Acts and Monuments Volume 1

Four considerations given out to Christian Protestants professors of the Gospel with a brief exhortation inducing to reformation of life.

Acts and Monumentes of Christian Martyrs, and matters Ecclesiastical, passed in the Church of Christ from the Primitive beginning, to these our days, as well in other Countries, as namely, in this Realm of England, and also of Scotland, discoursed at large.

C HRIST our Savior in the Gospel of S. Matthew, Cap. 16. hearing the confessiō of Simon Peter, who first of all other openly acknowledged him to be the son of God, and perceiving the secret had of his father therein, answered again and alludyng to his name, called him a Rock, upon which Rock he would build his Church so strong, that the gates of Hell should not prevail against it. &c. In which words three things are to be noted: First that Christ will have a Church in this world. Secondly that the same Church should mightily be impugned, not only by the world, but also by the uttermost strength & powers of all hell. And thirdly, that the same Church notwithstanding the uttermost of the devil & all his malice should continue. Which Prophesy of Christ, we see wonderfully to be verified. In so much that the whole course of the Church to this day, may seem nothing else but a verifying of the said Prophesy. First that Christ hath set up a Church needeth no declaration. Secondly, what force, what sides and sortes of men, of Princes, Kynges, Monarchs, Governors, and rulers of this world, with their subjects publicly & privately, with all their strength & cunning have bent them selves against this Church. And thirdly, how the said Church all this notwithstanding hath yet endured & holden his own. What storms & tempests it hath overpast, wondrous it is to behold. For the more evident declaration whereof, I have addressed this present history, entendyng, by the favorable aid of Christ our Lord, not so much to delight the ears of my country in reading of news, as most especially to profit the harts of the godly in perusing antiquities of ancient times, to the ende, that the wonderful works of God first in his Church might appear to his glory. Also that the continuance and proceedings of the Church from time to time being set forth in these Acts and Monumentes, more knowledge and experience may redound thereby to the profit of the Reader, and edification of Christian faith.

For the better accōplishyng whereof, so to prosecute the matter, as may best serve to the profit of the Reader, I have thought good first, beginning from the time of the primitive Church, & so continuing (by the Lord's grace) to these latter years, to run over the whole state and course of the Church in general, in such order as digesting the whole tractation of this history, into five sundry diversities of times:

First, I will entreat of the suffering time of the Church which continued from the Apostles age about .300. years.

Secondly, of the florishyng time of the Church, which lasted other 300. years.

Thirdly, of the declinyng or backeslidyng time of the Church, which comprehendeth other 300. years, until the loosing out of Satan, which was about the thousand year after the ceasing of persecution. During which space of time, the Church, although in ambition & pride, it was much altered from the simple sincerity of the Primitive time, yet in outward profession of doctrine and religion, it was something tolerable, & had some face of a Church: notwithstanding some corruption of doctrine, with superstition and hypocrisy was then also crept in. And yet in comparison of that as followed after, it might seem (as I said) something sufferable.

Fourthly, followeth the time of Antichrist, and loosing of Satan, or desolation of the Church, whose full swyng containeth the space of 400. years. In which time, both doctrine and sincerity of life, was utterly almost extinguished, namely, in the chief heads and rulers of this West church, through the means of the Romaine Bishops, especially countyng from Gregory the vii. called Hildebrand, Innocentius the iii. and Friers which with him crept in, til the time of John Wycliffe, & John Hus, during 400. years.

Fifthly and lastly, after this time of Antichrist, reigning in the Church of God by violence and tyranny, followeth the reformation & purgyng of the church of God, wherein Antichrist beginneth to be revealed, and to appear in his coulors, and his Antichristian doctrine to be detected, the number of his Church decreasing, and the number of the true Church increasing. The durance of which time hath continued hitherto about the space of 280. years, and how long shall continue more, the Lord and governor of all times, he only knoweth. For in these five diversities & alterations of times, I suppose the whole course of the Church may well be comprised. The which Church, because it is universal, and sparsedly through all countries dilated, therefore in this history standing upon such a general argument I shall not be bound to any one certain nation, more then another: yet notwithstanding keeping mine argument aforesaid, I have purposed principally to tarry upon such historical acts and records, as most appertain to this my country of England and Scotland.

And for so much as the Church of Rome, in all these ages above specified, hath challenged to it self the supreme title, and ringleadyng of the whole universal Church on earth, by whose direction all other Churches have been governed, in writing therefore of the Church of Christ, I cannot but partly also intermeddle with the acts and proceedynges of the same Church, for so much as the doings & orderyngs of all other Churches from time to time, as well here in England, as in other nations, have this long season, chiefly depended upon the same. Wherefore, as it is much needful and requisite to have the doings & orderyngs of the said Church to be made manifest to all Christian congregations: so have I framed this history, according to the same purpose. First in a general description briefly to declare as in a summary Table, the misguidyng of that Church, comparyng the former primitive state of the forenamed Church of Rome, with these later times of the same. Which done, then after in a more special tractation, to prosecute more at large all the particulars thereof, so farforth as shall seem not unprofitable for the public instruction of all other Christian Churches, to behold and consider the manner & dealing of this one. In the which one church of Rome four things, as most special points, seem to me chiefly to be considered. To wit, Title, Iurisdictiō, Life, and Doctrine, wherein I have here to declare, first concerning the title or primacy of the Church, how it first began, and upon what occasion. Secondly, concerning the jurisdiction and authority thereof, what it was, and how far it did extend. Thirdly, touching the misorder of life and conversation, how inordinate it is. And fourthly, the form of doctrine, how superstitious & Idolatrous of late it hath been. Of the which four y ^e first was prejudicial to all Bishops, the second derogatory to Kings and Emperors. The third detestable to all men. The fourth injurious against Christ.

For first, the title and style of that church was such, that it ouerwent all other churches, being called the holy universal mother Church, which could not err, and the Bishop thereof holy father y ^e Pope, Bishop universal, prince of Priests, supreme head of the universal Church, and Vicar of Christ here in earth, which must not be judged, having all knowledge of Scripture and all laws contained with in the chest of his breast.

Secondly the jurisdiction of that Bishop was such, that challenging to him self both the swords, that is, both the keys of the spiritualty, and the scepter of the Laity: not only he subdued all Bishops under him, but also extended him self above Kynges and Emperors, causing some of them to lie under his feet, some to hold his sturrup, Kynges to lead his horse by the bridle, some to kiss his feet, placyng and displacyng Emperors, Kynges, Dukes and Earls, whom and whē he listed, taking upon him to translate the Empire at his pleasure. First from Grece to France, from France to Germany, preferryng and deposing whom he pleased, confirmyng them which were elected. Also being Emperor him self seed vacante, pretendyng authority or power to inuest Bishops, to give benefices, to spoil Churches, to give authority to bind and lose, to call general Councils to judge over the same, to set up religions, to canonize Saints, to take appeals, to bind consciences, to make laws, to dispence with the law and word of God, to deliver from Purgatory, to command Angels. &c.

Thirdly, what was the life and conversation of the court of Rome, hereafter in the process of this history followeth to be seen and observed.

Fourthly, such was his doctrine in like manner, tedious to Students, pernicious to men's consciences, injurious to Christ Jesus, & contrary to itself. In laws more diverse, in volume more large, in diligence & study more applied, in vauntage & preferment more gaynfull, then ever was the study and learning of the holy Scripture of God.

All which four pointes well considered and advised in this present history set forth, I trust it may minister to the indifferent Christiā Reader, sufficient instructiō to judge, what is of this sea and Church of Rome to be esteemed.

But here by the way is to be noted, that all these deformities above touched of vain title, of pretensed jurisdiction, of heretical doctrine, of schismatical life, came not into the Church of Rome all at one time, nor sprang with the beginning of the same Church, but with long working, and continuance of time by little and little crept up, through occasion, & came not to full perfectiō, till the time partly of Pope Sylvester, partly of pope Gregory the vii. an. 1170. partly of Innocentius the third, and finally of Pope Boniface the viii. an. 1300. Of the which four Popes, the first brought in the title. an. 670. which was never in such ample wise before publicly exacted & received publicly in the said Church of Rome. The second brought in jurisdiction. The third, which was Pope Innocent with his rabble of Monks and Friers, (as Thomas Aquine, Petrus Lombardus, Johannes Scotus ;) and with such other Bishops as succeeded in the same sea after him, corrupted and obscured the sincerity of Christ's doctrine and manners also. And lastly, Pope Boniface the viii. and after him Pope Clement the fifth, over and besides the jurisdiction, sufficiently advanced before by Pope Hildebrand, added moreover the temporal sword to be carried before them. And that no Emperor (were he never so well elected) should be sufficient and lawful, without the Popes admission. an. 1300. whereby the Popes power was brought now to his full pride and perfection. And thus came up the corruption of the Romish Church in continuance of years by degrees, and not all together, nor at one time, as is declared, and hereafter more particularly (Christ willing) shall be expressed.

Wherefore, whosoever shall have hereafter to do with any adversaries, about the antiquity or authority of the Church of Rome, let him here well consider when, & how the title, jurisdiction, & corruption of doctrine first begā in the Popes sea. And so shall he see, that the church of Rome, as it is now governed with this manner of title, iurisdictiō, & institution of doctrine, never descended frō the primitive age of the Apostles, or frō their succession, nisi tātum aquinoce, & non vniuoce: Like as Sancta Maria picta, non est sancta Maria, & homo pictus est non homo, as the schools do say: that is as the picture of the holy virgins, is not the holy virgins, and as a man painted on the wall, is not a man: so it is to be said of the Church of Rome, (the institution and doctrine of the Church of Rome I mean) that although it have the name of the Church Apostolical, & doth bring forth a long Genealogy of outward succession from the Apostles, as the Pharisees did in Christ's time bring their descent frō Abraham their father: yet all this is (as I said) but only aequiuoce, that is, in name only, and not in effect or matter, which maketh the Apostolical Church in deed, for as much as the definition of the Apostolical Church, neither agreeth now with this present Church of Rome, nor yet the manner, form, & institution of the said Romish Church, as it now standeth with this title, iurisdictiō, and doctrine, had ever any succession or of • pring from the primitive Church of the Apostles. But as Christ said by the Pharisees, that they were the childrē not of Abraham, but of the devil: in semblable wise may be answered, that this Church of Rome now present, with this title, iurisdictiō, and doctrine now used, cannot be fathered upon the Apostles, neither Petrus, nor Linus, but of another author, whō here I will not name.

And here now cometh in the Argument of Pighius, Hosius, and Eccius, to be answered unto, who arguyng for the antiquity and authority of the Church of Rome, reason on this manner.

To the which Paralogisme I aūswear thus: that this word Durans Ecclesia, the during Church in the Minor, hath fallaciā aequiuoci. For although the name of the Church and outward successiō of Bishops have had their durance frō time of the Apostles, yet the definition and matter which maketh a true Apostolical church in deed, and vniuoce, neither is now in the church of Rome, nor yet the form & institution of the church now used in Rome was ever frō the Apostles, which Apostles were never Authors or fathers of this title, iurisdictiō, and doctrine now taught in Rome, but rather were enemies ever to the same.

Agayne to the Major which standeth upon two partes, I answer, first although the necessity of the church during from the Apostles, may and must be granted, yet the same necessity was not bound to any certain place, or persō, but only to faith, so that wheresoever, that is to say, in whatsoever congregation true faith was, there was the church of Christ: And because the true faith of Christ must needs ever remain in earth, therefore y ^e Church also must needs remain in earth. And God forbid that the said true faith of Christ should only remain in one city in y ^e world, and not in other as well. And therefore to the second part of the Major is to be said, that as this true and sincere faith of Christ is not so given, to remain fixely in one place or city alone: so neither is there any one church in the world so ordained & appointed of God, that all other Churches should have their recourse unto it, for determination of their causes and controversies incident. &c. And thus much to the Argument of Pighius and Hosius, &c.

Now as touching the authorities & allegations of the ancient Doctors, and holy fathers in the commondation of the Church of Rome, here cometh in also to be noted, that whosoever will understand rightly their authorities and aūswear to the same, must first learn to make a difference and distinction of the said Church of Rome, frō that it was, to that it is, for as much as the Church of Rome is not the same Church now, which it was then, but only aequiuoce: otherwise as touching the very property and definition of a Church▪ it is another Church, and nothing agreing to that was then, save only in outward name and place, therefore by this distinction made, I answer the place of Irenaeus, Cyprianus, and other famous Doctors, commendyng the Church of Rome as Catholic and Apostolical, and say that these Doctors speaking of the Church of Rome which then was, said not untrue, calling it Catholic & Apostolical, for that the same Church took their ordinary succession of Bishops, joined with the ordinary doctrine and institution frō the Apostles: but speaking of the Church of Rome, which now is, we say the said places of the Doctors are not true, neither do appertain to the same, all which Doctors neither knew the Church of Rome that now is, neither if they had, would ever have judged any thing therein worthy such commendation.

Ouer and besides, our adversaries yet more object against us, who heauing and shouyng for the antiquity of the Romish Church for lack of other sufficient reason to prove, are driven to fall in scannyng the times and years. What, say they, where was this Church of yours, before these fifty years? To whom briefly to answer, first we demand what they mean by this, which they call our Church? If they mean the ordinance and institution of doctrine and Sacraments, now received of us, and differing from the Church of Rome, we affirm and say, that our church was, when this church of theirs was not yet hatched out of the shell, nor did yet ever see any light: that is, in the time of the Apostles, in the primitive age, in the time of Gregory the first, & the old Roman church, when as yet no universal pope was received publicly, but repelled in Rome, nor this fullness of plenary power yet known, nor this doctrine, and abuse of Sacraments yet heard of. In witness whereof we have the old acts and histories of ancient time to give testimony with us, wherein sufficient matter we have for us, to declare y ^e same form, usage, and institution of this our church reformed now, not to be the beginning of any new church of our own, but to be the renewyng of the old ancient church of Christ: nor to be any sweruyng from the church of Rome, but rather a reducyng to the church of Rome, Whereas contrary the church of Rome which now is, is nothing but a sweruyng from the church of Rome, as partly is declared, and more shall appear (Christ willing) hereafter.

And where the said our adversaries do moreover charge us with the faith of our fathers and Godfathers, wherein we were baptized, accusing and cōdemnyng us, for that we are now revolted frō them & their faith, wherein we were first Christened: To this we aūswear, that we being first baptized by our fathers & Godfathers, in water, in the name of the Father, of the Son, & of the holy Ghost, the same faith wherein we were Christened thē, we do retain, & because our Godfathers were thē selves also in the same faith, therefore they cā not say that we have forsaken the faith of our Godfathers. &c. As for other points of Ecclesiastical uses & circumstances considered, besides the principal substance of faith and baptism, if they held any thing which receaded from the doctrine and rule of Christ, therein we now remove our selves not because we would differ from them, but because we would not with them remove from the rule of Christ's doctrine. Neither doth the Sacrament of our baptism bind us in all points to the opinions of them that baptized us, but to the faith of him, in whose name we were Baptized. For as if a man were Christined of an heretic, the Baptism of him notwithstanding were good, although the Baptiser were naught: so if our Godfathers or fathers, which Christened us, were taught any thing, not consonant to Christiā doctrine in all pointes, neither is our Baptism worse for that, nor yet we bound to follow thē in all things, wherein they them selves did not follow the true church of Christ.

Wherefore as it is false, that we have renounced the faith of our Godfathers wherein we were first baptized, so is it not true y ^t we are removed from the church of Rome. But rather say, and (by the leave of Christ) will prove that y ^e Church of Rome hath utterly departed frō the church of Rome, according to my distinctiō afore touched. Which thing y ^e more evidently to declare, I will here compare y ^e church of Rome, with y ^e church of Rome: And in a general description set forth (by Godsgrace (the difference of both the churches, that is of both y ^e times of the church of Rome: to y ^e intent it may besene, whether we or y ^e church of Rome have more Apostated from y ^e church of Rome.

And here first I divide the church of Rome in a double consideration of time, first of those first .600. years which were immediately after Christ: and secondly of the other .600. years, which now have been in these our latter days. And so in cōparyng these two together, will search out what discrepance is between them both. Of the which two age and states of the Roman church, the first I call the primitive church of Rome. The other I call the latter church of Rome, countyng this latter church from the thousand years expired after the binding up of Sathā, to the time of his lousing again according to the Prophesy of the xx. chap. of S. John's Revelation, countyng these .1000. years from the ceasing of persecution, under Constantine Magnus, to the beginning of persecution of the church again under Innocentius 3. and Ottomannus the first Turcian Emperor. And thus have ye the church of Rome parted into two churches, in double respect and consideration of two sundry states and times. Now in setting and matchyng the one state with the other, let us see whether the church of Rome hath swerved from the church of Rome more then we, or no.

ANd to begin first with the order and qualities of life: I ask here of this Roman Clergy, where was this Church of theirs which now is, in the old ancient time of the primitive Church of Rome, with this pomp and pride, with this riches & superfluity, with this gloria mundi, and name of Cardinals, with this praunsing dissoluteness and hooryng of the Curtisans, with this extortiō, bribyng, bying and selling of spiritual dignities, these Annates, reformations, procurations, exactions, and other practices for money, this avarice insatiable, ambition, intolerable, fleshly filthiness most detestable, barbarousnes and negligence in preaching, promise breaking saythlesse, poisoning and supplantyng one another, with such schisms & divisions, which never were more seen then in the elections and Court of Rome these 700. years, with such extreme cruelty, malice and tyranny in burning and persecutyng their poorebrethren to death.

It were to long, and a thing infinite, to stand particularly vpō these above rehearsed. And if a man should prosecute at large all the schisms that have been in y ^e Church of Rome since the time of Damasus the first, which are counted to the number of xviij. schisms. What a volume would it require? Or if here should be recorded all that this Sea hath burned and put to death since loosing out of Satan, who were able to number them? Or if all their sleights to get money should be described as process of matter would require, who were able to recite them all? Of which all notwithstanding, the most principal grounds are reckoned at least to xiv. or xv. sleights.

First for Annates, or vacanties of Archbyshoprikes, Byshoprikes, Abbaties, Priories conuentuall, and other benefices electiue.

Secondly, for the holding and reteinyng of all other spiritual living whatsoever, besides this which now the incumbent payeth for, or which he may hold hereafter.

Thirdly, new annates for all the same are required again, toties quoties, any one of all his spiritual livings be, or are feigned to be not orderly come by, whereby it hath chanced diverse times three or four Annates to be paid for one benefice.

Fourthly, for giving out preuētiōs of benefits before they fall, and many times someone prevention to be givē to diverse and sundry persons, by the office for money sake.

Fifthly, for resignations upon favor, which in many cases the Pope challengeth to be reserved to him self.

Sixthly, for commendams.

Seuently, for compoūdyng with such as be absent frō their charge, and give attendaunce about the Court.

Eighthly, for infinite dispensations, as to dispence with age, with order, with benefices incompatible, as if the mumber be full, if the house be of such or such an order. Item dispensation for irregularity, for whoredom & aduoutry, for times of marriage, for marrying in degrees forbidden, or in affinity canonical, for Gossips to mary, for the which it hath been seen in France a thousand crowns to be paid to Rome at one time, for dispensing with this canonical affinite of Gossippes, as we call it, the same being yet not true, but feigned. Item dispensing for caring meats in times prohibited.

Ninthly, for innumerable priuilegies, exēptiōs, graces for not visityng, or visityng by a Proctor, for cōfirmations of privileges, for transactiōs made upon special favor of the Pope, for permutations of benefices with dispensation annexed, or making of pensiōs, with such like.

Tenthly, for mandates granted by the Pope, to Ordinaries, whereof every Ordinary, if he have the collation or presētatiō of x. may receive one mandate, if he have fifty, he may receive ii. mandates, & for every mandate cometh to the Pope about xx. ducates. And yet notwithstanding so many are sold, as will come buyers to pay for them.

Eleventhly, for the Popes penitētiarie, for absolutiō of cases reserved to y ^e Pope, for breaking & chāging of vows for translation frō one monastery to another, also from one order to another, for license to enter into certain Monasteries, to carry about altars, with many other things of like devise, pertaining to the office of the Popes penitentiary.

Twelfly, for giving & graūtyng of innumerable Pardons and Indulgences, to be read not only in publicque temples, but also to be bought in private houses, and of private persons, in diverse and sundry respects.

Thirtenthly, for making Notaries, and Protonotories, and other offices of the Court of Rome.

Fourtenthly, for grauntyng out Bulls and Commissions of new foundations, or for chaungyng of the old, for reducyng regular Monasteries, to a secular state, or for restoring again into the old, & for other infinite rescriptes & writes, about matters dependyng in controversy, & otherwise might and ought by the Ordinary to be decided.

Fiftenthly, for giving the palle to Archbishops newly elected, by reason of all which devises (besides the first of the Annates) it hath been accounted out of the kings records in France, in the time of Ludouike the ix. (as testifieth Molineus ) to the number of CC. thousand crowns, only out of France paid & transported to Rome. Which sum since that time hath been doubled & tripled, besides Annates and Palles, which all together are thought to make the total sum, yearly going out of France to the Popes coffers • f late years x. Myriads, or Milliōs, every Myriade mountyng to x. thousand crowns. Now what hath risen besides in other Realms and Natiōs, let other men conjecture.

Wherefore if the Gospel send us to the fruits to know the tree, I pray you what is to be thought of the Church of Rome, with these fruits of life? Or if we will seek the Church in length and number of years, where was this Church of Rome with these qualities then, at what time the Church of Rome was a persecuted Church, not a persecutyng Church? And when the Bishops thereof did not make Martyrs, as these do now, but were made Martyrs them selves, to the number of xxv. in order one after another? Or when the Bishops thereof were elected & exalted, not by factions conspiring, not by power or partes taking, not by money or friends making, as they be now, but by the free voices of the people & of the Clergy, with the consent of the Emperor joined with all, and not by a few conspired Cardinals, closed up in a corner, as they be now &c.

ANd yet if there were no other difference in the matter, but only corruptiō of life, all that we would tolerate, or else impute to the common fragility of man, and charge them no further therein, then we might charge our selves. Now over and beside this deformity of life, wherein they are clean gone frō the former steppes of the true Church of Rome, we have moreover to charge them in greater pointes, more nearly touching the substauntiall ground of the Church, as in their jurisdiction presumptuously usurped, in their title falsely grounded, and in their doctrine heretically corrupted. In all which three pointes, this latter pretenced Church of Rome, hath utter sequestered it self from the Image and nature of the ancient and true Church of Rome, and have erected to them selves, a new Church of their own making, as first usurping a jurisdiction never known before to their ancient predecessors. For although the Church of Rome in the old primitive time had his due authority and place due unto that sea, among other Patriarchal Churches, over and upon such Churches as were within his precinct, & bordering near unto it, as appeareth by the Acts of Nicene Council: yet the universal fullness and plenitude of power in both the regimentes, spiritual & temporal, in deposing & dispensing matters of the Church, not to him belonging, in taking Appeales, in giving elections, inuestyng in benefices, in exēpting him self from obedience & subjection of his ordinary power & Magistrate, with his coactiue power newly erected in the church of Rome, was never received nor used in the old Roman church, frō which they disagree in all their doings. For although Victor thē bishop of Rome. an. 200. went about to excommunicate the East Churches, for the observation of Easter day: yet neither did he proceed therein, neither was permitted by Irenaeus so to do. And although Boniface the first likewise, writing to the Bishops of Carthage, required of thē to send up their appellatiōs unto the Church of Rome, alleging moreover the decree of Nicene Council for his authority: The Bishops & Clergy of Carthage assemblyng together in a general Council (called the vi. Council of Carthage) to the mumber of .217. Bishops, after they had perused the decrees in the autentike copies of the foresaid Nicene Council, & found no such matter, by the said Boniface alleged, made therefore a public decree, that none out of that country should make any appeal over the sea. &c. And what marvel if appeals were forbid̄ them to be made to Rome, whē as both here in England the kings of this land would not permit any to Appeale frō them to Rome, before king Henry the ii. because of the murder of Thomas Becket, being thereunto compelled by Pope Alexander the iii. And also in France y ^e like prohibitions were expressly made by Ludouicus Pius, an. 1268. which did forbid by a public instrument, called Pragmatica sanctio, all exactions of the Popes court within his Realm. Also by king Philip named Le bel, an. 1296. the like was done, which not only restrained all sēdyng or going up of his subjects to Rome, but also that no money, armor, nor subsidy, should be transported out of his Realm. The like also after him did king Charles the v. surnamed the Wise, and his son likewise after him Charles the vi. who also punished as traitors, certain seditious persons for appealyng to Rome. The like resistaūce moreover was in the said country of France, against the Popes reseruatiōs, preuētiōs, & other like practices of his usurped iurisdictiō in y ^e days of pope Martin the v. an. 1418. Item, when king Henry the vi. in England, and king Charles the 7. in France, did both accord with the Pope, in investing & in collatiō of benefices, yet notwithstanding the high Court of Parliament in France did not admit the same, but still maintained the old liberty & customs of the French Church. In so much that the Duke of Be • hfort came with the kings letters patēt to have the Popes procurations & reservations admitted, yet the court of Parliament would not agree to the same, but the kings Procurator general was fain to go betwixt them, as is to be seen in their Registers. an. 1425. the fifth day of Marche. In the days of the which king Charles the vii. was setforth in France, Pragmatica san • tio, as they call it, against the Anna • es, reservations, expectatiues, and such other proceedings of the Popes pretenced iurisdictiō. an. 1438. Wherefore what marvel if this jurisdiction of the Popes Court in excommunicatyng, in taking Appeales, and giving of benefices, was not used in the old Church of Rome, when as in these latter days it hath been so much resisted?

And what should I speak of the form and manner of elections, now used in the Church of Rome, clean converted from the manner of the old Church of their predecessors? For first in those ancient days, when as yet the Church remained in the Apostles only, & a few other Disciples, the Apostles then with prayer and imposition of hands, elected Bishops & Ministers, as by the Apostles James was made Bishop of Jerusalem. Paul in Creta elected Titus, and Timothy in Ephesus. Also Peter ordained Linus and Clement in Rome. &c. After which time of the Apostles, when the Church began more to multiply, the election of Bishops and Ministers stood by the Clergy & the people, with the consent of the chief Magistrate of the place, and so continued during all the time of the Primitive Church, till the time, and after the time of Constantine the 4. Emperor, which Emperor (as writeth Platina and Sabellic. Enead. 8. lib. 6.) published a law concerning the election of the Roman Bishop, that he should be takē for true Bishop, whom the Clergy and people of Rome did choose & elect, without any tarrying for any authority of the Emperor of Constantinople, or the Deputy of Italy: so as the custom and fashion had ever been before that day, an. 685. And here the Bishops began first to writhe out their elections and their necks a little from the Emperors subjection, if it be so as the said Platina and Sabellicus after him reporteth. But many conjectures there be, not improbable, rather to think this constitutiō of Constantine to be forged and untrue. First, for that it is taken out of the Popes Bibliothecarie, a suspected place and collected by the keeper and master of the Popes Librarie, a suspected author, who whatsoever feigned writings or Apocrypha he could find in the Popes chestes of Recordes, making any thing on his masters side: that he compiled together, and thereof both Platina, Sabellicus, & Gratianus take most part of their reports, & therefore may the more be suspected. &c.

Secondly, where Platina and Sabellicus say that Constantine moved with the holiness of Pope Benedict the first made that cōstitutiō, how seemeth that to stand with truth, when both the Emperor was so far of from him being at Constantinople, & also for that the said Pope reigned but x. months? which was but a small time to make his holiness known to the Emperor so far of. And give he were so holy, yet that holiness might rather be an occasiō for the Emperor so to confirm and maintain the old received manner of his institution, then to alter it.

The third conjecture is this, for that the said constitution was not observed, but shortly after by the said Benedict was broken in the election of Pope Conon. And yet notwithstanding albeit the constitution were true, yet the election there by was not takē away from the people, and limited to the Clergy only, and much less might be taken away frō the Clergy, and be limited only to the Cardinals, without the consent of their Prince and ruler, according to their own Rubrice in their Decrees, where the Rubrice saith: De ordination Episcopy: Nullus inuitis detur Episcopus, cleri, plebis, & ordinis consensus & desiderium requiratur, &c. That is: Let no Bishop be given to any people against their wills: but let the consent & desire both of the Clergy and of the people, and of the order, be also required. &c. And in the same Dist. also, cap. Sacrorū, we read the same liberty & interest to be granted by Carolus Magnus, and Ludouicus his son, not to a few Cardinals only, but to the order as well of the Clergy, as of the people, to choose not only the Bishop of Rome, but any other Bishop within their own Diocese whatsoever, and to the Monks likewise, to choose their own Abbot, setting aside all respect of persons and gifts, only for the worthiness of life, and gift of wisdom, so as might be most profitable for doctrine, and example unto the flock. &c. And this continued till the time of the foresaid Carolus Magnus, and Ludouicus his son, an. 810. of the which two, Carolus the father received expressly of Pope Ad ••• • he first, full jurisdiction and power to elect & ordain the Bishop of Rome, like as pope Leo the ix. did also to Ottho • he first Germain Emperor, an. 961. The other, that is, Ludouicus, son to the foresaid Charles, is said to renounce again, and surrender from him self and his successors, unto pope Paschalis and the Romaines, the right and interest of choosing the Roman Bishop, and moreover to give and grant to the said Paschalis the full possession of the City of Rome, & the whole territory to the same belonging. An. 821. as appeareth by the decree, Ego Ludouicus Dist. 63. But admit that feigned decree to be unfeignedly true (as it may well be suspected for many causes, as proceeding out of the same fountain, with the constitution of Constantine afore mentioned, that is, from the master of the Popes Library, of whō both Gratianus & Volateran, by their own confession take their ground) yet the same decree doth not so give away the freedom of that election, that he limiteth it only to the Cardinals, but also requireth the whole consent of the Romaines, neither doth he simplely & absolutely give the same, but with cōditiō, so that, Omnes Romani vno consilio, & vna concordia sine aliqua promissione ad pontificatus ordinem eligerent: that is, whō as all the Romaines with one counsel, & with one accord, without any promise of their voices granted before, shall choose to be Bishop of Rome. And moreover in the same Decree is required, that at the consecration of the same Bishop, messengers should be directed incontinent to the French king concerning the same.

Furthermore, neither yet did the same decree (albeit it were true) long continue. For although Pope Stephen the fourth, and pope Paschalis the first, in Ludouicus time were impapaced thorough discord without election of the Emperor, yet they were fain by message to send their purgation to him of their election. And after that, in the time of Eugenius the ii. which succceded next to Paschalis, Lotharius son of Ludouicus, and Emperor with his father, came to Rome, and there appointed laws & magistrates over the City. Whereby may appear the donation of Ludouike, in giving away the City of Rome to the Pope, to be feigned. And after Eugenius, pope Gregory the iv. who following within a year after Eugenius, durst not take his election without the consent and confirmation of the said Emperor Ludouicus. And so in like manner his successors pope Sergius the ii: Pope Leo, the iv. pope Nicolas the first, and so orderly in a long tract of time, from the foresaid Nicolas the first, to Pope Nicolas the ii. an. 1061. (which Nicolas in his Decree beginning, In nomine Domini Dist. 23. ordained also the same) so that in the election of the Bis • ops of Rome, commonly the consent of the Emperor and the people with the Clergy of Rome, was not lacking. After which Nicolas came Alexander the 2. and wicked Hildebrand, which Alexander being first elected without the Emperors will and consent, afterward repenting the same, openly in his preaching to the people declared that he would no longer sit in the Apostolic sea, unless he were by the emperor confirmed. Wherefore he was greatly rebuked, and cast into prison by Hildebrand, and so deposed. Then Hildebrand and his followers so ordered the matter of this election, that first the Emperor, then the lay people, after that the Clergy also began to be excluded. And so the election by little & little was reduced into the hands of a few Cardinals, contrary to all ancient order, where ever since it hath remained.

And like as in elections, so also in power iudiciarie, in deciding and determinyng of causes of faith, and of Ecclesiastical discipline, the state of the Church of Rome, now being, hath no conformity with the old Roman Church heretofore. For then Bishops debated all causes of faith only by the Scriptures, and other questions of Ecclesiastical discipline they determined by the Canons, not of the Pope, but of the Church, such as were decreed by the ancient Councils, as writeth Greg. Turonensis in Francorum historia. Whereas now both the rule of scripture, & sanctions of the old Councils set aside, all things for the most part are decided by certain new decretal or rather extradecr • tall & extravagant constitutions, in the Popes Canon law compiled, and in his Consistories practiced.

And where as the old ordinance and disposition, as well of the common law, as of the sacred Councils, and institution of ancient fathers have given to Bishops & other prelates, also to patrons and donors of Ecclesiastical benefices everyone within his own precinct and dominion, also to cathedral Churches and other: to have their free elections & to prosecute the same in full effect: ordryng and disposing promotions, collatiōs, provisions & dispositions of prelacies, dignities, and all other Ecclesiastical benefices whatsoever, after their own arbitremēt, as appeareth by the first general Council of France. 16. q 7. cap. Omnes Basilicae, by the first general Council of Nice, cap 6. Also by the general Council of Antioch. cap. 9. and is to be seen in the Popes Decrees. 9. q. 3. Per singulas. And also beside these ancient decrees, the same is confirmed again in more latter years by Ludouicus the ninth French king in his constitution called Pragmatica sanctio, made and provided by full Parliament against the popes exactions. An. 1228. in these words as follow. Item exaction • s & onera grauissima pecuniarum, per curiam Romanam Ecclesiae regni nostri impositas vel imposita (quibus regnum miserabiliter de pauperatum existit) sieve etiam imponendas vel imponenda leuari aut colligi nullatenus volumus: nisi duntaxat pro rationabili, pia & vrgentissima causa, vel ineuitabili necessitate, ac etiam de expresso, & spontaneo iussu nostro, & ipsius Ecclesiae regni nostri. &c. that is. Item all exactions & importable burdens of money, which the Court of Rome hath laid upon the Church of our kingdom (whereby the said our kingdom hath been miserably hitherto impoverished) or hereafter shall impose or lay upon us, we utterly discharge and forbid to be levied or collected hereafter for any manner of cause, unless there come some reasonable, godly, & most urgent, & inevitable necessity, & that also not to be done without the express & voluntary commandment of us, & of the Church of the same our foresaid kingdom. &c. Now contrary and against to these so manifest & express decrementes of general Councils, & constitutions Synodal, this latter Church of Rome of late presumption, degeneratyng frō all the steppes of their elders, have taken upon them a singular jurisdiction by them selves, & for their own advantage, to entermedle in disposing & trāsposing Churches, Colleges, Monasteries, with the collations, exemptions, elections, goods & lands to the same belonging, by reason and example whereof have come in these impropriations, first fruits, & reservations of benefices to the miserable dispoyling of Parishes, & horrible decay of Christian faith, which things among the old Romaine elders were never know̄. For so much then did it lack, that due necessities were plucked frō the Church, that Emperors, Kyngs, & Princes plucking frō their own, rather did cumulate the Church with superfluities.

Agayne, when such goods were given to the Church by those auncetors, they were neither so given, nor yet taken, to serve the private use of certain churchmen taking no pains therein, but rather to serve the public subuētiō of the needy, as is contained in the canonical institutions by the Emperor Ludouicus Pius set forth. An. 830. The words be these: Res Ecclesiae vota sunt fidelium, pretia peccatorum, & patrimonia pauperum, that is: The goods of the church be the vows and bequestes of the faithful, prices to ransom such as be in captivity or prison, and patrimonies to succor them with hospitality, that be needy.

Wherunto agreeth also the testimony of Prosper, whose words be these: Viros sanctos ecclesiae non vendicas • e vt proprias, sed vt commendatas pauperibus diuisisse: that is, good men took y ^e goods of the church not as their own but distributed thē as givē & bequeathed to the poor. And saith moreover: Quod habet Ecclesia, cum omnibus nihil habentibus habet commune, that is: Whatsoever the church hath, it hath it common, with all such as have nothing. &c.

Add to these the worthy testimony of S. August. ad Bonif. Si autem priuatim, quae nobis sufficiant possidemus, nō sunt illa nostra, sed pauperum quorum procurationem quodammodo gerimus, non proprietatem nobis usurpation damnabili vendicamus, &c.

Likewise vowsons and pluralities of benefices were things then as much unknown, as now they are pernicious to the church, taking away all free election of ministers from the flock of Christ.

All which inconveniences as they first came and crept in chiefly by the pretensed authority & jurisdiction abused in this latter church of Rome, so it cannot be denied, but the said latter church of Rome hath taken and attributed to it self much more, thē either the limites of God's word do give, or standeth with the example of the old Roman church, in these three things especial. Whereof as mentiō is touched before, so briefly I will recapitulate the same.

The first is in this, that whatsoever the Scripture giveth and referreth, either to the whole church universally, or to every particular church severally, this church now of Rome doth arrogate to it self absolutely and only, both doing injury to other churches, & also abusing the Scriptures of God. For albeit the Scripture doth give authority to bind and loose, it limitteth it neither to person nor place, that is, neither to the City of Rome only, more thē to other Cities, nor to y ^e sea of Peter, more thē to other Apostles, but giveth it clearly to y ^e Church, whereof Peter did bear the figure, so that where soever the true Church of Christ is, there is annexed power to bind & loose, given and taken merely as from Christ, and not mediately by the Pope or Bishop of Peters sea.

The second point wherein this present Church of Rome abuseth his jurisdiction contrary to Scripture and steps of the old Roman Church, is this, for that it extendeth his authority farther and more amply, thē either the warrant of the word, or example of time will give. For although the Church of Rome hath (as other particular churches have) authority to bind and absolve, yet it hath no such authority to absolve subjects frō their oath, subjection, and loyalty to their rulers & Magistrates, to dispēse with perjury, to denounce remissiō, where no earnest repentance is seen before, to number remission by days & years; to dispense with things expressly in the word forbid̄, or to restrain that which the word maketh free, to devide Religion into Religions, to bind and burden consciences with constitutions of men, to excommunicate for worldly matters, as for breaking of parkes, for not ringyng bells at the Bishops coming, for not bringing litter for their horse, for not paying their fees and rētes, for withholding the church goods, for holding on their princes side in princely cases, for not going at the Popes commandment, for not agreeing to the Popes electiō in another princes Realm, with other such things mo & more vain then these. &c. Agayne, although the Scripture giveth leave and authority to the Bishop and Church of Rome to minister Sacraments, yet it giveth no authority to make Sacraments, much less to worship Sacraments. And though their authority serveth to baptize mē, yet it extendeth not to Christian bells: neither have they authority by any word of God to add to the word of God, or take from the same, to set up unwritten verities under pain of damnation, to make other articles of belief, to institute strange worship, otherwise thē he hath prescribed, which hath told us how he would be worshipped. &c.

The third abuse of the Popes jurisdiction standeth in this, that as in spiritual jurisdiction they have vehemently exceeded the boūdes of Scripture, so they have impudētly intermeddled them selves in temporal iurisdictiō, wherein they have nothing to do. In so much that they have translated the Empire, they have deposed Emperors, Kyngs, Princes & rulers & Senators of Rome, & set up other, or the same again at their pleasure, they have proclaimed wars, & have warred them selves. And where as Emperors in ancient time have dignified thē in titles, have enlarged thē with donations, & they receiving their confirmation by the Emperors, have like ingratfull clients to such benefactors, afterward stampte upon their necks, have made thē to hold their s • urrup, some to hold y ^e bridle of their horse, have caused them to seek their confirmation at their hand, yea have been Emperors thenselves: Sede vacante, & in discordia electionis, and also have been Senators of the City. Moreover have extorted into their own hands the plenary fullness of power & jurisdiction of both the swords, especially since the time of Pope Hildebrand: which Hildebrand deposing Henricus the iv. Emperor, made him give attendance at his City gate. And after him Pope Boniface the viii. shown him self unto the people on the first day like a Bishop, with his keys before him, & y ^e next day in his robes Imperial, having a naked sword borne before him, like an Emperor. an. 1298. And for so much as this inordinate jurisdiction hath not only been used of thē, but also to this day is maintained in Rome, let us therefore now compare the usage hereof to the old manner in times past, meaning the primitive and first age of the Church of the Romaines. Wherein y ^e old Bishops of Rome in those days, as they were then subject to their Emperors, so were other Bishops in like manner of other nations subject everyone to his Kyng & Prince, acknowledgyng them for their Lord's, & were ordered by their authority & obeyed their laws, and that not only in causes civil, but also in regiment Ecclesiastical as appeareth Dist. 10. cap. 1. & 2. Dist. 97. cap. De illicita.

Also 24. q. 3. So was Gregorius surnamed Magnus, subject to Ma •• itius, and to Phocas, although a wicked Emperor. So also both Pope & people of Rome took their laws of the Emperors of Constantinople, & were submitted to thē, not only in the time of Honorius an hundred years after Constantine the great, but also in the time of Martianus ▪ an. 1451. & so further unto the time of Justinian & of Carolus Magnus, and also after the days of them. In all which continuance of time, it is manifest, that the Imperial law of Martiane did rule & bind in Rome, both in the days of Justinian, an 150. years after, til the time of the Empire being translated from Grece unto France. Whereby it may appear false▪ that the City of Rome was givē by Constantine the first unto the bishop of Rome to govern, for that Pope 〈◊〉 the first writing to the Emperor Honorius, c ••• eth in the same place Rome the Emperors City. Dist. 97. cap. 1. And Lotharius, also Emperor appointed Magistrates and laws in Rome, as is above mentioned. Moreover, for further probation hereof, that both the Bishop of Rome & all other Ecclesiastical persons were in former time, and ought to be subject to their Emperors and lawful Magistrates, in causes as well spiritual as civil, by many evidences may appear, takē out both of God's law, and man's law. And first by God's law we have example of godly king David, who numbered all the Priests and Levites, & disposed thē into xxiiij. orders or courses, appointyng thē continually to serve in the ministry everyone in his proper order & turn, as came about: which institution of the Clergy, also good king Hezekiah afterward renewed, of whō it is written: he did that was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all things as his father David had done before, he took away the high groves, and brake down Images. &c. 4. Reg. 8. The said Hezekiah also reduced the Priests & Levites into their orders, prescribed by David before, to serve everyone in his office of ministratiō .2. Paralip. 30.31. And this order frō David still continued till the time of Zacharias at the coming of Christ our Lord, being of Abias course, which was the viii. order of the Priests appointed to serve in the tabernacle. Luc. 1. To pass over other lighter offices translated from the Priests to the Kyngs authority, as concerning the orderyng of oblations in the Temple, and reparations of the Lord's house, king Solomon displaced Abiathar the high Priest, by his kyngly power, and placed Sadoch in his stead. 3. Reg. cap. 6▪ Also dedicatyng the temple of the Lord with all the people, blessed the whole congregation of Israel. 3. Reg. 8. Judas Maccabeus also elected Priests, such as being without spot had a zeal to the law of the Lord, to purge the Temple, which the Idolatrous Gentiles had before profaned. 1. Machab. 4.

Also king Alexander writing to Ionathas, appointed him chief Priest in his country. 1. Mac. 10. Demetrius ordained Simon & Alchinus in the like office of Priesthood. Jehoshaphat likewise as in the whole land did set Judges, so also in Jerusalem he appointed Levites & Priests, and heads of families to have the hearing of causes, and to minister Judgment over the people. 2 Paral. 19. By these & many other is to be seen, the Kynges & Princes in the old time as well, when Priests were borne Priests, as whē they were made by election, had the dealing also in Ecclesiastical matters, as in calling the people to God's service, in cutting down groves, in destroying images, in gathering tithes into y ^e Lord's house, in dedicating the temple, in blessing the people, in casting down the brazen Serpēt within the temple, in correcting & deposing Priests, in cōstituting the order & offices of Priests, in commanding such things as pertained to the service & worship of God, & in punishyng the contrary. &c. And in the New Testament what meaneth the example of Christ himself both giving & teaching tribute to be given to Caesar? to Caesar I say, & not to y ^e high Priest. What meaneth his words to Pilate not denying power to be given to him from above?

And again declaring the kings of nations to have dominiō over thē, & willing his Disciples not so to do, giving us to understand the difference between the regiment of his spiritual kingdom, & of y ^e kingdom of this world, willing all worldly states to be subject under the superior rulers & Magistrates, in whose regiment is dominiō and subiectiō, & not in the other. Whereunto accordeth also the doctrine of S. Paul, where it is written: let every soul be subject to the higher powers, under whose obedience neither Pope, Cardinal, Patriarch, Bishop, Priest, Frier nor Monk is excepted, nor exempted, as Theophilactus expoūdyng the same place declareth, & saith: Vniuersos erudit, sieve sacerdos sit ill, sieve monachus, sieve Apostolus, vt se principibus subdant: that is, he teacheth all sortes, whether he be Priest, or Monk, or else Apostle, that they should submit themselves under their Princes. &c. And S. Augustine writing ad Bonifacium, saith in much like sort: Quicun{que} autem legibus imperatoris, quae, pro Dei veritate feruntur, obtemperare non vult, acquirit grande supplicium, that is, whosoever refuseth to obey the laws of the Emperor, which make for the verity of God, incurreth the danger of great punishment. &c. Also in another place, writing cō • ra Cresconium, hath these words: In hoc enim reges sicut eis diuini • us praecipitur, Deo seruiunt, in quantum reges, si in suo regno bona iubeant, mala prohibeant, non solùm quae pertinent ad humanam s • cietarem, verumetiam quae ad diuinam religione &c. that is, Kynges according as it is enjoined them of God, do serve God in that they are kings, if they in their kingdom command those things that be good, & forbid things that be evil, such as appertain not only to human society, but also to God's Religion. &c. And yet to come more near to the Popes own Doctors, Thomas Aquine not much discrepant from the injunction of the Apostle above alleged, thus describeth y ^e office of a king: Hoc inquit, officium rex se suscepisse cognoscat, vt sit in regno, sicut in corpore anima, & sicut Deus in mundo, &c. Let a king (saith he) understand, that he hath taken this office upon him, to be as the soul within the body, and as God in the world. In like agreement with the holy Apostle S. Paul, joineth also S. Peter: be you subject (saith he) to every human creature, whether it be to the king, as most preeminent, or to other set over you. &c. Where the common Glose addeth thereto, to obey the same, whether they be good or evil. These places rightly pondered, let any mā now judge whether the Pope hath done open wrong to the Emperor, in surprising above the jurisdiction of his lawful Prince and Magistrate, notwithstanding whatsoever his own Canon law saith to the contrary.

And as it is sufficiently hitherto proved by God's law, that all Ecclesiastical persons owe their due subjection to their lawful Princes, in matters as well temporal, as spiritual: so no less euidēces may also be inferred out of mans law, and examples of the oldest fathers, to prove the same. And first to begin with the example of Gregory the great, who in his Epistle to Maurice writeth thus: Dominus meus fuisti, quando adhuc Dominus omnium non eras: Ecce per me seruum vltimum suum, & vestrum respondebit Christus, &c. that is: You were thē my Lord, whē you were not the Lord of the whole Empire, behold Christ him self shall make you aūswear by me, which am his most simplest servant and yours, &c. And before him Eleutherius his predecessor Bishop of Rome, writing to Lucius, king of this Realm, calleth him by the name of Christ's Vicar: But what needeth much confirmation of this matter, whē the Popes decrees & Canons be full of records hereof, testifiyng how the ancient Church of Rome not only received, but also required of the Emperors, laws & constitutions to be made, touching not only such causes, but also such persons as were Ecclesiastical. And here to omit by the way the chap. Principes seculi, also cap. Administratores, 23. q. 5. with diverse other beside, I will recite out of the Epistle of Boniface the 1. to the Emperor Honorius, so much as serveth for our purpose, written dist 92. cap. Ecclesiae, cap. Victor. Where it is mentioned that the said Boniface Bishop of Rome sent an humble supplication to the forenamed Emperor, desiring him by his authority to provide some remedy against the ambitious cōtentions of the clergy, concerning the bishopric of Rome. Which Emperor Honorius incontinent at his request, directed & stablished a law, that none should be made Bishop of Rome through ambitiō, charging all Ecclesiastical Ministers to surcease frō ambition, appointyng moreover, that if two were elected together, neither of them both should be takē, but the election to proceed further to another to be chosen by a full consent of voices, as is expressed. Dist. 79. cap. Si duo.

To this I adjoin also the law & constitution of Justinian the Emperor, ratified and renewed afterward in the counsel of Paris, in time of king Ludouicus Pius. Where all Bishops & Priests be expressly forbid̄ not to excommunicate any mā, before his cause was known & proved to be such, as for the which the ancient Canons of the Church would him to be excommunicate. And if any should otherwise proceed contrary to the same, thē the excommunicate person to be absolved by y ^e authority of an higher degree, & the excommunicate to be sequestered frō the communiō, so long as should seem convenient to him that had the executiō thereof, as is expressed. 24. q. 3. De illicita. The same Justinian moreover in his laws & constitutions, how many things did he dispose & ordain in Church matters, as to have a determinate number of Churchmen or Clerks in Churches. cōst. 3. Also concerning Monasteries & Mōkes. const. 5. how Bishops & Priests should be ordained. cōst. 6. concerning remouyng of Ecclesiastical persons frō one Church to another. Also concerning y ^e constitution of the Churches in Affrike. And that the holy mysteries should not be done in private houses, so y ^t whosoever should attempt the contrary, should be deprived. const. 57. Moreover concerning Clerks leaving their Churches. const. 58. Also concerning the order & manner of funerals. const. 59. And that Bishops should not keep frō their flock. const. 67. The same Iustiniā granted to the Clergy of Constantinople the privilege of the secular court, in cases only civil, and such as touched not the disturbaūce of the Bishop, otherwise in all criminal causes he left them to the judgment of the secular court. const. 83. He giveth also laws & decrees for breach of matrimony. const. 117. & in diverse other places. And in his const. 123. after the doctrine of S. Paul, he commaūdeath all Bishops & Priests to sound out their service, & to celebrate the mysteries, not after a secrete manner, but with a loud voice, so as they might not only be heard, but also be understand of the faithful people, what was said & done, Whereby it is to be gathered, that divine prayers and service then, was in the vulgar tongue.

And as the said Justinian, & other Emperors in those days had the iurisdictiō and government over spiritual matters & persons, the like examples also may be brought of other kings, in other lands, who had no less authority in their Realms, then Emperors had in their Empire. As in France, Clodoueus the first Christened king at Orleans caused a Council of 33. Bishops, where .33. Canons were instituted concerning the government of the Church, within .200. years after Christ. Ex primo Tomo Council. Carolus Magnus, beside his other laws and edictes political, called v. Synods, one at Mainz, the second at Rome, the third at Remes, the fourth at Cabilone, the fifth at Ar • late, where sundry rites & ordinances were given to the Clergy, about .810. years after Christ. The same Carolus also decreed that only the Canonical books of Scripture should be read in the Church, & none other. Which before also was decreed. an. 4.17. in the third general Council of Carthage. Item he exhorteth and chargeth Bishops and Priests to preach the word, with a godly iniūction: Episcopy vero vt sieve per se, sieve per vicarios, pabulum verbi diuini sedulo populis annuncient. Quia vt ait beatus Gregorius: Iram contra se occulti iudicis excitat Sacerdos si sine praedicationis sonitu incedit. Et vt ipsi clerum sibi commissum in sobrietate & castitate nutriant. Superstitiones quas quibusdam in locis in exequijs mortuorum nonenulli faciunt, eradicent, that is: That bishops either by them selves, or their deputies shall show forth y ^e food of God's word to the people with all diligence. For as Gregory saith, the Priest procureth against him the wrath of y ^e secret judge, which goeth without the sound of preaching. And also that they bring up their Clergy to thē committed in sobernes & chastity. The superstitiō which in certain places is used of some, about the Funerals of the dead, let them exterminate & pluck up by the roots, &c.

Moreover, instructing & informyng the said Bishops & Priests in the office of preaching, willeth thē, not to suffer any to fain or preach to the people any new doctrine of their own inuētion, & not agreing to the word of God, but that they them selves both will preach such things as lead to eternal life, and also that they set up other to do the same, & joineth with all a godly exhortation. Ideo, dilectissimi, toto cord praeparemus nos in scientia veritatis, & mox: vt diuina donante gratia verbum Dei currat & crescat, & multiplicetur, in profectum Ecclesiae Dei sanctae, & salutem animarū nostrarum, & laudem, & gloriam nominis Domini nostri Jesus Christi Pax praedicantibus, gratia obedientibus, gloria Domino nostro Jesus Christo, Amen. Furthermore, the said Carolus in his constitutions divideth the goods givē to the Church so, that in y ^e more wealthy places, two partes should go to the use of the poor, y ^e third to the stipēd of the Clergy. Otherwise in poorer places an equal diuisiō to be made between the poverty & the Clergy, unless the gift had some special exception. Ex Ansegiso. lib. 1. cap. 80. And in the same book a little after, cap. 83. the author declareth by the said Carolus to be decreed, that no Ecclesiastical person or persons frō thenceforth should presume to take of any person, any such gift or donation, whereby y ^e childrē or kinsfolks of the said Donor should be defeited of their inheritance duly to them belonging. Ludouicus Pius king of France, & after Emperor, was son to the foresaid Charles who being joined together with the said Charles his father in y ^e Empire, ordained also with his father sundry acts & obseruaunces touching the government of the Church, as in y ^e author before alleged may appear. As first, that no entry should be made into the Church by Simony: Agayne, that Bishops should be ordained by the free electiō of the Clergy & of the people, without all respect of person or reward, only for the merit of life, and gift of heavenly wisdom.

Also the said Kynges & Emperors forbad that any free mā or Citizen should enter the professiō of Monkery, without license asked of the king before, & added a double cause wherefor. First, for that many not for mere deuotiō, but for idleness and avoiding the kings wars, do give thē selves to Religiō: again, for that many be craftily circumuēted & deluded by subtle covetous persons, seeking to get frō them that which they have. Lib. 1. cap. 114. ibidem. Itē that no young childrē or boys should be shavē or enter any profession, without the will of their Parētes. And no young maidens should take the veale or profession of a Nun, before she came to sufficient discretion of years to discern & choose what they will follow. That none should be interred or buried thence forth within the Church, which also was decreed by Theodosius & Valentinianus 40. years before them. Item the said Carolus .22. years before this Emperor, enacted that murderers & such as were guilty of death by the law, should have no sanctuary by flying into the Church. &c. which also was decreed by Iustiniā .300. years before this Carolus. Ex Nouel. Iustinia.

Moreover the foresaid Ludouicus Pius, with his son Clothari{us} (or as some call him, Lotharius ) joined with him, among other Ecclesiastical Sanctions, ordained a godly law, for laymen to communicate the Sacrament of the body & blood of the Lord in these words: Vt si nō frequētius, vel ter, laici homines communicent: nisi forte grauioribus quibus • am criminibus impediātur. That laymen do communicate at least thrice, if not ofter, except they be let percase by some more heinous grievous offenses. Anseg. lib. 2. cap. 43. Item they enacted that no goods of the Church should be alienated under the pain Leoninae constitutionis. Unto this Lotharius French king and Emperor, Pope Leo the 4. writeth that Romana lex, that is, the Roman law (meaning the law of the French Emperors) as it hath hitherto stood in force: Ita & nunc suum robur propriúm{que} vigorem obtineat, that is: so now it may continue still in his vigor and strength. Ino Carnotensis. lib. 11. Decretorum, about the year of the Lord .848. After this Lotharius succeeded his son Ludouicus the second in the kingdom & Empire of France, before whō the foresaid Pope Leo was brought into judgment, & pleaded his cause of treason, and there was before the Emperor quite and released. Which declareth that Popes and Bishops all this while were in subjection under their Kynges and Emperors.

Moreover descending yet to lower times. an. 1228. Ludouicus 9. called holy Ludouike, made a law against the pestiferous simony in the Church, also for y ^e maintenaūce of the liberty of the Church of France, established a law or decree, against the new inventions, reservations, preuētions, & exactions of y ^e court of Rome, called Pragmatica sanctio, S. Ludouici, the which Samction was also practiced long after in the kingdom of France against the popes collectors & vndercollectors, as appeareth by the Arestum of the coūsails of Paris. an. 1463. ex Molinaeo in Cōmentarijs. Furthermore king Philip le Bel. 1303. set forth a law, called Philippina, wherein was forbid any exactiō of new tithes and first fruits, & other vncustomed collections, to be put upon the Church of France. Carolus the v. named Sapiens. an. 1369. by a law commanded, that no Bishops nor Prelates, or their Officials within his kingdom of France should execute any censure of suspense, or excommunicatiō, at the Popes commandment, over or vpō the Cities, or towns, corporations, or commons of his Realm, ex regist, antiquarū const. chart. 62. Itē Carolus vi. an. 1388. against y ^e Cardinals & other Officials, & collectors of the Pope, revoking again the power which he had givē to thē before, provided by a law, that the fruits & rentes of benefices, with other pensions, & Bishops goods that departed, should no more be exported by the Cardinals & the Popes collectours unto Rome, but should be brought to the king, and so restored to them to whō they rightly did appertain.

The like also may be inferred & proved by the stories & examples of our kings here in England, as king Offa, king Egbertus, Edgarus, Aluredus, Athelwoldus, Canutus, Edwardus. William Conqueror, Wilhel. Rufus, Henricus the first, Henricus the second, till the time of king John and after. Whose dealing as well in Ecclesiastical cases, as in temporal, is a sufficient demonstration to prove what injury the Popes, in these latter days, have done unto the Emperors their lawful governors & Magistrates: in vsurpyng such fullness of power & iurisdictiō over them, to whō properly they owe subjection, contrary to the steps & example of the old Romaine Bishops their aunciters, & therefore have incurred the danger of a Premunire, worthy to be deprived. Although it is not to be denied, but that Ecclesiastical ministers and seruitures have their power also committed unto thē, after their sort, of the Lord: yet it becometh every man to know his own place & standing, & there to keep him, wherein his own precinct doth pale him & not rashly to break out into other mens walks. As it is not lawful for a civil Magistrate to intermeddle with a Bishops or a Preachers function: so unseemly & unorderly it is again that Boniface the viii. should have borne before him the temporal male, & the naked sword of the Emperor, or that any Pope should bear a triple crown, or take upon him like a Lord and Kyng. Wherefore let every man consider the compass & limitation of his charge, & exceed no farther. The office of a Bishop or seruiture Ecclesiastical, was in the old law to offer sacrifice, to burn incense, to pray for the people, to expound the law, to minister in the tabernacle, w ^t which office it was not lawful for any Prince or mā else to intermeddle, as we read how Ozias was punished for offering incense, & another for touching the Ark: so now the office of Christian Ministers is to preach the word, to minister Sacraments, to pray, to bind and loose, where cause vrgently requireth, to judge in spiritual cases, to publish & denounce free reconciliation, & remissiō in the name of Christ, to erect & comfort troubled consciences with the rich grace of the Gospel, to teach the people the true difference betwixt the law and the Gospel, whereof the one belongeth to such as be not in Christ, and come not to him: the other pertaineth to the true believers in the son of God, to admonish also the Magistrates erryng or transgressing in their office. &c.

And as these properly belong to the functiō of the Ecclesiastical sort: so hath y ^e civil governor or Magistrate again his proper charge & office to him assigned, which is, to see the administratiō of justice & judgment, to defend with power the right of the weak that suffer wrong, to defend from oppression the poor oppressed, to minister with equality, that which is right and equal to every man: to provide laws good & godly, to see the execution of y ^e same as cause moveth: especially to see the law of God maintained, to promote Christ's glory & Gospel, in setting up & sending out good Preachers, in mainteinyng the same, in prouidyng Bishops to be elected that be faithful, in remouyng or else correctyng the same being faulty or negligent, in congregatyng the Clergy whē need is of any counsel or electiō, to hear their learning in causes propounded, & according to the truth learned, to direct his judgment, in disposing such rites & ordinances for the church, as make to edification not to the destruction thereof, in conseruyng the discipline of the Church, and setting all things in a congrue order. Briefly, the office of the civil ruler & Magistrate extendeth to minister justice and judgment in all Courtes as well temporal, as Ecclesiastical: to have correction over all trāsgressours, whether they be laymen or persons Ecclesiastical. And finally all such things as belong to the mouyng of y ^e sword, whatsoever, that is to say, all outward punishment, is referred to the jurisdiction of the secular Magistrate, under whose subjection the ordinance of God hath subjected all orders and states of mē.

Here we have the witness also of Hormisda Bishop of Rome, which being well weighed, maketh y ^e matter plain, that Princes have to deal in spiritual causes also, not only in temporal: where the said Hormisda writeth to Epiphanius, Patriarch of Constant. in this sort: Clara coelestis misericordiae demonstratio procedit, quando reges seculi causas de fide, cum gubernatione politiae coniungunt. &c. ex Act. v. vniuers. council. Constantini secundi. an. 528. And thus much, and to much peradventure concerning the matter of jurisdiction, in which point this new Church of Rome hath swerved from the ancient Church of Rome, which was, as is sufficiently proved.

THe third point wherein the church of Rome hath broken and is departed from the Church of Rome, is the form of style & title annexed to the Bishop of that Sea. As where he is called Pope, most holy father, vicar general, & vicar of Christ, successor of Peter, universal Bishop, Prince of Priests. head of the Church universal Summus orbis pontifex, Stupor mundi, head Bishop of the world, the admiration of the world, neither God nor mā, but a thing between both. &c. for all these terms be given him in Popish books. Albeit y ^e name Pope, being a Greek name, derived of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which soūdeath as much as Father, in the Syracusane speech, may peradventure seem more tolerable, as which hath been used in the old time among Bishops, for so Agustine was called of the Council of Aphrike, Jerome, of Boniface & other. Also Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, was called Papa. 24. q. 1. cap. loquitur & dist. 50. cap. De eo tamen. Item Clodouaeus or (as Rheanus calleth him) Ludouicus, first Christiā king of France, calleth a certain simpler Bishop, Papam. Jerome also in his Epistle to Chromatius calleth Valerianus, by the name of Pope: & likewise writing to Eustachium, and Fabiola, he calleth Epiphanius beatum Papam. In the Apologies of Athanasius, we read oft times that he was called Papa, and Archiepiscopus. Ruffinus also Lib. 2. cap. 26. calleth him. Pontificem maximum: Also Aurelius President in the vi. Council of Carthage was called of the said Council, Papa, ex cap. 4. vi. Council. Carthag. And before this Eleutherius Bishop of Rome, writing to king Lucius the first Christian king in this land, calleth him in his Epistle, the vicar of Christ. &c. But that any of these terms were so peculiarly applied to the Bishop of Rome, that other bishops were excluded from the same, or that any one bishop above the rest, had the name of Ecumenical, or universal, or head, to the derogation of other Bishopps, or with such glory as is now annexed to the same: that is not to be found neither in histories of the old time, nor in any example of the primitive Church, nor in the testimonies of ancient approved Doctors. First before the Council of Nice, it is evident by Pope Pius the ii. that there was no respect had to the church of Rome, but every church then was ruled by his own governance, til the year of our Lord, 340. Then followed the Council of Nice, wherein was decreed, that throughout the whole university of Christ's Church, which was now far spread over all the world, certain Provinces or precincts to the number of four were appointed, everyone to have his head church, and chief bishop, called then Metropolitan or Patriarch, to have the oversight of such churches as did lie about him. In the number of which Patriarchs or Metropolitans, the Bishop of Rome had the first place, The Bishop of Alexandria was the second. The Bishop of Antioch the third. The Bishop of Jerusalem was the fourth Patriarch. Afterward in the number of these Patriarchs, came in also the Bishop of Constantinople in the room of the bishop of Antioch. So these four or five Metropolitans or Patriarchs, had their peculiar circuites and precincts to them peculiarly appointed, in such sort, as one of them should not deal within an others precinct, & also that there should be among them equality of honor, whereupon we read so oft in the decrees of the old Councils, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, equal degree of thrones, and of honor among priests and ministers. Again, speaking of the said Patriarchs or Primates, we read in the 2. and 3. chap. of the Council of Constant. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, That bishops should not invade the Dioces of other bishops without their borders, nor confound together churches, &c. Moreover, the old Doctors for the most and best part, do accord in one sentence, that all bishops placed wheresoever, in the church of God, be eiusdem meriti & honoris, & successores Apostolorum, that is, to be of one merit, of like honor, and all to be successors together of the Apostles. Also, he that is the Author of the book called Dionysius Areopagita, calleth all the Bishops 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, of equal order, and of like honor, &c. All this while the Bishop of Rome was a Patriarch, and a Metropolitan or bishop called of the first sea, but no Ecumenical Bishop, nor head of the universal Church, nor any such matter. In so much, that he, with all other Bishops, was debarred from that, by a plain decree of the Council of Carthage, Can. 39. in these words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, That the bishop of the first seat shall not be called the Prince of priests, or the high priest, or any such thing.

And least any here should take occasion of cavilling, to hear him called bishop of the first sea, here is to be expounded, what is meant by the first sea, and wherefor he was so called, not for any dignity of the persō, either of him which succedeth, or of him whom he is said to succeed, but only of the place wherein he sitteth. This is plainly proved by the council of Calcedone, cap. 28. Wherein is manifestly declared the cause why the sea of Rome among all other Patriarchal seas is numbered for the first sea by the ancient fathers. For why, saith the Council, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, for that our forefathers did worthily attribute the chief degree of honor to the sea of old Rome, because the principal reign or Emperie was in that City, &c. The same also is confirmed by Eusebius Caesariensis, declaring, quod excellentia Romani Imperij extulit papatum Rom. Pontificis supra alias Ecclesias. That the excellency of the Romaine Emperie did advance the Popedom of the Romaine bishop above other churches, &c. Ex Gab. Biel. Moreover, saith the said Caesariensis: Nicena synodus hoc contulit priuilegium Rom. pontifici, vt sicut Romanorum rex Augustus prae caeteris appellatur: ita Rom. pontifex prae caeteris Episcopis Papa vocaretur. That is, The Council (saith he) of Nice gave this Priuiledge to the Bishop of Rome, that like as the king of the Romaines is named Emperor above all other kings, so the bishop of the same city of Rome should be called Pope above other bishops &c. By these places hitherto alleged (and such other, many more then be here alleged) it appeareth that though these titles of superiority had been attributed to the Bishop of Rome, yet it remaineth certain, that the said Bishop received that preferment Iure non diuino, sed humano, by man's law, not by the law of God. And so is the distinction of the Popes proved false, where is said: Romanam Ecclesiam non a concilio aliquo, sed a diuina voice primatum accepisse, that the church of Rome, took not his primacy by any Council, but only by the voice of God. And this is to be said although it were true, that these titles & terms were so given to the bishop of Rome in the old time, yet how and by whom they were given, ye s • e. Now to try this matter, as joining an issue with our adversaries, whether those foresaid titles of sovereignty, were applied in the old time of the Primitive church, to the Bishop of Rome, as to be called the vicar general of Christ, the hed of the whole church, and universal bishop, remaineth to be proved. Wherunto this in my mind is to be answered, that albeit the bishops of Rome (of some peradventure) were so called by the names of higher preeminence of that city, of some going about to please them, or to crave some help at their hands, yet that calling 1. First, was used then but of a few. 2. Secondly, neither was given to many. 3. Thirdly, was rather given, then sought for, of the most. 4. Fourthly, was not so given that it maketh or can make any general necessity of law, why everyone is so bound to call them, as the bishop of Rome now seeketh to be taken and called, and that by necessity of salvation, as the decree of Pope Boniface 8. witnesseth, where is said, quod sit de necessitate salutis, vt credatur Primatus Ecclesiae Rom. & ei subesse. That it standeth upon necessity of salvation, to believe the Primacie of the church of Rome, and to be subject to the same, &c.

As touching therefore these titles and terms of preeminence aforesaid, orderly to set forth and declare what histories of times do say in that matter, by the grace of Christ. First we will see what be the titles, the Bishop of [unspec 1] Rome doth take and challenge to himself, and what is the meaning of them. 2. When the first came in, whether in [unspec 2] the primitive time or not, and by whom. 3. How they were [unspec 3] first given to the Roman Bishops, that is, whether of necessary duty, or voluntary devotion, whether commonly of the whole, or particularly of a few, and whether in respect of Peter, or in respect of the City, or else of the worthiness of the Bishop which there sat. 4. And if the [unspec 4] foresaid names were then given of certain Bishops, unto the bishop of Rome: whether all the said names were given, or but certain, or what they were. 5. Or whether [unspec 5] they were then received of all Bishops of Rome, to whō they were given, or else refused of some. 6. And finally whether [unspec 6] they ought to have been refused being given, or not. Touching the discourse of which matters, although it appertain to the profession, rather of Divines, then hystoritians, and would require a long and large debating: yet for so much as both in these, & diverse other weighty controversies of Divinity, the knowledge of times and histories, must needs help Divines disputing about the same so much as the grace of Christ shall assiste me therein, I will join to the seeking out of truth, such help as I may.

And first to begin with the names and titles, now claimed and attributed to the sea and Bishop of Rome: and what they be, is sufficiently declared above, that is, the chief Priest of the world, the Prince of the Church, Bishop Apostolical, the universal head of the Church, the head and Bishop of the universal Church, the successor of Peter, most holy Pope, the vicar of God on earth, neither God nor man, but a mixed thing between both: the Patriarch or Metropolitan of the Church of Rome, the Bishop of the first sea. etc. Unto the which titles or style is annexed a triple crown, a triple cross, two crossed keys, a naked sword, seauenfold seals, in token of the seauenfolde gifts of the holy Ghost, he being carried pickbacke upon men's shoulders, after the manner of heathen kings, having all the Empire, and the Emperor under his dominion: & that it is not convenient for any terrene Prince to reign there, where he sitteth, having the plenary fullness of power, as well of temporal things as spiritual things in his hands, that all things are his, and that all such Princes as have given him anything, have given him but his own, having at his will and pleasure to preach indulgencies, and the cross against Christian Princes whatsoever: And that the Emperor, & certain other Princes, ought to make to him confession of subjection at their coronation: having authority to depose, and that he de facto, hath deposed Emperors and the king of France: Also to absolve the subjects from their allegiance to their Princes, whom kings have served for footmen to lead his horse, and the Emperor to hold his stirrup, that he may and doth give power to Bishops upon the bodies of men, and hath granted them to have prisons, without whose authority no general Council hath any force. And to whom appellations in all manner of causes may and ought to be made. That his decrees be equal with the decrees of Nicene Council, and are to be observed and taken in no less force, then if they had been confirmed with the heavenly voice of Saint Peter himself ex fra. Barth. & alijs. Item that the said Bishop of Rome hath the heavenly disposition of things and therefore may alter and change the nature of things, by applying the substance of one thing to another. cap. Quando de transl. Epis. tit. 7. Item that he can of nothing make something, and cause the sentence, which before was none to stand in effect, and may dispence above the law, and of injustice make justice, in correcting and changing laws, for he hath the fullness of power. And again. dist. 40. cap. Si Papa. If the Pope do lead with him innumerable souls •• flocks into hell, yet no man must presume to rebuke his faults in this world. Item that it standeth upon necessity of salvation to believe the Premacie of the sea of Rome, and to be subject to the same. &c.

These things thus declared, now let us see whether these names and titles, with the form and manner of this authority and regalitie above rehearsed: were ever attributed of any in the primitive time to the bishop of Rome. For all these, he doth challenge and claim unto him by old possession from the time of S. Peter. And here a question is to be asked of our adversaries the Papists, whether they will avouch all these aforesaid titles, together with the whole form and tenor of regalitie, to the same belonging as is afore touched, or not? if they will, let them come forth with their allegations, which they never have done yet, nor ever shall be able: if they will not, or cannot avouch them all together in manner as is specified, then why doth the bishop claim them altogether so stoutly, usurp them so falsely, and obtrud them upon us so straitly. Moreover if the said our adversaries, being convicted by plain evidence of history, and example of time, will yield unto us (as they must needs) in part, and not in the whole, let us come then to the particulars, and see what part of this regalitie they will defend, and derive from the ancient custom of the Primitive Church (that is from the first five hundred years, I mean after Christ.) First, in the Coōcell of Nyce, which was the year of our Lord. 340. and in the .vi. Canon of the said Council, we find it so decreed: that in every province or precinct of someone Church, and Bishop of the same, was appointed and set up to have the inspection and regiment of other churches about him. Secundum morem antiquum, that is, after the ancient custom, as the words of the Council do purport, so that the Bishop of Alexandria should have power of Libya, & Pentapolis in Egypt, for as much as the Bishop of the Cytie of Rome, hath the like or same manner. And in like sort also in Antioch, & in other countries, let every Church have his due honor, & consequently y ^t the Bishop of Jerusalem have also his due honor to him reserved, so that such order be kept, that the Metropolitan Cities be not defrauded of their dignity which to them is due and proper. &c. In this Council and in the same Canon. vi. and vii. where the Bishops of Alexandria, of Rome, and of Antioch, are joined together in on like manner of dignity, first there appeareth no difference of honor to be meant therein. Secondly for so much as in the said two Canons after mention made of them, immediately followeth, that no Bishops should be made without consent of their Metropolitans, yea and that the City also of Jerusalem should be under his Metropolitan, and that the Metropolitan should have the full power to confirm every Bishop made in his province: Therefore it may be well suspected that the third Epistle decretal of Pope Anacletus, and of Pope Stephanus, with other mo are forged, wherein these Bishops, and especially the Bishop of Rome is exempted and desceuered from the name of a Metropolitan or an Archbyshop, to the name of a Patriarch or Primate: as appeareth in the decrees. dist. 22. cap. Sacro sancta. wherefore as we must needs grant the Bishop of Rome to be called a Metropolitan or an Archbyshop by the Council of Nice: so we will not greatly stick in this also, to have him numbered with Patriarchs or primates. which title seemeth in the old time to be common to mo Cities then to Rome, both by the Epistle of Anacletus, of Pope Stephanus, of Pope, Julius, and Leo, &c.

After this followed a general Council in Aphricke, called the vi. Council of Carthage, an. 420. where were congregated. 217. Bishops among whom was also, Augustinus, Prosper, Orosius, with diverse other famous persons. This Council continued the space of v. years, wherein was great contention about the supremacy, and jurisdiction of Rome. The Bishop whereof then was Zosimus. This Zosimus the Roman Bishop had received the same time into the communion of the church without any examination, one that came to complain to him out of Aprike, named Apiarius, a Priest whom Aurelius the Metropolitan with the Council of Aphrike had worthelye excommunicated for his detestable conditions before. Uppon this Zosimus after that he had received and shown such favor to Apiarius, for that he did appele to him, sendeth to the Council his messengers, to wit Fastinus Bishop of Potentine and two Priests of the Church of Rome named Philippus and Asellus, with these four requests: first that Apiarius whom he had absolved might be received of them again, and that it might be lawful for Bishops or Priests to appeal from the sentence of their Metropolites, & also of the Counsel, to the sea of Rome.

Secondly, that Bishops should not sails over importunely ad comitatum. Thirdly, that if any Priest or Deacon were wrongfully excommunicate by y ^e Bishops of their own province, it should be lawful for thē to remove the hearing and judging of their cause to their neighbor bishops. Forthly, that Urbanus there Bishop, either should be excommunicated, or else sent up to Rome, unless he would correct those things that were to be corrected. &c. For the approbation whereof, the said Zosimus alleged for him the words (as he pretended) taken out of Nicene Council. The Council of Carthage hearing this, and remembering no such thing in the Council of Nice to be decred, & yet not suspecting the Bishop of Rome to dare wrongfully to falsefie the words of that Council: writeth again to Zosimus, declaring that they never read to their remembrance, in their common Latin exemplare of Nicene Council any such Canon, yet notwithstanding for quietness sake, they would observe the same till time they might procure the original copies of that council to be sent to them from Constantinople, Alexandria, and from Antioch. In like effect afterward they wrote to Pope Boniface, which then succeeded Zosimus.

And thirdly also to Celestinus, which shortly after succeeded Boniface. In the mean time this foresaid Council sent their Legates, Marcellus and Innocentius to Atticus Patriarch of Constantinople, and to Cyrillus Patriarch of Alexandria, for the autentique copies in Greek of Nicene Council, which being sent unto them, & they finding in the true originals no such Canon, as the Bishoppe of Rome had falsely forged, they wrote a sharp & an handsome letter to Celestinus Bishop of Rome, calling him in the said letter by the way: Domine frater: declaring to him, how they had perused all the copies of y ^e Council of Nice could find no such Canon: as he and his predecessors had falsely alleged, and therewithal reciting the vi. Canon afore mentioned, declared how the decrees of Nicene Council had committed all and singular persons Ecclesiastical, as well Bishops, as other, unto the charge of their Metropolitans. Moreover expounding the same decree, they shown the reasons thereof. [unspec 1]

1. For that (said they) the fathers of that council did well foresee, to be most just and convenient, that all controversies there be ended ( in ijsdem locis ) where they begin.

2. For that it is not to be supposed contrary, but that the grace of God will be as pressed and ready in one province as in other, to instruct his ministers both prudētly to understand judgment, and constantly to maintain the same.

3. For that there is no need to seek further to any outlandish help, because especially that the party whosoever [unspec 2] is not contented with the determination of his judges or [unspec 3] commissioners, may lawfully appeal either to the provincial [unspec 4] or to any general counsel.

4. That way to be better, then to run to any forranine Judge, it must needs be granted, because it is not like that our God will inspire his justice and truth of examining, unto one Bishop, and deny it to a multitude congregated in a whole Council.

5. Neither can it be, that any such outlandish judgment [unspec 5] in hearing and determining causes, can stand perfect and upright, for that the necessary persons of witnesses, either for infirmity of sex of age, of sickness, or some other impeachment, are not able to be present, by whom the truth of the sentence, should be directed. Wherefore as by these & other reasons they thought it not convenient from them to bring their matters over unto Rome: so neither was it to be found, said they, by any council of the old fathers decred, that any Legates should be sent frō Rome to thē, for deciding of their matters. And therefore exhorted they the said bishop of Rome, that he would not induce fumosum typū, (or rather as I may call it) typhos seculi, in Ecclesiam Christi, quae lucem simplicitatis & humilitatis prefaert ijs qui Deum Diligunt, that is, that he would not induce the swelling pride of the world into the Church of Christ, which church showeth and giveth the light of simplicity & of humility to such as love to see God, &c. In these foresaid letters moreover, is signified how y ^e forenamed malefactor Apiarius, whom the bishop of Rome before had absolved & received to the communion of the church, was afterward found culpable, and therefore the council proceeded against him, brought him to open confession of his faults, & so enjoined him due penance for his demerits, notwithstanding the absolution and inconsiderate clearing of the Bishop of Rome before proceeding.

[unspec 1] In sum, out of this Council of Carthage these are to be noted. First, how glad the Bishops of Rome were to receive such as came to them for succor.

[unspec 2] 2. What pride they took by the occasion thereof, thinking and seeking thereby to have all under their subjection.

[unspec 3] 3. To the intent to allure other to seek to them, how ready they were to release and quit this Apiarius as guiltless, which after was tried culpable by his own confession.

[unspec 4] 4. How contrary to the acts and doings of the Romish bishop, this Council condemned him, whom the said bishop of Rome before had absolved, little respecting the proceedings of the Romish church.

[unspec 5] 5. How the bishops of old time have been falsifiers of ancient Councils and writings, whereby it may be suspected, that they which shamed not to falsify & corrupt the Council of Nice, much less would they stick to abuse and falsify the decretal Epistles and writings of particular Bishops & Doctors, for their own advantage, as no doubt they have done many one.

[unspec 6] 6. In this foresaid Council, whereat Augustine himself was present, & where Aurelius President of the same, was called Papa, the bishop of Rome was called expressly in their letters, but bishop of the city of Rome, and Dominus frater, that is, brother Bishop.

[unspec 7] 7. Seventhly, the dominion of this Romain Patriarch, in the said Council of Carthage. was cut so short, that neither it was permitted to thē of Affrike to appeal over the sea to him, nor for him to send over his Legates to them for ending their controversies. Whereby it may sufficiently appear, that the Bishop of Rome in those days, was not fully admitted to be the chief of all other Bishops, nor the head of the universal church of Christ in earth, &c.

[unspec 8] 8. We hear in this Council, five causes or reasons givē, why it is not necessary nor yet convenient for all foreign causes to be brought to one universal head or judge, as is before recited.

[unspec 9] 9. Lastly, by the said Council of Carthage, we hear a virtuous exhortation to be given to the bishop of Rome, that he would not induce into the meek & humble church of Christ, the fuming and swelling pride of the world, as is before declared, &c. In this, or in some other Council of Carthage, it was moreover provided by express law, and also specified in the Popes decrees, that no Bishop of the first sea, should be called the Prince of Priests, or the chief priest, or any such like thing but only the bishop of the first seat, as followeth more in the said decree, Vniuersalis autem, nec etiam Rom. pontifex appelletur, that is, Be it enacted, that no bishop, no not the Bishop of Rome be called universal bishop, &c. And thus much concerning this foresaid Council of Carthage.

Not long before this Council, was celebrate in Affrike another Council, called Synodus Mileuitana, about the yere of our Lord, 442. at the which Council also S. Augustine was present, where it was decreed under pain of excommunication, that no minister or bishop should appeal over the sea to the bishop of Rome, whereby it may appear that the bishop of Rome all this space was not universally called by the term of Oecumenical or universal bishop, but Bishop of the first sea: so that if there were any preferment therein, it was in the reverence of the place, and not in the authority of the person. And yet it was not so in the place, that the place importeth the City of Rome only, but the first seat then was called Metropolitan Church, as by the words of Nicene Council, and other constitutions moe, is to be seen where the four Patriarchs were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as namely, by the words of the Council of Carthage may appear, which be these: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . that is, except he have some special license or exception, by y ^e consent of y ^e first seat of y ^e proper bishop in every country, that is, of him that is the Primate in y ^e said country, &c. Also the words of the can. 39. of the Council of Carthage, before touched be these, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , That is, that the bishop of the first sea, be not called Prince of Priests, or head Priest, or else any such like. Again Anicetus the x. bishop of Rome, and Pope Stephen & Pope Felix making a difference between Primate & Metropolitan, writeth thus. Let no Archbishops be called Primates, but only such as have the first seat, &c. Thus it is made plain, how the bishop of the first seat, or first bishop, or Primate is none other, but he which was called Patriarch, and belonged not only to the church of Rome, but to all such cities & places, where as before among the Gentiles were primi flamines, &c. dist. 80. cap. vrbes & loca, & in illis. Where, by the way is to be noted the repugnance or contrariety of such as crastily, but falsely have counterfaited the Popes decretal epistles, which besides other great and many conjectures also hereby may be gathered. For where Clement, Anacletus, epist. 12. Anicetus and other, joining together the office of Patriarchs & Primates, do devide the same from the order of Metropolitans or Archbishops, alleging therein the constitution of the Apostles and their successors, that is, to be found false by the Canons of the Apostles, by the Council of Nice, and by the council of Antioch with other moe. For in the Canons of the Apostles, where in every Canon almost, mention is made of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, no word is there touched, neither of any order above the Bishop, or lower then the Deacon, save only in the 33. Canon, setting an order among bishops, the Canon willeth the Bishops of every nation to know their first or chief bishop, & him to be taken for the head of them: he saith not the head of the church, or head of the world, but the head of those bishops. And where? not in Rome only, but plainly and expressly in every nation, for so the words purport, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . That is, the bishops of every nation ought to know the first or chief 〈◊〉 them, &c. Moreover, the Council of Antioch reciting 〈◊〉 foresaid Canon word for word, expoundeth the 〈◊〉 plainly, instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , writing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : Which is as much to say, as Metropolitan: and in the end of the said Canon, calleth him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Id est, Metropolitanum, 6. q 3. per singulas. Whereby it is concluded, that to be false, that Clement and Anacletus, and Anicetus be reported (but falsedly) to put a difference between Primates or Patriarchs, and Metropolitans or Archbishops. Whereas by sufficient authority it is to be proved, that in the old church both Primates, first bishops bishops of the first seat, Patriarchs, Metropolitans, bishops of the Mother city, and Archbishops were all one. First, that Primates and Metropolitans were both one, is before declared by the Canons of the Apostles, & by the Council of Antioch aforesaid. Agayne, that Patriarchs and Archbishops were all one, it is evident Ex Nouella Iustiniani. cap. 23. where the said constitution reciting the 4. Patriarchs (above mentioned) calleth them by the name of Archbishops. And a little after calleth the Patriarch of Constantinople, Archbishop, by these words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , That is, which be under the Archbishop and Patriarch of Constantinople. And after speaking more plainly in the matter, setteth another order, diverse from that of Clement, Anacletus and Anicetus, in placing these foresaid persons, first beginning with bishops, then over them setteth the Metropolitan, and over him again, the Archbishop, and there stayeth, making no further mention of any other above him: whose words be these, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . That is, if a Bishop be accused, the Metropolitan to have the examination of these things that are brought against him, if the Metropolitaine be accused, then the Archbishop to have the hearing thereof, under whom he dwelleth & pertaineth, &c.

And in the same constitution moreover, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . &c. If any suit or supplicaton be brought against a Bishop by a minister, first the Metropolitan to have the deciding of the matter, and if any default shall be found in the judgment thereof, then the hearing and ending of the case to be brought before the Archbishop, &c.

In this constitution of Justinian, although the Metropolitan be placed above the Bishop, and the Archbishop above the Metropolitan: yet notwithstanding by this is sufficiently confuted the forged constitution of Clement Anacletus, Anicetus, Stephanus, & Felix: who in their Epistles decretal, do join together in one form and order, both Archbishop and Metropolitan, and above them both do place the Patriarch, and above the Patriarch, the Apostolical sea to wit the Bishop of Rome, as may appear in reading the first Epistle of Clement. In illis autem ciuitatibus &c. the second Epistle of Anacletus. Art. 4. prouinciae. dist. 99. prouincie multo, and the Epistle of Anicetus art. 23. dist. 99 cap. Nulli Archiepiscopi. Also the Epistle of Pope Stephen the first, Art. 5. (where note by the way, that Gratianus referreth this place of the Epistle to Pope Lucius. ) Item the Epistle of Pope Felix the second, Art. 12. in which all foresaid Epistles, this order and difference of degrees is taken, that the first and principal place is given to Primats or Patriarchs, the second to Metrapolitanes or Archbishops, the third to Bishops, and finally above all these is extolled the Apostolical sea of the Bishop of Rome, contrary to all that which before hath been alleged out of Justinian, the Council of Nice & of Antioch, &c. Whereby it may appear that either Iustiniā in preferring Archbishops above Metropolitans, did not read these Epistles decretal, if they were unfeigned, or if they were forged, they which forged the said Epistles in their names, did not well advise that Justinian had written in this matter before.

Thus then these titles above recited, as Bishop, Metropolitan, Bishop of the first seat, Primate, Patriarch, Archbyshop, that is to mean, chiefebyshop, or headbishop to other Bishops of his province, we deny not but were in the old time applied, and might be applied to the Byshoppe of Rome like as the same also were applied to other Patriarchs in other chief Cities and prouynces.

As touching the name likewise of the high Priest, or hyghpriesthood, neither do I deny but that it hath been found in old monuments and records of ancient times, but in such wise and sort, as it hath been common to Bishops indifferently, and not singularly attributed to any one Byshoppe or sea. Whereof testimony we have out of the .vii. general Council. dist 38. cap. Omnes, where the Bishops office is called Summum sacerdotium, the high Priesthood, in these words: Substantia summi sacerdotii nostri sunt eloquia diuinitus tradita .i. vera diuinarum Scripturarū disciplina. etc. That is, the substance (say they) of our high Priesthood is the word of discipline of holy scriptures given us from above. &c.

And likewise the Council of Agatha, maketh relation De pontificibus in sūmo sacerdotio constitutis, of Bishops set in the high Priesthood, meaning not of any one, but indiffynitly & indifferently of whomsoever. 12. q. 3. cap. Pontifices. Also Fabianus Bishop of Rome, an. 240. writing in general to his brethren, and to all Bishops and Ministers Ecclesiastical doth attribute to them the same title of Summum sacerdotium, in these words, Deus ergo, fratres, qui praeordinauit vos, & omnes qui Summo sacerdotio fūguntur. &c God which hath preordayned you brethren, and all them which bear the office of high priesthood. 3. q. 1. cap. Deus ergo. With like phrase of speech, Anacletus also in his second Epistle, speaking of Bishops in general, calleth them Summos sacerdotes: vnde, inquit, liquit quod summi sacerdotes. i. Episcopy a Deo sunt iudicandi. &c. The high priests, that is, Bishops, saith he. And moreover in the same place calleth thē Apostles, and successors of the Apostles. &c, So doth Innocentius the first, an. 405. as appeareth. dist. 61. cap. Miserum. Item Zosimus Bishop of the said City of Rome, an. 420, as witnesseth. dist. 59. cap. 1. who speaketh de summo sacerdotio, that is, of high priesthood, not only of y ^e church of Rome, but of all other churches. Urbanus the first was Bishop of Rome, an. 226. who in his writings alleged by Gratian, referreth the name & place Summi pontificis, of the high Bishop, not only to the seat of Rome, but uniformly to every Bishop, as appeareth in the words of the dist. 51. cap. Si officia. &c.

And thus much as touching the name or title of high Priest, or supreme Bishop. Which title as I do not deny to have been used in manner & form aforesaid: so do I deny this title and style of Summus orbis pontifex, as it is now used in Rome, to have been used, or usually received during all the primitive time of the Church, that is v. hundred years after Christ, after the manner and sort I mean of that authority and glory, which in these days now is used and is given to the same, until the time of Phocas, the wicked Emperor, which was after the year of the Lord 608. The which title as it is to glorious for any one Bishop in y ^e church of Christ to use: so is it not to be found in any of the approved and most ancient writers of y ^e church namely these, as Cyprianus, Basilius, Fulgentius, Chrysostomus Hieronymus, Ambrosius, Augustinus, Tertullianus, but rather writeth against the same, especially of the last. And therefore not without cause it is written and testified of Erasmus, who speaking of the said name, of Summus orbis pontifex, denieth plainly the same to be heard of among the old writers, whose words be these: Certe nomen hoc nondum illis temporibus erat auditum, quantum ex veterum omniū scriptis licet colligere. &c. lib. Epist. 3. Epist. 1. art. 37. &c. as whosoever readeth the same authors shall find to be true.

The like is to be affirmed also of other presumptious titles of like ambition, as the head of the universal church, the Uicar of Christ in earth, Prince of Priests, with such like, which all be new found terms, strange to the cares of the old primitive writers and Councils, and not received openly and commonly before the time of Boniface the third, and Phocas the aforesaid.

Now remaineth the name of the Pope, which of his nature, and by his first origin, being a word of the Syracusane speech called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and signifieth as much as Pater, Father, was then used and frequented of them in the old time, not so as proper only to the Bishop of Rome, but common and indifferent to all other Bishops or personages, whosoever were of worthy excellence, as is partly before declared. But now contrarily, the generalitye of this name is so restrained and abused, that not only it is appropriate to the Bishop of Rome, but also distincteth and disceuereth the authority and preminence of that Bishop alone from all other Bishops, for which cause it is now worthily come into contempt and execration. No less is to be rejected also the name of vniuersalis, or oecumenicus, pontifex, Summus orbis Episcopus, Caput vniuersalis Ecclesiae, Christi in terris, Princeps vicari{us} sacerdotū, &c. Al which terms and vocables, tending to the derogation of other Bishops & Patriarchs, as they were never received nor allowed in Rome (if we believe Gregory ) during the time of y ^e Primatiue church, so now are worthily of us refused.

Although it cannot be denied, but certain were in the Primatiue time, which began privately to pretend that proud and wicked title of universal Bishop, as Menna, and especially Johannes Patriarch of Constantinople, who calling a Counsel at Constantinople, went about to stablish and ratify and to dignify his throne by the consent of the Council, and the Emperor of Constantinople, and obtained the same as appeareth in the v. general Council of Constantinople the 2. where both Menna is named Oichumenicus Patriarcharum and also Johannes in the said Council is titled Oicumenicus Patriarcha: ex Council. general. 5. cap. Domino. Concerning the which title although it was then used to Constantinople through the sufferance of the Emperors, being then willing to have their imperial City advanced: yet notwithstanding this foresaid title, all this while was not in the City of Rome. And in Constantinople it stood not then in force: Iure aliquo diuino, but only by man's law. And thirdly it was then but only, verbalis titulus: having no true dominacion upon all other Churches, or any real subjection belonging to the same. Forasmuch as neither y ^e Bishop of Rome, nor any of the West churches were subject or did acknowledge service unto them but rather did repugn the same: namely Pelagius the 2. & Gregorius the 1. both Bishops at that time of Rome, which Pelagius writing to all Bishops, saith plainly in these words: that no Patriarch should take the name of universality at any time, because that if any be called universal, the name of Patriarch is derogate from all other. But let this be far, saith he, from all faithful men, to will to take that thing to him, whereby the honor of his brethren is diminished. Wherefore y ^e said Pelagius chargeth all such Bishops, that none of them in their letters will name any Patriarch to be universal, least he take from him self the honor due to him, while they give that which is not due to another. What can be more evident then these words of Pelagius, who was Bishop of Rome next before Gregory. an. 583? In like manner or more plainly, and more earnestly writeth also Gregory of this matter in his register, prouyng and disputing that no man ought to be called universal Bishop. Moreover with sharp words and rebukes detesteth the same title, calling it new, foolish, proud, perverse, wicked, profane, and such, as to consent unto it, is as much, as to deny the faith. He addeth further and saith, that whosoever goeth about to extol himself above other Bishops, in so doing followeth the fact of Satan, to whō it was not sufficient to be counted equal or like unto other angels. In his Epistles how oft doth he repeat, and declare y ^e same to repugn directly against the Gospel, and ancient decrees of Counsels? affirming that none of his predecessors did ever usurp to himself that style or title, and concludeth that whosoever so doth, declareth himself to be a forerunner of Antichrist. &c. With this judgment of Gregory well well agreeth also the words of S. Augustine, Lib. 3▪ cap. 3. De Baptismo, where reciting the words of Cyprian thus saith: Neque enim quisquam nostrum se Episcopum Episcoporū constituit, aut tyrannicomore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suns a • igit, &c. That is, for none of us doth ever set himself to be Bishop of Bishops, or after a tyrannical manner doth subdue and bring under his fellows unto the necessity of his obedience, &c. By these words of Cyprian and Augustine, it is manifest, that in their time was no supremacy, or universal title among Bishops received, nor that any greater respect was had to the bishop of Rome (as Pius the 2. saith, Epist. 301.) before the Council of Nice. And after in that Council the said Bishop of Rome had no further authority to him limited, then only over his province, and places suburbane, bordering about the City of Rome. Against whose primacy diverse cities also did resist long after that, as the Church of Rauenna, Mediolanensis, and Aquilegiensis. Also the Greek Churches long resisted the same, so did the churches of Asia, Rutenicae, Moscouiticae, Valachicae, and other moe.

But to return again to Gregory, who confirming the sentence of Pelagius his predecessor above mentioned, had no small conflicts about this title matter, both with the Patriarch, and with the Emperor of Constantinople▪ as witnesseth Antonius, & other. &c. The history is thus: After that John being made of a Monk, Patriarch of Constantinople, by his flattery & hypocrisy, had obtained of Maurice the Emperor, to be extolled above other Bishops with the name of universal Patriarch, and that he would write to Gregory bishop then of Rome, for his consent concerning the same: Gregory abiding still in his constancy, did set himself stoutly against that Antichristian title, and would give no place. At the same time the Lombards had invaded the country of Italy, and the City of Rome, the Emperor keeping then at Constantinople, and setting in Italy an ouersear called Exarchus, to rule in Rauenna▪ Gregory perceiving the Emperor Maurice to be displeased with him about the matter afore touched, writeth to Constantina the Empresse, arguing and declaring in his letters, that presumption and pride of him to be universal Patriarch, was both against the rule of the gospel, and decrees of the Canons, namely, the vi. Canon of Nicene Council, and the novelty of that newfound title to declare nothing else, but that the time of Antichrist was near. Upon this, Maurice the Emperor taking displeasure with him, calleth home his soldiers again from Italy, and inciteth the Lombardes against the Romaines: who with their king Agilulphus, therupō contrary to their league made before, set upon the city of Rome, and besieged it a whole year together, Gregory yet notwithstanding still remaining in his former constancy. After these afflictions thus overpast, Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria, writeth to the said Gregory in his letters, naming him universal Pope, unto whom Gregory refusing the same, answereth again as followeth.

It were too long here to infer all such letters and Epistles of his, concerning this matter, written to the Emperor Maurice, and Constantina the Empresse, but that shall more largely appear hereafter (Christ willing) in the body of the history, when we come to the year and time of Gregory, which was well nigh about vi. hundred yere after Christ. In the mean season this is sufficient to declare how the church of Rome with the form and manner of their title of universal supremacy now used & maintained, hath utterly swerued from the ancient steps of the primitive church of Rome.

Now let us see what the adversary side hath to object again for the title of their universality, or rather singularity. And first here cometh in a blind cauillacion of a certain Sophister, who glossing upon the words of Pelagius above recited, laboreth to color the plain text with a subtle meaning, as though the sense of the Canon were this, not to deny there the state of supremacy: Sed negari ibi aliquem posse esse vniuersalem Episcopum, sub eo sensu duntaxat, quod esset cuius{que} Ecclesiae proprius rector, ita quod nullus alius esset Episcopus, &c. That is, but to deny there, that any may be universal bishop after this sense and meaning only, so that he should be the proper Pastor of every Church alone, and that there should be no other bishop beside himself, &c. Thus goeth this Sophister about to dash out this text, but he cannot so discharge the matter. For neither did John the Patriarch then seek any such thing, to be bishop and proper Pastor of every church alone, nor if he had the Council of Chalcedon, and the Emperor Justinian, would never have agreed thereunto. Neither is it true, that this Gloser denieth Pelagius, here to forbid the primacy or supremacy of that Patriarch, which in deed is the only intent of Pelagius in that Canon, witnessing as well other Historiographers, as namely, Anton. tit. 12. cap. 3. par. 13. & also the gloss ordinary upon the same Canon, &c.

Out of the same fountain springeth the like or very same reason of late renewed by a certain new start English Clarke in these our days, who answering to the places of Gregory touching the said matter, laboreth to avoid the clear authority of him, by a like blind cavillation, saying, that John bishop of Constantinople, by this title of universal bishop, understood himself only to be a bishop, and none else. And that Gregory in resisting him, had none other meaning but the same. And to prove this to be the very meaning of Gregory, he reciteth the words of Gregory written to the said John Archbishop of Constantinople as followeth: Qui enim indignum te esse fatebaris, vt Episcopus dici debuisses, ad hoc quando{que} perductus os, vt despectis fratribus Episcopus appetas solus vocari. That is to say, For thou ( John bishop of Constantinople ) which sometime didst grant thyself unworthy the name of a bishop, art now come to this, that y ^u doest seek to be called a bishop alone, &c. Upō this word Episcop{us} solus, this gloser would ground a surmise▪ that Gregory did find fault with the Archbishop, not for any primacy which he sought for above other Bishops, but only, for that he coveted to be bishop and Pastor alone in every Church, in such sort, as there should be no other Bishop nor Pastor else but himself only. But as is said, that was never the Archbishops seeking, nor the matter of Gregory's reprehension. For the said Archbishop of Constantinople, went not about to be Bishop alone, (which was to much absurd, and also impossible) but to be universal alone: nor to take away the office from other, but the honor from other: not to depose them, but to despise them. And therefore saith Gregory, vt despectis fratribus, not depositis fratribus, so that this word solus, here noteth a despising of other, not a deposing of other, & importeth a singularity in condition above other, and not the office or substance of ministration without other, that is, to be universal among many, and not to be one alone without any, nor to diminish the number of them, but only to increase the honor to himself. For the more evident probation whereof (although the thing of it self is so evident, that it needeth no proof) what can be more plain, then the words themselves of Pelagius and Gregory wherewith they charge him for running before his brethren, for challenging superiority above them, for diminishing their honor, by taking more honor then to him was due, for following the angel of pride in exalting himself, in admitting that to him, which the bishops of Rome and their predecessors had refused, being offered to them before, &c All which declare that he sought not to thrust out all other bishops out of their churches, and to be bishop himself alone. For that was never offered to the Bishops of Rome by the Council of Chalcedon, that they should be bishops alone, and none other. Neither did Lucifer seek to have no mo angels in all heaven, but himself, but he to be above all other alone.

Likewise the word praecurrere, that is, to run before other in the Epistle of Pelagius, declareth that John sought not to be bishop alone, but Bishop universal. We say not that a man runneth before another, whē he runneth alone, and no mā followeth him, that is not properly praecurrere, but solus currere. Moreover, in seeking to be superior to other bishops, he seeketh not to take away other Bishops, but to make other bishops inferior to him. For where no inferior is, there can be no superior, forasmuch as these together are correlatiues, & infer necessary respect mutually. And if it were true as this Gloser saith, that he had sought to be bishop alone, how would that Council either have granted that unto him, or have offered it to the Bishop of Rome before? or if they had, howe could it be possible for him alone to serve all Churches, without any fellow Bishop to help him? And where this foresaid clerk standeth so much upon the words of S. Gregory: Solus Episcopus Gregory therefore shall expound Gregory, and one Solus shall declare another. Wherefore if this divine (whatsoever he be Doctor or Bachelor) either knoweth not, or would learn, what (only Bishop) meaneth in this place: another place of the said Gregory may instruct him, where Gregory writing to Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria, giveth this reason, why he refused the same title offered to him (which then was offered to the said John Patriarch of Constantinople) saying: Quia videlicet si vnus Patriarcha vniuersalis dicitur, Patriarcharum nomen coeteris derogatur, sed absit hoc. &c. That is to say: For if one alone would be called Patriarch universal, then should the name of Patriarchs be derogated from all other. &c. Whereby two things are to be noted: First what thing it was which the Patriarch of Constantinople did seek, for Gregory here findeth no other fault, but with the same which was given to John, which was to be called Patriarch universal. The seconde thing to be noted, is the cause why Gregory did rebuke this title, both given to John, and offered to him, because (saith he) if one take upon him the name of universal Patriarch, then is the name Patriarch taken from the rest. As who would say: if I should take upon me to be named universal Patriarch, then should there be no other Patriarch • but I should be Bishop Patriarch alone. And here cometh in your Solus Episcopus. &c.

Furthermore, the same Gregory speaking of the said Solus, in another place by, seemeth to declare there what he meaneth by this Solus here, in these words as follow: vt & nulli subesse, & solus omnibus praeesse videretur That is to say: so that he would be subject to none, and would be chieftain to all other alone. &c. And so by this place, may the other place be expounded, vt solus Episcopus sit is, qui solus inter Episcopos praeesse appetat. That is, he that seeketh to be as bishop alone, who alone seeketh to be extolled above other bishops. But to be short in a matter that needeth not many words: he that thus cavilleth upon this place Solus Episcopus in Gregory, must be desired here not to take Solus alone, but join with all the word going before, which is, despectis fratribus, by the which might seem sufficiently declared, what Gregory meant by Solus Episcopus, meaning, that to despise other bishops, & to diminish their honor, to set up his own, & to be subject to none, but to prefer him self inequally before all other, is as much as to be counted bishop alone. And thus much touching this objection.

An other objection of our adversaries is this: although (say they) no Bishop of Rome was ever called, or would be called by the name of universal Bishop: yet it followeth not therefore, that they be not, or ought not to be heads of the universal Church. Their reason is this:

As S. Peter had the charge of the whole Church (by the testimony of Gregory ) committed unto him, although he were not called universal Apostle:

So no more absurd it is, for the Pope to be called the head of the whole Church, and to have the charge thereof, although he be not called universal Bishop. &c.

Wherein is a double untruth to be noted. First in that they pretend Peter to be the head, & to have the charge of the whole Church: if we take here (charge or head) for dominion or mastership vpō or above the Church, in all cases iudiciarie, both spiritual & temporal: for the words of the Scripture be plain. Non dominantes in clerum 1. Pet. Vos autem non sic. Luke. 22. That is. Not as masters over the Clergy. &c. but you not so. &c. Again that the Church is greater, or rather the head of Peter it is clear: 1. Corrin. 3. All things are yours, whether it be Paul, or Apollo, or Cephas: either the world, death, or life, you be Christ's, Christ is God's. &c. In which words the dignity of the Church no doubt is preferred above the Apostles, and above Cephas also. Moreover as the dignity of the wife is above the servant, so must needs the honor and worthiness of the Church (being the spouse of Christ) surmount the state of Peter or other Apostles, which be but servants to Christ and to the Church, yea and though they were Princes of the Church, yet after the mind of Baldus: Magis attenditur persona intellectualis, quàm organica. Otherwise if by this word (charge) he meant only the office and diligence of teaching: to that I answer: The same Lord that said to Peter, feed my sheep, said also to the other, go & preach this Gospel to all nations. And he that said to Peter: whatsoever thou loosest, said also to the other: whatsoever ye remit in the earth. Moreover if the matter go by preaching, Paul the Apostle labored more therein, then ever did Peter by his own confession: Plus laboraui, also suffered more for the same, Plus sustinui, neither was his doctrine less sound. Yea and in one point he went before Peter, & was teacher and schoolmaister unto Peter, whereas Peter was by him justly corrected. Gal. 2. Furthermore, teaching is not always nor in all things a point of maistership, but sometime a point of service. As if a Frenchman should be put to an Englishman to teach him French, although he excelleth him in that kind of faculty, yet it followeth not therefore, that he hath fullness of power vpō him, to appoint his diet, to rule his household, to prescribe his laws, to stinte his lands, and such other. Wherefore seeing in travail in teaching, in pains of preaching, in gifts of tongs, in largeness of commission, in operation of miracles, in grace of vocation, in receiving the holy Ghost, in vehemency of torments and death for Christ's name, the other Apostles were nothing inferior to Peter: Why Peter then should claim any special prerogative above the rest, I understand no cause. As in deed he never claimed any, but the patrons of the Apostolical sea do claim it for him, which he never claimed himself, neither if he were here, would no less abhor it with soul and conscience, then we do now: & yet our abhorring now is not for any malice of person, or any vantage to our selves, but only the vehemency of truth, & zeal to Christ and to his congregation. Moreover, if these men would needs have Peter to be the Curate and ouersear of the whole universal Church (which was too much for one man to take charge upon) and to be Prince of all other Apostles, then would I fain learn of them, what meaneth (Dextrae societatis) the right hand of society between Peter, Paul, & Barnabie, mentioned, Gal. 2. What taking of hands is there between subjects & their Prince, in way of fellowship? Or where fellowship is, what maistership is there? Or again, what state of maistership is it like, that Christ would give to Peter, who being in deed master of all, took such little maistership upon himself, and that not only in inward affection, but also in outward fact. Although I am not ignorant that Peter in places of the Gospel hath his commendation, neither do I deny Peter to be worthy of the same. But yet these words of commendation, give to him no state of superiority, or jurisdiction upon all other, to have all under his subjection. As if a Schoolmaster should have more special charge to someone of his scholars for his riper towardness: yet this giveth him no fullness of authority, or power coactiue vpō the rest, unless by special admission he be deputed thereunto. Whereof, nothing can be gathered of Peter, for if it be true that S. Augustine saith, that such things as were spokē to Peter, have no lightsome understanding, except they be referred to the church, whereof Peter did bear a figure: thē hath y ^e person of Peter nothing to claim by these words, but all redoūdeath to the church, which being meant by Peter, hath power by this reason, both over the person of Peter, and all other persons in the Lord.

But here stumbleth in an argument of our adversary again, which he in the margent of his book calleth an invincible argument drawn out of the bowels of S. John Chrysostom. Lib. 2. De Sacerd. Whereby he supposeth to have given a shrewd blow to the Protestants, and to have gotten Hectors victory upon a certain English prisoner taken in plain field, and of all such as take his part. The text only of Chrysostom he reciteth, but maketh no argument albeit he maketh mention of an invincible argument in the margent. But because he either wist not, or list not to show his cunning therein, I will form that in argument for him which he would have done, but did not: and so will form it (the Lord willing) as he himself must of necessity be driven to do, if the matter ever come to the trial of act, and not to the trifling of words. First, he taketh his text out of Chrysostom, as followeth: for what cause, I pray you, did Christ shed his blood? Truly, to redeem those sheep, whose charge he committeth to Peter, and to Peters successors. Upon this place of Chrysostom. this Clarke taketh his medium, Christ's suffering. His conclusion is, that all which Christ died for, were committed to Peter, Wherefore the form of the argument must needs stand thus in the third figure.

If this be the form of his insoluble argument, as it seemeth to be, by the order of his reasoning, & also must needs be, taking that medium, and making that conclusion as he doth, (for else in the first figure, and first mood, the text of Chrysostom will not serve him) then must the form and violence of this inexpugnable argument be denied, for that it breaketh the rules of Logike, making his conclusiō universal, which in that figure must needs be particular, either affirmative or negative. And so this argument invincible, falleth into one of these two straits, either concluding thus, the form will not serve him, or concluding in another figure, the words of Chrysostom will not answer to his purpose, to prove that all the world was committed to Peter. Which proposition as it is strange in scripture: so neither is it the proposition of Chrysostom. And though it were, yet both without inconvenience might be granted of us, and being granted, serveth his purpose nothing, so long as the proposition is not exceptiue, excluding other Apostles. For the words of Chrysostom do not so sound, that the whole world was committed to Peter only and to none other. Likewise then as it may be well affirmed of us, that the world was committed to Peter, so can it not be denied of them, that the world was also committed to John, James, Bartholomew, Paul, Barnabe, and other all and singular Apostles. For he that said to Peter, Feede my sheep, said also to all and singular his Apostles: Go into all the world & preach, &c. Math. vlt. Moreover, for as much as this man collecteth out of Chrysostom, that the whole world was committed to Peter, how shall we then join this meaning of Chrysostom with S. Paul, which saith that the Gospel was committed to Peter ever the circumcision, as was Paul over the uncircumcision? And here an answer to this doughtie argument, both to the form, & to the matter thereof, albeit concerning the matter, here lacketh much to be said more of Peters successors in the text of Chrysostom. By the which successors is not meant the bishop of Rome only (as the Papists would bear us in hand) but all such true and faithful Pastors, whom the Lord's calling sendeth, and setteth over his flock, where so ever, or whatsoever they be. For as Peter beareth a representation of the church, by the testimony of August. in John. tract 124. Praefat. in Psal. 108. so the successors of Peter be all faithful Pastors and overseers of Christ's Church, to whom Christ our Lord hath committed the charge of his flock. Wherefore they are not a little deceived, which looking vpō the rock only of the person, and not the rock of confession (contrary to the rule of Hilary, De trinit. lib. 6.) do tie the Apostleship or rock of Peter, to one only Bishop, and the succession of Peter to one only sea of Rome: where as this being a spiritual office, and not carnal, hath no such carnal race or descent after any worldly or local understanding: but hath a more mystical meaning, after a spiritual sense of succession, such as Jerome speaketh of, epist. ad Euagrium. Omnes, inquit, Apostolorum successores sunt &c. That is, All, saith he (speaking of Bishops) be successors of the Apostles, &c.

Of like force and fashion, and out of the same figure, the same Author patcheth moreover another argument, proving that the Bishop of Rome was tituled the head of Christ's church, in the primitive time of the old aunciters, before the age of Gregory. His argument proceedeth thus, in the third figure.

This argument expositorie, being clouted up in the third figure, and concluding singularly, hath rather a show of an argument, then maketh any necessary conclusiō, standing upon no mood in the said figure, if the Author thereof were put to his trial. Albeit to leave the form, and to come to the matter of the argument. First, how well he will dispatch himself of the Major, & prove us that S. Peter, although he were at Rome, and taught at Rome, and suffered at Rome: yet that he was bishop and proper Ordinary of that city and special sea of Rome? As touching the allegation of Abdias, Orosius, Ado, Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, Optatius, and Augustine, brought forth for his most advantage, to prove his Major: thus I answer concerning Orosius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, and Augustine, that where they speak of S. Peters chair, or planting y ^e faith at Rome, straightway this man argueth there upon, that Peter was Bishop of Rome. But that doth not clarkely follow. For the office of the Apostles was to plant the faith in all places, and in every regiō, yet were they not bishops in every region. And as for the chair, as it is no difference essential that maketh a bishop (for so much as a Doctor may have a chair, and yet be no bishop) so cannot he conclude by the chair of Peter, that S. Peter was Bishop of Rome. For all this proveth no farther, but that Peter was at Rome, and there taught the faith of Christ, as Paul did also, and peradventure in a chair likewise: yet we say not that Paul was therefore Bishop of Rome. But that he was there as an Apostle of Christ, whether he taught there standing on his feet, or sitting in a chair. In the Scripture commonly the Chair signifieth doctrine or judgment, as sitting also declareth such as teach or judge, whether they sit in the chair of Moses, or in the chair of pestilence. Planting likewise is a word Apostolical, and signifieth not only the office of a Bishop. Wherefore it is no good consequent, he sat, he taught, he planted at Rome his chair and seat was at Rome: Ergo, he was Bishop of Rome. And thus much touching Orosius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine.

As for Abdias, Ado, Optatus, and such other, although we should have much wrong offered, and never should make an ende, if we should be pressed with the authority of everyone that could or did move pen, in all the whole first age of the church, to be our judges in every ecclesiastical matter: and much more wrong should have, if the authors either corrupted, or countersaited, should be laid unto us, speaking not in the same sense, or in the same tongue, or in the same time wherein they wrote: yet to help and to fain the authorities of these authors so much as we may, I answer to their allegations, with this distinction of a bishop, which is to be taken either generally or specially. After the first, a bishop is he to whom so ever the public cure and charge of souls is committed, without any limitation of place. And so the name of Bishop is concident with the office of Apostle, or any public Pastor, Doctor, or Curator of the universal flock of Christ. And thus may Paul, Peter, or any other of the Apostles be called Bishops. So also is Christ himself by express word called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, Bishop and Pastor, 1. Peter. 2. And thus may Peter well be named a bishop of these foresaid authors after this manner of taking. But this public and general charge universally over the whole, without limitation, ceased after Christ and the Apostles. For then were bishops by places and provinces appointed, to have special oversight of some particular flock or province, and so to be resident and attendant only upon the same.

The other diversity of this name bishop, is to be taken after a more special sort, which is, when any person orderly called, is assigned, namely & specially to someone certain place, city, or province, whereunto he is only bound to employ his office & charge, and nowhere else, according to the old Canons of the Apostles, and of the Council of Nice. And this Bishop differing from the other, is called Episcopus intitulatus, having his name of his city or Dioces. And thus we deny that Peter the Apostle was ever Bishop elected, installed, or entitled to the City of Rome, neither doth Optatus, Abdias, Ado, or Jerome affirm the same. And if Ado say that Peter was bishop of Rome 25. years, until the last year of Nero, that is easily refuted both by the Scriptures and Histories: for so we understand by the declaration of Saint Paul, Gal. 1.2. that 14. years after his conversion, Saint Paul had Peter by the hand at Jerusalem.

Moreover, the said Paul in the foresaid Epistle, witnesseth, that y ^e charge Apostolical was committed unto Peter over the Circumcised, and so was he entitled. Also S. Paul writing to the Romans, in his manifold salutations to them in Rome, maketh no mentiō there, of S. Peter, which doubtless should not have been vnremembred, if he had been then in Rome. Again S. Peter dating his Epistle from Babylon, was not then belike at Rome.

Furthermore, histories do record, that Peter was at Pontus v. years, and at Antioch. 7. years. How could he then be 25. years at Rome? Finally, where our adversary alleging out of Ado, saith, that S. Peter was there 25 years, until the last yere of Nero: how can that stand, when S. Paul suffering under Nero, was put to death the same day tweluemonth, that is, a whole year after Peter, &c. But especially how agreeth this with Scripture, that Christ should make Peter an Apostle universal to walk in all the world: Item per vniuersum orbem. Item, Etitis mihi testes vsque ad fines terrae. &c. And our Papists would needs make him a sitting Bishop, and entitle him to Rome. How accord these: Apostolus and Episcopus ire and sedere. Omnes gentes, and Roma together?

And thus have I resolved the first untruth of that Popish demonstration above rehearsed, Pag. 14. wherein they think to prove that as Peter, although he was not called universal Apostle, yet was the head of the whole Church: so the Pope might and hath had after him the charge of the whole Church, although he was not called universal Bishop in the old time. &c.

Now followeth the second untruth to be touched in the same argument, which is, that because Peter was the head of the church: so therefore the Pope must also be the head of the church, and was, albeit he was not called universal bishop a long time. But this we do deny, yea the matter denieth it self, by their own position, for being granted by them, that the title of universal bishop was not received at Rome, but refused to the time of Gregory : then m • st it necessarily be granted, that the Bishops of Rome before S Gregory, had not the charge of the whole church, neither could be admitted by that reason to be heads of the church. For so much as there can be no head, but which is universal to the whole body, neither can any have charge of the whole, but he must needs be universal to all and singular partes of that, whereof he hath the charge. As in sciences, whosoever hath knowledge & cunning in all the seven liberal sciences, & all the partes thereof pertaining to liberal knowledge, is said to be an universal learned man: so in office, to whomsoever the public charge of all Churches doth appertain, how is he not to be called bishop universal? Now if before S. Gregory's time the name of universal bishop, was repealed in Rome: how then can the name be refused, & the definition of the name be admitted? Or else let our adversaries tell us how they define an universal Bishop, seeing this word bishop is properly the name of office whereto is annexed charge. Wherefore, if a Bishop be he which hath the charge of all souls in his Dioces committed to him, & must render account for thē all: then whose charge extendeth to all & singular churches, & must render account for every Christian soul within the whole world, to him cā not be denied the name of an universal bishop, having the office of an universal bishop. Or if he be not an universal bishop, he cannot then have the charge of the whole that is, of all and singular churches of Christ. For such is the rule of true definition. Cui cōuenit definitio, conuenit & definitum, & contra. Cui adimitur definitio, eidem & definitum adimitur. Although this word universal, in the Greek writers, signifieth that, which we in our vulgar English tongue call catholic: yet I suppose our adversaries here will not take universal in that sense. For after that meaning, as we do not deny that the bishops of Rome may be universal Bishops, so neither can they deny but other bishops also may be as universal, that is, as catholic as they. But such as more distinctly & schoolelike discuss this matter, define universal or catholic by three things: to wit, by time, place, and person. So that whatsoever extendeth it self to times, all places, & to all persons that is properly universal or catholic. And contrariwise, what thing is to be called universal or catholic, reacheth to all those three aforesaid, cōprehending all places, times, & persons, & extendeth it self of his own nature to the same, or else it is not to be called properly universal or catholic. And thus iii. things there be, which most commonly we cal catholic or universal: that is, the church which is called the catholic church: Faith, which is called the catholic faith: A man, whom also we call a man catholic, because these iii. of their own nature & disposition (no contrary obstacle letting) extend themselves so to all, that no time, place, nor persō is excluded. Which iii. conditions, if they altogether cōcur in the charge of y ^e bishop of Rome, then is it an universal, charge, and he an universal bishop: if not, then is his charge neither universal, nor he the head of the Church, nor yet universal bishop. For how these three can be separated, I cannot see, except the adversary part do prove it more evidently, then yet they have done.

And thus much to the objection of our adversaries, arguing thus: that as S. Peter being not called universal Apostle, yet was the head of the universal church: So the Pope although he was not first called universal Bishop, had, and might have the charge of the whole Church, and was the universal head of the same. The which objection containing (as is said) a double untruth, our adversaries yet notwithstanding do busy themselves greatly to fortify by sunory testimonies and allegations, patched out of old and ancient Doctors,