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
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
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
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
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
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
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
the chaire of Moses but in the chaire of Christ doo the Priests sit for they haue receiued his doctrine Which point vnlesse your former argument were naught will proue that Priestes cannot erre no more then Popes For they who sit in Christes chaire haue greater prerogatiue then they who sate in the chaire of Moses Priestes then Scribes and Pharises The Scribes and the Pharises were to be obeied in all things which they said The Priestes must bee therefore much more obeied in all things But if they should erre then ought they not to be obeied Therefore they cannot erre in any thing they say Acknowledge you the forme of your owne argument Doth not the conclusion folow as necessarily here as there And thinke you M. Hart that Priestes cannot erre Thinke you that your selfe are of this perfection that wée ought to obey both you and your companions in all thinges which you say Or if you thinke not so fondly of them so proudly of your selfe as I hope you do not then leaue Doctor Stapletons exposition which inferreth it which he patcheth vp with the wordes of Austin Chrysostome and Origen whereas not one of them meant it Yéelde rather if you be wedded to Doctors of your owne side vnto their authoritie then whom the Church of Rome hath none of greater knowledge and perfiter iudgement for right interpreting of the scriptures I meane Iohn Ferus Arias Montanus Of whom the one saith that Christ taught his disciples to obserue and doo whatsoeuer the Scribes and the Pharises commanded by the prescript of the law that is out of the chaire of Moses the other that he chargeth vs to obey euil prelates yet withall he addeth how farre we must obey them Do ye saith he all things which they shall say vnto you but he had told them first they sit vpon the chaire of Moses For Christ did not meane that they should obserue all the decrees of Pharises but so farre forth as they agreed with the law According whereunto when he had shewed before also that they taught contrarie to the law in some pointes after certaine things touched betweene he added Beware of the leauen of the Pharises In like sort he said to the Apostles and their successours Hee that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me and it shall be easier for the land of Sodom in the day of iudgement then for them who shall not receiue you and heare your wordes But Matthew had set downe before that Christ chose twelue whom he called Apostles and charged them to preach the gospell Whereby it appeereth that the Apostles must be heard but so farre forth as they be Apostles that is as they doo Christes worke and preach and teach the thinges which Christ commanded But if they teach other thinges and contrarie to Christ then are they not Apostles now but seducers and therefore not to be heard O the great light of truth which forceth euen the aduersaries not onely to perceiue it but also to reueale it often So will it force you too if you haue so much grace as Ferus and Montanus had Hart. So much grace as to say that if the Apostles teach thinges contrarie to Christ they are no Apostles now but seducers Doo you allow that spéech of Ferus And might the Apostles be seducers Rainoldes Peter an Apostle might say vnto Christ when he heard him speake of suffering at Ierusalem Maister pitie thy selfe this shall not be vnto thee And Christ would not therefore haue called him Satan had he not thought him a seducer Hart. But Christ did giue them afterwarde the holy ghost in greater abundance from heauen when he sent them to preach vnto all the world Rainoldes But Christ had told them before that it should be easier for Sodom and Gomorrha then for the citie that shold not heare their wordes Yet Christ himselfe refused to heare the wordes of Peter Wherefore the exposition of Ferus is good that Christ meant those wordes which he had willed them to preach that is the gospell Beside that Ferus speaketh not onely of Apostles but also of their successours Now though the Apostles were priuileged afterwarde by the speciall graces of the holy ghost to teach the truth in all thinges yet Bishops who succeeded them haue not that priuilege You must renounce therfore that erroneous expositioÌ„ which knitteth an assured truth of faith and doctrine to the succession of the Apostles and bindeth vs in all thinges to obey them who succeede into the seate of the Apostles and saith that he who sitteth in the chaire of the Apostles doth speake not his owne thinges but the thinges of God For our Sauiour meant that the Scribes Pharises ought to be obeied in al things which they taught out of the law of God not that they câ—uld not erre in faith and doctrine because they did succeede Aaron Hart. I cannot conceiue but that he meant to cléere their doctrine from errour For his wordes of doing that which they say because they sit in the chaire of Moses are rather a warraÌ„t for them in all thinges which they teach then a restraint for others how farre they must obey them Rainoldes His wordes belong properly to the instruction of hearers that they despise not the doctrine of God for the fautes of teachers So are they both a warrant and a restraint by consequent A warrant for teachers to be obeied in all things which they shall say out of the law A restraint for hearers not to doo those thinges whiâ—h the teachers say if they shall teach against the law As letters of credence geuen by Princes vnto their embassadours doo warrant them for their commission restraine them if they goe beyond it Hart. But the commission here is generall for all thinges that concerne teachers For Christ expresly sâ—ith obserue ye and doo ye Now we obserue pointes of faith we doo precepts of maners Wherefore whatsoeuer the Scribes and Pharises taught either of faith or maners they were to be obeyed in it Rainoldes That were a pretie proofe for your traditions of both sortes if it had ground in the text But to obserue and doo are both referred by Christ to the same thinges as he sheweth by comprising them first in the one worde then in the other All thinges whatsoeuer they say you must obserue obserue ye and doo ye but after their workes doo not for they say and doo not So it séemeth that to fasten his lesson of obeying the commandements of God which the Scribes and Pharises taught out of Moses he doubleth as it were his stroke by saying both obserue ye and doo ye Wherein he might expresse and call to their remembrance that which he doth commend of Moses who doubleth oft the same wordes in vrging of the same doctrine To be short
two conditions one that they bee lawfully ordayned least they bee theeues who enter in not by the doore an other that being lawfully ordained they keepe and holde vnitie least they become woolues of pastours Rainoldes Then is not trueth of doctrine knit necessarily to succession it selfe no not though it bee lawfull and Apostolike succession Hart. I graunt but with vnitie Rainoldes Then is there much vanitie in Stapletons discourses and in his vaunt more vanitie that in spite of heretikes a sure vndouted certaintie of doctrine and faith is knit to the verie succession of the Apostles to the succession it selfe And you by retayning this vnitie with Stapleton haue razed to the grounde that prerogatiue of the Pope whereon you builded his supremacie For if vnitie with succession haue vndouted certaintie of doctrine and faith all Pastors kéeping vnitie are as frée from errour in doctrine as the Pope is And so if not to erre in doctrine be a priuilege proofe of the supremacie all Pastours haue as high supremacie by this vnitie as the Pope hath The Pope I can tell you will not like this vnitie How much the more wisely me thought you dealt before when laying the foundation of the prerogatiue Papall you remoued this vnitie out of the chaire that His vnitie might sit in it For whereas S. Austin saith that God hath set the doctrine of truth in the chaire of vnitie meaning of all pastors and teachers of the Church which held the faith with â—oncord against the sect and schisme of Donatistes you applyed that saying to the chaire of the Pope displacing altogether both vnitie and other pastors Wherein though you forsooke the steps of D. Stapleton who proueth by that verie saying of S. Austin that all Priestes and Bishops whether they be pastours or hirelinges teach the truth yet you followed that which you had receiued of your Diuines at Rhemes For they do so apply it to the Popes prerogatiue Belike the great benefites flowing from the Pope to the Rhemish Seminarie did moue them to aduenture somewhat in his quarell more then D. Stapletons heart did â—erue him too Hart No more then in truth and conscience they might For though in déed that saying of S. Austin were meant of al Bishops that held the faith with concord which our Diuines of Rhemes I warrant you knew well enough yet they might apply it to the Pope as chiefely belonging vnto him the fountaine as it were of vnitie Rainoldes But they do apply it to the Pope as onely belonging vnto him For they alleage it to proue the prerogatiue and priuilege of the Pope that howsoeuer he doo in person yet he cannot erre in office Liberius say they in persecution might yeelde Marcellinus for feare might commit idolatrie Honorius might fall to heresie and more then all this some Iudas might creepe into the office and yet all this without preiudice of the office and seate in which saith S. Austin our Lord hath set the doctrine of truth If your Diuines of Rhemes knew that S. Austin wrote this of all Bishops that held the faith with concord their sinne is the greater For that which he made common to the vnitie of all they nippe it as proper to the singular seate of one And that which he spake in generall of wicked bishops who say good thinges and doo euill they abbridge it to Popes As who say that Popes onely could be wicked not other Bishops also Hart. If there were perhaps either a slippe ofmemory or other ouersight in citing of S. Austins wordes the matter is not great so long as the thing is true which they be cited for namely that the Pope may erre in person not in office as a priuate man not as Pope Rainoldes The matter is so great that the tracke thereof will find vs out that which by this distinction you séeke to steale away For you say that the Pope cannot erre in office though he may in person And why Because although his person be wicked yet in the seate hath God set the doctrine of truth as S. Austin saith But as S. Austin saith it all Bishops be they good or euill pastors or hirelinges doo sit in that seat So that none of them can erre in office neither by consequence of your reason Wherefore if the Pope cannot erre as Pope a Bishop cannot erre as Bishop But you will not say I thinke that a Bishop cannot erre as Bishop Therefore you must yéeld that the Pope may erre as Pope Hart. What if I said that a Bishop can not erre as Bishop I could maintaine it after a sort Rainoldes I doubt not of that But you should marre the Popes priuilege which if you doo Hart. Nay I say it not The fault of your argument is rather in the former part I meane in the ground thereofwhich you said as out of S. Austin that the office and seate wherein God hath set the doctrine of truth is common to al Bishops For though he may séeme to haue so thought in that epistle yet in the next before it he giueth that prerogatiue to the Sée of Rome Rainoldes Unlesse your Diuines of Rhemes doo abuse him For out of that epistle they teach vs this lesson God preserueth the truth of Christian religion in the Apostolike See of Rome which is in the new Law answerable to the chaire of Moses notwithstanding the Bishops of the same were neuer so wicked of life yea though some traitor as ill as Iudas were Bishop thereof it should not bee preiudiciall to the Church and innocent Christians for whom our Lord prouiding said Doo that which they say but doo not as they doo August Epist. 165. Now in the epistle alleaged and quoted for proofe of this lesson S. Austin saith the very same which in the other of wicked Bishops in generall though applying it in particular to the Bishops of Rome if any of them had béene wicked Your Diuines of Rhemes leaue out the generall wordes that simple men may thinke he meant a special priuilege of the Sée of Rome Whereto they note in the margent The See of Rome preserued in truth And vpon other like places The dignitie of the See of Rome And that which passeth all they say that in the newe law the See of Rome is answerable to the chaire of Moses the Apostolike See of Rome I was of opinion before I saw these gloses of theirs vpon the Testament that Stapleton had passed all the Popes retayners in abusing Scriptures and Fathers for the Papacy But now I perceiue and confesse that as Ierusalem did iustifie her sister Sodom so the Diuines of Rhemes haue iustified their brother Stapleton For Stapleton as he hath dealt with greater truth and honestie then they in many other pointes so hath he shewed in this of Scribes and Pharises sitting in Moses chaire both that the text is meant of wicked
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
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
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
and verie strongly proued Rainoldes This long and smooth tale which you haue tolde out of your Doctor is like to that nightingale to which a Lacedemonian when he had plucked her feathers off and sawe a litle caraine left said Thou art a voice nought else Plucke off the feathers of your tale the body is a poore carkase and hath no substance in it Howbeit the names of the two courtes the outward court the inward court with other tunes of like musike are very sweete melodie in the eares of them whose hartes are in the court of Rome As for simple men who haue béene onelye conuersant in the courtes of the Lord they sound to them like straunge languages and seeme to containe more profound mysteries then we can reach the depth off But to open your answere that it may be séene what is vnsound in it this is the point of the thing in controuersie I say that the power promised to Peter by the name of the keyes in the sixtéenth of Matthew was performed and giuen to all the Apostles by the commission of Christ in the twentieth of Iohn You with Stapleton deny it Why Because the keyes promised to Peter do signifie all kind of power wherof a part onely was giuen to the Apostles to bind and loose in either court And how proue you this Forsooth bicause by these wordes whatsoeuer thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heauen Christ doth not expound what he meant by the keies as some men say you haue thoughtthat he doth Then some men haue thought that the power of the keyes and the power of binding and loosing are all one the later added by Christ to expound the former In deede I thought so and I perceaue by you that I thought not so alone some other men haue thought it too But you say it is not as some men haue thought Yet you do not tell vs the names of these some men Might we knowe I praye what these some men be Hart. What matter is it who they be sith wee are not of their minde Rainoldes Yes it is a matter For if I knew them it may be I would talke with them Hart. To confirme you in your errour But learned men do vary in expounding of Scriptures some hitte the marke some misse it And D. Stapleton reading many of all â—ortes might fall on some expounding it amisse as you do whom hée for modestie would not name where hee reprooueth their opinion Rainoldes This modestie I like not The truth is hee durst not name them least wee should know them and bee the more strengthned by them in the truth to the confounding of your errour For these some men whom hee so lightly trippeth ouer are but al the Fathers who haue with one consent expounded Christes promise of the keyes as we do Now the exposition which the Fathers make is by his owne iudgement the churches exposition which hath the right sense of the scripture And so while he is launching out into the deepe to fetch in a prise for Peter of Romes supremacie hee maketh shipwracke in the hauen Hart. How know you that the Fathers all haue so expounded it You haue not read them all haue you Rainoldes No truely Neither euer am likely to doo it But I haue read him that hath read them all I trow And hee being a man worthy with you of credit doth witnesse that I saye true Hart. Who is that Rainoldes Euen Father Robert the publike reader and professor of diuinitie in Rome Who when he discoursed of Christes wordes to Peter Whatsoeuer thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heauen said that all power of the keyes is therein promised not restrained to part but enlarged to what soeuer Yea that Christ likewise promised the same power to all the Apostles when he spake in like wordes Whatsoeuer ye bind on earth shall be bound in heauen what soeuer ye loose on earth shall be loosed in heauen For albeit Origen more subtilly then literally doth put a difference betweene the promises because in the one the word heauen is vsed in the other heauens yet the common exposition of S. Ierom S. Hilarie S. Anselme and others vpon this place yea of S. Austin him selfe in his treatise vpon Iohn is that Christ speaketh of the power of the keyes by which the Apostles and their successours do bynd or loose sinners And although it seemeth that here is chiefely meant the power of iurisdiction whereby sinners are excommunicate yet the said Fathers doo vnderstand it of both the powers not onely of iurisdiction but of order too And that may be gathered it seemeth by the text For it is said as generally to the Apostles What things soeuer ye shal bind as it is to Peter What thing soeuer thou shalt bind Hart. Perhaps Father Robert doth bring in these thinges by way of an obiection and frameth thereunto an answere and so resolueth to the contrarie Rainoldes No. But he bringeth your opinion in deede by way of an obiection and frameth thereunto an answere and so resolueth to the contrary For thus he goeth forward What Is that giuen then to all the Apostles which was promised to Peter Caietan in his treatise of the Popes authority saith that the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and the power of byndyng and loosing are not all one for that to bynd and loose is lesse then to open and shut But this doctrine seemeth to be more subtill then true For it is a thing vnheard of that there are in the Church any other keyes then the keyes of order and of iurisdiction And the sense of those wordes I will giue thee the keyes and whatsoeuer thou shalt bind and loose is plaine that first a certaine power and authoritie is promised afterward the function of it is declared Now the function of these keyes is declared by the wordes to bind and loose not by the wordes to shut and open that we may vnderstand they be metaphoricall and borowed kindes of speeches neither heauen is opened properly but it is said that heauen is opened then with these keyes when men are loosed and dispatched of the difficulties and infirmities which shut them out of heauen and so forth Thus saith your chiefest reader and Iesuit Robert Bellarmin whose iudgement by your leaue I farre esteeme in this point aboue D. Stapletons as more agreeable to the scriptures Hart. You may estéeme it as you liâ—t But I am not bound to stand to Bellarmines iudgement Rainoldes But you are bound to stand to the iudgement of the Fathers by the Councell of Trent and that vpon your othe as I take it With the which othe I know not how D. Stapleton dispenseth Unlesse the Pope expound it that you must folow them so farre as
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
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
were Rainoldes Then Satan desired to shake out of them al their loue towardes Christ that they might forsake him and reuolte from him Hart. He did so Rainoldes And this he did to what ende but that he might destroy them as he desired to sift Iob As S. Peter warneth vs the Deuill goeth about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may deuour Hart. It is true Rainoldes And as S. Peter armeth vs against the attempts of the Deuill by this lesson whom resist ye strong in faith so Christ did arme him by praying to God and obteining for him that his faith should not faile Hart. Uery true He armed him and made him most strong that he being conuerted might strengthen his brethren Rainoldes Doo you not sée then that he must néedes meane by faith a liuely faith which hath the loue of Christ and constant godlines ioined with it by which the Deuill is conquered hell escaped heauen assured For if he had meant the doctrine as you construe it the true and Catholike doctrine of the faith of Christ how had he armed Peter against those fiery darts of Satā which a right opinion in matters of faith was not able to quench Wherin marke I pray what blemish you cast on the wisedome of Christ whom you suppose to haue said to Peter the Deuill will tempt you to draw you from my loue and to destroy you body and soule but I haue prayed for thee that thou shalt thinke aright in matters of faith Which is as if a Captaine to cheere vp a souldiour whom he had speciall care off against the battaile should tell him the enimie will assault you with poisoned shot to kill you but I haue got a shield of paper for thee to defend thee from it Then which what can be spoken more ridiculous or absurd Hart. As though a right faith were no stronger fense against assaultes of the Deuill then is a shield of paper against poisoned shot S. Paule thought not so who in the armour of a Christian exhorteth vs aboue all things to take the shield of faith Rainoldes S. Paule meaneth not the same by faith that you doo For he addeth of that shield that we may quench all the fiery dartes of the wicked that is to say of the deuill with it But a right opinion in matters of faith cannot quench them all as it is plaine by Iudas or by Pope Iohn Therefore hee meaneth by the shield of faith a liuely Christian faith which God doth giue to his elect and to them onely by which wee ouercome the deuill and all his forces and enter into heauen Howbeit I deny not that a right opinion in matters of faith is stronger then paper against some dartes of Satan to weete against errours But to be preserued safe from these dartes is not enough to life neither doo all of them giue mortall woundes The dartes whereof I spake are more sharpe deadly Whom they wound they kill Against the which kind if Christ had armed Peter with such a faith as you imagine when Satan desired to sift him as wheat it is profane to thinke it but it foloweth of your fansie that he armed him with as it were a paper-shield against poysoned shot For as against this shot a shield of paper cannot preserue our temporall life so a right opinion in matters of faith could not saue him to life eternall from those dartes Hart. And what if our Sauiour meant a liuely faith in that he prayed for Peter Rainoldes Then he prayed for Peter that which he prayed not for the Popes For he obteineth alwaies the things which he prayeth for But he obteined not a liuely faith for al the Popes as I haue proued Therefore he prayed not for it And so is that position found to be false on which you pitch the Papacie that Christ made that prayer for Peters successours in the See of Rome which he made for Peter not to faile in faith Hart. Yet Christ gaue him also that faith which we speake off I meane a right iudgement in matters of faith with grace that neither it should faile And in this priuilege the Pope doth succeede him though not in the other Rainoldes You should first proue that Christ meant this priuilege in mentioning faith there or els I will answere that he gaue it to Peter as to the Apostles And so may their successours claime it as well as Peters But admit he meant it The Pope doth not succeede him in this priuilege neither For the Pope may not onely erre in doctrine but also be an heretike Which I hope you will not say that Peter might Hart. Neither by my good will that the Pope may Rainoldes But you must no remedie It is a ruled case Your Schoolemen and Canonistes Ockam Hostiensis Turrecremata Zabarella Cusanus Antoninus Alfonsus Canus Sanders Bellarmin and others yea the Canon law it selfe yea a Councell a Romane councell confirmed by the Pope do graunt it Hart. They graunt that the Pope may be an heretike perhaps by a supposall as many things may be which neuer were nor are nor shall be For you cannot proue that euer any Pope was an heretike actually though possibly they may be Wherof I will not striue Rainoldes If they may be possibly which you must néedes graunt then is it certaine that it was not meant by the words of Christ that they should not faile in doctrine of faith For whatsoeuer he saith that it shall not be that cannot be possibly But it it is no surer that they may be heretikes then it is manifest that some of them haue béene For whē the Church was pestered with the heresie of the Monothelites who whereas Christ is made our Sauiour and redéemer by that he doth consist of two natures God and man and as of two natures so of two willes agreeably to the natures they say that Christ hath but onely one will and by consequent but one nature which razeth the ground of our saluation Honorius the Pope did hold and teach this heresie The sixth generall councell found him guiltie of it condemned him and cursed him for it Hart. Whether Pope Honorius held that heresie or no the Catholikes are of diuers iudgements some thinking that he did some that he did not Father Robert the reader of controuersies in Rome preferreth the opinion of Pighius Hosius and Onuphrius before them al who thinke otherwise and so with their consent he doth acquite Honorius Rainoldes How by a pardon as Barrabas was acquited Or haue they empaneled a iurie of Clerkes and found him not guiltie Hart. They shew by good reasons that he is falsely slaundered For Pighius and Hosius doo bring the testimonies of historians Platina Sabellicus Nauclerus Blondus Aeneas Siluius who say that Honorius did condemne the heresie of the
it too He chargeth vs therefore to heare wicked preachers professing God with their wordes but denying him in their déedes All thinges saith he whatsoeuer they shall say vnto you obserue ye and doo ye Now the cause and reason thereof is giuen in this because they sit vpon the chaire because they hold the roome of Christ as Scribes and Pharises did of Moses For so doth our Sauiour reason as it were They sit vpon the chaire therefore that which they say must be obserued and done S. Austin handling these wordes hath excellently noted it Christ saith he hath made his people secure concerning wicked Prelates that men should not for their sakes forsake the chaire of wholesome doctrine in which euen they who be wicked are constrained to speake good thinges And why are they constrained For saith he they be not their owne thinges but the thinges of God which they speake And how may this be Because saith he in the chaire of vnitie God hath set the doctrine of truth And by what wordes hath he set it or where He addeth Therefore of Prelates who doo their owne euill thinges and speake the good thinges of God he saith in the gospell Doo that they say but doo not that they doo for they say and doo not Thus saith Austin In the same sense are these wordes expounded both by Austin himselfe againe and by Chrysostome and by Origen whose wordes I passe ouer for breuities sake Wherefore to conclude in despite of heretikes a sure vndouted certaintie of doctrine and faith is no lesse knit to the chaire of Christ then to the chaire of Moses to the verie succession of the Apostles then of Aaron nay rather much more by how much the new testament is established on better promises then the olde Marke therefore Christes wordes obserue ye and doo ye For we obserue pointes of faith we doo precepts of maners In them both we must be obedient euen to Pharises that is to wicked men and hypocrites sitting in the chaire that is succéeding into the seate of the Apostles or Christ. Moreouer marke the worde obserue that is to kéepe those thinges which they command to be obserued because they teach not other thinges but such as are to be obserued And in this respect doth Christ allow of them For so the Pharises also them selues though they were wicked men and hypocrites yet as Chrysostom noteth they did not preach their owne things but those thinges which God had commanded by Moses And therefore sith Christ could not commend them for their maners he doth it for his chaire doctrine Wherefore he that sittteth in the chaire of the Apostles doth speake not of himselfe but of the chaire that is not his owne thinges but the thinges of God and therefore must be heard whether he say and doo both or onely say and not doo Hence it is that Austin saith against Petilian Neither for the Pharises did our Lord command the chaire of Moses to be forsaken in which chaire verely he figured his owne For he warneth the people to doo that which they â—ay and not to doo that which they doo that the holinesse of the chaire be not forsaken nor the vnitie of the flocke diuided for the naughtie Pastors Doo you sée how much the Fathers attribute to the chaire You were in haâ—te ere-while to interrupt my argument Now what say you to it Rainoldes Your argument is hansome a farre off at first sight But if a man come néere it and vewe it and féele it he cannot choose but grow in great mislike of it it is so misshapen Aristotle compareth the arguments of Sophisters to weake ill-featured persons who by stuffing out and tricking vp them selues doo seeme to be of strong and comely plight of bodie The most of your Doctors arguments be such and this is one of them It séemeth strong and comely as you doo bumbast it with fansies of your owne and decke it with the names of Austin Chrysostom and Origen But strippe it out of this apparell and all the limmes of it are full of sores and blisters worse then the French euil Hart. This is a spitefull spéech and a malicious sclander But you kepe your wont Rainoldes If I speake vntruely conuince me of vntruth If not why vse you these reproches This was your argument out of Doctor Stapleton if you will giue me leaue to strip it The Scribes and the Pharises were to be obeyed in all thinges which they saide because they sate in the chaire of Moses that is they did succeed Aaron The Popes howsoeuer they liue doo sit in Christes chaire that is they are successours of the Apostles which hath a greater prerogatiue The Popes must be therefore obeyed much more in all thinges which they say But men might not obey them if they should erre Therefore they cannot erre in any thing they say Was not this the verie bodie of your argument Hart. It was so in substance and what faute finde you with it Rainoldes None but as I saide that all the limmes of it are full of sores and blisters For the first proposition the contagion whereof infecteth the whole argument hath two notorious fautes touching the Scribes and Pharises one that by their sitting in the chaire of Moses is meant that they succeeded Aaron an other that because they succeeded Aaron they were to be obeyed in all thinges which they saide Hart. What did not the Pharises and Scribes succéede Aaron Rainoldes That is not the question Yet you may dout of that too And how doo you proue it Hart. Nay how doo you disproue it Rainoldes None succéeded Aaron in offering sacrifices to God and teaching Israell his law sauing the tribe of Leui. But the Pharises might be of other tribes and were so Hart. How proue you that Rainoldes S. Paul was of the tribe of Beniamin an Ebrue borne of Ebrues according to the law a Pharisee So was his father too And if the tribes of all of whom account was made that way had béene registred it would be as easily prooued of others as it is of Beniamin For whereas there were thrée sectes among the Iewes eche differing from other in pointes of religion Pharises Sadduces and Esses the Esses auoiding the companie of other men least they should staine their maners and liuing with them selues alone like to moonkes did leaue the Temple cities to Pharises Sadduces The Sadduces were few their opinions wicked in so much that euen the common people did detest them The Pharises in number more in reputation greater and sounder in beliefe the most exact sect and coming néerest to the law Which they expounded in such exact maner and séemed holy withall that they bare the sway for religion amongst the multitude yea cities flowed vnto them accounting them the best both in life
traitor because you take exception for Hildebrand that they who write much euil of him did it to please his enimie for Ioane that shee was harlot to Pope Iohn the twelfth so that Iohn and Ioane were not two Popes but one As for that you say that if all the stories were true they are impertinent sith you defend the doctrine of Popes and not their maners that answere other where is fit and to purpose but here it cometh out of season For the point in question touching the Popes was whether any of them had bene theeues robbers You graunted that about a fifty of them were so and monsters too not onely theeues but the fault thereof you said was in the Emperours who intruded them I replied that since the Cardinals did choose them there haue béene as monstrous of them as were before and that haue come in as vnlawfully For proofe hereof I named Boniface the eighth Iohn the three and twentéeth and Alexander the sixth who were Popes then when the election by Cardinals was growne to the perfitest the first a thirtéene hundred the next a fouretéene hundred the last a fiftéene hundred yeares after Christ. That these were monstrous their whole liues do shew that they came in vnlawfully their entrances That they were as monstrous and came in as vnlawfully as the fiftie Popes I will not proue vnlesse you force me for comparisons are odious And here I must adde least I be accused as partial to the Emperors that although I cléere them from intruding those Popes yet I cléere them not from all fault therein For it was a fault in them that they suffered such vilaines to enioy the roome as it is well noted by your own historian who saith that great licentiousnes did bring forth those monsters no Prince then repressing the wicked deeeds of men Of the which fault the later Emperours also I speake it with reuerence as of Princes not of Tyrants haue béene and do continue guiltie But to conclude the point if he be a theefe a robber who entreth in vnlawfully into the shéepefolde then many of your Popes haue béene theeues and robbers Yet take I not aduantage of that which you haue said about the fiftie Popes For so not onely they but all the rest might proue theeues Hart. Nay you were best to say that the Saints them selues Martyrs and Confessours and Doctors were theeues For the auncient Popes were all Saintes but one from Peter to Honorius vntill aboue sixe hundred yeares after Christ. Rainoldes Were they so What meane you then to endite them of so great a crime Where was your Genebrards wit when he wrote of the fiftie Popes For if they did enter in not by the dore but by a posterne gate because when they were chosen they would not take the Popedom vntil the Emperour had confirmed them how may the Saints as Gregorie namely be excused who entred in the same way And if these were theeues because they entred in by the Emperours consent what were their predecessors who entred in by the peoples For the Emperour Friderike had reason when he saide that himselfe as king ought to be chiefe in choosing the Bishop of his owne citie Wherefore if the people had voices in the choise of him why not the German Emperour who then was king of Rome though now the Pope be And if they were theeues too because the people chose them and not the clergie onely what haue the Popes bene these four hundred yeares whom neither the Emperour nor people nor clergie but onely a few Cardinals haue chosen See you not how al the Popes are brought in danger by you to be théeues But as I saide I meane not to take this aduantage It sufficeth me first that many of them purchased the Popedome with bribery and corruption as I haue shewed by their stories next that all such purchasers are by their owne law not Apostolicall but Apostaticall that is to say revolters from the faith of Christ not successors of the Apostles For hereof it foloweth that many not onely Antipopes but Popes and they elected not intruded haue béene theeues and robbers by your own definition Wherefore not all Popes are pastors or hirelinges And so the demonstration by which you promised to proue out of the scripture that Popes cannot erre in doctrine is fallen Hart. But as D. Stapleton doth define a theefe out of S. Cyprians wordes no Pope can be a theefe For he is a theefe who succeeding no man is ordeined of himselfe Now it is manifest that the Popes all both haue succéeded others and were ordeined by others Yet though some of them were theeues and robbers in D. Genebrards sense they could not erre in doctrine Such is the force of succession Rainoldes Why Is the force I say not of succession but of lawfull succession such that they who haue it can not erre in doctrine May not true Bishops and pastors teach heresie as Arius Nestorius and Samosatenus did Hart. Yes they may But then they become woolues as you heard out of D. Stapleton They are not theeues and robbers Rainoldes Then the Popes succession doth not warrant them but that they may be woolues Which is as much to my purpose as if you said theeues and robbers And in very truth vnlesse D. Stapleton had slubbered vp that place of scripture in S. Iohn to make it serue for his succession it would be apparant that Christ meant the same by theeues and robbers that you by woolues For when the Pharises had spoken much against him and sought by perswasion and excommunication to leade away the people he to make the faithful wise against their practises declareth both his office and person in a parable wherein he compareth Gods chosen to sheepe and him selfe to a shepheard And by that occasion he aduertiseth them of three sortes of teachers which meddle with the flocke of God the first a shepheard the second a hireling the third a theefe and a robber A shepheard entreth in by the doore into the sheepefold and careth for the shéepe so that when the woolfe cometh he standeth in their defense aduenturing his life for them A hireling entreth in as the shepheard doth but careth not for the sheepe and therefore in the time of danger he fleeth and leaueth them to be scattered A theefe and a robber neither entreth in by the dore as they and he cometh to steale and to kill and to destroy These three sortes of teachers are mentioned by Christ perhaps to touch the Pharises by the way couertly but manifestly to cléere himselfe whom they reproued as a false teacher that is in this similitude as a theefe a robber Which sâ—launder to confute he sheweth himselfe to beâ— a shepheard neither a shepeheard hireling but a good shepeheard that is a true and godly teacher And to this end
he noteth two differences betweene a shepeheard and a theefe the one in their doctrine the other in their ende In their doctrine that a theefe entreth not in by the doore the lawfull way but the shepeheard entreth in by the doore that is he preacheth Christ. For Christ is the doore and by him the shepeheard leadeth his sheepe in and out to feede them and saue them In their ende that a theefe commeth to steale kill destroy that is to spoile them of their life of life spirituall and eternall but the shepeheard cometh that they may haue life and haue it in aboundance Whereby it is euident that Christ did meane the same by theeues and robbers here which other where by false Prophets Beware of false Prophets which come to you in sheepes clothing but inwardly are rauening woolues For els neither they could haue béene noted well by the propertie of woolues that is to kill destroy neither had his doctrine and diuision of teachers béene perfit to his purpose neither were his answer fit against the Pharises who touched him as a seducer and not as an intruder not for succession but for doctrine If you beleeue not me that this is the natural meaning of the text you may beléeue S. Austin who saith that to enter into the shepefold by the doore is to preach Christ whom who so preach not rightly they are theeues and robbers Of these for example hee nameth Arius who yet succéeded lawfully as D. Stapleton graunteth though he counte him a woolfe and not a theefe and a robber vpon a point that Austin saw not In which point his fansie carried him so farre that whereas Austin said we must loue the Pastour tolerate the hireling beware of the theefe he would adde to Austin and driue away the woolfe as though S. Austin meant not the woolfe by the theefe and driue away by beware belike nor Christ neither when he said beware of woolues How much more séemely had it béene for Stapleton to haue followed Austin with your best interpreters then so to haue corrected him Hart. He doth not correct him so much as varie from him and that not on his owne but on S. Cyprians iudgement a Father most auncient Whose definition if he liked better then hee did Austins why might he not take it Rainoldes Good reason if it were as true as S. Austins But what is that definition Hart. A theefe is he who climeth vp another way that is as Cyprian writeth who succeeding no man is ordained of him selfe Rainoldes These wordes are Cyprians wordes but the definition is Stapletons definition For Cyprian doth not write them more of a theefe then of a woolfe Hart. He writeth them of Nouatian who entred not in by the doore into the shepefold but climed vp another way Therefore he writeth them of a theefe Rainoldes He writeth them of Nouatian who was a false prophet and came in sheepes clothing but inwardly was a rauener Therefore he writeth them of a woolfe For Cyprian doth count Nouatian the heretike both a theefe and a woolfe Which proueth that sense that I gaue thereof against your distinction who seuer woolues from theeues But Stapleton in handling this place of Cyprian doth playe vs thrée feats which if they be marked will shew with what arte so many sayinges of the Fathers are interlaced in his bookes First he chaungeth the wordes For where it is in Cyprian a se ipso ortus est arose of him selfe Stapleton doth reade it a se ipso ordinatus est is ordained of him selfe Hart. It hath béene heretofore reade so in some printes Rainoldes It hath so but amisse For Nouatian was ordeined of others though vnlawfully as Eusebius sheweth and Cyprian did know Wherevpon that faâ—tie reading is amended in the later printes out of writen copies and a note reprouing it least it créepe in againe is left by Pamelius Whose edition sith Stapleton prayseth as best corrected and foloweth it for aduantage to chaunge a worde of it here in such sort it was a feate and had a purpose But the second feate doth excel this For because Cyprian saith of a théefe that he succeeding no man arose of him selfe Stapleton doth take him as though he had defined a theefe by those wordes Whereof he would haue the reader to conceiue that they who haue succession and are ordeined lawfully can not bee theeues a thing which Cyprian meant not But therein he dealeth with the wordes of Cyprian as if a man should say to define a doctour a doctour is he who interpreteth the scriptures that is as Cyprian writeth who doth corrupt the gospell and is a false expounder of it For these are Cyprians wordes and spoken of Nouatian Doctours But they were not spoken to define a doctour For then they should be verified as well of all doctours as they be of Doctour Stapleton Yet he who should define a doctour so to proue him one and that out of Cyprian should serue him such a feate as he doth serue a theefe and take him in the snare which him selfe hath framed Hart. As though that of theues some might be good and some naught There may be so of doctours Rainoldes No. But as doctours some are good some are naught and sith that both these qualities are incident into doctours a doctour should not be defined by eyther of them so theeues some succéede some doo not succéede and sith that both these qualities are incident into theeues no one of them can open the nature of a theefe nor both in déed pithily Wherefore to say in defining a theefe that he succeedeth no man it is a iuggling feate which conuerteth accidents into the shape of substance and maketh essence of a qualitie A feate that is vsed much by D. Stapleton doth amaze the simple who sée not the sleight where they who discerne the conueiance of it estéeme it as a feat of sophistrie But the third feate is a feate of foly For when he had made foure kindes of teachers the first pastors the next hirelings the third theeues the last woolues and graunted that they all are called to that office by lawfull succession excepting theeues onely he diuideth hirelings into two sortes and hauing proued that both of them do teach the truth concludeth therupon that an vndouted certaintie of doctrine and faith is knit to succession Then the which what kinde of legierdemaine can be more fond to say in the conclusion that they who by lawfull succession are teachers doo surely teach the truth because that hirelings doo and pastours when he had shewed before that not onely they doo succéed lawfully but also woolues who teach errours Hart. It was not his meaning that succession alone hath vndâ—uted certaintie of doctrine and faith but succession with vnitie For other-where he saith that to this prerogatiue of Bishops and Priestes there are required
Ierom therein where Ierom saith the same that he doth so plainely fully that your Hosius is faine to shape one answere to them both that they beleeued a false rumour Wherewith your Bellarmin doth cast them off too And this shift of laying the blame on false rumours séemed so hansome to your Surius that he belike misliking Onuphrius shift of Anastasius applyeth it to Damasus also For colouring wherof he saith that very auncient historians and writers beare witnesse of Liberius most constant perseuerance in defense of the Catholike faith But being not able to name as much as one of these very auncient historians and writers of whom hee boasteth with shamelesse lye he sendeth his reader a thing most ridiculous to Nicephorus a late writer who saith he doubtlesse did draw his writings out of the auncient In déede that which Nicephorus hath of this point he drewe it out of Sozomen and if the Gréeke were extant the truth were easily tryed but either he did change his autour in three wordes which is not likely sith he folowed him through all the chapter foote by foote or which is most likely your Langus who translated him out ofa writē copie was as bold with him as Christopherson with Sozomen Such follies and treacheries you wrappe your selues in to kéepe men from opinion that a Pope subscribed to the Arian heresie Which had you not hardened your faces as flint to sooth the presumption of the Papall See I sée no cause why you should doo chiefely sith your selues do teach as I haue shewed that the Pope may be an heretike and not subscribe to heresie onely But if you be affected so tenderly to the Pope that you will rather graunt any fault in others then such a spot in him if you can say with out blushing that Damasus was corrupted Athanasius light of credit Marcellinus a false Chronicler that Sozomen is truer in Latin then in Gréeke in your translation then his owne tounge that Marianus Scotus Martinus Polonus Ado Rhegino Antoninus Platina other later writers were deceiued by Ierom that Ierom was abused himselfe by false rumours to be short that the Papistes who liue in our daies can tell what was done twelue hundred yeares ago better then them selues who liued at that time andsince from age to age yet you cannot say but that Ierom thought that Liberius subscribed to the Arian heresie yea that Felix the next Bishop of Rome after Liberius was an Arian he thought it Wherefore if he had meant of the whole succession of the Roman Bishops that which he wrote to Damasus I am ioyned in communion vnto your holinesse that is to Peters chaire I know that the Church is builded vpon that rocke then hee must haue meant that before the time that Damasus was Bishop he ought to haue béene ioyned in communion to the Arians and that the Arians holinesse was the chaire of Peter and that the Church was built vpon the rocke of Arians But this abomination was farre from S. Ierom. S. Ierom therefore meant not the succession but Damasus who succéeded Peter as in chaire so in doctrine and taught the faith which Peter did a faith as cleane contrarie to the Arians faith as light is to darkenes as life is to death Hart. But questionlesse S. Austin meant the whole succession of the Bishops of Rome when he wrote against the Donatistes Number ye the Priestes euen from the very seat of Peter in that ranke of Fathers marke who succeeded whom that is the rocke against which the proud gates of hell preuaile not The gates of hell saith Austin preuaile not against the Priestes that is the Bishops who succeede Peter Then by his iudgement all the Roman Bishops are frée from all heresie For the gates of hell are heresies and the principall autours of heresies as Epiphanius witnesseth Wherefore ifthe gates of hell preuaile not against the succession of the Bishops of Rome it foloweth howsoeuer you auoide S. Ierom that neither Arians nor Donatistes nor any other heresies doo preuaile against it Rainoldes Did preuaile against it in the time of Austin so you should conclude You haue a pretie policie in citing the testimonies and sayings of the Fathers touching the Church of Rome that what they did speake of the time present then you vse it as spoken of the time present now There was a gentlewoman in Rome named Fabia who being waxed olde yet willing still to séeme young said in Tullies hearing that she was thirtie yeares of age That must needes be true quoth Tullie for I haue heard it of you twentie yeares ago The Church of Rome hath defiled her selfe with idolatrie gone a whoring from the Lord yet she would séeme a maide still and so shee saith her selfe to be I thinke you iest not with her as Tullie did with Fabia yet you proue her maidenhead as Tullie did the youth of Fabia You say that it must néedes be true for it is writen ofher twelue hundred yeares ago But that you may sée how small cause you haue to build so much on those wordes The gates of hell preuaile not against the succession of the Bishops of Rome consider what is meant by the gates of hell and your graunt is past that against some Bishops of Rome they haue preuailed The state of the faithfull and chosen of God in this present life is as it were a warfare whereof the Church is called militant The aduersaries and enimies whom we must fight against our Sauiour speaketh of them as of a strong kingdome which he calleth hell because it warreth all for hel and the deuil is prince of it The gates of hell therefore doo signifie the holdes the fortresses and munitions wherewith the powers of hel doo fight against vs and assault vs that is euen whatsoeuer the deuill can doo by force or fraude All the which is meant by the name of gates because the gates of fortes are wont to haue the best munition and to be fensed most strongly So the gates of hell are not onely heresies though heresies are of them as Epiphanius and Austin note but also persecutions and specially sinnes and in a word all euils sweete or sower faire or foule that séeke to subdue vs to euerlasting death as Origen Chrysostom Gregorie Theophylact and others well obserue Now ifyou apply this to the Bishops of Rome you may sée your error For it is confessed by your selfe and yours that sinnes haue preuailed and preuailed monstrously against sundry of them Whereof it doth folow that against sundry of them who haue succéeded in the seate of Peter the gates of hell haue preuailed As for S. Austins iudgement that heresies of the Arians or Donatistes or others did not preuaile against them I know no cause to the contrarie but hee might iustly say
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
breath doo say that the same thing is both writen and vnwriten Yet Father Robert dealeth wiselyer and like a Iesuite who séeing the danger of naming speciall men and places doth shrowd himselfe in the generall of Councels Popes and Fathers As if an horse-stealer being to giue account of whom and where he got his horses should say that he bought them of incorporations horse-coursers and honest men within Christendom Hart. Will you leaue your roauing and come vnto the marke now Rainoldes It is a roauing marke we shote at and I am come néerer it then you would haue me But what shall be your next baâ—â— Hart. I told you that I would proue it next by the Fathers It agreeth very well with your spirit that you should call this a bolt Rainoldes Well enough as you shoote it For although the Lord hath planted the writings of the Fathers as trees in his Church as in a Paradise whereof there may be made good shaftes blessed is the man that hath his quiuer full of them they shall not be confounded but they shall destroy their enimies in the gate yet not all the shaftes which you do vse of theirs are good your fletchers at whose handes you take them vpon trust doo marre them in the making that I may iustly call them rather bolts of Papistes then shafts of the Fathers Who if they were aliue might say to you in like sorte as did a Poet to Fidentinus This booke Sir Fidentinus which thou doost reade is mine But thou by reading it amisse beginst to make it thine Hart. Will you promise then to yelde vnto the Popes supremacie if I proue it by the sayings and iudgement of the Fathers alleaged and applyed rightly Rainoldes I truly But I must doo it with a protestation for my defense against such quarrelers as Bishop Iewell fell vpon Hart. With what protestation Rainoldes With this that I promise to yéelde vnto the Popes supremacie if you can proue it by the Fathers not becaâ—â—e I thinke that proofe to be sufficient of doubtfull matters in religion but because I know you are not able so to proue it Hart. Whether I be able or no so to proue it the thing it selfe will shew But if you thinke not that a sufficient proofe why saide you that the writinges of Fathers are as trees whereof there may be made good shaftes such as shall destroy their enimies in the gate yea that the man is blessed who hath his quiuer full of them Rainoldes It is writen in the Psalmes Except the Lord keepe the citie the keeper watcheth in vaine By the which wordes the Prophet séemeth to haue thought that the warde and watch of men is not sufficient for the defense of cities vnlesse the Lord assist them with his watch and ward How say is not this true Hart. So. What of that Rainoldes That is an answere to your question For the Prophet adding how God doth blesse men in giuing them children saith they are as arrowes in the hand of a strong man blessed is the man that hath his quiuer full of them they shall not be confounded but they shall destroy their enimies in the gate If this be truly spoken of children well nurtured who yet are not sufficient to defend a citie without the Lordes assistance why might it not be spoken of Fathers well vsed and yet they not suffice to decide a controuersie without the worde of God For though I acknowledge there is good wood in them to make shaftes for the Lordes warres yet is not all their wood such some of it is knottie some lithy â—ome crooked And the best arrowes which are made thereof vnlesse they haue heades of stronger mettall then them selues out of the Lords armorie they are not sharpe enough to pearce into the harte of the kinges enimies as are the arrowes of our Salomon Wherefore as of your part if you hearken not to Moses and the Prophetes I haue no greate hope that Fathers will perswade you though they should rise from the dead so for my selfe I will assure you that neither dead nor quicke Fathers nor children shall perswade me any thing in matters of religion which they can not proue by Moses and the Prophetes For the Apostles preached not any thing but that which the Prophetes and Moses saide should come to passe And if a Father if a Saint if an Angell from heauen preach beside that which the Apostles preached let him be accursed This lesson I haue learned of Paul the Apostle and I subscribe vnto it If you can like it better out of a Fathers mouth learne it of S. Austin Who writing against the Donatists which could not proue by scripture their erroneous doctrine doth presse them with the same sentence and teach al Christians the same lesson whether it be of Christ or of his Church or of any thing els whatsoeuer pertaining to our faith and life I will not say if we but if an Angel from heauen shall preach to you besides that which you haue receyued in the scriptures of the law and the Gospel that is to say the olde and new testament let him be accursed Hart. You mistake the meaning of S. Austins wordes For they are thus in Latin Proinde siue de Christo siue de eius ecclesia siue dâ— quacunque alia re quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram Rainoldes I haue the right meaning of these wordes I trow for they are plaine of all thinges that doo concerne our faith and life Hart. I but heare the rest Non dicam si nos nequaquam comparandi ei qui dixit licet nos sed â—mnino quod sequutus adiecit si angelus Rainoldes Neither doo I mistake these For he alludeth to the wordes of Paul to the Galatians Hart. But you mistake the meaning of that which doth follow Si angelus de coelo vobis annuntiauerit praeterqà um quod in scripturis legalibus euangelicis accepistis anathema sit Rainoldes Why doth he not meane the old new testameÌ„t as we call them by the scripâ—ures of the law and the gospell Hart. Yes but your errour is in the worde praeterquà m by which he meaneth contra quà m not beside that but against that For there are sundrie thinges of faith and life to be preached beside them in the scriptures of the law and the gospell but not against them Wherefore if it were so that the Popes supremacie could not be proued by scriptures yet the proofe of it by the Fathers might be good For it were not against the scriptures although it were beside the scriptures Rainoldes Praeterquà m id est contra quà m beside that which you haue receyued in the scriptures that is against that This is your Louanists glose Hart. Nay it is S. Austins as you may perceiue by his own wordes in an other place touching the same matter where he saith thus The Apostle did not say
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
of the bodie of Christ in the sacrament as I shewed which the Iewes must not behold They might behold his body vpon the crosse and did so Rainoldes But the holy Apostle him selfe doth vnderstand it of the bodie of Christ as it was offered on the crosse And that is manifest by the wordes he addeth to shew his meaning touching the Iewes and the altar For saith he the bodies of those beastes whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high Priest for sinne are burnt without the campe Therefore euen Iesus that he might sanctify the people with his owne blood suffered without the gate Which wordes are somewhat darke but they will be plaine if we consider both the thing that the Apostle would proue and the reason by which he proueth it The thing that he would proue is that the Iewes can not be partakers of the fruite of Christes death and the redemption which he purchased with his pretious blood if they still retaine the ceremoniall worship of the law of Moses The reason by which he proueth it is an ordinance of God in a kinde of sacrifices appointed by the law to be offered for sinne which sacrifices shadowed Christ and taught this doctrine For whereas the Priestes who serued the tabernacle in the ceremonies of the law had a part of other sacrifices and offeringes and did eate of them there were certaine beastes commanded to bee offered for sinne in special sort and their blood to be brought into the holy place whose bodies might not be eaten but must be burnt without the campe Now by these sacrifices offered so for sinne our onely soueraine sacrifice Iesus Christ was figured who entred by his blood into the holy place to clense vs from all sinne and his body was crucified without the gate that is the gate of the citie of Ierusalem and they who keepe the Priestly rites of Moses law can not eate of him that by his death they may liue for none shall liue by him who séeke to be saued by the law as it is writen if ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing The Apostle therefore exhorting the Hebrewes to stablish their hartes with grace that teacheth them to serue the Lorde in spirit and truth after the doctrine of the gospell not with meates that is to say with the ceremonies of the law a part whereof was the difference betweene vncleane and cleane in meates doth moue them to it with this reason that if they serue the tabernacle and sticke vnto the rites of the Iewish Priesthood their soules shall haue no part of the foode of our sacrifice no fruit of Christs death For as the bodies of those beastes which were offered for sinne and their blood brought into the holy place by the hye Priest might not be eaten by the Priestes but were burnt without the campe so neither may the keepers of the Priestly ceremonies haue life by feeding vpon Christ who to shew this mystery did suffer death without the gate when he shed his blood to clense the people from their sinne And thus it appeereth by the text it selfe that the name of altar betokeneth the sacrifice that is to say Christ crucified not as his death is shewed foorth in the sacrament but as he did suffer death without the gate Whereby you may perceiue first the folly of your Rhemists about the Greeke worde as also the Hebrew that it signifieth properly an altar to sacrifice on as though it might not therefore be vsed figuratiuely where yet them selues must needes acknowledge it to be so too Next the weakenes of your reason who thereof doo gather that by the sacrifice which that worde importeth in the Apostle is meant the cleane offering of which the Prophet speaketh For the cleane offering of which the Prophet speaketh is offered in euery place the sacrifice meant by the Apostle in one place onely without the gate Wherefore the name of altar in the epistle to the Hebrewes doth neither signifie a Massing-altar nor proue the sacrifice of Massing-priests Hart. That which you touch as foolishly noted by our Rhemists about the Greeke and Hebrew worde is noted very truly For you can not deny your selfe but that it signifieth properly an altar a materiall altar to sacrifice vpon and not a metaphorical and spirituall altar Whereby as they conclude that we haue not a common table or prophane communion boord to eate meere bread vpon but a very altar in the proper sense to sacrifice Christs body vpon so for proofe hereof they adde that in respect of the saide bodie sacrificed it is also called an altar of the Fathers euen of Gregorie Nazianzene Chrysostome Socrates Augustine and Theophylact And when it is called a table it is in respect of the heauenly foode of Christes body and blood receiued Rainoldes The note of your Rhemists about the Greeke Hebrew word is true I graunt yet foolish too though true in the thing yet foolish in the drift For to the intent that where the Apostle saith we haue an altar it may be thought hee meant not that word spiritually or in a figuratiue sense as we expound it of Christ but materially of a very altar such as is vsed in their Masses they say that the Greeke word as also the Hebrew answering thereunto in the olde testament signifieth properly an altar to sacrifice on and not a metaphoricall and spirituall altar Which spéech how dull it is in respect of the point to which they apply it I will make you sée by an example of their owne Our Sauiour in the gospell teacheth of himselfe that he is the true bread which giueth life vnto the world the bread which came down from heauen that whosoeuer eateth of it should not die if any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer Your Rhemists doo note hereon that the person of Christ incarnate is meant vnder the metaphore of bread and our beleefe in him is signified by eating Wherein they say well But if a man should tell them that the Greeke word as also the Hebrew answering therevnto in the old testament doth properly signifie bread which we eate bodily and not a metaphoricall or spirituall bread were not this as true a speech as their owne Yet how wise to the purpose who is so blinde that séeth not Yea to go no farther then the very word whereof by their Hebrew and Greeke they séeke aduantage them selues vpon that place of Iohn that he saw vnder the altar the soules of them who were killed for the word of God doo affirme expressely that Christ is this altar Christe say they as man no dout is this altar They meane it I hope in a metaphoricall or other figuratiue spéech For they will not make him by transsubstantiation to be an altar properly Yet here it is as
true that the Greeke word as also the Hebrewe answering thereunto in the olde testament signifieth properly an altar to sacrifice on and not a metaphoricall or spirituall altar And if it were as much for the aduantage of their cause to proue that Masse is said in heauen as that in earth and that Christ is properly bread without a figure as that bread is properly Christ in the sacrament the text of the scripture where Christ is called bread yea the true bread would proue the one cléerely as they could fit it with this note and the word altar would put the other out of controuersie chiefely if that were noted withall that an Angell stood before the altar hauing a golden censer though others there also affirme the altar to be Christ. But it fareth with your Rhemists as it is wont with false prophets one buildeth vp a muddy wall and others daube it ouer with a rotten plaister and when a storme cometh the wall falleth and plaister with it For though as they lay it on it séemeth hansom that wordes signifie properly the naturall things which they are vsed to signifie and not metaphoricâ—ll or spirituall things yet if it be opened that hereby is meant that wordes may not be vsed by metaphores or other figures to signifie those thinges which properly they doo not signifie the boyes in grammer schooles who know what a metaphore is will laugh at it Wherefore this plaister will not helpe the weakenes of your muddy wall I meane of the conclusion which you would proue by it and doo inferre vpon it that we haue an altar in the proper sense to sacrifice Christes body vpon In the daubing vp whereof yet your plaisterers do shew a péece of greater art partly by drawing vs into hatred who haue not Popish altars but communion tables partly by winding the names of Fathers in as if they made for you against vs. Both with skill and cunning but more of sophistrie then diuinitie For that which the scripture doth call the Lords table because it is ordeined for the Lords supper in the administration of the blessed sacrament of his bodie and blood the Fathers also call it a table in respect of the heauenly banket that is serued vpon it And this in proper sense Marry by a figure of speech by which the names of thinges that are like one an other in some qualitie are giuen one vnto an other as Christ is called Dauid Iohn Baptist Elias the citie of Rome Babylon the Church of God Ierusalem the Fathers for resemblance of the Ministers and sacraments in the new testament to them in the olde are wont to giue the name as of Priestes and Leuites to Pastours and Deacons so of a sacrifice to the Lords supper and of an altar to the Lords table For these thinges are lynked by nature in relation and mutuall dependence as I may say one of an other the altar the sacrifice and the sacrificers who serue the altar that is Priestes and Leuites Wherefore if the Fathers meant a very altar in the proper sense to sacrifice Christes bodie vpon then must they meane also the Leuitical Priesthood to serue in sacrificing of it But the Leuiticall Priesthood is gone and they knew it nether did they call the ministerie of the Gospell so but by a figure Your Rhemists therefore doo abuse them in prouing as by them that the communion table is called an altar properly But vs of the other side they doo abuse more by setting an altar against a common table in such sort of spéech as if we whose Churches haue not a very altar to kill our Sauiour Christ and sacrifice him vpon it had but a common table and profane communion boord to eate meere bread vpon A feate to make vs odious in the eyes of men whom you would perswade that we discerne not the body of the Lord. Which your priuie sclander doth vs open iniurie For we haue not a common but a holy table as both we call it and estéeme it not a profane communion boorde but a sanctified to eate not meere bread but the Lords supper wherein we receiue the bread of thankes-giuing and the cuppe of blessing as the Apostles doctrine and practise of the Fathers teach vs. Your selues are guiltie rather of féeding men with meere bread who do take away the cuppe of the new testament in the blood of Christ from the Christian people and in stéede of the blessed bread of the sacrament do giue in your Masses meere bread in déede by your owne confession the common bread that goeth vnder the name of holy-bread I would to God M. Hart you would thinke with your selfe euen in your bed as the Prophet speaketh and consider more déepely both the wicked abuses wherewith the holy sacrament of the Lords supper is profaned in your vnholy sacrifice of the Masse and the treacherous meanes whereby your Maister and Felowes of the College of Rhemes doo séeke to maintaine it Who being not able to proue it by the scriptures either of the altar or of the cleane offering the principall places whereon their shew standeth they go about to bréede a good opinion of it in the heartes of the simple partly by discrediting vs with false reproches partly by abusing the credit of the Fathers Which two kinds of proofe do beare the greatest sway through all your Rhemish Annotations Hart. We do not abuse the credit of the Fathers to perswade an errour but as we endeuour to folow them in truth so alleage we them to proue the truth by them And howsoeuer you auoide the place of S. Paule where it is said we haue an altar the prophecie of Malachie that in euery place there is sacrificed and offered a cleane offering to God must néedes belong to the verie and outward sacrifice of the Masse not to spirituall sacrifices Which because that reuerend man D Allen whose treatise of the Masse is such a moate in your eye doth proue by sixe reasons the pith whereof he greatly praiseth I will bring them forth in his owne wordes that you may yéelde the rather to them First therefore the word to sacrifice and to offer being vsed by it selfe without a terme abridging it is taken in the scripture alwaies properly for the act of outward sacrifice But when it is said the sacrifice of praise the sacrifice of crying the sacrifice of contrition and the like it is perceiued easily by the wordes annexed that they be taken improperly Secondly this sacrifice of the which the Prophet speaketh is one but spirituall sacrifices there are so many as there are good workes of Christian religion Thirdly this is the proper and peculiar sacrifice of the new law and the Gentiles not of the Iewes But spirituall sacrifices of praiers and workes are common to the Iewes with vs. Fourthly
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
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
called out of the refuse and filth of mankinde to this state and honour are not of one sort all For same of them are called effectually and doo come some that are called doo not yéeld them selues obedient to the calling They whom God hath chosen are called and doo come they who being called come not are not chosen That spéech of our Sauiour Christ doth touch them both many are called but few are chosen The many that are called are named the Church but to speake distinctly for instructions sake the visible Church because we sée the companies of men which are called to the faith of Christ which professe that they would enioy eternall life The few that are chosen are named the church also but the church inuisible not for that we sée not those whom God hath chosen but because we can not discerne by sight who be the chosen only the Lord knoweth who are his Now of this Church which we call inuisible parte is in present possession of heauenly glory part not hauing yet attained thereunto abideth on the earth That part which is entred into the ioy of their Lord is commonly termed the triumphant Church the other which lyeth in campe and wayteth for the victory is called the Church militant But as it falleth out in campes of worldly warfare that eyther for couetousnes or feare or fauour there are with faithfull souldiers such as are vnfaithfull some who neuer minde to come into the field some who will betray their felowes to their foes some readie to stirre vp the souldiers to mutinies some perhaps that traiterously will set vpon their owne captaine so the militant church which hath none but faithfull souldiers of Christ in that respect that it is matched with the Church triumphant yet while it abideth in the campe of warfare there hang about it slippâ—ry marchants who pretend that they also are of Christes souldiers but vnder souldiers coates they beare the heartes of enimies being such as they of whom Bernard saith They are in Christes liuery but they do seruice vnto Antichrist Sith therefore to discerne the faithfull souldiers from vnfaithful it belongeth to him alone who shal one day seuer the shéepe froÌ„ the goats we measuring a souldier by the profession that hée maketh othe that bindeth him to warfare call that the militant Church which is inrolled billed to serue vnder Christ part wherof doth faithfully sight the Lords battailes part making shew to serue him doo fight the battailes of the deuill And this is the militant Church which I meane in the point proposed the militant Church may erre both in maners and in doctrine To the ripping vp whereof we must obserue that it is proper to God alone by nature to be holy true perfit and free from errours as contrari-wise man by nature is vncleane a lyer vnperfit prone to deceiue and be deceiued For euery man is a lyer God alone is true And none is good but God he is naught therefore that is a méere man But of grace God bestoweth vpon man the gift of perfection holines and truth as it were a beame of the sunne shining into a house of clay to giue vs light and warmth Howbeit this beame though the more the sunne of righteousnes asceÌ„deth and cometh daily néerer vs the greater light and warmth it yeldeth neuerthelesse it shal not ouershine vs with full light of truth and warmth of holines vntill we be taken out of our houses of clay and go into the open heauen vnto God The militant Church hath the beames of the sunne but as in a house not in the open heauen sometimes it is shadowed and made dimme with darknes sometimes it waxeth faint through cold The triumphant Church hath the sunne it selfe not within doores but a broad not on earth but in heauen where neither any darknes doth hinder the light nor any cold abate the warmth Thus it is made proper to the Church triumphant to be without all spot as the spowse is told in the song of Salomon by her welbeloued speaking thus vnto her thou being all faire my loue and no spot in thee shalt come with me from Lebanon O spouse with me from Lebanon For thereby wée learne that as soone as the Church being fully cleansed from spot of all errours shall haue attained that excellent fairenesse and perfection whereto she is fyned by litle and litle in this life she is taken out of Lebanon as you would say the forest of this world and ioyned to her bridegrome in that blessed mariage to enioy eternall glory with God But that excellent fairenesse she atteineth not while she warfareth on the earth The militant Church therefore is not fully cleane from spot of all errours Shée shall be a Church not hauing spot or wrincle when shée shall be glorious as Paul declareth to the Ephesians Wherefore sith to promise that gloriousnesse in this life is to sound the triumph before the conquest be gotten it foloweth that the Church shall haue spot and wrincle so long as she doth liue in warfare But ouer and besides all this because the Church while it is in warfare hath vnfaithfull souldiours in it amongst the faithfull who as they are vnlike either to other so is their case vnlike too therefore as the men that are in the Church so the kindes of errours must be discerned and distinguished that it may the better appéere to what errours what part of the Church is subiect To erre then is to swarue and turne out of the way which God by the word of life the holy scripture hath willed vs to walke in Which way sith it containeth soundnes of doctrine and godlines of maners as I haue shewed before therevpon it foloweth that they who offend either in maners or in doctrine doo erre and go out of the way Wée erre in maners therefore when we doo ill we erre in doctrine when we iudge falsely Now these errours of the minde are of like condition in comparison of life eternall as are diseases of the body in comparison of life temporall So that as amongst diseases of the body some are curable some are deadly curable I call them whereof we recouer deadly whereof we dye in like sort amongst the errours of the minde some are curable which doo not bereue vs of saluation some deadly which bring vs to euerlasting death In the Church militant they whom God hath chosen may erre in maners and doctrine but their errour is curable they can not erre to death But they who are called onely and not chosen may erre in maners and doctrine euen with a deadly errour which neuer shall be cured That the chosen may erre in maners and doctrine it is euident by the Apostles For they did erre in maners when they forsooke Christ at the time that Iudas the renegate betrayed him They did erre in doctrine when they thought the kingdome of Christ to be not heauenly
of the state of the Church both in generall and particular the Roman and the reformed Churches of sundry nations it commeth first to be declared what is the holy catholike church whereof we professe in our Creede that wee beleeue it And hereof I say the holy catholike church is the whole company of Gods elect and chosen Which is termed a Church that is a company ofmen and an assembly of people called togither holy because God hath chosen this company and sanctified it to him selfe Catholike for that it consisteth not of one nation but of all spred through the whole world For God to the entent that he might impart the riches of his glorious grace vnto mankinde did choose from euerlasting a certaine number of men as a peculiar people who should possesse with him the kingdome of heauen prepared for them from the foundations of the world And although this people be sundred by the distance of places and times for the seuerall persons and members thereof yet hath hee ioyned and knit them all togither by the bond of his holy spirit into the felowship of one body and a ciuill or rather a spirituall communion as it were into one citie The name of which citie is the heauenly new and holy Ierusalem the citie of the liuing God the king is God almightie who founded establisheth and ruleth the citie the lawes are Gods word which the citizens heare and folow as sheepe the voice of the shepheard the citizens are the Saintes euen all and singular holy men who therefore are called felow-citizens of the Saintes and men of Gods houshold the register wherein their names are enrolled is called the booke of life finally the liberties and commoâ—ities which they enioy are most ample benefites both of this life and of the life to come to wit the grace of God the fountaine of goodnes the treasures of Christ who is heire of all things the forgiuenes of sinnes the peace of conscience the giftes of righteousnes of godlines of holines one spirit one faith one hope of our calling and sacraments which are the seales of our hope in a worde all thinges which are expedient for vs to the necessarie maintenance of our earthly life and after this life the inheritance of life eternall in heauen with endlesse blisse and glory But because the citizens of this citie of God hauing disobeyed rebelled against him had lost their fréedom through their treason and being put therby from euerlasting life wâ—re to suffer death in the chaines of darkenesse God the father of infinite mercy and compassion did send his onely begotten sonne into the world that he being appointed king of Gods citie should redéeme the citizens from the powerof darkenesse out of the thraldom of the diuell and translating them a fresh into his kingdom should blesse them and endow them with all the priuileges and liberties of the citizens of God And so it pleased him though we had played the traitors in reuolting from him to his and our enimie yet of his frée fauour to make a league with vs enter into couenant Which couenant being one and the same in substance yet diuersly considered and by reason of this diuersitie diuided into two the one called olde grounded on Christ being promised to come the other new on Christ being come into the world God hath set it downe in the instruments of his câ—uenant wherein he hath said I will be your God and ye shall be my people What is the tenour how greate the vse how vnspeakable the benefit of this holy couenant made with the Patriarkes the Prophets the Apostles and all the Saintes of God it is recorded in the sacred instruments of the olde and new testament or couenant An abridgement whereof containing the summeof the Apostles doctrine is deliuered in the articles of our Christian faith or Creede as we terme it gathered out of Gods worde Wherefore as the couenant consisteth of two branches so the Creede expressing it conteineth two partes One of them instructeth our faith touching God who saide to his seruants I will be your God the other touching the people of God that is the Church to whom God saide you shall be my people Touching God it teacheth vs to beleeue in him who is one God in nature distinct in three persons the Father the creator the Sonne the redéemer the holy Ghost the sanctifier Touching the people of God it teacheth vs to beleeue that they are a Church holy and Catholike which hath communion of the Saints to whom their sinnes are forgiuen whose bodies shal be raised vp againe from death and being ioyned with their soules shall liue euerlastingly Now to make the matter more euident and plaine that this citie of God and company of the chosen is the holy Catholike Church first it is certaine that the people of God is called effectually out of the filth of other men to know and serue him by Christ who doth lighten their mindes and moue their hartes through the power of the holy Ghost and ministerie of the word And the whole company of them who are so called is named the Church by an excellencie not a common one but a passing eminent and most noble Church as wherein the faithfull all are comprehended that eyther be or haue béene or shal be to the end from the beginning of the world Which is termed in scripture the Church of the first borne who are writen in heauen Which God did predestinate to be adopted in him self according to the good pleasure of his wil. Which Christ being giuen to it by his Father as a head to the body loued as his spouse redeemed it from Satan and quickneth it with his Spirit hauing suffered death him selfe to deliuer vs from the gulfe of death Moreouer as it is cleere that this Church is called out of the rascall sort of the world to be partaker of the inheritance of the kingdom of heauen so is it cléere too that it ought to be holy For the holy one of Israell can not abide them who are workers of iniquitie neither shall any Cananite be in the house of the Lord of hostes and into the heauenly citie there shall enter no vncleane thing nor whatsoeuer worketh abomination or lye Christ therefore the Sauiour of the Church his body who as he called them whoÌ„ he predestinate so iustified them whom he called hauing clensed the Church from her sinnes by his blood renueth her from the filth of the flesh vnto holinesse which he beginneth in this life and perfitteth in the life to come when he shall present her without spot and wrincle a glorious spouse vnto him selfe So that both the Church may well be termed holy and the communion of Saintes the Churches communion which militant on earth is holy in affection triumphant in heauen is holier in perfection both militant and triumphant is in
indeede more sound then other some according as the word is more purely preaâ—â—ed and the spirit worketh more effectually but all of them sound But where the word of God either is not preached so that there groweth a famine or is preached corruptly mixt with mans word as it were with leauen or darnell or poyson as they who receiue no foode are like to dye through hunger such as eate bread made of corne and â—â—rnel doo fall into a light frenâ—â—â— so must we néedes iudge that churches whose foode is either none or naught are apt to diseases and neere to their deathe For Amos declareth that men are cast away through want of the word in that he telleth Israel that God will send a famine and a thirst of hearing the word of the Lord which when they shall seeke for to and fro and finde no where it shall come to passe that virgins and young men shall faint with thirst and fall and neuer rise againe Now that the corruption of the worde doth hurt too the Apostle noteth in aduertising Timothee that they who teach other doctrine and consent not to the wholesome wordes of Christ and to the doctrine which is according to godlines are sick and do dote about noysome folies which edifie not to godly faith in so muâ—h that their word doth fret as a kinde of canker which hauing taken hold of one part of the body doth eate out the next partes by litle litle vntill the whole body at last be cleane consumed Which if it come to passe as it must of necessitie vnlesse the better remedy be spéedily prouided for healing of the body that which was a body doth become a carkasse and is no longer a church it is left destitute of the spirit of God which is the soule thereof and of the soules instrument that is the word of God And this death is threatned by Christ to the Iewes in the old church refusing him their Messias therefore shal the kingdome of God be taken from you and geuen to a nation which shall bring foorth the fruites of it and in the new church to the EphesiaÌ„s hauing left their first loue I wil come against thee shortly wil remoue thy candlestick out of his place except thou amend Which two things foretold by our sauiour Christ were fulfilled in the destruction of the two churches of the church of the Iewes within a few yeares when the gospel was remoued from them to the Gentiles of the church of Ephesus many ages after when hauing béen sick first of sundrie heresies it died a while ago of the plague of Mahomet Thus I haue declared as briefly as I could how particular churches are called members of the catholike how they are ordeyned to learn and practise Goâ—s seruice how the good in them are intermingled with the bad the godly with hypocrites finally what their health is what their diseases be and when they must be counted sound when vnsound Which pointes being marked my paines wil be the lesser in opening the Conclusion the two stemmes whereof on what rootes they grow you perceiue already The church of Rome is not the catholike church it is no sound member of the catholike church The church of Rome is not the catholike church What can be more cléere For the catholike church is the church vniuersall the church of Rome is particular So that in my iudgement the Papistes speake monstrously when they call the Romane church the catholike church and make them all one Some will say perhaps that when they call it catholike they meane it to be sound and of a right beleefe such as doth hold the catholike faith as the ciuil law doth terme the right beléeuers catholike Christians and the church of Afrike is named catholike by Cyprian Yet that is false too For they geue the title of catholike church of Rome that they may put into the heads of the vnskilfull that that is the church out of which there is no saluation But out of the church of Rome there haue beene saued innumerable shall be out of the catholike church not one But let it be graunted that they meane by catholike a church holding the right faith I deny that the church of Rome doth hold the right faith and that is the other part of my Conclusion it is no â—ound member of the catholike church Now when I deny it to be a sound member of the catholike church I meane not that it languisheth of a litle sicknes or disease not dangerous which may seeme rather to haue abated somewhat of exquisite health then haue bereft her of all health For as Galen teacheth of the health of the body that it hath a reasonable bredth as you would say and certaine degrees as it were of perfitnes that they who are able to go about their businesse and doo affaires of life are to be counted whole though they enioy not a most perfit health so in the health of churches I déeme there are certaine degrées of sinceritie that they who doo the functions of spirituall life reasonably well are to be counted â—ound although they attaine not to a most absolute soundnesse And for that cause as we iudge our owne churches to be sound although there remaine some distemper in them by the relikes of those diseases wherewith the contagion of the church of Rome had cast them downe so that they could not yet be recouered fully in like sort we iudge of the churches of Germanie which are troubled with the errour of consubstantiation as it were with the grudging of a litle ague if other wise they holde Christian faith and loue soundly and sincerely But the church of Rome is not distempered with a litle ague such as hindereth not the functions of life greatly but is sicke of a canker or rather of a leprosy or rather of a pestilence in so much that she is past hope of recouery vnlesse our Sauiour Christ the heauenly physician doo giue her wholesome medicins to purge her of pernicious humours And therefore I pronounce that the church of Rome is no sound member of the catholike church Which I will proue by two reasons the one of the causes the other of the effectes whereof from the one diseases doo arise in the other they shew them selues by them both they are surely proued I would to God I might discourse hereof at large according as the weightines of the thinges requireth But we must be content to doo as time wil license vs. You wil pardon me therefore I trust if I runne them ouer somewhat hastily and as they say touch and go I will hold out my finger toward the well head gesse you the lion by his pawes Concerning the causes which doo bréed diseases and sicknesse in the church it is as I haue touched already cléere and certaine that they are either the want of food of Gods word
mouth expoundeth it of the Pope The Councell then of Trent condemning all senses and meaninges of the scripture which are against the sense that their Church holdeth or against the Fathers consenting all in one doth it not condemne this sense of the scripture geueÌ„ by the Fathers because it is against the sense of their Church Sure it bindeth not the Papistes to maintaine it Or els D. Stapleton I trust should be censured for placing the Pope in the one Pastours seate Wherefore if they who holde not the senses that the Fathers geue of the scriptures be the false Church as he teacheth vs the false Church and the Church of Rome may claime kinred And thus much of the Doctor The Licentiate foloweth him in the same steppes reprouing a speech of mine touching Cyprian Whose praise of the Romans that vnfaithfulnesse cannot haue accesse to theÌ„ being stretched by Sanders to proue that the Church of Rome cannot erre I hauing shewed the contrarie by scripture did adde What and was Cyprian of an other minde Pardon me ô Cyprian I would beleeue thee gladly but that beleeuing thee I should not beleeue the word of God Hereon M. Martin to aduauntage his cause first abuseth Cyprian saying that he affirmeth that the Church of Rome cannot erre in faith Which he affirmeth not But whereas the Nouatian heretikes at Carthage had made themselues there a Bishop in schisme and to get him credite with the Church of Rome had writen thither falsly that he was allowed by fiue tweÌ„tie Bishops Cyprian to meete with their falshood and treacherie saith that it could not finde credit with the Romans who being faithfull men would not giue eare to faithlesse lyers Neither spake he this as though the Romans could not in deede be deceiued by false reportes of wicked ympes for euen there he noteth they might be a while as hee did trie both then and after but to stirre them vp to beware of heretikes by praising them as wary Wherfore he affirmeth not that the Church of Rome cannot erre in faith as M. Martin threapeth on him Yet because he might be supposed to haue thought it at least by a consequent for if they could not erre in that much lesse in faith therefore I contenting my selfe with a peremptorie exception against it sayd that if he thought it he must pardon me for not beleeuing him the word of God gainsaying it And this doth M. Martin reproue both for that wherevpon I spake it and for my kind of speeche That wherevpon I spake it is he sayth that euery youth among vs vpon confidence of his spirit will controll not onely one but all the Fathers consenting together if it be against that which we imagine to be the truth In which wordes by mentioning so all the Fathers consenting together he bewrayeth the canker that consumed him For I touched the credite of no more of them then the Papistes grant themselues may be touched Nor controlled I ought vpon confidence of my spirite but of the spirite of God because it was against not that which I imagined but knew to be the truth My kind of speeche he noteth for being very fine and figuratiue as I thought As I thought did M. Martin see my hart If not hee might haue kept that thought within himselfe For in truth to open it because he presseth me so farre I thought in that figure Paerdon me ô Cyprian to imitate a like kind of speeche in S. Austin Pardon me ô Paule What M. Martin thought wheÌ„ herevpon he matched me with vaine foolish youths himselfe hath declared But it would better haue beseemed his age to haue acknowledged rather the truth which I proued then haue reproued my kind of speech For although I be a vaine and foolish youth who spake so of Cyprian yet S. Paule was not a vaine and foolish Apostle whose doctrin I maintayned in it These are good Christian reader the faultes of my Conclusions al that are noted by Stapleton Martin as farre as I know If they or any other haue touched ought else which I haue not lighted on I will not be ashamed vpoÌ„ notice of it to bring it forth my selfe and answere it in iudgement For I haue bene so carefull of true and faithfull dealing as well in the Conclusions as in the Conference with M. Hart God is my record that if mine aduersaries should write a booke against me I would beare it vpoÌ„ my shoulder bind it as a crowne vnto me The bolder I am to coÌ„mend them both to thy vpright iudgement beseeching the Father of lights for his mercies sake in Iesu Christ to blesse thee with the grace of his holy spirit that thou maist grow in knowledge in faith in hope in loue and enioy the blessings prepared for the chosen who seeke and serue him Psal. 119.18 Open myne eyes O Lord that I may see wonderfull thinges out of thy law LONDON Printed by Iohn Wolfe for George Bishop 1584. a 1. Sam. 19 2â— 2. King 2.5 4.8 b Reue. 1â— â— c Act. 6. ver 9. d ver 14. e ver 11. f ver 13. g Act. 7.2 h Act. 1.1 i Luk. 1.3 〈◊〉 23 1â— l Ezek. 47.12 m Gen. 3.9 n Psal. 6â— â—â— o 1. Tiâ— â—â— * In the seueâ—th Chapter and the seuenth Diuision a Rom. 10. â— b Rom. 9.3 c Rom. 10.2 d Act. 22.3 e Gal. â— 1 f Rom. 10.4 g Allen in the Apologie of the English Seminariâ—s chapt 6. h chapt 2. i chapt 3. k chapt 1. 6. l chapt 5. m chapt 1. 5. n chapt 1. 4. * Esai 9.16 o Allen in hiâ— Apologie chapt 5. p â—heologiâ—â— Miniâ—â—ri ecclesiaâ—um ditioniâ— Casimiri in Admonitione de liâ—ro Concordâ—â— cap. 12. q Concertat ecclesiâ—e Cathoâ—licae in Anglia aduersus Caluin Puritan In epistola Lucae Kyrby Apologia Martyrum 1 Quamuis doctissimus illius ordinis 2 Tanto in doctiorem se esse ostendit 3 Egregium Christi Athleâ—am 4 Sanctum sacerdotem 5 Sacrae Theologiae Baccalau reum 6 Firmiores egisse radices in fideâ— fundamentis 7 Doctrina esse solidiori 8 Ministrum synagogâ—e Anglicanae non vulgarem 9 Re insecta vnde venit â—ecessit r Allen in hiâ—â—pologie The nâ—â—ration oâ— tâ—e English 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 s Dan. 1. ver â— t ver 4 u ver â— x Allens Apoloâ—giâ— chapt 3. y chapt 2. z chapt 6. a Dan. 1. ver 7. 8. b ver 12. ver 4. 19. ver 3. e Guicâ—iardin hist. Ital. lib. 11 f lib. â—â— g Allens Apologic chapt 6 h Genebrard Chronogr lib. 4. in aâ—pend i The narration of the English Semin in Rom. k Gen. 3.6 l Esai 19.18 m 2. Cor. 11. ver 13. n ver 22. o The â—arration of the English Semin in Rome p 2. Cor. 11. â—â— q Iob. 1.7 2.2 r 1. King 11.10 s Dan. 1.
the name of Nouatus is giuen through errour to Nouatianus p Epist. 41. ad Cornelium q Of Manutius at Rome Morelius at Paris Pamelius at Anwerpt r Annotat. in ep Cyprian 76. Neque eâ—at coÌ„moda prior lectio Lordinatus est Inemo enim a seipso ordinati potest s Princip doctr lib. 6. cap. 15. Iuxta emendatâ— editionem t Lib. de vnitat ecclesiae u Staplet princip doctrin lib. 5. cap. 5. x Lib. 5. â—ap 9. * Ipâ—i successionâ— Apostolica * In the begiâ—â—ning of the third Diuision y Princip doct lib. 5. cap. 9. z In their Annotations 〈◊〉 Luk. 22.31 * Augustin op â—66 in 〈◊〉 1 In cathedra vnitatis 2 De malis praepositis de praepositis 〈◊〉 mala facientibus Dei bona dâ—centibus a Epist. 166. b Epist. 165. c In their Annotations on Matt. 23.2 b Epist. 165. a Epist. 166. * De praepositiâ— malis d In their Annotat on Matt. 23.3 out of Augustin contr literas Petilian lib. 2. c. 51. 61. e Ezek. 16 5â— f Princip doctri l. 5. c. 9. g Contr. liter Petilian lib. 2. cap. 51. h Rom. 3.4 i Chronogr l. 3. â—n Honorio * Ezek. 22.25 k August epist. 166. l De doctrin Christian. lib. 4. cap. 27. 1 Sua docere non audent m In euang Iohan Tractat. 4â— n De veâ—biâ— Dom. Serm. â—â— o Gal. 2.14 p In Cice 1. de â—micitia q Libr. de pastoribus cap. 10. 2 Velint nolint pastores vt perueniant ad lac lanam verba Dei dicturi sunt r De doctrin Christian. l. 4. â— 27. s Epist. 166. t Contr. liter Petilian l. â— c 7. l. 2. c. 6. l. 3. c. 2. u De repub 〈◊〉 1. Thrasymachus p â— Tim. 2.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 q Ad IubaianuÌ„ epist. 73. in concil Carthag r â—ibris duobus retractionum s Iam. 3.2 t Mar. 1â— 18 The sixth Diuision u Concil Trident Session 23. de reformat c. 1. x 1. Pet. 5.2 One vnder Paul the third Session 6. de refoâ—mat cap. 1. the other vnâ—er Pius the fâ—urth Seâ—â— 23. de reâ—ormat cap. 1. z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Gen. 31.44 Luc. 2.8 b Ezâ—k 3.17 Heb. 13.17 c Ioh. 10.12 d 1. Pet. 5.8 e Reu. 12.7 f Eph. 6 1â— g Platin. de 〈◊〉 Pontificum Onuphr in Râ—m Pontif. â— Chron. * h Platin. in vita Gregor vndeciâ—i i In vita Vrbaâ—i sexti k Theodorie Niem in Nem. vnâ—on traâ—â—â—t 6. c 39. de Schismate lib. â— 2. l Genebrard Chronograph lib. 4. Anton. Amic praefat in Câ—â—isâ—ran de Papae concilii auâ—oritat m In commentar rer in orbegestar 1 In vicis publicis splendidis aedibus magno numerâ— 2 Cum max impopuli aediâ—icatione pedibuâ— ingredienâ— n Ricard Pâ—caeus lib. de 〈◊〉 qui ex doâ—trina percipitur o Guicciard hast Ital lib. 6. p Onuphr de vit Poâ—t in Iulio secund q Guicciard lib. 7 r lib. 8. lib. 9. t lib. 10. 11. u lib. 7. 9. x lib. 9. 1 Coâ—a notabiâ—e molto nuâ—â—â— 2 Vicario di Christo. 3 Suscitaâ—a de lui câ—ntro a Chrisâ—â—â—ni y Melanchthon Brusâ—hius Ducherius 〈◊〉 Scriptor Britann Centur. 1. z Guicciard hist. Ital. lib. 11. a 2. Cor. 10.4 b Oâ—osius hiâ—t lib. 7. cap. 7. 1 Imperatorum ancilla 2 Domina omnium c In Roman Pontif. praefation ad Lectorem d Sacraâ— ceremon eccles Rom. lib. 3. e Luc. 12.42 f Act. 20.20 g 2. Tim. 4.2 * 2. Tim. 2.4 h Frater Egiâ—â—us nunc creaâ—us Carâ—inaâ—is vt taceat Ricard Pacae lib. de fruct qui ex â—oct percip i Iouius de vita Leon. decim lib. 4. * The name of the Popes most delicate garâ—en or paradise so called as you would say 〈◊〉 to see k 1 2 * which phiâ—se of ours answereth to theâ—of the 〈…〉 l m n â—â—Ita autem D. de administ peâ—iâ—â—tâ—toruÌ„ l. non solus D. de liber causa l. quod iussu D. de regulis â—uâ—is l. procurator D. de procuratoribus defensoribus o L. inter artifices D. de â—â—â—â—tionibus p c. is cuiâ—de oâ—fic potest â—udicis delegat 〈◊〉 Seâ—t * â—ander de vâ—â—ib monar eccles l. 7. q 1. Pet. 2.5 r 1. Tim. 1.18 s 1. Cor. 3.10 t Heb. 13.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 u Tit. 1.8 x 1. Tim. 3.2 y 〈◊〉 cui de offic potest â—udicis delegat in Sext. * Perse vel per â—lium z Guieciard hist. Ital. l. â— a Gen. 9. â—2 b Bernard epiâ—t 42. ad Archiep Senon 1 Modeâ—â—i Noe. 2 Mundi fabâ—lam e Gen. 10.9 d 〈…〉 lib. â— e 〈◊〉 6. 7. f lib. 7. 9. g lib. 8. 9. h lib. â— i lib. 9. k lib. 7. l lib. 9. * Ad occupar Roma tutto lo stato della chiesa come appartenente di â—agiâ—ne all Imperio m Epist. 42 2â— archiep Senon 1 Non quod val de Romani curent 2 Sed quia valde diligunt munera n Mat. 2.8 o Guicciaâ—â— lib. 7. p 1. Tim. 5. â— q Sigon de regno Ital. lib. 8. r Mat. 2.16 Ioseph Antiquitat Iudaicar lib. 17. cap. 8. s Sigon de regno Ital. lib. 3. 1 Ne ei aut tributum dareÌ„t aut alia ratione obedirent indixit * In the yeare of Christ 727. 2 Principes Aâ—â—tolorum 3 â—retâ—oso suo 〈…〉 4 Pâ—acula a 〈…〉 â—â—igenda 5 Ecclesiae â—eous succurreâ—et 6 Causam beaâ—i Petri. 7 Animae suae conâ—uâ—ere 8 Beaâ—o Petro concederer 9 Pro remissione peccatoruâ— impetrandâ— 1 Diuinae promerendae gratiâ—studio 2 Ad animae suâ— salutem peccatorum â—emiâ— sionem * In the yearâ— of Christ 77â— t 〈◊〉 de 〈◊〉 Ital. lib. 4. 1 Iuâ— prinâ—â—patum 〈…〉 u Sigon lib. 7. 2 Pontifiâ—â—m vt reipub principem Regem vt summum Dominum x Sigon lib. 4. 7. y lib. 9. 1 Aâ—di me princâ—â—s Apostolorum Petre. Iure autoritatis tuae 2 〈…〉 frater tuus Nomine vestâ—o 3 Omnium peccatorum remiâ—sionem veniam que in hac in â—â—â—ra vita * Archiepiscopus Mogunâ—inus 4 Hâ—â—reseos est noâ—aâ—us In the yeare of Christ 1085. * Iudg. 9.15 z Sigon lib. 1â— * The former in the yeare 1112. the later 1116. 5 Regalia beaâ—i 〈◊〉 a Sigon lib. â— b â— King 1 3â— c Sigon lib. 5. in Carolo Calâ—â— d In Ludouico Balbo Carolo Crasso e lib. 6. f lib 7. * Imperator deâ—â—gnatus g Sigon lib. 11. * In the yeare of Christ 1133. 6 The Popes vasall For homo here is vses as the name of homage is deriâ—ed from it So that it noteth the duety and seruice which tenants and vasals doo owe vnto their Lordes 7 Pictâ—ribus aâ—que Poâ—â—â—â— * In the yeare of Christ 1157. h Sigon lib. 12. 8 Beneficium
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
doctrine swéete of Christ their master fedde By preaching first by wryting then to nations all if spred And these bookes hath the holy Ghost set foorth for mortall wights That we in course of faith and life might folow them as lights Auant all ye who brain-sick toies and fansies vaine defend Who on humane traditions and Fathers sawes depend The holy written word of God doth shew the perfit way Whereby from death to life arise from curse to blisse we may 2 The militant Church may erre both in maners and in doctrine TO warfare euery one dooth goe that serueth Christ in field To warfare all their names are billed who doo Gods armour wéelde And doost thou man in warfare serue and art thou frée from blowes And may no dart thy body pearce assaulted by the foes The citie of Ierusalem with holy Church was dight That holy Church kept not her course at all assaies aright Corinthus godly was and pure Philippi shone full bright The faith of Thessalonians was spred in glorious plight Corinthus pure is stayned now Philippi lyes defaced Your praise O Thessalonians is by the Turke disgraced And thou O Rome the Qâ—éene of pride which swell'st on mountaines seuen Thy hart is pearst with deadly wound thou fall'st to hell from heauen While that the Church doth make abode on earth in seats of clay Am I deceiued or may she féele the dint of errours sway 3 The holy scripture is of greater autoritie then the Church THe godlesse rowt inflam'd with lust of holding scepter hie Dooth lift the stately throne of Rome vnto the golden skie Unto the skie that pride were â—inall nay faâ—re aboue the skie Subduing Christ his scepter great to Romish royaltie Men say that Giants did attempt the heauenly powers to quell What doo they raise new warres againe from grisly gulfe of hell The holy church may for it selfe claime worthy gifts of right T is great I graunt but lesse I trust then is the Lord of might Let mortall things geue place to God let men to Christ accord The wife to man the earth to heauen the subiect to the Lord. ALthough I am not ignorant right worshipfull audience that Cato the graue Censour reprooued a certaine Roman who taking vpon him to write a storie in Greeke had rather craue pardon of his fault in dooing it then kéepe himselfe cléere from committing that fault yet so it hath hapned to me at this present yelding shal I say thereto or refusing it surely some what against my will but so it hath hapned that I who could not choose but commit a faut am forced to request you to pardon my faut For both the weakenes of my voice because it is not able to fill the largenesse of this place wil discontent perhaps them who heare me not and the vnripenesse of my abilitiâ— which I feare me will not answere the solemnitie of this assemblie in handling those things that are to be debated will of likelihoode be reproued by them who heare me How much the more earnestly I am to request by word you that heare me by will the rest who heare me not that either you wil be no Censours at all or els be more fauourable Censours then Cato least either you iudge me to haue dealt vnwisely who did not kéepe my selfe from fault or impudent who first commit it and then request you not to blame it Neither do I dout but I shal finde defense for the weakenes of my voice in your frendly curtesiâ— before whom I speake for the vnripenes of my abilitie in the goodnes of the cause which I haue to speake off For that your curtesie will condemne me of that fault which I could not eschew I néede not to feare And the goodnes of the cause hath in it such euident and cléere light of trueth that I doo not dout it will defend it selfe though no man pleade for it Wherein I hope also that you euen your selues either doo already or will agrée with me if you shall heare me open as briefly as I may the meaning of the thrée Conclusions that I hâ—ld the perfection of the scripture the infirmitie of the Church the autoritie of them both For as for the praise and commendation of Diuinitie whereof the beginning is from heauen the maiestie diuine the office to be an instrument of saluation to mankinde which was ordeyned by God the father reueled by Iesus Christ registred in writing by the holy Ghost I cannot speake thereof as I would according to the woorthines of the thing as I may according to my power I ought not In the one I hope you approue my good will in the other I beséech you take my iudgement in good part For I doâ— not say by way of amplification colourably that I refraine therefore from the praising of it because my woundering at it dooth dasell like the brightnesse of the sun-beames the eyes of my minde as Tully faineth of Caesar that the people shewed not their good will toward him by ioyful clapping of their hands because that they being amazed with woondring at him could not stirre themselues But as the prophet Esay witnesseth of God that when he behelde his maiestie he was dismaied because he was a man of polluted lips vnworthie to behold the king and Lord of hostes so may I protesâ— from my hart in trueth that when I consider the highnes of Gods worde I holde my peace as amazed because I am a man of polluted lips vnfitte to touch the noblenesse of a thing so woorthie Wherefore I willingly leaue these Iuy-garlands to be hanged vp by them who vent the wine of Philosophie Physike and Lawe which artes very profitable but for the life that fadeth excellent but humaine commendable but transitorie beutifull but brittle I dout not but already the learning and eloquence of men well séene therein hath made you wel to like of in this exercise of disputations Now I take a greater enterprise in hand for the valour of the thing which I am to deale with though nether with better witte nor deeper iudgement then they whom I folow in the course of dealing Liuie reporteth that Annibal hauing purposed to fightâ—with the Romans did cause certaine couples of captiues to fight one with an other hand to hand before he set his souldiers in battaile aray that his Carthaginians might by that pastime of the captiues combat addresse them selues with better consideration and courage to the serious and set battaile In like sorte there haue béene brought before you gentle audience to the combat sundrie opinions of sundrie artes as it were cooples of captiues which whether they liue or dye be so or not so it skilleth not greatly the state of the realme is not ventured vpon it But now from that sporting conflict of light matters there cometh to the battaile for earnest tryall of thinges of weight host against host truth against falshood religion against errour wherein if we swarue out