Conference Between Rainolds and Hart

You have heard, master Hart, from the Right honorable M. Secretary Walsyngham, the cause why he hath sent for me to come unto you: to confer with you concerning matters of religion, for the better informing of your conscience and judgment. In the which respect you signified unto him yourself to be willing to confer with any man: so that you might be charitably and Christianly dealt withal.

In deed I did signify so much to M. Secretary: neither am I unwilling to do that I have promised. Howbeit, I wish rather, that if a conference be purposed, the learned men of our side, whom we have many beyond sea, might be sent for hither, of riper years, and sounder judgment. As for me: the condition of conference with you is somewhat vn-even. For I lie in prison, and am adjudged to die: the closenesse of the one, & terror of the other, doth dull a man's spirits, and make him very unfit for study. I neither am of great years, nor ever was of great reading: and yet of that which I have read I have forgotten much, by reason of my long restraint. I am destitute of books: we are not permitted to have any at all, saving the Bible only. You of the other side may have books at will: and you come fresh from the university: whereby you are the readier to use them and allege them. These are great disaduantages, for me to enter into conference with you. Nevertheless, I am content, as I have said, to do it: so that my wants may be supplied with furniture of books, such as I shall desire.

The learned men of your side, it lieth not in me to procure hither. I would to God none of them had ever come from Rome with traitorous intent, nay more then intent: to move rebellion against our Soueraine, and arm the subjects against the Prince. It had fared better both with you and others, who came from him that sent them. Your imprisonment and danger, which hath hereon ensued, I can more easily pity then relieve. I wish you were at liberty: so that her highness were satisfied, whom you have offended. The condition of conference, the which is offered you: is not so vn-even in deed as in show. For although I come fresh from the university: yet I come from one of those universities, wherein yourselves report, that few of us do study: and those few that study, study but a few questions of this time only: and that so lightly, that we be afeard to reason with common Catholics: or, if we do reason, the common sort of Catholics are able to answer all our arguments, and to say also more for us, then we can say for our selves. You of the other side have been brought up in one of those Seminaries, wherein all truth is studied, the masters teach all truth, the scholars learn all truth: & the course of divinity (which our students, nay our Doctors and Readers cannot tell almost what it meaneth) is read over in four years, with so great exactness, that if a man follow his study diligently, he may become a learned Divine, and take degree. Yea, besides the Lectures of positive Divinity, of Hebrew, of controversies, of Cases of conscience: the Lecture of Scholastical Divinity alone, (wherein the whole body of perfect Theology doth consist) doth teach, within the same four years, all the points of Catholic faith in such sort, that thereby the hearers come to understand, not only what is in the scriptures about a matter of faith, but also whatsoever is in all the Tomes of Councils, writings of Fathers, volumes of Ecclesiastical histories, or in any other Author worthy the reading. Wherefore, since you have heard this course of divinity, and have been admitted to take degree therein upon the hearing of it: you may not allege vnripenes of years, or reading, or judgment: especially against me, before whom, in time so long, in place so incomparable, you took degree in divinity: if yet our degrees may go for degrees, the Pope having deprived us of them. But you have no books, saving the Bible only. You are, it is likely, the redier in that book: chiefly since at Reims beside your private study of it, you were exercised in it daily, by reading over certain Chapters, wherein the hard places were all expounded, the doubts noted, the controversies which arise betwixt you and us resolved, the arguments, which our side can bring unto the contrary, perspicuously and fully answered. So that with this armor you are the more strongly prepared against me: who can be content to deal with you in conference by that book alone, as by the book of all truth. Notwithstanding, though you complain, I know you may have more books, if you would have such as are best for you to read. But you would have such as might nourish your humor: from reading of the which they, who restrain you, are your friends. If a man do surfeit of variety of dishes, the Phisicion doth well to diet him with one wholesome kind of meat. Perhaps it were better for some of us, who read all sortes, that we were tied to that alone, & suffered part of your restraint. We are troubled about many things: but one thing is needful. Many please the fancy better; but one doth profit more y ^e mind. He was a wise preacher, who said, The reading of many books is a weariness unto the flesh: and therefore exhorted men to take instruction by the words of truth, the words of the wise, which are given by one pastor: even by Jesus Christ, whose spirit did speak in the Prophets and Apostles, and taught his Church the truth by them. Howbeit, for as much as God hath given gifts to men, pastors, and teachers, whose labor might help us to understand the words of that one pastor: we do receive thankfully the monuments of their labor, left in writing to the Church, which they were set to build, either several, as the Doctors ; or assembled, as the Councils: & we do gladly read them as Pastors of the Church. Yet so, that we put a difference between them, and that one Pastor. For God did give him the spirit not by measure : the rest had a measure of grace and knowledge through him. Wherefore, if to supply your whatsoever wants, you would have the books of Doctors and Councils, to use them as helps for the better understanding of the book of Christ : your wants shall be supplied, you shall not need to fear disadvantage in this respect. For M. Secretary hath taken order that you shall have what books you will: unless you will such as cannot be gotten.

The books that I would have, are principally in deed the Fathers and the Councils : which all do make for us, as do the scriptures also. But for my direction to find out their places in all points of controversy which I can neither remember redily, nor dare to trust myself in them: I would have our writers, which in the several points (whereof they treat) have cited them, and build themselves upon them. In the question of the Church and the supremacy, Doctor Stapleton ; of the Sacraments, and sacrifice of the Mass, Doctor Allen ; of the worshipping of Saints and Images, Doctor Harpsfield, whose books were set forth by Alan Cope, & bear his name, as certain letters in them show. Likewise for the rest of the pointes that lie in controversy, them who in particular have best written of them: & for them all in general, S. Thomas of Aquine, & Father Roberts Dictates, and chiefly the confession that Torrensis, another father of the society of Jesus, hath gathered out of S. Augustine, which book we set the more by, because of all the Fathers S. Augustine is the chiefest, as well in our as your judgment: and his doctrine is the common doctrine of the Fathers: whose consent is the rule whereby controversies should be ended.

These you shall have (God willing) and if you will Canisius too: because he is so full of texts of Scriptures, and Fathers, and many do esteem him highly. But this I must request you, to look on the originalles of Scriptures, Councils, Fathers, which they do allege. For they do persuade you that all do make for you: but they abuse you in it. They borrow some gold out of the Lord's treasure house, and wine out of the Doctors presses▪ but they are deceitful workmen, they do corrupt their gold with dross, their wine with worse then water.

You shall find it harder to convince them of it, then to charge them with it.

And you shall find it harder to make proof of half, then to make claim of all. Yet you shall see both youre claim of all the Scriptures and Fathers to be more confidente then just: and my reproof of your writers for their corrupting and forging of them, as plainly proved as uttered, if you have eyes to see. God lighten your eyes, that you may see: & open your ears, that you may hear: and give you both a soft heart and understanding mind, that you may be able wisely to discern, and gladly to embrace the truth when you shall hear it.

I trust I shall be able always, both to see, and to follow the truth. But I am persuaded you will be never able to show that that is the truth, which your Church professeth. As by our conference (I hope) it shall be manifest.

Will you then (to lay the ground of our conference) let me know the causes why you separate yourself, and refuse to communicate with the Church of England in prayers and religion?

The causes are not many. They may be all comprysed in one. Your Church is no Church: You are not members of the Church.

How prove you that?

By this argument. The Church is a company of Christian men professing one faith, under one head. You profess not one faith, under one head. Therefore you are not of the Church.

What is that one faith?

The catholic faith.

Who is that one head?

The Bishop of Rome.

Then both the propositions, of which you frame your argument, are in part faulty. The first, in that you say, the church is a company of Christian men under one head. The second, in that you charge us of the church of England, that we profess not one faith. For we do profess that one faith, the catholic faith. But we deny that the church is bound to be subject to that one head, the bishop of Rome.

I will prove the pointes of both my propositions, the which you have denied. First, that the church must be subject to the Bishop of Rome as to her head. Next, that the faith, which you profess in England is not the catholic faith.

You will say somewhat for them: but you will never prove them.

Let the church judge. For the first, thus I prove it. S. Peter was head of all the Apostles. The Bishop of Rome succeedeth Peter, in the same power over Bishops, that he had over the Apostles. Therefore the Bishop of Rome is head of all Bishops. If of Bishops; then by consequent of the dioceses subject to them. If of all their dioceses; then of the whole church. The Bishop of Rome therefore is head of the whole church of Christ.

S. Peter was head of all the Apostles? The Bishop of Rome is head of all Bishops? I had thought that Christ our Savior both was, and is the head, as of the whole church, so of Apostles, of Bishops, of all the members of it. For the church is his body: and he alone performeth the duty of an head unto it, by giving it power of life, of feeling, of moving: and him hath God appointed to be the head to the Church, and by him all the body furnished and knit together by iointes and bands, increaseth with the increasing of God.

We grant that Christ is properly the head of the church, the principal and quickening head. But this head is imperial, so to term him, and invisible. The Pope is a visible, and ministerial head: yet in truth a head also. For of the head there are two duties: the one, to be the fountain out of the which there floweth life into the rest of the body; the other, to direct by his rule and power the outward functions of the body. The former duty doth agree to God alone and Christ. The later, to the service and ministry of men too.

This your answer of two heads doth stand with more reason, then his, who said that Christ, and Christ's vicar Peter, and Peters successor the Pope, are all but one head of the church. Howbeit, so to make a twofold head, as you do, by the variety of two duties: it is not to divide but to rent a sunder the duties of the head, and to make the Pope a head imperial rather then a ministerial. For, by rule and power to direct either the inward or outward functions of the body, is the chief and proper function of the head, agreeing to that head alone, that giveth power of life and feeling and moving to the body. Wherefore, since Christ, having bound him self by his promise to be with us until the end of the world, doth give this power unto his church by the effectual working of his holy spirit, which doth quicken both the whole and every member of his body: they who do divide the preeminence of this duty between him and the Pope, allotting to him the inward, to the Pope the outward functions to be directed, deserve to be attainted of treason against the Lord. For seeing that to exercise this rule and dominion, is a prerogative royal, and proper to the king of kings: to give it either in whole or in part to any subject, cannot be a lesser offense then hie treason.

If you account this to be treason against the Lord, and do attaint us of it: You must attaint him self of it, who by his word hath brought us to it. For S. Paul comparing the church unto a body, to show the sundry gifts of Christians, and in their sundry gifts their several duties by the similitude of members, doth mention a head amongst them: The e • e cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee, nor the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Here the name of head must by all likelihood be meant of the Pastor in respect of the flock. But it cannot be meant of Christ. For he may say to us, I have no need of you: and so he willeth us also (when we shall have done all things that are commanded us) to say, we are unprofitable servants. It must be meant therefore of Peter in respect of the rest of the Apostles, and by consequent of the Pope in respect of all Bishops.

If Paul had so meant it, either of Peter or of the Pope: he had a tongue of the learned, he could easily have so expounded it. But, in the applying of his similitude to his purpose, he showeth that he meant, by the name of head, them who had the greatest graces of God's spirit: by feet, hands, and eyes, them who not so great, though greater some then other.

Them who had the greatest? Nay: the name of head doth show it must be one, and that, one visible head (which we call a ministerial head under Christ) proportionable to the body of Christ, I mean the Church. Of the which visible and ministerial head those words of S. Paul may be truly verified, The head cannot say to the feet, I have no need of you.

Indeed, if the Pope be signified by the head, those words will fit him well. For Cardinal Poole discoursing on the same reason of the Popes supremacy, doth make as him the head, so kings to be the feet. And it is true the Pope cannot say to kings, I have no need of you. It would be hard going for him if they were not. But if, because Saint Paul doth in that similitude mention a head, therefore there must be one visible head proportionable to the body of Christ, that is, y ^e Church: then because S. Paul doth mention the feet, there must be needs also two visible feet, by the like proportion. Now I would gladly know of you Master Hart, which you will make the two feet of your church. The Emperor I trow, must be the right foot. The left, who? The king of Spain ? What shall the French king do then? It is well that the king of Scots is no member of it: nor the king of Denmark. Marry we had news of the king of Sweden that Jesuits had converted him. Shall he be the left foot? Or shall the king of Poleland set in a foot for it? Or is the king of Boheme nearer it? There is a king of Bungo too, who is reported to protect your religion in his countries, and likewise the Great Turk, & other princes of Muhammad's sect : they may be feet in time also. But how many feet may this body have? May it have six, seven, eight, may it have twenty visible feet: and may it not have ten, not four, not two, may it have but one visible head?

Cardinal Pole compareth kings unto feet, not as though they were the lowest partes of the church, (for he counteth them as special members, though not heads) but because the church in the course of her growth was last of all increased with them, as with feet, and so did make an end of growing.

Then in Saint Paul's time the church had no feet, but a head without them. And what doth he mean to say that the head could not speak to the feet, when it had no feet to speak too?

Yes, it had feet then, but of another sort. For they, who were of lower degrees and meaner gifts in the church of Christ, are resembled to feet in comparison of others who were in those respects as hands, and eyes, above them.

And do you think the church had but two such feet? Or had it many hundreds? For Christians were grown long before to thousands, and it is not likely the most of them were eyes and hands.

It had (no doubt) many. But you must not rack the members of similitudes beyond the principal pointes whereto they are applied and meant. For else you might infer too, that the church must have but two eyes, and two hands, because a man's body (to which S. Paul resembleth the church) hath no more.

As you say. Yet this is the mould of your own reason, wherein you cast the church to have one visible head proportionable to the body. A fancy more proportionable to the limbs of Popery, then to Saint Paul's doctrine touching the body of Christ. For his drift and purpose therein is to show, that as a man's body is made of sundry members, which are not all as excellent one as another, the hand as the head, the foot, as the hand, yet they are joined together to care one for another, all to maintain the body: so the body of Christ, that is to say, the church consisteth of sundry Christians, as members, some of greater gifts and callings then some, the Apostles then y ^t teachers, the teachers then the helpers, yet all joined together to love and serve one another, and keep the church in unity. whereby it is manifest, first, that in naming the head he considereth it not as a head properly, but only as a principal member. For so he applieth it, naming all Christians, members: and calling them the body of Christ, he putteth Christ to be the head. Next, that by the name of head so considered, he meaneth no one man, but all the Apostles, as them who were endued with the chiefest gifts, and placed in the highest function. Wherefore if that word be strained to the uttermost, as far as by the text it may: the proof that it yieldeth will argue a preeminence of the Apostles in general over the inferior members of the church, but no power of Peter over the rest of the Apostles, much less of the Pope over his fellow-bishops.

Yet this it doth prove, that the name of head is not so given unto Christ, but that it may be given unto a mortal man also. Not as a head properly (you say,) but as a principal member. And what said I else? For I granted that Christ is properly the head of the church: the Pope improperly. Yet you reproved me for it.

I reproved you not because you gave the title of head unto the Pope, for he should be a pastour of the church of Rome: and pastors (for their gifts above the members of their churches) ought to be like heads, though many of them be tails as the prophet calleth them: but because you named him head of the whole church, and that in such sort as it is due to none but Christ. For though you granted Christ to be the quickening head, that is to say, the fountain whence there floweth life into the rest of the body: yet you gave the Pope this sovereignty of headship, that he should direct by his rule and power the outward functions of the body. Wherein, as of the one side you debase the worthiness of his gifts, who giveth us Pastors and Teachers, in that you do appoint them to guide only the outward functions of his body, whereas he hath given them to the full perfiting of his Saints : so, of the other side you detract somewhat from the sovereignty of Christ, when you give his servants dominion to guide his church by rule and power, whereas they are ordained, to the work of the ministry. Wherefore, howsoever you alay the title which you give the Pope, and say you call him head, not properly, but improperly, a ministerial head: yet you do imply that in this [improperly] which can agree to none but him that properly is a head, a head that doeth quicken, guide, and move the body. Even as in your Canon law it is said of Peter: The Lord did commit the charge of preaching the truth unto him principally, to the intent that from him, as it were from a certain head, he might pour abroad his gifts as it were into all the body.

These words that you reprove in the Canon law, are the words of a man of singular wit and judgment, famous both for holiness and learning, Saint Leo, an ancient father, who did flourish above a thousand years ago.

They a • e the words I grant, of an ancient, a witty, a learned holy man, but a man: and, that is more, a Bishop of Rome. Now men, even the holiest, while they live in the flesh, have some contagion of the flesh: and learning may puff up, as it did the Corinthians: and the best wits are soonest tainted with ambition: yea James and John, the sons of thunder, desired superiority: and Rome a great City did nourish great stateliness, and that even in the Bishops of that City before Leo. So they loving preeminence, as Diotrephes did, took all occasions to get it, and sought some colors to maintain it. Wherefore, as one (in Tully ) said to Hortensius, when he immoderately praised eloquence, that he would have lift her up into heaven, that himself might have gone up with her, as having greatest right unto her: so many Bishops of Rome, and Leo not the least of them, did lift up Saint Peter with praises to the skye, that themselves might rise up with him, as being forsooth his heirs. The Epistles and Sermons of Leo have manifest marks of this affection: as, to give a taste of them, The Lord did take Peter into the feloship of the indivisible unity: and, We acknowledge the most singular care of the most blessed Peter for us all, in this that God hath loosed the deceits of all slanderers: and, My writings be strengthened by the merit and authority of my Lord most blessed Peter the Apostle: and, Peter having confirmed the judgment of his See in decision of faith, hath not suffered anything amiss to be seen about any of your persons, who have labored with us for the Catholic faith: and, We beseech you, and advise you to keep the things decreed of us, through the inspiration of God, & the Apostle most blessed Peter: &, If anything be well done or decreed of us, if anything be obtained of God's mercy by daily prayers, it is to be ascribed to S. Peters works and merits, whose power doth live, and authority excel in his own See: and, He was so plentifully watered of the fountain of all graces, that whereas he received many things alone, yet nothing passeth over to any man but by him. To be short, Leo, & by his example his successors after him, are so full of such speeches, that in the common phrase of themselves and their Secretaries, all things pertaining to the Popes, were grown to be S. Peters: their prerogative, S. Peters right: their dignity, Saint Peters honor ; their stateliness, S. Peters reverence ; subjection to them, subjection to S. Peter ; A message from them, an embassage from S. Peter ; Things done in their presence, done in S. Peters presence : Lands and possessions given them, given to S. Peter : And when they would have kingdoms, Princes must get them for S. Peter: Their territories and Lordships, S. Peters patrimony: Their usurpations tyrannical, S. Peters royalties: Their good will, His favor: Their communion, His peace: Their indignation, His curse: Their signet, His ring: Their closet, His See: Their City, His borough: Their poll money , even Peter pence too. Yea, it may be, that shortly they will take up Peter for a surname, as the Roman Emperors did the name of Caesar. For a famous Lawyer & Patron of the Papacy, saith, that the Popes may all be called Peters. And our countryman who was sent to display the Popes banner & challenge highest honor for him, doth name him the Bishop of the first See, that is to say, Peter. And Cardinal Hosius one of y ^e Popes lieutenants in his Council of Trent, doth write, that there is only one universal patriarch, Who? Peter of Rome: and that Peter of Rome did send his messengers unto English, French, Dutch, and other nations, to call them to the Council of Trent. Not Peter of Bethsaida, but Peter of Rome did it.

These things are small the most of them, and used to increase a reverend estimation and opinion of that See, to the which our Savior committed the principality and government of his church. As for the pointes that seem greater in the words of Leo: they may be defended. For where he saith, that Christ took Peter into the fellowship of the indivisible unity: he might mean unity in will not in substance, as Christ doth pray for his disciples, Holy father, keep them in thy name, that they may be one, as we are. Where he doth honor Peter with the title of my Lord: it is a common title, and given men of state both spiritual and temporal: yea Mary Magdalene called him Lord (the word in Latin is the same) whom she supposed to be a gardener. The like might be said for the defense of the rest: with as great probability and perhaps greater, then you have to mislike them.

The smaller things, which you call, are some of them small, I grant, but like small holes in ships, at the which a great deal of water will come in, enough to drown the ship, if they be left open as long as these have been in the ship of the church. They had increased such an opinion of the Pope of Rome, Saint Peters See, as they termed it: that although he practiced not a principality givē him by Christ, but an outrageous tyranny usurped by him self over Kings and Nations: yet neither kings nor Nations almost, durst speak against him, at the least resist him. For if they did offend the Pope, they thought they did offend S. Peter. Now of S. Peter they were taught, that he is porter of heaven gates. They feared the porter would let none in, saving the Pope his vicars friends. So, to get eternal life, they served, and pleased, and feeed the Pope, least that if he should frown upon them, Saint Peters favor should be lost. Wherefore how small soever those things of Peter seem in trifling kinds of common speeches: they brought no small advantage to Peter of Rome's Court, and wealth into his Treasury. It is recorded of King Oswy in our English Story, that when, upon a controversy about the celebrating of Easter, there was a Synod assembled, and the one part alleged, that they followed the East Churches, which had received their rite of John the Evangelist, the Disciple whom Christ loved ; the other part replied, that they followed the Church of Rome, which had received theirs of Peter, to whom Christ gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven: the King took up the matter, and judged with the Church of Rome, For I tell you, quoth he, that Peter is the porter, whom I will not gainsay, nay, I will obey his orders in all respects, as far as I skill and can, lease when I come to the doors of the kingdom of heaven, there be none to open if he be displeased who doth keep the keys. This gross imagination of the keys and porter, and corrupt opinion of power to shut and open committed unto Peter only, (which the good king conceived of simplicity, his Clergy should have taught him better, but they did all agree unto it, and their successors praise King Oswy: ) the Captains of the Church of Rome perceyuing it to be commodious for the advancement of their kingdom, and conquering of all the earth, have nourished very cunningly, by their lessons, their titles, their arms, their ensigns, their pictures, and other legions of policies, all in S. Peters name. And on the credit of S. Peter they have pronounced that all ordinances of their See must be received, even as if Peter had confirmed them. They have taught, that their Church persisteth pure from all error, by the grace and help of Peter. They have decreed that although it lay a yoke almost intolerable on us, yet we must bear it patiently in the remembrance of S. Peter. They have set abroach in the donation of Constantine, that he gave them his own crown, of gold most pure and precious stones, to wear in honor of S. Peter, and that he held the bridle and stirrope of the Popes horse in reverence of S. Peter. They have made the Emperor, as the Popes vasall, to become S. Peters knight, and take his oath unto S. Peter, that he will restore S. Peters lande unto the Pope, if he get any of it, and will help the Pope to defend S. Peters land. They have brought Archbishops to think their power is nothing, unless the Pope do send them from S. Peters body, a pall, which hath the fullness of the pontifical duty. Bishops they have bound to promise by their oath allegiance and fealty, to Saint Peter, the Roman Church, and their Lord the Pope. Yea, from Bishops they have brought the oath unto them, who receive dignities. And that which passeth all the rest, whereas the form of the oath in the Canon Law doth bind them to defend regulas sanctorum patrum, the rules of the holy fathers: the Pope hath heretofore, and now doth put in steed thereof, regalia sancti Petri, the roialties of S. Peter. Such prays your Eagles take, though you do count them flies. But let them be flies or fowls, I will not strive. Onelie this I say, let the wise consider it, and mark the degrees of increase in the Papacie, and they shall perceive in this (what shall I call it) of Saint Peters name, that although it were not any of the greatest, it was one of the finest tricks of spiritual coosinage, that hath enriched the Pope, and set the Church of Rome so hie. Now, to come from these lesser unto the greater pointes in Leo, I know, if a man list to be contentious, it is an easy matter to say somewhat probably for the defense of his words. Yea though he had named Peter, not only my Lord, but (as Thomas did our Savior) My Lord & my God. It is a desperate cause that will admit no color. The Stews of Rome have found patrons, and that which is worse then Stews. The heathens called Domitian, Our Lord God the Emperor. A Canoniste saith of the Pope, Our Lord God the Pope. Blasphemous speeches both: yet a quareller might allege in defense of them, I have said, ye are God's. But the very heathens, by the light of nature mislyked the one, as insolent: neither have I read any Papist, no nor Jesuit, that durst defend the other. It was a common practice amongst the young students of our Universities in the time of the Dunses, (and is yet amongst too many, whom spots of Dunsery have stained,) that if in disputation they were brought to an inconvenience, were it never so absurd: they would have a distinction, though void of brain and sense, yet a distinction to maintain it. If a man will be perverse, it is no mastery to do it. But as a wise and learned man doth say of them, that they are base wits which are so affected, whereas ingenuous minds & natures well given, will rather seek howe true that is which they hold, then how they may defend it, making greater price of verity then victory: so I may say (yea much more in matters of religion, of faith, of life eternal) a Christian wit, and godly mind will search and weigh rather, what should be said truly, then what may be said probably, or colourably at the lest. And I wish, if it had been the good will of God, master Campian had had the grace in the Tower-conference to have aimed at this mark: rather in sincerity to have sought the truth, then with shifts and cauilles the maintenance of his cause and credit. But though he were froward, and did shut his eyes against the beams of the light: yet do you not so for God's sake, master Hart, in this conference of ours. Be content to open your mind to his grace, who standeth at the door & knocketh: and hearken to his voice while it is today. Beware of their example, who could not believe, or if they did believe, durst not confess Christ: because they loved the praise of men more then the praise of God, and hunted after honor one of another, not seeking for that honor which cometh from the Lord alone, Deny yourself. and your friends, and all fleshly respects, & give the glory to the Highest.

I neither seek for shifts to darken the truth, nor love the praise of men more then the praise of God. It were a madness for a man to adventure his life (as we do, you see,) for the maintenance of error, or of his own credit. As for M. Campian I think of him as of myself. I heard the disputations, wherein he answered them who came to reason with him: and I perceived nothing in any of his answers, but sincerity and truth.

My self was not present at the disputations, but I have read them written: and that (least you suspect the writer as partial) by a favorer of yours, who was present, as he saith, at the whole action. And (I do affirm it in singleness of heart, as before the Lord: neither do I doubt but all who have the wisdom to discern spirits will see the same, if they peruse them:) he sought in such sort to maintain the credit of his cause or person, as though he had set nothing more before his eyes, then to persuade his proselytes, that nothing could be brought against him, but he would show it made for him. I would not say so much unless I knew it by his fruits. For, to pass over his often glossing against the text, and facing out of places which pressed him most forcibly: things alleged out of the Councils, of the Fathers, of others, which by the judgments of your own doctors, have that sense wherein we city them, he by shifts and cauilles would turn their necks clean about, and wreste them unto his side: which argued more wit then truth, and sophistry then sincerity. But to leave him to the Lord's judgment, and come unto yourself: you neither seek for shifts (you say) to darken the truth, nor love the praise of men more then the praise of God. I pray God your deeds be not as plain to prove you do it, as the reason which you add to prove you do it not, is weak. For what although it were a madness to do it? Many things are done which mad men scarce would do, and yet they that do them do think themselves well in their wits, as the Donatists did, who adventured their lives in most desperate manner for the defense of their error, and maintenance of their credit: yea they offered themselves to the sword, the fire, the water, seeking for death as for a treasure, that they might die (they thought) Martyrs. But whether you do set the praise of men at that price, I leave it to your own conscience. That you seek for shifts, the thing itself doth cry. For your very answer in the defense of Leo, touching unity of will, not unity of substance, on these words of his, that Christ received Peter into the fellowship of the indivisible unity: is a shift to shield him from a just reproof. Let his own Discourse speak, and it will grant it. For having said before that Christ did place Peter as it were a certain head, to pour his gifts from him as it were into all the body : to this point he knitteth these words by way of proof. So that if the proof have any kin with the thing proved, the words must needs import some preeminence in Peter above all the rest of the Disciples of Christ. But unity of will, wherein Christ doth pray that his Disciples may be one as he is one with his Father, is common unto all, not peculiar to Peter, as Christ himself doth show. That plaster then of yours hath no virtue in it to salve the sore of Leo. Neither can you cure it indeed with any other. For the unity, which the Scriptures do note in God and us, is of three sortes: the first of persons in one nature; the second of natures in one person; the third of sundry natures and persons in one quality. In the first is One God: In the second is One Christ: In the third is One church. The Lord received not Peter into the first unity: wherein the father, the son, the holy Ghost, are one God. Not into the second: wherein he himself consisting of two natures (God, and man) is one Christ. Into the third, wherein the Church is one with Christ her head, and the Churches members are one amongst them selves, he did receive Peter : but in society with his brethren, not without them in singularity. The multitude of the believers were of one heart, and of one soul: They all are one body, sanctified by one spirit, through the Sacrament of one baptism, knit to Christ by one faith, to themselves in one love, to serve together one Lord, in one hope and expectation of one eternal bliss and glory. So that, of this unity, whereof Peters state and nature is capable, apply which you list unto the words of Leo, either unity of will, as you seem to do; or unity of grace, as others answer for it; or unity of glory, which Christ did pray for also, and some will like that better: none of these do reach unto that majesty, which Leos words aspire to by giving him the fellowship of the indivisible unity. Yet God forbid that any man should suspect of him, that he meant unity, either of nature with God, or of person with Christ. He hath deserved better, then to be thought so evil off. But that which in truth may be said for him, is, that his meaning was (as other-where him self doth open it,) that Christ did impart his name of rock and foundation of the church to Peter. Now, some mist of fancy daisled his eyes, or else he would never have said thereupon, that Christ received Peter into the fellowship of the indivisible unity: and that, in such preeminence, as he received none but him: chiefly, since he imparted his greater names and titles of Jesus, of Christ, of the light of the world, one of them to some, the rest to all his servants: neither did he give his name of rock to Peter, or of foundation to Peter only, as shall appear after. But if yet you see not, that Leo did outreach, in making Peter as it were a fellow-head, a party-rock, and the half-foundation of the Church with Christ: behold a farther fellowship, wherein he joineth Peter as mate and partner with God, a fellowship of power, God hath given to Peter a great and a wonderful fellowship of his power: and if he would have anything to be common unto other princes with him, he never gave, but by him, whatsoever he gave to others. Out of all controversy these words do lift up Peter unto the fellowship of that glory of which God is so jealous, that he hath protested he will not give it to any other: he hath given it to Christ, who is one with himself, God of God, light of light: if any man presume to join a mortal creature, whomsoever, as companion unto Christ in it, he robbeth Christ of his honor of the only mediator between God and man. And what doth he else, who saith ( as Leo doth) that S. Peters care shineth over Bishops in that their slanderers are defaced; that Peters merit and authority doth strengthen the writings of his servant against heretics: that Peter doth not suffer their persons to be stained, who labor for the catholic faith: that the Popes decrees are made by the inspiration of God and S. Peter: that it must be imputed unto S. Peters works and merits, if anything be gotten of God by daily prayers: that nothing passeth over unto the chiefest of the Church, no not unto any man, from God, but by S. Peter. Let every Christian heart, whom the zeal of God hath given any warmth unto, and his Spirit wisdom, be judge between you and us: whether that to yield such power, such authority, such souerainetie and rule of the Church of Christ, to any Saint in heaven, be not an empairing of the majesty, dominion, and sovereign authority of the king of Saints, the holy one of Israel. It grieveth me to speak so much against Leo : whose learning I do love, and reverence his ancient years. But the Auncient of days, is more ancient then he, & must be had in greater reverence: who taught young Elihu to reprove his ancients, even holy Job amongst them, and to say of them, I will not accept the person of any, neither will I give titles unto man: for I may not give titles: If I should do it a little, he that made me would take me away. Wherefore, I do freely without courtesy of titles and accepting of persons, profess, that I mislike those hawtie speeches in Leo: and I think that the mystery of iniquity so wrought through his ambitious advancing Peter, that of the eggs, which he cherished, two of the most venomous cokcatrices were bred, that ever poisoned the church of Christ: the one, the Popes supremacy, usurping Princely power over the church and common-weal, with breach of faith to God and man: the other, the worshipping of Saints, wherein that honor is given to creatures which ought to be given to the Creator only. One example may show them both, even Hildebrand (called Gregory the seventh in his Popedom) who depriving Henry y ^e Emperor of his Empire, and discharging his subjects of their oath of allegiance, pronounced sentence, with such an invocation of Peter, as a true Christian would tremble to have heard used to any, but to God. Incline thine ears ô blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, & hear me thy servant, whom thou hast brought up from mine infancy, and hast preserved to this day from the hands of the unrighteous, who hate and vex me, for my faith in thee. Thou canst bear me witness best, and the holy mother of Christ, and thy brother Paul partaker with thee of martyrdom, that I have undertaken the government of the Papacie unwillingly. Not that I thought it robbery to clime into thy See lawfully: but I had rather live in pilgrimage thē occupy thy room for fame and glory only. I do confess, (and good cause why) that the charge of the Christiā people was committed, and the power of binding & loosing granted unto me, not through my deserts, but by thy grace. Trusting therefore on this assurance, for the honor and sauegard of thy holy church, in the name of God almighty, the father, the son, and the holy Ghost, I throw down King Henry, the son of Henry sometime Emperor (who hath laid hands too boldly and rashly upon thy church) from his imperial and kingly government: and I absolve all Christians subject to the Empire, frō that oath by the which they are wont to bear faith & allegiance unto true Kings. Do you see to what iniquity their pride, abusing Peters name, and claiming all by him, hath puffed them up? To what usurping over Emperors? To what dishonoring of the Almighty? But of this we shall have fitter occasion to confer, when we come to the question of the worship of Saints. For the other, (to return to the point which we have in hand:) the name of head, in that sense, as it is made a conduit of the gifts of God, to pour them abroad into all the body, is only due and proper unto the Mediator between God & man, the Apostle of our profession, our Savior Jesus Christ. When the right of this title is called into question: every knee must bow in heaven, in earth, and under the earth, and yield it unto him whom God hath set at his right hand above all powers and principalities. Wherefore, I say not, if a mā, if Leo, (whom hope of profit might blind, taking himself for Peters heir, ) but if an Angel from heaven do give it unto Peter: shall I say with the Apostle, Let him be accursed? I will not take on me that sentence: but this I will say, the sin is very heinous▪ How much more heinous, that it is pretended, in show, unto Peter : in deed, by Peters name conveyed to the Pope. For as boldly as Leo applieth it to Peter : so boldly doth a Cardinal apply it to the Pope. And a Bishop, (venturing further then the Cardinal) not content to vouch that the Pope is Melchizedek, excelling the rest incōparably in priesthood ; affirmeth farther of him, that he is head of all Bishops, from whom they do grow as members grow from the head, and of whose fullness they do all receive. Of Christ it is written, that of his fullness we do all receive : that he is a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek: that he is the head of whom all the body being coupled and knit together by every joint given to furnish it, through the effectual power, in the measure of every part, receiveth increase of the body. But to give these privileges unto the Pope, that he is Melchizedek, the head of all Bishops, and of his fullness they do all receive: O Lord, in how miserable state was the Church, when this did go for catholic doctrine? Was not the prophecy then fulfilled, of the man who should sit in the Temple of God, as God ?

I marvel what you mean to take us up so sharply, as for a heinous matter, that we call the Pope, head of the church: whereas you give that title yourselves to the Queen whom it may less agree to. So one that preached to us h • re not long ago in the Tower-chapel, did make a long talk to prove that Christ only is head of the church, and charged us with blasphemy, for saying that the Pope is head: & yet him self praying for the Queens majesty did name her supreme head of the church of England: wherein we smiled at his folly. For if it be no blasphemy to call the Queen head: why should it be blasphemy to call the Pope head?

We give unto her Highnes y ^e title, not of head, but of Supreme governor: and that upon how just ground of God's word, and high commission from the highest, it shall in due place be shown if you will. As for the Preacher, whom you mention: I had rather you would deal with me by public monuments and writings of our church, as I do with you, then by reports of private speeches: for perhaps you fancied more then he said: perhaps he said so much that you were glad to smile it out with that fancy. But if your report of his Sermon be true, it is likely that he gave the name of head to the Queen in the same meaning that we do the title of supreme governor, which I will prove to be godly: and he denied the Pope to be head in another meaning, in which that name belongeth unto Christ alone, condemning them of blasphemy who give it him so. And they, who did smile hereat, as at folly, because they were Papists, might, if they were Painims, smile at the scriptures too: which do give the title of God's unto governors, and yet condemn them who have other God's beside the Lord. For if it be, no blasphemy to call the Magistrates God's: why should it be blasphemy to call Mercurius and Jupiter God's? Is not this your reason? But our doctrine as it is holy and true, so it is plain: if men will rather learn it humbly, as Christians, then laugh at it as Lucians, or, as Julian's, revolt from it. For we teach that Christ is the head of the church, as he doth quicken it with his spirit, as he is the light, the health, the life of it: and is present always to fill it with his blessings, and with his grace to govern it. In the which respects, because the Scripture giveth the name of head to Christ alone, by an excellency: thereof we so conclude, that he is the only head of the church. For otherwise, we know, that (in another kind and degree of resemblance) they may be called heads, who have any preeminence of place or government over others. As in the Hebrew text we read the heads of the Levites, for the chief of them: and, the priest the head, that is to say, the chief Priest. After the which sort, I will not contend, if you entitle Bishops heads of the churches, as Athanasius doth: and Gregory, when he had named our Savior Christ the head of the universal church, he calleth Christ's ministers as it were heads: Paul, Andrew, John, heads of particular flocks, yet members of the church, all under one head.

You grant in effect, as much as I require. For, if either Bishoppe or Cardinal have given that unto the Pope, which is due to Christ, as he is head properly: we maintain them not. We say that as pastors, all who have the charge to govern the church, are heads after a sort, that is improperly, as I termed it: so the Pope, who is the chiefest of them all is the supreme head. And in this sense you must take us, when we do entitle the Bishop of Rome the supreme head of the church.

I will take you so. Howbeit, for as much as the name of head hath sundry significations in this kind of speeches as the scripture showeth, God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, man is the head of the woman; the head of Syria, Damascus; the head of Damascus, Retzin ; the king, the head of the tribes of Israel ; and the heads of households, the eldest; and the head of the people, the foremost; and the head of the mountains, the highest; and the head of the spices, the chiefest; &, in offenders the heads, the principal; and amongst David's captains, the heads, the most excellent, some of the which import a preeminence of other things, not of power, and they that do of power, some import a greater power, some a lesser: I would understand particularly what power you give unto the Pope by calling him supreme head, least afterward we vary about the meaning of it.

The power, which we mean to him by this title, is that the government of the whole church of Christ throughout the world doth depend of him: in him doth lie the power of judging and determining all causes of faith; of ruling councils, as President, and ratifying their decrees; of ordering and confirming Bishops and pastors; of deciding causes brought him by appeals from all the coasts of the earth; of reconciling any that are excommunicate; of excommunicating, suspending, or inflicting other censures and penalties on any that offend, yea on Princes and nations; finally, of all things of the like sort for governing of the church, even whatsoever toucheth either preaching of doctrine, or practicing of discipline in the church of Christ.

And all this you mean by the Popes supremacy. A power, very great in weight, and large in compass, for one man to wield: yea, for one Apostle, much more for one Bishop. Bishop of Rome is he, or Bishop of the whole world? You said that you call him a head improperlie. I ween you give this power improperlie to him also. For out of all doubt you can never prove that it belongeth to him properly.

How large and great soever this power and supremacy doth seem in your eyes: it belongeth properly to the Bishop of Rome. And that is already proved by the reason which before I made. S. Peter was head of all the Apostles. The Bishop of Rome succeedeth Peter in the same power over Bishops that he had over the Apostles. The Bishop of Rome therefore is head of all Bishops, and by consequent of their dioceses, that is of all the church of Christ.

Remember in what sense you take the name of head : and I deny both the propositions of this argument.

I will prove them both: and first the former. Christ did promise Peter that he would make him head: therefore he did make him.

He did not promise him.

Christ did say unto him, Tu es Petrus, & super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam: Thou art Peter, and upon this peter will I build my church. Therefore he did promise him.

The reason doth not follow. But why do you english it so, Thou art Peter, and upon this peter? Your doctors were wont to cite it, Thou art Peter, & upon this rock: and to that rock you tied all. Doo you fear shipwreck there now?

No syr. But to make our anker-hold the surer, the which is fastened on S. Peter, Doctor Allen thought good that in the translation of the new testament into our tongue, which we were about at Reims, it should be thus englished; Thou art Peter and upon this peter. The which I rather follow, then the other of the rock, because it is agreeable unto the original.

It is not. For the original is the Greek text: and that hath, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . whereto your latin old translation agreeth, with Petrus and petra : as yourself alleged it. The words of both which though they differ not so much as Peter and rock : yet they are not one, as your Peter and peter.

Although the Greek words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 differ in termination: yet they are one in meaning, and signify the same thing. For as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth a rock, so doth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Athenian language. And it must be noted that Christ spake in Hebrew, or rather in the Syriac tongue: wherein the name, that he gave Peter, is Cephas. Now, in the Syriac translation of the testament, that word is the same without difference in both places. For thus are the words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : as if a man would say, Thou art Cephas, and upon this Cephas ; or, Thou art Rock, and upon this rock. For Cephas in the Syriac doth signify a rock : as Guido Fabricius a learned linguist showeth. wherefor the meaning of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must be the same in Greek. And so we may keep it well in both places, Thou art Peter and upon this peter.

The words which you allege are not of the Syriac translation: they are Hebrew. But as the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is one in both places: so the Syriac I grant hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in thē both. And I gladly take it (because our Savior Christ spake in that tongue) as an exposition of his words to Peter. Yet I note by the way, that although your council of Trent hath allowed the latin old translation alone as authentical, and hath decreed thereof that no man shall dare or presume under any pretense to reject it: notwithstanding, you yourselves will depart from it, and that not only to the original (which we should not be suffered) but also to translations, if they may seem to make for you in any point more then your old doth.

We do not reject that authentical translation, but open the sense of it, by comparing it with the Greek, and the Greek with the Syriac.

But if we should do so in any point against you, this answer would not serve us: it would be accounted a color or pretense, such as your Council hath condemned.

You do us great injury, in that you seem to make it all one to reject the authentical Latin, and to take advantage for our selves out of the original texts.

For yourselves? Nay, I make not that all one. I said, If we should do so, not, If you should do so. For do you what you list: and all must be soothed as agreeing with your Latin, and opening the sense of it. But if we should take advantage for our selves by the original texts: our advantage would be nipped on the head as a pretense. For example, Andreas Masius, a learned man of yours, hath written a Commentary on the book of Joshua: in the which he launceth your authentical Latin, almost in every Chapter: yea, he saith that S. Jerome, (if he be the Author of it) doeth seem to have translated wittingly a place against the meaning of the Hebrew, that he might vouch a fancy of his own thereby. Yet the Popish Censour, who allowed it to the print, witnesseth of that Commentary that it lighteneth and openeth the common old translation greatly. Let us do much less, let us but raze the credit of it: and will you give that Censure of us? Nay, if we do note that where your old translation hath of the frame or imagination of man's heart, that it is prone to evil, the Hebrew text hath, not prone to evil, but evil: the Censure of Coolein will answer that it is far better to say (as your old translation saith) prone to evil: and will fetch in also the Rabbins of the Jews, not to expound the Latin according to the Hebrew, but to alaye the Hebrew according to the Latin. Wherefore in that I said that if we should go from your authentical Latin to the original texts, it would be misliked of: I do you no injury. Yet I mislike it not in your plea for Peter, that you take advantage not of the original, but of a translation: nay, I like it well. Though I like not that which you add to prove it: that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Greek tongue doth signify a rock, as Cephas in the Syriac, and so the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , have one meaning. For they have one meaning, not because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth signify a rock, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : but because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth signify a stone, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . For, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sometimes signifieth a stone: your own learned linguists (as you call them) note, and examples thereof are rife. But that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 anywhere signifieth a rock: neither do they show, nor have other skilfu • l of that tongue observed. You say, that it is so in the Athenian language: but you bring no Athenian nor any Grecian else to witness it. And the French tongue (which followeth the Greek, as in many other words, so in this,) hath the same word (you know) for a stone, and for the name of Peter. Wherein there is a print of the true original & meaning of that name in the Greek tongue. But Christ did call him Cephas in the Syriac tongue: and Cephas (you say) doth signify a rock, as Fabricius showeth. But Fabricius showeth further that Cephas doth signify a stone also. And though he, or rather the Jew (whom he citeth) reporteth their saying who expound the name as taken from that word in signification of a rock: yet, having mentioned the other of a stone, he saith thereupon that so his name is Peter in the Roman tongue, and in the Italian a stone is called pereda. Whereunto I might add that another learned writer of the Jews, and auncienter then he, doeth likewise say (as opening the sense of Peters name) that he is called stone. But, that Christ did mean a stone, not a rock, in naming him Cephas: your stoutest champion, D. Sanders, may serve in steed of many witnesses. For he, wanting no will to go as far as the boldest, and having many years advised of the matter, durst say no more for Cephas, but that it signifieth a stone, at the most, a great stone: even petra it self he doeth expound in this manner, Super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam, Thou shalt be the first stone (next me) of that church, which I will build on earth. In the which judgment he doeth deserve the greater credit at your hands, because he was contented to hazard his life with the Pope against his Prince in that holy quarrel: and having spent his chiefest study in the point he had before times expounded it a rock; the which exposition so fit for the Papacy he would have never left, had not the truth enforced him to retire from it. A thing so much the likelier, because when he labored first to infect men with the Popes supremacy by the name of rock, and therefore both in the title and course of all his book did sound the rock of the church: even then he did expound Cephas and Peter doubtfully, a rock, or a stone; and yielding the reason why Christ did name him so, he mentioned a stone only, because what place a stone hath in holding up the house which is built upon it, the same should Peter have in upholding the frame of Christ's militant church. Wherefore you must let go your hold of the rock, (whereon D. Stapleton doth beast your house is built) and be content to lay a stone in steed of it. Let our Savior Christ alone be the rock. If you dash yourself against him therein, he will break you in pieces.

It is a disputable point. You see that learned men are of sundry judgments in expounding of it: some thinking, it betokeneth a stone, some a rock. Wherefore you cannot force me to take the one and leave the other.

Not by men's words: but by the word of God I can. For Christ in the Syriac tongue did name him Cephas, and Cephas in the Greek is expounded 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in English signifieth a stone. And sure you had done better, if, as the Greek text hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Syriac translation Cephas & Cephas: so you had made it in English, stone and stone. For Peter and peter doth not express the force of the Syriac word. Rock and rock is strong, but the text doth not bear it. Stone and stone is fit, had you not thought it too slender. Now, since you do press the Syriac translation, to show thereby the meaning of the Latin, as you say: you must give me leave to tell you that the words should be rather Englished after the Syriac thus, Thou art stone, and upon this stone will I build my church.

Rock or stone, if I should give you leave to choose whither of them you list: what gain you thereby?

The truth, which I deal for, shall gain thus much by it, that although you construe those words (that Christ would build his church upon Peter ) for your most advantage, even as Sanders doth: yet is it not proved thereby that Christ did promise him a supreme-headship over the Apos • les. For the church of Christ, which is the company of God's elect and chosen, isresembled in Scripture to a material temple, such as was the temple which Solomon built. So, as that was called a house, the house of prayer: in like sort the church is called a house too, but a spiritual house, to distinguish it from that: which house because it must be made of all y ^e godly, as it were of stones, grounded on Christ by faith, though the doctrine of the Apostles: therefore Christ is called the chief corner stone in respect of the Jews and Gentiles (as of walls) which are joined in him: the foundation, in respect of the whole house, yea the foundation of foundation, as the Prophet termeth him: the twelve Apostles laid next upon Christ are called twelve foundations: the faithful laid on them, or rather after them on him, are called stones, not dead ones (such as the temple had) but living: the working and framing of them to this purpose is called building and edifying: which is done by preaching of the word of truth, coupling them together between them selves and with Christ, that they may grow to be a holy temple in the Lord, for God to dwell in by his spirit. Wherefore if the words of Christ be so taken, that he meant the laying of Peter as a principal stone next to him self, and others upon him, whē he said, Thou art stone, and upon this stone will I build my church: this showeth that Peter was in the first rank (as I may say) of stones, I mean he was in order with the first who believed: and amongst those first he had a mark of honor, in that he was named stone, above his brethren. But it showeth not, that he should be head of the rest of the Apostles. For, as he, so they are called foundations: and Christ did build his church as well on them as on him.

Then you grant, that Christ did promise to build his church upon Peter.

I do so.

Not upon his doctrine only, but his person.

After a sort. What then?

What then? What say you then to Doctors of your own side, namely to Sadeel and Mornay: whom you praised so greatly, and brought them me to read? They write that the church was built, not upon the person of Peter, but upon his doctrine preaching Christ unto us. You grant the contrary.

What say you to the ancient Doctors whom they follow: chiefly to S. Austin ? He writeth that the rock, (which our Savior promised to build his church upon) is Christ, and not Peter. You hold the contrary. Thou art Peter, saith he, and upon this rock which thou hast confessed, upon this rock which thou hast known (saying, Thou art Christ the son of the living God,) will I build my church. I will build thee upon me, not me upon thee. For men intending to build on men, said, I hold of Paul, I of Apollos, I of Cephas, (that is Peter:) and others who would not be built upon Peter, but upon the rock, said, I hold of Christ. For the rock was Christ: upon the which foundation Peter him self was built: since no man can lay another foundation beside that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. What say you to the rest, namely, to Gregory Nys • en, to Cyril, to Chrysostom, to Ambrose, to Hilary? They write that this rock is the concession of Peter. They say not, it is Peters person.

That exposition of S. Austin, denying Peter to be the rock, was lapsus humanus (as D. Stapleton calleth it) caused by the diversity of the Greek and Latin tongue, which either he was ignorant of, or marked not. Howbeit nevertheless it hath a true meaning: though not the full & proper sense of this place. Besides that, him self doth other-where expound it as understood of Peter : according to the famous verses of S. Ambrose, in which he calleth Peter the rock of the Church. The rest of the Fathers, who apply the rock to Peters confession, imply his person in it. For, to say, that the Church is built on the confession and belief of Peter, is all one in deed, and to say, it is built on Peter confessing and believing in Christ. Wherefore in as much as they affirm the former, they prove withal the later by it.

S. Austin, and the Fathers, are beholding to you: whose words (though not answering well to your fancies) are handled so gently. If you were as favorable to Sadeel and Mornay : that, which they write of Peter, would have a true meaning. Though, if they (with greater zeal unto his doctrine then unto his person, that is, to Christ then to Peter ) had given a little less to him then is due: the fault were not so much to be • aide on their restraint, as on your excess, who say a great deal more of him then you ought. For example, Father Robert, the Prince of the Jesuits (in his Divinity lectures read publikelie at Rome about seven years ago) handling this same point of the foundation of the Church, did ground him self on a sentence of the Prophet Isaiah to prove it to be Peter, and Peters see, the see of Rome. Whereof to make his proof strong by the words which God doth speak of Christ, Behold, I lay in Zion a tried precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he affirmed that Isaiah did therein prophecy not of Christ, but of Peter, a stumbling stone to heretics, & a rock of offense, but to Catholics a tried, a precious, a corner stone. S. Peter the Apostle expoundeth those words not of himself, but of Christ. Father Robert the Jesuit saith that they agree not to Christ, but to him. So to advance the Popes dignity by Peter: he maketh Peter himself, nay, the holy Ghost a liar. Such blasphemous outrages of your chief professors giving more to Peter then standeth with the truth and honor of the Son of God, might provoke the godly spirits of his servants to bend to the contrary: as husbandmen, when they would straighten a young plant that groweth crooked one way, do bow it to the other. But in the discourse of Sadeel and Mornay ▪ that the Church is built upon the confession of Peter not his person, there is no straining of ought beyond the truth (for the meaning of it) by your own judgment. For they approve and follow the exposition of S. Austin: and that (you affirm) hath a true meaning. As for the manner of S. Austin's speech, I grant it seemeth somewhat tough to expound those words of Christ as if he said, Thou art Peter and upon me, not, Thou art Peter and upon thee will I build my Church. But, if the circumstances of his speech be weighed: you shall find, not only the meaning of it, true; but the manner, good. For, as it is written that God commanded the Jews to offer burnt offerings & sacrifices unto him, yet God saith in Jeremiah that he spake not to them, neither commanded them touching burnt offerings and sacrifices, not as though he had not commanded the things, but because he did not command them in that sort and respect as they used them: so, though it be true that Christ's words to Peter do import this sense, Upon thee will I build my Church, yet, because he spake them in respect of Peters profession and faith (upon, Thou art Christ the Son of the living God ) not in respect of Peters person, (which they built on, who said, I hold of Paul, I of Apollos, I of Cephas;) S. Austin might expound them well, as he doth, that Christ said to Peter, I will build my church, not upon thee, but upon me. In the which conclusion, the rest of the Fathers, who expound it of Peters confession, do join with S. Austin. Neither can your shuffling of Peters confession, with Peter confessing, inueigle their consent. For they do expound and understand it plainly, some, of him whom Peter confessed, that is, Christ, the Son of the living God: some, of Peters faith wherewith he confessed him, as by which the faithful are built on Christ. And this is their meaning, in saying that (which your men do vainelie triumph at) the church is built on Peter: as it appeareth by S. Hilary. Who giving him the title of the foundatiō of the church, expoundeth it sometimes of his faith in Christ, sometimes of Christ himself in whom he believed. But admit that Christ had meant Peters person, when he promised him that he would build his church upon him. What conclude you of it?

This I do conclude, that seeing the church was built upon Peter, and the Apostles themselves were part of the Church: therefore the Apostles were built upon him; and so was he their foundation. By consequent whereof, seeing the foundation is the same to a house which a head is to a body: I do conclude again that Peter was the head of all the Apostles. And so my purpose is proved.

This conclusion hath neither foundation, nor head. For by as good reason you may conclude also, that, seeing the Church was built upon Peter, and Peter him self is a part of the church: therefore was Peter built upon him self, and so was he his own foundatiō. And because a foundation is the same to a house, which a head is to a body: therefore S. Peter was S. Peters head. Or, if you see not either the necessity or folly of this consequence, as it is made of Peter: you may frame the like of any other of the Apostles, and you will espy it. For the church of Christ, is the great City, that holy Jerusalem, whereof the wall had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the Lambs twelve Apostles. Then seeing that the church was built upon everyone of those twelve, as upon James by name, and Peter was a part of the church: it followeth that Peter was built upon James ; and so was James his foundation. And seeing a foundation is the same to a house, which a head is to a body: it followeth again that James was Peters head. which if yourself deny: you must deny that whereof it doth follow by force of like reason. And so your purpose is not proved.

But we do imagine, that in this building of the church and laying the foundations of it, Christ did lay Peter next upon himself (as the foundation of the rest) and other Apostles upon him.

Indeed you do imagine it. And you consider not that your imagination is crossed by it self, not only by the truth. For, if the twelve Apostles of the Lamb (on whom he built his church) were laid as twelve foundations, one upon another, & Peter lowest of them: then, as Peter was foundation of eleven, so the next to him must be of ten, the next to him of nine, and likewise ech of the next, until the last of none. A thing flat repugnant to your imagination, wherein you make Peter (only) head of the rest, the rest of them equal all amongst themselves. Neither doth it stand with that proportion of the building which the scripture maketh, reserving the prerogative of the only singular foundation to Christ, and joining the Apostles all in equal honor of the twelve foundations, as I have shown. For Christ (in this house) is as it were a rock, a rocky sure and firm ground, on which both the Apostles, and all his church is built: as the city of David was on the mount Zion. The Apostles are as stones, as twelve most precious stones, which being laid jointly one by another, all on Christ, are as twelve foundations : and walls (of chosen stones) are raised up on them, until the whole number of the elect be laid on, and the building finished. One of these foundations might excel another in pretiousnes of graces. For, the first foundation, (saith John ) was a Jasper; the second, a Sapphire; the third, a Chalcedonie; the fourth, an Emeraude ; and so forth the rest. Or (because I know not the virtues of these stones) the stones, which the Disciples of Christ did marvel at in the temple of Jerusalem for the fairenes and greatness of them, were (as Josephus writeth) five and twenty cubits long, eight cubits hie, and twelve cubits broad. Now as among such stones one might be fairer or better wrought then other: so might one Apostle of Christ excel his fellows in zeal or other gifts, as namely S. Peter. Unless perhaps S. Paul, whom Christ did add to the twelve, excelled both him and them: which I do think rather; for he labored more then they all, and (by your own confession) converted more unto the faith. But neither Paul nor Peter were foundations of the rest: they were altogether joint-foundations of the church, laid on Christ, the only and singular foundation, to speak of a foundation properly. Wherefore though our Savior in saying to Peter, Thou art stone, and upon this stone will I build my church, had meant that he would build it upon Peters person (which serveth best your fancy:) yet doth not that saying infer a supreme-headship. But doubtless (if your fancy can yield unto the truth) he meant not Peters person, but his faith, and function in preaching of the faith. For the only person that the church is built on, as on a foundation (by the strength and virtue whereof it is upholden) is the son of God, our Savior Jesus Christ : beside whom no other foundation may be laid: in whom all the building being coupled together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord. Now because that faith in the son of God doth make the living stones whereof the building is compact and knit up on Christ, a stone of which sort Peter had shown himself to be by believing and professing that faith: Christ told him that he was (according to his name, stone ) a stone indeed; and having chosen him to preach the same faith, whereby there should be laid more stones on that building, he said, upon this stone will I build my church. Wherein as he shown that whosoever should be members of his church must be members of it by fellowship with Peters faith: so he shown withal that he would impart that faith to his church by the ministry of Peter. As appeareth farther by that which he added, To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

Yet even this doth argue still the same prerogative which we give to Peter. For seeing Christ said that he would build his Church upon that stone, or rock, (as I take it) and that, which a church is built upon, must needs be a foundation; it followeth that Peter was a foundation of the church. Not a principal foundation, for that is Christ only, of whom it is true that other foundation no man can lay beside that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus : but (as we term it) a ministerial foundation. Which, by the proportion of a foundation to a house and a head to a body, is enough to prove that Christ would make Peter head of the Apostles, I mean a ministerial head.

But here again you fall into your former fault: and that which was common to all the Apostles by the meaning of Christ, you challenge as proper unto Peter only. For, as the confession of Peter touching Christ shown their common faith by the mouth of one: so the answer of Christ directed unto one contained that blessing that should be common to them all. And this is declared by the holy scripture: which to the Ephesians (menbers of the church) saith, that they are built vpō the foundatiō of the Apostles & Prophets. Not of Peter only, but of the Apostles ; who lay the same foundation (all) that Peter did, and thereupon are called (all of them) foundations. And the church relying upon their doctrine, that is the Christian faith, (the only and sure foundatiō of the church, as the truth hath forced your own mouths to witness) may be justly said to be built on them, even as well on all of them as on Peter. Wherefore by the proportion (that you grate upon) of a foundation to a house, and a head to a body: as Christ is head only, so is he the only foundation of the Church; as the name of foundation is given to the Apostles, so the twelve foundations doth prove them twelve heads. You must seek therefore some other foundation of Peters headship over them. For neither the name of stone that Christ gave him, nor the words of building his church upon that stone, prove that he promised him to make him head of all the Apostles.

Not in your judgment: but in mine they do. And so doth the other part of the promise also which Christ made unto him; To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For by the name of keys is signified the fullness of ecclesiastical power. But to give the fullness of ecclesiastical power, is to make him head. Therefore Christ did promise to make him head of the church.

These keys will not open more in the house, then did the foundation lay in the building. For if you mean by fullness of ecclesiastical power, the lawful power of the Apostleship, then the which no greater was ever given to any ministers of the church: Christ gave it both to Peter and to every Apostle. If you mean such power as the Pope claimeth by fullness of power, a sovereign power not only spiritual but also temporal: Christ gave it neither to Peter, nor to any Apostle. So that in the former sense, all were heads; in the latter, none: and thus your headship proved by neither. But whatsoever you mean by fullness of power: this is clear and certain that our Savior promised no more power to Peter, then he meant and performed to all the Apostles. And therefore, whatsoever he promised to him, he promised in him to them. For, as amongst them, when they were all asked, Whom say ye that I am, Peter answered alone, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God: so Christ said to him alone, I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, as though he had alone received power to bind and loose: whereas he made that answer one instead of them all; and received this power, one together with them all. Wherefore since no more was promised then given, and equal power was given to all the Apostles: this promise proveth not your headship. You must bring us forth some better evidence: or else your title will be naught.

The evidence is good. For it saith in plain and express terms, that Christ would give the keys to Peter. Then the which what could be more manifestly spoken?

In show, to the simple. Chiefely when they see the matter set forth, as that is at Rome: where Christ is painted out, not as promising Peter that he would give him keys, but as giving them to him at that present; and giving them to him alone, not to all the Apostles; with the words of Christ, paraphrased feately thereto by some poet;

Nay: the very words (as they lie in scripture) are plainer in show for us then for you. which also may be noted in other pointes of controversy between you and us. As, about the real presence, this is my body. For Christ did not say, this is a sign of my body. And again, the bread that I will give, is my flesh. He said not, it is but the sign of my flesh.

Neither do we say, that Christ did so mean in this, of flesh and bread. For we teach, that the true bread, the bread of God which came down from heaven and giveth life unto the world, is Christ, even the flesh, the very flesh of Christ, that is, Christ incarnate. The greater wrong they do us, who lay to our charge that we expound it not of the thing, but of a sign: themselves indeed guilty thereof, expounding it of a sacrament of Christ, where it is meant of Christ him self, the word that was made flesh. But what if in the other place, and sundry mo, the words of the scripture be plainer in show for you then for us? It is not the show but the sense of the words, that doth import the truth, and must decide controversies. For words were ordained to open the meaning and mind of him that speaketh them. The meaning of the word of God is always true: because God, who speaketh it is true, and cannot lie. The show of it is false sometimes and deceitful: as men are, whose judgment this show dependeth of; and that may seem to them to be meant by it, which is not meant by God. Wherefore it is not the show, but the sense; the substance, not the semblance of the words of scriptures; that you must prove doth make for you (in points of controversy) if you will prove ought.

Why? do you grant then, that the words of scripture make more for us, in show, though not in substance, then they do for you. It were not good for you that this should be known.

What? Not that the words of scripture, sometimes, make more for you then us, in show, though not in substance? Yes truly M. Hart : and for the Anabaptists too, that Christians had all things common. And for Pope Clemens too, that wives must be common : because in all things wives are implied also. And I am so far from being afraid that this should be known: that, even in the very example which you mention (as making for you most,) I grant that the words of Christ, this is my body, are plainer in show, though not for your monster of transubstantiation, yet for your real presence, then for our sacramental. But so, that I grant the same (in like manner) of other sacramental and mystical speeches: wherein the scriptures give the name of the thing to that which it betokneth, as of the passover, to the lamb, and of the rock to Christ. For (I hope) you will not conclude of this show, that really Christ was a rock; or a lamb, the passover really.

These speeches are not like to that of Christ's body in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. For, it is manifest, that when the lamb was called the passover, and Christ the rock: it was meant, not really, but figuratively, that the rock signified Christ; the lamb, the passover. But it is not manifest in that of Christ's body.

Whither it be manifest, or no; is not the question: but whither the speeches be like in show of words, the rock was Christ, this is my body. Or, to come nearer to your own example and proof of that point: Christ saith of himself that he is true bread: and, my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. True and, indeed: these terms are more pregnant for a real presence, then that of Christ's body. Yet if you say that Christ is bread, really; and his flesh, meat; and his blood, drink: you may as well say, that he is really a vine ; and his disciples branches really, and other such real either blasphemies or follies.

Nay, we do confess that many things in scripture are spoken and meant figuratively: but neither all, nor this concerning the Sacrament, nor anything else, whereof the literal and proper sense hath not somewhat contrary to God, to religion, and to Christian life. As D. Allen saith that S. Austin teacheth. Out of whom he citeth withal a worthy sentence, touching such, as you are: If the mind be prevented with an opinion of some error, whatsoever the scripture doth affirm otherwise, men think it to be spoken figuratively.

That sentence is good, as S. Austin uttereth it. But D. Allen useth it ill, against us. The worse, because S. Austin showeth straight upon it, in the same book, of the same point, that, to eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood, was spoken not properly (for so it were a wicked deed,) but figuratively: flat against that error of the real presence, which he is pretended to prove by D. Allen. But howsoever D. Allen deal in that: the point (which you grant with him) sufficeth me for proof of that I said. For if many things in scripture are spoken and meant figuratively: it followeth that the sense of scripture is against the show of words in sundry places, and therefore that the show of words sundry times is against the truth. Which since you cannot see in this Sacrament, because of your prejudice of the real presence: I will bring an example of the sacrament of baptism, wherein you must needs see it. There were some of old, who, as we sprinckle children with water in baptizing of them, so they used to print and stamp certain marks upon them with fire. For the which usage they alleged the scripture, (I mean, the words thereof) that, touching John the Baptist: who saying of himself, I baptize you with water, addeth of our Savior, He will baptize you with the holy Ghost and fire. Now, I put the matter to your own judgment, whether they did better, who baptized with fire: or we, who without it.

Who doubteth, but we? For they were deceived who took the name of fire properly in that place: where it is used figuratively, to signify the graces of the holy Ghost, who lighteneth and purgeth the hearts of the faithful. They, who did baptize in that sort, were heretics: as Alphonsus showeth.

Yet the show of words doth make more for thē: John baptized with water, Christ baptizeth with fire. Neither have you here so much as that evasion, (which yet if you had, were nothing to the purpose) that it is manifest to be meant, not properly, but figuratively. For there have been sundry churches and nations these many hundred years, that used it, and do still: induced all thereto by the show of words, as manifest to be meant not figuratively, but properly, in their judgment. And your real presence hath not gone so far in the one Sacrament with this is my body: as their fiery marks have gone in the other with the holy Ghost and fire. Wherefore (to return to the point in questiō) although it may seem by the show of words that our Savior promised the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter only: yet, since he meant them to all the Apostles (as I have declared) your claim will be a bare show, if all your proof be show of words. And therefore, as I said, so I say again, that you must bring us forth some better evidence: or else your title will be naught.

And I tell you again, that the evidence is good: and hath not only show of words, but sense too, if it be rightly taken. But we retain not you to be our lawyer to expound it.

I am not in hast to be retained of you. But what mislike you in my expounding of it?

That, which shall keep me from yielding thereunto. For your exposition is a private exposition, which we allow not of. We allow only of the churches exposition.

Then I perceive the church shall be your lawyer. And what is (I pray you) the churches exposition.

That which all the Fathers make with one consent.

Which all the Fathers make? We had need to have bodies like the bodies of Oaks, and memories as strong as steel, to endure to read, and be sure to remember of every exposition, so much, as may ascertain us, that all the Fathers make it. Hath any man living read them all? Nay, have all the men living read them? Nay, can they show them? Can they get them? I had almost said, can they name them?

Womeane of the Fathers which are extant commonly, and may be had and read. If many of them make it, and the rest either gainsay it not, or say naught of it: we count it to be made of all with one consent.

That count is evil cast. For, as in the writings of Fathers which we have, someone expoundeth places of Scripture oftentimes otherwise then all the rest, (a thing notorious and confessed:) so, it is likely that in those which we have not some places were otherwise expounded thē they be in those which we have. Yet I will not deny but you had reason so to count. For else your lawyer had been dumb, and could not have spoken a word for his client. But if this be your rule of the churches exposition: then I could have made mine exposition, the churches, with a wet finger, if I would have stuffed it with the names of Fathers. For my words of Peter, that he alone made answer for all the Apostles, & received the keys together with them all, are the words of S. Austin, though I did not name him. And S. Ambrose saith of that promise of Christ ( I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the rest which followeth) that what is said to Peter, is said to the Apostles. And Jerome saith, that the foundation and firmness of the church lay on all the Apostles equally, and they did all receive the keys. And Origen saith, that Christ's promise of building his church, of giving the keys, of binding and loosing, made as to Peter only, was common unto all. And Hilary saith in like sort, that through the worthiness of their faith they obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the power of binding and loosing in heaven and earth. Neither do I doubt but other of the Fathers have said as much as these in the expounding of these words. But have they or not: this is no path for us to walk in, if we seek the right way. For neither might we hope for an ende of our travels because of sundry expositions, one contrary to another: and we should faint for thirst in time of heat and drouth, looking for water in the wilderness, as the travelers of Tema: and (that is worst of all) sometimes we should leave the pure water of truth, and swill up puddle in steed of it. For, although the Fathers were men endued of God with excellent gifts, and brought no small light to understanding of the scriptures: yet learned men in our days may give a right sense of sundry places thereof which the Fathers saw not, yea against the which perhaps they consent.

The Council of Trent condemneth them that say so.

As learned men, as any were at that Council, say it. And they do it too.

Who? Calvin and Beza?

Truly, I do judge no less of their learning. And, if I be of any judgment, I judge not parcially in it. But think of thē as you list. S. Austin, having followed S. Cyprian in expounding a certain place of Scripture, afterward did find in Tyconius the Donatist another exposition: which thinking to be truer, he preferred it before Cyprians. Whereby you may see, that, although you thought as ill of Calvin and Beza, as did S. Austin of the Donatists, yet, if you had S. Austin's mind, you would rather follow the sense which they give sometimes of the scriptures, then that which is given by ancient godly Fathers. Nevertheless, my mind was not of them, when I mentioned learned men. For, to what purpose? Since I am not ignorant how small account you make of them. My mind was of your own men, who say so, and do so.

What? Against the Council of Trent? Who be they?

First, the flower of your Cardinals, the Cardinal Cajetan, beginning to expound the scriptures, doth set it down for a principle, that God hath not tied the exposition of the scriptures unto the senses of the Fathers. Wherefore if he fall upon a new sense agreeable to the text, though it go against the stream of the Fathers : he doth advise the reader not to mislike of it.

But the flower of our Bishops, Bishop Melchior Cano misliketh the Cardinal for that his rash sentence: and reproveth it as an error, yea as the common sentence of heretics and schismatics.

But the flower of your Doctors, D. Payua Andradius, rebuketh this your Bishops reproof, as more rash: yea defendeth Cajetan against it as a slander. He teacheth first, that the Fathers do in many places not expound the Scriptures according to the literal sense, (the only which hath weight to prove pointes of faith,) but allegorically and morally. We may leave their allegories and expound them literally. He teacheth next, that when they seek the literal senses of the scriptures, they do not always find them, but give diverse senses one unlike another. We may forsake their senses all, and bring a new unlike to theirs. Moreover, (to make the thing evident by examples) him self expoundeth sundry places otherwise then the Fathers have: declaring that he doth it upon sufficient ground. Again, he proveth by the sayings of the chief of the Fathers, that they spake not oracles whē they expounded the Scriptures, but might therein be deceived. He showeth furthermore, that the ouersightes of the translatiō which they followed, must cause them needs to miss sometimes the right meaning of the holy Ghost. Finally, he addeth that experience forceth us to confess (unless we will be unthankful to most excellent wits) that very many things in Moses and the Prophets are in this our age expounded more exactly (through the diligence of learned men) then ever they were before. Whereupon he concludeth that the holy Ghost, the only and faithful interpreter of the Scriptures, would have many things to be known to us, which our ancestors knew not: and hath wrought by means, (unknown to us, known to him) that the Fathers noted good and godly mysteries out of very many places of the Scriptures, whereof the right and natural sense hath been found out by the posterity. This is, in few words, the judgment of Andradius, which he prosecuteth more at large; in the defense of Cardinal Cajetan against quarellers; who did cavil at him because he wrote that it is lawful to go against the stream of the ancient Fathers in expounding of the Scriptures.

I care not for the judgment of Andradius, or Cajetan, or any other private man, though you could bring a hundred of them. I do not build my faith on them.

Although you care not for their judgment, yet you should care for their reasons. Of which the light is so great: that, unless a man have altogether lost his eyes, he cannot choose but see the truth and brightness of them. Neither may you set so little by their judgment: chiefly the judgment of Andradius. If you do: it may be the price of his contempt will help to purchase your confusiō. For, the Council of Trent, the fairest flower of your garland, & chiefest pillar of your faith, is but the consent of a few such, as Andradius was, or rather none such perhaps. Let the Italians witness it, who wondered at his gifts. Theyloue not them selves so ill, as to wonder at common things in strangers. A great token of it, that the faith of Trent most justly charged by Kemnicius, (who tried the Spirit of the Council, and proved it the Spirit of error ) found no man to defend it, but Andradius, to speak of. For Tiletan is a trifler, not worthy to be named the same day that he is. But let the Authors, with their reasons, be proofs of no value: and grant, that if the Fathers all consent in one, their exposition must be stood too. What, if the Fathers dissent in expounding a place of the Scripture, as oftentimes they do? Which of their expositions must we follow then?

If one expound a thing otherwise then all the rest, the rest must be followed, and he must be refused. As by D. Stapletons example in S. Austin I shown ere-while.

S. Austin was against you then. But if he make for you, though he be alone, you will leave all and follow him: whereof you give notable proof in the division of the ten commandments. For, the second commandment against the worship of Images, Thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them, because the words are sharp, and rip the heart strings of your church, whose spiritual hooredomes do pass the hoordomes of Jezebel, and all your temples are stews of them: therefore you omit it in praierbookes and catechisms; & to salve the matter, least thereby we should have no more thē nine commandments, you cut the tenth into two. Now for this, S. Austin is all in all with you: the rest of the Fathers go for naught. Yet the rest expound it literally as it were: S. Austin fancied a mystery, that the number of three commandments touching God might betoken the Trinity. Thus under the color of one Fathers judgment against all the rest, you conceal the second commandment from the people, least your vile idolatry, or imagedoulie as you smooth it, should grow (by the hearing thereof) into mislike. Indeed, whatsoever you say of the Fathers, to blear the people's eyes: you use them as marchaunts are wont to use their counters. Sometime they stand with you for pence, sometime for powndes, even as they be next and readiest at hand to make up your accounts.

Why? Think you that none, but S. Austin only, hath so divided the commandments?

I find none alleged of your Schoolmen, but him.

You may. For Clemens Alexandrinus is alleged also by Father Robert in his Dictates upon S. Thomas.

Clemens is smally bound to Father Robert for alleging of him. Neither will he get credit: nor you advantage by it. For Clemens, though he number no more then three commandments touching our duty towards God: yet neither doth he number anymore then six touching our duty towards man; and of the tenth he maketh but one, which you make two. So that, through omitting the second commandment, as part annexed to the first: Clemens found no more commandments then nine, whereas the scriptures number ten. Wherefore, either Clemens maketh nothing for you: or at least no more for you then us.

Yes. For the later place of six commandments, wherein Clemens maketh for you, is corrupted. The former is sound, wherein he maketh for us.

Just. For Father Robert saith so. And he belike is Pythagoras. All the proof, is, He said it. Else, what reason have you, why the later place (if Clemens be corrupted) should be thought rather to be corrupted then the former? This was wont to be, with young Logicians in Oxford a schoolers trick at Paruis : to say that the place in Aristotle is corrupted, when they could not unloose a knotte. In deed your latin, either translator, or printer, hath corrupted Clemens in the chief place that he doth make for us against you. Which I say, not (as father Robert doth) upon my word without proof: but the very drift and course of Clemens treatise, and the Greek copy agreeing fully with it, convinceth it to be so. As for the repugnancy that is between these pointes in the true copy of Clemens: it seemeth not to have grown of either place corrupted, but of an oversight & slip of memory in Clemens, by reason of a digression which he fell into upon occasion of the precept to sanctify the Sabbath day. And this is the likelier, because there is somebody touched by Origen for so dividing the commandments: and we find not any that hath divided them so before Clemens ; who was Origen's master. Which also father Robert himself hath observed. Wherefore you may not look for any help at the hands of Clemens: S. Austin you must stand alone with, and follow one against all.

No doubt there be more of that mind then he: although I know not who they be. For Torrensis, a learned Jesuit, saith that this division of the ten commandments, three of them to touch our duty towards God, and seven towards man, is a point of doctrine very common and familiar both unto S. Austin, and to all antiquity. Whereby you may see that S. Austin is not alone of that judgment.

Nay: I see not that. But I see another thing, which it were reason that you should see also.

What is that?

I see that the Jesuit maketh no conscience of lying, so that it be for advantage: as a lewd person professeth in the poet. For whereas the commandments, which touch our duty towards God, are noted to be four, (and that of Images, one of them) by the chiefest authors and witnesses of antiquity ; first by the Hebrews, (as Philo and Josephus show) who have still continued of the same minds, (as it may seem) in their posterity; next, by the Grecians, Gregory Nazianzen, Origen, Athanasius, Chrysostom, or whosoever was author of the work vnperfit upon Matthew ; thirdlie, by the Latins, S. Ambrose, S. Jerome, and one more ancient then they both, the author of the questions of the old and new Testament: nevertheless this Jesuit, as though his face were hardened, like the face of an harlot, blu • heth not to say, that antiquity, that all antiquity doth affirm the contrary.

You are persuaded too hardly of Torrensis. I cannot think that he would pretend all antiquity, unless he had known, if not all, yet the most to be of that mind.

You have conceived too lightly of Torrensis, I cannot think that he would allege not one witness out of all antiquity, if he had known any of that mind in deed. Chieflie seeing that he is so ambitious in citing Fathers when he hath them, that, to prove the church was built upon Peter, he quoteth no less then eight and forty places out of Doctors and Councils, to let go other writers which (he saith) he passeth over. But, grant there is perhaps someone, or two, or three, or four (whom your Jesuits have not found yet) that are of S. Austin's mind in that point. If fewer of the Fathers expound a place of scripture contrary to more of them: which shall we follow thē? the lesser or the greater number?

The greater number. For a few may be deceived more easily then many.

Then must you bid your Schoolmen now adieu, and agree with us in the division of the commandments; though we give you Clemens (whom father Robert citeth) and three or four voices more. Howbeit I cannot urge you to do it, unless that you do it upon surer ground: because this ground is slabbie, and the rule unsure for men to walk on. For, that the greater number of the Fathers expoundeth Scriptures worse sometimes then the lesser: it appeareth by the controversy between Austin and Jerome, concerning the reproof of Peter : whether Paul rebuked him in earnest, as blameworthie; or dissembled with him, and made a dutiful lie, which Jerome termed an honest policy. For, yourselves grant, that Austin (who thought that Paul reproved him in earnest) did judge therein more soundly & truly then Jerome did, who thought that he dissembled. Yet Jerome alleged more Fathers on his side▪ and made so great account of them, that he desired Austin to suffer him to err with such men if he thought him to err. Whereupon S. Austin replied, that peradventure he might find as many Fathers on his side, if he had read much. But I, saith he, have Paul the Apostle himself instead of these all, and above these all. To him do I fly, to him I appeal from all the Doctors (his interpreters) who are of other minds. Of him do I ask, whereas he writeth to the Galatians, that he saw Peter not going with a right foot to the truth of the Gospel, and that he withstood him to his face for it, because by that dissembling he constrained the Gentiles to do like the Jews: whether he wrote true, or did lie perhaps with I know not what politic falsehood. And I do hear him (a little before) making a very religious protestation, in the beginning of the same discourse, The things which I write unto you, behold, I witness before God, I lie not. Let them, who are of other minds, pardon me. I believe rather so great an Apostle, swearing in his own and for his own words, then any man be he never so learned, talking of the words of another. A wise and free judgment, worthy of S. Austin. Whereby you may perceive that your rule of following the greater number of the Fathers in expounding the scriptures, is but a leaden rule, not fit which should be used to square out stones by, for building of the Lord's temple.

This of Austin showeth that we may vary sometimes from the greater number of the Fathers, and refuse their judgment. But that (as Torrensis hath observed well) must be with two cautions. One, that the thing wherein we vary from them be a known truth. The other, that we do it with reverence and modesty.

With reverence and modesty? God forbid else. As Elihu reproved Job: as Paul reproved Peter. But for the other caution: how shall we know a thing to be a known truth?

One • way to know it, and that a good way, is the common testimony of the faithful people, if they with one consent believe it to be true.

This bringeth us small help to the expounding of scriptures. For things may be true: and yet a place of scripture not applied truly and rightly to prove them. As it is plain in places, that have been applied by Christians against the Jews. But let it be a good way. What, if the faithful people do dissent? As, in the question which we have in hand about the Popes supremacy, the people of the east church dissented from the west, many hundred years together. What shall we do then?

Then another way (a better way to find it) is the common testimony of the faithful Pastors, if they do decree it in a general council. As for the Popes supremacy they did in the Council of Lateran.

The Bishops of the east church say that the Council of Lateran was not general: which the Pope him self doth acknowledge also, as it is noted on your law. But here the former difficulties meet us again, and breed the same perplexity. For there are but few places of Scripture which general Councils have expounded: neither is it likely the Pope will assemble them to expound the rest. Again, although you say that general Councils cannot err in their conclusions: yet you say they may err in applying of Scriptures to prove their conclusions. Lastly, general Councils may dissent too: as heretofore they have in a weighty point offaith touching Christ. The which incommodities being all incident into this which presently we debate of, as our conference will show: you see that you have not yet resolved me. One question I must ask you more. In this case, when Councils say nothing of Scriptures; or misapply them, in proofs; or dissent, in conclusions: what are we to do?

If Councils dissent, we must follow those which are confirmed by the Head. And (to answer all your questions in a word) whether with the Councils or without the Councils, that which the Head determineth, is a known truth: that which the Head condemneth is a known error.

You mean by the Head, not our Savior Christ, but the Pope, I trow.

I: the visible head.

Doo you not see then by your own answers, that whatsoever show you make of Fathers and Councils: the Pope is the man that must strike the stroke? So that, (to bring it to the point in controversy) whereas our question is, whether that the Pope be supreme head of the church: you say, He is so. When we sift the matter, and seek the reasons, why: this is the sum of all, Because him self saith so. I thought, that the church should have been your lawyer to expound your evidences: but now I perceive that you meant the Pope. He is the churches husband (belike) and in matters of law dealeth for her. I cannot blame you, though you be content to make him your judge too. For if he give sentence, in this cause, against you: I will never trust him.

You do gather more of mine answers, then I meant. I pray make your own collections, and not mine.

I do gather nothing, but that which you have scattered. For, you began to try this point touching the Pope by the words of Scripture. The words (we agree) decide by y ^e sense: y ^e sense must be tried (you say) by y ^e Fathers: the Fathers by y ^e truth: the truth by the people: the people by the Councils: the Councils by the Pope. If one of us should make but a semblance of such an answer: you would sport yourselves with it, and call it a Circulation, and cry against our impudency, & whoope at it like stage players. But you may daunse such roundes, and yet persuade men that you go right forward with great sobriety and gravity.

Howsoever you dally with your circulations, & rounds, as you call them: I say no more, but this, that if a truth cannot be known otherwise, then the last mean to resolve us of it, is the Popes authority. But there needed not so much adoo hereof, if I prove that Christ did give that supremacy (whereof we talked) to S. Peter.

You can never prove that Christ did give it him, but by the word of Christ, which is the holy scripture. And the scripture standeth in substance of the sense, not in the show of words. Wherefore, it was needful, since we seek herein to find out Christ's will, that first we agreed what way the right sense of the scripture may be known. Which, seeing you would have me to fetch from the Pope, and I have no lust to go unto Rome, nor think it lodgeth in the Vatican, so y ^t by this way no agreement can be made, or ende of controversy hoped for: I will take a shorter and a surer way, confessed by us both to be a good way, whereby the right sense of the scripture may be found, and so the will of Christ be known.

What way may that be?

To learn of Christ him self the meaning of his word, and let his spirit teach it: that is, to expound the scripture by the scripture. A golden rule, to know, and try the truth from error: prescribed by the Lord, and practiced by his servants for the building of his church from age to age through all posterity. For, the holy Ghost, exhorting the Jews, to compare the darker light of the Prophets with the clearer of the Apostles, that the day-brigtnesse of the Son of righteousness may shine in their hearts: saith, that no prophecy of Scripture is of a man's own interpretation: because, in the prophecy (that is, the scripture of the Prophets) they spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost, not as the will of man did fancy. Which reason since it implieth, as the Prophets, so the Apostles: and it is true in them all, the holy men of God, spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost: it followeth that all the scripture ought to be expounded by God, because it is inspired of God: as natures light hath taught that he who made the law, should interpret the law. This rule commended to us by the prescript of God, and as it were sanctified by the Levites practice in the old Testament, and the Apostles in the new: the godly ancient Pastors and Doctors of the church have followed, in their preaching, their writing, their deciding of controversies in Councils. Wherefore, if you desire in deed the churches exposition, and would so fain find it: you must go this way, this is the churches way: that is the churches sense to which this way doth bring you. For, S. Austin, whose doctrine yourself do acknowledge to be grounded on the laws, the manners, the judgments of all the catholic church: whom you call a witness of the sincere truth and catholic religion, such a witness as no exception can be made against: who assureth you (as you say) not only of his own, but also of the common, the constant faith and confession of the ancient Fathers and the Apostolic church: this S. Austin hath written four books of Christian doctrine, wherein he purposely entreateth, how men should understand the Scripture and expound it. The sum of all his treatise doth aim at this mark, which I have pointed too: that the meaning of the Scripture must be learned out of the Scripture, by the consideration of things and words in it: that the ende whereto, the matter whereof, it is all written, be marked in general, and all be understood according to that end and matter: that all be read over & over, & those things chiefly noted which are set down plainly, both precepts of life, and rules of belief, because that all things, which concern belief and life, are plainly written in it: that obscure & dark speeches be lightened and opened by the plain and manifest: that to remove the doubt of uncertain sentences the clear and certain be followed: that recourse be had unto the Greek and Hebrew copies, to clear out of the fountains, if the translation be muddy: that doubtful places be expounded by the rule of faith, which we are taught out of the plainer places of the scripture: that all the circumstances of the text be weighed, what goeth before, what cometh after; the manner how, the cause why, the men to whom, the time when, everything is said: to be short, that still we seek to know the will and meaning of the Author by whom the holy Ghost hath spoken; if we find it not, yet give such a sense as agreeth with the right faith, approved by some other place of scripture: if a sense be given, the uncertainty whereof cannot be discussed by certain and sure testimonies of scripture, it might be proved by reason; but this custom is dangerous; the safer way far, is, to walk by the scripture, the which (being shadowed with dark and borrowed words) when we mind to search, let either that come out of it which hath no doubt and controversy, or, if it have doubt, let it be determined by the same scripture, through witnesses to be found & used thence wheresoever: y ^t so (to conclude) all places of the scriptures be expounded by the scriptures, the which are called Canonical, as being the Canon, that is to say the rule of godliness and faith. Thus you see the way, the way of wisdom and knowledge, which Christ hath prescribed, the church hath received, S. Austin hath declared both by his precepts and his practice, both in this treatise and in others, agreeably to the judgment of the ancient Fathers. Which way, since it is lyked both by us and you, though not so much followed of you as of us: I wish that the woorthinesse thereof might persuade you to practice it yourself, but it must enforce you at least to allow it.

I grant, it neither can, nor ought to be denied, that everyone of those things, and specially, if they be joined all together, do help very much to understand the scriptures rightly. But yet they are not so sure and certain means as some other are, which we prefer before them. Neither do they help always; nay, sometimes they do hurt rather, and deceive greatly such as expound the Scripture after them. This is not only said, but also proved at large out of the Doctors and Fathers, by that worthy man of great wit and judgment, our countryman M. Stapleton Doctor of Divinity, the Kings Professor of controversies in the university of Douay. Of whose most wholesome work, entitled, A methodical demonstration of doctrinal principles of the faith: one book is wholly spent to show the means, way and order, how to make authentical interpretation of the Scriptures. In the which he layeth this for a ground, that the Scripture cannot be rightly understood but by the rule of faith. Whereupon he condemneth the Protestants opinion, that the sense of Scriptures must be fetched out of the Scriptures. Which error of yours to overthrow the more fully: he delivereth four means of expounding the Scriptures; the first, very certain and sure, the rule of faith ; the next, no less certain, the practice of the church ; the third, at least probable, the consent of the Fathers ; the last, most infallible,