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. 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,
Athanasius, 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
through 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,
Damasus 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.
or (which is most likely) your Langus, who 2translated him §2out of a written copy, was as bold with him, as Christopherson with Sozomen. 1Such follies and treacheries you wrap your selves in,2 to keep men from opinion, that a Pope subscribed to the Arian heresy.3 Which, had you not hardened your faces as flint to sooth the presumption of the Papal See, I see no cause why you should do: chiefly sith your selves do teach (as 5I have showed) ⟨p. 439⟩that the Pope may be an heretic, and not subscribe to heresy only. But if you be affected so tenderly to the Pope, that you will rather grant any fault in others then such a spot in him; if you can say with out blushing, that Damasus was corrupted, Athanasius light of credit, Marcellinus a false Chronicler; that Sozomen is truer in Latin, then in Greek; in your translation, then his own tongue; that rMarianus Scotus, sMartinus Polonus, tAdo, uRhegino, xAntoninus, yPlatina, & zother later writers were deceived by Jerome; that Jerome was abused himself by false rumours; to be short, that the Papists who live in our days can tell what was done twelve hundred years ago, better then them selves who lived at that time, and since from age to age: yet you cannot say but that Jerome thought that Liberius subscribed to the Arian heresy; yea, athat Felix (the next Bishop of Rome after Liberius) was an Arian; he thought it. Wherefore, if he had meant of the whole succession of the Roman Bishops that which he wrote to Damasus, I am joined in communion unto your holiness, that is, to Peters chair; I know that the Church is builded upon that rock: then he must have meant, that▪ before the time that Damasus was Bishop, he ought to have been joined in communion to the Arians, and that the Arians holiness was the chair of Peter, and that the Church was built upon the rock of Arians. But this abomination was far from S. Jerome. S. Jerome therefore meant not the succession, but Damasus, who succeeded Peter, as in chair, so in doctrine; and taught the faith which Peter did: a faith as clean contrary to the Arians faith, as light is to darkness, as life is to death.
or (which is most likely) your Langus, who 2translated him §2out ofa writē copie, was as bold with him, as Christopherson with Sozomen. 1Such follies and treacheries you wrappe your selues in,2 to kéepe men from opinion, that a Pope subscribed to the Arian heresie.3 Which, had you not hardened your faces as flint to sooth the presumption of the Papall See, I sée no cause why you should doo: chiefely sith your selues do teach (as 5I haue shewed) ⟨p. 439⟩that the Pope may be an heretike, and not subscribe to heresie onely. But if you be affected so tenderly to the Pope, that you will rather graunt any fault in others then such a spot in him; if you can say with out blushing, that Damasus was corrupted, Athanasius light of credit, Marcellinus a false Chronicler; that Sozomen is truer in Latin, then in Gréeke; in your translation, then his owne tounge; that rMarianus Scotus, sMartinus Polonus, tAdo, uRhegino, xAntoninus, yPlatina, & zother later writers were deceiued by Ierom; that Ierom was abused himselfe by false rumours; to be short, that the Papistes who liue in our daies can tell what was done twelue hundred yeares ago, better then them selues who liued at that time, andsince from age to age: yet you cannot say but that Ierom thought that Liberius subscribed to the Arian heresie; yea,
2[Greek or Hebrew].〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
1Suadere ten•avit.Suadere ten•auit.
2Studuere.
3Conabantur.
5In the 2. Divis. of this chapter.In the 2. Diuis. of this chapte•.
Hart. But questionless S. bAustin meant the whole succession of the Bishops of Rome, when he wrote against the Donatists, Number ye the Priests even from the very seat of Peter, & in that rank of Fathers mark who succeeded whom: that is the rock against which the proud gates of hell prevail not. The gates of hell (saith Austin) prevail not against the Priests, that is, the Bishops, who succeed Peter. Then by his judgement all the Roman Bishops are free from all heresy. For the gates of hell are heresies, and the principal authors of heresies, as cEpiphanius witnesseth. Wherefore if the gates of hell prevail not against the succession of the Bishops ⟨p. 440⟩of Rome: it followeth (howsoever you avoid S. Jerome) that neither Arians, nor Donatists, nor any other heresies do prevail against it.
Hart. But questionlesse S. bAustin meant the whole succession of the Bishops of Rome, when he wrote against the Donatistes, Number ye the Priestes euen from the very seat of Peter, & in that ranke of Fathers marke who succeeded whom: that is the rocke against which the proud gates of hell preuaile not. The gates of hell (saith Austin) preuaile not against the Priestes, that is, the Bishops, who succeede Peter. Then by his iudgement all the Roman Bishops are frée from all heresie. For the gates of hell are heresies, and the principall autours of heresies, as cEpiphanius witnesseth. Wherefore ifthe gates of hell preuaile not against the succession of the Bishops ⟨p. 440⟩of Rome: it foloweth (howsoeuer you auoide S. Ierom) that neither Arians, nor Donatistes, nor any other heresies doo preuaile against it.
Rainoldes. Did prevail against it in the time of Austin: so you should conclude. You have a pretty policy in citing the testimonies and sayings of the Fathers touching the Church of Rome: that what they did speak of the time present then, you use it as spoken of the time present now. There was a gentlewoman in Rome, named Fabia: dwho being waxed old, yet willing still to seem young, said, in Tullies hearing, that she was thirty years of age. That must needs be true, quoth Tully; for I have heard it of you twenty years ago. The Church of Rome hath defiled her self with idolatry, & gone a whoring from the Lord: yet she would seem a maid still, and so she saith her self to be. I think you jest not with her, as Tully did with Fabia: yet you prove her maidenhead, as Tully did the youth of Fabia. You say that it must needs be true: for it is written of her twelve hundred years ago. But that you may see how small cause you have to build so much on those words, The gates of hell prevail not against the succession of the Bishops of Rome: consider what is meant by the gates of hell, and your grant is past, that against some Bishops of Rome they have prevailed. The state of the faithful and chosen of God in this present life, is as it were ea warfare: whereof the Church is called militant. The adversaries and enemies whom we must fight against, our Saviour speaketh of them as of a strong kingdom, which he calleth hell, because it warreth all for hell, and fthe devil is prince of it. The gates of hell therefore do signify the gholds, the fortresses and munitions, wherewith the powers of hell do fight against us and assault us: that is, even whatsoever the devil can do by force or fraud. All the which is meant by the name of gates, because the gates of fortes are wont to have the best munition, and to be fenced most strongly. So the gates of hell are not only heresies, (though heresies are of them, as hEpiphanius, and iAustin note:) but also persecutions, and specially sins, and in a word all evils, sweet or sower, fair or foul, that seek to subdue us to everlasting death; as kOrigen, lChrysostom, mGregory, nTheophylact, and oothers well observe. Now, if you apply this to the Bishops of Rome: you may see your error. ⟨p. 441⟩For it is confessed by your self and yours, that sins have prevailed, and prevailed monstrously against sundry of them.
Rainoldes. Did preuaile against it in the time of Austin: so you should conclude. You haue a pretie policie in citing the testimonies and sayings of the Fathers touching the Church of Rome: that what they did speake ofthe time present then, you vse it as spoken of the time present now. There was a gentlewoman in Rome, named Fabia: dwho being waxed olde, yet willing still to séeme young, said, in Tullies hearing, that she was thirtie yeares of age. That must needes be true, quoth Tullie; for I haue heard it of you twentie yeares ago. The Church of Rome hath defiled her selfe with idolatrie, & gone a whoring from the Lord: yet she would séeme a maide still, and so shee saith her selfe to be. I thinke you iest not with her, as Tullie did with Fabia: yet you proue her maidenhead, as Tullie did the youth of Fabia. You say that it must néedes be true: for it is writen ofher twelue hundred yeares ago. But that you may sée how small cause you haue to build so much on those wordes, The gates of hell preuaile not against the succession of the Bishops of Rome: consider what is meant by the gates of hell, and your graunt is past, that against some Bishops of Rome they haue preuailed. The state ofthe faithfull and chosen of God in this present life, is as it were ea warfare: whereof the Church is called militant. The aduersaries and enimies whom we must fight against, our Sauiour speaketh of them as of a strong kingdome, which he calleth hell, because it warreth all for hel, and fthe deuil is prince of it. The gates of hell therefore doo signifie the gholdes, the fortresses and munitions, wherewith the powers of hel doo fight against vs and assault vs: that is, euen whatsoeuer the deuill can doo by force or fraude. All the which is meant by the name of gates, because the gates of fortes are wont to haue the best munition, and to be fensed most strongly. So the gates of hell are not onely heresies, (though heresies are of them, as hEpiphanius, and iAustin note:) but also persecutions, and specially sinnes, and in a word all euils, sweete or sower, faire or foule, that séeke to subdue vs to euerlasting death; as kOrigen, l
Whereof it doth follow that against sundry of them who have succeeded in the seat of Peter, the gates of hell have prevailed. As for S. Austins judgement, that heresies of the Arians, or Donatists, or others did not prevail against them: I know no cause to the contrary but he might justly say so then. For though the Arian heresy did set upon Liberius fiercely and overthrew him, pwhen he being wearied with the tediousness of his banishment did subscribe to it: yet sith he recovered himself from his fall, and manfully qwithstood it afterward, it cannot be said to have prevailed against him. Whether it prevailed or no against Felix, of whom rsome report that he was an Arian; ssome, that he communicated only with the Arians: it is no matter to S. tAustin, who reckoneth him not amongst the Roman Bishops. Wherein though your Genebrard do dissent from him, because Felix dyed a martyr, as uhe saith, & citeth Sozomen to prove it (but he belieth Sozomen) to infer on that lye, that Peters chair hath such a virtue, that it could rather bear a martyr then an heretic, or a Pope that favoured heretics: yet xothers (not seeing belike such a mystery in the death of Felix) are of S. Austins mind; even your yOnuph•ius also, who neither doth acknowledge his Popedom, nor his martyrdom. Now, the heresy of the Donatists had less prevailed against them. For as zthey had before withstood the Novatians, the cousin germans to the Donatists: so adid they withstand the Donatists them selves, both by their communion with the Catholics, and by their doctrine. And this is the point on the which S. Austin did cast his eye chiefly, when he commended their succession. As it appeareth farther by ba reply that he made to a Donatists epistle: where having reckoned up all the Roman Bishops from Linus who succeeded Peter, to Anastasius living then, he concludeth with these words: *in the rank of this succession there is not one Bishop found that was a Donatist. Wherewithal if we consider how they maintained the truth cagainst the heresies of Carpocrates, Valentinus, Marcion, dSabellius, Macedonius, Photinus, Apollinaris, and the rest of those miscreants, who undermined the foundation of the Christian faith, the doctrine of the blessed Trinity: ⟨p. 442⟩the reason will be manifest, why to move the Donatists by the succession of the Bishops of Rome and their authority, S.
Whereof it doth folow that against sundry of them who haue succéeded in the seate of Peter, the gates of hell haue preuailed. As for S. Austins iudgement, that heresies of the Arians, or Donatistes, or others did not preuaile against them: I know no cause to the contrarie but hee might iustly say so then. For though the Arian heresie did set vpon Liberius fiersly and ouerthrew him, pwhen he being weeried with the tediousnes of his banishment did subscribe to it: yet sith he recouered himselfe from his fall, and manfully qwithstood it afterwarde, it cannot be saide to haue preuailed against him. Whether it preuailed or no against Felix, of whom rsome report that he was an Arian; ssome, that he communicated only with the Arians: it is no matter to S. tAustin, who reckeneth him not amongst the Roman Bishops. Wherein though your Genebrard doo dissent from him, because Felix dyed a martyr, as uhe saith, & citeth Sozomen to proue it (but he belyeth Sozomen) to infer on that lye, yt Peters chaire hath such a vertue, that it could rather beare a martyr then an heretike, or a Pope that fauoured heretikes: yet xothers (not séeing belike such a mystery in ye death of Felix) are of S. Austins minde; euen your yOnuph•ius also, who neither doth acknowledge his Popedome, nor his martyrdome. Now, the heresie ofthe Donatistes had lesse preuailed against them. For as zthey had before withstood the Nouatians, the coosin germans to the Donatists: so adid they withstand the Donatists them selues, both by their communion with the Catholikes, and by their doctrine. And this is the point on the which S. Austin did cast his eye chiefly, when he commended their succession. As it appeereth farther by b
Hart. 1Well. *The succession then of the Roman Bishops is used by S. Austin for a certain mark of the Catholic religion, of the true Church, and of the right faith. Neither only by S. Austin, but by the rest of the Fathers too. For eEpiphanius allegeth it against the Carpocratians: & let no man marvel (saith he) that we rehearse all things so exactly; for, that which is manifest in faith is thereby showed. And fTertullian having said of them selves in Africa that they have authority from the Church of Rome, doth teach that the succession of that Church and See is to be set against all heretics. And gIrenaeus reckoning up all the Roman. Bishops in order from Peter to Eleutherius of his time, doth add, that it is a most ample declaration of the Apostolic faith to be of his side against the Valentinians. And hOptatus reckoneth farther from Peter to Siricius of his time against the Donatists. As likewise S. iAustin farther yet from Peter to Anastasius of his time, & that (he saith) much more surely and to the souls health in deed. Wherefore the Church of Rome, and we, who are of that Church, have an assured warrant that the faith which we profess is the true faith. For we have the succession of the Roman Bishops from Peter to Gregory the thirteenth of our time: which is an invincible fort against all heretics; as the Fathers, Epiphanius, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Optatus, and Austin testify.
Hart. 1Well. *The succession then of the Roman Bishops is vsed by S. Austin for a certaine marke of the Catholike religion, of the true Church, and of the right faith. Neither onely by S. Austin, but by the rest of the Fathers too. For eEpiphanius alleageth it against the Carpocratians: & let no man maruaile (saith he) that we rehearse al thinges so exactly; for, that which is manifest in faith is thereby shewed. And fTertullian hauing said of them selues in Afrike that they haue autority from the Church of Rome, doth teach that the succession of that Church and See is to be set against all heretikes. And gIrenaeus reckening vp all the Roman. Bishops in order from Peter to Eleutherius of his time, doth adde, that it is a most ample declaration of the Apostolike faith to be of his side against the Valentinians. And hOptatus reckneth farther from Peter to Siricius of his time against the Donatists. As likewise S. iAustin farther yet from Peter to Anastasius of his time, & that (he saith) much more surely and to the soules health in deed. Wherefore the Church of Rome, and we, who are of that Church, haue an assured warrant that the faith which we professe is the true faith. For we haue the succession of the Roman Bishops from Peter to Gregory the thirtenth of our time: which is an inuincible fort against all heretikes; as the Fathers, Epiphanius, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Optatus, and Austin testifie.
Rainoldes. You will never leave to dally with the Church of Rome, as Tully did with Mistress Fabia. The succession of the Roman Bishops is a proof of the true faith: for so it was in the time of Austin, Epiphanius, Optatus, Tertullian, & Irenaeus, twelve hundred years ago & upward. Succession was a proof of the true faith, till Bishops, who varied from the truth succeeded: even as *sheep's clothing was a mark of true Prophets till false Prophets came in it. But neither are true Prophets known now by sheep's clothing: nor the true faith by succession. The succession of Bishops was a proof of true faith not in the Church of Rome alone, but in all, while they who succeeded the Apostles in place, succeeded them in doctrine ⟨p. 443⟩too, & kept that which kPaul delivered to Timothy & lTimothy to others. But when ravening wolves were gotten into the rooms of pastors, and mthat was fulfilled which Paul foretold the Bishops of Ephesus, of your own selves there shall arise men speaking perverse things to draw disciples after them: then succession ceased to be a proof of true faith, for that it was no longer peculiar to the truth, but common to it with error, and so a mark of neither, because a mark of both. This difference of succession between the later age and the former, the primitive churches time and ours, is manifest by the Fathers them selves whom you allege. For nIrenaeus (to begin with the most ancient of them) saith, that the succession of Bishops in all Churches through the whole world doth keep and teach that doctrine which the Apostles delivered. Now it doth not so: nor hath these many ages since Irenaeus died. Hath it?
Rainoldes. You will neuer leaue to daly with the Church of Rome, as Tullie did with Maistresse Fabia. The succession of the Roman Bishops is a proofe of the true faith: for so it was in the time of Austin, Epiphanius, Optatus, Tertullian, & Irenaeus, twelue hundred yeares ago & vpwarde. Succession was a proofe of the true faith, till Bishops, who varied from the truth succéeded: euen as *sheepes clothing was a marke of true Prophets till false Prophets came in it. But neither are true Prophets knowne now by shéepes clothing: nor the true faith by succession. The succession of Bishops was a proofe of true faith not in the Church of Rome alone, but in all, while they who succéeded the Apostles in place, succéeded them in doctrine ⟨p. 443⟩too, & kept that which kPaule deliuered to Timothee & lTimothee to others. But when rauening woolues were gotten into the roomes of pastours, and mthat was fulfilled which Paul foretold the Bishops of Ephesus, of your own selues there shall arise men speaking peruerse thinges to draw disciples after them: then succession ceased to be a proofe of true faith, for that it was no longer peculiar to the truth, but common to it with errour, and so a marke of neither, because a marke of both. This difference of succession betwene the later age and the former, the primitiue churches time and ours, is manifest by the Fathers them selues whom you alleage. For nIrenaeus (to beginne with the most auncient of them) saith, that the succession of Bishops in all Churches through the whole world doth keepe and teach that doctrine which the Apostles deliuered. Now it doth not so: nor hath these many ages since Irenaeus died. Hath it?
Rainoldes. D. oStapleton told you so, and you believed it. I know not whether I should more pity your credulity, or detest his impudency, who hath abused you with such lewd untruths; and that against his own knowledge, unless he knew not what he had written himself. For phim self had cited the words of Irenaeus which avouch the contrary: to wit, we can reckon them who were ordained Bishops by the Apostles in the Churches, & their successors until our time, qwho taught not any such thing, and so forth. But for as much as it would be very long to reckon the successions of all Churches: we declare the faith of the greatest, the most ancient and famous Church of Rome. Which faith hath continued until our time by the successions of Bishops. And again: rthe true knowledge is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient state of the Church in the whole world, and ⟨p. 444⟩the form of Christs body according to the successions of Bishops unto whom they did commit the Church, which is in every place, which hath continued until our time, being kept, and so forth. By the which sentences it is plain that Irenaeus, although he reckon not the successions of all Churches because it would be tedious: yet he fetcheth the succession of true doctrine from all Churches, in every place, through the whole world. Or if it be not plain enough by these sentences, he maketh it more plain in other: both by general speeches of 5the Church through al• the world, which he repeateth often; and by the particular names of sundry Churches, tthe Churches of Smyrna, of Ephesus, of Asia, uthe Churches in Germany, in Spain, in France, in the East countries, in Egypt, in Libya, in the middle of the world. Wherefore the successions of Bishops in all Churches were true and faithful witnesses of the Apostolic doctrine in the time of Irenaeus. As xEusebius also doth farther prove by Hegesippus, who lived at the same time, and travailing to Rome ward, did talk with very many Bishops: of whom, even of them all, he heard the same doctrine, accordingly to that he wrote, that in every succession, and in every city, the doctrine is such as the Law, and the Prophets, and the Lord doth preach.
Rainoldes. D. oStapleton told you so, and you beleeued it. I know not whether I should more pitie your credulitie, or detest his impudencie, who hath abused you with such lewde vntruthes; and that against his owne knowledge, vnlesse he knew not what he had writen himselfe. For phim selfe had cited the wordes of Irenaeus which auouch the contrarie: to wéete, we can recken them who were ordeined Bishops by the Apostles in the Churches, & their successours vntill our time, qwho taught not any such thing, and so foorth. But for as much as it would be verie long to recken the successions of all Churches: we declare the faith of the greatest, the most auncient and famous Church of Rome. Which faith hath continued vntill our time by the successions of Bishops. And againe: rthe true knowledge is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the auncient state of the Church in the whole world, and ⟨p. 444⟩the forme of Christes body according to the successions of Bishops vnto whom they did commit the Church, which is in euery place, which hath continued vntill our time, being kept, and so foorth. By the which sentences it is plaine that Irenaeus, although he recken not the successions of all Churches because it would be tedious: yet he fetcheth the succession of true doctrine from all Churches, in euery place, through the whole world. Or if it bée not plaine enough by these sentences, he maketh it more plaine in other: both by generall spéeches of 5the Churche through al• the world, which hee repeateth often; and by the particular names of sundrie Churches, tthe Churches of Smyrna, of Ephesus, of Asia, uthe Churches in Germany, in Spaine, in France, in the East countries, in Aegypt, in Liby•, in the middle of the worlde. Wherefore the successions of Bishops in all Churches were true and faithfull witnesses of the Apostolike doctrine in the time of Irenaeus. As x
oPrincip. doctrine. lib. 4. c. 19.Princip. doctrin. lib. 4. c. 19.
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
that Felix (the next Bishop of Rome after Liberius) was an Arian; he thought it. Wherefore, if he had meant ofthe whole succession of the Roman Bishops that which he wrote to Damasus, I am ioyned in communion vnto your holinesse, that is, to Peters chaire; I know that the Church is builded vpon that rocke: then hee must haue meant, that▪ before the time that Damasus was Bishop, he ought to haue béene ioyned in communion to the Arians, and that the Arians holinesse was the chaire of Peter, and that the Church was built vpon the rocke of Arians. But this abomination was farre from S. Ierom. S. Ierom therefore meant not the succession, but Damasus, who succéeded Peter, as in chaire, so in doctrine; and taught the faith which Peter did: a faith as cleane contrarie to the Arians faith, as light is to darkenes, as life is to death.
•
•
•
〈…〉. de 〈…〉▪ cath• l. •. c 5. Al•on•
aCa•h. contr. ha r. l. •. c. 4. Albert. K••ntz. Metrop. l. 2. cap. 1.
others well obserue. Now, ifyou apply this to the Bishops of Rome: you may sée your error.
⟨p. 441⟩
For it is confessed by your selfe and yours, that sinnes haue preuailed, and preuailed monstrously against sundry of them.
a reply that hee made to a Donatists epistle: where hauing reckened vp all the Roman Bishops from Linus who succéeded Peter, to Anastasius liuing then, he concludeth with these wordes:
Sabellius, Macedonius, Photinus, Apollinaris, and the rest of those miscreants, who vndermined the foundation ofthe Christian faith, the doctrine ofthe blessed Trinitie:
⟨p. 442⟩
the reason will be manifest, why to moue the Donatists by ye succession of the Bishops of Rome and their autoritie, S.
Theodoret. hist. eccles. l. 50. c. 1•.
Eusebius also doth farther proue by Hegesippus, who liued at the same time, and trauailing to Rome ward, did talke with very many Bishops: of whom, euen of them al, he heard the same doctrin, accordingly to that he wrote, that in euery succession, and in euery citie, the doctrine is such as the Law, and the Prophets, and the Lord doth preach.
