Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	wont_a	write_v	writer_n	42	3	7.9182	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A10345	The summe of the conference betwene Iohn Rainoldes and Iohn Hart touching the head and the faith of the Church. Wherein by the way are handled sundrie points, of the sufficiencie and right expounding of the Scriptures, the ministerie of the Church, the function of priesthood, the sacrifice of the masse, with other controuerises of religion: but chiefly and purposely the point of Church-gouernment ... Penned by Iohn Rainoldes, according to the notes set downe in writing by them both: perused by Iohn Hart, and (after things supplied, & altered, as he thought good) allowed for the faithfull report of that which past in conference betwene them. Whereunto is annexed a treatise intitled, Six conclusions touching the Holie Scripture and the Church, writen by Iohn Rainoldes. With a defence of such thinges as Thomas Stapleton and Gregorie Martin haue carped at therein.	Rainolds, John, 1549-1607.; Hart, John, d. 1586. aut; Rainolds, John, 1549-1607. Sex theses de Sacra Scriptura, et Ecclesia. English. aut	1584 (1584)	STC 20626; ESTC S115546	763,703	768

name that is solitarie and not collegiate moonkes But the beléeuers at Ierusalem were at Ierusalem in a citie and liued in fellowship together Doo you not sée that the Apostles and Apostolike men were not such as afterwarde the moonkes whom Ierom meaneth and therefore Ierom was deceiued Hart. I will not beléeue on your worde that so worthie a Father was deceiued Rainoldes If you will not on my worde I will bring his owne worde to make you beléeue it For writing to Paulinus touching the training vp of moonkes he saith that the Apostles and Apostolike men are not paterns for them to folow but S. Antonie and others who dwelt in fieldes and deserts Hart. He saith that the Apostles and Apostolike men are set for an example to Priestes and Bishops not to moonkes True in some respectes And yet me thinkes too But what if the Fathers perhaps might be deceiued so through ouersight Rainoldes If they might be deceiued so through ouersight they might be deceiued through affection also For they were men and subiect to it As Cyprian through too much hatred of heretikes condemned the baptisme of heretikes as vnlawfull wherein a Councell erred with him As Origen through too much compassion of the wicked thought that the diuels them ●elues should be saued at length As Tertullian through spite of the Roman clergie reuolted to the Montanists and called the Catholikes carnall men because they were not so precise as the Montanists in pointes of mariage and fasting Hart. We condemne these errours in them as well as you and doo therein except against them Rainoldes You doo except also I trow I am sure your Doctors doo against Damascene for his tale of Gregorie the Pope and Traian the Emperour that Gregorie while he went ouer the market place of Traian did pray for Traians soule to God and behold a voyce from heauen I haue heard thy prayer and I pardon Traian but see that thou pray no more to me for the wicked A verie great affection to prayers for the dead that moued Damascene to write this For it is against the doctrine of the Schoolemen that prayers may helpe out the soules that are in hell In Purgatorie they say they may Hart. S. Thomas doth confirme the same Yet he beléeueth that of Damascene But he saith that Gregorie did it by speciall priuilege which doth not breake the common law Rainoldes But your Canus saith that Thomas was a young man then beside that he was greatly affected to Damascen And Damascen might easily perswade a well willer he doth affirme so lustily that all the east and west is witnesse that the thing is true Which report of his yet Canus doth maruell at sith it is vnknowne in all the Latin story But Canus as a man of better minde and sounder iudgement then your Popish Doctors are the most of them did wisely sée noteth fréely that not onely later and lesse discreete autours as he who made the golden legend but also graue ancient learned holy Fathers haue ouershot them selues in writing miracles of Saintes partly while they fetched the truth where it is seldom from common rumors and reportes partly while they sought to please the peoples humor and thought it lawfull for historians to write thinges as true which cōmonly are counted true Of this sorte he nameth Gregorie and Bede the one for his Dialogues the other for his English story He might haue named Damascene with them Unlesse hee meant him rather perhaps to be of that sorte which did not onely take by heare-say of others but coyned lyes themselues too wrote those thinges of Saintes which their fansie liked though neither true nor likely As that S. Frauncis was wont to take lise that were shaken off and put them on himselfe it was a lowsie tricke and S. Frauncis did it not but the writer thought it an argument of his holinesse Likewise that when the diuel troubled S. Dominike S. Dominike constrained him to hold a candle in his handes till the candle being spent did put him to great grief in burning his fingers Such examples there are innumerable but these two may giue a taste of their affection who haue defiled the stories of Saintes with filthie fables Yet out of such stories many thinges are read in your Church-seruice And Canus although he confesse it as euident notwithstanding which is straunge he thinketh them vnwise Bishops who seeke to reforme it For while they cure the nailesore saith he they hurt the head that is in steede of counterfeites they bring in graue stories but they chaunge the seruice of the Church so farre that scarce any shew of the olde religion is remaining in it A thing well considered of them by whom your Roman Portesse was reformed For though they haue remoued some of those stories which Canus saith are vncertaine forged friuolous and false yet haue they doon it sparingly If they should haue left out all those legend-toyes their Portesse had beene like our booke of common prayer which heretikes would haue laught at and there had remained no shew in a maner of the olde religion saue that their seruice is in Latin Hart. These thinges are impertinent but that it pleaseth you to play the Hicke-scorner with the holy Portesse For what need you mention the writer of S. Francis life or S. Dominikes or the golden legend that old moth-eaten booke as D. Harding calleth it of the liues of Saintes I mind not to presse you with thinges of later writers but of olde and ancient whom Canus iudgeth better of then of the younger For he saith of Vincentius Beluacensis and Antoninus that they cared not so much to write thinges true and certaine as to let go nothing that they found writē in any papers whatsoeuer But of Bede and Gregorie he iudgeth more softly and rather excuseth them then reproueth them Though iudge he how he listed he was but one Doctour and other learned men perhaps mislike his iudgement both for younger and elder writers Rainoldes They who deale with taming of lyons I haue read are wont when they finde them somewhat out of order to beate dogges before them that in a dogge the lyon may see his owne desert Euen so when I rebuke the writer of S. Francis life or of S. Dominikes or of the moth-eaten booke as you call it though he who wrote it was an Archbishop in his time a man of name and his booke a legend read publikely in Churches and called golden for the excellencie but when I rebuke that moth-eaten writer or Antoninus if you will and Vincentius Beluacensis who are as good as he welnigh you must not thinke I doo it for the dogges sake but for the lions rather I meane the ancient writers who deserue rebuke too For as not Rupertus

of Rome auoucheth in his Nomocanon about the yeare eight hundred and sixtie Rainoldes Nay no more of Photius For it is not he as I haue shewed who saith it but Balsamon who commenteth on him And Balsamon is later by thrée hundred yeares Hart. Yet he was a Grecian too and an enimie of the Sée of Rome and therefore not likely to vouch it if it were not true Rainoldes But Genebrard hath graunted that to be false which he voucheth For he saith that Constantine did giue to Pope Syluester the prouinces and places and fortresses of al Italie or of the westerne countries and not the citie of Rome onely Neither doth he vouch this in respect of Rome but of Constantinople which being to enioy the priuileges of Rome by a law y● Photius rehearseth in his Nomocanon Now if you will know the priuileges of Rome saith Balsamon they are enrolled in the decree of Constantines donation made to Pope Syluester So that it was for loue to the Patriarkes Sée of Constantinople not to the Popes of Rome that hee auoucheth it that as Rome might therby claime al the West so Constantinople might get all the East Wherefore that circumstance that Balsamon was an enimie of the See of Rome doth nothing helpe the credit of Constantines donation Neither doth S. Isidore make much more for it as Nauclerus citeth him For as he citeth him he giueth him a touch withall to ouerthrow him There is saith Nauclerus no mention of Constantines donation in any autours but in the booke of decrees and the Archbishop of Florence Antoninus affirmeth in his chronicles that in ancient bookes of the Decreees it is not neither Which I greatly maruaile at sith Isidore reporteth plainely in his storie that Constantine did yeeld the citie of Rome vnto the Pope and all the imperiall ornaments that is to say the crowne the apparell and the white palfrey to ride vpon Nauclerus therefore citeth Isidore as saying it but so as though he thought all were not well in Isidore sith there is no mention of it in any autours of credit or antiquitie I shewed you before how the writings of the auncient Fathers haue beene corrupted to countenance the Popes power The storie of Isidore might be wrought in like sort to countenance the Popes pompe his triple crowne his robes imperiall his horses of estate Which to haue beene so it is the more likely because it is testified by men who had helpes to se●ch and sée such auncient euidences that in olde copies of Isidore that is not found And perhaps if that storie of Isidore were printed that we might haue the sight of it it were no hard matter to finde s●me tokens there of forgerie At the least it séemeth that Genebrard himselfe suspected some weakenes in that point of Isidore and therefore neither citeth him but as out of Nauclerus and addeth that he wrote at the time that Gregorie did speake much of the Churches landes For if I mistake not the policie of Genebrard he mentioneth the ample landes and possessions which the church had farre and wide through the west in the time of Gregorie to the intent that men might conceiue thereof that the citie of Rome was part of those lands sith Isidore who wrote at the same time reporteth that it was giuen to the Pope But this obseruation which he made to strēghthen his autours report doth most of all weaken it For neither doth Gregorie name the citie of Rome as part of those landes which in his epistles he sheweth that the church had through the west Hart. But he doth by your leaue For in the fifth booke and the twelfth epistle we make saith hee Montanus and Thomas free-men and citizens of Rome Whereby he declareth that Rome was of the Popes dominion and right as Genebrard concludeth of it Rainoldes Genebrard obiecteth ignorance of antiquitie to the centurie-Centurie-writers But in bringing this to conuince their ignorance hée bewrayeth his owne For Thomas and Montanus whom Gregorie made free-men and citizens of Rome were his slaues or bondmen Now amongst the Romans any man might lawfully make his bond men frée and whom he made free them he made citizens as by their auncient law so by Iustinians who liued before Gregories time and reuiued it Wherefore the enfranchising of Thomas and Montanus proueth not that Rome was of the Popes dominion more the● of any other Romans And so the circumstance of Gregories time and testimonie which Genebrard would strengthen his tale with doth weaken it For neither is the citie of Rome named by Gregorie amongst the Churches landes as I was about to say and at the verie time that Gregorie was Pope the Emperours held the citie gouerned it as they were wont by a Lord Deputie Then hetherto his witnesses of Constantines donation doo bring it small comfort Doo the rest say more for it Hart. Nicephorus saith in the seuenth booke the nine and fourtieth chapter Constantine did consecrate and giue vnto Christ the palace of Lateran Which thing S. Ierom also had touched before him in an epistle to Oceanus and experience proueth it euen till this day while that is the chiefe See of the Bishop of Rome Rainoldes I perceiue it was either a foxe or a ferne-bush that Genebrard espyed He thought he had séene the whole citie of Rome giuen by Constantine to the Pope and now hee hath found that Constantine did turne his palace into a church that the Pope might teach there and Christians come together to pray and serue God For this is all that Ierom and Nicephorus say Hart. But Nicephorus saith farther in the six and fortieth chapter that Constantine endowed all the churches of the world and Bishoprikes out of his treasurie according to the state and worthinesse of them Therefore he endowed much more the church of Rome then of Eugubium and so forth Rainoldes Nicephorus saith that Constantine did giue through all prouinces some part of the publike reuenues to the churches but not that he did giue according to the state and worthines of ech of them That Genebrard doth adde to kéepe his hands in vre Howbeit if Nicephorus had said that he endowed them according to their state and worthines and therefore more the Church of Rome then of Eugubium yet is not the donation proued by Nicephorus Hart. But reade him also in the eighth booke the third and fourth chapters in the tenth booke the fifth chapter Rainoldes And there shall you finde as much as in the former Hart. Iuo in his Pannomia about the yeare of Christ eleuen hundred and ten doth ●ite certaine thinges out of the charter of the priuilege of Constantines donation Gratian about the yeare eleuen hundred and fiftie Bartolomaeus Picernus and many mo doo bring foorth either all or partes of it Rainoldes Picernus What an autour is he to proue it A hungrie companion who liued

to the Emperour by whom hee had the Popedom restored to the Empire the things which either Constantine or Charles gaue vnto the Church or Iustinian confirmed before him or Arithpert the Lombard king bestowed on it Now we haue set doune before out of Krantzius in the tenth chapter of the fourth booke of his storie of Saxonie the copie of the letters by which Leo restored them Thus farre the centurie-Centurie-writers Wherein first they speake not of Constantines donation either the greater or the lesser but in generall onely of thinges that he gaue Which might be other thinges and not the citie of Rome Secondly they say not the thinges which he gaue and Charles did confirme but the thinges which either he or Charles gaue that it might be Charles donation and not his for any thing that they say Thirdly their very wordes are the wordes of Krantzius whom they alleage and quote and Krantzius doth speake them by way of a iest For neither is Constantine named in the letters in which he saith that thankfulnes is shewed by Pope Leo and vpon the letters he frameth a reproofe of Constantines donation So that to proue it by those wordes of Krantzius is as if the Pharisees should proue their traditions by that spéech of Christ Wel doo ye reiect the commandements of God that ye may obserue your owne tradition Fourthly the Centurie-writers doo not as much as mention either Lewes or Pipine neither here nor after where they mention Otho Finally not one of all that are mentioned is reported by them to haue confirmed that donation No not Iustinian of whom the shew is greatest as Genebrard doth cite their wordes that he confirmed it after a hundred yeares Hart. Yet their owne wordes are that Iustinian confirmed thinges vnto the church Rainoldes And so Iustinian did For his constitution which Genebrard alleageth out of his Authentikes that the Church of Rome should enioy the prescription of a hundred yeares hath this force that whereas thirtie yeares prescription did hold against the landes and possessions of others in actions and suites of law no lesse then a hundred should hold against the landes and possessions of others in actions and suites of law no lesse then a hundred should holde against the landes and possessions of the Church Though the Centurie-writers meant by confirming the assuring of those thinges that any way came from Iustinian as appéereth by the letters which they referre them selues vnto But Genebrard doth take the aduantage of the word and helpeth it with adding a hundred yeares after which fitteth some what roundly the time that Iustinian raigned after Constantine to the intent that the terme of a hundred yeares in Iustinians constitution might be thought to haue respect to Constantines donation In the which dealing he doth notorious iniurie not onely to them but to Iustinian also To Iustinian by laying on him a lewde sclaunder that he did confirme yea confirme by law a surmised donation deuised against all law To them by putting wordes of falsehood in their mouth nor making them onely false witnesses but also foolish as if they had thought a thing to be confirmed by that constitution whereof the constitution hath no word at all And as it were to fill vp the measure of his iniquitie he addeth that they report it vsing those very wordes to perswade the credulous thereby as hee hath you that Constantines donation cannot be doubted of sith it was confirmed by the Emperour Iustinian a hundred yeares after as our owne men in their Centuries doo graunt Hart. Perhaps there is some other place in Iustinian that maketh proofe of it For while I perused the Tables of that booke of the Authentikes which was lent me to serch out this in I was thereby directed to a place in Iustinian where Constantines donation is proued most plainely to weete in gloss sing secundum Bald in l. 2. § Cum vrbem ff de offic praefect vrbis Rainoldes It is not plainely proued there but barely said and said not in the text but in the glose onely nor in the glose vpon Iustinian but the Digests and that without all ground either of any autour of the Digests or of Iustinian Hart. But in the glose vpon Iustinian himselfe euen in the Authentikes there is an other place where the same question is handled pro and con and there although he say that Constantine could make no such donation de iure yet he denyeth not but that he made it de facto Rainoldes Yet he denyeth not and he affirmeth not but leaueth it as he found it Why do you trifle so with the glose-writer Who though hee had affirmed the donation of Constantine doth that proue the point auouched by Genebrard that Iustinian confirmed it If I had thought that you would make such account of the wordes of lawiers I could haue alleaged men skilfuller of antiquities then all the glose-writers against that tale of Constantine For not onely such as Carolus Molinaeus whom you may perhaps suspect for his religion do write against it and discredite it but also that worthy and most learned lawier Andreas Alciatus disproueth it by Eusebius Theodoret Cassiodore Ammianus Marcellinus and the consent of all historians and Remundus Rufus in his defense of the Pope against Molinaeus which Sanders prayseth greatly doth allow the same that Alciatus writeth of it But whatsoeuer lawiers thinke of the donation either for the fact or for the right of it you sée that it is not confirmed by Iustinian as you are borne in hand Hart. Yes I make no doubt but Genebrard is able to bring more for him selfe herein then I haue seene or can finde in Iustinian Rainoldes Neither make I doubt but if he could haue brought more his ten-yeares studie spent vpon his Chronicles would haue interlaced it Inthe meane season whether he bée able to bring more or no you cannot deny but he hath alleaged Iustinian vntruely for that which he hath brought Hart. But the rest of the writers whom he doth alleage no doubt he doth alleage them truely S. Gregorie S. Isidore Nauclerus Photius Nicephorus S. Ierom Iuo Gratian Picernus Rabbi Abraham and Aben Ezra Rainoldes He doth alleage them truely I graunt the most of them But doo they proue the point for which he doth alleage them Hart. Yea and that directly as by his wordes you shall perceiue S. Gregorie about the sixe hundreth yeare of Christ doth shew in his epistles that the Church had ample landes and possessions farre and wide through the west At the which time S. Isidore in his storie as Nauclerus citeth in the eleuenth age of his Chronicles Constantine saith he did yeelde the citie to the Pope and the imperiall ornaments that is to say the crown and the white palfrey on the which he rode Altogither as Photius of Constantinople though otherwise an enimie of the See

you graunt at least that the Bishop of Rome cannot erre in faith by S. Ieroms iudgement Rainoldes Or at least you take it though neither I doo graunt it nor is it proued by S. Ierom. But this is proued and I grant it that he did not erre in the faith of the Trinitie when Damasus was Bishop of Rome Hart. When Damasus was Bishop Why do you so restraine it S. Ieroms wordes be generall I am ioyned in communion vnto your holinesse that is to Peters chaire I know that the Church is builded vpon that rocke Behold to Peters chaire He speaketh not to Damasus as in respect of Damasus but in respect of the chaire and so of the succession of the Bishops of Rome that what hee saith to one belongeth to them all Rainoldes If you set his wordes vpon such tenters they will neuer hold For him selfe reporteth that the next Bishop of Rome before Damasus Liberius by name subscribed to the Arian heresie Hart. S. Ierom reporteth so but he might be deceiued by some misreporte For he could say nothing more of that matter then what he had by heare-say Rainoldes But seing that hee liued so néere to that time and in the same place and loued the Sée of Rome and yet doth report this matter of Liberius and report it constantly not onely in his booke of Ecclesiasticall writers but in his Chronicle also it is more likely that hee did both know and testifie the truth then Pontacus who maketh your exception against him or any man that liueth now Hart. Why will not you credit a man that liueth now in any thing against S. Ierom Rainoldes Yes if he bring me good reason to disproue him Hart. And Pontacus doth so For he sheweth that Basil Ambrose and Epiphanius do call Liberius a blessed man and that Athanasius doth frée him from the spot of Arianisme Rainoldes Basil Ambrose and Epiphanius do call Liberius a blessed man What Therefore he subscribed not to the Arian heresie Then you may say that Peter did not deny Christ. For Basil Ambrose and Epiphanius doo call Peter a blessed man They are blessed who repent them selues of their sinnes as Peter did of his denyall and so might Liberius doo of his subscription As for Athanasius though hee say that Liberius condemned the heresie of the Arians and therefore suffered banishment yet hee saith withall that hee continued not in suffering banishment to the end but through feare of death subscribed to that heresie with his hand though with his heart he were still against it Thus euen Athanasius who liued at the same time with Liberius and knew his state well acknowledgeth that he subscribed though iudging most friendly both for his owne sake and the causes that he consented not But Damasus Bishop of Rome who succéeded Liberius and might know the matter better then Athanasius doth write that Liberius did consent also to Constantius the Arian Hart. Although this be writen in the booke of Damasus yet it is not likely that Damasus wrote it For Carranza noteth that there are many who dout of that storie And Onuphrius a man verie skilfull of antiquities chiefly of the Roman discrediteth both the report and the autour of it saying that Anastasius the keeper of the Popes librarie was as hee thinketh the first who beleeued it and thrust it into the booke of Damasus as many other thinges besides Rainoldes What Anastasius did I know not But if he stuffed Damasus with any thing of his owne it was belike in such thinges rather as aduance then empeach the Popes credit Howbeit if Onuphrius in that he denyeth Liberius was an Arian doo meane that he subscribed not to the Arian heresie and that this report came first from Anastasius what answereth hee then to Ierom and Athanasius and Sozomen and Marcellinus in effect too who wrote it all with one consent the youngest of them a hundred yeares before Anastasius was borne As for Carranzas note that there are many who doubt of that storie hee must shew who they be and what groundes of dout they haue Or els those many may be such as himselfe and Onuphrius whose doubting may not preiudice the credit of historians that wrote a thousand yeares before them Chiefly if they haue no surer groundes then Carranza who to disproue the storie alleageth that Liberius wrote one epistle to Athana●ius and the Bishops of Aegypt against the Arians and another to all Bishops exhorting them to constancie Which reasons are so poore that your owne Iouerius a Paris Doctour of Diuinitie rehersing them by occasion hath withall refuted them But sée to what miserable shiftes you are driuen to vphold the pride of the man of Rome Because it were a staine vnto his supremacie if his predecessour Liberius subscribed against the Catholike faith therefore you rather choose to deny it and how First the autoritie of Ierom is alleaged affirming it in his Chronicle Your Pighius doth answere that some hath interlaced those wordes into his Chronicle through ignorance or fraude When this answere séemed hard because Ierom hath other where affirmed it also your Pontacus to helpe it replieth that Ierom could say nought thereof but what he had by heare-say When proofe of this heare-say is made out of Damasus your Onuphrius supposeth him to be corrupted by Anastasius the keeper of the Popes librarie When Sozomen a Gréeke writer confirmeth Damasus and Ierom Your Christophorson who translateth him doth make him hold his peace or rather witnesse to the contrary For where he saith in his owne tongue that the Emperour compelled Liberius to subscribe he saith by your transl●tor the Emperour assayed to compel him And where he saith in his owne tongue that certaine Arian Bishops procured him to consent he saith by your translator they endeuored that he should consent When farder Marcellinus is found to agrée with Sozomens report your Genebrard séeing Ierom approued by them both doth raze out that of Ponta●us that Ierom could say nought thereof but by heare-say and doth assalt him with the Fathers Wherein besides them whom you alleaged out of Pontacus he citeth Socrates and Theodoret Socrates declaring that Liberius was no Arian in the time of Valens the Emperour as though this were a proofe that hee subscribed not to the Arian heresie in the time of Constantius Theodoret auouching that the west was alwayes free form Arianisme which is lesse to the purpose Theodoret speaking generally as for the most part and in respect of the East by way of comparison For himselfe had shewed before that Auxentius a westerne Bishop was an Arian Now for Athanasius who is the most auncient witnesse of this matter and of such valure that your Andradius could not but yéeld himselfe vnto him yet Genebrard Pontacus thought it good policie to name him as gainesaying

Fathers that hath not beene abused so The Frier whom Stapleton doth commend greatly for diligence and iudgement Sixtus Senensis hath writen a discourse touching the false entitling of bookes whence it cometh and how to finde it out Therein he hath proued that bookes are fathered falsly not onely vpon Austin and Ierom whom I named but also vpon Ambrose Cyprian Athanasius Eusebius Emisenus Iunilius Cyrill Eucherius Arnobius yea Thomas of Aquine too With this discourse he closeth vp the former volume of his holy librarie in which hee hath shewed that Clemens Abdias Origen Chrysostome Hippolytus many mo haue had their names defaced with the same iniury Hart. There are many bookes entitled to the Fathers falsly we confesse I will not bring them in to witnesse against you or if I doo you may refuse them lawfully Rainoldes Then you will not bring in the storie of Abdias to proue that Peter gaue the whole power to Clemens which Christ had giuen him Or if you doo you license me to refuse him as fréely as I refused his coosin Clemens in the same point Neither will you bring Arnobius on the Psalmes to proue that who so goeth out of Peters Church shal perish as doth Stapleton Or if you doo you license me to refuse him as not the man whom Stapleton would haue him taken for Hart. You may refuse Abdias For Pope Paule the fourth reiected him amongst the bookes which he condemned as Sixtus recordeth But Arnobius is an ancient writer indéede more worthy of credit Rainoldes More worthy of credit then Abdias I graunt But he is not that writer most ancient whom Stapleton reporteth him to be For the most ancient Arnobius was elder as Sixtus also noteth then that he might heare of the heresie of Photinus Whereas this Arnobius who writeth on the Psalmes doth mention Photinus and write by name against his heresie Hart. Will you stand then to the iudgement of Sixtus which be the right and naturall graffes of the Fathers and which bee bastard slippes Rainoldes No. For though Sixtus did sée many thinges yet he saw not all and others may sée that which Sixtus ouersaw As for example there are two bookes touching the martyrdom of Peter and Paule bearing the name of Linus the first Bishop of Rome These doth Sixtus iudge to haue indeede béene writen by that ancient Linus as Faber also did before him But Claudius Espencaeus doth maruel that Faber a learned man and witty could be so perswaded sith Peter in that storie is made to withdraw the Roman wiues matrones from their husbands beddes vnder pretense of chastitie Which vnchristian doctrine repugnant to the lawes of godlinesse and honestie nether was it possible that Peter should teach neither is it likely that Linus should belye him with it And thus you sée an autor disallowed by Espencaeus on very sound reason whom Sixtus hath allowed of not so discretely Hart. But if you thus allow and disallow whom you list I may take paines in vaine For when I shall alleage this or that Father speaking most expressely for the Popes supremacie you haue your answere readie that he was ouerséene through error or ouerborne with affection or if he wrote in Gréeke he is mistranslated or if he wrote in Latin he was misse writen or misseprinted or if none of these will serue it is a bastard falsly fathered on him And whether your shifts be sufficient answeres your selfe will be iudge Hart. Nay not so nether For what soeuer I answere I will giue reason of it And whether my reasons bee sufficient proofes I will permit it as I said to the iudgement of the iurie that is of all indifferent men who haue skill to weigh the reasons that are brought and conscience to giue verdict according vnto that they finde Which triall if you like off as you séemed to doo then bring forth your witnesses and let vs heare now the Fathers speake themselues Hart. Content And I will ●irst beginne with the Fathers of the Church of Rome euen the auncient Bishops whom I alleaged before out of D. Stapleton namely Anacletus Alexander the first Pius the first Victor Zepherinus Marcellus Eusebius Melchiades Iulius and Dama●us To whom I adde also them whom you mentioned out of Melchior Canus to wéete the two Sixti with Eleutherius and Marcus For though some of them maintain it as by scripture some as by tradition yet all agrée in this that they maintaine the Popes supremacie Rainoldes In déed though their heades be turned one from an other yet their tailes méete together with a firebrand betwixt them as did the foxes of Samson But Samson had three hundred foxes haue you no more but these fewe Hart. Foxes doo you call those holy martyrs and Bishops And will you still vtter such blasphemous spéeches and set your mouth against heauen Rainoldes Against hell M. Hart and not against heauen For I reuerence the holy martyrs whom yo● named But foxes I call those beastes who wrote the thinges that Stapleton and Canus quote most lewdly and iniuriously to the martyrs and Bishops whom they are falsly fathered on as I will proue Which that I may doo with lesser trouble all in one I would you brought the rest if you haue any more of them Hart. More Why all the Bishops of Rome from them forward euen till our age haue taught the same doctrine as Canus declareth For it is confirmed by Innocentius the first in his epistles to the Councels of Carthage and Mileuis by Leo in his epistles to Anastasius and the Bishops of the prouince of Vienna by Gelasius in his epistl● 〈◊〉 Anastasius the Emperour and in the decrees which hee made with the seuentie Bishops and in his epistle to the Bishops of Dardania by Vigilius in his decrees the last chapter of them by Pelagius the second to the Bishops that were assembled in the citie of Constantinople by S. Gregorie in his epistle to Austin the Bishop of the Englishmen and by many other Popes whose testimonies are rehersed in the decrees and decretals in the twelfth distinction and seuenteenth and ninetéenth and twentieth and one and twentieth and two and twentieth and the eightieth distinction in the canon beginning with the worde Vrbes and the ninety sixth distinction in the canon Bene and in the foure and twentieth cause the first question throughout many chapters and in the fiue and twentieth cause the first question and in the title of election in the chapter beginning with the word Significasti and the title of priuileges the chapter Amiqua and the title of baptisme the chapter Maiores and the title of election in the sixth booke of decretals the chapter Fundamenta and in the Extrauagants the constitution V●am sanctam which extrauagant constitution was renewe● 〈◊〉 approued by the Councell of Lateran vnder Leo the tenth So that you haue

not onely the first Bishops of Rome but all the successors of Peter in that Sée speaking with one consent for the Popes supremacie euen a clowde of witnesses Rainoldes Not a clowde of witnesses such as the Apostle spake off to the Hebrewes But such a clowde rather as Athanasius meant who when Iulian the Emperour had sent men of armes to spoile him of his life and the faithfull about him were sorie for it and wept Be not dismayed saith he my children it is b●t a small cloude and will passe ouer quickly For this host of Popes which you haue armed against vs may be sorted out into thrée companies Whereof the first front is the names of them who liued three hundred yeares and vpwarde after Christ but the names onely For the writings sauour as much of those Bishops as scarcrowes do resemble the strength of valiant men The second front are they who liued the next three hundred yeares or there about And the weapons though not all which they beare are their owne but those which are theire owne are not long enough to reach the supremacie and that which they doo reach they are to weake to winne it The third is as it were the forlorne hope the Popes which doo folow the first and second front in the vawarde as you would say And they haue best will but can doo least For they are troubled so with care of the cariage and their whole artillerie of decrees and decretals and extrauagants is so dull that if the former be discomfited they haue not power to strike a stroake So that you sée the witnesses which you haue brought yet are of no valure haue you any better Hart. Nay stay I pray a litle and looke ere you leape Soft fire makes sweete malt Your answere to the Popes whose autorities I cited doth stand on three pointes according to thrée companies of them as you sort them The first you say are counterfeites and most vnlike those Bishops whose names they take vpon them The next auouch not the supremacie of the Pope though they auouch more then is true through affection The last through a regarde of their owne commodities haue spoken for them selues and are vnfit to witnesse in their owne matter Is not this your meaning Rainoldes Yes But that which you apply to the last sort that they are vnfit to witn●●●●●o their owne matter I meane it of the second too And if I thought that the first which séeme to haue beene counterfeited in the dayes of the third had beene counterfeited and coined by some ambitious Pope himselfe I would vse the same exception to them also But in very truth I am not of opinion that any Pope himselfe did coine them It was some cooke rather or horse-keeper of the Popes if I can gesse ought by the style and Latin Hart. I perceiue that all which you haue to say against the writings of the first sorte is that which your Centuries of Meydenburg haue saide For this is their reason and they stand much vpon it that the style is bad and the Latin barbarous Which disproofe is foolish and of no force as Father Turrian sheweth in his defense of the canons of the Apostles and of those epistles of the Popes against the Centuries For in style and Latin they might speake rudely both to the entent that in thinges pertaining to the saluation of all euen the simplest might vnderstand them and least they should séeme by choise of wordes to hunt for prayse and vaine glory Yea whereas the Centuries in this point of style doo note the likenesse of it too as if that were a speciall marke to proue them counterfeit therein they haue betrayed most notorious folly For the style is wont to be a certaine token of the right autour chiefly in some mens writings whereby we vse often to try and discerne a true booke from a forged as learned men haue doon in Austin Ierom Ambrose Cyprian Tertullian and others But herein the tryall is the vnlikenesse of the style betwene an autours owne worke and a bastard fathered on him Which tryall can not bee had in those epistles of the Popes that are denyed by the Centuries because we haue nothing writen by those Popes but onely those epistles Now sée the blindnesse of heretikes When they can not disproue them by vnlikenesse of style they say that the likenesse of the style disproueth them which is most ridiculous Rainoldes As Father Turrian dreamed And as it is wont to fall out in dreames that sundrie pointes of them are contrarie one to another and yet I know not how the dreamer imagineth that all do cleaue togither well so fareth it with Turrian in his discourse touching the style against the Centuries For what is the reason on the which he saith that commonly the style is a sure token and as it were a touchstone wherby we may discerne true bookes from forg●●● Hart. Because that the style sometime is so peculiar to his owne autour that his worke may thereby easily bee knowne euen by a man of meane iudgement as in Tertullian Apuleius Plinie Suetonius and other such not to recken vp all Rainoldes Why May not an other mans style be so like to Tertullians or any such that you shall not be able to discerne betweene them Hart. It may be perhaps but that is rare and harde And therefore the learned man whom you mentioned Sixtus Senensis affirmeth that of all the tokens and coniectures by which the right workes of autours may bee knowne from counterfeite and forged the diuersitie of style doth seeme to be most sure and euident For though it be easie for euery craftie coosiner to take vpon himselfe the countrie and kinred and times of any autour and folow his pointes of doctrine too yet there is nothing harder then to counterfeit an other mans style By the style saith he I meane not that outward skinne of the wordes but the shape of the oration the frame of the speech the ioyning and continuall order of the partes the forme of eloquution the figures of speaking the arte of disposing the methode of handling other thinges which are proper to euery well spoken autour For as euery man hath a peculiar feature of bodie to himself and a peculiar countenance and a peculiar voyce and a peculiar naturall coolour and other seuerall markes whereby he doth differ from other men and is vnlike them so all ecclesiastical writers haue certaine properties peculiar to them selues which neuer doo agree or seldome to any other such as is a gorgeous shew in Antiochus an exquisite diligence of speech in Basil a tragicall loftinesse in Gregorie Nazianzene a cleane and vnforced elegancie in Chrysostome a singular pure facilitie in Cyprian a French-like statelines of vtterance in Hilarie a graue and sharpe copiousnesse of briefe sayinges in Ambrose in Ierom a florishing varietie of thinges words in Austin clauses ending like and members falling

say this or that against a man you must proue it Rainoldes So I minde to doo And that by demonstration out of the sa●e booke of Genebrard himselfe in which he ●indeth this faute with the centurie-Centurie-writers For about what yeare of Christ did Isidore dye How doth Genebrard recken Hart. In the yeare six hundred thirtie and seuen as he proueth out of Vasaeus Rainoldes When was the generall Councell of Constantinople vnder Agatho kept What saith he of that Hart. In the yeare six hundred foure score and one or two or there about Rainoldes Then Isidore was dead aboue fourtie yeares before that generall Councell Hart. He was but what of that Rainoldes Of that it doth folow that the preface writen in Isidores name and set before the Councels to purchase credit to those epistles is a counterfeit and not Isidores For in that preface there is mention made of the generall Councell of Constantinople held against Bishop Macarius and Stephanus in the time of Pope Agatho Constantine the Emperour Which séeing it was held aboue fourtie yeares after Isidore was dead by Genebrards owne confession by his owne confession Isidore could not tell the foure score Bishops of it And so the foure score Bishops which Turrian hath found out in one Isidore are dissolued all into one counterfeit abusing both the name of Isidore and foure score Bishops Hart. Igmarus who was Archbishop of Rhemes in the time of Lewes sonne to Charles about seuen hundred yeares since did thinke that worke to be S. Isidores and so he citeth it Rainoldes Why mention you that Are you disposed to proue that some haue béene deceiued and thought him Isidore who was not Hart. No But to proue that the worke is Isidores as Father Turrian doth by the testimonie of Igmarus Rainoldes Ignarus can not proue that He must be content to be deceiued in some what as well as his ancestors For it is too cléere by the Councels them selues that Isidore did dye about the time that we agréed of and therefore no helpe but it must be an other who wrote that preface in his name Which maketh me so much the more to suspect that the epistles are counterfeit sith I finde that a Father was counterfeited to get them credit And sure it is likely that about the time of Charles the great when the westerne Churches did commonly-fetch bookes from the Roman librarie some groome of the Popes that had an eye to the almes-box conueied this pamphlet in amongst them and well meaning men in France and other countryes receyued it as a worthie worke compiled by S. Isidore and coming from the See Apostolike But say what may be saide for the silence of olde witnesses which is vrged and iustly as a probable coniecture that those epistles were not extant in their dayes the matters that are handled and debated in them the scriptures alleaged the stories recorded the ceremonies mentioned the times and dates assigned are not coniectures probable but most certaine proofes that they could not be writen by those ancient Bishops of Rome whose names they beare There is a booke entitled to the Poet Ouid touching an olde woman haue you euer séene it Hart. What is that to the purpose Doth he speake of the Popes epistles Rainoldes No but their epistles are like to that booke in sundrie respectes It is ancient it was printed aboue a hundred yeares ago And he who set it foorth saith that Ouid wrote it in his old age and willed it to be laide vp in his graue with him in the which graue it was found at length by the inhabitants of the countrey who sent it to Constantinople and the Emperour gaue it to Leo his principal notarie who did publish it A smooth tale to make men beleeue that it is Ouids Of whom though it sauour no more then these epistles of the Bishops of Rome yet if your Diuines could finde some antike verse there that were an euidence for the Popes supremacie I sée my former reasons would not disswade you from beléeuing but Ouid wrote the booke For to the barbarousnes and basenes of the Latin and style if I should vrge it you might answere that Ouid wrote so for two causes that he might not séeme to be vaine gloriously giuen and that his repentance might bee knowne euen to the simplest To the silence of witnesses that no man maketh mention of it amongst his workes you might answere that it lay hidden in his graue And this you might answere with greater shew of likelyhood then that the Popes epistles lay hidden in the Popes librarie But vnto the matters of which the booke intreateth and thinges that it discourseth on no shadow of defense can be made with any reason For it speaketh in the praise of the virgin Marie that God shall giue her to be our mediatresse and shall assumpt her into heauen and place her in a throne with him yea the autour prayeth to her Which are pointes of doctrine that were not heard of I trow in Ouids time Neither is it likely that Ouid was so well read in the scriptures that he could cite the law of Moses and speake of Iacob and Esau and allude to Salomon in Ecclesiastes Euen so for those epistles of the Bishops of Rome although you haue gloses to shift of other reasons yet I am perswaded that you can lay no colour on the contents and substance of them For the scriptures are so alleaged and such pointes are taught about the gouernment of the Church about religion about rites about stories ecclesiasticall that it is not possible they should be writen by those Bishops Hart. Why Doo you thinke it as vnlikely a matter that they should alleage the scriptures as that Ouid should Rainoldes Nay I doo thinke it or rather I doo know it to be more vnlikely that they should so alleage the scriptures as they doo then that Ouid should allude to Salomon or cite Moses For the bookes of Moses perhaps of Salomon too were translated into Gréeke by the Seuentie interpreters many a yeare before Ouid and he might haue read them But your common Latin translation of the olde testament made a great part of it by S. Ierom out of the Hebrewe whence it is called S. Ieroms could not be séene by Anacletus and other auncient Bishops of Rome For they were deceased before he was borne And yet all their epistles doo alleage the scriptures after that translation An euident token that the writer of them did liue after S. Ierom yea a great while after him as may bee déemed probably For the common Latin translation which the ancient Latin Fathers vsed was made out of the Gréeke of the Seuentie interpreters Tertullian Cyprian Hilarie Ambrose and other of the same ages shew it in all their writings Nether was that olde translation forsaken straight waies as soone as Ierom had set forth his

the which the ministers of God are remoued from gouernance by the Pope who being not a voluntarie Senator as Tully iesteth at Asinius himselfe chosen by him selfe but a voluntary tyrant doth take vpon him selfe the rule of the whole church Who to get the soueraintie that he aspireth to doth cast off the foly of Paul and of Peter and neither will him selfe nor suffereth his to be subiect vnto higher powers Who autoriseth him selfe to giue and take away the dominions and kingdomes of the whole world as if that all Princes held their right of him Who chalengeth the two swordes as he termeth them the spirituall and temporall and that by the gospell because it was saide for sooth by the Apostles Beholde her● are two swordes Who hauing committed the temporall sword in part to ciuill magistrates and reserued it in part to him selfe hath put vp the spirituall sworde of all Pastors into his owne sheath Who of church-ministers hath made him selfe Cardinals felowes of kinges gardians of Princes Protectors of nations a Senate meete for such a ●arquin Who exacteth an oth of Emperours of Bishops of Christian common wealthes Uniuersities and Churches to be obedient vnto him Who admitteth I say not Cornelius the Centurion which Peter yet would neuer haue doon but the Lordes of Centurions euen Kinges and Keisars Emperours and Empresses to kisse his blessed feete Finally who being in Princely attire and accompanied with Princely traine serued not by common but by noble men wearing not a single but a tripl● Crowne called by his Parasites our Lord God the Pope by discréete Doctors most good in grace most great in power as full of riotous pompe and pride as euer were the Persian kings z His clothes bedeckt with precious stones ●his gorgeous miter dight With iewels rare with glistring gold with Pyropus bright O very Troian truls not Troians hath taken the state ecclesiasticall of Christ appointed in noble order as an army set in aray and hath transformed it as it were with an enchauntment of the whoore of Babylon into a visisible monarchie and kingdome of the Romans And that the old saying might be fulfilled new Lordes new lawes such lippes such lettise as one said of an asse that was eating thistles this new Prince the Pope hath brought in new lawes to gouerne his kingdome in stéede of Gods lawes which Christ would haue to rule his Church and in stéede of the Canon of the holy scriptures he hath ordeined his Canon law Touching the vnrighteousnes of the which law least any man should think me perhaps to finde fault with that I haue no skill in as the shoomaker did whom Apelles warned not to presume beyond his shooe I had leiffer you should heare the iudgement of a learned Doctour and professour of the law then mine Francis Duaren a man of great skill in both the lawes ciuill and canon and named amongst lawiers the chiefest lawier of our time hath writen a learned treatise touching the holy functions and liuings of the Church as it were an abridgement of the canon law allowed by the iudgement of the Parlament of Paris● and set foorth with the priuiledge of the French king that no man can iust●y 〈◊〉 either the autor or the worke as hereticall In 〈…〉 then of the said treatise declaring that the body of the Canon law consisteth of two parts to weete Decrees and 〈◊〉 Decrees which were gathered together by Gratian 〈◊〉 epistles writen by sundry Popes he saith that in the ●ir●t volume of Decretales conteining fiue bookes set out in the name of Gregory the ninth there are many things that doo much degenerate and grow out of kinde from that old discipline comprised in the former booke of Decrees And hence arose that saying which is common and famous amongst our countriemen he meaneth the Frenchmen Things haue gone ill with men since tales were added to Decrees that is since the time that in steed of the Decrees the Decretales did beare sway For the Church-causes had lost their olde simplicitie when Decrees were patched out with those tales as the world is wont to growe worse and worse So destenies do prouide That all thinges fall vnto decay and backe efisoones they slide As for the other volume the sixth booke of Decretales which Bo●iface the eighth added it hath not bene receiued in the kingdome of France because the constitutions and ordinances thereof are thought to haue bene purposely made the most part of them in hatred and despite of Philip the French king and for the game of the court of Rome No not the Clementines neither nor Extrauagants the last part of the Decretales are voyde of like faultes nay the later lawes of the Popes be commonly worse then the former And this is the body of the Canon-law these are the Popes statutes by the which though very vnméete for the church in Duarens iudgement yet is the church of Rome gouerned and it is so gouerned that the Decrees which are the better part haue lesse autoritie the Decretales which are woorse haue greater force in Church-causes and are more authenticall Yea the matter came to that passe that Gratian the principall autor of the Canon law would haue had the Decretall epistles of the Popes to be accounted holy and reckened in the number of the Canonicall scriptures For the better compassing and credite whereof he did most shamefully corrupt a saying of S. Austins But it would not ●ay In so much that the Papists Alfonsus and Andradius are them selues ashamed of that his either wilfull fault or ouersight The Decretales therefore remaine not in the number of the Canonicall scriptures which hope the Giants fayled of through the diuision of their toungs yet equall in autoritie to the canonicall scriptures yea aboue them in deciding Church-causes at Rome For that which S. Bernard complained off to Pope Eugenius long since he might complaine off to any Pope in our time if he were aliue the lawes keepe a great sturre dayly in your Palace but the lawes of Iustinian not the lawes of the Lord. Whether iustly or no looke you to that For doutlesse the law of the Lord is vndefiled and conuerteth soules But these are not so much lawes as law-quarels and strifes subuerting iudgement Besides that the maner of dealing which is vsed in debating causes is too too abominable and such as is maruellous vnseemely for the church nay it were not seemely for the common place where ciuill matters are handled He meaneth that maner which the Popes Court of Chauncerie at Rome had bred long before though it were not growen yet to that bignesse to which it shot vp afterwarde euen that maner of dealing which is practised in the brabbles and cauils of aduocates