sacrifice spoken of in Malachie is one and therefore betokeneth not spirituall sacrifices the which are as many as there are Christian good workes Hart. Why Because the text of the Prophet Malachie saith that there is offered a cleane oblation or offering as you call it And offering is spoken of one not of many For els he should haue saide offerings not offering Rainoldes So. And doo you thinke that he who said to God sacrifice offering thou art not delited with or as you translate it host and oblation thou wouldest not did meane the Masse by that host Hart. The Masse No. He meant the hostes and oblations of the old law For they are the wordes of the Prophet Dauid spoken of the legall and carnall sacrifices of the Iewes Rainoldes The Iewes Nay the text of the Prophet Dauid saith that God mislyked host and oblation it saith not hostes and oblations Wherefore sith he speaketh of one not of many and the carnall sacrifices of the Iewes were many but the sacrifice of the Masse is one as you say it séemeth he should meane that A point some what dangerous for the host which your Priests lift vp to be adored More dangerous for them who liue by lifting it vp Hart. Our adoration of the host is good in spite of all heretikes and not reproued by the Prophet For although he saith host and oblation thou wouldest not yet is it plaine he meaneth the sacrifices of the Iewes by a figure of spéech in which a part is vsed for the whole and one for many as host and oblation for hostes and oblations Rainoldes Then Allens second reason is not worth a shoobuckle to proue that the sacrifice of the Masse is meant by the oblation in Malachie For the word oblation or offering which he vseth in his owne language is vsed likewise still as of one not as of many through all the olde testament Wherefore if the sacrifices of the Iewes were many which neuerthelesse are called not offerings but offering the same worde applyed to the sacrifices of Christians can not inforce them to be one Howbeit were they one to graunt you that by a supposall yet might that one sacrifice be a spirituall sacrifice and so your Masse no whit the neerer For as the Prophet Esay saith that the Gentiles shal be an offering to the Lord vsing the same worde that the Prophet Malachie so the Apostle Paul exhorteth them with Esay to present their bodies a liuing sacrifice holy acceptable vnto God speaking of their sundry sacrifices as one as also in a mysterie we that are many are one body But without supposall the course of the text doth import rather that the Prophet saying there is offered an offering doth meane not one but many by that figure which you touched as by an other figure he saith it is offered meaning it shall be offered For the Lord declaring his detestation of the sacrifices of the Iewish Priests saith that he will not accept an offering at their hand but the Gentiles shall offer to him a cleane offering which he meaneth of the contrarie that he will accept And this he sheweth farther where touching it againe he saith it shall be offered vnto him in righteousnesse and shal be acceptable to him Now the offering that is acceptable to God from the Gentiles in the new testament is all sortes of spirituall sacrifices and good workes By the offering therefore mentioned in Malachie there are many sacrifices meant not one onely Which yet your olde translation maketh more euident opening the meaning of the Hebrew word by terming it sacrifices They shall offer sacrifices to the Lord in righteousenesse Wherefore sith our offering that should please God in the time of the gospell is sacrifices by the iudgement of your old translation which you in no case may refuse and sacrifices can not be meant of the Masse for that is one sacrifice but of spirituall sacrifices it may for they are many as Allens second reason saith you see we must conclude on his owne principles that the cleane offering which Malachie writeth of doth signifie the spirituall sacrifices of Christians and not the sacrifice of the Masse The third and fourth reasons haue greater shew but lesser weight For though it be true that spirituall sacrifices of praying to God and doing good to men are common to the Iewes with vs and therefore may seeme not to be the offering spoken of in Malachie which beside that it is proper to the Gospell and the Gentiles it should succeed also the sacrifices of the Iewes and be offered in their steede yet if we marke the difference that the scriptures put betweene the Iewish worship of God in the law and the Christian in the gospel that séeming wil melt as snow before the sunne For in the law of Moses the Iewes to the intent that both their redemption by the death of Christ dutie of thankfulnesse which they did owe to God for it might stil be set before them as in a figure shadow were willed to offer beastes without spot blemish in sacrifice with ceremonies thereto annexed and to offer them in the place that God should choose which was the citie of Ierusalem and the sanctuarie that is to say the temple built therein Now Christ in the gospell when that was fulfilled which the temple of Ierusalem and sacrifices did represent shewed that the time of reformation was come and remoued that worship both in respect of the place and of the maner of it For as it was prophecied that he should destroy the citie and the sanctuary and cause the sacrifice and offering to cease so him selfe taught that now the Father would not be worshipped in Ierusalem nor as the Iewes did worship him but he would be worshipped in spirit and truth The Christian worship therefore that did succéede the Iewish doth differ from it in two pointes one that it worshippeth God not in Ierusalem but in all places an other that it worshippeth him in spirit and truth in spirit without the carnall ceremonies rites in truth without the shadowes of the law of Moses The which sort of worship séeing hee requireth of the true worshippers that is of all the Saintes his seruants and in the new testament the Gentiles by the Gospell are called to be Saintes the worship that is proper to the Gospell and the Gentiles is the true spirituall worship of God the reasonable seruing of him by godlines and good workes in righteousnes and true holines euen the offering vp of spirituall sacrifices acceptable to God by Iesus Christ. And thus you may sée the weakenes of those cauils which are brought to proue that our spirituall sacrifices cannot be the offering whereof God in Malachie saith it shall be offered
your Priestes of the tribe of Leui who offer vp this sacrifice Hart. No syr nor of the Iewes but they are Christian Priestes Rainoldes But they who must offer the sacrifice that is spoken of in the prophet Malachie are of the tribe of Leui. For afterward entreating of the same oblation or offering as we cal it that shall be offered vnto God in the time of the gospell he saith that the Lord shall fine the sonnes of Leui and purifie them as gold and siluer that they may offer an offering vnto God in righteousnes Wherefore if the offering that Malachie doth speake of be the sacrifice of the Masse that is a sacrifice properly then the proper Priestes by whom it is offered are the Iewish Priests after the order of Aaron euen the sonnes of Leui. But if the sonnes of Leui betoken by a figure the spirituall Leuits that is all the faithfull whom Christ in the new testament hath made a royall Priesthood euen Kings and Priestes to God his father as your Montanus well expoundeth it then must the offering by a figure signifie the spirituall sacrifice which Christians of all sortes are bound to offer vnto God And in truth as Christ said of Iohn Baptist If you will receiue it this is Elias which was to come meaning that the Prophet did signifie Iohn Baptist by the name of Elias so I may say to you touching the spirituall sacrifices of Christians If you will receiue it this is the cleane offering which should in euery place be offered to the Lord. For the Prophets when they spake of the gospell of Christ and the religious worship of God in spirit and truth which Gentiles conuerted by the preaching of the gospell should serue him in through all the world are wont to describe it by figuratiue spéeches drawen from the externall and carnall worship of God in the ceremonies of the law So they say that there shall be an altar of the Lord in the middes of the land of Egypt that God will accept the burnt offrings and sacrifices of straungers vpon his altar that all the sheeepe of Kedar shall be offefered on it and the rammes of Nebaioth that the Gentiles shall go vp to keepe the feast of tabernacles from yeare to yeare vnto Ierusalem and euery pot in Ierusalem and Iuda shall be holy to the Lord of hostes and all they who sacrifice shall come take of them and seeth therein finally that the offering of Iuda and Ierusalem shal be sweete vnto the Lord as in the dayes of old and in the yeares afore Wherefore as the Prophets doo mention an offering which the Christian Church shall offer vnto God in the time of the gospell so doo they mention burnt offeringes and sacrifices the sheepe of Kedar the rammes of Nebaioth to bee offered on an altar they mention Ierusalem to bee gone vnto the feast of tabernacles to be kept the flesh of beastes sacrificed to be sodde in pottes the Leuites to be the Ministers who shall make the offering in righteousnesse to God But neither doth the Priesthood of the Leuites continue neither is Ierusalem the place to worship God neither are the Iewish feastes the times to doo it nor will he be serued with sacrifice and offering if they be taken properly The Prophets therefore meant by an allegorie as we terme it to shew that all Christians should as Priests and Leuites offer vp them selues and theirs as sacrifices at all times as solemne feastes in all places as in Ierusalem And so the cleane offering whereof the Prophet Malachie saith it shal be offered in euery place vnto the Lord doth signifie not a sacrifice to be made vpon an altar as your Councell would haue it but the spirituall sacrifice which S. Paul exhorteth the faithfull to offer when he willeth men to pray in euery place lifting vp pure handes without wrath douting Hart. The Prophetes speake much in déed of thinges to come not properly and simply but figuratiuely by obscure spéeches and allegories and parables that must be vnderstood otherwise then they are writen as Tertullian noteth But the name of altar is vsed properly for a materiall altar by the Apostle to the Hebrewes saying we haue an altar whereof they haue not power to eate which serue the tabernacle For he putteth them in minde by these wordes that in folowing too much their olde Iewish rites they depriued themselues of an other maner a more excellent sacrifice and meate meaning of the holy altar and Christes owne blessed body offered and eaten there Of which they that continue in the figures of the old law could not be partakers This altar saith Isychius is the altar of Christes body which the Iewes for their incredulitie must not behold And the Gréeke worde as also the Hebrew answering thereunto in the old testament signifieth properly an altar to sacrifice on and not a metaphoricall and spirituall altar Wherefore séeing that we haue a very altar in the proper sense and the name of altar doth import a sacrifice that is offered on it it foloweth that the body of Christ vpon the altar is a very sacrifice in the proper sense And that out of doubt is the cleane offering which the Prophet speaketh of according as the Councell of Trent hath defined Rainoldes And are you out of doubt that by the wordes we haue an altar the Apostle meaneth a materiall altar such as your altars made of stone Hart. What els a very altar Rainoldes And they who haue not power to eate of this altar are the stubberne Iewes who keepe the ceremonies of the law Hart. The Iewes and such prophane men Rainoldes Then your Masse-priestes may and doo vse to â—ate of this altar Hart. They doo And what then Rainoldes Their téeth be good and strong if they eate of an altar that is made of stone Are ye sure that they eate of it Hart. Eate of an altar As though ye knew not that by the altar the sacrifice which is offered vpon the altar is signifyed They eate of Christes body which thereby is meant Rainoldes Is it so Then the worde altar is not taken for a very altar in the proper sense but figuratiuely for the body of Christ the which was sacrificed and offered Neither is it taken for the body of Christ in that respect that Christ is offered in the sacrament in the which sort he is mystically offered as often as the faithfull doo eate of that bread and drinke of that cuppe wherein the breaking of his body and shedding of his blood is represented to them but in that respect that Christ was offered on the crosse in the which sort he was truly offered not often but once to take away the sinnes of many and to sanctifie them for euer who beleeue in him Hart. Nay the auncient Father Isychius expoundeth it
would haue me thinkes no ceremonies at all for you saide that the worship of God amongst Christians is spirituall meerely Rainoldes I spake in comparison of the Iewish worship or rather Christ not I. For they are his wordes that God will be worshipped now in spirit and truth Which must néedes be meant of meere spirituall worship sith the reason folowing that God is a spirit doth shew that the Iewes did worship him in spirit too And yet is that spoken in comparison as I saide For Christ him selfe ordeined two principall ceremonies which we call the sacraments his Supper and his Baptisme And the Church-assemblies which are helpes most necessarie for vs to learne and practise that spirituall worship must haue their time when their place where their maner how things to be directed with coomelinesse and order in rites fit to edifie But these are few in number and cléere in signification So few that they are nothing in comparison of the Iewish so cléere that they do liuely represent Christ and are no darke shadowes Now whether that your Popish ceremonies haue kept this fewnes and cléerenes Hart. Perhaps you meane because we haue seuen sacraments and not two onely But the Fathers as namely S. Austin though your men alleage him to the contrary doo name other sacraments beside the Lordes Supper as you call it and Baptisme Rainoldes But S. Austin nameth not your seuen sacraments as you may see by his Confession Hart. Yet he nameth more then your two sacraments And the rest of ours are proued by other Fathers Whereupon the Councell of Trent hath defined that there are seuen sacraments of the new law neither more nor fewer they all are sacraments truly and properly Rainoldes The Fathers doo commonly vse the word sacrament for a mystery or signe of a holy thing And so you may proue seuen and twentie sacraments by them as well as seuen Which is manifest by S. Austin whom you pretend herein most For as he giueth the name of sacrament to mariage to the ordering of ministers to laying on of hands and reconciâ—â—ng of the repentant so he giueth it to Easter and to the Lords day to the sanctifying and instructing of nouices in the faith the feeding the signing the catechizing of them the making of prayers the singing of Psalmes and so forth to other holy rites and actions But as the worde sacrament is taken in a straiter signification to note the visible signes inistuted by Christ for the assurance and increase of grace in the faithfull which is the sense of it both with you and vs when we speake of sacraments so doth he name those two as principall ones by an excellencie and when there issued blood and water out of Christes side these are the two sacraments saith he of the Church meaning the Lordes supper by blood by water baptisme Yea the Schoolemen them selues who were the first autours that did raise them vp to the precise number of seuen no more nor fewer for you â—â—nde it not in any of the Fathers or other writers whatsoeuer before a thousand yeares after Christ but the Schoolemen them selues haue shewed that the seuen are not all sacraments if the name of sacrament be taken properly and straitly For neither can mariage so be of the number as Durand proueth well neither confirmation the chrisme of oyle and balme as Bonauenture teacheth And to be short their captaine Alexander of Ales doth auouch expressely that there are onely two principal sacraments which Christ himselfe did institute so that by his confession as we speake of sacraments there are two only But my meaning was not to blame you for seuen I spake of all your ceremonies which are I may say boldly seuentie times seuen Which whether that they be so few and so cléere in comparison of the Iewish as I haue declared and you confesse that Christian ceremonies should be let the learned iudge by comparing of your Church-bookes chiefly the Ceremoniall Pontificall and Missall with the bookes of Moses Let the vnlearned gesse by the store and straungenesse of sacrificing vestiments whereof their common Priests had thrée yours haue sixe their high Priest had eight your Bishops haue fiftéene at least and some sixtéene beside the Popes prerogatiue-robes And so to leaue this matter to their consideration your owne confession yeldeth enough for my purpose touching the place of Malachie For if the spiritual worshipping of God wherewith the Iewes did serue him had ceremonies in number more in signification darker then it hath amongst the Gentiles this kinde of seruing him with fewer ceremonies cléerer is proper to the Gentils might succeede that which was amongst the Iewes Wherefore D. Allens third fourth reasons whereby he would proue that the offering spokeÌ„ of in Malachie the Prophet must signify the outward sacrifice of the Masse and not spirituall sacrifices can take no holde against vs. No more then ours could take against you of the contrarie if we should conclude that it must betoken a spirituall worship not outward offeringes on an altar because outward offeringes are common to the Iewes with vs and this is proper to the Gentiles and this should succéede the Iewish worship of God and come in steede of it which no outward offeringes and sacrifices can doo sith they are coopled alwayes to Gods spirituall worship Would you allow these reasons Hart. They are not like to D. Allens But the fifth reason doth put the matter out of doubt For in the iudgement chiefly of heretikes our workes are defiled howsoeuer they seeme bewtifull but that Propheticall offering is cleane of it selfe and so cleane of it selfe in comparison of the olde sacrifices that it cannot be polluted any way by vs or by the worst Priests For here in our testament they can not choose all the best to them selues and offer to the Lord for sacrifice the féeble the lame and the sicke as before in the old because there is now one sacrifice so appointed that it can not be changed so cleane that no worke of ours can distaine it Rainoldes And thinke you M. Hart that the workes of Christians can not be the offering which the Prophet speaketh of because they are defiled howsoeuer they seeme bewtifull Thinke you thus in déede Then you consent yet in the chiefest point of Christian religion which God graunt you doo with heretikes as you terme vs. For if our workes be defiled howsoeuer they seeme bewtifull chiefly as heretikes iudge then are men iustified by faith not by workes If our workes bee defiled howsoeuer they seeme bewtifull then fulfill we not the law of God perfitly much lesse super-erogate If our works be defiled howsoeuer they seeme bewtifull then are they meritorious of euerlasting death but euerlasting life
same fauour if I would admit it VVhich I grounding my selfe vpon the most certayne foundation of the Church so strengthened by God that it shall stand for euer did gladly yeeld to and as became me accepted of it with all dutie VVherevpon his Honour sent for M. Rainoldes to conferre with me taking order also that I should be furnished with whatsoeuer bookes I did neede thereto But after we had spent certayne weekes together in conference by word of mouth and I continued still in my former mind he desired to haue the summe thereof in writing that he might see the groundes on which I stood And to this intent we set downe together breefe notes of the points that we dealt in I shewing my reasons with the places of the autours whose iudgement and learning I rather trusted too then to my owne skill and M. Rainoldes answering them in such sort as he thought good Howbeit those notes being so short as pointing to thinges rather then vnfolding them that they could not well bee vnderstood by any but our selues onely vnlesse they were drawne more largely and at full my selfe being troubled then with more necessary cogitations of death as altogether vncertaine when I might be called to yeeld vp mine account before God and man requested M. Rainoldes to take paines to penne them according to our notes thereof Promising him that I would peruse it when he had doon it and allow of it if it were to my mind or otherwise correct if I misliked ought in it This paines he vndertooke and sending me the partes thereof from time to time as he finished them I noted such thinges as I would haue added or altered therein and he performed it accordingly But when I perceiued that it was prepared to be set foorth in print I sought meanes to stay it all that I could for some considerations which seemed to me very great and important Marry since that againe vnderstaÌ„ding it to be his Honours pleasure that it should go forward wherevnto he granted me also by speciall warrant the vse of such bookes as I should call for to helpe my selfe withall I set afresh vpon it by letters written vnto M. Rainoldes receiued from him I had mine owne speeches reasons perfitted as I would VVherefore I acknowledge that he hath set downe herein a true report of those things which past in conference betweene vs according to the grounds and places of the autours which I had quoted referred my self too As for that which he affirmeth in one place that I haue told him that my opinion is the Pope may not depose Princes in deede I told him so much And in truth I thinke that although the spiritual power be more excelleÌ„t worthie theÌ„ the temporall yet they are both of God neither doth the one depend of the other VVherevpon I gather as a certaine conclusion that the opinion of them who holde the Pope to be a temporall Lord ouer Kings Princes is vnreasonable and vnprobable altogether For he hath not to meddle with theÌ„ or theirs ciuilly much lesse to depose them or giue away their kingdomes that is no part of his commission He hath in my iudgment the Fatherhoode of the Church not a Princehood of the world Christ himself taking no such title vpon him nor giuing it to Peter or any other of his disciples And that is it which I meant to defend in him and no other soueraintie Humbly desiring pardon of her Maiestie my gratious soueraine Lady for my plaine dealing in that which so Christ helpe me I take to be Gods cause and the Churches only As I do also most willingly submit my selfe to the curteous correction of all men who through greater skill and perfitter iudgement see more then I doe in the depth of these matters whereof I haue conferred Farewell gentle Reader and now that I haue shewed thee my dealing herein let me obtaine this little request at thy handes that thou be not too hasty in giuing thy iudgemeÌ„t before thou hast weighed all things sincerely and vprightly From the Tower the seuenth of Iuly Iohn Rainoldes to the Students of the English Seminaries at Rome and Rhemes BRethren my harts desire prayer vnto God for Israel is that they may bee saued For that which S. Paule wrote to the Romans touching the Israelites his brethren and kinsmen according to the flesh as being of one nation with him that must I protest to you brethren your selues my kinsemen according to the flesh in like sort and countriemen of England Of whom I haue the greater compassion and pitie because I am perswaded that you sinne of ignorance rather then of wilfulnesse and haue a deuotion to serue God aright though not the right way wherein he will be serued That I may iustly say the same vnto you which S. Paule of theÌ„ For I beare you record that you haue the zeale of God but not according to knowledge The zeale which the Israelites had was of the law The knowledge which they waÌ„ted was the true meaning of it For they expounded it after the traditions and doctrines of their Fathers and knowing not Christ to be the ende thereof they sought their owne righteousnesse against the righteousnesse of God The zeale which you haue is of the Gospel The knowledge which you want is the true meaning of it too For you are instructed to vnderstand it after the maner of your Fathers Whereby your seducer beareth you in hand that the Pope is supreme head of the Church the trade of Popish Priesthoode the way to saue soules the sacrifice of Popish Masse the souerain sacrifice in a word that Papistrie is the Catholike faith and the faith and seruice of the Church of England is cursed and damnable specially the oth of the Queenes supremacie And your mindes are taken so with these opinions that you are content to venture as farre in the defense of them as the Donatists did who loued their errours better then their liues Great zeale but not according to knowledge my brethren For the Gospell teacheth not that which you imagin your Fathers were abused by Phariseis Rabbines your Pope hath vsâ—rped ouer all Christian states your Priesthoode is impious your Masse abominatioÌ„ your Popish faith heresie our doctrine of the Queenes supremacie oth thereto our ministerie of the word of sacraments of prayers agreeth with the Gospell and therefore is holy Which thinges sith this Conference that one of your Seminarie-Priests and I haue had doth open proue peruse it â— beseech you with equitie and iudgement and studie to ioine knowledge to your zeale that you may be saued Perhaps your Superiors the guides who seduce you will not giue you leaue to reade it and peruse it But there are two reasoÌ„s which should moue them to coÌ„descend thereto the one of the worke the other of the autours The worke is a conference
that which was common to all the Apostles by the meaning of Christ you chalenge as proper vnto Peter onely For as the confession of Peter touching Christ shewed their common faith by the mouth of one so the answere of Christ directed vnto one conteined that blessing that should be common to them all And this is declared by the holy scripture which to the Ephesians mēbers of the church saith that they are built vpō the foundatiō of the Apostles Prophets Not of Peter onely but of the Apostles who lay the same foundation all that Peter did and thereupon are called all of them foundations And the church relying vpon their doctrine that is the Christian faith the onely and sure foundatiō of the church as the truth hath forced your owne mouthes to witnesse may bee iustly saide to be built on them euen as well on all of them as on Peter Wherfore by the proportion that you grate vpon of a foundation to a house and a head to a bodie as Christ is head onely so is he the onely foundation of the Church as the name of foundation is giuen to the Apostles so the twelue foundations doth proue them twelue heads You must séeke therefore some other foundation of Peters headship ouer them For neither the name of stone that Christ gaue him nor the wordes of building his church vpon that stone proue that he promised him to make him head of all the Apostles Hart. Not in your iudgement but in mine they doo And so dooth the other part of the promise also which Christ made vnto him To thee will I giue the keyes of the kingdome of heuen For by the name of keyes is signified the fulnes of ecclesiasticall power But to giue the fulnes of ecclesiasticall power is to make him head Therefore Christ did promise to make him head of the church Rainoldes These keyes will not open more in the house then did the foundation lay in the building For if you meane by fulnes of ecclesiasticall power the lawfull power of the Apostleship then the which no greater was euer giuen to anie ministers of the church Christ gaue it both to Peter and to euerie Apostle If you meane such power as the Pope claimeth by fulnes of power a soueraine power not onely spirituall but also temporall Christ gaue it neither to Peter nor to anie Apostle So that in the former sense al were heads in the latter none and thus your headship proued by neither But what soeuer you meane by fulnes of power this is cleere and certaine that our Sauiour promised no more power to Peter then he meant and performed to all the Apostles And therefore what soeuer he promised to him he promised in him to them For as amongst them when they were all asked Whom say ye that I am Peter answered alone Thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God so Christ said to him alone I will giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen as though he had alone receaued power to bind and loose whereas he made that answere one in stead of them all and receiued this power one togither with them all Wherefore sith no more was promised then giuen and equall power was giuen to all the Apostles this promise proueth not your headship You must bring vs foorth some better euidence or else your title will be naught Hart. The euidence is good For it saith in plaine and expresse termes that Christ would giue the keyes to Peter Then the which what could be more manifestly spoken Rainoldes In shew to the simple Chiefely when they sée the matter set forth as that is at Rome where Christ is painted out not as promising Peter that he would giue him keyes but as giuing them to him at that present and giuing them to him alone not to all the Apostles with the wordes of Christ paraphrased feately thereto by some poet Be thou the Prince of pastors to thee alone is giuen The power to shut the dore of heauen and eke to set it open Pastorum princeps esto tibi ius datur vni Claudere celestes reserare fores Hart. Nay the very words as they lie in scripture are plainer in shew for vs then for you which also may be noted in other pointes of controuersie betwéene you and vs. As about the reall presence this is my bodie For Christ did not say this is a signe of my bodie And againe the bread that I will giue is my flesh He said not it is but the signe of my flesh Rainoldes Neither do we say that Christ did so meane in this of flesh and bread For we teach that the true bread the bread of God which came downe from heauen and giueth life vnto the world is Christ euen the flesh the very flesh of Christ that is Christ incarnate The greater wrong they do vs who lay to our charge that we expound it not of the thing but of a signe themselues indéede guiltie thereof expounding it of a sacrament of Christ where it is meant of Christ him selfe the word that was made flesh But what if in the other place and sundry mo the wordes of the scripture bee plainer in shew for you then for vs It is not the shew but the sense of the wordes that doth import the truth and must decide controuersies For wordes were ordained to open the meaning and minde of him that speaketh them The meaning of the word of God is alwaies true because God who speaketh it is true and cannot lie The shew of it is false sometimes and deceitfull as men are whose iudgement this shew dependeth of and that may séeme to them to be meant by it which is not meant by God Wherfore it is not the shew but the sense the substance not the semblance of the wordes of scriptures that you must proue doth make for you in points of controuersie if you will proue ought Hart. Why do you graunt then that the wordes of scripture make more for vs in shew though not in substance then they doo for you It were not good for you that this should be knowne Rainoldes What Not that the wordes of scripture sometimes make more for you then vs in shewe though not in substance Yes truely M. Hart and for the Anabaptistes too that Christians had all things common And for Pope Clemens too that wiues must be common because in all things wiues are implyed also And I am so farre from being afraid that this should be knowne that euen in the very example which you mētion as making for you most I grant that the words of Christ this is my body are plainer in shew though not for your monster of transubstantiation yet for your reall presence then for our sacramentall But so that I graunt the same in like maner of other sacramentall and
mysticall spéeches wherein the scriptures giue the name of the thing to that which it betokneth as of the passeouer to the lambe and of the rocke to Christ. For I hope you wil not conclude of this shew that really Christ was a rocke or a lambe the passeouer really Hart. These spéeches are not like to that of Christes bodie in the Sacrament of the Eucharist For it is manifest that when the lambe was called the passeouer and Christ the rocke it was meant not really but figuratiuely that the rocke signified Christ the lambe the passeouer But it is not manifest in that of Christes bodie Rainoldes Whither it be manifest or no is not the question but whither the spéeches be like in shew of wordes the rocke was Christ this is my bodie Or to come néerer to your owne example and proofe of that point Christ saith of himselfe that he is true bread and my flesh is meate indeede and my blood is drinke indeede True and indeede these termes are more pregnant for a reall presence then that of Christes bodie Yet if you say that Christ is bread really and his flesh meate and his blood drinke you may as well say that he is really a vine and his disciples branches really and other such reall either blasphemies or follies Hart. Nay we doo confesse that many things in scripture are spoken and meant figuratiuely but neither all nor this concerning the Sacrament nor any thing els whereof the literall and proper sense hath not somewhat contrarie to God to religion and to Christian life As D. Allen saith that S. Austin teacheth Out of whom he citeth withall a woorthie sentence touching such as you are If the minde be preuented with an opinion of some errour whatsoeuer the scripture dooth affirme otherwise men thinke it to be spoken figuratiuely Rainoldes That sentence is good as S. Austin vttereth it But D. Allen vseth it ill against vs. The woorse because S. Austin sheweth straight vpon it in the same booke of the same point that to eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his blood was spoken not properly for so it were a wicked deede but figuratiuely flat against that error of the reall presence which hée is pretended to proue by D. Allen. But howsoeuer D. Allen deale in that the point which you graunt with him sufficeth me for proofe of that I saide For if many things in scripture are spoken and meant figuratiuely it followeth that the sense of scripture is against the shew of wordes in sundrie places and therfore that the shew of words sundrie times is against the truth Which sith you cannot sée in this Sacrament because of your preiudice of the reall presence I will bring an example of the sacrament of baptisme wherein you must needes sée it There were some of old who as we sprinckle children with water in baptizing of them so they vsed to print and stampe certaine marks vpon them with fire For the which vsage they alleaged the scripture I meane the wordes thereof that touching Iohn Baptist who saying of himselfe I baptize you with water addeth of our Sauiour He will baptize you with the holie Ghost and fire Now I put the matter to your owne iudgement whether they did better who baptized with fire or we who without it Hart. Who doubteth but we For they were deceiued who tooke the name of fire properly in that place where it is vsed figuratiuely to signifie the graces of the holie Ghost who lighteneth and purgeth the hartes of the faithfull They who did baptize in that sort were heretikes as Alphonsus sheweth Rainoldes Yet the shew of words dooth make more for thē Iohn baptized with water Christ baptizeth with fire Neither haue you here so much as that euasion which yet if you had were nothing to the purpose that it is manifest to be meant not properly but figuratiuely For there haue béene sundry churches and nations these many hundred yeares that vsed it and doo still induced all thereto by the shew of wordes as manifest to be meant not figuratiuely but properly in their iudgement And your reall presence hath not gone so far in the one Sacrament with this is my bodie as their firie markes haue gone in the other with the holie Ghost and fire Wherefore to returne to the point in questiō although it may séeme by the shew of words that our Sauiour promised the keyes of the kingdome of heauen to Peter onely yet sith he meant them to all the Apostles as I haue declared your claime will be a bare shew if all your proofe be shew of wordes And therefore as I said so I say againe that you must bring vs foorth some better euidence or els your title will be naught Hart. And I tell you againe that the euidence is good and hath not onely shew of words but sense too if it be rightly taken But we retaine not you to be our lawier to expound it Rainoldes I am not in hast to be retained of you But what mislike you in my expounding of it Hart. That which shall kéepe me from yelding thereunto For your exposition is a priuate exposition which we allow not of We allow onely of the churches exposition Rainoldes Then I perceiue the church shall be your lawier And what is I pray you the churches exposition Hart. That which all the Fathers make with one consent Rainoldes Which all the Fathers make We had néede to haue bodies like the bodies of Oakes and memories as strong as stéele to endure to reade and be sure to remember of euery exposition so much as may ascertaine vs that all the Fathers make it Hath any man liuing read them all Nay haue all the men liuing read them Nay can they shewe them Can they get them I had almost said can they name them Hart. Womeane of the Fathers which are extant commonly and may be had and read If many of them make it and the rest either gainsay it not or say nought of it we count it to bée made of all with one consent Rainoldes That count is euill cast For as in the writings of Fathers which we haue some one expoundeth places of Scripture oftentimes otherwise then all the rest a thing notorious and confessed so it is likely that in those which we haue not some places were otherwise expounded thē they be in those which we haue Yet I will not deny but you had reason so to count For else your lawier had béene dumbe and could not haue spoken a word for his client But if this be your rule of the churches exposition then I could haue made mine exposition the churches with a wet finger if I would haue stuffed it with the names of Fathers For my words of Peter that he alone made answere for all the Apostles receiued the keyes togither with them all are the wordes of S. Austin though I did
not begotten or borne Hart. Hée séemeth to haue meant it And Torrensis who gathered S. Austins Confession out of all his workes alleageth these places to proue that Christians ought to belieue manie things which haue come to vs from the Apostles themselues deliuered as it were by hand although they bee not written expresly in scriptures Rainoldes The Iesuit Torrensis dooth great wrong herein to the truth of God to S. Austins credit and to you who reade him And yet with such a sophisme in the word expresly that if it should be laid vnto his charge he would wash his handes of it as Pilate did of Christes blood For he alleageth those places of S. Austin thereby to proue Traditions as though we had receiued that doctrine touching God by tradition vnwritten not by the written word S. Austin no such matter But dealing with an Arian who required the verie word consubstantiall to be shewed in scripture doth tell him that the thing it selfe is there founde though not that word perhaps Wherevpon he presseth him in like sort with the word vnbegotten which the Arian hauing giuen to God the Father and defending it S. Austin replieth that as he had termed the Father vnbegotten well although the word not written so might the Sonne also be termed consubstantiall sith the scripture proueth the thing meant therby And as with this Arian so with their bishop Maximinus Who hauing himself termed God the Father vnbegotten or vnborne denied the holie Ghost to be equall to the Sonne because it is not written that he is worshipped To the which cauill of his S. Austin answereth that although it be not written in flat termes yet is it gathered by necessarie consequence of that which is written Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God the holy Ghost is God therefore to bee worshipped Thus S. Austins meaning was of these pointes that the scripture teacheth them Whereby you may perceiue the fraude of Torrensis Who saying that they are not expresly written in the scriptures left him selfe this refuge that hee might say they are not in expresse wordes though for sense and substance they are in the scriptures And yet by referring that title to traditions induceth his reader to thinke that they are taught by tradition not by scripture A doctrine which Arians will clappe their handes at that the Sonne of God is not by scripture of one substance with the Father But let it be far from you M. Hart to thinke so prophanely of the word of God And if you rest so much on Doctors of your owne side rest here on Thomas of Aquine rather who saith that concerning God wee must say nothing but that which is founde in the holie scripture either in words or in sense Which as he confirfirmeth by Denys and Damascen so was it the common iudgement of the Fathers of S. Austin chiefly as his bookes touching the Trinitie doo shew And in the conclusion thereof for euident proofe of that which you denied he giueth the name of the rule of faith to that which is plainly set downe in scripture of the Trinitie Wherfore the scripture cōpriseth the rule of faith for that point And as for that point so for all the rest which in that very booke whereof we spake S. Austin noteth It remaineth therfore that S. Austin meant not by the authoritie of the church more then he signified by plainer places of the scriptures Hart. Yes his own words in that verie sentence doo yéeld sufficient proofe me thinkes that he did For if he signified by plainer places of the scriptures as much as he meant by the authoritie of the church then was it idle when he had named the one to adde the other to it chiefly in such sort as that is added by S. Austin For both the coniunction the places of scriptures and the authoritie of the church should import thinges different and I may say of wordes as the Philosopher saith of things That is done in vaine by more that may be done by fewer Rainoldes Nothing is done in vaine that is done to edifie The church might well be mentioned as an interpreter of the worde though it teach not any thing beside the word of God The people of Israel did beleeue the Lord and his seruaunt Moses yet Moses did nothing but that the Lorde commaunded him The wise man doth charge his sonne to hearken to the instruction of his father and forsake not the doctrine of his mother yet they both the father and mother teach one lesson the chiefest wisedome the feare of God The same is fulfilled in this Moses and the Lord or rather in this mother and our heauenly Father of whom it hath bene said well He cannot haue God to be his Father who hath not the church to be his mother For God hauing purposed to make vs his children and heires of life eternall as he prepared his word to be first the séede the immortall seed of which we are begotten a new afterward the milke the sincere milke whereby wee béeing borne grow so he ordeined the church by her ministerie to teach it as it were a mother first to conceaue and bring foorth the children afterward to nourish them as babes new borne with her milke Which appeareth as by others so chiefly by S. Paul who traueiled of them in childbirth whom he sought to conuert and when they were new borne he nourished them with milke to set before our eyes the duetie of the church and all the churches Ministers in bearing children vnto Christ. Now the milke which the church giueth to her children shée giueth it out of her brestes and her two brestes are the two testaments of the holie scriptures by S. Austins iudgement the old Testament and the new S. Austin therefore saying the rule of faith is receiued of the authoritie of the church meant not that the church should deliuer any thing but onely what shee draweth out of the holie scriptures Hart. Not for milke perhaps which babes are to sucke but for strong meate wherewith men are nourished For mothers féede not their children being growne with mylke out of theyr brestes Rainoldes But S. Austin addeth that the holy scriptures haue both milke for babes and strong meat for men milke in plainer thinges and easier to be vnderstood strong meate in harder and greater mysteries Yea where Christ said that euerye Scribe which is taught vnto the kingdome of heauen is lyke vnto an housholder who bringeth foorth out of his treasure thinges both newe and olde S. Austin iudgeth that hée meant by newe thinges and olde the olde and newe testament Wherefore sith euery pastor and teacher of the church is meant you graunt by this Scribe it foloweth by S. Austin that the meate which he is to fetch out of his storehouse for the
all equally Wherfore by Ieroms iudgement Peter was not ouer the Apostles in power If not in power yet in part of gouernment in what but in that preeminence which I spake of S. Ierom therefore saying that Peter was appointed head of the Apostles did meane that preeminence among the Apostles and not a soueraintie aboue them Hart. The wordes of S. Ierom doo speake somewhat too liberally of the Apostles in that he saith the church is built vpon them all equally And as D. Stapleton noteth very well the distinction touching things writen by the Fathers some by way of doctrine and some of contention is verified in them For here by occasion that he reasoneth against Iouinian who alleaged against the honour of virginitie that Christ preferred Peter a maried man before the rest he doth lessen and extenuate the authority of Peter as farre as truth did giue him leaue making the rest equall to him for the Apostleship yet affirming plainely that he was head of the rest Rainoldes Ierom wrote many things in déed against Iouinian by way of contention rather then of doctrine to the disgrace of marriage In so much that being therefore reproued by some himselfe excuseth it that he did rather striue thē teach and Pammachius a learned gentleman his fréend did suppresse the copies and wished them to be concealed till he had corrected them But neither was this place so reproued by them or excused by him for ought that may be gathered by his apologie nor is it to be noted as sauouring more of heate then truth for the substance of it agreeth with the scriptures Yea Stapleton who couereth it with this distinction confesseth in effect as much at vnawares For he saith that Ierom doth lessen and extenuate the authoritie of Peter as far as truth did giue him leaue Wherof it ensueth that it is no vntrueth to say as Ierom doth that all the Apostles had equall power with Peter The name of head therefore which Ierom giueth him with the same breath can by no meanes import a soueraine power ouer the Apostles Unlesse you will make him so absurd and brainesicke as that he should say Though none of the Apostles were soueraine of the rest but they had equall power all yet was one of them aboue the rest in power and had the souerain-headship of them Hart. Wel. Howsoeuer you handle Ieroms wordes he saith in flat termes that which you denyed And therefore he maketh against you with vs. Rainoldes In what point Or how Hart. You denied that Peter was head of the Apostles Ierom saith he was Peter was not head and Peter was head Is there not a contradiction betwéene your words and his Rainoldes No more then betwéene the wordes of Iohn and Christ Christ said of Iohn Baptist this is Elias Iohn Baptist said of him selfe I am not Elias Iohn Baptist is Elias and Iohn Baptist is not Elias Is there not a contradiction betwéen the words of Christ and Iohn Hart. No. For Christ meant one way and Iohn Baptist an other Christ that he was Elias in spirit as coming in the spirit and power of Elias Iohn Baptist that he was not Elias in person which the Pharisees meant Rainoldes You haue answered well So Ierom meant one way and I an other Ierom that he was head in a preeminence of gouernment as moderating the actions in assemblies of the Apostles I that he was not head in soueraintie of power which the Papists meane And thus to conclude you may see that the Fathers whom you alleage for Peter some giue him a prerogatiue of authoritie some of primacie some of principalitie but none of your supremacie For your supremacie doth consist in power and they giue equall power to Peter with the rest Hart. Equall power I graunt in respect of the Apostleship but not of pastoral charge For Peter was ouer thē in that euen as the Pope is ouer Bishops And so we do expound the words of S. Cyprian S. Ierom S. Chrysostome and other of the Fathers who giue equall power to the Apostles with Peter Rainoldes Yet more of these Colewortes I haue proued alreadie that Peters pastorall charge and his Apostleship is al one and therefore if they were equall to him in the Apostleship the were in pastorall charge too But if no other reason will put you to silence the Popes own authority may force you to it here For in the Cyprian set forth by him at Rome he noteth it to be considered that whereas Cyprian saith The rest of the Apostles had equall power with Peter this must be vnderstood of the equalitie of Apostleship which ceased when the Apostles died and passed not ouer vnto Bishops The drift of which note implieth a distinction of Apostles and Bishops that it is not with Bishops in respect of the Pope as it was with the Apostles in respect of Peter And that doth cary with it a checke of your opinion which maketh the Apostles vnderlings to Peter as Bishops to the Pope Hart. You knowe not who made that note in the Roman Cyprian for there is no mans name to it But if the Pope either made it him selfe or allowed of it being made by others to whom he did commit that charge he set down as a priuate Doctor his owne opinion which they who list may folow But this is my opinion which I haue set downe and to that I stand Rainoldes I am glad you thinke not as the Pope doth at least in one point God graunt that you may come forward in the rest to dissent from him not in this one point alone but in many Howbeit whether he or others made that note they set it forth with greater authoritie and priuilege then as a priuate Doctors fansie Neither is it likely that they would haue graunted so much to the Apostles vnlesse the truth had wroong it from them Let your righteousnes M. Hart if not exceede yet match the righteousnes of Scribes and Pharisees and yéeld to this conclusion which riseth of our conference that Peter was not head of all the Apostles as you do take the name of head Hart. You shall conclude your selfe alone so for me For I do protest that I beléeue it not nor mind to yéeld vnto it The sixth Chapter The two maine groundes on which the supremacie vsurped by the Pope doth lie The former that there should be one Bishop ouer all in earth 1 because Christ said There shall be one flocke and one pastor 2 and among the Iewes there was one iudge and hie Priest The later that the Pope is that one Bishop 3 because Peter was Bishop of Rome as some say 4 and the Pope succeedeth Peter Both examined and shewed to faile in the proofe of the Popes supremacie RAINOLDES Then wisedome must be content to be iustified of her childrē Howbeit God is able to chaunge your hart in such sort that as
the Spirit of truth and whether any of them were who can say We haue no assurance then of mysticall senses which may be mens fansies Onely the literall sense which is meant vndoubtedly by the holy Ghost is of force to proue the assured truth and therefore doth binde in matters of beliefe And this is so cléere that your owne Doctors acknowledge it and teach it euen he whom you alleaged For he saith It is agreed betweene you and vs that forcible aguments ought to be drawne onely from the literall sense and that is surely knowne to be the sense and meaning of the holy Ghost As for mystical senses it is not alwaies sure whether the holy Ghost meant them vnlesse they be expounded in the scriptures as that in Iohn you shall not breake a bone of him Which excepted it is a folly to go about to proue the pointes of faith forcibly by mysticall senses Wherefore if it be not expounded in the scriptures that the wordes of Christ touching one Pastor are meant as of him selfe by the literall sense so by the mystical of the Pope you sée that Father Robert saith it is a folly to go about to proue the Popes supremacie by them if you will proue it forcibly Now what I say of one Pastour the same I say of high Priest By whom the law of Moses doth signify the hye priest literally the epistle to the Hebrewes doth shew that mystically he betokened Christ. But that the Pope was meant by him in any sense eyther literall or mysticall I finde not in the scriptures Hart. But I find in the scriptures that Christians must stil haue a hye Priest amongst thē on earth to be their chief iudge Rainoldes Were finde you that Hart. In the seuentéenth chapter of the booke of Deuteronomie euen in these wordes If there rise a matter too hard for thee in iudgement betweene blood and blood betweene cause cause betweene plague and plague in the matters of controuersie within thy gates then shalt thou arise and goe vp to the place which the Lorde thy God shall choose and thou shalt come to the Leuiticall priestes and to the iudge that shall be in those dayes and aske and they shall shew thee the sentence of iudgement And thou shalt do according to that thing which they shall shewe thee from that place that the Lord shall choose and thou shalt obserue to do according to all that they shall enforme thee According to the law which they shall teach thee and according to the iudgement which they shall tell thee shalt thou doo Thou shalt not decline from the thing which they shall shew thee neither to the right hand nor to the left And he that shall presumptuously refuse to obey the commandement of the Priest who serueth then the Lord thy God by the decree of the iudge shall that man dye and thou shalt take away euil out of Israell Here the hye Priest is made the chiefe iudge to heare and determine hard and doubtfull causes amongst the people of God And who amongst Christians is such a Priest and iudge but the Pope onely Rainoldes Now the first chapter of the booke of Genesis would serue you as well to proue the Popes supremacie if it were considered For it is written there In the beginning God created the heauen and the earth Hart. What meane you so to say Rainoldes Nay aske that of him who doth expound it so saying that whosoeuer resisteth his supremacy resisteth Gods ordinance vnlesse he faine as Manichee did that there are two beginninges which is false hereticall because as Moses witnesseth not in the beginninges but in the beginning God created heauen and earth See in the beginning not in the beginninges and therefore not many are hye Priestes of the Church but the Pope onely Hart. The place which I alleaged doth plainely speake of the high Priest and so it doth serue my purpose more fitly then this which doth not touch him Howbeit as learned men when they haue proued a point by stronger arguments are wont to set it foorth with floorishes of lighter reasons rather to polishe it as it were then to worke it and frame it so the Pope hauing brought better euidence for proofe of his supremacie doth trimme it vp with this of Genesis as you would say by an allusion Rainoldes An illusion you should say But the places both as well this of Genesis as that of Deuteronomie are taken in a mysticall sense of your owne so that to winne a matter which must be wunne by sound proofe they are both of like force because that neyther is of any For the literall sense of that in Deuteronomie doth concerne the Iewes to whom the Lorde spake it by his seruant Moses Now how dangerous it is to buyld as vpon scripture thinges which are not grounded vpon the literal sense thereof we may learne by the mysticall sense of that place which a Pope giueth and no common Pope but Innocentius the third the Father of the Lateran-councel in which your popish Shrift and Transsubstantiation were enacted first He in a decretal which is enrolled in the canon law as a rule of the gouernemēt of the Church for euer doth bring foorth that same place of Deuteronomie to proue that the Pope may exercise tēporal iurisdiction not onely in his owne dominion but in other countries too on certaine causes And because Deuteronomi◠is the second lawe by interpretation it is proued saith he by the force of the worde that what is there decreed ought to be obserued in the newe Testament Upon the which principle he doth expound it thus that the place which the Lord hath chosen is Rome the Leuiticall Priestes are his brethren the Cardinals the iudge is himselfe the vicar of Christ the iudgements are of three sortes the firs◠betweene blood and blood is meant of criminall ciuil causes the last betweene plague and plague of ecclesiastical and criminall the midle betweene cause cause pertaineth vnto both ecclesiasticall ciuill In the which when any thing shal be hard or doubtfull recourse must be had to the iudgement of the See Apostolike that is of Rome whose determination if any man presumptuously refuse to obey he is adiudged to dye that is to be cut off as a dead man from the communion of the faithfull by excommunication Lo this is a mysticall sense of that place which you alleaged out of Deuteronomie It runneth verie roundly with the Popes supremacie But Christian States I hope will hold the literall sense against it For if they allow this doctrine of Pope Innocentius as catholike the Pope must be supreme head of all Christians both in ecclesiasticall causes and ciuill The mysterie of iniquitie did worke verie fast when the chiefest mysteries of the Romish faith were built vpon such mystical senses Hart. I
or take infection at least from the fountaine being corrupted Now the fountaine as it were whence the rest haue drawne it is the sixth Councell And he saith that there the name of Honorius was thrust in amongst the names of other heretikes by malitious men of spite against the Pope Whereof hee bringeth two proofes One that Anastasius witnesseth it to haue bene so out of Theophanes An other that the Gréekes aduentured sometimes to corrupt bookes as the same Councell declareth by their practises Rainoldes The Councell declareth that there were some copies of a former Councell that had bene corrupted by heretikes among the Greekes But as euill dealing doth still leaue steppes behind it whereby it may be traced out their corruption was discouered both by circumstances of the thing and by the maner of writing and by conference with other copies Now in these places of the sixth Councell in which Honorius is touched you can shew no token of any such suspicion Nay the tokens all are cleere to the contrarie euen that which you alleage of the Greekes conuicted to haue corrupted bookes For if they had corrupted so much of the Councell in so many places it is very likely that they would haue also corrupted those places wherein they are noted and discredited for such corruptions Neither doth Anastasius report out of Theophanes that the Greekes did so Perhaps Father Robert did dreame out of Onuphrius that hee had said so But although Onuphrius say more in that point then truth did afford yet he saith not that As for Anastasius he is so farre from saying it that he gainesayeth it rather For in his storie of the Popes liues he setteth Honorius downe amongst the heretikes who were condemned by the sixth Councell The same is confirmed in an olde copie of the seuenth Councell which he translated out of Greeke and left it in the Popes librarie And at the eight Councell he was him selfe present and put it into Latin most diligently and faithfully there a Pope doth witnesse it To be short Torrensis addeth moreouer touching Anastasius that if he had suspected the Greekes to haue corrupted any of the places concerning this matter hee would haue giuen warning no doubt of it also as he hath done of other Wherfore though ill disposed men amongst the Greekes corrupted bookes sometimes yet the consent of copies chiefely of the Latin writen shortly after the time of the Councell laid vp at Rome the coherence of things the agreement of autours and circumstances of the storie doo make it very vnlikely that they dealt so with the sixth Councell in the matter of Honorius It were pitie that all euidences of men should be distrusted because there are some euidences falsified by euill men But Father Robert dealeth as Alexander the great who when he could not vndoo the knot of Gordius did cutte it a sunder with his sword Hart. Your knot of Honorius I wisse is not so hard but that he might vndoo it without this sword and he doth so For he sheweth that the epistles of Honorius to Sergius on which the sixth Councell adiudged him an heretike are both wisely writen and sound without errour Wherefore though we shoulde graunt that hee had sentence giuen against him by the Councell it foloweth not thereof that he was an heretike They might condemne him vniustly Rainoldes Take heede You were better let the knot alone then vndoo it so This medicine will do more harme then the disease In deede a great Cardinall on whom you relie much would play fast and loose with it in such sort vpon the spéech of Pope Adrian who saith that Honorius was cursed by the Bishops of the East after his death because he was accucused of heresie For hereupon he gathereth that Honorius was not an heretike while he liued nor cursed by the Pope or Bishops of the west But it foloweth straight in the spéech of Adrian which the Cardinall cut off that vnlesse the Pope had consented to it the Bishops of the east would not haue condemned him Moreouer the actes of the Councâ—ll shewe how Bishops of the west were also present and subscribed So that the sentence giuen against Honorius was giuen by the Councell and by the Pope him selfe not by the easterne Bishops only Wherfore if the epistles of Honorius were sound on which as vnsound he was condemned of heresie then a generall Councell confirmed by the Pope did erre in condemning him And if you graunt this as you must by consequent you betraye the strongest castell of Poperie to saue a captaines honour For men of iudgement will thinke that the doctrine of the reformed Churches may be sound for which as vnsound the Councell of Trent confirmed by the Pope hath condemned vs. They might condemne vs vniustly Hart. Not so For they examined and knew very perfitly the doctrine of the reformed Churches as you call them Rainoldes What And did the other condemne and curse the doctrine of Honorius a Pope and did they not examine and know it very perfitly Hart. If this do not stand with the Councels credit Father Robert maketh an other answere yet which may be liked better Namely that the epistles were perhaps counterfeited not writen by Honorius but by some heretike in his name And so might the Councell condemne the doctrine iustly but erre in the person Rainoldes Yet were this also a blemish of the Councell to condemne a Pope in steede of an heretike But they haue not deserued to be touched with it For the former epistle vpon the proofe whereof they did proceed to sentence they saw it conferred with the autheÌ„tical Latin copie found it to agrée Beside that the autor whom your selues alleage to cléere Honorius confessed it to be Honorius his owne and he confessed it then when the secretarie of Honorius who wrote it with his owne hand was aliue of good account and bare witnesse of it The later was approued to the Councel as the former though they stoode lesse about it as néeding lesse inquiry when he was now alreadie cast But it hath all presumptions for it so probable that not as much as Pighius could suspect it though he suspected the other Neither do I thinke that father Robert thought them in déede to be counterfeited But as a man that is in daunger of drowning doth snatch at euery bulrush to saue his life if it may be so he seing the Pope made subiect to heresie by the sixth generall Councell doth catch at euerie fansie whereby he hath some hope to helpe him The fansie of Pighius is that the Councell did not condemne Honorius the copies of it are corrupted Andradius checketh that and saith he was condemned but the Councell erred in condemning him as iudging him to erre who did not Torrensis varieth from them both and cometh in with a finer quirke to wéete that Pope Honorius did consent
you graunt at least that the Bishop of Rome cannot erre in faith by S. Ieroms iudgement Rainoldes Or at least you take it though neither I doo graunt it nor is it proued by S. Ierom. But this is proued and I grant it that he did not erre in the faith of the Trinitie when Damasus was Bishop of Rome Hart. When Damasus was Bishop Why do you so restraine it S. Ieroms wordes be generall I am ioyned in communion vnto your holinesse that is to Peters chaire I know that the Church is builded vpon that rocke Behold to Peters chaire He speaketh not to Damasus as in respect of Damasus but in respect of the chaire and so of the succession of the Bishops of Rome that what hee saith to one belongeth to them all Rainoldes If you set his wordes vpon such tenters they will neuer hold For him selfe reporteth that the next Bishop of Rome before Damasus Liberius by name subscribed to the Arian heresie Hart. S. Ierom reporteth so but he might be deceiued by some misreporte For he could say nothing more of that matter then what he had by heare-say Rainoldes But seing that hee liued so néere to that time and in the same place and loued the Sée of Rome and yet doth report this matter of Liberius and report it constantly not onely in his booke of Ecclesiasticall writers but in his Chronicle also it is more likely that hee did both know and testifie the truth then Pontacus who maketh your exception against him or any man that liueth now Hart. Why will not you credit a man that liueth now in any thing against S. Ierom Rainoldes Yes if he bring me good reason to disproue him Hart. And Pontacus doth so For he sheweth that Basil Ambrose and Epiphanius do call Liberius a blessed man and that Athanasius doth frée him from the spot of Arianisme Rainoldes Basil Ambrose and Epiphanius do call Liberius a blessed man What Therefore he subscribed not to the Arian heresie Then you may say that Peter did not deny Christ. For Basil Ambrose and Epiphanius doo call Peter a blessed man They are blessed who repent them selues of their sinnes as Peter did of his denyall and so might Liberius doo of his subscription As for Athanasius though hee say that Liberius condemned the heresie of the Arians and therefore suffered banishment yet hee saith withall that hee continued not in suffering banishment to the end but through feare of death subscribed to that heresie with his hand though with his heart he were still against it Thus euen Athanasius who liued at the same time with Liberius and knew his state well acknowledgeth that he subscribed though iudging most friendly both for his owne sake and the causes that he consented not But Damasus Bishop of Rome who succéeded Liberius and might know the matter better then Athanasius doth write that Liberius did consent also to Constantius the Arian Hart. Although this be writen in the booke of Damasus yet it is not likely that Damasus wrote it For Carranza noteth that there are many who dout of that storie And Onuphrius a man verie skilfull of antiquities chiefly of the Roman discrediteth both the report and the autour of it saying that Anastasius the keeper of the Popes librarie was as hee thinketh the first who beleeued it and thrust it into the booke of Damasus as many other thinges besides Rainoldes What Anastasius did I know not But if he stuffed Damasus with any thing of his owne it was belike in such thinges rather as aduance then empeach the Popes credit Howbeit if Onuphrius in that he denyeth Liberius was an Arian doo meane that he subscribed not to the Arian heresie and that this report came first from Anastasius what answereth hee then to Ierom and Athanasius and Sozomen and Marcellinus in effect too who wrote it all with one consent the youngest of them a hundred yeares before Anastasius was borne As for Carranzas note that there are many who doubt of that storie hee must shew who they be and what groundes of dout they haue Or els those many may be such as himselfe and Onuphrius whose doubting may not preiudice the credit of historians that wrote a thousand yeares before them Chiefly if they haue no surer groundes then Carranza who to disproue the storie alleageth that Liberius wrote one epistle to Athanaâ—ius and the Bishops of Aegypt against the Arians and another to all Bishops exhorting them to constancie Which reasons are so poore that your owne Iouerius a Paris Doctour of Diuinitie rehersing them by occasion hath withall refuted them But sée to what miserable shiftes you are driuen to vphold the pride of the man of Rome Because it were a staine vnto his supremacie if his predecessour Liberius subscribed against the Catholike faith therefore you rather choose to deny it and how First the autoritie of Ierom is alleaged affirming it in his Chronicle Your Pighius doth answere that some hath interlaced those wordes into his Chronicle through ignorance or fraude When this answere séemed hard because Ierom hath other where affirmed it also your Pontacus to helpe it replieth that Ierom could say nought thereof but what he had by heare-say When proofe of this heare-say is made out of Damasus your Onuphrius supposeth him to be corrupted by Anastasius the keeper of the Popes librarie When Sozomen a Gréeke writer confirmeth Damasus and Ierom Your Christophorson who translateth him doth make him hold his peace or rather witnesse to the contrary For where he saith in his owne tongue that the Emperour compelled Liberius to subscribe he saith by your translâ—tor the Emperour assayed to compel him And where he saith in his owne tongue that certaine Arian Bishops procured him to consent he saith by your translator they endeuored that he should consent When farder Marcellinus is found to agrée with Sozomens report your Genebrard séeing Ierom approued by them both doth raze out that of Pontaâ—us that Ierom could say nought thereof but by heare-say and doth assalt him with the Fathers Wherein besides them whom you alleaged out of Pontacus he citeth Socrates and Theodoret Socrates declaring that Liberius was no Arian in the time of Valens the Emperour as though this were a proofe that hee subscribed not to the Arian heresie in the time of Constantius Theodoret auouching that the west was alwayes free form Arianisme which is lesse to the purpose Theodoret speaking generally as for the most part and in respect of the East by way of comparison For himselfe had shewed before that Auxentius a westerne Bishop was an Arian Now for Athanasius who is the most auncient witnesse of this matter and of such valure that your Andradius could not but yéeld himselfe vnto him yet Genebrard Pontacus thought it good policie to name him as gainesaying
would be tedious yet he fetcheth the succession of true doctrine from all Churches in euery place through the whole world Or if it bée not plaine enough by these sentences he maketh it more plaine in other both by generall spéeches of the Churche through alâ— the world which hee repeateth often and by the particular names of sundrie Churches the Churches of Smyrna of Ephesus of Asia the Churches in Germany in Spaine in France in the East countries in Aegypt in Libyâ— in the middle of the worlde Wherefore the successions of Bishops in all Churches were true and faithfull witnesses of the Apostolike doctrine in the time of Irenaeus As Eusebius also doth farther proue by Hegesippus who liued at the same time and trauailing to Rome ward did talke with very many Bishops of whom euen of them al he heard the same doctrin accordingly to that he wrote that in euery succession and in euery citie the doctrine is such as the Law and the Prophets and the Lord doth preach Hart. Yet Irenaeus reckneth chiefely the succession of the Church of Rome as of the greatest Church and the most auncient and knowne vnto all founded and established by two the most excellent Apostles Peter and Paule Rainoldes No maruaile For beside the credit that it had as being Apostolike ample famous auncient it was the néerest also in place amongst all the Apostolike Churches to Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in Fraunce and so both known better and the more dealt with In the which respect other of the Fathers did chiefely name it too As may appéere by Tertullian the next of them whom you alleage For he setting downe the same prescription against heretikes which Irenaeus had before him doth speake of it thus Runne ouer the Apostolike Churches at which the very chaires of the Apostles are sate on yet in their places at which their authenticall letters are recited sounding out the voyce and representing the face of euery one of them Is Achaia next vnto thee Thou hast Corinth If thou be not farre from Macedonia thou hast Philippi thou hast the Thessalonians If thou canst go into Asia thou hast Ephesus If thou lye neere to Italu thou hast Rome whence wee haue authoritie also Whence we haue authoritie saith Tertullian in Afrike for he was of the Church of Carthage So Optatus was Bishop of Mileuis in Afrike So Austin was Bishop of Hippon in Afrike Which if you consider you may sée somwhat in it why Optatus and Austin should recken the succesâ—iâ—on of the Roman Church rather then of others Specially sith Austin doth vrge against the Donatists not onely that but all Churches and with the chaire of the Church of Rome wherein Peter sate and Anastasius sitteth now he matcheth the chaire of the Church of Ierusalem wherein Iames sate and Iohn sitteth now As for Epiphanius whom of the East Church you ioyne to them of the West as prouing the soundnes of faith in like sort by the Roman succession you do him iniurie For neither doth he mention it but to note the time in which an heresie did budde and this is that manifest that is meant by him it is your Stapletons art to make it manifest in faith and what he saith thereof he boroweth it of Irenaeus and therefore reckneth fewe of the Bishops of Rome whereas he reckeneth all the Bishops of Ierusalem to like intent against the Manichees so that Ierusalem if we would toy as you doo passeth Rome with him But in a word to cut off your cauill of succession of Bishops in the Roman Church whereby you would proue your faith to be sound because the Fathers proued the faith in their time so the eldest of the Fathers whom you alleage proued it by the succession of all Churches the next by the succession of all Apostolike Churches the yongest by them all in effect by some namely Wherefore if the succession of the Church of Rome doo proue that the Romans haue hitherto continued in the true faith because by that succession the Fathers proued the true faith then also the succession of the East Churches of Ephesus Smyrna Corinth Philippi and Thessalonica doo proue that they haue hithertoo continued in the true faith because by their succession the Fathers proued the true faith But your selues do write that the Greekes of whom these East Churches are haue failed in the faith and yeelded vnto sundry heresies The spéeches therefore of the Fathers touching the succession of the Bishops of Rome proue not that the Romanes doo now professe the true faith Hart. The line of succession of the Roman Bishops hath bene still recorded in stories and continueth yet We can recken them from Peter the Apostle to Gregorie who sitteth now Not so the Gréeke Bishops the Churches of the East Nay the line of succession hath béene broken off in the chiefe of them as the Chronicles do witnesse euen in Alexandria Antioche and Ierusalem Rainoldes What is this to the purpose if some of their successions be not enrolled in stories some that are enrolled were broken off a while by calamities that fell vpon them For although Eusebius recorded the successions but of foure Churches in the mother-cities of the prouinces as he calleth them Rome Alexandria Antioche and Ierusalem and Nicephorus added Constantinople to them yet the Churches which I named had successions of Bishops too as I shewed out of the Fathers And in them in which you note that succession hath discontinued the faith had failed often while the succession lasted which is enough for my proofe But if you thinke your Church sure by this prerogatiue that the Roman Bishops succession lasteth still and you can recken them from Peter the Apostle to Gregorie who sitteth now what say you to the Church of Constantinople In it there haue succeeded Bishops to this day and they can recken them from Andrew the Apostle to Ieremie who sitteth now Yet to say nothing of the old heresies from which the successors are free though set abroch by their predecessors as by Macedonius Nestorius and Sergius the whole line of them many ages togither haue denied the Roman Bishops supreme-headship claimed it to them selues as Ieremie doth also now Whereby either your reason of succession is stricken dead or your supremacie of the Pope For if succession be a proofe of truth and soundnes in faith then your supremacie is condemned If your supremacie be lawfull then is not faith proued to bee sound by succession To which of these yéelde you To one you must of necessitie Hart. In déede the succession of Bishops in place is no good argument vnlesse it be ioyned with succession in doctrine For Irenaeus saith we must obey those priestes who with the succession of the Bishoply charge haue receiued the sure gift of the truth according to
the will of God Wherefore the succession of Constantinople though they fetch it from the Apostles yet proueth not the faith which they professe to be true because they haue departed from the Apostles doctrine in which they should succeede chiefely Rainoldes Now you say well In déede the succession in place is nothing woorth succession in doctrine is it which maketh all But what meane you then to send vs such bead-reales of your Bishops of Rome from Peter to Gregory as vndoubted arguments of the Catholike faith when we can send you as solemne a bead-roale of Constantinople from Andrew to Ieremie and proue nothing by it What trifling is this to say first that succession of Bishops in place proueth truth of doctrine and then to adde that it doth so if it haue succession in doctrine ioyned with it In effect as if you said that succession in place doth proue the doctrine to be true if the doctrine be true a couple of eares doo proue a creature to be a man if they be a mans eares The Fathers alleaged succession in place not with condition if it had but with a reason that it had succession in doctrine Proue me that you haue succession in doctrine and then alleage vnto me the Fathers for succession For if as S. Austin saide against the Donatists after he had reckened the Bishops of Rome from Peter to Anastasius In the ranke of this succession there is not one Bishop found that was a Donatist so you reckning them from Peter to Gregorie might say in like sort In the rancke of this succession there is not one Bishop found that hath vsurped then were your reason as fit against vs for the supremacy of the Pope as S. Austins was for the Church against the Donatists Hart. I may say so in like sort For S. Austin meant as well of this point as of all others when he said of the succession of the Bishops of Rome that the gates of hell preuailed not against it Rainoldes If this gate of hell preuailed not against them in S. Austins time yet many thinges may happen betweene the cuppe and the lippe as the prouerbe is much more betwéene his time and ouâ—s But S. Austin meant not to speake of vsurping in that against the Donatists and if he had he learned by experience afterwarde that they could vsurpe and would if they were not curbed For thrée of them euen Zosimus Boniface and Caelestin did vsurpe ouer the Churches of Afrike while Austin was aliue yet who with the whole Councell of abooue two hundred Bishops of that countrie withstood their attempt as much as lay in him and stayed their pride Hart. Their pride You slander those holy Bishops in saying so Rainoldes Which holy Bishops of Afrike Them selues in their epistles to the Bishops of Rome doo note it with the same worde and if they slandered them it was with a matter of truth But of this hereafter more conueniently For the point in hand it is sufficient that S. Austin applying that text to the Church of Rome that the gates of hell preuailed not against it spake of soundnes of doctrine which the Donatists did faute in not of soueraintie of power wherof there was no question with them Hart. Gregorie the great speaketh of soueraintie of power and proueth by that same text the Church of Rome to be the head of all Churches because Christ committed specially this Church to S. Peter saying to thee wil I giue my Church Rainoldes By that same How Christ saith not to Peter to thee will I giue my Church He saith vpon this rocke will I builde my Church And therein if Gregories iudgement may rule you the rocke is Christ him selfe which Peter had his name of and on which he saide he would build his Church the Church is the holie Church that is to say the companie of Gods elect and chosen which shall neuer fall away from the Catholike faith in this world and in the world to come shall continue stedfast for euer with God For the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it There was some affection that troubled Gregories minde when he did chaunge that text and as it were appropriate it to his Sée of Rome and Stapletons heart was taken with some affection also when he cited Gregorie to proue his purpose thence For nether doth the title of the head of all Churches proue the Roman Papacie neither doth Gregory although he geue that title to the Church of Rome yet proue it by that same text The thing which he proueth is that the Emperour who receyued money for ecclesiasticall liuinges and spoyled the Church with sâ—monie ought not so to doo chiefly in the Church of Rome For hauing touched his gréedinesse of this filthie gaine yea he hath saith Gregorie stretched out so farre the rashnesse of his furie that he chalengeth to him selfe the head of all Churches euen the Church of Rome and vsurpeth the right of earthly power ouer the ladie of nations Which he did altogether forbidde to be doon who specially committed this Church to S. Peter the Apostle saying To thee will I giue my Church Wherein that which Gregorie would say is plaine enough by the wordes that go before it The maner of his saying and prouing it is hard For he saith of the Roman Church that the Emperour vsurpeth the right of earthly power ouer it Whereby a man would thinke hee meant to denye the ciuill rule and gouernment of Rome to the Emperour as now the Popes doo Then which he meant nothing lesse for he acknowledged himselfe the Emperours subiect vsed him accordingly But he meant by the right of earthly power vsurped ouer the Church the right of dealing with Church-liuings after the maner of the world in setting them to sale as men doo farmes and leases which is prophane and detestable Now Gregorie being grieued that the Emperour asked money euen of the Bishop of Rome himselfe whose election he confirmed with his royall assent he thought good to amplifie the heinousnesse of the fact as most vnlawfull and wicked in the Church of Rome And thereupon he saith that Christ did forbid it who specially committed this Church to S. Peter saying To thee will I giue my Church In the gospell we reade of Peter that he knew not what he said when he saide to Christ whom he beheld in glory Maister it is good for vs to be here and let vs make three tabernacles Gregorie had a louing affection to Rome Will you giue me leaue to thinke of him as of Peter that he knew not what he said For the wordes which he alleageth are not the wordes of Christ as you must néedes graunt The thing he gathereth of them is against the words of Christ who generally committed all Churches to Peter for he was an Apostle and if any specially it was that of the
If any man preach vnto you more then you haue receyued but beside that you haue receyued For if he should say that he should be preiudiciall to him selfe who desired to come to the Thessalonians that he might supply that which was wanting to their faith Now he that supplyeth addeth that which was wanting taketh not away that which was and so forth Whereby S. Austin sheweth that we may preach more then the scripture hath but not beside it that is to say against it Rainoldes He sheweth nothing lesse as any man that readeth his discourse may see For that which he speaketh of more and of wanting is not meant of scripture that is the worde writen but of the worde preached deliuered by mouth Wherein he declareth that the Apostles maner of instructing men was to feede them first with milke not with strong meat So that which was wanting to the Thessalonians was stronger doctrine of the faith that which they had was easier Wherof though in the one he taught them more then in the other yet no more in either then the scripture hath And thus S. Austins more to be no more then scripture himselfe maketh manifest by the example also which he giueth of it For the doctrine of the manhead of Christ he calleth milke of the Godhead strong meat Now they who are taught to know him to be God learne more then they had learned when they receaued him as man But they learne no more then the scripture hath which teacheth him both God and man Wherefore that S. Austin condemning all who preach ought beside the scriptures of the law the gospell meant that more then scriptures may be preached but nought against them it is not S Austins glose but your Louanists and in truth repugnant to S. Austins text For in the same place S. Austin making mention how the Donatists hated him for preaching of the truth and confuting their heresie as though saith he we had commanded the Prophets and Apostles who were so long before vs that they in their bookes should set downe no testimonies whereby the Donatists might be proued to be the church of Christ. Which words doo shew plainly that as by the scriptures of the law the gospel he signified the bookes of the Prophetes Apostles so by condemning all that is beside the scriptures he meant not all that is against but all that is not in the scriptures And that this was his meaning he sheweth yet more plainely by willing them to proue their doctrine by the testament which your Louan Doctors the greater shame for them to wrest S. Austins wordes against his sense doo note also For as amongst men the testament doth open the will of the testaâ—or so did S. Austin thinke that the controuersie betwixt the Donatists and the Church should be decided by the Scriptures which Christ hath left to Christians as his will and testament For Christ hath dealt with vs as an earthly Father is wont with his children who fearing least they should fall out after his decease doth set downe his will in writing vnder witnesses if there arise debate amongst the brethren they go to the testament He whose word must end our controuersie is Christ. Let his wil be sought in his testament saith Optatus Which reason of Optatus S. Austin vrging against the Donatists as he doth other often we are brethreÌ„ saith he to them why doo we striue Our father died not vntestate he made a testament so died Men do striue about the goods of the dead till the testament be brought foorth when that is brought they yeeld to haue it opened read The iudge doth hearken the counsellours be silent the cryer biddeth peace all the people is attentiue that the wordes of the dead man may be read heard He lyeth voide of life feeling in his graue and his words preuaile Christ doth sit in heauen and is his testament gainesaied Open it let vs reade we are brethren why do we striue Let our mindes be pacified Our father hath not left vs without a testament He that made the testament is liuing for euer He doth heare our words he doth know his owne word Let vs reade why doo we striue Were not this a séely spéech of S. Austin if hee had meant as you say that all the Lords will is not declared in his testament that thinges beside his owne worde may be proued by mens words Let him be accursed who preacheth any point of faith or life beside the scriptures True beside the scriptures that is against the scriptures say your Louan Doctours Sée what skil can doo If they were Doctours of the Arches we should haue ioly law For a coosining marchant might claime a thousand pound of a dead mans goods who had bequeathed him a legacy of tweÌ„tie grotes they might adiudge it him with good consciences as not against the testament though beside the testament Nay they might do this with so much better reason then they doo the other by how much the testament of God is more perfit theÌ„ any mans can be and that which Christ bequeathed the Pope is farre lesse in comparison of the supremacie then twentie grotes of a thousand poundes Wherfore say the Doctors of Louan what they liâ—t perhaps they speake for their fée S. Austin meant plainely that sith the Donatists claimed the inheritaunce of Christ to them selues they must proue their title by his will and testament Which if they could not doo or rather séeing that they could not he pronounceth of them they had no right vnto it And thereupon he commeth to the generall sentence of the heauenly iudge denouncing them accursed who in any point either of faith or life doo preach beside that which is deliuered in the scriptures of the law and the gospel Wherein if beside do signifie against then all in this respect is against a testament which is beside a testament Hart. S. Austin and Optatus against the Donatists doo speake reason that vnlesse they can proue their right by Christes testament they may not shut the Catholikes out from his inheritance and claime his goods vnto them selues For it is meete that the will of the testator should be kept But a learned lawier one Francis Baldwin who hath set foorth Optatus and writen notes vpon him doth shew that a testament may be either nuncupatiuum as he calleth it or scriptum either set down in writing or vttered by word of mouth What say you to testamentum nuncupatiuum Rainoldes I graunt that a testament may be made without writing so that it be done before a solemne number of witnesses But the testament of Christ is writen I hope and so doo both Optatus and Austin speake of it Wherefore your learned Lawier may kéepe that law in stâ—re vntill his client néede it Hart. As who say the testament of Christ might not be writen in part though
Latin for the vulgar it is idiotae Which word if we should haue translated the idiot we should haue doon iniury to the common sort of rude vnlearned men whom it doth betoken as you must néedes acknowledge who translate it the vnlearned as wee doo the vulgar Rainoldes True But you may sée then how wise your Rhemists are who charge vs with notorious folly becauâ—e we giue the name of Priest to sacerdos and not to presbyter For as the name of idiot doth come from idiota but is taken for a foole so the name of Priest is deriued from presbyter but signifieth a sacrificer by custome of our English speech Wherefore if your reason doo proue that all Pastors of the Christian Church must be called Priestes and haue autoritie to sacrifice because they are presbyterâ— it will proue as well that all vnlearned Christians must be called idiotes and may be begged for fooles because they are idiotae Which if you dare not say of vnlearned Christians though in very truth you deale with them as idiotes when you make such reasons to approue your Masse Massing Priestes vnto them learne by discharging your selues in the one to cléere vs of notorious folly in the other For sith in translating thinges as you confesse the sense must bee kept and the sense of wordes is that which vsually men vnderstand by them and by the worde Priest men vnderstand sacerdos that is to say a man appointed to sacrifice it foloweth thereof that our translatours did their dutie in giuing the name of Priests to them onely to whom the Priestly function in scripture doth appropriate it As for your Rhemists who still doo translate sacerdos a Priest as graunting that we haue no other English woâ—d for it and yet translate presbyter by the same worde too they do ioyne together that which God hath seuered and the wordes which the holy Gost hath distinguished they wittingly confound Wherein they doo lewdly abuse the simple Christians who are vnskilful in the tongues to make them in loue with the whorish sacrifice of the idolatrous Masse and alienate their mindes from the true religion professed in the Church of England For the name of Priest as it hath relation to sacrifice is sacerdos which worde your Trent-fathers doo therefore vse in handling the sacrifice of the Masse Now because the name of sacerdos is not giuen to the Ministers of the gospell in the new testament your Rhemists make the name that is giuen them the same in English with sacerdos To the intent that the simple not seeing the sleight may conceiue thereby that ministers of the gospell are Priestes ordeined to sacrifice and so may loth our Ministers who neither doo sacrifice nor list to be called Priestes and may embrace your Priestes who professe them selues to be Priestes yea Masse priestes and are sent to sacrifice as it is shewed in your Apologie of the English Seminaries Hart. That learned Apology which D. Allen wrote in the defense of our Seminaries doth iustly blame your new pulpits the very chaires of the scorneful for calling vs by that terme merily or mockingly For the Church of God knoweth no other Priests neither hath Christ instituted any other order of Priests but of these whom contemptuously you doo call Masse-priests Rainoldes So D. Allen saith But he proueth neither Priestes nor Masse by scripture vnlesse the Masse be the chaire and the Priestes be the scornefull Hart. Though he alleage not the scripture there to proue them yet hath he done it other where as in his Latin treatise of the sacrifice of the Masse and in our Annotations on the testament in English wherein his hand was chiefest For Esay doth specially prophecy of the Priestes of the new testament as S. Ierom declareth vpon the same place in these words You shall be called the Priestes of God the Ministers of our God shall it be saide vnto you And as here the Ministers of God are called Priestes in that very terme which your selfe confesse hath a relation to sacrifice so that they did sacrifice you may perceiue too by the Actes of the Apostles where it is writen of Prophets and Doctors in the Church at Antioche that they were ministring to our Lord. For the Gréeke signifieth that they were sacrificing and so Erasmus translated Whereby it is meant that they did say Masse and the Gréeke Fathers hereof had their name Liturgie which Eraâ—mus translateth Masse saying Missa Chrysostomi Howbeit we translate it ministring and not sacrificing or saying Masse though wee might if we would as you doo boldly turne what text we list and flée from one language to another for the aduantage of our cause But we kéepe our text as the translatours of the scriptures should doo most religiously Rainoldes Your text then doth say that the Prophets Doctors at Antioche were ministring but you to proue the Masse doo reproue your text For if the Gréeke signifie that they were sacrificing and your text translated the Gréeke into Latin how did your text kéepe his text when he translated it not sacrificing but ministring Will you say that the autour of your old translation which onely is approued by your men as authenticall did not performe that dutie which the translators of the scriptures ought most religiously You doo so for aduantage But in this point you doo him iniurie For though the worde may by consequent import to sacrifice when sacrifice is a seruice pertaining vnto them whose ministerie it betokeneth as where it is spoken of Leuites and Priestes yet doth it properly signifie to minister either in publike function after the originall thereof or in any as magistrates are called the ministers of God and Angels are saide to be ministring spirits and the Gentiles are willed to minister vnto the Iewes in relieuing of their necessitie In so much that the learnedst of your owne translators Isidorus Clarius and Arias Montanus who both haue turned the new testament out of Gréeke into Latin the one approued by the Deputies of the Trent-councel the other by the Doctors of Louan doo both of them translate it in this very place of the Actes of the Apostles not sacrificing but ministring which their affection to the Masse would haue béene loth to doo vnlesse the truth had forced them to it How much the more shamefull is the demeanour of your Rhemists who where they carp vs as leauing the Greeke for the aduantage of our cause them selues for the aduantage of their owne cause doo clip the meaning of the Gréeke against I say not the iudgement of Grammarians euen such as seeke to helpe them most but against the common vse of it in scripture against their olde text against their new translations yea against their owne conscience as that which you alleaged out of the Prophet Esay where they haue Englished it
through bashfulnes least any man should thinke me to hunt after glory which young men are too gréedie of partly through the knowledge of mine owne weaknes who neither in respect of wit nor age nor learning was ripe inough to bring foorth fruites which might be set before all men to be tasted off For though I desire to benefitte all whom I may hauing learned of Plato that I am not borne for my selfe alone but for my countrey neither can I benefitte my countrey more by any meanes then by teaching the waies how to attaine to good artes as Tully thought well yet I feared least I should offend in a common faute an itching lust to write which Horace did terme madnes in his daies what would he haue done if he had liued in ours in which there is such plenty both of passing wits and of works excellent that wise men may iustly thinke it vnmeete to publish any thing that is not wrought with cunning filed with iudgement poolished with labour fruitfull for commoditie and for vse necessary Howbeit after that I was discharged of that profession of artes of humanitie that I might the better applie the studie of diuinitie what before of bashfulnes and iudgement I had still refrained to doo in things of lesse importance least I should doo it more rawly then I thought méete the duetie which I owe to God and his Church hath mooued me now to do that in a weightie matter though not so ripely as I would Which thing vndertaken both by the aduise and the request of the godly I was occasioned to thinke off by one Richard Bristow an Englishman borne abiding at Doway professing the Romish faith who hath set foorth a poisoned worke against the faith and Church of Iesus Christ the faith which we professe the Church of which we be That worke entitled Motiues to the catholike faith when first he set it foorth he hath abridged since into a pamphlet of Demaundes to be proponed of catholikes to heretikes and printed it againe setting before vs the same vnsauory Coleworts twise sodden by himselfe a thousand times by Popish cookes to the great anoyance of guestes if they féede on it great loathing if they féede not What a gréeuous iniury therein be hath doon to the Church of England nor only to the whole bodie thereof but to the seuerall partes also by raysing vp vntrue and wicked surmises by casting out reprochfull spéeches by laying heresies to our charge it shal be declared as I heare shortly in the meane season let the godly iudge whiles to beginne with our most gratious Queene the daughter of godlinesse the defender of the faith the mainteiner of peace the nurse of the Church the preseruer of the weale publik◠the mother of our countrey he doth not onely note her by the name of Pharao but also putteth secretely into mens heads that she is not a lawfull but a pretensed Queene as the Papistes terms her of her Maiesties faithfull and obedient subiectes he saith that they obey her for common humanitie not of duetie to traitors who suffred for taking armes against her he geueth the title of holy and most glorious Martyrs he sclaunderously reporteth that the wiser sort and principall of the Realme haue prooued by experience of our dooings that our religion is no religion at all that our Bishops and Ministers are most ill and wicked and very fewe who preach and they scarce euer preach vpon the mysteries of faith that our people the neerer they come to the preachers doctrine the more they fall away from order and godlines assuring yet themselues to be saued by faith only be they neuer so wicked that in our Vniuersities either nothing is studied or the arte of speaking only not Diuinitie or if Diuinitie not all but a fewe points of it that our countrey is full not of men but of monsters of Atheistes of Achrists of them who beléeue not that a mans soule dooth liue more then a beasts when it is gone out of the body finally not to rake out of those caues of brimstone the rest of the coales of iuniper which he dooth throw both generally vpon whole estates and vpon many learned and godly men particularly that our Church the very body of our Church dooth not foster an heresie or two but hath reuiued many old heresies besides at least a thousand more of their owne inuention that it committeth not a sinne or two but holdeth a common schoole of sinne wherein the scholers be most lewde and the masters lewder that it thinketh verely there is no saluation at all no religion a thing which I tremble to mention but this cockatrice with venemous mouth hath said hath said nay he hath written it and he hath writen it with a penne of iron he hath writen it to last as a monument of his sclaunder that we thinke verily there is no saluation at all none at all and that our religion indeede is no religion Now these false and sclaunderous spéeches against our Church wherewith he hath besette his worke in sundry places as with precious stones are vnderlaide with reasons against our Churches faith begotten of the same father and sisters germaine to the sclaunders loose and dull in truth yet in apparance sharpe and sound which although the skilfull might crush in péeces without harme yet might they doo harme by stinging the vnskilfull euen as a scorpion if he sting a man dooth hurt him with his sting but if you bruse him straight and with his body brused anoint the part stoong he dooth you no hurt Wherefore to the intent that this scorpion of Bristow pricking with two stings as the worst kind of scorpions is wont the one of sclaunders the other of cauilles might doo no hurt to our men whom in the vniuersities or other parts of the realme he is thought to haue stoong many godly men haue wished him to be brused that if not all the parts yet at least so many as the grace of God which only healeth would recure might therewith be anointed And this doo they séeme to haue wished so much the more because some men hauing litle skill in physiche doo thinke that this scorpions stingings are uncurable For both Bristow himselfe as Thraso 〈◊〉 Terence praising his owne spéeches And now they were all afraide of me doth proudly aske whether any of our great Masters will answere his Demaundes as though we had neither shield in the Church to quench the fierie dartes of Satan nor physician in Israel to heale such as are wounded and I know not what Gnatho which hath cast abroad of late infamous verses in our vniuersitie hath insolently boasted that the Captaines tremble amazed with Bristowes lightning as though he had astonied the Coronells of our army not the souldiers onely But let Bristow know that nether all doo feare him howsoeuer he hath touched
but earthly not spirituall but like the kingdomes of this world presently to come not after to be looked for proper to Israel not common to all nations by vertue of the promises Yea that more is when they had receiued the holy Ghost in greater measure from heauen Peter went not rightly to the truth of the Gospell Iohn would haue worshipped an Angell once or twise the Apostles brethren who were in Iudaea thought that the word of God was not to be preached to the Gentiles But yet al these errours of the Apostles were curable For both they returned to Christ when he was risen againe from death to life and first them selues acknowledged then they taught others the state of his kingdome and Peter being reproued by Paul did yeeld vnto him and Iohn stayed himselfe vpon the Angels admonition and the Apostles with the brethren being taught the truth were glad that God had graunted to the Gentiles also repentance vnto life Wherein that is performed which was promised by Christ when Peter hauing made that worthy profession of faith he said vnto him Thou art Peter and on this stone will I build my church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it The gates of hell shal not preuaile against the church they shall not preuaile They shall bée of strength then against the Church but they shall not preuaile by strength For the elect and chosen of God may take a fall but fall a way they can not Perhaps they build stubble but they build on the foundation And the foundation is Christ Iesus from whom they shall neuer be plucked away For as Fabius saith in Liuie that right doth faint often as being not able well to proue the truth but it neuer dyeth so men who cleaue to right and truth are oft assaulted but they are neuer conquered The sheepe of Christ may go astray in the wildernes but they can not perish The prodigall sonne may go away from his father but he shall come againe The faith of Peter him selfe did sowne as you would say but it failed not Hée was turned away a while from the Lord whom he denied too but he was turned againe vnto him To conclude the faithfull are sorely pressed often by many enemies and mightie but they shall neuer be suppressed Often haue they assaulted mee from my youth vp may Israel now say often haue they assaulted mee from my youth vp but they haue not preuailed against me It is certaine therefore that the elect and chosen though they be made the children of God by adoption yet are subiect to errour Howbeit of the other side they are subiect so that they are freed from the gilt of errour by Christ and are accepted as holy of God because they are in part holy I am blacke ô yee daughters of Ierusalem saith the spowse yet I am comely as the tentes of Kedar yet as the hangings of Salomon Yea farther the bridegrome saith that shee is faire nay that is more the Fairest but the fairest of wemen not simply the fairest as Bernard well noteth but in comparison of wemen but in respect of earthly creatures To teach the Church thereby least shée waxe proude that as long as she liueth in the tabernacle of the body she goeth on towardes but is not yet come to the perfection of fairenes and therefore that she is not I vse S. Bernardes wordes faire altogither though shee be therefore commended for her fairenesse because shee walketh after the spirit not after the flesh But here peraduenture some man will obiect an argument which Papists are euer hammering on that the holy Ghost is promised and giuen by Christ to the elect and the holy Ghost is the Ghost or spirit of holines and truth whereof it may seeme to be well gathered that they can neither erre in doctrine nor in maners To this if it be obiected thus I answere that the holy Ghost hath filled with the vnmeasurable abundance of his grace none but Christ onely of whose fulnes we all receiue Christ in déed hath giuen the holy ghost to the elect but he hath giuen it by measure as I may say with Iohn not to this effect that they may not erre but that they may not erre to death For it is a sentence not onely proued by Philosophers but also knowen to simple men by common experience that whatsoeuer thing is receiued of an other it is receiued according to the capacitie of that which receiueth it We receiue therefore the gifts of the holy Ghost according to the simple capacitie of mans weakenesse not to the maiestie of Gods spirit There is water enough in the maine sea to quench the raging flames that waste a whole towne but a small dish can not containe enough to asswage the fier that burketh one house Men who are begotten in the image and likenes of their father Adam doo flame burne as the Prophet speaketh Though they be borne anew of water and of the spirit yet the water of the spirit dâ—â—th not quite put out all sparkes of faultes and ouersights For there remaineth a strife betwéen the spirit and the flesh euen in the godly and the remnants of the flesh stick in the hart and mind both and now while we liue we know but in part and the power of God is perfitted in weaknes and Ieremie praieth heale me O Lord and I shal be healed and Paul acknowledgeth of himselfe that he is not yet perfitte though labouring hard toward the marke and Iames saith generally concerning the faithfull In many things we all offend and our Sauiour witnesseth that he which is washed hath neede to wash his feete Wherefore though the chosen and elect of God be renued by the holy Ghost yet they are not clensed so in this life from all peruersenes of hart and blindnes of minde that they can neither swarne from dooing their duetie nor be deeeiued in iudgement For the holy Ghost no dout as Christ promised dooth leade theÌ„ into all truth yea I say farther into all holines but so as S. Paul professeth to the Ephesians that he shewed them all the counsell of God Now he shewed them all the counsell of God not absolutely and simply but so farre as was profitable for them The holy Ghost therefore doth lighten the mindes and sanctiâ—â—e the harts of the elect and chosen so farre as is expedient for their saluation But it is expedient for vs to erre in some things that we may geue all glory vnto God alone that knowing what we are we be not high minded that we may be taught to beare ech others burdens that we may worke forth our own saluation with feare that we may learn with Paul that the grace of God is sufficient for vs that we may sharpen our
flocke And what is this to Peters successour the Pope who preacheth not as Peter did For he vseth not to preach but when he saith Masse nor then vnlesse he list and he saith not Masse but on a fewe hie feastes nor then if he be let and the Italian gouernment specially the Papacy so discreetly menaged must néedes haue le ts a number His Princely cares do trouble him he leaueth Priestly to the Friers Wherefore that sacrilegious vsurper of Rome committeth two euils against both the head and the bodie of the Church Against the head in that he maketh the prerogatiue of one Pastor common to all Popes which is proper to Christ. Against the body in that hee claimeth the title of Christes vicar as proper to him selfe which is common to all Pastours Hart. Nay you who reuile the high priest of God commit a great euill But he coÌ„mitteth none at all For he taketh not the prerogatiue of one Pastor as Christ but vnder Christ. And he claimeth the title of Christes vicar by an excellencie as the chiefe and generall though all other Bishops be Christes vicars also Rainoldes This is to roale the stone of Sisyphus You driue it vp the hill and still it slippeth backeward yet cease you not to striue but you striue in vaine For though you fetch it vp neuer so often downe againe it will All Bishops you say are the vicars of Christ but the Pope claimeth that title by an excellencie True By an excellencie he robbeth al Bishops of that honour which Christ hath giuen them For he doth account them all to be his vicars as Cardinall Turrecremata calleth them expressely the vicars of the Pope and proueth by the Popes owne law that they are so Wherefore if you will haue them Christes vicars too the matter must be helped out with your distinction that first and directly they are the Popes vicars and Christes by a consequent and secondarilie As for the man whom you call the hie priest of God I know him not For he is not the hie priest of the Iewes I trow And Christians haue no hie priest but the Sonne of the Highest euen him of whom it is writen such an hie priest it became vs to haue which is holy harmelesse vndefiled separate from sinners and made higher then the heauens Wherefore I speake not the wordes of reuiling but of truth and modestie when I call him a sacrilegious vsurper who taketh the crowne of the king of kings and fetteth it on his owne head This doth that man of sinne who saith that it is necessarie for euery man vnto saluation to be subiect to the Pope and that they who say hee hath not charge ouer them are not of Christs sheepe because the Lord saith in Iohn that there shall be one flocke and one pastour Hart. You néede not account it so heinous a matter to conclude that doctrine by these wordes of Christ. Chiefely sith it is probable that he meant them rather of the Pope then him selfe For he saith there shall be one flocke and one Pastor he saith not there hath beene but there shall be Now him selfe as being God was alway Pastor of the Gentiles also no lesse theÌ„ of the Iewes And so in respect of him there had before bene one flocke and one pastor Wherfore sith he speaketh of a thing that should be not that had bene alreadie he might be well thought to haue meant not him selfe but the Pope rather who in his stéed is Pastor both of Iewes and Gentiles Rainoldes Had the Gentiles alway God for their Pastor as well as the Iewes What meant S. Paule then who saith to the Gentiles ye were without Christ and aliants from the common wealth of Israell and straungers from the couenants of promise and had no hope and were without God in the world For God is called Pastor in respect of them whom he guideth and feedeth with the foode of life So that if he were Pastor of the Gentiles alway as you say he was then they were alway faithfull and members of the Church and had the hope of God in Christ. But if they were before without Christ without hope without God in the world and aliants from the common wealth of Israell that is the Church and straungers from the couenants of promise made to the faithfull as they were S. Paule saith then neither were they one flocke with the Iewes neither was God their one Pastor wherfore what â—oeuer shew of probabilitie the Pope might séeme to haue for abusing those wordes to maintaine his own pride in truth they agree to him who broke the stoppe of the partition-wall and made of both one that is to Christ Iesus and onely to Christ. Hart. Well If the wordes agree not to the Pope perhaps in one sense they may in an other For there are sundry senses of the holy scriptures but in generall two as Father Robert sheweth whereof the one is called historicall or literall the other mysticall or spirituall And so the spéech of Christ touching one Pastor might signifie the Pope in a mysticall sense though not in the literall As likewise the name of hye priest signifying the Iewish literally doth mystically betoken him Rainoldes That sense is the right sense of the scriptures which the holy Ghost the author of them meant Now the holye Ghost hath vttered them in such sort that not the wordes onely do signifie things according to their naturall sense but the things also expressed by the wordes do signifie other things according to the Lordes ordinance who shadowed that by figures in the olde Testament which is performed in the newe As for example it is writen in the law of Moses you shall not breake a bone of him These wordes are spoken touching the lambe of the passeouer and signifie as they sound that the Iewes should dresse it whole without breaking any bone thereof But this thing doth signifie a faâ—ther thing in secret to wéete that when Christ who was represented figured by the lambe should suffer death to saue vs a bone of him should not be broken Thus of one place there are two senses the former called literall because the letter as it were that is the very wordes being vnderstood aright do import it and the later mysticall because the thing imported and meant by the letter doth betoken a déeper mysterie Of these the literall sense is knowne to be the meaning of the holy Ghost For wordes were made to open the conceites of our mind and so are they vsed by the holy Ghost to shew the will of God vnto vs. The mysticall is known to be his meaning also when himselfe reuealeth it as he hath done in that touching the lambe Otherwise it is not For men may deuise many mysticall senses of a place in scripture and them one contrarie to an other as often times they doo Which all could not be meant by