Conference Between Rainolds and Hart

The treatise of your Doctor against the Protestants opinion, is like the army of Antiochus prepared against the Romans: very great and huge of men of many nations, but white liuered soldiers: neither so strong with armor, as glistering with gold and silver. Antiochus him self was amazed at it, and thought it invincible: so did the simple fools of his country too. But the Romans contemned it: and Annibal jested at it. The name of Protestants, (which he useth tauntingly as all one with Heretics ) we are no more ashamed of, then were the Prophets and Apostles: whom the Spirit of God hath honored with that title because they did make a protestation of their faith, upon the like occasion, as did the faithful in Germany when they were noted by that name. The Protestants opinion, I have already shown to be the opinion of the ancient Protestants, the Fathers, the Apostles, the holy Ghost who spake by them. If you call it an error: we are content to err with them. If he think it an heresy: we are no better then Paul, who in such heresy served God. The ground which he layeth for the disproof of it: is such, that it seemeth, his wits and he had made a fray when he laid it. He saith, that the scripture ought to be expounded by the rule of faith, and therefore not by scripture only. Which is (in effect) as if a man should say: the church must be taught by living creatures endued with reason, and therefore not by men only. For as a living creature endued with reason, and a man, is all one, which every child knoweth by the principles of logic: so the rule of faith, and scripture is all one, doth not your Doctor know it? It is a principle of divinity, delivered by S. Austin, whom he pretendeth (chiefly, in this point) to follow.

And doth he not follow him? Doth he not allege S. Austin's own words, In a doubtful place of scripture let a man seek the rule of faith, which rule he hath learned of plainer places of the scriptures, and of the authority of the church: to prove that the rule of faith must be fetched out of the authority of the church also, not out of scriptures only?

Yes: he doth allege S. Austin's words in deed: but as the false witnesses alleged Christ's words of destroying the temple, and building it in three days: the words, against the meaning. Which trick the law noteth as an abusing of the law: yet is it common with your Doctor. For as Christ, when he spake of raising the temple, by the temple meant his body, the witnesses did wrest it to the temple of Jerusalem: so, the authority of the church is mentioned by S. Austin, as teaching scriptures only, your Doctor allegeth it, as teaching somewhat beside the scriptures.

This is strange, that S. Austin, by, the authority of the church, meant no more then by the plainer places of the scriptures. For so much you seem to say in effect.

Be it strange: yet is it true. For him self declareth that to be his meaning, not only by the rest of his whole treatise, wherein he doth establish the scriptures alone for the rule of faith, to show the sense of doubtfuller places by the plainer: but also by the ende of this your own sentence, which Stapleton (in alleging it) either negligently passed, or craftily suppressed: unless the fault perhaps be in some other, with whose eyes he read it. For after these words, let him seek the rule of faith, which rule he hath learned of plainer places of the scriptures, and of the authority of the church: it followeth in S. Austin, Of which rule we have sufficiently entreated in the first book, when we spake of things. Now, in that discourse (to which he referreth us) he spake not of anything as taught by the church, but what is in the scripture. Wherefore, in these words, by the authority of the church, he meant not anything beside the scripture. If he did: show it. If he did not: acknowledge it.

He did. For, in the first book where he spake of things, he shown that the doctrine of the Trinity is comprised in that rule of faith. Which yet is not expressly set down in the scriptures.

Expresly ? What mean you by this word expressly ?

I mean, that it is not expressed in the scriptures.

What? Not the doctrine of the blessed Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost?

Not all that our faith doth hold of the Trinity.

God forbid that we should hold of such a mystery more then he teacheth by his word.

Certainly, S. Austin writing to an Arian (who denied that God the son is consubstantial with the Father) saith, that as we read not in the holy scriptures the Father unbegotten, & yet it is defended that it must be said: in like sort it may be that neither consubstantial is found written there, and yet being said in the assertion of faith may be defended. And again disputing against Maximinus a Bishop of the Ariās, Give me testimonies (sayest thou) where the holy Ghost is worshipped: as though by those things which we do read, we understood not some things also which we read not. But (that I be not enforced to seek many) where hast thou read God the Father unbegotten or unborn? And yet it is true.

And think you that S. Austin meant by these speeches that the scriptures teach not that God the holy Ghost is to be worshipped, God the Son is of one substance with the Father, God the Father is not begotten or borne?

He seemeth to have meant it. And Torrensis (who gathered S. Austin's Confession out of all his works) allegeth these places to prove that Christians ought to believe many things which have come to us from the Apostles themselves (delivered as it were by hand) although they be not written expressly in scriptures.

The Jesuit Torrensis doth great wrong herein to the truth of God, to S. Austin's credit, and to you who read him. And yet with such a sophism in the word [expressly:] that, if it should be laid unto his charge, he would wash his hands of it, as Pilate did of Christ's blood. For he allegeth those places of S. Austin, thereby to prove Traditions: as though we had received that doctrine (touching God ) by tradition unwritten, not by the written word. S. Austin, no such matter. But dealing with an Arian, who required the very word consubstantial to be shown in scripture: doth tell him that the thing it self is there found though not that word perhaps. Wherevpon, he presseth him in like sort with the word unbegotten: which the Arian having given to God the Father, and defending it: S. Austin replieth, that as he had termed the Father unbegotten, & well, although the word not written: so might the Son also be termed consubstantial; since the scripture proveth the thing meant thereby. And as with this Arian : so w ^t their bishop Maximinus. Who having himself termed God the Father unbegotten or unborn, denied the holy Ghost to be equal to the Son, because it is not written that he is worshipped. To the which cavil of his S. Austin answereth, that although it be not written in flat terms, yet is it gathered by necessary consequence of that which is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, the holy Ghost is God, therefore to be worshipped. Thus, S. Austin's meaning was of these pointes, that the scripture teacheth them. Whereby you may perceive the fraud of Torrensis. Who saying that they are not expressly written in the scriptures, left him self this refuge, that he might say they are not in express words, though for sense and substance they are in the scriptures. And yet, by referring that title to traditions, induceth his reader to think that they are taught by tradition, not by scripture. A doctrine, which Arians will clappe their hands at: that the Son of God is not (by scripture) of one substance with the Father. But let it be far from you, M. Hart, to think so profanely of the word of God. And, if you rest so much on Doctors of your own side, rest here on Thomas of Aquine rather: who saith that concerning God we must say nothing but that which is found in the holy scripture, either in words, or in sense. Which, as he confirfirmeth by Denys, and Damascene: so was it the common judgment of the Fathers, of S. Austin chiefly, as his books touching the Trinity do show. And, in the conclusion thereof (for evident proof of that which you denied) he giveth the name of the rule of faith to that which is plainly set down in scripture of the Trinity. Wherefore the scripture cōpriseth the rule of faith for that point. And as for that point, so for all the rest, which in that very book (whereof we spake) S. Austin noteth. It remaineth therefore that S. Austin meant not by the authority of the church, more then he signified by plainer places of the scriptures.

Yes: his own words in that very sentence do yield sufficient proof (me thinks) that he did. For, if he signified by plainer places of the scriptures, as much as he meant by the authority of the church then was it idle, when he had named the one, to add the other to it: chiefly in such sort, as that is added by S. Austin. For both the conjunction, the places of scriptures, and the authority of the church, should import things different: and I may say of words, as the Philosopher saith of things, That is done in vain by more that may be done by fewer.

Nothing is done in vain, that is done to edify. The church might well be mentioned, as an interpreter of the word: though it teach not anything beside the word of God. The people of Israel did believe the Lord and his servant Moses: yet Moses did nothing but that the Lord commanded him. The wise man doth charge his son to hearken to the instruction of his father, and forsake not the doctrine of his mother: yet they both (the father, and mother) teach one lesson, the chiefest wisdom, the fear of God. The same is fulfilled in this Moses, and the Lord; or rather in this mother, and our heavenly Father: of whom it hath been said well, He cannot have God to be his Father, who hath not the church to be his mother. For, God having purposed to make us his children and heirs of life eternal, as he prepared his word, to be, first, the seed, the immortal seed, of which we are begotten a new, afterward, the milk, the sincere milk, whereby we (being borne) grow: so he ordained the church by her ministry to teach it, as it were a mother, first, to conceive and bring forth y ^e children, afterward to nourish them, as babes new borne, with her milk. Which appeareth, as by others, so chiefly by S. Paul, who traueiled of them in childbirth, whom he sought to convert: and when they were new borne, he nourished them with milk: to set before our eyes the duty of the church, and all the churches Ministers in bearing children unto Christ. Now, the milk which the church giveth to her children, she giveth it out of her breasts: and her two breasts, are the two testaments of the holy scriptures (by S. Austin's judgment) the Old Testament, and the new. S. Austin therefore, saying, the rule of faith is received of the authority of the church: meant not that the church should deliver anything, but only what she draweth out of the holy scriptures.

Not for milk perhaps, which babes are to suck: but for strong meat wherewith men are nourished. For mothers feed not their children, being grown, with milk out of their breasts.

But S. Austin addeth that the holy scriptures have both milk for babes, and strong meat for men: milk, in plainer things and easier to be understood; strong meat, in harder and greater mysteries. Yea, where Christ said, that every Scribe which is taught unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto an householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure things both new and old: S. Austin judgeth that he meant by new things and old, the old and new testament. Wherefore, since every pastor and teacher of the church is meant ( you grant) by this Scribe : it followeth by S. Austin that the meat which he is to fetch out of his storehouse for the sustenance of his household, must be the Scripture only. Which the light of reason will induce you too, if you believe the former pointes. For the Philosopher teacheth that we are nourished by the same things of which we do consist. Then, if we are begotten of God's word, as seed : the word, as it is milk to nourish us, when we are young; so must it nourish us, when we are grown, as strong meat. But if it were so, that S. Austin had not had this opinion touching strong meat: yet must he needs have it, in that whereof we reason: for there he speaketh of milk. And he saith that the rule of faith is received of plainer places of the scriptures and of the authority of the church : to note the churches practice, which, in catechizing of her young ones, taught them summarily the pointes of belief and the precepts of life. So that the simplest Christians, who had not read them selves the plainer places of the scriptures to learn the rule of faith, yet knew it by the catechism: wherein, through the ministry of the church, they learned it. Now, S. Austin's catechism hath nothing but the doctrine which Christians may suck out of plainer places of the scriptures. His rule of faith therefore delivered in the plainer places of the scriptures, is the same that the authority of the church delivered. In deed your new Doctors in their Popish catechisms have precepts of the church, beside the precepts of the scriptures: & your church, which nameth her self (though untruly) the mother of all churches, hath more then two breasts, a third, out of the which she poureth poison with her milk▪ Whereby, through good usage, having killed her own children, she claimeth our churches children to be hers: as did the woman before Solomon. And the whore hath got her atturneies of her minions, which do not only rail at us for not acknowledging her to be our mother: but also bely us that we scoff at and curse the very title of Holy mother the church. But they whom God hath blessed with the spirit of wisdom, as he did Solomon, will easily discern, that we are so far off from scoffing at and cursing, that we give the name of mother to the church with reverence and joy. Marry, the church of Rome to be called our holy mother, which neither is holy, nor our mother : that our souls detest, and wish that her stepmotherhood may be far from us. As for the rule offaith, to which she layeth claim by her advocate, your Doctor, pleading the title out of Austin, that we as acknowledging her child to be our sister, may take her for our mother: if we follow Solomon and rip up the plea with such a sword as he did; we shall find that the child is neither hers, nor her husbands, but the holy scriptures. For Austin, in saying, the rule of faith is learned of plainer places of the Scriptures and of the authority of the church: named the Scriptures, as the matter, the church as the minister, whereof the rule of faith is learned. Your Doctor, supposing, as well the carpenter, as the timber, to be the stuff, whereof the house must be built; doth lay his axe to both together: and squaring them alike, doth make him beams, and posts, and iuises, some of the timber, some of the carpenter. Even so, the holy scripture is not the whole matter of the rule of faith: whereof the church ministers, as workmen, and builders, should frame the house of God: but in part, the church; in part, the scripture is the matter. Both which being molten, as were y ^e earerings of the Israelites, & wrought in fashion by your craftesman, not yielding unto it of weakness, as did Aaron, but seeking after it with greediness, as the people, who knew not what was become of Moses : they will make a rule of faith, not of Christ's, but of the Popes faith. And this if it be decked with devises to the eye, as that was with gold, and set forth by men whose tongues are their own, and voices sweet to sing the song, These be thy God's, ô Israel, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: it will move many to daunse for joy about it, in as holy sort, as the golden calf did move the Israelites to do.

It doth not become you, to scorn in this sort so grave and learned men, as M.D. Stapleton, and others whom you touch: much less the church of Rome, and least of all the Popes Holines. Whose predecessors gave us our first faith in the time of the Britannes, and restored it afterward in the days of the English. And do you thus reward them for it? You will make some men perhaps, (if you use it) to give their judgment of you, with what spirit you do it.

If you will speak of him, who gave us our faith : you shall do well to lift up your eyes from dust and rottenness, and cast them somewhat higher. Else, although I will not condemn your spirit therefore, yet I shall fear you do not that honor to God's Spirit, which would beseem a child of God: for, who is their father ? But, to accept them as the givers of it, whose ministry God used in it: first, as it is doubted of the one side, whether the Britannes had their first faith from Eleutherius, (it is more likely, no:) so, of the other side it is confessed, that all the English had it not from Austin sent by Gregory. Then, if it were so we had it first from them: yet we received it not from the Popes predecessors. For, as you take the name of Pope for supreme head, and supreme head for that power which you have defined: there was no Pope at all, when we received the faith. The bratte was not yet borne, when Gregory the first, much less, when Eleutherius was Bishop of Rome: as our cōnference will show. Thirdly, if they who were the predecessors of the Pope (though not as Pope) gave us our first faith: the successors cannot complain they gave it freely; they have been paid sweetly for it. Your men (to set them up) compare them to Balaam, and the church to his asse. In deed (we must grant) our church hath been the asse: but your Balaam hath not refused to accept a house full of silver and gold, nay, he hath been glad to sue for it too. Last of all, if they had given it us freely, and plaid a kind mothers part: nevertheless, of mother transgressing, as she hath done, our father saith unto us, Contend with your mother, contend, that she is not my wife, neither am I her husband: to the intent she may remove her fornications out of her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts. S. Paul was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel: Gamaliel, a great Pharisee. Neither was he only the scholar, but the son of a Pharisee too. Yet, the duty and love which Paul did owe and bear to his father and master, should never have excused him before the judgment-seat of God, if he had cleaved still to the Pharisees sect, when God did lighten him with greater knowledge of his truth. As for me, of whom some will give their judgment with what spirit I do it, if I jest at your Pharisees, or touch your holy mothers whooredomes, and villainies of your holy Father: men's judgments I depend not of: I neither fear them nor despise them. I have a judge to whom I stand. And I content myself that he assureth my spirit, I do it with the same spirit, though not with like measure of the same spirit, that Elias did jest at Baalites, and Isaiah did touch idolaters. Wherefore, to go forward with your discourse of D. Stapleton against our error of expounding the scriptures by scriptures: you have the ground of it, that they must be expounded by the rule of faith, and therefore not by scriptures only. Now, as his ground is, so are his proofs: both for your own means first, and afterward against ours. What infallibility and certainty there is in yours, the practice of the church, the consent of the Fathers, the Councils determination: it will appear (in place of trial) more hereafter, it hath in part already: when you were fain to fly from them all to the Pope, whom here the Doctor had forgotten. Touching ours: he proveth them to be deceitful and unsure, how? because each of them, if they be taken severally, may cause a man to err: which he showeth by examples in some of the particulars, as, the weighing of the circumstances, the style and phrase of scripture, the conference of places, the looking on the Greek and Hebrew. First, if it were so: what shall I call this dealing, treachery, or folly? We teach of our means, that they all, together, do make a perfect way whereby we may find the right sense of the scripture. He replieth against us, that each of them, alone, and taken by it self, is not a perfect way to find it. In the which answer, if you see not his weakness (to speak the best of it:) I will set before you a glass to view it in. It is not many years ago, since Captain Stukely ( the Marques of Ireland, as your stories call him) was sent with six hundred Italians by the Pope to take possession of Ireland. Which he was coming to have done, but that (at the request of the King of Portugal ) he went and took possession of Barbarie by the way. An English man might say, to comfort good subjects, that (by God's grace) these Italians and the Marques, if they had arrived, might have been discomfited by the Queens army: as the Popes soldiers were, who came after them. D. Sanders might reply, to encourage the rebels, that they need not fear it: because the Queens soldiers, though they have some strength, yet each of them, alone, and severed from the rest, cannot overcome six hundred Italians, with such a Captain too. And for proof hereof that it is very likely, he might have store of arguments, examples, and testimonies, to discourse at large: with as great eloquence, and no less wisdom, then D. Stapleton hath done to prove the other. Yet this in D. Stapleton is a demonstration. Had the other been a demonstration too? No marvel that you send us so many books over, if they be fraught with wares of such demonstration. Maruell, you send no mo: unless it be lawful for none but public readers, so subtly to prove their things by demonstration. Now, if your Doctors answer be absurd, though none of our means were certain and sure, alone, without the rest, to find the right sense of Scripture: how much more absurd, if any one of them, alone, be sure and certain, and that in his own judgment too? The conference of places of the scripture is so: though he would hide it with a mist. But the mist which he casteth, is no thicker then the former. A weak eye may see through it. For we say, that a right conference of places, is a way most excellent: as himself rehearseth our words of that point. And he thereto replieth, that a wrong conference, a left one, (so to term it) is no such excellent way. Which is, as if we said, that wise men and virtuous are fit to bear offices in the common-weal: and he, to prove the contrary, should say that mad men and knaves are no good magistrates. If we can see through this mist, the conference of places is a perfect way. For that which we mean by conference of places: S. Austin doth signify by the rule of faith. But the rule of faith, is a way infallible, in your Doctors judgment. Therefore (to judge him of his own mouth) the conference of places is a way infallible. If this alone: much more this & all the rest being joined together. The means then which we commend to understand and expound the scripture: are sure and certain means whereby the right sense of scripture may be found. But your Doctor saith that all heretics, and Jews, & Paynims use these means, they confer places, they note the kind of speeches, they look upon the fountains, they mark what goeth before, what cometh after, & such like things. If they do not so: your Doctor over-lasheth. If they do so: they do more then himself doth in many controversies of faith, which yet he teacheth publicly, and printeth them too. What? And do all heretics, Jews and Paynims use these means: and doth none of them see the churches practice ; mark the consent of Fathers ; read the decrees of councils ? If any of them do; which it is evident many do: then by as wise a reason, as your Doctor maketh, these his own means are not sure neither. Which were a sore consequence, and would raze the church of Rome unto the ground. Let him bethink him self thereof, and heal the breaches, which (if he look not to it) his own shot will make in the walls of his Jerusalem. As for us and our means, if any seem to use them, and yet miss the right sense of the scripture: I say with S. Austin (whom this quarrel maketh as much against, as us;) If they who know these precepts, cannot see the things which are obscure and dark in the Scriptures of God, the fault is in them selves, not in the precepts: as if I should point with my finger at a star, which they would gladly see, and their eye-sight were so weak, that although they could see my finger, yet could they not see the star at which I point. Wherefore as S. Austin concludeth of them, Let them cease to blame me, and let them pray to God, that he will give them eye-sight: so we do acknowledge that all means are vain, unless the Lord give eyes to see: whom therefore the Prophet made his prayer to, Open mine eyes, that I may see the wonders of thy law.

You may say what you list. But experience showeth, and it is most certain, that many who allow those means, which you do, and expound the scripture by them, are themselves deceived, and deceive others. For, the conference of places by which you set more then by all the rest, which you call a great remedy, and the best exposition of scripture that may be had: let this remedy be taken severally and by it self, it is marvelous deceitful, yea pernicious and pestilent; so much the more, by how much (in show) it is more probable, and still at least corrupteth two places of scripture, if it be used perversely. In deed, we acknowledge gladly with S. Austin, that place receiveth light of place, and those things which one-where are spoken somewhat darkly, are other-where more clearly uttered. But in conference of scriptures it is to be known and diligently marked, (which heretics will not mark, because they will not be catholics, and good children of the church:) first, that one saying may seem to be like or unlike another, not so much for the likeness and vnlikenes of things, as for the prejudice and affection of them by whom they are conferred. Secondly, that the same word, or kind of speech, hath not everywhere the same signification, but sometimes diverse, sometimes contrary. Thirdly, that there are many places in the scripture, which being uttered only once, have not any like wherewith you may confer them. Fourthly, and lastly, that all heretics both of this and of all ages, in conferring the scriptures most diligently together, yet have erred in the sense of the scriptures most shamefully. Which reasons why the conference of places of scripture is a deceitful means of expounding the scripture, and leadeth often into error: D. Stapleton, a man well learned out of question, how weak soever you account him, hath set down and proved them with such examples, as might prevail with you perhaps, if you would weigh them.

I have weighed them, and I find them to light. The merchant, whom you praise, is rich, I deny not: but sure he useth false weights, and abuseth the simple, who take their wares upon his credit. Poor men, conceiving well of them whom they fancy, think him to deal uprightly for that he raileth at others, saying that they are deceauers, because they will not be honest dealers, and good children of the weal public. But let his words go: and have an eye to his weights. If you should tell a young beginner in shooting that they who look at the mark and louse directly towards it do not always hit it: your speech were a truth. But if you should say that all naughty archers which are, or ever were, have fowlly missed the mark in aiming at it most straightly: he might suspect either your skill, or your will, who train up archers so. What may we think then of him who to persuade men that conference of scriptures is a deceitful way to hit their right sense, doth say that all heretics both of this and of all ages, in conferring the scriptures most diligently together yet have erred in the sense of the scriptures most shamefully? For though they might err in conferring of them: yet the fault thereof must be, not in conferring them most diligently, but in not conferring them diligently enough. And this is the last of your Doctors reasons. The next before it is no better. He saith, that there are many places in the scripture, which have not any like wherewith you may confer them. The proof he bringeth of it, is, that there are sundry speeches in S. Paul, which are in no Prophet, nor Apostle beside him: as (for example sake) to put of the old man, and put on the new. Which proof is like the point whereof it maketh proof. For, if the same speeches be not in any other, yet there are speeches like them, whereby they may be understood. Or, if not in others: yet in S. Paul himself, who lighteneth so his own speeches. Or, if not in him: yet confer them with the drift and circumstances of the text; the course of things and words will open what is meant by them. And so allege what place of scripture you list, the darkest that you can: let a man expound it after our rules, and it will never lead him into heresy. For either it hath plain places to expound it, and being expounded according unto them, it is far from heresy: or if it have no such, it hath no danger of heresy, because all things required to belief and life are set down plainly in the Scriptures. The danger all lieth in your first and second point: y ^e one, touching sayings, that men's corrupt affections may judge unlike or like, when in truth they are not so: the other touching words, that may be mistaken through men's ouersightes, as signifying the same thing, or sundry, which they do not. And by these means we grant that the scriptures, may be (and are of many) expounded amiss: to the verifying of that which S. Peter writeth of S. Paul's epistles, that in them are some things hard to be understood: which they that are unlearned and unstable do pervert, as they do also other scriptures, to their own destruction. Hereof we have notable examples in yourselves: or (because of yours we shall speak hereafter) in the Family of love, and that ympe of Satan, their master, Harry Nicolas. Whom the spirit of error hath (through an illusion of ignorance) so bewitched, that, as though he took a glory in his shame, to be him self, and his, unlearned, (such as S. Peter pointeth at,) he detesteth the learned and skillful in the scripture, the scripture-wise, as he termeth thē, and giveth it in charge to his babes to shun them. Christ was too skillful in scriptures for the Devil. Else might the Devil, by the show of scripture, which he did allege (or missealleage rather) have persevered with greater hope in tempting Christ. But shall we suspect and mislike the scripture, because he missealleaged it? or the conference of scripture, because his ympes use it peruersely? We have not learned Christ so. Nay, so much the more should we labor and travail to search it most diligently, and wisely to confer it: to wrest by that means their sword out of their hands, and kill their own error with it. For, the destruction of such spiritual foes, is the sword of the spirit : and the sword of the spirit, is the word of God. So the Family of love, which make a mock of our faith, our saluatiō by Christ, our resurrection, the judgment, and everlasting life; and (to save their frenzies from danger of the scripture) beat flat the literal sense, which is the edge of it, and put it up into a scabbard of their fanatical dreams and allegories: let the two edged sword be drawn out and sharpened with this conference, and, as the flame of fire devoureth the stubble, so will the point of truth rip up the bowels of their errors. So the Arians, when they brought broken sentences of scripture, in show resembling somewhat their blasphemous doctrine against the son of God, but indeed unlike it: they were overthrown through the conference of scriptures by the Nicene council and godly pastors of the church. So the Pelagians, the enemies of grace under the name of nature, when they trifled vainly to shift the scriptures off, which make against the free-will of man for God's favor: they were put to flight with plainer places of the scriptures, by the Councils of Carthage, of Mileuis, of Orenge, and chiefly by S. Austin. So hath God con • ounded others of that rabble, & will (no doubt) their complices: if with the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God, we join the shield of faith to quench the fyry darts of Satan. The Family of love shall feel it in time; the Father of the Family feared it: and therefore he warned his children to beware of them who bear this weapon, and have skill to handle it, of scripture-learned men. And you, who lay the Families sin to our charge, as though we did foster that venomous vipers brood, do join yourselves to them, and march into the field with them, and strengthen their hands against us. Of you they have learned to take up the name of Scripturemen by way of scoff, and use it as a contumely. You teach them, that the diligent, yea the most diligent conference of scriptures, is the path of heretics to most damnable errors. You persuade them that the fountains of the Greek and Hebrew text, are neither pure, nor greatly needful. You tell them that to expound the scripture by scripture is good, and it is fruitful to confer places, to observe the words and circumstances of the text: but there are many dangers and difficulties in it; the text is not always knit and coherent to it self; the very order of speaking is oftentimes abrupt, sometimes preposterous altogether; there are sundry hyperbata and anantapodota in S. Paul; one word, yea in one sentence hath sundry significations: places may seem like one to another, that are unlike, and contrariwise : and many mo such inconveniences, enough to break the heart of a weak Christian. In the which dealing you do band yourselves with the ten spies : who, when they should have encouraged the people of Israel to enter into the land of promise, they told them that the land certainly is good, and floweth with milk and honey; but the people dwelling in it, is strong, and the cities walled, exceeding great, and the sons of Anak (Giants) be there. The Amalekites dwell in the south coūtry; the Hitthites, and Jebusites, and Amorites dwell in the mountains: the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and by the coast of Jordan. The Lord sware in his wrath, both to these spies, and to the people who believed them, that they should not enter into his rest. At you, and your men, I marvel, (M. Hart) that whose fact you follow, you tremble not at their end. As for us, although we were but two against your ten, and all the people would rather believe you then us: yet we will follow them who were of another spirit, Caleb and Joshua, and with them will we say to the whole assembly of the children of God; The land, through the which we have gone to search it, is an excellent good land. If the Lord take delight in us, he will bring us into this land, and give it us: even a land that floweth with milk and honey. Only rebel ye not against the Lord, neither fear ye the people of the land: for they are bread for us. In deed the holy scripture is bread for our souls: and the word of God is the food of life. If the Lord take delight in us, he will bring us unto it, and give it us. Let us not rebel against him, nor fear the hardness of it. We must search the scriptures, and pray to him for wisdom, and he will open them to us, (for he hath promised) and make us learned in them.

We acknowledge with you that the means you mention, namely, to search the scriptures and to pray to God for wisdom and knowledge, are good and godly means whereby we may the sooner come to understand them, or rather be prepared thereto. But such, as nevertheless are not still effectual.

They are still effectual, if men pray, as they should; and search them as they ought: in the spirit of faith and modesty.

True, in that measure, which is fit for every man's vocation and duty: some, to exhort and comfort privately, some publicly to teach the church. But after you have said all that you can: we shall never grow to any ende and issue, if we follow this way. For, if you allege the scripture against me, and I against you: if I expound it by conference of this place, and you of that: if in your opinion one sentence be plain, and in mine another: in mine, our meaning right, and in yours the contrary: what ende can our controversies have without a judge? And if you yield to a judge, who fitter for it then the Pope?

Who, but Christ our Savior? And they which under him have it committed to them, even the Church of Christ?

The Church? Nay you mentioned the godly before, and spake as if they should try the truth from error, by conference of the scriptures. Which is your right kind of trial and judgment. But you are ashamed of it now belike, as in truth you may be. For you shall find many tailors and coblers more godly then sundry more learned then they. Yet I trust you will not repair for shreds and cloths to any shop of theirs.

Yet the shreds and cloths of taylors and coblers may have greater knowledge perhaps and better judgment of the sense of scriptures, then y ^e scarlet gowns of learneder men then they. For the learned Pharisees, who condemned the people as ignorant of the law, did not judge the doctrine of Christ to be true: nay they rejected it as false with search, and see. But the men of Beroea (some of whom by likelihood were tailors, or coblers, or at least common artificers as mean as they) received it with all readiness, & (upon the search of the scriptures ) believed it. Howbeit when I mentioned that judgment of the godly, I meant the godly learned. Wherefore you needed not to speak of shreds and cloths, but that you were loath perhaps to leese this jest. Chiefly, since I shown thereupon withal, that, for the trial of controversies by scripture, y ^e toongs (in which the scripture is written) must be known, namely, Greek and Hebrew. The which shreds and cloths, neither many tailors and coblers with us, neither many Cardinals and Popes with you have. Nor yet am I ashamed of that kind of trial and judgment by the godly who have not learned toonges, and arts, but Christ only. And I comprised it in that which I said, that Christ is the judge, and they which under him have it committed to them, even the church of Christ. For himself hath given by special commission two sortes of judgment to his church, the one private, the other public: private, to all the faithful, and spiritual, as God calleth them, who are willed to judge of that which is taught, and to try spirits whither they be of God: public, to the assembly of pastors and elders: for of that which Prophets teach, let Prophets judge, and the spirits of Prophets are subject to the Prophets. In both of the which, the church must yet remember, that God hath committed nothing but the ministry of giving judgment unto her. The sovereignty of judgment doth rest on God's word. For Christ is our only Doctor & Lawgiuer: according to whose written will the church must judge. And so, to return unto the words of Christ, from which we digressed: the sense (I gave of them) will I prove by scripture, according to the rule of faith: the proof of the sense I submit to the private and public judgment of the church. The words of Christ to Peter, contained a promise of the keys, I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The occasion of the words, was a question of Christ, asked of the Apostles, answered by Peter: whom say ye that I am? Thou art Christ the Son of the living God. The sense which I gathered by laying these together, was, that as Peter answered, one, for all: so the keys were meant to him, one, with all. To prove the former point, that Peter answered, one, for all: the scripture is most plain, in the sixth of John, where (before this time) Peter had confessed in their common name, We believe, and know, that thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. To prove the later, that the keys were meant to him, one, with all: the scripture is as plain in the twentieth of John, where Christ performing that which he had promised to Peter, doth say to him with the rest, As my Father sent me, so do I send you. Whose sins soever ye remit, they are remitted to them: & whose sins soever ye retain, they are retained. Wherefore since the keys were promised by Christ on the profession of their faith, which was common to them all: and the promise was performed, when he sent them all with power to bind and loose, to remit and retain sins: it followeth that the keys belonged no more to Peter, then to all the Apostles. And therefore the promise of the keys to him, importeth no headship of his over them.

That which was promised by Christ unto Peter, was not performed to the Apostles. For, he gave not them the keys of his kingdom: but the power of remitting and retaining sins.

These things differ in words, but they are one in sense: as Joseph said to Pharaoh, Both Pharaoh's dreams are one. For as God, to teach Pharaoh what he would do in Egypt by seven years of plenty, & seven years of famine, did use two sundry dreams, of kine, and ears of corn, the surer to resolve him of his purpose in it: so Christ, to teach us what he doth for mankind in ordaining the ministry of the word & Sacraments, useth two similituds, the one, of keys, the other, of binding & loosing, that we may know the better the fruit & force of it. Touching y ^e keys : he speaketh of heaven, as of a house, whereinto there is no entrance for men, unless the door be opened. Now we (all Adams offspring) are shut out of heaven, as Adam our progenitour was out of Paradise, through our offenses and sins. For no unclean thing shall enter into it. But God, of his love and favor towards us, hath given us his son, his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life: which is the inheritance reserved in heaven, for us. We cannot believe, unless we hear his word. We hear not his word, unless it be preached. Wherefore when God the Father sent his son Christ, and Christ sent his Apostles as his Father sent him, to preach his word to men, that they who repented and believed in Christ should have their sins forgiven them, the faithless & unrepentant should not be forgiven: then he gave authority as it were to open heaven to the faithful, and to shut it against the wicked. Which office (to shut, and open) because in men's houses it is exercised by keys: and the steward of the house is said to have the key of it, to open it and to shut it: therefore Christ, the principal steward of God's house is said to have the key of David: and he gave his Apostles the keys (as you would say) of the kingdom of heaven, when he made them his stewards to shut out, to let in. The other similitude of binding and loosing is to like effect. For we are all by nature the children of sin, and therefore of death. Now sins are in a manner the same to the soul, that cords to the body: and the endless pains of death, (that is, the wages of sin ) are like to chains, wherewith the wicked are bound in hell, as in a prison. From these cords of sin, and chains of death eternal, men are loosed by Christ, when their sins be remitted: their sins are remitted, if they believe in him. If they believe not, their sins are retained: whose sins are retained, they do continue bound. For, he that believeth not, shall be condemned: he that believeth, shall be saved. None shall be condemned but they whose sins are retained, to bind them with the chains of darkness: none saved, but they whose sins are remitted, and the cords unloosed by which they were holden. Wherefore, since the Gospel is preached to this ende a savor of life to life unto believers; unto the unbelievers, a savor of death to death: as we read of Christ, that the Lord sent him to preach deliverance to the captives, and opening of prison to them that are bound: in like sort his ministers whom he sent to preach it, are said to bind and loose, to retain and remit sins. So that both these kinds of speech import the same that is signified by keys. For, to bind, and to retain sins, is to shut: to loose, and to remit sins, is to open the kingdom of heaven. Your own church doth take the keys in this meaning: even the Council of Trent. For, whereas Christ gave to his Apostles and their successors the power of binding and loosing, that is, of remitting and retaining sins, as yourselves expound it: this power you call the power of the keys, as by which an entrance into heaven is opened: because the gates of heaven are as it were unlocked to them, who have remission and forgiveness of sins, and locked to the rest. Which things being so, this sum ariseth of them, that, since the keys of the kingdom of heaven are all one with the power of binding and loosing, of remitting and retaining sins: Christ therefore, when he promised the keys, meant that power ; and, when he gave that power, gave the keys. But, he gave that power to all the Apostles. It followeth then, he gave the keys to them all.

You expound these places, I cannot tell how. For much of that which you say, is said by us also: and yet you agree not with us in the principal. Howsoever you cast the parcels of your count: there is a fault in the sum. Wherefore you must pardon me if I allow it not. For, (to use his words, whose opinion, though you mislike him, I far esteem above yours:) by the name of the keys of the kingdom of heaven which Christ promised to Peter, he simply meant all power, whereby the kingdom of heaven (in whatsoever sense you take it) may be shut and opened. As for that which followeth, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven: this is not (as some have thought) an explication or limitation of the keys. For so, by those words, should Christ have restrained the power of Peter to the only outward ecclesiastical court. For it is the common opinion of all the Schoolmen, that by those words, whatsoever ye shall bind, and so forth, (which are like to these words spoken unto Peter, and have the same meaning) an ecclesiastical judge in the outward court is made: as by those other words, whose sins ye remit, and so forth, an ecclesiastical judge in the inward court is made. Wherefore, if in this place, that [whatsoever thou shalt bind] were an explication or limitation of the keys: then by the name of keys were promised to Peter a power judicial only in the • utward court: which is but a part (and that a lesser part) of the power of the keys. For a great deal more excellent is the power of remitting sins, then of excommunicating or suspending a man from his office or honor: and therefore this may be exercised by him that is not a Priest, whereas the other belongeth unto Priests only. Again, because our Savior addeth with a conjunction, & whatsoever thou shalt bind: it must note differently some distinct power, at the least in special: even as the other things, all that go before, uttered coniunctiuely, are things distinct and different: to wit, and I say to thee, and upon this peter, and hell gates shall not prevail, and to thee will I give the keys, and lastly, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, and so forth. Wherefore in these last words is promised to Peter, not only power of binding and loosing in the court, either outward or inward; which both are only partial actions of the keys. But because the keys themselves were promised him, indefinitely, and were not restrained to any one kind of opening or shutting: doubtless all the power which is contained in the keys was promised to him, how great soever it be, and of what sort soever. Now the whole power, and correspondent fully and euenly to the keys, is to open and shut: what means soever it be done by. For, to open and shut is the duty of keys: in token whereof the keys of the city are brought unto the chiefest magistrate, that by his commandment the city may be shut and opened. To receive the keys therefore of the kingdom of heaven, is, to receive the power of shutting and opening the kingdom of heaven: whither you take the name of the kingdom of heaven for everlasting life, or for the communion of the militant church. Now this is done by diverse and many other ways, beside those of binding and loosing in either court. For Pastors do open and shut the kingdom of heaven, (the one, by exercising that power; the other, by withdrawing it) in their whole spiritual government: in preaching of the word, in ministering of Sacraments, in making of laws, in expounding of the holy scripture, in declaring articles of faith, in deciding pointes of controversy and doubt. To be short, the keys of the church may be divided, into the key of knowledge, and the key of power. To open the scriptures, belongeth to the key of knowledge: which Christ himself exercised in the four and twentieth of Luke, and whereof he said to the Lawiers, ye have taken away the key of knowledge, and so forth. The key of power, is either of order, or jurisdiction. And jurisdiction it self is either in the outward court, by excommunicating, by suspending from office, by granting of pardons, and making of laws: or in the inward court, by forgiving of sins. All this most ample power, & correspondent wholly and euenly to the keys, is promised in this place by Christ to Peter only. Which, as the force and meaning of the word [keys,] so the kind of speech of holy scripture showeth. For (in Isaiah the Prophet) when it had been said to the hye Priest Eliakim in the figure of Christ, The key of the house of David will I lay on his shoulder: the scripture declaring the use of this key doth by and by add; and he shall open and none shall shut, he shall shut and none shall open. Which likewise is spoken again of the person of Christ in y ^e Apocalypse: for he is called the holy one and true, which hath the key of David, which openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth. Wherefore, as Eliakim in figure, Christ in truth, receiving the key of the house of David, that is, of the church, or the kingdom of heaven, received withal the power of shutting and opening: in like sort S. Peter being to receive (in the room and steed of Christ) the keys of the kingdom of heaven, is (out of controversy) to receive withal the power of shutting and opening; that is to say, not only of binding and loosing in judgment of both the courts, which are only partial not total, and lesser not chief actions of the keys, which also were committed to all the Apostles in the eightienth of Matthew, and twentieth of John, whereas the keys were given to Peter alone: but also besides, of governing, of teaching, of disposing, and doing all things which may any way belong to the general duty of a Pastor: which actions are fully and euenly correspondent to the keys themselves, and therefore in those words were promised to Peter alone principally, before and over all the rest. This is D. Stapletons judgment of the keys promised to Peter: wherein the ground of Peters supremacy and headship over the Apostles is set down very plainly, and very strongly proved.

This long and smooth tale, which you have told out of your Doctor, is like to that nightingale to which a Lacedaemonian, when he had plucked her feathers off, and saw a little caraine left, said, Thou art a voice, naught else. Plucke off the feathers of your tale: the body is a poor carcass, and hath no substance in it. Howbeit, the names of the two courts, the outward court, the inward court, with other tunes of like music: are very sweet melody in the ears of them, whose hearts are in the court of Rome. As for simple men, who have been only conversant in the courts of the Lord: they sound to them like strange languages, and seem to contain more profound mysteries then we can reach the depth off. But, to open your answer, that it may be seen what is unsound in it: this is the point of the thing in controversy. I say that the power promised to Peter by the name of the keys, in the sixteenth of Matthew : was performed and given to all the Apostles by the commission of Christ, in the twentieth of John. You with Stapleton deny it. Why? Because the keys promised to Peter do signify all kind of power; whereof a part only was given to the Apostles, to bind and loose in either court. And how prove you this? Forsooth, because by these words, whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, Christ doth not expound what he meant by the keys, as some men (say you) have thoughtthat he doth. Then some men have thought that the power of the keys, and the power of binding and loosing are all one: the later added by Christ to expound the former. In deed I thought so: and I perceive by you that I thought not so alone: some other men have thought it too. But, you say it is not, as some men have thought. Yet you do not tell us the names of these [some men.] Might we know (I pray) what these [some men] be?

What matter is it, who they be? since we are not of their mind.

Yes: it is a matter. For if I knew them, it may be I would talk with them.

To confirm you in your error. But learned men do vary in expounding of Scriptures: some hit the mark, some miss it. And D. Stapleton, reading many of all • ortes, might fall on some expounding it amiss (as you do,) whom he for modesty would not name, where he reproveth their opinion.

This modesty I like not. The truth is, he durst not name them, least we should know them, and be the more strengthened by them in the truth to the confounding of your error. For, these [some men] whom he so lightly trippeth over, are, but all the Fathers: who have with one consent expounded Christ's promise of the keys, as we do. Now, the exposition which the Fathers make, is (by his own judgment) the churches exposition, which hath the right sense of the scripture. And so while he is launching out into the deep, to fetch in a prize for Peter of Rome's supremacy: he maketh shipwreck in the haven.

How know you, that the Fathers all have so expounded it? You have not read them all: have you?

No truly. Neither ever am likely to do it. But I have read him, that hath read them all, I trow. And he being a man worthy (with you) of credit, doth witness, that I say true.

Who is that?

Even Father Robert : the public reader and professor of divinity in Rome. Who, when he discoursed of Christ's words to Peter, Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven: said, that all power of the keys is therein promised, not restrained to part, but enlarged to whatsoever. Yea, that Christ likewise promised the same power to all the Apostles, when he spake in like words, Whatsoever ye bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, & whatsoever ye loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. For, albeit Origen (more subtly, then literally) doth put a difference between the promises, because, in the one, the word, [heaven] is used; in the other, [heavens:] yet the common exposition of S. Jerome, S. Hilary, S. Anselm, and others upon this place, yea of S. Austin him self in his treatise upon John, is, that Christ speaketh of the power of the keys by which the Apostles and their successors do bind or loose sinners. And although it seemeth, that here is chiefly meant the power of jurisdiction whereby sinners are excommunicate: yet the said Fathers do understand it of both the powers, not only of jurisdiction but of order too. And that may be gathered (it seemeth) by the text. For it is said as generally to the Apostles, What things soever ye shall bind: as it is to Peter, What thing soever thou shalt bind.

Perhaps Father Robert doth bring in these things by way of an objection, and frameth thereunto an answer, and so resolveth to the contrary.

No. But he bringeth your opinion in deed by way of an objection, and frameth thereunto an answer, and so resolveth to the contrary. For thus he goeth forward. What? Is that given then to all the Apostles, which was promised to Peter? Cajetan (in his treatise of the Popes authority) saith that the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the power of byndyng and loosing, are not all one: for that to bind and loose is less then to open and shut. But this doctrine seemeth to be more subtle then true. For it is a thing unheard of, that there are in the Church any other keys then the keys of order and of jurisdiction. And the sense of those words, I will give thee the keys, and whatsoever thou shalt bind and loose, is plain: that first, a certain power and authority is promised; afterward, the function of it is declared. Now the function of these keys is declared by the words to bind and loose, not by the words, to shut and open: that we may understand they be metaphorical and borrowed kinds of speeches; neither heaven is opened properly, but it is said that heaven is opened then with these keys when men are loosed and dispatched of the difficulties and infirmities which shut them out of heaven, and so forth. Thus saith your chiefest reader, and Jesuit Robert Bellarmine: whose judgment (by your leave) I far esteem, in this point, above D. Stapletons, as more agreeable to the scriptures.

You may esteem it, as you li • t. But I am not bound to stand to Bellarmine's judgment.

But you are bound to stand to the judgment of the Fathers, by the Council of Trent : and that upon your oath, as I take it. With the which oath I know not how D. Stapleton dispenseth. Unless the Pope expound it, that you must follow them, so far as they do go with him: or else the oth-maker, meant not to bind you to it. Let us give a passeport then unto the Fathers. It may be that the man was moved (in conscience) by light of truth to vary from them. Let us hear what moved him. The same is not meant (saith he) by the keys, and by the words, to bind and loose, as some men have thought. And why? For all the Schoolmen are of opinion, that to bind and loose doth note a power judicial in the outward court only: to remit and retain sins, in the inward court. By the outward court, he meaneth the consistory : wherein the church-discipline and censure is exercised. By the inward court, the conscience: wherein a man's trespasses and sins are bound or loosed. So (in effect) he saith, that the power of remitting sins and censuring sinners, were only meant (in the speeches of Christ) to the Apostles: and not the most ample and large power of keys (promised to Peter ) by the judgment of all the Schoolmen. Which proof, though it cannot weigh as much for him, as the Fathers against him: yet herein his dealing is orderly and plain, that, leaving the Fathers, he cleaveth to the Schoolmen. For (when all is done) the Schoolmen are the men that must uphold Papistry: with the freendly help of the Canonists their brethren. The Scriptures and Fathers would be pretended for a show, to countenance the matter. But they are like to images in old buildings of antike work: which are framed so, that with their shoulders they seem to bear the roof, whereas that in deed doth rest on walls or pillars. The Schoolmen and the Canonists, the fountains of the corruption which hath infected the Church of Christ; the Schoolmen, in doctrine, by the opinions of Popery; the Canonistes, in discipline, by the state of the Papacie: the Schoolmen and the Canonists are the two pillars that uphold your Church, as the house of Dagon, in the which the Philistines triumph and insult over the faith and God of Samson. What then, if the Schoolmen, whose oppositions of science falsely so called, are noted by S. Paul, that Timothy may avoid them, who (the most ofthem) came with feet unwashed into the Lord's sanctuary, who being ignorant of the tongues wherein the holy Ghost wrote, (great helps to understand his meaning,) searched not the sense of scripture in the scripture, but in human sense, and so expounded it thereafter: what, if they say, that to bind and loose doth make a judge only in the outward court: to remit and retain sins, in the inward court: and both import less then the keys, which open all in court and country? I have proved the contrary by conference of the Scriptures. You cannot deny but that the Fathers teach the contrary. Where is your discretion? Who, though the Scriptures (as we prove,) the Fathers (as you grant,) do say it is so: yet you say it is not so, because the Schoolmen think not so. As if you should say in a matter of state, which is allowed and ordained by the Queen and Council, that although they will it, yet may it not be done: why? because the Yeomen of the kitchen like it not.

If you believed so rightly as you ought, with Catholics: you would not think so basely of Schoolmen, as you do. For, (as Melchior Cano writeth well and truly) the contempt of School-divinity is a companion of heresy: & the heresies of Luther, of Wicklef, of Melanchthon, and (in a word) of all the Lutherans, do seem to have flowed most from that fountain, even from the despising of the Schoolemens judgment. But, howsoever you esteem them, their common opinion, when they all consent and agree in one, is of such weight with us: that we account it a point of great rashness, and almost of heresy to dissent from them. They have not such ornaments offiner learning and the tongues, as some in our days have: but they have the substance, the pith of all sciences: chiefly S. Thomas of Aquine, one of the grauest and learnedst divines, that ever Christ's church had, whatsoever ignorant heretics (which understand him not) esteem of him.

My judgment of the Schoolmen, is such as they deserve. If Cano have judged more favorably ofthem, he is to be borne with: since him self desired to be thought a Schoolman. Though, if I should grant them as much as he doth, that, when they all agree in one they must be followed : they would not trouble us greatly in many pointes of faith. For they are at such contention (for themost part) and that, about such matters: that S. Paul's reproof of questions and strife of words never fell on anymore justly then on them. But as Cano speaketh of School-divines, and School-divinity: he and I dissent not, though I be against them, and he for them, in show. Sophocles, the poet, (a writer of tragedies) being asked ofhis friend, why, whē he brought in the persons ofwomen, he made them always good, whereas Euripides made them bad: because I (quoth he) do represent women such as they should be: Euripides, such as they be. So the matter fareth between me and Cano. For he doth paint out Schoolmen such as they should be: and I such as they be. I speak against them who perverting the scriptures, have profaned divinity with philosophy, or rather sophistry, and yet are called School-divines, whē they are neither Scholars in truth, nor Divines. He accoūteth none a School-divine, but him, who reasoneth of God and things concerning God, fitly, wisely, learnedly out of the holy scriptures & ordinances of God. Now, if none be a School-divine, but such; nor any divinity, School-divinity but that, which is set on the foundations of the holy scriptures, as Cano doth define it: then shall I gladly both yield to School-divinity, & follow Schoolediuines: but I deny them to be School-divines, whom you meant in citing Schoolmen. Yea evē Thomas of Aquine, whō your Popes set more by, then by all the Doctors, placing him as chiefest, and first after the scripture, and worthily, for he was the first thorough-papist of name that ever wrote, and with his rare gifts of wit, learning, and industry did set out Popery most, that he might well be praised as the standard-bearer of the faith maintained by the Council of Trent: even him will I follow, so long as he showeth himself such a Schoolman, as Cano praiseth to us. But he showeth not himself such a School-man, whē he doth (as he doth oft; so much we understand in him ) keep down the truth & set up error: either by mistaking the scripture against scripture; or by holding the corruptions of faithful men, as incorrupt; or by following the glimses of Philosophers as perfect light. By mistaking the scripture: through faulty translations or expositions of men. By the corruptions of the faithful: in the practice of the church, or some opinions of Fathers. By the glimses of Philosophers: in taking grounds of Aristotle as principles of truth, equal to the word of God. I set not down examples of all Popish errors, grown by these occasions, confirmed by Thomas and the Schoolmen. Because in our conference, they shall (if God will) have each their due places. Now for the present, I grant, that the contempt of the Schoolemēs doctrine, (on these considerations) hath moved us to depart from your Catholic errors: and a Lutheran mislike, not of School-divinity, but of this School-divinity, is a companion of our heresy: and in our Universities, Oxford and Cambridge, we study scriptures more then it; so that (in some part) you rail upon us justly, that heresy in England hath abandoned the study of it. For we had not believed the heresy of Christ and that new fangled man, his Apostle, S. Paul: unless we had contemned the Catholic fancies of the Schoolemē, who (as Demetrius ) strive against it. But you shall never drive me with bugs of the names of Luther, or Wicklef, or Melanchthon, or any else, from holding that with them which they hold of God. For though we rejoice not in names drawn from them, with the which you press us, but in the name of Christians, into the which we are baptized: yet I know no harm by them, nor you, I think (set slanders apart) why we should be ashamed of them, more then our fathers were of Caecilian, of whom the Donatists called them Caecilianists. But had they been as evil as their enemies report them, their lives stained with lewdness, their doctrine mixed with leaven, no less then were the Pharisees: S. Paul hath taught me to acknowledge myself even a Pharisee (if need be, not only a Lutheran ) in that the Pharisees teach a truth of Christian faith, the resurrection of the dead. Wherefore, if the Schoolmen (to return to my purpose) if all the Schoolmen had distinguished the keys from the function of binding and loosing, that function from the remitting and retaining of sins, as you say they do: yet might not their credit ouerweigh the reasons which I have laid against it. But what if all the Schoolmen have not done so? As in deed they have not. What if they have done the contrary rather? What shall we say of him who hath taught his tongue so shamefully to lie, as though he neither feared God nor reverenced men? First, Peter Lombard, the father of the Schoolmen, doth define the keys by the knowledge and the power of binding & loosing: and so he divideth and handleth them accordingly. The next after him, Alexander of Ales, treadeth the same steps: and saith, that to bind and loose is as much as to open and shut: which is the whole power of the keys. Thomas of Aquine after him, misliking Peter Lombard for requiring knowledge (which some, who claim the keys, have not,) agreeth with him in the rest, and maketh the power of binding and loosing, to be the substance of the keys. John Scot after him, although he distinguisheth between the two courts, secret, and open, as you do: yet he dreameth not of any other keys then of binding and loosing. Yea, (that which cuts the throat of your supreme head) Scot, Thomas, and Alexander, affirm the same, that I: namely, that the keys promised to Peter in the sixteenth of Matthew, were given to the Apostles in the twentieth of John. And these are accounted the chiefest of your Schoolmen, and so esteemed amongst you, that the first of them is called y ^e Master of the sentences ; the next, the Doctor irrefragable ; the third, the Doctor Angelical ; the fourth and last, the Subtile Doctor. What the rest of the black garde judge of the matter, I have not inquired. But it is likely they wear their Masters liueries: chiefly, since Scot & Thomas do not square about it. Which I think the rather, because D. Stapleton, though boasting that all the Schoolmen are of his side, yet nameth not one: whereas he useth not to spare his margent for quotations, when they (whom he allegeth) do speak or seem to speak for him. Belike the Queen must leese her right, where there is nothing to be had.

You need not find fault that he quoteth not the names of the Schoolmen to prove his exposition: when he proveth it by that which you like better, even by conference of scripture.

By conference of other plainer places of scripture?

No. But by a word of the same text, even [and] the conjunction: which, seeing that it coupleth things distinct and different, in the former members, and I say to thee, and upon this peter, and the gates of hell, and to thee will I give the keys ; therefore to bind and loose must differ from the keys, because the last clause is knit with [and] unto the rest, and whatsoever thou shalt bind.

And did not he (think you) go about to show and prove by this example, that conference of scripture is but a bad means to come unto the right sense of the scripture? Doubtless such a conference, as this (at which he fumbleth) is not the wisest way to find it. But, I know not how, when he meddleth with scripture, he seemeth half amazed, as it were a creature in a strange element. For neither he remembereth his own exception against us, that in the same sentence one word hath sundry senses often: nor marketh that a conjunction is used as properly to couple together agreeing things as different, and both (as here) in one place: nor considereth that things may differ, each from other, and yet be expounded each of them by other, as the cause by the effects, the whole by the parts: nor weigheth (the point in question) that although in Matthew the words of Christ to Peter did differ in meaning as much as he would have them, yet Christ by his general commission in John might perform jointly to all the Apostles that which he promised to him. And this (to put the matter out of all controversy, because it is the issue between you and us) the very words of the commission, delivered in the scriptures, expounded by the Fathers, observed by the Schoolmen, do convince so forcibly: that the Jesuit (whom I named) the Popes own professor, & most earnest proctor of the Popes supremacy, was fain to seek other shifts whereby to help it, but this he could not choose but grant. For having taught that the keys promised to Peter were only two, of order, and of jurisdiction: he declared that Christ did give them both to his Apostles: the key of jurisdiction over all the world, in that he said to them, As my Father sent me, so do I send you, which Cyril and Chrysostom note upon it; the key of order in the words that immediately follow, Receive the holy Ghost, whose sins soever ye remit, they are remitted to them, whose sins soever ye retain, they are retained. Or, if D. Stapleton love himself so well, that neither Scriptures, nor Fathers, nor Schoolmen, nor Jesuits, can make him to acknowledge his own oversight: let him hear a witness who can do more with him, against whō there lieth no exception for him, unless it be that of the law, They who waver against the credit of their own testimony, are not to be heard. This witness, is himself: who, remembering not the proverb that a liar must be mindful, doth afterward affirm, that all the Apostles were sent with full power to begin the church, by those words of Christ, As my Father sent me, so do I send you: and that they all were therein equal unto Peter.

So: he saith that full power was given them by those words, As my Father sent me: but, that the words which follow contain a part thereof only, Whose sins soever ye remit: as again he mentioneth in that very place. Now, these two sayings agree well together: that it is given, by the one; & by the other it is not. Wherefore yourself offend in that you touch him, when you do touch him as a liar. A common fault with Protestants, in dealing against us: which argueth your church of what brood it is. The Devil is a liar: and the father thereof.

If any man of our profession be stained with this filth: we wish him and exhort him to cleanse him self of it, least the name of God, be (through his default) blasphemed among the Gentiles. But you do us injury to condemn our church for the offense of some in it. For, all they are not Israel, which are of Israel : and Jacob's sons, Reuben, did commit incest, Simeon and Levi, murder; yet the house of Jacob was the church of God. If myself have done your Doctor any wrong, in touching him, as a liar: it was an error, not a crime; not of willfulness, but oversight. And such an oversight, for which he rather oweth thanks to me, who touch him: then to you, who clear him. For I, who do touch him, touch him with a rod: but you, who do clear him, whip him with scorpions.

What mean you by that?

You charge him with a capital crime (as I may term it,) to clear him of a lesser. He followeth not the Devil in lying, you say. But you grant, he followeth him in that is worse: even in the suppressing of the holy scripture to seduce the reader. For, as the Deui •• ▪ • empting Christ to cast him self down from the pinnacle, alleged, it is written, He will give his Angels charge over thee ; omitted, that they shall keep thee in all thy ways, because that made against him, the ways, (to which he tempted) being none of Christ's ways : in like sort the Doctor tempting us to fall down before the Pope, when he alleged whose sins soever ye remit, as giving less to the Apostles then was promised to Peter; he omitted, As my father sent me, so I send you, whereby they all have full power, the same that Peter had. Neither yet contenting him self with this treachery: he proceedeth farther. And whereas the scripture saith of Eliakim, that he was the steward of the kings house ▪ the Doctor affirmeth he was the hie priest : that seeing the key of David's house was given him, and his key therein was a figure of Christ's, and Christ did promise keys to Peter : the simple reader might conceive (by this allusion) that, as Eliakim was the hie priest in the old Testament, so Peter should be in the new: the one as a figure, the other, as lieutenant of Christ, the true hie priest.

What moved D. Stapleton to say that Eliakim was hie priest, I know not. I do not think he would have said it, unless he had had good reason to avouch it. And I am persuaded, that if he knew that, and other things, which you find fault with: whatsoever he hath written, he would make it good.

I wish with all my heart, he would. For then he should repent, and amend his errors: the only way to make that good, which is evil. But thus you may see (by his own confession) that Christ gave the keys to all the Apostles which he promised to Peter. For seeing by the keys is signified the full power, and the full power was given to them all: it followeth that the keys were given to them all. How much the more idle is that fansi-full tale which you told out of him, that to bind and loose, to remit & retain sins, imply a part only, or (as he termeth it) are only partial not total, and lesser not the chief actions of the keys: but to open and shut, wherein is implied the power correspondent fully and euenly to the keys, is the whole power, even a power most ample: and so the partial lesser actions of the keys were committed by Christ to all the Apostles, whereas the keys were given to Peter alone. Whereof the conclusion is so clearly false, that himself (as though he had swallowed a hot morsel which he must needs vngorge) was fain to cast it up straightwaie, and say the contrary. For, in that he addeth, that the full power of the keys was promised to Peter alone principally, before and above all the rest: he granteth (by consequent) that it was promised to the rest of the Apostles, and therefore given to them also.

Yet principally to him alone. But though all of them had received the keys, even the full power, the same that he received, which nevertheless I grant not, but suppose they had: yet this doth confirm that he was their supreme head, in some respect.

How so? Because no greater power was given him, then was given them.

No: But because the power which was given them, was given them by him. For, so (as Leo the great writeth wisely) the strength which is given to Peter by Christ is bestowed on the Apostles by Peter.

This Leo was too great a freend of Peters state, as I have declared. Wherefore how great soever he were, and wrote wisely : yet must his writing give place to the word of a greater Leo: I mean of the Lion of the tribe of Judah. For he teacheth us, not, that the Apostles, receued their power by Peter, but that Peter and they received it all together immediately of Christ. Yea Paul, though he were chosen after Christ's ascension to be an Apostle : yet was he an Apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the father which raised him from the dead.

That is true which you say: but you mistake my meaning. For you seem to speak of the Apostolic power, which I grant they received immediately of Christ. But they had another power beside that, to wit, a Bishoply, or Pastoral power. Wherein since they were inferior to Peter, though equal in the Apostolic: it may be they received, though not the Apostolic, yet the Bishoply power of him.

Some such thing it is, that your men would say. But (to confess mine own ignorance) I do not understand what they mean by it. Which I should perhaps be ashamed off, if you (who handle it) yourselves did understand it, or gave us sense and reason of it. For, if all the power, which Bishops have, as Bishops, be the power of the keys; and the Apostles, as Apostles, had all the power of the keys committed unto them by Christ; both the which things the Scriptures prove, & you disprove not: then was there no power, which they might receive of Peter, as Bishops; and therefore they did not receive any of him, nor were inferior to him therein▪ Yet this is the very foundation of the Papacie: but laid on such sand, that the master builders who travail most in laying it, do reel (like drunken men) about it, too and fro; and stricken with a blindness, as the Sodomites at Lots do • e, they are wearied in seeking of it. Cardinal Turrecremata, the chiefest author of the fancy, is of this opinion, that Christ brought the rest of his Apostles to bishoply dignity by Peter: even as he lead his people through the wilderness, by the hand of Moses & Aaron. For him self made Peter only, a Bishop, immediately; and Peter preferred the rest, first John, next James, then others: as the Cardinal gesseth by probabilities of dreams, some in theCanon law, some of his own brain. Turrian the Jesuit, (a man, with whom such dreams commonly are oracles) though he allow Peter to be the father of the Apostles, yet thinking this manner of fathering him to be absurd, he saith that the Apostles were all ordained Bishops, by the laying (as it were) of the fyry tongues upon them, whē they received the holy Ghost. And this he proveth by S. Jerome, S. Denys, and other Fathers. Of whose opinion it ensueth, that, granting the Apostles were ordained Bishops, as in a general sense, (in which their charge is called a bishoply charge) they were: yet they were ordained of God immediately, as well as Peter was, and not of God by Peter. D. Stapleton, uncertain how to bear him self between these two opinions, the later being truer, the former safer for the Pope: he faltereth in his speech, as though (according to the proverb) he had a wolf by the ears, whom neither he durst let go out of his hands, nor hold, for fear of danger. For of the one side he is loath to grant the truth, lest it should prejudice the title of the Pope: yet loath of the other side to deny it also, because he feareth the people. First therefore he saith, that the keys (which signify the full power of government ecclesiastical) were given to Peter only. Then, he confesseth, that all the Apostles were sent by Christ, with full power, yea with power most full, and equal unto Peters power. From hence he turneth back, and taketh up his old song, that Christ gave all power ecclesiastical to Peter only, and so by him to others. Which string because it giveth a very sweet sound: he harpeth on it often. Afterward, either doubting the conscience of weak Catholics, or the evil tongues of Calvinists, who favor the Apostles, and cannot hear them so debased: he saith that the Apostles were sent immediately of God with full power unto all nations. Yet by and by falling again unto his giddines, (through some pang belike of his holiness displeasure, which might be stirred by such speeches:) he pronounceth, that the spring of honor and power is derived from Peter alone to all the rest. And thus he goeth on, through the whole discourse, (both in this, and the rest of his Doctrinal Principles, ) enterfeiring as it were at every other pace, and hewing hoof against hoof. But so will the Lord confound the toongs of them who do build up Babylon. Yet here, for these cuttings wherewith he gasheth himself, he thinketh that they may be healed with a distinction taken up in Cardinal Turrecrematas shop, of a twofold power, the one Apostolic, the other Bishoply : the rest of the Apostles to have been inferior to Peter in the Bishoply, though equal in the Apostolic ; and all to have received the Apostolic power immediately of Christ, the rest (as namely James ) their Bishoply power of Peter. But two learned Friers, Sixtus Senensis, and Franciscus Victoria (men of better reading and judgment then either he, or Turrecremata ) have cast off this quirke as a rotten drugge, before Stapleton took it up. Victoria, by showing out of the Scriptures, that the Apostles received all their power immediately of Christ. Sixtus, by declaring out of the Fathers, that in the power of Apostleship and order (so he calleth those two powers) Paul was equal to Peter, and the rest to them both. Which case he thought to be so clear, that despairing of help for the Papacie, by Peters either Bishoply power, or Apostolic: he added thereunto a third kind of power, even the power of kingdom, therein to set Peter over the Apostles, that so the Pope too might reign over Bishops. It must be known, saith he, that Peter had a threefold power, one of the Apostleship, another of order, and the third of kingdom. Touching the Apostleship, that is, the duty of teaching, and care of preaching the Gospel: Paul (as it is rightly noted by Jerome) was not inferior to Peter, because Paul was chosen to the preaching of the Gospel, not by Peter but by God, even as Peter was. Touching the power which is given in the Sacrament of order: Jerome hath said well, that all the Apostles received the keys equally; yea that they all, as Bishops, were equal in degree of priesthood & the spiritual power of that degree. But touching the power of kingdom, & that principal authority over all Bishops and teachers: thereof hath Jerome said best, that Peter was chosen amongst the twelve Apostles, and made the head of all, that by his supreme authority & eminent power above the rest, the contentions of the church might be taken up, and all occasion of schisms removed. Now, if you will use this aide of kingly power to fortify the Pope with: we will try the strength thereof, when you bring it. In the mean season, for the Bishoply power which Peter is imagined to have bestowed on the Apostles, (as the Pope would on Bishops:) it was but a Cardinals fetch to serve y ^e turn of his Lord the Pope: the learnedst of your Jesuits and Friers dare not take it: your Doctor fain would have it, but toucheth it so nicely, as though he were afraid of it. If you will stand unto it, and hold it with the Cardinal: let us see your warrant; where did the Apostles receive it of Peter ? At what time? In what manner? Who is a witness of it?

They did not receive it. But the order was that they should have done.

Was that the order? Why did they break it?

Christ by singular privilege did exempt them from it.

Then there was a law which did bind them to it.

What else? For they should have done it: though they did it not.

Should, that they did not? How do you prove it?

Because an order must be set, which should be kept by the posterity.

An order? For whom? For Apostles? you grant that man might not ordain them. For Bishops? other men did ordain them, as rightfully as Peter did. But you had rather make this show of an answer, then say (that which you should say in truth) I cannot tell. For you deal with us, as Erucius did with Roscius ▪ whom when he accused, that he had killed his father, because his father purposed to disinherit him: Thou must prove, (saith Tully ) that his father did purpose it. The father did purpose to disinherit his son. For what cause? I know not. Did he disinherit him? No. Who did hinder it? He did mind it. Did he mind it? Whom told he so? No body. Your answers unto me, are very like to these, but somewhat more unorderly. For to ground the Popes supremacy on Peter : you said that the Apostles did all receive their power, at least, their bishoply power of him. You must make it manifest that they did so. All the Apostles were to receive their power of Peter. What scripture saith so? I know not. Did they receive it? No. Who did hinder it? They should have done it. Should they have done it? How prove ye it? I cannot tell. I may not say of you, as Tully of Erucius, What is it else to abuse the laws and judgments and majesty of the judges to lucre and to lust, then so to accuse, and to object that, which you not only cannot prove, but do not as much as endeavor to prove it. For I must bear you witness, you endeavor to prove it. But you shall do better to surcease that endeavor, unless your proofs be sounder, and have not only show, but also weight of truth in them.

The promise made to Peter hath not only show but also weight of truth to prove his supremacy. But, to satisfy you, who think it not weighty enough of it self, I will add thereto the performance of it, and so you shall have it weight with the advantage. For, it was said to Peter in the presence of three Apostles, James, John, and Thomas, by our Savior Christ, even at the very moment when he would now ascend up unto his father, and therefore either then or never make his vicar: Pasce agnos meos, pasce oues meas; Fede my lambes, feed my sheep.

Not, at the very moment. That, is the advantage (I ween) which you will add to make up the weight: as some add ear-wax to light angels. But the words were spoken: what do you gather of them?

Christ, in those words, did truly perform the promise of the keys which he had made to Peter. But Christ gave him commission to feed his whole flock, without exception of any. Therefore he made him supreme head of the Apostles.

This reason doth seem to be sick of the palsy. The sinews of it have no strength.

Why so?

Because in the charge of feeding sheep and lambes, neither was the commission given unto Peter: and if it were, yet no more was committed to him then to the rest of the Apostles: and if more, yet not so much, as should make him their supreme head.

If you prove the second of these three pointes: the other two are superfluous.

They are so. But you shall have weight with advantage, to ouerwaigh your weight to us ward. And, for the first: I have already shown, that the commission which Christ gave to Peter, he had given it him before, when he said, As my father sent me: so do I send you. Receive the holy Ghost. Whose sins soever ye remit, they are remitted to them: whose sins soever ye retain, they are retained.

But Christ gave him not so much at that time, as he had promised him. Wherefore, part of his promise being performed then, part was performed after: then, as much as he had jointly with the Apostles; after, that he had over them.

This is your bulwark of Peters supremacy: but it is built on a lie. For all that Christ had promised him, was implied in that he had said, To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Was it not?

It was so: what then?

But in this commission (sending him with full authority and power) he gave him all the keys of the kingdom of heaven. In this commission therefore he gave him all that he had promised.

I deny that he gave him all the keys in this commission.

I prove it. All the keys, (as it hath appeared by your own confession) are only too, the key of knowledge and of power: or rather both of power, by Thomas of Aquines judgment, whom you rather follow. But Christ gave him both those in this commission: As my Father sent me, so do I send you; Receive the holy Ghost. Wherefore in this commission he gave him all the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever keys he gave him in this, he gave the same to all the rest of the Apostles. He gave as much authority therefore to them all: as he gave to Peter. But that is the next point.

Yet they received afterward the holy Ghost from heaven in the day of Pentecost. And therefore they received not their whole commission of Christ at this time: they waited for a part of it.

Yes: it was a part of their commission so to wait. For (as it is further declared by S. Luke ) when their understanding was opened by Christ that they might understand the scriptures: he commanded them to stay in Jerusalem, until they were endued with power from an high. A King who putteth men in commission of peace, doth give them authority to execute that charge by the words of his commission. If they perhaps have not such wealth as is requisite for Justices of peace to discharge their duty; and the King will give them lands by such a day, thereby to furnish them unto it: they receive by their lands, not authority, which they had; but ability which they wanted: and the better they are landed, the more are they enabled, but not the more authorized to execute their duty. Christ, the King of Kings, did put his Apostles in the commission of peace: of heavenly peace, not earthly; not bodily, but spiritual; not temporal, but eternal. Their authority they received by the words of his commission. But the discharge of the duty required great treasures of the holy Ghost. Whereof he gave them some then; more in the fiery toonges from heaven; more as the churches state required; and these, well occupied, gained more: with the increase whereof their ability still increased; their authority not so, which all was given them at once.

But a King, for better trial of his Justices, may commit some lesser authority first unto them, and afterward greater.

So did Christ to his Apostles. But having made trial of them in the lesser, he called them by this commission to the greater: nay, to the greatest, then which he had no greater for them.

Not within the limits perhaps of their commission: yet he might enlarge them, and give them greater limits.

But Christ in this commission had given them authority through all his dominion, not through a shire only. For he sent them to all nations.

And what, if I grant, that Christ in this commission gave all that power to Peter, which he had promised him, & was to give unto him?

If he gave him all that power in this commission: no part thereof remained to be given in any other. If no part to be given: then was there no further power given to him by those words of Christ, Feede my lambes, feed my sheep. If no further power were given him thereby, the bulwark of your Papacy is built on a fancy.

Then belike our Savior spake to no purpose, when he said to Peter, Doost thou love me? Feede my lambes. Doost thou love me? Feede my sheep.

God forbid. To great purpose: though not to yours. For he giveth him therein a commandment, though not a commission. As if the Queens Majesty, having made already by letters of commission some Justices in the North, & one perhaps amongst them, of whose faithful heart she were persuaded well, yet, that had shown himself not of the trustiest in time of the rebellion, she should say unto him (to stir in him a lively regard of his duty,) Do you love us? Have care of our poor subjects: Doo you love us? Have care of our good people. Which charge and commandment Christ might give a great deal better to Peter, then the Queen to any Justice in y ^e North: because she knoweth not whither any new Bull be coming from Rome, or new rebellion be toward. But he knew that Peter should be in greater danger, then he was when he fled, and denied his Master. Whereof, he forewarneth him (straight upon the giving him of this commandment) and that, with earnest words of great asseveration, as in a matter of weight: telling him, that he should die a grievous death for his profession of the faith and feeding of the flock of Christ. So y ^t , to arm him against that fear of the flesh, which before had made him to betray his duty, when he had less cause to fear: Christ having made the iron hot, as it were, by asking him, Doost thou love me ? striketh it, to make it a fit instrument to build with, & so commandeth, Feede my flock ; yea though the work be painful, and will cost thee deer: for it shall bring thee to thy death. So, he committeth not a new charge to Peter, but willeth him to look to that, which he had committed, and flee not from it for any danger. As if a wise shipmaster, seeing a dangerous storm at hand, should command his mariners whom he had well deserved of, that, if they love him, they look unto their tackelings.

Well. If it were (perhaps) not a commission, but a commandment: yet was it a commandment to discharge that duty, wherewith he was put in trust by commission.

I grant. What infer you?

Then Peter had commission to feed the lambes and sheep of Christ.

Who doth deny it? For he had the same commission from Christ, that Christ from God his Father, to preach the Gospel to the poor, to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised and preach the acceptable year of the Lord. Which is, in other words, to feed the lambes and sheep of Christ. For Christ by a similitude, is named the chief shepherd: his church, and chosen servants, a flock of sheep and lambes ; whereof he gave a principal charge to his Apostles, that they should feed it. Wherefore the commandment given unto Peter to feed his sheep and lambes: importeth the commission which before was given him, when Christ sent him, as God sent Christ. But in this commission the Apostles all were equal unto Peter. They were equal therefore to him in charge of feeding the sheep and lambes of Christ. And so the second point which I had to prove (the very deaths-wound of your supremacy) is proved.

Proued? How proved?

As clearly, as the Sun doth shine at noon day. For, to send the Apostles, as God the Father sent Christ, is to give them charge to feed his sheep and lambes. But Christ sent the Apostles, as God the Father sent him. Therefore he gave them charge to feed his sheep & lambes. Now, this is the greatest power, that can be shown, was given Peter by Christ. Wherefore in the greatest power, that Christ gave him, the rest of the Apostles all were his equals. If you be loath herein to believe the Scripture: yet believe the Pope, and an ancient Pope (unless the Canon law lie,) The rest of the Apostles received honor and power in equal fellowship with Peter.

It is true that the Apostles were equal to Peter: but in respect of their Apostleship, not of their Pastoral charge.

This answer of yours, hath a distinction, but not a difference. It is the same fellow, but in another gown, whom ( a little rather) I shown to be a bankrupt: and now he cometh forth again in new apparaile, like an honest and wealthy Citizen.

Why say you so?

Because you did distinguish the Bishoply power of the Apostles, from their power Apostolic : as here (with other words) you do their Apostleship from their Pastoral charge. Whereas in deed the pastoral charge of the Apostles is nothing else but their Apostleship : and hath no more difference then the other had. For the name of Pastor is used in two senses, a special, and a general. In the special, to note a kind of function distinct from the Apostles, ( your Doctor granteth it,) and so Apostles are not Pastors: as when it is said, some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors and teachers. In the general, to signify the common charge of all such, as do teach the word and feed the flock of God: in which respect Christ him self is called a Pastor. Wherefore since Apostles are not Pastors by the former sense; by the later, whosoever are equal in the Apostleship, must needs consequently be equal in the Pastorship too: your distinction, that they were equal in the one not in the other, hath no more reason, then another of D. Stapletons, who saith, that they were equal in power of government, but not of regiment.

You deprave his words. For he saith that this is the greatest difference between Peter and the rest of the Apostles, that Christ gave to Peter the power of regiment, or to command: to the Apostles only the power of government, or to execute: because in government of the church Peter must prescribe, what should be done, and they must execute it.

I deprave them not, unless he speak sottishly, he knoweth not him self what. For his drift is, to prove, that the Apostles all had equal power given them by Christ, but with a threefold difference: of which this is one, that they had equal power (forsooth) to do and execute all things that appertain to the building of the Church; but so, that Peter had the power of regiment, to command, the rest of the Apostles the power of government, to execute. Which is as ridiculous, as if a man would say, that the Queens Majesty and the Sheriffs of London have equal power both: yet with a difference, to wit, that her Majesty hath the power of regiment, that is, to command, when a traitor shall suffer, and the Sheriffs the power of government, that is, to execute that which she commandeth. If you should preach thus in London: our Londoners would smile at it. I think that this heresy hath made our wits dull. Your Catholic distinctions are so sharp and subtle, that we cannot conceive them.

You may flout as well, if you list, at S. Gregory: who though he use not the words of this distinction, yet he hath the sense of it: saying, that Andrew, James, and John were heads of several congregations, and all, members of the Church, under one head Peter.

If I should touch Gregory for this, I should do him wrong: as great wrong almost, as your Doctor doth, who allegeth it out of Gregory. For though he were him-self a Bishop of Rome, and a well-willer of S. Peters : yet in that epistle (whence those words are cited) he calleth Christ the head of the universal church: Peter, the chiefest member; and others, members of it also. D. Stapleton thinking it a small thing, that Peter should be counted as the chiefest member, unless he be the head too, hath (upon mentiō of the one head ) cogged in the name of Peter, like a cunning gamster to help a die at a need. Alas a man must enterprise somewhat in such cases. For, you were all undone, if this game should be lost.

I marvel, that you blush not to use such uncivil speeches, and taunts, against D. Stapleton, a man of great learning even in your own judgment.

A man not of so great learning, as reading, if you will take my judgment in it. Yet I wish (for his own sake) that his learning were as good, as it is great. But for the uncivil speeches, and taunts, which I use against him; weigh the occasions and circumstances of them. If he have not deserved as the Scribes and Pharisees : let me be rebuked when I touch him, as Christ them. But you deal herein as Tully reporteth that Athenagoras did: of his fault he said nothing, he complained of his punishment. It is lawful for D. Stapleton to take up me with his taunts of Caluinist, Anglocaluinist, Puritan, and that undeservedly. But if I reprove on just cause, with plain terms, his cogging, corrupting, belying, sclaundering, abusing both of God and men: it is a heinous matter and to be blushed at. Let them blush, M. Hart, who love or make lies, either by committing such shameful tricks of falsehood, or by partaking with them. It is no shame for me to note them, and reprove them.

Why? Are you sure that there is no copy of S. Gregory's works, which hath the name of Peter inserted in that place.

I think that none hath: I am sure that none should have. For, in another epistle of the same argument, whē he had said y ^t all Christians do cleave to only one head, he addeth, Imeane, to Christ: and having (in this same epistle) put that difference between Christ and Peter, that Peter is a member, Christ the head of the church, he showeth manifestly whom he meant by head. A thing so apparent, that Cardinal Cusanus doth cite those words of Gregory with Christ's name inserted: either as having read them so in some copy, or to open the meaning of them. How much the more shameful is Stapletons dealing, who foysteth in [Peter:] to set (by that conveyance) the Pope in Christ's room. But you were best to go forward with the scriptures: and then (when you have found nothing in them,) come to the Fathers after.

You are very peremptory still in your speeches. I will find in them as much for the substance as I have affirmed▪ For, howsoever the words of Pastoral charge, and the Apostleship ; the power of regiment, and government, agree with my meaning: my meaning, (I am sure) agreeth with the scriptures, and standeth with good reason.

Then you shall do well hereafter to refrain from such foggy distinctions, devised to choke the blind, (who eat many a fly: ) and express your meaning in clear and plain words: least we suspect, that you fancy darkness more then light.

This is my meaning, that Peter had authority over the Apostles to feed them, to rule them, to be a Pastor of them: which the rest of the Apostles had neither over him nor one over another.

So. Now make proof of it.

Christ did say to Peter: Doost thou love me? Feede my sheep. Whereof thus I reason. Christ did charge Peter to feed his sheep, all; even all his sheep, without exception. But the Apostles were sheep of Christ. Therefore he had the charge of feeding them also.

Christ said to the Apostles, Go ye into all the world▪ and preach the Gospel to every creature. Whereof thus I reason. Christ did charge his Apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature, to everyone without exception. But Peter was a creature. Therefore they had the charge of preaching to him also. Now, if I would play with words as your men do: I could show that this reason must ouermaster yours in the plain field. For Christ said not to Peter, feed all my sheep: but he said to the Apostles, preach to every creature.

But you should consider that Christ giving that commandment to Peter, gave it with a difference between the sheep and the lambes, as S. Ambrose hath noted well, (set me down, I pray, his own words in Latin:) tertio Dominus interrogauit: & noniam agnos, vt primo, quodam lacte pascendos; nec ouiculas, vt secundo; sed oues pascere iubetur, perfectiores vt perfectior gubernaret. That is to say, When the Lord had asked Peter the third time, Doost thou love me? he is commanded now to feed, not the lambes, as at the first time, who must be fed with certain milk; not the little sheep as the seconde time; but to feed the sheep, that he (a man more perfect) might govern the more perfect. So that the whole flock of Christ was committed to Peter to be fed, as well the small as the great; both the lay men, who, as lambes, are fed themselves, and feed not others; & the Priests and Clergy, who, as sheep, do feed the lambes, but are fed of the shepherd.

The lambes and the sheep do signify two kinds of Christians: the one younger and tenderer, which needeth to be taught the first principles of religion, as it were to be fed with milk: the other riper and elder, fit to learn the deeper mysteries of faith, to be fed with strong meat. This S. Ambrose noted well in the commandment that Christ gave to Peter. Though the difference, which he maketh between the second and the third, the little sheep and the sheep ; was either an oversight in the Greek copy, or a fancy of some interpreter. Which I would not mention, but that you bid me set down his own words in Latin, as though there were some mystery in them, which yet yourselves are wont to make no account of: unless your Roman reader hath spied more in it, who saith that the text ought to be corrected, and read as Ambrose cited it. But your gloss, of the lay-men to be signified by lambes, and by the sheep the Priests and Clergy: doth vary from y ^e text, not of Christ only, but of Ambrose too. For whereas they speak of the lambes, and the sheep, both which the flock consisteth of: you interpret their words of the sheep, and the shepherds. And whereas all Pastors are bound to feed both sheep and lambes: you make as though y ^e rest must feed none but lambes, and all the sheep were Peters. From dreaming whereof S. Ambrose was so far, that he saith of the sheep which Christ commanded to be fed: Peter did not only receive the charge of them, but himself and all Bishops received it with Peter. Wherefore, you should consider, that in Christ's commission unto the Apostles they are not considered as sheep, but as shepherds: and therefore not them-selves to be fed of any, but all to feed others. So, when they abode together in Jerusalem: they sed the church in common (with, the doctrine of the Apostles ) not Peter them, and they the rest. And when they went thence into other countries: they went not as sheep with Peter their shepherd, but as several shepherds to sheep of all nations.

Be it so: that Christ spake (in his commission) to them, as to shepherds. Yet were they also sheep of the flock of Christ. And therefore he might well appoint a shepherd over them.

And was not Peter also a sheep of Christ's flock? And must▪ not our Savior appoint by this reason, a shepherd over him also? For, if all sheep need it: why not S. Peter ? If some need it not: why the Apostles? But, it is true, that, as they were sheep, so needed they sometimes to be fed, the best of them: and this did Christ provide for, though not with your policy; not by setting one as Pastor over all, but by giving charge of everyone to other. For as S. Paul said to the Elders of Ephesus, Take heed unto yourselves and to all the flock, charging them with care not of their flock only, but of themselves too, all of all, and ech of other: in like sort the Apostles who had charge of all in that they were shepherds, were to be looked too, in that they were sheep, to be admonished, taught, fed, not everyone of Peter, but everyone of other, yea even Peter also him self, if need required. Hereof their practice is a proof. For whē Peter went not with a right foot to the truth of the Gospel: S. Paul reproved him openly before all men for it. But to reprove him was to feed him. Therefore S. Paul did feed S. Peter.

S. Paul reproved him, not by authority, but of courtesy: and Peter yielded to it, not of duty, but of modesty. As now any Bishop may reprove the Pope: and he will hearken to it patiently, and mildly; and yet impair not his supremacy.

I acknowledge a distinctiō of the Romain style : which (in the book of Ceremonies of the church of Rome, in the chapter, that the Pope doth do reverence to no man ) saith, that notwithstanding the majesty and solemnity, which he useth to highest states in entertaining of them: yet Popes are accustomed (whē they are not in their pōtificals) to bow their head a little as it were rendering reverence to Cardinals and to mighty Princes, when they come privately and do reverence unto him. Marry this, not of duty: but of laudable courtesy. The Pope shown not you this courtesy, M. Hart, when he admitted you to kiss his holiness foot: it was not for his state to do it. Yet hath he so bewitched your senses therewith, that you (to render him not duty, but courtesy) forget both courtesy, and duty, to Paul the Apostle, the chosen instrument of God, and penneman of his holy spirit. For S. Paul mentioneth his reproof purposely, to prove, that he was Peters equal in authority : against the false Apostles, who sought to discredit the doctrine which he taught, by deba • ing him and setting others far above him. You say that he reproved Peter, of courtesy, and not by authority. Whereby (mark it well) you say in effect, that he made a foolish reason to prove a false conclusion. And, if he were inferior to Peter in authority, as he was by your answer: what meant he to say that he accounted himself nothing inferior to the very chief Apostles. You add that any Bishoppe may so reprove the Pope. Your Thomas saith, no. For he writeth that this fact (of Paul reproving Peter ) exceedeth the measure of brotherly correction which subjects owe unto their prelates, because he did it before the multitude. Though otherwise him self (to uphold the Papacy) useth such shifts, as you do: & maketh his account of Paul as the subject, and Peter as the prelate, according to the Canon law. But his own sentence may serve for an axe to behead your common error. For either S. Paul in so reproving Peter did transgress his duty; or he was his equal in authority, not his subject. But, to say the former, is a blasphemous speech of Porphyry. The latter therefore is true. And so your answer falleth of authority and courtesy.

I grant that S. Paul was equal in authority to Peter, in some sort. Yet this is a notable difference between them, and well worth the marking, that S. Paul was the Apostle and teacher of the Gentiles: but Peter the Apostle both of Gentiles and of Jews. Which (because we love not to speak without Doctors) you may read in S. Ambrose, in his Cōmentaries on this place, He that wrought by Peter in the Apostleship of circumcision, wrought by me also towards the Gentiles. He nameth Peter alone (saith he) and compareth him unto himself, because he had received the primacy to build the Church; that himself likewise is chosen to have the primacy of building the Churches of the Gentiles. Yet so, that Peter preached to the Gentiles also. These are S. Ambrose his words.

Have you read these words yourself in S. Ambrose : or do you take them up on credit?

What if myself have read them?

Then shall I think worse of you, then I have done. For I have thought you to err of simplicity. But I smell somewhat else here.

In deed, I read them not myself, in S. Ambrose, but in D. Stapleton: who citeth them as I do.

Then you may learn the precept of a witty Poet; Be sober and distrustful: these are the joints of wisdom. For this which you have taken of D. Stapletons credit, is clipped: foully clipped. If he should deal so with y ^e Princes coin: I know what judgment he should have. The words of Ambrose are, Ita tamen vt & Petrus gentibus praedicaret, si causa fuisset, & Paulus Iudaeis: yet so that Peter preached to the Gentiles also, if it were needful, and Paul to the Jews. D. Stapleton citeth them, Ita tamen, vt & Pe • rus gentibus praedicaret. Haec ill. Yet so that Peter preached to the Gentiles also. Thus saith Ambrose. See you not, how hansomely he hath clipped-of the last words of Ambrose, [& Paulus Iudaeis, and Paul to the Jews:] to prove, that Paul might not preach unto the Jews, as Peter might unto the Gentiles? Yet this is D. Stapleton, whose Treatise of the Church some of our English Studentes and young seduced gentlemen think to be a treasure of great truth and wisdom. But God will make the falsehood and folly thereof evident to all men at his good time. For this present point, that Paul was an Apostle and teacher of the Jews and the Gentiles both, as well as Peter was, and therefore not inferior to him in this respect : the Scripture is so clear, that no mist of Stapletons, though it were as thick as the darkness of Egypt, can take away the light of it. The words of Christ prove it, spoken (touching Paul ) unto Ananias: He is a chosen vessel to me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel. The commission by Ananias sent unto Paul: The God of our Fathers hath appointed thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just one, and hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness, unto all men, of the things which thou hast seen and heard. Paul's obedience to his calling, and performance of his duty: He preached Christ in the Synagogues, he confounded the Jews, he spake and disputed with the Grecians, (Jews by religion, although not by parentage:) to be short, when he was sent by special commission of the holy Ghost, for the work whereunto God had called him and Barnabas : they preached the word of God in the Synagogues of the Jews through diverse cities and countries: until that when the Jews did stubbernely resist the truth which they preached, they said boldly to them, It was necessary that the word of God should have been first spoken unto you: but seeing you put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. Wherefore as Peter preached the Gospel both to Jews and Gentiles: so did also Paul. As God did choose Peter, that the Gentiles by his mouth should hear the word of the Gospel: so did he choose Paul.

Why doth Paul then call himself the Apostle and teacher of the Gentiles: and that in sundry places?

Because that when he and Peter perceived, that God did bless the labors of the one of them amongst the Jews chiefly, of the other amongst the Gentiles: they agreed together and gave the right hands of fellowship each to other, that Paul should preach unto the Gentiles, & Peter to the Jews: not so, but that either (if occasion served) might and did preach to either, as Ambrose noted well, and it is written of Paul namely: but that they should specially teach, the one, y ^e Jews; the other, the Gentiles, as their epistles show they did. Thus, if you regard that, which they did chiefly: Peter was an Apostle and teacher of the Jews, Paul of the Gentiles. If that which they might do, and did by occasion: they were the Apostles and teachers, both of both, and so no difference between them.

We grant that there was no difference between them, in the office of the Apostleship: for therein was Paul equal unto Peter.

He that granteth this, would see, if he had eyes, that he must grant the other, which he hath denied. For, if equal in the office of the Apostleship: then equal in the charge of preaching to all nations. And if in the charge of preaching to all nations; then both to Jews and Gentiles.

It is true: to both. But so, that S. Peter was chief Apostle to them both, and the supreme head to rule as well S. Paul, as the rest of the Apostles.

I have proved that Peter had no such headship over them. You barely say the contrary, and repeat it still. This is a fault in reasoning, condemned of the Logicians by y ^e name of begging that which is in controversy. I pray use it not: but either prove that you say, or hold your peace and cease to say it.

I will prove it by the circumstances of the words of Christ saying unto Peter, Doost thou love me more then these? Feede my lambes. Doost thou love me? Feede my sheep. Doost thou love me? Feede my sheep. Wherein, sundry principal pointes are to be noted. First, he requireth of him an open profession and testimony of his love, to this intent that he may put him in trust with his flock. Secondly, he requireth not only that he love him, but also that he love him more then the rest: that to him as loving him more then y ^e rest, he may give power above the rest. Thirdly, he asketh him thrice, if he love him ; and the former times with the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the last with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which noteth fervent love. With the which word also Peter had answered him still. Fourthly, he saith unto him thrice also, feed. And, to pass over the sheep and the lambes, whereof I spake before; fifthly, the first charge of feeding the lambes, & the last of the sheep are uttered with the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, feed, the second of the sheep, hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ y ^t is, rule: to show that the lambes, even lay-men (as I said) are only to be fed ; but the sheep, I mean, Bishops and Pastors, are both to be fed and to be ruled of Peter. Sixthly the word, to feed, hath a great force, and signifieth a power most full and absolute: as the which implieth all other actions of ecclesiastical regiment. For they are all directed to y ^e food of souls. There are observed more such notes to like effect: but either not so pithy and sound as these are, or treated of already. Wherefore I content myself with these six. Which if you lay together, and mark what may be said in several for each of them: you have enough to prove a great worthiness of Peter, in any man's judgment; in ours, a supremacy.

That which is written in the Proverbs of Solomon, He that wringeth his nose causeth blood to come out: may be truly said of the proofs which you press out of these circumstances. The most pithy of them, if any of them have pith, are they which touch the matter: the question, of love required; the charge enjoined, of feeding ; and each of them repeated thrice. Which all in very truth, as Christ did use them to Peter, were rather a stay of his weakness, then a mark of his worthiness, much less a proof of his supremacy. For Peter had pretended greater love to Christ, then had the rest of the Apostles. In so much that when Christ had told them of their frailty, the night before his passion, All ye will be offended at me this night, for it is written, I will smite the shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered: Peter answering said unto him, though all should be offended at thee, yet will I never be offended. Whereto when Christ replied, verily I say unto thee, this night before the cock crow, thou wilt deny me thrice: Peter answered him again, though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. This promise, as it was made by all the Apostles, but chiefly by Peter: so was it broken by them all, but chiefly by him. For they did all forsake Christ: Peter did not only forsake him, but forswear him too. Wherefore when our Savior after his resurrection would gather them together, to confirm them from their fear, and give them power to preach the Gospel to all Nations: he, that in comforting them all (before his passion) remembered Peter chiefly as needing it most; but I have prayed for thee: did then (in sending for them to meet him in Galilee) remember Peter namely, by the voice of his Angel, saying to the women, tell his disciples and Peter that he will go before you into Galilee. Peter, a disciple: yet named beside y ^e disciples: as who might think him self not worthy of the name of a disciple, that had denied his Master thrice. Now when they were come to him into Galilee, and had received common both comfort and commission to execute the charge whereto they were chosen: Christ admonished Peter particularly of his duty, and moved him (beside the rest) to do it faithfully; as he particularly before had betrayed it, and had behaved him self most fearfully above the rest. To encourage him therefore with assuring his conscience of the forgiveness of his sin, and strength̄ him to constancy, that he offend no more s • : Christ demandeth of him whether he love him; and thereupon chargeth him, to feed his lambes and sheep. In demanding of him, dost thou love me more then these : first, he toucheth his fault, who had professed more then these, but had performed less then these. Then he showeth that it is pardoned. For he who loveth more, to him more is forgivē : his greater love is a token of it. In charging him to feed his lambes and his sheep : he sharpeneth his care, that now he be faithful and firm in following Christ, though he shall come to danger, yea to death thereby. Both which, the demand and charge are thrice repeated: the demand, that Peter by his threefold answer may countervail his threefold denial of Christ : the charge, because that nails the oftener they are stricken, the deeper they do pierce. To write the same to Christians, it grieveth not our Apostle: it is a safe thing for us. And although the truth of this exposition be very apparent by conference of Scriptures: yet, that you may take it with the better appetite, who love not to eat meat without this sauce, you may know that I find it (for the chiefest pointes which touch the matter nearest) in Cyril, Austin, Ambrose, and other ancient Fathers. Wherefore, your pithiest notes out of the circumstances of the text, have color of some proof for Peters infirmity, but naught for his Supremacy. As for the other three, which you pick out of the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and to feed : they have no pith at all, they are as bones without marrow. If this be the fruit of the study of the toongs renewed in your Seminaries, that by show thereof you may out face the Protestants, who by help thereof have rid your filth out of the church: then your tongues will prove as good as the miracles, which Jannes wrought, and Jambres, to harden Pharaoh's heart, by doing like as Moses did. You cast us in the teeth with a kingdom of Grammarians : but you would raise a Popedom of thē. And as Erasmus saith, that Schoolmen, speaking barbarously, said, it was not meet for the majesty of divinity that it should be bound to keep the laws of Grammarians: so the Popedom of Grammarians dealing too too Pope-like in expounding of words, (as Popes do full oft in dispensing with things) will not have them bound to the Grammatical sense wherein their authors use them. But if we may obtain, that justice be ministered according to the civil laws of our kingdom : then shall the poor words (which your Popedom forceth to speak for the Papacy that which they never meant) be rescued from that injury. For, the Scripture showeth that, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signyfyeth as fervent love as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in deed the very same, chyefe • y in S. John: who declaring the perfect and entire love, of God towards Christ, of Christ towards him; one where expresseth it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & other where by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yea by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 more oft then by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So that (if the words had any difference in sense,) it would be very likely, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rather y ^e more significant of the two: since it is used also commonly to note the love which the Lord doth bear towards us and we should bear one to another: and that in place of greatest force, as when he saith, This is my commandment that ye love one another, as I have loved you: greater love then this hath no man, when a man bestoweth his life for his friends. Whereas S. John therefore uttered Christ's demand by the one word, and Peters answer by the other: it seemeth that he used the words indifferently, as having both y ^e same meaning. Which is proved also by the consent and judgment of the Syriac translation, that hath the same word for them both. Howbeit if the words have a difference of sense: it agreeth better with the modesty of Peter to have said less, then more, of his love; chiefly, since he had fallen by saying too much of it, and had by trial felt his frailty. But if he did answer, as you imagine him; Dost thou love me Peter? Lord, I love thee fervently: yet this fervent love inferreth no supremacy over the rest of the Apostles. For, what he reporteth of his own love, the same doth Christ witness of theirs, or rather more, if we would prick it up as you do; even that his Father loveth them, because that they loved him. In both the which branches that same word is used, which (by your fancy) doth signify fervent love, when it may serve the Popes vantage.

We do not rely so much on that word, as on the other two, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but chiefly on y ^e word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . For although to feed (which is meant by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) doth import much: yet to feed and rule (which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth) hath a greater force: as those places show where that word is used, Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron, and, he shall rule my people Israel. Wherefore Christ committed a sovereign power to Peter in that he said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : not only to feed but to rule and govern too.

Then it was not Peters duty to rule y ^e lambes but the sheep only. For Christ doth say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , speaking of the sheep: and of the lambes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

So I said. Yet that word which he useth of the lambes he useth of the sheep also. Whereby this is shown (as I touched briefly out of ^o D. Stapleton ) that lambes must be only meated and fed of Peter (through the common food of doctrine to be looked for from him, as supreme father of the household, and from his See,) and they must be ruled of their next and proper Pastors whom immediately they are under: but sheep, that is to say, the greater and perfiter, Bishops themselves and Pastors, are committed to him not only to be fed with the common doctrine, but also to be ruled of him more immediately as of the supreme Pastor of Pastors.

So your Doctor noteth (I grant,) and you touched it. But you were best recall it, or else this fine fancy of that Greek word, as it is far fetched, so will be dear bought. For it must cost the Pope half of his supremacy.

Why do you say so?

Why? Are not Princes comprised in the name of lambes, by your judgment: as Bishops, and Pastors, in the name of sheep ?

They are: and what then?

The Pope then hath nothing to do with the ruling and governing of Princes; much less with deposing them. For Peter had commission (you say) to feed only (and not to rule) the lambes.

But they must be ruled of their next Pastors, and so, by consequent, of the Pope: because their Pastors must be ruled of him, as Pastor of Pastors.

Nay: but the Pastors are not to be ruled by the Pope neither, if this fancy hold. For in your Latin authentical translation y ^e clawse which doth answer to y ^e Greek word hath not sheep but lambes. Whervpō your Rhemists also note y ^e same as spokē of lambs, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , feed & rule. So that, howsoever he lay hold on others by y ^t Greek word compared with your Latin text: yet his rule & government of Bishops & Pastors is shakē of thereby. And this is as much as half of his supremacy: nay all, by a consequent. For his claim lieth, first, over Bishops: and then, by means of Bishops, over the whole church. Thus while you devise by quirkes of your own to underprop y ^e Pope, you lay him on the ground: & do him more harm by crasing of y ^e word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , then good by fortifying of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . For although it signify to feed, in such sort, as shepherds do their sheep, and so consequently to rule them, and guide them, in all respects as shepherds do, for the preserving of them: yet that charge of ruling belonged not to Peter alone peculiarly, but was and is common unto all shepherds. Our English tongue answereth not to the felicity of the Greek and latin in making evident proof hereof. For in the Greek words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and in the Latin pastor & pasco, the matter would be plainer. But yet in our English, a shepherd, and, to feed in that sort with ruling, are yoked so together by lincke (as I may term it) of reason and sense, though it appear not in lincke and likeness of words: that as many as are called to the function of shepherds and Pastors of the church, they all are bound by duty to feed and rule so. The proof whereof we have in Peter and Paul: who moving the Pastors (whom they cal Elders) to attend their charge, the one beseecheth them to feed the flock of God which dependeth on them: the other telleth them, that the holy Ghost hath made them overseers to feed the church of God ; both using the same word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as betokening the common charge of shepherds. Yea Christ him self, speaking to the Angel, y ^t is, y ^e shepherd of y ^e church of Thyatira, doth promise that he who overcometh and keepeth his works unto the ende, shall have power given unto him over nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron. So that even there, where you note that word importeth greatest power of beating down the wicked: Christ applieth it to all his faithful servants and not to Peter only. Wherefore, if it were so that he had meant more by saying 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thē by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in his charge to Peter : yet he meant no more then that which belongeth to every shepherds charge for the sheep which God ordeineth him to feed. But, in truth, if your itche of wresting holy scriptures to private fancies were healed; you would rather think that S. John did utter one sense with sundry words, as in the Lord's demand of Peter, Doost thou love me ? so in his commandment to Peter Feede my sheep. For the Syriac translation, which yourself alleged, to prove, that the Greek words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , though different in sound yet are one in sense, because our Savior spake in the Syriac tongue, and in the Syriac both are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 expresseth here also y ^e two sundry Greek words by one 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as if that our Savior had used the same word, and meant the same thing in both. Which interpretation should be of greater credit with you in this point then it was in that, because your authentical Latin translation which there dissented from it, agreeth with it here, expressing likewise both by pasce. Unless you will say that your authentical Latin doth not express fully the meaning of the Greek.

A translation cannot express the force always of words in the original: as in Ecclesiasticus it is observed of the Hebrew.

You say true. How much the more were they to blame who decreed that a translation should be accounted as authentical in all Divinity-exercises, and no man under any pretense to reject it. But if there had been such force and importance in the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : your Latin translator could have expressed it easily. For otherwhere he doth translate it to rule: and that, being spoken of meaner Pastors then Peter, even of the Bishops of Ephesus. Which bewrayeth further the seely state of your proof grounded on y ^e word. For, if Peter were ordained supreme head because he was willed to rule the sheep or lambes: what headship may the Bishops of Ephesus claim, who were made overseers to rule the church of God, that is both lambes and sheep? But your last proof upon the word to feed which signifieth (you say) a power most full and absolute, is most out of square: and neither agreeth with yourselves, nor with truth and reason. For you said that lambes are only fed of Peter: sheep, both fed and ruled. Which is fond, if to rule be no more then to feed: fonder, if to feed imply a power most full and absolute. Beside that, to feed, is to nourish Christians with milk or strong meat according to their state, as they are either lambes or sheep. Wherefore if that import the fullness of power which no man hath but one, to weete, the supreme head: how great is your cruelty to the church of Christ, who leave but one Pastor throughout all the earth to preach the word of God unto it? Or if you leave more, & grant that several Churches shall have their several Pastors after the ordinance of God: how great is your folly who granting us so many Pastors & feeders, yet say, that one alone hath the charge to feed, and that importeth a supremacy? For if every Pastor have charge to feed his flock ; and to feed implieth a fullness of power peculiar to the supreme head: then by your reason every Pastor in his church, every feeder in his flock, is a supreme head, no less then Peter was amongst the Apostles. Nay, Peter was not so, by your reason, neither. For, if to feed do signify a power most absolute and full, as you say it doth, and that power was given to all the Apostles, as you confess too: it followeth by your own confession and saying that all the Apostles had that charge, to feed. If all they had that charge: to feed, maketh nothing for Peters Supremacy. Wherefore this, and other of the like knottes, which Stapleton hath sought and • ound out in bulrushes: they did not grow in them, by the workmanship of the Creator; man hath made them, and God will loose them.

This which you have said might seem to be some what towards the loosing of them: if the scripture gave not very clear evidence for proof of his Supremacy as well elsewhere as here. For Christ said to Peter, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired you, to winnow you, as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not. And thou being converted, strengthen thy brethren.

Will you be drawing still of blood ? for what doth either Christ's prayer for Peter, or the charge given him to strengthen his brethren, say more for his supremacy: then the question, dost thou love me? or, the charge, feed my sheep ? unless you press violently the words beyond their sense, as your School-divines in their captious syllogisms (or rather sophisms ) use to do.

Such dregs (as our Cano termeth them) of sophisms, brought into the School by men who were unworthily named School-divines, are reproved by us as well as by you. But the words of Christ do speak enough for Peters prerogative without violence. For they command him to strengthen his brethren. And his brethren were the rest of the Apostles. They command him therefore to strengthen the Apostles. If to strengthen the Apostles: then must he be their supreme head. Wherefore the words of Christ prove the supremacy of Peter.

And think you that Christ meant the rest of the Apostles, when he said, thy brethren?

Whom should he mean, if not them?

All the faithful, as I think. For they have all one Father, the same that Peter hath; and they are fellow heirs of the grace of life with Peter ; and Peter himself strengthening them, calleth them brethren. So that, in Peters judgment, Christ seemeth to have meant by his brethren, all the faithful. Pardon me, if I be rather of his mind therein, then of yours.

As who say we denied that all the faithful are meant by his brethren : we teach the same also. Yet that is true, that I said. For (I trust) the Apostles are in y ^e number of the faithful.

They are so. But then your reason of brethren hath no more force, then had the other of sheep. Nay it hath less. For what is to strengthen?

To strengthen is to stay them up who do stand. For the function of preaching, which through the grace of God engendereth faith in men, hath two special partes, to teach, and to strengthen: or, as S. Paul speaketh, to plant and to water. To teach and to plant, is to convert men unto the faith of Christ, and to engraff them into him. To strengthen and to water is to uphold them which are already faithful, that they may persevere in it.

Then is the charge lesser, to strenghthen the brethren, then to feed the sheep. For to feed, is as much, as to preach the word of God. And, to preach, hath two duties: to raise up them that are fallen, to strengthen them that do stand. Wherefore if the supremacy were not given Peter by the charge, to feed the sheep : much less can it be given by a part of that charge, to strengthen the brethren. For as Peter ought that duty to his brethren: so did his brethren to him, and Paul performed it; so did the Apostles to their brethren, and they paid it; so do all the faithful, everyone to his brethren (according to that measure of grace, which God hath given them) as being all members of the same body, and therefore ech to help other. Our English Chronicles have a story of king Edward the Confessor, and Godwin Earl of Kent: that, when they were sitting at table together, Harald the kings cup-bearer, the Earls son, did stumble so with one foot, that he was down almost, but recovering him self with y ^e other foot, he neither fell, nor shed the drink. Whereat when the Earl smiled, and said, now one brother helped another : the king calling to mind his brother Alfred's death, whom the Earl had slain, beheld him with a displeased countenance, and said, So might my brother also have holpen me, if thou hadst not been. In the which story, the cup-bearer who stumbled, doth show that one foot may strengthen another, and stay them both that they fall not: the Earl, who observed therein a brothers duty, doth show, that the younger may strengthen the elder, or the elder the yoongger: the king, who remembered his own estate by it, doth show that the inferior may strengthen the superior, yea the member the head. By the proportion of which pointes a man of reason may see, that an equal in all respects may strengthen an equal: that, amongst vnequalles, the left may strengthen the right, and the right the left: yea, that an arm, that a foot may strengthen the head, and save it perhaps from taking such a fall, as would crush it in pieces. Wherefore the charge of Peter, to strengthen his brethren, is no sufficient proof that he was made head of the meanest amongst the faithful: much less of the Pastors whom he calleth his fellow-elders ; and least of all of the Apostles, whose commission was the same with his to all nations.

It is true that others may strengthen their brethren, as members of the same body: but Christ commandeth Peter to do it as their head. Which may be gathered by the occasion, whereon the words were spoken. For, when there arose a strife among the Apostles which of them should seem to be the greatest: Christ said unto them, The kingesof the Gentiles do reign over them; but you not so, and so forth: teaching them, that all desire and lust of reigning ought to be far from his ministers. Yet least he should seem thereby to have forbidden withal, or taken away all power of reigning from them: he added those words spoken to Peter only; plainly declaring that he should be the greatest, which was the matter where about they strived.

Cato said that he marveled, that a Sooth-sayer did not laugh when he saw a Sooth-sayer. Me thinks, the professors of your divinity should laugh, when they see one another. For, they prove the pointes of their Popish doctrine by as strong reasons: as the Sooth sayers used to prove their diuinations by the liver, and the heart, and other entralles of beasts. But children are persuaded, when they hear a ring of belles that the belles speak whatsoever they have fancied, at least, like unto it. The Lord, when the Apostles did strive about dominion and superiority, told them, that none of them should be amongst the rest, as kings amongst the Gentiles: yet least he should seem withal to have forbidden all dominion amongst them, he appointed Peter to be their supreme head. Thus saith the Soothsayer. But what saith the Scripture? In effect the clean contrary. For it showeth, that Christ having reproved them for striving who should be the greatest, and thirsting to be Lord's after the manner of earthly kings: taught them, that an humbling of them selves to their brethren, and a desire to do good by serving ech of other, must be the preeminence that they should seek, as he had done. And as they had been partakers of his troubles, so had he appointed to them a kingdom also: to make them partakers of that bliss and glory, in which he should reign him self, as king of kings, & they (as counsellors about him) sitting on twelve thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Now the former part of this speech of Christ debarreth the Apostles all from that supremacy (of our most holy Lord the Pope ) which you would put on Peter. The later hath greater color for his dream, who saith, that Christ removed all lust of reigning ftom his ministers, and not all power of reigning ; because it mentioneth a kingdom y ^t Christ appointed for them. But this importeth rather an equality of Peter with the rest of the Apostles: since the state is commō, and thrones are given to thē all. Or if there might be even so notwithstanding a superiority, as at a council table there must needs be, in sitting one before another: yet is that nothing unto that supremacy which you claim for Peter. For, to serve your purpose, Christ should have said, that he would establish them all in seats of honor: but Peter in a throne like the throne of Solomon : and he should be their Pope, and they should be his Cardinals to sit about the throne, and be both Counselors to him, and judges with him of all the earth.

It is a folly (I see) for me to reason with you, if you be resolved to cast of so weighty reasons, as trifles.

A folly indeed: if you go about to make me esteem of mole-hills, as mountains.

I go not about it: but this, that the reasons which are in truth as mountains, you will esteem them so.

Then you must prove them so. But if your mountains travel, and be delivered of a mouse: you may not look that I should admire it as a Giant.

Well. Let us leave the occasion of Christ's words: and weigh the words in themselves. For there are two things which Christ doth therein. First, in the common danger of all, he strengtheneth Peter only: Satan hath desired you, to winnow you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not. Then, least that strengthening should seem to have been made for Peters own sake alone, or in respect of his personal faith, he addeth, And thou being converted strengthen thy brethren: showing that he is strengthened in the faith, to the end he might strengthen the faith of all others, as who should be afterward the Pastor of them all.

It were a needless labor for me to spend words in these your two pointes, if you had marked that which hath been said already. For I shown that the former argueth his weakness; the later openeth his duty; but neither proveth any preeminence at all, save a preeminence in frailty. The truth is, that Christ in those words doth three things: whereof one is a byle, and therefore you touch it not. For in the danger of them all, but greatest danger of Peter, he putteth him in mind first of his fall, to humble him; then of his rising, to comfort him; last, of his duty to quicken him unto it. His fall; to cool the heat of pride and vain glory, (may I so term it with the Fathers?) wherein he presumed, more then the rest did, of his faith and constancy. His rising; that he should not despair when he had fallen. For though he dealt unfaithfully, denying Christ thrice: yet his faith should not fail, because he (whom God doth always hear) had prayed for him. His duty; that being raised up again he should strengthen his brethren: as having learned by experience both to have compassion of the infirmity of men & to preach the goodness and mercy of God. The last point, of his duty, was common to him (as I have shown) with the Apostles: and therefore proveth no preeminence of supreme headship. The first, of his fall, proveth a kind of preeminence; but in the denying of Christ above others: which Popes have best right to, but they do not claim it. The other, of his rising, ensueth and dependeth on that of his fall: wherein, since he specially would sin more then the rest, and so his danger be more special, and therefore need more special succor; Christ said to him in special, But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not. For Christ prayed the same for all his Apostles in sense, though not in word, by that solemn prayer made unto his father, I have declared thy name unto them, holy father, keep them in thy name and sanctify them with thy truth. Neither did he pray this for them only, but for all the faithful which should believe in him through their word. Wherefore, as a good father hath care of all his children, but if he see someone distressed above y ^e rest, will cheare him up beside the rest; & a good Physician hath care of all y ^e body, but applieth plasters to y ^e part affected: so Christ, to help Peter, who was to be distressed & diseased most, encouraged him with this comfort, y ^t his faith should not fail ; and laid that salve of God's assured favor on the sore of distrust that might afflict his mind. Now, this care and wisdom of a father and a Physician doth show (for the child & part whereto they tender it) not, that they be in greater honor then the rest, but that they stand in greater need. The words of Christ therefore spoken unto Peter, I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: do prove that he stood in greater danger then the rest, not that he was in greater dignity. And these are y ^e words, of which D.