The sum of the conference between John Rainoldes and John Hart touching the head…The summe of the conference betwene Iohn Rainoldes and Iohn Hart touching the head…
The sum of the conference between John Rainoldes and John Hart touching the head and the faith of the Church. Wherein by the way are handled sundry points, of the sufficiency and right expounding of the Scriptures, the ministry of the Church, the function of priesthood, the sacrifice of the mass, with other controversies of religion: but chiefly and purposely the point of Church-government ... Penned by John Rainoldes, according to the notes set down in writing by them both: perused by John Hart, and (after things supplied, & altered, as he thought good) allowed for the faithful report of that which past in conference between them. Whereunto is annexed a treatise entitled, Six conclusions touching the Holy Scripture and the Church, written by John Rainoldes. With a defence of such things as Thomas Stapleton and Gregory Martin have carped at therein.The summe of the conference betwene Iohn Rainoldes and Iohn Hart touching the head and the faith of the Church. Wherein by the way are handled sundrie points, of the sufficiencie and right expounding of the Scriptures, the ministerie of the Church, the function of priesthood, the sacrifice of the masse, with other controuerises of religion: but chiefly and purposely the point of Church-gouernment ... Penned by Iohn Rainoldes, according to the notes set downe in writing by them both: perused by Iohn Hart, and (after things supplied, & altered, as he thought good) allowed for the faithfull report of that which past in conference betwene them. Whereunto is annexed a treatise intitled, Six conclusions touching the Holie Scripture and the Church, writen by Iohn Rainoldes. With a defence of such thinges as Thomas Stapleton and Gregorie Martin haue carped at therein.
John Rainolds 1549–1607Londini: printed by John Wolfe, 1584Londini: printed by Iohn Wolfe, 1584
475, [1], 479-674, 659-750 p. · 304k words · STC 20626 · ESTC S115546
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Rainoldes. But if we should do so in any point against you, this answer would not serve us: it would be accounted a colour ⟨p. 57⟩or pretence, such as your Council hath condemned.
Rainoldes. But if we should doo so in any point against you, this answere would not serue vs: it would be accounted a colour ⟨p. 57⟩or pretense, such as your Councell hath condemned.
Hart. You do us great injury, in that you seem to make it all one to reject the authentical Latin, and to take advantage for our selves out of the original texts.
Hart. 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.
Rainoldes. For your selves? Nay, I make not that all one. I said, If we should do so, not, If you should do so. For do you what you list: and all must be soothed as agreeing with your Latin, and opening the sense of it. But if we should take advantage for our selves by the original texts: our advantage would be nipped on the head as a pretence. For example, Andreas Masius, a learned man of yours, hath written a Commentary on the book of Joshua: in the which he lanceth your authentical Latin, almost in every Chapter: yea, she saith that S. Jerome, (if he be the Author of it) doeth seem to have translated *
it lighteneth and openeth the common old translation greatly. Let us do much less, let us but raze the credit of it: and will you give that Censure of us? Nay, if we do note that
better to say (as your old translation saith) prone to evil: and will fetch in also the Rabbins of the Jews, not to expound the Latin according to the Hebrew, but to allay the Hebrew according to the Latin. Wherefore in that I said that if we should go from your authentical Latin to the original texts, it would be misliked of: I do you no injury. Yet I mislike it not in your plea for Peter, that you take advantage not of the original, but of a translation: nay, I like it well. Though I like not that which you add to prove it: that [Greek or Hebrew] in the Greek tongue doth signify a rock, as Cephas in the Syriac, and so the words [Greek or Hebrew], and [Greek or Hebrew], have one meaning. For they have one meaning, not because [Greek or Hebrew] doth signify a rock, as [Greek or Hebrew]: but because [Greek or Hebrew] doth signify a stone, as [Greek or Hebrew]. For, that [Greek or Hebrew] sometimes signifieth a stone:
Rainoldes. 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, she saith that S. Jerom, (if hee be the Authour of it) doeth seeme to haue translated *wittingly a place against the meaning of the Hebrue, that he might vouch a fansy of his owne thereby. Yet tthe Popish Censour, who allowed it to the print, witnesseth of that Commentarie that ait 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 uwhere your old translation hath of the frame or imagination of mans hart, that it is 1prone to euill, the Hebrue text hath, not prone to euill, but 2euill: xthe Censure of Coolein will answere that it is farre *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 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 in the Greeke toong dooth signifie a rocke, as Cephas in the Syriake, and so the wordes 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, and 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, haue one meaning. For they haue one meaning, not because 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 doth signifie a rocke, as 〈non-Latin alphabet〉: but because 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 doth signifie a stone, as 〈non-Latin alphabet〉. For, that 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 sometimes signifieth a stone: qyour owne learned linguists (as you call them) note, and examples thereof are rife. But that 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 any where ⟨p. 58⟩signifieth a rocke: neither doo they shew, nor haue rother skilfu•l of that toong obserued.
sS. Andr. Mas. con mentar. in Josu. cap. 14. ver. 15.S. Andr. Mas. cō mentar. in Iosu. cap. 14. ver. 15.
You say, that it is so in the Athenian language: but you bring no Athenian nor any Grecian else to witness it. And the French tongue (which followeth the Greek, 1as in many other words, so in this,) hath *the same word (you know) for a stone, and for the name of Peter. Wherein there is a print of the true original & meaning of that name in the Greek tongue. But Christ did call him Cephas in the Syriac tongue: and Cephas (you say) doth signify a rock, as Fabricius showeth. But tFabricius showeth further that Cephas doth signify a stone also. And though he, or rather uthe Jew (whom he citeth) reporteth their saying who expound the name as taken from that word in signification of a rock: yet, having mentioned the other of a stone, he saith thereupon that so his name is Peter in the Roman tongue, and in the Italian a stone is called *pereda. Whereunto I might add that xan other learned writer of the Jews, and ancienter then he, doeth likewise say (as opening the sense of Peters name) that he is called stone. But, that Christ did mean a stone, not a rock, in naming him Cephas: your stoutest champion, D. Sanders, may serve in steed of many witnesses. For he, wanting no will to go as far as the boldest, and having many years advised of the matter, durst say no more for Cephas, but ythat it signifieth a stone, at the most, a great stone: even petra it self zhe doeth expound in this manner, Super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam, Thou shalt be the first stone (next me) of that church, which I will build on earth. In the which judgement he doeth deserve the greater credit at your hands, because he was contented to hazard his life with the Pope against his Prince in that aholy quarrel: and having spent his chiefest study in the point bhe had before times expounded it a rock; the which exposition so fit for the Papacy he would have never left, had not the truth enforced him to retire from it. A thing so much the likelier, because when he laboured first to infect men with the Popes supremacy by the name of rock, and therefore both in the title and course of all his book did sound the rock of the church: even then che did expound Cephas and Peter doubtfully, a rock, or a stone;
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, 1as in many other words, so in this,) hath *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 tFabricius sheweth further that Cephas doth signifie a stone also. And though he, or rather uthe 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 *pereda. Whereunto I might adde that xan 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 ythat it signifieth a stone, at the most, a great stone: euen petra it selfe zhe 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 aholy quarell: and hauing spent his chiefest studie in the point bhe 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
1Hen. Stephan. de similit. ling. Graecae & Gallicae lib. 3.
*Pierre.
tIn Dictionar. Syro-chaldaico.
uElias Levita in Thisbi.Elias Leuita in Thisbi.
*As Elijah writeth it. He meaneth pietra: which word in the Italian keepeth that meaning of petra, from which the name of Peter grew.As Elias writeth it. He meaneth pietra: which word in the Italian keepeth that meaning of petra, from which the name of Peter grew.
aAs him self termeth it in his letters written to Ullick Burck an Irish Gentleman.As him selfe termeth it in his letters written to Vllick Burck an Irish Gentleman.
bIn his book entitled, the rock of the church.In his booke entitled, the rocke of the church.
and yielding the reason why Christ did name him so, he mentioned a stone only, because what place a stone hath in holding up the house ⟨p. 59⟩which is built upon it, the same should Peter have in upholding the frame of Christs militant church. Wherefore you must let go your hold of the rock, (whereon dD. Stapleton doth beast your house is built) and be content to lay a stone in steed of it. Let our Saviour Christ alone be the rock. If you dash your self against him therein, he will break you in pieces.
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 ⟨p. 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 dD. 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.
Hart. It is a disputable point. You see that learned men are of sundry judgements in expounding of it: some thinking, it betokeneth a stone, some a rock. Wherefore you can not force me to take the one and leave the other.
Hart. 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.
Rainoldes. Not by mens words: but by the word of God I can. For Christ in the Syriac tongue did name him Cephas, and eCephas in the Greek is expounded [Greek or Hebrew], and [Greek or Hebrew] in English signifieth a stone. And sure you had done better, if, as the Greek text hath [Greek or Hebrew] and [Greek or Hebrew], the Syriac translation Cephas & Cephas: so you had made it in English, stone and stone. For Peter and peter doth not express the force of the Syriac word. Rock and rock is strong, but the text doth not bear it. Stone and stone is fit, had you not thought it too slender. Now, sith you do press the Syriac translation, to show thereby the meaning of the Latin, as you say: you must give me leave to tell you that the words should be rather Englished after the Syriac thus, Thou art stone, and upon this stone will I build my church.
Rainoldes. Not by mens wordes: but by the word of God I can. For Christ in the Syriake toong did name him Cephas, and eCephas in the Gréeke is expounded 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, and 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 in English signifieth a stone. And sure you had done better, if, as the Gréeke text hath 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 and 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, 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.
Rainoldes. The truth, which I deal for, shall gain thus much by it, that although you construe those words (that Christ would build his church upon Peter) for your most advantage, even as Sanders doth: yet is it not proved thereby that Christ did promise him a supreme-headship over the Apostles. For the church of Christ, which is the company of Gods elect and chosen, is resembled in Scripture to a material temple, such as was the temple which Solomon built. So, as that was called a house, fthe house of prayer: in like sort the church is called a house too, but ga spiritual house, to distinguish it from that: which house because it must be made of all the godly, as it were of stones, grounded on Christ by faith, though the doctrine of the Apostles: therefore Christ is called hthe chief corner stone in respect of ⟨p. 60⟩the Jews and Gentiles (as of walls) 1which are joined in him: *the foundation, in respect of the whole house, yea hthe foundation of foundation, as the Prophet termeth him: the twelve Apostles laid next upon Christ are called itwelve foundations: the faithful laid on them, or rather after them on him, are called kstones, not dead ones (such as the temple had) but living: the working and framing of them to this purpose is called building and ledifying: which is done by preaching of mthe word of truth, ncoupling them together between them selves and with Christ, that they may grow to be a holy temple in the Lord, ofor God to dwell in by his spirit. Wherefore if the words of Christ be so taken, that he meant the laying of Peter as a principal stone next to him self, and others upon him, when he said, Thou art stone, and upon this stone will I build my church: this showeth that Peter was in the first rank (as I may say) of stones, I mean he was in order with the first who believed: and amongst those first he had a mark of honour, in that he was named stone, above his brethren. But it showeth 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.
Rainoldes. 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, fthe house of prayer: in like sort the church is called a house too, but ga spirituall house, to distinguish it from that: which house because it must be made of all ye godly, as it were of stones, grounded on Christ by faith, though the doctrine of the Apostles: therefore Christ is called hthe chiefe corner stone in respect of ⟨p. 60⟩the Iewes and Gentiles (as of walls) 1which are ioyned in him: *the foundation, in respect of the whole house, yea hthe foundation of foundation, as the Prophet termeth him: the twelue Apostles laid next vpon Christ are called itwelue foundations: the faithfull laide on them, or rather after them on him, are called kstones, not dead ones (such as the temple had) but liuing: the working and framing of them to this purpose is called building and ledifying: which is done by preaching of mthe word of truth, ncoupling them togither betwéene them selues and with Christ, that they may grow to bee a holie temple in the Lord,
Hart. What then? What say you then to Doctors of your own side, namely to pSadeel and qMornay: whom you praised so greatly, and brought them me to read? They write that the church was builded, not upon the person of Peter, but upon his doctrine preaching Christ unto us. You grant the contrary.
Hart. What then? What say you then to Doctors of your owne side, namely to pSadeel and qMornay: 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.
Rainoldes. What say you to the ancient Doctors whom they follow: chiefly to S. Austin? He writeth that the rock, (which our Saviour promised to build his church upon) is Christ, and not Peter. You hold the contrary. rThou art Peter, saith he, and upon this rock which thou hast confessed, upon this rock which thou hast known (saying, Thou art Christ the son of the living God,) will I build my church. I will build thee upon ⟨p. 61⟩me, not me upon thee. For men intending 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 upon Peter, but upon the rock, said, I hold of Christ. For the rock was Christ: upon the which foundation Peter him self was builded: sith no man can lay an other foundation beside that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. What say you to the rest, namely, to tGregory Nys•en, to uCyril, to xChrysostom, to yAmbrose, to zHilary? They write that this rock is the confession of Peter. They say not, it is Peters person.
Rainoldes. 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. rThou 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 ⟨p. 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 tGregorie Nys•en, to uCyril, to xChrysostome, to yAmbrose, to zHilarie? They write that this rocke is the consession of Peter. They say not, it is Peters person.
rAugustin. de verb. Dom. Se•m. 1•.
tIn testimon. •a vet. Testam de Trinitat contr. Jud.In testimon. •a vet. Testam de Trinitat contr. Iud.
Hart. That exposition of S. Austin, denying Peter to be the rock, was *lapsus humanus (as D. aStapleton calleth it) caused by the diversity of the Greek and Latin tongue, which either he was ignorant of, or marked not. Howbeit nevertheless it hath a true meaning: though not the full & proper sense of this place. Besides that, him self doth bother-where expound it as understood of Peter: according to the famous verses of S. Ambrose, in which he calleth Peter the rock of the Church. The rest of the Fathers, who apply the rock to Peters confession, imply his person in it. For, to say, that the Church is built on the confession and belief of Peter, is all one in deed, and to say, it is built on Peter confessing and believing in Christ. Wherefore in as much as they affirm the former, they prove withal the later by it.
Hart. That exposition of S. Austin, denying Peter to be the rocke, was *lapsus humanus (as D. aStapleton 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 bother-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.
*That is to say, an oversight such as happeneth to men.That is to say, an ••ersight such as happeneth to men.
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.
