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. Our Rhemists will render good account (I doubt not) of this which they have written, when they shall hear what is said against it. And that which you declared out of the holy scriptures concerning the time of S. Denis conversion, which is the greatest argument that you brought yet to disprove the story avouched of his presence at the departure of our Lady: I must refer to them. For I my self know not indeed how to accord it. But why do you press that point about the Fathers, touching their overseeing ether the words, or meaning, or consequent of the scriptures? We are past the scriptures, and proofs that the Fathers do gather out of them.
Hart. Our Rhemists will render good account (I dout not) of this which they haue writen, when they shall heare what is said against it. And that which you declared out of the holy scriptures concerning the time of S. Denys conuersion, which is the greatest argument that you brought yet to disproue the storie auouched of his presēce at the departure of our Lady: I must referre to them. For I my selfe know not indéede how to accord it. But why do you presse that point about the Fathers, touching their ouerseeing ether the wordes, or meaning, or consequent of the scriptures? We are past the scriptures, and proofes that the Fathers do gather out of them.
Rainoldes. But if they may gather amiss out of the scriptures, and overshoot them selves in the word of God: they may be deceived in the word of man too, and either not conceive well, or not remember well, or not conclude well of it. Which happened to S. Jerome in that same point, that I reproved a little rather in Eusebius. For fhe, reckoning Philo the Jew amongst the Christian ecclesiastical writers, doth it (he saith) for this reason, because Philo writing a book touching the first Church planted by the Evangelist S. Mark in Alexandria, hath praised the Christians: reporting them to be not only there but in many countries, and calling their dwelling places, Monasteries. Whereby it is apparent that the Church of believers in Christ, at the first, was such as monks endeavour and seek to be now, that nothing is any mans own in propriety, none is rich amongst them, none poor, their patrimonies are distributed to the needy, they give them selves wholly to prayer, and to singing of Psalms, and to learning, and to continency of life: such as S.
Luke also doth write, that the believers were first at Jerusalem. And this book of Philo touching the life of our men, that is, of men Apostolic, is
⟨p. 492⟩
entitled of the contemplative life of men that pray, because they did contemplate (study, and meditate) heavenly things, and prayed to God always. Thus far S. Jerome. Wherein, that the points of contemplation and prayer, being somewhat like in them whom Philo wrote off and in the Christian Church, did make him to mistake the one for the other, as likeness (they say) is the mother of error: but, that they were not Christians whom Philo meant in that book, it may appear by four circumstances, of names, of deeds, of times, and of places. For they, of whom Philo doth write, were called Essees: which was a sect of Jews, of whom
some in contemplation. The Christians were never known by name of Essees, either contemplative or active. Again, they in Philo did leave their goods and substance to their sons, or daughters, or kinsmen, or if they had no kinsmen, to their friends. The Christians gave them to the poor, and such as stood in need of succour. Moreover the solemn day, which they in Philo did meet together publicly to hear the word of God taught, was the seventh day of the week:
Rainoldes. But if they may gather amisse out of the scriptures, and ouershoote them selues in the word of God: they may be deceiued in the word of man too, and either not conceiue well, or not remember well, or not conclude well of it. Which hapned to S. Ierom in that same point, that I reproued a litle rather in Eusebius. For fhe, reckning Philo the Iew amongst the Christian ecclesiastical writers, doth it (he saith) for this reason, because Philo writing a booke touching the first Church planted by the Euangelist S. Mark in Alexandria, hath praised the Christians: reporting them to be not onely there but in many countries, and calling their dwelling places, Monasteries. Whereby it is apparant that the Church of beleeuers in Christ, at the first, was such as moonkes endeuour and seeke to be now, that nothing is any mans owne in proprietie, none is rich amongst them, none poore, their patrimonies are distributed to the needy, they giue them selues wholy to prayer, and to singing of Psalmes, and to learning, and to continencie of life: such as S. gLuke also doth write, that the beleeuers were first at Ierusalem. And this booke of Philo touching the life of our men, that is, of men Apostolike, is ⟨p. 492⟩entitled of the contemplatiue life of men that pray, because they did contemplate (studie, and meditate) heauenly things, and prayed to God alwayes. Thus farre S. Ierom. Wherein, that the pointes of contemplation and prayer, being somewhat like in them whom Philo wrote off and in the Christian Church, did make him to mistake the one for the other, as likenes (they say) is the mother of error: but, that they were not Christians whom Philo meant in that booke, it may appeere by foure circumstances, of names, of deedes, of times, and of places. For they, of whom Philo doth write, were called Essees: which was a sect of Iewes, of whom 1some liued in action, and 2some in contemplation. The Christians were neuer knowne by name of Essees, either contemplatiue or actiue. Againe, they in Philo did leaue their goods and substance to their sonnes, or daughters, or kinsemen, or if they had no kinsemen, to their friendes. The Christians gaue them to the poore, and such as stood in need of succour. Moreouer ye solemne day, which they in Philo did meete together publikely to heare the word of God taught, was the seuenth day of the weeke:
which was the Sabbath of the Jews, the saturday as we call it. The Christians were wont to meet on hthe first day of the week, that is,i sunday, kthe Lords day as S. John termeth it. Finally, they, whom Philo discourseth of, did live in no town or city, but without, in gardens and solitary places. The Christians lived in cities. Even they who are namely mentioned by Jerome, I mean the Christian Church placed by S. Mark in Alexandria, were planted lin the city Alexandria it self; whereas it is precisely noted by Philo, that his Jewish monks did dwell mabout it, and nwithout it. Wherefore it is manifest that Jerome did mistake, or had forgot, the words of Philo. Howbeit if he had both well conceived and remembered them: yet he thereof inferred amiss, that the monks in his time were such, as S. Luke doth write that the believers were first at Jerusalem. For the believers at Jerusalem might keep their own if they listed: as oPeter saith to Ananias; while it remained, pertained it not to thee? And when it was sold, was it not in thine own power? But pJerome saith that his monks may not have propriety in any thing of their own. Beside, the monks of Jerome did live in continency. The believers at ⟨p. 493⟩Jerusalem had wives, & used them: for any thing that S. Luke showeth. Though▪ by the way to note the difference between the Jewish monks & the Christian, (who else would be too like:) qsome of the Christian monks in Jeromes time had wives & did beget children; which I have not read that any of the Jewish did. Last of all, the monks whom Jerome doth mean (as he must needs by Philo) were rmonks according to their name, that is, *solitary, and not collegiate monks. But the believers at Jerusalem, were at Jerusalem, in a city, and lived in fellowship together. Do you not see that the Apostles and Apostolic men were not such as afterward the monks whom Jerome meaneth: and therefore Jerome was deceived?
which was the Sabbat of the Iewes, the saterday as we cal it. The Christians were wont to meete on hthe first day of the weeke, that is,i sonday, kthe Lordes day as S. Iohn termeth it. Finally, they, whom Philo discourseth of, did liue in no towne or citie, but without, in gardens and solitarie places. The Christians liued in cities. Euen they who are namely mentioned by Ierom, I meane the Christian Church placed by S. Marke in Alexandria, were planted lin the citie Alexandria it selfe; whereas it is precisely noted by Philo, that his Iewish moonkes did dwell mabout it, and nwithout it. Wherefore it is manifest that Ierom did mistake, or had forgot, the wordes of Philo. Howbeit if he had both well conceiued and remembred them: yet he thereof inferred amisse, that the moonkes in his time were such, as S. Luke doth write that the beleeuers were first at Ierusalem. For the beleeuers at Ierusalem might keepe their owne if they listed: as oPeter saith to Ananias; while it remained, perteined it not to thee? And when it was sold, was it not in thine own power? But pIerom saith that his moonks may not haue proprietie in any thing of their owne. Beside, the moonkes of Ierom did liue in continencie. The beléeuers at ⟨p. 493⟩Ierusalem had wiues, & vsed them: for any thing yt S. Luke sheweth. Though▪ by the way to note ye difference betwéene ye Iewish moonkes & the Christian, (who els would be too like:) qsome of the Christian moonks in Ieroms time had wiues & did beget childrē; which I haue not read that anie of the Iewish did. Last of all, the moonkes whom Ierom doth meane (as he must néedes by Philo) were r
Rainoldes. If you will not on my word, I will bring his own word to make you believe it. For, swriting to Paulinus, touching the training up of monks, he saith that the Apostles and Apostolic men are not patterns for them to follow: but S. Antony, and others, who dwelt in fields and deserts.
Rainoldes. If you will not on my worde, I will bring his owne worde to make you beléeue it. For, swriting to Paulinus, touching the training vp of moonkes, he saith that the Apostles and Apostolike men are not paterns for them to folow: but S. Antonie, and others, who dwelt in fieldes and deserts.
Hart. He saith, that the Apostles and Apostolic men are set for an example to Priests, and Bishops, not to monks. True: in some respects. And yet, me thinks too. But what if the Fathers perhaps might be deceived so, through oversight?
Hart. He saith, that the Apostles and Apostolike men are set for an example to Priestes, and Bishops, not to moonkes. True: in some respectes. And yet, me thinkes too. But what if the Fathers perhaps might be deceiued so, through ouersight?
Rainoldes. If they might be deceived so through oversight: they might be deceived through affection also. For they were men, and subject to it. As tCyprian, through too much hatred of heretics, condemned the baptism of heretics, as unlawful: wherein ua Council erred with him. As xOrigen, through too much compassion of the wicked, thought that the devils them •elues should be saved at length. As yTertullian, through spite of the Roman clergy, revolted to the Montanists: and zcalled the Catholics, carnal men, because they were not so precise as the Montanists in points of marriage and fasting.
Rainoldes. If they might be deceiued so through ouersight: they might be deceiued through affection also. For they were men, and subiect to it. As tCyprian, through too much hatred of heretikes, condemned the baptisme of heretikes, as vnlawfull: wherein ua Councell erred with him. As xOrigen, through too much compassion of the wicked, thought that the diuels them •elues should be saued at length. As yTertullian, through spite of the Roman clergie, reuolted to the Montanists: and zcalled the Catholikes, carnall men, because they were not so precise as the Montanists in pointes of mariage and fasting.
tEpist. 73. ad Jubaian.Epist. 73. ad Iubaian.
uConcil. Carthagin. episcopor. 87. sub Cypriano.
xAugustin▪ de civitat. Dei, lib. 21. cap. 17.Augustin▪ de ciuitat. Dei, lib. 21. cap. 17.
yHieron. in Catalogue. script. eccles. verbo▪ Tertullianus.Hieron. in Catalog. script. eccles. verbo▪ Tertullianus.
zTertul. de monogam. de jeiunio aduersus. Psychicos.Tertul. de monogam. de ieiunio aduersus. Psychicos.
Rainoldes. You do except also, I trow, (I am sure, ayour Doctors do) against bDamascene, for his tale of Gregory the Pope and Trajan the Emperor; that Gregory, while he went ⟨p. 494⟩over the market place of Trajan, did pray for Trajan's soul to God; and behold, a voice from heaven, I have heard thy prayer and I pardon Trajan: but see that thou pray no more to me for the wicked. A very great affection to prayers for the dead, that moved Damascene to write this. For it is against the doctrine of the cSchoolmen that prayers may help out the souls that are in hell. In Purgatory they say they may.
Rainoldes. You doo except also, I trow, (I am sure, ayour Doctors doo) against bDamascene, for his tale of Gregorie the Pope and Traian the Emperour; that Gregorie, while he went ⟨p. 494⟩ouer the market place of Traian, did pray for Traians soule to God; and behold, a voyce from heauen, I haue heard thy prayer and I pardon Traian: but see that thou pray no more to me for the wicked. A verie great affection to prayers for the dead, that moued Damascene to write this. For it is against the doctrine of the cSchoolemen that prayers may helpe out the soules that are in hell. In Purgatorie they say they may.
aCanus loco. Theolog. lib. 11. cap. 2. D. Hessels Censur. de hist. Sanctor. cap. 3.Canus loco•. Theolog. lib. 11. cap. 2. D. Hessels Censur. de hist. Sanctor. cap. 3.
bSermon. de defunctis in fid▪
cPetr. Lombard. Sentent. lib. 4. distract. 45. Thomas, Scotus, Bonavent. & caeteri scholast. in eas distinct.Petr. Lombard. Sentent. lib. 4. dist•act. 45. Thomas, Scotus, Bonauent. & caeteri scholast. in eas distinct.
Hart. dS. Thomas doth confirm the same. Yet he believeth that of Damascene. But he saith that Gregory did it by special privilege, which doth not break the common law.
Hart. dS. Thomas doth confirme the same. Yet he beléeueth that of Damascene. But he saith that Gregorie did it by speciall priuilege, which doth not breake the common law.
Rainoldes. But your eCanus saith that Thomas was a young man then: beside that, he was greatly affected to Damascene. And Damascene might easily persuade a well willer: he doth affirm so lustily that *all the east and west is witness that the thing is true. Which report of his yet Canus doth marvel at: sith it is unknown in all the Latin story. But fCanus (as a man of better mind and sounder judgement then your Popish Doctors are, the most of them,) did wisely see & noteth freely, that not only later and less discreet authors (as he who made the golden legend,) but also grave, ancient, learned, holy Fathers have overshot them selves in writing miracles of Saints: partly while they fetched the truth, where it is seldom, 1from common rumours and reports; partly while 2they sought to please the peoples humour, and thought it lawful for historians to write things as true which commonly are counted true. Of this sort he nameth 3Gregory and 4Bede: the one for his Dialogues, the other for his English story. He might have named Damascene with them. Unless he meant him rather perhaps to be of that sort which did not only take by hear-say of others, but coined lies themselves too: & wrote those things of Saints 5which their fancy liked, though neither true nor likely. As that S. Francis 6was wont to take life that were shaken off, and put them on himself, it was a lousy trick, and S. Francis did it not: but the writer thought it an argument of his holiness. Likewise, that when the devil troubled S. Dominic, S. Dominic constrained 7him to hold a candle in his hands, till the candle being spent did put him to great grief, in burning his fingers. Such examples there are innumerable: but these two may give a taste of their affection who ⟨p. 498⟩have defiled the stories of Saints with filthy fables. Yet out of such stories many things are read in your Church-service. And gCanus although he confess it, as evident: notwithstanding, (which is strange) he thinketh them unwise Bishops, who seek to reform it. For while they cure the nailesore (saith he) they hurt the head: that is, in stead of counterfeits they bring in grave stories; but they change the service of the Church so far, that scarce any 8show of the old religion is remaining in it. A thing well considered of them by whom your Roman Portesse was reformed.
Rainoldes. But your eCanus saith that Thomas was a young man then: beside that, he was greatly affected to Damascen. And Damascen might easily perswade a well willer: he doth affirme so lustily that *all the east and west is witnesse that the thing is true. Which report of his yet Canus doth maruell at: sith it is vnknowne in all the Latin story. But fCanus (as a man of better minde and sounder iudgement then your Popish Doctors are, ye most of them,) did wisely sée & noteth fréely, that not onely later and lesse discreete autours (as he who made the golden legend,) but also graue, ancient, learned, holy Fathers haue ouershot them selues in writing miracles of Saintes: partly while they fetched the truth, where it is seldom, 1from common rumors and reportes; partly while 2they sought to please the peoples humor, and thought it lawfull for historians to write thinges as true which cōmonly are counted true. Of this sorte he nameth 3Gregorie and 4Bede: the one for his Dialogues, the other for his English story. He might haue named Damascene with them. Unlesse hee meant him rather perhaps to be of that sorte which did not onely take by heare-say of others, but coyned lyes themselues too: & wrote those thinges of Saintes 5which their fansie liked, though neither true nor likely. As that S. Frauncis 6was wont to take lise that were shaken off, and put them on himselfe, it was a lowsie tricke, and S. Frauncis did it not: but the writer thought it an argument of his holinesse. Likewise, that when the diuel troubled S. Dominike, S. Dominike constrained 7him to hold a candle in his handes, till the candle being spent did put him to great grief, in burning his fingers. Such examples there are innumerable: but these two may giue a taste of their affection who ⟨p. 498⟩
eLocor. Theologic. l. 11. c. 2.
*[Greek or Hebrew].〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
fLocor. Theol. lib. 11. cap 6.
1Ex dissipatis peruagatisque rumoribus.
2Indulserunt fidelium vulgo.
3Gregorius in Dialogis.
4Bede in historia Anglorum.Beda in historia Anglorum.
5Quae animus scribentis dictat.
6Pediculos semel excussos in seipsum soli•itum esse immittere.
7Diabolum, ut haberet lucernam in manibusDiabolum, vt haberet lucernam in manibus
For though they have removed some of those stories, which Canus saith are 9uncertain, forged, frivolous, and false: yet have they done it sparingly. If they should have left out all those legend-toys: their Portesse had been like our book of common prayer, which heretics would have laughed at: and there had remained no show in a manner of the old religion, save that their service is in Latin.
For though they haue remoued some of those stories, which Canus saith are 9vncertaine, forged, friuolous, and false: yet haue they doon it sparingly. If they should haue left out all those legend-toyes: their Portesse had beene like our booke of common prayer, which heretikes would haue laught at: and there had remained no shew in a maner of the olde religion, saue that their seruice is in Latin.
Hart. These things are impertinent, but that it pleaseth you to play the Hick-scorner with the holy Portesse. For what need you mention the writer of S. Francis life? or S. Dominikes? or the golden legend, that old moth-eaten book (as D. hHarding calleth it,) of the lives of Saints? I mind not to press you with things of later writers, but of old and ancient: whom Canus judgeth better of, then of the younger. For ihe saith of Vincentius Beluacensis, and Antoninus, that they cared not so much to write things true and certain, as to let go nothing that they found written in any papers whatsoever. But of Bede, and Gregory, he judgeth more softly: and rather excuseth them then reproveth them. Though, judge he how he listed, he was but one Doctor: and other learned men perhaps mislike his judgement, both for younger and elder writers.
Hart. These thinges are impertinent, but that it pleaseth you to play the Hicke-scorner with the holy Portesse. For what need you mention the writer of S. Francis life? or S. Dominikes? or the golden legend, that old moth-eaten booke (as D. hHarding calleth it,) of the liues of Saintes? I mind not to presse you with thinges of later writers, but of olde and ancient: whom Canus iudgeth better of, then of the younger. For ihe saith of Vincentius Beluacensis, and Antoninus, that they cared not so much to write thinges true and certaine, as to let go nothing that they found writē in any papers whatsoeuer. But of Bede, and Gregorie, he iudgeth more softly: and rather excuseth them then reproueth them. Though, iudge he how he listed, he was but one Doctour: and other learned men perhaps mislike his iudgement, both for younger and elder writers.
hIn the D• section lib. 4.In the D••ection lib. 4.
Rainoldes. They who deal with taming of lions (I have read) are wont, when they find them somewhat out of order, to beat dogs before them: that in a dog the lion may see his own desert. Even so when I rebuke the writer of S. Francis life, or of S. Dominikes, or of the moth-eaten book as you call it, *though he who wrote it was an Archbishop, & in his time a man of name, and his book a legend, read publicly ⟨p. 496⟩in Churches, and called golden for the excellency; but when I rebuke that moth-eaten writer, or Antoninus (if you will,) and Vincentius Beluacensis, who are as good as he wellnigh: you must not think I do it for the dogs sake, but for the lions rather, I mean the ancient writers who deserve rebuke too. For, as not kRupertus only, but lSedulius, do write that our Saviour after his resurrection appeared first to the blessed virgin, which is false, but they thought through an affection to her, that he should have done so: in like sort a loving affection to Saints hath transported sundry, not only later writers, but ancienter also from the truth to fancies. Gelasius, and the seventy Bishops, who were assembled in a Council with him, were assembled about eleven hundred years ago. Yet even then how many stories of the Saints were set abroad with forged fables? almost a whole bead-roll, mcondemned by the Council. Whereof that some were coined upon that affection, as some upon others: one of them, entitled nthe acts of Paul and Thecla, may serve for an example. These acts contained a story (supposed to be omitted in the oacts of the Apostles) how that when S. Paul did preach at Iconium, Thecla a maiden betrothed to a gentleman, hearing him preach of maidenhood, forsook her husband by and by, and went away with him: and thereupon was persecuted, and delivered from great dangers, and wrought many miracles, and travailed through sundry countries with S. Paul. Which though it be a lewd tale, agreeing neither with pthe circumstance of S. Pauls story, nor with his qdoctrine and rdiscretion: yet was it published as true, and that in the Apostles age, sby an Elder, or Priest, (as you would term him,) who was convicted by S. John, and confessed that he wrote it for *good will that he bare to Paul. Such a credit (belike) he thought it would be to S.
Rainoldes. They who deale with taming of lyons (I haue read) are wont, when they finde them somewhat out of order, to beate dogges before them: that in a dogge the lyon may see his owne desert. Euen so when I rebuke the writer of S. Francis life, or of S. Dominikes, or of the moth-eaten booke as you call it, *though he who wrote it was an Archbishop, & in his time a man of name, and his booke a legend, read publikely ⟨p. 496⟩in Churches, and called golden for the excellencie; but when I rebuke that moth-eaten writer, or Antoninus (if you will,) and Vincentius Beluacensis, who are as good as he welnigh: you must not thinke I doo it for the dogges sake, but for the lions rather, I meane the ancient writers who deserue rebuke too. For, as not kRupertus onely, but lSedulius, doo write that our Sauiour after his resurrection appeered first to the blessed virgin, which is false, but they thought through an affection to her, that he should haue done so: in like sort a louing affection to Saintes hath transported sundry, not onely later writers, but auncienter also from the truth to fansies. Gelasius, and the seuentie Bishops, who were assembled in a Councel with him, were assembled about eleuen hundred yeares ago. Yet euen then how manie stories of the Saintes were set abroade with forged fables? almost a whole bead-roale, mcondemned by the Councell. Whereof that some were coyned vpon that affection, as some vpon others: one of them, entitled nthe actes of Paule and Tecla, may serue for an example. These actes contained a storie (supposed to be omitted in the oactes of the Apostles) how that when S. Paule did preach at Iconium, Tecla a maiden betrothed to a gentleman, hearing him preach of maidenhood, forsooke her husband by and by, and went away with him: and thereupon was persecuted, and deliuered from great dangers, and wrought many miracles, and trauailed through sundry countries with S. Paule. Which though it be a lewd tale, agréeing neither with pthe circumstance of S. Paules storie, nor with his
*James the Archbishop o• Genua in Italy.Iames the Archbishop o• Genua in Italy.
kDe divin. offic. l. 7. c. 15.De diuin. offic. l. 7. c. 15.
lOper. Pascal. lib. 5.
mc. Sancta Romana. distinct. 15.
nLiber Actuum Teclae & Pauli.
oThe fourteenth chapter of the Acts.The foureteenth chapter of the Actes.
Paul, that a maid betrothed to a man of wealth and worship, (and so 1his wife by right,) should forsake her husband and go away with him. Wherefore, though you mind not to press me with things of later writers, but of old & ancient, as you say: yet was it not impertinent to mention your Portesse and stories of the like authority. For neither do I know what number of years you will think sufficient to prove a writer old: and though you account none old, but such as lived many hundred ⟨p. 497⟩years since; yet are their fables in your Portesse (as namely uthis of Thecla) even out of them also. Yea the most of those things, not only this of Thecla, but the most of those things which Gelasius Bishop of Rome, and the Council, condemned for unsound: I say, the most of those things are rehearsed in your legends, and in the most of your Portesses. Which thing I affirm not of mine own knowledge, for I have not seen so many sorts of Portesses that I can vouch it of the most: but xClaudius Espencaeus, a Doctor of Paris, an eager enemy of Beza (, the worthier of credit herein,) affirmeth it, and he affirmeth it with great asseveration that it is so 1undoubtedly. Nor doth he touch them only for these so ancient lies, but for many more, which are of less ancientie, and that upon the judgement of sundry learned men, and not his private fancy. For he allegeth yPeter, a venerable Abbot, (who lived four hundred years ago,) saying, that the songs and hymns of the Church had very many toys: as namely an hymn in the praise of S. Benet; in the which, though reading it over somewhat hastily, and staying not to search all, yet he found 2at least four and twenty lies. He allegeth an other zPeter complaining likewise and reproving a false and fond hymn in the praise of S. Mawre running upon the waters. He allegeth the aCardinal of Aliacos advise to the Council of Constance, for order to be taken that 3unsound writings (corrupt and peevish pamphlets) be not read in the Church-service. He allegeth the oration of the bEarle of Mirandula to Pope Leo the tenth, and the Council of Lateran, renewing the Cardinal of Aliacos advise. He allegeth cRaphael Volaterran, a great historian, if not a divine, bewailing the case that in the daily prayers there are 4manifest lies read.
Paule, that a maide betrothed to a man of wealth and worship, (and so 1his wife by right,) should forsake her husband and goe away with him. Wherefore, though you minde not to presse me with thinges of later writers, but of old & ancient, as you say: yet was it not impertinent to mention your Portesse and stories of the like autoritie. For neither doo I know what number of yeares you will thinke sufficient to proue a writer old: and though you account none olde, but such as liued many hundred ⟨p. 497⟩yeares since; yet are their fables in your Portesse (as namely uthis of Tecla) euen out of them also. Yea the most of those things, not onely this of Tecla, but the most of those things which Gelasius Bishop of Rome, and the Councell, condemned for vnsound: I say, the most of those things are rehearsed in your legends, and in the most of your Portesses. Which thing I affirme not of mine owne knowlege, for I haue not séene so many sortes of Portesses that I can vouch it of the most: but xClaudius Espencaeus, a Doctor of Paris, an eger enimie of Beza (, ye worthier of credit herein,) affirmeth it, and he affirmeth it with great asseueration that it is so 1vndoutedly. Nor doth he touch them onely for these so ancient lyes, but for many mo, which are of lesse ancientie, and that vpon the iudgement of sundry learned men, and not his priuate fansie. For he alleageth yPeter, a venerable Abbat, (who liued foure hundred yeares agoe,) saying, that the songs and hymnes of the Church had very many toyes: as namely an hymne in the praise of S. Benet; in the which, though reading it ouer somewhat hastily, and staying not to search all, yet he found 2at least foure and twentie lyes. He alleageth an other zPeter complayning likewise and reprouing a false and fond hymne in the praise of S. Mawre running vpon the waters. He alleageth the aCardinall of Aliacos aduise to the Councell of Constance, for order to be taken that
uThamiride sponso relicto. In Breviar. Roman. edit. a Pi• quinto. In festis Septembr.Thamiride sponso relicto. In Breuiar. Roman. edit. a Pi• quinto. In festis Septembr.
xComment. in 2. epist. ad Timoth. c. 4. Digress. 21.
He allegeth dAdrian (who afterward was Pope Adrian the sixth) misliking 5superstitious forgeries in holy matters. In a word, he saith that the Catholics may lament in the behalf of the Church, as eJeremiah lamented in the behalf of the Synagogue, Thy prophets have seen 6false and foolish things for thee: and he addeth that the grief which he doth feel and open for these 7toys & dotages crept into the public service of the Church, is common unto him with all good men for the most part. Wherein, as his desire and zeal of reformation is greater then Canus, who would not have this filth swept ⟨p. 498⟩out of the Portesses: so dealeth he more freely and frankly with your churches legends too, then Canus. For, letting go the scurf of the golden legend, and Antoninus, and Vincentius, he reproveth the story of Saints which was compiled of late by fa Venetian, a Bishop of account, and saith that no stable is •o full of dung, as that is of fables. Yea farther, that Simeon Metaphrastes (a great man in the new legends of gLipomanus, and hSurius,) and Usuardes Martyrology, (which is the Church of Romes legend,) besides the Martyrologes of certain other writers, 1are fraught with much baggage. Now, to this Parisian Doctor Espencaeus, and the authors whom he allegeth, you may add the kings professors and chiefest Doctors of Lovan, (if you desire more witnesses,) even Hessels, and Molanus. Of whom,i the one, writing a Censure on a story called the Passional of Saints, condemneth much thereof, and indicteth more, with this verdict, kTry all things, hold that which is good: the other, lsetting forth and commending that Censure, saith it is no marvel if in that Passional there be corrupt stories, sith the stories which the Catholics of that country found amongst 2the lying Greeks might easily come into it. Molanus layeth the fault upon the lying Greeks, as they deserve it best indeed. Notwithstanding it appeareth by *some, whom either Hes•els or himself have censured, that not the Greeks alone are faulty. And sundry Greeks are faulty whom he would be loth to call lying Greeks: as namely Nicephorus, & Simeon Metaphrastes, of the newer writers; & of the ancienter, Palladius, and Cassianus. Of all whom mMolanus hath given this note, that most learned men do judge them 3not worthy to be greatly credited.
He alleageth dAdrian (who afterward was Pope Adrian the sixth) misliking 5superstitious forgeries in holy matters. In a word, he saith that the Catholikes may lament in the behalfe of the Church, as eIeremie lamented in the behalfe of the Synagogue, Thy prophets haue seene 6false and foolish things for thee: and he addeth that the griefe which he doth feele and open for these 7toyes & dotages crept into the publike seruice of the Church, is common vnto him with all good men for the most part. Wherein, as his desire and zeale of reformation is greater then Canus, who would not haue this filth swept ⟨p. 498⟩out of the Portesses: so dealeth he more fréely and frankly with your churches legends too, then Canus. For, letting go the scurffe of the golden legend, and Antoninus, and Vincentius, hee reproueth the storie of Saintes which was compiled of late by fa Venetian, a Bishop of account, and saith that no stable is •o ful of doong, as that is of fables. Yea farther, that Simeon Metaphrastes (a great man in the new legends of gLipomanus, and hSurius,) and Vsuardes Martyrologe, (which is the Church of Romes legend,) besides the Martyrologes of certaine other writers, 1are fraught with much baggage. Now, to this Parisian Doctor Espencaeus, and the autours whom he alleageth, you may adde the kings professours and chiefest Doctors of Louan, (if you desire more witnesses,) euen Hessels, and Molanus. Of whom,i the one, writing a Censure on a storie called the Passionall of Saintes, condemneth much thereof, and enditeth more, with this verdict, k
fPetr. de Natalibus Episcopi Equilin. catalogus Sanctorum.
gAloys. Lipom. de Sanctor. historiis Tom. 5.6. & 7.
hLaurent. Sur. de probatis Sanctorum histo riis.
1Multis scaten• quisquiliis.
iCensura Johannis Hessels in librum qui in scribitur Passionale de Sanctis per annum.Censura Iohannis Hessels in librum qui in scribitur Passionale de Sanctis per annum.
lJohann. Molanus praefat. in •esselii Censuram.Iohann. Molanus praefat. in •esselii Censuram.
2Mendaces Graecos.
*Namely by S. Jerome, Sedulius, Rupertus, •ames the Archbishop of Genua, Pope Adrian the ••rst, and Usuarde. In Censura Hess. & praefation. in Usuardum.Namely by S. Ierom, Sedulius, Rupertus, ames the Archbiop of Genua, Pope Adrian the rst, and Vsuarde. In Censura Hess. & praefation. in Vsuardum.
solitarie, and not collegiate moonkes. But the beléeuers at Ierusalem, were at Ierusalem, in a citie, and liued in fellowship together. Doo you not sée that the Apostles and Apostolike men were not such as afterwarde the moonkes whom Ierom meaneth: and therefore Ierom was deceiued?
haue defiled the stories of Saintes with filthie fables. Yet out of such stories many thinges are read in your Church-seruice. And
Canus although he confesse it, as euident: notwithstanding, (which is straunge) he thinketh them vnwise Bishops, who seeke to reforme it. For while they cure the nailesore (saith he) they hurt the head: that is, in steede of counterfeites they bring in graue stories; but they chaunge the seruice of the Church so farre, that scarce any
setting foorth and commending that Censure, saith it is no maruaile if in that Passionall there be corrupt stories, sith the stories which the Catholikes of that countrie found amongst
the lying Greekes might easily come into it. Molanus layeth the faulte vpon the lying Greekes, as they deserue it best indéed. Notwithstanding it appéereth by
some, whom either Hes•els or himselfe haue censured, that not the Greekes alone are faultie. And sundry Greekes are faultie whom he would be loth to call lying Greekes: as namely Nicephorus, & Simeon Metaphrastes, of the newer writers; & of the ancienter, Palladius, and Cassianus. Of all whom
