Selected quad for the lemma: friend_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
friend_n	write_v	writing_n	young_a	19	3	6.4739	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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

Monothelites Whereto Onuphrius addeth the authorities of Emmanuell Callêca a Grecian and Iohn of Turrecremata Cardinal of San-sisto who haue proued by their writings that he was a Catholike Bishop Rainoldes Haue proued Nay they would had not their proofes failed But is not this a straunge answere The question is touching Honorius a Pope who liued almost a thousand yeares ago what he taught in a point of faith The Bishops who liued about the same time not many fewer then two hundred or as some write three hundred do say and proue their saying by his owne writings that he taught erroneously as the Monothelites Platina Sabellicus Nauclerus Blondus Siluius Callêca and Turrecremata seuen of the Popes freends of whom the eldest liued aboue sixe hundred yeares after him doo affirme the contrary Whether of these are likelier to know and say the truth thereof Hart. But there are also in the Popes librarie the writings of Maximus who liued about the same time And it is plaine by him that Honorius did not subscribe to that heresie yea that of a certainetie he did condemne it Rainoldes Onuphrius might say so and as he thought safely because it was not likely that we should see Maximus in the Popes librarie to disproue his saying But it is disproued by your owne Andradius Who discoursing hereof to shewe that it is not certaine that Honorius did first condemne the heresie of the Monothelites though Platina and Sabellicus and Blondus and Aeneas Siluius say he did for Theophanes saith he and Anastasius historians much ancienter then they do write that Iohn the fourth Pope after him was the first who did it And Maximus as it is well noted by Torrensis a singular learned man hauing purposly vndertaken to cleere Honorius of that heresie made not any mention of his condemning it though if it had beene so he must haue knowne it needes and could not haue omitted it Now this Torrensis whom Andradius prayseth hath alleaged that whole place of Maximus touching Honorius whereof the summe is this that the secretarie of Honorius who wrote the verie epistle that he was charged by and knewe belike his meaning best expounded part thereof in a good sense that it might seeme sounde And this is that Maximus in the Popes library by which your Onuphrius doth take it to bée plaine or at the least would haue vs take it that Honorius did neuer subscribe to that heresie yea that of a certaintie he did condemne it But sée what difference betwéene men Andradius who alloweth the secretaries exposition which Maximus alleaged to cléere Honorius of that heresie yet thinketh it plaine by that place of Maximus that hee did not condemne it Torrensis a friend of the Popes too declareth that a part of the epistle of Honorius is helped reasonably by the secretaries exposition but it fitteth not another parte thereof in which it is plaine by his owne wordes that he was a Monothelite So Torrensis who had accesse to the Popes library as well as Onuphrius hath shewed that Onuphrius did meane to steale a lye by sending vs to Maximus in the Popes library As for Maximus himselfe he was loth for good will both to Honorius and the truth that the heretikes should boast as they did of such a patrone and therefore he desired to withdraw him from them But the generall Councell before which hée wrote found after on better examination of the matter that Honorius ioyned with them and taught as they did Wherefore whatsoeuer Maximus hath writen or rather wished of it the Councell is of greater credit then Maximus much more then Callêca or Turrecremata who could not say therein so much as Maximus and Maximus is the best that they say Hart. That which you alleage of the Councell were somewhat if they had condemned Honorius of that heresie But they did not although it be so writen in the Councell now For Anastasius the kéeper of the Popes library who liued within two hundred yeares after Honorius doth teach in his Latin historie out of Theophanes a Gréeke writer that the common copies of the sixth Councell were corrupted by the Grecians and the Canons thereof in the which Honorius is condemned were forged Rainoldes Canons what Canons There are no Canons of the sixth Councell in which Honorius is condemned Neither doth Anastasius or Theophanes say it Hart. No Sure Onuphrius saith as I saide And that which he saith he saith that Sirletus then a chiefe Notarie now Cardinall of Rome an excellent learned man had marked it Rainoldes A foule and grosse faute either of Sirletus or Onuphrius or both For there were two méetinges of Bishops at Constantinople which both doo beare the name of the sixth Councell the former vnder the Emperour Constantine the fourth about the yeare of Christ sixe hundred and eightie the later vnder his sonne Iustinian towarde a thirtie yeares after The former was assembled against the heresie of the Monothelites the Bishops of the west Church as well as of the east were present and they with one consent did al condemne Honorius In the later there met the Bishops of the east onely who made rules and orders of ecclesiasticall discipline which are the Canons that you mention These Canons doo conteine the summe of the ordinances of the Gréeke Church wherein the Church of Rome is grated vpon both for other pointes and chiefly for the Popes supremacie The Gréeke Bishops therefore to winne the more credit vnto their Canons said that they were made by the sixth generall Councell Of which they reported that when it was dimissed the verie same Fathers whom Constantine the Emperour assembled before were againe assembled by his sonne Iustinian after a foure or fiue yeares and ordained those Canons But Theophanes and Anastasius haue shewed that to be a tale as it is in déede and in discourse thereof haue saide of those Canons that they are falsly named the Canons of the sixth Councell Now Sirletus falling belike on these wordes and remembring that the sixth Councell is saide to haue condemned Honorius thought it either true or wholesome to be taught as true that hee was condemned by harlotrie Canons not made by the Councell but forged in the Councels name Which fansie peraduenture he told his friend Onuphrius and Onuphrius for ioy went and set it in print So by the conueiance of Onuphrius and Sirletus pretending and abusing the countenance and names of Anastasius and Theophanes the sixth generall Councell is put to silence as it were from bearing witnesse against Honorius But the mischiefe of it is that Torrensis againe doth marre the play For out of the histories of Theophanes and Anastasius which are not common to be séene he hath alleaged also this place touching those Canons Whereby it is manifest that their meaning was not to discredit the actions of the sixth Councell which condemned Honorius in the time

neither Scriptures nor Fathers nor Schoolemen nor Iesuites can make him to acknowledge his owne ouersight let him heare a witnesse who can doo more with him against whō there lyeth no exception for him vnlesse it be that of the lawe They who wauer against the credit of their owne testimonie are not to be heard This witnesse is himselfe who remembring not the prouerbe that a lyer must be mindfull doth afterward affirme that all the Apostles were sent with full power to begin the church by those wordes of Christ As my Father sent me so doo I send you and that they all were therein equall vnto Peter Hart. So he saith that ful power was giuen them by those wordes As my Father sent me but that the words which folow conteine a part therof only Whose sins soeuer ye remit as again he mentioneth in that verie place Now these two sayings agrée well togither that it is giuen by the one by the other it is not Wherefore your selfe offend in that you touch him when you doo touch him as a lyer A common fault with Protestants in dealing against vs which argueth your church of what brood it is The Deuil is a lyer and the father thereof Rainoldes If any man of our profession bee stained with this filth we wish him and exhort him to clense him selfe of it least the name of God be through his default blasphemed among the Gentiles But you do vs iniury to condemne our church for the offense of some in it For all they are not Israel which are of Israel and Iacobs sonnes Ruben did commit incest Simeon and Leui murder yet the house of Iacob was the church of God If my selfe haue done your Doctor any wrong in touching him as a lyer it was an errour not a crime not of wilfulnes but ouersight And such an ouersight for which he rather oweth thankes to me who touch him then to you who cléere him For I who do touch him touch him with a rodde but you who do cléere him whippe him with scorpions Hart. What meane you by that Rainoldes You charge him with a capitall crime as I may terme it to cléere him of a lesser He foloweth not the Deuill in lying you say But you graunt he foloweth him in that is worse euen in the suppressing of the holy scripture to seduce the reader For as the Deui●● ●empting Christ to cast him selfe downe from the pinnacle alleaged it is written He will giue his Angels charge ouer thee omitted that they shall keepe thee in all thy waies because that made against him the waies to which he tempted being none of Christes waies in like sort the Doctor tempting vs to fall downe before the Pope when hee alleaged whose sinnes soeuer ye remit as giuing lesse to the Apostles then was promised to Peter he omitted As my father sent me so I send you whereby they all haue full power the same that Peter had Neither yet contenting him selfe with this trechery he procéedeth farther And whereas the scripture saith of Eliakim that he was the steward of the kinges house the Doctor affirmeth he was the hie priest that seing the key of Dauids house was giuen him and his key therein was a figure of Christes and Christ did promise keyes to Peter the simple reader might conceaue by this allusion that as Eliakim was the hie priest in the olde Testament so Peter should bee in the newe the one as a figure the other as lieutenant of Christ the true hie priest Hart. What moued D. Stapleton to say that Eliakim was hie priest I know not I do not thinke he would haue said it vnlesse he had had good reason to auouch it And I am perswaded that if he knew that and other thinges which you finde fault with what soeuer hee hath written hée woulde make it good Rainoldes I wish with all my hart he would For then he should repent and amend his errors the onely way to make that good which is euill But thus you may sée by his own confession that Christ gaue the keyes to all the Apostles which he promised to Peter For seing by the keyes is signified the full power and the full power was giuen to them all it foloweth that the keies were giuen to them all How much the more idle is that fansi-full tale which you told out of him that to bynd and loose to remitte retayne sinnes imply a part onely or as he termeth it are onely partiall not totall and lesser not the chiefe actions of the keyes but to open and shut wherein is implyed the power correspondent fully and euenly to the keyes is the whole power euen a power most ample and so the partiall lesser actions of the keyes were committed by Christ to all the Apostles wheras the keyes were giuen to Peter alone Whereof the conclusion is so cléerely false that himselfe as though he had swalowed a hot morsell which he must néedes vngorge was faine to cast it vp straightwaie and say the contrary For in that he addeth that the full power of the keyes was promised to Peter alone principally before and aboue al the rest he graunteth by cōsequent that it was promised to the rest of the Apostles and therefore giuen to them also Hart. Yet principally to him alone But though all of them had receiued the keyes euen the full power the same that he receiued which neuerthelesse I graunt not but suppose they had yet this doth confirme that he was their supreme head in some respect Rainoldes How so Because no greater power was giuen him then was giuen them Hart. No But because the power which was giuen them was giuen them by him For so as Leo the great writeth wisely the strength which is giuen to Peter by Christ is bestowed on the Apostles by Peter Rainoldes This Leo was too great a fréend of Peters state as I haue declared Wherefore how great soeuer he were and wrote wisely yet must his writing giue place to the word of a greater Leo I meane of the Lion of the tribe of Iuda For hée teacheth vs not that the Apostles receued their power by Peter but that Peter and they receiued it all togither immediately of Christ. Yea Paule though he were chosen after Christes ascension to be an Apostle yet was he an Apostle not of men neither by man but by Iesus Christ and God the father which raised him from the dead Hart. That is true which you say but you mistake my meaning For you séeme to speake of the Apostolike power which I graunt they receiued immediately of Christ. But they had an other power beside that to wit a Bishoply or Pastorall power Wherein sith they were inferior to Peter though equall in the Apostolike it may be they receiued though not the Apostolike yet the Bishoply power of him

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

cruelty more then barbarous a most feruent desire of aduancing by whatsoeuer means his children of whom he had many and amongst them one that to execute lewde deuises there might not want lewde instruments no lesse abhominable in any point then his father Such a serpent held the seate of S. Peter for the space of ten yeares vntill his owne venoome killed him For when he his sonne and heire the Duke of Ualence had purposed to poyson a Cardinall whom they were to suppe with as commonly they vsed not onely their enimies but also their friendes yea neerest friendes which had riches that themselues might bee enriched with their spoiles the Duke had sent thither flagons of wine poysoned by a seruant whom hee made not priuie to the matter vut willed him to giue them no man The Pope comming into the Cardinals before supper time the weather being hote he thirstie called for wine Now because his owne prouision for supper was not come from the palace yet the seruant of the Duke gaue him of that wine which he thought his mai●ter had willed to be kept for himselfe as the best Whereof while he was drinking his sonne the Duke came in and thinking the wine to bee his fathers owne he dranke of it too So the Pope was caried sodenly for dead home to the palace and the next day hee was caried dead after the maner of the Popes into S. Peters Church blacke swollen and ougly most manifest signes of poyson All Rome did runne togither to his dead carkasse with wonderfull ioy no man being able to satisfie his eyes with beholding a ser●ent dispatched and quelled that had poysoned all the world with his outragious ambition and pestilent treacherie and with all examples of horrible crueltie of monstrous lust and of incredible couetousnesse in selling without difference things holy and profane Hart. I skill not greatly of these stories and it may ●e douted whether they be true For men are prone commonly to thinke and speake euill specia●ly of such as are of high calling Howbeit if they be true what is that to vs The Popes may erre in maners we graunt but not in doctrine Neither if a man be naught in conuersation is therefore his religion naught Iudas an Apostle Nicolas a Deacon the one betrayed Christ the other bredde the Nicolaitans both fa●tie in their liues but the Christian faith which they professed is not fautie There be that write also reportes verie shamefull of your Doctors and Pastors of Caluin that he committed a detestable sinne of Bucer that he denyed Christ at his death Which thinges are as odious as those that you reherse of this or that Pope But if I should vrge them you would reiect them as impertinent Rainoldes In déede the truth of God doth not depend of mens maners Many Iewes inferiour in life to many Paynims many Christians to many Iewes Neither did I mention the Popes to that purpose Howbeit where you call the truth of their stories which I touched into doute and match them with reportes that some men haue writen of Bucer and Caluin it is the part of wise men to weigh as iudges doo in witnesses who writeth what of whom The law alloweth not that a mans enimie shall be a witnesse against him No enimie more deadly then he who beareth hatred for quarrell of religion as the Samaritans to the Iewes Such hatred is borne to Bucer and Caluin by Lindan and Bolsecke the autours of those lewde reportes And a farther hatred by Bolsecke to Caluin because when he would haue troubled Geneua with erroneous doctrine Caluin did set himselfe openly against him the ministers of Geneua reproued him by word and writing the magistrates of Geneua did banish him out of their citie On like cause whereof when hee was driuen twise out of the coastes of Berna too and thinges fell not out to his minde amongst the Protestants he reuolted from them againe to the Papistes and returned to Poperie as a dogge to his vomit Wherefore they doo iniurie to Caluin and Bucer who beléeue so heinous matters against them vpon no better proofe then Lindans word or Bolseckes chiefely sith the knowledge of many who were present at the death of Bucer of infinite who either liued with Caluin or reade his godly writings wherein hee liueth still may cléere them from the cankred spite of one enimie in all indifferent iudges eyes But the thinges which I did mention of your Popes are witnessed not by enimies but by fréendes not one but manie most like to know the truth and to report thereof no worse then they knew For stories do consent that Boniface the eighth was such a threeformed beast as I declared The Councell of Constance examined and found Iohn the three and twentéeth to be a sinke of sinnes a Diuell in carnate as they called him Of Alexander the sixth I said not a word more then is in Guicciardin a gentleman who liued at the same time and wrote the storie of it an Italian by nation by religion a Papist the Popes lieutenant by his office a faithfull captaine to his State a bitter enimie to the Lutherans And Guicciardins report of him is confirmed by two Italians mo Iouius and Onuphrius Who though in certaine of the Popes liues they doo blanch their histories of loue and deuotion yet they consent with Guicciardin in Alexander the sixth sauing that where Guicciardin saith he would haue poysoned one Cardinall at his last supper they say that he intended to haue poysoned sundry Now these were sworne fréends to them of whom they wrote they were not Lindans and Bolseckes They sought not of malice what they might write against them but they wrote the truth by the law of historie They did not misreport them to reuenge themselues Caluin had touched Bolsecke the Popes had not so them They were not requested and sued to by Protestants to set forth their workes in print against the Popes as Bolsecke was by Papistes his Lordes and frendes against Caluin If I had gone about to touch in such sort your Popes with odious matters I could haue made mention of a young stripling created Bishop by a Pope and an other whom a Pope made his first Cardinall and Lucretia a Popes daughter he liker to Tarquinius then she to Lucretia and Aloisius a Popes sonne worthy of his father with other vilanies more notorious all proued by more credible witnesses then Bolseckes But I neither ripped vp all that I might many things they haue done which a shamefa●t aduersarie would be loth to open neither did I speake of any thing but that which your selues doo or must confesse of necessitie And therefore when I spake of faithlesse wicked Popes I said not a word either of Ioane the whoore or of Hildebrand the

to winne you to the truth doo bring you the confessions of your own men who witnesse a truth Hart. A truth Why will you graunt vs that the Popes supremacie came in by tradition if we will graunt you that it can not be proued by scripture Rainoldes By tradition I if you meane tradition as S. Peter doth where he teacheth Christians that they are redeemed from their vaine conuersation of the tradition of their Fathers Hart. You are disposed to play with your owne fansies You know my meaning well enough Will you graunt that it came in by tradition of the Apostles Rainoldes I should play in déede with your owne fansies if I should graunt you that Hart. But they whom you alleaged doo say that it did so as your selfe haue shewed Rainoldes But I will proue that they spake no truer in that then you haue doone in the other Hart. But what an iniurie is this to presse mee with their former wordes of the scripture whereas your selfe beleeue not the later of tradition Rainoldes What thinke you of S. Paule Did hee beleeue those thinges which the heathnish Poets do write of Goddes and Goddesses Bacchus Diana Minerua Mercurie Hart. He did not What then Rainoldes Yet he alleaged them to perswade the Athenians that in God we liue and moue and haue our being What an iniury was that to presse the Athenians with Poets words of God whereas himselfe beléeued not their wordes of Gods and Goddesses Hart. The Poets might say well and did in the former though in the later they missed Rainoldes Now wil you deale as frendly with me as with S. Paule His case and mine are coosins Hart. Nay you in the selfe same sentence of our men cull out a péece of it and yet an other péece of it you allow not Rainoldes Euen so did S. Paule For that which he auouched out of their owne Poets the meaning of it is in sundry the very wordes in Aratus they spake it of Iupiter who was a wicked man but thought of them to be God S. Paule allowing not their error in the person culled out their sentence concerning the thing and proued a truth by it Hart. Well if you may diuide the sentence of Canus and other sort then I haue done Rainoldes That I wish For the truth is like vnto camomill the more you presse it down the faster it groweth and spreadeth fairer and smelleth sweeter Hart. So much of scripture then Now to tradition by which the Popes supremacie may be cléerely proued Rainoldes By tradition Why Do you acknowlege then that it cannot be proued by scripture Hart. I tell you no once againe How often must I say it Rainoldes Once saying will serue if you do not vnsay your saying But here in my iudgement you séeme to vnsay it For you disclaime the title pretended by scripture when you claime by tradition Hart. Why so Might not the same thing both be writen in scripture and deliuered by word of mouth Rainoldes It might was no dout as the traditions shew which S. Paule doth mention which signify the doctrine that hee deliuered out of the scriptures But you meane a doctrine not writen in the scriptures when you speake of tradition For you doo imagin that the gospell of Christ is partly contained in writen bookes that is the scriptures partly in vnwriten things that is traditions as the Iewish Rabbines do say that God by Moses deliuered not only the law that is writen but also an vnwriten law which they call Cabala Hart. Sée as the Iewish Rabbines You haue inured your mouth to such venemous spéeches· Rainoldes Beware or els through my side you will wound your freend For Bishop Peresius your chiefest patrone of traditions doth proue them solemnly by this point of the Iewish Rabbins and the Cabala Neither is the proofe vnfit if it be weighed For as they pretend this ground for the Cabala that it openeth the hidden meaning of the scriptures so do you for traditions And as they in processe of time brought in doctrine contrarie to the scriptures vnder pretense of traditions so do you with your Cabala And as Cabalists among the Iewes do call them scripture-men by way of reproch who cast off traditions and cleaue to scriptures only so doo traditionists among you reproch vs with the same terme Yea Lindan and Prateolus doo note it for a speciall heresie But to leaue this venemous spéech it is manifest that you renounce the scripture for proofe of any title which you lay claime to by tradition For scripture is writen tradition vnwriten Wherefore if by tradition you minde to proue the Popes supremacie you must acknowlege first that it cannot be proued by scripture If you bee not willing to ackonwlege that I must debarre you from tradition Hart. Then I will proue it by the Fathers Rainoldes Nay that you shall not neither vnlesse you will forgo the scripture Hart. And why so I pray Rainoldes Because they say forsooth that it is held by tradition So that their euidences make against you if scripture be your plea for it Hart. That is very false For by the words Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke in the sixtéenth of Matthew the first Popes of Rome most holy martyrs haue proued it Anacletus Alexander the first Pius the first Victor Zepherinus Marcellus Eusebius Melchiades Iulius Damasus and likewise others by other places as D. Stapleton alleageth farther Wherefore that the Fathers tooke it as you say to be held by tradition it is a flat lye Rainoldes Say you so Then Canus and Father Robert do lye flatly but that is no maruell who grounding it both on tradition the one doth cite for witnesses thereof the first Popes of Rome most holy martyrs Anacletus Sixtus the first Eleutherius Victor Sixtus the second Zepherinus Marcellus Melchiades Marcus Iulius the other not contenting himselfe with particulars doth alleage in grosse f●●st the generall Councels next the Popes and last the Fathers Hart. Yet more of Canus and Father Robert I take not their defense vpon me and why againe doo you tell me of them Rainoldes That you may sée how the Lord doth sheath the swordes of Madianites in their own sides to the confusion of them who pitch their campe against Israel For the same Popes which are alleaged by Canus to prooue that their supremacie is an vnwritten truth the verie same Popes are alleaged by Stapleton to prooue that it is writen euen Anacletus Victor Zepherinus Marcellus Melchiades and Iulius Yea and that is more the very same epistles of theirs are alleaged by Stapleton which by Canus If rightly by Canus how may we trust Stapleton If rightly by Stapleton how may wee trust Canus If rightly by them both what trimme Popes are they who with one

Church both in the spring and grouth of it are couered with great darknes and lye vnknown in a maner for those things saith he which are writen of them are a fewe excepted defiled with many fables while he that writeth them doth folow his own affectiō telleth not what a Saint hath done but what he would haue had him done so that the writers fansie and not the truth doth penne the storie Yea some haue thought it a point of great godlinesse to coyne prety lyes that thereby mens deuotion might be stirred vp Some haue thought it a point of great godlinesse saith Viues but wil you know of what godlines There is a mysterie in y● which Vi●es doth not open Canus doth open it For he saith that they who feine and forge in writing ecclesiasticall stories deuise their whole matter ether to error or to gaine S. Paule hath forewarned vs of a kinde of men which thinke that gaine is godlines Your Church M. Hart hath had many minions who of a zeale to this godlines haue not onely writen but wrought miracles too You remember the tale of Bel and the Dragon A fréend of yours intreating thereof doth report that as the Priestes of Babylon did abuse the people in the Dragons worship so euen in the Church the people sometimes is shamefully deceiued with miracles wrought either by Priestes or by their adherents for gaine and lucres sake Hart. If any doo so we allow not of it and there is order taken by the Councell of Trent against such abuses But what is this to the Portesse or rather to the Popes supremacie Chiefly sith I minde not to alleage any thing out of the Portesse for it Rainoldes I was afraide you would You are a man a● likely for ought that I know to doo it for the Popes supremacie as your Rhemists to doo it for the assumption of the virgin Though my meaning was not so much of your Portesse as of Portesse-like writers by whom I fell into your Portesse But ●f you minde not to alleage any thing out of the Portesse for it then you will not bring those miracles which are fathered vpon S. Thomas of Canterburie Aqua Thomae quinquies varians colorem In las semel transijt quater in cr●orem Ad Thomae memoriam quater lux descendit Et in sancti gloriam cereos accendit The water of Thomas did fiue times change her colour Once it was turned into milke and foure times into bloud At Thomas his monument foure times there came downe light And in the honour of the Sainte it kindled the tapers Hart. I pray go to the purpose and leaue these idle fansies which you bring in to play with There is no such thing in the Portesse now And if it were what is it to the point in question Rainoldes To the point in question as direct as may be For this Thomas died vpon occasion of a quarrell about the Popes supremacie while he maintained appeales against the king to the Pope Now to proue that he stood in defense of the truth those miracles were wrought For that which they preached who had the grace of miracles was the truth saith Bristow adding that S. Thomas of Canterbury S. Thomas of Aquine S. Francis S. Dominike and infinit others had that grace in such sorte that no man is able to put any difference betweene the miracles of Christ with his Apostles and of these men Yet well-fare their heartes who reformed your Portesse For they haue put out those miracles of S. Thomas of Canterbury and many others which they would not haue doon I trow had they not knowne some difference betwéene the miracles of these men and the miracles of Christ. But they haue left in as worthie a miracle as those of an other of Bristowes miracle-workers euen of S. Thomas of Aquine and I hope you will not call that an idle fansie though it be as idle with me as the former For they report of him that when he was praying earnestly at Naples before the image of the crucifix he heard a voyce the crucifix spake it saying to him Thomas thou hast writen well of me Thomas I should haue thought for my part that the wodden crucifix of a louing thankfull hart had commended him because he did honour it with the fame honour that is due to God and writeth solemnly that men ought to doo so But Pope Pius the fifth the Lorde-reformer of the Portesse affirmeth that the doctrine of Thomas was approued by the mouth of the crucifix him self in this miracle And he knew best the meaning ofit So that I perceyue this miracle was rather a dogmaticall miracle as Bristow ●ermeth it then personall But whether personall or dogma●icall it shall not perswade me that all is true which is writen and taught by your dogmaticall Doctor Thomas For as I haue shewed he forgeth and belyeth the Fathers notably in the defense of the Popes supremacie against the Grecians I can hardly think that when the crucifix said Thomas had writen well it meant to approue his writing in that point Or if the crucifix meant it the crucifix was to blame vnlesse the faute were rather in some lying knaue who spake out of the crucifix Such feates there haue beene wrought in images ere now Hart. Euill mindes turne all thinges to the worst Pope Pius the fifth doth say of that miracle that it is recorded in a godly story Rainoldes But in what story Pope Pius doth not say Belike he meaneth Antoninus of whom you know what Canus iudgeth and his iudgement therein is good Hart. Yet you can not deny but that Antoninus reporteth many true thinges And why may not that miracle I pray be one of them Rainoldes A lying miracle no doubt as Antoninus reporteth it For he saith that when Thomas was commanded by Pope Gregorie to come vnto the Councell of Lions and to bring with him that booke which he had made by Pope Vrbanes commandement against the errours of the Grecians whereof in that Councell they were to be conuicted before he went thither that voyce was heard out of the crucifix by certaine who watched Thomas as he was praying on a certaine night in S. Dominikes coouent-church I say nothing here of the suspicious circumstances the time the night season the place the coouent-church the witnesses lying in waite the cause to proue that which should bee handled for the Pope against the Grecians in the Councell Onely this I say that séeing in that booke against the errors of the Grecians Thomas doth falsifie the writinges of S. Cyrill and of aboue six hundred Fathers euen the generall Councel of Chalcedon to make them beare witnesse for the Popes supremacie the miracle pretended to haue declared as from heauen that Thomas did well in handling so the cause of Christ was a lying miracle lying in respect

was not thrée yeares Bishop Or if because Cyprian doth write it to the Pope you haue such a preiudice that it is the Popes peculiar you may know that he writeth the same to an other expresly of himself Thēce haue schismes heresies sproong doe spring that the Bishop which is one and ruleth the church is despised by the proud presumption of certain men Wherefore though your Rhemists and other of the Popes friends doe plie the box with that saying of one Priest one iudge for the time in Christs steed yet in very truth it maketh as much for the Bishop of Rochester as for the Bishop of Rome The more is Stapletons blame who knowing and confessing the same not onely otherwhere but in this very worke of his principles too yet in the ende thereof abridgeth it to the Pope Maruell that in his preface to Gregorie he past it He might haue alleaged it better then he hath The head of all Churches Which title is giuen in Victor to the Church of Rome not to the Bishop and toucheth lesse the Papacie there then in S. Gregorie in whom it doth not proue it as I haue declared Marry that which followeth is of greater shew out of Ambroses commentarie on S. Paul to Timothee where Damasus the Bishop of Rome in his time is called ruler of the Church But first whatsoeuer he were who wrote that it was not S. Ambrose the famous Bishop of Milan on whom are falsly fathered the cōmentaries on S. Paul as your Diuines of Louan do obserue and testifie Next the wordes themselues which are in that autour on mention of the house of God the ruler whereof at this day is Damasus are not in my iudgement the autours owne wordes but a glose crept in amongst them For whereas S. Paule writing vnto Timothee declared why he did so to wéete that thou mayst know how thou oughtest to behaue thy selfe in the house of God which is the Church of the liuing God the commentarie thereon doth expoūd it thus I write vnto thee that thou maiest know how to gouern the Church which is the house of God that whereas all the world is Gods yet the Church is called his house the ruler whereof at this day is Damasus For the world is naught troubled with sundrie errours Therefore the house of God and truth must of nece●sitie be saide to be there where he is feared according to his will In the which wordes if that of Damasus were omitted the l●ter clawse contayning a reason of the former would cleaue therevnto more suantly and fitly Which maketh me to thinke that it was not pitched in thetext by the autour but found a ●hinke and so came in as an other glose of Damasus successour hath done into Optatus And I think it the rather because some are perswaded by manifolde conference as your Louanists note that the booke of questions of the old and new testament entitled to S. Austin this to S. Ambrose are the same autours For he who wrote that booke was not aliue of lykelihoode when Damasus was Pope Howbeit if he were too and of a kinde ●ffection to Rome where he liued thought good to mention him the wordes which he vseth in Latin cuius hodie rector est Damasus might meane that Damasus was a ruler of the Church not as you english it the ruler Which to haue bene so it appéereth farther by the word at this day spoken with a relation to the dayes of Timothee that as hée did gouerne the Church in Paules time so at that present was Damasus ruler of it Wherefore sith Timothee was placed at Ephesus to set that Church in order not to rule the whole Damasus might be called a ruler of the Church in that he was Bishop of the Church of Rome as S. Ambrose termeth him though he were not the ruler of the vniuersal S. Austin is the last o● them whose testimonies you cited And the preeminence of a higher roome whereof he made mention to Boniface the first importeth a prerogatiue of honour ouer others not soueraintie of power A prerogatiue of honour according to the canon of the first Councell of Constantinople which gaue that prerogatiue to the See of Rome because that citie raigned Not soueraintie of power as it is euident by the Councell of Afrike where he denied that to the same Boniface to whom hée graunted this preeminence It was therefore only the dignitie of place which S. Austin meant by the higher roome As else where hauing named Cyprian Olympius and other auncient writers he sayth that Innocentius was after them in time before them in place because they were Bishops of inferiour cities and he of the Roman Hart. Nay but S. Austin sayth in plain termes that the principalitie of the Apostolike See had floorished in that Church still Rainoldes But S. Austin addeth in as plain termes that Bishops may reserue their cases to the iudgement of their fellow-bishops chiefly of the Apostolike Church and that a generall Councell is aboue the Pope in iudging of those causes too Which is a cléere proofe that by the principalitie of the Apostolike See he meant the Church of Rome to be chéefe of other Churches as I sayd in honour not in power For in power al others at least the Apostolike that is in which the faith of Christ had bene taught by the Apostles themselues are made equall with it But amongst all in which the Apostles themselues had taught the faith the Roman for honour credit had the chiefty And thus haue I discharged my selfe of my promise which was that I would yeeld vnto the Popes supremacie if you prooued it by the sayings and iudgement of the Fathers alleaged and applied rightly For none of all thē which you haue alleaged neither of any other church nor of the Roman it self doth auouch it Whereby the shamelesse vanitie of Bristow may be séene who being not contented to say of all the Fathers that they were Papists addeth that in familiar talke among our selues we are not afeard plainely to confesse it The Lord who is witnesse of our thoughtes and spéeches knoweth that we are lewdly sclaundered herein And for mine owne part I am so farre off from confessing plainely that they were all Papists that I haue plainly declared and confirmed not one of them to haue bene For the very being and essence of a Papist consisteth in opinion of the Popes supremacie But the Popes supremacie was not allowed by any of the Fathers Not one then of al the Fathers was a Papist Wherefore if you haue the Fathers in such reuerent regard and estimatiō as you pretend M. Hart let if not the Scriptures yet the Fathers moue you to forsake Papistrie and giue to euery pastor and church their owne right whereof Christ hath possessed