Conference Between Rainolds and Hart, Chapter 5
The fifth Chapter. The Fathers 1 are no touch-stone for tryal of the truth in controuersies of religion, but the Scripture onelyonly. 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.
The first Diuisiō.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 vntounto 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 vntounto 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 vponupon. For God hath giuen his word to be aPs. 119.105.a lanterne to our feete, and a light to our path: that we may sée the way to heauen, and walke in it. And b2. Tim 3.15.the holy Ghost saith, that the Scriptures are able to make vsus wise vntounto saluation: wise, by instructing vsus in the faith of Christ; vntounto saluation, by leading vsus to cIoh. 20.31.life through that faith. Wherfore sith we conferre about a point of wisedome perteining vntounto faith and life: you should do very well to rest on the Scriptures as the onelyonly 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 onelyonly, before you made an end.
Rainoldes.
Why? Is my behauiour towarde men vndutifull: because I am duetifull vntounto God aboue them?
Hart.
There is a worthy treatise of an auncient writer, Vincentius Lirinensis, *Aduersus profanas ommium haerese…n nouationes.against the profane innouations of all heresies, dBristow, Motiu. 14.a passing fine booke: eThe preface of the Motiues.which it is wished that al such should read, as wil know the truth. You hauehave read it perhaps: and what thinke you of it? Is it not fStaplet. princ. doctr. lib. 10. cap 11.a golden booke?
Rainoldes.
The booke is good enough, if it hauehave 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 gVincent. Lirin. cap. 35.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 hcap. 37.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 vntounto him, If thou be the sonne of God, cast thy selfe down: For it is written, that he will giuegive 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, Vincē tius Lirinensis. Whose words do manifestly disproue your opinion, that the truth of pointes in faith should be tryed by the scripture onelyonly.
Rainoldes.
The *L. Inclu…e. Dig. de legib. Senatusque consult.ciuill law saith, that it is vnciuill, for a man, not hauing weighed the whole law, to giuegive 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 vsus, 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: iVincent. Lirin. cap. 36.teacheth that our Sauiour hath to this entent both forewarned vsus of the danger, and foreshewed vsus a remedy. Forewarned vsus 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, vnderunder sheepes clothing, do rent the flocke of Christ? Foreshewed vsus a remedy, in the lesson that he adioined: Ye shal know them by their fruites. That is to say, when they be gin not onelyonly 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; kcap. 37.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 vntounto this conclusion, (the summe of all his treatise:) lcap. 38. & 41.that, although the scriptures alone be sufficient for all pointes of faith, yet is it not sufficient to hauehave a shew of the wordes, but we must also hauehave 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 hauehave graunted and proued alreadie, mChapt. 2. Diuision 2.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 Vincē tius hath them: but, as nMatthew 4.6. and Luke 4.10 Both omitting and leauing the words (In all thy waies) out of the text of scripture (Psalm. 91.11.) which the Deuill alleaged.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 hauehave better noted the deceites of heretikes abusing scripture, then he did; and so hauehave better fensed the right-beléeuing Christians with power of scripture, then he hath. For he reporteth it so, as if the Deuill had alleaged that whole place of the scripture: He will giuegive his Angels charge ouer thee, that they shall keepe thee *In omnibus vijs tuis: which wordes are added by Vincentius, as if the Euangelists had not left them out.in all thy wayes: with their handes they shall lift thee vp, and so forth. Whereas the deuill, alleaging the rest, of charge giuen, to keepe him and vphold him, left out of the middle wordes of keeping him [in all his wayes:] because they made directly against that to which he did tempt Christ, as oChapt. 2. Diuision 3.I hauehave declared. Wherefore if Vincentius had thought, that the scripture is no sufficient stay for vsus against heretikes, because it is alleaged as well by false teachers, as it is by true, by the Deuill as by Christ: he must hauehave rather craued pardon, for not espying the policie of Satan; then liking, for impairing the credit of the word of God. But although he saw not all in particular: neuerthelesse in generall hee ioyneth with the truth. For pVincent. Lirin. cap. 37.hee saith that heretikes followe the Deuill, *Quotiescunque diuinae legi… sententias proferunt quibus malé interpretatis errores suos astruere conentur.as oft as they bring foorth sentences of scripture, by which beeing expounded amisse, they goe about to maintaine theyr errours. So that, the scripture, which heretikes bring foorth against the Catholike faith, is the scripture taken in a wrong sense, and misse-expounded, by his iudgement. But I meane the scripture expounded aright, when I say that pointes of faith should be tried by the scripture onelyonly. The wordes of Vincentius therefore, which you cited, doo rather proue that which I defend, then disproue it. Neither make they more against vsus then you: vnles you begge all that which is in controuersie, that Popery is the Catholike faith. For then you may conclude that wee bring the scripture against the Catholike faith, when we bring it against Popery. An easie way to conquest, if begging can procure you that. But I minde not to giuegive it: & right to it you hauehave not. You must winne it, if you will weare it.
Hart.
Whither that the faith of the Church of Rome, which you call Popery, be the Catholike faith or no: because it is the later part of our conference, concerning one faith; I will not confound it with this of one head. But what doo you meane to say that the wordes of Vincentius, which I cited, disproue not your assertion, nor make against you more then vsus? when hée saith, that heretikes doo alleage the scripture, as also did the Deuill: and you alleage it too, and thinke it a sufficient fense of your opinions.
Rainoldes.
So doo you alleage it too: doo you not? And what is there against vsus, in those wordes, more then against you? would you not laugh at me, if I should reason thus: Heretikes alleage scripture; so doo the Papists too: therefore they are heretikes? qMat. 4.6.10 Vnam sanc…m. Extra. De m…iorit. & obedientia.The Deuill alleaged scripture: so dooth the Pope too: therefore he is the Deuils scholer?
Hart.
But we doo not alleage, onelyonly, the scripture: nor will be tried by it alone. The heretikes appeale to nothing but to scripture: and the Deuill alleaged the scripture only against Christ.
Rainoldes.
This is more, then you …nde in the wordes of Vincentius: it is your owne fansie. He saith, that heretikes do alleage the scripture: that, nothing else but it, he saith not. Neither could he hauehave said so without a lye. For they alleage many reasons beside the scripture, euen whatsoeuer helpeth to countenance their errors: sometime the aAutor operis imperfect. in Matt. hom. 48.Church, sometime bIren. aduers. haeres. lib. 3. ca. 2.Tradition, sometime cAugustin. cōtr. Maximin. Ariā. episcop. lib. 1.Councels, sometime dDe baptism. Contr. Donatist. lib. 3. cap. 2.Fathers, sometime eIn Iohan. Tractat. 13.Miracles, sometime fDe vnitat. eccles. cap. 16.Visions, sometime gEpist. 165. ad Generosum.Succession of Bishops, sometime hEuseb. histor. eccles. li. 5. ca. 14. Socrat. li. 4. c. 23. Theodoret. li. 1. ca. 16. & caet. histor. ecclesiast.such other Motiues, as your Bristow calleth them. Yea, they hauehave greater aduantage for their errours against the catholike faith, by these, then by scripture. For these may be truely alleaged against it, as they hauehave bene often: the scripture can neuer, but falsely, and wrongfully. As for that the Deuill alleaged the scripture onelyonly, against Christ: you thinke his example discrediteth the triall of truth in points of faith by the scripture onelyonly. And so it may séeme to a weake eye. But to such as marke it with a sharper sight, it dooth confirme it rather. For iGen. 3.1.that suttle serpent knowing what baites are fittest to take thē, whom k1. Pet. 5.8.as a roaring lion he seeketh to deuoure: is want to set vponupon men with those perswasions, which he is most lykely to seduce them by. To one he promiseth lGen. 3.5.knowledge of good and euill, as to Eue; an other he hardneth with mExod. 7.22.lying wonders, as Pharao; the prophet he telleth of n1. King. 13.18.an Angels speech; the king he deceiueth by o2. Chron. 18.11.the consent of false prophets; to ye Iewes he pretendeth pIer. 7.4.the temple of the Lorde; to the Heathens hée sheweth qAct. 19.27.vniuersalitie and rAct. 17.19.antiquitie: in a word he leaueth sDeut. 13.2. 1. King. 18.28. Ier. 23.25. Ioh. 7. ver. 42. & 48. & 52. 2. Thess. 2.9. 1. Tim. 4.2. and so foorth in the rest of the Scriptures.no meanes vnattempted whereby he may intangle the soules of mankinde, and wrappe them in the snares of death. Wherfore, as in his instruments he vseth other Motiues to preuaile with others: so him selfe of likelihood would hauehave vsed them specially to Christ, and not the scripture onelyonly, had he not knowne, that onelyonly scripture (if any thing) would preuaile with him. Stapleton, intending to perswade vsus, that Peter, and (by reason of Peter) the Pope is supreme head of the Church: tPrincip. doctrin. lib. 6. in praefat.saith that he will proue it 1Sola ea, quae ex scripturis sacris peti potest demonstratione.by onelyonly demonstration out of the scriptures, in effect, and that 2Ex solis scripturis.by onelyonly scriptures it may bee proued fully enough and abundantly. Is not this a token, that we, whom he séeketh to winne by his perswasions, will not be woon thereto, but onelyonly by the scriptures? So the Deuils practise in alleaging scripture onelyonly to Christ, is a great presumption, that Christ accounted nothing a ground of faith and duetie, but onelyonly the scripture. Whereof a surer argument is the whole behauiour of Christ against the Deuill: whom uMatt. 4. ver. 4. & 7. & 10.in eueryevery one of his three tentations he put to flight still with scripture, It is written. And although the Deuil (to driue him from that hold) alleaged scripture also: yet Christ replied not with *Matt. 22.9.Fathers or Doctors, or Rabbines of the Synagogue, but with the word of his heauē ly Father; and, against ye maimed & wrested wordes of scripture, he set the scripture alleaged rightly. Wherefore let xAs Bristow dooth, in his Motiues to the Catholike faith. Motiu. 48.your Captaines instruct their souldiours as they list, to get vsus into the plaine fieldes of their Motiues, out of our weake and false castle of onelyonly scripture, as *Richard Bristow Priest, Licentiat in Diuinity.a Licentiat termeth it: the action of Christ is the instruction of Christians; the Prince of darknes, could not get him out of that, neither shall the Princes band get out vsus. Nay, that this castle (how weake and false soeuer false-harted weakelinges count it,) hath ordinaunce enough to shake your Motiues into fitters, and can alone subdue all aduersarie powers: I néede not the practise of Christ, and word of God, against you, to proue it. Your owne golden authour, Vincentius Lirinensis, saith it. For himselfe affirmeth that yVincent. Lirin. cap. 2. & 41.scripture is sufficient alone, against heretikes, so that it be taken in the right sense. But scripture is not scripture, vnlesse it be taken in the right sense: in the which alone 1foreign 2. Tim. 3.16.it came from God by inspiration, and is 2foreign. Iam. 1.…8the word of God. Wherefore, if you will take the golde of Vincentius, you must grant, that scripture alone is sufficient to trie the truth from errour, and to mainteine the Catholike faith against heresie.
Hart.
You doo not deale well in misreporting so the words of Vincentius. For zVincent. Lirin. cap. 1.he setteth downe two meanes, by the which we must fense our faith against the guiles of heretikes, & eschue their snares: 1Primò, diuinae legis autoritate.first, by the authoritie (saith he) of the scripture; 2Deinde, ecclesi ae catholicae traditione.then, by the tradition of the catholike Church. You leaue out altogither that which he saith of tradition ▪ and handle him in such sort as though he had spoken for the scripture onelyonly.
Rainoldes.
It is not your purpose, (I hope) to beguile mée by the colour of his wordes. It may be, that your selfe are beguiled in them. For aVincent. Lirin. cap. 2.he, by [the traditiō of the catholike church] meant the true and right exposition of the scripture, made by faithfull pastors and teachers of the church: as his owne words immediately shew. And this I made mention of, in that I said, that 1Perfectus scripturarum canon.scripture is sufficient alone against heretikes 2Vt Propheticae & Apostolicae interpretationis linea secū dum ecclesiastici & catholici sensus normam dirigatur.if it be taken in the right sense; the catholike sense hee calleth it. You séeme to imagine, that he meant by the worde, [tradition,] vnwritten verities, as they hauehave bin termed, or as you terme them now, bConcil. Trident. Sess. 4.traditions: which the Trent-Councell dooth account as much of, as of scriptures, and coupleth them togither to make a sufficient & perfit rule of truth: as though that onelyonly scriptures were insufficient for it. Which errour was so far from the minde of Vincentius, that cVincent. Lirin. cap. 2. & 41.he saith expresly, that he dooth not adde the traditiō of the Church, to the authoritie of the scriptures, as though that 1Scripturarum canonthe scriptures were not thēselues 2Solusalone 3Sufficitsufficient 4Ad omniafor all thinges, yea 5Satis superque.more then sufficient: but to shew, that, because heretikes doo wrest and misse-expound the scriptures, therefore we must learne their right sense and meaning, deliuered to the godly by the ministery of the Church. In which consideration, as S. Paule writeth, that he did d1. Cor. 15.3. foreign.deliuer according to the scriptures the things which he taught, and therevpon nameth his doctrine, eforeign 2. Thess. 2.15.traditions, as you would say, things deliuered: so Vincentius mentioneth both the Churches fCap. 1. & 4…. Ecclesiae traditionem, & interpretationem.tradition, to note the ministerie of the Church deliuering the sense of scriptures; and the Churches gEcclesiae traditiones, & catholici dogmatis regulas. Cap. 38.traditions, to signifie the rules of faith, according whereunto the scriptures are expounded, (as hChapt. 2. Diuision 2.I hauehave shewed) by scriptures. Wherefore, the wordes that your Vincentius speaketh touching the tradition, and traditions, of the Church: do ioine hands with that which I did deliuer of the truth (in pointes of faith) to be tried by the scripture only.
Hart.
You may not cary so the wordes of Vincentius away in a cloude. For, though he may séeme to hauehave meant in generall by [the tradition of the Church] the expounding of scriptures according to the rule of their right and Catholike sense, which the Pastors of the Church deliuer: yet comming to particulars he frameth that rule, not out of the scriptures, but out of the opinions which the Church holdeth in matters of religion. For, iVincent. Lirin▪ cap. 38.he asketh him selfe, when heretikes pretend scriptures, what shall the Catholikes doo? How shall they discerne the truth from falshood in the scriptures? Whereto he maketh answere, that they must take the scriptures in the sense of the Church: and therein they must folow, vniuersalitie, antiquitie, consent. By the which kcap. 3▪ and 4.thréefold meanes to trie the truth, he instructeth vsus that we must hold that, which the church of our time doth hold through all the world vniuersally. If a part of Christendome diuide and cut it selfe from the faith of the whole: then are we bound to folow the whole, and not the part. If the whole in our time be stained with any error: then must we hauehave respect to the former time, and cleaue to antiquitie. If all in antiquity agreed not about it: then looke too consent; as, what a generalll Councell did decree therof; or, if no such decree be, what all the Fathers thought, or if not all, what the most, euen they who continued in the faith and felowship of the Catholike Church. And whatsoeuer we find that not one, or two, but all with one consent hauehave held, written, taught, plainely, commonly, continually: let vsus be assured that we must hold also that without all doubt. Thus Vincentius sheweth how he would hauehave the truth to be tried by the church: if ye church be soūd, by the vniuersalitie of our own time: if that be corrupt, by the antiquitie of the former time; if that be at variance, by the consent of all, or most of the Fathers. Wherfore if you will stand vntounto his iudgement, to which you giuegive countenance as though you liked it: you must not call the tryall of truth in religion to the scriptures onelyonly, but to the consent of the Fathers rather.
Rainoldes.
I liked his iudgement in the generall point, touching the sufficiencie and perfitnes of scriptures: which (I know) you like not, though you make greater semblaunce of liking him, then I. If in the particulars I mislike somewhat, let the blame be laid vponupon the blame-worthy: not me, who stand to that which he hath spoken well; but him, who falleth from it. For, laying his foundation as it were, on a rocke: he buildeth vp his house beside it, on the sand. That scripture is sufficient, alone, against heretikes, so that it be taken in the right sense, expounded by the rules of the Catholike faith: this hath hée well auouched, as on the rocke of Gods word. But, that the rules of faith, and sense of the scripture must be tried and iudged by the consent, antiquitie, and vniuersalitie of the Church: this hath he added not so well, as on the sand of mens opinions. The difference of the pointes may be perceiued by S. Austin: who ioining in the former of them with Vincentius, doth leaue him in the later. For 1In his booke intitled De doctrina Christiana: as it is …ewed before, Chapt. 2. Diuis. 2.Austin, as he setteth the ground of religion in the right sense and Catholike meaning of the scripture: so teacheth he that this must be knowne and tried by the scripture it selfe, ye infallible rule of truth; not by the fickle minds of mē. And, to hauehave taught hereof as Austin doth, it had agreed best with the foundation of Vincentius: which maketh 2Scripturarum canon solus sibi sufficit ad vniuersa. Vincent. cap. 41.the rule of scriptures, alone, sufficient for all thinges. But because the weaker and ruder sort of Christians, hauehave not skill to know the right exposition of scripture from the wrong: therefore he, tempering him selfe to their infirmitie, doth giuegive them outward sensible markes to know it by. Wherein he dealeth with them, as if a Philosopher, hauing saide that a man is areasonable creature, should, because his scholers cannot discerne of reason (whereof the shew is such in many brute beastes, that lLactant. de ira Dei cap. 7. Plutarch. in opusc. quod brat. anim. ration. vtantur.some hauehave thought them reasonable) describe him more plainely by outward markes, and accidents, as namely, that he hath two feete, and no feathers. They report, that mDiogen. Laert. de vit. philosopho…. lib. 6.Plato defined a man so: a man, is a liuing creature, two-footed, vn-feathered. For which definitiō when he was commended, Diogenes tooke a Capon: and hauing pluckt his feathers off, did bring him in to the schoole of Plato, saying, This is Platoes man. The holy word of God is the same in the Church, that reason is in a man. Whereupon we giuegive it for an essential marke (as I may terme it) of the Church, by which the Church is surely known and discerned. But the shew of Gods word is such in many heretikes, (as of reason in brute beastes,) that some, who hauehave no skill to discerne that marke, doo thinke it impossible to know the Church by it. nThe authours of the Romane-Dictates. Controu. 1. quaest. 3. The discouery of Nicols▪ part. 3. Bristow, in his Motiues and Demaunds.Your felowes hereupon describe the Church by outward and accidentall markes: as namely, by antiquity, succession, consent. These are very plausible, and many do commend them highly. But he that hath halfe an eie of a Philosopher, I meane a wise Christian: néede not playe Diogenes in plucking feathers off, to shew that these markes may agrée to a capon. Now, as they deale with the markes of the Church: so doo you, M. Hart, with the markes of the truth. Not Vincentius, but you, who couer your errors with the name of Vincentius: and take thinges, as necessary, and sure proofes of truth, which he did note, as probable, and likelye tokens of it onelyonly. For he deliuered them, not as neuer failing, but as holding often: and such, as albeit they doo hit sometimes, yet do they misse sometimes also. Whereof him selfe is witnesse, in that he disproueth them: the first, vniuersality, by the example of the oVincent. … cap. 6.Arians, and pcap. 4.flyeth from it to antiquitie: the second, antiquitie, by the example of the qcap. 5. & 11.Donatistes, and rcap. 4.flyeth from it to consent.
Hart.
But the third, consent, scap. 4▪he speaketh of as neuer failing; as a necessarie token, to know and trie the truth by; as an essentiall marke, and proper to the pointes of Catholike faith and truth. And this is the marke which chiefly I regarded when I alleaged Vincentius: that our questions might be tried by the consent of the Fathers.
Rainoldes.
In déede he preferreth this marke before the rest, as hauing held when they fayled. Neuerthelesse he speaketh not so of it neither, as that it may serue for tryall and decision of questions betwéene vsus. For what doth he acknowledge to bee a point approued, & such as we are bound to beléeue, by this marke? Euen 1Qui…quid omnes parite… vno eo demque consensu.that, which the Fathers all with one consent, hauehave held, written, taught, plainely, commonly, continually. And who can auouch of any point in question, that not one or two, but all the Fathers held it; nor onelyonly held it, but also wrote it; nor onelyonly wrote it, but also taught it; not darkely, but plainely; not seldome, but commonly; not for a short season, but continually. Which so great consent is partly so rare, and hard to be found; partly so vnsure, though it might be found: that tcap. …him selfe (to fashion it to some vse and certainetie,) is faine to limit and restraine it. First, for the matters: that we are to seeke and follow their consent 2Non in omnibus diuinae legis quaestiunculis.not in all litle questiōs of the scripture, but in the weighty pointes of faith. Then, for the persons: that we must folow all, 3Vel omnes, vel plures.or the greater part; because, in many pointes, all of them consent not. Finally (which cometh néerest to our purpose,) he graunteth that there may such heresies arise, as must be dealt withall by the scripture onelyonly, and not by the Fathers. for, purposing to shew both in what maner, and what kind of heresies may be found out and condemned by the consenting sentences of the Fathers: he saith, and confirmeth, that 4Neque semper neque omnes haereses hoc modo impugnandae sunt.neither all heresies must be assaulted in this sort, nor alwaies, but only such as are new and greene: to weete, when first they spring vp, before they hauehave falsisied the rules of auncient faith, the very straitenes of time not suffering them to do it, and before (the poyson spreading abroad farther,) they endeuour to corrupt the writings of the Fathers. But 5Dilatatae & inueteratae haereses nequaquam hac via aggredien dae sunt: eo quod, prolixo temporum tractu, longa his …urandae veritatis patuerit occasio.heresies that are spread abroad, and waxed old, must not be set vponupon in this sort; because they, by long continuance of time, hauehave had long occasion to steale away the truth. And therefore whatsoeuer profanities there be, either of schismes, or heresies, that are waxed auncient: 6Nullo modo …os oportet.we must in no case deale otherwise with them, then either to conuince them, (if it bee nedeful,) by the 7Sola Scripturarum autorita… ▪authoritie of scriptures onelyonly; or at the least auoid them, being of old time conuicted and condemned alreadie by the generall councels of Catholike Bishops. Lo, when heresies are growne to be in yeares auncient, and ample in places; when they hauehave got antiquitie, and vniuersality: then must we fight against them, not by consent of Fathers, but by the authoritie of the scriptures only. This is the sentence of Vincentius Lirinensis, in that passing fine booke against the profane innouations of all heresies. Is it not a golden sentēce?
Hart.
The cause why Vincentius affirmeth, that heresies when they are spread far, The second Diuision.and hauehave long continued, are to be confuted by the scriptures onelyonly, not by consent of Fathers: is that (which he dooth point too) of endeuouring to corrupt the writings of the Fathers; a common practise of heresies, if occasion and time serue them. But there is no colour why therefore you should refuse to deale with vsus by the consent of Fathers. For, neither are the doctrines which we professe, heresies, much lesse olde and ample heresies, such as he speaketh of: nor hauehave wée endeuoured to corrupt the writings of the Fathers, nay, wée hauehave kept them, and endeuour daily to set them foorth most perfitly. But your heresies in déede, although they sprang of late, and may be counted new and greene; yet hauehave they endeuoured to corrupt the Fathers since, and hauehave done it. *Torrensis pr… fat. confess. Augustin. ad Lectorem.The practise of Erasmus is famous therein. Of whom to say nothing what censures hauehave béen giuen by other worthy men, whō Torrensis nameth: Marian Victorius, in Cōmentaries that he set foorth vponupon the former thrée tomes of S. Ierome, reproueth most learnedly more then sixe hundred errours thrust into them by Erasmus, either in expounding, or ill correcting them. And Torrensis, in his preface to the Confession of S. Austin, declareth sundry bookes to be S. Austins owne, which Erasmus had noted as falsly fathered on him. Wherefore, if by Vincentius you minde to touch them, who endeuour to corrupt the writings of the Fathers: cast out the beame out of your owne eie, before you séeke a m…at… in ours.
Rainoldes.
Yet you sée by the way (though you make hast away from it) what rotten postes they be, whereon, as principall pillars, your church and faith is built, vniuersalitie, antiquitie, consent. Of which it is shewed by Vincentius himselfe, that heresies may iustly claime the two former, vniuersalitie and antiquitie: and make a faire chalenge to the third, consent, in processe of time; so cunningly can they file the Fathers to their purposes. But you may not be touched with any such suspiciō. Why? Because the doctrines which you professe, are not olde and ample heresies, you say, no not heresies; ours are so, not yours. Whether in opinions of faith and religion, which are in controuersie betwéene vsus, you or we doo hold heresies: that is the point in question. Your, or mine; yea, or nay; is no sufficient proofe of either. But of which soeuer it shall appeare by conference that they are repugnant to the holy scriptures: let them be iudged heresies; and the men, heretikes, who stubburnly mainteine them. Thus much you can not choose but grant, that your opinions are olde, and spread abroad: for uBristow Demaund. 31 & 3….you claime antiquitie, & vniuersalitie; whereof you say that our opinions hauehave neither. It is more likely therefore, by Vincentius, that you, who *Prolixo temporum tractu, longa furandae veritatis occasio.by long continuance of time, hauehave had long occasion to steale away the truth, should corrupt the Fathers, then wée who hauehave not had it. And in very truth, as the worship of Images, (the greatest abomination that first preuailed in Poperie) was confirmed by 1Scriptis admodum incertis & fabulosis.writings very vncertaine and fabulous, yea by 2Muliebribus somnijs.dreames of women, and 3Daemonum …pectris.visions of Deuils in the xAction. 4. & 5.second Nicen Councell; (as the thing it selfe, and yAdrianus posteá sextus Papa quod libe…. 6. Claudius Espencaeus Parisiensis Theologus commentar. in poster. epist. ad Timoth. cap. 4.great Clerkes of your owne testifie:) so the rest of your errours, which ouerflowed Christendome in darkenes of superstition, hauehave bene most authorised by forged déedes, and bastard writings, begotten by some varlets, and fathered on the Doctors. The Schoolemen and Canonists, whose handes were chiefe in this iniquitie, did beare the whole sway for many yeares togither in Uniuersities and Churches. The Doctors & Fathers were pretended much, but more pretended, then regarded: and their bookes corrupted, what through ignorance of scriueners, who copied them out before the vse of printing, what through impudence of forgers, who coined counterfeites in their names. Now, when they lay thus distressed and diseased in the dust of Libraries: Erasmus, a man of excellent iudgement, and no lesse industrious, then learned, and wittie, did enterprise first to cure them, and brought them foorth into the light. In the workes of S. Ierome, which were most of all depraued aboue others, chiefly, the former tomes: he did what he could, both to clense them from blemishes, and to lighten them with his notes. zErasm. praefat. ad Gulielm. Waram. archiep. Cantuar.Hee professed, that his coniectures in restoring of places had not satisfied himselfe alwaies. He promised, that if any man should restore them better: hee would both embrace his trauaile very gladly, and reioyce at the publike profit. What sparkle of thankfulnes, but I let go thankfulnes, what sparkle of ingenuitie was there, and good nature, in Marian Victorius: aVictor. praefat. ad Pium quart. in tres priores tomos Hieronymi.who requiteth such a worke so carefully attempted, so painfully performed, so modestly excused, with the tauntes and contumelies of erring, of lying, of craftines of ignorance, of heresie, of impietie? bIn reprehens. Sophistarum.Aristotle writeth of them, who begin a thing in pointes of learning, that although they seeme to do lesse then others, who receiue it of them, and after adde thereto, yet they do more in deed: because the beginning of eueryevery thing is hardest, and it is easie to adde. Wherevpon, he craueth of such as he hath sought to benefite by his labour, thankes, for that he found; pardon, for that hee missed. If Victorius hauehave profited no better in the schoole of Christ, let him goe to Aristotle: and learne, first, to thinke more humbly of him selfe; afterward, to deale more modestly with others. And you, who like of him, because hee findeth fault with the dooings of Erasmus; as a shoomaker did with the picture of Apelles, for missing in a shoo-latchet: may know, that 1Displicuit permultis pierate & doctrina claris.good and learned men among your selues hauehave found fault with him, for being bold beyond the shoo. That dooth cIohan. Molanus, Censor Apostolicus et Regius: in Censura scholiorum Mar. Vict.Molanus witnes, one of your chiefest Doctors and Censors of bookes: who (in S. Ieromes workes, 2Ex officina Christophori Plantini. anno Dom. 1578.set foorth at Anwerpe,) hath therefore circumcised the lippes of Victorius.
Hart.
Molanus hath reproued and corrected him for vnciuill spéeches against the person of Erasmus, as wherein 3Praeter Christianam modestiam.he past the boundes of Christian modestie: not for ouersight in that hée laid errours to Erasmus charge. Though the speciall point for which we blame Erasmus, is not this so much of errours in S. Ierome. His censures on S. Austin are misliked most: in that he reiecteth sundry bookes as counterfeit, which Torrensis proueth to bee S. Austins owne. Whereof the importance and danger is the greater, because some will hauehave nothing taken for S. Austins, but what Erasmus hath allowed.
Rainoldes.
Molanus did couer the sinnes of Victorius, whē he found no other fault with his notes, but of vnciuill spéeches. If fauour to the man, and fansie to the cause had not made him partiall: he might hauehave said of him, that as he past the bounds of Christian modestie in 4Not content to call him somniatorem, and haereticum: but he must ca… him also haereticorum omnium pessimum.railing at Erasmus person, so had he past the boundes of Christian truth in noting errours of Erasmus. But dMarian. Victorius praefat. ad Pium quart. in his editions of S. Ierom, vncorrected by Molanus, as at Paris. 1579. & the former.he that would affirme Erasmus to be ignorant of the Greeke toong, wherof his workes so many, both in diuinitie, and humanitie, through all sortes of writers doo proclaime the contrarie; néedeth no other Censor to aduertise men, with what eyes he looked into Erasmus dooings. It was not Erasmus ignorance of Greeke, which bredde so many errours in his corrections of, or notes vponupon, S. Ierome. It was his knowledge of the Latine, the Romane churches faults. It was his skil of the Italian abuses of the Pope. It was eAntidotus. Erasm. annotat. in epist. ad Nepotianum, ad Rusticum, ad Demetriadem, &c. passim.the triacle which he giueth that Victor. praefat. ad Pium quart… ▪ Erasmus Roterodamus, Catholici hominis partes professus. antidoti nomine venenum sudit.séemeth poison vntounto you. These thinges, because they moued many to suspect that somewhat in Popery was not of the best: it was thought expedient that they should bee taken out of S. Ierome. Victorius (to doo it with a faire shew) pretended other errours: but through too much choler hee bewraied his humour. He lacked that discretion which hath bene shewed since by the Diuines of Louan, in setting foorth the notes of Viues on S. Austin. For gIn Augustin. de ciuit. Dei: both in the Prefaces of Viues, and in his Commentaries throughout.they hauehave omitted a great many things wherin Viues touched their Popes and Churches sores: yet say they not so much. Only hIn titulo appendicis Tomi quinti operum Augustini, A…t…erp. Plantin.they say, that *Nonnullis tamen omissis, ex Censura facultatis Theologicae Louaniensis.certaine things are omitted: certaine, as not many; and errours they name them not; neyther tell they what. Now, if the notes of Viues on S. Austin hauehave found such disfauour: the censures of Erasmus, on him, may better beare it. And, to say the truth, they hauehave deserued it at your handes. For in those censures hath Erasmus shewed that many bookes doo falsely beare S. Austins name, by which, as by the warrant of S. Austins iudgement, sundry of your Schoolemens and Canonists dreames hauehave bene aduanced and aided. But he reiecteth some as counterfeit, you say, which Torrensis proueth to be S. Austins owne. And what maruell is it, if amongst hundreds he were deceiued in one or two? And hauing had triall of many false titles, he thought somefalse which were not? A fish, that hath béene touched once with the hooke, is saide to feare the hooke vnderunder eueryevery meate. They, who by experience hauehave felt that some are coosiners, which beare the face of honest men, must bée borne with, if they suspect a man sometimes whom they néede not: chiefly, sith it proueth a greater point of wisedome to mistrust an honest man, then to trust a knaue. For, to trust a knaue, hath vndone many, and brought them past recouery. To mistrust an honest man, though it be a fault, yet is it lesse daungerous, and may be sooner mended. But what shall we thinke of your Torrensis policie? Who, vnderunder this pretense that Erasmus iudged some bookes not to be S. Austins, which are: iIn confession. August▪ li. 1. c. 9. tit. 2. &c. passion.he citeth such, as S. Austins, *As nam…ly the Sermon of S. Peters chaire and other prety pamphlets of the … litter.which are knowne and graunted to be none of his.
Hart.
He dooth not so simply, but kIn praefat. confess. Augustin. ad Lectorem.with an exception, that if all of them be not S. Austins owne, as we graunt they be not: yet the most are theirs who liued the same time, and 1Doctorum …uxta atque piorū hominum plané omn….all (no doubt) were written by learned and godly men.
Rainoldes.
But out of this exception he doth except againe, that, although they do not auaile much to conuince the opinions of sectaries, neuerthelesse there will be godly men and learned, 2Qui libros illos Augustinianos e…se sinant & iudicent.who will permit and iudge them to be S. Austins owne, and wil both take delight and profit by reading them. Yet amongst these bookes, for which he striueth so to hauehave them thought S. Austins, there be that teach contrary to S. Austins doctrine. As namely, the booke of visiting the sicke: wherein lDe visitat. in…irmor. lib. 2. cap. 3.the bastard Austin alloweth the worship of Images, as good; which mDe morib. eccles. catholicae cap. 34.the true Austin doth note, as an abuse, and saith, the Church misliketh it. But Torrensis could not espie this sentence of the true Austin: the other of the bastard (as it is iudged by, not nCensura Erasmi: Sermo loquutuleii nec docti, nec diserti. Quid habuere vel frontis vel mentis, qui talia scripta nobis obtruserunt nomin… Augustini…Erasmus onelyonly, but oCensura Louaniēsium: Non est Augustini.your Diuines of Louan too,) pTorrensis confess. Augustin. lib. 4. cap. 9. tit. 4.he setteth for a flower in his Austins confession. So that, if wee compare the dealing of the Iesuit Torrensis, with Erasmus, in taking or refusing the bookes of S. Austin: Erasmus, as a plaine and well meaning man that were to receiue a summe of of mony in angels, finding many bad ones, some light, some crackt, some sowdered, some counterfeited amōgst thē, doth vpō suspicion distrust a fewe good and is loth to take them, for feare of deceiuing any whom he should pay them too. The Iesuit, as a yoonker, who could gaine by them, if he might put them all away, doth mingle them one with an other, and prayeth men to take them: protesting, that if they be not all English angels, yet they be Flemish; at least, they are stampt with the image of an angell. And although some curious and precise men are loth to take them in part of lawfull payment: yet there be good felowes that will permit and iudge them to be English angels, and will *foreign. Eph. 4.14.playe them at dice for their delight and profite too. I, for my part, hauehave a better liking of Erasmus herein. Specially for that hee sheweth (in his censures) the reasons that moued him to thinke, as he doth, of the bookes which he refuseth: so that the church may thereby iudge of his iudgement. If you rather fansie the Iesuit Torrensis: vse your own discretion. But I would aduise others to beware howe they trust you, who doo so lightly trust him.
Hart.
You excuse Erasmus, as though the suspicion which his censures raise of some things in S. Austins works, procéeded from a carefulnes, yt he might neither be deceiued, nor deceiue. Which if it had béene so: his fault were the lesser. But qPrae…at. confess. August. ad Lect.Torrensis sheweth, that whereas there are two 1Tractatus de communi vita & moribus clericorum.treatises of his, touching the common life and maners of Clergie men, in which the spring and orders of the life of monkes are faithfully declared: Erasmus, of malice (as it may seeme) for hatred that he bare to monks, remoued them both out of their own place, and put them guilefully amongst 2Sermones ad …ratres in …re…o.the sermons intitled to the Eremite Friers; giuing a note of infamie as to most of these, so to them withall; though him self deny not, but they were made by S. Austin. This is more, then distrusting a good angell for the badde. This is wilful refusing of an angell, as bad, the which he knoweth to be good.
Rainoldes.
If Erasmus did this, not of error, but of malice, for hatred which he bare to monkes, as Torrensis suspecteth that he did: it were a great crime, and worthy to be published in print vntounto the world. But if hee did it not of hatred, & malice, if he did it not at all, if he did the contrarie, if he reproued the partie by whom it was done, and him selfe redressed it: how will Torrensis make amends to Erasmus, whom he hath defamed with so lewd a slaunder? The sermons, entitled to the Eremit Friers, were impudently forged vnderunder S. Austins name, by some who was him selfe of that order belike, and gladly would hauehave gotten credit to his order by the title of such a patrone. Erasmus hath marked the most of these sermons with a note of infamie. Wherein, if he committed any offense, it was, that he markt no more of them so, not that he markt the most. For, rIn Censura Sermonum ad Fratres in Eremo, Tom. 10. in append.your Louan-Cen…ors doo set them out all with as good a note; affirming, not onelyonly, that they are 1Confictos.forged, and 2Satis constat.knowne certainely to be written vnderunder S. Austins name, 3A quodam semilatino.by some pety-latinist, 4Exclamatorem Gallo flandrum autorem Lipsius fuisse suspicatur.a rhetorical moongrell, demy-French, demy-Flemish, as Lipsius doth gather by certaine wordes and phrases: but also that they were reproued and condemned 5A Cōseruatore Apostolico …hegii, anno· …414. damnatos & reprobatos.by an officer of the Popes aboue eight score yeares since, and written both largely and learnedly against by 6In his book intitled, Venatorium canonicorum regula…um.Malburne of Brussels. This Flemish-French-man then, as he endeuoured to write his sermons Austin-like, that men might thinke them to be S. Austins owne: so he interlarded them with two treatises, which were in déed Austins, but vttered to the people of his own Church, and not to Eremite Friers. Erasmus, when he set forth S. Austins workes first, espied the fraud and opened it: neither did he onelyonly remoue them both thence, but also left this *Hoc loco sequebantur …cta …pud populum de disquisitione … Augustini Quae habentur inter Epist…las: & stult… inserta sunt Eremitici….Censure there to kéepe them out; they are amongst the epistles, and were put foolishly in amongst the sermōs to the Eremite Friers. Now be iudge your selfe, what the Iesuit deserueth, who chargeth Erasmus to hauehave done that of malice and hatred, which he not onelyonly did not, but also prouided (as much as lay in him) that no man else should doo it.
Hart.
Perhaps Erasmus did it, if not in his first edition of Austin, yet in other afterward. For doubtlesse in some of sAnno Domin… 1556. & 156….the Basill-editions, which hauehave the censures of Erasmus, those treatises are printed as Torrensis noteth them, euen amongst the sermons to the Eremite Friers. And if Erasmus caused them so to be printed, as he did of likelihood: it is no mortall sinne to think that he did it, not of error, but of malice & hatred against monks. For it is well knowne, that he could not abide them: and sundry of his censures are stained with that affection.
Rainoldes.
The likely-hood is rather that Erasmus would not commit that himselfe, which he had condemned before in an other. At least, if he were so greatly ouershot, Torrensis should do well to quote vsus the editiō, and take him vp more sharply, not only for malice but for folly too. But perhaps Torrensis hath done as (men say) Will Summer was wont: to let fly at Rowland, whē Oliuer had strooken him. For, tAnno Domin… 1531. in officin… Claudii Cheuale lonij.in a Paris-edition of Austin, one 7Iacobus Haemer praefat. ad Abb. D. Vict. in opera August.Haemer (who was the ouer-seer of the print) doth note that *Tomus deeimus recepit se… mo…es duos, quos Erasmus, quia scilicet inter Episto las essent, ex To… trun cauerat. Hos sollicité quaesitos & no… inuentos suis ipsos Eremitis restituimus.himselfe hath restored againe to the Eremite Friers, two sermons which Erasmus had taken away from them. The former Basil-printer, whom Erasmus vsed, had (as it appeareth) omitted them in the epistles, amongst the which hee should hauehave printed them. This faulte the Paris-printer minding to amend, amended with a greater fault: whom sAnno Domi… 1556. & 1569.the later Basil-editions did folow, ouerséene by Lipsius, & others, not Erasmus. Howbeit, nether is there, in thē, a note of infamie set on both those treatises, (as Torrensis saith,) but onelyonly on the former. Which séemeth to hauehave béene the printers scape rather then the ouerseers: sith that they agreeing in argument and style had the same iudgement both, as it is likely. Nowe concerning that, wherewith you charge farther the censures of Erasmus, that they are stained with his affection against monkes: his affection towardes …hem was so well ordered in the louelove of righteousnes, and hatred of iniquitie, that it rather lead him to cleanse the staines of other, then staine his owne censures. For, how well he liked of godlye monkes and their societies, it appeareth by that, which (when he was in England) he iudged of uThe descript· o… Britai…e, the 2. booke, the 6. chapt.our Colleges in Oxford and Cambridge. The orders and rules whereof when hee perceiued, the end and maner of their studies, their lectures, their discipline, their prouision in common: he compared the trade of our students liues, with the rules and orders of the auncient moonkes: and counted it the best of the monasticall institutions that euer was deuised. Which being spoken by him to the praise of our Colleges, as raised to be nurseries for the ministery of the church, wherein they may be well resembled to the best of xPossidius de vita Augustin. cap. 11. Seuer. Sulpit. de vit. Martin. cap. 7. Hieronym, epist. 4. ad Rusticum monachum.the auncient monasteries: doth argue that Erasmus had a good affection towardes the auncient monkes. But the common sort of monkes of our age are creatures of an other kind, and chaunged to an other hewe. In so much that yHistoriae Anglicae lib. 6.Polydore Virgil, an Italian, who knewe their state well, and did not hate them for religion, doth affirme of them, that it is *…n credibile dictu est, quantū a Maioribus suis degeneraue…int.a thing vncredible to bee spoken how greatly they are growne out of kinde, from their auncestors. Wherefore, it stained not the censures of Erasmus, that he had a misliking of these vnkindly monkes, euill beastes, & idle bellies. But the liking of them professed by Torrēsis hath stained with a witnes his Austins confession. For, to bring men in louelove and admiration of their beggerly ceremonies, zConfession. Augustin. lib. 4. cap. 8. ti…. 6.he writeth of S. Austin that he was clad with a blacke coole, and girded with a leather girdle; and that, by no meaner man then S. Ambrose; aAmbros. part. 3. Sermon. 94.whose sermon he alleageth for the proofe thereof, and *With these wordes …n the margent: Augustinus cuculla nigra in dutus, & cingulo co…iaceo praecinetus.noteth it as a worthy matter. Where, in truth, that sermon is so farre from being S. Ambrose his owne: that the learned note it to be vndoubtedly forged in his name bCensura Erasmi, Citra controuersiam impostoris est & blateronis. Adeó nihil est illic Ambrosianum.by a coosining and pratling marchant, as the which hath nothing in it of S. Ambrose.
Hart.
That censure sauoureth of Erasmus: who (by your leaue) in matters touching monkes, shall hauehave no credit with me; say what you can, for him.
Rainoldes.
If you like not him: you may like Costerius, and Molanus yet, two Doctors of Louan. Molanus, the kings professor of diuinitie: *Annot. in Vsuardi, Martyrologium. Mai. 5. Sermo non est Ambrosii nec in eius operibus habetur.who, casting off that fable of Austins blacke and monkish weed, saith that the sermon is not S. Ambroses. Costerius, the Prior of S. Martins Abbey: cCensura Costerij, Ipsa res clamat ab insulso & audaci impostore esse cō fictum.who censureth him that forged it more sharply then Erasmus did. For he doth not onelyonly call him a coosiner, but a sottish and shamelesse coosiner. And whereas Erasmus did yet notwithstanding dAnno Domini 1527. & 1539.set it foorth amongst the rest of Ambroses workes: it séemed so lothsome and beastly to Costerius, that he hath cleane left it out. So that, in the later editions of Ambrose, eAnno Domini 1555. & 1567,it is not extant now. Only this place of it, touching the coole and girdle of the Austin-monkes, (or Austin-friers, as they are called,) is laid vp in Torrensis: a storehouse fit for such antiquities.
Hart.
If the Church allow the censures of those learned men:
Rainoldes.
I know no learned man of your church that disalloweth them.
Hart.
Then is it to be thought, that when Torrensis quoted that sermon of S. Ambrose: he meant, (as he had saide *Praefat. confess. Augustin. ad Lectorem.afore of S. Austin) that either it is his; or some others like him.
Rainoldes.
This neither doth hée say, nor his scholers gather, nor the truth agree too. For neither was it written by any like S. Ambrose, if a rash and sottish coosiner did forge it, which your supposall granteth: and he, with fAs namely, the defendet of the Censure against M. Charke. page 38.other after him, alleage it as written by S. Ambrose him selfe; whose it is manifest they would hauehave it supposed, for the cooles sake. So fauourable are you in bearing with your selues, to take that, as certainly written by the Fathers, which certainly is none of theirs. So sharpe against vsus, if wee suspect any thing not to be theirs, which is: yea, though we suspect it not, but be falsly thought to hauehave suspected it through other mens default. And thus hauehave I cast out the beame out of our eie. Now, let vsus sée the moate in yours. Your practises in corrupting the writings of the Fathers, are of two sortes: the one, before the art of printing was found; and the other, sithence. Examples of them both I will giuegive in our present question, touching the supremacy. The former sort therefore is rife in the chiefest Doctor of your Church, I meane, gIn opusculo contra errores Graecorum ad Vrbanum quart. Pont. Max.Thomas of Aquine. Who writing against the errours of the Grecians, doth bring in S. Cyrill, saying, that as Christ receiued power of his Father ouer eueryevery power, 1Vt ei cuncta curuentur plenissimam potestatem.a power most full and ample, that all thinges should bowe to him; 2Sic & Petro & eius successoribus plenissimé ….so he did commit it most fully and amply both to Peter & his successours: & 3Nulli alij quam Petro Christus quod suam est, plenum, sed ipsi solidedit.Christ gaue his own to none else, saue to Peter, fully, but to him alone he gaue it: and, the Apostles in the Gospels and Epistles hauehave affirmed (in eueryevery doctrine) Peter and his Church to be in steede of God: and, 4Cui, scilicet Petro, omnesiu re diuino caput inclinant, & primates mund… tanquam ipsi Domino Iesu obediunt.to him, euen to Peter, all do bow their head by the law of God, and the Princes of the world are obedient to him, euen as to the Lord Iesus: & we, as being members, must cleaue 5Capiti nostro, Pontifici Romano.vntounto our head, the Pope and the Apostolike See; thence it is our duetie to seeke & enquire what is to be beleued, what to be thought, what to be held; because 6Solius Pontificis est arguere, corrigere, increpare, ratum facere, disponere, soluere et ligare.it is the right of the Pope alone, to reproue, to correct, to rebuke, to confirme, to dispose, to loose and bind. These sayings are alleged by Thomas of Aquine out of S. Cyrils worke entitled 7Or treasures, as Thomas, and other do intitle it.the treasure. But in S. Cyrils treasure there are no such base coines to be founde. Wherefore either Thomas coined them him selfe for want of currant money: or tooke them of some coiner, and thought to trie, if they would go.
Hart.
Doo you know, what iniurie you doo to that blessed man S. Thomas of Aquine, to whose charge you lay so great a crime of forgerie?
Rainoldes.
None I at all, to him, whose counterfeits I discrie. But he did great iniurie to the poore Christians, whom hée abused with such counterfeits. Your *Pope Iohn the two and twentieth. An…onin. histor. part. 3. tit. 21. cap. 5.Saint-maker of Rome did canonize him for the holinesse of his life and learning. The greatest triall of it was in his seruice to that Sée. And are you loth to hauehave it knowne?
Hart.
But why should you thinke either him to be the counterfeiter, or the sayings to be counterfeit, when, (as hAlanus Copus Dialog. 1. ca. 13.Cope sheweth) they are alleaged not only by him, but by other too. Namely, by that worthie and most learned Cardinall 1In summa de Eccles. & in apparatu super decreto vnionis Graecorum in Concilio Florentino.Iohn of Turrecremata, who was at the Councell of Basill; & before him by 2In lib. de potest. Ecclesiast.Austin of Ancona: yea by Graecians themselues, who were at the councell of Florence, Andreas Bishop of Colossae, and Gennadius Scholarius the Patriarke of Constantinople. Of whom when the former said (in *Vid. session. 5.7. & 8.the Councell) that Cyrill in his treasures had very much extolled the authority of the Pope, none of all gainesaid him. The later, (in a treatise that hee wrote for the Latins against the Graecians, touching fiue pointes whereof one is the Popes supremacy) citeth the same testimonies, although perhaps not all, which S. Thomas of Aquine doth out of Cyrill. Yet you amongst so many choose him whom you may carpe at: and thinke that wordes alleaged by them all, are counterfeites.
Rainoldes.
Counterfeites are counterfeites, though they go thorough twenty hands. Al these, whom you name out of Harpsfieldes Cope, did liue long after Thomas: and séeme to hauehave alleaged S. Cyrill on his credit, as Cope himselfe doth also. Wherefore I could not think that they had béene the coiners of yt which was before they were. But Thomas is the first, with whom I finde the words: and therefore greatest reason to laie the fault on him, vnlesse he shew from whom he had them. At least, séeing I know the words are not Cyrils, whose Thomas saith they be: I did him no iniurie (I trust) when I said, that either he receiued them at some coyners handes, or coyned them him selfe.
Hart.
Although the wordes are not to be found now in those partes of Cyrils treasure, which are extant: yet that is not sufficient to proue, that either Thomas or some other forged them. For iLocor. Theologicor. lib. 6. cap. 5.Melchior Canus affirmeth that heretikes hauehave maimed that booke, and hauehave razed out all those things which therin pertained to the Popes authoritie. Which same thing to be done by them in the Commentaries of Theophylact vponupon Iohn: the Catholikes hauehave found, and shewed.
Rainoldes.
Mée thinkes, you and Canus deale against vsus, as kCicero pro L. Flacco.the men of Doryla did against Flaccus. Whom when they accused out of their publike recordes, and their recordes were called for: they said that they were robbed of them vponupon the way, by, I know not what shepheardes. You accuse vsus, that we deny the Pope his right of the supremacy. The recordes, by which you proue it his right, are the wordes of Cyrill. Cyrils wordes are called for, that they may be séene. You say, they are not extant: you are robbed of them, by, I know not what heretikes. Whereon to put a greater likelihood, you say further, that heretikes hauehave done an other robbery in Theophylact, as they are charged by Catholikes. And this doo you say: but you say it onelyonly: you bring no proofe, you name no witnesse, you shew no token of it. If such accusations may make a man guiltie: who shall be innocent? Hee that should hauehave dealt-among the lCic. pro M. C… lio: Accusario crimen desiderat, rem vt desiniat, hominem vt notet, argumento probet, te…te confirme….heathens so: would hauehave bene counted rather a slaunderer then an accuser.
Hart.
Admitte, that the words were not razed perhaps out of any booke of Cyrill, which we hauehave. Yet might they be in some of them, which are mAlan. Copus, dialog. 1. cap. 13.lost, or nMelchior Canus lib. 6. cap. 5.not set forth in Latin. For, we hauehave no more then fouretéene bookes of his treasure: whereas the two and thirtieth is cited by the Fathers in the oSynodo 6. actione 10.sixth general Councell. And this is enough to remoue suspicion of forgery from Thomas, and other, who alleage them.
Rainoldes.
Nay, although the two and thirtieth be mentioned by the Fathers there: yet meant they no more of Cyrill, then we hauehave. For that, which in our Latin edition is the twelfth, is the two and thirtieth, in the Grecians count.
Hart.
This is an answere which I neuer heard. It hath no likelyhood of truth.
Rainoldes.
Peruse you the place, which toucheth that of Cyrill: and the wordes them selues will proue it more then likely.
Hart.
The Councel hath it thus. Hoc & sanctus Cyrillus in trigesimo secundo libro Thesaurorum docet, epistolam ad profanos explanans: nec enim vnam naturalem operationem dabimus esse Dei & creaturae; vt neque id quod creatum est ad diuinam deducamus essentiam, neque id quod est diuinae naturae praecipuum, ad locum qui creatis conuenit deponamus.
Rainoldes.
This sentence, alleaged out of the two and thirtieth of Cyril in Gréeke, is pIn Cyrilli Thesauro lib. 12. cap. 1.in the twelfth booke of our Latin Cyrill. Sauing that, he being translated by *Georgius Trapezuntius.an other hath it in other wordes. But there is the sentence: the very same sentence which the Councell pointeth too.
Hart.
It might be there, first, and yet againe afterward in the two and thirtieth: as manye vse one sentence often.
Rainoldes.
But the circumstance of the place doth rather import it to be the very same. For, the Councell saith, that Cyrill hath these wordes, explanans epistolans ad profanos, where he expoundeth the epistle to profane men. And what meant they, by this epistle ad profanos, to profane men?
Hart.
How can I tell what they meant, when that booke of Cyrill (whereof they speake) is lost?
Rainoldes.
It should be, the epistle ad Romanos, to the Romaines: [1The Roman… Romanos] made [2profane men. profanos] by the printers error: vnlesse he did it of purpose, to shew, what now the Romanes be: or some corrector chaunged it, least wee by this circumstance should find the place of Cyrill. For, this [where he expoundeth the epistle to the Romanes] is a great argument, that the Councell meant the place in the twelfth booke: where Cyril doth handle such pointes of that epistle as concerned the matter that he had in hand. Which that he should doo againe, in the same worke, with the same sentence, touching the same matter: they who know Cyrill, will not thinke it likely. The lesse, because it is an vsuall thing with the Grecians, to diuide bookes otherwise then the Latins doo. As, in the Gréeke testament, the gospell of S. Marke hath more then fortie chapters, which hath not twentie in the Latin: and yet notwithstanding the Latin hath the whole, as well as the Gréeke. Which is the more likely to hauehave béene the difference betwéene the Gréeke Cyrill, alleaged by the Councell, and our Latin Cyrill translated out of Gréeke, because that our Latin hath also other sentences in the tenth booke, which are alleaged qAction. 10.by the Councell out of the foure and twentéeth: and, in their diuision, rAs (in the same place) Cyrillus de Thesauris, capitulo vigesimo quarto, is aleaged: for which it is after, libro vigesimo quarto.a chapter and a booke did go for all one, wheras the bookes in Latin are sub-diuided into chapters. The mentioning therefore of more bookes of Cyrils treasure, then we hauehave, remoueth not suspicion of forgery from the sayings, which Thomas citeth thence for the Popes supremacie. Chiefely, sith Trapezuntius who translated that worke of Cyrill into Latin, was a man affectionate greatly to the Pope. That, if he had left out somewhat of yt Gréeke, as he hath perhaps, (vnlesse he vsed Cyril better then *De praeparatione euangelica… which in Greeke hath much more, then it hath in latin trāslated by Trapezuntius.Eusebius:) yet is it not credible that he would hauehave left out so many places, so notable proofes of a thing so weighty, so néerely touching him whom he so déerely loued. In déede they are too notable, and perfit for the purpose: and such, as, your sLocor. Theolog. lib. 6. cap 5. Cyrillus apud D. Thomam multo euidentius quám autores caeteri.Canus saith, hauehave not their matches throughout all the Fathers. Wherin, yt is also worthy of remēbrance which a wise mā said in a like case: to much perfectiō breedeth suspiciō. Neither was S. Cyril likely to write thē, tEpist. Cyrilli ad synodum Carthag. in concil. Africa… cap. 102.who, when ye Councel of Carthage sent vntounto him about the Popes vsurping, was so glad to send them euidence against it: neither was his treasure fitte to write them in, as handling al an other matter, namely, that the Sonne and the Holy ghost are of one substance with God the Father. But the forging of Cyrill might be better borne with he was but one man. That is no way tolerable, that the like dealing is vsed with sixe hundred Bishops, and more, euen with the generall Councel of Chalcedon. Of whom uIn eodem op…sculo contra errores Graecorum.Thomas writeth that they decreed …hus: If any Bishop be accused, let him appeale freely to 1…eatissimum episcopum antiquae Romae.the Pope of Rome, 2Quia habemus Petrum petram refugii.because we hauehave Peter for a rocke of refuge; and he alone hath right, with freedome of power, in the steed of God, to iudge and trie the crime of a Bishop accused, according to the keyes which the Lord did giuegive him. And againe after: Let all thinges be kept which are defined by him, as defined by the Vicar of the Apostolike see. And, to proue 3Quód Pontifex in totam ecclesiam Christi vniuersalem praelationem habet.that the Pope hath vniuersal soueraintie ouer the whole church of Christ: It is read, saith Thomas, in the Councel of Chalcedō, that the whole Councell did cry to Pope Leo, God graunt long life to Leo, the most holy, Apostolike, & 4It is in Thomas, Icumeraycos, id est vniuersalis: but he meaneth foreign.vniuersall Patriarke of the whole world. Nowe in the generall Councell of Calcedon there is not one of these thinges: no more, then the other were in Cyrils treasure. Wherefore it must needes be, that either Thomas coined them, or had them from some coiner. Belike he, who did it, was maister of the Popes mint: and who that should be, but Thomas, I know not.
Hart.
Neither Thomas, nor any els. For these thinges were writen in the Councell of Calcedon: but heretikes hauehave razed them out of our copies, as xRegistr. lib. 5. epist. 14. ad Narsem Comitem.Gregorie complaineth to the Earle Narses.
Rainoldes.
Or rather, as yLocor. Theolog. lib. 6. cap. 6. Eaquae D. Thomas refert, in …uius temporis exemplaribus nō habentur: sed ab haereticis erasa Gregorius queritur.Canus reporteth out of Gregorie; but reporteth falsely. For Gregorie doth not mention either heretikes, or these things. Only zRegistr. lib. 5. …p. 14. Chalcedo nensis synodus in vno loco ab ecclesia Constantinopolitana falsata est.he affirmeth that the church of Constantinople had falsified the Councell of Chalcedon in one place: which he séemeth to meane of the eight and twentieth canon of that Councell, (as the Grecians recken it) wherein Constantinople is allowed equall priuiledges with Rome. For the Church of Rome had still withstood this canon: chiefely, Pope aEpist. 51.52.53.59. & 60.Leo. Yet Constantinople, and the Gréeke churches did set it downe amongst the rest. The difference betwéene them appeareth to this day in the bCanones concil. Chalced. …an. 28.Gréeke and cConcil. Chalced. act. 15. Which hath but seuen and twentie canonsLatin copies: the one of them hauing it, and the other wanting it. Which is a great presumption, that Gregorie, in saying, the Councell of Chalcedō is falsified by the church of Constantinople in one place: meant this place, by which Constantinople claimed as great prerogatiues as Rome, the church of Rome crying against it. And hereof dIn summa concil. Chalced ex noua edit. act. 16.Carranza in the abridgement of the Councels, and eConcil. Chalced. in annot. ad Lect. action. 15.Surius in the whole, do giuegive a marke both, reiecting that canon. But neither Surius, nor Carranza doo bring in any such stuffe as that of Thomas; or say, that it was written in the Coū cell of Chalcedon, but heretikes hauehave razed it out. Nay the verye canons them selues of that Councell, which are agreed vponupon in both the Greeke & Latin copies, do cut off al shew from such false and friuolous defenses of Thomas. For it cannot be thought, that so great a Councell, of so wise men, ordeined things repugnant one vntounto an other: and fConcil. Chalced. can. 1.9.17. & 19.they hauehave ordeined repugnant vntounto that which Thomas citeth of the Pope, as shall appeare gChapt. 9. Diuis. 4.after. But Canus hath greatly both abused you and ouershot himselfe: who, to proue that now the copies hauehave not those thinges which they had in Thomas time, bringeth Gregory for witnesse, who liued 1Aboue sixt hundred yeares.long before Thomas; and chargeth heretikes with that, wherewith Gregory chargeth 2Ab ecclesia Constantinop.Catholikes; and saith, that they hauehave razed out, where Gregory saith they hauehave 3Falsata est synodus Chalced.falsified, which they might do by adding too; and speaketh it of sundry places, which Gregory speaketh but of 4In vno loco.one, and that one (by the iudgement of your owne fréendes) an other one then those of Thomas. Now much more ingenuously should Canus hauehave done, and you (who follow him in euill,) to confesse a fault where a fault is, then to commit many for the couering of one; and for cléering Thomas, to corrupt Gregory; and to sclaunder vsus with vniust reproches, that you maye saue your selues from a iust reproofe.
Hart.
I did not peruse the place my selfe in Gregory: but tooke it, as I found it alleaged by learned men. For hAlan. Copus Dial. 1. cap. 13.Cope hath it as well as Canus. Neither doo I thinke that they did wrest it purposely: but trusting their memories for the matter in generall, did misse in setting down the words.
Rainoldes.
Neither doo I charge them as wilfull wresters of it. It may be that Canus read it in some other,iMat▪ 15.14 and Cope in Canus, and you in Cope: and thus by tradition you are deceyued from hand to hand. Remember Christes sentence. If the blind leade the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. But this may suffice for a taste of your corrupting the writings of the Fathers, before they came to the print. Now, how you hauehave vsed them since they were printed: let your setting foorth of Cyprian, first at Rome, and then at Anwerp, be an example. In the time of Cyprian, the church of Christ was troubled with the heresie of ye Nouatians, or (as they called themselues) kforeign. Epiphan. haer. 59. Cathari. August. de haeres. ad Quoduultd. haer. 3….Puritans: a faction of men, who thinking all impure and vncleane, which had fallen in the time of 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, vponupon repentaunce, such as had fallen. Against these Nouatians, the firebrands of schismes and dissensions in the Church. S. Cyprian hath writen a notable treatise lCyprian. de vnitate ecclesiae.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 1Apostolis om…ibus parem potestatem.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, 2Pari consortio praediti & hono…s & potestatis.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, mStaple. princip. doctrin. l. 6. c. 7.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 vntounto Peter but the beginning doth come from vnitie: the Romane Cyprian addeth these words, 1Et primatus Petro datur.and the primacy is geuen vntounto Peter. Where it was in Cyprian, that Christ did dispose the originall of vnitie beginning from one: the Romane Cyprian addeth, 2Vnam cathed…m con…tuit.he appointed one chaire. And againe where Cyprian said, that the church of Christ may be shewed to be one: the Romane Cyprian addeth 3Et cathedra vna.and the chaire to be one. This was well, to beginne with; that vntounto 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 nCathedra v…. Epist. 40. episcopatus vnus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars. tenetur. De vnitat. ecclesiae.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, 4Qui cathedr… Petri super quā fundata est ecclesia, deserit.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 oDist. 93. Obedientiam &c. summo pōtifici: nec in ecclesia esse poterit, qui cathedram eius deserit. Vnde Cyprianus. Qui cathedram Petri (supra quam f…data est ecclesia) de…erit: in ecclesia se e…e non confid….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 vntounto 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 pManut. epist. lib. 8. ad Pium quart.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, qPraefat. in opera Cypriani ad C…rolum Bor…m. Cardin.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 vntounto Ciprian they did not adde it rashly, or of their owne head, but with good aduise vponupon the warrant of writen copies. Which although they hauehave not declared in particular, yet may we gather it by rIacobus Pamelius, sacrae Theologiae Licentiatus, ecclesiae Brugensis canonicus.Pamelius, a Canon of the Church of Bruges, and Licentiat of diuinitie, by whom the Anwerp-Cyprian was afterward set foorth. For, sAnnot. in Cyprian. de vnit. eccles.he doth note yt 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 vntounto Peter,] are in a written copie of the Cambron-abbey: tCodex manuscriptus Abbat. Cambronensis, omniū optimus. Pamel. in codi…um indiculo.which was the best of all the copies that he had. Yea, those of [Peters primacie] not onelyonly 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 uDist. 93 c. Qui …athedram.Gratian, who hath the same words, and citeth them with Cyprians name. Whereby you may perceiue, that wee hauehave not corrupted those places of Cyprian, either in the Roman-print, or the Anwerpe: we hauehave 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; copies very auncient, men very learned, exquisite diligence vsed in it. This is it, which maketh me the more suspect it: the diligence was too exquisit. *Cicer. de oratore lib. 2.When a pety-captaine, whom Scipio did punish for that he was not in the field, said, that he remained in the campe to kéepe it: I louelove not them (quoth Scipio) that are too diligent. The campe was too well kept by the pety-captaine. The Cardinals care of Cyprian might hauehave the like fault. Manutius xEpist. lib. 9. ad …acobum Gorse…um.him selfe writeth, that his whole charge of printing bookes at Rome perteineth 1Ad Sedis Apostolicae dignitatem.to the dignitie of the Popes See. I feare me, this dignity did dasel much their eies, who perused copies to correct the Fathers. The purpose of the Pope was (as yManut. praefat▪ ad Pium quart. in librum Card. Poli de concilio.he declareth) to hauehave them so corrected, that there shoulde remaine no spot, which might infect the mindes of the simple 2False doctrinae specie.with the shew of false doctrine. Whereby, if it be weighed what [false doctrine] signifieth in the court of Rome, a mā may gesse easily how they did correct them. Chiefely, sith they hauehave not shewed where they found those wordes of [one chaire] and [primacie giuen vntounto Peter:] as zThe Louan Diuine…, in setting forth of Austin: Morelius, of Cyprian: Co…erius, of Ambrose: Erasmus, of the Fathers commonly.others vse to do in new corrections of autours. Which yet I will not condemne as a token of a guiltie conscience. It may be that they found thē in one or other bad copie. For such they folowed some, as it appereth by Pamelius: who, in sundry places correcteth the Romane print, and that iustly. But Pamelius found them in a writen copie of the Cambron-abbey, the best (he saith) of all his copies: wherein he found also the wordes which Gratian hath of cleauing to the chaire of Peter: and so *Atque adeo non sumus veriti in textum in…erere. Pamel. annot. in Cyprian. de vnit. …ccl s.he was bold to put them into Cyprians text. More bold then wise, in that. For (to see, how fansie doth oue…rule discretion,) first, if the copie of the Cambron-abbey had béene very good: yet to folowe one against so many, which him selfe, which Morelius, which other (who printed Cyprian) had, your selues would thinke it rashnes, but that it made for the Popes aduantage. Then, it is likely that the man of Cambron, who wrote that Abbey-copie, was tampering about it to square it vntounto somewhat. For aAs Pameli… sheweth, anno… ▪ in Cyprian. de vnit. …c…les.he hath left out that clause of Cyprian touching the Apostles, [1Pari co…sortio praediti & honoris & potes… ti…. endued with like felowship both of honour and of power:] and in stead ofthese wordes, 2V…lg. Sed…. ordium ab … tate proficiscitur. Cambio…. Sed primatus Petro datu….but the beginning doth come from vnitie; he hath put in th…se, but the primacy is geuen to Peter. Thirdly, ifhe altered not the wordes of purpose: yet might hee write that in the text by error, which some had noted in the margent; or if hee did not so himselfe, perhaps an other had, whom he folowed. A thing that falleth often out in writen copies. As bPr…fut. ad A… …iep. Tolet in opera A…g. Quod lector ineptien… anno…a…at in margine …ui codicis, s…rib… retulerant in contextum.Erasmus witnesseth he found S. Austins workes depra…ed much by that folly: and if you suspect the iudgement of Erasmus, cPraefat. ad lectorem de edit. operum August. 1571. Paris. apud Merlinum & Niuellium.the Paris-ouerseers consent with him in this point, though otherwise dissenting from him.
Hart.
You may reiect what euidence soeuer you li…t, if you please your selfe in such coniectures and gesses. For, if any Fathers sentence be alleaged, and you like it not: you may say, that perhaps it was noted in the margent, and some vnskilfull scriueners wrote it in the text, as they hauehave done else-where in Austin.
Rainoldes.
Not in Austin onelyonly, but in Cyprian too, as your dAn notat. in epis…. 60. In trac…at. de vnit. eccles.Pamelius hath obserued: & that euen in this treatise touching the vnity of the church. But whether I hauehave reasō to say, that the wordes (whereof we speake) in Cyprian, might come into the text out of the margent-note: I leaue it to be iudged by reasonable men vponupon the viewe of the circumstances. The writen copie (cited by eAnnot. in. Cyprian. de vnitat. eccles.Pamelius him selfe) which Cardinall Hosius occupied, conuinceth it most plainly, for the chiefest of thē. For there, after the speech of Christ vntounto Peter, alleaged out of Matthew, these wordes are interlaced, Hic Petro primatus datur, Here the primacie is giuen vntounto Peter. Which to hauehave béene noted by some in the margent, it is so manifest, that neither the Romane-print nor the Anwerp could bring them into Cyprians text, but either by chaunging or leauing out the word [Here:] fRoman. Et primatus Petro datur.the one hath chaunged it into the word▪ [And,] gAntuerp. Primatus Petro datur.the other hath left it out. That the rest of [one chaire] crept in by like stealth: it is very probable, though harder to conuince. But the last of [sticking vntounto Peters chaire] added by Pamelius, doo séeme to hauehave lept into the text sodainely, before the margent sawe them. For, they are written not onelyonly in the copie of the Cambron-abbey, but in Gratian too. And thereupon Pamelius saith that he was bold to put them into Cyprians text. Now shall the Fathers be well amended shortly, if you amend them out of Gratian: a man, who in fauour of the Popes State hath forged and falsified the writings of the Fathers most lewdly and shamefully. Knowe you not his famous abusing of S. Austin hDistinct. 19. c. …n canoni…is. Ex A…gust. de doctr. Christ …. c. 8.whom hee hath made to say, that *Inter canon…cas scriptur… decre…ales epistol… connume…antur.the decretall epistles (as you terme them) of the Popes are counted in the number of the Canonicall Scriptures? Howbeit, if he hauehave not abused Cyprian so: yet he rather hurteth then helpeth the corrections of your newe prints. For, where i24. q. 1. cap. Loquitur.he alleageth that whole place of Cyprian, which they hauehave made such change in, he neither hath [the primacie is giuen vntounto Peter,] nor [Christ appointed one chaire,] nor [that the chaire may be shewed to be one.] Wherefore if his authoritie may warrant the soundnes of things that are cited by him out of the Fathers: he bringeth you greater discredit, then credit, for that which you hauehave changed in Cyprian.
Hart.
The clause, which Pamelius added to Cyprian, he added on the warrant not of Gratians credit, but of the Cambron-copie. Wherewith, as far as Gratian agreed, he approued him: he approued him not, in that he disagreed from it. Neither is it any discredit to Pamelius, to hauehave rather folowed that copie, then Gratian: sith Gratian hath missed sometimes (as we graunt) in citing of the Fathers; perhaps by setting down not so much their wordes as that which he conceiued to be meant thereby. But these are small matters, whereto you picke quarrels in the print of Cyprian, at Rome, or at Anwerpe; for this, or that correction: that you may séeme to hauehave some pretense yet, why you refuse tryall by the consent of the Fathers in controuersies of religion.
Rainoldes.
When a young man, whom *Diog. La…. de vit. philosophor. lib. 3.…Plato reprooued for plaing at dice, said, Doo you reproue me for so small a matter? The matter is small, quoth Plato, but the custome of it is no small matter. So the matters may be small, which I reproue in your correcting of Cyprian: but the custome of such correcting is no smal matter. For Gratian (you graunt) setteth down sometimes not the wordes of the Fathers, but that which hee conceiueth to be meant thereby: what if he misse-conceiue it? And howsoeuer that be: what if here he aimed at the meaning of Cyprian? As it may séeme he did: for kGratian. In e… cl…sia se esse no… confidat. Camb…. In ecclesia se esse confidit?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 vponupon 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 vntounto 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 vponupon one copie, as good as the Cambron; presume, in all the Fathers, as he hath in Cypriā; 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 vsus 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 onelyonly. For he, on whom you groūded, Vincentius Lirinensis, alloweth onelyonly scripture, to conuince those errors which hauehave 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 hauehave 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 hauehave 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 lPraefat. in opera Cypriani ad Carolum Bor…om. Card.whom hee sought most credit: what did his mManut. epist. lib. 10. ad Cardin. Sirlet.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 nAnno Domini 1574. apud Se… Ni…ellium.Paris, the Paris other-where perhaps, and the newer the worser, and the worst accounted best by such as D. oPrincip. doctrin. …. 6. cap. 7▪ & 15.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 vsus: but of conscience, that I may yeelde due glory to God, due reuerence to his word. For, let such forgeries, as I hauehave spoken of, be set apart:The third diuision. and what hauehave 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, pChap. 4. Diuis. 3. out of Stapleton prine, doctr. l. 6. c. 13.before, and them acknowledged to be their owne, not counterfeits, geue Peter ye supremacie, which you call pretended. For S. qEpist. 11. ad August. inter epist. Aug.Ierom saith of him, Peter was of so great authoritie, that Paul wrote, Then after three yeares, and so forth: and S. rDe bapt. contr. Donat. l. 2. c. 1.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 tIn epistolama…. Gal. cap. 1.Theodoret, sIn Iohannem homil. 87.the prince of the Apostles; the prince, which title also is geuen him by all antiquitie. Wherto *Staplet prin…. doct. lib. 6. c. 7. & Torrens. confess, Augustin. l. 1. c. 9. tit. 1. & 2.I may adde that uIn Anchorat.Epiphanius termeth him foreign, as you would say, the highest of the Apostles: and xQuaest. ex No… Test. quaest. 75. Tractat 124. in Iohannem.S. Austin yet farther, their head, & their President, & the first of them: which preeminence he prooueth also out of S. yEpist. ad Qui… tum. apud Aug. de bapt. cont. Do… l. …. …. 1.Cyprian, who saith that the Lord did choose Peter first: & S. zAduers… I… uiman. lib. ….Ierom teacheth, that Peter was chosen, one, among the twelue, to the intēt 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 giuegive 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 tha… supremacie, is signified the s…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 aChap. … 2. ….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 hauehave ouer their inferiors for the good ordering of mankind: as bRom. 13.1.Princes ouer subiectes, c2. Cor. 13.10.Pastors ouer flocks, dMat. 8.9Masters ouer seruants, e…. Cor. 11.10.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 vsus. And this an inferior may hauehave with his superior. As f…. Sam. 16.23.Achithophel, a counsellor, had such authority with his Prince, that his counsell was regarded, as an oracle of God: and gAct. 5.40.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 w…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, *Chap. 3. Diuis. 1.when I spake of the keies, that Christ did geue to Peter. But, although the words be taken for the same in a 1foreign, as the Gramma…ians cal it.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 hPhilip. 3. Autoritas tribuenda est.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, iPro leg. Manil. Scientia reī militaris, virtus▪ autoritas, felicitas.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 kIn Pisonem.he saide, that Metellus, *Priuatus fieri vetuit, atque id quod nondum potestate poterat, obtinuit autoritate.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 hauehave 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 1Qui videbantur aliquid esse. Ex Gal. 2.2. Gr. foreignesteemed: by whome hee meaneth 2Petri, & cae…ero…m apostolorum.Peter and other Apostles, euen them, whom lGaia. 2. foreign ▪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 hauehave 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 hauehave 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, mMat. 10.2.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 hauehave not a fit word deriued from our English [first] as 1Primatus.primacie is deriued from the [2Primus. first] in Latin: yet they who know reason will neuer deny, but that he that is first, hath the first…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 hauehave 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 onelyonly.
Rainoldes.
And because S. Matthew, (as it is more likely) meant not a primacie of power to one there, where nMat. 10.5.he sheweth that Christ gaue the same power to all the Apostles: thereof doo I gather that he meant a primacie of order onelyonly, 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. oDe bap…ism. contra Don. l. 2. c. 1.For Austin doth build it vponupon the ground of Cyprian: and pDe vnit. eccles.Cyprian doth teach, that Christ gaue 1Parem potestatem Apostolis omnibus.equall power to all the Apostles. The truth is, they meant a primacie in calling: to wéet, that 2Petrus, quem p…imum Dominus elegit.the Lord did choose Peter first, as qEpist. 71. ad Quintum.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 fi…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 hauehave cleaued still to the primacie of order. For Peter, in order was the first in déed: and so I deny not but he might hauehave béene, though he had bene equall in power to his brethren. But he was not the first in calling. For S. rComment. in 2. epist. ad Corinthios cap. 12.Ambrose saith: Andrew first folowed our Sauiour before Peter, and yet Andrew receiued not the primacie, but Peter. And S. sDe baptism. contr. Donat. l. 2. c. 1.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 hauehave smaller credit with you,) for S. tIn Ezechielem homil. 18.Gregory saith so: 3Primus in Apostolatum vocatus.Peter was called to the Apostleship first. But there is no dissension betwéene them and Ambrose, if all their wordes be weighed. For Ambrose saith, that Andrew did first folowe Christ: and they say, that Peter was called first of Christ. The truth of both which is plaine by the scriptures. For uIohn 1. ver. 40.Andrewe folowed Christ, before Peter knewe him: and he brought Peter vntounto Christ. But xver. 42.Christ said to Peter, yComment. in epist. ad Gal. cap. 1.Thou shalt be called Cephas, (wherein he meant him the Apostleship,) before hee spake a word of the Apostleship to Andrewe. And so doth Ambrose séeme him selfe to expound his meaning otherwhere: affirming of Peter, that 4Primus erat inter Apostolos, cui Saluator delegauerat curam ecclesiarum.he was the first among the Apostles to whom our Sauiour had committed the charge of the churches. Whereby he giueth Peter ye primacie in being called to the Apostleship: thogh he gaue a primacie in discipleship (as it were) I meane, in folowing Christ, to Andrew. As for S. Austins words, which (you say) import that he meant a primacie, notin calling, but preeminēce: you should hauehave rather said yt he meant a primacie, in calling, & preeminence both. For out of al doubt he meant a primacie in calling. But your fréends, who dismember the sayings of the Fathers, doo stand in your light, that you can not sée it. For as zPrincip. doctr. lib. 6. cap. 13.Stapleton did cut out *Quia primus erat inter Apostolos. And so he leaneth Ambrose to say, that it was meet Paule should desire to see Peter, to whom our Sauiour had committed the charge of the churches. As if to him alone: not to the rest of the Apostles.the former wordes of Ambrose, that Peter might be thought the onelyonly man who had the charge of the churches, not the first of them who had it: so hath Torrensis cut of the later words of Austin, that the primacie of Peter might be thoght a primacie in power, not in calling; or, if in calling, in power too. The primacie of the Apostles is conspicuous and praeeminent with excellent grace in the Apostle Peter: thus saith Torrensis out of Austin. And these are bDe baptism. contr. Donatist. lib. 2. cap. 1.Austins wordes: but his words say farther, that Peter the Apostle, in whom that grace and primacie are so preeminent, 5A posteriore apostolo Paulo esse correctum.was corrected by Paule a later Apostle. Wherein, naming Paule, [a later Apostle,] as made Apostle, after Peter, in time: he sheweth,aConfession. Augustinian. lib. 1. cap. 9. tit. 1. that of the other side he meant by [the primacie,] yt Peter was an Apostle, in time, before Paule. As Ambrose saith of the chiefest of the Apostles, that they were before Paule, 6Non dignitate, sed tempore.not in dignitie, but in time. And dEpist. 71. ad Quintum.Cyprian (whom Austin alleageth, and foloweth) doth vse the worde [7Vt diceretse primatum tenete: et obtēperari a nouellis & posteris sibi potius oportere. primacie] in the same sense of being first in time also. Wherefore, the Fathers proue not your supremacie by giuing the prerogatiue of primacie to Peter.cComment. in 2. epist. ad Cor. cap. 12.
Hart.
The bare name of primacie is not enough to prooue it. But some by that name hauehave meant a supremacie. And surely, the preeminence with excellent grace, which Austin giueth Peter, doth note a higher primacie, then either of order, or calling, or time: though it with all too.
Rainoldes.
It doth so, I graunt. And I noted that, in the third prerogatiue which the Fathers giuegive him: namely, principalitie. For cDe bapt. contr. Donatist. lib. 2. cap. 1.Austin, hauing ioined his primacie and preeminence with excellent grace togither, doth terme them both, in one, 8Principatum apostolatus.the principalitie of the Apostleship. Which if some hauehave meant by the name of primacie, as perhaps they hauehave: they might, because the word is borowed often times from the proper signification of the first in order, to signifie the chiefe in quality. And so, when fIn Iohannem Tractat. 124.Austin saith, that Peter was 9Natura vnus homo, gratia vnus Christianus abundantiori gratia v…us idemque primus: Apostolus.a man by nature; a Christian by grace; by more aboundant grace, an Apostle of Christ, yea, the first Apostle: by, the first Apostle, he meant the chiefe Apostle; the principalitie, by the primacie. But this principalitie of the Apostleship, this preeminence of the primacie with grace so excellent and aboundant, cometh no néerer vntounto your supremacie then did the primacie of order. For, to be chiefe in grace, is one thing: and, to be chiefe in power, an other.
Hart.
And is it not a great grace, to be chiefe in power?
Rainoldes.
As you say: the greatest grace, that your Popes of long time hauehave fought for. Yet there is a difference betwéene grace and power. Which the Popes gDistinct. 20. c. Decretales.Lawiers hauehave obserued well: as it behoued them to doo. For many Doctors hauehave beene endued with greater 1Gratia sancti spiritus.grace of the holy Ghost, then sundry Popes, saith Gratian: yet in the deciding of controuersies and causes the writings of the Doctors are of lesse authoritie then the Popes decrees. Why? because the Popes are in 2Potestate.power aboue them. But what speake I of Doctors? when the meanest Christians may passe the Pope in grace, as it is confessed by Cardinall hIn summa de Eccles. lib. 2. cap. …2.Turrecremata. Who, handling the question betwéen the Pope and the Church, whether of them is greater, when he had set downe the reason of his aduersaries, that the Church is greater, because it is the bodie, the Pope a member of it, and the whole must needes be greater then the part: he answereth thereto, that, the question is not whether the Church be greater then the Pope, simply, to weete, 1Perfectione gratiae, & a… plitudine virtutum.in perfection of grace, and amplenes of vertues; *Quoniam etiam vna vetula potest esse hoc modo perfection ac major ipso Papa.for euen an old woman may in this sort be perfiter and greater then the Pope him selfe; but 2Potestate iurisdictionis▪in power of iurisdiction (he saith) the Pope is greater. Wherfore if the Popes supremacie do stand in power of iurisdiction, and a woman may be aboue him in grace: then Peter might excel with the preeminence of grace, as Austin saith he did: and yet not excel in supremacie of power, which you conclude of it. Else, you must take the supremacie from Peter, and giuegive it to the blessed virgin. Unlesse you you will deny that she excelled him in grace.
Hart.
I will not deny it. Neither did I meane to prooue the supremacy by the preeminence of grace, alone, in Peter: but by the preeminence of so excellent grace, concurring with the primacy. Whereto, because you think these priuileges (touched by Austin) doo not prooue it: the title of the Prince of the Apostles, which As the Rhemistes say, In the argum. of the epist. of S. Peter: concluding thereof, that Christ made him his vicar.all antiquitie geueth him, may adde weight and strength.
Rainoldes.
Which all antiquitie geueth him? That spéech is too lauishing. Beside that, 1Prudentius foreign. hymn .2. Duo Apostolorum principes. As the Rhemists also note, in the tab. after ye actes of the Apostles: not considering, that so Christ must hauehave two vicars by their conclusion.some of them who geue it to him, geue it to Paul also. But suppose that all: and to him onelyonly. What is there implyed more in this title, then I hauehave graunted you already? For must he not be needes the Prince of the Apostles, to whom the principalitie of the Apostleship is allowed? And if the principalitie of the Apostleship inferre not your supremacie: can you inferre a supreme head by the Prince of the Apostles? But the name of Prince perhaps doth deceiue you, or you deceiue others by it. For our English tongue dooth vse it to note a soueraine power in gouernment: as iIer. 26.10.the Princes of Iuda, kEzek. 4….9.the Princes of Israel, lMat. 20.…5.the Princes of the Gentiles are named in the scriptures. Whereas the Fathers vsed it (after the Latin phrase) for chiefe, and most excellent: as Plato is named the prince of the Philosophers. As Plato, saith mAduersus Pelagianos, lib. 1. Vt Plato princeps philosophorum: ita Pe…us Apostolorum fuit.Ierom, was prince of the philosophers, so was Peter of the Apostles. Wherefore, this is all you may conclude of it, that Peter did excell amongst the Apostles, for grace and giftes of grace: 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 eueryevery 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 nAduersus Iouinian. lib. 1.Ierom declareth. And Paule excelled him farther euen in the chiefest giftes: in so much that oDe bapt cōt. Donatist. l. 2. c. 1.Austin who geueth 1Excellenti gratia.excellent grace to Peter, pIn psal. 130.dooth geue 2Excellentissi…ae …it gratiae.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 qApostolus. A…g. contra duas epist. Pelagianorum lib. 3. cap. 3.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 (rHierom. aduers. Iouinian. lib. 1. Aetati delatum est, quia Petrus era… senior. by Ieroms opiniō) 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 hauehave shewed) are their own wordes, by which, a preeminence in gouernment is prooued, and not in grace onelyonly.
Rainoldes.
These in déede come néerer to the point in question, because they touch gouernment: at the least some of thē. For some, as sforeign.the highest (and so the toppe it may be too,) séeme to hauehave béene meant rather of preeminence in grace, then in gouernment. But if you will referre them vntounto 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.*foreign as Peter is called by Eusebius hist. eccle. lib. 2. cap. 14. This is plaine by that, which was agreed betwixt vsus, tChapter. 4. Diuision 1.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 ye Parlament in England, or the President of a court of Parlament in Fraunce, and shewed the great difference (out of uFranc. Duar. de sacris eccle. min. acbene. l. 3. c. 2.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 vnderunder 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, yt some of ye rest might note such a preeminēce in gouernment (as you speake of) without a souerainty of power. But, ye title of head hath greater strength in it. For, the Speaker is not called with vsus, in England, the head of the Parlament. That title is reserued to the Princ e alone.
Rainoldes.
But x…s it is shewed before out of Duaren, who saith of that court, Cuius curiae caput es… Praeses dicitur.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 1caput.head, by 2praepositus.President: and the name of head (as zChap. 1. Diuision 2.I hauehave 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,yAutor quaest ex Nou. Test. qu…est. 75. 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 vntounto 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 *This is the reason, & place of S. Ierom, whereon Sixtus Senensis doth gather Peters kingly powers: mentioned before, Chap. 2. Diuis. 3.reason sheweth, that hée rather meant a soueraintie as of a Prince. For he …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 hauehave 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 commō, not 1foreign.by one Prince but 2foreign.by the best men, or 3foreign.by the whole people: doo not their stories shew, that one had a preeminence, (as Ech of the Consuls for his month. Sueton. in Iulio, cap. 20.the Consul at Rome, bEch of the foreign, for theyr wecke: ech foreign. for his day. Liban. argument. orat. Demost. in Androtion.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 cHieron. aduer. sus Iouin. lib. 2.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 vponupon Peter: he answereth thereto, Although the same be done in another place 1Super omnes Apostolos.on all the Apostles, and 2Cuncti claues regni coelorum accipiant.they all receiue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen, & the strength of the church is grounded on them 3Ex aequo.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 yt 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 vponupon him. But all the Apostles receiue the keyes, by Ieroms iudgement: and the church is builte vponupon them 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 vponupon them all equally. And, as D. dPrinci. doct. lib. 6. cap. 7.Stapleton noteth very well, 1Distinctio, d… his quae a patribus dogmaticé & quae contentio s… scribuntur, in verbis Hieron vmi locum habet.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 giuegive 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 Hieron. in a…polog. ad Pammachium pro libris aduersus Iouinian.being therefore reproued by some, himselfe excuseth it, that he did rather striue thē teach: and fHieron. in epistola ad Pamm.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 Extenuat Hieronymus (quantum per ueritat…m licuit) Petri autoritatem.Ierom doth lessen and extenuate the authoritie of Peter, as far as truth did giuegive 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 ye 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 vsus.
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: gMat. 11.14,this is Elias. Iohn Baptist said of him selfe, hIohn 1.21.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 i… 1.17.in the spirit and power of Elias: Iohn Baptist, that he was not Elias in person; which the Pharisees meant.
Rainoldes.
You hauehave 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 giuegive 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 giuegive 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 kSraplet. prin…. dectrin. lib. 6. cap. 7. & 14. &c.we do expound the words of S. Cyprian, S. Ierom, S. Chrysostome, and other of the Fathers: who giuegive equall power to the Apostles with Peter.
Rainoldes.
Yet more of these Colewortes? I hauehave proued lChapt. 3. Diuis. 1.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, mAnnotat. in Cyprian. excusum Romae a Paulo Manutio.he noteth it to be considered, that, whereas Cyprian saith, The rest of the Apostles had equall power with Peter, this must be vnderstood *De aequalitate Apostolatus, qui cum Apostolis morientibus cessauit, nec ad Episcopos trans…it.of the equalitie of Apostleship, which ceased when the Apostles died, and passed not ouer vntounto 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 hauehave 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 hauehave 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 vntounto it.