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.
Stapleton 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
him 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,
who 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:
the 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
the 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
Eusebius 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 xEusebius 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.
oPrincip. doctrine. lib. 4. c. 19.Princip. doctrin. lib. 4. c. 19.
Hart. Yet yIrenaeus reckoneth chiefly the succession of the Church of Rome, as of the greatest Church, and the most ancient and known unto all, founded and established by two the most excellent Apostles Peter and Paul.
Hart. Yet yIrenaeus reckneth chiefely the succession of the Church of Rome, as of the greatest Church, and the most auncient and knowne vnto all, founded and established by two the most excellent Apostles Peter and Paule.
Rainoldes. No marvel. For beside the credit that it had as being Apostolic, ample, famous, ancient: it was the nearest also in place (amongst all the Apostolic Churches) to Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in France; and so both known better and the more dealt with. In the which respect, other of the Fathers did chiefly name it too. As may appear by zTertullian the next of them whom you allege. For he setting down the same prescription against heretics, which Irenaeus had before him, doth speak of it thus. Run over the Apostolic Churches, at which the very chairs of the Apostles are sate on yet in their places: at which their authentical letters are recited, sounding out the voice and representing the face of every ⟨p. 445⟩one of them. Is Achaia next unto thee? Thou hast Corinth. If thou be not far from Macedonia, thou hast Philippi, thou hast the Thessalonians. If thou canst go into Asia, thou hast Ephesus. If thou lye near to Italy, thou hast Rome: whence we have authority also. Whence we have authority, saith Tertullian, in Africa: for he was of the Church of Carthage. So aOptatus was Bishop of Milevis in Africa. So bAustin was Bishop of Hippon, in Africa. Which if you consider, you may see somewhat in it why Optatus and Austin should reckon the succession of the Roman Church, rather then of others. Specially sith Austin cdoth urge against the Donatists not only that, but all Churches: and dwith the chair of the Church of Rome wherein Peter sate, and Anastasius sitteth now, he matcheth the chair of the Church of Jerusalem, wherein James sate, and John sitteth now. As for Epiphanius, whom of the East Church you join to them of the West, as proving the soundness of faith in like sort by the Roman succession: you do him injury. For neither doth he mention it but to note the time in which an heresy did bud; and this is that 1manifest that is meant by him; (it is your Stapletons art to make it 2manifest in faith:) and what he saith thereof, he borroweth it of eIrenaeus, and therefore reckoneth few of the Bishops of Rome, whereas fhe reckoneth all the Bishops of Jerusalem to like intent against the Manichees; so that Jerusalem (if we would toy as you do) passeth Rome with him.
Rainoldes. No maruaile. For beside the credit that it had as being Apostolike, ample, famous, auncient: it was the néerest also in place (amongst all the Apostolike Churches) to Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in Fraunce; and so both known better and the more dealt with. In the which respect, other of the Fathers did chiefely name it too. As may appéere by zTertullian the next of them whom you alleage. For he setting downe the same prescription against heretikes, which Irenaeus had before him, doth speake of it thus. Runne ouer the Apostolike Churches, at which the very chaires of the Apostles are sate on yet in their places: at which their authenticall letters are recited, sounding out the voyce and representing the face of euery ⟨p. 445⟩one of them. Is Achaia next vnto thee? Thou hast Corinth. If thou be not farre from Macedonia, thou hast Philippi, thou hast the Thessalonians. If thou canst go into Asia, thou hast Ephesus. If thou lye neere to Italu, thou hast Rome: whence wee haue authoritie also. Whence we haue authoritie, saith Tertullian, in Afrike: for he was of the Church of Carthage. So aOptatus was Bishop of Mileuis in Afrike. So bAustin was Bishop of Hippon, in Afrike. Which if you consider, you may sée somwhat in it why Optatus and Austin should recken the succes•i•on of the Roman Church, rather then of others. Specially sith Austin cdoth vrge against the Donatists not onely that, but all Churches: and dwith the chaire of the Church of Rome wherein Peter sate, and Anastasius sitteth now, he matcheth the chaire of the Church of Ierusalem, wherein Iames sate, and Iohn sitteth now. As for Epiphanius, whom of the East Church you ioyne to them of the West, as prouing the soundnes of faith in like sort by the Roman succession: you do him iniurie. For neither doth he mention it but to note the time in which an heresie did budde; and this is that 1manifest that is meant by him; (it is your Stapletons art to make it 2
zDe praescriptionib. aduers. haeret.
aOptat. episcopus Milevitanus.Optat. episcopus Mileuitanus.
But in a word to cut off your cavil of succession of Bishops in the Roman Church, whereby you would prove your faith to be sound, because the Fathers proved the faith in their time so: gthe eldest of the Fathers, whom you allege, proved it by the succession of all Churches; hthe next, by the succession of all Apostolic Churches; ithe youngest, by them all in effect, by some namely. Wherefore if the succession of the Church of Rome do prove that the Romans have hitherto continued in the true faith, because by that succession the Fathers proved the true faith: then also the succession of the East Churches, of Ephesus, Smyrna, Corinth, Philippi, and Thessalonica ▪ do prove that they have hitherto continued in the true faith, because by their succession the Fathers proved the true faith. But kyour selves do write that the Greeks (of whom these East Churches are) have failed in the faith, and yielded unto sundry heresies. The speeches ⟨p. 446⟩therefore of the Fathers touching the succession of the Bishops of Rome, prove not, that the Romans do now profess the true faith.
But in a word to cut off your cauill of succession of Bishops in the Roman Church, whereby you would proue your faith to be sound, because the Fathers proued the faith in their time so: gthe eldest of the Fathers, whom you alleage, proued it by the succession of all Churches; hthe next, by the succession of all Apostolike Churches; ithe yongest, by them all in effect, by some namely. Wherefore if the succession of the Church of Rome doo proue that the Romans haue hitherto continued in the true faith, because by that succession the Fathers proued the true faith: then also the succession of the East Churches, of Ephesus, Smyrna, Corinth, Philippi, and Thessalonica ▪ doo proue that they haue hithertoo continued in the true faith, because by their succession the Fathers proued the true faith. But kyour selues do write that the Greekes (of whom these East Churches are) haue failed in the faith, and yeelded vnto sundry heresies. The spéeches ⟨p. 446⟩therefore of the Fathers touching the succession of the Bishops of Rome, proue not, that the Romanes doo now professe the true faith.
gIrenaeus▪
hTertullian▪
iAugustin.
kAlfons. a Castr. aduers. haer. lib. 5. de. Deo, lib. 6▪ de Eucharistia. lib. 12. de Papa & purgatorio. Canus Locor. Theologic l. 4. c. 6. Sander. visib. monar. lib. 7. Genebrard. Chronograph. lib. 3. & 4.
Hart. The line of succession of the Roman Bishops hath been still recorded in stories, and continueth yet. We can reckon them from Peter the Apostle to Gregory who sitteth now. Not so the Greek Bishops, the Churches of the East. Nay, the line of succession hath been broken off in the chief of them, as the Chronicles do witness, even in Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.
Hart. The line of succession of the Roman Bishops hath bene still recorded in stories, and continueth yet. We can recken them from Peter the Apostle to Gregorie who sitteth now. Not so the Gréeke Bishops, the Churches ofthe East. Nay, the line of succession hath béene broken off in the chiefe of them, as the Chronicles do witnesse, euen in Alexandria, Antioche, and Ierusalem.
Rainoldes. What is this to the purpose; if some of their successions be not enrolled in stories: some that are enrolled were broken off a while by calamities that fell upon them? For although lEusebius recorded the successions but of four Churches, in 2the mother-cities of the provinces (as he calleth them,) Rome Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem; and mNicephorus added Constantinople to them: yet the Churches which I named had successions of Bishops too, as I showed out of nthe Fathers. And in them, in which you note that succession hath discontinued, the faith had failed often, while the succession lasted: which is enough for my proof. But if you think your Church sure by this prerogative, that the Roman Bishops succession lasteth still, and you can reckon them from Peter the Apostle to Gregory who sitteth now: what say you to the Church of Constantinople? In it there have succeeded Bishops to this day: and they can reckon them ofrom Andrew the Apostle pto Jeremiah who sitteth now. Yet, to say nothing of the old heresies from which the successors are free, though set abroach by their predecessors, as by qMacedonius, rNestorius, and sSergius: tthe whole line of them many ages together have denied the Roman Bishops supreme-headship, & claimed it to them selves, uas Jeremiah doth also now. Whereby either your reason of succession is stricken dead, or your supremacy of the Pope. For if succession be a proof of truth and soundness in faith: then your supremacy is condemned. If your supremacy be lawful: then is not faith proved to be sound by succession. To which of these yield you? To one you must of necessity.
Rainoldes. What is this to the purpose; if some of their successions be not enrolled in stories: some yt are enrolled were broken off a while by calamities that fell vpon them? For although lEusebius recorded the successions but of foure Churches, in 2the mother-cities of the prouinces (as he calleth them,) Rome Alexandria, Antioche, and Ierusalem; and mNicephorus added Constantinople to them: yet the Churches which I named had successions of Bishops too, as I shewed out of nthe Fathers. And in them, in which you note that succession hath discontinued, the faith had failed often, while the succession lasted: which is enough for my proofe. But if you thinke your Church sure by this prerogatiue, that the Roman Bishops succession lasteth still, and you can recken them from Peter the Apostle to Gregorie who sitteth now: what say you to the Church of Constantinople? In it there haue succeeded Bishops to this day: and they can recken them ofrom Andrew the Apostle pto Ieremie who sitteth now. Yet, to say nothing of the old heresies from which the successors are free, though set abroch by their predecessors, as by qMacedonius, rNestorius, and sSergius: tthe whole line of them many ages togither haue denied ye Roman Bishops supreme-headship, & claimed it to them selues, uas Ieremie doth also now. Whereby either your reason of succession is stricken dead, or your supremacie of the Pope. For if succession be a proofe of truth and soundnes in faith: then your supremacie is condemned. If your supremacie be lawfull: then is not faith proued to bee sound by succession. To which of these yéelde you? To one you must of necessitie.
Hart. In deed *the succession of Bishops in place is no good argument, unless it be joined with succession in doctrine. ⟨p. 447⟩For Irenaeus saith, xwe must obey those priests who with the succession of the Bishoply charge have received the sure gift of the truth according to the will of God. Wherefore the succession of Constantinople, though they fetch it from the Apostles, yet proveth not the faith (which they profess) to be true, because they have departed from the Apostles doctrine, in which they should succeed chiefly.
Hart. In déede *the succession of Bishops in place is no good argument, vnlesse it be ioyned with succession in doctrine. ⟨p. 447⟩For Irenaeus saith, xwe must obey those priestes who with the succession of the Bishoply charge haue receiued the sure gift of the truth according to the will of God. Wherefore the succession of Constantinople, though they fetch it from the Apostles, yet proueth not the faith (which they professe) to be true, because they haue departed from the Apostles doctrine, in which they should succeede chiefely.
Rainoldes. Now you say well. In deed the succession in place is nothing worth: succession in doctrine is it which maketh all. But what mean you then to send us such ybead-reals of your Bishops of Rome from Peter to Gregory, as undoubted arguments of the Catholic faith: when we can send you as solemn a bead-roll of Constantinople from Andrew to Jeremiah, and prove nothing by it? What trifling is this, to say first that succession of Bishops in place proveth truth of doctrine: and then to add, that it doth so, if it have succession in doctrine joined with it. In effect as if you said, that succession in place doth prove the doctrine to be true, if the doctrine be true: & a couple of ears do prove a creature to be a man, if they be a mans ears. The Fathers alleged succession in place, not with condition, if it had; but with a reason, that it had succession in doctrine. Prove me that you have succession in doctrine: and then allege unto me the Fathers for succession. For if as S. zAustin said against the Donatists after he had reckoned the Bishops of Rome from Peter to Anastasius, In the rank of this succession, there is not one Bishop found that was a Donatist; so you reckoning them from Peter to Gregory might say in like sort, In the rank of this succession there is not one Bishop found that hath usurped: then were your reason as fit against us for the supremacy of the Pope, as S. Austins was for the Church against the Donatists.
Rainoldes. Now you say well. In déede the succession in place is nothing woorth: succession in doctrine is it which maketh all. But what meane you then to send vs such ybead-reales of your Bishops of Rome from Peter to Gregory, as vndoubted arguments of the Catholike faith: when we can send you as solemne a bead-roale of Constantinople from Andrew to Ieremie, and proue nothing by it? What trifling is this, to say first that succession of Bishops in place proueth truth of doctrine: and then to adde, that it doth so, if it haue succession in doctrine ioyned with it. In effect as if you said, that succession in place doth proue the doctrine to be true, if ye doctrine be true: & a couple of eares doo proue a creature to be a man, if they be a mans eares. The Fathers alleaged succession in place, not with condition, if it had; but with a reason, yt it had succession in doctrine. Proue me that you haue succession in doctrine: and then alleage vnto me the Fathers for succession. For if as S. zAustin saide against the Donatists after he had reckened the Bishops of Rome from Peter to Anastasius, In the ranke of this succession, there is not one Bishop found that was a Donatist; so you reckning them from Peter to Gregorie might say in like sort, In the rancke of this succession there is not one Bishop found that hath vsurped: then were your reason as fit against vs for the supremacy of the Pope, as S. Austins was for the Church against the Donatists.
yBristow in his Demands. •ishtons table commended by Bristow. Gen•brard in his Chronicles.Bristow in his Demandes. •ishtons table commended by Bristow. Gen•brard in his Chronicles.
Hart. I may say so in like sort. For S. Austin meant as well of this point as of all others, when he said of the succession of the Bishops of Rome, that the gates of hell prevailed not against it.
Hart. I may say so in like sort. For S. Austin meant as well of this point as of all others, when he said of the succession of the Bishops of Rome, that the gates of hell preuailed not against it.
Rainoldes. If this gate of hell prevailed not against them in S. Austins time: yet many things may happen between the cup and the lip, (as the proverb is,) much more between his time and ou•s. But S. Austin meant not to speak of usurping in that against the Donatists: and if he had, he learned by ⟨p. 448⟩experience afterward, that they could usurp, and would, if they were not curbed. For three of them, even Zosimus, Boniface, and Caelestin did usurp over the Churches of Africa while Austin was alive yet: who with the whole Council of above two hundred Bishops of that country, withstood their attempt as much as lay in him, and stayed their pride.
Rainoldes. If this gate of hell preuailed not against them in S. Austins time: yet many thinges may happen betweene the cuppe and the lippe, (as the prouerbe is,) much more betwéene his time and ou•s. But S. Austin meant not to speake of vsurping in that against the Donatists: and if he had, he learned by ⟨p. 448⟩experience afterwarde, that they could vsurpe, and would, if they were not curbed. For thrée of them, euen Zosimus, Boniface, and Caelestin did vsurpe ouer the Churches of Afrike while Austin was aliue yet: who with the whole Councell of abooue two hundred Bishops of that countrie, withstood their attempt as much as lay in him, and stayed their pride.
Rainoldes. Which holy Bishops? of Africa? Them selves 1in their epistles to the Bishops of Rome, do note it with the same *word: and if they slandered them it was with a matter of truth. But of this, bhereafter, more conveniently. For the point in hand, it is sufficient that S. Austin applying that text to the Church of Rome, that the gates of hell prevailed not against it: spake of soundness of doctrine, which the Donatists did fault in; not of sovereignty of power, whereof there was no question with them.
Rainoldes. Which holy Bishops? of Afrike? Them selues 1in their epistles to the Bishops of Rome, doo note it with the same *worde: and if they slandered them it was with a matter of truth. But of this, bhereafter, more conueniently. For the point in hand, it is sufficient that S. Austin applying that text to the Church of Rome, that the gates of hell preuailed not against it: spake of soundnes of doctrine, which the Donatists did faute in; not of soueraintie of power, wherof there was no question with them.
1Epist. Concil. African. ad Bonifacium & Caelestinum.
*[Greek or Hebrew]. In Latin some princes have it typum, but it should be typhum.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. In Latin some princes haue it typum, but it should be typhum.
Hart. *Gregory the great speaketh of sovereignty of power; and proveth by that same text cthe Church of Rome to be the head of all Churches, because Christ committed specially this Church to S. Peter, saying, to thee will I give my Church.
Hart. *Gregorie the great speaketh of soueraintie of power; and proueth by that same text cthe Church of Rome to be the head of all Churches, because Christ committed specially this Church to S. Peter, saying, to thee wil I giue my Church.
*Staplet. princ. doctr. l. 6. c. 15.
cGregor. in Psal. 5. penitent. super ver•umillum, Tota die.Gregor. in Psal. 5. paenitent. super ver•umillum, Tota die.
