are not Pastors by the former sense by the later whosoeuer are equall in the Apostleship must néedes consequently be equal in the Pastorship too your distinction that they were equal in the one not in the other hath no more reason then an other of D. Stapletons who saith that they were equall in power of gouernment but not of regiment Hart. You depraue his wordes For he saith that this is the greatest difference betweene Peter and the rest of the Apostles that Christ gaue to Peter the power of regiment or to commaund to the Apostles only the power of gouernmēt or to execute because in gouernment of the church Peter must prescribe what should be done and they must execute it Rainoldes I depraue them not vnlesse he speake sottishly he knoweth not him selfe what For his drift is to proue that the Apostles all had equall power giuen them by Christ but with a threefold difference of which this is one that they had equall power forsooth to doo and execute all things that appertaine to the building of the Church but so that Peter had the power of regiment to commaund the rest of the Apostles the power of gouernment to execute Which is as ridiculous as if a man would say that the Queenes Maiestie and the Sheriffes of London haue equall power both yet with a difference to witte that her Maiestie hath the power of regiment that is to commaund when a traitor shall suffer and the Sheriffes the power of gouernment that is to execute that which shee commandeth If you should preach thus in London our Londoners would smile at it I thinke that this heresie hath made our wits dull Your Catholike distinctions are so sharpe and subtill that wee cannot conceiue them Hart. You may flout as well if you list at S. Gregory who though he vse not the wordes of this distinction yet he hath the sense of it saying that Andrewe Iames and Iohn were heads of seuerall congregations and all members of the Church vnder one head Peter Rainoldes If I should touch Gregory for this I should do him wrong as great wrong almost as your Doctor doth who alleageth it out of Gregory For though he were him-selfe a Bishop of Rome and a well-willer of S. Peters yet in that epistle whence those wordes are cited he calleth Christ the head of the vniuersal church Peter the chiefest member and others members of it also D. Stapleton thinking it a small thing that Peter should be counted as the chiefest member vnles he be the head too hath vpon mentiō of the one head cogged in the name of Peter like a cunning gamster to helpe a dye at a neede Alas a man must enterprise somewhat in such cases For you were all vndone if this game should be lost Hart. I maruaile that you blush not to vse such vnciuill spéeches and tauntes against D. Stapleton a man of great learning euen in your own iudgement Rainoldes A man not of so great learning as reading if you wil take my iudgement in it Yet I wish for his own sake that his learning were as good as it is great But for the vnciuill speeches and tauntes which I vse against him weigh the occasions and circumstances of them If he haue not deserued as the Scribes and Pharises let me be rebuked when I touch him as Christ them But you deale herein as Tully reporteth that Athenagoras did of his fault he said nothing he complained of his punishment It is lawfull for D. Stapleton to take vp me with his tauntes of Caluinist Anglocaluinist Puritan and that vndeseruedly But if I reproue on iust cause with plaine termes his cogging corrupting belying sclaundering abusing both of God and men it is a hainous matter and to bee blushed at Let them blush M. Hart who loue or make lies either by committing such shamefull trickes of falshood or by partaking with them It is no shame for me to note them and reprooue them Hart. Why Are you sure that there is no copie of S. Gregories workes which hath the name of Peter inserted in that place Rainoldes I thinke that none hath I am sure that none should haue For in an other epistle of the same argument whē he had said that al Christians do cleaue to only one head he addeth Imeane to Christ and hauing in this same epistle put that difference betwéene Christ and Peter that Peter is a member Christ the head of the church he sheweth manifestly whom he meant by head A thing so apparant that Cardinall Cusanus doth cite those wordes of Gregory with Christes name inserted either as hauing read them so in some copie or to open the meaning of them How much the more shamefull is Stapletons dealing who foysteth in Peter to set by that conueiance the Pope in Christes roome But you were best to go forward with the scriptures and then when you haue found nothing in them come to the Fathers after Hart. You are very peremptorie still in your spéeches I wil find in them as much for the substance as I haue affirmed For howsoeuer the wordes of Pastorall charge and the Apostleship the power of regiment and gouernment agree with my meaning my meaning I am sure agreeth with the scriptures and standeth with good reason Rainoldes Then you shall do well hereafter to refraine from such foggy distinctions deuised to choke the blinde who eate many a flie and expresse your meaning in cleare and playne wordes least we suspect that you fansie darkenesse more then light Hart. This is my meaning that Peter had authoritie ouer the Apostles to féede them to rule them to be a Pastor of them which the rest of the Apostles had neither ouer him nor one ouer an other Rainoldes So. Now make proofe of it Hart. Christ did say to Peter Doost thou loue me Feede my sheepe Whereof thus I reason Christ did charge Peter to feede his sheepe all euen all his shéepe without exception But the Apostles were sheepe of Christ. Therefore he had the charge of feeding them also Rainoldes Christ saide to the Apostles Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospell to euery creature Whereof thus I reason Christ did charge his Apostles to preach the Gospell to euerie creature to euerie one without exception But Peter was a creature Therefore they had the charge of preaching to him also Now if I would play with wordes as your men doo I could shew that this reason must ouermaster yours in the plaine field For Christ said not to Peter feed all my sheepe but he said to the Apostles preach to euerie creature Hart. But you should consider that Christ giuing that commandement to Peter gaue it with a difference betwéene the shéepe and the lambes as S. Ambrose hath noted well set me downe I pray his owne wordes in Latin tertiò Dominus interrogauit noniam
nor forsake thee You haue your choyce take which you list either acquit vs or condemne him For if Christ meant to assure the faith of none but of Peter because he said to him I haue prayed for thee that thy faith should not faile then did God promise his gratious assistance to none but to Ioshua when he said to him I will not leaue thee nor forsake thee and the Apostle erred in saying it to all Christians If the Apostle saide that to all Christians by the spirit of truth then is it true in like sort that it may be said to any childe of God whom Satan hath desired to sift and shake as he did Peter and made him to denie Christ Be of good comfort for he hath said I haue prayed for thee that thy faith should not faile And if it may be said to any childe of God then was it verified in all the Apostles except the childe of perdition Wherefore Christ by saying of those words to Pâ—ter gaue him no Supremacy ouer the Apostles Hart. I cannot deny but that in some respect it may be truly saide to all the children of God if they fall as Peter did Yet I know not how me thinkes I cannot be perswaded but that it maketh somewhat for Peters supremacy Rainoldes No maruell For the noyse of it hath béene so great and loude about your eares in the Seminarie at Rhemes and other Popish schooles beyond seas that it hath made you dull of hearing and you cannot perceiue the still soft voice of the truth As we read of them who dwell about the fall of the riuer Nilus where it tumbleth downe from the hye mountaines that they are made deafe by the greatnes of the sound and noyse of the waters But tell me I pray doo you thinke that Christ made Peter supreme head by saying vnto him I haue prayed for thee or strengthen thy brethren Hart. What a question is that Why should I mention it vnlesse it proued his supremacie Rainoldes It is a question For if Christ made him supreme head by those wordes then the supreme head denyed Christ and that often and that with an oth too Whereof a very daungerous conclusion would folowe that the Pope may erre yea that is more deny Christ. Hart. I say not that Christ made him supreme head at that present time but prepared him as it were to make him supreme head after As D. Stapleton writeth that Christ by those wordes established Peters faith before that he bestowed the power of supreme head-ship vpon him in deed For he gaue that power after his resurrection when he said to him Feede my lambes feede my sheepe But those wordes of strengthning he spake before his death and did but insinuate therein giue an inkling that he would make him supreme head Rainoldes You haue said And your Doctor hath shewed herein a point of greater wit then many of his felowes But as of greater wit so of greater spite in adding thereunto that which now I touched that Caluin made no mention at all of those wordes because he knew well that they are so singular for Peters supremacie they could not possibly bee auoided For Caluin doth mention them in treating of the point whether the Pope may erre And your Doctor witnesseth him selfe that directly they concerne that point the supremacie but by an inkling The strength thereof then as touching the supremacie doth rest vpon that whereof they giue inkling it should be done after that is vpon the charge of feeding lambes and sheepe But it is proued that Christ gaue no more to Peter in that then to the rest of the Apostles It is proued therefore that the wordes of Christ strengthen thy brethren do raise no higher throne for Peter then for them Much lesse if the prayer that Christ made for Peter were common vnto him with all faithfull Christians and not with the Apostles onely Wherefore this reason which is so strong in your eies must be strengthned by his brethren if he haue any For sure he is a great deale too weake to strengthen them Hart. Yes he hath brethren And more peraduenture then you would be glad to see in the field as lustie as you are and thinke you can dispatch them all Rainoldes Not I saue with the aides of Elisaeus onely they that be with vs are mo then they that bee with them But let vs see what are they The fourth Chapter The practise of the Supremacie which Peter is intitled to imagâ—â—â—â— to be proued 1 by the election of Matthias to the Apostleship 2 〈◊〉 by the presidentship of the Councell held at Ierusalem 3 and by Paules iourney taken to see Peter and his abode with him Wherein as in other of the actes of the Apostles the equalitie of them all not the supremacie of one is shewed HART Examples of the practise of Peters supreme-headship in the gouernment of the Church Whereof we haue records in the holy scriptures euen in the Actes of the Apostles which are a paterne of church-Church-gouernment Rainoldes The reasons in deede which you gather thence are brethren to the former But they are no stronger then the former were If you bring them forth into the field you shall perceiue it Hart. There are many places but specially two by which Peters soueraintie ouer the Apostles is manifestly shewed For in the one he proposeth an election to bee made of a new Apostle into the roome of Iudas In the other he is President of the Councell of the Apostles which was held at Ierusalem he speaketh first and concludeth in it Out of both the which I gather this reason S. Peter did practise the power and authoritie of a supreme head ouer the Apostles Therefore hee was their supreme head Rainoldes Now are you come to that which I had an eye too when I desired you in the beginning of our conference to tell me what power you gaue vnto the Pope by calling him supreme head For in this grasse there lurketh a snake Which that you may see and if it be the gratious will of God auoide least that you perish through his venoom I will aske you a question When you say the Pope is chiefe and supreme head of ecclesiasticall iudgement and President of Councels doo you meane that the Pope in assemblies of Bishops is as the Speaker with vs in the Parlament to propose matters to them and aske their iudgementes and gather their voices that thinges may bee orderly handled and enacted by common consent Hart. As the Speaker No. But as the Prince rather Rainoldes Yea I say to you and more then the Prince For as thinges in Parlament cannot bee enacted without the Princes consent so neither can the Prince make actes without consent of the Lordes and Commons And when they are made by consent of them all they cannot be repealed by the Prince alone without
most for his Apologie the prayers which the Ministers for so Eusebius termeth them did offer vnto God may well be vnderstoode by those sacrifices too But if hee meant onely their offerings of the remembrance of Christes death in the sacrament as that which ensueth of mysticall consecrations may séeme to import yet himselfe declareth by the word vnblooddy that he called them sacrifices not properly but by a figure as meaning not that Christ is put to death there in deede but in a mysterie To be short he and all the other Fathers both Gréeke and Latin are so fully and plainly of one mind in this point that the Master of the Sentences in his abridgement of Diuinitie gathered out of them proposing this question whether that which the Priest doth exequute be called a sacrifice properly resolueth that it is not But that which is offered and consecrated by the Priest is called a sacrifice saith he and an offering because it is a remembrance and representation of the true sacrifice and the holy offering made on the altar of the crosse as he prooueth by the Fathers Wherefore sith the sacrifice offered in the Masse is a true and proper sacrifice as you define it and that of the Fathers is not a true sacrifice but called so improperly it remayneth to be concluded that the Fathers nether said Masse nor were Masse-priests And so to make an end with that which you began with the cause is iust and holy why we call presbyteros not Priests but Elders For sith the name of Priest hath relation to sacrifice men by the sacrifice vnderstand your Masse and your Masse is a monster of abomination prophaning the blood of Christ condemned by the Scriptures vnknowen to the Fathers detestable in the sight of God and of the godly the charge of the Lord not to lay a stumbling block before the blind might haue remoued that name from Ministers of the gospel yea although they had bene ordeined to sacrifice much more sith they are not but as other Christians The name of Elders therefore expressing that word whereby the Scripture calleth them as it is confessed by your owne authentical translating it so we could not but allow it Chiefly sith the very necessitie of opening our meaning vnto others which is the end of languages required different words for the different thinges of presbyter and sacerdos For how will you translate that saying of S. Austin that S. Iohns words they shal be Priests of God of Christ are meant of all Christians non de solis episcopis presbyteris qui propriè iam vocantur in ecclesia sacerdotes that is as we translate not of Bishops and Elders only which now are called peculiarly Priests in the Church But how would you translate it Hart. There is a defect in our English tounge that we can not translate it so perspicuously as it is in Latin because we haue but one word for presbyter and sacerdos Rainoldes Then you should not play the dog in the manger nether your selues mending the defectes of our tounge nor suffering vs to mend them For if a man translate it as your Rhemists doo not of Bishops and Priests only which are properly now in the Church called Priests how shal the English reader vnderstand his meaning which Priests be called Priests and whether Bishops be Priests too Nay to come to that which must néedes enforce you to translate sacerdos otherwise then presbyter S. Austin hauing brought against Iulian an heretike the testimonies of the Fathers Irenaeus Cyprian Reticius Olympius Hilarie Ambrose Innocentius Nazianzene Basil Chrysostome doth name them sacerdotes that is as you translate it Priests is it not Hart. Yes We haue no other English for sacerdos Rainoldes Where S. Austin addeth then touching Ierom that nether he must be contemned because he was presbyter what here shal presbyter be Wil you make S. Austins spéech so vnsauory as to tell the heretike that he ought to reuerence Irenaeus Cyprian Ambrose and the rest because they were Priests and not contemne Ierom because he was a Priest Hart. Nay I would translate here presbyter a Priest but for sacerdotes I would say Bishops For that is S. Austins meaning in these places where he doth name them sacerdotes Rainoldes So your translatour doth But the word Bishop is our English of episcopus And what if episcopus chaunce to come in too with sacerdos and presbyter How will you expresse them As where in the Canons collected by Isidore touching the order of keeping Councels he saith that sacerdotes first must enter in and after them presbyteri your Lawier noteth on it Vide vt sacerdotes vocet episcopos veteri more quem ignorantes plerique presbyteros sacerdotes appellari promiscuè stuliè opinantur Wherein if you translate sacerdotes Bishops and presbyteros Priests then your Lawier saith which were a wise speech that Isidore calleth Bishops Bishops after the old maner which many not knowing do folishly think that Priests are called Bishops indifferently Hart. Such sentences cannot be well expressed in English but the Latin words must be kept in them Rainoldes But it is behoofefull for our English men to haue them in English that they may know your Latin abuses of Rome For this is meant thereby that the ancient writers are wont to note Bishops by the name of Priests which many not knowing doo foolishly think that the name of Priests is vsed indifferently for the same that Elders A lesson for your Rhemists who make them all one although not of foolishnes so much as of fraude to the intent that Elders that is to say Ministers of the new testament may be thought Priests that is to say Ministers ordeined to sacrifice as your Masse-priests be For colour and maintenance of the which errour the countenance of proofe that you pretend out of the Fathers is the lesse by thus much that they were accustomed to geue the name of Priests not generally to Elders but to Bishops onely Wherefore to auoide confusion of things which the confusion of words might ingender in that we are to treate off I will by your leaue call presbyter an Elder as our translations doo that I may distinguish it from the name of Priest both as it is vsed by you for a Masse-priest and as it is vsed by the Fathers for a Bishop So to come at length back againe to that which I was in hand with of the second sort of the Bishops of Rome that when they were growen to their fattest plight they were but Archbishops of a Princely diocese not vniuersall Popes and Patriarkes of the whole world the Elders as I said ordeined by the Apostles in euery Church through euery citie chose one amongst themselues whom they called Bishop to be the President of their companie for the better
and our Church doth hold The third Councell of Carthage which therein the Councel of Trent subscribeth to did adde the bookes of Maccabes the rest of the apocrypha to the old Canon The Councel of Nice appointed boundes and limits as wel for the Bishop of Romes iurisdiction as for other Bishops The Councell of Lateran gaue the soueraintie of ordinarie power to the Church of Rome ouer al other Churches The Councell of Constance decréed that the Councell is aboue the Pope and made the Papall power subiect to generall Councels Which thing did so highly displease the Councell of Florence that it vndermined the Councell of Basill and guilefully surprised it for putting that in â—re against Pope Eugenius Upon the which pointes it must needes be graunted that one side of these generall Councels did erre vnlesse we will say that thinges which are contrarie may be true both Wherefore to make an end sith it is apparant by most cléere proofes that both the chosen and the called both the flockes and the Pastours both in seuerall by them selues and assembled together in generall Councels may erre I am to conclude with the good liking I hope of such as loue the truth that the militant Church may erre in maners and doctrine In the one point whereof concerning maners I defend our selues against the malicious sclanders of the Papists who charge the Church of England with the heresie of Puritans impudently and falsly In the other concerning doctrine I doo not touch the walles of Babilon with a light finger but raze from the very ground the whole mount of the Romish Synagogue Whose intolerable presumption is reproued by the third Conclusion too wherein it resteth to be shewed that the holy scripture is of greater credit autoritie then the Church And although this be so manifestly true that to haue proposed it onely is to haue proued it yet giue me leaue I pray to proue it briefly with one reason I will not trouble you with many All the wordes of scripture be the wordes of truth some wordes of the Church be the words of errour But he that telleth the truth alwayes is more to be credited then he that lyeth sometimes Therefore the holy scripture is to be credited more then is the Church That all the wordes of scripture be the wordes of truth it is out of controuersie For the whole scripture is inspired of God and God can neither deceiue nor be deceiued That some wordes of the Church be the wordes of errour if any be not perswaded perhaps by the reasons which I haue brought already let him heare the sharpese and most earnest Patrone of the Church confessing it Andradâ—us Payua a Doctor of Portugall the best learned man in my opinion of all the papists reherseth certaine pointes wherein Councels also may erre euen generall Councels in so much that he saith that the very generall Councel of Chalcedon one of those four first which Gregorie professeth him selfe to receiue as the foure bookes of the holy Gospell yet Andradius saith that this Councell erred in that it did rashly and without reason these are his own wordes ordeine that the Church of Constantinople should be aboue the Churches of Alexandria and Antiâ—â—he Neither doth he onely say that the Councell of Chalcedon erred and contraried the decrees of the Nicen Cuncell but he addeth also a reason why Councels may erre in such cases to weete because they folow not the secret motion of the holy ghost but idle Blastes of vaine reportes and mens opinions which deceiue oft A Councell then may folow some times the deceitfull opinions of men and not the secret motion of the holy ghost Let the Councels then giue place to the holy scriptures whereof no part is vttered by the spirit of man but all by the spirit of God For if some cauiller to shift of this reason shall say that we must not account of that errour as though it were the iudgement of the generall Councell because the Bishop of Rome did not allow it and approue it I would request him first of all to weigh that a generall Councell and assemblie of Bishops must néedes be distinguished from this and that particular Bishop so that what the greater part of them ordeineth that is ordeined by the Councell next to consider that the name of Church may be giuen to an assemblis of Bishops and a Councell but it can not be giuen to the Bishop of Rome lastly to remember that the Bishop of Rome Honorius the first was condemned of heresie by the generall Councell of Constantinople allowed and approued by Agatho Bishop of Rome Wherefore take the name of Church in what sense soeuer you list be it for the company either of Gods chosen or of the called too or of the guides and Pastours or be it for the Bishop of Rome his owne person though to take it so it seemeth very absurd the Bishop of Rome him selfe if he were to be my iudge shall not be able to deny vnlesse his forhead be of adamant but that some of the Churches words are wordes of errour Now if the Bishop of Rome and Romanistes them selues be forced to confesse both that the Church saith some things which are erroneous and that the scripture saith nothing but cleere truth shall there yet be found any man either so blockishly vnskilfull or so frowardly past shame as that he dare affirme that the Church is of greater credit and autoritie then the holy scripture Pighius hath doon it in his treatise of the holy gouernment of the church Where though he in 〈◊〉 â—â—llify with gallant salues his cursed spéech yet to build the tower of his Church and Antichrist with the ruines of Christ and of the holy scripture first he saith touching the writings of the Apostles that they were giuen to the church not that they should rule our faith and religion but that they should bee ruled rather and then he concludeth that the autoritie of the church is not onely not inferiour not onely equall nay it is superiour also after a sort to the autoritie of the scriptures Plinie reporteth that there was at Rome a certaine diall set in the field of Flora to note the shadowes of the sunne the notes and markes of which diall had not agreed with the sunne for the space of thirty yeares And the cause thereof was this as Plinie saith that either the course of the sunne was disordered and changed by some meanes of heauen or els the whole earth was slipt away from her centre The Church of Rome séemeth to be very like this diall in the field of Flora. For she was placed in the Roman territorie to shew the shadowes of the sunne euen of the sunne of righteousnes that is of Christ but her notes and markes haue not agreed with Christ these many yeares togither Not that
you complaine I know you may haue more bookes if you would haue such as are best for you to read But you would haue such as might nourish your humor from reading of the which they who restraine you are your friendes If a man do surfet of varietie of dishes the Phisicion doth well to dyet him with one wholsome kinde of meat Perhaps it were better for some of vs who read all sortes that we were tyed to that alone suffred part of your restraint We are troubled about many things but one thing is needfull Many please the fansie better but one doth profit more the minde He was a wise preacher who said The reading of many bookes is a wearinesse vnto the flesh and therefore exhorted men to take instruction by the wordes of trueth the wordes of the wise which are giuen by one pastor euen by Iesus Christ whose spirit did speake in the Prophets and Apostles and taught his Church the trueth by them Howbeit for as much as God hath giuen giftes to men pastours and teachers whose labour might helpe vs to vnderstand the words of that one pastor we do receaue thankfully the monuments of their labour left in wryting to the Church which they were set to builde eyther seuerall as the Doctors or assembled as the Councels we do gladly read them as Pastors of the Church Yet so that we put a difference betwene them and that one Pastor For God did giue him the spirite not by measure the rest had a measure of grace and knowledge through him Wherfore if to supply your whatsoeuer wants you would haue the bookes of Doctors and Councels to vse them as helps for the better vnderstanding of the booke of Christ your wants shal be supplyed you shall not need to feare disaduantage in this respect For M. Secretarie hath taken order that you shall haue what bookes you will vnlesse you will such as cannot be gotten Hart. The bookes that I would haue are principally in déed the Fathers and the Councels which all do make for vs as do the scriptures also But for my direction to finde out their places in all poyntes of controuersie which I can neither remember redily nor dare to trust my selfe in them I would haue our writers which in the seuerall poyntes whereof they treate haue cited them and buyld themselues vpon them In the question of the Church and the supremacie Doctor Stapleton of the Sacraments and sacrifice of the Masse Doctor Allen of the worshipping of Sayntes and Images Doctor Harpsfield whose bookes were set forth by Alan Cope beare his name as certaine letters in them shew Likewise for the rest of the pointes that lie in controuersie them who in particular haue best written of them for them al in generall S. Thomas of Aquine Father Roberts Dictates and chiefly the confession that Torrensis an other father of the societie of Iesus hath gathered out of S. Augustine which booke we set the more by because of al the Fathers S. Augustine is the chéefest as well in our as your iudgement and his doctrine is the common doctrine of the Fathers whose consent is the rule whereby controuersies should be ended Rainoldes These you shall haue God willing and if you will Canisius too because he is so full of textes of Scriptures and Fathers and many doe estéeme him highly But this I must request you to looke on the originalles of Scriptures Councels Fathers which they doe alleadge For they doe perswade you that all doe make for you but they abuse you in it They borrow some gold out of the Lordes treasure house and wine out of the Doctors presses but they are deceitful workmen they do corrupt their golde with drosse their wine with worse then water Hart. You shall finde it harder to conuince them of it then to charge them with it Rainoldes And you shall finde it harder to make proofe of halfe then to make claime of all Yet you shall see both youre claime of all the Scriptures and Fathers to bee more confidente then iust and my reproofe of your wryters for theyr corrupting and forging of them as plainly prooued as vttered if you haue eyes to see God lighten your eyes that you may see open your eares that you may heare and geue you both a softe hart and vnderstanding minde that you may be able wisely to discerne and gladly to embrace the trueth when you shall heare it Hart. I trust I shall be able alwayes both to see and to followe the trueth But I am perswaded you will be neuer able to shew that that is the trueth which your Church professeth As by our conference I hope it shal be manifest Rainoldes UUill you then to lay the ground of our conference let me know the causes why you separate your selfe and refuse to communicate with the Church of England in prayers and religion Hart. The causes are not many They may be al comprysed in one Your Church is no Church You are not members of the Church Rainoldes How proue you that Hart. By this argument The Church is a companie of Christian men professing one faith vnder one head You professe not one faith vnder one head Therefore you are not of the Church Rainoldes What is that one faith Hart. The catholike faith Rainoldes Who is that one head Hart. The Bishop of Rome Rainoldes Then both the propositions of which you frame your argument are in part faultie The first in that you say the church is a companie of Christian men vnder one head The second in that you charge vs of the church of England that wee professe not one faith For we do professe that one faith the catholike faith But we deny that the church is bound to be subiect to that one head the bishop of Rome Hart. I will proue the pointes of both my propositions the which you haue denied First that the church must be subiect to the Bishop of Rome as to her head Next that the faith which you professe in England is not the catholike faith Rainoldes You will say somewhat for them but you will neuer proue them Hart. Let the church iudge For the first thus I proue it S. Peter was head of all the Apostles The Bishop of Rome succeedeth Peter in the same power ouer Bishops that he had ouer the Apostles Therefore the Bishop of Rome is head of all Bishops If of Bishops then by consequent of the dioceses subiect to them If of all their dioceses then of the whole church The Bishop of Rome therefore is head of the whole church of Christ. Rainoldes S. Peter was head of all the Apostles The Bishop of Rome is head of all Bishops I had thought that Christ our Sauiour both was and is the head as of the whole church so of Apostles of Bishops of all the members of it For the church is his
this is the mould of your owne reason wherein you cast the church to haue one visible head proportionable to the body A fansy more proportionable to the limmes of Popery then to Saint Paules doctrine touching the body of Christ. For his drift and purpose therein is to shew that as a mans body is made of sundry members which are not all as excellent one as an other the hand as the head the foote as the hand yet they are ioined togither to care one for an other all to maintaine the bodie so the bodie of Christ that is to say the church consisteth of sundry Christians as members some of greater gifts and callings then some the Apostles then that teachers the teachers then the helpers yet al ioyned together to loue and serue one an other and kéepe the church in vnitie wherby it is manifest first that in naming the head he considereth it not as a head properly but onely as a principall member For so he applieth it naming all Christians members and calling them the bodie of Christ he putteth Christ to be the head Next that by the name of head so considered hée meaneth no one man but all the Apostles as them who were indued with the chéefest gifts and placed in the highest function UUherefore if that word be strained to the vttermost as far as by the text it may the proofe that it yeldeth will argue a preeminence of the Apostles in generall ouer the inferiour members of the church but no power of Peter ouer the rest of the Apostles much lesse of the Pope ouer his fellow-bishops Hart. Yet this it doth proue that the name of head is not so giuen vnto Christ but that it may be giuen vnto a mortall man also Not as a head properly you say but as a principall member And what said I els For I graunted that Christ is properly the head of the church the Pope improperly Yet you reproued me for it Rainoldes I reproued you not because you gaue the title of head vnto the Pope for hee should be a pastour of the church of Rome and pastours for their giftes aboue the members of their churches ought to be like heads though many of them be tailes as the prophet calleth them but because you named him head of the whole church and that in such sort as it is due to none but Christ. For though you graunted Christ to be the quickening head that is to say the fountaine whence there floweth life into the rest of the bodie yet you gaue the Pope this soueraintie of headship that he should direct by his rule and power the outward functions of the bodie Wherein as of the one side you debase the worthinesse of his gifts who giueth vs Pastors and Teachers in that you doe appoint them to guide onely the outward functions of his bodie whereas he hath giuen them to the ful perfiting of his Saintes so of the other side you detract somewhat from the soueraintie of Christ when you giue his seruants dominion to guide his church by rule and power whereas they are ordeined to the worke of the ministery Wherfore howsoeuer you alay the title which you giue the Pope and say you call him head not properly but improperly a ministeriall head yet you doe imply that in this improperly which can agrée to none but him that properly is a head a head that doeth quicken guide and moue the bodie Euen as in your Canon lawe it is said of Peter The Lord did commit the charge of preaching the truth vnto him principally to the intent that from him as it were from a certaine head he might powre abroad his gifts as it were into all the bodie Hart. These wordes that you reproue in the Canon lawe are the wordes of a man of singular wit and iudgement famous both for holinesse and learning Saint Leo an auncient father who did flourish aboue a thousand yeares ago Rainoldes They aâ—e the wordes I grant of an auncient a wittie a learned holie man but a man and that is more a Bishop of Rome Now men euen the holiest while they liue in the flesh haue some contagion of the flesh and learning may puffe vp as it did the Corinthians and the best wittes are soonest tainted with ambition yea Iames and Iohn the sonnes of thunder desired superioritie and Rome a great Citie did nourish great statelinesse and that euen in the Bishops of that Citie before Leo. So they louing preeminence as Diotrephes did tooke all occasions to get it and sought some colours to mainteine it Wherefore as one in Tully said to Hortensius when he immoderately praysed eloquence that hee would haue lift her vp into heauen that himselfe might haue gone vp with her as hauing greatest right vnto her so many Bishops of Rome and Leo not the least of them did lift vp Saint Peter with prayses to the skye that themselues might rise vp with him as being forsooth his heires The Epistles and Sermons of Leo haue manifest markes of this affection as to giue a taste of them The Lord did take Peter into the feloship of the indiuisible vnitie and Wee acknowledge the most singular care of the most blessed Peter for vs all in this that God hath loosed the deceites of all slaunderers and My writings be strengthened by the merite and authoritie of my Lorde most blessed Peter the Apostle and Peter hauing confirmed the iudgement of his See in decision of faith hath not suffered any thing amisse to be seene about any of your persons who haue labored with vs for the Catholike faith and We beseech you and aduise you to keepe the thinges decreed of vs through the inspiration of God the Apostle most blessed Peter If any thing be well done or decreed of vs if any thing bee obtained of Gods mercy by daily praiers it is to be ascribed to S. Peters workes and merites whose power doth liue and authoritie excell in his owne See and He was so plentifully watred of the fountaine of all graces that whereas he receiued many things alone yet nothing passeth ouer to any man but by him To be short Leo by his exaÌ„ple his successors after him are so full of such spéeches that in the common phrase of themselues and their Secretaries all thinges pertaining to the Popes were growne to be S. Peters their prerogatiue S. Peters right their dignitie Saint Peters honour their statelinesse S. Peters reuerence subiection to them subiection to S. Peter A message from them an embassage from S. Peter Things done in their presence done in S. Peters presence Landes and possessions giuen them giuen to S. Peter And when they would haue kingdomes Princes must get them for S. Peter Their territories and Lordships S.
all the coastes of the earth of reconciling any that are excommunicate of excommunicating suspending or inflicting other censures and penalties on any that offend yea on Princes and nations finallie of all things of the like sort for gouerning of the church euen what soeuer toucheth either preaching of doctrine or practising of discipline in the church of Christ. Rainoldes And all this you meane by the Popes supremacie A power verie great in weight and large in compasse for one man to wéeld yea for one Apostle much more for one Bishop Bishop of Rome is he or Bishop of the whole world You said that you call him a head improperlie I wéene you giue this power improperlie to him also For out of all doubt you can neuer proue that it belongeth to him properlie The second Chapter The promise of the supremacie pretended to be made by Christ vnto Peter 1 in the wordes Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke will I build my church 2 to thee wil I giue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen Of expounding the scriptures how the right sense of them may be known and who shall iudge therof 3 what is meant by the keyes the power of binding and loosing promised by Christ to Peter and in Peter to all the Apostles HART How large and great soeuer this power and supremacie doth séeme in your eyes it belongeth properlie to the Bishop of Rome And that is alreadie prooued by the reason which before I made S. Peter was head of all the Apostles The Bishop of Rome succeedeth Peter in the same power ouer Bishops that he had ouer the Apostles The Bishop of Rome therefore is head of all Bishops and by consequent of their dioceses that is of all the church of Christ. Rainoldes Remember in what sense you take the name of head and I denie both the propositions of this argument Hart. I will proue them both and first the former Christ did promise Peter that he would make him head therefore hee did make him Rainoldes He did not promise him Hart. Christ did say vnto him Tu es Petrus super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam Thou art Peter and vpon this peter will I build my church Therefore he did promise him Rainoldes The reason doth not folow But why do you english it so Thou art Peter and vpon this peter Your doctors were wont to cite it Thou art Peter vpon this rocke and to that rocke you tyed all Doo you feare shipwracke there now Hart. No syr But to make our anker-holde the surer the which is fastned on S. Peter Doctor Allen thought good that in the translation of the new testament into our tongue which wée were about at Rhemes it should be thus englished Thou art Peter and vpon this peter The which I rather folow then the other of the rocke because it is agréeable vnto the originall Rainoldes It is not For the originall is the Gréeke text and that hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherto your latin olde translation agreeth with Petrus and petra as your selfe alleaged it The wordes of both which though they differ not so much as Peter and rocke yet they are not one as your Peter and peter Hart. Although the Gréeke wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 differ in termination yet they are one in meaning and signify the same thing For as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifyeth a rocke so doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Athenian language And it must be noted that Christ spake in Hebrue or rather in the Syriake tongue wherein the name that hée gaue Peter is Cephas Now in the Syriake translation of the testament that word is the same without difference in both places For thus are the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if a man would say Thou art Cephas and vpon this Cephas or Thou art Rocke and vpon this rocke For Cephas in the Syriake doth signifie a rocke as Guido Fabricius a learned linguist sheweth wherfore the meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be the same in greeke And so we may kéepe it well in both places Thou art Peter and vpon this peter Rainoldes The wordes which you alleage are not of the Syriake translation they are Hebrue But as the Hebrue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is one in both places so the Syriake I graunt hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in thē both And I gladlie take it because our Sauiour Christ spake in that tongue as an exposition of his wordes to Peter Yet I note by the way that although your councell of Trent hath allowed the latin olde trāslation alone as authenticall and hath decréed thereof that no man shall dare or presume vnder any pretense to reiect it notwithstanding you your selues will depart from it and that not onelie to the originall which wee should not bee suffred but also to translations if they maye séeme to make for you in any point more then your olde doth Hart. We do not reiect that authenticall translation but open the sense of it by comparing it with the greeke and the gréeke with the Syriake Rainoldes But if we should doo so in any point against you this answere would not serue vs it would be accounted a colour or pretense such as your Councell hath condemned Hart. You doe vs great iniurie in that you séeme to make it all one to reiect the authenticall Latin and to take aduantage for our selues out of the originall textes Rainoldes For your selues Nay I make not that all one I sayd If we should doo so not If you should do so For doo you what you list and all must be soothed as agréeing with your Latin and opening the sense of it But if we should take aduantage for our selues by the originall textes our aduantage would be nipped on the head as a pretense For example Andreas Masius a learned man of yours hath written a Commentarie on the booke of Iosua in the which he launceth your authenticall Latin almost in euerie Chapter yea he saith that S. Jerom if hee be the Authour of it doeth seeme to haue translated wittingly a place against the meaning of the Hebrue that he might vouch a fansy of his owne thereby Yet the Popish Censour who allowed it to the print witnesseth of that Commentarie that it lighteneth and openeth the common olde translation greatly Let vs doe much lesse let vs but raze the credite of it and will you giue that Censure of vs Nay if wée do note that where your old translation hath of the frame or imagination of mans hart that it is prone to euill the Hebrue text hath not prone to euill but euill the Censure of Coolein will answere that it is farre better to say as your olde translation saith prone to euill and will fetch in also the Rabbins of the Iewes not to
expounde the Latin according to the Hebrue but to alaye the Hebrue according to the Latine Wherefore in that I saide that if we should goe from your authenticall Latin to the originall textes it would be misliked of I doo you no iniurie Yet I mislike it not in your plea for Peter that you take aduantage not of the originall but of a translation nay I like it well Though I like not that which you adde to proue it that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greeke toong dooth signifie a rocke as Cephas in the Syriake and so the wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 haue one meaning For they haue one meaning not because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie a rocke as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie a stone as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifieth a stone your owne learned linguists as you call them note and examples thereof are rife But that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any where signifieth a rocke neither doo they shew nor haue other skilfuâ—l of that toong obserued You say that it is so in the Athenian language but you bring no Athenian nor any Grecian else to witnesse it And the French toong which foloweth the Gréeke as in many other words so in this hath the same word you know for a stone and for the name of Peter Wherein there is a print of the true originall meaning of that name in the Gréeke toong But Christ did call him Cephas in the Syriake toong and Cephas you say doth signifie a rocke as Fabricius sheweth But Fabricius sheweth further that Cephas doth signifie a stone also And though he or rather the Iewe whom he citeth reporteth their saying who expounde the name as taken from that worde in signification of a rocke yet hauing mentioned the other of a stone he saith therevpon that so his name is Peter in the Romane toong and in the Italian a stone is called pereda Whereunto I might adde that an other learned writer of the Iewes and auncienter then he doeth likewise say as opening the sense of Peters name that he is called stone But that Christ did meane a stone not a rocke in naming him Cephas your stoutest champion D. Sanders may serue in stéed of many witnesses For he wanting no will to go as far as the boldest and hauing many yeares aduised of the matter durst say no more for Cephas but that it signifieth a stone at the most a great stone euen petra it selfe he doeth expound in this maner Super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam Thou shalt bee the first stone next me of that church which I will build on earth In the which iudgement he doeth deserue the greater credite at your handes because he was contented to hazard his life with the Pope against his Prince in that holy quarell and hauing spent his chiefest studie in the point he had before times expounded it a rocke the which exposition so fit for the Papacy he would haue neuer left had not the truth enforced him to retire from it A thing so much the likelier because when hee laboured first to infect men with the Popes supremacie by the name of rocke and therfore both in the title and course of all his booke did sound the rocke of the church euen then he did expound Cephas and Peter doubtfully a rocke or a stone and yelding the reason why Christ did name him so he mentioned a stone onely because what place a stone hath in holding vp the house which is built vpon it the same should Peter haue in vpholding the frame of Christes militant church Wherefore you must let go your holde of the rocke whereon D. Stapleton doth beast your house is built and be content to lay a stone in stéed of it Let our Sauiour Christ alone be the rocke If you dash your selfe against him therein he will breake you in péeces Hart. It is a disputable point You sée that learned men are of sundrie iudgements in expounding of it some thinking it betokeneth a stone some a rocke Wherefore you can not force me to take the one and leaue the other Rainoldes Not by mens wordes but by the word of God I can For Christ in the Syriake toong did name him Cephas and Cephas in the Gréeke is expounded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in English signifieth a stone And sure you had done better if as the Gréeke text hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Syriake translation Cephas Cephas so you had made it in English stone and stone For Peter and peter doth not expresse the force of the Syriake word Rocke and rocke is strong but the text doth not beare it Stone and stone is fit had you not thought it too slender Now sith you doo presse the Syriake translation to shew thereby the meaning of the Latin as you say you must giue me leaue to tell you that the wordes should be rather Englished after the Syriake thus Thou art stone and vpon this stone will I build my church Hart. Rocke or stone if I should giue you leaue to choose whither of them you list what gaine you thereby Rainoldes The truth which I deale for shall gaine thus much by it that although you construe those words that Christ would build his church vpon Peter for your most aduantage euen as Sanders doth yet is it not proued thereby that Christ did promise him a supreme-headship ouer the Aposâ—les For the church of Christ which is the company of Gods elect and chosen isresembled in Scripture to a materiall temple such as was the temple which Salomon built So as that was called a house the house of prayer in like sort the church is called a house too but a spirituall house to distinguish it from that which house because it must be made of all the godly as it were of stones grounded on Christ by faith though the doctrine of the Apostles therefore Christ is called the chiefe corner stone in respect of the Iewes and Gentiles as of walls which are ioyned in him the foundation in respect of the whole house yea the foundation of foundation as the Prophet termeth him the twelue Apostles laid next vpon Christ are called twelue foundations the faithfull laide on them or rather after them on him are called stones not dead ones such as the temple had but liuing the working and framing of them to this purpose is called building and edifying which is done by preaching of the word of truth coupling them togither betwéene them selues and with Christ that they may grow to bee a holie temple in the Lord for God to dwell in by his spirite Wherefore if the wordes of Christ be
so taken that he meant the laying of Peter as a principall stone next to him selfe and others vpon him wheÌ„ he sayd Thou art stone and vpon this stone will I build my church this sheweth that Peter was in the first ranke as I may say of stones I meane he was in order with the first who beléeued and amongst those first he had a marke of honour in that he was named stone aboue his brethren But it sheweth not that he should be head of the rest of the Apostles For as he so they are called foundations and Christ did build his church as well on them as on him Hart. Then you grant that Christ did promise to build his church vpon Peter Rainoldes I doo so Hart. Not vpon his doctrine onely but his person Rainoldes After a sort What then Hart. What then What say you then to Doctors of your owne side namely to Sadeel and Mornay whom you praised so greatly and brought them me to reade They write that the church was builded not vpon the person of Peter but vpon his doctrine preaching Christ vnto vs. You graunt the contrarie Rainoldes What say you to the auncient Doctors whom they follow chiefly to S. Austin He writeth that the rocke which our Sauior promised to build his church vpon is Christ and not Peter You hold the coÌ„trary Thou art Peter saith he and vpon this rock which thou hast confessed vpon this rock which thou hast knowne saying Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God will I build my church I will build thee vpon mee not me vpon thee For men entending to build on men said I hold of Paul I of Apollos I of Cephas that is Peter and others who would not be builded vpon Peter but vpon the rocke said I hold of Christ. For the rocke was Christ vpon the which foundation Peter him selfe was builded sith no man can lay an other foundation beside that which is laide which is Iesus Christ. What say you to the rest namely to Gregorie Nysâ—en to Cyril to Chrysostome to Ambrose to Hilarie They write that this rocke is the consession of Peter They say not it is Peters person Hart. That exposition of S. Austin denying Peter to be the rocke was lapsus humanus as D. Stapleton calleth it caused by the diuersitie of the Gréeke and Latin toong which either he was ignorant of or marked not Howbeit neuerthelesse it hath a true meaning though not the full proper sense of this place Besides that him selfe doth other-where expound it as vnderstood of Peter according to the famous verses of S. Ambrose in which he calleth Peter the rocke of the Church The rest of the Fathers who apply the rocke to Peters confession imply his person in it For to say that the Church is built on the confession and beliefe of Peter is all one in déed and to say it is built on Peter confessing and beleeuing in Christ. Wherefore in as much as they affirme the former they prooue withall the later by it Rainoldes S. Austin and the Fathers are beholding to you whose wordes though not answering well to your fansies are handled so gentlie If you were as fauourable to Sadeel and Mornay that which they write of Peter would haue a true meaning Though if they with greater zeale vnto his doctrine then vnto his person that is to Christ then to Peter had giuen a litle lesse to him then is due the faulte were not so much to bée â—aide on their restraint as on your excesse who say a great deale more of him then you ought For example Father Robert the Prince of the Iesuites in his Diuinitie lectures read publikelie at Rome about seuen yeares agoe handling this same point of the foundation of the Church did ground him selfe on a sentence of the Prophet Esay to proue it to be Peter and Peters see the see of Rome Whereof to make his proofe strong by the wordes which God doth speake of Christ Behold I lay in Sion a tried pretious corner stone a sure foundation he affirmed that Esay did therein prophecie not of Christ but of Peter a stumbling stone to heretikes a rock of offense but to Catholikes a tried a pretious a corner stone S. Peter the Apostle expoundeth those wordes not of himselfe but of Christ. Father Robert the Iesuit sayth that they agrée not to Christ but to him So to aduaunce the Popes dignitie by Peter he maketh Peter himselfe nay the holy Ghost a lier Such blasphemous outrages of your chéefe professors giuing more to Peter then staÌ„deth with the truth and honor of the Sonne of God might prouoke the godly spirites of his seruantes to bend to the contrarie as husbandmen when they would straighten a young plant that groweth crooked one way do bow it to the other But in the discourse of Sadeel and Mornay that the Church is built vpon the confession of Peter not his person there is no straining of ought beyond the truth for the meaning of it by your owne iudgement For they approue and folow the exposition of S. Austin and that you affirme hath a true meaning As for the maner of S. Austins spéech I graunt it séemeth somewhat tough to expound those wordes of Christ as if he sayd Thou art Peter and vpon me not Thou art Peter and vpon thee will I build my Church But if the circumstances of his spéeche bée weighed you shal find not only the meaning of it true but the maner good For as it is writen that God commaunded the Iues to offer burnt offerings sacrifices vnto him yet God sayth in Ieremie that he spake not to them neither commaunded them touching burnt offerings and sacrifices not as though he had not commanded the things but because he did not commaund them in that sort and respect as they vsed them so though it be true that Christes wordes to Peter doe import this sense Vpon thee will I build my Church yet because hée spake them in respect of Peters profession and faith vpon Thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God not in respect of Peters person which they built on who sayd I hold of Paul I of Apollos I of Cephas S. Austin might expound them well as he doth that Christ sayd to Peter I wil build my church not vpon thee but vpon me In the which conclusion the rest of the Fathers who expound it of Peters confession doe ioyne with S. Austin Neither can your shuffling of Peters coÌ„fession with Peter confessing inueigle their consent For they doo expound and vnderstand it plainelie some of him whom Peter confessed that is Christ the Sonne of the liuing God some of Peters faith wherwith he confessed him as by which the faithfull are builded on Christ. And this is their meaning in saying that which your men doo vainelie triumph at the church is built on Peter
as it appeareth by S. Hilarie Who giuing him the title of the foundatiō of the church expoundeth it some times of his faith in Christ some times of Christ himselfe in whom he beléeued But admitte that Christ had meant Peters person when he promised him that he would build his church vpon him What conclude you of it Hart. This I do conclude that séeing the church was built vpon Peter and the Apostles themselues were part of the Church therefore the Apostles were built vpon him and so was he their foundation By consequent whereof séeing the foundation is the same to a house which a head is to a bodie I do conclude againe that Peter was the head of all the Apostles And so my purpose is proued Rainoldes This conclusion hath neither foundation nor head For by as good reason you may conclude also that séeing the Church was built vpon Peter and Peter him selfe is a part of the church therefore was Peter built vpon him selfe and so was he his own foundatiō And because a foundation is the same to a house which a head is to a bodie therefore S. Peter was S. Peters head Or if you sée not either the necessitie or folly of this consequence as it is made of Peter you may frame the lyke of any other of the Apostles and you will espy it For the church of Christ is the great Citie that holie Ierusalem whereof the wall had twelue foundations and in them the names of the Lambs twelue Apostles Then séeing that the church was built vpon euerie one of those twelue as vpon Iames by name and Peter was a part of the church it foloweth that Peter was built vpon Iames and so was Iames his foundation And séeing a foundation is the same to a house which a head is to a bodie it followeth againe that Iames was Peters head which if your self denie you must denie that wherof it doth folow by force of like reason And so your purpose is not proued Hart. But we do imagine that in this building of the church and laying the foundations of it Christ did laie Peter next vpon himselfe as the foundation of the rest and other Apostles vpon him Rainoldes Indéede you doo imagin it And you consider not that your imagination is crossed by it selfe not onelye by the truth For if the twelue Apostles of the Lambe on whom hee built his church were laid as twelue foundations one vpon an other Peter lowest of them then as Peter was foundation of eleuen so the next to him must be of ten the next to him of nine and likewise ech of the next vntill the last of none A thing flatte repugnant to your imagination wherein you make Peter onely head of the rest the rest of them equall all amongst themselues Neither doth it stand with that proportion of the building which the scripture maketh reseruing the prerogatiue of the onely singular foundation to Christ and ioyning the Apostles all in equall honour of the twelue foundations as I haue shewed For Christ in this house is as it were a rocke a rockie sure and firme ground on which both the Apostles and all his church is built as the citie of Dauid was on the mount Sion The Apostles are as stones as twelue most pretious stones which being laid ioyntlie one by an other all on Christ are as twelue foundations and walles of chosen stones are raysed vp on them vntill the whole number of the elect be laid on and the building finished One of these foundations might excell an other in pretiousnes of graces For the first foundation saith Iohn was a Iasper the second a Sapphire the third a Chalcedonie the fourth an Emeraude and so forth the rest Or because I know not the vertues of these stones the stones which the Disciples of Christ did meruaile at in the temple of Ierusalem for the fairenes and greatnes of them were as Iosephus writeth fiue and twentie cubites long eight cubites hie and twelue cubites broad Now as among such stones one might be fairer or better wrought then other so might one Apostle of Christ excell his felowes in zeale or other giftes as namelie S. Peter Unlesse perhaps S. Paul whom Christ did adde to the twelue excelled both him and them which I do thinke rather for he labored more then they all and by your owne confession conuerted more vnto the faith But neither Paule nor Peter were foundations of the rest they were altogither ioint-foundations of the church laid on Christ the onely and singular foundation to speake of a foundation properly UUherefore though our Sauiour in saying to Peter Thou art stone and vpon this stone will I build my church had meant that he would build it vpon Peters person which serueth best your fansy yet doth not that saying inferre a supreme-headship But doubtles if your fansy can yéeld vnto the truth he meant not Peters person but his faith and function in preaching of the faith For the onely person that the church is built on as on a foundation by the strength and vertue whereof it is vpholden is the sonne of God our Sauiour Iesus Christ beside whom no other foundation may be laid in whom all the building being coupled togither groweth vnto an holy temple in the Lord. Now because that faith in the sonne of God doth make the liuing stones whereof the building is compact and knitte vp on Christ a stone of which sort Peter had shewed himselfe to be by beleeuing and professing that faith Christ told him that he was according to his name stone a stone indeede and hauing chosen him to preach the same faith whereby there shoulde be laide more stones on that building hee saide vpon this stone will I build my church UUherin as he shewed that whosoeuer should be members of his church must be members of it by felowship with Peters faith so he shewed withall that hee would impart that faith to his church by the ministerie of Peter As appeareth farther by that which he added To thee will I giue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen Hart. Yet euen this doth argue still the same prerogatiue which we giue to Peter For séeing Christ said that he woulde build his Church vpon that stone or rocke as I take it and that which a church is builded vpon must needes be a foundation it foloweth that Peter was a foundation of the church Not a principall foundation for that is Christ onely of whom it is true that other foundation no man can laye beside that which is laid which is Christ Iesus but as wee terme it a ministeriall foundation UUhich by the proportion of a foundation to a house and a head to a bodie is enough to proue that Christ would make Peter head of the Apostles I meane a ministeriall head Rainoldes But here againe you fal into your former fault and
that which was common to all the Apostles by the meaning of Christ you chalenge as proper vnto Peter onely For as the confession of Peter touching Christ shewed their common faith by the mouth of one so the answere of Christ directed vnto one conteined that blessing that should be common to them all And this is declared by the holy scripture which to the Ephesians mēbers of the church saith that they are built vpō the foundatiō of the Apostles Prophets Not of Peter onely but of the Apostles who lay the same foundation all that Peter did and thereupon are called all of them foundations And the church relying vpon their doctrine that is the Christian faith the onely and sure foundatiō of the church as the truth hath forced your owne mouthes to witnesse may bee iustly saide to be built on them euen as well on all of them as on Peter Wherfore by the proportion that you grate vpon of a foundation to a house and a head to a bodie as Christ is head onely so is he the onely foundation of the Church as the name of foundation is giuen to the Apostles so the twelue foundations doth proue them twelue heads You must séeke therefore some other foundation of Peters headship ouer them For neither the name of stone that Christ gaue him nor the wordes of building his church vpon that stone proue that he promised him to make him head of all the Apostles Hart. Not in your iudgement but in mine they doo And so dooth the other part of the promise also which Christ made vnto him To thee will I giue the keyes of the kingdome of heuen For by the name of keyes is signified the fulnes of ecclesiasticall power But to giue the fulnes of ecclesiasticall power is to make him head Therefore Christ did promise to make him head of the church Rainoldes These keyes will not open more in the house then did the foundation lay in the building For if you meane by fulnes of ecclesiasticall power the lawfull power of the Apostleship then the which no greater was euer giuen to anie ministers of the church Christ gaue it both to Peter and to euerie Apostle If you meane such power as the Pope claimeth by fulnes of power a soueraine power not onely spirituall but also temporall Christ gaue it neither to Peter nor to anie Apostle So that in the former sense al were heads in the latter none and thus your headship proued by neither But what soeuer you meane by fulnes of power this is cleere and certaine that our Sauiour promised no more power to Peter then he meant and performed to all the Apostles And therefore what soeuer he promised to him he promised in him to them For as amongst them when they were all asked Whom say ye that I am Peter answered alone Thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God so Christ said to him alone I will giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen as though he had alone receaued power to bind and loose whereas he made that answere one in stead of them all and receiued this power one togither with them all Wherefore sith no more was promised then giuen and equall power was giuen to all the Apostles this promise proueth not your headship You must bring vs foorth some better euidence or else your title will be naught Hart. The euidence is good For it saith in plaine and expresse termes that Christ would giue the keyes to Peter Then the which what could be more manifestly spoken Rainoldes In shew to the simple Chiefely when they sée the matter set forth as that is at Rome where Christ is painted out not as promising Peter that he would giue him keyes but as giuing them to him at that present and giuing them to him alone not to all the Apostles with the wordes of Christ paraphrased feately thereto by some poet Be thou the Prince of pastors to thee alone is giuen The power to shut the dore of heauen and eke to set it open Pastorum princeps esto tibi ius datur vni Claudere celestes reserare fores Hart. Nay the very words as they lie in scripture are plainer in shew for vs then for you which also may be noted in other pointes of controuersie betwéene you and vs. As about the reall presence this is my bodie For Christ did not say this is a signe of my bodie And againe the bread that I will giue is my flesh He said not it is but the signe of my flesh Rainoldes Neither do we say that Christ did so meane in this of flesh and bread For we teach that the true bread the bread of God which came downe from heauen and giueth life vnto the world is Christ euen the flesh the very flesh of Christ that is Christ incarnate The greater wrong they do vs who lay to our charge that we expound it not of the thing but of a signe themselues indéede guiltie thereof expounding it of a sacrament of Christ where it is meant of Christ him selfe the word that was made flesh But what if in the other place and sundry mo the wordes of the scripture bee plainer in shew for you then for vs It is not the shew but the sense of the wordes that doth import the truth and must decide controuersies For wordes were ordained to open the meaning and minde of him that speaketh them The meaning of the word of God is alwaies true because God who speaketh it is true and cannot lie The shew of it is false sometimes and deceitfull as men are whose iudgement this shew dependeth of and that may séeme to them to be meant by it which is not meant by God Wherfore it is not the shew but the sense the substance not the semblance of the wordes of scriptures that you must proue doth make for you in points of controuersie if you will proue ought Hart. Why do you graunt then that the wordes of scripture make more for vs in shew though not in substance then they doo for you It were not good for you that this should be knowne Rainoldes What Not that the wordes of scripture sometimes make more for you then vs in shewe though not in substance Yes truely M. Hart and for the Anabaptistes too that Christians had all things common And for Pope Clemens too that wiues must be common because in all things wiues are implyed also And I am so farre from being afraid that this should be knowne that euen in the very example which you mētion as making for you most I grant that the words of Christ this is my body are plainer in shew though not for your monster of transubstantiation yet for your reall presence then for our sacramentall But so that I graunt the same in like maner of other sacramentall and
not name him And S. Ambrose saith of that promise of Christ I will giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and the rest which followeth that what is said to Peter is said to the Apostles And Ierom saith that the foundation and firmenesse of the church lay on all the Apostles equally and they did all receiue the keyes And Origen saith that Christes promise of building his church of giuing the keyes of binding and loosing made as to Peter onely was common vnto all And Hilarie saith in like sort that through the worthinesse of their faith they obtained the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and the power of binding and loosing in heauen and earth Neither doo I doubt but other of the Fathers haue said as much as these in the expounding of these words But haue they or not this is no path for vs to walke in if we séeke the right way For neither might we hope for an ende of our trauels because of sundrie expositions one contrarie to an other and we should faint for thirst in time of heate and drouth looking for water in the wildernesse as the trauellers of Tema and that is woorst of all sometimes wee should leaue the pure water of truth and swill vp puddle in stéed of it For although the Fathers were men indued of God with excellent gifts and brought no small light to vnderstanding of the scriptures yet learned men in our dayes may giue a right sense of sundrie places thereof which the Fathers saw not yea against the which perhaps they consent Hart. The Councell of Trent condemneth them that say so Rainoldes As learned men as any were at that Councell say it And they doo it too Hart. Who Caluin and Beza Rainoldes Truely I doo iudge no lesse of their learning And if I be of any iudgement I iudge not parcially in it But thinke of thē as you list S. Austin hauing folowed S. Cyprian in expounding a certaine place of Scripture afterward did finde in Tyconius the Donatist an other exposition which thinking to be truer he preferred it before Cyprians Whereby you may sée that although you thought as yll of Caluin and Beza as did S. Austin of the Donatists yet if you had S. Austins minde you would rather follow the sense which they giue sometimes of the scriptures then that which is giuen by auncient godly Fathers Neuerthelesse my minde was not of them when I mentioned learned men For to what purpose Sith I am not ignorant how small account you make of them My minde was of your owne men who say so and doo so Hart. What Against the Councell of Trent UUho bée they Rainoldes First the flower of your Cardinals the Cardinall Caietan beginning to expound the scriptures dooth set it downe for a principle that God hath not tied the exposition of the scriptures vnto the senses of the Fathers UUherefore if he fall vpon a new sense agreeable to the text though it go against the streame of the Fathers he doth aduise the reader not to mislike of it Hart. But the flower of our Bishops Bishop Melchior Canus misliketh the Cardinal for that his rash sentence and reprooueth it as an errour yea as the common sentence of heretikes and schismatikes Rainoldes But the flower of your Doctors D. Payua Andradius rebuketh this your Bishops reproofe as more rash yea defendeth Caietan against it as a slander He teacheth first that the Fathers doo in many places not expound the Scriptures according to the literall sense the onely which hath weight to proue pointes of faith but allegorically and morally We may leaue their allegories and expound them literally He teacheth next that when they seeke the literall senses of the scriptures they doo not alwaies finde them but giue diuers senses one vnlike an other We may forsake their senses all and bring a new vnlike to theirs Moreouer to make the thing euident by examples him selfe expoundeth sundry places otherwise then the Fathers haue declaring that hée doth it vpon sufficient ground Againe he proueth by the sayings of the chiefe of the Fathers that they spake not oracles whē they expounded the Scriptures but might therein be deceiued He sheweth furthermore that the ouersightes of the translatiō which they followed must cause them needes to misse sometimes the right meaning of the holie Ghost Finally he addeth that experience forceth vs to confesse vnlesse we will be vnthankfull to most excellent wittes that verie manie things in Moses and the Prophets are in this our age expounded more exactly through the diligence of learned men then euer they were before Whereupon he concludeth that the holy Ghost the onely and faithfull interpreter of the Scriptures would haue manie things to be knowne to vs which our auncestors knew not and hath wrought by meanes vnknowne to vs knowne to him that the Fathers noted good and godlie mysteries out of verie manie places of the Scriptures whereof the right and naturall sense hath beene found out by the posteritie This is in few words the iudgement of Andradius which he prosecuteth more at large in the defense of Cardinall Caietan against quarellers who did cauill at him because he wrote that it is lawfull to go against the streame of the auncient Fathers in expounding of the Scriptures Hart. I care not for the iudgement of Andradius or Caietan or any other priuate man though you could bring a hundred of them I doo not build my faith on them Rainoldes Although you care not for their iudgement yet you should care for their reasons Of which the light is so great that vnlesse a man haue altogether lost his eyes he can not choose but see the truth and brightnesse of them Neither may you set so litle by their iudgement chiefly the iudgement of Andradius If you doo it may be the price of his contempt will helpe to purchase your confusiō For the Councel of Trent the fairest flower of your garland chiefest piller of your faith is but the consent of a few such as Andradius was or rather none such perhaps Let the Italians witnes it who wondred at his gifts Theyloue not them selues so ill as to woonder at common thinges in straungers A great token of it that the faith of Trent most iustly charged by Kemnicius who tried the Spirit of the Councell and proued it the Spirit of errour found no man to defend it but Andradius to speake of For Tiletan is a trifler not woorthy to be named the same day that he is But let the Authours with their reasons be proofes of no value and grant that if the Fathers all consent in one their exposition must be stood too What if the Fathers dissent in expounding a place of the Scripture as oftentimes they doo Which of their expositions must we follow then Hart. If one expound a thing otherwise then all the rest the rest must be
the shew of wordes UUherefore it was néedfull sith we séeke herein to finde out Christes will that first we agreed what way the right sense of the scripture may be knowne UUhich séeing you would haue me to fetch from the Pope and I haue no lust to go vnto Rome nor thinke it lodgeth in the Vatican so that by this way no agréement can be made or ende of controuersie hoped for I will take a shorter and a surer way confessed by vs both to be a good way whereby the right sense of the scripture may be found and so the will of Christ be knowne Hart. UUhat way may that be Rainoldes To learne of Christ him selfe the meaning of his word and let his spirit teach it that is to expound the scripture by the scripture A golden rule to know and try the truth from errour prescribed by the Lord and practised by his seruants for the building of his church from age to age through all posteritie For the holie Ghost exhorting the Iewes to compare the darker light of the Prophetes with the cléerer of the Apostles that the day-brigtnesse of the Sonne of righteousnes may shine in their hartes saith that no prophecy of Scripture is of a mans owne interpretation because in the prophecie that is the scripture of the Prophetes they spake as they were moued by the holie Ghost not as the will of man did fansie UUhich reason sith it implieth as the Prophetes so the Apostles and it is true in them all the holie men of God spake as they were moued by the holie Ghost it followeth that all the scripture ought to be expounded by God because it is inspired of God as natures light hath taught that he who made the law should interpret the law This rule commended to vs by the prescript of God and as it were sanctified by the Leuites practise in the olde Testament and the Apostles in the new the godlie auncient Pastors and Doctors of the church haue followed in their preaching their writing their deciding of controuersies in Councels UUherefore if you desire in déede the churches exposition and would so faine finde it you must go this way this is the churches way that is the churches sense to which this way dooth bring you For S. Austin whose doctrine your selfe doo acknowledge to be grounded on the lawes the maners the iudgementes of all the catholike church whom you call a witnesse of the sincere truth and catholike religion such a witnesse as no exception can be made against who assureth you as you say not onely of his owne but also of the common the constant faith and confession of the ancient Fathers and the Apostolike church this S. Austin hath written foure bookes of Christian doctrine wherein he purposely entreateth how men should vnderstand the Scripture and expound it The summe of all his treatise doth aime at this marke which I haue pointed too that the meaning of the Scripture must be learned out of the Scripture by the consideration of thinges and wordes in it that the ende whereto the matter whereof it is all writen be marked in generall and all be vnderstood according to that end and matter that al be read ouer ouer those things chiefly noted which are set downe plainly both precepts of life and rules of beliefe because that all things which concerne beliefe and life are plainly written in it that obscure darke speeches be lightned and opened by the plaine and manifest that to remoue the doubt of vncertaine sentences the cleere and certaine be followed that recourse be had vnto the Greeke and Hebrue copies to cleare out of the fountaines if the translation be muddie that doubtfull places bee expounded by the rule of faith which we are taught out of the plainer places of the scripture that all the circumstances of the text bee weighed what goeth before what commeth after the maner how the cause why the men to whom the time when euery thing is saide to be short that still wee seeke to know the will and meaning of the Authour by whom the holie Ghost hath spoken if we finde it not yet giue such a sense as agreeth with the right faith approued by some other place of scripture if a sense be giuen the vncertaintie wherof cannot bee discussed by certaine and sure testimonies of scripture it might be proued by reason but this custome is dangerous the safer way far is to walke by the scripture the which being shadowed with darke and borowed words when we mind to search let either that come out of it which hath no doubt and controuersie or if it haue doubt let it be determined by the same scripture through witnesses to be found vsed thence wheresoeuer that so to conclude all places of the scriptures be expounded by the scriptures the which are called Canonical as being the Canon that is to say the rule of godlines and faith Thus you sée the way the way of wisedome and knowledge which Christ hath prescribed the church hath receiued S. Austin hath declared both by his preceptes and his practise both in this treatise and in others agréeably to the iudgement of the auncient Fathers Which way sith it is lyked both by vs and you though not so much followed of you as of vs I wish that the woorthinesse thereof might perswade you to practise it your selfe but it must enforce you at least to allow it Hart. I graunt it neither can nor ought to be denyed that euery one of those things and specially if they be ioined all togither doo helpe very much to vnderstand the scriptures rightly But yet they are not so sure and certaine meanes as some other are which we preferre before them Neither do they helpe alwaies nay sometimes they do hurt rather and deceiue greatlie such as expound the Scripture after them This is not onelye said but also proued at large out of the Doctors and Fathers by that worthie man of great wit and iudgement our countriman M. Stapleton Doctor of Diuinitie the Kinges Professor of controuersies in the vniuersitie of Doway Of whose most wholesome worke entitled A methodicall demonstration of doctrinall principles of the faith one booke is wholly spent to shew the meanes way and order how to make authenticall interpretation of the Scriptures In the which hee layeth this for a ground that the Scripture cannot be rightly vnderstood but by the rule of faith Whereupon he condemneth the Protestantes opinion that the sense of Scriptures must be fetched out of the Scriptures Which errour of yours to ouerthrow the more fully he deliuereth foure meanes of expounding the Scriptures the first very certaine and sure the rule of faith the next no lesse certaine the practise of the church the third at least probable the consent of the Fathers the last most
neither Scriptures nor Fathers nor Schoolemen nor Iesuites can make him to acknowledge his owne ouersight let him heare a witnesse who can doo more with him against whoÌ„ there lyeth no exception for him vnlesse it be that of the lawe They who wauer against the credit of their owne testimonie are not to be heard This witnesse is himselfe who remembring not the prouerbe that a lyer must be mindfull doth afterward affirme that all the Apostles were sent with full power to begin the church by those wordes of Christ As my Father sent me so doo I send you and that they all were therein equall vnto Peter Hart. So he saith that ful power was giuen them by those wordes As my Father sent me but that the words which folow conteine a part therof only Whose sins soeuer ye remit as again he mentioneth in that verie place Now these two sayings agrée well togither that it is giuen by the one by the other it is not Wherefore your selfe offend in that you touch him when you doo touch him as a lyer A common fault with Protestants in dealing against vs which argueth your church of what brood it is The Deuil is a lyer and the father thereof Rainoldes If any man of our profession bee stained with this filth we wish him and exhort him to clense him selfe of it least the name of God be through his default blasphemed among the Gentiles But you do vs iniury to condemne our church for the offense of some in it For all they are not Israel which are of Israel and Iacobs sonnes Ruben did commit incest Simeon and Leui murder yet the house of Iacob was the church of God If my selfe haue done your Doctor any wrong in touching him as a lyer it was an errour not a crime not of wilfulnes but ouersight And such an ouersight for which he rather oweth thankes to me who touch him then to you who cléere him For I who do touch him touch him with a rodde but you who do cléere him whippe him with scorpions Hart. What meane you by that Rainoldes You charge him with a capitall crime as I may terme it to cléere him of a lesser He foloweth not the Deuill in lying you say But you graunt he foloweth him in that is worse euen in the suppressing of the holy scripture to seduce the reader For as the Deuiâ—â— â—empting Christ to cast him selfe downe from the pinnacle alleaged it is written He will giue his Angels charge ouer thee omitted that they shall keepe thee in all thy waies because that made against him the waies to which he tempted being none of Christes waies in like sort the Doctor tempting vs to fall downe before the Pope when hee alleaged whose sinnes soeuer ye remit as giuing lesse to the Apostles then was promised to Peter he omitted As my father sent me so I send you whereby they all haue full power the same that Peter had Neither yet contenting him selfe with this trechery he procéedeth farther And whereas the scripture saith of Eliakim that he was the steward of the kinges house the Doctor affirmeth he was the hie priest that seing the key of Dauids house was giuen him and his key therein was a figure of Christes and Christ did promise keyes to Peter the simple reader might conceaue by this allusion that as Eliakim was the hie priest in the olde Testament so Peter should bee in the newe the one as a figure the other as lieutenant of Christ the true hie priest Hart. What moued D. Stapleton to say that Eliakim was hie priest I know not I do not thinke he would haue said it vnlesse he had had good reason to auouch it And I am perswaded that if he knew that and other thinges which you finde fault with what soeuer hee hath written hée woulde make it good Rainoldes I wish with all my hart he would For then he should repent and amend his errors the onely way to make that good which is euill But thus you may sée by his own confession that Christ gaue the keyes to all the Apostles which he promised to Peter For seing by the keyes is signified the full power and the full power was giuen to them all it foloweth that the keies were giuen to them all How much the more idle is that fansi-full tale which you told out of him that to bynd and loose to remitte retayne sinnes imply a part onely or as he termeth it are onely partiall not totall and lesser not the chiefe actions of the keyes but to open and shut wherein is implyed the power correspondent fully and euenly to the keyes is the whole power euen a power most ample and so the partiall lesser actions of the keyes were committed by Christ to all the Apostles wheras the keyes were giuen to Peter alone Whereof the conclusion is so cléerely false that himselfe as though he had swalowed a hot morsell which he must néedes vngorge was faine to cast it vp straightwaie and say the contrary For in that he addeth that the full power of the keyes was promised to Peter alone principally before and aboue al the rest he graunteth by coÌ„sequent that it was promised to the rest of the Apostles and therefore giuen to them also Hart. Yet principally to him alone But though all of them had receiued the keyes euen the full power the same that he receiued which neuerthelesse I graunt not but suppose they had yet this doth confirme that he was their supreme head in some respect Rainoldes How so Because no greater power was giuen him then was giuen them Hart. No But because the power which was giuen them was giuen them by him For so as Leo the great writeth wisely the strength which is giuen to Peter by Christ is bestowed on the Apostles by Peter Rainoldes This Leo was too great a fréend of Peters state as I haue declared Wherefore how great soeuer he were and wrote wisely yet must his writing giue place to the word of a greater Leo I meane of the Lion of the tribe of Iuda For hée teacheth vs not that the Apostles receued their power by Peter but that Peter and they receiued it all togither immediately of Christ. Yea Paule though he were chosen after Christes ascension to be an Apostle yet was he an Apostle not of men neither by man but by Iesus Christ and God the father which raised him from the dead Hart. That is true which you say but you mistake my meaning For you séeme to speake of the Apostolike power which I graunt they receiued immediately of Christ. But they had an other power beside that to wit a Bishoply or Pastorall power Wherein sith they were inferior to Peter though equall in the Apostolike it may be they receiued though not the Apostolike yet the Bishoply power of him
Rainoldes Some such thing it is that your men would say But to confesse mine owne ignorance I do not vnderstand what they meane by it Which I should perhaps be ashamed off if you who handle it your selues did vnderstand it or gaue vs sense and reason of it For if all the power which Bishops haue as Bishops be the power of the keyes and the Apostles as Apostles had all the power of the keyes committed vnto them by Christ both the which things the Scriptures proue you disproue not then was there no power which they might receiue of Peter as Bishops and therefore they did not receiue any of him nor were inferiour to him therein Yet this is the very foundation of the Papacie but laid on such sand that the maister builders who trauaile most in laying it do reele like dronken men about it too and fro and strooken with a blindnes as the Sodomites at Lots dooâ—e they are wearied in seeking of it Cardinall Turrecremata the chiefest autour of the fansie is of this opinion that Christ brought the rest of his Apostles to bishoply dignity by Peter euen as he lead his people through the wildernes by the hand of Moses Aaron For him selfe made Peter onely a Bishop immediately and Peter preferred the rest first Iohn next Iames then others as the Cardinall gesseth by probabilities of dreames some in theCanon law some of his own braine Turrian the Iesuit a man with whom such dreames commonly are oracles though he allow Peter to be the father of the Apostles yet thinking this maner of fathering him to be absurd he saith that the Apostles were all ordeined Bishops by the laying as it were of the fyry tongues vpon them wheÌ„ they receiued the holy Ghost And this he proueth by S. Ierom S. Denys and other Fathers Of whose opinion it ensueth that graunting the Apostles were ordeined Bishops as in a generall sense in which their charge is called a bishoply charge they were yet they were ordained of God immediately as well as Peter was and not of God by Peter D. Stapleton vncertaine how to beare him selfe betwéene these two opinions the later being truer the former safer for the Pope he faltereth in his spéech as though according to the prouerbe hee had a woolfe by the eares whom neither he durst let go out of his hands nor holde for feare of danger For of the one side he is loth to graunt the truth lest it should preiudice the title of the Pope yet loth of the other side to deny it also because he feareth the people First therfore he saith that the keyes which signifie the ful power of gouernment ecclesiasticall were giuen to Peter onely Then he confesseth that all the Apostles were sent by Christ with full power yea with power most full and equall vnto Peters power From hence he turneth backe and taketh vp his olde song that Christ gaue all power ecclesiasticall to Peter onely and so by him to others Which string because it giueth a very swéete sound he harpeth on it often Afterward either doubting the conscience of weake Catholikes or the euill tonges of Caluinists who fauour the Apostles and cannot heare them so debased he saith that the Apostles were sent immediately of God with full power vnto al nations Yet by and by falling againe vnto his giddines through some pang belike of his holinesse displeasure which might be stirred by such spéeches he pronounceth that the spring of honour and power is deriued from Peter alone to all the rest And thus he goeth on through the whole discourse both in this and the rest of his Doctrinall Principles enterfeiring as it were at euery other pace and hewing hoofe against hoofe But so will the Lord confound the toongs of them who doo build vp Babylon Yet here for these cuttings wherwith he gasheth himself he thinketh that they may be healed with a distinction taken vp in Cardinall Turrecrematas shop of a twofold power the one Apostolike the other Bishoply the rest of the Apostles to haue béene inferior to Peter in the Bishoply though equall in the Apostolike and all to haue receiued the Apostolike power immediatly of Christ the rest as namely Iames their Bishoply power of Peter But two learned Friers Sixtus Senensis and Franciscus Victoria men of better reading and iudgement then either he or Turrecremata haue cast off this quirke as a rotten drugge before Stapleton tooke it vp Victoria by shewing out of the Scriptures that the Apostles receiued all their power immediatly of Christ. Sixtus by declaring out of the Fathers that in the power of Apostleship and order so he calleth those two powers Paul was equall to Peter and the rest to them both Which case he thought to be so cléere that despairing of helpe for the Papacie by Peters eyther Bishoply power or Apostolike he added thereunto a third kind of power euen the power of kingdome therein to set Peter ouer the Apostles that so the Pope too might raigne ouer Bishops It must be knowne saith he that Peter had a threefold power one of the Apostleship an other of order and the third of kingdome Touching the Apostleship that is the duetie of teaching and care of preaching the Gospell Paul as it is rightly noted by Ierom was not inferiour to Peter because Paule was chosen to the preaching of the Gospell not by Peter but by God euen as Peter was Touching the power which is giuen in the Sacrament of order Ierom hath said wel that al the Apostles receiued the keyes equally yea that they all as Bishops were equall in degree of priesthood the spirituall power of that degree But touching the power of kingdome that principall authoritie ouer all Bishops and teachers thereof hath Ierom said best that Peter was chosen amongst the twelue Apostles and made the head of al that by his supreme authoritie eminent power aboue the rest the contentions of the church might be taken vp and all occasion of schismes remoued Now if you will vse this aide of kingly power to fortifie the Pope with we will trie the strength thereof when you bring it In the meane season for the Bishoply power which Peter is imagined to haue bestowed on the Apostles as the Pope would on Bishops it was but a Cardinals fetch to serue the turne of his Lord the Pope the learnedst of your Iesuites and Friers dare not take it your Doctor faine would haue it but toucheth it so nicely as though he were afraide of it If you will stand vnto it and holde it with the Cardinall let vs sée your warrant where did the Apostles receiue it of Peter At what time In what maner Who is a witnesse of it Hart. They did not receiue it But the order was that they should haue done Rainoldes Was that the order Why did
agnos vt primò quodam lacte pascendos nec ouiculas vt secundò sed oues pascere iubetur perfectiores vt perfectior gubernaret That is to say When the Lord had asked Peter the third time Doost thou loue me hee is commanded now to feede not the lambes as at the first time who must be fedde with certaine milke not the litle sheepe as the seconde time but to feede the sheepe that he a man more perfit might gouerne the more perfit So that the whole flocke of Christ was committed to Peter to be fedde as well the small as the great both the lay men who as lambes are fedde themselues and féede not others the Priests and Clergie who as sheepe doo féede the lambes but are fedde of the shepheard Rainoldes The lambes and the sheepe doo signifie two kindes of Christians the one yonger and tenderer which néedeth to be taught the first principles of religion as it were to be fedde with milke the other riper and elder fit to learne the déeper mysteries of faith to be fedde with strong meat This S. Ambrose noted well in the commandement that Christ gaue to Peter Though the difference which he maketh betwéene the second and the third the litle sheepe and the sheepe was either an ouersight in the Gréeke copie or a fansie of some interpreter Which I would not mention but that you bid me set downe his owne wordes in Latin as though there were some mysterie in them which yet your selues are wont to make no account of vnlesse your Roman reader hath spied more in it who saith that the text ought to be corrected and read as Ambrose cited it But your glose of the lay-men to be signified by lambes and by the sheepe the Priestes and Clergie dooth varie from the text not of Christ onely but of Ambrose too For wheras they speake of the lambes and the sheepe both which the flocke consisteth of you interpret their words of the sheepe and the shepheards And whereas all Pastors are bounde to feede both sheepe and lambes you make as though the rest must féede none but lambes and all the sheepe were Peters From dreaming whereof S. Ambrose was so farre that he saith of the shéepe which Christ commanded to be fedde Peter did not only receiue the charge of them but himselfe and all Bishops receiued it with Peter Wherefore you should consider that in Christes commission vnto the Apostles they are not considered as shéepe but as shepheards and therefore not them-selues to be fed of any but all to féede others So when they abode togither in Ierusalem they sed the church in common with the doctrine of the Apostles not Peter them and they the rest And when they went thence into other countries they went not as shéepe with Peter their shepheard but as seuerall shepheards to shéepe of all nations Hart. Be it so that Christ spake in his commission to them as to shepheards Yet were they also shéepe of the flocke of Christ. And therefore he might well appoint a shepheard ouer them Rainoldes And was not Peter also a shéepe of Christs flock And must not our Sauiour appoint by this reason a shepheard ouer him also For if all sheepe need it why not S. Peter If some néed it not why the Apostles But it is true that as they were shéepe so néeded they sometimes to bee fedde the best of them and this did Christ prouide for though not with your policie not by setting one as Pastor ouer all but by geuing charge of euery one to other For as S. Paule said to the Elders of Ephesus Take heed vnto your selues and to all the flocke charging them with care not of their flocke onely but of themselues too all of all and ech of other in like sort the Apostles who had charge of all in that they were shepheardes were to be looked too in that they were sheepe to be admonished taught fedde not euery one of Peter but euery one of other yea euen Peter also him selfe if néede required Hereof their practise is a proofe For wheÌ„ Peter went not with a right foote to the truth of the Gospell S. Paule reproued him openly before all men for it But to reproue him was to féede him Therefore S. Paule did feede S. Peter Hart. S. Paule reproued him not by authority but of curtesie and Peter yelded to it not of duetie but of modestie As now any Bishop may reproue the Pope and he will harken to it patiently and mildly and yet impaire not his supremacie Rainoldes I acknowledge a distinctioÌ„ of the Romain style which in the booke of Ceremonies of the church of Rome in the chapter that the Pope doth do reuereÌ„ce to no man saith that notwithstanding the maiestie and solemnitie which he vseth to highest states in entertaining of them yet Popes are accustomed wheÌ„ they are not in their poÌ„tificals to bow their head a litle as it were rendring reuerence to Cardinalles and to mightie Princes when they come priuatly and doo reuerence vnto him Marry this not of duetie but of laudable curtesie The Pope shewed not you this curtesie M. Hart when he admitted you to kisse his holinesse foote it was not for his state to doo it Yet hath he so bewitched your senses therewith that you to render him not duetie but curtesie forget both curtesie and duetie to Paule the Apostle the chosen instrument of God and penneman of his holy spirite For S. Paule mentioneth his reproofe purposely to proue that he was Peters equall in authoritie against the false Apostles who sought to discredite the doctrine which he taught by debaâ—ing him and setting others farre aboue him You say that he reproued Peter of curtesie and not by authoritie Wherby marke it well you say in effect that he made a foolish reason to proue a false conclusion And if he were inferiour to Peter in authority as he was by your answeare what meant he to say that he accounted himselfe nothing inferiour to the very chiefe Apostles You adde that any Bishoppe may so reproue the Pope Your Thomas saith no. For he writeth that this fact of Paule reprouing Peter exceedeth the measure of brotherly correction which subiectes owe vnto their prelates because he did it before the multitude Though otherwise him selfe to vphold the Papacy vseth such shiftes as you do maketh his account of Paule as the subiect and Peter as the prelate according to the Canon lawe But his owne sentence may serue for an axe to behead your common errour For either S. Paule in so reprouing Peter did transgresse his duetie or he was his equall in authoritie not his subiect But to say the former is a blasphemous spéech of Porphyrie The latter therefore is true And so your answere falleth of authoritie and curtesie Hart. I graunt that S. Paule was equall in
the like consent by which they were made But with the Pope it is not so For such is the power of his Princely prerogatiue that not onely Councels may not make decrées for the Church-gouernment without his consent but hee may also make decrées without them as good as they with him Yea that he may adde too and take from and alter what hee shall thinke good in the decrées of Councels and set them out for theirs as Pope Clemens played with the Councell of Vienna Yea that being made with their consent and his both hee maye breake them when he will and repeale them if he list for no lawe doth hold him Now sith that the power which you giue the Pope by the name of supreme head you giue it Peter too from whom you fetch the Popes conueiance and Peter in the assemblies of the Apostles was but as the Speaker and therefore not as the Prince and therefore not as more then the Prince in our Parlament hereof I conclude that Peter was not the supreme head of the Apostles And so haue you the third point which I promised to proue that if somewhat more were giuē to Peter thē to the rest of the Apostles yet was it not so much as should make him their supreme head You may discharge now the Actes of the Apostles out of your Campe. For drawe what reasons thence you list you shal find thē as I told you no stronger thē the former Hart. You are too hasty your conclusion runneth away before your proofe Rainoldes I haue proued as much as may conclude your Pope to be an vsurper Hart. You haue not proued that Peter in the assemblies of the Apostles was but as the Speaker is in our Parlament Rainoldes What néede I When your selfe gaue no more vnto him then as the Speakers office in the former assembly wherein yet he did most For you said that he proposed an election to be made of a new Apostle into the roome of Iudas And this was all that you might say and say truely by the story of the Actes Which sheweth that not he but they mad◠the election so farre as it was lawfull for them to deale with that which God was to order extraordinarilie As for the other assembly when the Councel was held at Ierusalem you cannot proue that he had so much as the office of a Speaker therein Your Doctor infeoffeth him I graunt with more namely that hee speaketh first of all concludeth yea and is President too But what will not he dare to affirme who in so great light of the Scriptures affirmeth in writing that which is flat against them For he saith that Peter not only speaketh first but concludeth also And they shewe that both there had beene much debating and reasoning of the matter before Peter spake and after he had spoken Barnabas and Paule and Iames spake and so the Councell did conclude the matter Yea they did conclude it according to the very wordes that Iames spake and a speciall point of his which Peter touched not So that if we would striue but lawfully against that for which you striue vnlawfully the likely-hood is rather that Iames sat as President in the Coūcell then Peter sith both he spake last and the whole Councell did conclude with him But to yéeld vnto you for your most aduantage as much or more then any likely-hood may afford you that Peter was not only the Speaker but the President in both the assemblies yet are you no néerer vnto that supremacy which you shoote at For such a Presidentship as Peter had amongst the Apostles is so farre from the Prelatship which the Pope seeketh to haue amongst Bishops that if we should offer him all that Peter had at your request vpon condition that he would accept it and aske no more then it he would thinke we mocked him and giue you litle thankes who take vpon you to be his aduocate make so poore a plea for him This you may perceiue by an other aduocate who made the same plea for him out of this storie a learned Lawier Francis Duaren He in his Abridgement of the Canon lawe falling into the question of the Pope and the Councell whither of them is soueraine and hath the chiefest power whereto the other should be subiect in matters of the Church doth thus set downe his iudgement of it It seemeth most agreeable to the law of God that the Church which the Councell doth represent should haue the chiefest power and the Pope should acknowledge himselfe subiect to it For the power of binding and loosing was giuen by Christ not to Peter alone whose successour the Pope is said to be but to the whole Church Howbeit I deny not but Peter was set ouer the rest of the Apostles Hereof it commeth that in the time of the Apostles as often as any was to be ordeined either Bishop or Deacon or any thing to bee decreed which appertained to the Church Peter neuer tooke that vpon himselfe but permited it to the whole Church This was in him aboue the rest that he was wont as chiefe of the Apostles to call them togither and propose to them the thinges which were to bee doone Euen as now with vs hee that is the President of a court of Parlament doth call togither the Senate in the Senate he speaketh first when it is needfull and doth many other things which argue a certaine prerogatiue and preeminence of the person that he beareth Yet is he not therefore greater or higher then is the whole court neither hath hee power ouer all the Senatours neyther may hee decree any thing against their iudgements nay the iudgement of all controuersies belongeth to the court whose head the President is said to bee and not to the President Yea if neede bee the court dooth minister iustice and execute iudgement as well against him as against anye other and punisheth him also And this was the state of these thinges in olde time But in processe of time I know not how it came to passe that the highest power ouer all Christians was giuen vnto one man and he was set at libertie from being bound to any lawes after the maner of Emperours or to the Canons decrees of any Councels For Pope Paschalis prouided and ordered by a decretall Epistle that no Councels may prescribe a lawe to be kept of the church of Rome the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome is excepted expresly in the decrees of certaine Councels And thus he goeth forward in shewing the prerogatiue of the Pope aboue the Councell whereof he maketh him President But so that you sée he acknowledgeth it is not in the Actes of the Popes as it was of old in the Actes of the Apostles no not in those very places of the Actes whereon you grounde
at Ierusalem at Antioche at Ephesus at Rome that from the mother cities as they were called religiō might be spread abroad vnto the daughters Now because this residence in the mother-cities was afterward supplied by the Bishops of them therefore the Fathers are wont often-times to call the Apostles Bishops of those cities wherin they did abide most Which they might the rather for that the word in their spéech betokeneth in a generall meaning any charge ouersight of others in so much that the scripture applieth it to the ministery of the Apostles also And in this sort it seemeth to be said as by Cyprian that a Bishop was to be ordeined in the roome of Iudas so by Ierome that Peter was Bishop of Antioch by Chrysostom that Iames was Bishop of Ierusalē Though whither it wer or no yet that which I spake in defense of Chrysostō is cléered by himself frō your reproch of a shift For he saith that Iames was Bishop as they say Which words as they say import that he spake it on the words of others most likely of Clemēs frō whom Eusebius fetcheth it But if notwithstanding you reply that Chrysostom allowed that they say and supposed Iames to be a Bishop properly then his words haue so much the greater importance against your supremacy séeing that they giue the principalitie to Iames in his owne dioces and that aboue Peter Howbeit I will not take this aduantage because I know that neither Peter nor Iames gaue the definitiue sentence but when they had spoken their mindes of the matter the Councell did define it and decrée it with common iudgement Hart. They did it with common iudgement I deny not But Theodoret sheweth that Peter as a Prince had a great prerogatiue therein aboue the rest yea gaue definitiue sentence to which the rest consented and as it were subscribed For he in an epistle which he wrote to Leo affirmeth that Paul did runne to great Peter to bring a resolution from him vnto them who contended at Antioche about the obseruation of the lawe of Moses Rainoldes You may cite if you list S. Isidore too for an other speciall prerogatiue of Peter as good as this and grounded likewise on the Actes which he alleageth to proue it to wit that the name of Christians arose at Antioche first through the preaching of Peter For though hee bée more direct against the scripture which sheweth that the name of Christians arose vpon the preaching not of Peter but of Paul and Barnabas yet is Theodoret direct against it too by giuing as proper peculiar to Peter that which was cōmon to the Apostles and Elders whose resolution he was sent for And as Isidore séemeth to haue ouershot him selfe by flip of memorie on too great a fansie perhaps towardes Peter in like sort Theodoret séeking to get the fauour of Leo bishop of Rome whose help he stode in neede of did serue his owne cause in saying that Paul ranne to great Peter that so he might run much more to great Leo. Which words to haue issued out from that humor his commentaries on the Scriptures where he sought the trueth and folowed the text shewe For therein he saith of Barnabas and Paul that they ran not to great Peter but to the great Apostles and had a resolution from them of the question about the keping of the law Howbeit if Theodorets words vnto Leo suffered no exceptiō the most were that Peter pronounced the definitiue sentence as President not gaue it as Prince But the Scripture it selfe by the rule whereof his wordes must be tryed maketh no more for Peters Presidentshippe then for Iames and whosoeuer were President it sheweth that neither Iames nor Peter but the Councel gaue the definitiue sentence So well it proueth that which you vndertooke to proue concerning Peter that he had as ful power in the assemblies of the Apostles as the Prince hath in a parlament yea or the pope in a Councell Harte It proueth that wel-inough though not to you chiefly if other places thereof be waied withall For the singular power of Peter is declared also by S. Paul in that he saith to the Galatians Then after three yeares I came to Ierusalem to see Peter and taried with him fifteene dayes Rainoldes The singular power of Peter In which words By what reason Because hee went to Ierusalem to see him Or because he went after three yeares Or because hee stayed with him fifteene dayes Hart. The reason consisteth in that which Paule did the cause for which he did it For he went to Ierusalē to see Peter Why but to do him honour as Ierom saith in his Commentaries and in an epistle to Austin Peter was saith he of so great authoritie that Paule wrote Then after three yeares and so forth And Chrysostome Because Peter saith he was the mouth of the Apostles the chiefe and top of the company therefore Paule went vp to see him aboue the rest Because it was meet saith Ambrose that he should desire to see Peter vnto whom our Sauiour had committed the charge of Churches Which also Tertullian affirmeth that he did of duetie and right Nor otherwise Theodoret he gaue saith he that honour to the prince of the Apostles which it was fitte hee should Hence it is that S. Gregory doubteth not to say that Paule the Apostle was the yonger brother And S. Austin an Apostle made after Peter who saith moreouer that the primacie of the Apostles is conspicuous and preeminent with excellent grace in Peter Rainoldes You bring in witnesses not necessarie to proue a thing not denied For that Paule was as Apostle in time after Peter and so his yonger brother as Gregory Austin and Ambrose say that he went to see Peter for honor and reuerence which he bare to him as it is in Ierom Chrysostome and Theodoret that he did this of duetie and right what right and duetie of the same faith and preaching of the gospell to shew his concord with him which is the meaning of Tertullian all this will I graunt you the scriptures teach as much what néede the Fathers to proue it Hart. Will you graunt all that which I alleaged out of the Fathers then will you grant that Protestants are in an error and the truth is ours For they auouch plainely the primacie of Peter and call him the mouth the prince the toppe of the Apostles Rainoldes Alas you were agreed me thought to go through with the scripture first afterward come to the Fathers I wisse they will giue you small cause of triumphing ouer the Protestants when you shall bring their forces out into the field and see with whom they ioine with you or with vs. But of the rest then Now I graunt you so much as doth concerne the point for
he preached it almost twentie yeares and was he now afraid least hee had preached falsely Hart. S. Ierom saith not so but that he had not had securitie of preaching it vnlesse it had bene approued by the rest with whom he did confer of it Rainoldes S. Ierom saith not so but that he had not had securitie Then S. Ierom saith so in that he saith not so and you vnsay in one word that which you say in an other For what is it else not to haue securitie of preaching the Gospell then to be afraid either of his doctrine that it is not true or of his fact that it is not lawfull Hart. Why doth the scripture then report of S. Paule that he conferred with them least he should runne or had runne in vaine Rainoldes Because many Christians whom Paule had preached the Gospell too began to be seduced by false Apostles of the Iewes who taught them that except they kept the law of Moses they could not be saued And to winne credit to their hereticall doctrine that the hearers might receiue it the sooner for the authoritie of the teachers they said it was the doctrine of Peter and the rest the chiefe of the Apostles the pillars of the Church As for Paule who taught the contrarie thereof they disgraced him as one that was crept into the Apostleship after theÌ„ and hauing learned the gospell of them which he preached yet dissented froÌ„ them in the preaching of it Which spéeches of seducers if they had beléeued whom Paule either should or had alreadie preached the Gospell vnto then should they haue fallen away with mindes corrupted from the simplicitie that is in Christ and Paule haue lost his labor and runne in vaine as hee speaketh that is to say without profit without the fruit of that hee ran for As Christ complaineth in the Prophet I haue labored in vaine I haue spent my strength in vaine and for nothing because he was not receiued of the Iewes to whom he preched the word of life Wherefore Paule desirous as a carefull husbandman to reape where he had sowne did seeke to roote out the wéedes of false Apostles that did or might hinder the growth of the corne In which consideration hauing shewed first touching his authoritie that he had it not of men nor by man but by God next touching his doctrine that he learned it of Christ not of the Apostles touching his dissension from them he sheweth last that he went and conferred with the chiefe of them euen Iames Peter and Iohn who were accounted to be pillars that they might witnesse their consent and make his preaching to be fruitfull and stoppe the mouthes of false Apostles All this S. Ierom saw and taught in his commentaries on Paule to the Galatians where he aduised better of Paules intent and drift and sifted all the pointes and circumstances of the text The wordes which you stand on were vttered lesse aduisedly by him in an epistle written to S. Austin against whom to iustifie his opinion though false that Peters fault at Antioche was no fault in deede nor Paule reproued him in earnest he saith for the credit of one aboue the other Paule had not had securitie of preaching the Gospell vnlesse that Peter had approued it Wherefore I may iustly speake in his excuse at the least to soften the hardnes of his spéech the same which Basil said in excuse of Gregorie that his wordes were vttered not by way of doctrine but of contention rather to maintaine his quarell against Austin then to deliuer his iudgemeÌ„t of the matter as writing of affection more what he fansied then of discretion what he thought Whereof there appeareth as it were a print euen in his owne wordes For he doth mention Peter by name of whom he did contend with Austin and none of the rest whereas the Scripture nameth no more him then others but first saith in generall of Paule that he conferred with them that were the chiefe and after in particular of Iames Peter and Iohn that they were counted to be pillars Thus neither did Paule conferre with Peter onely but with Iames and Iohn and therefore it proueth no supremâ—cie of Peter more then of Iames and Iohn and although he had yet were it a token by Ieromes own iudgement that Paule was Peters equall not Peter his superior For there is equalitie betweene them saith Ierom who conferre togither I would to God M. Hart if you will needes follow S. Ieroms authoritie yet you would folow him in the best thinges and what you say with error in heate of contention you would amend by truth in iudgement of doctrine But that which is written of giftes and rewards they blind the eies of the wise and peruert the wordes of the iust is no truer in iudges and arbiters of ciuill causes then in you and yours who meddle with the decision of spirituall matters The giftes which partly the pollicie of the Pope hath enterteined you with in his Seminaries and affaires partly the state of the Papacie doth yéelde to such as speake things pleasing him they do blind your eies and peruert your wordes that you thinke darkenes to be light and light darkenes and call euill good and good euill They make you not to see in Paule to the Galatians his direct purpose of ouerthrowing that which you would haue him build They moue you to depraue the circumstaÌ„ces of his words as though he proued him selfe inferior to Peter in that by which he proueth him selfe not inferior They stirre you to transforme his summission into subiection and to abuse the spirite of his apostolike modestie to the raysing vp of the Papall pride and pompe of the supremacie Paule went to see Peter with a desire of knowing him which the Greeke word importeth as they vse saith Chrysostome to speake who go to see great and famous cities You can not sée that Chrysostome saith on the same place that Paule was Peters equall in dignitie to say no more but you take this note of his puffe it vp with the word of Maiesty thereby to make the simple reader to conceaue that Peter was as stately as he to whom that terme is vsed Paule went to Ierusalem from the citie of Damascus not much aboue a hundred miles You say he went so farre so long a iourney as though it had bene no lesse then hence to go to the court of Rome which Bishops do to the Pope not of their owne accord as Paule but enforced thereto by solemne oth not twise in seuentéene yeares as Paule but euery yeare once by them selues or by their messengers vnlesse the Pope dispense with them But of all the rest that passeth that you say hee went to Ierusalem to sée Peter notwithstanding his great affaires ecclesiasticall Here was art by the way to shew that Bishops may neglect
As for the later of calling him to account although your good wéening of the Pope persuadeth you that he would not thinke his state to be abased if the Cardinals should aske him why he dooth this or that yet they who knew him better a great deale then you and loued him so well that they woulde not belie him doo witnesse not onely by word but by writing that he will not bée dealt withall by his inferiours as Peter was by the Apostles I meane not your Canonists in whose glose it goeth for a famous rule that none may say vnto the Pope Syr why do you so But I meane the learnedst and best of your Diuines who setting the Church aboue the Pope in authoritie mislike that the Pope will not be subiect to the Councell Of whom to name one for many Iohn Ferus a Frier of S. Francis order but godlier then the common sort intreating in his Commentaries written on the Actes of the example of Peter how hée was required to render a reason of that which hee had done maketh this note vpon it Peter the Apostle and chiefe of the Apostles is constrained to giue an account to the Church neither dooth he disdaine it because he knew him selfe to be not a Lorde but a minister of the Church The Church is the Spouse of christ and ladie of the house Peter a seruant and minister Wherefore the Church may not onely exact an account of her ministers but also depose thē reiect them altogither if they be not fit So did they of old time very often in Councels But wicked Bishops now will not be reproued no not of the Church nor be ordered by it as though they were Lordes not ministers Therefore they are confounded of all and eche in seuerall by the iust iudgement of God Doo you know what Bishops they be who refuse to bee subiect to the Church Who say they are aboue the Councell Who may iudge all and none may iudge them This Preacher a Preacher of your own not ours dooth call them wicked Bishops The Lord of his mercy make his wordes a prophecy that those wicked Bishops may be confounded of all and eche in seuerall by the iust iudgement of God Hart. You bring me wordes of Ferus which were not his perhaps but thrust into his commentaries before they came vnto the print by some malitious heretike For Sixtus Senensis saith that there are witnesses of very good credit who auouch that the commentaries of Ferus vpon Matthew were corrupted by heretikes after his death before they were printed Rainoldes Sixtus saith in déede of his Commentaries vpon Matthew that they were corrupted chiefly in that place where Ferus speaketh of the keyes that Christ did promise Peter For there is set downe as a speciall note that Christ saith to Peter I will giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen hee saith not the keyes of the kingdome of earth These wordes pertaine nothing to an earthly power which yet some endeuour by them to establish affirming that Peter receiued fulnes of power not only in spirituall things but also temporall And after declaration how this is plainely reproued by S. Bernard writing to Pope Eugenius it is added farther Peter receiued the keyes that is to say power not an earthly power that he might giue and take away dominions and kingdomes neither such a power that it should be lawfull for him to doo what hee list as many men dreame but he receaued the power of binding and loosing opening shutting remitting and retaining sinnes neither this at his pleasure but as a minister and seruant doing the wil of his Lord. And these are the words which sauour so strongly of an hereticall spirite that Sixtus saith it is auouched by credible witnesses the cōmentaries of Ferus on Matthew wer corrupted after his death by heretikes chiefly in this place before they wer printed Wherin both the witnesses Sixtus in my iudgement haue shewed thē selues wise For it is better to beare men in hand that heretikes corrupted the commentaries of Ferus chiefely in this place then it should be thought that the strongest hold of all your religion the Popes supreme power to giue and take away kingdomes is shaken by a man so learned so famous so Catholike as Ferus But Sixtus saith not of his Commentaries on the Acts that they were corrupted also by heretikes Yet some heretikes hand may séeme to haue béene in them chiefely in this place where he doth reproue the arrogancie of the Popes and nameth them wicked Bishops Wherefore it would do well that the ouersight of Sixtus herein were mended by some other Sixtus who might say as much of Ferus on the Actes as Sixtus saith of him on Matthew Perhaps you haue not witnesses that wil auouch this as some auouched that The least matter of a thousand For two or three such as Surius Pontacus and Genebrardus men that haue sold them selues to make lies in the defense of Popery will be readie on the credite of a Lindan or Bolsecke not only to say it but to Chronicle it too Here is al the difficultie that these bookes are printed thus amongst your selues who set them foorth first and we receiue them at your hands A great faulte I know not whether of printers or censours and allowers of bookes to the print who suffer such scandalous places to bée printed Yea to be printed so still specially when Sixtus Senensis hath said and credible witnesses haue auouched that heretikes did corrupt them No no M. Hart it is too stale a iest to say that heretikes haue corrupted the commentaries of Ferus For the abomination of the Popes supremacie oppressing both the magistracie of the common wealth and ministerie of the Church is grown to such outrage that if we whom you call heretikes should hold our peace the stones would cry against it Hart. What néedes all this of Ferus Or Sixtus Or Canonistes Or I know not who You called me to the scriptures whē I brought the Fathers and now from the scriptures you bring me to writers of our owne age Rainoldes Not from the scriptures to them but to the scriptures by them As Christ when the Phariseis sclaundered his workes alleaged the example of their own children therby to make them sée the truth And as he said to them therefore your children shall be your iudges so I say to you therefore your brethren shall be your iudges Hart. I graunt that the Pope doth not in all respectes submit him selfe as Peter to giue account of his dooings both to the Apostles and to inferior Christians But Ferus should haue considered and so must you that the times are not like It were not conuenient for him to do so now Rainoldes So I thought the case is altered You meane by the times the mē who liue
The likely-hood is rather that Erasmus would not commit that himselfe which he had condemned before in an other At least if he were so greatly ouershot Torrensis should do well to quote vs the editioÌ„ and take him vp more sharply not only for malice but for folly too But perhaps Torrensis hath done as men say Will Summer was wont to let fly at Rowland wheÌ„ Oliuer had strooken him For in a Paris-edition of Austin one Haemer who was the ouer-seer of the print doth note that himselfe hath restored againe to the Eremite Friers two sermons which Erasmus had taken away from them The former Basil-printer whom Erasmus vsed had as it appeareth omitted them in the epistles amongst the which hee should haue printed them This faulte the Paris-printer minding to amend amended with a greater fault whom the later Basil-editions did folow ouerséene by Lipsius others not Erasmus Howbeit nether is there in theÌ„ a note of infamie set on both those treatises as Torrensis saith but onely on the former Which séemeth to haue béene the printers scape rather then the ouerseers sith that they agreeing in argument and style had the same iudgement both as it is likely Nowe concerning that wherewith you charge farther the censures of Erasmus that they are stained with his affection against monkes his affection towardes â—hem was so well ordered in the loue of righteousnes and hatred of iniquitie that it rather lead him to cleanse the staines of other then staine his owne censures For how well he liked of godlye monkes and their societies it appeareth by that which when he was in England he iudged of our Colleges in Oxford and Cambridge The orders and rules whereof when hee perceiued the end and maner of their studies their lectures their discipline their prouision in common he compared the trade of our students liues with the rules and orders of the auncient moonkes and counted it the best of the monasticall institutions that euer was deuised Which being spoken by him to the praise of our Colleges as raised to be nurseries for the ministery of the church wherein they may be well resembled to the best of the auncient monasteries doth argue that Erasmus had a good affection towardes the auncient monkes But the common sort of monkes of our age are creatures of an other kind and chaunged to an other hewe In so much that Polydore Virgil an Italian who knewe their state well and did not hate them for religion doth affirme of them that it is a thing vncredible to bee spoken how greatly they are growne out of kinde from their auncestors Wherefore it stained not the censures of Erasmus that he had a misliking of these vnkindly monkes euill beastes idle bellies But the liking of them professed by TorreÌ„sis hath stained with a witnes his Austins confession For to bring men in loue and admiration of their beggerly ceremonies he writeth of S. Austin that he was clad with a blacke coole and girded with a leather girdle and that by no meaner man then S. Ambrose whose sermon he alleageth for the proofe thereof and noteth it as a worthy matter Where in truth that sermon is so farre from being S. Ambrose his owne that the learned note it to be vndoubtedly forged in his name by a coosining and pratling marchant as the which hath nothing in it of S. Ambrose Hart. That censure sauoureth of Erasmus who by your leaue in matters touching monkes shall haue no credit with me say what you can for him Rainoldes If you like not him you may like Costerius and Molanus yet two Doctors of Louan Molanus the kings professor of diuinitie who casting off that fable of Austins blacke and monkish weed saith that the sermon is not S. Ambroses Costerius the Prior of S. Martins Abbey who censureth him that forged it more sharply then Erasmus did For he doth not onely call him a coosiner but a sottish and shamelesse coosiner And whereas Erasmus did yet notwithstanding set it foorth amongst the rest of Ambroses workes it séemed so lothsome and beastly to Costerius that he hath cleane left it out So that in the later editions of Ambrose it is not extant now Only this place of it touching the coole and girdle of the Austin-monkes or Austin-friers as they are called is laid vp in Torrensis a storehouse fit for such antiquities Hart. If the Church allow the censures of those learned men Rainoldes I know no learned man of your church that disalloweth them Hart. Then is it to be thought that when Torrensis quoted that sermon of S. Ambrose he meant as he had saide afore of S. Austin that either it is his or some others like him Rainoldes This neither doth hée say nor his scholers gather nor the truth agree too For neither was it written by any like S. Ambrose if a rash and sottish coosiner did forge it which your supposall granteth and he with other after him alleage it as written by S. Ambrose him selfe whose it is manifest they would haue it supposed for the cooles sake So fauourable are you in bearing with your selues to take that as certainly written by the Fathers which certainly is none of theirs So sharpe against vs if wee suspect any thing not to be theirs which is yea though we suspect it not but be falsly thought to haue suspected it through other mens default And thus haue I cast out the beame out of our eie Now let vs sée the moate in yours Your practises in corrupting the writings of the Fathers are of two sortes the one before the art of printing was found and the other sithence Examples of them both I will giue in our present question touching the supremacy The former sort therefore is rife in the chiefest Doctor of your Church I meane Thomas of Aquine Who writing against the errours of the Grecians doth bring in S. Cyrill saying that as Christ receiued power of his Father ouer euery power a power most full and ample that all thinges should bowe to him so he did commit it most fully and amply both to Peter his successours Christ gaue his own to none else saue to Peter fully but to him alone he gaue it and the Apostles in the Gospels and Epistles haue affirmed in euery doctrine Peter and his Church to be in steede of God and to him euen to Peter all do bow their head by the law of God and the Princes of the world are obedient to him euen as to the Lord Iesus we as being members must cleaue vnto our head the Pope and the Apostolike See thence it is our duetie to seeke enquire what is to be beleued what to be thought what to be held because it is the right of the Pope alone to reproue to correct to rebuke to confirme
persecution though they repented after refused to communicate with them and thereupon did separate themselues from the societie of the Catholike church and assemblies of the faithfull as vncleane also for that they receiued into their felowship and communion vpon repentaunce such as had fallen Against these Nouatians the firebrands of schismes and dissensions in the Church S. Cyprian hath writen a notable treatise touching the vnitie of the church wherein he dooth instruct and exhort Christians to keepe the vnitie of spirit in the bond of peace and be at concord among them selues And to winne this of them by reasons and perswasions out of the holy scripture as among the rest hee bringeth sundrie figures wherein is represented the vnitie of the church as the arke of Noe the coate of Christ the house of Rahab the lambe of the Passouer so among the figures he placeth Peter first in that our Sauiour said to him Thou art Peter and on this stone wil I build my church To thee will I geue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen againe Feede my sheepe For albeit Christ saith he gaue equall power to all the Apostles after his resurrection and said As my father sent me so I send you receiue ye the holy Ghost whosoeuers sinnes ye remitte they are remitted to them whosoeuers sinnes y◠reteyne they are reteyned yet to declare vnitie he disposed by his authoritie the originall of that vnitie beginning of one No doubt the rest of the Apostles were the same that Peter was endued with like felowship both of honour and of power but the beginning doth come from vnitie that the church of Christ may be shewed to be one Now this place of Cyprian which by the former printes was thought to make rather for an equalitie of all the Apostles in power then a supremacie of one as it dooth in deede is farsed with such wordes in the Romane Cyprian that in shew it maketh for Peters supremacie and so for a supremacie in power like the Popes as you teach men to gather of it For wher it was in Cyprian that the rest of the Apostles were equall both in honor and power vnto Peter but the beginning doth come from vnitie the Romane Cyprian addeth these words and the primacy is geuen vnto Peter Where it was in Cyprian that Christ did dispose the originall of vnitie beginning from one the Romane Cyprian addeth he appointed one chaire And againe where Cyprian said that the church of Christ may be shewed to be one the Romane Cyprian addeth and the chaire to be one This was well to beginne with that vnto Peter the primacy is geuen that Christ appointed one chaire and as the church must be one so the chaire must be one Yet because one chaire in Cyprians language dooth make no more for the chaire of the bishoppe of Rome then of the bishop of Carthage the Cyprian of Anwerpe to helpe the matter forwarde doth bring in Peters chaire And where it was in Cyprian euen in the Romane print too Hee who withstandeth and resisteth the church doth he trust him selfe to be in the church the Anwerp Cyprian addeth Hee who forsaketh Peters chaire on which the church was founded dooth he trust himselfe to be in the church So whereas aforetime S. Cyprian shewed the vnitie of the church in an equalitie of Peter with the rest of the Apostles now by good handling hee sheweth Peters primacie and that by good expounding is the Popes supremacie For we must imagine that by Peters chaire is meant the Popes chaire which chaire be forsaketh who is not obedient and subiect to the Pope according to Gratian in the canon law The only difficultie and scruple that is lefte to breede a doubt thereof in suspicious heads is that clause of Cyprian that Christ gaue equall power to all the Apostles and the rest were the same that Peter was endued with like felowship both of honor and of power Which wordes if you could hansomly take away out of him in some new print and why not take away so few as well as adde so many then would this be a passing fine place for you to perswade men that the vnity of the church doth presuppose your one chaire to which all must be subiect who wil be of the church and that they by consequēt are no right Christians who stand against the Popes supremacie Hart. You are much to blame to lay vnto our charge the corrupting of Cyprian chiefly in those editions which are best and soundest the Romane of Manutius and Anwerp of Pameliu◠For Pius the fourth a Pope of worthy memory desirous that the Fathers should be set forth corrected most perfitly and cleansed from all spots sent to Venice for Manutius an excellent famous printer that he should come to Rome to doo it And to furnish him the better with all things necessarie thereto he put fower Cardinals very wise and vertuous in trust with the worke Now for the correcting and cleansing of Cyprian specially aboue the rest singular care was taken by Cardinall Borromaeus a copie was gotten of great antiquitie from Verona the exquisite diligence of learned men was vsed in it Wherefore I am perswaded that whatsoeuer they did adde vnto Ciprian they did not adde it rashly or of their owne head but with good aduise vpon the warrant of writen copies Which although they haue not declared in particular yet may we gather it by Pamelius a Canon of the Church of Bruges and Licentiat of diuinitie by whom the Anwerp-Cyprian was afterward set foorth For he doth note that al the words which you spoke of added by Manutius in the Romane-print he appoynted one chaire and the chaire to be one and the primacie is geuen vnto Peter are in a written copie of the Cambron-abbey which was the best of all the copies that he had Yea those of Peters primacie not onely in that copie but in an other too which Cardinall Hosius occupied As for the rest which were added by himselfe in the print at Anwerp he who forsaketh Peters chaire on which the church was founded doth hee trust himselfe to bee in the church hee noteth that they also are in the Cambron-copie and confirmed by Gratian who hath the same words and citeth them with Cyprians name Whereby you may perceiue that wee haue not corrupted those places of Cyprian either in the Roman-print or the Anwerpe we haue corrected rather that which was corrupt But I see the Poet hath said very truely Nothing is done so well but with euill speeches a man may depraue it Rainoldes And it is as truely said by the Orators Nothing is done so euil but with faire colours a man may defēd it The Pope sent for Manutius to print the Fathers corrected he appointed foure Cardinals to see the worke done Cardinall Borromaus had singular care of Cyprian
all their wordes be weighed For Ambrose saith that Andrew did first folowe Christ and they say that Peter was called first of Christ. The truth of both which is plaine by the scriptures For Andrewe folowed Christ before Peter knewe him and he brought Peter vnto Christ. But Christ said to Peter Thou shalt be called Cephas wherein he meant him the Apostleship before hee spake a word of the Apostleship to Andrewe And so doth Ambrose séeme him selfe to expound his meaning otherwhere affirming of Peter that he was the first among the Apostles to whom our Sauiour had committed the charge of the churches Whereby he giueth Peter the primacie in being called to the Apostleship thogh he gaue a primacie in discipleship as it were I meane in folowing Christ to Andrew As for S. Austins words which you say import that he meant a primacie notin calling but preeminēce you should haue rather said that he meant a primacie in calling preeminence both For out of al doubt he meant a primacie in calling But your fréends who dismember the sayings of the Fathers doo stand in your light that you can not sée it For as Stapleton did cut out the former wordes of Ambrose that Peter might be thought the onely man who had the charge of the churches not the first of them who had it so hath Torrensis cut of the later words of Austin that the primacie of Peter might be thoght a primacie in power not in calling or if in calling in power too The primacie of the Apostles is conspicuous and praeeminent with excellent grace in the Apostle Peter thus saith Torrensis out of Austin And these are Austins wordes but his words say farther that Peter the Apostle in whom that grace and primacie are so preeminent was corrected by Paule a later Apostle Wherein naming Paule a later Apostle as made Apostle after Peter in time he sheweth that of the other side he meant by the primacie that Peter was an Apostle in time before Paule As Ambrose saith of the chiefest of the Apostles that they were before Paule not in dignitie but in time And Cyprian whom Austin alleageth and foloweth doth vse the worde primacie in the same sense of being first in time also Wherefore the Fathers proue not your supremacie by giuing the prerogatiue of primacie to Peter Hart. The bare name of primacie is not enough to prooue it But some by that name haue meant a supremacie And surely the preeminence with excellent grace which Austin giueth Peter doth note a higher primacie then either of order or calling or time though it with all too Rainoldes It doth so I graunt And I noted that in the third prerogatiue which the Fathers giue him namely principalitie For Austin hauing ioined his primacie and preeminence with excellent grace togither doth terme them both in one the principalitie of the Apostleship Which if some haue meant by the name of primacie as perhaps they haue they might because the word is borowed often times from the proper signification of the first in order to signifie the chiefe in quality And so when Austin saith that Peter was a man by nature a Christian by grace by more aboundant grace an Apostle of Christ yea the first Apostle by the first Apostle he meant the chiefe Apostle the principalitie by the primacie But this principalitie of the Apostleship this preeminence of the primacie with grace so excellent and aboundant cometh no néerer vnto your supremacie then did the primacie of order For to be chiefe in grace is one thing and to be chiefe in power an other Hart. And is it not a great grace to be chiefe in power Rainoldes As you say the greatest grace that your Popes of long time haue fought for Yet there is a difference betwéene grace and power Which the Popes Lawiers haue obserued well as it behoued them to doo For many Doctors haue beene endued with greater grace of the holy Ghost then sundry Popes saith Gratian yet in the deciding of controuersies and causes the writings of the Doctors are of lesse authoritie then the Popes decrees Why because the Popes are in power aboue them But what speake I of Doctors when the meanest Christians may passe the Pope in grace as it is confessed by Cardinall Turrecremata Who handling the question betwéen the Pope and the Church whether of them is greater when he had set downe the reason of his aduersaries that the Church is greater because it is the bodie the Pope a member of it and the whole must needes be greater then the part he answereth thereto that the question is not whether the Church be greater then the Pope simply to weete in perfection of grace and amplenes of vertues for euen an old woman may in this sort be perfiter and greater then the Pope him selfe but in power of iurisdiction he saith the Pope is greater Wherfore if the Popes supremacie do stand in power of iurisdiction and a woman may be aboue him in grace then Peter might excel with the preeminence of grace as Austin saith he did and yet not excel in supremacie of power which you conclude of it Else you must take the supremacie from Peter and giue it to the blessed virgin Unlesse you you will deny that she excelled him in grace Hart. I will not deny it Neither did I meane to prooue the supremacy by the preeminence of grace alone in Peter but by the preeminence of so excellent grace concurring with the primacy Whereto because you think these priuileges touched by Austin doo not prooue it the title of the Prince of the Apostles which all antiquitie geueth him may adde weight and strength Rainoldes Which all antiquitie geueth him That spéech is too lauishing Beside that some of them who geue it to him geue it to Paul also But suppose that all and to him onely What is there implyed more in this title then I haue graunted you already For must he not be needes the Prince of the Apostles to whom the principalitie of the Apostleship is allowed And if the principalitie of the Apostleship inferre not your supremacie can you inferre a supreme head by the Prince of the Apostles But the name of Prince perhaps doth deceiue you or you deceiue others by it For our English tongue dooth vse it to note a soueraine power in gouernment as the Princes of Iuda the Princes of Israel the Princes of the Gentiles are named in the scriptures Whereas the Fathers vsed it after the Latin phrase for chiefe and most excellent as Plato is named the prince of the Philosophers As Plato saith Ierom was prince of the philosophers so was Peter of the Apostles Wherefore this is all you may conclude of it that Peter did excell amongst the Apostles for grace and giftes of grace
as Plato did excell among the Philosophers for witte and giftes of witte In the which conclusion that you may perceiue what I geue to Peter and refuse it if you mislike it by the giftes of grace I meane all the blessings wherewith the Lord did honour him by excelling in them I meane that he did passe not all the Apostles in them all but euery one in some or other For Iohn the disciple whom the Lord loued who wrote the Gospell so diuinely In the beginning was the worde who sawe by reuelation the things that were to come and wrote them by the spirite of prophecie Iohn excelled Peter in many giftes of grace as Ierom declareth And Paule excelled him farther euen in the chiefest giftes in so much that Austin who geueth excellent grace to Peter dooth geue most excellent grace to Paule and saith that he receiued more grace and laboured more then al the rest of the Apostles and is therefore called the Apostle by an excellencie But Peter of the other side excelled Paule in primacie that hée was chosen first and Iohn in age that he was elder in respect whereof hée was preferred before him by Ieroms opinioÌ„ to be the chief of the Apostles And this is it which Ierom and other Fathers meant by Peters principalitie if you will geue them leaue to be their owne interpreters They did not meane to call him Prince of the Apostles as the Pope desireth to bee Prince of Bishops Hart They did meane to call him the mouth and the top the highest the President and the head of the Apostles For these as I haue shewed are their own wordes by which a preeminence in gouernment is prooued and not in grace onely Rainoldes These in déede come néerer to the point in question because they touch gouernment at the least some of theÌ„ For some as the highest and so the toppe it may be too séeme to haue béene meant rather of preeminence in grace then in gouernment But if you will referre them vnto both it skilleth not For they can betoken no more then the rest And the rest doo signifie although a preeminence in gouernment such as it is yet nothing in comparison of your supremacie This is plaine by that which was agreed betwixt vs when wee spake of the practise of Peters autoritie in the Actes of the Apostles For when I graunted him to be as the Speaker of the Parlament in England or the President of a court of Parlament in Fraunce and shewed the great difference out of a lawier of your owne betweene this preeminence and that supremacie which you claime you reiected the lawier as either ignorant or vnfaithful and refused this préeminence as not importing that supremacie because it hath not soueraine power nay in power is vnder the body of the assembly aboue which it is in a prerogatiue of honor Yet this preeminence is all that is geuen to Peter by the titles of the mouth the head the President of the Apostles Wherefore it is euident that by those titles your Papall supremacie is not geuen to him Hart. It may by your similitudes be probably thoght that some of the rest might note such a preemineÌ„ce in gouernment as you speake of without a souerainty of power But the title of head hath greater strength in it For the Speaker is not called with vs in England the head of the Parlament That title is reserued to the Princ e alone Rainoldes But the President of a Court of Parlament in Fraunce is called head of the Court and Austin or rather he whom you alleadged in the name of Austin expoundeth head by President and the name of head as I haue prooued out of the Scriptures is vsed to note a preeminence of other things not of power much lesse of Princely power only Then what reason is there but Ierom in saying that Peter was appointed head might signifie the preeminence not of a Prince but of a Speaker We geue not in England the name of head vnto the Speaker True Neither geue we the name of Speaker to the Prince But Peter hath them both For hee is called the mouth and head of the Apostles If the one debase him not to the meanenesse of a Speakers function why should the other aduaunce him to the highnesse of a Princes soueraintie Hart. S. Ieroms reason sheweth that hée rather meant a soueraintie as of a Prince For he â—aith that Peter was chosen one amongst the twelue to the intent that a head beeing appointed occasion of schisme might be taken away And how can occasion of schisme be taken away vnlesse that one haue souerain power to gouerne all Rainoldes Why Doo you not thinke that Fraunce appointed Presidents in the Courts of Parlament for the better ordering of them in their dooings that occasion of strife might be taken away What In frée States which are ruled in commoÌ„ not by one Prince but by the best men or by the whole people doo not their stories shew that one had a preeminence as the Consul at Rome the Prouost at Athens though the soueraintie were in many who had like authoritie and power amongst themselues And did they not appoint this one to be the chiefe and head of their company that occasion of strife might be taken away So fared it with Peter amongst the Apostles in gouerning the church whose state if wée compare with the states of common wealths we shall finde that it was an aristocratie not a monarchie as the Philosophers terme it not hauing Peter as a Prince but the Apostles as the best men to gouerne it in common Yet as in all assemblies wherein many méete about affaires of gouernment there must néedes be one for orders sake and peace to beginne to end to moderate the actions so was that preeminence geuen to Peter amongst the Apostles that all things might be done peaceably and orderly And this to be the headship which S. Ierom meant himself in that very place in which he toucheth it dooth shew manifestly For hauing set downe his aduersaries obiection But thou saiest the church is built vpon Peter he answereth thereto Although the same be done in another place on all the Apostles and they all receiue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen the strength of the church is grounded on them equally yet therefore is one chosen amongst the twelue that a head being appointed occasion of schisme may be taken away Of the which sentence the former branch sheweth that by the name of head vsed in the later he could not meane that Peter had a soueraine power ouer the Apostles For all Peters power is comprised in the keies that Christ did promise him and in the building of the church vpon him But all the Apostles receiue the keyes by Ieroms iudgement and the church is builte vpon them
all equally Wherfore by Ieroms iudgement Peter was not ouer the Apostles in power If not in power yet in part of gouernment in what but in that preeminence which I spake of S. Ierom therefore saying that Peter was appointed head of the Apostles did meane that preeminence among the Apostles and not a soueraintie aboue them Hart. The wordes of S. Ierom doo speake somewhat too liberally of the Apostles in that he saith the church is built vpon them all equally And as D. Stapleton noteth very well the distinction touching things writen by the Fathers some by way of doctrine and some of contention is verified in them For here by occasion that he reasoneth against Iouinian who alleaged against the honour of virginitie that Christ preferred Peter a maried man before the rest he doth lessen and extenuate the authority of Peter as farre as truth did giue him leaue making the rest equall to him for the Apostleship yet affirming plainely that he was head of the rest Rainoldes Ierom wrote many things in déed against Iouinian by way of contention rather then of doctrine to the disgrace of marriage In so much that being therefore reproued by some himselfe excuseth it that he did rather striue thē teach and Pammachius a learned gentleman his fréend did suppresse the copies and wished them to be concealed till he had corrected them But neither was this place so reproued by them or excused by him for ought that may be gathered by his apologie nor is it to be noted as sauouring more of heate then truth for the substance of it agreeth with the scriptures Yea Stapleton who couereth it with this distinction confesseth in effect as much at vnawares For he saith that Ierom doth lessen and extenuate the authoritie of Peter as far as truth did giue him leaue Wherof it ensueth that it is no vntrueth to say as Ierom doth that all the Apostles had equall power with Peter The name of head therefore which Ierom giueth him with the same breath can by no meanes import a soueraine power ouer the Apostles Unlesse you will make him so absurd and brainesicke as that he should say Though none of the Apostles were soueraine of the rest but they had equall power all yet was one of them aboue the rest in power and had the souerain-headship of them Hart. Wel. Howsoeuer you handle Ieroms wordes he saith in flat termes that which you denyed And therefore he maketh against you with vs. Rainoldes In what point Or how Hart. You denied that Peter was head of the Apostles Ierom saith he was Peter was not head and Peter was head Is there not a contradiction betwéene your words and his Rainoldes No more then betwéene the wordes of Iohn and Christ Christ said of Iohn Baptist this is Elias Iohn Baptist said of him selfe I am not Elias Iohn Baptist is Elias and Iohn Baptist is not Elias Is there not a contradiction betwéen the words of Christ and Iohn Hart. No. For Christ meant one way and Iohn Baptist an other Christ that he was Elias in spirit as coming in the spirit and power of Elias Iohn Baptist that he was not Elias in person which the Pharisees meant Rainoldes You haue answered well So Ierom meant one way and I an other Ierom that he was head in a preeminence of gouernment as moderating the actions in assemblies of the Apostles I that he was not head in soueraintie of power which the Papists meane And thus to conclude you may see that the Fathers whom you alleage for Peter some giue him a prerogatiue of authoritie some of primacie some of principalitie but none of your supremacie For your supremacie doth consist in power and they giue equall power to Peter with the rest Hart. Equall power I graunt in respect of the Apostleship but not of pastoral charge For Peter was ouer thē in that euen as the Pope is ouer Bishops And so we do expound the words of S. Cyprian S. Ierom S. Chrysostome and other of the Fathers who giue equall power to the Apostles with Peter Rainoldes Yet more of these Colewortes I haue proued alreadie that Peters pastorall charge and his Apostleship is al one and therefore if they were equall to him in the Apostleship the were in pastorall charge too But if no other reason will put you to silence the Popes own authority may force you to it here For in the Cyprian set forth by him at Rome he noteth it to be considered that whereas Cyprian saith The rest of the Apostles had equall power with Peter this must be vnderstood of the equalitie of Apostleship which ceased when the Apostles died and passed not ouer vnto Bishops The drift of which note implieth a distinction of Apostles and Bishops that it is not with Bishops in respect of the Pope as it was with the Apostles in respect of Peter And that doth cary with it a checke of your opinion which maketh the Apostles vnderlings to Peter as Bishops to the Pope Hart. You knowe not who made that note in the Roman Cyprian for there is no mans name to it But if the Pope either made it him selfe or allowed of it being made by others to whom he did commit that charge he set down as a priuate Doctor his owne opinion which they who list may folow But this is my opinion which I haue set downe and to that I stand Rainoldes I am glad you thinke not as the Pope doth at least in one point God graunt that you may come forward in the rest to dissent from him not in this one point alone but in many Howbeit whether he or others made that note they set it forth with greater authoritie and priuilege then as a priuate Doctors fansie Neither is it likely that they would haue graunted so much to the Apostles vnlesse the truth had wroong it from them Let your righteousnes M. Hart if not exceede yet match the righteousnes of Scribes and Pharisees and yéeld to this conclusion which riseth of our conference that Peter was not head of all the Apostles as you do take the name of head Hart. You shall conclude your selfe alone so for me For I do protest that I beléeue it not nor mind to yéeld vnto it The sixth Chapter The two maine groundes on which the supremacie vsurped by the Pope doth lie The former that there should be one Bishop ouer all in earth 1 because Christ said There shall be one flocke and one pastor 2 and among the Iewes there was one iudge and hie Priest The later that the Pope is that one Bishop 3 because Peter was Bishop of Rome as some say 4 and the Pope succeedeth Peter Both examined and shewed to faile in the proofe of the Popes supremacie RAINOLDES Then wisedome must be content to be iustified of her childrē Howbeit God is able to chaunge your hart in such sort that as
in the Gospell he who said he would not goe into the vineyarde repented afterward and went so you may yéeld to this on better aduise to which you say you will not yéeld Though if your opinion of Peters supremacie were graunted to be true it proueth not your title to the Popes supremacie the principall point in question which you claime thereby For let vs faine that Peter was head of the Apostles How followeth it thereof that the Bishop of Rome is head of all the Church of Christ Hart. It foloweth by the second part of my reason The Bishop of Rome succeedeth Peter in the same power ouer Bishops that he had ouer the Apostles For if Peters power ouer the Apostles did reach vnto the whole flock both of the shéepe and the lambes then must the same power of his successor ouer Bishops reach by like reason vnto the same flocke and so to all the Church of Christ. Rainoldes But how doo you proue that the Bishop of Rome succéedeth Peter in his power Hart. Because that the power committed to Peter was not to dye with Peter For this had not bene agréeable to the goodnes and wisedom of Christ vpō whom it lay to prouide for his church vntill the end of the world as Austin sheweth he did Thinke not saith hee to the Church thinke not thy selfe forsaken because thou seest not Peter because thou seest not Paule because thou seest not them by whom thou art begotten Of thine ofspring there is growne vnto thee a fatherhood in steed of thy fathers children are borne vnto thee Rainoldes The goodnes and wisedome of our Sauiour Christ prouided for his Church as S. Paule witnesseth by giuing Pastors and teachers Pastors and teachers not one to the whole but many to the seuerall partes of his Church For they whom Christ hath chosen to serue him in the ordinarie feeding of his flocke to instruct his people and guide them in the way of life vntill the end of the world are named in the scripture sometime Elders of their age sometime Bishops of their duetie And he hath taken order by his spirite and word that such should be appointed in euery Church through euery citie This was it that Austin regarded when he said the church is not forsaken although she see not the Apostles considering that in steed of the Apostles she hath Bishops For by the name of Fathers he meant the Apostles and by the name of children bishops In steed of thy fathers children are borne vnto thee Which how it may serue your purpose I see not Unlesse perhaps you meane that amongst those children the Bishop of Rome should be heire as eldest and Bishops of other cities should be handled al like younger brethren But Austin saith not so Hart. It is proued by Austin that our Sauiour Christ prouided for his church And this I graunt he did by giuing seueral Pastors vnto seuerall flockes but so that he committed the charge of them all to one supreme Pastor which is the Bishop of Rome Rainoldes Thus I heare you say But I had rather heare Thus saith the Lord. Hart. You shall heare it The Lord saith that there shal be one flocke and one shepheard or as we translate it one folde and one Pastor whereof I make this reason By the name of Pastor is noted an ordinarie gouernment and charge which hath relation to a flocke and therefore as long as the flocke continueth the Pastors office must continue the office of one Pastor as the flocke is one It continued in Peter when Christ made him supreme Pastor Now when Peter dyed it should continue in his successor And the successor of Peter is the Bishop of Rome The Bishop of Rome therefore is the supreme Pastor of the Church of Christ. Rainoldes I perceiue your Pope can make no shew of title to supreme-headship of the Church vnlesse he put Christ from the possession of it For Christ by one Pastor doth signifie himselfe as it may appeare by the drift of all his spéech wherein he maintaineth his office and autoritie against the slanders of the Phariseis I am saith he the good Pastor and know mine owne and am known of mine As the Father knoweth me so know I the Father and I lay downe my life for my sheepe Other sheepe I haue also which are not of this fold and them must I bring and they shall heare my voyce and there shal be one flocke one Pastor One Pastor who but he of whome the wordes afore and after are meant He who is the good Pastor who knoweth his sheepe who layeth downe his life for them who hath other sheepe beside the Iewes to wéete the Gentiles whom hee will bring to his folde and so of them both the Church shal be as one flocke obeying Christ as one Pastor This is the one Pastor that our Sauiour meant Which if you wil not beléeue on my word or rather on his word who spake it beléeue your own Bible expoūding it by conferēce of scripture with scripture of Iohn with Ezekiel In whom God doth promise that he wil make of Israel Iuda one people and set his seruant Dauid that is Christ the sonne of Dauid to be one Pastor vnto them all and hee shall feede them Thus in Gods law the wordes are meant of Christ. The Pope in his law wil haue him selfe meant by them You are angry with vs when we call him Antichrist Is not the name of Antichrist too gentle for him who claimeth that to himselfe which is proper to Christ Hart. The Pope will haue himselfe to be meant by them as the vicar of Christ and so they doo belong to him Though they belong also to Christ which we deny not For thus saith the Pope Of the Church which is one there is one bodie and one head not two heades as a monster namely Christ and Christes vicar Peter and Peters successor sith the Lord saith to Peter himselfe Feede my sheepe my sheepe saith he in generall not in particular these or these whereby hee is vnderstood to haue committed all to him Whether they bee therfore Grecians or others who say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors they must needes confesse them selues not to bee of the sheepe of Christ Sith the Lord saith in Iohn that there is one folde and one Pastor Which wordes though they conclude the Pope to bée that one Pastor yet you must not take them as though the Pope meant them of himselfe alone but that they are verified first in Christ then in Peter lastly in himselfe And so there continueth one Pastor by succession euen as the Church continueth one Rainoldes Doo you know what you say when you say there continueth one Pastor by succession Peter after Christ the Pope after Peter I hope you doo it ignorantly and therefore may obteine mercy though
and some of ceremonie so there are some pointes essentiall in iustice and some accidentall The essentiall pointes of iustice are the same in lawes of all common-wealthes For what is a law but a diuine ordinance commanding thinges honest and forbidding the contrarie The accidentall pointes doo and may vary according to circumstances of places times and persons So lawes of religion must be the same for substance in all Christian Churches in ceremonies they may differ as in the primitiue Church they did Wherefore the same faith and lawes of religion do no more inforce all churches to obey one Bishop then the same right and ordinances of iustice do require one Prince to rule all common-wealthes But what soeuer your fansie make you thinke of this point the place in Deuteronomie adiudging them to death who disobey the Priest can not helpe your fansie though it had béene meant of no other Priest but of the high Priest onely For Christ wheÌ„ he sent his Apostles to preach the Gospell said vnto them Whosoeuer shall not receaue you nor heare your wordes when yee depart out of that house or that city shake of the dust of your feete Truely I say vnto you it shall be easier for them of the land of Sodome and Gomorrha in the day of iudgement then for that citie Which wordes being spoken to all the Apostles not to Peter onely and therefore belonging to all their successors as well as to Peters doo shew that euery Bishop hath as great authoritie giuen him by Christ as the Priest had by that law in Deuteronomie In so much that Cyprian doth alleage it often by a better reason of proportioÌ„ then yours to proue the authoritie of Bishops each in seuerall ouer the flockes committed to them Hart. And what if a matter of religion be harder then Bishops each in seuerall be able to decide it What if they disagree and will not yéeld one to another Doth not wisedome shew that there must be a chiefe iudge to ende the controuersie to keepe the truth of faith and peace of the Church that it be not pestered with heresies and schismes Rainoldes The wisedome of God hath committed that chieftie of iudgement so to call it not to the soueraine power of one but to the common care of many For when there was a controuersie in the Church of Antioche about the obseruation of the law of Moses some Iewes teaching contrarie to that which Paule and Barnabas taught they ordeined that Paule and Barnabas and certaine other of them should go vp to Ierusalem to the Apostles and Elders about that question And so by their common agreement and decrée the controuersie was ended the truth of faith kept and peace maintained in the Church After which example the Bishops that succéeded them made the like assemblies on the like occasions and by common conference tooke order for such matters both of doctrine and discipline as concerned in common the state of their Churches So did the Apostles and Apostolike men prouide against schismes heresies Their wisedome reached not vnto your policie of one chiefe iudge Hart. The profit of Councels and Synods of Bishops is very great we graunt For many eyes see more then one But it wil be greater if they be all counsellors vnto one gouernor then if they gouerne eche his owne and all in common For reason doth teach vs that the regiment of one which wee call a monarchie is better and worthier then the regiment of many as the Philosophers shew who write of Common-weales Rainoldes Reason is a notable helpe of mans weakenes if it be obedient to faith as a handmaide not rule it as a maistresse And humane artes wherein the Philosophers haue séene many sparkles of the truth of God by the light of reason are profitable instruments to set forth the truth so farre as they haue peace not warre with Gods worde But if the Philosophers haue erred as naturall men who neither doo conceiue the things of the spirit of God nor can know them if reason haue her eyes as it were dazeled because the light shineth in darkenesse and the darkenesse did not comprehend it then is it to be feared least as the Serpent seduced Eue through his suttletie so he beguile you by reason and you forget that lesson of the holy Ghost beware least there be any man that spoyle you through philosophie Which I say not so much in respect of this point of the Church gouernment as of your whole doctrine a mightie ground whereof in your Schoolemen is philosophie and your Iesuites challenge doth offer to proue it by naturall and morall reason For here if I would iustifie the cause by Philosophers it is â—asily shewed that the Churches state is a most perfite monarchie wherein Christ is king his lawes are the scriptures his officers are the Bishops not ordained to bée assistantes vnto one deputie but to be deputies all them selues euen Pastors of his flock guides rulers of his Church Howbeit if it differ from the kingly states of worldly coÌ„mon-weales which philosophie writeth off as it doth in part Philosophers must not maruel sith Christ hath declared his kingdoÌ„e is not of this world Indéede the Apostles thought of such a kingdome but Christ saide it should not be so amongst them as with the Princes of the Gentiles Which sentence of Christ your Popes not vnderstanding and wéening the Apostles to be forbidden nothing but an heathnish tyrannie and liking well a monarchie because Philosophers prayse it they haue raised a visible monarchie of their owne in steede of Christes monarchie and haue chaunged his kingdome which is not of this world into a worldly kingdome the kingdome of the Romanes as a Iesuit calleth it Neither contenting them selues with such a kingdome as Princes of the Gentiles had they make them selues Princes ouer all the kingdomes and nations of the earth Which is a greater monarchie then Philosophers like off as I coulde proue out of them if the Popes cause were to be handled in their schooles But because I list not to trifle out the time with idle discourses about pointes of State as your Rabbines doo to proue that a monarchie is the best regiment therefore against such reasons I laye that exception which Tertullian did of olde against heretikes What hath Athens to do with Ierusalem the schoole of philosophy with the Church of Christ The duetie of Christians is to search and weigh in matters of faith not what reason but what religion not what the Philosophers but what the Prophets Apostles not what mans fansie but what the Spirit of God doth say And so the former parts of your maine argument for the Popes supremacie are too weake to proue it The last is weaker then they both For that there should be one chiefe and highest Pastor of the Church in earth it hath some
my worke-fellowes vnto the kingdome of God which haue bene a comfort to me at my first answering no man assisted me but all forsooke me I pray God it bee not laid vnto their charge Of the which reasons though some are but probable yet some are sure proofes that Peters continuance at Rome was not such as is reported by Eusebius And this is so manifest that to say nothing of auncienter writers who to make the scriptures agrée somewhat better with his fiue and twentie yeares abode at Rome brought him thither later and gaue him longer time of life Onuphrius Panuinius a Frier of your owne most deuout to the Pope most skilfull in antiquities and stories of the Church acknowledgeth and confirmeth it For in the discourses of his Annotations on Platina printed at Venice afterward at Coolein it is most cleere saith he and surely known by the Actes of the Apostles and Pauls epistle to the Galatians that for nine yeares after Christes death vntill the second yeare of the raigne of Claudius Peter neuer went out of Iewry Wherfore if he came to Rome at that time as it is agreed amongst all autours that he did it followeth of necessitie that hee did not sit seuen yeares at Antioche before he came thither but that his sitting at Antioche was some other time Which thing I haue resolued on thus by the testimonie of most auncient writers He did come to Rome the second yere of Claudius From which time there are to the time of his death about fiue and twentie yeares Wherin although the auncient writers do say that he sate at Rome yet doth it not folow thereof that he abode still in the citie For in the fourth yeare after his comming thither he returned to Ierusalem and there was present at the Councell of the Apostles Thence he went to Antioche and there continued seuen yeares vntil that Nero was Emperour In the beginning of whose raigne he came againe to Rome where hee repaired the Romane church which was decaying And after that when hee had traueiled almost throughout al Europe he returned to Rome in the last yeare of the raigne of Nero and there was put to death This is the confessioÌ„ of your owne Onuphrius made perhaps against the heare as I may terme it but the light of truth and scripture forced him to it Wherby you may perceiue that when Eusebius wrote that Peter sate first seuen yeares at Antioch and fiue and twentie at Rome after that befell to him which Thucydides saith of the old stories of the Grecians men receyue reportes of thinges done before them from hand to hand one from another without examining trying them Some through a desire as it is likely of honouring the Sees of Antioche Rome hearing that S. Peter had preached in them both deuised that he sate seuen yeares in the one and fiue and twentie in the other Eusebius fell vpon it and wrote it in his Chronicle without farther tryall But if he had tryed it by the touchstone of scripture hée would haue cast it off as counterfeite Which I thinke the rather because in his storie he mentioneth the coming of Peter to Rome as out of Iurie not from Antioche for his first coming thether in the time of Claudius and for his coming thither againe in Neros time he sheweth out of Origen that it was towarde his end wheÌ„ he had preached the gospell to the Iewes in Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia Wherefore sith Eusebius doth in his storie dissent from his Chronicle and in his Chronicle dissent from the scripture you must not blame me if I require a surer proofe then his worde that Peter was Bishoppe of the Citie of Rome Hart. To talke about the yeares of Peters coming to Rome or his continuance there I am not disposed I leaue it to them who list to search antiquities But that he was in Rome it is a thing vndoubted the scripture doth witnesse it For in the first epistle of his the fifth chapter the Church saith he saluteth you that is in Babylon coelect and Marke my sonne Where your Protestants shew them selues as in all places that doo make against them to be most vnhonest and partiall handlers of Gods worde The auncient Fathers namely S. Ierom Eusebius Oecumenius and many moe agrée that Rome is meant by the worde Babylon here also as in the Apocalypse saying plainely that S. Peter wrote this epistle at Rome which is called Babylon for the resemblance it had to Babylon that great citie in Chaldaea where the Iewes were captiues for magnificence monarchie resort and confusion of all peoples and tongues and for that it was before Christ and long after the seate of all Ethnike superstition and idolatry the slâ—ughter-house of the Apostles other Christian men the heathâ— Emperours then kéeping their chief residence there This being most plaine consonant to that which foloweth of S. Marke whom all the ecclesiasticall histories agree to haue béene Peters scholer at Rome that he there wrote his gospell yet you fearing hereby the sequele of Peters or the Popes supremacie at Rome deny that euer he was there or that this epistle was writen there or that Babylon doth here signifie Rome But you say that Peter wrote this epistle at Babylon in Chaldaea though you neuer read either in scriptures or other holy or prophane history that hee was euer in that citie But sée your shamelesse partialitie Here Babylon say you is not taken for Rome because it would folow that Peter was at Rome and so forth But in the Apocalypse where all euill is spoken of Babylon there you will haue it signifie nothing else but Rome and the Romane church also not as the Fathers interprete it the temporall state of the heathen Empire there So do you folow in euery word no other thing but the aduantage of your own heresie Which is most notorious by this that you hold that Peter was neueâ— at Rome Wherein you passe your selues in impudencie For it is against all the ecclesiasticall histories all the Fathers Gréeke and Latin Theodoret Prosper S. Leo S. Austin Orosius S. Chrysostome S. Epiphanius Prudentius Optatus S. Ambrose S. Ierom Lactantius Eusebius S. Athanasius S. Cyprian Tertullian Origen Irenaeus Hegesippus Caius and Papias the Apostles owne scholers and Dionysius the Bishop of Corinth Ignatius the holy councell of Chalcedon and many others Yea Peter him selfe according to the iudgement of the Fathers as I haue shewed confesseth that he was at Rome calling it Babylon Rainoldes Here is a gréeuous crime wherewith you charge our Protestants of shamelesse partialitie But whether shew them selues more partiall and vnhonest handlers of Gods word our Protestants or your Papistes you are too partiall
Bishop of Antioche nor Rome as vsually that name is taken Yea they distinguish the Bishops and the Apostles therein purposely For Irenaeus saith that the two Apostles namely Peter and Paule when they had founded and taught the Romane Church committed the Bishoply charge therof to Linus And he repeateth often in reckening vp the Bishops as doth Eusebius also that they were such and such in order and number from the Apostles And Rufinus writeth that Linus and Cletus were Bishops while Peter liued that they might haue the care of the Bishoply charge and hee might do the duetie of the Apostleship Which is confirmed farther by Epiphanius Who though hée say that Peter and Paule were both Apostles Bishops in Rome yet hee saith withall that there were other Bishops of Rome while they liued because that the Apostles went often into other countryes to preach Christ the city of Rome might not be without a Bishop As if he should haue said that a Bishops duetie doth bind him to attend the Church whereof the holy Ghost hath made him ouerseer Now though the Apostles Peter and Paule did performe that duetie to the Church of Rome while they abode there yet because it was the charge of their Apostleship to preach to others also therefore they went thence to othâ—r coastes and nations and left the Romane charge to the Bishop of Rome And so you may learne by the Fathers theÌ„ selues that when they termed any Apostle a Bishop of this or that citie as namely S. Peter of Antioche or Rome they meant it in a generall sort and signification because he did attend that Church for a time and supplyed that roome in preaching of the Gospel which Bishops did after But as the name of Bishop is commonly taken for the ouerseer of a particular church and pastor of a seuerall flocke so Peter was not Bishop of any one citie and therefore not of Rome Hart. Yet the Bishops of Rome did succéede Peter euen by the testimonie of the same autors namely of Irenaeus Eusebius and Epiphanius in the places by you alleaged Rainoldes They did succeede Peter as Bishops an Apostle and they did succéede him in Rome as other Bishops did in other cities Wherefore if the Bishop of Rome by this succession haue right to the supremacie what hath the Bishop of Antioche For he succeeded Peter too Hart. The Bishop of Antioche did succéede Peter while Peter liued yet and had not left his right But the Bishop of Rome succéeded him when he died and thereby was aduanced vnto that supremacie which Peter kept while hee liued Rainoldes Your men were wont to answere that Antioche had first right to the supremacie by the chaire of Peter but Peter did remoue his chaire thence to Rome This was somewhat stale Which your Father Robert smelled belike so he thought it better to say that Peter kept his right while hee liued but when he died the Bishop of Rome was his successour and had it as I trow by legacie A pretie shift if it woulde stand but it lacketh life For Linus Bishop of Rome who succéeded Peter succéeded Peter liuing in the same maner as did the Bishop of Antioche Hart. Not so But Clemens rather did succéede Peter and that after his death For when he perceiued his end to draw néere he tooke Clemens by the hand and said in the hearing of the whole Church which was then assembled Hearken vnto me my brethren and fellow-seruants Because as my Lord maister Iesus Christ who sent me hath told me the day of my death approcheth I ordeine this Clemens to bee your Bishop vnto whom alone I commit the chaire of my preaching and doctrine and I giue to him that power of binding and loosing which Christ gaue to me that whatsoeuer he decreeth of any thing in earth the same shall bee decreed in heauen Rainoldes Who told you this tale Hart. A tale It is recorded in an old monument Rainoldes Whence came that olde monument Hart. From Clemens himselfe who liued in the time of the Apostles and is mentioned by S. Paule Rainoldes But where doth he record it Hart. In his first epistle writen to Iames the brother of the Lord. Rainoldes In déede an olde monument It is so olde that it is rotten A very drunken forgerie wherein it is said that Peter praied Clemens to write after his death this epistle to Iames the brother of the Lord to comfort him and Clemens did so Whereas Iames was dead long before Peter about an eight yeares at least Hart. This is one of the arguments that are brought against it by your Centuries of Meydenburg which I make no account off though you alleage them all For Turrian hath sifted confuted them in his defense of the decretal epistles of the Popes where he bringeth reasons why Clemens might write well to Iames being dead and Peter with him so to do Rainoldes Turrian a Iesuit a couer fitte for such a cuppe Whose defense of those bastards fathered on the ancient Bishops of Rome falsely may be iustly censured with that which Viues saith of your golden legend it is writen by a man of a brazen face a leadeÌ„ hart For nothing can be spoken so fondly absuâ—dly which he hath not some reasoÌ„ for as though he had resolued to be maâ— with reason Howbeit sith you are fore-stalled with a preiudice of his defense against the Centuries I will not touch the arguments whereupoÌ„ they staÌ„d Though his answeres to them if they should be laid in the skales togither would be found lighter then vanitie it selfe in all indifferent readers eies His dealing in this one point may giue a tast thereof For though to write letters to a dead man be a thing so senselesse that the epistle therefore is nipped as vnlikely by Cardinall Turrecremata and cast off as counterfeit by Cardinall Cusanus yet Turrian defendeth it as wisely done and omitteth nothing to shew with how good reason Clemens might write letters to Iames being dead yea though hee knewe him to bee dead saue that as a learned man told him pleasantly hee sheweth not by what carier Clemens did send the letters to him But to let both Turrian and the Centuries go the drift of the epistle being to prooue that Peter ordained Clemens his successour discâ—editeth it selfe as Cusanus hath also noted by the iudgement of the Fathers S. Austin S. Ierom Optatus and the rest yea by your owne Chronicles and histories ecclesiasticall who all agrée that Linus was Peters successour and so they marre the tale of Clemens Hart. You doo ill to call it a tale and droonken forgerie such reprochefull termes Rainoldes You must beare with my plainenes I call a â—â—gge a figge and a spade a spade Hart. Nay it is neither a forgerie nor a tale For the
epistle is auncient translated out of Greeke into Latin by Rufinus who liued within foure hundred yeares after Christ. And this touching Linus the storie of whose succession you thinke disproâ—eth it was thought vpon then is answered by Rufinus For 〈◊〉 his preface to the booke entitled the recognitions of Clemens which he translated too some demaund saith he how when as Linus and Cletus were Bishops of Rome before Clemens himselfe in his epistle to Iames saith that the chaire of teaching was committed to him by Peter Whereof this is the reason as we haue heard that Linus and Cletus were in deed Bishops in Rome before Clemens but while Peter liued that they might haue the care of the Bishoply charge he might do the duety of the Apostleship As it is found that also he did at Caesarea where though being present himselfe yet he had a Bishop whom he had ordained namely Zachaeus And thus may eche of these things be thought to be true both that they were reckened Bishops before Clemens and Clemens neuertheles receiued the chaire of teaching after the death of Peter Rainoldes The auncientie of the epistle is no warrant for it but that it might be false and forged The epistles of Seneca to Paul of Paul to Seneca are no lesse auncient which yet haue nothing worthie of either Paul or Seneca There haue béene verie many misbegotten pamphlets wandring abroad euen from the time of the Apostles yea vnder the names of the Apostles themselues The lesse haue you to maruell if there were some miscreant who wrote in the name of Clemens to Iames. As for Rufinus who translated it if yet he did translate it and some haue not abused him as well as Clemens his iudgement was not such but he might be deceiued in a greater matter Which if you beléeue not on S. Ieroms credit because he was his aduersarie looke into these same workes that he translated and you shall perceiue it For the thinges writen in the Recognitions of Clemens which you mention sent to Iames also are the most of them vncertaine many fabulous yea and some hereticall as your selues confesse Yet Rufinus iudged it a hidden treasure of wisedome thought he had a bootie of it Againe in that epistle wherein Clemens maketh him selfe Peters successor he certifieth Iames that he sent him before by the commandement of Peter an other booke entitled the booke of Clemens touching thinges which Peter did in his iourney Now this iourney-booke hath béene so long so famously knowne for a roague that he hath not onely béene burnt through the â—are of olde by sundrie Fathers and Bishops in a Councell but also of late the college of Inquisitors at Rome haue enrolled him in the Register of bookes condemned by the Church Wherefore he was a counterfeit that set abroad these bastardes in the name of Clemens howsoeuer Rufinus thought them of simplicitie to be his owne whose they were named And with this perswasion was he moued to thinke on some probabilitie how that might be true which séemed false therein of Peters ordeining Clemens to be his successor when Linus and Cletus were Bishops before him The only shew whereof being a report receyued by tradition he was faine to take it for lacke of a better But he erred in it either not knowing or not considering times and stories For by his answere Linus and Cletus should be no longer Bishops then while Peter liued and when he dyed Clemens should succéede him next immediatly Whereas it is apparant by records of times that Linus continued Bishop eleuen yeares after Peters death and Cletus twelue after Linus before that Clemens had the roome Which albeit Turrian the Iesuite doâ— gnaw vpon as he is wont to make it away yet is the matter so manifest certaine that Genebrard the freshest of your Popish Chroniclers and passing all the rest as in skill so in zeale for the Popes causes could not but set it downe as true Hart. Yet he saith withall that Peter did nominate Clemens to succeede him But Clemens gaue the roome first to Linus and then to Cletus not so much of modestie as by the counsell of the Lord least the example of this nomination should passe to the posteritie and derogate from the free prouidence of the Church in choosing of her owne Bishop Rainoldes He saith so in deede But who séeth not that this was deuised to make stories agrée with the tale of Clemens and by the way to countenance the election of Popes which now the Cardinals vse For the booke of Ceremonies of the Church of Rome treating of that election affirmeth that Peter nominated Clemens to be his successour with this coÌ„dition it is thought if the Cardinals would admit him But they perceiuing that the forme of this nomination might greatly hurt the Church in processe of time did not accept of Clemens but did choose Linus and made him Pope after Peter Howbeit Clemens afterwarde was chosen by the Cardinals when Linus and Cletus were deceased Though Genebrard in â—â—â—ming the fansie to his purpose doth not so much follow the booke of the Ceremonies as the glose of the Canon law which with better care of the Popes credit saith that Pope Clemens him selfe renounced the Papacie considering that it would be an euill and pernicious thing for the example that any should choose his owne successour Into such follies do you 〈◊〉 your selues to say that the blessed Apostle of Christ S. Peter did ordeine that which was pernicious for the example refused by the Pope mislyked by the Cardinals preiudiciall to the Church and all to maintaine the epistle of Clemens with the tale in it that Peter made him his successour A thing so absurd that where it is mentioned in the Canon law there is it nâ—â—ed to â—e chaffe and Contius a learned lawier of your owne doth note vpon that note that it is counted chaffe worthily for it is all counterfeite and Comestor the autor of the scholastical historie who liued when the darkenes of Poperie was grossest refuteth and reiecteth it as a méere forgerie But whatsoeuer it â—e and hoâ— so euer auncient 〈◊〉 the same it may be which S. Ierom saith did beare the name of Clemens and was reproued by olde writers but be it what you wil you confesse your selfe that to be vntrue for proofe wherof you cited it that Clemens succeeded Peter and not Linus Wherefore séeing Linus did succéede Peter that while Peter liued in the same sort as Zachaeus did you say at Caesarea Euodius at Antioche the Bishops of Antioche of Caesarea may claime as well the Papacy by Peters succession as may the Bishop of Rome Hart. Yet by your owne graunt and the consent of histories Linus who succéeded him in Rome did out-liue him And therefore he was
lawfullie prouide for the maintenance of their state temporall For what saith S. Paul If any man haue not care of his owne and specially of his domesticals he hath denyed the faith and is worse then an infidell Wherefore you must consider that the Pope susteineth a double person as it were the one of a Prince the other of a Bishop As a Prince he gouerneth his temporall dominion as a Bishop his spirituall His spirituall charge is all the churche of Christ his temporall a part of it And so though both of them concerne after a sorte the state of the Church yet his affaires spirituall which stretch through all Christendoom doo differ from his temporall which touch the Church of Rome chieflie For example Leo the ninth a verie good Pope aboue fiue hundred yeares since when the Normans spoiled the land of the Church and he had cursed them for it but could not conquer them by curses he got of the Emperor a strong band of soldiours whom he lead in person himselfe against the varletes and met them in the field manfully At the same time Michael the Patriarke of Constantinople denyed the supremacie of the Church of Rome and claimed it to his own Sée Whereof when Pope Leo heard he sent thrée legats to Constantinople to root out that heresie Now the former of these thinges he did as Prince against the Normans who set vpon his temporall dominion with armes the later as Bishop against the Patriarke who taught heresie a point of his spirituall charge Affaires of this later sort let me name for difference sake the Church-affaires the former the affaires of state And so it shall appeere what iniurie you doo them whom spitefully you call Herodes For you say that the affaires which they are busied about are their affaires of state Whereas in verie truth the affaires of the Church doo busie them a great deale more to sée that the Catholike religion be taught that errors be suppressed to prouide dioceses of good and learned Bishops and parishes of able pastors to heare appeales determine causes receiue supplications excommunicate the wicked absolue the repentant to doo the whole function of supreme heades of the Church And may not these affaires so weightie in charge in number so manie bee a iust excuse for them if they preach not Or will you slaunder them that they omit that dutie for their state-affaires when they omit it for the Church Rainoldes I would to God you were able to proue that I slaunder them and speake more spitefullie then trulie ofthem Better had it béene and would be for poore Christians of whom they haue murdered more soules nay more thousands of soules in one countrie with their Herodian practises then Herode murdered bodies through his whole dominion And this haue they doon by that prophane policie wherewith I iustlie charged them euen by pretending the Churches state to plant their owne and vsing the shewes of gouernment spirituall to get them temporall aduancement For vnder the coolour of binding and loosing the credit of forgiuing sinnes the title of S. Peters keyes their ordering of the whole Church and highest power in al Church-causes they haue raised vp the tower of their Papacie with the spoiles of Christendom and haue deuoured men as breade and sold the poore for siluer that they might make themselues strong in power and rich in wealth The first and chiefest meanes whereby they finished this worke and hauing built the walles by climing vp aboue Bishops did lay the roofe of it by climing vp aboue Emperours was excommunication Which they not content to vse against their Souerains as a spirituall ceasure did racke it to a ciuill punishment remouing them not onelie from the communion of the faithfull but also from dominion and rule ouer their subiectes and putting them as from the Church so from the Empire too When Emperour Leo the third desirous to abolish the worship of Images which then was créeping in had caused them to be defaced and thereupon did punish some who withstood it Pope Gregorie the second did excommunicate him in that Papal sorte forbidding the Italians to pay him tribute or obey him Upon this sentence and inhibition of the Pope a great part of Italie rebelled against their Emperour resiant at Constantinople and laid violent handes vpon his Deputies Lieutenants of whom they slew two and put out the eyes of the third By reason of which vprore and tumults ensuing part of the countrie that rebelled was conquered by the king of Lombardie Rome and the dominion of the Roman Dukedome fell vnto the Pope So the Pope who till that time had béene a Bishop onely became a Prince by treason But the Emperour sent another Deputie into Italie to stay those attemptes Who entring into league with the king of Lombards they ioined hostes togither and besieged Rome The Pope perceiuing that the garrisons and munitions wherewith he had fensed and fortified the citie were not strong enough to make his partie good against them trusting on the king of Lombards deuotion he went out with a solemne procession vnto him and with many swéete wordes of Peter and Paul Princes of the Apostles who with their pretious bloud had consecrated the church of Rome and will the godly vertuous catholike king of Lombards hurt the citie of that church and draw on him the vengeance of Peter and Paul he did intreate the king to giue the siege ouer and make the Deputie and him friendes Afterwarde a Duke one of the kinges subiects entending to reuolt from him did ioine in league and fréendship with the Roman Prince Pope Gregory the third and on the affiance thereof he rebelled The king hauing recouered his Dukedom by armes pursued the Duke to Rome The Pope not willing to deliuer the rebell nor able to defend the citie against the king who thereupon besieged it dealt as his predecessour had doon by supplication But finding the matter to be past intreatie and hoping for no aide in Italie hee sent to Charles Martell the king of Frances hye steward desiring him to helpe the church against the Lombard Which Charles by an embassage did raised the siege Now when Charles dyed his sonne named Pipine sucâ—ceded him in office who because Chilperike that was king then did no part of the kingly duty but left the charge and burden thereof vnto him he tooke thereby occasion to make himselfe king Which to bring about with greater credit and autoritie the Popes aduise was asked Pope Zacharie made answere that he who did execute the dutie of the king ought to be king rather then he who did not execute it Whereupon the French men chose Pipine to be king the Pope released them of their oth to Chilperike About a two yeares after the king of Lombardy hauing woon Rauenna which citie was the seate of the Empire in Italy thought it méet that Rome and the Roman Dukedom
as Canus D. Stapleton shew but not in the conclusion that is the principal point which they entend to teach Rainoldes Now you may sée how vainely you stâ—iue for the Pope For this which is your last hold when all is doone I oueâ—threw at first by the example of Honorius The conclusion and principal point of whose decrees set forth to teach the Church was the Monothelites heresie Whereby he did not strengthen his brethren in the faith but confirmed their wicked errors against the faith as the Councel pronounced of him Hart. Why doo all the Fathers then apply this priuilege of not failing and of confirming other in faith to the Roman Church and Peters successors in the same Rainoldes They doo not But your Rhemists who report that of them do shamefully misreport them For Austin Chrysostom Prosper and Theophylact doo vnderstand by faith a liuely Christian faith and say that Christ prayed that Peter might continue therein vnto the end Which grace neither they nor any Father saith that all the Popes haue Nay your selfe your Doctors yea Rhemists do confesse the contrarie Hart. Yet the rocke no doubt whereon Christ did promise that he would build his Church and the gates of hell should not preuaile against it is applyed by the Fathers to Peters successors in the church of Rome S. Austin is a witnesse thereof against the Donatistes whom he biddeth number the Priestes that is the Popes euen from the seate of Peter and marke their succession affirming it to be the rocke against which the proude gates of hell preuaile not And S. Ierom writing to Damasus the Pope auoucheth as much I am ioyned saith he in communion to your holinesse that is to Peters chaire I know that the Church is builded vpon that rocke Rainoldes The poore shippe of Christ hath made almost shipwracke vpon this rocke of yours I haue alreadie proued that the word petra which you translate a rocke doth signifie in Christes spéech a stone not a rocke Howbeit rocke or stone it makâ—th no difference to the sayings of the Fathers which you alleage concerning it For whether they meant a stone as it is properly or a rocke as it may be they did at least S. Austin through doutfulnesse of the worde they meant not to build the Papacie therby Wherfore if you thinke that the name of stone either hath not so great aduantage for your purpose or doth not yéelde so fully the meaning of the Fathers I am content with out preiudice to that which I haue spokeÌ„ touching the right sense thereof in Christes spéech to vse your rocke in steede of it Hart. So you must doo if you will deale with my argument For the maiestie of the Church of Rome is much aduanced by the name of the rocke and in my iudgement the Fathers meant no lesse when they applyed the words of Christ to that Sée Rainoldes The Fathers vsed those wordes to aduance the maiestie of the Church of Rome but neither to aduance the church of Rome alone neither to import the Popes supremacie by that maiestie And this may be gathered plainely by S. Cyprian who although he giue a speciall tiâ—le of honour preeminence to the Church of Rome yet doth he apply that of the rock to the Church in general For he affirmeth that our Lord tooke order for the office of a Bishop and the state of his Church by saying vnto Peter Thou art Peter and on this rocke will I build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it and to thee will I giue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt binde on earth shall be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heauen Thence by course of times and successions there floweth the ordeining of Bishops and the state of the Church that vpon the Bishops the Church should be set and euery action of the Church should be gouerned and guided by the same rulers In the which wordes S. Cyprian you see accounteth all Bishops the rocke of the Church That as by the church built vpon the rocke the whole Church is meant and not the Church of Rome or of Carthage onely so neither the Bishop of Rome nor of Carthage may be represented alone by the rocke and yet as well the Bishop of Carthage as of Rome Hart. Howsoeuer it seemed in S. Cyprians iudgement to belong to all Bishops and so after a sort to the Bishop of Carthage as he applyeth it yet other of the Fathers apply it in speciall to the Bishop of Rome giue it particularly to that Church Sée Rainoldes They doo but in such sort that they might haue done it to any faithfull Church euen to the Church of Carthage as S. Cyprian did For that which is verified of a thing in generall is verified in the speciall As for example the Catholike Church in generall is named the house of God and the spouse of Christ. The Apostle applyeth those titles in special the one to the Hebrewes the other to the Corinthians if they continue faithfull And so what Christ hath said of his whole Church that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it that is true in euery part of his Church And if he named Peter a rocke in respect of the faith that hee professed on the which he said he would build his Church then al on whom professing the same faith of Christ his Church in part is builded may in a proportion be called rockes also Wherefore sith the Fathers did speake of the Church of Rome when it was holy and of the Roman Bishops when they professed the faith of Peter no maruaile if they said the Church was built on that rocke and the gates of hell did not preuaile against it Howbeit I deny not but that in their spéeches of the Church of Rome they giue more vnto it then they could haue giuen to euery faithfull Church For whereas of the sundry Churches of Christ some were planted by the Apostles them selues as Ierusalem Antioche Corinth Rome some receiued the faith from them which the Apostles planted they had the former sort in greater reputation and called them Apostolike Churches amongst which they counted the Church of Rome a chiefe one as planted by the chiefe Apostles Peter and Paule And because it was famous that Peter had preached the Gospel there whom as the first Apostle it séemeth that the Romans did more reioyce in then in Paule thence it commeth that in speaking of the Church of Rome they mention oftentimes the seat and chaire of Peter For they who did teach were wont to teach fitting as I shewed before by the example of Christ and his wordes of the Scribes and Pharises
Whereupon as the scripture speaketh of S. Paul that he sate at Corinth a yeare sixe monethes teaching the word of of God amongst them meaning that he continued there and preached to them in like sort the Fathers â—o signifie that Peter abode and taught in Rome are accustomed to say that he sate at Rome So doth Austin mention the succession of Bishops from the seat of Peter So doth Ierom honor the Bishop of that See with the nâ—me of Peters chaire But what is this to the supremacie For it is spoken by the Fathers also that Peter did sit and hâ—d hâ—s châ—ire at Antioche yea at Antioche as some say he had in deede a high chaire wherin he was exalted And of his chaire at Antioche you haue an olde holy day of his chaire at Rome a new one trimmed of late Wherefore if the high chaire of Peter at Antioche with an olde feaste could not make the Bishop of Antioche supreme head how can the Bishop of Rome be made supreme head by Peters chaire perhaps a lower chaire at Rome with a newe feast If the new feast be that which maketh vp the matter the Pope was no foole in making that feast He may doo well to make mâ—e Hart. You make your selfe sport with our feastes of S. Peters chaire as though I had said that because the Fathers doo name the Sée of Rome the seat and chaire of Peter therefore the Bishop of Rome must haue the supremacie Whereas I alleaged them to shew that the Bishops and the succession of Bishops in that See is the rocke on which S. Ièrom saith he knoweth the Church to be built against which S. Austin saith that the proud gates of hell preuaile not Rainoldes But you doo conclude the Popes supremacie hereof or els you stray from the question Hart. Why may I not conclude it Rainoldes If you list but the feast of S. Peters chaire would proue it more galantly For if the testimonies which you alleage of Ierom and Austin be examined they say nothing for it S. Ierom abiding in his young yeares among the Arian heretikes in the coastes of Syria was required by their Bishop to allow and approue a profession of faith touching the Trinitie wherein he suspected there lay some priuy poyson hidden Wherefore least he should yéelde thereunto rashly he sought to be directed by the aduise and counsell of Damasus Bishop of Rome as whom both hee acknowledged to bee his owne Biâ—hop and knew to be a Bishop that helde the catholike faith which praise by that title of the rocke he giueth him In Afrike they were troubled with other heretikes named Donatistes a sect which despised the communion of Saintes and rent them selues a sunder from the assemblies of Christians because there were some euil men amongst them as they said whose felowship defiled them S. Austin wrote a Psalme for the Catholiks against these wherein hauing proued first out of the scriptures that we must not leaue the communion of the Church for that there are some euill men in it sith Christ hath declared that there should be so as tares with corne in the field as chaffe with wheate in the floore as badde with good in the nett he confirmeth this doctrine by the consent iudgement of the Church of Rome whose Bishops euen from Peter had imbraced it still and constantly maintained it the gates of hel in vaine assaulting them So the wordes of Austin and Ierom doo import a sinceritie of faith in the Church of Rome the Roman Bishops against the Arians and Donatistes but neither of their wordes import the supremacie which is a soueraintie of power Hart. If they had not meant as well a soueraintie of power as sinceritie of faith why should they mention that Church and not others Were there no Bishops sincere through al the world but the Bishops of Rome onely Rainoldes Yes a great many and they mention them too For Ierom though he asketh the aduise of Damasus a young man of an old a Roman of the Bishop of Rome whose religion was sound whose authoritie was great and the greater with Ierom because he knew him well as hauing lerned him selfe the faith of Christ in Rome where he was baptized yet doth he name S. Ambrose the Bishop then of Milan as sound in faith also and the Bishops of Aegypt yea of the west in generall Now in the west saith he the sunne of righteousnes ariseth and the inheritance of the Fathers is kept vncorrupted amongst you alone In like sort doth Austin note against the Donatistes whose canker had fretted but a péece of Afrike that Bishops of the coastes and countries beyond sea and Churches through the whole world were pure from their heresie Howbeit as Ierom preferred the aduise of Damasus before others to confirme himselfe so did Austin choose the Church of Rome aboue the rest to confirme his brethren For he penned his Psalme wherin this is writen of purpose to the capacitie of the very meanest simplest of the people that they might vnderstaÌ„d and remember the state of the controuersie with the Donatistes Wherefore he commendeth the truth by the authoritie of the Church of Rome which of all the Churches that the Apostles planted was both néerest to them and best estéemed of amongst them But how farre S. Austin was from your fansie of the Popes supremacie when he alleaged the Church of Rome to this intent let that bee a token that writing for the learned who were of greater reach he alleageth the Churches of Ierusalem of Corinth of Antioche Ephesus Smyrna Pergamus of Asia Bithynia Galatia Cappadocia in a worde of all the rest as well as of Rome And this may be semblably noted in S. Ierom. Who when the Arians charged him with heresie did iustifie his faith by his communion with the Churches of the west and of Aegypt of Damasus Bishop of Rome and Peter Bishop of Alexandria According to the law of the Emperour Theodosius wherein it is decréed that all they should be named and esteemed Catholikes who beleeued of the Trinitie as Damasus and Peter did the rest to be accounted and punished as heretikes A great prayse I graunt of the faith of Damasus that so good an Emperour did set him for a sampler whom Christians should folow but a prayse common 〈◊〉 him with Peter Bishop of Alexandria and common to them both with sundrie Bishops of the East Nectarius Pelagius Diodorus Amphilochius Helladius Otreinâ—s Gregorie Nyâ—â—en and mo Of whom the same Emperour did 〈◊〉 make an other law that none should haue the châ—rge of â—ishoprickes committed to them but such as weâ—â— of their faith Whereby you may perceyue that the prayse giuen to Damasus by Ierom proueth a sound faith common to the Bishop of Rome with many other not a soueraine power peculiar to him alone aboue all Hart. Then
so then For though the Arian heresie did set vpon Liberius fiersly and ouerthrew him when he being weeried with the tediousnes of his banishment did subscribe to it yet sith he recouered himselfe from his fall and manfully withstood it afterwarde it cannot be saide to haue preuailed against him Whether it preuailed or no against Felix of whom some report that he was an Arian some that he communicated only with the Arians it is no matter to S. Austin who reckeneth him not amongst the Roman Bishops Wherein though your Genebrard doo dissent from him because Felix dyed a martyr as he saith citeth Sozomen to proue it but he belyeth Sozomen to infer on that lye that Peters chaire hath such a vertue that it could rather beare a martyr then an heretike or a Pope that fauoured heretikes yet others not séeing belike such a mystery in the death of Felix are of S. Austins minde euen your Onuphâ—ius also who neither doth acknowledge his Popedome nor his martyrdome Now the heresie of the Donatistes had lesse preuailed against them For as they had before withstood the Nouatians the coosin germans to the Donatists so did they withstand the Donatists them selues both by their communion with the Catholikes and by their doctrine And this is the point on the which S. Austin did cast his eye chiefly when he commended their succession As it appeereth farther by a reply that hee made to a Donatists epistle where hauing reckened vp all the Roman Bishops from Linus who succéeded Peter to Anastasius liuing then he concludeth with these wordes in the ranke of this succession there is not one Bishop found that was a Donatist Wherewithall ifwe consider how they maintained the truth against the heresies of Carpocrates Valentinus Marcion Sabellius Macedonius Photinus Apollinaris and the rest of those miscreants who vndermined the foundation of the Christian faith the doctrine of the blessed Trinitie the reason will be manifest why to moue the Donatists by the succession of the Bishops of Rome and their autoritie S. Austin gaue it this prayse that the gates of hell did not preuaile against it Hart. Well The succession then of the Roman Bishops is vsed by S. Austin for a certaine marke of the Catholike religion of the true Church and of the right faith Neither onely by S. Austin but by the rest of the Fathers too For Epiphanius alleageth it against the Carpocratians let no man maruaile saith he that we rehearse al thinges so exactly for that which is manifest in faith is thereby shewed And Tertullian hauing said of them selues in Afrike that they haue autority from the Church of Rome doth teach that the succession of that Church and See is to be set against all heretikes And Irenaeus reckening vp all the Roman Bishops in order from Peter to Eleutherius of his time doth adde that it is a most ample declaration of the Apostolike faith to be of his side against the Valentinians And Optatus reckneth farther from Peter to Siricius of his time against the Donatists As likewise S. Austin farther yet from Peter to Anastasius of his time that he saith much more surely and to the soules health in deed Wherefore the Church of Rome and we who are of that Church haue an assured warrant that the faith which we professe is the true faith For we haue the succession of the Roman Bishops from Peter to Gregory the thirtenth of our time which is an inuincible fort against all heretikes as the Fathers Epiphanius Tertullian Irenaeus Optatus and Austin testifie Rainoldes You will neuer leaue to daly with the Church of Rome as Tullie did with Maistresse Fabia The succession of the Roman Bishops is a proofe of the true faith for so it was in the time of Austin Epiphanius Optatus Tertullian Irenaeus twelue hundred yeares ago vpwarde Succession was a proofe of the true faith till Bishops who varied from the truth succéeded euen as sheepes clothing was a marke of true Prophets till false Prophets came in it But neither are true Prophets knowne now by shéepes clothing nor the true faith by succession The succession of Bishops was a proofe of true faith not in the Church of Rome alone but in all while they who succéeded the Apostles in place succéeded them in doctrine too kept that which Paule deliuered to Timothee Timothee to others But when rauening woolues were gotten into the roomes of pastours and that was fulfilled which Paul foretold the Bishops of Ephesus of your own selues there shall arise men speaking peruerse thinges to draw disciples after them then succession ceased to be a proofe of true faith for that it was no longer peculiar to the truth but common to it with errour and so a marke of neither because a marke of both This difference of succession betwene the later age and the former the primitiue churches time and ours is manifest by the Fathers them selues whom you alleage For Irenaeus to beginne with the most auncient of them saith that the succession of Bishops in all Churches through the whole world doth keepe and teach that doctrine which the Apostles deliuered Now it doth not so nor hath these many ages since Irenaeus died Hath it Hart. Not in all Churches But in the Church of Rome it doth and hath and shall for euer Rainoldes But if you would say as much for al Churches you might proue it as wisely out of Irenaens as you doo for the Church of Rome Hart. I deny that For he doth not fetch the succession of true doctrine but from the Church of Rome against the Valentinians Rainoldes D. Stapleton told you so and you beleeued it I know not whether I should more pitie your credulitie or detest his impudencie who hath abused you with such lewde vntruthes and that against his owne knowledge vnlesse he knew not what he had writen himselfe For him selfe had cited the wordes of Irenaeus which auouch the contrarie to wéete we can recken them who were ordeined Bishops by the Apostles in the Churches their successours vntill our time who taught not any such thing and so foorth But for as much as it would be verie long to recken the successions of all Churches we declare the faith of the greatest the most auncient and famous Church of Rome Which faith hath continued vntill our time by the successions of Bishops And againe the true knowledge is the doctrine of the Apostles and the auncient state of the Church in the whole world and the forme of Christes body according to the successions of Bishops vnto whom they did commit the Church which is in euery place which hath continued vntill our time being kept and so foorth By the which sentences it is plaine that Irenaeus although he recken not the successions of all Churches because it
would be tedious yet he fetcheth the succession of true doctrine from all Churches in euery place through the whole world Or if it bée not plaine enough by these sentences he maketh it more plaine in other both by generall spéeches of the Churche through alâ— the world which hee repeateth often and by the particular names of sundrie Churches the Churches of Smyrna of Ephesus of Asia the Churches in Germany in Spaine in France in the East countries in Aegypt in Libyâ— in the middle of the worlde Wherefore the successions of Bishops in all Churches were true and faithfull witnesses of the Apostolike doctrine in the time of Irenaeus As Eusebius also doth farther proue by Hegesippus who liued at the same time and trauailing to Rome ward did talke with very many Bishops of whom euen of them al he heard the same doctrin accordingly to that he wrote that in euery succession and in euery citie the doctrine is such as the Law and the Prophets and the Lord doth preach Hart. Yet Irenaeus reckneth chiefely the succession of the Church of Rome as of the greatest Church and the most auncient and knowne vnto all founded and established by two the most excellent Apostles Peter and Paule Rainoldes No maruaile For beside the credit that it had as being Apostolike ample famous auncient it was the néerest also in place amongst all the Apostolike Churches to Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in Fraunce and so both known better and the more dealt with In the which respect other of the Fathers did chiefely name it too As may appéere by Tertullian the next of them whom you alleage For he setting downe the same prescription against heretikes which Irenaeus had before him doth speake of it thus Runne ouer the Apostolike Churches at which the very chaires of the Apostles are sate on yet in their places at which their authenticall letters are recited sounding out the voyce and representing the face of euery one of them Is Achaia next vnto thee Thou hast Corinth If thou be not farre from Macedonia thou hast Philippi thou hast the Thessalonians If thou canst go into Asia thou hast Ephesus If thou lye neere to Italu thou hast Rome whence wee haue authoritie also Whence we haue authoritie saith Tertullian in Afrike for he was of the Church of Carthage So Optatus was Bishop of Mileuis in Afrike So Austin was Bishop of Hippon in Afrike Which if you consider you may sée somwhat in it why Optatus and Austin should recken the succesâ—iâ—on of the Roman Church rather then of others Specially sith Austin doth vrge against the Donatists not onely that but all Churches and with the chaire of the Church of Rome wherein Peter sate and Anastasius sitteth now he matcheth the chaire of the Church of Ierusalem wherein Iames sate and Iohn sitteth now As for Epiphanius whom of the East Church you ioyne to them of the West as prouing the soundnes of faith in like sort by the Roman succession you do him iniurie For neither doth he mention it but to note the time in which an heresie did budde and this is that manifest that is meant by him it is your Stapletons art to make it manifest in faith and what he saith thereof he boroweth it of Irenaeus and therefore reckneth fewe of the Bishops of Rome whereas he reckeneth all the Bishops of Ierusalem to like intent against the Manichees so that Ierusalem if we would toy as you doo passeth Rome with him But in a word to cut off your cauill of succession of Bishops in the Roman Church whereby you would proue your faith to be sound because the Fathers proued the faith in their time so the eldest of the Fathers whom you alleage proued it by the succession of all Churches the next by the succession of all Apostolike Churches the yongest by them all in effect by some namely Wherefore if the succession of the Church of Rome doo proue that the Romans haue hitherto continued in the true faith because by that succession the Fathers proued the true faith then also the succession of the East Churches of Ephesus Smyrna Corinth Philippi and Thessalonica doo proue that they haue hithertoo continued in the true faith because by their succession the Fathers proued the true faith But your selues do write that the Greekes of whom these East Churches are haue failed in the faith and yeelded vnto sundry heresies The spéeches therefore of the Fathers touching the succession of the Bishops of Rome proue not that the Romanes doo now professe the true faith Hart. The line of succession of the Roman Bishops hath bene still recorded in stories and continueth yet We can recken them from Peter the Apostle to Gregorie who sitteth now Not so the Gréeke Bishops the Churches of the East Nay the line of succession hath béene broken off in the chiefe of them as the Chronicles do witnesse euen in Alexandria Antioche and Ierusalem Rainoldes What is this to the purpose if some of their successions be not enrolled in stories some that are enrolled were broken off a while by calamities that fell vpon them For although Eusebius recorded the successions but of foure Churches in the mother-cities of the prouinces as he calleth them Rome Alexandria Antioche and Ierusalem and Nicephorus added Constantinople to them yet the Churches which I named had successions of Bishops too as I shewed out of the Fathers And in them in which you note that succession hath discontinued the faith had failed often while the succession lasted which is enough for my proofe But if you thinke your Church sure by this prerogatiue that the Roman Bishops succession lasteth still and you can recken them from Peter the Apostle to Gregorie who sitteth now what say you to the Church of Constantinople In it there haue succeeded Bishops to this day and they can recken them from Andrew the Apostle to Ieremie who sitteth now Yet to say nothing of the old heresies from which the successors are free though set abroch by their predecessors as by Macedonius Nestorius and Sergius the whole line of them many ages togither haue denied the Roman Bishops supreme-headship claimed it to them selues as Ieremie doth also now Whereby either your reason of succession is stricken dead or your supremacie of the Pope For if succession be a proofe of truth and soundnes in faith then your supremacie is condemned If your supremacie be lawfull then is not faith proued to bee sound by succession To which of these yéelde you To one you must of necessitie Hart. In déede the succession of Bishops in place is no good argument vnlesse it be ioyned with succession in doctrine For Irenaeus saith we must obey those priestes who with the succession of the Bishoply charge haue receiued the sure gift of the truth according to
the will of God Wherefore the succession of Constantinople though they fetch it from the Apostles yet proueth not the faith which they professe to be true because they haue departed from the Apostles doctrine in which they should succeede chiefely Rainoldes Now you say well In déede the succession in place is nothing woorth succession in doctrine is it which maketh all But what meane you then to send vs such bead-reales of your Bishops of Rome from Peter to Gregory as vndoubted arguments of the Catholike faith when we can send you as solemne a bead-roale of Constantinople from Andrew to Ieremie and proue nothing by it What trifling is this to say first that succession of Bishops in place proueth truth of doctrine and then to adde that it doth so if it haue succession in doctrine ioyned with it In effect as if you said that succession in place doth proue the doctrine to be true if the doctrine be true a couple of eares doo proue a creature to be a man if they be a mans eares The Fathers alleaged succession in place not with condition if it had but with a reason that it had succession in doctrine Proue me that you haue succession in doctrine and then alleage vnto me the Fathers for succession For if as S. Austin saide against the Donatists after he had reckened the Bishops of Rome from Peter to Anastasius In the ranke of this succession there is not one Bishop found that was a Donatist so you reckning them from Peter to Gregorie might say in like sort In the rancke of this succession there is not one Bishop found that hath vsurped then were your reason as fit against vs for the supremacy of the Pope as S. Austins was for the Church against the Donatists Hart. I may say so in like sort For S. Austin meant as well of this point as of all others when he said of the succession of the Bishops of Rome that the gates of hell preuailed not against it Rainoldes If this gate of hell preuailed not against them in S. Austins time yet many thinges may happen betweene the cuppe and the lippe as the prouerbe is much more betwéene his time and ouâ—s But S. Austin meant not to speake of vsurping in that against the Donatists and if he had he learned by experience afterwarde that they could vsurpe and would if they were not curbed For thrée of them euen Zosimus Boniface and Caelestin did vsurpe ouer the Churches of Afrike while Austin was aliue yet who with the whole Councell of abooue two hundred Bishops of that countrie withstood their attempt as much as lay in him and stayed their pride Hart. Their pride You slander those holy Bishops in saying so Rainoldes Which holy Bishops of Afrike Them selues in their epistles to the Bishops of Rome doo note it with the same worde and if they slandered them it was with a matter of truth But of this hereafter more conueniently For the point in hand it is sufficient that S. Austin applying that text to the Church of Rome that the gates of hell preuailed not against it spake of soundnes of doctrine which the Donatists did faute in not of soueraintie of power wherof there was no question with them Hart. Gregorie the great speaketh of soueraintie of power and proueth by that same text the Church of Rome to be the head of all Churches because Christ committed specially this Church to S. Peter saying to thee wil I giue my Church Rainoldes By that same How Christ saith not to Peter to thee will I giue my Church He saith vpon this rocke will I builde my Church And therein if Gregories iudgement may rule you the rocke is Christ him selfe which Peter had his name of and on which he saide he would build his Church the Church is the holie Church that is to say the companie of Gods elect and chosen which shall neuer fall away from the Catholike faith in this world and in the world to come shall continue stedfast for euer with God For the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it There was some affection that troubled Gregories minde when he did chaunge that text and as it were appropriate it to his Sée of Rome and Stapletons heart was taken with some affection also when he cited Gregorie to proue his purpose thence For nether doth the title of the head of all Churches proue the Roman Papacie neither doth Gregory although he geue that title to the Church of Rome yet proue it by that same text The thing which he proueth is that the Emperour who receyued money for ecclesiasticall liuinges and spoyled the Church with sâ—monie ought not so to doo chiefly in the Church of Rome For hauing touched his gréedinesse of this filthie gaine yea he hath saith Gregorie stretched out so farre the rashnesse of his furie that he chalengeth to him selfe the head of all Churches euen the Church of Rome and vsurpeth the right of earthly power ouer the ladie of nations Which he did altogether forbidde to be doon who specially committed this Church to S. Peter the Apostle saying To thee will I giue my Church Wherein that which Gregorie would say is plaine enough by the wordes that go before it The maner of his saying and prouing it is hard For he saith of the Roman Church that the Emperour vsurpeth the right of earthly power ouer it Whereby a man would thinke hee meant to denye the ciuill rule and gouernment of Rome to the Emperour as now the Popes doo Then which he meant nothing lesse for he acknowledged himselfe the Emperours subiect vsed him accordingly But he meant by the right of earthly power vsurped ouer the Church the right of dealing with Church-liuings after the maner of the world in setting them to sale as men doo farmes and leases which is prophane and detestable Now Gregorie being grieued that the Emperour asked money euen of the Bishop of Rome himselfe whose election he confirmed with his royall assent he thought good to amplifie the heinousnesse of the fact as most vnlawfull and wicked in the Church of Rome And thereupon he saith that Christ did forbid it who specially committed this Church to S. Peter saying To thee will I giue my Church In the gospell we reade of Peter that he knew not what he said when he saide to Christ whom he beheld in glory Maister it is good for vs to be here and let vs make three tabernacles Gregorie had a louing affection to Rome Will you giue me leaue to thinke of him as of Peter that he knew not what he said For the wordes which he alleageth are not the wordes of Christ as you must néedes graunt The thing he gathereth of them is against the words of Christ who generally committed all Churches to Peter for he was an Apostle and if any specially it was that of the
If any man preach vnto you more then you haue receyued but beside that you haue receyued For if he should say that he should be preiudiciall to him selfe who desired to come to the Thessalonians that he might supply that which was wanting to their faith Now he that supplyeth addeth that which was wanting taketh not away that which was and so forth Whereby S. Austin sheweth that we may preach more then the scripture hath but not beside it that is to say against it Rainoldes He sheweth nothing lesse as any man that readeth his discourse may see For that which he speaketh of more and of wanting is not meant of scripture that is the worde writen but of the worde preached deliuered by mouth Wherein he declareth that the Apostles maner of instructing men was to feede them first with milke not with strong meat So that which was wanting to the Thessalonians was stronger doctrine of the faith that which they had was easier Wherof though in the one he taught them more then in the other yet no more in either then the scripture hath And thus S. Austins more to be no more then scripture himselfe maketh manifest by the example also which he giueth of it For the doctrine of the manhead of Christ he calleth milke of the Godhead strong meat Now they who are taught to know him to be God learne more then they had learned when they receaued him as man But they learne no more then the scripture hath which teacheth him both God and man Wherefore that S. Austin condemning all who preach ought beside the scriptures of the law the gospell meant that more then scriptures may be preached but nought against them it is not S Austins glose but your Louanists and in truth repugnant to S. Austins text For in the same place S. Austin making mention how the Donatists hated him for preaching of the truth and confuting their heresie as though saith he we had commanded the Prophets and Apostles who were so long before vs that they in their bookes should set downe no testimonies whereby the Donatists might be proued to be the church of Christ. Which words doo shew plainly that as by the scriptures of the law the gospel he signified the bookes of the Prophetes Apostles so by condemning all that is beside the scriptures he meant not all that is against but all that is not in the scriptures And that this was his meaning he sheweth yet more plainely by willing them to proue their doctrine by the testament which your Louan Doctors the greater shame for them to wrest S. Austins wordes against his sense doo note also For as amongst men the testament doth open the will of the testaâ—or so did S. Austin thinke that the controuersie betwixt the Donatists and the Church should be decided by the Scriptures which Christ hath left to Christians as his will and testament For Christ hath dealt with vs as an earthly Father is wont with his children who fearing least they should fall out after his decease doth set downe his will in writing vnder witnesses if there arise debate amongst the brethren they go to the testament He whose word must end our controuersie is Christ. Let his wil be sought in his testament saith Optatus Which reason of Optatus S. Austin vrging against the Donatists as he doth other often we are brethreÌ„ saith he to them why doo we striue Our father died not vntestate he made a testament so died Men do striue about the goods of the dead till the testament be brought foorth when that is brought they yeeld to haue it opened read The iudge doth hearken the counsellours be silent the cryer biddeth peace all the people is attentiue that the wordes of the dead man may be read heard He lyeth voide of life feeling in his graue and his words preuaile Christ doth sit in heauen and is his testament gainesaied Open it let vs reade we are brethren why do we striue Let our mindes be pacified Our father hath not left vs without a testament He that made the testament is liuing for euer He doth heare our words he doth know his owne word Let vs reade why doo we striue Were not this a séely spéech of S. Austin if hee had meant as you say that all the Lords will is not declared in his testament that thinges beside his owne worde may be proued by mens words Let him be accursed who preacheth any point of faith or life beside the scriptures True beside the scriptures that is against the scriptures say your Louan Doctours Sée what skil can doo If they were Doctours of the Arches we should haue ioly law For a coosining marchant might claime a thousand pound of a dead mans goods who had bequeathed him a legacy of tweÌ„tie grotes they might adiudge it him with good consciences as not against the testament though beside the testament Nay they might do this with so much better reason then they doo the other by how much the testament of God is more perfit theÌ„ any mans can be and that which Christ bequeathed the Pope is farre lesse in comparison of the supremacie then twentie grotes of a thousand poundes Wherfore say the Doctors of Louan what they liâ—t perhaps they speake for their fée S. Austin meant plainely that sith the Donatists claimed the inheritaunce of Christ to them selues they must proue their title by his will and testament Which if they could not doo or rather séeing that they could not he pronounceth of them they had no right vnto it And thereupon he commeth to the generall sentence of the heauenly iudge denouncing them accursed who in any point either of faith or life doo preach beside that which is deliuered in the scriptures of the law and the gospel Wherein if beside do signifie against then all in this respect is against a testament which is beside a testament Hart. S. Austin and Optatus against the Donatists doo speake reason that vnlesse they can proue their right by Christes testament they may not shut the Catholikes out from his inheritance and claime his goods vnto them selues For it is meete that the will of the testator should be kept But a learned lawier one Francis Baldwin who hath set foorth Optatus and writen notes vpon him doth shew that a testament may be either nuncupatiuum as he calleth it or scriptum either set down in writing or vttered by word of mouth What say you to testamentum nuncupatiuum Rainoldes I graunt that a testament may be made without writing so that it be done before a solemne number of witnesses But the testament of Christ is writen I hope and so doo both Optatus and Austin speake of it Wherefore your learned Lawier may kéepe that law in stâ—re vntill his client néede it Hart. As who say the testament of Christ might not be writen in part though
not in whole Which is Baldwins meaning as it appéereth by the place not of Optatus but of Austin whereto he applieth it Rainoldes But if Baldwin meant so Baldwin should haue remembred that a testament so made is not testamentum nuncupatiuum for that is vnwriten as the very rudiments of the law might teach him but imperfectum rather though writen yet vnperfit And I trust you will not say that the testament of Christ is vnperfit Sure Optatus would not Hart. Nor I sir though you would faine imply as though I said so For if Christ would haue his will in part writen in part deliuered by word of mouth ioyne them both togither they make a perfit testament Rainoldes Then the writen testament of Christ is vnperfit It will be gay and perfit with your traditions patched to it But Optatus thought that his writen testament is perfit of it selfe Which shaketh all the frame of Popery in péeces And this is that Optatus of whom S. Austin speaketh as of a worthy Catholike Bishop equall to Ambrose and Cyprian of whom Fulgentius speaketh as of a holy faithfull interpretor of Paule like to Austin and Ambrose of whom your great Champion doth vaunt so gloriously that he nor he onely but the rest of the Fathers are of your religion as surely and fully as the Pope himselfe Pope Gregorie the thirteenth whereas in very truth not one of them is so For Gregorie the thirteenth is of your religioÌ„ in the Popes supremacie the chiefest point of Poperie as his rules of Chancery for reâ—eru ations and prouisions his accursing of all that appeale from Popes to Councels his bulles against decrees of Councels both prouinciall and generall doo shew From which abomination how farre the Fathers were it shall appéere when you alleage them But Optatus is so plaine against your religion in the point of scriptures and their sufficiencie to decide all controuersies that your chalenger if he read him and not beleeued common-place-bookes of Canisius and other broakers might haue blushed to boast of him For those things which he citeth out of Optatus do not as much as rase the skinne of our religion though they séeme to weake eye sightes But this of scriptures onely doth breake the necke of yours and it is so cléerely the iudgement of Optatus that your owne Baldwin in his Annotations is faine to say of him he vsed that comparison of a testament not so warily Hart. Not so warily as Austin doth For Austin vseth it when he will proue out of the scriptures that the Church is catholike which was one of the pointes of their controuersie with the Donatists Rainoldes But in handling that point he maketh it a generall rule that whether it be of Christ or of his church or of any thing else whatsoeuer pertaining to our faith and life nothing must be preached beside the scriptures that is the testament Hart. But in an other point of their controuersie touching baptisme S. Austin doth alleage not so much the scripture as the tradition of the Apostles Rainoldes Not so much the scripture He doth the scripture then though he alleageth also the custome of the Church deliuered by the Apostles But what is that against the testament Hart. Nay beside the testament which is the word writen he doth commend vnwriten traditions in other places Which proueth that he thought not the testament sufficient to decide all controuersies Rainoldes Now S. Austin findeth fauour at your hands who make him say and vnsay the same But where vnsaith hée that of the sufficiencie of scripture Hart. You may sée in the Augustinian confession of Torrensis in the chapter of Traditions Rainoldes But I would sée it in S. Austin Torrensis is a Iesuit whom we haue taken oft in lyes I cannot trust him Hart. Why He alleageth S. Austins owne wordes As in the first place which bringeth in S. Cyprian too Quod autem nos admonet Cyprianus vt ad fontem recâ—rramus id est Apostolicam traditionem inde canalem in nostra tempora dirigamus optimum est sine dubitatione faciendum That is to say whereas Cyprian warneth vs that we should go to the coondit head which is the tradition of the Apostles and thence direct the pipe to our owne times that is best and to be done out of all dout These are S. Austins owne wordes Rainoldes S. Austins owne wordes in déede But what doth folow in S. Austin Traditum est ergo nobis sicut ipse commemorat ab Apostolis quòd sit vnus deus Christus vnus vna spes fides vna vna ecclesia baptisma vnum That is to say It is deliuered therefore to vs by the Apostles as Cyprian himselfe rehearseth that there is one God and one Christ and one hope and one faith and one church and one baptisme These are S. Austins owne wordes and grounded on S. Cyprian too So that he and Cyprian meant by tradition that which is deliuered and that to be deliuered which is writen in the scriptures For this selfe same thing whereof they speake is writen in the epistle of Paule to the Ephesians Wherefore their traditioÌ„ is tradition writen that is to say scripture and not vnwriten stuffe as your Iesuit would haue it Yea Cyprian is so plaine for controuersies to be decided by this tradition onely that in the same epistle whence Austin citeth this to the words of Stephanus Traditum est it is deliuered vnde est ista traditio faith he whence is this tradition Doth it come from the authoritie of the Lord and the gospell or from the commaundements and epistles of the Apostles For that we must doo those things which are writen God doth witnesse saying to Ioshua Let not this booke of the law depart out of thy mouth but meditate in it day and night that thou maiest obserue to performe all thinges which are writen therein And likewise the Lorde sending his Apostles willed them that the nations should bee baptized and taught to obserue all things which he had commaunded Wherefore if this thing of the which Stephanus saith it is deliuered be commaunded in the gospell or contained in the epistles or actes of the Apostles let this diuine and holy tradition be obserued Sée you not how Cyprian thought that all which Christ commanded to be taught is writen How hee meant this writen doctrine by tradition How his words of this tradition are approued by Austin What conscience had your Iesuit to alleage that for traditions beside scriptures which they so plainely meant of the scriptures them selues Hart. I do not sée this neither in S. Austin nor in S. Cyprian Rainoldes I am the soryer that your sight serueth you no better For the thing is so cléere that your owne Pamelius declareth that Cyprian meant the holy scriptures there by tradition Hart. Yet Pamelius addeth that if
S. Cyprian had bene instructed better that the scriptures cited by him to proue his errour are not of force thereto S. Austin douteth not but he would haue allowed the contrary tradition Rainoldes That may well be For he should haue found it proued by the scriptures as S. Austin sheweth But in the meane season you may sée by Pamelius that Torrensis abused Cyprian and Austin in wresting that to his traditions Hart. Not so But his next place of Austin is more pregnant Let the rule of the Church and the holy tradition and iudgement of the Fathers continue sure and sound for euer Rainoldes As pregnant as the former For it foloweth straight Now the faith of our Fathers is this we beleeue in God the father almightie maker of all things visible and inuisible and so he goeth forward with the pointes of Christian faith Wherby it is apparant that he meant by the tradition of the Fathers their faith But their faith is writen the substance of it in the scriptures Therefore your Iesuit faileth in this tradition too Moreouer S. Austin if he wrote that sermon whereof your Louan censours dout but he who wrote that sermon entreateth of the Trinitie But touching the Trinitie nothing must be said beside the rule of faith which is set downe in scriptures as I haue shewed by S. Austin Wherefore if S. Austin had meant of vnwriten tradition in that point S. Austin would retract it But indeede the Iesuit hath ouerséene S. Austins workes very cunningly Who bearing men in hand that he hath gathered the summe of Austins doctrine out of all his workes yet concealeth that in the chapter of scriptures which Austin saith of their sufficiencie faceth that out in the chapter of traditions which should haue bene defaced by that which Austin saith of scriptures Howbeit were it true that the scriptures without traditions are vnperfit and vnsufficient to proue the will of God you are no néerer your purpose that the proofe of it by Fathers is sufficient For a testament that is made by worde of mouth without writing must be proued by solemne witnesses The solemne witnesses of Christes testament are the Prophets and Apostles So that vnlesse you proue by Prophets and Apostles that part of the testament of Christ is vnwriten that hée gaue the Pope supremacie in that part your proofe by the Fathers will neuer stand in law Notwithstanding though it bée against both law and reason that the Pope should take the whole inheritaunce of Christes Church and put all Bishops to their legacies vnlesse he proue his right by the testament of Christ yet if you can proue it as I said by the Fathers I am content to yéelde vnto it Hart. If I can proue it by the Fathers I will bring them to witnesse for it But when will you count it proued Perhaps when I haue proued it you will say I haue not Rainoldes And perhaps when you haue not you will say you haue Hart. Who shall be iudge then And how shall it bee tryed Rainoldes Optatus in the question of the Catholikes with the Donatists whether one should be twise baptized you saith he say it is lawfull we say it is not lawfull Betweene your it is lawfull our it is not lawfull the peoples souls do dout and wauer Let none beleeue you nor vs we are all contentious men Iudges must be sought for If Christians they can not be giuen of both sides for truth is hindred by affections A iudge without must be sought for If a Paynim he can not know the Christian mysteries If a Iewe he is an enimie of Christian baptisme No iudgement therefore of this matter can be found in earth a iudge from heauen must be sought for But why knocke we at heauen when here we haue the testament of Christ in the gospell So by the opinion and reason of Optatus you and we can haue no fit iudge in earth God must iudge vs by his word But if the Pope will be tryed by God the countrie let him appéere at the assise I will endite him of feâ—â—â—ie for robbing Christians of their goods and I will vse no witnesses to proue it but the Fathers Hart. Nay we may rather endite you for entring forcibly on his land I meane on the supremacie and wrongfully deteining it aboue these twentie yeares from him Though to say the truth you are past enditement you are condemned long ago Rainoldes By the Pope in his Consistorie An easie matter where himselfe is plaintife witnesse and iudge Hart. Him selfe is not alone iudge there for he doth all thinges by the common verdict Rainoldes Of an enquest of Cardinals with whom hee doth diuide his spoyles And shall they be iudges whether you doo proue the Popes supremacie or no Hart. They are worthie Prelates what count soeuer you make of them But who shall iudge if not they Rainoldes When an issue is ioyned to be tryed by the countrie the iury that shal try it ought to be of such as be next neighbors most sufficient and ieast suspicious This is the law of England How doo you like your countrie law hath it not reason Hart. It hath But this issue of ours must be tryed by the Church not by the countrie Rainoldes I graunt But the equitie of our countrie law doth hold in the Church too Hart. Wil you be tryed then by the Catholike Bishops that are the Popes neighbours of France Spaine and Italie such as were at the Councell of Trent Rainoldes Fye they are the most vnfit of all men to try any issue betwéene the Pope and vs. Hart. Why so Rainoldes For many causes They are not frée holders They are the Popes tenants his sworne vasals our sworne enimies bound by oth to maintaine the Papacy Are these most sufficient and least suspicious persons Hart. They are most sufficient But if your suspicions shall serue to chalenge them you may chalenge any Rainoldes If you deny the causes which I alleaged I proue them If I proue them all there is no bench of Iustices in England but will thinke my chalenge to be very lawfull Hart. Then name your selfe the men whom you will admit to be of the iury Rainoldes Nay I will name none But I am indifferent to all who are indifferent who haue skill to iudge of the euidence that is brought and conscience to giue verdict according to the truth Hart. According to the truth of the euidence you meane For so a iury ought And so let all indifferent men be of the iury For the wordes of the witnesses which I will bring shall be so full so plaine in sense so strong in proofe that they must néedes condemne you vnlesse they will giue verdict against the euidence and their consciences Rainoldes The crow doth thinke her own birdes fairest But I must desire the iury to consider that the witnesses whose wordes you will bring
which they did gather of those wordes then might we know the times whereof our Sauiour saith that it is not for man to knowe them And vpon this reason S. Austin doth reproue that fansie of sixe thousand yeares as rash and presumptuous Hart. So doo we also For Lindan and Prateolus doo note it in Luthers and Melanchthons Chronicles as a Iewish heresie Rainoldes Good reason when Luther and Melanchthon write it But when Irenaeus Hilarie Lactantius and other Fathers write it what doo they note it then Hart. Suppose it were an ouersight But what néedes all this As who say you douted that we would maintaine the Fathers in those things in which they are conuicted of error by the scriptures Rainoldes I haue cause to dout it For though there be no man lightly so profane as to professe that he will doo so yet such is the blindnes o◠mens deuotion to Saintes there haue béene heretofore who haue so done and are still There is a famous fable touching the assumption of the blessed virgin that when the time of her death approched the Apostles then dispersed throughout the world to preach the gospell were taken vp in cloudes and brought miraculously to Ierusalem to be present at her funerall This tale in olde time was writen in a booke which bare the name of Melito an auncient learned Bishop of Asia though he wrote it not be like But whosoeuer wrote it he wrote a lye saith Bede because his words gaine say the wordes of S. Luke in the actes of the Apostles Which Bede hauing shewed in sundrie pointes of his tale he saith that he reherseth these thinges because he knoweth that some beleeue that booke with vnaduised rashnesse against S. Lukes autoritie So you sée there haue béene who haue beléeued a Father yea perhaps a rascall not a Father against the scriptures And that there are such still I sée by our countrymen your diuines of Rhemes who vouch the same fable vpon greater credit of Fathers then the other but with no greater truth Hart. Doo you call the assumption of our Ladie a fable What impietie is this against the mother of our Lord that excellent vessell of grace whom all generations ought to call blessed But you can not abide her prayses and honours Nay you haue abolished not onely her greatest feast of her assumption but of her conception and natiuitie too So as it may bee thought the diuell beareth a special malice to this woman whose seede brake his head Rainoldes It may be thought that the diuell when he did striue with Michael about the bodie of Moses whom the Lord buried the Iewes knew not where did striue that his bodie might bee reuealed to the Iewes to the entent that they might worship it and commit idolatrie But it is out of doubt that when he moued the people of Lystra to sacrifice vnto Paul and Barnabas and to call them Gods he meant to deface the glory of God by the too much honouring and praysing of his Saintes We can abide the prayses of Barnabas and Paule but not to haue them called Gods We can abide their honours but not to sacrifice vnto them Wee know that the diuell doth beare a speciall malice both to the woman and to the womans seed But whether he doth wreake it more vpon the séede by your sacrificing of prayses and prayers to the woman or by our not sacrificing let them define who know his policies The Christians of old time were charged with impietie because they had no Gods but one This is our impietie For whatsoeuer honour and prayse may bee giuen to the Saintes of God as holy creatures but creatures we doo gladly giue it We thinke of them all and namely of the blessed virgin reuerently honourably We desire our selues and wish others to folow her godly faith and vertuous life We estéeme her as an excellent vessell of grace We call her as the scripture teacheth vs blessed yea the most blessed of all women But you would haue her to be named and thought not onely blessed her selfe but also a giuer of blessednesse to others not a vessell but a fountaine or as you entitle her a mother of grace and mercy And in your solemne prayers you doo her that honour which is onely due to our creator and redeemer For you call on her to defend you from the enimie and receiue you in the houre of death Thus although in semblance of wordes you deny it yet in déede you make her equall to Christ as him our Lord so her our Ladie as him our God so her our Goddesse as him our King so her our Queene as him our mediator so her our mediatresse as him in all thinges tempted like vs sinne excepted so her deuoide of all sinne as him the onely name whereby we must be saued so her our life our ioy our hope a very mother of orphans an aide to the oppressed a medicine to the diseased and to be short all to all Which impious worship of a Sainte because you haue aduanced by keping holy dayes vnto her the feastes of her conception natiuitie assumption therefore are they abolished by the reformed Churches iustly For the vse of holy dayes is not to worship Saintes but to worship God the sanctifier of Saintes As the Lorde ordeined them that men might meete together to serue him and heare his worde Hart. Why keepe you then still the feastes of the Apostles Euangelists other Saintes and not abolish them also As some of your reformed or rather your deformed Churches haue doon Rainoldes Our deformed Churches are glorious in his sight who requireth men to worship him in spirite truth though you besotted with the hoorish beauty of your synagogues doo scorne at their simplenesse as the proude spirite of Mical did at Dauid when he was vile before the Lord. The Churches of Scotland Flanders France and others allow not holy dayes of Saintes because no day may be kept holy but to the honour of God Of the same iudgement is the Church of England for the vse of holy dayes Wherefore although by kéeping the names of Saintes dayes we may séeme to kéepe them to the honour of Saintes yet in déede we kéepe them holy to God onely to prayse his name for those benefits which he hath bestowed on vs by the ministerie of his Saintes And so haue the Churches of Flanders and Fraunce expounded well our meaning in that they haue noted that some Churches submit them selues to their weakenesse with whome they are conuersant so farre foorth that they keepe the holy dayes of Saintes though in an other sorte nay in a cleane contrarie then the Papists doo Hart. But if you kéepe the feastes of other Saintes in that sorte why not
Sophronius Agatho Damascene Euthymius and others doo name him Dionysius Areopagita when they cite thinges that are in him Rainoldes Gregorie Nazianzen doth prayse a certain autour whom he nameth not It is but one mans ghesse that he meaneth Denys An other saith which is more likely that he meaneth Athanasius Origen is auncient if he had cited Denys Denys must be elder a hundred yeares or two then I doo iudge him by his countenance But that worke of Origen in which you finde him cited can not bee Origens For in it the Manichees are mentioned and Arians the names of which heretiks did rise a good while after Origen was dead So that when this Origen is brought to cléere that Denys a théefe is brought to cléere a théefe The rest whom you alleage Sophronius Agatho Damascene and Euthymius are of later yeares and such as might easily thinke him to be Denys who called him selfe so Many honest men did thinke Perkin Warbeck to be Richard Duke of Yorke King Edward the fourthes sonne as he professed him selfe to bee though in déed he was a counterfeite Hart If you may reiect an autour as counterfeit against so great consent of writers any ancient Father may be refused for a rascall Rainoldes If you may allow a counterfeit as lawfull because that many thinke well of him euerie Perkin Warbeck may be receyued for Duke of Yorke Hart. Nay there was sure proofe that he could not bee the Duke For the Duke was killed with the Prince his brother in the Tower ofLondon by Richard the vsurper ten yeares before men heard of Perkin Rainoldes There is surer proofe that he whose cause you pleade cannot be Dionysius Areopagita Hart. What Such as Erasmus and Valla bring that Ierom and others do not mention him Rainoldes That as light as you make it did moue Cardinall Caietan to dout of the man But the proofe that I meant is such as yours against Perkin to weete that Dionysius Areopagita was dead many yeares before the workes which beare his name could be writen For there is cited in them a saying of Ignatius out of an epistle which he wrote to the Romans as he was going to suffer martyrdome in the time of Traian the Emperour Now Dionysius died in the time of Domitian certaine yeares before And when Ignatius wrote it Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus who succéeded Timothee Your counterfeit alleageth it to Timothee Bishop of Ephesus either after his decease or before it was writen Moreouer the Christians in Dionysius time made their assemblies to praier both in such places and with such simplicitie as the Apostles did and times of persecution suffered But when your counterfeit wrote they had solemne temples like the temple of the Iewes the Chancell seuered with such sanctification from the rest of the Church that it was not lawfull for moonks to enter thereinto much lesse for other lay-men Againe the moonkes also were risen when he wrote and they of credit in the Churches and many ceremonies to hallow them Which in the time of the Apostles when Dionysius liued were not heard of yet for any thing that can be proued by monuments of antiquitie Hart. What not moonkes Why Philo maketh mention of them as Eusebius sheweth And Philo did florish vnder Caius the Emperour euen in the prime of the Apostles Rainoldes That which Philo writeth he writeth not of Christian moonkes but Iewish Essees as him selfe sheweth Eusebius was deceiued And if you thinke that you haue mee at an aduantage in that I do denie Eusebius I shal haue you at the same vnlesse you will deny him of whom you make greater account euen Thomas of Aquine For he saith of the same time of which Philo wrote that there was not then any certaine sort of religious men But to leaue the proofes which touch other matters or stand on mens coniectures or you may haue some colour of exception against I will proue him a counterfeit by the same point for which you alleaged him and that by demonstration out of the holy scriptures and that by the confession of your Rhemists themselues You alleaged him as a witnesse of the assumption of the blessed virgin Him selfe saith that Timothee came with him togither and many of their holy brethren to behold her body The scriptures shew that Paule was not conuerted to Christ till after Christes ascension When he was conuerted he staied three yeares in Damascus and Arabia before he came to Ierusalem Thence he went into the coastes of Syria and Cilicia and the countries there about And foureteene yeares after he came againe to Ierusalem with Barnabas to the Councell From the Councell he went to Derbe and Lystrae where he receiued Timothee And hauing trauailed through Phrygia Galatia Mysia Macedonia he came at last to Athens where he conuerted Denys the Areopagite So that it was seuenteene or eighteene yeares at least after Christs ascension before S. Denys knew Christ. New the blessed virgin died the fifteenth yeare after Christes ascension as your Rhemists put who yet take the largest time ofher life for other stories make it shorter S. Denys therefore could not be one of the brethren who came togither to be present at her death and funerall And all this is graunted and proued by your Rhemists though they thought not ofit For in their table of S. Paule they shew that it was the one and fiftieth yeare of Christ when he conuerted S. Denys the Areopagite and in their tale of the virgin they recken her to be assumpted the eight fourtieth yeare of Christ. Wherefore you do vs great iniurie to say that we deny S. Denys to haue writen those workes because he giueth testimonie for the Catholike faith in most things now cōtrouersed For that which we deny is in respect of the truth because indéede he wrote them not But in respect of his testimonie for the Catholike faith I wish that I might graunt with a safe conscience that hee wrote them He is so plaine against the most of your heresies chiefly the Popes supremacie Hart. Neither is that an heresie nor is he against it nay hée is plaine for it For he saith as your selfe rehearsed out of him that Peter is the chiefe and ancientst toppe of the Apostles Rainoldes But he saith farther that for as much as the scriptures say to Peter Whatsoeuer thou shalt bind on earth shall bee bound in heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heauen therefore he and accordingly to him euery Bishop doth admit the godly and disinherite the godlesse by declaring the sentence and administring the word of God And this doth plucke vp the Popes supremacie by the rootes For your maisters ground it on that charge of binding
the ecclesiasticall causes of clergie men that first they should be brought to the Bishop of the citie from the Bishop of the citie to the Metropolitan froÌ„ the Metropolitan to the Synode of the prouince froÌ„ the Synode of the prouince to the Patriarke of the diocese and a Patriarke is all one with an Archbishop in him Whereby you may perceiue both that an Archbishop had Metropolitans vnder him and that a diocese was more then a prouince In which respect I called it a Princely diocese to distinguish it from a Lordly that you might know I meant a diocese of a larger sise then as the word is taken for a Bishops circuite But that you may haue the cléerer light to sée the truth of mine answere and thereby to perceue how the Pope encroched on Bishops by degrées vntill of an equal he became a soueraine first ouer a few next ouer many at last ouer all I must fetch the matter of Bishops Metropolitans and Archbishops somewhat higher and shew how Christian cities prouinces and dioceses were allotted to them First therefore when Elders were ordeined by the Apostles in euery Church through euery citie to feede the flocke of Christ whereof the holy Ghost had made them ouerseers they to the intent they might the better doo it by common counsell and consent did vse to assemble themselues and méete togither In the which méetings for the more orderly handling and concluding of things pertaining to their charge they those one amongst them to be the President of their companie and moderatour of their actions As in the Church of Ephesus though it had sundry Elders and Pastours to guide it yet amongst those sundrie was there one chiefe whom our Sauiour calleth the Angel of the Church and writeth that to him which by him the rest should know And this is he whom afterward in the primitiue Church the Fathers called Bishop For as the name of Ministers common to all them who serue Christ in the stewardship of the mysteries of God that is in preaching of the gospell is now by the custome of our English spéech restrained to Elders who are vnder a Bishop so the name of Bishop common to all Elders and Pastours of the Church was then by the vsuall language of the Fathers appropriated to him who had the Presidentship ouer Elders Thus are certaine Elders reproued by Cyprian for receiuing to the communion them who had fallen in time of persecution before the Bishops had aduised of it with them and others And Cornelius writeth that the Catholike Church committed to his charge had sixe and fortie Elders and ought to haue but one Bishop And both of them being Bishops the one of Rome the other of Carthage doo witnesse of them selues that they dealt in matters of their Churches gouernment by the consent and counsell of the companie of Elders or the Eldership as they both after S. Paule doo call it Hart. Elders and Eldership you meane presbyteros and presbyterium that is to say Priestes and Priesthood But these new fangled names came in by your English translations of the new testament which as our translation doth iustly note them for it haue changed Priestes into Elders of falshood and corruption and that of farther purpose then the simple can sée Which is to take away the office of sacrificing and other functions of Priestes proper in the new testament to such as the Apostles often and the posteritie in maner altogither doo call Priestes presbyteros Which word doth so certainely imply the authoritie of sacrificing that it is by vse made also the onely English of sacerdos your selues as well as we so translating it in all the olde and new testament though you cannot be ignorant that Priest commeth of presbyter and not of sacerdos and that antiquitie for no other cause applied the signification of presbyter to sacerdos but to shew that presbyter is in the new law that which sacerdos was in the olde the Apostles abstaining from this and other like olde names at the first and rather vsing the wordes Bishops Pastours and Priestes because they might be distinguished from the gouernours and sacrificers of Aarons order who as yet in the Apostles time did their olde functions still in the temple And this to be true and that to be a Priest is to be a man appointed to sacrifice your selues calling sacerdos alwaies a Priest must néedes be driuen to confesse Albeit your folly is therein notorious to apply willingly the word Priest to sacerdos and to take it from presbyter whereof it is deriued properly not onely in English but in other languages both French and Italian which is to take away the name that the Apostles and Fathers gaue to the Priestes of the Church and to giue it wholy and onely to the order of Aaron Rainoldes Wholy and onely to the order of Aaron Nay then I can abide your Rhemists no longer if their mouthes do so runne ouer For we giue it also to the order of Melchisedec after the which our Sauiour is is a Priest for euer And they who charge vs with falshood and corruption in that we call the Ministers of the gospell Elders are guiltie themselues of heresie and blasphemie in that they call them Priestes For they doo not call them Priestes in respect of the spirituall sacrifices of prayers and good workes which Christians of al sortes are bound to offer vnto God and thence are called Priestes in scripture but they call them Priestes in respect of the carnall and external sacrifice of the cursed Masse wherein they pretend that they offer Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine to God his Father a sacrifice propiciatorie that is of force to pacifie God and reconcile him vnto men So whereas the scripture doth teach that one Priest by one sacrifice once offered that is our Sauiour Christ by giuing himself to death vpon the crosse hath reconciled God vnto vs and sanctified vs for euer the doctrine of Rhemes ordeineth many Priestes to offer vp often whether the same sacrifice that Christ or an other they speake staggeringly but to offer it often As though there were yet left an offering for sinne after the death of Christ or his pretious bloud were of no greater value then the blood of buls and goates which were offered often because they could not purge sinnes And this â—bomination they séeke to maintaine by the name of Priestes sith Priestes are men they say appointed to sacrifice and that name was giuen to them by the Apostles In saying whereof they doo play the Sophisters and that with greater art then the simple can sée Which is in that they vse our English word Priest after a dooble sort the one as it is deriued from presbyter the other as it signifieth the same that sacerdos For
Priest as it signifieth a man appointed to sacrifice is sacerdos and not presbyter The name which the Apostles giue a Minister of the gospell is presbyter and not sacerdos Which difference of wordes necessarie to be obserued for the distinction of thinges betwéene the Ministers of the old and the new testament as the Apostles kept it in the tongue in which the new testament is writen so they who translated the testament into English were to kéepe it also Wherefore it was not of falshood and corruption but of religious zeale of truth that they called presbyter an Elder not a Priest For sith the custome of our English spéech hath made the name of Priest proper to a man appointed to sacrifice such as were the Priests after the order of Aaron in the olde testament the Priest after the order of Melchisedec in the new the Ministers of the gospell ordeined not as Christ to sacrifice to God but to féede Gods people with his worde and sacraments must haue an other name according to the scripture and our English word expressing that in scripture is the name of Elders But you by confusion of these sundry names doo séeke confusion of the things and as théeues are wont to change the markes of thinges which they haue stollen so you to make the Priesthood of Christ séeme your owne doo change names as markes of thinges which they signifie For in stéede of that which we call an Elder you would haue a Priest that your Massing Priestes may be accounted Priestes after the order of Melchisedec as Christ is a Priest and so your sacrifice of the Masse be thought the soueraine sacrifice as your Maister calleth it wherein Christ is offered vnto God his father In the which conueiance if you painted it with nought but colours of your owne the matter were lesse For the abusing of one name applied vnto sundry thinges was a common shift of sophisters among the heathens And you are to be borne with if hauing no better cause then they had sometimes you aduenture on the shiftes that they did But to abuse the credit of the Apostles to this sophistrie and say that they gaue the name of Priestes to Pastours of the Church of Christ that is a faulte that cannot be excused For seeing our language doth meane by Priests sacrificers which in their language are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they neuer gaue the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Pastours of the Christian Church it foloweth that they gaue them not the name of Priests Or if you replie they gaue them that name because they called theÌ„ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence our English name of Priests is deriued yet you cannot say they called them Priestes as the name of Priest hath a relation to sacrifice and therfore that name is nothing to the Masse which you would proue by it For so the word Priest must yet haue two meaninges the one of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherof the one is giuen by the Apostles but doth not implie autoritie to sacrifice The other doth imply autoritie to sacrifice but is not giuen by the Apostles Hart. But sith the name of Priest is properly deriued from the word presbyter or as it is in Gréeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only in English but in other languages both French and Italian why did not your translatours kéepe this according to the Gréeke and deuise an other for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is sacerdos if they would néedes distinguish them by different names For it is as I said a notorious folly to apply willingly the word Priest to sacerdos and to take it from presbyter whereof it is deriued properly Rainoldes If our translatours had béene Lords of wordes and might haue forced men to take them in what sense they would then had you spoken reason For he whom others foloweâ— in our English translations did note that if Antichrist had not deceyued vs with vnknowne and straunge termes to bring vs into confusion superstitious blindenesse a Priest that is a sacrificer as Aaron was a Priest and sacrificed for the people should haue had some other name in English then Priest Which he spake in respect that the name of Priest as it came from presbyter betokening a Minister of the new testament should not haue beene giuen to the Ministers of the olde who differ as in function so in name by scripture But you in whose eyes our folly is notorious for that we giue the name of Priest to sacerdos and take it from presbyter whereof it is deriued properly what say you I pray for your owne translation in the fourth of the Actes where it is saide of Peter and Iohn the Apostles that they were men vnlettered and of the vulgar sort Hart. Why What faute finde you with our translation in that Rainoldes I finde not any faute but I would know of you why you call them men of the vulgar sort and not rather idiotes sith in the Gréeke text the worde is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Latin idiotae Hart. That were a profane terme for the Apostles who were indued with heauenly wisedome Rainoldes It were so in deede But if the deriuation of wordes must be folowed in translating autours that terme should haue béene giuen them For the name of idiot is properly deriued from the Gréeke or Latin not onely in English but in other languages both French and Italian and if that helpe the Spanish Dutch and Syriake too Yea it cometh neerer in euery one of these to the Latin worde of the olde translation which you pretend to folow then the name of Priest in any of them doth to presbyter Hart. But the worde in English hath not the same meaning that it hath in Latin and in translating thinges the sense must â—e kept Nor is it to bee marked so much whence a worde is properly deriued as what it doth signifie Now it doth signify that which vsually men vnderstand by it For the consent of men taking a worde for this or that doth make it to signify that for which they take it as Aristotle sheweth Who frameth thereupon a rule that we must call thinges by those names by which the common people calleth them Wherefore sith the name of idiot in English is taken for a foole or sot and the Latin idiota where it is vsed in scripture doth signify the vnlearned such as the vulgar sort of men we haue translated it the vulgar and not idiot according to the meaning not the deriuing of it Neither may you therefore charge vs with varying from the Latin text which as we pretend so we do folow faithfully For whereas S. Paul saith to the Corinthians If thou blesse in the spirit how shall he that supplyeth the place of the vulgar say Amen vpon thy blessing in
Latin for the vulgar it is idiotae Which word if we should haue translated the idiot we should haue doon iniury to the common sort of rude vnlearned men whom it doth betoken as you must néedes acknowledge who translate it the vnlearned as wee doo the vulgar Rainoldes True But you may sée then how wise your Rhemists are who charge vs with notorious folly becauâ—e we giue the name of Priest to sacerdos and not to presbyter For as the name of idiot doth come from idiota but is taken for a foole so the name of Priest is deriued from presbyter but signifieth a sacrificer by custome of our English speech Wherefore if your reason doo proue that all Pastors of the Christian Church must be called Priestes and haue autoritie to sacrifice because they are presbyterâ— it will proue as well that all vnlearned Christians must be called idiotes and may be begged for fooles because they are idiotae Which if you dare not say of vnlearned Christians though in very truth you deale with them as idiotes when you make such reasons to approue your Masse Massing Priestes vnto them learne by discharging your selues in the one to cléere vs of notorious folly in the other For sith in translating thinges as you confesse the sense must bee kept and the sense of wordes is that which vsually men vnderstand by them and by the worde Priest men vnderstand sacerdos that is to say a man appointed to sacrifice it foloweth thereof that our translatours did their dutie in giuing the name of Priests to them onely to whom the Priestly function in scripture doth appropriate it As for your Rhemists who still doo translate sacerdos a Priest as graunting that we haue no other English woâ—d for it and yet translate presbyter by the same worde too they do ioyne together that which God hath seuered and the wordes which the holy Gost hath distinguished they wittingly confound Wherein they doo lewdly abuse the simple Christians who are vnskilful in the tongues to make them in loue with the whorish sacrifice of the idolatrous Masse and alienate their mindes from the true religion professed in the Church of England For the name of Priest as it hath relation to sacrifice is sacerdos which worde your Trent-fathers doo therefore vse in handling the sacrifice of the Masse Now because the name of sacerdos is not giuen to the Ministers of the gospell in the new testament your Rhemists make the name that is giuen them the same in English with sacerdos To the intent that the simple not seeing the sleight may conceiue thereby that ministers of the gospell are Priestes ordeined to sacrifice and so may loth our Ministers who neither doo sacrifice nor list to be called Priestes and may embrace your Priestes who professe them selues to be Priestes yea Masse priestes and are sent to sacrifice as it is shewed in your Apologie of the English Seminaries Hart. That learned Apology which D. Allen wrote in the defense of our Seminaries doth iustly blame your new pulpits the very chaires of the scorneful for calling vs by that terme merily or mockingly For the Church of God knoweth no other Priests neither hath Christ instituted any other order of Priests but of these whom contemptuously you doo call Masse-priests Rainoldes So D. Allen saith But he proueth neither Priestes nor Masse by scripture vnlesse the Masse be the chaire and the Priestes be the scornefull Hart. Though he alleage not the scripture there to proue them yet hath he done it other where as in his Latin treatise of the sacrifice of the Masse and in our Annotations on the testament in English wherein his hand was chiefest For Esay doth specially prophecy of the Priestes of the new testament as S. Ierom declareth vpon the same place in these words You shall be called the Priestes of God the Ministers of our God shall it be saide vnto you And as here the Ministers of God are called Priestes in that very terme which your selfe confesse hath a relation to sacrifice so that they did sacrifice you may perceiue too by the Actes of the Apostles where it is writen of Prophets and Doctors in the Church at Antioche that they were ministring to our Lord. For the Gréeke signifieth that they were sacrificing and so Erasmus translated Whereby it is meant that they did say Masse and the Gréeke Fathers hereof had their name Liturgie which Eraâ—mus translateth Masse saying Missa Chrysostomi Howbeit we translate it ministring and not sacrificing or saying Masse though wee might if we would as you doo boldly turne what text we list and flée from one language to another for the aduantage of our cause But we kéepe our text as the translatours of the scriptures should doo most religiously Rainoldes Your text then doth say that the Prophets Doctors at Antioche were ministring but you to proue the Masse doo reproue your text For if the Gréeke signifie that they were sacrificing and your text translated the Gréeke into Latin how did your text kéepe his text when he translated it not sacrificing but ministring Will you say that the autour of your old translation which onely is approued by your men as authenticall did not performe that dutie which the translators of the scriptures ought most religiously You doo so for aduantage But in this point you doo him iniurie For though the worde may by consequent import to sacrifice when sacrifice is a seruice pertaining vnto them whose ministerie it betokeneth as where it is spoken of Leuites and Priestes yet doth it properly signifie to minister either in publike function after the originall thereof or in any as magistrates are called the ministers of God and Angels are saide to be ministring spirits and the Gentiles are willed to minister vnto the Iewes in relieuing of their necessitie In so much that the learnedst of your owne translators Isidorus Clarius and Arias Montanus who both haue turned the new testament out of Gréeke into Latin the one approued by the Deputies of the Trent-councel the other by the Doctors of Louan doo both of them translate it in this very place of the Actes of the Apostles not sacrificing but ministring which their affection to the Masse would haue béene loth to doo vnlesse the truth had forced them to it How much the more shamefull is the demeanour of your Rhemists who where they carp vs as leauing the Greeke for the aduantage of our cause them selues for the aduantage of their owne cause doo clip the meaning of the Gréeke against I say not the iudgement of Grammarians euen such as seeke to helpe them most but against the common vse of it in scripture against their olde text against their new translations yea against their owne conscience as that which you alleaged out of the Prophet Esay where they haue Englished it
to him in euery place For the former of them that spirituall sacrifices of prayers and workes are common to the Iewes with vs deceiueth with a fallacie because ouâ— spirituall are spirituall méerely whereas they had carnall sacrifices with their spirituall The later doth discouer this fraude of the former but with an other fraude For in that it saith that praying fasting and the workes of charity were ioyned to their sacrifices it sheweth that their worship though in part spiritual was not spiritual méerely But in that it gathereth thereof that these things cannot succeede their sacrifices there is an other fallacie because although the worship of God were still spirituall as hée is still a spirit and so no worship may succéede for how can a thing succéede it selfe yet the same in substance came foorth in sundry maners and so one maner of it might succéede an other As the word of God touching the saluation of men by faith in Christ was alwayes the same but vttered in sundry maners by the Prophets and by Christ. In which sort the worship of God was ordered also by the Prophets couertly vnder the vailes of ceremonies by Christ plainly and simply Wherefore as the doctrine of Christ did succéede the doctrine of the Prophets both the same doctrine but taught by Christ more cléerely more darkely by the Prophets so the spirituall worship of God in the Gospell succéeded his spirituall worship in the law both the same worship but laden with ceremonies shadows in the law disburdned of them in the Gospell Hart. I can not sée those fallacies which you charge D. Allen with For if the Iewes did offer prayers to God and other such spirituall sacrifices as they did then is it true as he saith that spirituall sacrifices are common vnto them with vs. And if they be common vnto them with vs it foloweth in my iudgement that ours succeede not theirs sith to succeede is to come after and how may that come after which did go before Rainoldes I haue shewed how And if you sée it not the vaile may be the cause which is very likely to be laide on your heart in reading of the new testament as it was on the heart of others in reading of the olde For the thing is plaine of it selfe and euident that the spirituall sacrifices which the Iewes offered as namely their prayers did not discharge their duetie but they must offer carnall also and that not euery where but in the place that God had chosen In so much that albeit they might pray in all places lawfully as wée may yet must they come thither to worship God at certaine times and Daniel though hée could not because of their captiuitie yet had his windowes open toward Ierusalem when hee praied and the faithfull wept by the riuers of Babylon how should we sing the lords song in a strange lande and the princely Prophet lamented that his banishment did keepe him from appeering there and longed to behold the power and glory of God as he beheld it in the sanctuary and being sicke as it were with the loue of his tabernacles yea fainting with desire of coming to his courts and altars he pronounced them blessed who dwell in that house yea who may come vnto it yea though they trauaile hardly thereto through drye places to present themselues before God in Sion Whereas Christians of the other side neither haue those altars or offerings made theron to ioyne with their spirituall sacrifice of prayse and they may sing the songs of the Lord in al places No land is strange no ground vnholy Euery coast is Iewry and euery towne Ierusalem and euery house Sion and euery faithfull company yea euery faithfull body a temple to serue God in The Christian worship then doth differ euen in prayers from that of the Iewes both in respect of the temple which they had a regard to and of the ceremonies of the law which they were bound therwith to keepe Wherfore as the ministery of the new testament that is of them who taught the gospell came after the ministerie of Priestes in the old and yet both old and new are the Lords testament so might and did the worship of God amongst Christians in spirit and truth come after the worship of God amongst the Iewes though yet they both did worship God spiritually For the Iewes before did worship in the temple with the ceremonies of the law as when the Priest was burning incense at the altar in the inner part therof the multitude of the people were praying in the outter And the Christians after did pray without incense in any place the people and Pastour all together as the Aposâ—les with the disciples and according to their instruction the primitiue Churches practise shew But these points of difference betweene vs and them be perhaps the harder for you to vnderstand because your Popish worship is so lyke the Iewish both for the temple and the ceremonies that you may iustly thinke their worship was in spirit and truth as much as yours For as the Priest with them was seuered from the people by the diuision of the sanctuarie and court of the temple so with you by the chancell and body of the church As with them he burned incense at the altar so with you he doth As with them he was clad in an Ephod a miter a broydered coate a girdle a brestplate and a robe and they who serued him were in their linen coates too so with you he must haue an amice an albe a girdle a fanel a chisible and a stole and they who are about him haue surplesses yea copes also Their Priestes had a lauer whereat they must wash before they sacrificed so haue yours Your vaile betweene the quire and the altar in lent resembleth theirs that seuered the holy place from the most holy Your pyx with the sacrament and their arke with the mercy seate your phylacterie with Saintes relikes and their pot with Manna your monstrancie with the host and their table with the shew-bread your holy oyle of balme and theirs of myrrhe with spices their purifying water made of the ashes of an heifer and yours of other ashes with water wine and salt their fyer sent from heauen and yours fetcht thence by art their rod of Aaron and your crosse of Christ finally your candles or tapers or torches and their candlesticke with lamps do match one an other in proportion of rites nay you surpasse them in your candles For theirs were lighted in the night yours in the day too Theirs in the temple onely yours abroad also Theirs before the Lord yours before images Theirs in one maner yours with great
varietie Theirs in small number yours at times and places as many as the sand of the sea And what should I speake of the rest of the things in which you do not onely folow their ceremonies but also go beyond them Your consecrating of Bishops of churches of altars of patens of chalices and other instruments of your Priesthood by anointing them according to the order of Aaron and the tabernacle Your shauing as of Leuites your imagery as from Salomon your halowing of men belles ashes boughes bread the paschal Lambe the paschal taper agnus-deis and what not with exorcized water wherwith almost all thinges are purged by your law as by theirs with blood Your purifying as they called it or as you terme it reconciling of a churchyard or other sacred place if it be polluted In conclusion to passe ouer your festiual daies exceeding theirs in shadowes your mysticall deuises in sacraments to their paterne your pontificall robes in figures incomparable in number double vnto theirs and infinite solemnities of your hiest Priest who entreth once a yeare into the place most holy as did the hye Priest of the Iewes your dayly sacrifice of the Masse though inferiour to theirs in that it is no burnt offering wherein yet I maruaile you came no néerer them for as they kept fyer on the altar alwaies so doo you require it and what should you haue fyer vpon your altar as they had vnlesse you burne as they did but your dayly sacrifice of the Masse is celebrated in such Leuitical sort as if you contended to set forth a Iewish worship more liuely then the Leuiticall Priests could In attire like them in mysteries aboue them in orders more exquisite in cauteles more diligent in furniture aboundantly in lifting vp the whole host and not as they a part of it in ringing of the sacring bell to counteruaile their trumpets in washing often in blessing and crossing in censing often in soft spéech and whispering in kissing of the amice kissing of the fanel kissing of the stole kissing of the altar kissing of the booke kissing of the Priests hand and kissing of the pax in smiting and knocking in gesturing by rule and measure in bowing and ducking in spacing forward backward and turning round about and trauersing of the ground beside the swéete musicke of organs and so forth where it may be had as in the temple it might I dout not M. Hart but you are perswaded that this kind of seruice in your Church is Christian and such that if our selues were present at the doing the solemne doing of it specially atChristmas Easter and such other more festiual times the most of our stonie hartes would melt for ioy as your Bristow writeth But in verie truth it is more then Iewish and his conceit thereof is childish and carnal For although it might be delitefull to the flesh the eies with galant sightes the eares with pleasant soundes the nose with fragrant sauours the minde with shew of godlines to him that doth not vnderstand yet a spiritual man would be grieued at it as Paule was in Athenes and lament that the people should doâ—te vpon that by which they are not edified and wéepe ouer them as Christ ouer Ierusalem O if thou hadst knowne at least in this thy day those things which belong vnto thy peace but now are they hidden from thine eyes The Lord take away this vaile from your heart if it be his good pleasure that you may see at length what it is to worship him in spirit and truth and when you sée it doo it Hart. There is a vaile rather of presumption ouer your heart who coÌ„demne the Catholike ceremonies as Iewish then of ignorance ouer ours who embrace them as Christian. For the Councell of Trent which was gathered togither and guided by the holy Ghost hath accursed them who say that the receiued and approued rites of the Catholike Church vsed in the solemne ministring of sacraments may be despised And those of the blessed sacrifice of the Masse whereat your spite is greatest the holy Fathers of that Councell haue shewed to be grounded on the tradition of the Apostles not on the law of Moses For as much say they as the nature of men is such that it cannot be lifted vp easily to the meditation of diuine things without outward helpes therefore our holy mother the Church hath ordeined certaine rites to weete that some things should be pronounced in the Masse with a soft voice and some things with a lowder Moreouer she hath vsed ceremonies too as namely mystical blessings lightes incense vestiments and many other such things by the discipline and tradition of the Apostles to the ende that both the maiestie of so great a sacrifice might be set forth and the minds of the faithful might be raised vp by these visible signes of religion and godlines to the contemplation of most high things which doo lye hidden in this sacrifice These are the Councels words Whereby you may perceiue that the rites and ceremonies vsed at the Masse are not Iewish but Apostolike as if neede were it might be shewed in particulars of incense by S. Denys of lightes by S. Austin of the rest by other Fathers Rainoldes What of the vestiments too fanel amice albe stole and such trinkets Hart. I euen of them too as basely and scornfully as you speake of them Nor yet are these of ours like in all respectes to those which the Priestes did weare amongst the Iewes From whome in other pointes our ceremonies differ also As for example their incense was a perfume most pretious ours is simple frankincense Their lightes must be of pure oyle ours are of waxe and may bee of other stuffe indifferently Which sith it is likewise apparant in the rest as you must néedes confesse at least for sundrie of them you are to blame greatly to reproch the ceremonies of the Church as Iewish Rainoldes Nay you did mistake me if you thought I meant that they are all Iewish or Iewish absolutely For I must néedes confesse that some of them are Heathnish rather then Iewish As namely the shauing of your Priests crownes after the maner of Priestes of Isis in Egipt Your lighting of candels on Candlemas-day which came from the Februall ceremonies of the Romans Your painting or grauing of the images of men a thing that Christians tooke by custome of the Heathens Your censing of images and setting tapers before them as the Romans also did when they were Heathens To be short the whole substance of your image-worship your kyssing kneeling creeping to the image of the crosse like Sicilians to Hercules your images borne in procession like to the
Grecians idols your pilgrimage to Saintes images where they are most famous as our Ladie of Lauretto like Diana of Ephesus with infinit such other fansies doo resemble liuely the Heathnish rites of Paganisme and grew by likelyhood from the Heathens But I because the temple of Salomon had images although not of men the Leuites had shauing although not of crownes the tabernacle had lightes although not in the day time much lesse at the beginning of Februarie more then other times did speake of your Popish rites herein as Iewish to make the best of them And for all the difference that you find betwixt them of waxe in yours and oyle in theirs and their perfume and your frankincense though frankincense was mingled with their perfume also and made an incense too without it but granting this difference betwixt them to the vttermost yet are yours Iewish in the kinde thereof because they are shadowes such as were the Iewish And it is likely that they who deuised them did fetch them out of Moses as they who defend them doo ground them vpon Moses For the fairest colour that eyther Bishop Durand or others set vpon them is that God ordeined them in Moses law As Pope Innocentius saith that the Catholike Church doth holde that Bishops ought to be anointed because the Lord commanded Moses to anoint Aaron and his sonnes and againe that temples and altars and chalices ought to be anointed because the Lord commanded Moses to anoint the tabernacle and arke and table with the vessels Hart. But Pope Innocentius addeth that the sacrament of vnction or anointing doth figure and worke an other thing in the new testament then it did in the old And thereof he concludeth that they lye who charge the Church with Iudaizing that is with doing as the Iewes did in that it celebrateth the sacrament of vnction Rainoldes Yet Pope Innocentius doth not bring that difference betwene the Iewes and you that your holy vnction is made of oyle and balme where theirs was made of oyle myrrhe with other spices He knew that the difference of this or that ingredient in the stuffe of it would not cléere your Church from Iudaizing in the kinde of the purgation that is the rite whereby you sanctifie Priests and altars No more then if you should sacrifice a dogge and say that you doo not therein as the Iewes did because they did sacrifice not dogges but shéepe oxen As for the difference by which the Pope seuereth your vnctiō from theirs that yours doth worke and figure an other thing then theirs did first it wrought as much in their altars as in yours for any thing that I know Secondly it figured in their Priests the giftes of the holy ghost which he saith it doth in yours Thirdly were it so that it had an other either worke or meaning with you then with them as after a sort it hath both in respect of him who ordered theirs and the cause why yet might the ceremonie be Iewish notwithstanding For I trust you will not maintaine but it were Iudaisme for your Church to sacrifice a lambe in burnt offering though you did it to signifie not Christ that was to come as the Iewes did but that Christ is come and hath by his passion both entred in himselfe and brought in others to his glorie At the least S. Peter did constraine the Gentiles to Iudaize as you terme it when they were induced by his example and autoritie to allow the Iewish rite in choise of meates Yet neither he nor they allowed it in that meaning which it was giuen to the Iewes in For it was giuen them to betoken that holines and traine them vp vnto it which Christ by his grace should bring to the faithfull And Peter knew that Christ had doon this in truth and taken away that figure yea the whole yoke of the law of Moses which point he taught the Gentiles also Wherefore although your Church doo kéepe the Iewish rites with an other meaning then God ordeined them for the Iewes as Pope Innocentius saith to salue that blister yet this of Peter sheweth that the thing is Iewish and you doo Iudaize who kéepe them Hart. S. Peter did not erre in faith but in behauiour when he withdrew him selfe from eating with the Gentiles For that was a defaute in conuersation not in doctrine as Tertullian saith Neither doth S. Austin thinke otherwise of it Rainoldes I graunt For he offended not in the truth of the gospel but in walking according to it that hauing liued before not as the Iewes but Gentile-like yet then hee left the Gentiles for feare of the Iewes and dissembled his iudgement touching that point of Christian doctrine But this doth so much more conuince both your Church of Iudaizing in her ceremonies and your doctrine of corrupting the gospell with that leauen For if S. Peter was to be condemned as causing them to Iudaize whom through infirmitie he drew by example to play the Iewes in one rite what may your Church be thought of which of setled iudgement doth moue and force Christians to play the Iewes in so many And he did acknowledge the truth of the doctrine by silence and submission when S. Paul reproued him But Pope Innocentius saith that they lye who touch your Church for it Wherefore the Pope or rather the Popes and Papists all who maintaine the doctrine of the Trent-Councell approuing both the rest of your Iewish rites and namely that of vnction confirmed out of Moses by Pope Innocentius they doo not offend as the true Apostle of Christ S. Peter did but as the false Apostles who troubled the Galatians and peruerted the gospell by mingling of the law with it Hart. Your wordes should haue some coolour of truth against the Church if we taught that men ought to be circumcised as did the false Apostles Rainoldes Why Shall no heretikes be counted false teachers in the Church of Christ vnlesse they teach in al point◠as did the false Prophets Hart. But as I haue shewed out of the Councell of Trent the ceremonies which we vse in the sacrifice of the Masse as namely mysticall blessinges lightes incense vestiments and many other such thinges came all not from the false but from the true Apostles And if there be any which they ordeined not that might be ordeined by our holy mother the Church As it was that some thinges should be pronounced in the Masse with a soft voice some thinges with a lowder For such is the nature of men that it can not bee lifted vp easily to the meditation of diuine thinges without outward helpes Which reason added by the Councel doth warrant all our rites both of the Churches ordinance and the Apostolike tradition against your cauils and surmises
Rainoldes Alas And sée you not how giddily the Councell doth bring in that reason that because our nature doth neede outward helpes therefore some things should be pronounced softly some aloude For the very chiefest of the outwarde helpes which God hath ordeined to raise our mindes from earth to heauen is the hearing of his word His word is rehersed in the Epistle the Gospell the Canon and other partes of the Masse The Masse you forbid to be saide in the vulgar or mother tongue of the people so that if all were cryed as loude as Baals seruice the people could not vnderstand it Yet not content with that you will a part of it to bee saide with a soft voice that the poore soules may not as much as heare it Wherefore the reason which your Councell maketh for that Massing-rite is this in effect that because the blindenesse and coldnesse of men doth neede to be lightened and warmed by Gods worde which is rehearsed in the Masse therefore a part of it must be pronounced with a soft voyce that they may not heare it part with a lowder but in a strange toong that although they heare it they may not vnderstand it And was there not a mightie spirit of giddines in the Princes of Trent that made them write so droonkenly Yea with a curse to seale it too Hart. They curse him who saith that the rite of the Roman Church whereby part of the Canon and the words of consecration are vttered with a soft voice is to be condemned or that the Masse ought to be celebrated onely in the vulgar toung And great reason why Rainoldes No dout For as the Iewes when they could not iustifie their wilful withstanding of the Sonne of God agréeed that if any man confessed him to be Christ he should be excommunicated so by like reason your Iudaizers of Rome doo banne and curse vs when they cannot iustifie their impudent customes and corruptions against vs. Hart. The customes are Catholike and religious rites which they do establish with the seueritie of the curse Rainoldes Catholike and religious to kéepe the Saintes of God from hearing of Gods word Catholike and religious to haue the Church-seruice in a tongue which the Church the faithfull people vnderstand not Hart. Yea Catholike and religious if you marke the reasons which they giue thereof For of the one they shew that the Church hath ordeined it of the other that the Fathers thought it not expedient it should be had in the vulgar toung Rainoldes Not the ancient Fathers Why they are cleere for it and yonger Fathers too Yea Fathers both and children I meane the whole Churches of al nations in the old time of many euen till this day as namely of the Syrians Armenians Slauonians Moscouites and Ethiopians Hart. What so euer Churches or Fathers doo or haue doon it seemed not expedient to the Fathers assembled in the Councell of Trent And they being Bishops and Pastours of the Church might take order for rites and ceremonies of the Church by your owne confessions Rainoldes They might But our confessions withall should haue taught them that as they may prouide for things to be doon with comelines and in order so their rites and ceremonies must be all to edifie Which the Trent-fathers obserued not in this rite of hauing the seruice in a straunge tongue as themselues acknowlege For they write expressely that although the Masse containe great instruction of the faithful people yet the Fathers haue not thought it expedient that it should be soong or said euerie where in the vulgar tongue Whereof this is the meaning to open it in plainer words that the corrupt custome of the Church of Rome praying and reading the scriptures in a straunge tongue in deede doth not edifie yet must stand for policie to keepe their Churches credit For if they should yéeld that they haue erred in one thing men would dout perhaps that they might erre in more And this doo they farther bewray by the other point of vttering the words of consecration secretly that the faithfull may not heare them For in saying that the Church hath ordeined that rite they doo closely graunt that Christ ordeined it not Nay their owne men teach that the example of Christ and the order of his Apostles with the Fathers too is manifest against it Beside that in calling it a rite of the Church of Rome they signifie that other Churches do not vse it no not the Greeke Church And yet against the practise of Churches of Fathers of Apostles and of Christ they say that a dumbe shew which crept in by custome was ordeined by our holy mother the Church and as men resolued to wallow in their owne vomit they curse him whosoeuer he be that shall condemne it Hart. Although Christ we grant did vtter the words of consecration openly and the Apostles and Fathers and other Churches also haue kept the same rite yet the Church of Rome is not to be condemned for taking order to the contrarie For rites may be changed as it shall séeme best to them who gouerne the Church and there was great reason why they should change this to weete least those words so holy and sacred should grow into contempt whiles all in a maner knowing them through common vse would sing them in the streetes and other places not conuenient In the which respect perhaps they thought good also that the Masse and Mattins and all the Church-seruice should rather be in Latin then in the vulgar tongue For of familiar vse there groweth contempt and men are wont to wonder at things which they know not thing◠common are despised Rainoldes A great ouersight of our Sauiour Christ who willed his Apostles to speake that in the light which he had told them in darknes and what they heard in the eare that to preach on the howses For men would despise his gospel if they knew it as they doo meate who haue it And what meant S. Paule to disclose the words of consecration to the Corinthians Yea in their vulgar tongue too And that with instruction to shew foorth th◠Lords death vntill he came as oft as they receiued the sacrament Did he go about to bring the words of consecration and death of Christ into contempt Or was not Innocentius the Pope borne yet of whom he might haue learned that they must be vttered not onely in a strange tongue but also closely and in silence least men if they heare them do know them through vse and sing them in the streetes But wil you sée Your Fathers of the Trent-councel were ouershot a litle when they ordeined that Pastours and all who haue cure of soules should often times expound by them selues or by others somewhat of those things which are read in the Masse
mention blessing twise and that out of S. Paul Whereby the first point which the Councell of Trent nameth is approued to wéete of mysticall blessinges Rainoldes True if the Councell had meant by that worde as the scripture doth either the giuing of thankes vnto God or the sanctifying of creatures vnto holy vses or praying for the people that the Lord will blesse them But if they meant the making of the signe of the crosse as it is plaine they did both by the matter which that chapter handleth touching visible signes and by their intent to confirme the ceremonies which Protestants condemne and by the Canon of the Masse which is as ful of crosses as a coniurers circle and the worde he blessed is taken so there with a crosse in the middest of it then your mysticall blessinges of the Trent-fathers were neither meant by S. Paul nor mentioned by S. Austin Hart. Yes S. Austin séemeth to meanâ— there by blessing â—he 〈◊〉 of the signe of the crosse on the sacrament For in a â—â—rmon of his touching the same matter he saith that the body of Christ is consecrated with the signe of the crosse Rainoldes In what sermon is that Hart. Amongst his sermons de tempore the hundred eightieth and one Rainoldes That is amongst his sermons but none of his sermons For it vseth the wordes of Gregorie a Bishop of Rome who liued long after and mo thinges it hath by which it is certaine as your Diuines of Louan note that it is not S. Austins Howbeit neither he that did compile that sermon whosoeuer it were saith that the ceremonie of the crosse in consecrating was of S. Paules ordinance or a tradition of the Apostles which is the point that you had to proue by S. Austin and if you proue it not you doo not cléere the Trent-councell For I graunt that in S. Austins time yea before it the Christians as they vsed to signe their forhead with the crosse in token that they were not ashamed of Christ crucified whom the Iewes and Gentiles reproched for the death which he suffered on the crosse so they brought the rite thereof into the sacraments and vsed both the figure of the crossâ— and crossing in other thinges of God also But it doth not folow because the Christians did it therefore the Apostles ordeined it to be doon Hart. But it is likely that they did And certainely Tertullian a very ancient writer doth expresly say that Christians had it by tradition Rainoldes To signe their forhead with a crosse but not to signe the sacraments Tertullian was so ancient that he wrote it séemeth before that custom grew Besides you mistake him if you thinke he meant by the name of tradition a tradition of the Apostles For what soeuer custome not writen in the scripture was kept by the faithfull that because it was deliuered by some body from whom the vse thereof was taken hee saith it came in by tradition In so much that he affirmeth it both of Iewish customes before the Apostles as that their women couered their faces with vailes and of Christian after which yet are not Apostolike as the dipping thriâ—e of them who are baptized and feeding them with milke and hony And which plainely sheweth hee meant not the Apostles in it euery faithfull man may by his iudgement deuise such rites vpon reason neither must we respect the autours but the autoritie regard the thing deliuered whosoeuer did deliuer it Wherefore the tradition that Tertullian speaketh of is against the doctrine of your Trent-councell For neither doth he mention the signe of the crosse to haue béene vsed in consecration which he would of likelyhood if then it had béene vsed nor saith he that it came by tradition froÌ„ the Apostles in that sort as it was vsed but he knoweth not from whom Hart. Though none of thâ— Fathers perhaps beare witnesse of it yet if the Councell meant it by mysticall blessinges they knew that the Church had it from the Apostles For els they would not vouch it Rainoldes Then you were best to say that they learned it from heauen by reuelation as the Anabaptists are wont to doo their mysteries For els they could not know it Hart. You confesse your selfe that S. Austin and others of the auncient Fathers did vse it in celebrating of the holy sacraments I maruaile why you like it not in our Masse sith wee doo therein but as the Fathers did Rainoldes Nay I coÌ„fesse not that For your Massing-priest doth tricke iâ— as a sorcerer all in mathematicall or rather magicall numbers by crossing thrise the bread and wine both together and thrise againe both then once each in seueral and once againe each and againe thriâ—e once and againe once and thrise with a crosse on him selfe betwixt hetherto with his hand after with the host he crosseth thrise the chalice and twise to make vp fiue betwene his brest and the chalice next with the paâ—en he â—â—osseth once himself and the chalice thriâ—e witha péece of the host and once himselfe againe with the host ouer the paten and lastly once him selfe againe with the chalice all these in the Canon and Communion of the Masse besidâ— a number mo before he cometh to the Canon But the auncient Fathers and namely S. Austin were farre from such mysticall toyiâ—ges with the sacrament Pope Hildebrandes magiâ—e that so many crosâ—es though yet not so many as you are growne to now but the tradition of Pope Hildebrand that crossinges must come in by one or three or fiue still in an odde number after the rule of old sorcerers was a profounder rite of mystical blessinges then either S. Austin or other ancient Fathers vsed Hart. Pope Gregorie the seuenth named Hildebrand before his Popedome kept not those odde numbers for any magicall fansie though Benno charge him falsly with that diuelish art but to note a mysterie For he said that one or three or fiue crosses must therefore still be made because by one and three we signifie one God in trinitie by fiue the fiue partes of the passion of Christ Rainoldes As who say magicians had not the like mysteries in their odde numbers too And if Pope Hildebrand would haue had a circle made about the Priest to keepe the deuill from him while he is saying Masse there were a mysterie for that also to weete that it signifieth God who nether hath beginning nor ende Hart. Nay the circle is a ceremonie proper to coniurers and he would neuer haue admitted it But in that he kept an odde number alwaies in making of crosses vpon the oblation he did as he had learned in Rome where he was brought vp vnder ten of his predecessours And that which he lerned there was the tradition of the Apostles Rainoldes So his scholer
saith and he saith truly for sundry pointes of that he learned as namely that the people did and must receiue the sacrament with the Priest and that vnder both kindes Which sheweth by the way that your priuate Masse and Communion vnder one kinde was against the tradition and order of the Apostles by the iudgement of the Church of Rome and Popes them selues aboue a thousand yeares after Christ. But the making of crosses on the sacrament still in an odde number was so farre from being a thing deliuered by the Apostles that the Church of Rome had then begoon it lately if yet the Church began it and not Pope Hildebrand were rather the father first inuentour of that mysterie For Bishop Amalarius who liued two hundred yeares or thereabout before Hildebrand and did both know and reuerence the order of the Church of Rome hauing said that it sufficeth to make a crosse once vpon the bread and wine because Christ was once crucified addeth that it is not amisse to make it twise because he was crucified for two kindes of people that is the Iewes and the Gentiles Whereto he noteth farther that the Priest made two crosses with the host neere vnto the chalice to signifie that Christ was taken down from the crosse being crucified for two peoples And this which he reporteth of two was the order of the Church of Rome before Hildebrand came who controlled it as appéereth by his scholer vpon this reason that Christ had no wound in his side but one and therefore but one crosse must be made beside the chalice Which reason is so good that it may séeme straunge why the reformers of your Masse-booke haue kept the former order against the rule of Pope Hildebrand vnlesse perhaps they thought that Hildebrand misliked it not so much for that reason as for the number of two which number the sooth-sayers and sorcerers holâ— to be naught But hereby them selues haue opened their iudgement that not all which Hildebrand is said to haue learned vnder ten of his predecessours was the tradition of the Apostles And it is worth the noting how these mysticall blessings which at Trent were fathered on the Apostolike tradition haue lately got that parentage by the helpe of such as was Hildebrands scholer wheÌ„ before they séeme not to haue béene accounted so For Amalarius whom I named a man that was likely for zeale to speake the best for skill to know the most that might be said of the seruice and ceremonies of the Church he had read so much and trauailed so farre euen to Rome and that in embassage from the Emperour to conferre with the Pope about them yet this Amalarius speaking of the signe of the crosse which they vsed to make in consecratioÌ„ leaueth it in dout whether Christ made any when he did blesse the bread or rather thinketh he made none because the crosse at that time was not yet set vp but now saith he wee know that it must be made for S. Austin saith so Where it is not probable that he would haue grounded it on mans autoritie if he could haue said that either Christ had vsed it or though Christ vsed it not yet the Apostles had ordeined it No more then that after the testimonie of S. Austin he would haue iudged it sufficient to crosse the bread and wine once if he had thought that so many crosses as you make were to be required by S. Austins iudgement Hart. Thus you reproue vs as varying from S. Austin because we make so many What may we say of you who make none at all Who nether vse it in consecration of the holy sacraments nor signe your forheads with it nor set it in your Churches nor allow it in the sanctifying of meates and other creatures Though all these things were doon by the ancient Fathers in remembrance of him who dyed for vs on the crosse yea though Christ himselfe haue commended to vs the signe thereof by miracles as the storie of Constantine the Emperour doth witnesse who saw it in the element with these wordes writen by it In this signe ouercome and was charged in a dream to make the forme and likenes of that which he had séene and vse it as a defense against his enimies assaultes which he did accordingly and mightily subdued them by it But nether the vision of Christ vnto Constantine nor that and other miracles which haue béene wrought by it nor the practise of the primitiue Church and ancient Fathers can preuaile with your men but that they must séeke to raze out from among Christians so worthy and notable a monument of Christes passion And yet you will beare the simple people in hand that you are of the same religion that they were when you plucke down that which they did set vp and do cleane contrarie vnto them Rainoldes The signe that appeered to Constantine in the element was a signe of the name of Christ not of his crosse howsoeuer the coiners and crosse-maintainers of your Church do falsly paint it out For as Eusebius writeth vnto whom Constantine did report the thing and shewed him that ensigne which he had caused to be made in the likenesse thereof it was the forme of a speare standing straight vpright with a crowne at the toppe of it as it were a horne which did crosse the middest of the speare a slope So that it represented two of the Greeke letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which being the first letters of the name of Christ the name of Christ was signified by that signe to Constantine Thus he describeth it who saw it Hart. But out of dout he calleth it the signe or the monument of the crosse q also Rainoldes But him selfe sheweth that he called it so because it resembled some what the signe of a crosse For nether was it like the crosse of Christ fully which had an other figure and where he describeth it he saith in plaine termes that it was a signe of the name of Christ. Nether were those words that you rehearsed writen by it In this signe ouercome as your Doctor saith belike because he read it coyned in the cruseado so or in the porâ—igue but By this ouercome as if God shewing him the name of Christ should haue said vnto him that there is giuen no other name vnder heauen wherby he must be saued In the which meaning it seemeth that Constantine did vnderstand it also because he vsed afterward to cary in his helmet not the signe of the crosse but those two letters by which the name of Christ was represented to him Howbeit if it were so that not the name onely of Christ but his crosse too were meant by that signe as the Bishops tooke it who therupon taught Constantine the mysterie of Christ crucified yet nether that vision nor
that the Apostles did ordeine them Rainoldes That rule of S. Austin is probable not necessarie For though it be likely that there was no custome obserued by the Church through the whole world which it had not from the Apostles chiefly seeing Christians did vary then so much in rites of all sortes yet they might either haue taken vp or kept of that they had before some thing which the Apostles deliuered not vnto them But admit his rule as an vndouted principle to your most aduantage and yet are you no neerer the proofe of those ceremonies For how can you proue that incense lightes vestiments and the rest of your baggage were vsed at that time through the whole world Hart. Incense to haue béene vsed I haue proued by S. Denys Areopagita lightes by S. Austin Rainoldes But you haue not proued that they were vsed through the whole world either by S. Austin or by S. Denys Nay that Denys who so euer he were doth proue the contrarie For in his description of the Masse as you call it there are neither lightes nor vestiments nor crossinges nor all the other ceremonies whereby it is manifest that they were not vsed through the whole world when that Denys wrote As for incense howsoeuer it crept into that Church in the which he liued it appeereth by the writinges of Tertullian and Arnobius that the Church vsed it not in their dayes Neither is the censing which Denys speaketh of liker to yours then I shewed your blessinges are like to S. Austins For he hath it onely once aboute the Church But in your solemne Masse it is vsed often and to sundrie thinges to the crosse to relikes to images to candlestickes to the altar the lower part of it and the higher to the Priestes to the booke to the bread and wine thrise aboue the chalice and the host and thrise about them to the altar and the Priest againe and againe to the quire to the deacon to the subdeacon to the people and in Masses for the dead to the sacrament also at the time of the eleuation So that if the wordes of the Trent-councell be weighed with your practise you will léese the countenance of that which Denys sheweth to For with him it is incense in the singular number Your Masses and the Councell hauâ— incenses in the plurall By the which word if the Councell meant to note all the censinges that are vsed in Massing as they did of likelyhood then neither Denys maketh for your Massing-incense Though whatsoeuer he make he maketh nought for your reason because he proueth not that it was vsed through the whole world Now the lights which your Iesuite hath founde in S. Austin make lesse a greate deale for it For S. Austin calleth the lights which they vsed 1 lightes of the night because they did vse them in the night time when they met at prayers as Christians were wont But your Massing-lights are vsed in the day time when the sunne shineth a thing perhaps obserued through the whole world but of idolatrous Heathens not of the Church of Christ. Hart. Yes that Christian Churches had also lightes burning in the bright sunne-shine while the gospel was reading S. Ierom is a witnesse and before S. Ierom his Maister Nazianzen maketh mention of it and Athanasius before them both Wherefore out of dout it is an ancient custome and that very generall Rainoldes As you say if it be witnessed by these thrée Doctors S. Ierom of Europe Nazianzen of Asia Athanasius of Afrike But he who saith they witnesse it hath not read them I thinke Hart. But I thinke he hath or rather I am sure of it For D. Stapleton saith it in his comparison of the Catholike and Roman Churches Masse with the Lordes supper of the Protestants Wherin as he allegeth these Doctors for this point so he proueth all things which your Supper wanteth and our Masse hath to be Apostolike Rainoldes He proueth Nay he promiseth to proue them Apostolike For in verie truth he proueth not one not one of all those things wherein your Masse differeth from our Lords supper No more then he proueth this of lightes burning in the bright sunne-shine in the which he notably abuseth their names whom he doth cite to proue it For in Athanasius the tapers of the Church are mentioned onely but that they were lighted in the day-time while the gospell was reading there is no such word Nazianzene speaketh of lightes that were burning vpon Easter-euen but to lighten the night he saith not the day Hart. But speaketh he there of those night-lightes alone and of no other light Rainoldes He speaketh of an other light but spirituall For he saith that the most bright shining light foloweth the candle that did go before it Hart. Why that is it that sheweth the ceremonie which wée talke off For they were wont to carry candles before the gospell when they did reade it Rainoldes They were wont afterward But we speake of Nazianzene And he meant nothing lesse For by the light he signified Christ the light of the world and by the candle Iohn Baptist who went before Christ to prepare his wayes The light saith he shining most excellently bright foloweth the candle that did go before it and the word the voice and the bridegrome the bride man or frend who bringeth the bride to him Is this D. Stapletons proofe out of Nazianzene for burning tapers in the day time Hart. Of Nazianzene I know not But certainely S. Ierom is a witnesse of it against Vigilantiâ—s Rainoldes Yet these are S. Ieroms owne words in that treatise We doo light tapers not in the brightâ—day-time as thou doost vainely sclaunder vs but by this comfort to ease the darknes of the night Hart. But he addeth that Churches of the east had lightes burning in the day-time while the gospell was reading therby to shew their ioy Rainoldes But nether this vsage of the easterne Churches was the same that yours is For they did kéepe lightes while the gospel was reading and put them out after which rite you had also and some where haue perhaps yet But the generall rite which you haue gotten now of burning tapers still before the gospell and after that in S. Ieroms time not onely was vnborne in the weâ—â— but in the â—ast too Though if the east had vsed it yet nether were it proued so by your reason that the Apostles did ordeine it because it was not vsed in the westerne Churches therfore not through the whole world Howbeit I deny not but there is good reason why your Church should vse it For Tertullian saith let them light candels dayly who haue no light the testimonies of darkenes doo well beseeme them Hart. You may bring Tertullians werdes when you haue proued that we haue
no light which you shall neuer doo Rainoldes Not while you are able to say with the Pharises Are we blinde also But sith there were so ancient Churches which lighted candels in the bright sunne-shine that may be some colour for your Massing-lights For your Massing-vestiments not so much can be found Yet they are also fathered on the tradition of the Apostles Hart. And D. Stapleton saith that if we list to runne through euery one of them we shall finde that the primitiue Church did vse them all Rainoldes Belike you will neuer list then For sure you will neuer finde that Hart. No Why say you so When himselfe hath found it and proueth it particularly For hitherto belongeth the plate or Bishoply miter Rainoldes The miter That is none of your Massing-vestiments Hart. Though it be none of them which simple Priestes weare yet it is a vestiment that Bishops weare at Masse Rainoldes O that Bishops weare Then I perceiue your Doctor meaneth to proue not onely the sixe vestiments common to all Priests in token that they are perfit because the sixth day the Lord did perfit heauen and earth but also the nine which Bishops haue beyond them in token that they are spirituall like the nine orders of Angels as Pope Innocentius and Bishop Durand open Hart. If he proue them both your shame is the greater who nether vse the Priestly vestiments nor the Bishoply Rainoldes But they both togither do make fifteene vestiments which Bishops must put on when they say Masse to signifie the fifteene degrees of vertues according to the fifteene psalmes of degrees wherewith they must be clad And I may tell you it will be as hard to proue that any Bishop did weare those fifteene vestiments in the primitiue Church as that euery Bishop who weareth them in yours hath the the fifteene degrees of vertues which they signifie Hart. Well if you will hearken vnto D. Stapleton hehath proued more then may be with your liking For hitherto belongeth the plate or Bishoply miter which Iohn the Euangelist did weare as Polycrates the Bishop of Ephesus saith in the storie of Eusebius Hitherto the Priestly attire of the head mentioned by Tertullian Hitherto the stole mentioned by S. Ambrose and by the Councels of Braga and Toledo Hitherto the copes which Epiphanius calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hitherto the Deacons albe as it is named in the Councell of Carthage Chrysostome nameth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hitherto the robes or hangings with the which the altar is beautified in the storie of Theodoret. Hitherto the linen clothes and the couerings wherewith as Optatus doth expressely mention altars in olde time were couered as they are now Hitherto the holy robe that reached downe to the feete in Eusebius To conclude hitherto belongeth the amice the girdle the chisible the fanel and the corporace which the Gréeke Fathers Chrysostome and Basil note also by their names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which all to haue béene holy and consecrated to this function the same Fathers testifie There is in Theodoret a notable example of an enterlude-plaier who wearing on a stage a holy garment that he had bought fell sodenly downe and dyed Of the like vengeance of God there are examples in Victor and Bede And Optatus also more auncient then they both doth sharply touch the Donaâ—ists for spoiling and profaning the oâ—naments of the Church Rainoldes Here is a faire tale for them whose eyes are dim and cannot iudge of colours But they who can discerne betwéene wordes and proofes doo sée that neuer lesse was saide with greater shew For the pointe whereof proofe should bee made is that the vestiments which are worne of Bishops and Priests saying Masse were vsed all of them by the primitiue Church The wordes which D. Stapleton speaketh of this point are so farre from prouing it that the most of them doo not as much as touch it For the copes which Epiphanius hee saith calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the garments which the Scribes Pharises did weare with phylacteries and friâ—ges And the Scribes and Pharises I trow said not Masse The robes or hangings of the altar in Theodoret are couerings The couerings and linen clothes in Optatus are ornaments of the Communion table such as we also vse Is our communion Masse too Hart. â—ay he calleth it an altar Rainoldes By a figure as I haue shewed For by the name of altar he meaneth a table as these his wordes declare who of the faithfull knoweth not that the boordes them selues are couered with a linen cloth in celebrating of the sacrament Of this kinde is also the cloth called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which worde importeth not so much as your corporace but though it did of this kinde it is in the counterfeit Chrysostome and Basil. As for the examples of the vengeance of God on them who profanely did abuse garments appointed vnto holy vses the first in Theodoret is not of a Massing but a baptizing garment a peculiar solemnitie more then your selues vse to omit that the matter of the enterlude-player was deuised to spite a Bishop whose harme was sought as hauing solde it The second in Uâ—â—â—or is of the linen clothes and couerings of the altar such as I spake of in Optatus The third in Bede is added to make vp the tale for there is no such sâ—orie Finally the Church-ornamentes which Optatus sheweth that coâ—etous men would haue spoyled were of gold and siluer vessels belike plate wherewith S. Ierom noteth that many though he reproue it as Iewish and superstitious did decke vp Christistian Churches after the example of the temple in Iury. But whether they were vessels as dishes and cuppes for bread and wine at the CommunioÌ„ or whatsoeuer other instruments or iewels Optatus neither saith nor séemeth to say that they were Massing-vestiments There remaineth the miter the stole the albe the amice the girdle the chisible the fanel Which first are farre beneth the number of fifteene and so they reach not to all your Massing-vestiments Then for sundrie of them it appéereth not that they were such as yours or rather it is plaine that they were not such Lastly if they were such yet how doth it folow that they came from the Apostles Which is the point that Stapleton would and ought to proue or els farewell the Trent-councell Hart. Came not the Bishoply miter from the Apostles which S. Iohn an Apostle and Euangelist did weare as you may sée in Eusebius Rainoldes Polycrates whom Eusebius alleageth doth not mention a miter but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say a thinne plate such as was the plate of golde set in the front of the miter of Aaron the high Priest of the Iewes that it might be vpon his his
possessed any they bore not themselues as Lordes of the whole Countie I meane they neyther claimed nor vsed the supremacie Hart. But will you graunt that so much then of the suprepremacie as they claimed or vsed belongeth to their Sée and is theirs of right Rainoldes No. For the exception which I made against them was of two branches one that they auouch not the supremacie of the Pope the other that they auouch more through affection then is true and right And this is very manifest not onely by the dealinges of them whom I named but also by the writinges of them whom you alleaged Hart. Of the thirde sort of Popes if you meane they may be refused perhaps with greater shewe of reason But they whom I alleaged of the second sort were holy men and Saints Rainoldes The Apostles of Christ I hope were Saintes too Yet hath the spirite of God set down for our instruction that they did not onely desire superioritie but also striue about it Innocentius Leo Gelasius Vigilius Pelagius and Gregorie the men whoÌ„ you alleaged were not greater then the Apostles And the praise which they giue to their See of Rome doth so excéede the truth that it beareth euident markes of their affection You might haue perceiued it in that which you cited out of Innocentius concerning the Fathers and the sentence of God by which he saith they decreed that whatsoeuer was done in prouinces farre off it should not be concluded before it came to the notice of the See of Rome For what were the Fathers who decréed that where is the sentence of God by which they did it Though this is the least of many friendlie spéeches which not Innocentius onely but the rest too as I haue shewed in Leo doo lend their Church Peter Yea some flat repugnant to the holy scripture and that confessed by your selues For they say that all Churches tooke their beginning from the Roman The holy scripture maketh Ierusalem the spring of them They say that all Bishops had their honor and name from Peter The holy scripture teacheth that many had it from other Apostles not from him They say that the Church of Rome hath neither spot norwrinckle nor any such thing The holy scripture sheweth that the Church is sanâ—ctified framed to be hereafter not hauing spot or wrinckle or any such thing wheÌ„ Christ shal make it glorious triumphant in heauen not but that it hath such while it is militant on the earth Which is so apparant that not the Fathers only but Thomas of Aquine also and D Stapleton confesse it Wherefore howsoeuer holy men they were of the second sort of Popes which you alleaged it cannot be denied but they had affections and yéelded thereunto as men Howbeit the thirde sort I graunt are best worthy to be excepted against for this fault For it is a small thing with them to vse spéeches repugnant to the Scripture but they must abuse yea coine scripture too for maintenance of their Papall port They can teach the Church that the Pope may offer to confirme Archbishops vpon this condition if they will be sworne to him because wheÌ„ Christ committed his sheepe vnto Peter he did condition with him saying if thou loue me feede my sheepe They can teach the Church that the Pope hath power ouer all powers Princes of the earth none hath power ouer him because the spirituall man iudgeth all thinges yet hee himselfe is iudged of no maÌ„ They can teach the Church that Christ ordeyned Peter and Peters successors to be his vicars who by the testimony of the booke of kinges must needes be so obeyed that he who obeieth them not must die the death and as it is read otherwhere Hee that forsaketh the Bishop of Romes chaire cannot bee in the Church Hart. That which is cyted out of the booke of kinges is in the booke of Deuteronomie The text is true scripture though the place mistaken And though it belong not to the Pope immediatly Rainoldes Nay neuer goe about to salue it M. Hart. That of Deuteronomie we haue alredy handled Pope Leo the tenth and his Councel of Laterane had a strong affection to make the Popes Kinges when they alleaged the booke of kinges for Deuteronomie Deuteronomie for the Papacie But what soeuer you think of the third or seconde or any sort of Popes it is against all law both of God and man that they should bée witnesses in their own matter And therefore if your proofe of their supremacie be no better the iury will cast you out of all controuersie For if I should beare witnesse of my selfe saith Christ my witnesse were not true None are fit witnesses in their own causes no not though they were as worthy meÌ„ as Scipio was amoÌ„gst the Romans It were a bad plea in Westminster Hall Iohn a Noke must haue this land for Iohn a Noke saith so The Canonistes themselues when Popes alleage Popes for proofe of certaine pointes touching their supremacie doe note that it is a familiar kind of proofe meaning such belike as that in the common prouerbe Aske my felow if I be a theefe Which they might note the better because it is euideÌ„t that the Popes haue stretched out their owne frindges in laying claime to large power as great Diuines among you haue written in these very termes Hart. The power which they claimed hath séemed ouer large to enuious and malicious men But it was no more then their right and due Which because you thinke not sufficiently prooued by the Popes themselues I will prooue it farther by the wordes and testimonies of other ancient Fathers Rainoldes Of whom Hart. Of the chéefest of them both Gréeke and Latine For it was the prerogatiue of the Popes office that made S. Bernarde séeke to Innocentius the third Epist. 190. S. Austin and the Bishops of Afrike to Innocentius the first and to Caelestinus Epist. 90.92.95 S. Chrysostome to the saide Innocentius Epist. 1. 2. S. Basil to the Pope in his time Epist. 52. S. Ierom to Damasus Epist. 57.58 tom 2. and other likewise to others that by them they might be confirmed in faith and ecclesiasticall regiment Rainoldes If you bring such witnesses to proue the Popes supremacie I must request the iury to haue an eye to the issue For some of these Fathers desired to be helped by their aduise and counsell some by their autoritie and credit some by both By their aduise and counsell as Ierom of Damasus By their autoritie credit as Chrysostome of Innocentius By both as Basill Austin and the Bishops of Afrike of the Popes in their time Bernard somewhat more But he liued yesterday in comparison of the rest and therfore not to be numbred amongst the auncient Fathers Though neither he by this
pillers yea by the Councell of the Apostles and Elders at Ierusalem and being so confirmed was receiued more redily and gladly both at Antioche and in other cities in so much that the Churches were stablished in the faith and increased in number daily The men of God therfore who in ancient time were assembled together to vphold the truth desired the consent some time of all Bishops as in the Councell of Sardica sometime of the Pope as in the Councell of Carthage not for that they thought that else their decrées should be of no force but because they knew that the consent of such would adde the greater credit to them And that generall Councels if they had desired the Pope to confirme them which all of them did not but if they had done so yet must haue done it in this consideration you may sée by a piller and ground of your Councel of Trent euen Andradius Who not only voucheth that most learned mē do most wisely thinke it as Alfonsus namely but alleageth also Cardinall Turrecremata the chéefest patrone of the Pope for proofe of the same or rather of a farther point For if there shoulde happen such a case sayth the Cardinal that al the Fathers assembled in a generall Councell should make a decree touching any matter of fayth with one accord and the Pope alone gainesaied that decree men ought in my iudgement to obey the Councell therein and not the Pope And why Because the iudgement of so many Fathers of a generall Councel seemeth to be iustly and worthily preferred before the iudgement of one man in a matter of faith Wherevpon he addeth that the Councell then is aboue the Pope not in power of iurisdiction but in autoritie of iudgement to discerne thinges and in amplenesse of knowledge Thus it is apparant by your owne Doctors that to confirme Councels importeth an autoritie the Pope had not power and that hée was not soueraine in autoritie neither no not as much as equall but inferiour to them So farre is it off from prouing his supremacie Hart. Though Councels be aboue the Pope in autoritie after the opinion of Cardinall Turrecremata yet you sée he setteth the Pope aboue them in power of iurisdiction wherin his supremacie doth principally stand And that did the Fathers acknowledge by their déedes too For Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria Paul of Constantinople Asclepas of Gaza Marcellus of Ancyra Lucian of Adrianople and very many other Bishops of the East being driuen out of their Churches by the Arians did appeale to the Pope as ecclesiasticall stories shew Rainoldes The stories shew it not but he who sayth they shew it sheweth that he dealeth with them in this point as in the former with S. Cyrill Hath he abused you so often and will you neuer cease to credit him Hart. The stories shew that they came to Rome to Pope Iulius and he for the prerogatiue and dignitie of his Sée restored them to their Churches perceiuing that the Arians had depriued them wrongfully Rainoldes The dignitie and prerogatiue of the See of Rome in restoring them was but of autoritie and honour not of power For the power of hearing and iudging their cause did rest in the Councell assembled then at Rome Which Iulius himself and Athanasius both do testifie Athanasius who speaking thereof ascribeth it plainly to the Councell Iulius who being reproued by the Arians for ouerthwarting that which they had done in their Councell answereth that the doinges of a former Councell may lawfully be sifted and examined in an other that themselues had offred to haue the cause debated so in iust iudgement and thereto had requested a Councell to be called that Athanasius and the rest appeered at the Councell and they who should haue also appeered made defaute that hereupon the Councell finding their iniquitie relieued the parties wrongfully oppressed to be short that whatsoeuer he dealt or wrote therein he did it on the Coūcels iudgement and consent not on his owne head Wherefore it was not the Pope but the Councell that heard and determined the causes of Bishops whether at first or on appeales Such power of iurisdiction nether did Iulius claime nor Athanasius giue him Hart. Yes there is an other epistle of Iulius wherein hée claimed such power and that vpon the canons of the Councell of Nice Rainoldes I told you of epistles which séemed to be written by some of the Popes horse-kéepers or cookes This is one of them It should be the very same that I alleaged extant in Athanasius But it is no liker it then black is to white The canons which it coineth with the image and superscription of the Nicen Fathers bewray the lewdnesse of it The more because Iulius in the same epistle as Athanasius hath it citeth their autoritie for the Councell aboue the Pope who in this are cited for the Pope aboue the Councell Wherefore sith Athanasius hath his right epistle as it is confessed you must be content to let the other go for a counterfeit Hart. Yet Socrates Sozomē report that Iulius wrote in his epistle to the Arians that whereas they called not him vnto the Councell therein they did vnlawfully because it was prouided by a law of the Church that things which were decreede and done without the Popes consent shoulde be voide Rainoldes If Iulius had writen so to the Arians Iulius had writen a manifest vntruth For by the Nicen Canons which were the chiefest lawes of the Church at that time it was ordered that Councels should be kept yeerely twise in euery prouince To all which it were ridiculous to say that they must call the Pope or that they might doo nothing there but what he liked of But Socrates and Sozomen did mistake Iulius as Stapleton doth now And whereas he had said know ye not that this is the maner and custome that ye should write to vs first that hēce might be decreed the thing which is iust they thought that he had spoken of himselfe belike and had meant the Pope by the word vs by which he meant the Councell For he wrote that epistle in the Councels name as Athanasius noteth and himselfe sheweth it by saying straight before ye ought to haue written vnto all vs that so that which is iust might be decreed by all Hart. Whatsoeuer you conceue of the doings and writings of Athanasius and Iulius yet can you not denie but Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople appealed to Pope Leo from the Councell of Ephesus deposing him vniustly And so did Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus too For the Emperour Valentinian witnesseth the one and Theodoret himselfe the other Rainoldes Flauianus appealed from the Councel of Ephesus but to a greater and a more lawfull Councell not to Pope Leo. Which appéereth by an epistle of Leo himselfe complayning to the Emperour Theodosius
that we beleeue the scripture because of the Church if he come as néere to the meaning of Cusanus as he dooth to his wordes that he thinke the scriptures credit and autoritie dependeth of the Church and the Church imparteth autoritie canonicall as Pighius expresly saith vnto the scripture he hath a harder forhead then I thought he had Yet Andradius the expounder and patrone of the faith of Trent speaketh much more modestly and religiously to geue him his due praise of the autoritie of the scriptures Which first he acknowledgeth that they haue not from men but from God not from the Church but from the holy Ghost and then he concludeth thereof that it is detestable to teach that either profane bookes may be made canonicall by the Church Bishops or such as are certainly canonicall may be refused Of the which things to affirme the one he saith it is a point of notorious impudencie the other of madnesse and impietie not to be suffered O that Andradius had likewise detested the cuppe of the whoores abominations in other things Or sith he is dead I would to God that all Christians who of godly mind mislike somewhat in her and who dooth not mislike somewhat would mislike the rest of all her filthinesse too nor onely be Christians almost as Agrippa but like both almost and altogether to Paul as Paul did wish to him To the which end that I might help them forward as much as lay in me I haue doone the best I can to heale the dangerous humors of opinions which do so anoy the tast of séely soules that they thinke the heauenly bread to be poyson and abhorre the swéetest foode of life as woormwood These humours that I speake off are peruerse errours which seduce them from the truth in that article of our Créede I beleeue the holy catholike Church For some are perswaded that the name of holy Church belongeth not to the whole company of the Christian people but to the Ministers onely and Bishops of the Church no not to the Ministers of euery Church neither but of the Church of Rome euen the Pope and Cardinals Whom to haue gotten by a certaine custome to be called the church and that the church had doon receiued and ordeined that which was do on receiued and ordeined by them Marsilius Patauinus did note in his age and it is too well knowen vnto men of yéeres Other some and they of the lernedder sort acknowledge that the Church doth signifie the company of faithfull men and beléeuers but they wil haue that company to bée a people assembled by their own Bishop and cleauing to the head that is to the Pope least the Papall State be any way impaired They comprehende therefore all such within that company as doo professe the faith both the good and badde holy and profane godly and hypocrites There are some also who thinke that by this point to beleeue the holy church the churches authoritie is commended to vs that we should trust credite and obey the church which the Councell of Trent it séemeth would insinuate though somewhat darkely and distrustfully But Bristow therein dooth beare the bell away For he the more easily to deceiue English men at least the simpler if not all worketh treacherie with the dooble signification of wordes expounding this article I beleeue the Church as if the meaning of it were I trust the Church betwéene the which things there is great difference and that very manifest in the Gréeke and Latin though in our mother tounge not so Yet this man was created Doctor at Dâ—way and some doo account him a man of much value O wretched professors of the Doway-schoole that created such a Doctour but more wretched Papistes if they geue credit to such a Doctour who whether he be sophister or sclaunderer more notable it is harde to say A learned man among the Heathens if I remember well said that physicians can not finde a medicine against the byting of a sclaunderer But because the things are possible with God which are impossible with men therefore vpon confidence of his gracious goodnes I haue assayed to make one against the biting of this sclaunderer and of the like in the fourth Conclusion wherein I haue declared setting apart the Prelates of the Church of Rome and goates mingled with shéepe that the holy Catholike Church which we beleeue is the whole companie of Gods elect and chosen Moreouer least the painting of the Romish Church should make vnskilfull young men to be enamored of her when they should heare many commend her as Catholike Apostolike and sound in faith to take this visard also away from her face wash away her painting with water of the holy Ghost I haue added the fifth Conclusion that the Church of Rome is not the Catholike Church nor a sound member of the Catholike church A matter cléere in truth but hard to be perswaded specially to louers for Cupide is blinde And as he saith in Theocritus The things that are not faire seeme faire to him that is in loue Daphnis in the Poet saith so to Polyphemus we by experience haue found it true in Bristow For he being besotted with the loue of the whoore is not content to say that she alone is Catholike that errour were more tolerable at least it were an error common to him with many But he affirmeth farther that the Church might be was called Apostolike for this cause onely that we might be directed thereby as by a marke to the Church of Rome founded by the Apostles Peter and Paul the onely Church now left of all the Churches Apostolike Which flattering spéech of this louer the Pope of Rome himselfe the bridegroome of his Church though doating on his bride too yet refuseth acknowledging that the Church was called Apostolike by the Fathers in the Creede to note the beginning of the Church which it hath from the Apostles because they deliuered once the Churches doctrine and spread it abroad through all the world As for them that geue the title of Catholike to the Church of Rome they must take aduisement how to cléere their boldnesse from attaint of sacriledge who decke an adulteresse with the spoiles of the spouse of Christ or to thinke the best of the Church of Rome who spoile the mother to decke the daughter and her not the best with great wrong and iniurie to the rest of the sisters For the name of Catholike dooth not appertaine to this or that Church but to the Church vniuersall continued through all nations ages and prouinces from Adam vnto vs and to our posteritie as the Councell of Trent and the expounders of the Councell such is the force of truth doo confesse plainly But the chiefest errour that is to be abated is theirs who are perswaded that the Church of Rome is of right
opinion and sound in points of faith yea so sound and right that they think no pestilent disease may attache her no contagion infect her no spot of vnfaithfulnes any way defile her Of the which assertion they alleage the Fathers to omitte the residue men of baser credit for principall patrones And therein Andradius dealeth somewhat wisely For he dooth heape together witnesses without testimonies the geuers of euidence without euidence Austins Ieroms Basils Athanases and Chrysostoms But Sanders much more gloriously For he hath laide on such a lâ—ade of testimonies that if the sayings should be numbred and not weighed we must léese our suite no remedy But all the Fathers whom this pety-lawier produceth as speakers for the Popes monarchie doo either deny that the Church of Rome did erre or that it may erre did erre as Irenaeus In the Church of Rome that doctrine hath beene kept still which was deliuered by the Apostles may erre as Cyprian that the Romanes are they whose faith is commended and praysed by the Apostle vnto whom vnfaithfulnes can not haue accesse The former who deny that the Church of Rome did erre speake not against vs. For we doo not say that it did erre in Irenaeus time but that it dooth erre now He denyeth that it did erre we say that it dooth erre doo we gainesay one another Ierusalem is called the citie of God by the Psalmist and he is said there to be serued Esay termeth it an harlot The temple of the Lord is named the house of God the house of prayer by Salomon by Christ it is reported to be a denne of theeues Dooth Esay speake against the Psalmist or Christ against Salomon No but the Psalmist sheweth what Ierusalem was in his time Esay what in his The faithfull citie is become an harlot it was a faithfull citie but it is become an harlot Salomon teacheth what the house of God ought to be Christ what it is made You haue made it a denne of theues it was not to Salomon but you haue made it So Rome was likewise sound in the time of the Fathers but the faithfull citie is become an harlot the soundnes it hath lost it hath got a leprousie it was the house of God it is a denne of théeues it held the faith of Christ but it is fallen from it It had kept the doctrine still which was deliuered by the Apostles vntill the time of Irenaeus but that it hath kept still vntil our time the doctrin which was deliuered by the Apostles doth it thereof folow Unlesse perhaps the Popes Courtiers will proue that the whoores the Courtisans which keepe their stewes are virgins because they were virgins when they were litle babes The former Fathers then who deny that the church of Rome did erre doo not gainsay vs. The later who deny that it may erre gainsay vs in deed but they gainesay the holy Ghost too By whose inspiration the blessed Apostle exhorting the Roman church not to lift vp it selfe against the Iewes Be not high minded saith he but feare For if God spared not the natural branches take heed least he also spare not thee Behold there fore the bountifulnes and seueritie of God seueritie toward theÌ„ which haue fallen but toward thee bountifulnes if thou continue in his bountifulnes or els thou shalt also be cut off The church of Rome therefore may be cut of if cut of then erre if erre then vnfaithfulnes may haue accesse vnto it What and was Cyprian of an other minde Pardon me O Cyprian I would beléeue thée gladly but that beléeuing thee I should not beléeue the word of God But whether we should rather beléeue God or man let the Papists iudge At least if they beléeue rather man then God let them beléeue the reason and iudgement of their owne men For Sotus Alfonsus Hosius Verratus the lightes of the Papists doo witnesse that any particular church may erre But that the church of Rome is a particular church the same Verratus affirmeth nor can the rest deny it Wherefore if Cyprian did thinke that the church of Rome can not erre in that he must him selfe be condemned of errour by the Papists iudgement And so whereas all the testimonies of the Fathers are of two sortes the one of them true but cleane beside the purpose the other to the purpose enough but vntrue it foloweth that the sicknes of the Church of Rome can finde no helpe in any medicines of the Fathers What haue we then to doo with them by whom olde Rome is praysed and reported to gather together Christians to peace and repaire their faith to minister reliefe vnto the brethren the Churches to be a schoole of the Apostles a mother-citie of godlinesse a sanctified Church and such like things a number We haue to doo with new Rome whom her owne stories actes and monuments doo conuince to be a nurse of wars a parent of vnfaithfulnesse a spoyler of the brethren a worshipper of idols a seate of couetousnesse a ladie of pride a cherisher inflamer of lustes of outrages of abominations whose most louing sonne complaineth of his mother that her old fame continueth but her goodnesse is gone that her Pastours are turned into the shape of woolues the neerer you come the filthier all thinges be that trifles are giuen gold is receyued and onely money raigneth there that the Church-goods are made to serue for scoffers the altars for wantons the temples for boyes abused by vnnaturall monsters that the lawes diuine and humane are denyed men and God deceiued holinesse put to flight godlinesse despised renounced and afflicted Yet that a holy life would leade from Rome see that ye flee Though al things els be lawful there yet good ye may not be And these may séeme I hope both weightie causes and iust why the reformed Churches to come to the last Conclusion in England Scotland Fraunce Germany other kingdomes commoÌ„ wealthes haue seuered them selues from the corruption of Rome Though if this were al that it were not lawful to lead a holy life at Rome that we might not be good as Mantuan affirmeth we would haue departed from the citie of Rome as Mantuan aduiseth vs but we would not haue gone froÌ„ the Church of Rome If onely smal infirmities had craâ—ed the health of Rome in pointes of faith such as certaine did in the time of the Fathers we would haue lamented but tolerated it taking compassion of men being vnwarily fallen into a faute we would haue born their burdens But sith in the felowship of the Church of Rome it was not lawful for vs either to serue God with a holy worship or to beléeue God with a holy faith as God hath commanded sith the Church of Rome being taken with contagious diseases a frensy did put her counsellers to
the fyer frends to the sword brethren to cruell death and stained the faith of Christ with reproches creatures with the Lordes honour Gods seruice with idolatrie we went away from Papists not willingly as from men not vnwillingly as from heretikes and reforming our Churches by the rule of Gods worde we seuered them from the contagion of the Church of Rome Wherin because nothing was doon by our brethren but that which the Apostle S. Paul a chosen instrument of the holy Ghost both did and taught to be doon as I haue proued in the Conclusion the Lord shal iudge beweene our Churches and Bristow who condemneth them of the same schisme of which the Donatists were guiltie and he will giue sentence in the last day that we haue beene seuered from the Church of Rome by the prescript of his word that is lawfully But some man will say you ought not to leaue the felowship of the Romans of them which are at Rome beloued of God Saints by calling whose faith is spoken of throughout the whole world But I answere that the Romans which now are there be not Romans they be carkases of Romans It is an other Milo his lustie armes are dead It is an other Hector how greatly chaunged from him But you ought to obey and not resist the Pope of Rome most good in grace most great in power the vicar of Christ the successour of Peter But that we must resist him if he command thinges vniust and pernicious yea that it is the dutie of Princes to resist him in vnlawfull thinges the Papists them selues teach But Christians ought to keepe vnitie of spirit in the bond of peace and the name of peace is sweeete the thing it selfe both pleasant and healthfull But through vnitie of spirit we ought to grow together into the vnitie of of faith and to be all of one minde but in the Lord. If peace should be made with the Pope and Papists it would be like the peace with Antonie and his adherents that is not a peace but an agreement of slauery to them nay of impietie Wherefore as Agamemnon in a Gréeke Poet did answere his brother Menelaus of whom he was requested to shew him selfe a brother by giuing his consent to a wicked act so doo I answere my brother requesting me to ioyne with him in felowship of the Church of Rome whose faith is vnholy whose seruice is vngodly My wittes I would enioy with thee But madde with thee I would not bee And here an ende of my preface Onely this remaineth that I desire hartily and beséech all Christians who shall take paines in reading hereof that they will reade weigh and interpret all thinges with a Christian minde lay aside the preiudice of their owne opinions examin the spirits whether they be of God or no séeke to finde the truth and loue it being found aduertise me if they thinke I haue missed in any thing beare with my briefenes because I was constrained to shut vp much in few wordes looke how faithfull and diligent I haue béene in opening and prouing the Conclusions whereof God is my witnes who will reuâ—ale the secretes of thoughtes so moderate and indifferent let them shew them selues in censuring and iudging of that which they shall reade as before the Lord who shal be iudge of iudges Finally let them folow the godly people of Beroea who when Paul preached receiued the word with al readines of mind and dayly serched the scriptures whether those things were so not the froward Luciferians of whom he confesseth who best knew the maners of his owne companions that they might be conuinced more easily then perswaded As for you my fathers and brethren welbeloued with remembrance of whom I haue consecrated my labour such as it is to the Church of God I pray you and beséech you by our Lord Iesus Christ who hath redéemed vs with his pretious blood and sanctified vs to him selfe that you will striue by all meanes to aduance the glory of God to cherish the séedes of godlinesse to helpe forward the Churches safetie to nourish fruitfull plantes to make the Uniuersities praise to be encreased I meane the prayse which is not of men but of God Confute you the ill spéeches of Bristow by your deedes and shew by your workes that the crimes wherewith hee chargeth vs are sclanders Bestow ye well the good oportunitie of time in studie of good artes by hearing reading disputing meditating speaking and writing Doo ye the worke of the Lord with ioynt desire and will and trauaile one body one spirit one hart one way Stirre vp exercise of learning decayed I had almost said but I hope better Destroy those wanton lusts that draw men from studie idlenes a swéete euill delicacie the baite of Venus the ryote of feasts the vanitie of apparell vnhonest pastimes vnseasonable drinkinges the plagues of stageplayers the sights and shewes of Theaters Last of all to conclude with the Apostles wordes whatsoeuer things are true what soeuer things are honest whatsoeuer things are iust whatsoeuer things are pure whatsoeuer things are woorthie loue whatsoeuer things are of good report if there be anie vertue and if there be any praise thinke ye on these things If there be any vertue and if there be any praise brethren thinke ye on these things The God of might and mercie lighten vs all with the grace of his holy spirit that the heads of Colleges may be present to gouerne and gouerne to benefit the companie committed to them as Samuel was wont that the members of Colleges may lerne vnder Samuel to prophecie by speaking of and setting foorth the praise of God as the prophets did that young men who studie the artes of humanitie may in other things be vnlike to Saul yet like to Saul among the prophets that Colleges themselues and all our companies may be assemblies not of prophets onely but of such as prophecie and folow the lessons of the prophets to the honor of God the comfort of the godly and our owne saluation through Iesu Christ our Lord. Fare ye well From Corpus Christi College The 2. of February 1580. Yours in Christ Iesus Iohn Rainoldes CONCLVSIONS HANDLED AT THE ACT IN S. MARIES CHVRCH THE XIII Oâ— IVLY 1579. 1 The holy scripture teacheth the Church all thinges necessarie to saluation WHen Moses went by Sinai mount toward the holy land FroÌ„ Gods owne mouth the law he wrote the Lord did guid his hand The Prophets next with sacred â—en did bolde that heauenly â—â—ce Whom the almightie from aboue indued with his grace The wisdome of his father high the sonne of virgin pure Anointed with the spirit of God mens sinfull soules to cure The word of the eternall Lord with flesh of man yclad Brought them the treasures rich of life of peace the tidings glad Th' Apostles with this
of the right way it is the death not of captiues but of Carthaginians not opinions of men but the truth of God is hazarded not life not health not wealth and possessions but the inheritance of heauen and saluation cometh into controuersie Lend me therefore I pray you the presence of your mindes and patience of your eares to that which shall be spoken remembring that we haue not toyes as on a stage but serious thinges in hand And because we handle the matters of the Lord I pray him to sanctifie with his holy spirit our tongues and your eares and the mindes of all that neither we dispute to any other end then to bring foorth the truth into light by conference of reasons neither you in hearing haue any other minde then to beléeue the truth when it shal be brought foorth and proued To beginne therefore with the first Conclusion and so runne ouer the rest briefly the holy scripture teacheth the Church all things necessarie to saluation God the father of eternall goodnes and mercy did choose of his frée and singular fauour before the foundations of the world were laide a great number of men whom he would indue with euerlasting life and make them heires of heauenly glory Now that the chosen might come to this inheritance they were to be made the children of God by adoption through Iesus Christ. For this hath euer béene the onely way to saluation In consideration whereof the holy ghost speaking of the company of such as God hath chosen termeth them sometime the children of God by adoption not by nature yet felow heires with Christ sometime the wife of the Lambe which is indowed with al the wealth of her husband some time the body of Christ by the power and vertue of whom as of a head they are gouerned and moued sometime the citizens of heauen appointed to bee inhabitants of the new Ierusalem finally Christ him selfe to omit the rest doth call them his Church which the gates of hell shall not preuaile against This Church then euen the company of the elect and chosen the children of God the wife of the Lambe the body of Christ the citizens of heauen that is to say the holy Catholike Church as it is chosen and ordained by God to life euerlasting so hath it béene alwayes taught by his worde the way of saluation whereby it might come to the possession of that life His word being vttered in old time sundry wayes was published at length in writing And so it came to passe that the holy writinges of God did teach the Church such thinges as must be knowne for the obteining of saluation For who could reueale the way to obtaine the inheritance of the kingdom of God but God alone And he reueled it to his Church as first without writing in such sort as séemed best to his wisdome so afterwarde in writing by the hand of his seruants inspired with the holy Ghost without writing to Adam and from Adams time till Moses in writing to Moses and from Moses forwarde till the ende of the world Wherfore in these writings giuen out by the holy Ghost and penned by the seruants of God which writings S. Paul calleth scripture by an excellencie as you would say the writings which surpasse all others the way of saluation whereby wee come to heauen the light of our soules which shineth in this worlds darkenesse the foode of life which nourisheth vs to grow in Christ is deliuered to the Church For cléerer proofe whereof let vs diuide the Church into the olde and the new the olde before Christ the new since Christ was borne The Prophets taught the old Church the way of saluation the Apostles with the Prophets together teach the new more plenteously and fully The doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles is comprised in the holy scripture The scripture therefore teacheth the Church whatsoeuer is behoofefull to saluation For the Church is the company of the elect and chosen Now they who are elect are of the houshold of God and they of his houshold are built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophetes Iesus Christ himselfe being the chiefe corner stone But this foundation of the Apostles and Prophets is the doctrine touching Christ which they preached to the Church And that doctrine which they preached is enrolled in scripture Wherefore the scripture teacheth the Church all thinges that for saluation are requisite to be knowne Moses to beginne with the first of the Prophets hauing published the law of God to the Israelites Giue eare saith he O Israel to the ordinances which I teach Ye shall not adde to the worde which I command you nor shall you take from it but whatsoeuer I command you that shall ye obserue to doo that ye may keepe the commandements of the Lord your God Now the Israelites were to labour for the obtaining of saluation But they might do nothing which was not prescribed by the law of God Therefore the writen law of God did deliuer whatsoeuer was needfull for the saluation of the Israelites And there is no dout but the Israelites were the Church The law then did teach whatsoeuer was needfull for the saluation of the Church The Prophets who folowed were expounders of the law that as they were inspired with the same spirit by which Moses wrote so they neither added any thing to his law nor tooke from it onely they vnfolded it to the edifying of the Church as it séemed best to the holy ghost I let passe Dauid in whom there are not many mo Psalmes then there are testimonies of the sufficiency of the law Esay examineth both the faith and life of the Priestes and people by the law and testimonie Idolaters are condemned by the Lord in Ieremie for dooing in their sacrifices thinges which he commanded not In Malachie the last Prophet God willeth his people to remember the law of Moses that he as a schoolemaister may leade them to Christ whose forerunner should be Elias But these thinges could not haue beene spoken by God or the seruants of God vnlesse the law of Moses had shewed the whole and perfit way of saluation The law of Moses therefore did wholy and perfitly instruâ—â— the Church therein Which if the law of Moses did performe alone much more all the Prophets together with Moses How may it then be douted but the olde Church was taught out of the scriptures the way of saluation wholly and perfitly S. Iohn to passe ouer from the Prophets to the Apostles after that the sunne of righteousnesse was risen not to abolish the law but to fulfill it and to bring a brighter and cléerer light into the worlde declareth in the gospell how Iesus Christ our Sauiour doing the office of our soueraine Prophet Priest and King accomplished our saluation by teaching by dying by rising from the dead Our saluation then is fully wrought by Christ. But
is it fully written by S. Iohn Let vs heare him selfe speake These things saith he are writen that ye may beleeue that Iesus is the Christ the sonne of God and that in beleeuing yee may haue life through his name In which wordes the summe and end of the gospell is set downe by Iohn the summe that we may beleeue that Iesus is the Christ the Christ that is the soueraine Priest Prophet and King the Sauiour of men the end that we beleeuing in Christ the sonne of God may through him haue life euen that which alone is called life rightly to wit eternall life Which things being so as the Euangelist him selfe teacheth it must néedes be granted that those things which are writen in the gospell are sufficient for vs both to the way of life and to life As much then as sufficeth to faith and saluation so much is writen in the gospell For if the things which are writen had not béene sufficient to faith and saluation there were mo thing◠which might haue bene writen so many as the world could not haue conteined But these were omitted by the spirit of God because the other were enough for his purpose For he giueth this reason why mo were not writen these things are writen that yee may beleeue and in beleeuing may haue life There is contained therefore in S. Iohns gospell so much as is sufficient to faith and saluation Then if S. Iohns gospell alone haue sufficient how plentifully hath Christ prouided for his Church as a most bountifull Lord for his houshold to which he hath giuen so many Apostles and Euangelists witnesses and expounders of the same doctrine Wherefore the scripture doth not onely teach the Church but also amply and plentifully teach it all things behoofull to saluation For although the substance of the Christian faith be single and the same wherewith as with meate the seruants of God are fedde to life eternall yet as the ages of the seruants differ and in ages different their cases differ too so was it méete there should be sundry sortes and waies to diuide that meate and as it were to season it for ech one his part as it might best agrée with him Whereof that we might haue a true liuely paterne set foorth by Christs owne spirit in the word of life for the féeding of the faithfull therefore hée gaue sundry woorkemen so to terme them and writers of his faith that although they deliuered all the same foode yet they did not dresse it all in one sort And so it cometh to passe that in those writers of the faith of Christ both the vnitie of doctrine in the diuersitie of deliuering yeldeth a swéete tast in the spirituall mouth of the godly minde and the manifold vse ministreth holesome nourishment to euery mans stomake the euident plainnesse in the groundes of faith maketh that euen they who are of deintiest mouthes can not refuse it for the toughnes and the hidden wisedome in the secretes of scripture both trieth the strongest and satisfieth them who are sharpest set and to say that in a word which no wordes can expresse enough the infinite treasures bring infinite fruits to the faithfull to procure them a blessednes that is exceeding great and infinite Wherefore it is a thing so cléere and so sure that those secretaries of the holy Ghost ioyned togither doo open to the Church in the holy scriptures all things behoofefull to saluation that he who knoweth it not may be iustly counted ignorant hée who acknowledgeth it not lewde hée who dissembleth it vnthankfull hée who denieth it more then wicked For what can there be in cléerenesse more euident or in peise more weightie or in strength more sound or in truth more certaine then that generall principle which S. Paul deliuereth not as Moses of the law not as Iohn of the gospell but of the whole scripture and holy writt to Timothee The whole scripture is giuen by inspiration of God and is profitable to teach to improue to correct to instruct in righteousnes that the man of God may bee furnished throughly furnished to euery good worke Thus if you demaund of what autoritie scripture is it came from God by inspiration if you regard what vse it hath it teacheth improueth correcteth instructeth if you would sée to what end it is that the man of God may be furnished Our dutie in Christ Iesus is faith woorking by loue Faith embraceth sound doctrine loue requireth a godly life Soundnes of doctrine is held if true things be taught and false refuted Godlines of life is kept if we fly from euill and folow good But the holy scripture teacheth the truth improueth errour correcteth iniquitie instructeth to righteousnes as it appéereth by the Apostles wordes Therefore it setteth foorth a mans whole dutie in Christ Iesus that is as I suppose so much as sufficeth to saluation For it is not onely profitable to these things as some doo mince the matter but sufficient too in so much that it is able to make a man wise to saluation through faith and to furnish him Yea to furnish what maner of man the man of God that is the Lordes interpreter the Minister of the worde the teacher of the Church the Pastour of the flocke euen Timothee himselfe much more the flock of the faithfull in whom so great furniture of wisdome is not necessary Howbeit the Apostle neither so contented with saying that the man of God may be furnished addeth to beat the absolute perfection of the scripture into our mindes and memories with as many reasons as he vseth wordes that the man of God may be furnished throughly furnished to euerie good worke Whereupon it foloweth that there is nothing at all that can be wished for either to soundnes and sinceritie of faith or to integritie and godlines of life that is to mans perfection and the way of saluation which the scripture geuen by inspiration of God doth not teach the faithfull seruantes of Christ. It is the iudgement therefore of the holy Ghost whose sentence I defend as I am bound by duetie that the holy scripture teacheth the Church all things necessarie to saluation Here if some perhaps desire the testimonies of the Fathers though to what purpose sith ye haue heard the Father of Fathers notwithstanding if any would heare the scholers iudgement when he hath heard the masters he shall heare the iudgement not of this or that man of whom he might dout but of the whole Church and of all the Saints For they with one agréement and generall consent haue termed the bookes of scripture Canonicall of the word Canon which signifieth a rule because they containe a worthy rule and squire of religion faith and godlines according whereunto the building of the house of God must be fitted Which opinion touching the Canon of the scripture allowed by Andradius himselfe the chiefest patrone of the Popish faith hath béene
Christ most holy Finally sith God hath called the holy church not out of this or that countrey not out of this or that people but out of all nations spred through the whole world for that cause the church is intitled Catholike that is vniuersall not Iewish not Roman not English not of one people or prouince but vniuersall and Catholike coÌ„pacted as it were into one body out of all sorts of estates sexes ages nations Iewes Heathens Greeks Barbarians bond and free men and wemen old and young rich and poore For both the old Church before the birth of Christ which saw the day of Christ to come and was saued did gather children of God vnto her selfe at first out of any people afterward when the grace of God shined chiefly among the people of Israel she did ioyne conuertes to Israel out of the rest and much more the new Church called since Christ was borne hath enlarged her tabernacle as Esay the Prophet speaketh to all nations beginning at Ierusalem Iudaea Samaria and going forward thence euen to the vttermost endes of the earth For God hath not called the circumcised Iewes alone to be his Church as the time was when the Apostles thought through a litle ouersight the Iewes in our dayes haue too presumptuously wéened but Christ being crucified hath broken the stoppe of the partition-wall and is become the chiefe stone of the corner on which a dooble wall ariseth and as Dauid prophecied the Egyptian the Babylonian the Tyrian the Aethiopian the Philistine are borne in Sion and as the Elders in whom is represented the company of the faithfull doo sing vnto Christ Thou hast redeemed vs to God by thy blood out of euery kinred and tounge and people and nation and hast made vs kings and priests to our God we shall raigne vpon the earth Wherefore sith the church which the holy scriptures doo commend vnto vs betokeneth the company and assembly of the faithfull whom God hath chosen Christ hath sanctified and called out of all nations to the inheritance of his owne kingdome the holy Ghost who spake by the Prophets and Apostles doth warrantise me to resolue on my Conclusion that the holy catholike church which we beleeue is the whole company of Gods electâ—and chosen You maruell perhaps why I propose this article of the ChristiaÌ„ faith to be discussed by disputation as though either any man stood in dout of it or things not douted of were to be handled as doutfull But if you consider that the true meaning therof which I haue opened most agréeable to the scripture most comfortable to the faithfull is condemned and accursed by the standerd-bearers of the church of Rome you will cease to maruell For in the Councell of Constance in which they condemned Iohn Husse for an heretike they condemned these two sayings as hereticall to be burned with him that there is one holy vniuersall Church which is the whole company of them that are predestinate and that the Church as it is takeÌ„ in this sense for the company of them that are predestinate is the article of our faith Which sayings of his to be counted vngodly it séemed strange to me and so much the more because I perceiued that the Fathers whose words the Papistes will séeme to make great account of when they serue their purpose did vse the same squire to measure out the Catholike church by For Clemens Alexandrinus dooth expresly call it the company of the elect into which are gathered the faithfull and iust whom God did predestinate before the creation of the world Likewise Ambrose hauing said that the honour of God the father is in Christ and in the church defineth the church to be a people which God hath vouchsafed to adopt to him selfe Furthermore Gregorie the Bishop of Rome affirmeth that all the elect are contained within the compasse and circuite of the church all the reprobate are without it And Bernard declaring the church to be the company of all the elect which company was predestinate before the world began doth touch it as a mysterie which he had learned of Paul and saith that he will boldly vtter it As for Austin a man of sharpest iudgement of them all he neither acknowledgeth any city of God but this elect church in his most lerned worke touching the citie of God and in another touching the catechizing of the vnskilfull he saith that all the holy and sanctified men which are which haue been which shal be are citizens of this heauenly Ierusalem and in another touching baptisme against the Donatists against whom he vrgeth the Catholike church most he confesseth that those things in the song of songs the garden inclosed the fountaine sealed vp the lilie the sister the spouse of Iesus Christ are meant of the holy and righteous alone who are Iewes inwardly by circumcision of the hart of which holy men the number is certaine praedestinate before the foundation of the world Wherefore if the Prelates of the Romish Church had had any reuerence I say not of the scriptuâ—es ouer which they play the Lordes as they list but of the Fathers of whom as of orphans they beare men in hand that they haue vndertooke the wardship they would neuer haue wounded or rather burnt in Husses person Clemens Alexandrinus Ambrose Gregorie Bernard and Austin who taught the same point that is condemned in Husse namely that the holy vniuersall Church is the whole company of the elect of God But it is I sée an vndouted truth which a learned man liking the Popes religion but not the Popes presumption hath set downe in writing that amongst the Popes and men like to Popes it is a sure principle If wrong he to be doon it is to be doon when thou maist get a kingdome by it For they wrest the holy catholike Church taught vs in the Creede from the right meaning to the intent they may be kings hoyse vp the sayles of their owne ambition in as much as they apply it like vnskilfull men if they doo it ignorantly impious if wittingly they apply it I say not to the Catholike Church but to the militant nor to that as it is choseÌ„ but as it is visible mingled with hypocrites and vngodly persons The cause why they do so is that all Christians by reason they beleeue the holy Catholike Church may be induced to thinke that the visible Church must be held for Catholike and a visible monarchie must be in the visible Church and the Pope is Prince of the visible monarchie and all Christians must be subiect to him as Prince For this to be the marke whereat the Popes shoote it is as cléere as the light by the verie Extrauagants as they are termed of the Canon law in that royall decrée of Boniface the eighth beginning with these wordes One holy Catholike Church Where from one
Catholike Church without the which there is no saluatioÌ„ nor forgiuenes of sinnes he créepeth vp to the head of the Church eueÌ„ Iesus Christ from Christ the head he slippeth downe by stealth vnto Christs vicar one and the same head as he saith with Christ euen the Pope of Rome whom yet to be the head of the Catholike Church not him selfe would say vnlesse perhaps in a dreame for theÌ„ he shuld be head of the triumphant church which is a part of the Catholike but he would be head of the visible church which he nameth Catholike therby the more easily to deceiue the simple who being astonied and snared with that name the fowler shutteth vp the net and concludeth that euery earthly creature if he will be saued must of necessitie be subiect to the Pope Thus saith Pope Boniface But vnlesse the Pope him selfe and the Fathers of his Councell of Trent being thereto forced by the truth of scripture confesse against them selues that the holy Catholike Church doth not signify the visible company of the Church militant coÌ„sisting of the good and badde mixt together which sense the Papists giue it with their Pope Boniface to the intent they may be kings I will not request you to beleue me in it For in the Catechisme which was set foorth by Pope Pius the fifth according to the decree of the Councell of Trent hauing said that the Church in the Creed doth chiefly signifie the company of the good bad togither they adde that Christ is head of the Church as of his body so that as bodily members haue life from the soule in like sort the faithfull haue from Christs spirit and therefore it is holy because it hath receiued the grace of holines and forgiuenes of sinnes from Christ who sanctifieth washeth it with his blood and it is called Catholike because it is spred in the light of one faith from the east to the west receiuing men of all sortes be they Scythians or Barbarians bond or free male or female conteining all the faithfull which haue bene from Adam euen till this day or shall be hereafter till the ende of the world proâ—essing the true faith being built vpon Christ vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Pope Pius therefore and the Fathers of the Councell of Trent affirme that the Church which is specified in the Creede is the body of Christ. Now the scripture teacheth that all the body of Christ is quickned and increased by the holy Ghost as if he were the soule of it But the bad and wicked are neither quickned nor increased Then are they no part of the body of Christ and therfore neither of the Church Pope Pius and the Fathers of the Councel of Trent affirme that the Church is holy being washed by the blood of Christ indued with grace of holines and with forgiuenes of sinnes Now blessed are they whose sinnes are forgiuen blessed are the cleane in heart for they shall see God But the bad and wicked shall neither see God nor are blessed Therefore neither haue they forgiuenes of sinnes nor are their harts cleane Then are they no part of the church Pope Pius and the Fathers of the Councell of Trent affirme that the church is called Catholike in respect that it conteineth all the faithfull from the first to the last professing the true faith and being built vpon Christ. But the wicked and hypocrites either are not faithfull or if they may be called so yet they professe not the true faith or if they professe it yet they are not built on Christ. For they who are built on Christ are built on a rocke and shall neuer be remoued But the wicked shall be remoued Then are they no part of the church Yet they must néedes be a part of the church if the name of church did signifie the visible church as we call it consisting of the good and bad Wherfore it foloweth thereof that the church mentioned in the Créede betokeneth not the visible church that is the company of good and bad together which it is imagined to do by the builders of the Popes monarchie Thus as Caiaphas in the Gospel although he spake many things amisse against Christ yet being the high Priest that same yeere he saide well in this spéech though ill meant too that it was expedient for them that one man should dye for the people so the Pope and the Fathers of the Councell of Trent being the high Priestes that same yere though they meant yll in saying that the holy catholike church which we beléeue is the company of good and bad mixt together yet being lead and moued by some diuine force to speake better then they meant they added such an exposition that their owne doctrine is ouerthrowen by it the errour of the Councell of Constance is discouered and the truth of the scripture confirmed and established Wherefore I may iustly conclude against the Papists out of the Pope him selfe and the Councell of Trent that all the good and holy men and none but they do make the holy Catholike church But séeing our faith must haue a better ground then humane decrées either of Popes or Councels whose breath is in their nosethrils whose houses are of clay and their foundation is sande therefore let vs stay our selues on that conclusion which I made before on warrant of the holy Ghost who hath spoken to vs by the Apostles and Prophets The holy Catholik Church which we beleeue is the whole company of Gods elect and chosen And let this suffice for the first Conclusion The second doth folow The church of Rome is not the catholike church nor a sound meÌ„ber of the catholike church Of the which position that we may the better perceiue the drift and truth we must search somewhat déeper and fetch the beginnings of particular churches out of the fountaine whence they flowe God hauing chosen in his eternall purpose the holy catholike church that is all his children to be the heires of his kingdome and to triumph in heauenly glory with him and his elect Angels doth first of all sende them abroade into the earth as it were into a campe there to serue him in warre against the flesh the world the deuill and all the powers of darkenes vnder the banner of Christ that they may come conquerours out of warfare to the triumph and may striue lawfully before they be crowned Whereto that they may be the stronger made and better furnished to endure the labour and hardnes of warfare God begetteth them a new by his word the word working effectually through the holy Ghost as it were by seede and with the same word he nourisheth them as with milke strengtheneth them as with meat armeth them as with a sword of the Spirit and frameth them a shield of faith wherewith they may quench the firie dartes of the wicked one Yea the more
the Lord from gilt of transgression By the which doctrine how much so euer they adde to their own merites or take away from their own sinnes while they go about to be iustified by woorkes yet gaine they nothing els but that with a wonderfull tormenting of conscience they mistrust still and stand in dout of their saluation Which thing themselues deny not nay they teach that they ought to dout and mistrust because they know not whether they haue merites enough So that we may iustly say that their doctrine is not a doctrine of faith and beléefe but of mistrust and dout rather And what maruell is it that they who pluck away so much from the grace and righteousnes of God doo abate no lesse of the glory of God whose woorship and honour they communicate and impart I say not with Saints with elect Angels with the blessed Virgin whom they make equall to Christ in being frée from all sinnes but which is more shamefull with reliques with images with scurfe of all scurfe and things most vile and contemptible against the Lords commaundement God onely shalt thou serue They make a distinction I graunt that to these things they geue a lesser honour called Dulia but the greater honour called Latria they geue to God onely Which is vaine and false For they geue the greater honor euen Latrîa not onely to the sacrament of the body of Christ the consecrated bread wherein they wil excuse themselues because they hold it to be their Lord and God but also to the crosse of Christ the wodden crosse nay to the image thereof as Thomas of Aquine their Angelical Doctor teacheth and confirmeth by the practise of the church and Cardinall Caietan liketh it nor doth Andradius deny it but defend it stoutly Wherefore sith the doctrine of the faith of Christ doth set forth vnto vs our wretchednes and Gods goodnes our naughtines and Gods mercy that we through the knowledge of God and of our selues thinking of him religiously and of our selues modestly may conceiue assured trust that saluation is geuen vs in Christ by the grace of God through the righteousnes of God to the glory of God can there be any felowship communion betwéene this doctrine the doctrine of the faith of Rome which planteth superstition in stéede of religion pride in stéede of modestly douting in stéede of trusting a Pharisaicall vanitie in stéede of Christian pietie that is at one word vnfaithfulnes in stéede of faith Now what shall I say touching the sacraments how those holy rites deliuered vs by Christ to seale the grace of God vnto vs haue béene increased in number impayred in vertue depraued with errours polluted with ceremonies defiled with mens inuentions and spoyled of their fruite by reason they were ministred in a strange toung With the which anoyances to let passe in silence how greatly and gréeuously the Romanistes haue hurt baptisme whereof the substance yet and as it were the life hath beene preserued whole and sound through Gods mercy they haue corrupted the supper of the Lord so fowly with so great and many errours and abuses that there is almost no token of his supper to be found in it For they haue made of a sacrament a sacrifice not a sacrifice of thankes geuing but propitiatorie nor propitiatorie as representing Christ but truely and properly propitiatorie to be offred by a Masse-priest as by a new Priest after the order of Melchisedec and offered not onely for the quick but for the dead too nor for the quick and dead onely to saue them but also to ridde their pigges from diseases and to serue their turne for whatsoeuer other chares They offer vp anew that one and onely sacrifice which being once offered hath sanctified vs for euer and make the death of Christ to be of no effect They take away the humane nature of Christ by the reall presence They take away the holy signe that is the sacrament by transubstantiation They take away the right vse of the communion by their priuate Masses They take away the ordinance of our Lord and Sauiour they take away the singular comfort of the faithfull they take away a most swéet pledge of saluation by their maimed communion vnder one kinde They take away almost religion it selfe at least they prophane it with a cursed custome of superstition more then heathnish in that they cary a cake the body of Christ they call it about in processions to be worshipped as God and before the Pope they mount it on a horse with lanterns and a bell in a maner as the Persians did cary fyer their God before the king of Persians As for publike prayers ordeined to this end that the people of God banding them selues together as Tertullian speaketh might doo their suite seruice to God with ioyned force the Romanistes not contented to robbe God of his honour by praying to creatures yea to dumme creatures which is more abominable oyle stones crosses images saying to a stocke thou art my father and to a stone thou hast brought me foorth like m the idolaters in Ieremie they robbe the people of God both of a dutie and of an aide by praying in a strange tongue wherein neither can they pray together with them nor be stirred vp thereby to true deuotion For it is a small faute in these men to pray for the dead that they may be ridde out of the paines of Purgatory to babble in praying with vaine repetitions as if God were serued By reckening vp their mutteringes vpon a paire of beades Though these thinges are also beside the worde of God and therefore not of faith therefore of sinne Yet in these men they are small fautes at least they haue some coolour eyther of olde custome or of mans reason or of zeale without knowledge But to pray to God in wordes not vnderstoode like popiniayes or parrats it is so absurd a matter in reason so wicked in religion so contrary to the expresse cōmandement of the Lord iudgement of the Apostle and practise of the church I say not of the church of the Iewes or of the Syrians or of the Greekes or of the Latins but the church generally euen of all churches from the beginning of the world till the darke ages in which the Barbarians of late did ouerflow them that such as doo vse it may bee thought to doate such as defende it seeme to haue a lust to bee madd with reason It remaineth for me to intreate of discipline whereof this is the order set downe in the scripture that the church should be gouerned by the ministers of God according to the lawes of God to the saluatiō of Gods people And what one of these pointes is kept in the church of Rome In
Iewes whereas the Roman Church was a church of the Gentiles Wherefore neither Gregorie did purpose to proue the supremacie of the Pope by Christes wordes to Peter neither did Christ meane the Church of Rome specially but generally the Catholike Church euen all the chosen when he said of his Church that the gates of hell should not preuaile against it And if as one appealed from king Philip to king Philip from Philip halfe asléepe to Philip wel awaked so I may appeale from Gregorie to Gregorie from Gregorie somewhat troubled to Gregorie aduised better himselfe will by and by giue iudgement of my side For in the same treatise he doth a litle after alleage the place rightly and expound it soundly of them alone and all them who are built on Christ firmely and faithfully and nothing shall remoue them from him Which to be the natural sense of Christes wordes it is apparant to the eye For the gates of hell preuaile against them who are adiudged to death eternal But hypocrites and euill seruants are adiudged to it The gates of hell therefore preuaile against such Now such haue béene and may be the members yea the heads of the Church of Rome Then our Sauiour meant not that priuilege to them Onely against the chosen and elect of God the gates of hell preuaile not For whom he hath predestinate them hath he also glorified Wherefore it is the Church of Gods elect and chosen to whom our Sauiour meant it And them he doth call in this place my Church as in an other afterward to like effect my sheepe So what he meant there by saying of his sheepe to them I giue eternal life and they shal neuer perish the same he meant here by saying of his Church against it the gates of hel shall not preuaile Which thing is so cléere out of all controuersie that to passe ouer Theophylact and Origen of whom the one writeth that euery man established in the faith of Christ is meant by the Church the gates of hell shal not preuaile against him the other that these gates preuaile against all who are not of the Church and he is neither the Church nor any part therof whom they preuaile against Lira the meanest of a great many doth thus expound the place that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against the Church by subuerting it from the true faith Whereby saith he it is plaine that the Church consisteth not of men in respect of honour or power ecclesiasticall or ciuill for many Princes and Popes haue beene found to haue reuolted from the faith but the Church consisteth of them in whom there is true knowlege and profession of the faith and truth Hart. Howsoeuer Gregorie did either mistake the words of the scripture or not apply them perhaps to the supremacie yet is the supremacie proued by that title which he giueth the Church of Rome For if the Church of Rome be the head of all Churches why not the Bishop of Rome the head of all Bishops Rainoldes What force this reason hath we shall see anone But first I must conclude that it is not proued by the holy scriptures neither by these which you haue alleaged out of the Fathers nor by any other that you can alleage And this hath heretofore bene the opinion of learned men amongst your selues as i◠appéereth by your Canus Who hauing examined the point with greater iudgement then Stapletons are wont doth graunt that it is not writen in the scriptures that the Pope succeedeth Peter in the supremacie But that which in Canus might perhaps haue séemed one Doctors priuate fansy doth séeme to bée now resolued on by more and is taught publikely For your Roman reader the Iesuit Father Robert in his lectures of the Pope which for their excellencie are set downe in writing and sent abroad as great iewels doth not onely teach the same but also proue it And whereas Canus thought that to conuey Peters right vnto the Pope the stories haue sufficient ground which say that Peter set his chaire at Rome and there died or if learned men shall not allow of that an other ground may be that the Church receiued it though not by scripture yet by tradition Father Robert putting the matter out of controuersie defineth that in déede it is a tradition not of Christ but of the Apostles and least we should doubt of which of the Apostles he nameth the man Peter euen a tradition of Peter Let me intreate you M. Hart if all that I haue said cannot preuaile with you yet to regard the doctrine the doctrine taught at Rome of your owne of the chiefest of your owne Doctors Renounce the vnlearned folies of your Stapleton brainsicke furies of your Rhemists who with desperate violence doo wrest the word of Christ to make it serue the pride of Antichrist Acknowlege that you haue not one text through all the scripture to proue the Popes supremacie that when you tell men of Thou art Peter and on this rocke I haue prayed for the Peter and Peter feede my sheepe you do presume of their simplicitie that in truth these places doo not import it but policie would haue somewhat saide eis not so many would beleeue it finally that the Papacie is a deuise of Popes and Papists for which sith the scriptures can be abused no longer because men haue espied the fraude therefore a new cloake is found for it now and hereafter it shall be counted a tradition of Peter The eighth chapter The autoritie 1 of traditions and fathers pretended to proue the Popes supremacie in vaine beside the scripture which is the onely rule of faith The Fathers 2 being heard with lawfull exceptions that may be iustly taken against them 3 doo not proue it As it is shewed first in Fathers of the Church of Rome By the way 4 the name of Priest the Priestly sacrifice of Christians the Popish sacrifice of Masse-priestes the proofes brought for the Masse the substance and ceremonies of it are laid open And so it is declared that 5 neither the auncient Bishops of Rome themselues 6 nor any other Fathers do proue the Popes supremacie HART You labour in vaine if you go about to perswade me that the Popes supremacie can not be proued by scripture And what iniurious dealing is this to bring our owne men Canus and Father Robert for the proofe thereof as though the greatest fauourers of vs were against vs. Rainoldes The scholer is not aboue his maister nor the seruant aboue his Lord. If Christ my Lord and maister were glad to labor in vaine why should I disdaine it Chiefly sith I may comfort my selfe as he did I haue laboured in vaine I haue spent my strength in vaine and for nothing but yet my duety is with the Lord and my worke with my God But what iniurious dealing is it if I indeuouring
onely but Sedulius doo write that our Sauiour after his resurrection appeered first to the blessed virgin which is false but they thought through an affection to her that he should haue done so in like sort a louing affection to Saintes hath transported sundry not onely later writers but auncienter also from the truth to fansies Gelasius and the seuentie Bishops who were assembled in a Councel with him were assembled about eleuen hundred yeares ago Yet euen then how manie stories of the Saintes were set abroade with forged fables almost a whole bead-roale condemned by the Councell Whereof that some were coyned vpon that affection as some vpon others one of them entitled the actes of Paule and Tecla may serue for an example These actes contained a storie supposed to be omitted in the actes of the Apostles how that when S. Paule did preach at Iconium Tecla a maiden betrothed to a gentleman hearing him preach of maidenhood forsooke her husband by and by and went away with him and thereupon was persecuted and deliuered from great dangers and wrought many miracles and trauailed through sundry countries with S. Paule Which though it be a lewd tale agréeing neither with the circumstance of S. Paules storie nor with his doctrine and discretion yet was it published as true and that in the Apostles age by an Elder or Priest as you would terme him who was conuicted by S. Iohn and confessed that he wrote it for good will that he bare to Paule Such a credit belike he thought it would be to S. Paule that a maide betrothed to a man of wealth and worship and so his wife by right should forsake her husband and goe away with him Wherefore though you minde not to presse me with thinges of later writers but of old ancient as you say yet was it not impertinent to mention your Portesse and stories of the like autoritie For neither doo I know what number of yeares you will thinke sufficient to proue a writer old and though you account none olde but such as liued many hundred yeares since yet are their fables in your Portesse as namely this of Tecla euen out of them also Yea the most of those things not onely this of Tecla but the most of those things which Gelasius Bishop of Rome and the Councell condemned for vnsound I say the most of those things are rehearsed in your legends and in the most of your Portesses Which thing I affirme not of mine owne knowlege for I haue not séene so many sortes of Portesses that I can vouch it of the most but Claudius Espencaeus a Doctor of Paris an eger enimie of Beza the worthier of credit herein affirmeth it and he affirmeth it with great asseueration that it is so vndoutedly Nor doth he touch them onely for these so ancient lyes but for many mo which are of lesse ancientie and that vpon the iudgement of sundry learned men and not his priuate fansie For he alleageth Peter a venerable Abbat who liued foure hundred yeares agoe saying that the songs and hymnes of the Church had very many toyes as namely an hymne in the praise of S. Benet in the which though reading it ouer somewhat hastily and staying not to search all yet he found at least foure and twentie lyes He alleageth an other Peter complayning likewise and reprouing a false and fond hymne in the praise of S. Mawre running vpon the waters He alleageth the Cardinall of Aliacos aduise to the Councell of Constance for order to be taken that vnsound writings corrupt and péeuish pamphlets be not read in the Church-seruice He alleageth the oration of the Earle of Mirandula to Pope Leo the tenth and the Councell of Lateran renewing the Cardinall of Aliacos aduise He alleageth Raphael Volaterran a great historian if not a diuine bewailing the case that in the dayly praiers there are manifest lies read He alleageth Adrian who afterward was Pope Adrian the sixth misliking superstitious forgeries in holy matters In a word he saith that the Catholikes may lament in the behalfe of the Church as Ieremie lamented in the behalfe of the Synagogue Thy prophets haue seene false and foolish things for thee and he addeth that the griefe which he doth feele and open for these toyes dotages crept into the publike seruice of the Church is common vnto him with all good men for the most part Wherein as his desire and zeale of reformation is greater then Canus who would not haue this filth swept out of the Portesses so dealeth he more fréely and frankly with your churches legends too then Canus For letting go the scurffe of the golden legend and Antoninus and Vincentius hee reproueth the storie of Saintes which was compiled of late by a Venetian a Bishop of account and saith that no stable is â—o ful of doong as that is of fables Yea farther that Simeon Metaphrastes a great man in the new legends of Lipomanus and Surius and Vsuardes Martyrologe which is the Church of Romes legend besides the Martyrologes of certaine other writers are fraught with much baggage Now to this Parisian Doctor Espencaeus and the autours whom he alleageth you may adde the kings professours and chiefest Doctors of Louan if you desire more witnesses euen Hessels and Molanus Of whom the one writing a Censure on a storie called the Passionall of Saintes condemneth much thereof and enditeth more with this verdict Try al things holde that which is good the other setting foorth and commending that Censure saith it is no maruaile if in that Passionall there be corrupt stories sith the stories which the Catholikes of that countrie found amongst the lying Greekes might easily come into it Molanus layeth the faulte vpon the lying Greekes as they deserue it best indéed Notwithstanding it appéereth by some whom either Hesâ—els or himselfe haue censured that not the Greekes alone are faultie And sundry Greekes are faultie whom he would be loth to call lying Greekes as namely Nicephorus Simeon Metaphrastes of the newer writers of the ancienter Palladius and Cassianus Of all whom Molanus hath giuen this note that most learned men do iudge them not worthy to be greatly credited Whereby you may sée that the iudgement of Canus touching the stories of Saintes is more a great deale then one Doctors iudgement Howbeit if so many were not of his minde yet should you doo him wrong to cast him off as one Doctor For himselfe alleageth the testimonie of a Doctor as good as any that I haue named I meane that worthy man Ludouicus Viues Who lamenting that the stories of heathen captaines and philosophers are writen so notably that they are like to liue for euer but the liues of Apostles of Martyrs of Saintes the actes of the
Church both in the spring and grouth of it are couered with great darknes and lye vnknown in a maner for those things saith he which are writen of them are a fewe excepted defiled with many fables while he that writeth them doth folow his own affectioÌ„ telleth not what a Saint hath done but what he would haue had him done so that the writers fansie and not the truth doth penne the storie Yea some haue thought it a point of great godlinesse to coyne prety lyes that thereby mens deuotion might be stirred vp Some haue thought it a point of great godlinesse saith Viues but wil you know of what godlines There is a mysterie in yâ— which Viâ—es doth not open Canus doth open it For he saith that they who feine and forge in writing ecclesiasticall stories deuise their whole matter ether to error or to gaine S. Paule hath forewarned vs of a kinde of men which thinke that gaine is godlines Your Church M. Hart hath had many minions who of a zeale to this godlines haue not onely writen but wrought miracles too You remember the tale of Bel and the Dragon A fréend of yours intreating thereof doth report that as the Priestes of Babylon did abuse the people in the Dragons worship so euen in the Church the people sometimes is shamefully deceiued with miracles wrought either by Priestes or by their adherents for gaine and lucres sake Hart. If any doo so we allow not of it and there is order taken by the Councell of Trent against such abuses But what is this to the Portesse or rather to the Popes supremacie Chiefly sith I minde not to alleage any thing out of the Portesse for it Rainoldes I was afraide you would You are a man aâ— likely for ought that I know to doo it for the Popes supremacie as your Rhemists to doo it for the assumption of the virgin Though my meaning was not so much of your Portesse as of Portesse-like writers by whom I fell into your Portesse But â—f you minde not to alleage any thing out of the Portesse for it then you will not bring those miracles which are fathered vpon S. Thomas of Canterburie Aqua Thomae quinquies varians colorem In las semel transijt quater in crâ—orem Ad Thomae memoriam quater lux descendit Et in sancti gloriam cereos accendit The water of Thomas did fiue times change her colour Once it was turned into milke and foure times into bloud At Thomas his monument foure times there came downe light And in the honour of the Sainte it kindled the tapers Hart. I pray go to the purpose and leaue these idle fansies which you bring in to play with There is no such thing in the Portesse now And if it were what is it to the point in question Rainoldes To the point in question as direct as may be For this Thomas died vpon occasion of a quarrell about the Popes supremacie while he maintained appeales against the king to the Pope Now to proue that he stood in defense of the truth those miracles were wrought For that which they preached who had the grace of miracles was the truth saith Bristow adding that S. Thomas of Canterbury S. Thomas of Aquine S. Francis S. Dominike and infinit others had that grace in such sorte that no man is able to put any difference betweene the miracles of Christ with his Apostles and of these men Yet well-fare their heartes who reformed your Portesse For they haue put out those miracles of S. Thomas of Canterbury and many others which they would not haue doon I trow had they not knowne some difference betwéene the miracles of these men and the miracles of Christ. But they haue left in as worthie a miracle as those of an other of Bristowes miracle-workers euen of S. Thomas of Aquine and I hope you will not call that an idle fansie though it be as idle with me as the former For they report of him that when he was praying earnestly at Naples before the image of the crucifix he heard a voyce the crucifix spake it saying to him Thomas thou hast writen well of me Thomas I should haue thought for my part that the wodden crucifix of a louing thankfull hart had commended him because he did honour it with the fame honour that is due to God and writeth solemnly that men ought to doo so But Pope Pius the fifth the Lorde-reformer of the Portesse affirmeth that the doctrine of Thomas was approued by the mouth of the crucifix him self in this miracle And he knew best the meaning ofit So that I perceyue this miracle was rather a dogmaticall miracle as Bristow â—ermeth it then personall But whether personall or dogmaâ—icall it shall not perswade me that all is true which is writen and taught by your dogmaticall Doctor Thomas For as I haue shewed he forgeth and belyeth the Fathers notably in the defense of the Popes supremacie against the Grecians I can hardly think that when the crucifix said Thomas had writen well it meant to approue his writing in that point Or if the crucifix meant it the crucifix was to blame vnlesse the faute were rather in some lying knaue who spake out of the crucifix Such feates there haue beene wrought in images ere now Hart. Euill mindes turne all thinges to the worst Pope Pius the fifth doth say of that miracle that it is recorded in a godly story Rainoldes But in what story Pope Pius doth not say Belike he meaneth Antoninus of whom you know what Canus iudgeth and his iudgement therein is good Hart. Yet you can not deny but that Antoninus reporteth many true thinges And why may not that miracle I pray be one of them Rainoldes A lying miracle no doubt as Antoninus reporteth it For he saith that when Thomas was commanded by Pope Gregorie to come vnto the Councell of Lions and to bring with him that booke which he had made by Pope Vrbanes commandement against the errours of the Grecians whereof in that Councell they were to be conuicted before he went thither that voyce was heard out of the crucifix by certaine who watched Thomas as he was praying on a certaine night in S. Dominikes coouent-church I say nothing here of the suspicious circumstances the time the night season the place the coouent-church the witnesses lying in waite the cause to proue that which should bee handled for the Pope against the Grecians in the Councell Onely this I say that séeing in that booke against the errors of the Grecians Thomas doth falsifie the writinges of S. Cyrill and of aboue six hundred Fathers euen the generall Councel of Chalcedon to make them beare witnesse for the Popes supremacie the miracle pretended to haue declared as from heauen that Thomas did well in handling so the cause of Christ was a lying miracle lying in respect