You haue heard, mai­ster Hart, The first Diuisi­on. from the Right honorable M. Secretarie Walsyngham, the cause why he hath sent for me to come vnto you: to conferre with you concerning matters of religion, for the better infor­ming of your conscience and iudgement. In the which respect you signified vnto him your selfe to bee willing to conferre with any man: so that you might be charitably and Christianly dealt withall.

In deede I did signifie so much to M. Secretarie: neither am I vnwilling to do that I haue promised. Howbeit, I wish rather, that if a conference be purposed, the learned men of our side, whome we haue many beyond sea, might be sent for hether, of riper yeares, and sounder iudgement. As for mée: the condition of conference with you is somewhat vn-euen. For I lie in prison, and am adiudged to dye: the closenesse of the one, & terror of the other, doth dull a mans spirits, and make him very vnfitte for study. I neither am of great yeares, nor euer was of great reading: and yet of that which I haue read I haue forgot­ten much, by reason of my long restraint. I am destitute of bookes: we are not permitted to haue any at all, sauing the Bible onely. You of the other side may haue bookes at will: and you come fresh from the vniuersitie: whereby you are the readier to vse them and alleage them. These are great disaduantages, for me to enter into conference with you. Neuerthelesse, I am con­tent, as I haue said, to do it: so that my wantes may be supplied with furniture of bookes, such as I shall desire.

The learned men of your side, it lyeth not in me to procure hether. I would to God none of them had euer come from Rome with traiterous intente, nay more then intent: [Page 34] Morton into Englād, San­ders into Ire­land. Sander. vi [...]ib. Monarc. lib. 7. S [...]nders l [...]tters to D. Allen & [...]l [...]ick Burke. Gene­b [...]d. Chrono­gr. lib. 4. to moue rebellion against our Soueraine, and arme the sub­iectes against the Prince. It had fared better both with you and others, who came from him that sent them. Your imprisonment and daunger, which hath hereon ensued, I can more easily pittie then relieue. I wish you were at libertie: so that her highnes were satisfied, whome you haue offended. The condition of con­ference, the which is offred you: is not so vn-euen in deede as in shew. For although I come fresh from the vniuersitie: yet I come from one of those vniuersities, wherin Bristow De­maund. 41. your selues report, that few of vs do study: and those few that study, study but a few questions of this time onely: and that so lightly, that we be afeard to reason with common Catholikes: or, if we do reason, [...]oti [...] ▪ 31. the common sort of Catholikes are able to answere all our arguments, and to say also more for vs, then wee can say for our selues. You of the other side haue béene brought vp in one of those Seminaries, wherein Deman. 4 [...]. all trueth is studied, the maisters teach all trueth, the schollers learne all truth: & the course of diuinitie (which our students, nay our Doctors and Readers can not tel almost what it meaneth) The narrati­on of the [...] [...]oome. is read ouer in foure years, with so great exactnes, that if a man follow his study diligently, he may become a learned Diuine, and take degree. Yea, besides the Lectures of positiue Diuinitie, of Hebrue, of controuersies, of Cases of conscience: the Lecture of Scholasticall Diuinitie alone, (wherein the whole bodie of perfit Theologie doth consist) doth teach, within the same foure yeares, all the poyntes of Catholike faith in such sort, that thereby the hearers come to vnderstand, not only what is in the scriptures about a matter of faith, but also whatsoe­uer is in all the Tomes of Councels, wrytings of Fathers, vo­lumes of Ecclesiastical histories, or in any other Author wor­thie the reading. Wherefore, sith you haue heard this course of diuinitie, and haue béene admitted to take degree therein vpon the hearing of it: you may not alleage vnripenes of yeares, or reading, or iudgement: especially against me, before whome, in time so long, in place so incomparable, you tooke degrée in diui­nitie: if yet our degrées may goe for degrées, [...]ulla Pi [...]. Quint. anno 156 [...]. as Bri­stow saith Dem. 41. the Pope hauing depriued vs of them. But you haue no bookes, sauing the Bible onely. You are, it is likely, the redier in that booke: chiefly sith Narrat. of the Engl [...]sh Semin. in Ro [...]e at Rhemes beside your priuat studie of it, you were exerci­sed [Page 35] in it dayly, by reading ouer certaine Chapters, wherein the hard places were all expounded, the doubtes noted, the controuersies which arise betwixt you and vs resolued, the arguments, which our side can bring vnto the contrarie, perspicuously and fully answered. So that with this armour you are the more strongly prepared against me: who can be con­tent to deale with you in conference by that booke alone, as by the booke of all trueth. Notwithstanding, though you complaine, I know you may haue more bookes, if you would haue such as are best for you to read. But you would haue such as might nou­rish your humor: from reading of the which they, who restraine you, are your friendes. If a man do surfet of varietie of dishes, the Phisicion doth well to dyet him with one wholsome kinde of meat. Perhaps it were better for some of vs, who read all sortes, that we were tyed to that alone, & suffred part of your restraint. We are troubled about many things: but one thing is needfull. Many please the fansie better; but one doth profit more y ^e minde. He was a wise preacher, who said, Ecclesia [...]. 1 [...]. vers. 12. The reading of many bookes is a wearinesse vnto the flesh: and therefore exhorted men to take instruction by ver. 10. &. 11. the wordes of trueth, the wordes of the wise, which are giuen by one pastor: euen by Iesus Christ, 1. Pet. 1.11, 12. whose spirit did speake in the Prophets and Apostles, and taught his Church the trueth by them. Howbeit, for as much as Ephes. 4.8, 11. God hath giuen giftes to men, pastours, and teachers, whose labour might helpe vs to vnderstand the words of that one pastor: we do receaue thankfully the monuments of their labour, left in wryting to the Church, which they were set to builde, eyther seuerall, as the Doctors; or assembled, as the Councels: & we do gladly read them as Pastors of the Church. Yet so, that we put a difference betwene them, and that one Pa­stor. For Ioh. 3. [...]4. God did giue him the spirite not by measure: the rest Rom. 12.3. Ephe [...]. 4 [...] had a measure of grace and knowledge through him. Wherfore, if to supply your whatsoeuer wants, you would haue the bookes of Doctors and Councels, to vse them as helps for the better vnderstanding of the booke of Christ: your wants shal be supplyed, you shall not need to feare disaduantage in this re­spect. For M. Secretarie hath taken order that you shall haue what bookes you will: vnlesse you will such as cannot be gotten.

The bookes that I would haue, are principally in déed [Page 36] the Fathers and the Councels: which all do make for vs, as do the scriptures also. But for my direction to finde out their pla­ces in all poyntes of controuersie which I can neither remember redily, nor dare to trust my selfe in them: I would haue our wri­ters, which in the seuerall poyntes (whereof they treate) haue ci­ted them, and buyld themselues vpon them. In the question of the Church and the supremacie, Principior. fi­dei doctrinaliū demonstrat. method. Doctor Stapleton; of the Sa­craments, and sacrifice of the Masse, De Sacramen­tis in gen. de sa­cram. & sacrific. [...]charist. Doctor Allen; of the wor­shipping of Sayntes and Images, Dialog. sex contr. summi Pontificat. &c. oppugnatores ab Al [...]no Co­po editi. Doctor Harpsfield, whose bookes were set forth by Alan Cope, & beare his name, as In the end of the booke af­ter the last di­alogue, A. H. L. N. H. E. V. E. A. C. that is to say, Autor huius libri Ni­colaus Harps­field [...]eum vero edidit Alanus Copus. cer­taine letters in them shew. Likewise for the rest of the pointes that lie in controuersie, them who in particular haue best written of them: & for them al in generall, S. Summ. Theo­log. & in Ma­gistr. Sent. Thomas of Aquine, & [...]ctata Ro­b [...]r [...]. Politan. in Summ. Theo­log. [...]hom. Aqu. Fa­ther Roberts Dictates, and chiefly Con [...]ess. Au­gu [...]tin. Hiero­ [...]. To [...]en. [...] Pa [...]is. 1 [...]80 the confession that Torrensis, an other father of the societie of Iesus, hath gathered out of S. Augustine, which booke we set the more by, [...]. Con­ [...]ss. Augusti. ad Lector. because of al the Fa­thers S. Augustine is the chéefest, as well in our as your iudge­ment: and his doctrine is the common doctrine of the Fathers: whose consent is the rule whereby controuersies should be ended.

These you shall haue (God willing) and if you will Opus cate­chisticum Pet. Canii. Iesuit. Canisius too: because he is so full of textes of Scriptures, and Fathers, and many doe estéeme him highly. But this I must request you, to looke on the originalles of Scriptures, Councels, Fathers, which they doe alleadge. For they doe perswade you that all doe make for you: but they abuse you in it. They borrow some gold out of the Lordes treasure house, and wine out of the Doctors presses▪ but they are deceitful workmen, they do corrupt their golde with drosse, their wine with worse then water.

You shall finde it harder to conuince them of it, then to charge them with it.

And you shall finde it harder to make proofe of halfe, then to make claime of all. Yet you shall see both youre claime of all the Scriptures and Fathers to bee more confidente then iust: and my reproofe of your wryters for theyr corrupting and forging of them, as plainly prooued as vttered, if you haue eyes to see. God lighten your eyes, that you may see: & open your eares, that you may heare: and geue you both a softe hart and vn­derstanding minde, that you may be able wisely to discerne, and gladly to embrace the trueth when you shall heare it.

I trust I shall be able alwayes, both to see, and to fol­lowe the trueth. But I am perswaded you will be neuer able to shew that that is the trueth, which your Church professeth. As by our conference (I hope) it shalbe manifest.

UUill you then (to lay the ground of our confe­rence) let me know the causes why you separate your selfe, and refuse to communicate with the Church of England in prayers and religion?

The causes are not many. They may be al compry­sed in one. Your Church is no Church: You are not members of the Church.

How proue you that?

By this argument. The Church is a companie of Christian men professing one faith, vnder one head. You professe not one faith, vnder one head. Therefore you are not of the Church.

What is that one faith?

The catholike faith.

Who is that one head?

The Bishop of Rome.

Then both the propositions, of which you frame your argument, are in part faultie. The first, in that you say, the church is a companie of Christian men vnder one head. The se­cond, in that you charge vs of the church of England, that wee professe not one faith. For we do professe that one faith, the ca­tholike faith. But we deny that the church is bound to be subiect to that one head, the bishop of Rome.

I will proue the pointes of both my propositions, the which you haue denied. First, that the church must be subiect to the Bishop of Rome as to her head. Next, that the faith, which you professe in England is not the catholike faith.

You will say somewhat for them: but you will neuer proue them.

Let the church iudge. For the first, thus I proue it. The se­cond Diuision. S. Peter was head of all the Apostles. The Bishop of Rome succee­deth Peter, in the same power ouer Bishops, that he had ouer the Apostles. Therefore the Bishop of Rome is head of all Bishops. If of Bishops; then by consequent of the dioceses subiect to them. If of all their dioceses; then of the whole church. The Bishop of [Page 38] Rome therefore is head of the whole church of Christ.

S. Peter was head of all the Apostles? The Bishop of Rome is head of all Bishops? I had thought that Christ our Sauiour both was, and is the head, as of the whole church, so of Apostles, of Bishops, of all the members of it. For the church is his body: and he alone performeth the dutie of an head vnto it, by giuing it power of life, of feeling, of mouing: and Ephes 1.2 [...]. him hath God appointed to be the head to the Church, and Colos. 2.19. by him all the body furnished and knit togither by iointes and bandes, encreaseth with the encreasing of God.

We graunt that Christ is properly the head of the church, the principall and quickning head. But this head is im­periall, so to terme him, and inuisible. The Pope is a visible, and ministeriall head: yet in truth a head also. Staplet. princi­pior. doctr. lib. 6. cap. 16. For of the head there are two dueties: the one, to bee the fountaine out of the which there floweth life into the rest of the body; the other, to direct Suo imperio. by his rule and power the outward functions of the body. The for­mer duety doth agree to God alone and Christ. The later, to the seruice and ministery of men too.

This your answere of two heades doth stand with more reason, then Pope Boni­face the 8. c. vnam sanctam. extra. De maio­ [...]it. & obedient. his, who said that Christ, and Christes vicar Peter, and Peters successor the Pope, are all but one head of the church. Howbeit, so to make a twofold head, as you do, by the variety of two dueties: it is not to diuide but to rent a sunder the dueties of the head, and to make the Pope a head imperiall ra­ther then a ministeriall. For, by rule and power to direct either the inward or outward functions of the bodie, is the chiefe and proper function of the head, agréeing to that head alone, that gi­ueth power of life and féeling and mouing to the body. Where­fore, sith Christ, hauing bound him selfe by his promise Mat. 28.20. to be with vs vntill the end of the world, doth giue this power vn­to his church by the effectuall working of his holy spirite, which doth quicken both the whole and euery member of his body: they who do diuide the preeminence of this duety betwéene him and the Pope, allotting to him the inward, to the Pope the outward functions to be directed, deserue to be attainted of treason against the Lord. For séeing that to exercise this rule and dominion, is a prerogatiue royall, and proper to the king of kings: to giue it ei­ther in whole or in part to any subiect, can not be a lesser offence [Page 39] then hie treason.

If you account this to be treason against the Lord, and do attaint vs of it: You must attaint him selfe of it, who by his word hath brought vs to it. For S. Paule comparing the church vnto a body, to shew the sundry giftes of Christians, and in their sundry giftes their seuerall dueties by the similitude of members, doth mention a head amongst them: 1. Cor. 12.21. The e [...]e cannot say vnto the hand, I haue no neede of thee, nor the head to the feete, I haue no neede of you. Here the name of head must by al likelyhood bee meant of the Pastor in respect of the flock. But it cannot be meant of Christ. For he may say to vs, I haue no neede of you: and so he willeth vs also Luc. 17.10. (when we shal haue done all things that are cōmanded vs) to say, we are vnpro­fitable seruants. It must be meant therefore of Peter in respect of the rest of the Apostles, and by consequent of the Pope in res­pect of all Bishops.

If Paule had so meant it, either of Peter or of the Pope: he had a tongue of the learned, he could easily haue so ex­pounded it. But, in the applying of his similitude to his purpose, he sheweth that he meant, by the name of head, them who had the greatest graces of Gods spirite: by feete, hands, and eies, them who not so great, though greater some then other.

Them who had the greatest? Nay: the name of head doth shew it must be one, and that, one visible head (which wée call a ministeriall head vnder Christ) proportionable to the body of Christ, I meane the Church. Of the which visible and ministe­riall head those wordes of S. Paule may bee truely verified, The head cannot say to the feete, I haue no neede of you.

Indeede, if the Pope be signified by the head, those words will fitte him well. For Reginald. Pol. Card. pro eccle­siast. vnitat. de­fens. ad Henric. octau. lib. 1. Cardinall Poole discour­sing on the same reason of the Popes supremacie, doth make as him the head, so kings to be the féete. And it is true the Pope can not say to kings, I haue no neede of you. It would bée hard going for him if they were not. But if, because Saint Paule doth in that similitude mention a head, therefore there must be one vi­sible head proportionable to the body of Christ, that is, y ^e Church: then because S. Paule doth mention the féete, there must bee néedes also two visible féete, by the like proportion. Now I would gladly know of you Maister Hart, which you will make [Page 40] the two féete of your church. The Emperour I trow, must be the right foote. The left, who? The king of Spaine? What shall the French king do then? It is well that the king of Scots is no member of it: nor the king of Denmarke. Marry we had newes of the king of Swethland that Iesuits had conuerted him. Shal he be the left foote? Or shall the king of Poleland set in a foote for it? Or is the king of Boheme nearer it? There is a king of Bungo too, Iesuit. in epist. Iapon. lib. 2. & 4. who is reported to protect your religion in his coun­tries, and The epistle to the Councell see before the epistle of the persecution of Catholicks in England. likewise the Great Turke, & other princes of Ma­homets sect: they may be féete in time also. But how many féete may this body haue? May it haue sixe, seauen, eight, may it haue twentie visible féete: and may it not haue ten, not foure, not two, may it haue but one visible head?

Cardinall Pole compareth kinges vnto féete, not as though they were the lowest partes of the church, (for hée coun­teth them as speciall members, though not heads) but because the church in the course of her growth was last of all increased with them, as with féete, and so did make an end of growing.

Then in Saint Paules time the church had no féete, but a head without them. And what doth he meane to saye that the head could not speake to the feete, when it had no féete to speake too?

Yes, it had féete then, but of an other sort. For they, who were of lower degrees and meaner giftes in the church of Christ, are resembled to féete in comparison of others who were in those respects as hands, and eies, aboue them.

And do you thinke the church had but two such féete? Or had it many hundreds? For christians were growne Ac [...]. 4.4 long before to thousands, and it is not likely the most of them were eyes and hands.

It had (no doubt) many. But you must not racke the members of similitudes beyond the principall pointes whereto they are applied and meant. For els you might infer too, that the church must haue but two eies, and two hands, because a mans body (to which S. Paule resembleth the church) hath no more.

As you say. Yet this is the mould of your owne reason, wherein you cast the church to haue one visible head proportionable to the body. A fansy more proportionable to the limmes of Popery, then to Saint Paules doctrine touching the [Page 41] body of Christ. For his drift and purpose therein is to shew, that 1. Cor. 12. ve [...]s. 14. & 20. as a mans body is made of sundry members, ver. 21. & 25. which are not all as excellent one as an other, the hand as the head, the foote, as the hand, yet they are ioined togither to care one for an other, all to maintaine the bodie: ver. 27. and 28. so the bodie of Christ, that is to say, the church consisteth of sundry Christians, as members, some of greater gifts and callings then some, the Apostles then y ^t teachers, the teachers then the helpers, vers. 31, & the 13. & 1 [...]. chap­ters. yet al ioyned together to loue and serue one an other, and kéepe the church in vnitie. wherby it is manifest, first, that in naming ver. 21. the head he considereth it not as a head properly, but onely as a principall member. For so he applieth it, naming all Christians, ver. 27. mem­bers: and calling them the bodie of Christ, he putteth Christ to be the head. Next, that by the name of head so considered, hée meaneth no one man, but all ver. 28. first, Apostle [...]. the Apostles, as them who were indued with the chéefest gifts, and placed in the highest function. UUherefore if that word be strained to the vttermost, as far as by the text it may: the proofe that it yeldeth will argue a preemi­nence of the Apostles in generall ouer the inferiour members of the church, but no power of Peter ouer the rest of the Apostles, much lesse of the Pope ouer his fellow-bishops.

Yet this it doth proue, that the name of head is not so giuen vnto Christ, but that it may be giuen vnto a mortall man also. Not as a head properly (you say,) but as a principall member. And what said I els? For I graunted that Christ is properly the head of the church: the Pope improperly. Yet you reproued me for it.

I reproued you not because you gaue the title of head vnto the Pope, for hee should be a pastour of the church of Rome: and pastours (for their giftes aboue the members of their churches) ought to be like heads, though many of them be tailes Esai. 9.1 [...]. as the prophet calleth them: but because you named him head of the whole church, and that in such sort as it is due to none but Christ. For though you graunted Christ to be the quickening head, that is to say, the fountaine whence there floweth life into the rest of the bodie: yet you gaue the Pope this soueraintie of headship, that he should direct Suo [...] ▪ by his rule and power the out­ward functions of the bodie. Wherein, as of the one side you de­base the worthinesse of his gifts, who giueth vs Pastors and Tea­chers, [Page 42] in that you doe appoint them to guide onely the outward functions of his bodie, whereas Ephes. 4.12. he hath giuen them [...]. to the ful perfiting of his Saintes: so, of the other side you detract some­what from the soueraintie of Christ, when you giue his seruants dominion to guide his church by rule and power, whereas they are ordeined, [...]. to the worke of the ministery. Wherfore, how­soeuer you alay the title which you giue the Pope, and say you call him head, not properly, but improperly, a ministeriall head: yet you doe imply that in this [improperly] which can a­grée to none but him that properly is a head, a head that doeth quicken, guide, and moue the bodie. Euen as in c. Ita Domi­ [...]us. Distinct. 19. your Canon lawe it is said of Peter: The Lord did commit the charge of preaching the truth vnto him principally, Cited out of Leo, in y ^e Rhe­mish trāslatiō of the new Te­stament, to proue Peters primacie, in y ^e annot. on Mat. 16. ver. 18. to the intent that from him, as it were from a certaine head, he might powre a­broad his gifts as it were into all the bodie.

These wordes that you reproue in the Canon lawe, are the wordes of a man of singular wit and iudgement, famous both for holinesse and learning, Leo Epist. 87. Saint Leo, an auncient father, who did flourish About the yere of Christ 440. aboue a thousand yeares ago.

They a [...]e the wordes I grant, of an auncient, a wittie, a learned holie man, but a man: and, that is more, a Bi­shop of Rome. Now men, euen the holiest, Rom. 7 18. while they liue in the flesh, haue some contagion of the flesh: and learning may puffe vp, 1. Cor. 8.1. as it did the Corinthians: and the best wittes are soonest tainted with ambition: yea Mat. 20.22. Iames and Iohn, Marc. 3.17. the sonnes of thunder, desired superioritie: and Rome a great Citie did nourish great statelinesse, and that Socrat. histor. eccle. lib. 7. cap. 11. Ammian. Marcell. histor. lib. 27. euen in the Bishops of that Citie About the yeare of Christ 370. before Leo. So they louing preeminence, as 3. Iohn ver. 9. Diotrephes did, tooke all occasions to get it, and sought some colours to mainteine it. Wherefore, as one (in Cic. in Hor­tens. Tully) said to Hortensius, when he im­moderately praysed eloquence, that hee would haue lift her vp into heauen, that himselfe might haue gone vp with her, as hauing greatest right vnto her: so many Bishops of Rome, and Leo not the least of them, did lift vp Saint Peter with prayses to the skye, that themselues might rise vp with him, as being for­sooth his Leo sermon. 1. in anniuers. die assumpt. suae heires. The Epistles and Sermons of Leo haue ma­nifest markes of this affection: as, to giue a taste of them, Epist. 87. The Lord did take Peter into the feloship of the indiuisible vnitie: and, Epist. 61. Wee acknowledge the most singular care of the most [Page 43] blessed Peter for vs all, in this that God hath loosed the de­ceites of all slaunderers: and, Epist. 50. My writings be strengthened by the merite and authoritie of my Lorde most blessed Peter the Apostle: and, Epist. 62. Peter hauing confirmed the iudgement of his See in decision of faith, hath not suffered any thing a­misse to be seene about any of your persons, who haue labo­red with vs for the Catholike faith: and, Epist. 87. We beseech you, and aduise you to keepe the thinges decreed of vs, through the inspiration of God, & the Apostle most blessed Peter: &, Ser. 2. in an­niuer. die. as­sumpt. suae. If any thing be well done or decreed of vs, if any thing bee obtained of Gods mercy by daily praiers, it is to be ascribed to S. Peters workes and merites, whose power doth liue, and authoritie excell in his owne See: and, Serm. 3. in aniuer. die as­sumpt. suae. He was so plen­tifully watred of the fountaine of all graces, that whereas he receiued many things alone, yet nothing passeth ouer to any man but by him. To be short, Leo, & by his exāple his successors after him, are so full of such spéeches, that in the common phrase of themselues and their Secretaries, all thinges pertaining to the Popes, were growne to be S. Peters: their prerogatiue, Epist. 45. S. Peters right: their dignitie, Ibid. Saint Peters honour; their statelinesse, Epist 87. & Sermon. 1. in ann. die as­sump. suae. S. Peters reuerence; subiection to them, Epist. 87. sub­iection to S. Peter; A message from them, Epist. 24. an embassage from S. Peter; Things done in their presence, Epist. 4. done in S. Peters presence: Landes and possessions giuen them, Platina de vit. Pont. in Iohan. sept. giuen to S. Peter: And when they would haue kingdomes, Helmoid. in Chronic. Slaue­r [...] lib. 1. cap. 81. Princes must get them for S. Peter: Their territories and Lord­ships, Pope Inno­cent the third Extra. c. per ve­nerabilem. qui filij sintlegi­timi. S. Peters patrimonie: Their Bernard. de consid. ad Eug. lib. 2. vsurpations tyran­nicall, Abb. Vrsperg. in Chron. Hen. quint. Onuphr. de septem vrb. eccles. in Palat. Lateranensi. S. Peters royalties: Their good will, Greg. Regist. lib. 4. Epist. 34. His fauour: Their communion, lib. 7. Epist. 69. His peace: Their indignation, Platina de vitis Pont. in Greg. Sept. His curse: Their signet, Popes in their letters sub anulo piscato­ris. As Gregory the 13. in approbat. sodalit. B. Mari. His ring: Their closet, Pope Innocent the fourth extra. cap. Maio­res. de baptism. & eius effect. His See: Their Citie, Onuphr. de sept. vrbis ecclesi. cap. 1. His borough: Their poll mony Denarius Beati Petri. Eccles. An­glican. in concil. Lugdun. apud Mat. Paris in Henr. 3., euen Peter pence too. Yea, it may be, that shortly they will take vp Peter for a sur­name, as the Romane Emperours did the name of Caesar. For Francisc. Vargas de episcopor. iurisdict. & Pont. Max. autori. proposit. 4. confirmat. 4. a famous Lawier & Patrone of the Papacy, saith, that the Popes may al be called Peters. And Campian. Rat. 4. our countriman who was sent to display the Popes banner & Summum honorem primae sedis episcopo, id [...] Petro, deferes. chalenge highest honour for him, [Page 44] doth name him the Bishop of the first See, that is to say, Peter. And De autoritate pontificis, ad Stanislaum O­ [...]cho. Cardinal Hosius one of y ^e Popes lieutenants in his Coun­cell of Trent, doth write, that there is onely one vniuersall patriarke, Who? Petrus Ro­manus. Peter of Rome: and that Peter of Rome did send his messengers vnto English, French, Dutch, and o­ther nations, to call them to the Councell of Trent. Not Peter Ioh. 1.44. of Bethsaida, but Peter of Rome did it.

These thinges are small the most of them, and vsed to encrease a reuerend estimation and opinion of that Sée, to the which our Sauior committed the principalitie and gouernment of his church. As for the pointes that séeme greater in the words of Leo: they may be defended. For where he saieth, that Christ tooke Peter into the fellowship of the indiuisible vnitie: hée might meane vnitie in will not in substance, as Christ doth pray for his disciples, Ioh. 17.11. Holy father, keepe them in thy name, that they may be one, as we are. Where he doth honour Peter with the title of my Lord: it is a common title, and giuen men of state both spirituall and temporall: yea Ioh. 20.15. Mary Magdalen called him Lord (the word Domine: as Leo, Domini mei. in Latin is the same) whom shée supposed to be a gardiner. The like might be said for the defense of the rest: with as great probabilitie and perhaps greater, then you haue to mis­like them.

The smaller thinges, which you call, are some of them small, I graunt, but like small holes in ships, at the which a great deale of water wil come in, inough to drowne the shippe, if they be left open as long as these haue beene in the shippe of the church. They had encreased such an opinion of the Pope of Rome, Saint Peters See, as they tearmed it: that although hee practised not a principalitie geuē him by Christ, but an outragious tiranny vsurped by him selfe ouer Kings and Nations: yet neither kings nor Nations almost, durst speake against him, at the least resiste him. For if they did offend the Pope, they thought they did offende S. Peter. Now of S. Peter they were taught, that he is por­ter of heauen gates. They feared the porter would let none in, sauing the Pope his c. Ego Ludo­ [...]icus. distinct. 63. c. non qua­l [...]. [...]. q. 1. vicars frends. So, to get eternal life, they ser­ued, and pleased, and féeed the Pope, least that if he shoulde frowne vpon them, Saint Peters fauour should be lost. UUherfore how small soeuer those things of Peter séeme in trifling kindes of common spéeches: they brought no small aduantage to Peter of [Page 45] Romes Court, and wealth into his Treasurie. It is recorded Beda eccle­siast. histor. gen. Anglor. lib. 3. cap. 25. of King Oswy in our English Story, that when, vpon a controuer­sy about the celebrating of Easter, there was a Synode assem­bled, and the one part alleadged, that they followed the East Churches, which had receiued their rite of Iohn the Euange­list, the Disciple whom Christ loued; the other part replyed, that they followed the Church of Rome, which had recei­ued theirs of Peter, to whom Christ gaue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen: the King tooke vp the matter, and iud­ged with the Church of Rome, For Ego vobis di­co quia hic est ostiarius ille, cui ego contra­dicere no lo. I tell you, quoth he, that Peter is the porter, whom I wil not gainesay, nay, I wil obey his orders in all respectes, as farre as I skill and can, leaste when I come to the doores of the kingdome of heauen, there be none to open if hee be displeased who doth keepe the keyes. This grosse imagination of the keyes and porter, and corrupt opinion of power to shut and open committed vnto Pe­ter only, (which the good king conceyued of simplicitie, his Clear­gie should haue taught him better, but they did all agrée vnto it, and Brist. motiu. 24. Staplet. in his English Bede Note (saith he) the conclusion of the king. their successors praise King Oswy:) the Captaines of the Church of Rome perceyuing it to be commodious for the ad­uauncement of their kingdome, and conquering of all the earth, haue nourished very cunningly, by Do for vs, that S. Peter may forgiue your sins. Gregory. to the Em­presse, Regist. lib. 4. ep. 34. their lessons, S. Peters successor. their titles, S. Peters Keyes. their armes, S. Peters banner. Gene­brard. Chronograph. lib. 4. append. their ensignes, Represen­ting the keyes as giuen onely to Peter. their pictures, and other legi­ons of policies, all in S. Peters name. And on the credite of S. Peter they haue pronounced that c. Sic omnes. Distinct. 19. all ordinances of their See must be receiued, euen as if Peter had confirmed them. They haue taughte, that Pope Agatho in epist. Sext. Synod. Constāt. act. 4. their Church persisteth pure from all error, by the grace and helpe of Peter. They haue de­creed that c. in memori­am. disti [...]ct. 19. although it lay a yoake almost intolerable on vs, yet we must beare it patiently in the remembrance of S. Pe­ter. They haue set abroach in the donation of Constantine, that c. Constantinu [...] Distinct. 96. he gaue them his owne crowne, of golde most pure and pretious stones, to weare in honor of S. Peter, and that hee held the bridle and stirrope of the Popes horse in reuerence of S. Peter. They haue made the Emperour, as the Popes vasall, to become Sacra [...]. cere­mon. ecclesia Roman. libr. [...]. sect. 5. S. Peters knight, and take his oath vnto S. Peter, that hee will restore S. Peters lande vnto the Pope, if he get any of it, and wil helpe the Pope to defende S. Peters land. They haue brought Archbishops to thinke c. Quoniam quidam. Distin [...] 1 [...]. their [Page 46] power is nothing, vnlesse the Pope do send them from Sacrar. cere­monia. eccle. Roman. lib. 1. sect. 10. S. Pe­ters body, a pall, which hath the fulnesse of the pontifical due­tie. Bishops they haue bound c. Ego N. Epis­copus. extra. de iureiurando. to promise by their oath alle­giance and fealtie, to Saint Peter, the Romane Church, and their Lord the Pope. Yea, Felinus Com­ment. in c. Ego N. episcopus de iureiurando. from Bishops they haue brought the oath vnto them, who receyue dignities. And that which pas­seth all the rest, whereas the forme of the oath c. Ego N. Epis­copus. Papatum sanctae Romanae ecclesiae & regu­las sanctorū pa­trum adiutorero ad defendendū & retinendum. in the Canon Law doth bynde them to defend regulas sanctorum patrum, the rules of the holy fathers: the Pope hath Pope Grego­ry the 7. Mat. Paris in Henri­co tert. heretofore, and Pope Gregory the 13. in bulla ad Mau­ricium episco­pum Imela­censem. now doth put in stéed thereof, regalia sancti Petri, the roialties of S. Peter. Such praies your Eagles take, though you do count them flyes. But let them be flyes or fowles, I wil not striue. Onelie this I say, let the wise consider it, and marke the degrées of en­crease in the Papacie, and they shal perceiue in this (what shall I call it) of Saint Peters name, that although it were not any of the greatest, it was one of the finest trickes of spiritual coosinage, that hath enriched the Pope, and set the Church of Rome so hie. Now, to come from these lesser vnto the greater pointes in Leo, I know, if a man list to be contentious, it is an easie matter to say somewhat probably for the defense of his words. Yea though hee had named Peter, not only my Lord, but (as Iohn 20.28. Thomas did our Sa­uiour) My Lord & my God. It is a desperate cause that wil ad­mit no colour. The Hardin. con­futation of the Apologie. The Author of the discouery of Nichols. Stewes of Rome haue found patrones, and Iohan. Casa episcop. Bene­ [...]ent. that which is worse then Stewes. The Sueton. in vi­ta Domitian. heathens called Domi­tian, Our Lord God the Emperor. A c. Cum inter. in glossa. extra­vagant. Ioh. 22. Canoniste saith of the Pope, Our Lord God the Pope. Blasphemous spéeches both: yet a quareller might alleadge in defense of them, Psal. 82.6. I haue sayde, ye are Gods. But the very Sueton. & Sext. aur. Vict. in Domit. heathens, by the light of nature mis­lyked the one, as insolent: neither haue I read any Papiste, no nor Iesuite, that durst defend the other. It was a common prac­tise amongst the young students of our Uniuersities in the time of the Dunses, (and is yet amongst too many, whom spottes of Dunsery haue stayned,) that if in disputation they were brought to an inconuenience, were it neuer so absurd: they would haue a distinction, though voyde of braine and sense, yet a distinction to mainteyne it. If a man wil be peruerse, it is no mastery to doe it. But as Vine [...] lib. 1. de causis art. cor­rupt. a wise and learned man doth say of them, that they are base wits which are so affected, whereas ingenuous mindes & natures wel geuen, wil rather seeke howe true that is which [Page 47] they holde, then how they may defend it, making greater price of veritie then victorie: so I may say (yea much more in matters of religion, of faith, of life eternall) a Christian witte, and godly minde will search and weigh rather, what should be saide truely, then what may be said probably, or colourably at the lest. And I wish, if it had béene the good will of God, master Campian had had the grace in the Tower-conference to haue aimed at this marke: rather in sinceritie to haue sought the truth, then with shiftes and cauilles the mayntenance of his cause and credit. But though he were froward, and did shut his eyes against the beams of the light: yet doe you not so for Gods sake, master Hart, in this conference of ours. Be content to open your minde to hys grace, who Re [...]. 3.2 [...]. standeth at the dore & knocketh: and hearken to Hebr. 3.13. his voice while it is to day. Beware of their example, who Ioh. 5.44. could not beleeue, or if they did beleeue, Ioh. 12. [...]3. durst not confes Christ: because they loued the praise of men more then the praise of God, and hunted after honor one of another, not seking for that honor which commeth from the Lord alone, Deny your selfe. and your frends, and all fleshly respectes, & geue the glory to the Highest.

I neither séeke for shiftes to darken the trueth, nor loue the praise of men more then the praise of God. It were a madnesse for a man to aduenture his life (as we doe, you see,) for the maintenance of error, or of his own credit. As for M. Campian I thinke of him as of my selfe. I heard the disputations, wherein he answered them who came to reason with him: and I percey­ued nothing in any of his answeres, but synceritie and trueth.

My selfe was not present at the disputations, but I haue read them In a booke intitled: A true declarati­on & report of the conference had in the To­wer of Lon­don with Cā ­pian, &c. wr [...] ­ten by one [...] was present at the whole ac­tion. written: and that (least you suspect the wryter as partiall) by a fauourer of yours, who was present, as he saith, at the whole action. And (I doe affyrme it in singlenesse of heart, as before the Lord: neither doe I doubt but al who haue the wisdome to discerne spirites wil see the same, if they peruse them:) he sought in such sort to maintaine the credite of his cause or person, as though he had set nothing more before his eyes, then to perswade his Mat. [...]3.1 [...] proselytes, that nothing could bee brought a­gainst him, but he would shew it made for him. I would not say so much vnlesse I knew it by his fruites. For, to passe ouer his often glosing against the text, and facing out of places which pres­sed [Page 48] him most forcibly: thinges alleadged out of the As of the se­cond Nicen councell action. quint. Councels, of the As of Chry­sostom in Mat. hom. 49. oper. imperf. Fathers, of As of Gra­tian. dist. 19. can. in canoni­cis. others, which by the iudgementes of your For the Ni­cen councel, Sixt. Senens. biblioth. sanct. lib. 5. annot. 8. Barthol. Carrāz. in samm. concil. For Chry­sostom Sixt. Senens. bib· sanct. l. 6. ann. 104. Robert. Bellarmin. con­trou. 1. quaest. 6. For Gratian, Alfons. a Castr. aduersus haer. lib. 1. cap. 2. Andrad. defen­sion. sidei. Tri­dent. lib. 3. and Campian himself almost too at last. own doctors, haue that sense wherin we cyte them, he by shifts and cauilles would turne their neckes cleane about, and wreste them vnto his side: which argued more witte then trueth, and so­phistrie then sinceritie. But to leaue him to the Lords iudgemēt, and come vnto your selfe: you neither séeke for shiftes (you say) to darken the trueth, nor loue the praise of men more then the praise of God. I pray God your déedes be not as plaine to prooue you do it, as the reason which you adde to proue you do it not, is weake. For what although it were a madnesse to doe it? Many things are done which madde men scarce would doe, and yet they that doe them doe think themselues well in their wittes, as Augustin. epist. [...]0. ad Bo­nif. Com. the Donatistes did, who aduentured their liues in most desperate maner for the defence of their error, and maintenance of theyr credite: yea they offred themselues to the sword, the fire, the wa­ter, séeking for death as for a treasure, that they might die (they thought) Martyrs. But whether you doe set the praise of men at that price, I leaue it to your owne conscience. That you seeke for shiftes, the thing it self doth crie. For your very answere in the defense of Leo, touching vnitie of will, not vnitie of substance, on these words of his, that Leo ep. 87. Christ receiued Peter into the fe­lowship of the indiuisible vnity: is a shifte to shield him from a iust reproofe. Let his owne Discourse speake, and it wil graunt it. For hauing saide before that Christ did place Peter as it were a certaine head, to poure his giftes from him as it were into all the body: to this poynt he knitteth Hunc enim in consortium indiuiduae vni­tatis assumptum id quod ipse e­rat, voluit no­minari. these words by way of proofe. So that if the proofe haue any kin with the thing proued, the words must néedes import some preeminence in Peter aboue all the rest of the Disciples of Christ. But vnitie of wil, wherein Ioh. 17. vers. 11. Christ doth pray that his Disciples may be one as he is one with his Father, is common vnto all, not peculiar to Peter, ver. 20. & 21. as Christ himselfe doth shewe. That plaister then of yours hath no vertue in it to salue the sore of Leo. Neither can you cure it indéed with any other. For the vnitie, which the Scriptures doe note in God and vs, is of three sortes: the first of persons in one nature; the second of natures in one person; the third of sundrie na­tures and persons in one qualitie. In the first is Deut. 6.4. One God: In the second is 1. Cor. 8.6. One Christ: In the third is Cant. 6.8. One church. [Page 49] The Lord receiued not Peter into the first vnitie: wherein the fa­ther, the sonne, the holy Ghost, are one God. Not into the second: wherein he himselfe consisting of two natures (God, and man) is one Christ. Into the third, wherein the Churche is one with Christ her head, and the Churches members are one amōgst them selues, he did receaue Peter: but in societie with his brethren, not without them in singularitie. Act. 4.3 [...]. The multitude of the belie­uers were of one hart, and of one soule: They all are Ephes. 4.4. one body, sanctified by one spirit, through the Sacrament of one baptisme, knit to Christ by one faith, to themselues in one loue, to serue togither one Lord, in one hope and expectation of one eternall blisse and glory. So that, of this vnitie, whereof Peters state and nature is capable, apply which you list vnto the wordes of Leo, either vnitie of will, as you seeme to do; or vnity of grace, as Harding in his Detect. lib. 3. cap. 33. others answere for it; or vnitie of glory, which Ioh. 17. vers. 22. & 24. Christ did pray for also, and some will like that better: none of these doe reach vnto that maiestie, which Leos wordes aspire to by giuing him the felowship of the indiuisible vnitie. Yet God forbid that any man should suspect of him, that he meant vnitie, either of nature with God, or of person with Christ. He hath deserued better, In Ephesin. synod. secund. & concil, Chalced. Leo. ep. 10. ad. Flauianum. then to be thought so euill off. But that which in trueth may be said for him, is, that his meaning was (as Sermon. 2. in anniuers. die. assumpt. suae. Serm. 2. in Nata. Apost. Pet. & Paul. other-where him selfe doth open it,) that Christ did impart his name of rocke and foundation of the church to Peter. Now, some mist of fansie daisled his eyes, or els he would neuer haue saide thereupon, that Christ receyued Peter into the felowship of the indiuisible v­nitie: and that, in such preeminence, as he receyued none but him: chiefly, sith hée imparted his greater names and titles of Hebr. 4, 8. Colos. 4.11. Aggae. 2.2. Zachar. 3.1. Iesus, of Psal. 105.15. Christ, of Mat. 5.14. the light of the world, one of them to some, the rest to all his seruants: neither did he giue his name of rocke to Peter, or of foundation to Peter onely, as shall ap­peare Chap. 2. Diuis. 1. after. But if yet you see not, that Leo did outreach, in ma­king Peter as it were a felow-head, a partie-rocke, and the halfe-foundation of the Church with Christ: behold a farther felow­ship, wherein he ioyneth Peter as mate and partner with God, a felowship of power, Leo Serm. 3. in anniuers. die assumption. suae God hath giuen to Peter a great and a wonderfull felowship of his power: and if he would haue any thing to be common vnto other princes with him, he ne­uer gaue, but by him, whatsoeuer he gaue to others. Out of [Page 50] all controuersie these wordes do lift vp Peter vnto the felowship of that glory of which God is so iealous, that he hath protested Esai. 42.8. he will not giue it to any other: he hath giuen it to Christ, who is one with himselfe, God of God, light of light: if any man presume to ioyne a mortall creature, whomsoeuer, as companion vnto Christ in it, he robbeth Christ of his honor of the onely me­diator betwéene God and man. And what doth he els, who saith ( In the pla­ces before al­leaged. as Leo doth) that S. Peters care shineth ouer Bishops in that their slaunderers are defaced; that Peters merit and au­toritie doth strengthen the writings of his seruant against he­retikes: that Peter doth not suffer their persons to be stained, who labour for the catholike faith: that the Popes decrees are made by the inspiration of God and S. Peter: that it must be imputed vnto S. Peters workes and merits, if any thing be gotten of God by dayly prayers: that nothing passeth ouer vnto the chiefest of the Church, no not vnto any man, from God, but by S. Peter. Let euery Christian hart, whome the zeale of God hath giuen any warmth vnto, and his Spirit wise­dome, be iudge betwéene you and vs: whether that to yeald such power, such authoritie, such souerainetie and rule of the Church of Christ, to any Saint in heauen, be not an empairing of the ma­iestie, dominion, and soueraine authoritie of the king of Saints, the holy one of Israel. It gréeueth me to speake so much against Leo: whose learning I doe loue, and reuerence his auncient yeares. But Dan. 7.9. the Auncient of dayes, is more auncient then he, & must be had in greater reuerence: who taught young Elihu Iob. 32.6. to reproue his auncients, 33.12. euen holy Iob amongst them, and to say of them, 32.21. I will not accept the person of any, neither will I giue titles vnto man: for I may not giue titles: If I should doe it a litle, he that made me would take mee away. UUherefore, I doe fréely without curtesie of titles and accepting of persons, professe, that I mislike those hawtie spéeches in Leo: and I thinke that the mysterie of iniquitie so wrought through his ambitious aduancing Peter, that of the egges, which he cheri­shed, two of the most venemous cokcatrices were bred, that euer poysoned the church of Christ: the one, the Popes supremacie, v­surping Princely power ouer the church and common-weale, with breach of faith to God and man: the other, the worshipping of Saintes, wherin that honour is giuen to creatures which [Page 51] ought to be giuen to the Creator onely. One example may shew them both, euen Hildebrand (called Gregorie the seuenth in his Popedome) who depriuing Henrie y ^e Emperour of his Empire, and discharging his subiects of their othe of allegiance, pronoun­ced sentence, with such an inuocation of Peter, as a true Christi­an would trēble to haue heard vsed to any, but to God. Platina de vlt. Pontif. in Gre­gorio Septimo. Incline thine eares ô blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, & heare me S [...]ruum tuum: thy seruant, quem educasti abinfantia. whom thou hast brought vp from mine infancy, and ab iniquoram manibus vin­dicasti. hast preserued to this day from the handes of the vnrighteous, who hate and vexe me, pro mea in te fide. for my fayth in thee. Tu mihi testis es optimus. Thou canst beare me witnesse best, and the holy mo­ther of Christ, and thy brother Paule partaker with thee of martyrdome, that I haue vndertaken the gouernmēt of the Papacie vnwillingly. Not that I thought it robbery to clime into thy See lawfully: but I had rather liue in pilgrimage thē occupie thy roome for fame and glorie only. I doe confesse, (and good cause why) that the charge of the Christiā people was committed, and the power of binding & loosing gran­ted vnto me, gratia tua no [...] meritis meis. not through my desertes, but by thy grace. Hac fiducia fretus. Trusting therefore on this assuraunce, for the honour and sauegard of tuae ecclesiae. Sigon. de regno Italiae lib. 9. which better agreeth with the rest, then (as Platina hath it) suae. thy holy church, in the name of God almightie, the father, the sonne, and the holy Ghost, I throwe downe King Henry, the sonne of Henry sometime Emperour (who hath laide handes too boldly and rashly in ecclesiam tuam. vpon thy church) from his imperiall and kingly gouernment: and I absolue al Christians subiect to the Empire, frō that othe by the which they are wont to beare faith & alleagiance vnto true Kings. Doe you sée to what iniquitie their pride, abusing Peters name, and claiming al by him, hath puffed them vp? To what vsurping ouer Emperours? To what dishonouring of the Almightie? But of this we shall haue fitter occasion to conferre, when we come to the question of the worship of Saintes. For the other, (to re­turne to the point which we haue in hand:) the name of head, in that sense, as it is made a conduit of the giftes of God, to powre them abroad into al the body, is onely due and proper vnto the Mediatour betwéene God & man, the Apostle of our profession, our Sauiour Iesus Christ. When the right of this title is called into question: euery knée must bow in heauen, in earth, and vnder the earth, and yéeld it vnto him whom God hath set at his [Page 52] right hand aboue all powers and principalities. Wherefore, I say not, if a mā, if Leo, (whom hope of profit might blind, taking himselfe for Peters heire,) but if an Angell from heauen do giue it vnto Peter: shall I say [...]. 1.8. with the Apostle, Let him be accur­sed? I will not take on me that sentence: but this I will say, the sinne is verie heinous▪ How much more heinous, that it is pre­tended, in shew, vnto Peter: in déede, by Peters name conueied to the Pope. For as boldly as Leo applieth it to Peter: so boldly doth Iohan. de Tur­ [...]ecremat. in Su [...]m. de Eccle­si [...] lib. 2. cap. 12. a Cardinall apply it to the Pope. And Gul. Durand. in Rationali di­uin [...]r. officior. lib 2. cap. 1. a Bishop, (ven­turing further then the Cardinall) not content to vouch that the Pope is Melchisedec, excelling the rest incōparably in priest­hood; affirmeth farther of him, that he is head of all Bishops, from whom they do grow as members grow from the head, and of whose fulnesse they do all receiue. Of Christ it is writ­ten, that Ioh. 1.16. of his fulnesse we do all receiue: that he is Heb. 6.20. a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedec: that he is Ephe, 4.16. the head of whom al the bodie being coupled and knit togither by euerie ioint giuen to furnish it, through the effectuall power, in the measure of euerie part, receiueth encrease of the bo­die. But to giue these priuiledges vnto the Pope, that he is Mel­chisedec, the head of al Bishops, and of his fulnesse they doe all receiue: O Lord, in how miserable state was the Church, when this did go for catholike doctrine? Was not the prophecie then fulfilled, of 2. Thess. 2.4. the man who should sit in the Temple of God, as God?

I maruell what you meane to take vs vp so sharply, as for a heinous matter, that we call the Pope, head of the church: whereas you giue that title your selues to the Quéene whom it may lesse agrée to. So one that preached to vs h [...]re not long agoe in the Tower-chappell, did make a long talke to proue that Christ onely is head of the church, and charged vs with blasphemy, for saying that the Pope is head: & yet him selfe praying for the Quéenes maiesty did name her supreme head of the church of England: wherin we smiled at his folly. For if it be no blasphemy to call the Quéene head: why should it bée blasphemy to call the Pope head?

We giue vnto her Highnes y ^e title, not of head, but of The othe of the [...] li. 5. c. 5. Supreme gouernour: and that vpon how iust grounde of Gods word, and high commission from the highest, it shall in [Page 53] Chap. 10. Diuis. 1. due place be shewed if you will. As for the Preacher, whom you mention: I had rather you would deale with me by publike mo­numents and writings of our church, as I doe with you, then by reports of priuate spéeches: for perhaps you fansied more then he said: perhaps he said so much that you were glad to smile it out with that fansie. But if your report of his Sermon be true, it is likely that he gaue the name of head to the Quéene in the same meaning that we doe the title of supreme gouernour, which I will proue to be godly: and he denied the Pope to be head in an other meaning, in which that name belongeth vnto Christ a­lone, condemning them of blasphemy who giue it him so. And they, who did smile hereat, as at folly, because they were Papists, might, if they were Painims, smile at the scriptures too: which doe giue the title of Exod. 22.28. Ioh. 10.35. Gods vnto gouernors, and yet condemne them who haue Exod. 20.3. Deut. 13 2. other Gods beside the Lord. For if it be, no blasphemy to call the Magistrates Gods: why should it bée blasphemy to call Act. 14.11. Mercurius and Iupiter Gods? Is not this your reason? But our doctrine as it is holy and true, so it is plaine: if men will rather learne it humbly, as Christians, then laugh at it as Lucians, or, as Iulians, reuolt from it. For wée teach Apologia ec­clesiae Angl. Confess. Helu [...]. cap. 17. that Christ is the head of the church, as hee doth quicken it with his spirite, as he is the light, the health, the life of it: and is present alwayes to fill it with his blessinges, and with his grace to gouerne it. In the which respects, because Ephes. 1.22. & 4.15. & 5.23. Coloss. 1.18. & 2.19. and so the Church, his bodie. the Scripture gi­ueth the name of head to Christ alone, by an excellency: thereof we so conclude, that he is the onely head of the church. For o­therwise, we know, that (in an other kinde and degrée of resem­blance) they may be called heads, who haue any preeminence of place or gouernment ouer others. As in the Hebrue text we reade Nehem. 11.16. the heads of the Leuites, for the chéefe of them: and, 2. Chr. 31.10. [...] the priest the head, that is to say, the chiefe Priest. After the which sort, I will not contend, if you entitle Bishops heads of the churches, as In apolog. 2. Athanasius doth: and In Registr. li. 4. epist, 38. Gregorie, when he had named our Sauiour Christ the head of the vniuersall church, hée calleth Christes ministers as it were heads: Paul, Andrew, Iohn, heads of particular flocks, yet members of the church, all vnder one head.

You graunt in effect, as much as I require. For, if ei­ther Bishoppe or Cardinall haue giuen that vnto the Pope, [Page 54] which is due to Christ, as he is head properlie: wée maintaine them not. UUe say that as pastors, all who haue the charge to gouerne the church, are heads after a sort, that is improperly, as I termed it: so the Pope, who is the chiefest of them all is the supreme head. And in this sense you must take vs, when we do entitle Stapleton. in dedicat. prin ci­piorum fid. doc­trin. Gregor. de­ [...]imo tertio, Pon. Opt. Max. the Bishop of Rome the supreme head of the church.

I will take you so. Howbeit, for as much as the name of head hath sundrie significations in this kind of spéeches as the scripture sheweth, 1. Cor. 11.3. God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, man is the head of the woman; Esay 7.8. the head of Syria, Damascus; the head of Damascus, Retzin; the king, 1. Sam. 15.17. the head of the tribes of Israel; and Exod. 6.13. the heads of housholdes, the eldest; and 1. Kin. 21.9. the head of the people, the for­most; and Esay 2.2. the head of the mountaines, the highest; and Exod. 30.23. the head of the spices, the chiefest; &, in offenders Num. 25.4. the heads, the principall; and amongst Dauids captaines, 2. Sam. 23. ver. [...]. & 13. & 18. the heads, the most excellent, some of the which import a preeminence of other things, not of power, and they that do of power, some import a greater power, some a lesser: I would vnderstand particularlie what power you giue vnto the Pope by calling him supreme head, least afterward we vary about the meaning of it.

The power, which we meane to him by this title, is Staple [...] prin­cip. doct. lib. 6. in praefat. And herin the Rhe­ [...]ish annotati­ons on the new Testa­ment ( Mat. 16. [...]9▪) folow D. [...]apleton: as also in the handling of Scriptures and Fathers for this whole matter of the Popes su­premacie com­monlie they [...]. that the gouernement of the whole church of Christ throughout the world doth depend of him: in him doth lye the power of iudg­ing and determining all causes of faith; of ruling councels, as President, and ratifying their decrées; of ordering and confirming Bishops and pastors; of deciding causes brought him by ap­peales from all the coastes of the earth; of reconciling any that are excommunicate; of excommunicating, suspending, or inflicting o­ther censures and penalties on any that offend, yea on Princes and nations; finallie, of all things of the like sort for gouerning of the church, euen what soeuer toucheth either preaching of doc­trine, or practising of discipline in the church of Christ.

And all this you meane by the Popes suprema­cie. A power, verie great in weight, and large in compasse, for one man to wéeld: yea, for one Apostle, much more for one Bishop. Bishop of Rome is he, or Bishop of the whole world? You said that you call him a head improperlie. I wéene you giue this po­wer improperlie to him also. For out of all doubt you can neuer proue that it belongeth to him properlie.

How large and great soeuer this po­wer and supremacie doth séeme in your eyes: The first Diuisi­on. it belongeth properlie to the Bishop of Rome. And that is alreadie prooued by the reason which before I made. S. Peter was head of all the Apostles. The Bishop of Rome succee­deth Peter in the same power ouer Bishops that he had ouer the Apostles. The Bishop of Rome therefore is head of all Bishops, and by consequent of their dioceses, that is of all the church of Christ.

Remember in what sense you take the name of head: and I denie both the propositions of this argument.

I will proue them both: and first the former. Christ did promise Peter that he would make him head: therefore hee did make him.

He did not promise him.

Staplet. pri [...] ­cip. doctrin. lib▪ 6. cap. 2. Christ did say vnto him, Mat. 16.18. Tu es Petrus, & super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam: Thou art Peter, and vpon this peter will I build my church. Therefore he did pro­mise him.

The reason doth not folow. But why do you english it so, Thou art Peter, and vpon this peter? Sanders rocke of the church. Bristow Me [...]tin. 47. Your doc­tors were wont to cite it, Thou art Peter, & vpon this rocke: and to that rocke you tyed all. Doo you feare shipwracke there now?

No syr. But to make our anker-holde the surer, the which is fastned on S. Peter, Doctor Allen thought good that in the translation of the new testament into our tongue, which wée were about at Rhemes, As in their Annotations on Mat. 16.18. they say it should be by Christs words speaking in the Syriake tongue: yea, and by the meaning of the greeke wordes too. Though they keepe the name of rocke in their text, because of the latin. it should be thus englished; Thou art [Page 56] Peter and vpon this peter. The which I rather folow, then the other of the rocke, because it is agréeable vnto the originall.

It is not. For the originall is the Gréeke text: and that hath, [...]. wherto your latin olde translation agreeth, with Petrus and petra: as your selfe alleaged it. The wordes of both which though they differ not so much as Peter and rocke: yet they are not one, as your Peter and peter.

Although the Gréeke wordes [...] and [...] differ in termination: yet they are one in meaning, and signify the same thing. For as [...] signifyeth a rocke, so doth [...] in the A­thenian language. And it must be noted that Christ spake in He­brue, or rather in the Syriake tongue: wherein the name, that hée gaue Peter, is Ioh. 1.42. Cephas. Now, in the Syriake translation of the testament, that word is the same without difference in both pla­ces. Staplet. princ. doctr. li. 6. ca. 3. For thus are the words, [...]: as if a man would say, Thou art Cephas, and vpon this Cephas; or, Thou art Rocke, and vpon this rocke. For Cephas in the Syri­ake doth signifie a rocke: as In dictionar. Syro-chald. Re­gior. Biblior. Tom. 6. Guido Fabricius a learned lin­guist sheweth. wherfore the meaning of the word [...] must be the same in greeke. And so we may kéepe it well in both places, Thou art Peter and vpon this peter.

The wordes which you alleage are not of the Syriake translation: they are Hebrue. But as the Hebrue [...] is one in both places: so the Syriake I graunt hath [...] in thē both. And I gladlie take it (because our Sauiour Christ spake in that tongue) as an exposition of his wordes to Peter. Yet I note by the way, that although your Session. 4. councell of Trent hath allowed the latin olde trāslation alone as authenticall, and hath decréed thereof that no man shall dare or presume vnder any pretense to reiect it: notwithstanding, you your selues will depart from it, and that not onelie to the originall (which wee should not bee suffred) but also to translations, if they maye séeme to make for you in any point more then your olde doth.

We do not reiect that authenticall translation, but o­pen the sense of it, by comparing it with the greeke, and the gréeke with the Syriake.

But if we should doo so in any point against you, this answere would not serue vs: it would be accounted a colour [Page 57] or pretense, such as your Councell hath condemned.

You doe vs great iniurie, in that you séeme to make it all one to reiect the authenticall Latin, and to take aduantage for our selues out of the originall textes.

For your selues? Nay, I make not that all one. I sayd, If we should doo so, not, If you should do so. For doo you what you list: and all must be soothed as agréeing with your Latin, and opening the sense of it. But if we should take aduan­tage for our selues by the originall textes: our aduantage would be nipped on the head as a pretense. For example, Andreas Ma­sius, a learned man of yours, hath written a Commentarie on the booke of Iosua: in the which he launceth your authenticall Latin, almost in euerie Chapter: yea, S. Andr. Mas. cō ­mentar. in Iosu. cap. 14. ver. 15. he saith that S. Jerom, (if hee be the Authour of it) doeth seeme to haue translated Sciens. wittingly a place against the meaning of the Hebrue, that he might vouch a fansy of his owne thereby. Yet Ioh. Molanus Louaniensis. the Popish Censour, who allowed it to the print, witnesseth of that Com­mentarie that Multúm elu­cidat veterem & vulgatam e­ditionem. it lighteneth and openeth the common olde translation greatly. Let vs doe much lesse, let vs but raze the credite of it: and will you giue that Censure of vs? Nay, if wée do note that Gen. 8.21. where your old translation hath of the frame or imagination of mans hart, that it is Lat. in malum prona. prone to euill, the He­brue text hath, not prone to euill, but Hebr. [...] euill: Censura Co­lon. in Dialog. 2. the Censure of Coolein will answere that it is farre Longé consul­tius. better to say (as your olde translation saith) prone to euill: and will fetch in also the Rabbins of the Iewes, not to expounde the Latin according to the Hebrue, but to alaye the Hebrue according to the Latine. Wherefore in that I saide that if we should goe from your au­thenticall Latin to the originall textes, it would be misliked of: I doo you no iniurie. Yet I mislike it not in your plea for Pe­ter, that you take aduantage not of the originall, but of a transla­tion: nay, I like it well. Though I like not that which you adde to proue it: that [...] in the Greeke toong dooth signifie a rocke, as Cephas in the Syriake, and so the wordes [...], and [...], haue one meaning. For they haue one meaning, not because [...] doth signifie a rocke, as [...]: but because [...] doth signifie a stone, as [...]. For, that [...] sometimes signi­fieth a stone: In Lexie. gra [...]. ad Sacri appar. instruct. Reg. B [...]blior. Tom. 6. your owne learned linguists (as you call them) note, and examples thereof are rife. But that [...] any where [Page 58] signifieth a rocke: neither doo they shew, nor haue Thesaur. ling [...] Graec [...]e cong [...]t. ab Henr. Ste­phan. other skil­fu [...]l of that toong obserued. You say, that it is so in the Atheni­an language: but you bring no Athenian nor any Grecian else to witnesse it. And the French toong (which foloweth the Gréeke, Hen. Stephan. de similit. ling. Graecae & Galli­cae lib. 3. as in many other words, so in this,) hath Pierre. the same word (you know) for a stone, and for the name of Peter. Wherein there is a print of the true originall & meaning of that name in the Gréeke toong. But Christ did call him Cephas in the Syriake toong: and Cephas (you say) doth signifie a rocke, as Fabricius she­weth. But In Dictionar. Syro-chalda­ico. Fabricius sheweth further that Cephas doth signi­fie a stone also. And though he, or rather Elias Leuita in Thisbi. the Iewe (whom he citeth) reporteth their saying who expounde the name as taken from that worde in signification of a rocke: yet, hauing mentio­ned the other of a stone, he saith therevpon that so his name is Peter in the Romane toong, and in the Italian a stone is cal­led As Elias writeth it. He meaneth pie­tra: which word in the I­talian keepeth that meaning of petra, from which the name of Peter grew. pereda. Whereunto I might adde that Aber. Ezra in Daniel. cap. 11. vers. 37. an other learned writer of the Iewes, and auncienter then he, doeth likewise say (as opening the sense of Peters name) that he is called stone. But, that Christ did meane a stone, not a rocke, in naming him Cephas: your stoutest champion, D. Sanders, may serue in stéed of many witnesses. For he, wanting no will to go as far as the boldest, and hauing many yeares aduised of the matter, durst say no more for Cephas, but 1. De visib. Mo­narchia eccles. l. 6. c. 7. that it signifieth a stone, at the most, a great stone: euen petra it selfe lib. 6. ca. 2. he doeth expound in this ma­ner, Super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam, Thou shalt bee the first stone (next me) of that church, which I will build on earth. In the which iudgement he doeth deserue the greater cre­dite at your handes, because he was contented to hazard his life with the Pope against his Prince in that As him selfe termeth it in his letters written to Vl­lick Burck an Irish Gentle­man. holy quarell: and hauing spent his chiefest studie in the point In his booke en­titled, the rocke of the church. he had before times expounded it a rocke; the which exposition so fit for the Papacy he would haue neuer left, had not the truth enforced him to retire from it. A thing so much the likelier, because when hee laboured first to infect men with the Popes supremacie by the name of rocke, and therfore both in the title and course of all his booke did sound the rocke of the church: euen then In the chap. 1. he did expound Ce­phas and Peter doubtfully, a rocke, or a stone; and yelding the reason why Christ did name him so, he mentioned a stone onely, because what place a stone hath in holding vp the house [Page 59] which is built vpon it, the same should Peter haue in vphol­ding the frame of Christes militant church. Wherefore you must let go your holde of the rocke, (whereon Princ. doctrin. lib. 6. cap. 5. D. Stapleton doth beast your house is built) and be content to lay a stone in stéed of it. Let our Sauiour Christ alone be the rocke. If you dash your selfe against him therein, he will breake you in péeces.

It is a disputable point. You sée that learned men are of sundrie iudgements in expounding of it: some thinking, it be­tokeneth a stone, some a rocke. Wherefore you can not force me to take the one and leaue the other.

Not by mens wordes: but by the word of God I can. For Christ in the Syriake toong did name him Cephas, and Ioh. 1.4 [...]. Cephas in the Gréeke is expounded [...], and [...] in English signifieth a stone. And sure you had done better, if, as the Gréeke text hath [...] and [...], the Syriake translation Ce­phas & Cephas: so you had made it in English, stone and stone. For Peter and peter doth not expresse the force of the Syriake word. Rocke and rocke is strong, but the text doth not beare it. Stone and stone is fit, had you not thought it too slender. Now, sith you doo presse the Syriake translation, to shew thereby the meaning of the Latin, as you say: you must giue me leaue to tell you that the wordes should be rather Englished after the Syri­ake thus, Thou art stone, and vpon this stone will I build my church.

Rocke or stone, if I should giue you leaue to choose whither of them you list: what gaine you thereby?

The truth, which I deale for, shall gaine thus much by it, that although you construe those words (that Christ would build his church vpon Peter) for your most aduantage, euen as Sanders doth: yet is it not proued thereby that Christ did promise him a supreme-headship ouer the Apos [...]les. For the church of Christ, which is the company of Gods elect and chosen, isresembled in Scripture to a materiall temple, such as was the temple which Salomon built. So, as that was called a house, Ma [...] ▪ 22.1 [...]. the house of prayer: in like sort the church is called a house too, but 1. Pet. 2.5. a spirituall house, to distinguish it from that: which house because it must be made of all y ^e godly, as it were of stones, grounded on Christ by faith, though the doctrine of the Apostles: therefore Christ is called Esai. 2 [...]. [...]. the chiefe corner stone in respect of [Page 60] the Iewes and Gentiles (as of walls) Eph. 2.14. which are ioyned in him: 1. Cor. 3.11. the foundation, in respect of the whole house, yea Esai. 28.16. the foun­dation of foundation, as the Prophet termeth him: the twelue Apostles laid next vpon Christ are called Reu. 21.14. twelue foundations: the faithfull laide on them, or rather after them on him, are cal­led 1. Pet. 2.5. stones, not dead ones (such as the temple had) but liuing: the working and framing of them to this purpose is called buil­ding and 1. Cor. 12.26. edifying: which is done by preaching of Eph. 2. ver. 20. the word of truth, ver. 21. coupling them togither betwéene them selues and with Christ, that they may grow to bee a holie temple in the Lord, ver. 22. for God to dwell in by his spirite. Wherefore if the wordes of Christ be so taken, that he meant the laying of Peter as a principall stone next to him selfe, and others vpon him, whē he sayd, Thou art stone, and vpon this stone will I build my church: this sheweth that Peter was in the first ranke (as I may say) of stones, I meane he was in order with the first who beléeued: and amongst those first he had a marke of honour, in that he was named stone, aboue his brethren. But it sheweth not, that he should be head of the rest of the Apostles. For, as he, so they are called foundations: and Christ did build his church as well on them as on him.

Then you grant, that Christ did promise to build his church vpon Peter.

I doo so.

Not vpon his doctrine onely, but his person.

After a sort. What then?

What then? What say you then to Doctors of your owne side, namely to In sophisma­tis Turrian. loc. 2. Sadeel and The treatise of the church chap. 7. Mornay: whom you prai­sed so greatly, and brought them me to reade? They write that the church was builded, not vpon the person of Peter, but vpon his doctrine preaching Christ vnto vs. You graunt the contrarie.

What say you to the auncient Doctors whom they follow: chiefly to S. Austin? He writeth that the rocke, (which our Sauior promised to build his church vpon) is Christ, and not Peter. You hold the cōtrary. Augustin. de verb. Dom. Se [...]m. 1 [...]. Thou art Peter, saith he, and vpon this rock which thou hast confessed, vpon this rock which thou hast knowne (saying, Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God,) will I build my church. I will build thee vpon [Page 61] mee, not me vpon thee. For men entending to build on men, said, I hold of Paul, I of Apollos, I of Cephas, (that is Peter:) and others who would not be builded vpon Peter, but vpon the rocke, said, I hold of Christ. For the rocke was Christ: vpon the which foundation Peter him selfe was builded: sith no man can lay an other foundation beside that which is laide, which is Iesus Christ. What say you to the rest, namely, to In testimon. [...]a vet. Testam de Trinitat contr. Iud. Gregorie Nys [...]en, to De Trinitat. lib 4. Cyril, to In Matth. ho­m [...]l. 55. Chrysostome, to In epist. ad Ephe. cap. 2. Ambrose, to De Trinitat. lib. 2. & 6. Hi­larie? They write that this rocke is the consession of Peter. They say not, it is Peters person.

That exposition of S. Austin, denying Peter to be the rocke, was That is to say, an [...]er­sight such as happeneth to men. lapsus humanus (as D. Staplet. prin­cip. doctr. lib. 6. cap. 3. Stapleton calleth it) cau­sed by the diuersitie of the Gréeke and Latin toong, which either he was ignorant of, or marked not. Howbeit neuerthelesse it hath a true meaning: though not the full & proper sense of this place. Besides that, him selfe doth Retractation. lib. 1. cap. 21. other-where expound it as vnder­stood of Peter: according to the famous verses of S. Ambrose, in which he calleth Peter the rocke of the Church. The rest of the Fathers, who apply the rocke to Peters confession, imply his person in it. For, to say, that the Church is built on the confession and beliefe of Peter, is all one in déed, and to say, it is built on Peter confessing and beleeuing in Christ. Where­fore in as much as they affirme the former, they prooue withall the later by it.

S. Austin, and the Fathers, are beholding to you: whose wordes (though not answering well to your fan­sies) are handled so gentlie. If you were as fauourable to Sadeel and Mornay: that, which they write of Peter, would haue a true meaning. Though, if they (with greater zeale vnto his doctrine then vnto his person, that is, to Christ then to Peter) had giuen a litle lesse to him then is due: the faulte were not so much to bée [...]aide on their restraint, as on your excesse, who say a great deale more of him then you ought. For example, Father Reuerendi patris Roberti Bellarmini prae­lectiones Romae, ann. Dom. 1577. In praefat. Con­trouers. de sum­mo Pontisice. Robert, the Prince of the Iesuites (in his Diuinitie lectures read publikelie at Rome about seuen yeares agoe) handling this same point of the foundation of the Church, did ground him selfe on a sen­tence of the Prophet Esay to proue it to be Peter, and Peters see, the see of Rome. Whereof to make his proofe strong by the wordes which God doth speake of Christ, Esai. 28. [...] ▪ Behold, I lay in Si­on [Page 62] a tried pretious corner stone, a sure foundation: he affir­med that Esay did therein prophecie not of Christ, but of Peter, a stumbling stone to heretikes, & a rock of offense, but to Catholikes a tried, a pretious, a corner stone. S. 1. Pet. 2. ver. 6. & 8. Peter the Apostle expoundeth those wordes not of himselfe, but of Christ. Father Robert the Iesuit sayth that they agrée not to Christ, but to him. So to aduaunce the Popes dignitie by Peter: he maketh Peter himselfe, nay, the holy Ghost a lier. Such blas­phemous outrages of your chéefe professors giuing more to Pe­ter then stādeth with the truth and honor of the Sonne of God, might prouoke the godly spirites of his seruantes to bend to the contrarie: as husbandmen, when they would straighten a young plant that groweth crooked one way, do bow it to the other. But in the discourse of Sadeel and Mornay ▪ that the Church is built vpon the confession of Peter not his person, there is no strai­ning of ought beyond the truth (for the meaning of it) by your owne iudgement. For they approue and folow the exposition of S. Austin: and Expositio Au­gustini habet [...]ententiam ve­ram. Staplet. [...]. 6. c. 3. that (you affirme) hath a true meaning. As for the maner of S. Austins spéech, I graunt it séemeth somewhat tough to expound those wordes of Christ as if he sayd, Thou art Peter and vpon me, not, Thou art Peter and vpon thee will I build my Church. But, if the circumstances of his spéeche bée weighed: you shal find, not only the meaning of it, true; but the maner, good. For, as Numb. 28. [...]. it is writen that God commaunded the Iues to offer burnt offerings & sacrifices vnto him, yet God sayth in Iere. 7.22. Ieremie that he spake not to them, neither com­maunded them touching burnt offerings and sacrifices, not as though he had not commanded the things, but because he did not commaund them in that sort and respect as they vsed them: so, though it be true that Christes wordes to Peter doe import this sense, Vpon thee will I build my Church, yet, because hée spake them in respect of Peters profession and faith (vpon, Mat. 16.16. Thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God) not in respect of Peters person, (which they built on, who sayd, 1. Cor. 1.12. I hold of Paul, I of Apollos, I of Cephas;) S. Austin might expound them well, as he doth, that Christ sayd to Peter, I wil build my church, not vpon thee, but vpon me. In the which conclusion, the rest of the Fathers, who expound it of Peters confession, doe ioyne with S. Austin. Neither can your shuffling of Peters cōfession, [Page 63] with Peter confessing, inueigle their consent. For they doo ex­pound and vnderstand it plainelie, As Gregorie Nyssen doth, and Hilarie. some, of him whom Peter confessed, that is, Christ, the Sonne of the liuing God: As Ambrose, Chrysostom, & Cyrill. some, of Peters faith wherwith he confessed him, as by which the faith­full are builded on Christ. And this is their meaning, in saying that (which Sander. de [...]i­sib. monar. Eccles. lib. 7. Torren. confes [...]. August. lib. 1. cap. 9. tit. 2. your men doo vainelie triumph at) the church is built on Peter: as it appeareth by S. Hilarie. Who giuing him Hilar. in Ma [...] ­thaeum can. 16. Felix ecclesiae fundamentum. the title of the foundatiō of the church, expoundeth it some times of his De Trinit. l [...]b. 6. Christum Dei [...]i [...]ium non so­lum n [...] cupa­re, sed etiam credere: haecsi­des ecclesiae fundamentum [...]. faith in Christ, some times of De Trinit. lib. 2. vn [...] haec est [...]aelix side [...] p [...]tra, Petri ore confes­sa, Tu es filius Dei viui. Christ himselfe in whom he beléeued. But admitte that Christ had meant Peters person, when he promised him that he would build his church vp­on him. What conclude you of it?

This I do conclude, that séeing the church was built vpon Peter, and the Apostles themselues were part of the Church: therefore the Apostles were built vpon him; and so was he their foundation. By consequent whereof, séeing the foundati­on is the same to a house which a head is to a bodie: I do conclude againe that Peter was the head of all the Apostles. And so my purpose is proued.

This conclusion hath neither foundation, nor head. For by as good reason you may conclude also, that, séeing the Church was built vpon Peter, and Peter him selfe is a part of the church: therefore was Peter built vpon him selfe, and so was he his own foundatiō. And because a foundation is the same to a house, which a head is to a bodie: therefore S. Peter was S. Peters head. Or, if you sée not either the necessitie or folly of this consequence, as it is made of Peter: you may frame the lyke of any other of the Apostles, and you will espy it. For the church of Christ, is the great Citie, that holie Ierusalem, whereof Reu. 2 [...]. [...]. the wall had twelue foundations, and in them the names of the Lambs twelue Apostles. Then séeing that the church was built vpon euerie one of those twelue, as vpon Iames by name, and Peter was a part of the church: it foloweth that Peter was built vpon Iames; and so was Iames his foundation. And séeing a foundation is the same to a house, which a head is to a bodie: it followeth againe that Iames was Peters head. which if your self denie: you must denie that wherof it doth folow by force of like reason. And so your purpose is not proued.

But we do imagine, that in this building of the church [Page 64] and laying the foundations of it, Christ did laie Peter next vpon himselfe (as the foundation of the rest) and other Apostles vpon him.

Indéede you doo imagin it. And you consider not that your imagination is crossed by it selfe, not onelye by the truth. For, if the twelue Apostles of the Lambe (on whom hee built his church) were laid as twelue foundations, one vpon an other, & Peter lowest of them: then, as Peter was foundation of eleuen, so the next to him must be of ten, the next to him of nine, and likewise ech of the next, vntill the last of none. A thing flatte repugnant to your imagination, wherein you make Peter (onely) head of the rest, the rest of them equall all amongst themselues. Neither doth it stand with that proportion of the building which the scripture maketh, reseruing the prerogatiue of 1. Cor. 3.11. the onely singular foundation to Christ, and ioyning the Apostles all in equall honour of Reu. 21.14. the twelue foundations, as I haue shewed. For Christ (in this house) is as it were Mat. 7.24. a rocke, a rockie sure and firme ground, on which both the Apostles, and all his church is built: as 2. Sam. 5.9. the citie of Dauid was on the mount Sion. The Apostles are as stones, as twelue most pretious stones, which being laid ioyntlie one by an other, all on Christ, are as twelue foundations: and walles (of chosen stones) are raysed vp on them, 2. Pet. 3.9. vntill the whole number of the elect be laid on, and the building finished. One of these foundations might excell an o­ther in pretiousnes of graces. For, the first foundation, (saith Reu. 21.19. Iohn) was a Iasper; the second, a Sapphire; the third, a Chal­cedonie; the fourth, an Emeraude; and so forth the rest. Or (because I know not the vertues of these stones) Marc. 13.1. the stones, which the Disciples of Christ did meruaile at in the temple of Ierusalem for the fairenes and greatnes of them, were (as Antiquitat. Iudaic. lib. 15. cap. 14. Io­sephus writeth) fiue and twentie cubites long, eight cubites hie, and twelue cubites broad. Now as among such stones one might be fairer or better wrought then other: so might one Apo­stle of Christ excell his felowes in zeale or other giftes, as name­lie S. Peter. Unlesse perhaps S. Paul, whom Christ did adde to the twelue, excelled both him and them: which I do thinke rather; for 1. Cor. 15.10. he labored more then they all, and (by Staplet. princ. doc [...]. l. 6. c. 12. your owne confession) conuerted more vnto the faith. But neither Paule nor Peter were foundations of the rest: they were altogither [Page 65] ioint-foundations of the church, laid on Christ, the onely and sin­gular foundation, to speake of a foundation properly. UUhere­fore though our Sauiour in saying to Peter, Thou art stone, and vpon this stone will I build my church, had meant that he would build it vpon Peters person (which serueth best your fan­sy:) yet doth not that saying inferre a supreme-headship. But doubtles (if your fansy can yéeld vnto the truth) he meant not Peters person, but his faith, and function in preaching of the faith. For the onely person that the church is built on, as on a foundation (by the strength and vertue whereof it is vpholden) is the sonne of God, our Sauiour Iesus Christ: beside whom 1. Cor. 3.11. no other foundation may be laid: Eph. 2.21. in whom all the building being coupled togither groweth vnto an holy temple in the Lord. Now because that faith in the sonne of God doth make the liuing stones whereof the building is compact and knitte vp on Christ, a stone of which sort Mat. 16.16. Peter had shewed himselfe to be Thou art Christ, the Sonne of the liuing God. by beleeuing and professing that faith: Christ told him that he was (according to his name, stone) a stone indeede; and ha­uing chosen him to preach the same faith, whereby there shoulde be laide more stones on that building, hee saide, vpon this stone will I build my church. UUherin as he shewed that who­soeuer should be members of his church must be members of it by felowship with Peters faith: so he shewed withall that hee would impart that faith to his church by the ministerie of Peter. As appeareth farther by that which he added, To thee will I giue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen.

Yet euen this doth argue still the same prerogatiue which we giue to Peter. For séeing Christ said that he woulde build his Church vpon that stone, or rocke, (as I take it) and that, which a church is builded vpon, must needes be a foundati­on; it foloweth that Peter was a foundation of the church. Not a principall foundation, for that is Christ onely, of whom it is true that 1. Cor. 3. [...] other foundation no man can laye beside that which is laid, which is Christ Iesus: but (as wee terme it) a mi­nisteriall foundation. UUhich, by the proportion of a foundation to a house and a head to a bodie, is enough to proue that Christ would make Peter head of the Apostles, I meane a ministeriall head.

But here againe you fal into your former fault: [Page 66] and that which was common to all the Apostles by the meaning of Christ, you chalenge as proper vnto Peter onely. For, as the confession of Peter touching Christ shewed their common faith by the mouth of one: so the answere of Christ directed vnto one conteined that blessing that should be common to them all. And this is declared by the holy scripture: which to the Ephesians (mē bers of the church) saith, that Ephe. 2.20. they are built vpō the foundatiō of the Apostles & Prophets. Not of Peter onely, but of the A­postles; who lay the same foundation (all) that Peter did, and thereupon are called (all of them) Reu. 21.14. foundations. And the church relying vpon their doctrine, that is the Christian faith, (the onely and sure foundatiō of the church, as the truth hath forced In the Coun­cell of Trent, which (Session. [...]) speaking of the articles of the Christian faith, (com­monly named the Creede) saith, it is the sure and onely foundation, a­gainst which the gates of hell shall neuer preuaile. Sym­bolum fidei, fundamentum [...]irmum & vni­cum, contra quod portae in­ [...]e [...]i nunquam praeualebunt. your owne mouthes to witnesse) may bee iustly saide to be built on them, euen as well on all of them as on Peter. Wherfore by the proportion (that you grate vpon) of a foundation to a house, and a head to a bodie: as Christ is head onely, so is he the onely foun­dation of the Church; as the name of foundation is giuen to the Apostles, so the twelue foundations doth proue them twelue heads. You must séeke therefore some other foundation of Peters headship ouer them. For neither the name of stone that Christ gaue him, nor the wordes of building his church vpon that stone, proue that he promised him to make him head of all the Apostles.

The se­cond Diuision.Not in your iudgement: but in mine they doo. And so dooth the other part of the promise also which Christ made vnto him; Mat. 16.19. To thee will I giue the keyes of the kingdome of he­uen. Staplet. princ. doctr. l. 6. c. 1. For by the name of keyes is signified the fulnes of eccle­siasticall power. But to giue the fulnes of ecclesiasticall power, is to make him head. Therefore Christ did promise to make him head of the church.

These keyes will not open more in the house, then did the foundation lay in the building. For if you meane by fulnes of ecclesiasticall power, the lawfull power of the Apo­stleship, then the which no greater was euer giuen to anie mi­nisters of the church: Christ gaue it both to Peter and to euerie Apostle. If you meane such power as the Pope claimeth by Bu [...]la Pii Quinti contra Reginam An­gliae. fulnes of power, a Pope Sixtus The fourth. Sacrar. ceremoniar. eccles. Rom. lib. 1. Sect. 7. tit. De ense. Potestas summa temporalis (a Christo) Pon [...]is [...]ci, eius in terris Vicario collata est: iuxta illud, Data est mihi omnis potestas in caelo & in terra. soueraine power not onely spirituall but [Page 67] also temporall: Christ gaue it neither to Peter, nor to anie Apo­stle. So that in the former sense, al were heads; in the latter, none: and thus your headship proued by neither. But what soeuer you meane by fulnes of power: this is cleere and certaine that our Sauiour promised no more power to Peter, then he meant and performed to all the Apostles. And therefore, what soeuer he pro­mised to him, he promised in him to them. For, as amongst them, when they were all asked, Mat. 16. ver. 15. Whom say ye that I am, Peter answered alone, ver. 16. Thou art Christ, the Sonne of the liuing God: so Christ said to him alone, ver. 19. I will giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen, as though he had alone receaued po­wer to bind and loose: whereas he made that answere one in stead of them all; and receiued this power, one togither with them all. Wherefore sith no more was promised then giuen, and equall po­wer was giuen to all the Apostles: this promise proueth not your headship. You must bring vs foorth some better euidence: or else your title will be naught.

The euidence is good. For it saith in plaine and ex­presse termes, that Christ would giue the keyes to Peter. Then the which what could be more manifestly spoken?

In shew, to the simple. Chiefely when they sée the matter set forth, as that is at Rome: In a booke of pictures, en­titled, Non ro­cedat volumen legis huius ab ore tuo. Prin­ted at Rome 1577. where Christ is pain­ted out, not as promising Peter that he would giue him keyes, but as giuing them to him at that present; and giuing them to him alone, not to all the Apostles; with the wordes of Christ, paraphrased feately thereto by some poet;

Nay: the very words (as they lie in scripture) are plai­ner in shew for vs then for you. which also may be noted in other pointes of controuersie betwéene you and vs. As, about the reall presence, Mat. 2 [...].26. this is my bodie. For Christ did not say, this is a signe of my bodie. And againe, Ioh. 6.5 [...]. the bread that I will giue, is my flesh. He said not, it is but the signe of my flesh.

Neither do we say, that Christ did so meane in this, of flesh and bread. For we teach, that Ioh. 6. ver. 32. the true bread, ver. 33. the bread of God which came downe from heauen and gi­ueth [Page 68] life vnto the world, ver. 35. & 48. is Christ, euen ver. 51. the flesh, the very flesh of Christ, that is, Christ incarnate. The greater wrong Alan. de sacra­ment. Eucharist cap. 22. The defender of the Censure, in the answ. [...]o M. Charlis pref. pag. 27. they do vs, who lay to our charge that we expound it not of the thing, but of a signe: themselues indéede guiltie thereof, expoun­ding it of a sacrament of Christ, where it is meant of Christ him selfe, Ioh. 1.14. the word that was made flesh. But what if in the other place, and sundry mo, the wordes of the scripture bee plainer in shew for you then for vs? It is not the shew but the sense of the wordes, that doth import the truth, and must decide controuer­sies. For wordes were ordained to open the meaning and minde of him that speaketh them. The meaning of the word of God is alwaies true: because God, who speaketh it is Ioh. 3.33. true, and Ti [...]. 1.2. can­not lie. The shew of it is false sometimes and deceitfull: as Rom. 3.4. men are, whose iudgement this shew dependeth of; and that may séeme to them to be meant by it, which is not meant by God. Wherfore it is not the shew, but the sense; the substance, not the semblance of the wordes of scriptures; that you must proue doth make for you (in points of controuersie) if you will proue ought.

Why? do you graunt then, that the wordes of scrip­ture make more for vs, in shew, though not in substance, then they doo for you. It were not good for you that this should be knowne.

What? Not that the wordes of scripture, some­times, make more for you then vs, in shewe, though not in sub­stance? Yes truely M. Hart: and for the Anabaptistes too, that Act. 4.32. Christians had all things common. And for As his words are set downe in the [...]anon law. c. dilectissimis. 12. [...]. 1. Pope Clemens too, that wiues must be common: because in omnibus sunt sine dubio & coniuges. in all things wiues are implyed also. And I am so farre from being afraid that this should be knowne: that, euen in the very example which you mē ­tion (as making for you most,) I grant that the words of Christ, this is my body, are plainer in shew, though not for your mon­ster of transubstantiation, yet for your reall presence, then for our sacramentall. But so, that I graunt the same (in like maner) of other sacramentall and mysticall spéeches: wherein the scrip­tures giue the name of the thing to that which it betokneth, as of Matt. 26.17. Exo. 12. vers. 11. & 27. the passeouer, to the lambe, and of 1. Cor. 10.4. and the rocke was Christ. the rocke to Christ. For (I hope) you wil not conclude of this shew, that really Christ was a rocke; or a lambe, the passeouer really.

These spéeches are not like to that of Christes bodie in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. For, it is manifest, that when the lambe was called the passeouer, and Christ the rocke: it was meant, not really, but figuratiuely, that the rocke signified Christ; the lambe, the passeouer. But it is not manifest in that of Chri­stes bodie.

Whither it be manifest, or no; is not the questi­on: but whither the spéeches be like in shew of wordes, the rocke was Christ, this is my bodie. Or, to come néerer to your owne example and proofe of that point: Christ saith of himselfe that Ioh. 6. ver. 3 [...]. he is true bread: and, vers. 55. my flesh is meate indeede, and my blood is drinke indeede. True and, indeede: these termes are more pregnant for a reall presence, then that of Christes bodie. Yet if you say that Christ is bread, really; and his flesh, meate; and his blood, drinke: you may as well say, that he is really Ioh. 15. ver. 1. a vine; and his disciples vers. 5. branches really, and other such reall either blasphemies or follies.

Nay, we doo confesse that many things in scripture are spoken and meant figuratiuely: but neither all, nor this concer­ning the Sacrament, nor any thing els, whereof the literall and proper sense hath not somewhat contrarie to God, to religion, and to Christian life. As Alan. de sacra­ment. Eucharist. cap. 22. D. Allen saith that S. De Genes. ad lit. lib. 8. cap. 2. De doctr. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 15. Austin tea­cheth. Out of cap. 10. whom he citeth withall a woorthie sentence, tou­ching such, as you are: If the minde be preuented with an opi­nion of some errour, whatsoeuer the scripture dooth affirme otherwise, men thinke it to be spoken figuratiuely.

That sentence is good, as S. Austin vttereth it. But D. Allen vseth it ill, against vs. The woorse, because S. Au­stin sheweth straight vpon it, cap. 16. in the same booke, of the same point, that, to eate the flesh of Christ, and drinke his blood, was spo­ken not properly (for so it were a wicked deede,) but figura­tiuely: flat against that error of the reall presence, which hée is pretended to proue by D. Allen. But howsoeuer D. Allen deale in that: the point (which you graunt with him) sufficeth me for proofe of that I saide. For if many things in scripture are spoken and meant figuratiuely: it followeth that the sense of scripture is against the shew of wordes in sundrie places, and therfore that the shew of words sundrie times is against the truth. Which sith you cannot sée in this Sacrament, because of your preiudice of the [Page 70] reall presence: I will bring an example of the sacrament of bap­tisme, wherein you must needes sée it. There were Seleacus et Herm [...]a, G [...] ­la [...] Philastr. [...]. haeres. some of old, who, as we sprinckle children with water in baptizing of them, so they vsed to print and stampe certaine marks vpon them with fire. For the which vsage they alleaged the scripture, (I meane, the wordes thereof) that, touching Iohn Baptist: Luc. 3.16. who saying of himselfe, I baptize you with water, addeth of our Sauiour, He will baptize you with the holie Ghost and fire. Now, I put the matter to your owne iudgement, whether they did bet­ter, who baptized with fire: or we, who without it.

Who doubteth, but we? For they were deceiued who tooke the name of fire properly in that place: where it is vsed fi­guratiuely, to signifie the graces of the holie Ghost, who lighte­neth and purgeth the hartes of the faithfull. They, who did bap­tize in that sort, were heretikes: as Alphons. a Ca­stro aduers. haeres. lib. 3. Alphonsus sheweth.

Yet the shew of words dooth make more for thē: Iohn baptized with water, Christ baptizeth with fire. Neither haue you here so much as that euasion, (which yet if you had, were nothing to the purpose) that it is manifest to be meant, not properly, but figuratiuely. For there haue béene Paul. Venet. de regionib. orientalib. li. 3. cap. 43. Matth. Paris in Henrico tert. Petr. Bi­zar. in histor. rer. Per sicar. lib. 10. sundry chur­ches and nations these many hundred yeares, that vsed it, and doo still: induced all thereto by the shew of wordes, as manifest to be meant not figuratiuely, but properly, in their iudgement. And your reall presence hath not gone so far in the one Sacrament with this is my bodie: as their firie markes haue gone in the o­ther with the holie Ghost and fire. Wherefore (to returne to the point in questiō) although it may séeme by the shew of words that our Sauiour promised the keyes of the kingdome of heauen to Peter onely: yet, sith he meant them to all the Apostles (as I haue declared) your claime will be a bare shew, if all your proofe be shew of wordes. And therefore, as I said, so I say againe, that you must bring vs foorth some better euidence: or els your title will be naught.

And I tell you againe, that the euidence is good: and hath not onely shew of words, but sense too, if it be rightly taken. But we retaine not you to be our lawier to expound it.

I am not in hast to be retained of you. But what mislike you in my expounding of it?

That, which shall kéepe me from yelding thereunto. [Page 71] For your exposition is a priuate exposition, which we allow not of. We allow onely of the churches exposition.

Then I perceiue the church shall be your lawier. And what is (I pray you) the churches exposition.

Staplet. princ. doctr. l. 7. c. 13. & l. 11. ca. 5. That which all the Fathers make with one con­sent.

Which all the Fathers make? We had néede to haue bodies like the bodies of Oakes, and memories as strong as stéele, to endure to reade, and be sure to remember of euery expo­sition, so much, as may ascertaine vs, that all the Fathers make it. Hath any man liuing read them all? Nay, haue all the men liuing read them? Nay, can they shewe them? Can they get them? I had almost said, can they name them?

Womeane of the Fathers which are extant common­ly, and may be had and read. If many of them make it, and the rest either gainsay it not, or say nought of it: we count it to bée made of all with one consent.

That count is euill cast. For, as in the writings of Fathers which we haue, some one expoundeth places of Scrip­ture oftentimes otherwise then all the rest, Sixt. Senen. bi­blioth. sanct. li. 5. & 6. Aloys. Lipom. caten. in Genes. & Exod. (a thing notorious and confessed:) so, it is likely that in those which we haue not some places were otherwise expounded thē they be in those which we haue. Yet I will not deny but you had reason so to count. For else your lawier had béene dumbe, and could not haue spoken a word for his client. But if this be your rule of the churches expo­sition: then I could haue made mine exposition, the churches, with a wet finger, if I would haue stuffed it with the names of Fathers. For my words of Peter, that he alone made answere for all the Apostles, & receiued the keyes togither with them all, are the wordes of In Iohan. tra­ctat. 118. S. Austin, though I did not name him. And In Psal. 38. S. Ambrose saith of that promise of Christ ( I will giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen, and the rest which followeth) that what is said to Peter, is said to the Apostles. And Aduers. Ioui­nian. lib. 1. Ierom saith, that the foundation and firmenesse of the church lay on all the Apostles equally, and they did all receiue the keyes. And In Matth. tractat. 1. Origen saith, that Christes promise of building his church, of giuing the keyes, of binding and loosing, made as to Peter onely, was common vnto all. And De Trinitat. lib. 6. Hilarie saith in like sort, that through the worthinesse of their faith they ob­tained [Page 72] the keyes of the kingdome of heauen, and the power of binding and loosing in heauen and earth. Neither doo I doubt but other of the Fathers haue said as much as these in the expounding of these words. But haue they or not: this is no path for vs to walke in, if we séeke the right way. For neither might we hope for an ende of our trauels because of sundrie expositions, one contrarie to an other: and we should faint for thirst in time of heate and drouth, looking for water in the wildernesse, as Iob. 6.19. the trauellers of Tema: and (that is woorst of all) sometimes wee should leaue the pure water of truth, and swill vp puddle in stéed of it. For, although the Fathers were men indued of God with excellent gifts, and brought no small light to vnderstanding of the scriptures: yet learned men in our dayes may giue a right sense of sundrie places thereof which the Fathers saw not, yea a­gainst the which perhaps they consent.

The [...]. 4. Councell of Trent condemneth them that say so.

As learned men, as any were at that Councell, say it. And they doo it too.

Who? Caluin and Beza?

Truely, I doo iudge no lesse of their learning. And, if I be of any iudgement, I iudge not parcially in it. But thinke of thē as you list. S. Retractation. lib. 2. cap. 18. Austin, hauing folowed S. Cyprian in expounding a certaine place of Scripture, afterward did finde in Tyconius the Donatist an other exposition: which thinking to be truer, he preferred it before Cyprians. Whereby you may sée, that, although you thought as yll of Caluin and Beza, as did S. Austin of the Donatists, yet, if you had S. Austins minde, you would rather follow the sense which they giue sometimes of the scriptures, then that which is giuen by auncient godly Fa­thers. Neuerthelesse, my minde was not of them, when I men­tioned learned men. For, to what purpose? Sith I am not ig­norant how small account you make of them. My minde was of your owne men, who say so, and doo so.

What? Against the Councell of Trent? UUho bée they?

First, the flower of your Cardinals, the In praefat. cō ­ment. in libros Mosis. Car­dinall Caietan, beginning to expound the scriptures, dooth set it downe for a principle, that God hath not tied the exposition [Page 73] of the scriptures vnto the senses of the Fathers. UUherefore if he fall vpon a new sense agreeable to the text, Quamuis a torrente Docto­rum sacrorum sit alienus. though it go against the streame of the Fathers: he doth aduise the rea­der not to mislike of it.

But the flower of our Bishops, Bishop Locor. Theo­logico. li. 7. ca. 3. Melchior Canus misliketh the Cardinal for that his rash sentence: and re­prooueth it as an errour, yea as the common sentence of heretikes and schismatikes.

But the flower of your Doctors, Andrad. defens. fid. Trid. lib. 2. D. Payua Andradius, rebuketh this your Bishops reproofe, as more rash: yea defendeth Caietan against it as a slander. He teacheth first, that the Fathers doo in many places not expound the Scrip­tures according to the literall sense, (the onely which hath weight to proue pointes of faith,) but allegorically and mo­rally. We may leaue their allegories and expound them lite­rally. He teacheth next, that when they seeke the literall senses of the scriptures, they doo not alwaies finde them, but giue diuers senses one vnlike an other. We may forsake their sen­ses all, and bring a new vnlike to theirs. Moreouer, (to make the thing euident by examples) him selfe expoundeth sundry pla­ces otherwise then the Fathers haue: declaring that hée doth it vpon sufficient ground. Againe, he proueth by the sayings of the chiefe of the Fathers, that they spake not oracles whē they ex­pounded the Scriptures, but might therein be deceiued. He she­weth furthermore, that the ouersightes of the translatiō which they followed, must cause them needes to misse sometimes the right meaning of the holie Ghost. Finally, he addeth that experience forceth vs to confesse (vnlesse we will be vnthank­full to most excellent wittes) that verie manie things in Mo­ses and the Prophets are in this our age expounded more ex­actly (through the diligence of learned men) then euer they were before. Whereupon he concludeth that the holy Ghost, the onely and faithfull interpreter of the Scriptures, would haue manie things to be knowne to vs, which our auncestors knew not: and hath wrought by meanes, (vnknowne to vs, knowne to him) that the Fathers noted good and godlie mysteries out of verie manie places of the Scriptures, whereof the right and naturall sense hath beene found out by the posteritie. This is, in few words, the iudgement of Andradius, which he prosecu­teth [Page 74] more at large; in the defense of Cardinall Caietan against quarellers; who did cauill at him because he wrote that it is law­full to go against the streame of the auncient Fathers in ex­pounding of the Scriptures.

I care not for the iudgement of Andradius, or Caie­tan, or any other priuate man, though you could bring a hun­dred of them. I doo not build my faith on them.

Although you care not for their iudgement, yet you should care for their reasons. Of which the light is so great: that, vnlesse a man haue altogether lost his eyes, he can not choose but see the truth and brightnesse of them. Neither may you set so litle by their iudgement: chiefly the iudgement of Andradius. If you doo: it may be the price of his contempt will helpe to purchase your confusiō. For, the Councel of Trent, Campian. rat. 4. Quae medulla, Theologorum. the fairest flower of your garland, & chiefest piller of your faith, is but the consent of a few such, as Andradius was, or rather none such perhaps. Let Oso. epist. prae­fixa Andrad. De­fens. fid. Trident. the Italians witnes it, who wondred at his gifts. Theyloue not them selues so ill, as to woonder at common thinges in straun­gers. A great token of it, that the faith of Trent most iustly char­ged by Kemnicius, (who tried the Spirit of the Councell, and proued it the Spirit of errour) found no man to defend it, but Andradius, to speake of. For I [...]doc. Raue­stey [...] Tilet. de­fens. decret. cōc. Trident. Tiletan is a trifler, not woorthy to be named the same day that he is. But let the Authours, with their reasons, be proofes of no value: and grant, that if the Fa­thers all consent in one, their exposition must be stood too. What, if the Fathers dissent in expounding a place of the Scripture, as oftentimes they doo? Which of their expositions must we follow then?

If one expound a thing otherwise then all the rest, the rest must be followed, and he must be refused. As by D. Staple­tons example in S. Austin I shewed Chapt. 2. Diui [...]. 1. ere-while.

S. Austin was against you then. But if he make for you, though he be alone, you will leaue all and follow him: whereof you giue notable proofe in the diuision of the ten com­mandements. For, the second commandement against the wor­ship of Images, Thou shalt not bow downe to them nor wor­ship them, because the words are sharpe, and rip the hart strings of your church, whose spirituall hooredomes doo passe the hoor­domes of Iezabel, and all your temples are stewes of them: ther­fore [Page 75] you omit it in Offic. B. Mar. virg. reform. a Pio Q [...]i [...]t. praierbookes and The catechis­me of Vau [...] in English, and Ledesima in I­talian. catechismes; & to salue the matter, least thereby we should haue no more thē nine comman­dements, you cut the tenth into two. Now for this, Qua [...]st 71. in Exodum. S. Austin is all in all with you: the rest of the Fathers go for naught. Yet the rest expound it literally as it were: S. Austin fansied a mysterie, that the number of three commandements touching God might betoken the Trinitie. Thus vnder the colour of one Fathers iudgement against all the rest, you conceale the second comman­dement from the people, least your vile idolatrie, or Sanders trea­tise of Images. chap. 8. imagedou­lie as you smooth it, should grow (by the hearing thereof) into mislike. Indéede, whatsoeuer you say of the Fathers, to bleare the peoples eyes: you vse them as marchaunts are wont to vse their counters. Sometime they stand with you for pence, some­time for powndes, euen as they be next and readiest at hande to make vp your accountes.

UUhy? Thinke you that none, but S. Austin onelie, hath so diuided the commandements?

I finde none alleaged of your Magist. sen­tent. li. 3. Dist. 37. Thom. Aquin. in prima secundae q. 100. a [...]tic. 4. Schoolemen, but him.

You may. For Clemens Alexandrinus is alleaged also by Father Robert in his In quaest. 100. conclus. 4. Dictates vpon S. Thomas.

Clemens is smally bound to Father Robert for alleaging of him. Neither will he get credit: nor you aduantage by it. For Strom. lib. 6. Clemens, though he number no more then three commandements touching our duetie towardes God: yet ney­ther doth he number any more then six touching our duetie to­wardes man; and of the tenth he maketh but one, which you make two. So that, through omitting the second commaunde­ment, as part annexed to the first: Clemens found no more com­mandements then nine, whereas Exod. 34.28. the scriptures number ten. UUherefore, either Clemens maketh nothing for you: or at least no more for you then vs.

Yes. For the later place of sixe commaundementes, wherein Clemens maketh for you, is corrupted. The former is sound, wherein he maketh for vs.

Iust. For Dictat. in s [...]m. Tho. Aquin. q. 100. concl. 4. Father Robert saith so. And hee belike is [...]. Diogen. Laert. in Pythag. Pythagoras. All the proofe, is, He said it. Else, what reason haue you, why the later place (if Clemens be corrupted) should be thought rather to be corrupted then the former? This [Page 76] was wont to be, with young Logicians in Oxford a schoolers tricke at Paruis: to say that the place in Aristotle is corrupted, when they could not vnloose a knotte. In déede your latin, either translatour, or printer, Putting doctrina for decima. hath corrupted Clemens in the chiefe place that he doth make for vs against you. Which I say, not (as father Robert doth) vpon my word without proofe: but the verie drift and course of Clemens treatise, and [...]. the greeke co­pie agréeing fullie with it, conuinceth it to be so. As for the re­pugnancie that is betwéene these pointes in the true copie of Cle­mens: it séemeth not to haue growne of either place corrupted, but of an ouersight & slippe of memorie in Clemens, by reason of a digression which he fell into vpon occasion of the precept to sanctifie the Sabbath day. And this is the likelier, because there is some bodie touched by In Exod. ho­mil. 8. Origen for so diuiding the comman­dements: and we find not anie that hath diuided them so before Clemens; who was Origens maister. Which also father Robert himselfe hath obserued. Wherefore you may not looke for anie helpe at the hands of Clemens: S. Austin you must stand alone with, and folow one against all.

No doubt there be more of that mind then he: although I know not who they be. For In confess. Au­gustin. lib. 2. ca. 6. tit. 5. Torrensis, a learned Iesuit, saith that this diuision of the ten commandements, three of them to touch our duetie towardes God, and seuen towardes man, is a point of doctrine very common and familiar both vnto S. Austin, and to Antiquitati omni. all antiquitie. UUhereby you may see that S. Austin is not alone of that iudgement.

Nay: I see not that. But I see an other thing, which it were reason that you should sée also.

UUhat is that?

I sée that the Iesuit maketh no conscience of ly­ing, so that it be for aduantage: as Dori [...] the bawde in Te­rence. Non pu­det vanitatis [...] Minimé, dum ob rem. a lewd person professeth in the poet. For whereas the commandements, which touch our duetie towardes God, are noted to be foure, (and that of Images, one of them) by the chiefest autours and witnesses of antiquitie; first by the Hebrues, (as Libr. de De­calog. & duob. opuse. de legib. specialib. Philo and Antiquit. I [...]d. lib. 3. cap. 4. Iosephus shew) who haue still continued of the same mindes, Aben Ezra in Exod. 20. (as it may séeme) in their posteritie; next, by the Grecians, In versib. de Decalogo. Gregorie Nazianzen, In Exo. hom. 8. Origen, In synopsi sa­crae scripturae. Athanasius, In Matthae. o­pere imperf. hom. 49. Chrysostome, or whosoeuer was autour of the worke vnperfit vpon Matthew; thirdlie, by the [Page 77] Latins, In epist. ad E­phes. cap. 6. S. Ambrose, In epist. ad E­phes. cap. 6. S. Ierom, and one more auncient then they both, August. quae­stion. vet. & nou. Test. c. 7. the autour of the questions of the olde and newe Testament: neuerthelesse this Iesuit, as though his face were hardned, like the face of an harlot, blu [...]heth not to say, that anti­quitie, that all antiquitie doth affirme the contrarie.

You are perswaded too hardly of Torrensis. I can not think that he would pretend al antiquitie, vnlesse he had known, if not all, yet the most to be of that mind.

You haue conceiued too lightlie of Torrensis, I can not thinke that he would alleage not one witnesse out of all antiquitie, if he had known anie of that mind in déede. Chief­lie séeing that he is so ambitious in citing Fathers when he hath them, that, to proue the church was builded vpon Peter, Confess. Au­gustin. lib. 1. cap. 9. tit. 2. hee quoteth no lesse then eight and fortie places out of Doctors and Councels, to let go other writers which (he saith) he passeth o­uer. But, graunt there is perhaps some one, or two, or three, or foure (whom your Iesuits haue not found yet) that are of S. Au­stins mind in that point. If fewer of the Fathers expound a place of scripture contrarie to more of them: which shall we folow thē? the lesser or the greater number?

Hieron. Tor­ren. con [...]ess. Augustin. lib. 1. cap. 11· tit. 1. The greater number. For a few may bee deceiued more easely then many.

Then must you bidde your Schoolemen nowe adieu, and agree with vs in the diuision of the commandements; though we giue you Clemens (whom father Robert citeth) and three or foure voices more. Howbeit I can not vrge you to do it, vnlesse that you doo it vpon surer ground: because this ground is slabbie, and the rule vnsure for men to walke on. For, that the greater number of the Fathers expoundeth Scriptures woorse sometimes then the lesser: it appeareth by the controuersie be­twéene Epist. 19. Austin and Epist. 11. i [...]ter epistolas Au­gust. Ierom, concerning the reproofe of Peter: whether Paule rebuked him in earnest, as blameworthie; or dis­sembled with him, and made Mendacium officiosum. Au­gust. a duetifull lie, which Ierom ter­med Hones [...]am. di­spens [...]tionem. [...]ie [...]on. an honest policie. For, Con [...]ess. Au­gustin. lib. 1. cap. 1. t [...]t. 1. your selues graunt, that Au­stin (who thought that Paule reproued him in earnest) did iudge therin more soundly & truely then Ierom did, who thought that he dissembled. Yet Ierom alleaged more Fathers on his side▪ and made so great account of them, that Epist. 11. inter epist. August. he desired Austin to suffer him to erre with such men if he thought him to erre. Where­upon [Page 78] Epist. 19. S. Austin replyed, that peraduenture hee might finde as manie Fathers on his side, if he had read much. But I, saith he, haue Paule the Apostle himselfe in stead of these all, and aboue these all. To him do I flie, to him I appeale from all the Doctors (his interpreters) who are of other mindes. Of him do I aske, whereas he writeth to the Galatians, that hee sawe Peter not going with a ryght foote to the truth of the Gospell, and that hee withstood him to his face for it, bicause by that dissembling hee constrayned the Gentiles to doo lyke the Iewes: whether he wrote true, or did lye perhaps Nescio qua dispensatiua Falsitate. with I know not what politike falshood. And I do heare him (a litle before) making a very religious protestation, in the begin­ning of the same discourse, The thynges whych I write vnto you, beholde, I witnes before God, I lye not. Let them, who are of other mindes, pardon me. I beleeue rather so great an Apostle, swearing in his owne and for his owne words, then anie man be he neuer so learned, talking of the words of an other. A wise and frée iudgement, worthie of S. Austin. Where­by you may perceiue that your rule of folowing the greater number of the Fathers in expounding the scriptures, is but a leaden rule, not fitte which should be vsed to square out stones by, for building of the Lords temple.

This of Austin sheweth that we may vary sometimes from the greater number of the Fathers, and refuse their iudge­ment. But that (as Confess. Au­gustin. lib. 1. cap. 11. tit. 1. Torrensis hath obserued well) must bee with two cautions. One, that the thing wherein we varie from them be a knowne truth. The other, that we do it with reue­rence and modestie.

UUith reuerence and modestie? God forbid else. As Iob. 33.1. Elihu reproued Iob: as Gal. 2.14. Paule reproued Peter. But for the other caution: how shall we know a thing to be a knowne truth?

One [...]way to know it, and that a good way, Staplet. prin­cip. doct lib. 7. cap. 17. is the common testimonie of the faithfull people, if they with one con­sent beleeue it to be true.

This bringeth vs small helpe to the expounding of scriptures. For things may be true: and yet a place of scrip­ture not applied truely and rightly to proue them. As it is plaine in places, Deut. 6.4. Augustin S [...]eu­chus Chisam. epis cop. apud Sixtū Senensem bibli­oth. sanct. lib. 5. annot. 130. that haue béene applied by Christians against the Iewes. But let it be a good way. UUhat, if the faithfull people [Page 79] doo dissent? As, in the question which we haue in hand about the Popes supremacy, the people of the east church dissented from the west, many hundred yeares together. UUhat shall we doo then?

Then an other way (a better way to finde it) Staplet. prin­cip. doctr. lib. 7. cap. 8. is the common testimonie of the faithfull Pastors, if they doo decrée it in a generall councell. As for the Popes supremacy they did in the Vnder Pope Innocent the third, capit. 5. Councell of Lateran.

The Bishops of the east church Tit. general. octauae Synod. Florent. & epist. Ieremiae Con­stantinopolit. patriarchae. say that the Councell of Lateran was not generall: which the Pope him selfe doth acknowledge also, In c. Item A­drianus. Dist. 16. c. Sancta octo. Contius. as it is noted on your law. But here the former difficulties méete vs againe, and bréede the same per­plexitie. For there are but few places of Scripture which gene­rall Councels haue expounded: neither is it likely the Pope will assemble them to expound the rest. Againe, although Staplet. prin­cip. doctrin. li. 8. cap. 14. & 15. lib. 11. cap. 6. you say that generall Councels can not erre in their conclusions: yet you say they may erre in applying of Scriptures to prooue their conclusions. Lastly, generall Councels may dissent too: Concil. Eph. 2. & Concil. Chal­cedon. as heretofore they haue in a weightie point offaith touching Christ. The which incommodities being all incident into this which presently we debate of, as our conference will shew: you sée that you haue not yet resolued me. One question I must aske you more. In this case, when Councels say nothing of Scrip­tures; or misapply them, in proofes; or dissent, in conclusions: what are we to doo?

If Councels dissent, we must follow those which are confirmed by the Head. And (to answere all your questions in a word) whether with the Councels or without the Councels, that which the Head determineth, is a knowne truth: that which the Head condemneth is a knowne errour.

Staplet. prin­cip. doctrin. li. 7. cap. 10. & li. 10. cap. 11.You meane by the Head, not our Sauior Christ, but the Pope, I trow.

I: the visible head.

Doo you not sée then by your owne answeres, that whatsoeuer shew you make of Fathers and Councels: the Pope is the man that must strike the stroke? So that, (to bring it to the point in controuersie) whereas our question is, whether that the Pope be supreme head of the church: you say, He is so. UUhen we sift the matter, and séeke the reasons, why: this is the summe of all, Because him selfe saith so. I thought, that [Page 80] the church should haue béene your lawier to expounde your eui­dences: but now I perceiue that you meant the Pope. Hée is the churches husband (belike) and in matters of law dealeth for her. I cannot blame you, though you be content to make him your iudge too. For if he giue sentence, in this cause, against you: I will neuer trust him.

You doo gather more of mine answers, then I meant. I pray make your owne collections, and not mine.

I doo gather nothing, but that which you haue scattered. For, you began to try this point touching the Pope by the wordes of Scripture. The wordes (we agrée) decide by y ^e sense: y ^e sense must be tried (you say) by y ^e Fathers: the Fathers by y ^e truth: the truth by the people: the people by the Councels: the Councels by the Pope. If one of vs should make but a semblance of such an answere: you would sport your selues with it, and call it a Campian. Rat. 9. Circulation, and Eccum, quas rotas, quos gy­ros fabricat▪ cry against our impudency, & O Circulos. Campian. Rat. 4. whoope at it like stage players. But you may daunse such roundes, and yet perswade men that you go right forward with great sobrie­tie and grauitie.

Howsoeuer you dally with your circulations, & rounds, as you call them: I say no more, but this, that if a truth cannot be knowne otherwise, then the last meane to resolue vs of it, is the Popes authoritie. But there néeded not so much adoo hereof, if I proue that Christ did giue that supremacie (whereof we tal­ked) to S. Peter.

You can neuer proue that Christ did giue it him, but by Col. 3.16. the word of Christ, which is the holie scripture. And the scripture standeth in substance of the sense, not in the shew of wordes. UUherefore, it was néedfull, sith we séeke herein to finde out Christes will, that first we agreed what way the right sense of the scripture may be knowne. UUhich, séeing you would haue me to fetch from the Pope, and I haue no lust to go vnto Rome, nor thinke it lodgeth in The Palace of the Pope. the Vatican, so y ^t by this way no agréement can be made, or ende of controuersie hoped for: I will take a shorter and a surer way, confessed by vs both to be a good way, whereby the right sense of the scripture may be found, and so the will of Christ be knowne.

UUhat way may that be?

To learne of Christ him selfe the meaning of his [Page 81] word, and let his spirit teach it: that is, to expound the scripture by the scripture. A golden rule, to know, and try the truth from errour: prescribed by the Lord, and practised by his seruants for the building of his church from age to age through all posteritie. For, 2. Pet. 1. ver. 19. the holie Ghost, exhorting the Iewes, to compare the darker light of the Prophetes with the cléerer of the Apo­stles, that the day-brigtnesse of the Sonne of righteousnes may shine in their hartes: saith, that ver. 20. no prophecy of Scripture is of a mans owne interpretation: because, in the prophecie (that is, the scripture of the Prophetes) they spake as they were moued by the holie Ghost, not as the will of man did fansie. UUhich reason sith it implieth, as the Prophetes, so the Apo­stles: and it is true in them all, the holie men of God, spake as they were moued by the holie Ghost: it followeth that all the scripture ought to be expounded by God, because 2. Tim. 3.16. it is inspired of God: as L. Si. Cod. De legib. et consti­tutionib. Princi­pum. natures light hath taught that he who made the law, should interpret the law. This rule commended to vs by the prescript of God, and as it were sanctified by Nehem. 8.8. [...] the Leuites practise in the olde Testament, and In the epi­stles to the Romans, Ga­latians, He­brues. the Apostles in the new: the godlie auncient Pastors and Doctors of the church haue fol­lowed, in their preaching, their writing, their deciding of con­trouersies in Councels. UUherefore, if you desire in déede the churches exposition, and would so faine finde it: you must go this way, this is the churches way: that is the churches sense to which this way dooth bring you. For, S. Austin, Confession. Augustinian. praefat. ad lecto. whose doc­trine your selfe doo acknowledge to be grounded on the lawes, the maners, the iudgementes of all the catholike church: whom you call a witnesse of the sincere truth and catholike re­ligion, such a witnesse as no exception can be made against: who assureth you (as you say) not onely of his owne, but also of the common, the constant faith and confession of the an­cient Fathers and the Apostolike church: this S. Austin hath written foure bookes of Christian doctrine, wherein he purpose­ly entreateth, how men should vnderstand the Scripture and ex­pound it. The summe of all his treatise doth aime at this marke, which I haue pointed too: that the meaning of the Scripture must be learned out of the Scripture, August. de do­ctrin. Christ. li. 1. cap. 2. by the consideration of thinges and wordes in it: that cap. 35. the ende whereto, cap. 37. the matter whereof, it is all writen, be marked in generall, cap. 36. & 40. and [Page 82] all be vnderstood according to that end and matter: that Lib. 2. cap. 8. al be read ouer & ouer, & cap. 9. those things chiefly noted which are set downe plainly, both precepts of life, and rules of beliefe, because that all things, which concerne beliefe and life, are plainly written in it: that obscure & darke speeches be light­ned and opened by the plaine and manifest: that to remoue the doubt of vncertaine sentences the cleere and certaine be followed: that cap 11. recourse be had vnto the Greeke and He­brue copies, to cleare out of the fountaines, if the translation be muddie: that Lib 3. cap. 2. & 3. doubtfull places bee expounded by the rule of faith, which we are taught out of the plainer places of the scripture: that all the circumstances of the text bee weighed, what goeth before, what commeth after; cap. 5. the ma­ner how, cap. 10. the cause why, cap. 17. the men to whom, cap. 18. the time when, euery thing is saide: to be short, that cap. 27. still wee seeke to know the will and meaning of the Authour by whom the holie Ghost hath spoken; if we finde it not, yet giue such a sense as agreeth with the right faith, approued by some other place of scripture: cap. 28. if a sense be giuen, the vncertaintie wher­of cannot bee discussed by certaine and sure testimonies of scripture, it might be proued by reason; but this custome is dangerous; the safer way far, is, to walke by the scripture, the which (being shadowed with darke and borowed words) when we mind to search, let either that come out of it which hath no doubt and controuersie, or, if it haue doubt, let it be determined by the same scripture, through witnesses to be found & vsed thence wheresoeuer: y ^t so (to conclude) Lib. 4. cap. 3. all places of the scriptures be expounded by the scriptures, the which are called Canonical, as being the Canon, that is to say the rule of godlines and faith. Thus you sée the way, the way of wisedome and knowledge, which Christ hath prescribed, the church hath receiued, S. Austin hath declared both by his pre­ceptes and his practise, both in this treatise and in De Genes. ad liter. l. 1. c. 21. Enchir. ad Lau­rent ca. 68. De ciuit. Dei li. 11. cap. 33. & lib. 15. cap. 7. De vnit. eccles. ca. 16. Epist. 48. ad Vin­cent. De verb. Dom. serm. 2. Retract. li. 2. cap. 54. &c. In com­ment. Sermon. [...]actat. & epist. others, a­gréeably to the iudgement of the auncient Fathers. Which way, sith it is lyked both by vs and you, though not so much followed of you as of vs: I wish that the woorthinesse thereof might per­swade you to practise it your selfe, but it must enforce you at least to allow it.

I graunt, it neither can, nor ought to be denyed, that [Page 83] euery one of those things, and specially, if they be ioined all togi­ther, doo helpe very much to vnderstand the scriptures rightly. But Staplet. princ. doctr. l. 11. ca. [...]. yet they are not so sure and certaine meanes as some o­ther are, which we preferre before them. Neither do they helpe al­waies; nay, sometimes they do hurt rather, and deceiue greatlie such as expound the Scripture after them. This is not onelye said, but also proued at large out of the Doctors and Fathers, by that worthie man of great wit and iudgement, our countriman M. Stapleton Doctor of Diuinitie, the Kinges Professor of controuersies in the vniuersitie of Doway. Of whose most wholesome worke, entitled, A methodicall demonstration of doctrinall principles of the faith: one booke is wholly spent to shew the meanes, way and order, how to make authenticall interpretation of the Scriptures. In the which hee layeth this for a ground, that Staplet. princ. doctr. lib. 11. c. 1. the Scripture cannot be rightly vnder­stood but by the rule of faith. Whereupon cap. 2. he condemneth the Protestantes opinion, that the sense of Scriptures must be fetched out of the Scriptures. Which errour of yours to ouer­throw the more fully: he deliuereth foure meanes of expounding the Scriptures; cap. 3. the first, very certaine and sure, the rule of faith; cap. 4. the next, no lesse certaine, the practise of the church; cap. 5. the third, at least probable, the consent of the Fathers; cap. 6. the last, most infallible, the councels interpretation. And cap. [...]. these meanes, he saith, are the onely certaine sure infallible meanes, of vnderstanding and expounding the Scripture a­right. As for other meanes, which learned men do vse, such as you obserued out of S. Austin: he graunteth they are profitable, but deceitfull many waies, if ech of them be seuerally taken by it selfe. Which he proueth in particular by the chiefest of them: first, the weighing of circumstances, what goeth before, what commeth after; next, the wordes and kinde of speeches vsed in the Scriptures; thirdly, cap. 10. the conferēce of places togither, one to be lightned by an other; fourthly, cap. 12. recourse to the fountaines of the Greeke and the Hebrue text. Wherefore, though I acknowledge your way to be a good way, and such as I am well content to walke in, when these our waies shall lead me to it: notwithstanding, sith it is cap. 9. common to vs with all Heretikes, yea with Iewes and Painims; (who do all, conferre places, obserue the kinde of spéeches, looke on the Gréeke and [Page 84] Hebrue fountaines, marke what goeth before, what commeth af­ter, and such like thinges; and yet they are verye farre from the true vnderstanding of the scriptures;) I will my selfe practise it when I shall see good: but there is no reason of yours that can enforce me to allow it simply.

The treatise of your Doctor against the Prote­stants opinion, is like the army of Antiochus prepared against the Romans: verie great and huge of men of many nations, but white liuered souldiours: neither so strong with armour, as gli­stering with gold and siluer. Antiochus him selfe was amazed at it, and thought it vnuincible: so did the simple fooles of his country too. But Liui. lib. 37. the Romans contemned it: and Plutarch. in compar. Scipio. & Annib. Annibal iested at it. The name of Protestants, (which Staplet. prin­cip. doctr. lib. 7. cap. 15. & li. 11. cap. 10. he vseth taun­tingly as all one with Heretikes) wée are no more ashamed of, then were the 2. Chron. 24.19. Prophets and Act. 2.40. & 8.25. & 10.42. Apostles: whom the Spirit of God hath honored with that title because they did make a prote­station of their faith, Sleidan. de sta­tu relig. & reip. lib. 6. vpon the like occasion, as did the faith­full in Germany when they were noted by that name. The Pro­testants opinion, I haue alreadie shewed to be the opinion of the auncient Protestants, the Fathers, the Apostles, the holie Ghost who spake by them. If you call it an errour: we are con­tent to erre with them. If he thinke it an heresie: we are no bet­ter then Paul, Act. 24.14. & 26.22. who in such heresie serued God. The ground which Stapl. princip. doctr. li. 11. ca. 1. & 2. he layeth for the disproofe of it: is such, that it séemeth, his wits and he had made a fray when he layed it. He saith, that the scripture ought to be expounded by the rule of faith, and therfore not by scripture onely. Which is (in effect) as if a man should say: the church must be taught by liuing creatures en­dued with reason, and therefore not by men onely. For as a liuing creature endued with reason, and a man, is all one, which euerie childe knoweth by the principles of logicke: so the rule of faith, and scripture is all one, doth not your Doctor know it? It is a principle of diuinitie, deliuered by S. Austin, whom cap. 3. he pretendeth (chiefly, in this point) to follow.

And doth he not follow him? Doth he not alleage S. Austins owne wordes, August. de doctr. Christ. li. 3. cap. 2. In a doubtfull place of scripture let a man seeke the rule of faith, which rule hee hath learned of plainer places of the scriptures, and of the authoritie of the church: to proue that the rule of faith must be fetched out of the [Page 85] authoritie of the church also, not out of scriptures onely?

Yes: he doth alleage S. Austins wordes in déed: but as Mat. 26.61. the false witnesses alleaged Christes wordes of destroy­ing the temple, and building it in three dayes: the wordes, a­gainst the meaning. Which tricke In fraudem legis facit, qui [...]. uis verbis legi­sententiam en [...] circumuenit. L. Contra. Dig. de legibus Sena­tusque consul­tis. the law noteth as an abu­sing of the lawe: yet is it common with your Doctor. For as Christ, when he spake of raising the temple, by the temple Ioh. 2.19. meant his bodie, the witnesses did wrest it to the temple of Ie­rusalem: so, the authoritie of the church is mentioned by S. Au­stin, as teaching scriptures onely, your Doctor alleageth it, as teaching somewhat beside the scriptures.

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

Be it strange: yet is it true. For him selfe de­clareth that to be his meaning, not onely by the rest of his whole treatise, wherein he doth establish the scriptures alone for the rule of faith, to shew the sense of doubtfuller places by the plainer: but also by the ende of this your owne sentence, which Stapleton (in alleaging it) either negligently passed, or craftily suppressed: vnlesse the fault perhaps be in some other, with whose eyes he read it. For Aug. de doctr. Christian. lib. 3. cap. 2. after these wordes, let him seeke the rule of faith, which rule he hath learned of plainer places of the scriptures, and of the authoritie of the church: it followeth in S. Austin, Of which rule we haue sufficiently entreated in the first booke, when we spake of thinges. Now, in that dis­course (to which he referreth vs) he spake not of any thing as taught by the church, but what is in the scripture. Wherefore, in these wordes, by the authoritie of the church, he meant not any thing beside the scripture. If he did: shew it. If he did not: acknowledge it.

He did. For, in the first booke where he spake of things, hee shewed that cap. [...] ▪ the doctrine of the Trinitie is comprised in that rule of faith. Which yet is not expresly set downe in the scriptures.

Expresly? What meane you by this word ex­presly?

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

What? Not the doctrine of the blessed Trinitie: [Page 86] the Father, the Sonne, and the holie Ghost?

Not all that our faith doth hold of the Trinitie.

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

Certainly, S. Austin Epist. 174. ad Pascentiū Com. haeres. Arian. writing to an Arian (who de­nied that God the sonne is consubstantiall with the Father) saith, that as we reade not in the holie scriptures the Father Ingenitum. vnbegotten, & yet it is defended that it must be said: in lyke sort it may be that neither Homousion. consubstantiall is founde written there, and yet being said in the assertion of faith may bee de­fended. And again Contr. Max­im. Arianot. e­pisc. lib. 3. cap. 3. disputing against Maximinus a Bishop of the Ariās, Giue me testimonies (saist thou) where the holy Ghost is worshipped: as though by those things which we do read, we vnderstood not some thinges also which wee reade not. But (that I be not inforced to seeke many) where hast thou read God the Father vnbegotten or vnborne? And yet it is true.

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

Hée séemeth to haue meant it. And Confess. Au­gustinian. lib. 1. cap. 8. tit. 4. Torrensis (who gathered S. Austins Confession out of all his workes) alleageth these places to proue that Christians ought to belieue manie things which haue come to vs from the Apostles themselues (deliuered as it were by hand) although they bee not written ex­presly in scriptures.

The Iesuit Torrensis dooth great wrong herein to the truth of God, to S. Austins credit, and to you who reade him. And yet with such a sophisme in the word [expresly:] that, if it should be laid vnto his charge, he would wash his handes of it, as Mat. 27.24. Pilate did of Christes blood. For cap. 8. de sa­cris traditioni­bus. he alleageth those places of S. Austin, thereby to proue Traditions: as though we had receiued that doctrine (touching God) by tradition vn­written, not by the written word. S. Austin, no such matter. But Epist. 174. ad Pascentium. dealing with an Arian, who required Ips [...]m verbum homousion. the verie word consubstantiall to be shewed in scripture: doth tell him that the thing it selfe is there founde though not that word perhaps. Wherevpon, he presseth him in like sort with Hoc verbum, [...]uod Pater es­ [...]o [...] ingenitus. the word vnbe­gotten: which the Arian hauing giuen to God the Father, and [Page 87] defending it: S. Austin replieth, that as he had termed the Fa­ther vnbegotten, & well, although the word not written: so might the Sonne also be termed consubstantiall; sith the scripture pro­ueth the thing meant therby. And as with this Arian: so w ^t their bishop Maximinus. Contr. Maxi­min. A [...]ian. epis­cop. lib. 1. Who hauing himself termed God the Fa­ther vnbegotten or vnborne, denied the holie Ghost to be equall to the Sonne, because it is not written that he is worshipped. To the which cauill of his S. lib. 3. cap. 3. & 10. Austin answereth, that although it be not written in flat termes, yet is it gathered by necessarie consequence of that which is written, Matt. 4.10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, 1. Cor. 3.16. & 6.19. the holy Ghost is God, therefore to bee worship­ped. Thus, S. Austins meaning was of these pointes, that the scripture teacheth them. Whereby you may perceiue the fraude of Torrensis. Who saying that they are not expresly written in the scriptures, left him selfe this refuge, that hee might say they are not in expresse wordes, though for sense and substance they are in the scriptures. And yet, by referring Tit. 4. cap. 8. de tradit. that title to traditions, induceth his reader to thinke that they are taught by tradition, not by scripture. A doctrine, which Arians will clappe their handes at: that the Sonne of God is not (by scrip­ture) of one substance with the Father. But let it be far from you, M. Hart, to thinke so prophanely of the word of God. And, if you rest so much on Doctors of your owne side, rest here on Summ. Theo­logic. part. 1. quaest. 36. art. 2. Thomas of Aquine rather: who saith that concerning God wee must say nothing but that which is founde in the holie scripture, Vel per ve [...]ba, vel per sensum. either in words, or in sense. Which, as he confir­firmeth by Dionys. de di­uin. nomin. ca. 1. Denys, and Damascen. de orthod. sid. lib. 1. cap. 1. & 2. Damascen: so was it the common iudgement of Augu. de Tri­nitat. lib. 1. ca. 2. & 4. the Fathers, of S. Austin chiefly, as his bookes touching the Trinitie doo shew. And, in lib. 15. cap. 2 [...]. the conclusion there­of (for euident proofe of that which you denied) he giueth the name of the rule of faith to that which is plainly set downe in scrip­ture of the Trinitie. Wherfore the scripture cōpriseth the rule of faith for that point. And as for that point, so for all the rest, which De doctrin. Christia [...]. lib. 1. cap. 35.36.37. & 40. in that very booke (whereof we spake) S. Austin noteth. It remaineth therfore that S. Austin meant not by lib. 3. c. 2. the autho­ritie of the church, more then he signified by plainer places of the scriptures.

Yes: his own words in that verie sentence doo yéeld suffi­cient proofe (me thinkes) that he did. For, if he signified by plainer [Page 88] places of the scriptures, as much as he meant by the authoritie of the church then was it idle, when he had named the one, to adde the other to it: chiefly in such sort, as that is added by S. Austin. For both the coniunction, the places of scriptures, and the au­thoritie of the church, should import thinges different: and I may say of wordes, as the Philosopher saith of things, That is done in vaine by more that may be done by fewer.

Nothing is done in vaine, that is done to edifie. The church might well be mentioned, as an interpreter of the worde: though it teach not any thing beside the word of God. The people of Israel Exod, 14.31. did beleeue the Lord and his seruaunt Moses: yet Moses did nothing but that the Lorde commaunded him. The wise man doth charge his sonne Prou. 1.8. to hearken to the instruction of his father, and forsake not the doctrine of his mother: yet they both (the father, and mother) teach one lesson, the chiefest wisedome, the feare of God. The same is fulfilled in this Moses, and the Lord; or rather in this mother, and our heauenly Father: of whom it hath bene said well, Cyprian. libr. de vnitat. ec­cles. He cannot haue God to be his Father, who hath not the church to be his mother. For, God hauing purposed to make vs his children and heires of life eternall, as he prepared his word, to be, first, the séede, 1. Pet. 1.23. the immortall seed, of which we are begotten a new, af­terward, the milke, 1. Pet. 2.2. the sincere milke, whereby wee (béeing borne) grow: so he ordeined the church by her ministerie to teach it, as it were a mother, first, to conceaue and bring foorth y ^e chil­dren, afterward to nourish them, as babes new borne, with her milke. Which appeareth, as by Namely, by Philip, Act. 8. [...]5. & by Peter, Act. 10.34. others, so chiefly by S. Gal. 4.19. Paul, who traueiled of them in childbirth, whom he sought to con­uert: and when they were new borne, he 1. Cor. 3.2. nourished them with milke: to set before our eyes the duetie of the church, and all the churches Ministers in bearing children vnto Christ. Now, the milke which the church giueth to her children, shée giueth it out of her brestes: and her two brestes, are the two testaments of the holie scriptures (by S. In epist. 1. Io­ [...]an. T [...]actat. 3. Austins iudgement) the old Testament, and the new. S. Austin therefore, saying, the rule of faith is re­ceiued of the authoritie of the church: meant not that the church should deliuer any thing, but onely what shee draweth out of the holie scriptures.

Not for milke perhaps, which babes are to sucke: but [Page 89] for strong meate wherewith men are nourished. For mothers féede not their children, being growne, with mylke out of theyr brestes.

But S. Austin addeth that the holy scriptures haue both milke for babes, and strong meat for men: milke, in plainer thinges and easier to be vnderstood; strong meate, in har­der and greater mysteries. Yea, where Mat. 13.52▪ Christ said, that euerye Scribe which is taught vnto the kingdome of heauen is lyke vnto an housholder, who bringeth foorth out of his trea­sure thinges both newe and olde: S. Contr. [...]a [...]st. Manichae. l. 14. c. 2. Austin iudgeth that hée meant by newe thinges and olde, the olde and newe testament. Wherefore, sith euery pastor and teacher of the church is meant ( Staplet. prin. doctr. l. 11. c. 5, you graunt) by this Scribe: it foloweth by S. Austin that the meate which he is to fetch out of his storehouse for the sustenance of his houshold, must be the Scripture onely. Which the light of reason will induce you too, if you beléeue the former pointes. For the Aristot. libr. [...] de or [...]u & in­terit. Philosopher teacheth that we are nourished by the same thinges of which we do consist. Then, if we are begotten of Gods worde, as seede: the word, as it is milke to nourish vs, when we are young; so must it nourish vs, when we are grown, as strong meat. But if it were so, that S. Austin had not had this opinion touching strong meat: yet must he néedes haue it, in that whereof we reason: for there he speaketh of milke. And he sayth that the rule of faith is receiued of plainer places of the scrip­tures and of the authoritie of the church: to note the churches practise, August. de catechizand. rudibus, cap. 3.4.6.7 &c. which, in catechizing of her young ones, taught them summarily the pointes of beléefe and the precepts of life. So that the simplest Christians, who had not read them selues the plainer places of the scriptures to learne the rule of faith, yet knewe it by the catechisme: wherin, through the ministery of the church, they learned it. Now, S. Austins catechisme hath nothing but the doc­trine which Christians may sucke out of plainer places of the scriptures. His rule of faith therefore deliuered in the plainer places of the scriptures, is the same that the authoritye of the church deliuered. In déede your Canisius in his latin, Le­desima in his Italian, Vaux in his Eng­lish catechis­me. newe Doctors in their Popish catechismes haue precepts of the church, beside the precepts of the scriptures: & your church, Ecclesia Ro­man [...] omnium ecclesiarum mater & ma­gistra. Concil, Trident. Sess. 7. de [...]aptism, can. 3. & Sess. 14. cap. [...]. & Sess▪ 22, [...] & Sess▪ 25. dec [...]et. de lib. delect▪ which nameth her selfe (though vntruely) the mother of al churches, hath more then two brests, a third, out of the which shee powreth poyson with her milke▪ [Page 90] Whereby, through good vsage, hauing killed her owne children, shee claimeth our churches children to be hers: as did 1. King. 3.17. the wo­man before Salomon. And the whore hath got her Sander. in epist. ad Pium Quint. dedicat. de visib. monar. Staplet. prin. doctrin. lib. 8. cap. 19. atturneies of her minions, which do not onely raile at vs for not acknow­ledging her to be our mother: but also belye vs Vulgatam catholicorum vocem de San [...] ­ta matr [...] eccle­sia irrident ho­die & execran­ [...]ur haeretici. Staplet. that we scoffe at and curse the very title of Holy mother the church. But they whom God hath blessed with the spirite of wisedome, as he did Salomon, will easily discern, that we are so far off from scoffing at and cursing, that we giue the name of mother to the church with reuerence and ioy. Marry, the church of Rome to be called our holy mother, which neither is holy, nor our mother: that our soules detest, and wish that her stepmotherhood may be farre from vs. As for the rule offaith, to which she layeth claime by her aduocate, your Doctor, pleading the title out of Austin, that wee as acknowledging her child to be our sister, may take her for our mother: if we folow Salomon and rippe vp the plea with such a sword as he did; we shall find that the child is neither hers, nor That is to say, the Popes who (in his Canon law) calleth the church his spouse. Nos iustitiam nostram & ec­clesiae sponsae nostrae nolentes ne gligere. c. Quoniam. de immunitat. ec­clesiar. in Sext. her husbandes, but the holy scriptures. For Austin, in saying, the rule of faith is learned of plainer places of the Scriptures and of the authoritie of the church: named the Scriptures, as the matter, the church as the minister, wherof the rule of faith is learned. Your Doctor, supposing, as wel the carpenter, as the tim­ber, to be the stuffe, whereof the house must be builded; doth laye his axe to both togither: and squaring them alike, doth make him beames, and postes, and iuises, some of the timber, some of the carpenter. Euen so, the holy scripture is not the whole matter of the rule of faith: whereof the church ministers, as workemen, and builders, should frame the house of God: but in part, the church; in part, the scripture is the matter. Both which be­ing molten, as were y ^e Exod. 32.3. earerings of the Israelites, & wrought in fashion by your craftesman, not yéelding vnto it of weakenes, as did Aaron, but séeking after it with greedines, as the people, who knewe not what was become of Moses: they will make a rule of faith, not of Christes, but of the Popes faith. And this if it be decked with With me­dals, agnus Deies, halo­wed graines, [...]eades, cru [...] ­ [...]ixes, and other such iewels. deuises to the eie, as that was with gold, and set foorth by D. Allen, Campian, How­le [...], the Censu­rer the Iesu­ites and Se­minarie-priestes. men whose tongues are their owne, and voices sweete to sing the song, Exod. 32. ver. 4. These be thy Gods, ô Israel, which brought thee out of the land of Egipt: it will moue manye to daunse for ioy about it, in as holy sort, as the golden calfe did [Page 91] moue ver. 6. the Israelites to doo.

It doth not become you, to scorne in this sort so graue and learned men, as M.D. Stapleton, and others whom you touch: much lesse the church of Rome, and least of al the Popes Holines. Allens Apolo­g [...]e ofthe Eng­lish Semina­ries chap 2. out of Bede hist. Angl lib. 1. Whose predecessors gaue vs our cap. 4. Ele [...] ­the [...]ius. first faith in the time of the Britannes, and restored it cap. 23. Gre­gory the first, who sent Austin. afterward in the daies of the English. And do you thus reward them for it? You will make some men perhaps, (if you vse it) to giue their iudgement of you, with what spirite you do it.

If you will speake of him, who gaue vs our faith: you shall do well to lift vp your eies from dust and rottennesse, and cast them somewhat Iam. 1.17. higher. Else, although I will not con­demne your spirite therefore, yet I shall feare you doo not that honour to Gods 1. Cor. 12.4. Spirite, which would beseeme a child of God: for, 1. Sam. 10.12. who is their father? But, to accept them as the giuers of it, whose ministery God vsed in it: first, as it is doubted of the one side, whether the Britannes had their first faith from Eleu­therius, (it is Gildas a Bri [...]tan, auncienter then Bede doth affirme the contrary. And Polidor. Vi [...]g l. lib. hist. Ang. 2. Gildas testis eft Britannos iam inde ab initio orti Euangelii Christianam accepisse re­ligio nem. more likely, no:) so, of the other side Bede histor. Anglor. l. 3. c. 21. &. [...]2. it is con­fessed, that all the English had it not from Austin sent by Grego­ry. Then, if it were so we had it first from them: yet we receiued it not from the Popes predecessors. For, as you take the name of Pope for supreme head, and supreme head for that power which you haue defined: there was no Pope at all, when we re­ceiued the faith. The bratte was not yet borne, when Gregory the first, much lesse, when Eleutherius was Bishop of Rome: as our cōnference will shew. Thirdly, if they who were the prede­cessours of the Pope (though not as Pope) gaue vs our first faith: the successors can not complaine they gaue it fréely; they haue béene paid swéetely for it. Gratian. 2. q. 7. c. Nossi. § cum Balaam. Your men (to set them vp) compare them to Balaam, and Benedict. Parisiensis, & Bullo c. Anglus in concordant▪ sacr. [...]criptur. A­sina, ecclesia. the church to his asse. In deede (we must graunt) our church hath béene the asse: but The Chroni­cles of Thom. Walsingham and Mat. Paris. Chiefely Mat. Paris in Henric. tert. anno Dom. 1245.1246. & 1247. your Balaam hath not refused to accept Num. 22.18. a house full of siluer and gold, nay, hee hath béene glad to sue for it too. Last of all, if they had giuen it vs fréely, and plaid a kind mothers part: neuerthelesse, of mother transgressing, as she hath done, Hos. 2.2. our father saith vnto vs, Vulgat. edit. lat. Iudicate matrem vestrā ▪ iudicate. Contend with your mother, contend, that she is not my wife, neither am I her husband: to the intent she may remoue her fornications out of her sight, and her adulteries from be­tweene her breastes. S. Paule was Act. 22.3. brought vp at the feete [Page 92] of Gamaliel: 5.34. Gamaliel, a great Pharise. Neither was he one­ly the scholer, but the 23.6. sonne of a Pharise too. Yet, the duetie and loue which Paule did owe and beare to his father and ma­ster, should neuer haue excused him before the iudgement-seat of God, if he had cleaued still to the Pharises sect, when God did lighten him with greater knowledge of his truth. As for me, of whom some will giue their iudgement with what spirite I do it, if I iest at your Pharises, or touch your holy mothers whoore­domes, and villanies of your holy Father: mens iudgements I depend not of: I neither feare them nor despise them. I haue 1. Cor. 4.4. a iudge to whom I stand. And I content my selfe that he assureth my spirit, I doo it with the same spirit, though not with lyke measure of the same spirit, that 1. Kin. 18.27. Elias did iest at Baalites, and Esai. 44.16. Esay did touch idolaters. Wherefore, to go forward with your discourse of D. Stapleton against our errour of expounding the scriptures by scriptures: you haue the grounde of it, that they must be expounded by the rule of faith, and therefore not by scriptures onely. Now, as his ground is, so are his proofes: both for your owne meanes first, and afterward against ours. What infallibilitie and certaintie there is in yours, Staplet. prin­cip. doctr. lib. 11. cap. 4. the practise of the church, cap. 5. the consent of the Fathers, cap. 6. the Councels de­termination: it will appeare (in place of triall) more hereafter, it hath in part alreadie: when you were faine to flie from them all to the Pope, whom here the Doctor had forgotten. Touching ours: he proueth them to be deceitfull and vnsure, how? cap. 9. be­cause each of them, if they be taken seuerally, may cause a man to erre: which he sheweth by examples in some of the par­ticulars, as, the weighing of the circumstances, the style and phrase of scripture, cap. 10. the conference of places, cap. 12. the loking on the Greeke and Hebrue. First, if it were so: what shall I call this dealing, trecherie, or folly? Wee teach of our meanes, that they all, togither, doo make a perfit way whereby wée may finde the right sense of the scripture. He replieth against vs, that each of them, alone, and taken by it selfe, is not a perfit way to finde it. In the which aunswere, if you sée not his weakenes (to speake the best of it:) I will set before you a glasse to view it in. It is In the yeare of Christ, 1578. not many yeares ago, since Captaine Stukely ( Marchio Hy­berniae. the Mar­ques of Ireland, as your stories call him) Histor. de bel­lo A [...]ricano quo per [...]it Sebastia­nus Rex Portu­galliae. cap 7. Ge [...]ebrard. Chro [...]ograph. lib. 4. was sent with sixe hundred Italians by the Pope to take possession of Irelande. [Page 93] Which he was comming to haue done, but that (at the request of the King of Portugall) He was slain there. Hist. de bello Afr. ca. 13. he went and tooke possession of Barba­rie by the way. An English man might say, to comfort good sub­iectes, that (by Gods grace) these Italians and the Marques, if they had arriued, might haue bene discomfited by the Quéenes ar­my: as the Popes souldiours were, who came after them. D. Sanders might reply, to incourage the rebels, that they néed not feare it: because the Quéenes souldiours, though they haue some strength, yet each of them, alone, and seuered from the rest, can­not ouercome sixe hundred Italians, with such a Captaine too. And for proofe hereof that it is verie likely, he might haue store of arguments, examples, and testimonies, to discourse at large: with as great eloquence, and no lesse wisedome, then D. Sta­pleton hath done to proue the other. Yet this in D. Stapleton is Demonstratio methodica prin­cipiorum fidei doctrinalium Thomae Staple­toni. a demonstration. Had the other bene a demonstration too? No maruell that you send vs so many bookes ouer, if they be fraught with wares of such demonstration. Maruell, you send no mo: vnlesse it be lawfull for none but publike readers, so subtilly to proue their things by demonstration. Now, if your Doctors an­swere be absurd, though none of our meanes were certaine and sure, alone, without the rest, to finde the right sense of Scrip­ture: how much more absurd, if any one of them, alone, be sure and certaine, and that in his owne iudgement too? The confe­rence of places of the scripture is so: though he would hide it with a mist. But the mist which Staplet. prine. doctr. li. 11. c. 10. he casteth, is no thicker then the former. A weake eye may sée through it. For we say, that Dextera colla­tio locorum scripturae. a right conference of places, is a way most excellent: as him­selfe rehearseth our wordes of that point. And he thereto reply­eth, that Infeliciter ad­hibita. a wrong conference, a left one, (so to terme it) is no such excellent way. Which is, as if we said, that wise men and vertuous are fit to beare offices in the common-weale: and he, to proue the contrarie, should say that madde men and knaues are no good magistrates. If we can sée through this mist, the conference of places is a perfit way. For that which we meane by conference of places: S. Austin doth signifie by the rule of faith. But cap. 1. & 3. & 9. the rule of faith, is a way infallible, in your Doc­tors iudgement. Therefore (to iudge him of his owne mouth) the conference of places is a way infallible. If this alone: much more this & all the rest being ioyned togither. The meanes then which [Page 94] we commend to vnderstand and expound the scripture: are sure and certaine meanes whereby the right sense of scripture may bée found. But your Doctor saith cap. 9. that al heretikes, and Iewes, & Paynims vse these meanes, they conferre places, they note the kinde of speeches, they looke vpon the fountains, they marke what goeth before, what commeth after, & such like things. If they doo not so: your Doctor ouer-lasheth. If they doo so: they doo more then himselfe dooth in many cōtrouersies of faith, which yet he teacheth publikely, and printeth them too. What? And do all heretikes, Iewes and Paynims vse these meanes: and doth none of them sée the churches practise; marke the consent of Fathers; read the decrees of councels? If anie of them doo; which it is euident many doo: then by as wise a reason, as your Doctor maketh, these his owne meanes are not sure neyther. Which were a sore consequence, and would raze the church of Rome vnto the ground. Let him bethinke him selfe thereof, and heale the breaches, which (if he looke not to it) his owne shot will make in the walles of his Ierusalem. As for vs and our meanes, if any seeme to vse them, and yet misse the right sense of the scrip­ture: I say with De doctrin. Christian. lib. [...]. a prolog [...]. S. Austin (whom this quarell maketh as much against, as vs;) If they who know these precepts, cannot see the things which are obscure and darke in the Scriptures of God, the faulte is in them selues, not in the precepts: as if I should point with my finger at a starre, which they would gladly see, and their eie-sight were so weake, that although they could see my finger, yet could they not see the starre at which I point. Wherefore as S. Austin concludeth of them, Let them cease to blame me, and let them pray to God, that hee will giue them eye-sight: so we do acknowledge that al meanes are vaine, vnlesse the Lord giue eies to see: whom therefore the Psal. 119.18. Prophet made his prayer to, Open mine eies, that I may see the wonders of thy law.

You may say what you list. But experience sheweth, and it is most certaine, that manye who allow those meanes, which you do, and expound the scripture by them, are themselues deceiued, and deceiue others. For, Staplet. prin. doctr. lib. 11. cap. 10. the conference of places by which you set more then by all the rest, which you call a great remedy, and the best exposition of scripture that may be had: let this remedy be taken seuerally and by it selfe, it is marueilous [Page 95] deceitfull, yea pernicious and pestilent; so much the more, by how much (in shew) it is more probable, and still at least corrupteth two places of scripture, if it be vsed peruersly. In deede, we ac­knowledge gladly with S. Austin, that place receiueth light of place, and those thinges which one-where are spoken somewhat darkely, are other-where more cleerely vttered. But in confe­rence of scriptures it is to be knowne and diligently marked, Quod obser­uare haeretici nolunt, quia catholici & boni ecclesiae [...]ilii esse no­lunt. (which heretikes will not marke, because they will not be catho­likes, and good children of the church:) first, that one saying may seeme to be like or vnlike an other, not so much for the like­nes and vnlikenes of thinges, as for the preiudice and affection of them by whom they are conferred. Secondly, that the same word, or kind of spéech, hath not euery where the same significati­on, but sometimes diuerse, sometimes contrarie. Thirdly, that there are many places in the scripture, which being vttered only once, haue not any like wherwith you may confer them. Fourth­ly, and lastly, that all heretikes both of this and of all ages, Conferendo scripturas dili­gentissimé, er­rauerunt ta­men in Scrip­turarum sensu turpissimé. in conferring the scriptures most diligently togither, yet haue erred in the sense of the scriptures most shamefully. Which reasons why the conference of places of scripture is a deceitfull meanes of expounding the scripture, and leadeth often into errour: D. Sta­pleton, a man well learned out of question, how weake soeuer you account him, hath set downe and proued them with such ex­amples, as might preuaile with you perhaps, if you would weigh them.

I haue weighed them, and I find them to light. The marchant, whom you praise, is rich, I denie not: but sure he vseth false weights, and abuseth the simple, who take their wares vpon his credit. Poore men, conceiuing well of them whom they fansie, thinke him to deale vprightly for that he raileth at others, saying that they are deceauers, because they will not be ho­nest dealers, and good children of the weale publike. But let his words go: and haue an eie to his weights. If you shoulde tell a yoong beginner in shooting that they who looke at the marke and louse directly towards it do not alwaies hit it: your speech were a truth. But if you should say that all naughtie archers which are, or euer were, haue fowlly missed the marke in aiming at it most straightly: he might suspect either your skill, or your will, who traine vp archers so. What may we thinke then of him [Page 96] who to perswade men that conference of scriptures is a deceitfull way to hit their right sense, doth say that all heretikes both of this and of all ages, in conferring the scriptures most dili­gently togither yet haue erred in the sense of the scriptures most shamefully? For though they might erre in conferring of them: yet the fault thereof must be, not in conferring them most diligently, but in not conferring them diligently enough. And this is the last of your Doctors reasons. The next before it is no better. He saith, that there are many places in the scripture, which haue not any like wherewith you may conferre them. The proofe he bringeth of it, is, that there are sundry speeches in S. Paule, which are in no Prophet, nor Apostle beside him: as (for example sake) to put of the olde man, and put on the newe. Which proofe is like the point whereof it maketh proofe. For, if the same speeches be not in any other, yet there are speeches lyke them, whereby they may be vnderstood. Or, if not in others: yet in S. Paule himselfe, who lightneth so his owne speeches. Or, if not in him: yet conferre them with the drift and circumstances of the text; the course of thinges and wordes will open what is meant by them. And so alleage what place of scripture you list, the darkest that you can: let a man expound it after our rules, and it will neuer leade him into heresie. For either it hath plaine pla­ces to expound it, and being expounded according vnto them, it is farre from heresie: or if it haue no such, it hath no danger of he­resie, because all things required to beliefe and life are set downe plainely in the Scriptures. The daunger all lyeth in your first and second point: y ^e one, touching sayinges, that mens corrupt affections may iudge vnlike or like, when in truth they are not so: the other touching wordes, that may bee mistaken through mens ouersightes, as signifying the same thing, or sundry, which they do not. And by these meanes we grant that the scriptures, may be (and are of many) expounded amisse: to the verifying of that which S. Pet. 3.16. Peter writeth of S. Paules epistles, that in them are some thinges hard to be vnderstood: which they that are vnlearned and vnstable do peruert, as they doo also other scriptures, to their owne destruction. Hereof wee haue notable examples in your selues: or (because of yours wee shall speake hereafter) in the Familie of loue, and that ympe of Satan, their maister, Harry Nicolas. Whom the spirite of er­rour [Page 97] hath (through an illusion of ignorance) so bewitched, that, as though he tooke a glorie in his shame, to be him selfe, and his, vn­learned, (such as S. Peter pointeth at,) In the gos­pell of the kingdome, cap 23.6 & 33.11. and so forth in that, and the rest of his pamphlets. he detesteth the learned and skilfull in the scripture, the scripture-wise, as he termeth thē, and giueth it in charge to his babes to shunne them. Christ was too skilfull in scriptures for the Deuill. Else might Mat. 4.6. the Deuil, by the shew of scripture, which he did alleage (or missealleage ra­ther) haue perseuered with greater hope in tempting Christ. But shall we suspect and mislike the scripture, because hee misseallea­ged it? or the conference of scripture, because his ympes vse it per­uersely? We haue not learned Christ so. Nay, so much the more should we labour and trauaile to search it most diligently, and wisely to conferre it: to wrest by that meanes their sword out of their handes, and kill their owne errour with it. For, the destruc­tion of such spirituall foes, is the sword of the spirite: and Ephes. 6.17. the sword of the spirite, is the word of God. So the Familie of loue, which make a mocke of our faith, our saluatiō by Christ, our resurrection, the iudgement, and euerlasting life; and (to saue their frensies from daunger of the scripture) beate flatte the lite­rall sense, which is the edge of it, and put it vp into a scabberd of their fanaticall dreames and allegories: let Hebr. 4.12. the two edged sword be drawne out and sharpned with this conference, and, as the flame of fire deuoureth the stubble, so will the point of truth rippe vp the bowels of their errours. So the Arians, when they brought broken sentences of scripture, in shew resembling some­what their blasphemous doctrine against the sonne of God, but indeede vnlike it: they were ouerthrowne through the conference of Theodor. hist. ecclesiast. l. 1. c. 7. scriptures by the Nicen councell and Athanas. con [...]tra A [...]ian. Gregor. Nazianz. de Filio. [...]asil. contra Eunomi­um. Hilari. & Augustin. de Trinitat. & con­tra Arian. godly pastors of the church. So the Pelagians, the enimies of grace vnder the name of nature, when they trifled vainely to shift the scriptures off, which make against the frée-will of man for Gods fauour: they were put to flight with plainer places of the scriptures, by the Councels of In epist. ad In­nocent. epist. 90. inter epist. Au­gust. Carthage, of Epist. 92 [...] epistolas Au­gustin. Mileuis, of Concilium A [...]a [...]sican. secundum. Orenge, and chiefely by S. In operibus contra. Pelagi­anos Tom. 7. Austin. So hath God con [...]ounded others of that rable, & will (no doubt) their complices: if with the sword of the spirite, which is the word of God, wee ioine the Ephes. 6.16. shield of faith to quench the fyry dartes of Satan. The Familie of loue shall feele it in time; the Father of the Familie feared it: and therefore he warned his children to beware of them who beare [Page 98] this weapon, and haue skill to handle it, of scripture-learned men. And you, Howle [...] in his epistle to the Queenes Maiestie. who lay the Families synne to our charge, as though we did foster that venemous vipers brood, do ioine your selues to them, and march into the field with them, and strength­en their handes against vs. Of you they haue learned to take vp the name of [...]crip [...]ura [...]ii. Albeit. Pighius ecclesiast. hi­era [...]. l. 1. c. 2. Scripturemen by way of scoffe, and vse it as a contumelie. You teach them, that Staplet. prin. doctr. l. 11. c. 10. the diligent, yea the most diligent cōference of scriptures, is the path of heretikes to most damnable errours. You perswade them that Lindan. de optim. gen. in­te [...]pr. Scriptur. Staplet. prin. doctr. l. 11. c. 12. the fountaines of the Greeke and Hebrue text, are neither pure, nor greatly néed­full. You tell them that Staplet. prin. doctr. l. 11. c. 9. & 10. to expound the scripture by scrip­ture is good, and it is fruitfull to confer places, to obserue the wordes and circumstances of the text: but there are manye daungers and difficulties in it; the text is not alwaies knitte and coherent to it selfe; the very order of speaking is often­times abrupt, sometimes preposterous altogither; there are sundry These are Giants, the sonnes of A­nak, of whom it is written N [...]m. 13.34. hyperbata and These are Giants, the sonnes of A­nak, of whom it is written N [...]m. 13.34. anantapodota in S. Paule; one word, yea in one sentence hath sundry significations: places may seeme like one to an other, that are vnlike, and contrariwise: and many mo such inconueniences, enough to breake the hart of a weak Christian. In the which dealing you do band your selues with the ten spies: Num. 13.28. who, when they should haue encouraged the people of Israell to enter into the land of promise, they tolde them that the land certainly is good, and floweth with milke and hony; but the people dwelling in it, is strong, and the ci­ties walled, exceeding great, and the sonnes of Anak (Gi­ants) be there. The Amalekites dwel in the south coūtrie; the Hitthites, and Iebusites, and Amorites dwell in the moun­taines: the Cananites dwell by the sea, and by the coast of Iorden. The Psal. 95.11. Lord sware in his wrath, both to these spies, and to the people who beléeued them, that they should not enter in­to his rest. At you, and your men, I maruaile, (M. Hart) that whose fact you folow, you tremble not at their end. As for vs, al­though we were but two against your ten, and all the people would rather beleeue you then vs: yet we will follow them who were Num. 14.14. of an other spirite, Caleb and Iosua, and with them will wee say to the whole assembly of the children of God; Num. 14.7. The land, through the which we haue gone to search it, is an excellent good land. If the Lord take delight in vs, he will [Page 99] bring vs into this land, and giue it vs: euen a land that flow­eth with milke and honie. Onely rebell yee not against the Lorde, neither feare yee the people of the land: for they are bread for vs. In deede the holy scripture is bread for our soules: and the word of God is the foode of life. If the Lord take delight in vs, he will bring vs vnto it, and giue it vs. Let vs not rebell against him, nor feare the hardnes of it. We must Ioh. 5 39. search the scriptures, and Iam. 1.5. pray to him for wisedome, and Mat. 7.7. hee will o­pen them to vs, (for he hath promised) and make vs learned in them.

We acknowledge with you Staple [...]. prin [...]. doctrin. lib. 10. cap. 10. & li. 11. cap. 9. that the meanes you mention, namely, to search the scriptures and to pray to God for wisedome and knowledge, are good and godlie meanes whereby we may the sooner come to vnderstand them, or rather be prepa­red thereto. But such, as neuerthelesse are not still effectuall.

They are still effectuall, if men pray, as they should; and search them as they ought: 1. Ioh. 5.14. in the spirit of fayth Rom. 12.3. and modestie.

True, in that measure, which is fit for euerie mans vocation and duetie: some, to exhort and comfort priuately, some publikely to teach the church. But after you haue saide all that you can: we shall neuer grow to any ende and issue, if we folow this way. For, if you alleage the scripture against me, and I a­gainst you: if I expound it by conference of this place, and you of that: if in your opinion one sentence be plaine, and in mine an other: in mine, our meaning right, and in yours the contrarie: what ende can our controuersies haue without a iudge? And if you yéeld to a iudge, who fitter for it then the Pope?

Who, but Christ our Sauiour? And they which vnder him haue it committed to them, euen the Church of Christ?

The Church? Nay you mentioned the godlie before, and spake as if they should trie the truth from errour, by confe­rence of the scriptures. Which is your right kinde of triall and iudgement. But you are ashamed of it now belike, as in truth you may be. For you shall finde many taylers and coblers more godly then sundrie more learned then they. Yet I trust you will not repaire for shreddes and cloutes to any shop of theirs.

Yet the shreddes and cloutes of taylors and cob­lers [Page 100] may haue greater knowledge perhaps and better iudgement of the sense of scriptures, then y ^e scarlet gownes of learneder men then they. For the learned Pharisees, Ioh. 7. ver. 49. who condemned the peo­ple as ignorant of the law, did not iudge the doctrine of Christ to be true: nay ver. 52. they reiected it as false with search, and see. But Act 17. ver. 11. the men of Beroea (some of whom by likelihood were tay­lers, or coblers, or at least common artificers as meane as they) ver. 1 [...]. receiued it with all readinesse, & (vpon the search of the scrip­tures) beleeued it. Howbeit when I mentioned that iudgement of the godlie, I meant the godlie learned. Wherefore you née­ded not to speake of shreddes and cloutes, but that you were loth perhaps to léese this iest. Chiefly, sith I shewed thereupon withall, that, for the triall of controuersies by scripture, y ^e toongs (in which the scripture is written) must be knowne, namely, Gréeke and Hebrue. The which shreddes and cloutes, neither many taylers and coblers with vs, neither many Cardinalles and Popes with you haue. Nor yet am I ashamed of that kinde of triall and iudgement by the godly who haue not learned toonges, and artes, but Christ onely. And I comprised it in that which I said, that Christ is the iudge, and they which vnder him haue it committed to them, euen the church of Christ. For himselfe hath giuen by speciall commission two sortes of iudgement to his church, the one priuate, the other publike: pri­uate, to all the faithfull, and [...]. Cor. 2.15. spirituall, as God calleth them, who are willed 1. Cor. 10.15. to iudge of that which is taught, and to 1. Ioh. 4.1. trie spirits whither they be of God: publike, Act. 15.6. to the assembly of pastors and elders: for 1. Cor. 14.29. of that which Prophets teach, let Pro­phets iudge, and 1. Cor. 14.32. the spirites of Prophetes are subiect to the Prophets. In both of the which, the church must yet remem­ber, that God hath committed nothing but the ministerie of gi­uing iudgement vnto her. The soueraintie of iudgement dooth rest on Gods word. For Christ is Matt. 23.10. our onely Doctor & Iam. 4.12. Law­giuer: according to whose written will the church must iudge. And so, The third Diuision. to returne vnto the wordes of Christ, from which we di­gressed: the sense (I gaue of them) will I proue by scripture, ac­cording to the rule of faith: the proofe of the sense I submit to the priuate and publike iudgement of the church. The wordes of Christ to Peter, conteined a promise of the keyes, I will giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen. The occasion of the [Page 101] wordes, was a question of Christ, asked of the Apostles, answe­red by Peter: whom say yee that I am? Thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God. The sense which I gathered by lay­ing these together, was, that as Peter answered, one, for all: so the keyes were meant to him, one, with all. To proue the former point, that Peter answered, one, for all: the scripture is most plaine, in the sixt of Iohn, where (before this time) Peter had con­fessed in their common name, Ioh. 6.6 [...]. We beleeue, and know, that thou art Christ, the Sonne of the liuing God. To proue the later, that the keyes were meant to him, one, with all: the scrip­ture is as plaine in the twentieth of Iohn, where Christ perfor­ming that which he had promised to Peter, doth say to him with the rest, Ioh. 10. ver. 22. & 2 [...]. As my Father sent me, so doo I send you. Whose sinnes soeuer ye remit, they are remitted to them: & whose sinnes soeuer ye reteine, they are reteined. Wherefore sith the keyes were promised by Christ on the profession of their fayth, which was common to them all: and the promise was performed, when he sent them all with power to binde and loose, to remit and reteine sinnes: it followeth that the keyes belonged no more to Peter, then to all the Apostles. And therefore the promise of the keyes to him, importeth no headship of his ouer them.

That which was promised by Christ vnto Peter, was not performed to the Apostles. For, he gaue not them the keyes of his kingdome: but the power of remitting and reteyning sinnes.

These things differ in wordes, but they are one in sense: as Ioseph said to Pharao, Gen. 41.25. Both Pharaos dreames are one. For as God, to teach Pharao what he would do in Egipt by seuen yeares of plentie, & seuen yeares of famine, did vse two sundrie dreames, of kine, and eares of corne, the surer to resolue him of his purpose in it: so Christ, to teach vs what he doth for mankind in ordeining the ministerie of the word & Sacraments, Mat. 16.19. vseth two similituds, the one, of keyes, the other, of binding & loosing, that we may know the better the fruit & force of it. Tou­ching y ^e keyes: he speaketh of heauen, as of a house, wherinto there is no entrance for men, vnlesse the doore be opened. Now we (all Adams ofspring) are shut out of heauen, as Adam our progeni­tour was out of Paradise, through our offenses and sinnes. For Reu. 21.27. no vncleane thing shall enter into it. But Ioh. 3.16. God, of his [Page 102] loue and fauour towards vs, hath giuen vs his sonne, his one­ly begotten sonne, that whosoeuer beleeueth in him should not perish, but haue eternall life: which is 1. Pet. 1.4. the inheritaunce reserued in heauen, for vs. Rom. 10.14. We cannot beleeue, vnlesse wée heare his word. We heare not his word, vnlesse it be preached. Wherefore when Luc. 4.18. & [...]. 61. [...]. God the Father sent his sonne Christ, and Mar. 16.15. & Luc. 24.47. Christ sent his Apostles as his Father sent him, to preach his word to men, that they who repented and beleeued in Christ should haue their sinnes forgiuen them, the faithlesse & vn­repentant should not be forgiuen: then he gaue authoritie as it were to open heauen to the faithfull, and to shut it against the wicked. Which office (to shut, and open) because in mens hou­ses it is exercised by keies: and 2. King. 18.18. the stewarde of the house is saide Esai. 22.22. to haue the key of it, to open it and to shut it: therefore Christ, the principall steward of Gods house is saide Reu. 3.7. to haue the key of Dauid: and he gaue his Apostles the keies (as you would say) of the kingdome of heauen, when hee made them his [...]. 1. Cor. 4.1. stewardes to shut out, to let in. The other similitude of binding and loosing is to like effect. For Rom. 5.12. we are all by na­ture the children of sinne, Rom. 6.23. and therefore of death. Now sinnes are in a maner the same to the soule, that Prou. 5.22. cordes to the body: and the endlesse paines of death, (that is, the wages of sinne) are like to 2. Pet. [...].4. chaines, wherewith the wicked are bound in hell, as 1. Pet. 3.19. in a prison. From these cordes of sinne, and chaines of death eternall, men are loosed by Christ, when their sinnes be remit­ted: their sinnes are remitted, if they beleeue in him. If they beleeue not, their sinnes are reteined: whose sinnes are retei­ned, they doo continue bound. For, Ioh. 3.18. he that beleeueth not, shall be condemned: he that beléeueth, shall be saued. None shall be condemned but they whose sinnes are reteined, to binde them with the chaines of darkenesse: none saued, but they whose sinnes are remitted, and the cordes vnloosed by which they were holden. UUherefore, sith the Gospell is preached to this ende [...]. Cor. 2.16▪ a sauour of life to life vnto beléeuers; vnto the vnbeléeuers, a sauour of death to death: as we reade of Christ, that Esai. 61.1. the Lord sent him to preach deliuerance to the captiues, and o­pening of prison to them that are bound: in like sort his mi­nisters whom he sent to preach it, are said Matt. 16.19. & 18.18. to binde and loose, Ioh. 20.23. to reteine and remit sinnes. So that both these kinds of spéech import the same that is signified by keyes. For, to binde, and to [Page 103] reteine sinnes, is to shut: to loose, and to remit sinnes, is to open the kingdome of heauen. Your owne church dooth take the keyes in this meaning: euen Catechism. Concil. Triden [...]. in Sacram. P [...] ­niten [...]. the Councell of Trent. For, whereas Christ gaue to his Apostles and their successours the power of binding and loosing, that is, of remitting and re­teining sinnes, as your selues expound it: this power you call the power of the keies, as by which an entrance into heuen is opened: because the gates of heauen are as it were vnlocked to them, who haue remission and forgiuenes of sinnes, and locked to the rest. Which thinges being so, this summe ariseth of them, that, sith the keyes of the kingdome of heauen are all one with the power of binding and loosing, of remitting and re­teining sinnes: Christ therefore, when he promised the keyes, meant that power; and, when he gaue that power, gaue the keyes. But, he gaue that power to all the Apostles. It follow­eth then, he gaue the keyes to them all.

You expounde these places, I cannot tell how. For much of that which you say, is said by vs also: and yet you agrée not with vs in the principall. Howsoeuer you cast the parcels of your count: there is a fault in the summe. Wherefore you must pardon me if I allow it not. For, (to vse Staplet. princ. doctr. lib. 6. ca. 1. his wordes, whose opinion, though you mislike him, I farre estéeme aboue yours:) by the name of the keyes of the kingdome of heauen which Christ promised to Peter, he simply meant all power, whereby the kingdome of heauen (in whatsoeuer sense you take it) may bee shutte and opened. As for that which followeth, Matt. 16.19. and whatsoeuer thou shalt binde on earth, shall bee bounde in heauen, and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heauen: Non est (vt quiba [...]dam vi­sum suit) expli­catio, aut limi­tatio ipsatum clauium. this is not (as some haue thought) an explication or limitation of the keyes. For so, by those words, should Christ haue restrained the power of Peter to the only out­ward ecclesiasticall court. For Omnium Do­ctorum schola­sticorū sentētia. it is the common opinion of all the Schoolemen, that by those words, Mat. 18.18. whatsoeuer yee shall binde, and so forth, (which are like to these wordes spoken vnto Peter, and haue the same meaning) an ecclesiasticall iudge in the outward court is made: as by those other words, Ioh. 20.23. whose sinnes ye remit, and so forth, an ecclesiasticall iudge in the inwarde court is made. Wherefore, if Mat [...]. 16.1 [...] in this place, that [whatsoeuer thou shalt binde] were an explication or limitation of the keies: [Page 104] then by the name of keyes were promised to Peter a power iudi­ciall onely in the [...]utward court: which is but a part (and that a lesser part) of the power of the keyes. For a great deale more ex­cellent is the power of remitting sinnes, then of excommunica­ting or suspending a man from his office or honour: and therfore this may be exercised by him that is not a Priest, whereas the o­ther belongeth vnto Priestes onely. Againe, because our Sauiour Illud, et quod­c [...]n queliga [...]e­ [...], co [...]unctiué ad [...]it. addeth with a coniunction, & whatsoeuer thou shalt binde: it must note differently some distinct power, at the least in speciall: euen as the other things, all that go before, vttered coniunctiuely, are things distinct and different: to wit, and I say to thee, and vpon this peter, and hell gates shall not preuaile, and to thee will I giue the keyes, and lastly, and whatsoeuer thou shalt binde on earth, and so forth. Wherefore in these last wordes is promised to Peter, not onely power of binding and loosing in the court, either outward or inward; which both are onely Partiales ac­tus ipsarum cla­uium: that is, part of those things which are done by the keyes. parti­all actions of the keyes. But because the keyes themselues were promised him, indefinitly, and were not restrained to any one kinde of opening or shutting: doubtlesse all the power which is conteined in the keyes was promised to him, how great soeuer it be, and of what sort soeuer. Now Tota et adae­quata potestas [...]psis clauibus. the whole po­wer, and correspondent fully and euenly to the keyes, is to open and shut: what meanes soeuer it be done by. For, to open and shut is the duetie of keyes: in token whereof the keyes of the citie are brought vnto the chéefest magistrate, that by his com­mandement the citie may be shut and opened. To receiue the keyes therefore of the kingdome of heauen, is, to receiue the power of shutting and opening the kingdome of heauen: whither you take the name of the kingdome of heauen for euerlasting life, or for the communion of the militant church. Now this is done by diuers and many other wayes, beside those of binding and loosing in either court. For Pastors doo open and shut the king­dome of heauen, (the one, by exercising that power; the other, by withdrawing it) in their whole spirituall gouernment: in prea­ching of the word, in ministring of Sacraments, in making of lawes, in expounding of the holy scripture, in declaring articles of faith, in deciding pointes of cōtrouersie and doubt. To be short, the keyes of the church may be diuided, into the keye of know­ledge, [Page 105] and the key of power. To open the scriptures, belongeth to the key of knowledge: which Christ himselfe exercised in the foure and twentieth of Luke, and whereof he saide to the Law­iers, Luk. 11.52. ye haue taken away the key of knowledge, and so foorth. The key of power, is either of order, or iurisdiction. And iuris­diction it selfe is either in the outward court, by excommunica­ting, by suspending from office, by granting of pardons, and ma­king of lawes: or in the inward court, by forgiuing of sinnes. All this Amplissima e [...] adaequata po­testas clauium. most ample power, & correspondent wholly and euenly to the keyes, is promised in this place by Christ to Peter onely. Which, as the force and meaning of the worde [keyes,] so the kinde of spéech of holy scripture sheweth. For (in Esay the Pro­phet) when it had béene sayd Summo sacer­doti Eliachim. to the hye Priest Eliakim in the figure of Christ, Esai. 22.22. The key of the house of Dauid will I laye on his shoulder: the scripture declaring the vse of this key dooth by and by adde; and he shall open and none shall shut, he shal shut and none shall open. Which likewise is spoken againe of the person of Christ in y ^e Apocalypse: for he is called Apocal. 3.7. the holie one and true, which hath the key of Dauid, which openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth. Wherefore, as Eliakim in figure, Christ in truth, receiuing the key of the house of Dauid, that is, of the church, or the kingdome of hea­uen, receiued withall the power of shutting and opening: in like sort S. Peter being to receiue (in the roome and stéede of Christ) the keyes of the kingdome of heauen, is (out of controuersie) to re­ceiue withall the power of shutting and opening; that is to say, not onely of binding and loosing in iudgement of both the courtes, which are onely Partiales non totales, et mino­res non praeci­pui actus clau [...] ­um. partiall not totall, and lesser not chiefe actions of the keyes, which also were committed to all the Apostles in the eightienth of Mathew, and twentieth of Iohn, Quum soli P [...] ­tro claues datae fuerint. wheras the keyes were giuen to Peter alone: but also besides, of gouerning, of teaching, of disposing, and dooing all thinges which may any way belong to the generall duetie of a Pastor: which actions are fully and euenly correspondent to the keyes themselues, and therefore in those words were promised Soli P [...]tro principaliter, ante et supra a­lios omnes. to Pe­ter alone principally, before and ouer all the rest. This is D. Sta­pletons iudgement of the keyes promised to Peter: wherein the ground of Peters supremacy and headship ouer the Apostles is set downe verie plainly, and verie strongly proued.

This long and smooth tale, which you haue tolde out of your Doctor, is like to that nightingale to which Plutarch in a [...] La­con. a La­cedemonian, when he had plucked her feathers off, and sawe a litle caraine left, said, Thou art a voice, nought else. Plucke off the feathers of your tale: the body is a poore carkase, and hath no substance in it. Howbeit, the names of the two courtes, the out­ward court, the inward court, with other tunes of like musike: are very sweete melodie in the eares of them, whose hartes are in the court of Rome. As for simple men, who haue béene onelye conuersant in Psal. 34.2. the courtes of the Lord: they sound to them like straunge languages, and seeme to containe more profound mysteries then we can reach the depth off. But, to open your an­swere, that it may be séene what is vnsound in it: this is the point of the thing in controuersie. I say that the power promised to Peter by the name of the keyes, in the sixtéenth of Matthew: was performed and giuen to all the Apostles by the commission of Christ, in the twentieth of Iohn. You with Stapleton deny it. Why? Because the keyes promised to Peter do signifie all kind of power; wherof a part onely was giuen to the Apostles, to bind and loose in either court. And how proue you this? For­sooth, bicause by these wordes, whatsoeuer thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heauen, and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heauen, Christ doth Non est (vt quibusdam vi­sum fuit) expli­ca [...]io, aut limi­tatio ipsarum clauium. not expound what he meant by the keies, as some men (say you) haue thoughtthat he doth. Then some men haue thought that the power of the keyes, and the power of binding and loosing are all one: the later ad­ded by Christ to expound the former. In deede I thought so: and I perceaue by you that I thought not so alone: some other men haue thought it too. But, you say it is not, as some men haue thought. Yet you do not tell vs the names of these [some men.] Might we knowe (I praye) what these [some men] be?

What matter is it, who they be? sith wee are not of their minde.

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

To confirme you in your errour. But learned men do vary in expounding of Scriptures: some hitte the marke, some misse it. And D. Stapleton, reading many of all [...]ortes, might fall on some expounding it amisse (as you do,) whom hée [Page 107] for modestie would not name, where hee reprooueth their opi­nion.

This modestie I like not. The truth is, hee durst not name them, least wee should know them, and bee the more strengthned by them in the truth to the confounding of your errour. For, these [some men] whom hee so lightly trippeth ouer, are, but al the Fathers: who haue with one consent expoun­ded Christes promise of the keyes, as we do. Now, the expositi­on which the Fathers make, is (by his owne iudgement) the chur­ches exposition, which hath the right sense of the scripture. And so while he is launching out into the deepe, to fetch in a prise for Peter of Romes supremacie: hee maketh shipwracke in the hauen.

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

No truely. Neither euer am likely to doo it. But I haue read him, that hath read them all, I trow. And hee be­ing a man worthy (with you) of credit, doth witnesse, that I saye true.

Who is that?

Euen Father Robert: the publike reader and professor of diuinitie in Rome. Who, Robert. Be [...] ­larmin. in prae­lect. Rom. Con­trou. 4. Quaest. 3. De Summo [...] ont. when he discoursed of Christes wordes to Peter, Whatsoeuer thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heauen, and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heauen: said, that all power of the keyes is therein promised, not restrained to part, but enlarged to what soe­uer. Yea, that Christ likewise promised the same power to all the Apostles, when Mat. 18.18. he spake in like wordes, Whatsoeuer ye bind on earth, shall be bound in heauen, & what soeuer ye loose on earth, shall be loosed in heauen. For, albeit Origen (more subtilly, then literally) doth put a difference betweene the promises, be­cause, in the one, the word, [...]. Matth. 18.18. [heauen] is vsed; in the other, [...]. Matth. 16.19. [heauens:] yet the common exposition of S. Ierom, S. Hilarie, S. Anselme, and others vpon this place, yea of S. Austin him selfe in his treatise vpon Iohn, is, that Christ speaketh of the power of the keyes by which the Apostles and their successours do bynd or loose sinners. And although it seemeth, that here is chiefely meant the power of iurisdiction whereby sinners are excommunicate: yet the said Fathers doo vnderstand it of [Page 108] both the powers, not onely of iurisdiction but of order too. And that may be gathered (it seemeth) by the text. For it is said as generally to the Apostles, What things soeuer ye shal bind: as it is to Peter, What thing soeuer thou shalt bind.

Perhaps Father Robert doth bring in these thinges by way of an obiection, and frameth thereunto an answere, and so resolueth to the contrarie.

No. But he bringeth your opinion in deede by way of an obiection, and frameth thereunto an answere, and so resolueth to the contrary. For thus he goeth forward. What? Is that giuen then to all the Apostles, which was promised to Peter? Caietan (in his treatise of the Popes authority) saith that the keyes of the kingdome of heauen, and the power of byndyng and loosing, are not all one: for that to bynd and loose is lesse then to open and shut. But this doctrine seemeth to be more subtill then true. For it is a thing vnheard of, that there are in the Church any other keyes then the keyes of order and of iurisdiction. And the sense of those wordes, I will giue thee the keyes, and whatsoeuer thou shalt bind and loose, is plaine: that first, a certaine power and authoritie is promised; afterward, the function of it is declared. Now the function of these keyes is declared by the wordes to bind and loose, not by the wordes, to shut and open: that we may vnderstand they be metapho­ricall and borowed kindes of speeches; neither heauen is ope­ned properly, but it is said that heauen is opened then with these keyes when men are loosed and dispatched of the difficulties and infirmities which shut them out of heauen, and so forth. Thus saith your chiefest reader, and Iesuit Robert Bellarmin: whose iudgement (by your leaue) I farre esteeme, in this point, aboue D. Stapletons, as more agreeable to the scriptures.

You may estéeme it, as you li [...]t. But I am not bound to stand to Bellarmines iudgement.

But you are bound to stand to the iudgement of the Fathers, by the Councell of Trent: and that Allens Apo­log. of the English se­minar. chap. 5. Cone. Trid. Sess. 4. The Bul of the othe (an­nexed to the Councell of Trent:) Sacram Scripturam nunquam nisi iuxta vnanimem consensum Patrum accipi­am & interpre­tabor. vpon your othe, as I take it. With the which othe I know not how D. Sta­pleton dispenseth. Unlesse the Pope expound it, that you must folow them, so farre as they do go with him: or else Pope Pius the fourth. Bulla Sanctissi­mi Domini nostri Domini Pii diuina prouidentia Papae quarti, Super forma iu­ramenti pro­fessionis fidei. the oth-ma­ker, meant not to bind you to it. Let vs giue a passeport then vn­to the Fathers. It may be that the man was moued (in consci­ence) [Page 109] by light of truth to vary from them. Let vs heare what mo­ued him. The same is not meant (saith he) by the keyes, and by the wordes, to bynd and loose, as some men haue thought. And why? For all the Schoolemen are of opinion, that to bynd and loose doth note a power iudiciall in the outward court onely: to remit and retayne sinnes, in the inward court. By the outward court, he meaneth the consistorie: wherein the church-discipline and censure is exercised. By the inward court, the conscience: wherein a mans trespasses and sinnes are bound or loosed. So (in effect) he saith, that the power of remitting sinnes and censu­ring sinners, were onely meant (in the spéeches of Christ) to the Apostles: and not the most ample and large power of keyes (promised to Peter) Omnium Doctorum scho­lasticorum sen­tentia. by the iudgement of all the Schoole­men. Which proofe, though it cannot weigh as much for him, as the Fathers against him: yet herein his dealing is orderly and plaine, that, leauing the Fathers, he cleaueth to the Schoole­men. For (when all is done) the Schoolemen are the men that must vphold Papistrie: with the fréendly helpe of the Canonists their bréethren. The Scriptures and Fathers would be pretended for a shew, to countenance the matter. But they are like to images in olde buildings of antike worke: which are framed so, that with their shoulders they séeme to beare the roofe, whereas that in déed doth rest on walles or pillars. The Schoolemen and the Cano­nists, the fountaines of the corruption which hath infected the Church of Christ; the Schoolemen, in doctrine, by the opinions of Popery; the Canonistes, in discipline, by the state of the Pa­pacie: the Schoolemen and the Canonists are the two pillars that vphold your Church, as Iudg. 16.29. the house of Dagon, in the which the Philistines triumph and insult ouer the faith and God of Samson. What then, if the Schoolemen, whose 1. Tim. 6.2 [...]. oppositions of science falsely so called, are noted by S. Paule, that Timothee may auoid them, who (the most ofthem) came with féete vnwash­ed into the Lordes sanctuarie, who being ignorant of the tongues wherein the holy Ghost wrote, (great helpes to vnderstand his meaning,) searched not the sense of scripture in the scripture, but in humaine sense, and so expounded it thereafter: what, if they say, that to bynd and loose doth make a iudge onely in the outward court: to remit and retayne sinnes, in the inward court: and both import lesse then the keyes, which open all in court and country? [Page 110] I haue prooued the contrary by conference of the Scriptures. You can not deny but that the Fathers teach the contrary. Where is your discretion? Who, though the Scriptures (as we proue,) the Fathers (as you graunt,) do say it is so: yet you say it is not so, because the Schoolemen thinke not so. As if you should say in a matter of state, which is allowed and ordained by the Quéene and Councell, that although they will it, yet may it not be doone: why? because the Yeomen ofthe kitchin like it not.

If you beleeued so rightly as you ought, with Catholikes: you would not thinke so basely of Schoolemen, as you do. For, (as Locor. Theo­logicor. [...]ib. 8. cap. 1. Melchior Canus writeth well and truely) the contempt of Schoole-diuinitie is a companion of heresie: & the heresies of Luther, of Wicklef, of Melanchthon, and (in a word) of all the Lutherans, do seeme to haue flowed most from that fountaine, euen from the despising of the Schoole­mens iudgement. But, howsoeuer you estéeme them, cap. 4. their common opinion, when they all consent and agree in one, is of such weight with vs: that we account it a point of great rash­nes, and almost of heresie to dissent from them. They haue not such ornaments offiner learning and the tongues, as some in our daies haue: but they haue the substance, The narra­tion of the English Se­minarie in Rome. the pith of all sciences: chiefely S. Thomas of Aquine, one of the grauest and learnedst diuines, that euer Christes church had, whatsoeuer ignorant heretikes (which vnderstand him not) esteeme of him.

My iudgement of the Schoolemen, is such as they deserue. If Canus haue iudged more fauourably ofthem, hée is to be borne with: sith Locor. Theo­log. lib. 8. cap. 1. him selfe desired to be thought a School­man. Though, if I should graunt them as much as he doth, that, when they all agree in one they must be folowed: they would not trouble vs greatly in many pointes of faith. For they are at such contention (for themost part) and that, about such matters: that S. 1. Tim. 6.4. Paules reproofe of questions and strife of words neuer fel on any more iustly then on them. But as Canus speaketh of Schoole-diuines, and Schoole-diuinitie: he and I dissent not, though I bée against them, and he for them, in shew. Sophocles, the poet, (a writer of tragedies) being asked ofhis frend, why, whē he brought in the persons ofwomen, he made them alwaies good, whereas Euripides made them badde: because I (quoth he) doo [Page 111] represent women such as they should be: Euripides, such as they be. So the matter fareth betweene me and Canus. For he dooth paint out Schoolemen such as they should be: and I such as they be. I speake against them who peruerting the scriptures, haue prophaned diuinitie with philosophie, or rather sophistrie, and yet are called Schoole-diuines, whē they are neither Schol­lers in truth, nor Diuines. He accoūteth none a Schoole-diuine, but him, Locor. Theo­log. lib. 8. cap. 1. who reasoneth of God and thinges concernyng God, fitly, wisely, learnedly out of the holie scriptures & or­dinances of God. Now, if none be a Schoole-diuine, but such; nor any diuinitie, Schoole-diuinitie but that, Quae sacrarum literarum funda­mentis constitu­ta sit. which is set on the foundations of the holie scriptures, as Canus doth define it: then shall I gladly both yéeld to Schoole-diuinitie, & follow Schoolediuines: but I deny them to be Schoole-diuines, whom you meant in citing Schoolemen. Yea euē Thomas of Aquine, whō your Popes set more by, then by al the Doctors, placing him as Pope Viban. In confirmat. & approbat. doc­trinae S. Thomae. chiefest, and Pope Inno­cēt. In serm. ecce plus quam Solo­mon hic. Augu­stin. Hunae. prae­fat. Summ. The­olog. Thom. A­quin. first after the scripture, and worthily, for he was the first thorough-papist of name that euer wrote, and with his rare gifts of wit, learning, and industrie did set out Popery most, that he might well be Pope Pius the fift. In bul­la super celebra­tione festiuita­tis Angelici Doctoris S. Tho­mae Aquin. Ec­log. Bullar. & Motu-proprior. praysed as the standerd-bearer of the fayth mainteined by the Councell of Trent: euen him will I folow, so lōg as he sheweth himself such a Schoolman, as Canus prayseth to vs. But he sheweth not himself such a Schoole-man, whē he doth (as he doth oft; so much we vnderstand in him) kepe down the truth & set vp errour: either by mistaking the scripture against scripture; or by holding the corruptions of faithfull men, as incorrupt; or by following the glimses of Philosophers as per­fit light. By mistaking the scripture: through faultie translati­ons or expositions of men. By the corruptions of the faithfull: in the practise of the church, or some opinions of Fathers. By the glimses of Philosophers: in taking groundes of Aristotle as principles of truth, equall to the word of God. I set not downe examples of all Popish errours, growne by these occasions, con­firmed by Thomas and the Schoolemen. Because in our confe­rence, they shall (if God will) haue each their due places. Now for the present, I grant, that the contempt of the Schoolemēs doctrine, (on these considerations) hath moued vs to departe from your Catholike errours: and a Lutheran mislike, not of Schoole-diuinitie, but of this Schoole-diuinitie, is a compa­nion [Page 112] of our heresie: and in our Uniuersities, Oxford and Cam­bridge, we studie scriptures more then it; so that (in some part) you raile vpon vs iustly, The narrat. of the English se [...]n. in Rome. that heresie in England hath aban­doned the studie of it. For we had not beléeued Act. 24.5. & 28.22. the heresie of Christ and that new fangled man, his Apostle, S. Paule: vn­lesse we had contemned the Catholike fansies of the Schoolemē, who (as Act. 19.24. Demetrius) striue against it. But you shall neuer driue me with bugges of Whence the names of Lu­therans, Wicle­fists, Melanch­thonists are ta­ken vp against vs, by Hofius, Staphylus, San­ders: as like­wise of Calui­nists, and An­glo-caluinists by D Stapletō. the names of Luther, or Wicklef, or Melanchthon, or any else, from holding that with them which they holde of God. For though we reioyse not in names drawne from them, with the which you presse vs, but in the name of Act 11.26. Christians, 1. C [...]or. 1.13. into the which we are baptized: yet I know no harme by them, nor you, I thinke (set slaunders apart) why we should be ashamed of them, more then our fathers were of Caeci­lian, August. breuic. collat. cum Do­natist. collat. diei 3. cap. 4. of whom the Donatists called them Caecilianists. But had they béene as euill as their enemies report them, their liues stai­ned with lewdnes, their doctrine mixt with leauen, no lesse then were the Pharisees: S. Act. 23.6. Paule hath taught me to acknowledge my selfe euen a Pharisee (if néede be, not onely a Lutheran) in that the Pharises teach a truth of Christian faith, the resurrecti­on of the dead. Wherefore, if the Schoolemen (to returne to my purpose) if all the Schoolemen had distinguished the keyes from the function of binding and loosing, that function from the re­mitting and retaining of sinnes, as you say they doo: yet might not their credit ouerweigh the reasons which I haue laide against it. But what if all the Schoolemen haue not done so? As in déede they haue not. What if they haue done the contrarie rather? What shall we say of him who hath taught his toong so shame­fully to lye, as though he neither feared God nor reuerenced men? First, Sententiar. li. 4. Distinct. 18. & 1 [...]. Peter Lombard, the father of the Schoolemen, doth define the keyes by the knowledge and the power of binding & loosing: and so he diuideth and handleth them accordingly. The next af­ter him, Summ. Theo­lo. part 4. quaest. 20. memb. 2. & 5. Alexander of Ales, treadeth the same steps: and saith, that to binde and loose is as much as to open and shut: which is the whole power of the keyes. Thomas of Aquine after him, mi­sliking In magistr. sent. lib. 4. di­stinct. 18· quaest. 1. art. 1. Peter Lombard for requiring knowledge (which some, who claime the keyes, haue not,) agreeth with him in the rest, and maketh the power of binding and loosing, to be the substance of the keyes. Iohn Scot after him, Script. Oxon. in Magist. sent. lib. 4. dist. 19. art. 5. although he distinguisheth between [Page 113] the two courtes, secret, and open, as you doo: Art. 3. yet he dreameth not of any other keyes then of binding and loosing. Yea, (that which cuts the throte of your supreme head) In magist sent. lib 4. dist. 19. art. 1. Scot, In 4. Sent. dist. 24. quaest. 3. art. 2. Thomas, and Summ. Theo­logic. part. 4. quaest. 20. Mem­br. 5. & 6. Alexander, affirme the same, that I: namely, that the keyes pro­mised to Peter in the sixteenth of Mathew, were giuen to the Apostles in the twentieth of Iohn. And these are accounted the chéefest of your Schoolemen, and so estéemed amongst you, that the Lombard [...]. first of them is called y ^e Master of the sentences; Alexander. the next, the Doctor irrefragable; Thomas. the third, the Doctor Angelicall; Scotus. the fourth and last, the Subtile Doctor. What the rest of the blacke garde iudge of the matter, I haue not enquired. But it is likely they weare their Masters liueries: chiefly, sith Scot & Tho­mas doo not square about it. Which I thinke the rather, because D. Stapleton, though boasting that all the Schoolemen are of his side, yet nameth not one: whereas he vseth not to spare his margent for quotations, when they (whom he alleageth) doo speake or séeme to speake for him. Belike the Quéene must léese her right, where there is nothing to be had.

You néede not finde fault that he quoteth not the names of the Schoolemen to proue his exposition: when he proueth it by that which you like better, euen by conference of scripture.

By conference of other plainer places of scrip­ture?

No. But by a word of the same text, Illud, Et quod. cunque ligaue­ris, coniunctiue addit. euen [and] the coniunction: which, séeing that it coupleth things distinct and dif­ferent, in the former members, and I say to thee, and vpon this peter, and the gates of hell, and to thee will I giue the keyes; therfore to binde and loose must differ from the keyes, because the last clause is knit with [and] vnto the rest, and whatsoeuer thou shalt binde.

And did not he (thinke you) go about to shewe and proue by this example, that conference of scripture is but a bad meanes to come vnto the right sense of the scripture? Doubt­lesse such a conference, as this (at which he fumbleth) is not the wisest way to finde it. But, I know not how, when he medleth with scripture, he séemeth halfe amazed, as it were a creature in a straunge element. For neither he remembreth Staple [...] [...] doctr. li. [...] his owne ex­ception against vs, that in the same sentence one worde hath sundrie senses often: nor marketh that a coniunction is vsed as [Page 114] properly to couple togither agréeing things as different, Ier. [...] 17. [...] and both (as here) in one place: nor considereth that things may dif­fer, each from other, and yet be expounded each of them by other, as the cause by the effects, the whole by the parts: nor weigh­eth (the point in question) that although in Matthew the wordes of Christ to Peter did differ in meaning as much as hee would haue them, yet Christ by his generall commission in Iohn might performe ioyntly to all the Apostles that which hée promised to him. And this (to put the matter out of all cōtrouersie, because it is the issue betwéene you and vs) the verie wordes of the commissi­on, deliuered in the scriptures, expounded by the Fathers, ob­serued by the Schoolemen, doo conuince so forcibly: that Rob. Bellar­min. prae lect. Romae, Contro­ [...]r. 4. qu [...]st. [...]. De summo Po [...]ti. the Iesuit (whom I named) the Popes owne professor, & most earnest proctour of the Popes supremacy, was faine to séeke other shiftes whereby to helpe it, but this he could not choose but graunt. For hauing taught that the keyes promised to Peter were only two, of order, and of iurisdiction: he declared that Christ did giue them both to his Apostles: the key of iurisdiction ouer all the world, in that he said to them, As my Father sent me, so doo I sende you, which Cyrill and Chrysostom note vpon it; the key of order in the wordes that immediatly follow, Receiue the holy Ghost, whose sinnes soeuer ye remit, they are remitted to them, whose sinnes so­euer ye reteine, they are reteined. Or, if D. Stapleton loue himselfe so well, that neither Scriptures, nor Fathers, nor Schoolemen, nor Iesuites, can make him to acknowledge his owne ouersight: let him heare a witnesse who can doo more with him, against whō there lyeth no exception for him, vnlesse it be that of the lawe, L. in testimon. Dig. De testibus. They who wauer against the credit of their owne testimonie, are not to be heard. This witnesse, is himselfe: who, remem­bring not the prouerbe that a lyer must be mindfull, Staplet. prin­cip. doctrin. li. 6. [...] 7. doth af­terward affirme, that all the Apostles were sent with full po­wer to begin the church, by those wordes of Christ, As my Father sent me, so doo I send you: and that they all were therein equall vnto Peter.

So: he saith that ful power was giuen them by those wordes, As my Father sent me: but, that the words which folow conteine a part therof only, Whose sins soeuer ye remit: as again he mentioneth in that verie place. Now, these two sayings agrée well togither: that it is giuen, by the one; & by the other it is not. [Page 115] Wherefore your selfe offend in that you touch him, when you doo touch him as a lyer. A common fault with Protestants, in dealing against vs: which argueth your church of what brood it is. Ioh. 8.44. The Deuil is a lyer: and the father thereof.

If any man of our profession bee stained with this filth: we wish him and exhort him to clense him selfe of it, least the name of God, be (through his default) blasphemed among the Gentiles. But you do vs iniury to condemne our church for the offense of some in it. For, Rom. [...].6. all they are not Israel, which are of Israel: and Iacobs sonnes, Gen. 35. [...] Ruben, did commit incest, Gen. 34.23. Simeon and Leui, murder; yet the house of Iacob was the church of God. If my selfe haue done your Doctor any wrong, in tou­ching him, as a lyer: it was an errour, not a crime; not of wilful­nes, but ouersight. And such an ouersight, for which he rather oweth thankes to me, who touch him: then to you, who cléere him. For I, who do touch him, touch him with a rodde: but you, who do cléere him, whippe him with scorpions.

What meane you by that?

You charge him with a capitall crime (as I may terme it,) to cléere him of a lesser. He foloweth not the De­uill in lying, you say. But you graunt, he foloweth him in that is worse: euen in the suppressing of the holy scripture to seduce the reader. For, as the Deui [...] ▪ [...]empting Christ to cast him selfe downe from the pinnacle, alleaged, Nat. 4.6. it is written, He will giue his Angels charge ouer thee; omitted, Psal [...]1.11. that they shall keepe thee in all thy waies, because that made against him, the waies, (to which he tempted) being none of Christes waies: in like sort the Doctor tempting vs to fall downe before the Pope, when hee alleaged Ioh. 20.2 [...]. whose sinnes soeuer ye remit, as giuing lesse to the Apostles then was promised to Peter; he omitted, Ioh. [...]0. [...]1. As my fa­ther sent me, so I send you, whereby they all haue full power, the same that Peter had. Neither yet contenting him selfe with this trechery: he procéedeth farther. And whereas 2. [...]. 18.1 [...] the scripture saith of Eliakim, that he was the steward of the kinges house ▪ the Doctor affirmeth he was [...] the hie priest: that seing the key of Dauids house was giuen him, and his key therein was a fi­gure of Christes, and Christ did promise keyes to Peter: the sim­ple reader might conceaue (by this allusion) that, as Eliakim was the hie priest in the olde Testament, so Peter should bee in the [Page 116] newe: the one as a figure, the other, as lieutenant of Christ, the true hie priest.

What moued D. Stapleton to say that Eliakim was hie priest, I know not. I do not thinke he would haue said it, vnlesse he had had good reason to auouch it. And I am perswa­ded, that if he knew that, and other thinges, which you finde fault with: what soeuer hee hath written, hée woulde make it good.

I wish with all my hart, he would. For then he should repent, and amend his errors: the onely way to make that good, which is euill. But thus you may sée (by his own confession) that Christ gaue the keyes to all the Apostles which he promised to Peter. For seing by the keyes is signified the full power, and the full power was giuen to them all: it foloweth that the keies were giuen to them all. How much the more idle is that fansi-full tale which you told out of him, that to bynd and loose, to remitte & retayne sinnes, imply a part onely, or (as he termeth it) are one­ly Partiales non totales, & mi­nores non prae­cipui actus ipsa­rum clauium. partiall not totall, and lesser not the chiefe actions of the keyes: but to open and shut, wherein is implyed the power corre­spondent fully and euenly to the keyes, is the whole power, e­uen a power most ample: Tota & adoe quata potestas ipsis clauibus: amplissima po­testas. and so the partiall lesser actions of the keyes were committed by Christ to all the Apostles, Qu [...]m soli Pe­tro claues datoe fuerint. wher­as the keyes were giuen to Peter alone. Whereof the conclusion is so cléerely false, that himselfe (as though he had swalowed a hot morsell which he must néedes vngorge) was faine to cast it vp straightwaie, and say the contrary. For, in that he addeth, that the full power of the keyes was promised Soli Petro principaliter ante & supra [...]mnes alios. to Peter alone principally, before and aboue al the rest: he graunteth (by cōse­quent) that it was promised to the rest of the Apostles, and there­fore giuen to them also.

Yet principally to him alone. But though all of them had receiued the keyes, euen the full power, the same that he re­ceiued, which neuerthelesse I graunt not, but suppose they had: yet this doth confirme that he was their supreme head, in some respect.

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

No: But because Staplet. princ. doctr. lib. 6. cap. 7. & 15. the power which was giuen them, was giuen them by him. For, Sermon. 3. in anniuers. die assumpt. suae. & Serm. 2. in Na­tali Apostolor. Petri & Pauli. so (as Leo the great wri­teth [Page 117] wisely) Firmitas. quae per Christum Pet [...]o tribu [...]ur, per Petrum Apostolis con­se [...]tur. the strength which is giuen to Peter by Christ is bestowed on the Apostles by Peter.

This Leo was too great a fréend of Peters state, as Chap. 1. Diuis. 2. I haue declared. Wherefore how great soeuer he were, and wrote wisely: yet must his writing giue place to the word of a greater Leo: I meane of Reu. 5.5. the Lion of the tribe of Iuda. For hée teacheth vs, not, that the Apostles, receued their power by Peter, but Iohn 20.21▪ Mat. 28.18. that Peter and they receiued it all togither immediately of Christ. Yea Paule, Act. 9.15. though he were chosen after Christes ascen­sion to be an Apostle: yet was he Gal. 1.1. an Apostle, not of men, nei­ther by man, but by Iesus Christ, and God the father which raised him from the dead.

That is true which you say: but you mistake my mea­ning. For you séeme to speake of the Apostolike power, which I graunt they receiued immediately of Christ. But Staple [...]. [...] doct. l. 6. c. 7. they had an other power beside that, to wit, a Bishoply, or Pastorall power. Wherein sith they were inferior to Peter, though equall in the Apostolike: it may be they receiued, though not the Apostolike, yet the Bishoply power of him.

Some such thing it is, that your men would say. But (to confesse mine owne ignorance) I do not vnderstand what they meane by it. Which I should perhaps be ashamed off, if you (who handle it) your selues did vnderstand it, or gaue vs sense and reason of it. For, if all the power, which Bishops haue, as Bi­shops, be the power of the keyes; and the Apostles, as Apostles, had all the power of the keyes committed vnto them by Christ; both the which things the Scriptures proue, & you disproue not: then was there no power, which they might receiue of Peter, as Bishops; and therefore they did not receiue any of him, nor were inferiour to him therein▪ Yet this is the very foundation of the Papacie: but laid on such sand, that the maister builders who tra­uaile most in laying it, do reele (like dronken men) about it, too and fro; and strooken with a blindnes, as Gen. 19.11. the Sodomites at Lots doo [...]e, they are wearied in seeking of it. Cardinall In Summa de ecclesia lib. 2. Tur­recremata, the chiefest autour of the fansie, is of this opinion, that cap. 34. Christ brought the rest of his Apostles to bishoply dignity by Peter: euen as he lead his people through the wildernes, by the hand of Moses & Aaron. cap. 3 [...] ▪ For him selfe made Peter onely, a Bishop, immediately; and Peter preferred the rest, [Page 118] first Iohn, next Iames, then others: as the Cardinall gesseth by probabilities of dreames, some in theCanon law, some of his own braine. Pro epist. de­creralibus Pon­ [...]ificū lib. 2. cap. [...]1. Turrian the Iesuit, (a man, with whom such dreames commonly are oracles) though he allow Peter to be the father of the Apostles, yet thinking this maner of fathering him to be absurd, he saith that the Apostles were all ordeined Bishops, cap. 2. by the laying (as it were) of the fyry tongues vpon them, whē they receiued the holy Ghost. And this he proueth by S. Ierom, S. Denys, and other Fathers. Of whose opinion it ensueth, that, graunting the Apostles were ordeined Bishops, as in a generall sense, (in which their charge is called [...]. Act. 1.20. a bishoply charge) they were: yet they were ordained of God immediately, as well as Peter was, and not of God by Peter. D. Stapleton, vncertaine how to beare him selfe betwéene these two opinions, the later be­ing truer, the former safer for the Pope: he faltereth in his spéech, as though (according to the prouerbe) hee had a woolfe by the eares, whom neither he durst let go out of his hands, nor holde, for feare of danger. For of the one side he is loth to graunt the truth, lest it should preiudice the title of the Pope: yet loth of the other side to deny it also, because Mat. 21.26. he feareth the people. Staplet. princ. doct. l. 6 c. 1. First therfore he saith, that the keyes (which signifie the ful po­wer of gouernment ecclesiasticall) were giuen to Peter onely. Then, he confesseth, cap. 7. that all the Apostles were sent by Christ, with full power, yea with power most full, and e­quall vnto Peters power. From hence he turneth backe, and taketh vp his olde song, cap. 8. that Christ gaue all power ecclesi­asticall to Peter onely, and so by him to others. Which string because it giueth a very swéete sound: cap. 6. & 7. & 8. & 10. & 15. he harpeth on it often. Afterward, either doubting the conscience of weake Catholikes, or the euill tonges of Caluinists, who fauour the Apostles, and cannot heare them so debased: he saith cap. 15. that the Apostles were sent immediately of God with full power vnto al nations. Yet by and by falling againe vnto his giddines, (through some pang belike of The Pope. his holinesse displeasure, which might be stirred by such spéeches:) he pronounceth, cap. 15. that the spring of honour and power is deriued from Peter alone to all the rest. And thus he goeth on, through the whole discourse, (both in this, and the rest of his Doctrinall Principles,) enterfeiring as it were at euery other pace, and hewing hoofe against hoofe. But so will [Page 119] the Lord confound the toongs of them who doo build vp Babylon. Yet here, for these cuttings wherwith he gasheth himself, he thin­keth that they may be healed with a distinction taken vp in Car­dinall Turrecrematas shop, of a twofold power, the one Apo­stolike, the other Bishoply: the rest of the Apostles to haue béene inferior to Peter in the Bishoply, though equall in the Aposto­like; and all to haue receiued the Apostolike power immediatly of Christ, the rest (as namely Iames) their Bishoply power of Pe­ter. But two learned Friers, Sixtus Senensis, and Franciscus Victoria (men of better reading and iudgement then either he, or Turrecremata) haue cast off this quirke as a rotten drugge, be­fore Stapleton tooke it vp. Relection. [...]. de potestat. ec­clesiae. Victoria, by shewing out of the Scriptures, that the Apostles receiued all their power imme­diatly of Christ. Bibliothec. san. lib. 6. annot. 269. & 171. Sixtus, by declaring out of the Fathers, that in the power of Apostleship and order (so he calleth those two powers) Paul was equall to Peter, and the rest to them both. Which case he thought to be so cléere, that despairing of helpe for the Papacie, by Peters eyther Bishoply power, or Apostolike: he added thereunto a third kind of power, euen the power of kingdome, therein to set Peter ouer the Apostles, that so the Pope too might raigne ouer Bishops. It must be knowne, saith he, that Peter had a threefold power, one of the Apostolatus. Apostleship, an other of Ordinis. order, and the third of Regni. kingdome. Touching the Apostleship, that is, the duetie of teaching, and care of prea­ching the Gospell: Paul (as it is rightly noted by In comment. ad Galat. Ierom) was not inferiour to Peter, because Paule was chosen to the preaching of the Gospell, not by Peter but by God, euen as Peter was. Touching the power which is giuen in the Sacrament of order: Aduersus Io­uinian. & ad E­uagr. Ierom hath said wel, that al the Apostles receiued the keyes equally; yea that they all, as Bishops, were equall in degree of priesthood & the spirituall po­wer of that degree. But touching the power of kingdome, & that principall authoritie ouer all Bishops and teachers: thereof hath Aduers. Ioui­nian. & Lucife­rian. Ierom said best, that Peter was chosen amongst the twelue Apostles, and made the head of al, that by his supreme authoritie & eminent power aboue the rest, the contentions of the church might be taken vp, and all occasion of schismes remoued. Now, if you will vse this aide of kingly power to fortifie the Pope with: we will trie the strength thereof, Chapt. 5. Diuis. [...]. when you bring it. In the meane season, for the Bishoply power which Peter is imagined to haue [Page 120] bestowed on the Apostles, (as the Pope would on Bishops:) it was but a Cardinals fetch to serue y ^e turne of his Lord the Pope: the learnedst of your Iesuites and Friers dare not take it: your Doctor faine would haue it, but toucheth it so nicely, as though he were afraide of it. If you will stand vnto it, and holde it with the Cardinall: let vs sée your warrant; where did the A­postles receiue it of Peter? At what time? In what maner? Who is a witnesse of it?

They did not receiue it. But the order was that they should haue done.

Was that the order? Why did they breake it?

Christ Singulari pri­uilegio. Staplet. l. 6. c. 7. by singular priuiledge did exempt them from it.

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

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

Should, that they did not? How doo you proue it?

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

An order? For whom? For Apostles? you Immediaté a Deo missi. Sta­plet. l▪ 6. c. 13. graunt that man might not ordaine them. For Bishops? Tit. 1.5.7. other men did ordaine them, as rightfully as Peter did. But you had rather make this shew of an answere, then say (that which you should say in truth) I cannot tell. For you deale with vs, as Cicer. pro Sex. Roscio▪ Erucius did with Roscius ▪ whom when hee accused, that he had killed his father, because his father purposed to disinherit him: Thou must proue, (saith Tully) that his father did purpose it. The father did purpose to disinherite his sonne. For what cause? I know not. Did he disinherite him? No. Who did hinder it? He did mind it. Did he mind it? Whom told he so? No bodie. Your answeres vnto me, are very like to these, but some­what more vnorderly. For to ground the Popes supremacie on Peter: you said that the Apostles did all receiue their power, at least, their bishoply power of him. You must make it mani­fest that they did so. All the Apostles were to receiue their po­wer of Peter. What scripture saith so? I know not. Did they receiue it? No. Who did hinder it? They should haue done it. [Page 121] Should they haue done it? How proue ye it? I can not tell. I may not say of you, as Tully of Erucius, What is it else to abuse the lawes and iudgements and maiestie of the iudges to lu­cre and to lust, then so to accuse, and to obiect that, which you not onely can not proue, but do not as much as ende­uour to proue it. For I must beare you witnes, you endeuour to proue it. But you shall do better to surcease that endeuour, vn­lesse your proofes be sounder, and haue not onely shew, but also weight of trueth in them.

The promise made to Peter hath not onely shew but also weight of truth to proue his supremacie. But, to satisfy you, The first Diuisiō. who thinke it not weightie enough of it selfe, I will adde thereto the performance of it, and so you shall haue it weight with the aduantage. Staplet. prin. doctrin. l. 6. c. 9. For, it was said to Peter in the presence of three Apostles, Iames, Iohn, and Thomas, by our Sauiour Christ, Eo etiam m [...] ­mento. euen at the very moment when he would now ascend vp vnto his father, and therefore either then or neuer make his vicar: Ioh. 21.15, 17. Pasce agnos meos, pasce oues meas; Fede my lambes, fede my sheepe.

Not, at the very moment. That, is the aduan­tage (I wéene) which you will adde to make vp the weight: as some adde eare-wax to light angels. But the wordes were spo­ken: what do you gather of them?

Christ, in those wordes, did truely performe the pro­mise of the keyes which he had made to Peter. But Christ gaue him commission to féede his whole flocke, without exception of a­ny. Therefore he made him supreme head of the Apostles.

This reason doth séeme to be sicke of the palsie. [Page 122] The sinewes of it haue no strength.

Why so?

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

If you proue the second of these thrée pointes: the o­ther two are superfluous.

They are so. But you shall haue weight with aduantage, to ouerwaigh your weight to vs ward. And, for the first: I haue alreadie shewed, that the commission which Christ gaue to Peter, he had giuen it him [...]. 20.21. before, when he said, As my father sent me: so do I send you. Receiue the holie Ghost. Whose sins soeuer ye remit, they are remitted to them: whose sinnes soeuer ye reteine, they are reteined.

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

This is your bulwarke of Peters supremacie: but it is builded on a lye. For all that Christ had promised him, was implied in that he had said, Matt. 16.19. To thee will I giue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen. Was it not?

It was so: what then?

But in this commission (sending him with ful au­thoritie and power) he gaue him all the keyes of the kingdome of heauen. In this commission therefore he gaue him all that he had promised.

I deny that he gaue him all the keyes in this commis­sion.

I proue it. All the keyes, (as it hath appeared by Chapt. 2. Diuis. 3. your owne confession) are onely too, the key of knowledge and of power: or rather both of power, by Thomas of Aquines iudgement, whom you rather follow. But Christ gaue him both those in this commission: Ioh. 20.21. As my Father sent me, so doo I send you; Receiue the holie Ghost. Wherefore in this commission he gaue him all the keyes of the kingdome of heauen. And what­soeuer keyes he gaue him in this, he gaue the same to all the rest [Page 123] of the Apostles. He gaue as much authoritie therefore to them all: as he gaue to Peter. But that is the next point.

Yet they receiued Act. 2.1. afterward the holie Ghost from heauen in the day of Pentecost. And therefore they receiued not their whole commission of Christ at this time: they wayted for a part of it.

Yes: it was a part of their commission so to waite. For (as it is further declared by S. Luke) when Luc. 24. v [...]r. 45. their vn­derstanding was opened by Christ that they might vnderstād the scriptures: he commanded them to ver. 49. stay in Ierusalem, vn­till they were indued with power from an high. A King who putteth men in commission of peace, doth giue them authoritie to execute that charge by the wordes of his commission. If they per­haps haue not such wealth as is requisite for Iustices of peace to discharge their duetie; and the King will giue them landes by such a day, thereby to furnish them vnto it: they receiue by their landes, not authoritie, which they had; but abilitie which they wanted: and the better they are landed, the more are they ina­bled, but not the more authorized to execute their duetie. Christ, the King of Kings, did put his Apostles in Rom. 10.15. 2. Cor. 5.20. the commission of peace: of heauenly peace, not earthly; not bodily, but spiritu­all; not temporall, but eternall. Their authoritie they receiued by the wordes of his commission. But the discharge of the duetie required great treasures of the holie Ghost. Whereof hée gaue them some Ioh. 20.22. then; more in the Act. 2.3. fiery toonges from heauen; more Act. 10.11. & 11.18. as the churches state required; and these, Luc. 19.16. well occupi­ed, gained more: with the increase whereof their abilitie still in­creased; their authoritie not so, which all was giuen them at once.

But a King, for better triall of his Iustices, may com­mit some lesser authoritie first vnto them, and afterwarde grea­ter.

Matt. 10.5. So did Christ to his Apostles. But hauing made triall of them in the lesser, he called them by this commissi­on to the greater: nay, to the greatest, then which he had no grea­ter for them.

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

But Christ in this commission had giuen them [Page 124] authoritie through all his dominion, not through a shire onely. For he sent them Marc. 16.15. Luc. 24.47. to all nations.

And what, if I grant, that Christ in this commission gaue all that power to Peter, which he had promised him, & was to giue vnto him?

If he gaue him all that power in this commission: no part thereof remained to be giuen in any other. If no part to be giuen: then was there no further power giuen to him by those wordes of Christ, Feede my lambes, feede my sheepe. If no further power were giuen him thereby, the bulwarke of your Papacy is builded on a fansie.

Then belike our Sauiour spake to no purpose, when he said to Peter, Ioh. 21. ver. 15 1 [...]. & 17. Doost thou loue mee? Feede my lambes. Doost thou loue mee? Feede my sheepe.

God forbid. To great purpose: though not to yours. For he giueth him therein a commandement, though not a commission. As if the Quéenes Maiestie, hauing made alrea­die by letters of commission some Iustices in the North, & one perhaps amongst them, of whose faithfull heart she were persua­ded well, yet, that had shewed himselfe not of the trustiest in time of the rebellion, shée should say vnto him (to stirre in him a liuely regard of his duetie,) Do you loue vs? Haue care of our poore subiectes: Doo you loue vs? Haue care of our good people. Which charge and commaundement Christ might giue a great deale better to Peter, then the Quéene to any Iustice in y ^e North: because shée knoweth not whither any new Bull be comming from Rome, or new rebellion be toward. But he knew that Pe­ter should be in greater danger, then he was when he fled, and denied his Maister. Whereof, he forewarneth him (straight vpon the giuing him of this commandement) and that, with ear­nest Verely, vere­ly I say vnto thee. words of great asseueration, as in a matter of weight: tel­ling him, Ioh. 21.18. that he should dye a gréeuous death for his profession of the faith and féeding of the flocke of Christ. So y ^t, to arme him a­gainst that feare of the flesh, which before had made him to betray his duetie, when he had lesse cause to feare: Christ hauing made the iron hot, as it were, by asking him, Doost thou loue mee? striketh it, to make it a fit instrument to build with, & so com­mandeth, Feede my flocke; yea though the worke be painefull, [Page 125] and will cost thée déere: for it shall bring thée to thy death. So, he committeth not a new charge to Peter, but willeth him to looke to that, which he had committed, and flée not from it for a­ny danger. As if a wise shipmaster, séeing a daungerous storme at hand, should command his mariners whom he had well deser­ued of, that, if they loue him, they looke vnto their tacke­lings.

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

I grant. What inferre you?

Then Peter had commission to feede the lambes and sheepe of Christ.

Who dooth deny it? For Ioh. 20.21. he had the same com­mission from Christ, that Luc. 4.18. Christ from God his Father, to preach the Gospell to the poore, to heale the broken-hear­ted, to preach deliuerance to the captiues, and recouering of sight to the blind, to set at libertie them that are bruised and preach the acceptable yeare of the Lord. Which is, in o­ther wordes, to feede the lambes and sheepe of Christ. For Christ by a similitude, is named the 1. Pet. 5. ver. 4. chiefe shepheard: his church, and chosen seruants, ver. 2. a flocke of sheepe and lambes; whereof he gaue a principall charge to his Apostles, that they should féede it. Wherefore the commandement giuen vnto Pe­ter to feede his sheepe and lambes: importeth the commission which before was giuen him, when Christ sent him, as God sent Christ. But in this commission the Apostles all were equall vnto Peter. They were equall therefore to him in charge of fee­ding the sheepe and lambes of Christ. And so the second point which I had to proue (the verie deaths-wound of your suprema­cy) is proued.

Proued? How proued?

As clearely, as the Sunne dooth shine at noone day. For, to send the Apostles, as God the Father sent Christ, is to giue them charge to feede his sheepe and lambes. But Christ sent the Apostles, as God the Father sent him. There­fore he gaue them charge to feede his sheepe & lambes. Now, this is the greatest power, that can be shewed, was giuen Peter by Christ. Wherefore in the greatest power, that Christ gaue [Page 118] him, the rest of the Apostles all were his equals. If you be loth herein to beleeue the Scripture: yet beleeue the Pope, and Pope Ana­cletus▪ Dist. [...]. c. in no­ [...] [...]estamento. an ancient Pope (vnlesse the Canon law lye,) The rest of the Apo­stles receiued honor and power in equall felowship with Pe­ter.

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

This answere of yours, hath a distinction, but not a difference. It is the same fellow, but in an other gowne, whom ( Chapter 2. Diuision 3 [...]. a litle rather) I shewed to be a bankrupt: and now he commeth foorth againe in newe apparaile, like an honest and welthy Citizen.

Why say you so?

Because you did distinguish the Bishoply po­wer of the Apostles, from their power Apostolike: as here (with other wordes) you doo their Apostleship from their Pastorall charge. Whereas in déede the pastorall charge of the Apostles is nothing els but their Apostleship: and hath no more difference then the other had. For the name of Pastor is vsed in two senses, a speciall, and a generall. In the speciall, to note a kind of function distinct from the Apostles, ( Staplet. princ. doctr. lib. 6. c. 7. & 15. your Doctor graunteth it,) and so Apostles are not Pastors: as when it is said, Ephes. 4.11. some Apo­stles, some Prophets, some Euangelistes, some Pastors and teachers. In the general, to signifie the cōmon charge of al such, as do teach the word and féede the flocke of God: in which respect Ioh. 10.11. Christ him selfe is called a Pastor. Wherefore sith Apostles are not Pastors by the former sense; by the later, whosoeuer are e­quall in the Apostleship, must néedes consequently be equal in the Pastorship too: your distinction, that they were equal in the one not in the other, hath no more reason, then an other of Princ doctrin. l. 6. c. 7. Petro d [...]ta est potestas p [...]aeceptiua, seu regiminis: Apo­stolis autem tantum exequ [...] ­tiua, seu guber­nationis. D. Stapletons, who saith, that they were equall in power of go­uernment, but not of regiment.

You depraue his wordes. For he saith that this is the greatest difference betweene Peter and the rest of the Apo­stles, that Christ gaue to Peter the power of regiment, or to com­maund: to the Apostles only the power of gouernmēt, or to execute: because in gouernment of the church Peter must prescribe, what should be done, and they must execute it.

I depraue them not, vnlesse he speake sottishly, [Page 123] he knoweth not him selfe what. For his drift is, to proue, that the Apostles all had equall power giuen them by Christ, but with a threefold difference: of which this is one, that they had equall power (forsooth) to doo and execute all things that appertaine to the building of the Church; but so, that Pe­ter had the power of regiment, to commaund, the rest of the Apo­stles the power of gouernment, to execute. Which is as ridiculous, as if a man would say, that the Queenes Maiestie and the She­riffes of London haue equall power both: yet with a difference, to witte, that her Maiestie hath the power of regiment, that is, to commaund, when a traitor shall suffer, and the Sheriffes the power of gouernment, that is, to execute that which shee com­mandeth. If you should preach thus in London: our Londoners would smile at it. I thinke that this heresie hath made our wits dull. Your Catholike distinctions are so sharpe and subtill, that wee cannot conceiue them.

You may flout as well, if you list, at S. Gregory: who though he vse not the wordes of this distinction, yet he hath the sense of it: saying, Grego. Re­gistr. lib. 4. epist. 38. that Andrewe, Iames, and Iohn were heads of seuerall congregations, and all, members of the Church, vnder one head Peter.

If I should touch Gregory for this, I should do him wrong: as great wrong almost, as your lib. 6. cap. 7. Doctor doth, who alleageth it out of Gregory. For though he were him-selfe a Bishop of Rome, and a well-willer of S. Peters: yet in that epistle (whence those wordes are cited) he calleth Christ Caput vni­uersalis eccle­siae. the head of the vniuersal church: Peter, Primum mē ­brum sanctae & vniuersalis ec­clesiae. the chiefest member; and others, members of it also. D. Stapleton thinking it a small thing, that Peter should be counted as the chiefest mem­ber, vnles he be the head too, hath (vpon mentiō of the one head) cogged in the name of Peter, S. Gregory saith, sub v [...]o capite omnes membra sunt ecclesiae. D. Stapleton citeth it, sub vno capite Pe­tro omnes mē ­bra ecclesiae. like a cunning gamster to helpe a dye at a neede. Alas a man must enterprise somewhat in such ca­ses. For, you were all vndone, if this game should be lost.

I maruaile, that you blush not to vse such vnciuill spéeches, and tauntes, against D. Stapleton, a man of great lear­ning euen in your own iudgement.

A man not of so great learning, as reading, if you wil take my iudgement in it. Yet I wish (for his own sake) that his learning were as good, as it is great. But for the vnciuill [Page 128] speeches, and tauntes, which I vse against him; weigh the oc­casions and circumstances of them. If he haue not deserued as Mat. 23.13. Luke. 11.4 [...]. the Scribes and Pharises: let me be rebuked when I touch him, as Christ them. But you deale herein as Cic. pro [...]lac­co. Tully reporteth that Athenagoras did: of his fault he said nothing, he complained of his punishment. It is lawfull for D. Stapleton to take vp me with his tauntes of Princip. doctr. lib. 4. cap. 1 [...]. Caluinist, Anglocaluinist, lib. 13. cap. 9. Puritan, and that vndeseruedly. But if I reproue on iust cause, with plaine termes, his cogging, corrupting, belying, sclaundering, a­busing both of God and men: it is a hainous matter and to bee blushed at. Let them blush, M. Hart, Reu. 22.15. who loue or make lies, either by committing such shamefull trickes of falshood, or by par­taking with them. It is no shame for me to note them, and re­prooue them.

Why? Are you sure that there is no copie of S. Grego­ries workes, which hath the name of Peter inserted in that place.

I thinke that none hath: I am sure that none should haue. For, in Gregor. Regi­str. l. 4. epist. 36. an other epistle of the same argument, whē he had said y ^t al Christians Soli vni capiti cohaerent, vide­licet Christo. do cleaue to only one head, he ad­deth, Imeane, to Christ: and hauing (in this same epistle) put that difference betwéene Christ and Peter, that Peter is a member, Christ the head of the church, he sheweth manifestly whom he meant by head. A thing so apparant, that De concor­dant. catholic. lib. 2. cap. 34. Cardinall Cusanus doth cite those wordes of Gregory Sub vno capi­ [...]e Cristo omnes membra. with Christes name inser­ted: either as hauing read them so in some copie, or to open the meaning of them. How much the more shamefull is Stapletons dealing, who foysteth in [Peter:] to set (by that conueiance) the Pope in Christes roome. But you were best to go forward with the scriptures: and then (when you haue found nothing in them,) come to the Fathers after.

You are very peremptorie still in your spéeches. I wil find in them as much for the substance as I haue affirmed▪ For, howsoeuer the wordes of Pastorall charge, and the Apostleship; the power of regiment, and gouernment, agree with my mea­ning: my meaning, (I am sure) agreeth with the scriptures, and standeth with good reason.

Then you shall do well hereafter to refraine from such foggy distinctions, deuised to choke the blinde, [Page 129] (who eate many a flie:) and expresse your meaning in cleare and playne wordes: least we suspect, that you fansie darkenesse more then light.

This is my meaning, that Peter had authoritie ouer the Apostles to féede them, to rule them, to be a Pastor of them: which the rest of the Apostles had neither ouer him nor one ouer an other.

So. Now make proofe of it.

Christ did say to Peter: Ioh. 21.17. Doost thou loue me? Feede my sheepe. Whereof thus I reason. Christ did charge Peter to feede his sheepe, all; euen all his shéepe, without exception. But the Apostles were sheepe of Christ. Therefore he had the charge of feeding them also.

Christ saide to the Apostles, Marc. 16.15. Go ye into all the world▪ and preach the Gospell to euery creature. Whereof thus I reason. Christ did charge his Apostles to preach the Go­spell to euerie creature, to euerie one without exception. But Peter was a creature. Therefore they had the charge of prea­ching to him also. Now, if I would play with wordes as your men doo: I could shew that this reason must ouermaster yours in the plaine field. For Christ said not to Peter, feed all my sheepe: but he said to the Apostles, preach to euerie creature.

But you should consider Staplet. princ. doctr. li. 6. ca. 10. that Christ giuing that commandement to Peter, gaue it with a difference betwéene the shéepe and the lambes, as Commentar. in Luc. lib. 10. S. Ambrose hath noted well, (set me downe, I pray, his owne wordes in Latin:) tertiò Dominus interrogauit: & noniam agnos, vt primò, quodam lacte pascendos; nec ouiculas, vt secundò; sed oues pascere iubetur, perfectiores vt perfectior gubernaret. That is to say, When the Lord had asked Peter the third time, Doost thou loue me? hee is commanded now to feede, not the lambes, as at the first time, who must be fedde with certaine milke; not the litle sheepe as the seconde time; but to feede the sheepe, that he (a man more perfit) might gouerne the more perfit. So that the whole flocke of Christ was committed to Peter to be fedde, as well the small as the great; both the lay men, who, as lambes, are fedde themselues, and féede not others; & the Priests and Clergie, who, as sheepe, doo féede the lambes, but are fedde of the shepheard.

The lambes and the sheepe doo signifie two [Page 133] kindes of Christians: the one yonger and tenderer, which née­deth to be taught the first principles of religion, as it were Hebr. 5.12. to be fedde with milke: the other riper and elder, fit to learne the dée­per mysteries of faith, to be fedde with strong meat. This S. Am­brose noted well in the commandement that Christ gaue to Pe­ter. Though the difference, which he maketh betwéene the se­cond and the third, Ouiculas, et oues. the litle sheepe and the sheepe; was either an ouersight in the Reading perhaps [...] for [...] Gréeke copie, or a fansie of some interpreter. Which I would not mention, but that you bid me set downe his owne wordes in Latin, as though there were some mysterie in them, which yet your selues are wont to make no account of: vnlesse your Robert. Bel­larm. Rom. Con­trouer. 4. quaest. 3. de summo [...]ont. Roman reader hath spied more in it, who saith that the text ought to be corrected, and read as Ambrose cited it. But your glose, of the lay-men to be signified by lambes, and by the sheepe the Priestes and Clergie: dooth varie from y ^e text, not of Christ onely, but of Ambrose too. For wheras they speake of the lambes, and the sheepe, both which the flocke consisteth of: you interpret their words of the sheepe, and the shepheards. And whereas all Pastors are bounde to feede both sheepe and lambes: you make as though y ^e rest must féede none but lambes, and all the sheepe were Peters. From dreaming whereof S. Ambrose was so farre, that De dignit. sa­cerdot. cap. 2. Eas cum illo nos suscepimus omnes. he saith of the shéepe which Christ commanded to be fedde: Peter did not only receiue the charge of them, but himselfe and all Bishops receiued it with Peter. Wherefore, you should consider, that in Christes commission vn­to the Apostles they are not considered as shéepe, but as shep­heards: and therefore not them-selues to be fed of any, but all to féede others. So, when they abode togither in Ierusalem: they sed the church in common (with, Act. 2. [...]2. the doctrine of the Apostles) not Peter them, and they the rest. And when they went thence into other countries: they went not as shéepe with Peter their shepheard, but as seuerall shepheards to shéepe of all nations.

Be it so: that Christ spake (in his commission) to them, as to shepheards. Yet were they also shéepe of the flocke of Christ. And therefore he might well appoint a shepheard ouer them.

And was not Peter also a shéepe of Christs flock? And must▪ not our Sauiour appoint by this reason, a shep­heard ouer him also? For, if all sheepe need it: why not S. Peter? If some néed it not: why the Apostles? But, it is true, that, as they were shéepe, so néeded they sometimes to bee [Page 134] fedde, the best of them: and this did Christ prouide for, though not with your policie; not by setting one as Pastor ouer all, but by geuing charge of euery one to other. For as S. Paule said to the Elders of Ephesus, Act. 20.2 [...]. Take heed vnto your selues and to all the flocke, charging them with care not of their flocke onely, but of themselues too, all of all, and ech of other: in like sort the Apostles who had charge of all in that they were shepheardes, were to be looked too, in that they were sheepe, to be admonished, taught, fedde, not euery one of Peter, but euery one of other, yea euen Peter also him selfe, if néede required. Hereof their practise is a proofe. For Gal. 2.14. whē Peter went not with a right foote to the truth of the Gospell: S. Paule reproued him openly before all men for it. But to reproue him was to féede him. Therefore S. Paule did feede S. Peter.

Staplet. princ. doctr. l. 6. c. 14. S. Paule reproued him, not by authority, but of cur­tesie: and Peter yelded to it, not of duetie, but of modestie. As now any Bishop may reproue the Pope: and he will harken to it pa­tiently, and mildly; and yet impaire not his supremacie.

I acknowledge a distinctiō of the Romain style: Sacrar. cere­mon. eccles. Romanae, l. 3. sect. 1. c. quod Romanus Pon­tifex nemini reuerentiā facit. which (in the booke of Ceremonies of the church of Rome, in the chapter, that the Pope doth do reuerēce to no man) saith, that notwithstanding the maiestie and solemnitie, which he vseth to highest states in entertaining of them: yet Popes are ac­customed (whē they are not in their pōtificals) to Aliquantu­lum caput incli­nare. bow their head a litle as it were rendring reuerence to Cardinalles Maximis prin­cipibus. and to mightie Princes, when they come priuatly and doo re­uerence vnto him. & hoc non ex officio, sed ex laudabili huma­nitate. Marry this, not of duetie: but of lau­dable curtesie. The Pope shewed not you this curtesie, M. Hart, when he admitted you to kisse his holinesse foote: it was not for his state to doo it. Yet hath he so bewitched your sen­ses therewith, that you (to render him not duetie, but curtesie) forget both curtesie, and duetie, to Paule the Apostle, the chosen instrument of God, and penneman of his holy spirite. For S. Paule mentioneth his reproofe purposely, to proue, that he was Peters equall in authoritie: against the false Apostles, who sought to discredite the doctrine which he taught, by deba [...]ing him and setting others farre aboue him. You say that he reproued Pe­ter, of curtesie, and not by authoritie. Wherby (marke it well) you say in effect, that he made a foolish reason to proue a false con­clusion. [Page 116] And, if he were inferiour to Peter in authority, as he was by your answeare: what meant he to say that 2. Cor. 11.5. he accounted himselfe [...]. nothing inferiour to the very chiefe Apostles. You adde that any Bishoppe may so reproue the Pope. Your Thom. Aquin. in 4. Sent. di­stinct. 19. quaest. 2. art. 2. Thomas saith, no. For he writeth that this fact (of Paule repro­uing Peter) exceedeth the measure of brotherly correction which subiectes owe vnto their prelates, because he did it Gal. [...].14. before the multitude. Though otherwise him selfe (to vphold the Papacy) vseth Paulus fuit par Petro in ex­equutione au­toritatis, no [...] autoritate re­giminis. in epi. ad Galat. cap. 2. le [...]t. 3. such shiftes, as you do: & In secunda se­cundae quaest. 33. art. 4. maketh his account of Paule as the subiect, and Peter as the prelate, according to the 2. q. 7. c. Testes. Canon lawe. But his owne sentence may serue for an axe to behead your common errour. For either S. Paule in so repro­uing Peter did transgresse his duetie; or he was his equall in au­thoritie, not his subiect. But, to say the former, is a blasphemous spéech of Hieron. pro­ [...]m. commen­tar. in epist. ad Gala [...]. & in cap. 2. Porphyrie. The latter therefore is true. And so your answere falleth of authoritie and curtesie.

I graunt that Staplet. princ. doctr. l. 6. c. 14. S. Paule was equall in authoritie to Peter, in some sort. Yet this is a notable difference betweene them, and well worth the marking, that S. Paule was the Apostle and teacher of the Gentiles: but Peter the Apostle both of Gen­tiles and of Iewes. Which (because we loue not to speake with­out Doctors) you may read in S. Ambrose, in his Cōmenta­ries on this place, Ambros. in comment. epist. ad Galat. Gal. 2.8. He that wrought by Peter in the Apostleship of circumcision, wrought by me also towardes the Gentiles. He nameth Peter alone (saith he) and compareth him vnto himselfe, be­cause he had receiued the primacie to build the Church; that himselfe likewise is chosen to haue the primacie of buil­ding the Churches of the Gentiles. Yet so, that Peter prea­ched to the Gentiles also. These are S. Ambrose his wordes.

Haue you read these words your selfe in S. Am­brose: or do you take them vp on credit?

What if my selfe haue read them?

Then shall I thinke worse of you, then I haue done. For I haue thought you to erre of simplicitie. But I smell somewhat else here.

In déede, I reade them not my selfe, in S. Ambrose, but in D. Princip. doct. lib. 6. cap. 14. Stapleton: who citeth them as I do.

Then you may learne the precept of [...]. [...]. a wittie Poet; Be sober and distrustfull: these are the ioyntes of wise­dome. For this which you haue taken of D. Stapletons cre­dit, is clipped: fowly clipped. If he should deale so with y ^e Princes coine: I know what iudgement he should haue. The wordes of Ambrose are, Ita tamen vt & Petrus gentibus praedicaret, si causa fuisset, & Paulus Iudaeis: yet so that Peter preached to the Gen­tiles also, if it were needfull, and Paule to the Iewes. D. Sta­pleton citeth them, Ita tamen, vt & Pe [...]rus gentibus praedicaret. Haec ille. Yet so that Peter preached to the Gentiles also. Thus saith Ambrose. See you not, how hansomely he hath clipped-of the last words of Ambrose, [& Paulus Iudaeis, and Paule to the Iewes:] to proue, that Paule might not preach vnto the Iewes, as Peter might vnto the Gentiles? Yet this is D. Stapleton, whose Principior. [...] dei doctrina [...] demonstratio methodica: pe [...] controu [...]rs. 7. in libris 12. tra­dita. Treatise of the Church some of our English Stu­dentes and young seduced gentlemen thinke to be a treasure of great truth and wisedome. But God wil make the falsehood and folly thereof euident to all men at his good time. For this present point, that Paule was an Apostle and teacher of the Iewes and the Gentiles both, as well as Peter was, and therfore not inferior to him in this respect: the Scripture is so cléere, that no mist of Stapletons, though it were as thicke as the darkenes of Egipt, can take away the light of it. The wordes of Christ proue it, spoken (touching Paule) vnto Ananias: Act. 9.15. He is a cho­sen vessell to me, to beare my name before the Gentiles, and kinges, and the children of Israel. The commission by A­nanias sent vnto Paule: Act. 22.14. The God of our Fathers hath ap­pointed thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Iust one, and heare the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt bee his witnesse, vnto all men, of the thinges which thou hast seene and heard. Paules obedience to his calling, and perfor­mance of his duetie: Act. 9. ver. 20. He preached Christ in the Synagogues, ver. 2 [...]. he confounded the Iewes, ver. 29. he spake and disputed with the Not [...] but [...], that is, Gentiles borne, conuer­ted to the Iu­ish faith and circumcised: which are cal­led proselytes. Act. 2.10. &. 13.43. Graecians, (Iewes by religion, although not by parentage:) to be short, Act. 13. ver. 2. when he was sent by speciall commission of the ho­ly Ghost, for the worke whereunto God had called him and Barnabas: ver. 5. & 14. they preached the worde of God in the Syna­gogues of the Iewes through diuers cities and countries: vntill that ver. 45. when the Iewes did stubbernely resist the truth which [Page 114] they preached, they said boldly to them, It was necessarie that the word of God should haue bene first spoken vnto you: but seeing you put it from you, and iudge your selues vnworthie of euerlasting life, lo, we turne to the Gentiles. Wherefore as Act. 8.25. & 10 28. Peter preached the Gospell both to Iewes and Gentiles: so did also Paule. As Act. 15.7. God did choose Peter, that the Gentiles by his mouth should heare the word of the Gospell: so did he choose Paule.

Why dooth Paule then call himselfe Rom. 11.13. 1. Tim. 2.7. 2. Tim. 1.11. the Apostle and teacher of the Gentiles: and that in sundry places?

Because that when he and Peter perceiued, that God did blesse the labours of the one of them amongst the Iewes chiefly, of the other amongst the Gentiles: they agreed togither and Gal. 2.9. gaue the right handes of fellowship each to other, that Paule should preach vnto the Gentiles, & Peter to the Iewes: not so, but that either (if occasion serued) might and did preach to either, as Comment. in epist. ad Gal. cap. 2. Ambrose noted well, and Act 28.17.30. it is written of Paul namely: but that they should specially teach, the one, y ^e Iewes; the other, the Gentiles, as Rom. 1.13. 1. Pet. 1.1. and so forth the rest. their epistles shew they did. Thus, if you regard that, which they did chiefly: Peter was an Apostle and teacher of the Iewes, Paule of the Gentiles. If that which they might doo, and did by occasion: they were the Apostles and teachers, both of both, and so no difference betwéene them.

We graunt Staplet. princ. doctr. li. 6. ca. 14. that there was no difference betwéene them, in the office of the Apostleship: for therein was Paule e­quall vnto Peter.

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

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

I haue proued that Peter had no such headship ouer them. You barely say the contrary, and repeat it still. This is a fault in reasoning, condemned of the Aristot. in Re­prehens. Sophist. Logicians by y ^e name of begging that which is in controuersie. I pray vse it not: but either proue that you say, or hold your peace and cease to say it.

I will proue it Staplet. princ. doctr. li. 6. ca. 1 [...]. by the circumstances of the words of Christ Ioh. 21. ver. 15.16. & 17. saying vnto Peter, Doost thou loue me more then these? Feede my lambes. Doost thou loue me? Feede my sheepe. Doost thou loue me? Feede my sheepe. Wherein, sun­dry principall pointes are to be noted. First, he requireth of him an open profession and testimonie of his loue, to this intent that he may put him in trust with his flocke. Secondly, he requireth not onely that he loue him, but also that he loue him more then the rest: that to him as louing him more then y ^e rest, he may giue power aboue the rest. Thirdly, he asketh him thrise, if he loue him; and the former times with the word [...], the last with [...], which noteth feruent loue. With the which worde also Peter had answered him still. Fourthly, he saith vnto him thrise also, feede. And, to passe ouer the sheepe and the lambes, whereof I spake before; fiftly, the first charge of feeding the lambes, & the last of the shéepe are vttered with the Gréeke word [...], that is, feede, the second of the shéepe, hath [...] ▪ y ^t is, rule: to shew that the lambes, euen lay-men (as I said) are one­ly to be fedde; but the sheepe, I meane, Bishops and Pastors, are both to be fedde and to be ruled of Peter. Sixtly the worde, to feede, hath a great force, and signifieth a power most full and absolute: as the which implieth all other actions of ecclesia­sticall regiment. For they are all directed to y ^e food of soules. There are obserued more such notes to like effect: but either not so pi­thie and sound as these are, or treated of alreadie. Wherefore I content my selfe with these sixe. Which if you lay togither, and marke what may be saide in seuerall for each of them: you haue inough to proue a great worthines of Peter, in any mans iudge­ment; in ours, a supremacy.

That which is written Pro. 30.33. in the Prouerbes of Sa­lomon, Hee that wringeth his nose causeth blood to come out: may be truely saide of the proofes which you presse out of these circumstances. The most pithie of them, if any of them haue pith, are they which touch the matter: the question, of loue re­quired; the charge enioyned, of feeding; and each of them re­peated thrise. Which all in verie truth, as Christ did vse them to Peter, were rather a stay of his weakenesse, then a marke of his worthinesse, much lesse a proofe of his supremacy. For Peter had pretended greater loue to Christ, then had the rest of the A­postles. [Page 136] In so much that when Christ had told them of their frail­tie, the night before his passion, Mat. 26.31. All ye wil be offended at me this night, for it is written, I will smite the shepheard and the sheepe shal be scattered: Peter answering said vnto him, though al should be offended at thee, yet will I neuer be of­fended. Whereto when Christ replied, verily I say vnto thee, this night before the cocke crow, thou wilt denie me thrise: Peter answered him againe, though I should dye with thee, yet will I not denie thee. This promise, as it was made by all the Apostles, but chiefely by Peter: so was it broken by them all, but chiefely by him. For they did all forsake Christ: Peter did not on­ly forsake him, but forsweare him too. Wherefore when our Sa­uiour after his resurrection would gather them togither, to con­firme them from their feare, and giue them power to preach the Gospell to all Nations: he, that in comforting them all (before his passion) remembred Peter chiefely as néeding it most; Luc. 2 [...].32. but I haue praied for thee: did then (in sending for them to méete him in Galile) remember Peter namely, by the voice of his Angell, saying to the women, Marc. 16.7. tell his disciples and Peter that he wil go before you into Galile. Peter, a disciple: yet na­med beside y ^e disciples: Autor com­mentarior. Hi­eron. in Marc. cap. 16. Gregor. in Euangelia [...]omil. [...]1. as who might thinke him selfe not wor­thy of the name of a disciple, that had denied his Maister thrise. Now when they were come to him into Galile, and had receiued common both comfort and commission to execute the charge whereto they were chosen: Christ admonished Peter particular­ly of his duetie, and moued him (beside the rest) to do it faithfully; as he particularly before had betraied it, and had behaued him selfe most fearefully aboue the rest. To encourage him therefore with assuring his conscience Cyrill in e­uang. Iohan. l. 12. c. 64. quia Petrus Christi [...]lementia maio­ris pe [...]tire­missionem [...] iure ab eo m [...]ior repetitur dilectio. Cui e­nim pl [...]s remit­ [...]icur. plu [...] ama­ [...]e debet: vt ipse dicit [...]li [...]i, Luc. [...]. of the forgiuenes of his sinne, and strengthē him to constancie, that he offend no more s [...]: Christ de­maundeth of him whether he loue him; and thereupon chargeth him, to feede his lambes and sheepe. In demaunding of him, doost thou loue me more then these: first, he toucheth his faulte, who had professed more then these, but had performed lesse then these. Then he sheweth that it is pardoned. For Luc. 7.47. hee who loueth more, to him more is forgiuē: his greater loue is a token of it. In charging him to feede his lambes and his sheepe: he sharpneth his care, that now he be faithfull and firme in follo­wing Christ, though he shall come to daunger, yea to death ther­by. [Page 137] Both which, August. in Io­hann. tract. 123, & de verb▪ Do­min. secund. Io­hann. Serm. 49. Ambros. com­ment. in Luc. l. 10. the demaund and charge are thrise repeated: the demaund, that Peter by his threefold answere may counter­uaile his threefold denial of Christ: the charge, because that Eccles. 12.11. nailes the oftner they are strooken, the déeper they do pearce. Philip. 3.1. To write the same to Christians, it greeueth not our Apostle: it is a safe thing for vs. And although the truth of this expositi­on be very apparant by conference of Scriptures: yet, that you may take it with the better appetite, who loue not to eate meate without this sauce, you may know that I finde it (for the chiefest pointes which touch the matter néerest) in Cyril, Austin, Am­brose, and other auncient Fathers. Wherefore, your pithiest notes out of the circumstances of the text, haue colour of some proofe for Peters infirmitie, but nought for his Supremacie. As for the other three, which you picke out of the wordes [...], and to feede: they haue no pith at all, they are as bones without marrow. If this be the fruit of The narra­tion of the English Se­minar. in Rome. the studie of the toongs renued in your Seminaries, that by shew thereof you may out face the Protestantes, who by helpe therof haue ridde your filth out of the church: then your tongues will proue as good as the miracles, which 2. Tim. 3.8. Exod. 7.11, 13.22. Iannes wrought, and Iambres, to harden Pharaos hart, by doing like as Moses did. You cast vs in the téeth with a Campians chalenge in the sixt article. Bristowes reply to Fulk. chap. 10. Dem. 41. kingdome of Grammarians: but you would raise a Popedome of thē. And De laud. [...]tult [...] as Erasmus saith, that Schoole­men, speaking barbarously, saide, it was not meete for the maiestie of diuinitie that it should be bound to keepe the lawes of Grammarians: so the Popedome of Grammarians dealing too too Pope-like in expounding of wordes, (as Fuit hic nimis um Papaliter dispensatum. 2. q. 5. c. Me [...]n [...]m. In glossa. Francis. victo­ria relect. 4. De potest. Pa­pae & concilii. Albert. Krantz. Saxon. lib. 5. cap. 8. Popes do full oft in dispensing with thinges) will not haue them bound to the Grammaticall sense wherein their authors vse them. But if we may obtaine, that iustice be ministred according to the ciuill lawes of our kingdome: then shall the poore wordes (which your Popedome forceth to speake for the Papacye that which they neuer meant) be rescued from that iniurie. For, the Scripture sheweth that, [...] signyfyeth as fer­uent loue as [...] in deede the verye same, chyefe [...]y in S. Iohn: who declaring the perfit and entire loue, of [...] Ioh. 5.20. [...]. Ioh. 13.36 & 10.7. God towardes Christ, of [...]. Ioh. 20.2. [...] Ioh. 19.26. & [...]1, [...]2. Christ towardes him; one where expres­seth it by [...] & other wher by [...] yea by [...] more oft then by [...]. So that (if the wordes had any difference in sense,) [Page 138] it would be verie likely, that [...] is rather y ^e more significant of the two: sith it is vsed also Ioh. 13. & 14. & 15. & through out all the new Testament. commonly to note the loue which the Lord doth beare towardes vs and we should beare one to an other: and that in place of greatest force, as when he saith, Ioh. 15.12. This is my commandement that ye [...]. loue one an other, as I haue [...]. loued you: [...]. greater loue then this hath no man, when a man bestoweth his life for his friendes. Whereas S. Iohn therefore vttered Christes demand by the one worde, and Peters answere by the other: it séemeth that he vsed the wordes indiffe­rently, as hauing both y ^e same meaning. Which is proued also by the consent and iudgement of the Syriake translation, that hath the [...] same worde for them both. Howbeit if the wordes haue a difference of sense: it agreeth better with the modestie of Peter to haue saide lesse, then more, of his loue; chiefly, sith hee had fal­len by saying too much of it, and had by triall felt his frailtie. But if he did answere, as you imagine him; Dost thou loue me Pe­ter? Lord, I loue thee feruently: yet this feruent loue infer­reth no supremacy ouer the rest of the Apostles. For, what he re­porteth of his owne loue, the same doth Christ witnesse of theirs, or rather more, if we would pricke it vp as you doo; euen Ioh. 16.27. that his Father loueth them, because that they loued him. In both the which branches [...]. that same worde is vsed, which (by your fansie) doth signifie feruent loue, when it may serue the Popes vantage.

We doo not relye so much on that word, as on the other two, [...], and [...], but chiefly on y ^e word [...]. For although to feed (which is meant by [...]) doth import much: yet to feede and rule (which [...] signifieth) hath a greater force: as those places shew where that worde is vsed, [...]. Psal. 2.9. Reue. 2.27. Thou shalt rule them with a rodde of yron, and, [...]. Matt. 2.6. Mich. 5.2. he shall rule my people Israel. Wherefore Christ committed a soueraine power to Peter in that Ioh. 21. ver. 16.he said [...]: not onely to feede but to rule and gouerne too.

Then it was not Peters duetie to rule y ^e lambes but the shéepe onely. For Christ doth say [...], speaking of the shéepe: and ver. 15. of the lambes, [...].

So I said. Yet that word which he vseth of the lambes he vseth ver. 17. [...]b. 6. cap. 10. of the shéepe also. Whereby this is shewed (as I tou­ched briefly out of ^o D. Stapleton) that lambes must be onely [Page 139] meated and fedde of Peter (through the common foode of doctrine to be looked for from Ab hoc supre­mo patre fami­lias. him, as supreme father of the houshold, and from his Sée,) and they must be ruled of their next and proper Pastors whom immediatly they are vnder: but sheepe, that is to say, the greater and perfiter, Bishops themselues and Pastors, are committed to him not onely to be fedde with the common doctrine, but also to be ruled Ab illo tan­quam supreme pastorum pastore. of him more immediatly as of the supreme Pastor of Pastors.

So your Doctor noteth (I grant,) and you tou­ched it. But you were best recall it, or els this fine fansie of that Gréeke word, as it is farre fetched, so will be deare bought. For it must cost the Pope halfe of his supremacy.

Why doo you say so?

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

They are: and what then?

The Pope then hath nothing to doo with the ru­ling and gouerning of Princes; much lesse with deposing them. For Peter had commission (you say) to feede onely (and not to rule) the lambes.

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

Nay: but the Pastors are not to be ruled by the Pope neither, if this fansie hold. For in your Latin authenticall translation Ioh. 21.16. Pasce agnos, for [...]. y ^e clawse which doth answere to y ^e Gréeke word hath not sheep but lambes. Whervpō The Rhemish Testament on that place in the margent. your Rhemists also note y ^e same as spokē of lambs, [...], feed & rule. So that, howsoe­uer he lay hold on others by y ^t Gréeke word compared with your Latin text: yet his rule & gouernment of Bishops & Pastors is shakē of therby. And this is as much as half of his supremacy: nay all, by a consequent. For his claime lieth, first, ouer Bishops: and then, by means of Bishops, ouer the whole church. Thus while you deuise by quirkes of your owne to vnderprop y ^e Pope, you lay him on the ground: & do him more harme by crasing of y ^e word [...], then good by fortifying of [...]. For although it signifie to feede, in such sort, as shepheards do their sheepe, and so consequently to rule them, and guide them, in all respects [Page 116] as shepheards doo, for the preseruing of them: yet that charge of ruling belonged not to Peter alone peculiarly, but was and is common vnto all shepheards. Our English toong answereth not to the felicitie of the gréeke and latin in making euident proofe hereof. For in the gréeke wordes [...], & [...], and in the Latin pastor & pasco, the matter would be plainer. But yet in our English, a shepheard, and, to feede in that sort with ruling, are Coniugata. yoked so togither by lincke (as I may terme it) of reason and sense, though it appeare not in lincke and likenesse of words: that as many as are called to the function of [...]. shepheards and Pastors of the church, they all are bound by duetie [...] to féede and rule so. The proofe whereof we haue in Peter and Paule: who mouing the Pastors (whom they cal Elders) to attend their charge, 1. Pet. 5.1. the one beseecheth them to [...]. feede the flock of God which dependeth on them: Act. 20.28. the other telleth them, that the holy Ghost hath made them ouerseers [...]. to feede the church of God; both vsing the same worde [...] as betokening the common charge of shepheards. Reu. 2.27. Yea Christ him selfe, speaking to the Angel, y ^t is, y ^e shepherd of y ^e church of Thyatira, doth promise that hee who ouercommeth and keepeth his workes vnto the ende, shall haue power giuen vnto him ouer nations, and [...]. he shall rule them with a rodde of yron. So that euen there, where you note that word importeth greatest power of beating downe the wicked: Christ applieth it to all his faithfull seruants and not to Peter onely. Wherefore, if it were so that hee had ment more by saying [...] thē by [...], in his charge to Peter: yet he meant no more then that which belongeth to euery shep­heards charge for the shéepe which God ordeineth him to féede. But, in truth, if your itche of wresting holy scriptures to priuate fansies were healed; you woulde rather thinke that S. Iohn did vtter one sense with sundry wordes, as in the Lordes demaunde of Peter, Doost thou [...], and [...]. loue mee? so in his commandement to Peter [...] and [...]. Feede my sheepe. For the Syriake translation, which your selfe alleaged, to proue, that the Gréeke wordes [...] & [...], though different in sound yet are one in sense, because our Sauiour spake in the Syriake toong, and in the Syriake both are [...] expresseth here also y ^e two sundry Gréeke words by one [...] as if that our Sauiour had vsed the same word, and meant the same thing in both. Which interpretation should bée [Page 141] of greater credit with you in this point then it was in that, be­cause your authenticall Latin translation which there dissented from it, agreeth with it here, expressing likewise both by pasce. Unlesse you will say that your authenticall Latin doth not ex­presse fully the meaning of the Gréeke.

A translation cannot expresse the force alwayes of wordes in the originall: as in Prolog. in Ec­clesiastic. Iesu filij Sirach. Ecclesiasticus it is obserued of the Hebrue.

You say true. How much the more were they to blame Concil. Tri­dent. Session. 4. who decréed that a translation should be accounted as authenticall In publicis lectionibus, di­sputationibus, praedicationi­bus, & exposi­tionibus. in all Diuinitie-exercises, and no man vnder any pretense to reiect it. But if there had bene such force and importance in the Gréeke [...]: your Latin translator could haue expressed it easily. For Act. 20 28. otherwhere he doth translate it Regere eccle­siam Dei ▪ to rule: and that, being spoken of meaner Pastors then Peter, euen of the Bishops of Ephesus. Which bewrayeth further the séely state of your proofe grounded on y ^e worde. For, if Peter were ordeined supreme head because he was willed to rule the After the Greeke text, [...]. sheepe or After the la­tin translat. agnos. lambes: what headship may the Bishoppes of Ephesus claime, who were made ouerseers to rule the church of God, that is both lambes and shéepe? But your last proofe vpon the word Staplet. li. 6. c. 10. Obserua vim verbi pasce, quo plenissima po­testas designa­tur. to feede which signifieth (you say) a power most full and absolute, is most out of square: and neither agreeth with your selues, nor with truth and reason. For you said that lambes are onely fedde of Peter: sheepe, both fedde and ruled. Which is fond, if to rule be no more then to feede: fonder, if to feede imply a power most full and absolute. Beside that, to feede, is to nourish Christians with Hebr. 5.12. 1. Cor. 3.2. milke or strong meate according to their state, as they are either lambes or sheepe. Wherefore if that import the fulnesse of power which no man hath but one, to wéete, the supreme head: how great is your crueltie to the church of Christ, who leaue but one Pastor throughout all the earth to preach the word of God vnto it? Or if you leaue more, & grant that seuerall Churches shall haue their seuerall Pastors after the ordinance of God: how great is your folly who graunting vs so many Pastors & feeders, yet say, that one alone hath the charge to feede, and that importeth a supremacy? For if euery Pastor haue charge to feede his flocke; and to feede implieth a ful­nesse of power peculiar to the supreme head: then by your reason [Page 142] euerie Pastor in his church, euery feeder in his flocke, is a su­preme head, no lesse then Peter was amongst the Apostles. Nay, Peter was not so, by your reason, neither. For, if to feede doo signifie a power most absolute and full, as Staplet lib. 6. cap. 10. you say it doth, and that power was giuen to all the Apostles, Stap [...]et. lib. 6. cap. 7. as you confesse too: it followeth by your owne confession and saying that all the A­postles had that charge, to feede. If all they had that charge: to feede, maketh nothing for Peters Supremacie. Wherefore this, and other of the like knottes, which Stapleton hath sought and [...]ound out in bulrushes: they did not grow in them, by the work­manship of the Creator; man hath made them, and God will loose them.

This which you haue said might séeme to be some what towardes the loosing of them: The se­cond Diuision. if the scripture gaue not very cléere euidence for proofe of his Supremacie as well elsewhere as here. For Christ said to Peter, Luc. 22.31. Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired you, to winow you, as wheate. But I haue prayed for thee, that thy faith faile not. And thou being conuerted, strengthen thy brethren.

Will you be drawing still of blood? for what doth eyther Christes prayer for Peter, or the charge giuen him to strengthen his brethren, say more for his supremacie: then the question, dost thou loue me? or, the charge, feede my sheepe? vnlesse you presse violently the wordes beyond their sense, as your Schoole-diuines in their captious syllogismes (or rather sophismes) vse to doo.

Such dregges (as our Melchior Ca­nus locor. The­ologicor. lib. 8. cap. 1. Canus termeth them) of sophismes, brought into the Schoole by men who were vn­worthely named Schoole-diuines, are reproued by vs as well as by you. But the wordes of Christ doo speake enough for Pe­ters prerogatiue without violence. For Staplet. princ. doctr. lib. 6. cap. 8. they commande him to strengthen his brethren. And his brethen were the rest of the Apostles. They commaunde him therefore to strengthen the Apostles. If to strengthen the Apostles: then must he be their supreme head. Wherefore the wordes of Christ proue the supre­macie of Peter.

And thinke you that Christ meant the rest of the Apostles, when he saide, thy brethren?

Whom should hee meane, if not them?

All the faithfull, as I thinke. For they haue all one 1. Pet. 1.17. Father, the same that Peter hath; and they are 1. Pet. 3.7. fellow heires of the grace of life with Peter; and Peter himselfe strengthning them, 2. Pet. 1.10. calleth them brethren. So that, in Peters iudgement, Christ seemeth to haue meant by his brethren, all the faithfull. Pardon me, if I be rather of his minde therein, then of yours.

As who say we denyed that all the faithfull are meant by his brethren: Staplet. lib. 6. cap. 8. we teach the same also. Yet that is true, that I saide. For (I trust) the Apostles are in y ^e number of the faithfull.

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

To strengthen is to stay them vp who do stand. For the function of preaching, Rom. 10.14. which through the grace of God in­gendreth faith in men, hath two speciall partes, to teach, and to strengthen: or, as S. Paule speaketh, 1. Cor. 3.6. to plant and to water. To teach and to plant, is to conuert men vnto the faith of Christ, and to ingraffe them into him. To strengthen and to water is to vphold them which are already faithfull, that they may perse­uere in it.

Then is the charge lesser, to strenghthen the brethren, then to feede the sheepe. For to feede, is as much, as to preach the word of God. And, to preach, hath two dueties: to raise vp them that are fallen, to strengthen them that do stand. Wherefore if the supremacie were not giuen Peter by the charge, to feede the sheepe: much lesse can it be giuen by a part of that charge, to strengthen the brethren. For as Peter ought that duetie to his brethren: so did his brethren to him, and Gal. 2.14. Paule performed it; so did the Apostles to their brethren, and Act. 15.41. Rom. 1.11. 1. Pet. 5.12. Iude. 3. &c. they paid it; so do 1. Thess. 5.1 [...]. all the faithfull, euery one to his brethren (accor­ding to that measure of grace, which God hath giuen them) Rom. 12.5. 1. Cor. 12.25. as being all members of the same bodie, and therefore ech to helpe other. Our Polydor. Vir­gil hist. Angl. libr. 8. English Chronicles haue a story of king Ed­ward the Confessor, and Godwin Earle of Kent: that, when they were sitting at table togither, Harald the kinges cup-bearer, the Earles sonne, did stumble so with one foote, that he was downe almost, but recouering him selfe with y ^e other foote, he neither fell, nor shed the drinke. Whereat when the Earle smiled, and said, [Page 128] now one brother helped an other: the king calling to mind his brother Alfreds death, whom the Earle had slaine, beheld him with a displeased countenance, and said, So might my brother also haue holpen me, if thou hadst not beene. In the which storie, the cup-bearer who stumbled, doth shew that one foote may strengthen an other, and stay them both that they fall not: the Earle, who obserued therein a brothers duetie, doth shewe, that the younger may strengthen the elder, or the elder the yoong­ger: the king, who remembred his owne estate by it, doth shewe that the inferior may strengthen the superior, yea the member the head. By the proportion of which pointes a man of reason may see, that an equall in all respectes may strengthen an equall: that, amongst vnequalles, the left may strengthen the right, and the right the left: yea, that an arme, that a foote may strengthen the head, and saue it perhaps from taking such a fall, as would crush it in péeces. Wherefore the charge of Peter, to strengthen his brethren, is no sufficient proofe that he was made head of the meanest amongst the faithfull: much lesse of the Pastors whom 1. Pet. 5.1. he calleth his fellow-elders; and least of al of the Apostles, Mat. 28.19. whose commission was the same with his to all nations.

It is true that others may strengthen their brethren, as members of the same bodie: but Christ commaundeth Peter to do it as their head. Which may be gathered Staplet. lib. 6. cap. 8. by the occasion, whereon the wordes were spoken. For, when there arose a strife among the Apostles which of them should seeme to bee the greatest: Christ said vnto them, Luc. 22.25. The kingesof the Gen­tiles do raigne ouer them; but you not so, and so forth: tea­ching them, that Omnem do­minandi appeti­tum ac libidi­nem. all desire and lust of raigning ought to bee farre from his ministers. Ne tamen omnem domi­nandi potestatē pa [...]iter prohi­buisse aut abstu­lisse videretur. Yet least he should séeme thereby to haue forbidden withall, or taken away all power of raigning from them: he added those wordes spoken to Peter onely; plainly declaring that he should be the greatest, which was the matter where about they striued.

Cato said Cic. de diui­nation. lib. 2. that he marueiled, that a Sooth-sayer did not laugh when he saw a Sooth-sayer. Me thinkes, the professors of your diuinitie should laugh, when they sée one an other. For, they proue the pointes of their Popish doctrine by as strong reasons: as the Sooth sayers vsed to proue their diui­nations by the liuer, and the hart, and other entralles of beastes. [Page 145] But children are perswaded, when they heare a ring of belles that the belles speake whatsoeuer they haue fansied, at least, like vnto it. The Lord, when the Apostles did striue about dominion and superioritie, told them, that none of them should be amongst the rest, as kinges amongst the Gentiles: yet least he should seeme withall to haue forbidden all dominion amongst them, he appoin­ted Peter to be their supreme head. Thus saith the Soothsayer. But what saith the Scripture? In effect the cleane contrary. For it sheweth, that Christ Luc. 22. ver. 2 [...]. hauing reproued them for striuing who should be the greatest, and thirsting to be Lordes after the maner of earthly kinges: ver. [...]6. taught them, that an humbling of them selues to their brethren, and a desire to do good by seruing ech of other, must be the preeminence that they should seeke, as ver. 27. he had done. And as ver. 28. they had béene partakers of his trou­bles, so ver. 29. had he appointed to them a kingdome also: ver. 30. to make them partakers of that blisse and glory, in which he should raigne him selfe, as king of kinges, & they (as counsellors about him) sitting on Mat. 19.28. twelue thrones to iudge the twelue tribes of Israel. Now the former part of this spéech of Christ debarreth the Apostles all from that supremacie (of Sanctissimus Dominus noster Papa. our most holy Lord the Pope) which you would put on Peter. The later hath grea­ter coulour for his dreame, who saith, that Christ remoued Omnem do­minandi appeti­tum ac libidi­nem. all lust of raigning ftom his ministers, and Non tamen omnem domi­nandi potestatem. not all power of raigning; because it mentioneth a kingdome y ^t Christ appoin­ted for them. But this importeth rather an equalitie of Peter with the rest of the Apostles: sith the state is commō, and thrones are giuen to thē al. Or if there might be euen so notwithstanding a superioritie, as at a councell table there must néedes be, in sitting one before an other: yet is that nothing vnto that supremacie which you claime for Peter. For, to serue your purpose, Christ should haue said, that he would establish them all in seates of ho­nour: but Peter in a throne like 1. King. 10.18. the throne of Salomon: and he should be their Pope, and they should be his Cardinals As the Pope telleth his Cardinals (newly created) aduer­tising them of their duetie. Sacrar. ceremō. sanct. Rom. ec­cles. lib. 1. sect. 8. to Success ores Apostolorum circa thronum sedebitis. sit about the throne, and be both Consiliarii nostri & con [...]u­cices orbis [...] ­rarum. Counsellors to him, and iudges with him of all the earth.

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

A folly indeede: if you go about to make me e­stéeme of mole-hils, as mountaines.

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

Then you must proue them so. But if your moun­taines trauell, and be deliuered of a mouse: you may not looke that I should admire it as a Giant.

Well. Let vs leaue the occasion of Christes wordes: and weigh the words in themselues. Staplet. p [...]inc. doct [...]. li. 6. cap. 8. For there are two things which Christ doth therein. First, in the common danger of all, he strengthneth Peter onely: Satan hath desired you, to winow you as wheat: but I haue prayed for thee, that thy faith faile not. Then, least that strengthning should séeme to haue bene made for Peters owne sake alone, or in respect of his personall faith, he addeth, And thou being conuerted strengthen thy brethen: shewing that he is strengthned in the faith, to the end he might strengthen the faith of all others, as who should be af­terward the Pastor of them all.

It were a néedlesse labour for me to spend words in these your two pointes, if you had marked that which hath bene saide alreadie. For I shewed that the former argueth his weaknesse; the later openeth his duetie; but neither proueth any preeminence at all, saue a preeminence in frailtie. The truth is, that Christ in those wordes dooth thrée things: whereof one is a byle, and therefore you touch it not. For in the danger of them all, but greatest danger of Peter, he putteth him in minde Satan hath desired to wi­now you, as wheate. first of his fall, to humble him; I haue pray­ed for thee, that thy faith faile not. then of his rising, to comfort him; And thou be­ing conuerted, strengthen thy brethren. last, of his duetie to quicken him vnto it. His fall; to coole the heate of Theophylact. in Luc. 23. pride and Chrysostom in Matth. hom. 83. vaine glorie, (may I so terme it with the Fathers?) wherein hee presumed, Matth. 26.33. more then the rest did, of his faith and constancy. His rising; that he should not despaire when he had fallen. For though he dealt vnfaithfully, denying Christ thrise: yet his faith should not faile, because Ioh. 11.42. he (whom God doth alwayes heare) had praied for him. His duetie; that being raised vp againe he should strengthen his brethren: as ha­uing learned by experience both to haue compassion of the infir­mitie of men & to preach the goodnes and mercy of God. The last point, of his duetie, was common to him (as I haue shewed) with the Apostles: and therefore proueth no preeminence of supreme headship. The first, of his fall, proueth a kinde of preeminence; but in the denying of Christ aboue others: which Popes haue [Page 147] best right to, but they doo not claime it. The other, of his ri­sing, insueth and dependeth on that of his fall: wherin, sith he spe­cially would sinne more then the rest, and so his danger be more speciall, and therefore néede more speciall succour; Christ said to him in speciall, But I haue prayed for thee, that thy faith faile not. For Christ prayed the same for all his Apostles in sense, though not in word, by that solemne Ioh. 17. ve [...]. 11. prayer made vnto his fa­ther, [...]. 6. I haue declared thy name vnto them, ver. 11. holy father, keepe them in thy name and [...]. sanctifie them with thy truth. Neither did he pray this for them onely, but for [...]. all the faithful which should beleeue in him through their word. Wherfore, as a good father hath care of all his children, but if he sée some one distressed aboue y ^e rest, Luc. 15.22.31. wil cheare him vp beside the rest; & a good Physition hath care of all y ^e bodie, but applieth plaisters to y ^e part affected: so Christ, to helpe Peter, who was to be distressed & dis­eased most, encouraged him with this comfort, y ^t his faith should not faile; and laide that salue of Gods assured fauour on the sore of distrust that might afflict his minde. Now, this care and wise­dome of a father and a Physition doth shew (for the childe & part whereto they tender it) not, that they be in greater honor then the rest, but that they stand in greater néede. The wordes of Christ therefore spoken vnto Peter, I haue prayed for thee, that thy faith faile not: doo proue that he stood in greater danger then the rest, not that he was in greater dignitie. And these are y ^e words, of which D. Princip. doct [...]. lib. 6. cap. 8. Stapleton doth insolētly vaunt, y ^t they are so singular for Peters supremacy: y ^t Caluin (when he had diligently wei­ghed all other places & reasons that are wont to be brought for it, & refuted them as he could) made no mention at all of this place & these words Vt qui probe sciret nullo ca­uilationis suco tam manifesta ve [...]ba [...] po­tuisse. because he knew well that it was impossible to shift of words so manifest with any colour of a cauill. Whereas it is most likely, that Caluin, a wise & faithfull seruant of the Lord, did therfore passe them ouer in handling your supremacy, because he knew they made so litle for your purpose, that if he should haue brought them in amongst your reasons, he might séeme to haue sought a shadow wherewith to fight. For, you abuse them so notoriously, that if, I say not Caluin, but any of the meanest children of the Prophets, whom God hath scarce­ly giuen one portion of his spirit to, would deale with you for it: we haue as iust cause to charge you with this fact, as 2. Sam. 13. [...]. Tamar [Page 148] Sam. 13. ver. 14. had to charge her brother Ammon with his vilany.

Good Lord, what meane you so to say?

Nay, I may rather aske: good Lord, what meane you so to doo? For, as Amnon, enamoured of his sisters beautie, ensnaring her by fraude, did force her to his lust, and after ver. 15. cast her out; whervpon she said, ver. 16. this euill was greater then the o­ther, which he had done vnto her: so the Pope enflamed with loue of the church, entrapping her with guile and vsing violence vnto her, doth cast her out of doores by giuing this as proper, first to Peter, then to him selfe, that Christ prayed for him, that his faith should not faile. Wherein I haue this reason to say, that he doth greater euill vnto the church, then was the other which he did: because in the other she had this comfort left, that the transgression was rather his, who did, then hers, who suffe­red force: in this he taketh from her all comfort of her misery, and maketh her ashamed to cast her eyes on God or man. For what is the comfort of the Churche of Christ, the faithfull, and e­lect, but that Ioh. 17.11. he hath prayed for vs that wée fayle not, that the Matt. 16.18. gates of hell shall not preuaile against vs; that our Hebr. 6.18. hope might be an ancre of strong consolation, that Rom. 8.16. we doo beléeue and are assured by Gods spirite wee are the heires of life eter­nall? of the which comfort that incestuous Amnon séeketh to bereaue vs and cast vs out of the doores, when he saith that Christ prayed for Peter onely, and after Peter for the Pope. But of the Pope Chap 7. Diuision 2. in due place. Now, we speake of Peter.

Why? Dare you deny that Christ spake to Peter, and to Peter onely, when he said, Luc. 22, 31. Simon, I haue prayed for thee that thy faith should not faile? Dooth not the very text of the Gospell shew it?

What? Dare you deny that Christ spake to the man sicke of the palsie, and to him onely, when he said, Matt. 9.2. Sonne, be of good comfort, thy sinnes are forgiuen thee? Dooth not the verie text of the Gospell shewe it? But is this a proofe that o­ther Christians haue not their sinnes forgiuen too? And doo wée all beléeue in vaine when we beleeue forgiuenes of sinnes? Or may you not affirme it with as good reason, as you affirme the o­ther of Peter, not to faile in faith? Are you the maisters of Isra­ell Allens Apo­logie of the English Se­minaries. Bristow in his Motiues, De­mandes, and Reply. who make so great boast of skill in all Diuinitie: and doo you not know that Pastors and Preachers (of whom Christ was [Page 149] [...]. 1 Pet. 5.4. the chiefest) apply the generall doctrines of the lawe and Go­spell to them, in particular, who néede to be reléeued thereby? If I should say to some couetous man, who grindeth the faces of the poore, and buildeth vp his house with blood, or ioyneth benefice to benefice, and taketh charge of a flocke which he féedeth not; Hebr. 13.5. Let thy conuersation be without couetousnesse, for he hath saide, I will not faile thee nor forsake thee: doo I take this comfort of the prouidence of God from euery other Christian, because I assure it to one in particular? Or did the Apostle ouershoote himselfe, in saying that to all the faithful which God said to Ioshua: Ios. 1.5. I will not leaue thee, nor forsake thee? You haue your choyce, take which you list: either acquit vs, or condemne him. For if Christ meant to assure the faith of none but of Peter, because he said to him, I haue prayed for thee that thy faith should not faile: then did God promise his gratious assistance to none but to Ioshua, when he said to him, I will not leaue thee nor forsake thee: and Hebr. 13.5. the Apostle erred in saying it to all Christians. If the Apostle saide that to all Christians by the spirit of truth: then is it true in like sort, that it may be said to any childe of God, whom Satan hath desired to sift and shake (as he did Peter,) and made him to denie Christ; Be of good comfort, for he hath said, I haue prayed for thee that thy faith should not faile. And if it may be said to any childe of God: then was it verified in all the Apostles, Ioh. 17.12. except the childe of perdition. Wherefore Christ, by saying of those words to P [...]ter, gaue him no Supremacy ouer the Apostles.

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

No maruell. For the noyse of it hath béene so great and loude about your eares, in the Seminarie at Rhemes and other Popish schooles beyond seas: that it hath made you dull of hearing, and you cannot perceiue 1. King. 19.12. the still & soft voice of the truth. As Cic. in [...]om­nio Scipion. we read of them who dwell about the fall of the riuer Nilus, where it tumbleth downe from the hye moun­taines, that they are made deafe by the greatnes of the sound and noyse of the waters. But tell me I pray: doo you thinke y ^t Christ made Peter supreme head by saying vnto him, I haue prayed for thee, or, strengthen thy brethren?

What a question is that? Why should I mention it, vnlesse it proued his supremacie?

It is a question. For if Christ made him supreme head by those wordes: then the supreme head denyed Christ, and that often, and that with an oth too. Whereof a very daungerous conclusion would folowe, that the Pope may erre, yea (that is more) deny Christ.

I say not that Christ made him supreme head at that present time: but prepared him (as it were) to make him su­preme head after. As D. Princip. doctrinal. l. 6. c. 8. Stapleton writeth that Christ by those wordes established Peters faith, Antequam hanc tantam potestatem illi de facto conferret. before that he besto­wed the power of supreme head-ship vpon him in deed. For he gaue that power after his resurrection, when he said to him, Feede my lambes: feede my sheepe. But those wordes (of strengthning) he spake before his death, and did but Futuram in­sinuauerat. Sta­pl [...]t. l. 6. c. 9. insinuate therein & giue an inkling, that he would make him supreme head.

You haue said. And your Doctor hath shewed, herein, a point of greater wit then many of his felowes. But as of greater wit, so of greater spite, in adding thereunto (that, which now I touched) Lib. 6. cap. 8. that Caluin made no mention at all of those wordes, because he knew well that (they are so singu­lar for Peters supremacie) they could not possibly bee auoi­ded. For Institut. religi­on. Christ. lib. 4. cap. 7. sect. 27. & 28. Caluin doth mention them in treating of the point whether the Pope may erre. And your Doctor witnesseth him selfe that directly they concerne that point: the supremacie, but by an inkling. The strength thereof then, as touching the supre­macie, doth rest vpon that, whereof they giue inkling it should be done after: that is, vpon the charge of feeding lambes and sheepe. But it is proued that Christ gaue no more to Peter, in that, then to the rest of the Apostles. It is proued therefore, that y ^e wordes of Christ [strengthen thy brethren] do raise no high­er throne for Peter then for them. Much lesse, if the prayer that Christ made for Peter were common vnto him with all faithfull Christians, and not with the Apostles onely. Wherefore this rea­son, which is so strong in your eies, must be strengthned by his brethren, if he haue any. For sure he is a great deale too weake to strengthen them.

Yes: he hath brethren. And more peraduenture, then you would be glad to see in the field: as lustie as you are, and [Page 151] thinke you can dispatch them all.

Not I: saue with the aides of Elisaeus onely: 2. King. 6.16. they that be with vs, are mo, then they that bee with them. But let vs see, what are they?

Examples of the practise of Peters supreme-headship in the gouernment of the Church. The first Diuisiō. Whereof we haue records in the holy scriptures: euen in the Actes of the Apostles, which are a paterne of Church-gouernment.

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

There are many places, but specially, two: by which Peters soueraintie ouer the Apostles is manifestly shewed. For in Act. 1.15. the one, he proposeth an election to bee made of a new A­postle into the roome of Iudas. In Act. 15.7. the other, he is President of the Councell of the Apostles, which was held at Ierusalem: he speaketh first, and concludeth in it. Out of both the which I gather this reason. S. Peter did practise the power and authoritie of a supreme head ouer the Apostles. Therefore hee was their supreme head.

Now are you come to that, which I had an eye too, when I desired you (in Chap. 1. Diuis. 2. the beginning of our conference) to tell me what power you gaue vnto the Pope by calling him supreme head. For, in this grasse there lurketh a snake. Which that you may see, and (if it be the gratious will of God) auoide, least that you perish through his venoom: I will aske you a que­stion. When you say, Staplet. prin. doctr. lib. 6. in praefat. the Pope is Primarium & supremum ecclesiastici iu­dicii caput. chiefe and supreme [Page 152] head of ecclesiasticall iudgement, and President of Councels: doo you meane that the Pope in assemblies of Bishops, is, as the Speaker (with vs) in the Parlament, to propose matters to them, and aske their iudgementes, and gather their voices, that thinges may bee orderly handled and enacted by common con­sent?

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

Yea, I say to you, and more then the Prince. For as thinges in Parlament cannot bee enacted without the Princes consent: so neither can the Prince make actes without consent of the Lordes and Commons. And when they are made by consent of them all▪ they cannot be repealed by the Prince a­lone, without the like consent by which they were made. But with the Pope it is not so. For such is the power of his Princely prerogatiue, that not onely Councels may not make decrées for the Church-gouernment without his consent: but hee may also make decrées without them, as good as they with him. Yea, that he may adde too, and take from, and alter what hee shall thinke good in the decrées of Councels▪ and set them out for theirs, Iohannes An­dreas in princi­pio Clementina [...]um, de consti­tut. concil. Vi­ [...]ens. as Pope Clemens played with the Councell of Vienna. Yea, that being made with their consent and his both: As it is she­wed by the whole course ofthe Canon law: specially the Decretals, as they are called. hee maye breake them when he will, and repeale them, if he list, for no lawe doth hold him. Now, sith that the power which you giue the Pope by the name of supreme head, you giue it Peter too, from whom you fetch the Popes conueiance; and Peter in the assemblies of the Apostles, was but as the Speaker, and therefore not as the Prince, and therefore not as more then the Prince in our Par­lament: hereof I conclude, that Peter was not the supreme head of the Apostles. And so haue you the third point, Chap. 3. Diuis. 1. which I pro­mised to proue, that if somewhat more were giuē to Peter thē to the rest of the Apostles, yet was it not so much as should make him their supreme head. You may discharge now the Actes of the Apostles, out of your Campe. For, drawe what reasons thence you list, you shal find thē (as I told you) no stronger thē y ^e former.

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

I haue proued as much as may conclude your Pope to be an vsurper.

You haue not proued that Peter in the assemblies of the Apostles, was but as the Speaker is in our Parla­ment.

What néede I? When your selfe gaue no more vnto him, then as the Speakers office, in the former assembly: wherein yet he did most. For you said, Petrus propo­nit faciendam furrogationem noui Apostoli. Staplet. lib. 6. cap. 13. that he proposed an election to be made of a new Apostle into the roome of Iu­das. And this was all that you might say, and say truely, by the story of the Actes. Which sheweth, that not he, but Act. 1.23. they mad [...] the election: so farre as it was lawfull for them to deale with that which God was to order extraordinarilie. As for the other assem­bly, when the Councel was held at Ierusalem: you cannot proue that he had so much as the office of a Speaker therein. Your Staplet. lib. 6. cap. 13. Doctor infeoffeth him (I graunt) with more: namely, that Primus ex om­nibus loquitur, concludit, & praesidet. hee speaketh first of all, concludeth, yea, and is President too. But what will not he dare to affirme? who, in so great light of the Scriptures, affirmeth in writing that which is flat against them. For he saith that Peter not only speaketh first, but concludeth also. And they shewe that both Act. 15. ver. 7. [...]. there had beene much deba­ting and reasoning of the matter, before Peter spake: and after he had spoken, ver. 12. Barnabas, and Paule and ver. 13. Iames spake, and so ver. [...]2. the Councell did conclude the matter. Yea they did conclude it according to the very wordes that Iames spake, and ver. 29. a speci­all point of his, which Peter touched not. So that, if we would striue but lawfully against y ^t, for which you striue vnlawfully: ver. 20. the likely-hood is rather that Iames sat as President in the Coū ­cell, then Peter, sith both he spake last and the whole Councell did conclude with him. But, to yéeld vnto you (for your most aduan­tage) as much or more then any likely-hood may afford you, y ^t Peter was not only the Speaker but y ^e President in both y ^e as­semblies: yet are you no néerer vnto y ^t supremacy which you shoote at. For, such a Presidentship as Peter had amongst y ^e Apostles, is so farre from the Prelatship which the Pope seeketh to haue a­mongst Bishops: that, if we should offer him all that Peter had (at your request) vpon condition that he would accept it and aske no more then it: he would thinke we mocked him, and giue you litle thankes who take vpon you to be his aduocate, & make so poore a plea for him. This you may perceiue by an other ad­uocate, who made y ^e same plea for him out of this storie, a learned [Page 138] Lawier, Francis Duaren. He (in De sacr. ec­cle minister. ac benefic. lib. 3. cap. 2. his Abridgement of the Ca­non lawe) falling into the question of the Pope and the Coun­cell, whither of them is soueraine, and hath the chiefest power, whereto the other should be subiect in matters of the Church: doth thus set downe his iudgement of it. It seemeth most agree­able to the law of God, that the Church (which the Coun­cell doth represent) should haue the chiefest power, and the Pope should acknowledge himselfe subiect to it. For the pow­er of binding and loosing was giuen by Christ not to Peter alone (whose successour the Pope is said to be) but Matt. 18. c. Quodcunque. 24. q. 1. to the whole Church. Howbeit, I deny not, but Peter was set ouer the rest of the Apostles. Hereof it commeth that in the time of the Apostles Act. 1. & 6. & 15. as often as any was to be ordeined either Bishop or Deacon, or any thing to bee decreed which appertained to the Church: Peter neuer tooke that vpon himselfe, but permited it to the whole Church. This was in him aboue the rest, that he was wont, Tanquam princeps Apo­stolorum. as chiefe of the Apostles, to call them togi­ther, and propose to them the thinges, which were to bee doone. Euen as now He meaneth, in Fraunce. Where the courts of Par­lament are as­semblies of iudges: of whome the Lord-chiefe-iustice (as it were) is called President. with vs, hee that is the President of a court of Parlament, doth call togither the Senate: in the Se­nate he speaketh first, when it is needfull; and doth many o­ther things, which argue a certaine prerogatiue and preemi­nence of the person that he beareth. Yet is he not therefore greater or higher then is the whole court: neither hath hee power ouer all the Senatours; neyther may hee de­cree any thing against their iudgements: nay the iudge­ment of all controuersies belongeth to the court ( Cuius caput esse praeses dici­tur. whose head the President is said to bee,) and not to the President. Yea, if neede bee, the court dooth minister iustice and execute iudgement as well against him, as against anye o­ther, and punisheth him also. And this was the state of these thinges Olim, olim. in olde time. But in processe of time, (I know not how) it came to passe, that the highest power ouer all Christians was giuen vnto one man: and he was Legibus om­nibus canoni­busque synoda­libus (imperato­rum exemplo) solutus. set at libertie from being bound to any lawes (after the maner of Princeps legibus solu­ [...]us est. l. Prin­ceps. D. de legib. senatusqué con­sult. Emperours) or to the Canons & decrees of any Councels. For cap. Signifi­casti. de election. Pope Paschalis prouided and ordered by a decretall E­pistle; Nulla concilia Romanae eccle­siae legem praefi­gere posse. that no Councels may prescribe a lawe to be kept of the church of Rome: & the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome is excepted expresly c ideo. 25. q. 1. in the decrees of certaine Councels. And thus he go­eth [Page 139] forward in shewing the prerogatiue of the Pope aboue the Councell: whereof he maketh him President. But so, that (you sée) he acknowledgeth it is not in Their go­uernment by their Ca [...] law. the Actes of the Popes, as it was of old in the Actes of the Apostles: no not in those very places of the Actes, whereon you grounde the chiefest proofe of your supremacy. Which, and all the rest that you can bring with any shew out of the scriptures, giue Peter such supremacy, if you will call it so: that I am persuaded, Pope Gregory the thirtéenth, as he hath alreadie spent Allens Apo­logie of the Seminaries▪ chapt. 2. much vpon Scholers, and Genebrard. Chronograph. lib. 4. somewhat vpon Souldiours for maintenance of his State: so he will rather spend his triple crowne, and all, vpon them, then he­retikes shall force him to come out of his throne of maiestie, and submit his head to such a supremacy.

What tell you me of Francis Duaren, whose authori­tie I regard not, nor am to be pressed with it? Chiefly, sith hée was a Lawier, not a Diuine: and whither he were a Catholike or no, I know not. I will proue by the ancient and holy learned fathers, that Peter had a full and perfit supremacy ouer the Apo­stles, in those two places of the Actes.

I did not take Duaren for the strength of mine answere, but the holy scriptures, the same that you alleaged. By the text and circumstances whereof, I made it plaine, that Peter had no higher power in the assemblies of the Apostles: thē hath either the Speaker of our English Parlament, or, (to make the most of it) the President of a court of Parlament in France, which is Duarenes similitude. Howbeit, if I should haue vsed his authoritie to confirme it, as well as I alleaged his wordes to open it: you might not reiect such a man so lightly. For [...]. a gar­diner (as the prouerbe is) hath spoken oft to very good pur­pose: & Exod. 18.17. Iethro saw more in somewhat then Moses. And Dua­ren, though a Lawier, yet was not onely skilfull of the ciuil law (which is a great helpe notwithstanding of wisedome in matters touching gouernment:) but also of the Canon, whereof you may vouchsafe to count as of Diuinitie; doubtlesse your Diuinitie will be cold without it. Beside, he wrote that treatise to instruct students in the Canon law, which is the fortresse of the Papa­cy: and he so deliuereth the chiefest pointes of it, that Lawiers a­mongst y ^e Protestants were offended & Responsio Christianorum iurisconsultorū ad Duareni commentarios de ministerijs ecclesiae atque beneficijs: Ar­gentoruti. wrote against him for it. But now (thus you rewarde men) it is called in questiō, whether [Page 156] that he were a Catholike or no. I assure you, if you beware not, you will make honest and well affected hartes afraid to bee Ca­tholikes; such, as you meane by that word. For if a man kéepe within any bounds of modestie and truth, & will not runne head­long with you through thicke & thin: you will account of him, ei­ther as an Hereticke, or as one that sauoureth of heresie at least. But who are the Fathers, whom you pretend against Duaren, to proue your supremacy out of those places of the Actes?

Staplet. prin­cip. doctr. li. 6. cap. 13. S. Chrysostome, for the one: S. Ierome, for the o­ther.

And what doo they say?

S. In act. Aposto­lor. hom. 3. Chrysostome, entreating of the fact of Peter how he proposed the election of a new Apostle into the roome of Iudas: Beholde, saith he, the zeale of Peter. How hee doth acknow­ledge the flocke committed to him by Christ? How he is the chiefe in this assembly: and euery where beginneth to speake first of all? Afterward he prayseth Peter for dooing all thinges by the common aduise and iudgement of the Disciples, no­thing by his owne authoritie. Yet that Peter might haue cho­sen an Apostle, yea, alone, without them, he affirmeth plainely. What, saith he, was it not lawfull for Peter himselfe to choose him? yes, it was lawfull, no doubt. But he dooth it not, least that he should seeme to gratifie any man. Then he praiseth the modestie of the rest of the Disciples: Consider, saith hee, how they graunt the seate to him (that is, the primacy, as In Matthaeum homil. 51. other­where he calleth it,) neither doubt they any longer, deba­ting amongest themselues, (to wit as they did once, when Christ conuersed with them) which of them should bee the greatest. This is S. Chrysostomes iudgement of that place, which I al­leaged out of the first chapter of the Actes of the Apostles for the supremacy of Peter.

This testimonie of Chrysostome dooth stand on two branches: the one, what Peter doth, as the Scripture shew­eth; the other, what he might haue done, as Chrysostome suppo­seth. That which Peter dooth, is granted. But it proueth not the supremacy. He remembreth his duetie; hee speaketh first of all; he doth all things by the common aduise and iudge­ment of the Disciples, and nothing by his owne authoritie. Thus much I saide of Peter, and did explane it out of Duaren. [Page 157] In Duaren you thought that it made against you, and therefore refused him. Dooth it make for you, when it is in Chrysostome, that you bring him against Duaren? Or, is this the reason, why you accept the one and refuse the other, because the wordes of Chrysostome yelding a certaine primacy to Peter, may deceiue the simple, as though he meant that primacy which you call the supremacy: but the wordes of Duaren put so plaine a difference betwéene the two primacies, that, which Peter had; and the o­ther which the Pope hath, or would haue; that a blinde man may sée that Peters primacy was not a Popes supremacy. Which shall appeare Chapt. 5. Diuision 3. farther (if God will) by those thinges, that the Fathers speake touching Peters primacy. And thus your proofe faileth in that which the scripture sheweth that Peter doth. Now that, which Peter might haue done, as Chrysostome supposeth, woulde inferre a greater primacy then Peter had, if it were true. But the scripture saith it not. Wherfore as the Basil. de Gre­gor. Neocaes. ep. 64. Athanas. de Origene, libell. de decret. Ni­caen. Synod. Fathers report one of an other, (by Staplet. princ. doctr. li. 7. cap. 6. your owne confession) that they write some things [...], to confute the aduersaries with whom they had to deale, & in these they erre sometimes and ga­ther amisse: likewise may I say that they write some thinges, [...], to praise the Saintes of God, and stirre vp others to their vertue, Hallacinantur interdum & ma [...]le colligunt. wherein if their wordes should be rigo­rously sifted, the truth is sometimes ouerlashed. So In Act. cap. 15. homil. 33. Chryso­stome (in the other place which you alleage out of the Actes) to commend the mildnesse and wisedome of Iames, who left the sharper speeches to be vsed of Peter, and vsed himselfe the gentler, doth speake of him as being aboue Peter in power: and here to commend the modestie of Peter, because that hee did all things by the common aduise and iudgement of his brethren, hée saith (by the way of amplification) that Peter might him­selfe haue chosen an Apostle, which yet he did not.

By waye of amplification: [...], to praise the saintes of God. Such colours you cast vpon it. But Chrysostome saith expressely, that Peter himselfe (that is to say, alone) might haue chosen him, if he would. And you (with smoother wordes, but in plaine effect) replie, that he lyeth. Doo Fathers praise the Saintes so?

It is a rule Chapt. 2. Diuision. 2. of your owne and Hieron. Tor­rens. in confessi­on. Augustin. li. 1. ca. 11. tit. 1. giuen by your Iesuit, that a man may lawfully dissent from the Fathers, [Page 159] so that he do it with modestie. If any kéepe not this, you say he raileth at the Fathers. Of me, who would kéepe it, you say I cast colours. What shall I do to please you?

You shall please me, if you dissent not from them, but onely in such thinges as be knowne truthes. Which is another rule of ours, if you remember it.

I remember it well: and herein I haue kept it. For it is a truth and a knowne truth, that the Fathers write, in fauour of the Saintes, some thinges which ouerlash the truth, if a man examine and trie them by the touch-stone. Peter him­selfe shall be the Saint, in whose example I will shew it. In Matthaeum canon. 16. Hi­larie, vpon the wordes of Christ vnto Peter, Mat. 16.23 Get thee behinde me Satan, thou art an offense to me; saith, it is not meete we should thinke, that Christ did call Peter Satan; but Christ said to him, get thee behind me, and no more; the rest to the Deuill, not to him, Satan thou art an offense to me. The same In Matthaeum canon. 32. Hilarie, paené, sine pia [...]lo. almost but Commentar. in Luc. lib. 10. Ambrose quite & cleane excuseth Peter from all fault in that he denied Christ, nay Ambrose commendeth him. Peter an­swered, saith he, Mat. 26.72. I know not the man, Denegauit hominem, quem sciebat Deum. He well denied him a man, whom he knewe to be God. Clem. Alex­an [...]r. hypoty­pos. lib. 5. Clemens and Euseb. histor. ecc [...]es. lib. 1. cap. 13. Euse­bius, whom In epist. ad Galat. cap. 2. Oecumenius foloweth, do write that that Peter whome Paule did withstand and reproue at Antioch, was not Pe­ter the Apostle, but an other, I know not who, of the same name, one of the seuentie disciples. Wherefore sith it is known by the word of truth, that Christ called Peter Satan, that Peter denyed Christ, that Paule withstood and reproued Peter; and it may be knowne by the writtnges of the Fathers, how they va­ry from this truth in fauour of S. Peter, that, by washing out the spottes which seeme to staine him, his praise may be the more glorious: I hope, I might take it for a knowne truth, that the Fathers write some thinges [...], to praise the Saintes of God: wherein, if their wordes be sifted precisely, they ouerlash the truth sometimes. In saying whereof if you thinke I cast colours, and vse wordes too smooth: I can amend that faulte with speaking more roughly, as In Matthaeum cap. 26. Ierom doth, who saith y ^t the sense which Hilarie and Ambrose giue of Peters words, I know not the man; as though denying Christ he had denied him man, because he knewe him God: they gaue it of a reue­rent affection to Peter; but Hoc quam friuolum sit, pru­dens lector in­tellig [...]t. wise readers see howe friuo­lous [Page 158] it is, if they so defend Peter that they make God a lyer. For, if Peter denied not, then did the Lord lye, who said, Mat. 26.34. Verely, I say to thee, this night before the cocke crow, thou shalt denye me thrise. Behold what he saith, thou shalt denye me, not, the man. Or if S. Ieroms words be too smooth also, I can speake more roughly yet with In Luc. cap. 22▪ Theophylact: who saith that they who make that defense of Peter, doo make [...]. a foolish defense. Thus if you compare my words with Theophylacts, & Ieroms, I vsed modestie: if with that which other of the Fathers write, I did it in a knowne truth, when I dissented from Chrysostom. Doo I please you now?

I wonder that you set your selfe against S. Chryso­stome, a Father so auncient, so learned, so godly, so skilfull in the Scriptures.

Let me aske you a question. What thinke you of Christ? Was he alone frée from all spotte of sinne, both original, and actuall? or was the blessed virgin frée from it also?

You know Conc. Tridēt. Sess. 5. Decreto de peccat. orig. & Sess. 6. de [...]u­stif. can. 23. our minde thereof. She was frée from it also.

S. In Matth. hom. 45. & in Iohan. hom. 20. Chrysostom saithe the contrary: a Father so ancient, so learned, so godly, so skilfull, in the scriptures. Yea, and he groundeth therin vpon Mat. 12.48. Ioh. 2.4. the scriptures: which he doth not, in yours of Peter.

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

If I shold aske what Fathers say it of actuall sin: hard for you to name them. As for originall: your own Locor. Theo­log. lib. 7. cap. 1. & 3. Canus sheweth Ambros. Au­gust. Chrysost. Eus. Emis. Re­mig. Maxim. Bed. Anselm. Bernard. Erard. Anton. Pad. Ber­nardin. Bona­uent. Thom. Vin̄ cent. Antonin. Damas. Hug. de S. Vict. they all say the contrary. But if many said it: yet you may sée by this, which I haue shewed of Chrysostom, what brokē réeds you leane on, whē you leane on such reasons: Chrysostome doth say so; therfore it is so. And, if [other fathers] be of as good credit to win you from others, vnto a point of truth, as to a point of error: then wil you be as readie to leaue his opinion in this point of Peter, as you haue bene to leaue it in y ^t of the virgin. For a number of Fathers, euē a whole Epist. Synod. African. ad ec­clesias Legion. Astur. Emerit. apud Cyp [...]ian. ep. 68. Councell of Bishops of A­frica (togither with S Cyprian) doo write that Peter did Secundum magisteria diui­na. accor­ding to the les [...]ons and preceptes of God, in that he propo­sed vnto the disciples the ordeining of an Apostle in the roome of Iudas, to the end they might deale Omnium [...] ­fragio & [...]. by common aduise and [Page 160] voice therin. Wherefore, if you haue Fathers in such regard, as you pretend, and do rather follow the consent of many, then the mind of one (which is Chap. 2. Diuis. 2. your owne rule) in exposition of scrip­tures: you must yéeld that Peter might not haue done that which Chrysostom saith, he might; vnlesse, you will say, that he might do that, whereof he was commanded and taught the contrary by God. But, if this opinion be so rooted in you, that reason cannot wéede it out: wonder not at me who, beside the scripture, haue Fathers more then you haue, and therefore (by your iudgement) the exposition of the Fathers. Wonder at your selfe: who hauing neither of them stand against them both. Won­der at your Doctor: who hauing vndertaken to proue the Supre­macie by that, which Peter did in the Actes of the Apostles, telleth what he might haue done by Chrysostomes supposall. Wonder at your Pope: who building on the word, not of God, but of man, and finding mans foundation ouer-weake too, doth not practise that which Chrysostome commendeth in the fact of Peter, but doth chalenge that which Chrysostome imagineth of the right of Peter.

If Peter would not vse his owne right, of modestie: his fact doth not bind the Pope (his successor) but that he may vse it.

That refuge will not serue, vnlesse you proue two things, whereof neither is true. One, that this soueraintie was the right of Peter: an other, that the Pope succeedeth him in all his right. By the way, what soeuer you déeme of his right: you graunt that he doth not succéed him in modestie.

It is not expedient for him to doo in euery thing as Pe­ter did. The se­cond Diuision. But, that he succeedeth Peter in all his right: I will proue then, when I haue proued Peters right. Now, that this so­ueraintie was the right of Peter, and that he had as full power in the assemblies of the Apostles, as the Prince hath in a Parla­ment, or the Pope in a Councell: S. Chrysostomes wordes were not all so pregnant vpon the first of the Actes Staplet. princ. doctr. l. 6. c. 14. as S. Ieroms are vpon the fiftéenth, to proue it inuincibly. For Epist. 11. inter epist. August. he teacheth plain­ly that Peter was the first man who gaue the sentence: which sentence being followed and approued by the rest, was concluded and published in the name of the whole Councel, both of the head and of the bodie. Audito Petro tacuit omnis multitudo. When they, saith he, had heard Peter, al the [Page 161] multitude held their peace: & Iames & all the Elders togither did agree vnto Peters sentence.

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

You are disposed to toy. My proofe is in the rest of S. Ieroms wordes: and you can sée it, if you list. In sen [...]entiam Petr [...] Iacobu. & om [...]es [...]imul Pres [...]yteri tran­sierunt. Iames, and all the Elders togither did agree vnto Peters sentence: therefore Peter was supreme head.

In déede I saw not whence you could frame a proofe. Beare with mine ouersight. The silence of the multi­tude was fitter stuffe for it. For all sortes of men do know by ex­perience, Princes and Counsailours in matters of State, No­bles and Commons in the houses of Parlament, Citizens and Townsmen in their common assemblies, our Students of vni­uersities, both publikely in conuocations, and priuately in their colleges: that he is not alwaies aboue the rest in power, whose sentence al the rest agrée vnto in consultation. But if your frends M. Hart, haue done you such iniury, that (by meanes they sent you vntimely beyond sea) you are become a straunger in things of common sense, & humanity, at home: yet you haue read (I trust) the story of the Actes, out of the which you reason; and God hath furnished you with giftes of witte and memory to vnder­stand it, and remember it. Tell me, do you thinke, that Act. 3. ver. 34. Ga­maliel the Pharise, the Doctor of the law, whom all the people honored, was superiour in power to the hie Priest, and Coun­cell of the Iewes.

No.

Yet when ver. 33. the hie Priest, and Councell did consult to kil the Apostles: ver. 35. he aduised them, y ^t they should not do it, and ver. 40. hauing heard him, [...]. they agreed to him. If a Su­premacie grow not hereof to Gamaliel: why should it to Peter? If it do to Peter: why not to Gamaliel? Is this the inuincible proofe that you did promise? When they had heard Peter, they all agreed to him: therefore he was their supreme head?

But S. Epist. 11. inter epist. August. Ierom addeth farther of Peter, that hee was princeps decreti, prince of the decree which the Apostles made. And sure (as it is well noted by Waldensis) Doctrinalis Fi­dei lib. 2. cap. 4. if Peter had not bene the chiefe and President there: he were procax es [...]t. a malapert fel­low to preuent them al in taking vp the controuersie and gi­uing [Page 162] the definitiue sentence. Thus saith Waldensis.

Before you promised Scripture, and performed Chrysostom. Now you claime by Ierome, & proue by Walden­sis. This is your fashion. Treasures we looke for: and wee finde coales.

I bring not Waldensis for his owne credit: but, as in­terpreter of S. Ieroms meaning. Howbeit, though he were not himselfe an auncient writer: he was a great Clerke in the time he liued.

It may bée: such a one as gaue occasion to the prouerbe, that the greatest Clerkes are not the wisest men. He did neuer enter into the Romane Senate-house: or els he might haue learned, both, that Princeps Se­natus. Varro in epist. ad Oppiā. apud Gell. Noct. Atti [...]ar. l. 14. c. 7. the prince of the Senate (as he was termed) gaue his sentence first, yet was not President of the Senate: neither was his sentence the definitiue sentence, but hée spake his minde of the matter, (as others after him,) & the whole Senatus con­sultum. Senate defined it. Though oftentimes the Senate agreed to the sentence of some one Senatour, & him they did call Princeps sen­tentiae. prince of the sentence, that is to say, the first authour: as Ierom cal­leth Peter Princeps de­creti. prince of the decree; which himselfe expoundeth, Primus autor [...]ius sententiae. Hieron. epist. 11. inter epist. Au­gust. the first authour of the sentence. Wherefore it was not ma­lapertnesse in Peter to speake before others, although he were not the President of the Councell: but indéede Waldensis was a malapert fellow to vouch that of Peter, and vse S. Ieroms words thereto. For, that they proue not a Presidentship of Peter, by entitling Peter prince of the decree, you may learne of Cic. pro Corn. [...]albo, Harum ego sententiarū princeps & au­tor fui. Tully: who sheweth that himselfe was prince of decrees, when he was neither President nor prince of the Senate. Beside, (to let you sée the pouertie of this princehood farther) Ierome doth not meane the whole decree of the Councell; when he saith that Peter was the prince of it; (for thē he should deny y ^e Act. 15. ver. 10. scrip­ture it selfe which maketh Iames the prince of part:) but hée meaneth so much thereof, as touched his purpose, which Peter is mentioned first to haue set downe; namely, that ver. 10. Gentiles being turned to the faith of Christ, should not be constrained to keepe the lawe of Moses. Whereon, they, who know what the Romanes meant by [ Diuidere sen­tentiam. Cic. pro Mil [...]n. Ascon. Paedian. in Cicor. to diuide a sentence,] may easily consider, how Iames though he agreed to Peters sentence in ge­nerall, yet excepted (as it were) from it this particular, that Act. 15.20. the [Page 163] beleeuing Gentiles should be admonished to keepe certaine pointes of the lawe of Moses, perteining to To abstaine from the filthi­nesse of idole [...], and fornication: holinesse and and from that which is strangled, and from blood. peace with their The Iewes. brethren, Hebr. 1 [...].14. both dueties necessary for the faithfull. The wordes of whose sentence Act. 15.29. the Councell folowed so precisely: that In Act. Apost. homil. 33. Chrysostome (if I would stand on men, as you doo) speaketh of the sentence giuen by Iames as the definitiue sentence, and saith that [...]. he pronounced his iudgement with power, and that [...]. the principalitie was committed to him.

He speaketh so of Iames, Staplet. princ. doctr. li. 6. ca. 14. because he was Bishop of the Citie of Ierusalem, where the Councell was holden.

Beware of that answere.

Why? It is S. In Act. Apost. homil. 33. Chrysostomes.

Be it whose soeuer. Sée you not what foloweth thereof, that euery Bishop in his owne diocese is aboue y ^e Pope? For, if aboue Peter, aboue an Apostle, aboue a chiefe Apostle: much more aboue a Bishop of Rome, or any other. You were better say that Chrysostome did erre, then fall into this perill. And in déede, (to helpe you in a point of truth) hée that maketh Iames a Bishop of one Citie, whom Christ made an Apostle to all the Nations of the earth: dooth bring him out of the hall (as they say) into the kitchin. It séemeth that Chrysostome spake it vpon the word of Clemens: Hypotypos. lib. 7. apud Eusebi­um, histor. ec­clesiast. lib. 1. cap. 1. who when he reported it, re­ported this withall, that Christ [...]. did giue knowledge after his resurrection to Iames, Iohn, and Peter: and they [...]. did giue it to the rest of the Apostles. Which tale is flat repugnant to the worde of truth: wherein wee reade that Luc. 24.45. knowledge and Act. 2.4. the holy Ghost was giuen by Christ to the Apostles all ioyntly.

You shall not helpe me with such shifts against the Fa­thers. For other of them consent herein with Chrysostome, that Iames was Bishop of Ierusalem.

Neither shifts, nor against the Fathers: but true defenses in fauour of them. For the Apostles, being sent to preach the Gospell to all Nations, made their chiefe abode in greatest cities of most resort, as at Act. [...].1. Ierusalem, at Act. 11.26 Antioche, at Act▪ 19.10. Ephesus, at Act. 28.30. Rome: that from the [...] mother cities (as they were called) religiō might be spread abroad vnto the daugh­ters. Now, because this residence in the mother-cities was after­ward supplied by the Bishops of them: therefore the Fathers are wont often-times to call the Apostles Bishops of those cities, [Page 164] wherin they did abide most. Which they might y ^e rather, for that [...]. [...]sebius, and Clemens, [...]. the word (in their spéech) betokeneth (in a generall meaning) any charge & ouersight of others: in so much y ^t the Act. 2. vers. 20. [...]. vers. 25. [...]. scripture ap­plieth it to the ministery of the Apostles also. And in this sort it seemeth to be said, as by Ep. 68. De or­dinando in lo­cum Iudae epis­copo. Cyprian, y ^t a Bishop was to be ordei­ned in the roome of Iudas; so by Comment. in epist. ad Calat. cap. 2. Ierome, y ^t Peter was Bishop of Antioch; & by Chrysostom y ^t Iames was Bishop of Ierusalē. Though whither it wer or no: yet that which I spake in defense of Chrysostō is cléered by himself frō your reproch of a shift. For he saith y ^t Iames [...]. was Bishop, as they say. Which words [as they say] import that he spake it on the words of others: most likely, of Clemēs, frō whom [...], Histor. eccles. lib. 2. cap. 1. Eusebius fetcheth it. But if notwithstanding you reply y ^t Chrysostom allowed that [they say,] and supposed Iames to be a Bishop properly: then his words haue so much the greater importance against your supremacy; séeing that they giue the principalitie to Iames in his owne dioces, and that a­boue Peter. Howbeit, I will not take this aduantage: because I know that neither Peter, nor Iames gaue the definitiue sen­tence; but when they had spoken their mindes of the matter, Act 15. vers. 23. & 23. & 28. the Councell did define it and decrée it with common iudgement.

They did it with common iudgement, I deny not. But Theodoret sheweth, that Peter as a Prince had a great prerogatiue therein aboue the rest: yea, gaue definitiue sentence, to which the rest consented, and as it were, subscribed. For he (in an epistle which he wrote to Leo) affirmeth that Paul did runne to great Peter, to bring a resolution from him vnto them, who contended at Antioche about the obseruation of the lawe of Moses.

You may cite (if you list) S. De o [...]icijs ec­clesiast. li. 1. ca. 1. Isidore too, for an other speciall prerogatiue of Peter, as good as this, and grounded likewise on the Actes, (which he alleageth to proue it:) to wit, Antiochiae pri [...]um nomen Chistianorū per Petri praedicati­onem est exor­tum, sicut actus A [...]stolorum te [...]tantur. that the name of Christians arose at Antioche first, through the preaching of Peter. For though hee bée more di­rect against y ^e scripture, which sheweth that Act. 11. [...]6. the name of Chri­stians arose vpon the preaching, not of Peter, but of Paul and Barnabas: yet is Theodoret direct against it too, by giuing as proper & peculiar to Peter, y ^t, which was cōmon to the Apostles and Elders, Act. 15.22. & 26.4. whose resolution Act. 15.2. he was sent for. And as Isidore séemeth to haue ouershot him selfe by flip of memorie, on too great [Page 165] a fansie (perhaps) towardes Peter: in like sort Theodoret, sée­king to get the fauour of Leo bishop of Rome (whose help he stode in neede of,) did serue his owne cause, in saying, that Paul ranne to great Peter, that so he might run much more to great Leo. Which words to haue issued out from that humor: his commen­taries on the Scriptures (where he sought the trueth, and folow­ed the text) shewe. For therein he saith of Barnabas and Paul, In epist. ad [...]alat. cap. 2. that they ran [not to great Peter] but to the great Apostles, and In argumento epist. ad Ephes. had a resolution from them of the question about the keping of the law. Howbeit if Theodorets words vnto Leo suffered no exceptiō: the most were, that Peter pronounced the defi­nitiue sentence, as President; not gaue it, as Prince. But the Scripture it selfe (by the rule whereof his wordes must be tryed) maketh no more for Peters Presidentshippe then for Iames: and whosoeuer were President, it sheweth that neither Iames, nor Peter, but the Councel gaue the definitiue sentence. So well it proueth that, which you vndertooke to proue concerning Peter: that he had as ful power in the assemblies of the Apostles, as the Prince hath in a parlament, yea, or the pope in a Coun­cell.

It proueth that wel-inough, (though not to you:) chief­ly if other places thereof be waied withall. The third Diuision. For the singular po­wer of Peter is declared also by S. Paul in that he saith to the Galatians, Gal. 1.18. Then after three yeares I came to Ierusalem to see Peter, and taried with him fifteene dayes.

The singular power of Peter? In which words? By what reason? Because hee went to Ierusalem to see him? Or because he went after three yeares? Or because hee stayed with him fifteene dayes?

The reason consisteth Stap. princ. doctr. li. 6. ca. 13. in that which Paule did, & the cause for which he did it. For he went to Ierusalē to see Peter. Why? but to do him honour, as In epist. ad Gal. cap. 1. Ierom saith in his Commentaries: and in an epistle to Austin, Peter was, (saith he) of so great au­thoritie, that Paule wrote, Then after three yeares, and so forth. Epist. 11. int [...] epist. August. And In Iohann. ho­mil. 87. Chrysostome; Because Peter (saith he) was the mouth of the Apostles, the chiefe, and top of the company: there­fore Paule went vp to see him aboue the rest. Because it was meet, saith Comment. in ep. a [...] Gal. [...]a. [...] ▪ Ambrose, that he should desire to see Peter, vnto whom our Sauiour had committed the charge of Churches. [Page 166] Which also De praescript. contra haeret. Tertullian affirmeth, that he did of duetie and right. Nor otherwise Comment. in epist ad Gal. Theodoret: he gaue, saith he, that ho­nour to the prince of the Apostles, which it was fitte hee should. Hence it is, that, S. In Ezechiel. hom. 18. Gregory doubteth not to say, that, Paule the Apostle was the yonger brother: And S. De baptism. contr. Donatist. l. 2. c. 1. Austin, an Apostle made after Peter: who saith moreouer, that the pri­macie of the Apostles is conspicuous and preeminent, with excellent grace in Peter.

You bring in witnesses not necessarie, to proue a thing not denied. For, that Paule was as Apostle, in time after Peter, and so his yonger brother, as Gregory, Austin, and Quia primus e­rat inter Apo­stolos, cui Salu­ator delegaue­rat curam eccle­siarum. As Ie­rom, Honoris priori apostolo deferendi. Ambrose say: that he went to see Peter for honor and reuerence which he bare to him, as it is in Ierom, Chrysostome and The­odoret; that he did this of duetie and right; what right and duetie? Ex officio & iur [...]: scilicet eius dem fidei & prae­dicationis &c. Tert. of the same faith and preaching of the gospell, to shew his concord with him, which is the meaning of Tertullian: all this will I graunt you; Gal. 1.17. & 2.2. the scriptures teach as much; what néede the Fathers to proue it?

Will you graunt all that, which I alleaged out of the Fathers? then will you grant that Protestants are in an error: and the truth is ours. For they auouch plainely the primacie of Peter, and call him, the mouth, the prince, the toppe of the Apostles.

Alas, you were agreed (me thought) to go through with the scripture first, & afterward come to the Fathers. I wisse they will giue you small cause of triumphing ouer the Pro­testants, when you shall bring their forces out into the field, and see with whom they ioine, with you, or with vs. But of the rest then. Now I graunt you so much, as doth concerne the point, for proofe whereof you cited them: namely, that Paule went to see Peter for a reuerent respect and honor of his person. But I deny the argument, which you inferre thereof, that Peter had therefore a singular power, whereby you meane the suprema­cie. You should haue laid the Fathers (if you would néedes be­stow them) on this which is denied, not on that which is graun­ted. But this is the world. Men will rather giue to the rich, who need not, then to the poore who need.