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
no more to Popes then to other Bishops 2 The Pope may erre in doctrine 3 not only as a priuate man but as Pope 4 yea preach false doctrine also For 5 â—he may be a theefe a robber a woolfe 6 and erre not in person only but in office too as it is proued in euery part of his office 7 with aunswere to the replie made against the proofes for the defense of him therein 8 The succession of Popes hath bene preuailed against by the gates of hell 9 and when the gates of hell preuailed not against them their rocke did argue foundnesse of faith not the supremacie Pag. 277. 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 bee 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 nether the ancient Bishops of Rome them selues 6 nor any other Fathers doo proue the Popes supremacy Pag. 452. The ninth Chapter 1 The Church is the piller and ground of the truth The common consent and practise of the Church before the Nicen Councell 2 the Councell of Nice 3 of Antioche of Sardica of Constantinople Mileuis Carthage Afrike 4 ofEphesus of Chalcedon ofConstantinople eftsoones and of Nice of Constance and of Basill with the iudgements of Vniuersities and seuerall Churches throughout Christendome condemning all the Popes supremacie Pag. 652. The tenth Chapter 1 Princes are supreme gouernours of their subiectes in thinges spirituall and temporall and so is the othe of their supremacie lawfull 2 The breaking of the conference off M. Hart refusing to proceede farther in it Pag. 669. The first Chapter 1 The occasion of the conference the circumstances and poyntes to be debated on 2 The ground of the first poynt touching the head of the Church Wherein how that title belongeth vnto Christ how it is giuen to the Pope and so what is meant by the Popes supremacie RAINOLDES You haue heard maister Hart from the Right honorable M. Secretarie Walsyngham the cause why he hath sent for me to come vnto you to conferre with you concerning matters of religion for the better informing of your conscience and iudgement In the which respect you signified vnto him your selfe to bee willing to conferre with any man so that you might be charitably and Christianly dealt withall Hart. In deede I did signifie so much to M. Secretarie neither am I vnwilling to do that I haue promised Howbeit I wish rather that if a conference be purposed the learned men of our side whome we haue many beyond sea might be sent for hether of riper yeares and sounder iudgement As for mée the condition of conference with you is somewhat vn-euen For I lie in prison and am adiudged to dye the closenesse of the one terror of the other doth dull a mans spirits and make him very vnfitte for study I neither am of great yeares nor euer was of great reading and yet of that which I haue read I haue forgotten much by reason of my long restraint I am destitute of bookes we are not permitted to haue any at all sauing the Bible onely You of the other side may haue bookes at will and you come fresh from the vniuersitie whereby you are the readier to vse them and alleage them These are great disaduantages for me to enter into conference with you Neuerthelesse I am content as I haue said to do it so that my wantes may be supplied with furniture of bookes such as I shall desire Rainoldes The learned men of your side it lyeth not in me to procure hether I would to God none of them had euer come from Rome with traiterous intente nay more then intent to moue rebellion against our Soueraine and arme the subiectes against the Prince It had fared better both with you and others who came from him that sent them Your imprisonment and daunger which hath hereon ensued I can more easily pittie then relieue I wish you were at libertie so that her highnes were satisfied whome you haue offended The condition of conference the which is offred you is not so vn-euen in deede as in shew For although I come fresh from the vniuersitie yet I come from one of those vniuersities wherin your selues report that few of vs do study and those few that study study but a few questions of this time onely and that so lightly that we be afeard to reason with common Catholikes or if we do reason the common sort of Catholikes are able to answere all our arguments and to say also more for vs then wee can say for our selues You of the other side haue béene brought vp in one of those Seminaries wherein all trueth is studied the maisters teach all trueth the schollers learne all truth the course of diuinitie which our students nay our Doctors and Readers can not tel almost what it meaneth is read ouer in foure years with so great exactnes that if a man follow his study diligently he may become a learned Diuine and take degree Yea besides the Lectures of positiue Diuinitie of Hebrue of controuersies of Cases of conscience the Lecture of Scholasticall Diuinitie alone wherein the whole bodie of perfit Theologie doth consist doth teach within the same foure yeares all the poyntes of Catholike faith in such sort that thereby the hearers come to vnderstand not only what is in the scriptures about a matter of faith but also whatsoeuer is in all the Tomes of Councels wrytings of Fathers volumes of Ecclesiastical histories or in any other Author worthie the reading Wherefore sith you haue heard this course of diuinitie and haue béene admitted to take degree therein vpon the hearing of it you may not alleage vnripenes of yeares or reading or iudgement especially against me before whome in time so long in place so incomparable you tooke degrée in diuinitie if yet our degrées may goe for degrées the Pope hauing depriued vs of them But you haue no bookes sauing the Bible onely You are it is likely the redier in that booke chiefly sith at Rhemes beside your priuat studie of it you were exercised in it dayly by reading ouer certaine Chapters wherein the hard places were all expounded the doubtes noted the controuersies which arise betwixt you and vs resolued the arguments which our side can bring vnto the contrarie perspicuously and fully answered So that with this armour you are the more strongly prepared against me who can be content to deale with you in conference by that booke alone as by the booke of all trueth Notwithstanding though
For the Syriake translation which your selfe alleaged to proue that the Gréeke wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though different in sound yet are one in sense because our Sauiour spake in the Syriake toong and in the Syriake both are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expresseth here also the two sundry Gréeke words by one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if that our Sauiour had vsed the same word and meant the same thing in both Which interpretation should bée of greater credit with you in this point then it was in that because your authenticall Latin translation which there dissented from it agreeth with it here expressing likewise both by pasce Unlesse you will say that your authenticall Latin doth not expresse fully the meaning of the Gréeke Hart. A translation cannot expresse the force alwayes of wordes in the originall as in Ecclesiasticus it is obserued of the Hebrue Rainoldes You say true How much the more were they to blame who decréed that a translation should be accounted as authenticall in all Diuinitie-exercises and no man vnder any pretense to reiect it But if there had bene such force and importance in the Gréeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your Latin translator could haue expressed it easily For otherwhere he doth translate it to rule and that being spoken of meaner Pastors then Peter euen of the Bishops of Ephesus Which bewrayeth further the séely state of your proofe grounded on the worde For if Peter were ordeined supreme head because he was willed to rule the sheepe or lambes what headship may the Bishoppes of Ephesus claime who were made ouerseers to rule the church of God that is both lambes and shéepe But your last proofe vpon the word to feede which signifieth you say a power most full and absolute is most out of square and neither agreeth with your selues nor with truth and reason For you said that lambes are onely fedde of Peter sheepe both fedde and ruled Which is fond if to rule be no more then to feede fonder if to feede imply a power most full and absolute Beside that to feede is to nourish Christians with milke or strong meate according to their state as they are either lambes or sheepe Wherefore if that import the fulnesse of power which no man hath but one to wéete the supreme head how great is your crueltie to the church of Christ who leaue but one Pastor throughout all the earth to preach the word of God vnto it Or if you leaue more grant that seuerall Churches shall haue their seuerall Pastors after the ordinance of God how great is your folly who graunting vs so many Pastors feeders yet say that one alone hath the charge to feede and that importeth a supremacy For if euery Pastor haue charge to feede his flocke and to feede implieth a fulnesse of power peculiar to the supreme head then by your reason euerie Pastor in his church euery feeder in his flocke is a supreme head no lesse then Peter was amongst the Apostles Nay Peter was not so by your reason neither For if to feede doo signifie a power most absolute and full as you say it doth and that power was giuen to all the Apostles as you confesse too it followeth by your owne confession and saying that all the Apostles had that charge to feede If all they had that charge to feede maketh nothing for Peters Supremacie Wherefore this and other of the like knottes which Stapleton hath sought and â—ound out in bulrushes they did not grow in them by the workmanship of the Creator man hath made them and God will loose them Hart. This which you haue said might séeme to be some what towardes the loosing of them if the scripture gaue not very cléere euidence for proofe of his Supremacie as well elsewhere as here For Christ said to Peter Simon Simon behold Satan hath desired you to winow you as wheate But I haue prayed for thee that thy faith faile not And thou being conuerted strengthen thy brethren Rainoldes Will you be drawing still of blood for what doth eyther Christes prayer for Peter or the charge giuen him to strengthen his brethren say more for his supremacie then the question dost thou loue me or the charge feede my sheepe vnlesse you presse violently the wordes beyond their sense as your Schoole-diuines in their captious syllogismes or rather sophismes vse to doo Hart. Such dregges as our Canus termeth them of sophismes brought into the Schoole by men who were vnworthely named Schoole-diuines are reproued by vs as well as by you But the wordes of Christ doo speake enough for Peters prerogatiue without violence For they commande him to strengthen his brethren And his brethen were the rest of the Apostles They commaunde him therefore to strengthen the Apostles If to strengthen the Apostles then must he be their supreme head Wherefore the wordes of Christ proue the supremacie of Peter Rainoldes And thinke you that Christ meant the rest of the Apostles when he saide thy brethren Hart. Whom should hee meane if not them Rainoldes All the faithfull as I thinke For they haue all one Father the same that Peter hath and they are fellow heires of the grace of life with Peter and Peter himselfe strengthning them calleth them brethren So that in Peters iudgement Christ seemeth to haue meant by his brethren all the faithfull Pardon me if I be rather of his minde therein then of yours Hart. As who say we denyed that all the faithfull are meant by his brethren we teach the same also Yet that is true that I saide For I trust the Apostles are in the number of the faithfull Rainoldes They are so But then your reason of brethren hath no more force then had the other of sheepe Nay it hath lesse For what is to strengthen Hart. To strengthen is to stay them vp who do stand For the function of preaching which through the grace of God ingendreth faith in men hath two speciall partes to teach and to strengthen or as S. Paule speaketh to plant and to water To teach and to plant is to conuert men vnto the faith of Christ and to ingraffe them into him To strengthen and to water is to vphold them which are already faithfull that they may perseuere in it Rainoldes Then is the charge lesser to strenghthen the brethren then to feede the sheepe For to feede is as much as to preach the word of God And to preach hath two dueties to raise vp them that are fallen to strengthen them that do stand Wherefore if the supremacie were not giuen Peter by the charge to feede the sheepe much lesse can it be giuen by a part of that charge to strengthen the brethren For as Peter ought that duetie to his brethren so did his brethren to him and Paule performed it so did
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
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
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
Whereupon as the scripture speaketh of S. Paul that he sate at Corinth a yeare sixe monethes teaching the word of of God amongst them meaning that he continued there and preached to them in like sort the Fathers â—o signifie that Peter abode and taught in Rome are accustomed to say that he sate at Rome So doth Austin mention the succession of Bishops from the seat of Peter So doth Ierom honor the Bishop of that See with the nâ—me of Peters chaire But what is this to the supremacie For it is spoken by the Fathers also that Peter did sit and hâ—d hâ—s châ—ire at Antioche yea at Antioche as some say he had in deede a high chaire wherin he was exalted And of his chaire at Antioche you haue an olde holy day of his chaire at Rome a new one trimmed of late Wherefore if the high chaire of Peter at Antioche with an olde feaste could not make the Bishop of Antioche supreme head how can the Bishop of Rome be made supreme head by Peters chaire perhaps a lower chaire at Rome with a newe feast If the new feast be that which maketh vp the matter the Pope was no foole in making that feast He may doo well to make mâ—e Hart. You make your selfe sport with our feastes of S. Peters chaire as though I had said that because the Fathers doo name the Sée of Rome the seat and chaire of Peter therefore the Bishop of Rome must haue the supremacie Whereas I alleaged them to shew that the Bishops and the succession of Bishops in that See is the rocke on which S. Ièrom saith he knoweth the Church to be built against which S. Austin saith that the proud gates of hell preuaile not Rainoldes But you doo conclude the Popes supremacie hereof or els you stray from the question Hart. Why may I not conclude it Rainoldes If you list but the feast of S. Peters chaire would proue it more galantly For if the testimonies which you alleage of Ierom and Austin be examined they say nothing for it S. Ierom abiding in his young yeares among the Arian heretikes in the coastes of Syria was required by their Bishop to allow and approue a profession of faith touching the Trinitie wherein he suspected there lay some priuy poyson hidden Wherefore least he should yéelde thereunto rashly he sought to be directed by the aduise and counsell of Damasus Bishop of Rome as whom both hee acknowledged to bee his owne Biâ—hop and knew to be a Bishop that helde the catholike faith which praise by that title of the rocke he giueth him In Afrike they were troubled with other heretikes named Donatistes a sect which despised the communion of Saintes and rent them selues a sunder from the assemblies of Christians because there were some euil men amongst them as they said whose felowship defiled them S. Austin wrote a Psalme for the Catholiks against these wherein hauing proued first out of the scriptures that we must not leaue the communion of the Church for that there are some euill men in it sith Christ hath declared that there should be so as tares with corne in the field as chaffe with wheate in the floore as badde with good in the nett he confirmeth this doctrine by the consent iudgement of the Church of Rome whose Bishops euen from Peter had imbraced it still and constantly maintained it the gates of hel in vaine assaulting them So the wordes of Austin and Ierom doo import a sinceritie of faith in the Church of Rome the Roman Bishops against the Arians and Donatistes but neither of their wordes import the supremacie which is a soueraintie of power Hart. If they had not meant as well a soueraintie of power as sinceritie of faith why should they mention that Church and not others Were there no Bishops sincere through al the world but the Bishops of Rome onely Rainoldes Yes a great many and they mention them too For Ierom though he asketh the aduise of Damasus a young man of an old a Roman of the Bishop of Rome whose religion was sound whose authoritie was great and the greater with Ierom because he knew him well as hauing lerned him selfe the faith of Christ in Rome where he was baptized yet doth he name S. Ambrose the Bishop then of Milan as sound in faith also and the Bishops of Aegypt yea of the west in generall Now in the west saith he the sunne of righteousnes ariseth and the inheritance of the Fathers is kept vncorrupted amongst you alone In like sort doth Austin note against the Donatistes whose canker had fretted but a péece of Afrike that Bishops of the coastes and countries beyond sea and Churches through the whole world were pure from their heresie Howbeit as Ierom preferred the aduise of Damasus before others to confirme himselfe so did Austin choose the Church of Rome aboue the rest to confirme his brethren For he penned his Psalme wherin this is writen of purpose to the capacitie of the very meanest simplest of the people that they might vnderstaÌ„d and remember the state of the controuersie with the Donatistes Wherefore he commendeth the truth by the authoritie of the Church of Rome which of all the Churches that the Apostles planted was both néerest to them and best estéemed of amongst them But how farre S. Austin was from your fansie of the Popes supremacie when he alleaged the Church of Rome to this intent let that bee a token that writing for the learned who were of greater reach he alleageth the Churches of Ierusalem of Corinth of Antioche Ephesus Smyrna Pergamus of Asia Bithynia Galatia Cappadocia in a worde of all the rest as well as of Rome And this may be semblably noted in S. Ierom. Who when the Arians charged him with heresie did iustifie his faith by his communion with the Churches of the west and of Aegypt of Damasus Bishop of Rome and Peter Bishop of Alexandria According to the law of the Emperour Theodosius wherein it is decréed that all they should be named and esteemed Catholikes who beleeued of the Trinitie as Damasus and Peter did the rest to be accounted and punished as heretikes A great prayse I graunt of the faith of Damasus that so good an Emperour did set him for a sampler whom Christians should folow but a prayse common 〈◊〉 him with Peter Bishop of Alexandria and common to them both with sundrie Bishops of the East Nectarius Pelagius Diodorus Amphilochius Helladius Otreinâ—s Gregorie Nyâ—â—en and mo Of whom the same Emperour did 〈◊〉 make an other law that none should haue the châ—rge of â—ishoprickes committed to them but such as weâ—â— of their faith Whereby you may perceyue that the prayse giuen to Damasus by Ierom proueth a sound faith common to the Bishop of Rome with many other not a soueraine power peculiar to him alone aboue all Hart. Then
would be tedious yet he fetcheth the succession of true doctrine from all Churches in euery place through the whole world Or if it bée not plaine enough by these sentences he maketh it more plaine in other both by generall spéeches of the Churche through alâ— the world which hee repeateth often and by the particular names of sundrie Churches the Churches of Smyrna of Ephesus of Asia the Churches in Germany in Spaine in France in the East countries in Aegypt in Libyâ— in the middle of the worlde Wherefore the successions of Bishops in all Churches were true and faithfull witnesses of the Apostolike doctrine in the time of Irenaeus As Eusebius also doth farther proue by Hegesippus who liued at the same time and trauailing to Rome ward did talke with very many Bishops of whom euen of them al he heard the same doctrin accordingly to that he wrote that in euery succession and in euery citie the doctrine is such as the Law and the Prophets and the Lord doth preach Hart. Yet Irenaeus reckneth chiefely the succession of the Church of Rome as of the greatest Church and the most auncient and knowne vnto all founded and established by two the most excellent Apostles Peter and Paule Rainoldes No maruaile For beside the credit that it had as being Apostolike ample famous auncient it was the néerest also in place amongst all the Apostolike Churches to Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in Fraunce and so both known better and the more dealt with In the which respect other of the Fathers did chiefely name it too As may appéere by Tertullian the next of them whom you alleage For he setting downe the same prescription against heretikes which Irenaeus had before him doth speake of it thus Runne ouer the Apostolike Churches at which the very chaires of the Apostles are sate on yet in their places at which their authenticall letters are recited sounding out the voyce and representing the face of euery one of them Is Achaia next vnto thee Thou hast Corinth If thou be not farre from Macedonia thou hast Philippi thou hast the Thessalonians If thou canst go into Asia thou hast Ephesus If thou lye neere to Italu thou hast Rome whence wee haue authoritie also Whence we haue authoritie saith Tertullian in Afrike for he was of the Church of Carthage So Optatus was Bishop of Mileuis in Afrike So Austin was Bishop of Hippon in Afrike Which if you consider you may sée somwhat in it why Optatus and Austin should recken the succesâ—iâ—on of the Roman Church rather then of others Specially sith Austin doth vrge against the Donatists not onely that but all Churches and with the chaire of the Church of Rome wherein Peter sate and Anastasius sitteth now he matcheth the chaire of the Church of Ierusalem wherein Iames sate and Iohn sitteth now As for Epiphanius whom of the East Church you ioyne to them of the West as prouing the soundnes of faith in like sort by the Roman succession you do him iniurie For neither doth he mention it but to note the time in which an heresie did budde and this is that manifest that is meant by him it is your Stapletons art to make it manifest in faith and what he saith thereof he boroweth it of Irenaeus and therefore reckneth fewe of the Bishops of Rome whereas he reckeneth all the Bishops of Ierusalem to like intent against the Manichees so that Ierusalem if we would toy as you doo passeth Rome with him But in a word to cut off your cauill of succession of Bishops in the Roman Church whereby you would proue your faith to be sound because the Fathers proued the faith in their time so the eldest of the Fathers whom you alleage proued it by the succession of all Churches the next by the succession of all Apostolike Churches the yongest by them all in effect by some namely Wherefore if the succession of the Church of Rome doo proue that the Romans haue hitherto continued in the true faith because by that succession the Fathers proued the true faith then also the succession of the East Churches of Ephesus Smyrna Corinth Philippi and Thessalonica doo proue that they haue hithertoo continued in the true faith because by their succession the Fathers proued the true faith But your selues do write that the Greekes of whom these East Churches are haue failed in the faith and yeelded vnto sundry heresies The spéeches therefore of the Fathers touching the succession of the Bishops of Rome proue not that the Romanes doo now professe the true faith Hart. The line of succession of the Roman Bishops hath bene still recorded in stories and continueth yet We can recken them from Peter the Apostle to Gregorie who sitteth now Not so the Gréeke Bishops the Churches of the East Nay the line of succession hath béene broken off in the chiefe of them as the Chronicles do witnesse euen in Alexandria Antioche and Ierusalem Rainoldes What is this to the purpose if some of their successions be not enrolled in stories some that are enrolled were broken off a while by calamities that fell vpon them For although Eusebius recorded the successions but of foure Churches in the mother-cities of the prouinces as he calleth them Rome Alexandria Antioche and Ierusalem and Nicephorus added Constantinople to them yet the Churches which I named had successions of Bishops too as I shewed out of the Fathers And in them in which you note that succession hath discontinued the faith had failed often while the succession lasted which is enough for my proofe But if you thinke your Church sure by this prerogatiue that the Roman Bishops succession lasteth still and you can recken them from Peter the Apostle to Gregorie who sitteth now what say you to the Church of Constantinople In it there haue succeeded Bishops to this day and they can recken them from Andrew the Apostle to Ieremie who sitteth now Yet to say nothing of the old heresies from which the successors are free though set abroch by their predecessors as by Macedonius Nestorius and Sergius the whole line of them many ages togither haue denied the Roman Bishops supreme-headship claimed it to them selues as Ieremie doth also now Whereby either your reason of succession is stricken dead or your supremacie of the Pope For if succession be a proofe of truth and soundnes in faith then your supremacie is condemned If your supremacie be lawfull then is not faith proued to bee sound by succession To which of these yéelde you To one you must of necessitie Hart. In déede the succession of Bishops in place is no good argument vnlesse it be ioyned with succession in doctrine For Irenaeus saith we must obey those priestes who with the succession of the Bishoply charge haue receiued the sure gift of the truth according to
the will of God Wherefore the succession of Constantinople though they fetch it from the Apostles yet proueth not the faith which they professe to be true because they haue departed from the Apostles doctrine in which they should succeede chiefely Rainoldes Now you say well In déede the succession in place is nothing woorth succession in doctrine is it which maketh all But what meane you then to send vs such bead-reales of your Bishops of Rome from Peter to Gregory as vndoubted arguments of the Catholike faith when we can send you as solemne a bead-roale of Constantinople from Andrew to Ieremie and proue nothing by it What trifling is this to say first that succession of Bishops in place proueth truth of doctrine and then to adde that it doth so if it haue succession in doctrine ioyned with it In effect as if you said that succession in place doth proue the doctrine to be true if the doctrine be true a couple of eares doo proue a creature to be a man if they be a mans eares The Fathers alleaged succession in place not with condition if it had but with a reason that it had succession in doctrine Proue me that you haue succession in doctrine and then alleage vnto me the Fathers for succession For if as S. Austin saide against the Donatists after he had reckened the Bishops of Rome from Peter to Anastasius In the ranke of this succession there is not one Bishop found that was a Donatist so you reckning them from Peter to Gregorie might say in like sort In the rancke of this succession there is not one Bishop found that hath vsurped then were your reason as fit against vs for the supremacy of the Pope as S. Austins was for the Church against the Donatists Hart. I may say so in like sort For S. Austin meant as well of this point as of all others when he said of the succession of the Bishops of Rome that the gates of hell preuailed not against it Rainoldes If this gate of hell preuailed not against them in S. Austins time yet many thinges may happen betweene the cuppe and the lippe as the prouerbe is much more betwéene his time and ouâ—s But S. Austin meant not to speake of vsurping in that against the Donatists and if he had he learned by experience afterwarde that they could vsurpe and would if they were not curbed For thrée of them euen Zosimus Boniface and Caelestin did vsurpe ouer the Churches of Afrike while Austin was aliue yet who with the whole Councell of abooue two hundred Bishops of that countrie withstood their attempt as much as lay in him and stayed their pride Hart. Their pride You slander those holy Bishops in saying so Rainoldes Which holy Bishops of Afrike Them selues in their epistles to the Bishops of Rome doo note it with the same worde and if they slandered them it was with a matter of truth But of this hereafter more conueniently For the point in hand it is sufficient that S. Austin applying that text to the Church of Rome that the gates of hell preuailed not against it spake of soundnes of doctrine which the Donatists did faute in not of soueraintie of power wherof there was no question with them Hart. Gregorie the great speaketh of soueraintie of power and proueth by that same text the Church of Rome to be the head of all Churches because Christ committed specially this Church to S. Peter saying to thee wil I giue my Church Rainoldes By that same How Christ saith not to Peter to thee will I giue my Church He saith vpon this rocke will I builde my Church And therein if Gregories iudgement may rule you the rocke is Christ him selfe which Peter had his name of and on which he saide he would build his Church the Church is the holie Church that is to say the companie of Gods elect and chosen which shall neuer fall away from the Catholike faith in this world and in the world to come shall continue stedfast for euer with God For the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it There was some affection that troubled Gregories minde when he did chaunge that text and as it were appropriate it to his Sée of Rome and Stapletons heart was taken with some affection also when he cited Gregorie to proue his purpose thence For nether doth the title of the head of all Churches proue the Roman Papacie neither doth Gregory although he geue that title to the Church of Rome yet proue it by that same text The thing which he proueth is that the Emperour who receyued money for ecclesiasticall liuinges and spoyled the Church with sâ—monie ought not so to doo chiefly in the Church of Rome For hauing touched his gréedinesse of this filthie gaine yea he hath saith Gregorie stretched out so farre the rashnesse of his furie that he chalengeth to him selfe the head of all Churches euen the Church of Rome and vsurpeth the right of earthly power ouer the ladie of nations Which he did altogether forbidde to be doon who specially committed this Church to S. Peter the Apostle saying To thee will I giue my Church Wherein that which Gregorie would say is plaine enough by the wordes that go before it The maner of his saying and prouing it is hard For he saith of the Roman Church that the Emperour vsurpeth the right of earthly power ouer it Whereby a man would thinke hee meant to denye the ciuill rule and gouernment of Rome to the Emperour as now the Popes doo Then which he meant nothing lesse for he acknowledged himselfe the Emperours subiect vsed him accordingly But he meant by the right of earthly power vsurped ouer the Church the right of dealing with Church-liuings after the maner of the world in setting them to sale as men doo farmes and leases which is prophane and detestable Now Gregorie being grieued that the Emperour asked money euen of the Bishop of Rome himselfe whose election he confirmed with his royall assent he thought good to amplifie the heinousnesse of the fact as most vnlawfull and wicked in the Church of Rome And thereupon he saith that Christ did forbid it who specially committed this Church to S. Peter saying To thee will I giue my Church In the gospell we reade of Peter that he knew not what he said when he saide to Christ whom he beheld in glory Maister it is good for vs to be here and let vs make three tabernacles Gregorie had a louing affection to Rome Will you giue me leaue to thinke of him as of Peter that he knew not what he said For the wordes which he alleageth are not the wordes of Christ as you must néedes graunt The thing he gathereth of them is against the words of Christ who generally committed all Churches to Peter for he was an Apostle and if any specially it was that of the
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 TheÌ„ce 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 coÌ„mentaries 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 expouÌ„d 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 neceâ—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 lâ—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 â—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 â—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 oâ— 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 theÌ„ 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 estimatioÌ„ 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
and our Church doth hold The third Councell of Carthage which therein the Councel of Trent subscribeth to did adde the bookes of Maccabes the rest of the apocrypha to the old Canon The Councel of Nice appointed boundes and limits as wel for the Bishop of Romes iurisdiction as for other Bishops The Councell of Lateran gaue the soueraintie of ordinarie power to the Church of Rome ouer al other Churches The Councell of Constance decréed that the Councell is aboue the Pope and made the Papall power subiect to generall Councels Which thing did so highly displease the Councell of Florence that it vndermined the Councell of Basill and guilefully surprised it for putting that in â—re against Pope Eugenius Upon the which pointes it must needes be graunted that one side of these generall Councels did erre vnlesse we will say that thinges which are contrarie may be true both Wherefore to make an end sith it is apparant by most cléere proofes that both the chosen and the called both the flockes and the Pastours both in seuerall by them selues and assembled together in generall Councels may erre I am to conclude with the good liking I hope of such as loue the truth that the militant Church may erre in maners and doctrine In the one point whereof concerning maners I defend our selues against the malicious sclanders of the Papists who charge the Church of England with the heresie of Puritans impudently and falsly In the other concerning doctrine I doo not touch the walles of Babilon with a light finger but raze from the very ground the whole mount of the Romish Synagogue Whose intolerable presumption is reproued by the third Conclusion too wherein it resteth to be shewed that the holy scripture is of greater credit autoritie then the Church And although this be so manifestly true that to haue proposed it onely is to haue proued it yet giue me leaue I pray to proue it briefly with one reason I will not trouble you with many All the wordes of scripture be the wordes of truth some wordes of the Church be the words of errour But he that telleth the truth alwayes is more to be credited then he that lyeth sometimes Therefore the holy scripture is to be credited more then is the Church That all the wordes of scripture be the wordes of truth it is out of controuersie For the whole scripture is inspired of God and God can neither deceiue nor be deceiued That some wordes of the Church be the wordes of errour if any be not perswaded perhaps by the reasons which I haue brought already let him heare the sharpese and most earnest Patrone of the Church confessing it Andradâ—us Payua a Doctor of Portugall the best learned man in my opinion of all the papists reherseth certaine pointes wherein Councels also may erre euen generall Councels in so much that he saith that the very generall Councel of Chalcedon one of those four first which Gregorie professeth him selfe to receiue as the foure bookes of the holy Gospell yet Andradius saith that this Councell erred in that it did rashly and without reason these are his own wordes ordeine that the Church of Constantinople should be aboue the Churches of Alexandria and Antiâ—â—he Neither doth he onely say that the Councell of Chalcedon erred and contraried the decrees of the Nicen Cuncell but he addeth also a reason why Councels may erre in such cases to weete because they folow not the secret motion of the holy ghost but idle Blastes of vaine reportes and mens opinions which deceiue oft A Councell then may folow some times the deceitfull opinions of men and not the secret motion of the holy ghost Let the Councels then giue place to the holy scriptures whereof no part is vttered by the spirit of man but all by the spirit of God For if some cauiller to shift of this reason shall say that we must not account of that errour as though it were the iudgement of the generall Councell because the Bishop of Rome did not allow it and approue it I would request him first of all to weigh that a generall Councell and assemblie of Bishops must néedes be distinguished from this and that particular Bishop so that what the greater part of them ordeineth that is ordeined by the Councell next to consider that the name of Church may be giuen to an assemblis of Bishops and a Councell but it can not be giuen to the Bishop of Rome lastly to remember that the Bishop of Rome Honorius the first was condemned of heresie by the generall Councell of Constantinople allowed and approued by Agatho Bishop of Rome Wherefore take the name of Church in what sense soeuer you list be it for the company either of Gods chosen or of the called too or of the guides and Pastours or be it for the Bishop of Rome his owne person though to take it so it seemeth very absurd the Bishop of Rome him selfe if he were to be my iudge shall not be able to deny vnlesse his forhead be of adamant but that some of the Churches words are wordes of errour Now if the Bishop of Rome and Romanistes them selues be forced to confesse both that the Church saith some things which are erroneous and that the scripture saith nothing but cleere truth shall there yet be found any man either so blockishly vnskilfull or so frowardly past shame as that he dare affirme that the Church is of greater credit and autoritie then the holy scripture Pighius hath doon it in his treatise of the holy gouernment of the church Where though he in 〈◊〉 â—â—llify with gallant salues his cursed spéech yet to build the tower of his Church and Antichrist with the ruines of Christ and of the holy scripture first he saith touching the writings of the Apostles that they were giuen to the church not that they should rule our faith and religion but that they should bee ruled rather and then he concludeth that the autoritie of the church is not onely not inferiour not onely equall nay it is superiour also after a sort to the autoritie of the scriptures Plinie reporteth that there was at Rome a certaine diall set in the field of Flora to note the shadowes of the sunne the notes and markes of which diall had not agreed with the sunne for the space of thirty yeares And the cause thereof was this as Plinie saith that either the course of the sunne was disordered and changed by some meanes of heauen or els the whole earth was slipt away from her centre The Church of Rome séemeth to be very like this diall in the field of Flora. For she was placed in the Roman territorie to shew the shadowes of the sunne euen of the sunne of righteousnes that is of Christ but her notes and markes haue not agreed with Christ these many yeares togither Not that
they breake it Hart. Christ by singular priuiledge did exempt them from it Rainoldes Then there was a law which did bind them to it Hart. What else For they should haue done it though they did it not Rainoldes Should that they did not How doo you proue it Hart. Because an order must be set which should be kept by the posteritie Rainoldes An order For whom For Apostles you graunt that man might not ordaine them For Bishops other men did ordaine them as rightfully as Peter did But you had rather make this shew of an answere then say that which you should say in truth I cannot tell For you deale with vs as Erucius did with Roscius whom when hee accused that he had killed his father because his father purposed to disinherit him Thou must proue saith Tully that his father did purpose it The father did purpose to disinherite his sonne For what cause I know not Did he disinherite him No. Who did hinder it He did mind it Did he mind it Whom told he so No bodie Your answeres vnto me are very like to these but somewhat more vnorderly For to ground the Popes supremacie on Peter you said that the Apostles did all receiue their power at least their bishoply power of him You must make it manifest that they did so All the Apostles were to receiue their power of Peter What scripture saith so I know not Did they receiue it No. Who did hinder it They should haue done it Should they haue done it How proue ye it I can not tell I may not say of you as Tully of Erucius What is it else to abuse the lawes and iudgements and maiestie of the iudges to lucre and to lust then so to accuse and to obiect that which you not onely can not proue but do not as much as endeuour to proue it For I must beare you witnes you endeuour to proue it But you shall do better to surcease that endeuour vnlesse your proofes be sounder and haue not onely shew but also weight of trueth in them The third Chapter The performance which Christ is supposed to haue made of the supremacie promised 1 in saying to Peter Feede my lambes feede my sheepe 2 and Strengthen thy brethren With the circumstances of the pointes thereof Doost thou loue me and I haue prayed for thee Peter What and how they make for Peter how for all HART The promise made to Peter hath not onely shew but also weight of truth to proue his supremacie But to satisfy you who thinke it not weightie enough of it selfe I will adde thereto the performance of it and so you shall haue it weight with the aduantage For it was said to Peter in the presence of three Apostles Iames Iohn and Thomas by our Sauiour Christ euen at the very moment when he would now ascend vp vnto his father and therefore either then or neuer make his vicar Pasce agnos meos pasce oues meas Fede my lambes fede my sheepe Rainoldes Not at the very moment That is the aduantage I wéene which you will adde to make vp the weight as some adde eare-wax to light angels But the wordes were spoken what do you gather of them Hart. Christ in those wordes did truely performe the promise of the keyes which he had made to Peter But Christ gaue him commission to féede his whole flocke without exception of any Therefore he made him supreme head of the Apostles Rainoldes This reason doth séeme to be sicke of the palsie The sinewes of it haue no strength Hart. Why so Rainoldes Because in the charge of feeding sheepe and lambes neither was the commission giuen vnto Peter and if it were yet no more was committed to him then to the rest of the Apostles and if more yet not so much as should make him their supreme head Hart. If you proue the second of these thrée pointes the other two are superfluous Rainoldes They are so But you shall haue weight with aduantage to ouerwaigh your weight to vs ward And for the first I haue alreadie shewed that the commission which Christ gaue to Peter he had giuen it him before when he said As my father sent me so do I send you Receiue the holie Ghost Whose sins soeuer ye remit they are remitted to them whose sinnes soeuer ye reteine they are reteined Hart. But Christ gaue him not so much at that time as hée had promised him Wherefore part of his promise being performed then part was performed after then as much as he had ioyntly with the Apostles after that he had ouer them Rainoldes This is your bulwarke of Peters supremacie but it is builded on a lye For all that Christ had promised him was implied in that he had said To thee will I giue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen Was it not Hart. It was so what then Rainoldes But in this commission sending him with ful authoritie and power he gaue him all the keyes of the kingdome of heauen In this commission therefore he gaue him all that he had promised Hart. I deny that he gaue him all the keyes in this commission Rainoldes I proue it All the keyes as it hath appeared by your owne confession are onely too the key of knowledge and of power or rather both of power by Thomas of Aquines iudgement whom you rather follow But Christ gaue him both those in this commission As my Father sent me so doo I send you Receiue the holie Ghost Wherefore in this commission he gaue him all the keyes of the kingdome of heauen And whatsoeuer keyes he gaue him in this he gaue the same to all the rest of the Apostles He gaue as much authoritie therefore to them all as he gaue to Peter But that is the next point Hart. Yet they receiued afterward the holie Ghost from heauen in the day of Pentecost And therefore they receiued not their whole commission of Christ at this time they wayted for a part of it Rainoldes Yes it was a part of their commission so to waite For as it is further declared by S. Luke when their vnderstanding was opened by Christ that they might vnderstād the scriptures he commanded them to stay in Ierusalem vntill they were indued with power from an high A King who putteth men in commission of peace doth giue them authoritie to execute that charge by the wordes of his commission If they perhaps haue not such wealth as is requisite for Iustices of peace to discharge their duetie and the King will giue them landes by such a day thereby to furnish them vnto it they receiue by their landes not authoritie which they had but abilitie which they wanted and the better they are landed the more are they inabled but not the more authorized to execute their duetie Christ the King of Kings did put his Apostles in the commission of peace of heauenly peace not
For he teacheth plainly that Peter was the first man who gaue the sentence which sentence being followed and approued by the rest was concluded and published in the name of the whole Councel both of the head and of the bodie When they saith he had heard Peter al the multitude held their peace Iames all the Elders togither did agree vnto Peters sentence Rainoldes What is this to the purpose Doth all the multitude held their peace proue the supremacy of Peter Hart. You are disposed to toy My proofe is in the rest of S. Ieroms wordes and you can sée it if you list Iames and all the Elders togither did agree vnto Peters sentence therefore Peter was supreme head Rainoldes In déede I saw not whence you could frame a proofe Beare with mine ouersight The silence of the multitude was fitter stuffe for it For all sortes of men do know by experience Princes and Counsailours in matters of State Nobles and Commons in the houses of Parlament Citizens and Townsmen in their common assemblies our Students of vniuersities both publikely in conuocations and priuately in their colleges that he is not alwaies aboue the rest in power whose sentence al the rest agrée vnto in consultation But if your frends M. Hart haue done you such iniury that by meanes they sent you vntimely beyond sea you are become a straunger in things of common sense humanity at home yet you haue read I trust the story of the Actes out of the which you reason and God hath furnished you with giftes of witte and memory to vnderstand it and remember it Tell me do you thinke that Gamaliel the Pharise the Doctor of the law whom all the people honored was superiour in power to the hie Priest and Councell of the Iewes Hart. No. Rainoldes Yet when the hie Priest and Councell did consult to kil the Apostles he aduised them that they should not do it and hauing heard him they agreed to him If a Supremacie grow not hereof to Gamaliel why should it to Peter If it do to Peter why not to Gamaliel Is this the inuincible proofe that you did promise When they had heard Peter they all agreed to him therefore he was their supreme head Hart. But S. Ierom addeth farther of Peter that hee was princeps decreti prince of the decree which the Apostles made And sure as it is well noted by Waldensis if Peter had not bene the chiefe and President there he were a malapert fellow to preuent them al in taking vp the controuersie and giuing the definitiue sentence Thus saith Waldensis Rainoldes Before you promised Scripture and performed Chrysostom Now you claime by Ierome proue by Waldensis This is your fashion Treasures we looke for and wee finde coales Hart. I bring not Waldensis for his owne credit but as interpreter of S. Ieroms meaning Howbeit though he were not himselfe an auncient writer he was a great Clerke in the time he liued Rainoldes It may bée such a one as gaue occasion to the prouerbe that the greatest Clerkes are not the wisest men He did neuer enter into the Romane Senate-house or els he might haue learned both that the prince of the Senate as he was termed gaue his sentence first yet was not President of the Senate neither was his sentence the definitiue sentence but hée spake his minde of the matter as others after him the whole Senate defined it Though oftentimes the Senate agreed to the sentence of some one Senatour him they did call prince of the sentence that is to say the first authour as Ierom calleth Peter prince of the decree which himselfe expoundeth the first authour of the sentence Wherefore it was not malapertnesse in Peter to speake before others although he were not the President of the Councell but indéede Waldensis was a malapert fellow to vouch that of Peter and vse S. Ieroms words thereto For that they proue not a Presidentship of Peter by entitling Peter prince of the decree you may learne of Tully who sheweth that himselfe was prince of decrees when he was neither President nor prince of the Senate Beside to let you sée the pouertie of this princehood farther Ierome doth not meane the whole decree of the Councell when he saith that Peter was the prince of it for thē he should deny the scripture it selfe which maketh Iames the prince of part but hée meaneth so much thereof as touched his purpose which Peter is mentioned first to haue set downe namely that Gentiles being turned to the faith of Christ should not be constrained to keepe the lawe of Moses Whereon they who know what the Romanes meant by to diuide a sentence may easily consider how Iames though he agreed to Peters sentence in generall yet excepted as it were from it this particular that the beleeuing Gentiles should be admonished to keepe certaine pointes of the lawe of Moses perteining to holinesse and peace with their brethren both dueties necessary for the faithfull The wordes of whose sentence the Councell folowed so precisely that Chrysostome if I would stand on men as you doo speaketh of the sentence giuen by Iames as the definitiue sentence and saith that he pronounced his iudgement with power and that the principalitie was committed to him Hart. He speaketh so of Iames because he was Bishop of the Citie of Ierusalem where the Councell was holden Rainoldes Beware of that answere Hart. Why It is S. Chrysostomes Rainoldes Be it whose soeuer Sée you not what foloweth thereof that euery Bishop in his owne diocese is aboue the Pope For if aboue Peter aboue an Apostle aboue a chiefe Apostle much more aboue a Bishop of Rome or any other You were better say that Chrysostome did erre then fall into this perill And in déede to helpe you in a point of truth hée that maketh Iames a Bishop of one Citie whom Christ made an Apostle to all the Nations of the earth dooth bring him out of the hall as they say into the kitchin It séemeth that Chrysostome spake it vpon the word of Clemens who when he reported it reported this withall that Christ did giue knowledge after his resurrection to Iames Iohn and Peter and they did giue it to the rest of the Apostles Which tale is flat repugnant to the worde of truth wherein wee reade that knowledge and the holy Ghost was giuen by Christ to the Apostles all ioyntly Hart. You shall not helpe me with such shifts against the Fathers For other of them consent herein with Chrysostome that Iames was Bishop of Ierusalem Rainoldes Neither shifts nor against the Fathers but true defenses in fauour of them For the Apostles being sent to preach the Gospell to all Nations made their chiefe abode in greatest cities of most resort as
at Ierusalem at Antioche at Ephesus at Rome that from the mother cities as they were called religiō might be spread abroad vnto the daughters Now because this residence in the mother-cities was afterward supplied by the Bishops of them therefore the Fathers are wont often-times to call the Apostles Bishops of those cities wherin they did abide most Which they might the rather for that the word in their spéech betokeneth in a generall meaning any charge ouersight of others in so much that the scripture applieth it to the ministery of the Apostles also And in this sort it seemeth to be said as by Cyprian that a Bishop was to be ordeined in the roome of Iudas so by Ierome that Peter was Bishop of Antioch by Chrysostom that Iames was Bishop of Ierusalē Though whither it wer or no yet that which I spake in defense of Chrysostō is cléered by himself frō your reproch of a shift For he saith that Iames was Bishop as they say Which words as they say import that he spake it on the words of others most likely of Clemēs frō whom Eusebius fetcheth it But if notwithstanding you reply that Chrysostom allowed that they say and supposed Iames to be a Bishop properly then his words haue so much the greater importance against your supremacy séeing that they giue the principalitie to Iames in his owne dioces and that aboue Peter Howbeit I will not take this aduantage because I know that neither Peter nor Iames gaue the definitiue sentence but when they had spoken their mindes of the matter the Councell did define it and decrée it with common iudgement Hart. They did it with common iudgement I deny not But Theodoret sheweth that Peter as a Prince had a great prerogatiue therein aboue the rest yea gaue definitiue sentence to which the rest consented and as it were subscribed For he in an epistle which he wrote to Leo affirmeth that Paul did runne to great Peter to bring a resolution from him vnto them who contended at Antioche about the obseruation of the lawe of Moses Rainoldes You may cite if you list S. Isidore too for an other speciall prerogatiue of Peter as good as this and grounded likewise on the Actes which he alleageth to proue it to wit that the name of Christians arose at Antioche first through the preaching of Peter For though hee bée more direct against the scripture which sheweth that the name of Christians arose vpon the preaching not of Peter but of Paul and Barnabas yet is Theodoret direct against it too by giuing as proper peculiar to Peter that which was cōmon to the Apostles and Elders whose resolution he was sent for And as Isidore séemeth to haue ouershot him selfe by flip of memorie on too great a fansie perhaps towardes Peter in like sort Theodoret séeking to get the fauour of Leo bishop of Rome whose help he stode in neede of did serue his owne cause in saying that Paul ranne to great Peter that so he might run much more to great Leo. Which words to haue issued out from that humor his commentaries on the Scriptures where he sought the trueth and folowed the text shewe For therein he saith of Barnabas and Paul that they ran not to great Peter but to the great Apostles and had a resolution from them of the question about the keping of the law Howbeit if Theodorets words vnto Leo suffered no exceptiō the most were that Peter pronounced the definitiue sentence as President not gaue it as Prince But the Scripture it selfe by the rule whereof his wordes must be tryed maketh no more for Peters Presidentshippe then for Iames and whosoeuer were President it sheweth that neither Iames nor Peter but the Councel gaue the definitiue sentence So well it proueth that which you vndertooke to proue concerning Peter that he had as ful power in the assemblies of the Apostles as the Prince hath in a parlament yea or the pope in a Councell Harte It proueth that wel-inough though not to you chiefly if other places thereof be waied withall For the singular power of Peter is declared also by S. Paul in that he saith to the Galatians Then after three yeares I came to Ierusalem to see Peter and taried with him fifteene dayes Rainoldes The singular power of Peter In which words By what reason Because hee went to Ierusalem to see him Or because he went after three yeares Or because hee stayed with him fifteene dayes Hart. The reason consisteth in that which Paule did the cause for which he did it For he went to Ierusalē to see Peter Why but to do him honour as Ierom saith in his Commentaries and in an epistle to Austin Peter was saith he of so great authoritie that Paule wrote Then after three yeares and so forth And Chrysostome Because Peter saith he was the mouth of the Apostles the chiefe and top of the company therefore Paule went vp to see him aboue the rest Because it was meet saith Ambrose that he should desire to see Peter vnto whom our Sauiour had committed the charge of Churches Which also Tertullian affirmeth that he did of duetie and right Nor otherwise Theodoret he gaue saith he that honour to the prince of the Apostles which it was fitte hee should Hence it is that S. Gregory doubteth not to say that Paule the Apostle was the yonger brother And S. Austin an Apostle made after Peter who saith moreouer that the primacie of the Apostles is conspicuous and preeminent with excellent grace in Peter Rainoldes You bring in witnesses not necessarie to proue a thing not denied For that Paule was as Apostle in time after Peter and so his yonger brother as Gregory Austin and Ambrose say that he went to see Peter for honor and reuerence which he bare to him as it is in Ierom Chrysostome and Theodoret that he did this of duetie and right what right and duetie of the same faith and preaching of the gospell to shew his concord with him which is the meaning of Tertullian all this will I graunt you the scriptures teach as much what néede the Fathers to proue it Hart. Will you graunt all that which I alleaged out of the Fathers then will you grant that Protestants are in an error and the truth is ours For they auouch plainely the primacie of Peter and call him the mouth the prince the toppe of the Apostles Rainoldes Alas you were agreed me thought to go through with the scripture first afterward come to the Fathers I wisse they will giue you small cause of triumphing ouer the Protestants when you shall bring their forces out into the field and see with whom they ioine with you or with vs. But of the rest then Now I graunt you so much as doth concerne the point for
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
from Papias also by one as good as himselfe euen by Clemens Alexandrinus Wherefore I know what credit it hath what truth I know not For if Cassiodorus Rhegino Ado and all the ecclesiasticall histories haue erred in saying that Peter did abide at Rome fiue and twentie yeares which errour they were caried into by Eusebius or whosoeuer first reported it why might they not also be deceyued in this point by the report of Papias or some who had it from Papias Though if it be true that S. Marke was Peters scholer at Rome yet this proueth not that he meant Rome by the name of Babylon For Peter saith onely the Church which is in Babylon Marke my sonne salute you Now Marke as your Papias also doth report did follow and accompanie Peter in his trauel So that he might be with him as well at Babylon in Chaldaea as in Italie at Rome Wherefore whether Peter were at Rome or no the proofe therof resteth vpon humane histories For this of Gods word whereby you would proue it faine saith nothing for it Which a learned man of our side hauing weighed and séeing the dissension of writers touching the time that hee came to Rome and knowing by the scripture that their spéeche of his abode in Rome is false and marking the shamefull practise of the Romanists in forging tales for their aduancement as Constantines donation and spying some such forgerie amongst their monuments of Peter as Linus fable of his death and finding his martyrdome mentioned by Ierom and Lyra in such sort as though he had béene crucified by the Scribes and Pharises he was brought by these the like perswasions into this opinion that Peter neuer came to Rome If you aske my iudgement I thinke he was deceiued therein And so doo many mo None of all the Protestants who haue dealt in writing of histories Chronicles to my knowledge one excepted denyeth that he was at Rome They who are straitest in it doo say it may be doubted it is no article of our faith and either he was not there or at another time then most autors thinke and lesse then fiue and twentie yeares Wherein what doo they say but that which is most true and manifest The greater wrong you doo vs to charge vs in general that we holde that Peter was neuer at Rome And to aggrauate the matter you muster vp the names of the ancient Fathers as though we did bande our selues against them all Whereas in verie déede they whom you count our captaines doo therefore graunt Peter to haue béene at Rome because the ancient Fathers affirme it so with one consent Yea some of them expounding those same wordes of Peter apply the name of Babylon to Rome as you doo some who allow not of that exposition yet graunt hée was at Rome And so the reproch of shamelesse partialitie which you cast on vs redoundeth on your selues For if you had any modestie and equitie you would neuer say that we denye Rome to be meant by Babylon because it would follow that Peter was at Rome and so forth Specially sith neyther all of vs deny it and many who denye it yet deny not but Peter was at Rome But whereas you adde that we deny it fearing hereby the sequele of Peters or the Popes supremacie at Rome therein you passe your selues in impudencie For we doo confesse and you too I trust that Peter was at Ioppe And doo we or rather you feare hereby the sequele of Peters or the Popes supremacie at Ioppe Hart. No because we reade not that he was Bishop of Ioppe We reade that he was Bishop of Rome Rainoldes But you can not proue it by those words of Peter which you would ground it on although it were graunted that he meant Rome by Babylon For the most that might be proued so therby is that he was at Rome Which furthereth no more the Pope of Rome then of Ioppe And thus you may sée what tragedies you make for how small trifles when you lay so heinous a crime to our charge for denying that which although we graunt we neyther winne nor lose by it Hart. But if he were at Rome it will be the likelyer that he was Bishop there And that hee was so Eusebius sheweth in his Chronicle Rainoldes I perceyue the Pope must fetch his supremacie from earth and not from heauen You are fallen againe from scripture to Eusebius Against whose autoritie I might take exception because he saith that Peter continued bishop of Rome preaching the gospel there fiue and twentie yeares which I haue proued to be vntrue Though if I may speake mine owne coniecture of it the difference of the Chronicle and historie of Eusebius concerning that point doth moue mee to thinke that it was not writen by Eusebius but by Ierom. For he in translating the Chronicle of Eusebius did enterlace some thinges which séemed to be omitted chiefely in the Roman storie Now Ierom might receiue it from Damasus bishop of Rome on whom he attended as a secretarie And Damasus was not so voide of all affection but he could be content to aduance the credit of his owne Sée by helping it to be reputed the bishoply See of Peter But whether Eusebius or Ierom or Damasus or whosoeuer haue saide that Peter was a Bishop either they vsed the name of Bishop generally and so it proueth not your purpose or if they meant it as commōly we do they missed the truth For generally a Bishop is an ouerseer In which signification it reacheth to all who are put in trust with ouersight charge of any thing as Eleazar is called Bishop of the tabernacle Christ the Bishop of our soules But in our cōmon vse of spéech it noteth him to whō the ouersight charge of a particular Church is committed such as were the Bishops of Ephesus of Philippi and they whom Christ calleth the Angels of the Churches Now Peter was not Bishop after this later sort for he was an Apostle and the Apostles were sent to preach to all the world Wherefore when the Fathers said he was a Bishop either they meant it in the former sense or ought to haue meant it This is somewhat harder to be perceiued by Ierom but others open it more plainely For he reckeneth Peter the first Bishop of Rome Linus the second Cletus the third Clemens the fourth and so the rest successiuely as likewise in Antioche Ignatius the third whereby Euodius is the second and Peter the first But Eusebius nameth Euodius the first Bishop of Antioche Ignatius the secōd and Irenaeus nameth Linus the first Bishop of Rome Cletus the second and so forth Whereby they declare that in their iudgement although Peter preached at Antioche and Rome both yet he was neither
and doctrine Wherefore sith the Pharises were so well estéemed did swarme in Iurie it is not to be thought but that other tribes had some of that profession chiefely the tribe of Iuda Hart. If Iuda if Beniamin if other tribes had of them much more by all likelihood had the tribe of Leui. And them might our Sauiour specially meane not generally all in saying The Pharises doo sit vpon the chaire of Moses As if I should say that the Catholikes sit vpon the chaire of Christ you must not thinke I meane of Catholikes who be scholers but of Catholikes who be teachers of Catholike Priestes and Bishops Rainoldes Your answere hath reason For as S. Paule was a Pharise-scholer so was Gamaliel a Pharise-teacher And that there were Pharises of the Priestes Leuites the scripture sheweth saying that the Iewes sent Priestes and Leuites from Ierusalem to talke with Iohn Baptist and they who were sent were of the Pharises Wherefore that the Pharises did succeede Aaron the likelihood is great That the Scribes greater For they expounded taught the law of God whence they were also called now Doctors of the law now Lawiers by duetie and office Whereupon when Herode desired to know where Christ should be borne he gathered togither all the chiefe Priests and Scribes of the people to learne it of them It is most likely then that they succéeded Aaron too as did their predecessor Ezra the Scribe prompt in the law of Moses Yet your Doctor Genebrard saith that the Scribes were lightly of the tribe of Simeon and they with the Pharises are said to haue sate in the chaire of Moses as who had thrust them selues into it being emptie while the Priestes abusing the riches of the Church did forsake their duetie Hart. If Genebrard or any other of our Doctors haue a conceit of his owne what is that to me I folow the receiued sâ—ntence of the Church that the Scribes and Pharises came into the chaire of Moses by succession and not by intrusion But why do you agréeing with me in this point reproue it in my argument Rainoldes I reproued it not The point which I reproued was that you expounded the wordes of Christ so They sate in the chaire of Moses that is they did succeede Aaron Which exposition is erroneous and verie dangerous to the truth though the danger of it not so apparant in it selfe as in the consequent For it is the mother of a greater error Hart. And how would you haue it expounded I pray Rainoldes According to the word and meaning of Christ. The Scribes and the Pharises sit in the chaire of Moses that is they teach the law of Moses For as Moses him selfe receiued it of God to teach it the children of Israel and he did so in like sort the Priestes and Leuites after him were vsed to reade it in the assemblies of the people and to expound it To this end their synagogues were built in euery citie and euerie Sabbat day they met there as it is written Moses of olde time hath in euerie citie them that preach him being read in the Synagogues euerie Sabbat day Now they who did teach were wont to teach sitting which appeereth by our Sauiours example in the temple in the synagogues in other places Wherfore the Scribes and Pharises of whom there were some in euerie towne of Galile and Iurie and Ierusalem to discharge this duetie are said to haue sate in the seat of Moses or chaire as we terme it because they did teach the same which Moses did euen the law of God deliuered to Moses Hart. The matter is not great whether you expound it thus or as we doo Rainoldes Yes For it foloweth of your exposition that the Scribes and Pharises said well in all things which they said because they did succeede Aaron and so that succession which is the marke you shoote at hath certaintie of doctrine and faith knit vnto it Whereas the right lesson which you should gather thence is that the Scribes and Pharises said well in all thinges which they said out of the word of God and so that Gods word is simplie true and certaine but men ordeined to teach it must be heard no farther thâ—n they agree with it And this might D. Stapleton haue learned of the same Fathers whom he cited but that he rather readeth them to mainetaine a faction then to learne the truth For Austin doth interpret the chaire not of succession but of wholsome doctrine in the which they sit who speake the good things of God we are willed to heare God speaking by them when we are willed to do the things which they say For in sitting on Moses chaire they teach the law of God therefore by them God doth teach But if they would teach their owne things saith Austin heare them not obey them not So doth Chrysostome expound it Doo all things which the Scribes and Pharises say you must doo for they preach not their owne things but the things which God commaunded by Moses So doth Origen apply it to them who teach the faith aright with a speciall clause that Christians if they see a preacher liue ill and haue not to charge him with teaching ill doctrine they must frame their liues according to his words not deedes If they haue not to charge him with teaching ill doctrine as if he should say that who soeuer teach ill doctrine they sit not in the chaire of Moses Let them succéede Aaron neuer so directly yet if their doctrine be ill they sit not in the chaire of Moses Whereby you may sée the wretched state of that argument of which you made so great vaunt For the first proposition that the Scribes and Pharises were to be obeied in all thinges which they said because they sate in the chaire of Moses that is they did succeede Aaron is fouly corrupted in the point of succession The second that the Popes do sit in Christes chaire that is they are successors of the Apostles is tainted with the sameâ—canker that the first The conclusion therefore that men must obey the Popes in all thinges which they say and the consequent thereof that they cannot erre in any thing they say are children like their parents as sound as the propositions of which they are begotten The filthines of all the which if yet you sée not behold an other light to sée it by The Scribes amongst the Iewes were as the Canonists are with you the Pharises as the Schoolemen your Genebrard doth match them so Or if you like not his iudgement therein because Schoolemen and Canonists say not true in all thinges yet this you must graunt that Priestes are with you as Scribes and Pharises were with them For Chrysostome saith they be the verie wordes which you did passe ouer for breuities sake we must not say now In
teach the whole Church so hee had a fansie that the Simeonites were to teach litle children With this he did trauell and he brought it forth he thought it might be he liked it should be he wrote it was so Wherefore if Rabbi Selomoh had meant the same Scribes of whom our Sauiour spake his credit is too poore to witnesse what they were who liued a thousand yeares before him vnlesse he proue it better But that the Pharises were of other tribes and not of Leui onely D. Genebrard proueth you say and I graunt it True And I graunt farther which he proueth too that they were Catholikes But your selfe did tell me that if you should say that the Catholikes sit vpon the chaire of Christ I must not thinke you meane of Catholikes who be scholers but of Catholikes who be teachers of Catholike Priestes and Bishops The Scribes and Pharises therefore had ordinary succession for any thing that Genebrard sheweth to the contrarie But they did both erre them selues and teach errours Then they who succéed ordinarily may erre and teach errours Now the Popes succeede in the chaire of the Apostles as the Scribes and Pharises did in the chaire of Aaron The Popes are not warranted therefore by succession but they may erre and teach errours Hart. Nay I denie that For they haue greater grace then had the Scribes and Pharises Wherefore not if the Scribes and Pharises erred therefore the Popes may Rainoldes Nay as you brew so must you drinke It is your owne comparison of Popes with Scribes and Pharises euen in the chaire too And to say the truth they are well compared sauing that the Popes are somewhat behind them in succession and farre beyond them in errours Hart. Not so For howsoeuer it fared with Scribes and Pharises I will proue by a manifest demonstration out of the scripture that Popes cannot erre in doctrine Rainoldes If you do so I yéeld For one out of the scripture as good with me as a thousand Hart. You must obserue then that the scripture noteth foure kindes of men who by teaching the folke that are named Christians doo either leade them or misleade them that is doo either guide them in the right way or seduce them from it The first of them Pastors the second Hirelinges the third Theeues and the fourth Woolues All whom Christ hath shewed almost in one place togither For in S. Iohns gospell he saith of the theefe He that entreth not by the doore into the sheepefold but climeth vp an other way he is a theefe and a robber Of the pastor he saith But he that entreth by the doore is the pastor of the sheepe And a litle after I am saith he the doore And anone making a subdiuision of the pastor into his members he sheweth that a pastor is of two sortes the one good the other an hireling The good pastor saith he doth giue his life for his sheepe But an hireling and he which is not the pastor that is which deserueth not the name of a pastor because hee loueth more the goods of the world then the sheepe saith Gregorie the great seeth the woolfe coming and leaueth the sheepe and fleeth He is a theefe therefore who climeth vp an other way that is as Cyprian writeth who succeeding no man is ordeined of him selfe not of them who entred by Christ that is not of Christ. Hée is a pastor who entreth in by the doore loueth the sheepe that is as Irenee writeth he that hath both succession from the Apostles sent by Christ and with succession of Bishopricke hath receiued through Gods fauour the sure and gratious gift of truth The hireling feedeth the sheepe vnlesse the wolfe come For as Gregorie saith in the place alleaged it cannot be surely knowne whether a man be a pastour or an hireling if time of neede come not if persecution and triall want The fourth kind is the woolfe at whose coming the hireling fleeth For he is a woolfe who entred in by the doore he was ordeined lawfully but being set in the pastours roome after ward became a woolfe Such as S. Paule describeth I doo know saith he that after my departure there wil rauening woolues enter in among you not sparing the flocke that is scattering the shéepefold and of your selues that is of the number and order of pastors â—or such he speaketh to there shall arise men speaking peruerse things to draw away disciples after them selues Such were Arius Macedonius Nestorius Marcion Paulus Samosatenus Eutyches and many other Arch-heretikes who of Bishops and Priestes that is of pastors became woolues Wherefore of these foure kindes of men we must loue the pastor we must tolerate the hireling we must beware of the theefe saith Austin and I would adde saith D. Stapleton we must driue away the woolfe For the woolfe must be kept off with greater care and diligence who commeth in the sheepes clothing and being made a pastor doth play the woolfe and seduceth then the theefe who climeth vp an other way by open wrong and iniurie For it is inough to beware of him because of lawfull succession which neuer is vnknowne or lieth hidden no more then the Church it selfe Moreouer the hireling is of two sortes One in respect of his ende and secret because he dooth féede for hope of gaine or honour only but liueth not offensiuely An other who is openly wicked and vngodly The hirelings of the former sort S. Paule describeth Some saith he preach Christ for enuie and contion that is for honours sake some for good will and of charitie And what of such he thinketh he addeth but what So that by all meanes whether by occasion or by truth Christ bee preached in this also I reioyce yea and will reioyce Now hée preacheth Christ by occasion not sincerely who doth it for his owne commodities of money or of honour and the praise of man as Austin doth expound it and of such S. Paule saith that hee reioyceth So farre is he from saying that men ought not to heare them As for the other sort of hirelinges that openly are wicked and vngodly such were the Scribes and Pharises and yet the scripture saith of them The Scribes the Pharises do sit vpon the chaire of Moses All things therefore whatsoeuer they shall say vnto you obserue ye and do ye But of this I haue spoken sufficiently before And so you may see that hirelings whether they be secret or open yet they teach the truth Christians are bound to heare them Rainoldes When shall we haue the demonstration out of the scripture by which you promised to proue that Popes can not erre in doctrine Hart. You haue it alreadie What You can not sée the wood for the trées Rainoldes In déede I cannot sée that wood amongst these trées But you who sée it better will shewe it mee I hope Hart. Sée you not the wordes of Christ and
the Emperours this witnesse and layeth the blame of those monsters vpon the Romanes themselues The noble men saith he of Rome to aduaunce their owne priuate power corrupted them to whom the Popes election belonged and thereby filled the Church almost two hundred yeares togither with grieuous seditions and shamefull euils and disorders These were the Marques Albert and Alberike his sonne a Consull the Earles of Thusculum they who were of their kinne or by their meanes had grown to wealth Who either bribing the people and clergie with money or spoiling them of the auncient libertie of the election by whatsoeuer other meanes preferred at their lust their kinsmen or frendes men commonly nothing like to the former Popes in holines and good order For the repressing of whose outrage Pope Leo the eighth reuiued the law which had beene made by Adrian the first and repealed by the third that no Pope elected should vndertake the Popedome without the Emperours consent Which law being taken away by occasion that the roome was sought ambitiously in the citie and purchased by bribes the state of the Church was put againe in great daunger through the priuate lusts of the same factions To prouide therefore a remedie for these things Henrie the Emperour came into Italie as hereupon Sigonius sheweth And so you may sée the lewdnes of Genebrard that shamelesse parasite of the Popes who without all reuerence both of God and man doth raile lye and falsifie stories to deface the Emperours and crosse the writers of the Centuries For he saith that the Emperours did as wilde boares eate vp the vineyard of the Lord the stories say that they deliuered it from wilde boares The stories say that the monsters of the Popes were chosen by the Romanes them selues he saith that they came in by intrusion of the Emperours The stories say that the Emperours who hunted out those beastes were vertuous and lawfull Princes he calleth them tyrants nor onely them but also many good Emperours moe who medled with the Popes election Finally the stories say that the Emperours were allowed by Popes and Councels to doo it he saith that they vsurped it by the right of Herode And yet him selfe recordeth and that in the same Chronicle too that Pope Adrian with a Councell Pope Leo with a Councell Pope Clemens with a Councell did graunt it vnto Charles Otho and Henrie the Emperours I haue read of an enuious man who was content to lose one of his owne eies that an other might lose both Genebrard is gone farther For he is content to put out both his owne eies that the writers of the Centuries may put out one of theirs That they may acknowledge them selues to haue praysed the German Emperours vniustly hee graunteth both that Popes with Councels haue erred and that their succession wa◠broken off a great while Wherein if you say the same with him M. Hart I am glad of it But your felowes I feare me will not allow that you say if you allow that he saith Hart. No body saith that the succession of Popes was broken off nor that the Popes may erre and Councels For as Genebrard taketh it Leo the eighth and Clemens the second were not Popes Rainoldes But Adrian the first was as Genebrard taketh it and that one of the best Popes Yet he did graunt as much to Charles the Emperour as Leo did to Otho as Clemens did to Henrie And if it be true that they were not Popes whom yet the Roman clergy with many Bishops chose then the Popes succession which is almost the onely eye of your Cyclops will be cleane put out by the deuise of this No-body And how shall the writings of our Countriemen Sanders Bristow and Rishton and such others do then who make the Popes succession the chiefest bulwarke of your Church a certaine marke that neuer faileth And what will No-body him selfe say to the third booke of his Chronicle where he wrote that Peters succession shall endure in the Church of Rome vntill the end of the world Was this true when he wrote the third booke and was it false when he wrote the fourth Hart. D. Genebrard whom you shal proue to be some-body ere you haue done though you be flouting him with No-body doth shew by the one place his meaning in the other For sith he wrote that Peters succession shall endure in the Church of Rome vntill the end of the world it is plaine he meant not that it was broken of at any time absolutely and simply Wherefore in that he addeth about the fiftie Popes that the lawful succession was disordered then he meant that it was broken but in some sort as it were or to say the truth rather brused then broken not interrupted but disturbed For neither Genebrard saith nor any Catholike writer els but that the succession of Popes hath continued and shall vnto the end Rainoldes Then I mistooke his meaning touching the succession and yours touching the Popes For I thought that you had denied that they were Popes who were theeues and robbers Now I perceiue you meant not absolutely and simply that they were not Popes but that they were not Popes after a kind of sort they were crackt Popes as you would say and not sound or perhaps in truth rather crased then crackt Yet the reason which you brought why they were not Popes doth stand in force against them still For it is true as you said that they did not succeede lawfully Wherefore either lawfull succession is not necessarie vnto your succession or the crased Popes were no Popes at al. They did succéede Simon but Simon the sorcerer and not Simon Peter Howbeit you must count them Simon Peters successours for your successions sake Else you spoile your Church of her gayest ornament through which the vnskilfull are most enamored of her Beside that neither would it helpe your cause a whit in tryall of the issue For sithence the Pope hath ouermaistred the Emperours and thrust from his election first them then the people afterward the clergie brought it to a few Cardinals there haue bene as monstrous Popes as were before still I except Iohn and haue come in as vnlawfully Hart. There were many tumultes and schismes in the Church chiefely through the Emperours meanes before that the matter could be brought about to that perfection and ripenes which it is now at But things began to mend from that time of disorder For by the vertue of Leo the ninth and the Popes folowing that vsurpation was taken from the Emperor Henrie the fourth although with great sturres And so was the Sée Apostolike of Rome restored to her auncient brightnes and beauty Whereof our owne daies haue séene the proofe and triall in many good Popes elected lawfully no doubt Pius the fourth Pius the fifth and him who raigneth now Gregorie the
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
Hart. Nay I will graunt rather that S. Austin erred and laide a false ground if he doo impart the priuilege of the chaire to all other Bishops as well as to the Pope Rainoldes Then you must graunt withall that Genebrard and your Rhemists haue abused S. Austin to bring him as for that which he is flat against But I will defend S. Austin in a truth and proue that the argument which I haue grounded on him is so sure and sound that you must néedes graunt it vnlesse you will be froward wilfully For what thinke you first may a Bishop erre as Bishop Hart. Who doth deny it Rainoldes There is one in Plato who saith that a magistrate cannot erre as magistrate nor a Prince as Prince Hart. Not a Prince Why Rainoldes Because a Prince is as it were a physician of the common wealth and a physician can not erre as physician For in that he erreth he misseth of his arte Wherefore by want of physicke he erreth not by physicke And so to speake exactly no artificer can erre at the least he cannot erre as an artificer For he which erreth erreth because he hath not skill enough and not because he hath skill Hart. But yet an artificer may erre in practise of his arte as a physician in curing sicke men a Prince in ruling the common wealth And therefore me thinketh that shift is but a quidditie For an artificer may be iustly saide to erre as an artificer when he doth erre in that which he dealeth with in respect of his arte At least if he erre not therein as an artificer he erreth as an euill artificer Rainoldes That is true as an euill artificer Hart. Then your man in Plato must amend his spéech and say that a Prince may erre as an euil Prince though he cannot as good and a magistrate as an euill magistrate Rainoldes And of a physician he must amend it too and say that a physician if he cure not the sicke wel doth erre as an euill physician Hart. He must so Rainoldes Likewise if an auditor doo misse in casting of accounts he erreth as an euill auditor Hart. An euill auditor Rainoldes And if a cooke doo misse in dressing of meate he erreth as an euill cooke a tayler in making garments as an euill tayler a shoomaker in making shooes as an euill shoomaker Hart. What els and all artificers after the same sorte Rainoldes Nor onely artificers as they are called commonly but all in whose functions skill and arte is néedfull for the discharge of them whether they be ciuill as lawiers iudges counseilors or ecclesiasticall as deacons pastors doctors Doo you not meane so Hart. I meane of all such except the Pope onely Rainoldes You preuent me before you néede I come not to the Pope yet Hart. No but I sée what you goe about You would fish out of me that a Pope may erre as an euill Pope Rainoldes You are too suspicious I meant to conclude that a Bishop may erre as an euill Bishop For it is a Bishops duety to diuide the word of truth aright If he erre in diuiding it he erreth in a point of the Bishops duetie Shall we say that he erreth as an euill Bishop Hart. We must so it seemeth by proportion to the rest Rainoldes But perhaps we haue dealt too hardly with the rest And now in Bishops I perceiue it For would you call S. Austin and S. Cyprian euill Bishops Hart. Euill God forbid Rainoldes Yet they haue erred sometimes in diuiding the worde of truth as you confesse of the one the other sheweth of himselfe And we doo all offend in many thinges Euen the best physician doth erre some times in curing the best Prince in ruling Through defaute I graunt because they are not good enough And to speake exactly there is none good but one euen God But if we speake as men are commonly wont we may not call the best euill Wherefore I am loth to say that a Bishop erreth as an euill Bishop if he erre in diuiding the word of truth I had rather say that he erreth as Bishop offending in a point of duetie And so would I mitigate our spéeches of the rest not to call them euill whom all account good but to note that good in men hath imperfection Hart. Doo so if you list Rainoldes Then we will bid the sophister in Plato farewell and say that a magistrate may erre as magistrate and a Prince as Prince Hart. I was of that minde at the first Rainoldes And a Doctor as Doctor a Bishop as Bishop Hart. True and likewise the like Rainoldes Is not the Pope a Bishop the Bishop of Rome I trow Hart. I thought that hether you would at last And therefore I did purposely except him by name For it is true in all Bishops saue in the Bishop of Rome Rainoldes I know you did except him but with what reason For if it be true in generall of Princes that they may erre as Princes it foloweth in speciall that any Prince may erre as Prince the Quéene of England as Quéene the King of Scotland as King the German Emperour as Emperour and so forth all the rest whose office is Princely This you graunt Doo you not Hart. Yes it is so in Princes I graunt Rainoldes Then in like sorte if it be true of Bishops that they may erre as Bishops it foloweth that any Bishop may erre as Bishop the Patriarke of Venice as Patriarke the Cardinall of Alba as Cardinall the Pope of Rome as Pope and so forth all the rest whose office is Bishoply Doth not reason teach you that you must graunt this also Hart. No. Because the state and condition of Bishops is not like to Princes in this consideration For amongst Princes there is none priuileged by vertue of his office not to erre as Prince But amongst Bishops the Pope of Rome is priuileged not to erre as Pope Rainoldes The date of this priuilege is out M. Hart it cannot serue you now For your selfe misliked Thrasymachus in Plato as shifting with a quidditie for saying that a Prince cannot erre as Prince Hart. And I mislike him still Rainoldes You confessed also that an artificer may be iustly said to erre as an artificer when he doth erre in that which hee dealeth with in respect of his arte Hart. I did so What then Rainoldes And you thought it méete that we should say a Bishop erreth as Bishop when he erreth in a peint of the Bishops dutie Hart. And this I graunt too Rainoldes How can you deny then but the Pope may iustly be saide to erre as Pope when he erreth in a point of the Popes duty And sith a point thereof is to diuide the word of truth aright belonging to him as to all Bishops by the chaire seate that is the office of teaching wherin God hath set them the Pope is not priuileged by vertue of the chaire from erring as Pope more
of the forme or of the end I meane as either wrought by deceit or to deceit by deceit ifmen did counterfeit the voice to deceit if they hearde it miraculously in deede As it is writen touching the man of sinne that his coming is according to the working of Satan with all power and with lying signes and wonders and with all deceiuablenesse of vnrighteousnesse among them that perish because they receyued not the loue of truth that they might be saued Take héede M. Hart least that which foloweth be verified in you Therefore shall God send them strong delusion to beleue lyes that al they may be damned who beleeued not the truth but had pleasure in vnrighteouâ—nesse Hart. Take heede vnto your selfe M. Rainoldes that you offend not in this vnrighteousnesse by abusing that famous Doctor of the Church S. Thomas of Aquine For the holy Father Pope Pius the fifth hath honoured his memorie with a double greater feast in his countrie and with a double feast throughout all Christendome to be kept as solemnly as the holy dayes of the foure Doctours of the Church are kept Wherefore you ought to thinke so much the more reuerently of all that he hath writen and not to charge him with forging and falsifying if he haue missed ought but rather to suppose that if the autours haue not that which he alleageth yet he had read it alleaged by some other and of a good affection to the Sée of Rome he thought it to be rightly alleaged and wrote it Rainoldes Of a good affection As you will Let it be so He with such dealing of a good affection hath feasted the Pope and the Pope againe of a good affection hath double feasted him But you graunt then that Doctors of the Church may bee deceyued as through ouersight so through affection too and that these exceptions against them are lawfull Hart. Lawfull if you proue that they be so deceiued For they may be I graunt Rainoldes What And may they not be deceiued also or rather seeme to be deceyued through the affection or ouersight of other men Hart. Of other men How Rainoldes As when a Greeke writer is translated into Latin the translator maketh him sometimes to say that which he neuer meant And before printing the scriueners who copied out bookes with hand committed sundrie scapes Which likewise befalleth vnto printers now So there may be a faute in an autour without the autours faute through ouersight of printers or scriueners or translators For example in the story ecclesiasticall of Eusebius translated by Rufinus it is alleaged out of Clemens that Peter Iames Iohn although Christ preferred them almost before all yet they tooke not the honour of primacie to them selues but ordeined Iames who was surnamed Iust Bishop of the Apostles This had béene a notable testimonie for Iames against the primacie of Peter But I alleaged it not because as I séeke to winne you to the truth so I séeke to doo it by true and right meanes Whereof this were none being an ouersight as it appeereth of Rufinus For in the Greeke Eusebius it is that they ordeined him Bishop of Ierusalem not Bishop of the Apostles Hart. That may be the printers faute or the scriueners perhaps who wrote it out not his who translated it Rainoldes But I thinke it rather the translators faulte For Marianus Scotus doth cite out of Methodius the same touching Iames that they ordeined him Bishop of the Apostles Which belike was taken out of the storie of Eusebius doon into Latin by Rufinus And he hath erred often in in turning Gréeke writers as also his translation of Iosephus sheweth Though I may not charge him with all the faultes therein For where it is auouched by some that Iosephus holdeth the bookes of Maccabees to be holy scripture as in déede he séemeth to doo in the Latin in the Greeke he saith not any such thing nay he doth teach the contrarie but it is vnlikely this came from Rufinus who helde him selfe the Maccabees not to be canonical Howbeit if you say that the Gréeke copie which he translated of Eusebius had that word amisse through the scriueners faulte I will not striue against you But a more certaine example of the faultinesse in scriueners first and printers after is found in Optatus in that he affirmeth Peter was called Cephas because he was head of the Apostles Apostolorum caeput Petrus vnde Cephas appellatus est Upon the which place your lawier doth note that where he had thought it to be an ouersight of a man dreaming that the Syriake word which singifieth a stone is the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth a head now he ghessed rather that the words unde Cephas appellatus est were some foolish glose writen rashly in the margent and then interlaced into the text by scriueners Hart. Like enough But you haue no harme by this glose For though you blot it out yet Optatus saith that Peter was head of the Apostles Rainoldes Neither haue we any harme by that text For I haue shewed before it maketh nought for the Papacie But we may haue harme by that kind of gloses chiefely sith as Viues obserueth on S. Austin vpon the like occasion some glosers haue defiled all the writings of noble autours with such vncleane handling of them Hart. Will you make an ende of excepting against the Fathers and let vs heare at length the Fathers speake themselues Rainoldes The fathers them selues With a very good will But looke that you bring me the Fathers them selues For which is my last exception and so an ende there are many bookes entitled to Fathers which the Fathers made not nay whereof sundry were made by such youthes as are not worthy to beare the Fathers shooes The workes of S. Ierom are abroade in nine volumes of the which nine as good as three are none of his And yet Vitae patrum a legend how wrongfully fathered on S. Ierom your Espencaeus Canus shew is not amongst them Though there are amongst them slippes of the same tree a barbarous and sottish fable as Canus calleth it of the natiuitie of S. Marie and many other treatises of the same kinde which Erasmus hath refuted most diligently rightly The workes of S. Austin haue not béene tampred with so much in this sort NotwithstaÌ„ding there is not aboue one or two of his ten volumes that hath not more or fewer such pamphlets patched to it Not onely by the iudgement and censure of Erasmus which yet you sée how Canus estéemeth in S. Ierom but also of the Louanists whose censures are the censures of many of your best Diuines and they shew that sundry things beare S. Austins name whereof some are vnlearned some lewde and heretical But what do I speake of Ierom and Austin when there is scarse any amongst all the
he blotted out some notes too But men who deale with much shall ouersée somewhat Hart. You still suspect the worst It might be the correctors faute and not the Censours Or if the Censour did it he did it of a good minde because he thought that Contius was deceiued in it Rainoldes The likelyhood and presumption is not so much of the correctour who vewing all the notes might haue left out the rest too if he had béene the dooer as it is of the Censour who suffering not the preface to passe to the print for the Popes sake may iustly be suspected that he would straine an ynch farther to helpe the Pope But you say he did it of a good minde But good mindes must learne to vse good meanes also At least he should haue doon as Frier Surius did who whereas in the olde edition of the Councels there were certaine thinges noted out of Cassiodore Marianus Scotus and Gregorie Haloander touching the yeares of the Consuls who are named in the dates of those epistles of the Popes Surius in his new edition thereof hath left out all those notes yeelding this reason why hee left them out because both the thing is darke of it selfe it is made more darke and intricate by their variance in so much that Caluin seemeth on that occasion to haue reiected those epistles In déede the Centurie-writers whom Surius meant perhaps when he named Caluin doo set downe that circumstance of the yeare of the Consuls assigned in their dates for a proofe that they be forged and they confirme that proofe by those very notes that were set foorth with the epistles For many of the epistles haue the names of such Consuls as neuer were Consuls together or liued not then as appeereth by Marianus Scotus others yea euen by the notes added to those epistles in the Tome of Councels Which wordes might worke discredit to the Centurie-writers with them who sée the Councels in no edition but the last for there are no such notes And Surius in leauing them out hath answered well that reason of the Centurie-writers Though he should haue answered it a greate deale better if he had left out also the epistles them selues For as long as they are extant we shall not néede the notes vpon their dates to control them Yet as he dealt wisely in leauing out the notes so he shewed honestie in telling men of it that they may know there were notes before which impaired the credit of the epistles and if they list to sée them they may seeke and finde them too But the Censour who fell vpon the notes of Contius hath shewed no such honestie For neither hath he giuen any signification that he caused the preface to be left out neither hath hee tolde vs of an other edition where it might be found and that which is the worst he hath made Contius to speake in maintenance of that which him selfe knew and had declared to be forged All the which pointes it behooueth the iury to consider off and not to weigh only the iudgement of Contius or Bellarmin or Cusanus for the disproofe of those counterfeits on which you ground the Popes supremacie but to thinke with them selues how many more of likelihood euen in the middest of Poperie haue spoken against them yea sundry peraduenture who as their writings are printed now speake for them For if in these dayes when men doo sift their dooings Surius durst aduenture to leaue out notes already printed and the Censour to suppresse things in printers hands that they may neuer come to light yea to write notes in the names of autours flat contrarie to their iudgement print them as their own too what is it to be feared they did in former times when there were few that would espie them Or if espie them yet who so hardy to bewray them Hart. The iudgement of Cusanus and Bellarmin and Contius and the rest of our side if there were more who thought so may not disproue those epistles séeing that themselues allow the supremacie of the Bishop of Rome Rainoldes So much the greater force they haue to disproue them sith it is not likely that they would leaue this hold of that which they fauour if manifest truth and reason did not compell them thereunto Hart. But why doo you bring the iudgement of our Cardinals or Iesuits or Lawiers herein against 〈◊〉 when in as weightie a point against your selfe you will not receiue them Rainoldes I gaue you the reason before out of the scriptures which cite the Poets so But if you wil haue it confirmed by the Fathers you know that Lactantius Eusebius Arnobius and many more of them do bring the writings of Sibylla and Orpheus and Hermes and other Gentiles against the Gentiles whose iudgements they would not receiue against them selues For if Sibylla saith Austin and Orpheus and Hermes and other ether Prophets or Diuines or wise men or Philosophers of the Gentiles haue said true things touching god that is of some force not for vs to embrace the autoritie of them but to conuince by them the vanity of Gentiles when we shew that we doo worship that God of whom euen they haue spoken who partly did teach partly durst not for bidde their felow Gentiles to worship idoles And it is writen in your law that if a Catholike be in suite against an heretike the testimony of an heretike is of force for the Catholike but against the Catholike no testimonie is of force sauing the testimonie of a Catholike onely The testimonies therefore of Cardinals Iesuits and what soeuer Papistes are of force against you but not for you against vs Nether is ther caus◠why you should aske rather why I bring their iudgements against the Popes epistles and yet allow them not in the Popes supremacie then why the Israelites tooke iewels and furniture of gold and siluer of the Egyptians when yet they forsooke their idoles and heauy burdens And thus you sée what malte the soft fyer hath made for the first band of Popes whom ether you named out of Stapleton and Canus or wrapped vp without names in the decrees of Gratian. Haue you any hope of better successe in the remnant of them or will you muster new souldiers Hart. You shall finde more valure in these then you looke for as hotly as you call for new For the exceptions which you made against the second sort ofPopes are naught doutlesse to say nothing of the third Rainoldes You doo well to say nothing of the third sort But what mislike you in my exceptions to the other Hart. You should aske me rather what I mislike not For I mislike all that you haue said therein First that they auouch not the Popes supremacie Which who would say but you For it is too cléere that Innocentius the first Leo the first Gelasius Vigilius Pelagius and S. Gregorie whom all you
the ecclesiasticall causes of clergie men that first they should be brought to the Bishop of the citie from the Bishop of the citie to the Metropolitan froÌ„ the Metropolitan to the Synode of the prouince froÌ„ the Synode of the prouince to the Patriarke of the diocese and a Patriarke is all one with an Archbishop in him Whereby you may perceiue both that an Archbishop had Metropolitans vnder him and that a diocese was more then a prouince In which respect I called it a Princely diocese to distinguish it from a Lordly that you might know I meant a diocese of a larger sise then as the word is taken for a Bishops circuite But that you may haue the cléerer light to sée the truth of mine answere and thereby to perceue how the Pope encroched on Bishops by degrées vntill of an equal he became a soueraine first ouer a few next ouer many at last ouer all I must fetch the matter of Bishops Metropolitans and Archbishops somewhat higher and shew how Christian cities prouinces and dioceses were allotted to them First therefore when Elders were ordeined by the Apostles in euery Church through euery citie to feede the flocke of Christ whereof the holy Ghost had made them ouerseers they to the intent they might the better doo it by common counsell and consent did vse to assemble themselues and méete togither In the which méetings for the more orderly handling and concluding of things pertaining to their charge they those one amongst them to be the President of their companie and moderatour of their actions As in the Church of Ephesus though it had sundry Elders and Pastours to guide it yet amongst those sundrie was there one chiefe whom our Sauiour calleth the Angel of the Church and writeth that to him which by him the rest should know And this is he whom afterward in the primitiue Church the Fathers called Bishop For as the name of Ministers common to all them who serue Christ in the stewardship of the mysteries of God that is in preaching of the gospell is now by the custome of our English spéech restrained to Elders who are vnder a Bishop so the name of Bishop common to all Elders and Pastours of the Church was then by the vsuall language of the Fathers appropriated to him who had the Presidentship ouer Elders Thus are certaine Elders reproued by Cyprian for receiuing to the communion them who had fallen in time of persecution before the Bishops had aduised of it with them and others And Cornelius writeth that the Catholike Church committed to his charge had sixe and fortie Elders and ought to haue but one Bishop And both of them being Bishops the one of Rome the other of Carthage doo witnesse of them selues that they dealt in matters of their Churches gouernment by the consent and counsell of the companie of Elders or the Eldership as they both after S. Paule doo call it Hart. Elders and Eldership you meane presbyteros and presbyterium that is to say Priestes and Priesthood But these new fangled names came in by your English translations of the new testament which as our translation doth iustly note them for it haue changed Priestes into Elders of falshood and corruption and that of farther purpose then the simple can sée Which is to take away the office of sacrificing and other functions of Priestes proper in the new testament to such as the Apostles often and the posteritie in maner altogither doo call Priestes presbyteros Which word doth so certainely imply the authoritie of sacrificing that it is by vse made also the onely English of sacerdos your selues as well as we so translating it in all the olde and new testament though you cannot be ignorant that Priest commeth of presbyter and not of sacerdos and that antiquitie for no other cause applied the signification of presbyter to sacerdos but to shew that presbyter is in the new law that which sacerdos was in the olde the Apostles abstaining from this and other like olde names at the first and rather vsing the wordes Bishops Pastours and Priestes because they might be distinguished from the gouernours and sacrificers of Aarons order who as yet in the Apostles time did their olde functions still in the temple And this to be true and that to be a Priest is to be a man appointed to sacrifice your selues calling sacerdos alwaies a Priest must néedes be driuen to confesse Albeit your folly is therein notorious to apply willingly the word Priest to sacerdos and to take it from presbyter whereof it is deriued properly not onely in English but in other languages both French and Italian which is to take away the name that the Apostles and Fathers gaue to the Priestes of the Church and to giue it wholy and onely to the order of Aaron Rainoldes Wholy and onely to the order of Aaron Nay then I can abide your Rhemists no longer if their mouthes do so runne ouer For we giue it also to the order of Melchisedec after the which our Sauiour is is a Priest for euer And they who charge vs with falshood and corruption in that we call the Ministers of the gospell Elders are guiltie themselues of heresie and blasphemie in that they call them Priestes For they doo not call them Priestes in respect of the spirituall sacrifices of prayers and good workes which Christians of al sortes are bound to offer vnto God and thence are called Priestes in scripture but they call them Priestes in respect of the carnall and external sacrifice of the cursed Masse wherein they pretend that they offer Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine to God his Father a sacrifice propiciatorie that is of force to pacifie God and reconcile him vnto men So whereas the scripture doth teach that one Priest by one sacrifice once offered that is our Sauiour Christ by giuing himself to death vpon the crosse hath reconciled God vnto vs and sanctified vs for euer the doctrine of Rhemes ordeineth many Priestes to offer vp often whether the same sacrifice that Christ or an other they speake staggeringly but to offer it often As though there were yet left an offering for sinne after the death of Christ or his pretious bloud were of no greater value then the blood of buls and goates which were offered often because they could not purge sinnes And this â—bomination they séeke to maintaine by the name of Priestes sith Priestes are men they say appointed to sacrifice and that name was giuen to them by the Apostles In saying whereof they doo play the Sophisters and that with greater art then the simple can sée Which is in that they vse our English word Priest after a dooble sort the one as it is deriued from presbyter the other as it signifieth the same that sacerdos For
standeth not so much in making Church-officers as in iudging Church-causes And therein the second sort of Popes auouched as much as the last For Innocentius the first answering the letters of the Councell of Mileuis who had writen to him about the errour of the Pelagians doth prayse them for referring the matter vnto him and I thinke saith he that as oft as a matter of faith is called in question all our brethren and felow-bishops ought not but to referre it vnto Peter that is the autour of their name and honour as now your charitie hath doon Rainoldes Thâ—se wordes of Innocentius may proue M. Hart that he claimed a preeminence of knowledge for your Peter not a soueraintie of power a preeminence of knowledge to resolue the Church-questions not a soueraintie of power to decide the Church-causes For matters of faith are to be defined by the rule of faith that is by the scriptures and the right opening of the scriptures lyeth not in power but in knowledge Which you may learne by Gratian in the Canon law saying that the Fathers are preferred before the Popes in expounding of scriptures because they passe them in knowledge the Popes before the Fathers in deciding of causes because they passe them in power Hart. That distinction of causes and questions of the Church is but a shift of sophstrie to cast a mist vpon the truth For though the Church-causes as Gratian speaketh of them do concerne persons the innocent to be acquitted or offenders to be condemned yet questions of faith which you call Church-questions are Church-causes too in a generall sense As one of the third sort of Popes saith that greater causes of the Church chiefly such as touch the articles of faith are to be referred to the See of Peter And this was the meaning of Innocentius the first For in his letters to the Councell of Carthage writen to like effect on the same occasion he saith that the Fathers decreed by the sentence not of man but of God that whatsoeuer was doon in prouinces far of they thought that it ought not to be concluded before it came to the notice of the See of Rome Rainoldes It is true that questions of matters touching faith are causes of the Church but they are not such causes as quicken the Papacie The causes touching persons which Zosimus Boniface and Caelestine did deale for when they would haue it lawfull for Bishops Elders to appeale to Rome are those which Popes must liue by And the same Councels of Carthage and Mileuis whom Innocentius wrote too did know and shew this difference when they desired the Popes consent in that of faith but forbadde the causes of Bishops and Elders to come vnto him by appeales Wherefore that distinction of the Church-causes and the Church-questions is not a shift of sophistrie to cast a mist vpon the truth but a point of truth to cléere the mist of your sophistry For your Iesuit citeth those textes of Innocentius to proue the Popes supremacie Whereas he claimeth iudgement to resolue the douts or that is lesse autoritie to approue the doctrine not a soueraine power to heare and determin the causes of the Church Hart. Nay his wordes are generall to the Councell of Carthage that whatsoeuer was doon in prouinces farre off it should come to the notice of the See of Rome before it were concluded Rainoldes But if you doo racke that word whatsoeuer so farre beyond his drift you make him more gréedy then the last sort of Popes who claime the greater causes of the Church onely Wherefore as when S. Paul saith all thinges are lawfull for me he meaneth not all thingâ—s absolutely and simply but all indifferent thinges according to the point which he treateth of so must you apply the wordes of Innocentius not to whatsoeuer touching Church-causes but to matters of faith called into question which the Popes being learned then and Catholike the Christian Churches vsed to referre to them that the truth approued by their consent and iudgement might for their autoritie finde the greater credit fréer passage against heretikes Hart. What say you then to Leo the great or rather to S. Gregorie who had the Church-causes euen such as touched persons referred to their Sée and willed them to be so as their epistles shew Rainoldes In déede Leo and Gregorie are somewhat large that way Though Leo as the diocese of the Roman Patriarke was lesser in his time then afterwarde in Gregories so had fewer of them Gregorie had more yet he had not all Hart. Not all but all the greater And that is as much as the last sort of Popes claime Rainoldes But they claime all the greater through the whole world which Gregorie neither had nor claimed Hart. No Is it not manifest by all his Epistles that hée dealt with the causes of Bishops in Italie Spaine Fraunce Afrike Corsica Sardinia Sicilia Dalmatia and many countries mo Rainoldes Yet he dealt neither with all the greater causes nor through the whole world And this very shew of the names of couÌ„tries by which your Irish champion doth thinke the Popes supremacie to be cléerely proued is a demonstration in truth to disproue it For rehersing only those which you haue named with England Ireland Corcyra and Graecia and saying that Gregorie did practise the supremacie ouer their Bishops and Churches though neither prouing so much but admit he proued it yet in bringing only the names and proofes of these he sheweth that Gregorie did not practise it ouer the Bishops and Churches of Thracia Mysia Scythia Galatia Bithynia Cappadocia Armenia Pamphylia Lydia Pisidia Lycaonia Phrygia Lycia Caria Hellespontus Aegypt Iury Phoenicia Syria Cilicia Cyprus Arabia Mesopotania Isauria with the rest of the countries subiect to the Patriarkes of Constantinople Alexandria Antioche and Ierusalem Hart. Though S. Gregorie speake not of these particularly yet he sheweth in generall his supremacie ouer them For whereas the Patriarke saith he doth confesse himselfe to be subiect to the See Apostolike if any fault bee founde in Bishops I know not what Bishop is not subiect to it Behold not onely Bishops but the Patriarkes also subiect to the Pope by S. Gregories iudgement yea by their owne confession Rainoldes Nay it was not a Patriarke but a Primate who confessed that And a Primate is but a Bishop of the first and cheefest See in a Prouince that is a Metropolitan Hart. It was Primas Byzancenus that is to say the Patriarke of Constantinople as it is expounded in the glose on Gratian For Constantinople was called Byzantium first Rainoldes Gratian and his glose were deceiued both For primas Byzacenus or Byzancenus if you reade it so is Primate of Byzacium called Byzantium too which was a prouince of Afrike and therfore had a Primate as Councels of that countrie shew Whom and not the Patriarke
point proueth the Papacy And what his iudgement was thereof I haue declared Now for them first who asked the aduise and counsell of the Pope I will tell you a storie which I pray consider of Theodosius the Emperour desirous to procure the peace of the Church consulted with Nectarius the Patriarke of Constantinople what way might best be taken for ending controuersies of religion The Patriarke imparted the matter to Agelius a Nouatian Bishop The Bishop to Sisinius a reader in his church The reader gaue aduise and counsel to the Patriarke Which the Patriarke liked of and shewed it to the Emperour the Emperour embraced it and dealt according thereunto Hart. You would inferre hereof that the auncient Fathers might aske the Popes counsell and yet not acknowledge him to be their supreme head Rainoldes True as the Emperour might of the Patriarke the Patriarke of the Bishop the Bishop of the reader Hart. The case is not like For it was the personal wisdome vertue lerning or faith of these men which made them to be sought to But that which made the Fathers séeke to the Popes was the prerogatiue of their office Rainoldes Wherein they could not erre as you heard say at Rhemes But you who distinguish the office of the Popes from their personall faith and giftes in this sorte must be put in mind that by the same reason Sergius the Patriarke of Constantinople sought to Pope Honorius in respect not of his personall wisedome vertue learning or faith but of his office too And so shall your selfe be forced to confesse that eyther the Pope may erre in consultations which he dealeth with by reason of his office as Pope Honorius did or the Fathers séeking to the Popes for counsell did séeke in respect of their personall giftes that they were learned and godly Pastours as many sought to Austin then to Caluin lately though neither of them were Pope Hart. Nay it is certaine that S. Ierom sought to Damasus for his office sake For he speaketh namely of the chaire of Peter that is the Sée Apostolike committed to Damasus Rainoldes But withall he speaketh of the inheritance of the Fathers that is the Christian faith which Damasus kept vncorrupted And therfore he sought to him as a godly lerned not as a Pastour only not for his office sake alone but for his person succéeding as in place so in doctrine to Peter Though in whatsoeuer respect and consideration Ierom sought to Damasus his séeking to be resolued in a point of faith doth not import soueraintie of power as I haue shewed Much les doth the counsell that Basill asked import it about asswaging of their troubles Least of all that Austin and the Bishop of Afrike who vnder shew of asking counsell of Innocentius in trueth gaue him counsell for feare least the Pelagians should haue seduced him to their errour Wherefore the auncient Fathers who sought aduise of Popes proue not the Popes supremacie No more doe they in déede who sought to further others or reléeue themselues by the Popes autoritie For autoritie power differ that such as are their brethrens superiours in the one may be their inferiours or equals in the other As wée agréed if you remember Hart. It may be so I graunt But they whom I named sought to Innocentius the first and other Popes as to supreme heads of all the Church in power not as to their superiours in autoritie only Rainoldes Their own wordes and déedes argue the contrarie For Chrysostome 14. being called into iudgement by his enemies namely by the Bishop of Alexandria others assembled in a Councell did appeale from them to a generall Councell and as himselfe speaketh thereof to iust iudgement Whereby hee declareth that the lawfull power of iudging his cause belonged to the Councell and not to the Pope Hart. But when he was depriued and cast out of his Bishoprike notwithstanding his appealing to the generall Councell he requested the Pope to write that those things being wrongfully done were of no force as in deed they were not and that they who did him such wrong might bee punished Rainoldes But in this request hée dealt with the Pope as with a member only of the generall Councell to which hée had appealed a member in power a principall member in autoritie For in praying him aboue the rest to write he shewed that he thought him to be of greater credit then other of his brethren But in appealing to them all ioyntly not to him alone hée shewed that the right of iudging the matter belonged not to him but to them in common Which is playner yet by that he saith farther of Bishops in seuerall that they are forbidden by lawes of the Fathers to take on thē the iudging of such as are without the limites of their diocese Wherefore the preeminence which Chrysostome gaue the Pope was of autoritie not of power The same I say of Basil or rather himselfe saith it desiring that the Pope would vse his own autoritie in sending men to succour them Hart. You doe vs great iniurie by this newe distinction of autoritie and power For Basil meant power when he named autoritie Rainoldes You will not say so if you weigh the grounde and circumstances of his spéech For the Easterne Churches being pestered with the Arian heresie by meanes of the Emperour Valens an Arian who persecuted the Catholikes the Churches of the West vnder Valentinian a Catholike Emperour did flourish with sinceritie of faith and faithfull Bishops Whereupon S. Basil conferring with Athanasius both Bishops of the East about their Churches state saith that the consent of the Westerne Bishops is the onely way meanes to helpe it in his iudgement For if they would shewe that zeale for our Churches which they did for one or two being taken among them selues in errour it is likely saith he that they should do vs good by reasō that the rulers would regard and reuerence the credit of their multitude the people euery where would folow them without gainsaying Now this whereto he wished a multitude of Bishops first is the same that afterward he sought to the Pope for Whom he prayed to deale himselfe in the matter vse his own autoritie in choosing and sending fit men to that purpose because the Westerne Bishops could not doe it easily by a cōmon conference and decree of Councell So that he desired a Councels aide chiefly because their consent multitude had greater credit as in his epistle to the Westerne Bishops themselues he saith againe It was not power therefore but credit and reputation that S. Basil meant in suing to be succoured by the autoritie of the Pope Which you must néedes graunt vnlesse you wil say that he thought the Councell to bée aboue the Pope in power against your Trent-doctrine of the Popes supreme power ouer the whole Church As
for S. Austin and the Bishops of Afrike it is too manifest that they kept this new distinction as you terme it For of the two Popes whom you say they sought to they desired the one to assist them with his autoritie the other not to chalenge power in their Church causes A great fault of yours to say that S. Austin and the Bishops of Afrike sought to Caelestinus for the prerogatiue of his office when they dealt against his vsurped prerogatiue Greater if you did it wittingly and willingly Wherof your Annotations do geue strong suspicion in that hauing quoted all the other places they lâ—â—ue this vnquoted least the reader should find the fraude Hart. I was not at the finishing of our Annotations They who set them downe knew their own meaning and will I warrant you maintaine it But what a souerainty the Fathers yéelded to the Pope it may appeare by this as D. Stapleton sheweth that they thought no Councell to be of any force vnles he confirmed it For the Fathers assembled in the Councell of Nice the first generall Councell sent their epistle to Pope Siluester beséeching him to ratifie and confyrme with his consent whatsoeuer they had ordeined Rainoldes The Councell of Nice had no such fansie of the Pope Their epistle is forged and he who forged it was not his craftes-master For one of the Fathers pretended to haue writen it is Macarius Bishop of Constantinople Whereas Constantinople had not that name yet in certaine yéeres after the date of this epistle but was called Bizantium neither was Macarius Bishop of Bizantium at that time but Alexander Moreouer they are made to request the Pope that he wil assemble the Bishops of his whole citie Which is a droonken spéech sith the Bishops of his whole citie were but one that one was himselfe Unlesse they vsed the word citie as the Pope answering them in like sort that he conferred with the Bishops of the whole citie of Italie And so it is more sober but no more séemely for the Councell of Nice Finally neither Eusebius who was at the Councell nor Rufinus nor Socrates nor Theodoret nor Sozomen nor other auncient writers doo mention any such thing Only Peter Crabbe the setter foorth of it had it out of a librarie of Friers at Coolein But wheÌ„ce had the Fryers it Hart. The Fathers of the Councell of Constantinople the second generall Councel wrote to Pope Damasus for his consent to their decrees And that is witnessed by Theodoret. Rainoldes It is and so witnessed that it ouerthroweth the Popes soueraintie which D. Stapleton would proue by it For they wrote ioyntly to Damasus Ambrose Britto Valerian Ascholius Anemie Basill and the rest of the Westerne Bishops assembled in a Councel at Rome Nor only to them but to the Emperour Theodosius Yea to Theodosius in seueral and more forcibly For they requested him to confirme and ratifie their decrees and ordinances Wherefore if the Pope haue such a supremacie whose consent and liking therof they desired what supremacie hath the Emperor whom they besought to ratifie them and to confirme them Hart. Nay your own distinction of power and authoritie dooth serue well and fitly to this of the Emperour For their decrées and ordinances of doctrine were true and of discipline good though he had not confirmed them But more would accept of them as good and true through his word countenance As we see that many doo frame themselues to Princes iudgements Wherefore it was the Emperours autoritie and credit for which they desired his confirmation of their decrées not for any soueraintie of power that he had in matters of religion Rainoldes Not for any soueraintie of power that hee had to make matters true of false or good of euill but to make his subiectes vse them as good and true being so in déede Which perhaps the Fathers of the Councell meant too But your own answere may teach you to mend your imagination of that they wrote to Pope Damasus For the doctrine of Christ which they decréed was true the discipline good though he had not consented to it But more would accept of it as good true through his agréement and allowance As we sée that manie doe follow the mindes of Bishops Wherefore it was the Popes autoritie and credit for which they desired his consent to their decrées not for any soueraintie of power that he had in matters of religion Which is plaine by their crauing not of him alone but of other Bishops to like thereof also that the Christian faith being agreed vpon and loue confirmed amongst them they might keepe the Church from schismes and dissensions Hart. All Bishops might allow the decrées of Councels by consenting to them But the Pope confirmed them in speciall sort For S. Cyrill saith of the third general Councel of Ephesus that Pope Caelestinus wrote agreeably to the Councell and confirmed all thinges that were done therein Rainoldes S. Cyrill sayth not that of Caelestinus but of Sixtus Howbeit if he had yet this would proue autoritie still and not power As Prosper noteth well that the Nestorian heresie was specially withstood by the industrie of Cyril and the authoritie of Caelestinus But these very wordes of Cyrill touching Sixtus doe ouerthrow your fansie conceaued on the Popes confirming of Councels For the Councell of Ephesus was of force and strength in Caelestinus time by your own confession Notwithstanding Sixtus who succéeded him did confirm it afterward In déede the truth dependeth neither of CouÌ„cel nor of Pope though wheÌ„ Popes Councels were good godly minded they were chosen vessels and instruments of God to set forth the truth For as Ioshua sayd to all the tribes of Israel euen to the Priests also assembled in a Councell If it seeme euill to you to serue the Lorde choose you whom you will serue whether the Gods which your Fathers serued or the Gods of the Amorites but I and my house will serue the Lord so the right faith and religion of Christ is firme of it selfe and ought to be imbraced of euery Christian with his houshold whether it please the tribes that is the Church or no. But the Church is named the piller and ground of truth in respect of men because it beareth vp the truth and confirmeth it through preaching of the word by the ministerie of Priests in the old testament and Bishops in the new whom therefore Basil termeth the pillers and ground of truth Now the more there be of these who maintaine it and the greater credit they haue amongst men the stronger and surer the truth doth séeme to be and many yéeld the sooner to it For which cause the doctrine of Barnabas and Paul though assuredly true yet was coÌ„firmed by Iames Peter and Iohn who were counted to be
and meaning of their whole sentences For the Councell of Afrike though bearing a while with the Popes claime till the Nicen canons whereby he claimed were serched yet at length condemned it as I haue shewed and of the foure generall Councels as the former two did enclose the Pope within his owne prouince or diocese at the most so did the two later of Ephâ—sus and Chalcedon confirming the decrées and canons of the former Hart. Nay doubtlesse at Chalcedon the Iudges hauing heard the former canons read sayd that they perceiued al primacie principall honour to be due to the Pope thereby Rainoldes But they added that the Patriarke of Constantinople ought to be vouchsafed of the same prerogatiues and primacie of honour As the Câ—uncell also it selfe allotted equall prerogatiues to them both ordeining therevpon that Constantinople should be magnified in ecclesiasticall matters as well as Rome and be next vnto it Wherein it is manifest that they meant preeminence of honour not of power For themselues decréed that the highest iudge of ecclesiasticall persons should be the Patriarke of the diocese or of Constantinople Wherby they gaue greater power to the Patriarke of Constantinople whom they authorised to deale in euery diocese then to the Roman Patriarke whom they tied to his own In so much that the Greekes say that all dioceses of the whole world were subiect to their Patriarke by the Councell of Chalcedon At least if the Councel haâ— an eye to power and not to honour only in willing them to be magnified yet that is a disproofe still of the Popes supremacie As you may learne by Gratian. Who séeking to proue it by the same canon renued in the Councell of Constantinople hath helped it with a negatiue and where the Councell sayd Let Constantinople be magnified as well as Rome he alleageth it let not Constantinople be magnified as well as Rome Hart. The Councell which that canon was renued in is vntruly called the sixth general Councel For they made no canons Rainoldes Yet a Councell made them in Constantinople with credit of a generall And the next generall Councell did confirme them Which thereby disproued the Popes supremacie too Yea againe the next defined of the Pope as of other Patriarkes and that vpon the ground of the famous Nicen. To be short the visible Monarchie of the Church was neuer allowed to him by any Councell generall or prouinciall vntil the East Churches were rent from the West and the Italian faction did beare the sway in Councels Hart. What meane you to say so wheras the Councell of Lateran vnder InnoceÌ„tius did approue it flatly the Patriarks of the Churches of Constantinople and Ierusalem being present Rainoldes Not the right Patriarkes I trow Though if they had bene yet might the Italians make decrées in Lateran at Rome without them But nether did that Councell approue the Popes Monarchie For the Popes Monarchie is a full and absolute soueraintie of power ouer the whole Church Wherevpon the principall proctours of it teach that not a generall Councell is aboue the Pope but the Pope aboue the CouÌ„cel For they sayth Father Robert who hold that the Councel is aboue the Pope do make him like a Duke of Venice aboue euery magistrate and senatour in seuerall not aboue the whole Senate But he is aboue the whole Church absolutely and aboue the generall Councell so that he acknowledgeth no iudge on earth aboue him Now the soueraintie of ordinarie power geuen to the Pope ouer all Churches by the Councell of Lateran vnder Innocentius was but as it were a Dukedome of Venice ouer euery Church and Bishop in seuerall not ouer the whole Church A signorie of great state but not a Popes Monarchie His Monarchie was neyther allowed by that Councell nor by any other for many ages after nay it was condemned expresly by the Councell of Constance of Basil. The first that allowed it was the Councell of Lateran vnder Leo the tenth a thousand fyue hundred and syxtéene yeres after Christ. Hart. Nay the Councel of Florence had allowed it a fourescore yeres before the Greeke and Latin Bishops subscribing both thereto Rainoldes But in such sort that your Roman reader though making the most thereof for the Popes credit was fainâ— yet to say that the Councel of Florence did not define it so expressely In truth the Greeke Bishops answered of themselues for they might not treate thereof without consent they sayd of their whole Church but of themselues they answered that the Pope ought to haue the same prerogatiues that he had before the time of their dissension Which is a great presumption that when they subscribed to more then the same it was not of themselues Chiefly sith they came besides so constrainedly to that which they did and refused to obey the Pope when they had done it But Leo the tenth with his Italian faction in Lateran defined it From whom the Uniuersitie of Parise appealed straight to a Councell and condemned his Lateran doctrine and decrée as the Uniuersities of Lâ—uan of Coolein of Vienna and of Cracouia had done before also The consent therefore of Pastours and Doctours throughout all Christendome hath disallowed the Popes Monarchie And that which the Pastours and Doctors deliuered was the religion of their Churches Whereby you may sée the truth of that I sayd that except the crew of the Italian faction all Christian Churches haue condemned his vsurped soueraintie Hart. Truly I must confesse I sée more probabilitie on your side then I did But in that you said that all Christian Churches haue condemned it and doe till this day you forgot your selfe who granted before that by the Trent-doctrine the Pope is aboue the Councell For the doctrine agreed on by the Councell of Trent which you call the of Trent-doctrine is held by Catholike Christians through the whole Church at this day Rainoldes I said that all Christian Churches haue condemned it and doe except the crew of the Italian faction Which spéeche agréeth well with that I said before of the Councell Trent For the Trent-doctrine of the Popes supremacie is that which the Italian faction at Trent did ouerbeaâ—e the rest in As Claudius Espencaeus a Diuine of Parise a Doctour of your own witnesseth saying that Ludouicus the Cardinall of Arle did complaine iustly at the Councell of Basil that looke what the Italian nation liketh of that is decreed in Councels this is that Helena which did preuaile of late at Trent Now that which the Cardinal Ludouicus spake of was that in Councels not only Bishops but Elders too should haue voices as of old time they had for if Bishops only haue voices sayth the Cardinall then shal that be done that shall seeme good to the Italian nation which alone
there is any faute in the diall I meane in the Church for that can not be as Pighius proueth pretily but because perhaps either Christ him selfe hath tooke an other course and is altered I know not by what changeablenes of God or els the whole scripture is slipt from the point in the which it stood But let vs right woorshipfull who know that the dials and clockes doo mysse often but the course of the sunne is certaine and constant let vs make more account of the sunne then of a diall of heauen then of Plinie of the Zodiake circle then of the field of Flora of God then of men of Christ then of Pighius of the holy scripture then of the church For God forbid there should be any amongst vs so beastly a monster in the shape of man as to set vp Antichrist in the temple of God aboue God and to attribute more to any either man or multitude of men then to the Lord of maiestie But so doo they no dout who haue the Church in greater regard then the scripture For the voice of the scripture is the voice of God the voice of the Church is the voice of men Then if it be impious to set vp men aboue God doubtlesse to set vp the Church aboue the scripture it is Antichristian Nor yet doo I deny that the Churches voice is sometimes the voice of God For in appeasing the offenses and reprouing the sinnes of brethren if thy brother saith Christ refuse to heare the church let him be to thee as a heathen man and a Publican But the holy spirit that is the spirit of truth doth speake both alone and alwaies in the scripture An humaine spirit that is a spirit of errour hath a part sometimes in the spéech of the Church Both which pointes I haue proued by the word of God the euidence of the thing and the confessions of our aduersaries Why doo we not then acknowledge that the royall prerogatiue of this priuilege to bee altogither exempt from all errour is due to scripture onely and confesse as Austin doth against the Donatistes that it is peculiar and proper to the holy canonicall scripture that all things which are writen therein be true and right but the letters and writings of Bishops as of Cyprian yea the very Councels not prouinciall onely but also full and generall haue often times somewhat that may be amended I for my part doo gladly both allow this sentence of Austin and iudge it woorthy to be allowed as agréeable to the trueth And therefore I conclude the point which I proposed that the holy scripture is of greater credit and autoritie then the church Thus you haue my iudgement right learned Inceptors touching the Conclusions which are to be disputed of opened in more wordes perhaps then your wisedome in fewer then the weight of the things required But I haue waded so farre in the opening of them as I thought the Proctors might wel giue me leaue by the straitnes of time As for that which néedeth to be discussed farther I will assay to open it as well as I can if occasion serue when the aduersarie arguments shall bée proposed in disputation CONCLVSIONS HANDLED IN DIVINITIE SCHOOLE THE III. OF NOVEMBER 1579. 1 The holy Catholike Church which we beleeue is the whole company of Gods elect and chosen HE who the sea the earth the skyes made by his worde of nought Who by eternall power doth guide and rule all things he wrought Did choose from out the sonnes of men before the world was pight Such as with blessed angels aye should ioy his blisfull sight The Iewes are not the onely men that make this holy band But they are souldiers chosen out of euery toung and land Where on the south the mightie prince of Abissines doth raigne Where on the north the coasts do lye that looke to Charles waine Where Phaebus with his glistring beames doth raise the dawning light And sinking in the westerne seas doth bring the darksome night The fleâ—h can not by natures light such hidden truthes pursue But Christian faith by light of grace this Catholike Church doth vew 2 The Church of Rome is not the Catholike Church nor a sound member of the catholike Church THey do not well who shut the world within the Roman boundes Christs Church is spred through al the earth without restraint of mounds Rome was I grant a faithfull branch of this renowned vine Rome was a myrrour that in grace in zeale in loue did shine Rome was commended farre and wide for faith in Christ his name For Peters doctrine taught and kept Rome was of worthy fame But where Rome was now ruines are The Capitoll is sâ—ooried The grouÌ„d is bathde in Christians blood whoÌ„ Romish woolues haue wooried Her Churches are with idoles stained her guides with maners vile Whom lustfull traines and wicked hearts and beds vnchast defile O thrise vnhappie Babylon that Sions spoyle doost woorke Under the noble name and hue of Sion wouldest thou lurke 3 The reformed churches in England Scotland France Germany and other kingdomes common wealthes haue seuered them selues lawfully from the church of Rome A Place of haunt for deuils and sprits is Babylon waxt saith Iohn Art thou desirous to be saued from Babylon be gon The names and trickes of Babylon Rome on it selfe doth take Then if ye séeke eternall life sée that ye Rome forsake This haue the noble Germanes done bidding the Pope a dieu England hath followed Germany Romes thraldome to eschew Beholde the Lord hath called on the Flemish French and Dane And Scotland hath escaped eke the Papall deadly bane O that the remnant of the world by faith to Christ were knit And Princes to the Prince of all their scepters would submit Build vp O Lord O father deare the church and Sions for t That vnto thée from Babylon thy people may resort AMongst many singular benefits of God bestowed vpon our Vniuersitie fathers and brethren which may be very fruitfull to the aduancing of Gods glory and saluation of the Church if they be well husbanded there is scarse any more excellent in my iudgement then that it is ordered that the truth giuen by inspiration of God and registred in the Scripture should be not expounded onely by publike lectures but also proued by disputations A woorthy and profitable ordinance no doubt and most méete for schooles which serue to traine vp Christians that is for schooles of God For what can there be more pretious then the truth which teacheth vs the knowledge of God the way to life And what more conuenient to strengthen the truth then to haue it proued by discussing the reasons brought of both partes For as golde being digged out of the veines of the earth is seuered from earthy substance mixt therewith by the mettall-workemen knocking it together and as husbandmen are wont to sift wheat from the chaffe by winowing that it may be fit to nourish the body
Libell Sinodicar constit lat 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 q Epist. 29 tom 4. oper Cyrill r In chronico s â—os 24. ver 1. t ver 15. u 1. Tim. 3.15 x Mal. 2.7 y Act 20 â—8 z Epist. 70. a Gal. 2. v. 1. 2 b ver â— c v. 6. 9. e ver 31. f Act. 16. ver 4. g ver â— h Athanas. in Apolog. 2. Theodoret hist eccles l. 2. cap. 8. i Epist. 90. inter epist. August k Defens fid Trideâ—t lib. 1. * Doctissimi viri sâ—pientissimè existimant l Alfonsuâ— a Castro de iusta haereticorum puâ—itione l. 1. c. 6. m Iohan ruriecrem de Pont. Max. gener que Concil autoritate ad Basilâ—eÌ„sium oratorem respon nu 67. 6â— 1 Non potestate iurisdictionis 2 Sed autoritate discretiui iudicij or maioritate as Turrecremata calleth it in Summ. de eccles l. 3. c. 64. n Hist. tripart l. 4. c. 15. Socrat l. 2. c. 15. Sozomen l. 3. c. 8. o D. Stapleton Princip doctr lib. 4. cap. 19. p lib. 7. c. 10. q Apologia 2. r In epist. ad episcopos Antiochiae congregatos Apud Athan apol 2. s Rescripâ— Iulij Papae câ—â—tra orientales Conc. Tom. 1. t In the 3. Diuision of this Chapter u Hist. eccle l. 2. cap. 17. x lib. 3 cap. 10. y Conci Nicaen caâ— 5. z Princ. doctr lib. 7. ca. 10. a Iulius in epi. ad episcopos Anâ—ioâ—h congregat Apud Athan apolog 2. 1 Vt pâ—imum nobis scribatur 2 Oportuit scribere omnibus nobis b Epist. ad Theodosiam c Epist. ad Leonem d Epist. 13. 3 Flauianus 〈◊〉 appellauit e Epist. Gallae Placidiae ad Theodosium 4 〈◊〉 ad omnes episcapos haiú partium f Concil Chalc. act 1. g act 8. h Theodoret. epist ad Leon. i â—elat Synod Chalceâ—on ad Leon. act 3. k Athan. in ep ad solitar vitam agent Apolog. de â—uga â—ua Apolog. 2. l As it appeareth by their epistle to Damasus in Theodoâ—et Hist. eccles lib. 5. c. 9. m Hâ—â—tor eccle lib. 1. cap. 4. n Valentinian Martian ep ad Pallad Concil Chalcedon act 3. Episcopi variarum pâ—oâ—â—nciaruÌ„ act 4. o Acta Ephes. Synod 2. in coÌ„cil Chalc. act 1. p Summa de ecclesia lib. 3. cap. 23. 1 Praesidentiae honoraria 2 Autoritatiua as Turrecrema to calleth it But he vseth that word to note potestateÌ„ and not 〈◊〉 reputationis as hâ— disâ—inguisheth it lib. 3. cap. 18. q â—s the ClemeÌ„tines shew Iohan. Andr. in pâ—incâ—p ClemeÌ„tin r Summa de eccles lib. 3. ca. 22.23 25. s Canus Iocor Theolog. l. 5. c. 5. Sander de visib monarc eccles lib. 2. cap. 5. 〈◊〉 passim t Conc. Chalc. act 3. 8. u act 3. x Cyprian lib. â— epist. 11. y Optatus lib. 2. z Victor de persequut Vaâ—â—dal lib. 2. a Chrysos hom 87. in Iohan. b In Anchorat c Hom. 87. in Iohan. d Ambros. com in 1. Tim. 3. e August quaest ex nou Testam quaest 75. f Chrysost. hom 59. in Mat. g Lib. 1. cap. 1. ad Bonifacium h Epistola dedicatoâ—ia Pontifici optimo Maximo Gregorio decimo tertio ad humâ—llima pedum oscula i Martianus in epist. ad Leon. * Which is as much to say as Great is Diana of the Ephesians Act. 19.28 k So Alfonsus proueth him aduers. haeres lib. 10. in Melchisedec and the Diuines of LouaÌ„ Censura in lib. quaest ver nou Test. in append Tom. 4. oper Augustin l Concil chalc act 3. m Concil Lateran sub Leone decim sess 10. n Stephan archiepisc Patrac episc Torcellan 1 Tibi data est omnis potestas in câ—elo in terra Spoken to Pope Leo the tenth 2 In quo erat omnis potestas supra omnes potestates tam coeli quam terrae Spoken of Pope Eugeniuâ— the third o Registr lib. 4. epist. 32. 36. p epist. 32. q epist. 38. r epist. 39. s l. 6. ep 24. t l. 4. ep 32. 38. u Regist. lib. 7. ind 2. ep 63. as I haue shewed in the former Diuision x lib. 7. ind 1. epist. 30. y Concil Chalced â—an 9 17. â—8 and in the Sessions throughout z Adrian the 〈◊〉 Synod 〈◊〉 2. act 2. a Epist. Arsen. Athanas. apol 2 b Epist. concilâ— Nicaeni Socrat. l. 1. c. 6. concilii Sardicensis Theodoret. li. 2. ca. 8. Quint. coÌ„cil Constantinop coÌ„fess 8. in subscript c Lib. 3. ep 11. Epist. 46. edit Pam. Corneliuâ— Cypriano d Epist. ad Fabium Antioch eâ—piscopum e Euseb. hist. eccles lib. 6. c. 42. * As it is shewed before Châ—pt 5. 〈◊〉 2. f Cyprian epist. 52. ad Anâ—on g Epist. 5â— ad Corneliuâ— h Eâ—ist 46. Cornelij ad Cypâ— i In the thirde Diuision of this Chapter k Can. 8. l Socrat hist. eccl l. 6. c. 20. m Epist. 55. ad Cornelium 1 Sacerdotum hostes coÌ„tra ecclesia catholicam rebelles 2 Sacerdotes id est dispensatores Dei 3 Episcopus plebi suae in episcopatu quadriennio iam probatus Eusebius in chron Damasus in Pontificali Platin. de vit Pontificum Geâ—â—brard Cronogr lib. 3. Oâ—uphr in ChroÌ„ Pont. Rom. o Epist. 69. ad Florentium p Annotat. in Luk. 12.31 q Polus Caâ—d pro eccles vnitat defens lib. 2. Remundus Rufus duplicat in patronum Molinâ—i propont Maximo Canisius Catechism de praeceptis ecclesiae tit 9. Lindanus Panopliae Euangelicae lib. 4. cap. 86. Pamelius Annotat. in Cyprian epi. 55. Copus dialog 1 cap. 18. 21. Haâ—ding and DormaÌ„ against Bishop Iewel Though Dorâ—man being taught the truth by M. Nowell acknowledged that S. Cyprian meant it of all Bishops As Stapleton in Hardings behalfe coÌ„fessed also whose exaÌ„ple should haue moued the Rhemists to haue spared S. Cyprian in that point r In his Return of vntruths on M. Iewels repliâ— Artic. 4. s Princip doct lib. 7. cap. 1. t In conclusione totius operis admonit ad lectorem u Depersequut Vandal lib. 2. x In the fifth Diuision of this Chapter y Praefat. in Biblia excusa Antuerp a Plantino Censur in lib. quaest vet nou Test. Tom. 4. in append operum August z Commentaria quae Ambrosij titulum ferunt in 1. Tim. 3. a Damaso Siriciu â—odie b Lib â— As Baldâ—â—nâ— sheweth Annot. in 〈◊〉 lib. 1. 2. c Cenâ—â—r in lib. 〈…〉 4. d 〈…〉 Pope vntill about 370. â—ieron in Chron. e Lib. quaest vet nou testam quaest 115. f The Rhemists in theâ—r Annot. 〈◊〉 1. Tim. 3.15 g 1. Tim. 1.3 4 Roman ecclesiae sacerdos h Epist. ad ValeÌ„tiâ—ian Impetat contra Symmachum i Contra dâ—as epâ—st Pelag anâ—t ad Bonifaâ—â—uâ— liâ— 1. c. â— k Can. 3. 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as â—he counâ—â—l oâ— Chalcedâ— iâ—â—erpreteth their fact câ—n 2â—