Conference Between Rainolds and Hart

No: because we read not that he was Bishop of Ioppe. We read that he was Bishop of Rome.

But you cannot prove it by those words of Peter, which you would ground it on: although it were granted that he meant Rome by Babylon. For y ^e most that might be proved so thereby, is, y ^t he was at Rome. Which furthereth no more the Pope of Rome then of Ioppe. And thus you may see, what tragedies you make for how small trifles: when you lay so heinous a crime to our charge for denying that, which although we grant, we neither win, nor lose by it.

But if he were at Rome, it will be the likelyer that he was Bishop there. And that he was so, Eusebius showeth in his Chronicle.

I perceive the Pope must fetch his supremacy from earth and not from heaven. You are fallen again, from scripture, to Eusebius. Against whose authority I might take exception, because he saith that Peter continued bishop of Rome, preaching the gospel there, five and twenty years : which I have proved to be untrue. Though, (if I may speak mine own conjecture of it,) the difference of the Chronicle and history of Eusebius concerning that point, doth move me to think, that it was not written by Eusebius, but by Jerome. For he, in translating the Chronicle of Eusebius, did enterlace some things which seemed to be omitted: chiefly, in the Roman story. Now Jerome might receive it from Damasus bishop of Rome : on whom he attended as a secretarie. And Damasus was not so void of all affection, but he could be content to advance the credit of his own See by helping it to be reputed the bishoply See of Peter. But whether Eusebius, or Jerome, or Damasus, or whosoever have said that Peter was a Bishop : either they used the name of [Bishop] generally, and so it proveth not your purpose; or if they meant it, as commonly we do, they missed the truth. For generally, a Bishop, is an overseer. In which signification it reacheth to all, who are put in trust with oversight & charge of anything: as Eleazar is called Bishop of the tabernacle ; & Christ, the Bishop of our souls. But, in our common use of speech it noteth him, to whō y ^e oversight & charge of a particular Church is committed: such as were the Bishops of Ephesus, of Philippi ; and they whom Christ calleth the Angels of the Churches. Now Peter was not Bishop after this later sort: for he was an Apostle, and the Apostles were sent to preach to all the world. Wherefore when the Fathers said, he was a Bishop : either they meant it in the former sense, or ought to have meant it. This is somewhat harder to be perceived by Jerome : but others open it more plainly. For he reckoneth Peter the first Bishop of Rome; Linus, the second; Cletus, the third; Clemens, the fourth, and so the rest successively: as likewise, in Antioch, Ignatius, the third ; whereby Euodius is the second ; and Peter, the first. But Eusebius nameth Euodius, the first Bishop of Antioch; Ignatius, the second : and Irenaeus nameth Linus, the first Bishop of Rome; Cletus the second ; and so forth. Whereby they declare, that (in their judgment) although Peter preached at Antioch and Rome both, yet he was neither Bishop of Antioch, nor Rome, as usually that name is taken. Yea they distinguish the Bishops, and the Apostles therein purposely. For Irenaeus saith, that the two Apostles, namely Peter and Paul, when they had founded and taught the Roman Church, committed the Bishoply charge thereof to Linus. And he repeateth often in reckoning up the Bishops, (as doth Eusebius also) that they were such, and such, in order, and number, from the Apostles. And Rufinus writeth, that Linus and Cletus were Bishops while Peter lived: that they might have the care of the Bishoply charge, and he might do the duty of the Apostleship. Which is confirmed farther by Epiphanius. Who, though he say that Peter and Paul were both Apostles & Bishops in Rome : yet he saith withal that there were other Bishops of Rome, while they lived; because that the Apostles, went often into other countries to preach Christ; & the city of Rome might not be without a Bishop. As if he should have said, that a Bishops duty doth bind him to attend the Church, whereof the holy Ghost hath made him overseer. Now, though the Apostles Peter and Paul did perform that duty to the Church of Rome, while they abode there: yet because it was the charge of their Apostleship to preach to others also, therefore they went thence to oth • r coasts and nations, and left the Roman charge to the Bishop of Rome. And so you may learn by the Fathers thē selves, that when they termed any Apostle a Bishop of this or that city, as namely, S. Peter of Antioch, or Rome : they meant it in a general sort, and signification, because he did attend that Church for a time, and supplied that room in preaching of the Gospel, which Bishops did after. But as the name of [Bishop] is commonly taken for the overseer of a particular church, and pastor of a several flock: so Peter was not Bishop of any one city, and therefore not of Rome.

Yet the Bishops of Rome did succeed Peter : even by the testimony of the same authors namely of Irenaeus, Eusebius, and Epiphanius, in the places by you alleged.

They did succeed Peter, as Bishops an Apostle : and they did succeed him in Rome, as other Bishops did in other cities. Wherefore if the Bishop of Rome by this succession have right to the supremacy: what hath the Bishop of Antioch ? For he succeeded Peter too.

The Bishop of Antioch did succeed Peter, while Peter lived yet, and had not left his right. But the Bishop of Rome succeeded him, when he died: and thereby was advanced unto that supremacy, which Peter kept while he lived.

Your men were wont to answer, that Antioch had first right to the supremacy by the chair of Peter: but Peter did remove his chair thence to Rome. This was somewhat stale. Which your Father Robert smelled belike, & so he thought it better to say that Peter kept his right, while he lived: but, when he died, the Bishop of Rome was his successor, and had it (as I trow) by legacy. A pretty shift if it would stand: but it lacketh life. For Linus Bishop of Rome, who succeeded Peter, succeeded Peter living: in the same manner as did the Bishop of Antioch.

Not so. But Clemens rather did succeed Peter : and that, after his death. For, when he perceived his end to draw near, he took Clemens by the hand: and said, in the hearing of the whole Church, (which was then assembled,) Hearken unto me, my brethren and fellow-servants. Because (as my Lord & master Jesus Christ, who sent me, hath told me,) the day of my death approacheth: I ordain this Clemens to be your Bishop, unto whom alone I commit the chair of my preaching and doctrine; and I give to him that power of binding and loosing which Christ gave to me, that whatsoever he decreeth of anything in earth, the same shall be decreed in heaven.

Who told you this tale?

A tale? It is recorded in an old monument.

Whence came that old monument ?

From Clemens himself: who lived in the time of the Apostles; and is mentioned by S. Paul.

But where doth he record it?

In his first epistle, written to James the brother of the Lord.

In deed an old monument. It is so old, that it is rotten. A very drunken forgery: wherein it is said, that Peter prayed Clemens to write (after his death) this epistle to James the brother of the Lord, to comfort him : and Clemens did so. Whereas James was dead long before Peter, about an eight years at least.

This is one of the arguments that are brought against it by your Centuries of Meydenburg : which I make no account off, though you allege them all. For Turrian hath sifted & confuted them, in his defense of the decretal epistles of the Popes : where he bringeth reasons why Clemens might write well to James being dead, and Peter with him so to do.

Turrian ; a Jesuit: a cover fit for such a cup. Whose defense of those bastards fathered on the ancient Bishops of Rome falsely, may be justly censured with that which Viues saith of your golden legend: it is written by a man of a brazen face & a lead̄ heart. For nothing can be spoken so fondly & absu • dly, which he hath not some reasō for: as though he had resolved to be ma • with reason. Howbeit, since you are fore-stalled with a prejudice of his defense against the Centuries : I will not touch y ^e arguments whereupō they stand. Though his answers to them, if they should be laid in the scales together, would be found lighter then vanity it self, in all indifferent readers eyes. His dealing in this one point may give a taste thereof. For though to write letters to a dead man be a thing so senseless, that the epistle therefore is nipped, as unlikely, by Cardinal Turrecremata ; and cast off, as counterfeit, by Cardinal Cusanus : yet Turrian defendeth it as wisely done, and omitteth nothing to show with how good reason Clemens might write letters to James being dead, yea though he knew him to be dead; save that, (as a learned man told him pleasantly) he showeth not by what carier Clemens did send the letters to him. But, to let both Turrian and the Centuries go: the drift of the epistle being to prove that Peter ordained Clemens his successor, disc • editeth, it self (as Cusanus hath also noted) by the judgment of the Fathers, S. Austin, S. Jerome, Optatus, and the rest, yea by your own Chronicles and histories ecclesiastical, who all agree that Linus was Peters successor, and so they mar the tale of Clemens.

You do ill to call it a tale, and droonken forgery : such reprochefull terms.

You must bear with my plainness, I call a •• gge, a fig; and a spade, a spade.

Nay, it is neither a forgery, nor a tale. For, the epistle is ancient, translated out of Greek into Latin by Rufinus, who lived within four hundred years after Christ. And this touching Linus, the story of whose succession (you think) dispro • eth it, was thought upon then, & is answered by Rufinus. For 〈◊〉 his preface to the book entitled the recognitions of Clemens, which he translated too, some demand (saith he) how, when as Linus and Cletus were Bishops of Rome before Clemens, himself (in his epistle to James) saith that the chair of teaching was committed to him by Peter. Whereof this is the reason, as we have heard, that Linus and Cletus were in deed Bishops in Rome before Clemens, but while Peter lived: that they might have the care of the Bishoply charge, & he might do the duty of the Apostleship. As it is found that also he did at Cesarea: where, though being present himself, yet he had a Bishop whom he had ordained, namely Zachaeus. And thus may eche of these things be thought to be true: both that they were reckoned Bishops, before Clemens; and Clemens nevertheless received the chair of teaching after the death of Peter.

The auncientie of the epistle is no warrant for it, but that it might be false and forged. The epistles of Seneca to Paul, of Paul to Seneca, are no less ancient: which yet have nothing worthy of either Paul, or Seneca. There have been very many misbegotten pamphlets wandering abroad, even from the time of the Apostles; yea, under the names of the Apostles themselves. The less have you to marvel, if there were some miscreant who wrote in the name of Clemens to James. As for Rufinus, who translated it, (if yet he did translate it, and some have not abused him as well as Clemens :) his judgment was not such, but he might be deceived in a greater matter. Which, if you believe not on S. Jerome's credit, because he was his adversary: look into these same works that he translated, and you shall perceive it. For, the things written in the Recognitions of Clemens (which you mention) sent to James also, are, the most of them, uncertain; many, fabulous; yea and some, heretical, as yourselves confess. Yet Rufinus judged it a hidden treasure of wisdom, & thought he had a bootie of it. Again, in that epistle, wherein Clemens maketh him self Peters successor, he certifieth James, that he sent him before (by the commandment of Peter) another book, entitled, the book of Clemens touching things which Peter did in his journey. Now, this journey-book hath been so long, so famously known, for a roague: that he hath not only been burnt through the • are of old by sundry Fathers and Bishops in a Council ; but also of late the college of Inquisitors at Rome have enrolled him in the Register of books condemned by the Church. Wherefore he was a counterfeit, that set abroad these bastards in the name of Clemens : howsoever Rufinus thought them (of simplicity,) to be his own, whose they were named. And with this persuasion was he moved to think on some probability how that might be true, which seemed false therein: of Peters ordaining Clemens to be his successor, when Linus and Cletus were Bishops before him. The only show whereof being a report, received by tradition: he was fain to take it, for lack of a better. But he erred in it: either not knowing, or not considering times and stories. For, by his answer, Linus and Cletus should be no longer Bishops then while Peter lived: and, when he died, Clemens should succeed him next immediately. Whereas it is apparent by records of times, that Linus continued Bishop eleven years, after Peters death: and Cletus twelve, after Linus ; before that Clemens had the room. Which albeit Turrian the Jesuit do • gnaw upon (as he is wont,) to make it away: yet is the matter so manifest & certain, that Genebrard, the freshest of your Popish Chroniclers, and passing all the rest as in skill, so in zeal for the Popes causes, could not but set it down as true.

Yet he saith withal, that Peter did nominate Clemens to succeed him. But Clemens gave the room first to Linus, and then to Cletus, not so much of modesty, as by the counsel of the Lord, least the example of this nomination should pass to the posterity, and derogate from the free providence of the Church in choosing of her own Bishop.

He saith so in deed. But who seeth not that this was devised to make stories agree with the tale of Clemens : and (by the way) to countenance the election of Popes, which now the Cardinals use? For, the book of Ceremonies of the Church of Rome, treating of that election, affirmeth that Peter nominated Clemens to be his successor, with this condition (it is thought,) if the Cardinals would admit him. But they, perceiving that the form of this nomination might greatly hurt the Church in process of time, did not accept of Clemens, but did choose Linus, and made him Pope after Peter. Howbeit Clemens afterward was chosen by the Cardinals, when Linus and Cletus were deceased. Though Genebrard in ••• ming the fancy to his purpose, doth not so much follow the book of the Ceremonies as the gloss of the Canon law: which (with better care of the Popes credit) saith, that Pope Clemens him self renounced the Papacie, considering that it would be an evil and pernicious thing for the example, that any should choose his own successor. Into such follies do you 〈◊〉 yourselves, to say that the blessed Apostle of Christ, S. Peter, did ordain that, which was pernicious for the example, refused by the Pope, mislyked by the Cardinals, prejudicial to the Church : and all to maintain the epistle of Clemens, with the tale in it, that Peter made him his successor. A thing so absurd, that where it is mentioned in the Canon law, there is it n •• ed to • e chaff : and Contius, a learned lawyer of your own, doth note upon that note, that it is counted chaff worthily, for it is all counterfeit: and Comestor, the autor of the scholastical history, who lived when the darkness of Popery was grossest, refuteth and rejecteth it as a mere forgery. But whatsoever it • e, and ho • so ever ancient, 〈◊〉 the same 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 (it may be) which S. Jerome saith, did bear the name of Clemens, and was reproved by old writers, but be it, what you will: you confess yourself that to be untrue, for proof whereof you cited it, that Clemens succeeded Peter, and not Linus. Wherefore, seeing Linus did succeed Peter, & that while Peter lived, in the same sort as Zachaeus did (you say) at Cesarea, & Euodius at Antioch: the Bishops of Antioch, & of Cesarea, may claim as well the Papacy by Peters succession, as may the Bishop of Rome.

Yet by your own grant and the consent of histories, Linus who succeeded him in Rome, did out-live him. And therefore he was the successor of Peter, not only while Peter was alive yet, but when he was deceased also.

He was so. What of that?

Of that I conclude the Bishop of Rome's supremacy, and convince you of error. For Peter had charge of all the Church of Christ. But the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter. The Bishop of Rome therefore hath charge of all the Church of Christ.

As if you should say: Solomon did reign over all Israel. But Roboam, Solomon's son, was his successor. Roboam therefore reigned over all Israel. Whereby you might convince the scripture of error, for saying that Jeroboam was king over all Israel, and none did follow Roboam, but the tribe of Judah only.

They revolted from Roboam. But he had right to be their king, as being heir of Solomon.

But what is that to my reason? For pointes in a similitude are bound to hold no farther, then that, wherein they are resembled. Els you might add too, that the Pope is liker to Jeroboam then to Roboam, because of his golden gods : and therefore should be king rather of all Christendom, then of the province of Rome only. But if your cavil please you against that reason: hear another. The Apostles of Christ had charge of all nations. All Bishops are successors of the Apostles. Therefore all Bishops have charge of all nations. Will you reply now that men revolt from Bishops : but they have right to be Popes, as being heirs of the Apostles ?

No: For though all Bishops succeed the Apostles, as S. Jerome saith well, & it is true: yet they succeed them not in their whole right. They succeed them in the kind of charge, to preach the Gospel : but not in the amplenes, to preach it unto every creature. They succeed the Apostles, but not in the Apostleship. For of the Apostleship there is no succession, as D. Stapleton showeth.

Then D. Stapleton showeth, that the Bishop of Rome doth not succeed Peter in the Apostleship neither.

And what if he do not?

Then he succeedeth not to all the right of Peter. Then how is the supremacy proved by this succession? Then the Pope usurpeth, who will be the Apostles successor in the Apostleship. For he calleth his office the office of the Apostleship ; and things which he doth hear, his Apostleship doth hear them ; and in his prohibitions, he willeth weighty matters to be referred to his Apostleship ; and in his usual style, the style of the Court of Rome, his letters, his decrees, his mandates and precepts are called Apostolic, and all Apostolic, that toucheth him; the Apostolic Bull, the Apostolic seal, the Apostolic messenger, Apostolic palace, chamber, chauncerie, Apostolic Legate, Apostolic pardon, Apostolic authority, Apostolic dispensation ; and what not? Wherein we have another of your spiritual coosinages, as kindly as the former, wherein you clad the Pope with the name of Peter. Nay, this doth pass that. For, in that, he cometh forth with the spoils of Peter, one Apostle: in this, of more then one. For Bishops, in their oth of fealty to the Pope, are sworn to visit yearly the Court of the Apostles, that is, of the Pope; unless they be dispensed withal by the Apostles, that is, by the Pope.

You need not think this kind of speeches so disorderly. For S. Bernard useth them, or the like unto them. Yea, the very title of the Apostleship is given to the Pope by him.

S. Bernard was a worthy man, in that corrupt age, in which he lived. But yourselves have a proverb, that Bernard saw not all things. Yet he saw many more, then you can well brook: and some wherein the Pope succeedeth Constantine, not Peter ; some wherein he succeedeth neither. That he saw the filth of the Papacie but in part: it may be imputed 〈2 pages missing〉 never had himself you • Popes supremacy, the right of the heavenly and of the earthly kingdom, the princehood both in temporal and spiritual things. Such power neither the scriptures nor Fathers give to Peter. But what are the scriptures which the Fathers allege?

How far the supremacy of Peter did reach in earthly things and heavenly, spiritual and temporal: I will not reason now. But the ancient Fathers allege the same scriptures to prove that his supremacy came to his successors in the Church of Rome, which I alleged before to prove his right to the supremacy. For, that the promise in the sixteenth of Matthew, upon this rock I will build my Church, and so forth, is verified in the See of Rome, S. Augustine teacheth: Number (saith he) the Priests even from the very seat of Peter, and in that rank of fathers mark who succeeded whom: that is the rock against which the proud gates of hell prevail not. And, that the performance of the said promise in the last of John, Feede my sheep, pertaineth also to the Pope, S. Chrysostom is witness, avouching expressly, that Christ did commit his sheep to be fed both unto Peter, and to Peters successors. Which to be likewise meant by those words in the two and twenteeth of Luke, I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and thou being converted strengthen thy brethren: Pope Marcus in his decretal epistle to Athanasius, Pope Lucius in his decretal epistle to the demands of French and Spanish Bishops, Pope Felix in his decretal epistle to Benignus, have manifestly taught.

Nettles amongst roses, when you set the bastard authors of these decretals amongst the ancient Fathers. But tell me in good sooth: think you that every Pope must deny Christ?

Denie Christ? What mean you to ask me that question?

Because you seem to say, that Christ's words to Peter, and thou being converted strengthen thy brethren, are meant of all them.

What? And say I therefore, that they must deny Christ?

Or else you say nothing. For why said Christ to Peter, and thou being converted ? Did he not say it in respect that Peter would avert and turn him self away from him, when he denied him thrice ?

So: what if he did?

Then if the same words be meant of all Popes, every Pope must first be turned away from Christ, that he may be converted after: and therefore every Pope must deny Christ. If I should say so: some would be angry with me. But you may say what you list.

This is such a reason, as y ^t , (which hath been made too,) y ^t if the words, Thou art Peter, concern Peters successor, then the words, Satan, thou art an offense to me, must concern him also, because they were spoken by Christ to Peter both. But, as Father Robert answereth to that, so do I to this, that the reason followeth not. For certain things (saith he) are spoken to Peter for himself alone; certain for himself, and for all Christians; certain for himself, and for his successors. This is plainly gathered by the diverse reason and consideration, whereon they are spoken to him. For those things which are spoken to him as one of the faithful, are understood to be spoken unto all the faithful: as, if thy brother trespass against thee. Those things which are spoken in some respect of his own person, are spoken unto him alone: as, thou shalt deny me thrice. Those things which are spoken in regard of his pastoral duty, are spoken unto all pastors: as feed my sheep, and, strengthen thy brethren. And thus you may see y ^t the words of Christ, I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, and, strenghthen thy brethren, might in such sort be spoken unto Peter, that they might pertain to every Pope also: though the other words, to deny Christ, and to be converted, do not pertain to them. You will not say yourself, (I trust) of faithful Christians, that they must all deny Christ. Yet you said that this prayer & commandment of Christ pertain to them all, if you be remembered.

I remember it well: and it is very true. But this doth give a deadly stripe to that argument, which you pretended to be made by the Fathers. For if the words of Christ, Feede my sheep, and, strengthen thy brethren, must be understood as spoken unto all Pastors, which by your answer you grant: then how can they prove the supremacy of one Pastor, which you conclude in your argument?

I did not mean by [all Pastors] the Pastors of all Churches: but all the Pastors of one Church, namely of the Church of Rome.

But Robert, the Father whose words you alleged, doth mean the Pastors of all Churches. And the commandment of Christ, Feede my sheep, belongeth to them also: unless the council of Trent mistake it.

It belongeth to them: but to the Bishop of Rome chiefly. For Chrysostom expressly saith, (as I alleged,) that Christ did commit the feeding of his sheep to Peter and to Peters successors.

And be you certain, that by [Peters successors] he meant the Bishops of Rome ?

Whom should he mean but them?

He meant all Bishops: not all y ^e Bishops of one Church, but the Bishops of all Churches. Which is evident by his words, and the intent whereto he spake them. For to stir up Basil, and make him glad and willing to do the office of a Bishop, which he had undertaken, he telleth him, that Christ when he said to Peter, Dost thou love me? Feede my sheep, did thereby show how deer his sheep are unto him, and therefore would surely give great reward to Pastors who feed them, and guide them. For why did he shed his own blood, (saith Chrysostom ) but evē to purchase those sheep, the care of whom he committed to Peter and to Peters successors. Whereupon he goeth forward, and declareth what that charge is, which Christ gave to Peter and to all Pastors by that commission Feede my sheep. So that both the course of Chrysostom • speech, and the drift of his reason, and the person whom it implieth, S. Basil, Bishop, not of Rome, but of Cesarea, do manifestly show, that he meant, by naming [the successors of Peter] all Pastors of the flock, all Bishops of the Church of Christ. And this is so clear, that Father Robert himself (in his Roman Lectures ) doth not only grant it, but also prove it by two reasons: one, out of Austin, that Peter was a figure of the Church, that is to say, he represented all Pastors, when Christ said to him, feed my sheep: another, out of Leo, that Peter is an example and as it were a pattern, the which all Pastors ought to follow. How much the more shameful is the ignorance of your Doctors, if they knew it not; the willfulness, if they knew it: who bear men in hand that Chrysostom doth prove the Popes supremacy by those successors. Wherein the oversight of your Rhemists is great: but a pair of Jesuits, Cani • ius and Busaeus, do go beyond their fellows. For they, amongst many sentences of the Fathers, the worst of them as fit as this to prove the Papacie, do set out this as the best; and triumph of it, as of a peerless proof, by giving it a special note in the margent: Note, (say they,) to Peter, & to Peters successors. Note it, say the Jesuits. In deed it is a point well worth the noting, that you do so notoriously abuse the Church of Christ. For you persuade the simple, and chiefly young scholars who trust your common-place-books, that Chrysostom spake of Peter and Peters successors, in the same meaning that the Pope doth, when he saith that Peter and Peters successor is the head of the Church ; and bindeth men by solemn oth to be obedient to the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter. Whereas S. Chrysostom meant by Peters successors, all them whom Christ doth put in trust to feed his sheep : as the Master of the sentences, and Thomas of Aquine do give the name of Peters successors to all Priests & Prelates (as they term them,) that is, to all Pastors & Doctors of the Church: as S. Austin teacheth that it is said to all when it is said to Peter, Dost thou love me? Feede my sheep: as S. Ambrose writeth that he and all Bishops have received the charge of the sheep with Peter: as the Roman clergy apply it to the rest of the disciples of Christ, & to the clergy of Carthage too. Such invincible reasons you fetch out of the Fathers for the Roman Papacy: by which every Bishop may claim as much above the Roman, as may the Roman above any.

In deed, to feed the sheep is common after a sort to the Pastors of all Churches. But in many Churches the faith of Pastors hath failed. Wherefore Christ's prayer for the faith of Peter, that it should not fail, is not common to them all. Only the Bishops of the Church of Rome have never failed in faith. By the which event of things it is plain, that Christ made that prayer for Peters successors in the See of Rome : and so did establish them over all, in charging them to strengthen their brethren.

And do you think that all the Bishops of Rome have had the same privilege which Christ obtained for Peter in that his faith failed not?

The very same, no doubt.

And have they shown their faith by their works too, by keeping Christ's commandments, by loving one another ?

They have so perhaps.

Away with that [perhaps:] for all the world knoweth they have not. Yea seven hundred years ago, not to speak of later times, wherein their power and wealth have kindled sparks of greater license, and loosed the reins unto their lusts, but seven hundred years ago, when they were yet of meaner estate, the proof hereof was famous by sundry of their lives succeeding one another: Formosus, Boniface, Stephen, Romanus, Theodore, John the ninth, and a little after them, Christopher, and Sergius. Of whom their own friends and favorers do write that they were gone from Peters steppes, that they did get his See by bribery, that they were monstrous men, or rather beasts and monsters. Amongst whom, the first was accursed by a Pope, and made himself Pope by perjury. The second would (but that he was prevented by death;) the third did repeal the decrees of the first, and condemn his acts: the fourth condemned the third, and justified the first: the fifth did keep the same race: the sixth confirmed it by a Council: the last, for all the Council and the Popes allowing it, restored the third to his credit, and again condemned the first. Thus were Peters successors whirled about with giddiness, as Krantzius speaketh of them: and the head of the Church was long without a brain. A thing very strange, and such as (I think) hath scarce been heard off amongst the Barbarians: that one of these successors, did take up the carcass of his predecessor out of his grave, brought it into judgment before a Council of Bishops, spoiled it of his Papal robes, clad it with a lay-man's garments, endited it, arraigned it, condemned it, cut off three fingers ofit, and cast it into the stream of Tiber. Yet this Pope might have been a Saint of the Popes, in comparison of John the twelfth. For he did show more cruelty upon the bodies of many living; then the other, of one dead: and the other excelled not so much in one vice, as John the twelfth in all, in ungodliness, unrighteousness, intemperance, pride, in whooredomes, adulteri • s, incestes, murders, in perjuries, simony, sacrileges, blasphemies, and such abominations as I abhor to mention. Not Catiline, not Nero, not Heliogabalus, not y ^e most monstrous wretches that ever lived in Rome, came near unto him. It were incredible that one caraine should have so much, so horrible filth, but that his own Church and the Italian Bishops (in a Council assembled by the Emperor Otho ) did charge him with these things, and with things more vilanous and outrageous then these. And himself, when the Emperor and Council wrote unto him, that he should come to make his answer, made this answer to them, and other he would make none, that he cursed them all to hell if they attempted to deprive him, as he heard say they did. Luitprandus, a deacon of a Church in Italy, a man commended for his holiness, who lived at the same time, doth write this story of Pope John ; and that with such credit, that beside Martinus, Tritemius, Platina, Krātzius, and others, men of your own religion, who write the sum of it after him: Sigonius (an Italian, to whom your Pope giveth almost a thousand crowns yearly to read in one of his Universities,) though he dissemble much, in his Italian history, the things that touch the Popes state; yet he acknowledgeth this, and writeth it somewhatfully. Now (I hope) you will not say of this Pope, Pope John the twelfth, that perhaps he shown his faith by his works : or if you would say that he shown his faith (as it may be he did,) yet you will not say that it was such a faith, as was the faith of Peter for which our Savior prayed. For, if you think here, that notwithstanding all these crimes he might be good after, as Peter reap̄ted when he had denied Christ, and so his faith did not fail, though it did faint: then I must tell you further, that Pope John went forward as he had begoon, and his death was answerable unto his life. While he was committing adultery▪ he was slain: whether thrust through by some who took him in the act, or stricken by the devil; historians agree not. But Cardinal Turrecremata doth take that as more likely, which is more dreadful. Because the life (saith he) of Pope John was detestable, and marvelous offensive to the Christian people: therefore Christ himself gave out the sentence of condemnation against him. For, while he was abusing a certain man's wife, the Devil struck him suddenly, and so he died without repentance.

What if Pope John, and some others of them, offended in their lives? Yet their faith failed not, that faith which Christ spake off. For by the name of [faith] he meant the doctrine of faith, which he prayed for Peter and so for his successors that they might keep sound, and never be seduced from it to any heresy. No more was Pope John, nor any other of the Popes: though in their lives they were not all of the best.

I thought that Christ had meant by the name of [faith] a lively Christian faith: which embraceth the promise of the mercy of God; which worketh by love, and bringeth forth the fruits of faith; which whosoever have, they have assurance of everlasting life. But you think belike that he meant a dead faith: a faith, which they have of whom it is written, the Devils believe, and tremble ; a faith, which Pope John might have, and be a reprobate, and die without repentance, and be the heir of death eternal.

I say not that Christ meant a dead faith, but the right faith: that is, as I said, the true and Catholic doctrine of the faith of Christ. As the scripture useth that word, where it is written, that in the later times some shall depart from the faith, and shall give heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of Devils. The doctrines of Devils are heresies whatsoever. The faith is the true doctrine set against heresies. S. Pe • er held this faith when he said, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. From this faith the devil would have removed him. But Christ prayed for him that it should not fail. And so I say he prayed for the Bishops of Rome, that it should fail in none of them.

But this faith is also a faith, which the Devils may have, and yet tremble: a faith, which Pope John might have and be a reprobate, and die without repentance, and be the heir of death eternal.

What if it be so?

Then Christ prayed for Peter, that he should never lose that faith, which faith he might have kept and yet be lost himself, even lost both body and soul to everlasting death.

If I should grant you so much:

Nay, you must needs grant it: for it is proved by Pope John. But why said Christ to Peter, Satan hath desired, that he may sift you, as wheat? What is that to sift the disciples, as wheat ?

To sift them, as wheaten meal: that is, to shake out of them all their truth and faithfulness, as flower out of the sieue, and leave nothing within them but branne as it were.

Then Satan desired to shake out of them all their love towards Christ, that they might forsake him, and reuolte from him.

He did so.

And this he did, to what ende, but that he might destroy them: as he desired to sift Job ? As S. Peter warneth us: the Devil goeth about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour.

It is true.

And as S. Peter armeth us against the attempts of the Devil by this lesson, whom resist ye strong in faith : so Christ did arm him by praying to God, and obtaining for him, that his faith should not fail.

Uery true. He armed him and made him most strong that he being converted might strengthen his brethren.

Doo you not see then that he must needs mean by [faith] a lively faith, which hath the love of Christ and constant godliness joined with it? by which the Devil is conquered, hell escaped, heaven assured? For, if he had meant the doctrine, as you construe it, the true and Catholic doctrine of the faith of Christ: how had he armed Peter against those fiery darts of Satā, which a right opinion in matters of faith was not able to quench? Wherein mark, I pray, what blemish you cast on the wisdom of Christ, whom you suppose to have said to Peter: the Devil will tempt you to draw you from my love, and to destroy you body and soul; but I have prayed for thee, that thou shalt think aright in matters of faith. Which is, as if a Captain, to cheer up a soldier (whom he had special care off) against the battle, should tell him: the enemy will assault you with poisoned shot, to kill you; but I have got a shield of paper for thee, to defend thee from it. Then which what can be spoken more ridiculous, or absurd?

As though a right faith were no stronger fence against assaults of the Devil, then is a shield of paper against poisoned shot. S. Paul thought not so, who in the armor of a Christian exhorteth us above all things to take the shield of faith.

S. Paul meaneth not the same by [faith] that you do. For he addeth of that shield, that we may quench all the fiery darts of the wicked (that is to say, of the devil) with it. But a right opinion in matters of faith cannot quench them all: as it is plain by Judas, or by Pope John. Therefore, he meaneth by [the shield of faith] a lively Christian faith, which God doth give to his elect, and to them only; by which we overcome the devil, and all his forces, and enter into heaven. Howbeit, I deny not, that a right opinion in matters of faith is stronger then paper against some darts of Satan, to weete, against errors. But to be preserved safe from these darts, is not enough to life: neither do all of them give mortal wounds. The darts, whereof I spake, are more sharp, & deadly. Whom they wound, they kill. Against the which kind, if Christ had armed Peter with such a faith as you imagine, when Satan desired to sift him as wheat : it is profane to think it, but it followeth of your fancy, that he armed him with (as it were) a paper-shield against poisoned shot. For, as against this shot a shield of paper cannot preserve our temporal life: so a right opinion in matters of faith could not save him to life eternal from those darts.

And what if our Savior meant a lively faith in that he prayed for Peter ?

Then he prayed for Peter that which he prayed not for the Popes. For he obtaineth always the things which he prayeth for. But he obtained not a lively faith for all the Popes, as I have proved. Therefore he prayed not for it. And so is that position found to be false, on which you pitch the Papacie; that Christ made that prayer for Peters successors in the See of Rome, which he made for Peter, not to fail in faith.

Yet Christ gave him also that faith which we speak off: I mean a right judgment in matters of faith, with grace, that neither it should fail. And in this privilege the Pope doth succeed him, though not in the other.

You should first prove that Christ meant this privilege in mentioning [faith] there: or else, I will answer, that he gave it to Peter, as to the Apostles. And so may their successors claim it, as well as Peters. But admit he meant it. The Pope doth not succeed him in this privilege neither. For the Pope may, not only err in doctrine, but also be an heretic. Which (I hope) you will not say that Peter might.

Neither, by my good will, that the Pope may.

But you must: no remedy. It is a ruled case. Your Schoolmen and Canonistes, Ockam, Hostiensis, Turrecremata, Zabarella, Cusanus, Antoninus, Alfonsus, Cano, Sanders, Bellarmine, and others, yea the Canon law it self, yea a Council, a Roman council, confirmed by the Pope, do grant it.

They grant that the Pope may be an heretic, perhaps, by a supposal: as many things may be, which never were, nor are, nor shall be. For you cannot prove, that ever any Pope was an heretic, actually: though possibly they may be. Wherof I will not strive.

If they may be possibly, which you must needs grant: then is it certain that it was not meant by the words of Christ that they should not fail in doctrine of faith. For whatsoever he saith, that it shall not be: that cannot be possibly. But it it is no surer that they may be heretics: then it is manifest, that some of them have been. For whē the Church was pestered with the heresy of the Monothelites, who, (whereas Christ is made our Savior and redeemer by that he doth consist of two natures, God and man; and as of two natures, so of two willes, agreeably to the natures,) they say that Christ hath but only one will, and by consequent but one nature; which razeth the ground of our salvation: Honorius the Pope did hold and teach this heresy. The sixth general council found him guilty of it: condemned him, and cursed him for it.

Whether Pope Honorius held that heresy or no: the Catholics are of diverse judgments; some thinking that he did, some that he did not. Father Robert, the reader of controversies in Rome, preferreth the opinion of Pighius, Hosius, and Onuphrius, before them all who think otherwise: and so with their consent, he doth acquit Honorius.

How? by a pardon? as Barabbas was aquitted? Or, have they empaneled a iurie of Clerks, and found him not guilty?

They show by good reasons that he is falsely slandered. For Pighius and Hosius do bring the testimonies of historians, Platina, Sabellicus, Nauclerus, Blondus, & Aeneas Siluius : who say, that Honorius did condemn the heresy of the Monothelites. Whereto Onuphrius addeth the authorities of Emmanuell Callêca, a Grecian; and John of Turrecremata, Cardinal of San-sisto : who have proved by their writings that he was a Catholic Bishop.

Have proved? Nay they would, had not their proofs failed. But is not this a strange answer? The question is touching Honorius, a Pope, who lived almost a thousand years ago, what he taught in a point of faith. The Bishops, who lived about the same time, not many fewer then two hundred or (as some write) three hundred, do say, and prove their saying by his own writings, that he taught erroneously as the Monothelites. Platina, Sabellicus, Nauclerus, Blondus, Siluius, Callêca, and Turrecremata, seven of the Popes freends, of whom the eldest lived above six hundred years after him, do affirm the contrary. Whether of these are likelier to know and say the truth thereof?

But there are also in the Popes library the writings of Maximus, who lived about the same time. And it is plain by him that Honorius did not subscribe to that heresy: yea, that of a certainty he did condemn it.

Onuphrius might say so, and (as he thought) safely, because it was not likely, that we should see Maximus in y ^e Popes library to disprove his saying. But it is disproved by your own Andradius. Who discoursing hereof, to show that it is not certain that Honorius did first condemn the heresy of the Monothelites, though Platina, and Sabellicus, and Blondus, and Aeneas Siluius say he did: for Theophanes, (saith he) and Anastasius, historians much ancienter then they, do write that John the fourth Pope after him was the first who did it. And Maximus (as it is well noted by Torrensis a singular learned man, having purposely undertaken to clear Honorius of that heresy, made not any mention of his condemning it: though, if it had been so, he must have known it needs, and could not have omitted it. Now, this Torrensis, whom Andradius praiseth, hath alleged that whole place of Maximus touching Honorius: whereof the sum is this, that the secretarie of Honorius, who wrote the very epistle that he was charged by, and knew belike his meaning best, expounded part thereof in a good sense, that it might seem sound. And this is that Maximus in the Popes library, by which your Onuphrius doth take it to be plain, (or at the least would have us take it,) that Honorius did never subscribe to that heresy, yea, that of a certainty he did condemn it. But see what difference between men. Andradius, who alloweth the secretaries exposition which Maximus alleged to clear Honorius of that heresy, yet thinketh it plain by that place of Maximus, that he did not condemn it. Torrensis, a friend of the Popes too, declareth, that a part of the epistle of Honorius is helped reasonably by the secretaries exposition: but it fitteth not another parte thereof, in which it is plain by his own words, that he was a Monothelite. So Torrensis who had access to the Popes library as well as Onuphrius, hath shown that Onuphrius did mean to steal a lie by sending us to Maximus in the Popes library. As for Maximus himself, he was loath, for good will both to Honorius and the truth, that the heretics should boast (as they did) of such a patron: and therefore he desired to withdraw him from them. But the general Council (before which he wrote) found after, on better examination of the matter, that Honorius joined with them, and taught as they did. Wherefore, whatsoever Maximus hath written or rather wished of it: the Council is of greater credit then Maximus ; much more, then Callêca or Turrecremata, who could not say therein so much as Maximus, and Maximus is the best that they say.

That which you allege of the Council, were somewhat, if they had condemned Honorius of that heresy. But they did not: although it be so written in the Council now. For Anastasius, the keeper of the Popes library, who lived within two hundred years after Honorius, doth teach in his Latin history, out of Theophanes a Greek writer, that the common copies of the sixth Council were corrupted by the Grecians; and the Canons thereof, in the which Honorius is condemned, were forged.

Canons? what Canons? There are no Canons of the sixth Council in which Honorius is condemned. Neither doth Anastasius or Theophanes say it.

No? Sure Onuphrius saith as I said. And that which he saith, he saith that Sirletus, then, a chief Notarie, now Cardinal of Rome, an excellent learned man, had marked it.

A foul and gross faute, either of Sirletus, or Onuphrius, or both. For there were two meetings of Bishops at Constantinople, which both do bear the name of the sixth Council : the former, under the Emperor Constantine the fourth, about the year of Christ six hundred and eighty; the later, under his son Justinian, toward a thirty years after. The former was assembled against the heresy of the Monothelites : the Bishops of the west Church, as well as of the east were present, and they with one consent did all condemn Honorius. In the later there met the Bishops of the east only, who made rules and orders of ecclesiastical discipline, which are the Canons that you mention. These Canons do contain the sum of the ordinances of the Greek Church: wherein the Church of Rome is grated upon, both for other pointes, and chiefly for the Popes supremacy. The Greek Bishops therefore to win the more credit unto their Canons, said that they were made by the sixth general Council. Of which they reported, that, when it was dimissed, the very same Fathers, whom Constantine the Emperor assembled before, were again assembled by his son Justinian, after a four or five years, and ordained those Canons. But Theophanes, and Anastasius have shown that to be a tale, as it is in deed: and in discourse thereof have said of those Canons, that they are falsely named the Canons of the sixth Council. Now Sirletus, falling belike on these words, and remembering that the sixth Council is said to have condemned Honorius : thought it either true, or wholesome to be taught as true, that he was condemned by harlotry Canons not made by the Council, but forged in the Councils name. Which fancy peradventure he told his friend Onuphrius : and Onuphrius for joy went and set it in print. So, by the conveyance of Onuphrius and Sirletus, pretending and abusing the countenance and names of Anastasius, and Theophanes : the sixth general Council is put to silence (as it were,) from bearing witness against Honorius. But, the mischief of it is, that Torrensis again doth mar the play. For out of the histories of Theophanes and Anastasius (which are not common to be seen) he hath alleged also this place touching those Canons. Whereby it is manifest that their meaning was not to discredit the actions of the sixth Council which condemned Honorius in the time of Constantine, as you would have us to imagine. Their meaning was only to show that the Canons, which are called the Canons of the sixth Council, were made by other Bishops in the time of Justinian, long after that Council, and therefore are falsely fathered upon that.

But is not Honorius condemned by those Canons, whosoever made them?

He is not as much as named in any of them, save only in the first: where they who named him, have named him so, that both they have severed them selves from the sixth Council, by which he was condemned, and have increased the credit of it. For they reckon him amongst the heads of the Monotheli • es, and say of them all, that the sixth Council did condemn them justly.

That Canon savoreth of corruption, which speaketh so of Pope Honorius.

So. What say you then to the sixth general Council it se • fe? They do speak of him a great deal more bit • rly, reproving his doct • ine as the doctrine of heretics, false, wicked, pestilent. Nor thinking it enough to condemn his doctrine, they curse his name and person also.

I say y ^t the copies of y ^e sixth general council are corrupted.

The sixth general Council hath handled the cause of the Monothelite heretics in eightene actions, as they are termed. In the first action, the eight, and the eleventh : the heretics allege in their own defense, that Pope Honorius taught as they do. In the twelfth, and thirtenth, his writings are examined, his heresy discovered, himself condemned, and cursed. In the sixtenth, seuententh, and eightenth, the sentence which was given against him, and the curse, are repeated often, again and again, with acclamation of the Council. Think you that the copies of the actions of the Council are corrupted in all those places?

In all, in which Honorius is condemned, or cursed.

What? and that those places are corrupted in all copies, and that without difference, all after one sort▪ all with the same words?

All? why not? is that impossible?

Not impossible: yet improbable. But the seventh general Council, which you es • eeme so greatly for their defense of image-worship, this seventh doth make no better account of Honorius.

The seventh general Council is corrupted too.

But in the eight general Council there is rehearsed a speech of Adrian the Pope, which he had uttered in a council assembled by himself. In that he affirmeth, that the Bishops of the east did condemn Honorius with the consent of the Bishop of Rome.

The eight general Council is corrupted too.

But Leo the second, who was Pope then when the sixth Council was ended, doth namely confirm this point with these words: we accurse Honorius, who hath not lightened this Apostolic Church with Apostolic doctrine, but by wicked treachery hath labored to subvert the undefiled faith.

That epistle of Leo is corrupted too.

But many other learned both Greek and Latin authors, Beda, Psellus, Vmbertus, Balsamon, Marianus Scotus, Tharasius, and the eastern bishops, yea your own Pontifical of the Popes lives, make report of it.

What needeth this adoo? It is all answered by Father Robert in a word. For either these authors are corrupted them selves, or they were deceived by the copies of the sixth council being corrupted.

The saying of Tully (I see) is very true: He that is once gone beyond the bounds of modesty, must lustily be impudent. Albertus Pighius, an Archpapist, intending to prove (in his books of the holy princehood of the Church, ) that in all causes of faith and religion the Pope is the sovereign judge of all Christians, whom they are bound to hear and follow: because it was absurd, he thought, and very dangerous to attribute so great a power to one man, unless y ^e man were such, as might not err in faith, therefore he took upon him to bring in this doctrine that the prayer of Christ for Peters faith not to fail, doth privilege the Pope from falling into any heresy. Whereupon, as in general he denied that the Pope may be an heretic, though all Divines and Canonistes (by his confession) grant it: so, to cleanse Honorius thereof in particular, he said that the copies of the sixth Council, which made against him, were corrupted. This dealing of Pighius was greatly misliked by learned men of his own side, in so much y ^t one of them reproved him for it in a public assembly, & wisht him to recant it. They alleged against him, that Honorius was condemned and pronounced an heretic by two general Councils, the sixth, and the seventh: wherofthe authority ought to be held as sacred. But Pighius was so far from being moved therewith, that he wrote a new treatise against those two Councils, affirming them to be corrupted: and in heat of zeal for the Popes quarrel he called the sixth Council a most cursed Council. Here the Councils case and peril that was like to fall on all authors, if such hot heads might make such desperate answers, did stir up the spirit of Franciscus Torrensis to write against Pighius : whom he hath confuted, and proved that Honorius was in deed an heretic, condemned by the Council justly. Since the which time though Hosius a Cardinal, and Onuphrius a Friar, men of hard foreheads, have taken Pighius part: yet neither have they strengthened the reasons of Pighius, shaken in pieces by Torrensis ; and other of your Doctors more ingenuous and sound, namely Iouerius, Cano, Andradius, and Alfonsus a Castro, have shown their mislike of Pighius and Honorius both. Yea, • ur countryman Harding, who would not grant so much of any other Pope, yet granted of Honorius, that he may be justly burdened with heresy, and fell in deed into it. But now, behold, a new gamster, a Jesuit, Father Robert, doth set upon the matter fresh, and teacheth in his solemn lectures at Rome, that it is true, the Pope may be an heretic: marry it is probable, and godly to be thought, that he cannot be an heretic. A strange resolution, and fit for a Jesuit. Yet to show how probable he can make that seem which he confesseth to be false, by holding the contrary thereof to be true : he saith somewhat for everyone of those Popes that are charged with heresy; and for Pope Honorius he dealeth more impudently then Pighius himself. For he toucheth not the credit of the sixth, or seventh Council, only; but all that come in his way: Councils, Popes, Gr • ekes, Latins, Historians, Divines, either they are corrupted, or abused by corruption. Well may the opinion, which Father Robert saith for, be probable & false both. But this of Honorius, by which he would confirm it, is (out of all doubt) though false, yet not probable.

It is probable enough, as Father Robert handleth it. For streams may be corrupted as easily as the fountain, or take infection at least from the fountain being corrupted. Now the fountain as it were, whence the rest have drawn it, is the sixth Council. And he saith, that there the name of Honorius was thrust in amongst the names of other heretics, by malicious men, of spite against the Pope. Whereof he bringeth two proofs. One, that Anastasius witnesseth it to have been so, out of Theophanes. An other, that the Greeks adventured sometimes to corrupt books: as the same Council declareth by their practices.

The Council declareth that there were some copies of a former Council, that had been corrupted by heretics among the Greeks. But, as evil dealing doth still leave steppes behind it, whereby it may be traced out, their corruption was discovered both by circumstances of the thing, and by the manner of writing, and by conference with other copies. Now in these places of the sixth Council in which Honorius is touched: you can show no token of any such suspicion. Nay, the tokens all are clear to the contrary: even y ^t which you allege of the Greeks convicted to have corrupted books. For if they had corrupted so much of the Council in so many places: it is very likely that they would have also corrupted those places, wherein they are noted and discredited for such corruptions. Neither doth Anastasius report out of Theophanes, that the Greeks did so. Perhaps Father Robert did dream out of Onuphrius, that he had said so. But, although Onuphrius say more in that point then truth did afford: yet he saith not that. As for Anastasius : he is so far from saying it, that he gainesayeth it rather. For, in his story of the Popes lives, he setteth Honorius down amongst the heretics who were condemned by the sixth Council. The same is confirmed in an old copy of the seventh Council, which he translated out of Greek, and left it in the Popes library. And at the eight Council he was him self present, and put it into Latin most diligently and faithfully: there a Pope doth witness it. To be short, Torrensis addeth moreover touching Anastasius, that if he had suspected the Greeks to have corrupted any of the places concerning this matter: he would have given warning (no doubt) of it also, as he hath done of other. Wherefore, though ill disposed men amongst the Greeks corrupted books sometimes: yet the consent of copies, chiefly of the Latin written shortly after the time of the Council & laid up at Rome, the coherence of things, the agreement of authors, and circumstances of the story, do make it very unlikely that they dealt so with the sixth Council in the matter of Honorius. It were pity that all evidences of men should be distrusted, because there are some evidences falsified by evil men. But Father Robert dealeth, as Alexander the great: who, when he could not undo the knot of Gordius, did cut it a sunder with his sword.

Your knot of Honorius (I wisse) is not so hard, but that he might undo it without this sword: and he doth so. For he showeth, that the epistles of Honorius to Sergius, on which the sixth Council adjudged him an heretic, are both wisely written, and sound, without error. Wherefore though we should grant that he had sentence given against him by the Council: it followeth not thereof, that he was an heretic. They might condemn him unjustly.

Take heed. You were better let the knot alone then undo it so. This medicine will do more harm, then the disease. In deed a great Cardinal, on whom you rely much, would play fast and loose with it in such sort upon the speech of Pope Adrian : who saith that Honorius was cursed by the Bishops of the East after his death, because he was accucused of heresy. For hereupon he gathereth, that Honorius was not an heretic while he lived, nor cursed by the Pope, or Bishops of the west. But it followeth straight in the speech of Adrian, (which the Cardinal cut off,) that unless the Pope had consented to it, the Bishops of the east would not have condemned him. Moreover, the acts of the Counc • ll show, how Bishops of the west were also present, and subscribed. So that the sentence (given against Honorius ) was given by the Council, and by the Pope him self, not by the eastern Bishops only. Wherefore if the epistles of Honorius were sound, on which, as unsound, he was condemned of heresy: then a general Council confirmed by the Pope did err in condemning him. And if you grant this, as you must by consequent: you betray the strongest castle of Popery, to save a captains honor. For men of judgment will think, that the doctrine of the reformed Churches may be sound, for which as unsound the Council of Trent confirmed by the Pope hath condemned us. They might condemn us unjustly.

Not so. For they examined and knew very perfectly the doctrine of the reformed Churches, as you call them.

What? And did the other condemn and curse the doctrine of Honorius a Pope: and did they not examine and know it very perfectly?

If this do not stand with the Councils credit: Father Robert maketh another answer yet, which may be liked better. Namely, that the epistles were perhaps counterfeited: not written by Honorius, but by some heretic in his name. And so might the Council condemn the doctrine justly, but err in the person.

Yet were this also a blemish of the Council, to condemn a Pope in steed of an heretic. But they have not deserved to be touched with it. For, the former epistle, upon the proof whereof they did proceed to sentence, they saw it conferred with the authētical Latin copy, & found it to agree. Beside that, y ^e autor whom yourselves allege to clear Honorius, confessed it to be Honorius his own: and he confessed it then, when the secretarie of Honorius, who wrote it with his own hand, was alive, of good account, and bare witness of it. The later was approved to the Council, as the former: though they stood less about it, as needing less inquiry, when he was now already cast. But it hath all presumptions for it, so probable, that not as much as Pighius could suspect it, though he suspected the other. Neither do I think that father Robert thought them in deed to be counterfeited. But as a man that is in danger of drowning doth snatch at every bulrush to save his life, if it may be: so he, seeing the Pope made subject to heresy by the sixth general Council, doth catch at every fancy, whereby he hath some hope to help him. The fancy of Pighius is, that the Council did not condemn Honorius: the copies of it are corrupted. Andradius checketh that, and saith he was condemned: but the Council erred in condemning him, as judging him to err, who did not. Torrensis varieth from them both, and cometh in with a finer quirke: to weete, that Pope Honorius did consent with heretics, but, as a private man; and not, as Pope. This Cano, and Alfonsus, and Harding rest upon, and Genebrard after them: who addeth yet withal (for fear of the worst) that the heretical epistles of Honorius were counterfeited perhaps. All these hath Father Robert, and flitteth up and down, to this, to that, amidst them: at the last, as one half gone and past sense, he layeth hold on the weakest, even on the bulrush of Pighius. Now, if that of Pighius be so inconvenient, that the force of truth doth drive you back from it: you must retire also from that, as inconvenient, whereof it doth follow. That is the false principle, wherein you join with him, and he thereon doth reason thus: Christ prayed for the Pope, in that he prayed for Peter, his faith not to fail: therefore the Pope cannot err. The Pope cannot err: therefore Pope Honorius was not an heretic. Honorius was not an heretic: therefore the sixth general Council did not condemn him. For the conclusion hereof, being false, doth argue a falsehood in that which doth infer it. That is the first proposition: which you must amend, and reason thus of the contrary. The sixth general Council did condemn Honorius : therefore he was an heretic. Pope Honorius was an heretic: therefore the Pope may err. The Pope may err: Christ therefore prayed not for the Pope, in that he prayed for Peter. For had he prayed for the Pope, then the faith of Pope Honorius had not failed. But his faith failed. Christ therefore prayed not for him.

You shall not teache me how to reason. The first proposition of Pighius is good, though it be admitted that his conclusion is fawtie. For the learned Catholics, albeit they grant that Honorius was an heretic and condemned justly by the sixth general Council: yet they hold that Christ prayed for the Pope, and that therefore the Pope cannot err; but how? Christ did not respect S. Peters person, but his office, when he prayed for him that his faith should not fail : for it was to this end, that he being converted might strengthen and confirm his brethren. Now, because the Church, for whose sake that privilege was given unto Peter, should need to be strengthened afterward no less then in his time: therefore was it given to him, not as to him alone for himself, but as for his successors in the Church of Rome too. So, the Pope is priuileged from falling into error by the prerogative of his office, through the ordinance of Christ: that would have all Bishops and Pastors of the world to depend on him for their confirmation in faith and ecclesiastical regiment. Whereof it ensueth that he cannot err in respect of his office, although in respect of his person he may: or (to speak it after the phrase of the Schoolmen ) he may err personally, but not judicially. For error is twofold: personal, and judicial. Error personal, is the private error of a man: judicial, the public. Into public errors Popes cannot fall: they may into private. I mean, they may err in person, understanding, private doctrine, or writings: but they cannot nor shall not ever judicially conclude or give definitive sentence for falsehood or heresy against the Catholic faith, in their Consistories, Courtes, Councils, decrees, deliberations, or consultations kept for decision and determination of such controversies, doutes, or questions of faith as shall be proposed unto them: because Christ's prayer and promise protecteth them therein for confirmation of their brethren. And hereupon we say the Pope may err, as a private man, but not as Pope. Which, although you call it a quirke, and fancy, yet hath it pith & weight. For [Pope] doth note the office: [a private man] the person. And any man of sense may see the difference between the person and the office, as well in doctrine, as life. Liberius in persecution might yield, Marcellinus for fear might commit idolatry, Honorius might fall to heresy, and more then all this, some Judas might creep into the office: and yet all this without prejudice of the office and seat, in which (saith S. Augustine ) our Lord hath set the doctrine of truth. Caiaphas by privilege of his office prophesied right of Christ: but according to his own faith and knowledge, knew not Christ. The Evangelists and other pen • s of holy write, for the execution of that function had the assistance of God, and so far could not possibly err: but that Luke, Mark, Solomon, or the rest might not err in other their private writings, that we say not. It was not the personal-

You need not prove a thing confessed. Common sense doth teach it. A ruler of a company may be a good man and an evil magistrate. King Alexander had two friends, of whom he called one, the kings friend; the other, Alexanders friend. The magistrate and the man, the king and Alexander, the office and the person, we do not deny a difference betwixt them. Neither did I mean that every such answer is a quirke and fancy. Pope John the two and twentieth, when (upon a controversy about the beggary of Friers ) there was alleged against him a saying of Pope Innocentius the fifth: he said, that Innocentius had said it, not as Pope, but as Frier Peter of Tarantasia (that was his name, as a private man) in one of his postils. And this was well said of John. For when Innocentius was Pope, he had no leisure (I trow) to write postils : it is likely that he wrote them before he was Pope, when he was Frier Peter of Tarantasia. But as that distinction of [Pope] and [private man] is used by your doctors in the case of Honorius : so I said and say again, it is a quirke, a vain quirke and fancy. For that, which Honorius wrote, and was condemned for, he wrote it as Pope, not as a private man.

You mean, that he wrote it when he was Pope: that is true. But he wrote it not as Pope.

I mean, that he wrote it as Pope: and I will prove it if you will give me leave. But first to take up that which you have laid to disprove it: you allege that Caiaphas was exempt from error, nay prophesied right of Christ, by privilege of his office. Whereby you would imply the like touching the Pope. The example agreeth very fitly in part. But doth it agree (think you) in that part, in which it must to serve your turn?

What else? For it is written in the holy gospel, that when the Jews consulted in a Council what to do with Christ, whether to let let him alone, or apprehend him: Caiaphas, being the high Priest of that year, said to them, you know nothing, neither do you consider, that it is expedient for us, that one man die for the people, and the whole nation perish not. And this he said not of himself: but being the hie priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation.

But it is written also in the holy Gospel, that in another Council and consultation of the Jews, wherein they sought unjustly to condemn the just, when Jesus being asked whether he were Christ, the son of God, confessed him self to be so: Caiaphas, the hye priest, said, he hath blasphemed: what need we witnesses any further? behold, now you have heard his blasphemy. Was this speech of Caiaphas, a prophecy, or an error?

What if it were an error?

How see you not then that Caiaphas did not prophecy by privilege of his office ? For so he should have prophesied in this Council too, in which he sat as hye Priest, he spake as hye Priest, and to him as hye Priest the Council did assent in giving sentence against Christ. But that amongst many mischiefs and falshoodes he spake the words of truth once, in a sense, not which he meant, (for he meant wickedly) but which his speech yielded: there was a work of God in it. Who, having sent his son, a savior to the Jews, as he stirred them up to know him, and receive him, by Angels, by wonders, by voices from heaven, by wise men from the east, a prophetisse in the temple, John the Baptist in the wilderness, by men, women, childrē, all sortes of persons, yea by y ^e devils them selves: so he made the hye Priest to bear witness of him, by giving out an O •• cle under doutfull words, to make the Jews more inexcusable, that by his own mouth the naughty servant might be judged. Wherefore not the ordinary privilege of office, but an extraordinary motion of God, did guide the tongue of Caiaphas to prophecy of Christ: as he opened the mouth of the asse of Balaam, to reprove her master. And you, who would gather an ordinary privilege of the Popes office by that extraordinary prophesying of Caiaphas : do make a like reason, as if you should conclude that y ^e Popes horse can speak, because that Balaam's asse did. Nay, you might conclude this on greater reason. For Balaam's asse spake twice: Caiaphas prophesied but once.

Your similitude is odious. I marvel why you use such.

Because your reason is absurd: & I would fain have you see it.

Absurd? He that should call it absurd in our schools, would be thought him self absurd. For, it is grounded upon a proportion betwixt the hie Priest, and the Pope; the Church of the Jews, and of the Christians.

Then by a reason of proportion (belike) the Pope condemneth Christ, as Caiaphas did; and vexeth Christians, as Annas. Doo you allow hereof in your schools also?

Yet again? I see you will never leave these odious comparisons. The Pope, to Caiaphas, and Annas ?

You are a strange man: who go about to prove by the example of Caiaphas, that the Pope cannot err in office; and are angry with me for touching the weakness of your reason therein.

Well. I grant that Caiaphas had not that privilege. For it was not promised to the hie Priests of the Jewish Church, but till the coming of Christ: at which time the Prophets shown that it should fail them. For Jeremiah saith thereof: In that day the heart of the king shall perish, and the heart of the Princes and the Priests shall be astonished. And Ezekiel, more plainly: The law shall perish from the Priest, & counsel from the Elders. But, till that time they had it, and did teach the truth according to the law, and were to be obeyed in all things which they taught.

Yea? What say you then of Uriah, who was hie Priest under king Achaz, six hundred years before Christ? He ceased to sacrifice on the altar of God, appointed by the law: and, having made a new one like to the altar of Damascus, he sacrificed upon it. Whereby he defiled himself and the land with rebellion against the Lord.

I say that Uriah did err in doing so. But we may refute this reason of yours by denying that Uriah did succeed Aaron, and was of the tribe of Levi.

In deed a Cardinal answereth that you may refute it so in one word. And that is shown plainly enough (as he saith) by those words of scripture which are written of Jeroboam; He made Chapels in hie places, and Priests of the lowest of the people, who were not of the sons of Levi. But this refutation is as fit against our reason of Uriah : as if a mā should say that Bishops in England are not Protestants, because the Bishops of France are Papists. For, the Priests, which Jeroboam made of the lowest of the people not of the sons of Levi, were in the kingdom of Israel, at Bethel and Dan : and Uriah was Priest in the temple at Jerusalem, in the kingdom of Judah. The thing is apparent by the very course and text of the scripture. And they, who would save the Priesthood most gladly from y ^e shameful stain, agree that he was hie Priest, the successor of Aaron.

Let it be admitted that he was so. The stain of his fault is not so foul as you make it. For what did he else, but that which we read Pope Marcellin{us} to have done? Who, in the horrible persecution of Christians under Maximian and Diocletian, took incense for fear, and offered it to Idols. Uriah did transgress the law of God, not willfully, but through the frailty of the flesh: not of his own accord, but by the kings commandment. Wherefore it came rather of fear, then of rashness or ignorance, that he offended.

So did it in Peter, that he denied Christ. And may you therefore say, that Peter was priuileged not to deny Christ? I marvel that you feel not the grossenes of your dealing. You say that hie Priests are priuileged by their office to persevere in true doctrine. It is shown, that they fall to manifest Idolatry. You grant they do so: but they do it for fear, you say. Where is the privilege then? For God, to whom so ever he giveth any benefit as it were by privilege: he giveth them a privilege withal of special favor to free them from the lets that might debar them of the benefit. Hezekiah was sick of a pestilent disease, whereof he should have died. God did add fifteen years to his life. He took away his sickness, that he might enjoy it. S. Paul was in danger to be lost with shipwreck, and all the rest who sailed with him. God did give to him his own life, and theirs. He kept them all from danger and brought them safe unto the land. Wherefore if God had given a privilege of true doctrine to the hie Priests, he would have given them a privilege of grace too, that no deceit of flesh should make them fall away from it. But they might fall away from it by sundry means, to error, yea to Idolatry. For if they might for fear, why not for love also, as Solomon did? If for love: why not for hope? If for hope: why not for hatred? If for any of these, why not for other causes? It remaineth therefore, that either the hie Priests had not that privilege: or, if they had it, they had it with exception, that they should not err, unless either fear, or other cause did move them to it. Which if you affirm of Popes in like sort, as you seem to do by the example of Marcellinus : I will agree with you. For I am persuaded that no Pope can err, unless he be moved thereto by some cause, either blindness of mind, or lewdness of heart, or such human affections. Nothing in the earth is done without a cause, saith your old translation. Howbeit, for Uriah, perhaps you do him injury to say that he offended as Marcellinus did, of fear. For it appeareth not by circumstances of y ^e text, but y ^t he was as willing to transgress the law, as was the king to bid him. When king Achaz saw the altar that was at Damascus, he sent to Uriah the Priest the pattern of the altar and the facion of it, and all the workmanship thereof. And Uriah the Priest made an altar, in all pointes according as king Achaz had sent from Damascus: so did Uriah the Priest against king Achaz came from Damascus. What a ready mind was here in the Priest, who stayed not to speak with the king at his return, to dissuade him from it: but made the heathenish altar, against he came frō Damascus? And king Achaz commanded Uriah the Priest, saying, upon this great altar, set on fire the morning burnt-offering and evening meat-offering, and the kings burnt offering and his meat-offering, with the burnt-offering of all the people of the land, and their meat-offering, and their drink-offerings: and sprinckle upon it all the blood of the burnt-offering, and all the blood of the sacrifice. As for the brazen altar, it shall be for me to inquire. And Uriah did according to all that king Achaz had commanded. Behold, as Moses was faithful in all the house of the Lord: so was Uriah the Priest in all that Achaz did command. Such a Prince, such a Priest.

Great was the privilege of the hie Priesthood, and chair of Moses, in the old law. Yet nothing like the Churches & Peters prerogative. Wherefore howsoever Uriah did offend: The Pope cannot fall away from the faith. For even Marcellinus himself, who did commit idolatry for fear of death, yet repented afterward and shed his blood for Christ.

But in the mean season he did commit idolatry by your own confession. So that, this example must force you to yield that the Pope may err, though not abide in error.

Nay rather, that he cannot teach error, though he may err. As Pope Marcellinus, though he did commit, he did not teach idolatry.

Yes, he did teach it, by committing it. For, to teach, is to deliver the things that one knoweth, to him, who knoweth them not. The which that we may receive, that is, learn, God hath given us two senses: the hearing, and the sight. We hear words: we see deeds. The ministers of Christ, whom he hath ordained to teach the wisdom of his Father, the way to life eternal, ought to teach by both: that men may be edified by their words, which they hear; and by their deeds, which they see. Therefore S. Paul requireth in Timothy, in Titus, and in all Bishops, that both their life be good, and their doctrine sound. And him self had ranns this race so before them, that, when he exhorted the Philippians to do whatsoever things are true, honest, just, pure, worthy love, and of good report : he was able to say, that by his preaching and living they had learned them; which things you have heard and you have seen in me. Yea, it is so forcible to teach by living well: y ^• Chrysostom (commending S. Paul in y ^t point) preferreth it before the other. It is very easy (saith he) to teach by words. Teach me by thy life. This is the best teaching. For words do not so stick unto the mind, as works. And if thy work be not good, thou shalt not only not profit, but also hurt more by speaking, and it were better to hold thy peace. Why? Because thou showest me the work so, as if it could not be done. For I think with myself, if thou who speakest so great things, dost them not: much more am I to be excused, who speak no such thing. Therefore saith the Prophet, unto the wicked man saith God, why takest thou upon thee to declare my ordinances? For this is greater harm, when a man teacheth well in words, and fighteth against it with his works. Thus you may see that Bishops do teach by their life, not by their preaching only. Wherefore, though Marcellinus the Pope did not teach idolatry by word: yet by his fact he did. And so your answer falleth that he did commit, but not teach idolatry.

I grant that he did teach it after a sort: but not as I meant. I meant he taught it not by preaching. In that he could not err. For as I said before, that the Pope in respect of his person may err, not in respect of his office: so I say farther, that his office priuilegeth him in his sayings, not in his doings. The Scribes and the Pharisees (saith our Savior Christ) do sit upon the chair of Moses. All things therefore, whatsoever they shall say unto you, observe ye, and do ye. But according to their works do ye not. For they say and do not.

What? will you also make odious comparisons of Popes to Scribes and Pharisees ?

O, I touch you now: and therefore you would interrupt me. In deed that sentence of Christ doth confound you: no marvel you are loath to hear it. For were the Popes never so evil, even monsters, as Platina doth call some few of them, and they might be so for their lives: yet they were not worse then the Scribes and Pharisees.

Believe me, but they were. Beware of Pope John. All the Scribes and Pharisees might cast their cappes at him. He was a peerless monster.

You are ever interrupting, to put me from my argument.

I cannot abide, that you should detract from the Popes. Nay, yet give them their due. It is a fault (they say) to bely the devil.

If some of them were worse then the Scribes and Pharisees : my argument will hold yet. For (as D. Stapleton noteth out of Austin, Christ, when he said of the Scribes and Pharisees, They sit upon the chair of Moses, meant not them alone, as though he sent Christians to the school of the Jews to learn religion there: but by the name of Scribes and Pharisees he signified, that certain in his Church would say and not do; and by the person of Moses he signified him self, for Moses was a figure of him. In like sort S. Chrysostom and Origen expound it too. He chargeth us therefore, to hear wicked preachers, professing God with their words, but denying him in their deeds: All things (saith he) whatsoever they shall say unto you, observe ye and do ye. Now the cause and reason thereof is given in this, because they sit upon the chair, because they hold the room of Christ, as Scribes and Pharisees did of Moses. For so doth our Savior reason as it were: They sit upon the chair; therefore, that which they say must be observed, and done. S. Austin handling these words hath excellently noted it. Christ (saith he) hath made his people secure concerning wicked Prelates, that men should not for their sakes forsake the chair of wholesome doctrine, in which even they who be wicked, are constrained to speak good things. And why are they constrained? For (saith he) they be not their own things, but the things of God, which they speak. And how may this be? Because (saith he) in the chair of unity, God hath set the doctrine of truth. And by what words hath he set it? or where? He addeth: Therefore of Prelates, who do their own evil things and speak the good things of God, he saith in the gospel, Doo that they say, but do not that they do, for they say and do not. Thus saith Austin. In the same sense are these words expounded both by Austin himself again, and by Chrysostom, and by Origen : whose words I pass over for brevities sake. Wherefore to conclude, in despite of heretics, a sure undoubted certainty of doctrine and faith is no less knit to the chair of Christ, then to the chair of Moses, to the very succession of the Apostles then of Aaron : nay rather much more, by how much the new testament is established on better promises then the old. Mark therefore Christ's words: observe ye, and do ye. For we observe pointes of faith: we do precepts of manners. In them both we must be obedient even to Pharisees, that is, to wicked men and hypocrites, sitting in the chair, that is, succeeding into the seat of the Apostles, or Christ. Moreover, mark the word, observe, that is to keep those things which they command to be observed: because they teach not other things but such as are to be observed. And in this respect doth Christ allow of them. For so the Pharisees also them selves, though they were wicked men and hypocrites, yet (as Chrysostom noteth) they did not preach their own things, but those things which God had commanded by Moses. And therefore since Christ could not commend them for their manners, he doth it for his chair & doctrine. Wherefore he that sittteth in the chair of the Apostles, doth speak not of himself, but of the chair; that is, not his own things, but the things of God: and therefore must be heard whether he say and do both, or only say, and not do. Hence it is, that Austin saith against Petilian: Neither for the Pharisees did our Lord command the chair of Moses to be forsaken: in which chair verily he figured his own. For he warneth the people to do that which they • ay, and not to do that which they do: that the holiness of the chair be not forsaken, nor the unity of the flock divided, for the naughty Pastors. Doo you see how much the Fathers attribute to the chair? You were in ha • te ere-while to interrupt my argument. Now what say you to it?

Your argument is hansome a far off, at first sight. But if a man come near it, and vewe it, and feel it: he cannot choose but grow in great mislike of it; it is so misshapen. Aristotle compareth the arguments of Sophisters to weak ill-featured persons: who by stuffing out and tricking up them selves, do seem to be of strong and comely plight of body. The most of your Doctors arguments be such: and this is one of them. It seemeth strong, and comely, as you do bumbast it with fancies of your own, and decke it with the names of Austin, Chrysostom, and Origen. But strip it out of this apparel, and all the limbs of it are full of sores and blisters, worse then the French evil.

This is a spiteful speech, and a malicious sclander. But you keep your wont.

If I speak untruly, convince me of untruth. If not: why use you these reproaches? This was your argument out of Doctor Stapleton ▪ if you will give me leave to strip it. The Scribes and the Pharisees were to be obeyed in all things which they said, because they sat in the chair of Moses, that is, they did succeed Aaron. The Popes, (howsoever they live,) do sit in Christ's chair, that is, they are successors of the Apostles: which hath a greater prerogative. The Popes must be therefore obeyed much more in all things which they say. But men might not obey them, if they should err. Therefore they cannot err in anything they say. Was not this the very body of your argument?

It was so, in substance: and what faute find you with it?

None, but (as I said) that all the limbs of it are full of sores and blisters. For the first proposition (the contagion whereof infecteth the whole argument) hath two notorious faults touching the Scribes and Pharisees : one, that by their sitting in the chair of Moses, is meant that they succeeded Aaron: another, that, because they succeeded Aaron, they were to be obeyed in all things which they said.

What? did not the Pharisees and Scribes succeed Aaron?

That is not the question. Yet you may dout of that too. And how do you prove it?

Nay, how do you disprove it?

None succeeded Aaron, in offering sacrifices to God, and teaching Israel his law, saving the tribe of Levi. But the Pharisees might be of other tribes: and were so.

How prove you that?

S. Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew borne of Hebrews, according to the law a Pharisee. So was his father too. And if the tribes of all, of whom account was made that way, had been registered: it would be as easily proved of others, as it is of Benjamin. For whereas there were three sects among the Jews, eche differing from other in pointes of religion, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Esses : the Esses avoiding the company of other men, least they should stain their manners, and living with them selves alone (like to moonkes,) did leave y ^e Temple & cities to Pharisees & Sadducees. The Sadducees were few, & their opinions wicked: in so much, that even the common people did detest them. The Pharisees in number more, in reputation greater, and sounder in belief: the most exact sect, and coming nearest to the law. Which they expounded in such exact manner, and seemed holy withal: that they bare the sway for religion amongst the multitude; yea, cities flowed unto them, accounting them the best both in life and doctrine. Wherefore since the Pharisees were so well esteemed, & did swarm in Jury : it is not to be thought, but that other tribes had some of that profession, chiefly the tribe of Judah.

If Judah, if Benjamin, if other tribes had of them: much more by all likelihood had the tribe of Levi. And them might our Savior specially mean, not generally all, in saying, The Pharisees do sit upon the chair of Moses. As, if I should say that the Catholics sit upon the chair of Christ : you must not think I mean of Catholics who be scholars, but of Catholics who be teachers ; of Catholic Priests, and Bishops.

Your answer hath reason. For as S. Paul was a Pharisee-scholar ; so was Gamaliel a Pharisee-teacher. And, that there were Pharisees of y ^e Priests & Levites, y ^e scripture showeth, saying, that the Jews sent Priests and Levites from Jerusalem to talk with John the Baptist : and they who were sent, were of the Pharisees. Wherefore, that the Pharisees did succeed Aaron : the likelihood is great. That the Scribes : greater. For, they expounded & taught the law of God, (whence they were also called now Doctors of the law, now Lawiers ) by duty and office. Whereupon, when Herod desired to know where Christ should be borne: he gathered together all the chief Priests and Scribes of the people to learn it of them. It is most likely then, that they succeeded Aaron too: as did their predecessor Ezra the Scribe, prompt in the law of Moses. Yet your Doctor Genebrard saith, that the Scribes were lightly of the tribe of Simeon: and they with the Pharisees are said to have sat in the chair of Moses, as who had thrust them selves into it being empty, while the Priests abusing the riches of the Church did forsake their duty.

If Genebrard, or any other of our Doctors, have a conceit of his own: what is that to me? I follow the received s • ntence of the Church, that the Scribes and Pharisees came into the chair of Moses by succession, and not by intrusion. But why do you, agreeing with me in this point, reprove it in my argument?

I reproved it not. The point which I reproved, was that you expounded the words of Christ so: They sat in the chair of Moses, that is, they did succeed Aaron. Which exposition is erroneous, and very dangerous to the truth: though the danger of it not so apparent in it self, as in the consequent. For it is the mother of a greater error.

And how would you have it expounded, I pray?

According to the word and meaning of Christ. The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in the chair of Moses: that is, they teach the law of Moses. For as Moses him self received it of God to teach it the children of Israel, and he did so: in like sort the Priests and Levites after him were used to read it in the assemblies of the people, and to expound it. To this end their synagogues were built in every city, and every Sabbat day they met there, as it is written, Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him being read in the Synagogues every Sabbat day. Now they, who did teach, were wont to teach sitting : which appeareth by our Saviors example in the temple, in the synagogues, in other places. Wherefore the Scribes and Pharisees (of whom there were some in every town of Galilee, and Jury, and Jerusalem, to discharge this duty) are said to have sat in the seat of Moses (or chair, as we term it) because they did teach the same which Moses did, even the law of God delivered to Moses.

The matter is not great, whether you expound it thus or as we do.

Yes. For it followeth of your exposition that the Scribes and Pharisees said well in all things which they said, because they did succeed Aaron: and so, that succession (which is the mark you shoot at) hath certainty of doctrine and faith knit unto it. Whereas the right lesson, which you should gather thence, is, that the Scribes and Pharisees said well in all things which they said out of the word of God ▪ and so that God's word is simply true and certain; but men ordained to teach it must be heard no farther th • n they agree with it. And this might D. Stapleton have learned of the same Fathers whom he cited▪ but that he rather readeth them to maintain a faction, then to learn the truth. For Austin doth interpret the chair, not of succession, but of wholesome doctrine, in the which they sit, who speak the good things of God: &, we are willed to hear God speaking by them, when we are willed to do the things which they say. For in sitting on Moses chair, they teach the law of God▪ therefore by them God doth teach. But if they would teach their own things, (saith Austin ) hear them not, obey them not. So doth Chrysostom expound it, Doo all things which the Scribes and Pharisees say you must do: for they preach not their own things, but the things which God commanded by Moses. So doth Origen apply it to them who teach the faith aright : with a special clause, that Christians, if they see a preacher live ill, and have not to charge him with teaching ill doctrine; they must frame their lives according to his words not deeds. If they have not to charge him with teaching ill doctrine : as if he should say, that who soever teach ill doctrine, they sit not in the chair of Moses. Let them succeed Aaron never so directly▪ yet if their doctrine be ill, they sit not in the chair of Moses. Whereby you may see the wretched state of y ^t argument of which you made so great vaunt. For the first proposition, that the Scribes and Pharisees were to be obeyed in all things which they said, because they sat in the chair of Moses, that is, they did succeed Aaron: is foully corrupted in the point of succession. The second, that the Popes do sit in Christ's chair, that is, they are successors of the Apostles : is tainted with the same • canker that the first. The conclusion therefore, that men must obey the Popes in all things which they say ; and the consequent thereof, that they cannot err in anything they say : are children like their parents, as sound as the propositions of which they are begotten. The filthiness of all the which if yet you see not▪ behold another light to see it by. The Scribes, amongst the Jews, were as the Canonists are with you; the Pharisees, as the Schoolmen : your Genebrard doth match them so. Or, if you like not his judgment therein, because Schoolmen and Canonists say not true in all things: yet this you must grant that Priests are with you, as Scribes and Pharisees were with them. For Chrysostom saith, (they be the very words which you did pass over for brevities sake:) we must not say now, In the chair of Moses, but, in the chair of Christ do the Priests sit: for they have received his doctrine. Which point (unless your former argument were naught) will prove that Priests cannot err no more then Popes. For they, who sit in Christ's chair, have greater prerogative then they who sat in the chair of Moses: Priests, then Scribes and Pharisees. The Scribes and the Pharisees were to be obeyed in all things which they said. The Priests must be therefore much more obeyed in all things. But if they should err, then ought they not to be obeyed. Therefore they cannot err in anything they say. Acknowledge you the form of your own argument? Doth not the conclusion follow as necessarily here, as there? And think you (M. Hart) that Priests cannot err? Think you that yourself are of this perfection? that we ought to obey, both you, and your companions, in all things which you say? Or if you think not so fondly of them, so proudly of yourself, as (I hope) you do not: then leave Doctor Stapletons exposition, which inferreth it; which he patcheth up with the words of Austin, Chrysostom, and Origen, whereas not one of them meant it. Yeelde rather (if you be wedded to Doctors of your own side) unto their authority, then whom y ^e Church of Rome hath none of greater knowledge and perfiter judgment for right interpreting of y ^e scriptures: I mean, John Ferus, & Arias Montanus. Of whom the one saith, that Christ taught his disciples to observe and do whatsoever the Scribes and the Pharisees commanded by the prescript of the law, that is, out of the chair of Moses : the other, that he chargeth us to obey evil prelates, yet withal he addeth how far we must obey them. Do ye (saith he) all things, which they shall say unto you: but he had told them first, they sit upon the chair of Moses. For Christ did not mean, that they should observe all the decrees of Pharisees, but so far forth, as they agreed with the law. According whereunto, when he had shown before also, that they taught contrary to the law in some pointes: after certain things touched between, he added, Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. In like sort he said to the Apostles and their successors; He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me: and, it shall be easier for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, then for them, who shall not receive you and hear your words. But Matthew had set down before that Christ chose twelve, whom he called Apostles, and charged them to preach the gospel. Whereby it appeareth that the Apostles must be heard, but so far forth as they be Apostles, that is, as they do Christ's work, and preach and teach the things which Christ commanded. But if they teach other things and contrary to Christ: then are they not Apostles now, but seducers, and therefore not to be heard. O the great light of truth: which forceth even the adversaries not only to perceive it, but also to reveal it often. So will it force you too: if you have so much grace as Ferus and Montanus had.

So much grace, as to say, that if the Apostles teach things contrary to Christ, they are no Apostles now, but seducers. Doo you allow that speech of Ferus ? And might the Apostles be seducers ?

Peter, an Apostle, might say unto Christ, (when he heard him speak of suffering at Jerusalem, ) Master, pity thyself, this shall not be unto thee. And Christ would not therefore have called him Satan, had he not thought him a seducer.

But Christ did give them afterward the holy ghost in greater abundance from heaven: when he sent them to preach unto all the world.

But Christ had told them before, that it should be easier for Sodom and Gomorrhah, then for the city that should not hear their words. Yet Christ himself refused to hear the words of Peter. Wherefore the exposition of Ferus is good, that Christ meant those words, which he had willed them to preach, that is, the gospel. Beside that, Ferus speaketh not only of Apostles, but also of their successors. Now though the Apostles were priuileged afterward by the special graces of the holy ghost to teach the truth in all things: yet Bishops, who succeeded them, have not that privilege. You must renounce therefore that erroneous expositiō which knitteth an assured truth of faith and doctrine to the succession of the Apostles, and bindeth us in all things to obey them who succeed into the seat of the Apostles, and saith that he who sitteth in the chair of the Apostles, doth speak not his own things, but the things of God. For our Savior meant, that the Scribes & Pharisees ought to be obeyed in all things which they taught out of the law of God: not, that they c • uld not err in faith and doctrine, because they did succeed Aaron.

I cannot conceive, but that he meant to clear their doctrine from error. For his words of doing that which they say, because they sit in the chair of Moses, are rather a warrant for them, in all things which they teach; then a restraint for others, how far they must obey them.

His words belong properly to the instruction of hearers: that they despise not the doctrine of God for the faults of teachers. So are they both a warrant, and a restraint by consequent. A warrant, for teachers to be obeyed in all things, which they shall say out of the law. A restraint, for hearers not to do those things whi • h the teachers say, if they shall teach against the law. As letters of credence given by Princes unto their ambassadors, do warrant them, for their commission; restrain them, if they go beyond it.

But the commission here is general for all things that concern teachers. For Christ expressly s • ith: observe ye and do ye. Now, we observe pointes of faith; we do precepts of manners. Wherefore, whatsoever the Scribes and Pharisees taught either of faith, or manners: they were to be obeyed in it.

That were a pretty proof for your traditions of both sortes, if it had ground in the text. But [to observe] and [do] are both referred by Christ to the same things: as he showeth by comprising them first in the one word, then in the other. All things whatsoever they say you must observe, observe ye, and do ye: but after their works do not: for they say, and do not. So it seemeth, that to fasten his lesson of obeying the commandments of God, which the Scribes and Pharisees taught out of Moses, he doubleth (as it were) his stroke, by saying both observe ye, and do ye. Wherein he might express and call to their remembrance that which he doth commend of Moses: who doubleth oft the same words in urging of the same doctrine. To be short, the word which your exposition forceth to pointes of faith: Christ himself applieth it to precepts of manners, keep the commandments. So pithy is the timber of which you frame your fancies. Though if we should take it all as very sound, and grant that Christ meant [observing] and [doing] of belief and life: your purpose is not proved thereby. For whether pointes of faith, or precepts of manners : he willeth Scribes and Pharisees to be obeyed no farther, then in what they teach out of the chair of Moses.

The words of our Savior are a great deal larger. You strait̄ them, I know not how. All things whatsoever they shall say unto you, observe ye, and do ye: mark, he saith all things. And he that saith all things, doth except nothing. You except many.

The Lord did command the people of Israel to repair in causes of difficulty and doubt to the Priests and to the judge: and ask, and they shall show thee the sentence of judgment; and thou shalt observe to do according unto all that they shall teach thee. These words [thou shalt observe to do according unto all that they shall teach thee,] the Jews are accustomed to allege commonly, when they defend their fond traditions received of their Fathers. And Selomoh, a Rabbin whom they make great account off, doth gloss them with this note, Thou must not decline from that which they shall tell thee, no not though they say that the right hand is the left, and the left hand is the right. A mighty spirit of error, that hath bewitched these men. But you and your Church do run apace after them. Perhaps you think you may be as bold for your Popes, as Rabbi Selomoh for their Priests.

No sir. For I grant that Rabbi Selomoh speaketh foolishly. Which is plain by the place it self whereon he gloseth. For the scripture saith there: thou shalt do all that they shall teach thee; according to the law, or to his law, as we read it. Wherefore to do all that the Priests taught, is not meant of things ungodly or false, but only true and consonant to the law of God.

Even so the scripture sarth here: The Scribes and the Pharisees do sit in the chair of Moses; all things therefore whatsoever they say you must observe, observe ye and do ye. Wherein the word [therefore] restraineth all things to that which they teach in the chair of Moses : that is, (as I have shown,) out of the law of God. So that (by your leave) the dream of the Jews is as wise as yours, in this point of all. And as you say to us, so may they to you: he that saith all things, doth except nothing. You except many.

Nay, I except nothing of all which the Scribes and the Pharisees teach. For Christ (as I said) requireth all those things to be observed which they teach: because they teach not other things but such as are to be observed.

But if they taught anything against the law of God: I trust you will except that, and grant that all was not to be observed which they taught.

If they taught anything against the law: I grant. But I deny that they taught anything against it: yea, or could teach.

And why do you deny it?

Because Christ saith of them, they sit vpō the chair of Moses. Whereby (to take your own exposition,) he meant, they teach as Moses did. Now, if they taught as Moses : then taught they not against the law; neither could they. For if they could teach against the law of God: then might that be false which was meant by Christ, that they teach as Moses.

That reason holdeth not. For many speak the truth, who can lie, if need be: and many speak the truth in some things, who in all things do not. Christ respecteth that which the Scribes and Pharisees did ordinarily: they read the law in the Synagogues; they willed the people to observe it; yea, in outward things, as ceremonies, tithes, purifyings, and sabbats, they did exact it most straitly. But as Paul said unto the hye Priest, thou sittest to judge me according to the law, and dost thou command me to be smitten against the law? so did they sometimes teach against the law, when they should teach according to it. And hereof is proof made by Christ him self: who therefore willed his disciples to beware of the leaven, that is, the doctrine of the Pharisees.

Then belike they sat not upon the chair of Moses, at sometimes when they taught.

True: but clean beside it, upon a stool of their own. For Moses wrote of Christ, and Christ is the end of his law. But they refused Christ, and taught the people so to do. They watched him of purpose, that they might find matter of accusation against him. They pronounced of him, that he cast out devils by the Prince of devils. They condemned him as guilty of death. They said that they had found him a man perverting the nation, forbidding to pay tribute to Caesar. They sclaunderously accused the just : they did blaspheme the God of glory : they put to death the Lord of life. They neither entered them selves into the kingdom of heaven, nor suffered others to enter in.

I grant that in the person of Christ they did err: but they did not err in expounding the law. For when they were demanded where Christ should be borne, they said, at Bethlehem in Judea: and they said well. But because the virgin Marie and Joseph dwelt at Nazareth in Galilee, before he was borne, and there he lived with them after, in so much that he was called Jesus of Nazareth : they thought he had been borne there, not at Bethlehem ; and so they were deceived, and did not know him to be Christ.

Yet this is the substance of the word of life: not that there shall be a Christ, which the Jews believe till this day; but that Jesus of Nazareth, whom they crucified, was that Christ. The Scribes and the Pharisees said, he was not. Ought the Jews herein to believe, as they said? If you think that they ought: no marvel if you hold, that we must do as Popes say. If you think, they ought not: then the Scribes and Pharisees did err in some thing that they taught. As for that you answer, they erred in Christ's person, not in expounding the law: it is a mere cavil. For we speak in general of the chair of Moses, that is, of his doctrine. They erred in expounding the doctrine of Moses, when they denied to Christ the things which Moses wrote of him. Howbeit that it is false too, that they erred not in expounding the law. For whereas the law is holy and spiritual, requiring perfect righteousness not only in the outward actions of the body, but also in the in ward affections of the mind: the Scribes and the Pharisees taught that the affection is no transgression of the law, so that a man refrain from the action of doing evil. As, for example, it is said in the law, Thou shalt not kill. This commandment they tied to the act of murder, and glosed thus upon it; whosoever killeth shall be culpable of judgment: as though it bridled only the hand, and not the heart. In like sort they expounded, Thou shalt not commit adultery : as if it were enough to keep the flesh chaste, the soul defiled with uncleanness. But our Savior teacheth them another lesson: that, howsoever they pretend antiquity for their glosses, yet wrath, malice, lust, even the very affections of murder and adultery do break the commandments, and not the outward deeds only. The rest of their perverse expositions I pass over. The last may serve for all. Thou shalt love thy neighbor, as thyself, saith the law. Wherein, the word [ neighbor ] doth signify, as you would say, one that is joined to us, as all men are, some more, some less, but all in a natural bond of humanity. The very light of nature hath taught the heathens so much: who saw that certain duties are due from all men, each to other, through this conjunction of mankind, and so have likewise used the name of [neighbors] generally for all other men ; as it is meant in this commandment, Thou shalt love thy neighbor. But the Scribes & Pharisees, thinking that [a neighbor] doth signify a freend, who beareth us good will, and him we ought to love : did thereupon gather and gloss of the contrary, And thou shalt hate thine enemy. Which interpretation of the law is lewd: and showeth that they were grossly blind in expounding it. Wherefore our Savior reproving their corruptions in this and other of their doctrines, doth say to his disciples: Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Our Savior might speak these words of their lives, and not of their doctrines because they were wont to say, and not to do. As for the pointes which you say were glosses of the Scribes and Pharisees : some of the Fathers take them to be the law of Moses it self, corrected, and supplied, or rather perfected by Christ. So doth S. Chrysostom compare the one with the other, as the old law with the new : and saith that the commandments of Moses are easy, refrain from murder and adultery; but the commandments of Christ hard, refrain from wrath and lust. So doth S. Austin seem to have thought also.

They thought so, (I grant,) good men, and well meaning, abused by the craft of the Scribes and Pharisees : who, to win the people thereby the more easily unto their opinions, did utter them in Moses words, though with another sense then Moses. As, that which he meant of lawful oaths, and vows ; they turned it to unlawful: of punishment by public judgment; they turned it to private revengement. But this shift of theirs, (which Christ doth but allude unto, as notorious,) did carry S. Austin away with such a prejudice: that he thought this also to be written in the law, (because it cometh in, as the rest,) Thou shalt hate thine enemy ; whereas the law commandeth men to love their enemies, and to do them good. The less marvel is it, if he were deceived in the former pointes. In the which yet afterward he saw his error and corrected it. For, when the Manichees, who condemned the God of the Old Testament as contrary to the new, did reason out of this place that Christ reproveth sundry pointes in the law of Moses : he answered that Christ reproveth not the law, but them who mistook it, who thought that the forbidding of murder and adultery did touch, not the affections and lusts, but acts only. And though it came not then into his mind neither, that the law saith not, Thou shalt hate thine enemy: yet he considered, that it could not otherwise be meant in the Old Testament, then, as in the new we must hate our enemies, or rather God's enemies, hate their vices, not their persons. S. Chrysostom in this point slipped not so much. For his words thereof be such, that it seemeth not, he thought it written in the law. If in the rest he did not retract, as Austin did: he had not the Manichees to sharpen him, as Austin had. Their folly would have made him wiser. At least, whatsoever the Fathers thought therein: it is certain that Christ reproved not the law of God, but the glosses of men upon it. Which the newer writers, even of your own, acknowledge: yea, the Catechism of Trent too. And one, a Jew by offspring, converted to the Christian faith, doth note out of the writings of an ancient Jew, who lived about the time of Christ, that the Jews thought the outward deeds only, and not the motions of the mind to be forbidden by the commandments. Wherefore in that you say, that Christ, when he taught that his disciples righteousness ought to exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, might speak that of their lives, and not of their doctrines: you say well of the one side, but not of the other. For he meant it of both. Which appeareth by this, that he therein giveth a reason of his former speech, as y ^e word [for] doth show: for I say unto you, except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Now the former speech was, that who soever shall break one of these least commandments, and teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven, that is, he shall be none in it. The Scribes and Pharisees therefore, men famous for their righteousness, who counted these commandments (mentioned by Christ) least, that is, they made no count of them, as thinking wrath, and malice, and lust, no transgressions; are noted to have offended not only in breaking them, but in teaching so too. And how did they teach so, but (as Christ declareth) by misexpounding the law? Therefore in expounding the law they did err.

They did err, after a sort: yet mark withal, how. They taught that the actions of muther and adultery are forbidden by the law: but they taught not that the affections are forbidden. This was in deed to teach less then the law▪ but not to teach against the law. Yea, to hate their enemies was after a sort also commanded in the law. For when God sent the children of Israel into the land of Canaan, he charged them to cast out all the inhabitants of that land. Now those inhabitants were their enemies : and of these enemies God saith, Thou shalt utterly destroy them, thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor have compassion upon them. Behold, they must destroy them. Was this to hate them, or no?

It was to kill them, I am sure. And so, by your reason, the law commanded men to kill their enemies also, not to hate them only. But in truth they were not charged to hate them, though they were charged to destroy them. For, the inhabitants of the land of Canaan whom God did will them to destroy, the Hittites, and Amorites, and Jebusites, and the re • t, were destroyed for their wickedness, their idolatries, their sorceries, and other horrible abominations. It was a punishment then and judgment of God, which the Israelites did execute in putting them to death. Now, to punish the wicked, is to do them good, For (as natural reason taught a Philosopher) vices in the mind, are, as diseases in the body; and punishments, as medicines. So that, as for a sick man to drink a bitter potion, or to be lanced, or seared, it is good, though it be grievous: in like sort, to be punished, is for a lewd person. Therefore when the Israelites did punish and destroy the inhabitants of Canaan : they did not hate them in so doing; at least they were not charged to hate them. For, to hate a man, is to wish him evil. To punish an offender, is to do him good. The charge of the Israelites was that they should punish them. In that they were therefore charged to destroy them, they were not charged to hate them. And this is yet plainer by the New Testament. Where, though we be charged to hate no man living, but to love all: yet the sword is left to execute vengeance on him that doth evil. Wherefore (to return unto the point in question) when the Scribes and Pharisees made that wicked gloss, Thou shalt hate thine enemy: they taught against the law. And so did they too, when they taught, that evil and sinful affections are not forbidden by the law. You say they taught less therein then the law, but they taught not against it. I say, they taught against it, because they taught less. For it is written, ye shall not add unto it, nor shall ye take from it. To do less then it willeth, is to take from it. To take from it, is to break it. To break it, and to teach so, was the fault of the Scribes & Pharisees. Howbeit, if you think them not yet sufficiently convicted: you shall hear a farther & manifester proof, which is without all exception. In y ^e law of Moses God hath commanded, Honor thy father and thy mother ▪ where the word [honor] containeth all duties of service, love, and awe, which children owe unto their parents. The Jews, as they were prone to make ungodly vows, so this was an usual kind of vow amongst them, and they would bind it with an oth, that such or such a man should have no profit by them. The oath, which they used herein, as most solemn, was, By the gift, or offering. For so they were instructed 〈2 pages missing〉

It was proper to the Priests to sit upon the chair of Moses. But the Scribes▪

That is false first. It was not proper to the Priests, but common to them with the Levites : as the words of Moses compared with their practice show.

Perhaps by [the Priests] he meaneth the Priestly tribe, the tribe of Levi. And so I take his words. Then it was proper to that tribe to sit upon the chair of Moses. But the Scribes and Pharisees were not of that tribe necessarily: for they might be of other tribes.

But the Scribes and Pharisees were not of that tribe necessarily. Therefore they were not of that tribe. Is this the Doctors reason? As if a man should say, M. Doctor Genebrard doth not speak the truth necessarily (for he can lie sometimes:) therefore he speaketh not the truth.

Nay, my meaning is, that they were of other tribes, not only that they might be.

So is my meaning too, that he doth lie sometimes, not only that he can lie. Yet how doth he prove, that they were of other tribes?

That the Pharisees were; his proof needeth not: for you grant it yourself. That the Scribes were lightly of the poor tribe of Simeon, he proveth by two witnesses: the one, Rabbi Selomoh ; the other, the Chaldee, upon the nine and fortieth chapter of Genesis.

He abuseth two witnesses. For he seemeth by the Chaldee, to mean the Chaldee Paraphrast : and the Chaldee Paraphrast hath not a word to that purpose. As for Rabbi Selomoh, he hath some such words: but D. Genebrard wresteth and depraveth them. For whereas the Rabbin saith, that poor Scribes and such as taught little children, were not but of the tribe of Simeon : he maketh him to say, that Scribes for the most part were of the poor tribe of Simeon. In the which report he committeth two faults. One, that where his autor doth speak of poor Scribes who taught little children, as scriueners do with us to write: he taketh it of great Scribes, who expounded the law to all the people, yea, to Princes. An other, that where his autor saith, they were not but of the tribe of Simeon, which in the great Scribes would be clearly false (for Ezra the Scribe was of the tribe of Levi : he, to mend the bolt and make it fit for his bow, saith that they were lightly (or, for the most part ) of the tribe of Simeon. So, what Rabbi Selomoh doth absolutely deny, that Doctor Genebrard tempereth with a qualification: and of these words, [the poor Scribes were of the tribe of Simeon;] he maketh these, [the Scribes were of the poor tribe of Simeon.] This is a pretty sleight, and such as is not common amongst the ancient Sophisters, whom Plato painteth out. But the Sorbonists do pass them. Yet is D. Genebrard to blame to play such tri • kes when he shall gain so little by them. For what if a Rabbin, a Jew, who lived of late years, had said, that the Scribes were not of the Levitical tribe ? That nation is stricken with madness, and with blindness, and with astonishment of heart, since they have shut their eyes against the Sun of righteousness : and the plague which God did threaten them, is come upon them; Thou shalt grope at noon days, as the blind doth grope in darkness. The tokens hereof are rife in their Rabbin's handling of the scriptures. Who (beside the filth of many other folies wherewith they do soil them) are wont in such places as they are coombred with, (though often plain and easy;) to piece out their glosses with brain-sick dreams, and sotti • h fables. In Genesis it is prophesied of Simeon, and Levi, I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel. In Joshua it is shown how this prophecy was performed both in Simeon, and Levi Rabbi Selomoh, not perceiving it, surmised that the trib • of Simeon must be scattered in the same sort as was the t • ibe of Levi. Wherefore as the Levites were sc • ttered throughout Israel, to teach the whole Church: so he had a fancy that the Simeonites were to teach little children. With this he did travel, and he brought it forth: he thought it might be; he liked it should be; he wrote it was so. Wherefore, if Rabbi Selomoh had meant the same Scribes of whom our Savior spake: his credit is too poor to witness what they were, who lived a thousand years before him, unless he prove it better. But that the Pharisees were of other tribes and not of Levi only: D. Genebrard proveth (you say) and I grant it. True. And I grant farther (which he proveth too) that they were Catholics. But yourself did tell me that if you should say, that the Catholics sit upon the chair of Christ, I must not think you mean of Catholics who be scholars, but of Catholics who be teachers; of Catholic Priests, and Bishops. The Scribes and Pharisees therefore had ordinary succession, for anything that Genebrard showeth to the contrary. But they did both err them selves, and teach errors. Then they, who succeed ordinarily, may err and teach errors. Now the Popes succeed in the chair of the Apostles, as the Scribes and Pharisees did in the chair of Aaron. The Popes are not warranted therefore by succession but they may err, and teach errors.

Nay, I deny that. For they have greater grace then had the Scribes and Pharisees. Wherefore, not, if the Scribes and Pharisees erred, therefore the Popes may.

Nay, as you brew, so must you drink. It is your own comparison of Popes with Scribes and Pharisees, even in the chair too. And (to say the truth) they are well compared: saving that the Popes are somewhat behind them in succession, and far beyond them in errors.

Not so. For howsoever it fared with Scribes and Pharisees : I will prove by a manifest demonstration out of the scripture, that Popes cannot err in doctrine.

If you do so, I yield. For one out of the scripture, as good with me, as a thousand.

You must observe then, that the scripture noteth four kinds of men, who by teaching the folk that are named Christians, do either lead them, or mislead them, that is, do either guide them in the right way, or seduce them from it. The first of them, Pastors ; the second, Hirelinges ; the third, Thieves ; and the fourth, Wolves. All whom Christ hath shown almost in one place together. For in S. John's gospel he saith of the thief: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climeth up another way, he is a thief and a robber. Of the pastor he saith; But he that entereth by the door, is the pastor of the sheep. And a little after, I am (saith he) the door. And anon, making a subdiuision of the pastor into his members, he showeth that a pastor is of two sortes, the one, good ; the other, an hireling. The good pastor (saith he) doth give his life for his sheep. But an hireling, and he which is not the pastor, that is, which deserveth not the name of a pastor, because he loveth more the goods of the world then the sheep (saith Gregory the great) seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth. He is a thief therefore who climeth up another way : that is (as Cyprian writeth) who succeeding no man is ordained of him self, not of them who entered by Christ, that is, not of Christ. He is a pastor, who entereth in by the door, & loveth the sheep : that is (as Irenee writeth) he that hath both succession from the Apostles sent by Christ, and with succession of Bishopric hath received through God's favor, the sure and gracious gift of truth. The hireling feedeth the sheep, unless the wolf come. For (as Gregory saith in the place alleged) it cannot be surely known, whether a man be a pastour or an hireling, if time of need come not, if persecution and trial want. The fourth kind, is the wolf, at whose coming the hireling fleeth. For he is a wolf who entered in by the door, he was ordained lawfully: but being set in the pastors room after ward became a wolf. Such as S. Paul describeth; I do know (saith he) that after my departure there will ravening wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock, that is, scattering the sheepfold: and of yourselves, that is, of the number and order of pastors, ( • or such he speaketh to,) there shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them selves. Such were Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Marcion, Paulus Samosatenus, Eutyches, and many other Arch-heretics: who of Bishops, and Priests, that is, of pastors, became wolves. Wherefore of these four kinds of men, we must love the pastor, we must tolerate the hireling, we must beware of the thief, ( saith Austin :) and I would add (saith D. Stapleton ) we must drive away the wolf. For the wolf must be kept off with greater care and diligence, who cometh in the sheep's clothing, and being made a pastor doth play the wolf, and seduceth: then the thief who climeth up another way, by open wrong and injury. For it is enough to beware of him because of lawful succession, which never is unknown or lieth hidden, no more then the Church it self. Moreover the hireling is of two sortes. One in respect of his ende, and secret: because he doth feed for hope of gain or honor only, but liveth not offensively. An other, who is openly wicked and ungodly. The hirelings of the former sort S. Paul describeth: Some (saith he) preach Christ for envy and contion, that is, for honors sake: some for good will and of charity. And what of such he thinketh, he addeth▪ but what? So that by all means, whether by occasion, or by truth, Christ be preached: in this also I rejoice, yea and will rejoice. Now, he preacheth Christ by occasion, not sincerely, who doth it for his own commodities of money, or of honor, and the praise of man (as Austin doth expound it:) and of such S. Paul saith, that he rejoiceth. So far is he from saying, that men ought not to hear them. As for the other sort of hirelinges, that openly are wicked and ungodly: such were the Scribes and Pharisees, and yet the scripture saith of them, The Scribes & the Pharisees do sit upon the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say unto you, observe ye, and do ye. But of this I have spoken sufficiently before. And so you may see, that hirelings, whether they be secret, or open, yet they teach the truth, & Christians are bound to hear them.

When shall we have the demonstration out of the scripture, by which you promised to prove that Popes cannot err in doctrine ?

You have it already. What? You cannot see the wood for the trees.

In deed I cannot see that wood amongst these trees. But you who see it better, will show it me, I hope.

See you not the words of Christ and S. Paul,