CHAP. I.

THe extreme & miserable refuge of al guilty persons who either mistrust the equity of their cause, or feare the weaknes of their owne defence, hath euer been to decline the barre of indif­ferent tryall, and cleaue to the succour of some such Tribunall as will not, or cannot giue sentence against them. This was the wonted [Page 2] fraud of all ancient Heretikes: this was the retraite of theIran. l. 3. cont. haer Tertul l. 8. depraescrip Basil. l. de Spir. sanct. cap. 27. Aug. l. 1. cont Max. VVbitak. cōt. 1. q. 5. c. 8. Reyn. in bis cōf. c. 2. diuis 2. p. 45. &c. 8. diuis. 1. p. 396. &c. Bezainan. noui Test. 1556. in c. 10. Matth. & in c. 22. Luc. Iran. l. 1. c. 10. 20. 29. Aug. l. 32. con. Faust. c. 19. & 21. Philast. c. 36. Euseb. l. 4. hist. c. 29. Epiph. haer. 30. Valentinians, Eunomians, Marcionists, and the like. This was the voice of Maximinus the Arian Bishop, as S. Augustin re­porteth, writing against him. And this is now the com­mon cry of M. Whitaker, M. Reynolds, and their fellow-Se­ctaryes, who will not stand to the generall arbitrement of Fathers, Doctours, Councells, Historyes, or former Churches: not to the prescription of tymes, presidents or approued customes; not to any roll, record, or monu­ment of antiquity. They only appeale in all matters of Controuersy, to the sole and silent maiesty of Gods sa­cred Stile, and that for two chiefe and principall causes. The one is, to cloke & couer their new deuises vnder the mysteryes of holy Writ; The other, with a cunning and guilefull sleight to auoyd indeed all manner of triall, not to admit any Iudge at all. For as long as they reserue in themselues this singular power to construe and expound Gods word as they list, to receaue or reiect what Scrip­tures they please, let vs produce any euidence against thē neuer so cleare, they wil either cloud it with some colou­rable answere, or wrest it to another sense, or charge it with corruption (as Beza doth in the Greeke text in ma­ny places) or vtterly discard it as no Canonicall write, as Heretikes vsually do such Oracles of God as condemn [...] their errours.

2. Alleadge for example the old Testament against the Marcionists, against the Manichees the new; the Acts of the Apostles against Tatian & Cerinthus, against the Ebio­nites the Epistles of S. Paul, they peremptorily deny these books of Scripture. Pose Faustus the Manichee with theseAd Rom. 1. v. 3. Aug. l. [...]0. con. Paust. c. 2. 2. Iac. 24. Cent. 2. c. 4. col. 17. words of the Apostle to the Romans: The sonne of God was borne of the seed of Dauid, according to the flesh; his reply, saith S. Augustine, is, the booke is forged, it is not Paules. Proue a­gainst the Centurists out of S. Iames, That by workes a man is iustisyed not by fayth alone; they discredit the authority of his Epistle, saying: It is an adulterous and bastard Epistle. Alleadge in like manner against M. Whitaker Interces­sion [Page 3] of Saints, out of the vision of Iudas Machabeus concer­ning Onias: he answereth, His dreame of Onias I let passe as VVhitak: in resp. ad Ration. c. Camp. VVhitak. ibidem. Cyp. l. 3. ep. 9. Ambr. l. 4. de side cap. 4. Aug. l. ad Oros. Clem. A­lex. c. 7. strom. VVhitak: de sa. Scrip. cont. 1. q. 1. cap. 14. Orig. l. 2. de princ. c. 1. Dionys. A­reop. do Cal. hier. [...]. 2. Cyp. ep [...] 55. Aug. de doct. Christ. l. 2. c. 8. de ciut. Dei l. 18. c. 36. a dreame: As though God had not often reuealed to Ioseph & diuers of his Prophets many thinges in their sleep. Vrge him out of Ecclesiasticus with the liberty of Free-will, he answereth: That place of Ecclesiasticus I little regard: neither will I belieue the liberty of Free-will, albeit he affirme it an hun­dred tymes: Then S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, Cle­mens Alexandrinus were of light beliefe, who credited this worke as the reuealed write. Presse him at length with prayer for the dead out of the bookes of the Machabees, he still replyeth: I discouer in them a human Spirit, a human wit, a human confession, all thinges human: Then Origen, Dionysius, S. Cyprian, S. Augustine were much deceaued, who des­cryed in them the character, stile, and spirit of the Holy Ghost.

3. But graunt, our Aduersaryes admitted all those bookes of holy Writ the Church approueth, or that they would be tryed by them: we both imbrace: yet I say the Scripture alone cannot be Iụdge or Vmpire between vs. Which that I may more strongly euince, & proceed more smoothly without rubb or incombrance, in so waighty a question; before I come to the period or full point of our variance, I will briefly premise some certaine positions of our consent and agreement. We accord then with Prote­stants. 1. That the Scriptures are a diuine and infallible rule of faith, yet not the sole and only rule, as they affir­me. 2. We graunt with them, that nothing is to be belie­uedThe state of the qu­estion ex­plained. Deutr. 17. v. 9. contrary and repugnant to those oracles of God, no traditions, reuelations, or interpretations whatsoeuer. 3. We teach, that the vniuersall iudgment, and generall definitions of the Church, are alwayes leueled, and di­rected according to the inerrable prescript of holy Writ. Therefore at her Oecumenicall Consistoryes, she placethThey shal teach the [...] according to the law the Bible in some high eminent and honourable seat, as the chiefe and speciall guide of her counsayles & decrees 4. We yield, that the letter of Scripture, or to vse their [Page 4] phrase of speach, that God speaking by that letter, may improperly be tearmed the voice of our supreme Iudge, in such manner, as I shall explicate heereafter. But our maine difference and dispute is, whether it be such a voice, and sentence of his, as when any doubt or Cō ­trouersy ariseth, about the meaning of his word; it may without any further externall and open declaration (for of inward Inspirations in the Chapter ensuing) giue a finall, euident, certaine, and irresistable decision, of all such doubts & controuersyes, to euery humble, diligent, skillfull, and pious Reader, and conferrer of places. Our Aduersaryes say it is, we say it is not, proposing our ar­guments in this manner.

4. The Scripture is the written word or outward rule by which sentēce is, or ought to be guided; therfore not the Iudge himselfe that pronounceth sentence. For in all Courts, Common-wealths, or publique Tribunals, be­sides the written Law, or outward euidence, by which verdict is giuen, some speaking-Iudge or other Magi­strate is requisite, who as the liuely rule, or square of Iustice (to vse Aristotles words) ought to expound and deliuer the true meaning of the law: so much more in the Church of God, which is a Kingdom, a Citty, a Campe well or­dred,Arist. l. 5. Etb. & l. 4. Polit. Plat. l. de repub. & de lege. Read Philo Iud. l. de legat. ad Caiū prope finem. the like must needs be graunted; especially seeing Plato writeth: That good Gouernours are more to be regarded & accounted of, then good lawes, because a good law without a good Iudge which may execute it, is a dead law: but a good Iudge with­out a written law is both to himselfe and others a liuely law. The reason heereof is manifest, because it belongeth to the Iudge, who may decide and end debates. 1. To heare, vnderstand, and compare togeather the arguments of the parties in strife. 2. By explayning the true sense and meaning of the law, to deliuer a definitiue sentence agreable therunto. 3. To compell and inforce the con­tentious to accept and obey his censure. But this neyther Scripture, nor any written law can performe: There­fore some other intelligent, authenticall, & publike Ar­biter [Page 5] is likewise necessary.

5. M. Whitaker our Protestant-writer, and Hunnius a Lutheran Doctor both agree, That the holy Ghost, as speaking VVhitak. cont. 1. q. 5. cap. 8. Hunnius in act. Col. Ratis. s [...]s [...]. 9. in Scripture, or the voice of God as vttered therin, is this publike and soueraygne Iudge. Very vainely, very idly. The voyce of God as speaking in Scripture is no way distinguished from the Scripture, no more then the commaundement of the King promulgated in his law is any way different from the law. Therfore, as besides the King speaking in his law, eyther himselfe speaking in a more liuely man­ner, or some other Iudge is requisite to satisfy the doubts which arise of the law: so besids the holy Ghost speaking precisely by Scripture, eyther himselfe speaking in a more distinct and publicke fashion, or some other infallible Iudge is necessary to end the controuersies which ariseHunnius ibidem. Reyn. c. 2. diuis. 2. p. 63. & 64. out of Scripture. Hunnius addeth; That the Scripture it selfe, or the voyce of God deliuered by learned Ministers and expounders of the word, (By them (sayth Reynoldes) who haue in vnder Christ committed vnto them) is at least a sufficient and competent Iudge. As vainely, as idly as before.

6. For who are they to whom Christ hath giuen this commissiō of Iudgmet? They are (as M Reynolds subnecteth)Reyn. lo [...]o citato. of two sorts. The one priuate; the other publike. Priuate; all the faythfull, and Spirituall. Publike; the assemblies of Pastours and Elders. Of these I reason thus. Eyther he alloweth both, or one of these sortes supreme, soueraigne, & infallible authority to decide debates, and expound the word without further appeale, and so admitteth another Iudge besids Scripture: or he assigneth them not the Soueraignty of Iudgment (as himselfe and all other Protestants define) but, the ministery of interpreting the written will, and sentence of the Iudge: And so maketh the Church a maymed, wauo­ring, & imperfect Common-wealth, without any iudi­ciall, visible and publike Tribunall, without any pro­fitable meanes of setling peace in tyme of discord. For seeing these Ministers neyther in priuate nor publike are (as they confesse) so assisted alwayes by the holy [Page 6] Ghost, but that they may (being men subiect to errour) sometymes propound their owne dreames insteed of Gods vndoubted truthes, who shall determine whether the voyce of Christ, or sentence of our Iudge be truly de­liuered by them, or no? Rein. c. 2. diuis. [...]. pag. 64. The written will or letter of Scri­pture? It cannot speake or declare her Iudgment. VVhi­taker. cont. 5. q. 5. c. 9. & 13. The diligent Reader and conferrer of places? He may both read & conferre amisse. Hunn. in act. Col. Ratis. ses. 9 The pious Magistrate and executioner of Iustice? May not he both execute and commaund an er­rour? Sutclif. in his an­swere to the sixth c. of his Suruey. A Generall Councell proceding according to Gods word? And who shall iudge when it proceedeth according to his word? The parties who contend and stand in debate? Then they must be plaintiffs and Iudges both. And whi­lest ech of them swayeth on his owne side, what end of strife? What decision of truth? Such as Lawyers, such as Attournyes make in behalf of their clients, who would neuer end their Plea, vnlesse some vmpire were appoin­ted to arbitrate the cause. Now to go forward.

7. The Iudge of Controuersyes ought to be in­fallible, because it must breed a certaine and infallible assurance, as M. Whitaker agreeth with vs, in doubts ofVVhitak. cont. 1 q. 5. cap. 8. & [...]. 3. c. 11. fayth: but albeit the Scriptures be so in themselues, yet in respect of vs they are fallible: they may be erroneously printed, corruptly translated, falsly suborned, not well expounded, not rightly vnderstood. And although the voice and doctrine of the Church may be somety me fal­lible in respect of vs, as one obiected against this argu­ment,An obie­ctiō made against the Church, solued. because a particular pastour may deliuer vnto the people his own phantasies for the Churches decrees, he may perswade them, and they may giue credit vnto him that his priuat assertions are the generall and Catholike doctrines, that they were taught by the auncient church, and that many miracles haue bin wrought in confirmatiō of them: yet here is a notable disparity between this and that fallibility: for this proceedeth not from the repaire to our iudge, either true or so taken, but from a falsifier and wrong relatour of the iudges sentence; that imme­diatly [Page 7] commeth from appealing to their true reputed iudge. This happeneth to the ignorant only or Catecu­mens who begin to belieue; to others the Catholike te­nent in necessary poynts is so generally known, as they cannot be deluded: That to the learned also and most expect in matters of religion; for such they are who often misconster & wrongfully expound the holy scriptures. This may easily be discouered, and auoided by confe­rence with other pastours, by perusing the Churches decrees, or hearing the oracle of her voice, which can manifestly explaine herself, and disproue those forged relations: That can hardly be espied, more hardly be a­uoyded, because priuat interpreters by conferring, reaso­ning and disputing the case without submission to the Church, are often tymes more confirmed, & strengthned in their erroneous expositions: neither can the Scripture open her own meaning, and condemne their false con­structions. Our danger therfore of being deceaned is litle or nothing to be feared; theirs very pernicious, and irre­mediable.

8. The Iudge of Controuersies supreme, and gene­rall, of which we now speake, should be able to com­pose all questionable matters. The Scripture cannot de­termine this important point on our beliefe; Whether the Ghospell of S. Iohn, the Epistles of S. Paul, or any other volume of holy Writ be the Canon of Scripture or no. If in these weightiest causes it is needfull to recurre to ano­ther Tribunall, in matters of lesse moment wholy as needfull.

9. The Iudge of Controuersyes ought to be so cleare and facile, as all both learned and vnlearned might haue accesse vnto it & easily vnderstand it: the Scriptures are hard, darke, hidden. Hidden not only to the illiterateAug l 12. Confess. c, 14. Ambrose­epist. 44. and vulgar sort, but to the great and deepest Clarkes. Hidden to S. August. who crieth out, O the wonderfull depth of thy speaches &c. O the wonderfull depth! Hiddē to S. Ambrose, calling it, A sea contayning most profound senses, the depth of Pro­pheticall [Page 8] riddles. Hidden to Clemens Alexandrinus, to whichClemens A­lex. l. 6. strom. Psal. 13. Orig. hom. 11. in Exo. Iraen. l. 2. cap 47. Russiaus l. 11. List. c. 9. Apoc. 5. v. [...] Ezeeh. 2. v. 9. 2. Pet [...]t. v. 16. &, he elegantly applieth those words of the psa [...]me: Darke is the water in the clouds of the ayre. Hidden to Origen, to Irenaus to S. Basill, to S. Gregory Nazianzen, who being both ra­rely accomplished in al humane literature, after 13. yeares study heerin, would not aduenture as Russinus testi [...]yeth) to interpret the same, but according to the rule and vni­forme consent of their forefathers. They knew it was that hidden and concealed booke, which S. Iohn descri­beth to be clasped with seauen seales, which Ezechiel tear­meth, the enrolled volume written within and without. They knew S. Peter auouched, certayne thinges hard to vnderstand in the Epistles of S. Paul, which the vnlearned deprane, as other Scriptures, to their owne perdition. If certayne things in his Epistles, how many in other bookes? How many in the whole Scripture? Notwithstanding our illuminated Ad­ [...]ersaries,VVhitak. cont. l. q. 3. & cap. 3. Aug. l. 2. de doctrin. Christ. c. 6. & epist. [...]9. de side & oper. c. 15. & 16. Ambr [...]s. epist. 44. Hier. ep. Vincent. Liri [...]. c. 2. to whome the holy Ghost hath disclosed all his heauenly secrets, find no such difficulty, no prouerbe in it. Yet to smooth the Fathers speaches they answere: That the mysteries therein treated, are darke and obscure, the dis­course easy, the text cleare, the sentence plaine. But S. Augustine as deeply enlightned as any of them, affirmeth, The stile & manner of enduing to be hard, the discourse & places hard. The sentences (saith S. Ambrose) hard. The text (sayth S. Hierome) hath a shell to be broken, before we can tast the sweetnes of the kernell. The Hebrew phrase hard, the Tropes and figures hard. Hard and difficult by reason of sundry and manisold senses it begetteth. For which cause alone Vin­centius Lirinensis necessarily requireth some other Iudge, demaunding in his Golden Treatise against the prophane nouelties of Heresies, why to the Canon of Scripture, which is perfect, and of it selfe sufficient inough for all thinges, it behoueth to adde the authority and ex­plication of the Church? Because (sayth he) all take not holy Scripture, by reason of her depth, in one and the self same sense: but her speaches, some interprete one way, some another In so much as there may seeme to be puked out as many senses as men. [Page 9] For Nonatus, doth expound one way, and Sabellius another way: otherwise Donatus, otherwise Ar [...]s, Eunomius, Macedonius; o­therwise Photinus, Apollinaris &c. Therefore very necessary it is for Tertul. in praescript. the manifold turnings and by-wayes of errours, that the line of Pro­pheticall and Apostolicall interpretation be leuelled according to the square of Ecclesiastic all and Catholike sense or vnderstanding. Be­cause Tertullian sayth: The sense adulterated is a like perilous, as the stile corrupted. Yea much more perilous, in that it may be more easily wrested, more variously turned, more hardly espyed. But to proceed.

10. The Iudge of Controuersyes ought so to deter­mine and deliuer his mind in all ambiguous cases, as the partyes in strife may euidently know when they heare his censure, whether they be cast or quit, condemned or assoyled in respect of his verdict: But neither Scripture, or the holy Ghost as he speaketh by Scripture, is euer able to pronounce such sentence. Or if it can, as Gretser a fa­mousGrets. act. colloq. Ra­tisbon. sess. 2. fol. 110. writer of the Society of Iesus pithily vrged in the cō ­ference at Ratisbone, let it now speake and pronounce vs guilty. Heere (sayth he) we Catholikes, and Protestants, both appeale to the high Tribunall of Scripture, heere we stand in the sight of the sacred Bible, in the presence of the holy Ghost. If he be Iudge, as he precisely spea­keth by Scripture alone, let it giue sentence, let it say: Thou Iames Gretser are cast in thy cause: Thou This was the name of the Here­tike Res­pondent. Hailbronner hast gotten the victory: And I will presently yield vnto you. But if it cannot execute this iudiciall act; if by reading, hearing, or perusing his sentence we cannot perceaue whome he condemneth; how can it challenge the high preroga [...]iue and doome of Iudgment? Which argument he confirmed with another a like inuincible as the former. For wher­asGrets. in Act colloq. Ratisbon: s [...]ss. to. sol. 120. Protestants mantaine, that the voice of God as vttered in Scripture, giueth plaine sentence of condemnation a­gainst heresyes and errours, thus he disputeth on the con­trary side: No guilty persons repaire to that Iudge, by whome they are euidently & sufficiently condemned: But all Heretikes are guilty persons, yet boldly appeale to the sentence of holy Scripture. [Page 10] Therefore the Scripture [...] that Iudge, by whom they are eui­dently & sufficiently [...] What reply could Hunnine theAug. l. 2. cont. Max. Aug. orat. in ps. 10. Mat. 15. v. 11. Respon [...] make to this? Not any - Vnlesse which S. Augustine obiected against Maximinus the Arian: By talking much, and nothing to the purpose, he might be counted able to an­swere, who was not able to hold his [...].

11. In sine the Scripture, though in it selfe most holy; yetby reason of her sublimity, depth, and variety of senses, hath bin partly through the weaknes, partly through the malice, pride, and presumption of men, the roote of strifes, the spring of debates, the occasion of ma­ny detestable and blasphemous errours; rather then the stay, attonement, or subuersion of them. Wherupon S. Augustine compareth Scripture, to a cloud, which often ty­mes out of the same words raineth showres of snares to the wicked, & showres of fortillty & fruitfulites in the Lust. As he exempli­fieth in that sentence of S. Mattheu, which our Protestāts abuse to the liberty of their diet, and breach of Ecclesiasticall fast: Not that which entreth the mouth defileth a man, but that which proceedeth out of the mouth. The Sinne [...] (sayth he) hea­reth this, and he stirreth vp his app [...] to rauenous gluttony; the Iust man heareth this, and he is sensed from Note that Catbolikes abstaine not from meat, of any su­perstition, as the Iewes & Manichees, but for the chastisment of concupi­s [...]ce or ex­ercise of vertue. Aug. hom. 8. tract. 18. in Ioan. the superstition of discerning [...]. And in another place S. Augustine writeth. Neither haue heresies, or certaine doctrines [...] the mind, strong from other h [...]d, then from good Scriptures not well vnder­stood. To specifie some particulers.

12. Aug. con­tra aduers. lig. et Pro­phet. l. 1. & 2. c. 4. Ioan 10. Marcian despised Moyses, the Prophets, their liues and writings; what pretended he? Scripture: How many soeuer haue come before me, are theeues and robbers. The Guido d [...] error ib a Armen. Ephes. 4. ver. 11. Armenians taught we should all rise in the day of Iudg­ment in the state of mankind, and that the femal sexe of women should be wholy extinct. What ground had they? Scripture: Vntill we all meete in a perfect man. What was cited by the Iraen. l. 2. cap. 14. & Tertul. lib. de ani­ma. cap 35. Matth. 5. Carpocratians contending the soule of man to be vnited to the body, to perpetrate sinne, and not to be diuorced from it, vntill it achieue all kind of wickednes? Scripture: Thou shalt not depart from thence vntill [Page 11] thou defray the last farthing. The Aug. tract. 34. in Ioan. Ioan. 8. Manichees affirmed our Sauiour Christ to be this materiall sinne, which com­passeth the earth, and affoardeth light to our corporall eyes. What colour had they? Scripture: I am the light of the world. By Scripture the Al­phonsus de Castr. 110 aduer haer. verbo Occi­dere. Exod. 20.. Waldenses taught, that no mā could be put to death, no not by the lawfull authoritie of a Iudge. Thou shall not kill. By Scripture the August. tract. 53. in Ioan. Ioan. 12. v. 25. Mat. 16. v. 25 Luth. con. Art. Lo­uanien. Thes. 27. & l. de Caena dom. To. 2 Ger. fol. 17. 4. VVhitak. in his an­swere to Campians 8. reason: pag. 259. Vincent. Lyr. c. 35. Genna. in catalogo Eccl. Scri. Circumcelli­ans held, that euery Christian might not only murther his fellow, but lay violent hands also on himself: He that hateth his soule in this life, preserueth it to euerlasting life. And not to be ouer tedions in a matter perspicuous; by Scrip­ture Luther excommunicateth all Sacramentaries, as arrant Heretikes, and already damned to the pit of hell. By the same Scripture our Protestants make both Lutherans and Sacramentaries faithfull Christians, and if they once beleeue, sure of saluation. What? hath Scripture bene in this sort the origine of these foule Contradictions, horrible Blas­phemies, and a thousand more, and yet must it be the soueraigne and only meanes to end and suppresse them? When they, who are silenced by it, make greatest shew and ostentation of it? When, you shall see (sayth Vincentius) Heretikes so abound with Scripture, as they fly through all the vo­lumes of the holy Law, through Moyses, the bookes of the Kings, the Psalmes and Prophets &c. Read the workes of Paulus Samo­satenus, Priscillian, Eunomius &c. You shall not find a page which is not coloured & painted with the sentences of old and new Testa­ment. Nestorius to support his priuat heresy gloried as Gen­nadius reporteth) in the euidēce of threescore testimonies, which he produced.

13. Arius likewise boasted of the patronage of Scrip­ture, yea of the collation of places, our Sectaries chiesest re­fuge. And when the Prelates of the first Councell of Nice proued the Essentiall Equality of the Sonne of God with his Father, which he denied, out of those words of S. Iohn: I and my Father am all one; he answered: They were all one in the vnity of wlll and affection, not in the vnityIo. ca. 10 vers. 30. of nature and essence: which by Conference of places he [Page 12] bolstered in this manner: Christ prayed for his disciplesIoh. 17. v. 21. that they might be one with him, as he, and his Father were one; But he demaunded not, neither was it possible for them to be one in substance with God the Father. Ther­fore the Sonne himself was not the same in substance, but only in will, loue, and obedience, as he desired his Disciples to be. In so much as the Fathers could neuer haue vanquished that wicked heresie, if they had not beaten it downe by the authority of the Church, more then by testimony of Scripture, as appeareth by S. Athanasius a chiefeAtha. ep. decres. con. Arian. haer. impugner of that impious heresy.

14. Yet because our new Ghospellers build the to­wer of their Babell, & will climbe to the knowledge of all heauenly truth by this collation of places, and dili­gent recourse to the originall fountaines; let them tell me, when the Reader doubteth of any particular passage of Scripture, how the Collatour knoweth by what o­ther sentence that ought to be interpreted? The darke and obscure places (as Whitaker and Reynolds instruct vs) are to VVhitak. contro. 1. q. 5. ca. 23. Rein. c. 1. diuis. 2. p. 60. be lightned by the plaine and perspicuous. Graunt it be so. How shall I be certaine, whether the hard place I doubt of, ought to be explained by the cleare and euident text I choose to that purpose, or by some other? What certaine rule set you downe I may not erre in my choyce? Euti­ches doubted of the meaning of those words: Verbum caro factum: The word was made flesh, which you suppose (IIoan. 1. v. 14. See Suarez in 3 p. d. 7. ses. 2. fol. 132. Ioan 2. v. 9. 1. 10. 3. v. 9. Aug l. de haer. ad Quoduult. haer. 82. doubt not) a point requisite to be beleeued. And by rea­son of the propinquity and alliance of speach, he ex­pounded them by those of S. Iohn: Aquam vinum factum: The water was made wine; and fell into his detestable blas­phemie, that the Deity of God was changed into the flesh of man, as the water was turned and conuerted into wine, Iouinian doubted of the intelligence of an hard saying he read in the first epistle of S. Iohn, to wit: He that is borne of God, doth not sinne; Where, by the connexion of the text, by the conference of other places he framed this desperate and hatefull exposition: That a Christian [Page 13] once regenerated and purified by the water of Baptisme, cannot after receaue any tainture of sin, or offend God any more, althogh he would neuer so faine. A thousand such errours in matters of importance necessary to saluati­on haue enemies sucked out of the cleare brooks of holy writ, by the deceauable search & weighing of places.

15. I might vrge, That the sentences which are plaine and open to some, seeme darke and obscure to o­thers. What text more cleare then that of S. Matthew, Mat. 26, Mark. 14. Luc. [...]2. 1. Cor. 11. This is my Body; repeated againe by S. Marke, recorded by S. Luke, confirmed by S. Paul? And yet our Sacramentaries reiecting the agrement & approbation of them al, endea­uour to interpret it by far more hard & hidden passages. Others do not only misconster, but vtterly deny most apparent places, vndeniable testimonyes. For is there a­ny thing more often inculcated, or more largly amplify­ed by the Prophets, then the glory of the Messias, and benefites we were to receaue by the comming of Christ? Is there any thing more euidently expressed by the Euā ­gelists, then his genealogy, his natiuity, his humane pe­degree from the line of Dauid? Yet Faustus the Manichee had his eyes darkned, as S. Augustine testifyeth, with presumptuous arrogancy, that he sayd: Searching the Scrip­pures, Aug. lib. 16. con. Paust cap. 2. & 14. lib. 12. c. 2. lib. 2. cap. 2. I find there no Prophesyes of Christ; The Prophets fortel no­thing of him; the Ghospell mentioneth not his temporall birth, or procreation from man. Howbeit, sayth S. Augustine, he e­uery where auoucheth himselfe the sonne of man. But as Faustus was thus blinded, and would not see a mistery so cleare; what if Protestants be blinded in an article of Faith, no lesse cleare and perspicuous? We found not in Scripture the predictions of Christ, neither do they discerne theAug. ep. 165. ad Do­nat. Church of Christ, as plainely described as Christ himself. For in the Scriptures, sayth S. Augustine, we learne Christ, in the Scriptures we learne the Church. And then. How doe we belieue we haue receaued out of the diuin writings Christ manifest, Aug. epist. 48 ad vin­ [...]ēt Rogat [...] vnles we haae also receaued from thence the Church manifest? Truly we haue receaued it so manifest, as all Nations see [Page 14] it, all nations flocke vnto it, all reuerence and obey it, by the direction of Scripture; only they see it not, who would be ignorāt of nothing by their search of Scripture. They see not I say, the Catholike & vniuersall Church, visibly dispersed thoughout all the world, lineally descen­ded from the Apostles, infallibly assisted by the spirit of God &c. often recommended in holy Write vnto vs.

16. Secondly, I might alleadge the copiousnes of Gods sacred word, how some one [...] is often tymes so fruitfully impregned, that as it is deliuered by the diuineMath. 7. v. 18. Interpreters of many true litterall senses: so it is brought forth by priuate expositors, with the vntimely birth of sundry heresyes. Let that sole text of S. Matthew serue for an example: A good [...]ee cannot yeild euill fruits &c. For by this Hier. l. 2. aduers. Iouin. Iouinian vnderpropped his fornamed fancy, That a good and iust man could not produce the fruits of sinne. The Pelagians Aug. l. 2. de nup. & concup. cap. 26. from thence concluded, That the good & sacred tree of Marriage, that the pure and faithfull married couple cannot [...]ngender euill Children, infected with the contagiou of originall sin. Others Aug. l. 1. de grat. Christ c. 18 of that crew by the force of the same wordes, and those that follow, Nor an euill tree yeild good fruits, per­uersly inferred, That the good tree of Free-will might of it selfe, without Gods grace procreate the fruits of goods works, as the euill tree blossometh the fruits of euill. Others Aug. l. 3. cont. lit. Petil. cap [...] 44. either Pelagians, or Donatists picked from thence, That a good Priest could not minister wrongfully the Sacrament of Baptisme, nor an euill Priest rightly. Out of the same clause Hier. [...] cōment. ad hunc loc. Aug. in disp. 2. cont. For­tunat. the Manichees strained their impious dotage, That some men were good by nature, & could not be euill, some euill by nature, and could not be good. From whence also the Caluinists gathered two pernici­ous heresyes. The See both these obiections proposed, & answe­red in the 21. & 27. Contro­uersy. one, That man being an euill tree, hath no freewill to be conuerted to God, ayded by his grace, nor to cooperate thereunto, before he be iustifyed. The other, That as the fruits do only declare the goodnes of the tree, and do not make it good or bad: so the vertuous and pious workes of the iust, are meere signes and remonstrances; but no true causes of their inherent iustice. If this short & heauenly saying through the rash­nes [Page 15] of willfulmen: hath bred so many false constructiours, al [...] which notwithstanding were bolstened with other the like misapplyed passages; how can Protestants presume to ayme aright at the marke of Truth, in all questions controuer [...]ed, by this vncertaine rule of expounding Scripture by Scripture alone?

17. Thirdly, I might produce the diuersity not only of the literall, but of the literall and figuratiue speaches, and demand of our Aduersaryes, how the Collatours should discerne the one from the other, when the words should be literally, when figuratiuely vnderstood? Ori­gen was more skillfull in tongues, more diligent in rea­ding, more wise in obseruing the course and connexionBasil. hom. 3. in Hex. st [...] in Go­nesim. of Scripture, then euer any Protestant [...]: and yet S. Basil noteth him of grosse ouersight, in imagining figures and Allegoryes, in the first of Genesis, in lieu of the letter. [...]estorius on the contrary side was dazelled with the letter instead of the figure, in that speach of S. Iohn: Dis­solue Ioan. 2. v. 19. yee this Temple, and after three dayes I will rayse it againe: Whereby he contended that the Sonne of God only dwelled in Christ, as in his Temple. Marcions stroue forRom. 5. v. 20. Ioan. 1. v. 14. Philip. 2. v. 7. Haeb. 4. v. 15. Rom. 8. v. 3. Matth. 3. v. [...]. the pure letter, where S. Paul writeth: The law hath en­tred, that sinne may abound. Munichaeus dreamed of a figure, where S. Iohn sayd: The word is made flesh, that is (as he proued by conference of sundry places) in the habit, likenes, and similitude of flesh. The Iacobits were illuded with the grossnes of the letter, when they baptized, or rather seared with burning yrons, their sect-mates in their fore­heads, because it is written in the 3. of S. Matthew: He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost, and fire. Eutychius the Pa­triarcke of Constantinople, was beguiled with the ina­nity of a figure, when impugning the corporall resurre­ction of our flesh, he expounded of a subtile, spirituall, and ethereall body, that which S. Paul spake of a true & naturall.

18. And the matter is the harder not to be mistaken heerein, because some tyme in the selfe same sentence, one [Page 16] and the selfe same word ought here properly, there meta­phorically be expounded, as learned Maldonate wisely ob­seruethMald. in eum loc. Matth. 8. v. 22. Ioan. 3. v. 13. in that saying of Christ: Let the dead bury their dead: or, not to depart from the chiefest articles of fayth, of which I haue hitherto spokē. The like is shewed in S. Iohn: No man hath ascended into heauen, but he that descended from heauen, the Sonne of man, who is in heauen: Which words Va­lentine and Apollinaris misconstruing, gainsayd the miste [...]rySee Medina introduct. in [...]. p. q. 3. & Th [...]op. in hunc loc. of Christs Incarnation, and would needs haue his flesh to haue descended from heauen, as his manhood after ascended thither. Neyther did they want semblance of places, the card of Protestancy, to direct them: for mat­ching this text with another of S. Paul to the Ephesians, they found coherence: He that descended, the same is also he Ephes. c. 4. v. 10. that is ascended. And least the obscurity of either might darken their vnderstanding, they opened them both by this plaine, obuious, and euident sentence, Primus homo de [...], Cor. 15. v. 47. terra, terrenus: Secundus homo de caelo, caelestis. The first man of earth, earthly: the second man of heauen, heauenly.

19. Let our Ghospellers vaunt, as long as they list of the perspicuity and patronage of Scripture, neuer can they bring in any controuersy whatsoeuer so many in their behalfe, or one so cleare a place as this. Or if they could, might they not be blinded, might they not be inueigled as these impes of Satan were? M. Fields opini­on is, they might. We confesse (sayth he) that neyther confe­rence Field l. 4. c. 19. pag. [...]4. of places, nor consideration of the things precedent and sub­sequent, nor looking into the originalls are of any force, vnlesse we find the things, which we conceaue to be vaderstood and meant in the places interpreted, to be consonant to the rule of fayth. And this rule of fayth (as he further teacheth) must be tryed,Field l. 4. ibid. pag. 242. eyther by the Generall practise of the Church, the renowned of all ages, or the Pastours of an Apostolicall Church. Which (to o­mit all other examples) is clearly seene in the Transla­tours of our English Protestants Bible. Who although they had skill in tongues, studied Scriptures, ransacked Ori­ginalls, examined places; yet rouing from the marke (M. Field [Page 17] prescribeth) most pitiously erred in their vulgar Translation. Witnesse hereof.

20. D. Reinolds, who disputed against it in his Ma­iestiesRein. in the Conference at Hampt. Court. p. 45. 46 &c. Burges in his Apol. sect. 6. Carleile in his booke that Christ went not downe to Hellp. 116. 144. Broughton in his epi­stle to the Counsel. presence at Hampton Court. M. Burges a man of the same sect, who affirme [...]h: That the approued English Prote­stant translation hath many omissions, many additions, which sometyme obscureth, sometyme peruerteth the sense. M. Carleile another brother of this disordred crew, hauing discouered many faults in the English Bible, of them inferreth: That the English Protestants in many places detort the Scriptures from their right sense, and shew themselues to loue darknesse more then light, and falshood more then truth. They haue corrupted and depraued the sense, obscured the truth, deceaued the ignorant, and supplanted the simple. Likewise M. Broughton one of the chiefest Linguists amongst our late Precisians, who not many yeares ago wrote an Epistle to the Lords of the Counsell, which is yet extant, desireth them to pro­cure speedily a new translation: Because that (quoth he) which is now in England is full of errours. And in his aduertis­ment of Corruptions, he denounceth to the Protestant Bi­shops, Broughto [...] in his Ad­uert. to the Bishops. That their publike translation of Scripturs into English is such, as it peruerteth the text of the old Testament in 848. places: And that it causeth millions of millions to reiect the new Testament, and to runne to eternall flames.

21. So that if these rare men, furnished with so ma­nifold helpes, endued with the knowledge of sundry tongues, guided by their owne rules to attaine the right sense and meaning of holy write, and allowed by pu­blike authority to translate the same, swa [...]ued notwith­stāding & sunke into the gulfe of such detestable errours: what shall we thinke of others of meaner talents? What hope can any one haue not to stray in this vast wildernes of conferring places? And if the English Bible, which now is commonly read in Churches, and expounded in pul­pits be euery where stayned with the spots of pestilent, and pernicious falshood, in what wofull case are they, who credit it as the Oracle of God? They who repayre [Page 18] vnto it as to the treasure of life, the touchstone of truth? They who neither vnderstanding the Greeke, Latin, or Hebrew, ought to appeale in all doubts of fayth to the high Tribunall of this corrupted Iudge? Whose sentence, as their owne Ghospellers testify, is depraued, obscured, detorted from the right sense, deceaueth the ignorant, supplanteth the simple, peruerteth the text in so many places, as it carrieth millions of millions to eternall flames. Open therfore your eyes (my beloued Countrymen) and see in what daunger you liue, daunger of receauing the doome of falshood, the sentence of death, in lieu of the soueraigne verdict of Gods sacred truth.

22. Since the first edition of this worke was publi­shed, I haue seene a certaine abrupt, and broken answer secretly spread abroad to many of my former arguments, the summe whereof is this: That there is a great difference be­weene the word of God, and man; for the later filleth the eare with the sound, and the hearers mind with a like conceit, cleare, or obscure, conformable to the signification it beareth: but the word of God worketh not only in the eare immediatly, but also in the Certaine shifts of the aduer­saries re­futed. hart, in such sort, that although the exteriour word be darke, and ambiguous, yet by interiour inspiration, it may produce a cleare conceit of the thing signifyed in the hearers mind. By which means (sayth this Respondent) the spirit of God speaking in his di­uine word, and working interiourly in the hart, is the supreme rule, or Iudge of all Controuersyes. By which meanes, it heareth, vnderstandeth, explaineth, and compelleth the Appellants to re­ceaue th [...] sentence giuen: By which meanes it causeth infallible certainty, vttereth it selfe clearely, manifestly condemneth the guilty persons, and performeth such thinges as are necessary, to the office of a Iudge. So he. Yet all in couert, not deeming his reply polished inough for open view; because our question is not, what God may do, or what his inspira­tion may produce; but what he ordinarily doth, and whome he hath established his ordinary Iudge in deter­mining debates; what publicke, and vniuersal rule, what infallible ground, or foundation we haue of our beliefe. [Page 19] which we ought to follow, to which others are bound to submit themselues, and by which we are alwayes di­rected the right way of Truth. This is not (as I haue shewed) the outward word, or the inward working of the holy Ghost in the harts of euery particuler man. 1. Be­cause the faythfull cannot, without some other particuler help, be infallibly assured of that inspiration, or wor­king of the holy Ghost, whether it be naturall, or super­naturall, from God or not: they cannot be infallibly as­sured, that they truly conceaue the sense reuealed, and be­lieue it a right, as they ought to do: which ignorance of theirs, partly proceedeth from the weaknes of our Vn­derstanding, partly from the depth, and sublimity of the misteryes proposed, partly also from the vnsearchablenes of Gods wayes, and secrecy of his vnacquainted motions, of which Iob sayd: If God come vnto me, I shall not see him; and if he depart away from me, I shall not vnderstand it. Wher­foreIob. 9. [...]. Field▪ lib. 4. cap. 7. seeing, No man (as M. Field doth witnes) proueth a thing doubtfull by that which is as much doubted of, as it selfe; No man can be assured of the true sense and signification of Scripture by the internal working of God in his hart, which is as much to be doubted of, and alike hard to be discerned, as the very sense it selfe, and meaning of the Scripture.

23. Secondly: we are counsailed, Not to belieue euery 2 [...] Io [...]. 4. [...]. spirit, but to proue the spirits if they be of God: But if the spirits must be brought to the touch-stone of triall, if they must be approued and iudged by some other well knowne, & vndoubted authority, they are not themselues the triall, and Iudge of our differences. Nay suppose we were assu­red of the inspiration, assured of the holy Ghost speaking in our harts; yet that speach is inuisible, that motion in­uisible, that iudgement inuisible; it cannot heare the causes, examine the arguments, or pronounce any desi­nitiueVVhita­ [...] adu. St [...]pl l. 2. [...] 6. sentence at all, by which the contentious may be silenced, the innocent acquited, the guilty condemned. The testimony of the spirit (sayth Whitaker) being priuate, and [Page 20] secret is vnfit to teach, or refell others: if vnfit to teach, vnfit to refell, then wholy vnfit, wholy vnable to cleare doubts, decide Controuersyes, or end the quarrells of the pa [...] ­tyes in strife.

24. Thirdly. The rule, and guide of our beliefe, ought to haue some neere affinity and connexion with that which it guideth: The measure (as the Philosophers teach) must be alwayes proportionable to the thing measured. But the inward inspiration hath no such affinity, and pro­portion with our Catholike fayth: because, that is secret, this publique: that particuler, this vniuersall: that meer­ly interiour, and working only in the hart; this exteri­ourHooker of Ecclesi. Policy lib. 1. sect. 14. lib. 2. sect. 8. lib. 3. sect. 8. pag. 149. 147. lib. 2. sect. 7 pag. 116. VVhitak. aduers. Staplet. lib. 2. c. 4. pag. 330. & p. 29 [...]. Zācb in his con­fess. cap. 1. Brent. in prolegom. Kemnit. in exam. Conc. Tri. Aug. l. con. ep. Fuxdā. c. 5 & de vtil. cre. [...]en. c. 14. also, and professed by the word of mouth. In so much as that cannot possibly be a competent rule, or propor­tionable measure to mete, or square out the misteryes of our sayth. Fourthly, M. Hooker a Protestant of no smal ac­count, constātly auoucheth (with whō M. Whitak. & other sectaryes heerin agree) that the outward letter sealed with the inward witnesse of the spirit, is not a sufficient war­rant for euery particuler man, to iudg, and approue the Scripture to be Canonicall; the ghospel itself to be the ghospell of Christ; but the authority of gods Church (as he acknowledgeth) is necessarily required therunto: Therefore neither are they sufficient to iudge of the sense, or meaning of the Scripture: for, that (saith S. Augustin) which we obey, and belieue, testifying this book to be the Ghospell; the same must we belieue witnessing this to be the sense of the Ghos­pel: because it were no lesse then madnes to repaire to the Catholike Church for the approbation of Gods word, & run to her rebells for the sense of his word; to her pu­blick censure for that, & their priuat iudgment for this: yea a meer madnes, to thinke that euery Sectary should be indued with a diuine spirit to interpret holy writ, and that the whole Church of Christ, all her pastours, and doctors ioyntly vnited should be depriued of the same.

25. Fyfthly. The ordinary way, by which God instructeth vs in matters of belief, is by publik preaching-Fayth [Page 21] (saith S. Paul) is by hearing: it is to be receaued from the lipps of the preists, from the mouth of Saints,Ad Rom. 10. vers. 17. Malae. 2: Luc. 1. Ad Ephes. 4. from the pastors, and teachers, whome Christ hath ap­poynted in his Church, and not from priuate reading of Scripture, ioyned with the secret inspiration. For that noble man of Aethiopia the Eunuch disigētly perused the oracles of God, and wanted not, without doubt, the inward operation of the holy Ghost, being so religious, as he had bin on pilgrimage at Hierusalem to adore; andAct. 8. v. 30. & 3 [...]. so deuout, as he read the Scriptures riding in his chariot: yet when S. Philip asked him, Trowest thou that thou vnder­standest the things that thou readest? he said: And how can I vnlesse some man shew me. Therfore besides the outward reading & inward working, a publike interpreter, and expounde [...] is necessary for the true vnderstanding of holy writ.

26. Sixthly. The standing to the Iudgment of the hidden Spirit, is the very roote of dissention, and foun­taine of discord in the vain chalengers, and boasters ther­of: it affoardeth euery sectary his priuate weights, his particuler forge to coyne and allow what doctrine he pleaseth: it licenseth the members to controle their heads; the schollers to contradict and chang their mastersTertul. de praescript. cap. 420 principles; which Tertullian reproueth in the Heretiks of his dayes, saying: That hath bin lawfull to the Valentinians which was lawfull for Valentinus: that to the Marcionites which to Marcion, of their own accord to alter, and innouate their belief. Of their owne accord, he sayth; because the teaching of the holy Ghost is vniforme and the same; he could not be author of such chops, and changes, of such schismes & diuisions. And yet they al pretended, as our GhospellersAugust. tract. 4 [...]. in Ioan [...] La [...]h. ep ad Antwerp. tom. 2. Germ. Ie [...]. fol. 10 [...], do, his heauenly illumination: There are innumerable (sayth S. Augustine) who do not only boast that they are Videntes, or Prophets, but will seeme to be illuminated, or enlightned by Christ; but are Heretikes. And Luther, the ring-leader of Prote­stants conformably writeth: There is no Asse in this tyme so so [...]rish, and blockish, but will haue the dreames of his owne head, and his opinion accepted for the instinct of the Holy Ghost, and him­selfe [Page 22] esteemed as a Prophet. Whence it commeth (as he im­mediatly before complayneth,) That there be as many sects, Osiand. in confut. Script. Melancth. contra ip­sum edit. & l. cont. Nicticor. Aug. ep. 222. ad Cō ­sent. and Religions among vs, as there be men: That such variances arise betweene the professours of the same Religion, as Osiander a Protestant telleth vs, That among the Confessionists only there were twenty different opinions concerning the formall cause of iustification: and that euery one is affirmed to be deduced, and proued out of the word of God: by the holy Ghost surely, as they imagined secretly speaking to their harts: By which, All Heretikes, according to S. Augustine, who re­ceaue the authority of the Scriptures, perswade themselues they follow them; whereas they rather follow their owne errours.

27. Hence it also proceedeth, that if no other ground, or foundation be assigned, no heretike could be noted, or condemned of heresy: nay as Suarez that greatSuarez l. 1. defens. fid. cap. 11. Deuine heereupon inferreth, No heretike should be, or heresy at all; no man ought to be compelled to the vnity of sayth, and fellowship of one Religion, to which the Scripture so often exhorteth, and God requireth as neces­sary to saluation. For if it be inough for euery one to ap­peale to the tribunall of his owne (as he deemeth) inspi­red conscience, who can decline from the rule of Fayth? Who can swarue from his owne particuler iudgment, & forsake that guide, & foundation of beliefe, which him­selfe broacheth, and boldly vaunteth to come from God? Who then can be an heretike, or what heresy be vented? If that be the square of fayth, who ought to be compel­led, by forsaking that rule, to conforme himselfe to ano­ther profession? Euery one may safely remaine in his owne religion, as long as they verily thinke (which all men easily do) that they haue receaued the riches of the spirit in as great measure as any other. For this reason D. Whitguift alleadged, why the Church of England needVVhitg. in his de­fens against Cart [...]r. not submit it selfe to the Church of Geneua. The same rea­son may the Brownist alleadge why he should not yield to the Puritan; the Puritan for not conforming himselfe to the Protestant, and one Protestant why he should not [Page 23] subscribe to the iudgment of another. Therefore besides the inward inspiration there must be some other outward vndeceauable, and ouer-ruling Iudge, or els God hath not sufficiently prouided for the necessityes of his Church not for her peace, concord, and stability, not for her v­nity in fayth, certainty of beliefe, not for the obedience, and submission of her children, not for the ending of quarrells, decision of doubts, and rooting out of errours. But of this againe in the next chapter, where my Aduersa­ry might haue read this very obiection answered, if he had not heere importunly vrged it out of due order, time, and place.

28. The shew of reason which this RespondentObiecti­ons. The first. bringeth to proue the iudgment of the secret spirit, is to this effect. First (sayth he) the Church receaueth from God inspiring her, the right sense of Scripture: he must first decide the cōtrouersy in her mind, before she can ex­teriourly decide what they are bound to belieue; there­fore the spirit of God speaking in her hart is the supreme Iudge of Controuersyes, euen in the opinion of vs Ca­tholikes. Secondly, he proueth that the same spirit spea­kingThe se­cond. in the diuine word to euery particuler man, was likewise iudge in the law of Nature, because at that tyme there were no other ordinations, then such as did neces­sarily follow out of the eleuating of mankind to a super­naturall end: but out of that it no way followes, that al the faythfull were to obey one supreme Pastour. Thirdly,The third in the law written there was not one Gouernour, the faythfull among the Iewes being without any subordi­nation to any one among the Gentills: And the Gentils had no subordination to the high Priest of the Iewes.The fourth. Fourthly, it must be acknowledged (sayth he) by the ad­uerse part, that the spirit of God as speaking in particular to euery man, decideth which company of the professors of Christianity is the true Church, and by consequenceAnswers. To the first. the same spirit determineth in the same manner all other controuersies. Thus he. To the first I answere, that the [Page 24] motions inwardly inspired to the pastours of the church, are no iudiciall sentences, nor finall decisions of matters controuerted: they are not any infallible rules, neither to others to whom they are vnknowen, nor to themsel­ues to whome they are vncertaine, vntill they be out­wardly decreed and iointly subscribed vnto, by the suffrages of all both head, and members. For vntill then, they be not made one common voice, one publik law, one generall consent, or definitiue sentence pronounced by them all; they are not the last, and highest Tribunal of the Church, to which euery one is bound to submit himselfe without further appeale. To the second, I reply with D. Sanders, & other learned Deuines. It is false, thatTo the se­cond. Sander. de visib. Mo­nar. l. 4. c. 3. & 4. there was no other ordinary Iudge in the law of Nature then Gods priuate instruction: for Adam during his life was the chiefe head, & supreme directour of Gods people in points of fayth. Then Seth; after Enos &c. And so in succeeding ages, the first borne, or eldest among the faith­full by the prerogatiue of his primogeniture, or some o­ther by Gods speciall election, discharged that office: which did also necessarily follow out of the eleuation of mankind to a supernaturall end, supposing the sweetnes of diuine prouidence after mans fall, and want of fayth. To the third, I answere, that God himmselfe in the writ­tenTo the third. Deut. 17. vers. 12. law, appointed one high Priest, and supreme Iudge among the Iewes: He that shallbe proude, refusing to obey the Commandment of the Priest, which at that tyme ministreth to our Lord thy God, and the decree of the Iudge, that man shall dye. To whome notwithstanding the faithfull amongst the Gentils, were not subiect, because they had no such po­sitiue precept imposed vpon them: they were then separated, and diuided from that chosen company, by which the lineall and visible succession of the Church was propagated, and continued. Yet if they liued accor­ding to the prescript of reason and light of nature, the necessary mysteryes of fayth were reuealed vnto them, either by God himselfe, or by an Angell, or by some o­ther [Page 25] inuiolable tradition. Which being an extraordi­nary course can neither be a warrant for particular men to challeng the like,, nor preiudice the ordinary way which the diuine wisdome, vseth in instructing his ser­uants: especially now in the law of grace in which he hath subiected both Iew, and Gentile to the obedience of one head, & supreme pastour, according to that which our sauiour said: Other sheepe I haue which are not of this fold; them also must I bring, and they shall heare my voice, and there Ioan. 10. 16. shall be made one fold, and one pastour. Which cannot be vnderstood of Christ as he inuisibly feedeth, and go­uerneth his flocke, for so there was alwayes one fold,Cyprian. l. 1. ep. 6. ad Magnum. and one pastour; but of his visible headship, and of his secondary also, and visible pastour, who now suc­ceedeth him, of whome S. Cyprian interpreteth those words.

27. To the fourth, I deny the Antecedent: for that which first decideth what society of Christians is theTo the Fourth. true Church, are certain publik notes, and known signes by which the spouse of Christ is euidently marked, and discribed vnto vs. Then it is true that we also acknow­ledg a supernaturall help, or inward working of the holy ghost to belieue the Catholik Church, and all the articles she proposeth; yet in a farre different manner, from that which our sectaries pretend: for we require the interiour working to moue our will, and eleuate our vnderstan­ding to belieue the mysteries already reuealed; our secta­ries require it to reueale the very mysteries, which are to be belieued: we, to receaue the expositions of Scripture publikly, and vniformily made by the diuine interpre­ters; they priuatly to expound, and particularly to in­terpret the scriptures themselues: We haue moreouer prudentiall motiues, or arguments of credibility pruden­tly to induce vs to those acts of faith; they haue no such arguments, but of the contrary side many reasons to distrust their priuat spirits. We, besides the inward vncti­on, and outward letter, haue the safe-conduct of a com­mon, [Page 26] publike, and inerrable directour: they haue no o­ther publik, and outward guide then the bare letter su­biect to a thousand false constructions. Ours, is the spirit of peace, and vnion, vniting vs all in the same belief: theirs of strife, and dissention, making them infi­nitely to vary in poynts of faith. Ours of submission, theirs of presumption. Ours inclineth vs to obey, and humbly imbrace; theirs proudly to iudge, and pe­remptorily to conrroule the true preachers doctrine. So that the heauenly inspiration, which we allow, hath not any linke of affinity, with their priuate spirit.

THE SECOND CHAPTER▪ WHEREIN All that which D. Reynolds, D. Sparkes, and M. Whitaker deuise to bolster their former, Position, is refuted.

BECAVSE so many windinges & crosse-wayes occur in this wild desert of scanning words, vnfolding texts, and searching originall foun­taynes; our Aduersaries striue to as­signe some lines to lead vs aright in this maze of difficulties. D. Rey­nolds and D. Sparkes prescribe not only search, but deligent Rein c. 2. diuis. 2. p. 60. & 62. Sparks pa. 246. &c. Ioan. 5. v. 36. Mart. 7. v. 7. Iac. 1. v. 5. search, and earnest prayer to God. Of the one it is sayd: Search the scriptures &c. and they shall be opened vnto you. Of the other: If any of you want Wisdome, let him aske it of God &c. and it shall be giuen him. Soueraygne helpes I graunt, but no assured rules. For how many haue troden these pathes, who wandered and miserably perished amongst the briars of errour? Pelagius, Photinus, Eunomius prayed earne­stly, and most diligently searched the Canon of Scripture, who vented notwithstanding infamous heresies.

[Page 28]2. M. Reynolds replyeth, that the fault of these and o­thers [...]rring must be: Not in conferring places most diligently▪ but not in conferring them d [...]ligently inough. In not praying as they Rein. c. 2. diuis. 2. p. 60. & p 45 1. Ioan c. 5. v. 14. Rom. c. 12. v. 13. should, and searching as they ought, in the spirit of fayth and mo­desty. But you that carpe so often at the Schoolemens Quid­di [...]es, what meane you now by this nice distinction be­tweene most diligently, & diligently inough? Or what degree of diligence attribute you to that which is inough, aboue the superlatiue exactnes of that which is most? Further, what do you vnderstand by searching as they ought, in the spi­rit of Faith and modesty? Doe you thinke it necessary the Collatour should belieue the thing he searcheth, before he beginneth to search? To what end then doth he search? And what shall he do, who belieneth not, or doubteth of the matter? But not to demure in these deep subtiltyes, or meere fooleryes rather, who can tell (I beseech you) when he prayeth in fayth and modesty as he should? When he vseth diligēce inough in searching as he ought? Or how can others be warranted, who they be that per­forme these thinges? Is not this as hidden, as intricate, as inscrutable as the truth of Gods word for which we la­bour? I thinke you suppose S. Iraeneus, S. Cyprian, S Am­brose, S. Chrysostom, S. Hierome, S. Augustine prayed to God, & weighed his word in fayth & modesty as they ought. By what meanes then swarued they so farre from the true sense of Scripture, as to be spotted with so manyThe Centu­rie writers Cen. 2. 4. 5. wennes, and warts (as you call them) of superstitious Popery; to wit, the Sacrifice of the Masse, Inuocation of Saints, Free-will, Merit, Purgatory, Prayer for the dead &c? You will answere againe; They fayled in their prayers, & slacked of their diligence, when out of the pure foun­taines of holy Write, they deriued these Romish dregs. Well let it be they failed; at least your late reformers Lu­ther, Caluin, Beza &c. failed not. They prayed in fayth, and modesty, they marked, they examined Scripture as they ought. How commeth it then to passe, they haue not obtained so much wisedome from God, as to agree in their [Page 29] exposition? How do they who follow the right rules of interpreting Scripture, vary so infinitly as to dis­sent in aboue 80. seuerall expositions of these foure wordes, This is my body, which Claudius de Xainctes recko­nethXainct. re­pet. 1. cap. vltimo. vp, besides innumerable other most irreconciliable iarres?

3. I know not with what brasen face or steeled con­science D. Field, and M. Sparkes depose: That these their diuisi­ons are imaginary and meerly accidentall, not in points funda­mentall, Field in his appendix 1. par. pag. 23. &. 24. Sparkes in his answere to M. Iohn Albins. not in matters necessary to saluation. Wheras they dif­fer in number of Sacraments, nature of the Church, es­sentiall manner of her gouernement, in the article of Christs descension into hell, of his Passion, Mediation, of his equality with his Father, our regeneration by Baptisme, Iustification by fayth, as I shall by Gods grace discouer heereafter. And if these be not fundamentall points, what points will you make fundamentall? Or if your di­ligence, your prayer, with other helpes may mislead you in these, why not in others? Why define you not what articles they be, in which yee are freed from errour? Are you all priuiledged not to faile in fundamentall points, & can no man tell, nor your selues accord in what points your priuiledge consisteth?

4. For (answere O thou Protestant) are they fun­damentall points, which make men forfait their saluatiō? which carry millions of millions to eternall flames? Then who­soeuerBroughtō vb [...] supra. imbraceth your English translation of the Bible, differeth (as I haue proued) from his owne companions in pointes fundamentall. Are they fundamentall pointes which are necessary to be belieued? And, All points necessa­ry to be belieued (as M. Whitaker strayneth out of S. Augu­stines VVhitak. c. 1 q. 4. c. 4 pa 29 [...]. wordes) so cleare in Scripture, as they cannot be mistaken? You square among your selues in pointes fundamentall, some assigning these some others to be essentiall, capital, and necessary to be belieued. Nay you vary in so plaine and perspicuous points, as you cannot mistake them; & by your owne diuision subuert your owne assertion. Are [Page 30] they fundamentall points, which vndermine the founda­tion and shake the ground-worke of true Religion? Thē Caluin & his pupills dissent from their Grand [...]res in fun­damentallHun [...]ius in his booke intituled, Caluinus Iudaizans. Luth cont. art. Louan. thes. 27. points, by the censure of Hunnius a Protestant writer, who brandeth him with Arianisme, Iudaisme, and the like. Are they fundamentall points, which whoso­euer defendeth is estranged from God, ranged amongst heretikes, and banished the company of men? Then all Sacramentaryes, whome Luther for their Tropicall constructi­on of the wordes of the Sacrament, seriously censureth as He­retikes, and aliens from the Church of God; All Lutheranes Caluin lib. 4. instit. c. [...]7. whome Caluin attacheth of the Eutichian heresy, for auou­ching the immensity of Christs body answerable to his Deity; All English Puritans, whome their fellow-Prote­stants excommunicate by their Canons & cassiere theirCanon 4. 6. 7. &c. Society, are among themselues dismembred in funda­mentall points. Loe the peace of our new Ghospellers: Loe their agreement in pointes fundamentall: Loe the markes they obserue in expounding Scripture, which beare them headlong on these rockes of dissention.

5. M. Whitaker therfore propoundeth a surer anker­hold to stay them in these stormes: The direction (to wit) of the holy Ghost, the supreme interpreter of his sacred will, which Vvhitaker [...]t. 1. q. 3. c. [...]. & q. 5. cap. 3. whosoeuer followeth cannot but escape the danger of shipwracke. Who if he vnderstood by this direction the infallible as­sistance of that diuine spirit, as he guideth the head, or go­uerneth the whole body of the Church, we willingly subscribe vnto it. But his meaning is farre otherwise. He meaneth heerby the priuate motion of the holy Ghost, as he secretly inspireth euery particuler faythfull man, com­monly called the priuate spirit, of which all Protestants vaunt so much, and against which the Prophets and A­postles generally exclaime. Ezechiel cryeth out: Woe be to Ezech. 13. v. [...]. 2. Pet. [...]. v. 20 the foolish Prophets, who follow their owne spirit. S. Peter sayth: No Prophesy of Scripture is made by priuate interpretation. And although you reply that the spirit you arrogate is not pri­uate, not the spirit of man, but the spirit of God, which [Page 31] is publike and diuine: yet seeing you do not assigne anyVVhitak. cont. 1. q. 5. cap. 4. publike person, whome this spirit infallibly assisteth, but ascribe it to euery particuler and priuate man, it can be no other then that priuate spirit, so frequently reiected in holy Write.

6. For tell me M. Whitaker, what is this spirit ofVvhitaker cont. 1. q. 5. c. [...]. prope finem. Ibid. quaest 3. c. 1 [...]. & cont. 1. q. 2. c. 3. which you bragge? An inward perswasion (you say) of Truth. From whome? From the holy Ghost. Where? In the secret clo­set of the belieuers hart. When? When he heareth, or readeth the word of God. Is this all? Is not this a priuate and vn­certaine spirit subiect to a thousand phantastical illusions? There commeth Montanus with his minion Maximilla; ther commeth Marcion; there commeth Valentinus; euery one chalengeth the prerogatiue of his spirit, and spirit (as he pretendeth) of God. The first his prophesy, the secondTertul. de praescript. cap. 4 [...]. the visions of his Paraclet, the third the dreames of his Ae­ [...]nes. Were they not illuded by the wicked spirit? And may not Protestants be deceaued as well as these? Their perswasion is priuate, it may be mistrusted: their spirit hidden, it cannot be proued.

7. M. Whitaker yeildeth: That it cannot be proued or de­monstrated Vvhitaker cont. 1. q. 5. c. 3. prop [...] finem. to others: but it may be a sufficient warrant to them, that haue it, of the true sense of Scripture it openeth vnto them. Against both which I dispute. First if it cannot be mani­fested or proued to others, then in respect of them, they haue no certaine ground to belieue the Ghospell of the Protestants, rather then the prophesy of Montanus, the vi­sions of the Marcionists. Againe if it cannot be manifested or proued to others, and no true interpretation can be made without it, no meanes haue Protestants to teach, to preach, to assure their Brethren, or perswade any othersVvhitaker cont. 1. q. 3. c. 11. & q. 5. c. 10. Reyn. in his conf. c. 2. diui [...]. 2. the light of their Ghospell. Which if you do not perspi­cuously see, I will set before you a glasse to view it in, by a collection or two, gathered out of M. Whitaker.

8. He granteth, and D. Reynolds heerein accordeth with him, that neither recourse to places so often menti­oned, nor suruey of Originals, nor cōsideration of words, [Page 32] phrase and stile, are auailable to ayme aright at the marke of Truth, vnlesse the holy Ghost leuell and di­rect vnto it: vnlesse he go before with his torch of light. HeVvhitaker cont. [...]. q. 5. cap. 10. graunteth moreouer that no inspired minister can de­monstrate to others, the holy Ghost, with his lincke, to haue en­lightned his hart. It resteth therfore (by this own Logike) that no Minister can giue assurance of the doctrine he preacheth, and consequently no fayth can be taught, no beliefe receaued from the mouth of our Ghospellers. It resteth, that no Iudge can be amongst them, no vmpier of controuersies, no Pastour, no preacher able to con­uert soules, plant fayth, end debates, which necessarily requireth infallible assurance to conuince the hearers of the truth deliuered.

9. Secondly, I shew, that this inward spirit can neuer be a warrant sufficient in the search of Scripture to guid them that inioy it. For eyther it guideth them som­tyme fallibly, or allwayes infallibly. Say sometyme fallibly; It is neuer to be credited, vnlesse you prescribe some rule to know when it faileth, when not; and this prescription you make eyther by some deceauable, or vndeceauable spirit, and so we are as farre to seeke as we were at the beginning. Say alwayes infallibly; What­soeuer you expound, speake, or write by the instruction of this spirit, ought to be imbraced as Canonicall Scripture, as the heauenly writings, or Oracles of God: and sith you often vary from your selues, and contradict one the other, you prophane the Diuine oracles with horrible con­tradictions. Besides, if the spirit of euery faithfull belie­uer be a safe conduct to lead him to the vnderstanding of Scripture, to what end are the doctours & interpreters of Gods word? To what end did S. Paul say; to one by the spirit is giuen the grace of working miracles; to another Pro­phesy; 1. Cor. 12. v. 9. & 10. Ad Haeb. [...]3. v. 17. to another discerning of spirits &c. Why did he restraine to some which is extended to all? To what end were people commaunded, to obey their Prelats? To what end was it pronounced, He that heareth you, heareth me &c. And, [Page 33] He that heareth not the Church, let him be to thee like an Ethnike and publican? To what end were these things spoken, if toLuc. 10. v. 16. Matth. 18. v. 17. all be graunted the spirit of Prophesy? If members must iudge of their heades, and people examine their Pastours doctrine?

10. In fine, to rippe vp the bowells and breake the very sinewes of this answere in pieces; the inward Spi­rit, which moueth the Collatour in the exposition of Gods word may be caused three seuerall wayes. 1. God may inspire it. 2. The Diuell suggest it. 3. The dis­course of reason gather and collect it. Now, aread me this doubt, you that ground your fayth hereon; how do you know the perswasion you follow to be an inspiratiō 2. Cor. 1 [...]. vers. 14▪ from God, a suggestion of Satan, or a discourse of reason? The Diuell may transfigure himselfe into an Angell of light: many falshoods (as the Philosopher teacheth) may seeme more probable then truthes. Diuers haue beene vndoubtedly perswaded that the spirit of God guided them aright, when they were ignorantly missed by the spirit of deceit; wherein if you belieue not me, belieue a iudicious & learned Protestāt; belieue M. Hooker a famous writer of your owne, who hath published these wordes in print: Such as are readiest to cite for one thing fiue hundred Hook. in his 2. Book sess. 7. fol, [...]18. sentences of holy Scriptur, what warrant haue they that any one of thē doth meane the thing for which it is alleadged? Is not their surest ground most commonly eyther some probable coniecture of their owne, or the iudgment of others, taking those Scriptures as they do? which notwithstanding to meane otherwise then they take them, it is not still altogeather impossible. So that now and then they ground themselues on humane authority, euen when they most pretend di­uine. Who could say more against the vanity of our Sectaries, against their obstinate arrogancy in expoun­ding the word by their owne priuate sense and iudgmēt? for if amongst fiue hundred sentences they haue no warrant for one, to meane the thing for which it is alledged: Yf now and then they ground themselues on humane authority, euen when they most pretend diuine, by the pretence no doubt and direction of [Page 34] the spirit; what notes doth he or his mates assigne? what marks do they propose to discerne the Diuine spirit of God, from the humane spirit of man, or illusion of the Diuell?

11. Marrie, some Protestants prescribe the Analogie of Scripture: That the spirit ought to be tried by Canon of holy writ; which is nothing els then to allow the circle so often his­sed out of schooles: by the spirit to interpret the Scrip­ture, and by the Scripture to discerne the spirit: Nothing els, then to make a faire shew, where no hope can be had of escape. For either I vnderstand before the sense of the Scripture, to which I iudge my spirit agreable; or vnderstand it not. Suppose I vnderstand it; in vaine is the instruction of the spirit. Suppose I know it not; how shall I iudge of the conformity of my spirit to that which I do not my selfe conceaue? Others therfore teach: That the spirit needeth not the touch - stone of Scripture, but may by it self be descried as black from white, light from darknesse. If this be so, why are we commaunded, Not to trust euery Spirit, when none can deceaue vs? Why is it [...]. Ioan. 4. v. 1. Ibidē sayd: Trie the Spirits, when they need no triall? How falleth it out so many mistake the spirit of truth? How is our sight so dimmed, that we cannot perceaue the distinction of spirits, the darke night from the clearest day?

12. We for example, beleeue with Protestants the Councell of Nice, we beleeue the mystery of the holy Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, and with the same spirit which they count erroneous, we beleeue the Coū ­cell of Lateran, of Florence, the Reall presence, the Sa­crifice of the masse; neither can we see any difference in this our spirit. Not we perchance, but you the sharp­sighted eagles, who soare so high as to gaze on the sunne, you no doubt can bewray the different markes. Aske then the Lutheran what cloudes of darknesse he discoue­reth in the spirit of defiance he hath with the Caluinist, from the bright beames of light, which ioyntly shine in [Page 35] poynts of their agreement? he answereth: None at all. Aske the Caluinist what foggie mist he espieth in his spirit of variance from the Lutheran? he answereth: none at all. Aske the diuine - spirited Protestant; Aske the Puritan the like question. The Protestant contendeth, that the spirit which causeth him to dissent from the Puritan, is the spirit of light, the illustration of the Holy Ghost. The Puritan protesteth the same of his. And wheras the one must needs be a Satanicall illusion, sith it wholy crosseth and contradicteth the other, who seeth not, that the spirit of truth cannot by it self be discerned from the spirit of deceit, no not by the grand-maisters themselues, and boasters of the spirit?

13. When our Ghospellers are thus beaten out of all their forts or strong holds of succour, when they are con­uinced, that neither Scripture alone, nor perusall of places, nor examination of Greeke & Hebrew fountains, nor prayer to God with the direction of the priuate spi­rit can safely conduct them to the true knowledge andRein. [...]. 2. diuis. 2. p. 62. [...] in act. Col. Ratis. ses 14. p. 1 [...]2. Vvh [...]taker desa. Scrip. Controu. 1. q 4. c 4. & q. 5. [...] 8. Ioan. [...]o. v. 17. 1. Cor. 2. v. 15. sense of Scripture, will you heare their last and most des­perate refuge? Listen and learne to detest their fraud. Albeit (say they) these former helpes be not alwayes ef­fectuall to the reprobate or wicked sinner: yet they are sufficient inough to the elect of God. If the Lord (sayth Reynolds) take delight in vs, he will bring vs to the food of life, he will giue vs the bread of our soules, and make vs learned in the Scriptures. For it is written (quoth Hunnius & Whitaker) My sheep heare my voyce, and, The spirituall man iudgeth all things. O yee children of darknesse! O yee enemyes of light! How long will yee seeke these cloudy euasions? How long will yee runne from one maze of obscurity into another? As from search of Scripture to secret pray­er; from secret prayer, to priuate spirit; from priuate spi­rit, to hidden grace. And how shall I learne who is en­dued with this celestiall grace, in whome God is pleased? How shall I know the spirituall man, or sheep of Christ?Eccles. 9. v. [...]. Salomon sayd: No man can tell whether he be worthy of loue or [Page 36] hatred. S. Paul: I am guilty of nothing, yet in this I am not iustified. But thou more wise then Salomon, more illuminated then1. Cor. 4. v. 4. S. Paul, describe me the markes, shew me the badge and cognizance of Christ, that I may see whether I am a sheep of his flocke or no. Thou sayst, if I had a strong & feruent fayth, if I belieued aright, I should be infallibly acertainted of Gods present grace, and eternall fauour. And who (I pray) hath this feruent fayth? He that im­braceth the reformed Ghospell? O rounds! O circles! Are you not ashamed stil to trace this endles Labyrinth?Calu. in ar­gumento Epist. & l. [...]. Inst. c. 8. anno 1554. Luther in prolog. Epist. Rogers in his book to the Kings Maiesty. I desire to know how I might belieue aright, how I might be sure to heare my shepheards voyce, and you at length resolue me; if I be a sheep of your fold, and be­lieue as you do, I shall belieue aright, and be sure to heare his voyce. A feat of Sophistry tooto common amongst you; yet such a feat as with slender skill may be defea­ted.

14. Caluin your Ring-leader approued, and partly broached your reformed Ghospell; he was a sheep of Christ, who reading the epistle of S. Paul to the He­brewes, the epistle of S. Iames, heard in them the voyce of Christ, the voyce of God. And Luther your fore-father, what, was he a goat of Sathan, who perusing the same e­pistles heard no such voice, nothing but dry and dusty stuffe, nothing worthy an Apostolicall spirit? Our En­glish Protestants are sheep of Christ, who reuerence the whole vulgar translation of their Bible as the pure word of God. The Millenary Plaintiffes what are they? All goats of Sathan, who lament therein many false corrup­tions in matters of fayth, as M. Rogers testifyeth in his booke dedicated to this Maiesty. Not to speake of the Precisians, the Protestants among themselues are all no doubt sheep of Christ. How heare they then the voice of their Pastour? One in this sort, another in that, quite opposite to the former. One heareth Christ Bi [...]on. in his sur­uey of Christs suf­ferings pa. 650. 651. &c. descended in­to hell; another: He Vvi [...]let in his book intituled Lymboma­s [...]ix. descended not. One: The Field l. 1. of the Church. Church to be alwayes visible; another: sometymes VVil­let in his Synopfis▪ p. 48. & all protestants generally. inuisible. One ga­thereth [Page 37] out of Gods words two Melan­c [...]hon in lo. commun. Sacraments; another: Caluin. l. 4. inst. c. 19. Tree; another: Melan­cth▪ in locis editis▪ an. 36. an. 52. foure &c. One affirmeth: The Sacra­ments do not only signify, but [...]ilsō in his book of Christ subiection. 4. p. pag 51. conferre grace; another: con­demneth Fulke against purg [...]tor, p. 35. Sparks in his answere to M. Iohn A [...]bins p. [...]46. the same as Popish. What? Is the voice of Christ repugnāt to it self &c. Or are some Protestants also goats of Sathan? Or is it true, the sheep of Christ do not certain­ly heare their shep-heards voyce?

15. Moreouer the sheep of Christ are of two sortes: some are sheep by present grace: others by eternall ele­ction: of neither of these can your maxime be verifyed. Not of the first. For if they only know their Pastours voyce, woe be to all Infidels, woe to all notorious and obstinate sinners, in vaine are they perswaded and prea­ched vnto. Woe had it beene to S. Matthew, to S. Mary Magdalen, and thousands of Saintes, who once depriued of presēt grace, could neuer haue heard their shepheards cal. Happy the Reprobate in respect of them, who being of­ten sheep by present grace, might perfectly know, and easily stoop to the [...] [...]aisters lure. Not of the second kind of sheep; because S. Augustine a Manich [...]e, S. Paul a per­secutour euen then [...]re sheep of Christ, by eternall e­lection, euen then they studyed and examined the text of Scripture, euen then they were both infused with the in­ward perswasion and spirit of Protestants, that they fol­lowed their Pastour and obeyed his precepts; yet were both deceaued by the voice of a stranger. You answere, they could not be finally deceaued: They heare the true voice of their spouse (sayth M. Sparkes) at one tyme or another. At one tyme or another? And who hath reuealed vnto you, that this is the tyme of your vocation? Imagine you be as they were, Gods chosen sheep, may you not now be bewitched with some deceitfull charme? May not your dreames seeme his Oracles? And may you not (as God graunt you may) be heereafter vncharmed and la­ment with S. Augustine: My errour was my God, and the si­ctionAug▪ l. 4. confes. cap. 7. of my braines the voice of my shepheard?

16. Againe if this second sort only of elected sheep [Page 38] are vndoubtedly grounded in the true knowledge of holy writ, none according to you can be infallibly instructed in necessary points of fayth, vntill God admit him, as S. Paul sayth, to the Counsell of his inscrutable iudgments; vn­tillRom. 11. v. 3 [...]. he shew his name engrossed in the booke of Li [...]e. Which because you ordinarily hold impossible to be be­lieued without your Solifidian and all-working fayth, fayth requireth election, and election presupposeth faith. And seeing the one can neuer be obtayned without assu­rance of the other, you may search long inough before you can attaine to either.

17. What construction then (quoth Whitaker) will you make of those wordes: My sheep heare my voyce? Of those: The spirituall man iudgeth all thinges? I answere: thatVvhitaker locis ci­ [...]tis. the sheep of Christ heare his voice not at all tymes, not when they list, but how, and when it pleaseth God. Sometyme by secret inspiration, other while by outwa [...]d hearing, or reading his word: yet so, as they haue neuer infallible certitude heerof, but when it is confirmed by extraordinary reuelation, or by the publike Iudgment & approbation of the Church, by whose authority the spi­rituall man iudgeth all thinges. Or he may be sayd toVvhitaker cont. 1. q. 5. c. 8. Rein c. 2. diuis. 2. Act. 17. v. 1 [...] 1. Ioan. 2. v. 27. iudge all thinges, not infallibly, but prudently and dis­creetly, as the testimony of his conscience and instinct of the holy Ghost shall teach and perswade him. Whitaker, and Reynoldes againe: The men of Beroea are commended for trying the doctrine of S. Paul by the iudgment of Scripture. It is written: You haue no need that any man teach you, but as his vn­ction teacheth you of all things. Lastly: All are sayd to be taught of God. I answere. The men of Beroea, or as some say of Thessalonica, which were the more noble and wiser sort,Esay. 54. v. 3. Iohn. 6. v. 4 [...]. Vvhitaker ibid [...]m q. 3. ca. [...]. either belieued not before (as many hold) and then they tooke a iudicious & prudent course in searching the pla­ces S. Paul alleadged to procure, as the Deuines require, arguments of credibility, whereby they might be induced maturely to imbrace the truth he deliuered, which S. Pa [...]l no doubt exhorted them vnto. And in like case hauing [Page 39] produced testimonyes out of the Sybills & Hystapsis againstSee Lorinꝰ vpon this place of the Actes, and Staple [...]on in Anti­doto. [...]n. [...]. strom [...] 1. the Gentills, he counsaileth them, as S. Clemens Alexan­drinus testifyeth, to read and consider the allegations, how strongly they concluded, and made for his purpose. Or if they already belieued (as others mantain) then nothing doubting of the truth he preached, they searched only for their confort and confirmation, to nourish and streng­then their beliefe, to arme themselues the better against the assaults of the enemy. Both which are allowable v­pon these supposal; neither are warrantable for the faith­full to iudge and censure their Pastours doctrine.

18. To the second, and third instance, I answere: S. Iohn wrote to those that had receaued the fayth, and needed not another maister to teach them a new doctrine contrary thereunto. Isay prophesied of them that were to receaue it; and both, as S. Augustine commenteth, speak of the inward vnction of Gods grace, and inspiration ofAug. tract 3. in ep. 1. Ioan. & l. de gra. Christi. c. 13 & 14. the Holy Ghost, which togeather with the outward preaching sweetly moueth, strengtheneth, and confir­meth the faythfull, not to examine, iudge, or try, but humbly to belieue and ioyfully to imbrace the message of truth deliuered vnto them. Shall I repeate S. Augustines wordes▪? Shall I propound the question he maketh to S. Iohn vpon occasion of this speach, wherein he excel­lently refu [...]eth this obiection of Protestants? Thou sa [...]est Tract. 3. vbi supra. (quoth he) his vnction teacheth you of all thinges: why then didst thou write that Epistle? Why didst thou teach them? Why didst thou instruct? See heere my Brethren, a great mistery: the no [...]se of our words passe vnto the eares, the Maister is within &c. Outward instructions are helps and admonitions, he hath his chaire in heauen who teacheth the hart. Christ teacheth, his inspiration teacheth: where his inspiration and vnction is not, in vaine is the sound of words without.

19. Besides if we read that place of Isay, All shall be taught of God, as our Aduersaryes presse the Greeke. I an­swereCyril in [...] lo [...] againe with S. Cyril: That it is a Prophesy of Christs comming, to teach Christians in his owne person, who [Page 40] before taught the Iewes by the mouth of his Prophets. If we read: All shalbe docible of God, as Maldonate more faith­fullyMaldonat in cap. 6. Ioan. gathered out of the Hebrew and Chaldean word, it was spoken, as he notably proueth by the testimony of Leontius Ammonius, and S. Iohn Chrysostome, for that God of himselfe is most ready to instruct, and the Euangelical Law more fit to be infused into the hart by the vnction of the holy Ghost, then to be vttered by wordes, or imprinted in bookes.

20. Lastly, M. Whitaker, M. Reynolds, and their adhe­rentsVVhitaker 1. cont. q. 5. Cap. 8. Reyn. c. 8. diuis. 1. Basil Epist. 80. Tul. l. 3 de leg. Aug de nup. & cō. cup. [...] 2. c. 33. Opt. l. 5. cont. Parmen. Aug. cōc. 2. in Psal. 35. obiect sundry Fathers allowing the sufficiency of Scripture to end disputes, to whose authorities I shall answere in my next discourse Now I reply to the testi­monyes of S. Basil, S. Augustine, and Optatus. S. Basil sum­moneth his Aduersaryes to the arbitrement of holy Writ, in a thing most clearely reuealed concerning the Trinity in which case he may call the Scripture arbiter or Iudge, as the Lawyers sometimes tearme the ciuil law, or Iustini­an the compiler of them, Vmpier, and Iudge: And as Tully calleth, The Law, a dumbe Magistrate: and the Magistrate, a li­uely Law. After which sort S. Augustine sayth: Let Christ iudge, let the Apostles iudge &c. Optatus likewise in the que­stion of Rebaptization prouoked the Donatists to the Iudge­ment of Gods written word, because there were most e­uident testimonyes thereof; and because the Donatists would admit no indifferent tryall by any lawfull senten­ce, but still appealed, as S. Augustine witnesseth, frō one another, from Melchiades the Pope to the assembly of Bishops: from the Bishops to the Emperour: from the Emperour to o­thers; disclayming from all by whome they were van­quished. Secondly I answere. That these and many other Fathers oftē referre themselues to the vmpiershippe of Scripture, for that it is the silent and outward law, by which the voyce of our speaking Iudge ought and al­wayes is vttered and pronounced; and for that it di­recteth vs to the Church, the true, soueraigne, and liuely Iudge of all debats.

[Page 41]21. Thus we are so farre from derogating from the prerogatiue of holy writ, as we graunt it is, A perfect light and lanterne to our feete; The entire rule and square of fayth; The supreme and absolute Iudge of Contro­uersies. Thus we graunt it is the Mine of truth, the fountain of life, the sea of wisdom, the Armary of the holy Ghost. It is the promptuary of God fully stored with all spirituall treasures: yet such as are to be dispensed by theOpta. l. 5. con. Parm. Stewards of his house. It is, as Optatus noteth, The will and Testament of Christ, yet to be interpreted by those his executours whom he appointed to expound his mind, and dispose of his legacy. It is the booke of heauen signed with seauen seales, as Origen sayth, but not to be openedOrig. hom. 12. in Exo. by any, but by the Lion of the Tribe of Iuda; or them to whō he giueth commission. It is, as another auerreth, The light of the world, not to be hidden vnder the bushell of any priuate or phantasticall braine, but to be placed on the candlesticke of Gods Church, to giue light vnto all her obedient children.Esay. 35. vers. [...].

22. After this manner the repaire to Scripture is a plaine, easy, generall, and certaine high-way, In which fooles cannot erre, or step awry; whereas the search our Sectaries applaud, is, as you see, hidden, darke, variable, vnconstant, not publike, not vniuersall. It hath byn the path of Heretiks to damnable errours. It is a field to thē ­selues of interminable strifes; and it may be to all that follow it, as well a trayne to drawe them vnto the wiles of perdition, as a line to guid them to the port of blisse, to the true knowledg of God, as shall more amply ap­peare by the Chapter ensuing.

CHAP. I.

ARIGHT wise, and laudable endea­uour it hath beene, amongst the lear­ned of all ages, rather to imprint their chiefest points of doctrin in the mindsCasar l. 6. de Bello Gallico. [...]lut. in vi­ta Numae. And in his first oratiō of the fort. or vertues of Alexan. and memories of well disposed audi­tours, then engraue them in curious tables, or blaze them with the pennes of industrious writers. So we read that our ancient Druides, renowned for learning throughout all the world, neuer cōmitted anything to the casualty of wri­ting, but entrusted all the riches of their knowledg to the treasurie of their disciples harts. Pithagoras, Socrates, and [Page 43] many other famous philosophers are deseruedly praysed, and commended for the like. What doe I speake of men? God himself long taught and instructed his seruants from Adam euen vntyll Moyses for the space of 2000. yeares without recording any one precept or instruction he gaue. And when Iesus Christ his only Sonne came into this world, he called his Apostles, planted his Church,Mar. 16. v. 15. Luc. 10. 16. Math. 18 v. 7. & Matth. 23. v. 3. see S. Aug. ep. 165. preached his heauenly doctrine, yet neuer penned, or so much as commaunded any one mystery to be written. He gaue his Apostles commisson; to preach the Ghospell to euery creature. He charged vs; to heare them as himself, to giue eare to whatsoeuer they should teach or say. But to giue credit only to what they should write, he neuer gaue charge. And therfore they preached many yeares, con­uerted thousands, and deliuered vnto them the food of life before they compiled the bookes of Scripture, as all our Aduersaries will confesse. Yet sayth D. Reynolds, after these bookes were once penned and published abroad, allReyn in his first Con­clusion p. 616. things requisite to saluation are there conteyned, which thus he laboureth to proue. The Prophets taught the old Church the way of Saluation, the Apostles with the Prophets togea­ther teach the new more plenteously & fully. The Doctrine of the Prophets & Apostles is comprized in the holy Scripture; the Scrip­ture therfore teacheth the Church whatsoeuer is behoofull to Salua­tion. Oh deceiptfull disputant, who in so weighty a matter vseth such Sophistry! How creepeth the Pronoune (whatsoeuer) into your conclusion, not auouched in the premisses? But if you will haue it vnderstood, I denie your Minor. I denie that the whole doctrine of the Pro­phets and Apostles is comprized in holy Scripture.

2. To begin with the doctrine of the Prophets; Moyses the first Scribe and chiefe Secretary of the holy Ghost was so farre from setting downe all thinges he re­ceauedOrig ho. 5. in Num. Hilar. in Ps. 2. from the mouth of God, that whereas he was taught by him the law and true sense, which is the life & soule of the law, the law he engrossed in writing, but the sense and exposition thereof (as Origen and S. Hilary [Page 44] affirme) he secretly deliuered by inuiolable tradition to his Successours, euen by the expresse will & command­ment of God, as he seemed by Esdras (whose testimonyEsd [...]. 4. c. 14. v. 5. & 6. as a most holy and learned man must needes beare sway) in these plaine tearms to declare: I haue disclosed vnto Moy­ses many meruailous things &c. And I haue charged him, saying: These words shalt thou lay open, and these shalt thou conceale. A­mong which he concealed, what meanes God proui­ded for the sauing and purging of women from originall infection, what for children before the eight day of cir­cumcision, thinges not mentioned in Scripture, as D. Field with Andradius willingly confesseth, and proueth byField. l. 4. pag. 236. Andrad. defen. l. 2. the authority of S. Gregory: That children then were saued by the faith of their parents. Yet when Andradius inferreth, that this at least could not be knowne but by Tradition, D. Field reiecteth his inference as friuolous, and sayth most fondly and contrary to himselfe: That it was knowne and concluded out of the generall and common rules of reason, and equi­ty. Field pag. 237. Most fondly. For what necessary sequele haue the incomprehensible secrets of Gods hidden election in things supernatural, with the common rules of naturall reason? Are his wayes and meanes of saluation any way tyed to the discourse of man? S. Paul who was rapt into the third heauen, amiddest all his reuelations thought them farre aboue the reach of humane wit, when he cry­ed out: O alt tudo &c. O the depth of the riches of Gods wise­dome and knowledge, how inscrutable are his iudgments, and his wayes vnsearchable! And were they made plaine before toRom. 11. v. 33. the Iewes by the common rules of reason and equity? Most contrary to himselfe; because if the soueraigne and necessary meanes of sauing the aforesaid partyes not speci­fyed in holy writ be deduced from these general groūds, some behoofull thing necessary to saluation against Bilson, against Reynoldes, against himselfe, is not conteined in Scripture.

3. To these and such like close and hidden Traditi­onsEccles. 8. v. 11. &. 12. King Salomon referred the Children of Israël, when he [Page 45] sayd: Let not passe the narration of thy elders, for they haue beene taught by their fathers, and of them thou shalt learne vnderstan­ding. Of these King Dauid spake: How many things hathPsal. 77. [...]. he commanded our Fathers to make knowne to their children? Of these the whole Scripture is so full, as M. Reynolds, and M. Bilson languishing in this Controuersy for want of proofs are faine to alleadge such texts to warrant their assertion, as their aduersaryes might produce to dis­warrantRein. Con. [...]. p. 616. Bils. 2. p. pag. 267. the same. M. Reynolds obiecteth that saying of Moyses: Giue eare, O Israël, to the ordinances which I teach. Bilson that of Deutronomy: Whatsoeuer I command, that shall yee do. Do not these places make for me? WhatRein, pag. 616. 617. I teach, what I command (sayth God) not what I write. Reynoldes vrgeth out of Ieremy: How Idolators are condem­ned for doing in their Sacrifices things which our Lord commanded Bils. 2. pa [...] pag. 206. Mala. 2. Bils. 2. par. p. 289. per­u [...]ts this place tran­slating the Priests lips should pre­serue: wheras it is expresly in H [...]brew jj [...]hmeru, in Greeke [...], in Latine custodiēt, shall preser­ue. Ioan. ep. 2. v 12. 1. Cor. cap. 11. [...]4. not. Which he commanded not, I grant, neither by word nor writing. D. Bilson alleadgeth King Dauid: How the word of God is a lanterne to our feete. Reynolds cyteth Mala­chy: Willing the people to remember the law of Moyses. The word, the law I confesse, as well recorded in harts, as printed in bookes, which Malachy himselfe witnesseth: The lipes of the Priests (not the leaues of paper only) shall keep, or preserue knowledge, and thou shalt require the law from his mouth. Could they haue chosen better weapons for my aduantage then these they bring forth in their owne defence. Perchance they reserue their forces to mantaine at least, that after the Apostles and Euangelists penned their preaching, nothing auailable to saluation is left vn­written. But their weaknes also heerein shall openly ap­peare, as soon as I haue proued that the Apostles thought it not expedient to set downe all things in writing, that they often referre vs to vnwritten Traditions, that rea­son conuinceth the necessity of them, and the Fathers mention many which we must needs imbrace.

5. S. Iohn sayth: Hauing more things to write vnto you, I would not impart them by paper and inke. S. Paul left some holy decrees and ordinances vnpenned, of which he spake to [Page 46] the Corinthians: The rest I will dispose when I come: some deep points of Christs Priesthood insinuated to the He­brewes: Of whome I haue great speach, and inexplicable to vtter. Haeb. 5. 22. Ioan. 16. v. 12. And heerein they traced the footsteps of their Lord and Maister Iesus Christ, who sayd to his Disciples: Many thinges I haue to say to you, but you cannot beare them now. Whereupon S. Gregory Nazianzen affirmeth the Diuinity of the holy Ghost to be one of the misteryes Christ reuea­ledGreg. de theol. orat. [...]. not to his Disciples at that tyme. Which moued the Eunomians to tearme him [...], The vnwritten God. Yea S. Paul himselfe referreth, exhorteth, & recommen­deth vnto vs besides his written word, many vnwritten1. ad Tim. c. vltimo 1. Cor. 11. 2. 2 Thes. c. 2. 14. B [...]sil. de Spir. San­cto. c. 29. Basil. ibid. cap. 27. verityes. To Timothy: O Timothy, keep the Depositum. To the Corinthians: I praise you brethren, that in all thinges you be mindfull of me, and as I haue deliuered vnto you keep my precepts, or Traditions according to the Greeke. To the Tessalo­nians: Hold the Traditions which you haue learned, whether it be by word or epistle. Vpon which wordes S. Basil accoun­teth it: Apostolike to perseuere firmely euen in vnwritten Tra­ditions. And a little before: Of such articles of Religion as are kept, and preached in the Church, some were taught by the writ­ten word, other some we haue receaued by the tradition of the A­postles deliuered vnto vs as it were from hand to hand in misteryes, both which be of one force to godlines: and these things no man wil deny. S. Epiphanius cyting the forenamed place of S. Epiphan. har. 61. Chrysost. in 2. ad Thess. [...]om. 4. Hieron. ad­uers. Luci­fer. Orig. in proem. l. [...]. de Prin. Aug ep. 86. ad Ca­sulan. Paul sayth: We must vse traditions, for the Scripture conteyneth not all thinges; and therefore the Apostles deliuered certaine things by writing, certaine by Tradition. S. Chrysostome vpon the same text: The Apostles did not deliuer all thinges by wri­ting, but many thinges without, and these be as worthy of credit as the other. S. Hierome: Although there were no authority o [...] proofe out of Scripture, the consent of the whole world in this be­halfe should stand in lieu of a precept. For many other thinges also which by tradition are obserued in the Church, haue gotten the force and strength of a written law. Origen: That truth is only to be belieued, which in nothing swarueth from Ecclesiasticall tradition. S. Augustine: Concerning those thinges of which the Scripture [Page 47] maketh no mention, the custome of Gods people, or the constituti­ons of our Ancestours are to be held in place of a law.

6. Some of these Fathers M. Reynoldes faythfullyReyn. con­clus. 1. p. 689. Reyn. ibid. pag. 620. cyteth; yet for that they vtterly exclude his fond and fayned glosse of the Apostles wordes aboue mentioned; he one while answereth: I tooke not vpon me to controle them, but let the Church iudge, if they considered with aduice inough &c. And some few leaues before of S. Basil and S. Epiphanins he malepartly protesteth, They were deceaued. But if they were deceaued, S. Cyprian, Tertullian, S. Chrysostome, S. Fulke a­gainst pur­gatory p. 362. 303. &c. Vvh [...]tak▪ de sacra Scriptura. p. 678. 68 [...]. 683. 685. Tertul. l. de cor mil. Chrys. ho. 1. in Acta▪ Hier▪ l. cō [...]. Lucif. c. 4. & ep. 28. ad Lic [...]. Aug. de Ge ad lit. l▪ 20. cap. 23, [...]. Cor. 3. 20 lere. 31. 33. Euseb. l. r. de dem [...]n. cap. 8. Tull. l. de l [...]g. Isocra. ep. ad Philip. Maced. Hierome, S. Augustine, S. Leo, whome M. Fulke, and Whi­taker reproue for affirming the like, were likewise decea­ued. S. Paul himselfe was deceaued, who for this cause tearmeth the Corinthians, the Epistleof Christ, written not with inke, but with the Spirit of the liuing God: not in tables of stone, but in the tables carnall of the hart. The holy Ghost also was deceaued, who prophesing of the new Testament by the mouth of Ieremy sayth: I will put my law into their bowels, and in their harts will I write it. The reasons are manifest; because our harts are farre surer Registers of Gods word, farre lesse subiect to destruction then leaues of paper. Be­cause it is not meet that the perfect documents of the new law, of the law of spirit, life, and truth should be who­ly figured in dead and senseles Characters. Because the infinite knowledge of the holy Ghost daily teaching & instructing his Church was not to be restrained to any limited volumes. Because, as new doubtes, new cloudes of diffi [...]ltyes arise amongst vs, so new beames of light, new instructions or explications are needfull to cleare those mists. Because precepts of manners (as Tully obser­ueth) are more sweetly sowed and engrafted in a Com­monwealth by obseruation and custome, then by re­straint of Iawes. Because (as Isocrates teacheth) the liue­ly voice & oracles of the mind are more forcible to per­swade, of greater account and estimation, then the re­cords of writing.

7. And therfore, as the Romans locked vp in the Ca­pitoll [Page 48] the Oracles of the Sybils, and permitted them notFenestella l. 1. cap 13. de magist. Clemens Alex. strom. 5. Dion. Bas. Eus. vs in­fra. 1. Cor. cap. 2. 6. Bils. 2. part. pag. 265. Reyn. con­clus. 1. Dyon. Ec­cles. hier. cap. 1. Basil. locis citatis. Leo. ep. 8. ad Flauia. Euseb. l. 1. de demonst. euang. c. 8. 1. Cor. 11. v. 2. 2. Thess. 2. 14. 1. Tim. vlt. v. 20. 1. Cor. 2. 6. & 1. Cor. 11. v. 34. Ad Tit. 1. v. 5. Haeb. 5. v. 11. Aug. l. [...]on [...]. epist. Fund c. 4, & 5. to the view of any, but only their Priests: as the Aegypti­ans, according to Clemens Alexandrinus report, did not pu­blish the knowledge of their diuine secretes but only to them as were to be aduanced either to Royall or Priest­ly dignity: so S. Dionyse, S. Basil, and Eusebius witnesse that the Apostles thought meete to couer some hidden misteryes of our fayth from the contempt of the vulgar, and by secret Tradition to deliuer them onely to such as were more fit and capable. Of whome S. Paul sayd: We speake wisedome among the perfect. Notwithstanding M. Bil­son cauelleth: That albeit the Church had some Rites and Cere­monyes: yet no matter of fayth (sayth he.) Nothing necessary to saluation (sayth M. Reynolds) vnwritten. Meere cauils. For S. Dionyse calleth the concealed misteryes, Chiefe and supersubstantiall. S. Basil: Principall parts of our Faith. S. Leo: Constitutions which appertaine to the pith and substance of fayth. Eusebius: All the precepts which Christ gaue as it were to the wi­ser, and most spirituall sort of men; which the testimonyes themselues seeme to pronounce. For can we thinke the Traditions which S. Paul equally ballanced with his own Epistle, the Depositum he so earnestly recommended to Timothy, the wisedome he vttered among the perfect on­ly, and among such as were fit to teach others; can we thinke the thinges he had to prescribe concerning the vse and administration of the Blessed Sacrament, the forme he appointed about the ordering of Priests, the speach tou­ching Christ so high, so inexplicable, so farre aboue the reach of the Iews, were not necessary if not for euery par­ticuler member, yet for the saluation of the body of the Church.

8. Moreouer to draw to some particuler issue. First to belieue the Scriptures themselues, the Ghospell of S. Iohn, the Epstls of S. Paul, al the books of holy Writ, is necessary to saluation, which notwithstanding we only know (as S. Augustine teacheth) by the Tradition of the Church. Secondly, to belieue & imbrace the true sense of Scrip­ture [Page 49] is necessarie to saluation, which as S. Ambrose, S. Ambser. 25. 34. Iero Epist. ad Mar. Cyp. lib. 1. Epist. 12. Ierome, & S. Cyprian accord, we are vndoubtedly taught by the Traditions of the Church. Thirdly, to beleeue the baptisme of Infants. Fourthly, the pepetuall virginity of our Blessed Lady. Fistly the procession of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Son. Sixtly, The cele­bration of the Feast of Easter vpon a Sunday. Seauenthly, the Father to be vnbegotten. Eightly, the Sonne to be consubstantiall, is necessary to saluation: and yet where do we learne them but from the Traditions of the Church? For although the substance of some of these points beRein. c. 2. diuis. 2. p. 51. 52. darkly insinuated in Holy Writ: (as M. Reynolds answe­reth to the latter instances, and others reply to the for­mer) yet the precise termes, and cleare explication, theAug. Ep. 174 [...]n. Max. Ari▪ subuersion of errour, and light of our profession, we read not expressed (as S. Augustine argueth) in the diuine Scriptures.

9. Lastly to be able to conuince heretikes, is neces­sary to the saluation of the Church: yet Tertullian and Vin­centius Field l. ci­tato. Euseb. l. 5. histor: Lirinensis (with whom D. Field also closeth herein) shew that they cannot be refuted but by Tradition. By which the same Tertullian repressed the Marcionists, Irenaeus the Valentinians, S. Cyprian the Nouatians, Epiphanius the Apostolikes, S. Hierome the Heluidians, S. Augustine the Do­natists, and S. Athanasius which other Doctours of hisEpiphani haer. [...]1. Beza con. Trinitar. Vvhitgift cont. Cart. Barlow in the confe­rence p. 10 13. p. 68. Beza epist. Theol 8 [...]. p. 334. & 335. tyme the Arians. Yea the Sectaries themselues at this day to refell their Aduersaries, runne to the supply of vn­written Traditions. Beza against the Trinitaries, Whit­gift against Cartwight, our Protestant ministers in the con­ference before the Kings Maiesty against the Puritans, where by Tradition they proue Confirmation, Absolution, the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme, and the like. Beza ad­deth, that without the tearmes of Essence, Person, Nature, Property &c. borrowed from men, the blasphemous Arian, Nestorian, and Eutichian heresies cannot sufficiently be reproued. In fine, all you who professe the exact follo­wing of the written word, against the same written [Page 50] word imbrace the Tradition and practise of the Church. The word of God commaundeth vs to abstaine from bloud and strangled meates, which all Christians ob­serued fot some hundred yeares togeather; you contrary to the word of God, contrary to the primitiue ChurchAct. 15. v. 20. Exod. 31. v. 17. Iere. 17. v. 24. Field l. 4. cap. 20. presume to feed on these forbidden meates, only warran­ted by our Tradition. The word of God commaundeth Saturday to be the Saboath-day of our Lord, and to be kept holy, as an euerlasting couenant; you without any pre­cept of Scripture (to vse D. Fields owne words) chaunge it into Sunday, only authorized by our Tradition.

10. Diuers English Puritans oppose against this point, that the obseruation of Sunday is proued out of Scripture.Act. [...]0. vers. 7. Out of the acts of the Apostles, where it is said, In the first of the Saboath, when we were assembled to breake bread: out of the first to the Corinthians, In the Saboath let euery one of you put apart with himselfe: out the Apocalips, I was in spirit [...]. Cor. 16. v. 2. in the Dominicall day. Haue they not spon a faire thrid in quoting these places? If we should produce no better for Purgatory, prayer for the dead, inuocation of Saints, & the like, they might haue good cause indeed to laughApoc. cap. [...]. v. 10. vs to scorne: for where is it written that these were festiuall dayes, in which those meetings were kept? Or where is it ordayned they should be alwayes hereafter obserued? Or which is the summe of all, where is it de­creed that the obseruation of our Lords day, or of the first of the Saboath should abrogate & abolish the sancti­fying of the Saboath which God cōmanded, euerlasting­ly to be kept? Not one of these is expressed in the writ­ten word. Notwithstanding such stuffe as this, others bring to proue the Baptisme of infants also out of Scrip­ture, to wit: Circumcision was ministred to infants, but Bap­tisme succedeth in the place of Circumcision, therefore Baptisme ought to be ministred vnto them. Sure a subtile kind of reaso­ning,Calu. l. 4. instis. c. 16. §. 16. & §. 6. & 7. by which it followeth that women ought not to be baptized, nor children, neyther before nor after the eight day. But women (sayth) Caluin are of the sanctified seed [Page 51] of Israel, they are comprehended in the couenant made to Abraham. They are so: And are now in the new law conteyned therein, as much as they were in the old. How chaun­ceth it then they may not in these dayes be made heires of Gods promise without the Sacrament of Baptisme, as well as in those without the seale of Circumcision; if you haue no better auctority for baptizing female infants then the abrogated precept of Circumcision, which neuer could oblige their sexe at all?

11. M. Field wisely cōsidering the force of these replyes,Field l. 4. cap. 20. & weake oppositions of his fellow-Ghospellers, leauing them, cōplyeth with vs so far in this point, as if the dregs of their foule ingredients had not filled his Pen, he might haue beene graced with the name of a Catholike writer: We admit (sayth he) first the bookes of Scripture Canonicall as de­liuered by Tradition: secondly, the chiefe heads of Christian do­ctrine contained in the Creed: thirdly, the forme of Christian do­strine, and distinct explication of many thinges somewhat obscurely contained in Scripture &c. fourthly, the continued practise of such thinges as are not expressed in Scripture: fifthly, such obseruations as are not particulerly commanded in Scripture. Among these and the former he reckoneth the fast of Lent, the Baptisme of Infants, and Obseruation of our Lords day: he addeth also some few leaues after: That many other thinges there are, which the Apostles doubtles deliuered by Tradition. Such is the force of truth, as is often breaketh forth out of the mouths of her enemyes.

12. Well then, if the sense and explication of many obscure places of Scripture, if these chiefe heads and ar­ticles of our beliefe, if diuers practices, obseruations and sundry other things not decreed in Scripture are to be lear­ned by Tradition, euen by the testimony of so great a maister in Israel, why blame you vs for approuing what your selues allow? Why appeale you to Scripture alone, and yet subscribe to such and so many points of fayth not comprised in Scripture? Or if these Traditions be neces­sary to be imbraced, what meane you (M. Field) to re­nounce [Page 52] others as ancient, as behoofull, as warrantable as these, euen by the rules your selfe prescribe, which are:Field l. 4. cap. 19. pa. 242, Iran. lib. 4. c. 32. [...]ulke in his confut. of Purgat. p. 362. 303. 393. August. tract. 84. in Ioan. Chrys▪ bo. 21. in act. Concil. Nicen. 2. Damas. lib. 4. c. 17. Hiero. con. Vigil. c. 2. Middl [...]ton Papis. pag. [...]34. Bils. part. 2. pag 265. Rom. 10. 17. Basil. de spir. Sanct. c. 27. Chris▪ ho. 4. in [...]. Thes. 5. Aug. Ep. 119 & 86. Field l. 4. cap. 20. Rein. con­clus. 1. pag. [...]17. The authority and custome of the Church, Consent of Fathers, or testimony of an Apostolicall Church? By these Irenaeus alloweth the new oblation of Christs body and bloud as a Traditi­on from the Apostles. Why reiect you this? Tertullian, S. Cyprian, S. Chrysostome, S. Hierome, S. Augustine approue (as M. Fulke your great Golias granteth) the Sacrifice and prayer for the dead, as an Apostolicall traditiō. Why dis­proue it you? S. Augustiue, S. Chrysostome admit a memory or Inuocation of Saints in the selfe same sacrifice. Three hundred Fathers of the second Councell of Nice defend with S. Iohn Damascen the adoration of Images, as a Tra­dition from the Apostles. S. Hierome, by the custome of the Church, and consent of Fathers (D. Fields rules for true Traditions) mantaineth against Vigilantius the reli­gious worship of holy Reliques. By the same Tradition of the Church, and consent of the Fathers, M. Middleton auerreth vowes of Chastity to be obserued. What meane you to make no reckoning of these? Are you only priuile­dged to admit or discard what Traditions you please? to countenance or deface whatsoeuer you list? But an ill cause without cosenage cannot be vpholden. I acknow­ledge the shifts of pouerty and falshood.

13. Against these vnanswerable grounds M. Bilson opposeth in this weake and impertinent manner: Fayth is by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, therefore S. Paul alloweth not matters of faith vnwritten▪ How often shall I re­peate & inculcate a truth, that the word of God is partly written, partly vnwritten, and this (as S. Basil, S. Chry­sostome, S. Augustine affirme is as worthy to be credited as the other. Which speach albeit M. Whitaker noteth in S Chry­sostome, as inconsiderate, and vnworthy so great a Father: yet M. Field approueth it, and reason perswadeth it, vnles you belieue that letters figured with inke and paper add awe of reuerence to Gods hidden verityes. M. Reynolds obie­cteth out of S. Iohn: These thinges are written, that yee may [Page 53] belieue that Iesus is Christ the Sonne of God, and that belieuing, you may haue life in his name. Heereupon M. Reynolds infer­reth,Ioan. 20. v. vlt. that S. Iohns Ghospell alone is sufficient to faith, and sal­uation. What may not be proued where such illations go currant? S. Iohn speaketh of signes and miracles; M. Rey­noldes extendeth himselfe to many other matters. S. Iohn writeth there of one principall point of fayth; he conclu­deth all necessary to saluation. S. Iohn disputing against Cerinthus, who denyed the diuinity of Christ, affirmeth that he hath written sufficient to proue that Christ is the sonne of God; M. Reynoldes arguing against vs, forceth him to say, that he hath written inough concerning that, and all other necessary articles of our beliefe. Againe, if S. Iohns Ghospell alone haue sufficient to saluation, need­lesse are the rest of the Euangelists, the Epistles of S. Paul, of S. Peter, of S. Iude, the Reuelations of S. Iohn wholy need­lesse. If S. Iohns Ghospell alone haue sufficient, the Nati­uity and birth of Christ, his Circumcision, Apparition, the Institution of our Lords supper, and many other thinges of which S. Iohn writeth nothing, are not necessary to sal­uation. Which to confesse is vtterly to subuert all Christi­an Religion; to deny is plainely to ouerthwart M. Reynoldes assertion.Rein. con [...] 1. p. 618 [...] 619. 2. Cor. 3. 16.

14. Secondly, he alleadgeth out of S. Paul: That all Scripture inspired by God is profitable to teach, argue &c. That the man of God may be perfect, instructed to euery good worke. Our Aduersaryes boast much of the pregnancy of this place, and yet if it made any thing in their behalfe, it would conuince that all and euery Scripture, euery Epistle, eue­ry Chapter, euery sentence, which is some Scripture, wereThe Greek hath [...], the Latin Omnis, Al or euery. auailable to these foresayd effects. Which they perceauing resolue rather to abuse the word of God, then loose the force of their argument, when insteed of all, or euery Scrip­ture, they most fraudulently translate the whole Scripture, contrary both to the Greeke and Latin text. But no de­ceite will serue to betray the truth. The whole Scripture was not finished when S. Paul wrote that Epistle, the [Page 54] Ghospell of S. Iohn, which by it selfe alone (as M. Reynolds a­uerreth) [...] sufficient to saluation; the Apocalips, and other bookes of Scripture were wanting at that tyme; he couldRein. loc. citat. not then speake of the whole Scripture before the whole was extant; or if he meant of the whole that was writ­ten, it maketh nothing against vs. For S. Paul speaketh of the profitablenes of Scripture to instruct, argue &c. and not of1. Tim. 4. v. 8. the sufficiency thereof. Many thinges are profitable to promote vs to perfection, which are not sufficient to atchieue the same. Piety (as S. Paul writeth) is profitable to all thinges; yet not alone sufficient, nor only profitable. You cannot deny, but that rayne is profitable for the fruits of the earth; yet without the labour of men, fertili­ty of soile, heate of the sunne, not sufficient to make them increase. So as when M. Reynolds disgraceth this as a min­cing distinction, he discrediteth not vs, but S. Paul for min­cing in this manner.

15. Fourthly others obiect: That Christ reprehendeth the Traditions of men, S. Paul condemneth them, and S. Peter exempteth all Christians from them. They mistake. ChristMat. 15. v. 9. Colos. 2. v. 22. only reprehendeth the fond and friuolous Pharisaicall tra­ditions or deprauations of the law called Deuteroses. Of which also S. Peter speaketh, or of the superstitious er­rours of the Gentils, from which we are redeemed by the bloud of Christ. S. Paul forewarneth vs of the vaine So­phismes1. Pet. 1. [...]. 18. and fallacyes of the Philosophers, which impaireth not the authority of our soueraigne and holy Traditions deriued from the Apostles and their successours inspired by the holy Ghost.

16. Yet M. Field will needs endite vs of two hainous faults. 1. That we charge the Scriptures with imperfection. 2.Field. l. 4. c. 15. That therfore we rely vpon humane interpretations, and vncertaine Traditions. Both false depositions, both wrongfully im­posed crimes. A wrongfull crime it is that we traduce the Scriptures as vnperfect. We graunt with Vincentius Lyri­nensis Vincen. Ly [...]nen. cap. 2. that the Canon of Scripture is perfect, a perfect light and lanterne to our feet, a perfect rule and direction of [Page 55] sayth, if (as he noteth) the line of Propheticall and Apostolical interpretation be leuelled according to the square of the Ecclesiastical and Catholike sense. As great a wrong that we cleaue to hu­mane and vncertaine Traditions. We anker on such as are diuine, certaine, and infallible, authentically warran­ted (by the rules himselfe approueth) to descend from Christ, or the Church his holy and vndoubted Spouse.

17. A like wrongfull crime M. Sparkes fastneth v­ponSparks. p. 82. & 83. vs, when he sayth: That we preferre the authority of the Church, the wife before Christ the husband: that we make the written word of God inferiour in authority to the Church, and to haue his Canonicall credit from thence. Sure you are (as Salo­mon censureth) a guilfull witnesse, who furnish your causeProuerb. cap. 14. Testis fide­lis non mentitur. Profert mendaci [...] dolosus testis. Io. 4, 3. Reg. 3. with such shamefull lyes. When many belieued in Christ induced by the speach of the Samaritan woman, was her authority prefe [...]ed before Christ? When King Salomon decreed the infant for which the two harlots contended, to belong to her, whose bowells were moued at the sen­tence of his death, did he make her therby the mother of the child, or declare her to be the mother who was the mother indeed? So when we imbrace Gods written word by the externall approbation and testimony of the Church answerable to that of S. Augustine: Ego Euange­lio non crederem &c. I would not belieue the Ghospell, vnles the authority of the Church moued me thereunto: we extoll not theAug con: ep. Fund. cap. 5. voice of the Spouse, before the voyce of Christ. Nor the Church when it defyneth any booke to be Canonicall Scrip­ture, doth giue it thereby diuine and Canonicall credit,Bils. part. 4. pag [...]81. Rem cont. 1. pag. 619 & 6 [...]9. Field l. 4, Stapleton cont. 5. de po [...]. Eccles. quaest. [...]. but commaundeth that to be receaued by others as Ca­nonicall, which hath in itselfe Canonicall authority.

18. Lastly our Aduersaryes arme themselues with the weapons of the Fathers, and M. Bilson marshalleth six togeather in a rancke, S. Athanasius, S. Chrysostome, S. Cyrill, S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, and Vincentius, who con­formably mantaine the sufficiency of Scripture in all ne­cessary points of fayth. Many other to the like purpose are alleadged by M. Reynolds and M. Field, To all which [Page 47] I answere: First, that the Scripture is taught to containe all things necessary to saluation, as the vniuersal ground,Cyril. l. 12. c. vltimo. Chrys. ho. 3. in 2. Thes 2. Vincent. aduersus prophan. hae. nouit. c. 2. Bafil. ep. 80 Cyril. de rect. fide ad Regi. Hieron. in Psal. 86. Aug. l 3. con. lit. Pe­til. Tert. lib. cont. haer. Athan. l. cont. Gent. Aug. l. 2. cap. 9. Rein in his conf. c. 2. diuis. 2. Aug. l. 10. de Gen. ad lit. c. 23. Bils. 4. par, p. 582. & 583. Field. in appen. 2. p. §. 8. Aug. l. 4. c. 24. Dio. l. E [...]c. bier. c. vlt. Orig. in 12. Leuit. bom 8. & in cap. 6. epist. ad Rom. seed, or roote from which whatsoeuer we belieue may either mediately or immediatly be gatheted, as S. Cyril and S. Chrysostome auouch. Secondly, as it teacheth and directeth vs to the authority of the Church, and doctrine of her Pastours, by which euery point is, of may be par­ticulerly and clearely explained: Thus Vincentius and o­thers are to be interpreted. Thirdly, it is affirmed to con­taine all thinges, and that nothing besides the Scripture is to be admitted, to wit, no priuate customes, or parti­culer Traditions not agreeable, or repugnant to the wri­ten word, as S. Basil, S. Cyrill, S. Hierome, S. Augustines meaning is in his booke against Petilian. Fourthly, the Fathers often acknowledge the sufficiency of Scripture to conclude, euen in plaine and expresse wordes, cer­taine maine principles of our fayth; as that God created all thinges of nothing, of which Tertullian against Hermo­genes; That Christ is the true God; That Idolls are not God, of which Athanasius writeth. Or they teach, it clea­rely comprehends the chiefe articles of our Creed, and ten Commandments, of which S. Augustine only spea­keth in his booke of Christian doctrine, so often quoted by M. Reynolds.

19. Besides which, many other things are necessary to be imbraced, as by Fathers, Reason, and Scripture I haue already conuinced; and therfore will close vp my whole discourse with one or two sentences of S. Augu­stine and Origen. S. Augustine sayth: The custome of the Church in baptizing Infants is not at all to be belieued, vnles it were an Apostolicall Tradition. M. Bilson, and M. Field, haue no other shift to trauerse the euidence of this place, then by accusing it of some secret corruption. But what, was he corrupted also in his booke of Baptisme against the Donatists, where he repeateth it againe? Was Dionysius, was Origen corrupted too, who sayth: The Church receaued [Page 57] a Tradition from the Apostles to minister Baptisme also to Infants? Was this other passage of S. Augustine corrupted likewise,Aug. de. Bap. con Donat. l. 5 [...] c. 23. It is an article of faith to belieue this Baptisme to be va­lide. Orig. in c. 3. ad Tit. teste Pam­philo in Apol. pr [...] Orig. of the validity of Baptisme ministred by Heretikes? The A­postles commanded nothing hereof, yet the custome, which was op­posed herein against Cyprian is to bebelieued to proceed from their Tradition, euen as many things be which the whole Church holdeth, and are therfore well belieued to be commanded of the Apostles, al­though they be not written. I may then conclude with Origen: He is an Heretike, who professeth himself to beleiue in Christ; yet belieueth otherwise of the truth of Christian fayth, then the defini­tion of Ecclesiastic all Tradition containeth.

20. Notwithstanding to reproue our Aduersaries, and satisfy all indifferent Readers, that we fly not to the succour of Traditions, for want of proofes out of holy writ; I will vphold the right of our cause, in euery ensu­ing Controuersy, as I promised in my Preface, by the irreprouable testimonies of Gods written word.

CHAP. I.

AS the vnspeakable riches of Gods in­finite loue in no mystery of our fayth appeareth more bount [...]full, then in the true and reall Fresence of Christs sacred Body conteyned in the holy Eucharist: so the vnsatiable malice of our deadly enemy no where more hatefully bewrayeth it selfe, then in seeking to abolish this most blessed, dreadfull, and admirable Sacrament. For besids the Armenians, Messalians, Grecians, and Aquari­ans, Althons. de Cast. l. 9. adu. haer. v Eucharist. Aug. de haer. Epiph haer. 26. whose errours Alphonsus de Castro diligently reciteth, and as learnedly disproueth; some he suggested to pro­phane and defile it with most vile and execrable ceremo­nies, as the Manichies, the Pepuzians, the Guostickes, of whom S. Augustine and Epiphanius. Others to mingle it with the terren & earthly substance of bread & wine, as Berengarius, [Page 59] who hauing recanted and abiured his former heresy a­gainstBils in his. booke of Christian Subiectiō 4. par. p. 720 727 728. Sparkes in his answere to M. Ioan. Albines p. 114 115. 116. Aelius Lāpridiu [...] de Anton. Helioga­balo. Matt. 26▪ Melancth. in l. de ver. Corp. Chri­sti in Sacra. Reyn. in his conferenco with M. Hart. c. 2. diuis. 2. p. 82. Cyr. l. [...]. in Ioan. [...]. 4. Beza in c. 17. Matt. in [...]iew of those words, hic est filiu [...] meus dile­ctus, tran­sla [...]th out of the [...]reek, hic est silius ille meus dile­ctus ille. the Reall presence, presently brake forth into this wicked Blasphemy, imbraced fince by Luther and his fol­lowers. Some others he excited to robbe and despoile it of all true vertue, fruit and dignity, as Wiclesse, Caluin, Beza, with their suruiuing of-spring, D. Bilson. D. Sparkes and such like, who only furnish this heauenly table with voyd and empty dishes of fayth, conteining neyther the body, nor bloud of our Sauiour Christ. But as Heliogaba­lus the Emperour, inuiting the Roman Princes to a feast, set painted and artificiall dainties before them, which could neyther delight their tast, nor satisfy their hungry appetites: so our Aduersaries in this diuine banquet, pre­pared by the hand of our B. Redecmer, deuise figured and Metaphoricall meates vnworthy the maister therof, vn­worthy the Maiesty of God, not answerable to his loue, not agreable to the necessities of his inuited guests.

2. Yea most dissonant to the words himselfe vsed at the institution of the same, where he tooke bread, as S. Matthew recordeth, blessed, brake, gaue to his Disciples, & said: This is my Body. Which wordes seemed so forcible to Luther, and his adherents, as Melancthon one of his chiefest Scholers saith: fulmina erunt, they will be like thunderbolts against him that shall deny the receiued opi­nion of Christs true body in the Sacrament. And not with­out cause. For if we examine them euen by the rules our Aduersaries themselues prescribe in the interpreting of Scripture, to wit: By conference of places, connexion of texts, agreement of Translations, they all notwithstanding open and vnfold the approued sense of the Catholike Church.

3. To begin with the translations, the Greeke hath [...], where the article [...] (this) restraineth the nowne [...] (body) to his determinate and proper signification, as S Cyril in the like case learnedly noteth of the article [...], and Beza putteth great Emphasy in the same article in diuers places. The Syriake or vulgar Hebrew of S. Mathew, [Page 60] in which he first wrote, readeth: This is the sub­stance S. Mark. hath this particle (re­uerà) in the Syriach tongue. 1. Cor. 11. Mat. 16. Mar. 1 Luc. 2 [...]. 4. Bils. 4. par: p. 754. &. 755. of my body. The Syriake of S. Marke: This truly is my body. The connexion of the text recorded by S. Paul and the three Euangelists conuinceth it more plainly, he spea­king of the body: This is my body which shalbe delinered for you. Where I demand how, in what sense that Nowne (Body) is taken; whether properly for Christs true body, or im­properly for the signe of his body? Properly you will not say, lest you accord with vs; improperly you can­not say without hainous blasphemy. For when S. Paul sayd: This is my body, to expresse what body, he addeth, which shalbe deliuered for you.

4. Therefore if a signe only called by the name of the thing signed (as M. Bilson fayneth) was then giuen; a signe only bearing the name of the thing (as the Manichees dreamed) was after deliuered and crucifyed for vs, seeing the same body was ministred to the Apostles at the sup­per, which was afterward hanged, and dyed on theAug. in exposit. Ps. 33. Read him also in Psal. 65. & 93. con. Faust. l. 12. c. 10. l. 3. de trin. c. 10. l. 6. con­fess. cap. 1 [...]. Chrys. h [...]m. 24. in. 1 Cor c. 10. Dam. l 4. de fi. ort. c. 14. Crosse, as the Euangelists likewise testify, writing of the bloud: This is my bloud of the new Testament, which shall be shed for many, into remission of sinnes. For which cause S. Augustine greatly commended the goodnesse of God, in that he giueth vs the same body to eate: In quo tam mu [...] a perpessus est; In which he endured and suffered so much: And his bloud to drinke, which he affirmeth to be: The same li­quor which flowed from his pierced side. In another place he tea­cheth the same victim, or boly sacr fice to be dispensed from the Al­tar, whereby the hand-writing is defaced which was contrary vnto vs. S. Iohn Chrysostome auerreth that to be in the Chalice: Quod exlatere fluxit, which issued from his side. And the same body to be in the Eucharist, which was whipped, imbrued with bloud, wounded with a speare, and which the Sunne seeing cruci­fyed, withdrew his beames. S. Iohn Damascen writeth, that Christ sayd not: This bread is a figure of my body; but, This is Epiph. in Nic. Synodo. 2. act 6. my body &c. Epiphanius, Theophilact, and Euthymius haue al­most the same words, who because they vtterly reiect all figuratiue glozes, M. Bilson so farre enrageth against them [Page 61] as he sayth: Damascen minceth and strayneth the wordes of Christ: Epiphanius (that famous Proloquutour in the second Councell of Nice) was a pratling Deacon, of more tongue then Theop. & Euthym. in Matt. 26. Bils. 4. par. pag. 752. & 753. Conc. Nic. 2. act. 6. wit, more face then learning. Theophilact and Enthymius he dis­cardeth as yonger Writers. To omit therefore these learned men, and to insist vpon the ceremonyes Christ obserued at his last supper: The blessing of bread, the circumstan­ces of tyme and place, the matter of which he spake, the persons to whome, all thinges concurre to strengthen & confirme this infallible truth of his Reall Presence.

5. First, our heauenly Bishop neuer blessed any earthly element in which he wrought not some admira­ble effect; as his blessing of fiue loaues and two fishes in the 8. of S. Marke make manifest proofe. And yet this a­ction is heere performed in such speciall manner, as the Sacrament often from it borroweth his name. So it isCyr. l. 4. in Ioan. c. 16. & 19. Ambr. de [...]js quiini­tiantur ca 9. Greg. orat: cate. Bils. 4. par. p. 660. 661. 662. & 663 1. Cor. 10. Cyp. de coena dom. tearmed by S. Cyrill: The blessing of the mistery, the blessing of Christ, or the mysticall blessing. By S. Ambrose: The blessing of the heauenly wordes. And the same S. Ambrose, with S. Gregory Nissen, by vertue of this blessing, affirme: The sul­stance of bread and wine to be turned into the body and bloud of Christ. But what strang effect doe our Protestants heere assigne? Euen none at all. For M. Bilson will haue bles­sing to be nothing els but earnest prayer to God, and no action at all immediatly applyed to worke any effect in the element of bread. And so maketh the Euangelists vain­ly to cōfound thankesgiuing to God, with blessing of his creatures; checketh S. Paul, who appropriateth the bles­sing directly to the Chalice it selfe; controlleth S. Cypriā calling it, The cup consecrated with solemne blessing.

6. If we vrge some other circumstances; the place was miraculously chosen to be betoken a rarer miracle to ensue; The time was that very night, in which he was be­traied,Marc. [...]4. Luc. 22. a tyme when the Law of figures was to be aboli­shed & law of truth begā; The persons to whom he spak were the twelue Apostles, the chiefest Prelates and Go­uernours of his Church; the matter of which he treated, [Page 62] was concerning a law, which then he enacted, as appea­reth by those wordes of commaund, Take, eate, Do this. It was touching his last Will▪ and Testament, which then he made, as himselfe auoucheth: This is my bloud of Matth. 2 [...]. the new Testament. It was belonging to the perpetuall memory, and euerlasting inheritance he then bequeathed to the whole Church his beloued Spouse. Excuse vs then (O Lord) excuse and free vs from the calumniations of our Aduersaryes, if we attribute so much wisedom vn­to thee, as to thinke that in such a place, at such a tyme, to such persons, concerning such weighty affaires, thou wouldest not disclose thy mind in any secret, hidden, or ambiguous tearmes.

7. We see all Law-makers most carefull in penning the Statutes, Canons and Decrees of their lawes, which must be obserued by their subiects, according to the na­tiue sound and construction of the wordes. We find all Testatours exact and diligent in setting downe their last Wils and Testaments, least any cauils arise after their de­cease. And shall we not graunt this care and prouidence to our Sauiour Christ? Shall we either thinke he wanted wordes to expresse, or diligence to record, or power to performe his will in this behalfe? When an earthly Te­statourInleg. Non afiter ff. de­lega. 3. for examples sake bestoweth a Pretious stone v­pon any one of his friends, which he determinately na­meth, the Executors, whome the law commandeth not to depart from the proper signification of the words, cannot satisfy him with a painted pearle: and when our heauenly Testatour namely leaueth and bequeatheth vn­to vs the diuine legacy, the inestimable Iewel of his own sacred body, may we be contented with the signe, sha­dow, and seale thereof? May we thinke he meant a figu­ratiue body? By conference of places we shal discouer no doubt the drift of his meaning.

8. Before Christ instituted this Sacrament, he pro­mised it, Iohn 6. The bread which I will giue, is my flesh, which I will giue for the life of the World, according to the Greeke. [...]. [...]. [Page 63] Now what construction can our Aduersaryes heer make of these wordes, without appeaching our Sauiour Christ of manifest falshood. For he auoucheth that the bread which he will giue, is his flesh, vsing the word (est) (is) in the present tense, and yet it was not then a signe of his flesh, neither could it take the name of the thing signed, which is M. Bilsons common answere. For the Sacrament wasBils. 4. [...]ar pag. 754. &c. not then instituted, but only promised, as the word (dabo) I will giue, doth demonstrate. Most falsly then had Christ sayd: The bread which I will giue is my flesh: to wit, is a signe or seale of my flesh, seeing then it was neither signe; seale, or token, except you will haue it a signe before it was made a signe, before the Sacrament was instituted, orBils. 4 par pag. 753. Consecration vsed, which is impossible, as M. Bilson him­selfe will instruct you.

9. Againe, our Sauiour inculcateth the same with an oath, or solemne asseueration, saying: Amen, Amen, I say Ioan. 6. vnto you, except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, you shall haue no life in you. And then, that no doubt, as S. Hilary teacheth, might be made of the truthHilar. l. 8. de Trinit. This word (verè) may be transla­ted (truly) or indeed. Chrys. hom. 46 in Ioā. & hom. 60 ad popu & 83 in Mat. Cyr. Alex. l. 10. in Io. c. [...]. & l. 1 [...]. c. 26. 27. item l. 4. c. 17. of his flesh and bloud, he addeth: My flesh is meate indeed, and my bloud is drinke iadeed. Hearken M. Bilson, hearken M. Sparkes, harken all yee Sacramentaryes: my flesh is not figuratiuely nor metaphorically, but truely meate, and my bloud truely drinke. Where S. Chrysostome sayth: That Christ vseth these wordes, that he might not be thought to speake parabo­lically. And in another place: By eating his flesh he reduceth vs (as he writeth) into one, and the selfe same masse with him. Ne (que) id fide tantùm, sed reipsa nos corpus suum efficit: And that not only by fayth, but he maketh vs his body indeed. S. Cyril of Alexandria: Christ dwelleth corporally in vs: And a little after: He is in vs, non habitudine tantùm, verùm e­tiam participatione naturali: Not by relation only, but by na­turall participation also. And in other places he affirmeth him to be naturally, substantially, carnally (or according to the flesh) vnited vnto vs.

10. As the promise was agreable to the performāce, [Page 64] the performance answerable to the promise: so the pra­ctise [...]. Cor. cap 10. v. 1 [...]. Iren. l. 5. cont. haer. c. 2. Note his wordes. of the Apostles mentioned by S. Paul is correspon­dent to both: The chalice of benediction which we blesse, is it not the Communion of the bloud of Christ? And the bread which we breake, is it not the participation of the body of our Lord? Wher­upon S. Irenaeus inferreth: That our bodyes are capable of in­corruption by partaking of the body & bloud of Christ, not according to the spirituall and inuisible man, but according to the true man, who consisted of flesh, bones, and sinewes. Againe S. Paul sayth: [...]. Cor. 11. v. [...]9. Whosoeuer shall eate this bread, and drinke the Chalice of our Lord vnworthily, shall be guilty of the body and bloud of our Lord. But how can we incurre this heinous guilt, but only as Theodoret affirmeth: By taking Christs holy body with vnclean Theod. v­pon this place. Cypr. serm. de laps. Chrys ho. de non con­t [...]m. Eccle. hands, and by putting it into a defiled and vnchast mouth. By of­fering violence (as S. Cyprian teacheth) to his body and bloud. Yea, and villany (as S. Chrysostome sayth) to Christs owne Person. Which cannot be verifyed by our Aduersaryes a­ny more in this Sacrament then in Baptisme, in which our Sauiour in their opinion is as much present as heer. Let vs now conferre Moyses with Christ, the Prophets with the Apostles, the shaddows with the truth, and see whether any place, sentence, or sillable of holy Writ dis­aduantage our cause. The bread and wine of Melchisedech Gen. 14. v. 18. Exod. 12. & 16. Deuter. 8. the Pascall Lambe, the Manna, which God rayned from heauen, were figures of this Sacrament, as the ancient Fathers witnesse. But what? Were they figures of any o­ther figure? Were they shaddowes of a shaddow only? Againe, figures are as far inferiour to the thing figured, as the Image or picture of the King to the King himselfe. For which cause our Sauiour preferreth the Eucharist many degrees before Manna, in the sixt of S. Iohn. And yet such as make it a signe or resemblance do not preferre it, but much debase it beneath the excellent food of Man­na, whereby the Iewes fed vpon Christ by fayth, farre more daintily then the Protestants by their bare Com­munion, of which the Prophesyes also make tooto ho­norable mention to accord with them.

[Page 65]11. The Prophet Esay speaking in commendation ofEsa. 25. v. 6. this feast, calleth it A banquet of fat things, of fat things full of marrow, of purified and refined wines. Zachary tearmeth it: The wheat of Gods elect: the wine which springeth Virgins: Ma­lachy: A cleane oblation. Iacob: The delight of King. S Iohn:Zach. 9. v. 17. Mala. 1. v. 11. Gen. 49. v. 20. Apoc. 2. v. 17. Psal. 77. 110. & 71. Hidden Manna. Holy Dauid: the bread of Angels, the memory of Gods meruailous workes, the stability or strength in earth vpon tops of Mountaines? Now vpon what table did these blessed Prophets looke when they so highly praised this Celestial feast? Did they commend the poore and beggarly supper of the Caluinists? their Wheaten bread which hath no pre­rogatiue aboue the Iewish naked Elements? their wine of grapes, which may be fitlier tearmed wine in which lechery raigneth (to vse Saint Pauls phrase) then wine which springeth Virgins? No, no. They looked vponad Eph. 5. 18. this diuine and heauenly table of ours. This, this is that magnificall banquet, that memorable Wheat, those re­fined wines, that cleane Oblation, that bread of Angels, those delights of Kings, which worthily deserue suchOur Reall Presence is mani­festly ga­thered out of the Acts of the 1. Ni­cen, out of the gene­ral Coun­cell of E­phesus, vo constat ex ep. Cyr. ad Nestorium. out of the Councell of Chalce­don, art. 3. admirable titles.

12. I will not here speake of innumerable myracles, of generall Councels, of authenticall Histories, of the Sibillian Oracles, truely recorded in confirmation of this truth. I only adde that the whole Lutheran sect, vntil this day, the whole Church of England, in the time of King Henry, euen after his reuolt, in publicke Parlament de­cred the Reall Presence of Christs body in the Sacrament. And now of late, after the repealing of that, and certai­ne other Articles, after the vtter abolishment, and ma­nifold condemnation, for many yeares, of the former doctrine, it is, with great applause, reuiued againe by the Bishop of Ely; who writing of the Reall Presence in the holy Eucharist, against Cardinall Bellarmine, saith: We agree with you concerning the obiect, all the strife is about the manner. And then, We beleeue the Presence, we beleeue, I say, the true Presence aswell as you: concerning the manner of the Pre­sence we do not vnaduisedly define. Which priuate assertion of [Page 66] his Casaubon alloweth, in his Maiesties name, & cōfident­lyCasaubō in the answer to the Card. Pe­ron, to the first in­stance, fol. 31. in Eng­lish▪ Moys. Ha. com. in Ps. 36. Symeon l. qui in­scribitur Reuelatio s [...]cretor. Caha. in Gen. c. 49. graceth with this publik approbation: This is the fayth of the King, this is the faith of the church of Englād: which being so I might surcease my paines, and spare the search of further proofes, in a matter already confessed by the aduerse part.

13. But I adde, that the ancient Iewish Rabbins ratifie and confirme the same; as Rabby Moyses Hadarsan, Rabby Simeon, Rabby Cahana, whose words (to let passe many others) are these: In the Sacrifice which shall be made of bread notwithstanding it be white as milke, the substance shall be turned into the substance of the body of the Messias: And there shalbe in the sacrifice it self the substāce of the bloud of the Messias, red as wine: There shalbe also in the sacrifice, the bloud & flesh of the Mes­sias, & both shalbe in the bread, because the body of the Messias can­not be diuided. And then he assigneth another reason: Be­cause the flesh without the bloud, and so againe, the bloud without the flesh, are dead things. But the Body of the Messias, after his Resurrection, because it shall be glorified, shall alwaies liue.

14. Doctor Sparkes, and sundry others of the lear­ned Protestants, vanquished with these euident, and irre­prouableSparks in his answer to M. Iohn Albines. pa. 108. 10 [...]. 110. &c. testimonies, confesse the Reall presence of Christs body in the Eucharist, but to the faith (forsooth) of the right Receiuer, not to the mouth of euery Communicant. D. Sparkes further boasteth: That he learned of Christ, of his A­postles, of all the ancient writers of credit and account in the Chur­ch, for 700. or 800. yeares togeather, to denie our Reall Presence to the mouth of all Receiuers. I wonder he blushed not to publish so vaine a bragge; when Christ, when the Apostles, when all the famous writers (as I haue already conuin­ced) most manifestly teach the contrary: when S. Cypriā saith, speaking of the lapsed: That they more offended our Lord with their hands and mouth, who vnworthily receiue, then Cyp. ser. 5. de lap. Aug. [...]i [...]. cō. adu. leg & Proph. [...]ap. 9. when they denied him. S. Augustine: We receiue, with a faith­full heart and mouth, the Mediator of God and man Christ Iesus, giuing vs his flesh to eate, and bloud to drinke. S. Leo: This is taken with the mouth, which is beleeued with faith. S. Gregory: What is the bloud of the Lambe, now not by hearing, but by drin­king [Page 67] you haue learned; which bloud is sprinckled vpon both posts, Leo. ser. [...]. de i [...]iu. 7. menfis. Greg. ho. 22. in euan. Tertu l. de resur. car. cap. 8. Nyss. ora. cate. c. 37. Cyril. l. 10. in Io. c. 13. Chrys. ho. 69. ad po. Idem de Eu cha▪ in En. caen. Aug. in Ps. 33. Cyr. Alex. li. 10. in Ioan. c. 23. when not onely with the mouth of the body, but with the mouth of the heart it is drunke. When Tertullian writeth. That the flesh is fed with the body and bloud of Christ. S. Gregory Nissen: That the body of Christ is admitted into the bowels of mā. S. Cyril: That it is tempered, mingled, and ioyned with vs, like other wax powred into melted wax. S. Chrysostome: That our hand de­uideth his flesh, and our tongue becommeth red with his tooto dreadfull bloud. And in another place: Imagine, saith he, that wholsome bloud to flow out of the diuine and vn­defiled breast, and approaching, receiue it with pure lips. S. Augustine: That Christ carried his owne body in his owne hands, when he said: This is my body; and that, secundum literam, ac­cording to the letter: and so, as King Dauid, could not carrie himselfe. Which two points are worthilie noted, because the Apostles eat with their corporall mouthes what Christ held in his corporall hands. In fine, S. Cyril saith: We doe not deny our selues with assured faith and sincere charity to be spiritually conioyned to Christ; but that we haue no manner of coniunction with him according vnto the flesh, this truely we deny.

15. Is it not strange, M. Sparkes should vaunt of all these learned Writers within eight hundred years, when all disclaime his false imputation, when all confesse the Reall Presence not only to fayth, but also to the mouth,Bils. 4. par pag. 754. 755. &c. to the tongue, to the lips, to the hands, to the flesh, to the bowells of all Communicants? Is it not as strange, M. Bilson should goe about to defeate these, and the former autho­tityes, with his accustomed sleight of Seales & Sacraments, bearing the names of the things themselues? For if the outward seales onely were receaued into the mouth, the outward seales only were eaten by fayth, bare figures and seales nourish the soule, seeing the same flesh, the same bloud, the same body, the same Mediatour of God and Man Christ Iesus, which is belieued by fayth, is auouched (as you see) to be receaued into the hands, mouths, harts, & bowels of the faythfull. Deny then M. Bilson, the true & reall flesh to the mouth of the body; deny it also to the [Page 68] mouth of the soule, and so become a Manichee, a Marcionist, a denyer of Christ. Or giue leaue at least, to them and o­ther Heretikes to subuert by like sophistry, the chief prin­ciples of our beliefe. Licēce them to expound, by sound of names without sense of wordes, whatsoeuer is writ­ten of the true flesh, bloud, and body of our Lord, of his Incarnation, Passion, and glorious Resurrection.

16. What pretense then can any Protestant make, (vnlesse he open the gate to a floud of blasphemyes) why he should delude such ineuitable proofes? Why he should discredit so many lights, Lampes, and Ornaments of the Church; and preferre the hard wrested construction of some new fangled teachers, before such vndeniable texts of Fathers, and testimonyes of Scripture? Perchance he may pretend with D. Bilson, and D. Sparkes, the impos­sibilty, inconueniency, and contradictions our doctrineBils. 4. par. pag. 790. 794. 795. 796. Sparks p. 180. & se­quentibus. implyeth. To which I might answere: Philosophers & Infidells obiected such stuffe against the true Incarnatiō and Passion of our Lord: I might say, that he yieldeth assent to diuers articles of our fayth, more contrary and repugnant to the reach of our naturall reason; as to the mistery of the holy Trinity, to the fecundity of our B. Lady remayning a Virgin, to the Resurrection of pu­trifyed and decaied flesh &c. I might also reply, that we should not measure the works of the Almighty, by the weakenes of our feeble vnderstanding, as S. Basil singu­lerly teacheth against Eunomius by the example of the Em­met. Basil. Epist. [...]68. But what if I demonstrate the Reall Presence to be possible, conuenient, and without any repugnance or contradiction at all?

17. To begin with the possibility of our conuersion or Transubstantiation; We do not (as M. Bilson iniuriously fathereth vpon vs) make the creature the Creatour, or the dead Bils. 4. par. pag. 729. element of bread the Sonne of God. We only teach the bread and wine to be changed into the flesh & bloud of Christ. And that one substance may be turned into another, yea and bread into flesh, experience it selfe aboundantly tea­cheth. [Page 69] For the bread which we eate, and wine which we drinke by the naturall heat, and concoction of our sto­macke is conuerted into the flesh and bloud of man: the same effect had the food which Christ receaued. Like­wise the graine of seed sowed in the ground altereth in nature & buddeth vp into a faire eare of Corne. Wax castNiss. orat. cate. ca. 37. Damas. l. 4 defi. c. 14. Irenaus l. 5. cap. 2. Chryshom. de Eu [...]h. Century­writ. c. 4. col. 4 [...]6. Ambro de init. myst. cap. 9. Cyr. Iero. cate. 4. mystag. into fire is melted, consumed and turned into fire. Which similitudes the Fathers of former ages haue vsed to illu­strate this mistery. S. Gregory Nissen, and S. Iohn Damascen the first, S. Irenaeus the second, S. Chrysostome the third, who annexeth thereunto, that as, Nothing of the substance of Wax remaineth: so heere the Misteryes are consumed by the substance of the body. By which passage (if the Century­writers may be credited) S. Chrysostome doth seeme to confirm Transubstātiation. S. Ambrose, whome they likewise repro­ue for not writing well of the same matter, sometime cōpareth the substantiall mutatiō of bread in the Eucha­rist, to the creation of heauen and earth of nothing; O­therwhile to the conuersion of the Rod of Moyses into a serpent, of bloud into water, water into bloud, and the like. S. Cyrill of Hierusalem conuinceth it by the miracu­lous change our Sauiour made of water into wine, dis­puting thus: Christ confirming and saying, this is my bloud, who Gauden. tract. 2. de. Exo. will euer doubt and say, it is not his bloud? He once conuerted wa­ter into wine in Cana of Galily; and is he not worthy to be belieued that he hath changed wine into bloud?, S. Gaudentius hath the like, who flourished within the 400 yeares after Christ: He that produceth bread out of the earth, of bread againe maketh Greg. Nyssen ora­cate. cap. 37. his owne body (for he is both able and promised it) and he that made of water wine, maketh of wine his owne bloud. S. Gregory Nis­sen: We rightly belieue the sanctifyed bread, to be changed by the word of God, into the body of the Sonne of God. S. Ambrose: Thou sayest perhaps to me, I see another manner of thing: How Ambro. lib. de [...]js qui ini [...]. myst. cap. [...] ▪ then tellest thou me, that I receaue Christs body? Then this is yet to be established by vs. And how many exampls may we vse to proue [...] is not that, which nature framed, but that which the bles­sing consecrated, and that the power of blessing ouer commeth [Page 70] nature, because by blessing euen the very nature it selfe is changed. Behould that is not, sayth, S. Ambrose, which nature made, but what did nature make? The substance of bread: what becommeth of it? It is changed, quoth he: how? by bles­sing: into what? Into that which the blessing consecra­teth. What it that? The body of Christ: for he tookeCiryl. ep. ad Colas. bread, blessed, and sayd: This is my body. S. Cyrill of Alexan­dria who succeeded them in the next age: God condescending to our frailtyes instilleth into the thinges offered the power of life, Conuertens ea in veritatem propriae carnis, onuerting them into his true and proper flesh: that the body of life may be in vs as a certaine quickening seed. Eusebius Emissenus: The inuisible Euseb E­miss. ser. de cor. Domi. Cyp. de coens Dom. Priest (Christ Iesus) turneth by his word, with a secret power, the visible creatures into the substance of his body and bloud, saying: Take, and eate; for this is my body. S. Cyprian who liued before any of these: This bread which our Lord gaue to his Dis­ciples not in outward apparence, but in nature changed, by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh. The like he hath in o­ther places. In so much as a famous Vrsin, in commonef. cuiusdam Theol. de sacra Coen. Aug. ser. citato à Be­dain. c. 10. [...]. Cor. Humfrey Iesu. p [...]. 2 [...] ca. 5. pag. 626. Matth. 4. v. [...]. Protestāt confesseth: That in Cyprian are many sayings which seeme to conforme Trā ­substantiation. S. Augustine, and sundry others euidently al­so graunt our Reall mutation or Transubstantiation of the elements. Which doctrine Gregory the Great, and Augustin our Apostle brought into England, as D. Humphrey tea­cheth, and the Diuell himselfe acknowledged to be pos­sible, when he sayd vnto Christ: Dic vt lapides isti panes fi­ant: Commande that these stones be made bread.

18. Secondly if we respect the conueniency, it was meet we should really eate, and really drinke of the reall victime truly slaine and offered for vs. It was meet that he who became our companion in the manger, our tea­cher in the Temple, our Priest at the Altar, our price, sa­crifice and ransome on the Crosse, should likewise be our food and sustenance at the table. It was most meet that he who imparted his owne diuine person, and all the ri­ches of his Godhead by Hypostaticall vnion to the flesh and bloud of a pure and vnspotted man, should also cō ­municate [Page 71] the same flesh and bloud and all the treasures of his diuine and human nature to the soules and bodyes ofAs our first Pa­rents were not infe­cted by a Metapho­ricall, but by a true eating of the accur­sed Tree, so we can­not be healed by a Meta­phoricall but by a tru eating of the Tree of life. Nissē. orat. catech. ca. 37. Ignatius Ep. ad E­phes. Athan. de hu [...]atur. suscep. Cyril. in Io. & [...]p ad Calosy. [...]re. 1. 4. c. [...]4. & l. 5. c. 2, & alibi. Cyr. Alex. 1. 10. in [...]o. c. 13. Spa [...]kes in his answer to M. Iohn d'Albins pag. no. & 257. his faithfull seruants. The wisedome of God requireth that as our Forefathers and we were first impoisoned not by the desire, but by the true and real eating of the forbid­den apple: so we should be cured by the true and substan­ciall feeding of this blessed fruit. For S. Gregory Nissen proueth: After the manner of the poyson: so likewise the medi­cine must enter into our bowells, & the vertue therof be trāsfused into all partes of the body.

19. Againe, the poyson which Adam receaued, was a venemous fountaine of a double contagion, ioyntly in­fecting both body and soule, two wounds it inflicted, it defiled our soule with sinne, our body it enthralled to death and corruption. What could be more behoofull for our Redeemer then to prepare a medicine against both these wounds? A medicine to wash our soules from sin, and rayse our body from dust, to beautify the one with grace, and cloath the other with incorruptiō? And what could sooner worke this admirable cure then the glorious flesh of this holy Sacrament? Which is not only the O­cean of Grace, but the medicine of immortality, the preserua­tiue, as S. Ignatius calleth it, against death. The first fruites of glory, as Athanasius writeth. The liuely and reuiuing seed of our bodyes, as S. Cyrill sayth. The pledge, the earnest, the hope, or expectation of Immortall life, as Irenaeus affirmeth; According to that of Christ: He that eateth my flesh & drin­keth my bloud hath life euerlasting, and I will rayse him at the la­ter day. The body then must eate his flesh, and drinke his bloud, that it may partake the benefit of Resurrection; our soule by fayth might enioy the dowryes of blisse. But this terrestriall nature of our body cannot (as S. Cyrill of Alexandria teacheth) be aduanced to immortality, except the body of naturall life be conioyned vnto it.

20. Yet D. Sparkes, maugre S. Cyril, or whosoeuer els obstinatly persisteth, that the body of Christ cannot be [Page 72] really conioyned with ours: Because Christ is ascended into heauen, sitting at the right hand of his Father, and the heauens must Bils. 4. par. pag. 788. 789. &c. Ioan. 20. Read S. Aug. ep. 3. ad Volus Amb. l. 10. in cap. 24. Luc. Hila. l. 3 de Tri. Iustin. q. 117. Cyril. l. 12. in Io. c. 53. Bede Theoph. Euthym. Ruper. boc loco. whoproue Christs en­trance the dores be­ing shut. containe him vntill the restitution of all thinges. As though (good Syr) he could not be at the same tyme in di­uers places, to wit, in heauen sitting on the right hand of his Father, and heere vpon earth in euery consecrated hoast: not naturally, as the Fathers copiously quoted by M. Bilson constantly teach, but supernaturally by the power of him vnto whome nothing is impossible. For so he hath wrought many wonderfull workes aboue the course of nature. He came forth of the Virgins wombe preseruing her virginity; rose out of the sepulcher, not re­mouing the stone, entred into his Disciples the dore be­ing shut, ascended to his Father not deuiding the heauens when he penetrated them. But as in these examples di­uers bodyes were supernaturally in one place, so by the same supernaturall power one body may likewise be at the same tyme in diuers places; for it is a common Axiome approued by Philosophers, that Contrariorum eadem est ra­tio: Amongst contraryes the same reason holdeth on both sides. Moreouer we are instructed by fayth, that the single per­son of Christ is vnited to most distinct & diuers natures; to the nature of God, and to the nature of man; that the sole essence of God is in three persons really distinct; that one and the selfe same moment of eternity is answerable & correspondent to most different and contrary tymes, to tyme past, tyme present, and tyme to come. But as one person sustaineth diuers natures, one nature is communi­cated to diuers persons, one moment coexisteth to di­uersAmb. orat in Auxen. Aeges. l. 3. de exid. vr­bis Hieros. cap. 2. [...]o. Dams. orat. de B. Virgine. tymes, why cannot one body be resident in diuers places?

21. Els how could our Sauiour after his Ascension haue met S. Peter flying the persecution of Rome, as S. Ambrose and Aegesippus record? How could he haue des­cended to honour the funeralls of our B. Lady, as S. Iohn Damascen and Nicephorus witnesse? How could he ap­peare to S. Paul, as in the 9. Chap. of the Actes of the Apostles, in [Page 73] the 22. and 23. For in none of these apparitions could heCalu. in c. 9. act. &. l. 4. Instit. c. 17. §. 29. Act. 9. v. 17. Act. 23. v. 11. 1. Cor 15. v. 5. Act. 23. v. 11. Act. 22. v. 78. 15. depart from the right hand of his Father, as Scripture teacheth, and Protestants do confesse. He must needes therefore be at the same tyme in heauen and vpon earth in most remote and separate places. For if M. Sparkes an­swere with Caluin and his consortes, that Christ ap­peared either in the heauens to S. Paul, or that these were not true but imaginary apparitions, S. Luke himselfe re­proueth them saying: That Christ appeared to S. Paul not in the heauens, but in via, in the way. Not a far [...]e off, but neere at hand, assistens ei, standing by him. Not as to S. Steuen, but as to Cephas, to Iames, to the fifty brethren. Not aboue the cloudes in any vnknowne place, but vpon the earth in the Castle of Claudius Lysias Tribune of the souldiers. Not in a traunce or illusion by night, but in a cleare vision, in a plaine conference at noone day; so as he might see the iust one, and heare his voyce out of his owne mouth. Lastly not by any imaginary repr [...]sentation, but by such a true and perfect apparition as the Resurrection of Christ is proued ther­by.1. Cor. 15. Chrys. hom 38. in c, 15. 1. Cor. Tho. 3. p. 4. 57. art. 6. ad 3. Bils. 4. par pag. 793. Chrys. lib. 3. de Sacer. For which cause, either at some of these tymes he appeared truly to S. Paul (as S. Chrysostome and S. Thomas conclude) euen in his owne proper person, and with his naturall body; or S. Paul deceiptfully proueth Christs Resurrection by his apparition vnto him. To accuse S. Paul is to appeach the holy Ghost of fraud and deceipt: to graunt he truly appeared, is to subscribe to his being in many places. And consequently that of S. Chrysostome, which M. Bilson phraseth, an Hyberbolicall vehemency, is an absolute verity: In the tyme of our Sacrifice he that sitteth aboue with his Father, at that very instant and moment of tyme is handled with the hands of all.

22. Another repugnance, against which M. Bilson Bils. 4. par pag. 794. 795. &c. mightily inueygheth, is: That we make the body of Christ in the Eucharist without the propertyes of humane shape, length, extension &c. because we defend it to be wholy and indi­uisible in euery part of the Blessed Host, as the soule of man is wholy in the head, wholy in the feet, and wholy [Page 74] in euery part of the body. But this likewise, by the Al­mighty hand of God, may easily be effectuated. For to be corporally or locally confined to any determinate place, is no such absolute and inherent necessity, no es­sentiallBils. locis citatis. property (as M. Bilson, how diligent soeuer in o­ther points, not diuing in this into depth of Philosophy, inconsideratly mantayneth) but only an accidental qua­lity, relation or sequell, which naturally followeth eue­ry bodily substance, as heate floweth from the nature of fire, and grauity or weight from the condition of any earthly or heauy thing. Yet as God supernaturally sus­pendedDan. 3. v. [...]0. Matth. 14. v. 26. the actiō of heate, in the Furnace of Babylon, frō burning the three Children, & the poyse of his earthly body when he walked vpon the waters: so he may also separate and seclude all locall extension from the quanti­ty of his flesh and bloud, whose essence only consisteth in the inward proportion of shape, extension of parts in respect of themselues, wherby one part is truely distin­guished and immediatly conioyned to this, and not to that other; which inward extension, distinction, and proportion, the body of Christ retayneth, albeit it be wholy in the whole, and wholy in euery part of the consecrated Host. Eutychius the Patriarch of Constantinople, Euty. apud Nic. lib. 3. [...]nnal. about one thousand yeares agoe, expressed this by the voice of man, which being one only collision or beating of the ayre, is wholy notwithstanding, heard of many hundred togeather, and wholy receaued into the Organ of euery particuler mans hearing, as the body of Christ is wholy contayned vnder euery particle of the sacred host.

23. The third false supposed implicancy by our Aduersaryes, is, the separation we affirme of the exter­nall formes of bread and wine, and making them abide without their substances; for therein we destroy as they imagine the Nature it selfe of accidents, whose in­nate and essentiall property is in their conceite, to in­here in their subiects. But heere in they bewray the like ignorance as before. Because all the best Philosophers [Page 75] deny inherency to be any essentiall condition of an ac­cident: and the chiefe of Peripatetickes, Aristotle him­selfeArist. lib. 3. de anima tex. 9. sayth: greatnes is one thing, and the existency of greatnes an­other. Now if the existency be different, much more the inherency, which is the quality and manner of existen­cy.Basil. in Hexam. ho. 6. The same is taught and proued by S. Basil, who af­firmeth that the accident of light, was first created in the beginning and remained without a subiect; and that the spheare or globe of the Sunne was after made, as a waggon or chariot for that original light. Then meeting with this our Protestants cauillation, that an accident cānot be with­out a subiect, he addeth: Say not vnto me it is impossible, that the light should be separated from the body of the Sunne. For nei­ther do I affirme this separation possible to thee or me; but I iudge it auoucheable that such thinges as by the thought and cogitation of the mind, may be seuered, the power of him that created both can actually and indeed part and disseuer. The adustine and burning force of the fire, thou truly canst not separate from the gloming brightnes thereof; but God diuided them, in the fiery bush, wher­in he appeared to his seruant Moyses. Yea and the like strange anatomy his mighty hand will make, as that great Doctour goeth forward, of the whole element of fire, when in the later day, he will separate according to him, The hoat and scorching violence, from the cleare light or Basil. ibid. splendour thereof; and depute that to hell for the due punishment of the reprobate, & aduance this to heauen for the comfort of his elect. Besides al learned deuines auer the personality of ChristS. Thom. [...]. part q. 4 art. 2. Cyril epist. ad Nestor. 5. Synod. can. 5. [...]ulg. lib. de incar. c. 4. which is a substantiall mode or manner of being (alike intrinsecal to substāce, as inherency is to any accident) to be secluded frō his humane nature, & the humane nature to subsist without his proper person: which although it be a greater and deeper mistery, thē that we haue now in hand; yet this parity I find betweene them, that as the humane nature of Christ, doth efficiently subsist suppor­ted by the person of the word, without the formal effect of subsistency: so the accidents of bread and wine doe heer remaine, efficiently preserued by the body of Christ [Page 76] without the formall effect of their inherency. Which is an example so fit and sutable to my purpose, as our Ad­uersaryes haue nothing to oppose against it, vnles they ouerthrow that article of our fayth, and by attributing vnto Christ the person of man, annihilate with Nestorius the value of his sufferings, & worke of our Redemption.

24. Many other obiections M. Bilson and his fellowes make, as the vnseemlinesse of Christs passage through vile & loath­some Bils. 4. par pag. 78. &c. places; But he that thoght it not vnseemly to be torne with whips, wounded with nailes, massacred by his cruel enemyes to purchase our Redemption, he that maketh the beames of the Sunne to shine vndefiled, vpon the foulest d [...]ghil, will not feare for the benefit of our souls to enter without horrour, & passe without infection the vncleanest harbour of our harts. Then (saith he) the elements Aug. l. de fide & sym. cap. 4. may putrify, the flesh of Christ cānot. Neither do we say it can, but when the formes of Bread & Wine, are putrifyed or destroyed, the body without putrifaction, detriment or consumptiō ceaseth to be vnder them, as the soule with­outBils. 4. par pag. 783. destruction leaueth to informe any dead, decayed, or deuided member. For when our finger or arme is cut or rotten away, the soule neither rotteth nor receaueth hurt: no more doth the flesh of Christ, when the Accidents of bread are putrified, stabbed, & consumed to dust, because it existeth in the Eucharist, albeit in substance truly, yet after an indiuisible, impassible, & now glorious manner.

25. Others demand how the body of Christ is not wholy spent & deuoured, so many dayly feeding therof. To which Innocentius the third briefly answereth: As theInnocen. l. 3. de offio. miss [...]e. 3. Reg. 17. Widdow of Sarep [...]ha did daily eate, & neuer diminish the Meale of her Pot, or Oyle of her vessell: so the vniuersal Church doth daily receaue and neuer consume the flesh & bloud of Iesus Christ. Let not then (Gentle Reader) any faygned difficulty or forged incouenience, any see­ming repugnance euer withdraw thee from allowing our Real Presence, euidently defined in holy writ, stron­gely warranted by the Fathers, honourably recorded in all Antiquity.

THE SECOND CHAPTER, IN WHICH D. Bilson, D. Sparkes, and all Sacramenta­ries are more particulerly refelled, and other their chiefest arguments answered.

ALMIGHTY God accounteth it not sufficient to haue his Temples raised, and true worship aduanced, vnlesse the Altars of Ieroboam be destroied,3. Reg. 22. and the prophanations of Idolators vtterly abolished. It is not then īnough for me to haue confirmed the right and Orthodoxall belief of the Catholick Church in this chiefest point of faith, except I beate downe the errours & raze the fortresses our enemies mantaine to strengthenBi [...]s. 4. par pag. 725. cum sequē ­tibus. Sparks pag▪ 116. Bils. 4. par. pag. 785. their follies. Which will seeme by so much more intricate and cumbersome vnto me, by how much I find them in this question most slippery and inconstant. For M. Bilson vtterly renounceth the Reall Presence. M. Sparkes, with their Communion-Booke alloweth it. M. Bilson will haue vs mount like Eagles with the winges of faith, to fasten on [Page 78] the Lords flesh. Caluin will haue Christ descend, and feed vs, not by fayth alone, but with the substance of his Body. M. Bilson withCalu. in c. 16. Mat. Bils 4. par. pag. 783. 785. 786. &c. Sparks p. 114. 115. Bils. 4. par pag. 710. 711. 712. his Adherents hold: That we are nourished in the Sacrament, wi [...]h the liuely & impassible body and bloud of Christ. M. Sparks, with others contend, that we haue not here to do with his im­passible and glorified, but with his dead, passible, and broken body and bloud shed vpon the Crosse. Zuingilus and Oecolampadius teach; the Eucharist to be a bare signe or figure of our Lord. M. Bilson, not pleased with that, admitteth besides: some di­uine vertue thereunto annexed. Thus the builders of Babylon are deuided, thus they say and gain-say, auerre and re­uerse like men amazed, they know not what.

2. For aske M. Bilson, what he meaneth when he said: That we must mount with wings of faith to eat Christ in the Sacrament. If his meaning be that to lift vp our thoughts and hearts to Christ, to beleeue in him, be to eate him: Then the Patriarkes and Prophets, who reposed their affi­ance in the Messias to come, were partakers of this Sacra­ment long before it was instituted. Then the Heretikes, who should denie the Eucharist, yet beleeued and reue­renced our Sauiour Christ, should both reuerence and di­shonour, partake and detest the benefit of their Com­munion. Then, likewise to beleeue the Diuels, were to eate the Diuels, to beleeue the fire and torments of Hell, were to be fed with flames, to be nourished with tor­ments. Then what need we runne to your Churches? What need we be sollicitous of your morsels of bread, when in euery corner, by the faithfull remembrance of Christs death and Passion, we may farre easilier enioy theBils. 4. par pag. 763. Calu. lib. 4. instit. c. 14. & alibi. fruit of your Sacrament? We ought to repaire (saith Bilson) to the Communion table, to receaue the confirmation and seale of Gods mercies: Or the assurance (as Caluin writeth) of our be­liefe, and incorporation with Christ. Is it only so? And what if we should not receiue this outward seale and testimony of grace, would God be so iniurious, as to depriue vs of his gifts bestowed vpon vs, or so faithlesse as not to fulfill his promise, vnlesse he assured it by his letters Patents? [Page 79] Nay how often by this meanes should Truth it selfe de­ceiue and beguile vs, by sealing a false warrāt to all thoseRom. 11. Cor. 11. as receiue vnworthily, eating, as S. Paul sayth, their Iudgment, yea their death and damnation? To these God should become a lying witnes, a pernitious surety affoar­ding them that outward communion as a publike assu­rance of his inwrad grace and their right beliefe when notwithstanding they are vtterly voyd and depriued of them. Oh tymes most perilous, what monstrous heresies haue you hatched? what men are these, who cannot acquit themselues of folly without viperlike appeaching their Creatour of so great impiety.

3. Another traine M. Bilson layeth to beguile withBils. 4. par pag. 71 [...]. more cunning, yet to beguile too. For finding the Eucha­rist honoured by the Fathers aboue the basenes of a figure he alloweth not with them the Diuine presēce of Chryst, but he deuiseth, Some diuine vertue annexed to the outward signes. A meere deuise. For what vertue I pray will you haue it, of what quality or condition? Spirituall or Corpo­rall? If Spirituall, how is it conioyned to corporall ele­ments of bread and wine? What vnion without propor­tion? What proportion will you make betweene this spirituall vertue and those bodily things? If Corporall; eyther the same you adde to euery element, or seuerall vertues, according to the multitude of externall seales. Not the same; least one and the selfe same thing (which you abhorre) should be at the same tyme in sundry places. Not seuerall, vnlesse you make many seuerall and distinct Communions, not all to partake (as S. Paul sayth) of the 1. Cor. [...]o [...] Bils. 4. par pag. 7 [...]0▪ 711 712. &c. same bread. And therfore when neyther of these retraites will serue, M. Bilsons last craft and subtilty is: That Christ is present in the Sacrament, not mixing his substance with the ele­ments, but entring the harts of the faithfull. Then tell me, I beseech you, how doth he enter? Accidentally, by some supernaturall quality infused into our soules? Or Substantially, by the entrance of his substance it selfe? What? Accidentally? Then the Holy Eucharist is not, [Page 80] as S. Paul waiteth: The Communion of the bloud, and participa­tion of the body of our Lord; but the participation only of your1. Cor. 10. new created accident. Of which I likewise demand, whe­ther the same or distinct accidents be produced in euery soule, and so entangle you in all the former briars? What? Substantially? How then doth the substance enter? Who­le or deuided into parts? If by parts; the glorious body of Christ should be mangled, disfigured, and remayne im­perfect. If whole; the whole substance should be at the same tyme in diuers places, cherishing the soules of diuers persons. Besides, how is he, who sitteth at the right hand of his Father, substantially vnited with vs vpon earth? Can he enter our soules (as M. Bilson dreameth) not departing from the heauens, and can he not enter the Hoast, as Ca­tholikes teach, not departing from thence?

4. M. Sparkes perchance will be more dexterous and expert in auoyding these difficulties. As intricate and per­plexed euery whit. For he not contented with Christs spi­rituallSparks p. [...]16. presence only by faith, auoucheth him: to be also tru­ly and really present to the harts of the faithfull. Yet with such a strang and hidden presence, as no tearmes can expresse, no wit conceaue. For answere M. Sparkes, in what sort is Christ really present? Withall his locall dimensions, or without dimension? Without, is to destroy (Sparkes pag. 110. Vvhitaker cent. 2. q. 5. c. 7. fol. 389 Spark. pag 114. 115. 116. as you vrge against vs) the nature of his body. With all his dimensiōs is impossible without penetration of Christs body with the body of his Communicant, without multiplication, rarefaction, condensation, and many other in your Shoole condemned absurdities. Also how conioyne you Christ with vs? Are our harts by the communion aduanced to heauen to be really vnited to him aboue, or doth he des­cend to be personally conioyned with vs vpon earth? Without a reall coniunction no Reall Presence by fayth can be framed; much lesse such a Reall Presence as you i­magine of Christs body, broken, and bloud shed of his passible and crucified body, and bloud shed (long since) vpon the Crosse, and not of his glorified and impassible body, which now existeth. [Page 81] Especially, when you affirme in the same place: That the body once broken, and bloud shed ha [...]h not beene really at any tyme iterated, nor can be. Are you not heere entrapped in your owne discourse? Do not these words imply most palpable contradiction? Is it possible for that which neyther really is, nor really can be, to be really present? Doth not Aristotle and all Philosophers accord that, Prius est esse quàm esse praesens. A thing must first be, before it can be present? What leuity then, what ignorance is this, M. Sparkes, in you and your fel­lows, who auouch Christs body broken, to be really present, and not to be at all.

5. Poore deceaued soules! I lament your misery who in no trifling matters credit such triflers as mind not what they say, nor how they write, so they dazell the eyes, and inueigle the harts of their vnhappy followers. Yet least their hideous outcries fright the simple from imbracing the truth, I will make answer to the residue of their pre­tended Calumnies.Bils. 4. par. p. 731. &c. Exod. 7. Matth. 11. Gen. 18. Aug. epist. 23. Amb. l. 4. de Sacram. c. 3. & 4. Orig. in 15. Matth. Ioan. 6. Gen. 49. Psal. 77. Matth. 6. The greek hath [...], The He­brew Segula.

6. First M. Bilson and his Sect-mates often argue: That the Eucharist is called by S. Paul, and the ancient Fathers, bread; the Chalice wine, euen after Consecration. I graunt that for di­uers causes the elements retaine these names. First, be­cause they were bread and wine before, as Araons rod was sayd to deuour the rods of the Aegyptians, when they were Serpents. The men healed by Christ were termed Blind, Lame, Deafe, and Dead, when they Saw, Walked, Heard, and were Reuiued, because such they had byn befo­re. Secondly, because they reserue the outward formes of bread and wine; as the Three that appeared to Abraham in humaine shape were called men, whereas they were An­gels. Thus S. Augustine is to be vnderstood, thus S. Am­brose, thus Origen in the places cited in the margent, whe­re they attribute vnto the sacrament the name of bread. Thirdly it is termed Bread, for that it cōteyneth the Bread of life; The true Bread which came downe from heauen, Christ Iesus. And therfore called in Scripture: Fat bread: Bread of Angels: Supersubstantiall bread, according to the Greeke & [Page 82] Hebrew copies. S. Hierome nameth it: Egregious and most sin­guler Hier. in c. 6. Matth. Iere. 11. v. 19. Aug. l. 1. loquutio. in Gen. n. 138. 178. 172. & quaest. 34. in Exod. bread; And Ieremy the Prophet alluding hereunto, cal­leth his true body (Bread) without any Epithete, saying: Mittamus lignum in panem eius: Let vs fasten the wood on his Bread. Lastly, it is called Bread after the Hebrew phrase, which stileth all sorts of meats by the name Lechem, Bread, as in the 34. of Genesis, 4. Regum 6. Witnesse also S. Augustine in his speaches vpon Genesis and Exodus.

7. But M. Bilson produceth some ancient writers who do not only giue vnto the Eucharist the name of bread, but determinately auow the nature and substance of bread, to abide after consecration. Among whomeGelas. cōt. Eutichen. Gelasius leadeth the way, writing thus against Eutiches: The Sacraments which we receaue of the body & bloud of Christ are a diuine thing, and by them we are made partakers of the diuine nature: and yet for all that, ceaseth not the substance or nature of bread and wine to be. Then Theodoret: The mysticall signes do not afterTheod. dialog. 2. sanctification depart from their owne nature. For they remaine in their former substance, figure and shape. I answere: They are sayd to remaine because they perseuer still in vertue, power and efficacy. For the outward formes and qualities which continue, haue the same o­perations, and worke the same effects which the substan­ces before performed. Or because the accidents which a­bide haue a miraculous, yet substantiall manner of be­ing, not stayed, not inherent in any other thing: Some­what like to that which the former substances enioyed. Thus Gelasius ought, and no otherwise can he be expoun­ded:Gelasius answered for he doth not say, yet ceaseth not in substance and nature &c. but vsing first the word substance as a tearme ouer strict, he corecteth and enlargeth it with this additi­on (or nature) and after explicating of what nature he meant, he calleth the same proprietas naturae, the property, or quality of nature. Then he affirmeth the Eucharist to be made a diuine thing, and we by it partakers of the di­uine nature: a little after he addeth, The elements are [Page 83] changed, by the Holy Ghost, into a diuine substance: which confirmeth our, and wholy subuerte [...]h the aduer­saryes doctrine, therefore M. Bilson very warily le [...]t it forth.

8. As touching Theodoret, the Greeke in which heTheodo­ret an­swered. wrote explaineth his meaning; for in the first place in­steed of nature, he vseth [...], which compriseth, as all Grecians know, the accidentall nature, as well as the substantiall, and signifyeth sometymes the vertue, or quality of nature. In the second place in lieu of substāce,Vide dicti. Graecolat. Conradi Gesneri, & Thesaur­ling. grae­cae H. Ste­phani. he hath the word [...], that is Essence, as Quin [...]ilian, and Budaeus out of Philo; or nature also, as Tully transla­teth it. And so we graunt that the true nature, & essence of the accidents still remaine. Neither can the word na­ture, essence, no nor substance, which the translatour v­seth, be vnderstood, as it is diuided against accident. For Theodoret sayth: The signes depart not from their owne nature, they remaine in their former essence. But they neuer had, nor could haue any other then an accidentall nature, an ac­cidentall essence, or substance, if you will so call it. Be­cause the nature and substance of bread and Wine, was not their owne nature, not their former substance, but really distinct from theirs. Therefore Theodoret could not truly affirme, That they remained in their former substance, which formerly they had not, but in the accidentall es­sence which they formerly had, and in which they still perseuere. Nor yet can any Cauiller say, that remaine is heere taken for inhere, because then the accidents should also inhere in their figure, inhere in their shape, to which the verbe remaine, is as necessarily referred, as it is to their sub­stance.

9. Although this answere fully satisfyeth, and ta­kethAnother answer to Theodo­ret. away all manner of cauillations, yet I will not o­mit another which Reuerend Father Cotton gaue at a dis­putation in France, to wit, that the three Genitiues in Greeke should not all be turned into Ablatiues in Latin: but two into Ablatiues, & the first into the Genitiue case, [Page 84] thus: Manent enim (mystica Symbola) [...] in prioris essentiae seu substātiae, [...], & figura & specie, & videri, & tangi pessunt sicut priùs: that is, The mystical signes remaine in the figure, and shape of their former substance, The reall presence and Tran­substātia­tiō proued by Theo­dorets owne wordes in the very same place whom the Cēturistes also reiect for the same. Cent. 5. c. 4. col. 517. 1008. and may be seene, and touched as before. Which answere som­what varieth in wordes, but is the same substance with the former; both are notably strengthened and our Trā ­substantiation established, by this ensuing sentence, which immediatly followeth: But they are vnderstood to be those thinges which are made, and belieued, and adored, as being those thinges, which are belieued. Now, what are the thinges belieued, what adored? Not the outward signes barely of themselues; they are seene, not belieued; they cannot without Idolatry be adored. The thinges beleeued euen in our, and in the Sacramentaryes opinion, are the bo­dy and bloud of Christ: those they apprehend, those they adore by fayth: yet they belieue and adore them absent, we present: but Theodoret auoucheth that the misticall signes, Are made those thinges which are belieued, which are ado­red: therfore they are made the body and bloud of Christ. And how are they made? By representation, by signifi­cation only? No: but truly, and really, As being (sayth he) those thinges which are belieued. Can we deuise to speake more plainely for our selues, then this Father speaketh in our behalfe, whome quarreling enemyes would wrest against vs. The rest of M. Bilsons allegations I let passe, because some of them, make nothing against vs, others may be answered as these before: others are plainly of no account, as the authority of Bertram, a late suspected authour, and of the false impious, and sacrilegious Coū ­cell of Constantinople, vnder Constantinus Copronym [...]s, & so alleadged in the 2. Nicen Synod, euen in the place quoted by M. Bilson, howbeit his conscience serued him to produce their testimonyes for want of better.

10. M. Bilson vrgeth againe: The Lord tooke bread, Bils. pag. 730. 731. brake bread. But that which he tooke, that which he brake, he gaue to his disciples, therfore he gaue bread. The same fallacy [Page 85] might I returne vpon him: That he tooke prophane and common bread. Therfore he gaue prophane and not Sa­cramentall bread. With the same collusion any heathenMatth. 9 v. 26. might depraue the most famous miracles of Christ; That of the Gouernous daughter raised by him; he might say for example. That Christ was inuited to the maid dead, that he entred to her dead, held her by the hand dead, spake to her dead, but she to whom he entred, she to whom he spake arose. Therfore she arose not aliue, but dead. He might after the same manner delude the resusci­tation of Lazarus. For vpon whom did Christ call, when he sayd: Lazarus come forth? Did he call vpon the liuing,Ioan. 1 [...]. v. 43. or vpon the dead? I know you wil grant that he called vpon the dead, and yet (as you must needs confesse) by the power of his God-head, and force of his voyce, he came forth aliue. So I answere vnto you: That Christ tooke bread, blessed bread &c. yet by the power and ef­ficacy of his words, when he sayd: This is my body, the bread was changed, and transubstantiated into his body. Perhaps you will cauill, that the beholders saw the a­ctions of life in the fornamed parties; Whàt then? Will you credit the eyes of men, which might be deceaued, witnessing them to liue, and will you not belieue the words of Christ, who cannot beguile vs, auouching this his body? No (sayth M. Bilson) for Christ vseth these words: I am the dore, I am the vine; and yet he is not really eyther dore Chrys. ho. 83. in Mat. Bils. 4. par pag. 717. &c. or vine. Is this your guise of arguing from a Li [...]erall, to a figuratine speach? Heere the things themselues, the conne­ction of the text, fayth, reason, and whatsoeuer els in­forceth a figure. In the words of our Lords Supper, all things plead the property of the letter; The Collation of places, the Conference of originall texts, the promi­se which Christ made, the institution of a Sacrament, the establishment of a Law, the enacting of his last Will and Testament, conuince (as I say) a most true and proper kind of speach.

11. Yet because some Protestants challenge vs to [Page 86] assigne a disparity, why there should not be Transubstan­tiation,Ioan. 15. v. 1. when he said: I am a Vine, as well as when he said: This is my Body? I assigne these differences. First Transubstā ­tiation is a passage frō one substance into another, which supposeth two substances to be, and one to loose his being by incompossibility with the other. So in my present case there are two substances, Bread, and the Body of Christ, and the one by Consecration is changed into the other; but when Christ said: I am the Dore, I am the true Vine, there is one only substance. For the Vine, the Dore, doth not signifie any other Dore then Christ himselfe. He is that spirituall Dore, that true spirituall Vine, to whom some propertie of the corporall Vine and Dore in a most emi­nent degree belongeth. And therefore here it is impossible any Transubstantiation should be.

12. Further S. Augustine giueth this rule to discerne aAug. l. 3. de doct. Christ. c. 10 Vnum dis­paratum non potest de alto praedicari. figuratiue speach from a proper, when that which is spo­ken in Holy Writ, Cannot properly be referred, either to ho­nesty of manners, or verity of faith, it is be expounded figuratiuely. But it is repugnant to reason, that one substance should be properly affirmed of another, much more so many diffe­rent substances verified of Christ, as he is said to be a Vine, a Dore, a Shepheard, and such like. Repugnant to faith, that the Sonne of God should be changed into the Vine, which groweth in the field: I am the Lord, saith Malachy, and am Mala. 3. v. 6. not changed. Dishonorable to God, to change the noblest creature that euer was, the humanity of our Sauiour Christ, into so ignoble as a Vine, or Dore. Disagreable to the vvordes themselues, for in this proposition: I am the Vine, Christ is auouched to be; therfore he cannot by transub­stantiation at the same time loose his being. And yet at our Lords supper not one of these incōueniences follow. Heere one different thing is not verifyed of the other, but that which the Pronowne (this) doth in generall, & inderminatly demonstrate vnder the formes of bread is particulerly specifyed, when the complete signification of the wordes is indeed, to be the body of Christ. More­ouer [Page 87] this change is possible; for bread was often changed into the flesh, and wine into the bloud of Christ, when he was nourished vpon earth. This change is honorable to God, of worse to better, of an ignoble thing into a most noble, of common bread in to the bread of life, into the immaculate flesh of the Sonne of God. In this, bread is not sayd to reserue any being, but another substance, that is to say, Christs body and bloud, sustayning the ac­cidents of bread and wine, by reason whereof they loose their being. Such and many other reasons there are of Transubstantiation in the one, and not in the other.

13. M. Sparks presseth vs with that maine obiection, their chiefe Achilles: It is the spirit that quickneth, the flesh pro­fiteth nothing. Nothing indeed? Then the word to become Sparks p. 109. Io. 6. Aug. tra. 27. in Io. Cyr. ad [...]uo Cyr. in Io. l. 4. c. 23. Conc. Eph. anath. 11. Aug. 27. in Ioan & in Psal. 98. Chrys. in hunc loc. Orig. l. 3. ep ad Rom Aug. locis citatis. flesh, benefiteth nothing. Then the flesh of Christ crucify­ed, buryed, reuiued, what doth it auaile vs? The sense there­fore of these words is, that the Capharnaites grosse and car­nall vnderstanding of them profited nothing. For they imagined they should eate dead flesh, the flesh of a meere man depriued of the life, soule, & diuinity (as Nestorius also weened) of which flesh our Sauiour pronounced, that it profiteth nothing. But it is the Word and Spirit of God in the flesh that quickneth and giueth life, as S. Cyril against Nestorius, S. Augustine, and the Ephesine Councell declare. Se­condly, they thought that Christ would cut in peeces (sayth the same S. Augustine) and mangle his owne flesh, and so giue vs to eate, as it is commonly sould in the Butchers shambles. Which rude and sauage conceite our Sauiour also reiected, as to­geather with him, S. Chrysostome, Origen, and others ob­serue. As though he speaking to their thoughts had sayd: The flesh, after that manner, profiteth nothing; It is the spirit, that quickneth, to wit, a more diuine, spirituall, and sacra­mentall manner of eating his flesh, affoardeth vs the fruit of eternall life.

14. Our Opponents at length not able to find any footing in Scripture, take hold of the Fathers quoting many passages, wherin the Sacrament is called: A remembrance, [Page 88] a signe, a figure of Christs body; therefore not his true body. The like oposition Apollinaris and Marcion made against the hu­manitySparks p. 110. & seq. Bils 4. par p. 716. 717 of Christ: That he was made according to the similitude, [...]hape, and likenesse of man. The like others framed against his diuinity, that S. Paul intitleth him: The Image of God, the Character or figure of his Fathers substance. But as both wePhil. 2. v. 7. Col. 1. v. 15. Haeb. 1. v. 3. Orig. in c. 15. Matt. Aug. c [...]t. Adaman. 12. l. 3. de Trin. c. 4. Basil in his Liturgy. Nazi. ora. in Gorg. Macar. hom. 27. Theod. in dialog. 1. Aug. in Psal. 98. Aug. l. 5. de doct. Christ. c. 13 Facinus est & tract. 25. in Io. and you reply hereunto, that Christ had the likenesse of man, and was a true and perfect man, was the image of God, yet true God, the figure of his Fathers substance, and the substance it selfe: so I say the Eucharist is a com­memoration and signe of Christs body, and also his true and naturall body. It is a signe in respect of the externall and visible elements, which do not promise grace absent only (as our Sectaryes teach) but containe the Authour of grace, and body of our Lord inuisibly present, as Origen, Augustine, and all others auouch.

15. Againe, not only the outward formes, but the body of Christ, as vnder them, is a Sacrament, Image, or Signe of his body, as offered on the Crosse. For al­though it be the same body in substance, yet not in shew and appearance, not endued with the same qualities of extension, passibility, circumscription &c. In this sense S. Basill, S. Gregory Nazianzen, Macharius, Theodoret call it an Image, a Figure; In this sense S. Augustine writeth: Not that body which you see shall you eat, nor drinke that bloud which shallbe shed by them that crucifie me: That is, not that body in such a carnall, palpable, and bloudy sort. For this in his booke of Christian Doctrine he counteth an hainous and barba­rous fact. Figura ergo est: It is therefore a figure; It is a Sacra­ment, because albeit the same body be really eaten, the same bloud really drunke; yet in a mystery, in a figure, in a Sacrament, after a sweet, spirituall, and vnbloudy manner.

16. Nay, S. Augustine (as our Sacramentaries contend) saith: What doest thou prepare thy teeth and belly? Beleeue and thou hast eaten. True, he writeth there of the spirituall eating of Christ the bread of life by faith & beleefe onely, [Page 89] he had not begun to discourse of the Sacrament, or Sa­cramentall eating. At least after (say they) he speaketh of the Sacrament, yet vseth these wordes: He that feede [...]h wi [...]h Aug. tra. 2 [...]. in Io. the hart, not he that grindeth with the tooth. True: not he that grindeth only can partake the fruit of this Sacrament, he that feedeth with hart without corporall eating may be­nefit himself: but he that corporally eateth without faith can receaue no profit at all. They vrge againe, that S.Aug. tra. 59. & 2 [...]. in Ioan. Augustine sayth: The Apostles eat the bread our Lord, Iudas the bread of our Lord. And in another place he denyeth: The wicked to eate the body of Christ. Most true. He denyeth thē to eate the bread our Lord, or to feed of his body, be­cause they are not incorporated in his mysticall body; Or because they do it not fruitfully by grace to the bene­fitPsalm. [...] Augu. de Bapt cont. Donatist. l. 9. [...]. 8. con. Pulgent. c. 6. cont. lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 20. &c. 55. Bi [...]s. 4. p [...] pag. 772. 773. 774. 776. of their soules, as King Dauid sayth: The wicked shall not rise in Iudgment: Because they shall not rise to saluation, but to damnation. Otherwise S. Augustine graunteth that Iudas did, and the wicked do truely ea [...]e the body of Christ, in his booke of Baptisme against the Donatists, against Fulgentius, and against the letters of Petilian.

17. In summe, many Fathers obiected by M. Bilson. exhort vs to eate the Sacrament by fayth, to cleanse our soules, prepare our harts, they call it spirituall food, the bread of the mind, and not of the belly, no bodily but ghostly meat, the proper nourish­ment of the spirit. All most true; for a liuely fayth, a cleane soule, a pure hart, are necessarily required in the worthy receauer, and the purer he approacheth, the more plen­ty he receaueth of Gods heauenly graces. Then it is stiled spirituall food, ghostly meate, the bread of the mind, the proper nourishment of the spirit: because the spirituall repast and re­fectionCyr. Alex▪ l. 10. in Ioan. c. 13. of our mind, the perfect vigour and increase of spirit is the chiefe and most soueraigne effect of this di­uine banquet. Neuertheles it excludeth not, as S. Cyrill noteth, but presupposeth the corporall, from which as from the fountaine and sea of grace the spirituall is deri­ued. Our Aduersaryes reply: The Fathers exclude it by certaine negatiue tearmes which they vse, calling it, [Page 90] No bodily but Ghostly meate, the bread of the mind, and not of the belly. They call it so indeed, and speake in the Scriptures phrase, euen as Almighty God spake, when he sayd: I will mercy; and not sacrifice: yet thereby he neither excludedOse. 6. v. 6. Matth. 9. v. 13. nor forbad sacrifice, which himselfe prescribed, exacted, and commanded; but only preferred mercy, as an act of charity more acceptable vnto him. So the Fathers by the like words exclude not the bodily, but preferre the ghostly, as the dayntiest food of our soules. Or they de­ny it to be any bodily sustenance, as bodily is common­ly taken for that which is opposite to ghostly. This is not so, this is both bodily and ghostly, both spirituall & corporall meate; this relisheth the mouth, and cheereth the hart; quickneth the body and refresheth the soule. Therefore it is not a meere corporall, but a spiritual dain­ty, because it hath a spirituall manner of being, is seaso­ned with spirituall qualityes, affoardeth all spirituall comfort, and is principally ordained to our spirituall nourishment. For the flesh, as Tertullian writeth, is fed Tertul. l. de resurr. carnis. with the body and bloud of Christ, that the soule may be fattened with God.

18. And if Protestants would be as ready to defend, as they are to cauill at the former sayinges, they might learne by the like speaches which the Apostle vseth, how to explaine the Fathers wordes; for as they call the body of Christ in the Sacrament spiritual, so he, the body which1. Cor. 15. v. 44. shall rise in the later day, It is sowen a naturall body, it shal ryse a spirituall body; as they account it a barbarous and sa­uage thing to eate the flesh and drinke the bloud ofIbid. v. 50. Christ, so he, a thing impossible, that flesh and bloud can pos­sesse the kingdome of God; as S. Augustine sayth: Not that Ibid. v. 37. body which you see shall you eate &c. so he, not the body that shall be, dost thou sow. Which place togeather with the for­mer, Eutichius vrged against the corporall resurrection of our flesh, with no lesse colourable pretense, then Secta­ryes do the precedent sayings, against the bodily presence of Christ in the Sacrament. But as they are constrained, [Page 91] vnles they deny that article of our fayth, with S. Grego­ry, and other of our Deuines, to construe S. Pauls meaningGreg. lib. 4. in lob. c. 32. & 33. that the body which ryseth, shallbe both spirituall and corporall; spirituall by reason of the glorious dowryes it shall receaue; and corporall, in respect of the true and tractable substance it shall still retaine: That flesh and bloud according to humane misery and corruption can­not possesse the Kingdome of God, but according to immor­tality, and corruption: that, not the body which is sowed shall rise, but another, another in quality, the same in sub­stance; another in perfection of glory, the same in pro­perty, and condition of nature; another in powerfull vertue, the same in corporall verity; another in manner and forme, the same in realty and essence of being. Ap­ply the like constructions to the fornamed sentences, written against the reall presence, and you shall rightly expound those learned writers, and soundly answere your owne obiections.

19. To conclude, when these new-fangled teachers with no euidence of Scripture, or sentence of Father can disproue the truth of our doctrine, they fall to their accu­stomedPulk. in c. 6. Io. sect. 13. Bils. 4 par. pag. 791. Ambr. l. 30 de Spirit. sanct. c. 12. Aug. in P [...]al. 24. in 1. Cor. Bils. 4. par p. 710. &c. rayling. They tearme vs Capharnaites, Vbiquitaries, Idolaters &c. whereas we detest the inhumane & grosse imagination of the Capharnaites, condemne the Vbiquity or euery where being of Christ, adore not with diuine ho­nor (as M. Bilson is pleased to impose vpon vs) the elements of bread and wine; but we adore (to vse S. Ambrose words) the flesh of Christ in the mysteries. That flesh, which [...]ce man eateth (as S. Augustine sayth) before he adore it. That body (sayth S. Chrysostome) we adore on the Altar, which the Sages did in the Cribbe. All impregnable proofes of our Reall Pre­sence, & as pregnant reproofes of M. Bilsons forgery. Yet some thing he must say because he will not yield. And to S. Augustine he answereth: That he taketh adoring for ea­ting, because eating is belieuing. As if S. Augustine had foolish­ly said: No man eateth before he eateth, or belieueth be­fore he belieueth. A like miserable shift is he faine to vse [Page 92] to auoid S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostome, and S. Gregory Nazian­zen, as all may see who haue leasure to peruse them.

20. I will not heere offend my Reader with the filth of Caluins, Sutclif [...], and Sparks reuiling quil, who defame vsCalu. l. 4. instit. c. 17 Sutclife in his Suruey cap. 8. Sparks in his answer to M. Iohn Albins p. 219. 220. Sap. [...]. v. [...]1. with the Antichristian heresy of the Valentinians, Mani­chies, Eutychians and Marcionits, as though we denyed with them the solidity and other properties of Christs naturall body, which all men know to be a most shameles calum­ny. Awake then, awake you beguiled soules, and vn­charme your harts of these dangerous enchantments; you that are bewitched with the tounges and pens not of one venemous Sparke but of many vile Calūniators. Awake I beseech you, in the behalfe of God, and your owne eter­nall good. Remember the words of King Salomon: The mouth which rageth with lyes, killeth the soule: It ruineth the soule of the detractor, and soules of those that listen vnto him. Remember that these slanderous speaches chase you from the table of God, from the food of Angels, & feast of heauen. They depriue you of your daintyest repast, of your cheifest banquet, of the pledge of your saluation, ofIoan. 6. v. 53. the medicine of immortality, of the tree of life, of which our Sauiour sayth: Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, you shall haue no life in you.

CHAP. I.

IT is a foule, yet common fault of our Aduersaries, when they espie the na­mes and words of holy Write to be­wray their errours; they cauill (as in the precedent Chapter) about the sēse, meaning and construction of them: when the meaning and thing questio­ned is playne and vnauoidable; they contend at least for the precise words, tearmes, and names themselues; as for the name Purgatory, the name Transubstantiation &c. and M. Bilson in this present Controuersy striueth much for theBils. 4. pa [...] pag. 70 [...]. name Sacrifice, demanding: Where it is expressed by the A­postle in playne words? others for the name Masse. To whom we reply, as S. Augustine did to Pascen [...]ius the Arrian: No­thing Aug. [...]p▪ 174. is more contentious then to quarell about the name, when the [Page 94] thing it selfe is apparantly knowne. We grant that as the name [...], was first defined by the Councell of Nice against Arrius, the name [...], by the Coūcell of Ephesus against Nestorius; so the name Sacrifice, the name Masse hath byn frequently vsed by the ancient Fathers. The Scripture in­deed mentioneth not the wordss but the sense and mea­ning of them it fully conteineth. Yea Christian Religion ne­cessarily requireth some externall Sacrifice, our duty to God exacteth it, the very instinct of nature teacheth it: against all which our aduersaries make warre, when they labour to impugne this holy mystery.

2. If we suruey forraine Countries, and search the customes of all ages past, we can neuer find any nation so barbarous, any people at all (as Plato noteth) so rude and Plato de leg. dial. [...]0 sauage, who with vowes, victimes, and outward Sacrifices haue not acknowledged the soueraignty of some God or other. For whichPlutarch aduersus Colo [...]. cause Plutarch sayth: If you passe ouer all the world, you may find Citties without wales, Characters, Kings &c. without Ri­ches, Coyne, Schooles, and Theaters: but a towne without Tem­ples and Gods, to whom Sacrifices are offered, you shall neuer find. Neyther could this continued practise, and generall a­grementTul. l. 1. Tuscu. q. of all nations, which Tully calleth, The voyce of nature, proceed from any other fountaine, then the secret worke and instinct of God. All people (as Xenophon ob­serueth) could neuer meete by common consent to agreeXenoph. de dict. & fact. So­crat. 4. in this point, or if they did meete, could they impart their minds, or being of diuers languages vnderstand one another. We must needs therfore conclude with him in the like case, that it floweth from the cheife cause and au­thourAug. epist. 49 ad Deo gra. quaest. 3. of nature: And with S. Augustine: That this is not to be blamed in the rites of Pagans, that they builded Temples, ordi­ned Priests, offered Sacrifice; but that these were exhibited to I­dols and Diuels, that was to be condemned. Wherfore except our Auersaries after such plenty of grace will wholy ex­tinguish in vs the liuely sparks and fruits of nature, we cā ­not but allow some outward oblation in honour of God.

3. Againe, the act it selfe of Sacrificing, in which by [Page 95] the change and Note that the body of Christ is consu­med ac­cording to his sacra­mentall manner of beeing; which suf­ficeth the nature of an vn­bloudy Sacrifice▪ Aug. l. 10▪ de ciuit. Dei cap. 4. consumption of some sensible Host by a lawfull Minister with solemne rite consecrated to God, we make protestation of our dependancy, seruice, and submission vnto him, the supreme and soueraigne gouer­nour and moderatour of all things, is so proper and pecu­liar to the highest Maiesty, that whereas the Religious worship of adoration, prayer, kneeling, lifting vp hands haue byn often challenged, and attributed to men, to A­mon, Assuerus, Nabuchodonozor, and the like: Yet the diui­ne worship of Sacrifice (as S. Augustine witnesseth) No man liuing euen presumed to say, it was due to any but only to the true, or supposed God. So that to despoile him, with M. Reynolds, of this externall homage soly & principally allotted vnto him, is to robbe him of his especiall right, dignity and preheminency; it is to make vs Christians, who aboue all nations are most obliged vnto our Lord, aboue all others, by denying him his chiefest honour, to remaine most vn­gratefull.

4. Moreouer, euery Religion, euery law and gouern­ment of Gods Church is so inwardly linked with some out­ward forme of Priesthood, with some visible manner ofGen. 4. v. 4. 8. 20. 14. 18. Exod. 12. Num. 28. Leuit. 4. Cyp. de coe­na Dom. Bils. 4 par pag. 699. Reyn. c. 8. diuis. 4. Sacrifice, as they can neyther stand, flourish or perseuere without them. In the law of Nature there were the Sacri­fices of Abel, Noe, Melchisedech &c. In the law written diuers prescribed by Almighty God. In the law of grace what Sacrifice grant you, by which it standeth, in which it consisteth, by which it is distinguished from the former lawes? To abrogate all kind of Sacrifice, is to disanull the law, to abolish our Religion, as S. Cyprian proueth: And to fly, as D. Bilson, and D. Reynolds are here constrai­ned, to spirituall only, is vaine and friuolous. First be­cause euery true Religion is a seuerall and peculiar wor­ship, wherby people vnited professe their duty and obe­dience to God, which is not inough inwardly to ac­knowledge, vnlesse we also expresse it by some out­ward and sensible signe. And in the chiefest Religion that euer was, by the perfectest and most principall signe of [Page 96] subiection, to wit, by the externall oblation I mentioned before. Secondly, we haue not only, as all Catholikes teach against the Manichees, Our soule from God; we receaue from him both body and soule, both the flesh and the spirit, both our S. Iren. l. 4. cap. 34. S. Tho. l. 4. c. 56. con. Gētes. visible and inuisible, our corporall and spirituall substance. There­fore besids the secret and inuisible prayers of our hart, it is necessary we likewise serue him with corporall, bodily, and visible things, in token that he only is Authour, Creatour, and Lord of all things. Thirdly, spirituall Sa­crifices of prayer, almesdeeds and the like were continu­ally practised and obserued by the Iewes, not proper to vs Christians, as that Sacrifice ought to be, by which our Religion is established and distinguished from others.

5. D. Reynolds, D. Sparkes, and their associates other­whileReyn. c. 8. diuis. 4. Sparks in his answer to M. Iobn Alb. p. 7. 8. 23. answere: That the Sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse is the peculiar and perpetuall Host, in which our Priesthood, law, and Religion is constituted. But they satisfy not. For that was only offered in one place, and at one tyme: to that all Nations christened could not refort to do homage vnto God: that was not any rite or ceremony instituted by him; but if we speake of the action, a detestable Sacriledge committed by the Iewes, that also was common to all the former true states of Religion, who belieued in Christs Passion to come. And yet the externall and diuine wor­ship in which Christian Religion florisheth, and consi­steth, ought to be apointed by God, proper to Christians, in all tymes and places practised, ought to be such vnto which all faithfull people might repaire, which can beReyn. pag. 539. Luc. 22. v. 19. Iewel in his Reply against the Sacrifice. Bils. 4. par. p. 690. 691. none other then the Oblation of the holy Eucharist, as I will manifestly proue, notwithstanding M. Reynolds im­piously traduceth it as the Monster of abhomination.

6. Christ offered and instituted this Sacrifice, in S. Luke. This is my Body which is giuen for you. He doth not say: which shall be giuen hereafter only (as M. Iewell commenteth, nor which is giuen in bare Mistery and signification, as M. Bilson glozeth) but which euen now in the present is gi­uen, [Page 97] as an Host and Sacrifice offered to his Father truly, & really in propitiation, pardon and forgiuenes of sinnes; as more plainly appeareth by the Greeke text, which Bezae for this cause chargeth with corruption, where all copies read: The Cuppe or bloud as conteyned in the Chalice to be truly Cyp. l 2. E­pist. 2. Aug. in Psal 33 [...] con. 2. Chrys. bo. 24. [...]. Corinth. Nissē orat. deresur. Andreas Crastou [...] de opif. miss l. 2. ser. 164. Cyr in 1. Cor. c. 10. bo. 24. Aug. 17 de ciuit. Dei cap. 20. shed, that is, offered vnto God, as a Propitiatory Sacrifice, in remission of sinnes. Which all the Fathers with vniforme consent most constantly confirme, S. Cypryan, S. Augustinè, S. Chrysostome, and innumerable others by Coccius and Ga­retius abundantly cyted. Amongst which S. Gregory Nissen whom our Aḍuersaries hereupon shamfully calumniate, hath these words: Christ after an ineffable and hidden manner of Sacrifice preoccupated the violent force, to wit, of his death, and offered himselfe for vs an Oblation and victim, the Priest to gea­ther and lambe of God. When was this done? When he exhibited his Body to be eaten, and Bloud to be drunke to his familiar frinds. This is that marueilous and honourable Sacrifice, where in lieu of the slaughter of brute beasts Christ cōmaunded (as S. Chrysostome sayth) himselfe to be offered: this is that Sacrifice, which succee­ded all those Sacrifices of the old law, that were offered in shaddow of that to come, as S. Augustine testifyeth. This is that soue­raigne worship of God in which the law of Christianity is established, as the allusion it selfe importeth which our Sauiour here maketh betweene the dedication of the old Testament, and this of the new.

7. Moyses when he ratified and began the old law,Exod. 2 [...]. dedicated it in the bloud of Calues: Christ beginninng to confirme the new, solemnizeth the same in his owne bloud. Moyses powred his bloud into a goblet. Christ consecrateth his in a Chalice. Moyses tooke that bloud and sprinkled the people: Christ taketh this and inwardly washeth the harts of his Apostles. Moyses said: This is the bloùd of the couenant or testament: Christ sayth: This is the bloud of the new Testament. Moyses added: which God hath deliuered vnto you. Christ annexeth: which shall be shed for you. So as that which Moyses performed was an euident figure of this which Christ accomplished. And therefore as that was a [Page 98] true Sacrifice: so this being the truth it selfe, must be a farre more true and perfect Sacrifice. As that was the bloud of a victime offered vnto God before it was spinkled vpō the people: so this ought to be the bloud of a purer victim of Christ himselfe, before it cleanseth the soules of his Disciples. As that was the solemne seruice, in which the state of the Iudaicall law consisted: so this must be the pro­per and publike worship of God, on which the externall form of Christian Religion dependeth.

8. As we may yet more manifestly gather out of thatLuc. 12: v. 19. precept of our Sauiour Christ, Do this for commemoration of me. By which words we are strictly commanded to exe­cute, 1. Some outward & visible act signifyed by the Pro­nowne (This.) 2. That it must be an act of doing, & not of belieuing only, the Verbe (Doe) conuinceth. 3. That the doing of this external actiō should represent the Passion of Christ, is manifest by the Nowne which followeth: for a commemoration of me. And by S. Paul: As often as you shall eate this Bread, and drinke the Chalice, you shall shew the dead of 1. Cor. 11. v. 26. our Lord vntill he come.

9. It is not inough: To take bread and wine, to excite & stirre vp an inward remembrance (as M. Bilson faigneth) of his death and Passion: We must also do, as Christ commandethBils. 4. par. pag. 693. 694. & 695. an outward action commemoratiue of him, sensibly she­wing, as S. Paul writeth, the death of our Lord. The Ie­wes belieued, and visibly sacrificed their Calues and lambes in token of Christ: Wherefore least we, who are charged to make a sensible memory of our Blessed Re­deemer, should be as our Protestants are, farre short of the Iewes; it is needfull by some publike rite we set forth his Passion in a more excellent sort then they. As indeed weAug. l. 26. cont. Faust. cap. 18. do in this most holy and mysticall Oblation, where not only the action done, but the substance of the thing (as I shall hereafter declare) and manner of doing more neerly and liuely represent the death of our Sauiour, then all the Iudaicall or figuratiue Hosts. In so much as S. Au­gustine might wel say: That Christians now celebrate the me­mory [Page 99] of the accomplished Sacrifice with a most holy Oblation and Act. 133. 2. [...], The Syri­ake parti­ciple Me [...]b chaschipin signifieth (as Soderiꝰ in Lexico Syri.) A Sacrificing [...]ction. Mart. Ep. ad Burdeg. cap. 3. Hesyeb. l. 1. cap. 4. Cyp. l. 2. Epist. 3. Amb. c. 10 Ep. ad Heb. Primasius in idem. c. Anselm. in comment. c. 11. 1. Cor. Paul. ad heb c. 13 & 1. Cor. c. 10. Reyn. c. 8. diuis. 4. p. 476. Aug. l. 10. de Ciu. Dei. c 20 q 57. in Leut. & l. 9. conf. c. 12. Greg. Na­zi orat 3. & 4. in Iulia. Cyr. Alex. in Con. Ephes. a [...]not. 11. Ifido d. 3 ep 75. participation of the Body of Christ. With that holy Oblation which Christ enacted, promulgated and commanded when he sayd: Do this for a commemoration of me.

10. Which the Apostles practised when in the Actes they sacrificed to our Lord (as the Greeke and Syriak) or exercised some publike ministery vnto him (as the Latin text importeth.) Which their scholer S. Martial taught & followed: We offer his Body and Bloud to obtaine euerlasting life &c. That which the Iewes through malice immolated, we for our saluation exhibite vpon the hallowed Altar; for this our Lord charged vs to do for a comemoration of him. Hesichius saith: Christ preuenting his death offered himselfe vp in Sacrifice in the Supper of the Apostles. S. Cyprian likewise: Iesus Christ our Lord and God, he is the High-Priest of God the Father, and he first offered himselfe a Sacrifice to his Father, and the same he commanded to be done in his remembrance. S. Ambrose, Primasius, S. Anselme I I omit, because I hasten to other proofes.

11. S. Paul sayth: We haue an Altar (and an Altar to Sa­crifice on, both the Greeke and Hebrew word implieth as M. Reynolds accordeth with vs) whereof they haue no power to eate which serue the tabernacle. And in another place. You cannot drinke the Chalice of our Lord, and Chalice of Diuells. Where he discourseth of the Sacrifices of Iewes, Gentills, Idolatours, and in all outward and reall points matcheth ours with theirs, our Hosts with theirs, our Chalice with theirs, our immolation with theirs, the participation which we make of our victime, with the participation which they make of theirs. Wherby it ensueth that as theirs were true Sacrifices, true Hosts, true Victimes, true Altars, so likewise ours, or els the comparisons were to no purpose. Hereupon S. Augustine tearmeth the holy Eucharist: A most true Sacrifice, by which true remission of sinnes is purchased. The Sacrifice of our price or ransome. S. Gregory Nazianzen: An vnbloudy Sacrifice. S. Cyril of Alexandria: A quikening holy Sacrifice. Isidorus: The Sacrifice of an vnbloudy [Page 100] victime. S. Cyril of Ierusalem: An holy and dreafull Sacrifice Cyr. Hier. [...]ate. 5. Tert. l. de velo Vir­gin. c. 7. 9. Concil. Nice. C [...]. 14. Chrys. hom. 17. in 9. ad Heb. Amb. ex­hor. ad virg. Cyr. Hier. cate. 5. Leo. ser. 8. de Psal. Iran. l. 4. [...]a. 32. Ieron. in Com. cap. [...]. ad Tit. Aug. l. 9. Conf. c. 13. Optat. l. [...]. [...]on. Par. Gre. Nazi­ [...]n. orat. 2. in Iulian. Aug. ser. de San. 19. S. Gre. Niss. orat­bap. Euseb. l. 1. Demonst. c. 6. & 9. Nys. de Virg. c. vl [...] Orig. bo. 23 in l. Num. Amb. l. 2. of [...]c. c. vlt. Chrys. bo. 2. de pa. Iob. Reyn. c. 8. diuis. 4. p. 472. profiting the soules of the departed. Tertullian: A Sacrifice which no woman can be permitted to offer, no nor Deacons according to the Councel of Nice. We haue not then a spirituall sa­crifice only, which women and Deacons may offer, but a true Sacrifice in the Church of God. A true Host which cannot be cōsumed, as S. Chrysostome sayth. Which offered on the Altar (as S. Ambrose teacheth) abolisheth the sinne of the word. Which is a Pro­pitinion, as S. Cyrill of Hierusalem calleth it, for all that need help. A true oblation, which being only one, fullfilleth, accor­ding to S. Leo, the variety of al carnall sacrifices. Being new, yet receaued from the Apostles, is offered vnto God, according to Ire­neaeus, in the vniuersall world. A true victime vndefyled, which the Bishop dayly offering for his own & the peoples sins, ought to ab­staine, as S Hierome writeth, from the company of his wife. An holy victime which dispensed from the Altar, as S. Augustine confesseth, cancelleth the hand-writing, which was contrary vn­to vs. True Chalices which containe the Bloud of Christ, which to breake or prophane, is hainous sacriledge, Optatus against Par­menian. True Altars, such as take their name of the most pure, & vnbloudy sacrifice, S. Gregory Nazianzen. Such as are con­secrated with the character of the Crosse, S. Augustine. Such as by nature being common stones, by blessing are made holy, imma­culate, no longer to be handled by all sorts of people, but only of Priests, S. Gregory Nissen. Such as Moyses inhibited to be made in any Land, but in Iury only, and that in one Citty thereof, Eusebius. Which cannot be vnderstood of the Spirituall Altars of our harts, as our Aduersaryes would shift of the matter. True Priests annointed to this end, S. Gregory Nissen. Wedded to perpetuall continency, because it only belon­geth to them to offer this sacrifice, Origen. Whose immaculate ministery cannot be violated with carnall mariage, S. Am­brose. Who ought to shine with all kind of Chastity, S. Chryso­stome: Rare priuiledges not appertaining to any Prote­stant, much lesse to all Christians, whome M. Reynolds installeth in Priestly dignity, least of all to the Ministers of [Page 101] his Ghospel, to whome he attributeth not the true name of a Sacrifycing Priest, which is [...]; in Greeke, Sacerdos in Latin, but improperly only: yet S. Augustine, the mostAug. l. 20. deciu. Dei. c. 10. Caluin l. 3. Insti. c. 3. §. 10. ad Heb. 5. v. 1. Re [...]. p 477 Psal. 109. 4 ad Heb. 7. Bils. 4. par. pag. 702. Sparks lo­cis citatis Cyp. l 3. ep. 2. Prima. in com. c. 5. ad Heb. Gen. 14. Bils. 4. par. pag. 702. Clem. Alex l. 4. strom. Amb. l. 5. de Sacram. cap. 1. Cypr. l. 2. epist. 3. Aug. ep. 95. ad In­nocen. [...]fido. l. de voc. Gen. cap. 26. Iero. ep. ad Marcel. & ad Euag. faythfull witnes of all antiquity (as Caluin reporteth him) purposely sayth: The Priests and Bishops of our Church, are (not improperly but) properly called Sacerdotes, sacrifycing Priests: And S. Paul teacheth, That euery Priest or Bishop is ordained to offer Gifts and Sacrifices. To conclude then, wheras M. Reynoldes himselfe is faine to yeild: That these thinges are linked by nature in relation, and mutuall dependance (as I may say) one of the other, the Altar, the Sacrifice, and the Sa­crifycers; seeing I haue already proued that we haue true, and reall Altars, true and proper Priests, he cannot deny vs, without open shame and contradiction, a true, reall, and proper Sacrifice.

12. If we looke into the old Law, we shall find that King Dauid, in the feruour of his Propheticall spirit speaketh of Christ: Thou art a Priest for euer according to the order of Melchisedech; which S. Paul often repeateth. But what was the order of Melchisedechs Priest-hood? Wherein was he a figure and type of Christ? M. Bilson recounteth certaine prerogatiues: S. Paul mentioneth yet no priui­ledge, no act of Priest-hood, no signe or shew of Sacrifice properly belonging to any Priest. But S. Cyprian, and Primasius wisely tell vs: That the singularity of his order consi­sted in offering, not the bloud of brute beasts, but Bread & Wine. As the holy Ghost also in Genesis witnesseth: Melchisedech King of Salem brought forth bread and wine, for he was the Priest of the most high: Or, and he was the Priest of the most high, a­greeable to the Greeke and Hebrew copyes, where both the causall coniunction (for) as Copulatiue (and) of necessi­ty inforce that he brought forth bread and wine as a Priest to offer them vnto God. And therein the Fathers affirme against M. Bilson; That he figured and resembled our Sauiours oblation of the holy Eucharist; S. Clemens of Alexandria, S. Ambrose, S. Cyprian, S. Augustine, Isidorus, S. Hierome, cy­ting to the same purpose many others. S. Cyprians words [Page 102] are these: Our Lord Iesus Christ offered a sacrifice to God the Fa­ther, Chrys hom 60. ad pop. Nos mini­strorum tenemus locum: qui verò san­ctificat ea & immu­tat, ipse est. Arno. in Psal. 109. Lact. l. 4. Inst. ca. 14. Prima. in com. cap. 5. ep. ad Heb. Epiph. haer 55. Aug. in Psal. 109. ep. 95. ad Inno. l. [...]. con. ad. le. & prophe. c. 20. Oecum. in cap. 5. ad Hebr. and offered the same that Melchisedech did, that is, Bread & Wine, to wit, his Body and bloud.

13. Moreouer Christ is not only called a Priest ac­cording to the peculiar ranke of Melchisedech, and therfore must offer a peculiar Sacrifice proper to his order, and dif­ferent from others, but he is tearmed also in this kind a Priest for euer. So that heerein he continueth both the dignity and function of his eternall Priest-hood, because heere, by his commandment, by his authority, by his spe­ciall concurrence with the Priests & Prelats of his Church, he incessantly offereth vnto his Father his owne body & bloud, vnder the forms of Melchisedechs Sacrifice. For as in the administration of other Sacraments he is the chiefe and principall Agent, when we baptize: Ipse est qui bap [...]zat. He is he that bap [...]izeth, sayth S. Iohn: when we ordaine or consecrate Priests, he is he who consecrateth them: In like manner when we celebrate Masse, he is he, who in­uisibly celebrateth, he is the chiefe high-priest, and we his Ministers; he the true and supreme Bishop, and we the Suffragans or Substitutes, who supply his roome. We may then vndoubtedly inferre with Arnobius, Lactantius, Primasius, Epiphanius, S. Augustine: That the eternity of Christs Priest-hood, according to the singuler order of Melchisedech, still perseuereth in the true Oblation of his body and bloud made at the Altar, and offered now in al parts of the world. And if we examine the learned Pro­testant, what els can he assigne in which Christ doth exercise at this tyme the proper act of his neuer ending Priest-hood? The Sacrifice of the Crosse? That remayneth not, and in respect of that Oblation and Host once offe­red, as Oecumenius noteth, he cannot be called a Priest for euer. The prayer and intercession he maketh for vs a­boue? But this is not any peculiar and proper act of Priest-hood, much lesse of any determinate and particuler order. The vertue and efficacy of his bloudy Sacrifice, which he still offereth and representeth to his Father? But if [Page 103] this euerlasting effect disappoint the new Law of all pro­per Sacrifices, it should by the same reason haue frustratedAct. 4. v. 12. the old. For there is no other name vnder heauen giuen to men in which we ought to be saued; No other vertue by which our forefathers were sanctifyed, then the death of Christ. Againe, this representation which our Sauiour maketh of his Passion in the sight of his Father, is no such Sacrifice whereby he may either chalenge the name, or reserue the office of an euerlasting Priest. Or if it be any such (be­sides that you applaud the Reall Sacrifice in heauen, which in earth you detest) seeing this is only exercised a­mong Angels aboue, and no act of Priesthood perseuereth amongst men; no kingdome of Christs Church, no Cō ­mon-wealth of his people, no law of Christianity now flourisheth vpon earth, but is vtterly disanulled, extin­guished, and altogeather translated to the Court of hea­uen, according to that of S. Paul: Priesthood being transla­ted, Heb▪ 7. v. 12. it is necessary also a translation of the Law be made.

14. Now if Christian harts can neuer subscribe to these impietyes, if we must of necessity graunt that God hath euer some Church, some inheritance, some chosenIsa. 19. v. 21. Prou. 9. 1. Dan. 11. v. 31. Psalm. 17. 16. Hier. in Psalm. 71. people vpon earth; we must needs allow some visible, outward, & proper law by which, as his peculiar flock, they appertaine vnto him, and are combined in mutuall fellowship and society togeather. If a Law, a Priesthood; if a Priesthood, a Sacrifice; if a Sacrifice, what other then this which Isay foresaw? The Aegyptians shall know their Lord in that day, and worship him in Hosts and guifts &c. And there shalbe the Altar of our Lord in the midst of Aegypt. Salomō shaddowed: Wisedome hath built an house, imolated rictimes, mingled wine &c. Daniel mentioned, calling it the, Dayly Sacrifice which Antichrist shall deface and abrogate, at least in publike. King Dauid specifyed: There shalbe a sirmament in the earth vpon the tops of Mountaines: Where S. Hierome expoundeth, Firmament, Memorable wheat. The Caldai­call translation: Supersubstantiall bread. The learned He­bricians commonly interprete Placentam tritici, A The Hebrew word Pis­sathbar, signifyeth a Cake of wheat, as Reuelinus sayth▪ Cake of [Page 104] wheate, substantiall Bread, or a sacrifice of Bread. So Rabbi Salomon: There shall be a Cake of wheat in the earth, in the Rab. Salo­in [...]sa. 72. Rab. Achi­las in [...]un­dē locum. Rab. Iona. l. col. in Psal. 72. Read Gal. l. 10. de area. cap. 4. 5. 6. 7. Mal. 1. v. 11. Reyn. c. 8. diuis. 4. Bils. 4. par pag. 695. Alan. de Euch. Sa [...]. lib. 3. c. 5. tops of mountaines. Rabi Achilas: There shalbe substantiall Bread in the earth, in the heads of Mountaines. And Rabbi Io­nathas: The Cake of Bread shalbe made a sacrifice on the heades of Priests, which are in the Church. A plaine description of our sacred Host, which vnder the formes of bread our Priests reuerently lift aboue their heades to shew vnto the people.

15. Malachy also most plainly prophesyeth of this vnspotted sacrifice, saying: From the rysing of the sunne, euen to the setting, my name is great amongst Gentils. In euery place there is sacrifyced and offered vnto my name a cleane Oblation. This testimony so cleare M. Reynoldes, and M. Bilson hide and ouercast with the misty construction of spirituall sa­crifices; which cloud Cardinall Allen our famous Country­man with many reasons vnanswerable, and authorityes of Fathers irrefragable strongly rep [...]th, and dissolueth wholy. First, because spirituall sacrifices are many: this one. Secondly, they succeeded not the offerings of the old Law: this doth. Thirdly, they common to the Iewes: this proper to the Gentils. Fourthly, they are named in Scripture with addition or limitation, as the Sacrifice of Prayse, of Iustice, of Contrition &c. this without any a­bridging tearme is sayd to be sacrifyced, to be offered in true and proper sense, as the Hebrew word in that place manifestly proueth, where insteed of Oblatio, it is Minchah, which alwayes signifyeth a proper Sacrifice, or guift of homage, and is neuer taken in Scripture for an improper Oblation, such as prayers and other spirituall good deeds are. Fifthly, they euen our best and purest works in the erroneous perswasion of our Aduersaryes, are soule and defiled in the sight of God, tainted with the corruption of our sinnefull Natures: this so faire as the Prophet ho­noureth it with the Epithe [...]e of A cleane Oblation, so pleasing to God as he glorifyeth in it aboue all the Hosts, and Holo­causts of the Leuiticall Law.

[Page 105]16. M. Reynolds albeit he ouerflorish the former rea­sonsReyn. c. 8. diuis 4. p. 527. with some shew of answer; yet heere in this last, he sticketh so pittifully grauelled, as one while he auou­cheth, our best deeds not to be vncleane things, but vnper­fect [...]y cleane, defiled with the staynes of vncleanes, uillingly, yet weakly done, lesse perfect, not absolutly vnpersect. And in the page notwithstanding immediatly before he granteth them so faulty, as they transgresse the Commandements of God: so muddy, as they make vs guilty of the whole breach of the law. WhatReyn. Ibid. 526. strang Paradoxes? What positions be these? Who did euer heare of a worke in it selfe vncleane, taught to be stay­ned with the remnant of vncleanes? A dy wholy black said to be coloured with the spots of blacknesse? For of what vncleanes do we speake, but of that spirituall vn­cleanes, which is displeasing vnto God? Wherefore if the spots with which our holiest actions are infected, be not veniall (as your selues say) but mortall and deadly crimes, if they be such deepe transgressions, As they make vs guilty of the whole breach of the law; They are not weakly, but wickedly done; not imperfectly fayre, but absolutely soule; not partly festered, but wholly cankered with the contagion of sinne, worthy to be hated, vnworthy to be practised, farre vnworthy (M. Reynolds) to betoken that cleane Oblation, which cannot receiue the least taint ofChrys. in com. Ps. 95. Eus. de de­mons. l. 1. c. 9. prop. fin. &c. 6. circa medium. Calu. l. de ver. Eccles. refor. [...]irca medium habetur il­le liber in­ter eius tract. theo. Iren. A­than. Am­bros. Augu. & Arnobius proue out of Scri­pture the Sacrifice of the Masse as Caluin confesseth See Baron. in Annal. an. Christi. 44 nu. 28. Bed. l. 4. bist. c. 14. Abdias in bist. eius. Philact. ex lit. Praesb. Acha. S. Athan: S. Basil. S. Chrysost. in their litur. Cyp Ep... extat haec S. Cornel. Ep. com. 1. [...]ibl. Sanct. Conc. Vas. 2. cap. 3. Plin. l. 3, c 4. & Ptol. lib. 2. cap. 10. In eodem. Concil. Va­sens. 2. c. 4. corruption, not from it selfe, not from the impurity of the vngracious Minister. Such is the diuine, dreadfull & most holy Sacrifice of the Masse, to which only the Prophet alludeth as the Fathersteach.

17. S. Chrysostome citing these wordes of Malachy saith: Behold how excellently, how perspicuously he hath set forth, & des­cribeth the Mysticall Table, which is the vnbloudy Host. Eusebius alleadging the same place addeth: We sacrifice after a new mammer according to the new Testament, a pure Host, for which he declareth there a new law to be ueedfull, Altars to be erected not in Iury only, but in euery Country. S. Irenaeus I need not produce, because Caluin the chiefe Patriarke and piller of Protestancy acknowledgeth him to expound this passage [Page 106] of the Sacrifice of the Masse, as S. Athanasius, S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, Arnobius likewise doe (according to him) the former of Melchisedech; by his words you may gesse of his intemperate spirit, therefore I heer insert them: It is vsuall with these knaues (so the foule-mouthed Runnegate mis­calleth our Catholike writers) to scrape togeather whatsoe­uer is vnsound or corrupted in the Fathers &c. Wherefore when they obiect the place of Malachie, to be expounded of the Sacrifice of the Masse by Irenaeus, the oblation of Melchisedech to be so han­dled by Athanasius, Ambrose, Augustine, Arnobius, it is briefly answered, those selfe same writers otherwhere also inter­prete the bread to be the body of Christ, but so ridiculously, that both reason and truth maketh me dissent. If this be to refute & not confirme our doctrine, let the Reader iudge, when such and so many substantial witnesses, some within the 3. some within the 4. all within the 5. hundred yeares after Christ, are confessed by one of the chiefest Protosecta­ries of our time to mantain in two fundamētal points, the same which we defend, with whom the Apostles them­selues, and Pastours of the Church in all ages haue agreed.

18. For did not S. Peter, as the ancient authenticall tradition deliuereth say Masse as Naples? Did not he and S. Paul both appeering to an holy man of our Country, command Masses to be sayd in the feast of S. Oswald our vertuous King, as venerable Bede reporteth? Was not S. Mathew barbarously slaine Sacrificing at the Altar? Did not S. Andrew say Masse? S. Iames, did not he write a Li [...]urgy or Masse? S. Athanasius, S. Basil, S. Chrysostome, did they not compose the like? Did not the Priests in S. Cyprians tyme say Masse in prison? Doth not Cornelius Bishop of Rome, complaine, the presecution was so cruell in his tyme a­boue 254. yeares after Chist, that they could not say Masses neyther in publike, nor in the priuate grottes & caues vnder groud? Was it not decreed in the second prouinciall Councell of Vase a towne in France (wherof Plinie and Ptolemy make mention) celebrated the yeare of our Lord 444. that Kyrie eleison, should be sayd at Masse, in the Churches of France, as [Page 107] it had byn long before sweetly song in the East, and in all the Pro­uinces Concil. Cart. 2. c. 3. Conc. A­gath cap. 47 Conc. Calc. act. 3. S. Cyril. cat. myst. 5. S. Amb. l. 5. epist. 33. Greg. l. 7. Ep. 63. & l. 12. Ep. 15. Bed. l. 1. hist. [...]cles. cap. 19. Aug l. 10. conf [...]ss. c. 1 [...]. [...]o. l. 22. de Ciui. Dei cap. 8. Chrys. l. 6. de Sacer. Bils. 4. par pag. 993. Caluin de coen. [...]ni. the like he hath lib de v [...]ra Eccles. refor. & in cap. 7. ad Heb. Magdeb. C [...]nt. 2. c. Io. col. 107 & Cent. [...]. c. 4 col. 63. Cent. 3. c. 4. & 5. M [...]lanct. l. 4 Chro [...]i [...] Henr. 4. of Italy? Was it not there further enacted, that the thrice sacred Anthymne Holy, Holy, should be repeated in morning Masses, in the Masses of Lent, or in such as were offered for the dead, as it was accustomed to be in solemue Masses? Is not our Sacrifice of the Masse, or vnbloudly Host mentioned also in the second Councell of Carthage, of Agatho, of Chal­cedon, and in many others? Did not S. Cyril Patriarch of Ierusalem, S. Ambrose Bishop of Millan, S. Gregory the great Pope of Rome, did they not say Masse?

19. And the same S. Gregory, did he not send all Pri­estly ornaments to S. Austen our Apostle? Did not S. Au­gustine likewise the Doctour say Masse? Did he not in treat others to doe the same for his fathers and mothers soule? And which is more, doth he not write of a Priest of his who sacrificed the Body of our Lord in a house infected with euill Spirits, and the infestation ceased? Doth not S. Chry­sostome teach: That the Angells themselues with reuerence assist our sacrificing Priest, in honour of him that is offered on the Altar? Which maketh me wonder how M. Bilson should ouer­shoot himselfe so farre as to auouch: That for twelue hun­dred yeares after Christ our Sacrifice was not knowen to the world. Was he so litle conuersant, I will not say in these learned Fathers, but in the Century-writers his Companions, in Cal­uin his Coronell, in Melancthon and other his Protestant Peeres, as not to know, what they had written in this behalfe? Or was he so bold, as against vs, against them all to broach this stander? Caluin sayth: It is well knowen the olf Fathers called the Supper a Sacrifice &c. Neyther can I excuse the custome of the ancient Church, for that with gesture and out­ward rite, they did set forth a certaine forme of Sacrifice with the same ceremonies in a manner that were practised in the old law, saue that they vsed the Host of bread in lieu of a beast.

20. The Century-writers blame Ignatius the scholler of the Apostles, Irenaeus, S. Cyprian, Tertullian, and diuers others in all ages, within the compasse M. Bilson speci­ [...]yeth, for the like. Melancthon writeth of S. Gregory the [Page 108] First, who liued about the 600. yeare of our Lord: He allowed (sayth he) by publike authority the sacrifice of Christs bo­dy and bloud, not only for the living but also for the dead. M. Bale Bale in his Pageans sal. 27. Fulk in his confut. of Purgat. p. 264. & 265. &c. Beacon in his Treat. intituled The reli­ques of Rome sol. 344. Luth. l. de cap. Baby. & l. de a­brog. Missae auerreth of S. Leo the first, who florished about 440. years after Christ: He allowed the sacrifice of the Masse, not without great blasphemy to God. M. Fulke reprehendeth Tertullian for the same. M. Beacon concludeth: The Masse was begotten, concea [...]ed, & borne auone after the Apostles tyme, if all be true that Historiographers write. So as it was the badnes only I suppose of M. Bilsons cause, which made him bolster that foule report.

21. Yet I will examine, what he, and his associates pretend against vs: The Eucharist (say they) is a Sacrament which we receaue from God, therfore it cannot be likewise a Sa­crifice we offer to God, because it implyeth, the same thing should be both offered and receaued. I answere, that one and the self same thing diuersly considered, may be both offered and receaued, proceed from vs and be giuen to vs, be a sacra­ment and a sacrifice. And so the holy Eucharist is a Sacrament imparted vnto vs, in that it is a signe of inisible grace or­dained by God to nourish our soules with heauēly food. It is a sacrifice offered vnto God, in that this signe or gift consecrated with sacred Ceremony is surrendred vnto him in acknowledgment of his highest Maiesty, in pro­testation of our lowest duety and allegiance. In this senseCyp. ser. de [...]n. Dom. it is called by S. Cyprian: Medicamentum simul & Holocaustū: Both a medicine and a sacrifice. A medicine to heale our spi­rituall infirmityes: A sacrifice to appease the wrath of God: A medicine composed by him for the behoofe of vs: A1. Para. 29. v. 14. sacrifice offered and consumed by vs in honour of him. This the Prophet Dauid rightly obserued: when he sayd: All thinges, O Lord, are thyne, and the things we haue receaued from thy hand, we haue restored vnto thee. Thus we offer our spiritual Hosts, as S. Peter exhorteth, we offer vnto God [...]. Pet. 2. [...]ers. 5. Iac. 1. v. [...]7. the Sacrifice of prayer, of prayse, of thankefulnes &c. & yet they are all mercifull guifts, Descending from aboue, from the Fa­ther of Lights, from whom euery good motion and thoght proceedeth.

[Page 109]22. The second and chiefest bulwarke which M. [...]eynolds, M. Bilson, M. Sparks raise to batter the Forr of ourReyn. c. 8. diuis. 4. p. 474. Bils. 4. par pag. 695. Spark. pa. 7. & 23. & sequen. Haeb 10 v. 12. & 14. & v. 18. & ad Heb. c. 9. v. 28. blessed Sacrifice, is; that S. Paul often inculcateth to the Hebrewes: How Christ by one Host, one Oblation once offered, re­deemed vs all. How Christ was once offered to exhaust the sinnes of many. I graunt that he was only once bloudily sacrifyced in his proper forme and shape; yet vnbloudily, sacramen­tally, couered vnder the veiles of his creatures, he is dayly offered vpon the Altar of his Church. Which S. Paul im­pugneth not, but only the iteration of the former blou­dy, as may be gathered out of the drift and scope of his discourse in that epistle to the Hebrewes.

23. Secondly I answere, that S. Paul speaketh of the chiefe, generall, & ransoming Host, of the full redee­mingHeb. 10. v. 14. sacrifice: Which once perfected on the Crosse, consumated for euer them that are sanctifyed. Yet it is nothing repugnant, but altogeather correspondent heereunto, that we should likewise haue our particuler Oblation to communicate the priuiledges of that vniuersall. For so all generallMelchior Canus l. 12. de lo. Theo. c. 12. 1. Tim. 2. v. 4. causes, as Melchior Canus noteth, are determined and re­strained by their particulers. The Sunne is the generall cause of light, yet we receaue the benefite thereof by ma­ny seuerall and particuler illuminations. The will of God is the generall cause of mans saluation: God will haue all men to be saued: yet besides that will, sufficient for their saluation, he must haue a determinate and speciall will for the sauing of this, or that man in particuler. The same I auow in our present case. But M. Reynoldes reply­eth:Reyn. pag. 463. in his confe. with M. Hor [...]. Heb. 10. v. 18. & 26. That there is not left an offering for sinne, after the death of Christ. I answere with the same forenamed Canus, that as Almighty God, hauing once created the vniuersall cause of light, need not produce a new Sunne, Moone, or Starres; as a Physitian hauing made one generall and du­ring medicine to heale all kind of diseases, neuer needeth to deuise any other: In like manner our mercifull Redee­mer, who offered one perfect and superaboundant ran­fome, by which he defrayed the whole debt of sinne, hath [Page 110] no necessity at all to make the like purchase any more. Which S. Paul mentioneth, when he sayth: There is not left an offering for sinne; to wit, any generall offering, by which the debt of sinne should be discharged a new▪ Notwithstanding, as in the former examples the Sun v­seth diuers succeeding illuminations, by which euery Coast of the world partaketh his light: as the Phisitian composeth sundry potions, to minister vnto his Patients the vertue of his sole and single medicine: after the same māner the church of God maketh many proper & peculiar Oblations, to accomodate vnto our seuerall necessityes the soueraigne fruit of that one and principall sacrifice. We see that when the King granteth a general pardon to all guilty persons, it seldome auaileth any particuler of­fender, except he sue it forth out of the Court of Chan­cery, vnder the seale and warrant of his Maiesty: no lesse can that great Charter of pardon, which Christ vouch­safed to purchased by his death, be beneficiall vnto vs ex­cept we receaue it vnder his seale and signet, that is, ac­cording to his commandment, from such Officers as he ordained to offer and dispense his heauenly blessings. Neither may we iustly be censured by this meanes parti­al redeemers or sauers of our selues, or concurre any more to our owne saluation, then the Fellon concurreth to acquite himselfe of his fellonyes, who sueth forth the pardon his King promulgated: Or the sicke person to the recouery of his health, who drinketh the potion his his Physitian tempereth.

24. Thirdly, our Aduersaryes obiect: That the often iteration of the Iewish Sacrifice, the continuall succession and mul­tiplication Reyn. in his Confer. with M. Hart. c. 9. diuis. 4. Sparkes in answere to M. Iohn d'Albins. of their Priests, bewrayed both the infirmity of the one, and defect of the other. Wherefore if we daily repeate the sacrifice of the Crosse, we prophane (sayth M. Reynolds) the bloud of Christ. If we ordaine and multiply our Priests, we abase (sayth Maister Sparkes) the prerogatiue, or impeach the sunction of Christs priesthood. I answere, that the multitude of old Priestes was a note of imperfection, for that euen the chiefe of [Page 111] them were many in equall dignity succeeding one ano­ther, who neither by themselues (being sinners) nor by the sanctity of any of their order, whose roome they sup­plyed, were sufficiently gracious vnto God. But the Priests of the new Law, as they are all vnited amongst themselues in the same deputation and ministery: so they haue not many but one chiefe, they all depend of one holy and impolluted head Christ Iesus, to whome they are not (as M. Sparkes mistaketh) any successours, butSparks p. 7. 9. 23. Deputyes and Viceregents, dispensers of his holy My­steryes. And therefore neither can the diuersity of their persons, or multitude of such Ministers import any want or defect in the eternall Priest or Bishop of our soules, when as by them he no way looseth or surceaseth, but still continueth, not according to their imperfection, but according to his owne excellency, the sacred office of his euerlasting Priesthood.

25. In like manner to the other braunch of their obiection, I yield that the variety of the Leuiticall Hosts bewrayed their weaknes, because the Iewes had neither any holy and innocent Priest by whome they had accesse vnto God, nor any Host pure and vnspotted: Which caused them to offer diuers poore, distinct, and naked E­lements, shaddowes of things to come, an euident signe of the vnprofitablenesse of the Law. But we doe not so, we haue one only Host, holy and vndefiled, this we so­ly sacrifice vnto God. We offer not, as S. Ambrose testifyeth,Ambr. in c. 10. ad. Haebr. now one lambe, to morrow another, but alwayes the selfe same thing &c. One Christ in euery place, heer whole, and there whole, one body. Not another sacrifice, sayth S. Chrysostome, as the Chrys. hom. 17. in epist. ad Haeb. Sparks in the places aforena­med. high Priest of the old law, but the selfe same we do alwayes offer. Neither is this repeated againe, as though Christ had not offered it well inough (as M. Sparkes still cauilleth) nei­ther to purchase any new price of Redemption (as others contend) but only to dispense and apply the treasures of his mercy once purchased for vs. In which we do dero­gate no more from the high preheminēce of that sauing [Page 102] Host, then we detract from the absolute and generall pardon of our Prince, when by diuers Notaryes it is co­pied forth for the behoofe and benefite of sundry Malefa­ctours.

26. In fine, as M. Bilson and other Sectaryes allow theBils 4 par. pag. 688. 689. &c. Caluin l. 4. Insti. c. 28. preaching of the word, the sacramēt of Baptism, the sup­per of our Lord, to be, not only memoryes, but also ap­plications of Christs bountifull merits, without any im­peachment to his bitter Passion: Why may not we by the same authority, without any derogation to the Oblation of the Crosse, approue our sacrifice of Masse, both as a liue­ly memoriall to expresse in the neerenesse of it selfe the death of Christ, and as an application, conduct, or con­ueyance to deriue the waters of grace frō that ouerflow­ing fountaine of his precious bloud.

27. Another obiection M. Bell affoardeth them out of the Epistle to the Romans: Christ rysing againe from the Bell in his downfall of Popery 9. p. Rom. 6. v. 9 dead, henceforth dyeth no more. The Papists (sayth he) tell vs a contrary tale, that he dyeth euery day, yea a thousand tymes a day in the dayly sacrifyce of their Masse. It is most false that Christ suffereth in our sacrifice, cruell, violent, and iniurious death, of which S. Paul there speaketh; he only dyeth af­ter an hidden, mysticall, and impassible manner, which is not contrary, but agreable to S. Pauls doctrine, con­formable to the institution of Christ, vvho commanded vs not only to preach, teach or belieue, but to Doe that solemne and mysticall action, vvhich he performed, ofLuc. 22. consecrating the bread into his body vnder one kind, & vvine into his bloud vnder another, to represent thereby his body crucifyed, his bloud shed. And therefore if vve exactly scan the povverfull and effectuall vvordes of Consecration, vvhich immediatly produce no more then they signify, vve may truly auerre that Christ, in this svveet and admirable manner, is heere dayly killed and crucifyed againe. For if he vvere sayd to be killed in theApoc. 5. 9. & 138. imperfect thaddovves, and darke resemblances of the old Lavv, and tearmed by S. Iohn: The Lambe slaine from the [Page 113] beginning of the world; because the Goates, Lambes, and other victimes were slaine, which obscurely shadowed and resembled him: how much more truely may he be said to be daily crucified in our dreadfull mystery of the Masse, which is not onely a bare and naked figure, but so liuely an Image, so neere a Character, such a perfect representation of that on the Crosse, as it is the same body, the same bloud, the same Host & Oblation which there was made. And no difference at all, but that, that was sacrificed vpon the ignominious wood of the Crosse, and this vpon the hallowed Altar of the Church. That was all imbrued with bloud: this cleane from the effusiō of bloud. That offered by the treacherous hands of the Iewes: this by the annoynted hands of the Priests. That in his true, proper, and natiue shape: this in a couert, hidden and Sacramentall manner. Heereupon S. Cyprian: Cyp. ep. 63. Pascha. de cons [...]. dist. [...]. c. Itera­tur. Greg. do Conse. dist. 2. c. Quid sie. & hom. 37. in euan. Aug. de fide ad Pe­trum c. 19. The Sacrifice which we offer is the Passion of Christ. Paschasius: Daily Christ is mystically immolated for vs, and the Passion of Christ in mystery is deliuered. S. Gregory: Christ in himselfe immortally liuing, dieth againe in this mystery. S. Augusti­ne speaking of the carnal Sacrifices of the Leuiticall Law, and this Commemoratiue of the new: In them, he saith, Christ was foreshewed as to be killed; in this he is shewed as killed. The reason heereof is manifest, because the seuerall sub­stances of bread and wine (as I touched aboue) are not directly changed, and transubstantiated into the whole person of our Sauiour Christ, as here he liued vpon earth, or as he now raigneth in heauen; but the bread into his body apart from the bloud, and the wine into his bloud apart from the body. In so much that if nothing else en­sued, but that which the words precisely signifie and ef­fectuate, the body should be there truly dead, deuoid of bloud, and the bloud truly shed, seuered from the body.

28. Notwithstanding al this, we constantly beeleue, that (per concomitantiam) as the Deuines tearme it, or by se­quell of all parts each to other, the body of our Sauiour is [Page 114] in the Sacrament, as it is in it selfe: that is, glorious, im­mortall, and fully replenished with his pretious bloud. His bloud is likewise vnder the other kind as it now existeth, conteyned in his veynes; his veynes in his body, his body conioyned to his soule, his soule and body Hy­postatically vnited to the Sonne of God: so that Christ by this sequell or Concomitance, is here wholy vnder both kinds, his whole body, his whole bloud, his whole soule, his whole Godhead, his whole man-hood. Yea by essentiall connexion of one with the other, all the persons of the holy Trinity, the Father, Sonne, and holy Ghost.

29. O most rare and vnspeakable mysterie, which M. Bell, M. Reynolds, and their vnhappy Consorts, either blinded with ignorance, or transported with malice, canHeb. 5. ver. 11. not conceaue! O great and inexplicable speach, which S. Paul thought vnfit to vnfold to the Hebrewes, feeble in faith, and weake in vnderstanding! And indeed, it is too deepe a point to explaine to the itching eares of our captious Heretikes, if the calamity of our times, & importunity of our Aduersaries, did not presse vs thereunto.

30. Besides these cauils, gathered out of Scripture, M. Bils. 4. p. pag. 692. 693. 752. Rey. p. 536. Bilson, and M. Reynolds huddle vp certaine obiections out of the Fathers writings; as that S. Gregory Nazianzen cal­leth our daily Sacrifice: An Image of that on the Crosse. S: Chrysostome: A signe, a remembrance of Christs death. Others say: That Christ is ossered in a Sacrament, in mysterie, in memo­ry. Some tearme it: A spirituall Sacrifice: A Sacrifice of praier. S. Augustine: A Sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing. But how do these sayings infringe our doctrine? We allow it an Image: yet the truth it self. A signe: yet the thing signed. An image, in respect of the outward forms: the truth in re­spect of the inward substance. A signe in shew: the thing it selfe indeed. We agree with the Fathers: That Christ is offered in a Sacrament, in mysterie &c. in regard of the visible elements and outward representation, as I haue already declared, we call the Masse, A spirituall Sacrifice, A Sacri­fice, A Sacrifice of Praier: for that it is made with blessing, [Page 115] and praier mysticall; for that the manner of consecrating this victime is not grosse, carnall, and sensibly bloudy, as the Iewish victimes were, but cleane, spirituall, and vnbloudy. Vnbloudy in Sacrification, in substance bloudy,Aug. con. lit. Petil. l. 2. ca. 86 [...] Tertul. ad Mar. li. 4. Iren. l. 4: ca. 33. & 34. the manner spirituall, the thing corporall. We subscribe to S. Augustine, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and the rest: That it is a Sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing; because hereby God is highly praised, aboundant thankes are surrendred vnto him. And whatsoeuer the old Law with many Hosts and burnt offerings, nakedly resembled; by our sole and sin­guler Sacrifice is wholy, honorably, fully accomplished. In which respect we are the true worshippers of God: Who neither in the Temple of Ierusalem, nor in the mount Garizim, but in euery Coast and Climate of the earth adore the Father of Heauen, according of our Sa­uiours prophesie, in spirit and truth. He saith in spirit, by reason of the life and spirit of God, which our Host con­taineth:Ioan. 4. 23. In truth, because it is indeed the truth it selfe, the true body of Christ, which the figures of the old Law shadowed and resembled. Or he addeth in spirit, not to debar vs from all externall Sacrifices, or outward ceremo­nies (as Caluin misconstrueth the word) but to exclude the grosse & corporall victimes of the Iewes, as S. Chry­sostome Caluin in his Com. vpon this place. Chrys. and Euthy. vp­on this place. Amb. de Spi. l. 3. ca. 11. Cyr. in Io. l. 2. ca. 93. and Euthymius expound this place; In truth, to oppose it against the false and vnlawfull worship of the Samaritans; which is the interpretation of S. Ambrose, S. Cyril, and Theophilact.

31. And this is sufficient to cleare the Fathers, suffi­cient, if not to stop the mouth of clamous Aduersaries, yet to quiet the minds of indifferent Readers, sufficient to acquit our Sacrifice from calumny, our selues from Ido­latrie, our Priests from iniury, and incroachment vpon Christs incommunicable right, in their immaculate and daily immolation of his body and bloud.

CHAP. I.

THe late Nouellists of our tyme, not contented to impugne our Sacrament, controule our Sacrifice; eagerly also inueigh against our manner of Com­munion. Amongst whome, a chiefe Ensigne-bearer M. Thomas Bilson, con­demneth Bils. 4. Par pag. 684. & 685. of Christian subiection. Fulk in bis answere to the Rhem. Test. in [...]. 6.10. sect. 12. it, as mangled, broken, & im­perfect. He presumeth to say: That we chase the people from the Cup of their saluation: from the Communion of Christs bloud, and fellowship of his holy spirit. D. Fulke auoucheth: The Chapter of Trent (so he scornefully tearmeth that Venera­ble Councell) vainely goeth about to proue that one halfe of the Sacrament is not necessary. But they purposly misconstrue, or ignorantly mistake the truth of our doctrine. For if they knew that vnder the formes of bread alone, or wine [Page 117] alone, and that in euery part and parcell of them the whole body of Christ, and all his pretious bloud is con­tainedConc. Tri­den. se [...]. 13. cap. 13. (as we with that sacred Councell mantaine) they must needes belieue, that he who enioyeth the least par­ticle of either kind, receaueth not a mangled or imperfect, but an absolute, complete, entire and perfect Sacrament, the true Author and giuer of life, the whole refection of Christs body and bloud. And whereas more then the whole, more then all, none can expect, he that partaketh the least portion is no way defrauded, but aboundantly replenished with whatsoeuer he can desire. Secondly we teach, that not only the entire Sacrament, and totall sub­stance thereof, but the whole fruite, grace, and vertue,Conc. Tri­den. sel. 21, cap 3. Ioan. 6. 1. Cor. 10. Ira [...]. l. 4. cont. haer. cap. 34. Hilar. l. 8. de Trinit. Greg. Niss. orat. cate. c. 36. 37. Cyr. lib. 10. & 11. in Ioan. which proceedeth from both kinds togeather, is fully al­so exhibited vnder one alone. For which cause our Bles­sed Sauiour attributeth the same effect and life of our soules to one, as he doth to both, speaking only of the bread, he sayth: This is the Bread descending from heauen, that if any eate of it he may not dye. Againe: He that eateth this Bread shall liue for euer. And S. Paul: He that eateth the Host, is partaker of the Altar. Which S. Irenaus, S. Hilary, S. Gre­gory Nissen, S. Cyril of Alexandria very notably confirme in sundry places.

2. Hence it followeth that the Priest receaueth not any more benefite by both kinds then the people by one. For albeit the Chalice by it selfe be both the wel & con­duit of grace: yet taken at the same tyme with the body, it infuseth no more then was enioyed before: Euery par­ticle of a deuided Host, euery drop of the Chalice is a maine Ocean of spirituall blessings: yet many of them by the same morall action successiuely receaued, affoard no more grace then one alone, because that one instilleth the whole fountaine it selfe which cannot at that tyme be further increased, or produced a new. In the mistery of the Holy Trinity we belieue the same; we belieue the vnderstanding of the Sonne to be alike fruitfull & powerfull as the vnderstanding of the Father: yet it be­getteth [Page 118] not any Image of it selfe, any word of the mind, because the true and consubstantiall Image, the eternall and perfect word of the vnderstanding is already begot­ten. So in earthly thinges, where the burning lampe once casteth his clearest beames of light, although it shi­neth still, it enlightneth no more. Where the fire hath in­kindled all degrees of heate, although it worketh still, it can heate no more. In the Holy Sacraments we find the like. When the Character of Baptisme is once imprinted, let the child be baptized againe, it cannot be imprinted anew. When the body of Christ is once consecrated vn­der the formes of Bread, let the wordes be repeated, it cannot be consecrated againe. After the same manner in our Communion, when the full and plenteous refection of our soule with the whole Body and bloud of Christ is by any parcell of either element perfectly accomplished, let new Hosts be imparted, let another element be applyed, as long as the former heauenly repast morally nourisheth and remaineth, we cannot be fed anew, or be more daintily refreshed. Why then (say you) do the Priests com­municate vnder both kindes? I answere; Not to par­take more aboundantly the vertue of the Sacrament, but more perfectly to represent the Passion of Christ, the in­regrity of his Sacrifice, the violent separation of his body & bloud, which is most liuely signifyed (as I haue already declared) by the seuerall consecration, and separate con­sumption of distinct and diuers elements.

3. But Christ (sayth M. Fulke instituted both kinds: the Apostles ministred the Sacrament in both indifferently to all. Our Sauiour (sayth M. Bilson) commanded the Chalice to be M. Fulke in c. 6. 10. Bils. 4. par pag. 679. drunke of the people, a [...] well as of the Priests, when he sayd: Drinke yee all of this. What? Was this spoken to all vniuersally? Was it spoken to Iewes, Turkes, and Infidels? Was it spoken to Infants, to whome the Protestants themselues doe not minister the Cup? No. It was spoken only to them that sate downe at supper with Christ, to them to whome before he brake and distributed the formes of [Page 119] bread, to them to whome he reached the Chalice; to them, who after songe the Hymne, and went into the mount O [...]iuet with him, to them to whome he sayd: All you shalbe scādalized in me this night. But these only were theMarc. cap. 14. Apostles of Christ, as the Euangelist witnesseth. Therfore to them alone, and in their persons to all Bishops and Priests their successours it way sayd: Drinke yee all of this. This history of the institution of the Sacrament, S. Paul Math. [...]6. v. [...]8. 1. Cor. 11 V. 23. deliuereth to the Corinthians: yet neither commandeth himselfe all to drinke of the Chalice, nor auoucheth anyI. Cor. II v. 23. such ordinance or decree to haue been enacted by Christ.

4. M. Bilson presseth further: To whome then were these wordes spoken: Take yee, eate yee? Not to the selfe same partyes to whome it was sayd: Drinke yee? If none may drinke but Priests Bils. 4. par pag. [...]79. then by the same logicke none should eate but Priests. I answere: that by the force of that commandment: Take, eate, the Laity are not tyed to tast of the Holy Eucharist (for these wordes were spoken to the Apostls only) but they are o­bliged by the institution of this holy Mistery as a Sacra­ment necessary to saluation. They are obliged by those threatning words of Christ: Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Ioan. 6. [...] 53. Sonne of Man, and drinke his Bloud, you shall haue no life in you.

5. He doth not heere command the manner of ea­ting and drinking, but the substance of the thing. He dothAlexan. 4 par. sum. [...]. 53. in I. iuxta edit. antiquam. Alex. l. 1. Euchar. c. 41. not say (as our Aduersaryes would wrest his meaning) vnlesse you eate my flesh vnder the shape of bread, and drinke my bloud vnder the forme of wine: But vnlesse you eate my flesh and drinke my bloud, which may be truely performed vnder one kind alone. For he that eateth the bread is entyrely nourished not only with the flesh, but with the whole substance of Christ his precious bloud; as certaine monkes of whome Alexander de Hales, and Car­dinall Allan write, were miraculously instructed by a­boundance of bloud which issued from the signs of bread, And he that drinketh the Chalice is likwise fed with the whole quantity of our Sauiours flesh. And so he that par­ticipateth [Page 120] one kind which perfectly containeth the meateClaud in repe. vle. de Eucha. 1. Cor. 3. v. [...]. & 9. v. 7 Cyp ser. de coen. Dom. Vvald. to 2 de Sacā. rap. 93. Pasch. l. de Cor. Christi Aug. l. 3. q in Leuit. cap. 57. Chrys. ho. 18. m 2. ad Cor. Bils. 4. par. pag. 632. S. Igna. ep. ad Philad. Amb. l. de mit. myst. cap. 9. Hier. in c. 2. Mala. Cyp. ser. de coen. Dom. Toles. in c. 6. Ioan. Exod. 22. v. 15. Iob. 31. Eze. 13. Psal. 129. 1. Cor. 11. v. 27. & cap. 10. v. 17. and drinke of both, may truly be sayd to eate in regard of the one, and drinke in respect of the other. As Claudius Xainctes proueth by the authority of many Fathers, and excellently gathereth out of S. Paul to the Corinthians, where the same milke is tearmed drinke and meat, which S. Cyprian verifyeth of the food of the holy Eucharist. After the like manner Thomas Waldensis expoundeth Pas­chasius, when by these wordes: Drinke yee all of this, he willeth all faythfull belieuers, To drinke the Bloud that is vnder the outward accidents and shew of bread. Which is also the meaning of S. Augustine, S. Chrysostome, and others alleadged by M. Bilson, where they say: We are all exhorted to drinke the Bloud. And: That the cup is ministred to all. Or they speake of the vse and practise of the Church in their tymes, as S. Ignatius, S. Ambrose, and S. Hierome do. Or lastly they speake of the necessity of receauing both kinds at least by some in the Church, but not by all: As S. Cy­prian doth when he sayth: The l [...] prohibiteth the eating of bloud: the Ghospell commandeth it to be drunke.

6. Otherwise we may auerre with the renowned Cardinall Tolet in that passage of S. Iohn: Vnles you eate &c. and drinke his bloud: that the Coniunction (and) is according to the Hebrew phrase, disiunctiuely taken for (or.) As in Exodus, where the Hebrew text hath: He that striketh his Father, and his Mother, Let him dye: the meaning is, as our vulgar tran­slation interpreteth and readeth: He that striketh his Father (or) his Mother. The like we find in Iob, Ezechiel, and other places; the like in S. Paul in plaine confirmation both of this exposition and doctrine of the Sacrament. For wher some read: Whosoeuer shall eate this bread, and drinke the chalice our of Lord vnworthily, in the Greeke it is (or drinke.) And in the immediate chapter before, where the ancient latin copies haue: We are one bread and one body, all that par­take of one bread, and one Chalice, the Greeke only readeth, All that partake of one bread. Because by one kind we re­ceaue the true nourishment and perfect substance of both.

[Page 121]7. Thus we easily put off the force of that argumēt, but how our Aduersaryes will auoyd it I know not. For they interpreting S. Iohns wordes of the spirituall eating of Christs flesh & bloud, by fayth; I would vnderstand of them, what difference they make betweene eating, and drinking. For certes, in the sole act of faith, there is no difference: no difference in belieuing his flesh wounded, from belieuing his bloud shed, in respect of beliefe: therefore you neither obey the precept, nor feare the cō ­mination of Christ: Vnles you eate the flesh of the Sonne of Man and drinke his bloud, you shall haue no life in you. Heere ChristIoan. 6. v. 53. commaundeth the reall eating, which you renounce; mentioneth the drinking, which you haue not: the belie­uing which in that place he neither commaundeth nor mentioneth, you imbrace, and yet you would be the Ghospellers of Christ. Neuerthelesse at your importuni­ty, let vs leaue his words, leaue his meaning, and ad­mit your false construction. Then I propose this questiō, whether he that stedfastly belieueth in Christ, the Saui­our of the world with one firme assent, without separat­ly thinking of the wounds of his Body, and effufion of his bloud; doth truly fullfill according to you the former precept, and enioy the promised life, or not? Without doubt you must graunt he doth, as our Sauiour often a­uoucheth, saying: He that belieueth in me hath life euerlasting, Ioan. 6. v. 47. Ioan 3. v. 16. Ioan. 11. v. 25. & euery one that belieueth in the Sonne of God shall not pèrish &c. Besides, He that belieueth in me, although he be dead, shal liue. Wherefore as this satisfyeth in the spirituall eating, why should it not also satisfy in the corporall, by one act and vnder one kind to receaue the authour himself, and price of our redemption, without receauing him twise, by two seuerall acts of eating, and drinking? Because, you will say, in the corporall, Christ commandeth both: and doth he not so in the spirituall, supposing you spiritually ex­pound his wordes? Or will you say, that in the spiritual eating of our Redeemer, his death and Passion, and by consequence his body broken, and bloud shed, are inuol­ued? [Page 122] So say I, that in the corporal teceauing of one kind, both are not only consequently inuolued, but perfectly contained: and in the sole act of eating, the other of drinking, is vertually implyed. Which this very passageIoan. 6. v. 57. ensuing apparently conuinceth: He that eateth me, the same also shall liue by me. For what doth the word (me) compre­hend, but the whole person of Christ, his flesh, his bloud, his body, his soule, his deity, & whatsoeuer els belongs vnto him? Therefore he that eateth only, eateth him, eateth and drinketh all.

8. But out of the former sayings of S. Iohn, M. Bilson with his confederates picke a new quarrel, that the wicked according to vs eate Christ, yet dye the death of sinners, therfore our Sauiour speaketh not of the corpo­rall, but only of the spirituall eating by fayth, by which we perish not, but liue for euer. I answere, that the former sentences & many such like are vnderstood conditional­ly, if he eate worthily, and still perseuere in that happy state, he shal liue for euer; otherwise if he eate vnworthi­ly, he eateth, as the Apostle sayth, iudgment to himselfe.Ioan. 4. v. 13. Marc. 16. v. 16. Ioel. 2. v. 32. So it is sayd: He that shall drinke of the water that I will giue him, shall not thirst for euer: He that belieueth, and is baptized shall be saued: Euery one that shall inuocate the name of the Lord, shalbe saued; to wit, if he inuocate and call vpon him in fayth, and charity as he ought; if he belieue aright, and doth not finally loose his fayth, nor the grace of Bap­tisme, and water of the holy Ghost once receaued, as I shall proue heereafter he may. Therefore this argument of theirs maketh no more against the corporal, then spi­rituall feeding; for as euerlasting life is promised to the faythfull and pious belieuer, so to the reall and worthy Receauer: and as the one may fall from his worthy dig­nity, so the other make shipwracke of his liuely fayth, and eternally perish. Perchance you will obiect, that this answere suteth not with the prerogatiue which our Sauiour giueth to the holy Eucharist, aboue Manna: That Ioan. 6. v. 49. 50. the Fathers did eate Manna in the desert, and they dyed, this is [Page 123] the bread that descendeth frō heauen, that if any man eat of it, he dye not. For whosoeuer did worthily feed on that dainty Manna, and continued in the same state, neuer tasted the bitternes of spirituall death: therefore according to this construction, it is not inferiour to the blessed Sacrament. I answere first, that such as then liued for euer, enioyed not the priuiledges of life, by the vertue and force of Manna; but by their loue of God and fayth in Christ their true Messias; and yet they that worthily receaue the Eucharist, truely liue by the vertue, power, and efficacy of Christs reall presence, the spring of life, and fountaine of grace therein contained.

9. Secondly I reply, that Christ doth not only com­pare the Eucharist with Manna, in respect of the life and death of the soule; but of the body also, after this sort. Manna could not affoard to your Fathers life of body, much lesse of soule, during their short passage through the desert. This bread affoardeth life to the soule, much more to the body during the length of all eternity. They that eate Manna dyed in body, a temporall death: they that eate this bread shall not dye the eternall death, nei­ther of the body nor soule. And heerein consisteth as Maldonate commenteth vpon this text, the singular grace, & elegancy of our Sauiours comparison, in passing fromMaldonat [...] in hunc lo­eum. Matt. 8. v. 22. Ioan. 4. v. 13. one kind of life and death to another: which plesant di­gression he often vseth, as the same Author discourseth in other places. In S. Matthew: Let the dead bury the dead. The first he calleth dead in soule, the next in body. In S. Iohn: Euery one that drinketh of this water, shall thirst a­gaine: but he that shall drinke of the water, that I will giue him, shall not thirst for euer. First he speaketh of the corporallMatt. 26. v. 29. water, and thirst of the body: then of the spirituall water and thirst of the soule. Likewise: I wil not drinke from hence forth of this fruit of the vine vntill that day, when I shall drinke it with you new, in the kingdome of my Father. Heere he first mentioneth the naturall wine of the grape: then the metaphoricall wine of celestiall ioyes. So now he first [Page 124] speaketh of the corporall, then of the spirituall, and euer­lasting life, which our Blessed Sacrament of his owne nature yeildeth to all such as daily receaue it (although Manna yielded not as much as the corporall) if they doe not after by sinne willfully destroy the quickening grace and liuely seed it imparteth vnto them. And thus the wordes are of more emphasy, the comparison more pi­thy, and the preheminence of the Eucharist aboue Manna more remarkable, then if our Sauiour had spoken in both places only of the spirituall. Lastly if our Sectaryes ex­pound S. Iohn of the eating by fayth, how vncongru­ously will they make S. Paul to speake, writing of the same matter, and saying: He that eatech vnworthily, which1. Cor. 11. v. 27. cannot be properly attributed to the belieuer, because he that belieueth not as he ought, doth either falsly or fained­ly belieue; we cannot with any congruity of speach say that he belieueth vnworthily; therefore as S. Paul, so likewise S. Iohn ought to be vnderstood, not of the spiri­tuall, but of the corporall eating of Christs sacred flesh.

10. That which M. Bilson alleadgeth out of Gelasius, & S. Leo condemning the Communion vnder one kind,Bils▪ 4. par. pag. 684. & 685. Gelas. can▪ Comperi [...]ꝰ dist. 2. Leo. ser. 4. de quadra. is of no force at all. For they condemne the dry Com­munion not of the Catholiks, but of the Manichees, who teaching that Christ brought into this world, and wal­ked vpon earth with a meere empty and phantasticall body, deuoyd of true and natural bloud; they in testimo­ny of this errour abstained from the bloud, & with great sacriledge, as Gel [...]sius writeth, deuided one and the selfe same mistery: which all Catholikes had iust cause to re­prehend in them, no Protestant any cause to obiect a­gainst vs, who neither deuide the mistery, nor abstaine from the bloud, but constantly teach, that by fequele & concomitance, we receaue it wholy and entirely; contai­ned in the body, we inioy the full participation of Christ, Fulke loco [...]itato. Bils. 4. par pag. 682. as M. Fulke requireth.

11. At last, both he, and D. Bilson ioyntly oppose the Practise of the vniuersall Church, which for many ages togeather▪ [Page 125] ministred the Sacrament vnder both kinds, euen to the Laity. I grant that the Church vsed it as a thing lawfull, not as aAug. epist 23. ad Bo­nif. Tolet. Con. cap. 11. Tho. 3. p. q. 80. art. 9. ad 3. Cypr. serm. de lapsis. thing prescribed or decreed by God, or vniuersally with­out exception, in all times and places practised. Which manner of receauing, the Church might after change when her Communica [...]ts were so many, as wine sufficient could not be fitly consecrated, nor without eminent perill of shedding, or danger of abusing, be conueniently mini­stred. It was an vsuall custome both in the Greeke and Latine Church, for many ages to communicate with the Chalice young sucking babes, of which S. Augustine, the x j. Toletan Councell, and S. Thomas make mention. And S. Cyprian writeth of the consecrated Bloud powred into the mouth of an Infant. But as the Church vpon iust cause abro­gated that custome, leauing the children the benefit of neither kind, without any wrong vnto them, and Pro­testants allow hereof; why write they so bitterly against debarring the people vpon as many important reasons from the vse of the Chalice? where notwithstanding, the whole fruit and benefit thereof to their comfort remay­neth.

12. Besides, in many things you your selues (who count it in vs a crime so damnable) stray from that which Christ practised, in the institution of the Sacramen [...]: for example, Christ communicated only men, you women also: he in a priuate house, you in a publike Temple: he at night, you in the morning: he with For the Iewes had no other then vn­lea [...]ened bread at that tyme. Exod. 12. Ther shall not be found lea­nened in your hou­ses. Luc. 24. Aug. l. 3. de consen. Euang. c. 25. Chry. hom. 17. oper▪ imperfect. in Matth. Theoph. in eumlocum. Beda in i [...] loc. Luc. Act. 2. v. 42. & 20. v. 7. vnleauened, you with leauened bread; his Communicants receaued sitting, yours kneeling: his after, yours before meat: may you in these points vary from Christ? and may not we by the ineriable warrant of his Church, alter that which he hath left indifferent vnto her? Especially seeing she fol­loweth herein the president of Christ, who ministred the Sacrament vnder one kind only to the two Disciples at Emaus, as S. Augustine, S. Chrysostome, Theophilact, and Ve­nerable Bede auouch: the example of the Apostles, who did often the like: the practise of S. Paul, who at Troi [...]s, [Page 126] before he fell into danger of Ship-wracke, as S. Chryso­stome teacheth, performed the same: the prescription ofChry. hom 17. oper. imperf. Tertul. l. 2. [...]v [...]or. Cypr. serm. de lapsis. Amb. or [...] de obitu Saty [...]i. Basil ep. ad Casar. Euse. lib. 6. bist. c. 36. Pauli [...]us in vita Ambros. Amphilo. in vi. Basil. Fulke in c. 6. 10 sect. 11. Conc. Tol. 2. cap. 11. August. serm. 252. detemp. & Conc. An­ [...]ifiod. cap. 3 [...]. & 38. Ambr. in orat. de obitu Sa­tyrifratris sui▪ Basil. ep. ad Caesar▪ am. Patric. Al [...]uinus l. de Offi. Eccles. c. de Paras [...]eue. Inno. [...] ep. 1. cap. 4. Euseb. loc. citato. Fulke vbi supr [...]. the ancient Church, which ministred to Children only the bloud, reserued most commonly the body alone, both in priuate houses, and in Wildernesses for the Ermites, as Tertullian, S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, and S. Basil testifie; housled the sicke often vnder one kind, after which man­ner Serapion, S. Ambrose, S. Basill, receiued their Viaticum lying on their death beds, witnesse Eusebius, Paulinus, and Amphilochius.

13. M. Fulke laboureth to auoid the authorities of these Fathers by two Sophisticall shifts. First by the figure of Synecdoche which taketh the part for the whole: secon­dly by disgracing the practise S. Tertullian, S. Cyprian, S. Basil, S. Chrysostome, Eusebius and others record, with the note of a superstitious custome. Where, on the one side he ouerthroweth himselfe, he contradicteth on the other those learned writers. He ouerthroweth himselfe, cal­ling it a superstitious custome, which must consequently sa­uour of some point of Popery, conformable to our ancient prescription, and wholy disagreable to his new inuen­ted doctrine. He contradicteth those learned Fathers, who expresly speake of the sole infusiō of the bloud into the mouthes of yong sucking babes, or into the mouths of the sicke who could not for drinesse receaue the body, as it was decreed in the second Toletan Councell. Of fine Linnen clothes, called Dominica [...]a, prouided by deuout women to in wrap the body, vnfit to infold the bloud. Of a sole particle of the body, which S. Ambrose his brother inclosed in a Pix and hanged for safegard about his necke. Of keeping the body so long in Alexandri [...] & Aegypt those hoat Countries, where the wine without corruption could not be reserued, nor carried with safty, nor kept with decency. Of the Custome of the Roman Church, whose Priest vpon Good-friday, many yeares agoe, com­municated only vnder one kind, as Alcuinus and Innocen­tius [Page 127] the first [...]elate. Of the moysture which was vsed for the better swallowing downe of the Host, mentioned by Eusebius, altogeather needlesse if the Cup had beene exhi­bited. Where I desire the Reader to register the folly of M. Fulke, who affirmeth the moistned Sacrament, where­of Eusebius speaketh, To be the Cup dropped into the mouth of [...]erapion, whereas it was the body dipped in some propha­ne liquor the easier to swallow downe that diuine food. But any Common liquor faithfully receaued is wholy as good as the wine of their Table, & therefore he may wel entitle it the Cup of his Communion.

14. Not the Fathers only, our Sectaries also: Vrbanus Vrbanus Regius in li. de locis com. 69. Luther ep. ad Bohemo [...] christus, in­quit, hac in re nihil t [...] quā neces­sarium praecepit. Melanct. in Centu. ep. th [...]o. pag. 252. Bucer. in Colloq. Ra­ [...]isbon▪ Iewel in his Reply. p. 110. & 106. Regius, a Lutheran Doctour confesseth, the Sacramont in one kind to haue beene ordained in the first Councell at Ephesus, about a thousand yeares before the Synode of Basill or Constance, for ex­tinguishing Nestorious heresie, who held the Body without the Bloud in the one, the Bloud without the Body in the other kind comprised. Yea M. Luther, the Protestants first Progenitour, and chiefest Patriarch affirmeth: That Christ commanded nothing as necessa­ry touching Communion vnder one or both kinds. And Melancthon his scholler, and Bucer with him, accounteth it as a matter of indifferency, as many other Protestants doe, whom M. Iewell in his Reply neither reproueth or gaine-sayth. And it is strange the Sacramentaries should begin to plead for the necessity of both, who beleeue their bread and wine to be nothing els but outward tokens to stirre vp their faith, memory and deuotion, which may be farre better exci­ted by the sight and view of the seuerall Hosts which our Priests doe offer, then by the participation of the signes their Ministers exhibit. Or if they will needs tast of the Cup, we allow our faithfull Communicants whatsoeuer they for their Sect-mates prouide, and the same for which they contend. We minister to our Laity the wine of the Grape, the dayntiest Nectar of their Communion Table, & we affoard them besides the precious food of Christs Body and Bloud, a Celestiall banquet infinitely surpassing their poore, prophane, and hungry feast.

[Page 128]15. Goe then M. Bilson, goe M. Fulke, goe you Sectaries, reuile and vpbraid vs as transgressors of Christs commandement: goe you their fauoruits, declaime in your Oratories, and crie out in the Pulpits, that we de­fraud the people of the Cup of their saluation, of the Com­munion of Christs Bloud; Whereas you are they, who rob them indeed of the sacred Bloud and Body also, bereaue them of their spirituall life, and of all the heauenly deli­ghts and treasures of their soule: yeelding bare signes & vaine figures, in lieu of the diuine verities and reall sub­stances our Blessed Sauiour bequeathed vnto them. And we fensed by Christ, by his Apostles, by the Church, the ne­uer-erring Spouse of our Lord, refreshing all with the maine fountaine of life, performe it in that manner, as is most behoofull for time, for place, for Priests, and People.

CHAP. 1.

I May fitly compare the Sectaries of our tyme as S. Gregory Nazianzē doth that enemy of God, Iulian the Apo­stata, Nazian. orat. 1. in Iulianum. Sparkes in his answer to M. Iohn de Albins pag. 3. 6. 337. Eu. ke in cap. 20. 10. sect. 5. Kemnitius in Censu ad c. 5. Con [...]il [...] Trident. to the Camclion. For as he chan­geth himselfe into all variety of co­lours but only white the most true & natiue colour: so our Reformers ad­mit all manner of Doctrine, and in this present all sorts of Confession, but that which is most important and bene­ficiall for their soules. 1. They allow the Confession of sinnes to God in generall. 2. The Confession of some sinnes in particuler to a learned Minister to receaue comfort and direction from him. 3. The Confession of certaine enormo us crimes publikely made in the sight of the congregation, for their satisfaction and terrour of others. 4. The Confession of priuate iniuries to the party offended to be recon­ciled to him. But the Confession of all particuler faults to a [Page 130] lawfull Priest to receaue pardon, and absolution they vtter­ly disauow. Wherein (to proceed more perspicuously) they chiefly deny three principall points. First the power in Priests to absolue from sinnes. Secondly the necessity of sinners to confesse. Thirdly the necessity of numbring euery particuler offence. All which notwithstanding I will clearly deduce out of that soueraigne Commission Christ gaue to his Apostles, when breathing vpon them he sayd.

2. Receaue yee the holy Ghost, whose sinnes yee forgiue they Iohn 20. v. 23. are forgiuen: and whose sinnes yee retaine they are retayned. For by this passage it is euident, that authority is giuen to the Priests of Gods Church, not only to preach the Ghospell, and denounce retention to the impenitent, remission to theSparkes P. 323. Fulke. in c. 20. Ioan. sect. 4. & 5 Math 28 Mar. 16. Ioan. 20. penitent belieuer, as D. Sparkes, D. Fulke with their ad­herents perfidiously wrest the words: but absolute po­wer is granted vnto them, as the Vicars and Vicegerents of Christ, truly to remit and pardon sinnes. 1. Because commission to preach was giuen before in S. Matthew & S. Marke. 2. That was extended to all, Teach all nations: this is restrayned to some alone, who submit their faults to the keyes and censure of the Church, Whose sinnes yee re­mit &c. 3. Forgiuenes of sinnes in heauen is not alwayes annexed to the Preachers exhortation, it is to the absolu­tion of the Priest, if no obstacle hinder it in the party ab­solued. 4. The Preachers voyce declareth on earth what God hath already persormed in heauen: but heere quite contrary God ratifieth in heauen what the Priest by his mynisteriall power pronounceth vpon earth. The Iudg­ment Hila. Can 26. in. Mat. Chr [...]. hom. 5. de verbis Isa. Vidi Dominum. or sentence on earth (sayth S. Hilary) goeth before that which is giuen in heauen. Heauen (sayth S. Chrysostome borro­weth principall authority of iudging from the Earth. So as it can­not be the meere vocation to preach, but some other ex­traordinary and singular Iurisdiction which our Sauiour here bequeathed to his Apostles.

3. A Iurisdiction signified before by the power of keys, which are chiefly giuen to magistrates and rulers of [Page 131] Cittyes, not to betoken thinges already locked or vn­lockt, but to open and shut as occasion requireth. A Iurisdiction for the due exercise whereof, the Sacrament (so Aug. l. 2. cont. Parm. c. 13. Greg. l. 4. Com. in l. Regū c. 5. Calu. l. 4. Instit. c. 19.) S. Augustine and others tearme it) of Ordination was instituted, (Chrys. hom. 85. in Ioan. Greg. Niss. ora. de lap. Isa. 44. v. 12. Cyr. lib. 12. c. 56. in 10. Atha ser. in illaverba Profecti in pagum. Hier ep. ad Hedibi. Bafil. quaest breuib. in­ter 288. Leo ep. 91▪ ad Th [...]o [...]. Pacian ep. 1. ad Sym. pro. Ambr. de poenic. l. x. c. 2. & 7. Chris l. 3. de Sacer.) Spirituall grace infused, the Holy Ghost pur­posely imparted, and imparted after a speciall manner of insufflation or breathing on them, to denote that the breath of his Priests pronouncing the words of absolution should disperse and dissolue the mists of sinne, according to that of the Prophet Esay: I haue disolued like a cloud thy sins. This ceremony then was vsed to declare the effect of ex­tinguishing sinne: the Holy Ghost was giuen to mani­fest the cause by whom it is abolished. For as S. Cyril sayth: It is neyther absurd nor yet inconuenient that they forgiue sinnes, who haue the Holy Ghost. For when they pardon or retaine sinns, the Holy Ghost pardoneth or retayneth sinnes by them, and that they doe two wayes, by Baptisme first, afterwards by Penance.

4. Lastly that this rare prerogatiue graunted to Priests was not only by the mystery of the word to de­clare, but by the authority of the keyes to forgiue sinnes, many other of the Fathers directly teach; S. Athanasius tearming it: Power giuen by our Sauiour to Paiests to loose sinnes. S. Hierome, S. Basil, S. Leo, Pacianus haue the like. S. Am­brose expresly proueth this authority in Priests of remit­ting sins against the Nouatians, cuen ouer them to whom they denyed the ministery of absolution, albeit they graunted the benefit of preaching. S. Chrysostome extol­ling the dignity of Priests aboue Kings, and Angels, am­plifyeth the same after his fashion with this goulden streame of wordes: They that inhabite the earth and conuerse thereon, to them comission is giuen to dispense those thinges that are in heauen. To them that power is giuen, which Almighty God would not communicate either to Angell or Archangell. For to [...]hem it is not sayd, whatsoeuer yee shall bind in earth, shalbe bound in heauen &c. Earthly Princes indeed haue also authority to bind, but the bodyes only: but that Sacerdo­tum vincu­lum ipsam: e [...]i im ani­mam con­tingit, atque ad caelos vsque peruadit &c. binding of Priests which I treate of, [Page 132] toucheth the very soule it selfe, and reacheth euen to the Heauens. In so much as whatsoeuer the Priestes performe beneath, the very same Almighty God doth aboue: and the sentence Seruorū sententiam Dominus confirmat. of the seruant our Lord doth confirme. And what is this truly elso, but that the power of heauenly things is graunted by God vnto them. Whose sinnes soeuer (sayth he) yee shall retaine they are retained. What power I beseech you can be greater then this? The Father gaue all power to the Sonne: but I see the same power, deliuered altogea­ther by the Sonne vnto them. Wherefore as Christ had a spe­ciall power of pardoning sinnes distinct from his power of preaching: so had the Apostles, to whome he gaue al power committed vnto him, as S. Chrysostome auoucheth, and our Sauiour himselfe witnesseth, when before he imparted this authority, he mentioneth his owne com­missionIoan. 20. v. 22. saying: As my Father sent me, I also send you.

5. The power of Priests to remit sinnes being thus established: it remaineth I declare, how Confession to a Priest, the second point which our Aduersaryes deny, is heerein implyed. M. Fulke sayth: Neither doth it follow of M. Fulke in c. 20. Io. sect. 5. any necessity, that men are bound to submit themselues to the Iudg­ment of Priests, if they haue authority to forgiue sinnes. But S. Augustine more ancient, more holy, more learned then he, is of a contrary mind: Let no man deceaue himselfe, and say: I do pennance secretly, I do it in the sight of God: God who Aug. 50. bom. bom. 49. pardoneth me, knoweth I doe it in my hart. Then without cause was it sayd: Those things which you loose on earth shallbe loosed in heauen. Then without cause were the keyes giuen to the Church of God. Do we frustrate the Ghospell? Do we euacuate the word of Matth. 18. v. 18. &c. 26. v. 19. Christ? As though all these thinges were in vaine, if by God alone without the help and ministery of the Priest our sinnes could be remitted. For as the Commandment our Sauiour gaue to his Apostles to baptize, saying: Goe teach all Nations, baptizing them &c. had beene wholy in vaine, if all men were not bound to receaue the Sacra­mentMatth. 28. [...]. 19. of Baptisme, if any entrance to Christianity, any badge or cognizance of a Christian could be obtained without this lauer and regeneration of water, and the [Page 133] holy Ghost. Againe, as the authority he gaue them to preach were to little purpose, if men not sufficiently in­structedMarc. 16. v. 15. were not obliged thereby to giue eare to his word: so idle and in vaine were the commission he gran­ted to his Apostles, to retaine and forgiue sinnes, if all who offended after Baptisme be not tyed to submit and make knowne their offences vnto them, which for two seuerall reasons they are bound to do.

6. The first is mentioned by Boetius, If thou desire the Boetius de Consola. l. 1. prosa. 4. help of thy Phisitian, it is requisite thou discouer thy disease. But as many as are swollen with the impostume of sinne, ought to seeke remedy for the recouery of their soules. Therefore it is necessary they lay open their soares to the spirituall Phisitians appointed for their cure. The second reason is, because Priests are made, by the vertue of this Commission not only Phisitians, but spirituall Iudges al­so, to vnderstand the quality and haynousnes of our crymes, to know what medicinable pēnance they should apply, to discerne what sinnes are to be remitted, andArist. 8. Polit. what retained. Now seeing Aristotle teacheth, and na­turall reason approueth it to be true: That it is impossible for them to iudge discreetly, who haue no knowledge of the case: all that are entangled with the snares of sin must giue no­tice of them to the Priests tribunall, whome God hath placed in iudgment-seat, to pronounce in his person sen­tence of absolution.

7. And least any should gainesay, with Caluin, thisNazi. ora. ad Ciues ti­more per­culsos. Hier. ep­ad Helio. Aug. l. 20. de ciu. Dei cap. 9. Apoc. 20. iudiciall power graunted to Priests; besides the words of Christ, which clearely conuince it, the authority of the Fathers maketh it vndenyable. S. Greg. Nazianzē auerreth: That the law of Christ hath subiected Princes to his Throne and Empyre. S. Hierome sayth: That Priests hauing the keyes of the kingdome of heauen, iudge as it were before the day of iudg­ment. S. Augustine vpon these wordes of the Apocalips: I saw seates, and those that sate vpon them, and iudgment was gi­uen vnto them, writeth thus: This may not be thought to be spo­ken of the last iudgment: but by the seates are meant the Rulers [Page 134] thrones of the Church, and the Persons themselues by whome they are gouerned. And for the iudgment giuen them it cannot be better explained then in these words: Whatsoeuer yee bind on earth shalbe bound in heauen; and whatsoeuer yee loose on earth, shallbe loosed in Heauen.

8. Hence we inferre the exact enumeration of allSparks p. 329. 330. 331. grieuous crimes, the third point M. Sparkes impugneth. For as they that haue many strifs in law to be determined by the examination and sentence of the Iudge, ought to vnfold them al in particuler to receaue his iudgment and verdict of them: so they that are burdened with sundry faults, which be offences and iniuryes committed against God, if they will come to an attonement with him, they must make them all knowne to such as are ordained to reconcile them to his fauour, to such as participate (to vse S. Gregoryes words) the principality of Diuine iudgment, Greg. ho. 26. in E­ [...]ang. who in place of God may detaine sinnes to some, release them to o­thers. When a souldiour hath receaued many woundes in warre, it is not inough to tell his Surgeon or Phisitian in generall manner that he is wounded, but he must shewAug. serm. 66. de tem. the seuerall woundes and dangers of them, or els no wise Surgeon will venter to apply his plaisters, or vndertake to cure them: euen so it is not sufficient for such as are wounded in Soule with diuers deadly sinnes, to com­plaine in generall that they are grieuous sinners, but they must particulerly specify the number, quality and hay­nousnes of euery mortall crime, that their spirituall Phi­sitian may thereby discerne what holsome salue, whatsa­tisfactory pennance, what good counsell and aduise he should minister vnto them. And therfore S. Gregory Nyssen sayth: That as in corporall infirmityes there are sundry kindes of Nyss epist. ad Episco. Mytil. S. Tho. in Supplem. ad 3. p. q. [...]. art. 2. medicines according to the diuersity of diseases: so whereas in the disease of the soule, there is great variety of affections, sundry sorts of medicinable cures ought to be adhibited. The reason heereof S. Thomas alleadgeth, because one disease is more dange­rous by the contagion of another, and that medicine which is holesome to that, may be noyson to this kind of [Page 135] infirmity. So that by the approued doctrin of both these learned writers euery penitent ought to make a particuler rehearsall of all haynous faults, euen of such as be secret and hidden. To which the same S. Gregory vehementlyNyss. orat. in mulierē peccatrie. Audacter inquit ostē ­de illi quae­sunt recon­dita animi arcana, tā ­quam oe­culta vul­nera medico retege. Hier. su­per. Mat. cap. 16. exhorteth in another place, that thereby the Priest may be perfectly acquainted with the whole state of their soules, & vnderstand the manifold varietyes of their spi­rituall diseases. For as S. Hierome sayth: Then the Bishop or Priest knoweth who is to be bound, and who is to be loosed, when he heareth the variety of sinnes.

9. And this manner of confessing all particuler of­fences is that which Christ commanded, which the figures of the old Testament betokned, which the Apostles mē ­tioned, & which in al succeeding ages hath byn deuoutly obserued in the Church of God. Touching Christs com­mandment I haue already shewed that it is impossible for Priests to pronounce iudiciall sentence, impossible to apply soueraigne medicines, impossible to know what they should loose, what retaine, and consequently this Commission bootles, vnles the Penitent were bound distin­ctly to name his sinnes vnto him. Concerning the figu­res, I let passe the confession God exacted of Adam, of Eue, of Cain, by which Tertullian, S. Ambrose and others con­firmeGen. 3. & 4. Tertul. l. 2. ad Mar. Amb. l. de para. c. 14 & l 2. de Cain & A­bel c. 9. Chrys. l. 3. de sacer. Numb. 9. v. 5. Lenit. 5. v. 5. our doctrine. I come to the Leuiticall Priests who being ordained by God to iudge of corporall Lepers, al such as were insected with this disease were tyed to pre­sent themselues vnto them, to acquaint them with their infirmityes, and according to their iudgement to be ad­mitted or expelled the Tents. Whereupon S. Chrysostome vseth these wordes: The Iewish Priests had leaue to iudge or try such as were purged from corporall leprosy: but to our Priestes it is graunted not to try the purged, but al [...]ogeather to purge, not the leprosy of the body, but the infection of the soule. The second figure is that confession which God commanded in the 5. Chapter of Numbers, and 5. of Leuiticus, where the circumstance of the text and Hebrew phrase most clearely demonstrate an expresse and distinct manner of Confes­sion, [Page 136] as Petrus Galatinus learnedly proueth by the re­fragable testimonies of many ancient Rabbins. But if theHithuaddu Gala. l. 10 cap. 3. figure required a particuler confession, how much more the thing figured by it.

10. Of which the Apostles likewise mention. S. Luke, Many of these that beleeued came confessing and declaring their Act. 19. V. 18. [...]. Mesch­thahhin. Sachel cuthebin. deeds. Or as the Greeke, Hebrew, or Syriacke word im­porteth, Numbering their sinnes. And it followeth, that S. Paul to whome this Confession was made, caused them that had imployed their time in the study of curious matters, to burne their bookes, which he could not haue done, vnles they distinctly specifyed their faults vnto him. S. Paul himselfe sayth: God hath giuen vs the ministery of recon­ciliation &c. Which is not only meant of the office of re­concilement2. Cor. 5. V. 18. by publique preaching the word: but by ministring also of the Sacrament, as Caluin is pleased to allow, acknowledging these wordes to be spoken of theCalu. l. 4. Instit. c. 1. [...]. 22. Iac. 5. Orig. hom. 2. in Leuit. Beds m hunc loc. Conc. La­odic. Can. 2. Sexta Syn. Can. 102. Basil. in Regulis breuior. inter 288. Leo ep. 91. ad Theod. & ep. 80. ad Episc. Campan. Pausimus in Vita S. Ambros. power and vse of keyes. S. Iames exhorteth: Confesse your sinnes one to another: which Origen, and Venerable Bede di­rectly expound of Sacramentall Confession to a lawfull Priest. Bede sayth: The vncleanesse of the greater leprosy let vs according to the law open to the Priests: and at his pleasure in what manner, in what time he shall command, let vs be carefull to be purified.

11. The continuall practise of the Catholik Church euer after approued the same, long before the tyme of Innocentius the third. For of the custome of the Greeke Church, not only the Councell of Laodicea, and the sixth Synod, but S. Basil also testifyeth, who liued many hun­dred yeares before him: It is necessary to confesse sinnes vnto them to whom the dispensation of the misteries of God is committed. The vsage of the Latin Church S. Leo describeth in his Epistle to Theodorus, and in his Epistle to the Bishop of Campania where he mentioneth secret confession to Priests, to be the institution of Christ. And Paulinus writeth of S. Am­brose: That he wept so bitterly hearing secret confession, as he wrong teares from the Penitent. The practise of the Church of [Page 137] France and Germany is witnessed by the Councels assembled at Turin, at Paris, at Rhemes, at Wormes, and at Mogun [...]ia, Concil Tu. 10. 3. c. 22. Concilium [...]hem can. 12. & 16. Concil. Pa­ris. c. 32. & 46. VVorms. cap. 25. Mogun. cap. 16. Aug. ep 180 Victor l. 2 [...] de [...]erse­cutione Vanda. Orig. hō [...] 17. in Luc. & hom. 32 in Leuit. Cyp. ser. 5. de Laps. Atha. in illa Verba Profecti in pagum. Chrysost. bom. 33. in 10. & l. 2. & 3. de Sacerdo. Lactantius de vera sa­pien. lib. 4. prope finē. Hier. in c. Isa. & l. 2 ep. 18. ad Demetriadem. Pacian. ep. [...] ad Symp. Tertul. de Paniten. cap. 7. Iero. ep. ad Marcel. 10. Damas de haeres. c. 80. Guido de haeres. Mat. Paris in Henric. 3. Hayn [...]o in Psal. 31. Bern. in medita. c. 9. Damia. ep. 1. Sparkes p. 322. & p. 329. Hugode de S. Vict. l. 2. part. 14. cap. 1. where the same manner of Confession is generally defined. The doctrine & vsage of the Church of Africke S. Augustine Bishop of Hippo shall declare saying: It is a pittifull case when by the absence of Gods Priests men depart this life, either not bapti­zed, or not absolued from their sinnes. Which the very people of that Country vnderstood, when they lamented the banishment of their Priests by the Arian Heretikes, as Victor reporteth in this manner: Who shall baptize these Infants? Who shall minister pennance vnto vs, and loose vs from the bands of sinnes?

12. It would be too tedious to set downe the words of Origen, S. Cyprian, S. Athanasius, S. Chrysostome, Lactan­tius, & S. Hierome. For Lactantius assigneth Confession and penance a note of the true Church. S. Hierome tearmeth it: The second table after shipwracke. Pacianus and Tertullian do the like, who liued notwithstanding many yeares before In­nocentius the third. So did the Montanists, whom S. Hie­rome: the Messalians, whom S. Iohn Damascen: the lacobites, whom Guido and Matthoeus Parisiensis record to haue byn condemned, they in former ages, these in the yeare of our Lord 600. for affirming: That we are to confesse our sins to God only, and that Confession of sinnes to a Priest is not needfull. So did Haymo, so did S. Bernard, Petrus Damianus, Hugo de Sancto Victore, who estsoones inculcate the necessity of Confession to the Preists of Gods Church. In so much as D. Sparks shewed small sparks of grace, when he affirmed our Confession first imposed as necessary in the Lateran Councell by Innocentius 3. about the yeare of our Lord 1115. No sparks of fidelity in citing Scotus and Antoninus as witnesses hereof, who witnesse it not, but witnesse the contrary. For they both teach with vs that the generall Councell of Lateran [Page 138] determined the circumstance of tyme when Confession should be made, and grant withall, that the substance itSozom. l. 7. c. 16. Sparkes p. 330. &. 331. Chrysoft. ho [...] 4. de Lazar. & hom. 3 [...]. in ca. 12. ad Haeb. & in Psal. [...]0. Cassi [...]. Costa. 20. eap. 8. Aug. l. 10. Confess. c. 3. selfe and manner of Canfession was ordained by God.

13. In lik sort he wrongfully abuseth Necturius Patriarch of Constantinople, auouching him to haue abrogated secret Confession: whereas it appeareth out of Socrates and Nice­phorus, that Nactarim only disanulled publike Confession to a publike and determinate Priest, by reason of great scan­dall that theron ensued, & left euery one, iudicio conscien­tiasu [...]: To the Iudgment of his owne conscienc [...], as Sozomenus sayth, to make choyce of a secret Confessour. Against which pu­blike Confession S. Chrysostome also his successour wrote, when he sayd, as Sparkes alledgeth: Take heed thou tell not thy sinnes to man, least he [...] thee with them: neyther confesse them to thy fellow-seruans, that he may publish them &c. In which sense Cassianus is likewise to be interpreted. S. Au­gustine, whom our Aduersaries also obiect saying: What haue I to doe with men that they heare my Confession &c. spea­keth only of the discouery of sinnes committed before baptisme, which he himselfe voluntarily made, not to giue notice of them to men, but to giue praise and ho­nour to God, who so mercifully pardoned him.

14. Their last and chiefest obiection is: That men Fulke in cap. 9. Mitth. sect. 5. 6. 8. Cyril. l. 12. c. 50. in 10. cannot forgive sinnes: and that it is a proper prerogatiue due to God, that none can be remitted but only by him. I answere first with S. Cyrill: It is no inconuenience for them to forgiue sinnes, who haue the holy Ghost. Men of themselues cannot pardon sinnes, but by the power of the holy Ghost who is giuen them to this end they may. Secondly I answere with S. Ambrose refuting the same obiection made by the Nouatiās: Amb. lib. 1. de P [...] ­ [...]i [...]. c. 7. By the Sacrament of Baptisme Priests forgiue sinnes, why may they not doe it as well by the Sacrament of Penance? May God attri­bute to the dead element of water, power and force to cleanse vs from sinnes, and can he not impart the same to a man endued with reason, to his Priest, substitute, and vicegerent vpon earth? Thirdly I answere with our Sauiour Christ, euen as Almighty God hath giuen power [Page 139] to men to worke miracles, to rayse the dead, cure the blind, lame &c. so he may also giue authority to remitMath. 9. v. 2. Mar. 2. 5. Fulke in c. 9. Math, sect 7. & 8. in cap. 2. Mar. sect. 2. & 3. Matth. 9. V6. Mar. 2. V. 10. and pardon sinnes. Which argument he himselfe vsed. For when he sayd to the sicke man whom he cured of the palsy: Sonne thy sinnes are forgiuen thee, the Scribes murmu­red against him, as Fulke and other Protestants do now against vs, saying: who can forgiue sinnes but only God? And our Sauiour argued and rebuked them in this manner: That yee may know the Sonne of man hath power vpon earth to for­giue sinnes, I say vnto thee, Arise, take up thy couch, and goe into thyhouse. Where by the gift of working miracles he de­monstrateth vnto the Iewes, that not only as God, but also as man he had power giuen him to pardon sinnes. Which illation presseth in like sort the Sectaries of ourS. Cyrill. 12. c. [...]6. in 10. Amb. Pa­cia. & Aug. locis citatis age. For as it pleased God to communicate vnto men, to S. Peter, and S. Paul, and others that rare prerogatiue of working miracles proper to himself: so he might also be­queath vnto them this diuine commission of forgiuing sinnes, as I haue already declared he did, out of the words of Christ, and sundry other texts of Scripture, out of S. Cyril, S. Ambrose, Pacianus, S. Augustine, and the whole Senate of Fathers. Yea this doctrine was so generally re­ceauedSorcrat. l. bist. tri­par [...] c. 23. in the tyme of Constantine the great, that when Acesius the Nouatian deliuered in his presence how such as fell in tyme of persecution should be inuited to repentan­ce,Sarcer. in loc com. de cons [...]s 289. Lobec. in disput. Theol pag. 295. sect. 4. Melanct. l. l. ep. p. 234 Harmonie of Conf. p. 250, 357. & 358. yet might not expect absolution from the Priest, but from God himselfe, who only had power to loose the chaines of such grieuous Apostasy; the Emperour deemed it so strange a Paradoxe, as he answered vnto him: Then rayse thou a ladder (O Acesius) and climbe if thou canst alone into heauen.

15. In sine, sundry of our Aduersaryes mouded no doubt by some secret force of truth, either ioyne heerein with vs or adiudge the Fathers on our syde. Sarcerius a learned Protestant sayth: It is false that Confession made to God abolisheth priuate Confession. The same priuate Confession is earnestly defended by Lobecius, by Melancthon, by the [Page 140] Confessions of Saxony and Bohemia in their Harmony of Confes­sions. Osiander and the Cencurists auouch that Gregory groslyOsiand. in epit. histo. Eccles. Centur. 6. p. 183. Magdeb. Centur 6. Simondes vpon the Reuela­tions p. 57. Fulke in c. 20. loan. sect. 3. erred concerning Pennance and Confession. Simondes affir­meth: Leo the first brought in auricular Confession. M. Fulke sayth: That Ambrose heard secret Confessions & kept them secret, we giue credit to Paulinus. And it is a world to read the vari­ety of cousening sleights he there vseth to auoyd the pres­sure of this and many other authorityes of Tertullian, S. Cyprian, S. Cyrill, S. Basil, S. Hierome, S. Augustine, Victor, and S. Leo. For notwithstanding they all write most plaine in behalfe of our Confession: yet he cauilleth with some: That they speake not of the necessity therof. With others: That they speake not of the necessity of priuate, but of publike Confession. Or, if of priuate, not to obcame remission of sinnes. Or, not by the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Or, not of Confession to be made to a Priest. Or if they name Priests (as he granteth Leo doth, and secret Confession too) yet he sayth not (quoth he) that Confession to the Priests of all sinnes is alwayes necessary.

16. Behold the silly steights which falshood infor­ceth her followers vnto, that they may find at length some holes to escape. For we graunt, that neither ve­niallLuther l. de Captiu. Babylon. Melanctb. in Apolog. Conf. Au­gustanae c. de num. & vsu Sacr. Calu l. 3. c. 46. 7. Calau. in his answer to the ep of Card. P [...]ron. f. 16. sinnes at any tyme, nor mortall at all houres and seasons, or in all places are necessary to be confessed. As when without publike notice, or notable preiudice to our neighbour they cannot be vttered. But we contend that Confession of grieuous and deadly sinnes was institu­ted by Christ, in due tyme, and place to be obserued, which besides the Fathers and Scriptures, the chiefe pro­moters of Protestancy seem to confirme. Luther alloweth Pennance for a Sacrament. And Melancthon calleth Absolution the Sacrament of Pennance in such proper sense as he sayth: It was instituted by Gods commandment with the promise of grac [...] thereunto annexed: To say nothing of Caluin, who graun­teth the vse heereof to haue beene very ancient; nothing of King Iames, of whome Casaubon testifyeth, his Maiesty grants that the Fathers who did first ordaine auricular Confession, had their reasons why they thought, that such manner of Confession, would [Page 141] further easier attaining to saluation: Nothing of the Centurists who write: It appeareth out of the workes of Tertullian, and Centur. 3. col. 227. Confessio­nem mag­noper [...] vr­get Tertul lianus lib. de poenit. & vsitat [...]s fuisse pri­uatam con­fessionem, qua delicta & cogitata quo (que) pra­u [...] confesst sunt, ex a­liquot Cyp. locis apparet, vt exs [...]ron. 5. de lapsi. & l. 3. ep. 14. & 16. vbi disertè ait: in minori­bus etiam peccatis &c. necesse esse ad exo­mologesin venire. Deuter. 32. v. 31. Exod 8. v. 19. Cyprian, that priuate Confession was vsed of deeds, thoughts, and lesser sinnes, that Satisfaction was enjoyned &c. and the peni­tents were absolued, with the ceremony of imposing hands.

17. Thus thou seest (Gentle Reader) according to the prediction of the Prophet Moyses, in al Controuersyes our enemyes are judges in our behalfe. Thou seest how strange our Aduersaryes pretenses against Priests absoluti­on haue seemed to antiquity: thou hast heard both Fa­thers and Councells maintaine our Confession: thou hast heard all Christian people imbrace and practise it. And can it sinke into the mind of any Iudicious man, a thing so hard and difficult, so cumbersome vnto sinners and repugnant to nature, could be so vniuersally receaued by Greekes, Latins, Kings, Emperours, Princes and Sub­iects, vnles it had beene instituted and ordained by God?

18. But if thou couldest passe a little further and discouer the manifold fruits and singuler commodityes, which plentifully flow from the obseruation thereof, thou shouldest be forced to cry out with the Magicians of Pharao: Digitus Deiest hic: The finger of God is heere. Thou shouldst behold a sinner before he repaire to his Ghostly Father sorrowfull, pensiue, vexed and grieued with the cumbersome load of sinne: and yet so soone as he hath receaued the benefite of absolution, depart so cheerefull, so full of in ward comfort, as if some heauenly ioy dilated his hart. Thou shouldest behould another, who reuiled and iniured his Neighbour, come from the Sacrament of Confession, go reconcile himselfe vnto him, and craue pardon for the wrong he offered. Thou shouldst behould by this meāes him that robbed, restore the goods he embe­zeled away: him that cosened leaue his cheating: thou shouldest see the proud man humbled, the dissolute re­claimed, the lasciuious become chast; a thousand suchPsal. 76. v. 11. alterations thou shouldst be wray in the harts of sinners, of which thou must needs pronounce: This is the mutation [Page 142] of the right hand of God: whose instice, goodnes, & mercy, could no way be more manifestly shewed then by this humble Confession.

19. His instice chiefly [...]eth in making the guilty sinner both plaintiffe, witnesse, and accuser of himselfe, making him, who by sin rebelled against God his LordBern tract de instabili cordis bu­ma. c. 6. and maister, by sorrowfull repentance humble his hart to his fellow-seruant, which S. Bernard pithily denoteth saying: It is conuenient that be, who by contumacy sinned against God, should by Pennance become suppliant to the Priestes his Mini­sters: and that the man, who to preserue his grace needed no Me­diatour, should for the recouery of it once lost, implore of necessity the mediation of man. Gods mercy like wise and goodnes are heere apparent, in that he wresteth not from vs after the fashion of earthly Iudges, this secret accusation as a testimony to punish, but as an acquitance to pardon vs; and therefore S. Angustine most excellently writeth: To this end he exacteth Confesion to free and release the humble: to Aug in Psal. 66. this end he condemneth the sinner not confessing, to chastise the proud.

20. What shal I say of infinite other benefits, which the discreet Confessour and humble Penitent gleaneth from hence? The wife and prudent Confessour sayling in this sea of Conscience, discouereth the wonderfullPsal. 106. vers. 230 workes of God, as the Prophet sayth; In aquis multis: In the Psal. 106. vers. 23. ebbe and sloate of sundry waters. In the calmes of prosperity and stormes of aduersity; in the admirable change and al­terations of minds. And in respect of his ghostly chil­dren, where could he haue fitter meanes to know their diseases, then when they open and disclose them vnto him? Where could he more fruitfully correct and rebuke their faults, then when they repent and plead guilty ofGreg. ho. 26. in Euang. quae est de Octa. Pascha. them? From whence could the Penitent receaue better aduise and sweerer comfort, then from them whom God electeth, the Church consecrateth, the holy Ghost instru­cteth to be the spiritual Surgeons, heauenly Physitians, & as S. Gregory calleth them: Iudges of our soules.

[Page 143]21. I can not stand to dilate vpon the generall cō ­modityes which by this holsome discipline redoundeth to the whole Common-wealth. Many publike abuses, which neither by seuerity of Lawes, nor vigilancy of Magistrates can be hindred, are often redressed by help of Confessiō. In this Court of Conscience many vnlaw­full bargaines are dissolued, many wronges satisfyed, wicked designements stopped, good purposes furthered, much vertue aduanced, much vice suppressed. Which the famous Citty of Norinberge in Germany after the abolishing of this holy Sacrament, to her griefe acknowledged, &Domini­cus Sotus l. 4. sent. dist. 18. q. 1. art. 1. sent an Embassage (as Dominicus Sotus recordeth) to Charles the fifth, to haue auriculer Confossion by his Imperiall de­cree restored againe: Because they saw by experience their Com­mon-wealth swarme with sundry vices against iustice and other vertues, which were vnknowne vnto them before. O England, En­gland! Happy wert thou, if God would giue thee like grace to discerne what an inundatiō of sin ouerwhelmeth thy Land for want of this law! Happy, if not forced by Princes Statutes, but moued by Gods Commandment, thou wouldest returne againe to the discipline of Confes­sion, which is, as thou seest, the Hedge of vertue, the Bridle of iniquity, the Key of iustice, and Locke of good life.

CHAP. 1.

IT sufficeth not, we disburden our harts by true Confession to a lawfull Priest, of which I spake in the prece­dent Chapter: but to returne into the fauour of God by the benefite of Absolution, Contrition also and Sa­tisfaction are necessary. Contrition, whereby we vtterly detest the offence commited in for­saking God our chiefe and soueraigne good; Satisfaction whereby we seeke to recompence the wrong we offered in placing our last end and finall delight in the loue of that we preferred before him. For first it is a generall principle amongst all the learned, that two thinges are included in the eno [...]mity of mortall sinne: a disloyallScotus in 4 sent. dist. 46. guaest, 4. auersion from Gods vnchangeable goodnes, and an inor­dinate conuersion to his transitory creatures: to which a double punishment correspondently belongeth; to the auersion that which is called poena damni, the paine or pe­nalty [Page 145] of dammage or losle of our chiefest good: to the cō ­uersion paena sensus: the paine or punishment of sense. By theTho. 1. 2. q. 76. & 87. Gab [...]l. Vasquez ibidem disput. 139. & 140. former euery sinner incurreth disgrace of God, is banished for euer from the sight of his countenance, and hath his soule infected with the vgly spot of sinne, which the Schoolmen tearme Malum culpae, The euill or desormity of the fault. By the second he is liable to punishment and made guilty of the perpetuall paines of Hell.

2. Secondly all Greg. de Valen. dis­put. 7. q. 14. puncto 1. de Satis­fact. S. Thomas 1. 1. q. 87. arti [...]ulo 6. & alij com­muniter in eum locum. Apoc. 18. ver 7. Field in ap. pen. 1. par. pag 66. Field vbi supra & l. 3. of the Church cap. 16. and in ap­pend. part. 1. pag. 42. 43. Field ibidē pag. 43. Catholike Deuines accord, that a deadly sinne being pardoned after Baptisme, the whole guiltnesse of the fault is taken away, in regard of the contagion it included and priuation of Gods grace. But the guiltinesse and desert of punishment, albeit it be vt­terly released in respect of the eternall duration: yet of­tentimes some temporall chastisement remaineth to be suffered, greater or lesser according to the measure of vnlawfull delights taken in sinne, which the Holy Ghost enacted in the Apocalyps: As much as shee hath glorified her selfe in delicacies: so much torment & mourning heape vpon her. These be the immoueable grounds of true Theologie.

3. Our Sectaries herein dissent from vs chiefly in this later point, affirming no punishment to remaine, where the fault is remitted. For saith M. Field, Where grace is so perfect that it expelleth sinfulnesse, there it must worke aper­fect reconciliation to God, with which the guilt of punishement can­not stand. Againe: Charity (saith he) in such perfection as is able to purge out all impurity of sinne, implieth dislike of that which in sinning was ill affected, and sorrow for the same, equtualent to the pleasure and delight taken in sinning; and consequently doth satis­fie God in suchsort as that no punishment shall come vpon him that so sorroweth. Thirdly, Christ (quoth he) suffered all that the iustice of God requireth, not onely for the staine, but also for the punishment due to sinne either before or after Baptisme to be com­mitted; therefore whensoeuer we are wholy purged by the infusion of Christs sanctifying grace from the deformity of all faults, we are in like manner by the imputation of Christs satisfactory workes fully discharged from all touch of punishment. And the contrary he [Page 146] dubbeth, An heresie of the Papists. And M. Fulke accounteth it Horrible blasphemy against the effect of Christs Passion. Fulke in c. 8. ad Rom. sect. 4. & in ca. 2. 2. ad Cor. sect. 2. Mat. 26. Ioan. [...]0. Act. 24. v. 14.

4. But of such blasphemy the Sonne of God was appeached by the Scribes and Pharisies. And of such heresy Tertullus the Oratour of the Iewes accused S. Paul. There­fore we confesse with him: that according to the way which you call heresy, we doe so serue the Father our God, belieuing all things that are written in the law, and the Prophets. Where it is often recorded that the Diuine Maiesty hath iustly inflicted vpon some, the fine of punishment after the whole debt of sinne hath byn discharged. God pardoned at the in­tercession of Moyses the crime of Idolatry the Iewes com­mitted in adoring the golden Calfe, notwithstanding he sayd: I will visit this their sinne in the day of reuenge. God par­doned the sister of Moyses, and receaued her into his fa­uour;Exod. 32. v. 34. he punished her notwithstanding with seauen dayes leprosy. God pardoned King Dauict his murther & adultery, and pronounced absolution by the mouth of his Prophet Nathan: Our Lord hath forgiuen thy sinne; neuer­thelesseNum. 12. v. 15. he imposed this penance and satisfaction: But the Sonne which is borne of thee shalt dye. God pardoned Adam our first Progenitour, as appeareth in the booke of Wisdome: 2. Reg. [...]2. v. 13. & 14. albeit after reconciliation he was not exempted from that heauy curse: Because thou hast giuen eare to the voyce of thy wife, accursed be the earth in thy worke. Moreouer the Apostle re­portethSap. 10. Vers. 2. Gen. 3. Vers. 27. 1. Cor. 11. Vers. 30. Aug. tract 114. in Io. Droductior est poena quàm culpa ne parus putaretur culp [...] &c. of certaine punished with death and grieuous diseases for their vnworthy receauing, although some of them (as we may piously suppose) were reconciled to God before their departure.

5. And not to be ouer long in particular examples, all mankind feeleth the bitter scourge and calamitie of sinne, as hunger, cold, wants, sicknesses, and death, the iust imposed penalties of our fore-fathers transgression. Notwithstanding many haue had the guiltinesse thereof cleansed before by the Sacrament of Baptisme. Therefore S. Augustine most notably sayth: The punishment is more pro­longed then the fault: least the fault might be little accounted of, [Page 147] if the punishment ended with it. S. Irenaeus writing of the pres­sures inflicted vpon Adam, Eue, and their posterity affir­meth:Irand. 3▪ cap. 35. They were thus chastised, that neyther accursed they might wholy perish, & be abandoned of God; nor without correction might perseuere contemning God.

6. With these might be numbred diuers others, whoAug tract 50. homil. ho. 50 Cyp. serm. de opere & eleemosyn. & l. 1. ep. 3. Hier. ep. ad Eusto­chium de obitu Pau­lae. Amb. l. ad virg. laps. cap. 8. Orig. hom. 15. in Leuit. Tertul. l. de Poeniten. Lact. de ve­rasapion­ca. 17. & li. 6. de vero cultis cap. 13. Bafil. in Psa. 29. exponens vers. il [...]. Conuertisti planctum meum &c. Greg Naz. orat. de Pauperum amore. Pacianus in paraenesi ad Poenit. teach that the punishment remayning after sinne remit­ted by teares, almesdeeds, and other workes of Penance may be mitigated and released. Of which mind S. Au­gustine is in his treatise of 50. Homilies. And S. Cyprian sayth: Sinnes and staines contracted after baptisme may by almesdeeds be washed away. And in another place: Our offences, by satisfaction may be redeemed. S. Hierome: Long laughter ought to be recom­pensed with continuall weeping. S. Ambrose: A great crime nee­deth great satisfaction. And therefore Origen calleth our good workes: The price or ransome, by which sinnes are redeemed. Tertullian, Lactantius, S. Basill, S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Pacianus, and all the ancient Fathers preach nothing more then Penance and Satisfaction for offences past. The ancient Conc. Turonen. Can. 22. Concil. Laodicen. ca. 2. Concil. Ancyr. can. 4. 5. 8. & 9. Conc. [...]. Nicen. can 11. Theodor. l. 4. haeret. fabularum. Dan. 4. Luc. 3. vers. 8. 1. Cor. 11. Chrys. hom. 42. in Mat. Beda in cap. 11. 1 ad Cor. Matth. 4. Councels prescribe place of Penance, tyme of Satisfactiō. The ancient Priests after Confession inioyned Penance, im­posed Satisfaction. The ancient Church condemned cer­taine Heretikes called Audiani, because they gaue remission to such as confessed, without prescribing tyme of Penance. The Apostles, the Prophets, and Christ himself often exhor­teth hereunto. Daniel counselled Nabuchodonosor: Redeeme thy sinnes with almedeeds. S. Iohn in the desert with habit, with meate, with voyce, with deeds cryed: Yield fruits worthy of Penance. S. Paul saith: If we did iudge our selues, we should not be iudged: which S. Chrysostome and Venerable Bede expound of seuere & iudiciall affliction of our selues, that we may not be punished of God. Finally Christ him­selfe began his preaching with this precept: Doe Penance, for the Kingdome of heauen is at hand.

[Page 148]7. Diuers euasions M. Fulke and the rest of his faction heer seeke. They answere that the penaltyes inflicted byFulke in c. 2. [...]. Cor. sect. 2. & in c. 3. Matth. sect. 4. &c. Caluin. l. 3. Inst. ca. 4. the ancient Canons, by the Apostles, or by the hand of God were, 1. For the publike discipline of the Church. 2. For the exercise of vertue. 3. As the fruits of true repentance. 4. As cautions to beware of future sinnes: Tet no way to sa [...]isfy the Iustice of God for precedent faults. But the Scripture flatly declareth the affliction I mentioned to haue beene imposed for of­fences past. The Prophet Nathan sayd to K. Dauid: Because thou hast made thy enemyes blaspheme the name of our Lord, for 2. Reg. 12. v. 14. Exod. 32. v. 34. Hier. epist. 12. ad Gaud. this word the Son that is borne to thee shal dye. And God himself sayd: I in the day of reuenge will visit this their sinne. Therfore he meant to punish their offence, which notwithstan­ding was pardoned, if we belieue S. Hierome.

8. Likewise many innocent babes, after the spot of Originall infection is cleansed by Baptisme, are daily af­flicted with the panges of sicknes, with the agony of death, not for the exercise of vertue, nor for Penitentiall correction, or future amendment, of which they are vn­capable, but for the reuenge and chastisement of our first Fathers sinne. Neither can we say that the death of King Dauids child was principally sent vnto him as a fruitefull caution or token of sorrow, because he with teares, with fasting, with lying on the ground sought to shun it as much as he could, which so vertuous a Prince would ne­uer haue done, if it had beene any profitable caution or fruit of repentance; much lesse could it be any Penitentiall correction, for the publike satisfaction and discipline of the Church, because he was so vnwilling to haue itPsa▪ [...]. v. 7. Psa. 34. v. 1 [...]. Psal. 101. ver. 10. 3. Reg. 21. ver. 27. Ionae, 3. v. [...]. 7. 8. Hiero. in his comm▪ vpon the 3. of Ionas. Ionae 3. v. 9. & 10. Vid. Fran Riberum in cap. 3. Ionae & in cap. 1. Na [...]um. Aug. hom. 5. ex 50. homilij [...] 5 Non suffi­cit moresin melius &c. nisi etiam de his quae facta sunt fatis [...]ias Deo &c. Aug. in En [...]hyr. ad Laurent. [...]. 70. Cyp. ser. de Lapfis. Cyp. tract. de oper. & Ele [...]mosyn. Ch [...]ys. hom 41. ad Po­pul. Antio Lact. l. 5. di [...]. i [...]sti, ca. 13. Orig. ho. 3. in l. ludic. Amb. l. 2. de Poenit [...]n cap. 5. come to passe, vsing so many meanes to pacify God an­other way; neither is it likely that the Church would haue inflicted such a punishment vpon him: the teares likewise he shed in so great aboundance, as he washed with them euery night his Couch, the humbling of his soule in fasting, the mingl [...]ng of his bread with ashes; the wearing of sackcloth, and meruailous humility which King Achab shewed; the afflictions and voluntary fastings which the Niniuites, [Page 149] their King, their children, their cattell endured, were neither vsed for example to others, or for amendment of their liues heereafter, or for any other cause to asswage the wrath of God, & recompence the wrong their sinnes had done, already pardoned by the secret Contrition & sorrow of their harts, as togeather with the interpreta­tion of S. Hierome vpon this place, the very wordes of the Niniuites, & Gods answere vnto them do both make manifest. The Niniui [...]es intention was to satisfy God, saying: Who knoweth whether God will turue and pardon, and returne from the fury of his indignation. The Prophet replyeth in his person: And God saw their works (not the repentance only of their inward harts, but the Pennance and Satisfa­ction of their outward workes:) and, Herepented him of the euill he spake against them. Howbeit they after slyding back into their former wickednes, the subuersion of their Citty ensued, which the Prophet foretold.

9. Besides, the authorityes of the Fathers are also pregnant, that the punishments of which they speake, were not only inflicted for exercise of present vertue, or preuenting of future euills: but also to satisfy God, and redeeme offences past, as nothing can be more euidently recorded. S. Augustine pronounceth: It is not inough to chang our manners to the better and decline from euills, vnles God be also satisfyed for those things, which be past, by the gri [...] of Pennance, by the mourning of humility, by the sac [...]ifice of a contrite hart, almesdees cooperating thereun [...]o. And in another place: By almesdeeds for offences past God is to be made propitious and fa­uourable. S. Cyprian: God is to be implored, our Lord is to be pacifyed with our Satisfaction. Againe: By good-workes God ought to be satisfyed: by merits of mercy sinnes should be purged. S. Chrysostome: Let vs take reueng of our selues, so we shall appease our Iudge. Lactantius: It is lawfull to satisfy God. Origen: As much tyme as thou hast spent in sinning, so long hum­ble thy selfe to God; and satisfy him in Confession of Pennance. S. Ambrose: He that doth Pennance, should not only wash away his offence with teares, but with perfecter workes ought to co­uer [Page 150] and hide former faults, that sinne may not be imputed vnto him. [...]asil in­terro. 12. in eg. breuio­ribus. Psal. 100.

10. S. Basil sheweth the reason heereof saying: Albeit God in his only begotten Sonne, as much as lyeth in him, hath gran­ted remission of sinnes to all, yet because mercy and iudgement are ioyned togeather by the holy Prophet, and he witnesseth God to be both mercifull and iust, it is necessary that those thinges which are spoken of Pennance by the Prophets and Apostles, be performed by vs; that the iudgments of Gods iustice may appeare, and his mercy Greg. Na zian. orat. insancta lu [...]ina. be consumated to the condonation of sinners. For as S. Gregory Nazianzen sayth: It is a like euill, remission without chastisment, and chastisement without pardon, because the one letteth go the raines too far, the other restraineth them too much. Wherefore that God may carry ouer vs an euen hand, that his cle­mency may be mingled with some seuerity, his iustice and mercy may meete togeather; although he alwayes of mercy pardoneth the iniquity of repentant sinners: yet he often bindeth them ouer to some temporall chastisement, to satisfy thereby the rigour of his iustice, as in the partiall iudgment of our professed enemyes, all antiquity heereinCaluin l. 3. Inst. c. 4. §. 8. Calu. 4: c. 12. §. 8. Kemnitius 2. par. ex­am. p. 181. Bulling. ser. 87. su­per Apoc. fol. 270. Centu. 3. col. 127. Centu. 4. col. 254. Centu. 5. c. 4. & 10. Cent. 6. 7. 8. &c. witnesseth with vs.

11. Caluin sayth: I am little moued with the Sentences of the Fathers which concerning Satisfaction do euery where occurre. I see truely some of them (I will speake simply) in a manner all of them whose bookes are extant, were either deceaued in this point, or spake tooto roughly and crabbedly. Againe, In this point the immoderate austerity of the Ancients can by no meanes be excused, which disagreed from the prescribed order of our Lord, and was a­boue measure dangerous. Kemnitius noting the like speaches of the Fathers reprehendeth them: As hyperbolically spoken, inconsideratly vttered, too much ouerreaching the Truth. Bullin­ger affirmeth: Satisfaction and iustification of workes inconti­nently after the Apostles tyme layed their first foundation. The Centurists record: That in the tymes of Cyprian and Terullian, Pennāce or Satisfaction was inioyned according to the quality of the fault. And in the age immediatly following, which was foure hundred yeares after Christ, they write: A Priest was [Page 151] appointed, who absolued his Pe [...]tents vpon this condition: that Vvbitian▪ his answer to M. Ed. Campians 5. reason pag 1: 9. they should exact punishment of themselues for their offences past. The same professed doctrine they report to haue conti­nued in the fiue hundred and six hundred yeares after Christ, by the euident testimonyes of S. Chrysostome, S. Augustine, S. Leo, Cassianus, Hesychiuss, Prosper, S. Gregory, S. Isidore, and Venerable Bede.

12. D. Whitaker, in his answere to M. Campians ibidem. reasons, professeth of S. Cyprian, he wrote something of repen­tance very vnseasonably and indiscreetly; and not he alone, but all the holy Fathers of that tyme were tainted with that errour im­mediatly D. H [...]m [...]. [...]esu. par. 2. rat. 5. pag. 540. Ibidem pag 439. & 543. after; They made the greatest part of repentance to con­sist in certaine outward disciplines &c. they thought the punishmēt of sinne to be discharged, Gods iustice satisfyed, freedome from sin, and certaine forgiuenes with righteousnes heereby to be procured; heerein they diminished the power of Christs death, they attributed too much to their owne inuentions, and in a word depraued the do­ctrine of repentance. D. Humfrey among many sentences of S. Cyprian, which he like a bold Censor condemneth, re­iecteth also this as harsh and crabbed: By our satisfactions & lamentations sinnes are redeemed, and wounds by tears are washed Printed Anno Do. 1606. Bullinger vbi supra. The Cen­turists, Caluin and D. Hum­f [...]y locis citat. VVbita­kerin his answer to [...]. Edmūd Campian, transl [...]ted into [...]ng­lish &c. away. Then taking vpon him the defence and Apology of his fornamed complices, Whitaker and the Magdebur­gians, he alloweth their seuere censuring of the Fathers, and only excuseth them, That they do not condemne all of the third hundred yeare, but the most part to haue depraued the doctrin of Pennance, which they collect out of Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian. Thus he: Insinuating that besides these or the most part of that age, there were some of his hidden and inuisible congregation who wrote the contrary. But because M. Whitaker knew not who these were, not in what cor­ners of the Skye they composed their bookes; he in his English Treatise (intituled, An Answere to the reasons of Ed­mund Campian &c. Whereunto is added in briefe Marginall notes, the summe of the Defence of those reasons against Duraeus &c.) boldly protesteth, as I haue quoted him, all the holy Fathers of that tyme were tainted with that errour.

[Page 152]13. Notwithstanding be it so, that Whitaker only re­proueth the most part of the Fathers; let this be the Pro­testant Printers or Translatours fault, or be it so that you haue since corrected his Latin Copy; Is there yet any dealing more audacious, any madnesse more blind then this, to confesle: That satisfaction layd her foundation inconti­nently after the Apostles tyme? To confesse: that S. Cyprian, Origen, Tertullian, almost all the holy Fathers of the first 300. or 400. yeares, in a manner all whose workes are extant, do com­mand Pennance, & exact Satisfactiō? To confesse: they thought by outward disciplines of repentance to satisfy Gods Justice? And neuerthelesse presume to say: They were deceaued, they di­minished the power of Christs death, they attributed too much to their owne inuemious? Is there any dealing, I say, more au­dacious? Any madnes more blind then this? Doctour Field had once the grace to write: The imagination that the Field in ap. 1. par so. 2. Fathers generally from the beginning were in errour, is so barbarous a conceit, that it cannot enter into the hart of any reasonable man. Caluin then by this censure was no man of reason; D. Whitaker voyd of reason; D. Humfrey and all the former Protestants without sense and reason; all rude and barba­rous, whose harts once harboured, and pens haue vttered this barbarous conceit. Grosly mistaken, partly by those vngrounded reasons M. Field, and Fulke proposed at the beginning, partly by some other texts of Scripture I shall presently refute.

14. To M. Fildes first argument I answere, and deny:Field in ap­pend [...]. par pag. 66. That the guils of punishment cannot stand with perfect reconcili­ation to God. For you must vnderstand that he who sin­neth against his diuine Maiesty, doth not only breake with him the bands of friendship, but violateth also the lawes of justice, and that which repaireth the one, doth not alwaies requite the other. Therefore a sinner may receaue sufficient grace to be perfectly reconciled vnto God in respect of his loue and friendship, and remaine stil subject to some fatherly correction, or temporall punish­ment, to make vp the breach, & recompence the wrong [Page 153] of justice. M. Field vrgeth againe: That as Charity reneweth the friendship of God: so sorrow equiualent to the pleasure taken in sinning, satisfyeth him for the debt of punishment. I acknow­ledgeField vbi supra. that God may infuse such feruent Charity, such per­fect sorrow or true Contrition as the Deuines call it) as may both cancell the fault, and acquit the sinner of all future punishment: but this is a peculiar fauour not granted to all; not to Adam, not to Eue, not to Moyses and Aaron, Rein. in his cor fe c. 8. diuis 4. fo. 517 &c [...] Phil. Mor­nay l. 3. de Euchar. c. 2 Caluin l. 3. Inst. c. 12. §. 4. Field in his 3. booke of the Chur. c. 16. Push in ca 8. ep. ad Rom. sect. 4. & in c. 2. 2. ad Cor. sect. 2. not to King Dauid, A man according to the heart of God. Of these and such others, who arriue not to this depth of sorrow, our former doctrine is verified.

15. And I wonder not a litle, M. Field or any of his complices should auerre: that such Charity or sorrow could proceed from man, as were able not only to purge out the staine of vice, but free vs also from the chastisment; when as Reynolds, Philip Mornay, & generally all Protestars defend, our perfectest actions to be nothing else (as Caluin saith) but Inquinamenta & sordes: filth and vncleaunesse. Whe­reon it followeth, that the greatest Charity and deepest sorrow man can haue; drawing from inward concupis­cence the staine of corruption, as it rather increaseth then casteth forth the mudde of iniquity; so it redoubleth, and no way diminisheth the answerable smart of punishmēt. But M. Field (and M. Fulke insisteth with him) That the sa­tisfaction of Christ (supposing repentance) dischargeth vs of whatsoeuer we haue deserued to suffer for sinne. I grant that Christ hath fully and superabundantly satisfied the wrath of his Father for al the transgressions of man, and infinite more,Fiel, in ap­pen. r par. ful. 43. R [...] th [...]se [...] obie­ctions in Greg. de Valenti [...]. tom. 2 disp. 6 q 17. puncto 5. if they had beene possible. Yet as it hath pleased him by saith, hope, and charity &c. and by the Sacraments of the Church, to deriue vnto vs the inestimable benefits of his sanctifying grace: so he hath ordayned by our penall workes to apply vnto vs for sinnes voluntarily cōmitted after Baptisme, the precious fruits of his bountifull and a­boundant Satisfaction.

16. Heer M. Field and his mates make their last en­counter and say: If our penall afflictions be only required to apply [Page 154] the Satisfactions of Christ, they doe not satisfie the justice of God: or if they doe, either they deroga e from the sufficiency of Christs passion, or God craueth one debt to be twise paied, which is more at our bands then is sufficient. I answer, there are two kinds of Satisfaction, the one absolute and perfect, the other weake and imperfect, not equally ballanced with the grie­uousnesse of the offence, but grounded on the fauourable acceptation of him that is offended. According to the first, Christ hath not only procured some little mitigation (as M. Field maliciously chargeth the Romanists to teach) but heField in his 3. booke of the Church [...]. 16. fo. 96 hath offered a full, and more then equiualent ransome sufficiēt to release all mankind both from the whole fault and punishment of sinne. According to the second, by the value of our workes made worthy by Christ, we truly satisfie the outrage committed against God; not because he exacteth a double payment of the same, this be­ing subordinate, dependant, and deriued from our Rede­mers ransome; nor because any supply is needfull to theWhy God exa­cteth satis­faction of vs, fully satisfyed by Christ, see S. Thomas 1. 2. sufficient price of his innocent bloud: but for that God at the first so decreed it for our greater benefit, his higher glory, for the dignity of his seruants, & conformity of the members with Christ their head.

17. It is certaine our Blessed Sauiour by his prayers obtained of God all the gifts and graces which are besto­wed vpon men, and yet he commaundeth vs to aske and pray, and by prayer to obtaine the selfe same thinges, which he before by his prayers procured: so although he hath perfectly satisfyed for all our offences, he might like­wiseField in his 5. booke of the Church c. 17. Pag. 55. require some satisfaction at our hands for our own behoofe, and honour of his Father, without any iniury or extorsion at all. It is certaine that Christ by his hum­ble obedience to his Father glorifyed him as much as all the dishonour cōmitted by sinners did euer disgrace him. Notwithstanding M. Field [...] regis [...]ed these words in [...] [...] [...] [Page 155] in sinning, must by sorrow of hart, disliking and detesting, and by confession of mouth, condemning former euilis, restore that glory to God he tooke from him, and seeke and take alloccasions, the weak­nes of his meanes will affoard, to glorify God, as much as he disho­noured him before. O vnconquerable truth, which so often forceth her enemyes to speake in her behalfe!

18. Christ restored to his Father all the honour of which we depriued him by sinne, and yet it is no iniury to Christ, no exaction in God, no iteration of payment, the sinner himselfe restore that glory he tooke from him: it is no of­fence, (according to M. Field) he gloriyyeth God, as much as he dishonoured him before. And there is no question quoth he) but these thinges are required to pacify Gods wrath, fully pacifyed by the bloud of Christ. Then there is no question (I trow) of this which is now in question, that God may be satisfyed by our weake endeauours, perfectly satifyed already by Christ. For the pacitying of Gods wrath by restitution of his honour, with sorrow, dislike, and dete­station of former euills, is the true satisfaction of his di­uine justice, of which we speake, consisting in the com­pensation of precedent wronges, by actions of submis­sion and penall contrition, according to our meane andPu [...]ke in c. 2 2. ad Cor. sect. 2 & 4. Calu. lib. 3. inst. c. 4 5. 26. 27. &c. seeble ability. M. Field thus discomfited, M. Fulke and Caluin renew the battell with a fresh Host of sundry testi­monyes gathered some out of the Fathers, most out of ho­ly Writ, which I marshall into three seuerall rankes or squadrons.

19. In the first, they assault vs with such places of Scriptures as declare our Sauiour Christ to haue offe [...]ed1. 10. 2 V. 20 for vs a ful and perfect redemption: He is the propitiation for our sinnes. Behould the Lambe of God: Behould he that taketh a­way 10. 1. V. 29. Hoeb 1 v. 3. the sinnes of the world. Hauing by himselfe purged our sinnes, sitteth on the right hand of the Maiesty on high. Who was [...]init en for our sinnes, and wounded for our Transgressions. By whose Esay 53. 15. 1 Petr 2. v. 24. stripes we are healed. I answere as aboue, that Christ hath offered indeed a most copious and perfect Satisfaction for all our trespasses, but it must be often applyed vnto vs by [Page 156] our satisfactory workes, vnles it be otherwise supplyed by the Indulgences, and treasure of the Church, of which heereafter.

20. But Caluin opposeth against this, the franke andCalu. lib. 3. inst. c. 4. 25. & seq. free remission of sinnes made by Christ, without hope of recompence, without any paine or trauell of ours. I an­swere, Christs remission is free, because he freely enlight­neth vs with fayth and repentance, freely receaueth vs into his fauour, and reconcileth vs to God, freely pardo­neth the whole guilt of sinne, freely offered a sufficient satisfaction for all the punishment due to sinne; and free­lyMarc. 16. Haebr. 5. Matth. 10. & 16. also inspireth grace into vs, by which our meane, & (of themselues without it) vn profitable satisfactions, are acceptable vnto God, which no way impayreth, but much ennobleth the dignity & freedome of his mercifull redemption. For as he freely dyed for all men, gaueProuerb. cap. 16. v. 6. himselfe a sufficient ransome for the saluation of all, which effectually only profiteth them who belieue in him, who obey him, who take vp their crosse and follow him: so he free­ly and sufficiently satisfyed for al, but effectually for such as by penall afflictions, by mercy and truth redeeme their ini­quity Fulke a­gainst pur. p. 45. 49. &c. Calu. vbi supra. Ezeth 18. v. 21. 22. Esay. 38. v. 18. & 44. v. 22. Micb. 7. v. 19. Psal. 3 [...]. v. [...]. &. 2. after regeneration willfully incurred. In the second ranke are mustered the sentēces of holy Writ, which mē ­tion no memory but a cleane abolishment of sinne tho­rough true repentance, as by Ezechiel: If the wicked do pen­nance &c. I will not remember his iniquityes. By Isay, Micheas, King Dauid, where God is sayd, to cast our sinnes behind his backe; To disperse them like a cloud: To sinke them into the bottom of the Sea: To hide them: To couer them: Not to impute them. I answere, these places are spoken, 1. Of most true and perfect contrition, which freeth both from the fault and punishment. 2. Of imperfect, with pennance and Satis­faction, which Ezechiel seemed to insinuate saying: If the wicked do pennance &c. 3. They are vnderstood of the vtter abolishment of the fault, and freedome from eternall paine, in respect of which, God is truly sayd, To blot our Ezech. 18. v. 21. sinnes out of his mind: to disperse them like a cloud: to cast them in­to [Page 157] the sea: to hide them, to couer them, and not to impute them, as S. Augustine elegantly interpreteth the wordes of KingAugust. in Psal. 3 [...]. Dauid: If God couer our sinnes, he will not see them; if he will not see them, he will not punish them, to wit, with euerlasting punishment, nor with temporall, if we redeeme them with condigne satisfaction.

21. Therefore he that pronounced by the mouth ofEzech. 18. v. 22. Num. 14. vers 34. Esay. 38. v. 17. Eccles. c. 5. vers. 5. Haeb. [...]. v. 3 1. Ioan. c. [...]. vers. 2. Prouerb. c. 1 [...]. v. 6. Ezechiel: he would not remember our iniquityes, threatned re­uenge in his owne person to some he had forgiuen, say­ing: Scietis vltionem meam: Yee shall feele the rod of my reuen­gement. He who promised by the Prophet Isay: To cast our faults behind his backe, commanded vs by the mouth of Salo­mon: Of pardoned sinne be not without feare. He who by him­selfe purged our offences, he who sayd, he was the propitiation for sinne, auouched also, By mercy and truth iniquity is red [...]e­med. So that both cooperate to satisfy for our trespasses, the Passion of Christ, and our workes of Penn [...]nce; his Passion freely, plentifully, independantly of our merit, or Satisfaction cancelleth the fault & eternity of punish­ment: our works sanctifyed in his bloud, partly concurre by his ordinance to expiate the remaines of temporall chastisement.Matth. 2 [...]. Luc. 7. v. 48. & 50. Luc. 18. v. 15. Luc. [...]. Ioan 8 v. 11. M. Fulke against purg. p. 43 85.

22. In the last place are sorted the examples of Scrip­ture, of Peter, Mary Magdalen, the Publican, the thiefe vpon the Crosse, and the Adulterous woman, whose sinnes were forgiuen without Satisfaction. To which they adioyne the authorityes of S. Ambrose, and S. Iohn Chrysostome con­firming the same. I answere, 1. To the instances out of Gods word, priuate examples are no presidents for pu­blike rules. 2. What the maister sometyme doth by pre­rogatiue of his person, the seruant may not vsurpe as the priuiledge of his law. 3. I say, the teares of Peter, the contrition of Magdalen, the humility of the Publican, the admirable confession of the theese, the shame and con­fusion the adulterous woman endured, with the inward sorrow of her hart, might be sufficient satisfactions for their enormous crimes, albeit the Scripture doth not in [Page 158] plaine termes expresse it. As S. Ambrose affirmed of S. Pe­ter, when he sayd: His teares I read, his Satisfaction I read Amb. l. 10. in cap. 12. Lucae. L [...] ­chrimae ve­niam non postulant sed meren­tur. not, howbeit his teares were both a confession and singu­lar satisfaction, which craue not, according to him, but deser­ue and merit pardon. Or S. Ambrose taketh Satisfaction in that place for the excuse and defence of his fault, which S. Peter vsed not, but would rather (as he affirmeth) condemne his sinne, that he might be iustifyed by confessing, then aggrauate it by denying. S. Chrysostome accordingly vseth that word in his Homilyes vpon Genesis. Where he likewise graunteth noAmb. ibid. Chrys. ho. 10. in Gen. & hom. de Beato Phi­logonio. satisfaction necessary for the recouery of Gods friendship, although he after require it for recompence of the wrong committed against him, in the course of his Iustice.

32. Two other darke sentences M. Fulke scrapeth out of him, the one out of his homilyes vpon the Epistle to the Romans, Vbi venia, ibi nulla est poena: where there is forgi­uenes, there is no punishment. In which place S. Chrysostome speaketh of the forgiuenes giuen to a Iew in Baptisme,M. Fulke▪ against purg. p. 43. S. Chrysost. Hom 8. in Epist ad. Rom. who passing from the wrath of the law, to the grace of Christ, had full remission of all both fault & punishment. Another out of the booke he wrote of sorrow and com­punction: God requireth not the burden of shirts of haire, nor to be shut vp in the straites of a little cell, neither doth he command vs to sit in obscure and darke caues; this only it is which he exacteth that we alwayes remember and recount our sinnes. Where S. Chrysostome only reproueth the negligence of such daintyS. Chrys. de compunct. cordis l. 1. sinners as omit the behoofull bewayling and lamenting of their sinnes, Quasi quidam intoler abilis labor sit, As though it were a thing intollerable: And thereupon discourseth, that God commandeth not as necessary any such rigorous or insupportable satisfaction as they imagined. Not to be­take themselues to the strait mourning of Monks, not to the inclosures of Anchorets, not to be shut vp in caues & dungeons; which seuere pennances, although many vo­luntarily and laudably vndergo, yet God exacteth them not as necessary, but he only requireth sorrowfull be­wayling, and some moderate satisfaction or due chastise­ment [Page 159] of our sinnes, as that Golden Mouth often teacheth other where, with whome S. Augustine so punctually a­greeth,Chrys. hom 2. de lapsu primi hom. in orat. de beato Philogo. & hom. 10. in Matth. Aug. in Psal. 50. as I will only recite his wordes for a finall con­clusion of this matter. If he be iust, whome thou inuokest, he reuengeth sinnes. If he be iust, thou canst not depriue thy Lord God of his Iustice. Implore his mercy, but consider his Iustice; His mercy inclineth to pardon the sinner, his iustice to punish the sinne. What then? When thou seekest mercy, shall sinne remaine vnpunished? Let Dauid answere; let the lapsed answere; let them answere with Dauid, that they may deserue mercy, as Dauid did, and say: Not so (O Lord) my sinne shall not be vnpunished &c. Therefore I will not that thou punish me, because I punish my sin. Aug. ibi­dem. And a little after: Thou pardonest him that confesse [...]h; Thou pardonest him, but punishing himselfe: So mercy and truth accord. Mercy because man is deliuered: truth because sinne is punished.

CHAP. I.

IF the vse, or rather abuse, of Par­dons were such as the Hussits heerto­fore, the Waldenses, the Thaborits, and the Protestants now of late haue buz­zedIoan. Co­caeus l. de hist. Hus­sitarum. Synodus Constant. [...]es 2. Greg. de Valentia tom. 4. disp. 7. q. 20. puncto [...]. into the eares of their wretched followers; accursed were the Pen▪ vnhappy the Man, who would vn­dertake their defence. But sith all their reports are perni­cious calumnyes, which issue from mindes corrupted with malice: I will briefly propose what Pardons or Indulgences are: then, what grounds to authorize them we haue out of Scripture.

2. Indulgence therfore is a mercifull relaxation, or absolutiō of temporall punishment due to sin, by applying out of the Sacrament the superabundant satisfactions of Christ and his Saints by him that hath lawfull authority. To manifest the truth of this definiti­on [Page 161] two principal pointes generally denyed by Fulke and his Consorts, I am now to demonstrate. First that thereWhat In­dulgences are? is a certaine surplussage or common treasure of publike Satisfaction in the Church. Secondly that this treasure may be communicated to such as need, proportionably to the punishment their sinnes require. Concerning the former.

In one, and the same action achieued in the fauour of God, a double valew may be considered, the one of me­rit, the other of satisfaction. The merit is drawne frō the worthinesse of the worke, as it floweth from the foun­taine of supernaturall grace: the satisfaction ariseth from the painfulnesse, difficulty, or annoyance, which is takē in performing the same. And because euery good and pi­ous act of necessity beareth this heauenly stampe of grace, and is commōly attended with some paine & difficulty: euery such action is both meritorious of heauen, and sa­tisfactory for the delight taken in sinning, both which it hath pleased God to set downe by the Scribes and Secreta­ries of his holy will.

3. S. Marke, speaking of a charitable Almes-deed, af­firmeth it meritorious: Whosoeuer shall giue you to drinke a Mar. 9. vers. 40. Matth. 25. vers. 35. cup of water in my name &c. he shall not loose his reward. And S. Matthew testifieth, that heauen is giuen as merited her­by; For I was hungry, and you gaue me to eat &c. And that the same worke is also satisfactory, Toby anoucheth: Al­mesdeeds deliuer vs from sinne and death. Salomon confirmeth: As water quencheth fire, so Alsmesdeeds extinguish sinne. WhichTo [...]. 4. v. 11. Eccles▪ v. 35. cannot be meant of blotting out the guilt of any mortall crime, wholy remitted by repentance, therefore it is vn­derstood of satisfiyng for the punishment, to which a sinner is liable. Neither is there any reason why the same worke of prayer, for example, may be meritorious to him that prayeth, and propitiatory in the sight of God to ob­taine some benefit vnto others, if it may not be also sa­tisfactory for their sinnes, because the excellency of the worke, from which merit proceedeth, is nothing lesse­ned, [Page 162] but rather augmēted by reason of the painfulnes, & the painfulnes frō which Satisfactiō is made more precious, in regard of the dignity. So that merit may well comply in the same action with Satisfaction, and Satisfaction agree with merit. Yet there is a great difference betweene them; for no man can merit for others, but satisfie he may: Christ only hath merited both grace and glory for vs all and throughly satisfied for our sinnes. The vertue of his me­rits communicated vnto vs by our meritorious deeds, we can deriue to none but our selues; the fruit of his satisfa­ction we may apply by our satisfactory workes, both to our selues, and to our fellow members.

4. Besides, no man can merit so much, but he may daily increase & merit more; and it is impossible to ar­riue to such height of perfection in the way of merit, but the crowne of reward shall infinitly surpasse the worthi­nesse of our deserts: For the sufferances of this tyme are not con­digne Rom. 8. 18. Bernar. de conuers. ad Clericos serm. 30. to the glory to come. They are not answerable (sayth S. Ber­nard) to the precedent fault which is remitted, nor to the present grace which is infused, nor to the future glory which is promised vnto vs. But they may be notwithstanding in the way of Satisfaction, more thē inough to discharge the debt of pu­nishment; for that being rated according to the propor­tion of the fault [...], As the measure of sinne, such shall be the nūber Deut. 25. of stripes. Many zealous Penitents, and perfect followers of Christ, haue indured more penall afflictions, then the sa­tisfaction of their sinne required. Now the surplussage or supererogation of these spirituall satisfactions, which a­uanceNazian. orat. 4 [...]. quae est o­rat. 2. in Pascha. In extra [...]. Vnigeni [...]. de poenis. & remis. 1. Pet. 1. Psalm. [...]. Basil expo­nens verb [...] Psal. 48. Chrys. hom 10. in ep. ad Rona [...]o [...]. to some, are not vayne or superfluous, but make vp one complete masse of passions, which abound in the Church, chiefly through the sufferings of Christ and our B. Lady. For first, if euery drop of Christs precious bloud (as S. Gregory Nazianzen doth insinuate, and Clement the sixt define) if euery prayer he made, and worke he achie­ued might haue beene sufficient to haue satisfied for the sinnes of all mankind; what a great price, what a cop [...]ous redemption, what an inestimable ransome did he offer for [Page 163] vs? A price (saith S. Basil) surpassing all valew. A ransome, which as much exceedeth (saith S. Chrysostome) the summe of our ini­quities, as the maine Ocean surmounteth a little sparke of fire cast into it.

5. Likewise our Blessed Lady, who neuer spotted with the staine of sinne, who replenished with the foun­taine of grace, went daily forward increasing in many charitable and painefull workes, had a rich heap of sa­tisfactions to augment the summe before mentioned.Fulke in c. 1. ad Colos. sect 4. Matth. 1. Which because M. Fulke is ashamed to confesse, he villa­nously denyeth, by the instigation no doubt of some in­fernall spirit, this immaculate purity of the Virgin Mary, and belcheth forth out of his impure breast: If she He spea­keth abso­lutly and accuseth our B. La­dy aswell of actuall as of ori­ginall sin, as appea­reth out of his a [...] ­not. in c. 3. Mar. sect. Scotus in 3. sent. dist 3. quaest. 1. Zuarez. Tomo 2. in 3. part. di­stinct. 3. sect. 5. Bonau [...]n. 3. dist. 3. q. 2. Aug. Ep. 57. ne­uer sinned, how can she reioyce in God her Sauiour? How can she be one of Christs people, who was called Iesus, because he should saue his people from their sinnes? Blasphemous Catiffe! who would not vnderstand that Christ might redeeme his Mother, as Scotus and Zuarez teach, as well by preser­uing her from sinne, by his preuenting grace before she were touched with any infection, as by cleansing her after she was once defiled. As a man may be saued out of a dangerous pit, eyther by warning giuen before, or succour yielded after his fall.

6. Our Blessed Lady reioyced in God her Sauiour she was the Queene of his chosen flocke, redeemed by him by speciall preuention that she might not sinne, not by subuention after her ruine. Some peraduenture more curious in reading then iudicious or cunning in expoun­ding the Fathers, will vrge out of S. Augustine: Nullus redi­mitur nisi is qui verè per peccatum fuerit antea captiuus. No man is redeemed but he that hath serued vnder the yoke of sinne. Which because the good Angells neuer did, our Sauiour Christ who merited grace & glory to them, is not properly sayd to haue redeemed them. No more can he be sayd to ēsran­chise our Blessed Lady, if she were neuer subiect to the bondage of sinne. I answere it is true, that he who is re­deemed must haue beene first captiued either in himselfe [Page 164] or in the roote and origen from whence he springeth: The good Angells were neither of these wayes euer in­wrappedad Rom. 3. v. 23. in the bandes of iniquity; but the Virgin Mary howbeit she neuer sinned neither actually or original­ly in her selfe, yet she truely proceeded from that roote orHest. c. 15. vers. 13. In Lege princeps §. de legibus. Gen. 34. v. 16. & v. 19. Aug. l. de natura & gratia cap. 36. Cyp. ser. de natiuitat. Christi. Amb. ser. 22. in Psal 118. virgo per gratiā ab onmi in­tegra labe peccati. Nissen▪ ho. 13. in Cātic. Ansel. l. de concep. virg. & l. de ex [...]ellen. virg. c. 3. Bonauent. in 3. sent. d. 3. Richard. Victor. [...]an. 39. Cant. 4. Iob. c. 6. v. 2. of spring in her parents, from whence she should haue drawn by naturall propagation the corruption of sin, had she not beene miraculously preserued, and after this manner most perfectly redeemed, had she not been by a singular prerogatiue exempted from that generall sentēce of S. Paul: All haue sinned and need the glory of God. Had she not beene priuiledged by God as Hester was by Assuerus, when he spake vnto her: Non pro te, sed pro omnibus haec Lex constituta est. Not for thee, but for all this Law was enacted. To which purpose Vlpianus sayth: The Prince is not subiect to his owne Lawes, and the Empresse although she be subiect, yet the Prince graunteth her the same priuiled­ges himself enioyeth. The Mother of God was the Queen, the Lady, the Empresse of the world, to whome as her Sonne imparted that vnmatchable fauour to be free from the common malediction imposed vpon women: In do­lo reparies: In dolour and griefe shalt thou bring forth thy children, to be free from the vniuersall decree inflicted vpon all both men & women: In puluerem reuerteris: Thou shalt re­turne into dust: so likewise from the generall and absolute sentence of the Apostle, All haue sinned &c.

7. Therefore S. Augustine reckoning vp all the Pa­triarkes, Prophets, and iust persons to haue beene stayned with the blemish of some venial fault, excepteth alwayes our Blessed Lady: Of whome (sayth he) for the honour of our Lord, when we talke of sinnes, I will haue no question. With whome S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, Gregory Nissen, S. Anselme, S. Bonauenture, and Richardus Victorinus agree, who attribute vnto her that saying of the Canticles: Thou art wholy beau­tifyed my beloued, and there is no spot, or blemish in thee. No spot, no blemish of sinne, suffering notwithstanding ma­ny dolorous griefes, she abounded with great satisfaction [Page 165] treasured vp in the store-house of the Church.

8. Iob abounded with the like, affirming of himself: I would to God my sinnes by which I haue prouoked the wrath of God, and the calamity which I suffer, were waighed in a ballance▪ like the sand of the sea this would seeme more heauy. S. Mary Mag­dalen, Colos. 1. v. 24. the Apostles, sundry Martyrs, and other holy per­sons haue abounded with the like. Especially S. Paul, who writeth thus: I accomplish those thinges that want of the Passions of Christ in my flesh, for his body which is the Church. Fulke in c. [...] ad Colos▪ sect. 4. And what was this, which was wanting to the sufferings of Christ? Was there any defect in his Passiō? No. Was this suffering then of the Apostle only (as M. Fulke answereth) for the glory of God, and confirmation of the Church in fayth of the Ghospell? No. It was also as th wordes enforce, to full­fill the plenitude of Christs and his members passions, for the benefit of the Church, and behoofe of others, toAug. in Psal. 6 [...]. whome they be communicated. For as Christ our head withall his elect make one, mysticall, common, and pu­blicke body: so his sufferings with the afflictions of his members concurre to make vp (as S. Augustine sayth) one common and publique weale, one generall and publicke trea­sure. To which when we add, we accomplish with S. Paul, Aug. ibid. Orig hom. 10. & 24. in Num. that which is wanting to the Passions of Christ: and for the debt of sinne according to our meane ability, (to speake with the same S. Augustine) we pay that we owe. Which Origen also taught long before him, and strengthned with some testimonyes of holy Writ.

9. Touching the second point, that this common treasure of penall afflictions is dispensable vnto others by them, to whome God hath committed the gouernementMatth. 18. of his Church, is likewise plaine by those wordes of Christ: Whatsoeuer yee shall loose vpon earth, shallbe loosed in heauen. And principally by those he vsed to S. Peter: Matth. 16. Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose in earth, shalbe loosed also in the hea­uens: which being generally spoken without restriction are not only to be expounded of all spirituall power to forgiue sinnes in the holy Sacraments, by application of [Page 166] Christs merits, but also to release punishment out of the Sacrament, by dispensing his owne and his Saints satisfa­ctions.1. Cor. 2. Theodoret vpon this place. Cyp. ep. 13. 14. 15. Tertul. l. ad Martyr. Concil. 1. Nicaen. can. [...]1. Thus S. Paul graunted Indulgence to the ince­stuous Corinthian of his deserued punishment, whome at the intercession (as Theodoret writeth) of Timothy and Titus he pardoned in the person of Christ. Thus the Bishops of the Primitiue Church gaue many pardons and Iudulgences to sundry Penitents, by the mediation of Confessours or designed Mattyrs, of which S. Cyprian and Tertullian make mention. Thus the first Councell of Nice appointed mercy and In­dulgence to be vsed to such as perfectly repented; wheras others should performe and expect their whole tyme of pennance. All these pardons, and many mor [...] which S. Gregory the Tho. in 4. sent. dis. 20. q. 1 art. 3. Great, Abbas Vrspergen in chron. Fulke in c. 8. 2. ad Cor sect. 3. 2. Cor. 1. v. 6. Collos. 1. v. 24. Rom. 9. v. 3. Orig. hom. 10. & 24. in Num. 2. Cor. 8. v. 14. Leo the third, Anton 2. p. hist. tit. 16. cap. [...]. §. 23. Vrban the second, Ludge­r [...] ep. de S. Swiberto apud Suri­um tom. 2. Innocentius the third, and others graunted, were alwayes dispensed out of the publike treasure of the Church.

10. Moreouer it is conformable to Gods iustice, au­swerable to the Communion of Saints, which we professe in our Creed, agreable to the mutuall intercourse between members of the same body, that the wants of one be sup­plyed by the store of others, and that there be (as I say) a communication of benefits, not only from the head to the members, but also from one member to the rest of his fel­low-members. After which manner not only the chiefe Magistrates and Stewards of Gods house, to whom he hath giuen commission to dispense his misteryes & all his goods, but euery particular man may by speciall intentiō apply, not his spirituall merits (as M. Fulke contentiously cauilleth) but his satisfactory workes with which he a­boundeth, to such as need them. So S. Paul offered his afflictions one while for the Corinthians: another while for the Colossians: now he desired to dye for the Romans, then to be Anathema, that is, A Sacrifice, as Origen expoun­deth it, for the Iewes. For this cause he exhorteth the Co­rinthians to contribute largely to the poore of Hierusalem, saying: Let in this present tyme your aboundance supply their [Page 167] want, that their aboundance may supply your want. As if he should say, communicate you now vnto them the super­fluityChrysost. Theod. Thom. Haymo, Primas. Ambros. Oecum. Theophil. in hunc lo­cum. Fulke ibid. sect. 3. of your worldly wealth, that you may interchan­geably receaue from them the supererogatiō of their spi­rituall good deeds: Of their integrity of life, and trust in God, sayth S. Chrysostome: Of their commendable patience, The­odoret: Of their prayers, S. Thomas: Of their fastings, Hay­mo: And of many other such spirituall blessings which Primasius, S. Ambrose, Oecumenius, and Theophilact insinu­ate. So as M. Fulkes saucines is detestable in forcing most of them to his priuate sense against their words and mea­ning, against the text of S. Paul, and this profitable ex­change of spirituall fauours for temporall gifts.

11. In fine, King Dauid plainely acknowledgeth the mutuall communication of which now I treate, saying:Psal. 118. Psal. 12 [...]. v. 3. I am made partaker of all that feare our Lord. And speaking of the Church, which he calleth Hierusalem, he sayth: It is built as a Citty, whose participation is in it selfe; that is, as in a politicke Common-wealth, or publike Citty there is a generall trafficke for the common good of all & euery particuler mans necessity: so in the Church or Citty of God, there is a participation or communion of spiritual workes of all, to one end, to one publike benefite, and for the behoofe of euery priuate person. In our naturall bo­dy one member (sayth S. Augustine) speaketh in behalfe of the Aug. in Psal. 30. con. 1. August. tract. 33. in Ioan. other. The foot is troden on, & the tongue cryeth, Why doest thou hurt me? And in another place: The eye only seeth in the body. But what? Doth the eye see to it selfe alone? It seeth to the hand, it seeth to the foot, it seeth to the rest of the members &c. The hand only worketh. But what? Doth it worke to it selfe? It worketh to the eye. So the foot walketh and laboureth for the rest of the mem­bers &c. The same we see in a body Politicke. One Citti­zen taketh paine and dischargeth the debt of his fellow­cittyzen. Why then in this mysticall body of the Church, 1. Cor. 12. Matth. 5 [...] Luc. [...]. which S. Paul compareth to a naturall, our Sauiour to a Politike body: why, I say, may not one member suffer af­fliction, and by satisfying the iustice of God according to [Page 168] his weaknes, redeeme the fine of punishment, which is laid vpon another? Because, sayth M. Fulke, it is writ­ten:Fulke in c. 1. ad Colos. sect. 4. Ezech. 18. v. 20. ad Gala. 6. v. 5. Psal. 48. v. 8. The soule which sinneth, euen that shall dye. Euery one shall beare his owne burden. And: No man can redeeme his brother, or giue a price to God for him. A weake battery to shake the Fort of my former reasons. For there is no questiō, but the soule which sinneth mortally (of which Ezechiel speaketh) incurreth, without sorrow and repentance, eternal death. No question but euery one shall beare his owne burden in way of merit or demerit, albeit he may be holpen by others in way of satisfaction. It is likewise out of doubtBasil. in comment. in hunc lo­cum. that no man can giue a ransome to deliuer his brother from the guilt of sinne and danger of damnation, as S. Basil expoundeth that passage. Neuertheles he may giue a price dedicated in the bloud of Christ to redeem him frō the punishment, the fault being pardoned.

12. But M. Fulke obiecteth: Our Buls or Plenaryes are giuen, à culpa & poena: Both from the fault and paine. They M. Fulke in ca. [...]. 2. Cor. sect. 4. & 6. graunt a full remission of all sinnes, as may be seene in the grand Iubiley of Pope Boniface the eight, and in that which Leo the tenth granted to the Hospitall of S. Spiritus in Saxia Almae Vrbis. I confesse such wordes may be sometyme inserted, not that by the force of Pardons the guilt of sinne is released, but because they alwayes require as a necessary disposition in sinners, either the benefit of absolution, or perfect Con­trition, when absolution cannot be obtained. Therefore they are sayd to giue a Plenary, or full remission of sinnes, to pardon the fault and punishment; the fault by contri­tion, or by the Sacrament of Confession; the punishment which remayneth by the Charter of Indulgence.

13. Then M. Fulke excepteth against the number of M. Fulke in ca. 2. 2. ad Cor. sect. 7. yeares some Pardons containe, as thousands of yeares and Lents, be­sides full remission of all sinnes. I answere, when any pardon expresseth many thousand yeares Indulgence, they are vn­derstood of the years, or Lents of Pennance (which by the ancient Canons of the Church were inflicted vpon sin­ners. For whereas they assigned sometymes 7. some­tymes [Page 169] 10. now 12. now 15. now 30. yeares punishment, sometyme the mourning of the whole remnant of ourVide Bur­char. Epis. VVorma. de poenit. Decret. l. 19. & de. fornicat. Decret. l 17 Vbi haec probat ex Conc. An­cyran. c. 15. ex poeni­tentiali. Theod. ex Decr [...]t Eu­tychi Papae & ex poen. Romano. Iob. c. 15. 1 [...] life, for certaine enormous crimes, and often 40. dayes, or a Lent of Pennance for lesser sinnes: How many thou­sand yeares, and how many Lents of such due correction are they behind on the score, who haue a commō custome of sinning, drinke as holy Iob complaineth, iniquity like water, and multiply their offences aboue the sands of the sea. These I say, be the yeares, these be the Lents cut off by Indul­gences: wherby you may see how impertinent that ob­iection of our Aduersaryes is, that Purgatory shall not continue so many yeares as our Pardons specify, for they are not meant of the yeares or dayes of penall affliction which there are imposed, but of such only as should by the Canonicall decrees be heer inflicted. Now God may sometyme by the bitter sharpnes of Purgatory-paines in an houre, or in a short momentary tyme expiate that which the slow and cold satisfaction of this life could scant redeeme in the mountenance of diuers yeares.

14. Against other abuses, which either by negligēce of Pastours, or couetousnes of inferiour Officers, haue beene practised in promulgating Pardons, the generall Councell of Lateran, the Councell of Vienna, and of lateConc. Lat. in Decreto Inno. 3. Vi­enn [...]n. in Decreto Clementis 5. Trident. s [...]ss [...]5 e­creto de In­dulgentijs. the Councell of Trent, hath made such seuere and hole­some lawes, as they cannot be free from egregious trea­chery, who attach vs of allowing those crimes, which we vtterly labour to suppresse.

15. In which kind because our English Protestantes peruersly weene, and obstinatly auow our supreme Pa­stours guilty of an abhominable sacriledge, which neuer entred their Holynesse harts, to wit, of graunting Par­dons to ratify murders, or to perpetrate sinnes: because I say, they are so willfully setled in this vile conceit, as no­thing whatsoeuer we say, or do, no words, no writinges, no Breues of Popes, no oathes, no protestations, no meanes at all that man can vse, can euer extirpate that pe [...]uish & deep rooted, wicked, & damnable perswasion.

[Page 170]16. It pleased God in the secret disposition of his hidden iudgment to reueale the contrary vnto them by this wonderfull and vnexpected manner. About the yeare of our Lord 1608. in the 6. of his Maiestyes raigne ouer the kingdō of great Britaine, as the Sexton (or other officer appointed for that purpose) was digging a graue in the Cathedral Church of S. Paul in London, he chan­ced to light vpon the Coffin of one Syr Gerard Braybrook Knight, who had been buryed there two hundred years before, where finding the cordes whole, the flowres fresh, he espyed also a Charter of Pardon or Indulgence, not consumed, not eaten, not defaced in so long a tyme, which thus began.

BONIFACIVS Episcopus, seruus seruorum Dei. Dilecto filio Nobili viro, Gerardo Bray­brooke Iuniori, Militi, & dilectae in Christo filiae Nobili mulieri, Elizabethae eius vxori, Lincolniae Di­ocaesis, salutem & Apostolicam benedictionem. Prouenit ex vestrae deuotionis affectu, quo Nos & Romanam Ec­clesiam reueremini &c.

I omit the rest in Latin, because the whole I set down verbatim in English, as followeth.

BONIFACE Bishop, seruant of the seruants of God. To his beloued son the noble Gen­tleman,The copy of a Bull [...]ound in the tombe of Syr Ge­rard Bray­brooke Knight, in S. Pauls Church in London. Gerard Braybrooke the yonger, Knight; and to his beloued daughter in Christ the noble Lady his wife Elizabeth, of the Diocesse of Lincolne, salutation and Apostolicall benediction. It procee­deth from your affectionate deuotion, with which you reuerence Vs, and the Church of Rome, that We admit your petitions to a fauourable hearing, especially those which concerne the saluation of [Page 171] your soules. For this cause, We being moued to yield to your supplications, by the tenour of these Pre­sents, doe grant this Indulgence to your Deuotion, that such a Ghostly Father, as eyther of you shall choose, shall haue power by Apostolicall authority to grant to you (persisting in the sincerity of faith, in the vnity of the holy Church of Rome, and in o­bedience and deuotion toward Vs, or Our Succes­sours Popes of Rome, Canonically entring into that Sea) full remission, only once, at the point of death, of all your sinnes wherof you shall be contrite and confessed: in such manner neuerthelesse, that in those cases where satisfaction is to be made to any other, the same Confessour shall enioyne you to doe it by your selues, if you suruiue, or by your heyres if you shall then die, which you, or they ought to perform as aforesaid. And least (which God forbid) you should by this fauour become more prone to commit vnlawfull thinges hereafter: We declare, that if vpon confidence of this Remission or Indul­gence, you shall commit any such sins, that this pre­sent Pardō shall not be any help to you concerning them. Furthermore let it be lawfull for no man to infringe this Writing, or Grant of Ours, or with whatsoeuer boldnesse to contradict it. And if any shall presume to attempt any such thing, let him know, that he shall incurre the indignation of Al­mighty God, and of his blessed Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul. Giuen at Rome at S. Peters, vnder the Fi­shers-Ring, the fifth of Iune, in the second yeare of our Papacy.

17. Let our Sectaries peruse this Breue, and tell me [Page 172] whether their consciences will euer serue them againe to vpbraid our Pastours with the former sacriledge so rise4. Condi­tions ne­cessary to gaine an Indul­gence. heretofore in all their mouthes. Let them read the con­ditions here required to gaine an Indulgence, and tell me whether they any way incourage or authorize vs to sinne. For first it is necessary therunto to persist in the since­rity of faith. Secondly, to be sorrowfull, contrite, and confesse our sinnes. Thirdly, to make satisfaction, or restitution, if any be needfull. Fourthly, not to presume hereby to attempt vnlaw­full things. But who can be sorrowfull, much lesse fruit­fully confesse, or duly satisfie for that which he purposeth to commit? who can be embolned to fall into sinne in hope to obtaine a Plenary Indulgence, when this very hope and presumption is a maine barre not to gaine the Indulgence? And strange, no doubt, strange and admi­rable was the prouidence of God in manifesting these things in so fit a time.

18. For as in the dayes of Theodosius the Emperour,Gregor: Turon. de glo. Mart. l. 1. c. 95. Baron in annal. an. Christ. 357. This hap­pened in the yeare of our Lord 1582. vn­der Pope Gregory the 13. he, awaked and reuealed the happy Martyrs S. Maximian, Malchus, Martinian and the rest, after they had slept 372. yeares, when the article of our resurrection was most ea­gerly impugned by the Sadducean heresy: & as he reuea­led the body of S. Felix Pope and Martyr, by meanes of some who to find a treasure digged at Rome in the Church of S. Cosmas and Damianus the very day before his feast is celebrated, when so many doubts were made about his Martyrdome, as his name might haue byn otherwise in danger to be blotted out of the Calendar: So the Diuine wisedome who with admirable sweetnes disposeth all things, euen then in the Royall Citty, in the chiefest Temple, in the greatest recourse of English Sectaries dis­closed this pardon in testimony of the innocency of his Vicegerents, when they were most hoatly pursued, and most wrongfully condemned of the deepest crymes in abusing of them; that none hereafter may presume to stand against a witnes produced from heauen, or returne them as faulty, who are so euidently acquited by the [Page 173] sentence of God.

19. To conclude therfore, and briefly recapitulate what hath byn sayd in these two former Chapters. 1. I haue proued out of Scripture, that the fault of sinne being pardoned, some punishment may after remayne. 2. I haue proued out of Scripture, that we our selues, or some other in our behalfe may satisfy God for that dept of punish­ment. 3. I haue proued out of Scripture, that diuers perfect men haue more Satifactory workes, then the punishment of their sinnes require. 4. I haue proued out of Scripture, that this surplufsage of Satisfactiōs is appliable vnto others. Therefore seing the whole ground of Indulgences cōsisteth in this communication of superabundant Satisfactions, the whole ground of Indulgences is strongly fortifyed by the infallible authority of holy Scripture.

CHAP. I.

I HANDLE this Controuersy chiefly to declare a doubt of no small impor­tance, in which my Gratious Soue­raigne King Iames desired once to be resolued, as I my selfe heard a Noble man comming from Courr, deliuerA deepe and lear­ned que­stion pro­posed by King Iames. in the presence of many great perso­nages. The doubt was this: How our Sauiour sussered, and in what manner he satisfyed for the multitude of our sinnes? Whe­ther as God, or as man, or partly as God, and partly as man. If as God, his Godhead was passible, his Godhead corruptible, which is impossible. If as man, his manhood being finite, and all the acti­ons of his humanity finite, they could not be of infinite valew to ran­some the iniquityes of men. If partly as God, and partly as man, [Page 176] the Godhead is diuided into parts, and some part made passible; both which destroy the Nature of God. A learned question, and worthy so Noble a Prince, if it may please him as wil­lingly to giue eare to the answere, as he hath wisely pro­pounded the difficulty. The resolution whereof wholy dependeth on this matter which I now discusse, accor­ding to what Nature Christ did mediate in our behalfe. For according to that he prayed, according to that he sacrificed,, dyed and purchased the price of our redemp­tion.

2. Two contrary opinions, or rather impious here­syes,Cyr. ep. ad Eulog. & patet ex quater. Nest. tomo 2. ope. Cyr. Euag. l. 1. c. 2. Theo. l. 4. haer. fabu. Gelas. l. de duab. [...]at. cont. Eu­tych. Theod. vt supra c. vlt. Greg. de Valent. in 3. p. disp. 1. q. 2. punct. 10. Luth. in confess. de coen. Dom. Luth. l. de concil. par. 2. p. 276. Zuing. in resp. ad Conf. Luth I find touching this point. First Nestorius mantaining our Sauiour Christ, who was borne of the Virgin, to be a meere man both in nature and person, did obstinately teach, that he only prayed as man, suffered as man, and exercised his function of mediation as a meere man; wit­nesse S. Cyril, Euagrius and Theodoret▪ Eutyches on the other side vnconstātly affirming, that either the deity of Christ was changed into his humanity (as Gelasius reporteth) or his humanity into his Diuinity (as Theodoret mentioneth) and that after this conuersion the Diuine nature only re­mayned, did consequently defend, sayth Gregorius de Va­lentia, that he suffered in his Godhead, and died also ac­cording to his Godhead, albeit in the outward shew and semblance of man. Both these wicked and diabolicall o­pinions brewed by Sathan, haue byn broached of late by our new reformers Luther and Caluin.

3. Luther vented the Eutychian blasphemy, in the Confession he made of the supper of our Lord saying: If I belieue the humane nature only suffered for me, Christ is a simple or infirme Sauiour, and then he himselfe needeth another Sauiour. Therfore he supposed with Eutyches, that his diuinity suffe­red, as appeareth by his inuectiue speaches against the Zuinglians, calling them Nestorians for denying it, and by Zuinglius Apology, or defence of his brethren in refuting Luther, who sayth: If Christ according to his Deity be passible, certes, he is no God.

[Page 177]4. Iohn Caluin in his booke of Institutions wholy see­meth to fauour Nestorius, distinguishing with him, Two per­sons Calu. insti. c. [...]3. §. 9. 23. & 24 in Christ, the person of the Sonne of God, and the person of the Mediatour. Who howsoeuer he may striue to gloze that manner of speach: yet neyther he, nor Melancthon, nor M. Fulke, nor M. Field, nor any Protestant, who imbra­ceth their doctrine, can from the blot of Arianisme or Eu­tychianisme Calu. ep. [...] Polonos. in [...]er tra­cta. p. 682. 683 printed Geneuae anno. 16 11. Melanct. [...] locis edit. 1545. Fulke in c. 5. ad Haeb. sect. 4. Field in his 5. booke of the Church [...] 16. Dan. cap. 2. Haeb. 7. v▪ [...]6. Leo ser. [...] de natali Domini. Basi [...]. in il­lud Psal. 48. Frater no [...] redimit. Nazian. orat. 2. d [...] [...]aschate. be any way excused: for (explicating how Christ payed the forfait of our sinnes, or made mediation to his Father) Caluin auoucheth, that he was our media­tour, According to his diuine nature, in respect of which his Fa­ther was greater then he. And that he was mediatour; Before his Incarnation, before Adams fall, euen from the beginning. Me­lancthon: The diuine nature was obedient to the Father; It yeelded to the diuine anger. M. Fulke: Christ as God offered Sacrifice. He was a Priest according to his Deity. He was our Mediatour (sayth M. Field) according to both his natures. Thus the Southsayers delude his Maiesties wise demaund, who might find ma­ny Daniels in the Church of God able to vnfold the my­stery, and resolue him in the truth.

5. We therefore reply to the question propounded: that our innocent, and impolluted Priest, our Mediatour and Redeemer Christ Iesus, satisfyed the wrath of his Father for our manyfold transgressions according to his manhood and not according to his Godhead. For albeit he were both God and man, yea perfect God and perfect man, answerable to that of S. Leo: vnlesse he were true God, he could not affoard vs remedy; vnlesse he were true man, he could not shew an example; which S. Basil, S. Gregory Nazianzen, and many others in like manner affirme: Yet if you demand how and by what meanes he discharged the office of mediati­on, the function of Priesthood? then we answere; He performed them by the means of his humanity, and not by any worke of his deity, which I illustrate by this fa­miliar example. Take one and the same man, who is an excellent Physitian, and a singular Lawyer: When he ministreth holsome physicke to his patient, it is true, to [Page 178] say, he who mynistreth physicke, is both a Lawyer and [...]. Tim. 2. v. 5. Aug. l. 2. de pecca. orig. c. 28. Aug. prae­fat. in E­ [...]ar. 2. Psa. 29. Aug. de Ciuit. Dei [...] 10. c. 20. Cyr. in A­pol. pro 12. Capitibus. Chrys. in c. 6. ad Haeb. Fulgent. l. de incarna. & gratia Christi. Amb. l. 3. de fide c. 5. Idem (in­quit) Sa­cerdos idem & hostia: Sacerdotiū tamen & sacrifi [...]um humanae conditionis officium est. &c. Nemo ergo vbi ordinē cernit hu­ma [...] con­ditionis, ibi ius diuini­tatis as [...]ri­bat. a Physitian; yet you cannot say he ministreth physike by his skill in law, but by the art of physike: so our high Bi­shop, our mercifull Redeemer, who sacrificed himselfe vpon the Altar of the Crosse,, was (as I say) both God and man. If you inquire according to what nature he offered this Sacrifice, or vsed mediation in our behalfe? then we reply: he accomplished them in his humane na­ture, and not in his diuine, which S. Paul by the in­stinct of the holy Ghost, and the Fathers with him ma­nifestly declare.

6. S. Paul auerreth: There is one God, one also Mediatour of God and men, man Christ Iesus. He did not say (as S. Au­gustine here obserueth) Christ Iesus, but Man Christ Iesus, to denote the nature by which he was mediatour; ex­pressely inferring, By this therefore a Mediatour, by which he was man: and a litle before: Not by that by which he was equall to his Father. In his explications vpon the Psalmes: What is it to be a Mediatour betwene God and men? Not betweene the Father and men, but betweene God and men. What is God? The Father, and the Sonne, and the holy Ghost. What are men? sin­ners, wicked, mortall. Between that Trinity and mens infirmity & iniquity a man is made Mediatour, not wicked, but yet infirme. In his booke of the Citty of God: Christ is a true mediatour in as much as he assumed the forme of a seruant, whereas in the forme of God he receiueth the Sacrifice with his Father, with whom he is one God. S. Cyril, S. Chrysostome, Fulgentius I let passe. S. Ambrose only I ioyne with S. Augustine, the Father with the Sonne, the ornament of Italy with the glory of Afrike, who affirmeth: The same is the Priest, and the same the Host. Neuertheles the Priestood and the Sacrifice is the office of humane condition: And a litle after: Let no man therefore where he seeth the course of humane property, there ascribe the right of diuinity.

7. But you will say; the knot of his Maiesties diffi­culty is not yet vnloosed. For suppose he prayed, sa­crificed and satisfyed for our sinnes according to his man­hood, how could his prayer, his sacrifice, his satisfaction [Page 179] amount to such infinit value, the nature of man being fi­nit, and all his actions finit? I answere, that this pro­ceeded from the dignity of our Sauiours person, which being not the person of man (as Nestorius wickedly held) but the sole, sacred & diuine person of the Sonne of God, it dignified and ennobled the actions of his humane na­ture, which it sustayned, and made euery one of suchRom 5. 20 inestimable price, as they farre surpassed the summe of our trespasses, that, where sinne abounded, grace might more abounde. For as the basenes of the person, who iniureth another, increaseth the nature of the wronge: so the worthines of him that satisfyeth enhaunceth the valour of satisfaction. Hence it commeth, that the recompence made by a Prince is more esteemed, then that which is exhibited by a priuate person, and the outrage attempted by a base companion against a Prince, more hainous then the iniury which a Prince committeth against one of meane condition. Therefore Aristotle in his Ethicks sayth:Arist. 5. Ethic. c. 8. Arist. 1. Metaph. c. 1. If a Magistrate strike another, he is not to be stroken againe: but if any man strike him, he is not only to be stroken againe, but se­uerly also to be punished. Where by the basenes of the offen­der, and worthines of him that is offended, he exaggera­teth the grieuousnes of the crime, and greater desert of punishment: So on the other side, in the way of recom­pence and satisfaction, the excellency of him, that satis­fyeth and submitteth in our behalfe, maketh the submi­ssion farre more acceptable, because Aristotle saith: The Clem. 6. in extra. vni­genitus de paeniten. & remis. Proclus hom. de Chri. nati­uitate in Concil. Ephe. c. 7. [...]om. 6. Amb. praf. in Ps 35. Leo epist. 83. Vniuer­sitatem captiuorū. Cyp. ser. de rat. cir cū ­cisionis. 1. Tim. 2. v. 6. Ephes. 5 v. 2. Philip. 2. v. 8. Chrys. ho. 7. in eum loc. Cyr. cate. che [...]i. 13. Haeb. 5. v. 7. actions are to be attributed to the persons that worke. Wherefore seeing it was the diuine person of the Sonne of God, which by the operations of his humanity prayed, sacrifi­ced and humbled himselfe to his Father, he aduanced his prayers, his sacrifice, his humble submission, and euery action he atchieued in his manhood to be in morall estimation truly accounted of infinit and vnspeakable worth.

8. He purchased for vs by his merits and satisfaction (as Cle­ment defineth) an infinite treasure. He payed (sayth Proclus) [Page 180] such a price, as did equall the debt of sinne, euen in the axact nor me or rule of iustice. He disbursed (as S. Ambrose auerreth) gold so pretious, a ransome so rich, as it was able to wash away al sinne: able to redeeme (sayth S. Leo) the whole multitude of cap. iues. Not through the benignity only of Gods fauourable ac­ceptation: but by the worthynes (as S. Cyprian writeth) of our Redeemers oblation, who with so great authority entred the ho­ly places &c. Where he deriueth the excellency of his obla­tion from the great preheminence of his person, who of­fering and submitting in our behalfe not only the actions of his humanity, but himselfe also, his owne diuine and sacred person, morally deriued as much worthinesse to his workes, as there was true reuerence and dignity in himselfe. Which maketh S. Paul so often repeate, He gaue himselfe a redemption for vs: He deliuered himself for vs an oblatiō and hoast to God: He humbled himselfe being made obedient. Where S. Chrysostome sayth: As much highnes and dignity as he had, so much humility likewise did he vndergo. And S. Cy­rill. Iesus offering himselfe the price, shall he not app [...]ase the wrath of God conceaued against men? Yes, yes. The Apostle againe auerreth it: He was Our Protestāts pernici­ously cor­rupt those words, say ing: He was heard in that which he feared, to proue that he feared the payns of hell. O horrible blas­phemy! S. Chrys. & the rest in eum lolum. [...]uar, in 3. par. disp. 4. sect. [...]. heard for his reuerence, That is, for the reuerence which was due vnto him being the Sonne of God, as S. Chrysostome, S. Anselme, Hugo de Sancto Victore and Theophilact interprete it. And S. Paul seemeth to insi­nuate immediatly adding: And truly whereas he was the Son of God for that great dignity of his person he was heard, and reue­renced of his Father.

9. Heere some learned Protestant may obiect. That the person of the Sonne of God was the party offended; therfore it could not satisfy, but must be satisfyed by the submission of another. I answere with Suarez: the person of the Sonne of God may be considered two wayes; either as it is all one by Identity with the nature of God, or as it supporteth the nature of man. In the former sense he is the party offended and must be pacifyed: in the latter he is our Priest, Me­diatour, and he that pacifyeth; because the operations he [Page 181] worketh by his humanity are only capable of merit, and apt to satisfy, and not these he produceth by his Diuinity. Which maketh M. Fields, M. Fulkes, and their followers assertion the more detestable, who faygne Christ to me­diate by both his natures. As though he could either me­rit or satisfy in respect of his Deity, or without merit & satisfaction discharge his office of Mediation, the mistery of our redemption. Many other such inuincible reasons may be brought against them.

10. For he that mediateth to another, vseth some submission and intreaty vnto him to obtaine that he can­not himselfe performe, which argueth want and impo­tency in the mediatour, and power or authority in him, to whome mediation is made. So that if Christ as God sueth and supplicateth to his Father, he is, as the Arians sayd, more impotent then his Father, according to his God-head, he is a Creature, and not God. Againe he that maketh mediation, must be distinguished from him to whom mediation is made: but the diuine nature of Christ is the party offended, he that ought to be pacifyed, he to whome mediation is made; Therefore it cannot be he that maketh mediation. For this cause Cardinal Bellarmin inferreth, that Christ could not be our Mediatour neitherBellar. l. 5. cap. 5. de Chri. Me­diatore. according to both his natures seuerally, nor ioyntly. Not seuerally for the reasons alleadged: not ioyntly, because though in that sort he differ from the Father & the Holy Ghost, neither of which is both God and man, and from the Sonnes of men who are meerly men: yet he differeth not from the Sonne of God (who was to be pacifyed) neither in nature, nor in person.

11. D. Field taxeth this: as a silly kind of reasoning; And he like a silly nouice impertinently or impiously reply­eth:Field in his 5. booke c. 16 fol. 53. That the Sonne of God incarnate differeth not only from the Father, and the holy Ghost, but from himselfe as God, in that he is man; and from men and himselfe as man, in that he is God. And therefore may mediate not only between the Father and vs men, but also betweene himselfe as God, and vs miserable and sinnefull men. [Page 182] How idle, how impertinent is this? Do not we graunt? Doth not Bellarmine in the same place confesse this diffe­rence?Bellar. l. 5. c. 3. Do not we acknowledg that Christ doth mediate betweene his Father and vs; yea betweene himselfe as God, and vs wretched sinners? But the question is accor­ding to what nature he performes it? And you, who affir­me him to execute it according to both natures, should shew how the Diuine nature of Christ, which maketh mediation, differeth from it selfe, to whome mediation is made. Assigne no difference, and you confound the par­ty satisfying with the party offended, you make no satis­faction, no mediation at all. Assigne a difference, & you diuide the vnity of God-head, you impiously deny the Blessed Trinity. The Sonne, say you, assumed the nature of man, which the Father did not. True: But what? Did the Incarnation or assumption of man make any di­stinction, any mutation in the essence of God? Is not the diuine nature of the Sonne, notwithstanding his Hyposta­ticall vnion, the same with the Fathers, the same with the Holy Ghosts? Is it not as far distant from▪ vs in the Son,Aug. li. 2. de pec. orig. c. 28. Fulke vbi supra. Aug. in Psal. 109. Theod. in eumdem Psal. Iero. in Psal. 109. as it is in the Father? As farre distant since, as before the incarnation? Therefore I conclude with S. Augustine: Quomodo erit medietas, vbi eadem distantia est? How can there be a meane, where the same distance still remayneth?

12. The like forces we bring against M. Fulke, who maketh Christ a Priest in respect of his Godhead. For be­sides the Fathers, who directly affirme the contrary, be­sides S. Augustine who sayth: As he was man, he was Priest; as God he was not Priest. Theodoret: As man he did offer Sa­crifice; but as God he did receaue Sacrifice. S. Hierome: Our Lord swore &c. Thou art a Priest for euer. He swore not to him, who before Lucifer was begotten, but to him, who after Lucifer was borne of the Virgin. Besides these authorityes, if Christ be a Priest and offer Sacrifice (as M. Fulke holdeth) according to his Diuinity, he is both distinct from his Father and in­feriour to him according to his diuinity. He doth homage to him as his Lord and supreme soueraigne; and sitteth [Page 183] not (as the Scripture teacheth) on his right hand, equall with him in dignity, equall in glory, power, maiesty, as the Atha. ser 1. con. A­rian. B [...]sil. l. de Spir. sanct. cap. 6. Ambr. l. 1. defide c. 4. &c. Doctours commonly interprete that place. Nay, he is (as the August. [...]om. 6. pro­pos. 33. Fulk. in c. 5. ad Haeb. sect. 4. Field. 5. ca. 16. Arians affirmed) the Priest and Minister of his Father, and not his true and consubstantiall Sonne. M. Fulke, and M. Field with him seeke to auoyd these blas­phemyes by distinguishing the workes of mediation and Priesthood into two sortes: into workes of ministery, & workes of authority. Of ministery; as to pray, to pay the price of our Redemption, and by dying to satisfy for sinne. Of au­thority; as to enter into the helyest place, to reconcile vs vnto God, which two, D. Fulke expresseth: Or to quicken, giue life, impart the spirit of sanctification, to passe all good vnto vs from the Father in the holy Ghost, which M. Field specifyeth: And then they will haue the workes of ministery to be performed by Christ in his manhood: the works of authority in his God-head. Such maskes they prepare to hide the face of their monstruos assertion: notwithstanding the vgly shape appeareth.

13. For heere they first intermingle the ministeriall function of man with the powerfull actions of God: To enter into the holyest place, to penetrate the heauens, which M. Fulke vbi supra. Fulke recounteth as a work of authority, was (if we speak of the action & not of the power by which it was done) a locall motion, and worke of ministery proceeding from man, and not from God, who is vnchangeable, immo­ueable, not entring any place, but filling all places with his infinite immensity. In like manner the reconciliati­on, which Christ as Mediatour made, was the action of his humanity, in which sense S. Paul sayd: God was in Christ 2. Cor. [...]. v. 19. reconcyling the World to himselfe, because he reconciled it to himselfe by Christ by the obedience, and labours of his manhood. Or if he take this reconciliation as made by God, without the interposing of a third person, as one may by himselfe reconcile his enemy vnto him, then (I say) this was no act of mediation, but an act of Gods mercy, as much belonging to the Father, as to the Son. [Page 184] So I acknowledge the workes of authority, which M.Field loco citato. Field mentioneth, to be the workes of Christs Diuinity, but not the workes of mediation, not proper to the Son of God, but common to all the persons of Holy Trinity, agreable to that principle ratifyed by all Deuines: Indi­uisa sunt opera Trinitatis ad extra: The workes of the Trinity out­wardly Field in his 5. book of the Church c. 16. f. 52. M. Fields reply sa­uoureth too much of Aria­nisme. produced, indiuisibly proceed from euery person.

14. D. Field replyeth: Though their action be the same, & workedone by them: yet they differ [...], in the man­ner of doing. For the Father doth all things, auctoritatiuè, and the Sonne subauctoritatiuè, as the Schoolemen speake. Thus he writeth, and still dippeth his pen in Arian poyson. For yield that the diuine nature of the Sonne of God worketh in a different manner from the nature of the Father, there must needes ensue some difference in nature, some diuer­sity of wills, otherwise it cannot be conceaued, how theTho. 1. p. [...]. 19. art. 4. same indiuisible essence, how the same vnchāgeable wil, which is the cause of all thinges, should change, and alter in manner of working.

15. Secondly, if the Father and the Sonne differ in manner of doing these outward actions towardes vs their Creatures, then they are not both (as the Deuines tearmeThe three persons of holy Tri­nity are but one beginning or author of thinges. them) Vnum principium: One sole origen or beginning of thinges; but the Father causeth and willeth them one way, the Sonne another: the one createth, quickneth, and giueth life in this sort, the other in that. Which is nothing els, but to rake vp the ashes of old, dead and buryed heresyes, to giue way to the Manichees and other followers, to ma [...] diuers Creatours and Beginners of thinges. Yet because you affirme the Schoolemen bolster this errour, name (I beseech you) what Schoolemen they are. Who, vnles he were an Arian, presumed to write, that the essentiall and externall actions (for of them we now speake) which the Father and the Sonne essentially produce, are different in manner of doing? Who, in respect of these workes, euer vttered those wordes, which I quake againe to repeate; the one did them auctoritatiuè, the other subauctoritatiuè? [Page 185] What? Is the Sonne according to his God-head an infe­riour instrument or vnderling to his Father? The Oracle of S. Paul recordeth: Christ Iesus, when he was in the forme of God, thought it no robbery to be equall vnto God: and shall thisPhil. 2. 6. Sectmates blasphemy take place, that he hath power and authority to worke vnder God? He answereth, his mea­ning is not the sonne should be an instrument or vnder­lingField ibi. to his Father, but that he receiueth the essence he hath and power of working from the Father, though the very same that is in the Father, only differing (as he no­teth before) in subsistence.

16. Is this M. Field, the part of a Christian, to sprin­kle your writings with words of blasphemy, and pow­der them ouer with a holesome meaning? Hath not our learned Soueraigne King Iames, worthily condemned Conradus Vorstius that egregious Hereticke, for the like a­buse?K. Iames in his de­claration concer­ning his proceed­ings in the cause of D. Contra­dus Vor­stius. pag. 36. Gen. 19. 24 doth not he teach it vnlawfull to vse in these great my­steries any other phrase or manner of speach then such as the Church hath alwaies vsed? How dare you then in his kingdome, vnder the sheild of his protection; how dare you diuulge in Print such venemous speeches, such pestiferous words? howbeit you seeke, as Vorstius did, to strow and couer them with a sugred sense. For I confesse the sonne of God receiueth his essence as begotten of his Father, and so may sometime by denomination or appropriation of speech be said to work by power receiued from his Fa­ther, as in Genesis it is written: Our Lord raigned from our Lord. But for one person to mediate to another, is not only required a different denomination, but a reall and substantiall difference: a distinction, an inferiority in the very essence it selfe, in such manner as I haue often in­culcated. Also I confesse the persons of holy Trinity differ in Subsistence, differ (to vse the termes of Art) in Per­sonall Notions, or Notionall Relations. Yet hereof to infer an vnder-power or different manner of producing outward and essentiall workes, this (I say) is either to make some diuersity of natures, with the accursed Arians, or giue [Page 186] scope to the Manichees to establish not a double only, but a triple God, or threefold cause of things created. Now if you tremble to support such wickednes as your words enforce, to what purpose was that sacriledge breathed forth? How answere you the obiection of the vnity of the works of the Diuine Persons? how make you the same action a worke of mediation in one, and not in the other?

17. For you ought to know (good Syr) if you dare vsurpe the title, or challeng the dignity of a Deuine, that albeit the Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost ioyntly coo­perate and accomplish the workes of authority you men­tioned, as they are perfectly subsisting in three Persons really distinct: yet they performe them not primarily or formally by their personall properties, by which they differ, but by their will and vnderstanding in whichH [...]r. de Gandauo quodl. 6. q 2. they agree, and not by them (if we speake precisely) as they are Notionally, but as they are essentially taken; that is, as they are one, absolute, and the same in euery person. It was I confesse the errour of Henry de Gandauo, that the Nationall knowledge and loue of God did practicallyMolina in 2. par. q. 36. [...]. 4. disp. 2. 5. & 6. Altifiod. l. 1. summ. c, 30. Greg. Ari­min. 1. dist 22. q. vnica. Valen [...]. in 1. par. disp. 2. q. 10. punct. 5. de person. Spiritus Sancti. S [...]oc. l. 2. [...]st. 1. q. 1. produce all outward creatures: yet far was he from your impiety; far from imagining so maine a difference, as to attribute thereby a worke of submission, subiection, me­diation to one person, which is not in the other.

18. The holy Ghost as the Deuines teach, procee­deth from the Father, and from the Sonne, as they incō ­municably subsist by their different relations: yet not according to their difference, but according to one single or common vertue of spiration, which is the same in both. In so much as the Councell of Florence had not on­ly defyned that the Father and the Sonne are one origen or beginning of the Holy Ghost, but also (as Al [...]isiodoren­sis, Gregory of Arimini, & Valentia affirme) that they are not aliter atque aliter principium: After a distinct and seuerall sort a beginning: not breathing the holy Ghost in a diffe­rent manner one from the other. But Scotus excellently [Page 187] proueth out of S. Augustine, that as the Father & the Son are one beginning, in respect of the Holy Ghost: so allAug. l. 5. de Trin. c. 14. three are one in respect of creatures. The reason is, be­cause the Molina in 1. par. q. 45 art. 6. Bannes ibidem. Molina in 1. part q. 36. art. 2. Disput. 3. Deuines tell you, that the Relations of themsel­ues are of no actiuity, their only function is in wardly to distinguish the persons among themselues, and not out­wardly to worke, but only as they are identifyed with the Almighty working nature of God.

19. Moreouer it is an approued principle amongst the learned, that in the Trinity all thinges are one, Vbi non obuiat relationum oppositio: Where no opposition of relations is interposed. But in manner of producing outward acti­ons there is no opposition of relations, no diuersity of notions; therefore all vnity, conformity, and no diffe­rence at al. Which the Prophet Moyses denoted in the be­ginningGen. [...]. of Genesis by these two Hebrew words, Elohim ba­ra, Creauit Dij: wher to shew the vnity of the diuine essence and Identity of action, togeather with the Plurality of the Persōs, he coupleth the singular number Bara, Creauit, with the plurall Elohim. And yet if they had created in a di­stinct manner, it had beene as needfull to haue vsed the plurall number Creauerunt, to expresse their variety of working, as the plurall number Elohim to betoken the di­uersity of persons: neuertheles if contrary to the Holy Prophet, I should yield vnto M. Field what he requireth, it serueth not his turne. For suppose the persons did worke in a different manner: yet the Sonne hath no different manner of working from himselfe; and there­fore it still implyeth that he as God should mediate, and be also he to whome mediation is made, which are the only thinges controuerted betweene vs, and the only points which alwayes remayne vnanswered.

20. These are I grant, profound & deep mysteryes, these of the Trinity, too deep M. Field for you to treate of; they are able to dazell the wits of Angells, it is not strange that they haue wholy darkened, and eclipsed yours. Yet strang it is, you neuer heard what the Fathers [Page 188] write against you. Strange, me thinkes, you neuer read these wordes of S. Gregory Nissen: Not deuidedly for the num­ber Nis [...]. ad Ablabium Aug. l. 1. de Trin. c. 4. & 5. Later. Con. c. Firmiter Tol [...]. 6. c. 1. & vndecimum in conf. fid. 10. 5. v. [...]9. Damascen l. 3. de fide ortho. c. 14. 15. Maldonat. in c. 5. Io. Nazian. orat. 2. de Filio. Tho. 3. p q. [...]9. art. 2. Dam [...]s. l. 3. cap. 14. of persons doth the holy Trinity worke euery action. Nor those of S. Augustine: The three diuine persons inseparably worke. Not the like in the Lateran, the like in the 6. and 11. To­le [...]an Councell. But most strange of all, so great a Preacher and expounder of the word could neuer cal to mind that saying of S. Iohn: What thinges soeuer the Father doth, those the Sonne also doth in like manner, and not in a different man­ner, as S. Iohn Damascen vpon this sentence excellently discourseth, and confirmeth with the testimony of S. Gregory Nissen. And Maldonate solidly obserueth out of Le­ontius, that the Euangelist addeth, Similiter, In like manner, to signify that the Sonne doth worke all thinges, in the same sort with the Father, with the same power, with the same au­ctority, sayth the same Leontius, and S. Gregory Nazianzen. The reason is, as S. Thomas, and S. Damascen declare, be­cause: Operatio sequitur naturam, The operation followeth the nature: And where that is one and the same without any distinction, no distinction can there be in manner of acti­on.

21. Neuertheles M. Field goeth forward: In this sort to quicken, giue life &c. to whom he pleaseth especially with a kind of concurring of the humane nature, meriting, desiring and instru­mentally assisting, is proper to the Sonne of God, manifested Field in his [...]. book c. 16. fol. 52. in our flesh &c. Therefore notwithstanding the obiection taken from the vnity of the workes of the Diuine persons, may be a worke of me­diation. See what errours spring out of heretical pride: first he would haue the diuers manner of working in the Sonne from the Father, wholy to arise out of their seuerall manner of subsisting: now that not sufficient, he seemeth partly to draw it from the instrumentall con­currence of Christs humane nature. As though either the vnion of his manhood with the person of the Sonne, or the workes it produceth should cause some alteration or diuersity in the workes of his Godhead. And he who is in himselfe vnchangeable, should be altered and changed [Page 189] by the cooperation of his humanity. But what change can that cause in the actions of God the Sonne, as they proceed from his diuine Nature, which it causeth not in the actions of the Father, in the actions of the Holy Ghost? Chiefly seeing S. Leo speaking in the person ofS. Leo ho­milia de Transfigu­ratione. God the Father to our Sauiour Christ, sayth: This is my beloued Sonne &c. who all thinges that I do doth in like manner, and whatsoeuer I worke, he without any separation or difference worketh with me: If all thinges? If whatsoeuer? Then those thinges which he worketh with the concurrence of his manhood, those he accomplisheth without separation, without difference from the workes of his Father, and so cannot possibly by them mediate vnto him.

22. To explicate my selfe more clearely. Touching the action of quickening, or giuing life, which M. Field tearmeth a worke of mediation, we speake not heer pre­cisely of it, as it meritoriously issueth from the humanity of Christ, but as it is efficiently produced by the Godhead of the Sonne, with a kind of concurring (for so he speaketh) of the humane nature. In which respect either M. Field di­stinguisheth two agentes: God on whome the action of quickening principally dependeth, and Man who in­strumentally concurreth thereunto: or he distinguisheth them not. Say he distinguish them; then that worke of authority, as it proceedeth from God, equally floweth from all the persons of Holy Trinity, in regard where­of they are all mediatours, as well as the Sonne, because the nature, which principally causeth it, is common to all. Say he distinguish them not, but make one sole a­gent of both, on which the worke of mediation indiffe­rently and inseparably dependeth, then he confoundeth with Eutyches the two natures of Christ; and with Macha­rius, Tho. 3. p q. 18. art. 1. In 6. Syn. gen. act. 4. 9. & [...]6. with Sergius, with the Monothelites their wills and o­perations; who for this cause are enrolled in the rancke of heretikes, and aboue 1000. yeares ago condemned by Pope Agatho in the sixt generall Councell.

23. Wherefore to draw to an end, I intreate you all [Page 190] who peruse this Treatise, if the filth sucked out these miry puddles haue not dammed vp the passage of truth if these dregges of heresyes haue not quenched in you all sparkes of grace, renounce the Patrons of such iniquity, beware the infection of their folly, the fury of them, who proclaime Christ a Priest, Christ a Mediatour according to his Deity, and acknowledge with vs how he dischar­geth these dutyes only as man: notwithstanding how his actions, his Sacrifice, his prayers and teares were all of infinite and incomparable merit, through the excel­lency of his diuine person. Which I would to God his Royall Maiesty would also vnderstand, for whose wor­thy satisfaction I haue diligently laboured to decide this question.

CHAP. I.

ARISTOTLE the chiefe and PrinceArist. [...]. 3. polit. [...]. 5. 6. &. 7 of Philosophers assigneth three seuerall manners of gouerning a Common-Wealth. For eyther many of the meaner sort beare sway, or some few of the Nobility, or only one as ab­solute Soueraigne. If many, it is cal­led Democracy: if few, Aristocracy: if one, a Monarchy. The first, is often ruined with the tumults and garboyles of the vnconstant and diuersly-headed multitude. The se­cond, commonly deuided with the strifes and factions of the ambitious Peeres. The third, as it is lesse subiectS. Thom. de regim. principum l. 1. cap. 1. 23. &. [...]. to diuision, so most conuenient, as S. Thomas learnedly noteth, to order, guide and keepe many in peace and vnity; the finall scope to which all gouernments should be directed, and all rulers ayme.

[Page 192]2. Whereupon Plato, Aristotle, Isocrates, and diuers other affirme, in peace, in warre, in managing al affaires,Plato in polit. Arist. l. 3. polit c. 11. 12. & l. 4. cap. 2. Isocrates oratione 3. this to be the most diuine forme of a Common-Wealth, where one most singular man hath the supreme power and administration of things, which both God and Na­ture confirmeth. For in the mystery of the most holy Trinity, there is the Father from whom the Sonne, and the Holy Ghost, who from the Father and the Sonne, as from one only origen or beginning proceedeth. They euery way equall, in properties distinct, in Persons three, are only one in ouer-ruling and disposing all things. A­mongst the immortall spirits and quires of Angels there is one illuminated by God who giueth light to the rest. In the Heauens there is one first moueable, by which the inferiour orbes and planets are moued. One Sunne from whence the light of the Stars is borrowed, and in­fluence of the signes in the Zodiacke determined. In earthly thinges, in this little world of man, there is one hart from which the arteryes and vitall spirits, one braine from whence the sinewes, one lyuer from which the veines & channels of bloud haue their head or of-spring: in euery element there is one predominate quality. A­mongst the birdes the Eagle, among the beasts the Lyon, among the fishes the Whale doth also dominier. In Trees,Cyprian tract. do Idolorum [...]anitate. Hearbes, and Plants, in Townes, Villages, Families, & priuate Houses the like head-ship or Monarchy might be shewed if it were not too long for my professed breuity; in so much as S. Cyprian writeth: The very Bees haue their guide and captaine whome they follow. Apo. 2 [...]. 2. Cant. 6. 3. Mat. 13. v. 38. 41. Ioan. 10. 16. Luc. 10. 34. 1. Tim. 3. [...].

3. Now sith the Church of Christ militant vpon earth, is a perfect, yet spirituall Common-wealth: sith it is, An holy Citty, A campe well ordered, and established by the wisest Captaine, Gouernour, and Law-maker that euer was: Who doubteth, but that he placed in it, the most worthy Regiment of all others, that Monarchicall preheminence which in all his other creatures so perfect­ly raigneth; especially for that he resembleth it to A king­dome [Page 193] to A sheepefold, to An Inne, to An House, in which one King, one Pastour, one Host, one Maister beareth sway. For that it ought to be correspondent to the an­cientMat. 16. 18. 19. Synagogue, in which one High-priest answerable to the celestiall hierarchies and orders of Angels, among whom one Seraphim is chief. And who was this visible Monarch, this Ministeriall head of the Church vnder Christ, but S. Peter? To whom our Sauiour said: Thou art Peter, and vpon this Rocke will I build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not preuaile against it. And I will giue to thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen, and whatsoeuer thou shalt binde vpon earth, it shall be bound also in the Heauens: and whatsoeuer thou shall loose in Earth, it shall be loosed also in the Heauens. In which sētence foure rare prerogatiues are promised vnto Peter, and by euery one of them, his supereminent dignity aboue the rest of the Apostles manifestly declared.

4. For first he calleth him Rocke, by which Meta­phore he doth insinuate, that he, as a Rocke or Stone vnmouea­ble, Amb. ser. 47. Orig. hom. 5. in Exod. saith S. Ambrose, vpholdeth the whole weight and fabrike of Christian worke. That he, saith Origen, is the great foundation, or most solide stone, vpon which Christ builded his Church. Se­condly, he addeth: To thee I will giue the Keyes of the King­dome of Heauen, by which words is signified all power to enact or repeale Lawes, sommon or confirme Councels, appoint or displace offices, consecrate or degrade Bishops, all power and authority, which is requisite for the rule, gouernment, or instruction of the Church. For euen as when the keyes of a Citty are giuen vp to the Magistrate, the administration and rule of the State is surrendred intoGreg. l. 4. epi. 32. Luc. 11. 52. Apoc. 1. v. 18. his hands: so now when the Keyes of the kingdome of Heauen are imparted to Peter: The whole charge and princi­pality of the Church, as S. Gregory writeth, is committed vnto him. And whereas there be two sorts of Keyes: the Key of knowledge to teach and instruct, of which S. Luke: You haue taken away the Key of knowledge; and the Key of au­thority and iurisdiction to guide and gouerne, whereof S. Iohn speaketh: I haue the Keyes of death and of Hell; and [Page 194] Esay: I will giue the Key of the house of Dauid vpon his shoulder. Both these Keyes were here delegated vnto Peter: byIsa. 21. v. 22. It was v­suall a­mongst the He­brewes to giue pow­er and au­thority by the Keyes vid. Azor. Insti. mor. p. 2. c. 9. the one he had the Chaire of infallible doctrine to de­cide all controuersies, and define all matters of faith: by the other the scepter of Ecclesiasticall gouernment to rule, order, correct, and chastise all the members of Christs mysticall body. Thirdly, he subioyneth. Whatsoeuer thou shalt binde vpon earth, it shall be bound also in the heauens. Four­thly, whatsoeuer thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in the heauens: that is, whatsoeuer punishment thou shalt inflict, either of excōmunication, suspension, interdicti­on or degradation, or whatsoeuer other spirituall Cen­sure (for he speaketh without restriction) the same shall be ratified by Almighty God: & whatsoeuer of these thou shalt release, the same shall be released in the heauens a­boue. Vpon which words, Origen obserueth no smallOrig. tract. 6. in Math. difference betweene Peter and the rest of the Apostles, be­cause to them the Keyes of one heauen were giuen, to Peter of many. Whereupon he inferreth they had not authority, in such perfection as Peter, to bind and loose in all the heauens.

5. Our Aduersaryes not doubting of the highest so­ueraignty,M. Reyn-in his Cō ­ference with M. Hart c. 2. diuis. 1. M. Bils. in his booke of Chri­stian sub­iection, par. 1. fol. 62. & 63. Reyn. ibi. diuis. 2. which by these singular priuiledges are beto­kened, apply some to Christ, some to all the Apostles, but none peculiar to Peter alone. For the first prerogatiue both M. Reynoldes, and M. Bilson attribute vnto Christ, af­firming either him to be the Rocke, vpon which the Church is built, or the fayth which Peter pronounced of him, and not Peter pronouncing the same. The second, the third, and fourth Reynolds extendeth to all the Apo­stles, because to them all the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen were giuen, the power of binding and loosing, and not only to Peter. Silly men, who see not how they crosse themselues in their owne answeres. For our Sa­uiour speaking of one matter to one person in one and the same sentence, to whomesoeuer he made the first pro­mise, to him he made the rest. Therefore if he promised [Page 195] the Keyes to all the Apostles, vpon them all he promised to build his Church, and not vpon Christ. Or if he pro­mised to build his Church vpon himselfe, to himselfe he promised the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen, to him­selfe he promised all power of binding & loosing, which had beene as impertinent to our Sauiours discourse, as dissonant from truth. For Christ had all that power be­fore, euen from the first houre he began to plante his Church, he already enioyed those priuiledges, not giuen by himselfe, as the iurisdiction heere mentioned, but im­parted by his Father, from whome he was sent.

6. Againe, as those answeres encounter one another:The words of Christ im­port some extraordi­nary fa­uour to S Peter alone. so they offer violence to the Text, ech of them depriuing Peter of that soueraigne dignity, which the whole passage of the place conueyeth vnto him. For the wordes of Christ are purposly addressed to the person of Peter; his name is only changed at this tyme, and not any of the o­ther Apostles; he is called Rocke, and none of the rest: he only speaketh, and professeth Christ to be the Sonne of the liuing God; our Sauiour only nameth him, and continual­ly vseth the singular number; yea he addeth the name of his Father, to distinguish him not only from the Apostles in generall, but also from the other Simon. And shall not all these particiculer descriptions denote something in Peter, more then in the rest? If we appeale to the Greeke, to the Hebrew, especially to the Syriacke text, in whichFabri. in diction. Syro-cal­daico­lero. in c. 2. ad Gala [...] language our Sauiour vttered this whole discourse, it so euidently sheweth the very first promise to haue beene made to Peter, and not to Christ, as nothing can be more cleere. For he speaking in Syriacke sayd vnto Peter: Thou art Cephas, and vpon this Cephas will I build my Church; where the same word Cephas signifying, as Guido Fabritius, and S. Hierome testify, a Rocke, or Stone, is vsed in both places. And the Greeke wordes [...], and [...], though diffe­rent in termination, signify the same. Wherefore as if Christ speaking in English, had imposed vnto Simon the name of a Rocke, & therupon had sayd: Thou art a Rocke, [Page 196] and vpon this Rocke will I build my church, there would haue beene no doubt, but that he had builded his Church vpon Simon the Rocke; so neither in this present, speaking the same in Syrtacke.

7. M. Reynolds not able to resist, confesseth at lengthRain. c. 2. diuis. 1. pag. 24. that Fabritius translateth Cephas, a Rocke. But Fabritius (sayth he) sheweth further, that Cephas signifyeth a Stone also. And in the page immediatly following he addeth Cephas in Greeke is expounded [...], and [...] in English signifyeth a Stone. Whereupon he counteth this a fit trā ­slation of the former Syriacke wordes: Thou art a Stone, and vpon this Stone will I build my Church. And what is this but to graunt the substance of the thing, and wrangle about wordes? For whether Peter were tearmed Rocke or Stone, as long as he was that stone, that singular stone, which after Christ vpholdeth the frame of the militant Church of which the Apostles were part, he was the fundamen­tallCyr. l. 2. in Ioan c. 2. Cy [...]. ep. ad Quintum. Tertul. l. de prae­script. Epipha. in Ancorato. Amb ser. 47. Nazi­anz. orat. de moder. ser. Basil. l. 2. in Euno­mium. Aug. in Psal. con [...]. partem Donati. Bils. part. 1. pag. 62. Stone, vpon which both they, and all others were built. And seeing the foundation is the same to a house which a head to a body, he was the head of the whole body of the Church.

8. The Fathers generally fortify the same. S. Cyril writeth that Christ called Peter by the name of Rocke, be­cause on him as on a stedfast rocke or stone immoueable he was to build his Church. S. Cyprian sayth: Christ chose Peter, vpon whome he builded his Church. Tertullian tearmeth him: Ec­clesiae Petram, The Rocke or foundation of the Church. Reade the like in Epiphanius, S. Ambrose, S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Basil, and S. Augustine, of whome M. Bilson most wrong­fully and slaunderously writeth: That Peter is the Rocke on which the Church is built, S. Augustine and others do plainely de­ny. But what if S. Augustine deny it not plainely? What if he deny it not at all? What if he plainely auouch it, and that in diuers places? Will you euer giue credit againe to M. Bilsons writings? Therfore he vpon the Psalmes sayth: O Church, that is, O Peter: because vpon this Rocke w [...]ll I build my Church. Read the like vpon the 69. Psalme, in his Ser­mons: [Page 197] Our Lord named Peter the foundation of his Church, ther­fore the Church rightly honoured this foundation, vpon which the height of the Ecclesiasticall edifice is raysed. Againe: Only Pe­ter August. conc. 2. in Psal. 30. & in Psal. 69. Et ser. 15. de Sanct. & ser. 29. qui est 5. de S. Petro & Paulo. Aug. l. 1. Retract. cap. 21. Bils. [...]. par. pag. 63. Reyn. in his conf. c. 2. diuis. 1. 1. Cor. 3. among the Apostles deserued to heare: Thou art Peter, and v­pon this Rocke will I build my Church; worthy truly, who to the people, which were to be builded in the house of God, might be a stone for their foundation, a pillar for their stay, a keye to open the gates of the kingdome of heauen. M. Bilson may say, as some Protestants are wont, that S. Augustin reuersed these things in his booke of Retractations; how beit he is so far from re­tracting that exposition, as he there confirmeth it rather by the authority of S. Ambrose, and at the length leaueth it to the Readers choise, whether he will haue Peter, or Christ the Rocke, on which he builded his Church.

9. But D. Bilson and D. Reynoldes with him alleadge out of S. Paul: Another foundation can no man lay, then that which is already layed, which is Christ Iesus. I answere ano­ther chiefe, principall, and independent foundation be­sides Christ, no man can lay: but an inferiour, seconda­ry or subordinate may be layed without danger of dis­graceBasil. in concione de paeniten. to his vnmatchable priuiledge. Because as S. Basil excellently teacheth: God imparteth his dignityes, not depri­uing himself of them; but enioying, he bestoweth them. He is the light, and yet he sayth, you are the light of the world: he is a Priest, Basil. ibid. and he annoynteth Priests: he is the Lambe, and he sayth, Behould I send you like lambes amongst the middest of woules▪ he is a Rock, and he maketh a Rocke; and immediatly before resuting thisEphes. 2. Apoc. 21. former obiection he sayth: Though Peter be a Rocke: yet he is not a Rocke as Christ is. For Christ is the Rocke, vnmoueable of himselfe, Peter vnmoueable by Christ the Rocke.

10. If you inferre that all the Apostles were thus tearmed Rockes and foundations of the Church: I answer they were indeed in a certaine manner foundations all, because they were all chosen to preach the Ghospell, and plant the fayth in euery part of the world: they were all immediatly instructed by Christ; they had all most am­ple and vniuersal iurisdiction throughout the whole em­pyre [Page 198] of the Church. In which respects Origen, S. Am­brose, S. Hilary, S. Hierome and rest, whome M. Bilson andBils. par. 1. pag. 63. Reyn. c. 2. diuis. 2. p. 37. Iohn. 20. v. 23. Matth. 16. v. 19. Iohn. 17. v. 9. Luc. 22. v. 3 [...]. Iohn. 16. v. [...]3. Luc. 22. v. 32. Ephes▪ 2. v. 20. Matt. 16. v. 18. Mar. vle. v. 15. Ioan. 11. v. 17. Bern l. 2. de Cōsider. Pascere apud Hae­breos idem nonnumquam est quod re­gere. Psal. 22. Domi­nus regit me. in He­braeo est Dominus pascit me. M. Reynolds obiect, confesse the keyes to be giuen to all the Apostles, they acknowledge them al Rockes and Foun­dations of the Church: yet as their authority was delegate, S. Peter [...] ordinary, as they had absolute power ouer others, S. Peter ouer them; so they had all the keyes, but with dependency of Peter: they were all foundations, but Peter the first after Christ, and maine foundation both to them, & to the whole Church with them. Whereby he excelled the rest of his fellow Apostles in preheminēce of power, in preheminence of Fayth, in preheminence of dignity. And therfore whatsoeuer priuiledge in any of these kinds is attributed in holy Write to all the Apostles togeather with Peter, the same is imparted againe to Peter alone in a more peculiar and speciall manner. To them all power was graunted to remit sinnes: Whose sins yee forgiue, they are forgiuen them; and whose yee retaine, they are retained. To Peter alone in more ample sort: Whatsoeuer thou shalt bind on earth, shalbe bound in the heauens; and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose in earth, shalbe loosed also in the heauens. For them all Christ prayed that they might be constant in fayth, Not for the world do I pray, but for them, whome thou hast giuen me▪ for Peter alone, I haue prayed for thee, that thy fayth fayle not. To them all our Sauiour sayd, When the spirit of truth com­meth, he shall teach you all truth: to Peter alone, Confirme & strengthen thy brethren, in the truth the holy Ghost shall teach. Of them all it is written, That we are planted vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets: of Peter alone, Thou art Peter, and vpon this Rocke will I build my Church. To them all it was sayd, Going into the whole world, preach the Ghospell to euery Creature: To Peter alone, Feed my sheep. What sheep (sayth S. Bernard) the people of this or that Citty? Of this or that Kingdome? My sheep (quoth he.) To whome is it not manifest that he designed not some, but assigned all? Nothing is excepted, where nothing is distinguished.

11. Feede my sheep: that is, feed all that are within [Page 199] the compasse of my fold, all that may be intituled myne, whether they be Apostles, Bishops, people or Princes, vn­lesseMatt. 16. v. 18. & [...]. Psal. 2. Mich. [...]. Matth. 2. Apoc. 2. perchance their Apostolicall, Episcopall, or Imperiall soueraignty any way exclude them from the number of my sheep. By these wordes that great reward, which was promised to S. Peter in the 16. of S. Matthew, is heer exhibited to him and his successors: by these he is instal­led in his Pastorall dignity: by these he is created head of the Apostles, and chiefe Gouernor of the militant church as the Greeke word [...] doth declare, which importeth not only feed, but feed by gouerning and ruling, as may be seene in diuers other places of Scripture. LikewiseEuseb. E­miss. serm. in Na [...]iuit. S. Ioan. E­uang. our Blessed Redeemer gaue heere vnto S. Peter commissi­on both to feed his Lambes, & to feed his sheep, where­upon Eusebius Emissenus aboue a thousand yeares ago, pro­poseth this conuincing argument. He committed (sayth he) to S. Peter his Lambes, and then his sheep, because he made him not only a Pastour, but the Pastour of Pastours. Peter therfore fee­deth the lambes and also the sheep. He feedeth children and their Mothers, he ruleth the people and their Prelates. He is therefore Ioan. [...]1. v. 15. the pastour of all, because besides lambes and sheep there is nothing in the Church. Hitherto Eusebius. Also before this power was giuen to Peter, Christ demanded of him: Simon of Iohn [...]ouest thou me more then these? What caused the Sonne of God to exact more loue of Peter then of his fellow-Dis­ciples? Had not equall loue beene sufficient to equal care? Why then doth he exact more? But only becauseChrys. l. 2. de Sacerd. Ecclesiae praefectura he bequeathed vnto him a farre higher Dignity, a more perfect charge ouer his floke, the headship or primacy of the Church, as S. Iohn Chrysostome, by the force of this argu­ment inuincibly proueth.

12. Moreouer when our Sauiour repressed the in or­dinateLuc. 22. v. 26. lust and desire of raigning in his Disciples (a place with which our Aduersaryes vrge vs, and we easily re­torte vpon them, turning the points of their weapons, against their owne breasts) two thinges he obserued: he reprehended the imperious & haughty manner of ruling [Page 200] ordinarily practised by worldly Princes: & he instructed them in another course of gouerning which he purposed to plant among them. In the former he vseth generallQui maior est invobis. Reyn. in his Confer. c. 2. diuis. 2. pag. 105. Reyn. ibid. Vos autem non sic. or non ita e­rit inter vos, as S. Matthew readeth. Matth. [...]0. v. 26. Luc. 22. v. 26. tearmes and speaketh to them in common, Vos au. em &c. but you in the latter, particuler wordes, directing his speach to one, he that is greater. In the former he teacheth them all to humble themselues, and not to thirst after earthly preferments; in the latter he doth not only teach humility to all (as Reynolds would likewise slip away) but he also deliuereth an instruction to one how to be­haue himselfe in gouernment. In the former I accord with him, that he debarreth them all from being such Lords, from such proud dominion as he there rebuketh, and therefore purposely sayth: But you not so; in the latter he approueth a distinct manner, but directly establisheth a superiority amongst them, saying, He that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger. He doth not say, he that would be, as in S. Mathews Ghospell, but he that is, nor he that is the greaterouer others, but he that is the greater among you. Among you my Apostles, among you, in the midst of whome, I the Leader, haue bin like him that wayteth: so he whom I shall leaue as chiefe among you, let him follow my example, and be as the waiter.

13. Shall I heere pose M. Bilson, shall I pose M. Rey­nolds, what this instruction meant? was it addressed to some one amongst the Apostles designed to be head or not? if they answer it was, as maugre all violent con­structions, or coloured glosses, the Text it selfe doth speake: Then there was one to be a Greater, a Leader, a Cap­taine, or Prince amongst them, as the Greeke [...] word, & Dirosh, that is, Princeps, a Prince in Syriack, in which language our Saui­our spak. Luc. 22. 31. & 32. Syri­acke openeth; if not, if it appertayned to none; how will they free the wisdome of God, from letting fall those superflouous words? from teaching a lesson, pro­posing an example, giuing an instruction, which no way belonged to any of his audience? how followeth that sudden digression immediatly hereupon? Simon, be­hold Sathan hath required, to haue you for to sift as Wheat, but I [Page 201] haue praied for thee that thy faith faile not, and thou once conuer­ted confirme thy brethren. How is this saying connected with the former discourse? this conuersion of our Sauiours speach at the same time to Peter? this redoubling of his name? this mention of the praier he made for him, of the authority of strengthning his brethren giuen to him, vnlesse he, he were the man appointed, to be head andAmb. lib. 10. in c. 22. Luc. poste­aquam, in­quit, fleui­sti, erectus es, vt alios regeres qui te ipse non rexeras. Arnobius in Psal. 138. Rein. c. 5. diuis. 3. Mat. 10. 2. Beza in. Annot. Noui Test. An [...]o Do­mini 1556. Mat. 16. Act. 2. Act. 10. Act. 3. Act. 4. Act. 21 Act. 1. chiefe of them all? Which S. Ambrose flatly auoucheth, speaking thus vnto Peter: After thou hast wept thou art raised vp, that thou maiest rule and gouerne others, who didest not go­uerne thy selfe. And Arnobius: Help it affoarded to the Apostle pe­nitent who is the Bishop of Bishops; and a greater degree is restored to him weeping, then was taken from him denying &c. that he might not only be assured to haue recouered that which he had lost, but also to haue gottē more by repēting, then euer he lost by denying.

14. Further, whensoeuer the Euangelists rehearse the Catalogue of the Apostles, S. Peter is named first; which M. Reynolds basely conceiting surmiseth to be, for that he was like the fore-man of the quest in Iuries. But S. Matthew expresseth it to be, because he was indeed in the number of the Apostles, [...], Primus; that is, The first; a word so significant in Latin and Greeke, as Beza suspecteth it to haue beene foisted into the text by some fauourer of Peters Primacie. Not only in naming, in sundry others extra­ordinary graces he is priuiledged as the first or chief of the Apostles. He was the first who acknowledged and openly confessed the Diuinity of Christ: the first, who preached vnto the Iewes: the first, who conuerted the Gentiles: the first, who confirmed his doctrine with a famous mi­racle: the first, who resisted the Synagogue: the first, who increased the Church with three thousand at one time: the first, who riseth: the first, who propoundeth: the first, who concludeth in the middest of his brethren.

15. Finally the Scripture teacheth that only Peter Mat. 17. Mat. 14. Luc. 5. was matched with Christ in the paiment of tribute. Only Peter walketh, with him vpon the waters. Only Peter recei ueth Christ into his barge. Only out of Peters boat [Page 202] doth our Sauiour teach and instruct the people. OnlyIoa. 21. Act. 12. Luc. 22. Leo serm. 3. de assump. sua ad Pontif. Luc. 5. v. 4. Amb. l. 5. in c. 5. Luc. Gal. 1. 18. Oecum in eum loc. Chrysost. hom. 87. in Ioā. Amb. in hūc loc. Peters death and Passion was foretold by Christ. For Peter alone praier is made by the Church, without in­termission. To Peter alone infallible assurance was gi­uen to strengthen others in faith. To Peter alone our Sa­uiour said: Duc in altum: Launch forth into the deepe: that is, as S. Ambrose interpreteth: In profundum disputationum: Into the maine depth of all disputations, of all hidden mysteries of our beliefe. To see Peter alone, S. Paul came to Hierusa­lem. He came as to his greater, saith Oecumenius. As to the mouth and chiefe of the Apostles, S. Iohn Chrysostome. As to the first amongst the Apostles, to whome our Sauiour committed the charge of the Church, S. Ambrose. Few Iuries I ween will performe the like office, or yield such dignity to the Fo­reman of their Quest.

16. But if you will see the Primacy of Peter more liuely expressed, consider the actions he accomplished after the ascension of Christ, and you shall euery where behold him practising his soueraigne authority. To pu­blish the deposition of one Bishop, and election of ano­ther in the Colledge of the Apostles, is proper to the chiefeAct. 2. and highest Apostle: S. Peter pronounced Iudas to haue lost his Bishopricke, and proposed another to be chosen in his roome. To condemne vnto death without checke or controlment belongeth to the chiefe and highest Iudge; S. Peter condemned Ananias and Saphira for their sacri­ledgeAct. 5. Act. 8. Aug. l. de haeres [...]a­res. 1. Act. 15. Ier. c. 3. epi. ad Aug. quae est 11. inter epist. August. in detaining that they had vowed vnto God. To vanquish the first Peere and Patron of falshood appertai­ned to the first Peere and pillar of truth; S. Peter con­quered and killed Simon Magus, the first Progenitour of Heretickes, as S. Augustine auerreth. To call and assem­ble Councels, is the office and function of the supreme Pastour; S. Peter assembled the Councell of the Apostles. And notwithstanding this Councell was held in Ierusalem, in the presence of S. Iames Bishop of that Citry, euen in his owne Cathedral seat: yet S. Peter (as S. Hierome noteth) first deliuered his mind, and S. Iames with the rest ratified [Page 203] his sentence. So although S. Paul were the Apostle of theDionys. l de Diui nomi. c. 3. Epiph. haer. [...]. Bern. l. 2. de consider. Cyr. Hieros Cateches. [...]. Cyr. Alex. l. 12. in Ioā. cap. 64. Aug ser. 124. de temp. & quaest. nou. & vet. test. q. 75. Opta. l. 2. cont. Par. Ier. l. 1. in Iouin. Chrys. hom. 55. in Mat. Euseb. in Chronic. Aug. l. 2. ca. 1. de Baptis. Reyn. c. 5. diuis. 3. Gentiles, and Preacher vnto nations: yet S. Peter was the first, by whose mouth the Gentils were called; the first, to whom notice was giuen of their admission vnto the Church. Two euident tokens of his supremacy.

17. For this cause S. Peter is tearmed: The stay, pillar, and chiefe of Deuines, by S. Dionyse: The Captaine of the Dis­ciples, by Ephiphanius: The only Vicar of Christ, by S. Bernard: The most excellent Prince of the Apostles, by S. Cyril of Hieru­salem: The Prince and head of therest, by S. Cyril of Alexan­dria. Which title of head of the Apostles is giuen him also by S. Augustine, Optatus, S. Hierome, S. Chrysostome and o­thers. Eusebius also maketh a great difference betweene Peter and other Bishops; speaking of S. Iames, he calleth him: The first Bishop of the Church of Hierusalem; Writing of Enodius he tearmeth him: the first Bishop of the Church of An­tioch; Speaking of S. Peter, he intituleth not him by any particuler Church, but calleth him, Christianorum Pontifex Primus, The first Bishop of Christians. Which S. Augustine con­firmeth, attributing to him: The principality of Apostle-ship; and a little before: The Primacy of the Apostles is conspicuous and preeminent with excellent grace in Peter. Both which pas­sages M. Reynolds sticketh not to expound of Primacy in calling, or preeminence in grace: wheras S. Augustine di­rectly writeth of his principality of power, by reason of the dignity of his Sea aboue all others, and aboue S. Cy­prians the Primate of Affricke, whome notwithstanding he equalleth with him in the Crowne of Martyrdome, say­ing of Peter: Who knoweth not his principality of Apostle-ship to be preferred before euery Bishopricke? But although the grace or preeminence of Chaires be different; yet one and the same is their Aug. vbi. supra. Reyn. loco citato. glory of Martyrdome. These wordes M. Reynolds (who ma­keth M. Hart neuer speake more, then he was prouided in some shew to refute, and sometyme such things, as he neuer dreamed) cunningly cut off, and wresteth that to a prerogatiue of grace, to a Primacy of calling, which S. Augustine auoucheth to be a priuiledge of S. Peters Sea, [Page 402] a preeminence of his Chaire, and Pontificall dignity, aboue all o­ther Bishops and Primates too.Aug. in Psal. 130.

18. Secondly, S. Augustine affirmeth S. Paul the chief, & to haue excelled Peter in prerogatiues of grace, he witnesseth him to haue receaued more aboundant grace in euery Apostolical worke, then the rest of the Apostles, because he laboured more then they, and therfore is called: The Aug. cont. dua [...] ep. Pela. l. 3 Apostles, by an De Bap. cont. Don. l. 2. c. 1. excellency. In so much as where he giueth to S. Peter the preeminence of (b) excellent grace, he giueth to S. Paul the preeminence of In Psa. 130. Ieron. l. 1. aduersus Iouinian. Reyn. c. 5. diuis. 3. fol. 179. Sap. 4. 8. Tract. 1. sect. 3. subd. 1. most excellent grace. And S. Hierome re­porteth that S. Iohn excelled Peter in many gifts of grace. M. Reynolds foresaw these obiections, and will you heare what answere he maketh: But Peter (sayth he) on the o­ther side, excelled Paul in Primacy, for that he was chosen first: and Iohn in age, because he was elder. Surely an excellent grace, an extraordinary preheminence, a principality worthy of such high and honourable titles, to be before in calling, and behind in working, elder in yeares, and yonger in merits. Iudge you, and your fellowes of this priuiledge as yee list, they who are endued with the spi­rit of God, will giue iudgment with the Holy Ghost: Old age is venerable, not prolonged, not lengthened with the number of yeares: for the vnderstanding of man are the gray haires; the ripenesse of yeares is life vndefiled.

19. Other Protestants more sincere, although as sau­cy as Reynoldes, rather reprehend the Fathers for their vn­fitting speaches, then make of their words such imperti­nent constructions. For as we read in the Protestants Apo­logy: The Centurists reproue Cent. 4. col. 554. & col. 1074 Arnobius for calling S. Peter, the Bishop of Bishops: Cent. 4. Col. 556 Optatus for intituling him: The head of the Apostles. They write of Centu. 3. col. 84. Tertullian, he did errone­ously thinke the keyes to be committed to Peter alone, and the Church to be builded on him. The like errour they reprehend in S. Col 84. Cyprian, Centur. 3. Col. 85. Origen, Cent. 4. Col. 1215. Hierome, Cent. 4. Col. 555. Hilary, Cent. 4. Col. 558. Fulke in his Reten­tiue pag. 248. Nazianzen. Fulke chargeth Optatus with absurdity for saying of Peter, He deserued to be preferred be­fore all the Apostles; and he alone receaued the keyes of the kingdom [Page 205] of heauen to be communicated to the rest. And speaking in the same place of Leo and Gregory Bishops of Rome he sayth:Gregory li­ued about the yeare of our Lord 590. Leo 440. Tract. 1. sect. 3. subdiu. 10. Calu. & Mus [...]ulns alledged by Whit­gift in his Defence p. 173. &. 66. VVhit­gift ibid. pag. Couel in his Exa. against the Plea of the Innocent. [...]erō. [...]. 1. in Iouin. Bils 1. par. p. 62. & 63. Reyn. cap. 2. diuis. 1. pag 27. Rem. c. 3. diuis. 1. fol. 95. Bils. part. 1 pag. 63. 66. & 67. The mistery of iniquity hauing wrought in that seate neere fiue or six hundred yeares before them, and then greatly increased; they were so deceaued with long continuance of errour, that they thought the dignity of Peter was much more ouer the rest of his fellow Apo­stles, then the holy Scriptures of God doe allow. But if this er­rour of the Roman Papacy and Peters Supremacy began neere fiue or six hundred yeares before Leo and Gregory, it began (according to M. Fulke) in the Primitiue Church, it began in the Apostles tyme, who florished not six hun­dred whole years before Gregory; not fiue hundred before Leo. Whereupon the worthy Authour of the fornamed Apology citeth Caluin, Musculus, D. Whitguift, D. Couell, affirming amongst the Apostles themselues there was one chiefe, who had chiefe authority ouer the rest. And D. Couell approueth that saying of Hierom: Among the twelue one was chosen, that a chiefe or head being appointed, occasion of dissention might be preuented.

20. Now let vs examine what M. Reynoldes and M. Bilson oppose against vs, and these their Sect-mates. They produce S. Hilary, S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostome, and others in­terpreting the Rocke whereupon the Church is built, to be the fayth, which Peter confessed of Christ. I graunt they apply the Rocke to Peters fayth, but therein they imply the person of Peter. For they meane not it should be built on that fayth separate from Peter, but vpon Peter confessing it: or vpon his fayth and confession as proceeding from him which is all one in effect, & maketh nothing against vs. Then they obiect: That Peter and Paul gaue the right handes of fellowship ech to other: That the rest of the Apostles (as S. Cy­prian writeth) were the selfe same that Peter was, endued with like fellowship of honour and power. I answere: Foure things are to be considered in the Apostles. 1. Their Apostoli­call dignity. 2. Their power of preaching. 3. Their order of Priesthood. 4. Their power of regiment or iu­risdiction▪ I confesse then the Apostles were all fellowes, [Page 206] equall in Apostleship, equall in authority of preaching, equall in Priesthood; for they could all equally conse­crate the Body and bloud of Christ: but they were not e­quall in regiment, not equall in iurisdiction, because the Iurisdiction of the rest was subiect to Peters: theirs vni­uersall and absolute ouer others, Peters ouer others andLeo Epict. 84. ad Anastas. Episc. c. 11. them themselues. Which S. Leo insinuated saying: Among the BB. Apostles in the likenes and equality of honour, there was a certaine difference of power. And whereas the election of all was equall, yet to one it was giuen to be prehe [...]inent aboue the rest.

21. But M. Reynoldes vrgeth: The Apostles which were Reyn. c. 4. diuis. 3. fol. 1 [...]7 [...] Act. 8. v. 14. Act. 11. v. 3. at Hierusalem sent Peter and Iohn to the people of Samaria. The Apostles and Brethren that were in Iury, called Peter to an ac­count, when he had preached to Cornelius. Therefore he was not head of the rest. I answere: there be foure sorts of missions or sendings. The one by naturall propagation, as the tree sendeth forth her branches, the branches their leaues: or by inward procession, as the Father and the Sonne sent the holy Ghost the third person in Trinity. The second is by authority or command, as the Lord sendeth his vassall, the maister his seruant, which suppo­seth inferiority or subiection. The third is by lot, suf­frage or election, as many fellowes of a house, or parte­ners of an incorporation send one of their companionsIosue 22. v. 13. which argueth equality. The fourth is by aduise and humble intreaty, as the people of the Iewes sent Phinees the high Priest to the sonnes of Ruben and Gad. And as the Counsell may aduise the King to vndertake some he­roicall enterprize for the good of the Common-wealth, which importeth superiority in him that is sent.

22. And thus S. Peter by intreaty was sent to theSee Lorin in Act. 11. vers. 2. people of Samaria, and he of curtesy, or charity rather did giue an account afterward why he preached to the Gen­tils, by telling the vision he receaued of Gods diuine plea­sure therein, to instruct such of the Apostles as doubted whether the time were yet expedient, to admit the Gen­tils, or free them that were addmitted from the burden of [Page 207] the law, if at least they were the Apostles, as S. Chrysostom and Hugo teacheth, who reasoned heereof. Or he gaueChrys. & Hugo in hunc loc. Epiphan. haeres. 28. that account to free himselfe from the calumniation of his enemies, and scandall of the Iewes, if it were (as Epipha­uius thinketh) Cerinthus the Arch-heretike, who stirred vp the people, to expostulate that matter with him; both wayes he might of great humility and singular charity deliuer what he did, and be sent as he was, without a­ny abasement to the Primacy of his Apostleship.

23. To the other obiections, that Peter was repre­hendedBils. ▪par pag. 69. Calu. l. 4 [...] Inst. c. 6. §. 7. Tertul. in praescript. cap. 23. by Paul, that Paul was appointed the Apostle of the Gentils, Peter of the Iewes; therefore not superiour to Paul, or in dignity aboue him. I answere the thing for which Peter was reprehended and resisted by S. Paul was an errour of fact, not of fayth: It was as Tertullian sayth: Conuersationis vitium, non praedicationis, a fault of con­uersation, not of preaching. And it is lawfull for the in­feriour vpon iust cause with modesty and reuerence to correct his Superiour, as S. Augustine declareth by this re­prehension S. Paul the later Apostle, vsed to S. Peter. Se­condly I reply to the second branch of this obiection: The diuision which was made betweene S. Peter and S. Paul of assigning the Iewes to one, and Gentils to the o­ther, was no diuision or limitation of Iurisdiction, but a distribution only of Prouinces for the more commodi­ous preaching of the Ghospell. And therefore as S. Paul was not restrained heereby from intermedling with the Iewes whom the acts of the Apostles report (as the wor­thyBellar. l. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 16. Carninall Bellarmine diligently quoteth) euery where to haue entred their Synagogues and to haue preached vnto them: So S. Peter by his particuler regard and care of the Iewes, was no way abridged from his generall charge and care of Gentils: neither did he heereupon preach only in Iury, or in the Prouinces adioyning, notBaron. in annal. an. Christ. 44. & 45. in Syria, Bithynia, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, but as vni­uersall Pastour he planted the fayth, sent preachers, or­dayned Priestes, consecrated Bishopes in the vniuersall [Page 208] Church. So he placed S. Marke at Alexandria, Euodius at Antioch, Iason at Thessalonia, at Rauenna Apollinaris, at Ca­pua Rufus, Euprepius at Verona, at Naples Aspernates, Pro­chorus at Nicomedia. So as many Ecclesiasticall historiesMeta­phrastes a­pud Suriū. die 29. [...]umj. record he appointed Sixtus in France, Martiall and Eu­cherius in Germany, Torquatns in Spaine, Marcianus, Berillus, and Philippus in Sicily, diuers in Italy, where he raysed his seate, which be (as all Cosmagraphers describe) the Coū ­tryes of Gentils.

24. And Innocentius concludeth that S. Peter sent mi­nistersInno. pri­mus in ep. 1. ad Dece­nnium. of the word and Sacramentes throughout all the west, the north, throughout all Asia, and the Ilands that lye betweene. He to whome Christ committed the charge of all his sheep, tooke care to prouide food for all; his pasto­rall solicitude reached euen to the vttermost partes of the world. Enioy therefore, O Peter, enioy thy primacy, and rare preheminence, glory in thy dignity graunted thee by Christ, and be alwayes vigilant ouer his flocke. Raigne, O supreme Pastour, raigne thou still as head vn­der him, as leader of his campe, as Prince of his people, and that which now thou canst not performe by thy self discharge at least by thy successor the Pope of Rome, in whose care and vigilancy the exercise of thy function still continueth, as the subsequent Treatise shall declare.

CHAP. I.

MASTER BILSON, treading the sleps of his fore-father Caluin, requi­rethBils. par. 1. p. 10 4. of vs to proue three things, be­fore we install the Pope in his Pon­tificall Sea. First, You must shew (saith he) That Peter was Supreme Gouernour of all the Church. Next that this dignity was not proper to Peters Person, but common to Peters Successour &c. Lastly, you must shew, which of Peters Chaires must haue Bilson ibi. Peters Priuiledge, that is, why Rome, rather then Antioch; or as Caluin vrgeth, rather then Ierusalem, where Christ died, Caluin l. 4. [...]nst. c. 6. §: 21. and yielded vp as it were, the visible head-ship of his Church. I am content to obserue this method, and satisfie him in these three points. The first I haue already demonstrated in the precedent Treatise: the second, and third, I am now to declare.

[Page 210]2. Touching the second, the wordes which Christ spake, the reasons which moued him to impart a Supre­macy to Peter, do consequently conuince, it be deuolued to his Successour. The words of Christ are these: Thou art Peter, & vpon this Rocke will I build my Church &c. My Church, Mat. 16. saith he, not a patt or portion of his Church, not that part only, which florished in Peters daies, but all his whole Church, which euer was since Christ his time, or euer shall be vntill the end of the world. But this could not beChrysost Demonstr. quod Chri­stus fit Deus. Ioan, 21. built vpon Peter in his owne person, he being deceased so many yeares agoe: therefore it must be builded vpon some other insteed of Peter, and so, as Iohn Chrysostome elo­quently discourseth, still continue. In like manner, when our Sauiour said to Peter: Pasce oues meas: Feede my Sheepe, did he not command him to feed all his Sheepe? did he not lay a charge vpon him, which he should ne­uer forgoe? Chiefly seeing the office of a Pastour is an or­dinary and perpetuall office, and as long as there are any Sheepe to be fed, so long there ought to be some Pastour to feed them, which because Peter performed not in his owne person these many hundred yeares, there must needes be some other to execute it in his roome, in respect of whom S. Peter may be still said to accomplish his duty, and feed the Sheepe entrusted to his charge. WhereuponIeo s [...]r. 2. de sua assumpt. S. Leo writeth of Peter: In whom the care of all Pastours, with the custody of the Sheepe committed vnto him still perseuereth: and whose worthy dignity in his vnworthy Successour faileth not. In the Councell of Calcedon when an Epistle of Leo the Pope Concil. Cal­cedon. act. 2. act. 3. was read, all the Fathers cried out, that, Peter spake by the mouth of Leo. And when sentence was pronounced against Dioscorus the Patriarch of Alexandria, the whole Councell deliuered, that Leo endued with the authority of Peter the Apostle deposed Dioscorus.

3. Whereby it is euident, that the Pastorall priui­ledge, granted to Peter was not restrayned to him, but extended to others, not giuen him as a priuate, but as a publike person, and therefore still to continue to them [Page 211] that succeed. I presume you are not ignorant, that a King, being a publike person still continueth, that he is said in the Law neuer to dy, and the dignities granted to him, are common to all the heyres and inheritours ofStow in his Chronicle in the yeare of our Lord 1521. pag. 865. his crowne. As the thrice worthy Title of Defender of the Faith, giuen to King Henry the eight, by Leo the tenth Pope of that name, for writing against Luther, descended to king Edward, passed to Queene Mary, and Queene Elizabeth, and now perseuereth in our most potent, and dreadfull Soueraigne King Iames. The honour likewise M. Bilson enioyeth, of being Prelate of the Garter, is annexed to his Sea, and deriued to him from his Prede­cessors. The same is seene not only in Titles and Prero­gatiues of honour, but in priuiledges also of power, im­parted to Citties, Dukedoms, Common-wealths or pu­blike Magistrates, both Ecclesiasticall and Temporall, who as they neuer faile, so neither the honours, dignities and prerogatiues, they once enioy. Such was the Primacy communicated vnto Peter, not personall, but publike,Chrysolog. in epist. a [...] Euty [...]h. Read S. Aug. in Psal. 44. vpon those words. For thy Fathers▪ Sonnes. are born to thee: that is: For Apo­stls, Bishops succed­ing in their roome. not proper to him, but common to his Successours, in whom he euen now suruiueth, speaketh, and feedeth the Sheepe of Christ, with the food of heauenly doctrine; as S. Peter Chrysologus Bishop of Rauenna declareth, wri­ting thus in his daies; Blessed Peter who liueth and gouerneth, in his owne proper seat, deliuereth the verity of faith to them that seeke it.

4. The reasons, which caused our blessed Redeemer to aduance Peter to this soueraigne dignity, were all for the behoofe and benefit of the Church: First, to preuent schismes: Secondly, to appease dissensions: Thirdly, to settle it in peace: Fourthly, to endow it with a most perfect forme of a Common-wealth. All which enforce, that it was not a priuate grace annexed to Peters person, but a publike priuiledge conueyed to his Successours. For if these things be now as behoofull and necessary to the Church as then, why should she not still enioy them? Is Christ become lesse carefull of his Church then heretofore? [Page 212] Or hath this faultlesse Virgin, the pure Spouse of our Lord, committed any fault, by which she should be de­priued of the benefit he bestowed vpon her? If she be the same well ordered Campe, how is she disappointed of her guide and Captaine? If the same Ship, how sayleth she without a Pilot? If the same body, how is she separated from her Head? How is she become so prodigious a mon­ster, as to haue a visible body with an inuisible head, because if none succeeded Peter, the visible body of the Church hath had this long time no other then ChristTitus Li­uius. The Pro­testants will haue the church first go­uerned by Christ a­lone: next by the Apostles, then by al Bishops after by Kings and Free stats: whē they were con­uerted to the faith, by Queen Elizabeth a woman, by King Edward a Child. Dan. 2. Luc. 1. her inuisible head.

5. If none succeeded Peter, the whole state of the Church is altered and changed; changed from a Monar­chy to Aristocracy, from the administration of one, to the rule of many. It was a Monarchy, when Christ alone planted and founded it; a Monarchy, when Peter ruled it; and is it now fallen to a more vnperfect forme of go­uernment? The Common-wealth of the Romans, which flourished aboue all others, was at last vtterly ruined by her manifold alterations, by altering the sterne of regi­ment from Kings to ten Gouernours, from them to Con­suls, from Consuls to Tribunes of souldiours, from Tri­bunes to Dictatours, from Dictatours to Trium-viri; and could not our heauenly Law-maker preuent in his spiri­tuall Common-wealth these great inconueniences? Would he subiect his Church to such chops and changes, to be gouerned first by one, then by many, after by more, now by the Cleargy, then by the Laity, one while by Bishops, then by Kings and Princes, heere by Women, there by Children, whome you make heads and Gouer­nours of your Church? Daniel prophesied that the God of Heauen would raise a kingdome, which should neuer be dissolued; and the Angell Gabriel foretould it should ne­uer haue end: But neither the wordes of the Prophet, nor voice of the Angell do you regard, who rent and de­uide the kingdome of Christs Church into as many seue­rall Common-wealthes, as there be seuerall Kinges, se­uerall [Page 213] Courts of Parlament, seueral estates and manners of gouernement, absolute and independant in the whole Christian World.

6. The Synagogue of the lewes long triumphed in the lineall succession of her High Priests. First in Aaron next in Eleazarus, then in Phinees, and in others after him, vntill the end and abrogation of the Law; and is it not meete the Church of Christ should glory in the like, Be­ing Heb. 8. v. 6 established in better promises, and hauing greater necessity thē euer the Synagogue had? For we find by experience ma­ny strifes & contentions daily happen among the people of God, who shal appease & quiet thē? The Bishops? But how often do they arise among the Bishops themselues? The Primates and Patriarches? And what if they be also at variance, as Flauianus and Dioscorus, Cyrillus and Nestorius, Euphemius and Petrus Mogus were? The temporall Prince or Ciuill Magistrate? But they ought not to intermedle with Ecclesiasticall affaires, their factions may be more dangerous then any of the former. To whome shall we then repaire? To a Generall Councell? But who shall sommon, who shall order, who shall direct and guide this Assembly? What if they decline from the truth as the Councell of Ariminum, the Councell of Milan, the se­cond Councell of Ephesus did, who shall iudge their cause? Who shall compose their dissentions, vnles some one be appointed by the prouidence of God, whose decree is īnuiolable, and whose infallible censure all ought to o­bey.Couell in his exam. against the Plea of Innocents pag. 107. Cart­wright in his second Reply part. 1. pag. 582.

7. Otherwise, as D. Couell our English Protestant affirmeth: The Church of Christ should be in a farre worse case, then the meanest Common-wealth; nay almost then a denne of theeues, if it were left destitute of meanes either to conuince here­syes or suppresse them. A little before he sayth: Authority (which cannot be, where all are equall) must procure vnity and obedience. And Cartwright: This point of keeping peace in the Church is one of those, which requireth as well a Pope ouer all Arch-bishops, as one Arch-bishop ouer all Bishops in a Realme. [Page 214] Melancthon pursueth the same reason: The Bishop (saythMelanct. in Centu. Ep. Theol. Ep. 74. iuxta edit. Bipont. an. Domini 1597. Lu [...]h. in lo. com. Clas. 1. cap. 37. p. 107. he) of Rome is president ouer all Bishops, and this Canonicall po­licy no wise man (as I thinke) doth or ought to disallow &c. For the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is, in my opinion, profitable to this end, that consens of Doctrine may be retained. Which Luther his maister taught before him: Whereas God would haue one Catholike Church throughout the whole world, it is necessary to haue one people: Yea and of this one people, one Father ought to be chosen.

8. Thus these Protestants depose against their own confederates, and no maruell though some in so cleare light of Scripture, in such a general consent of Councels,1. Cor. c. 12. vers. 21. Io. 10. v. 16. Fathers and all antiquity, should voluntarily approue a truth so manifest, maruell no more approue it, great maruell, they remember not all the comparisons of S. Paul, resembling the Church to a body, in which the head Concil. Nicen. can. 6. Concil. Brach. can. 28. & 23. Concil. Constant. apud The­od. l. 5. Hist. c. 9, Concil. La­teran. c. 5. Florent. in Declarat. fidei. Conc. Chal. Act. 3. & in relatione Sanctae Sy­nodi ad B. Papā Le­onem. 6. Synodus general. cannot say to the feete (as Christ might) you are not necessary for me. The prophesy recorded by S. Iohn: There shalbe one fold, and one pastour. Which as it was not verifyed in Christ his tyme, so it cannot be now vnderstood only of him our inuisible Pastour: but the flocke and fold being vi­sible, the Pastour, whose office is ordinary, and charge perpetuall, must likewise be visible.

9. What shall I adde the approbation of generall Councells? Of the first Councell of Nice in Bithynia: of the Councell of Brachara in Spaine: of the Councell of Constantino­ple in Thracia: of the Councells of Lateran and Florence in Ita­ly: especially of the Councell of Chalcedon in Asia, one of the foure, which our English Protestants allow; where Pope Leo is called: The vniuersall Arch-bishop: The vniuersall Patriarch: The Bishop of the vniuersall Church: The Pope of the vniuersall Church. Where the whole Councell tearmeth Leo: The In­terpreter of S. Peters voyce to all the world. Where they ac­knowledge him their head, and themselues his members. Where they all confesse: That the custody or keeping of the vineyard (that is of the whole Church) is committed by our Sauiour to Leo. Likewise the sixth Generall Synod confesseth, that [Page 215] S. Peter was with them by his Successour Agatho; and that, S. Peter spake by Agatho his mouth.

10. From the Councels I passe to the Fathers; to S.Chrys. l. 2. de Sacer. Hiero. Ep. ad Dam Hiero. ibid. Aug. in Psal. cont. part. Do­nati. de Vtilitate Cred. c. 17. Aug. in Epist. 162. Aug. lib. 1. con. 2. Ep. Pela. c. 1. ad Bonifa. Prosper. li. de ingrat. Victor. l. 2. de persecu. Vandal. Vincen in suo Cōmo. [...]ustinian. Ep. ad Io. quae habe­tur in Co­dice. Iraen. l. 3. cap. 3. Chrysostome: Why did our Lord shed his bloud? Truely to re­deeme those sheep, the care of which he committed both to Peter, & also to his Successours. To S. Hierome, writing to Damasus the Pope of Rome: With the Successour of the Fisher-man, and with the Disciple of the Crosse I speake; I following none chiefe but Christ, hold the fellow-ship of Communion with your Holynesse, that is, with Peters Chaire. Vpon that Rocke I know the Church to be built: Whosoeuer shall eate the Paschall Lambe out of that house is a prophane person. And a little after: He that gathereth not with you, scattereth: that is, he that is not Christs, is Anti­christs. To S. Augustine: Number the Priests, euen from Peters seate, & see who succeeded one another in that row of Fathers: that is the Rocke which the proud gates of Hell do not ouercome. And in another place: That is it which hath obtained the top of au­thority: Then he sayth: The principality of the Apostolicall Chaire alwayes florished in the Roman Church. Lastly: The Bi­shop of that Sea hath the preheminence of higher roome in the pasto­rall watch-tower, which is common to all Bishops. For this cause the Church of Rome is tearmed, The head of the world: the head of all Churches, by Prosper, by Victor, by Vincentius, by the Emperour Iustinian, and others. To which Church, as Irenaeus testifyeth, for her more powerfull principality, euery Church ought to repayre. For this the Pope of Rome is worthi­ly intituled: The Hiero. epist. 123. chiefe and highest Priest: The Ambr. com. in 1. Tim. 3. ruler of the house of God: The Concil. Chal. in epist. ad Leonem act. 1. head of the Church: The Synod. Later. sub Mar­ [...]ino Papa secret. 2. Prince & Doctor of the orthodoxall and immaculate fayth: The Stephanus Archiepis. Carthag. ep. ad Dam. Father of Fathers: The Bern. l. 2. de consid. Vicar of Christ: The Bern. ibid. Pastour of all Pa­stours: The Concil. Constant. 5. act. 1. pag. 74. giuer of Light, and pillar of the Church: The Valent. epist. ad Theodosium quae habetur inter praeambula. Conc. Chaleed. Iustinian. Nouell. constit. 123. in edit. Haloand. & lib. 1. Cod. de summa Trinitate, Liberatus in Breuiario cap. 12. Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 7. most Blessed Bishop of the Citty of Rome, to whome amiquity hath [Page 216] giuen the principality of Priest-hood aboue all other. These last be the wordes of Valentinian the Emperour, whome Iusti­nian Chrys. Ep. ad Inno­cent. Theod. in Ep. ad Le­onem. Sulpitius Seuer. l. 2. sacr. hist. Epiph▪ haer. 42. Cyp. l. 1. Ep. 4▪ Epiph. hae­res. 68. [...]este Paulo Diaco. & Anact. in Symmacho. Sigeber. in chronic. Extainter Epi. A­gapeti Tō. 1. ep. Rom. Pontif. ha­betur. ep. Euti. tom. 2. Conc. e­dit. Colon. ann. 1606. pag. 510. Apud Leo­nem epist. 68. following maketh also a solemne decree: That accor­ding to the Definition of the foure Holy Councells, of Nice, of Constantinople, of Ephesus, and of Chalcedon, the Pope of Rome is the chiefe of all Priests. And he addeth: No man doubteth, but that the top or principality of the highest Bishopricke resteth in Rome.

11. Besides these authorityes, which are all impreg­nable, the continuall practise and consent of all Nations approue the supremacy of the Pope of Rome; and ther­fore to him, as to the supreme and highest Iudge vpon earth appeales haue beene made from all partes of the world. To giue you a tast of some few examples; To whose high tribunall did Flauianus the Partriarch of Con­stantinople appeale from the second Councell of Ephesus, but to the tribunall of Leo Pope of Rome? Whose ayd and succour did Athanasius the Bishop of Alexandria implore, oppressed by the Arrians, but the ayd of Iulius the Pope of Rome? Vnder whose wings did S. Iohn Chrysostome flye deposed in a Councell of many Bishops of the East, but vnder the wings of Innocentius the Pope of Rome? To him Theodoret, to him Saluianus, and Priscillian rebells vnto God, and enemyes of that Sea, condemned in a Synod at Caesar-Augustum; to him Marcion, to him Basilides deposed from his Bishopricke was faine to appeale. To him Valens and Vrsacius came to giue an account, and craue pardon for their treachery against Athanasius. To Symmachus Pope of Rome 220. or 225. Bishops as others report, bani­shed their seates by King Thrasimond, fled for reliefe, who honourably maintained them at his owne charges.

82. To the Pope of Rome as to the anker of fayth & oracle of truth, the faythfull were wont to direct the Summe of their beliefe, the greatest Clarkes their bookes and writings, most famous Councells their Ca­nons and decrees. So Iustinian the Emperour sent the pro­fession of his fayth to Agapetus the Pope. Eutychius the Patri­arch [Page 217] of Constantinople to Vigilius the Pope. Proterius the Patri­arch Aug. cōt. 2. ep. [...]ela. lib. 1. cap. 1. Inter Ep. Hormis. Tom. 1. Ep. Rom. Pontif. Hiero. in exp li. Sym. ad Dama. Concil. Chal. in re­lat. sanct. Synod. ad Leo. Con. Mileu. 10. 2. p. [...]01. & inter ep. Aug. 92. &c. Cyp. teste. Hier. dialo. adu. [...]ucif. Bils [...] pa. 1. p. 44. 45. 48. 49. Chrys. Ep. 1. ad Inno. Tom. 5. Socrat. l. 2. cap. 15. Hier. in symb. exp. ad Damas. Aug. con. 2. Epis. Pe­lag. l. 1. c. 1. Theod Ep. ad Leonē. Commen. eius in Paul. prae­fix. of Alexandria to Leo the Pope. So S. Augustine sent his workes to Pope Boniface to be examined and amended. Possessor a Bishop of Africa his commentaries vpon S. Paul to Hormisda. S. Hierome his explication vpon the Creed to Damasus. So the Councell of Chalcedon sent their Canons to Leo the Pope. The Mileuitan Councell held in Numidia, the cause of Pelagius to Pope Innocentius. And S. Cyprian the Pri­mate of Africa sent the decrees of the Councell of Carthage to Stephen the Pope. Neyther were these thinges done (as M. Bilson to obscure the truth, and beguile his Reader, craf­tily suggesteth) for the common consent, mutuall agreement, & publike liking of the Bishops in euery Prouince, because then the like resorts should haue been made to other Primates, as well as to the Pope; but they were made to him, as to the Vicar Generall of Christ, and ruler of his whole Church, who had power and authority to examine the causes, punnish the faultes, reforme the abuses, approue the fayth, condemne the heresies, establish the decrees, reuerse the sentences of all other Bishops, as the Letters, the Complaints, the Suites, the Embassages, the Petitions, the whole History of the former Appellants, and other resorters vnto Rome beare witnesse.

13. S. Iohn Chrysostomes letters were to request Innocentius: To pronounce the proceedings of the Bishops of the East voyd and of no force: to punish with Ecclesiasticall Censures the Authours of that disorder. S. Athanasius his complaint was of the wrong offered him by the Emperor & a great assembly of Easterne Bishops, who wrongfully thrust him from his Bishopricke. And Iulius the Pope of Rome, as Socrates relateth: by the prerogatiue of the Roman Sea wrote threatning letters in his behalfe, and restored him to his place, rebuking them who rashely de­posed him. S. Hieromes suite to Damasus was: If any thing be here vnaduisedly set forth, we entreate it may be amended by thee, who holdest the fayth & seat of Peter. The like suite S. Augu­stine made to Bonifacus▪ Theodorets supplication to Leo was this: I humbly request & beseech your Holynesse in this case to ayde [Page 218] me, appealing to your iust and vpright iudgement, & command me to come before you. And in his Epistle to Renatius the Priest: Idem. in E­pist. ad Re­natū praes­bit. In rela. S. Synod. Chal [...]ed. ad B. Papam Leonem. I beseech thee (sayth he) to perswade the most holy Archbishop Leo, that he vse his Apostolicall authority, and command our appea­rance before his Councell. For that holy Seat holdeth the sterne of gouernement ouer all Churches of the world.

14. The Embassage of the Fathers of the Chalce­don Councell was: To haue their decrees confirmed by Leo, Saying: we are suppliants vnto you, and doe you honour our iudgement with your decrees: & as we haue ioyned to our head conformity in things that be good, so let your Highnesse performe that (which beseemeth) to your children. To the same purpose, Marcianus the Emperour Osiand. in Epist. Cēt. [...]. p. 182. prayed him to confirme the fayth which there was defined. The pe­tition of the first Councell held at Arles to Pope Siluester in the tyme of Constantine the Great was this: That for the Rog [...]nus igitur, & tuis decre­tis nostrū bonora iu­dicium, & sicut nos capiti in bonis adic­cimus con­sonantiā, sic & sum­mitas tua filiis (quod decet) ad­impleat. ex Epist. 59. Leo. & 60. eiusdē. Habe­tur inter Ep. Hor­misdae Tom. 1. Epist. Rom. Pont. Extat in decret. Agapeti to. 2. Concil. 553. or 45 [...] ac­cording to the later Edition. Sozon. l. 8. c. 3. Socrates lib. 5. c. 15. Theod. Eccl. Hist. lib. 5. cap. 23. Theod. ibid. vniforme obseruation of Easter day throughout the world, he accor­ding to the custome, should direct his letters to all. Iustinus the Emperour referred the questions of fayth presented him by the Bishop, to Hormisda the Pope, requesting his resolution. And the Emperour Iustinian after he had humbled himselfe to Pope Agapetus, & adored his Holynesse, he beseeched him to ad­nance Me [...]as a Catholike to the Catholike to the Patriarchall seat of Cōstantinople insteed of Anthimus the Heretike. S. Iohn Chrysostome the Patri­arch of Constantinople, and Theophilus the Bishop of Alexan­dria intreated Damasus the Pope of Rome, that Flauianus long vsurping the seat of Antioch might at length after the death of Paulinus be installed in his Bishoprike, and par­doned his former fault. And although he were much fa­uoured by all the East who cleaued vnto him, and by Theodosius the Emperour who allowed him as farre as he could, yet he twise commaūded him to repayre to Rome, and neuer could he be canonically or peaceably enthro­ned vntill he sent Acatius the famous Bishop of Beroea with other illustrious Prelates to the sea Apostolike, by whom [Page 219] he obteined the consent and approbation of the Pope.

15. Not the suites of Emperous only, not the sup­plication or intreaty of forren Bishops, but the iurisdicti­on also and authority, which the Pope hath alwayes pra­ctised, witnesse his soueraignty ouer the whole flocke of Christ. For he made lawes which did bind the whole Church, he called Councells, censured Princes, excommuni­cated Bishops, deposed Patriarches & restored them to their seats, who were vniustly depriued of their dignityes. For exampleLeo. E­pist. 1. ad Episcop. Camp. &c. Leo writeth to the Bishops of Campania, of Pice­num, and of Tuscia, how he and his Predecessours constitu­tions obliged them all. The same Leo ep. 87. & Ep. 93. ad Turb. Leo summoned to a ge­nerall Councell the Bishops of Tarracone, Lusitania, France and Carthage. Nicep. l. 13. c. 34. Innocentius the first thundred the sentence of Excommunication against Arcadius the Emperour, and Eudo­xia the Empresse: Agaynst The Centurist [...] Cent. 5. Col. [...]. Theophilus also Bishop of Ale­xandria. Libe­ratus c. 18. Felix excommunicated Acatius the Patriarch of Constantinople. Euseb. l. 5. ca. 24. Victor the 15. Pope after S. Peter (not some­what Popelike, as Sparks in his ans­were to M. Iohn Albins preface. M. Sparkes scoffeth at him, exceeding his bounds, but by the priuiledge of his supreme & trans­cendent authority) censured in like manner all the Bishops of Asiae for dissenting from the Roman Church in celebra­ting the feast of Easter. Zona. in vita Iustin. Agapetus the Pope deposed An­thimus, Galas. Ep. ad epis. Darda. Leo Dioscorus, Theod. l. 5 histo. c. 23. Damasus Flauianus, three Patri­arches, one of Constantinople, another of Alexandria, the third of Antioch. And on the other side Conc. Chal. act. 1. Leo restored The­odoret the famous Bishop of Cyrus to his sea, deposed by the 2. Councell of Ephesus. Cyp. l. 3. ep. 13. S. Cyprian wrote to Pope Ste­phen to depose Marcian the Bishop of Orleance and install an­other in his roome. [...]elas. ep. ad Epis. Dardaniae. Socrat. l. 2. c. 15. Cent. 4. col. 550. Iulius the first of that name resto­red to their Bishoprikes Athanasius of Alexandria, Paulus of Constantinople, and other Catholike Bishops of the East, ex­pelled by the Arians. And this he did, as the Centurists cō ­fesse out of Socrates, fraetus Romanae Ecclesiae prerogatiua: By the prerogatiue of the Roman Church. And Sozomenus sayth of [Page 220] the same Iulius: When for the dignity of his Sea, the care of all ap­pertayned vnto him, he restored euery one to his Church. Zozom. l. 3. c. 7. Euag. l. 1. c. 4. Phot. l. de 7. Syn. Leo ep. 47. Leo ep. 84. idem ep. 87. Gela. ep. ad Epi. Dard. Galf. l. 9. cap. 11. Leo ep. 84. Greg. l. 4 ep. 52. In­nocent. 1. ep. 26. ad Con. Mile. extat inter epi. Aug. Conc. Cbal. act. 1. Patet ex Leo. ep. 55. ad Pulch. Basil. epist. 52. ad A­thanasiū. Conc. Ni­cenum 1. c. 6. ex Ni­colao 1. ep. ad Mich. Imp. vide S. Greg in Regist. epi passim. Idem S. Greg. in Regis. l. 12. c. 15. vsum tibi pallij ad sola missarum solemnia agenda concedimus. Bedel. [...]. hist. c. 19. & 2. hist c. 8. God win in the Catal of Bishops. Beda l. 2. c. 17. Fox. act. p. 185.

16. In fine the Pope of Rome hath alwayes had his legates, presidents and chiefe in all Oecumenicall Councells; as Hosius, Vitus, and Vincentius in the first Councell of Nice: S. Cyril in the Councell of Ephesus: Paschasius and Lucentius in the Councell of Chalcedon. He hath had his Vicars gene­rall in all forrayne and remote Countreyes, Anastasius Bi­shop of Thessalonica in Grece, Potentius in Afrike, Acatius Patri­arch of Constantinople in Egypt, Dubritius Arch-bishop of Wales & primate of Britany in England. To him as to the highest Iudge, the weightyest causes, from all partes of the world haue been still directed. Without him no generall Councell can be kept or assembled. By him tumultuous Synods haue been euer disanulled. From him most ample priuiledges, dignityes and prerogatiues haue byn granted to Bishops, Pathiarches, Kings and Princes. To mention some particu­lars. From him the Patriarch of Constantinople had the pre­eminence of the highest Sea after Rome, & iurisdiction o­uer Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis. From him the Bishops of France, of Spayne, of Greece, haue receaued their Archiepis­copall robes or ornaments. From him S. Augustine our A­postle of England, and first Arch-bishop of Canterbury amongst the Saxons: from him all other Arch-bishops, euen to the Conquest, receiued their pals, which in signe of their sub­iection to the Pope, and honour deriued from S. Peters Sea, is first layed vpon his holy Tombe, and from thence sent to the Arch-bishop. Thus our King Edwin for S. Pau­lin, and Honorius; King Rufus for S. Anselme, obtayned their Episcopall Palls.

17. To be briefe, from him Kings and Emperours haue receaued, some their Scepters, Crownes and Regalityes, some singular fauours and tytles of honour, others their very manner and forme of coronation. So Alber. Krant. l. 2. Pipin was [Page 221] created King of Italy by Leo the Third. Blond. dec. 2. Stephen King of Hangary by Sergius the Pope. li. 7. hist. Scoto. Edgar King of Scotland by Vrban the Second. Paul. Diacon. l. 23. rerum Romana. Charles the Emperour of the Romans by Leo the Third. The S. Tho­mas l. 3. de regi. princ. co. 19. Stow ann. 1521. and Onuphri. chro. 1520. King Iams in his De­clar. con­cōcerning his proce­ding in the cause of D. Conra­dus V or- [...] stius p. 36. Thomas Bozius de fignis Ec­cles. Tomo 2. l. 17. Signo 77. Papyrius Masso. l. 3. Annal. in vita Henr. primi. Bils. 1. p. pag. 83. 84. 93. 94. 97. 98. & part. 2. p. 137. 138. 139, &c. Sabellicus Aene. 9. l. 1. Atha. ad soli. vitam agentes. seauen Electours of the Empire were all chosen and ordaynad by Gregory the Fifth. Our King Henry the second was first intituled to the Lord­ship of Ireland by the gift of Adrian the Fourth Pope of that name. And as the honourable stile of Catholike in Spayne, most Christian in France, so the no lesse memorable and re­nowned tytle (I mentioned before) of defender of the Fayth (in which our Soueraygne King Iames gloryeth more as himselfe protesteth, then in the tytle of King of great Bri­tany) was first graunted to King Henry the eight by the Pope of Rome. But whome also the solemne manner of Crow­ning both our & sundry other Kings hath byn instituted, prescribed, and is to this day obserued. For example the King of France is consecrated & anonynted by the Arch­lishop of Rhemes, according to the ordinance of Hormisda the Pope. The King of England by the Arch-bishop of Can­terbury, according to the grant of Adrian the Third. The King of Scotland by the Arch-bishop of S. Andrew according to the prescription of Vrban the Second. The King of Germany by the Arch-bishop of Mentz. The King of Bohe­mia, by the Arch-bishop of Prage; and diuers others by such as the Pope appointed. By these, and a thousand other presidents the supremacy of all spirituall power is more then manifest in the Sea of Rome.

18. But D. Bilson opposeth some Kings and Princes of Greece, of Germany, of France, & England, who resisted the Pope: Some who deposed him: Some Emperours who commanded in mat­ters Ecclesiasticall. To what purpose is this? Might not in­feriours resist and persecute their Superiours, as Nero perse­cuted and killed S. Peter? Might they not wrongfully de­pose, or rather force them (as Sabellicus writeth of Henry the third) to forgoe the Papacy? Might not Emperours vsurpe the function & authority of Priests, as Oza in the old law, [Page 222] and Constantius the Emperour did in the new, whom Atha­nasius, Hosius, Leontius, and S. Hilary sharply rebuke for hisHosius in litteris ad Constant. ibi recitatis Leontius pud Suid. in Leontio. Hilar. l. cōt. Const. Aug. epist. 162. Iustin. in Nouella constit. 3. & Nouella 123. & 133. in edit. Ha­loand. Leg. Franciae l. 2. & 2. Codice Theod. L. 26. tit. 4. de relig. §. Ea quae, Ruff. l. 1. cap. 1. hist. Eccl. [...] ep. prae­am. Conc. Chal. In 6. Syn. act. 1. See Cusan. l. 3. de Con­cord. Ca­tho. cap. 2. 10. 13. &c. Bils. par. 2. pag. 155. 156. &c. Leo Epist, 24. & 26. Bils, 2. par. p. 154. Ambros. com. 5. Ep. praefix. tyranny therein? The factes of Constantine, of Iustinian, of Theodosius and others, with which M. Bilson furnisheth his large treatise, are for the most part examples drawne frō the like abuse. In which kind euen Constantine the Great waded so farre beyond the bounds of his vocation: That (as S. Augustine writeth of him) he minded to aske pardon of the holy Bishops. Or I answere, that the precepts Kings and Em­perours vsed, the lawes they enacted in matters Ecclesiasti­call, were to corroborate, strengthē & renew the lawes of the Church. Such were many lawes and commandments of Iustinian, in which, He followed (as he sayth) the holy Ca­nons, and holy Fathers. Such the lawes of Charles, of Lodowike, of Ricaredus King of Spayne. Such the decrees of Theodosius and Valentinian, as by their owne Constitutions appea­reth.

19. After this manner I grant Emperours might call generall Councels, as the especiall Aduocates of the Church. As Constantine the Great summoned the Councell of Nice in Bithynia: Ex Sacerdotum sententia: According to the will and desire of the Priests, as Ruffinus witnesseth. Valentinian and Marcian the Councell of Calcedon, by the consent of Leo. Constantine the fourth, the sixt Generall Councell by the consent of Agatho. Thus Emperours haue byn present in Councels as Protectours of the Bishops, and Procurers of peace; thus they haue subscribed as witnesses, not as Iudges, by priuiledge, not by right. Thus they haue commaunded the decrees to be obserued as executours, not Superiours (M. Bilson) in Ecclesiasticall affayres.

20. For these causes Popes and Bishops might of Chri­stian charity humbly sue to Emperours, to interpose their Temporall power in manner aforesayd, as Leo did to The­odosius and his sister Pulcheria: S. Ambrose with the Synode of Aquileia, to Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius ioynt Em­perours; requesting their protection for the better de­fence [Page 223] and peaceable execution of what they had decreed, because the Heretikes Valens and Attalus sought to disturbe them. For the same peace and quietnesse S. Gregory wri­tethGreg. Ep. l. 2. c. 100. most submissiue letters to Mauritius the Emperour. And what he and others of singular curtesy and charity performe, will you say they do of duty? whē he imitating his Mayster, humbleth himselfe to the feete of his Inferi­riours,Bils. part. 2. fol. 157. 158. Fulke in c. 2. 2. ad. Thess. sect. 7. VVhit. Caluin & common­ly all Pro­testants. Greg. l. 4. Ep. 32. shall an act (M. Bilson) of such vertue blemish in your conceit, or debase his dignity?

21. But M. Fulke, M. Whitaker, and other M. Bil­sons confederats, often vpbrayd vs with that of S. Gregory, where he calleth the name of Vniuersall Bishop: A pro­phane, proud, sacrilegious, and Anti-christian tytle. I answere, S. Gregory inueygheth not agaynst the good vse and mea­ning of the word (vniuersall) but agaynst the proud and presumptuous manner, after which Iohn the Patriarch of Constantinople vsurped it to himselfe, to wit: to be such an absolute and vniuersall Patriarch, as to derogate from all others their Patriarchall dignity, as diuers Catholike wri­ters haue often demonstrated out of S. Gregoryes owne E­pistles.Greg. l. 4. Ep. 34. 36. Andreas Frisius de Eccles. l. 2. 6. 10. p. 170. Yet if it may carry more credit with Protestants, deliuered by Protestants themselues, let them read what Andreas Frisius, a famous Zuinglian, Secretary to the King of Polonia wryteth: Some there be, who agaynst this office of v­niuersall Superintendent, obiect the authority of Gregory, who sayth, that such a tytle belongeth to the Precursour of Antichrist. But the reason of Gregory is to be knowne, and it may be gathe­red out of the words he repeateth in many Epistles: That the tytle of vniuersall Bishop is contrary, and doth withstand the grace which is commonly powred vpon all Bishops. He therfore that should surname himselfe vniuersall Bishop, nameth himselfe the only Bishop, and taketh Bishoplike power from the rest. Therefore this tytle he would haue to be reiected, which is vsurped with the in­iury of other Bishops. And immediatly after: Notwithstanding by other places it is euident that Gregory thought the charge & prin­cipality of the whole Church was committed to Peter by the voyce of our Lord. And thus much he wrote plainly, and almost word for [Page 224] word to the Emperour Maurice, and strenghtned it by testimony of Scripture. Thus he. Plainly declaring that although S.Greg. l. 4. Ep. [...]2. Gregory disliked the arrogant vsurpation of that name with iniury to the other Bishops: yet he allowed the v­niuersall dignity of one supreme Gouernour of the Church without wrong or derogation to any.

22. To that which M. Bilson vrgeth of Councells Bils. part. [...]. p. 84. 85 86. 87. 88. &c. deposing Popes, I answere: First they were vnlawfull assemblyes, as the Councell of Brixia, the Councell of Pisa, according to Antoninus; And the Councell of Basil, although lawfully begun, was then vnlawful, when it deposed Eu­genius. Secondly I answere: that lawfull Councells may in tyme of Schisme iudge and declare who is true Pope, & depose the vsurpers, or perswade also the true Pope for quietnes sake to resigne his right, which was all that the Councell of Constance defined & practised in deposing Iohn the 23. Gregory the 12. and Benedict the 13. And therefore M. Bilson might haue well spared his paynes from tyring the learned, and amazing the simple Reader with the vayne recitall of so many wild, and vagrant hystories. To proceed.

23. This second point being proued; that Peters Successour enioyeth his dignity: it resteth I discusse why the Pope of Rome should rather inherite it then the Bishop of Antioch where Peter first sate, or the Bishop of Ierusalem where Christ our Sauiour dyed. For declaration whereof you must vnderstand that Christ neuer fixed his seat ey­ther at Ierusalem, or at any other determinate place. A­gayne he hath none to succeed him, he still continuethHaeb. 7. v. 24▪ his Euerlasting Priest-hood. And that the Primacy should not remayne at Ierusalem, the testimonyes of Scripture are most perspicuous. S. Paul giueth a reason hereof: The Priest­hood being translated, it is necessary that a translation of the law Haeb. 7. v. 12. Matt. 21. v. 41. Act. 13. v. 46. also be made. Christ forto [...]d it to the Iewes: The Kingdome of God shall be taken from you: and giuen to a Nation yielding the fruits thereof. S. Paul and Barnabas testify the performance: To you it behooued vs first to speake the word of God: but because [Page 225] you repell it, and iudge your selues vnworthy of eternall life: behold we turne to the Gentils.

24. If Caluin had weyghed these places well, they might haue instructed him, why the seat of Christs Lieutenant was not placed at Ierusalem, the chiefe Citty of the Iewes, but in the chiefe and principall Citty of the Gentils. It might haue also informed M. Bilson why at Rome, rather then at Antioch; because it was meete, as Saint Leo doth often insinuate: That the Citty of Superstiti­on, Leo 1. de na [...]a. Apost. Pet. & Paul. Marcel. Ep. ad pre­sbyt An­tioch. Anaclet. ad omnes Presbyt. Hieron. de viris illust. in vit. Pet. Damas. in vit. eiusdō Euseb. in Chron. an. 44. Hieron. de viris Illusta in Petro. might be made the Chiefe Seate of Religion. For this cause, albeit he first sate at Antioch for the space of seauen yeares: yet after, as Saint Marcellus, Anacletus, Saint Hierome and Damasus auouch, he translated his throne to the Citty of Rome, and there continued Bishop as Eusebus, Saint Hie­rome, and other Hystoriographers testify 25. yeares. There he ended his life with a glorious Martyrdome. There he resigned, or rather surceased his Pastorall charge. Wherefore seing he only is inuested in the state of his Predecessour, who succeedeth him, yielding vp ey­ther by natural death or voluntary resignation his whole former dignity, and not he, who succeedeth only in his place, or partaketh some part of his charge, the reason is cleare, why Linus the Pope of Rome, and not Euodius Bi­shop of Antioch is Peters Successour, because in Rome he sate last, in Rome he sate longest, in Rome he resigned his Episcopall dignity.

25. We see when the King changeth and re­moueth his Court from one Citty to another, the Magi­strate he placeth in his former residence, he appointeth no heyre or Successour to the right of his Kingdome. When the throne of the Empire was translated from Mi­lan, from Treuers, from Antioch and other places, the Go­uernours of those Cittyes did not thereby vsurpe the Im­periall crowne; no more can the Bishop of Antioch chal­lenge the scepter of Peters supremacy, after that Peter tran­slated his seate from thence, after that he aduanced it to the Citty of Rome, and there continued it vntill the [Page 226] houre of his death. Neuertheles he often departed thence during this tyme into diuers other countreyes about the affayres of the Church.

26. And it hath pleased God so to confirme the continuall succession of his chiefe Vicars in the Blessed Sea, that notwithstanding many cruell and mighty Ty­rants haue bent their whole endeauours to disturbe them from thence, notwithstanding they haue beene often ba­nished into remote and barbarous Countreys, as Cle­mens by Traian in Chersonesum the North part of Asia, Cor­nelius Thomas Bozius de signis Eccl. Tomo 2. l. 17. signo 78. Baronius in Auna. anno chri. 200. 255. by Decius to Centumcellas, Liberius by Constantius into Thrace, Martin by the same into Pontus, and forty such like; notwithstanding 33. one after another haue beene put to the sword; notwithstanding their remoue for a tyme to Viterbo, Auenion, Rauenna: Yet the Pope▪ haue still returned, and the Sea continued at Rome. All o­ther Patriarchall seates haue beene shaken in pieces, but that of Rome no deaths, no banishments, no Tyrannies of men, or malice of Sathan could euer ouerthrow. That hath perseuered for the space of 1620. yeares: andAug. de vtil. credē. cap. 17. [...]hem. Test. in ca. [...]. [...]. ad Thessal. flourisheth still: The Heretikes (to vse Saint Augustynes wordes) in vayne barking round about it. Not the heathen Em­perours (as the Authour of the Rhemes Testament excel­lently noteth) not the Gothes and Vandals: not the Turke: not any sackes or m [...]ssakers by Alaricus, Attila, Burbon and others: not the emulation of secular Princes, were they Kings or Emperours: not the Popes owne diuisions amongst themselues, and manifold dif­ficultyes and dangers in their elections: not the great vices, which haue beene noted in some of their persons: not all these, nor any other endeauour or scandall could yet preuayle agaynst the Sea of Rome. Which is a cleere demonstration of Gods diuine prouidence in preseruing the Apostolike seat of his Vi­car generall Saint Peters Successour in that holy place, and not at Antioch, nor at Ierusalem; where the succession of the Apostles haue beene interrupted by Schismes, in­fected with Heresies, and vtterly ruined by barbarous e­nemyes.

[Page 227]27. Finally, it is a tradition vncontrolable, that the Pope succedeth Peter, and whosoeuer denyeth it gaynsayeth Hystories, Chronicles, and Recordes of Pre­lates, from the Apostles tyme, in which the Bishops of Rome are euer enrolled in the Catalogue of Peters suc­cessours; and not by them alone, Tertullian, Optatus, Saint Augustine, with diuerse others deriue the lineall succession of Popes by name from Peter. And in the daiesTertull. l. de praescri. Optatus l. cōt. Parm. Aug. Ep. 165. ad Ge­nerosum. Reynold. in confe­rence 1. diuis. 2. fol. 10. & 11. Leo the Great, about 440. yeares after Christ, it was so far from being called in question, that in the common phrase, both of Him, his Successours, and their Secre­cretaryes, all thinges appertayning to the Bishops of that Sea, bare the memory, stampe, and tytle of Peter. They, as Mayster Reynolds my Antagonist trauelleth to declare, grew to be Saint Peters. Their prerogatiue Leo Epist. 45. Saint Peters right: Their dignity, Ibidem. Saint Peters ho­nour: their greatnesse, Ep. 87. & serm. 1. in Anniu. assum suae. Saint Peters reuerence: Sub­iection to them, Ep. 87. subiection to Saint Peter: A message from them, Ep. 24. an Embassage from Saint Peter. Thinges done in their presence, Ep. 4. thinges done in Saint Peters pre­sence: Lands and Possessions giuen them, Platin. de vit. Pon. in Ioan. 7. giuen to Saint Peter: Their Territoryes and Lord-ships, Pope Innocent the third extra. c. per Venerabilem qui filij fint legitimi. Saint Peters patrimony: Their Reuenewes, Abbas Vrsperg. in Chron. Hen. 5. Onuphr. de 7. vrb. Eccles. in pal. Latera. Saint Peters Royalities: Their goodwill, Greg. Regist. lib. 4. epist. 34. his sauour: Their communion, Lib. 7. epist 69. his peace: Their indignation, [...] latin. de vit. Pon. in Greg. 7. his curse: Their signer, Popes in their letters sub annulo Piscatoris &c. his ring: Their Chayre, Pope Innocent the 4. extra. cap Maioris de bap. & eius effect. his Sea &c. These and the like speaches which M. Reynolds in an ill cause setteth downe to deface; I in a good (changing some of his spite­full tearmes) doe heere repeat to countenance the truth of the Roman Bishops chiefe preheminence and true des­cent from Peter. Wherein the common stile of the Court and consent of all men iointly agree: which I the further [Page 228] vrge to satisfy Mayster Bilson in this and euery one of the three thinges he required, to introne the Pope in his Su­preme dignity, if the grace of God may preuayle with him, to take satisfaction from one, who although he impugne his errors, yet loueth his person, and earnestly wisheth all his good parts may be once conuerted to the aduancement of his honour, from whose rich treasury they are deriued.

28. And with this my wel-wishing vnto him, I would heere make an end, if Maister Reynolds petulancyReyn. c. 6. diuis. 3. f. 216. Cassio. in Chro. Rhegi. in Chron. l. 2. Ado breu. Chri. [...]tat. 6▪ in controlling the report of all ancient writers, could be passed ouer in silence. For albeit he acknowledgeth Saint Peters aboad at Rome: yet he denyeth that there he was Bishop, or that he held there his seat 25. yeares, affirming (to recite his wordes, is sufficient to bewray his pride and temerity) Cassiodorus, Rhegino, Ado, and all the Ecclesiasticall Hystories haue erred, in saying that Peter did abide at Rome fiue and twenty yeares. Which errour they were carryed into by Eusebius, or whosoeuer first reported it. A male­pert assertion. But as saucy is that which followeth, where to wash the fault from Eusebius, he layth it on Saint Hierome, and then to disburden Saint Hierome, he loadeth Damasus the Pope of Rome. For first his conie­ctureReyn. c. 6. diuis. 5. fol. 218. is, that these words of Eusebius Chronicle: Peter conti­nued Bishop of Rome preaching there the Ghospell fiue and twenty yeares, were not written by Eusebius, but interlaced by Hie­rome &c. Now Hierome (sayth he) might receaue it from In Ponti­ [...]icali. Da­masus Bishop of Rome: on Hieron. [...]p. 11. ad Age. & l. 2. cont. Ruffin. as Reyn. quo­ [...]eth them. whome he attended as a Secretary. And Damasus was not so voyd of all affection, but he would be content to aduance the credit of his owne Sea, by helping it to be reputed the Bishoply Sea of Peter. Lo how he reiecteth Euse­bius, discrediteth S. Hierome, disgraceth Damasus, & repro­ueth all Hystories.

29. Are these all whose credit he impayreth? Not so. The Epistles and writings are quoted of aboue two and thirty Bishops of Rome, who liued within the first 300. yeares after Christ, maintayning the Popes [Page 229] Supremacy, he answereth: They are Counterfeits all. Then Innocentius, Leo, Gelasius, Vigilius, Pelagius, and Gregory, Reyn. c. 8. diuis. 3. Ibid. Reyn. c. 8. diuis. 6. fol. 550. are recorded for the same. He replyeth. The prayse which they giue the Sea of Rome, doth so exceed the truth, that it beareth euident makes of their affection. Is his sawcinesse yet at an end? No, Saint Cyprian, Saint Leo, Saint Hierome, Saint Chrysostome, Saint Maximus, Isidore, Theodoret, Saint Gregory, and Saint Bernard are alleadged some for Peters, some for the Popes prerogatiues, or of the Roman Sea. Will you read his seuerall answers, & note the print of Hereticall pride?

20. Saint Cyprians authority he reiecteth withReyn. in the Preface to his 6. conclus. fol. 607. Reyn. c. 1. diuis. 2. fol. 17. a curteous Congy, saying: Pardon me, O Cyprian, I would belieue thee gladly, but that belieuing thee, I should not belieue the word of God. But Saint Leo, whome God with my­racles, and the Generall Councell of Calcedon, three tymes honoured with the tytle of Holynesse; him, I say he more roughly handleth, and discardeth in this man­ner: I doe freely without curtesy of tytles, and accepting of Persons, professe, that I mislike these hauty speaches in Leo: and I thinke that the Mistery of iniquity so wrought through his ambitious ad­aduancing Peter, that of the Egges which he cherished, two of the most venemous Cockatrices were bred, that euer poysoned the Church of Christ; The one, the Popes Supremacy &c. The other, the worshiping of Saints.

31. What sayth he of Saint Hierome? Hierome to Reyn. c. 4. diuis. 3. fol. 134. Hieron. ad Aug. ep. 11. inter ep. Aug. Reyn. c. 4. diuis. 1. fol. 133. Rein. c. 4. diuis. 1. fol. 116. 117. mayntaine his quarrell agaynst Augustine, wrote of affection more what he fancied, then of discretion what be thought. And when we Catholikes alleadge that sentence of his: Paul not had security of preaching the Ghospell, vnlesse it had beene approued by the sentence of Peter &c. Mayster Reynolds answereth: That we discouer the nakednesse of the Fathers &c. And prayse the beauty of their blemishes: and thinke them best clad, when they are naked most. Thus of Saint Hierome. What of Saint Chrysostome? That which Peter might haue done, as Chryso­stome supposeth, would infer a greater Primacy then Peter had, if it were true; but the Scripture sayth it not. The Fathers write [Page 230] some thinges [...], by way of prayse and commen­dation &c. Wherein if their words should be rigorously sifted, Reyn. c. 4. diuis. 3. fol. 132. & cap. 4. diuis. 2. fol. 123. Ibid. c. 7. diuis. 9. fo. 285. Bern. l. 2. de Conside. the truth is somtymes ouerlashed. Of Maximus, of Isidore, of Theodoret what? Father Maximus did dote; Isidore ouer­shot himselfe by slip of memory; Theodoret serued his owne cause.

32. Is Saint Gregory then? Is Saint Bernard of more credit with him? Gregory (quoth he) was some­what troubled. Gregory had a louing affection to Rome. Will you giue me leaue to thinke of him as Christ of Peter: That he knew not what he sayd? That worthy passage is cited out of Saint Bernard, vvriting of Eugenius: Thou art the Prince of Bishops, thou the Heyre of the Apostles: Thou art for Prima­cy Reyn. c. 6. Diuis. 4. fol. 226. Abel, for gouernement Noe, for Patriarch-ship Abraham, for order Melchisedech, for dignity Aaron, for authority Moyses, for Iudgement Samuel, for power Peter, for vnction Christ. Mayster Reynoldes answereth: Your men esteeme this place of Bernard very highly, and make a feast of it. I maruell they are not ashamed to alleadge it. For to call the Pope heyre of Saint Peter, it were a great excesse of speach: much grea­ter to call him heyre of the Apostles: But to call him Christ, that is so great, that any modest man, who were Bernardes friend, would rather lay his cloake vpon it, then discouer it, much lesse make boast of it. Was euer heard a more audacious fel­low, who durst open his mouth agaynst heauen it it selfe, and disgrace the vvritinges of so many Saints?

33. And who art thou (O Reynoldes) that I should belieue thee before those Cyprians, those Chrysostomes, those Gregoryes, those Bernardes, whome thou reprouest? Who art thou, that I shold rather iudge the greatest faults in them, then the least spot or blemish in thee? Shall I deeme Leo ambitious, Hierome naked, Gregory troubled, Cy­prian to haue varyed from the word of God; and only Reynoldes to haue vnderstood it aright? Can any man be perswaded that Chrysostome ouerlashed, Maximus doted, I­sidore ouershot himselfe, Theodoret serued his own cause, and Iohn [Page 321] Reynoldes spake sincerly; that Bernards shame deserued a cloake, and Reynoldes beauty was worthy to be display­ed? Can a man thinke so many godly Popes miscary­ed with affection, all Ecclesiasticall Hystories wide, and only Reynoldes to hit the marke? Truly he were ey­ther sottishly peruerse, or frowardly blind, whosoeuer would seeme so partiall on his side, whosoeuer (I say) vpon the slanderous deposition of such a faythlesse wit­nesse should depriue the Pope of his soueraygne dignity ouer the whole Church, which God and his Saintes haue imparted vnto him.

CHAP. 1.

THE Prince of darknesse our professed enemy, as he alwayes enuyed the glo­ry of God, and repined at the felicity and happynesse of man, so he euer sought to impayre the honour of the one, & deface the dignity & prehemi­nence of the other. To this end he leui­edSee Irae. l. 1. c. 22. ler. in Ca­tal. Epip. baer. 68. his infernall forces, first agaynst the Diuine Maiesty it selfe, agaynst the first person in Trinity, stying vp Simon Magus, Basilides, and others, to deny the first article of our Creed: That God the Father created beauen and earth. Then agaynst the second person he banded, Ebion, Chrinthus, A­rius [Page 234] who robbed our Sauiour Christ of his Diuinity, and Equality with his Father. Agaynst the third he armedConcil. 2. Constant. cont. Mac. Ambr. l. 1. de fide c. 1. & 2. &c. Macedonius, who impiously impugned the Diuinity of the holy Ghost. Agaynst them all iointly Sebellius, who wickedly gainsayed the distinction of the Persons. But when this diabolicall battery could no way preuayle, he mounted his Ordinance agaynst the blessed Angels and Saintes of God. He suggested Eustachius in the yeare ofBasil. in o­rat. con. Sabellium. our Lord 300. Eunomius and Vigilantius, about the same tyme to fight agaynst the honour the vniuersall Church exibited vnto the happy soules which raygne in heauen: whose poyson Wicklisse after swallowed vp, and is now disgorged by M. Caluin, M. Bilson, M. Reynoldes, M. Fulke, Calu. l. 1. Inst. c. 11. §. 11. Bils. 4. p. pag. 157. 561. 571. Rey. de l­dol. Rom. Eccl. 1. l. c. 8. Fulke in c. 14. Act. sect. 2. & in c. 19. Apoc. sect. 4. Rey. ibid. c. 6. & 8. and all moderne Protestants, chiefly vpon this fond perswasion: That there be only two sorts of honours, Ciuill, and Dixine; the one proper to God, the other peculiar to mortall men. And seeing the seruants of God already departed cannot be reuerenced with Ciuill honour, because they are ab­sent, nor with Diuine, for feare of Idolatry; no true worship, but only (as M. Reynoldes yieldeth) an honest com­memoration, or decem burialt can belong vnto them. This is the maine ground of M. Caluin, of M. Fulke, of whosoeuer, which being once, razed, the Rampier of their defence, and Fortresse of their folly is wholy ouerthrowne.

2. First then, I will deduce out of the cause it selfe and off-spring from whence honour ariseth, out of Scriptures & reasons vndeniable, another kind of wor­ship besides Ciuill and Godly, which without danger of Idolatry may be allotted to Saintes. Albeit Aristotle sayth: Adoration and honour is in him that honoureth: yet it hath forEtb 9. c. 2. his marke and obiect the excellency of the person wor­shipped, in testimony whereof this signe of reuerence is submissiuely exhibited. And therefore as there be three sortes of excellencyes, so we distinguish three kinds of adorations, Godly, Ciuill, & Religious.

3. There is first in God a supreme, infinite, and illimited Excellency, to which a Godly worship or a­doration [Page 235] is due commonly called Latria. There is second­ly in Men, in Kings, Magystrats, Maysters, Fathers &c. a humayn and naturall excellency, to which our will by the apprehension of their worthinesse inclineth to exhibite an honour tearmed by Aristotle, conformable to the nature of their dignity, Ciuill or Humane. Thirdly there is a meane or midle preheminence betweene these two, an higher then the last, yet inferiour to the first, seated not in the naturall, but in the supernaturall giftes and graces of God; to which supernatural preheminence a supernaturall worship more then Ciuill, lesse then Di­uineAug. ser. 58. de verb. Dom. & sup. Ps. 98. ought to be attributed, commonly called Religi­ous, or Dulia. For Hyperdulia is only a more eminent and remarkable degree, yet contayned vnder the same kind of reuerence, properly belonging to our Blessed Lady, as she is mother of God, and to the humanity of Christ as considered apart from the diuinity; albeit as it is insepa­rably conioyned, and Hypostatically vnited with the Word, it ought to be worshiped with the adoration of Latria; as the fifth generall Councell of Constantinople de­finedRey. l. 1. de ldo. Ro. Ec. c. 3. & 8. Fulke in c. 4 Matth. sect 3 & in Act. 14. sect. 2. Aug. de ve. re [...]g. c, 55. Hiero. ep. ad Ri­pa. con. Vigil. August­quaest. 61 supr. Gen. Huro ad­uer. Vigil. cap. 20. agaynst Theodore the Heretike. And S. Augustine ans­wering the Gentils, who obiected agaynst the Christians (as now the Protestants doe against vs) the crime of ado­ring Christs flesh in the Eucharist. I adore (sayth he) the flesh of Iesus Christ, because it is vnited to the Deity: euen as one ado­reth the King and his Royall robe with the same adoration.

4. Notwithstanding these three sorts of honour be ech of them most different in nature the one from the other: yet the names are most of them promiscuously v­sed and according to the ten our of the discourse, some­tyme restrayned to one kind of adoration, sometyme to another. Which if M. Reynolds and M. Fulke had diligent­ly weyghed, they would neuer haue cited S. Augustine agaynst vs: Affirming the worship of Religion neyther to be due to Angels or men departed, but only to God. Nor S. Hierome: That neyther Angels, nor Martyrs Reliques, nor any created thing, can be worshipped and adored. Nor Ep phanius saying: God will not [Page 236] haue Angels adored, how much lesse Mary. Nor S. Cyril, nor S. Gregory, nor any of the rest, who in those places takeQuis (o in­sanum ca­put) ali­quando Martyres ador auis? quis homi­nem puta­uit Deum? Aug. l. 3. de trin. c. 10. the name Religion, Adoration, and Worship, for the supreme and soueraygne worship which is only proper vnto God (as S. Augustine explayneth himselfe in his questions vpon Genesis, S. Hierome in the same place, and agaynst Vigalan­tius) not for that inferiour kind of adoration, which is of­ten ascribed vnto creatures, and which Abraham exhibi­ted vnto the people of Heth: wherupon S. Augustine ga­thereth, That it is not sayd: Thou shalt only adore thy Lord thy God; as it is sayd, Him only thou shalt serue. Which in Greeke i [...] [...]. And in his [...]. booke of the blessed Trinity writing of the brasen Serpent, and other holy signes, he sayth: They may haue honour as Religious thinges, not admirati­on Fulke in 4. Matt. sect. 3. Aug. l. 10. de Ciui. c. 1. as strange thinges. So that the Fathers only deny the Re­ligious worship of Latria to Angels and other creatures, the Religious worship of Dulia they assigne vnto them. Which M. Fulke forced to confesse sayth: S. Augustine a meane Grecian imagined a distinction betweene Latria and Dulia &c. and that by them which haue interpreted Scripture, Latria is taken for that seruice which pertayneth to the Religion of God. But Lodouicus Viues in his notes vpon that Chapter telleth you otherwise. But Lodouicus Viues? O base comparison! Was it not in­ough to disgrace S. Augustine with his meane knowledge in Greeke, but must a late Gramarian be compared, op­posed, preferred before him, whome D. Couell esteemeth the chiefest Doctour, that euer was, or shalbe, excepting the A­postles? Let his skill in Greeke be what it was, shall hisD. Couell. in his book against M. Burges doctrine, his distinction, the diuersity of Religious worships, which he and other Interpreters from these Greeke wordes deriue, be vtterly exploded and reiected by you? Shall Viues be accepted, and S. Augustine outcoū ­tenanced?

5. Consider M. Fulke how farre heerein you in­iure your cause, wrong your conscience, dishonour that graue; ancient and incomparable Deuine. Agayne vve ought to obserue, that as the names, so likewise the out­ward [Page 237] actions of kneeling, prostrating, lifting vp hands, & the like, are generally vsed in euery particular kind of worship: yet by the inward acts of the mynd they are wholy different the one from the other. For he that kneeleth to God reuerently, acknowledgeth by the light of his vnderstanding a certayne supreme, incomprehen­sible, and increated excellency, authour and cause of all rare and excellent thinges; he loueth with his will a bounty vnmatchable, and with profound submission humbly adoreth an infinite and vnsearchable Maiesty. He who kneeleth to his King or Prince dutiful­ly, agnizeth, and aflectionatly reuerenceth his naturall or Ciuill dignity. He who kneeleth to a Saint, to their Tombes, Reliques, or Pictures, deuoutly apprehendeth, and piously worshipeth some supernaturall prehemi­nence,Three things ne­cessary to the nature of honor. quality, or relation. Wherby it followeth that three thinges concurre to the nature of honour. 1. The apprehension of the vnderstanding which acknowled­geth an excellency worthy of adoration. 2. The propen­sion and inclination of the will, which vnfainedly pro­secuteth the same with honour. 3. The externall obey­sance of capping, kneeling, or bowing the body which is an outward obsequie of inward reuerence. And al­though the vnderstanding be the root, origen, or rather motiue which exciteth the will; yet the act of the will is the life, soule, and proper essence of adoration, with­out which the sole notice and apprehension of dignity is no worship at all, and the outward and externall action may be as well a sinne of mockery as any marke of honour. As it was in the souldiers who adored ChristMatt. 27. & Ioa. 19. and sayd: All hayle, O King of the Iewes.

6. By which you may easily discerne the blind­nesse of Protestants, who distinguish not the outward worship by the inward mynd, but seeme to make all ex­ternallBils. 4. par. pag. 576. & 577. honour belong to God, whether it proceed from the acknowledgment of naturall, supernaturall, or in­treated excellency. Submission (sayth M. Bilson) of knees, [Page 238] hands, and eyes, parts of Gods honour. Agayne: The outward honour of eyes, hands, and knees God requireth of vs as his due. Then: God alloweth to Parents and Magistrates &c. some part of his corporall, but in no wise of his spirituall honour. O migh­ty ruler and moderator of all hearts, who ouer-reachest the wicked in their wiliest and deepest plots! how hast thou eyther caught our enemyes in the enormity of that haynous sacriledge they haue long vainly laboured to fasten on vs; or suffered them to be enwrapped in such snares of absurdity, as they cannot possible finde meanes of escape. Esay prophesieth God is so iealous of his ho­nourEsay. 42. that he will not resigne any iote therof to other: My glory to other I will not giue. Not any iote of his spirituall, no nor of his corporall or externall homage (as M. Bilson a little before contrary to himselfe agreeth with me.) BothBil. 4. par. pag. 553. which he strictly prohibited in the first precept of the de­calogue to be surrendred to any but himselfe alone. The internall, when he proclaymed: Thou shalt haue no other Exod. 20. v. 3. 5. Gods but me; the Exteriour, where it followeth: Thou shal not bow downe and adore. Whosoeuer then affoardeth to man the outward obeysance of knees, hands, or eyes which is proper to God, which God (sayth M. Bilson) re­quireth of vs as his due, he disrobeth him of some part of hisBils. 4. par. pag. 577. Gen. 33. Gen. 23. [...]. Reg. 20. right, & commiteth with his Creatures most foule Ido­latry. Whereby it must needes ensue that Iacob was an I­dolater (to vse his owne examples) when he bowed himselfe to Esau. Abraham an Idolater, when he adored the people of Heth. Dauid and Idolater, when he fell down before Ionathas. Yea it followeth that all Children are I­dolaters, who bow to their Parents; all subiects Idola­ters, who bend their knees to their Soueraygnes; and the Protestants themselues Idolaters, when they vse such submission to the Magistrates, Counsellers, or Officers of his Maiestyes Court.

7. Which supposing, M. Bilsons ground I euince in this manner: The submission and outward reuerence which Children doe to their Parents, subiects to their [Page 239] Prince, is eyther the externall and diuine worship of La­tria, which is proper and peculiar to God, or some other Ciuil far inferiour obeysance: if inferiour, God exacteth it not as his due, it is not the corporall and outward ho­mage which is proper to him: If it be the diuine wor­ship of Latria, Latria is outwardly giuen and addressed toM. Bilson by his do­ctrine maintay­neth Ido­latry. creatures, a sacrilegious and idolatrous honour is giuen vnto them. Moreouer, giue me leaue to aske you M. Bilson, vvhether this externall reuerence of bovving or kneeling to Princes, vvhich you tearme Gods outvvard honour, be conformable to the invvard reuerence and submission of the minde or not? Yield it is, and the in­vvard or spirituall honour due to God, vvhich you so often deny, is as vvell exhibited vnto creatures, as his corporall and externall. Say it is not conformable, but eyther inferiour, or none at all. If inferiour, you flatter or dissemble with your Prince, making outvvardly shew of farre greater homage then you invvardly performe or acknovvledge in your heart: if none at all, your adora­tion is a meere derision or playne mockery; as Gabriell Gabriel Vas. tom. 1. in 3. par. Diui Tho. disp. 108. cap. 9. Vasques, and all Deuiues generally teach. Better had it beene for him to haue imbraced our Catholike doctrine, and to haue taught vvith vs, that the outvvard action of bovving, kneeling &c. is common to euery kinde of vvorship, and only limited to this or that, by the inward affection and submission of the mynde. It is accounted Ciuill honour, vvhen it is done to Ciuill and humane: Religious, vvhen to holy and supernaturall: Diuine, vvhen it is exhibited to infinite and increated excellency. To vvhich purpose if any shall dravv M. Bilsons meaning, hovv contrary soeuer his vvordes doe seeme, I vvill passe him ouer vvith this milde censure of S. Augustine: Senten­tiam Aug, l. 3, de ciuit. Dei cap. 1. teneat, linguam corrigat: Let him hold his opinion, and cor­rect his language, or change his phrase of vvriting. But be­cause, he so often, and so seriously inculcateth the bovv­ing of the knee, vvhich is done to Parents and Magi­strats, to be parts of Gods honour, to be his bodily, his corporall [Page 240] honour, to be that honour which God requireth of vs as his due: And hereupon inferreth, because Pictures haue not this Diuine honour, therefore they haue none at all: I should betray the truth I haue hitherto supported, if I charged him vvith lesse, then the cryme of I dolatry, vvhosoeuer shall yield such homage to men.

8. Neyther can M. Bilson free himselfe from that fault, by the graunt of Gods allovvance. For God cannot (as he fancyeth) allow those that present his goodnesse and glory in Bilsō ibid. pag. 577. blessing and iudging, as Parents and Magistrates, some part of his corporall honour. He cannot allovv to any ciuill digni­ty or humane excellency, hovv great soeuer the exter­nal & peculiar vvorship vvhich is due to himselfe, vvith­out he allovv the transgression of his Lavv, vsurpation of his right, debasement of his vvorships impiety in them that impart, and sacriledge in those that admit such ho­mage. And therefore, as M. Bilson follovving the former sense, runneth into the Labyrinth out of vvhich by clea­uing to his vvordes he can neuer vvind himselfe: So im­bracing the latter may wel deserue that saying of the Pro­phet: Incidit in foueam quam fecit: He hath fallen into the pit Psalm. 7. (of Idolatry) he digged for others. To proceed.

9. The vvord of God doth likevvise authorize this [...]. Reg. 18. Dan. 2. middle kind of adoration of vvhich I speake. Abias, as the Scripture mentioneth, adored Elias, Nabuchodonosor Da­niel. But vvhat honour vvas this? Not Diuine. For Ab­dias Dan. [...]. a vertuous and holy Prince vvould neuer haue giuen that to Elias. Neyther did Nabuchodonosor (as his ovvne vvordes beare vvitnesse) thinke Daniel, a God, or con­sequently vvorship him vvith godly honour. Not Ci­uill: Because it is most ridiculous to say, that such great Personages should ciuilly adore these priuate men so far inferiour to them in Ciuill dignity. Most fond, that Nabuchodonosor for Ciuill curtesy should prostrate himselfe at the feet of his Captiue. It vvas therefore an holy and Religious vvorship, vvhich for the holinesse and sancti­ty of their liues, for the excellency of their supernaturall [Page 241] gifts was worthily exhibited vnto them. Such was the worship which Saul did to the soule of Samuel: the chil­dren1. Reg. 28. 4. Reg. 2. Iosu. 5. of the Prophets to Elizaeus: Iosue to the Angell: and which the Angell commanded him also to performe to the earth; where you cannot say, that eyther he worshi­ped the Angell with Godly, or the earth with Ciuill ho­nour. For he did not adore the Angell vntill he knew him by his owne report to be the minister of God. And what ciuility was it to put off his shooes in honour of the earth? Or what rare or ciuill excellency had that pro­phane earth, the field of Iericho, aboue Iosue the seruant of God, for which it should deserue any Ciuill worship? Truly none. But it was then only holy in regard of the Angels presence, for which it might challenge a most lawfull & holy reuerence.

10. Furthermore, the Arke of the TestamentPsal. 98. 2. Reg. 6. 1. Reg. 6. 2. Reg. 6. was in such estimation amongst the Iewes, as King Da­uid commanded them to adore it, before which he for deuotion danced: which the Bethsamites curiously behol­ding were slayne by God to the number of 50000. men: Which Oza rashsly touched, and was seuerely punished with the losse of his life. Now, who can imagine that all this was done for morall ciuility or vrbanityes sake? Was it a Ciuill and comely thing for the maiesty of a King clad in a surpresse to dance before the Arke? Was God so seuere as to chastice the Bethsamites in so great a number for a meere act of discurtesy? Or punish Oza with death for some vnciuill demeanour? Nay, if you only looke into points of Ciuility without regard to Religi­on, you shall find that Oza discharged the part of curte­ous and Ciuill duty, in staying and vpholding the Arke when it was like to fall: yet because he touched with profane handes (which was an act of Religious ir­reuerence) that which ought only to haue beene mana­ged with the handes of Priests, he was iustly punished by Almighty God. On the contrary side, that the dance of King Dauid was an vnciuill deportment so ill befitting [Page 242] his Princely grauity, as Michol his wife rarely nurtured in all Ciuill obseruances, much disdayned and misprized2. Reg. 6. him for it: and King Dauid in his answere to her, doth plainly insinuate that he vsed this humility, not as curte­ous, but as a Religious reuerence, as an obsequy of Re­ligion. For so S. Ambrose tearmeth it, & sayth of the sameAmb. ep. l. 6. ep. 3 [...]. & re Paenit. lib. 1. in another place: All that becommeth, which is exhibited to Re­l [...]gion.

11. Besides, our Sauiour commaundeth, I say to you, not to sweare at all: neyther by heauen because it is the throne of God: neyther by the earth, because it is the footstole of his seat. Frō whence we manifestly gather, that to inferiour crea­tures as they haue a reference to the highest maiesty, aMath. 5. v. 35. certayne Religious worship and honour is due. For as to sweare by heauen or earth rashly and without iust cause (such oathes only are there forbidden and not all manner of oathes, as the Pelagians in S. Augustines tyme, and the Anabaptistes now adayes following the bare letter, obsti­natly contend) is not an vnmannerly part, disagreable toAug. ep. 89. q. 5. Maldonat. vpon that place. ciuill nature, and common vrbanity: but an ireligious abuse, offered vnto God; because that is his throne, this his footstoole. So to sweare by them when necessity, truth, and other circumstances require, is a Godly, pious, and religious act. Wherupon we are charged in Deutronomy not to sweare by false Gods, because we ought not to acknowledge in them any thing worthy such honourDeu. 6. v. 13. and reuerence: Yet it is sayd. Thou shalt feare thy Lord thy God, and by his name thou shalt sweare. Like wise: all shalbe pray­sed that sweare by him, because they exercise an homage ofPsal. 62. v. 1 [...]. Latria, an act of diuine worship, by which they testify that God hath the supreme care and prouidence of humane affayres; the perfect dominion, power, gouerment, and infallible knowledge of all thinges. So the neerer a­ny thing is lincked in relation with his Deity, or the more eminent respect it hath vnto it; the greater offence it is to sweare vnlawfull y by it, by reason of the greater religious awe, and holy reuerence we owe thereunto.

[Page 243]12. And if the word of God contayned not such ir­refragable testimonies hereof: yet the approued rules both of equity & reason dictate & declare, that to euery dig­nity such honour ought to be ascribed, which is proper and correspondent to the nature thereof. As to humane dignity, Ciuil and humane worship: to sanctity or Reli­gious excellency, holy and Religious honour: to Di­uine soueraignty, Diuine adoration. And he that attri­buteth wittingly to one the peculiar worship belongingTo euery dignity a worship corespon­dent. to the other, doth no lesse transgresse the lawes of Iu­stice, then if he performed to the subiect the obeysance due to his Prince, or honoured his Prince with his seruantes tytle; no lesse then if he should inuest his Soueraygne with an Herauldes Coate, or Burghesses gowne in lieu of his Princely robe; or scornfully reach him a Sergeants mace insteed of his Royall scepter. So foolish and ridiculous is the whole rabble of Sectaryes, who to profane & earthly men most Idololatrously ex­hibite the corporall and externall reuerence which in their opinion belongeth to God, and to supernaturall and holy thinges, the Ciuill and humane, which apper­tayneth to men. For I desire to know how, and in what manner they adore their Sacrament of the Lords supper?Protestāt [...] cannot re­uerence their Cō ­munion, [...] di­stinguish [...] [...]ortes of reuerence. Not with Diuine honour I presume, for that were too­to notorious and detestable impiety. With Ciuill then no doubt; and this neuertheles is as great an absurdity; because you eyther direct it to the naturall dignity of bread and wine, and so prostrate your selues most vilely to dead and senselesse Creatures, which in that respect haue no preheminence aboue the excellency of man ca­pable of honour: o [...] you addresse it to some supernatu­rall quality, to some Diuine vertue (as M. Bilson calleth it) annexed vnto them. And so you allow it an imperfect &Bils. 4 par. p 712. 78 [...]. &c. iniurious kind of worship, you robbe it of all Diuine & supernaturall, and giue it a Ciui [...]l, base, and humane re­uerence, no better then you yield to a mortall man. Nay you worship your holy Communion with the same de­gree [Page 244] of reuerence, as you honour a prophane and some­tyme wicked Magistrate. What is confusion? What is sacriledge? What is iniquity, if this be order, is this be re­ligion, if this be equity, to confound high thinges with low, sacred with profane, terrene with heauenly?

13. Hauing sufficiently proued three sorts of ado­ration, Ciuill, Godly, and Religious: it resteth that the blessed Angells and Saints of God, their Reliques, Tombes, and Monuments may be lawfully worshiped with Religious reuerence without any derogatiō to the Diuine honour of God, as the generall practise of the whole Catholike Church recorded by the ancient Fa­thers doth amply demonstrate. S. Iustin the Martyr wri­teth of his tyme: We worship and adore the Army of good An­gels Iust. 2. apo. pag. 2. Euse. l. 4. hist. c. 14. Basil. hom. de Mart. Ma [...]ante. Eusebius, of the Clergy of Samaria in the tyme of Saint Pelicarpe: We celebrate the memory of Martyrs with holy dayes, & great ioy. S. Basil, of the Custome in his daies: The Church by honouring them that are departed, encourageth such as are present. S. Gregory Nissen: To what King is such honour exhibited? What Emperour hath euer beene so famous and renowned, as this poore Champion (speaking of S. Theodore the Martyr?) S. Au­gustine: Christian people celebrate the memoryes of Martyrs with Religious solemnity. To these I might adde S. Athanasius, S. Aug. l. 20 con. [...]aust. cap. 21. Atha. l. de virg. Na­zian. orat. in Machab. Epipha. haer. 79. Chry. hom. de SS. Iu­uent. & Maximo. Abros. ser. [...]. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Chrysostome, S. Ambrose, with ma­ny more, if the very calumniation and obloquy of the professed enemies of God did not ratify the truth hereof. For Iulian the Apostata, the Manichees, the Iewes, Hea­thens, and other Heretikes, obseruing the custome of former Christians in honouring Saintes aboue all earth­ly Creatures, alwayes slaundered them with the crime of Idolatry, as Saint Ciril, Saint Augustine, and Euscbius testify; to whome these Fathers answered, as we do now the like imposition layed vpon vs by our Aduer­saryes.

14. Saint Augustine excusing the Christians of his tyme sayd to the Manichees: We worship the Martyrs &c. yet [...]ot with that honour proper to God, which is called in Greeke La­tria. [Page 245] S. Cyril replyed to Iulian: We doe not say our Martyrs are made Gods, but we vse to yield all honour vnto them. All ho­nourCyr. l. 6. & 10. con. Iu­lianum. Aug. l. 10. c. 21. con. Faust. Euseb. l. 8. hist. c. 6. & l. 4. c. 14. Cyril. loco citato. Arist. 1. Eth. cap. 5. Rom. 2. 10. he sayth, because they are replenished with all the supernaturall giftes and graces to which any honour can possibly belong. To vertue sayth Aristotle: To well do­ing, sayth S. Paul, honour is due: glory and honour to euery one that doth well. The Saints haue accomplished such vertuous and heroicke acts as haue purchased a crowne of eternall blisse. To sanctity and holynesse honour is due: they are so perfectly holy as they are admitted into the Society of the Holy of all Holyes. To wisdome ho­nour is due: they are so wise, as beholding the treasures of the Diuine wisdome it selfe, they see in it whatsoeuer they can eyther wish or desire. To nobility honour is due; they are ennobled to be the children of God, the sonne of the highest, the vndoubted inheritours of the Kingdome of heauen. To soueraygne dignity honour is due; they are aduanced to so great preferment, as theyApoc. 3. 21. Apoc. 2. 27. Cyril. vbi supra. sit with God in his throne, they haue power ouer Natiōs, they rule & gouerne them. So that all honour, as S. Cy­ril sayth, may be iustly bestowed vpon them, who haue all these worthy respects of honour and reuerence, how­beit not in that highest degree which is proper and agre­eth only to God.Reyn. l. [...]. de Idol. Rom. Ecc. c. 8. p. 287. &c. Greg. Nis. orat. in S. Theod. Reyn. ibid. p. 288. &c. Chrys. ser. de SS. Iu­uent. & Maximo Basi [...]. in Psal. 115.

15. M. Reynolds ouercome with these and many other reasons, graunteth sometymes (although other­where agayne he vtterly denyeth it) That the Angels and Saintes are to be worshiped; yet with a Ciuill kinde of worship: But S Augustine tearmeth the honour done vnto them not Ciuill, but Religious solemnity, no such as is surrendred to mortall men, but farre greater; such according to Saint Gregory Nissen, as hath beene yielded to no earthly King or Em­perour. Yea M. Reynoldes owne Pew-fellowes condemne his rashnes herein affirming: that no Ciuill honour can be ex­hibited to soules departed. And he himselfe speaketh so stag­geringly in this behalfe, as his Pen had no sooner vttered that vnaduised phrase: That Ciuill honour is due to Saintes, [Page 246] but he presently recalled the word (Ciuill) as a voyce vn­beseeming the nature of their worship, and addeth, That Caluin himselfe accounted it somewhat too rough; and therefore he sought to sleeke and smooth it with the limitation of Ciuill ho­nour (as I may say.) It is wel you limit and correct, smooth and soften your rude and harsh conceipt. It is well ney­therNiss. orat. in Theod. Hiero. l. 2. ep. f [...]n. ep. 8. Ergone [...]rlt illadi­es quando nobis liceat speluneam Saluatoris intrare▪ & Crucis lā ­bere lignū, & Iohānis Baptistae, Helisaei quoque & Abdiae pa­riter ci [...] ­resadorare? Amb. ser. 93. de SS. Naza. & C [...]lso. you, nor your mayster knowes how to call, which you disdayne to call by the right approued name. To re­turne therfore to my purpose.

16. As the Saints of God: so their Reliques, Tombes, and ashes are highly to be honoured. S. Chry­sostome writing of S. Iuuentius and Maximus sayth: Let vs of­ten visit them, let vs adorne their Tombes, let vs touch their Re­liques with a strong fayth, that we may receaue some blessing from thence. S. Basil: He who handleth the bones of a Martyr, draw­eth a certayne touch of Sanctification from the grace resident in the body. S. Gregory Nissen affirmeth the same. S. Hierome spea­king of visiting the holy Land of Palestine, and other de­uout Reliques, sayth: Will that day once come when it shall be lawfull for vs to enter our Sauiours denne? and to licke the wood of the Crosse? and to adore the ashes of S. Iohn Baptist, of Eli­zaeus togeather and Abdias? S. Ambrose proposing this ob­iection to himselfe: what doest thou honour in resolued and de­cayed flesh? I honour (sayth he) in the flesh of the Martyr the woundes or markes receyued for Christ; I honour the memory of the liuing by perpetuity of vertue; I honour ashes sacred by the Con­fession of our Lord; honour in the ashes seedes of eternity; I honour the body which instructeth me to loue our Lord, which hath taught Aug. l. 22. de Ciuit. c. 8. & epist. 103. ad Quin. Chrys. l. cont. Gen. Beda l. 2. c. 13. l. 3. c. 11. 12. 13. & l. 4. c. 19. me for his sake not to be daunted with the horrour of death. And why should not the faythfull worship that body, which the ve­ry diuels doe reuerence? S. Augustine testifyeth of the many myracles and great honour yielded to the Reliques of S. Stephen. S. Chry sostome the like of the shrine of S. Babilas. Venerable Bede of the Reliques S German wore about his necke, with which he restored sight to the blind. Of the Reliques of S. O­swald and S Edildride, the one a Pious and Godly King, the other a vvedded vvife, and Virgin Queene of our [Page 247] countrey. Socrates reporteth of Theodosius the yonger a ver­tuousSocrat. l. 7. cap. 22. and noble Prince; that he was wont to weare the sackecloth of a certayne holy Bishop, that dyed at Con­stantinople: quamuis sorditatus, although it were not very cleane: Persuasus se aliquid ex mortui sanctimonia inde perceptu­rum, persuading himselfe, that he should receaue some benefit from thence, by the holines of him that was dead. S. Gregory the great, sent to King Edilbert of En­glandGreg. l. 8. ep. 60. l. 7. ep. 126. in­dict. 2. l. 11. ep. 49. indict. 6. l. 2. ep. 71. 8 [...]. l. 3. ep. 30. l. 5. ep. 6. small tokens, not of small valew; as he accounted them, hauing the blessing of S. Peter. The like he sent to Ricaredus King of Spayne. To Eulogius the Patriarke of Alexandria. To the Empresse. To other Princes, Bishops, and Patri­arkes: and to make the gifts more pretious, he put into them a little of the holy Crosse, a little dust filed from S. Peters or S. Paules Chaynes, some of S. Iohn Baptist hayres, S. Laurence gridyron; which the aforesayd partyes reue­rently wore about their neckes. And many miracles as the same Saint Gregory relateth were wrought by thoseAmbros. ser. 91. & l. 10. ep. 85. Nazian. orat. 3. i. 1 in Iu­lia. Chrys. Tom. 5. ser. de vire. & vitijs. Ambros. l. 10. ep. ep. 85. Hier. cont. Vigilan. cap. 3. where he also sayth that if we herein be guilty of Sacriledge, Sacrilegus fuit Constantinus Imperator, qui sanctas reliquias Audreae, Lucae, & Reliques, many at the Inuention and Translation of Saint Geruasius and Protasius bodyes; many by the bones, dust, and shaddow cast from the corps of other Martyrs. And S. Hierome auoweth the estimation and ho­nouring of Reliques to haue beene in his tyme; the recea­ued doctrine: Non vnius vrbis, sed totius orbis. Not of one Citty, but of the whole world. He controlled and suppressed Vigi­lantius for teaching the contrary: Which stirred vp the hearts of sundry Protestants in defence of their Patron to rate and reuile S. Hierome in most opprobrious man­ner.

17. M. Reynoldes sayth: He yielded to much too his owne passions; He more eagerly then truly, not soundly, viciou­sly and with vehement rage argueth agaynst Vigilantius. M. Fulke: He confuteth not Vigilantius with arguments so much as with rayling. Osiander: Hierome did folishly contend that the Reliques of Saints were to be worshipped. Bullinger: It is Hierom [...] ouerlashing when he auoucheth that the diuels roare at the [Page 248] Reliques of S. Andrew. But was S. Hierome only taxed forTimoth [...]i transtulit Constanti­nopolim, apud quas Daemones rugiūt &c. Sacrilegus di [...]endus est & nunc Augustus Arcadius qui ossa beati Sa­muelis &c. Omnes E­piscopi non sacrilegi sed etiam fa­tui iudicā ­di▪ qui &c. this fault? No, M. Sutcliffe writeth: Gregory esteemed much the Reliques of Saints. M. Fulke: Gregory was superstitious in Reliques. Bale: Gregory admitted the adoration of the Crosse. What then, was Gregory, and he singular herein? No, Da­naeus a prime Puritan asseuereth: That Cyrill, and diuers other Fathers were plainly superstitious, and blinded with this enchant­ment of the Crosses adoration. The Centurists affirme of Con­stantine the Great: With like superstition he translated to Con­stantinople in conseruation of that Citty, certayne Reliques of the Crosse found by Helen. Whome they (howbeit Camden our English Antiquary reporteth her to haue beene often regi­stred in antique Inscriptions, A most Pious and venerable Em­presse) for this cause, and for going in Pilgrimage to a­dore the holy Land, and other monuments of Christ, in­iuriously tearme A Superstitious woman.

18. And what if God himselfe allow the like Superstition? What if many graue and ancient writers de­fend the like? God alloweth it in his owne written word by the reuerence which Moyses vsed to the bones of Ioseph Reyn. l. 1. de Ido. Ro. Eccl. c. 6. Fulke in c. 6. Apoc. sect. 1. Ofi­an. in epit. Centu. 4. p. 506. Bul­ling. de O­rig. erro. f. 67. Sutcl. Subuers. c. 4. Fulke in c. 6. Apoc. Bale Con. 1. c. 68. Danaeus in 2▪ 1▪ ad Bell. 5. Cont. resp [...]p. 1415. Cent. cen. 4. Col. 1529. & cen. 4. Col. 458. Cambden in his English description of Britan. pag. 74. Exo. 13. 4. Reg. 23. Act. 1. Act. 19. Lact. hym. de Passio. Ruff. l. 10. Hist. c. 8. Socra l. 1. c. 13. Paulin. in nata. 10. S. Felic. Procop. l. 2. de bel. Pers. Chrys. ser. de Cruce. Aug. orat. de obitu Theod. Sozom. li. 1. cap. 8. King Iames his con­ference at Hamp. Court. pag. 69. the Patriarch: and Iosias to the bones of another holy Prophet: by the miracles wrought by the dead bones of Elizaeus: by the shaddow of S. Peter: by the Napkins of S. Paul. The Fathers defend it by the meruaylous wonders achieued by the Holy Crosse of Christ Queene Helen found out, and by the exceeding reuerence Christians ex­hibited vnto it in former tyme. Of which Lactantius, Ruf­finus, Socrates, Paulinus, Precopius, S. Chrysostome, S. Ambrose witnesse, and Sozomenus chronicleth of the forenamed Constantine (whome our noble Soueraygne King Iames vouchsafeth to acquit from all Superstition:) He worshipped the holy Crosse, because he had receyued much help therby in bat­tels [Page 249] agaynst his enemies, as by reason also of the heauenly vision he saw of it, when that victorious signe, as Eusebius writeth, ap­peared Fulke in [...] ▪ 19. [...]o sect. 1. Prudent▪ in Apoth▪ Lactan▪ in poem. de Passio. Re­dempt. vnto him in a cleare and fayre day, with this inscription: IN HOC VINCE: OVERCOME IN THIS. Prudētius accordingly affirmeth, Vexillumue Cru [...] summus Impera­tor adorat, The chiefe Emperour adoreth the ensigne of the Crosse. Lactantius: Bow thy knee, and adore the venerable wood of the Crosse. Paulinus agreeth with them cited thus by M. Fulke: The Bishop of Hierusalem yearly at Easter bringeth forth the Crosse to be adored, himselfe being the principall of the worshippers. How doth he auoyd this euident testimony? Marry he opposeth S. Ambrose against him saying, that toAmb. de obitu Theod. worship it, Is an Heathenish errour, and vanity of the vngodly: where S. Ambrose is nothing contrary to Paulinus. He saith speaking of Queene Helen: she adored the King, not the wood: verily for that is an Heathenish errour. To wit: not the Wood as Wood; not in regard of it selfe, but with reference to Christ, as the Crosse on which he dyed. So she adored, and so Paulinus, so S. Ambrose teacheth it deserueth great veneration, as I wil incontinently set downe. First let vs see what our Opponents vrge besides.Rein. de I▪ do. Ro. Ec. p. 84. 85. Act. 14. Hester▪ 13. Zuares in. 3. p. disput. 52. sect. 1. Act. 10. Apoc. 19. Hiero. lib. con Vigil▪ August. q. 61. in Gen. Talis appar [...]er [...]t vt pro Deo pos [...]t adora [...]i.

19. They obiect: That S. Paul and Barnabas prohi­bited the Lycaonians to adore them: and Mardochaeus refused to worship Ammon. They did so for iust respects. Ammon challē ­ged the submission of both knees, which the Iewes were wōt to surrender to God alone, as Zuares one of the dee­pest Deuines of our age notably obserueth. The Lycaoniās would haue yielded to S. Paul the honour of Sacrifice which is only due to God. For which cause the one pi­ously feared to yield, the other to accept any Godly worship. But say they: Cornelius did not adore S. Peter, nor S. Iohn the Angell with any Godly honour: and yet they were both reproued for the reuerence they vsed. I answere, eyther with Saint Hierome: That Cornelius apprehended a certayne diuinity in Peter, and was therefore worthily reprehen­ded by him; Or with S. Chrysostome: That Cornelius de­uoutly worshipped Peter, and Peter of modesty forbare to [Page 150] accept thereof. In like manner I say of S. Iohn: That he might well mistake the Angell, by reason of the maiesty he presented, & take him for God, as S. Augustine answe­reth hereunto: and so was corrected for his errour con­cerning the person, not blamed for his abuse of adorati­on. Secondly I may say with S. Gregory, and Venerable Greg. l. 27▪ mora. c. 11. Beda in 19. Apocal. Anselm. in idem cap. Ruper. lib. 10. in Apo. Fu [...]e in c. 19. Apoc. sect. 4. Bullinger in c. 19. & 22. Apoc. Marlor. in suis Rap­sodijs. Bede, S. Anselme, and Rupertus, seeing S. Iohn reiterated this worship the second tyme, that neyther of them was an errour or absolute prohibition, but that S. Iohn adored the Angel with the Religious worship of Dulia, due vnto him and the Angell of meere reuerence to the humanity of Christ, and to the dignity of his dearly beloued Disciple refused that honour. For although M. Fulke vnshamfa­stly chargeth S. Iohn herein, with an offence of humane frail­ty and forgetfulnesse: although Bullinger and Marlorate two Caluinists, accuse him of Idolatry: yet no modest man can euer thinke so great an Apostle, who instructed o­thers in all Christian duties, could himselfe in a matter of such importance either be so ignorant, as not to know, or so obliuious as not to remember, or so impious as to exhibite to a Creature the honour of God, forbidden be­fore by the mouth of an Angell.

20. Neuerthelesse M. Reynolds, M. Fulke. M. Bilson Reyn. l. 2. de Ido. Ro. Eccl. cap. 2. Fulke in c. 19. Ioan. sect. 2. Bils 4. par. p. 172. 561 and the whole rabb [...]e of Protestants with open mouth exclayme against vs, that if not to men, if not to Angels, yet to farre more vile and abiect creatures: To a dead and senseles stocke (such M. Bilson miscalleth the Rood or Cru­cifix) we giue equall degree of glory with the mighty Creatour & quickner of all: we salute it saying: All hayle our hope &c. We call vpon it to saue vs, pardon vs &c. I answere: In these and such like speaches we conceiue Christ as crucified on his Crosse, and so apply these wordes to him, Our true Hope, Life, Saluation &c. For not only the Crosse, but euery I­mage of Christ may be saluted and worshiped in two se­uerall manners. First I may salute or reuerence Christ by his Image, as by spectacles I see the thing I desire; that is: I may reuerence Christ directly as the principall ob­iect [Page 251] that shineth in his Image, and his Image meerly per acccidens, as conueying my thoughtes to Christ, which is the homage indeed of Lairia, and may in no way be pro­perly sayd to be deferred to the Crosse, but it is wholy carryed by the Crosse to Christ, as the whole sight is le­uelled through the spectacles to the obiect I behold, by the selfe same vision with which the thing is seene. For as we vse the internal act of our mind to adore him whō we internally apprēhed therby: so we may vse this exter­nall signe to worship him whō it externally represēteth. Thus we salute, thus we reuerence the Crosse (as our ad­uersary mentioned aboue) or rather Christ by his Crosse, who vnder it is comprised.