Conference Between Rainolds and Hart

You labor in vain, if you go about to persuade me that the Popes supremacy cannot be proved by scripture. And what injurious dealing is this, to bring our own men, Cano, and Father Robert, for the proof thereof? as though the greatest favorers of us were against us.

The scholar is not above his master, nor the servant above his Lord. If Christ my Lord and master were glad to labor in vain: why should I disdain it? Chiefly, since I may comfort myself, as he did, I have labored in vain, I have spent my strength in vain and for nothing: but yet my duty is with the Lord, and my work with my God. But what injurious dealing is it, if I, endeavoring to win you to the truth, do bring you the confessions of your own men, who witness a truth?

A truth? Why? will you grant us that the Popes supremacy came in by tradition : if we will grant you that it cannot be proved by scripture?

By tradition ? I: if you mean [tradition] as S. Peter doth, where he teacheth Christians, that they are redeemed from their vain conversation of the tradition of their Fathers.

You are disposed to play with your own fancies. You know my meaning well enough. Will you grant that it came in by tradition of the Apostles?

I should play in deed with your own fancies, if I should grant you that.

But they, whom you alleged, do say that it did so: as yourself have shown.

But I will prove that they spake no truer in that, then you have done in the other.

But what an injury is this, to press me with their former words of the scripture, whereas yourself believe not the later of tradition?

What think you of S. Paul ? Did he believe those things which the heathenish Poets do write of God's and Goddesses, Bacchus, Diana, Minerva, Mercury ?

He did not. What then?

Yet he alleged them to persuade the Athenians, that in God we live, and move, and have our being. What an injury was that to press the Athenians with Poets words of God, whereas himself believed not their words of God's and Goddesses?

The Poets might say well, and did, in the former: though in the later they missed.

Now, will you deal as friendly with me, as with S. Paul ? His case and mine are coosins.

Nay, you in the self same sentence of our men cull out a piece of it, and yet another piece of it you allow not.

Even so did S. Paul. For that which he avouched out of their own Poets, (the meaning of it is in sundry, the very words in Aratus ;) they spake it of Jupiter, who was a wicked man, but thought of them to be God: S. Paul, allowing not their error in the person, culled out their sentence concerning the thing, and proved a truth by it.

Well: if you may divide the sentence of Cano and 〈2 pages missing〉 other sort then I have done.

That I wish. For the truth is like unto camomill: the more you press it down, the faster it groweth, and spreadeth fairer, and smelleth sweeter.

So much of scripture then. Now to tradition : by which the Popes supremacy may be clearly proved.

By tradition ? Why? Do you acknowledge then that it cannot be proved by scripture ?

I tell you no, once again. How often must I say it?

Once saying will serve, if you do not unsay your saying. But here in my judgment you seem to unsay it. For you disclaim the title pretended by scripture, when you claim by tradition.

Why so? Might not the same thing both be written in scripture, and delivered by word of mouth?

It might, & was no dout, as the traditions show which S. Paul doth mention: which signify the doctrine that he delivered out of the scriptures. But you mean a doctrine not written in the scriptures, when you speak of tradition. For you do imagine that the gospel of Christ is partly contained in written books that is the scriptures; partly in unwritten things, that is traditions : as the Jewish Rabbin's do say, that God by Moses delivered not only the law, that is written; but also an unwritten law, which they call Cabala.

See: as the Jewish Rabbin's. You have inured your mouth to such venomous speeches·

Beware: or else through my side you will wound your freend. For Bishop Peresius, your chiefest patron of traditions, doth prove them solemnly by this point of the Jewish Rabbins and the Cabala. Neither is the proof unfit, if it be weighed. For as they pretend this ground for the Cabala, that it openeth the hidden meaning of the scriptures: so do you for traditions. And as they in process of time brought in doctrine contrary to the scriptures, under pretense of traditions : so do you with your Cabala. And as Cabalists among the Jews do call them scripture-men (by way of reproach) who cast off traditions and cleave to scriptures only: so do traditionists among you reproach us with the same term. Yea Lindan, and Prateolus, do note it for a special heresy. But (to leave this venomous speech) it is manifest that you renounce the scripture for proof of any title, which you lay claim to by tradition. For scripture is written; tradition, unwritten. Wherefore, if by tradition you mind to prove the Popes supremacy; you must acknowledge first that it cannot be proved by scripture. If you be not willing to ackonwlege that: I must debar you from tradition.

Then I will prove it by the Fathers.

Nay that you shall not neither: unless you will forgo the scripture.

And why so I pray?

Because they say, forsooth, that it is held by tradition. So that their evidences make against you, if scripture be your plea for it.

That is very false. For by the words, Thou art Peter and upon this rock, in the sixteenth of Matthew, the first Popes of Rome, most holy martyrs, have proved it: Anacletus, Alexander the first, Pius the first, Victor, Zepherinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Melchiades, Julius, & Damasus ; and likewise others by other places, as D. Stapleton allegeth farther. Wherefore that the Fathers took it (as you say) to be held by tradition, it is a flat lie.

Say you so? Then Cano, and Father Robert do lie flatly, (but that is no marvel,) who grounding it both on tradition, the one doth cite for witnesses thereof the first Popes of Rome, most holy martyrs, Anacletus, Sixtus the first, Eleutherius, Victor, Sixtus the second, Zepherinus, Marcellus, Melchiades, Marcus, & Julius : the other not contenting himself with particulars, doth allege in gross, f •• st, the general Councils ; next, the Popes ; and last, the Fathers.

Yet more of Cano and Father Robert ? I take not their defense upon me: and why again do you tell me of them?

That you may see how the Lord doth sheath the swords of Midianites in their own sides, to the confusion of them who pitch their campe against Israel. For the same Popes which are alleged by Cano to prove that their supremacy is an unwritten truth ; the very same Popes are alleged by Stapleton to prove that it is written: even Anacletus, Victor, Zepherinus, Marcellus, Melchiades, and Julius. Yea, and that is more, the very same epistles of theirs are alleged by Stapleton, which by Cano. If rightly by Cano : how may we trust Stapleton? If rightly by Stapleton ; how may we trust Cano? If rightly by them both: what trim Popes are they, who with one breath do say that the same thing is both written and unwritten? Yet Father Robert dealeth wiselyer, and like a Jesuit: who seeing the danger of naming special men and places, doth shroud himself in the general of Councils, Popes, and Fathers. As if an horse-stealer being to give account of whom and where he got his horses, should say that he bought them of incorporations, horse-coursers, and honest men within Christendom.

Will you leave your roauing, and come unto the mark now?

It is a roauing mark we shote at: and I am come nearer it, then you would have me. But what shall be your next ba •• ?

I told you, that I would prove it next by the Fathers. It agreeth very well with your spirit, that you should call this a bolt.

Well enough as you shoot it. For although the Lord hath planted the writings of the Fathers, as trees; in his Church, as in a Paradise; whereof there may be made good shaftes; blessed is the man that hath his quiver full of them, they shall not be confounded but they shall destroy their enemies in the gate : yet not all the shaftes, which you do use of theirs, are good; your fletchers (at whose hands you take them upon trust) do mar them in the making, that I may justly call them rather bolts of Papists, then shafts of the Fathers. Who, if they were alive, might say to you in like sort, as did a Poet to Fidentinus:

Will you promise then to yield unto the Popes supremacy, if I prove it by the sayings and judgment of the Fathers alleged and applied rightly.

I truly. But I must do it with a protestation, for my defense against such quarrelers, as Bishop Jewel fell upon.

With what protestation?

With this, that I promise to yield unto the Popes supremacy, if you can prove it by the Fathers; not beca •• e I think that proof to be sufficient of doubtful matters in religion, but because I know you are not able so to prove it.

Whether I be able or no so to prove it, the thing it self will show. But if you think not that a sufficient proof, why said you that the writings of Fathers are as trees, whereof there may be made good shaftes, such as shall destroy their enemies in the gate ; yea that the man is blessed who hath his quiver full of them?

It is written in the Psalms, Except the Lord keep the city, the keeper watcheth in vain. By the which words the Prophet seemeth to have thought, that the ward and watch of men is not sufficient for the defense of cities, unless the Lord assist them with his watch and ward. How say? is not this true?

So. What of that?

That is an answer to your question. For the Prophet adding how God doth bless men in giving them children, saith, they are as arrows in the hand of a strong man: blessed is the man that hath his quiver full of them; they shall not be confounded, but they shall destroy their enemies in the gate. If this be truly spoken of children well nurtured, who yet are not sufficient to defend a city without the Lord's assistance: why might it not be spoken of Fathers well used, and yet they not suffice to decide a controversy without the word of God? For though I acknowledge there is good wood in them to make shaftes for the Lord's wars: yet is not all their wood such; some of it is knottie, some lithy, • ome crooked. And the best arrows, which are made thereof, unless they have heads of stronger metal, then them selves, out of the Lord's armory: they are not sharp enough to pierce into the heart of the kings enemies, as are the arrows of our Solomon. Wherefore as of your part, if you hearken not to Moses and the Prophets, I have no great hope that Fathers will persuade you, though they should rise from the dead: so for myself I will assure you, that neither dead nor quick, Fathers nor children, shall persuade me anything in matters of religion, which they cannot prove by Moses and the Prophets. For, the Apostles preached not anything, but that, which the Prophets and Moses said should come to pass. And if a Father, if a Saint, if an Angel from heaven preach beside that which the Apostles preached, let him be accursed. This lesson I have learned of Paul the Apostle: and I subscribe unto it. If you can like it better out of a Fathers mouth, learn it of S. Austin. Who writing against the Donatists, which could not prove by scripture their erroneous doctrine, doth press them with the same sentence, and teach all Christians the same lesson: whether it be of Christ, or of his Church, or of anything else whatsoever pertaining to our faith and life, I will not say, if we, but if an Angel from heaven shall preach to you besides that which you have received in the scriptures of the law and the Gospel (that is to say, the old and new testament,) let him be accursed.

You mistake the meaning of S. Austin's words. For they are thus in Latin: Proinde, sieve de Christo, sieve de eius ecclesia, sieve d • quacunque alia re, quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram-

I have the right meaning of these words, I trow; for they are plain of all things that do concern our faith and life.

I: but hear the rest. Non dicam, si nos, nequaquam comparandi ei qui dixit, licet nos, sed • mnino quod sequutus adiecit, si angelus-

Neither do I mistake these. For he alludeth to the words of Paul to the Galatians.

But you mistake the meaning of that which doth follow, Si angelus de coelo vobis annuntiauerit praeterqàum quod in scriptures legalibus & euangelicis accepistis, anathema sit.

Why? doth he not mean the old & new testament (as we call them) by the scrip • ures of the law and the gospel?

Yes: but your error is in the word praeterquàm, by which he meaneth contra quàm ; not beside that, but against that. For there are sundry things of faith and life to be preached beside them in the scriptures of the law and the gospel, but not against them. Wherefore if it were so that the Popes supremacy could not be proved by scriptures : yet the proof of it by the Fathers might be good. For it were not against the scriptures; although it were beside the scriptures.

Praeterquàm; id est contra quàm: beside that which you have received in the scriptures, that is, against that. This is your Louanists gloss-

Nay, it is S. Austin's : as you may perceive by his own words in another place, touching the same matter, where he saith thus. The Apostle did not say, If any man preach unto you more then you have received, but, beside that you have received. For if he should say that, he should be prejudicial to him self, who desired to come to the Thessalonians that he might supply that which was wanting to their faith. Now he, that supplieth, addeth that which was wanting; taketh not away that which was, and so forth. Whereby S. Austin showeth that we may preach more then the scripture hath: but not beside it, that is to say, against it.

He showeth nothing less: as any man that readeth his discourse, may see. For, that which he speaketh of more, and of wanting, is not meant of scripture, that is, the word written; but of the word preached & delivered by mouth. Wherein he declareth that the Apostles manner of instructing men, was, to feed them first with milk, not with strong meat. So, that which was wanting to the Thessalonians, was stronger doctrine of the faith : that which they had, was easier. Wherof though in the one he taught them more then in the other: yet no more in either, then the scripture hath. And thus S. Austin's more to be no more then scripture: himself maketh manifest by the example also which he giveth of it. For the doctrine of the manhead of Christ, he calleth milk; of the Godhead, strong meat. Now they who are taught to know him to be God, learn more then they had learned when they received him as man. But they learn no more then the scripture hath, which teacheth him both God and man. Wherefore, that S. Austin condemning all who preach ought beside the scriptures of the law & the gospel, meant, that more then scriptures may be preached, but naught against them : it is not S Austin's gloss, but your Louanists, and in truth repugnant to S. Austin's text. For in the same place S. Austin making mention how the Donatists hated him for preaching of the truth and confuting their heresy; as though (saith he) we had commanded the Prophets and Apostles who were so long before us, that they in their books should set down no testimonies whereby the Donatists might be proved to be the church of Christ. Which words do show plainly, y ^t as by the scriptures of the law & the gospel he signified the books of the Prophets & Apostles : so by condemning all that is beside the scriptures, he meant, not, all that is against, but, all that is not in the scriptures. And that this was his meaning, he showeth yet more plainly by willing them to prove their doctrine by the testament : which your Louan Doctors (the greater shame for them to wrest S. Austin's words against his sense) do note also. For, as amongst men the testament doth open the will of the testa • or : so did S. Austin think that the controversy betwixt the Donatists and the Church should be decided by the Scriptures, which Christ hath left to Christians as his will and testament. For, Christ hath dealt with us, as an earthly Father is wont with his children: who, fearing least they should fall out after his decease, doth set down his will in writing under witnesses, & if there arise debate amongst the brethren, they go to the testament. He, whose word must end our controversy, is Christ. Let his will be sought in his testament, saith Optatus. Which reason of Optatus S. Austin urging against y ^e Donatists, as he doth other often: we are brethrē, (saith he to them:) why do we strive? Our father died not vntestate: he made a testament, & so died. Men do strive about the goods of the dead, till the testament be brought forth: when that is brought, they yield to have it opened, & read. The judge doth hearken, the counselors be silent, the crier biddeth peace, all the people is attentive, that the words of the dead man may be read & heard. He lieth void of life & feeling, in his grave, and his words prevail: Christ doth sit in heaven, and is his testament gainesaied? Open it: let us read: we are brethren: why do we strive? Let our minds be pacified. Our father hath not left us without a testament. He that made the testament is living forever. He doth hear our words: he doth know his own word. Let us read: why do we strive ? Were not this a seely speech of S. Austin, if he had meant, as you say, that all the Lord's will is not declared in his testament: that things beside his own word may be proved by men's words? Let him be accursed who preacheth any point of faith, or life beside the scriptures. True: beside y ^e scriptures, y ^t is against the scriptures, say your Louan Doctors. See what skil can do. If they were Doctors of y ^e Arches, we should have ioly law. For a coosining merchant might claim a thousand pound of a dead man's goods, who had bequeathed him a legacy of twētie grotes: & they might adjudge it him with good consciences, as not against the testament, though beside the testament. Nay, they might do this with so much better reason, then they do the other; by how much the testament of God is more perfect, thē any man's can be: and that which Christ bequeathed the Pope, is far less in comparison of the supremacy, then twenty grotes of a thousand pounds. Wherefore, say the Doctors of Louan what they li • t, (perhaps they speak for their fee:) S. Austin meant plainly, that, since the Donatists claimed the inheritance of Christ to them selves, they must prove their title by his will and testament. Which if they could not do, or rather seeing that they could not: he pronounceth of them they had no right unto▪ it. And thereupon he cometh to the general sentence of the heavenly judge, denouncing them accursed, who, in any point, either of faith, or life, do preach beside that which is delivered in the scriptures of the law and the gospel. Wherein if [beside] do signify [against:] then all (in this respect) is against a testament, which is beside a testament.

S. Austin, and Optatus, against the Donatists, do speak reason: that, unless they can prove their right by Christ's testament, they may not shut the Catholics out from his inheritance, and claim his goods unto them selves. For it is meet that the will of the testator should be kept. But a learned lawyer, one Francis Baldwin, who hath set forth Optatus, and written notes upon him, doth show that a testament may be either nuncupatiuum (as he calleth it) or scriptum; either set down in writing, or uttered by word of mouth. What say you to testamentum nuncupatiuum ?

I grant that a testament may be made without writing, so that it be done before a solemn number of witnesses. But the testament of Christ is written, I hope: and so do both Optatus and Austin speak of it. Wherefore your learned Lawyer may keep that law in st • re, until his client need it.

As who say the testament of Christ might not be written in part, though not in whole. Which is Baldwins meaning, as it appeareth by the place, not of Optatus, but of Austin, whereto he applieth it.

But if Baldwin meant so, Baldwin should have remembered that a testament so made is not testamentum nuncupatiuum (for that is unwritten, as the very rudiments of the law might teach him,) but imperfectum rather; though written, yet vnperfit. And I trust you will not say, that the testament of Christ is vnperfit. Sure Optatus would not.

Nor I sir, though you would fain imply as though I said so. For if Christ would have his will, in part written, in part delivered by word of mouth: join them both together, they make a perfect testament.

Then the written testament of Christ is vnperfit. It will be gay and perfect with your traditions patched to it. But Optatus thought that his written testament is perfect of it self. Which shaketh all the frame of Popery in pieces. And this is that Optatus, of whom S. Austin speaketh as of a worthy Catholic Bishop equal to Ambrose and Cyprian; of whom Fulgentius speaketh as of a holy faithful interpretor of Paul like to Austin and Ambrose ; of whom your great Champion doth vaunt so gloriously, that he, nor he only, but the rest of the Fathers are of your religion as surely and fully as the Pope himself, Pope Gregory the thirteenth : whereas in very truth not one of them is so. For Gregory the thirteenth is of your religiō in the Popes supremacy, y ^e chiefest point of Popery: as his rules of Chancery for re • eru ations and provisions, his accursing of all that appeal from Popes to Councils, his bulls against decrees of Councils both provincial and general, do show. From which abomination how far the Fathers were, it shall appear when you allege them. But Optatus is so plain against your religion, in the point of scriptures and their sufficiency to decide all controversies: that your challenger (if he read him, and not believed▪ common-place-books of Canisius and other broakers) might have blushed to boast of him. For those things, which he citeth out of Optatus, do not as much as rase the skin of our religion, though they seem to weak eye sightes. But this, of scriptures only, doth break the neck of yours: and it is so clearly the judgment of Optatus, that your own Baldwin, (in his Annotations) is fain to say of him, he used that comparison of a testament not so warily.

Not so warily, as Austin doth. For Austin useth it, when he will prove out of the scriptures that the Church is catholic : which was one of the pointes of their controversy with the Donatists.

But in handling that point he maketh it a general rule, that, whether it be of Christ, or of his church, or of anything else whatsoever pertaining to our faith and life, nothing must be preached beside the scriptures, that is, the testament.

But in another point of their controversy, touching baptism, S. Austin doth allege not so much the scripture, as the tradition of the Apostles.

Not so much the scripture. He doth the scripture then: though he allegeth also the custom of the Church delivered by the Apostles. But what is that against the testament ?

Nay, beside the testament, which is the word written, he doth commend unwritten traditions in other places. Which proveth that he thought not the testament sufficient to decide all controversies.

Now S. Austin findeth favor at your hands, who make him say and unsay the same. But where vnsaith he that of the sufficiency of scripture ?

You may see in the Augustinian confession of Torrensis, in the chapter of Traditions.

But I would see it in S. Austin. Torrensis is a Jesuit, whom we have taken oft in lies. I cannot trust him.

Why? He allegeth S. Austin's own words. As in the first place, (which bringeth in S. Cyprian too,) Quod autem nos admonet Cyprianus vt ad fontem rec • rramus, id est, Apostolicam traditionem, & inde canalem in nostra tempora dirigamus, optimum est & sine dubitatione faciendum. That is to say; whereas Cyprian warneth us that we should go to the coondit head, which is the tradition of the Apostles, and thence direct the pipe to our own times: that is best and to be done out of all dout. These are S. Austin's own words.

S. Austin's own words in deed. But what doth follow in S. Austin? Traditum est ergo nobis (sicut ipse commemorat) ab Apostolis, quod sit vnus deus, & Christus vnus, & vna spes, & fides vna, & vna ecclesia, & baptisma vnum. That is to say: It is delivered therefore to us by the Apostles (as Cyprian himself rehearseth) that there is one God, and one Christ, and one hope, and one faith, and one church, and one baptism. These are S. Austin's own words, and grounded on S. Cyprian too. So that he, and Cyprian, meant by [tradition] that, which is delivered : and that to be delivered, which is written in the scriptures. For this self same thing, whereof they speak, is written in the epistle of Paul to the Ephesians. Wherefore, their traditiō is tradition written, that is to say, scripture : and not unwritten stuff, as your Jesuit would have it. Yea Cyprian is so plain for controversies to be decided by this tradition only, that in the same epistle (whence Austin citeth this) to the words of Stephanus, Traditum est, it is delivered, vnde est ista traditio, faith he, whence is this tradition? Doth it come from the authority of the Lord and the gospel, or from the commandments and epistles of the Apostles? For that we must do those things which are written, God doth witness saying to Joshua, Let not this book of the law depart out of thy mouth: but meditate in it day and night, that thou mayest observe to perform all things which are written therein. And likewise the Lord sending his Apostles willed them that the nations should be baptized, and taught to observe all things which he had commanded. Wherefore if this thing (of the which Stephanus saith, it is delivered,) be commanded in the gospel, or contained in the epistles or acts of the Apostles: let this divine and holy tradition be observed. See you not how Cyprian thought, that all, which Christ commanded to be taught, is written? How he meant this written doctrine by tradition? How his words of this tradition are approved by Austin ? What conscience had your Jesuit to allege that for traditions beside scriptures, which they so plainly meant of the scriptures them selves?

I do not see this, neither in S. Austin, nor in S. Cyprian.

I am the soryer that your sight serveth you no better. For the thing is so clear that your own Pamelius declareth that Cyprian meant the holy scriptures there by tradition.

Yet Pamelius addeth, that, if S. Cyprian had been instructed better that the scriptures cited by him to prove his error, are not of force thereto: S. Austin douteth not but he would have allowed the contrary tradition.

That may well be. For he should have found it proved by the scriptures, as S. Austin showeth. But in the mean season you may see by Pamelius, that Torrensis abused Cyprian, and Austin, in wresting that to his traditions.

Not so. But his next place of Austin is more pregnant: Let the rule of the Church and the holy tradition and judgment of the Fathers continue sure and sound forever.

As pregnant as the former. For it followeth straight: Now the faith of our Fathers is this; we believe in God the father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible, and so he goeth forward with the pointes of Christian faith. Whereby it is apparent that he meant by [the tradition of the Fathers] their faith. But their faith is written (the substance of it) in the scriptures. Therefore your Jesuit faileth in this tradition too. Moreover S. Austin, if he wrote that sermon, whereof your Louan censours dout, but he, who wrote that sermon, entreateth of the Trinity. But touching the Trinity nothing must be said beside the rule of faith, which is set down in scriptures: as I have shown by S. Austin. Wherefore if S. Austin had meant of unwritten tradition in that point: S. Austin would retract it. But indeed the Jesuit hath overseen S. Austin's works very cunningly. Who, bearing men in hand that he hath gathered the sum of Austin's doctrine out of all his works, yet concealeth that in the chapter of scriptures, which Austin saith of their sufficiency : & faceth that out in the chapter of traditions, which should have been defaced by that which Austin saith of scriptures. Howbeit, were it true, that the scriptures without traditions are vnperfit and insufficient to prove the will of God: you are no nearer your purpose, that the proof of it by Fathers is sufficient. For a testament, that is made by word of mouth without writing, must be proved by solemn witnesses. The solemn witnesses of Christ's testament, are the Prophets, and Apostles. So that unless you prove by Prophets and Apostles, that part of the testament of Christ is unwritten, & that he gave the Pope supremacy in that part: your proof by the Fathers will never stand in law. Notwithstanding, though it be against both law and reason, that the Pope should take the whole inheritance of Christ's Church, and put all Bishops to their legacies, unless he prove his right by the testament of Christ: yet, if you can prove it (as I said) by the Fathers, I am content to yield unto it.

If I can prove it by the Fathers▪ I will bring them to witness for it. But when will you count it proved ? Perhaps when I have proved it, you will say I have not.

And perhaps, when you have not, you will say you have.

Who shall be judge then? And how shall it be tried?

Optatus in the question of the Catholics with the Donatists, whether one should be twice baptized: you (saith he) say, it is lawful: we say, it is not lawful. Between your [it is lawful,] & our [it is not lawful,] the people's souls do dout and waver. Let none believe you, nor us: we are all contentious men. Judges must be sought for. If Christians: they cannot be given of both sides; for truth is hindered by affections. A judge without must be sought for. If a Paynim: he cannot know the Christian mysteries. If a Jew: he is an enemy of Christian baptism. No judgment therefore of this matter can be found in earth: a judge from heaven must be sought for. But why knock we at heaven: when here we have the testament of Christ in the gospel ? So, by the opinion and reason of Optatus, you and we can have no fit judge in earth: God must judge us by his word. But if the Pope will be tried by God & the country: let him appear at the assise; I will endite him of fe ••• ie for robbing Christians of their goods; and I will use no witnesses to prove it but the Fathers.

Nay, we may rather endite you for entering forcibly on his land, I mean on the supremacy, and wrongfully deteining it above these twenty years from him. Though (to say the truth) you are past indictment: you are condemned long ago.

By the Pope in his Consitory. An easy matter where himself is plaintiff, witness, and judge.

Him self is not alone judge there: for he doth all things by the common verdict-

Of an enquest of Cardinals, with whom he doth divide his spoils. And shall they be judges, whether you do prove the Popes supremacy or no?

They are worthy Prelates, what count soever you make of them. But who shall judge, if not they?

When an issue is joined to be tried by the country, the jury, that shall try it, ought to be of such as be next neighbors, most sufficient, and ieast suspicious. This is the law of England. How do you like your country law? hath it not reason?

It hath. But this issue of ours must be tried by the Church, not by the country.

I grant. But the equity of our country law doth hold in the Church too.

Will you be tried then by the Catholic Bishops that are the Popes neighbors, of France, Spain, and Italy, such as were at the Council of Trent ?

Fye: they are the most unfit of all men to try any issue between the Pope and us.

Why so?

For many causes. They are not free holders. They are the Popes tenants, his sworn vasals, our sworn enemies: bound by oth to maintain the Papacy. Are these most sufficient and least suspicious persons?

They are most sufficient. But if your suspicions shall serve to challenge them, you may challenge any.

If you deny the causes, which I alleged: I prove them. If I prove them all: there is no bench of Justices in England, but will think my challenge to be very lawful.

Then name yourself the men whom you will admit to be of the jury.

Nay, I will name none. But I am indifferent to all who are indifferent: who have skill to judge of the evidence that is brought, and conscience to give verdict according to the truth.

According to the truth of the evidence, you mean. For so a jury ought. And so let all indifferent men be of the jury. For the words of the witnesses which I will bring shall be so full, so plain in sense, so strong in proof, that they must needs condemn you: unless they will give verdict against the evidence and their consciences.

The crow doth think her own birds fairest. But I must desire the jury to consider that the witnesses, whose words you will bring, are not alive.

Aliue? What is that to the trial of our issue?

Much. For if they lived and did appear before the jury, first, they should be sworn to say the truth, and all the truth, and nothing but the truth. Whereby they might be moved both to speak more wa • ily, and to inform the jury more thoroughly, then they have doon. Next, it would be easier to examine them of their age, their estate, the circumstances of their persons; of their speeches, the meaning, the occasion and cause thereof. Which all are helps to find out the truth of things in controversy. Thirdly, if it appeared by examination, that either for their persons, or for their speeches, they are unworthy of credit: then it should be lawful to except against them. A liberty, which law doth grant against witnesses, if there because of just exception. Yet you perhaps (as your men are wont) would make outcrye, if I should use it against them who are dead and absent. Wherefore unless the jury do supply that by wisdom and equity, which wanteth in the course of trial, by reason that the witnesses whom you will bring are not alive: they may be deceived by names and shows of witnesses, and thereby give a verdict which shall prove no verdict. For verdict is a speech of verity.

An honest man's word is as good as his oth. For as he will not forswear: so neither lie. The Fathers must not therefore be the less believed, because they are not sworn.

Yet an honest man, when he is sworn, will speak more fully and maturely then when he is vnsworne. And he may say that sometime on conjecture, which on his oth he would not say.

But that may be perceived by the Fathers writings, when they do pronounce of a thing, as certain; when, as uncertain, they conjecture it. And so may other circumstances (which you require) be known too: as well as if them selves were present.

Not so well. For their writings do not answer to many questions, which, if they were present, I would ask of them. But I am content with that which may be known so. Let the jury weigh it, and judge thereafter of their credit.

What? Shall meaner men, who be alive now, judge of the credit of the Fathers, who were so long in time, so far in gifts before them?

Euagrius, a mean man, wrote unto S. Jerome, desiring his opinion concerning Melchizedek, whether he were the holy Ghost. S. Jerome, answering him, when he had shown the judgments of the ancient writers Origen, Didymus, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Eusebius Caesariensis, and Emisesenus, Apollinarius, Eustathius, and the best learned Jews, of whom some thought Melchizedek, an angel ; some, a man: you have (saith he) what I have heard, what I have read touching Melchizedek. To bring forth the witnesses, it was my part: let it be yours to judge of the credit of the witnesses. It seemed reason to S. Jerome that Euagrius should judge of of the witnesses whom he brought. What is there more in the Fathers, then was in those witnesses? What was there more in Euagrius, then is in many who live now?

But you perhaps will cavil, either at the persons, or at the speeches of the Fathers, and think that every toy is a sufficient reason, why men should not believe them.

Whether the exceptions, that I shall take against any, be cavils and toys: let the jury judge. Nay, I durst say almost, let mine adversary judge. For what think you you • self, if one allege for scripture that which is not scripture : may not that authority be justly refused? As if, for example, a man should write that Christ said to his disciples, that which I say to one of you, I say to all.

In deed M. Jewel alleged that for scripture, to prove that the words of Christ unto Peter, feed my sheep, feed my lambes, were spoken n ot to him only but to the rest of the Apostles. Wherein he was justly reproved by D. Harding. For Christ did not say, what I say to one, that I say to all: but, what I say to you, (meaning, the Apostles,) that I say to all (Christians,) watch. So good is our cause, that M. Jewel could not make show of truth against it, but by foul corruption and falsifiing of the scriptures.

I pray be good to M. Jewel for M. Optatus and Fulgentius sake: who both have missealleaged the same words of Christ, yea one of them in like sort, as Bishop Jewel did. For, to prove that the words of the Lord to Isaiah, Cry and cease not, were spoken not to Isaiah only, but to all preachers, he useth this reason, that Christ doth say to his disciples, what I say to one of you, I say to all. Wherein, as the doctrine of a preachers duty is true, though the proof be false: so is in Bishop Jewel the doctrine of the Apostles duty. And Bishop Jewels proof, from one Apostle unto all, is better grounded on the words, then the other from Isaiah the Prophet to all preachers. Moreover the fault remaineth uncorrected in • ulgentius and Optatus : Bishop Jewel hath corrected it. Wherefore if you condemn him of foully corrupting and falsifying the scripture, because he missealleaged that sentence of Christ: what judgment will you give of Fulgentius and Optatus ?

Nay, it is likely that they ouersaw it by a slip of memory.

The same would you judge of M. Jewel, if some what did not blind your eye. But by this your judgment I see, that where the Fathers mistake the words of scripture, they may be refused. What if they mistake, not the words but the sense: may we refuse them also there? As Justin the Martyr, Irenaeus, Papias, Tertullian, Victorinus, Lactantius, Apollinarius, Seuerus, and Nepos, in that they thought that Christians after the resurrection should reign a thousand years with Christ upon the earth, in a golden Jerusalem, and there should mary wives, beget children, eat, drink, & live in corporal delites. Which error, though repugnant flatly to the scriptures, yet they fell into; partly, by confounding the first and second resurrection : partly, by taking that carnally, which was mystically meant in the Revelation.

That was the heresy of the Millenaries, as they are called. Howbeit in the Fathers, though it were an error, yet it was no heresy.

I do not say it was an heresy. I say that they mistook the meaning of the scripture : which you cannot deny. Yea sometimes, when they neither mistook the words, nor the meaning, yet they taught amiss out of it. As, that God created the world in six days, they understood it rightly. But to conclude thereof that the world should last but six thousand years, because one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, & a thousand years as one day: this was an oversight. For if that were true, which they did gather of those words: then might we know the times, whereof our Savior saith that it is not for man to know them. And upon this reason S. Austin doth reprove that fancy of six thousand years, as rash and presumptuous.

So do we also. For Lindan and Prateolus do note it, in Luther's and Melanchthons Chronicles, as a Jewish heresy.

Good reason, when Luther and Melanchthon write it. But when Irenaeus, Hilary, Lactantius, and other Fathers write it: what do they note it then?

Suppose it were an oversight. But what needs all this? As who say you douted that we would maintain the Fathers in those things in which they are convicted of error by the scriptures.

I have cause to dout it. For though there be no man lightly so profane, as to profess that he will do so: yet (such is the blindness o • men's devotion to Saints) there have been heretofore who have so done, and are still. There is a famous fable touching the assumption of the blessed virgin : that, when the time of her death approached, the Apostles (then dispersed throughout the world to preach the gospel) were taken up in clouds, and brought miraculously to Jerusalem to be present at her funeral. This tale in old time was written in a book which bare the name of Melito, an ancient learned Bishop of Asia : though he wrote it not be like. But whosoever wrote it, he wrote a lie, (saith Bede, ) because his words gain say the words of S. Luke in the acts of the Apostles. Which Bede having shown in sundry pointes of his tale, he saith, that he reherseth these things, because he knoweth, that some believe that book with unadvised rashness against S. Luke's authority. So you see there have been who have believed a Father (yea perhaps a rascal, not a Father ) against the scriptures. And that there are such still, I see by our countrymen, your divines of Reims : who vouch the same fable, upon greater credit of Fathers then the other, but with no greater truth.

Doo you call the assumption of our Lady, a fable ? What impiety is this against the mother of our Lord, that excellent vessel of grace? whom all generations ought to call, blessed. But you cannot abide her praises and honors. Nay, you have abolished not only her greatest feast of her assumption, but of her conception and nativity too. So as it may be thought the devil beareth a special malice to this woman, whose seed brake his head.

It may be thought that the devil when he did strive with Michael about the body of Moses, ( whom the Lord buried, the Jews knew not where,) did strive that his body might be revealed to the Jews, to the intent that they might worship it and commit idolatry. But it is out of doubt, that when he moved the people of Lystra to sacrifice unto Paul and Barnabas, and to call them God's, he meant to deface the glory of God, by the too much honoring and praising of his Saints. We can abide the praises of Barnabas and Paul : but not to have them called God's. We can abide their honors ; but not to sacrifice unto them. We know that the devil doth bear a special malice both to the woman and to the woman's seed. But whether he doth wreak it more upon the seed, by your sacrificing of praises and prayers to y ^e woman, or by our not sacrificing : let them define who know his policies. The Christians of old time were charged with impiety, because they had no God's but one. This is our impiety. For whatsoever honor and praise may be given to the Saints of God as holy creatures, but creatures: we do gladly give it. We think of them all, and namely of the blessed virgin, reverently & honourably. We desire our selves, and wish others, to follow her godly faith and virtuous life. We esteem her as an excellent vessel of grace. We call her (as the scripture teacheth us) blessed: yea the most blessed of all women. But you would have her to be named and thought not only blessed her self, but also a giver of blessedness to others; not a vessel, but a fountain, or (as you entitle her) a mother of grace and mercy. And in your solemn prayers you do her that honor, which is only due to our creator and redeemer. For you call on her to defend you from the enemy, and receive you in the hour of death. Thus, although in semblance of words you deny it, yet in deed you make her equal to Christ: as him our Lord, so her our Lady: as him our God, so her our Goddess: as him our King, so her our Queen: as him our mediator, so her our mediatresse : as him in all things tempted like us, sin excepted, so her deuoide of all sin: as him the only name whereby we must be saved, so her our life, our joy, our hope, a very mother of orphans, an aide to the oppressed, a medicine to the diseased, and (to be short) all to all. Which impious worship of a Sainte because you have advanced by keeping holy days unto her, the feasts of her conception, nativity, & assumption ; therefore are they abolished by the reformed Churches justly. For the use of holy days, is, not to worship Saints, but to worship God, the sanctifier of Saints. As the Lord ordained them, that men might meet together to serve him and hear his word.

Why keep you then still the feasts of the Apostles, Evangelists, & other Saints, and not abolish them also? As some of your reformed, or rather your deformed Churches, have doon?

Our deformed Churches are glorious in his sight, who requireth men to worship him in spirit & truth: though you, besotted with the hoorish beauty of your synagogues, do scorn at their simplenesse, as the proud spirit of Mical did at David when he was vile before the Lord. The Churches of Scotland, Flanders, France, and others, allow not holy days of Saints, because no day may be kept holy but to the honor of God. Of the same judgment is the Church of England for the use of holy days. Wherefore, although by keeping the names of Saints days, we may seem to keep them to the honor of Saints : yet in deed we keep them holy to God only, to praise his name for those benefits which he hath bestowed on us by the ministry of his Saints. And so have the Churches of Flanders and France expounded well our meaning, in that they have noted that some Churches submit them selves to their weakness with whom they are conversant, so far forth that they keep the holy days of Saints, though in another sort, nay in a clean contrary, then the Papists do.

But if you keep the feasts of other Saints in that sort, why not of her also, of whom our Savior took flesh, and was brought forth into the world?

So we do: the feasts of the annuntiation of the blessed virgin, and the purification.

Nay, the days of other Saints, which you celebrate, as namely of Peter, Paul, and John, are the days of their death, and so are proper unto them. Wherefore you should of reason at the least celebrate our ladies assumption, as the day of her death. For though you believe not that her body is assumpted, yet you will not (we trow) deny that she is dead, and her soul in glory. But you do neither celebrate that, nor any other of her proper feasts. For as for the days of her purification and annuntiation, they be not proper to our Lady: but the one to Christ's conception, the other to his presentation. So that she by this means shall have no festiuitie at all.

No festiuitie at all? What a foolish fancy is this of your Rhemists ? As though the blessed virgin were like to Diana, and the Saints of Christ to the Paynim-gods : who everyone must have his feast, and if you forget or pass over any, their honor is attainted in it. But by this sentence you justify the reformed Churches : both the rest, and ours. The rest, in that you think the holy days of Saints are instituted to their honor : which corrupt opinion, and superstition growing of it, might be a sufficient cause to abolish them. Ours, in that you say that the annuntiation and purification of the virgin are not proper to our Lady (as you cal her,) but to Christ. Wherein you acknowledge, that the holy days of Saints which we keep, are kept to Christ's honor, and not to theirs. For as the annuntiation of the blessed virgin is proper unto Christ conceived, and the purification to Christ presented in the temple: so the day of Peter is proper unto Christ professed, the day of Paul to Christ preached, the day of John to Christ published by the writing of the Gospel. And this of them is as clear, as is the other of the virgin, by the prayers which we make, and the partes of scripture which we read on those days. Wherefore although we celebrate the memory of these things touching the Apostles, on those days on which they died, perhaps, (for neither are you sure of that, though you celebrate them in memory of their death:) yet we do it not in respect of their death so to honor their assumption, but in respect of those things which Christ did by them while they lived. And by the same reason you may prove that we keep no holy day to any Saint, by the which you gather • hat the annunciation and purification of the virgin are not proper unto her. Which in deed you say, not because you think it, or have cause to think it: but to make us odious, by bearing men in hand that we despise the blessed virgin. For both yourselves do count them and call them her feasts, as well as any other of those that bear her name: and the common people, when they cal the annuntiation day, our Lady day, (by your corrupt custom,) think it as proper unto her, as S. Peters is to him: and the reformed Churches, which disallow the feasts of Saints, have disallowe • these amongst them, where yet they allow the feasts that do belong to Christ, his nativity, circumcision, passion, resurrection, ascension, and sending of the holy Ghost.

But if your reformed Churches think it dangerous to keep any feast of the blessed virgin : why do you retain two of them in your Church, and not the rest as we do.

You may learn the reason hereof in your Portesse, reformed lately by the Pope. In your old Portesse there was this prayer to the Popes martyr, S. Thomas Becket of Canterbury:

This is your common objection against our prayers to Saints: but an objection for a Cobbler, and not for a Divine, as D. Harding told Jewel. For Christ, in this prayer, is used as the only mediator of salua • ion: S. Thomas, a mediator of intercession to Christ.

Good words, M. Hart. Your plaster, of mediators of intercession and salvation, is too narrow for this soar. Your pang doth make you not to see it.

Nay: no whit to narrow. For the mediation which we give to Saints, is so far inferior to the divine and singular mediation of Christ, that whereas we say to them, Pray for us, we say not so to him, we do not think of him so basely, but we desire him to have mercy upon us. Wherefore, we make him only mediator of salvation ; and them, of intercession.

Yet is your plaster too narrow for the soar which you apply it too. For the blood and wounds of Thomas are presented, in the prayers that I spake off. And although you think not of intercession generally, as the scripture doth, which maketh it proper to the only mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus: yet (I hope) you think of that intercession by the blood and wounds, that it is his alone, who gave him self a ransom for us, and redeemed us with his precious blood. But if it were so that Thomas might be made a mediator of intercession in this preeminent sort: that cannot heal your Portesse. For it doth make him • latly a mediator of salvation : not only to pray for us, but to have mercy upon us.

Whether that prayer to S. Thomas of Canterbury were in the Roman Portesse, before they reformed it: I am not sure; perhaps it was not; although it were in ours after the use of Sarum.

Most likely that it was in the Roman too: since he died a martyr of the Roman Papacie. But whether it were or no: there were other things uncertain and inconvenient, which the reformers have left out, as the Pope confesseth. Who confesseth also, that almost all Primers, yea the Latin too, were stuffed full with vain errors of superstitions, before he reformed it. Wherefore since you have left out other superstitious & inconvenient things, in your reformed Service-books: why have you retained this prayer to the cross, which might have gone with the rest?

The other were a • olished justly, as unfit. But this is • ot so. For why should you mislike a prayer to the cross, of which S. Paul saith, God forbid that I should rejoice but in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ ?

That is, in Christ crucified, as S. Paul doth mean it: not in the wood, the galowes, the tree, to which you make your prayer. For God forbid that we should rejoice in anything, saving in the Lord : whose redeeming of us by suffering death upon the cross, because it was a stumbling block to the Jews; S. Paul saith the cross was a stumbling block, by a figurative speech, meaning (as him self doth open it) Christ crucified. And so he calleth Christ's blood, the blood of the cross ; and the preaching of his gospel, the preaching of the cross ; and persecution rising of it, persecution for the cross : and against them who rejoiced in circumcision and the law, he saith that he rejoiceth not but in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. But, to the purpose of my question, if they of your Church, who reformed your Service-books, thought, that of the prayers which we do mislike they might abolish some and retain others: what if amongst the feasts which others do mislike, they, who reformed our ceremonies, retained the annuntiation and purification of the virgin, though they abolished the conception, nativity, and assumption ? Chiefly seeing that in those, which they retained, they regarded the honor of Christ conceived and presented, as yourselves acknowledge: in those, which they abolished, they removed the superstitious worship of a creature, as the thing witnesseth. For both they were supposed to be feasts instituted to a Saints honor, as they were indeed: neither is there anything of them in the scriptures, that men might be edified by that whereof the memory was celebrated in them: and they maintain corrupt opinions, touching the virgin, with derogation to Christ's honor. For you mean by the feasts of her nativity, and conception, that she was neither borne nor conceived in sin. Which if it were so▪ then neither she needed Christ to be her Savior, who came to save sinners : & the prerogative of Christ, to be severed from sinners, were common unto her with him. A thing so absurd and contrary to the scriptures, (which show that all have sinned, and are the children of wrath by nature, ) that not the Fathers only, but your chief School-men, and Canons also, do gainsay it. Yea the feast of her conception, when it was creeping in, was therefore reproved: and the very gloss of your Canon-law condemned sundry countries, and England namely, for keeping it. But the conception and nativity of the blessed virgin make her scarce equal unto Christ : the feast of the assumption doth lift her somewhat higher. For when Christ was taken up into heaven: the Apostles were lead forth a litleway on foot, to see it and witness it. But to her assumption they were brought by miracle, in clouds, as in chariots, from all the coasts of the world, through which they were dispersed. And this is it which I called, and cal again, a fable, or if you will, a lie, as Bede doth: though your Divines of Reims do vouch it as a true story.

It is a true story, as our Divines of Reims do • ouch it: though, as he reported it whom venerable Bede doth touch, it was a lie. For he reported it to have been doon the second year after Christ's ascension▪ which Bede doth prove it could not be. But our Divines refer it to the fifteenth year after. For they take the common opinion that she lived three score and three years in all. Now, she brought forth Christ when she was fifteen year old. So that her assumption was eight and forty years after Christ's nativity. And this agreeth with Eusebius, who saith y ^t some do write it was revealed to them that she was assumpted the eight and forteeth year of Christ : which was fifteen years after his ascension.

Then you grant that they, who say it was the second year after, do lie.

I grant. For that circumstance cannot stand with scripture: as venerable Bede doth prove.

Then a holy nunne did lie, or an angel, or a devil that appeared in the likeness of the virgin, and told her that tale.

What if some were deceived in circumstance of time. Yet the story notwithstanding of her assumption is true, as our Divines of Reims report it. For at the time of her death, (as S. Denys first, and after him S. Damascene writeth,) all the Apostles, then dispersed into diverse nations to preach the gospel, were miraculously brought together, (saving S. Thomas who came the third day after,) to Jerusalem, to honor her divine departure and funeral, as the said S. Denys writeth. Who saith, that himself, S. Timothy, and S. Hierotheus were present: testifying also of his own hearing, that, both before her death and after for three days, not only the Apostles and other holy men present, but the Angels also and powers of heaven did sing most melodious hymns. They buried her sacred body in Gethsemani. But for S. Thomas sake, who desired to see and to reverence it, they opened the sepucher the third day: and finding it void of the holy body, but exceedingly fragrant, they returned, assuredly deeming that her body was assumpted into heaven. As the Church of God holdeth, being most agreeable to the singular privilege of the mother of God: and therefore celebrateth most solemnly the day of her assumption. And it is consonant not only to the said S. Denys, & S. Damascene, but to S. Athanasius also, who avoucheth the same. Of which assumption of her body S. Bernard also wrote five notable sermons, extant in his works.

But in all those five sermons of S. Bernard, there is not one word of your miraculous fable. As little, in S. Athanasius : beside that, the sermon, which you allege as his, is in your own edition rejected for a bastard. In Damascene there is more: yet not so much neither, as here your Portesse hath. But he is too late & too weak a witness, to prove a doubtful matter pretended to be doon almost five hundred years before him. The best, or rather all your proof, is S. Denys : whom you bely notably. For where saith he that which you do father on him?

Where? in an epistle of his to S. Timothy.

He wrote no such epistle. Your Rhemistes did mistake their Portesse, whence this stuff is borrowed. For reading there, that Denys wrote hereof to Timothy, they thought it had been in an epistle to Timothy. The place, which they meant, is in a book entitled of the names of God: pretended to be written to Timothy by Denys.

In a book, or an epistle ; it is a great matter why you should charge them with lying.

I do not therefore charge them with it. Neither would I mention this, but to point you the place in which they lie. For they say that S. Denys writeth these & these things: where neither the author who writeth is S. Denys, neither writeth he the things which they allege. Touching the things, first, he saith no more thereof but that amongst the Bishops inspired of the holy Ghost Hierothe • s excelled all the rest (save the Apostles) in praising Christ's goodness, when him self, and Timothy, and many of their holy brethren, came together to behold the body which received God, and which the Prince of life was in. As for the miracle of the Apostles brought together, S. Thomas coming the third day after, the Angels singing hymns three days, the burial of the virgins body, the desire of Thomas to see it, the sepulcher opened for his sake, and the body assumpted into heaven: he saith not one word of these conceits, not one word. Nay he rather saith against them. For he noteth namely that James was also present the brother of the Lord, and Peter the chief and ancientest top of the Apostles. Which it is not likely he would so note of two Apostles, if they had all been present. Much less is it likely that he would say nothing of so great a miracle, if any such had happened.

Perhaps it is written in some other parte of S. Denys works.

In no part at all of any work that beareth the name of S. Denys.

Not that is extant now. But he wrote many more▪ as Nicephorus showeth: and Damascene maketh mention of this epistle to Timothy.

Nay, that which Damascene mentioneth is the book I spake of: whence all, that he citeth, is taken word for word. Yea Nicephorus also doth allege the same, (quoting the very chapter) as the only place wherein the assumption of the blessed virgin is proved by S. Denys. The more do I marvel what should move your Rhemists to say that S. Denys writeth and witnesseth that all the Apostles were brought miraculously together, to honor her divine departure; yea and that he testifieth of his own hearing, that both before her death and after, for three days, the Angels did sing most melodious hymns : unless they were disposed to lie for the whetstone. But this, of the things. The other, of the author, is not so great a faute: yet a faute too. For they would have men think that he who wrote this work of the names of God, & others of the heavenly & ecclesiastical hierarchy, (as he termeth it,) was the famous Denys, the scholar of S. Paul. Whereas it was a counterfeit, who took that Denys name upon him.

It was that famous Denys in deed who wrote those notable and divine works, and others: in which he confirmeth and proveth plainly almost all things that the Church now useth in the ministration of the holy sacraments; and affirmeth that he learned them of the Apostles: giving also testimony for the Catholic faith in most things now controuersed, so plainly, that your men have no shift but to deny that Denys to have been the author of them, feyning that they be an others of later age. Which is an old sleight of heretics: but most proper to you of all others. Who seeing all antiquity against you are forced to be more bold, or rather impudent, thē others in that point.

These flowers of your Seminary, that we are heretics, bold, impudent ; that all antiquity is against us: you may spare them, for they are stale; they have been dipt in gall & lie. You say y ^t he proveth plainly almost all things that the Church now useth in the ministration of the holy Sacraments. If you mean by the Church, not our Church, but yours: that [almost] must have favor, or else without almost you lavish. For though he have more things, then either the Church of the Apostles had, or ours doth allow: yet neither all that you have, & many that you have not, and some clean contrary to yours. As namely, in the sacrament of the Lord's supper, wherein you vary from us most: he neither hath your stage-like gestures & toys, nor invocation of Saints, nor adoration of creatures, nor sacrificing of Christ to God, nor praying for the souls in Purgatory, nor sole receiving of the Priest, nor ministering under on • kind to them who receive, nor exhortations, lessons, prayers in a tongue which the people doth not understand. So that in thing • of substance, and not of ceremony only, he differeth as far from your blasphemous Mass, as he is near to our Communion. But the things which he hath, you say that he affirmeth he learned them of the Apostles. He doth so, I grant: as it was fit for him, who would be counted that Denys which was converted by S. Paul. But, as it happeneth unto counterfeites, he hath forgot himself in one place, and so betrayed the seat. For, speaking of infants, why they are baptized: hereof (saith he) we say those things, which our divine masters being instructed by the old tradition, have brought unto us. By the which words, the man at unawares hath shown that he learned not not of the Apostles. For Christ him self instructed the Apostles of baptism: they had it not from old tradition.

That is a weak conjecture why he should be a counterfeit. For he might call the tradition of the Apostles, old tradition: though it were but certain years or months before him.

Hardly: if he lived in the same time with them. But if he might; yet could he not say that the Apostles were instructed by the old tradition of the Apostles. Belike his masters were younger men.

Our conjectures may deceive us: we must not trust them in such matters. The Fathers count him the right Denys. For, Gregory Nazianzen, Origen, Sophronius, Agatho, Damascene, Euthymius, and others do name him Dionysius Areopagita, when they cite things that are in him.

Gregory Nazianzen doth praise a certain author, whom he nameth not. It is but one man's guess, that he meaneth Denys. An other saith, (which is more likely,) that he meaneth Athanasius. Origen is ancient: if he had cited Denys, Denys must be elder a hundred years or two, then I do judge him by his countenance. But that work of Origen, in which you find him cited, cannot be Origen's. For in it the Manichees are mentioned, and Arians : the names of which heretics did rise a good while after Origen was dead. So that, when this Origen is brought to clear that Denys : a thief is brought to clear a thief. The rest, whom you allege, Sophronius, Agatho, Damascene, and Euthymius, are of later years, and such as might easily think him to be Denys who called him self so. Many honest men did think Perkin Warbeck to be Richard Duke of York, King Edward the fourthes son, as he professed him self to be: though in deed he was a counterfeit.

If you may reject an author as counterfeit, against so great consent of writers: any ancient Father may be refused for a rascal.

If you may allow a counterfeit, as lawful, because that many think well of him: every Perkin Warbeck may be received for Duke of York.

Nay, there was sure proof that he could not be the Duke. For the Duke was killed with the Prince his brother in the Tower ofLondon by Richard the usurper, ten years before men heard of Perkin.

There is surer proof, that he, whose cause you plead, cannot be Dionysius Areopagita.

What? Such as Erasmus and Valla bring, that Jerome and others do not mention him ?

That, as light as you make it, did move Cardinal Cajetan to dout of the man. But the proof that I meant, is such as yours against Perkin: to weete that Dionysius Areopagita was dead many years, before the works, which bear his name, could be written. For there is cited in them a saying of Ignatius, out of an epistle which he wrote (to the Romans) as he was going to suffer martyrdom in the time of Trajan the Emperor. Now Dionysius died in the time of Domitian, certain years before. And when Ignatius wrote it, Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus, who succeeded Timothy. Your counterfeit allegeth it to Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, either after his decease, or before it was written. Moreover, the Christians in Dionysius time made their assemblies to prayer, both in such places, and with such simplicity, as the Apostles did, and times of persecution suffered. But when your counterfeit wrote, they had solemn temples like the temple of the Jews: & the Chancel severed with such sanctification from the rest of the Church, that it was not lawful for moonks to enter thereinto, much less for other lay-men. Again the moonkes also were risen when he wrote, and they of credit in the Churches, and many ceremonies to hallow them. Which in the time of the Apostles, when Dionysius lived, were not heard of yet: for anything that can be proved by monuments of antiquity.

What? not moonkes ? Why, Philo maketh mention of them, as Eusebius showeth. And Philo did flourish under Gaius the Emperor, even in the prime of the Apostles.

That, which Philo writeth, he writeth not of Christian moonkes, but Jewish Essees, as him self showeth. Eusebius was deceived. And if you think that you have me at an advantage, in that I do deny Eusebius : I shall have you at the same; unless you will deny him of whom you make greater account, even Thomas of Aquine. For he saith of the same time of which Philo wrote, that there was not then any certain sort of religious men. But, to leave the proofs which touch other matters, or stand on men's conjectures, or you may have some color of exception against: I will prove him a counterfeit by the same point for which you alleged him; and that by demonstration out of the holy scriptures; and that by the confession of your Rhemists themselves. You alleged him as a witness of the assumption of the blessed virgin. Him self saith that Timothy came with him together, and many of their holy brethren, to behold her body. The scriptures show that Paul was not converted to Christ, till after Christ's ascension. When he was converted, he stayed three years in Damascus and Arabia, before he came to Jerusalem. Thence he went into the coasts of Syria and Silicia, and the countries there about. And fourteen years after he came again to Jerusalem, with Barnabas, to the Council. From the Council he went to Derbe, and Lystrae: where he received Timothy. And having travailed through Phrygia, Galatia, Mysia, Macedonia, he came at last to Athens, where he converted Denys the Areopagite. So that it was seventeen or eighteen years at least after Christ's ascension, before S. Denys knew Christ. New, the blessed virgin died the fifteenth year after Christ's ascension, as your Rhemists put: who yet take the largest time ofher life; for other stories make it shorter. S. Denys therefore could not be one of the brethren who came together to be present at her death and funeral. And all this is granted and proved by your Rhemists : though they thought not ofit. For, in their table of S. Paul, they show that it was the one and fiftieth year of Christ, when he converted S. Denys the Areopagite; and in their tale of the virgin they reckon her to be assumpted the eight & fortieth year of Christ. Wherefore you do us great injury, to say, that we deny S. Denys to have written those works because he giveth testimony for the Catholic faith in most things now cōtrouersed. For, that which we deny, is, in respect of the truth, because indeed he wrote them not. But, in respect of his testimony for the Catholic faith, I wish that I might grant with a safe conscience that he wrote them. He is so plain against the most of your heresies: chiefly the Popes supremacy.

Neither is that an heresy, nor is he against it: nay he is plain for it. For he saith (as yourself rehearsed out of him) that Peter is the chief and ancientst top of the Apostles.

But he saith farther, that, for as much as the scriptures say to Peter, Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, therefore he, and (accordingly to him) every Bishop doth admit the godly, and disinherit the godless, by declaring the sentence and administering the word of God. And this doth pluck up the Popes supremacy by the roots. For your masters ground it on that charge of binding and loosing given Peter : as though after Peter it were proper to the Pope. Denys saith the contrary, that it is common to all Bishops. Whereby you may perceive beside, that if the title which he giveth Peter did prove his supremacy, though I have shown it doth not, but if it did: yet your commō reason, from Peters supremacy to the Popes, is iointlesse. For he, who calleth Peter, chief of the Apostles, yet maketh Bishops equal ; and giveth Rome no greater privilege, then Antioch, or Jerusalem. But to knit up that which brought us unto this of Denys : you see that your Rhemists tale of the assumption of the blessed virgin is contrary to the scriptures. Yet they do believe it for the authority of Fathers. That I might dout justly whether you would believe the Fathers in those things, in which they are convicted of error by the scriptures.

I cannot believe that the scriptures are against it. For the Church doth hold it: I mean the Catholic Church of Rome.

In that your Rhemists lavish too. For though the lying Greeks (as your Molanus calleth them,) do vouch it very boldly: yet the Latin writers do say it is uncertain. Yea the very Martyrologe of the Roman Church affirmeth, that the Church celebrateth the memory of S. Mary's death: but where it hath pleased God to hide her body, the Churches sobriety hath chosen rather to be ignorant thereof religiously, then to hold and teach some frivolous thing & forged. How much the more shameful is the misdemeanor, first, of a Papist, who saith y ^t it is certain she was assumpted by death, not only in soul, but in body also : then, of the Pope, who, setting forth his new Portesse, saith that those things which are uncertain, are put out: where this is left in, which they cannot deny themselves to be uncertain. But your Rhemists pass. Who, as though the Por • esse were not bold enough in alleging Damascene, though it mende his tale with more then one lie: they take that which their Portesse doth tell them, lie and all, and father it upon S. Denys, that it may have the greater credit.

Our Rhemists will render good account (I dout not) of this which they have written, when they shall hear what is said against it. And that which you declared out of the holy scriptures concerning the time of S. Denys conversion, which is the greatest argument that you brought yet to disprove the story avouched of his presence at the departure of our Lady : I must refer to them. For I myself know not indeed how to accord it. But why do you press that point about the Fathers, touching their overseeing ether the words, or meaning, or consequent of the scriptures ? We are past the scriptures, and proofs that the Fathers do gather out of them.

But if they may gather amiss out of the scriptures, and ouershoote them selves in the word of God: they may be deceived in the word of man too, and either not conceive well, or not remember well, or not conclude well of it. Which happened to S. Jerome in that same point, that I reproved a little rather in Eusebius. For he, reckoning Philo the Jew amongst the Christian ecclesiastical writers, doth it (he saith) for this reason, because Philo writing a book touching the first Church planted by the Evangelist S. Mark in Alexandria, hath praised the Christians: reporting them to be not only there but in many countries, and calling their dwelling places, Monasteries. Whereby it is apparent that the Church of believers in Christ, at the first, was such as moonkes endeavor and seek to be now, that nothing is any man's own in propriety, none is rich amongst them, none poor, their patrimonies are distributed to the needy, they give them selves wholly to prayer, and to singing of Psalms, and to learning, and to continency of life: such as S. Luke also doth write, that the believers were first at Jerusalem. And this book of Philo touching the life of our men, that is, of men Apostolic, is entitled of the contemplative life of men that pray, because they did contemplate (study, and meditate) heavenly things, and prayed to God always. Thus far S. Jerome. Wherein, that the pointes of contemplation and prayer, being somewhat like in them whom Philo wrote off and in the Christian Church, did make him to mistake the one for the other, as likeness (they say) is the mother of error : but, that they were not Christians whom Philo meant in that book, it may appear by four circumstances, of names, of deeds, of times, and of places. For they, of whom Philo doth write, were called Essees : which was a sect of Jews, of whom some lived in action, and some in contemplation. The Christians were never known by name of Essees, either contemplative or active. Again, they in Philo did leave their goods and substance to their sons, or daughters, or kinsmen, or if they had no kinsmen, to their friends. The Christians gave them to the poor, and such as stood in need of succor. Moreover y ^e solemn day, which they in Philo did meet together publicly to hear the word of God taught, was the seventh day of the week : which was the Sabbat of the Jews, the saterday as we cal it. The Christians were wont to meet on the first day of the week, that is, Sunday, the Lord's day as S. John termeth it. Finally, they, whom Philo discourseth of, did live in no town or city, but without, in gardens and solitary places. The Christians lived in cities. Even they who are namely mentioned by Jerome, I mean the Christian Church placed by S. Mark in Alexandria, were planted in the city Alexandria it self; whereas it is precisely noted by Philo, that his Jewish moonkes did dwell about it, and without it. Wherefore it is manifest that Jerome did mistake, or had forgot, the words of Philo. Howbeit if he had both well conceived and remembered them: yet he thereof inferred amiss, that the moonkes in his time were such, as S. Luke doth write that the believers were first at Jerusalem. For the believers at Jerusalem might keep their own if they listed: as Peter saith to Ananias; while it remained, pertained it not to thee? And when it was sold, was it not in thine own power? But Jerome saith that his moonks may not have propriety in anything of their own. Beside, the moonkes of Jerome did live in continency. The believers at Jerusalem had wives, & used them: for anything y ^t S. Luke showeth. Though▪ by the way to note y ^e difference between y ^e Jewish moonkes & the Christian, (who else would be too like:) some of the Christian moonks in Jerome's time had wives & did beget childrē; which I have not read that any of the Jewish did. Last of all, the moonkes whom Jerome doth mean (as he must needs by Philo ) were moonkes according to their name, that is, solitary, and not collegiate moonkes. But the believers at Jerusalem, were at Jerusalem, in a city, and lived in fellowship together. Doo you not see that the Apostles and Apostolic men were not such as afterward the moonkes whom Jerome meaneth: and therefore Jerome was deceived?

I will not believe on your word, that so worthy a Father was deceived.

If you will not on my word, I will bring his own word to make you believe it. For, writing to Paulinus, touching the training up of moonkes, he saith that the Apostles and Apostolic men are not patterns for them to follow: but S. Antony, and others, who dwelt in fields and deserts.

He saith, that the Apostles and Apostolic men are set for an example to Priests, and Bishops, not to moonkes. True: in some respects. And yet, me thinks too. But what if the Fathers perhaps might be deceived so, through oversight?

If they might be deceived so through oversight: they might be deceived through affection also. For they were men, and subject to it. As Cyprian, through too much hatred of heretics, condemned the baptism of heretics, as unlawful : wherein a Council erred with him. As Origen, through too much compassion of the wicked, thought that the devils them • elues should be saved at length. As Tertullian, through spite of the Roman clergy, revolted to the Montanists : and called the Catholics, carnal men, because they were not so precise as the Montanists in pointes of marriage and fasting.

We condemn these errors in them, as well as you: and do therein except against them.

You do except also, I trow, (I am sure, your Doctors do) against Damascene, for his tale of Gregory the Pope and Trajan the Emperor; that Gregory, while he went over the market place of Trajan, did pray for Traians soul to God; and behold, a voice from heaven, I have heard thy prayer and I pardon Trajan: but see that thou pray no more to me for the wicked. A very great affection to prayers for the dead, that moved Damascene to write this. For it is against the doctrine of the Schoolmen that prayers may help out the souls that are in hell. In Purgatory they say they may.

S. Thomas doth confirm the same. Yet he believeth that of Damascene. But he saith that Gregory did it by special privilege, which doth not break the common law.

But your Cano saith that Thomas was a young man then: beside that, he was greatly affected to Damascene. And Damascene might easily persuade a well willer: he doth affirm so lustily that all the east and west is witness that the thing is true. Which report of his yet Cano doth marvel at: since it is unknown in all the Latin story. But Cano (as a man of better mind and sounder judgment then your Popish Doctors are, y ^e most of them,) did wisely see & noteth freely, that not only later and less discreet authors (as he who made the golden legend,) but also grave, ancient, learned, holy Fathers have ouershot them selves in writing miracles of Saints: partly while they fetched the truth, where it is seldom, from common rumors and reports; partly while they sought to please the people's humor, and thought it lawful for historians to write things as true which commonly are counted true. Of this sort he nameth Gregory and Bede: the one for his Dialogues, the other for his English story. He might have named Damascene with them. Unless he meant him rather perhaps to be of that sort which did not only take by hear-say of others, but coined lies themselves too: & wrote those things of Saints which their fancy liked, though neither true nor likely. As that S. Francis was wont to take lise that were shaken off, and put them on himself, it was a lowsie trick, and S. Francis did it not: but the writer thought it an argument of his holiness. Likewise, that when the devil troubled S. Dominike, S. Dominike constrained him to hold a candle in his hands, till the candle being spent did put him to great grief, in burning his fingers. Such examples there are innumerable: but these two may give a taste of their affection who have defiled the stories of Saints with filthy fables. Yet out of such stories many things are read in your Church-service. And Cano although he confess it, as evident: notwithstanding, (which is strange) he thinketh them unwise Bishops, who seek to reform it. For while they cure the nailesore (saith he) they hurt the head: that is, in steed of counterfeites they bring in grave stories; but they change the service of the Church so far, that scarce any show of the old religion is remaining in it. A thing well considered of them by whom your Roman Portesse was reformed. For though they have removed some of those stories, which Cano saith are uncertain, forged, frivolous, and false: yet have they doon it sparingly. If they should have left out all those legend-toys: their Portesse had been like our book of common prayer, which heretics would have laughed at: and there had remained no show in a manner of the old religion, save that their service is in Latin.

These things are impertinent, but that it pleaseth you to play the Hicke-scorner with the holy Portesse. For what need you mention the writer of S. Francis life? or S. Dominikes? or the golden legend, that old moth-eaten book (as D. Harding calleth it,) of the lives of Saints? I mind not to press you with things of later writers, but of old and ancient: whom Cano judgeth better of, then of the younger. For he saith of Vincentius Beluacensis, and Antoninus, that they cared not so much to write things true and certain, as to let go nothing that they found writē in any papers whatsoever. But of Bede, and Gregory, he judgeth more softly: and rather excuseth them then reproveth them. Though, judge he how he listed, he was but one Doctor: and other learned men perhaps mislike his judgment, both for younger and elder writers.

They who deal with taming of lions (I have read) are wont, when they find them somewhat out of order, to beat dogs before them: that in a dog the lyon may see his own desert. Even so when I rebuke the writer of S. Francis life, or of S. Dominikes, or of the moth-eaten book as you call it, though he who wrote it was an Archbishop, & in his time a man of name, and his book a legend, read publicly in Churches, and called golden for the excellency; but when I rebuke that moth-eaten writer, or Antoninus (if you will,) and Vincentius Beluacensis, who are as good as he well nigh: you must not think I do it for the dogs sake, but for the lions rather, I mean the ancient writers who deserve rebuke too. For, as not Rupertus only, but Sedulius, do write that our Savior after his resurrection appeared first to the blessed virgin, which is false, but they thought through an affection to her, that he should have done so: in like sort a loving affection to Saints hath transported sundry, not only later writers, but auncienter also from the truth to fancies. Gelasius, and the seventy Bishops, who were assembled in a Council with him, were assembled about eleven hundred years ago. Yet even then how many stories of the Saints were set abroad with forged fables ? almost a whole bead-roale, condemned by the Council. Whereof that some were coined upon that affection, as some upon others: one of them, entitled the acts of Paul and Tecla, may serve for an example. These acts contained a story (supposed to be omitted in the acts of the Apostles) how that when S. Paul did preach at Iconium, Tecla a maiden betrothed to a gentleman, hearing him preach of maidenhood, forsook her husband by and by, and went away with him: and thereupon was persecuted, and delivered from great dangers, and wrought many miracles, and travailed through sundry countries with S. Paul. Which though it be a lewd tale, agreeing neither with the circumstance of S. Paul's story, nor with his doctrine and discretion: yet was it published as true, and that in the Apostles age, by an Elder, or Priest, (as you would term him,) who was convicted by S. John, and confessed that he wrote it for good will that he bare to Paul. Such a credit (belike) he thought it would be to S. Paul, that a maid betrothed to a man of wealth and worship, (and so his wife by right,) should forsake her husband and go away with him. Wherefore, though you mind not to press me with things of later writers, but of old & ancient, as you say: yet was it not impertinent to mention your Portesse and stories of the like authority. For neither do I know what number of years you will think sufficient to prove a writer old : and though you account none old, but such as lived many hundred years since; yet are their fables in your Portesse (as namely this of Tecla ) even out of them also. Yea the most of those things, not only this of Tecla, but the most of those things which Gelasius Bishop of Rome, and the Council, condemned for unsound: I say, the most of those things are rehearsed in your legends, and in the most of your Portesses. Which thing I affirm not of mine own knowledge, for I have not seen so many sortes of Portesses that I can vouch it of the most: but Claudius Espencaeus, a Doctor of Paris, an eger enemy of Beza (, y ^e worthier of credit herein,) affirmeth it, and he affirmeth it with great asseveration that it is so undoubtedly. Nor doth he touch them only for these so ancient lies, but for many mo, which are of less ancientie, and that upon the judgment of sundry learned men, and not his private fancy. For he allegeth Peter, a venerable Abbot, (who lived four hundred years ago,) saying, that the songs and hymns of the Church had very many toys: as namely an hymn in the praise of S. Benet; in the which, though reading it over somewhat hastily, and staying not to search all, yet he found at least four and twenty lies. He allegeth another Peter complaing likewise and reproving a false and fond hymn in the praise of S. Mawre running upon the waters. He allegeth the Cardinal of Aliacos advise to the Council of Constance, for order to be taken that unsound writings (corrupt and peevish pamphlets) be not read in the Church-service. He allegeth the oration of the Earl of Mirandula to Pope Leo the tenth, and the Council of Lateran, renewing the Cardinal of Aliacos advise. He allegeth Raphael Volaterran, a great historian, if not a divine, bewailing the case that in the daily prayers there are manifest lies read. He allegeth Adrian (who afterward was Pope Adrian the sixth ) misliking superstitious forgeries in holy matters. In a word, he saith that the Catholics may lament in the behalf of the Church, as Jeremiah lamented in the behalf of the Synagogue, Thy prophets have seen false and foolish things for thee : and he addeth that the grief which he doth feel and open for these toys & dotages crept into the public service of the Church, is common unto him with all good men for the most part. Wherein, as his desire and zeal of reformation is greater then Cano, who would not have this filth swept out of the Portesses : so dealeth he more freely and frankly with your churches legends too, then Cano. For, letting go the scurffe of the golden legend, and Antoninus, and Vincentius, he reproveth the story of Saints which was compiled of late by a Venetian, a Bishop of account, and saith that no stable is • o full of doong, as that is of fables. Yea farther, that Simeon Metaphrastes (a great man in the new legends of Lipomanus, and Surius, ) and Vsuardes Martyrologe, (which is the Church of Rome's legend,) besides the Martyrologes of certain other writers, are fraught with much baggage. Now, to this Parisian Doctor Espencaeus, and the authors whom he allegeth, you may add the kings professors and chiefest Doctors of Louan, (if you desire more witnesses,) even Hessels, and Molanus. Of whom, the one, writing a Censure on a story called the Passionall of Saints, condemneth much thereof, and enditeth more, with this verdict, Try all things, hold that which is good: the other, setting forth and commending that Censure, saith it is no marvel if in that Passionall there be corrupt stories, since the stories which the Catholics of that country found amongst the lying Greeks might easily come into it. Molanus layeth the fault upon the lying Greeks, as they deserve it best indeed. Notwithstanding it appeareth by some, whom either Hes • else or himself have censured, that not the Greeks alone are faulty. And sundry Greeks are faulty whom he would be loath to call lying Greeks : as namely Nicephorus, & Simeon Metaphrastes, of the newer writers; & of the ancienter, Palladius, and Cassianus. Of all whom Molanus hath given this note, that most learned men do judge them not worthy to be greatly credited. Whereby you may see that the judgment of Cano, touching the stories of Saints, is more a great deal then one Doctors judgment. Howbeit, if so many were not of his mind: yet should you do him wrong to cast him off as one Doctor. For himself allegeth the testimony of a Doctor as good as any that I have named: I mean that worthy man Ludouicus Viues. Who lamenting that the stories of heathen captains and philosophers are written so notably, that they are like to live forever; but the lives of Apostles, of Martyrs, of Saints, the acts of the Church both in the spring and growth of it, are covered with great darkness, and lie unknown in a manner: for those things (saith he) which are written of them are (a few excepted) defiled with many fables, while he that writeth them doth follow his own affectiō, & telleth not what a Saint hath done, but what he would have had him done, so that the writers fancy and not the truth doth pen the story. Yea, some have thought it a point of great godliness to coin pretty lies, that thereby men's devotion might be stirred up. Some have thought it a point of great godliness, saith Viues : but will you know of what godliness ? There is a mystery in y ^• , which Vi • es doth not open: Cano doth open it. For he saith that they, who feine and forge in writing ecclesiastical stories, devise their whole matter ether to error or to gain, S. Paul hath forewarned us of a kind of men, which think that gain is godliness. Your Church, M. Hart, hath had many minions, who of a zeal to this godliness have not only written, but wrought miracles too. You remember the tale of Bel and the Dragon. A freend of yours entreating thereof, doth report, that as the Priests of Babylon did abuse the people in the Dragons worship, so even in the Church the people sometimes is shamefully deceived with miracles wrought either by Priests, or by their adherents, for gain and lucres sake.

If any do so, we allow not of it: and there is order taken by the Council of Trent against such abuses. But what is this to the Portesse ? or rather to the Popes supremacy? Chiefly, since I mind not to allege anything out of the Portesse for it?

I was afraid you would. You are a man a • likely (for ought that I know) to do it for the Popes supremacy, as your Rhemists to do it for the assumption of the virgin. Though my meaning was not so much of your Portesse, as of Portesse-like writers, by whom I fell into your Portesse. But • f you mind not to allege anything out of the Portesse for it: then you will not bring those miracles which are fathered upon S. Thomas of Canterbury.

I pray go to the purpose, and leave these idle fancies which you bring in to play with. There is no such thing in the Portesse now. And if it were: what is it to the point in question?

To the point in question, as direct as may be. For this Thomas died upon occasion of a quarrel about the Popes supremacy: while he maintained appeals (against the king) to the Pope. Now, to prove that he stood in defense of the truth, those miracles were wrought. For, that, which they preached who had the grace of miracles, was the truth, saith Bristow: adding, that S. Thomas of Canterbury, S. Thomas of Aquine, S. Francis, S. Dominike, and infinite others had that grace, in such sort, that no man is able to put any difference between the miracles of Christ with his Apostles, and of these men. Yet well-fare their hearts who reformed your Portesse. For they have put out those miracles of S. Thomas of Canterbury, and many others: which they would not have doon, (I trow,) had they not known some difference between the miracles of these men, and the miracles of Christ. But they have left in as worthy a miracle, as those, of another of Bristowes miracle-workers, even of S. Thomas of Aquine : and (I hope) you will not call that an idle fancy ; though it be as idle with me, as the former. For they report of him, that when he was praying earnestly at Naples before the image of the crucifix, he heard a voice ( the crucifix spake it) saying to him, Thomas, thou hast written well of me, Thomas. I should have thought (for my part) that the wooden crucifix of a loving thankful heart, had commended him, because he did honor it with the fame honor that is due to God, and writeth solemnly that men ought to do so. But Pope Pius the fifth, the Lord-reformer of the Portesse, affirmeth, that the doctrine of Thomas was approved by the mouth of the crucifix himself in this miracle. And he knew best the meaning ofit. So y ^t I perceive this miracle was rather a dogmatical miracle (as Bristow • ermeth it) then personal. But whether personal, or dogma • icall : it shall not persuade me that all is true▪ which is written and taught by your dogmatical Doctor Thomas. For (as I have shown) he forgeth and belieth the Fathers notably, in the defense of the Popes supremacy against the Grecians. I can hardly think, that, when the crucifix said Thomas had written well, it meant to approve his writing in that point. Or if the crucifix meant it, the crucifix was to blame: unless the faute were rather in some lying knave, who spake out of the crucifix. Such feats there have been wrought in images ere now.

Evil minds turn all things to the worst. Pope Pius the fifth doth say of that miracle, that it is recorded in a godly story.

But, in what story, Pope Pius doth not say. Belike he meaneth Antoninus : of whom you know what Cano judgeth; and his judgment therein is good.

Yet you cannot deny but that Antoninus reporteth many true things. And why may not that miracle (I pray) be one of them?

A lying miracle, no doubt, as Antoninus reporteth it. For he saith that when Thomas was commanded by Pope Gregory to come unto the Council of Lions, and to bring with him that book which he had made by Pope Vrbanes commandment against the errors of the Grecians, whereof in that Council they were to be convicted: before he went thither, that voice was heard out of the crucifix, by certain who watched Thomas, as he was praying, on a certain night, in S. Dominikes coouent-church. I say nothing here of the suspicious circumstances, the time, the night season; the place, the coouent-church ; the witnesses, lying in wait ; the cause, to prove that which should be handled for the Pope against the Grecians in the Council. Only this I say, that seeing in that book (against the errors of the Grecians) Thomas doth falsify the writings of S. Cyril, and of above six hundred Fathers, even the general Council of Chalcedon, to make them bear witness for the Popes supremacy: the miracle pretended to have declared, as from heaven, that Thomas did well in handling so the cause of Christ, was a lying miracle▪ lying, in respect of the form, or of the end; I mean, as either wrought by deceit, or to deceit; by deceit, ifmen did counterfeit the voice; to deceit, if they heard it miraculously in deed. As it is written touching the man of sin, that his coming is according to the working of Satan with all power, and with lying signs and wonders, and with all deceiuablenesse of unrighteousness among them that perish, because they received not the love of truth that they might be saved. Take heed, M. Hart, least that which followeth be verified in you, Therefore shall God send them strong delusion to believe lies, that all they may be damned who believed not the truth but had pleasure in vnrighteou • nesse.

Take heed unto yourself, M. Rainolds, that you offend not in this unrighteousness, by abusing that famous Doctor of the Church, S. Thomas of Aquine. For the holy Father Pope Pius the fifth hath honored his memory with a double greater feast in his country, and with a double feast throughout all Christendom, to be kept as solemnly as the holy days of the four Doctors of the Church are kept. Wherefore you ought to think so much the more reverently of all that he hath written, and not to charge him with forging and falsifying, if he have missed ought: but rather to suppose that if the authors have not that which he allegeth, yet he had read it alleged by some other, and of a good affection to the See of Rome he thought it to be rightly alleged, and wrote it.

Of a good affection. As you will. Let it be so. He, with such dealing of a good affection, hath feasted the Pope: and the Pope again of a good affection hath double feasted him. But you grant then that Doctors of the Church may be deceived, as through oversight, so through affection too: and that these exceptions against them are lawful.

Lawfull, if you prove that they be so deceived. For they may be, I grant.

What? And may they not be deceived also, or rather seem to be deceived through the affection or oversight of other men?

Of other men? How?

As when a Greek writer is translated into Latin, the translator maketh him sometimes to say that which he never meant. And before printing, the scriueners, who copied out books with hand, committed sundry scapes. Which likewise befalleth unto printers now. So there may be a faute in an author without the authors faute, through oversight of printers, or scriueners, or translators. For example, in the story ecclesiastical of Eusebius translated by Rufinus, it is alleged out of Clemens that Peter, James, & John, although Christ preferred them almost before all, yet they took not the honor of primacy to them selves, but ordained James (who was surnamed Just,) Bishop of the Apostles. This had been a notable testimony for James, against the primacy of Peter. But I alleged it not: because as I seek to win you to the truth, so I seek to do it by true and right means. Whereof this were none, being an oversight (as it appeareth) of Rufinus. For in the Greek Eusebius, it is, that they ordained him Bishop of Jerusalem, not Bishop of the Apostles.

That may be the printers faute, or the scriueners perhaps, who wrote it out: not his who translated it.

But I think it rather the translators fault. For Marianus Scotus doth cite out of Methodius the same touching James, that they ordained him Bishop of the Apostles. Which (belike) was taken out of the story of Eusebius doon into Latin by Rufinus. And he hath erred often in in turning Greek writers: as also his translation of Josephus showeth. Though I may not charge him with all the faults therein. For where it is avouched by some that Josephus holdeth the books of Maccabees to be holy scripture, as in deed he seemeth to do in the Latin: in the Greek he saith not any such thing, nay he doth teach the contrary; but it is unlikely this came from Rufinus, who held him self the Maccabees not to be canonical. Howbeit if you say that the Greek copy which he translated of Eusebius, had that word amiss through the scriueners fault: I will not strive against you. But a more certain example of the faultiness in scriueners first, and printers after, is found in Optatus : in that he affirmeth, Peter was called Cephas because he was head of the Apostles; Apostolorum caeput Petrus, vnde & Cephas appellatus est. Upon the which place your lawyer doth note, that where he had thought it to be an oversight of a man dreaming that the Syriac word, which singifieth a stone, is the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifieth a head: now he guessed rather that the words [unde & Cephas appellatus est,] were some foolish gloss, written rashly in the margent, and then interlaced into the text by scriueners.

Like enough. But you have no harm by this gloss. For though you blot it out, yet Optatus saith that Peter was head of the Apostles.

Neither have we any harm by that text. For I have shown before it maketh naught for the Papacie. But we may have harm by that kind of glosses : chiefly since (as Viues observeth on S. Austin, upon the like occasion) some glosers have defiled all the writings of noble authors with such unclean handling of them.

Will you make an ende of excepting against the Fathers: and let us hear at length the Fathers speak themselves?

The fathers them selves ? With a very good will. But look that you bring me the Fathers them selves. For, (which is my last exception, and so an ende,) there are many books entitled to Fathers which the Fathers made not: nay whereof sundry were made by such youthes, as are not worthy to bear the Fathers shoes. The works of S. Jerome are abroad in nine volumes: of the which nine as good as three are none of his. And yet Vitae patrum, (a legend, how wrongfully fathered on S. Jerome your Espencaeus & Cano show,) is not amongst them. Though there are amongst them slips of the same tree: a barbarous and sottish fable (as Cano calleth it) of the nativity of S. Marie, and many other treatises of the same kind, which Erasmus hath refuted most diligently & rightly. The works of S. Austin have not been tampred with, so much, in this sort. Notwithstāding there is not above one or two of his ten volumes, that hath not more or fewer such pamphlets patched to it. Not only by the judgment and censure of Erasmus, which yet you see how Cano esteemeth in S. Jerome : but also of the Louanists, whose censures are the censures of many of your best Divines ; and they show that sundry things bear S. Austin's name, whereof some are unlearned, some lewd, and heretical. But what do I speak of Jerome and Austin ? when there is scarce any amongst all the Fathers that hath not been abused so. The Frier (whom Stapleton doth commend greatly for diligence, and judgment,) Sixtus Senensis hath written a discourse touching the false entitling of books, whence it cometh, and how to find it out. Therein he hath proved that books are fathered falsely, not only upon Austin and Jerome, whom I named, but also upon Ambrose, Cyprian, Athanasius, Eusebius Emisenus, Iunilius, Cyril, Eucherius, Arnobius, yea Thomas of Aquine too. With this discourse he closeth up the former volume of his holy library : in which he hath shown that Clemens, Abdias, Origen, Chrysostom, Hippolytus, & many mo have had their names defaced with the same injury.

There are many books entitled to the Fathers falsely, we confess. I will not bring them in, to witness against you: or if I do, you may refuse them lawfully.

Then you will not bring in the story of Abdias, to prove that Peter gave the whole power to Clemens which Christ had given him. Or if you do, you license me to refuse him, as freely as I refused his coosin Clemens in the same point. Neither will you bring Arnobius on the Psalms, to prove that who so goeth out of Peters Church, shall perish, as doth Stapleton. Or, if you do, you license me to refuse him, as not the man whom Stapleton would have him taken for.

You may refuse Abdias. For Pope Paul the fourth rejected him amongst the books which he condemned: as Sixtus recordeth. But Arnobius is an ancient writer indeed, & more worthy of credit.

More worthy of credit then Abdias, I grant. But he is not that writer most ancient, whom Stapleton reporteth him to be. For the most ancient Arnobius was elder (as Sixtus also noteth) then that he might hear of the heresy of Photinus. Whereas this Arnobius, who writeth on the Psalms, doth mention Photinus, and write by name against his heresy.

Will you stand then to the judgment of Sixtus, which be the right and natural graffes of the Fathers, and which be bastard slips.

No. For though Sixtus did see many things, yet he saw not all: and others may see that which Sixtus ouersaw. As, for example, there are two books touching the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, bearing the name of Linus, the first Bishop of Rome. These doth Sixtus judge to have indeed been written by that ancient Linus, as Faber also did before him. But Claudius Espencaeus doth marvel that Faber, a learned man, and witty, could be so persuaded: since Peter in that story is made to withdraw the Roman wives & matrones from their husbands beds under pretense of chastity. Which unchristian doctrine, repugnant to the laws of godliness and honesty, nether was it possible that Peter should teach, neither is it likely that Linus should bely him with it. And thus you see an autor disallowed by Espencaeus on very sound reason, whom Sixtus hath allowed of, not so discretely.

But if you thus allow and disallow whom you list: I may take pains in vain. For when I shall allege this or that Father speaking most expressly for the Popes supremacy: you have your answer ready, that he was overseen through error, or ouerborne with affection, or if he wrote in Greek, he is mistranslated; or, if he wrote in Latin, he was miss written, or misseprinted; or if none of these will serve, it is a bastard falsely fathered on him. And whether your shifts be sufficient answers, yourself will be judge.

Nay, not so nether. For whatsoever I answer, I will give reason of it. And whether my reasons be sufficient proofs: I will permit it (as I said) to the judgment of the iurie, that is, of all indifferent men, who have skill to weigh the reasons that are brought, and conscience to give verdict according unto that they find. Which trial if you like off, as you seemed to do: then bring forth your witnesses, and let us hear now the Fathers speak themselves.

Content. And I will • irst begin with the Fathers of the Church of Rome, even the ancient Bishops whom I alleged before out of D. Stapleton ; namely Anacletus, Alexander the first, Pius the first, Victor, Zepherinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Melchiades, Julius, and Dama • us. To whom I add also them whom you mentioned out of Melchior Cano: to weete, the two Sixti, with Eleutherius and Marcus. For though some of them maintain it as by scripture, some as by tradition: yet all agree in this that they maintain the Popes supremacy.

In deed, though their heads be turned one from another, yet their tails meet together with a firebrand betwixt them, as did the foxes of Samson. But Samson had three hundred foxes : have you no more but these few?

Foxes do you call those holy martyrs and Bishops? And will you still utter such blasphemous speeches, and set your mouth against heaven?

Against hell, M. Hart, and not against heaven. For I reverence the holy martyrs whom yo • named. But, foxes I call those beasts who wrote the things that Stapleton and Cano quote: most lewdly and injuriously to the martyrs and Bishops whom they are falsely fathered on, as I will prove. Which that I may do with lesser trouble, all in one: I would you brought the rest if you have anymore of them.

More? Why, all the Bishops of Rome from them forward, even till our age, have taught the same doctrine, as Cano declareth. For it is confirmed by Innocentius the first, in his epistles to the Councils of Carthage and Mileuis ; by Leo in his epistles to Anastasius, and the Bishops of the province of Vienna ; by Gelasius in his epistl • 〈◊〉 Anastasius the Emperor, and in the decrees which he made with the seventy Bishops, and in his epistle to the Bishops of Dardania ; by Vigilius in his decrees, the last chapter of them; by Pelagius the second, to the Bishops that were assembled in the city of Constantinople ; by S. Gregory in his epistle to Austin the Bishop of the Englishmen ; and by many other Popes whose testimonies are rehearsed in the decrees and decretals, in the twelfth distinction, and seventeenth, and nineteenth, and twentieth, and one and twentieth and two and twentieth, and the eightieth distinction, in the canon beginning with the word Vrbes ; and the ninety sixth distinction in the canon Bene ; and in the four and twentieth cause, the first question, throughout many chapters; and in the five and twentieth cause, the first question; and in the title of election, in the chapter beginning with the word Significasti ; and the title of privileges, the chapter Amiqua ; and the title of baptism, the chapter Maiores ; and the title of election in the sixth book of decretals, the chapter Fundamenta ; and in the Extrauagants, the constitution V • am sanctam; which extravagant constitution was renew • 〈◊〉 approved by the Council of Lateran under Leo the tenth. So that you have not only the first Bishops of Rome, but all the successors of Peter in that See speaking with one consent for the Popes supremacy, even a cloud of witnesses.

Not a cloud of witnesses such as the Apostle spake off to the Hebrews. But such a cloud rather as Athanasius meant: who when Julian the Emperor had sent men of arms to spoil him of his life, and the faithful about him were sorry for it, and wept, Be not dismayed (saith he) my children; it is b • t a small cloud, and will pass over quickly. For this host of Popes which you have armed against us, may be sorted out into three companies. Whereof the first front, is, the names of them who lived three hundred years and upward after Christ: but the names only. For the writings savor as much of those Bishops, as scarcrowes do resemble the strength of valiant men. The second front, are they who lived the next three hundred years, or there about. And the weapons (though not all) which they bear, are their own: but those which are their own, are not long enough to reach the supremacy; and that which they do reach they are to weak to win it. The third, is as it were the forlorn hope: the Popes which do follow the first and second front, in the vawarde, as you would say. And they have best will, but can do least. For they are troubled so with care of the carriage, and their whole artillery of decrees, and decretals, and extrauagants is so dull, that, if the former be discomfited, they have not power to strike a stroke. So that you see, the witnesses, which you have brought yet, are of no valure: have you any better?

Nay stay, I pray, a little: and look ere you leap. Soft fire makes sweet malt. Your answer to the Popes whose authorities I cited doth stand on three pointes, according to three companies of them, as you sort them. The first, you say, are counterfeites, and most unlike those Bishops whose names they take upon them. The next avouch not the supremacy of the Pope: though they avouch more then is true, through affection. The last, through a regard of their own commodities, have spoken for them selves, and are unfit to witness in their own matter. Is not this your meaning?

Yes. But that which you apply to the last sort, that they are unfit to witn •••• • o their own matter : I mean it of the second too. And if I thought that the first (which seem to have been counterfeited in the days of the third) had been counterfeited and coined by some ambitious Pope himself: I would use the same exception to them also. But in very truth I am not of opinion that any Pope himself did coin them. It was some cook rather or horse-keeper of the Popes: if I can guess ought by the style and Latin.

I perceive that all which you have to say against the writings of the first sort, is that, which your Centuries of Meydenburg have said. For this is their reason and they stand much upon it, that the style is bad, and the Latin barbarous. Which disproof is foolish and of no force: as Father Turrian showeth in his defense of the canons of the Apostles and of those epistles of the Popes, against the Centuries. For in style and Latin they might speak rudely, both to the intent that in things pertaining to the salvation of all even the simplest might understand them: and least they should seem by choice of words to hunt for praise and vain glory. Yea, whereas the Centuries, in this point of style, do note the likeness of it too, as if that were a special mark to prove them counterfeit: therein they have betrayed most notorious folly. For the style is wont to be a certain token of the right author (chiefly in some men's writings,) whereby we use often to try and discern a true book from a forged; as learned men have doon in Austin, Jerome, Ambrose, Cyprian, Tertullian, and others. But herein the trial is the unlikeness of the style, between an authors own work and a bastard fathered on him. Which trial cannot be had in those epistles of the Popes, that are denied by the Centuries : because we have nothing written by those Popes, but only those epistles. Now see the blindness of heretics. When they cannot disprove them by unlikeness of style, they say that the likeness of the style disproueth them: which is most ridiculous-

As Father Turrian dreamed. And as it is wont to fall out in dreams that sundry pointes of them are contrary one to another, and yet I know not how the dreamer imagineth that all do cleave together well: so fareth it with Turrian in his discourse touching the style against the Centuries. For what is the reason on the which he saith that commonly the style is a sure token, and as it were a touchstone, whereby we may discern true books from forg ••• ▪

Because that the style sometime is so peculiar to his own author, that his work may thereby easily be known even by a man of mean judgment: as in Tertullian, Apuleius, Pliny, Suetonius, and other such, not to reckon up all.

Why? May not another man's style be so like to Tertullian's, or any such, that you shall not be able to discern between them.

It may be perhaps: but that is rare and hard. And therefore the learned man (whom you mentioned) Sixtus Senensis, affirmeth, that of all the tokens, and conjectures, by which the right works of authors may be known from counterfeit and forged, the diversity of style doth seem to be most sure and evident. For though it be easy for every crafty coosiner to take upon himself the country, and kindred, and times of any author, and follow his pointes of doctrine too: yet there is nothing harder then to counterfeit another man's style. By the style (saith he) I mean not that outward skin of the words, but the shape of the oration, the frame of the speech, the joining and continual order of the partes, the form of eloquution, the figures of speaking, the art of disposing, the method of handling, & other things which are proper to every well spoken author. For as every man hath a peculiar feature of body to himself, and a peculiar countenance, and a peculiar voice, and a peculiar natural coolour, and other several marks whereby he doth differ from other men, and is unlike them: so all ecclesiastical writers have certain properties peculiar to them selves, which never do agree or seldom to any other: such, as is a gorgeous show in Antiochus, an exquisite diligence of speech in Basil, a tragical loftiness in Gregory Nazianzen, a clean and vnforced elegancy in Chrysostom, a singular pure facility in Cyprian, a French-like statelines of utterance in Hilary, a grave and sharp copiousnesse of brief sayings in Ambrose, in Jerome a flourishing variety of things & words, in Austin clauses ending like, and members falling like, in Gregory a gate (as I may say) of sentences answering one another in measures interchaungeably, and other things of like sort, which although a man do seek of purpose to express, yet he cannot attain unto them. By the which words of Sixtus you may see, that Turrian spake reason, in saying, that the style is commonly a sure token to discern the right works of authors from counterfeits.

And by the same words of Sixtus you may see, that he, in saying so, disproueth his own reason, and proveth the reason of the Centuries. For the epistles of y ^e Popes which they endi • e of bastardy, are very like in style each of them to other: so like as though all had been spet out of one man's mouth. Now the authors of them are said to have been, not two or three Popes, whose children might be like; but two or three and thirty with y ^e advantage, Clemens, Euaristus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Anicetus, Soter, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Anterus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Sylvester, and mo, beside the fourteen whose names you alleged out of Stapleton and Cano. Hereupon the Centuries infer that those epistles are falsely fathered on them: because the whole shape and frame of their speech doth openly bewray that one and the same man was author of them all. For it cannot be (say they) that so many Bishops should have the same speech, no not though they had been accustomed of purpose to likeness of style. And this is their reason of the likeness of style: which Turrian, while he striveth to laugh it out as foolish, confirmeth as most sound, by saying that the style is wont to be a sure token whereby men's own works are discerned from counterfeits, as they have been in Austin, Jerome, Ambrose, Cyprian, Tertullian, and others. Which could not be so, but that the styles of men have their peculiar properties, wherein they differ each from other, as their bodies do in feature, color, voice, countenance, and other marks whereby we know them. And you shall not lightly •• nde three men, that have bodies like in all respects: much less three and thirty. So the blindness, which you thought to show in the Century writers, as heretics, is fallen on the heretical Jesuit who reproveth them. Yea, as the Syrians, when they went about to take Elisaeus, were stricken with blindness, and led into the middes of the city of Samaria : so the blind Jesuit, while he sought to beat down a truth in the Centuries, hath fallen into the middes of a Samaritan quality. For to prove that they could not disprove those epistles by vnlikenes of style, he saith that we have nothing written by those Popes, whose epistles they deny, but only those epistles. Which is an untruth. For one of the Popes, whose bastard epistles they deny, is Cornelius. Of his there is extant one whole right epistle, and parcels of more, in Cyprian and Eusebius. An other is Julius. Of his there is extant a right epistle in Athanasius. Between which epistles, the right ones in Cyprian, Eusebius, and Athanasius, and the bastard ones which are denied by the Centuries, there is as great difference almost for the style: as there is for substance, between gold, and copper. Now by these few you may esteem the rest: for they came all from one smithes forge. Wherefore not only the likeness of the style, but the vnlikenes also convinceth them of forgery. And this is noted too by the writers of the Centuries : chiefly in that of Julius. The more do I marvel at the Jesuits boldenes, who saith that they neither could nor do object vnlikenes of the style against them.

Yet the former reason which they bring from the Latin, that it is rude & barbarous, is justly challenged by Turrian. For S. Paul was rude in speech, but not in knowledge. And so might the Popes be.

Not so. For it is one thing to be rude in speech, and simple (as you would say) without pomp & bravery: another thing, to be barbarous. As it is one thing for a husbandman to wear home-made cloth, which many honest men do: another thing, to go (as rogues are wont) in rags. Wherefore when Turrian saith that the Popes might write barbarously, least by choice of words they should seem to hunt for praise and vain glory : it is, as if a man should say that godly preachers ought to go in torn clothes and full of vermin▪ least by