writing sought to be maintained by authority. I will not suffer, nay I will rather leave my crown, then I will permit the authority of the Empire to be diminished any way. Let the picture be razed out, let the writing be called back, that there remain not monuments still to raise strife between the kingdom and the priesthood: and then shall there no duty be wanting of my part towards the church of Rome. This answer of the Emperor seemed so reasonable to the German Bishops: that they advised and wished Pope Break-spear to pacify his wrath with a gentler embassage. The Popes chiefest instruments to pluck down Henry the third, were the German Bishops. Wherefore Pope Break-spear, perceyuing that they were not so forward against Friderike, as they had been against Henry, was f • ine to follow their advise. So he sent two wiser and discreeter legates, writing by them unto him, that there was no cause why he should be offended with his former letters. For though other men (saith he) take the word [benefit] in another sense; yet you should have taken it in that in which we took it, and which it seemeth to have by the first original. For it is compounded of two words, good and fact: and it signifieth, not a thing that is given in • ee, but a good fact. As it is used throughout the whole course of the holy scripture: wherein we are said to be guided and nourished by the benefit of God, not as though we had these things of him in fee, but as of his blessing, and a good fact of his. Now we (as you know) did set upon your head the crown of the Empire so well and so honourably, that all men may judge it was a goodfact. And so were the other words mistaken also, we bestowed on you the crown of the Empire. For by this word [ bestowed] we meant nothing else, but, we set it upon you. The Emperor had required the picture to be razed out, the writing to be called back. But he must be content (and so he was) with this Papal mitigation of the writing, made somewhat • mother by the Legates. The picture was too good an evidence to be defaced. And, for all this smoothing of the writing too, Pope Break-spear ceased not to quarrel with him still, and to encroch upon him. The Emperor exacted hi • tribute to be taken up in the Popes dominion : the Pope sent him word that he should not exact it, but at his coronation only. The Emperor required Bishops to do him homage and to be sworn to him: the Pope wrote sharp letters and reproved him for it. The Emperor, being offended with the Popes letters, wrote somewhat sharply back, and set his name before the Popes, and spake to him in the singular number: the Pope again wrote to him that he marveled why he gave not due reverence to S. Peter, and to the holy Church of Rome. The Pope required him not to bind the Bishops of Italy to do him homage ▪ the Emperor said he was content not to seek their homage, if they would be content not to hold his lordships. The Pope would not have him send messengers to Rome, unless he made him privy to it, since all in that city were S. Peters magistrates, with the whole royalty : the Emperor said that that point did need more consultation; for so the Roman Emperor should have the bare name of a ruler only, if the City of Rome, whence he is named the Roman Emperor, were not subject to him. Upon these dealings and answers too and fro, the matter was debated between the Popes legates (four Cardinals) and the Emperor, to bring them to agreement. The Emperor professed that he would both give and receive judgment. The Popes legates answered, that, it was meet, he should receive it only: since the Pope is not subject to any man's judgment. Whereto when the Emperor said that he would stand to the arbitriment of six Cardinals, and six Bishops, or Princes: the legates were content to write thereof unto the Pope. They wrote, and the Pope refused the condition. To be short they agreeed not, while Pope Break-spear lived. But the lusty Cardinal Rowland who succeeded him, and being Pope was named Alexander the third, did so rouse up Fridericke with their old policy of excommunications Papal, and rebellions, that after great dangers of his state and life, he was enforced to yield at length and ask him pardon. Which being granted on conditions, he came to Pope Rowland in the city of Venice, and kissed there his feet, and gave him the upper hand, and held his stirrup while he was m • unting on his palf • ie. So by treading down the Emperor Fridericke, the Popedom was advanced to be the highest state in earth; and Peters chair got Caesar's right. If Henry the fifth (the son of Fridericke ) sought to stay it, by seizing on S. Peters lands, & giving them to three Dukes to be held of him in fee: he sought to stay a water-course, which the more you stop it, the fiercer it doth break out. For Philip his brother, the greatest of the three, was excommunicated straight: and Pope Innocentius the third (watching his time) drew the two swords out against them all: discharged their subjects of their allegiance and oth; and set both his clergy and laity upon them; neither left them til he h • d vanqui • ht them, what with curses, what with wars; and that which Pope Rowland had well begoon, he nobly finished. Thus have I touched briefly the story of the temporal state and kingdom of the Popes, how • h • y clime • up to the sovereignty of it. The truth of which story is clear by the monuments of historians worthy credit, Paulus Diaconus, Otho, Radeuicus, Aimo • nus, Rhegino, Sigibertus, and others who lived at the same times, wherein the several things were done. Yea they, in sundry pointes and circumstances of importance, have opened partly more, partly the same more forcibly, then as I have touched it. But lest you should suspect that some of them perhaps speak somewhat of affection, against the Popes, or for the Emperors: I have contented myself to touch no more, nor with more advantage, then Sigonius in his story of the kingdom of Italy, presented to the Popes son, and written for the Popes glory (as it became the Popes reader,) hath set down, out of them and other monuments, as most true. Whereby it is very apparent and evident th •• under pretense of the Churches state, of the Church-discipline in excommunication, of the Church-doctrine in meritorious works, of the Church authority in forgiving sins, in teaching men their duties, in dispensing with oaths, and lastly of the Church-solemnities in setting crowns on Emperors heads ; the Pope hath gathered jewels to decke the triple crown of his worldly kingdom, and hath made himself not only a Prince, but also a Prince of Princes of the earth. It was almost twelve hundred years after Christ, when he obtained this sovereignty. Since the which time he hath more notoriously built up his Babylon with the stones of Zion. The common wealth is witness hereof in the calamit •• s of her civil governors. Whom, by the devises of the same treacheries, he hath deprived of kingdoms, goods, liberty, and life, when they have stood in his light: as the realms of England, of France, of Germany, of Boheme, of Navarre, & the states of Florence, Vrbine, Venice, in Italy, have tried to their smart. But the Church hath tried it with greater smart in her spiritual pastors. For, as Samuel, when the Israelites would have a king to rule them, (as other nations had,) told them that the king, who should reign over them, would play the king with them, and theirs; he would take their sons and appoint them to wait upon him, to be his horsemen, footmen, captains, to ear his land, to reap his harvest, to make him instruments of war, & instruments to serve his chariots; he would take their daughters to dress him sweet ointments, and be his cookes, and bakers; he would take their fields, and vineyardes, and olive trees, the best, & give them to his servants; yea the tenth of their seed, and of their vineyardes, & give it to his courtiers, and to his servants; he would take their men, their maids, their youth, their cattle, & put them to his work; he would take the tenth of their flocks; and, to conclude, they should be his servants : even so, when the Pope had gotten the kingdom, that is, the supremacy, over the Israelites of God, that is, Christians; he took their sons & daughters, nay their fathers and mothers, who should beget them in the gospel, and feed them with the milk of life, and appointed them to serve him, to be his Chauncellors, Treasurers, Secretaries, Masters of requests, Clerks of the Escheker, Legates, in peace to go on embassages, in war to look unto his armies; he took their bishoprickes, and benefices, and prebendes, the best, and gave them to his servants, yea the first fruits and tithes of their livings, and gave them to his Courtiers and to his servants; he took their pastors, their doctors, their elders, their deacons, and put them to his work; he took the tithe of their Churches, nay their whole Churches; and, to conclude, both they and theirs were made to serve him. If you, M. Hart, who have been at Rome, and seen the Popes person, have not yet perceived this policy of the Pope: your want of experience, or rather your education in a Popish Seminary, (where other kind of books are given you to read then as bewray such mysteries,) may bear the fault of it. But there are two Italians of your own profession, Franciscus Sansouinus, and Onuphrius the Frier: of whom the one hath written a treatise of the government of the Court of Rome; the other, sundry books of the Popes and Cardinals. By them you may learn it. For Onuphrius showeth that there are three sortes of the Church-officers which are named Cardinals, the first Bishops; the second, Priests ; and the last, Deacons: Priests, and Deacons, of the parishes that are within Rome; Bishops, of the cities that lie near about it. When Rome had received the Christian faith, and the Church increased there from day today; the faithful were divided into sundry parishes for their better government, and had Elders and Deacons ordained to attend them. Elders, or, as you term them, Priests, (and I will cal them so, because I speak of Cardinals known by that title,) were they to whom the charge of ministering the word and sacracraments; Deacons, to whom the care for the poor of the church, and their provision, was committed. Now at first, the parishes had each but one Priest, while they being small, one pastor could discharge the duty. But after, when the number of the faithful grew, each of them had more. And hence did the name of Cardinals arise, that he who was chief amongst the Priests of one parish was called the Cardinal Priest, that is to say, principal. In like sort when the several wards of the city could not be served by several Deacons, but each of them had moe: the chief amongst the Deacons of the same ward, was called the Cardinal Deacon. The name being worshipful amongst Priests and Deacons of the city of Rome, spread to the Bishops that dwelt near about, and they were called Cardinal Bishops, though it were long first. For amongst the ancients it was never heard of; neither might with reason, since they, being equal in power to other Bishops cannot be called Cardinal in respect of them. Yet in time, by custom, I know not how, they got it. Wherefore of the Cardinals of Rome, six are Bishops, the Bishop of Alba, Tusculum, Praeneste, Sabine, Portuese, and Ostia : the rest, whose number in old time was certain according to the number of parishes and wards, now they are more or fewer, as the Pope will, (they were three score and three when this was written by Onuphrius ) but all the rest are Priests, or Deacons And for almost twelve hundred years after Christ, although the Pope employed them much in his affairs, yet ordinarily they lived on their charge, and kept their calling and degree. The honor & power of Cardinal Bishops, was as the Bishops of other cities. The Cardinal Priests, and Deacons, were neither Bishops themselves, nor equal unto them in dignity. And if a Cardinal Priest were chosen (as worthy of a greater charge) to be a Bishop else where: he left his place in Rome and ceased to be Cardinal, because it is ordered by the ancient rules of ecclesiastical discipline, that one man may have but one ecclesiastical charge, and therefore no man might be a Cardinal Priest of Rome, and Bishop of another Church. But after that the Pope had trodde the Emperor under feet, & lifted up his own throne above the highest thrones on earth: he lifted up withal the mayest • ie of the Cardinals, as of his Noble men and Counselors, and used them as principal pillars of his state. He gave to them alone the right of choosing the Pope: the people, Prince, and clergy being robbed of it. He decked them with honor of wearing redd hattes: and going, first, before Bishops; afterward, before Arch-bishops; and at the last, before Patriarchs. He chose the greatest Prelates of sundry dioceses and provinces, as of York (for example) and Canterbury in England; Reims and Roan, in France; Toledo, in Spain; Lisbon, in Portugal; Milan, Rauenna, Venice, in Italy ; in Germany Coolcin, Trier, and Men's; in Boheme, Praga; Cracouia, in Poleland; Strigonium, in Hungary : and so forth the chiefest Bishops of all Christendom, to be his Cardinal Priests and Deacons. Yea, they were glad to be so, because the Cardinalship was a degree unto the Popedom. Neither did he accustom them to give over their Bishoply charge, that others placed in their rooms might supply that duty, and they might attend their charge of Cardinal Priestship and Deaconship in Rome : but for the better maintenance of their own porte, and strengthening of the Popedom, he suffered them to keep the livings of their Bishoprics and Cardinalships both. Wherein least he might seem to break that rule of discipline, one man to have but one charge: he took order that they should not be called Bishops though they had Bishoprics. How then? Forsooth, a Bishop, if he were made Cardinal Deacon, must be called elect Bishop: if he were made Cardinal Priest, must be called perpetual administrator of his Bishopric. As namely Thomas Wolsey Archbishop of York, when he was made Cardinal parish-priest of Rome, he must be called, not Archbishop, but Cardinal Woolsey, Priest of S. Cecilies parish, and perpetual administrator of the Archbishopric of York. And Aeneas Siluius, Bishop of Siena, when he was made Cardinal Deacon, must be called, not Bishop, but Cardinal Siluius, Deacon of S. Eustaces, and elect Bishop of Siena. A shift somewhat strange, and such as a while the Popes themselves were ashamed off: at least they used it sparingly, until the time of Clemens the fifth. He, when the yse was broken, did wade more boldly through. And after him his successors, who staide in France, as he did, and set the See of Rome in the city of Avigno, did bring it to a common practice: in so much that none almost was made Cardinal, who had not a Bishopric either in title, or in commenda, or in perpetual administration. So by these devises (which all were invented by the Popes at Avigno ) they had now disfurnished many Churches of Bishops, to furnish, in word, the Church of Rome with Priests, and Deacons ; in deed, the Court of Rome with rich and mighty Cardinals. Yet this is the least parte of that abomination of desolation, which they have set in the holy places. For under pretense, that it is their duty to see that all Churches be provided of fit pastors, they have reserved Church-livings, when and which they listed, to their own bestowing, and them have they seized on to maintain the port of their Cardinals too. This was not only done, but also professed to be done to that ende by Clemens the sixth. Who having made new Cardinals, reserved the benefices in England that were void, and should be void next, (besides Bishoprics & Abbeies) to the sum of two thousand marks, and for them he provided two Cardinals to be their pastors. Whereof when stay was made by king Edward the third, who seeing how the Church and realm were both decayed by though • e provisions for aliens, did inhibit them to be se • u • d: Pope Clemens wrote unto him, that having lately made new Cardinals of the Church of Rome, he could not with reason but provide for them, as it was seemly for their state; & this he had doon by providing benefices which either were presently void, or should be after, unto a certain sum, for two of them in England, for the rest in other kingdoms and coasts of Christendom; through all the which almost he had made the like provision for new Cardinals, neither amongst them all had found any rebellion, (so he termed it,) save this in England only. The Cardinals, which Clemens had then made, were twelve. Two of them he furnished with so many benefices, as should be worth two thousand marks. I cannot say precisely what number that might be. But it must be noted that (as the rate of money and price of things hath grown) a benefice, worth three hundred marks or better now, was then not worth a hundred; neither did the Pope choose the fattest benefices but such as next came to the net: and he meant his Cardinals should have that pension clear, besides their farmers shares, and vicars, or curates. So that the two Cardinals (by probable conjecture) might have an hundred benefices before they had their yearly two thousand mark pension. But let it be eighty, seventy, sixty: let it be fifty: or, if that seem too much, let it be forty. The Pope did provide, as for them, so for the rest: who being ten mo, must have two hundred by proportion. Which proportion if it be drawn to all, nay to half, nay to a quarter of the Cardinals, whom Clemens and his successors have made since that time for these twelve score years: the number of parishes will rise to many thousands, which they have laid waste, as flocks without pastors, to maintain the state of their Cardinals only. Yet this is but a part of that abomination of desolation which they have set in the holy places. For as though the profits of so many Churches were too small a living for the Priests and Deacons of y ^e Court of Rome : they have gone forward from pluralities of benefices to pluralities of bishopricks. And under the color of commending (as they name it,) that is, committing them to some of trust for a time, till good and godly Bishops might be provided for them: they have put two Bishoprics unto one Cardinal, yea sometimes three, yea four, yea five, yea sometimes six. Cardinal Hippolytus, who plucked out the eyes of the Lord Julius his own natural brother, because a damsel, whom he loved, did love his brother more then him, and confessed to him that it was the beauty of his brothers eyes, wherewith she was so ravished: this Cardinal being deacon of S. Lucies in Rome, & Archpriest of S. Peters, had the Bishoprics of Milan, Capua, Strigonium, Agria, Mutina, and Ferrara. Of the which six, three be Archbishoprickes of sundry kingdoms and dominions, Milan, of Lombardie; Capua, of Naples; Strigonium, of Hungary; distant ech from other some hundreds of miles: the other three are somewhat nearer to their fellows, one in Hungary, two in Italy. But if the Popes have taken six dioceses and provinces lying so far a sunder, and made them all desolate of Bishops and Archbishops, to maintain one Cardinals pomp, and him a Deacon: what hath the desolation been which they have brought on dioceses and provinces that might be joined more fitly, to maintain the rest, and them of higher calling, as Cardinal Priests and Bishops ? Yet behold a greater abomination of desolation then this, nay, then all these, which I have touched hitherto. For the livings of the Cardinals (with avails thereto belonging) were great of themselves, and did perhaps content some: or if they did not, yet the number of those caterpillars was small in comparison. But the Popes had other hungry knights about them, kinsmen, officers, servants, retainers, vasals, hangers on, and all the rabble of their Court, whose living • s were not crumbs of y ^e Cardinals tables, whose number was as the grasshoppers which covered the face of Egypt. And they were also made pastors of Churches, (not to feed them, but to sleese them,) by the same conveyances of Papal reservations, commendaes, provisions, and other such Egyptian t • ickes. An example of it in our English Chronicles of Henry the third: in whose days the Pope enjoined by one mandate to y ^e Bishops of Canterbury, Lincoln, and Sarisburie, that they should provide for three hundred Romans in benefices next •• cant, and they should give no benefice until they had p • ouided for so many, competently. But what speak I of three hundred? The Romans and Italians were multiplied so within a few years in English church livings, by Gregory the ninth much, but more by Innocentius the fourth: th • t when the king caused a vewe thereof to be taken throughout the whole realm, the sum of their revenues was found to be yearly three score thousand marks, to the which sum the yearly revenues of the crown of England did not amount. The king though misliking the disorder greatly, yet being loath to medle with the redress of it for fear of the Pope, (the stripes of whose wrath against his father king John, against his coosen Otho the Emperor, and Othos successor Fridericke the second, were bleeding fresh before his eyes:) the Nobles and Commons sent a supplication to Pope Innocentius and the general Council assembled then at Lions. Wherein, upon complaint that an infinite number of Italians in England had the charge of flocks, who neither fed, nor knew, nor cared for their sheep, but received only the fruits & revenues, and carried them out of the realm: that the yearly rents of Italians in England amounted to three score thousand marks, and upward, besides diverse other avails, which they reaped where they sowed not: that England hoped for some relief of these grievances when Innocentius was made Pope, but now it is oppressed more out of measure by the Popes legat, who entering late into the land with larger power and commission then ever legate had, doth exceed excessively; he giveth to Italians some benefices already void, worth thirty marks or more yearly; some, that fall void by the decease of Italians, he thrusteth new Italians into; some he doth provide when they shall be void to be reserved for Italians; moreover, he wresteth out immoderate pensions from religious persons, and useth to excommunicate & interdict of Church-service, of sacraments, of Christian burial, them who gainsay him and resist him: upon this complaint the Nobles and Commons of the realm of England made humble suit unto his fatherhood, that he would extend the hand of mercy to his children, & ease them of those burdens of grievances and oppressions detestable to God and men. The messengers, by whom this supplication was sent, presented it before the Pope unto the general Council. To whom they made complaint withal of a clause in the Popes bulls, called [ Non obstante, ] by which he brake all laws and orders of the church to serve these his purposes. For whatsoever made against the tenor of his bull, he used to remove it with a Non obstante. As, for example, the Churches law and order confirmed by a Council, was, that one man should have but one benefice, and none should have any, but he, who could himself discharge the duty personally. The Pope sendeth forth his bulls for five Romans, the son of Rumfrede, and such, and such, that they shall be provided for of so many benefices as may be worth to each of them a hundred pound yearly, Non obstante that law. Pope Innocent was grieved at this supplication, and complaint of England, which touched his supremacy so near to the quick. Howbeit for the present he made them fair promises, and sent them sundry privileges from the Council of Lions: that Patrones thenceforth should freely present, and Bishops should admit fit persons to benefices, who would and could well serve the charge : that the Clerke of his Escheker (that was his legate) should provide but for twelve moe, without consent of the Patrones ; that if English men would be studious, honest, and thankful, (chiefly the sons of Noble men,) he would provide for them also, and dispense honorably with the worthiest of them for plurality of benefices ; finally, that no Italian should immediately succeed an Italian ; which was obtained for their treacheries, who when one that had a benefice was dead, would foist another into his room. And these things were promised: but they were promised only. For after that the Council was dissolved once, the Pope played the Pope, and brake them all with Non obstante. And as Pharaoh hardened his heart against Israel, and laid more work upon them, when they desired ease of bondage: so did Innocent against England. In so much, that after six or seven years, when a vew was taken again of the brick made of our English Israel for y ^e Italian Pharaoh : y ^e sum of those revenues which before amounted to three score thousand marks, was grown to three score thousand and ten with the advantage. Now if the outrage of this abominat • on were so monstrous in one realm▪ what was it in all, throughout the rest of Christendom? If Popes did so exceed above three hundred years ago, in the prime of their Papacie, when the iointes of it were yet scarcely knit: what is it likely they did after? If by one policy they brought so great wealth unto their Court and state, yea, by part of one applied to furnish their Italians: what may be thought of the same, applied to furnish the home-borne, each in their own country? What of so many others, some of them as fruitful as this, some more fruitful? What of their whole government: wherein they have claimed a fullness of power to do what they list, and they have put their claim in practice? What words may serve to utter the spoils which they have made of the Church of Christ; first, by ordaining of the Church-officers, in creating Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, and weaving palls for them; in disannulling the elections of some who lawfully were chosen; in granting some (who could not be chosen lawfully) to have the rooms by postulations ; in chopping and changing their persons from one See to another by translations, and their dioceses by divisions ; in giving pastors livings away • uer their heads by reversions, or aduowsons ; in shaping new creatures, Preaching Friers, and Minorites, and giving them the power of pastors; in dispensations with boys, dispensations with bastards, dispensations with idiotes, that they may have the charge of souls; dispensations with murderers, with adulterers, with Simoniaks, that they may keep their benefices; dispensations for pluralities, that one may have twenty; dispensations for non-residence, that they need never come unto them; to be short, in reseruaes, acces • es, regresses, coadiutories, unions, preventions, permutations, and a thousand such devises belonging to the market of benefices and bishoprickes. Secondly, by dealing with the Church causes: wherein they have received appeals from all quarters, that they might fish in troubled water; they have fetched persons a thousand miles off by citations to their consistory; they have disturbed the peace and discipline of the Church by sending legates a latere, by putting matters to their delegates, by priuileging men from laws, and exempting inferiors from their superiors regiment; they have multiplied human decrees, and made them snares to catch fowls, laws, that none shall mary in this or that degree of carnal kindred, or spiritual; canons, that men whose persons have such or such a blemish shall not ascend to priestly orders; vows, of pilgrimage, of chastity, of poverty, of obedience, of Nunrie, Moonkry, Fryery; which all they have released for money; yea, they have released oaths, solemn oaths, and have given licences to commit perjury: they have made sale of forgiveness of sins, and merchandise of men's souls: they have turned repentance into pains of penance, and penance into mines of silver and gold: they have proclaimed Jubilees of pardons plenary (as they call them) to all who came to Rome every hundredth year, and visited Churches there devoutly: these Jubilees they have abridged from an hundred years to fifty, from fifty to thirty three, from thirty three to twenty five; & because all Christians came to not Rome for them, they have sent their pedlers abroad with p • ckes of pardons, that all might buy them at their doors: they have reserved cases and crimes of greatest value, as Simony, Sodomy, offense of Church-liberty, from which none might absolve but they: and, to absolve men upon doing of penance, they have built at Rome a Papal exchange called the Penitentiarie, where these absolutions are sold at certain rates: neither being satisfied by this exchaunge with the living, they have sold their wares unto the dead also (but y ^e living must pay for them,) so many crowns, so many souls to be forgiven all their sins, and rid out of the pains of purgatory. Thirdly, by disposing of the Church-goods, which they have conveyed (as the unjust, but wise steward ▪) from the Lord to serve them selves: they have charged the livings of Churches and Churchmen with pensions, tributes, subsidies : they have exacted of them fifteenes, tenths, fiftes, thirdes, moyities of their substance, to the maintenance of wars which they have waged with the Emperors: they have robbed benefices to enrich Abbeies by appropriations, that afterward themselves might glean the greater fruit of Abbeys: they have made Prelates, and such as would be Prelates, to compound with them selves, for palls, for crosier-staves, for miters, for ringes, for signing of bills, and to compound with their servants for writing, perusing, subscribing, allowing, conferring, registering, taxing, receiving, keeping, delivering, and for the coarde and lead, wherewith their bulls are tied and sealed: they have devised new officers, yea new heardes and companies of officers in their chauncery, purposely to this intent that they might sell those rooms, the which being sold for many thousand crowns they forced poor suitors, who came to Rome for grace