Conference Between Rainolds and Hart

If you love me the better, M. Hart, for my plain dealing in so weighty a matter, as you say you must: I would to God you would deal as plainly with me, that I might in like sort love you the better too. But neither do you yield to that which I have proved by evidence of true • h: and although you cannot disprove my proofs of it, yet you seek to shift them off by fraud and falsehood. For whereas I shown that the Pope pretending discharge of his office in government of the Church, hath gotten his temporal dominion from Emperors by tree • son, and rebellion; and practiced vnlaw • ull power in things spiritual to the oppressing of Christendom; and therefore erred in office, yea, in the supremacy which he hath usurped over both the states spiritual and temporal: you, for the first point of his dominion temporal, do go about to clear him by sophisms, and lies; for the next of his tyranny in spiritual things, you smooth it, as a lawful authority abused; for the last of his erring in office, you abridge it to judgment and definitive sentence; and wrap his supremacy up in general words as allowed by all men, when in the particular pointes of the supremacy you cannot justify it by any. Festus the Roman thought Paul to be mad: the madness was in Festus him self, no • in Paul. You think that I err of a wrong persuasion : the error is your own, not mine, M. Hart. The faults of your dealing for the maintaining of your error, I will set before you: if perhaps the Lord will open your eyes, and vntye your tongue, that you may at length perceive and confess the Popes supremacy to be unlawful. To begin therefore with the first point wherein you seek to clear him from having usurped his temporal dominion▪ you say, that if we weigh things with indifferency, and in equal balance, I shall well perceive that both Emperors and other Princes adjoining unto him have rather usurped of his, then he of theirs. Which, if you took not things at hucksters hands without all weighing of them, you would never say. For, that which I have laid in one scale of the balance, is the manifest truth of records, & evidences, approved by the witness of writers very credible, who note the times, the persons, the means, and all circumstances how the Pope usurped. And that which you lay in the other scale, to ouerweigh mine, is partly impertinent, and nothing to the purpose: partly untrue, and impudentlie forged. The weightiest parcel of it, is that which cometh foremost, namely, that a good author doth write, that S. Peters patrimony is greatly diminished through the Popes negligent looking unto it. What is that good author (M. Hart) who writeth so? Why do you not name him? Is it because you fear that I should find he maketh naught for you, if I knew him? or that you would put me to the pains of seeking him? I pray use hereafter at least so much plainness, to name me the authors, on which your proofs are grounded: since I not only name them, but quote their places also whereon I ground mine, that you may the better sift them, and judge of them. The author, who writeth that which you allege, is Nicolas Clemangis, a Doctor of Paris, that lived about a ninescore years since: in deed a good author. Who lamenting the wretched and corrupt state of the Church in his time, declareth the Pope to have been the fi • ebrand of her calamities and disorders, in that, not contented with the fruits and profits of the Bishopric of Rome and S. Peters patrimony, though very great and royal, he laid his greedy hands on other men's flocks replenished with milk and wool ; and usurped the right of bestowing Bishoprics, and livings ecclesiastical throughout all Christendom ; and disanulled the lawful elections of pastors by his reservations, provisions, and aduowsons ; and oppres • ed churches with first fruits of one year, of two years, of three years, yea sometimes of • our years, with tithes, with exactions, with procurations, with spoils of Prelates, and infinite other burdens ; and ordained collectors to seize upon these taxes and tributes throughout all provinces, with horrible abusing of suspensions, interditements, and excommunications, if any man refused to pay them ; & used such merchandise with suites in his Court, and rules of his Chauncerie, that the house of God was made a den of thieves ; and raised his Cardinals, as complices of his pomp, from Clergy-men of lowest state to be the peers of Princes ; & enriched them with his dispensations to have & to hold offices & benefices, not two, or three, or ten, or twenty, but a hundred, or two hundred, yea sometimes four hundred, or five hundred, or more, and those not small or lean ones, but even the best and fattest ; to be short, in that he filled the sanctuary of the Lord with dumb dogs & evil beasts, even from the highest Prelates to the basest hedge-priests, through his usurpations, exemptions, compositions, his Simony, prosti • ution, and fornication committed with Princes of the earth ; and all, to maintain the pride, lust, and riot of his worldly state, which he hath lifted up above kings and Emperors.

You like and lay open the words of Clemangis, as of a good author, in that he reproveth abuses of the Popes. But what say you to that for which I alleged him, that S. Peters patrimony is greatly diminished through the Popes negligent looking unto it?

I say that you were abused by Genebrard, on whose word and credit you took that of Clemangis as making for this purpose, to which it cometh nothing nigh. For, it is little above nine score years since that was written by Clemangis. And what if the temporal dominion of the Popes (called S. Peters patrimony ) were diminished then by the successors negligence? Might not the predecessors therefore have usurped it of y ^e Emperors long before that time? How much more probably might I allege Clemangis for proof of the contrary: in as much as he saith, that the church usurped many things belonging of right to the Empire? But because I love not to build so strong conclusions upon so weak premisses: it sufficeth me that the good author, on whom you build yours, dischargeth not the Popes from having got their temporal dominion by treason. For, it followeth not that none of them were traitors eight hundred years ago, because before these ninescore years some were negligent: no more, then that the father was not an usurer, because the son is a bankerout. Wherefore, the weightiest parcel of that which you lay in for the Popes patrimony, is as light as a feather. The next, is somewhat lighter. For you say, that perhaps it is much lesser now at this time, then it was in the very best times almost thirteen hundred years since: perhaps, it is much lesser. Now, without perhaps, you presume much of some want in us, if you think that a dout • ull and uncertain guess may win us from a certain and undoubted truth.

Nay, you mistake my meaning, if you take my [perhaps] so. For, that word is used oftentimes of modesty, when men do not dout of that which they say. Neither do I of this: as you may perceive by my proofs of it.

But he, whose steps you tread in, used it of suttlety rather then of modesty: that if his proofs failed, yet they might find favor because they came in with perhaps. Which help you shall perceive that the proofs also of your [perhaps] here do stand in need off, if you weigh them with indifferency. The donation of Constantine beareth the bell amongst them. For he (you say) resigned to S. Sylvester Pope and to his successors the city of Rome, with all his Imperial robes and ornaments, retiring himself to Constantinople, where he abode as in his imperial seat, as also many other Emperors after him for many years together did, keeping still either at Constantinople in the East, or else at Milan & Rauenna in the West. And how do you prove that Constantine did so? Forsooth Eugubinus writeth it, you say; & proof is made of it by very many witnesses, as namely by Ammianus Marcellinus a heathen, who was sorry to see it; by Photios Constantinopolitanus, no favorer of the the Pope neither, and a Grecian borne; by Nicephorus; yea by S. Damasus, who lived about the same time, and saw Constantine him self; yea by our own men, who grant in their Centuries that the said donation of Constantine was confirmed a hundred years after by the Emperor Justinian, by Arithpert king of the Lombards, by king Pipine of France, Charles the great, holy king Louis, and lastly by Otho the great at a Council holden at Rauenna. So: your witnesses then for Constantine's donation are Eugubinus, Ammianus, Photios, Nicephorus, Damasus, and our Centuries. Are these all? No. For you add that there are many mo besides, as I may read in the Chronicles. In the Chronicles? In what Chronicles? You mean in the Chronicles written by Genebrard; whom in this whole point of the Popes temporal dominion you follow. Alas, M. Hart, give not yourself over so to be abused by that shameless man: who maketh no conscience of dealing most lewdly with all sortes of authors, to flatter those ambitious usurpers of Rome, and uphold their vilanie.

Nay, you are abused, or rather do abuse that worthy painful man, who seeketh nothing but the maintenance of the catholic faith. But it yrketh you that he hath disclosed the lies, stains, and frauds of the Century-writers: against whom his Chronicles are specially written.

Whether I abuse him, or he you, neither you only but all sortes of authors: the trial is easy. You say that the donation of Constantine is proved by them whom you named, and many mo besides, as I may read in the Chronicles. The many mo besides, whom I read alleged in your Chronicle-writer, are Zosimus, Nauclerus, S. Isidore, S. Jerome, Gratian, Iuo, Picernus, and the Jews, Rabbi Abraham, and Ibn Ezra. Do you rehearse his words, wherein he allegeth both these and the rest whom yourself named: and as you shall find him to deal in this point with all sortes of authors, so speak of him hereafter, and credit him in others.

I doubt not but he dealeth as a good Catholic. His words (touching Constantine's donation, and the witnesses by whom he proveth it) are these, if you will have them. Constantine the Emperor did give Rome and all the Imperial robes and ornaments to S. Sylvester Pope, and to his successors, as Eugubinus proveth manifestly in two books, and Photios the Greek Patriarke in his Nomocanon, the eighth title, the first chapter.

Well. Eugubinus and Photios do prove it. But do they prove that which Genebrard defendeth?

What else? For he defendeth the donation of Constantine.

But defendeth he the greater donation of Constantine, or the lesser?

The greater or the lesser? What mean you by that?

There are two donations of Constantine mentioned in the Canon law: the one in the decrees, wherein it is said that he gave the Pope both his palace, and the city of Rome, and all the provinces, places, and cities of Italy, or the western countries : the other in the decretals, wherein no more is said but that he gave the city of Rome. This I call the lesser donation of Constantine, which giveth Rome only : the other, the greater, which giveth Italy also with the countries of the west. And whether of them is it, that Genebrard defendeth?

Whether of them, say you? Or what skilleth that?

It skylleth very much. For the lesser seemeth somewhat to discredit the report of the greater: as it is observed by one of the best witnesses that Genebrard hath, I mean Nauclerus. Who, having shown, that Constantine left Italy and other kingdoms of the west to his sons by testament, and therefore it is likely that the decree which saith he gave them to the Pope is chaff (as the lawiers call it) and proveth nothing: whereto (saith he) the decretal maketh not a little, which treating of Constantine's donation speaketh only of the donation of the city of Rome, making no mention of Italy and other provinces. But whether this report of the lesser in the decretals discredit the greater in the decrees, or no: the greater is so brainlesse in the eyes of all men that have sense and reason, that not your historians only do nippe it, as Otho Frisingensis, and Platina, and Krantzius ; but also D • ctors and Divines, as Cardinal Cusanus, and Hieronymus Paulus, and Laurentius Valla, yea Pope Pius himself, have written purposely he would defend the lesser. For he saith that Constantine did give Rome to Sylvester: Rome, that is the city, and not all the western Empire of Rome.

His words indeed do seem so: and I think he meant not to defend the greater.

Think? Nay you may be sure that he meant not. For in the same place, upon the words that you rehearsed, I (saith he) have always denied this consequence: Somewhat is forged and added to the donation of Constantine; therefore all is forged. For it is certain that Constantine gave many things to the Church of Rome: but more things a great deal have come unto it other whence, either by the gifts of Princes and rich men, or by the testament of the godly, or by the purchasing of Popes, by exchange, and so forth, and the dispensation and providence of God. So that in Genebrards judgment Pope Sylvester and his successors have gotten a great deal more by other means, then by Constantine's donation. But they have not gotten more then the greater donation of Constantine in the decrees doth give them. For it doth give them all the provinces, places, and cities of Italy, and other countries of the west. In Genebrards judgment therefore the greater donation of Constantine is forged: and that which he defendeth must be the lesser only.

The lesser only be it. What gather you thereof?

I gather that Genebrard dealeth like himself, when he saith that Constantine's donation is proved by Photios the Greek Patriarke, and Eugubinus in two books. For Eugubinus writeth in defense of the greater donation of Constantine : avouching that he gave, not the city of Rome alone unto the Pope, no nor the country of Italy, but the whole West, even the Western Empire; in so much that he nameth particularly the kingdoms of England, of France, of Spain, of Aragon, of Portugal, of Denmark, of Norway, Sweden, Boheme, Hungary, Dacia, Rustia, Croatia, Dalmatia, Sardinia, and Corsica, and saith that they are all subject to the Pope, by right of that donation. As for the Patriarke Photios, he speaketh not a word of any donation. That which Genebrard meaneth is in one Balsamon commenting on Photios : and it is the same that Eugubinus writeth for. What think you now of him, who saith that Eugubinus and Photios the Greek Patriarke do manifestly prove that donation to be true, which himself confesseth to be false and forged?

But the next writer whom he allegeth, namely Zosimus, is fitter for his purpose: as speaking of the lesser donation precisely. For Constantine (saith he) departed out of Rome, and removed thence the majesty of the Empire▪ to Constantinople, because he knew himself to be misliked of the Romans for altering of religion.

What? Doth this prove that Constantine gave the city of Rome unto the Pope, because he departed from Rome to Constantinople ?

As Genebrard concludeth of it. For he departed: to whom? Not to the Senate, not to the people: for that hath no man written. Neither did the Senate or people ever claim it. To the Pope therefore: who since that time possesseth and keepeth it as his own; hath old records, and evidences, and revenues of it.

The wit of a Sophister. As if a man should say: king Henry departed from the city of London unto Windsore castle, and removed the Court thither. He departed: to whom? Not to the Aldermen, not to the Citizens: for no man saith so. Neither did the Aldermen or Citizens ever claim it. To the Bishop therefore: who since that time possesseth and keepeth it as his own; hath old records, and evidences, and revenues of it.

Nay, that is a lie, that the Bishop of London possesseth the city as his own since that time.

Even so is the other. For the Emperors possessed Rome four hundred years after the time that Constantine departed to Constantinople : as your own Sigonius showeth in his stories.

But king Henry governed still the city of London by the Lord Mayor: as Princes have been wont to do.

So the Emperors governed too the city of Rome by a Lord Deputy. Yea Genebrard might easily have found in his Zosimus y ^e one of those Deputies took upon him to be Emperor. If he could show by Zosimus that a Pope had done so: what a proof were that of Constantine's donation?

The Popes enjoyed not a while the full power: yet had they right unto it. Howbeit Ammianus Marcellinus showeth they had the power too: as Genebrard declareth after. But first he confirmeth their right out of S. Damasus.

Out of Damasus? How?

S. Damasus, who saw Constantine, hath written of that donation: as even the Century-writers affirm in the seventh chapter of the fourth Century.

Two lies, with one breath. For neither hath Damasus written of it: nor do the Century-writers affirm that he hath. Nay they affirm the contrary. For, in the very place that Genebrard allegeth, they say, that neither historians have made mention of it, such as are Eusebius, Eutropius, Rufinus, Socrates, Theodoret, Euagrius, Paulus▪ Diaconus, Beda, Orosius, Zonaras, Nicephorus, and the like: nor they who wrote the lives of Emperors, or of Popes, as Jerome and Damasus, though yet he speaketh somewhat of things given by Constantine: nor other famous Doctors whose monuments are extant, as Athanasius, Basil, Ambrose, Optatus, Gregory Nyssen, Gregory Nazianzen, Austin, and Chrysostom: nor the Popes themselves when they were to prove their supremacy in Councils did speak a word of that donation, which they would then have cast forth, as shipmen do the sacred ancre in great peril.

The words are not so flatt and perfect in the Latin, as you do english them. For, upon the name of Damasus, it followeth: qui etsi quaedam de donis Constantini dicit, tamen alij insignes eccl • siarum doctores-

But if you read it so: the clause ensuing is vnperfit, and hath no sense at all. A very manifest token that somewhat is a miss, through either the writers, or printers, or correctours faute. And that is [qui] mistaken (as I guess) for [neque,] and put out of his place: where it ought to follow upon the name of Damasus, etsi quaedam de donis Constantini dicit tamen; neque alij insignes ecclesiarum doctores- But howsoever the words are to be amended: the sense must needs be as I said touching Damasus. For the sentence is plain so far, that neither Jerome nor Damasus have mentioned that donation of Constantine : as plain, as that which followeth, that it is not mentioned by other famous Doctors neither. And who can imagine that the Century-writers should say that Damasus wrote of it: when it is so clear that he wrote not, that your Hieronymus Paulus, & Cusanus do bring his authority for a special reason against the donation. The right therefore of it is not proved by Damasus. Now, is the possession proved any better out of Ammianus?

Ammianus Marcellinus, an heathen, doth closely signify some such thing, while he complaineth and grudgeth at the Popes wealth and power: in the seven and twentieth book of his story.

Ammianus, (saith Genebrard ) doth closely signify some such thing. In deed some such thing : but so far from that thing, that better nothing were said of it. For thus saith Ammianus Marcellinus, an heathen, of Damasus suing to be Pope. Damasus and Vr • icinus burning with immoderate ambition of getting the Bishopric of Rome, did fall to very sharp bickrings through partes taken: in so much that the matter grew between them to the shedding of blood and to man-slaughter. Which tumult Viuentius (who was the Lord Deputy) being neither able to pacify, nor to redress, was forced through their outrage to withdraw himself out of the city into the suburbs: and Damasus through the valiant behavior of his faction got the conquest in the fray. And it is certain that in the Church of Sicininus (where Christians make their assembly) there were found a hundred thirty and seven carcasses of men slain in one day: and the people furiously bent a great while, was afterward hardly asswaged. Neither do I deny, considering the bravery and pomp used in Rome, but they who aspire thereto should strive with might & main to obtain it: since when they have gotten it, they shall be at such ease, enriched with the gifts and offerings of matrones, and carried abroad in wagons, and going in gay apparel, and following so riotous fare, that their banquets are more then princely: who might in deed be happy if they would contemn the stateliness of the city, (which cloak they use for their vices,) and would live as certain Bishops do in provinces: whom great moderation in use of meat and drink, and meanenes • e of apparel, and modesty of countenance, commend, as pure, and shamefast, to God and to the godly. Behold, this is the wealth and power of the Pope which Ammianus Marcellinus complaineth off and grudgeth at. Some such thing it is as Constantine donation: but it is not it. For the wealth, is the pomp and bravery that they maintained by the offerings of matrones. The power, is a faction of cutters, so desperate, that when they slew above a hundred in a fray, the Lord Deputy could not help it. But the very naming of the Lord Deputy (sent thither by y ^e Emperor) should have taught Genebrard that the Emperor kept the city still as his own, and was the sovereign Lord of it. Wherefore that which he findeth in Ammianus Marcellinus touching the Popes wealth and power, is in respect of wealth, the donation of matrones ; in respect of power, the donation of cutters ; but in respect of neither the donation of Constantine.

Nay, in that (I think) you are deceived greatly, that you say the Emperor kept still the city as his own because he sent a Deputy thither. For that Deputy or Lieutenant was there to keep the city, not for the Emperors use, but for his safeguard only.

Not for his use, but for his safeguard?

I: least the Pope growing daily mightier by reason of wealth, and bordering upon him, should encroch on somewhat of his upon occasion. As Princes nowadays are wont to have their Deputies and Lieutenants resident in cities near their territories for their own safeguard, and not to keep the cities as theirs, which are not theirs.

Ambassadors or Agents perhaps they may have in realms or cities near them. But that the French king should have a Lieutenant or Deputy in London, or that y ^e Queen of England's Deputy in Ireland should keep it not for her use, but for her safeguard only: Princes now a days (I hope) use not that; sure the Emperors did not. For they had their Lieutenants in y ^e city of Rome, not as Agents, but as Regents; and their Lieutenants kept it both to their safeguard, and their use: as Symmachus, a famous Lieutenant of the city, and the Emperors who deputed him, do manifestly show. Yea, even Ammianus him self (to go no further) doth import as much in the very place alleged by Genebrard : where both the Lieutenant is called the ruler of the city, and his government is namely noted. So far off was he from dreaming any such thing as you do imagine of Constantine's donation.

It is no great matter, though Ammianus Marcellinus, a heathen, do not prove it.

Not so great, as that Gilbert Genebrard, a Christian, doth falsely charge a heathen with the proof of it. But will you go forward to the rest of his witnesses?

Justinian the Emperor confirmed that donation a hundred years after: and then Arithpert the king of the Lombards, P • pine, Charles the great, Louis the godly, and last of all Otho the great in a public council of Rauenna, as the Century-writers also do report, using these very words. Centur. 10. chapt. 10. pag. 538. in Leo the eighth and John his successor: perhaps out of that Authentike (as they call it) or constitution of Justinian, That the Church of Rome should enjoy the prescription of a hundred years.

A proof of some weight, if all this be true that the Century-writers report, yea and report it using these very words, that Justinian the Emperor confirmed that donation a hundred years after, and Arithpert, Pipine, Charles, Louis, and Otho. But what if these be not the very words in which the Century-writers do report it? What if the Century-writers do not report it at all? As in deed they do not. For these are their words: Pope Leo the eighth to show his thankfullnes to the Emperor (by whom he had the Popedom) restored to the Empire the things which either Constantine or Charles gave unto the Church, or Justinian confirmed before him, or Arithpert the Lombard king bestowed on it. Now we have set down before out of Krantzius in the tenth chapter of the fourth book of his story of Saxony the copy of the letters by which Leo restored them. Thus far the Century-writers. Wherein, first, they speak not of Constantine's donation either the greater or the lesser, but in general only of things that he gave. Which might be other things, and not the city of Rome. Secondly, they say not, [the things which he gave, and Charles did confirm,] but [the things which either he or Charles gave:] that it might be Charles donation, and not his, for anything that they say. Thirdly, their very words are the words of Krantzius, whom they allege and quote: and Krantzius doth speak them by way of a jest. For neither is Constantine named in the letters in which he saith that thankfulness is shown by Pope Leo : and upon the letters he frameth a reproof of Constantine's donation. So that, to prove it by those words of Krantzius, is, as if the Pharisees should prove their traditions by that speech of Christ: Well do ye reject the commandments of God, that ye may observe your own tradition. Fourthly, the Century-writers do not as much as mention either Louis, or Pipine ; neither here, nor after where they mention Otho. Finally, not one of all that are mentioned is reported by them to have confirmed that donation. No not Justinian : of whom the show is greatest as Genebrard doth cite their words, that he confirmed it after a hundred years.

Yet their own words are that Justinian confirmed things unto the church.

And so Justinian did. For his constitution which Genebrard allegeth out of his Authentikes, that the Church of Rome should enjoy the prescription of a hundred years, hath this force, that whereas thirty years prescription did hold against the lands and possessions of others in actions and suites of law, no less then a hundred should hold against the lands and possessions of others in actions and suites of law: no less then a hundred should hold against the lands and possessions of the Church. Though the Century-writers meant by [confirming] the assuring of those things that any way came from Justinian : as appeareth by the letters which they refer them selves unto. But Genebrard doth take the advantage of the word, and helpeth it with adding [ a hundred years after, ] which fitteth some what roundly the time that Justinian reigned after Constantine : to the intent, that the term of a hundred years in Iustinians constitution might be thought to have respect to Constantine's donation. In the which dealing he doth notorious injury not only to them, but to Justinian also. To Justinian, by laying on him a lewd slander, that he did confirm, yea confirm by law, a surmised donation devised against all law. To them, by putting words of falsehood in their mouth; nor making them only false witnesses, but also foolish; as if they had thought a thing to be confirmed by that constitution, whereof the constitution hath no word at all. And as it were to fill up the measure of his iniquity, he addeth that they report it using those very words: to persuade the credulous thereby (as he hath you) that Constantine's donation cannot be doubted of ▪ since it was confirmed by the Emperor Justinian a hundred years after, as our own men in their Centuries do grant.

Perhaps there is some other place in Justinian, that maketh proof of it. For while I perused the Tables of that book of the Authentikes which was lent me to search out this in: I was thereby directed to a place in Justinian where Constantine's donation is proved most plainly: to weete, in gloss. sing. secundum Bald: in l. 2. §. Cum vrbem. ff. de offic. praefect. vrbis.

It is not plainly proved there, but barely said; and said, not in the text, but in the gloss only; nor in y ^e gloss upon Justinian, but the Digests ; and that without all ground either of any author of the Digests, or of Justinian.

But in the gloss upon Justinian himself, even in the Authentikes, there is another place where the same question is handled pro and con: and there although he say that Constantine could make no such donation de iure, yet he denieth not but that he made it de facto.

Yet he denieth not : and he affirmeth not; but leaveth it as he found it. Why do you trifle so with the gloss-writer ? Who though he had affirmed the donation of Constantine : doth that prove the point avouched by Genebrard, that Justinian confirmed it? If I had thought that you would make such account of the words of lawiers: I could have alleged men skilfuller of antiquities, then all the gloss-writers, against that tale of Constantine. For not only such as Carolus Molinaeus, whom you may perhaps suspect for his religion, do write against it, and discredit it: but also that worthy and most learned lawyer, Andreas Alciatus, disproueth it by Eusebius, Theodoret, Cassiodore, Ammianus Marcellinus, and the consent of all historians ; and Remundus Rufus (in his defense of the Pope against Molinaeus, which Sanders praiseth greatly) doth allow the same that Alciatus writeth of it. But whatsoever lawiers think of the donation, either for the fact, or for the right of it: you see that it is not confirmed by Justinian, as you are borne in hand.

Yes, I make no doubt but Genebrard is able to bring more for him self herein then I have seen, or can find in Justinian.

Neither make I doubt but, if he could have brought more, his ten-years study spent upon his Chronicles would have interlaced it. Inthe mean season, whether he be able to bring more or no: you cannot deny but he hath alleged Justinian untruly, for that which he hath brought.

But the rest of the writers whom he doth allege, no doubt he doth allege them truly; S. Gregory, S. Isidore, Nauclerus, Photios, Nicephorus, S. Jerome, Iuo, Gratian, Picernus, Rabbi Abraham, and Ibn Ezra.

He doth allege them truly, I grant, the most of them. But do they prove the point for which he doth allege them?

Yea, and that directly: as by his words you shall perceive. S. Gregory about the six hundredth year of Christ doth show in his epistles that the Church had ample lands and possessions, far and wide through the west. At the which time S. Isidore in his story (as Nauclerus citeth in the eleventh age of his Chronicles) Constantine, saith he, did yield the city to the Pope, and the imperial ornaments, that is to say, the crown, and the white palfrey on the which he rode. Altogither as Photios of Constantinople, though otherwise an enemy of the See of Rome, avoucheth in his Nomocanon about the year eight hundred and sixty.

Nay: no more of Photios. For it is not he (as I have shown) who saith it, but Balsamon who commenteth on him. And Balsamon is later by three hundred years.

Yet he was a Grecian too, and an enemy of the See of Rome : and therefore not likely to vouch it, if it were not true.

But Genebrard hath granted that to be false which he voucheth. For he saith that Constantine did give to Pope Sylvester, the provinces, and places, and fortresses of all Italy, or of the western countries, and not the city of Rome only. Neither doth he vouch this in respect of Rome but of Constantinople: which being to enjoy the privileges of Rome by a law y ^• Photios rehearseth in his Nomocanon, Now if you will know the privileges of Rome (saith Balsamon ) they are enrolled in the decree of Constantine's donation made to Pope Sylvester. So that it was for love to the Patriarchs See of Constantinople, not to the Popes of Rome, that he avoucheth it: that as Rome might thereby claim all the West, so Constantinople might get all the East. Wherefore, that circumstance, that Balsamon was an enemy of the See of Rome, doth nothing help the credit of Constantine's donation. Neither doth S. Isidore make much more for it, as Nauclerus citeth him. For, as he citeth him, he giveth him a touch withal to overthrow him. There is (saith Nauclerus ) no mention of Constantine's donation in any authors, but in the book of decrees: and the Archbishop of Florence, Antoninus, affirmeth in his chronicles, that in ancient books of the Decreees it is not neither. Which I greatly marvel at, since Isidore reporteth plainly in his story, that Constantine did yield the city of Rome unto the Pope, and all the imperial ornaments, that is to say, the crown, the apparel, and the white palfrey to ride upon. Nauclerus therefore citeth Isidore as saying it: but so, as though he thought all were not well in Isidore, since there is no mention of it in any authors of credit or antiquity. I shown you before how the writings of the ancient Fathers have been corrupted to countenance the Popes power. The story of Isidore might be wrought in like sort to countenance the Popes pomp, his triple crown, his robes imperial, his horses of estate. Which to have been so, it is the more likely, because it is testified by men who had helps to se • ch and see such ancient evidences, that in old copies of Isidore that is not found. And perhaps if that story of Isidore were printed, that we might have the sight of it: it were no hard matter to find s • me tokens there of forgery. At the least, it seemeth that Genebrard himself suspected some weakness in that point of Isidore : and therefore neither citeth him but as out of Nauclerus, and addeth that he wrote at the time that Gregory did speak much of the Churches lands. For, if I mistake not the policy of Genebrard, he mentioneth the ample lands and possessions which the church had far and wide through the west in the time of Gregory : to the intent that men might conceive thereof that the city of Rome was part of those lands, since Isidore, who wrote at the same time, reporteth that it was given to the Pope. But this observation which he made to strēghthen his authors report, doth most of all weaken it. For neither doth Gregory name the city of Rome as part of those lands which in his epistles he showeth that the church had through the west:

But he doth, by your leave. For, in the fifth book, and the twelfth epistle, we make (saith he) Montanus, and Thomas, free-men, and citizens of Rome. Whereby he declareth that Rome was of the Popes dominion and right, as Genebrard concludeth of it.

Genebrard objecteth ignorance of antiquity to the Century-writers. But in bringing this to convince their ignorance, he bewrayeth his own. For Thomas, and Montanus whom Gregory made free-men and citizens of Rome, were his slaves, or bondmen. Now, amongst the Romans any man might lawfully make his bond men, free: and whom he made free, them he made citizens; as by their ancient law, so by Iustinians, who lived before Gregory's time, and revived it. Wherefore the enfranchising of Thomas and Montanus proveth not that Rome was of the Popes dominion more the • of any other Romans. And so the circumstance of Gregory's time and testimony, which Genebrard would strengthen his tale with, doth weaken it. For neither is the city of Rome named by Gregory amongst the Churches lands, as I was about to say: and at the very time, that Gregory was Pope, the Emperors held the city, & governed it (as they were wont) by a Lord Deputy. Then hitherto his witnesses of Constantine's donation do bring it small comfort. Doo the rest say more for it?

Nicephorus saith in the seventh book, the nine and fortieth chapter, Constantine did consecrate and give unto Christ the palace of Lateran. Which thing S. Jerome also had touched before him in an epistle to Oceanus: and experience proveth it even till this day while that is the chief See of the Bishop of Rome.

I perceive it was either a fox or a ferne-bush that Genebrard espied. He thought he had seen the whole city of Rome given by Constantine to the Pope: and now he hath found that Constantine did turn his palace into a church that the Pope might teach there, and Christians come together, to pray and serve God. For this is all that Jerome and Nicephorus say.

But Nicephorus saith farther in the six and fortieth chapter, that Constantine endowed all the churches of the world, and Bishoprikes, out of his treasury, according to the state and worthiness of them. Therefore he endowed much more the church of Rome then of Eugubium, and so forth.

Nicephorus saith that Constantine did give through all provinces some part of the public revenues to the churches: but not, that he did give according to the state and worthiness of ech of them. That Genebrard doth add to keep his hands in ure▪ Howbeit if Nicephorus had said, that he endowed them according to their state and worthiness, and therefore more the Church of Rome then of Eugubium : yet is not the donation proved by Nicephorus.

But read him also in the eighth book, the third and fourth chapters; & in the tenth book, the fifth chapter.

And there shall you find as much as in the former.

Iuo in his Pannomia, about the year of Christ eleven hundred and ten, doth • ite certain things out of the charter of the privilege of Constantine's donation. Gratian about the year eleven hundred and fifty; Bartolomaeus Picernus, and many mo, do bring forth either all, or partes of it.

Picernus? What an author is he to prove it? A hungry companion, who lived the last day: and, to curry favor with Julius the Pope, he translated into Latin a little Greek book containing Constantine's donation, which he found, where? in the Popes library. Gratian is more ancient: and the whole charter of the donation is in him. But neither is it extant in old copies of Gratian, as they do witness who have seen them: neither are we sure by either old or new in which it is extant, that Gratian did put it in. For in ech sort of them, both written, and printed, it is entitled [palea] that is to say, chaff : which note (as a learned and famous lawyer thinketh) is set to those chapters that were not first inserted into the book by Gratian, but added after in the margent by Gratians interpreters, as any of them thought good, and in the best and auncientest copies they are omitted wholly for the most part. Now, if in Gratian it crept out of the margent thus into the text: much more is it likely that Iuo caught it so too. For if it had been of ancient time in Iuo when Gratian compiled the book of decrees: it is not to be thought that Gratian, a man who forgeth authors often and counterfeiteth privileges for less advantage of the Pope, would have left him out such a Princely privilege, if he had found it in an author.

It is an easy matter with shifts and surmises to discredit authors, as you do Picernus, Gratian, and Iuo. Or, if it be true that Iuo and Gratian did not themselves record it: yet there is no cause why the Greek copy translated into Latin by Picernus should be discredited because it was found in the Popes library. For there are many rare books in the Popes library, that are not else where to be found.

But the Greek text of Constantine's donation was else where to be found. For it is in Balsamon translated into Latin also by Gentian Heruet. And this doth discredit the matter so much more: because the Latin charter (or chaff ) that is in Gratian doth differ from the Greek in many things. Besides that, Picernus hath shown a special favor to the Pope in it: unless the Greek which he found in the Popes library were somewhat better fyled then that which Heruet found in Balsamon ▪ For wherein Gratians Latin it is, that the Emperor gave unto the Pope the places, cities, and provinces of Italy, or of the western countries; as it is in Heruet too: Picernus hath mended it, and made it, of Italy, and of the western countries. Which was a small token of no small good will that Picernus shown toward the Pope against Valla: who noted that word [or] abused for [and,] as unlikely that the Emperor or the Emperors officers should write so in a charter of so great importance, and in so large a deed of gift. Though this is the least of many conjectures that Valla maketh by the style to prove corruption in the deed. Which all, for the most part, Picernus hath washed away by his translation. But if you think that th • se things which I speak of Gratian, or Iuo, or Picernus, are shifts and surmises : then I pray remember that their texts speak • or the greater donation, which Genebrard confesseth himself to be forged. And therefore Picernus, Iuo, and Gratian are cited to no purpose, by him, who defendeth not the greater but the lesser donation of Constantine.

Yet, what say you then to his last witnesses, who speak directly for the lesser? They are the Iuish writers, Rabbi Abraham, and Ibn Ezra. For, Rabbi Abraham, in Zikron Dibre Romi, saith that Constantine having built Constantinople, went out of Rome, and gave it to the Priests of the Idumeans (so they call Christians) to this day. And Ibn Ezra upon the eleventh chapter of Daniel, on these words, And he shall care for no God: the meaning is (saith he) that Constantine did beautify the place of Rome which was his seat, and l • ft it to the iniquity (so they speak wickedly of the holy Apostles) which is called Peter.

Rabbi Abraham, and Ibn Ezra, did live about the same time that Gratian did, or rather somewat since; when the Pope had gotten fully from the Emperor the sovereignty in Rome. They looked to the state of their own times; and saw that the city, which Constantine had, was now possessed by the Pope. Wherefore since the brute of Constantine's donation was set abroch then: no marvel if they tasted of it: chiefly since they had so little skill in stories.

Great skill, Rabbi Abraham. For he wrote a Chronicle which Genebrard hath translated out of Hebrew in • o Latin, entitled Cabbala historica.

Whrein he bewrayeth the greatness of his skill. For the Rabbi chronicleth there, that our savior (Jesus of Nazareth, as he calleth him) was not borne in the days of Augustus the Emperor, and Herod king of Jury, but a • ore that time above a hundred years. And thereupon h • e cha • geth the stories of other nations with error, for writing so of Christ's age: but we (saith he) have the true tradition & story out of Misna and Talmud, whose authors have not changed any whit of things. Wherefore, if Rabbi Abraham were no better seen in the story of the Jews, in that point, whereof he might have learned the truth by their own • osephus : you may give him leave to be overseen in the Roman stories. As for Ibn Ezra, his words may be taken in a t • ue meaning, that Rome by the occasion that Constantine le • t it, came afterward in process of time to the iniquity which is called Peter, that is, to the Pope. For in deed the Emperors abiding at Constantinople made it easier for the Popes to practice those treasons which g • t them Rome at last. But admit he meant that Constantine ga •• Rome to the iniquity called Peter. Will Genebrard confess th •• the Pope (the Peter of Rome) is an iniquity, because that Ibn Ezra saith so?

No. For he saith that of a Jewish stomach.

And he saith the other of a Romish error. Wherefore if Genebrard refuse his own witness in that he speaketh of affection: I have greater reason to except against him in that he misseth through oversight. And thus you may see how well the donation of Constantine is proved by the witnesses alleged either of yourself, or of your Chronicle-writer. Wherein his abusing of all sortes of authors, & thereby of you, will be the more evident, if it be compared with the dealing of a Bishop that matcheth him in Popery, but passeth him in modesty, I mean of Melchior Cano. Who allegeth Eusebius, Rufinus, Theodoret, Socrates, Sozomen, Eutropius, Victor, Ammianus Marcellinus, and, in a word, all historians, with other approved authors, to show that the donation of Constantine is forged: even the same donation, by which the Popes claim the temporal dominion of the city of Rome, and you with your Chronicles do sooth their falsehood in it. Beside that, if Constantine had made this pretensed donation in deed: yet cometh it short of that for proof whereof you cite it, to weet, that the temporal dominion of the Popes is much less now, then it was almost thirteen hundred years since. For, the city of Rome, which in this donation is said to have been given them, is but a little corner of their dominion now.

But if you join thereto that which I added of S. Peters patrimony belonging unto them within two or three hundred years after Constantine : it cometh home to the proof of that which I purposed; at least, to the disproof of that which your men avouch in their Centuries. For although they say that this increase of wealth in the Church of Rome began after S. Gregory's time: yet are they notably disproved by S. Gregory himself, in whose reign, (as it may probably be thought,) the Churches possessions were more then they be now at this present. And this appeareth by sundry of his epistles, where he maketh express mention of S. Peters patrimony in Afric, in Naples, in Campania, in Dalmatia, in France, in Italy, in Sicilia, in Sardinia, and in many other countries.

You have heard, M. Hart, of sir Thomas More: and perhaps you have read the history written by him of king Richard the third.

A worthy work of a worthieman. Who, if he had gone through in like sort with all our English history, we might compare with Greeks or Romans. But what of that history?

In it he reporteth, that Richard was a tyrant, and did usurp the regal dignity upon him self, defrauding Prince Edward whose it was by right. Doth sir Thomas More say true in this of Richard, or doth he misreport him?

True, out of question: as it is apparent by all our historians, who consent therein.

Yet there is a writer who saith that king Richard did not usurp the crown. And for proof thereof, he bringeth forth sundry old records and evidences of the house of York: by which it is shown that Richard had lands in Calais, in Canterbury, in Kent, in Northumberland, in Ireland, in England, in Garnsey and in Jersey, before Prince Edward's time wherein • ir Thomas More reporteth him to have usurped.

He might have those lands, while he was Duke of Gloucester, and not king of England. Wherefore, the writer who bringeth this to prove that he usurped not the crown, disproueth not the history of Sir Thomas More, but bewrayeth his own frowardness or folly.

You are the writer, M. Hart. I shown by the history of Sigonius, and others, most worthy of credit, that the Popes usurped Rome, and the dominion of the Roman Dukedom, defrauding the Emperor of his right by treason. You affirm the contrary. And for proof thereof you allege sundry epistles of S. Gregory, whereby it appeareth that they had possessions in Afric, in Naples, in Campania, in Dalmatia, in France, in Italy, in Sicilia, and in Sardinia, before the time wherein Sigonius declareth them to have usurped. But, as yourself answered, they might have these possessions while they were Bishops, and not Princes. Wherefore in bringing this to prove that they usurped not the Princedom (so to term it) and temporal dominion of the Papal State: you disprove not the history of Sigonius, and the rest, but bewray your own frowardness or folly. Nay you bewray greater faults of evil & guilful dealing, as you h • ndle it. For whereas Sigonius, & the rest, whom I cited to p • oue the Popes usurping, are of y ^• Popes religion, & therefore of greater credit against the Popes: you say naught to them, but name in their steed our authors of the Centuries. Even as if the writer (whom I told you of) being urged with the credit of sir Thomas More and English historians, should answer that although Funccius, a German, report in his Chronicle that Richard did usurp, yet is he notably disproved by the evidences of the house of York. Again, where your conclusion ought to be resolute that y ^e Churches poss • ssions were more in S. Gregory's time, then they be now: you say they were more, as it may probably be thought. To ouerbeare verity with probability; the truth, with likelihood of truth: and leave yourself a lurking hole, that, although the thing be found to be false, yet you may escape who vouch it not as true, but probable. Moreover, the time of Gregory's being Bishop, you term it his reign: thereby to breed opinion that he had the temporal dominion, as they have now. Wherein that word is used so much the more deceitfully: because it prepareth a way to the mistaking of that which you allege out of Gregory's epistles touching S. Peters patrimony. For. S. Peters patrimony doth signify the temporal dominion of the Popes, in that of Clemangis, which you began your answer with. And so by this [reign] a man would take it here. Whereas Gregory meaneth the lands of the Church and Bishopric of Rome by S. Peters patrimony ; not the dominion temporal, which they had not then. But in these faults you are the more excusable, because you do follow the footsteps of Genebrard: whose Century-writers, and perhaps, and kingdom, and sophistry might bring you to them unawares. In the next your shame can no way be covered. For whereas your lodesman, having searched Gregory's epistles of purpose for S. Peters patrimony, could find it in no more places but in those which you rehearsed by name: you thinking such flies too small for the Pope, do add (with flat untruth) and many other countries: beside that [other countries] is brought in so too, as if Campania, Naples, and Italy, were sundry count • ies, where Naples is a town, Campania a shire of Italy. And yet as though your dealing were sincere and sound, you knit it up thus, that seeing for this which is the greatest part, so good proofs may be made: no doubt but the Popes can show very good evidence when need shall require for sundry other very great and large gifts which were bestowed upon their See, by diverse Princes, many Nobles, men, and women. The question is of the temporal dominion of the Popes. The proof you bring thereof from Constantine, is forged; from Gregory, is fond. So that no part is proved yet, much less the greatest. The chiefest of the rest that Popes can show for it, is Pipines donation, and the successors of Pipine. In it I have convinced them also of usurping: who first did beg and take the territories, and ditions, which should have been restored to their old Lord the Emperor; and afterward did use their n • w Lord as a vasall, and made themselves soueraines of that which was given them to hold in fee. To be short, the vanity of this vaunt of evidence, which the Popes can show when need shall require, may be perceived by Eugubinus, their atturney general, and principal proctor in this cause. Who being enflamed with a Popish devotion to say the best that he knew, and furnished with the treasures of the Popes library to know the best that might be said: yet, after many floorishes for Constantine's donation of the largest sise, he addeth in conclusion that (the Pope) Gregory the third did excommunicate Leo (the Emperor,) and caused Rome and Italy to rebel against him, absolving all his subjects from their oth of fealty. And so he confuteth the lie which himself, and Genebrard do build on, that Rome after Constantine was not the Emperors, but the Popes: and granteth by consequent, that the Popes temporal dominion in Italy was unlawfully gotten, and wrongfully usurped by this devise of treason.

Nay, Genebrard hath other reasons to defend the right of the Pope, if these do not content men. For I (saith he) answer to heretics impugning the donation of Constantine that which Iephte did (in the eleventh of Judges) to the king of Ammonites requiring the land of Galaad to be restored him: we will possess that which the Lord our God hath conquered and obtained. Unless perhaps thou canst show that any man did strive about it for the space of three hundred years: ( here for a thousand years and more.) Why so long time have you attempted nothing for the recovery of it? Chiefly, since the prescription of certain years sufficeth in grounds and possessions. Moreover, the consent of Italy, and of the Church, and of the whole world is of force enough to give the Pope that right. Finally, that Constantine removed the seat of the earthly Empire to Constantinople through God's special providence, to the end that the kingdom of the Church forespoken of by Daniel the Prophet might have his seat at Rome, it appeareth by this, that straight the western Emperors, Constance and the rest, who followed for certain ages, left Rome still, and placed the seat of the western Empire at Milan or Rauenna; and also that Constantius the nephiew of Heraclius, Michael, and certain others would have brought it in again to Rome, but could not. Wherefore howsoever the Popes dominion temporal began, or whensoever: it is sure that he hath right unto it now.

The point that we reason of, is not (M. Hart) what right he hath now, but what wrong heretofore he hath done the Emperor to obtain this right. Though neither can you prove his right by these reasons. For, that which Iephte spake of gotten by the Israelites: they got by lawful war. The Pope hath gotten his by unlawful treachery. And prescription holdeth not in things that are stolen, and detained by force: if you believe the law. As for the thousand years and more, which Genebrard addeth that no man strove about it: if he mean, about Constantine's donation, no marvel if they strove not about that which was not. If he mean about that which Popes claim thereby: it hath two untruths; one, that they have held it a thousand years, and more ; another, that no man strove with them about it. For, to pass over the Emperors before touched, and namely Friderike the first: the Romans them selves had many bickerings with them for the temporal rule and government of the city, contending that the Pope should medle with the spiritual only. Whereby withal appeareth how vain the brag is of the consent of Italy, the church, and the whole world. Though neither their consent can give the Pope that right: unless the Roman Emperors (the right owners of it) do consent also. And, how they consent, you may learn by late Emperors; of whom, one desired to recover Rome and all the Popes dominion, as being his of right; another did more then desire i • : or rather by late Popes, who are afraid of nothing more, then of the Emperors coming into Italy. Now, the last reason of God's special providence removing the seat of the western Empire to Constantinople, to the end that the kingdom of the church forespoken of by Daniel the Prophet might have his seat at Rome: beside that it is seasoned (after Genebrards manner) with untruth of story, as that the western Emperors who succeeded Constantine for certain ages, left Rome still, which is disproved by Honorius ; it wresteth God's word to the maintenance of man's pride. For the Churches kingdom, which Daniel forespake of, is the kingdom of the Jews, touching the temporal state; touching the spiritual, the kingdom of the Saints that doth endure forever. And, if we presume upon the secret works of the providence of God to gather what the fancy of man doth imagine, not what the wisdom of God hath revealed: the Turkish impiety may be as well proved as the Papal kingdom ; because as the seat of the western Empire is fallen to the Pope, so Constantinople, the seat of the Eastern, is fallen to the Turk. But whatsoever right these reasons may afford to the Pope now: they acquit him not from having doon wrong to the Emperors heretofore, in that he got his temporal dominion from them by treason and rebellion. And this is the first point, wherein you went about to clear his supremacy. The next, is his tyranny in spiritual things. Wherein your defense of him is so tempered, that although you cannot choose but acknowledge his faute in those excesses which I laid open: yet do you smooth them as abuses only of lawful authority, and not unlawful acts of usurped power. For you say, that if any of the Bishops of Rome abused their wealth to any evil purpose, or else their authority, in any of the pointes mentioned by me: you are so far off from justifying them therein, that rather you rew to see it, and you condemn them therefore. A short and sclender answer to all their crimes that I touched. Howbeit, if you speak unfeignedly, M. Hart, as I pray God you do: I am glad that you seek not to justify the Popes in any of the pointes that I charged them with, but rew and condemn their abuses therein. For I laid to their charge that they have oppressed both the civil state and the ecclesiastical: the civil, in taking upon them to give Empires, to depose Princes, to discharge subjects of their allegiance and oth; the ecclesiastical, in making of Church-officers, ordering of Church-causes, disposing of Church-goods, executing of Church-censures, and establishing of Church-laws, to serve their own desires and lusts. In all the which pointes if you condemn their doings as abuses of their authority : you condemn the practice of their whole supremacy as nothing else in gross but an heap of abuses.

Not of their whole supremacy. For though some of them abused their authority in sundry pointes which you mentioned: yet others have not doon so. As we had experience in Queen Mary's days: wherein there were not so many Church-livings bestowed in England upon Italian Pastors, as you spake of under Gregory the ninth, or Innocentius the fourth. But howsoever they dealt with practice of their power, which they abused I grant: the power it self must not be therefore thought unlawful; nor was it usurped because it was abused. For Princes abuse their power oftentimes in oppressing their subjects. Yet, you will not say that they usurp their Princely power.

Neither do I say that the Pope usurpeth his Bishoply power, but the supremacy. The usurping whereof you go about to hide with the mist of abusing ; while you distinguish not between a lawful power used unlawfully, and an unlawful power. King Edward the fourth did put to death Burdet (a merchant of London ) for saying merrily to his son, that he would make him inheritor of the crown: misconstruing his words, as though he had meant the crown of the realm; where he meant his house at the sign of the crown. Herein the king abused his power, and not usurped it: because God had given him the sword to execute justice and judgment on his subject; though he used it unlawfully against an innocent. But if he had executed a subject of the Spanish kings, or had excommunicated his own, yea deserving it; this were an usurped not an abused power: because he did not bear the sword over Spain ; and the Church-censures belong to the Bishops charge, not to the Princes. In like sort the Pope of Rome might remove the Roman Emperor from the communion: as Ambrose Bishop of Milan removed Theodosius, being of his charge in the Church of Milan. Which if the Pope did unlawfully, and not as Ambrose : he abused his power. But if he presumed to excommunicate other kings, or to depose the Roman Emperor: the power that he practiced therein was unlawful, and he usurped it. Which example of his dealing with the civil state, observeth the tenor of the same disorder in the ecclesiastical. For if he laid hands rashly upon a man whom he had right to ordain: his power was lawful, though abused. But if he took upon him the right of making Pastors, or of giving benefices and Bishoprics through all the world: he did usurp unlawful power. Wherefore since the tyranny wherewith I charged him in spiritual things was of the supremacy over all Christendom, not of Bishoply power over his own diocese: the power of spiritual rule which he practiced over both the states ecclesiastical and civil, is not abused, but usurped. Neither can you salve it with laying the blame on some of the predecessors: as if the successors now were guiltless of it. For, though they do not all commit the same excess in the execution of their usurped power: yet they all maintain the liberty of doing it, and do it when they list. As since Queen Mary's days one of your best Popes, Pius the fifth, hath shown: who hath excommunicated, yea, deposed also our gracious Queen Elisabeth ; and reserved benefices, dignities, and Bishoprics to his own bestowing from them who should elect their pastors by right. Of the which things since he took unlawful power in the one, to depose Princes, as yourself have told me that you are of opinion; in the other, the author, the good author (whom you praised) confirmeth that the Popes, bestowing the Church-livings so, do that they ought not: your own conscience, M. Hart, and your authors judgment should move you to confess their supremacy in spiritual things to be usurped, no less, then I have shown it to be in temporal. But if perhaps you will not grant so much yet, suspending your sentence till the chapters following, whereto you refer us: the third and last point, that they erred in office, is proved notwithstanding even by that you grant. And therefore you say that only this is it which you go about to defend in them, that because of Christ's promise, of building his church upon that rock; and prayer also that their faith should not fail; they never erred in judgment, or definitive sentence. Wherein, being driven by force of evident truth from your main distinction, that the Pope may err in person, not in office; as a private man, not as Pope: you retire from all the wards of your castle into the cellar as it were, and say that in a corner of his office he never erred; but otherwise in office and every part thereof he hath.

Nay, this was my meaning by that distinction at the first. As you may perceive by that I spake expressly of definitive sentence : and said, that he cannot err judicially.

Then your meaning was to put the coat of Hercules upon a dwarfes body. For the Popes office is a great deal larger then judgment or definitive sentence. And when you said withal that the Evangelists, and other penners of holy write, for the execution of that function had the assistance of God, and so far could not err possibly: you seemed to insinuate that the Popes have likewise the assistance of God for the execution of their function; and can no more err in discharging of it, then could the Evangelists in writing of the Gospel. But since you see now that in function and office they may be as false, as the Gospel is true; which in every parte thereof I have proved: you shall see as much in this remnant also of judgment & definitive sentence, unless you shut your eyes against y ^e light of manifest proof. For what do you mean by saying that the promise and prayer of Christ keepeth them from erring in judgment or definitive sentence? Doo you not mean that they cannot teach against the truth in a matter of faith, because the Church of Christ shall be built upon them, & their faith shall not fail, that they may strengthen their brethren.

I mean (as I declared) that they cannot nor shall not ever judicially conclude or give definitive sentence for falsehood or heresy against the Catholic faith, in their Consistories, Courtes, Councils, decrees, deliberations, or consultations kept for decision and determination of such controversies, doutes, or questions of faith as shall be proposed unto them: because Christ's prayer and promise protecteth them therein for confirmation of their brethren.

The issue of our conference shall try that they have erred thus in every point of the Catholic faith, wherein they teach against us: as even in this first of their own supremacy. But I will show presently that they have done it in such things as yourselves confess to be doctrines of falsehood or heresy. And that will I show by the same authors (or as good as them) of whom you vouch so boldly, that you are sure they do maintain this, of the Popes not erring in judgment or definitive sentence, no less then you do. • or Sigebert, Martinus Polonus, and Sigonius do witne ••• that Pope Stephen the sixth decreed in a council, that they who were ordained Bishops by Pope Formosus were not ordained lawfully, because the man was wicked by whom they were ordained.

Pope Stephen did deprive them of their orders, & (as Sigebert termeth it) did vnordeine them who were ordained by Formosus. He erred in a matter of fact, not of faith.

He erred in a matter of fact and faith both. For he did not only deprive and vnordeine them who were ordained by Formosus: but he decreed too, (as Sigebert withal noteth) that all the ordeinings of Formosus ought to be void. Wherein he did follow the error of the Donatists : who (as if the sacrament had his force from men that are the ministers of it, not from God, the author;) thought them not well baptized who were baptized by evil ministers, and so baptized them again. Yea, that very fact of Stephens is reproved therefore by Luitprandus, (a grave and learned writer that lived about the same time,) though mistaking his name, yet judging of the thing rightly. For after the rehearsal thereof, that depriving all them of their degree who were ordained by Formosus, he did ordain them again: which thing (saith Luitprandus ) how wickedly he did you may perceue by this, that even they who received grace or Apostolic blessing of Judas the betrayer of Christ before he betrayed him, were not deprived of it after he had betrayed him and hanged himself. For the blessing which is bestowed on the servants of Christ, is not poured on them by that Priest which is seen, but by that Priest which is not seen. For neither he that planteth is anything nor he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase. So manifestly carried the fact of Pope Stephen a savor of Donatism, that is, of a notorious error in faith: though he had not approved it by his decree. Much more since he decreed the thing as true and lawful.

To say that holy orders given by a Bishop, be he never so wicked, are void, and of no force: it is an error in faith, I grant. But this of Luitprandus is denied by Sigebert, that he ordained them again whom he deprived.

whether he ordained them again, or no: it maketh not the matter. Though, by the Council in which John the ninth condemned Stephen and his Council, it seemeth rather he did, at the least some of them. For there new ordeininges are namely forbidden, and matched with new baptizinges. Which, if Stephen had not offended therein as the Donatists did, why should it be so touched? But whether he ordained them again or no: he decreed that which yourselves acknowledge to be an error in faith; & he decreed it in a Council.

But the Council did not approve that decree by free voice & judgment. The Pope did extort their consent through fear : as it appeareth by the Council that condemned him.

This is not to prove that the Popes decreees in Councils are good: but to disprove rather the certainty which you gave them in Consistories, Courtes, and Councils. For not only Bishops assembled in the Council, but also Lawiers in the Court, yea Cardinals themselves in the Consitory of y ^e Pope, may agree for fear to that which they like not, as Leo the tenth made them to do. And, if the soundness of the Popes decrees may be distained by this affection: it may by other causes, and impediments also. For what if the Cardinals, mislyking of the Pope for reproving their faults, leave him (as they did Urban the sixth) and make a new Pope? What if they be unfaithful that he dare not trust their counsel and advise, as Adrian the sixth durst not? What if they give him lewd and wicked counsel, that it deceive him if he trust it? Such as was the counsel of Cardinal Pucio : who exhorted Popes to make any gain, and said that they might do it lawfully. Chabrias, a skillful man of war said, that an army of hearts is more to be feared having a lyon to their captain, then an army of lions having a heart. You bear us in hand that the Pope is a lyon, and other men are hearts. But you make him the heart (me thinks) & them lions, when you say that himself may err and fail in faith, but he cannot do it in Consistories, Courtes & Councils. As if Christ had prayed for his brethren to strengthen him, and not for him to strengthen his brethren.

Nay, I made not mention of his brethren so, as if the assurance of truth in his decrees did depend of them. For, though it behooue him to use their advise, and therefore I spake of Consistories, Courtes, and Councils : yet, whether he follow their advise or no, his decrees are true. But as for Pope Stephen, I cannot think that he decreed that error. At least, if he decreed it, yet he set not forth a decree of it, as to teach the Church.

But if he decreed it, he erred in judgment and definitive sentence : which is the point that you denied. Howbeit to drive you from this shelter also: Pope Caelestine the third set forth a decree, that when of married persons one falleth into heresy, the marriage is dissolved, and the catholic party is free to mary again. Flat against the scripture, that whosoever dimisseth his wife, but for whooredom, and marrieth another, doth commit adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is dimissed, doth commit adultery.

This was Pope Caelestines opinion, not decree. For Pope Innocentius the third, who speaketh of it, saith not that he defined but that he thought so.

Yet Pope Innocētius saying that he thought so, doth use that word in Latin, which sentence cometh from: th •• • e might note thereby the definitive sentence of Caelestine, not the opinion. But whatsoever one Pope thought of another: Alfonsus, a famous patron of the Papacie, doth show that he defined it. For that Pope Caelestine did err (saith Alfonsus ) about the marriage of the faithful of whom one falleth into heresy it is manifest to all men. Neither was this error of Caelestin such as ought to be imputed to negligence alone, that we may say he erred as a private man, and not as Pope, who in defining of any serious matter should ask counsel of learned men. For this definition of Caelestine was extant in the old decretals, which I myself have seen & read. And this of Alfonsus is confirmed farther by Cardinal Hostiensis : who noteth the very paragraph of the chapter in the which it was, & speaketh of it as a decretal. Wherefore though the chapter be maimed of y ^e paragraph since Hostiensis time: yet these records suffice to show that it was a decree of Pope Caelestines, set forth to teach the Church.

There are some of our Doctors (as Cano declareth) who think that the Pope may err in judgment of faith. Alfonsus and Hostiensis might have that fancy too. But if y ^e decree (whereof they speak) were set forth perhaps to teach y ^e Church: yet not to teach the Church that point. For in a point touched or handled by the way, Popes may err, (as Cano & D. Stapleton show:) but not in the conclusion, that is, the principal point which they intend to teach.

Now you may see how vainly you st • iue for y ^e Pope. For this, which is your last hold when all is done, I oue • threw at first by the example of Honorius. The conclusion and principal point of whose decrees set forth to teach the Church, was the Monothelites heresy. Whereby he did not strengthen his brethren in the faith, but confirmed their wicked errors against the faith, as the Council pronounced of him.

Why do all the Fathers then apply this privilege of not failing and of confirming other in faith to the Roman Church, and Peters successors in the same.

They do not. But your Rhemists who report that of them, do shamefully misreport them. For Austin, Chrysostom, Prosper, and Theophylact do understand by [faith] a lively Christian faith, and say that Christ prayed that Peter might continue therein unto the end. Which grace neither they nor any Father saith that all the Popes have. Nay yourself, your Doctors, yea Rhemists do confess the contrary.

Yet the rock, no doubt, whereon Christ did promise that he would build his Church and the gates of hell should not prevail against it, is applied by the Fathers to Peters successors in the church of Rome. S. Austin is a witness thereof against the Donatists, whom he biddeth number the Priests (that is the Popes) even from the seat of Peter, and mark their succession : affirming it to be the rock against which the proud gates of hell prevail not. And S. Jerome writing to Damasus the Pope, avoucheth as much: I am joined saith he, in communion to your holiness, that is, to Peters chair. I know that the Church is built upon that rock.

The poor ship of Christ hath made almost shipwreck upon this rock of yours. I have already proved, that the word petra, which you translate a rock, doth signify in Christ's speech, a stone, not a rock. Howbeit rock, or stone, it mak • th no difference to the sayings of the Fathers, which you allege, concerning it. For whether they meant a stone, as it is properly; or a rock, as it may be they did, (at least S. Austin ▪) through doutfulnesse of the word: they meant not to build the Papacie thereby. Wherefore if you think that the name of stone either hath not so great advantage for your purpose, or doth not yield so fully the meaning of the Fathers: I am content (without prejudice to that which I have spokē touching the right sense thereof in Christ's speech) to use your rock in steed of it.

So you must do, if you will deal with my argument. For the majesty of the Church of Rome is much advanced by the name of the rock: and in my judgment the Fathers meant no less when they applied y ^e words of Christ to that See.

The Fathers used those words to advance the majesty of the Church of Rome: but neither to advance the church of Rome alone, neither to import the Popes supremacy by that majesty. And this may be gathered plainly by S. Cyprian, who although he give a special ti • le of honor & preeminence to the Church of Rome : yet doth he apply that of the rock to the Church in general. For he affirmeth that our Lord took order for the office of a Bishop and the state of his Church by saying unto Peter, Thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it: and, to thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Thence by course of times, and successions, there floweth the ordaining of Bishops and the state of the Church: that upon the Bishops the Church should be set, and every action of the Church should be governed and guided by the same rulers. In the which words S. Cyprian (you see) accounteth all Bishops the rock of the Church. That as by the church built upon the rock, the whole Church is meant, and not the Church of Rome, or of Carthage only: so neither the Bishop of Rome, nor of Carthage, may be represented alone by the rock, and yet as well the Bishop of Carthage as of Rome.

Howsoever it seemed in S. Cyprians judgment to belong to all Bishops, and so after a sort to the Bishop of Carthage, as he applieth it: yet other of the Fathers apply it in special to the Bishop of Rome, & give it particularly to that Church, & See.

They do: but in such sort, that they might have done it to any faithful Church, even to the Church of Carthage, as S. Cyprian did. For that which is verified of a thing in general, is verified in the special. As, for example, the Catholic Church in general is named the house of God, and the spouse of Christ. The Apostle applieth those titles in special, the one to the Hebrews, the other to the Corinthians, if they continue faithful. And so what Christ hath said of his whole Church, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it : that is true in every part of his Church. And if he named Peter, a rock, (in respect of the faith that he professed,) on the which he said he would build his Church ; then all, on whom (professing the same faith of Christ) his Church in part is built, may, in a proportion, be called rocks also. Wherefore since the Fathers did speak of the Church of Rome when it was holy, and of the Roman Bishops, when they professed the faith of Peter : no marvel, if they said the Church was built on that rock, and the gates of hell did not prevail against it. Howbeit I deny not but that in their speeches of the Church of Rome they give more unto it then they could have given to every faithful Church. For whereas of the sundry Churches of Christ some were planted by the Apostles them selves, as Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, Rome ; some received the faith from them which the Apostles planted: they had the former sort in greater reputation, and called them Apostolic Churches ; amongst which they counted the Church of Rome a chief one, as planted by the chief Apostles Peter and Paul. And because it was famous that Peter had preached the Gospel there, (whom as the first Apostle it seemeth that the Romans did more rejoice in, then in Paul :) thence it cometh that in speaking of the Church of Rome, they mention oftentimes the seat and chair of Peter. For they who did teach, were wont to teach fitting: as I shown before by the example of Christ, and his words of the Scribes and Pharisees. Whereupon, as the scripture speaketh of S. Paul, that he sat at Corinth a year & six months, teaching the word of of God amongst them, meaning that he continued there, and preached to them: in like sort the Fathers, • o signify that Peter abode and taught in Rome, are accustomed to say that he sat at Rome. So doth Austin mention the succession of Bishops from the seat of Peter. So doth Jerome honor the Bishop of that See with the n • me of Peters chair. But what is this to the supremacy? For it is spoken by the Fathers also, that Peter did sit and h • d h • s ch • ire at Antioch: yea at Antioch (as some say) he had in deed a high chair, wherein he was exalted. And of his chair at Antioch, you have an old holy day; of his chair at Rome, a new one, trimmed of late. Wherefore if the high chair of Peter at Antioch with an old feast could not make the Bishop of Antioch supreme head: how can the Bishop of Rome be made supreme head by Peters chair (perhaps a lower chair) at Rome, with a new feast? If the new feast be that which maketh up the matter: the Pope was no fool in making that feast. He may do well to make m • e.

You make yourself sport with our feasts of S. Peters chair : as though I had said, that because the Fathers do name the See of Rome the seat and chair of Peter, therefore the Bishop of Rome must have the supremacy. Whereas I alleged them to show that the Bishops and the succession of Bishops in that See is the rock, on which S. Jerome saith he knoweth the Church to be built ; against which S. Austin saith, y ^t the proud gates of hell prevail not.

But you do conclude the Popes supremacy hereof: or else you stray from the question.

Why may I not conclude it?

If you list: but the feast of S. Peters chair would prove it more galantly. For if the testimonies, which you allege, of Jerome and Austin, be examined: they say nothing for it. S. Jerome abiding (in his young years) among the Arian heretics in the coasts of Syria, was required by their Bishop to allow and approve a profession of faith touching the Trinity, wherein he suspected there lay some privy poison hidden. Wherefore least he should yield thereunto rashly, he sought to be directed by the advise and counsel of Damasus Bishop of Rome : as whom both he acknowledged to be his own Bi • hop, and knew to be a Bishop that held the catholic faith; which praise by that title of the rock he giveth him. In Afric, they were troubled with other heretics named Donatists : a sect which despised the communion of Saints, and rent them selves a sunder from the assemblies of Christians, because there were some evil men amongst them (as they said) whose fellowship defiled them. S. Austin wrote a Psalm for the Catholics against these: wherein, having proved first out of the scriptures, that we must not leave the communion of the Church for that there are some evil men in it, since Christ hath declared that there should be so, as tares with corn, in the field ; as chaff with wheat in the floor ; as bad with good, in the net ; he confirmeth this doctrine by the consent & judgment of the Church of Rome, whose Bishops even from Peter had embraced it still, and constantly maintained it, the gates of hell in vain assaulting them. So the words of Austin and Jerome do import a sincerity of faith in the Church of Rome & the Roman Bishops against the Arians and Donatists : but neither of their words import the supremacy, which is a sovereignty of power.

If they had not meant as well a sovereignty of power as sincerity of faith: why should they mention that Church and not others? Were there no Bishops sincere through all y ^e world, but the Bishops of Rome only?

Yes a great many, and they mention them too. For Jerome, though he asketh the advise of Damasus, a young man of an old, a Roman of the Bishop of Rome, whose religion was sound, whose authority was great, and the greater with Jerome because he knew him well, as having learned him self the faith of Christ in Rome, where he was baptized: yet doth he name S. Ambrose (the Bishop then of Milan ) as sound in faith also, and the Bishops of Egypt, yea of the west in general. Now in the west (saith he) the sun of righteousness ariseth, and the inheritance of the Fathers is kept uncorrupted amongst you alone. In like sort doth Austin note, against the Donatists, (whose canker had fretted but a piece of Afric, ) that Bishops of the coasts and countries beyond sea, and Churches through the whole world, were pure from their heresy. Howbeit, as Jerome preferred the advise of Damasus before others to confirm himself: so did Austin choose the Church of Rome above the rest to confirm his brethren. For he penned his Psalm (wherein this is written) of purpose to the capacity of the very meanest & simplest of the people: y ^t they might understand and remember the state of the controversy with the Donatists. Wherefore he commendeth the truth by the authority of the Church of Rome : which, of all the Churches that the Apostles planted, was both nearest to them, and best esteemed of amongst them. But how far S. Austin was from your fancy of the Popes supremacy, when he alleged the Church of Rome to this intent: let that be a token, that, writing for the learned who were of greater reach, he allegeth the Churches of Jerusalem, of Corinth, of Antioch, Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, of Asia, Bithynia, Galatia, Cappadocia, in a word, of all the rest as well as of Rome. And this may be semblably noted in S. Jerome. Who, when the Arians charged him with heresy, did justify his faith by his communion with the Churches of the west and of Egypt, of Damasus Bishop of Rome, and Peter Bishop of Alexandria. According to the law of the Emperor Theodosius : wherein it is decreed that all they should be named and esteemed Catholics, who believed of the Trinity as Damasus and Peter did; the rest to be accounted and punished as heretics. A great praise (I grant) of the faith of Damasus, that so good an Emperor did set him for a sampler whom Christians should follow: but a praise common 〈◊〉 him with Peter Bishop of Alexandria ; and common to them both with sundry Bishops of the East, Nectarius, Pelagius, Diodorus, Amphilochius, Helladius, Otrein • s, Gregory Ny •• en, and mo. Of whom the same Emperor did 〈◊〉 make another law, that none should have the ch • rge of • ishoprickes committed to them but such as we •• of their faith. Whereby you may perceive that the praise given to Damasus by Jerome, proveth a sound faith common to the Bishop of Rome with many other; not a sovereign power, peculiar to him alone above all.

Then you grant, at least, that the Bishop of Rome cannot err in faith by S. Jerome's judgment.

Or, at least, you take it, though neither I do grant it, nor is it proved by S. Jerome. But this is proved, and I grant it, that he did not err in the faith of the Trinity, when Damasus was Bishop of Rome.

When Damasus was Bishop? Why do you so restrain it? S. Jerome's words be general. I am joined in communion unto your holiness, that is to Peters chair. I know that the Church is built upon that rock. Behold, to Peters chair. He speaketh not to Damasus as in respect of Damasus, but in respect of the chair, and so of the succession of the Bishops of Rome : that, what he saith to one, belongeth to them all.

If you set his words upon such tenters, they will never hold. For, him self reporteth that the next Bishop of Rome before Damasus, Liberius by name, subscribed to the Arian heresy.

S. Jerome reporteth so: but he might be deceived by some misreporte. For he could say nothing more of that matter, then what he had by hear-say.

But seeing that he lived so near to that time, and in the same place, and loved the See of Rome, and yet doth report this matter of Liberius, and report it constantly, not only in his book of Ecclesiastical writers, but in his Chronicle also: it is more likely, that he did both know and testify the truth, then Pontacus (who maketh your exception against him) or any man that liveth now.

Why? will not you credit a man that liveth now in anything against S. Jerome ?

Yes: if he bring me good reason to disprove him.

And Pontacus doth so. For he showeth that Basil, Ambrose, and Epiphanius, do call Liberius a blessed man : and that Athanasius doth free him from the spot of Arianism.

Basil, Ambrose, and Epiphanius, do call Liberius a blessed man. What? Therefore he subscribed not to the Arian heresy? Then you may say that Peter did not deny Christ. For, Basil, Ambrose, and Epiphanius do call Peter a blessed man. They are blessed, who repent them selves of their sins, as Peter did of his denial: and so might Liberius do of his subscription. As for Athanasius, though he say that Liberius condemned the heresy of the Arians, and therefore suffered banishment : yet he saith withal, that he continued not in suffering banishment to the end, but through fear of death subscribed to that heresy with his hand, though with his heart he were still against it. Thus even Athanasius, who lived at the same time with Liberius, and knew his state well, acknowledgeth that he subscribed: though judging most friendly (both for his own sake, and the causes,) that he consented not. But, Damasus Bishop of Rome, who succeeded Liberius, and might know the matter better then Athanasius, doth write that Liberius did consent also to Constantius the Arian.

Although this be written in the book of Damasus : yet it is not likely that Damasus wrote it. For, Carranza noteth, that there are many who dout of that story. And Onuphrius, a man very skillful of antiquities, chiefly of the Roman, discrediteth both the report and the author of it▪ saying, that Anastasius the keeper of the Popes library, was (as he thinketh) the first who believed it, and thrust it into the book of Damasus, as many other things besides.

What Anastasius did, I know not. But if he stuffed Damasus with anything of his own: it was belike in such things rather, as advance, then empeach the Popes credit. Howbeit, if Onuphrius in that he denieth Liberius was an Arian, do mean that he subscribed not to the Arian heresy, and that this report came first from Anastasius : what answereth he then to Jerome, and Athanasius, and Sozomen, (and Marcellinus in effect too,) who wrote it all with one consent, the youngest of them a hundred years before Anastasius was borne. As for Carranzas note, that there are many who doubt of that story : he must show who they be, and what grounds of dout they have. Or else, those many may be such as himself and Onuphrius : whose doubting may not prejudice the credit of historians that wrote a thousand years before them. Chiefly, if they have no surer grounds then Carranza : who, to disprove the story, allegeth that Liberius wrote one epistle to Athana • ius and the Bishops of Egypt against the Arians; and another to all Bishops, exhorting them to constancy. Which reasons are so poor, that your own Iouerius, a Paris Doctor of Divinity, rehersing them by occasion, hath withal refuted them. But see to what miserable shifts you are driven to uphold the pride of the man of Rome. Because it were a stain unto his supremacy, if his predecessor Liberius subscribed against the Catholic faith: therefore you rather choose to deny it; and how? First the authority of Jerome is alleged affirming it in his Chronicle. Your Pighius doth answer that some hath interlaced those words into his Chronicle, through ignorance or fraud. When this answer seemed hard, because Jerome hath other where affirmed it also: your Pontacus (to help it) replieth that Jerome could say naught thereof, but what he had by hear-say. When proof of this hear-say is made out of Damasus : your Onuphrius supposeth him to be corrupted by Anastasius the keeper of the Popes library. When Sozomen, a Greek writer, confirmeth Damasus, and Jerome : Your Christophorson, who translateth him, doth make him hold his peace, or rather witness to the contrary. For where he saith in his own tongue, that the Emperor compelled Liberius to subscribe: he saith, by your transl • tor, the Emperor assayed to compel him. And where he saith in his own tongue, that certain Arian Bishops procured him to consent: he saith, by your translator, they endeavored that he should consent. When farther Marcellinus is found to agree with Sozomens report: your Genebrard seeing Jerome approved by them both, doth raze out that of Ponta • us (that Jerome could say naught thereof but by hear-say ) and doth assalt him with the Fathers. Wherein, (besides them, whom you alleged out of Pontacus, ) he citeth Socrates and Theodoret : Socrates, declaring that Liberius was no Arian in the time of Valens the Emperor ; as though this were a proof that he subscribed not to the Arian heresy in the time of Constantius : Theodoret, avouching that the west was always free form Arianism; which is less to the purpose, Theodoret speaking generally as for the most part, and in respect of the East by way of comparison. For himself had shown before that Auxentius, a western Bishop, was an Arian. Now for Athanasius, who is the most ancient witness of this matter, and of such valure that your Andradius could not but yield himself unto him: yet Genebrard & Pontacus thought it good policy to name him as gainsaying Jerome therein; where Jerome saith the same that he doth, so plainly & fully y ^t your Hosius is fain to shape one answer to them both, that they believed a false rumour. Wherewith your Bellarmine doth cast them off too. And this shift of laying the blame on false rumors seemed so hansome to your Surius, that he (belike misliking Onuphrius shift of Anastasius, ) applieth it to Damasus also. For colouring whereof, he saith, that very ancient historians and writers bear witness of Liberius most constant perseverance in defense of the Catholic faith. But being not able to name as much as one of these very ancient historians and writers, of whom he boasteth with shameless lie: he sendeth his reader (a thing most ridiculous) to Nicephorus a late writer, who (saith he) doubtless did draw his writings out of the ancient. In deed that [ 1] which Nicephorus hath of this point, he drew it out of Sozomen : and, if the Greek were extant, the truth were easily tried, but either he did change his author in three words, which is not likely, since he followed him through all the chapter foot by foot; or (which is most likely) your Langus, who translated him [ 2] out ofa writē copy, was as bold with him, as Christopherson with Sozomen. Such follies and treacheries you wrap yourselves in, to keep men from opinion, that a Pope subscribed to the Arian heresy. Which, had you not hardened your faces as flint to sooth the presumption of the Papal See, I see no cause why you should do: chiefly since yourselves do teach (as I have shown) that the Pope may be an heretic, and not subscribe to heresy only. But if you be affected so tenderly to the Pope, that you will rather grant any fault in others then such a spot in him; if you can say without blushing, that Damasus was corrupted, Athanasius light of credit, Marcellinus a false Chronicler; that Sozomen is truer in Latin, then in Greek; in your translation, then his own tongue; that Marianus Scotus, Martinus Polonus, Ado, Rhegino, Antoninus, Platina, & other later writers were deceived by Jerome ; that Jerome was abused himself by false rumors; to be short, that the Papists who live in our days can tell what was done twelve hundred years ago, better then them selves who lived at that time, andsince from age to age: yet you cannot say but that Jerome thought that Liberius subscribed to the Arian heresy; yea, that Felix (the next Bishop of Rome after Liberius ) was an Arian; he thought it. Wherefore, if he had meant of the whole succession of the Roman Bishops that which he wrote to Damasus, I am joined in communion unto your holiness, that is, to Peters chair; I know that the Church is built upon that rock: then he must have meant, that▪ before the time that Damasus was Bishop, he ought to have been joined in communion to the Arians, and that the Arians holiness was the chair of Peter, and that the Church was built upon the rock of Arians. But this abomination was far from S. Jerome. S. Jerome therefore meant not the succession, but Damasus, who succeeded Peter, as in chair, so in doctrine; and taught the faith which Peter did: a faith as clean contrary to the Arians faith, as light is to darkness, as life is to death.

But questionless S. Austin meant the whole succession of the Bishops of Rome, when he wrote against the Donatists, Number ye the Priests even from the very seat of Peter, & in that rank of Fathers mark who succeeded whom: that is the rock against which the proud gates of hell prevail not. The gates of hell (saith Austin ) prevail not against the Priests, that is, the Bishops, who succeed Peter. Then by his judgment all the Roman Bishops are free from all heresy. For the gates of hell are heresies, and the principal authors of heresies, as Epiphanius witnesseth. Wherefore ifthe gates of hell prevail not against the succession of the Bishops of Rome: it followeth (howsoever you avoid S. Jerome ) that neither Arians, nor Donatists, nor any other heresies do prevail against it.

Did prevail against it in the time of Austin : so you should conclude. You have a pretty policy in citing the testimonies and sayings of the Fathers touching the Church of Rome : that what they did speak of the time present then, you use it as spoken of the time present now. There was a gentlewoman in Rome, named Fabia: who being waxed old, yet willing still to seem young, said, in Tullius hearing, that she was thirty years of age. That must needs be true, quoth Tully; for I have heard it of you twenty years ago. The Church of Rome hath defiled her self with idolatry, & gone a whoring from the Lord: yet she would seem a maid still, and so she saith her self to be. I think you jest not with her, as Tully did with Fabia : yet you prove her maidenhead, as Tully did the youth of Fabia. You say that it must needs be true: for it is written ofher twelve hundred years ago. But that you may see how small cause you have to build so much on those words, The gates of hell prevail not against the succession of the Bishops of Rome : consider what is meant by the gates of hell, and your grant is past, that against some Bishops of Rome they have prevailed. The state of the faithful and chosen of God in this present life, is as it were a warfare : whereof the Church is called militant. The adversaries and enemies whom we must fight against, our Savior speaketh of them as of a strong kingdom, which he calleth hell, because it warreth all for hell, and the devil is prince of it. The gates of hell therefore do signify the holds, the fortresses and munitions, wherewith the powers of hell do fight against us and assault us: that is, even whatsoever the devil can do by force or fraud. All the which is meant by the name of gates, because the gates of fortes are wont to have the best munition, and to be fenced most strongly. So the gates of hell are not only heresies, (though heresies are of them, as Epiphanius, and Austin note:) but also persecutions, and specially sins, and in a word all evils, sweet or sower, fair or foul, that seek to subdue us to everlasting death; as Origen, Chrysostom, Gregory, Theophylact, and others well observe. Now, ifyou apply this to the Bishops of Rome : you may see your error. For it is confessed by yourself and yours, that sins have prevailed, and prevailed monstrously against sundry of them. Whereof it doth follow that against sundry of them who have succeeded in the seat of Peter, the gates of hell have prevailed. As for S. Austin's judgment, that heresies of the Arians, or Donatists, or others did not prevail against them: I know no cause to the contrary but he might justly say so then. For though the Arian heresy did set upon Liberius fiersly and overthrew him, when he being weeried with the tediousness of his banishment did subscribe to it: yet since he recovered himself from his fall, and manfully withstood it afterward, it cannot be said to have prevailed against him. Whether it prevailed or no against Felix, of whom some report that he was an Arian; some, that he communicated only with the Arians : it is no matter to S. Austin, who reckoneth him not amongst the Roman Bishops. Wherein though your Genebrard do dissent from him, because Felix died a martyr, as he saith, & citeth Sozomen to prove it (but he belieth Sozomen ) to infer on that lie, y ^t Peters chair hath such a virtue, that it could rather bear a martyr then an heretic, or a Pope that favored heretics : yet others (not seeing belike such a mystery in y ^e death of Felix ) are of S. Austin's mind; even your Onuph • ius also, who neither doth acknowledge his Popedom, nor his martyrdom. Now, the heresy of the Donatists had less prevailed against them. For as they had before withstood the Novatians, the coosin germans to the Donatists : so did they withstand the Donatists them selves, both by their communion with the Catholics, and by their doctrine. And this is the point on the which S. Austin did cast his eye chiefly, when he commended their succession. As it appeareth farther by a reply that he made to a Donatists epistle : where having reckoned up all the Roman Bishops from Linus who succeeded Peter, to Anastasius living then, he concludeth with these words: in the rank of this succession there is not one Bishop found that was a Donatist. Wherewithall ifwe consider how they maintained the truth against the heresies of Carpocrates, Valentinus, Marcion, Sabellius, Macedonius, Photinus, Apollinaris, and the rest of those miscreants, who undermined the foundation of the Christian faith, the doctrine of the blessed Trinity : the reason will be manifest, why to move the Donatists by y ^e succession of the Bishops of Rome and their authority, S. Austin gave it this praise, that the gates of hell did not prevail against it.

Well. The succession then of the Roman Bishops is used by S. Austin for a certain mark of the Catholic religion, of the true Church, and of the right faith. Neither only by S. Austin, but by the rest of the Fathers too. For Epiphanius allegeth it against the Carpocratians: & let no man marvel (saith he) that we rehearse all things so exactly; for, that which is manifest in faith is thereby shown. And Tertullian having said of them selves in Afric that they have authority from the Church of Rome, doth teach that the succession of that Church and See is to be set against all heretics. And Irenaeus reckoning up all the Roman. Bishops in order from Peter to Eleutherius of his time, doth add, that it is a most ample declaration of the Apostolic faith to be of his side against the Valentinians. And Optatus reckoneth farther from Peter to Siricius of his time against the Donatists. As likewise S. Austin farther yet from Peter to Anastasius of his time, & that (he saith) much more surely and to the souls health in deed. Wherefore the Church of Rome, and we, who are of that Church, have an assured warrant that the faith which we profess is the true faith. For we have the succession of the Roman Bishops from Peter to Gregory the thirtenth of our time: which is an invincible fort against all heretics; as the Fathers, Epiphanius, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Optatus, and Austin testify.

You will never leave to daly with the Church of Rome, as Tully did with Maistresse Fabia. The succession of the Roman Bishops is a proof of the true faith: for so it was in the time of Austin, Epiphanius, Optatus, Tertullian, & Irenaeus, twelve hundred years ago & upward. Succession was a proof of the true faith, till Bishops, who varied from the truth succeeded: even as sheep's clothing was a mark of true Prophets till false Prophets came in it. But neither are true Prophets known now by sheep's clothing: nor the true faith by succession. The succession of Bishops was a proof of true faith not in the Church of Rome alone, but in all, while they who succeeded the Apostles in place, succeeded them in doctrine too, & kept that which Paul delivered to Timothy & Timothy to others. But when ravening wolves were gotten into the rooms of pastors, and that was fulfilled which Paul foretold the Bishops of Ephesus, of your own selves there shall arise men speaking perverse things to draw disciples after them: then succession ceased to be a proof of true faith, for that it was no longer peculiar to the truth, but common to it with error, and so a mark of neither, because a mark of both. This difference of succession between the later age and the former, the primitive churches time and ours, is manifest by the Fathers them selves whom you allege. For Irenaeus (to begin with the most ancient of them) saith, that the succession of Bishops in all Churches through the whole world doth keep and teach that doctrine which the Apostles delivered. Now it doth not so: nor hath these many ages since Irenaeus died. Hath it?

Not in all Churches. But in the Church of Rome it doth, and hath, and shall forever.

But if you would say as much for all Churches, you might prove it as wisely out of Irenaens, as you do for the Church of Rome.

I deny that. For he doth not fetch the succession of true doctrine but from the Church of Rome against the Valentinians.

D. Stapleton told you so, and you believed it. I know not whether I should more pity your credulity, or detest his impudency, who hath abused you with such lewd untruths; and that against his own knowledge, unless he knew not what he had written himself. For him self had cited the words of Irenaeus which avouch the contrary: to weete, we can reckon them who were ordained Bishops by the Apostles in the Churches, & their successors until our time, who taught not any such thing, and so forth. But for as much as it would be very long to reckon the successions of all Churches: we declare the faith of the greatest, the most ancient and famous Church of Rome. Which faith hath continued until our time by the successions of Bishops. And again: the true knowledge is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient state of the Church in the whole world, and the form of Christ's body according to the successions of Bishops unto whom they did commit the Church, which is in every place, which hath continued until our time, being kept, and so forth. By the which sentences it is plain that Irenaeus, although he reckon not the successions of all Churches because it would be tedious : yet he fetcheth the succession of true doctrine from all Churches, in every place, through the whole world. Or if it be not plain enough by these sentences, he maketh it more plain in other: both by general speeches of the Church through all • the world, which he repeateth often; and by the particular names of sundry Churches, the Churches of Smyrna, of Ephesus, of Asia, the Churches in Germany, in Spain, in France, in the East countries, in Egypt, in Liby • , in the middle of the world. Wherefore the successions of Bishops in all Churches were true and faithful witnesses of the Apostolic doctrine in the time of Irenaeus. As Eusebius also doth farther prove by Hegesippus, who lived at the same time, and travailing to Rome ward, did talk with very many Bishops: of whom, even of them all, he heard the same doctrine, accordingly to that he wrote, that in every succession, and in every city, the doctrine is such as the Law, and the Prophets, and the Lord doth preach.

Yet Irenaeus reckoneth chiefly the succession of the Church of Rome, as of the greatest Church, and the most ancient and known unto all, founded and established by two the most excellent Apostles Peter and Paul.

No marvel. For beside the credit that it had as being Apostolic, ample, famous, ancient: it was the nearest also in place (amongst all the Apostolic Churches) to Irenaeus Bishop of Lions in France ; and so both known better and the more dealt with. In the which respect, other of the Fathers did chiefly name it too. As may appear by Tertullian the next of them whom you allege. For he setting down the same prescription against heretics, which Irenaeus had before him, doth speak of it thus. Run over the Apostolic Churches, at which the very chairs of the Apostles are sat on yet in their places: at which their authentical letters are recited, sounding out the voice and representing the face of every one of them. Is Achaia next unto thee? Thou hast Corinth. If thou be not far from Macedonia, thou hast Philippi, thou hast the Thessalonians. If thou canst go into Asia, thou hast Ephesus. If thou lie near to Italu, thou hast Rome: whence we have authority also. Whence we have authority, saith Tertullian, in Afric : for he was of the Church of Carthage. So Optatus was Bishop of Mileuis in Afric. So Austin was Bishop of Hippon, in Afric. Which if you consider, you may see somewhat in it why Optatus and Austin should reckon the succes • i • on of the Roman Church, rather then of others. Specially since Austin doth urge against the Donatists not only that, but all Churches : and with the chair of the Church of Rome wherein Peter sat, and Anastasius sitteth now, he matcheth the chair of the Church of Jerusalem, wherein James sat, and John sitteth now. As for Epiphanius, whom of the East Church you join to them of the West, as proving the soundness of faith in like sort by the Roman succession: you do him injury. For neither doth he mention it but to note the time in which an heresy did bud; and this is that manifest that is meant by him; (it is your Stapletons art to make it manifest in faith :) and what he saith thereof, he boroweth it of Irenaeus, and therefore reckoneth few of the Bishops of Rome, whereas he reckoneth all the Bishops of Jerusalem to like intent against the Manichees ; so that Jerusalem (if we would toy as you do) passeth Rome with him. But in a word to cut off your cavil of succession of Bishops in the Roman Church, whereby you would prove your faith to be sound, because the Fathers proved the faith in their time so: the eldest of the Fathers, whom you allege, proved it by the succession of all Churches; the next, by the succession of all Apostolic Churches; the youngest, by them all in effect, by some namely. Wherefore if the succession of the Church of Rome do prove that the Romans have hitherto continued in the true faith, because by that succession the Fathers proved the true faith: then also the succession of the East Churches, of Ephesus, Smyrna, Corinth, Philippi, and Thessalonica ▪ do prove that they have hithertoo continued in the true faith, because by their succession the Fathers proved the true faith. But yourselves do write that the Greeks (of whom these East Churches are) have failed in the faith, and yielded unto sundry heresies. The speeches therefore of the Fathers touching the succession of the Bishops of Rome, prove not, that the Romans do now profess the true faith.

The line of succession of the Roman Bishops hath been still recorded in stories, and continueth yet. We can reckon them from Peter the Apostle to Gregory who sitteth now. Not so the Greek Bishops, the Churches of the East. Nay, the line of succession hath been broken off in the chief of them, as the Chronicles do witness, even in Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

What is this to the purpose; if some of their successions be not enrolled in stories: some y ^t are enrolled were broken off a while by calamities that fell upon them? For although Eusebius recorded the successions but of four Churches, in the mother-cities of the provinces (as he calleth them,) Rome Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem; and Nicephorus added Constantinople to them: yet the Churches which I named had successions of Bishops too, as I shown out of the Fathers. And in them, in which you note that succession hath discontinued, the faith had failed often, while the succession lasted: which is enough for my proof. But if you think your Church sure by this prerogative, that the Roman Bishops succession lasteth still, and you can reckon them from Peter the Apostle to Gregory who sitteth now: what say you to the Church of Constantinople ? In it there have succeeded Bishops to this day: and they can reckon them from Andrew the Apostle to Jeremiah who sitteth now. Yet, to say nothing of the old heresies from which the successors are free, though set abroch by their predecessors, as by Macedonius, Nestorius, and Sergius: the whole line of them many ages together have denied y ^e Roman Bishops supreme-headship, & claimed it to them selves, as Jeremiah doth also now. Whereby either your reason of succession is stricken dead, or your supremacy of the Pope. For if succession be a proof of truth and soundness in faith: then your supremacy is condemned. If your supremacy be lawful: then is not faith proved to be sound by succession. To which of these yield you? To one you must of necessity.

In deed the succession of Bishops in place is no good argument, unless it be joined with succession in doctrine. For Irenaeus saith, we must obey those priests who with the succession of the Bishoply charge have received the sure gift of the truth according to the will of God. Wherefore the succession of Constantinople, though they fetch it from the Apostles, yet proveth not the faith (which they profess) to be true, because they have departed from the Apostles doctrine, in which they should succeed chiefly.

Now you say well. In deed the succession in place is nothing worth: succession in doctrine is it which maketh all. But what mean you then to send us such bead-reales of your Bishops of Rome from Peter to Gregory, as undoubted arguments of the Catholic faith: when we can send you as solemn a bead-roale of Constantinople from Andrew to Jeremiah, and prove nothing by it? What trifling is this, to say first that succession of Bishops in place proveth truth of doctrine: and then to add, that it doth so, if it have succession in doctrine joined with it. In effect as if you said, that succession in place doth prove the doctrine to be true, if y ^e doctrine be true: & a couple of ears do prove a creature to be a man, if they be a man's ears. The Fathers alleged succession in place, not with condition, if it had; but with a reason, y ^t it had succession in doctrine. Prove me that you have succession in doctrine: and then allege unto me the Fathers for succession. For if as S. Austin said against the Donatists after he had reckoned the Bishops of Rome from Peter to Anastasius, In the rank of this succession, there is not one Bishop found that was a Donatist ; so you reckoning them from Peter to Gregory might say in like sort, In the rank of this succession there is not one Bishop found that hath usurped: then were your reason as fit against us for the supremacy of the Pope, as S. Austin's was for the Church against the Donatists.

I may say so in like sort. For S. Austin meant as well of this point as of all others, when he said of the succession of the Bishops of Rome, that the gates of hell prevailed not against it.

If this gate of hell prevailed not against them in S. Austin's time: yet many things may happen between the cup and the lip, (as the proverb is,) much more between his time and ou • s. But S. Austin meant not to speak of usurping in that against the Donatists: and if he had, he learned by experience afterward, that they could usurp, and would, if they were not curbed. For three of them, even Zosimus, Boniface, and Caelestin did usurp over the Churches of Afric while Austin was alive yet: who with the whole Council of abooue two hundred Bishops of that country, withstood their attempt as much as lay in him, and stayed their pride.

Their pride? You slander those holy Bishops in saying so.

Which holy Bishops? of Afric? Them selves in their epistles to the Bishops of Rome, do note it with the same word: and if they slandered them it was with a matter of truth. But of this, hereafter, more conveniently. For the point in hand, it is sufficient that S. Austin applying that text to the Church of Rome, that the gates of hell prevailed not against it : spake of soundness of doctrine, which the Donatists did faute in; not of sovereignty of power, whereof there was no question with them.

Gregory the great speaketh of sovereignty of power; and proveth by that same text the Church of Rome to be the head of all Churches, because Christ committed specially this Church to S. Peter, saying, to thee will I give my Church.

By that same. How? Christ saith not to Peter, to thee will I give my Church. He saith, upon this rock will I build my Church. And therein (if Gregory's judgment may rule you,) the rock is Christ him self, which Peter had his name of, and on which he said he would build his Church : the Church is the holy Church, (that is to say, the company of God's elect and chosen) which shall never fall away from the Catholic faith in this world, and in the world to come shall continue steadfast forever with God. For the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. There was some affection that troubled Gregory's mind when he did change that text, and (as it were) appropriate it to his See of Rome : and Stapletons heart was taken with some affection also, when he cited Gregory to prove his purpose thence. For nether doth the title of the head of all Churches prove the Roman Papacie: neither doth Gregory, although he give that title to the Church of Rome, yet prove it by that same text. The thing which he proveth, is, that the Emperor, who received money for ecclesiastical livings and spoiled the Church with s • monie, ought not so to do, chiefly in the Church of Rome. For having touched his greediness of this filthy gain, yea he hath (saith Gregory ) stretched out so far the rashness of his fury, that he challengeth to him self the head of all Churches, even the Church of Rome, and usurpeth the right of earthly power over the lady of nations. Which he did altogether forbid to be doon, who specially committed this Church to S. Peter the Apostle, saying, To thee will I give my Church. Wherein, that which Gregory would say, is plain enough, by the words that go before it. The manner of his saying and proving it, is hard. For he saith of the Roman Church that the Emperor usurpeth the right of earthly power over it. Whereby a man would think he meant to deny the civil rule and government of Rome to the Emperor, as now the Popes do. Then which he meant nothing less: for he acknowledged himself the Emperors subject, & used him accordingly. But he meant by [the right of earthly power usurped over the Church,] the right of dealing with Church-livings after the manner of the world, in setting them to sale as men do farms and leases: which is profane and detestable. Now Gregory being grieved that the Emperor asked money even of the Bishop of Rome himself, whose election he confirmed with his royal assent: he thought good to amplify the heinousness of the fact as most unlawful and wicked in the Church of Rome. And thereupon he saith that Christ did forbid it, who specially committed this Church to S. Peter, saying, To thee will I give my Church. In the gospel we read of Peter, that he knew not what he said, when he said to Christ whom he beheld in glory, Master it is good for us to be here, and let us make three tabernacles. Gregory had a loving affection to Rome. Will you give me leave to think of him as of Peter, that he knew not what he said? For the words which he allegeth, are not the words of Christ, as you must needs grant. The thing he gathereth of them, is against the words of Christ: who generally committed all Churches to Peter, (for he was an Apostle;) and, if any specially, it was that of the Jews, whereas the Roman Church was a church of the Gentiles. Wherefore neither Gregory did purpose to prove the supremacy of the Pope by Christ's words to Peter : neither did Christ mean the Church of Rome specially, but generally the Catholic Church, even all the chosen, when he said of his Church that the gates of hell should not prevail against it. And if, as one appealed from king Philip to king Philip, from Philip half asleep to Philip well awaked, so I may appeal from Gregory to Gregory, from Gregory somewhat troubled to Gregory advised better: himself will by and by give judgment of my side. For in the same treatise he doth a little after allege the place rightly, and expound it soundly, of them alone, and all them, who are built on Christ firmly, and faithfully, and nothing shall remove them from him. Which to be the natural sense of Christ's words: it is apparent to the eye. For the gates of hell prevail against them, who are adjudged to death eternal. But hypocrites and evil servants are adjudged to it. The gates of hell therefore prevail against such. Now such have been and may be the members, yea the heads of the Church of Rome. Then our Savior meant not that privilege to them. Only against the chosen and elect of God, the gates of hell prevail not. For whom he hath predestinate, them hath he also glorified. Wherefore it is the Church of God's elect and chosen to whom our Savior meant it. And them he doth call in this place my Church ; as in another afterward to like effect, my sheep. So what he meant there, by saying of his sheep, to them I give eternal life, and they shall never perish : the same he meant here, by saying of his Church, against it the gates of hell shall not prevail. Which thing is so clear out of all controversy, that to pass over Theophylact, and Origen, of whom the one writeth y ^t every man established in the faith of Christ is meant by the Church, & the gates of hell shall not prevail against him ; the other, that these gates prevail against all who are not of the Church, and he is neither the Church nor any part thereof whom they prevail against : Lira, the meanest of a great many, doth thus expound the place, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church by subuerting it from the true faith. Whereby (saith he) it is plain that the Church consisteth not of men in respect of honor, or power ecclesiastical or civil; for many Princes and Popes have been found to have revolted from the faith: but the Church consisteth of them, in whom there is true knowledge and profession of the faith and truth.

Howsoever Gregory did either mistake the words of the scripture, or not apply them perhaps to the supremacy: yet is the supremacy proved by that title which he giveth the Church of Rome. For if the Church of Rome be the head of all Churches: why not the Bishop of Rome the head of all Bishops?

What force this reason hath, we shall see anon. But first I must conclude that it is not proved by the holy scriptures: neither by these, which you have alleged out of the Fathers; nor by any other that you can allege. And this hath heretofore been y ^e opinion of learned men amongst yourselves: as i • appeareth by your Cano. Who having examined the point with greater judgment, then Stapletons are wont: doth grant that it is not written in the scriptures, that the Pope succeedeth Peter in the supremacy. But that which in Cano might perhaps have seemed one Doctors private fancy, doth seem to be now resolved on by more, and is taught publicly. For your Roman reader,