Conference Between Rainolds and Hart

I did not peruse the place myself in Gregory : but took it, as I found it alleged by learned men. For Cope hath it as well as Cano. Neither do I think that they did wrest it purposely: but trusting their memories for the matter in general, did miss in setting down the words.

Neither do I charge them as willful wresters of it. It may be that Cano read it in some other, and Cope in Cano, and you in Cope : and thus by tradition you are deceived from hand to hand. Remember Christ's sentence. If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. But this may suffice for a taste of your corrupting the writings of the Fathers, before they came to the print. Now, how you have used them since they were printed: let your setting forth of Cyprian, first at Rome, and then at Anwerp, be an example. In the time of Cyprian, the church of Christ was troubled with the heresy of y ^e Novatians, or (as they called themselves) Puritans : a faction of men, who thinking all impure and unclean, which had fallen in the time of persecution, though they repented after, refused to communicate with them; and thereupon did separate themselves from the society of the Catholic church and assemblies of the faithful as unclean also, for that they received into their fellowship and communion, upon repentance, such as had fallen. Against these Novatians, the firebrands of schisms and dissensions in the Church. S. Cyprian hath written a notable treatise touching the unity of the church : wherein he doth instruct and exhort Christians to keep the unity of spirit in the bond of peace, and be at concord among them selves. And, to win this of them by reasons and persuasions out of the holy scripture; as among the rest he bringeth sundry figures wherein is represented the unity of the church, as the ark of Noah, the coat of Christ, the house of Rahab, the lamb of the Passover: so among the figures he placeth Peter first, in that our Savior said to him, Thou art Peter, and on this stone will I build my church, &, To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, & again, Feede my sheep. For albeit Christ, saith he, gave equal power to all the Apostles, after his resurrection, and said, As my father sent me, so I send you; receive ye the holy Ghost; whosoeuers sins ye remit, they are remitted to them, & whosoeuers sins y • retain, they are retained: yet to declare unity, he disposed by his authority the original of that unity beginning of one. No doubt, the rest of the Apostles were the same that Peter was, endued with like fellowship both of honor, and of power: but the beginning doth come from unity, that the church of Christ may be shown to be one. Now, this place of Cyprian, which by the former printes was thought to make rather for an equality of all the Apostles in power, then a supremacy of one, as it doth in deed: is farsed with such words, in the Roman Cyprian, that in show it maketh for Peters supremacy, and so for a supremacy in power like the Popes, as you teach men to gather of it. For where it was in Cyprian, that the rest of the Apostles were equal both in honor and power unto Peter but the beginning doth come from unity : the Roman Cyprian addeth these words, and the primacy is given unto Peter. Where it was in Cyprian, that Christ did dispose the original of unity beginning from one : the Roman Cyprian addeth, he appointed one chair. And again where Cyprian said, that the church of Christ may be shown to be one : the Roman Cyprian addeth and the chair to be one. This was well, to begin with; that unto Peter the primacy is given, that Christ appointed one chair, and, as the church must be one so the chair must be one. Yet because one chair (in Cyprians language) doth make no more for the chair of the bishop of Rome, then of the bishop of Carthage: the Cyprian of Anwerpe (to help the matter forward) doth bring in Peters chair. And where it was in Cyprian, even in the Roman print too, He who withstandeth and resisteth the church, doth he trust him self to be in the church ? the Anwerp Cyprian addeth, He who forsaketh Peters chair on which the church was founded, doth he trust himself to be in the church ? So, whereas aforetime S. Cyprian shown the unity of the church in an equality of Peter with the rest of the Apostles : now, by good handling, he showeth Peters primacy ; and that, by good expounding, is the Popes supremacy. For, we must imagine, that by Peters chair is meant the Popes chair : which chair be forsaketh, who is not obedient and subject to the Pope, according to Gratian in the canon law. The only difficulty, and scruple, that is left to breed a doubt thereof in suspicious heads, is that clause of Cyprian, that Christ gave equal power to all the Apostles; and the rest were the same that Peter was, endued with like fellowship both of honor and of power. Which words if you could hansomly take away out of him in some new print, (and why not take away so few, as well as add so many?) then would this be a passing fine place for you, to persuade men, that the unity of the church doth presuppose your one chair, to which all must be subject, who will be of the church: and that they (by consequent) are no right Christians, who stand against the Popes supremacy.

You are much to blame to lay unto our charge the corrupting of Cyprian : chiefly in those editions, which are best and soundest, the Roman of Manutius, and Anwerp of Pameliu • . For, Pius the fourth, a Pope of worthy memory, desirous that the Fathers should be set forth corrected most perfectly and cleansed from all spots, sent to Venice, for Manutius, an excellent famous printer, that he should come to Rome, to do it. And to furnish him the better with all things necessary thereto: he put four Cardinals, very wise and virtuous, in trust with the work. Now, for the correcting and cleansing of Cyprian specially above the rest, singular care was taken by Cardinal Borromaeus ; a copy was gotten of great antiquity from Verona ; the exquisite diligence of learned men was used in it. Wherefore I am persuaded, that whatsoever they did add unto Cyprian they did not add it rashly, or of their own head, but with good advise upon the warrant of written copies. Which although they have not declared in particular, yet may we gather it by Pamelius, a Canon of the Church of Bruges, and Licentiat of divinity, by whom the Anwerp-Cyprian was afterward set forth. For, he doth note y ^t all the words (which you spoke of) added by Manutius in the Roman-print [he appointed one chair] and [the chair to be one,] and [the primacy is given unto Peter,] are in a written copy of the Cambron-abbey: which was the best of all the copies that he had. Yea, those of [Peters primacy] not only in that copy, but in another too, which Cardinal Hosius occupied. As for the rest, which were added by himself in the print at Anwerp, [he who forsaketh Peters chair on which the church was founded, doth he trust himself to be in the church?] he noteth that they also are in the Cambron-copy, and confirmed by Gratian, who hath the same words, and citeth them with Cyprians name. Whereby you may perceive, that we have not corrupted those places of Cyprian, either in the Roman -print, or the Anwerpe: we have corrected rather that which was corrupt. But (I see) the Poet hath said very truly: Nothing is done so well, but with evil speeches a man may deprave it.

And it is as truly said by the Orators: Nothing is done so evil, but with fair colors a man may defend it. The Pope sent for Manutius to print the Fathers corrected; he appointed four Cardinals to see the work done; Cardinal Borromaus had singular care of Cyprian; copies very ancient, men very learned, exquisite diligence used in it. This is it, which maketh me the more suspect it: the diligence was too exquisite. When a petty-captain, whom Scipio did punish for that he was not in the field, said, that he remained in the campe to keep it: I love not them (quoth Scipio ) that are too diligent. The campe was too well kept by the petty-captain. The Cardinals care of Cyprian might have the like fault. Manutius him self writeth, that his whole charge of printing books at Rome pertaineth to the dignity of the Popes See. I fear me, this dignity did dasel much their eyes, who perused copies to correct the Fathers. The purpose of the Pope was (as he declareth) to have them so corrected, that there should remain no spot, which might infect the minds of the simple with the show of false doctrine. Whereby, if it be weighed what [false doctrine] signifieth in the court of Rome, a mā may guess easily how they did correct them. Chiefely, since they have not shown where they found those words of [one chair] and [primacy given unto Peter:] as others use to do in new corrections of authors. Which yet I will not condemn as a token of a guilty conscience. It may be that they found thē in one or other bad copy. For such they followed some, as it appeareth by Pamelius : who, in sundry places correcteth the Roman print, and that justly. But Pamelius found them in a written copy of the Cambron-abbey, the best (he saith) of all his copies: wherein he found also the words which Gratian hath of cleaving to the chair of Peter: and so he was bold to put them into Cyprians text. More bold then wise, in that. For (to see, how fancy doth oue • rule discretion,) first, if the copy of the Cambron-abbey had been very good: yet to follow one against so many, which him self, which Morelius, which other (who printed Cyprian ) had, yourselves would think it rashness, but that it made for the Popes advantage. Then, it is likely that the man of Cambron, who wrote that Abbey-copy, was tampering about it to square it unto somewhat. For he hath left out that clause of Cyprian touching the Apostles, [ endued with like fellowship both of honor and of power :] and instead ofthese words, but the beginning doth come from unity ; he hath put in th • se, but the primacy is given to Peter. Thirdly, ifhe altered not the words of purpose: yet might he write that in the text by error, which some had noted in the margent; or if he did not so himself, perhaps another had, whom he followed. A thing that falleth often out in written copies. As Erasmus witnesseth he found S. Austin's works depra • ed much by that folly: and if you suspect the judgment of Erasmus, the Paris-overseers consent with him in this point, though otherwise dissenting from him.

You may reject what evidence soever you li • t, if you please yourself in such conjectures and guesses. For, if any Fathers sentence be alleged, and you like it not: you may say, that perhaps it was noted in the margent, and some unskillful scriueners wrote it in the text, as they have done else-where in Austin.

Not in Austin only, but in Cyprian too, as your Pamelius hath observed: & that even in this treatise touching the unity of the church. But whether I have reasō to say, that the words (whereof we speak) in Cyprian, might come into the text out of the margent-note: I leave it to be judged by reasonable men upon the view of the circumstances. The written copy (cited by Pamelius him self) which Cardinal Hosius occupied, convinceth it most plainly, for the chiefest of thē. For there, after the speech of Christ unto Peter, alleged out of Matthew, these words are interlaced, Hic Petro primatus datur, Here the primacy is given unto Peter. Which to have been noted by some in the margent, it is so manifest, that neither the Roman -print nor the Anwerp could bring them into Cyprians text, but either by changing or leaving out the word [Here:] the one hath changed it into the word▪ [And,] the other hath left it out. That the rest of [one chair] crept in by like stealth: it is very probable, though harder to convince. But the last of [sticking unto Peters chair] added by Pamelius, do seem to have lept into the text suddenly, before the margent saw them. For, they are written not only in the copy of the Cambron-abbey, but in Gratian too. And thereupon Pamelius saith that he was bold to put them into Cyprians text. Now shall the Fathers be well amended shortly, if you amend them out of Gratian : a man, who in favor of the Popes State hath forged and falsified the writings of the Fathers most lewdly and shamefully. Knowe you not his famous abusing of S. Austin whom he hath made to say, that the decretal epistles (as you term them) of the Popes are counted in the number of the Canonical Scriptures ? Howbeit, if he have not abused Cyprian so: yet he rather hurteth then helpeth the corrections of your new prints. For, where he allegeth that whole place of Cyprian, which they have made such change in, he neither hath [the primacy is given unto Peter,] nor [ Christ appointed one chair,] nor [that the chair may be shown to be one.] Wherefore if his authority may warrant the soundness of things that are cited by him out of the Fathers: he bringeth you greater discredit, then credit, for that which you have changed in Cyprian.

The clause, which Pamelius added to Cyprian, he added on the warrant not of Gratians credit, but of the Cambron-copy. Wherewith, as far as Gratian agreed, he approved him: he approved him not, in that he disagreed from it. Neither is it any discredit to Pamelius, to have rather followed that copy, then Gratian: since Gratian hath missed sometimes (as we grant) in citing of the Fathers; perhaps by setting down not so much their words as that which he conceived to be meant thereby. But these are small matters, whereto you pick quarrels in the print of Cyprian, at Rome, or at Anwerpe ; for this, or that correction: that you may seem to have some pretense yet, why you refuse trial by the consent of the Fathers in controversies of religion.

When a young man, whom Plato reproved for plaing at dice, said, Doo you reprove me for so small a matter? The matter is small, quoth Plato, but the custom of it is no small matter. So the matters may be small, which I reprove in your correcting of Cyprian : but the custom of such correcting is no small matter. For Gratian (you grant) setteth down sometimes not the words of the Fathers, but that which he conceiveth to be meant thereby: what if he miss-conceive it? And howsoever that be: what if here he aimed at the meaning of Cyprian ? As it may seem he did: for he agreeth not precisely word for word with the Cambron-copy. Now, the Cambron-copy what is it, or whence came it, that Cyprian should be made the father of such slips upon the credit of it alone? What, if some did note them in the margent, of fancy, as students use to do? What if some received them into the text of error? What if some, of zeal unto the church of Rome, did add them? And why did not Pamelius leave out the other words of the equality of the Apostles in honor and power, because the Cambron copy wanteth them: as well as add these of Peters primacy and chair, because the Cambron-copy hath them? Did not his conscience tell him, that the copy was unsound: or at the least insufficient, to force the change of a place of so great importance against the credit of so many both written books and printed? If other Licentiates as learned as Pamelius ; shall upon one copy, as good as the Cambron ; presume, in all the Fathers, as he hath in Cypriā; to add the like glosses, for the rest of your opinions, as these are for the chair and primacy of Peter : it will be hie time for us to take heed how we permit the trial of controversies in religion to the consent of the Fathers. Wherefore, although these matters seem never so small, yet there may lie as much on them, as concerneth the safety of our souls. Neither do I pick them, as quarrels, for pretense; but I allege them as reasons for proof, that, by the position of your own author, we must deal with you not by their consent, but by the scripture only. For he, on whom you grounded, Vincentius Lirinensis, alloweth only scripture, to convince those errors which have increased long, & wide: because the length of time hath given them occasion to steal away the truth; and (the poison spreading farther) they endeavor to corrupt the writings of the Fathers. Your error of the Papacie hath spread far, and grown long: you have endeavored to corrupt the writings of the Fathers: the forgeries are plain in Cyprian, in Cyril, and in the Council of Chalcedon : the presumptions are great that you have been as bold with other, as with these. For if Thomas of Aquine made no conscience of it, what may be thought of such as were more ambitious? And if Manutius dealt so with Cyprian, in whom he sought most credit: what did his ten years labors in setting forth the rest? And if Papists durst this in the light of printing: what may we fear they did in the darcknesse of writing, books? And if the Roman print be followed at Anwerp, the Anwerp at Paris, the Paris other-where perhaps, and the newer the worser, and the worst accounted best by such as D. Stapleton, and testimonies alleged thence, as authentical: how much likelyer is it, that when they wrote copies in Monasteries, and Abbeys, they followed one another with lesser shame, and greater looseness; and so did proceed, from good to evil, from evil to worse; and authors of that age did most approve those copies, which made for their advantage most, and brought authorities out of them. To conclude therefore, even by his judgment to whom you appealed, Vincentius Lirinensis, in that golden book against the profane innovations of all heresies: the touchstone, by the which our controversy must be tried, is the word of God, and not the word of men; not the consent of Fathers, but the holy scripture, and the scripture only. And this (I may protest) I speak not of fear, as though the Fathers all held with you against us: but of conscience, that I may yield due glory to God, due reverence to his word. For, let such forgeries, as I have spoken of, be set apart: and what have all the Fathers, nay what hath any of them, to prove the pretended supremacy of Peter ?

The very same Fathers, whose words I alleged, before, and them acknowledged to be their own, not counterfeits, give Peter y ^e supremacy, which you call pretended. For S. Jerome saith of him, Peter was of so great authority, that Paul wrote, Then after three years, and so forth: and S. Austin affirmeth that the primacy of the Apostles is conspicuous and preeminent with excellent grace in Peter : and Chrysostom calleth him, the mouth of the Apostles, the chief, and top of the company: and he is named by Theodoret, the prince of the Apostles; the prince, which title also is given him by all antiquity. Wherto I may add that Epiphanius termeth him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as you would say, the highest of the Apostles : and S. Austin yet farther, their head, & their President, & the first of them : which preeminence he proveth also out of S. Cyprian, who saith that the Lord did choose Peter first : & S. Jerome teacheth, that Peter was chosen, one, among the twelve, to the intent that (a head being appointed) occasion of schism might be taken away. The books of the Fathers are full of such sayings: but they are all to this effect. And therefore these few may serve to show their judgment.

These sayings, and the like, which are alleged out of the Fathers, do touch three perogatives which they give to Peter: the first of authority, the second of primacy, the third of principality. But none of them all doth prove the supremacy which you pretend to Peter, and mean to the Pope. For, by tha • supremacy, is signified the s • lnes of ecclesiastical or rather Papal power, even a power sovereign of governing the Church throughout the whole world, in all points & matters of doctrine and discipline, as you declared. Is it not?

It is so. What then?

But none of the sayings alleged out of the Fathers, do give this sovereign power to Peter. Therefore they prove not his pretended supremacy.

They give it him all.

I will show the contrary. And to speak in order of the three perogatives, which by them are given him: the first, out of Jerome, that Peter was of great authority, is nothing to your purpose. For, it is apparaunt, that, since the supremacy doth note a sovereign power, the question is of power, and not of authority.

As who say, that power and authority did differ so much, one from the other.

Much. For, power importeth a right of rule and government, which the superiors have over their inferiors for the good ordering of mankind: as Princes over subjects, Pastors over flocks, Masters over servants, Husbands over wives. By, authority, is meant estimation and credit: a good opinion of men, for that which we account worthy to be esteemed. For they, of whom we think so well in respect of their virtue, or wisdom, or state, or other qualities, that we will follow them as authors in our doings, our judgments, facts, or words: are said to be of credit, and authority, with us. And this an inferior may have with his superior. As Achithophel, a counselor, had such authority with his Prince, that his counsel was regarded, as an oracle of God : and Gamaliel, a Pharisee, had such authority with the Jews, that the hie priest, and the whole assembly, did yield to his advise, and, as it were, obeyed him. Wherefore, the authority which Jerome saith that Peter had, doth not prove a power, much less a supremacy.

Yet oftentimes [authority] is taken for the same that [power:] as, when a thing is doon by the appointment and order of the magistrate, we are w • nt to say, that it is done by authority.

True: because power is one of those qualities which procure authority ; the greater authority, the better that the power is used. And so I joined power and authority together, when I spake of the keys, that Christ did give to Peter. But, although the words be taken for the same in a figurative kind of speech, by reason of the affinity which is between the things: yet as the things differ, and the words are used for them (as different) properly, it is clear, that authority may be without power, and an inferior in power may be superior in authority. So Tully, when he told the Senators of Rome, that they ought to give authority to Caesar and the rest against Antony: he meant by authority, lawful power and right to deal against him as against an enemy. But otherwhere, entreating of four things, which should be in a General of an army, skill, virtue, authority, felicity: he meant, not lawful power by authority, but estimation, that a General must be honorably thought of by friends and foes. The difference between them he shown, where he said, that Metellus, a private man, (though chosen Consul. for the year following) forbadde certain plays, when an officer had allowed them, and that which he could not yet obtain by power, he did obtain by authority.

The things do differ, I grant. But seeing that the name of authority is used as well for power sometimes, as for estimation : why should it be taken in S. Jerome's words, rather for estimation, as you will have it; then for power, as I?

Because the point, which Jerome doth thereupon infer, cannot agree to power, but to estimation : yea, this word it self is expressed by him, and showeth that he meant it. For he saith, that Paul went up to Jerusalem to confer of the gospel with them that were esteemed: by whom he meaneth Peter and other Apostles, even them, whom Paul nameth, and noteth their estimation (as himself expoundeth it) James, and Peter, and John, who were esteemed to be pillars. Wherefore, albeit Jerome speak hardly of Paul, that he had not had security of preaching the gospel, unless it had been approved by these: yet the authority which he giveth Peter, he giveth other Apostles, James, and John, with him: and therefore a preeminence in estimation, not in power; not in supremacy, but in credit. For, if by [authority] he meant supreme power: James and John should have it over the Apostles, as well as Peter had. But they (you say) were equal in power to the rest, and inferior to Peter. Then Jerome, by [authority] which he gave to Peter, meant not the supremacy.

The primacy of Peter doth prove it more forcibly: which is the next prerogative. And that is given to him, not only by S. Austin, but also by S. Cyprian, as I have declared.

What need you to allege me S. Austin, and S. Cyprian ? Did I deny his primacy ?

Why? Doo you not deny it?

If I do: let me be smitten, not with the blunt weapon of the words of men (for so I may justly term them in this comparison:) but with the sharp two-edged sword of God's word. For, it is written in S. Matthews gospel: these are the names of the twelve Apostles; the first is Simon, called Peter. Now, if he were the first : then he had the primacy. For although the reason be not so plain in English, because we have not a fit word derived from our English [first] as primacy is derived from the [ first ] in Latin: yet they who know reason will never deny, but that he that is first, hath the first • ship (if I might speak so) that is to say, the primacy. But this is such a primacy, as a foreman of the Quest is wont to have in Iuries: not a primacy of power, as over inferiors; but a primacy of order, as amongst equals.

The primacy of order is a colorable show, whereby you may avoid S. Matthew. But Austin and Cyprian cannot be so avoided. For their words are witnesses, they meant a farther primacy : and what should that be, but a primacy of power? Which because they learned (as it is likely) out of S. Matthew : thereof do I gather, that S. Matthew meant a primacy of power, and not of order only.

And because S. Matthew, (as it is more likely) meant not a primacy of power to one there, where he showeth that Christ gave the same power to all the Apostles: thereof do I gather that he meant a primacy of order only, not of power. But Austin and Cyprian meant a farther primacy, you say. Perhaps they did. Therefore a primacy in power ? It doth not follow. Nay, it is manifest, they meant it not of power. For Austin doth build it upon the ground of Cyprian : and Cyprian doth teach, that Christ gave equal power to all the Apostles. The truth is, they meant a primacy in calling : to weet, that the Lord did choose Peter first, as Cyprian doth speak expressly. And whether S. Matthew regarded this also, in that he numbered Peter, first : I cannot define. But whether he did, or no; it is no farther primacy then I granted you by the foreman of the Quest : who is called first, as he is reckoned fi • st; and so both in order and calling hath a primacy, which he hath not in power.

A primacy in calling ? Nay yet you had done better to have cleaved still to the primacy of order. For Peter, in order was the first in deed: and so I deny not but he might have been, though he had been equal in power to his brethren. But he was not the first in calling. For S. Ambrose saith: Andrew first followed our Savior before Peter, and yet Andrew received not the primacy, but Peter. And S. Austin's words, [the primacy of the Apostles is conspicuous and preeminent with excellent grace in Peter,] do plainly import, that he meant a primacy not in calling, but preeminence.

You say that Peter had not a primacy in calling: for S. Ambrose saith so. What, if I should answer, He had a primacy in calling: for S. Cyprian saith so. Or, to help S. Cyprian (if he have smaller credit with you,) for S. Gregory saith so: Peter was called to the Apostleship first. But there is no dissension between them and Ambrose, if all their words be weighed. For Ambrose saith, that Andrew did first follow Christ : and they say, that Peter was called first of Christ. The truth of both which is plain by the scriptures. For Andrew followed Christ, before Peter knew him: and he brought Peter unto Christ. But Christ said to Peter, Thou shalt be called Cephas, (wherein he meant him the Apostleship,) before he spake a word of the Apostleship to Andrew. And so doth Ambrose seem him self to expound his meaning otherwhere: affirming of Peter, that he was the first among the Apostles to whom our Savior had committed the charge of the churches. Whereby he giveth Peter y ^e primacy in being called to the Apostleship : though he gave a primacy in discipleship (as it were) I mean, in following Christ, to Andrew. As for S. Austin's words, which (you say) import that he meant a primacy, notin calling, but preeminēce : you should have rather said y ^t he meant a primacy, in calling, & preeminence both. For out of all doubt he meant a primacy in calling. But your freends, who dismember the sayings of the Fathers, do stand in your light, that you cannot see it. For as Stapleton did cut out the former words of Ambrose, that Peter might be thought the only man who had the charge of the churches, not the first of them who had it: so hath Torrensis cut of the later words of Austin, that the primacy of Peter might be thoght a primacy in power, not in calling ; or, if in calling, in power too. The primacy of the Apostles is conspicuous and praeeminent with excellent grace in the Apostle Peter : thus saith Torrensis out of Austin. And these are Austin's words: but his words say farther, that Peter the Apostle, in whom that grace and primacy are so preeminent, was corrected by Paul a later Apostle. Wherein, naming Paul, [a later Apostle,] as made Apostle, after Peter, in time: he showeth, that of the other side he meant by [the primacy,] y ^t Peter was an Apostle, in time, before Paul. As Ambrose saith of the chiefest of the Apostles, that they were before Paul, not in dignity, but in time. And Cyprian (whom Austin allegeth, and followeth) doth use the word [ primacy ] in the same sense of being first in time also. Wherefore, the Fathers prove not your supremacy by giving the prerogative of primacy to Peter.

The bare name of primacy is not enough to prove it. But some by that name have meant a supremacy. And surely, the preeminence with excellent grace, which Austin giveth Peter, doth note a higher primacy, then either of order, or calling, or time : though it with all too.

It doth so, I grant. And I noted that, in the third prerogative which the Fathers give him: namely, principality. For Austin, having joined his primacy and preeminence with excellent grace together, doth term them both, in one, the principality of the Apostleship. Which if some have meant by the name of primacy, as perhaps they have: they might, because the word is borrowed often times from the proper signification of the first in order, to signify the chief in quality. And so, when Austin saith, that Peter was a man by nature; a Christian by grace; by more abundant grace, an Apostle of Christ, yea, the first Apostle : by, the first Apostle, he meant the chief Apostle ; the principality, by the primacy. But this principality of the Apostleship, this preeminence of the primacy with grace so excellent and abundant, cometh no nearer unto your supremacy then did the primacy of order. For, to be chief in grace, is one thing: and, to be chief in power, another.

And is it not a great grace, to be chief in power ?

As you say: the greatest grace, that your Popes of long time have fought for. Yet there is a difference between grace and power. Which the Popes Lawiers have observed well: as it behooved them to do. For many Doctors have been endued with greater grace of the holy Ghost, then sundry Popes, saith Gratian: yet in the deciding of controversies and causes the writings of the Doctors are of less authority then the Popes decrees. Why? because the Popes are in power above them. But what speak I of Doctors? when the meanest Christians may pass the Pope in grace, as it is confessed by Cardinal Turrecremata. Who, handling the question between the Pope and the Church, whether of them is greater, when he had set down the reason of his adversaries, that the Church is greater, because it is the body, the Pope a member of it, and the whole must needs be greater then the part : he answereth thereto, that, the question is not whether the Church be greater then the Pope, simply, to weete, in perfection of grace, and amplenes of virtues; for even an old woman may in this sort be perfiter and greater then the Pope him self; but in power of jurisdiction (he saith) the Pope is greater. Wherefore if the Popes supremacy do stand in power of jurisdiction, and a woman may be above him in grace : then Peter might excel with the preeminence of grace, as Austin saith he did : and yet not excel in supremacy of power, which you conclude of it. Else, you must take the supremacy from Peter, and give it to the blessed virgin. Unless you you will deny that she excelled him in grace.

I will not deny it. Neither did I mean to prove the supremacy by the preeminence of grace, alone, in Peter: but by the preeminence of so excellent grace, concurring with the primacy. Whereto, because you think these privileges (touched by Austin) do not prove it: the title of the Prince of the Apostles, which all antiquity giveth him, may add weight and strength.

Which all antiquity giveth him ? That speech is too lauishing. Beside that, some of them who give it to him, give it to Paul also. But suppose that all : and to him only. What is there implied more in this title, then I have granted you already? For must he not be needs the Prince of the Apostles, to whom the principality of the Apostleship is allowed? And if the principality of the Apostleship infer not your supremacy: can you infer a supreme head by the Prince of the Apostles ? But the name of Prince perhaps doth deceive you, or you deceive others by it. For our English tongue doth use it to note a sovereign power in government: as the Princes of Judah, the Princes of Israel, the Princes of the Gentiles are named in the scriptures. Whereas the Fathers used it (after the Latin phrase) for chief, and most excellent : as Plato is named the prince of the Philosophers. As Plato, saith Jerome, was prince of the philosophers, so was Peter of the Apostles. Wherefore, this is all you may conclude of it, that Peter did excel amongst the Apostles, for grace and gifts of grace: as Plato did excel among the Philosophers for wit, and gifts of wit. In the which conclusion (that you may perceive what I give to Peter, and refuse it, if you mislike it:) by the gifts of grace I mean all the blessings, wherewith the Lord did honor him; by excelling in them, I mean that he did pass, not all the Apostles in them all, but everyone in some or other. For John, the disciple, whom the Lord loved, who wrote the Gospel so divinely, In the beginning was the word, who saw by revelation the things that were to come, and wrote them by the spirit of prophecy: John excelled Peter in many gifts of grace, as Jerome declareth. And Paul excelled him farther even in the chiefest gifts: in so much that Austin who giveth excellent grace to Peter, doth give most excellent grace to Paul ; and saith that he received more grace, and labored more, then all the rest of the Apostles, and is therefore called the Apostle, by an excellency. But Peter of the other side excelled Paul in primacy, that he was chosen first: and John in age, that he was elder : in respect whereof he was preferred before him ( by Jerome's opiniō) to be the chief of the Apostles. And this is it, which Jerome, and other Fathers meant by Peters principality : if you will give them leave to be their own interpreters. They did not mean to call him Prince of the Apostles, as the Pope desireth to be Prince of Bishops.

They did mean to call him the mouth, and the top, the highest, the President, and the head of the Apostles. For these, (as I have shown) are their own words, by which, a preeminence in government is proved, and not in grace only.

These in deed come nearer to the point in question, because they touch government : at the least some of thē. For some, as the highest (and so the top it may be too,) seem to have been meant rather of preeminence in grace, then in government. But if you will refer them unto both: it skilleth not. For they can betoken no more then the rest. And the rest do signify, although a preeminence in government, such as it is: yet nothing in comparison of your supremacy. This is plain by that, which was agreed betwixt us, when we spake of the practice of Peters authority in the Acts of the Apostles. For when I granted him to be as the Speaker of y ^e Parliament in England, or the President of a court of Parliament in France, and shown the great difference (out of a lawyer of your own) between this preeminence, and that supremacy which you claim: you rejected the lawyer, as either ignorant, or unfaithful, and refused this preeminence as not importing that supremacy; because it hath not sovereign power, nay, in power is under the body of the assembly, above which it is in a prerogative of honor. Yet, this preeminence, is all, that is given to Peter by the titles of the mouth, the head, the President of the Apostles. Wherefore, it is evident that by those titles your Papal supremacy is not given to him.

It may by your similitudes be probably thoght, y ^t some of y ^e rest might note such a preeminēce in government (as you speak of) without a souerainty of power. But, y ^e title of head hath greater strength in it. For, the Speaker is not called with us, in England, the head of the Parliament. That title is reserved to the Princ e alone.

But the President of a Court of Parliament in France, is called head of the Court : and Austin (or rather he, whom you alleged in the name of Austin) expoundeth head, by President: and the name of head (as I have proved out of the Scriptures) is used to note a preeminence of other things, & not of power (much less of Princely power) only. Then what reason is there, but Jerome, in saying that Peter was appointed head, might signify the preeminence not of a Prince but of a Speaker? We give not in England, the name of head unto the Speaker. True. Neither give we the name of Speaker to the Prince. But Peter hath them both. For he is called the mouth, and head of the Apostles. If the one debase him not to the meanness of a Speakers function: why should the other advance him to the highness of a Princes sovereignty?

S. Jerome's reason showeth, that he rather meant a sovereignty as of a Prince. For he • aith, that Peter was chosen, one, amongst the twelve, to the intent, that (a head being appointed) occasion of schism might be taken away. And how can occasion of schism be taken away, unless that one have souerain power to govern all?

Why? Doo you not think that France appointed Presidents in the Courts of Parliament for the better ordering of them in their doings, that occasion of strife might be taken away? What? In free States, which are ruled in commō, not by one Prince but by the best men, or by the whole people : do not their stories show, that one had a preeminence, (as the Consul at Rome, the Prouost at Athens, ) though the sovereignty were in many, who had like authority and power amongst themselves? And did they not appoint this one, to be the chief, and head of their company, that occasion of strife might be taken away? So fared it with Peter amongst the Apostles in governing the church, whose state if we compare with the states of common wealths, we shall find that it was an aristocratie, not a monarchy, as the Philosophers term it; not having Peter as a Prince, but the Apostles as the best men, to govern it in common. Yet, as in all assemblies wherein many meet about affairs of government, there must needs be one for orders sake and peace, to begin, to end, to moderate the actions: so was that preeminence given to Peter amongst the Apostles, that all things might be done peaceably and orderly. And this to be the headship which S. Jerome meant, himself in that very place, in which he toucheth it, doth show manifestly. For, having set down his adversaries objection: But, thou sayest, the church is built upon Peter : he answereth thereto, Although the same be done in another place on all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, & the strength of the church is grounded on them equally: yet therefore is one chosen amongst the twelve, that (a head being appointed) occasion of schism may be taken away. Of the which sentence the former branch showeth y ^t by the name of head, used in the later, he could not mean that Peter had a sovereign power over the Apostles. For all Peters power is comprised in the keys that Christ did promise him, and in the building of the church upon him. But all the Apostles receive the keys, by Jerome's judgment: and the church is builte upon them all equally. Wherefore by Jerome's judgment, Peter was not over the Apostles in power. If not in power; & yet in part of government: in what, but in that preeminence, which I spake of? S. Jerome therefore, saying, that Peter was appointed head of the Apostles, did mean that preeminence among the Apostles, and not a sovereignty above them.

The words of S. Jerome do speak somewhat too liberally of the Apostles, in that he saith the church is built upon them all equally. And, as D. Stapleton noteth very well, the distinction touching things written by the Fathers, some by way of doctrine, and some of contention, is verified in them. For here, by occasion that he reasoneth against Jovinian, who alleged (against the honor of virginity) that Christ preferred Peter, a married man, before the rest : he doth lessen and extenuate the authority of Peter, (as far as truth did give him leave,) making the rest equal to him for the Apostleship; yet affirming plainly, that he was head of the rest.

Jerome wrote many things in deed against Jovinian by way of contention rather, then of doctrine, to the disgrace of marriage. In so much that being therefore reproved by some, himself excuseth it, that he did rather strive thē teach : and Pammachius, a learned gentleman, his freend, did suppress the copies, and wished them to be concealed till he had corrected them. But neither was this place so reproved by them, or excused by him, for ought that may be gathered by his apology : nor is it to be noted, as savoring more of heat, then truth; for the substance of it agreeth with the scriptures. Yea Stapleton, who covereth it with this distinction, confesseth in effect as much at unawares: For, he saith that Jerome doth lessen and extenuate the authority of Peter, as far as truth did give him leave. Wherof it ensueth, that it is no untruth to say (as Jerome doth) that all the Apostles had equal power with Peter. The name of head therefore, which Jerome giveth him with the same breath, can by no means import a sovereign power over y ^e Apostles. Unless you will make him so absurd, and brainesicke, as that he should say: Though none of the Apostles were sovereign of the rest, but they had equal power all; yet was one of them above the rest in power, and had the souerain-headship of them.

Well. Howsoever you handle Jerome's words: he saith in flat terms that which you denied. And therefore he maketh against you with us.

In what point? Or how?

You denied that Peter was head of the Apostles. Jerome saith, he was. Peter was not head: and Peter was head. Is there not a contradiction between your words, and his?

No more, then between the words of John and Christ Christ said of John the Baptist: this is Elias. John the Baptist said of him self, I am not Elias. John the Baptist is Elias: and John the Baptist is not Elias. Is there not a contradiction between the words of Christ and John ?

No. For Christ meant one way: and John the Baptist, another. Christ, that he was Elias in spirit; as coming in the spirit and power of Elias: John the Baptist, that he was not Elias in person; which the Pharisees meant.

You have answered well. So Jerome meant one way: and I another. Jerome, that he was head in a preeminence of government; as moderating the actions in assemblies of the Apostles: I, that he was not head in sovereignty of power; which the Papists mean. And thus, to conclude, you may see that the Fathers whom you allege for Peter: some give him a prerogative of authority, some of primacy, some of principality, but none of your supremacy. For, your supremacy doth consist in power: and they give equal power to Peter with the rest.

Equall power (I grant) in respect of the Apostleship, but not of pastoral charge. For Peter was over thē in that, even as the Pope is over Bishops. And so we do expound the words of S. Cyprian, S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom, and other of the Fathers: who give equal power to the Apostles with Peter.

Yet more of these Colewortes? I have proved already that Peters pastoral charge, and his Apostleship, is all one: and therefore, if they were equal to him in the Apostleship, the were in pastoral charge too. But if no other reason will put you to silence: the Popes own authority may force you to it here. For, in the Cyprian set forth by him at Rome, he noteth it to be considered, that, whereas Cyprian saith, The rest of the Apostles had equal power with Peter, this must be understood of the equality of Apostleship, which ceased when the Apostles died, and passed not over unto Bishops. The drift of which note implieth a distinction of Apostles, and Bishops : that it is not with Bishops in respect of the Pope, as it was with the Apostles in respect of Peter. And that doth carry with it a check of your opinion: which maketh the Apostles underlings to Peter, as Bishops to the Pope.

You know not who made that note in the Roman Cyprian : for there is no man's name to it. But if the Pope either made it him self, or allowed of it being made by others to whom he did commit that charge: he set down (as a private Doctor) his own opinion, which they who list may follow. But this is my opinion, which I have set down: and to that I stand.

I am glad you think not as the Pope doth, at least, in one point. God grant, that you may come forward in the rest: to dissent from him, not in this one point alone, but in many. Howbeit whether he, or others made that note: they set it forth with greater authority and privilege, then as a private Doctors fancy. Neither is it likely that they would have granted so much to the Apostles, unless the truth had wroong it from them. Let your righteousness, M. Hart, if not exceed, yet match the righteousness of Scribes and Pharisees: and yield to this conclusion (which riseth of our conference,) that Peter was not head of all the Apostles, as you do take the name of head.

You shall conclude yourself alone so, for me. For I do protest, that I believe it not, nor mind to yield unto it.

Then wisdom must be content to be justified of her childrē. Howbeit God is able to change your heart in such sort, that as in the Gospel, he, who said he would not go into the vineyard, repented afterward, and went: so you may yield to this on better advise, to which you say you will not yield. Though, if your opinion of Peters supremacy were granted to be true: it proveth not your title to the Popes supremacy (the principal point in question) which you claim thereby. For let us fain, that Peter was head of the Apostles. How followeth it thereof, that the Bishop of Rome is head of all the Church of Christ?

It followeth by the second part of my reason: The Bishop of Rome succeedeth Peter in the same power over Bishops, that he had over the Apostles. For, if Peters power over the Apostles did reach unto the whole flock, both of the sheep and the lambes: then must the same power of his successor over Bishops reach by like reason unto the same flock, and so to all the Church of Christ.

But how do you prove that the Bishop of Rome succeedeth Peter in his power?

Because that the power committed to Peter was not to die with Peter. For this had not been agreeable to the goodness and wisdom of Christ: vpō whom it lay to provide for his church until the end of the world, as Austin showeth he did. Think not (saith he to the Church) think not thyself forsaken, because thou seest not Peter, because thou seest not Paul, because thou seest not them by whom thou art begotten. Of thine offspring there is grown unto thee a fatherhood: in steed of thy fathers, children are borne unto thee.

The goodness and wisdom of our Savior Christ provided for his Church, as S. Paul witnesseth, by giving Pastors, and teachers: Pastors, and teachers ; not one, to the whole; but many to the several partes of his Church. For they, whom Christ hath chosen to serve him in the ordinary feeding of his flock, to instruct his people, and guide them in the way of life, until the end of the world: are named in the scripture sometime Elders, of their age; sometime Bishops of their duty. And he hath taken order by his spirit and word that such should be appointed in every Church, through every city. This was it that Austin regarded, when he said; the church is not forsaken although she see not the Apostles: considering that in steed of the Apostles, she hath Bishops. For by the name of [Fathers] he meant the Apostles, and by the name of [children] bishops: In steed of thy fathers, children are borne unto thee. Which, how it may serve your purpose, I see not. Unless perhaps you mean, that (amongst those children ) the Bishop of Rome should be heir, as eldest: and Bishops of other cities should be handled, all, like younger brethren. But Austin saith not so.

It is proved by Austin that our Savior Christ provided for his church. And this (I grant) he did by giving several Pastors unto several flocks: but so, that he committed the charge of them all to one supreme Pastor; which is the Bishop of Rome.

Thus I hear you say. But I had rather hear, Thus saith the Lord.

You shall hear it. The Lord saith that there shall be one flock, and one shepherd, or (as we translate it) one fold and one Pastor. whereof I make this reason. By the name of Pastor is noted an ordinary government and charge, which hath relation to a flock: and therefore, as long as the flock continueth, the Pastors office must continue; the office of one Pastor, as the flock is one. It continued in Peter, when Christ made him supreme Pastor. Now, when Peter died, it should continue in his successor. And the successor of Peter is the Bishop of Rome. The Bishop of Rome therefore is the supreme Pastor of the Church of Christ.

I perceive your Pope can make no show of title to supreme-headship of the Church, unless he put Christ from the possession of it. For Christ by [one Pastor] doth signify himself: as it may appear by the drift of all his speech, wherein he maintaineth his office and authority against the slanders of the Pharisees. I am, saith he, the good Pastor, and know mine own, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep. Other sheep I have also, which are not of this fold: and them must I bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one flock, one Pastor. One Pastor, who but he, of whom the words afore, and after, are meant? He, who is the good Pastor ; who knoweth his sheep ; who layeth down his life for them ; who hath other sheep beside the Jews, to weete, the Gentiles, whom he will bring to his fold ; and so of them both the Church shall be, as one flock ; obeying Christ, as one Pastor. This is the one Pastor, that our Savior meant. Which if you will not believe on my word, or rather on his word who spake it: believe your own Bible, expounding it by conference of scripture with scripture, of John with Ezekiel. In whom God doth promise that he will make (of Israel, & Judah ) one people : and set his servant David (that is, Christ, the son of David ) to be one Pastor unto them all, and he shall feed them. Thus, in God's law, the words are meant of Christ. The Pope in his law, will have him self meant by them. You are angry with us, when we call him Antichrist. Is not the name of Antichrist too gentle for him, who claimeth that to himself, which is proper to Christ ?

The Pope will have himself to be meant by them, as the vicar of Christ : and so they do belong to him. Though they belong also to Christ : which we deny not. For thus saith the Pope. Of the Church, which is one, there is one body, and one head, not two heads, as a monster, namely Christ and Christ's vicar Peter, and Peters successor: since the Lord saith to Peter himself, Feede my sheep: my sheep, saith he, in general, not in particular these or these: whereby he is understood to have committed all to him. Whether they be therefore Grecians or others, who say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors: they must needs confess them selves not to be of the sheep of Christ: Since the Lord saith in John, that there is one fold and one Pastor. Which words, though they conclude the Pope to be that one Pastor : yet you must not take them as though the Pope meant them of himself alone, but that they are verified first in Christ, then in Peter, lastly in himself. And so there continueth one Pastor by succession, even as the Church continueth one.

Doo you know what you say, when you say, there continueth one Pastor by succession, Peter after Christ, the Pope after Peter ? I hope you do it ignorantly, and therefore may obtain mercy, though you blaspheme in it.

Blaspheme ? why say you so?

Because you deny Christ the Son of God to be the one Pastor, and so the head of his Church. For he to whom another succeedeth in an office, doth cease him self to bear the office: as Felix did cease to be governor of Jury, when Festus was in place to be his successor. Wherefore if the office of that one Pastor continue by succession : then doth it wholly rest in the successor, that is the Pope ; and Christ, the predecessor is discharged of it.

You speak as though we named the Pope, Christ's successor: which we are far from. For we know that Priests after the order of Aaron had therefore successors, because they were not suffered to endure by reason of death. But Christ endureth ever, as being a Priest after the order of Melchizedek: and so hath no successors. We name S. Peter, Christ's vicar: the Pope Christ's vicar, and successor of Peter: but neither Peter, nor the Pope, successor of Christ.

If it be as you say, then raze out for shame that profane speech out of your sacred Ceremonies of the Church of Rome: Christ did first name and ordain Peter, his successor, saying to him, Feede my sheep: and in the same sort did Peter also name Clemens. But since you acknowledge that Christ is one Pastor, and yet hath no successor: you have given over the fortress of that which you meant to seize on by those words of Christ, that there should be one flock, one Pastor. For where as you said that this sovereign Pastor must & doth continue one by succession, in Peter, and the Pope : you confess now, that without succession he doth continue one in person, even Christ, the Pastor of our souls, the great, the chief Pastor, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, that is, of the seven (and by consequent of all) Churches.

I confess, that Christ continueth the Pastor of our souls, the chief Pastor, and hath no successor, as succession is taken properly. But he made a vicar, that is a chief Pastor, under him, in earth to continue by succession. Whom also he meant by the name of one Pastor, and not himself alone.

The very words of scripture, and circumstances of the text do prove the contrary. For, to whom did Christ speak, when he said: I have other sheep, which are not of this fold: and them must I bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one flock, one Pastor ? was it not to the Jews ?

To the Jews.

Then by other sheep, not of that fold, he meant the Gentiles.

The Gentiles.

And it was Christ's office, to bring them also to his fold.

It was so.

To bring them by his voice, which they should hear.

What then?

Is not he the Pastor, whose voice the sheep hear ?

Who denieth it?

Then if the Jews and Gentiles hear the voice of Christ, and so become one flock : how could he mean any but himself alone by the one Pastor ?

Him self alone (I grant) directly, and first: but secondarily, and by consequent, his vicar too, Peter, and Peters successor. For Christ, while he lived in flesh upon the earth, did not bring the Gentiles: he was not sent (he said) but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. In the which respect S. Paul calleth him y ^e minister of circumcision, because he did execute his office, and ministry, only towards the people of circumcision, that is, the Jews. The Gentiles he did bring after his ascension, by the ministry of his servants, chiefly of S. Peter : whom having instructed by a vision from heaven, he sent him to Cornelius, & chose him that the Gentiles should hear by his mouth the word of the Gospel, and believe. Wherefore, as Christ said, that he must bring the Gentiles, though he meant to bring them not by his own preaching, but by the mouth of Peter ; and so Peter brought them after a sort too: likewise he gave him self the name of one Pastor, though he fed his flock not in his own person, but in his vicar; and so might he mean his vicar too thereby.

This is a greater argument, that he meant not Peter, nor Peters successor (as you term him) by the name of one Pastor. For if he meant him self, not as he lived in the flesh, but as he reigneth in glory: then meant he that prerogative which is only his, as head of the Church, and may be no way given unto flesh and blood. For the proof whereof we are to weigh farther, that in saying I must bring them, & they shall hear my voice : he meaneth effectual bringing, and hearing, through which they, who are his sheep, do follow him, and he doth give them eternal life, and they shall never perish: and none shall pluck them out of his hand. Now, whom Christ bringeth after this manner, he bringeth them by two means: by the preaching of his word, and the working of his Spirit. As he worketh by his Spirit: so he hath no vicar, him self doth open the heart of Lydia : and baptize with the holy Ghost : and is with his disciples still until the end of the world. As he calleth by his word: so are all ministers of the word, his vicars. For he sendeth them in his steed, and preacheth unto men by them. So he saith to the twelve Apostles, He that receiveth you, receiveth me : and to the seventy disciples, He that heareth you, heareth me. So Paul saith of him self, Timothy, Siluanus, and the rest that labored with him, We are ambassadors for Christ, God as it were beseeching you through us: we pray you in Christ's steed, be ye reconciled to God. First therefore, since the Spirit doth make the word effectual, and Christ hath no vicar, as he worketh by his Spirit: it followeth, y ^t in naming him self, y ^e one Pastor, who doth bring his sheep, and they hear his voice, he could imply no vicar. For the word doth sound in vain to the ear, unless the Lord do open the heart with his Spirit: and neither he that planteth is anything, nor he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase. Again, if he had implied their ministry, by whom the sheep hear his voice, and so are brought: yet must that belong to many vicars, not to one; or if to one, not to Peter. For they, who should be brought thereby, are the Gentiles: and Christ hath brought the Gentiles by many Pastors and teachers, not only by the Apostles: nor amongst the Apostles by Peter chiefly, but by Paul : and that, through the calling of the holy Ghost, and their agreement between them selves. Finally, if Christ had meant (as you distinguish it) him self first, and directly; secondarily, & by consequent Peter : it must be for his preaching y ^e word to the flock. And what is this to Peters successor the Pope: who preacheth not as Peter did? For, he useth not to preach, but when he saith Mass; nor then, unless he list: and he saith not Mass, but on a few hie feasts; nor then, if he be let: and the Italian government, specially the Papacy so discreetly menaged, must needs have lets a number. His Princely cares do trouble him: he leaveth Priestly to the Friers. Wherefore, that sacrilegious usurper of Rome committeth two evils, against, both the head, and the body of the Church. Against the head: in that he maketh the prerogative of one Pastor common to all Popes, which is proper to Christ. Against the body: in that he claimeth the title of Christ's vicar, as proper to him self, which is common to all Pastors.

Nay, you who revile the high priest of God, commit a great evil. But he committeth none at all. For he taketh not the prerogative of one Pastor as Christ, but under Christ. And he claimeth the title of Christ's vicar, by an excellency, as the chief, and general: though all other Bishops be Christ's vicars also.

This is to roale the stone of Sisyphus. You drive it up the hill, and still it slippeth backward: yet cease you not to strive, but you strive in vain. For though you fetch it up never so often, down again it will. All Bishops (you say) are the vicars of Christ: but the Pope claimeth that title by an excellency. True. By an excellency he robbeth all Bishops of that honor, which Christ hath given them. For he doth account them all to be his vicars, as Cardinal Turrecremata calleth them expressly the vicars of the Pope : and proveth by the Popes own law, that they are so. Wherefore if you will have them Christ's vicars too: the matter must be helped out with your distinction, that first, and directly, they are the Popes vicars; and Christ's, by a consequent, and secondarilie. As for the man, whom you call the hie priest of God: I know him not. For he is not the hie priest, of the Jews, I trow. And Christians have no hie priest, but the Son of the Highest: even him, of whom it is written, such an hie priest it became us to have, which is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher then the heavens. Wherefore, I speak not the words of reviling, but of truth and modesty, when I call him a sacrilegious usurper, who taketh the crown of the king of kings, and fetteth it on his own head. This doth that man of sin: who saith that it is necessary for every man unto salvation, to be subject to the Pope: and that they, who say he hath not charge over them, are not of Christ's sheep, because the Lord saith in John, that there shall be one flock and one pastour.

You need not account it so heinous a matter to conclude that doctrine by these words of Christ. Chiefely, since it is probable, that he meant them rather of the Pope then him self. For he saith, there shall be one flock and one Pastor : he saith not, there hath been ; but, there shall be. Now him self, as being God, was always Pastor of the Gentiles also, no less thē of the Jews. And so in respect of him there had before been one flock, and one pastor. Wherefore since he speaketh of a thing that should be, not that had been already: he might be well thought to have meant not him self but the Pope rather, who (in his steed) is Pastor both of Jews and Gentiles.

Had the Gentiles always God for their Pastor, as well as the Jews? What meant S. Paul then, who saith, to the Gentiles: ye were without Christ, and aliens from the common wealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, and had no hope, and were without God in the world? For God is called Pastor, in respect of them, whom he guideth, and feedeth with the food of life. So that if he were Pastor of the Gentiles always, as you say he was: then they were always faithful, and members of the Church, and had the hope of God in Christ. But if they were before without Christ, without hope, without God in the world, and aliens from the common wealth of Israel, that is, the Church, and strangers from the covenants of promise made to the faithful, as they were, S. Paul saith: then neither were they one flock with the Jews, neither was God their one Pastor. wherefor what • oeuer show of probability the Pope might seem to have for abusing those words to maintain his own pride: in truth they agree to him, who broke the stop of the partition-wall, and made of both one, that is to Christ Jesus, and only to Christ.

Well. If the words agree not to the Pope perhaps in one sense: they may in another. For there are sundry senses of the holy scriptures, but in general two, as Father Robert showeth whereof the one is called historical, or literal; the other, mystical, or spiritual. And so the speech of Christ touching one Pastor, might signify the Pope in a mystical sense, though not in the literal. As likewise the name of hye priest, signifying the Jewish literally, doth mystically betoken him.

That sense is the right sense of the scriptures, which the holy Ghost, the author of them, meant. Now, the holy Ghost hath uttered them in such sort, that not the words only do signify things, according to their natural sense: but the things also expressed by the words do signify other things, according to the Lord's ordinance, who shadowed that by figures in the old Testament, which is performed in the new. As, for example, it is written in the law of Moses, you shall not break a bone of him. These words are spoken touching the lamb of the passover: and signify, as they sound, that the Jews should dress it whole, without breaking any bone thereof. But this thing doth signify a fa • there thing in secret: to weete, that when Christ, who was represented & figured by the lamb, should suffer death to save us, a bone of him should not be broken. Thus, of one place there are two senses: the former called literal, because the letter, as it were that is the very words, being understood aright, do import it; and the later, mystical, because the thing imported and meant by the letter, doth betoken a deeper mystery. Of these, the literal sense is known to be the meaning of the holy Ghost. For words were made to open the conceits of our mind: and so are they used by the holy Ghost to show the will of God unto us. The mystical is known to be his meaning also, when himself revealeth it: as he hath done in that touching the lamb. Otherwise it is not. For men may devise many mystical senses of a place in scripture, and them, one contrary to another: as often times they do. Which all could not be meant by the Spirit of truth: and whether any of them were, who can say? We have no assurance then of mystical senses: which may be men's fancies. Only the literal sense, which is meant undoubtedly by the holy Ghost, is of force to prove the assured truth, and therefore doth bind in matters of belief. And this is so clear that your own Doctors acknowledge it, and teach it: even he whom you alleged. For he saith, It is agreed between you and us that forcible aguments ought to be drawn only from the literal sense: and that is surely known to be the sense and meaning of the holy Ghost. As for mystical senses, it is not always sure, whether the holy Ghost meant them: unless they be expounded in the scriptures, as that in John, you shall not break a bone of him. Which excepted, it is a folly to go about to prove the pointes of faith forcibly by mystical senses. Wherefore if it be not expounded in the scriptures, that the words of Christ (touching one Pastor ) are meant, as of him self, by the literal sense; so, by the mystical, of the Pope: you see that Father Robert saith, it is a folly, to go about to prove the Popes supremacy by them, if you will prove it forcibly. Now, what I say of one Pastor : the same I say of high Priest. By whom, the law of Moses doth signify the hye priest, literally: the epistle to the Hebrews doth show that mystically he betokened Christ. But that the Pope was meant by him in any sense either literal or mystical: I find not in the scriptures.

But I find in the scriptures that Christians must still have a hye Priest amongst thē on earth, to be their chief judge.

Were find you that?

In the seventeenth chapter of the book of Deuteronomy, even in these words. If there rise a matter too hard for thee in judgment between blood and blood, between cause & cause, between plague and plague, in the matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and go up to the place which the Lord thy God shall choose, and thou shalt come to the Levitical priests, and to the judge, that shall be in those days, and ask, and they shall show thee the sentence of judgment. And thou shalt do according to that thing which they shall show thee from that place that the Lord shall choose: and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they shall inform thee. According to the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, shalt thou do. Thou shalt not decline from the thing which they shall show thee, neither to the right hand, nor to the left. And he that shall presumptuously refuse to obey the commandment of the Priest who serveth then the Lord thy God: by the decree of the judge shall that man die, and thou shalt take away evil out of Israel. Here the hye Priest is made the chief judge, to hear, and determine, hard and doubtful causes, amongst the people of God. And who amongst Christians is such a Priest and judge, but the Pope only?

Now the first chapter of the book of Genesis would serve you as well to prove the Popes supremacy, if it were considered. For it is written there: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

What mean you so to say?

Nay ask that of him who doth expound it so: saying, that whosoever resisteth his supremacy, resisteth God's ordinance; unless he fain (as Manichee did) that there are two beginninges, which is false & heretical: because, as Moses witnesseth, not, in the beginninges, but in the beginning God created heaven and earth ▪ See, in the beginning, not, in the beginninges: and therefore not many are hye Priests of the Church, but the Pope only.

The place, which I alleged, doth plainly speak of the high Priest : and so it doth serve my purpose more fitly, then this, which doth not touch him. Howbeit, as learned men, when they have proved a point by stronger arguments, are wont to set it forth with floorishes of lighter reasons, rather to polishe it as it were, then to work it and frame it: so the Pope having brought better evidence for proof of his supremacy, doth trim it up with this of Genesis, as you would say, by an allusion.

An illusion, you should say. But the places both, as well this of Genesis, as that of Deuteronomy, are taken in a mystical sense of your own: so that to win a matter which must be wunne by sound proof, they are both of like force, because that neither is of any. For the literal sense of that in Deuteronomy doth concern the Jews : to whom the Lord spake it by his servant Moses. Now, how dangerous it is to build, as upon scripture, things, which are not grounded upon y ^e literal sense thereof: we may learn by the mystical sense of that place, which a Pope giveth; and no common Pope, but Innocentius the third, the Father of the Lateran-council, in which your popish Shrift and Transubstantiation were enacted first. He, in a decretal (which is enrolled in y ^e canon law, as a rule of the government of y ^e Church forever) doth bring forth that same place of Deuteronomy, to prove that the Pope may exercise temporal jurisdiction not only in his own dominion, but in other countries too, on certain causes. And, because Deuteronomi • is the second law, by interpretation: it is proved (saith he) by the force of the word, that what is there decreed ought to be observed in the new Testament. Upon the which principle he doth expound it thus: that the place which the Lord hath chosen, is Rome: the Levitical Priests are his brethren, the Cardinals: the judge is himself, the vicar of Christ: the judgments are of three sortes; the firs • , between blood and blood, is meant of criminal & civil causes; the last, between plague and plague, of ecclesiastical and criminal; the middle, between cause & cause, pertaineth unto both ecclesiastical & civil. In the which when anything shall be hard or doubtful: recourse must be had to the judgment of the See Apostolic (that is, of Rome: ) whose determination if any man presumptuously refuse to obey, he is adjudged to die, that is, to be cut off, as a dead man, from the communion of the faithful by excommunication. Lo: this is a mystical sense of that place, which you alleged out of Deuteronomy. It runneth very roundly with the Popes supremacy. But Christian States (I hope) will hold the literal sense against it. For if they allow this doctrine of Pope Innocentius, as catholic: the Pope must be supreme head of all Christians, both in ecclesiastical causes and civil. The mystery of iniquity did work very fast, when the chiefest mysteries of the Romish faith were built upon such mystical senses.

I know that the mystical senses of the scripture are of no strength to convince an adversary. But the literal sense of that which I alleged doth prove the point in question. For there lieth often times, within the literal, another sense hidden: which is not directly uttered, and plainly, but is gathered and inferred by the force of argument. As, for example, God said to comfort Moses and the Israelites, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. These words in the first sense, do signify the covenant that God made with Abraham and with Abraham's seed, whom he chose to be his servants, and promised he would be their God. But Christ allegeth them to prove (against the Sadducees ) the resurrectiō of the dead. Which he doth conclude by consequence of reason. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. He is the God of Abraham ▪ Therefore Abraham is not dead. Abraham is a man consisting of two partes, the soul and the body. If Abraham then live, and yet his body be dead: his body must rise again, to the end that God may justly be called the God, not of Abraham's soul, but of Abraham. Wherefore, in that God is called the God of Abraham, it followeth (by discourse) that the bodies of men shall be raised from death to life. Is not this reason contained in the literal sense of the scripture, from which it is deduced?

Yes: and is of force to prove the point in controversy. For whatsoever followeth necessarily of the literal sense: that is as true and sound as the sense, whereof it followeth. But how will you gather so the Popes supremacy from the place in Deuteronomy.

By a reason, which I ground upon the likeness and proportion of the Church of Christ to the children of Israel. For if the Israelites had a high Priest to be their judge in matters of difficulty and doubt, between blood and blood, between cause & cause, between plague and plague: why should not we semblably have a hie Priest to be the judge in our causes?

This reasō is drawn from a similitude: that, as it was amongst the Jews in the old Testament; so must it be amongst Christians in the new. Logicians say, that similitudes do halt of one foot. But this doth halt of both. For neither was the high Priest amongst the Jews, judge of all those matters: nether doth it follow thereof, although he had been, that amongst Christians there must a high priest be likewise judge of all. Els, it must be lawful for all your priests to marry. For it was so amongst the Jews. And Mass must be be said nowhere but at Rome. For the Jews might not sacrifice, but in the place which the Lord had chosen. And all the males, amongst the Jews, must go thither every year thrice. Which were overmuch for all your males, to Rome. Yet must they do it by your reason. For it is written in Deuteronomy. And because Deuteronomy is the second law by interpretation: the force of the word proveth, that, what is there decreed, ought to be observed in the New Testament, saith Pope Innocentius.

The condition of Christians is not in all respects like unto the Jews, nor Rome unto Jerusalem. And why it is not like in the matters which you mention: there may be reasons given.

May there be reasons given? Then reasons may be given, why your reason is naught. But, that you may see what a lame thing it is: mark the pointes whereon it standeth. First, the high Priest (you say) is the judge, to whom, for the deciding of hard and doubtful controversies, the Lord doth send the Jews. This the scripture saith not: but maketh a difference between the judge and the Priest. For it giveth sentence of death, upon him, who refuseth to hearken to the Priest, or to the judge. Wherein, by disioyning the Priest from the judge, it declareth plainly that the Priest was not the same that the judge.

Our commō editiō in Latin doth not read it so: but in this sort: he that shall presumptuously refuse to obey the commandment of the Priest, by the decree of the judge shall that man die. You see it is here, the commandment of the Priest : & the decree of the judge is another point. It is not, as you cite it, the Priest, or the judge.

It is not so in your Latin, which man hath translated. But it is so in the Hebrew, written by the Spirit of God.

But we have a decree of the Council of Trent, that our old and common edition in Latin shall be taken as authentical, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions: and that no man may dare or presume to reject it under any pretense. If no man may reject it under any pretense : then not under pretense of the Hebrew text. And that for great reason. For the Hebrew Bibles, which are extant now, are shamefully corrupted in many places by the Jews, of spite and malice against Christians: as Bishop Lindan showeth largely and learnedly, in the defense of that decree of the Trent-council.

This is a shameful slander brewed by Satan, and set a broch by Lindan; to the intent, that errors, which have prevailed in Popery, either by the fault of the Latin translator, or by the over sight of them who have mistaken him, should not be discovered and put to shame by the light of the Hebrew truth. And this shall appear by his arguments and dealings, if you will sift them in particular. If in general only you mean to use his name to discredit the truth, as your Doctor doth: I will send both you, and him, for an answer to three of the learnedst and fittest judges of this matter, that your church hath, even Isaac Leuita, Arias Montanus, and Payua Andradius. Of whom the first, being Lindans own master, and professor of the Hebrew tongue in the university of Coolen, hath written three books in defense of the Hebrew truth against the cavils of his scholar. The next, for his rare skill of tongues and arts, was put in trust by king Philip to set forth the Bible in Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek and Latin; wherein he hath reproved that treatise of Lindan, and disclosed his folly. The last, was the chiefest of the Divines and Doctors, at the Council of Trent. The decrees whereof though he have defended, and namely that which you mention: yet not so, but he hath withal con • uted them, who say, that the Jews have corrupted the Hebrew text. Your cause (M. Hart) beginneth to be desperate, when it can find no coouert▪ but such as your own patrons are ashamed off.

I have not read th • se men's discourses. But certainly whatsoever they say for the rest: neither they nor you shall be ever able to prove, that the Jews have not corrupted the Hebrew t • xt in the one and twenteeth Psalm, or two and twenteeth as they number it. For where it should be read (as our Latin hath it, and the Greek also) they have pierced my hands and my feet: the Hebrews now do read, not Caaru, that is, they have pierced; but Caari, that is, as a Lion; as a Lion my hands and my feet. Whereby, a notable prophecy describing so plainly the manner and kind of the passion of Christ should be taken out of our hands through the treachery of the Jews, if we should follow the Hebrew text as it is now. But it is so manifestly known to be corrupted: that yourselves, though allowing the Hebrew, as authentical, yet follow it not in this place, in your English Bibles.

This is the only argument, that Lindan hath of any show, to prove, that the Jews have corrupted the Hebrew text. But if it be weighed with an even balance: you shall find it a mere cavil. For what will you say of your own selves? Did the Church of Rome corrupt the Latin text in the third of Genesis, where it is read of the woman, she shall bruise thy head : for that which should be read of thewomans seed, he shall bruise thy head ?

Some of your men say so. But they do great injury to the Church therein.

They have as great cause, at least, if not greater, to say this of Romanists, as you the other of the Jews. For if▪ we match the prophecies; this is more notable, which is corrupted in your Latin: of the victory of Christ over Satan, and ours through him. If we compare errors; this is more manifest: in so much that it is proved to be an error even by Lindan also, not only by others; and the Hebrew text, with the Chaldee paraphrase, and the Greek translation, do all make against it, as the Divines of Louan grant.

But this might creep in by some human oversight, or negligence of scriueners: as sundry such errors have crept in to written books of all sortes, even in the best copies. The words [ipsa] and [ipse] in which the variance lieth, do not so greatly differ, but that a man might easily mistake the one for the other,

No more do the words Caaru, & Caari. The difference is as small. Wherefore if the one might be an oversight of scriueners in the Latin, as you say, and truly: why might not the other be likewise in the Hebrew, as it is gessed by Andradius. And that it was so, it is declared at large by Arias Montanus : who for his singular knowledge and judgment both in arts and tongues, was chosen, (as I said) to oversee the setting forth of that famous Bible in Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, and Latin, which was printed at Anwerpe, with the approbation of your Popes and Doctors. For (in the sixth tome of that work) he showeth, that, when the Jews returned into their country after their captivity of seventy years in Babylon: it befell unto them, partly by occasion of their long troubles which did distract their minds, partly by corruption of their native tongue which was grown out of kind, first into the Chaldee and afterward into the Syriac, that they neither knew nor pronounced so well the words of the scripture, written (as the manner was) without vowels. Whereby it came to pass that in the writing of them their crept in some fault, either through injury of the times, or by reason of troubles which fell upon the people, or by negligence of some scriueners. But this inconvenience was met withal afterward by most learned men: such as Esdras was, and afterward Gamaliel, Ioseus, Eleazar, and other of great name: who provided by common travel with great care and industry, that the text of scripture and the true reading thereof, should be preserved most sound and uncorrupt. And from these men, or from their instruction, being received and poolished by their scholars in the ages following, there came (saith he) as we judge, that most profitable treasure which is called Masoreth, that is to say, a delivery, because it doth deliver abundantly and faithfully all the diverse readings (that ever were) of the Hebrew Bibles, Wherein there appeareth an evident token of the providence of God, for the preservation of the sacred books of scripture whole, and sound: that the Masóreth hath been kept till our time these many hundred years with such care and diligence, that in sundry copies of it (which have been written) no difference was ever found; and it hath been added in all the written Bibles that are in Europe, Afric, or Asia, each of them agreing thoroughly therein with other, even as it is printed in the Venice-bibles, to the great wonder of them who read it. Now, in this Masoreth, made so long ago, so diligently written, so faithfully kept, in so many countries, through so many ages, as Arias Montanus witnesseth, the Jews them selves acknowledge by their own testimony, that where in common books it is read Caari, in certain it is Caaru. Wherefore, if some Jewish scriueners (who wrote out books) depraved it of malice, and spite, which might be, though they who accuse them do bring neither author, nor time, nor any sure argument to prove it, but if some depraved it: yet, seeing their Masôreth doth note the diverse reading, and in part doth justify that which is the truer: it is hard to charge them (as you do) with corrupting of the Hebrew text. Much harder, then if we should charge your Romish church, with corrupting of the Latin, where you read [ipsa] in steed of [ipse,] not he, but she shall bruise thy head.

Not so: for we have kept also that reading [ipse] even in our vulgar Latin translation. For the Divines of Louan do note that it is found in two written copies. And we do confess it to be more agreeable both to the Hebrew text, and the Chaldee paraphrase, & the Greek translation: yea that S. Jerome read it so too: as you may see in the Notations of Franciscus Lucas, to which our latin Bibles (set forth by the Divines of Louan ) do refer you.

Yet Franciscus Lucas doth wrangle still about it: and saith, that all the Latin copies, which they could find do read it [ipsa;] and of the two, which you mention, he doubteth, whether one did follow the Latin or the Hebrew ; and he maketh show of proof that the Hebrew may well agree to the Latin, with a little hammering of it. Yea, and that is more, as in all y ^e Bibles, y ^t I have seen of yours, y ^e Latin hath ipsa, not ipse, she, not he ; though your greatest friends have wished you (forshame) to mend it: so in an Hebrew text of y ^e famous Bible of king Philip, (which but now I mentioned) y ^e word [ he ] is altered according to the latin [ she; ] and that not of error but of purpose, as it is witnessed by Franciscus Lucas. Which is greater boldness in corrupting the Hebrew, thē you can justly charge y ^e Jews with. But if it besufficient to clear both y ^e Latin edition, & yourselves, y ^t you have found a book, or two, wherein [ipse] is read as your Divines say: how much more justly may we clear both the Hebrew text and the Jews, who, (as it is noted in their Masóreth ) found sundry books with [Caaru.] Chiefly, since they commend the books, as well corrected, which had that reading: you commend not yours. And they reprove a note, which some had made rashly, to bring in the other reading in steed of that: you make such notes yourselves. And they (upon the text, where [Caari] is read) do note that the word hath another meaning. then where it signifieth [as a Lion:] what note you so of [ipsa?] And you these many ages have kept in your Bibles a faulty reading, without any mention of the true: they have done the contrary in theirs of ancient time. Finally, where you can find but two copies, in which the Latin edition doth read ipse, not ipsa : if yet you can find two, (for of them you doubt:) they, beside the copies extant at the time that the Masóreth was written, have had sundry amongst them even till our days, in which it is read not Caari, but Caaru. For it is avouched out of many singular good copies, by Andradius : & Isaac protesteth that he saw such a one him self with his grandfather: and Petrus Galatinus saith, that even yet it is found so written in certain copies most ancient. Whereby you may see withal, how unjustly you cast us in the teeth, that our English Bibles follow not the Hebrew text in this place. For tell me, I pray. In the English translation of the New Testament (which you at Reims did travel in) translated you never a word, that you found not in the common text of the Latin edition?

Yes: when by the Greek or the Fathers we saw it was a manifest fault of the writers heretofore, that mistook one word for another.

Yet, when you did so, you translated faithfully out of the authentical Latin into English.

What else? Because we did it according to the best corrected copies of the Latin.

And why say you then, that we translate not according to the Hebrew, when we translate according to the best corrected copies of the Hebrew ? Specially, when we, beside y ^e Masoreth, do follow the consent of written copies so many: where you sometime translate that which was found in one, though all the rest were against it. But thus shall they dash their foot against the stones, who will run when they are blind.

Nay you are blind rather, who do call us blind. We can speak such words as easily of you, as you may of us.

As easily: but not as justly. For it is notorious, that, in this opinion, which you hold out of Stapleton, and he • ut of Lindan, both they and you are blinded: what through ignorance of truth, touching the Hebrew text; what through fancy to error, in the Latin translation. Through ignorance of the Hebrew : in that you say, the Jews have shamefully corrupted it. Which Arias Montanus (no partial judge herein) noteth to be their saying who know not the Masoreth. Through fancy to the Latin: in that you account of it, as authentical. And refusing the original text, under color, that one place thereof hath in some copies a fault in one letter: you prefer a translation which hath many such throughout all copies, as the Divines of Louan show; which hath (by confession of your own Lindan ) monstrous corruptions of all sortes ; which is printed so, even among yourselves, that scarce one copy can be found, that hath one book of scripture whole & undefiled: in which there are many pointes that are translated too intricately, and darkly, yea some improperly, some abusively, some not so fully, yea not so well and truly ; and (to be short) which hath sundry places thrust out from their plain and natural sense, chiefly in the Psalms and the New Testament: as Lindan (not content to vouch it of him self) doth prove by the testimonies of the ancient Fathers, Austin, and Jerome, and Hilary, and Victorinus. Are not they blind, who prefer a translation, and such a translation before the original? yea, who bind men to receive it as authentical, or rather as holy as sacred, as canonical, under pain of damnation. And if they think themselves not to be blind in that they do so: are they not so much the blinder (like the Pharisees ) because they say, we see.

You take much pains in vain with this talk about the Hebrew ▪ For I will not yield one jot from the decree of the Council of Trent. Wherefore if you can prove out of our authentical latin translation, that the Priest is not meant by the judge, in that place of Deuteronomy: I will hearken to you. Otherwise you may allege the Hebrew against the Jews: for it shall never move me.

I am sorry, if you be so frowardly set. Yet well fare Andradius, who thinketh that the Council of Trent did not mean either to condemn the Hebrew truth (as he calleth it,) or to acquit the latin translation from all error, when they named it authentical: but only, that the latin hath no such error, by which any pestilent opinion in faith and manners may be gathered. But if you will not be moved with the Hebrew : what say you to the Chaldee paraphrase ? Or if that also have as small credit, because it expresseth the Hebrew so faithfully in the books of Moses: what say you to the Greek of the seventy interpreters ? Which the ancient Fathers who either knew not your latin at all, or had it not in such price, did marueylously esteem off. In them it is as in the Hebrew, to the Priest or the judge : whereby it is apparent they thought the judge, one; and the Priest, another. Will you be moved by them: or may I allege the Greek against the Grecians too?

I reverence the Greek of the seventy interpreters. But I think it might be corrupted more easily, then the latin might: yea, and that it hath been so in many places. Wherefore I appeal still unto our latin : and will not forsake it under any pretense.

Let us examine then (if there be no remedy) the words of your latin. He that shall presumptuously refuse to obey the commandment of the Priest: by the decree of the judge shall that man die. Is there not a difference put, even by this speech, between the Priest and the judge : the Priest, as ecclesiastical; the judge as civil magistrate; Let the judge put him to death, who disobeyeth the Priest ?

I deny not, but the sword of justice is given to the civil magistrate: and so there is a difference between the judge & the Priest. Yet amongst the Jews sometimes both the offices did meet in one person, as you may seee by Eli.

But this was very rare, & extraordinary. Now the Law, which God prescribed in Deuteronomy by his servant Moses, did touch the common state and ordinary government of the people of Israel. For both it is general without limitation of persons or times, as to be kept still for the ending of their controversies, not only in the days of Eli : and it is written, that when king Jehoshaphat restored the state decayed, in Jerusalem he set of the Levites and the Priests, and of the chief of the families of Israel, for the judgments of the Lord and for controversies. Which to have been done in respect of that law: it appeareth by the words that he spake unto them. Whatsoever controversy shall come unto you, from your brethren who dwell in their cities, between blood and blood, between law and precept, statutes and judgments: do ye admonish them that they offend not against the Lord. Wherefore seeing that the law in Deuteronomy, was made to establish a highest court of judgment, in which all harder causes ecclesiastical and civil should be determined without appeal farther: the reason and the practice of the law do show, that, in respect of the two kinds of causes, there were ordained two sortes of men to hear them, ecclesiastical, and civil; the civil meant by the judge, the ecclesiastical, by the Priest. Who because they were distinct, as in office, so in person too ordinarily: it followeth thereof, that the Priest was not meant by the judge.

Yet the Gloss, expounding that place of Deuteronomy, doth say that by the judge ▪ is meant the high Priest, even as I say.

But Lyra, and Cajetan (as worthy men, as they who compiled the Gloss, if you will hear men) do say that by the judge is meant the civil magistrate, even as I say. Which sense of the place is so plain & certain: that Carolus Sigonius, the Popes own historian (in a book which lately he set forth at Bononia, with approbation of the Bishoppe, and holy Inquisition, and dedicated to Pope Gregory the thirteenth, affirmeth that the king is meant by the judge in that place of Deuteronomy. It may be, M. Hart, that since you were beyond-sea, they have bethought them selves: and seeing that your Gloss doth go against the text, they will no longer stand unto it. Indeed, if the supremacy belong to the judge▪ the Prince hath greater right thereto then the Pope. For it is certain (as I have declared by circumstances of the scripture,) that the Priest was not meant by the judge.

It skilleth not to my purpose, whether he were, or no. It sufficeth me, that he who refuseth to obey the Priest, must die, by the law. Which is enough to prove the sovereignty of one Priest.

Not so. For the name of Priest (in this law) doth signify the Priests. Which is clear, by reason that the punishment of the transgressor hath a relation to the law: and the law doth will men to go to the Priests: the Priests, it saith, as of many; not, as of one, the hie Priest. Wherefore, in giving sentence of death against him, who disobeieth the Priest ; it meaneth the Priests : according to a kind of speech, wherein y ^e whole is noted by the part. As afterward likewise, entreating of the duty and right of the Priests, it noteth them in general by name of the Priest.

But here, upon mention of the Priest, it followeth: who doth serve the Lord thy God. By the which title the hie Priest may seem to have been namely noted, and severed from the rest.

He might so, were it not that the same title is also given afterward to Priests, generally: yea, where this matter is touched again of purpose, the Lord thy God hath chosen the Priests, the sons of Levi, to serve him, and to bless in the name of the Lord; and by their word shall every controversy, and every plague be tried.

Yet you will grant, (I trust,) that amongst the Priests there was one chief: yea, even in this matter of highest judgment in doubtful causes. Which, (in the same place of Scripture that you brought to expound this,) is shown by king Jehoshaphat: saying unto them, to whom that judgment was committed; Amarias the Priest shall be the chief over you in matters of the Lord.

This I will grant you. But you must grant me also, that look what is given to him, amongst the Priests, in matters of the Lord, y ^t is, in ecclesiastical: the same, amongst the judges, is given to Zebadias in matters of the king, that is in civil causes. For, Jehoshaphat doth say as well the one, as the other. So that (to come now to the later point of your lame similitude, ) if Christians must have a sovereign Bishop over all, because the Jews had one chief Priest ▪ then Christians must have a sovereign Prince over all, because the Jews had one chief judge. And as all harder causes, at least of religion must be referred to the Pope: so all of civil matters must be referred to the Emperor. And as, amongst the Jews, the Priest and judge were resident in the place which the Lord had chosen : so the Pope and the Emperor must both abide in Rome. Which Pope Paul the third did fear that Emperor Charles the fifth would have done. But he sent for the French men to keep him out. If Gregory (that now is Pope) be better minded, and will resign his civil State unto the Emperor with the Palace of Vaticane, and Castell of Saint Angelo: then may the reason, which you ground upon the law in Deuteronomy, serve you with greater show. Howbeit, even in that case it would rather further the Emperor then the Pope: because it mentioneth the judge, as one; the Priests, as many.

It is not necessary for the government of the common-wealth among Princes, that any one of them be Prince over all. But as the king of Judah was in his own kingdom: so every Prince is highest in his own dominion.

Neither it is necessary for the administration of the Church, amongst Bishops, that any one of them be Bishop over all. But as the hie Priest was chief over the Jews, so is every Bishop over his own charge.

Nay, the case of the Church and common-wealth herein are unlike, and different. Because that common-weals may be upholden, although they be governed not only by diverse kings, and civil magistrates, but also by diverse ordinances and laws. But the Church as it hath one faith, in all Christians: so ought it to have the same laws and ordinances of religion in all countries.

This difference and vnlikenes between the Church and common-wealth, is lesser then you imagine, if it be marked well. For justice, and right, in giving everyone his due, should have the same place in the common-wealth, which faith and religion claimeth in the Church. Now, as in religion there are some things of substance, and some of ceremony: so there are some pointes essential in justice, and some accidental. The essential pointes of justice are the same in laws of all common-wealths. For what is a law, but a divine ordinance, commanding things honest, and forbidding the contrary? The accidental pointes do and may vary according to circumstances of places, times, and persons. So laws of religion must be the same for substance in all Christian Churches: in ceremonies they may differ, as in the primitive Church they did. Wherefore the same faith, and laws of religion do no more enforce all churches to obey one Bishop, then the same right and ordinances of justice do require one Prince to rule all common-wealths. But whatsoever your fancy make you think of this point: the place in Deuteronomy adiudging them to death who disobey the Priest, cannot help your fancy, though it had been meant of no other Priest, but of the high Priest only. For Christ, whē he sent his Apostles to preach the Gospel, said unto them: Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house, or that city, shake of the dust of your feet. Truly I say unto you, it shall be easier for them of the land of Sodom and Gomorrhah in the day of judgment, then for that city. Which words being spoken to all the Apostles, not to Peter only, and therefore belonging to all their successors, as well as to Peters : do show that every Bishop, hath as great authority given him by Christ, as the Priest had by that law in Deuteronomy. In so much that Cyprian doth allege it often, (by a better reason of proportiō then yours,) to prove the authority of Bishops each in several over the flocks committed to them.

And what if a matter of religion be harder then Bishops each in several be able to decide it? What if they disagree, and will not yield one to another? Doth not wisdom show, that there must be a chief judge to ende the controversy? to keep the truth of faith, and peace of the Church, that it be not pestered with heresies and schisms?

The wisdom of God hath committed that chieftie of judgment (so to call it) not to the sovereign power of one, but to the common care of many. For when there was a controversy in the Church of Antioch about the observation of the law of Moses, some Jews teaching contrary to that which Paul and Barnabas taught: they ordained that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem to the Apostles and Elders about that question. And so by their common agreement and decree, the controversy was ended, the truth of faith kept, and peace maintained in the Church. After which example, the Bishops (that succeeded them) made the like assemblies, on the like occasions: and by common conference took order for such matters, both of doctrine, and discipline, as concerned in common the state of their Churches. So did the Apostles and Apostolic men provide against schisms & heresies. Their wisdom reached not unto your policy of one chief judge.

The profit of Councils and Synods of Bishops is very great, we grant. For many eyes see more then one. But it will be greater, if they be all counsellors unto one governor, then if they govern eche his own, and all in common. For reason doth teach us, that the regiment of one, which we call a monarchy, is better and worthier then the regiment of many: as the Philosophers show, who write of Common-weals.

Reason, is a notable help of man's weakness, if it be obedient to faith, as a handmaid; not rule it, as a maistresse. And human arts, wherein the Philosophers have seen many sparkles of the truth of God by the light of reason, are profitable instruments to set forth the truth, so far as they have peace, not war, with God's word. But if the Philosophers have erred, as natural men, who neither do conceive the things of the spirit of God, nor can know them; if reason have her eyes (as it were) dazzled, because the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it : then is it to be feared least, as the Serpent seduced Eve through his suttletie, so he beguile you by reason ; and you forget that lesson of the holy Ghost, beware least there be any man that spoil you through philosophy. Which I say not so much in respect of this point of the Church government, as of your whole doctrine: a mighty ground whereof in your Schoolmen, is philosophy ; and your Jesuits challenge doth offer to prove it by natural and moral reason. For here if I would justify the cause by Philosophers, it is • asily shown, that the Churches state is a most perfect monarchy: wherein Christ is king; his laws, are the scriptures; his officers, are the Bishops; not ordained to be assistantes unto one deputy, but to be deputies all them selves, even Pastors of his flock, & guides & rulers of his Church. Howbeit, if it differ from the kingly states of worldly common-weals, which philosophy writeth off, as it doth in part: Philosophers must not marvel, since Christ hath declared his kingdome is not of this world. Indeed, the Apostles thought of such a kingdom: but Christ said, it should not be so amongst them, as with the Princes of the Gentiles. Which sentence of Christ your Popes not understanding, and weening the Apostles to be forbidden nothing but an heathenish tyranny, and liking well a monarchy because Philosophers praise it: they have raised a visible monarchy of their own, in steed of Christ's monarchy ; and have changed his kingdom, which is not of this world, into a worldly kingdom, the kingdom of the Romans, as a Jesuit calleth it. Neither contenting them selves with such a kingdom, as Princes of the Gentiles had: they make them selves Princes over all the kingdoms and nations of the earth. Which is a greater monarchy then Philosophers like off: as I could prove out of them, if the Popes cause were to be handled in their schools. But because I list not to trifle out the time with idle discourses about pointes of State; as your Rabbin's do, to prove y ^t a monarchy is the best regiment : therefore against such reasons I lay that exception which Tertullian did of old against heretics: What hath Athens to do with Jerusalem? the school of philosophy with the Church of Christ? The duty of Christians is to search and weigh in matters of faith, not what reason, but what religion; not what the Philosophers, but what the Prophets, & Apostles; not what man's fancy, but what the Spirit of God doth say. And so the former parts of your main argument for the Popes supremacy, are too weak to prove it. The last is weaker then they both. For, that there should be one chief and highest Pastor of the Church in earth: it hath some reason by philosophy. That Peter was appointed by Christ to be that one: it hath some show of scripture. But that the Pope succeedeth Peter therein, it hath no show of scripture; and (I trow) you will not prove it by philosophy.

That the Pope succeedeth Peter therein: it is a clear case. For Eusebius writeth, that Peter, having laid the foundation of the Church of Antioch, (where he sat seven years) went to Rome: & (preaching the gospel there five and twenty years) continued Bishop of that city. Now, the Pope is Bishop of Rome: that you grant. Then I conclude thereof, that he succedeth Peter. For Peter continued Bishop of that city, as it is witnessed by Eusebius.

I desired that I might hear, Thus saith the Lord : and you told me that I should hear it. In the first parte of your argument, you fell from it, to, Thus saith the Pope. In the next you mended it, with, Thus say Philosophers. Now you prove the last, by, Thus saith Eusebius. And this is more sightly somewhat, then the former: but no stay of faith, without the word of God.

You ought not to cast off Eusebius so lightly, as though he were of no credit. For he is the best and auncientest historian of all that have traueled in setting forth the stories of the Church of Christ. And the pains, the diligence, the reading and judgment, which in his Chronicle he shown, was great and wonderful. In so much that Cano is persuaded of him, that no ecclesiastical Greek or Latin autor could have left more excellent monuments of times.

I like of Eusebius, as of a good historian: and I allow the praise given him by Cano. But Cano hath a good conclusion withal, touching both him, and all historians, to weet, that beside the writers of the scripture, no historian can be sure; that is to say, able to make sure and certain proof in Divinity. A thing so apparent and evident of it self, that he saith, it is not to be confirmed with his proofs. Only, he reherseth to the same effect a true & pleasant speech of Flauius Vopiscus: who, beginning to write stories, said that he enterprised it the more boldly, because he should have companions in lying; since he knew no historian, that had not lied in somewhat. Now, if this be incident unto all historians, except them of scripture: who wrote by the Spirit of God, and not of man: then Eusebius also, though a good historian, might be subject to it. Which you must the rather be persuaded of him, because Pope Gelasius (in a Council of seventy Bishops) reproved his story, as faulty. Which reproof your Cano alloweth as just, & giveth reasons of it: namely, for his reporting of Christ's epistle to Agbarus, and his avouching many things by Clemens Alexandrinus ; whereas the fable of the one, and the works of the other are reproved by the Council,

These faults, and the rest, that Cano doth touch, are in the history of Eusebius : which yet not only Cano but the Council also commend, as not to be refused altogether. But that which I alleged is in the Chronicle of Eusebius: a book, neither noted so by the Council, and greatly praised by Cano.

The man is one, who wrote them both: and might be overseen, as in the one, so in the other. Yea Cano himself, who praiseth his Chronicle, yet praiseth it with this exception, that neither all things which Eusebius there reporteth, are true. But men may find some things which may be worthily and truly blamed. As, for example, that he writeth, that Sennacherib who besieged Jerusalem, and Salmanassar who took Samaria, were one, and the same man. Which thing to be contrary to the holy scripture S. Jerome hath shown. Now this, which I stick at in the Chronicle of Eusebius, is such another oversight: and may be as worthily reproved, as that of Cano ; because it is no less against the scripture then that. For whereas he saith, that Peter, having laid the foundation of the Church of Antioch, (where he sat seuē years) went to Rome, & preaching the Gospel there five and twenty years continued Bishop of that city: Peter (by this account) should have gone to Antioch about the fourth year after Christ's death, and there abode seven years, evē till the second year of Claudius y ^e Emperor, in which he went to Rome. But y ^e scripture showeth, y ^t Paul (who was not presently converted after Christ's death) yet after three years found Peter at Ierusalē : & Peter, after that, abode within the coasts of Jewry, first at Lydda, then at Ioppe, then at Cesarea, then at Jerusalem, where Herod cast him into prison, in y ^e second or third year of Claudius, as it is likely, (for he died in the fourth:) when, the Church of Antioch was in the mean season both planted and watered by others, not by Peter. Wherefore, the former branch of that which Eusebius reporteth touching Peter, that he had sat seven years at Antioch, in the second year of Claudius, is flatly contrary to the scripture. The later is as contrary, that from that year forward he did sit at Rome five and twenty years, that is, all his life time, till he was put to death by Nero. For, (to grant the uttermost, which may have any show of reason,) admit, that he was cast by Herod into prison, in the first year of Claudius ; before which he could not; for Claudius gave the kingdom of Jewry to Herod. When the Angel had delivered him out of prison, he went into another place : whether to Rome or to Antioch, or perhaps to neither, y ^e scripture leaveth it uncertain; but, by the Chronicle of Eusebius, either to Antioch or to Rome. If he went to Antioch, and there abode some years, before he came to Rome : then is the second year of Claudius past, and his abode at Rome could not be five and twenty years. Now, it is certain that he went to Antioch at that time or some other. For the scripture witnesseth that Paul did there reprove him. But if that were some other time, and from his prison in Jerusalem he went straight to Rome : yet neither could he so be five and twenty years there. For after he came thither, a time must be found wherein he was at Antioch ; and another time wherein he was at Babylon ; & another time, wherein he was at Jerusalem, at the Council of the Apostles; and some years after that, when Paul wrote to the Romans, amongst the chief, whom he saluted, he named not Peter ; and some years after that, when Paul came prisoner to Rome, when he abode there certain years, when he wrote many epistles thence, Peter is not mentioned, nay those things are mentioned which would be stains of his Apostleship, if he had been at Rome. For, Paul saith of others, these only are my work-fellows unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort to me :, & at my first answering, no man assisted me, but all forsook me: I pray God it be not laid unto their charge. Of the which reasons, though some are but probable, yet some are sure proofs, that Peters continuance at Rome was not such, as is reported by Eusebius. And this is so manifest, that, to say nothing of auncienter writers, who (to make the scriptures agree somewhat better with his five and twenty years abode at Rome, ) brought him thither later, and gave him longer time of life: Onuphrius Panuinius, a Frier of your own, most devout to the Pope, most skillful in antiquities and stories of the Church, acknowledgeth and confirmeth it. For, in the discourses of his Annotations on Platina, printed at Venice, & afterward at Coolein: it is most clear (saith he) and surely known by the Acts of the Apostles, and Paul's epistle to the Galatians, that, for nine years after Christ's death, until the second year of the reign of Claudius, Peter never went out of Jewry. Wherefore if he came to Rome, at that time, as it is agreed amongst all authors that he did: it followeth of necessity, that he did not sit seven years at Antioch before he came thither, but that his sitting at Antioch was some other time. Which thing I have resolved on, thus, by the testimony of most ancient writers. He did come to Rome the second yere of Claudius. From which time there are to the time of his death about five and twenty years. Wherein, although the ancient writers do say that he sat at Rome: yet doth it not follow thereof that he abode still in the city. For in the fourth year after his coming thither, he returned to Jerusalem: and there was present at the Council of the Apostles. Thence he went to Antioch, and there continued seven years; until that Nero was Emperor. In the beginning of whose reign, he came again to Rome: where he repaired the Roman church, which was decaying. And after that when he had traueiled almost throughout all Europe, he returned to Rome in the last year of the reign of Nero, and there was put to death. This is the confessiō of your own Onuphrius, made perhaps against the hear (as I may term it:) but the light of truth and scripture forced him to it. Whereby you may perceive that when Eusebius wrote, that Peter sat, first, seven years at Antioch, and five and twenty at Rome, after : that befell to him, which Thucydides saith of the old stories of the Grecians; men receive reports of things done before them from hand to hand, one from another, without examining & trying them. Some, through a desire (as it is likely) of honoring the Sees of Antioch & Rome, hearing that S. Peter had preached in them both, devised that he sat seven years in the one, and five and twenty in the other. Eusebius fell upon it, and wrote it in his Chronicle without farther trial. But if he had tried it by the touchstone of scripture: he would have cast it off, as counterfeit. Which I think the rather, because in his story he mentioneth y ^e coming of Peter to Rome as out of Jury, not from Antioch, for his first coming thither in the time of Claudius : and for his coming thither again in Nero's time, he showeth out of Origen that it was toward his end, whē he had preached the gospel to the Jews in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. Wherefore since Eusebius doth in his story dissent from his Chronicle, and in his Chronicle dissent from the scripture : you must not blame me if I require a surer proof then his word, that Peter was Bishoppe of the City of Rome.

To talk about the years of Peters coming to Rome, or his continuance there, I am not disposed. I leave it to them, who list to search antiquities. But that he was in Rome, it is a thing undoubted: the scripture doth witness it. For in y ^e first epistle of his, the fifth chapter, the Church (saith he) saluteth you, that is in Babylon, coelect, and Mark my son. Where your Protestants show them selves (as in all places, that do make against them) to be most dishonest and partial handlers of God's word. The ancient Fathers, namely S. Jerome, Eusebius, Oecumenius, and many moe agree, that Rome is meant by the word Babylon here also, as in the Apocalypse : saying plainly that S. Peter wrote this epistle at Rome, which is called Babylon for the resemblance it had to Babylon that great city in Chaldea (where the Jews were captives) for magnificence, monarchy, resort and confusion of all people's and tongues, and for that it was, before Christ and long after, the seat of all Ethnike superstition and idolatry, & the sl • ughter-house of the Apostles & other Christian men, the heath • Emperors then keeping their chief residence there. This being most plain & consonant to y ^t which followeth of S. Mark, whom all the ecclesiastical histories agree to have been Peters scholar at Rome, & that he there wrote his gospel: yet you, fearing hereby the sequel of Peters or the Popes supremacy at Rome, deny that ever he was there, or that this epistle was written there, or that Babylon doth here signify Rome. But you say that Peter wrote this epistle at Babylon in Chaldea, though you never read either in scriptures, or other holy or profane history, that he was ever in that city. But see your shameless partiality. Here, Babylon (say you) is not taken for Rome : because it would follow that Peter was at Rome, and so forth. But in the Apocalypse, where all evil is spoken of Babylon, there you will have it signify nothing else but Rome, and the Roman church also, not (as the Fathers interpret it) the temporal state of the heathen Empire there. So do you follow in every word no other thing, but y ^e advantage of your own heresy. Which is most notorious by this, that you hold that Peter was neue • at Rome. Wherein you pass yourselves in impudency. For it is against all the ecclesiastical histories, all the Fathers Greek and Latin, Theodoret, Prosper, S. Leo, S. Austin, Orosius, S. Chrysostom, S. Epiphanius, Prudentius, Optatus, S. Ambrose, S. Jerome, Lactantius, Eusebius, S. Athanasius, S. Cyprian, Tertullian, Origen, Irenaeus, Hegesippus, Gaius and Papias, the Apostles own scholars, and Dionysius the Bishop of Corinth, Ignatius, the holy council of Chalcedon, and many others. Yea Peter him self (according to the judgment of the Fathers, as I have shown) confesseth that he was at Rome, calling it Babylon.

Here is a grievous crime, wherewith you charge our Protestants, of shameless partiality. But whether show them selves more partial and dishonest handlers of God's word, our Protestants, or your Papists : you are too partial (M. Hart) to judge. There is a just judge who will reveal it in that day, before the eyes of all men: and in the mean season he doth reveal it daily, to them whom he maketh wise to try spirits, & to discern the truth from error. As for this particular, wherein we seem to you most dishonest and partial, that in Peters epistle we take the word [ Babylon ] properly, for the city of that name in Chaldea ; and in the Revelation we say that it signifieth Rome, figuratively: we do not this for any advantage of heresy, as you falsely charge us, but in sincerity before God. For in the Reuelatiō, in which there are as many mysteries as words, and words applied commonly to allegories and figures: Rome might be fitly meant by the name of Babylon. And that it was so, it appereeth by the circumstances: if not, of the seven hills, whereon Rome was built, (and Jerome gathereth it thereof;) yet of the great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth, which in S. John's time was Rome ; the Fathers so interpret it; you say it, and subscribe unto it. But, in all the rest of the New Testament, where things are plainly spoken off, it si • teth most with reason that the word Babylon be taken in his proper meaning: the text doth force it in other places; and, in that epistle of Peter it is the likelier, because the like speeches in superscriptions, in salutations, in dates of epistles, are elsewhere meant simply. In the Revelation, the great city is called spiritually Sodom. In Peters epistle, we take the name of Sodom properly. Is it partiality in us, to take it so? Or were it not a folly in you to reprove it? But this is the matter belike, which pincheth you, y ^t in the Reuelatiō, where all evil is spoken of Babylon, we will have it signify nothing else but Rome, and the Roman Church also, not the temporal state of the heathen Empire there, as the Fathers interpret it. The Fathers then interpret it of Rome, you confess. If you condemn us for interpreting it so: you must condemn them with us. If you say that we do not therein, as they, because we expound it of nothing else but Rome, and they not so: you slander us. For some of us expound it of the city of the Devil, that is, the society and company of all the wicked, as some of them do. And what doth it advantage you, or your quarrel, if, as by Jerusalem is meant the city of God, that is, the society and company of all the faithful: so Rome, another Babylon, do note the Devils city, as a figure and sampler of it? For, in this sort also will Babylon be Rome still. Wherein, that you may learn the less to carpe at us, hearken to your Jesuit : who having shown, that the whore which sitteth on the seven hills, is (in some men's judgment) the city of the Devil, which often times is called Babylon, and set against Jerusalem, the city of God, that is, the Church: but in my judgment (saith he) it is better to understand the city of Rome by the whore, as Tertullian and Jerome do. To whom he might have added sundry of the Grecians: and S. Austin also. But they interpret it (you say) of the temporal state, not ecclesiastical; of the Roman Empire, not of the Roman Church, as we do. No marvel. For in their • aies the Church did differ from the Empire : the Empire, wicked; Church, godly. In ours it is not so. The state ecclesiastical is changed into the temporal: the Church hath swallowed up the Empire ; and what the Roman Empire was, that now the Roman Popedo e is. Wherefore when we apply the mystery of Babylon to the Church of Rome : we apply it still (as the Fathers did) to the temporal state, if not of an heathen Empire there, yet of a Christian waxing heathenish. There we see a purple whore, sitting upon many waters, droonken with the blood of Saints, and with the blood of Christ's martyrs, having a golden cup in her hand, full of abominations and filthiness of her whoredom. Sanders, the greatest patron of the Popes monarchy, doth prove out of Tertullian, that where there is the greatness of the kingly city, where the pride of the Empire, where the persecution of Christians doth rage: there is Babylon, no doubt, there is the great city, there is that woman which sitteth upon people's, nations, and languages, with whom the kings of the earth do commit whooredom, and the inhabitants of the earth are droonken with the wine of her whoredom. Now Rome in these respects was Babylon (as he construeth it) while the heathen Emperors obtained the temporal state there, not since the Popes have had it. But let the states of the Popedom and of the Empire be compared; and the stories of the Emperors, who reigned there before the Popes, and of the Popes (who have succeeded them) be examined: and if it be not found that the Papal state hath matched the Imperial in greatness of power, in pride of dominion, in persecuting of Christians; then let us be judged to vary from the Fathers in giving Rome the name of Babylon. Els are we cleared by verdit of Sanders from that wherewith you charge us, of expounding it to the advantage of our heresy : and you must pronounce that we deal uprightly with the name of Babylon, in the Revelation. As for our usage of it in the epistle of Peter : the reasons which you bring to prove a fault therein, may serve for our acquitall. You say, that we never read either in scriptures, or other holy, or profane history, that Peter was ever in the city of Chaldea, which is named Babylon. A simple proof, if we had not. For, the Apostles, being sent to all nations, were in many cities, wherein we never read they were. And yet we have read in Methodius (an ancient bishop, and historian) alleged by Marianus Scotus, that Peter did preach the gospel in Babylon : y ^t is, either the city, or at least the country; and where they preached in the country, they did it in the chief and mother-city commonly. But the ancient Fathers, namely S. Jerome, Eusebius, Oecumenius, & many moe agree, that Peter meant Rome by the word Babylon. They deliver it, I grant: but they received it from Papias, a man, though you commend him for the Apostles own scholar, yet of very small judgment : who, mistaking the meaning of the Apostles speeches in a matter of greater weight, deceived many Fathers that followed him for his antiquity, as both Eusebius and Jerome do report of him. The less strange it is, if they believed him, and others them, in this point, of no such importance. But, it is consonant to that which followeth of Mark: whom all the ecclesiastical histories agree to have been Peters scholar at Rome, and that he there wrote his gospel. And this doth come from Papias also, by one as good as himself, even by Clemens Alexandrinus. Wherefore, I know, what credit it hath; what truth, I know not. For if Cassiodorus, Rhegino, Ado, and all the ecclesiastical histories have erred, in saying that Peter did abide at Rome five and twenty years; which error they were carried into by Eusebius, or whosoever first reported it: why might they not also be deceived in this point by the report of Papias, or some who had it from Papias ? Though, if it be true, that S. Mark was Peters scholar at Rome : yet this proveth not, that he meant Rome by the name of Babylon. For Peter saith only, the Church which is in Babylon, & Mark my son salute you. Now Mark (as your Papias also doth report) did follow and accompany Peter in his travel. So that he might be with him as well at Babylon in Chaldea, as in Italy at Rome. Wherefore whether Peter were at Rome or no: the proof thereof resteth upon human histories. For this of God's word, whereby you would prove it fain, saith nothing for it. Which a learned man of our side having weighed, and seeing the dissension of writers touching the time that he came to Rome ; and knowing by the scripture that their speech of his abode in Rome, is false; and marking the shameful practice of the Romanists in forging tales for their advancement, as Constantine's donation ; and spying some such forgery amongst their monuments of Peter, as Linus fable of his death ; and finding his martyrdom mentioned by Jerome and Lyra, in such sort, as though he had been crucified by the Scribes and Pharisees : he was brought (by these & the like persuasions) into this opinion, that Peter never came to Rome. If you ask my judgment: I think he was deceived therein. And so do many mo. None of all the Protestants, who have dealt in writing of histories & Chronicles, to my knowledge, ( one excepted) denieth, that he was at Rome. They who are straitest in it, do say it may be doubted, it is no article of our faith: and either he was not there, or at another time then most authors think, and less then five and twenty years. Wherein, what do they say, but that which is most true and manifest? The greater wrong you do us, to charge us in general, that we hold that Peter was never at Rome. And, to aggravate the matter you muster up the names of the ancient Fathers, as though we did bande our selves against them all. Whereas in very deed, they, whom you count our captains, do therefore grant Peter to have been at Rome, because the ancient Fathers affirm it so with one consent. Yea some of them (expounding those same words of Peter ) apply the name of Babylon to Rome, as you do: some, who allow not of that exposition, yet grant he was at Rome. And so the reproach of shameless partiality which you cast on us, redoundeth on yourselves. For if you had any modesty and equity, you would never say, that we deny