infallible the councels interpretation And these meanes he saith are the onely certaine sure infallible meanes of vnderstanding and expounding the Scripture aright As for other meanes which learned men do vse such as you obserued out of S. Austin he graunteth they are profitable but deceitfull many waies if ech of them be seuerally taken by it selfe Which he proueth in particular by the chiefest of them first the weighing of circumstances what goeth before what commeth after next the wordes and kinde of speeches vsed in the Scriptures thirdly the conferēce of places togither one to be lightned by an other fourthly recourse to the fountaines of the Greeke and the Hebrue text Wherefore though I acknowledge your way to be a good way and such as I am well content to walke in when these our waies shall lead me to it notwithstanding sith it is common to vs with all Heretikes yea with Iewes and Painims who do all conferre places obserue the kinde of spéeches looke on the Gréeke and Hebrue fountaines marke what goeth before what commeth after and such like thinges and yet they are verye farre from the true vnderstanding of the scriptures I will my selfe practise it when I shall see good but there is no reason of yours that can enforce me to allow it simply Rainoldes The treatise of your Doctor against the Protestants opinion is like the army of Antiochus prepared against the Romans verie great and huge of men of many nations but white liuered souldiours neither so strong with armour as glistering with gold and siluer Antiochus him selfe was amazed at it and thought it vnuincible so did the simple fooles of his country too But the Romans contemned it and Annibal iested at it The name of Protestants which he vseth tauntingly as all one with Heretikes wée are no more ashamed of then were the Prophets and Apostles whom the Spirit of God hath honored with that title because they did make a protestation of their faith vpon the like occasion as did the faithfull in Germany when they were noted by that name The Protestants opinion I haue alreadie shewed to be the opinion of the auncient Protestants the Fathers the Apostles the holie Ghost who spake by them If you call it an errour we are content to erre with them If he thinke it an heresie we are no better then Paul who in such heresie serued God The ground which he layeth for the disproofe of it is such that it séemeth his wits and he had made a fray when he layed it He saith that the scripture ought to be expounded by the rule of faith and therfore not by scripture onely Which is in effect as if a man should say the church must be taught by liuing creatures endued with reason and therefore not by men onely For as a liuing creature endued with reason and a man is all one which euerie childe knoweth by the principles of logicke so the rule of faith and scripture is all one doth not your Doctor know it It is a principle of diuinitie deliuered by S. Austin whom he pretendeth chiefly in this point to follow Hart. And doth he not follow him Doth he not alleage S. Austins owne wordes In a doubtfull place of scripture let a man seeke the rule of faith which rule hee hath learned of plainer places of the scriptures and of the authoritie of the church to proue that the rule of faith must be fetched out of the authoritie of the church also not out of scriptures onely Rainoldes Yes he doth alleage S. Austins wordes in déed but as the false witnesses alleaged Christes wordes of destroying the temple and building it in three dayes the wordes against the meaning Which tricke the law noteth as an abusing of the lawe yet is it common with your Doctor For as Christ when he spake of raising the temple by the temple meant his bodie the witnesses did wrest it to the temple of Ierusalem so the authoritie of the church is mentioned by S. Austin as teaching scriptures onely your Doctor alleageth it as teaching somewhat beside the scriptures Hart. This is strange that S. Austin by the authoritie of the church meant no more then by the plainer places of the scriptures For so much you séeme to say in effect Rainoldes Be it strange yet is it true For him selfe declareth that to be his meaning not onely by the rest of his whole treatise wherein he doth establish the scriptures alone for the rule of faith to shew the sense of doubtfuller places by the plainer but also by the ende of this your owne sentence which Stapleton in alleaging it either negligently passed or craftily suppressed vnlesse the fault perhaps be in some other with whose eyes he read it For after these wordes let him seeke the rule of faith which rule he hath learned of plainer places of the scriptures and of the authoritie of the church it followeth in S. Austin Of which rule we haue sufficiently entreated in the first booke when we spake of thinges Now in that discourse to which he referreth vs he spake not of any thing as taught by the church but what is in the scripture Wherefore in these wordes by the authoritie of the church he meant not any thing beside the scripture If he did shew it If he did not acknowledge it Hart. He did For in the first booke where he spake of things hee shewed that the doctrine of the Trinitie is comprised in that rule of faith Which yet is not expresly set downe in the scriptures Rainoldes Expresly What meane you by this word expresly Hart. I meane that it is not expressed in the scriptures Rainoldes What Not the doctrine of the blessed Trinitie the Father the Sonne and the holie Ghost Hart. Not all that our faith doth hold of the Trinitie Rainoldes God forbid that we should hold of such a mysterie more then he teacheth by his word Hart. Certainly S. Austin writing to an Arian who denied that God the sonne is consubstantiall with the Father saith that as we reade not in the holie scriptures the Father vnbegotten yet it is defended that it must be said in lyke sort it may be that neither consubstantiall is founde written there and yet being said in the assertion of faith may bee defended And again disputing against Maximinus a Bishop of the Ariās Giue me testimonies saist thou where the holy Ghost is worshipped as though by those things which we do read we vnderstood not some thinges also which wee reade not But that I be not inforced to seeke many where hast thou read God the Father vnbegotten or vnborne And yet it is true Rainoldes And thinke you that S. Austin meant by these spéeches that the scriptures teach not that God the holy Ghost is to be worshipped God the Sonne is of one substance with the Father God the Father is
to vs. But the Doctor saw that Babylon would fall if the distinction stoode Wherefore if he had no stronger shot then this to discharge against it I will beare with him as in the rest of his tauntes also Loosers must haue their wordes An other point he carpeth at is mine exposition of holy catholike church Which I hauing proued by the Papistes themselues that it must needes signifie the company of the chosen alone not mixt with wicked ones because by their catechisme it is the body of Christ all the body of Christ is quickned by his spirit which the wicked are not he replieth that the church is said in the scripture to be the body of Christ quickned by his spirite because some partes of it are so not all the body An aunswere somewhat straunge considering that the scripture which I had alleaged saith that al the body of Christ is quickned so As for that he noteth of the word Catholike that I and Philip Mornay expound it not in one sorte Philip Mornayes excellent giftes and fruitfull labors I reuerence and loue And both of vs hauing aymed at the trueth whether hath come neerer it let the Prophets iudge But if among Prophets in the church of Christ somewhat be reueiled to one that is not to an other this iustifieth not them who say they are Iewes are not but are the Synagogue of Satan Yet this is the soundest reason that he hath against my Conclusion that the holy Catholike church which we beleue is the whole company of Gods elect and chosen For touching that he addeth that he hath disproued it by shewing that the church is distinguished from hereticall assemblies by the name of Catholike he hath disproued it as soundly therby as if he should say that the Catholike epistles in the new Testament were not so called as generall writen to no certaine persons because that other writings are named catholike also to distinguish them from hereticall The third point he taketh vpon him to confute is an argument that I made to proue my third Conclusion All the wordes of scripture be the wordes of trueth some wordes of the Church be the wordes of errour But he that telleth the trueth alwayes is more to be credited theÌ„ he that lyeth sometimes Therefore the holy scripture is to be credited more theÌ„ is the Church And to this argumeÌ„t saith he I answere briefly that no words of the Church are the words of error that is that no erroneus thing is euer taught defined or approued by the Church in her Bishops Pastors teaching vniformly in the decrees of Councels chiefly of generall Councels in that which the Fathers teach with one consent in her head the Pope defining deliuering any thing publikely finally in the rule of faith which all the Church holdeth though â—euerally some Bishops may priuately erre in teaching and one or moe Fathers may write some vntrue thing or be in some erâ—or and somewhat euen in CouÌ„cels without the decree it self may be said or reasoned inconueniently and to conclude the Pope may be ouerseene priuately in somewhat But this must be certes imputed to the frailtie of men not to the Church her selfe Which speech of D. Stapletons if it be an aunswere vnto my argument then can I tell him a very briefe way to aunswere my Conclusions all with one word How By graunting them all to be true For though it were so that nether Bishops teaching vniformely might erre nor Fathers consenting nor Councels in decrees nor the Pope in publike and definitiue sentence which I both there else where haue shewed to be otherwise but if it were so yet seeing that Bishops and Fathers and Councels and the Pope himselfe may erre as he confesseth in this or that point and this or that maner he graunteth that which I said that some wordes of the Church are the wordes of errour But those wordes must certes saith he be imputed to the frailtie of men not to the Church her selfe Now certes M Doctor is a mery maÌ„ who can shift an argument off with such a iest As though the Church her selfe consisted not of men and therefore must needes offend so through frailtie the men offending so The fourth and last point wherewith he findeth fault is that amongst the reasons why the Church of Rome is no sound member of the Catholike Church I bring this that touching expounding of the Scripture she condemneth all senses and meanings thereof which are against the sense that her selfe holdeth or against the Fathers coÌ„senting all in one Whereof in that he gathereth that I allow not the expositions of the Fathers yea that I affirme that it is a marke and token of a false Church to admitte the ioint-consent of the Fathers in expounding of the scripture he dooth me great wrong For though by folowing too much breuitie in Latin I fell into obscuritie and said not so plainly that which I would and should as in the English now I haue yet that which I said dooth cleere me of his sclaunder as D. Fulke hath shewed whom I can better thanke for his defending of me then deserue the praise that he hath geuen me therein Nay I was so far from noting that as faulty in the Church of Rome that the faulte which I noted was her vile abusing the name of the Fathers against their iudgemeÌ„t in that point For I declared straight in the words ensuing that first shee autoriseth thereby her owne practise as the right sense and meaning of the Scripture though contrarie to it selfe next she alloweth the puddles of the Schoolemen wil haue theÌ„ taken for waters of life lastly when some Fathers gainsay her she reiecteth them because they all consent not and admitteth them who doo make for her as hauing hit the mark Of the which branches the last importeth not that I refuse the Fathers consenting all in one The former two import that I condemne the frensie of the Church of Rome mainteining her Dunses and deedes against the Fathers But the serpentes assembled in the Councell of Trent haue set downe that I spake of touching the expounding of the scripture so suttilly that a simple man would thinke they allow such senses and meanings of the Scripture onely as the Fathers geue all with one consent Whereas in very trueth they do nothing lesse they disallow them rather For whether by the Fathers consenting all in one they meane the Fathers all simply none excepted that consent is a Phoenix and neuer will be found or whether they meane a good number of them as M. Hart expoundeth it they dissent froÌ„ senses agreed on by that number For example the scripture saith There shal be one flock one Pastour The Fathers Austin Chrysostome Cyrill Ierome Gregorie expounde this of Christ. The church of Romes
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
for himselfe and for al Christians certaine for himselfe and for his successors This is plainely gathered by the diuers reason and consideration whereon they are spoken to him For those thinges which are spoken to him as one of the faithfull are vnderstood to be spoken vnto all the faithfull as if thy brother trespasse against thee Those things which are spoken in some respect of his owne person are spoken vnto him alone as thou shalt denie me thrise Those things which are spoken in regard of his pastorall duetie are spoken vnto all pastours as feede my sheepe and strengthen thy brethren And thus you may sée that the wordes of Christ I haue praied for thee that thy faith faile not and strenghthen thy brethren might in such sort be spoken vnto Peter that they might pertaine to euery Pope also though the other wordes to denie Christ and to be conuerted do not perteine to them You will not say your selfe I trust of faithful Christians that they must all denie Christ. Yet you said that this praier commandement of Christ perteine to them all if you be remembred Rainoldes I remember it well and it is verie true But this doth giue a deadly stripe to that argument which you preteÌ„ded to be made by the Fathers For if the wordes of Christ Feede my sheepe and strengthen thy brethren must bee vnderstood as spoken vnto all Pastors which by your answere you graunt then how can they proue the supremacie of one Pastor which you conclude in your argument Hart. I did not meane by all Pastors the Pastors of all Churches but all the Pastors of one Church namely of the Church of Rome Rainoldes But Robert the Father whose wordes you alleaged doth meane the Pastors of all Churches And the commandement of Christ Feede my sheepe belongeth to them also vnlesse the councell of Trent mistake it Hart. It belongeth to them but to the Bishop of Rome chiefly For Chrysostome expresly saith as I alleaged that Christ did commit the feeding of his sheepe to Peter and to Peters successours Rainoldes And be you certaine that by Peters successours he meant the Bishops of Rome Hart. Whom should he meane but them Rainoldes He meant all Bishops not all the Bishops of one Church but the Bishops of all Churches Which is euident by his wordes and the entent whereto he spake them For to stirre vp Basil and make him glad and willing to doo the office of a Bishop which he had vndertaken he telleth him that Christ when he saide to Peter Dost thou loue me Feede my sheepe did thereby shew how deere his sheepe are vnto him and therefore would surely giue great rewarde to Pastors who feede them and guide them For why did he shed his owne blood saith Chrysostome but eueÌ„ to purchase those sheepe the care of whom he committed to Peter and to Peters successours Whereupon he goeth forward and declareth what that charge is which Christ gaue to Peter and to all Pastors by that commission Feede my sheepe So that both the course of Chrysostomâ— spéech and the drift of his reason and the person whom it implyeth S. Basil Bishop not of Rome but of Caesarea doo manifestly shew that he meant by naming the successours of Peter all Pastors of the flocke al Bishops of the Church of Christ. And this is so cléere that Father Robert himselfe in his Romane Lectures doth not only graunt it but also proue it by two reasons one out of Austin that Peter was a figure of the Church that is to say he represented all Pastours when Christ said to him feede my sheepe an other out of Leo that Peter is an example and as it were a paterne the which all Pastors ought to folow How much the more shamefull is the ignorance of your Doctors if they knew it not the wilfulnes if they knew it who beare men in hand that Chrysostome doth proue the Popes supremacie by those successours Wherin the ouersight of your Rhemists is great but a paire of Iesuites Caniâ—ius and Busaeus doo go beyond their felowes For they amongst many sentences of the Fathers the woorst of them as fit as this to proue the Papacie doo set out this as the best and triumph of it as of a péerelesse proofe by giuing it a speciall note in the margent Note say they to Peter to Peters successours Note it say the Iesuites In déede it is a point well worth the noting that you doo so notoriously abuse the Church of Christ. For you perswade the simple and chiefly young scholers who trust your common-place-bookes that Chrysostome spake of Peter and Peters successours in the same meaning that the Pope doth when he saith that Peter and Peters successour is the head of the Church and bindeth men by solemne oth to be obedient to the Bishop of Rome the successour of Peter Whereas S. Chrysostome meant by Peters successours all them whom Christ doth put in trust to feede his sheepe as the Maister of the sentences and Thomas of Aquine doo giue the name of Peters successours to all Priestes Prelates as they terme them that is to all Pastors Doctors of the Church as S. Austin teacheth that it is said to all when it is said to Peter Dost thou loue me Feede my sheepe as S. Ambrose writeth that he and all Bishops haue receiued the charge of the sheepe with Peter as the Roman clergie apply it to the rest of the disciples of Christ to the clergie of Carthage too Such inuincible reasons you fetch out of the Fathers for the Roman Papacy by which euery Bishop may claime as much aboue the Roman as may the Roman aboue any Hart. In déede to feede the sheepe is common after a sorte to the Pastors of all Churches But in many Churches the faith of Pastors hath failed Wherefore Christes prayer for the faith of Peter that it should not faile is not common to them all Onely the Bishops of the Church of Rome haue neuer failed in faith By the which euent of thinges it is plaine that Christ made that prayer for Peters successours in the See of Rome and so did establish them ouer al in charging them to strengthen their brethren Rainoldes And doo you thinke that all the Bishops of Rome haue had the same priuilege which Christ obtained for Peter in that his faith failed not Hart. The verie same no doubt Rainoldes And haue they shewed their faith by their workes too by keeping Christes commandements by louing one another Hart. They haue so perhaps Rainoldes Away with that perhaps for all the world knoweth they haue not Yea seuen hundred yeares ago not to speake of later times wherein their power and wealth haue kindled sparkes of greater licence and loosed the reines vnto their lustes but seuen hundred yeres ago when they were yet of meaner estate the proofe hereof was
is writen also in the holy Gospell that in an other Councell and consultation of the Iewes wherein they sought vniustly to condemne the iust when Iesus being asked whether he were Christ the sonne of God confessed him selfe to be so Caiphas the hye priest saide hee hath blasphemed what neede we witnesses any further behold now you haue heard his blasphemie Was this spéeche of Caiphas a prophecie or an errour Hart. What if it were an errour Rainoldes How sée you not then that Caiphas did not prophecie by priuilege of his office For so he should haue prophecied in this Councell too in which he sate as hye Priest hée spake as hye Priest and to him as hye Priest the Councell did assent in giuing sentence against Christ. But that amongst many mischiefes and falshoodes he spake the wordes of truth once in a sense not which he meant for he meant wickedly but which his spéeche yéelded there was a worke of God in it Who hauing sent his sonne a sauiour to the Iewes as he stirred them vp to know him and receiue him by Angels by wonders by voyces from heauen by wise men from the east a prophetisse in the temple Iohn Baptist in the wildernes by men women childreÌ„ all sortes of persons yea by the diuels them selues so he made the hye Priest to beare witnesse of him by giuing out an Oâ—â—cle vnder doutfull wordes to make the Iewes more vnexcusable that by his owne mouth the naughtie seruant might be iudged Wherefore not the ordinarie priuilege of office but an extraordinarie motion of God did guide the tongue of Caiphas to prophecie of Christ as he opened the mouth of the asse of Balaam to reproue her maister And you who would gather an ordinarie priuilege of the Popes office by that extraordinarie prophecying of Caiphas doo make a like reason as if you should conclude that the Popes horse can speake because that Balaams asse did Nay you might conclude this on greater reason For Balaams asse spake twise Caiphas prophecied but once Hart. Your similitude is odious I maruell why you vse such Rainoldes Because your reason is absurd I would faine haue you see it Hart. Absurd He that should call it absurd in our schooles would be thought him selfe absurd For it is grounded vpon a proportion betwixt the hie Priest and the Pope the Church of the Iewes and of the Christians Rainoldes Then by a reason of proportion belike the Pope condemneth Christ as Caiphas did and vexeth Christians as Annas Doo you allowe hereof in your schooles also Hart. Yet againe I see you will neuer leaue these odious comparisons The Pope to Caiphas and Annas Rainoldes You are a straunge man who go about to proue by the example of Caiphas that the Pope can not erre in office and are angrie with me for touching the weakenes of your reason therein Hart. Wel. I graunt that Caiphas had not that priuilege For it was not promised to the hie Priestes of the Iewish Church but till the comming of Christ at which time the Prophets shewed that it should faile them For Ieremie saith thereof In that day the heart of the king shall perish and the heart of the Princes and the Priestes shal be astonished And Ezekiel more plainely The law shall perish from the Priest counsell from the Elders But till that time they had it and did teach the truth according to the law and were to be obeied in all things which they taught Rainoldes Yea What say you then of Vrias who was hie Priest vnder king Achaz sixe hundred yeares before Christ He ceased to sacrifice on the altar of God appointed by the law and hauing made a new one like to the altar of Damascus he sacrificed vpon it Whereby he defiled himselfe and the land with rebellion against the Lord. Hart. I say that Vrias did erre in doing so But we may refute this reason of yours by denying that Vrias did succede Aaron and was of the tribe of Leui. Rainoldes In déede a Cardinall answereth that you may refute it so in one word And that is shewed plainelye enough as he saith by those wordes of scripture which are writen of Ieroboam He made Chapels in hie places and Priestes of the lowest of the people who were not of the sonnes of Leui. But this refutation is as fitte against our reason of Vrias as if a maÌ„ should say that Bishops in England are not Protestants because the Bishops of Fraunce are Papistes For the Priestes which Ieroboam made of the lowest of the people not of the sonnes of Leui were in the kingdome of Israel at Bethel and Dan and Vrias was Priest in the temple at Ierusalem in the kingdome of Iuda The thing is apparant by the very course and text of the scripture And they who would saue the Priesthood most gladly from the shamefull staine agree that he was hie Priest the successour of Aaron Hart. Let it be admitted that he was so The staine of his fault is not so foule as you make it For what did he els but that which we reade Pope Marcellinê° to haue done Who in the horrible persecution of Christians vnder Maximian and Diocletian took incense for feare and offered it to Idols Vrias did transgresse the law of God not wilfully but through the frailtie of the flesh not of his own accord but by the kings commaundement Wherfore it came rather of feare then of rashnes or ignorance that hee offended Rainoldes So did it in Peter that he denied Christ. And may you therefore say that Peter was priuileged not to denie Christ I maruell that you feele not the grossenes of your dealing You say that hie Priestes are priuileged by their office to perseuere in true doctrine It is shewed that they fall to manifest Idolatrie You graunt they do so but they do it for feare you say Where is the priuilege then For God to whom so euer he giueth any benefit as it were by priuilege hee giueth them a priuilege withall of speciall fauour to frée them from the lettes that might debarre them of the benefit Ezekias was sicke of a pestilent disease whereof he should haue died God did adde fifteene yeares to his life He tooke away his sickenes that he might enioy it S. Paule was in daunger to be lost with shipwracke and all the rest who sailed with him God did giue to him his owne life and theirs He kept them all from danger and brought them safe vnto the land Wherefore if God had giuen a priuilege of true doctrine to the hie Priestes hee woulde haue giuen them a priuilege of grace too that no deceit of fleshe should make them fall away from it But they might fall away from it by sundry meanes to errour yea to Idolatrie For if they might for feare why not for loue also as Salomon did If for loue
Pharises taught that the affection is no transgression of the law so that a man refraine from the action of dooing euill As for example it is saide in the law Thou shalt not kill This commaundement they tyed to the act of murther and glosed thus vpon it whosoeuer killeth shall be culpable of iudgement as though it bridled only the hand and not the heart In like sort they expounded Thou shalt not commit adulterie as if it were enough to kéepe the flesh chast the soule defiled with vncleannes But our Sauiour teacheth them an other lesson that howsoeuer they pretend antiquitie for their gloses yet wrath malice lust euen the very affections of murther and adulterie doo breake the commandements and not the outward déedes onely The rest of their peruerse expositions I passe ouer The last may serue for all Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thy selfe saith the law Wherein the worde neighbour doth signifie as you would say one that is ioyned to vs as all men are some more some lesse but all in a naturall bond of humanitie The very light of nature hath taught the heathens so much who saw that certaine dueties are due from all men each to other through this coniunction of mankind and so haue likewise vsed the name of neighbors generally for al other men as it is meant in this commaundement Thou shalt loue thy neighbour But the Scribes Pharises thinking that a neighbour doth signifie a freend who beareth vs good will and him wee ought to loue did thereupon gather and glose of the contrarie And thou shalt hate thine enimie Which interpretation of the law is lewd and sheweth that they were grossely blinde in expounding it Wherefore our Sauiour reprouing their corruptions in this and other of their doctrines doth say to his disciples Except your righteousnes exceede the righteousnes of the Scribes and Pharises yee shall not enter into the kingdome of heauen Hart. Our Sauiour might speake these wordes of their liues and not of their doctrines because they were wont to say and not to doo As for the pointes which you say were gloses of the Scribes and Pharises some of the Fathers take them to bée the law of Moses it selfe corrected and supplied or rather perfited by Christ. So doth S. Chrysostome compare the one with the other as the olde law with the new and saith that the commaundements of Moses are easie refraine from murther and adulterie but the commaundements of Christ hard refraine from wrath and lust So doth S. Austin séeme to haue thought also Rainoldes They thought so I graunt good men and well meaning abused by the craft of the Scribes and Pharises who to winne the people thereby the more easily vnto their opinions did vtter them in Moses wordes though with an other sense then Moses As that which he meant of lawfull othes and vowes they turned it to vnlawfull of punishment by publike iudgement they turned it to priuate reuengement But this shift of theirs which Christ doth but allude vnto as notorious did cary S. Austin away with such a preiudice that he thought this also to be writen in the law because it cometh in as the rest Thou shalt hate thine enimie whereas the law commaundeth men to loue their enimies and to doo them good The lesse maruell is it if he were deceiued in the former pointes In the which yet afterward he saw his errour and corrected it For when the Manichees who condemned the God of the old Testament as contrarie to the new did reason out of this place that Christ reproueth sundry pointes in the law of Moses he answered that Christ reproueth not the law but them who mistooke it who thought that the forbidding of murther and adulterie did touch not the affections and lustes but actes onely And though it came not then into his mind neither that the law saith not Thou shalt hate thine enimie yet hee considered that it could not otherwise be meant in the old Testament then as in the new we must hate our enimies or rather Gods enimies hate their vices not their persons S. Chrysostome in this point slipped not so much For his wordes thereof be such that it séemeth not he thought it writen in the law If in the rest he did not retract as Austin did he had not the Manichees to sharpen him as Austin had Their folly would haue made him wiser At least what soeuer the Fathers thought therein it is certaine that Christ reproued not the law of God but the gloses of men vpon it Which the newer writers euen of your owne acknowledge yea the Catechisme of Trent too And one a Iewe by ofspring conuerted to the Christian faith doth note out of the writings of an auncient Iewe who liued about the time of Christ that the Iewes thought the outward deedes onely and not the motions of the mind to bee forbidden by the commaundements Wherefore in that you say that Christ when he taught that his disciples righteousnes ought to exceede the righteousnes of the Scribes and Pharises might speake that of their liues and not of their doctrines you say well of the one side but not of the other For he meant it of both Which appéereth by this that he therein giueth a reason of his former spéech as the word for doth shew for I say vnto you except your righteousnes excede the righteousnes of the Scribes and Pharises ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heauen Now the former spéech was that who soeuer shall breake one of these least commaundements and teach men so he shall be called the least in the kingdome of heauen that is he shall be none in it The Scribes and Pharises therfore men famous for their righteousnes who counted these commaundements mentioned by Christ least that is they made no count of them as thinking wrath and malice and lust no transgressions are noted to haue offended not onely in breaking them but in teaching so too And how did they teach so but as Christ declareth by misexpounding the law Therfore in expounding the law they did erre Hart. They did erre after a sort yet marke withall how They taught that the actions of muther and adulterie are forbidden by the law but they taught not that the affections are forbidden This was in deede to teach lesse then the law but not to teach against the law Yea to hate their enimies was after a sort also commaunded in the law For when God sent the children of Israel into the land of Canaan he charged them to cast out all the inhabitants of that land Now those inhabitants were their enimies and of these enimies God saith Thou shalt vtterly destroy them thou shalt make no couenant with them nor haue compassion vpon them Behold they must destroy them Was this to hate them or no
residence and life they cannot erre in doctrine And that is it which wee defend Rainoldes I speake not of their doctrine now but of their office In two pointes whereof you graunt that they may erre The third is as manifest For he which now is Pope Gregorie the thirteenth preacheth not at all If he preach not at all he preacheth not faithfully If he preach not faithfully then may he erre in that point too Hart. How know you that he preacheth not Rainoldes Your selfe did tell me so and it is the likelier because they who commend him commend him for a lawier and not for a Diuine Hart. But his predecessor Pius the fifth did visite often times the Churches of the citie and preached to the clergie as Surius noteth of him Rainoldes That is a greater proofe that the Popes vse not commonly to preach For Surius doth likewise note of him also that he suffered fewer Courtisans in Rome and them in streets lesse famous because they dwelt before in the hie streetes gorgeous houses in great number And peraduenture Surius who prayseth Pius for his preaching made the most of it Pope Pius was aliue when Frier Surius praysed him Moreouer Surius reckeneth this amongst his prayses that in a procession he was not caried on mens shoulders as Popes are wont to be but he went a foote to the great edifying of the people Small preaching of the Pope may be praysed as great when his going a foote shall edifie the people so Neither yet doth Surius report of his preaching more then to the clergie Of sermons to the people he giueth him this prayse that he vouchsafed them of his presence at solemne times Belike he did edifie the people enough with going a foote But if Pope Pius had preached to the people as well as to the clergie one swallowe makes not summer his preaching had not done his duetie M. Pacie Secretarie to king Henrie the eighth and his Embassador in Italie a man who saw farther into the state of Popes then Surius doth write that Pope Iulius the secōd was requested to make one Giles a lerned Frier Cardinall To the which intent whē it was alleaged that the man had learning preached diligently nay marry quoth the Pope that is the onely reason why I can not make him Cardinall with safe conscience that he may preach the worde of God the better still which he might not if he were Cardinall For that is verie farre from the dignitie and custome of Cardinalls saith Pacie and therefore Pope Iulius as he was a Pastour most carefull of the flocke would not agree to that request Now if it be so straunge for Cardinalls to preach what thinke you of the Popes them selues who are more occupied with affaires of state and may lesse attend so base thinges as preaching As the example sheweth of the same Iulius Who bending all his powers as soone as hee had bought the Popedome partly to recouer and partly to enlarge the patrimonie of Peter that is the Popes dominion temporall he moued warre against the Lordes of Bononie Perusium the land about against the Venetians the Duke of Ferrara the State of Genua and the French king Wherin to haue his purposes he gaue himselfe wholy to the conueyance of deuises confederacies practises with Princes peoples Signories English French Spanish Dutch Swizzers Italian and set them all by the eares together Neither did hee wage these warres by others onely that himselfe might preach the meane while at Rome but himselfe was present at some of them in person Amongst which he bore himselfe most valiantly at the siege of Mirandula Whether he came twise in the déepe of winter through great cold and snow and did a captaines dutie both in wordes and déedes yea pitched his tent so néere the towne wall that the shot of the artillerie had twise almost killed him it killed two euen fast by him And surely saith Guicciardin it was a thing worth the noting and very strange to mens eyes that the king of Fraunce a secular Prince fresh of age strong of bodie brought vp in armour from his youth should rest himselfe at home dealing by captaines in a warre which was made chiefly against him and of the other side to see that the Pope the vicar of Christ in earth an olde man and sickly and brought vp pleasurably at ease should come in person to a warre which he had made against Christians and come into the campe vnto a base towne where putting himselfe as a captaine of soldiours to labors perils he retained nothing of a Pope but only the robes and the name To be short the captaine the Pope I would say was troubled so with warring that he had no leasure to thinke of making sermons Some doo write of him that when he was going once out of Rome against the French men with an armie he cast S. Peters keyes into the riuer of Tiber saying sith Peters keyes can not defend vs let vs try what the sworde of Paul will doo Which though peraduenture it be but a iest yet sheweth it a truth that Iulius did labor to aduance his Church by warre in thinges temporal which he should haue edified by godlinesse in thinges spirituall that is for Peters keyes he tooke the sworde of Paul not that sworde of Paul whereof he saith the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but that sworde with which Pope Nero did behead S. Paul All Popes haue not had so much to doo with warre as Iulius the second nor al so much with peace as Gregorie the thirtenth But for these thousand yeares almost they haue béene proling to kepe their State or to encrease it and for these last fiue hundred sith the Romane Church of small weake and in a maner a handmaide of the Emperours is become the ladie of Emperours nay of all as Onuphrius writeth they haue béene troubled more about it Wherefore though some of them it may be haue preached sometimes for a fashion at solemne feastes after the order of their booke of ceremonies yet that which the dutie of a faithfull pastor stewarde doth require to giue the houshold meat in season to teach both publikely and priuately to be instant in season out of season to improue rebuke exhort with al long suffering and doctrine they were entangled so with the affaires of this life that they could not doo it At least if you say that they who did preach discharged faithfully the whole duetie with what face can you say it ofthem who preached not as Gregory the lawier and Iulius the warriour Hart. You are not sure that neither of them did euer preach But if they were not able to preach by them selues yet they might preach by others And so I am sure that our most holy Father Gregory the
of the bodie of Christ in the sacrament as I shewed which the Iewes must not behold They might behold his body vpon the crosse and did so Rainoldes But the holy Apostle him selfe doth vnderstand it of the bodie of Christ as it was offered on the crosse And that is manifest by the wordes he addeth to shew his meaning touching the Iewes and the altar For saith he the bodies of those beastes whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high Priest for sinne are burnt without the campe Therefore euen Iesus that he might sanctify the people with his owne blood suffered without the gate Which wordes are somewhat darke but they will be plaine if we consider both the thing that the Apostle would proue and the reason by which he proueth it The thing that he would proue is that the Iewes can not be partakers of the fruite of Christes death and the redemption which he purchased with his pretious blood if they still retaine the ceremoniall worship of the law of Moses The reason by which he proueth it is an ordinance of God in a kinde of sacrifices appointed by the law to be offered for sinne which sacrifices shadowed Christ and taught this doctrine For whereas the Priestes who serued the tabernacle in the ceremonies of the law had a part of other sacrifices and offeringes and did eate of them there were certaine beastes commanded to bee offered for sinne in special sort and their blood to be brought into the holy place whose bodies might not be eaten but must be burnt without the campe Now by these sacrifices offered so for sinne our onely soueraine sacrifice Iesus Christ was figured who entred by his blood into the holy place to clense vs from all sinne and his body was crucified without the gate that is the gate of the citie of Ierusalem and they who keepe the Priestly rites of Moses law can not eate of him that by his death they may liue for none shall liue by him who séeke to be saued by the law as it is writen if ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing The Apostle therefore exhorting the Hebrewes to stablish their hartes with grace that teacheth them to serue the Lorde in spirit and truth after the doctrine of the gospell not with meates that is to say with the ceremonies of the law a part whereof was the difference betweene vncleane and cleane in meates doth moue them to it with this reason that if they serue the tabernacle and sticke vnto the rites of the Iewish Priesthood their soules shall haue no part of the foode of our sacrifice no fruit of Christs death For as the bodies of those beastes which were offered for sinne and their blood brought into the holy place by the hye Priest might not be eaten by the Priestes but were burnt without the campe so neither may the keepers of the Priestly ceremonies haue life by feeding vpon Christ who to shew this mystery did suffer death without the gate when he shed his blood to clense the people from their sinne And thus it appeereth by the text it selfe that the name of altar betokeneth the sacrifice that is to say Christ crucified not as his death is shewed foorth in the sacrament but as he did suffer death without the gate Whereby you may perceiue first the folly of your Rhemists about the Greeke worde as also the Hebrew that it signifieth properly an altar to sacrifice on as though it might not therefore be vsed figuratiuely where yet them selues must needes acknowledge it to be so too Next the weakenes of your reason who thereof doo gather that by the sacrifice which that worde importeth in the Apostle is meant the cleane offering of which the Prophet speaketh For the cleane offering of which the Prophet speaketh is offered in euery place the sacrifice meant by the Apostle in one place onely without the gate Wherefore the name of altar in the epistle to the Hebrewes doth neither signifie a Massing-altar nor proue the sacrifice of Massing-priests Hart. That which you touch as foolishly noted by our Rhemists about the Greeke and Hebrew worde is noted very truly For you can not deny your selfe but that it signifieth properly an altar a materiall altar to sacrifice vpon and not a metaphorical and spirituall altar Whereby as they conclude that we haue not a common table or prophane communion boord to eate meere bread vpon but a very altar in the proper sense to sacrifice Christs body vpon so for proofe hereof they adde that in respect of the saide bodie sacrificed it is also called an altar of the Fathers euen of Gregorie Nazianzene Chrysostome Socrates Augustine and Theophylact And when it is called a table it is in respect of the heauenly foode of Christes body and blood receiued Rainoldes The note of your Rhemists about the Greeke Hebrew word is true I graunt yet foolish too though true in the thing yet foolish in the drift For to the intent that where the Apostle saith we haue an altar it may be thought hee meant not that word spiritually or in a figuratiue sense as we expound it of Christ but materially of a very altar such as is vsed in their Masses they say that the Greeke word as also the Hebrew answering thereunto in the olde testament signifieth properly an altar to sacrifice on and not a metaphoricall and spirituall altar Which spéech how dull it is in respect of the point to which they apply it I will make you sée by an example of their owne Our Sauiour in the gospell teacheth of himselfe that he is the true bread which giueth life vnto the world the bread which came down from heauen that whosoeuer eateth of it should not die if any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer Your Rhemists doo note hereon that the person of Christ incarnate is meant vnder the metaphore of bread and our beleefe in him is signified by eating Wherein they say well But if a man should tell them that the Greeke word as also the Hebrew answering therevnto in the old testament doth properly signifie bread which we eate bodily and not a metaphoricall or spirituall bread were not this as true a speech as their owne Yet how wise to the purpose who is so blinde that séeth not Yea to go no farther then the very word whereof by their Hebrew and Greeke they séeke aduantage them selues vpon that place of Iohn that he saw vnder the altar the soules of them who were killed for the word of God doo affirme expressely that Christ is this altar Christe say they as man no dout is this altar They meane it I hope in a metaphoricall or other figuratiue spéech For they will not make him by transsubstantiation to be an altar properly Yet here it is as
doo willingly though they doo it weakely For as he accepted the sacrifices of the Iewes when they offered the best and soundest that they had so when the Gentiles were brought him for an offering in like sort as the Israelites doo offer an offering in a cleane vessell the offering vp of them was acceptable to him And thus might the spirituall sacrifices of Christians be meant by the cleane offering whereof the Lord saith in the Prophet Malachie that it shall be offered to him in euerie place According to the scripture that instructeth vs to pray in euerie place lifting vp pure hands without wrath and douting For though nether our prayers be so intier and feruent nor our hands so pure and vnspotted of the world nor our mindes so setled in loue of our neighbour nor our faith so constant and stedfast towards God but that they be stained with remnants of vncleannes and haue lesse perfitnes then they should yet are they all cleane in respect of the sacrifices of those Iewish hypocrites which God in the Prophet reiecteth as vncleane and so where he refuseth to accept theirs he promiseth to accept ours and sheweth that they please him well Wherefore the Masse findeth no footing in Malachie by D. Allens fifth reason Now the sixth and last which he concludeth with as it were to set the Masse in full possession of the cleane offering mentioned by Malachie doth dispossesse it cleane and casteth out the reasons which he brought to strengthen it For the Fathers expound it of our spirituall sacrifices of prayers of thankes giuing of holinesse of godly works of repentant heartes of clensed mindes and bodies sanctified of the giftes offered in Christian Church-assemblies and of the whole worship wherewith we honour him in spirit and truth Wherein to say that they meane the sacrifice of the Masse by the sacrifice of prayer and the spirituall sacrifice as he â—aith they doo and that they call it so because the victime that is here hath not a grosse carnall and bloody consecration or sacrification as had the victimes of the Iewes it is grosse and carnall For the victime as you terme it which they meane and speake of is either our selues purified by faith oâ— our fruites accepted as pure from persons purified not Christ killed and sacrificed vnto God his Father which is your Massing-uictime pure of it selfe and purifying others as you fansie Yea sith it is granted by D. Allens owne words that Austin expounding it of the sacrifice of praise meaneth not the sacrifice of the Masse thereby let that place of Austin he weighed with the rest of his and other Fathers and it shall be found that Malachie toucheth not the Masse in their iudgement by D. Allens owne graunt The sixe reasons therefore which he setteth forth as strong and very good for the proofe thereof proue it no better out of the Prophets in the old testament then doo his bare wordes out of the Apostles in the new In déede there is no letter through all the scriptures for it And thus much perhaps him selfe hath espied since hee wrote his treatise of the sacrifice of the Masse For in his Apologie of the English Seminaries where he would of likelihood make the strongest proofe of it that he could for the defense of Masse-priests and the Masse-priests Nourseries he citeth not the scriptures but the Fathers onely Which vnlesse hée thought that the scriptures faile him I sée not why hee should Chiefly sith he knoweth that they whose good liking of Masse-priests the Masse he séeketh specially to winne by his Apologie doo giue greater credit to fiue words of God then to ten thousand words of men Hart. Nay you are deceued much in D. Allen if you think his iudgement changed any whit from that it was in this point But in his Apologie he citeth the Fathers onely not the scriptures because you haue colours of spiritual sacrifices to shift the scriptures off but you cannot the Fathers so For they all were Masse-priestes themselues and said Masse Rainoldes What one of them M. Hart If you speake indeede to the point of the Masse and daly not as D. Allen who maketh Masse-priestes of the Apostles because they did consecrate the body and bloud of Christ and offer it For if to consecrate and offer as they did be to say Masse then wee say Masse in our Communion and our Ministers are Masse-priests Which I thinke you meane not Hart. I meane that all the Fathers said Masse as we doo and were as we be Masse-priests Which he meaneth also and proueth by the most of them For so was S. Ambrose testifying of him selfe that he offred sacrifice and said Masse euen in that plaine terme Rainoldes In that plaine terme Why S. Ambose spake not English I trust Hart. No. But he saith in Latin Missam facere Rainoldes That is not to say Masse but to doo masse or rather to dimisse Missam fecit in Suetonius would proue the Masse as wel as that Which I dare not say that perhaps him selfe espied since he wrote it least againe you tell me that I am much deceiued in him But in his Apologie turned into Latin S. Ambroses missam facere is changed into missam dixisse And so the words are fitter to proue he said Masse Hart. Dixisse or facere the matter standeth not in that but in the word missa From which sith the name of Masse dooth come in English it foloweth that S. Ambrose did celebrate Masse that is say Masse as wée terme it Rainoldes Must I tell you again that idiot commeth from idiota And wil you say that all the simple idiotae who heare Masse are idiotes Hart. That is a iest you may not so put off my reason For the name openeth the nature of the thing as Aristotle sheweth Wherefore sith the name of Masse is in S. Ambrose how can you deny but that hee did celebrate the thing that is the Masse it selfe as we doo whom you call Masse-priests Rainoldes And thinke you in earnest that S. Paul did celebrate the communion of the body and blood of Christ as we doo who are called Ministers Hart. As you doo who saith so Rainoldes You if your reason be of any value For the name openeth the nature of the thing as Aristotle sheweth Wherfore sith the name of communion is in S. Paul how can you deny but that he did celebrate the thing euen the communion it selfe as we doo who are called Ministers Hart. Yes For though you keepe the name with S. Paul yet you keepe not the thing As sorcerers are called magi like the Sages of the East yet is their wisdome wicked not like that of the Sages Rainoldes That is false M. Hart as you referre it to our Communion For as we
and our Church doth hold The third Councell of Carthage which therein the Councel of Trent subscribeth to did adde the bookes of Maccabes the rest of the apocrypha to the old Canon The Councel of Nice appointed boundes and limits as wel for the Bishop of Romes iurisdiction as for other Bishops The Councell of Lateran gaue the soueraintie of ordinarie power to the Church of Rome ouer al other Churches The Councell of Constance decréed that the Councell is aboue the Pope and made the Papall power subiect to generall Councels Which thing did so highly displease the Councell of Florence that it vndermined the Councell of Basill and guilefully surprised it for putting that in â—re against Pope Eugenius Upon the which pointes it must needes be graunted that one side of these generall Councels did erre vnlesse we will say that thinges which are contrarie may be true both Wherefore to make an end sith it is apparant by most cléere proofes that both the chosen and the called both the flockes and the Pastours both in seuerall by them selues and assembled together in generall Councels may erre I am to conclude with the good liking I hope of such as loue the truth that the militant Church may erre in maners and doctrine In the one point whereof concerning maners I defend our selues against the malicious sclanders of the Papists who charge the Church of England with the heresie of Puritans impudently and falsly In the other concerning doctrine I doo not touch the walles of Babilon with a light finger but raze from the very ground the whole mount of the Romish Synagogue Whose intolerable presumption is reproued by the third Conclusion too wherein it resteth to be shewed that the holy scripture is of greater credit autoritie then the Church And although this be so manifestly true that to haue proposed it onely is to haue proued it yet giue me leaue I pray to proue it briefly with one reason I will not trouble you with many All the wordes of scripture be the wordes of truth some wordes of the Church be the words of errour But he that telleth the truth alwayes is more to be credited then he that lyeth sometimes Therefore the holy scripture is to be credited more then is the Church That all the wordes of scripture be the wordes of truth it is out of controuersie For the whole scripture is inspired of God and God can neither deceiue nor be deceiued That some wordes of the Church be the wordes of errour if any be not perswaded perhaps by the reasons which I haue brought already let him heare the sharpese and most earnest Patrone of the Church confessing it Andradâ—us Payua a Doctor of Portugall the best learned man in my opinion of all the papists reherseth certaine pointes wherein Councels also may erre euen generall Councels in so much that he saith that the very generall Councel of Chalcedon one of those four first which Gregorie professeth him selfe to receiue as the foure bookes of the holy Gospell yet Andradius saith that this Councell erred in that it did rashly and without reason these are his own wordes ordeine that the Church of Constantinople should be aboue the Churches of Alexandria and Antiâ—â—he Neither doth he onely say that the Councell of Chalcedon erred and contraried the decrees of the Nicen Cuncell but he addeth also a reason why Councels may erre in such cases to weete because they folow not the secret motion of the holy ghost but idle Blastes of vaine reportes and mens opinions which deceiue oft A Councell then may folow some times the deceitfull opinions of men and not the secret motion of the holy ghost Let the Councels then giue place to the holy scriptures whereof no part is vttered by the spirit of man but all by the spirit of God For if some cauiller to shift of this reason shall say that we must not account of that errour as though it were the iudgement of the generall Councell because the Bishop of Rome did not allow it and approue it I would request him first of all to weigh that a generall Councell and assemblie of Bishops must néedes be distinguished from this and that particular Bishop so that what the greater part of them ordeineth that is ordeined by the Councell next to consider that the name of Church may be giuen to an assemblis of Bishops and a Councell but it can not be giuen to the Bishop of Rome lastly to remember that the Bishop of Rome Honorius the first was condemned of heresie by the generall Councell of Constantinople allowed and approued by Agatho Bishop of Rome Wherefore take the name of Church in what sense soeuer you list be it for the company either of Gods chosen or of the called too or of the guides and Pastours or be it for the Bishop of Rome his owne person though to take it so it seemeth very absurd the Bishop of Rome him selfe if he were to be my iudge shall not be able to deny vnlesse his forhead be of adamant but that some of the Churches words are wordes of errour Now if the Bishop of Rome and Romanistes them selues be forced to confesse both that the Church saith some things which are erroneous and that the scripture saith nothing but cleere truth shall there yet be found any man either so blockishly vnskilfull or so frowardly past shame as that he dare affirme that the Church is of greater credit and autoritie then the holy scripture Pighius hath doon it in his treatise of the holy gouernment of the church Where though he in 〈◊〉 â—â—llify with gallant salues his cursed spéech yet to build the tower of his Church and Antichrist with the ruines of Christ and of the holy scripture first he saith touching the writings of the Apostles that they were giuen to the church not that they should rule our faith and religion but that they should bee ruled rather and then he concludeth that the autoritie of the church is not onely not inferiour not onely equall nay it is superiour also after a sort to the autoritie of the scriptures Plinie reporteth that there was at Rome a certaine diall set in the field of Flora to note the shadowes of the sunne the notes and markes of which diall had not agreed with the sunne for the space of thirty yeares And the cause thereof was this as Plinie saith that either the course of the sunne was disordered and changed by some meanes of heauen or els the whole earth was slipt away from her centre The Church of Rome séemeth to be very like this diall in the field of Flora. For she was placed in the Roman territorie to shew the shadowes of the sunne euen of the sunne of righteousnes that is of Christ but her notes and markes haue not agreed with Christ these many yeares togither Not that
why not for hope If for hope why not for hatred If for any of these why not for other causes It remaineth therefore that either the hie Priestes had not that priuilege or if they had it they had it with exception that they should not erre vnlesse either feare or other cause did moue them to it Which if you affirme of Popes in like sort as you séeme to doo by the example of Marcellinus I will agree with you For I am perswaded that no Pope can erre vnlesse he be moued thereto by some cause either blindnes of mind or lewdnes of heart or such humane affections Nothing in the earth is done without a cause saith your olde translation Howbeit for Vrias perhaps you do him iniurie to say that he offended as Marcellinus did of feare For it appeereth not by circumstances of the text but that he was as willing to transgresse the law as was the king to bid him When king Achaz saw the altar that was at Damascus he sent to Vrias the Priest the paterne of the altar and the facion of it and all the workemanship thereof And Vrias the Priest made an altar in all pointes according as king Achaz had sent from Damascus so did Vrias the Priest against king Achaz came from Damascus What a readie minde was here in the Priest who stayed not to speake with the king at his returne to disswade him from it but made the heathnish altar against hee came frō Damascus And king Achaz commanded Vrias the Priest saying vpon this great altar set on fire the morning burnt-offring and euening meat-offring and the kings burnt offring and his meat-offring with the burnt-offring of all the people of the land and their meat-offring and their drinke-offrings and sprinckle vpon it all the blood of the burnt-offring and al the blood of the sacrifice As for the brazen altar it shall be for me to enquire And Vrias did according to all that king Achaz had commaunded Behold as Moses was faithfull in all the house of the Lord so was Vrias the Priest in all that Achaz did commaund Such a Prince such a Priest Hart. Great was the priuilege of the hie Priesthood and chaire of Moses in the olde law Yet nothing like the Churches Peters prerogatiue Wherefore howsoeuer Vrias did offend The Pope cannot fall away from the faith For euen Marcellinus himselfe who did commit idolatrie for feare of death yet repented afterward and shed his blood for Christ. Rainoldes But in the meane season he did commit idolatrie by your own confession So that this example must force you to yeelde that the Pope may erre though not abide in errour Hart. Nay rather that hee cannot teach errour though hée may erre As Pope Marcellinus though he did commit he did not teach idolatrie Rainoldes Yes he did teach it by committing it For to teach is to deliuer the thinges that one knoweth to him who knoweth them not The which that wee may receiue that is learne God hath giuen vs two senses the hearing and the sight Wee heare wordes we sée déedes The ministers of Christ whom he hath ordeined to teach the wisedome of his Father the way to life eternall ought to teach by both that men maye be edified by their wordes which they heare and by their déedes which they sée Therefore S. Paule requireth in Timothee in Titus and in all Bishops that both their life be good and their doctrine sound And him selfe had ranns this race so before them that when he exhorted the Philippians to do whatsoeuer things are true honest iust pure worthy loue and of good report hee was able to say that by his preaching and liuing they had learned them which thinges you haue heard and you haue seene in me Yea it is so forcible to teach by liuing well y◠Chrysostom commending S. Paul in that point preferreth it before the other It is very easie saith he to teach by wordes Teach me by thy life This is the best teaching For wordes doo not so sticke vnto the minde as workes And if thy worke be not good thou shalt not onely not profit but also hurt more by speaking and it were better to hold thy peace Why Because thou shewest me the worke so as if it could not be done For I thinke with my selfe if thou who speakest so great things doost them not much more am I to be excused who speake no such thing Therefore saith the Prophet vnto the wicked man saith God why takest thou vpon thee to declare my ordinances For this is greater harme when a man teacheth well in wordes and fighteth against it with his workes Thus you may sée that Bishops doo teach by their life not by their preaching onely Wherefore though Marcellinus the Pope did not teach idolatrie by worde yet by his fact he did And so your answere falleth that he did commit but not teach idolatrie Hart. I graunt that he did teach it after a sort but not as I meant I meant he taught it not by preaching In that he could not erre For as I saide before that the Pope in respect of his person may erre not in respect of his office so I say farther that his office priuilegeth him in his sayings not in his doings The Scribes and the Pharises saith our Sauiour Christ doo sit vpon the chaire of Moses All thinges therefore whatsoeuer they shall say vnto you obserue ye and doo ye But according to their workes doo ye not For they say and do not Rainoldes What will you also make odious comparisons of Popes to Scribes and Pharises Hart. O I touch you now and therefore you would interrupt me In déede that sentence of Christ doth confound you no maruell you are loth to heare it For were the Popes neuer so euill euen monsters as Platina doth call some few of them and they might be so for their liues yet they were not worse then the Scribes and Pharises Rainoldes Beléeue me but they were Beware of Pope Iohn All the Scribes and Pharises might cast their cappes at him He was a péerlesse monster Hart. You are euer interrupting to put me from my argument Rainoldes I cannot abide that you should detract from the Popes Nay yet giue them their due It is a fault they say to belye the diuell Hart. If some of them were worse then the Scribes and Pharises my argument will hold yet For as D. Stapleton noteth out of Austin Christ when he saide of the Scribes and Pharises They sit vpon the chaire of Moses meant not them alone as though he sent Christians to the schoole of the Iewes to learne religion there but by the name of Scribes and Pharises he signified that certaine in his Church would say and not doo and by the person of Moses he signified him selfe for Moses was a figure of him In like sort S. Chrysostom and Origen expound
it too He chargeth vs therefore to heare wicked preachers professing God with their wordes but denying him in their déedes All thinges saith he whatsoeuer they shall say vnto you obserue ye and doo ye Now the cause and reason thereof is giuen in this because they sit vpon the chaire because they hold the roome of Christ as Scribes and Pharises did of Moses For so doth our Sauiour reason as it were They sit vpon the chaire therefore that which they say must be obserued and done S. Austin handling these wordes hath excellently noted it Christ saith he hath made his people secure concerning wicked Prelates that men should not for their sakes forsake the chaire of wholesome doctrine in which euen they who be wicked are constrained to speake good thinges And why are they constrained For saith he they be not their owne thinges but the thinges of God which they speake And how may this be Because saith he in the chaire of vnitie God hath set the doctrine of truth And by what wordes hath he set it or where He addeth Therefore of Prelates who doo their owne euill thinges and speake the good thinges of God he saith in the gospell Doo that they say but doo not that they doo for they say and doo not Thus saith Austin In the same sense are these wordes expounded both by Austin himselfe againe and by Chrysostome and by Origen whose wordes I passe ouer for breuities sake Wherefore to conclude in despite of heretikes a sure vndouted certaintie of doctrine and faith is no lesse knit to the chaire of Christ then to the chaire of Moses to the verie succession of the Apostles then of Aaron nay rather much more by how much the new testament is established on better promises then the olde Marke therefore Christes wordes obserue ye and doo ye For we obserue pointes of faith we doo precepts of maners In them both we must be obedient euen to Pharises that is to wicked men and hypocrites sitting in the chaire that is succéeding into the seate of the Apostles or Christ. Moreouer marke the worde obserue that is to kéepe those thinges which they command to be obserued because they teach not other thinges but such as are to be obserued And in this respect doth Christ allow of them For so the Pharises also them selues though they were wicked men and hypocrites yet as Chrysostom noteth they did not preach their owne things but those thinges which God had commanded by Moses And therefore sith Christ could not commend them for their maners he doth it for his chaire doctrine Wherefore he that sittteth in the chaire of the Apostles doth speake not of himselfe but of the chaire that is not his owne thinges but the thinges of God and therefore must be heard whether he say and doo both or onely say and not doo Hence it is that Austin saith against Petilian Neither for the Pharises did our Lord command the chaire of Moses to be forsaken in which chaire verely he figured his owne For he warneth the people to doo that which they â—ay and not to doo that which they doo that the holinesse of the chaire be not forsaken nor the vnitie of the flocke diuided for the naughtie Pastors Doo you sée how much the Fathers attribute to the chaire You were in haâ—te ere-while to interrupt my argument Now what say you to it Rainoldes Your argument is hansome a farre off at first sight But if a man come néere it and vewe it and féele it he cannot choose but grow in great mislike of it it is so misshapen Aristotle compareth the arguments of Sophisters to weake ill-featured persons who by stuffing out and tricking vp them selues doo seeme to be of strong and comely plight of bodie The most of your Doctors arguments be such and this is one of them It séemeth strong and comely as you doo bumbast it with fansies of your owne and decke it with the names of Austin Chrysostom and Origen But strippe it out of this apparell and all the limmes of it are full of sores and blisters worse then the French euil Hart. This is a spitefull spéech and a malicious sclander But you kepe your wont Rainoldes If I speake vntruely conuince me of vntruth If not why vse you these reproches This was your argument out of Doctor Stapleton if you will giue me leaue to strip it The Scribes and the Pharises were to be obeyed in all thinges which they saide because they sate in the chaire of Moses that is they did succeed Aaron The Popes howsoeuer they liue doo sit in Christes chaire that is they are successours of the Apostles which hath a greater prerogatiue The Popes must be therefore obeyed much more in all thinges which they say But men might not obey them if they should erre Therefore they cannot erre in any thing they say Was not this the verie bodie of your argument Hart. It was so in substance and what faute finde you with it Rainoldes None but as I saide that all the limmes of it are full of sores and blisters For the first proposition the contagion whereof infecteth the whole argument hath two notorious fautes touching the Scribes and Pharises one that by their sitting in the chaire of Moses is meant that they succeeded Aaron an other that because they succeeded Aaron they were to be obeyed in all thinges which they saide Hart. What did not the Pharises and Scribes succéede Aaron Rainoldes That is not the question Yet you may dout of that too And how doo you proue it Hart. Nay how doo you disproue it Rainoldes None succéeded Aaron in offering sacrifices to God and teaching Israell his law sauing the tribe of Leui. But the Pharises might be of other tribes and were so Hart. How proue you that Rainoldes S. Paul was of the tribe of Beniamin an Ebrue borne of Ebrues according to the law a Pharisee So was his father too And if the tribes of all of whom account was made that way had béene registred it would be as easily prooued of others as it is of Beniamin For whereas there were thrée sectes among the Iewes eche differing from other in pointes of religion Pharises Sadduces and Esses the Esses auoiding the companie of other men least they should staine their maners and liuing with them selues alone like to moonkes did leaue the Temple cities to Pharises Sadduces The Sadduces were few their opinions wicked in so much that euen the common people did detest them The Pharises in number more in reputation greater and sounder in beliefe the most exact sect and coming néerest to the law Which they expounded in such exact maner and séemed holy withall that they bare the sway for religion amongst the multitude yea cities flowed vnto them accounting them the best both in life