An answer to a certain book, writtenAn answere to a certeine booke, written

For your demonstration following, which you full ignorantly and vainly commend,¹ comparing it to the brightness of the sun in a summers day, hath no light at all in it, to show that thing, which you have taken in hand to prove, no more then the moon in the wane giveth light to passengers at midnight. And doubtless unless the Lord had in his displeasure towards you, bereaved you of common judgement and reason, you could not yield your understanding captive to such loose and light persuasion. The question in controversy is, whether the Pope were acknowledged for head of the universal Church within ⟨p. 161⟩six hundred years after Christ.² This you say appeareth by the confession of the Century writers: and so you translate out of them many authorities, which being all put in one, conclude nothing to this purpose in the end. They show how the Popes have laboured to get superiority to themselves, especially in the example of Leo, who as he was learned and eloquent, and stoutly maintained the Catholic faith against Eutyches, so is he truly noted of ambition more then beseemed the minister of Christ. But admitting the Popes testimony for the Popes primacy, what have you found in the Centuries against Master Jewell? that they warned Bishops of other provinces to come to general councils? this is not the thing we require. Let them write to whom, and whither they list: this officious writing proveth not universality and supremacy of power, as any man may easily understand. That Leo could not appoint a Council, that he sued to the Emperor to call a Council, that the Council was gathered by the Emperors, not by the Popes authority, I have already showed. What maketh then the writing of a few letters to prove the Popes power in summoning ⟨p. 162⟩councils? that they were presidents in general councils? And can you or dare you avouch that this was so in all general councils? And though it were, what matter maketh it for your purpose? A general council must have a president: which presidency if it were granted to the Bishop of Rome in respect of his place, which was the first amongst Bishops, will you of your wisdom hereof gather, that he was Universal Bishop, and head of the Church? A senseless and frantic conclusion. That he confirmed general Councils? This is like the rest, a worthy reason forsooth.