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.
Hart. If they had not meant as well a sovereignty of power as sincerity of faith: why should they mention that Church and not others? Were there no Bishops sincere through all the world, ⟨p. 434⟩but the Bishops of Rome only?
Hart. If they had not meant as well a soueraintie of power as sinceritie of faith: why should they mention that Church and not others? Were there no Bishops sincere through al ye world, ⟨p. 434⟩but the Bishops of Rome onely?
Rainoldes. Yes a great many, and they mention them too. For Jerome, though he asketh the advise of Damasus, a young man of an old, *a Roman of the Bishop of Rome, whose creligion was sound, whose dauthority was great, and the greater with Jerome because he knew him well, as ehaving learned him self the faith of Christ in Rome, where he was baptized: yet doth he name S. Ambrose (the Bishop then of Milan) as sound in faith also, and the Bishops of Egypt, yea of *the west in general. fNow in the west (saith he) the sun of righteousness ariseth, and the inheritance of the Fathers is kept uncorrupted amongst you alone. In like sort doth g
Austin note, against the Donatists, (whose canker had fretted but a piece of Africa,) that Bishops of the coasts and countries beyond sea, and Churches through the whole world, were pure from their heresy. Howbeit, as Jerome preferred the advise of Damasus before others to confirm himself: so did Austin choose the Church of Rome above the rest to confirm his brethren. For
he penned his Psalm (wherein this is written) of purpose to the capacity of the very meanest & simplest of the people: that they might understand and remember the state of the controversy with the Donatists. Wherefore he commendeth the truth by the authority of the Church of Rome:
which, of all the Churches that the Apostles planted, was both nearest to them, and best esteemed of amongst them. But how far S. Austin was from your fancy of the Popes supremacy, when he alleged the Church of Rome to this intent: let that be a token, that, writing for the learned who were of greater reach, he allegeth the Churches
Who, when the Arians charged him with heresy, did justify his faith by his communion with the Churches of the west and of Egypt, of Damasus Bishop of Rome, and Peter Bishop of Alexandria. According to
the law of the Emperor Theodosius: wherein it is decreed that all they should be named and esteemed Catholics, who believed of the Trinity as Damasus and Peter did; the rest to be accounted and punished as heretics. A great praise (I grant) of the faith
⟨p. 435⟩
of Damasus, that so good an Emperor did set him for a sampler whom Christians should follow:
Rainoldes. Yes a great many, and they mention them too. For Ierom, though he asketh the aduise of Damasus, a young man of an old, *a Roman of the Bishop of Rome, whose creligion was sound, whose dauthoritie was great, and the greater with Ierom because he knew him well, as ehauing lerned him selfe the faith of Christ in Rome, where he was baptized: yet doth he name S. Ambrose (the Bishop then of Milan) as sound in faith also, and the Bishops of Aegypt, yea of *the west in generall. fNow in the west (saith he) the sunne of righteousnes ariseth, and the inheritance of the Fathers is kept vncorrupted amongst you alone. In like sort doth gAustin note, against the Donatistes, (whose canker had fretted but a péece of Afrike,) that Bishops of the coastes and countries beyond sea, and Churches through the whole world, were pure from their heresie. Howbeit, as Ierom preferred the aduise of Damasus before others to confirme himselfe: so did Austin choose the Church of Rome aboue the rest to confirme his brethren. For hhe penned his Psalme (wherin this is writen) of purpose to the capacitie of the very meanest & simplest of the people: yt they might vnderstād and remember the state of the controuersie with the Donatistes. Wherefore he commendeth the truth by the authoritie of the Church of Rome: iwhich, of all the Churches that the Apostles planted, was both néerest to them, and best estéemed of amongst them. But how farre S. Austin was from your fansie of the Popes supremacie, when he alleaged the Church of Rome to this intent: let that bee a token, that, writing for the learned who were of greater reach, he alleageth the Churches kof Ierusalem, lof Corinth, of Antioche, Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus, of Asia, Bithynia, Galatia, Cappadocia, in a worde, mof all the rest as well as of Rome. And this may be semblably noted in S. Ierom. nWho, when the Arians charged him with heresie, did iustifie his faith by his communion with the Churches of the west and of Aegypt, of Damasus Bishop of Rome, and Peter Bishop of Alexandria. According to othe law of the Emperour Theodosius: wherein it is decréed that all they should be named and esteemed Catholikes, who beleeued of the Trinitie as Damasus and Peter did; the rest to be accounted and punished as heretikes. A great prayse (I graunt) of the faith ⟨p. 435⟩of Damasus, that so good an Emperour did set him for a sampler whom Christians should folow:
*Epist. 57. a me homine Romano.
cTheodoret. hist. eccles. l. 2.•.22. & l. 5. c. 10. Symbolum Damasi apud Hier. Tom. 9.
dTh•odoret. lib. 5. cap. 2. & 3.
eHier. epist. 57. & 58. Damaso.
*Theodoret. hist. eccles. l. 5. c. 6.
fHier. epist. 57.
gIn Psalmo contr. part. Donati.
hAugust. retractat. l. 1. c. 20.
iTertull. de praescript. aduers. hae•et.
kAugust. con••. litre. Petil. l. 2. c. 51.August. con••. liter. Petil. l. 2. c. 51.
lEpist. 164. ad Emeritum. De unitate Ecc•esiae c. 11. & 12.Epist. 164. ad Emeritum. De vnitate Ecc•esiae c. 11. & 12.
mContr. Cres•on. gram. l. 3. c 18. & epist. 161. ad Honoratum.Contr. Cres•on. gramm. l. 3. c 18. & epist. 161. ad Honoratum.
nEpist. 77 ad Mar•um presb••.
o•ozom. histor •••le• l. •. c. 4. […].•ozom. histor •••le• l. •. c. 4. 〈…〉.
but a praise common […] him with Peter Bishop of Alexandria; and pcommon to them both with sundry Bishops of the East, Nectarius, Pelagius, Diodorus, Amphilochius, Helladius, Otrein•s, Gregory Ny••en, and more. Of whom the same Emperor did […] make an other law, that none should have the ch•rge of bishoprics committed to them but such as we•• of their faith. Whereby you may perceive that the praise given to Damasus by Jerome, proveth a sound faith common to the Bishop of Rome with many other; not a sovereign power, peculiar to him alone above all.
but a prayse common 〈…〉 him with Peter Bishop of Alexandria; and pcommon to them both with sundrie Bishops of the East, Nectarius, Pelagius, Diodorus, Amphilochius, Helladius, Otrein•s, Gregorie Ny••en, and mo. Of whom the same Emperour did 〈…〉 make an other law, that none should haue the ch•rge of •ishoprickes committed to them but such as we•• of their faith. Whereby you may perceyue that the prayse giuen to Damasus by Ierom, proueth a sound faith common to the Bishop of Rome with many other; not a soueraine power, peculiar to him alone aboue all.
Rainoldes. Or, at least, you take it, though neither I do grant it, nor is it proved by S. Jerome. But this is proved, and I grant it, that he did not err in the faith of the Trinity, when Damasus was Bishop of Rome.
Rainoldes. Or, at least, you take it, though neither I doo graunt it, nor is it proued by S. Ierom. But this is proued, and I grant it, that he did not erre in the faith of the Trinitie, when Damasus was Bishop of Rome.
Hart. When Damasus was Bishop? Why do you so restrain it? S. Jeromes words be general. I am joined in communion unto your holiness, that is to Peters chair. I know that the Church is builded upon that rock. Behold, to Peters chair. He speaketh not to Damasus as in respect of Damasus, but in respect of the chair, and so of the succession of the Bishops of Rome: that, what he saith to one, belongeth to them all.
Hart. When Damasus was Bishop? Why do you so restraine it? S. Ieroms wordes be generall. I am ioyned in communion vnto your holinesse, that is to Peters chaire. I know that the Church is builded vpon that rocke. Behold, to Peters chaire. He speaketh not to Damasus as in respect of Damasus, but in respect of the chaire, and so of the succession of the Bishops of Rome: that, what hee saith to one, belongeth to them all.
Rainoldes. If you set his words upon such tenters, they will never hold. For, qhim self reporteth that the next Bishop of Rome before Damasus, Liberius by name, subscribed to the Arian heresy.
Rainoldes. If you set his wordes vpon such tenters, they will neuer hold. For, qhim selfe reporteth that the next Bishop of Rome before Damasus, Liberius by name, subscribed to the Arian heresie.
qDe scripto•i•bus ecclesiast. verbo Fortunatianus.
Rainoldes. But seeing that he lived so near to that time, and in the same place, and loved the See of Rome, and yet doth report this matter of Liberius, and report it constantly, not only in his book of Ecclesiastical writers, but in rhis Chronicle also: it is more likely, that he did both know and testify the truth, then sPontacus (who maketh your exception against ⟨p. 436⟩him) or any man that liveth now.
Rainoldes. But seing that hee liued so néere to that time, and in the same place, and loued the Sée of Rome, and yet doth report this matter of Liberius, and report it constantly, not onely in his booke of Ecclesiasticall writers, but in rhis Chronicle also: it is more likely, that hee did both know and testifie the truth, then sPontacus (who maketh your exception against ⟨p. 436⟩him) or any man that liueth now.
Hart. And Pontacus doth so. For he showeth that 1Basil, uAmbrose, and xEpiphanius, do call Liberius a blessed man: and that yAthanasius doth free him from the spot of Arianism.
Hart. And Pontacus doth so. For he sheweth that 1Basil, uAmbrose, and xEpiphanius, do call Liberius a blessed man: and that yAthanasius doth frée him from the spot of Arianisme.
Rainoldes. Basil, Ambrose, and Epiphanius, do call Liberius a blessed man. What? Therefore he subscribed not to the Arian heresy? Then you may say that Peter did not deny Christ. For, tBasil, uAmbrose, and xEpiphanius do call Peter a blessed man. They are blessed, who repent them selves of their sins, as Peter did of his denial: and so might zLiberius do of his subscription. As for yAthanasius, though he say that Liberius condemned the heresy of the Arians, and therefore suffered banishment: yet he saith withal, that he continued not in suffering banishment to the end, but athrough fear of death subscribed to that heresy with his hand, though with his heart he were still against it. Thus even Athanasius, who lived at the same time with Liberius, and knew his state well, acknowledgeth that he subscribed: though judging most friendly (both for his own sake, and the causes,) that he consented not. But, bDamasus Bishop of Rome, who succeeded Liberius, and might know the matter better then Athanasius, doth write that Liberius did consent also to Constantius the Arian.
Rainoldes. Basil, Ambrose, and Epiphanius, do call Liberius a blessed man. What? Therefore he subscribed not to the Arian heresie? Then you may say that Peter did not deny Christ. For, tBasil, uAmbrose, and xEpiphanius doo call Peter a blessed man. They are blessed, who repent them selues of their sinnes, as Peter did of his denyall: and so might zLiberius doo of his subscription. As for yAthanasius, though hee say that Liberius condemned the heresie of the Arians, and therefore suffered banishment: yet hee saith withall, that hee continued not in suffering banishment to the end, but athrough feare of death subscribed to that heresie with his hand, though with his heart he were still against it. Thus euen Athanasius, who liued at the same time with Liberius, and knew his state well, acknowledgeth that he subscribed: though iudging most friendly (both for his owne sake, and the causes,) that he consented not. But, bDamasus Bishop of Rome, who succéeded Liberius, and might know the matter better then Athanasius, doth write that Liberius did consent also to Constantius the Arian.
tSerm. de humil•t.
uDe fide lib. 5. in praefat.
xIn anchorat.
zSocrat. hist. eccles. l. 4 c. 11. Sozom. l. 6. c. 12.
Hart. Although this be written in the book of Damasus: yet it is not likely that Damasus wrote it. For, cCarranza noteth, that there are many who doubt of that story. And dOnuphrius, a man very skilful of antiquities, chiefly of the Roman, discrediteth both the report and the author of it▪ saying, that Anastasius the keeper of the Popes library, was (as he thinketh) the first who believed it, and thrust it into the book of Damasus, as many other things besides.
Hart. Although this be writen in the booke of Damasus: yet it is not likely that Damasus wrote it. For, cCarranza noteth, that there are many who dout of that storie. And dOnuphrius, a man verie skilfull of antiquities, chiefly of the Roman, discrediteth both the report and the autour of it▪ saying, that Anastasius the keeper of the Popes librarie, was (as hee thinketh) the first who beleeued it, and thrust it into the booke of Damasus, as many other thinges besides.
cSum. Concilior. in vit. Libe••j.Summ. Concilior. in vit. Libe••j.
dAnnot. in Plot. vit. Felicis second.Annot. in Plat. vit. Felicis secund.
Rainoldes. What Anastasius did, I know not. But if he stuffed Damasus with any thing of his own: it was belike in such things rather, as advance, then impeach the Popes credit. Howbeit, if Onuphrius in that he denieth Liberius was an Arian, ⟨p. 437⟩do mean that he subscribed not to the Arian heresy, and that this report came first from Anastasius: what answereth he then to Jerome, and Athanasius, and eSozomen, (and fMarcellinus in effect too,) who wrote it all with one consent, the youngest of them a hundred years before Anastasius was borne. As for Carranza's note, that there are many who doubt of that story: he must show who they be, and what grounds of doubt they have. Or else, those many may be such as himself and Onuphrius: whose doubting may not prejudice the credit of historians that wrote a thousand years before them. Chiefly, if they have no surer grounds then Carranza: who, to disprove the story, allegeth that Liberius wrote one epistle to Athana•ius and the Bishops of Egypt against the Arians; and another to all Bishops, exhorting them to constancy. Which reasons are so poor, that your own gJoverius, a Paris Doctor of Divinity, rehearsing them by occasion, hath withal refuted them. But see to what miserable shifts you are driven to uphold the pride of the man of Rome. Because it were a stain unto his supremacy, if his predecessor Liberius subscribed against the Catholic faith: therefore you rather choose to deny it; and how? First the authority of Jerome is alleged affirming it in his Chronicle. Your hPighius doth answer that some hath interlaced those words into his Chronicle, through ignorance or fraud. When this answer seemed hard, because Jerome hath other where affirmed it also: your Pontacus (to help it) replieth that Jerome could say nought thereof, but what he had by hear-say. When proof of this hear-say is made out of Damasus: your Onuphrius supposeth him to be corrupted by Anastasius the keeper of the Popes library. When Sozomen, a Greek writer, confirmeth Damasus, and Jerome: Your Christophorson, who translateth him, doth make him hold his peace, or rather witness to the contrary. For where he saith in his own tongue, that the Emperor 1compelled Liberius to subscribe: he saith, by your translator, the Emperor 2assayed to compel him.
Rainoldes. What Anastasius did, I know not. But if he stuffed Damasus with any thing of his owne: it was belike in such thinges rather, as aduance, then empeach the Popes credit. Howbeit, if Onuphrius in that he denyeth Liberius was an Arian, ⟨p. 437⟩doo meane that he subscribed not to the Arian heresie, and that this report came first from Anastasius: what answereth hee then to Ierom, and Athanasius, and eSozomen, (and fMarcellinus in effect too,) who wrote it all with one consent, the youngest of them a hundred yeares before Anastasius was borne. As for Carranzas note, that there are many who doubt of that storie: hee must shew who they be, and what groundes of dout they haue. Or els, those many may be such as himselfe and Onuphrius: whose doubting may not preiudice the credit of historians that wrote a thousand yeares before them. Chiefly, if they haue no surer groundes then Carranza: who, to disproue the storie, alleageth that Liberius wrote one epistle to Athana•ius and the Bishops of Aegypt against the Arians; and another to all Bishops, exhorting them to constancie. Which reasons are so poore, that your owne gIouerius, a Paris Doctour of Diuinitie, rehersing them by occasion, hath withall refuted them. But sée to what miserable shiftes you are driuen to vphold the pride of the man of Rome. Because it were a staine vnto his supremacie, if his predecessour Liberius subscribed against the Catholike faith: therefore you rather choose to deny it; and how? First the autoritie of Ierom is alleaged affirming it in his Chronicle. Your hPighius doth answere that some hath interlaced those wordes into his Chronicle, through ignorance or fraude. When this answere séemed hard, because Ierom hath other where affirmed it also: your Pontacus (to helpe it) replieth that Ierom could say nought thereof, but what he had by heare-say. When proofe of this heare-say is made out of Damasus: your Onuphrius supposeth him to be corrupted by Anastasius the keeper of the Popes librarie. When Sozomen, a Gréeke writer, confirmeth Damasus, and Ierom: Your Christophorson, who translateth him, doth make him hold his peace, or rather witnesse to the contrary. For where he saith in his owne tongue, that the Emperour 1compelled Liberius to subscribe: he saith, by your transltor, the Emperour
And where he saith 3in his own tongue, that certain Arian Bishops 3procured him to consent: he saith, by your translator, 4they endeavoured that he should consent. When further Marcellinus is found to agree with Sozomen's report: your iGenebrard seeing Jerome approved by them both, doth raze out that of Ponta•us ⟨p. 438⟩(that Jerome could say nought thereof but by hear-say) and doth assault him with the Fathers. Wherein, (besides them, whom you alleged out of Pontacus,) he citeth Socrates and Theodoret: kSocrates, declaring that Liberius was no Arian in the time of Valens the Emperor; as though this were a proof that he subscribed not to the Arian heresy in the time of Constantius: lTheodoret, avouching that the west was always free form Arianism; which is less to the purpose, Theodoret speaking generally as for the most part, and in respect of the East by way of comparison. For himself had showed mbefore that Auxentius, a western Bishop, was an Arian. Now for Athanasius, who is the most ancient witness of this matter, and of such valour that your nAndradius could not but yield himself unto him: yet Genebrard & Pontacus thought it good policy to name him as gainsaying Jerome therein; where Jerome saith the same that he doth, so plainly & fully that your oHosius is fain to shape one answer to them both, that they believed a false rumour. Wherewith your pBellarmin doth cast them off too. And this shift of laying the blame on false rumours seemed so hansom to your qSurius, that he (belike misliking Onuphrius shift of Anastasius,) applieth it to Damasus also. For colouring whereof, he saith, that very ancient historians and writers bear witness of Liberius most constant perseverance in defence of the Catholic faith. But being not able to name as much as one of these very ancient historians and writers, of whom he boasteth with shameless lye: he sendeth his reader (a thing most ridiculous) to *Nicephorus a late writer, who (saith he) doubtless did draw his writings out of the ancient. In deed that §1which Nicephorus hath of this point, he drew it out of Sozomen: and, if the Greek were extant, the truth were easily tried, but either he did change his author in 1three words, which is not likely, sith he followed him through all the chapter foot by foot;3
And where he saith 3in his owne tongue, that certaine Arian Bishops 3procured him to consent: he saith, by your translator, 4they endeuored that he should consent. When farder Marcellinus is found to agrée with Sozomens report: your iGenebrard séeing Ierom approued by them both, doth raze out that of Ponta•us ⟨p. 438⟩(that Ierom could say nought thereof but by heare-say) and doth assalt him with the Fathers. Wherein, (besides them, whom you alleaged out of Pontacus,) he citeth Socrates and Theodoret: kSocrates, declaring that Liberius was no Arian in the time of Valens the Emperour; as though this were a proofe that hee subscribed not to the Arian heresie in the time of Constantius: lTheodoret, auouching that the west was alwayes free form Arianisme; which is lesse to the purpose, Theodoret speaking generally as for the most part, and in respect of the East by way of comparison. For himselfe had shewed mbefore that Auxentius, a westerne Bishop, was an Arian. Now for Athanasius, who is the most auncient witnesse of this matter, and of such valure that your nAndradius could not but yéeld himselfe vnto him: yet Genebrard & Pontacus thought it good policie to name him as gainesaying Ierom therein; where Ierom saith the same that he doth, so plainely & fully yt your oHosius is faine to shape one answere to them both, that they beleeued a false rumour. Wherewith your pBellarmin doth cast them off too. And this shift of laying the blame on false rumours séemed so hansome to your q
3[Greek or Hebrew],〈non-Latin alphabet〉,
3[Greek or Hebrew],〈non-Latin alphabet〉,
4Conantur ut consentiat.Conantur vt consentiat.
iChronogr. l. 3.
kHistor. ecclesiast. lib. 4. c. 11.
lHistor. ecclesiast lib. 5. cap. 6.
mLib. 4. c. 5.
nDefens. •id. Trident. lib. 2.
oContr. Brent. lib. 2.
pPraelect. Rom. Sontrou. 4. p. 2. q. 1.
qAnnot. in vitam Liber. Concil. Tom. 1.
*Nicephor. Callist. hist. ecclesiast. l. 9. c. 37.
Surius, that he (belike misliking Onuphrius shift of Anastasius,) applyeth it to Damasus also. For colouring wherof, he saith, that very auncient historians and writers beare witnesse of Liberius most constant perseuerance in defense of the Catholike faith. But being not able to name as much as one of these very auncient historians and writers, of whom hee boasteth with shamelesse lye: he sendeth his reader (a thing most ridiculous) to
Nicephorus a late writer, who (saith he) doubtlesse did draw his writings out of the auncient. In déede that
§1
which Nicephorus hath of this point, he drewe it out of Sozomen: and, if the Gréeke were extant, the truth were easily tryed, but either he did change his autour in
