not yet hatched out of the shell, nor had yet seen the light; that is, in the time of the apostles, in the primitive age, in the time of Gregory I., and the old Roman church, when as yet no universal pope was received publicly, but repelled in Rome: nor this fulness of plenary power yet known, nor this doctrine and abuse of sacraments yet heard of. In witness whereof we have the old acts and histories of ancient time to give testimony with us, wherein we have sufficient matter for us to declare the same form, usage, and institution of this our church as now reformed, not to be the beginning of any new church of our own, but to be the renewing of the old ancient church of Christ. volume would it require? Or if here should be recorded all that this see has burned and put to death, who would be able to number them? Or if all their schemes to get money should be described, who would be able to recite them all? Of which the principal are reckoned at least at fourteen or fifteen schemes. I. For annates or vacancies of arch-bishoprics, bishoprics, abbacies, priories conventual, and other benefices elective. II. For the holding of all spiritual livings whatever. III. New annates for all the same again, as often as any one of all his spiritual livings be, or are fained to be, not orderly come by, whereby it has chanced, divers times, three or four annates to be paid for one benefice. IV. For giving benefices before they fall, and many times giving to several persons for money's sake. V. For resignations, which in many cases the pope challenges to be reserved to himself, VI. For commendams. VII. For compounding with such as be aosent from their charge. VIII. For dispensations, so as to dispense with age, with order, with benefices incompatible; also for irregularity, for adultery, for times of marriage, for mar And where our adversaries charge us with the faith of our fathers and godfathers, wherein we were baptised, accusing us that we are revolted from them and their faith, wherein we were first christened : we answer, that we, being first baptized by our fathers and godfathers, in water, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the same faith wherein we were christened then, we do retain: and because our godfathers were themselves also in the same faith, therefore they cannot say that we have forsaken the faith of our godfathers. As for other points of ecclesiastical uses, and circumstances considered, besides the principal sub-rying in degrees forbidden, for gossips to marry, for stance of faith and baptism, if they held any thing which receded from the doctrine and rule of Christ, therein we now remove ourselves; not because we would differ from them, but because we would not with them remove from the rule of Christ's doctrine. Neither does our baptism bind us in all points to the opinions of them that baptized us, but to the faith of him in whose name we were baptized. For, as if a man were christened by a heretic, the baptism, notwithstanding, were good, although the baptizer were naught: so, if our godfathers or fathers, which christened us, were taught any thing not consonant to christian doctrine in all points, neither is our baptism worse for that, nor are we bound to follow them in all things, wherein they themselves did not follow the true church of Christ. Wherefore, as it is false, that we have renounced the faith of our godfathers wherein we were baptized, so is it not true, that we are removed from the church of Rome; but rather I say, and will prove that the church of Rome has utterly departed from the church of Rome, according to my former distinction. Which thing the more evidently to declare, I will here compare the church of Rome with the church of Rome; and in a general description set forth the difference of both the churches, that is, of both the periods of the church of Rome: to the intent it may be seen whether we or they have most apostatised from the church of Rome. And here, first, I divide the church of Rome into two distinct periods of time; first, of those first six hundred years which were immediately after Christ; and, secondly, of the other six hundred years, which now have been in these our later days : and so, in comparing these two together, will search out what difference is between them. Of which two ages and states of the Roman church, the first I call the primitive church of Rome, the other I call the later church of Rome. To begin with the order and qualities of life, I ask, where was this church of theirs in the time of the primitive church of Rome, with this pomp and pride, with this riches and superfluity, with this worldly splendour and name of cardinals, with this prancing dissoluteness, with this extortion, bribing, buying, and selling of spiritual dignities, these annates, reformations, procura tions, exactions, and other practices for money, this avarice insatiable, ambition intolerable, fleshly filthiness most detestable, barbarousness and negligence in preaching, promise-breaking faithlessness, poisoning and supplanting one another, with such schisms and divisions in the elections and courts of Rome for these seven hundred years, with such extreme cruelty, malice, and tyranny in burning and persecuting their poor brethren to death? It were too long to dwell particularly upon these things and if a man should detail all the schisms in the church of Rome, to the number of eighteen, what a | which in France a thousand crowns were paid to Rome at one time, for dispensing with this canonical affinity of gossips; also dispensing for eating meats in times prohibited. IX. For innumerable privileges, exemptions, graces; for not visiting, or visiting by a proctor; for confirmations of privileges; for transactions made upon favour of the pope; for exchanges of benefices, or making of pensions, with such like. X. For mandates granted by the pope, to ordinaries, whereof every ordinary, if he have the collation or presentation often, may receive one mandate; if he have fifty, two mandates; and for every mandate there comes to the pope about twenty ducats. And yet so many are sold, as will come buyers to pay for them. XI. For the pope's penitentiary; for absolution of cases reserved to the pope; for breaking of vows; for translation from one monastery to another, also from one order to another; for licence to enter into certain monasteries, to carry about altars, with many other things of like device. XII. For giving and granting of pardons and indulgences, to be read not only in public temples, but also to be bought in private houses. XIII. For making notaries, and prothonotaries, and other offices of the court of Rome. XIV. For bulls and commissions of new foundations, or for changing the old; for reducing regular monasteries to a secular state, or for restoring them again into the old; and for other writs about matters in controversy, that ought to be decided by the ordinary. XV. For giving the pall to archbishops. By reason of all which devices (besides the annates) it has been accounted from the king's records in France, that in the time of Louis IX., the sum of two hundred thousand crowns, were paid out of France and transported to Rome. Which sum, since that time, has been doubled and trebled, besides annates and palls, which altogether, of late years, has been considered to make the total yearly sum going out of France to the pope's coffers, one hundred thousand crowns. Now, as to what has been drawn besides from other kingdoms and nations, let others conjecture. Wherefore, if the gospel send us to the fruit to know the tree, what is to be thought of the church of Rome, with these fruits of life? Or, if we seek the church in length and number of years, where was then this church of Rome with these qualities, when the church of Rome was a persecuted, and not a persecuting church? And when the bishops thereof did not make martyrs, as they now do, but were made martyrs themselves, to the number of twenty-five, in order one after another? Or when the bishops thereof were elected, not by factious conspiring, not by money or friends making, as they now are, but by the free voices of the people and of the clergy, with the consent of the emperor, and not by a few conspiring cardinals, closed up in a corner, as they now are. And yet if there were no other difference in the matter, but only corruption of life, all that, we would impute to the common frailty of man, and charge them no farther than we might charge ourselves. Now over and above this deformity of life, we have to charge them in greater points, more nearly touching the substantial ground of the church, as in their jurisdiction presumptuously usurped, in their title falsely grounded,-and in their doctrine heretically corrupted. In all which three points this later church of Rome hath utterly separated itself from the nature of the ancient church of Rome, and they have erected to themselves a new church of their own making, usurping a jurisdiction never known before to their ancient predecessors. For although the church of Rome in the primitive time had its due authority, among other patriarchal churches, over such churches as were within its boundary: yet the plenitude of power, spiritual and temporal, in deposing and dispensing matters not belonging to the pope, in taking appeals, in giving elections, investing in benefices, in exempting himself from obedience and subjection to his ordinary magistrate, was never received in the old Roman church. For although Victor, bishop of Rome, (A. D. 200), went to excommunicate the Eastern churches, for the observation of Easter day: yet neither did he proceed therein, nor was he permitted by Ireneus to do so. And although Boniface I., writing to the bishops of Carthage, required of them to send their appeals to Rome, alleging the decree of the Nicene council for his authority: the bishops and clergy of Carthage assembling in a general council (called the sixth council of Carthage) to the number of two hundred and seventeen bishops, after they had perused the decrees of the Nicene council, and found no such matter as Boniface alleged, made a decree, that none of that country should make any appeal to that see, &c. And what wonder if appeals were forbidden then to be made to Rome, when here in England the kings would not permit any to appeal to Rome, before the time of Henry II.? And also in France the like prohibitions were expressly made by Louis IX., (A. D. 1268), which did forbid by a public instrument, all exactions of the pope's court within that realm. Also King Philip (A. D. 1296), not only restrained all sending of his subjects to Rome, but also, that no money, armour, or subsidy should be transported out of his kingdom. Also King Charles V., and his son Charles VI., punished as traitors certain persons for appealing to Rome. The like resistance was also made in France, against the pope's reservations, preventions, and other like practices in the days of Pope Martin V., also when King Henry VI. in England, and King Charles VII. in France, did both agree with the pope, in investing and in collation of benefices: yet notwithstanding the high court of parliament in France did not admit the same, but still maintained the old liberty and customs of the French church. Insomuch that when the duke of Bedford came with the king's letters patents to have the pope's procurations and reservations admitted, the court of parliament would not agree to the same, (A. D. 1425). In the days of King Charles VII., was set forth in France, The Pragmatic sanction, as they call it, against the annates, reservations, expectatives, and other proceedings of the popes, (A. D. 1438). Wherefore what wonder if this jurisdiction of the pope's court in excommunicating, taking appeals, and giving of benefices, was not used in the old church of Rome, when in these latter days it has been so much resisted. And what should I say of the form of elections now used in the church of Rome, being quite changed from the manner of the old church of their predecessors? For in those ancient days, when the church remained in the apostles only, and a few other disciples, the apostles then, with prayer and imposition of hands, elected bishops and ministers; as by the apostles James was made bishop of Jerusalem, Paul elected Titus to Crete, and Timothy to Ephesus. Also Peter ordained Linus and Clement in Rome, &c. After the time of the apostles, when the church began to multiply, the election of bishops and ministers stood in the clergy and the people, with the consent of the chief magistrate, and so continued during all the time of the primitive church, till the time of Constantine, who (as write Platina and Sabellicus), published a law concerning the election of the Roman bishop, that he should be taken for a true bishop, whom the clergy and people of Rome did choose and elect, without waiting for any authority of the emperor of Constantinople, or the deputy of Italy: as the custom had ever been before that day. And here the bishops began first to extricate their elections and their necks, a little from the emperor's subjection. But there are many reasons, rather to think this constitution of Constantine forged and untrue: for it is taken out of the pope's library, a suspected place, and collected by the keeper of the pope's library, a suspected author, who carefully compiled whatever feigned or apocryphal writings he could find in the pope's chest of records, making any thing on his master's side. And as in elections, so also in judiciary power, in deciding causes of faith and of discipline, the state of the church of Rome now has no conformity with the old Roman church. For then bishops debated all causes of faith only by the scriptures; and other questions of discipline, they determined by the canons, not of the pope, but of such as were decreed by the ancient councils of the church. Whereas now, both the rule of scripture, and sanctions of the old councils are set aside, and all things for the most part, are decided by certain new and extravagant constitutions, compiled in the pope's canon law, and practised in his courts. And whereas the old ordinance, as well of the common law, as of the sacred councils and institution of ancient fathers, have given to bishops, and other prelates, also to patrons, and doctors of ecclesiastical benefices, every one within his own precinct and dominion, also to cathedral churches and others, to have their free elections, disposing all ecclesiastical benefices whatever, after their own wills, as appeareth by the first general council of France, by the first general council of Nice, (cap. 6.), by the general council of Antioch, (cap. 9). And, likewise, beside these ancient decrees, in more later years, by Louis IX. of France, in his constitution, made and provided by full parliament against the pope's exactions, (A. D. 1228), in these words: "All exactions and oppressive burdens of money, which the court of Rome hath laid upon the church of our kingdom, (whereby our said kingdom hath been, hitherto, miserably impoverished) or hereafter shall impose or lay upon us, we utterly discharge and forbid to be levied or collected hereafter for any manner of cause, unless there come some reasonable, godly, and most urgent and inevitable necessity; and that also, not to be done without the express and voluntary commandment of us, and of the church of the same our foresaid kingdom, &c.' Now, contrary to these express decrees of general councils and constitutions, this later church of Rome, degenerating from all the steps of their elders, have taken upon them, for their own advantage, to intermeddle in disposing churches, colleges, monasteries, with the collations, exemptions, election, goods and lands to the same belonging, by reason whereof have come in these impropriations, first-fruits, and reservations of benefices, to the miserable despoiling of parishes, and great decay of Christian faith, which things among the old Roman elders were never known. Likewise, advowsons and pluralities of benefices were things then as much unknown, as now they are pernicious to the church, taking away from the flock of Christ all free election of ministers. All these inconveniences, as they first came and crept in by the pretended authority abused in this later church of Rome: so it cannot be denied, but the later church of Rome has taken and attributed to itself much more than either the limits of God's word do give, or stand with the example of the old Roman church, in these three things; whereof, as mention has before been made, so I will briefly recapitulate the same. The first is this, that whatever the scripture gives and refers, either to the whole church universally, or to every particular church severally, this church of Rome arrogates to itself, absolutely and only, both doing injury to other churches, and also abusing the scriptures of God. For although the scripture gives authority to bind and loose, it limits it neither to person or place, that is, neither to the city of Rome only, more than to other cities, nor to the see of Peter more than to other apostles, but gives it clearly to the church, so that wheresoever the true church of Christ is, there is annexed power to bind and loose, given and taken merely as from Christ, and not mediately by the pope. The second point wherein this present church of Rome abuses jurisdiction, contrary to the scripture and steps of the old Roman church, is this, it extends her authority further and more amply, than either the warrant of the word, or example of time will give. For although the church of Rome has (as other particular churches have) authority to bind and absolve, yet it has no such authority to absolve subjects from their oath, subjection, and loyalty to their rulers and magistrates, to dispense with perjury, to denounce remission where no earnest repentance is seen before, to number remission by days and years, to dispense with things expressly forbidden in the word, or to restrain that which the word makes free, to burden consciences with constitutions of men, to excommunicate for worldly matters, as for breaking of parks, for not ringing of bells at the bishop's coming, for not bringing litter for their horse, for not paying their fees and rents, for withholding the church goods, for holding on their prince's side in princely cases, for not going at the Pope's commandment, for not agreeing to the pope's election in another prince's kingdom, with other such things, more and more vain than these, &c. Again, although the scripture gives leave and authority to the bishop and church of Rome, to minister sacraments: yet it gives no authority to make sacraments, much less to worship sacraments. And though their authority serves to baptize men, yet it extends not to christen bells: neither have they authority by the word of God to add to the word of God, or take from the same, to set up unwritten tenets under pain of damnation, to make other articles of belief, to institute strange worship, otherwise than he hath prescribed, who hath told us how he would be worshipped, &c. The third abuse of the pope's jurisdiction stands in this, that as in spiritual jurisdiction they have vehemently exceeded the bounds of scripture, so they have impudently intermeddled themselves in temporal jurisdiction, wherein they had nothing to do. Insomuch that they have transferred their empire, they have deposed emperors, kings, princes, rulers, and senators of Rome, and set up others, or the same again at their pleasure; they have proclaimed wars, and have warred themselves. And whereas emperors in ancient times, have dignified them with titles, have enlarged them with donations, and have given them confirmation, they, like ungrateful clients to such benefactors, have afterwards stamped upon their necks, have made them to hold their stirrups, some to hold the bridle of their horse, and have caused them to seek their confirmation at their hand; moreover, they have extorted into their own hands the power and jurisdiction of both the swords (spiritual and temporal power), especially since the time of Pope Gregory VII., surnamed Hildebrand; which Hildebrand deposing the emperor Henry IV., made him give attendance at his city gate. And after him, Pope Boniface VIII. shewed himself to the people, on the first day like a bishop, with his keys before him, and the next day in his imperial robes, and having a naked sword carried before him, like an emperor, (A. D. 1298.) And for so much as this inordinate jurisdiction has not only been used by them, but, also, to this day is maintained at Rome; let us therefore, now compare her to the old manner in times past, meaning the primitive age of the church of the Romans. Wherein the old bishops of Rome, as they were then subject to their emperor, so were other bishops of other nations in like manner subject every one to his own king and prince, acknowledging them for their lords, and were ordered by their authority, and obeyed their laws, and that not only in civil causes, but also ecclesiastical. Thus was Gregory I. (the Great), subject to Maurice, and to Phocas, although a wicked emperor. So, also, both pope and people of Rome, took their laws of the emperors, and subinitted to them, not only in the time of Honorius, an hundred years after Constantine the Great, but also in the time of Marcian, (A. D. 451), and to the time of Justinian and of Charlemagne. In all which period the imperial law did rule and bind in Rome, both in the days of Justinian, and one hundred and fifty years after; whereby it may appear false, that the city of Rome was given by Constantine to the bishop of Rome; for Pope Boniface I., writing to the emperor Honorius, calls Rome the emperor's city; and the emperor Lothaire appointed magistrates and laws in Rome. Moreover, that both the bishop of Rome, and all other ecclesiastical persons were in former times, and ought to be subject to their emperors and lawful magistrates, in causes as well spiritual as civil, by many evidences may appear, taken out both of God's law, and man's law. And first, by God's law, we have the example of godly King David, who numbered all the priests and levites, and disposed them into twenty-four orders or courses, appointing them continually to serve in the ministry, every one in his proper order and turn: which institution of the clergy also, good King Hezekiah afterwards renewed, of whom it is written: "He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that David his father did: he removed the high places, and brake the images," &c. 2 Kings, xviii. 3, 4. The said Hezekiah also reduced the priests and levites into their orders as prescribed by David, to serve every one in his office of ministration, 2 Chron. xxxi. 2. And this order from David still continued till the time of Zacharias, at the coming of Christ, who was of the course of Abia, which was the eighth order of the priests appointed to serve in the tabernacle, Luke i. 5. To pass over other lighter offices, such as concerning the ordering of oblations in the temple, and the repairing of the house of the Lord, we find Solomon displacing Abiathar the high priest by his kingly power, and placing Zadok in his stead. 1 Kings, ii. 27. Also, his dedicating the temple of the Lord with all the people, and blessing all the congregation of Israel, 1 Kings, viii. 55. Judas Maccabeus also elected priests, such as, being without spot, had a zeal to the law of the Lord, to purge the temple, which the idolatrous Gentiles had before profaned, 1 Mac. iv. 42. Also, King Alexander, writing to Jonathan, appointed him chief priest, 1 Mac. x. 20. Demetrius ordained Simon and Alchinus in the like office of priesthood. Jehoshaphat likewise, set judges in the whole land; so, also, in Jerusalem he appointed levites and priests, and the chief of the fathers of Israel, to have the hearing of causes, and to minister judgment over the people, 2 Chron. xix. 8. By these and many others, is to be seen, that kings and princes in the old time, had the dealing in ecclesiastical matters, as in calling the people to God's service, in cutting down groves, in destroying images, in gathering tithes into the house of the Lord, in dedicating the temple, in blessing the people, in casting down the brazen serpent, in correcting and deposing priests, in constituting the order and offices of priests, in commanding such things as pertained to the service and worship of God, and in punishing the contrary, &c. And in the New Testament, what means the example of Christ himself, both giving and teaching tribute to be given to Cæsar? to Cæsar, I say, and not to the highpriest. What mean his words to Pilate, not denying power to be given to him from above? And again, declaring the kings of nations to have dominion over them, and commanding his disciples not to do so, giving us to understand the difference between the regulation of his spiritual kingdom, and of the kingdoms of this world, commanding all states to be subject under the rulers and magistrates, in whose regulation is dominion and subjection. Whereunto accords also the doctrine of St. Paul, where it is written: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers," Rom. xiii.; under whose obedience, neither pope, cardinal, patriarch, bishop, priest, friar nor monk, is excepted or exempted. In like agreement with the holy apostle St. Paul, joins also St. Peter: "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man, whether it be the king, as supreme, or unto governors," &c. 1 Pet. ii. 13. Let any man now judge, whether the pope has not done open wrong to the emperor, in raising himself above the jurisdiction of his lawful prince and magistrate. And as it is proved by God's law, that all ecclesiastical persons owe subjection to their lawful princes, in matters temporal as well as spiritual; so no less may it be inferred out of man's law, and the examples of the oldest fathers. The popes' decrees and canons are full of records, testifying how the ancient church of Rome, not only received, but also required of the emperors, laws and constitutions to be made, touching not only such causes, but also such persons, as were ecclesiastical. Boniface I. bishop of Rome, sent an humble supplication to the emperor, to provide some remedy against the ambitious contentions of the clergy concerning the bishoprick of Rome. Honorius, at his request, directed and established a law, that none should be made bishop of Rome through ambition, charging all ecclesiastical ministers to cease from ambition; appointing, moreover, that if two were elected together, neither of them should be taken, but the election to proceed to another, to be chosen by a full consent of voices. To this I add, also, the law and constitution of the emperor Justinian, ratified and renewed afterwards in the council of Paris, where all bishops and priests are expressly forbidden to excommunicate any man, before his cause was known and proved to be such as the ancient canons of the church would have him to be excommunicated for. The same Justinian, moreover, in his laws and constitutions did dispose and ordain in church matters, so as to have a determinate number of churchmen, or clerks in churches, (Const. 3). Also, concerning monasteries and monks, (Const. 5). How bishops and priests should be ordained, (Const. 6). Concerningthe removing of ecclesiastical persons from one church to another Also, that the holy mysteries should not be done in private houses; so that whoever should attempt the contrary, should be deprived, (Const. 57). Moreover, concerning clerks leaving their churches, (Const. 58). Also, concerning the order and manner of funerals, (Const. 59). And that bishops should not keep away from their flock, (Const. 67). And (Const. 123)., agreeable to the doctrine of St. Paul, he commands all bishops and priests to sound out their service, and to celebrate the mysteries, not in a secret manner, but with a loud voice, so that every thing which was said and done, might not only be heard, but also be understood of the faithful people, whereby it is to be gathered, that divine prayers and service was then in the vulgar tongue. And as Justinian, and other emperors in those days, had the jurisdiction and government over spiritual matters and persons, so, also, the like examples may be brought of other kings in other countries, who had no less authority in their kingdoms, than the emperors had in their empire. As in France, Clovis summoned a council of thirty-three bishops, at which thirty-three canons were instituted concerning the government of the church. Charlemagne called five synods, one at Mentz, the second at Rome, the third at Rhemes, the fourth at Cabilone, the fifth at Arelate, where sundry ordinances were given to the clergy, about eight hundred and ten years after Christ. He also decreed, that only the canonical books of scripture, and none other, should be read in the church; which before had also been decreed (A. D.417), in the third general council of Carthage. Moreover, he instructs and informs the bishops and priests in the office of preaching, desiring them not to suffer any to preach to the people any new doctrine of their own invention, not agreeing with the word of God; and that they themselves will both preach such things as lead to eternal life, and also set others to do the same. Also, the said kings and emperors forbade that any freeman or citizen should enter into the monastic life, without a license of the government having been obtained; for which they gave two reasons: first, that many not for mere devotion, but for idleness, and avoiding the king's wars, gave themselves to religion: for that many were craftily circumvented and deluded by subtle covet ous persons, who sought to get from them what property they had. They also forbade that any young children or boys should be shaven, or enter into any profession without the will of their parents; and that no young maiden should take the veil or profession of a nun, before she came to sufficient years of discretion, so as to discern and choose what she should follow. Moreover, Louis the Pious, before mentioned, with his son Lothaire, among other ecclesiastical sanctions, ordained a godly law, for laymen to communicate the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord; and they also enacted that no goods of the church should be alienated. Louis II., the son of Lothaire, who succeeded as emperor and king of France, about the year 848, caused Pope Leo IV. to be brought before him, on a charge of treason. The pope pleaded his cause at the bar, before the emperor, and was acquitted and released. Which declares that popes and bishops all that time were in subjection to their kings and emperors. Moreover, Louis IX. (A. D. 1228) made a law against the pestiferous simony in the church; also for the maintenance of the liberty of the church of France, and established a law or decree, against the new inventions, reservations, preventions, and exactions of the court of Rome. Philip IV. (A. D. 1303) also set forth a law, wherein was forbidden any exaction of new tithes and first fruits, and other unaccustomed collections to be put upon the church of France. Charles V. (A. D. 1369) by a law commanded that no bishops or prelates, or their officials within his kingdom of France, should execute any censure of suspense, or excommunication, at the pope's commandment, over or upon the cities or towns, corporations, or commons of his realm. Charles VI. (A. D. 1388) provided by a law, that the fruits and rents of benefices, with other pensions, and bishops' goods that departed, should no more be exported by the cardinals and other officials and collectors of the pope unto Rome, but should be brought to the king, and so restored to them to whom they did rightly appertain. The like may also be proved by the examples of our kings in England, as Offa, Egbert, Ethelwolf, Alfred, Edgar, Canute, Edward the Confessor, William the Conqueror, William Rufus, Henry I., Henry II., till the time of king John and after. Whose dealing as well in ecclesiastical cases as temporal, is sufficient to prove what injury the popes in these latter days have done unto the emperors, their lawful governors and magistrates; in usurping such power and jurisdiction over them, to whom properly they owe subjection, contrary to the steps and example of their ancestors, the old Roman bishops; although it is not to be denied, but that ecclesiastical ministers have their power also committed unto them, after their sort, in the Lord: yet it becomes every man to know his own place and standing, and to keep, wherein his own precinct doth confine him, and not rashly to break out into other men's walks. As it is not lawful for a civil magistrate to intermeddle with a bishop's or a preacher's function: so it was unseemingly and unorderly that Boniface VIII. should have had carried before him the temporal mace and naked sword of the emperor; or that any pope should bear a triple crown, or take upon him like a lord and king. Wherefore let every man consider the compass and limitation of his charge, and exceed no farther. The third point wherein the church of Rome has departed, is in the style and title annexed to the bishop of that see. As where he is called pope, most holy father, vicar general, and vicar of Christ, successor of Peter, universal bishop, prince of priests, head of the church universal, head bishop of the world, the admiration of the world, neither God nor man, but a thing between both, &c., for all these terms are given to him in popish books. Although the name pope being a Greek name, which is as much as father, may seem more tolerable, as having been used in the old time among bishops; for so Austin was called of the council of Africa, Jerome, Boniface and others; also Cyprian, bishop of Carthage. But that this or any of these terms were so peculiarly applied to the bishop of Rome, that other bishops were excluded from the same, or that any one bishop above the rest had the name of Oecumenical, or universal, or head, to the derogation of other bishops, is to be found neither in histories of the old time, nor in any example of the primitive church. Before the council of Nice, it is evident that there was no respect paid to the church of Rome, but every church then was ruled by her own government, till the year 325. Then followed the council of Nice, where it was decreed, that throughout the whole church, which was now far spread over all the world, certain provinces or precincts, to the number of four, should be appointed, every one to have its head church, and chief bishop, who were called metropolitan or patriarch, and had the oversight of such churches as did lie about him. Among which patriarchs or metropolitans, the bishop of Rome had the first place, the bishop of Alexandria the second, the bishop of Antioch the third, and the bishop of Jerusalem was the fourth patriarch. Afterward, in the number of these patriarchs came in also the bishop of Constantinople in the room of the bishop of Antioch. So that these four or five metropolitans or patriarchs, had their peculiar circuits and precincts especially appointed, in such sort, as one of them should not deal within another's precinct, and also that there should be among them an equality of honour. Again, speaking of the said patriarchs or primates, we read in the second and third chapter of the council of Constantinople, that bishops should not invade the diocese of other bishops beyond their borders, nor confound together churches, &c. Moreover, the old doctors for the most and best part, do accord in one sentence, that all bishops placed wheresoever in the church of God, are of one merit, of like honour, and all equally successors together of the apostles. Also, he that is the author of the book called Dionysius Areopagita, calleth all the bishops of equal order, and of like honour, &c. All this while the bishop of Rome was a patriarch, and a metropolitan or bishop of the first see, but no oecumenical bishop, nor head of the universal church, nor any such matter. Insomuch, that he, with all other bishops, was debarred from that, by a plain decree of the council of Carthage, (Can. 39). "That the bishop of the first seat shall not be called the prince of priests, or the high priest, or any such thing." And lest any here should take occasion of cavilling, to hear him called bishop of the first seat, here is to be expounded what is meant by the first seat, and why he was so called: not for any dignity of the person, either of him which succeeds, or of him whom he is said to succeed, but only of the place wherein he sits. This is plainly proved by the council of Chalcedon, cap. 28. Wherein is manifestly declared the cause why the see of Rome among all other patriarchal sees is numbered for the first see by the ancient fathers: for, saith the council, our forefathers did worthily attribute the chief degree of honour to the see of old Rome, because the principal reign or empire was in that city, &c. The same also is confirmed by Eusebius, declaring, that the excellency of the Roman empire did advance the popedom of the Roman bishop above other churches, &c. He says too, that the council of Nice gave this privilege to the bishop of Rome, that like as the king of the Romans is named emperor above all other kings, so the bishop of the same city of Rome should be called pope above other bishops, &c. By these places, (and many more), it appears, that though these titles of superiority had been attributed to the bishop of Rome, yet it remains certain, that the said bishop received that preferment by man's law, and not by the law of God. As touching therefore these titles of pre-eminence, we shall set forth and declare what history doth say in this matter. First, we shall see what titles the bishop of Rome takes and challenges to himself, and what is the meaning of them. 2. When they first came in, whether in the primitive time or not, and by whom. 3. How they were first given to the Roman bishops; that is, whether of necessary duty, or voluntary devotion; and whether in respect of Peter, or in respect of the city, or else of the worthiness of the bishop which sat there. 4. And if the aforesaid names were then given by certain bishops, unto the bishop of Rome: whether all the said names were really given. 5. Or whether they were then received by all bishops of Rome, to whom they were given, or whether they were refused by some. 6. And finally, whether they ought to have been refused when given, or not. And first to begin with the names and titles now claimed by and attributed to the bishop of Rome, that is, the Chief Priest of the World, the Prince of the Church, Bishop Apostolical, the universal Head of the Church, the Head and Bishop of the Universal Church, the Successor of Peter, most holy Pope, Vicar of God on Earth, neither God nor man, but a mixed thing between both; the Patriarch or Metropolitan of the Church of Rome, the Bishop of the first See, &c. Unto which titles or styles is annexed a triple crown, a triple cross, two cross keys, a naked sword, seven-fold seals, in token of the seven-fold gifts of the Holy Ghost, having the plenary fulness of power, as well of temporal as spiritual things in his hands: that all things are his, and that all such princes as have given him any thing, have given him but his own, having at his will and pleasure to preach indulgences, and the cross against princes: and that the emperor and certain other princes, ought to make to him confession of subjection at their coronation; having authority to depose, and that he has deposed emperors and the king of France: also to absolve the subjects from their allegiance to their princes: whom kings have served for foot-men to lead his horse, and the emperor to hold his stirrup; that he may and does give power to bishops upon the bodies of men, and has granted them to have prisons; without whose authority no general council has any force; and to whom appeals in all manner of causes may and ought to be made. That his decrees are equal with the decrees of the Nicene council, and are to be observed and taken in no less force than if they had been confirmed with the heavenly voice of St. Peter himself. That the bishop of Rome may dispense above the law, and of injustice make justice, in correcting and changing laws, for he has the fulness of power. And if the pope do lead with him innumerable souls by flocks into hell, yet no man must presume to rebuke his faults in this world. And, that it stands upon necessity of salvation to believe in the primacy of the see of Rome, and to be subject to the same, &c. Now let us see whether these names and titles were ever attributed to any in the primitive time of the bishop of Rome. If our adversaries, being convicted by plain evidence of history, and example of time, will yield unto us (as they needs must) in part, and not in the whole; let us come then to the particulars, and see what part they will defend, and derive from the ancient custom of the primitive church, (that is, from the first six hundred years, after Christ). First in the Council of Nice, which was in the year 325, and in the sixth canon of the said council, we find it so decreed that in every province or precinct some one church, and bishop was appointed to have the inspection and government of other churches about him, after the ancient custom, as the words of the council do purport: so that the bishop of Alexandria should have power of Libya and Pentapolis in Egypt, inasmuch as the bishop of the city of Rome has the like in the same manner. And so as also in Antioch and in other countries, let every church have its due honour, and consequently that the bishop of Jerusalem have his due honour, so that such order be kept, that the metropolitan cities be not defrauded of their dignity which to them is due and proper. In this council, and in the same sixth and seventh canons, the bishops of Alexandria, of Rome, and of Antioch are joined together in like manner of dignity, and there appears no difference of honour to be therein meant ; also there immediately follows, that no bishop should be made without consent of their metropolitans, yea and that the city also of Jerusalem should be under its metropolitan, and that the metropolitan should have the full power to confirm every bishop made in his province. After this followed the sixth council of Carthage, (A. D. 420,) at which were assembled two hundred and seventeen bishops, among whom were Augustine, Prosper, Orosius, and divers other famous persons. This council continued for the space of five years, at which |