Rainoldes Some such thing it is that your men would say But to confesse mine owne ignorance I do not vnderstand what they meane by it Which I should perhaps be ashamed off if you who handle it your selues did vnderstand it or gaue vs sense and reason of it For if all the power which Bishops haue as Bishops be the power of the keyes and the Apostles as Apostles had all the power of the keyes committed vnto them by Christ both the which things the Scriptures proue you disproue not then was there no power which they might receiue of Peter as Bishops and therefore they did not receiue any of him nor were inferiour to him therein Yet this is the very foundation of the Papacie but laid on such sand that the maister builders who trauaile most in laying it do reele like dronken men about it too and fro and strooken with a blindnes as the Sodomites at Lots dooâ—e they are wearied in seeking of it Cardinall Turrecremata the chiefest autour of the fansie is of this opinion that Christ brought the rest of his Apostles to bishoply dignity by Peter euen as he lead his people through the wildernes by the hand of Moses Aaron For him selfe made Peter onely a Bishop immediately and Peter preferred the rest first Iohn next Iames then others as the Cardinall gesseth by probabilities of dreames some in theCanon law some of his own braine Turrian the Iesuit a man with whom such dreames commonly are oracles though he allow Peter to be the father of the Apostles yet thinking this maner of fathering him to be absurd he saith that the Apostles were all ordeined Bishops by the laying as it were of the fyry tongues vpon them wheÌ„ they receiued the holy Ghost And this he proueth by S. Ierom S. Denys and other Fathers Of whose opinion it ensueth that graunting the Apostles were ordeined Bishops as in a generall sense in which their charge is called a bishoply charge they were yet they were ordained of God immediately as well as Peter was and not of God by Peter D. Stapleton vncertaine how to beare him selfe betwéene these two opinions the later being truer the former safer for the Pope he faltereth in his spéech as though according to the prouerbe hee had a woolfe by the eares whom neither he durst let go out of his hands nor holde for feare of danger For of the one side he is loth to graunt the truth lest it should preiudice the title of the Pope yet loth of the other side to deny it also because he feareth the people First therfore he saith that the keyes which signifie the ful power of gouernment ecclesiasticall were giuen to Peter onely Then he confesseth that all the Apostles were sent by Christ with full power yea with power most full and equall vnto Peters power From hence he turneth backe and taketh vp his olde song that Christ gaue all power ecclesiasticall to Peter onely and so by him to others Which string because it giueth a very swéete sound he harpeth on it often Afterward either doubting the conscience of weake Catholikes or the euill tonges of Caluinists who fauour the Apostles and cannot heare them so debased he saith that the Apostles were sent immediately of God with full power vnto al nations Yet by and by falling againe vnto his giddines through some pang belike of his holinesse displeasure which might be stirred by such spéeches he pronounceth that the spring of honour and power is deriued from Peter alone to all the rest And thus he goeth on through the whole discourse both in this and the rest of his Doctrinall Principles enterfeiring as it were at euery other pace and hewing hoofe against hoofe But so will the Lord confound the toongs of them who doo build vp Babylon Yet here for these cuttings wherwith he gasheth himself he thinketh that they may be healed with a distinction taken vp in Cardinall Turrecrematas shop of a twofold power the one Apostolike the other Bishoply the rest of the Apostles to haue béene inferior to Peter in the Bishoply though equall in the Apostolike and all to haue receiued the Apostolike power immediatly of Christ the rest as namely Iames their Bishoply power of Peter But two learned Friers Sixtus Senensis and Franciscus Victoria men of better reading and iudgement then either he or Turrecremata haue cast off this quirke as a rotten drugge before Stapleton tooke it vp Victoria by shewing out of the Scriptures that the Apostles receiued all their power immediatly of Christ. Sixtus by declaring out of the Fathers that in the power of Apostleship and order so he calleth those two powers Paul was equall to Peter and the rest to them both Which case he thought to be so cléere that despairing of helpe for the Papacie by Peters eyther Bishoply power or Apostolike he added thereunto a third kind of power euen the power of kingdome therein to set Peter ouer the Apostles that so the Pope too might raigne ouer Bishops It must be knowne saith he that Peter had a threefold power one of the Apostleship an other of order and the third of kingdome Touching the Apostleship that is the duetie of teaching and care of preaching the Gospell Paul as it is rightly noted by Ierom was not inferiour to Peter because Paule was chosen to the preaching of the Gospell not by Peter but by God euen as Peter was Touching the power which is giuen in the Sacrament of order Ierom hath said wel that al the Apostles receiued the keyes equally yea that they all as Bishops were equall in degree of priesthood the spirituall power of that degree But touching the power of kingdome that principall authoritie ouer all Bishops and teachers thereof hath Ierom said best that Peter was chosen amongst the twelue Apostles and made the head of al that by his supreme authoritie eminent power aboue the rest the contentions of the church might be taken vp and all occasion of schismes remoued Now if you will vse this aide of kingly power to fortifie the Pope with we will trie the strength thereof when you bring it In the meane season for the Bishoply power which Peter is imagined to haue bestowed on the Apostles as the Pope would on Bishops it was but a Cardinals fetch to serue the turne of his Lord the Pope the learnedst of your Iesuites and Friers dare not take it your Doctor faine would haue it but toucheth it so nicely as though he were afraide of it If you will stand vnto it and holde it with the Cardinall let vs sée your warrant where did the Apostles receiue it of Peter At what time In what maner Who is a witnesse of it Hart. They did not receiue it But the order was that they should haue done Rainoldes Was that the order Why did
he preached it almost twentie yeares and was he now afraid least hee had preached falsely Hart. S. Ierom saith not so but that he had not had securitie of preaching it vnlesse it had bene approued by the rest with whom he did confer of it Rainoldes S. Ierom saith not so but that he had not had securitie Then S. Ierom saith so in that he saith not so and you vnsay in one word that which you say in an other For what is it else not to haue securitie of preaching the Gospell then to be afraid either of his doctrine that it is not true or of his fact that it is not lawfull Hart. Why doth the scripture then report of S. Paule that he conferred with them least he should runne or had runne in vaine Rainoldes Because many Christians whom Paule had preached the Gospell too began to be seduced by false Apostles of the Iewes who taught them that except they kept the law of Moses they could not be saued And to winne credit to their hereticall doctrine that the hearers might receiue it the sooner for the authoritie of the teachers they said it was the doctrine of Peter and the rest the chiefe of the Apostles the pillars of the Church As for Paule who taught the contrarie thereof they disgraced him as one that was crept into the Apostleship after theÌ„ and hauing learned the gospell of them which he preached yet dissented froÌ„ them in the preaching of it Which spéeches of seducers if they had beléeued whom Paule either should or had alreadie preached the Gospell vnto then should they haue fallen away with mindes corrupted from the simplicitie that is in Christ and Paule haue lost his labor and runne in vaine as hee speaketh that is to say without profit without the fruit of that hee ran for As Christ complaineth in the Prophet I haue labored in vaine I haue spent my strength in vaine and for nothing because he was not receiued of the Iewes to whom he preched the word of life Wherefore Paule desirous as a carefull husbandman to reape where he had sowne did seeke to roote out the wéedes of false Apostles that did or might hinder the growth of the corne In which consideration hauing shewed first touching his authoritie that he had it not of men nor by man but by God next touching his doctrine that he learned it of Christ not of the Apostles touching his dissension from them he sheweth last that he went and conferred with the chiefe of them euen Iames Peter and Iohn who were accounted to be pillars that they might witnesse their consent and make his preaching to be fruitfull and stoppe the mouthes of false Apostles All this S. Ierom saw and taught in his commentaries on Paule to the Galatians where he aduised better of Paules intent and drift and sifted all the pointes and circumstances of the text The wordes which you stand on were vttered lesse aduisedly by him in an epistle written to S. Austin against whom to iustifie his opinion though false that Peters fault at Antioche was no fault in deede nor Paule reproued him in earnest he saith for the credit of one aboue the other Paule had not had securitie of preaching the Gospell vnlesse that Peter had approued it Wherefore I may iustly speake in his excuse at the least to soften the hardnes of his spéech the same which Basil said in excuse of Gregorie that his wordes were vttered not by way of doctrine but of contention rather to maintaine his quarell against Austin then to deliuer his iudgemeÌ„t of the matter as writing of affection more what he fansied then of discretion what he thought Whereof there appeareth as it were a print euen in his owne wordes For he doth mention Peter by name of whom he did contend with Austin and none of the rest whereas the Scripture nameth no more him then others but first saith in generall of Paule that he conferred with them that were the chiefe and after in particular of Iames Peter and Iohn that they were counted to be pillars Thus neither did Paule conferre with Peter onely but with Iames and Iohn and therefore it proueth no supremâ—cie of Peter more then of Iames and Iohn and although he had yet were it a token by Ieromes own iudgement that Paule was Peters equall not Peter his superior For there is equalitie betweene them saith Ierom who conferre togither I would to God M. Hart if you will needes follow S. Ieroms authoritie yet you would folow him in the best thinges and what you say with error in heate of contention you would amend by truth in iudgement of doctrine But that which is written of giftes and rewards they blind the eies of the wise and peruert the wordes of the iust is no truer in iudges and arbiters of ciuill causes then in you and yours who meddle with the decision of spirituall matters The giftes which partly the pollicie of the Pope hath enterteined you with in his Seminaries and affaires partly the state of the Papacie doth yéelde to such as speake things pleasing him they do blind your eies and peruert your wordes that you thinke darkenes to be light and light darkenes and call euill good and good euill They make you not to see in Paule to the Galatians his direct purpose of ouerthrowing that which you would haue him build They moue you to depraue the circumstaÌ„ces of his words as though he proued him selfe inferior to Peter in that by which he proueth him selfe not inferior They stirre you to transforme his summission into subiection and to abuse the spirite of his apostolike modestie to the raysing vp of the Papall pride and pompe of the supremacie Paule went to see Peter with a desire of knowing him which the Greeke word importeth as they vse saith Chrysostome to speake who go to see great and famous cities You can not sée that Chrysostome saith on the same place that Paule was Peters equall in dignitie to say no more but you take this note of his puffe it vp with the word of Maiesty thereby to make the simple reader to conceaue that Peter was as stately as he to whom that terme is vsed Paule went to Ierusalem from the citie of Damascus not much aboue a hundred miles You say he went so farre so long a iourney as though it had bene no lesse then hence to go to the court of Rome which Bishops do to the Pope not of their owne accord as Paule but enforced thereto by solemne oth not twise in seuentéene yeares as Paule but euery yeare once by them selues or by their messengers vnlesse the Pope dispense with them But of all the rest that passeth that you say hee went to Ierusalem to sée Peter notwithstanding his great affaires ecclesiasticall Here was art by the way to shew that Bishops may neglect
As for the later of calling him to account although your good wéening of the Pope persuadeth you that he would not thinke his state to be abased if the Cardinals should aske him why he dooth this or that yet they who knew him better a great deale then you and loued him so well that they woulde not belie him doo witnesse not onely by word but by writing that he will not bée dealt withall by his inferiours as Peter was by the Apostles I meane not your Canonists in whose glose it goeth for a famous rule that none may say vnto the Pope Syr why do you so But I meane the learnedst and best of your Diuines who setting the Church aboue the Pope in authoritie mislike that the Pope will not be subiect to the Councell Of whom to name one for many Iohn Ferus a Frier of S. Francis order but godlier then the common sort intreating in his Commentaries written on the Actes of the example of Peter how hée was required to render a reason of that which hee had done maketh this note vpon it Peter the Apostle and chiefe of the Apostles is constrained to giue an account to the Church neither dooth he disdaine it because he knew him selfe to be not a Lorde but a minister of the Church The Church is the Spouse of christ and ladie of the house Peter a seruant and minister Wherefore the Church may not onely exact an account of her ministers but also depose thē reiect them altogither if they be not fit So did they of old time very often in Councels But wicked Bishops now will not be reproued no not of the Church nor be ordered by it as though they were Lordes not ministers Therefore they are confounded of all and eche in seuerall by the iust iudgement of God Doo you know what Bishops they be who refuse to bee subiect to the Church Who say they are aboue the Councell Who may iudge all and none may iudge them This Preacher a Preacher of your own not ours dooth call them wicked Bishops The Lord of his mercy make his wordes a prophecy that those wicked Bishops may be confounded of all and eche in seuerall by the iust iudgement of God Hart. You bring me wordes of Ferus which were not his perhaps but thrust into his commentaries before they came vnto the print by some malitious heretike For Sixtus Senensis saith that there are witnesses of very good credit who auouch that the commentaries of Ferus vpon Matthew were corrupted by heretikes after his death before they were printed Rainoldes Sixtus saith in déede of his Commentaries vpon Matthew that they were corrupted chiefly in that place where Ferus speaketh of the keyes that Christ did promise Peter For there is set downe as a speciall note that Christ saith to Peter I will giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen hee saith not the keyes of the kingdome of earth These wordes pertaine nothing to an earthly power which yet some endeuour by them to establish affirming that Peter receiued fulnes of power not only in spirituall things but also temporall And after declaration how this is plainely reproued by S. Bernard writing to Pope Eugenius it is added farther Peter receiued the keyes that is to say power not an earthly power that he might giue and take away dominions and kingdomes neither such a power that it should be lawfull for him to doo what hee list as many men dreame but he receaued the power of binding and loosing opening shutting remitting and retaining sinnes neither this at his pleasure but as a minister and seruant doing the wil of his Lord. And these are the words which sauour so strongly of an hereticall spirite that Sixtus saith it is auouched by credible witnesses the cōmentaries of Ferus on Matthew wer corrupted after his death by heretikes chiefly in this place before they wer printed Wherin both the witnesses Sixtus in my iudgement haue shewed thē selues wise For it is better to beare men in hand that heretikes corrupted the commentaries of Ferus chiefely in this place then it should be thought that the strongest hold of all your religion the Popes supreme power to giue and take away kingdomes is shaken by a man so learned so famous so Catholike as Ferus But Sixtus saith not of his Commentaries on the Acts that they were corrupted also by heretikes Yet some heretikes hand may séeme to haue béene in them chiefely in this place where he doth reproue the arrogancie of the Popes and nameth them wicked Bishops Wherefore it would do well that the ouersight of Sixtus herein were mended by some other Sixtus who might say as much of Ferus on the Actes as Sixtus saith of him on Matthew Perhaps you haue not witnesses that wil auouch this as some auouched that The least matter of a thousand For two or three such as Surius Pontacus and Genebrardus men that haue sold them selues to make lies in the defense of Popery will be readie on the credite of a Lindan or Bolsecke not only to say it but to Chronicle it too Here is al the difficultie that these bookes are printed thus amongst your selues who set them foorth first and we receiue them at your hands A great faulte I know not whether of printers or censours and allowers of bookes to the print who suffer such scandalous places to bée printed Yea to be printed so still specially when Sixtus Senensis hath said and credible witnesses haue auouched that heretikes did corrupt them No no M. Hart it is too stale a iest to say that heretikes haue corrupted the commentaries of Ferus For the abomination of the Popes supremacie oppressing both the magistracie of the common wealth and ministerie of the Church is grown to such outrage that if we whom you call heretikes should hold our peace the stones would cry against it Hart. What néedes all this of Ferus Or Sixtus Or Canonistes Or I know not who You called me to the scriptures whē I brought the Fathers and now from the scriptures you bring me to writers of our owne age Rainoldes Not from the scriptures to them but to the scriptures by them As Christ when the Phariseis sclaundered his workes alleaged the example of their own children therby to make them sée the truth And as he said to them therefore your children shall be your iudges so I say to you therefore your brethren shall be your iudges Hart. I graunt that the Pope doth not in all respectes submit him selfe as Peter to giue account of his dooings both to the Apostles and to inferior Christians But Ferus should haue considered and so must you that the times are not like It were not conuenient for him to do so now Rainoldes So I thought the case is altered You meane by the times the mē who liue
persecution though they repented after refused to communicate with them and thereupon did separate themselues from the societie of the Catholike church and assemblies of the faithfull as vncleane also for that they receiued into their felowship and communion vpon repentaunce such as had fallen Against these Nouatians the firebrands of schismes and dissensions in the Church S. Cyprian hath writen a notable treatise touching the vnitie of the church wherein he dooth instruct and exhort Christians to keepe the vnitie of spirit in the bond of peace and be at concord among them selues And to winne this of them by reasons and perswasions out of the holy scripture as among the rest hee bringeth sundrie figures wherein is represented the vnitie of the church as the arke of Noe the coate of Christ the house of Rahab the lambe of the Passouer so among the figures he placeth Peter first in that our Sauiour said to him Thou art Peter and on this stone wil I build my church To thee will I geue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen againe Feede my sheepe For albeit Christ saith he gaue equall power to all the Apostles after his resurrection and said As my father sent me so I send you receiue ye the holy Ghost whosoeuers sinnes ye remitte they are remitted to them whosoeuers sinnes y◠reteyne they are reteyned yet to declare vnitie he disposed by his authoritie the originall of that vnitie beginning of one No doubt the rest of the Apostles were the same that Peter was endued with like felowship both of honour and of power but the beginning doth come from vnitie that the church of Christ may be shewed to be one Now this place of Cyprian which by the former printes was thought to make rather for an equalitie of all the Apostles in power then a supremacie of one as it dooth in deede is farsed with such wordes in the Romane Cyprian that in shew it maketh for Peters supremacie and so for a supremacie in power like the Popes as you teach men to gather of it For wher it was in Cyprian that the rest of the Apostles were equall both in honor and power vnto Peter but the beginning doth come from vnitie the Romane Cyprian addeth these words and the primacy is geuen vnto Peter Where it was in Cyprian that Christ did dispose the originall of vnitie beginning from one the Romane Cyprian addeth he appointed one chaire And againe where Cyprian said that the church of Christ may be shewed to be one the Romane Cyprian addeth and the chaire to be one This was well to beginne with that vnto Peter the primacy is geuen that Christ appointed one chaire and as the church must be one so the chaire must be one Yet because one chaire in Cyprians language dooth make no more for the chaire of the bishoppe of Rome then of the bishop of Carthage the Cyprian of Anwerpe to helpe the matter forwarde doth bring in Peters chaire And where it was in Cyprian euen in the Romane print too Hee who withstandeth and resisteth the church doth he trust him selfe to be in the church the Anwerp Cyprian addeth Hee who forsaketh Peters chaire on which the church was founded dooth he trust himselfe to be in the church So whereas aforetime S. Cyprian shewed the vnitie of the church in an equalitie of Peter with the rest of the Apostles now by good handling hee sheweth Peters primacie and that by good expounding is the Popes supremacie For we must imagine that by Peters chaire is meant the Popes chaire which chaire be forsaketh who is not obedient and subiect to the Pope according to Gratian in the canon law The only difficultie and scruple that is lefte to breede a doubt thereof in suspicious heads is that clause of Cyprian that Christ gaue equall power to all the Apostles and the rest were the same that Peter was endued with like felowship both of honor and of power Which wordes if you could hansomly take away out of him in some new print and why not take away so few as well as adde so many then would this be a passing fine place for you to perswade men that the vnity of the church doth presuppose your one chaire to which all must be subiect who wil be of the church and that they by consequēt are no right Christians who stand against the Popes supremacie Hart. You are much to blame to lay vnto our charge the corrupting of Cyprian chiefly in those editions which are best and soundest the Romane of Manutius and Anwerp of Pameliu◠For Pius the fourth a Pope of worthy memory desirous that the Fathers should be set forth corrected most perfitly and cleansed from all spots sent to Venice for Manutius an excellent famous printer that he should come to Rome to doo it And to furnish him the better with all things necessarie thereto he put fower Cardinals very wise and vertuous in trust with the worke Now for the correcting and cleansing of Cyprian specially aboue the rest singular care was taken by Cardinall Borromaeus a copie was gotten of great antiquitie from Verona the exquisite diligence of learned men was vsed in it Wherefore I am perswaded that whatsoeuer they did adde vnto Ciprian they did not adde it rashly or of their owne head but with good aduise vpon the warrant of writen copies Which although they haue not declared in particular yet may we gather it by Pamelius a Canon of the Church of Bruges and Licentiat of diuinitie by whom the Anwerp-Cyprian was afterward set foorth For he doth note that al the words which you spoke of added by Manutius in the Romane-print he appoynted one chaire and the chaire to be one and the primacie is geuen vnto Peter are in a written copie of the Cambron-abbey which was the best of all the copies that he had Yea those of Peters primacie not onely in that copie but in an other too which Cardinall Hosius occupied As for the rest which were added by himselfe in the print at Anwerp he who forsaketh Peters chaire on which the church was founded doth hee trust himselfe to bee in the church hee noteth that they also are in the Cambron-copie and confirmed by Gratian who hath the same words and citeth them with Cyprians name Whereby you may perceiue that wee haue not corrupted those places of Cyprian either in the Roman-print or the Anwerpe we haue corrected rather that which was corrupt But I see the Poet hath said very truely Nothing is done so well but with euill speeches a man may depraue it Rainoldes And it is as truely said by the Orators Nothing is done so euil but with faire colours a man may defēd it The Pope sent for Manutius to print the Fathers corrected he appointed foure Cardinals to see the worke done Cardinall Borromaus had singular care of Cyprian
as Plato did excell among the Philosophers for witte and giftes of witte In the which conclusion that you may perceiue what I geue to Peter and refuse it if you mislike it by the giftes of grace I meane all the blessings wherewith the Lord did honour him by excelling in them I meane that he did passe not all the Apostles in them all but euery one in some or other For Iohn the disciple whom the Lord loued who wrote the Gospell so diuinely In the beginning was the worde who sawe by reuelation the things that were to come and wrote them by the spirite of prophecie Iohn excelled Peter in many giftes of grace as Ierom declareth And Paule excelled him farther euen in the chiefest giftes in so much that Austin who geueth excellent grace to Peter dooth geue most excellent grace to Paule and saith that he receiued more grace and laboured more then al the rest of the Apostles and is therefore called the Apostle by an excellencie But Peter of the other side excelled Paule in primacie that hée was chosen first and Iohn in age that he was elder in respect whereof hée was preferred before him by Ieroms opinioÌ„ to be the chief of the Apostles And this is it which Ierom and other Fathers meant by Peters principalitie if you will geue them leaue to be their owne interpreters They did not meane to call him Prince of the Apostles as the Pope desireth to bee Prince of Bishops Hart They did meane to call him the mouth and the top the highest the President and the head of the Apostles For these as I haue shewed are their own wordes by which a preeminence in gouernment is prooued and not in grace onely Rainoldes These in déede come néerer to the point in question because they touch gouernment at the least some of theÌ„ For some as the highest and so the toppe it may be too séeme to haue béene meant rather of preeminence in grace then in gouernment But if you will referre them vnto both it skilleth not For they can betoken no more then the rest And the rest doo signifie although a preeminence in gouernment such as it is yet nothing in comparison of your supremacie This is plaine by that which was agreed betwixt vs when wee spake of the practise of Peters autoritie in the Actes of the Apostles For when I graunted him to be as the Speaker of the Parlament in England or the President of a court of Parlament in Fraunce and shewed the great difference out of a lawier of your owne betweene this preeminence and that supremacie which you claime you reiected the lawier as either ignorant or vnfaithful and refused this préeminence as not importing that supremacie because it hath not soueraine power nay in power is vnder the body of the assembly aboue which it is in a prerogatiue of honor Yet this preeminence is all that is geuen to Peter by the titles of the mouth the head the President of the Apostles Wherefore it is euident that by those titles your Papall supremacie is not geuen to him Hart. It may by your similitudes be probably thoght that some of the rest might note such a preemineÌ„ce in gouernment as you speake of without a souerainty of power But the title of head hath greater strength in it For the Speaker is not called with vs in England the head of the Parlament That title is reserued to the Princ e alone Rainoldes But the President of a Court of Parlament in Fraunce is called head of the Court and Austin or rather he whom you alleadged in the name of Austin expoundeth head by President and the name of head as I haue prooued out of the Scriptures is vsed to note a preeminence of other things not of power much lesse of Princely power only Then what reason is there but Ierom in saying that Peter was appointed head might signifie the preeminence not of a Prince but of a Speaker We geue not in England the name of head vnto the Speaker True Neither geue we the name of Speaker to the Prince But Peter hath them both For hee is called the mouth and head of the Apostles If the one debase him not to the meanenesse of a Speakers function why should the other aduaunce him to the highnesse of a Princes soueraintie Hart. S. Ieroms reason sheweth that hée rather meant a soueraintie as of a Prince For he â—aith that Peter was chosen one amongst the twelue to the intent that a head beeing appointed occasion of schisme might be taken away And how can occasion of schisme be taken away vnlesse that one haue souerain power to gouerne all Rainoldes Why Doo you not thinke that Fraunce appointed Presidents in the Courts of Parlament for the better ordering of them in their dooings that occasion of strife might be taken away What In frée States which are ruled in commoÌ„ not by one Prince but by the best men or by the whole people doo not their stories shew that one had a preeminence as the Consul at Rome the Prouost at Athens though the soueraintie were in many who had like authoritie and power amongst themselues And did they not appoint this one to be the chiefe and head of their company that occasion of strife might be taken away So fared it with Peter amongst the Apostles in gouerning the church whose state if wée compare with the states of common wealths we shall finde that it was an aristocratie not a monarchie as the Philosophers terme it not hauing Peter as a Prince but the Apostles as the best men to gouerne it in common Yet as in all assemblies wherein many méete about affaires of gouernment there must néedes be one for orders sake and peace to beginne to end to moderate the actions so was that preeminence geuen to Peter amongst the Apostles that all things might be done peaceably and orderly And this to be the headship which S. Ierom meant himself in that very place in which he toucheth it dooth shew manifestly For hauing set downe his aduersaries obiection But thou saiest the church is built vpon Peter he answereth thereto Although the same be done in another place on all the Apostles and they all receiue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen the strength of the church is grounded on them equally yet therefore is one chosen amongst the twelue that a head being appointed occasion of schisme may be taken away Of the which sentence the former branch sheweth that by the name of head vsed in the later he could not meane that Peter had a soueraine power ouer the Apostles For all Peters power is comprised in the keies that Christ did promise him and in the building of the church vpon him But all the Apostles receiue the keyes by Ieroms iudgement and the church is builte vpon them
this is the mould of your owne reason wherein you cast the church to haue one visible head proportionable to the body A fansy more proportionable to the limmes of Popery then to Saint Paules doctrine touching the body of Christ. For his drift and purpose therein is to shew that as a mans body is made of sundry members which are not all as excellent one as an other the hand as the head the foote as the hand yet they are ioined togither to care one for an other all to maintaine the bodie so the bodie of Christ that is to say the church consisteth of sundry Christians as members some of greater gifts and callings then some the Apostles then that teachers the teachers then the helpers yet al ioyned together to loue and serue one an other and kéepe the church in vnitie wherby it is manifest first that in naming the head he considereth it not as a head properly but onely as a principall member For so he applieth it naming all Christians members and calling them the bodie of Christ he putteth Christ to be the head Next that by the name of head so considered hée meaneth no one man but all the Apostles as them who were indued with the chéefest gifts and placed in the highest function UUherefore if that word be strained to the vttermost as far as by the text it may the proofe that it yeldeth will argue a preeminence of the Apostles in generall ouer the inferiour members of the church but no power of Peter ouer the rest of the Apostles much lesse of the Pope ouer his fellow-bishops Hart. Yet this it doth proue that the name of head is not so giuen vnto Christ but that it may be giuen vnto a mortall man also Not as a head properly you say but as a principall member And what said I els For I graunted that Christ is properly the head of the church the Pope improperly Yet you reproued me for it Rainoldes I reproued you not because you gaue the title of head vnto the Pope for hee should be a pastour of the church of Rome and pastours for their giftes aboue the members of their churches ought to be like heads though many of them be tailes as the prophet calleth them but because you named him head of the whole church and that in such sort as it is due to none but Christ. For though you graunted Christ to be the quickening head that is to say the fountaine whence there floweth life into the rest of the bodie yet you gaue the Pope this soueraintie of headship that he should direct by his rule and power the outward functions of the bodie Wherein as of the one side you debase the worthinesse of his gifts who giueth vs Pastors and Teachers in that you doe appoint them to guide onely the outward functions of his bodie whereas he hath giuen them to the ful perfiting of his Saintes so of the other side you detract somewhat from the soueraintie of Christ when you giue his seruants dominion to guide his church by rule and power whereas they are ordeined to the worke of the ministery Wherfore howsoeuer you alay the title which you giue the Pope and say you call him head not properly but improperly a ministeriall head yet you doe imply that in this improperly which can agrée to none but him that properly is a head a head that doeth quicken guide and moue the bodie Euen as in your Canon lawe it is said of Peter The Lord did commit the charge of preaching the truth vnto him principally to the intent that from him as it were from a certaine head he might powre abroad his gifts as it were into all the bodie Hart. These wordes that you reproue in the Canon lawe are the wordes of a man of singular wit and iudgement famous both for holinesse and learning Saint Leo an auncient father who did flourish aboue a thousand yeares ago Rainoldes They aâ—e the wordes I grant of an auncient a wittie a learned holie man but a man and that is more a Bishop of Rome Now men euen the holiest while they liue in the flesh haue some contagion of the flesh and learning may puffe vp as it did the Corinthians and the best wittes are soonest tainted with ambition yea Iames and Iohn the sonnes of thunder desired superioritie and Rome a great Citie did nourish great statelinesse and that euen in the Bishops of that Citie before Leo. So they louing preeminence as Diotrephes did tooke all occasions to get it and sought some colours to mainteine it Wherefore as one in Tully said to Hortensius when he immoderately praysed eloquence that hee would haue lift her vp into heauen that himselfe might haue gone vp with her as hauing greatest right vnto her so many Bishops of Rome and Leo not the least of them did lift vp Saint Peter with prayses to the skye that themselues might rise vp with him as being forsooth his heires The Epistles and Sermons of Leo haue manifest markes of this affection as to giue a taste of them The Lord did take Peter into the feloship of the indiuisible vnitie and Wee acknowledge the most singular care of the most blessed Peter for vs all in this that God hath loosed the deceites of all slaunderers and My writings be strengthened by the merite and authoritie of my Lorde most blessed Peter the Apostle and Peter hauing confirmed the iudgement of his See in decision of faith hath not suffered any thing amisse to be seene about any of your persons who haue labored with vs for the Catholike faith and We beseech you and aduise you to keepe the thinges decreed of vs through the inspiration of God the Apostle most blessed Peter If any thing be well done or decreed of vs if any thing bee obtained of Gods mercy by daily praiers it is to be ascribed to S. Peters workes and merites whose power doth liue and authoritie excell in his owne See and He was so plentifully watred of the fountaine of all graces that whereas he receiued many things alone yet nothing passeth ouer to any man but by him To be short Leo by his exaÌ„ple his successors after him are so full of such spéeches that in the common phrase of themselues and their Secretaries all thinges pertaining to the Popes were growne to be S. Peters their prerogatiue S. Peters right their dignitie Saint Peters honour their statelinesse S. Peters reuerence subiection to them subiection to S. Peter A message from them an embassage from S. Peter Things done in their presence done in S. Peters presence Landes and possessions giuen them giuen to S. Peter And when they would haue kingdomes Princes must get them for S. Peter Their territories and Lordships S.
they breake it Hart. Christ by singular priuiledge did exempt them from it Rainoldes Then there was a law which did bind them to it Hart. What else For they should haue done it though they did it not Rainoldes Should that they did not How doo you proue it Hart. Because an order must be set which should be kept by the posteritie Rainoldes An order For whom For Apostles you graunt that man might not ordaine them For Bishops other men did ordaine them as rightfully as Peter did But you had rather make this shew of an answere then say that which you should say in truth I cannot tell For you deale with vs as Erucius did with Roscius whom when hee accused that he had killed his father because his father purposed to disinherit him Thou must proue saith Tully that his father did purpose it The father did purpose to disinherite his sonne For what cause I know not Did he disinherite him No. Who did hinder it He did mind it Did he mind it Whom told he so No bodie Your answeres vnto me are very like to these but somewhat more vnorderly For to ground the Popes supremacie on Peter you said that the Apostles did all receiue their power at least their bishoply power of him You must make it manifest that they did so All the Apostles were to receiue their power of Peter What scripture saith so I know not Did they receiue it No. Who did hinder it They should haue done it Should they haue done it How proue ye it I can not tell I may not say of you as Tully of Erucius What is it else to abuse the lawes and iudgements and maiestie of the iudges to lucre and to lust then so to accuse and to obiect that which you not onely can not proue but do not as much as endeuour to proue it For I must beare you witnes you endeuour to proue it But you shall do better to surcease that endeuour vnlesse your proofes be sounder and haue not onely shew but also weight of trueth in them The third Chapter The performance which Christ is supposed to haue made of the supremacie promised 1 in saying to Peter Feede my lambes feede my sheepe 2 and Strengthen thy brethren With the circumstances of the pointes thereof Doost thou loue me and I haue prayed for thee Peter What and how they make for Peter how for all HART The promise made to Peter hath not onely shew but also weight of truth to proue his supremacie But to satisfy you who thinke it not weightie enough of it selfe I will adde thereto the performance of it and so you shall haue it weight with the aduantage For it was said to Peter in the presence of three Apostles Iames Iohn and Thomas by our Sauiour Christ euen at the very moment when he would now ascend vp vnto his father and therefore either then or neuer make his vicar Pasce agnos meos pasce oues meas Fede my lambes fede my sheepe Rainoldes Not at the very moment That is the aduantage I wéene which you will adde to make vp the weight as some adde eare-wax to light angels But the wordes were spoken what do you gather of them Hart. Christ in those wordes did truely performe the promise of the keyes which he had made to Peter But Christ gaue him commission to féede his whole flocke without exception of any Therefore he made him supreme head of the Apostles Rainoldes This reason doth séeme to be sicke of the palsie The sinewes of it haue no strength Hart. Why so Rainoldes Because in the charge of feeding sheepe and lambes neither was the commission giuen vnto Peter and if it were yet no more was committed to him then to the rest of the Apostles and if more yet not so much as should make him their supreme head Hart. If you proue the second of these thrée pointes the other two are superfluous Rainoldes They are so But you shall haue weight with aduantage to ouerwaigh your weight to vs ward And for the first I haue alreadie shewed that the commission which Christ gaue to Peter he had giuen it him before when he said As my father sent me so do I send you Receiue the holie Ghost Whose sins soeuer ye remit they are remitted to them whose sinnes soeuer ye reteine they are reteined Hart. But Christ gaue him not so much at that time as hée had promised him Wherefore part of his promise being performed then part was performed after then as much as he had ioyntly with the Apostles after that he had ouer them Rainoldes This is your bulwarke of Peters supremacie but it is builded on a lye For all that Christ had promised him was implied in that he had said To thee will I giue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen Was it not Hart. It was so what then Rainoldes But in this commission sending him with ful authoritie and power he gaue him all the keyes of the kingdome of heauen In this commission therefore he gaue him all that he had promised Hart. I deny that he gaue him all the keyes in this commission Rainoldes I proue it All the keyes as it hath appeared by your owne confession are onely too the key of knowledge and of power or rather both of power by Thomas of Aquines iudgement whom you rather follow But Christ gaue him both those in this commission As my Father sent me so doo I send you Receiue the holie Ghost Wherefore in this commission he gaue him all the keyes of the kingdome of heauen And whatsoeuer keyes he gaue him in this he gaue the same to all the rest of the Apostles He gaue as much authoritie therefore to them all as he gaue to Peter But that is the next point Hart. Yet they receiued afterward the holie Ghost from heauen in the day of Pentecost And therefore they receiued not their whole commission of Christ at this time they wayted for a part of it Rainoldes Yes it was a part of their commission so to waite For as it is further declared by S. Luke when their vnderstanding was opened by Christ that they might vnderstād the scriptures he commanded them to stay in Ierusalem vntill they were indued with power from an high A King who putteth men in commission of peace doth giue them authoritie to execute that charge by the wordes of his commission If they perhaps haue not such wealth as is requisite for Iustices of peace to discharge their duetie and the King will giue them landes by such a day thereby to furnish them vnto it they receiue by their landes not authoritie which they had but abilitie which they wanted and the better they are landed the more are they inabled but not the more authorized to execute their duetie Christ the King of Kings did put his Apostles in the commission of peace of heauenly peace not
agnos vt primò quodam lacte pascendos nec ouiculas vt secundò sed oues pascere iubetur perfectiores vt perfectior gubernaret That is to say When the Lord had asked Peter the third time Doost thou loue me hee is commanded now to feede not the lambes as at the first time who must be fedde with certaine milke not the litle sheepe as the seconde time but to feede the sheepe that he a man more perfit might gouerne the more perfit So that the whole flocke of Christ was committed to Peter to be fedde as well the small as the great both the lay men who as lambes are fedde themselues and féede not others the Priests and Clergie who as sheepe doo féede the lambes but are fedde of the shepheard Rainoldes The lambes and the sheepe doo signifie two kindes of Christians the one yonger and tenderer which néedeth to be taught the first principles of religion as it were to be fedde with milke the other riper and elder fit to learne the déeper mysteries of faith to be fedde with strong meat This S. Ambrose noted well in the commandement that Christ gaue to Peter Though the difference which he maketh betwéene the second and the third the litle sheepe and the sheepe was either an ouersight in the Gréeke copie or a fansie of some interpreter Which I would not mention but that you bid me set downe his owne wordes in Latin as though there were some mysterie in them which yet your selues are wont to make no account of vnlesse your Roman reader hath spied more in it who saith that the text ought to be corrected and read as Ambrose cited it But your glose of the lay-men to be signified by lambes and by the sheepe the Priestes and Clergie dooth varie from the text not of Christ onely but of Ambrose too For wheras they speake of the lambes and the sheepe both which the flocke consisteth of you interpret their words of the sheepe and the shepheards And whereas all Pastors are bounde to feede both sheepe and lambes you make as though the rest must féede none but lambes and all the sheepe were Peters From dreaming whereof S. Ambrose was so farre that he saith of the shéepe which Christ commanded to be fedde Peter did not only receiue the charge of them but himselfe and all Bishops receiued it with Peter Wherefore you should consider that in Christes commission vnto the Apostles they are not considered as shéepe but as shepheards and therefore not them-selues to be fed of any but all to féede others So when they abode togither in Ierusalem they sed the church in common with the doctrine of the Apostles not Peter them and they the rest And when they went thence into other countries they went not as shéepe with Peter their shepheard but as seuerall shepheards to shéepe of all nations Hart. Be it so that Christ spake in his commission to them as to shepheards Yet were they also shéepe of the flocke of Christ. And therefore he might well appoint a shepheard ouer them Rainoldes And was not Peter also a shéepe of Christs flock And must not our Sauiour appoint by this reason a shepheard ouer him also For if all sheepe need it why not S. Peter If some néed it not why the Apostles But it is true that as they were shéepe so néeded they sometimes to bee fedde the best of them and this did Christ prouide for though not with your policie not by setting one as Pastor ouer all but by geuing charge of euery one to other For as S. Paule said to the Elders of Ephesus Take heed vnto your selues and to all the flocke charging them with care not of their flocke onely but of themselues too all of all and ech of other in like sort the Apostles who had charge of all in that they were shepheardes were to be looked too in that they were sheepe to be admonished taught fedde not euery one of Peter but euery one of other yea euen Peter also him selfe if néede required Hereof their practise is a proofe For wheÌ„ Peter went not with a right foote to the truth of the Gospell S. Paule reproued him openly before all men for it But to reproue him was to féede him Therefore S. Paule did feede S. Peter Hart. S. Paule reproued him not by authority but of curtesie and Peter yelded to it not of duetie but of modestie As now any Bishop may reproue the Pope and he will harken to it patiently and mildly and yet impaire not his supremacie Rainoldes I acknowledge a distinctioÌ„ of the Romain style which in the booke of Ceremonies of the church of Rome in the chapter that the Pope doth do reuereÌ„ce to no man saith that notwithstanding the maiestie and solemnitie which he vseth to highest states in entertaining of them yet Popes are accustomed wheÌ„ they are not in their poÌ„tificals to bow their head a litle as it were rendring reuerence to Cardinalles and to mightie Princes when they come priuatly and doo reuerence vnto him Marry this not of duetie but of laudable curtesie The Pope shewed not you this curtesie M. Hart when he admitted you to kisse his holinesse foote it was not for his state to doo it Yet hath he so bewitched your senses therewith that you to render him not duetie but curtesie forget both curtesie and duetie to Paule the Apostle the chosen instrument of God and penneman of his holy spirite For S. Paule mentioneth his reproofe purposely to proue that he was Peters equall in authoritie against the false Apostles who sought to discredite the doctrine which he taught by debaâ—ing him and setting others farre aboue him You say that he reproued Peter of curtesie and not by authoritie Wherby marke it well you say in effect that he made a foolish reason to proue a false conclusion And if he were inferiour to Peter in authority as he was by your answeare what meant he to say that he accounted himselfe nothing inferiour to the very chiefe Apostles You adde that any Bishoppe may so reproue the Pope Your Thomas saith no. For he writeth that this fact of Paule reprouing Peter exceedeth the measure of brotherly correction which subiectes owe vnto their prelates because he did it before the multitude Though otherwise him selfe to vphold the Papacy vseth such shiftes as you do maketh his account of Paule as the subiect and Peter as the prelate according to the Canon lawe But his owne sentence may serue for an axe to behead your common errour For either S. Paule in so reprouing Peter did transgresse his duetie or he was his equall in authoritie not his subiect But to say the former is a blasphemous spéech of Porphyrie The latter therefore is true And so your answere falleth of authoritie and curtesie Hart. I graunt that S. Paule was equall in
the chiefest proofe of your supremacy Which and all the rest that you can bring with any shew out of the scriptures giue Peter such supremacy if you will call it so that I am persuaded Pope Gregory the thirtéenth as he hath alreadie spent much vpon Scholers and somewhat vpon Souldiours for maintenance of his State so he will rather spend his triple crowne and all vpon them then heretikes shall force him to come out of his throne of maiestie and submit his head to such a supremacy Hart. What tell you me of Francis Duaren whose authoritie I regard not nor am to be pressed with it Chiefly sith hée was a Lawier not a Diuine and whither he were a Catholike or no I know not I will proue by the ancient and holy learned fathers that Peter had a full and perfit supremacy ouer the Apostles in those two places of the Actes Rainoldes I did not take Duaren for the strength of mine answere but the holy scriptures the same that you alleaged By the text and circumstances whereof I made it plaine that Peter had no higher power in the assemblies of the Apostles thē hath either the Speaker of our English Parlament or to make the most of it the President of a court of Parlament in France which is Duarenes similitude Howbeit if I should haue vsed his authoritie to confirme it as well as I alleaged his wordes to open it you might not reiect such a man so lightly For a gardiner as the prouerbe is hath spoken oft to very good purpose Iethro saw more in somewhat then Moses And Duaren though a Lawier yet was not onely skilfull of the ciuil law which is a great helpe notwithstanding of wisedome in matters touching gouernment but also of the Canon whereof you may vouchsafe to count as of Diuinitie doubtlesse your Diuinitie will be cold without it Beside he wrote that treatise to instruct students in the Canon law which is the fortresse of the Papacy and he so deliuereth the chiefest pointes of it that Lawiers amongst the Protestants were offended wrote against him for it But now thus you rewarde men it is called in questiō whether that he were a Catholike or no. I assure you if you beware not you will make honest and well affected hartes afraid to bee Catholikes such as you meane by that word For if a man kéepe within any bounds of modestie and truth will not runne headlong with you through thicke thin you will account of him either as an Hereticke or as one that sauoureth of heresie at least But who are the Fathers whom you pretend against Duaren to proue your supremacy out of those places of the Actes Hart. S. Chrysostome for the one S. Ierome for the other Rainoldes And what doo they say Hart. S. Chrysostome entreating of the fact of Peter how he proposed the election of a new Apostle into the roome of Iudas Beholde saith he the zeale of Peter How hee doth acknowledge the flocke committed to him by Christ How he is the chiefe in this assembly and euery where beginneth to speake first of all Afterward he prayseth Peter for dooing all thinges by the common aduise and iudgement of the Disciples nothing by his owne authoritie Yet that Peter might haue chosen an Apostle yea alone without them he affirmeth plainely What saith he was it not lawfull for Peter himselfe to choose him yes it was lawfull no doubt But he dooth it not least that he should seeme to gratifie any man Then he praiseth the modestie of the rest of the Disciples Consider saith hee how they graunt the seate to him that is the primacy as otherwhere he calleth it neither doubt they any longer debating amongest themselues to wit as they did once when Christ conuersed with them which of them should bee the greatest This is S. Chrysostomes iudgement of that place which I alleaged out of the first chapter of the Actes of the Apostles for the supremacy of Peter Rainoldes This testimonie of Chrysostome dooth stand on two branches the one what Peter doth as the Scripture sheweth the other what he might haue done as Chrysostome supposeth That which Peter dooth is granted But it proueth not the supremacy He remembreth his duetie hee speaketh first of all he doth all things by the common aduise and iudgement of the Disciples and nothing by his owne authoritie Thus much I saide of Peter and did explane it out of Duaren In Duaren you thought that it made against you and therefore refused him Dooth it make for you when it is in Chrysostome that you bring him against Duaren Or is this the reason why you accept the one and refuse the other because the wordes of Chrysostome yelding a certaine primacy to Peter may deceiue the simple as though he meant that primacy which you call the supremacy but the wordes of Duaren put so plaine a difference betwéene the two primacies that which Peter had and the other which the Pope hath or would haue that a blinde man may sée that Peters primacy was not a Popes supremacy Which shall appeare farther if God will by those thinges that the Fathers speake touching Peters primacy And thus your proofe faileth in that which the scripture sheweth that Peter doth Now that which Peter might haue done as Chrysostome supposeth woulde inferre a greater primacy then Peter had if it were true But the scripture saith it not Wherfore as the Fathers report one of an other by your owne confession that they write some things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to confute the aduersaries with whom they had to deale in these they erre sometimes and gather amisse likewise may I say that they write some thinges 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to praise the Saintes of God and stirre vp others to their vertue wherein if their wordes should be rigorously sifted the truth is sometimes ouerlashed So Chrysostome in the other place which you alleage out of the Actes to commend the mildnesse and wisedome of Iames who left the sharper speeches to be vsed of Peter and vsed himselfe the gentler doth speake of him as being aboue Peter in power and here to commend the modestie of Peter because that hee did all things by the common aduise and iudgement of his brethren hée saith by the way of amplification that Peter might himselfe haue chosen an Apostle which yet he did not Hart. By waye of amplification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to praise the saintes of God Such colours you cast vpon it But Chrysostome saith expressely that Peter himselfe that is to say alone might haue chosen him if he would And you with smoother wordes but in plaine effect replie that he lyeth Doo Fathers praise the Saintes so Rainoldes It is a rule of your owne and giuen by your Iesuit that a man may lawfully dissent from the Fathers so that he do it with modestie If any kéepe not
he agreeth not precisely word for worde with the Cambron-copie Now the Cambron-copie what is it or whence came it that Cyprian should be made the father of such slippes vpon the credit of it alone What if some did note them in the margent of fansie as students vse to doo What if some receiued them into the text of errour What if some of zeale vnto the church of Rome did adde them And why did not Pamelius leaue out the other words of the equalitie of the Apostles in honor and power because the Cambron copie wanteth them as well as adde these of Peters primacie and chaire because the Cambron-copie hath them Did not his conscience tell him that the copie was vnsound or at the least insufficient to force the change of a place of so great importance against the credite of so many both writen bookes and printed If other Licentiates as learned as Pamelius shall vpon one copie as good as the Cambron presume in all the Fathers as he hath in CypriaÌ„ to adde the like gloses for the rest of your opinions as these are for the chaire and primacie of Peter it will be hie time for vs to take héede how wee permitte the tryall of controuersies in religion to the consent of the Fathers Wherfore although these matters seeme neuer so small yet there may lie as much on them as concerneth the safety of our soules Neither doo I picke them as quarrels for pretense but I alleage them as reasons for proofe that by the position of your owne author we must deale with you not by their consent but by the scripture onely For he on whom you grouÌ„ded Vincentius Lirinensis alloweth onely scripture to conuince those errors which haue encreased long wide because the length of time hath geuen them occasion to steale away the trueth and the poyson spreading farther they endeuour to corrupt the writings of the Fathers Your error of the Papacie hath spread farre and growen long you haue endeuoured to corrupt the writinges of the Fathers the forgeries are plaine in Cyprian in Cyrill and in the Councell of Chalcedon the presumptions are great that you haue beene as bold with other as with these For if Thomas of Aquine made no conscience of it what may be thought of such as were more ambitious And if Manutius dealt so with Cyprian in whom hee sought most credit what did his ten yeares labors in setting foorth the rest And if Papistes durste this in the light of printing what may we feare they did in the darcknesse of writing bookes And if the Roman print be folowed at Anwerp the Anwerp at Paris the Paris other-where perhaps and the newer the worser and the worst accounted best by such as D. Stapleton and testimonies alleaged thence as authenticall how much likelyer is it that when they wrote copies in Monasteries and Abbeys they folowed one another with lesser shame and greater loosenes and so did proceede from good to euill from euill to worse and authors of that age did most approue those copies which made for their aduauntage most and brought authorities out of them To conclude therefore euen by his iudgement to whom you appealed Vincentius Lirinensis in that golden booke against the profane innouations of all heresies the touchstone by the which our controuersie must be tryed is the word of God and not the word of men not the consent of Fathers but the holy scripture and the scripture only And this I may protest I speake not of feare as though the Fathers all held with you against vs but of conscience that I may yeelde due glory to God due reuerence to his word For let such forgeries as I haue spoken of be set apart and what haue all the Fathers nay what hath any of them to prooue the pretended supremacie of Peter Hart. The very same Fathers whose wordes I alleaged before and them acknowledged to be their owne not counterfeits geue Peter the supremacie which you call pretended For S. Ierom saith of him Peter was of so great authoritie that Paul wrote Then after three yeares and so forth and S. Austin affirmeth that the primacie of the Apostles is conspicuous and preeminent with excellent grace in Peter and Chrysostome calleth him the mouth of the Apostles the chiefe and toppe of the company and he is named by Theodoret the prince of the Apostles the prince which title also is geuen him by all antiquitie Wherto I may adde that Epiphanius termeth him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as you would say the highest of the Apostles and S. Austin yet farther their head their President the first of them which preeminence he prooueth also out of S. Cyprian who saith that the Lord did choose Peter first S. Ierom teacheth that Peter was chosen one among the twelue to the inteÌ„t that a head being appointed occasion of scisme might bee taken away The bookes of the Fathers are full of such sayings but they are all to this effect And therfore these fewe may serue to shew their iudgement Rainoldes These sayings and the like which are alleaged out of the Fathers doo touch three prerogatiues which they giue to Peter the first of authoritie the second of primacie the third of principalitie But none of them all doth proue the supremacy which you pretend to Peter and meane to the Pope For by thaâ— supremacie is signified the sâ—lnes of ecclesiasticall or rather Papall power euen a power soueraine of gouerning the Church throughout the whole world in all points matters of doctrine and discipline as you declared Is it not Hart. It is so What then Rainoldes But none of the sayings alleaged out of the Fathers doe geue this soueraine power to Peter Therfore they proue not his pretended supremacie Hart. They geue it him all Rainoldes I wil shew the contrary And to speake in order of the three prerogatiues which by them are geuen him the first out of Ierom that Peter was of great authoritie is nothing to your purpose For it is apparaunt that sith the supremacie dooth note a soueraine power the question is of power and not of authoritie Hart. As who say that power and authoritie did differ so much one from the other Rainoldes Much. For power importeth a right of rule and gouernment which the superiors haue ouer their inferiors for the good ordering of mankind as Princes ouer subiectes Pastors ouer flocks Masters ouer seruants Husbands ouer wiues By authoritie is meant estimation and credite a good opinion of men for that which wée account worthy to bée estéemed For they of whom we think so well in respect of their vertue or wisdome or state or other qualities that we will folow them as authors in our dooings our iudgements factes or words are said to be of credite and authoritie with vs. And this an inferior may haue with his superior As
Achithophel a counsellor had such authority with his Prince that his counsell was regarded as an oracle of God and Gamaliel a Pharise had such authoritie with the Iewes that the hie priest and the whole assemblie did yéelde to his aduise and as it were obeyed him Wherefore the authoritie which Ierom saith that Peter had dooth not prooue a power much lesse a supremacie Hart. Yet oftentimes authoritie is taken for the same that power as when a thing is doon by the appointment and order of the magistrate wée are wâ—nt to say that it is doone by authoritie Rainoldes True because power is one of those qualities which procure authoritie the greater authoritie the better that the power is vsed And so I ioyned power and authoritie together when I spake of the keies that Christ did geue to Peter But although the words be taken for the same in a figuratiue kinde of speech by reason of the affinitie which is betweene the things yet as the things differ and the words are vsed for them as different properly it is cléere that authoritie may bée without power and an inferior in power may be superior in authoritie So Tully when he tolde the Senatours of Rome that they ought to geue autoritie to Cesar and the rest against Antonie he meant by autoritie lawfull power and right to deale against him as against an enemie But otherwhere intreating of foure things which should be in a Generall of an army skill vertue autoritie felicitie he meant not lawful power by autoritie but estimation that a Generall must bee honorably thought of by frends and foes The difference betwéene them hée shewed where he saide that Metellus a priuate man though chosen Consul for the yéere folowing forbadde certain playes when an officer had allowed them and that which hee could not yet obteine by power hee did obteine by autoritie Hart. The thinges doo differ I graunt But séeing that the name of autoritie is vsed as well for power sometimes as for estimation why should it be taken in S. Ieroms words rather for estimation as you wil haue it then for power as I Rainoldes Because the point which Ierom dooth therevpon inferre cannot agree to power but to estimation yea this word it selfe is expressed by him and sheweth that he meant it For he saith that Paul went vp to Ierusalem to conferre of the gospel with them that were esteemed by whome hee meaneth Peter and other Apostles euen them whom Paul nameth and noteth their estimation as himselfe expoundeth it Iames and Peter and Iohn who were esteemed to be pillars Wherefore albeit Ierom speake hardly of Paul that he had not had securitie of preaching the gospell vnlesse it had beene approued by these yet the authoritie which he giueth Peter he giueth other Apostles Iames and Iohn with him and therfore a preeminence in estimation not in power not in supremacie but in credit For if by authoritie he meant supreme power Iames and Iohn should haue it ouer the Apostles as well as Peter had But they you say were equall in power to the rest and inferior to Peter Then Ierom by authoritie which he gaue to Peter meant not the supremacie Hart. The primacie of Peter doth proue it more forcibly which is the next prerogatiue And that is giuen to him not only by S. Austin but also by S. Cyprian as I haue declared Rainoldes What néede you to alleage me S. Austin and S. Cyprian Did I denie his primacie Hart. Why Doo you not deny it Rainoldes If I doo let me be smitten not with the blunt weapon of the words of men for so I may iustly terme them in this comparison but with the sharpe two-edged sword of Gods word For it is writen in S. Matthewes gospell these are the names of the twelue Apostles the first is Simon called Peter Now if he were the first then he had the primacie For although the reason be not so plaine in English because we haue not a fit word deriued from our English first as primacie is deriued from the first in Latin yet they who know reason will neuer deny but that he that is first hath the firstâ—ship if I might speake so that is to say the primacie But this is such a primacie as a foreman of the Quest is wont to haue in Iuries not a primacie of power as ouer inferiours but a primacie of order as amongst equals Hart. The primacie of order is a colourable shew wherby you may auoid S. Matthew But Austin and Cyprian cannot be so auoided For their wordes are witnesses they meant a farther primacie and what should that be but a primacie of power Which because they learned as it is likely out of S. Matthew therof do I gather that S. Matthew meant a primacie of power and not of order onely Rainoldes And because S. Matthew as it is more likely meant not a primacie of power to one there where he sheweth that Christ gaue the same power to all the Apostles thereof doo I gather that he meant a primacie of order onely not of power But Austin and Cyprian meant a farther primacie you say Perhaps they did Therefore a primacie in power It doth not folow Nay it is manifest they meant it not of power For Austin doth build it vpon the ground of Cyprian and Cyprian doth teach that Christ gaue equall power to all the Apostles The truth is they meant a primacie in calling to wéet that the Lord did choose Peter first as Cyprian doth speake expressely And whether S. Matthew regarded this also in that he numbred Peter first I can not define But whether hée did or no it is no farther primacie then I graunted you by the foreman of the Quest who is called first as he is reckened fiâ—st and so both in order and calling hath a primacie which he hath not in power Hart. A primacie in calling Nay yet you had done better to haue cleaued still to the primacie of order For Peter in order was the first in déed and so I deny not but he might haue béene though he had bene equall in power to his brethren But he was not the first in calling For S. Ambrose saith Andrew first folowed our Sauiour before Peter and yet Andrew receiued not the primacie but Peter And S. Austins words the primacie of the Apostles is conspicuous and preeminent with excellent grace in Peter doo plainely import that he meant a primacie not in calling but preeminence Rainoldes You say that Peter had not a primacie in calling for S. Ambrose saith so What if I should answere Hee had a primacie in calling for S. Cyprian saith so Or to helpe S. Cyprian if he haue smaller credit with you for S. Gregory saith so Peter was called to the Apostleship first But there is no dissension betwéene them and Ambrose if
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
so then For though the Arian heresie did set vpon Liberius fiersly and ouerthrew him when he being weeried with the tediousnes of his banishment did subscribe to it yet sith he recouered himselfe from his fall and manfully withstood it afterwarde it cannot be saide to haue preuailed against him Whether it preuailed or no against Felix of whom some report that he was an Arian some that he communicated only with the Arians it is no matter to S. Austin who reckeneth him not amongst the Roman Bishops Wherein though your Genebrard doo dissent from him because Felix dyed a martyr as he saith citeth Sozomen to proue it but he belyeth Sozomen to infer on that lye that Peters chaire hath such a vertue that it could rather beare a martyr then an heretike or a Pope that fauoured heretikes yet others not séeing belike such a mystery in the death of Felix are of S. Austins minde euen your Onuphâ—ius also who neither doth acknowledge his Popedome nor his martyrdome Now the heresie of the Donatistes had lesse preuailed against them For as they had before withstood the Nouatians the coosin germans to the Donatists so did they withstand the Donatists them selues both by their communion with the Catholikes and by their doctrine And this is the point on the which S. Austin did cast his eye chiefly when he commended their succession As it appeereth farther by a reply that hee made to a Donatists epistle where hauing reckened vp all the Roman Bishops from Linus who succéeded Peter to Anastasius liuing then he concludeth with these wordes in the ranke of this succession there is not one Bishop found that was a Donatist Wherewithall ifwe consider how they maintained the truth against the heresies of Carpocrates Valentinus Marcion Sabellius Macedonius Photinus Apollinaris and the rest of those miscreants who vndermined the foundation of the Christian faith the doctrine of the blessed Trinitie the reason will be manifest why to moue the Donatists by the succession of the Bishops of Rome and their autoritie S. Austin gaue it this prayse that the gates of hell did not preuaile against it Hart. Well The succession then of the Roman Bishops is vsed by S. Austin for a certaine marke of the Catholike religion of the true Church and of the right faith Neither onely by S. Austin but by the rest of the Fathers too For Epiphanius alleageth it against the Carpocratians let no man maruaile saith he that we rehearse al thinges so exactly for that which is manifest in faith is thereby shewed And Tertullian hauing said of them selues in Afrike that they haue autority from the Church of Rome doth teach that the succession of that Church and See is to be set against all heretikes And Irenaeus reckening vp all the Roman Bishops in order from Peter to Eleutherius of his time doth adde that it is a most ample declaration of the Apostolike faith to be of his side against the Valentinians And Optatus reckneth farther from Peter to Siricius of his time against the Donatists As likewise S. Austin farther yet from Peter to Anastasius of his time that he saith much more surely and to the soules health in deed Wherefore the Church of Rome and we who are of that Church haue an assured warrant that the faith which we professe is the true faith For we haue the succession of the Roman Bishops from Peter to Gregory the thirtenth of our time which is an inuincible fort against all heretikes as the Fathers Epiphanius Tertullian Irenaeus Optatus and Austin testifie Rainoldes You will neuer leaue to daly with the Church of Rome as Tullie did with Maistresse Fabia The succession of the Roman Bishops is a proofe of the true faith for so it was in the time of Austin Epiphanius Optatus Tertullian Irenaeus twelue hundred yeares ago vpwarde Succession was a proofe of the true faith till Bishops who varied from the truth succéeded euen as sheepes clothing was a marke of true Prophets till false Prophets came in it But neither are true Prophets knowne now by shéepes clothing nor the true faith by succession The succession of Bishops was a proofe of true faith not in the Church of Rome alone but in all while they who succéeded the Apostles in place succéeded them in doctrine too kept that which Paule deliuered to Timothee Timothee to others But when rauening woolues were gotten into the roomes of pastours and that was fulfilled which Paul foretold the Bishops of Ephesus of your own selues there shall arise men speaking peruerse thinges to draw disciples after them then succession ceased to be a proofe of true faith for that it was no longer peculiar to the truth but common to it with errour and so a marke of neither because a marke of both This difference of succession betwene the later age and the former the primitiue churches time and ours is manifest by the Fathers them selues whom you alleage For Irenaeus to beginne with the most auncient of them saith that the succession of Bishops in all Churches through the whole world doth keepe and teach that doctrine which the Apostles deliuered Now it doth not so nor hath these many ages since Irenaeus died Hath it Hart. Not in all Churches But in the Church of Rome it doth and hath and shall for euer Rainoldes But if you would say as much for al Churches you might proue it as wisely out of Irenaens as you doo for the Church of Rome Hart. I deny that For he doth not fetch the succession of true doctrine but from the Church of Rome against the Valentinians Rainoldes D. Stapleton told you so and you beleeued it I know not whether I should more pitie your credulitie or detest his impudencie who hath abused you with such lewde vntruthes and that against his owne knowledge vnlesse he knew not what he had writen himselfe For him selfe had cited the wordes of Irenaeus which auouch the contrarie to wéete we can recken them who were ordeined Bishops by the Apostles in the Churches their successours vntill our time who taught not any such thing and so foorth But for as much as it would be verie long to recken the successions of all Churches we declare the faith of the greatest the most auncient and famous Church of Rome Which faith hath continued vntill our time by the successions of Bishops And againe the true knowledge is the doctrine of the Apostles and the auncient state of the Church in the whole world and the forme of Christes body according to the successions of Bishops vnto whom they did commit the Church which is in euery place which hath continued vntill our time being kept and so foorth By the which sentences it is plaine that Irenaeus although he recken not the successions of all Churches because it
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
and of one soule They all are one body sanctified by one spirit through the Sacrament of one baptisme knit to Christ by one faith to themselues in one loue to serue togither one Lord in one hope and expectation of one eternall blisse and glory So that of this vnitie whereof Peters state and nature is capable apply which you list vnto the wordes of Leo either vnitie of will as you seeme to do or vnity of grace as others answere for it or vnitie of glory which Christ did pray for also and some will like that better none of these doe reach vnto that maiestie which Leos wordes aspire to by giuing him the felowship of the indiuisible vnitie Yet God forbid that any man should suspect of him that he meant vnitie either of nature with God or of person with Christ. He hath deserued better then to be thought so euill off But that which in trueth may be said for him is that his meaning was as other-where him selfe doth open it that Christ did impart his name of rocke and foundation of the church to Peter Now some mist of fansie daisled his eyes or els he would neuer haue saide thereupon that Christ receyued Peter into the felowship of the indiuisible vnitie and that in such preeminence as he receyued none but him chiefly sith hée imparted his greater names and titles of Iesus of Christ of the light of the world one of them to some the rest to all his seruants neither did he giue his name of rocke to Peter or of foundation to Peter onely as shall appeare after But if yet you see not that Leo did outreach in making Peter as it were a felow-head a partie-rocke and the halfe-foundation of the Church with Christ behold a farther felowship wherein he ioyneth Peter as mate and partner with God a felowship of power God hath giuen to Peter a great and a wonderfull felowship of his power and if he would haue any thing to be common vnto other princes with him he neuer gaue but by him whatsoeuer he gaue to others Out of all controuersie these wordes do lift vp Peter vnto the felowship of that glory of which God is so iealous that he hath protested he will not giue it to any other he hath giuen it to Christ who is one with himselfe God of God light of light if any man presume to ioyne a mortall creature whomsoeuer as companion vnto Christ in it he robbeth Christ of his honor of the onely mediator betwéene God and man And what doth he els who saith as Leo doth that S. Peters care shineth ouer Bishops in that their slaunderers are defaced that Peters merit and autoritie doth strengthen the writings of his seruant against heretikes that Peter doth not suffer their persons to be stained who labour for the catholike faith that the Popes decrees are made by the inspiration of God and S. Peter that it must be imputed vnto S. Peters workes and merits if any thing be gotten of God by dayly prayers that nothing passeth ouer vnto the chiefest of the Church no not vnto any man from God but by S. Peter Let euery Christian hart whome the zeale of God hath giuen any warmth vnto and his Spirit wisedome be iudge betwéene you and vs whether that to yeald such power such authoritie such souerainetie and rule of the Church of Christ to any Saint in heauen be not an empairing of the maiestie dominion and soueraine authoritie of the king of Saints the holy one of Israel It gréeueth me to speake so much against Leo whose learning I doe loue and reuerence his auncient yeares But the Auncient of dayes is more auncient then he must be had in greater reuerence who taught young Elihu to reproue his auncients euen holy Iob amongst them and to say of them I will not accept the person of any neither will I giue titles vnto man for I may not giue titles If I should doe it a litle he that made me would take mee away UUherefore I doe fréely without curtesie of titles and accepting of persons professe that I mislike those hawtie spéeches in Leo and I thinke that the mysterie of iniquitie so wrought through his ambitious aduancing Peter that of the egges which he cherished two of the most venemous cokcatrices were bred that euer poysoned the church of Christ the one the Popes supremacie vsurping Princely power ouer the church and common-weale with breach of faith to God and man the other the worshipping of Saintes wherin that honour is giuen to creatures which ought to be giuen to the Creator onely One example may shew them both euen Hildebrand called Gregorie the seuenth in his Popedome who depriuing Henrie the Emperour of his Empire and discharging his subiects of their othe of allegiance pronounced sentence with such an inuocation of Peter as a true Christian would trēble to haue heard vsed to any but to God Incline thine eares ô blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles heare me thy seruant whom thou hast brought vp from mine infancy and hast preserued to this day from the handes of the vnrighteous who hate and vexe me for my fayth in thee Thou canst beare me witnesse best and the holy mother of Christ and thy brother Paule partaker with thee of martyrdome that I haue vndertaken the gouernmēt of the Papacie vnwillingly Not that I thought it robbery to clime into thy See lawfully but I had rather liue in pilgrimage thē occupie thy roome for fame and glorie only I doe confesse and good cause why that the charge of the Christiā people was committed and the power of binding loosing granted vnto me not through my desertes but by thy grace Trusting therefore on this assuraunce for the honour and sauegard of thy holy church in the name of God almightie the father the sonne and the holy Ghost I throwe downe King Henry the sonne of Henry sometime Emperour who hath laide handes too boldly and rashly vpon thy church from his imperiall and kingly gouernment and I absolue al Christians subiect to the Empire frō that othe by the which they are wont to beare faith alleagiance vnto true Kings Doe you sée to what iniquitie their pride abusing Peters name and claiming al by him hath puffed them vp To what vsurping ouer Emperours To what dishonouring of the Almightie But of this we shall haue fitter occasion to conferre when we come to the question of the worship of Saintes For the other to returne to the point which we haue in hand the name of head in that sense as it is made a conduit of the giftes of God to powre them abroad into al the body is onely due and proper vnto the Mediatour betwéene God man the Apostle of our profession our Sauiour Iesus Christ. When the right of this title
the lesser it appeareth by the controuersie betwéene Austin and Ierom concerning the reproofe of Peter whether Paule rebuked him in earnest as blameworthie or dissembled with him and made a duetifull lie which Ierom termed an honest policie For your selues graunt that Austin who thought that Paule reproued him in earnest did iudge therin more soundly truely then Ierom did who thought that he dissembled Yet Ierom alleaged more Fathers on his side and made so great account of them that he desired Austin to suffer him to erre with such men if he thought him to erre Whereupon S. Austin replyed that peraduenture hee might finde as manie Fathers on his side if he had read much But I saith he haue Paule the Apostle himselfe in stead of these all and aboue these all To him do I flie to him I appeale from all the Doctors his interpreters who are of other mindes Of him do I aske whereas he writeth to the Galatians that hee sawe Peter not going with a ryght foote to the truth of the Gospell and that hee withstood him to his face for it bicause by that dissembling hee constrayned the Gentiles to doo lyke the Iewes whether he wrote true or did lye perhaps with I know not what politike falshood And I do heare him a litle before making a very religious protestation in the beginning of the same discourse The thynges whych I write vnto you beholde I witnes before God I lye not Let them who are of other mindes pardon me I beleeue rather so great an Apostle swearing in his owne and for his owne words then anie man be he neuer so learned talking of the words of an other A wise and frée iudgement worthie of S. Austin Whereby you may perceiue that your rule of folowing the greater number of the Fathers in expounding the scriptures is but a leaden rule not fitte which should be vsed to square out stones by for building of the Lords temple Hart. This of Austin sheweth that we may vary sometimes from the greater number of the Fathers and refuse their iudgement But that as Torrensis hath obserued well must bee with two cautions One that the thing wherein we varie from them be a knowne truth The other that we do it with reuerence and modestie Rainoldes UUith reuerence and modestie God forbid else As Elihu reproued Iob as Paule reproued Peter But for the other caution how shall we know a thing to be a knowne truth Hart. Oneâ—way to know it and that a good way is the common testimonie of the faithfull people if they with one consent beleeue it to be true Rainoldes This bringeth vs small helpe to the expounding of scriptures For things may be true and yet a place of scripture not applied truely and rightly to proue them As it is plaine in places that haue béene applied by Christians against the Iewes But let it be a good way UUhat if the faithfull people doo dissent As in the question which we haue in hand about the Popes supremacy the people of the east church dissented from the west many hundred yeares together UUhat shall we doo then Hart. Then an other way a better way to finde it is the common testimonie of the faithfull Pastors if they doo decrée it in a generall councell As for the Popes supremacy they did in the Councell of Lateran Rainoldes The Bishops of the east church say that the Councell of Lateran was not generall which the Pope him selfe doth acknowledge also as it is noted on your law But here the former difficulties méete vs againe and bréede the same perplexitie For there are but few places of Scripture which generall Councels haue expounded neither is it likely the Pope will assemble them to expound the rest Againe although you say that generall Councels can not erre in their conclusions yet you say they may erre in applying of Scriptures to prooue their conclusions Lastly generall Councels may dissent too as heretofore they haue in a weightie point offaith touching Christ. The which incommodities being all incident into this which presently we debate of as our conference will shew you sée that you haue not yet resolued me One question I must aske you more In this case when Councels say nothing of Scriptures or misapply them in proofes or dissent in conclusions what are we to doo Hart. If Councels dissent we must follow those which are confirmed by the Head And to answere all your questions in a word whether with the Councels or without the Councels that which the Head determineth is a knowne truth that which the Head condemneth is a knowne errour Rainoldes You meane by the Head not our Sauior Christ but the Pope I trow Hart. I the visible head Rainoldes Doo you not sée then by your owne answeres that whatsoeuer shew you make of Fathers and Councels the Pope is the man that must strike the stroke So that to bring it to the point in controuersie whereas our question is whether that the Pope be supreme head of the church you say He is so UUhen we sift the matter and séeke the reasons why this is the summe of all Because him selfe saith so I thought that the church should haue béene your lawier to expounde your euidences but now I perceiue that you meant the Pope Hée is the churches husband belike and in matters of law dealeth for her I cannot blame you though you be content to make him your iudge too For if he giue sentence in this cause against you I will neuer trust him Hart. You doo gather more of mine answers then I meant I pray make your owne collections and not mine Rainoldes I doo gather nothing but that which you haue scattered For you began to try this point touching the Pope by the wordes of Scripture The wordes we agrée decide by the sense the sense must be tried you say by the Fathers the Fathers by the truth the truth by the people the people by the Councels the Councels by the Pope If one of vs should make but a semblance of such an answere you would sport your selues with it and call it a Circulation and cry against our impudency whoope at it like stage players But you may daunse such roundes and yet perswade men that you go right forward with great sobrietie and grauitie Hart. Howsoeuer you dally with your circulations rounds as you call them I say no more but this that if a truth cannot be knowne otherwise then the last meane to resolue vs of it is the Popes authoritie But there néeded not so much adoo hereof if I proue that Christ did giue that supremacie whereof we talked to S. Peter Rainoldes You can neuer proue that Christ did giue it him but by the word of Christ which is the holie scripture And the scripture standeth in substance of the sense not in
haue Nor yet am I ashamed of that kinde of triall and iudgement by the godly who haue not learned toonges and artes but Christ onely And I comprised it in that which I said that Christ is the iudge and they which vnder him haue it committed to them euen the church of Christ. For himselfe hath giuen by speciall commission two sortes of iudgement to his church the one priuate the other publike priuate to all the faithfull and spirituall as God calleth them who are willed to iudge of that which is taught and to trie spirits whither they be of God publike to the assembly of pastors and elders for of that which Prophets teach let Prophets iudge and the spirites of Prophetes are subiect to the Prophets In both of the which the church must yet remember that God hath committed nothing but the ministerie of giuing iudgement vnto her The soueraintie of iudgement dooth rest on Gods word For Christ is our onely Doctor Law-giuer according to whose written will the church must iudge And so to returne vnto the wordes of Christ from which we digressed the sense I gaue of them will I proue by scripture according to the rule of faith the proofe of the sense I submit to the priuate and publike iudgement of the church The wordes of Christ to Peter conteined a promise of the keyes I will giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen The occasion of the wordes was a question of Christ asked of the Apostles answered by Peter whom say yee that I am Thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God The sense which I gathered by laying these together was that as Peter answered one for all so the keyes were meant to him one with all To proue the former point that Peter answered one for all the scripture is most plaine in the sixt of Iohn where before this time Peter had confessed in their common name We beleeue and know that thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God To proue the later that the keyes were meant to him one with all the scripture is as plaine in the twentieth of Iohn where Christ performing that which he had promised to Peter doth say to him with the rest As my Father sent me so doo I send you Whose sinnes soeuer ye remit they are remitted to them whose sinnes soeuer ye reteine they are reteined Wherefore sith the keyes were promised by Christ on the profession of their fayth which was common to them all and the promise was performed when he sent them all with power to binde and loose to remit and reteine sinnes it followeth that the keyes belonged no more to Peter then to all the Apostles And therefore the promise of the keyes to him importeth no headship of his ouer them Hart. That which was promised by Christ vnto Peter was not performed to the Apostles For he gaue not them the keyes of his kingdome but the power of remitting and reteyning sinnes Rainoldes These things differ in wordes but they are one in sense as Ioseph said to Pharao Both Pharaos dreames are one For as God to teach Pharao what he would do in Egipt by seuen yeares of plentie seuen yeares of famine did vse two sundrie dreames of kine and eares of corne the surer to resolue him of his purpose in it so Christ to teach vs what he doth for mankind in ordeining the ministerie of the word Sacraments vseth two similituds the one of keyes the other of binding loosing that we may know the better the fruit force of it Touching the keyes he speaketh of heauen as of a house wherinto there is no entrance for men vnlesse the doore be opened Now we all Adams ofspring are shut out of heauen as Adam our progenitour was out of Paradise through our offenses and sinnes For no vncleane thing shall enter into it But God of his loue and fauour towards vs hath giuen vs his sonne his onely begotten sonne that whosoeuer beleeueth in him should not perish but haue eternall life which is the inheritaunce reserued in heauen for vs. We cannot beleeue vnlesse wée heare his word We heare not his word vnlesse it be preached Wherefore when God the Father sent his sonne Christ and Christ sent his Apostles as his Father sent him to preach his word to men that they who repented and beleeued in Christ should haue their sinnes forgiuen them the faithlesse vnrepentant should not be forgiuen then he gaue authoritie as it were to open heauen to the faithfull and to shut it against the wicked Which office to shut and open because in mens houses it is exercised by keies and the stewarde of the house is saide to haue the key of it to open it and to shut it therefore Christ the principall steward of Gods house is saide to haue the key of Dauid and he gaue his Apostles the keies as you would say of the kingdome of heauen when hee made them his stewardes to shut out to let in The other similitude of binding and loosing is to like effect For we are all by nature the children of sinne and therefore of death Now sinnes are in a maner the same to the soule that cordes to the body and the endlesse paines of death that is the wages of sinne are like to chaines wherewith the wicked are bound in hell as in a prison From these cordes of sinne and chaines of death eternall men are loosed by Christ when their sinnes be remitted their sinnes are remitted if they beleeue in him If they beleeue not their sinnes are reteined whose sinnes are reteined they doo continue bound For he that beleeueth not shall be condemned he that beléeueth shall be saued None shall be condemned but they whose sinnes are reteined to binde them with the chaines of darkenesse none saued but they whose sinnes are remitted and the cordes vnloosed by which they were holden UUherefore sith the Gospell is preached to this ende a sauour of life to life vnto beléeuers vnto the vnbeléeuers a sauour of death to death as we reade of Christ that the Lord sent him to preach deliuerance to the captiues and opening of prison to them that are bound in like sort his ministers whom he sent to preach it are said to binde and loose to reteine and remit sinnes So that both these kinds of spéech import the same that is signified by keyes For to binde and to reteine sinnes is to shut to loose and to remit sinnes is to open the kingdome of heauen Your owne church dooth take the keyes in this meaning euen the Councell of Trent For whereas Christ gaue to his Apostles and their successours the power of binding and loosing that is of remitting and reteining sinnes as your selues expound it this power you call the power of the keies as
and verie strongly proued Rainoldes This long and smooth tale which you haue tolde out of your Doctor is like to that nightingale to which a Lacedemonian when he had plucked her feathers off and sawe a litle caraine left said Thou art a voice nought else Plucke off the feathers of your tale the body is a poore carkase and hath no substance in it Howbeit the names of the two courtes the outward court the inward court with other tunes of like musike are very sweete melodie in the eares of them whose hartes are in the court of Rome As for simple men who haue béene onelye conuersant in the courtes of the Lord they sound to them like straunge languages and seeme to containe more profound mysteries then we can reach the depth off But to open your answere that it may be séene what is vnsound in it this is the point of the thing in controuersie I say that the power promised to Peter by the name of the keyes in the sixtéenth of Matthew was performed and giuen to all the Apostles by the commission of Christ in the twentieth of Iohn You with Stapleton deny it Why Because the keyes promised to Peter do signifie all kind of power wherof a part onely was giuen to the Apostles to bind and loose in either court And how proue you this Forsooth bicause by these wordes whatsoeuer thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heauen Christ doth not expound what he meant by the keies as some men say you haue thoughtthat he doth Then some men haue thought that the power of the keyes and the power of binding and loosing are all one the later added by Christ to expound the former In deede I thought so and I perceaue by you that I thought not so alone some other men haue thought it too But you say it is not as some men haue thought Yet you do not tell vs the names of these some men Might we knowe I praye what these some men be Hart. What matter is it who they be sith wee are not of their minde Rainoldes Yes it is a matter For if I knew them it may be I would talke with them Hart. To confirme you in your errour But learned men do vary in expounding of Scriptures some hitte the marke some misse it And D. Stapleton reading many of all â—ortes might fall on some expounding it amisse as you do whom hée for modestie would not name where hee reprooueth their opinion Rainoldes This modestie I like not The truth is hee durst not name them least wee should know them and bee the more strengthned by them in the truth to the confounding of your errour For these some men whom hee so lightly trippeth ouer are but al the Fathers who haue with one consent expounded Christes promise of the keyes as we do Now the exposition which the Fathers make is by his owne iudgement the churches exposition which hath the right sense of the scripture And so while he is launching out into the deepe to fetch in a prise for Peter of Romes supremacie hee maketh shipwracke in the hauen Hart. How know you that the Fathers all haue so expounded it You haue not read them all haue you Rainoldes No truely Neither euer am likely to doo it But I haue read him that hath read them all I trow And hee being a man worthy with you of credit doth witnesse that I saye true Hart. Who is that Rainoldes Euen Father Robert the publike reader and professor of diuinitie in Rome Who when he discoursed of Christes wordes to Peter Whatsoeuer thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heauen said that all power of the keyes is therein promised not restrained to part but enlarged to what soeuer Yea that Christ likewise promised the same power to all the Apostles when he spake in like wordes Whatsoeuer ye bind on earth shall be bound in heauen what soeuer ye loose on earth shall be loosed in heauen For albeit Origen more subtilly then literally doth put a difference betweene the promises because in the one the word heauen is vsed in the other heauens yet the common exposition of S. Ierom S. Hilarie S. Anselme and others vpon this place yea of S. Austin him selfe in his treatise vpon Iohn is that Christ speaketh of the power of the keyes by which the Apostles and their successours do bynd or loose sinners And although it seemeth that here is chiefely meant the power of iurisdiction whereby sinners are excommunicate yet the said Fathers doo vnderstand it of both the powers not onely of iurisdiction but of order too And that may be gathered it seemeth by the text For it is said as generally to the Apostles What things soeuer ye shal bind as it is to Peter What thing soeuer thou shalt bind Hart. Perhaps Father Robert doth bring in these thinges by way of an obiection and frameth thereunto an answere and so resolueth to the contrarie Rainoldes No. But he bringeth your opinion in deede by way of an obiection and frameth thereunto an answere and so resolueth to the contrary For thus he goeth forward What Is that giuen then to all the Apostles which was promised to Peter Caietan in his treatise of the Popes authority saith that the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and the power of byndyng and loosing are not all one for that to bynd and loose is lesse then to open and shut But this doctrine seemeth to be more subtill then true For it is a thing vnheard of that there are in the Church any other keyes then the keyes of order and of iurisdiction And the sense of those wordes I will giue thee the keyes and whatsoeuer thou shalt bind and loose is plaine that first a certaine power and authoritie is promised afterward the function of it is declared Now the function of these keyes is declared by the wordes to bind and loose not by the wordes to shut and open that we may vnderstand they be metaphoricall and borowed kindes of speeches neither heauen is opened properly but it is said that heauen is opened then with these keyes when men are loosed and dispatched of the difficulties and infirmities which shut them out of heauen and so forth Thus saith your chiefest reader and Iesuit Robert Bellarmin whose iudgement by your leaue I farre esteeme in this point aboue D. Stapletons as more agreeable to the scriptures Hart. You may estéeme it as you liâ—t But I am not bound to stand to Bellarmines iudgement Rainoldes But you are bound to stand to the iudgement of the Fathers by the Councell of Trent and that vpon your othe as I take it With the which othe I know not how D. Stapleton dispenseth Unlesse the Pope expound it that you must folow them so farre as
earthly not bodily but spirituall not temporall but eternall Their authoritie they receiued by the wordes of his commission But the discharge of the duetie required great treasures of the holie Ghost Whereof hée gaue them some then more in the fiery toonges from heauen more as the churches state required and these well occupied gained more with the increase whereof their abilitie still increased their authoritie not so which all was giuen them at once Hart. But a King for better triall of his Iustices may commit some lesser authoritie first vnto them and afterwarde greater Rainoldes So did Christ to his Apostles But hauing made triall of them in the lesser he called them by this commission to the greater nay to the greatest then which he had no greater for them Hart. Not within the limits perhaps of their commission yet he might enlarge them and giue them greater limits Rainoldes But Christ in this commission had giuen them authoritie through all his dominion not through a shire onely For he sent them to all nations Hart. And what if I grant that Christ in this commission gaue all that power to Peter which he had promised him was to giue vnto him Rainoldes If he gaue him all that power in this commission no part thereof remained to be giuen in any other If no part to be giuen then was there no further power giuen to him by those wordes of Christ Feede my lambes feede my sheepe If no further power were giuen him thereby the bulwarke of your Papacy is builded on a fansie Hart. Then belike our Sauiour spake to no purpose when he said to Peter Doost thou loue mee Feede my lambes Doost thou loue mee Feede my sheepe Rainoldes God forbid To great purpose though not to yours For he giueth him therein a commandement though not a commission As if the Quéenes Maiestie hauing made alreadie by letters of commission some Iustices in the North one perhaps amongst them of whose faithfull heart she were persuaded well yet that had shewed himselfe not of the trustiest in time of the rebellion shée should say vnto him to stirre in him a liuely regard of his duetie Do you loue vs Haue care of our poore subiectes Doo you loue vs Haue care of our good people Which charge and commaundement Christ might giue a great deale better to Peter then the Quéene to any Iustice in the North because shée knoweth not whither any new Bull be comming from Rome or new rebellion be toward But he knew that Peter should be in greater danger then he was when he fled and denied his Maister Whereof he forewarneth him straight vpon the giuing him of this commandement and that with earnest words of great asseueration as in a matter of weight telling him that he should dye a gréeuous death for his profession of the faith and féeding of the flocke of Christ. So that to arme him against that feare of the flesh which before had made him to betray his duetie when he had lesse cause to feare Christ hauing made the iron hot as it were by asking him Doost thou loue mee striketh it to make it a fit instrument to build with so commandeth Feede my flocke yea though the worke be painefull and will cost thée déere for it shall bring thée to thy death So he committeth not a new charge to Peter but willeth him to looke to that which he had committed and flée not from it for any danger As if a wise shipmaster séeing a daungerous storme at hand should command his mariners whom he had well deserued of that if they loue him they looke vnto their tackelings Hart. Well If it were perhaps not a commission but a commandement yet was it a commandement to discharge that duetie wherewith he was put in trust by commission Rainoldes I grant What inferre you Hart. Then Peter had commission to feede the lambes and sheepe of Christ. Rainoldes Who dooth deny it For he had the same commission from Christ that Christ from God his Father to preach the Gospell to the poore to heale the broken-hearted to preach deliuerance to the captiues and recouering of sight to the blind to set at libertie them that are bruised and preach the acceptable yeare of the Lord. Which is in other wordes to feede the lambes and sheepe of Christ. For Christ by a similitude is named the chiefe shepheard his church and chosen seruants a flocke of sheepe and lambes whereof he gaue a principall charge to his Apostles that they should féede it Wherefore the commandement giuen vnto Peter to feede his sheepe and lambes importeth the commission which before was giuen him when Christ sent him as God sent Christ. But in this commission the Apostles all were equall vnto Peter They were equall therefore to him in charge of feeding the sheepe and lambes of Christ. And so the second point which I had to proue the verie deaths-wound of your supremacy is proued Hart. Proued How proued Rainoldes As clearely as the Sunne dooth shine at noone day For to send the Apostles as God the Father sent Christ is to giue them charge to feede his sheepe and lambes But Christ sent the Apostles as God the Father sent him Therefore he gaue them charge to feede his sheepe lambes Now this is the greatest power that can be shewed was giuen Peter by Christ. Wherefore in the greatest power that Christ gaue him the rest of the Apostles all were his equals If you be loth herein to beleeue the Scripture yet beleeue the Pope and an ancient Pope vnlesse the Canon law lye The rest of the Apostles receiued honor and power in equall felowship with Peter Hart. It is true that the Apostles were equall to Peter but in respect of their Apostleship not of their Pastorall charge Rainoldes This answere of yours hath a distinction but not a difference It is the same fellow but in an other gowne whom a litle rather I shewed to be a bankrupt and now he commeth foorth againe in newe apparaile like an honest and welthy Citizen Hart Why say you so Rainoldes Because you did distinguish the Bishoply power of the Apostles from their power Apostolike as here with other wordes you doo their Apostleship from their Pastorall charge Whereas in déede the pastorall charge of the Apostles is nothing els but their Apostleship and hath no more difference then the other had For the name of Pastor is vsed in two senses a speciall and a generall In the speciall to note a kind of function distinct from the Apostles your Doctor graunteth it and so Apostles are not Pastors as when it is said some Apostles some Prophets some Euangelistes some Pastors and teachers In the general to signifie the cōmon charge of al such as do teach the word and féede the flocke of God in which respect Christ him selfe is called a Pastor Wherefore sith Apostles
are not Pastors by the former sense by the later whosoeuer are equall in the Apostleship must néedes consequently be equal in the Pastorship too your distinction that they were equal in the one not in the other hath no more reason then an other of D. Stapletons who saith that they were equall in power of gouernment but not of regiment Hart. You depraue his wordes For he saith that this is the greatest difference betweene Peter and the rest of the Apostles that Christ gaue to Peter the power of regiment or to commaund to the Apostles only the power of gouernmēt or to execute because in gouernment of the church Peter must prescribe what should be done and they must execute it Rainoldes I depraue them not vnlesse he speake sottishly he knoweth not him selfe what For his drift is to proue that the Apostles all had equall power giuen them by Christ but with a threefold difference of which this is one that they had equall power forsooth to doo and execute all things that appertaine to the building of the Church but so that Peter had the power of regiment to commaund the rest of the Apostles the power of gouernment to execute Which is as ridiculous as if a man would say that the Queenes Maiestie and the Sheriffes of London haue equall power both yet with a difference to witte that her Maiestie hath the power of regiment that is to commaund when a traitor shall suffer and the Sheriffes the power of gouernment that is to execute that which shee commandeth If you should preach thus in London our Londoners would smile at it I thinke that this heresie hath made our wits dull Your Catholike distinctions are so sharpe and subtill that wee cannot conceiue them Hart. You may flout as well if you list at S. Gregory who though he vse not the wordes of this distinction yet he hath the sense of it saying that Andrewe Iames and Iohn were heads of seuerall congregations and all members of the Church vnder one head Peter Rainoldes If I should touch Gregory for this I should do him wrong as great wrong almost as your Doctor doth who alleageth it out of Gregory For though he were him-selfe a Bishop of Rome and a well-willer of S. Peters yet in that epistle whence those wordes are cited he calleth Christ the head of the vniuersal church Peter the chiefest member and others members of it also D. Stapleton thinking it a small thing that Peter should be counted as the chiefest member vnles he be the head too hath vpon mentiō of the one head cogged in the name of Peter like a cunning gamster to helpe a dye at a neede Alas a man must enterprise somewhat in such cases For you were all vndone if this game should be lost Hart. I maruaile that you blush not to vse such vnciuill spéeches and tauntes against D. Stapleton a man of great learning euen in your own iudgement Rainoldes A man not of so great learning as reading if you wil take my iudgement in it Yet I wish for his own sake that his learning were as good as it is great But for the vnciuill speeches and tauntes which I vse against him weigh the occasions and circumstances of them If he haue not deserued as the Scribes and Pharises let me be rebuked when I touch him as Christ them But you deale herein as Tully reporteth that Athenagoras did of his fault he said nothing he complained of his punishment It is lawfull for D. Stapleton to take vp me with his tauntes of Caluinist Anglocaluinist Puritan and that vndeseruedly But if I reproue on iust cause with plaine termes his cogging corrupting belying sclaundering abusing both of God and men it is a hainous matter and to bee blushed at Let them blush M. Hart who loue or make lies either by committing such shamefull trickes of falshood or by partaking with them It is no shame for me to note them and reprooue them Hart. Why Are you sure that there is no copie of S. Gregories workes which hath the name of Peter inserted in that place Rainoldes I thinke that none hath I am sure that none should haue For in an other epistle of the same argument whē he had said that al Christians do cleaue to only one head he addeth Imeane to Christ and hauing in this same epistle put that difference betwéene Christ and Peter that Peter is a member Christ the head of the church he sheweth manifestly whom he meant by head A thing so apparant that Cardinall Cusanus doth cite those wordes of Gregory with Christes name inserted either as hauing read them so in some copie or to open the meaning of them How much the more shamefull is Stapletons dealing who foysteth in Peter to set by that conueiance the Pope in Christes roome But you were best to go forward with the scriptures and then when you haue found nothing in them come to the Fathers after Hart. You are very peremptorie still in your spéeches I wil find in them as much for the substance as I haue affirmed For howsoeuer the wordes of Pastorall charge and the Apostleship the power of regiment and gouernment agree with my meaning my meaning I am sure agreeth with the scriptures and standeth with good reason Rainoldes Then you shall do well hereafter to refraine from such foggy distinctions deuised to choke the blinde who eate many a flie and expresse your meaning in cleare and playne wordes least we suspect that you fansie darkenesse more then light Hart. This is my meaning that Peter had authoritie ouer the Apostles to féede them to rule them to be a Pastor of them which the rest of the Apostles had neither ouer him nor one ouer an other Rainoldes So. Now make proofe of it Hart. Christ did say to Peter Doost thou loue me Feede my sheepe Whereof thus I reason Christ did charge Peter to feede his sheepe all euen all his shéepe without exception But the Apostles were sheepe of Christ. Therefore he had the charge of feeding them also Rainoldes Christ saide to the Apostles Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospell to euery creature Whereof thus I reason Christ did charge his Apostles to preach the Gospell to euerie creature to euerie one without exception But Peter was a creature Therefore they had the charge of preaching to him also Now if I would play with wordes as your men doo I could shew that this reason must ouermaster yours in the plaine field For Christ said not to Peter feed all my sheepe but he said to the Apostles preach to euerie creature Hart. But you should consider that Christ giuing that commandement to Peter gaue it with a difference betwéene the shéepe and the lambes as S. Ambrose hath noted well set me downe I pray his owne wordes in Latin tertiò Dominus interrogauit noniam
authoritie to Peter in some sort Yet this is a notable difference betweene them and well worth the marking that S. Paule was the Apostle and teacher of the Gentiles but Peter the Apostle both of Gentiles and of Iewes Which because we loue not to speake without Doctors you may read in S. Ambrose in his CoÌ„mentaries on this place He that wrought by Peter in the Apostleship of circumcision wrought by me also towardes the Gentiles He nameth Peter alone saith he and compareth him vnto himselfe because he had receiued the primacie to build the Church that himselfe likewise is chosen to haue the primacie of building the Churches of the Gentiles Yet so that Peter preached to the Gentiles also These are S. Ambrose his wordes Rainoldes Haue you read these words your selfe in S. Ambrose or do you take them vp on credit Hart. What if my selfe haue read them Rainoldes Then shall I thinke worse of you then I haue done For I haue thought you to erre of simplicitie But I smell somewhat else here Hart. In déede I reade them not my selfe in S. Ambrose but in D. Stapleton who citeth them as I do Rainoldes Then you may learne the precept of a wittie Poet Be sober and distrustfull these are the ioyntes of wisedome For this which you haue taken of D. Stapletons credit is clipped fowly clipped If he should deale so with the Princes coine I know what iudgement he should haue The wordes of Ambrose are Ita tamen vt Petrus gentibus praedicaret si causa fuisset Paulus Iudaeis yet so that Peter preached to the Gentiles also if it were needfull and Paule to the Iewes D. Stapleton citeth them Ita tamen vt Peâ—rus gentibus praedicaret Haec ille Yet so that Peter preached to the Gentiles also Thus saith Ambrose See you not how hansomely he hath clipped-of the last words of Ambrose Paulus Iudaeis and Paule to the Iewes to proue that Paule might not preach vnto the Iewes as Peter might vnto the Gentiles Yet this is D. Stapleton whose Treatise of the Church some of our English Studentes and young seduced gentlemen thinke to be a treasure of great truth and wisedome But God wil make the falsehood and folly thereof euident to all men at his good time For this present point that Paule was an Apostle and teacher of the Iewes and the Gentiles both as well as Peter was and therfore not inferior to him in this respect the Scripture is so cléere that no mist of Stapletons though it were as thicke as the darkenes of Egipt can take away the light of it The wordes of Christ proue it spoken touching Paule vnto Ananias He is a chosen vessell to me to beare my name before the Gentiles and kinges and the children of Israel The commission by Ananias sent vnto Paule The God of our Fathers hath appointed thee that thou shouldest know his will and see that Iust one and heare the voice of his mouth For thou shalt bee his witnesse vnto all men of the thinges which thou hast seene and heard Paules obedience to his calling and performance of his duetie He preached Christ in the Synagogues he confounded the Iewes he spake and disputed with the Graecians Iewes by religion although not by parentage to be short when he was sent by speciall commission of the holy Ghost for the worke whereunto God had called him and Barnabas they preached the worde of God in the Synagogues of the Iewes through diuers cities and countries vntill that when the Iewes did stubbernely resist the truth which they preached they said boldly to them It was necessarie that the word of God should haue bene first spoken vnto you but seeing you put it from you and iudge your selues vnworthie of euerlasting life lo we turne to the Gentiles Wherefore as Peter preached the Gospell both to Iewes and Gentiles so did also Paule As God did choose Peter that the Gentiles by his mouth should heare the word of the Gospell so did he choose Paule Hart. Why dooth Paule then call himselfe the Apostle and teacher of the Gentiles and that in sundry places Rainoldes Because that when he and Peter perceiued that God did blesse the labours of the one of them amongst the Iewes chiefly of the other amongst the Gentiles they agreed togither and gaue the right handes of fellowship each to other that Paule should preach vnto the Gentiles Peter to the Iewes not so but that either if occasion serued might and did preach to either as Ambrose noted well and it is written of Paul namely but that they should specially teach the one the Iewes the other the Gentiles as their epistles shew they did Thus if you regard that which they did chiefly Peter was an Apostle and teacher of the Iewes Paule of the Gentiles If that which they might doo and did by occasion they were the Apostles and teachers both of both and so no difference betwéene them Hart. We graunt that there was no difference betwéene them in the office of the Apostleship for therein was Paule equall vnto Peter Rainoldes He that granteth this would sée if he had eyes that he must grant the other which he hath denied For if equall in the office of the Apostleship then equall in the charge of preaching to all nations And if in the charge of preaching to all nations then both to Iewes and Gentiles Hart. It is true to both But so that S. Peter was chiefe Apostle to them both and the supreme head to rule as well S. Paule as the rest of the Apostles Rainoldes I haue proued that Peter had no such headship ouer them You barely say the contrary and repeat it still This is a fault in reasoning condemned of the Logicians by the name of begging that which is in controuersie I pray vse it not but either proue that you say or hold your peace and cease to say it Hart. I will proue it by the circumstances of the words of Christ saying vnto Peter Doost thou loue me more then these Feede my lambes Doost thou loue me Feede my sheepe Doost thou loue me Feede my sheepe Wherein sundry principall pointes are to be noted First he requireth of him an open profession and testimonie of his loue to this intent that he may put him in trust with his flocke Secondly he requireth not onely that he loue him but also that he loue him more then the rest that to him as louing him more then the rest he may giue power aboue the rest Thirdly he asketh him thrise if he loue him and the former times with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the last with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which noteth feruent loue With the which worde also Peter had answered him still Fourthly he saith vnto him thrise also feede And to passe ouer the sheepe and the lambes whereof
nor forsake thee You haue your choyce take which you list either acquit vs or condemne him For if Christ meant to assure the faith of none but of Peter because he said to him I haue prayed for thee that thy faith should not faile then did God promise his gratious assistance to none but to Ioshua when he said to him I will not leaue thee nor forsake thee and the Apostle erred in saying it to all Christians If the Apostle saide that to all Christians by the spirit of truth then is it true in like sort that it may be said to any childe of God whom Satan hath desired to sift and shake as he did Peter and made him to denie Christ Be of good comfort for he hath said I haue prayed for thee that thy faith should not faile And if it may be said to any childe of God then was it verified in all the Apostles except the childe of perdition Wherefore Christ by saying of those words to Pâ—ter gaue him no Supremacy ouer the Apostles Hart. I cannot deny but that in some respect it may be truly saide to all the children of God if they fall as Peter did Yet I know not how me thinkes I cannot be perswaded but that it maketh somewhat for Peters supremacy Rainoldes No maruell For the noyse of it hath béene so great and loude about your eares in the Seminarie at Rhemes and other Popish schooles beyond seas that it hath made you dull of hearing and you cannot perceiue the still soft voice of the truth As we read of them who dwell about the fall of the riuer Nilus where it tumbleth downe from the hye mountaines that they are made deafe by the greatnes of the sound and noyse of the waters But tell me I pray doo you thinke that Christ made Peter supreme head by saying vnto him I haue prayed for thee or strengthen thy brethren Hart. What a question is that Why should I mention it vnlesse it proued his supremacie Rainoldes It is a question For if Christ made him supreme head by those wordes then the supreme head denyed Christ and that often and that with an oth too Whereof a very daungerous conclusion would folowe that the Pope may erre yea that is more deny Christ. Hart. I say not that Christ made him supreme head at that present time but prepared him as it were to make him supreme head after As D. Stapleton writeth that Christ by those wordes established Peters faith before that he bestowed the power of supreme head-ship vpon him in deed For he gaue that power after his resurrection when he said to him Feede my lambes feede my sheepe But those wordes of strengthning he spake before his death and did but insinuate therein giue an inkling that he would make him supreme head Rainoldes You haue said And your Doctor hath shewed herein a point of greater wit then many of his felowes But as of greater wit so of greater spite in adding thereunto that which now I touched that Caluin made no mention at all of those wordes because he knew well that they are so singular for Peters supremacie they could not possibly bee auoided For Caluin doth mention them in treating of the point whether the Pope may erre And your Doctor witnesseth him selfe that directly they concerne that point the supremacie but by an inkling The strength thereof then as touching the supremacie doth rest vpon that whereof they giue inkling it should be done after that is vpon the charge of feeding lambes and sheepe But it is proued that Christ gaue no more to Peter in that then to the rest of the Apostles It is proued therefore that the wordes of Christ strengthen thy brethren do raise no higher throne for Peter then for them Much lesse if the prayer that Christ made for Peter were common vnto him with all faithfull Christians and not with the Apostles onely Wherefore this reason which is so strong in your eies must be strengthned by his brethren if he haue any For sure he is a great deale too weake to strengthen them Hart. Yes he hath brethren And more peraduenture then you would be glad to see in the field as lustie as you are and thinke you can dispatch them all Rainoldes Not I saue with the aides of Elisaeus onely they that be with vs are mo then they that bee with them But let vs see what are they The fourth Chapter The practise of the Supremacie which Peter is intitled to imagâ—â—â—â— to be proued 1 by the election of Matthias to the Apostleship 2 〈◊〉 by the presidentship of the Councell held at Ierusalem 3 and by Paules iourney taken to see Peter and his abode with him Wherein as in other of the actes of the Apostles the equalitie of them all not the supremacie of one is shewed HART Examples of the practise of Peters supreme-headship in the gouernment of the Church Whereof we haue records in the holy scriptures euen in the Actes of the Apostles which are a paterne of Church-gouernment Rainoldes The reasons in deede which you gather thence are brethren to the former But they are no stronger then the former were If you bring them forth into the field you shall perceiue it Hart. There are many places but specially two by which Peters soueraintie ouer the Apostles is manifestly shewed For in the one he proposeth an election to bee made of a new Apostle into the roome of Iudas In the other he is President of the Councell of the Apostles which was held at Ierusalem he speaketh first and concludeth in it Out of both the which I gather this reason S. Peter did practise the power and authoritie of a supreme head ouer the Apostles Therefore hee was their supreme head Rainoldes Now are you come to that which I had an eye too when I desired you in the beginning of our conference to tell me what power you gaue vnto the Pope by calling him supreme head For in this grasse there lurketh a snake Which that you may see and if it be the gratious will of God auoide least that you perish through his venoom I will aske you a question When you say the Pope is chiefe and supreme head of ecclesiasticall iudgement and President of Councels doo you meane that the Pope in assemblies of Bishops is as the Speaker with vs in the Parlament to propose matters to them and aske their iudgementes and gather their voices that thinges may bee orderly handled and enacted by common consent Hart. As the Speaker No. But as the Prince rather Rainoldes Yea I say to you and more then the Prince For as thinges in Parlament cannot bee enacted without the Princes consent so neither can the Prince make actes without consent of the Lordes and Commons And when they are made by consent of them all they cannot be repealed by the Prince alone without
at Ierusalem at Antioche at Ephesus at Rome that from the mother cities as they were called religiō might be spread abroad vnto the daughters Now because this residence in the mother-cities was afterward supplied by the Bishops of them therefore the Fathers are wont often-times to call the Apostles Bishops of those cities wherin they did abide most Which they might the rather for that the word in their spéech betokeneth in a generall meaning any charge ouersight of others in so much that the scripture applieth it to the ministery of the Apostles also And in this sort it seemeth to be said as by Cyprian that a Bishop was to be ordeined in the roome of Iudas so by Ierome that Peter was Bishop of Antioch by Chrysostom that Iames was Bishop of Ierusalē Though whither it wer or no yet that which I spake in defense of Chrysostō is cléered by himself frō your reproch of a shift For he saith that Iames was Bishop as they say Which words as they say import that he spake it on the words of others most likely of Clemēs frō whom Eusebius fetcheth it But if notwithstanding you reply that Chrysostom allowed that they say and supposed Iames to be a Bishop properly then his words haue so much the greater importance against your supremacy séeing that they giue the principalitie to Iames in his owne dioces and that aboue Peter Howbeit I will not take this aduantage because I know that neither Peter nor Iames gaue the definitiue sentence but when they had spoken their mindes of the matter the Councell did define it and decrée it with common iudgement Hart. They did it with common iudgement I deny not But Theodoret sheweth that Peter as a Prince had a great prerogatiue therein aboue the rest yea gaue definitiue sentence to which the rest consented and as it were subscribed For he in an epistle which he wrote to Leo affirmeth that Paul did runne to great Peter to bring a resolution from him vnto them who contended at Antioche about the obseruation of the lawe of Moses Rainoldes You may cite if you list S. Isidore too for an other speciall prerogatiue of Peter as good as this and grounded likewise on the Actes which he alleageth to proue it to wit that the name of Christians arose at Antioche first through the preaching of Peter For though hee bée more direct against the scripture which sheweth that the name of Christians arose vpon the preaching not of Peter but of Paul and Barnabas yet is Theodoret direct against it too by giuing as proper peculiar to Peter that which was cōmon to the Apostles and Elders whose resolution he was sent for And as Isidore séemeth to haue ouershot him selfe by flip of memorie on too great a fansie perhaps towardes Peter in like sort Theodoret séeking to get the fauour of Leo bishop of Rome whose help he stode in neede of did serue his owne cause in saying that Paul ranne to great Peter that so he might run much more to great Leo. Which words to haue issued out from that humor his commentaries on the Scriptures where he sought the trueth and folowed the text shewe For therein he saith of Barnabas and Paul that they ran not to great Peter but to the great Apostles and had a resolution from them of the question about the keping of the law Howbeit if Theodorets words vnto Leo suffered no exceptiō the most were that Peter pronounced the definitiue sentence as President not gaue it as Prince But the Scripture it selfe by the rule whereof his wordes must be tryed maketh no more for Peters Presidentshippe then for Iames and whosoeuer were President it sheweth that neither Iames nor Peter but the Councel gaue the definitiue sentence So well it proueth that which you vndertooke to proue concerning Peter that he had as ful power in the assemblies of the Apostles as the Prince hath in a parlament yea or the pope in a Councell Harte It proueth that wel-inough though not to you chiefly if other places thereof be waied withall For the singular power of Peter is declared also by S. Paul in that he saith to the Galatians Then after three yeares I came to Ierusalem to see Peter and taried with him fifteene dayes Rainoldes The singular power of Peter In which words By what reason Because hee went to Ierusalem to see him Or because he went after three yeares Or because hee stayed with him fifteene dayes Hart. The reason consisteth in that which Paule did the cause for which he did it For he went to Ierusalē to see Peter Why but to do him honour as Ierom saith in his Commentaries and in an epistle to Austin Peter was saith he of so great authoritie that Paule wrote Then after three yeares and so forth And Chrysostome Because Peter saith he was the mouth of the Apostles the chiefe and top of the company therefore Paule went vp to see him aboue the rest Because it was meet saith Ambrose that he should desire to see Peter vnto whom our Sauiour had committed the charge of Churches Which also Tertullian affirmeth that he did of duetie and right Nor otherwise Theodoret he gaue saith he that honour to the prince of the Apostles which it was fitte hee should Hence it is that S. Gregory doubteth not to say that Paule the Apostle was the yonger brother And S. Austin an Apostle made after Peter who saith moreouer that the primacie of the Apostles is conspicuous and preeminent with excellent grace in Peter Rainoldes You bring in witnesses not necessarie to proue a thing not denied For that Paule was as Apostle in time after Peter and so his yonger brother as Gregory Austin and Ambrose say that he went to see Peter for honor and reuerence which he bare to him as it is in Ierom Chrysostome and Theodoret that he did this of duetie and right what right and duetie of the same faith and preaching of the gospell to shew his concord with him which is the meaning of Tertullian all this will I graunt you the scriptures teach as much what néede the Fathers to proue it Hart. Will you graunt all that which I alleaged out of the Fathers then will you grant that Protestants are in an error and the truth is ours For they auouch plainely the primacie of Peter and call him the mouth the prince the toppe of the Apostles Rainoldes Alas you were agreed me thought to go through with the scripture first afterward come to the Fathers I wisse they will giue you small cause of triumphing ouer the Protestants when you shall bring their forces out into the field and see with whom they ioine with you or with vs. But of the rest then Now I graunt you so much as doth concerne the point for
proofe whereof you cited them namely that Paule went to see Peter for a reuerent respect and honor of his person But I deny the argument which you inferre thereof that Peter had therefore a singular power whereby you meane the supremacie You should haue laid the Fathers if you would néedes bestow them on this which is denied not on that which is graunted But this is the world Men will rather giue to the rich who need not then to the poore who need Hart. I thought you would rather haue denied that then this for this is cléere of it selfe and néedeth no proofe The common vse of men sheweth it For they giue honor and reuerence to them in whom they acknowledge a superioritie Rainoldes Perhaps a superioritie yet not a supremacie Hart. If Peter were Paules superior in power the supremacie is proued Rainoldes If in power you say somewhat Though neuerthelesse he might be full hie in power and yet come short of your supremacie But he was superior to him in some things els and not in power Hart. That he was superior to him in power I proue S. Peter had honor giuen to him of Paule therefore he was in power aboue him Rainoldes Euill newes for husbandes that haue shrewes to their wiues if this argument be good For they are commaunded to giue honor to the woman as to the weaker vessell whereof by your Logicke the wiues may claime authoritie and power aboue their husbandes S. Peter saw not this consequence he did not thinke on his supremacie For although he teach that the husband should giue honor to his wife yet he calleth the wife the weaker vessell not the stronger and he commandeth wiues to be subiect to their husbands that is to be inferior I trow in power vnto them Which S. Paule noteth also more expressely when he saith the woman ought to haue power vpon her head Hart. This answere doth not weaken the strength of mine argument For the name of honor when husbandes are commanded to giue it to their wiues is taken improperly But honor as I take it as Paule gaue it to Peter is vsed in his proper sense to signifie a reuerence the which an inferior doth owe to a superior a subiect to him that is in power aboue him Rainoldes The honor which husbands are bound to giue vnto their wiues as to the weaker vessels doth signifie an honest care and regard of bearing with their weakenes prouiding for their wantes and shewing all husbandly loue and duetie to them Such a reuerence as you mention it doth not signifie I graunt yet doth it signifie a reuerence which is implied in the loue and duetie that their husbands owe them S. Paule saith to Timothee honor the widowes which are widowes in deede He meaneth that they should be charitably relieued but this reliefe is no reason why they should not reuerently bee regarded too For you are deceiued if you thinke that none are bound to reuerence others but onely the inferiors their superiors in power The Gentiles were taught by nature it selfe that a reuerence is due to euery state of men to children with an héed that no vnhonest thing be done in their presence because their tendernes is proue to learne it to old men with an honor in respect of their wisedome their experience their grauitie wherewith the gray heares are wont to be accompanied to all but chiefly to the best with a modest account of their good opinion and an honest desire to be approued of them Wherefore if your argument do stand vpon the proper signification of honour you shall perceiue your selfe that it can neuer proue a supremacie of power For honour is an outward profession and testimonie of a reuerent opinion which we haue conceiued of some kind of excellencie in him to whom we giue it So the chiefest honor is due vnto God the father of lightes the fountaine of all excellencie and after him to men in seuerall degrees according to their seuerall estates and giftes of excellencie wherewith the Lord hath blessed them to the king as preeminent and all that gouerne vnder him to the ministers of the gospel the more the better they do their duetie to them whom nature most doth bind vs our fathers and mothers to the aged the wise the vertuous the learned in a word to all men but chiefely to the faithfull as members of the bodie of Christ none so base but hath an excellencie the excellencie of a Christian. And hereby appeareth the weakenes of your argument that Paule was inferior to Peter in power because hee gaue him honour Did not Salomon in his maiestie giue honor to his mother and was not he the king and she a subiect to him Are we not all taught to go one before an other in giuing honour as well the rich as the poore as well the high as the lowe What a proud and arrogant mind had that bodie vnlesse his mind and tongue dissented who thought that hee must giue honor to no man but to them only that are in power aboue him Belike this diuinitie was learned out of that chapter of the booke of Ceremonies which I touched afore that the Pope doth do reuerence to no man of duetie and right for then he is afraid least it should be thought that some man is in power aboue him Yet in the same booke to see a good nature we reade that he did honour Fridericke the Emperour in so much that he placed him next vnto him selfe aboue all the Cardinalles and the place in which the Emperour did sit was no lower then the place where the Pope did holde his feete Nowe the seate of the Emperour declareth that the Pope was aboue him in power and yet the Pope did honour him Paule therefore might haue beene aboue Peter in power though hee did honour Peter If he might the honour which hee gaue to Peter dooth strike no stroke for the supremacie Wherefore you may dimisse it as a coward out of the field not fitte to fight the Popes battailes Doth not this mine answere touch honour taken properly Or will you set the Emperour aboue the Pope in power Or is it a lie that the Pope did honor him Hart. You triumph ouer me at euery small occasion as though you had a conquest But you see not your owne absurdities and follies You spake ere-while of the Apostles as equall in power now you speake of Paule as if hee were aboue Peter like a Pope aboue an Emperour And I did frame my reason out of the Scriptures and Fathers and you do bring the booke of Ceremonies to kill it Will you subdue vs with such warriours Rainoldes I would faine triumph not ouer you but ouer your errours if I could The strength of my cause and valure of my proofes maketh me the chéerefuller in dealing with the
in the times I trow In déede they are not like For Peter was then a preacher of the Gospell as Pastors are now and the Pope now is a Prince of the world as Nero was then The fifth Chapter The Fathers 1 are no touch-stone for tryal of the truth in controuersies of religion but the Scripture onely 2 Their writings are corrupted and counterfeits do beare their names 3 The sayings alleaged out of their right writinges proue not the pretended supremacie of Peter HART What soeuer difference there is betwéen the Pope Peter in state and power of worldly gouernment yet Peter had the same authoritie and primacie ouer the Apostles which the Pope claimeth ouer all Bishops And this because you will not yéeld vnto the Scriptures I will proue by the Fathers whose testimonies of it are most cléere and euident Rainoldes Whether I or you refuse to yéeld vnto the scriptures let the godly iudge As for the Fathers I like your dealing well in part For I wished that first you would go through with the Scriptures and then when you had found nothing in them come to the Fathers afterward But I wish further if I might obteine it that you had the Scriptures in such price and honour as the word of God that no word of men should be matched with them to build your faith vpon For God hath giuen his word to be a lanterne to our feete and a light to our path that we may sée the way to heauen and walke in it And the holy Ghost saith that the Scriptures are able to make vs wise vnto saluation wise by instructing vs in the faith of Christ vnto saluation by leading vs to life through that faith Wherfore sith we conferre about a point of wisedome perteining vnto faith and life you should do very well to rest on the Scriptures as the onely touch-stone for tryall of the truth therin Hart. Now at length I heare that which I looked for I thought for all your duetifull words of the Fathers that you would come ouer to the Scriptures onely before you made an end Rainoldes Why Is my behauiour towarde men vndutifull because I am duetifull vnto God aboue them Hart. There is a worthy treatise of an auncient writer Vincentius Lirinensis against the profane innouations of all heresies a passing fine booke which it is wished that al such should read as wil know the truth You haue read it perhaps and what thinke you of it Is it not a golden booke Rainoldes The booke is good enough if it haue a wise reader Hart. Say you so Yet some there be of your side who are afraid of the name of Vincentius Lirinensis Rainoldes They are worse afraid then hurt for any thing that I know But what of Vincentius Hart. He saith it is so common a practise of heretikes to alleage the scripture that they neuer bring almost ought of their own but they seeke to shadow it with words of scripture too And hauing shewed this by sundry examples he addeth that therein they folow the practise of the Deuill their maister Who tooke our Sauiour Christ and set him on a pinnacle of the temple and said vnto him If thou be the sonne of God cast thy selfe down For it is written that he will giue his Angels charge ouer thee that they shall kepe thee in all thy waies with their hands they shall lift thee vp least perhaps thou dash thy foote against a stone If thou saith he be the sonne of God cast thy selfe down Why For it is written We must with great heede obserue and remember the doctrine of this place that when we see words of the Prophets or Apostles brought foorth by any men against the Catholike faith we way be assured by this great example of the authoritie of the Gospel that the Deuil doth speake by them Thus saith that auncient Father Vincētius Lirinensis Whose words do manifestly disproue your opinion that the truth of pointes in faith should be tryed by the scripture onely Rainoldes The ciuill law saith that it is vnciuill for a man not hauing weighed the whole law to giue aduise or iudgement some one parcell of it being alone proposed Your dealing with the wordes of Vincentius Lirinensis is guiltie of this vnciuilitie For he to instruct vs how we may continue sound in the faith against the guiles of heretikes and suttletie of Satan who doth transforme him selfe into an Angell of light teacheth that our Sauiour hath to this entent both forewarned vs of the danger and foreshewed vs a remedy Forewarned vs of the daunger in the precept that he gaue Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheepes clothing but inwardly are rauening wolues For what saith he is sheepes clothing but the sincere and soft words of the Scripture which are alleaged by false prophets as well as by the true What are the rauening wolues but the cruell meanings and senses of heretikes which vnder sheepes clothing do rent the flocke of Christ Foreshewed vs a remedy in the lesson that he adioined Ye shal know them by their fruites That is to say when they be gin not onely to alleadge those wordes but to expound them and citing them as true prophets do not interprete them as true prophets then are the wolues seene by their teeth and rauening then are their bloudy natures known for all their fleeces then are the faithfull teachers discerned from seducers the true Apostles from the false the Angell of light from the Angell of darknes the ministers of righteousnes from the ministers of Satan Which thinges set downe and prosequuted more amply and fully he draweth in fine vnto this conclusion the summe of all his treatise that although the scriptures alone be sufficient for all pointes of faith yet is it not sufficient to haue a shew of the wordes but we must also haue the substance of the sense that is the true and naturall meaning of the scriptures Now if this discourse of his be weighed whole and not a parcell of it seuered from the rest what can you proue thereby more then I will graunt Nay more then I haue graunted and proued alreadie when I shewed that the right sense of the scripture expounded by the scripture is the sword of Gods spirit wherewith all heresies must be vanquished The Deuill you say alleaged the wordes of the scripture against Christ. He did so Yet he alleaged thē not wholy entirely as Vincētius hath them but as the Euangelistes rehearse them maimedly Wherein if Vincentius obseruing the attempt that the Deuill alleaged the wordes of the scripture had withall obserued the suttletie of the tempter how he alleaged them hée might haue better noted the deceites of heretikes abusing scripture then he did and so haue better fensed the right-beléeuing Christians with power of scripture then he hath For he reporteth it so as if the Deuill had
and some of ceremonie so there are some pointes essentiall in iustice and some accidentall The essentiall pointes of iustice are the same in lawes of all common-wealthes For what is a law but a diuine ordinance commanding thinges honest and forbidding the contrarie The accidentall pointes doo and may vary according to circumstances of places times and persons So lawes of religion must be the same for substance in all Christian Churches in ceremonies they may differ as in the primitiue Church they did Wherefore the same faith and lawes of religion do no more inforce all churches to obey one Bishop then the same right and ordinances of iustice do require one Prince to rule all common-wealthes But what soeuer your fansie make you thinke of this point the place in Deuteronomie adiudging them to death who disobey the Priest can not helpe your fansie though it had béene meant of no other Priest but of the high Priest onely For Christ wheÌ„ he sent his Apostles to preach the Gospell said vnto them Whosoeuer shall not receaue you nor heare your wordes when yee depart out of that house or that city shake of the dust of your feete Truely I say vnto you it shall be easier for them of the land of Sodome and Gomorrha in the day of iudgement then for that citie Which wordes being spoken to all the Apostles not to Peter onely and therefore belonging to all their successors as well as to Peters doo shew that euery Bishop hath as great authoritie giuen him by Christ as the Priest had by that law in Deuteronomie In so much that Cyprian doth alleage it often by a better reason of proportioÌ„ then yours to proue the authoritie of Bishops each in seuerall ouer the flockes committed to them Hart. And what if a matter of religion be harder then Bishops each in seuerall be able to decide it What if they disagree and will not yéeld one to another Doth not wisedome shew that there must be a chiefe iudge to ende the controuersie to keepe the truth of faith and peace of the Church that it be not pestered with heresies and schismes Rainoldes The wisedome of God hath committed that chieftie of iudgement so to call it not to the soueraine power of one but to the common care of many For when there was a controuersie in the Church of Antioche about the obseruation of the law of Moses some Iewes teaching contrarie to that which Paule and Barnabas taught they ordeined that Paule and Barnabas and certaine other of them should go vp to Ierusalem to the Apostles and Elders about that question And so by their common agreement and decrée the controuersie was ended the truth of faith kept and peace maintained in the Church After which example the Bishops that succéeded them made the like assemblies on the like occasions and by common conference tooke order for such matters both of doctrine and discipline as concerned in common the state of their Churches So did the Apostles and Apostolike men prouide against schismes heresies Their wisedome reached not vnto your policie of one chiefe iudge Hart. The profit of Councels and Synods of Bishops is very great we graunt For many eyes see more then one But it wil be greater if they be all counsellors vnto one gouernor then if they gouerne eche his owne and all in common For reason doth teach vs that the regiment of one which wee call a monarchie is better and worthier then the regiment of many as the Philosophers shew who write of Common-weales Rainoldes Reason is a notable helpe of mans weakenes if it be obedient to faith as a handmaide not rule it as a maistresse And humane artes wherein the Philosophers haue séene many sparkles of the truth of God by the light of reason are profitable instruments to set forth the truth so farre as they haue peace not warre with Gods worde But if the Philosophers haue erred as naturall men who neither doo conceiue the things of the spirit of God nor can know them if reason haue her eyes as it were dazeled because the light shineth in darkenesse and the darkenesse did not comprehend it then is it to be feared least as the Serpent seduced Eue through his suttletie so he beguile you by reason and you forget that lesson of the holy Ghost beware least there be any man that spoyle you through philosophie Which I say not so much in respect of this point of the Church gouernment as of your whole doctrine a mightie ground whereof in your Schoolemen is philosophie and your Iesuites challenge doth offer to proue it by naturall and morall reason For here if I would iustifie the cause by Philosophers it is â—asily shewed that the Churches state is a most perfite monarchie wherein Christ is king his lawes are the scriptures his officers are the Bishops not ordained to bée assistantes vnto one deputie but to be deputies all them selues euen Pastors of his flock guides rulers of his Church Howbeit if it differ from the kingly states of worldly coÌ„mon-weales which philosophie writeth off as it doth in part Philosophers must not maruel sith Christ hath declared his kingdoÌ„e is not of this world Indéede the Apostles thought of such a kingdome but Christ saide it should not be so amongst them as with the Princes of the Gentiles Which sentence of Christ your Popes not vnderstanding and wéening the Apostles to be forbidden nothing but an heathnish tyrannie and liking well a monarchie because Philosophers prayse it they haue raised a visible monarchie of their owne in steede of Christes monarchie and haue chaunged his kingdome which is not of this world into a worldly kingdome the kingdome of the Romanes as a Iesuit calleth it Neither contenting them selues with such a kingdome as Princes of the Gentiles had they make them selues Princes ouer all the kingdomes and nations of the earth Which is a greater monarchie then Philosophers like off as I coulde proue out of them if the Popes cause were to be handled in their schooles But because I list not to trifle out the time with idle discourses about pointes of State as your Rabbines doo to proue that a monarchie is the best regiment therefore against such reasons I laye that exception which Tertullian did of olde against heretikes What hath Athens to do with Ierusalem the schoole of philosophy with the Church of Christ The duetie of Christians is to search and weigh in matters of faith not what reason but what religion not what the Philosophers but what the Prophets Apostles not what mans fansie but what the Spirit of God doth say And so the former parts of your maine argument for the Popes supremacie are too weake to proue it The last is weaker then they both For that there should be one chiefe and highest Pastor of the Church in earth it hath some
from Papias also by one as good as himselfe euen by Clemens Alexandrinus Wherefore I know what credit it hath what truth I know not For if Cassiodorus Rhegino Ado and all the ecclesiasticall histories haue erred in saying that Peter did abide at Rome fiue and twentie yeares which errour they were caried into by Eusebius or whosoeuer first reported it why might they not also be deceyued in this point by the report of Papias or some who had it from Papias Though if it be true that S. Marke was Peters scholer at Rome yet this proueth not that he meant Rome by the name of Babylon For Peter saith onely the Church which is in Babylon Marke my sonne salute you Now Marke as your Papias also doth report did follow and accompanie Peter in his trauel So that he might be with him as well at Babylon in Chaldaea as in Italie at Rome Wherefore whether Peter were at Rome or no the proofe therof resteth vpon humane histories For this of Gods word whereby you would proue it faine saith nothing for it Which a learned man of our side hauing weighed and séeing the dissension of writers touching the time that hee came to Rome and knowing by the scripture that their spéeche of his abode in Rome is false and marking the shamefull practise of the Romanists in forging tales for their aduancement as Constantines donation and spying some such forgerie amongst their monuments of Peter as Linus fable of his death and finding his martyrdome mentioned by Ierom and Lyra in such sort as though he had béene crucified by the Scribes and Pharises he was brought by these the like perswasions into this opinion that Peter neuer came to Rome If you aske my iudgement I thinke he was deceiued therein And so doo many mo None of all the Protestants who haue dealt in writing of histories Chronicles to my knowledge one excepted denyeth that he was at Rome They who are straitest in it doo say it may be doubted it is no article of our faith and either he was not there or at another time then most autors thinke and lesse then fiue and twentie yeares Wherein what doo they say but that which is most true and manifest The greater wrong you doo vs to charge vs in general that we holde that Peter was neuer at Rome And to aggrauate the matter you muster vp the names of the ancient Fathers as though we did bande our selues against them all Whereas in verie déede they whom you count our captaines doo therefore graunt Peter to haue béene at Rome because the ancient Fathers affirme it so with one consent Yea some of them expounding those same wordes of Peter apply the name of Babylon to Rome as you doo some who allow not of that exposition yet graunt hée was at Rome And so the reproch of shamelesse partialitie which you cast on vs redoundeth on your selues For if you had any modestie and equitie you would neuer say that we denye Rome to be meant by Babylon because it would follow that Peter was at Rome and so forth Specially sith neyther all of vs deny it and many who denye it yet deny not but Peter was at Rome But whereas you adde that we deny it fearing hereby the sequele of Peters or the Popes supremacie at Rome therein you passe your selues in impudencie For we doo confesse and you too I trust that Peter was at Ioppe And doo we or rather you feare hereby the sequele of Peters or the Popes supremacie at Ioppe Hart. No because we reade not that he was Bishop of Ioppe We reade that he was Bishop of Rome Rainoldes But you can not proue it by those words of Peter which you would ground it on although it were graunted that he meant Rome by Babylon For the most that might be proued so therby is that he was at Rome Which furthereth no more the Pope of Rome then of Ioppe And thus you may sée what tragedies you make for how small trifles when you lay so heinous a crime to our charge for denying that which although we graunt we neyther winne nor lose by it Hart. But if he were at Rome it will be the likelyer that he was Bishop there And that hee was so Eusebius sheweth in his Chronicle Rainoldes I perceyue the Pope must fetch his supremacie from earth and not from heauen You are fallen againe from scripture to Eusebius Against whose autoritie I might take exception because he saith that Peter continued bishop of Rome preaching the gospel there fiue and twentie yeares which I haue proued to be vntrue Though if I may speake mine owne coniecture of it the difference of the Chronicle and historie of Eusebius concerning that point doth moue mee to thinke that it was not writen by Eusebius but by Ierom. For he in translating the Chronicle of Eusebius did enterlace some thinges which séemed to be omitted chiefely in the Roman storie Now Ierom might receiue it from Damasus bishop of Rome on whom he attended as a secretarie And Damasus was not so voide of all affection but he could be content to aduance the credit of his owne Sée by helping it to be reputed the bishoply See of Peter But whether Eusebius or Ierom or Damasus or whosoeuer haue saide that Peter was a Bishop either they vsed the name of Bishop generally and so it proueth not your purpose or if they meant it as commōly we do they missed the truth For generally a Bishop is an ouerseer In which signification it reacheth to all who are put in trust with ouersight charge of any thing as Eleazar is called Bishop of the tabernacle Christ the Bishop of our soules But in our cōmon vse of spéech it noteth him to whō the ouersight charge of a particular Church is committed such as were the Bishops of Ephesus of Philippi and they whom Christ calleth the Angels of the Churches Now Peter was not Bishop after this later sort for he was an Apostle and the Apostles were sent to preach to all the world Wherefore when the Fathers said he was a Bishop either they meant it in the former sense or ought to haue meant it This is somewhat harder to be perceiued by Ierom but others open it more plainely For he reckeneth Peter the first Bishop of Rome Linus the second Cletus the third Clemens the fourth and so the rest successiuely as likewise in Antioche Ignatius the third whereby Euodius is the second and Peter the first But Eusebius nameth Euodius the first Bishop of Antioche Ignatius the secōd and Irenaeus nameth Linus the first Bishop of Rome Cletus the second and so forth Whereby they declare that in their iudgement although Peter preached at Antioche and Rome both yet he was neither
the successour of Peter not onely while Peter was aliue yet but when he was deceased also Rainoldes He was so What of that Hart. Of that I conclude the Bishop of Romes supremacy and conuince you of errour For Peter had charge of all the Church of Christ. But the Bishop of Rome is the successour of Peter The Bishop of Rome therefore hath charge of all the Church of Christ. Rainoldes As if you should say Salomon did raigne ouer all Israell But Roboam Salomons sonne was his successour Roboam therefore raigned ouer all Israell Whereby you might conuince the scripture of errour for saying that Ieroboam was king ouer all Israell and none did folow Roboam but the tribe of Iuda onely Hart. They reuolted from Roboam But he had right to be their king as being heire of Salomon Rainoldes But what is that to my reason For pointes in a similitude are bound to hold no farder then that wherein they are resembled Els you might adde too that the Pope is liker to Ieroboam then to Roboam because of his golden gods and therefore should be king rather of all Christendome then of the prouince of Rome onely But if your cauill please you against that reason heare an other The Apostles of Christ had charge of all nations All Bishops are successours of the Apostles Therefore all Bishops haue charge of all nations Will you reply now that men reuolt from Bishops but they haue right to be Popes as being heires of the Apostles Hart. No For though all Bishops succeede the Apostles as S. Ierom saith well it is true yet they succede them not in their whole right They succeede them in the kind of charge to preach the Gospell but not in the amplenes to preach it vnto euery creature They succeede the Apostles but not in the Apostleship For of the Apostleship there is no succession as D. Stapleton sheweth Rainoldes Then D. Stapleton sheweth that the Bishop of Rome doth not succéede Peter in the Apostleship neither Hart. And what if he do not Rainoldes Then he succéedeth not to all the right of Peter Then how is the supremacie proued by this succession Then the Pope vsurpeth who will be the Apostles successor in the Apostleship For he calleth his office the office of the Apostleship and things which he doth heare his Apostleship doth heare them and in his prohibitions he willeth weightie matters to be referred to his Apostleship and in his vsuall style the style of the Court of Rome his letters his decrees his mandates and precepts are called Apostolike and all Apostolike that toucheth him the Apostolike Bull the Apostolike seale the Apostolike messenger Apostolike palace chamber chauncerie Apostolike Legate Apostolike pardon Apostolike authoritie Apostolike dispensation and what not Wherein we haue an other of your spirituall coosinages as kindly as the former wherein you clad the Pope with the name of Peter Nay this doth passe that For in that hee cometh forth with the spoiles of Peter one Apostle in this of more then one For Bishops in their oth of fealtie to the Pope are sworne to visite yearely the Court of the Apostles that is of the Pope vnlesse they bee dispensed withall by the Apostles that is by the Pope Hart. You neede not think this kinde of speeches so disorderly For S. Bernard vseth them or the like vnto them Yea the very title of the Apostleship is giuen to the Pope by him Rainoldes S. Bernard was a worthy man in that corrupt age in which he liued But your selues haue a prouerbe that Bernard saw not all thinges Yet he saw many more then you can well brooke and some wherein the Pope succeedeth Constantine not Peter some wherein he succéedeth neither That he saw the filth of the Papacie but in part it may be imputed neuer had himselfe you◠Popes supremacie the right of the heauenly and of the earthly kingdome the princehood both in temporall and spirituall things Such power neither the scriptures nor Fathers giue to Peter But what are the scriptures which the Fathers alleage Hart. How farre the supremacie of Peter did reach in earthly things and heauenly spirituall and temporall I will not reason now But the auncient Fathers alleage the same scriptures to proue that his supremacie came to his successors in the Church of Rome which I alleaged before to proue his right to the supremacie For that the promise in the sixtéenth of Matthew vpon this rocke I will build my Church and so forth is verified in the Sée of Rome S. Augustin teacheth Number saith hee the Priestes euen from the verie seate of Peter and in that ranke of fathers marke who succeeded whom that is the rock against which the proud gates of hell preuaile not And that the performance of the said promise in the last of Iohn Feede my sheep perteineth also to the Pope S. Chrysostome is witnesse auouching expressely that Christ did commit his sheepe to bee fedde both vnto Peter and to Peters successours Which to bee likewise meant by those words in the two and twentéeth of Luke I haue praied for thee that thy faith faile not and thou being conuerted strengthen thy brethren Pope Marcus in his decretall epistle to Athanasius Pope Lucius in his decretal epistle to the demands of French and Spanish Bishops Pope Felix in his decretall epistle to Benignus haue manifestly taught Rainoldes Nettles amongst roses when you set the bastard autours of these decretals amongst the auncient Fathers But tel me in good sooth thinke you that euerie Pope must denie Christ Hart. Denie Christ What meane you to aske me that question Rainoldes Because you seeme to say that Christes words to Peter and thou being conuerted strengthen thy brethren are meant of all them Hart. What And say I therefore that they must denie Christ Rainoldes Or els you say nothing For why said Christ to Peter and thou being conuerted Did he not say it in respect that Peter would auert and turne him selfe away from him when he denied him thrise Hart. So what if he did Rainoldes Then if the same wordes be meant of al Popes euerie Pope must first be turned away from Christ that he may be conuerted after and therfore euerie Pope must deny Christ. If I should say so some would be angrie with me But you may say what you list Hart. This is such a reason as that which hath bene made too that if the wordes Thou art Peter concerne Peters successour then the wordes Satan thou art an offense to me must concern him also because they were spoken by Christ to Peter both But as Father Robert answereth to that so doo I to this that the reason followeth not For certaine thinges saith he are spoken to Peter for himselfe alone certaine
should now be subiect to him who raigned in the imperiall citie as it had béene afore time to the Emperour In this consideration he moued warre against Stephen the successour of Zacharie Pope Stephen remembring his predecessors benefite bestowed on king Pipine went to him into France and putting him in minde of Zacharies good turne prayed him to vndertake the quarell of S. Peter and of the common wealth of Rome against the Lombards Yea in an assemblie of the Nobles of France whom Pipine called together to know what they would say thereto the Pope did not onâ—ly exhort them to warre that they might recouer Rauenna and the Emperours land from the Lombards but also was importuâ—â—te with them that they should not restore it to the Emperour For he said the Emperour was vnworthie of it because hee had forsaken the defense of Italie and was an enimie to the Church But if that king Pipine would either doo the dutie of a thankfull man or prouide for his soule health or rewarde the Popes labour he should bestow Rauenna and the dominion of it with the rest of that dition by way of gift vpon S. Peter This sermon as soone as Pope Stephen had made the French men agréed to warre against the Lombards Pipine protested that if he conquered them he would for obteining the forgiuenesse of his sinnes giue Rauenna with the dominion and dition ioyning to it vnto S. Peter his successouâ—s According to which vow when he was come into Italy and the Emperour sent him Embassadours with presents desiring him if he recouered that dition and dominion to graunt it vnto him and not vnto the Pope he answered that being moued thereunto not with humane rewardes but with desire of meriting the fauour of God he had receyued the church of Rome into protection because he was perswaded that it would be auailable to the saluation of his soule and the forgiuenes of his sinnes and sith hee had sworne that he would graunt giue it vnto S. Peter and his successours therefore he must performe it Which as he saide so he did Neither did he geue it vnto them more willingly then his sonne Charles the great confirmed the gift and added more to it when he had made a full conquest of the Lombards brought into subiection the kingdom of Italy Howbeit though the Popes were now become mightie with spoyles of the Emperour and had cast off his yoke from them yet were they still subiect to Charles the great king of Italie and France whom afterwarde they called the Emperour of the Romanes as the other the Greeke Emperour For though Charles gaue the countries to the Pope yet hee reserued the right soueraintie and roialtie thereof to him selfe And when his race decaying Otho the great had gotten the Italian kingdome Rome and the rest of the Popes dominions regarded the Pope as Prince of the common wealth but the king or Emperour as their soueraine Lord and did yéeld tributes and seruices to him So that the Pope was but a vasall to the Emperour and held of him in fée The chiefest meanes whereby they cast of this yoke also was excommunication not Christian but Papall excommunication such as they had practized against the Gréeke Emperour Pope Gregorie the seuenth was the beast that did it The occasion was the giuing of Bishoprickes and church-liuings which the Popes themselues had graunted to the Emperours Charles and Otho yea the giuing of the Bishopricke of Rome and choosing Popes But when they had gotten of them that they sought and were growne lustie and fatt by their meanes they saw that the giuing of Bishoprickes and church-liuings did abate that power to which they aspired Wherefore vnder colour that the Emperours gaue them not fréely but for mony they taught that lay men ought not to giue them at all and cursed both the giuers and receiuers of them Hereupon there arose great strife betwéene the Pope and the Emperour Henrie the third in the flames whereof Pope Gregorie the seuenth did by the right of S. Peters authoritie depriue him of his whole Empire discharge his subiects of their oth and forbidde them to obey him The Princes of Germanie not knowing the boundes either of S. Peters authoritie or of the Popes thought them selues bound to disobey their Emperour and so rebelled against him Pitifull and lamentable were the griefes and contumelies which the poore Emperour was faine to endure betweene the Pope and Papistes while sundrie waies he sought to retaine his state But in fine Rodulph a Duke one of his subiectes was chosen Emperour against him The Pope to strengthen Rodulph sent him a kingly crowne and pricking him forward to defend valiantly the Church against Henrie did graunt in the name of Peter and Paule a pardon and forgiuenes of all sinnes both in this life and in the life to come to all that were obedient and faithfull vnto him When that would not sâ—rue for the newe Emperour was staine by Henrie in the field his owne naturall children were raised against their father first Conrade the eldest then Henrie the next Which Henrie spoiled him at last of the Empire and brought him to such miserie that he was faine to begge meat and drinke of the Bishop of Spier in a Church which him selfe had built promising to earne it by doing there a clerkes duetie for hee could serue the quire And not obteining that he pined away and died for sorow This dreadfull example of Henrie the third aduaunced much the credit of the Popes authoritie The more because that when Vecilo the chiefest Bishop of the Germanes had denyed in the time of those sturres and troubles that the Emperour might be depriued of his crowne and kingdom by the Pope there was a Councel gathered in which the Popes legate being present at it Vecilo was condemned of heresie for that opinion For when the doctrine also was receiued besids the practise that the Pope might lawfully depose kings and Emperours it made the tallest cedars of Libanus to shake and to feare the bramble least fyre should come out from him and consume them Which appeered in Henrie the fourth the next Emperour Who though he began to tread his fathers steppes and tooke Pope Paschal prisoner whereby they grewe to composition confirmed by the Popes othe that Bishops and Abbats chosen by free voices should be inuested with ring and stafâ—e by the Emperour without Simonie and being so inuested might lawfully receiue consecration of their archbishop but he who were chosen by the clergie and people and not inuested by the Emperour should be consecrated of no man yet when he was set at libertie againe and breaking his couenants 〈…〉 with open periurie condemned both the graunt which he had made to the Emperour and the Emperour himselfe and that with the consent of many Bishops of sundrie prouâ—â—â—es
are not aliue Hart. Aliue What is that to the tryall of our issue Rainoldes Much. For if they liued and did appeere before the iury first they should be sworne to say the truth and al the truth and nothing but the truth Whereby they might bee moued both to speake more waâ—ily and to enforme the iury more throughly then they haue doon Next it would be easier to examine them of their age their estate the circumstances of their persons of their spéeches the meaning the occasion and cause thereof Which all are helpes to finde out the truth of thinges in controuersie Thirdly if it appeered by examination that either for their persons or for their speeches they are vnworthie of credit then it should bee lawfull to except against them A libertie which law doth graunt against witnesses if there be cause of iust exception Yet you perhaps as your men are wont would make outcrye if I should vse it against them who are dead and absent Wherefore vnlesse the iury doo supply that by wisedome and equitie which wanteth in the course of tryall by reason that the witnesses whom you will bring are not aliue they may be deceyued by names and shewes of witnesses and thereby giue a verdict which shall proue no verdict For verdict is a speech of veritie Hart. An honest mans worde is as good as his oth For as he will not forsweare so neither lye The Fathers must not therefore be the lesse beleeued because they are not sworne Rainoldes Yet an honest man when he is sworne wil speake more fully and maturely then when he is vnsworne And hée may say that sometime on coniecture which on his oth he would not say Hart. But that may be perceyued by the Fathers writings when they doo pronounce of a thing as certaine when as vncertaine they coniecture it And so may other circumstances which you require be knowne too as well as if them selues were present Rainoldes Not so well For their writings doo not answere to many questions which if they were present I woulde aske of them But I am content with that which may be knowne so Let the iury weigh it and iudge thereafter of their credit Hart. What Shall meaner men who be aliue now iudge of the credit of the Fathers who were so long in time so farre in giftes before them Rainoldes Euagrius a meane man wrote vnto S. Ierom desiring his opinion concerning Melchisedec whether he were the holy Ghost S. Ierom answering him when hee had shewed the iudgements of the auncient writers Origen Didymus Hippolytus Irenaeus Eusebius Caesariensis and Emisesenus Apollinarius Eustathius and the best learned Iewes of whom some thought Melchisedec an angel some a man you haue saith he what I haue heard what I haue read touching Melchisedec To bring forth the witnesses it was my part let it be yours to iudge of the credit of the witnesses It séemed reason to S. Ierom that Euagrius should iudge of of the witnesses whom he brought What is there more in the Fathers then was in those witnesses What was there more in Euagrius then is in many who liue now Hart. But you perhaps will cauil either at the persons or at the spéeches of the Fathers and thinke that euery toy is a sufficient reason why men should not beléeue them Rainoldes Whether the exceptions that I shall take against any be cauils and toyes let the iury iudge Nay I durst say almost let mine aduersarie iudge For what thinke you youâ— self if one alleage for scripture that which is not scripture may not that autoritie be iustly refused As if for example a man should write that Christ said to his disciples that which I say to one of you I say to all Hart. In deed M. Iewell alleaged that for scripture to proue that the wordes of Christ vnto Peter feede my sheepe feede my lambes were spoken n ot to him onely but to the rest of the Apostles Wherein he was iustly reproued by D. Harding For Christ did not say what I say to one that I say to all but what I say to you meaning the Apostles that I say to all Christians watch So good is our cause that M. Iewell could not make shew of truth against it but by foule corruption and falsifiing of the scriptures Rainoldes I pray be good to M. Iewell for M. Optatus and Fulgentius sake who both haue missealleaged the same words of Christ yea one of them in like sort as Bishop Iewell did For to proue that the words of the Lord to Esay Cry and cease not were spoken not to Esay onely but to all preachers he vseth this reason that Christ doth say to his disciples what I say to one of you I say to all Wherin as the doctrine of a preachers duty is true though the proofe be false so is in Bishop Iewell the doctrine of the Apostles duety And Bishop Iewels proofe from one Apostle vnto all is better grounded on the wordes then the other from Esay the Prophet to all preachers Moreouer the faulte remaineth vncorrected in â—ulgentius and Optatus Bishop Iewell hath corrected it Wherefore if you condemne him of fouly corrupting and falsifying the scripture because he missealleaged that sentence of Christ what iudgement will you giue of Fulgentius and Optatus Hart. Nay it is likely that they ouersaw it by a slippe of memorie Rainoldes The same would you iudge of M. Iewel if some what did not blinde your eye But by this your iudgement I see that where the Fathers mistake the wordes of scripture they may be refused What if they mistake not the wordes but the sense may we refuse them also there As Iustin the Martyr Irenaeus Papias Tertullian Victorinus Lactantius Apollinarius Seuerus and Nepos in that they thought that Christians after the resurrection should raigne a thousand yeares with Christ vpon the earth in a golden Ierusalem and there should mary wiues beget children eate drinke liue in corporall delites Which errour though repugnant flatly to the scriptures yet they fell into partly by confounding the first and second resurrection partly by taking that carnally which was mystically meant in the Reuelation Hart. That was the heresie of the Millenaries as they are called Howbeit in the Fathers though it were an errour yet it was no heresie Rainoldes I doo not say it was an heresie I say that they mistooke the meaning of the scripture which you can not denie Yea some times when they neither mistooke the words nor the meaning yet they taught amisse out of it As that God created the world in six dayes they vnderstood it rightly But to conclude thereof that the world should last but sixe thousand yeares because one day is with the Lord as a thousand yeares a thousand yeares as one day this was an ouersight For if that were true
which they did gather of those wordes then might we know the times whereof our Sauiour saith that it is not for man to knowe them And vpon this reason S. Austin doth reproue that fansie of sixe thousand yeares as rash and presumptuous Hart. So doo we also For Lindan and Prateolus doo note it in Luthers and Melanchthons Chronicles as a Iewish heresie Rainoldes Good reason when Luther and Melanchthon write it But when Irenaeus Hilarie Lactantius and other Fathers write it what doo they note it then Hart. Suppose it were an ouersight But what néedes all this As who say you douted that we would maintaine the Fathers in those things in which they are conuicted of error by the scriptures Rainoldes I haue cause to dout it For though there be no man lightly so profane as to professe that he will doo so yet such is the blindnes o◠mens deuotion to Saintes there haue béene heretofore who haue so done and are still There is a famous fable touching the assumption of the blessed virgin that when the time of her death approched the Apostles then dispersed throughout the world to preach the gospell were taken vp in cloudes and brought miraculously to Ierusalem to be present at her funerall This tale in olde time was writen in a booke which bare the name of Melito an auncient learned Bishop of Asia though he wrote it not be like But whosoeuer wrote it he wrote a lye saith Bede because his words gaine say the wordes of S. Luke in the actes of the Apostles Which Bede hauing shewed in sundrie pointes of his tale he saith that he reherseth these thinges because he knoweth that some beleeue that booke with vnaduised rashnesse against S. Lukes autoritie So you sée there haue béene who haue beléeued a Father yea perhaps a rascall not a Father against the scriptures And that there are such still I sée by our countrymen your diuines of Rhemes who vouch the same fable vpon greater credit of Fathers then the other but with no greater truth Hart. Doo you call the assumption of our Ladie a fable What impietie is this against the mother of our Lord that excellent vessell of grace whom all generations ought to call blessed But you can not abide her prayses and honours Nay you haue abolished not onely her greatest feast of her assumption but of her conception and natiuitie too So as it may bee thought the diuell beareth a special malice to this woman whose seede brake his head Rainoldes It may be thought that the diuell when he did striue with Michael about the bodie of Moses whom the Lord buried the Iewes knew not where did striue that his bodie might bee reuealed to the Iewes to the entent that they might worship it and commit idolatrie But it is out of doubt that when he moued the people of Lystra to sacrifice vnto Paul and Barnabas and to call them Gods he meant to deface the glory of God by the too much honouring and praysing of his Saintes We can abide the prayses of Barnabas and Paule but not to haue them called Gods We can abide their honours but not to sacrifice vnto them Wee know that the diuell doth beare a speciall malice both to the woman and to the womans seed But whether he doth wreake it more vpon the séede by your sacrificing of prayses and prayers to the woman or by our not sacrificing let them define who know his policies The Christians of old time were charged with impietie because they had no Gods but one This is our impietie For whatsoeuer honour and prayse may bee giuen to the Saintes of God as holy creatures but creatures we doo gladly giue it We thinke of them all and namely of the blessed virgin reuerently honourably We desire our selues and wish others to folow her godly faith and vertuous life We estéeme her as an excellent vessell of grace We call her as the scripture teacheth vs blessed yea the most blessed of all women But you would haue her to be named and thought not onely blessed her selfe but also a giuer of blessednesse to others not a vessell but a fountaine or as you entitle her a mother of grace and mercy And in your solemne prayers you doo her that honour which is onely due to our creator and redeemer For you call on her to defend you from the enimie and receiue you in the houre of death Thus although in semblance of wordes you deny it yet in déede you make her equall to Christ as him our Lord so her our Ladie as him our God so her our Goddesse as him our King so her our Queene as him our mediator so her our mediatresse as him in all thinges tempted like vs sinne excepted so her deuoide of all sinne as him the onely name whereby we must be saued so her our life our ioy our hope a very mother of orphans an aide to the oppressed a medicine to the diseased and to be short all to all Which impious worship of a Sainte because you haue aduanced by keping holy dayes vnto her the feastes of her conception natiuitie assumption therefore are they abolished by the reformed Churches iustly For the vse of holy dayes is not to worship Saintes but to worship God the sanctifier of Saintes As the Lorde ordeined them that men might meete together to serue him and heare his worde Hart. Why keepe you then still the feastes of the Apostles Euangelists other Saintes and not abolish them also As some of your reformed or rather your deformed Churches haue doon Rainoldes Our deformed Churches are glorious in his sight who requireth men to worship him in spirite truth though you besotted with the hoorish beauty of your synagogues doo scorne at their simplenesse as the proude spirite of Mical did at Dauid when he was vile before the Lord. The Churches of Scotland Flanders France and others allow not holy dayes of Saintes because no day may be kept holy but to the honour of God Of the same iudgement is the Church of England for the vse of holy dayes Wherefore although by kéeping the names of Saintes dayes we may séeme to kéepe them to the honour of Saintes yet in déede we kéepe them holy to God onely to prayse his name for those benefits which he hath bestowed on vs by the ministerie of his Saintes And so haue the Churches of Flanders and Fraunce expounded well our meaning in that they haue noted that some Churches submit them selues to their weakenesse with whome they are conuersant so farre foorth that they keepe the holy dayes of Saintes though in an other sorte nay in a cleane contrarie then the Papists doo Hart. But if you kéepe the feastes of other Saintes in that sorte why not
and loosing giuen Peter as though after Peter it were proper to the Pope Denys saith the contrarie that it is common to all Bishops Whereby you may perceiue beside that if the title which he giueth Peter did proue his supremacie though I haue shewed it doth not but if it did yet your commoÌ„ reason from Peters supremacie to the Popes is iointlesse For he who calleth Peter chiefe of the Apostles yet maketh Bishops equal and giueth Rome no greater priuilege then Antioche or Ierusalem But to knit vp that which brought vs vnto this of Denys you sée that your Rhemists tale of the assumption of the blessed virgin is contrarie to the scriptures Yet they doo beléeue it for the authoritie of Fathers That I might dout iustly whether you would beléeue the Fathers in those things in which they are conuicted of errour by the scriptures Hart. I cannot beléeue that the scriptures are against it For the Church doth holde it I meane the Catholike Church of Rome Rainoldes In that your Rhemists lauish too For though the lying Greekes as your Molanus calleth them doo vouch it very boldly yet the Latin writers do say it is vncertaine Yea the verie Martyrologe of the Roman Church affirmeth that the Church celebrateth the memory of S. Maries death but where it hath pleased God to hide her body the Churches sobrietie hath chosen rather to be ignorant therof religiously then to holde and teach some friuolous thing forged How much the more shamefull is the misdemeanor first of a Papist who saith that it is certaine she was assumpted by death not onely in soule but in body also then of the Pope who setting foorth his new Portesse saith that those things which are vncertaine are put out where this is left in which they can not denie themselues to be vncertaine But your Rhemists passe Who as though the Porâ—esse were not bolde enough in alleaging Damascene though it mende his tale with more then one lye they take that which their Portesse doth tell them lye and al and father it vpon S. Denys that it may haue the greater credit Hart. Our Rhemists will render good account I dout not of this which they haue writen when they shall heare what is said against it And that which you declared out of the holy scriptures concerning the time of S. Denys conuersion which is the greatest argument that you brought yet to disproue the storie auouched of his preseÌ„ce at the departure of our Lady I must referre to them For I my selfe know not indéede how to accord it But why do you presse that point about the Fathers touching their ouerseeing ether the wordes or meaning or consequent of the scriptures We are past the scriptures and proofes that the Fathers do gather out of them Rainoldes But if they may gather amisse out of the scriptures and ouershoote them selues in the word of God they may be deceiued in the word of man too and either not conceiue well or not remember well or not conclude well of it Which hapned to S. Ierom in that same point that I reproued a litle rather in Eusebius For he reckning Philo the Iew amongst the Christian ecclesiastical writers doth it he saith for this reason because Philo writing a booke touching the first Church planted by the Euangelist S. Mark in Alexandria hath praised the Christians reporting them to be not onely there but in many countries and calling their dwelling places Monasteries Whereby it is apparant that the Church of beleeuers in Christ at the first was such as moonkes endeuour and seeke to be now that nothing is any mans owne in proprietie none is rich amongst them none poore their patrimonies are distributed to the needy they giue them selues wholy to prayer and to singing of Psalmes and to learning and to continencie of life such as S. Luke also doth write that the beleeuers were first at Ierusalem And this booke of Philo touching the life of our men that is of men Apostolike is entitled of the contemplatiue life of men that pray because they did contemplate studie and meditate heauenly things and prayed to God alwayes Thus farre S. Ierom. Wherein that the pointes of contemplation and prayer being somewhat like in them whom Philo wrote off and in the Christian Church did make him to mistake the one for the other as likenes they say is the mother of error but that they were not Christians whom Philo meant in that booke it may appeere by foure circumstances of names of deedes of times and of places For they of whom Philo doth write were called Essees which was a sect of Iewes of whom some liued in action and some in contemplation The Christians were neuer knowne by name of Essees either contemplatiue or actiue Againe they in Philo did leaue their goods and substance to their sonnes or daughters or kinsemen or if they had no kinsemen to their friendes The Christians gaue them to the poore and such as stood in need of succour Moreouer the solemne day which they in Philo did meete together publikely to heare the word of God taught was the seuenth day of the weeke which was the Sabbat of the Iewes the saterday as we cal it The Christians were wont to meete on the first day of the weeke that is sonday the Lordes day as S. Iohn termeth it Finally they whom Philo discourseth of did liue in no towne or citie but without in gardens and solitarie places The Christians liued in cities Euen they who are namely mentioned by Ierom I meane the Christian Church placed by S. Marke in Alexandria were planted in the citie Alexandria it selfe whereas it is precisely noted by Philo that his Iewish moonkes did dwell about it and without it Wherefore it is manifest that Ierom did mistake or had forgot the wordes of Philo. Howbeit if he had both well conceiued and remembred them yet he thereof inferred amisse that the moonkes in his time were such as S. Luke doth write that the beleeuers were first at Ierusalem For the beleeuers at Ierusalem might keepe their owne if they listed as Peter saith to Ananias while it remained perteined it not to thee And when it was sold was it not in thine own power But Ierom saith that his moonks may not haue proprietie in any thing of their owne Beside the moonkes of Ierom did liue in continencie The beléeuers at Ierusalem had wiues vsed them for any thing that S. Luke sheweth Though by the way to note the difference betwéene the Iewish moonkes the Christian who els would be too like some of the Christian moonks in Ieroms time had wiues did beget childreÌ„ which I haue not read that anie of the Iewish did Last of all the moonkes whom Ierom doth meane as he must néedes by Philo were moonkes according to their
the ecclesiasticall causes of clergie men that first they should be brought to the Bishop of the citie from the Bishop of the citie to the Metropolitan froÌ„ the Metropolitan to the Synode of the prouince froÌ„ the Synode of the prouince to the Patriarke of the diocese and a Patriarke is all one with an Archbishop in him Whereby you may perceiue both that an Archbishop had Metropolitans vnder him and that a diocese was more then a prouince In which respect I called it a Princely diocese to distinguish it from a Lordly that you might know I meant a diocese of a larger sise then as the word is taken for a Bishops circuite But that you may haue the cléerer light to sée the truth of mine answere and thereby to perceue how the Pope encroched on Bishops by degrées vntill of an equal he became a soueraine first ouer a few next ouer many at last ouer all I must fetch the matter of Bishops Metropolitans and Archbishops somewhat higher and shew how Christian cities prouinces and dioceses were allotted to them First therefore when Elders were ordeined by the Apostles in euery Church through euery citie to feede the flocke of Christ whereof the holy Ghost had made them ouerseers they to the intent they might the better doo it by common counsell and consent did vse to assemble themselues and méete togither In the which méetings for the more orderly handling and concluding of things pertaining to their charge they those one amongst them to be the President of their companie and moderatour of their actions As in the Church of Ephesus though it had sundry Elders and Pastours to guide it yet amongst those sundrie was there one chiefe whom our Sauiour calleth the Angel of the Church and writeth that to him which by him the rest should know And this is he whom afterward in the primitiue Church the Fathers called Bishop For as the name of Ministers common to all them who serue Christ in the stewardship of the mysteries of God that is in preaching of the gospell is now by the custome of our English spéech restrained to Elders who are vnder a Bishop so the name of Bishop common to all Elders and Pastours of the Church was then by the vsuall language of the Fathers appropriated to him who had the Presidentship ouer Elders Thus are certaine Elders reproued by Cyprian for receiuing to the communion them who had fallen in time of persecution before the Bishops had aduised of it with them and others And Cornelius writeth that the Catholike Church committed to his charge had sixe and fortie Elders and ought to haue but one Bishop And both of them being Bishops the one of Rome the other of Carthage doo witnesse of them selues that they dealt in matters of their Churches gouernment by the consent and counsell of the companie of Elders or the Eldership as they both after S. Paule doo call it Hart. Elders and Eldership you meane presbyteros and presbyterium that is to say Priestes and Priesthood But these new fangled names came in by your English translations of the new testament which as our translation doth iustly note them for it haue changed Priestes into Elders of falshood and corruption and that of farther purpose then the simple can sée Which is to take away the office of sacrificing and other functions of Priestes proper in the new testament to such as the Apostles often and the posteritie in maner altogither doo call Priestes presbyteros Which word doth so certainely imply the authoritie of sacrificing that it is by vse made also the onely English of sacerdos your selues as well as we so translating it in all the olde and new testament though you cannot be ignorant that Priest commeth of presbyter and not of sacerdos and that antiquitie for no other cause applied the signification of presbyter to sacerdos but to shew that presbyter is in the new law that which sacerdos was in the olde the Apostles abstaining from this and other like olde names at the first and rather vsing the wordes Bishops Pastours and Priestes because they might be distinguished from the gouernours and sacrificers of Aarons order who as yet in the Apostles time did their olde functions still in the temple And this to be true and that to be a Priest is to be a man appointed to sacrifice your selues calling sacerdos alwaies a Priest must néedes be driuen to confesse Albeit your folly is therein notorious to apply willingly the word Priest to sacerdos and to take it from presbyter whereof it is deriued properly not onely in English but in other languages both French and Italian which is to take away the name that the Apostles and Fathers gaue to the Priestes of the Church and to giue it wholy and onely to the order of Aaron Rainoldes Wholy and onely to the order of Aaron Nay then I can abide your Rhemists no longer if their mouthes do so runne ouer For we giue it also to the order of Melchisedec after the which our Sauiour is is a Priest for euer And they who charge vs with falshood and corruption in that we call the Ministers of the gospell Elders are guiltie themselues of heresie and blasphemie in that they call them Priestes For they doo not call them Priestes in respect of the spirituall sacrifices of prayers and good workes which Christians of al sortes are bound to offer vnto God and thence are called Priestes in scripture but they call them Priestes in respect of the carnall and external sacrifice of the cursed Masse wherein they pretend that they offer Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine to God his Father a sacrifice propiciatorie that is of force to pacifie God and reconcile him vnto men So whereas the scripture doth teach that one Priest by one sacrifice once offered that is our Sauiour Christ by giuing himself to death vpon the crosse hath reconciled God vnto vs and sanctified vs for euer the doctrine of Rhemes ordeineth many Priestes to offer vp often whether the same sacrifice that Christ or an other they speake staggeringly but to offer it often As though there were yet left an offering for sinne after the death of Christ or his pretious bloud were of no greater value then the blood of buls and goates which were offered often because they could not purge sinnes And this â—bomination they séeke to maintaine by the name of Priestes sith Priestes are men they say appointed to sacrifice and that name was giuen to them by the Apostles In saying whereof they doo play the Sophisters and that with greater art then the simple can sée Which is in that they vse our English word Priest after a dooble sort the one as it is deriued from presbyter the other as it signifieth the same that sacerdos For
Priest as it signifieth a man appointed to sacrifice is sacerdos and not presbyter The name which the Apostles giue a Minister of the gospell is presbyter and not sacerdos Which difference of wordes necessarie to be obserued for the distinction of thinges betwéene the Ministers of the old and the new testament as the Apostles kept it in the tongue in which the new testament is writen so they who translated the testament into English were to kéepe it also Wherefore it was not of falshood and corruption but of religious zeale of truth that they called presbyter an Elder not a Priest For sith the custome of our English spéech hath made the name of Priest proper to a man appointed to sacrifice such as were the Priests after the order of Aaron in the olde testament the Priest after the order of Melchisedec in the new the Ministers of the gospell ordeined not as Christ to sacrifice to God but to féede Gods people with his worde and sacraments must haue an other name according to the scripture and our English word expressing that in scripture is the name of Elders But you by confusion of these sundry names doo séeke confusion of the things and as théeues are wont to change the markes of thinges which they haue stollen so you to make the Priesthood of Christ séeme your owne doo change names as markes of thinges which they signifie For in stéede of that which we call an Elder you would haue a Priest that your Massing Priestes may be accounted Priestes after the order of Melchisedec as Christ is a Priest and so your sacrifice of the Masse be thought the soueraine sacrifice as your Maister calleth it wherein Christ is offered vnto God his father In the which conueiance if you painted it with nought but colours of your owne the matter were lesse For the abusing of one name applied vnto sundry thinges was a common shift of sophisters among the heathens And you are to be borne with if hauing no better cause then they had sometimes you aduenture on the shiftes that they did But to abuse the credit of the Apostles to this sophistrie and say that they gaue the name of Priestes to Pastours of the Church of Christ that is a faulte that cannot be excused For seeing our language doth meane by Priests sacrificers which in their language are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they neuer gaue the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Pastours of the Christian Church it foloweth that they gaue them not the name of Priests Or if you replie they gaue them that name because they called theÌ„ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence our English name of Priests is deriued yet you cannot say they called them Priestes as the name of Priest hath a relation to sacrifice and therfore that name is nothing to the Masse which you would proue by it For so the word Priest must yet haue two meaninges the one of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherof the one is giuen by the Apostles but doth not implie autoritie to sacrifice The other doth imply autoritie to sacrifice but is not giuen by the Apostles Hart. But sith the name of Priest is properly deriued from the word presbyter or as it is in Gréeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only in English but in other languages both French and Italian why did not your translatours kéepe this according to the Gréeke and deuise an other for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is sacerdos if they would néedes distinguish them by different names For it is as I said a notorious folly to apply willingly the word Priest to sacerdos and to take it from presbyter whereof it is deriued properly Rainoldes If our translatours had béene Lords of wordes and might haue forced men to take them in what sense they would then had you spoken reason For he whom others foloweâ— in our English translations did note that if Antichrist had not deceyued vs with vnknowne and straunge termes to bring vs into confusion superstitious blindenesse a Priest that is a sacrificer as Aaron was a Priest and sacrificed for the people should haue had some other name in English then Priest Which he spake in respect that the name of Priest as it came from presbyter betokening a Minister of the new testament should not haue beene giuen to the Ministers of the olde who differ as in function so in name by scripture But you in whose eyes our folly is notorious for that we giue the name of Priest to sacerdos and take it from presbyter whereof it is deriued properly what say you I pray for your owne translation in the fourth of the Actes where it is saide of Peter and Iohn the Apostles that they were men vnlettered and of the vulgar sort Hart. Why What faute finde you with our translation in that Rainoldes I finde not any faute but I would know of you why you call them men of the vulgar sort and not rather idiotes sith in the Gréeke text the worde is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Latin idiotae Hart. That were a profane terme for the Apostles who were indued with heauenly wisedome Rainoldes It were so in deede But if the deriuation of wordes must be folowed in translating autours that terme should haue béene giuen them For the name of idiot is properly deriued from the Gréeke or Latin not onely in English but in other languages both French and Italian and if that helpe the Spanish Dutch and Syriake too Yea it cometh neerer in euery one of these to the Latin worde of the olde translation which you pretend to folow then the name of Priest in any of them doth to presbyter Hart. But the worde in English hath not the same meaning that it hath in Latin and in translating thinges the sense must â—e kept Nor is it to bee marked so much whence a worde is properly deriued as what it doth signifie Now it doth signify that which vsually men vnderstand by it For the consent of men taking a worde for this or that doth make it to signify that for which they take it as Aristotle sheweth Who frameth thereupon a rule that we must call thinges by those names by which the common people calleth them Wherefore sith the name of idiot in English is taken for a foole or sot and the Latin idiota where it is vsed in scripture doth signify the vnlearned such as the vulgar sort of men we haue translated it the vulgar and not idiot according to the meaning not the deriuing of it Neither may you therefore charge vs with varying from the Latin text which as we pretend so we do folow faithfully For whereas S. Paul saith to the Corinthians If thou blesse in the spirit how shall he that supplyeth the place of the vulgar say Amen vpon thy blessing in
mention blessing twise and that out of S. Paul Whereby the first point which the Councell of Trent nameth is approued to wéete of mysticall blessinges Rainoldes True if the Councell had meant by that worde as the scripture doth either the giuing of thankes vnto God or the sanctifying of creatures vnto holy vses or praying for the people that the Lord will blesse them But if they meant the making of the signe of the crosse as it is plaine they did both by the matter which that chapter handleth touching visible signes and by their intent to confirme the ceremonies which Protestants condemne and by the Canon of the Masse which is as ful of crosses as a coniurers circle and the worde he blessed is taken so there with a crosse in the middest of it then your mysticall blessinges of the Trent-fathers were neither meant by S. Paul nor mentioned by S. Austin Hart. Yes S. Austin séemeth to meanâ— there by blessing â—he 〈◊〉 of the signe of the crosse on the sacrament For in a â—â—rmon of his touching the same matter he saith that the body of Christ is consecrated with the signe of the crosse Rainoldes In what sermon is that Hart. Amongst his sermons de tempore the hundred eightieth and one Rainoldes That is amongst his sermons but none of his sermons For it vseth the wordes of Gregorie a Bishop of Rome who liued long after and mo thinges it hath by which it is certaine as your Diuines of Louan note that it is not S. Austins Howbeit neither he that did compile that sermon whosoeuer it were saith that the ceremonie of the crosse in consecrating was of S. Paules ordinance or a tradition of the Apostles which is the point that you had to proue by S. Austin and if you proue it not you doo not cléere the Trent-councell For I graunt that in S. Austins time yea before it the Christians as they vsed to signe their forhead with the crosse in token that they were not ashamed of Christ crucified whom the Iewes and Gentiles reproched for the death which he suffered on the crosse so they brought the rite thereof into the sacraments and vsed both the figure of the crossâ— and crossing in other thinges of God also But it doth not folow because the Christians did it therefore the Apostles ordeined it to be doon Hart. But it is likely that they did And certainely Tertullian a very ancient writer doth expresly say that Christians had it by tradition Rainoldes To signe their forhead with a crosse but not to signe the sacraments Tertullian was so ancient that he wrote it séemeth before that custom grew Besides you mistake him if you thinke he meant by the name of tradition a tradition of the Apostles For what soeuer custome not writen in the scripture was kept by the faithfull that because it was deliuered by some body from whom the vse thereof was taken hee saith it came in by tradition In so much that he affirmeth it both of Iewish customes before the Apostles as that their women couered their faces with vailes and of Christian after which yet are not Apostolike as the dipping thriâ—e of them who are baptized and feeding them with milke and hony And which plainely sheweth hee meant not the Apostles in it euery faithfull man may by his iudgement deuise such rites vpon reason neither must we respect the autours but the autoritie regard the thing deliuered whosoeuer did deliuer it Wherefore the tradition that Tertullian speaketh of is against the doctrine of your Trent-councell For neither doth he mention the signe of the crosse to haue béene vsed in consecration which he would of likelyhood if then it had béene vsed nor saith he that it came by tradition froÌ„ the Apostles in that sort as it was vsed but he knoweth not from whom Hart. Though none of thâ— Fathers perhaps beare witnesse of it yet if the Councell meant it by mysticall blessinges they knew that the Church had it from the Apostles For els they would not vouch it Rainoldes Then you were best to say that they learned it from heauen by reuelation as the Anabaptists are wont to doo their mysteries For els they could not know it Hart. You confesse your selfe that S. Austin and others of the auncient Fathers did vse it in celebrating of the holy sacraments I maruaile why you like it not in our Masse sith wee doo therein but as the Fathers did Rainoldes Nay I coÌ„fesse not that For your Massing-priest doth tricke iâ— as a sorcerer all in mathematicall or rather magicall numbers by crossing thrise the bread and wine both together and thrise againe both then once each in seueral and once againe each and againe thriâ—e once and againe once and thrise with a crosse on him selfe betwixt hetherto with his hand after with the host he crosseth thrise the chalice and twise to make vp fiue betwene his brest and the chalice next with the paâ—en he â—â—osseth once himself and the chalice thriâ—e witha péece of the host and once himselfe againe with the host ouer the paten and lastly once him selfe againe with the chalice all these in the Canon and Communion of the Masse besidâ— a number mo before he cometh to the Canon But the auncient Fathers and namely S. Austin were farre from such mysticall toyiâ—ges with the sacrament Pope Hildebrandes magiâ—e that so many crosâ—es though yet not so many as you are growne to now but the tradition of Pope Hildebrand that crossinges must come in by one or three or fiue still in an odde number after the rule of old sorcerers was a profounder rite of mystical blessinges then either S. Austin or other ancient Fathers vsed Hart. Pope Gregorie the seuenth named Hildebrand before his Popedome kept not those odde numbers for any magicall fansie though Benno charge him falsly with that diuelish art but to note a mysterie For he said that one or three or fiue crosses must therefore still be made because by one and three we signifie one God in trinitie by fiue the fiue partes of the passion of Christ Rainoldes As who say magicians had not the like mysteries in their odde numbers too And if Pope Hildebrand would haue had a circle made about the Priest to keepe the deuill from him while he is saying Masse there were a mysterie for that also to weete that it signifieth God who nether hath beginning nor ende Hart. Nay the circle is a ceremonie proper to coniurers and he would neuer haue admitted it But in that he kept an odde number alwaies in making of crosses vpon the oblation he did as he had learned in Rome where he was brought vp vnder ten of his predecessours And that which he lerned there was the tradition of the Apostles Rainoldes So his scholer
Gregories Masse did aime at that Which is not so For the principall point thereof is the sacrifice euen the soueraine sacrifice that is our Sauiour Christ offered to God his father And sith this is that which the Canon speaketh of and S. Gregorie offered and the Masse importeth with vs whom you call Masse-priests it foloweth that S. Gregorie celebrated the sacrifice of the Masse as we doo and therefore was a Masse-priest not a Minister of the Communion Rainoldes Then the men women of Rome were Masse-priestes too in S. Gregories time and celebrated the sacrifice of the Masse as you doo For the sacrifice which he offered and the Canon speaketh of is the bread and wine offered by the men and women for the Communion and the sacrifice of prayse which they did offer all to God Hart. Nay it is the very body and blood of Christ. Rainoldes The wordes of the Canon are plaine to the contrarie For it desireth God to accept and blesse their offering that it may be made the body and blood of Christ to thâ—m It was not the body and blood of Christ therefore but very bread and wine which the faithfull people offered to be â—â—nctified to the vse of the Communion Hart. It was bread and wine before consecration as it is declared by those wordes of the Canon But after consecration the Canon saith of it Hostiam puram hostiam sanctam hostiam immaculatam that is the pure holy and vndefiled host Rainoldes But vpon those wordes it foloweth in the Canon the holy bread of eternall life and the cuppe of saluation Wherefore the bread and the cuppe that is the wine though holy now and sanctified to be the bread of life and cup of saluation that is the body and blood of Christ in a mystery but the bread and wine are the pure holy and vndefiled sacrifice or host as you terme it not onely before but after consecration too Hart. Nay the reall body and blood of Christ are meant by the bread and the cuppe in a figuratiue spéech and so Christ himselfe is the pure holy and vndefiled host Rainoldes Where a figuratiue speech is vsed in scripture you will none of it Here where your Canon vseth none you fansy it For it foloweth straight touching that bread and that cuppe vpon the which thinges vouchsafe o Lord to looke downe with a mercifull cheerefull countenance and to accept them as thou didst vouchsafe to accept the offerings of thy righteous seruant Abel So that if Christ him selfe were meant really by the bread and the cuppe in a figuratiue spéech then the Priest desireth God to looke on Christ with a mercifull and cheerefull countenance and to accept of him at the Priests request as he did accept the giftes which Abel offered There hath beene heretofore a saying amongst you which I hope you like not that a Priest is the creator of his creator But by this meanes the Priest is lifted higher to bee the mediator of his mediator And so will you vouch in earnest of Masse-priests that which Tertullian did iest at in the Heathens man must be merciful vnto God now vnlesse it please the Priest Christ shall not finde fauour in his fathers sight Hart. The prayer of the Priest that God will looke vpon his offrings and accept them hath a very good meaning whereof I doo not dout But the former wordes touching the hoste must néedes betoken Christ. For how can the name of a pure holy and vndefiled hoste be geuen to the bread and wine Rainoldes How are they called pure or vndefiled giftes offeringes and sacrifices in the Canon it selfe before consecration Hart. They may be called pure by acceptation there as your selfe expounded Which the Canon seemeth to imports also in that it prayeth God to accept them and blesse them Rainoldes Euen so they may be called here a pure holy and vndefiled sacrifice For the Canon also likewise prayeth God to accept them in expresse termes and in effect to blesse them Whereof it hath a farther and plainer proofe too in that it saith they offer to God that pure sacrifice the bread of life and cup of saluation of his giftes For in saying that they offer it of the giftes of God it sheweth that the very bread and wine is meant Which the people being vsed then to offer as now we offer mony the rest there of was geuen after to the poore a part was taken first for the vse of the communicants that they might be partakers of the bread of life and cuppe of saluation that is the holy sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. Hart. I know that the name of sacrifice is giuen to the peoples offerings and other things often But I am perswaded that by the pure holy and vndefiled sacrifice S. Gregorie meant Christ and so did offer him vp to God his Father in the Masse as we doo Which I thinke the rather because they were Masse-priests as our Apologie sheweth who liued in the function of Priesthood before him For the holy Councell of Nice knew none but such offerers or sacrificing that is Massing-priests S. Cyprian acknowledgeth the Priests of his time to haue offered or sacrificed yea euen in prisons Hee was a Masse-priest that S. Austin sent to doo sacrifice in a house infested with euil spirits They were Masse-priests of whom Eusebius writeth that they pacified the diuine maiestie with vnbloody sacrifices and mysticall consecrations The dignitie of Priesthood set forth in the worke of the same title by S. Chrysostome is specially commended there for the power of dooing the vnbloody sacrifice vpon the altar To be short he and all the other Fathers both Gréeke and Latin were Masse-priests none being euer made but for that purpose principally S. Ambrose testifying that to take the order of Priesthood which he calleth with the Apostle Imposition of hands is to receiue authoritie to offer sacrifice to God in our Lordes steede Rainoldes These testimonies M. Hart of Greeke and Latin Fathers with the rest quoted by your Apologie-writer either at Doway or at Rhemes doo some of them mention offering and not sacrificing some speake of sacrificing but not the sacrificing of Christ. Betweene the which pointes what difference there is for the one himselfe is a sufficient witnesse in that he declareth that sundry things are offered which are not sacrificed for the other they who shew that the faithfull did offer sundry sacrifices as namely of almes of praise of them selues euen at the celebration of the Lords supper But admit they meant by offering and sacrificing the sacrificing of Christ as some of them did yet nether was their sacrificing that which your Massing is nor they who sacrificed Masse-priests For you will haue the sacrifice offered in the Masse to be a very soueraine