Synopsis papismi, that is, A generall viewe of papistry wherein the whole mysterie of iniquitie, and summe of antichristian doctrine is set downe, which is maintained this day by the Synagogue of Rome, against the Church of Christ, together with an antithesis of the true Christian faith, and an antidotum or counterpoyson out of the Scriptures, against the whore of Babylons filthy cuppe of abominations: deuided into three bookes or centuries, that is, so many hundreds of popish heresies and errors. Collected by Andrew Willet Bachelor of Diuinity.

THE FOVRTH GENERALL CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING THE BISHOP OF ROME, COMMON∣LIE CALLED THE POPE.

THis great and waightie controuersie conteineth tenne seuerall questions.

1 Whether the regiment of the Church be Monarchicall.

2 Whether Peter were the Prince of the Apostles, and by our Sauiour Christ made head of the Church.

3 Whether Peter were at Rome, and dyed Bishop there.

4 Whether the Bishop of Rome be the true successor of Peter.

5 Concerning the primacie of the Bishop of Rome: sixe partes of the que∣stion. First, whether hee haue authoritie ouer other Bishops. Secondly, whe∣ther appeales are to be made to Rome. Thirdly, whether the Pope be subiect to the iudgemēt of any. Fourthly, whether he may be deposed. Fiftly, what primacy he hath ouer other Churches. Sixtly, of his titles and names.

6 Whether the Bishop of Rome may erre, and likewise whether the Church of Rome be subiect to error.

7 Of the spiritual iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome: two parts. First, whe∣ther he can make lawes to binde the conscience. Secondly, whether other Bi∣shops doe receiue their iurisdiction from him.

8 Of the Popes temporall iurisdiction: two parts. First, whether hee haue authoritie aboue Kings and princes▪ Secondly, whether he be a temporal prince.

9 Of the prerogatiues of the Pope.

10 Concerning Antichrist: nine parts. First, whether Antichrist shall be some one singular man. Secondly, of the time of his comming. Thirdly, of his name. Fourthly, of his nation and kinred. Fiftly, where his place and seate shall be. Sixtly, of his doctrine and manners. Seuenthly, of his miracles. Eight∣ly, of his kingdome and warres. Ninthly, whether the Pope bee the very Anti∣christ: of these in their order.

THE FIRST QVESTION, WHETHER THE Regiment of the Church be Monarchicall.

[error 36] WE are not ignorant that the Philosophers made three formes and states of gouernement in the commonwealth: the Monarchical, when as the prin∣cipall and soueraigne power rested in one, as in the King, Queene or Emperor: as Rome sometime was ruled by Kings, and many yeares after by Emperors. Secondly, the Aristocratical, when the commonwealth was gouerned by an as∣sembly and Senate of nobles, as the Romanes had a long time, their Consuls and Senators. Thirdly, the Democratical, which is the popular state, when the people and multitude bare the greatest sway: as sometime in Rome also, tribuni

plebis, the officers for the people had the chiefe authoritie. Now of all these in common-wealth matters, the first kinde is the best and safest, the Monarchical or princely gouernement. The question now is, whether the same forme ought to bee reteyned in Church-gouernement: and in this question certaine things are to bee obserued: First, that wee haue not to deale in this place with that part of Ecclesiasticall regiment, wherein the prince hath interest, as in or∣dayning Ecclesiasticall Lawes, and seeing to the execution thereof: but the question is onely of that regiment Ecclesiasticall, which is proper to the gouer∣nors of the Church, which consisteth in the ministerie of the word and Sacra∣ments, in ordaining and electing of Church-ministers, in the dispensing of the keyes of the Church, in the Ecclesiasticall censures and discipline, and such like: whether in the Church there ought to bee one chiefe Bishop, from whom all other receiue this power in the premisses. Secondly, the question is not of the spirituall gouernement of Christ, who is the chiefe Monarch and King of his Church, but of the outward and externall regiment vpon earth. Thirdly, wee speake not of the state of any particular Church, either nationall, prouinciall, or oppidall, but of the generall state of the Church: whether ouer all Churches there ought to be one chiefe Bishop. These things premised, wee come now to the question.

The Papists.

THat there ought to bee one chiefe Monarch and high Bishop ouer all the Church, in all Ecclesiasticall matters, for the deciding of controuersies, preseruing the vnitie of the Church, from whom all other Ecclesiasticall Mini∣sters doe receiue their power and authoritie, they thus would proue.

1 The militant Church is in all things answerable and correspondent to the triumphant companie in Heauen: as Heb. 8.5. Moses was bid to make all things according to the paterne shewed in the Mount. But in heauen there is be∣side God himselfe, a Monarch and chiefe commaunder of the Angels, euen Mi∣chael the Archangel, Reuel. 12.7. Michael and his Angels fought. Ergo, it ought to be so vpon earth.

We answer. First, the Church vpon earth, neither is, nor can be altogether like to the celestiall congregation: for there is no temple, Reuel. 21.22. There shall enter no vncleane thing: and many such like differences there are: We are bid to follow them in holines and obedience, so farre wee must imitate the An∣gels, as in the Lords prayer 3. Petit. As for imitation and conformitie in other things, we haue no such commaundement: we are promised hereafter to be like them, but that is not yet. Neither doth that place proue any such thing, Heb. 8. For how followeth it, Moses was shewed a paterne to make the Tabernacle by, Ergo the Church hath a paterne of her gouernement from Heauen? When they can shew any such paterne reuealed in the word, (for their dreames and phan∣tasies we wil not beleeue) for the Church, as Moses had for the Tabernacle, then they shall say somewhat.

2 It is a vaine controuersie so to descant of the Angels, as to appoynt them a Captaine and commaunder, and to make nine orders or bands of them, as our Rhemist. annot 1. Ephes. vers. 21. These are but their dreames, they haue not a worde in Scripture for it. And concerning Michael, they are much de∣ceiued, for in that place Apocal. 12.7. Christ is called Michael: Michael and his Angels fought against the Dragon. And who I pray you is the chiefe Captaine of the Church against the diuell and his hoast but Christ? And so is it expounded verse 10. Now is saluation in Heauen, and the strength and King∣dome of our God, and the power of his Christ: Here hee is called Christ, who before is Michael. In other places also, Michael is vnderstood to be Christ, as Dan. 10.21. there is none that holdeth with mee but Michael your Prince: here Michael is the prince of the Church, and not of the Angels. And that Michael is not the prince of the Angels, as our aduersaries meane, taking Mi∣chael for an Angell, it is proued out of the 13. verse. Michael one of the chiefe princes: the Angels are all called princes, and not one to bee prince aboue them.

Likewise the nature and signification of the word Michael agreeth hereun∣to:* 1.1 for it is compounded of three hebrue particles, as much as to say, one that is e∣quall vnto GOD: which name in that sense cannot bee giuen vnto any creature.

Further, Epistle Iud. 9. there is mention made of Michael the Archangell, who stroue against the diuell, and saide, the Lord rebuke thee Sathan: where the Apostle alludeth, to that place of Zacher. 3.2. where the very same words are found: but there the prophet calleth him Iehouah, that spake those words, and here the Apostle calleth him Michael: so that in this place it must needes bee vnderstoode for Christ.

But to conclude, we denie not, but that Michael may bee the name of some glorious Angell: but out of these places it cannot bee proued. And againe, we will not stand with them, but that there may be degrees of excellencie amongst the Angels, as there shall be amongst the Saints: but that any one hath any such soueraigne and commaunding authoritie ouer the rest, it is a curious and pre∣sumptuous surmise.

2 The Church of the olde Testament was a figure of the Church vnder the New: but they had a high Priest aboue the rest. Ergo, there ought to be now.

We answere, First, we graunt the high Priest was a figure, but neither of Pe∣ter nor Pope, but onely of Christ: for in two things did the high Priest resem∣ble Christ, in offering of sacrifice (so hath Christ offered vp himselfe. Heb. 7.27.) and in entring into the sanctuarie to make attonement for the people: so Christ is entred into the Heauens, to appeare in sight for vs before God, as the apostle saith. Heb. 9.24. I trow in neither of these the high priest could be a type either of Peter or Pope.

2 Neither doth it follow, because there was an high priest in one countrey, therefore there ought to bee one ouer the Churches in al countries: as the Iesuite

frameth an other argument by a comparison: because a bishop is ouer his dio∣cesse, a Metropolitane ouer his prouince, there may bee as well a Pope ouer the whole Church: For by the same reason, because a Lorde may bee the chiefe in his seignorie, a Duke in his prouince, a Prince in his Kingdome, therefore there ought to bee an Emperour ouer all the world: or as Master Caluine saith, because one fielde is committed to one Husbandman to dresse and to till, therefore the whole Worlde may: which were a thing impossible.

The Protestants.

THat there ought not to be any one chiefe Bishop, Pope or prelate, to exercise iurisdiction ouer the whole Church, wee doe thus make it good.

1 We acknowledge no head of the Church but Christ, neither doth the Scripture attribute this title of Maiestie ouer the whole Church, but onely to Christ. If the Pope or any else bee the head, the Church is his bodie,* 1.2 which Bellarmine is a shamed to graunt yet. Pope Athanasius doubted not to call populos mundi, partes corporis sui, the people of the Worlde the partes of his bodie.

Againe, if he be the head, hee must doe the duetie of an head, which is, to knit and ioyne the parts together, and to giue effectuall power to euery part. Ephes. 4.16. Where the Apostle alludeth to the gouernement of mans bodie: in the which the parts receiue a double benefite from the head, the knitting and ioyning together by sinewes, which come from the head, and sense and motion also giuen to euery part from the head: but it were blas∣phemie to thinke this of the Pope, that he giueth any influence to the Church. If they answer, he is but a ministeriall head, Christ is the principall. We say a∣gaine, that although these things are principallie wrought by the principall head, yet they must bee done instrumentally or Ministerially by the Ministe∣riall head: or else it is but a rotten head: such an one as the Wolfe found in a caruers shop (as you knowe the fable is) a goodly head, saith hee, but without wit or braine. If Christ performe all the duetie of the head himselfe, then is there no other head: if the Pope doe somewhat, that belongeth to the head, tell vs, what is it? If hee will bee an head, and doe nothing, surely hee must needes bee a brainelesse and witlesse head.

2 It is a daungerous and impossible thing to haue the charge of all Chur∣ches committed to one man: GOD alone is sufficient to beare that burthen. Saint Paule saith, who is sufficient for these things? No pastor or mini∣ster, that is but set ouer one flocke or parish, is sufficient to preach the worde: much lesse is any one man sufficient to gouerne the whole Church.

Bellarmine answereth first: Saint Paul saith of himselfe, that hee had the care of all Churches. 2. Corinth. 11.28. We replie againe, first, then belike

Saint Paul was vniuersall pastor and not Peter. Secondly, wee must consider that the Apostles were sent to all the world: their calling was not limited: when they had planted the Gospell in one place, they did take care also for o∣ther places: but now there is no such Apostolicall calling. Thirdly, Paul did not beare this burthen alone, but the Apostles and Euangelists were his coadiu∣tors and fellow-helpers.

Secondly, sayth he, why may not the care of the whole Church bee commit∣ted to one man, as well as the gouernment almost of the whole world was ap∣pointed by God to Nabuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Augustus; seeing the gouernement of the Church is easier then the ciuill and politike regiment?

We replie. First, wee neuer reade of any that had dominion ouer the whole world, as the Pope chalengeth to haue ouer the whole Church, which is disper∣sed throughout the world. Secondly, these great and large Monarches are saide to haue been giuen of God, Dan. 2.37. Not that this large dominion and vsurpation ouer other countries so much pleased God: for the people of God the Israelites in their most flourishing estate neuer had such soueraigntie ouer other countries, but by voluntarie subiection, as in Solomons dayes, 1. King. 4.21. the Kings round about brought presents vnto him: But because the Lord tur∣ned and vsed this their large and mightie dominion to the good of his Church: for Cyrus was a defender of the Church, against all that bare euill will thereat: and the large Empire of the Romans serued very commodiously for the propa∣gation of the Gospell. Thirdly, the Iesuite sheweth his skill, when he saith, that the regiment of the Church is easier, then the gouernement of the common∣wealth: Whereas there is no greater and waightier burthen vpon earth, then is the charge of soules. It seemeth the Pope taketh his ease, finding the care of the Church to be so easie and pleasant a thing: in deede as he vseth it, it is no great matter: for hee preacheth not, but giueth himselfe to ease and idlenes and all princely pleasures. But England hath found by experience, and so did that worthie and famous Prince King Henry the eight, that there was neuer matter so hardlie compassed, as was the reformation of the Church, and the suppres∣sion of idolatrie and superstition in this lande. Augustine saith, Nemo no∣strum se episcopum episcoporum constituit, aut quasi tyrannico terrore ad obsequēdi necessitatem collegas suos adigit. de Baptis. 2.2. None of vs doth count him∣selfe a Bishop ouer other Bishops, or taketh vpon him after a commaunding manner, as tyrants vse, to enforce his fellowes to obey. Ergo by his iudgement all Bishops are of like and equall authoritie.

THE SECOND QVESTION, WHETHER PETER were the chiefe, and Prince of the Apostles, and assigned by Christ to bee head of the Church.

The Papists.

THis our aduersaries doe stiffelie maintaine, that he was not only head of the [error 37] Church, but of the Apostles also. Bellarmi. lib. 1. de pontif. cap. 11. And the Rhemists doubt not to call him the chiefe and Prince of the Apostles. 1. Corinth. 9. ver. 5.

1 Wee will omitte manie of their waightie arguments, as out of these and such like places: I haue prayed for thee Peter, that thy faith should not fayle: cast forth thy net into the deepe, I will make thee a Fisher of men: Pe∣ter payed toll for Christ and himselfe: Peter drew the net to the land full of great fish: Peter onely drew out his sword in the defence of Christ. Ergo Pe∣ter was the Prince of the Apostles and head of the Church. ex concil. Basilien Fox. pag. 673.

Such other goodlie arguments our Rhemists doe make: Peter did excom∣municate Ananias and Sapphira: he healed the sicke by his shadow. Ergo he was the head of the Church. Annot. 5. Acts se. 5.8. Againe, Peters person was garded with foure quaternions of Souldiours, Act. 12.4. the Church pray∣ed for him. Ibid. sect. 4. Paul nameth Cephas, 1. Cor. 9.5. Ergo hee was chiefe of the Apostles. Are not here goodlie arguments thinke you? To these reasons I neede make no other answere, then that, which our learned countrie man dooth in his Annotations. You must, saith he, bring better arguments or else children will laugh you to scorne. Fulk. Annot. Act. 5. sect. 5. Let vs see there∣fore if they haue any better arguments.

2 They take that to be a maine inuincible place for them, Matth. 16.18. Thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke will I builde my Church. Ergo the Church is built vpon Peter.

To make this argument the more strong, they set vnder it diuerse props: First, why did Christ giue Peter this name more then to any other of the Apo∣stles, to call him Peter, of Petra a Rocke, but to shew that hee was appointed to be the foundation of the Church? Bellarmine cap. 17. Wee answer, Christ hereby signified, that Peter should bee a principall piller of his Church, as the rest of the Apostles, Ephes. 2. He chaunged also the names of some other Apostles, as Iames and Iohn were called Boanerges, the sonnes of thunder, Mark. 3. Therefore this was no such preeminence to Peter, neither is it true that Peter was almost called by no other name, for he is oftē in the Gospel after this called by his old name Simon, Mat. 16.17. & 17, 25. Fulk. Annot. in Ioh. 1. sec. 7. Secondly, againe (saith Bellarmine) the text is aedificabo, I will build my Church: but if Christ be here taken for the rocke, his Church was built alreadie,

for many beleeued in him. But Peter was not made the foundation of his Church, till afterward after his resurrection, and therefore hee saith, I will build.

Wee answere. First, it is a corrupt glosse, to say the Church of Christ was not builded, till after the resurrection: for seeing that many beleeued before in Christ, and made a Church, either they must graunt, that the Church was without a foundation, or else, that the foundation was changed from Christ to Peter. Secondlie, it is taken therefore for the enlarging and in∣creasing of the Church of GOD. It followeth not, because Christ saith, I will build, and his Church was begun to bee built alreadie, that therefore another kinde of building must bee excogitate: no more then, because Christ gaue his spirite to the Apostles Matth. 10.1. and againe Iohn 20.22. and yet biddeth them stay at Ierusalem till they should receiue the holie Ghost Acts. 1.7. that therefore they should looke for another holy Ghost, or as though they had not receiued the holy Ghost before. But as the sen∣ding of the holy Ghost is meant, for the increase and more plentifull mea∣sure thereof, so is the building of the Church here taken for the increase of the building.

* 1.3Wee yet further answere with Augustine: super hanc petram, quam con∣fessus es, aedificabo ecclesiam: vppon this rocke, which thou hast confessed, will I build my Church: so that in this place is meant not Peter to bee the rocke, but either Christ, whome he confessed, or his saith: whereby he con∣fessed him, which commeth all to one effect. There is no great difference, whether wee say, the Church is builded vppon Christ, or faith is the foun∣dation of the Church, for faith is an apprehension of Christ: but of the person of Peter it can no more bee vnderstoode then of the rest of the A∣postles, who in some sence are called the foundation of the Church, namely in respect of their holy Apostolick doctrine vpon the which the Church is built. Ephes. 2.20.

Bellarmine and the Iesuites denie not, but here is relation also to the faith of Peter, but faith considered in his person. We answere: if they meane Pe∣ters particular faith, which was a proper adiunct to himselfe, the vniuersall Church cannot be built vpon that faith, seeing when Peter dyed, his faith al∣so, as a proper accident to his person, ceased: if they vnderstand that generall faith, whereby Peter in the name of all the rest made this confession: then they all are as well made pillars and foundations of the Church, as he, because it was their generall confession. Fulk. annot. in 16. Matth. sect. 8.

3 Another place, which our aduersaries mightely vrge, are those words which follow verse 19. I will giue vnto thee the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen, whatsoeuer thou shalt binde in earth, shalbe bound in Heauen: Ergo: Peter had especiall iurisdiction giuen him more then any of the rest. Bellarmine cap. 12.

Wee answere. First, as Peter confessed in the name of all the rest, so this

power is geuen him not onelie for the rest (as the Rhemists falslie charge vs, that we make Peter a proctor for others) but together with the rest: Peters per∣son must be excluded: for immediately after he deserued for a certaine slip of his person to bee called Sathan: it were an vnfit match, the same person at the same time to be honoured with the glorious title of the rock of Christ, and to sustaine so great a rebuke as to bee called Sathan. Secondlie, here is no more promised to Peter then vnto all the rest of the Apostles: Matth. 18.18. They likewise haue authoritie giuen them to binde and loose, and it is performed to them all alike. Iohn 20.23.

2 By the keyes here cannot be vnderstoode that large iurisdiction which the Papists dreame of, as not onely the authoritie and chaire of doctrine, iudgement, knoweledge, discretion betweene true and false doctrine, all which we graunt together with Peter to haue been giuen to al the Apostles be∣sides. But say they, hereby is signified the height of gouernement, the power of making lawes, of calling Councels and confirming them, of ordeyning Bishops and Pastors, finally to dispense the goods of the Church spirituall and tempo∣rall: all this is added without ground, neither had either Peter or any of the Apostles this ample authoritie, no nor the Bishops of Rome for many hun∣dred yeares after Christ. For this plenarie power of the keyes, when they signifie, a soueraigne and chiefe, and surpassing power, are so onely giuen vnto Christ, and to no mortall creature: He is saide to haue the keye of Dauid, who openeth and no man shutteth, who shutteth, and no man openeth. Apocalip. 3.7. Fulk. Annot. 16. Matth. sect. 13.

Lastly, I will oppose the iudgement of the Fathers of the Church, who al∣leadge out of Augustine, that Peter receiued the keyes for the whole Church, and out of Ambrose, that when Christ said to Peter, pasce oues, the blessed Apo∣stle toke not charge of them alone, saith he, but together with vs, and we toge∣ther with him. Fax. pag. 675.

4 Other arguments they alleadge for the primacie and preeminence of Peter, as Matthew 10. Hee is named in the first place. Bellarmine cap. 18. Wee answere, this mought bee, because Peter was the most auncient in yeeres, or one of the first that was called. But howsoeuer it was, it is no great matter: for this order is not alwaie kept, as Galath. 2. Paul nameth Iames first; Iames, Cephas, Iohn, saith hee, verse 9. the Iesuits best shift is heere to denie the text, saying; it should bee read, Cephas, Iames Iohn: vn∣lesse Iames bee named first, because he was Bishop of Ierusalem: Marke I pray you, Ergo at Ierusalem Peter was not before Iames, but next vnto him, therfore not prince of the Apostles. Bellarm. cap. 18.

Againe, say they, Peter standeth vp in the election of Matthias. Acts 1. preacheth the first Sermon, Acts 2. Acts. 15. Peter speaketh first. Wee an∣swere to the first: Wee denie not a primacie of order to haue been in Pe∣ter: but it followeth not, that hee which speaketh first, or giueth the first

voyce, should bee the head and commaunder of the rest to the second: wee also graunt that Peter in zeale, promptnes and forwardnes, was not be∣hinde any of the Apostles, but euen with the first: for in him was that saying of Christ verified vppon the woman. Shee loued much, because much was forgiuen her, Luk 7: So was it with Peter, to whome Christ for∣gaue much, and therefore hee loued much. To the third wee answere, that by the Iesuites owne confession, Iames, who was (as they say) Bishoppe of Ierusalem, had the primacie there: how then can they now giue it to Peter?

The Protestants.

THat Peter had no such iurisdiction ouer the Apostles, as to bee called the head and Prince of them: but that to them all indifferentlie were the keyes committed, and did all faithfullie execute their Apostleship without any sub∣iection of each to other, but ioyned the right hands of fellowship together: we thus confirme it out of the holy Scripture, and necessarie arguments deriued out of the same.

1 Ephes. 2.20. Apocalips. 21.14. The Church is said to bee built vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles. Ergo no primacie of power amongst the Apostles, they all founded the Church.

Bellarmine confesseth that in respect of their doctrine, there was no difference betweene Peter and the rest,* 1.4 for they all were first planters of Churches, they all preached the Gospell by reuelation: But in respect of gouernement, they were not equall: they had chiefe authoritie commit∣ted to them as Apostles and Embassadors of Christ: But Peter, as ordinarie pastor.

Wee answere. First, by his owne confession the Apostles had chiefe au∣thoritie as Apostles, but there was no higher authoritie or power then of the Apostleship: but as they were Apostles they were equall (saith the Iesu∣ite:) Ergo there could be no superioritie, for the calling of the Apostles was the highest in the Church.

2 To preach the Gospell, and to haue iurisdiction of gouernement, do both belong to the power of the keyes: but the keyes were equallie committed to all: Ergo they had all equall power both to preach and to gouerne. That they all had the power of the keyes equallie graunted vnto them, wee haue proued before out of Matth. 18.18.

2 Bellarmine himselfe confesseth, that Iames was Bishop and ordinarie pa∣stor at Ierusalem, and saith with Anselme and Thomas Aquinas, that therefore he is named first by Saint Paule, Gal. 2. Bellarm. cap. 19. Therefore at Ierusalem Pe∣ter was to giue primacie to the ordinarie pastor there.

If they answere, that Rome was then the chiefe citie, and therefore Peter be∣ing

Bishop of Rome was to haue the preeminence: To this we replie: that Ie∣rusalem was rather to be preferred in respect of place, which was chosen by the Lord himselfe, to be the chiefe citie of his Church: But Rome through the ty∣rannie and vsurpation of the Romans ouer other countries was aduanced to that dignitie, not by the election of God.

But Bellarmine answereth, that Peter was Bishop of the whole Church, and so of Ierusalem too. We answere, he now saith lesse for Peter, then if hee cal∣led him, as he was, the Apostle of the whole world: for it was more to be an A∣postle thā a Bishop. Diuers were called in the Apostles times, episcopi, ouerseers, or Bishops, that were not Apostles, as the pastors of Ephesus, Act. 20.28. Where∣fore now hee hath saide iust nothing: in seeking to aduance Peter, hee hath disgraced him, in pulling him downe from his high Apostleship, to the chaire of a Bishop.

3 Peter had no superioritie ouer Paul, for they ioyned right handes of fellowship: and this allotment was made betweene them, that Paule should bee the chiefe of the Gentiles, and Peter of the circumcision, Galath. 2.9. Ergo.

Bellarmine answereth. First, they were ioyned as fellow-laborers in the preaching of the Gospell: but Peter might for all this bee greater in the office and power of gouerning. Wee answere: yea, but the text saith, that Paule onelie was not appointed to preach to the Gentiles, but hee had the chiefe Apostleship. Now to the Apostleship belongeth, not onely the functi∣on of preaching, but the whole vse of the keyes, and power of iurisdic∣tion. Ergo: in all respects Saint Paule ouer the Gentiles had the chiefe A∣postleship.

But let any man say, that this was a humane compact amongst them∣selues, and Paul had his lotte at Peters assignement: the text sheweth, that the Lorde himselfe had made this distribution. For when they sawe, saith Saint Paul, that the Gospell ouer the vncircumcision was committed to mee, verse 7. So then the Apostles did but confirme by their consent, that distribu∣tion, which they sawe the Lord himselfe had appoynted.

Further saith the Iesuite, the diuision was not so made, but that it was lawfull for Peter also to preache to the Gentiles. Wee answeare: wee graunt it, and for Paule to preache to the Iewes, yet that distinction remayned still, that Peter was chiefe of the circumcision, Paule of the vn∣circumcision.

Againe saith hee: but Peter had the more excellent lotte, for Christ him∣selfe first preached to the Iewes. Wee answere, wee denie not, but that hee had the first lotte in order: for to the Iewes was the Gospell first of∣fered: but Paul had the larger and more glorious lotte: the Church of the Iewes, now decaying, and the Gentiles beginning to be planted in their roome. But howsoeuer it was, it cannot bee denied, but that Paule was chiefe towards

the Gentiles: And therefore the Church of Rome might with better right haue deriued their authoritie from S. Paul, then from Peter: Both of them they cannot make patrons of their See: seeing by their owne rules the Pope cannot be successor to them both.

Further, out of the same place, Galath. 2.11. an other thing commeth to bee obserued: that Peter was rebuked of Paule, and in such sort, that it appeareth there was no great inequality between them▪ for he doth it to his face openlie, before all men, and at Antioch, in Peters owne Bishopricke, as they say, can it be now thought that Paul was any thing inferior to Peter?

* 1.5Bellarmine and the Iesuits answere, that the Pope may bee rebuked of an in∣ferior, and ought to take it patiently, if it be done in zeale and loue. Aunswere: First, wee doe not simplie thus conclude, because Paul reprehended Peter, therefore he was not his superior, but because of the manner, as we shewed: it was done in such sorte, so plainely, so openly, without any submission or crauing of pardon, that there can appeare no inequalitie at all betweene them. Secondly, although they seeme heere to graunt, that the Pope may be rebuked, yet is it otherwise in their Canon lawe, which saith, that though the Pope doe leade innumerable soules to hell, no mortall man may pre∣sume to reprooue his faultes, part. 1. distin. 4. cap. Si Papa. Fulk. Annot. in Gala. 2. sect. 8.

4 Lastlie, what reason was there, why Christ should giue the supremacie to Peter ouer the rest? Christ was no acceptor of persons: if hee had bene, Iohn should haue bene preferred, whom he loued most. If deserts be weighed, I think Peter deserued no more then the rest of his fellowes: Nay I thinke the wise∣dome of the Spirit, foreseeing the questions that should afterward arise in the Church about Peter, hath so disposed, that this Apostles infirmities both in number more and weight greater then any of the rest, should be euidentlie set forth in Scripture. We will brieflie runne them ouer, not to derogate from the blessed memorie of so excellent an Apostle; but a litle to stay and bridle the preposterous zeale of our aduersaries, who doe ascribe more vnto him, then euer he would haue challenged to himselfe.

To let passe the smaller slippes and scapes of this Apostle, as his rashnesse in aduenturing beyond his strength, to walke vppon the Sea, Matth. 14. Secondlie, his vnaduised speech in the Mountaine, Math. 17. let vs make three Tabernacles: thirdlie, his ignorance, Matth. 19. In saying to Christ, how often shall I forgiue my brother? till seuen times? Fourthlie, his im∣patiencie, as in drawing out his sworde and cutting off Malchus eare. Fifthlie, his timorousnesse in flying from Christ at his apprehension. Sixt∣lie, his curiositie, Iohn 21. In asking concerning Iohn, what shall this man doe? To let passe these as common infirmities: There are fower great faultes, which Peter fell into, much amplified, and stoode vppon by the fathers.

1 He de••orted our Sauiour from his passion with these words: Master fauour thy selfe, Math. 16. and was therefore called Sathan, an aduersarie to the death of Christ, and so to the redemption of man. Augustine chargeth him with great forgetfulnes, hauing made so notable a confession of Christ before, and noteth him for some sparkes of distrust and infidelitie. Ille Petrus, qui iam eum confessus fuerat filium dei, timuit, ne sicut filius hominis moreretur, in Psal. 138. The same Peter (sayth he) which a little before had confessed him to be the Sonne of God, feared lest he should dye and perish as a man.

2 In promising rashly not to denye Christ, yea vnto death, whereas Christ had foretold him of his fall before, Augustine noteth great presumption: Petrus ex egregio praesumptore creber negator effectus. Epist. 120. cap. 14. Peter of a great presumer, is become a desperate denyer.

3 The third great sinne was committed by Peter in denying of Christ, and that thrice, yea with an oath, at the instance of a mayden, and in a very short while, before the cocke crewe twise, Mark. 14.72. The Iesuite answereth, that this was no hinderance to Peters primacie, but a furtherance and a confirma∣tion of it. But whether it were a let to his primacie or not, let all men iudge, seeing it had been sufficient to haue hindered his saluation and destroyed his faith, without the great mercie of God.

Let vs heare Augustines iudgement of Peters fall. Some man may excuse Pe∣ter, and say, that he did nothing, but as Christ forewarned him. What then (sayth he) if Peter therefore did not amisse, because his fall was foretold by Christ: Re∣ctè etiam fecit Iudas, qui tradidit dominum, quia & hoc praedixerat dominus:* 1.6 then Iudas did well too (sayth he) in betraying of Christ, for this also Christ shewed afore? But some agayne may say: he denyed not Christ, for hee sayd hee knewe not the man: Quasi vero (sayth he) qui hominem Christum negat,* 1.7 non Christum neget: as though hee that denyeth the man Christ, doth not flatly denye Christ. Christ also taketh away all doubts (saith he) when he thus said to Peter, the cock shall not crowe till thou hast denyed me thrice: he sayth not, till thou hast de∣nyed the man, but me. Agayne, Ipse potius redarguit defensores suos: Peter him∣selfe doth confute his maintayners and defenders: Agnouit planè peccatum su∣um infirmitas Petri: Peters owne conscience gaue him, that hee had sinned, for he went out and wept bitterly. But if by this meanes his primacie was confir∣med, he had occasion to reioyce, and not to weepe: Yea he wept bitterly, his sinne was very great: how then dare one of your sect say with a blasphemous mouth, Petrus non fidem Christi, sed Christum salua fide negauit:* 1.8 Peter denyed not the faith of Christ, but his faith remayning safe and sound he denyed Christ? The ancient writers durst not so extenuate Peters fall, no nor Peter himselfe, that wept full sore, as these men presume to doe.

4 The last fault noted in Peter was that, for the which he is reproued of Paul Act. 2. Tush (saith Bellarmine) it was a very small and light offence. Yea, was it so smal a fault to constrayne the Gentiles to doe like the Iewes? for this was the poynt, as S. Paul writeth, Galath. 2.14. And Augustine saith, Petrus non obiurga∣tus

a Paulo fuit, quòd seruabat consuetudinem Iudaeorum, in qua natus & educatus fuit, sed quòd eam gentibus imponere volebat. Exposit. ad Galat. Peter was not re∣buked of Paule, because hee kept the custome of the Iewes, wherein hee was brought vp, but because he would lay it vpon the Gentiles. Was this leuissimum peccatum, a small transgression? S. Paule should greatly haue been to blame, for rebuking Peter openly, and so plainly for so small an offence, and should haue done agaynst his owne rule, Galath. 6.1. But Peter did it of a good mind (sayth Bellarmine.* 1.9) Yea did? then he was worthie to be excused, not worthie of blame, as S. Paule writeth. He might also doe it ignorantly and vnwittingly (saith hee.) How can that be? seeing he was one that made the decree, Act. 15: That no yoke should be layd vpon the Gentiles: other then there expressed, and now contra∣rie to that decree, hee constrayneth the Gentiles, Iudaizare, to play the Iewes. These things doe not hang together.

I will now conclude out of Augustine, as hee alleageth out of Cyprian: Nec Petrus, cum secum Paulus de circumcisione disceptaret, postmodum vindicauit sibi aliquid insolenter, vt diceret se primatum tenere, De baptis. 2.2. Howsoeuer it was, Peter, when Paule reasoned thus with him, did not stand vpon his pan∣tofles, & chalenge any primacie to himselfe. But it is very like, if there had been any such primacie in Peter of power and iurisdiction, (a primacie of order wee graunt, as Cyprian in that place calleth Peter, primum, the first) that this sharpe reprehension of Paul should either haue been spared, or els not done in that ve∣hement manner.

THE THIRD QVESTION, CONCERNING Peter his being at Rome.

THis question hath two parts: first, whether Peter were at all at Rome or not.

Secondly, whether he were Bishop of Rome.

THE FIRST PART, WHETHER PETER were at Rome.

[error 38] OVR aduersaries would seeme to prooue it by these and such like argu∣ments.

1 Out of that place of S. Peter 1.5.13. the Church that is at Babylon saluteth you: Babylon here (say they) is taken for Rome, from whence Peter wrote his E∣pistle, Bellarm. lib. 2. cap. 2. de pontif. Rhemens. argum. in 1. Epist. Petri.

We answere: First, it is a sillie argument for them hereby to proue Peters be∣ing at Rome: for thus much they haue gayned by it, that Rome is Babylon, and so the seate of Antichrist, Reuel. 18. Secondly, there were two Babylons, one in Sy∣ria, the other in Aegypt, from either of which S. Peter might dare his epistle and it is most like that he would keepe the common and knowne name of the place, that it might be out of doubt what Church he ment: as for the name of Babylon,

to be ascribed to Rome, though it were so mysticallie, yet was it not so called: for why might not Paule as well haue written his Epistle to the Romanes vnder that name, the Church of Babylon, as Peter wrote from thence?

2 Agayne, they alleadge that storie, how Peter ouercame Simon Magus at Rome, when he would haue taken his flight into the ayre, hauing made himselfe wings, and by the prayer of Peter was brought downe agayne and brake his legges, and so dyed: whereupon Nero being offended with Peter, would haue apprehended him: who being counsailed by the Church, would haue fled from Rome: but meeting Christ at one of the gates, and saying vnto him, whether goest thou Lord? And he answered, I come agayne to be crucified: Peter vpon those words returned backe agayne, and was crucified for the testimonie of Ie∣sus. Bellarm. cap. 2.3.

We answere: First, we denye not that Peter was at Rome, but shewe only the insufficiencie of their arguments: and agayne, we moue such doubts, as by them are yet vnanswered, as afterward shall be shewed. Secondly, concerning this storie of the victorie ouer Simon Magus, they that doubt of Peters being at Rome, may also doubt of this, neither of them being necessarie to be beleeued as articles of faith, but probable and coniecturall, as matters of storie. For some part of the storie is denyed by Augustine, as how Peter fasted vpon the Saturday,* 1.10 the combat betweene him and Simon Magus, following vpon the Lords day after, and thereupon rose the custome of the Saturday fast among the Romanes: Est quidem (saith he) haec opinio plurimorum, quamuis eam perhibeant esse falsam ple∣ri{que} Romani. This is (saith he) a probable opinion of many, (concerning Peters fast) yet the Romanes themselues thinke it to be false.

3 That concerning Christs apparition to Peter, seemeth to bee most vnlike of all: and sauoureth somewhat of the Popish Legends. Like vnto this are the tales of S. Christopher, how he caried Christ, and how S. Gregorie had him for one of his ghests at his table of hospitalitie: such visions and apparitions of Christ are contrarie to the scriptures, which say, that the heauens must conteyne him till his comming agayne. Bellarmine answereth: first, by this meanes, wee doe compedes Christo inijcere, wee fetter Christ in heauen. We answere, belike then heauen is a prison, with the Iesuite: God send all that are his such a prison at the length. Agayne, Christ is no otherwise concluded and shut vp in heauen, then as it pleaseth himselfe, and as he hath appoynted so to be.

2 He obiecteth: that Christ appeared neere vnto the earth to Paule. We an∣swere: First, there is no such thing proued out of the text, but rather the contra∣rie, that the voyce was heard from heauen; not neere the earth, but aboue, Act. 22.6. Secondly, Paule heard a voyce onely, he sawe no man, neither he nor the companie with him, Act. 9.7, 8. But onely a great light they sawe shining from heauen, Act. 22.6, 9. Therefore out of this place they cannot prooue any such real apparition of Christ.

3 Peter dyed at Rome, his sepulchre is to be seene there to this day: Ergo, he was at Rome. Bellarm. cap. 3.

We answere: First, it followeth not, if Peter were buried at Rome, that there∣fore he dyed there: for the translation of the bones and bodies of Martyrs is no vnusuall thing in your Church: As it followeth not, because Iohn Baptists head, as you say, is to be seene at S. Siluesters at Rome, that therefore he dyed there; so neither doth it followe of S. Peter.

2 Agayne, how shall wee beleeue you, that it is S. Peters Sepulchre, which is shewed at Rome; seeing you haue made so many mockeries alreadie, making the world beleeue, that Peters bodie is sometime in one place, sometime in an other? Half his bodie (you say) is at S. Peters in Rome, halfe at S. Paules, his head at S. Iohn Laterane, his neather iawe with the beard at Poicters in France, many of his bones at Trieirs, at Geneua part of his brayne. You see that we may as well doubt whether Peters bodie bee at Rome, as in any of these places. And such as you see, are our aduersaries arguments for Peters being at Rome.

The Protestants.

COncerning Peters being at Rome: First, wee doe not vtterly denye it, but onely affirme that he could not come thither so soone as in the second yeare of Claudius, and sit there so long, namely, fiue and twentie yeares, as they hold. Secondly, it may bee graunted, that he was there, as a matter of storie, not an ar∣ticle of faith. Thirdly, wee haue certayne doubts and arguments, about some circumstances of his being there, which our aduersaries are not able to an∣swere.

1 There is great disagreeing amongst the writers, concerning the time of Peters comming to Rome: Orosius sayth hee came thither in the beginning of Claudius raigne: Hierome saith, the 2. yeare of his raigne: other say, the fourth yeare: other, the thirteenth yeare: Damasus would haue him come thither in Nero his raigne. This dissention of writers sheweth that the matter may be iust∣ly doubted of, Fulk. in Rom. 16. sect. 4.

Bellarmine and the Iesuites answere: No more doe all agree concerning the time when the world was created, nor for the storie of Christs life, in what time euery thing was done when he suffered, and such like: yet it followeth not, that those things were not true, because there is some diuersitie about the time, Rhemist. 1. Pet. 5.13.

Wee replie: First, most of these things concerning the chronologie of scrip∣ture, though it be not necessarie to saluation, yet by diligent search may be found in scripture. Secondly, if they can shewe any scripture for Peters being at Rome, as we haue for the other stories, we will beleeue it, though the time perfectly be not knowne: but seeing the scripture maketh no mention at all of his being there, and the time is vncertayne, we may worthilie doubt of it, much lesse are bound necessarilie to beleeue it.

2 The storie of Peters comming to Rome in the second yeare of Claudius, his abiding at Rome fiue & twentie yeres, his death and martyrdome in the 14. yere

of Nero, and the 37. yeare after Christs ascension: we proue out of the scriptures to bee false. For Peter was at Ierusalem and in those quarters round about till 18. yeares after Christ: for Paul sawe him there 3. yeares after his calling, and agayne 14. yeares after that, Galath. 2. there is 17. yeares, and one yeare was past before Pauls conuersion: in all 18. yeares: adde vnto these the 25. yeares of Pe∣ters being at Rome, that maketh 43. yeares: and so Peter should suffer in Vespa∣sianus raigne, and not in the time of Nero.

Bellarmine and the Iesuites answere: that Peter was at Rome seauen yeares before the Councel held at Ierusalem, Act. 15. which was in the 18. yeare after Christ: and that being expelled the citie by Claudius with the rest of the Iewes, he returned to Ierusalem, and there spake with Paul, and after that went to Rome agayne and there ended his life.

This answere we shewe to bee very insufficient. First, Act. 15.2. it appeareth that there was, as it were, a standing and set councel of the Apostles at Ierusa∣lem, of the which Peter was one: for the Church thought good to send vp to the Apostles and Elders which were at Ierusalem. Secondly, till the 18. yeare when this Councel was held, it seemeth that Peter had laboured onely or especially amongst the Iewes, of whom there were then but fewe at Rome: for, saith the A∣postle, he that was mightie in Peter in the Apostleship ouer the circumcision, was also mightie in me, Gal. 2.8. Therfore Peter was not knowne to haue labou∣red vntill this time in the circumcision. Thirdly, afterward it is more like he went to Antiochia then to Rome: for after this, Paul rebuked Peter at Antioch, Gal. 2. Fourthly, these are but bare coniectures of our aduersaries, and craftie e∣uasion without scripture: but seeing we appose them out of scripture, it is great reason, they should likewise answere vs out of scripture.

3 We haue diuers other obections also out of the scriptures: as first, that if Peter were at Rome, it is not like that Paul would leaue him out in his salutation in the end of his Epistle, Rō. 16. sent to the brethren. Our aduersaries answere but very simplie, that at that time, when S. Paul wrote his Epistle, either Peter was not at Rome, or els Paul might write some especiall letters to him by himselfe, and this Epistle enclosed in them: such goodly coniectures they haue. But I pray you what needed S. Paul to haue written vnto the Romanes, if S. Peter so faithfull and vigilant a Pastor, were continually amongst them?

Other places also of scripture we haue: as Philipp. 2.20. speaking of Timothy he saith, I haue none like minded to him that will faithfully care for your mat∣ters Coloss. 4.11. These onely are my workfellowes, 2. Timoth. 4.11. onely Luke is with me: Ergo, Peter all this while was not at Rome, for Paul would not haue left him out of the number of his fellowe-helpers: at the lest he would not haue commended Timothy, though he were a worthie yong man, before him. That which Bellarmine answereth, is iust nothing: that S. Paul speaketh in those pla∣ces onely of his domesticall helpers, which did minister vnto him: When S. Paul speaketh plainly of his fellowe labourers: these onely are my workfellowes to the kingdome of God, Coloss. 4.11.

An other argumēt doth arise out of S. Pauls words, 2. Timoth. 4.16. At my first answering no man assisted me: Ergo, it is like that Peter was not then at Rome, for he would not haue forsaken Paul. Bellarmine answereth: that he speaketh onely of such fauourers as hee had in Caesars court, that they would not make sute for him to the Emperour. But this is a weake solution. First, it appeareth by that which followeth, that they left him without helpe in his open Apologie or defence: they did not assist me (sayth he) but the Lord assisted me: that is, gaue me strength to defend my cause: so that the word, assisting, must bee taken in the same sense before, that they fayled him in that, wherein God assisted him, that is, in speaking boldly in the defence of the truth. Secondly, it is proued by the diuers successe that he had at his first and second answering: at the first all left him, but at the next many were emboldened through his bonds: what to doe? more frankly to speake the word, Philipp. 1.14. Ergo, at the first they for∣sooke him, because they were afrayd to speake the word.

THE SECOND PART, WHETHER PETER were Bishop of Rome.

[error 39] OVr aduersaries would gladly bring it about that Peter was Bishop of Rome, there enthronised, and sate in the Bishoplike chayre many yeares, and after left it to his successors.

1 The Romane faith was first planted by Peter, for he first preached to the Gentiles, Act. 15.7. Ergo, he was the first Bishop.

Answere: First, that Peter first preached to the Gentiles, it is contrarie to the storie of the Acts: for Paul was conuerted before Peter sawe the vision from heauen, Act. 10. before which time Peter made a great question, whether it were lawfull to preach to the Gentiles. But Paul immediatly after his conuersion preached to the Gentiles, Galath. 2. therefore before Peter. Neither is there any thing to the contrarie, Act. 15.7. the Gentiles beleeued by S. Peters mouth, as he sayth, but not first. Secondly, that Peter first preached not at Rome, it is thus ga∣thered: because it is not like that the Christian faith being spread farre abroad, could be kept from Rome the space of 12. yeares, for so long it was by their ac∣count, before Peter came to Rome. Agayne, there were diuers that dwelled at Rome, which heard the Apostles speake diuers tongues, Act. 2. being straungers then and soiourners at Ierusalem: and Rom. 16.7. he maketh mention of Andro∣nicus and Iunia, which were in Christ before him: By these it is most like that the Christian faith was first sowed at Rome. Thirdly, it is more like that Paul prea∣ched at Rome before Peter: for when he came to Rome, he called the Iewes to∣gether, who sayd vnto him, that they had heard nothing concerning him by let∣ters or from the brethren out of Iudea, Act. 28.22. But if Peter had beene there, Paul no doubt should haue been knowne at the least by name: The Iewes also say vnto him, wee will heare of thee what thou thinkest: and some of them were perswaded by Paul, some beleeued not. It seemeth by this place that the

Iewes in Rome had not heard of the Gospell before. But if Peter had been a∣mongst them, who had an especiall charge of the circumcision, he would haue had the greatest care of the Iewes to winne them to Christ. Fourthly, though Peter had first preached to the Romanes, it would not followe, that therefore he was Bishop there: for Paul first founded the Church of Ephesus, yet they say Iohn was first Bishop there: wherefore they should gayne nothing by this argu∣ment, if it were true, but that Peter was the first preacher, and conuerter of the Romanes to the faith.

The Protestants.

IF wee take the name of Bishop generally for that office which hath the pub∣lique cure and charge of soules: in that sense we denye not but Peter and the rest of the Apostles may be called Episcopi, Bishops, as Christ is called the shep∣heard and Bishop of our soules, 1. Pet. 2.23. But taking it strictly for a Bishop of this or that place, which is called Episcopus intitulatus, a Bishop entituled, wee denie that either Peter or Paul were Bishops, Fox. pag. 15.

1 Paul was Apostolus Gentium, the Apostle of the Gentiles, and Peter of the circumcision; therefore it is more like that Paul was chiefe Pastor of the Ro∣manes, because they were of the Gentiles, and part of his charge: and vnlesse they can proue that Paul resigned ouer his lot vnto Peter, that he also should be the chiefe Apostle of the Gentiles, as he was of the Iewes; Peter should haue in∣truded himselfe into Paules charge, not in preaching to the Gentiles, (for both Paul might preach to the Iewes, and Peter to the Gentiles) but in taking vpon him to be the chiefe Apostle of the Gentiles, which was giuen before to S. Paul.

2 The Rhemists themselues graunt, that the Church of Rome was founded both by Peter and Paul, annot. in 2. Gal. sect. 6. B. Tunstal a strong champion of theirs, but varying from them in this opinion, shewed in a letter of his to Cardi∣nall Poole, how in times past, both Peter and Paul▪ were counted Patrones of the Church of Rome, and principes apostolorum, the chiefe of the Apostles. Eusebius sayth, that Clement was the third Bishop after Peter and Paul: Alexander suc∣ceeded in the fift place after Peter and Paul: If therefore the Bishops of Rome challenge any preeminence of authoritie from Peter, they may doe it as well from Paul: for they both founded that Church, preached there, and both there suffered, Fox, pag. 1066.

3 No Apostles were Bishops▪ for they were diuers offices, Eph. 4.11. he gaue some to be Apostles, some to be Pastors & Doctors: Ergo, they were diuers offi∣ces, and the same were not Apostles and Pastors or Bishops, for both are all one. The offices were much different: Apostles were immediatly called of God, Bi∣shops and Pastors were ordayned by the Apostles, the Apostles calling was ge∣neral ouer the whole world, the Pastors were obliged to their dioces & parishes & particular Churches: the office of the Apostles was extraordinarie, & but for a time; the calling of Pastors was to endure euer in the Church. Wherfore it can in no wise be that the Apostles were Bishops of any certaine places. Irenaeus saith,

that Fundata ecclesia beati apostoli Lino officiū episcopatus iniungunt: the Church of Rome once founded, the holy Apostles layd the charge of the Bishopricke vpon Linus. Whereby it appeareth, that they onely reteyned their Apostleship inioyned them of Christ, Tunstal. ex Fox. pag. 1066. It had therefore been con∣trarie to the commaundement of Christ: who sayd, Ite in vniuersum mundum, goe into all the world: if they should haue left their calling, and bound them∣selues to any peculiar Church: Ergo, we conclude that neither Peter nor Paul were Bishops of Rome.

THE FOVRTH QVESTION, WHETHER THE Bishop of Rome be the true successor of S. Peter.

The Papists.

[error 40] THey doe generally hold, that the Bishops of Rome being lineally descended by succession from Peter, they haue the same primacie, apostolike authoritie & iurisdiction ouer the whole Church, which Peter had, Bellar. lib. 2. de pont. c. 12.

They are very barren and scant of arguments in this place to maintaine and vphold this succession by, and in the end the Iesuite runneth to tradition: and at the length he thus concludeth; that it is not, de iure diuino, it is not necessarie by the lawe of God, that the Romane Bishop should be Peters successor: but it de∣pendeth onely vpon the ordinance of Peter,* 1.11 and is proued by tradition, not di∣duced out of scripture. That it was necessarie for Peter to haue a successor, they say, it is proued out of scripture: which we also graunt, that all faithfull Pastors and Ministers are the Apostles successors, though they haue not their plenarie and Apostolike power: but that the Pope ought to bee and is his successor, it standeth vpon tradition.

We see then the grounds of their opinion: scripture they haue none but blind tradition: vnlesse therefore they could bring better stuffe for the Papall succes∣sion, we will not spend any time in confuting nothing.

The Protestants.

THat the Pope or Bishop of Rome neither can, is, or ought to be S. Peters suc∣cessor, in his high and Apostolike authoritie, primacie, and iurisdiction ouer the whole Church, which Peter himselfe neuer had: thus we declare it.

1 The Pope, though hee were Peters successor, yet can hee not receiue that from him, which he neuer had: but Peter had neuer any such primacie of power, as we haue shewed before, Quaest. 1.2. Ergo, he is not here in his successor.

2 That primacie which Peter had, could not bee conueyed to any other: namely, his primacie of confession, which he first of all the Apostles did vtter concerning Christ, proceeding from faith, did adhere so to his person, that it could not bee deriued to any successor of his: for Peters faith was a proper ad∣iunct to himselfe, Argument. Tonstalli, Fox. pag. 1066.

Agayne, how can he haue the Apostolike authoritie being not an Apostle:

But an Apostle he is not: for Christ onely made Apostles, the Apostles did not ordayne other Apostles, Argum. Nili.

3 He succeedeth not Peter rightly in place: for seeing Peter sate at Antioch: why may not that Church challenge succession, as well as Rome? Why might not also other Churches haue Apostolike succession, as Alexandria from Peter and Marke, Herusalem from Iames, Constantinople from Andrew?

Further, they haue no certaine succession from Peter: Tertullian maketh Cle∣ment the next successor to Peter. Optatus first nameth Linus, then Clement: Ire∣naeus, after Peter, placeth Linus, and Cletus, and Clement in the fourth: What cer∣taintie therefore can they haue of so vncertaine succession? Fulk. annot. in Rom. 16. sect. 4.

4 It skilleth not who commeth in the place & roome of the Apostles: They that will be their true successors, must followe their example, and walke in their steps, teaching their doctrine and embracing their holie vertues. Wherfore the Pope is not Peters right successor, swaruing both from his doctrine & example. Non sanctorum filij sunt, qui tenent loca sanctorum, sed qui exercent opera eorū. They are not the children of the Saints, which occupie the same places, but they which doe their workes, Lambert.* 1.12 So Bernard writing to Eugenius chargeth him, that in respect of his pompe and pride, he did rather succeede Constantine, then Peter, Iohann. Huss. pag. 610.

5 All good Bishops and Pastors are as well the Apostles successors, as the Pope, nay rather then he, being a wicked man, Iohn. Huss. articul. 4. Fox. pag. 590. Lambert. pag. 1120. Nay, they haue greater and more excellent titles▪ then to be called the Apostles successors: for those that walke in obedience vnto Gods commandements, our Sauiour calleth them, his sisters, kinsfolkes and brethren, Math. 12.50. Ergo, the Pope is not the right successor of Peter.

Lastly, of this matter Augustine thus writeth: Cathedra tibi quid fecit ecclesiae Romanae, in qua Petrus sedit, & in qua hodie Anastasius sedet:* 1.13 vel ecclesiae Hyero∣solymitanae, in qua Iacobus sedit, & in qua hodie Iohannes sedet. What hath the Sea of Rome done vnto thee, wherein sometime Peter sate, & where Anastasius now sitteth? or what hath the Church or chaire of Ierusalem committed, where some∣time Iames sate, and Iohn now sitteth? In those words Augustine ascribeth as much to the succession of other Apostolicall Churches, as he doth to the succes∣sion of the Bishops of Rome.* 1.14 And therefore Canisius craftely leaueth out the one half of the sentence, cōcerning the Church of Ierusalem: Neither is it true, which our aduersaries say, that Peters Sea remaineth still at Rome, when all other Apo∣stolicall Sees are gone: for euen to this day the See of Antioch standeth and hath a Patriark: likewise the See of Alexandria. The See of Constantinople neuer wan∣ted successors to this day: nor the Church of Ephesus: In India and Aethiopia, there hath been alwaies a succession in those Churches planted by the Apostles, and is at this day, Fulk. 2. Thess. 2. sect. 7. Wherefore they haue no cause to bragge of their succession, which is found in other places, as well as at Rome.

THE FIFT QVESTION CONCERNING THE primacie of the See of Rome.

THis question hath diuers partes, which must be handled in their order. First, whether the Bishop of Rome haue authority ouer other Bishops. Secondly, whether appeales ought to be made to Rome from other countries. Thirdly, whether the Pope be subiect to the iudgemēt of any. Fourthly, whether he may be deposed. Fiftly, what primacie he hath ouer other Churches, & how it began. Sixtly, of the titles and names giuen to the Bishops of Rome.

THE FIRST PART WHETHER THE BISHOP of Rome hath authoritie ouer other Bishops.

The Papists.

[error 41] THey doubt not to say, that the Bishop of Rome hath authoritie and ought so to haue, to ordaine and constitute Bishops, to depriue and depose them, to restore them likewise to their former dignities, and this power hee exerciseth o∣uer the vniuersall Church.

The Iesuites principall & only argument is drawen from certain examples: how the Bishops of Rome haue in times past, constituted, deposed, and resto∣red some Bishops in the Greeke Church, as in the patriarchal Seas of Constan∣tinople, Alexandria, Antioch: Ergo, hee hath power ouer all Bishops.

We answere: First, It was not done by the absolute authority of the Roman Bishops, any such constitution, or deposition, though perhappes their consent and allowance were required, as Leo writeth thus to Martianus the Emperour, about the ordayning of Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople: Satis sit, quod ve∣strae pietatis auxilio & mei fauoris assensu episcopatum tantae vrbis obtinuit: It is sufficient,* 1.15 that by your godly helpe and my fauourable assent, he hath obtained so famous a Bishoprick. Whether was greater now, the help and furtherance of the Emperor, or the base assent of Leo? Secondly, wee denie not but that the Pope sometimes, what by sufferance of others, what by his owne intrusion, hath vsurped this power ouer other Bishops: by this ought not to make a law: that which is once or twise done by a false title, cannot prooue the iustnes of the ti∣tle. Thirdly, that the Bishop of Rome hath no such authoritie, it appeareth by this, that he doth not, neither of many yeares hath constituted or ordayned the patriarks of the Greeke Church: they came not vp to Rome nor yet sent thither for their palls as other Archbishops here in the West parts haue done, & paied full dearely for them, being made slaues to the beast of Rome.

The Protestants.

THat the Pope neither hath, nor yet ought to haue any such authority ouer o∣ther Bishops: but that euery one in his owne precinct, and iurisdiction hath the chiefe charge: It is thus proued.

1. Peter was not chiefe, neither did exercise iurisdiction ouer the twelue: Ergo, neither the Pope ought to doe ouer other Bishops. The antecedent or first part is thus confirmed. The heauenly Hierusalem, which is the Church of God, is described Apocal. 21. not with one foundation onely of Peter, but with 12. foundations after the number of the Apostles: argument. Tunstalli. To this purpose also hee alleadgeth in saying out of Hierome contra Iouinian.* 1.16 All the Apostles receiued the keyes of the kingdome of heauen: and vpon them all in∣differently and equally, is the strength of the Church grounded and establi∣shed. Fox. p. 1066.

2. Till the yeare of the Lord 340. there was no respect had to the Church of Rome, but euery Church was ruled by their owne gouernment: afterward followed the Councel of Nice, wherein was decreed, that the whole Church should be deuided into foure circuites or precincts: ouer the which there were foure Metropolitanes or patriarkes set: first the Bishop of Rome: next the Bi∣shop of Alexandria: the third was the Bishop of Antioch: the fourth the Bishop of Ierusalem: and not long after came in the Bishop of Constantinople in the roume of the B. of Antioch. All these had equall authoritie in their prouin∣ces, and one was not to deale within anothers charge: Ergo, the Bishop of Rome had not then the iurisdiction ouer the whole Church, argument. Nili. plura Fox. p. 9.

3. We will adioyne the testimonie of the fathers of Basile, which were all of the Popish sect: what haue the Bishops been in our daies say they, but only sha∣dowes? might they not haue been called shepheards without sheepe? what had they more then their Miters and their staffe, when they could determine no∣thing ouer their subiects? Verily in the primitiue Church, the Bishops had the greatest power and authoritie: but now it was come to that poynt,* 1.17 that they exceeded the common sort of priests onely in their habite and reuenewes. What plainer testimonie can we haue, then from the papists themselues?

Augustine also agreeth to their sentence: habet omnis episcopus, saith he,* 1.18 pro licē∣tia libertatis & potestatis suae arbitrium propriū, tanquam iudicari ab alio nō possit, quomodo nec ipse potest alium iudicare, sed expectemus vniuersi iudiciū domini no∣stri Iesu Christi: Euery Bishop is priuiledged by his own authoritie to follow his owne iudgement, neither is subiect to the iudgement of other Bishops, as he is not to iudge them, but they all must be referred to the iudgement of Christ: See then in this place Augustine setteth Bishops in the highest roume in the Church, and sayth, they haue no iudge aboue them but Christ.

THE SECOND PART CONCERNING AP∣peales to bee made to Rome.

The Papists.

SVch, say they, is the preeminēt authority of the Bishop of Rome, that appeals [error 42] may be made vnto him from all Churches in the world, and that all ought to stand to his sentence and determination. For the proofe hereof they bring no scripture, nor any sound argumēt, but stand chiefly vpon certain odde examples of some that haue appealed to Rome: which we denie not to haue been done: but our answere more at large is this.

1. One cause of these appeales, was both for that, they which were iustly cōdemned of other Churches, found greater liberty and fauour at Rome, as Api∣arius did, who being condemned in the 6. Aphricane Councel for his detestable conditions, found fauour with Zosimus Bishop of Rome, who wrote for him to the Councel to be receiued agayne. No maruayle then, if licentious fellowes, hoping to finde more fauour at Rome, did appeale thither: As also the ambiti∣on of the Bishops of Rome did somewhat helpe forward this matter, who were as ready to receiue such appeales, as others were to make them.

2. Bishop Tunstal doth answere very fully to this poynt, that, although appeales were made to Rome, yet was it not for any iurisdiction that the See had: but this was the cause, partly for that there were many deuisions and parts taking in the Oriental Churches, as also because many were infected with here∣sies, from the which the West & Occidētal Churches were more free, they were content to referre the cause many times to the Bishop of Rome, as being a more indifferent iudge, and not like to be partial, being no partie in the cause. Nei∣ther was their 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the Bishop of Rome singularly, but to the whole congre∣gation of the Bishops of Italie and France, or of the whole West, as it appeareth by the epistles of Basile. Tunstal. apud Fox. 1067.

The Protestants.

That appeales ought not to be made to Rome, but that all matters and con∣trouersies may best be ended and determined at home, where they doe arise: It is thus confirmed.

1. This matter was notably handled, anno 420. in the sixt Councel of Car∣thage, where Augustine was present, with Prosper and Orosius: To this Coun∣cel Pope Zozimus sent his Legate with certaine requests, of the which this was one, that it might be lawful for Bishops and priests to appeale from the sentence of their Metropolitanes, and also of the Councel to Rome: alleadging for him self a decree of the Nicene Councel. The Councel of Carthage sent forthwith to the patriarkes of Cōstantinople, Antioch & Alexandria, for a copie of the Coūcel

of Nice, wherein no such Canon was found, that appeales should bee made to Rome: but the contrary: for in the sixt Canon of that Councel, it was founde how all matters, and all persons ecclesiasticall, both Bishops and others were committed to their Metropolitanes: vpon this decree the Councel of Carthage drew out certain reasons why appeales should not be made to Rome. First, it is not otherwise to be thought, but that the grace of God is as ready at hande in one prouince as in another. Secondly, there is no neede to seeke any outlandish help: for the partie grieued may appeale to a prouinciall or generall Councel. Thirdly, it were not equall nor right to appeale from the Councel to the Bishop of Rome: for it is not like, that God will inspire his truth vnto the Bishop, and denie it to a multitude congregated in his name.

Fourthly, no forraine or outlandish iudgement can be so vpright or iust: be∣cause the witnesses cannot be present, being hindered by infirmitie of sex, age, sicknes, by whom the truth should be discussed.

Vpon these reasons the Councel concluded, that neither any appeales should be made to Rome: neither that Legates should be sent from Rome for deciding of matters: And this answere they made to Zozimus first, to Bonifa∣cius and Celestinus, that in short time one succeeded another. And for all the B. of Rome his absolution, Apiarius was againe called coram, and brought to confesse his fault. Fox. p. 10. col. 2.

Now out of the Acts of this Councel, and their reasons alleadged wee con∣clude, that it is not fit, conuenient nor reasonable, that appeals should be made to Rome.

The Iesuite answereth, that appeales were forbidden to be made by priests to Rome, not by Bishops. This is but a vaine shift, for the reasons of the Coun∣cel are general against all appeales: And Apiarius, that appealed to Rome, was a priest, and no Bishop.

2. We can bring the decrees of a latter Councell, then this of Carthage: for in the Councell of Basile it was decreed, that no actions or controuersies should be brought from other countries to be pleaded at Rome▪ which were more then foure daies iourney distant from the said court of Rome, a few princi∣pall matters onely excepted, apud Fox. p. 697.

3. This also is flatly contrary to the rule of the Apostle, that appellations should be made out of the Church a far off. Is it so, sayth hee, that there is not a wise man amongst you, no not one that can iudge amongst his brethren? 1. Cor. 6.5. Ergo, euery Church hath wise men sufficient in it, whereby their con∣trouersies may be ended.

4. Augustine also thus writeth concerning this matter, Miltiades Episcopus Romanus, non sibi vsurpauit iudicium de causa Ceciliani, sed rogatus imperator iu∣dices misit Episcopos, qui cum eo sederent, epist. 162. Miltiades Bishop of Rome did not vsurpe or take vpon himselfe to iudge the cause of Cecilian, but the Emperour being requested, sent other bishops, that should sit and determine the cause together with him. Out of these words first we note, that it had beene

vsurpation and presumption for the Bishop of Rome to haue taken vpon him the iudgement of this matter, not belonging vnto him, vnlesse the Emperor had committed it. Secondly, that Miltiades did not suffer other Bishops to sitte with him, as Bellarmine imagineth: but, he could not otherwise choyse, for they were ioyned in commission by the Emperour, to be iudges as well as he. Thus we see what small shew or colour of title the Pope hath, to heare or receiue ap∣peales from other countries.

THE THIRD PART, WHETHER THE Pope be subiect to the iudgement of anye.

The Papists.

[error 43] THe Pope neither can nor ought to bee iudged either of the Emperour, or anie other Seculare or ecclesiasticall Magistrate, no not of any generall Councel, Bellarmin. cap. 26. Nay, hee should doe iniurie vnto GOD, to sub∣mit himselfe to the iudgement of any, Iacobat. ex Tilhemann. de pontif. rom. err. 34.

Beside certayne blinde canons and constitutions, and a fewe examples grounded vpon the insolent practises of Popes, they haue no other arguments either out of scripture, or drawen from reason, to confirme this their hideous and monstrous opinion withal.

Bellarmine reasoneth thus: the Prince is not to bee iudged by the com∣monwealth: but is greater then his kingdome: the Pope is the prince of the Church: Ergo

We answere: First, concerning the Princes high and Soueraigne authority we will not now dispute: we make it not infinite, the word of God must bee a rule and square both of ciuill and ecclesiasticall iudgement. Secondly, It is suf∣ficient for vs here to answere, that the Iesuite hath sayd nothing: for this which he assumeth for a reason, is the greatest matter in question between vs: and so great an vntruth he hath vttered, that he is constrained to leaue scripture, and seeke helpe else-where. But he shall neuer, by any good reason, or sufficient authority prooue, that the Pope hath any such Princedome in the Church, as he would beare vs in hand.

The Protestants.

THat the Pope as well as other ecclesiasticall persons, ought to be, and is by right subiect to the iudgement and authoritie of the Emperor, King, Prince, or other supreame magistrate, and may also by generall Councels be corrected and censured, thus it is proued.

1. Peter was iudged of Paul, Galat. 2. and of him iustly reproued: Ergo, the doings of the Pope may be iudged and censured.

Bellarmine answereth, that it was not iudicialis censurae, but fraterna correp∣tio, it was no iudiciall censure, but a brotherly reprehension.

We replie: First, publike censure and reprehension is a part of ecclesiasticall iudgement and discipline, therefore Peter being publikely rebuked, was ther∣by iudged also of Paul. Secondly, the question is not onely concerning publike & open iudgement, but whether it be lawfull to call the Popes doings into que∣stion, & whether his decrees are absolutely to be receiued without any scāning or discussing, or making any doubt thereof: for this we hold, that it is the duety of all Christians to examine and trie the trueth of all things, which they are to receiue and beleeue, though they sit not formally and iudicially, as in consisto∣ries: to iudge their spirituall pastors: so the Beraeans iudged of the Apostles doctrine: so may the Popes decrees be examined and iudged. Thirdly, the Ie∣suite granteth that the Pope may be rebuked and brotherly reproued, but the Extrauagant denieth it: non est, qui audeat dicere, domine curfacis sic? none dare say vnto him, sir why doest thou so?* 1.19

2. Euery soule must be subiect to the higher powers, Ergo, the Pope, Rom. 13.1. Bellarm. answereth, that the Apostle here speaketh of all superiours both spirituall and temporall, and therefore it cannot bee concluded, that the Pope ought to obey, but hee must bee obeyed, because hee is also a spirituall po∣wer.

We replie: Saint Paul in this place speaketh onely of the ciuill Magistrate. First he calleth them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Princes, which is not meant of ecclesiasticall or Church gouernors, nor so taken in any place of scripture. Secondly, they are sayd to beare the sword. Thirdly, tribute is payde to them: those thinges agree not to ecclesiasticall gouernors: so the Iesuite is answered.

THE FOVRTH PART, WHETHER THE Pope may be deposed from his papacie.

The Papists.

SOme of them holde that the Pope ought not, neither can be deposed for he∣resie; [error 44] because it is not possible for the Pope to fall into heresie. Pighius the Iesuite confesseth this to be a probable opinion: but himselfe defendeth it not: he confesseth also the opinion of Caietanus, that the Pope may be deposed for manifest and apparant heresie. Bellarmines opinion is this: that the pope can not be deposed for any cause but heresie: and not for all heresie, but that which is manifest and apparant: Neither is he then deposed by any act of the Church, but is of himselfe deposed, and ceaseth any more to bee pope: so the Church may afterward punish him, but he is then no Pope, for as soone as he is become an hereticke, his popedome in the very Acte is gone from him, Bellarmin. cap. 30.

He reasoneth thus: A manifest hereticke is not so much as a member of the Church, much lesse can he be pope, who they say is the heade of the Church, and therefore in such a case the pope is deposed without anie sentence: and if

afterward the Church proceede against him, they doe not iudge the Pope▪ for he had lost his papacie before.

We answer: First, if a manifest hereticke be actually deposed, it is by the se∣cret iudgement and sentence of God: for by no other authority can he be depo∣sed as they hold: but before God manifest heresie, and close and secret heresie is all one: therefore the Pope is also actually deposed for secret heresie, and not onely for manifest: and so some of the papists think, as Iohann. de Turre veniata. Secondly, what call you manifest heresie? or how is hee knowen to bee a ma∣nifest hereticke? Can hee bee an heretick before hee bee conuinced? shall iudgement passe against him vncondemned? A murtherer is a dead man by lawe, yet hee liueth till iudgement passe vpon him: so is the Pope beeing an heretick, yet Pope, till he be iudicially proceeded against; as a murtherer dead by right is in act yet liuing, till by law he is depriued of his life. An heretick, sayth Saint Paul, after two or three admonitions auoyd: that is, saith the Iesuite, he is now excommunicate before the sentence of the iudge. Be it so, but hee must first be admonished, and if he still continue obstinate, then he is a manifest heretike: so before the Pope can be knowen to be a manifest heretick, he must be found obstinate, he cannot be obstinate, vnlesse he refuse to be admonished, if he be admonished, then is he iudged. Thirdly, an heretick ceaseth not to bee a priest, (as they speake) no not after heresie is knowen, for manifest heretickes may baptize. The Donatists in Augustines time were manifest hereticks, and yet the Church did not baptize againe after them: If a manifest heretick cease not to be a priest, neither ceaseth he to be Pope; there is like reason of both: for if an heretick, because he is not a member of the Church, can not be a Pope, neither also can he retayne the priesthood.

Lastly, who seeth not what bare and friuolous shifts those are? one saith, the Church may iudge the Pope,* 1.20 not as he is Pope, but in respect of his person: an other sayth, that they may iudge the man which was Pope, but hee is then no Pope, because his heresie tooke from him the papacie. Why masters what iug∣ling is here? is the Pope one thing and the Popes person an other? By the same reason you may say, that the Pope neither eateth, nor drinketh, nor sleepeth, nor dieth, and so make a god of him, because it is the popes person that doth all this, and not the Pope.

And by this shift you make no difference betweene an heretick Bishop, o•• heretick priest, and heretick Pope: for by the same reason, none of them all shall be subiect to the iudgement of the Church: for we may say, that a manifest he∣retick, whether Bishop or priest, hath lost by that very act of falling into heresie, his priesthood and Bishoprick, and then is neither Bishop nor priest. And so you may conclude altogether: that neither Pope, Bishop nor piest can bee deposed from heresie.

The Protestants.

WE doubt not to say, that the Pope both lawfully hath been depriued som∣time by the Emperour, somtime by generall Councels, not onely for he∣sie,

but for other notable crimes, and may still bee proceeded agaynst by the same right, as well as any other Bishop or Prelate.

1 Diuers examples wee are able to bring forth, how the Pope hath been de∣posed for other crimes, beside heresie. Pope Iohn the 13. was deposed in a ge∣nerall Councel by the consent of Otho the Emperour, for other matter beside heresie: as that he ordayned Deacons in a stable, that he committed incest with two of his sisters, that playing at dice, he called to the diuell for helpe, that he defloured virgins, that he lay with Stephana his fathers concubine, likewise with Ramera and Anna, and her Neece: for these beastlie parts and such like, he was deposed: there was no heresie obiected agaynst him. And thinke you not he was worthily vnpoped? yet the Papists thinke no: for they admit no cause of depriuation but heresie. This deuillish Pope, through the harlots of Rome (for he was well beloued of them) recouered his Popedome agayne; but at the length the Lord himselfe displaced him: for in the tenth yeere of his Pope∣dome, being founde without the citie with an other mans wife, hee was so wounded of her husbande, that within eight dayes after hee dyed, Fox. pag. 159.

Boniface the 7. tooke Pope Iohn the 15. who was made Pope a little before, and hee expelled, yet recouering the Papacie by force, hee tooke him, put out his eyes, and threwe him in prison where he was famished: Likewise was Iohn the 18. serued by Gregorie the 5. his eyes were thrust out first,* 1.21 and he afterward slayne. I meruaile how our Catholikes can excuse these furious outrages of their ghostly fathers of Rome!

In the Councel of Brixia, Gregorie the 7. was deposed, not for heresie, but for other abominable vices: as maintayning of periurie and murthers: for follow∣ing Diuinations & Dreames, Sorcerie & Necromancie, Fox. p. 181. Pope Iohn the 23. deposed in the Councel of Constance: Eugenius in the Councel at Basile: yet neither of them for heresie. And yet our aduersaries would still make vs be∣leeue, that Popes cannot be deposed for any crime but heresie.

2 We can haue no better argument, then from our aduersaries themselues. It is a sport to see what diuers opinions they hold, and doe runne as it were in a maze, not knowing which way to get out. Pighius thinketh, that the Pope cannot possiblie fall into heresie, and therefore for no cause may bee deposed: Some other thinke that the Pope for secret and close heresie is actually deposed of GOD, and may also bee deposed and iudged of the Church: thus holdeth Iohann. de turre cremat. Caietanus is of opinion, that for manifest and open he∣resie the Pope is both alreadie by right deposed, and may also actually be depo∣sed of the Church: But Bellarmine confuteth all these. There is a fourth opinion most grosse: that the Pope neither for secret nor open heresie, is either alreadie of right deposed, or may be actually depriued of the Church. Lastly commeth in the nice and daintie Iesuite with his quirkes and quiddities, who sayth, that the Pope in case of manifest heresie, ceaseth to bee Pope, and is euen now de∣posed: and if after the Church proceede agaynst him, they iudge not the

Pope, for now hee is no Pope: Which opinion how absurd it is, I haue decla∣red before.

THE FIFT PART CONCERNING THE ORIGI∣nall and beginning of the primacie of Rome.

The Papists.

THey doe boldly affirme without any ground, that the primacie of that See [error 45] hath his beginning from no other but Christ: they are the Iesuites owne words: Romani pontificis ecclesiasticum principatum, authore Christo, principium accepisse: that the princely dignitie of the Bishop of Rome, acknowledgeth no other author or beginner thereof, but Christ, Bellarm. cap. 7. lib. 2.

1 They would build the primacie of the Romane Church vpon certaine places of scripture: as Math. 16. Thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke will I build my Church. Luk. 22. I haue prayed for thee Peter, that thy faith should not faile. Iohn 21. Christ sayd to Peter, feede my sheepe: Ergo, Peter and Peters successors haue their primacie from Christ, Bellarm.

To these places Tunstal and Stokeslie two Popish Bishops, yet in this poynt holding the truth, did properly make answere in their Epistle sent to Cardinall Poole.

To the first: They affirme out of the ancient expositors, that it is ment of the faith which was then first confessed by the mouth of Peter, and not of Peters person. Further, confirming out of S. Paul, that neither Peter, nor no creature beside, could bee the foundation of the Church: for no other foundation can any man lay (sayth the Apostle) besides that which is layd, Iesus Christ, 1. Cor. 3.

To the second they answere: that Christ speaketh onely of the fall of Peter, which hee knewe in his godlie prescience, giuing an inkling vnto him, that after his fall hee should bee conuerted and strengthen his brethren: for if it were ment also of Peters successors, they must first faile in faith, and after con∣firme their brethren.

To the third: The whole flock of Christ was not committed to Peter to feede: for he himselfe testifieth the contrarie, exhorting all Pastors to feede the flocke of Christ,* 1.22 which was giuen them in charge by Christ, as it followeth in that place: when the chiefe shepheard shall appeare, ye shall receiue the incorrup∣tible Crowne of eternall glorie: He calleth not himselfe the chiefe shepheard, but onely Christ. It is euident therefore (say they) that your 3. scriptures ment nothing lesse, then such a primacie ouer all, Fox. pag. 1067.

2 There can bee no time assigned since Christ (say they) when this primacie should begin, nor no author named that brought it in: Ergo, it must needes bee attributed to Christ, he must of necessitie bee found the au∣thor thereof.

We answere: the time may bee assigned, the authors named, when, and by whom this pretensed and vsurped authoritie was brought in, as euen now wee will shewe.

The Protestants.

THat the vsurped iurisdiction of Rome tooke not the beginning from Christ, nor his Apostles, neither was heard of for many yeres after: we thus are able to proue it.

1 Before the Nicene Councel, which first deuided the regiment of the Church into foure Patriarchal seates: Rome had small or no preeminence. So Aeneas Syluius witnesseth, who afterward was Pope of Rome, and called Pius the 2. Ante Nicenum concilium sibi quisque viuebat, & ad Romanam ecclesiam paruus habebatur respectus, Epist. 301. Before the Nicene Councel, euery Bishop liued to himselfe, there was no great respect had to the Church of Rome. What more euident testimonie can wee haue then of a Pope himselfe? Yet the Iesuite sayth, that it is false in part, which hee writeth. He is somewhat man∣nerly, in making him but halfe a lyer: yet I wonder that he will confesse any vntruth at all in his ghostly fathers words, Bellarm. cap. 17. lib. 2.

Secondly, in the Councel of Nice there was no primacie of power giuen to Rome ouer the whole Church: but the other Patriarkes of Alexandria, Antioch, Ierusalem, were priuiledged in like manner in their confines, as the Bishop of Rome was in his: They had all equall authoritie giuen them in their owne pro∣uinces: Sic Tonstall. Stokesli. ad Poolum.

Thirdly, afterward there was a certayne primacie of order graunted vnto the Patriarke of Rome aboue other Patriarkes; as to haue the first place, to sit first, to giue his sentence first. One cause hereof was, for that Rome was then the Emperiall and chiefe citie in all the world: this reason was rendered in the Councel of Chalcedon. Can. 28. An other cause thereof,* 1.23 was the ample priui∣ledges and immunities, which the Emperours endued it withall, as Constantine the great: and Gratianus the Emperour made a lawe, that all men should re∣teyne that religion, which Damasus of Rome, and Peter Bishop of Alexandria did hold.

A third cause was, the vnquiet estate of the Greeke Church, who often vo∣luntarily referred their matters to the Bishop of Rome, as being lesse partiall and a more indifferent Iudge, they themselues being diuided and rent into sects. And hereupon, and other like causes it came about,* 1.24 that the Bishop of Rome a little stepped aboue his fellowe Patriarkes, but yet had no such preeminent au∣thoritie, as to commaund them.

Fourthly, the Pope of Rome being thus tickled with vayne glorie, because they were reuerenced of other Churches, many matters were committed vnto them, and their consent required vnto the decrees of Councels, when they were

absent. Hereupon they laboured euery day more and more to aduance that See, taking euery small occasion that might helpe forward their ambicious desire, till Anno. 606. or somewhat after, Boniface the 3. obtayned of wicked Phocas the Emperour (who murthered his master the Emperour Mauritius and his chil∣dren, to come to the Empire, and was after slaine himselfe of Heraclius that suc∣ceeded him) of him, I say, Boniface for himselfe and his successors obtayned, to bee called vniuersall Bishops ouer the whole Church:* 1.25 and the See of Rome to haue the preeminence aboue all other Churches in the world.

Afterward in Pope Zacharie his time, the proude and insolent iurisdiction of Rome was established by Pipinus King of France, who aspired to the Crowne, and obtayned it by the sayd Popes meanes, first deposing Childericus the right∣full King, and dispensing with the oath, which the French men had made before to Childericus, Calum. Institut. 4. cap. 7. sect. 17.

Thus then it sufficiently appeareth, that the primacie of Rome, which it now vniustly challengeth ouer other Churches, is not of any such antiquitie, as they would beare the world in hand, neither that it had the beginning from Christ: but both the time when, and the authors by whom it began, may bee easily assigned.

2 Wee neede no better argument, to proue that the primacie of Rome hath not his originall from Christ, then the Iesuites owne confession. First, he sayth, that it doth not depend of Christs institution, but, ex Petri facto, of Peters fact, that the Bishop of Rome should bee rather Peters successor, then the Bishop of Antioch, or any other: It is not, iure diuino, saith he, by Gods lawe: neither is it, ex prima institutione pontificatus, quae in Euangelio legitur, of the first institution whereof wee reade in the Gospell. And agayne, Romanum pontificem succedere Petro, non habetur expresse in scripturis: It is not expressely set downe in scripture, that the Bishop of Rome should succeede Peter: but it is grounded onely vpon the tradition of Peter. Nay, he saith further, that Peter needed not to haue cho∣sen any particular place for succession, and he might as well haue chosen An∣tioch as Rome: Ergo, neither is the succession of Rome grounded vpon scripture, neither any commandement of Christ: for then Peter could not haue had free choyse to appoynt his successor where he would himselfe, as the Iesuite saith, if he had had any especiall direction or commaundement from Christ. So then, marke I pray you, they cannot proue out of scripture, that the Bishop of Rome ought to succeede Peter in the chiefe Bishopricke, but onely that Peter had the chiefe Bishopricke committed to him and his successors in generall, whosoeuer they should appoynt: Ergo, the Bishops of Rome by their owne confession, can alleadge no scripture, institution, or commandement of Christ, for the primacie of the Church to bee annexed to the See of Rome: and yet agaynst their know∣ledge they will alleadge scripture to colour the matter withall, Bellarm. lib. 2. de pontif. ca. 17.

3 Augustine saith: Secundum honorum vocabula, quae iam ecclesiae vsus obti∣nuit, episcopatus presbyterio maior est. The office of a Bishop is aboue the office

of a Priest, according to the names of honour, which the Church by custome hath obtayned. If then the difference of those two offices, both named in scrip∣ture, did arise rather and spring of the custome of the Church, which thought it good to distinguish them for auoyding of schisme, and is not grounded vpon the authoritie of scripture: much lesse can the Pope (whose neither name, nor office is expressed in scripture) fetch from thence any shew of proofe, for his v∣surped primacie.

THE SIXT PART OF THIS QVESTION, CONCER∣ning the proud names and vayne glorious titles of the Pope.

The Papists.

BEllarmine setteth downe to the number of fifteene glorious names which [error 46] haue been of old giuen (as he saith) to the Bishop of Rome, whereby his pri∣macie ouer other Bishops is notoriously knowne: but the principall are these: He is called the Pope and chiefe Father, the prince of Priests, or high Bishop, the Vicar of Christ, the head of the Church, the Prelate of the Apostolike See, vniuersall Bishop. These sixe names or titles they doe appropriate to the See of Rome, Bellarm. de Roman. pontif. lib. 2. cap. 31.

The Protestants.

WE will shewe by Gods grace, that these sixe seuerall titles and names a∣foresayd, are either such, as ought not in their sense to be attributed to any Bishop, nor any mortall man▪ or els were common in ancient times as well to o∣ther Bishops, as to him of Rome.

1 For the first name of Pope, it is deriued from the Greeke word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which in the Syracusane language, is as much as, Father: which name was indif∣ferently giuen to other Bishops, which were famous in the Church for their ver∣tue and learning: As Cypriane, Epiphanius, Athanasius, were called Papae, Popes:* 1.26 Augustine saluteth Aurelius President of the 6. Councel of Carthage, by the name of Pope, Epistol. 77.

Likewise, those two epithetes of the Pope, as to bee called, Beatissim. & san∣ctissim. pater: most holy and blessed father, were vsed in the stile of other Bis∣shops: Prosper, in his Epistle to Augustine, twise calleth him Dominum beatissi∣mum papam, Lord, most blessed Pope, Tom. 7. Hierome calleth Epiphanius, Bea∣tum papam, blessed Pope, Ad Eustach. Fabiol.

Augustine writing to Petrus the Presbyter, or Priest, being no Bishop, yet thus saluteth him: Ad sanctitatem tuam scripsit, he hath written to your holines.* 1.27 Nay, in his booke dedicated to Renatus a lay man, neither Priest nor Bishop, thus he writeth, Hinc angor, quòd sanctitati tuae▪ minus quàm vellem cognitus sum: This grieueth me, that I am not so well knowne to your holines as I desire. If

then these titles of holinesse and blessednesse were not onely giuen to Bishops, but Priests also, yea vnto lay men of vertuous and holy life; what colour or shewe of reason can our aduersaries haue, to make them proper to the Bishop of Rome?

2 The second name is prince of Priests, or high and chiefe Bishop: which title, if it be taken for a chiefe power, dominion, and soueraigntie, is proper only to Christ the chiefe shepheard, 1. Pet. 5.4. and cannot in that sense agree to any man. If it bee vsed onely as a title of excellencie and commendation, so was it in times past ascribed to other excellent and famous Bishops, as Ruffinus lib. 2. cap. 26. calleth Athanasius, Pontificem maximum, chiefe Bishop: yea it was in common giuen to all Bishops: as Anacletus Bishop of Rome in his second Epistle writeth thus: Summi sacerdotes, id est, Episcopi, a deo iudicandi sunt: The high Priests, that is, Bishops (saith he) are to bee iudged of God. If it be taken further for the excellencie of the ministerie of the Gospell, and the worthie cal∣ling of Christians, in this sense the title of summum sacerdotium, of the high Priesthood, is attributed to all ministers Ecclesiasticall, both Bishops and o∣thers:* 1.28 so Fabianus Bishop of Rome vseth this name. Yea, the holy Apostle cal∣leth all the people of God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a princely, royall, or chiefe priest∣hood: Ergo, the Bishop of Rome hath no especiall or proper interest in this name.

3 The third name is, to bee called the Vicar of Christ vpon earth. Where we are to vnderstand, that in respect of the spirituall regiment and kingdome of Christ, he needeth no Vicegerent vpon earth: for, I am with you (saith he) to the end of the world: he himselfe is alway present in power, and needeth not in that respect, that any man should supplie his roume. Petrus scriba martyr. Fox. pag. 906. If we doe take it for a word of office and publike administration, so the Magistrate may bee called the Vicar of Christ, in gouerning the people accor∣ding to the word of God: In which sense Eleutherius Bishop of Rome, writing to Lucius King of the Britaines, calleth him the Vicar of Christ, and therfore in his owne kingdome had power out of the word of God to establish lawes,* 1.29 for the gouernment of the people. So all Bishops, Pastors and Ministers in ancient time were called the Vicars of Christ, in preaching, praying, binding and loosing in the name and power of Christ.* 1.30 So Augustine saith, or whose worke els it is, that, Omnis antistes est Christi vicarius: Euery pastor and prelate (and not the Pope onely) is the Vicar of Christ. And this is confessed by our Rhemists, annot. in 2. Cor. 5.18. that the Bishops and priests of the Church are for Christ, and as his ministers,* 1.31 that is, his Vicars. Nay, Augustine maketh yet a more generall vse of this word: he saith, that, Homo imperium Dei habens, quasi vicarius eius est: That man by creation being made Lord of the creatures, doth therein represent God, and is as his Vicar vpon earth. So then, all ministers are the Vicars of Christ; the ciuill Magistrate likewise, in some good sense, may bee so called: yea in respect of the creatures, man generallie is vpon earth in Gods steade: Ergo, this name cannot be appropriate to the Pope of Rome.

4 It is also too huge a name for the Pope or any mortall man to beare, to be called the head of the vniuersall Church: this is a name only due vnto Christ, neither doe the scriptures acknowledge any other head, but him, Ephes. 1.22.4.15. But (say they) wee doe not make the Pope such an head, as Christ is, but on∣ly a ministeriall head ouer the militant Church vpon earth.

We answere: First, Ergo, the Pope by your owne confession is not head of the vniuersall Church, whereof the triumphant Church in heauen is a part. Se∣condly, the Rhemists confesse that the Church in no sense can bee called the bo∣die of the Pope: Ergo, the Pope cannot be any wayes the head of the vniuersall Church, Annot. in 1. Ephes. 22. Thirdly, the Fathers of Basile vsed this argument: The head of the bodie being dead, the whole bodie also dyeth; but the whole Church doth not perish with the Pope: Ergo, he is not properly the head of the Church, Fox pag. 675.

If it shall bee further obiected, that the Bishop of Rome hath been called in times past, caput Episcoporum, the head of all other Bishops: we answere, that it was but a title of excellencie and commendation, not of dominion and power: as London is called the head or chiefe citie of England, yet are not other cities of the land subiect vnto it, or vnder the iurisdiction thereof. But we shall haue oc∣casion more fully to discusse this matter afterward.

5 They would haue the Pope called the Prelate of the Apostolike See: the Rhemists say further, that the Papall dignitie is a continuall Apostleship, Annot. 4. Ephes. sect. 4.

We answere: First, if they call those Churches Apostolicall, whose first foun∣ders were the Apostles, then the See of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, are as well Apostolicall as Rome: and this the Iesuite denyeth not, Lib. 2. de pontific. cap. 31. Secondly, those Churches are Apostolicall, which hold the Apostolike faith: so is not the See of Rome Apostolicall, being departed and gone backe from the ancient Catholike faith: but those Churches where the Gospell of Ie∣sus Christ is truely preached, are indeede Apostolike. Thirdly, how can the Pope be an Apostle, or haue Apostolike authoritie, seeing hee preacheth not at all, much lesse to the whole world, wherein consisted the office of an Apostle? Nei∣ther can he shewe his immediate calling from Christ, as all the Apostles could: for seeing he challengeth the Apostolike office by tradition from S. Peter, and not by commandement from Christ; he can in no wise be counted an Apostle, or his office an Apostleship: for the Apostles ordayned onely Euangelists and Pastors, they had not authoritie to consecrate and constitute new A∣postles. Our aduersaries for this their Apostleship, can finde nothing in scrip∣ture, nor for a thousand yeeres after Christ in the ancient writers, Fulk. annot. in Ephes. 4. sect. 4.

6 Concerning the title of vniuersall Bishop, it was thus decreed in the sixt Councel of Carthage, as it is alleadged by Gratian:* 1.32 Vniuersalis autem nec Ro∣manus pontifex appelletur: No not the Bishop of Rome is to be called vniuersall.

In Gregorie the first his time, Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople, obtayned of the Emperour Mauritius to be called vniuersall Patriarke: but Gregorie would not agree thereunto, calling him the forerunner of Antichrist, that would challenge so proude a name.

Bellarmine and other of that sect doe answere, that Gregorie found fault with this title,* 1.33 because Iohn of Constantinople would haue been Bishop alone, and none other to bee beside him, but all other onely to bee his deputies and vicars.

To this wee replie: First, Iohn did onely challenge a superioritie ouer other Bishops, not to be Bishop alone, for this had been a thing impossible. Second∣ly, if Iohn had sought any such thing, it is not like that the Chalcedone Councel and the Emperour would haue yeelded to so vnreasonable a matter as they did. Thirdly, Eulogius Patriarke of Alexandria doth call the sayd Gregorie vniuer∣sall Pope, which name he vtterly refuseth: and yet Eulogius had no such mea∣ning to make him Bishop or Patriarke alone, but onely to giue him a preemi∣nence aboue the rest.* 1.34 This modest and humble Bishop of Rome Gregorie, in stead of the title, Vniuersall, brought it into the Popes stile to be called Seruus seruorum dei, seruant to Gods seruants: Ergo, wee conclude with Gregorie, that this title. Vniuersall, is an Antichristian name, and that it hath misliked the ancient Bishops of Rome themselues, and how other Patriarkes and Bis∣shops haue challenged that ambitious name and title, as well as the Popes of Rome.

THE SIXT QVESTION, WHETHER THE Pope may erre, or not.

The Papists.

THey denye not but that both the Pope by himselfe, and together with a [error 47] whole Councel, may bee deceiued in matters of fact, that is, in historicall poynts, and the truth of things that are done, because it dependeth of the testi∣monie and information of men: But in matters of faith and doctrine, the Pope determining with the Councel, is not subiect to error: yea, the Pope by him∣selfe alone decreeing any thing concerning faith cannot bee deceiued, Bellar. lib. 4. de pontific. cap. 1••. No nor yet in precepts of manners prescribed to the Church by the Pope, is there any feare or daunger of error, cap. 5. Yea, it is pro∣bable (sayth he) that the Pope, not onely as Pope, cannot erre, but not as a pri∣uate person, is it like he should fall into heresie, or hold any obstinate opinion contrarie to the faith? cap. 6.

1 Luke 22.31. Simon, I haue prayed for thee, that thy faith faile not. Christ here prayeth for Peter, and his successors, that they might not at any time erre, or be deceiued in matters of faith, Bellar. cap. 3. Rhem. annot. in Luk. 22. sect. 11.

We answere: First, this was a particular prayer for Peter, that his fayth should not fayle in that great and dangerous tentation, into the which, our Sa∣uiour foresaw, hee should fall: For if it were to be vnderstood of Peters suc∣cessors, they also must first be sifted by Sathan as Peter was, and deny Christ, and so being conuerted strengthen their brethren: if they will vnderstand one parte of Peters successors, I pray you, why not all? Secondly, Our Sauiour prayeth likewise for all his Apostles, that they might be sanctified in the truth, yea for al, that should beleeue by their preaching: yet is not euery Christian pri∣uiledged from all error of fayth. Thirdly, after this Peter himselfe erred, and was reprehended of Saint Paul. Fulk. annot. in Luk. 22. sect. 11.

2. The high Priests that sate in Moses chayre were priuiledged not to erre. Ergo, much more now are the chiefe pastors of the Church free from error, Bel∣larm. cap. 3. Rhemist. Luk. 22. sect. 11.

We answer: the high Priests had no such priuiledge, for some of them fell into strange errors: Vriah the high Priest set vp an idolatrous altar at the Kinges commaundement, 2. King. 16. Eliashib was ioyned in Affinitie with To∣biah the Ammonite, contrary to the law of God, Fulk. ibid.

The Protestantes.

THat the Popes and Bishops of Rome haue not onely erred in manners, but euen in fayth; and not onely priuately and personally as men, but pulikely and iudicially as Popes; that they haue by their publike and open preaching, defence, allowance, and consent approued and established erronious, and some hereticall opinions: thus we trust to make it playne and euident to all men.

1. Peter erred: Ergo, the Pope may, though he were Peters successor. First, Peter erred in denying of Christ: the Iesuite answereth: First, he began not yet to be the chiefe Bishop, which he entred not into till after the resurrection, when Christ sayd vnto him, Feede my sheepe, Iohn 21. therefore all this while he might erre. A goodly answere: I pray you tell me, was not the Church before Christs passion, and after, built vpon the same rocke? I trow they cannot denie it: but Peter was not the rock before, therefore not after.

If he were therefore called a rock because of his confession of Christ, why should he not then rather, straight after his confession, take possession of his of∣fice, then immediately after his deniall of Christ? Surely this is but a silly shift. Secondly, sayth the Iesuite, Peter fayled in charitie when he denied Christ, not in fayth, cap. 3. and if he fayled in fayth, he lost the confession of fayth, and not fayth it selfe. We answere: First, and can a true fayth then bee separated from loue by your doctrine? The Apostles knew no such fayth: Saint Iames sayth, it is a dead fayth that is without the works of loue, and the fayth of diuels, that is, no faith, Iames 2.17.19. If then Peters loue failed, his fayth also fayled. Secondly, we doe not say that Peters fayth was lost and vtterly extinguished, for Christ prayed for him, but whether it were an error in fayth which Peter fell into: for it

is not all one to erre in fayth, or cleane to lose fayth. Thirdly, hee lost the con∣fession of fayth, he denied Christ in word, Ergo: he denied the fayth, howsoeuer he thought in heart: for these two are the principall fruites of fayth, to Beleeue with the heart, and Confesse with the mouth, Rom. 10. and where either of these is wanting, there can not be a right fayth: for he that putteth away a good con∣science, maketh shipwrack also of faith, 1. Tim. 1.19. But the Iesuite I see hath a queazie stomack, let him cough vp lustily, and say with one of his fellowes, Petrus non fidem Christi,* 1.35 sed Christum salua fide negauit. Peter denied not the fayth of Christ, but, his fayth remayning sound and whole, hee onely denied Christ. Loe, here is newe popish diuinitie, that a man may denie Christ, and yet not denie the faith.

Secondly, Peter erred in constraining the Gentiles to doe as the Iewes. Bellarmine saith, it was an error in example & conuersation, not in fayth or do∣ctrine, cap. 7. We answere: First, in this example of Peter there was also inclu∣ded an error in fayth, for how should the Gentiles better know Peters iudge∣ment, then by his example, by the which they fell into an error of fayth, and were constrayned to conforme themselues like to the Iewes: thinking that the Iewish ceremonies were necessary to bee retayned? Secondly, Saint Paul himselfe sayth, they went not the right way to the truth of the Gospell: Ergo, they erred from the trueth of the Gospell, and so in fayth. Thirdly, the diuines of Paris doe attribute to Peter an error in fayth, Fulk. annot. 4. Galat. sect. 9.

2. We can produce many examples of the Popes, which haue erred iudici∣ally, namely, openly haue maintayned errors. To let passe Marcellinus, who sacrificed to Idols, as a slippe of his person, and he afterward repented him of his fall: yet by the way the Iesuite is deceiued, that thinketh it probable, that the Popes particular person cannot fall into heresie: here you see Marcellinus fell into Idolatrie.

Liberius subscribed to the Arrians, consented to the condemnation of A∣thanasius: as testifieth Ierome, confessed by Nicolaus Cusanus, and Alphonsus de castro, both papists, Iuel. pag. 164. defens. Apolog.

Honorius 1. consented to the heresie of Sergius Bishop of Constantinople, who was a Monothelite, and held, that there were not two wills or operati∣ons in Christ,* 1.36 and so destroyed the two natures. That Honorius was a Mono∣thelite, Melchior Canus a papist confesseth: hee was condemned for an here∣tike in the 6.7. and 8. generall synodes. Bellarmine answereth, that the Coun∣cels are corrupted, or they might be deceiued in iudgement, as in a matter of facte: or that Honorius onely misliked the speech, to say there were two willes in Christ, and not the thing. See what poore shiftes heere bee to make Honorius no heretike, and yet all will not be.

Pope Stephen the sixt tooke vp Formosus body, and cut off two fin∣gers of his right hande, and buried him againe in a lay-mans Sepulchre: Then

followed Rhomanus the first, Theodorus the second, Iohannes the ninth, and re∣stored Formosus with his decrees, iudging him to bee lawfull Bishop. After them commeth Sergius the third, who tooke vp the body agayne, cutte off the head, and cast it into Tiber. The Iesuite answereth, that Stephanus and Sergius erred onely in a matter of fact. A goodly cloke to couer the filthines of their Ghostly fathers withall.

But by your leaue a little: doe you not holde it to bee an article of fayth to beleeue the Pope to bee heade of Christes Church? Then was it an article of fayth to hold that Formosus was right Pope, for at that time there was no other. Ergo, Stephanus and Sergius erred in fayth, defining the contrary. All that you can say, is this: that it was not yet determined and decreed for an article of fayth, so to beleeue: see I pray you, these mennes fayth is pinned vpon Popes sleeues. Why masters, the rule of fayth is cer∣taine, you cannot make new articles of fayth now, but onely declare and explane those that are. But doe you not thinke that these iollie Popes, that would rake the dead out of their graues, for their holines might deserue at GODS hand, to haue a priuiledge not to erre in fayth?

Siluester the second was a Necromancer and a Coniurer, and therefore fallen from the fayth. Bellarmine sayth: hee was a good man, and all are fa∣bles and lyes that are tolde of him: and because hee was cunning in Geo∣metrie, that ignorant age straightwayes iudged him to bee giuen to Necro∣mancie.

Thus wee may take the Iesuites worde, if wee will. But the storie is re∣ported by authors of better credit then Bellarmine: as Iohannes Stella, Platina, Petrus Premonstratens. Nauclerus, Antoninus. Fox. pag. 167.

Anastasius was a Nestorian heretike, whose heresie was this, that there are, as two natures, so also two persons in Christ, Alphons. de castro. lib. 1. de haeresib. cap. 4.

Celestinus is reported by Laurentius Valla a Canon of Rome, to haue been a Nestorian heretike, de donation. Constantin.

Now commeth in Pope Hildebrand, or rather Heldebrand, for hee was a very brand of hell fire: called Gregory the seuenth: Of whome Benno writeth thus: that hee poysoned sixe Popes his predecessors to make him∣selfe a way to the popedome: that hee was a Coniurer, a raiser of Diuels, and in his rage hee cast the sacrament into the fier. But sayth Harding our countrey man, though vnworthily, Benno was his enemie, and wrote of displeasure: and Bellarmine thinketh that some Lutherane was the author of the booke, which goeth vnder the name of Benno, who was Cardinall in this Hildebrands time. But Benno onely doth not thus report of him: he was openly twise for the same crimes condēned in Councel: first at Wormes: thē after depo∣sed in the Coūcel at Brixia in Italy, & Pope Clement 3. elected to succeed him.* 1.37 And the said Gregory died in exile, of whom Antonius reporteth, that before his

death, he repented him of his insolencie shewed toward the Emperour Henrie the 4. whom with his wife and young child bare foote, and bare legd, hee had caused three dayes together, in extreame frost and colde, to waite at his palace gates at Canusium,* 1.38 before he could speake with him. Yet this Hildebrand for all these insolent, cruell, and dishonest partes, is commended by our papists, Har∣ding, Bellarmine and other, for a deuout Catholike man, who did all things of a zeale to the Church. By this you may iudge, whome our aduersaries count a Catholike man.

Pope Iohn the 22. affirmed, that the soules lie in a traunce till the day of iudgement, and feele neither payne nor ioye. Harding, and likewise Bellar∣mine answere, that this was an error, but no heresie. Yet in the Vniuersitie of Paris, it was condemned for heresie, as Gerson writeth. Againe sayth Harding, he held it only as a priuate opinion. But Massaeus sayth, that Pope Iohn preached this heresie and sent out preachers to maintaine it. Hee was condemned (sayth he) with his error by the diuines of Paris in the presence of Philip the French King, before he was Pope, when he was yet but a priuate Doctor. But the con∣trary is proued by B. Iewel, that he was Pope 13. yeares before Philip was king, Iuell. defens. apolog. p. 667.

Pope Iohn the 23. denied the life to come, and the resurrection of the body: And this heresie was openly obiected against him in the Councel of Constance. Bellarmine and Harding before him, answere, that he was not the rightful Pope, for there were three at that time, and therefore might erre. But Platina sayth, that he was chosen at Bonoma, by the consent of all the Cardinals, ex Iuel. pag. 671.

Lastly, Pope Eugenius the 4. was condemned and deposed as an heretike in the Councel of Basile. Where the Iesuite hath no other answer, then by con∣demning the Councel as Schismatical, to acquite the Pope, Lib. 3. de pontif. cap. 14.

By these examples it may appeare to the indifferent reader, that it is no rare nor impossible thing, for the Popes of Rome to erre, yea become playne heretikes: And as for that shift of the Iesuite, that they are no longer Popes, whē they openly begin to teach heresie, this is, as Alphonsus sayth, In re seria verbis velle iocari,* 1.39 to dallie with words in a serious and earnest matter. And so euery Bishop shal be as well priuiledged as the Pope, and cannot fall into heresie: for why may we not say that a Bishop, when he is knowen to bee an heretike, ceaseth to bee Bishop any longer, as the Pope is no longer Pope, and so as long as he remayneth Bishop, cannot possiblie bee an heretike? Surely this is but paltrie and beggarly stuffe.

* 1.404. Augustine is not a whit afrayd to say, Episcoporum literas per sermonem sapientiorem cuiuslibet in eare peritioris, & per aliorum episcoporum grauiorem au∣thoritatem, & per concilia licere reprehendi, si in eis à veritate deuiatum sit. That the decrees of all Bishops whatsoeuer (not excluding Popes) may be corrected either by the sentence of wiser men in that poynt, wherein they erred, or by the

better aduised sentence of other Bishops, or by Councels may be reuersed, where they doe erre. Ergo, it is possible for Popes, by his iudgement, to erre.

A PART OR APPENDIX OF THIS QVE∣stion, whether the Church of Rome may erre or not.

The Papists.

THey doe not onely affirme that the Pope cannot erre, but that the Church [error 48] of Rome also cānot be deceiued in matters of faith, so long as the Apostolike See remayneth there, which they say is like there to remaine to the ende of the world. Bellarm. lib. 3. de pontif. cap. 4. Hereupon Panormitane doubteth not to say, that he would preferre the iudgement of the Cardinals of Rome, before the iudgement of the whole world: this he sayd, standing vp in the Councel of Ba∣sile, Fox. pag. 669. ex Aenea Syluio.

1. The Rhemists vpon those words of Saint Paul, Rom. 1.5. your fayth is published through the whole world, doe thus inferre: See (say they) the great prouidence of God in the preseruation of the Romane common faith. In times past the Romane fayth and Catholike all one: Ergo, that See cannot erre in faith.

We answere: they must proue their Romish faith and popish religion, to be the same which was praysed and commended by the Apostle, or els they gayne nothing: but that shall they neuer doe.

2. So long as the Apostolike See remayneth at Rome, it shall be preserued from error, but that is like there to remaine till the worlds end: for it onely re∣mayneth, when all other Apostolique Sees are gone: and it is very probable, that if this See could haue been ouerthrowen, it should haue been done by the incursion and inuasion of the Gothes, Vandals, Turkes, the emulation of Princes, diuisions and schismes of Popes themselues: yet for all this it standeth still, and hath so continued almost 1600. yeres, and shall so continue still. Ergo, the Ro∣mane Church can not erre. Bellarmin. lib. 2. cap. 4. Rhemist. annot. in Thessal. 2. sect. 7.

We answere: First, it is a great vntruth, that all other Apostolike Sees are gone, for there is a succession at Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Ephesus, euen at this day. Secondly, it is false, that the See of Rome hath continued in that re∣ligion it now professeth, which indeed is no religion, but superstition and here∣sie, these 1600. yeres: for first till Gregories time, which was 600. yeeres after Christ, none of the popes would be called vniuersall Bishops: and it was more then 300. yeeres, from Gregorie the 1. to Siluester the 2. when sathan is thought fully to be let loose: for he by the diuel was aduanced to the papacie: All these yeeres therefore you must strike off in your account. Thirdly, that the See of Rome, which is the seate of Antichrist, hath continued many yeeres we graunt:

for it is the iust iudgement of God vpon the world, because they loued not the trueth, that they should be deluded a long time, and deceiued by Antichrist, and beleeue lies: so did Saint Paul prophesie, 2. Thessalonians 2.10, 11. And wee grant also that that Antichristian See shall in some sorte remayne till the comming of Christ, whom hee shall destroie with the brightnes of his appearing, as Saint Paul sayth. You haue gayned therefore nothing by this, but that Rome is the seate of Antichrist, Fulk. annotat. in 2. Thessalonians 2. sect. 7.

The Prot••••tants.

IT is euident and plaine, and neede not much proofe, that the Romane Church, as also any particular visible Church, maie not onely erre in faith, but fall cleane away into heresie and Idolatrie, as we see it come to passe in the Church of Rome.

1. The Church of Rome hath no better assurance of their continuance, then the Church of the Iewes had before Christ, no nor yet so great, for they were a peculiar and chosen nation. But Iudah fell and transgressed, and com∣mitted Idolatrie in the raigne of Ahaz, and therefore the Prophet Esay com∣playneth and sayth, From the sole of the foote to the head, there is nothing sound, cap. 1. ver. 6.

Neither are they better then the Church of Ephesus was in Saint Iohns time, who was as able (I think) to keepe that Church from error, as the Pope is to keepe Rome: yet the Lord threatneth to remoue his candlestick frō amongst them, vnles they did amend, Reue. 2.5. Ergo, the Church of Rome may erre.

2. The Pope may erre, as we haue before shewed, Ergo the Church of Rome: for the Apostolike See, as they say, is the cause that no error can approch or come neere them. Therefore (me thinketh) the Iesuite committeth a foule absur∣ditie, in saying, the Church of Rome cannot so much as erre personally, and yet they grant that the Pope may erre personally. So by this reason the body shuld haue a greater priuiledge then the head: the Church of Rome should bee freer from error then the Pope, who should preserue it from error: this sure is a great absurditie in Popish diuinitie, Bellarmin. cap. 4.

3. It is confessed by our aduersaries themselues, that the Church of Rome may erre: as the Councel at Rome vnder Adriane the second erred, sayth the Iesuite, in determining Honorius to bee an heretick, one of his predecessors. cap. 11.

The Councel of the Italian Bishops at Brixia erred in condemning Grego∣ry the seuenth, who was, if you will beleeue Harding, a vertuous and an holy man. Nay Paulus Iouius a popish Bishop confesseth, that Adrianus 6. was made Pope, mira & pudenda Senatorum factiosorum suffragatione, through the strange and shamefull suffrages of factious Cardinals,* 1.41 because they preferred a stranger before their owne order.

But our aduersaries haue a trick, to shift off all this that hath been saide: They erred in a matter of fact, not in any poynt of fayth. Yet they cannot so closely conuey the matter away: for Panormitane euen in such questions also preferreth the iudgement of the Cardinals before the whole world, speaking in the defence of Eugenius, who was challenged in the Councel of Basile, for the dissolution of the Councel, which he did (saith Panormitane) with the ad∣uice of the Cardinals: whose iudgement he so much esteemeth in this matter, which concerned not faith, namely, for the dissoluing of the Councel.* 1.42

THE SEVENTH QVESTION OF THE spirituall iurisdiction and power of the Bishop of Rome.

THis question hath two partes: the first, whether the Bishop of Rome haue a coactiue and constrayning power to make lawes to binde the con∣science, and to punish the transgressors. Secondly, whether other Pastors and Bishops haue their iurisdiction immediatly from God, or from the Pope.

Other questions also there are, which belong to this matter, as whether the Pope be the chiefe iudge in controuersies of fayth, which we haue alrea∣dy handled, entreating of the perfection and authority of the scriptures: as also whether it be in the Pope to summone, dissolue, and confirme Councels, which hath been sufficiently declared before, in the controuersie concerning Councels. Concerning other questions, as the canonizing of Saints, which they say appertaineth to the Pope, the election and confirmation of Bishops, pardons and indulgences, we shall haue fitter occasion to deale in them, in their seuerall places and controuersies. At this time wee purpose onely to touch these two poynts aforesaide, of the Popes Ecclesiasticall iuris∣diction.

THE FIRST PART, WHETHER THE POPE may make lawes to binde the conscience, and punish the transgressors thereof iudicially.

The Papists.

THat the Pope hath such authorie, to make lawes for the whole Church, [error 49] which shall binde vnder paine of damnation, as well as the lawes of God, it is the general opinion of the papists, Fox. 981. articul. 13. & p. 1101. artic. cont. Lambert. 29. But they put in this clause, So they bee not vniust lawes nor

contrarie to the diuine law, Bellarm. cap. 15. And yet they say that the Pope may make lawes, hauing not the authority nor warrant of scripture, neither is it necessarie for these lawes to be expressed or diduced out of scripture. And these lawes are not onely of externall rites and orders of the Church, but euen of things necessary to saluation, Bellarm. cap 15. in reprehens. Caluini. Yea he ad∣deth further, that in matters not necessary to saluation, he can not be disobeyed without deadly sinne, and offence of conscience, cap. 16. loc. 1. Bulla Leonis 10. aduersus Lutherum, Fox. p. 1283. col. 1.

1. The Apostles prescribed a law concerning the abstaining from blood, things strangled, and offered to Idols, concerning the which, Christ gaue them no precept: But this law did binde the people in conscience: for euery where the Apostles gaue straight charge, for the keeping of the decrees, Bellarm.

Answere: First, the Apostles commaunded no newe thing, but the same which they themselues were taught of Christ, that they should take heede of offence: the Christians therefore were not bound in conscience any further to keepe the decrees concerning such things, then for auoyding of scandal and of∣fence. Secondly, for afterward the offence being taken away, the law also cea∣sed: and Saint Paul giueth libertie, notwithstanding this law, to eate things of∣fered to Idols, if it might be done without offence, Asking no question (sayth he) for conscience sake, 1. Cor. 10.27. Ergo their consciences were not hereby obliged and bound.

3. It is necessary to haue some lawes, beside the diuine law, for the gouern∣ment of the Church: for the word of God is too vniuersal, neither is sufficient to direct euery particular action: therefore other ecclesiasticall lawes must bee added, but euery good and necessary law hath a coactiue and constraining po∣wer, and bindeth the conscience to obedience: Ergo the constitutions of the Popes and Councels, which are the only ecclesiastical lawes, doe binde the con∣science, Bellarmin. cap. 16. lib. 4.

Answere: First, the word of God contayneth all necessarie rules to salua∣tion: wherefore all lawes of the Church concerning matters of faith, are but explanations, and interpretations of the rules of fayth set forth in scripture, if they be godly lawes, and so are not the lawes of men but of God, and doe bind the conscience to the obseruation thereof: as the lawes of the Church, which command Christians to resort to the congregation to heare Gods word, and re∣uerently to receiue the sacraments, are the very ordinances and commaunde∣ments of Christ, who enioyned his Apostles to preach, and baptize, and his faythfull people to heare and to be baptized, and therefore in conscience wee are bound to the obedience hereof. Secondly, there are other ecclesiasticall lawes appoynted for the publique order of the Church, concerning externall rites and circumstances of persons and place, as the houres of prayer, the forme of the le••turgie & publike seruice, the times fittest for the celebration of the sacraments, and such like. These and such like constitutions do not binde in conscience absolutely, in respect of the things themselues, which are indifferent,

but in regarde of that contempt, and offence which might followe in the not keeping of them: contempt to our superiors, whome wee ought in all lawfull things to obey; offence, in grieuing the conscience of our weake brethren. So that euen these constitutions also which are made according to the rules of the Gospell, that is, vnto edification, to the glorie of God, and for auoyding of of∣fence, doe necessarilie binde vs in conscience, not conscience of the thinges themselues, which are but externall, but conscience of obedience to our Chri∣stian Magistrates, and conscience in taking heede of all iust offence, sic. Caluin. Institut. lib. 4. cap. 10.11.

3 But we are not, God be thanked, driuen to any such straight, that if there be neede of any such Ecclesiasticall lawes, we should run for succor to the Popes beggerly decretals. (And yet such Canons, as were in force amongst them, a∣greeable to the rules of the Gospell, we doe not refuse.) But if there bee want and penurie of good lawes, euery Church hath as full authoritie, to make decrees and ordinances for the peace and order, and quiet gouernement thereof, not as the Pope of Rome hath ouer the vniuersall Church (for that by right is none, or if it be, it is but an vsurped power) but as the Bishop of Rome hath in his owne Bishopricke and dioces.

The Protestants.

WHat our sentence is of this matter, it doth partlie appeare by that which wee haue alreadie saide: that the Pope hath no power ouer the whole Church, and therefore can make no lawes to binde the conscience or other∣wise for the same, for it belongeth not to his charge. Secondly, we say, that nei∣ther he, nor any ecclesiasticall gouernement beside, can make lawes of things necessarie to saluation, other then those which are in Scripture conteined. Thirdly, all Ecclesiasticall lawes made concerning externall rites, and pub∣like order, doe not otherwise binde the conscience, then in regarde of our obe∣dience due to Christian Magistrates in lawfull things, and for auoyding of scan∣dall and offence: But in respect of the things commaunded, such lawes doe not binde. Caluin. loc. praedicto.

1 Saint Iames saith, there is one lawe-giuer which is able to saue and to de∣stroy, cap. 4.12. He therefore onely maketh lawes to binde the conscience, that is able to saue and to destroy: but that cannot the Pope doe. Ergo, Caluin. argum.

Bellarmine answereth, that the lawes of men doe binde vnder paine of dam∣nation, in as much as God is offended and displeased with their disobedience, and so iudgeth them worthie of punishment. cap. 20. All this wee graunt, that the lawes of men being good lawes, doe binde in conscience in respect of the contempt and disobedience to higher powers, but not in respect of the thinges commaunded, which in their nature are indifferēt. The Iesuite should haue said:

that God is offended not onely for their disobedience, but simplie for not do∣ing the things commaunded, which he durst not say: As when the Magistrate for some profitable and politike end commaundeth vpon some dayes absti∣nence from flesh, it is not the eating or not eating of flesh, that simplie displea∣seth and offendeth God, but the contempt of the lawe, and wilfull and obstinate disobedience to the magistrate: for otherwise the vse of the creature is free and indifferent.

* 1.432 Wee will beate the Iesuite with his owne staffe: hee saith not that all lawes doe binde the conscience, but onely iust lawes, in the which fower cōditi∣ons are required. First, that they be made for some profitable end: so are not po∣pish lawes which nourish superstition, and haue no edifying, and some of them doe commaund plaine idolatry, & open impietie, as the worshipping of images, the adoration of the Masse, & such like. Secondly, saith he, they must not be con∣trarie to Gods law, but such are many of their ordinances, yea the most of them. Thirdly, they must be made by him that hath authoritie: therefore none of the Popes lawes binde the vniuersall Church, for it is not subiect to him. Fourthly, the forme and manner of imposing such lawes must be orderly: but their lawes are most disordered, imposed vpon the Church violently, without their consent, or any good proceeding. Thus, you see, euen by their owne confession, their lawes cannot binde.

One thing more I must needes tell them of. If they would needes haue their lawes to binde men in conscience, they should haue made fewer of them: now they are so many, that if the breach of them were an offence of conscience, doe men, what they could, they should dailie make shipwrack of their consci∣ence. It is a true saying that is reported of one Thomas Arthur, a good Chri∣stian, it is an homely speech, because the matter was somewhat homely, yet hee did hit the marke. Like as (saith he) crosses were set vp against the walles of London, that no man should pisse there; and while there were but a few, men for reuerence of the crosses, would not pisse against the wall: but when in e∣uery corner they set vp crosses, men of necessitie were faine to pisse vpon the wall and crosses too. So saith he, if there had been fewer lawes of the Church, they would haue been better kept:* 1.44 but now they are so manie, that men cannot chose but breake them.

3 The Pope hath no power to correct the transgressors of his lawes ouer the whole Church. Ergo, hee cannot make lawes to binde the whole Church. The argument followeth, for hee that hath absolute power to make lawes, hath also power to commaunde obedience to the lawes so made.

The first is thus proued: the Pope indeede hath taken vppon him many times to thunder out his excommunication against other Churches: but it was an vsurped and tyrannicall power, and many times resisted, and controuled.

Pope Victor Anno 200. would haue excommunicate the East Chur∣ches about the keeping of Easter,* 1.45 but hee was stayed by Irenaeus. The

Councell of Constance did sende out excommunications against Pope Benedict. sess. 36.

In the Councell of Basile, Pope Eugenius cited Cardinall Iuliane, with the rest of the fathers there assembled to come to Bononia, vnder great penaltie: they likewise cited Eugenius vnder the like penaltie, either to come or send to Basile. Fox. pag. 668.

Pope Leo the tenth, in his fumish Antichristian Bull, excommunicated and condemned Luther. Luther with better right pronounceth sentence of excom∣munication against him, being an aduersarie to Christ, in these words:

accor∣ding to the power and might, that the spirit of Christ, and efficacie of our faith can doe in these our writings, if you shall persist still in your furie, we condemne you together with this Bull and all the decretall, and giue you to sathan to the destruction of the flesh, that your spirit in the day of the Lord may be deliuered: in the name, which you persecute, of Iesus Christ our Lorde. Fox. page 1286.

Thus you see what small force there is of these popish leaden Bulls, and pre∣sumptuous excommunications: for it falleth out iustlie by them,* 1.46 as the wise man saith. As the Sparrow and the Swallowe by flying escape, so the curse causelesse shall not come. Now seeing therefore the Pope fayleth of power and strength to see his lawes executed in the vniuersall Church, it cannot bee that his lawes should vniuersally binde.

Lastly, let Augustine speake: he thus defineth sinne, peccatum est dictum,* 1.47 fac∣tum, vel concupitum contra legem aeternam Dei, sinne is any thing done, saide, or coueted against the Lawe of GOD: therefore the transgression simplie of the lawe of man is not sinne; but as thereby also the Lawe of God is transgressed: Ergo simplie it bindeth not the conscience: for sinne onely bindeth and toucheth the conscience.

THE SECOND PART OF THIS QVE∣stion, whether all Bishops doe receiue their Ec∣clesiasticall iurisdiction from the Pope.

The Papists.

THey denie not but that the power of order, as they call it, which consi∣steth [error 50] in the administration of the Sacraments, is equallie distributed to all Bishops, and that they, as well as the Pope doe receiue it immediatly by their consecration, of God, but the power both of externall iurisdiction, which stan∣deth vpon Ecclesiasticall censures, constitutions and decrees, and internall iu∣risdiction, which is exercised in binding and loosing, is deriued, say they, from the Pope to all other Bishops.

1 God tooke of the spirite that was in Moses, and distributed it among the seuentie Elders,* 1.48 that were chosen to beare the burthen of gouernement

with Moses and to bee his helpers: the Lorde tooke of his spirite, not by dimini∣shing it, but by deriuing of his vertue to the rest: but the Pope is now in the roome and place of Moses in the Church: Ergo, from him to the rest is this an authoritie deriued.

Answer: First, Moses example was extraordinarie, he was a figure of Christ, not of the Pope, Deuteron. 18. vers. 15. The Pope might with better right stand vpon Aarons example, who was high Priest, not lay claime to Moses office, who was the Prince and Captaine of the people: for the Pope, I trow, would be chiefe Bishop, and not Emperor too. Secondly, the meaning is not that God deriued Moses spirit to the rest: but bestowed the like gift of prophesying vpon them, as Moses had: surely neuer any mortall man had the spirite in such aboundance, that it could bee deuided into seuentie portions, and one Prophet to make many. The like phrase is vsed, 2. King. 2.15. Where the Prophets saide, that the spirit of Eliah did rest on Elisha, that is, God endued him with an excellent spi∣rit of prophesying, as Elias had. If they will vnderstand this place also of deri∣uing of spirits, how then shall that be taken in the 9. verse where Elisha praieth, that this spirit might be doubled vpon him? If his spirit were deriued from Eliah, how could it be doubled vpon him? How could it be multiplied and increased? how could he haue more then was in the fountaine or originall, seeing he recei∣ued all from thence?

3 What maketh this place, I pray you, for the power of externall iurisdic∣tion? Here it is saide that God gaue of his spirit to seauentie Elders and rulers of the people, and enabled them for their office; endued them with wisdome, and knowledge, and dexteritie in iudging of the people: this maketh nothing for their purpose, vnlesse they will also say, that there is a secret influence of know∣ledge and wisdome deriued from the Pope to all other Bishops, whereby they are made able to execute their office: but (I trow) they will not say so: for Al∣phonsus de castro, truly saith of the Popes of Rome, constat plures eorum adeo esse illiteratos, vt grammaticam penitus ignorent: it is certaine that many of them were so vnlearned, that they hard and scant knew their grammar.

4 The argument followeth not from one particular countrie, as this was of the Iewes, to the vniuersal Church: that because the seauentie Elders receiued iurisdiction from Moses (yet that cannot be proued out of this place, for they were rulers before, and commaunders of the people, the were now but inward∣ly furnished, and further enabled) yet it were no good reason, that therefore the Ecclesiasticall Ministers ouer the whole Church, should receiue their power from one.

5 Neither doth it follow, that because the Prince and ciuill Magistrate may bestowe ciuil offices, create Dukes, Earles, Lords, constitute Iudges, Deputies, Lieutenants, by his sole authoritie, that by the same reason Ecclesiasticall mini∣sters should receiue their power & office from their superiors: for although, the Church from ancient time, hath thought it good, to make some inequalitie and difference in Ecclesiasticall offices for the peace of the Church: yet the superiors

haue not such a soueraigntie and commaunding power ouer the rest, as the Prince hath ouer his subiects.

The Protestants.

THat Bishops haue not their Ecclesiastical iurisdiction from Rome, but do as well enioye it by right of their consecration, election, institution, in their owne precinctes, circuites, prouinces, cities, townes, yea, as the Pope doth in his Bishopricke, and by much better right, if they be good Bishops, and louers of the truth: thus briefely it is proued.

1 The Apostles had not their iurisdiction from Peter, but all receiued it indifferently from Christ: this the Iesuite doth not barely acknowledge, but proueth it by argument,. against the iudgement of other Papists. cap. 23. Ergo neither Bishops are authorised from the Pope, though he were Peters successor: for if he were (to graunt it for disputation sake) he is no more to the Bishops of the Church, then Peter was to the Apostles. If hee gaue not the keyes to the Apostles; neither doth the Pope Saint Peters successor, to the Bishops, the Apo∣stles successors: for they may with as great right challenge to bee the Apostles successors, as he can to be Saint Peters.

Nay, the Apostles gaue no power or iurisdiction to the Elders and pastors, whom they ordained: Act. 20.28. Take heede to the flocke, ouer the which the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops or ouerseers: and Ephes. 4.11. Hee hath giuen some to bee Apostles, some Prophets, some pastors and teachers: so then the pastors and teachers, though ordained by the Apostles, yet had their calling and office frō God and not from the Apostles, much lesse now can they receiue their power from any, no not from the Pope, for he is no Apostle, no nor Apostolike man, hauing left the Apostolike faith.

2 Augustine saith, Solus Christus habet authoritatem, & praeponendi nos in ecclesiae suae gubernatione, & de actu nostro iudicandi. de baptis. 2.2. Onely Christ hath authoritie (saith hee) to preferre vs to the gouernement of the Church, and to iudge of our dooings: the pastors then of the Church haue the keyes of the spirituall regiment from Christ himselfe, not from the Pope, or any other.

THE EIGHT QVESTION, OF THE temporall iurisdiction and power of the Bishop of Rome.

THis question hath two partes: first, whether the Pope in respect of any spi∣rituall [error 51] iurisdiction, haue also the chiefe soueraigntie in temporall and ciuill matters, and so to be aboue Kings and Emperors: secondly, whether the Pope, or any Bishop, may be the chiefe Lord and prince ouer any Countrie, Citie, or Prouince.

THE FIRST PART, WHETHER THE Pope directly or indirectly haue authoritie aboue Kinges and Princes.

The Papists.

THe Papists of former times were not ashamed to say, that the Pope is the Lord of the whole Church: as Panormitane in the Councell of Basile, Fox. page 670. Yea, Pope Innocentius the third said, writing to the Emperor of Con∣stantinople, that as the Moone receiued her light from the Sunne, so the imperi∣all dignitie did spring from the Pope: and that the papall dignitie was seuen and fortie times greater then the imperiall:* 1.49 yea Kinges and Emperors are more inferior to the Pope then lead is to golde, Gelasius distinct. 96. But our la∣ter papists ashamed of their forefathers arrogancie, in wordes seeme to abate somewhat of their proud sentence, but in effect say the same thing: For they confesse that the Emperor hath his office and calling of God, and not from the Pope: neither that the Pope directly hath any temporall iurisdiction: but indirectly hee may depose Kinges and princes, abrogate the lawes of Emperors, and establish his owne: he may take vnto himselfe the iudgement of temporall causes, and cite Kings to appeare before him: yet not directlie (saith the Iesuite) as hee is ordinarie Iudge ouer the Bishops and whole Cler∣gie, yet indirectlie, as hee is the chiefe spirituall Prince, hee may doe all this, if hee see it necessarie for the health of mens soules. And so in effect, by their popish indirect meanes, they giue him as great authoritie, as euer hee vsurped or challenged, Bellarmine lib. 5. cap. 6.

1 The Ecclesiasticall and ciuill power doe make but one bodie and so∣cietie, as the spirite and the flesh in man: Now the Ecclesiastical power, which is as the soule and spirite, is the chiefe part, because it is referred to a more prin∣cipall end, namely the safetie and good of the soule: the other is as the flesh to the spirite, and respecteth but a temporall end, as the outward peace and pro∣speritie of the common-wealth: Ergo, the spirituall power is chiefe, and may commaund the other. Bellarm. cap. 7.

Ans. First, it is a very vnfit and vnproper similitude, to compare these two regiments to the soule and the bodie: for by this meanes, as the spirite giueth life to the bodie, and euery parte thereof, so the ciuill and temporall state should receiue their office and calling from the Ecclesiasticall, which the Ie∣suite himselfe denieth, and so directly the one should rule the other: for the soule directly I trow, not indirectly moueth the body and gouerneth it. But if wee will speake as the Scripture doth, we make all but one bodie: and it is the spirit of Christ, who is the head, that giueth effectuall power to euery parte. Ephes. 4.15.16.

2 It is false that the ciuill magistracie onely concerneth the outward and

temporall commoditie onely: for vnto Princes also is committed the chiefe care of religion and the worship of God: They are to see true religion ad∣uaunced, yea to watch ouer Ecclesiasticall ministers, and to charge them to looke to their offices: the Prince is Gods minister, for the wealth both of the soules and bodies of his subiects: And therefore Saint Paul exhorteth to pray for Kings and gouernours, that wee may liue (not onely) a peaceable life, but in all godlines and honestie, 1. Timoth. 2.2. Ergo, it is parte of the magistrates office, as to procure the peace of the people, so to haue a care of their godlie life. Wherefore it is false, as the Iesuite supposeth, that the chiefe ende of the ciuill gouernement, is onely outward and temporall: Ergo, his argument is nothing worth.

2 Azariah the high Priest droue Vzziah the King out of the temple, when hee would haue burned incense, and caused him to goe out of the citie and dwell apart, 2. Chron. 26. Iehoiada likewise deposed Athalia, 2. King. 11. Ergo, the Pope may depose wicked and vngodly Princes. Bellarmine cap. 8.

Answere: First, wee denie, that there is now, or ought to bee any such high Priest in the Church of God, to haue the chiefe authoritie in spirituall matters, as there was in the lawe: for hee was the type and figure of Christ, who is our high Priest, and chiefe Bishop. Secondly, these examples doe not excuse the Popes tyrannie, who hath deposed rightfull Kinges and Em∣perors, and better then himselfe: as Pope Zacharie deposed Childericus the French King, and set vp Pipinus: Gregorie the seuenth set vp Rodolphus a∣gainst Henricus the fourth, the Emperor. Pope Paschalis set vp the sonne of the saide Henricus against his father. But we will answere more particularly to these examples.

To the first: First, it was not the sole act of Azariah the high Priest, but there were 80. Priests that ioyned with him beside, and they all spake to the King: this example therefore maketh nothing for the sole authoritie of the Pope, who saith, that he may depose the Emperor himselfe, without any Councell. Innocent. 4. Secondly, they did not depose Vzziah: they onely withstoode him according to the lawe of God, because hee vsurped the priests office: so ought faithfull Bishops and pastors euen to reproue the greatest Magistrates, for the manifest contempt, and open breach of Gods lawe: Neither did they constraine the King to goe forth, before they saw the iudgement of God vpon him: for the text saith, they compelled him to go forth, because the Lord had smitten him, they saw the leprosie to rise vp in his face, vers. 20. This there∣fore was the extraordinarie iudgement of God, and not of the high priest. Third∣ly, he was not deposed from the Kingdome, though he dwelt alone: his son did execute the office only for him, and raigned after him: for being a leper, by the law he was to dwell apart, Leuit. 13.46. Here was nothing done (we see) by the sole authoritie of the high Priest, but they had the manifest and direct lawe of God, vnto the which their Kings also were subiect.

To the second example, we answere. First, Athaliah was a tyrant and an v∣surper, and ought not to raigne, and therefore was iustly deposed. Secondly, Iehoiada did it not by his owne power, but assembled the Fathers and Princes of the land, 2. Chron. 22.2. He shewed them the young King, and they made a couenant with him. Iehoiada onely gaue directions, (the King being now knowen vnto them) vnto the Captaines and gouernours. Thirdly, they had the flat word of God for that action, The Kings sonne must raigne, as the Lord hath saide, concerning the sonnes of Dauid, ver. 3. So when the Pope hath any such warrant from God, he may doe as Iehoiada did.

The Protestants.

THat the Pope or any other person Ecclesiasticall hath no manner of tem∣porall iurisdiction either directly or indirectly ouer Kings, Princes, Empe∣rors, but ought of right to bee subiect to them and their lawes: it is thus proued.

1 By the same reason whereby the Iesuite proueth, that the Pope directlie hath no temporall iurisdiction, we will conclude, that neither indirectlie can he haue any, and so none at all. Christ, while he liued vpon earth, tooke vp∣on him no temporall iurisdiction, either directly or indirectly: he refused to bee a King, Iohn 6. Nay hee would not bee a Iudge in ciuill matters, as in de∣uiding the inheritance, being thereto required, Luke 12.13. Hee payed poll money, Matth. 17. hee did submit himselfe to the iudgement of Pilate an heathen Iudge: therefore seeing Christe vsed no such temporall iurisdiction, neither can any Minister of Christe: for the seruant is not aboue the Master: Onely Antichrist dare presume beyond the example of Christ.

* 1.502 The Fathers of Basile doe vrge that place of Saint Peter 1. Epist. 5.2. against Panormitane, who had vnaduisedly sayd, that the Pope was Lorde of the Church. But the Apostle saith, Feede the flocke of Christ, not by constraint, but willinglie, not as Lordes ouer the Lordes inheritance, verse 3. But the Pope contrariwise vseth all forceable, constraining, and tyrannicall meanes, killing, slaying, imprisoning, deposing those that will not obey him:* 1.51 who calleth himselfe chiefe Lorde and Magistrate of the whole Worlde. Surely this is Antichrist, and not the Minister of Christ, or successor of Saint Peter, whose counsaile he refuseth to followe and obey.

3 Let but the stories of former times bee searched: there wee shall finde how wickedly and insolently the Popes behaued themselues towards Kings, and Emperors: Pope Alexander caused Henry the second to doe pe∣nance for Beckets death, and to bee displed of the Monkes. Innocent the third caused King Iohn to kisse the feet of the Bishop of Canturburie his own subiect. Alexander the third did tread vpon Emperor Frederick his neck. Pope Inno∣cent spoyled Frederick the second of his Empire, caused him to bee poysoned,

and his sonne Conradus to be beheaded: and these Emperors were deposed by the Popes in order,* 1.52 Henricus 4. Henricus 5. Frederick 1. Philippus Otho the 4. Frederick 2. and Conradus his sonne.

It is not good, they say, to put a sword into a mad mans hand: and thinke you not, that these Popes vsed the temporal sword very discreetely, which they thus vsurped, making fooles and slaues of Emperors, as Pope Adriane did, that rebuked Frederick the first, because he held his stirrup on the wrong side, and did excommunicate him, for setting his name before the Popes in writing? Th•• very insolent, diuellish, and Antichristian practise of this their temporal power, sheweth from what originall it commeth, euen from the father of pride.

Lastly, Augustine saith, writing vpon those words, Rom. 13. Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers: Si quis putat, quia Christanus est, non sibi esse vectigal reddendum aut tributum, aut non esse exhibendum honorem debitum, eis, qui haec curant potestatibus; in magno errore est. If any man thinke, because he is a Christian, that he is not bound to pay tribute and taxe, and yeelde due honor to the temporall powers (for of such Augustine speaketh) he is in a great error. If all then are subiect to the temporal magistrate, that are Christians, then all Bi∣shops and Ecclesiastical persons, yea the Pope himselfe, if he be a Christian. Er∣go, the Emperor is not subiect to him.

THE SECOND PART OF THE QVESTION, concerning Saint Peters patrimonie, whether the Pope may be a temporall Prince.

The Papists.

THey say that it is not against the word of God, that the Pope should bee [error 52] both a temporall and Ecclesiasticall Prince,* 1.53 and that both the swordes of spirituall and Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction doe belong vnto him: and that hee is the right heire of Saint Peters patrimonie: to him belongeth as chiefe Lorde the Imperiall citie of Rome, the pallace of Laterane,* 1.54 Capua also and Apulia are his. distinct. 96. Constantin.

1 Moses (saith the Iesuite) was both priest, and Prince: so was Heli 1. Sam. 4. He iudged Israel fortie yeeres: so were also the Macchabees, Iudas, Ionathan, Simon: yea Melchisedech long before Moses, was Priest and King: Ergo the Pope is lawfullie both chiefe Bishop, and chiefe Prince also, and Lord of that which he now possesseth. Bellarmine cap. 9.

Ans. Concerning Melchisedech. Who knoweth not, that hee being King and Priest, was a liuelie figure of our Sauior Christs spirituall Kingdome and Priesthoode? Heb. 7. And as yet the offices of the spirituall and temporall go∣uernement were not distinguished: for all the Patriarkes, Abraham, Isaack, Ia∣cob, & the rest were sacrificers, therefore wee cannot borrow any examples from them for this matter.

Moses also did offer sacrifice to God, and was chiefe iudge both in spiritu∣all and temporall affaires vnto the people, vntill such time, as when by Gods commaundement,* 1.55 Aaron was chosen to the priesthood, vnto whome the charge of sacrifices and vnto his sonnes was committed: so Moses remained still Prince of the people, whom Iosua succeeded, and Aaron was inuested to the priesthoode, and so the offices were distinct: this example therefore of Mo∣ses is extraordinarie, and proueth not.

Concerning the time when Ely iudged Israel, which was in the dayes of the iudges, we must vnderstand, that the gouernement of Israel was very disso∣lute, and men were left to themselues to doe almost what themselues listed: as Iud. 17. we reade that Micah set vp an Idoll in his house, and the reason is rendered, there was no King in Israel, but euery man did that which seemed good in his owne eyes. Likewise the tribe of Dan offered violence to Micah, and robbed him, Iud. 18. For there was no King in Israel, vers. 1. The Leuites wife was most shamefully abused by the Gibeonites, for there was no King, chap. 19.1. The men of Beniamin tooke them wiues by force: for they had no King, chap. 21.25. So you see that both religion was corrupted, and the ma∣ners of the people grew to be outragious; and all because there was no per∣fect distinct gouernement, there was no King in Israel.

In Elie his time, the word of God was precious, 1. Sam. 3.1. Great was the ignorance of the whole land: the licentiousnesse also of his sonnes was a great offence to all Israel, and brought a great decay of godlines with it, 1. Sam. 2.17.23. Yea they caused the people through their euill example to sinne, verse. 24. Wherefore Elie his house was iudged of GOD for his remisnes in gouerne∣ment, in not correcting his sonnes, chapter 3.13. And hee that cannot rule his owne house, how should hee care for the Church, 1. Timoth. 3.5? It cannot now bee proued by the example of Elie, that the ciuill gouernement was annexed to the priesthoode by the Lordes appoyntment: but it is ra∣ther to bee ascribed to the corruption of those times: for hauing no King nor Captaine ouer them, they were driuen of necessitie to come to the high Priest, vnto whome the iudgement of many matters was committed by the lawe of God, Deuter. 17.8. Leuit. 13.2. But the priesthood, and the ciuill magistracie were two distinct things alwaies from the time of the lawe established.

It is then no good argument, which is drawne from the practise and example of those corrupt times: And yet wee say not, that these offices were so distinct, but that the Lorde might rayse vp some extraordina∣rie prophet, as hee did Samuel, who to restore iustice and religion decay∣ed, might for a time both iudge the people and offer sacrifice, as wee see hee did.

As for the examples of the Maccabees, they moue vs not, you must bring better scripture for your purpose: the authoritie of those bookes binde vs not: and againe we see they did contrarie to the lawe, in taking vppon them both

offices: for the priesthood was annexed to the posteritie of Aaron for euer, Numb. 3.10. And the scepter was not to depart from Iuda till Christ came, Genes. 49.10. As the Lorde also had promised to Dauid, that the Kingdome should remaine in his seede. 2. Chron. 22.3.

2 Constantine the great gaue vnto the Pope the chiefe gouernement of the Citie of Rome, and other Lordships in Italie, yea the soueraigntie ouer the West parts: why then is it not lawfull for him to enioy his gift? Bellarmine lib. 5. cap. 9.

Ans. First, the donation of Constantine seemeth to be forged: for if Constan∣tine resigned to Siluester the politicall dominion of the west partes, how could he then haue distributed his Empire amongst his sonnes, as the West part to one, the East to the second, the middle part to the third? Againe, the donation saith, that Constantine was baptised at Rome by Siluester before the battaile a∣gainst Maximinus, and that then the patrimonie was giuen: but it is certaine by stories that he was baptised at Nicomedia, by Eusebius Bishop there, in the 31. yeere of his raigne: wherefore it seemeth to be a forged and deuised thing. plur. apud. Fox. pag. 105.

2 Aeneas Siluius saith, that Mathilda, a noble Dutches in Italie,* 1.56 gaue those landes to the Pope, which are called S. Peters patrimonie: how then can it be true, that they were giuen by Constantine? Thirdly, the popish doctors and Canonists confesse, that Constantines grant is not so much to bee counted a do∣nation, as a restitution of that which tyrannouslie was taken from him: but hee hath his power spirituall and temporall immediatly from Christ: you see then that they themselues make no great reckoning of Constantines donation. Antoni. summa, maior. 3. part.

4 Yet if Constantinus that good Emperor had been so minded,* 1.57 to haue bestowed the imperiall dignitie vpon the bishop of Rome: there remaineth a great question, whether he ought to haue accepted of it or not; nay hee should haue refused it: for the temporall sword belongeth not to spirituall gouernors: At the least it had been a charitable part, not to haue suffered the Emperor to disinherite his owne sonnes, for to enrich the See of Rome: as Augustine very well saith, Qui vult, exhaeredato filio, ecclesiam haeredem facere, quaerat alterum, qui suscipiat, non Augustinum, immo deo propitio nullum inueniat.* 1.58 He that would make the Church his heire, and defeate his own children, let him seeke some bo∣die else, to accept of his gift: surely Augustine wil not, nor I trust any honest man beside.

The Protestants.

FIrst we willingly grant, that the Church may inioy those tēporall possessions, which haue been of old granted vnto it for the better maintenance thereof, so they bee not abused to riot and excesse: as the Leuites beside their tithes,

had their cities and fieldes, Numb. 35. Secondly, the iudgement of Ecclesiasti∣call matters doth of right appertaine to the Church, as Amariah the Priest was the chiefe in all matters of the Lord, 2. Chron. 19.11. Thirdly, we doe not vtterly exclude spirituall persons from temporall causes: but as the ciuill Ma∣gistrate hath his interest in ordaining of Ecclesiasticall lawes, so spirituall per∣sons ought not to be strangers from the ciuill state; being meete men for their knowledge and conscience to be consulted withall, and conferred with, and to be ioyned in Councell with the Magistrate in difficult matters: as wee reade, Deuter. 17.8. How the high Priest, and chiefe iudge, did ioyne in mutuall helpe and assistance. But that any spirituall person may bee a temporall prince, and haue the chiefe gouernement of both states, and handle both swordes, we say it is contrarie to the word of God: for in these three poyntes standeth chiefly the office of the prince, in making and ordaining ciuill lawes, in ha∣uing power of life and death, in proclaiming of warre, and waging of battayle: with none of these ought Ecclesiasticall persons to deale, as we will now shew in order.

1 Concerning the making of ciuill lawes and statutes, though the Eccle∣siasticall bodie, according to the ancient custome of this land, haue their suf∣frage and voyce, and doe giue consent: yet the chiefe stroke, in alowing, confir∣ming, and enacting of such lawes is in the prince, and cannot agree or bee mat∣ched with any spirituall office.

Saint Paul saith, Who is sufficient for these things? that is, for the work of the Ministerie, 2. Cor. 2.16. If therefore spirituall persons suffice not to execute to the full, their spirituall charge, though they should bend all their studie and care that way, much more insufficient shall they be, if they be entangled in tempo∣rall affayres, for the well guiding and ordering whereof a whole man likewise is scarce sufficient.

Againe (saith he) no man that warreth, entangleth himselfe with the affaires of this life, 2. Timoth. 2.4. By affaires seculare here are not onely vnderstoode (as the Iesuite imagineth) merchandise, traffike, buying, selling, and such like, but the care and charge also of ciuill gouernement, of making lawes and orders for the ciuill state, which must needs bee a great let to the spirituall busines, and require greater studie and labor, then the other baser workes which are named. To this Augustine agreeth: Quo iure (saith he) defendis villas? Vnde quisque pos∣sidet quod habet? Iure humano, iure imperatorum: quare? quia ipsa iura humana per imperatores & reges seculi Deus distribuit generi humano. tract. in Ihoann. 6. By what law doest thou defend thy possessions? by the lawe of man, the lawe of the Emperors: for these humane lawes, by Gods ordinance are giuen vnto men by the Emperors and Kings of the world. See then, ciuill lawes, and humane constitutions are giuen and made, not by the Pope, Priest, or any other Prelate, but onely by Kings and Princes, and the ciuill magistrates.

2 It were a mōstrous & an vnnatural thing, that any Ecclesiastical gouernor should haue power of life & death: for he hath no better right to the ciuil sword,

then the prince to the Ecclesiasticall sword: and if it be not lawfull for the ci∣uill Magistrate to excommunicate, which is as the spi••tuall sword, and the grea∣test censure of the Church, no more is it to be suffered, that by the authoritie or commaundement of any Ecclesiasticall person, any man should bee put to death.

The high Priest was not to deale with matters of bloud, which touched the life: but the offenders were brought to the gates of the citie, where the magi∣strates sate. Deuter. 17.5. Not to the temple, where the priest ministred. Nay, we see, that in the most corrupt times of the Iewish common-wealth, namelie, when they put our blessed Sauiour to death, the priests did not challenge any such power: It is not lawful (say they) for vs, to put any to death: Iohn 18.31. But that power was in the temporall Magistrate, as Pilate said to Christ, Know∣est thou not, that I haue power to crucifie thee, and power to loose thee? Ioh. 19.10. Ergo, the Pope cannot bee a temporall prince, to haue power of life and death.

3 If the Pope be a temporall prince, then hee may wage battaile, which although the Iesuite dare not plainely affirme, yet it followeth necessarilie vpon his assertion: for it is lawfull for any temporall prince to make warre: And it hath been the common practise of Popes and popish prelates so to doe.

There were great & bitter battailes fought betweene Vrbane the sixt, and the Antipope Clement, in the which on the one side there were 5000. slaine. Fox pag. 434. Henry Spenser a lustie young bloud, Bishop of Norwich, was the Popes Captaine generall in France: where he sacked the towne of Grauenidge,* 1.59 and put man, woman and childe to the sword.

So Pope Iulius cast his keyes into the Riuer Tybris, and tooke himselfe to his sword: waged many battailes, and at the last was encountred withall by Lewes the French King, vpon Easter day: where there was of his army slaine, to the nū∣ber of 16000. But these warlike affaires of the Pope misliked the Papists them∣selues: for hee was therefore condemned in the Councell of Turone in France,* 1.60 Anno. 1510. We may see how well these furious Popes doe followe the rule of Christ, who cōmaunded Peter to put vp his sword into his sheath: If it were not lawfull for Peter to strike with the sword, how is it lawfull for the Popes, that, I am sure, dare not challenge more to themselues, then was lawfull for Peter? Thus wee see how absurd a thing it is, that the Pope should bee a temporall Prince.

THE NINTH QVESTION OF THE PRE∣rogatiues of the Pope.

BEside these priuiledges and immunities of the See of Rome, which hither∣to we haue spoken of both in spirituall and temporall matters, there are other prerogatiues, which haue been in times past giuen to the Bishops of Rome, most blasphemous & wicked, which the Papists of this age are ashamed of, and

therefore passe them ouer with silence: for Bellarmine saith nothing of them: Wee will therefore spare our labor in confuting of them, they are so grosse and absurd, but onely bring them forth, that the godly reader may vnderstand the a∣bomination of the whore of Babylon.

There are three monstrous and shameful prerogatiues, which the Canonists ascribed to the Pope in times past: and they are these, his power dispensatiue, his power exemptiue, his power transcendent, so we will call them at this time. [error 53] First, his prerogatiue in dispensing was wonderfull: it would offend a Christian eare, to heare what his grosse Canonists are nothing ashamed to say, Papa potest dispensare contra ius diuinum,* 1.61 the Pope may dispence against the Lawe of God, contra ius naturae, against the Lawe of nature: contra Apostolum, against the Apostle, contra nouum testamentum, against the new Testament: Nay, Pa∣pa potest dispensare de omnibus praeceptis veteris & noui testamenti: the Pope may dispence with all the Commaundements both of the olde and new lawe. What intolerable blasphemies are here? The practises also of Popes are agreeable hereunto: for did not the Court of Rome dispence with King Henry the eights marriage with his brothers wife? but that vngodly dispensation at the last was ouerthrowne: and it was well concluded by act of Parliament: Anno. 1533. That no man had authoritie to dispence with Gods lawes.

[error 54] 2 Concerning his power exemptiue: the Pope (say they) is not bound to any lawe: No man is to iudge or accuse him of any crime, either of adulterie, murther, simonie, or such like. If he fall into adulterie, or homicide, hee can∣not bee accused,* 1.62 but rather excused, by the murthers of Sampson, theftes of the Hebrues, the adulterie of Iacob. As Oziah was stricken for putting his hand to the Arke inclining, no more must subiects rebuke their Prelates go∣ing awry:* 1.63 by the inclination of the Arke, the fall of prelates is vnderstoode. This generally is the opinion of the Canonists: but the Iesuites doo holde the contrarie, that it is lawfull, euen for an inferior priest to rebuke the Pope. Rhemist. Annot. in 2. Galath. sect. 8. Wherefore, seeing they confute them∣selues, they neede not any other refutation.

[error 55] 3 Concerning the third power, which we call Transcendent: One saith, that,* 1.64 non minor honor Papae debetur, quàm Angelis, that there is no lesse ho∣nor due to the Pope, thē to Angels. Another saith: Papatus est summa virtus cre∣ata, The Popedome is the highest power, that was created of God, aboue An∣gels, or Archangels. Againe, those wordes of the Psalme, thou hast put all things vnder his foote,* 1.65 as sheepe and oxen, fowles of the ayre, fishes of the sea: they thus blasphemouslie applie to the Pope, by sheepe and oxen vnder∣standing men liuing vpon the earth:* 1.66 by the fowles of the ayre, the Angels in Heauen, whom they say, the Pope may commaunde; by the fishes, the soules in purgatorie: Ouer all these the Pope, say they, hath absolute power, who may, if it please him, release all purgatorie at once. What horrible blasphemies are here? Yet our Rhemists and other Iesuites are somewhat more modest, which confesse that the Pope is but Christs Vicar in the regi∣ment

of that part which is on the earth. Annotat. 1. Ephesians sect. 5. See∣ing then they confute themselues, wee will not further trauaile herein, but proceede.

THE TENTH QVESTION, CONCERNING Antichrist, and whether the Pope be that great aduer∣sarie vnto Christ.

THis question is deuided into many partes. First, whether Antichrist shall bee some one singular man. Secondly, of the time of his comming and continuing. Thirdly, of his name. Fourthly, of what nation or kinred hee shall come. Fiftly, where his place and seate shall bee. Sixtly, of his Doctrine and manners. Seauenthly, of his miracles. Eightly, of his Kingdome and warres. Ninthly, whether the Pope bee the very Antichrist. This then is a most famous question, and worthie throughly to bee discussed, euery poynte therefore must be handled in order.

The Papists.

THey hold that Antichrist, whose comming is foretolde in the Scripture, shall [error 56] be one particular man, not a whole bodie, tyrannie, or Kingdome, as the truth is, Bellarm. cap. 2. lib. 3.

1 They vrge the words of our Sauiour, Iohn 5.43. I come in my Fathers name, and ye receiue me not, if another come in his owne name, him will ye re∣ceiue. Here Christ, say they, speaketh of another that shall come, namely An∣tichrist, for here one is opposed to one, namely, Antichrist to Christ, not a Kingdome to a Kingdome, or sect vnto sect, but one person to another. Bel∣larmine cap. 2. lib. 3.

Ans. First, here is not so much an opposition of persons, as there is of doc∣trine, as to preach in the name of God, and to preach in the name of men: and though Christ be the chiefe doctor and teacher, that came in the name of his Father, yet all true preachers beside, doe come in the same name: for so our Saui∣our saith of his Apostles, He that receiueth you, receiueth me, and he that recei∣ueth me, receiueth him that sent me Matth. 10.40. Therefore, he that receiueth the Apostles, receciueth God: they also then doe come in the name of Christ: and so Christ and all the faithfull make but one, Iohn 17.21.

2 Neither doth Christ here speake of one speciall enemie, but of all false prophets, for it is not vnusuall in the Scripture, in the singular number to ex∣presse a multitude being of the same kinde, as Iohn 10.11.12. There is a compa∣rison betweene Christ the true shepheard, and the hireling: where, by the name of hireling, all false shepheards and spirituall theeues are vnderstood, and so is it in this place: therefore they cannot conclude out of this place, that Antichrist shall be but one man.

2 An other proofe is out of 1. Iohn 2.18. the Antichrist shal come, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Greeke article, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, expresseth some singular notable person. Bellarmine ibid.

Ans. It is false. The Greeke article doth not alwaies in scripture assigne some particular person: as Matth. 4.4. Man shall not liue by bread onely: the Greeke text hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the man, and yet is it vnderstood not of any one man, but of all in generall, so 2. Tim. 2.17. The man of God, that is, euery faithfull minister, or good Christian, yet is it expressed with the article. Fulk. Annota. 2. Thess. 2. sect. 8.

3 Apocal. 13.18. It is the number of a man: the proper name of Antichrist is set downe, Ergo, but one man. Bellar. ibid. Rhemens. 2. Thes. 2. sect. 8.

Ans. The name here mystically described, which shal conteine 666. in num∣ber, for so the Greek letters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ doe signifie being nūbred, doth not expresse any particular name of one man, but rather of the whole societie and bodie of Antichrist: for it is said to be the number of the beast. Now by the beast is vn∣derstoode the Romane Empire, the name whereof is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Latinus, which let∣ters doe arise in computation to the whole number of, 666. And this name Ire∣naeus thinketh to agree best to this place. Further, seeing the Rhemists themselues by the best do vnderstand the vniuersal companie of the wicked, Reuel. 13. ve. 1. And this is the name or number of the beast: it must be vnderstood, by their own confession, of a companie and congregation, and not of one singular person.

The Protestants.

THat Antichrist, which is interpreted an aduersary, or against Christ, shal not be one man (as the Papists imagine, that the Popes might be disburdened and discharged of this name, who are many) but that it is a whole body, com∣panie and sinagogue, and a succession of heretikes, we doe thus proue it.

* 1.671 The mysterie of iniquitie wrought in Paules time, then was there a way in preparing for Antichrist. 2. Thes. 2. But it is vnpossible for one man to conti∣nue from Paules time to the end of the worlde, Ergo, Antichrist is not one man but a succession of heretikes.

Bellarmine answereth: if the mysterie of iniquitie began in Paules time, that is, the kingdome of Antichrist; and you will needes make Rome the seate of Anti∣christ: belike S. Paul and S. Peter were the Antichrists, for there were no Bishops of Rome beside at that time. Ans. First, that Antichrist begā then to work euen in Rome it cānot be denied, seeing the Papists confesse, that Simon Magus first broched his heresie there, and that Peter calleth Rome Babylon. It is not neces∣sarie, that the mysterie of iniquity should so soone creepe into the very chaire of the Pastors and Bishops: that should come to passe in the full reuelation of An∣tichrist: It is sufficient that it wrought closely amongst the false apostles: where∣fore the Iesuits obiection concerning Peter and Paule, is ridiculous. Fulk. Anno. 2. Thes. 2. sect. 9.

2 S. Paul saith, that there must come a departing or apostasie & generall fal∣ling

from the faith: for that an apostacie signifieth a relinquishing of the faith, not a departure from the Romane Empire. Now this generall falling away from the faith cannot be accomplished in one man, but it sheweth a whole bodie or companie, whereof Antichrist is the head, one man of sinne succeeding another by succession: and this apostacie cannot be wrought at one time, but it shall come to passe in seuerall ages: for how is it possible, that at once such a generall apostacie should be? Ergo, Antichrist shall not be one particular man, Argum. Caluini. Neither can the Iesuite thus shift off the argument, to say, that this gene∣rall apostacie is but a preparation to the kingdome of Antichrist, not that he shall then bee presently come: for S▪ Paul ioyneth both these together: There must come a departing first, that the man of sinne be disclosed, vers. 3. So that this very apostacie and departing shall be a disclosing and manifest declaration of Antichrist.

3 Iohn 3.7. The Apostle sayth: Many deceiuers are come into the world, which confesse not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh: the same is the decei∣uer and the Antichrist: Marke then, one deceiuer is many deceiuers: one Anti∣christ many Antichrists, 1. Iohn 2.18. Ergo, Antichrist shall not be one man, but many, Argument. Ful. annot. 2. Thess. 2. sect. 8.

4 Augustine sheweth, how that in his time this place of S. Paul was not ex∣pounded of any one man, but of a whole bodie: Nonnulli non ipsum principent, sed vniuersum quodammodo corpus eius,* 1.68 simul cum suo principe hoc loco intelligi Antichristum volunt: Some (saith he) doe take Antichrist not for the head alone, but for the whole bodie and multitude together with their prince. And their coniecture is this: because these words, vers. 7. He which withholdeth, are vn∣derstood of the Empire & Emperours of Rome, which were many: so the man of sinne, which is described as in the person of one, may fitly be vnderstood of a succession of many.

THE SECOND PART, WHETHER ANTICHIST be yet come, and how long he shall continue.

The Papists.

THe Romish Iesuites doe hold that Antichrist is not yet come, neither can they tell when he shal come: But this they say boldly, that Henoch and Elias, [error 57] who liue all this while in Paradise, shall come immediatly before Antichrist, and that Antichrist, when he is come, shall raigne but three yeeres and an halfe, and then shall the world end, Bellarm. cap. 4. lib. 3. de pontif. Rhemist. 11. Apocal. sect. 2.4.

1 The Romane Empire must vtterly be destroyed & layd wast before Anti∣christ come: as S. Paul sayth, That which withholdeth must first be taken away, 2. Thess. 2.7. that is, the Romane Empire. But the Empire yet remayneth: for the Emperour is knowne by name, and there are also prince electors of the Em∣pire: Ergo, Antichrist is not yet come, Bellarm. cap. 5.

Answere: It is true that the Romane Empire, while it retayned and kept the ancient dignitie, maiestie and power thereof, was an hinderance and let to the tyrannie of Antichrist, but when it began to decay, then Antichrist set in his foote. First, it was not necessarie therefore that the Empire should vtterly be ex∣tinguished, but so much onely taken away, namely the ancient honour and im∣periall maiestie therof, as hindered Antichrist, and so we finde, that the Romane Empire was more then halfe decayed, when Antichrist crept into Rome. Se∣condly, the imperiall power must in some sort be restored by Antichrist: for the Pope vsurped the same authoritie which the Emperours had, yea greater: for the whore is described sitting vpon the beast, Apocal. 17. which is the Empire: and therefore it is sayd, vers. 8. The beast that was, and is not, and yet is: for the ancient Empire both is, and is not: It is, because the power thereof is translated to the Pope: it is not, that is, not in that kingly manner, as it was in times past. Apocal. 13.12. The beast that rose out of the earth with two hornes like a lamb, did all that the first beast could doe before him: that is, the power of the Em∣pire was in the Pope. Thirdly, Apocal. 13.15. It is sayd, that the image of the beast remayned, & that the other beast gaue a spirit vnto the image of the beast: So is it at this day, the name and image of the Empire remayneth, but the maie∣stie and power is gone: And who giueth life to the image but the Pope? he con∣firmeth and ratifieth the election of the Emperour. Wherefore, this rather is an argument that Antichrist is alreadie come, because nothing but the image of the beast remayneth.

2 Antichrist shall raigne three yeeres and an halfe: but if hee were alreadie come, he must needes haue raigned diuers hundred yeeres alreadie, Bellarmin. cap. 8.

They proue this raigne of Antichrist for this short season, out of those places of Daniel 7.25. A time, times, and halfe a time: and Apocal. 12.14. Also it is de∣scribed by dayes 1260. dayes, and by moneths 11.2. two and fourtie moneths: which all come to one reckoning, and make three yeeres and an halfe.

Answere: First, the time is also set downe by the name of three dayes and an halfe, Apocal. 11.11. How then is it likely, that 1260. dayes and three dayes and an halfe, should signifie the same time? Secondly, with much better sense are these times applied by our learned and painfull countreyman Master Fox, to the great persecution vnder the Emperours, which continued 294. yeeres, which time is mystically signified by 42. moneths, taking euery moneth for a sabboth of yeeres. And the rest of the numbers agree hereunto: for 1260. dayes make three yeeres and an halfe, that is, moneths 42: and three daies and an halfe make houres 42.* 1.69 So taking euery houre in the dayes, and euery moneth in the yeeres for a sabboth of yeeres, there ariseth 294. yeeres, which was the iust time of the persecution from the death of Iohn Baptist, vnto the end of Licinius the tyrant & persecutor. This account, I say, better agreeth with the truth of historie, then their imagined computation. Thirdly, if it should be taken, as they expound it, for so short a time, then very little of the prophecie in the Apocalyps is yet fulfil∣led,

which we doubt not but is most accomplished, as it may appeare in compa∣ring the visions reuealed in that booke together. And agayne, there is no pro∣phecie beside this of 42. moneths, which can bee applyed to the great persecu∣tion in the Primitiue Church: wherefore it is not like that the Lord would leaue his Church, without some comfort, in forewarning them of those great troubles which immediatly ensued. But if these prophecies, which are wrested by the Papists, did no•• foretell of those persecutions, then are they vtterly forgotten in that booke: which is not like, it being the greatest triall that euer the Church had.

4 We say then, that wee are not curiouslie to search into times and seasons, which the Lord hath not reuealed: Onely this wee learne, that the time of affli∣ction being set downe by dayes and monethes, the faithfull should hereby bee comforted, knowing that the time of their trouble is limitted of God, and is but short in respect of the kingdome of Christ.

2 The Lord sayth, Math. 24. that those daies shall be shortned, lest no flesh should be saued. But how can the time bee short, if it should last some hun∣dreds, or a thousand of yeeres? Bellarmin. cap. 8. Rhemist. annot. Matth. 24. sect. 6.

Answere: First, that place vers. 22. is properly vnderstood of the calamitie of the Iewes, which if it had continued any longer, the nation of the Iewes had bin vtterly destroyed. Secondly, yet notwithstanding the raigne of Antichrist is short in respect of the eternall kingdome of Christ: yea the whole time from his ascension vntill his comming agayne, is counted but short, Apocal. 22.20. I come quickly: and S. Peter sayth, That a thousand yeeres before God is as one day, and one day as a thousand yeeres, 2. Pet. 3.

3 Christ preached but three yeeres and an halfe, therefore Antichrist shalbe suffered to preach no longer.

Answere: First, yet Christ was thirtie yeeres old when he began to preach, and shewed himselfe before, though not so openly, as when he was twelue yeere old he disputed with the Doctors in the temple: he was also acknowledged for the Messiah in his natiuitie. If Antichrist then must in this respect be correspon∣dent to Christ, he must also be knowne to be thirtie yeeres vpon earth, before he be fully manifested. Secondly, though Christ himselfe preached no longer, yet he sent his Apostles, who preached many yeeres after: we doe not therefore op∣pose the person of Antichrist, whom we denye to be a singular man, to Christ, but the kingdome of the one to the other. Now by their owne reason, it follow∣eth, that because the kingdome of Christ endured many yeeres, and yet doth, that therefore Antichrists kingdome must likewise.

Other demonstrations the Iesuite hath to prooue that Antichrist is not yet come: as because the Gospell is not yet preached to all the world, cap. 4. Bellar. Helias and Henoch are not yet come, who are certainly looked for, cap. 6. There shall bee a most grieuous and terrible persecution vnder Antichrist, which is not yet past, cap. 7. But these arguments shall bee answered in another

place towards the end of this worke, when we come to speake of the appearing of Christ to iudgement.

The Protestants.

THat Antichrist shall raigne but three yeeres and an halfe, we take it for a meere fable, and a very popish dreame: whereas on the contrarie side, wee are able to shewe, both that Antichrist is alreadie come, and hath tyrannized in the world these many yeeres.

1 We will make it plaine by demonstration, that Antichrist hath been in the world many yeeres agoe, by the propheticall places of scripture. First, it is sayd, the number of Antichrist is 666. Apocal. 13.18. So, anno. 606. or there∣about, Boniface the 3. obtayned of Phocas the Emperour to be called vniuersall Bishop. Thus sayth Illyricus, Chytraeus. Also beginning at the yeere of the Lord 97. at which time Iohn wrote the Apocalyps, and counting 666. yeeres, we shal come to the time of Pipinus, whom the Pope made King of France, and he a∣gayne much enlarged the iurisdiction and authoritie of the Pope. And yet more euidently, about the yeere of the Lord 666. the Latine seruice was com∣manded to be vsed in all countreys subiect to the See of Rome, by Pope Vitalia∣nus: and about the same time, Constantius the Emperour remoued the ancient monuments of the Empire to Constantinople, and left the citie to the Popes plea∣sure, Fulk. annot. in 13. Reuel. sect. 10.

Another prophecie we haue, Reuel. 20.3. that after one 1000. yeeres Sathan must be let loose. Euen so, a thousand yeeres after Christ, Pope Siluester a great coniurer, hauing made a compact with the Diuell, obtayned the Papacie, and not long after him came in Gregorie the 7. a great Sorcerer also and Necroman∣cer, sic Lutherus.

But because it is not to be thought, that Sathan was bound during that great and long persecution vnder the Romane Emperours, wee must begin the ac∣count of the 1000. yeeres, from the end of the persecution, which continued 294. yeeres: vnto that adde a thousand, so haue we the yeere of our Lord 1294. About which yeere Boniface the 8. made the sixt booke of the Decretals, confir∣med the orders of Friers, and gaue them great freedomes: with this number a∣greeth Daniel his 1290. dayes, Dan. 12.1••. Also somewhat before this time, anno 1260. the orders of Dominicke and Franciscane Friers began first to be set vp by Honorius the 3. and Gregorie the 9. and so haue we the 1260. daies, which are set downe, Apocal. 12. plura apud Fox. pag. 398.

2 If Antichrist should raigne but three yeeres and an halfe, as our aduersa∣ries teach, and then immediatly that time being expired, the world should end: then it is possible to assigne the time of our Lord Christ his comming to iudge∣ment, so soone as Antichrist is reuealed. But the Gospell sayth, that of that day and houre knoweth no man, no not the Angels in heauen, Math. 24.36. yet these good fellowes take vpon them to be wiser then the Angels: for they dare

set downe the very day of Christs comming: which shall be, as Bellarmine pre∣sumptuously imagineth, iust 45. dayes after the destruction of Antichrist. And to this purpose he abuseth that place of Dan. 12.11. where mention is made of 1290. dayes, that is, as he fondly interpreteth, three yeeres and an halfe, the iust time of Antichrists raigne: But blessed is he that commeth (sayth the Prophet) to 1335. dayes: that is, sayth Bellarmine, to 45. dayes after the destruction of Antichrist, and then Christ commeth, cap. 9. What intolerable boldnes and presumption is this, contrarie to the saying of Christ, to attempt to declare the very houre of his comming?

Agayne: the prophecie of Daniel had no such meaning: for he onely spea∣keth of the afflictions of the Church, before the comming of Christ, as Iohn pro∣phecieth of the troubles that came after. Daniel therfore in that place receiueth instructions concerning the cruell persecution of the Iewes vnder Antiochus E∣piphanes, the beginning, and the end thereof: There are three times reuealed vnto him.

The first is of a time, two times, and halfe a time, or rather the deuiding of time, or as Tremellius more agreeable to the Hebrew, a part or parcel of times:* 1.70 so long should the temple be defiled, and the abomination set vp in the temple, that is, three yeeres and certayne dayes: And so it came to passe, for this deso∣lation began in the temple the 145. yeere of the raigne of the Greekes, the fif∣teene day of the moneth Casleu. 1. Macchab. 1.57. when Antiochus caused the daylie sacrifice to cease, and incense to bee burnt to Idols: And iust three yeeres and ten dayes after, which is to bee reckoned for the odde parcell of times, Ann. 148. the 25. day of Casleu, they began to offer sacrifice in the temple according to the lawe, 1. Macchab. 4.52.

The second time reuealed, is of a 1290. dayes, Dan. 12.11. which maketh three yeeres, seuen moneths and odde dayes: which is the time, counting from the desolation, when as the sacrifices should be restored, and confirmed by the Kings graunt, and Letters Patents: which accordingly came to passe, ann. 148. the fifteenth of the moneth Xanthicus, which was the last moneth but one, as it is recorded, 2. Macchab. 11.33.

The third time is described by dayes, 1335. Dan. 12.12. Blessed is hee that should liue to see that time: namely, when the Church of the Iewes should ful∣lie bee deliuered by the death of Antiochus, which was in the beginning of the next yeere, which was 149. 1. Macchab. 6.16. Thus wee see these times were fully accomplished vnder the tyrannie of Antiochus: wherefore these prophe∣cies being once fulfilled, they cannot bee drawne to signifie any other time, but by way of similitude and comparison.

Neither is that any thing worth, which the Iesuite obiecteth out of S. Paul, 2. Thess. 2.8. Then shall the wicked man bee reuealed, whom Christ shall con∣sume with the spirit of his mouth: As though presently after the reuelation of Antichrist Christ should come. And therefore Antichrist must not be expected

or looked for before the end of the world: for the whole time from the first com∣ming of Christ to his second, is in the scripture called nouissima hora, the last times, 1. Ioh. 2.18. And therefore Antichrist, at what time soeuer he is reuealed after the ascension of Christ, he commeth in the last times: whose vtter ruine and destruction shall be reserued for the glorious appearing of Christ, as the A∣postle there speaketh.

3 Whereas the scripture sayth, that Sathan must bee bound for a thousand yeeres, and after let loose agayne, Apocal. 20.2: And it is playne that the thou∣sand yeeres since Christ are expired more then fiue hundred yeeres agoe: It followeth hereupon that Antichrist is alreadie come: for he must bee reuealed with the loosing of Sathan. Our aduersaries haue nothing to answere but this, that by this 1000. yeeres, a certayne time is not ment, but the whole space du∣ring the time of the newe Testament, till the comming of Antichrist, Rhemist. Reuel. 20. sect. 1. To whom wee answere, that by the same reason, neither shall their 42. moneths shewe any certayne time, but the whole space so long as An∣tichrist shall raigne: and this number of moneths, as of dayes, weekes, houres, the scripture euery where taketh mystically in prophecies: but when thousands, or hundred yeeres are mentioned, they are alwaies taken literally: as Isay. 7.8. it is prophecied, that Ephraim, that is, Israel, should vtterly cease to bee a people within 65. yeeres, which euen so came to passe, counting from the fourth yeere of the raigne of Ahaz King of Iuda, to the 25. yeere of Manasses, when the rem∣nant of Israel was carried away.

THE THIRD PART CONCERNING THE NAME, character and signe of Antichrist.

The Papists.

THey stoutly affirme, that Antichrist shall be one particular man, consequent∣ly [error 58] they also hold, that he shall haue a certayne name, as Christ is called Iesus, so Antichrist must also haue a proper name: but what that name shall be, no man can tell, vntill hee come: but it shall consist of certayne letters, that in number make sixe hundred sixtie sixe, Bellarm. cap. 10. Rhemist. annot. Apocal. 13. sect. 10.

1 Apocal. 13.18. Count the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666. Hereupon they conclude, that Antichrist shall haue a certayne name, which conteyneth that number, Bellarm. ibid.

Answere: First, it is the number of the beast, and yet of a man: Ergo, it cannot bee the name of any one man: for by the beast, the Iesuites themselues vnder∣stand a companie or multitude, Rhemist. Apocal. 13. sect. 1. Wherefore it must be such a name as agreeth to a companie or succession of men, and such is the name Latinus, as afterward we will shewe. Secondly, it must bee a name by number,

shewing the time, not an idle number signifying nothing; the time of his com∣ming is set downe to be 666: But the name of their Antichrist cannot shew any such time, seeing there are yeeres more then twise 666. gone alreadie, and yet they say, their Antichrist is not yet come.

2 Antichrist shall haue a name, as Christ had, but it is not necessarie to bee knowne, otherwise then Christ his name was:* 1.71 which was descri∣bed by Sibil by the number of 888. as Antichrists is by 666. yet was not his name, Iesus, perfectly knowne before his com∣ming, neither is it necessarie that Antichrists should before that time. Iesus, in Greeke letters thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, maketh as you see 888. Bellarm. cap. 10.

Answere: First, you must proue Antichrist to be one singular man as Christ was, and then striue for his name. Secondly, you doe euill to match Sibils pro∣phecie, and Iohns reuelation together, as though her coniecture of the name of Christ, by the number 888. were of like authoritie with Iohns prophecie, of 666. Thirdly, it is false, that the name, Iesus, was onely by Sibil signified by these numbers: for Augustine alleadgeth certayne verses of Sibil, which began with the letters of Christs name in order one after another: so that the first letters of the verses shewed this title or name: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Iesus Christus filius Dei saluator: And the Latine verses translated out of the Greeke, doe almost keepe the same order of letters, August. cont. Iudaeos pagan. cap. 16. We see then that Sibil foretold the very name, Iesus Christ, and did not onely decipher it by numbers. Why might not Antichrists name as well be shewed?

The Protestants.

WE affirme by warrant of scripture, that as it is a meere fable, that Anti∣christ shall bee one singular man; so of the like truth is it, that hee shall be knowne by some notorious name: neither can any such thing bee gathered, Apocal. 13.18.

1 If there should come such a notorious wicked person into the world, who only should deserue to be called Antichrist, it is not vnlike, but that the spirit of God, speaking of his name, both could & would also haue expressed it: As Iosias was described by name, 1. King. 13.20 and Cyrus, Isai. 44.28.45.1. long before either of them came into the world: And why, I pray you, might not this pro∣pheticall Euangelist, haue named Antichrist, as well as Sibilla foretold the name of our Sauiour Iesus Christ?

Agayne, Christs names were prophecied of and knowne before: One name of his is to bee called a Nazarite, so the people call him, Math. 2••.11. a pro∣phet of Nazareth. This name the Prophet hath, Isay. 11.1. he calleth him, Net∣ser, in Hebrew it signifieth a branch. Another name of his, is King of Israel, Iohn 12.23. prophecied of by Zachar. 9.9. Also he was called the sonne of Da∣uid, Math. 21.9. And Isay sayth, he shall spring out of the roote of Iesse. 11.1.

Further, hee was knowne by the name Messiah, or Christ, before he came, Ioh. 4. the woman of Samaria said, I know well that Messiah shal come, which is called Christ, vers. 25. This name was reuealed to Daniel, 9.25. he is called Mes∣siah, the prince.

But will our aduersaries say, his name Iesus was not knowne before his com∣ming? yes, euen that name also hath some euidence out of the Prophets: for Ie∣sus or Iesua, is all one, and signifieth a Sauiour: of the which name we reade Za∣char. 3. where mention is made of Ieshua the high Priest, who was a type of our Sauiour Christ, and bare his name, for vers. 5. a Diademe is set vpon his head: which must needes bee vnderstood of Iesus Christ, our high Priest. Agayne, he is called Hosanna, Iohn 12.13. which signifieth the same that Iesus, and both are deriued from the same roote: translated, Saue vs. Which name we finde in the 118. Psal. vers. 25.

Lastly, if the name Iesus Christ were reuealed to Sibilla a heathen prophe∣tisse, how can it be, that the Prophets of God were ignorant of it? Therefore by their owne argument, seeing Christs names were knowne before his comming, why should not Antichrists in like manner, if he should be some one singular notorious man?

2 We can bring foorth a name, which in all respects agreeth with that de∣scription, Apocal. 13.18. which is a name both of a man and of the beast, that is, of a companie, or succession of men, which sheweth the time of Antichrists birth, namely, the yeere 666. which also doth fitly agree with the manners and properties of Antichrist: and that is the name Latinus, which in Greeke letters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sheweth in account, the number 666. and so doth the name of Rome in Hebrew — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, romiijth. And, ecclesia Italica,* 1.72 in Greeke let∣ters doe make the same number.

We see then, that all things do well agree to this name: first, that is signifieth the whole Latin Church or Empire, & so is the name of the beast. Secondly, it sheweth the time 666. about which yeere Pope Vitalianus composed the Latin Seruice, and enioyned all Nations to vse no other. Thirdly, it properly a∣greeth with the Antichristian practise of Rome; which is called the Latine Church. And contrarie to S. Paules rule they haue brought an vn∣knowne tongue which edifieth not, into the seruice of God: yea they preferre it before the Greeke and Hebrew, making the Latine translation of the scrip∣tures onely authenticall, as it was concluded in their Tridentine chapter. And they doe so much extoll their Latine text, as the setter forth of the Complutense edition is not ashamed in his preface to write, that he hath placed the Latine text betweene the Hebrew and the Greeke, as Christ betweene the two theeues, Fulk. Apocal. 13. sect. 10. What Church then in the whole world but theirs, can be called the Latine Church? Fourthly, it also maketh much for vs, that we haue a consent of names, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & in Hebrew Romiijth, doe all make the same number, and doe note the Latine, Romane, or Italian Church.

But they obiect: First that Latinus maketh not that number with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. but La∣teinus with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. A great matter: wherein they shew their ignorance, as though the Greeke dipthong, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. be not vsually expressed by a single 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. in Latine, as we say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Antiocheia in Greeke, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Alexandreia, with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. dipthong: in Latine, Antiochia, Alexandria, with single 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. for the cities of Antioch, and A∣lexandria: this therefore is a small quarell. But mark I pray, what a poore shift this is: If this smal letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. be but admitted, the Pope is made Antichrist: so we haue found out Antichrist, sauing one small letter.

2. Why, there are many names beside, that make that number, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and others: nay the Rhemists say, that Luthers name, in the Hebrue, and Bellarmine, that Dauid Chytraeus his name, doe expresse that number of 666. But what of all this? there is none of these names, vnto the which the three pro∣perties aforesayd doe agree, as they doe vnto Latinus, as to betoken the whole body of Antichrist, to shew the time of his birth, and describe the qualities of his Kingdome, as the word Latinus doth, yet this we doe not say, that this is the very name which is meant in that place, and that the Prophesie can haue no other meaning: But to shew how ridiculous their interpretation is, and how much nearer ours commeth to the truth.

OF THE CHARACTER OR SIGNE and badge of Antichrist.

The Papists.

THey do hold that Antichrist shall haue a certaine outward marke or chara∣cter, which he shall cause to be printed in the right hands, and foreheads [error 59] of all both small and great, that doe belong to his kingdome, Apocal. 13.16. But this marke is not yet knowen, no more then his name is: Onely this they are sure of, that the Pope hath not Antichrists character, but rather the chara∣cter of Christ, the signe of the Crosse which he causeth to be signed in the fore∣heads, Bellarmin. cap. 11.

1. Antichrist must in all respects be contrarie to Christ: for as he seeth his image and crucifix adored, so shall he set vp his owne image to be worshipped: and therefore as Christians now doe beare in their foreheads the signe of the Crosse which is Christs marke, so hee shall inuent an other marke contrary to Christs: and he will make his name and the letters thereof sacred, as now the name of Iesus is worshipped among Christians, Rhemist. Apocal. 13. sect. 7.

Answere: First, where haue you learned, that roodes and images are to be adored and worshipped? or doth not the word of God teach the plaine contra∣rie Psal. 115.8.9? O Israel trust in the Lord: but they that worship images are like vnto them: he therefore that trusteth in an image cannot trust in God. A∣gaine, where learne you to make an Idoll of the letters or sillables of Christs name, to cause men to carry it in their caps, and bow their knee vnto it? think

you that Saint Paul, when he sayth, that all thinges doe bowe the knee to the name of Iesus, yea of things in heauen, Philip. 2. that he meant, that euen the Angels doe stoup and make obeysance, when they see the name of Iesus writ∣ten in a glasse window? Or who taught you that the signe of the Crosse is to be borne vpon mens foreheades, and that with crossing of the forehead, we are preserued from daunger? Saynt Paul, you knowe, hath no such meaning, when he sayth, He bare in his bodie the markes of the Lorde Iesus, which were nothing else, but the signes and tokens of his persecutions, as whip∣pings, stoning, and such like in his flesh: Galath. 6.17. Neither, when he saith, He reioyced in nothing but the Crosse of Christ, whereby he was crucifi∣ed to the worlde, verse 14. hath he any relation to the Crosse in the forehead: for it were a myracle, that a man by crossing his forehead, should straight wayes crucifie and mortifie his affections: Nor yet did our Sauiour speake of this marke, where he saith, that they which will followe him, must take vp his crosse, Mark. 8.34. for in that place, by taking vp of the Crosse, he meaneth, nothing else but the forsaking and denying of our selues. So it is playne, that in the scripture you finde not this superstitious signe of the crosse in your foreheads.

2. Where you say, that you doe honour the character of Christ, as his name, and the signe of the Crosse: You doe euen so honour Christ, as the souldiers did, that gaue him a reede for a scepter, and thornes for a Crowne, and bowed themselues in mockage: So you do leaue Christ certaine badges and signes of his kingdome; but indeed you spoyle him of it, and of his Priest∣hood too, making other mediatours beside him, and other sacrifices propitiato∣rie beside his. What doe you else now, in bowing the knee to the name and sil∣lables of Iesus, and spoyling him of his honur, but with the souldiers in moc∣kage to bow vnto Christ? And I pray you, how doe you honour the name of Christ, when you make a iest of the name of Christian? for in Italie it is a worde of reproch, taken for an idiote or foole.

3. We answere, that the signe whereby Christians are marked, are not ex∣ternal, but internall: we are sealed by the spirite of God, Ephes. 4.30. The out∣ward signes are none other, but the two sacraments of Baptisme and the Lords supper: by the right administration wherof the congregations of the faythful are knowen. But of this, more shall be spoken in the Antithesis, or Antidotum, in the declaration of our opinion.

The Protestants.

BY the character or marke of Antichrist, we doe not vnderstand any visible signe or badge to be printed in the right hand or the forehead, as the Iesuite imagineth: as though he should brand all his subiects in the hand or forehead: But heereby is meant and signified chiefely the societie and communion, whereby they shalbe ioyned to Antichrist, by giuing vnto him their fidelitie,

oth, and obedience, agreeing together in the same corruption of fayth, and doctrine. This is Antichrists badge or cognisance. Fulk. Apocalip. 13. sect. 7. There are also outward markes of their coniuncton with Antichrist: as the sha∣uing of Priests, and greazing them with oyle: such are the receiuing of holie bread, the wearing of beades, the annoynting with chrisome: But the proper note and character, is the oth and profession of fealtie and obedience.

1. Antichrist say they, shall bring in another contrary character, to dis∣grace the signe and character of Christ, namely the crosse in the foreheads:* 1.73 But Christ hath appoynted no such visible character, neither are true Christians knowen by any such: therefore also the character of Antichrist is no such thing.

1. The people of the Iewes had no such outward badge, who were more charged with outward obseruations, then Christians are: Circumcision was the onely signe of the couenant to them, Genes. 17.11. which was one of their chiefe sacraments, in place whereof Baptisme is enioyned vs: Ergo, much lesse are we to be knowen by any other outward badge.

2. This place Apocal. 13. is taken out of Ezech. 9. where the Angel is com∣maunded to set a marke vpon the foreheads of them that mourne: but that was no visible externall marke, for it was shewed the Prophet in vision: Ergo, nei∣ther is it to be taken so in this place.

3. We grant, the sacraments are badges and markes of our profession: which markes the Pope, the onely Antichrist hath defaced, by bringing in fiue other sacraments, and cleane changing, polluting and altering, the right sacra∣ments which Christ instituted: for they haue brought into baptisme, chrisme, salt, oyle, spittle, and such trash: into the Eucharist, adoration, transsubstantiatiō, sacrifice, with such like: so that herein he sheweth himselfe Antichrist, and hath altered the true markes of Religion.

2. It appeareth by the effect what is the Character of Antichrist:* 1.74 The text saith, It was not lawfull for any to buy or sell, but he that had the marke or the name of the beast: No more was it lawfull for any to haue trafficke amongst the papists but hee that acknowledged the Popes crosse keyes, or made himselfe a member of the Romish Italian Church: Nay they say, he is not of the Church, that acknowledgeth not the Pope to be head of Christes Church, Fulk. Apo∣cal. 13. sect. 7.

The Iesuite obiecteth: First, this oth of fidelitie and coniunction cannot be that character: for it must be in the right hand or forehead. Answere, Wee haue already declared, that it is too childish to take these wordes literally, as though all Antichrists subiects should carie brandes in their foreheads or hands. Secondly, saith he, many do both buy & sell amongst them, that haue not made profession of their fealtie to Rome, as the Iewes, Bellarm. cap. 11. Answer: Yea no maruaile, for Antichrist is an enemie onely to Christ: al other people he can brook well enough beside good Christians: tell me I pray you, whether our merchants be admitted to traffick safely in Spaine, if their religion be knowen:

The seruants of God amongst you, can neither enioy, houses, lands, libertie or life: which yoke also was layd a long time vpon this land, till it pleased God to haue mercie on vs: for the which his name be blessed.

3. Againe, many yeares agoe, euen in Augustines and Ambrose his time, all Churches were ioyned to Rome, before Antichrist was yet reuealed. Ergo. This is not the Character of Antichrist. Bellarmin. ibid.

Answere: First, they were ioyned then in common consent of religion, not as subiects by compulsion, but voluntarie, because at that time Rome in the chiefest poynts of Religion was in the right fayth. 2. But of late dayes in the Councel of Constance not yet 2. hundred yeares agoe, it was made an article of faith, to beleeue, that the Pope was the head of the Vniuersal Church: yea a∣bout the yeare 600. the title of Vniuersal Bishop first began to be appropri∣ate to Rome: whereby was insinuated, that all Churches in the world should be vnder the obedience thereof.

Lastly, we haue the testimonie of one of their Popes themselues, who saith plainly,* 1.75 that hee is the forerunner of Antichrist, which would bee called Vniuersall Bishop. lib. 4. epistol. 32. See then by his testimony, the title of Vni∣uersality, and exacting of obedience of other Churches, is the character & marke of Antichrist.

THE FOVRTH PART, CONCERNING the generation and original of Antichrist.

The Papists.

[error 60] THey doe reiect those olde fancies concerning Antichrist, as that hee should be borne of a Virgin by helpe of the diuel, that hee should haue the diuell to his father: that he should be a diuell incarnate: or that hee should bee Nero, raysed from the dead. Refusing these fables, they haue found out one as foolish: Our Rhemists holde, that Antichrist shalbe borne of the tribe of Dan. Bellarm. dare not say so, but he thinketh that he shall come of the Iewes stock, and be circumcised, and be taken of the Iewes for their Messiah. cap. 12.

1. That he shall come of the tribe of Dan: thus they would prooue it, Genes. 49.17. Dan shalbe a serpent by the way biting the horse heeles: Ierem. 8.16. The neying of his horses is heard from Dan. And Apocal. 7. where 12. thousand of euery tribe are reckoned, onely Dan is left out, because (belike) An∣tichrist should come of that tribe. Rhemist. 2. Thess. 2. sect. 8.

Answere: Bellarmine confuteth all these reasons: the first hee saith with Hierome to be vnderstood of Sampson, who came of the tribe of Dan: the second place is of Nabuchadnezzers comming to destroy Ierusalem, as Hierome also expoundeth it: to the third he sayth, that Ephraim is left out as well as Dan: yea and so is Manass••h too: because the tribe of Ioseph is named for his two sonnes: but Dan is left out because Leui is reckoned in his place. Wee may see now,

how well they agree, when one Iesuite confuteth another. Bellarmin. cap. 12.

2. Bellarmine standeth much vpon that place, Iohn 5.43. If an other come in his name, him will ye receiue: But sayth he, the Iewes will receiue none, but of their owne kinred, and whom they looke for to be their Messiah. Ergo. Antichrist must come of the Iewes. ibd.

Answere: This place we haue shewed before, part 1. of this question, to be vnderstood of false prophets amongst the Iewes, such as mention is made of Act. 5. as Theudas and Iudas, and not of any one false prophet: so Iohn 10. where Christ compareth himselfe, which is the true shepheard, with the hire∣ling, he vnderstandeth all hirelings, though he speake in the singular number.

The Protestantes.

THat it is a very fable and cousoning deuice of heretikes, to make men be∣leeue that Antichrist shall come of the tribe of Dan, or of the stock of the Iewes, thus we shew it.

1. It is out of doubt, that the nation of the Iewes shall bee conuerted vnto God, and mercy shalbe shewed againe to the remnant of Israel, Rom. 11.25. confessed also by the papists: But if one come, which shall reedifie the tem∣ple, and restore the sacrifices and circumcision, such an one, as the Iewes shall take for their Messiah: who seeth not, that by this meanes the Iewes will bee more hardned, hauing now their owne hearts desire, their temple; Messiah, cir∣cumcision: and their conuersion would be greatly hindred, nay quite and clean ouerthrowen?

2. If Antichrist should come of the Iewes, it is like that his seate should bee at Ierusalem, and that the temple shall be built agayne by him: but that cannot be, for the temple, as Daniel prophesieth, shall lie desolate euen vnto the ende, Dani. 9.27. Ergo. he shall not come of the Iewes. More of this in the next parte.

THE FIFT PART CONCERNING THE seate and place of Antichrist.

The Papists.

BEllarmine holdeth opinion, that Antichrist shall haue his imperiall seate at Ierusalem, and reedifie and build againe the temple, yea for a while com∣maund [error 61] circumcision to be vsed and obserued, Bellarm. cap. 13. lib. 3. de pontif. Rhemist, 2. Thessa. 2. sect. 11.

1. Apocal. 11.8. the Citie of Antichrist is called the great Citie where our Lord was crucified. But Christ was crucified at Ierusalem. Ergo.

Answere: First, it cannot be so vnderstood, for ver. 2. Ierusalem is called the holy Citie. ver. 8. This great Citie is called Sodome and Aegypt: how can the same Citie be capable of such contrary names? How can that be called an holy Citie, where the abomination of desolation shall be and the seate of Antichrist?

Secondly, Augustine in Apocal. homil. 8. vnderstandeth by the great Citie and the streetes thereof, the middest of the Church: And by the great citie verie fitly is vnderstood the large iurisdiction of the Pope, who sayth, hee is head of the great citie and Catholike Church: Whose seate we see is at Rome, by authoritie of which citie Christ was put to death: and by Antichrist the Pope, Christ also is persecuted in his members. Fulk. annotat. Apocalyps. 11. sect. 2.

2. Apocalips. 17.16. the tenne hornes, that is, tenne kings, amongst whom the Romane Empire shall bee deuided, shall hate the scarlet whore, that is, Rome, and burne it with fire: how then shall it bee the seate of Antichrist? Bellarm.

Answere: The text is plaine, that the same kingdomes, that before had gi∣uen their power to the beast, and were subiect to the whore of Babilon, shall after make her desolate, and eate her flesh: which thing we see in part to be accomplished already, that many princes haue redeemed their necks from Antichrist his yoke, Fulk. Apocal. 17. sect. 3. It is not necessary therefore to bee done all at one time, but one after another.

3. 2. Thessal. 2. he shall sit in the temple of God: but at that time the Iewes onely had a temple, the Christians yet had none, and the Apostle speaking of the Church of God, did of purpose refrayne this name, lest the Church of Christians should be thought like the Iewes Synagogue. Bellarm.

Answere: First, the Iewish temple shall not be built againe, as Daniel pro∣phesieth, 9.27. and how can it be built in so short a space, seeing Antichrist, as they say, must raigne but three yeeres and an halfe? and to what purpose, seeing he will abolish all sacrifices? Secondly, though it should be built againe, nay if it were standing now, for the exercise of Iewish sacrifices, it could not be cal∣led the temple of God. Thirdly, by the temple therefore is meant the visible Church, that which sometime was a true visible one, as the Church of Rome, and after should be so taken, reputed and challenged, as it is at this day by the papists: Neyther haue the papists hereby any aduantage, as though the Pope sate in the very true Church: for it is not the true Church indeede, but so repu∣ted and taken by them. Fourthly, though there were no materiall temples of the Christians in Pauls time, what of that? hee speaketh not here of any such materiall temple, but of the Church of God, neither doth Saint Paul in this sense refuse to vse the name of temple, as 1. Corinthian. 3. vers. 16. and 6. vers. 19. and in other places.

The Protestants.

THat Rome is the seate and place of Antichrist, beside that the Rhemists confesse so much that Antichrist shall raigne there, annot. Apocal. 17. sect. 4. We prooue it thus.

1. Antichrist is called the great whore of Babilon, Apocal. 17.5. But Babi∣lon is Rome, Ergo, Rome is the seat of Antichrist.

Obiect: It was Babilon, while it was gouerned and ruled by heathen Em∣perors, but the Church was not then called Babilon, Bellarm. Answere: First, Ergo by your owne confession, Rome shall be the seat of Antichrist, seeing by Saint Iohn it was called Babilon. Secondly, it was not onely called Babilon in the time of the heathen, but euen of Christian Emperors: Augustine saith, it is Occidentalis Babïlon, the Babilon in the west partes,* 1.76 & prioris filia Ba∣bilonis, and daughter to the first Babilon. Thirdly, Saint Iohn doth not onely prophesie of the crueltie of the terrene state, but of the false prophet Antichrist, you should also vsurpe an ecclesiasticall gouernment there.

Obiect. Secondly, they obiect that by the damnation of the great whore, is vnderstoode the finall destruction of all the company of the reprobate, Rhemist. Apocal. 17.1. Answere, the damnation vniuersally of the wicked is de∣scribed cap. 20. and therefore this place must be vnderstoode of Antichrist, and his adherents: And very fitly doth the name of whore agree to that See, for once a whore indeede was Pope there, called Iohn the eighth. Which so wringeth the Papists, that they haue no other shifte but impudently to de∣nie it.

2. Wee haue another argument out of the same chapter, vers. 9. the se∣uen heades are seuen mountaines, on which the woman sitteth: But there is no citie in the world notoriously knowen to stand vpon seuen hils but Rome: Ergo, it is the seate of Antichrist.

Obiect. The text is, they are also seuen kings, so the seuen heades or seuen hils signifie seuen kings: for there shall bee so many chiefe Empires which shall persecute the Church, there are fiue part: Aegypt, Canaan, Ba∣bilon, the Persians, Grecians, the sixt, the Romanes, which in parte standeth yet, the seuenth shall be Antichrist, Rhemist. Apocalip. 17. sect. 7.

Answere: First, the seuen heads are expounded to be both seuen hils and se∣uen kings: the scripture vseth not to expound one harde and obscure thing by an harder and more obscure, as to say, seuen heads are seuen mountains, that is, seuen kinges: for wee were neerer the sense before: and the terme of heads doth more fitly resemble kinges, then mountaines. Secondly, the seuen kinges are more fitly taken for seuen principall gouernours of the Ro∣manes, as Kings, Tribunes, Consuls, Decemviri, Dictators, Emperours, Popes: for by these seuen orders hath the common wealth beene gouerned first and last. Fulk. ibid.

Obiect. Rome is not now built vpon seuen hilles, it standeth in the playne in Campo Martio, Sander. ibid.

Answere: First, you haue then no right to Peters Chayre, for when hee sate at Rome, the Citie stoode vppon seuen hils. Secondly, though the Pope nowe hath remooued his pallace to the Vaticane, on the other

side of the riuer, yet he did sit for many yeares in Laterane, vntill the time of Pope Nicholas the second, who was almost 1100. yeeres after Christ. Thirdly, though the Pope hath remooued his pallace vpon pleasure beyond the riuer: yet his See is not remoued: for vpon euery one of those hils there are Monaste∣ries, and chapples, and such like monuments to be seene to this day. In mount Caelius there is the Monasterie of Gregorie the first, the Cathedral Church of Laterane. In mount Auentine, the Monasteries of Sabi••e and Boniface. In the mount Exquilinus the Minster of S. Maria maior, the ruines of Saint Cyriacus Church, which is yet a title of a Cardinal. The mount Viminalis hath the Church of Saint Laurence. The mount Capitoline hath an house of friers, called Ara coeli. The mount Palatine the Church of Saint Nicholas. The mount Quirina∣lis hath S. Maria de populo. Wherefore though the Popes person be remooued a little aside, yet the popish religion is exercised, and reliques of superstition are to be found in euery one of those hils. Wherefore we nothing doubt to con∣clude, but that Rome is that Citie vpon 7. hils, and so the principal seate of Antichrist.

THE SIXT PART CONCERNING THE doctrine of Antichrist.

The Papists.

[error 62] THeir opinion is, that Antichrist shalbe an open and manifest aduersarie to Christ, and that he shall abolish all worship of God, and all religion. Rhe∣mist. annot. 2. Thess. 2. sect. 10. Bellarmine draweth all the doctrine of Antichrist, to these foure heads. First, he shall denie Iesus to be Christ, and abolish the sa∣craments instituted by Christ. Secondly, he shal make himselfe Christ. Thirdly, he shall make himselfe God, and be adored as God. Fourthly, he shall abolish al other worship, both true and false, yea the worship of Idols. Wherefore, sayth he, the Pope cannot be Antichrist, that doth none of these things, cap. 14. of these now in their order.

* 1.771. Antichrist shall vtterly denie Christ. 1. Iohn 2.22. & 4.3. Euerie spirite that confesseth not, that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God, this is the spirite of Antichrist. Ergo, Antichrist shall altogether denie Christ.

Answere: First the Rhemists say that this is not a marke for all times, to know an heretike by, but it was onely for those times, to confesse Christ to bee come in the flesh: this is a surer note now, say they, that whoso confesseth not Christ to be really present, and to be sacrificed in the masse, is not of God. Rhe∣mist. annot. 1. Iohn 4. sect. 2.* 1.78 Where I will not stand to note the presumption of these papists, that will correct and amend the Apostles rule, to know here∣tikes by, which serueth for all times, and so Augustine taketh it. But here first I oppose our Rhemists iudgement against Bellarmine: for they denie that this place serueth to describe Antichrist, belonging onely to the Apostles times: Bellarmine saith, it doth most properly decipher Antichrist.

2. The great Antichrist shall denie Christ no otherwise then other An∣tichrists and heretikes did in the Apostles time: for they are all Antichrists 1. Iohn 2.18. and he giueth one rule to know them all by, vers. 22. But the An∣tichrists then denyed not Christ apertly, but couertly, Ergo, so shall the great Antichrist.

The first is true, that the olde heretikes did not plainly denie Christ to bee come in the flesh: but some denied his humanitie, some his diuinitie, some his person. Augustine sayth, Arriani hoc negant, licet verbis fateātur, the Arrians deny that Christ is come in the flesh, though they confesse it in word: for he that doth not confesse that Christ is equall vnto God, denieth Christ in the flesh: and so of other heretikes. The second also is as true: that Antichrist, who is no other but the Pope, shall also cunningly and couertly denie Christ, for he that denieth the offices of Christ, denieth Christ: As Augustine sayth of Peters deniall, Quic∣quid eius negauit, ipsum negauit. Tract. in Iohann. 66. whatsoeuer hee denyed of or belonging to Christ, he denied Christ. So the Pope denieth Christ to bee our Prophet, King, and Priest: His propheticall office he defaceth, and in effect denieth, in disgracing the scriptures, saying, they are imperfect, and conteine not all matters necessary to saluation, that their authoritie bindeth vs not without his allowance: His Kingly office, in making himselfe Christs Vicar and Vicegerent vpon earth, in making new lawes, sacraments, ordi∣nances beside Christs, as necessarie to saluation as the rules of the Gospell: His priesthoode, in setting vp a new propitiatorie sacrifice in the abominable Masse, beside the onely sacrifice of attonement vpon the Crosse, in making other mediators and intercessors beside Christ: and such like, whereof wee shall haue occasion to entreat afterward more at large. Ergo, the Pope in denying the offices of Christ, denieth Christ, and so is Antichrist.

2. Hee shall make himselfe Christ and Messiah,* 1.79 which the Iesuite would prooue out of Iohn 5. ver. 43. If another come in his name, him will yee re∣ceiue: But the Pope commeth not in his owne name, but in the name of Christ, hee calleth himselfe Christs Vicar. Ergo hee can not bee Antichrist, Bellarm.

Answere: First, It is not necessarie that Antichrist should openly pro∣fesse himselfe to be Christ, in name, but he shall doe it, opere, indeede, and that closely and couertly: for those whom Christ calleth, pseudochristos, false Christs, Matth. 24.23. Iohn calleth Antichristos, Antichrists, 1. Iohn. 2.18. False prophets therefore are false Christs, & Antichrists: yet all those false pro∣phets and heretikes did not in name and outward profession make themselues Christs.

2. The Pope of Rome in effect maketh himselfe Christ: for who but Christ is the head of the Church? who but Christ is superiour to the Angels, and to commaund them? who but Christ can make sacraments and articles of fayth? But all this the Pope taketh vpon himselfe to doe: yea the Iesu∣ite is not ashamed to say, that he hath the same office which Christ had be∣ing

vpon earth, lib. 5. de pontif. cap. 4. And whereas they say, the Pope com∣meth in the name of Christ: it shall as much profite him (it being not in trueth▪ but in colour onely and shew) as it shall profite the false prophets to say in the day of the Lorde, Haue not wee in thy name prophecied, and cast out diuels? Matth. 7.22.23. to whome Christ shall make answere, Ve∣rily I know you not.

3. Antichrist shall openly name himselfe God, and commaund men to worship him as God,* 1.80 2. Thessal. 2.4. But this doth not the Pope: Ergo, hee is not Antichrist, Bellarm.

Answere: First, If Antichrist should be such an one, you might haue found amongst the Emperors of Rome diuers Antichrists: for such an one Caligula was, that commaunded temples to be erected in his name, and his images to be set vp to be worshipped, yea in the temple at Ierusalem.

2. Saint Pauls wordes will not beare any such sence: he shall sitte, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as God: and your vulgar Latine hath ostendens se, tanquam sit Deus, shewing himselfe as though he were God, that is, in deede and effect, not in open pro∣fession: for hee should sit and be worshipped in the temple as God: howe then can it bee called the temple of God, being thus a temple of most grosse Idolatrie?

3. The Pope in effect maketh himselfe a god vpon earth: for he can dis∣pence against the law of nature, the law of GOD, agaynst both new and olde testament: as we haue shewed before, quest. 9. of this Controuersie▪ yea Bellarmine sayth, he may by his Apostolike authoritie dispence with the pre∣cepts of the Apostles cap. 14. He is able to change the nature of things, and of nothing to make thinges to bee, of wrong to make iustice, &c. Pope Nicholaus distinct. 96. yea it is sayd of the Pope, that hee is neither GOD nor man,* 1.81 but a middle thing betweene both: Pope Boniface. I pray you then what is he? he is no Angel, for he is aboue them, and commaundeth them: Papa Angelis praecipit,* 1.82 the Pope commaundeth Angels. He must then either be a God or a diuell, by your owne confession, choose which you will: Nay they doe make him a playne God: Es alter Deus in terris, an other God vp∣on earth: and they salute him by these names, Dominus deus noster Papa, our Lord god the Pope. Thus it is proued, that the Pope, both by his deedes as also by his titles, doth make himselfe god vpon earth.

4. Antichrist say they, shall take away all worship yea of Idols, and shall commaund nothing to be worshipped but himselfe,* 1.83 2. Thessal. 2.4. the worde is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, numina, all things that are worshipped. But so doth not the Pope, for he prayeth to Saints, adoreth the bodie of Christ on the altar. Ergo. Bellarm. cap. 14. Rhemist. 2. Thess. 2. sect. 10.

Answere: First, the text prooueth not, that hee shall take away, all Idols, or thinges worshipped, but shall exalt himselfe agaynst them, and make smal account of them. The place also of Daniel is playne,

11.37. Hee shall not regarde the God of his fathers, nor care for any God, but shall magnifie

himselfe aboue all: And in his place shall he honour the God Mauzzim, and the God which his fathers knew not, shall hee honour, with golde and siluer.

Out of this place we gather two thinges: first, that Antichrist shall bring in a strange God, which his fathers neuer knew: so hath the Pope inuented a breaden God, which he honoureth with golde and precious stones, making more account of it, then of any image or relique whatsoeuer.

Secondly, yet he shal magnifie himself aboue all such Gods, Images, Roodes, shrines and the like▪ yea aboue his owne breaden God: so doth the Pope: for he rideth vpon mens shoulders, when his breaden God is caried vpon an hackney: he exalteth his throne aboue the altar, the Crosse is caried on the right hand of Emperours swordes and scepters, but is layd vnder his feete: In the yeare of Iubile, he beateth vpon the gates of Paradise with a golden ham∣mer: Fulk. annot. 2. Thesse. 2.10. so then howsoeuer like an hypocrite he seeme to adore his breaden God, yet indeede dooth hee magnifie himselfe aboue it.

Bellarmine hath no other shiftes to foyst off our arguments, but these: hee sayth, this Mauzzim, is like enough to be the diuell himselfe, whom Antichrist shall worship: but he careth neither for siluer or golde: or else it is himselfe. And how I pray you can a man worship himselfe? or else, saith hee, it is some strong castle where he shall lay his siluer and golde: or else you know not what, Bellarmin. 14.

2 That Antichrist shall not abolish Idoles of siluer and golde, but rather commaund the people to worship them, as the Pope now doth, it is playne, Apocalyps. 9.20.

The Rhemists obiect, that hee speaketh here agaynst the heathen Idols, which is here called the worship of diuels. Answere: First, in this place Iohn speaketh of the ende of the worlde, in the opening of the seuenth seale: and the Idols of the heathē were abolished long agoe: Neither is there any knowen nation in the worlde that hath worshipped Idols of golde, siluer, brasse, stone, or wood, but the papists, for these many yeares. Secondly, all worshippers of Images, doe worship diuels: for Idolatrie is a seruice inuented by the diuell, Fulk. annot. Apoc. 9. sect. 4.

The Protestants.

THat Antichrist shall not in outward shew be an open enemie to Christ, but secretly and closely, and vnder pretence of religion take away all religi∣on: thus we make it playne.

1 These places alleadged before doe prooue it: Iohn. 1.2.18. the An∣tichrist, and the Antichristes, shall bee enimies all alike, but the Anti∣chrstes in Saint Iohns time, were couert enemies. Ergo, so shall the great An∣tichrist.

2. Saint Paul calleth it the mystery of iniquitie, 2. Thess. 2.7. and he shal come in all deceiueablenesse of vnrighteousnesse, vers. 10. and God shall send them strong delusion, to beleeue lies, vers. 11. All this prooueth that Antichrist shal worke closely, cunningly, mystically, by deceiuing, by delusion, not by open enimitie, and prophanenes, or by violence and tyrannie onely, as the papists imagine.

3 Antichrist shall be the greatest enemie to Christ, and his kingdome, that euer was in the worlde. But hee is a greater enemie that pretendeth friendship, and yet is a foe, that vnder the name of Christ persecuteth the Chri∣stian fayth, then he that openly destroyeth it, making no shewe of Religion: as Dauid complayneth, Psalm. 41.9.

Yea my familiar friend whom I trusted, which did eate of my bread, hath lift vp his heele against me

: This was accom∣plished in Iudas, who betrayed Christ with a kisse, who was the greatest enemie of Christ, sinning against his owne knowledge and conscience: Euen so they now a dayes, are the greatest enemies that Christ and the Church hath, that betray Christ with a kisse, which name themselues the Church of God, and yet make hauock of the Church.

4. Lastly, Augustine sayth as much, that Antichrist shall come with de∣ceiueable doctrine, and shew of righteousnes. Quid expa••escimus in Anti∣christo, nisi quia nomen suum honoraturus est, & Domini contempturus▪ Quid aliud facit,* 1.84 qui dicit, ego iustifico? Quid aliud est dei ignorare iustitiam, & suam velle constituere, quam dicere, ego iustifico, ego sanctifico? What other thing doe wee feare in Antichrist, but that hee shall honour his owne name, and contemne Christs? What else doth he, which sayth, I doe iustifie, I make holie? What is this but to destroy the righteousnesse of God, and to bring in his owne?

Marke nowe I pray you, if all this bee not true of the Pope of Rome: for hee taketh vpon him to iustifie, to sanctifie, to dispense with mens sins for an hundred, yea a thousand yeeres: to ridde soules out of Purgatorie: nay to commaund Angels to carrie their soules to heauen, that die in their Pilgrimage to Rome, as Pope Clement the sixt did: what is this▪ else but to saie,* 1.85 Ego iustifico, sanctifico, I iustifie, I sanctifie? and who I pray you, doth so, if Augustine may be iudge, but Antichrist? but thus the Pope doth. Ergo he is Antichrist.

THE SEVENTH PART CONCERNING the miracles of Antichrist.

The Papists.

ANtichrist, they say, shall be a Magitian, and worke straunge signes and [error 63] wonders by the power of the diuell: and these three miracles by name

shall bee wrought by him: Hee shall cause fire to come from heauen, and make the Image of the beast to speake; and thirdly, hee shall faine himselfe dead and rise agayne, Bellarm. cap. 15.

1. He shall by the helpe of the diuell cause fire to come downe from hea∣uen, as it is Apocal. 13.13.

Answere: First, it is a great question whether the diuell haue any such power to bring downe fire from heauen: for the Iesuite himselfe remem∣breth the storie 1. King. 18. How Baal his priests would haue fetched down fire from heauen, but they could not: onely Elias did it: and he that will doe the like, must haue Elias his spirite, as Christ sayth, Luke 9.55.

2. It is very grosse to vnderstand this literally: for the whole chapter is mysticall, of the Beast with seuen heads, of another beast with two hornes, and all the rest. But three waies Antichrist may fitly bee sayde to bring fire from heauen: First, by fire the holy Ghost may be vnderstoode, as Matth. 3. and Act. 2. The spirite appeared in fierie tongues: so Antichrist and his mini∣sters make men beleeue, that they doe conferre the holy Ghost, as in conse∣cration, in absolution of sinners, and such like. Secondly, the Popes thunder∣bolts of excommunication, are resembled to fier, whereby he hath made the whole world afrayde in times past, as though he could cause the heauens to fall vpon men: yea, to make the matter more likely, the Pope vseth burning Tapers in excommunicating men, which with violence are throwen downe as though GOD himselfe did rayne fire from heauen vpon them. And this is the terri∣ble manner of their excommunication: there are three candles burning set vp:* 1.86 and then they begin to accurse them, whom they excommunicate, bodie and soule to the diuell: and let vs, say they, quench their soules in hell fire, if they be dead, as this candle is put out (and with that they put out one of the can∣dles) If they be aliue, let vs pray, that their eyes may be put out, as this candle is, and so the second candle goeth out, and that all their sences may fayle them, as this candle looseth his light, and so the third candle goeth out. Be∣holde, here is the fire which the Pope and his popelings doe bring from heauen. Sic Bullinger. serm▪ 60. in Apocalips. Thirdly, the Dragon is sayd, Apocalips. 12.4. with his tayle to drawe many starres from heauen: that is, many excel∣lent men, as starres in giftes and knowledge, shall bee deceiued by the Pope, and be wonne vnto him: yea the Pope himselfe is a Starre fallen from heauen to the earth, from heauenly doctrine to earthly tradition, Apocalips. 9.1. thus Antichrist also may be sayd to fetch fire from heauen.

2. The second miracle, hee shall cause the Image of the beast to speake, which the Iesuite vnderstandeth literally, that is, grossely.

Answere: First, Bellarmine and our Iesuites doe not here agree: for Bellar∣mine sayth, that these two miracles shall be wrought by Antichrist himselfe, to fetch fire from heauen: and to cause the Image to speake: But the Rhe∣mists saye, this other beast, is another false Prophet, inferiour to Antichrist, which shall also worke wonders, such an one as Caluine, say they: where

they shew their malice, more then learning, for Caluine, they know, tooke not vpon him to worke myracles, annot. Apocal. 13. sect. 3.

2 This causing the image to speake hath a better meaning: The image of the beast is the shadow of the olde stately Empire of Rome, which was e∣rected by the Pope: for the west partes wanted an Emperour the space of three hundred yeeres from Augustulus time till Pope Leo the third, who made Charles the great king of France,* 1.87 Emperour: And at this day is there nothing in the Empire, but onely a name, title and image: for neither hath the Empe∣rour the Imperiall authoritie, which is in the Pope, nor the Imperiall king∣domes, vnlesse he haue them of his owne. And the Pope onely maketh this I∣mage to speake, for vnlesse he doe confirme the election of the king of the Ro∣manes, he is not thought worthy the name of Emperour. Bullinger. ibid.

3 And yet we denie not, but that they both haue and may make images speake either by the helpe of the diuell, as Dunstane caused a roode to speake, or by iugling, as the Roode of grace by gimmals was made to roule the eyes, mooue the lippes and such like, in king Henries dayes.

3 The third myracle that Antichrist shall work, is to fayne himselfe dead, and to rise againe, Apocalyps. 13.3.

Answere: There can bee no such thing gathered out of the text: First, the wordes will not beare it: the text is, that one of the heads was wounded to death, and the wound was healed: which cannot be so meant, as though hee fayned himselfe dead: but he receiued a wound indeede.

2 The sence is mysticall, as thorough the whole chapter: First, it is sayd, that the seuenth head was wounded to death: but reuiued agayne: that is, the seuenth gouernement of the Romanes in the Popedome: for the papacie had many times deadly blowes, and yet was healed agayne: especially when there were three Popes together, at Rome, in France, and the third in Spaine: but this wound was cunningly healed vp in Pope Martin the fift, in the Coun∣cell of Constance, the other three beeing deposed. Sic Bullinger Serm. 59. Secondly, it is said vers. 14. that the beast whose image remained, had the wound of a sworde, and yet liued: which is vnderstoode of the Romane Em∣pire, reuiued and quickned by the Pope.

The Protestants.

IT is true that Antichrist shall worke signes and wonders by the power of Sathan, 2. Thessal. 2. but lying signes, both because they shall bee done to confirme lyes, neither shall they bee such as the Prophets wrought, but many of them but cunning and cousening sleights of iuglers. And for such wonders wee neede not to search farre, the Popish Church is full of them▪ Where else then should wee looke for Antichrist?

1 There haue beene of the Popes themselues▪ Sorcerers and Coniurers,

such an one Antichrist shall bee, sayth Bellarmine. Siluester the second came vp to the papacie by the helpe of the diuell, as wee haue before she∣wed. Gregorie the seuenth was condemned in the Councell of Brixia for a Coniurer: And Benno a Cardinall in those dayes thus writeth of him: that on a time hee sending two of his seruants for a certaine Sathanicall booke, charging them not to looke into it: they notwithstanding looked into it, and presently a great multitude of diuelish spirites were round about them: who were instant vpon them to knowe why they were called for: the ser∣uants beeing at the first astonished, yet comming to themselues, enioyned them to plucke downe certayne high walles neere to Rome: and so they came to their master, Fox. page 176. What other Antichrist now neede wee looke for? If hee must bee a Coniurer, wee may heere make our choyce.

2 Wee are not ignorant, what lyes and fables are reported by the pa∣pists of the myraculous actes of their popish Saints, of the which wee haue spoken before: As howe Dunstane appeared to a cripple, that came to his Tombe to bee helped of his lamenesse: How Plegildus a priest sawe and handled the shape of a childe vpon the alta••, which after hee had kissed re∣turned agayne to the likenesse of bread. How a certaine Iewes boy tolde his father that hee saw a childe broken in peeces vpon the altar and distri∣buted among the Christians: and the boy for that,* 1.88 was cast into a furnace of fire, and was preserued from the fire by the Virgin Marie, which appea∣red to him, and spred her garment ouer him. Many such either lyes and fables, or workes of diuels the popish Church hath many: What neede wee therefore doubt, but that it is the Antichristian Church?

3 Augustine sayth, Saint Paul calleth them lying wonders, either be∣cause Antichrist shall deceiue men per phantasmata, with iugling sleights, or because, ad mendacia per trahet credituros,* 1.89 by his wonders he shall make them beleeue lies. But in which sense they are so called, it shall appeare when Antichrist is come sayth hee: and indeede it is now apparant; for our aduer∣saries haue plenty of both kindes, both myracles wrought indeede by the diuell, and many prety iugling feates beside.

THE EIGHTH PARTE OF THE QVE∣stion, concerning the warres, and king∣dome of Antichrist.

The Papists.

BEllarmine sayth, that Antichrist shall make great battayles agaynst the [error 64] Saynts, and shall conquere the whole worlde: first by crafte he shall as∣pire to the kingdome of the Iewes: secondly he shall fight with three kings of

Lybia, Aegypt, Aethiopia. Thirdly, with a great armie he shall persecute the Christians throughout the world, and this shall be the battaile of Gog and Ma∣gog, Bellarm. cap. 16.

1 That he shall craftily aspire to the kingdome, he proueth it out of Daniel, 11.21. where it is prophecied of one that he shall obtayne the kingdome by flatteries.

Ans. This prophecie of Daniel, as likewise the whole chapter, was historically accomplished in Antiochus Epiphanes, who defrauded Seleucus his brothers sonne of the kingdome, and circumuented his elder brother Demetrius: so that it being once fulfilled, it cannot be wrested to any other sense: of Antichrist it cannot be ment; for here is a succession of Kings described, vers. 19. One is sayd to be ouerthrowne, that is, Seleucus, but not in battaile, for he was poysoned, vers. 18. There another is sayd to bee ouerthrowne and to be no more found, that is, Antiochus magnus. But Antichrist cannot succeede any in the kingdome of the Iewes: for he shall be their first King, as the Papists imagine.

2 He shall (sayth Bellarmine) ouercome three kings, of Lybia, Aegypt, Ae∣thiopia, Dan. 11.43. and this horne shall remoue three other hornes, Dan. 7.8.

Ans. This also must needes be vnderstood of Antiochus Epiphanes: and they are two prophecies. First, he is called a little horne, because he was not heire to the kingdome: he remoueth three other hornes: for by his meanes Ptolemaeus Philopater was cast out of the kingdome in his fathers time Antiochus the great: his brother Seleucus poysoned, his sonne Demetrius disinherited, Tremell. Dan. 7.20. The second prophecie was also accomplished by Antiochus, who ouer∣came Aegypt, and the countreys adioyning.

Of Antichrist it cannot bee vnderstood: for the first prophecie speaketh of a beast with ten hornes, which must be vnderstood of one kingdome & monarch, and by the ten hornes ten Kings are signified: for so was Antiochus Epiphanes the tenth from Seleucus: here then is a succession of Kings: but Antichrist shall not succeede any.

3 The Iesuite saith, that Antichrist with a great armie shall vexe the whole world, and that shalbe the battaile of Gog and Magog prophecied of Ezech. 38.39. & Apocal. 20.

Ans. The prophecie of Ezechiel was fulfilled in the time of the Macchabees, when as Gog and Magog, that is Antiochus, with the helpe of the Syrians and Scythians and other countreys, molested the people of God: for vers. 23. chap. 39. the Prophet speaketh of the captiuitie of Israel, from the which they should at that time bee deliuered. And agayne, the Lord would not leaue his Church, which at that time endured great afflictions at the hands of the heathen, com∣fortlesse: but if these prophecies of Ezechiel and Daniel concerne them not, then small had been their comfort. Lastly, the Iewes may with as good reason vnderstand the prophecies concerning Christ, of their Messiah, whom they yet looke for, as you may these prophecies concerning the enemies of the Church, of your Antichrist.

The other prophecie also is fulfilled, Apocal. 20.8. how Gog and Magog from the foure corners of the earth, shall compasse the tents of the Saints: for by Gog and Magog, is vnderstood the whole multitude of the enemies of the Church both within and without, as Turkes, Papists, Infidels, which all haue agreed to∣gether at times and in their turnes, though enemies amongst themselues, to af∣flict the people of God, Fulk. annot. in hunc locum.

And if you will needes also haue the other two prophecies fulfilled a∣gayne, being once before accomplished: they agree fitly to the Turkish Em∣pire: for Mahomet by craft and subtiltie aspired to a kingdome, and in short time he ouerranne Aegypt and Lybia, with other parts of Africa.

The Protestants.

WE denye that there shall come any such Antichrist: or that it is possible for him to wage battaile with the whole earth. We graunt that the Anti∣christ of Rome hath warred with the Church, poysoning it with corrupt doc∣trine, and persecuting the same by fire and sword: which his rage is well slaked now, God be praised, in many places, and his tyrannie ouerpast: miserable were the state of the Church if it should endure such a brunt agayne.

1 It is impossible that Antichrist in so short a time as three yeeres and an halfe, should conquer all nations, and be Monarch of the whole world, burne & sacke Rome, and driue out the Pope, as the Papists graunt themselues, Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 3. de pontifice. A man cannot in that space traua••le through the whole world, much lesse conquer it.

And seeing Antichrist shall begin at Ierusalem, make his habitation there, and haue an end there: (for (say they) he shall be slayne in Mount Oliuet, Gloss. sup. Apocal:) It is not like that in his owne person he should conquer the world: neither can it be thought that he shall do it by his deputies, for then they should be the Antichrists and not he. See what a Labyrinth you are fallen into, out of the which you cannot wind yourselues.

2 Antichrist is not described in scripture as a warriour, or warlike man sit∣ting harnessed in his tent, but like an hypocrite aduācing himself in the temple; not comming with engins of warre, but deluding and deceiuing with false mi∣racles, and lying signes, 2. Thessal. 2. Not with Harolds of armes openly procla∣ming warre: but he shall worke in a mysterie, Apocal. 17.5. Wherefore it is but a popish dreame and fancie, that Antichrist shall be such a mightie warriour: yet we denye not but that diuers of the Popes haue been warriours, but that was beyond the commission of Peters crosse keyes.

3 Lastly, they haue no ground of this their opinion out of scripture: for nei∣ther Ezechiel nor Daniel maketh for them, prophecying of the state of the Church before Christ: nor yet the Apocalypse, the prophecie of Gog and Magog being accomplished in the greatest part alreadie: Wherefore away with these mistie clowdes of your brainsicke inuentions: they shall not bee able to abide the lightsome sun-beames of the truth.

THE NINTH AND LAST PART OF THIS question, whether the Pope be Antichrist.

The Papists.

THis question pincheth our aduersaries very sore, that wee should touch their [error 65] head so neere, as to make him Antichrist. For this being once knowne, wee neede not labour much about other matters: for Antichrist with all his doctrine must not be heard, but abhorred of the Church.

They therefore, craftily foreseeing this, doe take great paynes to deliuer the Pope out of this danger, and haue found out many starting holes, but all to smal purpose: yea their forefathers seeing the matter so playne, and almost put out of doubt,* 1.90 gaue straight charge in the late Councel of Laterane to all preachers, that none should dare once to speake of the comming of Antichrist. This ar∣gueth a guiltie conscience. But yet they face out the matter, and say, the Pope cannot be Antichrist: their arguments are none other then those we haue heard, being eight in number.

1 Antichrist shall be one singular man: the Popes haue been many, part. 1. of this question. Secondly, he shall raigne but three yeeres and an halfe: but the Pope hath continued many hundred yeeres, part. 2. Thirdly, he shalbe knowne by his name: the Popes haue sundrie names, part. 3. Fourthly, he must come of the stocke of the Iewes: but there was neuer yet any Iewe Pope, part. 4. Fiftly, his seate must be at Ierusalem: the Popes is at Rome, part. 5. Sixtly, he shall ma∣nifestly denie Christ: so doth not the Pope, say they, part. 6. Seuenthly, he shall doe strange miracles, as bring downe fire from heauen, cause Images to speak, part. 7. Eightly, He shall wage great battailes, and conquer all the world, part. 8. Which cannot agree to the Pope: Ergo, he is not Antichrist.

Answere: To these eight arguments, we haue before answered seuerally: shewing, how fabulous, ridiculous, and impossible our aduersaries assertions are, without ground of scripture, shewe of reason, or colour of argument. Wherefore we will not trouble the reader with needlesse repetitions, desiring him to haue recourse to that which hath been alreadie sayd.

The Protestants.

THat the Pope of Rome is very Antichrist, and that all the qualities and pro∣perties which the scripture describeth Antichrist by, doe fitly agree vnto his person: and that we are not therefore to expect or looke for any other Anti∣christ. Thus by testimonie of scripture, and sufficient reasons deduced out of the same, we trust it shall appeare to all men.

1 The first place of scripture is Daniel 11. where many notes and markes are declared proper to Antichrist, yet especiallie set foorth to describe An∣tiochus Epiphanes, who might be very well a type and figure of Antichrist who was then to come.

1 vers. 36. It is sayd, He shall doe what him listeth. This is most true of the Pope: his will must stande for reason, Distinct. 96. cap. satis. If the Pope should drawe infinite soules to hell, no man is to say vnto him, Sir, why doe you so, Distinct. 40? Heere Bellarmine hath but this poore shift, to say, that it is meant onely of publike iudgement, that no man is by authoritie to call the Pope to account: but yet a brotherly admonition may bee v∣sed. But who seeth not that the words are generall: Nemo debet ei dicere, No man ought to say vnto him: neither Iudge, nor other?

2 Hee shall magnifie himselfe agaynst GOD, and speake blasphemous things agaynst GOD: hath not the Pope done so? Of him it is sayd, that GOD and the Pope haue but one Consistorie: I am able to doe almost all that GOD can doe, Fox. pag. 785. articl. 192. I am aboue all and in all: Ho∣stiens. Nay, that Dominion and Lordship which Christ had in earth, but ha∣bitu, in habite, the Pope hath actu, in act and in deede. Agayne, as we reade, the earth is the Lordes, and the fulnesse thereof, and as Christ sayth, all power is giuen mee in heauen, and in earth: so is it to bee affirmed, that the Vicar of Christ hath power on things celestiall, terrestriall, infer∣nall, apud Fox. pag. 791. col. 1. Now let the discreet reader iudge, whether this fellowe doe not magnifie himselfe, and speake blasphemously agaynst God.

3 Hee shall prosper till the wrath bee accomplished: So hath the Pope had but too good successe: hee hath subdued Emperours, and made them his seruants, trode vpon their neckes, made them serue at his table, crowned them with his feete, made them hold his stirrup, and leade his horse by the bridle. But wee doe hope that his date is out, and that hee shall prosper no lon∣ger.

4 vers. 37. He shall not care for the God of his fathers: No more doth the Pope: for he hath inuented and erected a newe breaden god, which he worship∣peth, hangeth vp in Churches, carrieth about in procession, being but a peece of bread. This breaden god a might, his forefathers neuer knew.

5 Hee shall not care for the desires of women: So hee prohibiteth law∣full marriage, permitteth adulteries, and the vnnaturall lust of Sodomites. Bellarmine first denyeth the text, which is faithfully translated according to the Hebrew. Secondly, he sayth, the place is meant literally and properly of Antio∣chus, who was giuen to the pleasures of women.

Answere: First, if it be meant literallie of Antiochus, then can it not be meant literallie of your Antichrist: If Antiochus be but a type of Antichrist, then can you not necessarilie conclude out of this place: for types prooue

not, vnlesse they be diuine, that is, appoynted of God to be types, which you can not shewe for this place: see then, the best arguments that you haue for your Antichrist, out of the prophecies of Daniel and Ezechiel, are proued nothing worth. Secondly, as Antiochus was giuen to vnlawfull desires of women, so is the Pope: yet might he be an enemie to chast and holy marriage, and so is the Pope. And by the way let it bee noted, that the Iesuite picketh quarrels with scripture, and maketh it false: for the text sayth, He, that is, Antiochus, shall not care for the desires of women. Yes (sayth the Iesuite) he shall be giuen to the pleasures of women, cleane contrarie to the text, Bellarm. cap. 21.

6 vers. 38. He shall honor his god Mauzzim, that is, a god of power and ri∣ches, with gold, siluer, precious stones: Both of these are most true of the popish religion: for their god hath brought them great riches, lands, treasure, posses∣sion: by their idolatrous Masses, they haue greatly enriched themselues, where∣in their breaden god playeth the chiefe part: and therefore they doe worship him agayne with gold, siluer, precious stones: what rich Corporals, and Altar∣clothes, Copes, Vestiments of veluet, silke, wrought with gold, are seene in their Churches? what gilding of Roodes, and Roodlofts, garnishing of Idols, what rich Crucifixes of siluer, of gold, beset with pearle and precious stones?

This description therefore of Daniel, as you see, doth in euery respect agree with the conditions and properties of Antichrist of Rome, Argument. Illyrici.

Secondly, Saint Paules description in euery poynt also is verified in the Pope. First: He shall exalt himselfe aboue God, and all that is called God, 2. Thess. 2.4. So the Pope challengeth the full authoritie of Christ, as wee haue shewed be∣fore, and exalteth himselfe aboue Emperours, which are called gods vpon earth: yea they haue taken the iust proportion of inequalitie betweene the Pope and Emperour: for the Pope is 47. degrees aboue the Emperour: as the Sunne is 47. degrees bigger then the Moone, Innocent 3. in decretalib.

2 He shall sit in the temple, that is, in the Church: so the Pope nameth him∣selfe head of the Church, and hath the keyes, as he braggeth, both of heauen and hell. Therefore the Turke cannot bee that Antichrist, because he is out of the Church: and so in truth is the Pope, but yet he challengeth to him and his the name of the Church.

3 The mysterie wrought in Paules time, and afterward encreased: so not long after the Apostles time, the Bishops of Rome began to lift vp their heads aboue other Churches, as Zozimus falsified the Councel of Nice, and sent to the 6. Councel of Carthage, to haue it there confirmed, that it might be lawfull to send vp appeales to Rome.

4 Antichrist shall come with lying signes: So hath the Pope done, as expe∣rience proueth, and we haue shewed before.

5 vers. 11. God shall send strong delusions, that they shall beleeue lyes. And in time of Poperie, men indeede were so strongly deluded, that the father perse∣cuted the sonne, the sonnes set fire to their father, yea the husband was made a witnesse agaynst the wife, the wife agaynst her husband, and seruants accused

their masters. These things are so well knowne in stories, that I neede not come to particulars.

6 Antichrist is called a wicked man, and a man of sinne, vers. 3.8. And where shall you finde more wicked men, then among the Popes? Siluester the 2. gaue his soule to the diuell to obtayne the Papacie, Fox. pag. 167. Benno reporteth of Hildebrand, that he poysoned sixe Popes to come to the Popedome. Pope Ste∣phen and Sergius, tooke vp the bodie of Formosus, and mangled it, cutting off his head and fingers, and so cast it into Tibris, Fox. pag. 120. We haue heard be∣fore, what a holy Father Pope Iohn the 13. was, he lay with his owne sister, and with his fathers Concubines, playing at dice, called for the diuell, was slayne in adulterie. And was it not, I pray you, a common prouerbe in England? He that goeth to Rome once, seeth a wicked man; he that goeth twise, learneth to know him; he that goeth the third time, bringeth him home with him, Fox. pag. 841. argument. Illyrici.

The third place we doe take out of the Apocalyps, chap. 9. where is a playne storie set downe of the Pope.

1 vers. 1. He is a starre fallen from heauen: he is departed from the ancient faith of Rome to superstition and idolatrie.

2 He hath the key of the bottomlesse pit: who giueth the crosse keyes in his armes but the Pope? who sayth hee may euacuate all Purgatorie at once, if hee will, but he? Who sayth, he may, Pleno iure currus animarum plenos secum ad tartara detrudere, by full right, carrie downe to hell with him charriots Ioden with soules? cap. si Papa. distinct. 42. Is not this the Pope? who then more fitly may be sayd to haue the key of the bottomlesse pit.

3 There arise out of the bottomlesse pit a great flocke of Locusts, that is, the innumerable sort of begging Friers: for they are in euery respect described: First, compared to Locusts for their number, vers. 3. There were an 100. diuers sorts of Friers, Fox. pag. 260. Secondly, they had power giuen them for fiue mo∣neths: that is, as Walter Brute expoundeth it, taking a moneth for thirtie dayes, & a day for a yeere, as it is prophetically taken: an 150. yeeres, for so long it was from the beginning of the Friers vnder Innocent the 3. anno 1212. to the time of Armachanus, who preached, disputed, and wrote agaynst the Friers, about anno 1360. Fox. pag. 414. Thirdly, they shall sting like Scorpions, not slay all at once, but venome and poyson the conscience with the sting of their pestilent doctrine. Fourthly, other parts also of the description agree, as vers. 7. They are as horses prepared to battaile, that is, stoute & ambitious, their haire as the haire of women, that is, they shall be effeminate, and giuen to the lusts of the flesh: their teeth as the teeth of Lions: they by valiant begging shall deuoure the por∣tions of the poore: as it was well proued in King Henry the 8. dayes, in the Sup∣plication of beggars, that the summe of the Friers almes came to a great summe in the yeere: for the fiue orders of Friers had a penie a quarter for euery one of euery housholder throughout England, that is, for them all twentie pence by the yeere▪ suppose, that there be but ten housholds in euery towne, and let there

be twentie thousand parishes and townes in England; it will not want much of twentie thousand pound. Thus had they Lions teeth, that is, consuming and deuouring. Lastly, they haue a King, vers. 11. whose name is Abaddon, a de∣stroyer: for the Pope their chiefe prince and patron, hath by his Antichristian doctrine layd wast the Church of God, Argument. Chytraei.

The fourth place of scripture wee will take out of the 17. of the Apocalyps▪ there the seate of Antichrist is described. First, vers. 5. It is called Babylon, the ci∣tie which raigneth ouer the Kings of the earth, vers. 18. This can be no other but Rome, which then had the Empire of the whole world. Secondly, It is the citie built vpon seuen hils or mountaynes, vers. 9. that is no other but Rome. Thirdly, the whore, which is Antichrist, shall sit vpon the beast with seuen heads and ten hornes, that is, shall succeede in the Empire, and haue the authoritie thereof: so hath the Pope. Fourthly, the ten hornes, that is, the Kings of the earth, shal giue their authoritie to the beast: but afterward shall deuoure her flesh: Euen so the Kings of the earth by their sword maintayned the authoritie of the Pope. But now being taught by the Gospell, they are made the Lords free men, and begin to subdue their neckes from his yoke.

The fift place is 1. Iohn 2.22. Who is a lyar, but he that denyeth that Iesus is Christ? the same is Antichrist that denyeth the father and the sonne.

Euen so the Pope of Rome, though not openly and apertly, yet closely and subtilly is an enemie vnto the whole trinitie: He exalteth himselfe aboue God the father; because he taketh vpon him to dispense not onely agaynst the lawe of nature, but agaynst the lawe of God, the morall law, and agaynst the precepts both of the old and new testament: but a lawe cannot be dispensed withall, but by the same authoritie or greater.

Agaynst Iesus Christ he exalteth himselfe, and all his offices, he denyeth him to be the onely Prophet, saying, the scriptures are vnperfect, and that their tradi∣tions are also necessarie to saluation. Agayne, he maketh other bookes scripture, then those which are Canonicall. His kingly office he doth arrogate to himselfe, in making lawes to binde the conscience, in ordayning other Sacraments, in granting Indulgences and Pardons, & saying that he is the head of the Church. His Priesthood he is an enemie vnto, constituting another priesthood after the order of Melchisedech, then that of our Sauiour Christ which begun vpon the Crosse, and remayneth still in his person, being incommunicable to any other creature: yet they make euery sacrificing Priest to bee of the order of Melchi∣sedech.

He impugneth the office of the holy spirit, counting that prophane which the holy Ghost hath sanctified, as marriage and meates: arrogateth in all things the spirit of truth not to erre: applieth the merites of Christs passion after his owne pleasure, by Pardons, Indulgences, by ceremonies and Sacraments of his owne inuention, Fulk. 2. Thess. 2. sect. 10. Ergo, we conclude out of S. Iohn, that seeing he denieth Iesus to be Christ, he is Antichrist.

Sixtly, S. Paul sayth, that Antichrist shalbe an aduersarie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 2. Thess. 2.4

An aduersarie in doctrine, teaching cleane contrarie to the Gospell of Christ: so doth the Pope.

1 The scripture sayth, wee ought to put our trust onely in God, and not in man, Ierem. 17.7. and to call vpon God onely in the day of trouble, Psal. 50.15. and to worship him in spirit and truth, Iohn 4.24. The Papists say cleane contra∣rie, that we must call vpon Saints, and beleeue they can helpe vs, and they teach vs to fall downe before Images, which are stockes and stones.

2 The Gospell teacheth, that wee are freely saued by Iesus Christ, without workes, which neither merite remission of sinnes, nor eternall life, for eternall life is the free gift of God, Rom. 6.23. And our sinnes are forgiuen vs freely, be∣cause they are not imputed, Rom. 4.6. They affirme cleane contrarie, that by our merites we may deserue heauen: and that vita aeterna, is merces bonorum operum, that eternall life is the reward of good workes. But S. Paul sayth, it is a free gift, Bellarm. cap. 23.

3 The Gospell teacheth vs, that we should growe vp to an assurance of our election, 2. Pet. 1:10. and with boldnes to call vpon the name of God, Heb. 4.10. The Papists say, we should be kept alwaies in doubt, and it is presumption to be assured of the fauour of God.

4 The Gospell saith, that not onely externall acts, but euen secret thoughts are sinne, yea the very cōcupiscence of the flesh to be sinne, Genes. 6.5. Rom. 7.7. They denie that concupiscence and euill thoughts are sinne, vnlesse the be vo∣luntarie, and haue the consent of the will, ibid.

5 The Gospell teacheth, that it is impossible for any man to keepe and per∣forme the lawe of God, Rom. 8.7. Luk. 17.10. They doubt not to say, that a man by grace may fulfill the lawe, and by fulfilling of it deserue heauen.

6 Christ instituted the Sacrament in both kinds, and Paul. 1. Cor. 11. giuing a direction concerning the Sacrament, not onely to the Pastors and Ministers, but to the whole Church of Corinth, doth rehearse the institution in both kinds. But the Papists doe minister but in one kind to the people.

7 The Gospell saith, that the Church is builded vpon Christ, and he is the onely foundation thereof, 1. Cor. 3.11. The Papists hold that Peter first, and now the Pope, whom they make his successor, is the foundation of the Church, Ar∣gument. Chytraei. And thus we see, the Pope in his doctrine is a plaine aduersarie to Christ, and therefore Antichrist.

The seuenth argument, Apocalyps 17.1. Antichrist is called the great whore: And here we are to note the singular prouidence of God, who suffereth not one iot of his word to fall to the ground: for euen soverily, Anno 853. next after Leo the 4. there was a right whore elected Pope called Iohn, or if you will, Ioane the 8. who fate in the Papacie two yeeres, sixe moneths; and on a time being with child, fell in labour in the midst of a solemne procession. Whereupō there was a certayn Image of a woman with a child set vp in the same place where the Pope was deliuered: And euer since the Popes, when they goe to Laterane, doe shun that streete, being yet the neerer way, abhorring that fact and the memorie ther∣of.

There was also long after a chayre of Porphyrie stone kept in Laterane, with an hole in the midst, wherein the newe elected Pope was wont to sit to haue his humanitie tried, Iuell. pag. 428. Defens. Apol.

Obiect. 1. Harding, and since him Bellarmine obiect, that there was neuer any such Pope, because she is not registred in the Popes Calendar. Ans. No, they left her out for shame, as Marianus Scotus writeth. Agayne, Bishops names haue vpon sundrie occasions been left out: as Chrysostomes name was striken out vpon displeasure out of the table of the Bishops of Constantinople: So Pope Cyriacus is not reckoned in the Calendar of the Popes, and yet he was one of them.

Obiect. 2. Whereas it is said, that this Pope Ioane was first student at Athens, and afterward professed at Rome, Harding denieth, that at Athens then there was any place for students, but all was barbarous, and so sayth Bellarm. neither that at Rome there was any open profession of letters at that time. Ans. First, anno 680. the Bishop of Athens was at a Councel at Constantinople, called Syno∣dus sexta, anno 742. at the second Councel of Nice, there were many Bishops of Greece present: and Pope Ioane followed, anno 853. and how should Athens afterward become barbarous, being inhabited all this while by Christians? for it was not taken of the Turkes before anno 1440. Secondly, and me thinkes it is a discredite for Rome, that there should be there vnder the Popes nose no profes∣sion of learning, and that there should be there no Vniuersitie of Students, where the vniuersall Bishop sate. But Theodoricus Niemus, sometime the Popes Se∣cretarie, sayth, she read a Lecture two yeeres at Rome.

Obiect. 3. It is not like that God would suffer S. Peters chayre to be polluted by a woman, Harding. Ans. You presume to much of Gods prouidence, hauing no such promise. Why might not a woman as well creepe into S. Peters chayre at Rome, as one did into S. Andrewes of Constantinople? as Bellarmine confesseth, what priuiledge hath one more then the other.

Obiect. 4. As for the chayre (saith Harding) it is a fable: but Bellarmine more modestly graunteth there is a chayre of Porphyrie, but to another purpose, to shewe the Popes humilitie, not to trie his humanitie. Agayne, Harding sayth it is a lye, that the Popes refrayne to goe that way. But Bellarmine, that knoweth Rome better then he, denieth not that the Pope so doth, but not for any such hei∣nous fact there committed, but because it is a strait way, and is not fit for his trayne. And as for the Image, Harding saith, it representeth no such thing, but is rather like one of the great ragged stones at Stonage. Bellarmine denieth not, but there is such an Image, but it seemeth not to bee a picture of a woman, but rather of some heathen priest going to sacrifice. We see how handsomely they agree in their answers: And no maruaile, for if one lyer is many times contrary to himselfe, how should two lyars agree? But these men go only by coniectures: we haue their owne writers against them: for Theodoricus Niemus saith there is such an Image that resembleth such a thing, and that the Popes will not goe that way in procession to this day vpon that occasion. And as for the chayre of

marble to that vse, to search the Pope, Sabellicus reporteth it, Aenead. 9. lib. 1.

In this one example we may see the boldnes of our aduersaries, which are not ashamed to denye so famous a storie, being reported by Sabellicus, Leonicus Chalcondyla, Marianus Scotus, that liued about the yeere 1028. Sigebertus Gim∣blacens. anno 1100. beside thirteene Historiographers, as they are quoted by Bishop Iewel, and of them all not one a Lutherane.* 1.91 It is almost as foule a shame for them to denye so manifest and playne a thing, as it is a great blot to their suc∣cession, that a whore sate sometimes in the Papall chayre. Thus then by eui∣dent demonstration it appeareth, that the Pope is the whore of Babylon, and so consequently very Antichrist.

Lastly, in the eight place, their owne witnesses shall speake: Bernard sayth, Bestia de Apocalypsi, cui datum est os, loquens blasphemias, Petri Cathedram occu∣pat. The Beast in the Apocalypse,* 1.92 to the which a mouth was giuen speaking blas∣phemies, doth occupie Peters chayre. Ioachim. Abbas sayth, Antichristus iam pridem natus est Romae: Antichrist a good while since was borne at Rome. The Bishops in the Councel at Reynspurge say thus: Hildebrandus Papa, sub specie religionis, iecit fundamenta Antichristi: Hildebrand vnder colour of holines, hath layd a foundation for Antichrist. Nay, long before any of these, Gregorie the 1. first of all the Gregories, and the best of all the Popes that haue followed him, thus prophecied of his successors: Ego fidenter dico,* 1.93 quòd quisquis se vniuersalem sacerdotem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elatione sua Antichristum praecurrit: I speake it confidently, that whosoeuer calleth himselfe, vniuersall Priest, or de∣sireth so to bee called in the pride of his heart, is the forerunner of Antichrist. But the Popes of Rome are now called vniuersall Bishops or Priests: Ergo, they are either Antichrists, or the forerunners of Antichrist. But it is not like that Antichrist should haue so many forerunners, and so many yeeres, almost a thousand since Boniface the 3. was first called vniuersall Bishop: Ergo, Anti∣christ is alreadie come, and hath been a good while: and where els should he be, but there where his forerunners were, namely, at Rome? Now therefore seeing wee haue so many witnesses, the scripture, reason, experience, authorities to prooue the Pope Antichrist: who will either bee so simple, as seeing so good grounds, not to beleeue it, or so scrupulous, hauing such certayne euidence, to doubt thereof? And thus at the length, by Gods gracious assistance, wee haue finished and brought this great question concerning Antichrist, to an end, as al∣so the whole controuersie as touching the Bishop or Pope of Rome.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Tremel.
• * 1.2

  Iuel ans. to the Apol. page. 657.
• * 1.3

  Tract vlt in Iohann.
• * 1.4

  Bellarm. cap. 11.
• * 1.5

  Cap. 15.
• * 1.6

  Exposit. in Psal. 140.
• * 1.7

  Tractat. in Iohann. 66.
• * 1.8

  Copus. vide Iuell. p. 665 defens. apol.
• * 1.9

  Bellarm. cap. 28.
• * 1.10

  Epistol. 86.
• * 1.11

  Bellarm. cap. 12.
• * 1.12

  Fox pag. 1120.
• * 1.13

  Cont. Petil. lib. 2. ca. ••1.
• * 1.14

  Cap. de pre∣cept. eccles. artic. 9. B.
• * 1.15

  Epistol. 54.
• * 1.16

  Fox. p. 106••
• * 1.17

  Fox. p. ••79. col. 1.
• * 1.18

  De baptis. lib. 2. cap. 2.
• * 1.19

  Fulk. 2. Gal. 2. sect. 8.
• * 1.20

  Caietan.
• * 1.21

  Fox. p. 160.
• * 1.22

  ••. Pet. 5.
• * 1.23

  Fox. pag. 9.
• * 1.24

  Fox. p. 18.
• * 1.25

  Fox. p. 120.
• * 1.26

  Fox. pag. 8.
• * 1.27

  De origine anim. 2.1. De origine anim. lib. 1. cap. 2.
• * 1.28

  Fox pag. 12 Col. 1.
• * 1.29

  Fox. p. 107.
• * 1.30

  Quaest. ex ••uo{que} 127.
• * 1.31

  Quaes••. 106
• * 1.32

  Distinct. 99
• * 1.33

  Lib. 2 de pont. ca. 31.
• * 1.34

  Fox. pag. 13
• * 1.35

  Alan. Cop.
• * 1.36

  Lib. 6. de loc. cap. vl.
• * 1.37

  Vrspergens.
• * 1.38

  Fox. p. 179. Iuel. p. 168. defen. apol.
• * 1.39

  De haeresib. lib. 1. cap. 4.
• * 1.40

  De baptis. lib. 2. cap. 3.
• * 1.41

  Lib. 20. fine.
• * 1.42

  Fox. p. 669.
• * 1.43

  Cap 1••. lib. 4. de pontif.
• * 1.44

  Fox. pag. 999.
• * 1.45

  Fox. p. 41.
• * 1.46

  Prouer. 26. ver. 2.
• * 1.47

  Cont. Fau∣stum lib. 22. cap. 27.
• * 1.48

  Numb. 11.16.
• * 1.49

  Innoc. 3. in decretal.
• * 1.50

  Fox. p. 670.
• * 1.51

  Fox. pag. 786.
• * 1.52

  Fox. p. 787.
• * 1.53

  Bellarm. lib. 5. c. 9.
• * 1.54

  Fox. p. 793.
• * 1.55

  Leuit 8.9.
• * 1.56

  Fox. prote∣sta. ad Angl.
• * 1.57

  Fox. p. 791.793.
• * 1.58

  Ad Frat. in e••emo. ser. 52.
• * 1.59

  Fox. pag. 446.
• * 1.60

  Fox. p. 798.
• * 1.61

  Iuell. p. 59. Defens. Apolog. Fox. p. 785.
• * 1.62

  Fox. p. 785. artic. 188.
• * 1.63

  Fox. p. 788. artic. 130.
• * 1.64

  Antonius in Sum. part. 3.
• * 1.65

  Iohn de Parijs.
• * 1.66

  Antonius Sum. maior par. 3. dist. 22.
• * 1.67

  Argument. Bezae.
• * 1.68

  De ciuitat. dei 20.19.
• * 1.69

  Fox. p. 101.
• * 1.70

  Dan. 7.25.
• * 1.71

  • ι. 10.
  • η. 8.
  • σ. 200.
  • ο. 70.
  • υ. 400.
  • ς. 200.
  • 888.
• * 1.72

  • λ. 30.
  • α. 1.
  • τ. 300.
  • ε. 5.
  • ι. 10.
  • ν. 50.
  • ο. 70.
  • ς. 200.
  • 666.

  • ר. 200.
  • ו. 6.
  • מ. 40.
  • י. 10.
  • י. 10.
  • ת. 400.
  • 666.
• * 1.73

  Argum.
• * 1.74

  Argumēt.
• * 1.75

  1. Gregor.
• * 1.76

  De ciuitat. dei 18.22. & 27.
• * 1.77

  Argumēt.
• * 1.78

  Serm. de verbis Apo∣stoli. 33.
• * 1.79

  Argum.
• * 1.80

  Argum.
• * 1.81

  Extrauag.
• * 1.82

  Agrippa.
• * 1.83

  Argumēt.
• * 1.84

  De verb. domin. se∣cūd. Iohan. serm. 45.
• * 1.85

  Iuel. p. 595.
• * 1.86

  Fox. p. 1038
• * 1.87

  Auentin. lib. 4.
• * 1.88

  Fox. p. 1148
• * 1.89

  De ciuitat. deilib. 20. cap. 19.
• * 1.90

  Concil. Later. sess. 11.
• * 1.91

  Desens. A∣pol. p. 434.
• * 1.92

  Epistol. 125
• * 1.93

  Lib. 6. epist. 30.