Conference Between Rainolds and Hart

Good Lord, what mean you so to say?

Nay, I may rather ask: good Lord, what mean you so to do? For, as Amnon, enamored of his sisters beauty, ensnaring her by fraud, did force her to his lust, and after cast her out; whereupon she said, this evil was greater then the other, which he had done unto her: so the Pope enflamed with love of the church, entrapping her with guile and using violence unto her, doth cast her out of doors by giving this as proper, first to Peter, then to him self, that Christ prayed for him, that his faith should not fail. Wherein I have this reason to say, that he doth greater evil unto the church, then was the other which he did: because in the other she had this comfort left, that the transgression was rather his, who did, then hers, who suffered force: in this he taketh from her all comfort of her misery, and maketh her ashamed to cast her eyes on God or man. For what is the comfort of the Church of Christ, the faithful, and elect, but that he hath prayed for us that we fail not, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against us ; that our hope might be an ancre of strong consolation, that we do believe and are assured by God's spirit we are the heirs of life eternal? of the which comfort that incestuous Amnon seeketh to bereave us and cast us out of the doors, when he saith that Christ prayed for Peter only, and after Peter for the Pope. But of the Pope in due place. Now, we speak of Peter.

Why? Dare you deny that Christ spake to Peter, and to Peter only, when he said, Simon, I have prayed for thee that thy faith should not fail? Dooth not the very text of the Gospel show it?

What? Dare you deny that Christ spake to the man sick of the palsy, and to him only, when he said, Son, be of good comfort, thy sins are forgiven thee ? Dooth not the very text of the Gospel show it? But is this a proof that other Christians have not their sins forgiven too? And do we all believe in vain when we believe forgiveness of sins ? Or may you not affirm it with as good reason, as you affirm the other of Peter, not to fail in faith ? Are you the masters of Israel who make so great boast of skill in all Divinity: and do you not know that Pastors and Preachers (of whom Christ was the chiefest ) apply the general doctrines of the law and Gospel to them, in particular, who need to be relieved thereby? If I should say to some covetous man, who grindeth the faces of the poor, and buildeth up his house with blood, or joineth benefice to benefice, and taketh charge of a flock which he feedeth not; Let thy conversation be without covetousness, for he hath said, I will not fail thee nor forsake thee: do I take this comfort of the providence of God from every other Christian, because I assure it to one in particular? Or did the Apostle ouershoote himself, in saying that to all the faithful which God said to Joshua: I will not leave thee, nor forsake thee? You have your choice, take which you list: either acquit us, or condemn him. For if Christ meant to assure the faith of none but of Peter, because he said to him, I have prayed for thee that thy faith should not fail: then did God promise his gracious assistance to none but to Joshua, when he said to him, I will not leave thee nor forsake thee: and the Apostle erred in saying it to all Christians. If the Apostle said that to all Christians by the spirit of truth: then is it true in like sort, that it may be said to any child of God, whom Satan hath desired to sift and shake (as he did Peter, ) and made him to deny Christ; Be of good comfort, for he hath said, I have prayed for thee that thy faith should not fail. And if it may be said to any child of God: then was it verified in all the Apostles, except the child of perdition. Wherefore Christ, by saying of those words to P • ter, gave him no Supremacy over the Apostles.

I cannot deny, but that, in some respect, it may be truly said to all the children of God, if they fall as Peter did. Yet (I know not how) me thinks, I cannot be persuaded, but that it maketh somewhat for Peters supremacy.

No marvel. For the noise of it hath been so great and loud about your ears, in the Seminary at Reims and other Popish schools beyond seas: that it hath made you dull of hearing, and you cannot perceive the still & soft voice of the truth. As we read of them who dwell about the fall of the river Nile, where it tumbleth down from the hye mountains, that they are made deaf by the greatness of the sound and noise of the waters. But tell me I pray: do you think y ^t Christ made Peter supreme head by saying unto him, I have prayed for thee, or, strengthen thy brethren ?

What a question is that? Why should I mention it, unless it proved his supremacy?

It is a question. For if Christ made him supreme head by those words: then the supreme head denied Christ, and that often, and that with an oth too. Whereof a very dangerous conclusion would follow, that the Pope may err, yea (that is more) deny Christ.

I say not that Christ made him supreme head at that present time: but prepared him (as it were) to make him supreme head after. As D. Stapleton writeth that Christ by those words established Peters faith, before that he bestowed the power of supreme head-ship upon him in deed. For he gave that power after his resurrection, when he said to him, Feede my lambes: feed my sheep. But those words (of strengthening ) he spake before his death, and did but insinuate therein & give an inkling, that he would make him supreme head.

You have said. And your Doctor hath shown, herein, a point of greater wit then many of his fellows. But as of greater wit, so of greater spite, in adding thereunto (that, which now I touched) that Calvin made no mention at all of those words, because he knew well that (they are so singular for Peters supremacy) they could not possibly be avoided. For Calvin doth mention them in treating of the point whether the Pope may err. And your Doctor witnesseth him self that directly they concern that point: the supremacy, but by an inkling. The strength thereof then, as touching the supremacy, doth rest upon that, whereof they give inkling it should be done after: that is, upon the charge of feeding lambes and sheep. But it is proved that Christ gave no more to Peter, in that, then to the rest of the Apostles. It is proved therefore, that y ^e words of Christ [strengthen thy brethren] do raise no higher throne for Peter then for them. Much less, if the prayer that Christ made for Peter were common unto him with all faithful Christians, and not with the Apostles only. Wherefore this reason, which is so strong in your eyes, must be strengthened by his brethren, if he have any. For sure he is a great deal too weak to strengthen them.

Yes: he hath brethren. And more peradventure, then you would be glad to see in the field: as lusty as you are, and think you can dispatch them all.

Not I: save with the aides of Elisaeus only: they that be with us, are mo, then they that be with them. But let us see, what are they?

Examples of the practice of Peters supreme-headship in the government of the Church. Whereof we have records in the holy scriptures: even in the Acts of the Apostles, which are a pattern of Church-government.

The reasons in deed, which you gather thence, are brethren to the former. But they are no stronger, then the former were. If you bring them forth into the field: you shall perceive it.

There are many places, but specially, two: by which Peters sovereignty over the Apostles is manifestly shown. For in the one, he proposeth an election to be made of a new Apostle into the room of Judas. In the other, he is President of the Council of the Apostles, which was held at Jerusalem: he speaketh first, and concludeth in it. Out of both the which I gather this reason. S. Peter did practice the power and authority of a supreme head over the Apostles. Therefore he was their supreme head.

Now are you come to that, which I had an eye too, when I desired you (in the beginning of our conference) to tell me what power you gave unto the Pope by calling him supreme head. For, in this grass there lurketh a snake. Which that you may see, and (if it be the gracious will of God) avoid, least that you perish through his venoom: I will ask you a question. When you say, the Pope is chief and supreme head of ecclesiastical judgment, and President of Councils : do you mean that the Pope in assemblies of Bishops, is, as the Speaker (with us) in the Parliament, to propose matters to them, and ask their judgments, and gather their voices, that things may be orderly handled and enacted by common consent?

As the Speaker? No. But as the Prince rather.

Yea, I say to you, and more then the Prince. For as things in Parliament cannot be enacted without the Princes consent: so neither can the Prince make acts without consent of the Lord's and Commons. And when they are made by consent of them all▪ they cannot be repealed by the Prince alone, without the like consent by which they were made. But with the Pope it is not so. For such is the power of his Princely prerogative, that not only Councils may not make decrees for the Church-government without his consent: but he may also make decrees without them, as good as they with him. Yea, that he may add too, and take from, and alter what he shall think good in the decrees of Councils▪ and set them out for theirs, as Pope Clemens played with the Council of Vienna. Yea, that being made with their consent and his both: he may break them when he will, and repeal them, if he list, for no law doth hold him. Now, since that the power which you give the Pope by the name of supreme head, you give it Peter too, from whom you fetch the Popes conveyance; and Peter in the assemblies of the Apostles, was but as the Speaker, and therefore not as the Prince, and therefore not as more then the Prince in our Parliament: hereof I conclude, that Peter was not the supreme head of the Apostles. And so have you the third point, which I promised to prove, that if somewhat more were givē to Peter thē to the rest of the Apostles, yet was it not so much as should make him their supreme head. You may discharge now the Acts of the Apostles, out of your Campe. For, draw what reasons thence you list, you shall find thē (as I told you) no stronger thē y ^e former.

You are too hasty: your conclusion runneth away before your proof.

I have proved as much as may conclude your Pope to be an usurper.

You have not proved that Peter in the assemblies of the Apostles, was but as the Speaker is in our Parliament.

What need I? When yourself gave no more unto him, then as the Speakers office, in the former assembly: wherein yet he did most. For you said, that he proposed an election to be made of a new Apostle into the room of Judas. And this was all that you might say, and say truly, by the story of the Acts. Which showeth, that not he, but they mad • the election: so far as it was lawful for them to deal with that which God was to order extraordinarilie. As for the other assembly, when the Council was held at Jerusalem: you cannot prove that he had so much as the office of a Speaker therein. Your Doctor infeoffeth him (I grant) with more: namely, that he speaketh first of all, concludeth, yea, and is President too. But what will not he dare to affirm? who, in so great light of the Scriptures, affirmeth in writing that which is flat against them. For he saith that Peter not only speaketh first, but concludeth also. And they show that both there had been much debating and reasoning of the matter, before Peter spake: and after he had spoken, Barnabas, and Paul and James spake, and so the Council did conclude the matter. Yea they did conclude it according to the very words that James spake, and a special point of his, which Peter touched not. So that, if we would strive but lawfully against y ^t , for which you strive unlawfully: the likely-hood is rather that James sat as President in the Council, then Peter, since both he spake last and the whole Council did conclude with him. But, to yield unto you (for your most advantage) as much or more then any likely-hood may afford you, y ^t Peter was not only the Speaker but y ^e President in both y ^e assemblies: yet are you no nearer unto y ^t supremacy which you shoot at. For, such a Presidentship as Peter had amongst y ^e Apostles, is so far from the Prelatship which the Pope seeketh to have amongst Bishops: that, if we should offer him all that Peter had (at your request) upon condition that he would accept it and ask no more then it: he would think we mocked him, and give you little thanks who take upon you to be his advocate, & make so poor a plea for him. This you may perceive by another advocate, who made y ^e same plea for him out of this story, a learned Lawyer, Francis Duaren. He (in his Abridgement of the Canon law) falling into the question of the Pope and the Council, whither of them is sovereign, and hath the chiefest power, whereto the other should be subject in matters of the Church: doth thus set down his judgment of it. It seemeth most agreeable to the law of God, that the Church (which the Council doth represent) should have the chiefest power, and the Pope should acknowledge himself subject to it. For the power of binding and loosing was given by Christ not to Peter alone (whose successor the Pope is said to be) but to the whole Church. Howbeit, I deny not, but Peter was set over the rest of the Apostles. Hereof it cometh that in the time of the Apostles as often as any was to be ordained either Bishop or Deacon, or anything to be decreed which appertained to the Church: Peter never took that upon himself, but permited it to the whole Church. This was in him above the rest, that he was wont, as chief of the Apostles, to call them together, and propose to them the things, which were to be done. Even as now with us, he that is the President of a court of Parliament, doth call together the Senate: in the Senate he speaketh first, when it is needful; and doth many other things, which argue a certain prerogative and preeminence of the person that he beareth. Yet is he not therefore greater or higher then is the whole court: neither hath he power over all the Senators; neither may he decree anything against their judgments: nay the judgment of all controversies belongeth to the court ( whose head the President is said to be,) and not to the President. Yea, if need be, the court doth minister justice and execute judgment as well against him, as against any other, and punisheth him also. And this was the state of these things in old time. But in process of time, (I know not how) it came to pass, that the highest power over all Christians was given unto one man: and he was set at liberty from being bound to any laws (after the manner of Emperors) or to the Canons & decrees of any Councils. For Pope Paschalis provided and ordered by a decretal Epistle; that no Councils may prescribe a law to be kept of the church of Rome: & the authority of the Bishop of Rome is excepted expressly in the decrees of certain Councils. And thus he goeth forward in showing the prerogative of the Pope above the Council: whereof he maketh him President. But so, that (you see) he acknowledgeth it is not in the Acts of the Popes, as it was of old in the Acts of the Apostles: no not in those very places of the Acts, whereon you ground the chiefest proof of your supremacy. Which, and all the rest that you can bring with any show out of the scriptures, give Peter such supremacy, if you will call it so: that I am persuaded, Pope Gregory the thirteenth, as he hath already spent much upon Scholers, and somewhat upon Soldiers for maintenance of his State: so he will rather spend his triple crown, and all, upon them, then heretics shall force him to come out of his throne of majesty, and submit his head to such a supremacy.

What tell you me of Francis Duaren, whose authority I regard not, nor am to be pressed with it? Chiefly, since he was a Lawyer, not a Divine: and whither he were a Catholic or no, I know not. I will prove by the ancient and holy learned fathers, that Peter had a full and perfect supremacy over the Apostles, in those two places of the Acts.

I did not take Duaren for the strength of mine answer, but the holy scriptures, the same that you alleged. By the text and circumstances whereof, I made it plain, that Peter had no higher power in the assemblies of the Apostles: thē hath either the Speaker of our English Parliament, or, (to make the most of it) the President of a court of Parliament in France, which is Duarenes similitude. Howbeit, if I should have used his authority to confirm it, as well as I alleged his words to open it: you might not reject such a man so lightly. For a gardener (as the proverb is) hath spoken oft to very good purpose: & Jethro saw more in somewhat then Moses. And Duaren, though a Lawyer, yet was not only skillful of the civil law (which is a great help notwithstanding of wisdom in matters touching government:) but also of the Canon, whereof you may vouchsafe to count as of Divinity; doubtless your Divinity will be cold without it. Beside, he wrote that treatise to instruct students in the Canon law, which is the fortress of the Papacy : and he so delivereth the chiefest pointes of it, that Lawiers amongst y ^e Protestants were offended & wrote against him for it. But now (thus you reward men) it is called in questiō, whether that he were a Catholic or no. I assure you, if you beware not, you will make honest and well affected hearts afraid to be Catholics ; such, as you mean by that word. For if a man keep within any bounds of modesty and truth, & will not run headlong with you through thick & thin: you will account of him, either as an Heretic, or as one that savoreth of heresy at least. But who are the Fathers, whom you pretend against Duaren, to prove your supremacy out of those places of the Acts?

S. Chrysostom, for the one: S. Jerome, for the other.

And what do they say?

S. Chrysostom, entreating of the fact of Peter how he proposed the election of a new Apostle into the room of Judas: Behold, saith he, the zeal of Peter. How he doth acknowledge the flock committed to him by Christ? How he is the chief in this assembly: and everywhere beginneth to speak first of all? Afterward he praiseth Peter for doing all things by the common advise and judgment of the Disciples, nothing by his own authority. Yet that Peter might have chosen an Apostle, yea, alone, without them, he affirmeth plainly. What, saith he, was it not lawful for Peter himself to choose him? yes, it was lawful, no doubt. But he doth it not, least that he should seem to gratify any man. Then he praiseth the modesty of the rest of the Disciples: Consider, saith he, how they grant the seat to him (that is, the primacy, as otherwhere he calleth it,) neither doubt they any longer, debating amongst themselves, (to wit as they did once, when Christ conversed with them) which of them should be the greatest. This is S. Chrysostom's judgment of that place, which I alleged out of the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles for the supremacy of Peter.

This testimony of Chrysostom doth stand on two branches: the one, what Peter doth, as the Scripture showeth; the other, what he might have done, as Chrysostom supposeth. That which Peter doth, is granted. But it proveth not the supremacy. He remembereth his duty; he speaketh first of all; he doth all things by the common advise and judgment of the Disciples, and nothing by his own authority. Thus much I said of Peter, and did explain it out of Duaren. In Duaren you thought that it made against you, and therefore refused him. Dooth it make for you, when it is in Chrysostom, that you bring him against Duaren ? Or, is this the reason, why you accept the one and refuse the other, because the words of Chrysostom yielding a certain primacy to Peter, may deceive the simple, as though he meant that primacy which you call the supremacy: but the words of Duaren put so plain a difference between the two primacies, that, which Peter had; and the other which the Pope hath, or would have; that a blind man may see that Peters primacy was not a Popes supremacy. Which shall appear farther (if God will) by those things, that the Fathers speak touching Peters primacy. And thus your proof faileth in that which the scripture showeth that Peter doth. Now that, which Peter might have done, as Chrysostom supposeth, would infer a greater primacy then Peter had, if it were true. But the scripture saith it not. Wherefore as the Fathers report one of another, (by your own confession) that they write some things 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to confute the adversaries with whom they had to deal, & in these they err sometimes and gather amiss: likewise may I say that they write some things, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to praise the Saints of God, and stir up others to their virtue, wherein if their words should be rigorously sifted, the truth is sometimes ouerlashed. So Chrysostom (in the other place which you allege out of the Acts) to commend the mildness and wisdom of James, who left the sharper speeches to be used of Peter, and used himself the gentler, doth speak of him as being above Peter in power: and here to commend the modesty of Peter, because that he did all things by the common advise and judgment of his brethren, he saith (by the way of amplification) that Peter might himself have chosen an Apostle, which yet he did not.

By way of amplification: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to praise the saints of God. Such colors you cast upon it. But Chrysostom saith expressly, that Peter himself (that is to say, alone) might have chosen him, if he would. And you (with smoother words, but in plain effect) reply, that he lieth. Doo Fathers praise the Saints so?

It is a rule of your own and given by your Jesuit, that a man may lawfully dissent from the Fathers, so that he do it with modesty. If any keep not this, you say he raileth at the Fathers. Of me, who would keep it, you say I cast colors. What shall I do to please you?

You shall please me, if you dissent not from them, but only in such things as be known truths. Which is another rule of ours, if you remember it.

I remember it well: and herein I have kept it. For it is a truth and a known truth, that the Fathers write, in favor of the Saints, some things which ouerlash the truth, if a man examine and try them by the touch-stone. Peter himself shall be the Saint, in whose example I will show it. Hilary, upon the words of Christ unto Peter, Get thee behind me Satan, thou art an offense to me; saith, it is not meet we should think, that Christ did call Peter Satan; but Christ said to him, get thee behind me, and no more; the rest to the Devil, not to him, Satan thou art an offense to me. The same Hilary, almost but Ambrose quite & clean excuseth Peter from all fault in that he denied Christ, nay Ambrose commendeth him. Peter answered, saith he, I know not the man, He well denied him a man, whom he knew to be God. Clemens and Eusebius, whom Oecumenius followeth, do write that that Peter whom Paul did withstand and reprove at Antioch, was not Peter the Apostle, but another, I know not who, of the same name, one of the seventy disciples. Wherefore since it is known by the word of truth, that Christ called Peter Satan, that Peter denied Christ, that Paul withstood and reproved Peter ; and it may be known by the writtnges of the Fathers, how they vary from this truth in favor of S. Peter, that, by washing out the spots which seem to stain him, his praise may be the more glorious: I hope, I might take it for a known truth, that the Fathers write some things 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to praise the Saints of God: wherein, if their words be sifted precisely, they ouerlash the truth sometimes. In saying whereof if you think I cast colors, and use words too smooth : I can amend that fault with speaking more roughly, as Jerome doth, who saith y ^t the sense which Hilary and Ambrose give of Peters words, I know not the man; as though denying Christ he had denied him man, because he knew him God: they gave it of a reverent affection to Peter; but wise readers see howe frivolous it is, if they so defend Peter that they make God a liar. For, if Peter denied not, then did the Lord lie, who said, Verily, I say to thee, this night before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. Behold what he saith, thou shalt deny me, not, the man. Or if S. Jerome's words be too smooth also, I can speak more roughly yet with Theophylact: who saith that they who make that defense of Peter, do make a foolish defense. Thus if you compare my words with Theophylacts, & Jerome's, I used modesty : if with that which other of the Fathers write, I did it in a known truth, when I dissented from Chrysostom. Doo I please you now?

I wonder that you set yourself against S. Chrysostom, a Father so ancient, so learned, so godly, so skillful in the Scriptures.

Let me ask you a question. What think you of Christ ? Was he alone free from all spot of sin, both original, and actual? or was the blessed virgin free from it also?

You know our mind thereof. She was free from it also.

S. Chrysostom saithe the contrary: a Father so ancient, so learned, so godly, so skillful, in the scriptures. Yea, and he groundeth therein upon the scriptures: which he doth not, in yours of Peter.

But other of the Fathers say the same, that we say: with whom we do dissent from Chrysostom.

If I should ask what Fathers say it of actual sin: hard for you to name them. As for original: your own Cano showeth they all say the contrary. But if many said it: yet you may see by this, which I have shown of Chrysostom, what brokē reeds you lean on, whē you lean on such reasons: Chrysostom doth say so; therefore it is so. And, if [other fathers] be of as good credit to win you from others, unto a point of truth, as to a point of error: then will you be as ready to leave his opinion in this point of Peter, as you have been to leave it in y ^t of the virgin. For a number of Fathers, evē a whole Council of Bishops of Africa (together with S Cyprian ) do write that Peter did according to the les • ons and precepts of God, in that he proposed unto the disciples the ordaining of an Apostle in the room of Judas, to the end they might deal by common advise and voice therein. Wherefore, if you have Fathers in such regard, as you pretend, and do rather follow the consent of many, then the mind of one (which is your own rule) in exposition of scriptures: you must yield that Peter might not have done that which Chrysostom saith, he might ; unless, you will say, that he might do that, whereof he was commanded and taught the contrary by God. But, if this opinion be so rooted in you, that reason cannot weed it out: wonder not at me who, beside the scripture, have Fathers more then you have, and therefore (by your judgment) the exposition of the Fathers. Wonder at yourself: who having neither of them stand against them both. Wonder at your Doctor: who having undertaken to prove the Supremacy by that, which Peter did in the Acts of the Apostles, telleth what he might have done by Chrysostom's supposal. Wonder at your Pope: who building on the word, not of God, but of man, and finding man's foundation over-weak too, doth not practice that which Chrysostom commendeth in the fact of Peter, but doth challenge that which Chrysostom imagineth of the right of Peter.

If Peter would not use his own right, of modesty: his fact doth not bind the Pope (his successor) but that he may use it.

That refuge will not serve, unless you prove two things, whereof neither is true. One, that this sovereignty was the right of Peter: another, that the Pope succeedeth him in all his right. By the way, whatsoever you deem of his right: you grant that he doth not succeed him in modesty.

It is not expedient for him to do in everything as Peter did. But, that he succeedeth Peter in all his right: I will prove then, when I have proved Peters right. Now, that this sovereignty was the right of Peter, and that he had as full power in the assemblies of the Apostles, as the Prince hath in a Parliament, or the Pope in a Council: S. Chrysostom's words were not all so pregnant upon the first of the Acts as S. Jerome's are upon the fifteenth, to prove it invincibly. For he teacheth plainly that Peter was the first man who gave the sentence: which sentence being followed and approved by the rest, was concluded and published in the name of the whole Council, both of the head and of the body. When they, saith he, had heard Peter, all the multitude held their peace: & James & all the Elders together did agree unto Peters sentence.

What is this to the purpose? Doth [all the multitude held their peace] prove the supremacy of Peter?

You are disposed to toy. My proof is in the rest of S. Jerome's words: and you can see it, if you list. James, and all the Elders together did agree unto Peters sentence: therefore Peter was supreme head.

In deed I saw not whence you could frame a proof. Bear with mine oversight. The silence of the multitude was fitter stuff for it. For all sortes of men do know by experience, Princes and Counsailours in matters of State, Nobles and Commons in the houses of Parliament, Citizens and Townsmen in their common assemblies, our Students of universities, both publicly in convocations, and privately in their colleges: that he is not always above the rest in power, whose sentence all the rest agree unto in consultation. But if your friends M. Hart, have done you such injury, that (by means they sent you untimely beyond sea) you are become a stranger in things of common sense, & humanity, at home: yet you have read (I trust) the story of the Acts, out of the which you reason; and God hath furnished you with gifts of wit and memory to understand it, and remember it. Tell me, do you think, that Gamaliel the Pharisee, the Doctor of the law, whom all the people honored, was superior in power to the hie Priest, and Council of the Jews.

No.

Yet when the hie Priest, and Council did consult to kill the Apostles: he advised them, y ^t they should not do it, and having heard him, they agreed to him. If a Supremacy grow not hereof to Gamaliel: why should it to Peter ? If it do to Peter : why not to Gamaliel ? Is this the invincible proof that you did promise? When they had heard Peter, they all agreed to him: therefore he was their supreme head?

But S. Jerome addeth farther of Peter, that he was princeps decreti, prince of the decree which the Apostles made. And sure (as it is well noted by Waldensis ) if Peter had not been the chief and President there: he were a malapert fellow to prevent them all in taking up the controversy and giving the definitive sentence. Thus saith Waldensis.

Before you promised Scripture, and performed Chrysostom. Now you claim by Jerome, & prove by Waldensis. This is your fashion. Treasures we look for: and we find coals.

I bring not Waldensis for his own credit: but, as interpreter of S. Jerome's meaning. Howbeit, though he were not himself an ancient writer: he was a great Clerke in the time he lived.

It may be: such a one as gave occasion to the proverb, that the greatest Clerks are not the wisest men. He did never enter into the Roman Senate-house: or else he might have learned, both, that the prince of the Senate (as he was termed) gave his sentence first, yet was not President of the Senate: neither was his sentence the definitive sentence, but he spake his mind of the matter, (as others after him,) & the whole Senate defined it. Though oftentimes the Senate agreed to the sentence of someone Senator, & him they did call prince of the sentence, that is to say, the first author: as Jerome calleth Peter prince of the decree ; which himself expoundeth, the first author of the sentence. Wherefore it was not malapertnesse in Peter to speak before others, although he were not the President of the Council: but indeed Waldensis was a malapert fellow to vouch that of Peter, and use S. Jerome's words thereto. For, that they prove not a Presidentship of Peter, by entitling Peter prince of the decree, you may learn of Tully: who showeth that himself was prince of decrees, when he was neither President nor prince of the Senate. Beside, (to let you see the poverty of this princehood farther) Jerome doth not mean the whole decree of the Council; when he saith that Peter was the prince of it; (for thē he should deny y ^e scripture it self which maketh James the prince of part:) but he meaneth so much thereof, as touched his purpose, which Peter is mentioned first to have set down; namely, that Gentiles being turned to the faith of Christ, should not be constrained to keep the law of Moses. Whereon, they, who know what the Romans meant by [ to divide a sentence, ] may easily consider, how James though he agreed to Peters sentence in general, yet excepted (as it were) from it this particular, that the believing Gentiles should be admonished to keep certain pointes of the law of Moses, pertaining to holiness and peace with their brethren, both duties necessary for the faithful. The words of whose sentence the Council followed so precisely: that Chrysostom (if I would stand on men, as you do) speaketh of the sentence given by James as the definitive sentence, and saith that he pronounced his judgment with power, and that the principality was committed to him.

He speaketh so of James, because he was Bishop of the City of Jerusalem, where the Council was holden.

Beware of that answer.

Why? It is S. Chrysostom's.

Be it whose soever. See you not what followeth thereof, that every Bishop in his own diocese is above y ^e Pope? For, if above Peter, above an Apostle, above a chief Apostle: much more above a Bishop of Rome, or any other. You were better say that Chrysostom did err, then fall into this peril. And in deed, (to help you in a point of truth) he that maketh James a Bishop of one City, whom Christ made an Apostle to all the Nations of the earth: doth bring him out of the hall (as they say) into the kitchen. It seemeth that Chrysostom spake it upon the word of Clemens: who when he reported it, reported this withal, that Christ did give knowledge after his resurrection to James, John, and Peter: and they did give it to the rest of the Apostles. Which tale is flat repugnant to the word of truth: wherein we read that knowledge and the holy Ghost was given by Christ to the Apostles all jointly.

You shall not help me with such shifts against the Fathers. For other of them consent herein with Chrysostom, that James was Bishop of Jerusalem.

Neither shifts, nor against the Fathers: but true defenses in favor of them. For the Apostles, being sent to preach the Gospel to all Nations, made their chief abode in greatest cities of most resort, as at Jerusalem, at Antioch, at Ephesus, at Rome: that from the mother cities (as they were called) religiō might be spread abroad unto the daughters. Now, because this residence in the mother-cities was afterward supplied by the Bishops of them: therefore the Fathers are wont often-times to call the Apostles Bishops of those cities, wherein they did abide most. Which they might y ^e rather, for that the word (in their speech) betokeneth (in a general meaning) any charge & oversight of others: in so much y ^t the scripture applieth it to the ministry of the Apostles also. And in this sort it seemeth to be said, as by Cyprian, y ^t a Bishop was to be ordained in the room of Judas ; so by Jerome, y ^t Peter was Bishop of Antioch ; & by Chrysostom y ^t James was Bishop of Ierusalē. Though whither it wer or no: yet that which I spake in defense of Chrysostō is cleared by himself frō your reproach of a shift. For he saith y ^t James was Bishop, as they say. Which words [as they say] import that he spake it on the words of others: most likely, of Clemēs, frō whom Eusebius fetcheth it. But if notwithstanding you reply y ^t Chrysostom allowed that [they say,] and supposed James to be a Bishop properly: then his words have so much the greater importance against your supremacy; seeing that they give the principality to James in his own diocese, and that above Peter. Howbeit, I will not take this advantage: because I know that neither Peter, nor James gave the definitive sentence; but when they had spoken their minds of the matter, the Council did define it and decree it with common judgment.

They did it with common judgment, I deny not. But Theodoret showeth, that Peter as a Prince had a great prerogative therein above the rest: yea, gave definitive sentence, to which the rest consented, and as it were, subscribed. For he (in an epistle which he wrote to Leo ) affirmeth that Paul did run to great Peter, to bring a resolution from him unto them, who contended at Antioch about the observation of the law of Moses.

You may cite (if you list) S. Isidore too, for another special prerogative of Peter, as good as this, and grounded likewise on the Acts, (which he allegeth to prove it:) to wit, that the name of Christians arose at Antioch first, through the preaching of Peter. For though he be more direct against y ^e scripture, which showeth that the name of Christians arose upon the preaching, not of Peter, but of Paul and Barnabas: yet is Theodoret direct against it too, by giving as proper & peculiar to Peter, y ^t , which was common to the Apostles and Elders, whose resolution he was sent for. And as Isidore seemeth to have ouershot him self by flip of memory, on too great a fancy (perhaps) towards Peter: in like sort Theodoret, seeking to get the favor of Leo bishop of Rome (whose help he stood in need of,) did serve his own cause, in saying, that Paul ran to great Peter, that so he might run much more to great Leo. Which words to have issued out from that humor: his commentaries on the Scriptures (where he sought the truth, and followed the text) show. For therein he saith of Barnabas and Paul, that they ran [not to great Peter] but to the great Apostles, and had a resolution from them of the question about the keeping of the law. Howbeit if Theodorets words unto Leo suffered no exceptiō: the most were, that Peter pronounced the definitive sentence, as President; not gave it, as Prince. But the Scripture it self (by the rule whereof his words must be tried) maketh no more for Peters Presidentshippe then for James : and whosoever were President, it showeth that neither James, nor Peter, but the Council gave the definitive sentence. So well it proveth that, which you undertook to prove concerning Peter: that he had as full power in the assemblies of the Apostles, as the Prince hath in a parliament, yea, or the pope in a Council.

It proveth that well-enough, (though not to you:) chiefly if other places thereof be waied withal. For the singular power of Peter is declared also by S. Paul in that he saith to the Galatians, Then after three years I came to Jerusalem to see Peter, and tarried with him fifteen days.

The singular power of Peter? In which words? By what reason? Because he went to Jerusalem to see him ? Or because he went after three years ? Or because he stayed with him fifteen days ?

The reason consisteth in that which Paul did, & the cause for which he did it. For he went to Ierusalē to see Peter. Why? but to do him honor, as Jerome saith in his Commentaries: and in an epistle to Austin, Peter was, (saith he) of so great authority, that Paul wrote, Then after three years, and so forth. And Chrysostom; Because Peter (saith he) was the mouth of the Apostles, the chief, and top of the company: therefore Paul went up to see him above the rest. Because it was meet, saith Ambrose, that he should desire to see Peter, unto whom our Savior had committed the charge of Churches. Which also Tertullian affirmeth, that he did of duty and right. Nor otherwise Theodoret: he gave, saith he, that honor to the prince of the Apostles, which it was fit he should. Hence it is, that, S. Gregory doubteth not to say, that, Paul the Apostle was the younger brother: And S. Austin, an Apostle made after Peter : who saith moreover, that the primacy of the Apostles is conspicuous and preeminent, with excellent grace in Peter.

You bring in witnesses not necessary, to prove a thing not denied. For, that Paul was as Apostle, in time after Peter, and so his younger brother, as Gregory, Austin, and Ambrose say: that he went to see Peter for honor and reverence which he bare to him, as it is in Jerome, Chrysostom and Theodoret ; that he did this of duty and right ; what right and duty? of the same faith and preaching of the gospel, to show his concord with him, which is the meaning of Tertullian : all this will I grant you; the scriptures teach as much; what need the Fathers to prove it?

Will you grant all that, which I alleged out of the Fathers? then will you grant that Protestants are in an error: and the truth is ours. For they avouch plainly the primacy of Peter, and call him, the mouth, the prince, the top of the Apostles.

Alas, you were agreed (me thought) to go through with the scripture first, & afterward come to the Fathers. I wisse they will give you small cause of triumphing over the Protestants, when you shall bring their forces out into the field, and see with whom they join, with you, or with us. But of the rest then. Now I grant you so much, as doth concern the point, for proof whereof you cited them: namely, that Paul went to see Peter for a reverent respect and honor of his person. But I deny the argument, which you infer thereof, that Peter had therefore a singular power, whereby you mean the supremacy. You should have laid the Fathers (if you would needs bestow them) on this which is denied, not on that which is granted. But this is the world. Men will rather give to the rich, who need not, then to the poor who need.

I thought you would rather have denied that, then this: for this is clear of it self; and needeth no proof. The common use of men showeth it. For they give honor and reverence to them, in whom they acknowledge a superiority▪

Perhaps, a superiority: yet not a supremacy.

If Peter were Paul's superior in power: the supremacy is proved.

If in power: you say somewhat. Though nevertheless he might be full hie in power, and yet come short of your supremacy. But he was superior to him in some things else, and not in power.

That he was superior to him in power: I prove. S. Peter had honor given to him of Paul: therefore he was in power above him.

Evil news for husbands, that have shrewes to their wives, if this argument be good. For they are commanded to give honor to the woman as to the weaker vessel: whereof (by your Logic) the wives may claim authority and power above their husbands. S. Peter saw not this consequence: he did not think on his supremacy. For although he teach, that the husband should give honor to his wife, yet he calleth the wife the weaker vessel, not the stronger: and he commandeth wives to be subject to their husbands, that is, to be inferior (I trow) in power unto them. Which S. Paul noteth also more expressly, when he saith, the woman ought to have power upon her head.

This answer doth not weaken the strength of mine argument. For the name of honor, when husbands are commanded to give it to their wives, is taken improperly. But honor, as I take it, as Paul gave it to Peter, is used in his proper sense: to signify a reverence, the which an inferior doth owe to a superior, a subject to him that is in power above him.

The honor which husbands are bound to give unto their wives, as to the weaker vessels, doth signify an honest care and regard of bearing with their weakness, providing for their wants, and showing all husbandly love and duty to them. Such a reverence as you mention it doth not signify, I grant: yet doth it signify a reverence which is implied in the love and duty that their husbands owe them. S. Paul saith to Timothy: honor the widows, which are widows in deed. He meaneth that they should be charitably relieved: but this relief is no reason, why they should not reverently be regarded too. For you are deceived, if you think, that none are bound to reverence others, but only the inferiors their superiors in power. The Gentiles were taught by nature it self, that a reverence is due to every state of men: to children, with an heed that no dishonest thing be done in their presence, because their tenderness is prove to learn it; to old men, with an honor, in respect of their wisdom, their experience, their gravity, wherewith the gray hears are wont to be accompanied; to all, but chiefly to the best, with a modest account of their good opinion, and an honest desire to be approved of them. Wherefore if your argument do stand upon the proper signification of honor : you shall perceive yourself, that it can never prove a supremacy of power. For honor, is an outward profession and testimony of a reverent opinion, which we have conceived of some kind of excellency in him to whom we give it. So, the chiefest honor is due unto God, the father of lights, the fountain of all excellency: and after him to men, in several degrees, according to their several estates and gifts of excellency wherewith the Lord hath blessed them: to the king, as preeminent, and all that govern under him; to the ministers of the gospel, the more, the better they do their duty; to them whom nature most doth bind us, our fathers and mothers ; to the aged, the wise, the virtuous, the learned : in a word to all men ; but chiefly to the faithful, as members of the body of Christ, none so base but hath an excellency, the excellency of a Christian. And hereby appeareth the weakness of your argument: that Paul was inferior to Peter in power, because he gave him honor. Did not Solomon in his majesty give honor to his mother? and was not he the king, and she a subject to him? Are we not all taught to go one before another in giving honor, as well the rich as the poor, as well the high as the low? What a proud and arrogant mind had that body (unless his mind and tongue dissented) who thought that he must give honor to no man, but to them only that are in power above him. Belike this divinity was learned out of that chapter of the book of Ceremonies (which I touched afore) that the Pope doth do reverence to no man, of duty and right: for then he is afraid least it should be thought that some man is in power above him. Yet in the same book (to see a good nature) we read that he did honor Fridericke the Emperor: in so much that he placed him next unto him self above all the Cardinals ; and the place in which the Emperor did sit, was no lower then the place, where the Pope did hold his feet. Now, the seat of the Emperor declareth, that the Pope was above him in power: and yet the Pope did honor him. Paul therefore might have been above Peter in power, though he did honor Peter. If he might: the honor, which he gave to Peter, doth strike no stroke for the supremacy. Wherefore you may dimisse it as a coward out of the field, not fit to fight the Popes battles. Doth not this mine answer touch [honor] taken properly ? Or will you set the Emperor above the Pope in power? Or is it a lie that the Pope did honor him?

You triumph over me at every small occasion, as though you had a conquest. But you see not your own absurdities and follies. You spake ere-while of the Apostles, as equal in power: now you speak of Paul, as if he were above Peter, like a Pope above an Emperor. And I did frame my reason out of the Scriptures and Fathers: and you do bring the book of Ceremonies to kill it. Will you subdue us with such warriors?

I would fain triumph, not over you, but over your errors, if I could. The strength of my cause and valure of my proofs maketh me the cheerefuller in dealing with the dastardes, which you set against them. My former words, of the Apostles as being equal in power, agree well with these of Peter and Paul. For I say not, that Paul was above Peter, but that he might have been above him in power, for all the honor which he gave him. And this is sufficient to overthrow your reason. But if my example of the Pope and Emperor did cause you to mistake me: you may take another and fitter for y ^e purpose, the College Apostolic, as the Pope doth call them, I mean the Cardinals of Rome. Who, though they be in states, orders, and livings, one above another: yet in all things, and with all curtesies they all give hie reverence one unto another. And when any of them doth come into the chapel of the Popes holiness to say his devotions, he turneth towards the Cardinals of his own order, and goeth not directly to his own place, unless he be the lowest: but beginning at the lowest, as though he would abide there, he is desired & entreated of everyone to go higher, until he come directly to his own place, unless he be the lowest: & himself (demurely, once, & again) desireth him, who is next unto him, that he will go before him; & at length he sitteth down in his place. This is a foul trouble to make so much adoo at the coming in of every Cardinal to prayers: chiefly, when prayers are begun. Yet to show how modestly they think of themselves, and how they honor one another, everyone (that cometh after others) doth it, whither the Pope be there or no. Out of doubt, Cardinals, men of such wisdom, would not commit this folly, if everyone whom they honor must be above them in power. But you deal injuriously with me, to say, that you framed your reason out of the scriptures and Fathers, and I bring the book of Ceremonies to kill it. For neither did you ground upon the words of scripture, but only on a circumstance observed by the Fathers, that Paul went to Peter of reverence to honor him: and I slew the reason (which you made thereof) with the sword of scriptures ; I used the book of Ceremonies, but as an Irish Lackey, to cut off a dead man's head. I would not have vouchsafed as much as to name him, but to cast the doong of your solemnities in your faces: and to show the fondness of a Popish reason, by practice of a Papal mockery. Though I see not, why you should prefer so the scriptures and Fathers before the book of Ceremonies. For the book of Ceremonies speaketh more good of the Pope in one leaf, then both the other do throughout all their volumes. And it is solemnly printed at Rome with Peters picture in the front, and the keys in his hands and [ Feede my sheep ] written about him, as a book of great account: where many of the Fathers do lie in the dust of the Vatican Library, and cannot come into the light. Notwithstanding, if you be willing to yield yourself prisoner to the Fathers, as Gentlemen, & think the book of Ceremonies to be a raskall soldier whom you disdain to yield unto: behold your own witnesses who make not Paul inferior to Peter, otherwise, then in the time of his Apostleship, the one made first, the other last. S. Jerome: who putteth an equality between them, though Paul did honor him, as an Apostle before him. S. Chrysostom: who pronounceth that Paul (to say no more of him) was Peters peer in dignity. S. Ambrose: who giveth a primacy to them both, and saith that Paul was even such another as Peter. S. Austin: who declareth their authority to have been equal ; and that, for Paul's honor, what he wanteth in time, is supplied by Christ's glory, in that he made him an Apostle, not (as the rest) upon the earth, but when he reigned now in majesty. And these things are written by the same Fathers, whose words, touching the honor that Paul gave to Peter, your Doctor setteth in a beadrole, as though in their judgment Paul acknowledged Peter his supreme head thereby. Wherein you may perceive both his deceitful dealing, that allegeth their words, as setting one above the other, who in express words do make one equal to the other: and your expositions how jump they meet with the Fathers, who gathered an equality of Peter and Paul by the epistle to the Galatians, whence you conclude Peters supremacy over Paul.

How the Fathers all agree with one consent of Peters supremacy: it shall be shown hereafter. As for the circumstance which I observed out of them touching the fact of Paul, y ^• when he went to see Peter, he went of reverence to honor him: I do not account so greatly thereof, as of the fact it self; nor urge I the Fathers so much observing that, as the report of this made by the Scriptures. For they set it forth, with so lively words, as if it were of purpose to paint out Peters primacy. Then after three years I went to Jerusalem (saith Paul ) to see Peter and tarried with him fifteen days. Mark his words, I pray, and see what weight they carry with them. He went to Jerusalem, so far, so long a journey; and he went notwithstanding his great affairs ecclesiastical; and he went to see Peter, not in the vulgar manner, but (as S. Chrysostom noteth that the Greek word importeth) to behold him, as men behold a thing or person of name excellency and majesty. Neither did he go only to see him; but he abode with him also, to fill him self with a perfect view of his behavior. And he abode with him no common time, but fifteen days: fiftene days, a great matter, and more then many would think, who do not search the depth of scriptures. In such estimation was Peter with Paul: and will you yet deny his primacy?

King Agesilaus, when one praised an Orator, that he could amplify things, and make them of small to seem great: I, saith he, would never count him a good shoomaker, who would put a great shoo upon a small foot. You play the Orator, M. Hart, with your amplifications: and that in such sort, as you pass the shoomaker of Agesilaus▪ For you do not only put a great shoo upon a small foot: but you stretch the leather with your • eeth too. And yet when you have weeried yourself with stretching it: you will have stretched it in vain. For though your shoo be too great for the primacy of Peter, yet will it be too small for the supremacy of the Pope.

We speak not of the Pope now, but of Peter. Why stray you from the point?

I thought they had been things both of one nature, and differing in name only. But I will speak of Peter. And that you may see that the shoo which you made is too great for his foot: I will show it by a plain demonstration to the eye. The mother of our Savior, the blessed virgin Marie, is called, in the scripture, blessed among women: that is (as I interpret it after the Hebrew phrase) the most blessed of women. What think you of her? Was there any woman in her time above her, in anything of name, of excellency and majesty?

Above her? God forbid. Neither in her time, nor before her, nor after her.

Yet she, when the holy Ghost was come upon her now, and the power of the highest had overshadowed her, went into the hill country with hast to a city of Judah, not only to see, but also to salute her coosin Elisabet. And her salutation was such, that when Elisabet great with child did hear it: the babe sprang in her belly, and she was filled with the holy Ghost. Neither did she only go to salute her; but tarried with her also: and that no common time, but about three months; three months, a great time, chiefly for a woman, which was conceived with child. If you tendered not the blessed virgins honor more then you do Paul's: your Rhetoric, that depresseth Paul beneath Peter, would much more debase her beneath Elisabet. For she was coosin to Elisabet according to the flesh: Paul was Peters brother according to the spirit, a nearer kin, & straiter bond of amity and duty. She went a harder journey, into the hill country: Paul a pleasantor to Jerusalem ; whither some other causes might allure him also. She was a woman, weaker of body, and might away with travel worse: Paul a man, strong, exercised with toils and troubles. She went thither in hast: Paul, after three years. Paul went to see Peter : she to salute Elisabet. Her salutation was so heavenly, that the babes body, & the mothers spirit felt it: nothing is written of Paul's seeing Peter, but only that he saw him. She stayed with her coosin about three months: Paul abode with Peter no more then fifteen days. Yet Paul, as an Apostle, might be and stay anywhere: the virgin, as a maid betrothed to a man, had greater cause to keep home, chiefly being with child. Wherefore if Peter were above Paul in excellency and majesty, because he did go to Jerusalem to see him, and stayed with him fifteen days: what might Elisabet be above the blessed virgin, which went into the hill country to salute her, and abode with her about three months?

Nay. But there is more in the fifteen days of Paul's abode with Peter, then in the three months of Mary's with Elisabet.

More? What is that?

Marry there is a mystery (as S. Jerome showeth) in the number of days which Paul did spend with him.

You commended the lively words of the text: & now from them you flit to Jerome. They be mysteries, I see, that must set a helping hand to your supremacy: the literal sense of scripture will do nothing for it. But what is the mystery ?

S. Jerome (in an epistle, which commonly is printed in the beginning of the Bible, because it entreateth of all the books of holy scriptures) falling into mention of Paul how he stayed with Peter fifteen days, doth give this reason of it: hoc enim mysterio hebdomadis & ogdoadis futurus gentium praedicator instruendus erat; for by this mystery of the number of seven and eight, he who should become the preacher of the Gentiles, was to be instructed.

And what did S. Jerome mean by this mystery of the number of seven and eight, which he divideth those fifteen days into? How was Paul (I pray) to be instructed by it?

Look you to that. Those are his own words: wherein you have as much expressed, as I said: that it is a mystery.

But it is like to be a mystery still, if it be not expounded: and we shall lose the kernel, unless the nut be broken.

Why? What do you think S. Jerome meant by it?

I know not, I assure you: unless he meant, as one, (I know not the mā, but they name him father Maximus ) expoundeth it, that Paul went to learn of Peter, and remained with him as it were in a School a certain number of days. I abode with him, saith Paul, fifteen days. By the mystical number of seven and eight, he learned both the old and the new Testament.

And what do you say of this exposition?

I say that father Maximus did dote whē he made it. For by this reason Paul should have learned the gospel of Peter: which the Scripture denieth, protesting, that he neither received it of man, neither was taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. And if you desire candlelight at noon day to help the brightness of the Sun shining in his strength: you may know that the Fathers, Austin, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Theodoret, Jerome, and others, affirm the same precisely, that Paul came to Peter, not to learn of him, but of a reverence, and love, to be acquainted with him. As for Jerome, who seemeth (in the epistle which you mention) to think otherwise, against the scripture & him self: no marvel, if sometimes he went out of y ^e way through a liking of allegories, as a great reader & folower of Origen, who handled the scriptures too licentiously, w ^t wandering mystical senses. Himself, whē he was grown to be of riper judgment, acknowledged an oversight of his youth herein: confessing, that (by travailing after mystical senses) he rashly followed allegories, in expounding a Prophet, whose literal sense he understood not.

What soever it were that S. Jerome meant, he meant a prerogative of Peter over Paul: which you may not avoid either by his youth, or by an allegory. For, he gave the like prerogative to Peter, without an allegory, in his old age, upon the manifest words of Paul: I went up saith Paul, to Jerusalem by revelation and conferred with them the Gospel, which I preach among the Gentiles: but particularly with them that were the chief, least perhaps I should run, or had run in vain. Paul, saith S. Jerome, had not had security of preaching the Gospel, unless it had been approved by the sentence of Peter, and of the rest, that were with him.

You are wont to lay it unto our charge, that we discover the nakedness of the Fathers. In deed, you are they, who entreat them so. Nay, you do not only discover their nakedness, but you blase it out, and praise the beauty of their blemishes, and think them best clad where they are naked most. For what a speech is this, which you allege of Jerome, that Paul had not had security of preaching the Gospel, unless Peter had approved it. What? Was he called by God to preach the Gospel, and durst he not do it, except men did like it? And when Christ had taught it him by revelation was he not sure of it, but by conference with Peter ? And had he preached it almost twenty years, and was he now afraid least he had preached falsely.

S. Jerome saith not so: but that he had not had security of preaching it, unless it had been approved by the rest, with whom he did confer of it.

S. Jerome saith not so: but that he had not had security. Then S. Jerome saith so, in that he saith not so: and you unsay in one word, that which you say in another. For what is it else not to have security of preaching the Gospel: then to be afraid either of his doctrine, that it is not true; or of his fact, that it is not lawful?

Why doth the scripture then report of S. Paul that he conferred with them, least he should run, or had run in vain.

Because many Christians, whom Paul had preached the Gospel too, began to be seduced by false Apostles of the Jews: who taught them, that except they kept the law of Moses, they could not be saved. And to win credit to their heretical doctrine, that the hearers might receive it the sooner for the authority of the teachers: they said, it was the doctrine of Peter, and the rest, the chief of the Apostles, the pillars of the Church. As for Paul, who taught the contrary thereof: they disgraced him, as one that was crept into the Apostleship after thē; and having learned the gospel of them, which he preached, yet dissented frō them in the preaching of it. Which speeches of seducers, if they had believed, whom Paul either should or had already preached the Gospel unto: then should they have fallen away with minds corrupted from the simplicity, that is in Christ, and Paul have lost his labor, and run in vain, as he speaketh, that is to say, without profit, without the fruit of that he ran for. As Christ complaineth in the Prophet, I have labored in vain, I have spent my strength in vain and for nothing: because he was not received of the Jews, to whom he preched the word of life. Wherefore Paul, desirous, as a careful husbandman, to reap where he had sown: did seek to root out the weeds of false Apostles, y ^t did or might hinder the growth of the corn. In which consideration, having shown, first, touching his authority, that he had it not of men, nor by man, but by God : next, touching his doctrine, that he learned it of Christ, not of the Apostles: touching his dissension from them, he showeth last, that he went and conferred with the chief of them, even James, Peter, and John, who were accounted to be pillars, that they might witness their consent, and make his preaching to be fruitful, and stop the mouths of false Apostles. All this S. Jerome saw, and taught, in his commentaries on Paul to the Galatians: where he advised better of Paul's intent, and drift, and sifted all the pointes and circumstances of the text. The words which you stand on, were uttered less advisedly by him, in an epistle written to S. Austin: against whom, to justify his opinion, (though false,) that Peters fault at Antioch was no fault in deed, nor Paul reproved him in earnest, he saith, for the credit of one above the other, Paul had not had security of preaching the Gospel, unless that Peter had approved it. Wherefore I may justly speak in his excuse (at the least, to soften the hardness of his speech) the same which Basil said in excuse of Gregory, that his words were uttered not by way of doctrine, but of contention ; rather to maintain his quarrel against Austin, then to deliver his judgment of y ^e matter; as writing of affection more what he fancied, then of discretion what he thought. Whereof there appeareth as it were a print even in his own words. For he doth mention Peter by name, (of whom he did contend with Austin, ) and none of the rest: whereas the Scripture nameth no more him then others; but first saith (in general) of Paul, that he conferred with them that were the chief ; and after (in particular) of James, Peter and John, that they were counted to be pillars. Thus, neither did Paul confer with Peter only, but with James and John, and therefore it proveth no suprem • cie of Peter, more then of James and John ; and, although he had, yet were it a token (by Jerome's own judgment) that Paul was Peters equal; not Peter his superior. For, there is equality between them (saith Jerome ) who confer together. I would to God, M. Hart, if you will needs follow S. Jerome's authority, yet you would follow him in the best things: and what you say with error in heat of contention, you would amend by truth in judgment of doctrine. But that which is written of gifts and rewards, they blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the just : is no truer in judges and arbiters of civil causes, then in you and yours who meddle with the decision of spiritual matters. The gifts, which partly the policy of the Pope hath entertained you with, in his Seminaries, and affairs; partly the state of the Papacie doth yield to such as speak things pleasing him: they do blind your eyes, and pervert your words, that you think darkness to be light, and light, darkness; and call evil good, and good evil. They make you not to see in Paul to the Galatians his direct purpose of overthrowing that, which you would have him build. They move you to deprave the circumstances of his words, as though he proved him self inferior to Peter in that by which he proveth him self not inferior. They stir you to transform his summission into subjection: and to abuse the spirit of his apostolic modesty to the raising up of the Papal pride and pomp of the supremacy. Paul went to see Peter with a desire of knowing him, which the Greek word importeth: as they use (saith Chrysostom ) to speak, who go to see great and famous cities. You cannot see that Chrysostom saith (on the same place) that Paul was Peters equal in dignity, to say no more: but you take this note of his, & puff it up with the word of Majesty ; thereby to make the simple reader to conceive, that Peter was as stately as he to whom that term is used. Paul went to Jerusalem from the city of Damascus : not much above a hundred miles. You say he went, so far, so long a journey : as though it had been no less then hence to go to the court of Rome, which Bishops do to the Pope, not of their own accord (as Paul, ) but enforced thereto by solemn oth ; not twice in seventeen years (as Paul, ) but every year once, by them selves, or by their messengers, unless the Pope dispense with them. But of all the rest, that passeth, that you say he went to Jerusalem, to see Peter, notwithstanding his great affairs ecclesiastical. Here was art, by the way, to show, that Bishops may neglect their own charge to go to see the Pope, under the color of Paul's example. And to hide this art, it was another point of art: if it be known, it is naught worth. For what were these great affairs ecclesiastical, which Paul omitted to see Peter? Forsooth, at Damascus the Jews lay in wait, and watched the gates of the city day and night that they might kill him: in so much that he was fain to be conveyed away by the wall in the night time, the disciples letting him down in a basket ; and so he scaped to Jerusalem. These are the affairs, the great affairs ecclesiastical, the which notwithstanding, Paul went from Damascus to Jerusalem to see Peter. Wherein, he had a reverent regard to the supremacy of Peter, as you say: as a friend of yours saith, he went in pilgrimage to Peter. Whether of you applieth the place to better purpose, and fitter for the text: it may be a question. But in show it seemeth to make more for pilgrimage, then for the supremacy.

See, what wrong you do to that learned man. He saith, that when Paul went to see Peter, he made a certain pilgrimage: and you report him to have said, that he went in pilgrimage.

He made a certain pilgrimage: I cry you mercy. I thought he would have proved that kind of pilgrimage which our Church reproveth: and so he meant to do; at least, he pretended it. But, in proving it, he dalieth (like a Sophister) with a certain pilgrimage, such as our Church alloweth. You might as well say, that I came from Oxford in pilgrimage to you: in a certain pilgrimage. And he was overseen, that amongst examples of pilgrimage in scripture, he did not mention Jacob : who saith that he spent his life time in pilgrimage ; yea, and that his fathers spent in their pilgrimages longer time then he. But whatsoever show the fact of Paul hath for a certain pilgrimage, in that he went to see Peter: it hath no show at all for Peters supremacy. Nay, the whole discourse of Paul in that point, doth drive flat against it: as it hath appeared (in part thereof) already. Wherefore, you were abused by them who sent you thither. You should have done better to have contained yourself within the Acts of the Apostles. And if your two places, in the first, and the fifteenth, had not force enough to prove that which you would: you might in steed thereof have taken two other, out of the eight, & the eleventh, which have force enough to prove that which you should. For, in the one, the Apostles which were at Jerusalem, sent Peter and John to the people of Samaria, to strengthen them in the faith through the gift of the holy Ghost. In the other, the Apostles and brethren that were in Jury called Peter to an account (when he had preached to Cornelius, ) why he went in to men uncircumcised, and did eat with them.

Alacke, you imagine, that the Apostles had equal power with Peter, because they sent him abroad in commission, and asked him a count of that which he did. Poor reasons: God wote. For an inferior may entreat his superior to do his business for him. And specially a body politic or a corporation may choose their head and send him: as Citizens may send their Mayor to the Prince, or Parliament, though he be head of the City because he may be more fit to do their business. And as they may send him, so may they ask a reason of that which he hath done, and call him to account of it. Weene you, that the Cardinals may not entreat the Pope to do this or that, which shall be convenient for the commodity of the Church? Or, that the Pope will think his state to be abased, if they inquire of him why he doth this or that? Perhaps you ween so, because you know neither the Pope, nor the Cardinals. But what say you then to your own selves? Doo not your Seniours in Corpus Christi College send abroad your President about your College business? Dooth he not give you an account of those things which he hath done? Or, if he give it not, may you not ask it of him? And is he therefore not your head?

Yes, he is our head: but he is such a head, that your head of Rome had rather you should loose your head, then you should so behead his power. I told you so much before in effect: and made it plain unto you by Duarens similitude of the President of a court of Parliament in France, named the head of the court. You might have conceived the same of our President: and thought his headship as unfit for the proof of your purpose, as you thought the other. For he is bound to statutes: by them we send him out, and ask account of that he doth. No statutes bind your Pope: but his lust is his law; and what he will, that is holy. We may deprive our President if he should commit any heinous crime, as murder, or adultery. Your Pope, although he be as willful a murderer, and as notorious an adulterer as Pope John the twelfth, yea, though he be taken in most horrible incests, and vilanies of all sortes: yet a Council may not depose him, no not the Emperor with a Council. It is true y ^t Otho y ^e Emp • ror did depose him in a Council assembled of purpose thereunto. But your Doctors tell us y ^t the Emperor did it de facto, not de iure; of a good zeal, not according to knowledge. Wherefore I would not have you to use these similitudes, of Presidents in Colleges, & Mayors in Cities, & heads in Corporations. Or, if you will use them, yet use them to the simple, whom such similitudes may deceive: but use them not to us, who see the dissimilitude of them, and can (by God's grace) discern a fish from a serpent. Doo you think yourself, I pray, in good sooth, that Peter (in the Acts of the Apostles) was as Pope, and the rest of the Apostles as the College of Cardinals?

Why ask you me that? as though I spake not what I thought.

It would be strange news to hear that y ^e Cardinals should send y ^e Pope in Embassage, (& make him as it were Legate a latere, ) chiefly, to pray for men converted to the faith of Christ, and to preach unto them. The College of the Apostles sent Peter to do these things. You seem to say, they did it by entreaty ; be it: and, as a corporation may send their head about their business, because he is more fit to do it. But might the College of Cardinals send the Pope abroad by y ^e like entreaty? Unless perhaps you make this difference between them: that in other corporations the head sometimes is fitter; but the Pope is fitter for no business of the Church, then any of his corporation. Howbeit, even of that too, it followeth in part, that Peter was not thoroughly as Pope in the former point. As for the later, of calling him to account: although your good weening of the Pope persuadeth you, that he would not think his state to be abased if the Cardinals should ask him why he doth this or that: yet they who knew him better a great deal, then you, and loved him so well that they would not belie him, do witness, not only by word but by writing, that he will not be dealt withal by his inferiors, as Peter was by the Apostles. I mean not your Canonists: in whose gloss it goeth for a famous rule, that none may say unto the Pope, Syr, why do you so? But I mean the learnedst and best of your Divines: who setting the Church above the Pope in authority, mislike that the Pope will not be subject to the Council. Of whom (to name one for many) John Ferus, a Frier of S. Francis order, but godlier then the common sort, entreating (in his Commentaries written on the Acts) of the example of Peter, how he was required to render a reason of that which he had done, maketh this note upon it. Peter the Apostle, and chief of the Apostles, is constrained to give an account to the Church, neither doth he disdain it: because he knew him self to be not a Lord, but a minister of the Church. The Church is the Spouse of christ and lady of the house: Peter a servant and minister. Wherefore the Church may, not only exact an account of her ministers, but also depose thē & reject them altogether, if they be not fit. So did they of old time, very often, in Councils. But wicked Bishops, now, will not be reproved, no not of the Church, nor be ordered by it: as though they were Lord's, not ministers. Therefore they are confounded of all and eche in several, by the just judgment of God. Doo you know what Bishops they be, who refuse to be subject to the Church ? Who say, they are above the Council ? Who may judge all, and none may judge them ? This Preacher, a Preacher of your own, not ours, doth call them wicked Bishops. The Lord of his mercy make his words a prophecy: that those wicked Bishops may be confounded of all and eche in several, by the just judgment of God.

You bring me words of Ferus, which were not his, perhaps, but thrust into his commentaries before they came unto the print, by some malicious heretic. For Sixtus Senensis saith, that there are witnesses of very good credit, who avouch that the commentaries of Ferus upon Matthew were corrupted by heretics, after his death, before they were printed.

Sixtus saith in deed of his Commentaries upon Matthew, that they were corrupted, chiefly in that place, where Ferus speaketh of the keys that Christ did promise Peter. For there is set down, as a special note, that Christ saith to Peter, I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: he saith not, the keys of the kingdom of earth. These words pertain nothing to an earthly power: which yet some endeavor by them to establish, affirming that Peter received fullness of power not only in spiritual things, but also temporal. And after declaration, how this is plainly reproved by S. Bernard, writing to Pope Eugenius: it is added farther. Peter received the keys, that is to say, power: not an earthly power, that he might give and take away dominions and kingdoms: neither such a power that it should be lawful for him to do what he list, (as many men dream,) but he received the power of binding and loosing, opening & shutting, remitting and retaining sins: neither this at his pleasure, but as a minister and servant, doing the will of his Lord. And these are the words, which savor so strongly of an heretical spirit, that Sixtus saith, it is avouched by credible witnesses, the commentaries of Ferus on Matthew wer corrupted, after his death, by heretics, chiefly in this place, before they wer printed. Wherein both y ^e witnesses, & Sixtus (in my judgment) have shown thē selves wise. For it is better to bear men in hand that heretics corrupted the commentaries of Ferus, chiefly in this place : then it should be thought that the strongest hold of all your religion [the Popes supreme power to give and take away kingdoms] is shaken by a man so learned, so famous, so Catholic, as Ferus. But Sixtus saith not of his Commentaries on the Acts, that they were corrupted also by heretics. Yet some heretics hand may seem to have been in them, chiefly in this place: where he doth reprove the arrogancy of the Popes, and nameth them wicked Bishops. Wherefore it would do well, that the oversight of Sixtus, herein, were mended by some other Sixtus : who might say as much of Ferus on the Acts, as Sixtus saith of him on Matthew. Perhaps you have not witnesses, that will avouch this, as some avouched that. The least matter of a thousand. For two or three such as Surius, Pontacus, and Genebrardus, men that have sold them selves to make lies in the defense of Popery, will be ready (on the credit of a Lindan or Bolsecke, ) not only to say it but to Chronicle it too. Here is all the difficulty, that these books are printed thus amongst yourselves: who set them forth first, and we receive them at your hands. A great fault, I know not whether of printers, or censours and allowers of books to the print: who suffer such scandalous places to be printed. Yea to be printed so still: specially when Sixtus Senensis hath said and credible witnesses have avouched that heretics did corrupt them. No, no, M. Hart, it is too stale a jest to say that heretics have corrupted the commentaries of Ferus. For the abomination of the Popes supremacy, oppressing both the magistracy of the common wealth, and ministry of the Church, is grown to such outrage: that if we (whom you call heretics ) should hold our peace, the stones would cry against it.

What needs all this of Ferus ? Or Sixtus ? Or Canonistes ? Or I know not who? You called me to the scriptures, whē I brought the Fathers: and now from the scriptures you bring me to writers of our own age.

Not from the scriptures to them: but to the scriptures by them. As Christ, when the Pharisees sclaundered his works, alleged the example of their own children thereby to make them see the truth. And as he said to them, therefore your children shall be your judges: so I say to you, therefore your brethren shall be your judges.

I grant that the Pope doth not in all respects submit him self, as Peter, to give account of his doings, both to the Apostles, and to inferior Christians. But Ferus should have considered, and so must you, that the times are not like. It were not convenient for him to do so now.

So I thought: the case is altered. You mean by [the times,] the mē, who live in the times, I trow. In deed they are not like. For Peter was then a preacher of the Gospel, as Pastors are now: and the Pope now is a Prince of the world, as Nero was then.

What soever difference there is between the Pope & Peter in state, and power of worldly government: yet Peter had the same authority and primacy over the Apostles, which the Pope claimeth over all Bishops. And this (because you will not yield unto the Scriptures) I will prove by the Fathers: whose testimonies of it are most clear and evident.

Whether I, or you, refuse to yield unto the scriptures: let the godly judge. As for the Fathers: I like your dealing well, in part. For I wished, that first you would go through with the Scriptures: and then (when you had found nothing in them) come to the Fathers afterward. But I wish further, if I might obtain it, that you had the Scriptures in such price and honor, as the word of God: that no word of men should be matched with them to build your faith upon. For God hath given his word to be a lantern to our feet, and a light to our path: that we may see the way to heaven, and walk in it. And the holy Ghost saith, that the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation: wise, by instructing us in the faith of Christ; unto salvation, by leading us to life through that faith. Wherefore since we confer about a point of wisdom pertaining unto faith and life: you should do very well to rest on the Scriptures as the only touch-stone for trial of the truth therein.

Now at length I hear that, which I looked for. I thought, for all your dutiful words of the Fathers, that you would come over to the Scriptures only, before you made an end.

Why? Is my behavior toward men undutiful: because I am dutiful unto God above them?

There is a worthy treatise of an ancient writer, Vincentius Lirinensis, against the profane innovations of all heresies, a passing fine book: which it is wished that all such should read, as will know the truth. You have read it perhaps: and what think you of it? Is it not a golden book?

The book is good enough, if it have a wise reader.

Say you so? Yet some there be of your side, who are afraid of the name of Vincentius Lirinensis.

They are worse afraid then hurt, for anything that I know. But what of Vincentius?

He saith it is so common a practice of heretics to allege the scripture, that they never bring almost ought of their own, but they seek to shadow it with words of scripture too. And having shown this by sundry examples, he addeth that therein they follow the practice of the Devil, their master. Who took our Savior Christ, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the son of God, cast thyself down: For it is written, that he will give his Angels charge over thee, that they shall keep thee in all thy ways: with their hands they shall lift thee up, least perhaps thou dash thy foot against a stone. If thou, saith he, be the son of God, cast thyself down. Why? For it is written. We must with great heed observe and remember the doctrine of this place: that when we see words of the Prophets or Apostles brought forth by any men against the Catholic faith, we way be assured by this great example of the authority of the Gospel, that the Devil doth speak by them. Thus saith that ancient Father, Vincētius Lirinensis. Whose words do manifestly disprove your opinion, that the truth of pointes in faith should be tried by the scripture only.

The civil law saith, that it is uncivil, for a man, not having weighed the whole law, to give advise or judgment, someone parcel of it being alone proposed. Your dealing with the words of Vincentius Lirinensis is guilty of this vnciuilitie. For he, to instruct us, how we may continue sound in the faith, against the guiles of heretics and suttletie of Satan, who doth transform him self into an Angel of light: teacheth that our Savior hath to this intent both forewarned us of the danger, and foreshowed us a remedy. Forewarned us of the danger, in the precept that he gave: Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. For what, saith he, is sheep's clothing, but the sincere and soft words of the Scripture, which are alleged by false prophets, as well as by the true? What are the ravening wolves, but the cruel meanings and senses of heretics, which, under sheep's clothing, do rent the flock of Christ? Foreshewed us a remedy, in the lesson that he adjoined: Ye shall know them by their fruits. That is to say, when they be gin not only to allege those words but to expound them, and citing them as true prophets, do not interpret them as true prophets: then are the wolves seen by their teeth and ravening; then are their bloody natures known for all their fleeces; then are the faithful teachers discerned from seducers, the true Apostles from the false, the Angel of light from the Angel of darkness, the ministers of righteousness from the ministers of Satan. Which things, set down and prosequuted more amply, and fully, he draweth in fine unto this conclusion, (the sum of all his treatise:) that, although the scriptures alone be sufficient for all pointes of faith, yet is it not sufficient to have a show of the words, but we must also have the substance of the sense, that is, the true and natural meaning of the scriptures. Now, if this discourse of his be weighed whole, and not a parcel of it severed from the rest: what can you prove thereby, more then I will grant? Nay more then I have granted and proved already, when I shown that the right sense of the scripture expounded by the scripture, is the sword of God's spirit, wherewith all heresies must be vanquished. The Devil (you say) alleged the words of the scripture against Christ. He did so. Yet, he alleged thē, not wholly & entirely, as Vincētius hath them: but, as the Evangelists rehearse them, maimedly. Wherein, if Vincentius, observing the attempt that the Devil alleged the words of the scripture ; had withal observed the suttletie of the tempter, how he alleged them: he might have better noted the deceits of heretics abusing scripture, then he did; and so have better fenced the right-believing Christians with power of scripture, then he hath. For he reporteth it so, as if the Devil had alleged that whole place of the scripture: He will give his Angels charge over thee, that they shall keep thee in all thy ways: with their hands they shall lift thee up, and so forth. Whereas the devil, alleging the rest, of charge given, to keep him and uphold him, left out of the middle words of keeping him [in all his ways:] because they made directly against that to which he did tempt Christ, as I have declared. Wherefore if Vincentius had thought, that the scripture is no sufficient stay for us against heretics, because it is alleged as well by false teachers, as it is by true, by the Devil as by Christ: he must have rather craved pardon, for not espying the policy of Satan; then liking, for impairing the credit of the word of God. But although he saw not all in particular: nevertheless in general he joineth with the truth. For he saith that heretics follow the Devil, as oft as they bring forth sentences of scripture, by which being expounded amiss, they go about to maintain their errors. So that, the scripture, which heretics bring forth against the Catholic faith, is the scripture taken in a wrong sense, and miss-expounded, by his judgment. But I mean the scripture expounded aright, when I say that pointes of faith should be tried by the scripture only. The words of Vincentius therefore, which you cited, do rather prove that which I defend, then disprove it. Neither make they more against us then you: unless you beg all that which is in controversy, that Popery is the Catholic faith. For then you may conclude that we bring the scripture against the Catholic faith, when we bring it against Popery. An easy way to conquest, if begging can procure you that. But I mind not to give it: & right to it you have not. You must win it, if you will wear it.

Whither that the faith of the Church of Rome, which you call Popery, be the Catholic faith or no: because it is the later part of our conference, concerning one faith ; I will not confound it with this of one head. But what do you mean to say that the words of Vincentius, which I cited, disprove not your assertion, nor make against you more then us? when he saith, that heretics do allege the scripture, as also did the Devil: and you allege it too, and think it a sufficient fence of your opinions.

So do you allege it too: do you not? And what is there against us, in those words, more then against you? would you not laugh at me, if I should reason thus: Heretics allege scripture; so do the Papists too: therefore they are heretics? The Devil alleged scripture: so doth the Pope too: therefore he is the Devils scholar?

But we do not allege, only, the scripture: nor will be tried by it alone. The heretics appeal to nothing but to scripture: and the Devil alleged the scripture only against Christ.

This is more, then you •• nde in the words of Vincentius: it is your own fancy. He saith, that heretics do allege the scripture: that, nothing else but it, he saith not. Neither could he have said so without a lie. For they allege many reasons beside the scripture, even whatsoever helpeth to countenance their errors: sometime the Church, sometime Tradition, sometime Councils, sometime Fathers, sometime Miracles, sometime Visions, sometime Succession of Bishops, sometime such other Motiues, as your Bristow calleth them. Yea, they have greater advantage for their errors against the catholic faith, by these, then by scripture. For these may be truly alleged against it, as they have been often: the scripture can never, but falsely, and wrongfully. As for that the Devil alleged the scripture only, against Christ: you think his example discrediteth the trial of truth in points of faith by the scripture only. And so it may seem to a weak eye. But to such as mark it with a sharper sight, it doth confirm it rather. For that suttle serpent knowing what baits are fittest to take thē, whom as a roaring lion he seeketh to devour: is want to set upon men with those persuasions, which he is most lykely to seduce them by. To one he promiseth knowledge of good and evil, as to Eve ; another he hardeneth with lying wonders, as Pharaoh ; the prophet he telleth of an Angels speech ; the king he deceiveth by the consent of false prophets; to y ^e Jews he pretendeth the temple of the Lord ; to the Heathens he showeth universality and antiquity: in a word he leaveth no means unattempted whereby he may entangle the souls of mankind, and wrap them in the snares of death. Wherefore, as in his instruments he useth other Motiues to prevail with others: so him self of likelihood would have used them specially to Christ, and not the scripture only, had he not known, that only scripture (if anything) would prevail with him. Stapleton, intending to persuade us, that Peter, and (by reason of Peter ) the Pope is supreme head of the Church: saith that he will prove it by only demonstration out of the scriptures, in effect, and that by only scriptures it may be proved fully enough and abundantly. Is not this a token, that we, whom he seeketh to win by his persuasions, will not be woon thereto, but only by the scriptures? So the Devils practice in alleging scripture only to Christ, is a great presumption, that Christ accounted nothing a ground of faith and duty, but only the scripture. Whereof a surer argument is the whole behavior of Christ against the Devil: whom in everyone of his three temptations he put to flight still with scripture, It is written. And although the Devil (to drive him from that hold) alleged scripture also: yet Christ replied not with Fathers or Doctors, or Rabbin's of the Synagogue, but with the word of his heavenly Father ; and, against y ^e maimed & wrested words of scripture, he set the scripture alleged rightly. Wherefore let your Captains instruct their soldiers as they list, to get us into the plain fields of their Motiues, out of our weak and false castle of only scripture, as a Licentiat termeth it: the action of Christ is the instruction of Christians; the Prince of darkness, could not get him out of that, neither shall the Princes band get out us. Nay, that this castle (how weak and false soever false-hearted weakelinges count it,) hath ordinance enough to shake your Motiues into fitters, and can alone subdue all adversary powers: I need not the practice of Christ, and word of God, against you, to prove it. Your own golden author, Vincentius Lirinensis, saith it. For himself affirmeth that scripture is sufficient alone, against heretics, so that it be taken in the right sense. But scripture is not scripture, unless it be taken in the right sense: in the which alone it came from God by inspiration, and is the word of God. Wherefore, if you will take the gold of Vincentius, you must grant, that scripture alone is sufficient to try the truth from error, and to maintain the Catholic faith against heresy.

You do not deal well in misreporting so the words of Vincentius. For he setteth down two means, by the which we must fence our faith against the guiles of heretics, & eschew their snares: first, by the authority (saith he) of the scripture; then, by the tradition of the catholic Church. You leave out altogether that which he saith of tradition ▪ and handle him in such sort as though he had spoken for the scripture only.

It is not your purpose, (I hope) to beguile me by the color of his words. It may be, that yourself are beguiled in them. For he, by [the traditiō of the catholic church] meant the true and right exposition of the scripture, made by faithful pastors and teachers of the church: as his own words immediately show. And this I made mention of, in that I said, that scripture is sufficient alone against heretics if it be taken in the right sense; the catholic sense he calleth it. You seem to imagine, that he meant by the word, [tradition,] unwritten verities, as they have been termed, or as you term them now, traditions: which the Trent-Council doth account as much of, as of scriptures, and coupleth them together to make a sufficient & perfect rule of truth: as though that only scriptures were insufficient for it. Which error was so far from the mind of Vincentius, that he saith expressly, that he doth not add the traditiō of the Church, to the authority of the scriptures, as though that the scriptures were not thenselves alone sufficient for all things, yea more then sufficient: but to show, that, because heretics do wrest and miss-expound the scriptures, therefore we must learn their right sense and meaning, delivered to the godly by the ministry of the Church. In which consideration, as S. Paul writeth, that he did deliver according to the scriptures the things which he taught, and thereupon nameth his doctrine, traditions, as you would say, things delivered: so Vincentius mentioneth both the Churches tradition, to note the ministry of the Church delivering the sense of scriptures; and the Churches traditions, to signify the rules of faith, according whereunto the scriptures are expounded, (as I have shown) by scriptures. Wherefore, the words that your Vincentius speaketh touching the tradition, and traditions, of the Church : do join hands with that which I did deliver of the truth (in pointes of faith) to be tried by the scripture only.

You may not carry so the words of Vincentius away in a cloud. For, though he may seem to have meant in general by [the tradition of the Church] the expounding of scriptures according to the rule of their right and Catholic sense, which the Pastors of the Church deliver: yet coming to particulars he frameth that rule, not out of the scriptures, but out of the opinions which the Church holdeth in matters of religion. For, he asketh him self, when heretics pretend scriptures, what shall the Catholics do? How shall they discern the truth from falsehood in the scriptures? Whereto he maketh answer, that they must take the scriptures in the sense of the Church: and therein they must follow, universality, antiquity, consent. By the which threefold means to try the truth, he instructeth us that we must hold that, which the church of our time doth hold through all the world universally. If a part of Christendom divide and cut it self from the faith of the whole: then are we bound to follow the whole, and not the part. If the whole in our time be stained with any error: then must we have respect to the former time, and cleave to antiquity. If all in antiquity agreed not about it: then look too consent; as, what a generalll Council did decree thereof ; or, if no such decree be, what all the Fathers thought, or if not all, what the most, even they who continued in the faith and fellowship of the Catholic Church. And whatsoever we find that not one, or two, but all with one consent have held, written, taught, plainly, commonly, continually: let us be assured that we must hold also that without all doubt. Thus Vincentius showeth how he would have the truth to be tried by the church: if y ^e church be sound, by the universality of our own time : if that be corrupt, by the antiquity of the former time ; if that be at variance, by the consent of all, or most of the Fathers. Wherefore if you will stand unto his judgment, to which you give countenance as though you liked it: you must not call the trial of truth in religion to the scriptures only, but to the consent of the Fathers rather.

I liked his judgment in the general point, touching the sufficiency and perfitnes of scriptures : which (I know) you like not, though you make greater semblaunce of liking him, then I. If in the particulars I mislike somewhat, let the blame be laid upon the blame-worthy: not me, who stand to that which he hath spoken well; but him, who falleth from it. For, laying his foundation as it were, on a rock: he buildeth up his house beside it, on the sand. That scripture is sufficient, alone, against heretics, so that it be taken in the right sense, expounded by the rules of the Catholic faith : this hath he well avouched, as on the rock of God's word. But, that the rules of faith, and sense of the scripture must be tried and judged by the consent, antiquity, and universality of the Church : this hath he added not so well, as on the sand of men's opinions. The difference of the pointes may be perceived by S. Austin : who joining in the former of them with Vincentius, doth leave him in the later. For Austin, as he setteth the ground of religion in the right sense and Catholic meaning of the scripture: so teacheth he that this must be known and tried by the scripture it self, y ^e infallible rule of truth; not by the fickle minds of mē. And, to have taught hereof as Austin doth, it had agreed best with the foundation of Vincentius : which maketh the rule of scriptures, alone, sufficient for all things. But because the weaker and ruder sort of Christians, have not skill to know the right exposition of scripture from the wrong: therefore he, tempering him self to their infirmity, doth give them outward sensible marks to know it by. Wherein he dealeth with them, as if a Philosopher, having said that a man is areasonable creature, should, because his scholars cannot discern of reason (whereof the show is such in many brute beasts, that some have thought them reasonable ) describe him more plainly by outward marks, and accidents, as namely, that he hath two feet, and no feathers. They report, that Plato defined a man so: a man, is a living creature, two-footed, vn-feathered. For which definitiō when he was commended, Diogenes took a Capon: and having plucked his feathers off, did bring him in to the school of Plato, saying, This is Plato's man. The holy word of God is the same in the Church, that reason is in a man. Whereupon we give it for an essential mark (as I may term it) of the Church, by which the Church is surely known and discerned. But the show of God's word is such in many heretics, (as of reason in brute beasts,) that some, who have no skill to discern that mark, do think it impossible to know the Church by it. Your fellows hereupon describe the Church by outward and accidental marks : as namely, by antiquity, succession, consent. These are very plausible, and many do commend them highly. But he that hath half an eye of a Philosopher, I mean a wise Christian: need not play Diogenes in plucking feathers off, to show that these marks may agree to a capon. Now, as they deal with the marks of the Church: so do you, M. Hart, with the marks of the truth. Not Vincentius, but you, who cover your errors with the name of Vincentius: and take things, as necessary, and sure proofs of truth, which he did note, as probable, and likelye tokens of it only. For he delivered them, not as never failing, but as holding often: and such, as albeit they do hit sometimes, yet do they miss sometimes also. Whereof him self is witness, in that he disproueth them: the first, universality, by the example of the Arians, and flieth from it to antiquity : the second, antiquity, by the example of the Donatists, and flieth from it to consent.

But the third, consent, he speaketh of as never failing; as a necessary token, to know and try the truth by; as an essential mark, and proper to the pointes of Catholic faith and truth. And this is the mark which chiefly I regarded when I alleged Vincentius : that our questions might be tried by the consent of the Fathers.

In deed he preferreth this mark before the rest, as having held when they failed. Nevertheless he speaketh not so of it neither, as that it may serve for trial and decision of questions between us. For what doth he acknowledge to be a point approved, & such as we are bound to believe, by this mark? Even that, which the Fathers all with one consent, have held, written, taught, plainly, commonly, continually. And who can avouch of any point in question, that not one or two, but all the Fathers held it; nor only held it, but also wrote it; nor only wrote it, but also taught it; not darkly, but plainly ; not seldom, but commonly ; not for a short season, but continually. Which so great consent is partly so rare, and hard to be found; partly so unsure, though it might be found: that him self (to fashion it to some use and certainty,) is fain to limit and restrain it. First, for the matters: that we are to seek and follow their consent not in all little questions of the scripture, but in the weighty pointes of faith. Then, for the persons: that we must follow all, or the greater part ; because, in many pointes, all of them consent not. Finally (which cometh nearest to our purpose,) he granteth that there may such heresies arise, as must be dealt withal by the scripture only, and not by the Fathers. for, purposing to show both in what manner, and what kind of heresies may be found out and condemned by the consenting sentences of the Fathers: he saith, and confirmeth, that neither all heresies must be assaulted in this sort, nor always, but only such as are new and green: to weete, when first they spring up, before they have falsisied the rules of ancient faith, the very straitenes of time not suffering them to do it, and before (the poison spreading abroad farther,) they endeavor to corrupt the writings of the Fathers. But heresies that are spread abroad, and waxed old, must not be set upon in this sort; because they, by long continuance of time, have had long occasion to steal away the truth. And therefore whatsoever profanities there be, either of schisms, or heresies, that are waxed ancient: we must in no case deal otherwise with them, then either to convince them, (if it be nedeful,) by the authority of scriptures only; or at the least avoid them, being of old time convicted and condemned already by the general councils of Catholic Bishops. Lo, when heresies are grown to be in years ancient, and ample in places; when they have got antiquity, and universality : then must we fight against them, not by consent of Fathers, but by the authority of the scriptures only. This is the sentence of Vincentius Lirinensis, in that passing fine book against the profane innovations of all heresies. Is it not a golden sentence?

The cause why Vincentius affirmeth, that heresies when they are spread far, and have long continued, are to be confuted by the scriptures only, not by consent of Fathers : is that (which he doth point too) of endeavoring to corrupt the writings of the Fathers ; a common practice of heresies, if occasion and time serve them. But there is no color why therefore you should refuse to deal with us by the consent of Fathers. For, neither are the doctrines which we profess, heresies, much less old and ample heresies, such as he speaketh of: nor have we endeavored to corrupt the writings of the Fathers, nay, we have kept them, and endeavor daily to set them forth most perfectly. But your heresies in deed, although they sprang of late, and may be counted new and green ; yet have they endeavored to corrupt the Fathers since, and have done it. The practice of Erasmus is famous therein. Of whom to say nothing what censures have been given by other worthy men, whō Torrensis nameth: Marian Victorius, in Cōmentaries that he set forth upon the former three tomes of S. Jerome, reproveth most learnedly more then six hundred errors thrust into them by Erasmus, either in expounding, or ill correcting them. And Torrensis, in his preface to the Confession of S. Austin, declareth sundry books to be S. Austin's own, which Erasmus had noted as falsely fathered on him. Wherefore, if by Vincentius you mind to touch them, who endeavor to corrupt the writings of the Fathers : cast out the beam out of your own eye, before you seek a m • at • in ours.

Yet you see by the way (though you make hast away from it) what rotten posts they be, whereon, as principal pillars, your church and faith is built, universality, antiquity, consent. Of which it is shown by Vincentius himself, that heresies may justly claim the two former, universality and antiquity : and make a fair challenge to the third, consent, in process of time; so cunningly can they file the Fathers to their purposes. But you may not be touched with any such suspiciō. Why? Because the doctrines which you profess, are not old and ample heresies, you say, no not heresies; ours are so, not yours. Whether in opinions of faith and religion, which are in controversy between us, you or we do hold heresies : that is the point in question. Your, or mine; yea, or nay; is no sufficient proof of either. But of which soever it shall appear by conference that they are repugnant to the holy scriptures: let them be judged heresies ; and the men, heretics, who stubburnly maintain them. Thus much you cannot choose but grant, that your opinions are old, and spread abroad: for you claim antiquity, & universality ; whereof you say that our opinions have neither. It is more likely therefore, by Vincentius, that you, who by long continuance of time, have had long occasion to steal away the truth, should corrupt the Fathers, then we who have not had it. And in very truth, as the worship of Images, (the greatest abomination that first prevailed in Popery) was confirmed by writings very uncertain and fabulous, yea by dreams of women, and visions of Devils in the second Nicene Council ; (as the thing it self, and great Clerks of your own testify:) so the rest of your errors, which overflowed Christendom in darkness of superstition, have been most authorised by forged deeds, and bastard writings, begotten by some varlets, and fathered on the Doctors. The Schoolmen and Canonists, whose hands were chief in this iniquity, did bear the whole sway for many years together in Universities and Churches. The Doctors & Fathers were pretended much, but more pretended, then regarded: and their books corrupted, what through ignorance of scriueners, who copied them out before the use of printing, what through impudence of forgers, who coined counterfeites in their names. Now, when they lay thus distressed and diseased in the dust of Libraries: Erasmus, a man of excellent judgment, and no less industrious, then learned, and witty, did enterprise first to cure them, and brought them forth into the light. In the works of S. Jerome, which were most of all depraved above others, chiefly, the former tomes : he did what he could, both to cleanse them from blemishes, and to lighten them with his notes. He professed, that his conjectures in restoring of places had not satisfied himself always. He promised, that if any man should restore them better: he would both embrace his travail very gladly, and rejoice at the public profit. What sparkle of thankfulness, but I let go thankfulness, what sparkle of ingenuity was there, and good nature, in Marian Victorius: who requiteth such a work so carefully attempted, so painfully performed, so modestly excused, with the taunts and contumelies of erring, of lying, of craftiness of ignorance, of heresy, of impiety ? Aristotle writeth of them, who begin a thing in pointes of learning, that although they seem to do less then others, who receive it of them, and after add thereto, yet they do more in deed: because the beginning of everything is hardest, and it is easy to add. Wherevpon, he craveth of such as he hath sought to benefit by his labor, thanks, for that he found; pardon, for that he missed. If Victorius have profited no better in the school of Christ, let him go to Aristotle : and learn, first, to think more humbly of him self; afterward, to deal more modestly with others. And you, who like of him, because he findeth fault with the doings of Erasmus ; as a shoomaker did with the picture of Apelles, for missing in a shoo-latchet: may know, that good and learned men among yourselves have found fault with him, for being bold beyond the shoo. That doth Molanus witness, one of your chiefest Doctors and Censors of books: who (in S. Jerome's works, set forth at Anwerpe, ) hath therefore circumcised the lips of Victorius.

Molanus hath reproved and corrected him for uncivil speeches against the person of Erasmus, as wherein he past the bounds of Christian modesty: not for oversight in that he laid errors to Erasmus charge. Though the special point for which we blame Erasmus, is not this so much of errors in S. Jerome. His censures on S. Austin are misliked most: in that he rejecteth sundry books as counterfeit, which Torrensis proveth to be S. Austin's own. Whereof the importance and danger is the greater, because some will have nothing taken for S. Austin's, but what Erasmus hath allowed.

Molanus did cover the sins of Victorius, whē he found no other fault with his notes, but of uncivil speeches. If favor to the man, and fancy to the cause had not made him partial: he might have said of him, that as he past the bounds of Christian modesty in railing at Erasmus person, so had he past the bounds of Christian truth in noting errors of Erasmus. But he that would affirm Erasmus to be ignorant of the Greek tongue, whereof his works so many, both in divinity, and humanity, through all sortes of writers do proclaim the contrary; needeth no other Censor to advertise men, with what eyes he looked into Erasmus doings. It was not Erasmus ignorance of Greek, which bred so many errors in his corrections of, or notes upon, S. Jerome. It was his knowledge of the Latin, the Roman churches faults. It was his skil of the Italian abuses of the Pope. It was the triacle which he giveth that seemeth poison unto you. These things, because they moved many to suspect that somewhat in Popery was not of the best: it was thought expedient that they should be taken out of S. Jerome. Victorius (to do it with a fair show) pretended other errors : but through too much choler he bewrayed his humor. He lacked that discretion which hath been shown since by the Divines of Louan, in setting forth the notes of Viues on S. Austin. For they have omitted a great many things wherein Viues touched their Popes and Churches sores: yet say they not so much. Only they say, that certain things are omitted: certain, as not many; and errors they name them not; neither tell they what. Now, if the notes of Viues on S. Austin have found such disfauour: the censures of Erasmus, on him, may better bear it. And, to say the truth, they have deserved it at your hands. For in those censures hath Erasmus shown that many books do falsely bear S. Austin's name, by which, as by the warrant of S. Austin's judgment, sundry of your Schoolemens and Canonists dreams have been advanced and aided. But he rejecteth some as counterfeit, you say, which Torrensis proveth to be S. Austin's own. And what marvel is it, if amongst hundreds he were deceived in one or two? And having had trial of many false titles, he thought somefalse which were not? A fish, that hath been touched once with the hook, is said to fear the hook under every meat. They, who by experience have felt that some are coosiners, which bear the face of honest men, must be borne with, if they suspect a man sometimes whom they need not: chiefly, since it proveth a greater point of wisdom to mistrust an honest man, then to trust a knave. For, to trust a knave, hath undone many, and brought them past recovery. To mistrust an honest man, though it be a fault, yet is it less dangerous, and may be sooner mended. But what shall we think of your Torrensis policy? Who, under this pretense that Erasmus judged some books not to be S. Austin's, which are: he citeth such, as S. Austin's, which are known and granted to be none of his.

He doth not so simply, but with an exception, that if all of them be not S. Austin's own, as we grant they be not: yet the most are theirs who lived the same time, and all (no doubt) were written by learned and godly men.

But out of this exception he doth except again, that, although they do not avail much to convince the opinions of sectaries, nevertheless there will be godly men and learned, who will permit and judge them to be S. Austin's own, and will both take delight and profit by reading them. Yet amongst these books, for which he striveth so to have them thought S. Austin's, there be that teach contrary to S. Austin's doctrine. As namely, the book of visiting the sick : wherein the bastard Austin alloweth the worship of Images, as good; which the true Austin doth note, as an abuse, and saith, the Church misliketh it. But Torrensis could not espy this sentence of the true Austin : the other of the bastard (as it is judged by, not Erasmus only, but your Divines of Louan too,) he setteth for a flower in his Austin's confession. So that, if we compare the dealing of the Jesuit Torrensis, with Erasmus, in taking or refusing the books of S. Austin: Erasmus, as a plain and well meaning man that were to receive a sum of of money in angels, finding many bad ones, some light, some cracked, some sowdered, some counterfeited amongst thē, doth vpō suspicion distrust a few good and is loath to take them, for fear of deceiving any whom he should pay them too. The Jesuit, as a yoonker, who could gain by them, if he might put them all away, doth mingle them one with another, and prayeth men to take them: protesting, that if they be not all English angels, yet they be Flemish; at least, they are stamped with the image of an angel. And although some curious and precise men are loath to take them in part of lawful payment: yet there be good fellows that will permit and judge them to be English angels, and will play them at dice for their delight and profit too. I, for my part, have a better liking of Erasmus herein. Specially for that he showeth (in his censures ) the reasons that moved him to think, as he doth, of the books which he refuseth: so that the church may thereby judge of his judgment. If you rather fancy the Jesuit Torrensis : use your own discretion. But I would advise others to beware howe they trust you, who do so lightly trust him.

You excuse Erasmus, as though the suspicion which his censures raise of some things in S. Austin's works, proceeded from a carefulness, y ^t he might neither be deceived, nor deceive. Which if it had been so: his fault were the lesser. But Torrensis showeth, that whereas there are two treatises of his, touching the common life and manners of Clergy men, in which the spring and orders of the life of monks are faithfully declared: Erasmus, of malice (as it may seem) for hatred that he bare to monks, removed them both out of their own place, and put them guilefully amongst the sermons intitled to the Eremite Friers; giving a note of infamy as to most of these, so to them withal; though himself deny not, but they were made by S. Austin. This is more, then distrusting a good angel for the bad. This is willful refusing of an angel, as bad, the which he knoweth to be good.

If Erasmus did this, not of error, but of malice, for hatred which he bare to monks, as Torrensis suspecteth that he did: it were a great crime, and worthy to be published in print unto the world. But if he did it not of hatred, & malice, if he did it not at all, if he did the contrary, if he reproved the party by whom it was done, and him self redressed it: how will Torrensis make amends to Erasmus, whom he hath defamed with so lewd a slander? The sermons, entitled to the Eremit Friers, were impudently forged under S. Austin's name, by some who was him self of that order belike, and gladly would have gotten credit to his order by the title of such a patron. Erasmus hath marked the most of these sermons with a note of infamy. Wherein, if he committed any offense, it was, that he marked no more of them so, not that he marked the most. For, your Louan-Cen • ors do set them out all with as good a note; affirming, not only, that they are forged, and known certainly to be written under S. Austin's name, by some petty-latinist, a rhetorical moongrell, demy-French, demy-Flemish, as Lipsius doth gather by certain words and phrases : but also that they were reproved and condemned by an officer of the Popes above eight score years since, and written both largely and learnedly against by Malburne of Brussels. This Flemish-French-man then, as he endeavored to write his sermons Austin-like, that men might think them to be S. Austin's own: so he interlarded them with two treatises, which were in deed Austin's, but uttered to the people of his own Church, and not to Eremite Friers. Erasmus, when he set forth S. Austin's works first, espied the fraud and opened it: neither did he only remove them both thence, but also left this Censure there to keep them out; they are amongst the epistles, and were put foolishly in amongst the sermons to the Eremite Friers. Now be judge yourself, what the Jesuit deserveth, who chargeth Erasmus to have done that of malice and hatred, which he not only did not, but also provided (as much as lay in him) that no man else should do it.

Perhaps Erasmus did it, if not in his first edition of Austin, yet in other afterward. For doubtless in some of the Basel-editions, which have the censures of Erasmus, those treatises are printed as Torrensis noteth them, even amongst the sermons to the Eremite Friers. And if Erasmus caused them so to be printed, as he did of likelihood: it is no mortal sin to think that he did it, not of error, but of malice & hatred against monks. For it is well known, that he could not abide them: and sundry of his censures are stained with that affection.

The likely-hood is rather that Erasmus would not commit that himself, which he had condemned before in another. At least, if he were so greatly ouershot, Torrensis should do well to quote us the editiō, and take him up more sharply, not only for malice but for folly too. But perhaps Torrensis hath done as (men say) Will Summer was wont: to let fly at Rowland, whē Oliuer had stricken him. For, in a Paris-edition of Austin, one Haemer (who was the over-seer of the print) doth note that himself hath restored again to the Eremite Friers, two sermons which Erasmus had taken away from them. The former Basil-printer, whom Erasmus used, had (as it appeareth) omitted them in the epistles, amongst the which he should have printed them. This fault the Paris-printer minding to amend, amended with a greater fault: whom the later Basil-editions did follow, overseen by Lipsius, & others, not Erasmus. Howbeit, nether is there, in thē, a note of infamy set on both those treatises, (as Torrensis saith,) but only on the former. Which seemeth to have been the printers scape rather then the overseers: since that they agreeing in argument and style had the same judgment both, as it is likely. Now concerning that, wherewith you charge farther the censures of Erasmus, that they are stained with his affection against monks : his affection towards • hem was so well ordered in the love of righteousness, and hatred of iniquity, that it rather lead him to cleanse the stains of other, then stain his own censures. For, how well he liked of godly monks and their societies, it appeareth by that, which (when he was in England) he judged of our Colleges in Oxford and Cambridge. The orders and rules whereof when he perceived, the end and manner of their studies, their lectures, their discipline, their provision in common: he compared the trade of our students lives, with the rules and orders of the ancient moonkes: and counted it the best of the monastical institutions that ever was devised. Which being spoken by him to the praise of our Colleges, as raised to be nurseries for the ministry of the church, wherein they may be well resembled to the best of the ancient monasteries: doth argue that Erasmus had a good affection towards the ancient monks. But the common sort of monks of our age are creatures of another kind, and changed to another hewe. In so much that Polydore Virgil, an Italian, who knew their state well, and did not hate them for religion, doth affirm of them, that it is a thing incredible to be spoken how greatly they are grown out of kind, from their ancestors. Wherefore, it stained not the censures of Erasmus, that he had a misliking of these unkindly monks, evil beasts, & idle bellies. But the liking of them professed by Torrēsis hath stained with a witness his Austin's confession. For, to bring men in love and admiration of their beggarly ceremonies, he writeth of S. Austin that he was clad with a black cool, and girded with a leather girdle; and that, by no meaner man then S. Ambrose ; whose sermon he allegeth for the proof thereof, and noteth it as a worthy matter. Where, in truth, that sermon is so far from being S. Ambrose his own: that the learned note it to be undoubtedly forged in his name by a coosining and prattling merchant, as the which hath nothing in it of S. Ambrose.

That censure savoreth of Erasmus : who (by your leave) in matters touching monks, shall have no credit with me; say what you can, for him.

If you like not him: you may like Costerius, and Molanus yet, two Doctors of Louan. Molanus, the kings professor of divinity: who, casting off that fable of Austin's black and monkish weed, saith that the sermon is not S. Ambroses. Costerius, the Prior of S. Martins Abbey: who censureth him that forged it more sharply then Erasmus did. For he doth not only call him a coosiner, but a sottish and shameless coosiner. And whereas Erasmus did yet notwithstanding set it forth amongst the rest of Ambroses works: it seemed so loathsome and beastly to Costerius, that he hath clean left it out. So that, in the later editions of Ambrose, it is not extant now. Only this place of it, touching the cool and girdle of the Austin-monks, (or Austin-friers, as they are called,) is laid up in Torrensis : a storehouse fit for such antiquities.

If the Church allow the censures of those learned men:

I know no learned man of your church that disalloweth them.

Then is it to be thought, that when Torrensis quoted that sermon of S. Ambrose: he meant, (as he had said afore of S. Austin ) that either it is his; or some others like him.

This neither doth he say, nor his scholars gather, nor the truth agree too. For neither was it written by any like S. Ambrose, if a rash and sottish coosiner did forge it, which your supposal granteth: and he, with other after him, allege it as written by S. Ambrose him self; whose it is manifest they would have it supposed, for the cools sake. So favorable are you in bearing with yourselves, to take that, as certainly written by the Fathers, which certainly is none of theirs. So sharp against us, if we suspect anything not to be theirs, which is: yea, though we suspect it not, but be falsely thought to have suspected it through other men's default. And thus have I cast out the beam out of our eye. Now, let us see the mote in yours. Your practices in corrupting the writings of the Fathers, are of two sortes: the one, before the art of printing was found; and the other, sithence. Examples of them both I will give in our present question, touching the supremacy. The former sort therefore is rife in the chiefest Doctor of your Church, I mean, Thomas of Aquine. Who writing against the errors of the Grecians, doth bring in S. Cyril, saying, that as Christ received power of his Father over every power, a power most full and ample, that all things should bow to him ; so he did commit it most fully and amply both to Peter & his successors: & Christ gave his own to none else, save to Peter, fully, but to him alone he gave it: and, the Apostles in the Gospels and Epistles have affirmed (in every doctrine) Peter and his Church to be in steed of God: and, to him, even to Peter, all do bow their head by the law of God, and the Princes of the world are obedient to him, even as to the Lord Jesus: & we, as being members, must cleave unto our head, the Pope and the Apostolic See; thence it is our duty to seek & inquire what is to be believed, what to be thought, what to be held; because it is the right of the Pope alone, to reprove, to correct, to rebuke, to confirm, to dispose, to loose and bind. These sayings are alleged by Thomas of Aquine out of S. Cyrils work entitled the treasure. But in S. Cyrils treasure there are no such base coins to be found. Wherefore either Thomas coined them him self for want of currant money: or took them of some coiner, and thought to try, if they would go.

Doo you know, what injury you do to that blessed man S. Thomas of Aquine, to whose charge you lay so great a crime of forgery?

None I at all, to him, whose counterfeits I discrie. But he did great injury to the poor Christians, whom he abused with such counterfeits. Your Saint-maker of Rome did canonize him for the holiness of his life and learning. The greatest trial of it was in his service to that See. And are you loath to have it known?

But why should you think either him to be the counterfeiter, or the sayings to be counterfeit, when, (as Cope showeth) they are alleged not only by him, but by other too. Namely, by that worthy and most learned Cardinal John of Turrecremata, who was at the Council of Basel; & before him by Austin of Ancona: yea by Grecians themselves, who were at the council of Florence, Andreas Bishop of Colossae, and Gennadius Scholarius the Patriarke of Constantinople. Of whom when the former said (in the Council) that Cyril in his treasures had very much extolled the authority of the Pope, none of all gainsaid him. The later, (in a treatise that he wrote for the Latins against the Grecians, touching five pointes whereof one is the Popes supremacy) citeth the same testimonies, although perhaps not all, which S. Thomas of Aquine doth out of Cyril. Yet you amongst so many choose him whom you may carpe at: and think that words alleged by them all, are counterfeites.

Counterfeites are counterfeites, though they go thorough twenty hands. Al these, whom you name out of Harpsfieldes Cope, did live long after Thomas: and seem to have alleged S. Cyril on his credit, as Cope himself doth also. Wherefore I could not think that they had been the coiners of y ^t which was before they were. But Thomas is the first, with whom I find the words: and therefore greatest reason to lay the fault on him, unless he show from whom he had them. At least, seeing I know the words are not Cyrils, whose Thomas saith they be: I did him no injury (I trust) when I said, that either he received them at some coyners hands, or coined them him self.

Although the words are not to be found now in those partes of Cyrils treasure, which are extant: yet that is not sufficient to prove, that either Thomas or some other forged them. For Melchior Cano affirmeth that heretics have maimed that book, and have razed out all those things which therein pertained to the Popes authority. Which same thing to be done by them in the Commentaries of Theophylact upon John: the Catholics have found, and shown.

Mee thinks, you and Cano deal against us, as the men of Doryla did against Flaccus. Whom when they accused out of their public records, and their records were called for: they said that they were robbed of them upon the way, by, I know not what shepherds. You accuse us, that we deny the Pope his right of the supremacy. The records, by which you prove it his right, are the words of Cyril. Cyrils words are called for, that they may be seen. You say, they are not extant: you are robbed of them, by, I know not what heretics. Whereon to put a greater likelihood, you say further, that heretics have done another robbery in Theophylact, as they are charged by Catholics. And this do you say: but you say it only: you bring no proof, you name no witness, you show no token of it. If such accusations may make a man guilty: who shall be innocent? He that should have dealt-among the heathens so: would have been counted rather a slanderer then an accuser.

Admitte, that the words were not razed perhaps out of any book of Cyril, which we have. Yet might they be in some of them, which are lost, or not set forth in Latin. For, we have no more then fourteen books of his treasure: whereas the two and thirtieth is cited by the Fathers in the sixth general Council. And this is enough to remove suspicion of forgery from Thomas, and other, who allege them.

Nay, although the two and thirtieth be mentioned by the Fathers there: yet meant they no more of Cyril, then we have. For that, which in our Latin edition is the twelfth, is the two and thirtieth, in the Grecians count.

This is an answer which I never heard. It hath no likelihood of truth.

Peruse you the place, which toucheth that of Cyril : and the words them selves will prove it more then likely.

The Council hath it thus. Hoc & sanctus Cyrillus in trigesimo secundo libro Thesaurorum docet, epistolam ad profanos explanans: nec enim vnam naturalem operationem dabimus esse Dei & creaturae; vt neque id quod creatum est ad diuinam deducamus essentiam, neque id quod est diuinae naturae praecipuum, ad locum qui creatis conuenit deponamus.

This sentence, alleged out of the two and thirtieth of Cyril in Greek, is in the twelfth book of our Latin Cyril. Sauing that, he being translated by another hath it in other words. But there is the sentence: the very same sentence which the Council pointeth too.

It might be there, first, and yet again afterward in the two and thirtieth: as many use one sentence often.

But the circumstance of the place doth rather import it to be the very same. For, the Council saith, that Cyril hath these words, explanans epistolans ad profanos, where he expoundeth the epistle to profane men. And what meant they, by this epistle ad profanos, to profane men ?

How can I tell what they meant, when that book of Cyril (whereof they speak) is lost?

It should be, the epistle ad Romanos, to the Romaines : [ Romanos ] made [ profanos ] by the printers error: unless he did it of purpose, to show, what now the Romans be: or some corrector changed it, least we by this circumstance should find the place of Cyril. For, this [where he expoundeth the epistle to the Romans] is a great argument, that the Council meant the place in the twelfth book: where Cyril doth handle such pointes of that epistle as concerned the matter that he had in hand. Which that he should do again, in the same work, with the same sentence, touching the same matter: they who know Cyril, will not think it likely. The less, because it is an usual thing with the Grecians, to divide books otherwise then the Latins do. As, in the Greek testament, the gospel of S. Mark hath more then forty chapters, which hath not twenty in the Latin: and yet notwithstanding the Latin hath the whole, as well as the Greek. Which is the more likely to have been the difference between the Greek Cyril, alleged by the Council, and our Latin Cyril translated out of Greek, because that our Latin hath also other sentences in the tenth book, which are alleged by the Council out of the four and twenteeth: and, in their division, a chapter and a book did go for all one, whereas the books in Latin are sub-divided into chapters. The mentioning therefore of more books of Cyrils treasure, then we have, removeth not suspicion of forgery from the sayings, which Thomas citeth thence for the Popes supremacy. Chiefely, since Trapezuntius who translated that work of Cyril into Latin, was a man affectionate greatly to the Pope. That, if he had left out somewhat of y ^t Greek, as he hath perhaps, (unless he used Cyril better then Eusebius :) yet is it not credible that he would have left out so many places, so notable proofs of a thing so weighty, so nearly touching him whom he so dearly loved. In deed they are too notable, and perfect for the purpose: and such, as, your Cano saith, have not their matches throughout all the Fathers. Wherein, y ^t is also worthy of remembrance which a wise mā said in a like case: to much perfectiō breedeth suspiciō. Neither was S. Cyril likely to write thē, who, when y ^e Council of Carthage sent unto him about the Popes usurping, was so glad to send them evidence against it: neither was his treasure fit to write them in, as handling all another matter, namely, that the Son and the Holy ghost are of one substance with God the Father. But the forging of Cyril might be better borne with he was but one man. That is no way tolerable, that the like dealing is used with six hundred Bishops, and more, even with the general Council of Chalcedon. Of whom Thomas writeth that they decreed • hus: If any Bishop be accused, let him appeal freely to the Pope of Rome, because we have Peter for a rock of refuge; and he alone hath right, with freedom of power, in the steed of God, to judge and try the crime of a Bishop accused, according to the keys which the Lord did give him. And again after: Let all things be kept which are defined by him, as defined by the Vicar of the Apostolic see. And, to prove that the Pope hath universal sovereignty over the whole church of Christ: It is read, saith Thomas, in the Council of Chalcedō, that the whole Council did cry to Pope Leo, God grant long life to Leo, the most holy, Apostolic, & universal Patriarke of the whole world. Now in the general Council of Calcedon there is not one of these things: no more, then the other were in Cyrils treasure. Wherefore it must needs be, that either Thomas coined them, or had them from some coiner. Belike he, who did it, was master of the Popes mint: and who that should be, but Thomas, I know not.

Neither Thomas, nor any else. For these things were written in the Council of Calcedon: but heretics have razed them out of our copies, as Gregory complaineth to the Earl Narses.

Or rather, as Cano reporteth out of Gregory; but reporteth falsely. For Gregory doth not mention either heretics, or these things. Only he affirmeth that the church of Constantinople had falsified the Council of Chalcedon in one place : which he seemeth to mean of the eight and twentieth canon of that Council, (as the Grecians reckon it) wherein Constantinople is allowed equal privileges with Rome. For the Church of Rome had still withstood this canon : chiefly, Pope Leo. Yet Constantinople, and the Greek churches did set it down amongst the rest. The difference between them appeareth to this day in the Greek and Latin copies: the one of them having it, and the other wanting it. Which is a great presumption, that Gregory, in saying, the Council of Chalcedō is falsified by the church of Constantinople in one place: meant this place, by which Constantinople claimed as great perogatives as Rome, the church of Rome crying against it. And hereof Carranza in the abridgement of the Councils, and Surius in the whole, do give a mark both, rejecting that canon. But neither Surius, nor Carranza do bring in any such stuff as that of Thomas ; or say, that it was written in the Council of Chalcedon, but heretics have razed it out. Nay the very canons them selves of that Council, which are agreed upon in both the Greek & Latin copies, do cut off all show from such false and frivolous defenses of Thomas. For it cannot be thought, that so great a Council, of so wise men, ordained things repugnant one unto another: and they have ordained repugnant unto that which Thomas citeth of the Pope, as shall appear after. But Cano hath greatly both abused you and ouershot himself: who, to prove that now the copies have not those things which they had in Thomas time, bringeth Gregory for witness, who lived long before Thomas ; and chargeth heretics with that, wherewith Gregory chargeth Catholics ; and saith, that they have razed out, where Gregory saith they have falsified, which they might do by adding too; and speaketh it of sundry places, which Gregory speaketh but of