The first Chapter. The true reason why so many in these daies doe erre in faith, and that many moe haue difficulty to finde the true faith.

IF men were but halfe as circumspect and wary, in those things that appertaine to their eternall feli­citie, as vsually they are in those that concern their temporall prosperity, (whereas reason would they should be more) they could not be so often and fowly deceiued in them, as they are. For God of his infinite goodnesse and equall wisdome, hath prouided them of meanes to auoid all error and deceit, in the things pertayning to their eternall felicity, by so much more easie and assured, then in the affaires of this world, by how much more the error or deceit in them, is more hurtfull and lesse recou [...]rable, then in these: and therefore in respect of them, hath he promised to make a way so plaine and direct, that the very fooles shal not erre or goe astray in it, Esay 35.8. which he hath no where promised in respect of these.

1. How commeth it then to passe, (will some say) that so many doe daily erre, and many moe doe greatly complaine, of [Page 2] the difficulty in finding the true way to saluation: And not without reason as it seemeth, there being so many diuers waies proposed, whereof euery one is auouched by some to be the only true way? The reason hereof is easily giuen, and the reme­dy of the euil which it bringeth, as easily found, and not with much more difficulty practised, if men be willing to embrace it.

2. The principall yea peraduenture the sole reason, why so many (not only now adaies, but in all times) haue and doe goe a­stray from the way of saluation erring from the true faith with out which it is impossible to please God; Heb. 11.6. and that many moe haue difficulty to finde the same: is because they first seeke to know what they should beleeue, before they know, or seek to know whom they should beleeue, or of whom they should learne their faith and beliefe. This to some may peraduenture at the first, seeme ei­ther improbable, or at least doubtfull. Because it may be thought little to import of whom a man knoweth, or is taught the truth, so that he know it indeed: as in the like case, it im­porteth little or nought at all, of whom, or by whose counsell or meanes a sicke man recouereth his health, so that he be truely cured: or by whom he that is bound for Hierusalem (for exam­ple) is taught the way, so that he be shewed the true way. Yet that which I said is most true, as shall manifestly appeare euen by these familiar examples proposed. For if a sicke man or tra­ueller should consult and take directions, the one for his health, the other for his iourny, of such as are as little skilfull in these matters as themselues, are they not in euident danger to be de­ceiued? And if they inquire of others, of whose knowledge they haue no more assurance, then of the first, they may well be brought into more doubt and perplexity (one telling them one thing, and another the quit contrary) but they shall be neuer a whit further, the one from danger of going astray in his iourney, the other from encreasing his disease. Euident therfore it is, that the first thing these men are ro seeke, is to know, who can giue them true directions, and teach them how to finde that which they seeke, and which they desire to finde.

3. And this will be much more euident, if wee put the case, that these men know, or at least may most easily know, that there are appointed by publike authority men to direct and guide them in all their doubts and difficulties, whose direction [...] [Page 3] and aduise if they follow they shall not be deceiued: and withall are farther aduertized, that there are others, who vpon pretext of more skill then is in those that are publikely authorised, will not only offer their counsell and aduise, but will thrust it vpon men, as the only necessary meane to finde that which they desire: whose counsell notwithstanding and aduise if they follow, they shall without faile be deceiued. These two things (I say) suppo­sed, it is most cleare, that hee that will not in these cases be de­ceiued, must necessarily first and before all things seeke to know who can truly instruct, and direct him in his doubts, as appoin­ted thereunto by publike authority, that afterwards hee may se­curely learne of him or them what hee is to doe, and what course he is to hold, for the attayning of that he desireth; whe­ther it be the recouery of his health, or the prosperous atchi­uing of his iourney.

4. Euen so and no otherwise doth it fare with all Christians, in the great and weighty affaire of their eternall felicity. For there is no Christian but either knoweth, or may most easily know these two things. First that God hath authorized and established here vpon earth publike Officers, and Pastors to di­rect and guid all men in the true way to life euerlasting, and to teach them the only true faith: whose directions and conduct whosoeuer followeth, shall not goe astray nor erre. Secondly, that there are others, who hauing no commission or authority at all in these affaires, doe not withstanding take vpon them the charge of Teachers and Guides in this weighty businesse, pre­tending to haue more skill, and knowledge therein, (and therefore more right to that office and function) then the pub­likely authorized Pastours haue: but indeed, teaching false do­ctrine, and new waies of their owne inuention, lead all their followers into eternall ruine. There is nothing more euident and certaine, to those that beleeue the holy Scriptures then these two things. For God by his wisdome forseeing that the igno­rance or error in either of these things could not stand with the true meane to bring men to life euerlasting: (the errour in the first, taking away the meane to know, whom they should follow or beleeue; and the errour in the second, not permitting them to know whom they should flie and auoid) hath himselfe most clearely and euidently testified both the one and the o­ther [Page 4] in the receiued and acknowledged text of his sacred word.Math. 28.19.20.

5. The first is testified in these words: Going teach all Nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Pastours are appointed by God to teach [...] [...]uth. and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to obserue all things, which I haue commanded you. And behold, I am with you all daies, euen to the consummation of the world. Here we see commission giuen and Pastors appointed to teach all men, all things, which are to be obserued, for the gayning of the king­dome of heauen: and this commission is to last vntill the end of the world. And that we should not feare that they might de­ceiue vs, teaching that which they ought not, or which is a­gainst their masters doctrine:Luc. 10.16. he saith vnto them else where. He that heareth you, heareth mee; and he that dispiseth you, dispiseth mee: whereby we are taught, with what security and confidence we both may and ought to embrace their instructions and follow their conduct.Ephes. 4.11.12, 13. The same verity is deliuered by S. Paul in these words. He gaue some Apostles, some Prophets, some Euangelists, and other some Pastors and Doctors, to the consumation of the Saints, vnto the worke of the ministery, vnto the edifying of the body of Christ, vntill we all meete in the vnity of faith. Where we see Commissioners appointed by soueraigne authority, to teach and instruct all men to their eter­nall saluation, and their commission to endure for euer vntill the world shall faile. The true function and charge of which Teach­ers, the Apostle declareth in the words following, to be the certaine knowledge of the truth, saying: That now we be not chil­dren wauering, and carried about with euery wind of doctrine. And these so cleare testimonies of the holy Ghost, are more then sufficient to conuince this verity, though it were gainsaied by any, as it is not. For none of those that glory in the falsly named reforma­tion, doe deny, that God hath appointed Pastors in his Church to teach his people the truth of his doctrine: or that all men are bound to heare, and learne of them, as shall appeare more amply heereafter.

6 The second point before mentioned, is as manifestly testi­fied by the warning which our Sauior giueth vs in these words, Take yee great heed of false Prophets, which come to you in the clothing of sheepe, Math. 7.15. but inwardly are rauening wolues. And S. Paul in like manner. I know that after my departure, False teach­ers foretold. there will rauening wolues enter in among you, not sparing the flocke. And of this kind of cattle, are we so often and so plainly forwarned in holy Scripture,Acts 20.29. that wonder it is, that [Page 5] any one that pretendeth to beleeue scripture, should be so de­luded by them, as we daily see many are. But the true reason hereof is that which was said before, that men hauing small re­gard of their eternall felicity, doe not care what masters they follow or of whom they learne their beliefe, and other things necessary for their saluation: whereas they should first with competent diligence seeke out those masters who are by soue­raigne authority otdained to teach them, (who are not hard to be found, as shall by and by appeare) and then with like dili­gence, but with all security learne, what they ought to beleeue and doe. For seeing God hath so euidently testified that he hath prouided such guides to direct vs in the true way to eternall feli­city, as following them we follow himselfe; and further that if we follow any other teaching contrary to them, we shall fol­low rauening wolues, what faire shew so euer they make: who can doubt but the first thing, that any man that desireth to saue his soule, is to seeke to know who those guides appointed by God are, that hauing found them, he may securely learne of them the true way to euerlasting life.

7. Though this discourse be of it selfe cleare, and euident, yet because it is a certaine ground of that which is to be said hereafter, it wil not be amisse to confirme it yet further, for which purpose serue most fitly these words of S. Paul. Rom. 10.13.14. Whosoeuer shall inuocate the name of the Lord shall be saued, how then shall they inuocate him, in whom they haue not beleeued? or how shall they beleeue him whom they haue not heard? and how shall they heare without a Preacher? and how shall they preach vnlesse they be sent? Thus saith Saint Paul. Whereby it is euident, that before we can know, what we ought to beleeue, we must first know, whom we ought to beleeue. For seeing we cannot (as S. Paul saith) beleeue, vnlesse we heare or be taught, and that we cannot heare and be taught by euerie one, but only by such as are sent, and authorised to teach vs, we must neces­sarily, vnlesse we wittingly be deceiued, first and before all things seeke to know, who those are that haue commission, warrant, and authoriry to teach vs, that of them we securely learne what we are to beleeue.

And this course or order of learning our faith, so plainly ex­pressed in holy Scripture, is also most conformable to that me­thode which nature her selfe obserueth in teaching vs naturall [Page 6] obseru [...]h knowledge: first making knowne vnto vs the thing [...] that are most easie, that by the helpe thereof, we may raise our thoughts, and studies to higher and more obscure matters. So the heathen Philosophers by the knowledge of Gods creatures rose vp to the knowledge of their Creator,Rom. 1. as S. Paul witnesseth. Therefore it being a farre more easie thing, to know who those are that are authorised, and appointed to teach vs our faith, then it is to know what our faith is, or what we ought to beleeue: As it is a farre more easie thing in any common-wealth, to know who is a true and lawfull iudge, then to know what is right iudgement in any difficult case in law. We are bound vnder paine of peruerting, not only Gods expresse ordinance, declared out of holy Scripture, but also the course of nature it selfe in learning our faith. First to learne who can teach vs our beleefe, as being authorised thereunto, and then after to learne of them, what we ought to beleeue.

8 The same thing is yet made more manifest by this euident reason. Faith is a knowledge, which is not gotten by subtilty of wit, or diligent study (being aboue the reach of either) but on­ly by authority and reuelation,Rom. 10.17. Saint Paul testifying that faith it had by hearing. Therefore they only, whom God appointeth to teach vnto others those things which it pleaseth him to reueale, are able to teach vs what we ought to beleeue, or what is re­uealed from God: and if any other vndertake to teach vs con­trary thereunto, we may and ought vndoubtedly to esteeme their doctrine, not to be reuealed from God, but to be inuen­ted by themselues.Rom. 10. For how can they reueale vnto vs Gods most hidden secrets, being not sent, nor instructed by him therein? and this is S. Pauls owne argument in the place before cited. And most ancient Tertullian deduceth the same reason in this sort. If our Lord Iesus Christ hath sent his Apostles to preach, De prescrip­tio. cap. 21. other Preachers then they whō Christ sent, are not to be receiued, because (loe the reason) nei­ther doth any but the Sonne know the Father, and to whom the Sonne hath re­uealed him, neither hath the Sonne reuealed him to any, but the Apostles whom he sent to preach that which he hath reuealed.

9. Here some may say, seeing we haue the holy Scriptures, wherin God hath reuealed vnto vs all his wil and councell, what great necessity is there of other Teachers, or why may not euery one instruct, and informe himselfe by Gods written word, with­out [Page 7] seeking out any other master to be taught by?The Scrip­tures teach vs as wel the manner how to learne our beleef by our Pastours, [...]s vvhat vvo are to be­leeue: and that is first to be lear­ned. This same question is so farre from shewing that Pastors are not necessary in Gods Church that it sheweth them to be most necessary, not­withstanding the vse of the written word of God. For seeing there are some that read the holy Scriptures, and yet doe not find therin the necessity of Pastors, though so expresly contayned in them, as the places before cited doe shew they are, is it not eui­dent that they had neede of teachers, to make them see, what is re­uealed to them in holy Scriptures? For with those, that make this obiection I would argue thus. Either you finde in the holy Scriptures the necessity of Pastours, Doctors, and Teachers to be in Gods church, notwithstanding the benefit of the written word of God, or you finde no such thing at all: if you find it, then must you beleeue it, as being taught by Gods holy word, if you beleeue the Scripture: if you finde it not, then had you much more neede of Pastours, and Doctours to teach you the con­tents of holy Scripture, seeing you doe not finde in them that, which they so expresly containe.

Where it is to be obserued, that this argument concludeth not only directly against those, that admit not the necessity of Pa­stours and Doctours in Gods Church (if any should deny them) but also indirectly against those that either say, the Pastors may be iudged by their sheepe in matter of doctrine: or that the decision of the question of the calling of Pastours ought not necessarily goe before the decision of other questions of doctrine, when there is doubt of both. As for example, that the examination of this question, whether Luther, had true calling, and conse­quently was true Pastour or no, ought not to goe before the ex­amination of this point of his doctrine, whether after the fall of Adam man haue freewill or no: and the like. For first, it is eui­dently against the nature and instruction of Pastours, and Do­ctours, to be guided and taught by those ouer whom they haue the charge of Teachars and Gouernors. But if they chance to erre, they are to be taught and iudged by other Pastours, and not by their own sheepe: because the Disciple cannot be aboue his master. Secondly, when any one is found to teach new do­ctrine, and is not knowne from whence he commeth, or who sent him to preach that doctrine, his calling and commission is first of all to be examined, and afterwards his doctrine; and [Page 8] not first his doctrine, and then his calling. And the reason is, not only because it is more easie to know when a man hath true calling,Act. n. 7. then which is true doctrine (as is said before) and there­fore men are not so subiect to be deceiued in the one as in the o­ther but also because, if hee be found without true calling, let his doctrine be neuer so true, he shall be esteemed a rebell and traytor to God and his Church, and all those that follow him, and therefore can haue no right to dispute of doctrine as a Pastor but ought to heare and learne of the true Pastours as a sheepe, though he esteeme himselfe neuer so fit and able to teach others. For not he that commendeth himselfe is approued, 2 Cor. 10.17 but whom God commendeth As in the like cause euery officer or magistrate executing any of­fice in the name of the Prince, must first shew his letters where­by he hath power to execute that office, before he can iustifie his proceedings in the same, whether they be according to equi­ty or noe.See the rea­son heerof in the 2. and 3. cap. n. 2. For let them be neuer so iust and vpright, yet if he be found to haue no commission to exercise that office, both he and all those that obey him, shall be iudged rebels, and traytours to his Prince. So that by this whole discourse it remayneth manifest, that he that will not erre, and be deceiued in his beleefe, which importeth his eternall saluation, must first seeke [...]o know (if he know it not already) whom he may beleeue in matter of faith, and then study to know of them, what he must beleeue; and not first seeke to know, what he must beleeue, before he know who may teach him, as hauing authority therunto. This ground being laid as partly confessed of all parts, and proued by manifest testimony of holy Scripture, and euident naturall reason, it only remaineth to search out by what assured meanes they may be knowne, who are by Gods soueraigne power and authority, ap­proued and appointed to teach and gouerne his people in true faith, or in the true way to saluation, which being no harder to be knowne, (as by the ensuing discourse, shall appeare) then the ciuill magistrates, and officers in any common-wealth or king­dome, are knowne and discerned from vsurpers, and intruders; the way to eternall felicity will appeare to be so plaine and direct as the ve­ry foolish (vnlesse they be wilfully and wittingly blind) cannot goe astray therein. Esai. 35.8. And therefore that which was said in the beginning of this Chapter is found euidently true, that if men were but halfe as wary, and carefull, in those things that appertaine to their ete [...] ­nall [Page 9] felicitie, as they customarily are in those that belong to their temporall estates, they could not be so fowly deceiued therin, as dayly experience teacheth they are.

The whole drift and scope therfore of this insuing discourse is, to shew who those are whom we ought to beleeue, or who they are that haue authority from God to teach vs our faith and beliefe.

The second Chapter. Certaine principles of this present controuersy touching the vocation of Ecclesiasticall ministers or magistrates confessed and agreed vpon as well by Protestants as by Catholiques.

1. FOR the auoiding of superfluous, and needles que­stions, and also that our dispute may proceed both more groundedly and with better order, I thinke it not amisse before I goe any farther to set downe some grounds and principles pertayning to this present controuersie, wherin either partie contending doth agree, and which do specially serue for the true decision of the whole matter in question. Where I would haue thee (Iudicious reader) to note by the w [...]y, that it is the Protestants ministery only (so I tearme for this time all the pretended Reformists) that is in question, whether it haue any lawfull calling or no. For the vocation of the Catholike Roman Priests and Pastors, was neuer by their aduersaries called into question or dispute. A thing worthy of speciall note, as an euident argument, that it is clearly good and Canonicall; or at least sufficient, otherwise it could not haue escaped the seuere censure, of some one at least, of so many most bitter and serpentin eyed enemies, as haue these many hundreth yeares for one quarrell or other sought the ouerthrow of that church. To which purpose they could neuer, or euer can haue so effectuall a meane, as to shew her Pastors to haue no lawfull calling. But this being so out of all controuersy, as they could not fasten vpon her anie light suspitiō therof, they alwaies haue chosen to impugne her by other meanes, euer leauing this [Page 10] vntouched; which notwithstanding if shee were not, or had not been the true spouse and church of Christ, would first haue been espied, and most hotly persecuted. But this by the way only. Now let vs go forward.

Confess: of. Geneua art. 29. & 31. Confess: of England art. 23.2. The Protestants agree with the Catholiques first, that the office and charge of preaching, and ministring Sacraments in Gods church, requireth necessarily a speciall power and au­thoritie, to the lawfull and auailable exercise therof. Which is to say that if any man vndertake to exercise the same, not hauing such authoritie, his fact shall not only be vnlawfull and wicked, but also voide and without all effect, as being destitute of sufficient power and commission, They therefore that shall attempt any such fact, without authoritie, and not only they, but all their followers and fauourers, are guiltie of sacrilegiouse rebellion against God and his church. And the reason is manifested. For who soeuer exerciseth any office not in his owne, but in another mans name, and doth it without his warrant and commission, doth him manifest iniury, vsurping his authoritie (the most valued and esteemed right that any man enioyeth:) and if the thing at­tempted be of moment, and the partie whose authoritie is vsurped, be his soueraigne, as both happen in this case of preaching, and ministring Sacraments in the church, the vsurper and all his abettors, by the auow of all men, cannot be but guiltie of treason, and manifest rebellion. For fuller confirmation and declaration wherof (though manifest in it selfe, and not denied by the Protestants themselues) because it is a point of exceeding consequence, it will not be incon­uenient, to bring one such testimonie of holy scripture, as may serue both for an instruction, and motiue to all sorts of men to abhorre such sacrilegious vsurpation. To which purpose the dreadfull iudgment which God executed vpon Core and his complices, is most proper. The story is written in the booke of Numbers,Numbers cap. 16. and in brief is this. Core being only a Leuite, and therfore could not by his office offer sa­crifice [...], which belonged only to Priests to doe, murmured against Aaron the heigh priest, accusing him and Moyses to the people of tiranny, as if they tooke vnto themselues, the office of Priesthood, and debarred others from the same, wheras [Page 11] the whole nūber of Gods people was holy and fit to exercise that function, as well as they. To his seditious suggestion, harkened Dathan and Abiron, who were not so much as of the tribe of Leui, and drew with them many of the common people, whose sa­crilegious rebellion God speedely and seuerely punished, for the perpetuall example of all others. For Core with 250. of his cō ­plices, presuming (for triall of their right in the office of priest­hood) to offer incense with Aaron, were all consumed with fire from heauen, and their censors by Gods speciall appointmēt, beaten into plates, and nayled vpon the Aultar, for a perpetuall memorie of Gods wrath vpon those sacrilegious rebelles, and for a warning that none should dare to attempt the like after them: and thus perished the principall offendors. Their fauou­rers and abettors, Dathan and Abiron with their wiues, children, and whatsoeuer belonged vnto them, were swallowed vp by a hideous, and dreadfull opening of the earth vnder them, and they descending quicke into hell, receiued due punishment for their seditious coniuration. Neither did Gods iustice cease thus; For the next day, the people murmuring against Moyses and Aaron, as if they had slaine the innocēt, and for this cause moueing a new seditiō, God slew with fire from heauen 14000. and 700. of them, and Gods wrath was appeased by Aarons offering of incense. This historie so authentically recorded by the holie Ghost for our learning (as S. Paul saith of all the rest that is written) aboundantly sheweth how greeuous an offence it is before God,Rom. 15.4. to vsurpe the office of his Priests, and to intrude vpon his church, exer­cising ecclesiasticall functions without lawfull calling or com­mission, or anie way to fauour or further the same. Of which enormious crime whether our new masters of reformation, and their adherents, fauourers, and followers be not guiltie, will appeare by the processe of this ensuing Treatisse.

3. And it is to be obserued, that if they haue no other meanes to cleare thēselues from the crime of Core, and his cōplices, but by disclayming from hauing any power to offer sacrifice, in the vsur­pation wherof, his offence did consist, they wil neuertheles, yea though they did not heretically erre in denying all such power) infallibly be found guiltie of his offence. For Core offended by thrusting himself into ecclesi [...]sticall or spirituall office, wherunto he was not called, nor had any authoritie to practise it [Page 12] which if these men be proued also to do, they shall also be conuinced of the like crime in generall, though with some difference in the particuler. As he for example that vsurpeth the dominion or gouernment of one towne or city only against his soueraigne, is no lesse truly a traytor and rebell, then he that vsurpeth the gouermēt of a whole prouince or countrie; though the rebellion of the one be greater, then that of the other.

French Ca­techisme sunday 45.4. Secondly the Pro [...]estants do grant and acknowledge together with the Catholikes, that the office of preaching and min [...]string sacraments is by Christ his institution so necessary, that without it the church of God (the ordinarie course of pro­uidence already established remayning) cannot be conserued, and therfore that there must of necessitie be Pastors ordayned in the same, for the lawfull exercise and practise of this office and charge.

This necessa­rilie follo­weth of the other, and is too cleere to be denyed.5. Thirdly they also grant with the Catholiques, that none can haue the authoritie necessarily required to the lawfull exer­cise of the office of Pastor in Gods church, vnles he receiue it from God, by our sauiour Christ: to whom is giuen all power in heauen and earth. And who sendeth others to preach and minister sacraments,Math. 28.18. Io. 20.21. Hebr. 5.5. as his father sent him: and therfore can no man of his owne au [...]horitie take vpon himself this charge. S Paul saying expresly, that no man taketh vpon him this honour, but he that is c [...]lled of God as Aaron. Which is so certaine and infallible, that it is also true in our sauiour Christ himself, who, (as the same Apostle in the same place saith) did not glorifie himself that he might be made high priest, but he that spake vnto him thus: My sonne art thou, this day I haue begotten thee. These principles being granted and acknowledged as euident truthes by the Protestants themselues; that it may appeare whether their ministers be true and lawfull pastors or no, it remayneth to see, whether they haue receiued this power from our sauiour Christ. For if they haue [...]ot, they will according to the former grounds granted by themselues as certaine truthes, be found not only no true Pastors, but theeues and robbers, with which names and titles, our Sauiour himself doth stile them, that enter into his sheepe-fold which is his church, [...]o. 10.1.2. not by his auctoritie, who is the dore, but clime vp another way. Where it is to be obserued, that these too things: to wit, to haue true authoritie or calling; and to haue true and sufficient proofe of [Page 13] the same, are not heere nicely or metaphisically distinguished, but they are supposed to be all one, and for asmuch as pertay­neth to the question in hand, it is all one not to haue any autho­ritie at all, and to haue no proofe or constat of it: and therfore he that cannot make it appeare by sufficient proofe, that he hath a lawfull calling to the ministerie of gods word, and sacra­ments, is truly iudged to haue none at all. Hence forward therfore shalbe particulerly examined the proofes which the Protestants themselues doe bring for their calling.

The third Chapter. It is no sufficient proofe of lawfull calling to the ministers of Gods word and sacraments, that any one be iudged either by himself, or other, or both, fit and able to exercise that charge and function.

1. IN this chapter (as likewise in those that follow) is mention only made of preaching and ministring sacra­ments, not because these be the only functions belonging vnto the pastors of Gods church, but because these are graunted by all Protestants to belong to that office, and are suf­ficient for the deciding of the present controuersie, without inuoluing other questions, (of power to offer sacrifice, to make lawes or canons,) not necessarie for this purpose. Which obser­uation made; for the resolution of the question proposed, I suppose (as a thing so cleare and euident, as can neede no proofe) that there is some certaine meanes, wherby both Pastors may so fully and sufficiently proue their lawfull mission, that they to whom they are sent, cannot iustly doubt therof; and also wherby Christian people may be so assured of their canonicall calling, that they neede not stand in feare, to receiue a woolf or a theefe in steed of a Pastor or Shepheard, at least, forsomuch as belongeth to his calling or commission. For if there were no such assured meanes to know this, our sauiour Christ should haue small reason so often to warne his people to beware of false prophets, woolues, theeues, and robbers. For how can [Page 14] they beware of them, whom they haue no sufficient meanes to know? And likewise how can the people of God auoide that dangerous hazard, of despising both our sauiour Christ, and his eternall father; in despising those whom he sendeth, to whom he saith.Luc. 10.16. He that despiseth you, despiseth mee? How can (I say) Christian people auoide this danger, vnles there be some certaine and assured meane to know whom he sendeth, and to discerne them from those, that come of themselues, being sent by none. This presupposed, the difficulty of this question is not great.

2. For euident and certayne it is, that albeit a man be iudged, neuer so fit and able to vndergo the charge and office of a Pa­stor, he hath not for all that, that calling, cōmission, and authority, which is necessarilie required, for the lawfull and auailable ex­ercise of that function, the holy Ghost expresly teaching that none can preach vnlesse they be sent: Rom. 10.15. Hebr. 5.4. and that none can take vpon them this of­fice but such as are called of God as Aaron was. For the more easie vnder­standing of the reason herof, it is to bee noted; That the lawfull and auailable exercise of any office, either ciuill or Ecclesiasti­call, is not like vnto the exercise of an arte or trade, which after a man hath learned, and is skilfull therin, he may lawfully vse, (some certaine formalities, which ciuill policy hath brought in, in some places obserued) yea if without the obseruation of these formalities, he exercise his trade, that which he shall do, is not void, and of none effect, but is truly and auailablie done. As for example, if a carpenter, which is not free of London, should build a house in London, he may, according to the statutes of the citie, be amerced or fined, but yet the house, which he set vp, shall remayne a howse. But it is otherwise in the exercise of any office, either Ecclesiasticall or ciuill. For if one that is not ap­pointed, and approued iugde for example; should giue sentence in any case either ciuill or criminall, his fact should not only be vnlawfull, but vneffectuall yea none at all, though he should giue a true sentence. And this not for any other reason, but be­cause he wanteth the true authoritie of a iudge: the same reason holdeth equally at least in the exercise of spirituall or eccle­siasticall offices. And the true reason herof is, because the skill, fitnes, or abilitie to exercise any office, whether ciuill or eccle­siasticall is a farre different thing, from the power and authority, wherby the officer is authorised to exercise the same; that, being [Page 15] or ought to be presupposed, this superadded. For the Prince, when he maketh any Officer or Magistrate, doth not make him fit for it, but finding or thinking him fit, giueth him authority and power to exercise it. A man being made fit for any office by nature, arte, industrie, or grace, is notwithstanding made Offi­cer by the grant, patent, or appointment of him, who hath power to giue it. And therfore we see, that all that are iudged fit to beare office, either in the church or common-wealth, are not foorthwith Officers. The function therfore of preaching Gods word, and ministering Gods Sacraments, being not only an of­fice, but the greatest in that kind, that euer was imparted to man, it doth necessarilie require authority, and power for the lawfull, and auailable exercise therof, without which no fitnesse, neither of nature, arte, nor grace (the ordinarie course of Gods proui­dence and ordinance remaining) sufficing otherwaies to make it good and lawfull. And this is so euident both by scripture and reason, that it is not denyed of any,Mason pa 9. where besid [...]s diuers testi­monies of holy scrip­ture he citeth Beza for the same pur­pose. and M. Mason confirmeth it saying: though a man were wiser then Salomon or Daniel, he must expect till our Lord send him; he that teacheth without a calling, how can he hope that Christ, will be with him?

The fourth Chapter. That one iudged by himself or other fit for the ministring of Gods word and Sacraments; though such as are in office are supposed, not to discharge rightly their duties, cannot lawfully take vpon him that office, as sufficiently called therunto: neither is such a iudgment and opinion any sufficient calling.

1. THIS question is moued by reason of a peece of do­ctrine deliuered by that great Rabin of the falsly re­formed Frēch church M.^r du Plessis who seemeth to af­firme, that any one without any speciall calling,Treat: of the church cap. 11. after the beginnin [...]. may preach and teach, euery one hauing sufficiēt calling by his owne [...]eale, and the want of others, to discharge rightly that office. [Page 16] For first hauing shewed no small disdayne, that their ministers should be demanded of their calling, he saith: It is the same thing (to say vnto their ministers, whence come ye? who sent ye?) that Sedechias the false prophet said vnto Micheas. 2. Paralip. 18.23. By what way went the spirit of our lord from mee to speake vnto thee? The Pharisees to our sauiour Christ. Math. 13.55. Marc. 6.1. Act. 4 7. Thou art a carpenters son, who sent thee? The high priests to the Apostles. By what authority doe ye these things? But these are testimonies against himself. For first there is no question, nor mention of the calling of ordinary Pastors, or Teachers in any of these places, as will easily appeare, to any one that shall see the places themselues, and therfore are they impertinently alleadged. Secondly. Though the question were there of the ordinary calling of Pastors, and also that they were wrongfully de­manded of their calling, (wherof notwithstanding none of them complaine) yet the case betweene them, and our now re­forming ministers, is most different. For all these parties had already giuen such euident proofe of their calling, that their aduersaries could not deny it, which when these new preachers shall do, they shalbe no more examined of their calling: but till then let them not looke to be esteemed any other then such, as our Sauiour saith,Io. 10.1.2. Enter not by the dore, but clime vp another way, only to rob and steale. Thirdly; Monsieur du Plessis doth make scripture of his owne, when he saith in the 2. quotation (who sent thee? for there is no such thing in the whole gospell) we might answere (saith he, to wit to the question of their calling) in one word after our sauiour Christ: The words that we preach, beare witnes of vs: and citeth. Io. 8. But this saying of our sauiour is neither in that place, nor any where els in the whole Bible, that I know. Our Sauiour saith thus indeed.Io. 5.36. The very workes them [...]elues which I doe, giue testimonie of me, that the father hath sent me. And againe. If you will not beleeue me, Io. 10.38. beleeue the workes; Which rule being applied to the new reforming ministery (as our Sauiour speaking of such crea­tures counseleth) saying (By their fruits shall ye know them) will descry that they came from the same master,Math. 7 16. that the Arians and Donatists came from,Epist. of the councell of Sardic in Theodo li. 2. cap. 8. cap. 15. their workes being altogither like. As pulling downe of Altars, spoyling of churches, vnuealing virgins, banishing, imprisoning, and diuersly tormenting Ca­tholike Bishops, Priests, and other professours of the Catholike faith, not by ecclesiasticall, but by secular and vsurped iudgment. [Page 17] The Ecclesiasticall Histories are full of the Arians proceedings in this kinde,Sozomen. li. 7. cap. 13. & 14. Atha. apolo, 2. & epist. ad soli­tariam vi­tam aegentes. D. Bishops reproofe. p. 42. D. Abbot p. 87. Li. 6. cont. Parmenian. wherein our Protestants in those places where they haue the temporall magistrate at their deuotion, doe farre sur­passe them. And for the Donatists manners, this one testimony obiected by D. Bishop, and not reiected by D. Abbot shall serue our Protestants for a glasse to see themselues in. They set Churches on fire, cast the most holy Sacrament of Ch [...]ists body to bruit beasts, th [...]ow downe Altars, brake chalices, defiled holy oiles, made sale of the holy ornaments of the Church: whose execrable facts ancient Optatus condemneth in these words. In this kinde haue ye procured as much domage to God, as you procured gaine to the diuell: you haue wickedly melted chalices, barbarously broken downe Al­ters, you haue vncouered the heads of Virgins, veiled in signe of their profession, &c. But let vs suppose that Monsieur du Plessis Scripture is canonical, I would know of him, how he would refute the Arians, Pelagians, Nestorians, Anabaptists, or any other heretikes whatsoeuer, who wil as readily and resolutely say, the words that we preach, beare witnesse of vs, as they of Monsieur du Plessis new reformed Church. For if this short answer be sufficient to stop the Papists mouthes, demand­ing proofe of the Protestants calling, (as Monsieur du Plessis saith) surely he must by the same rule haue his mouth stopt, and admit all those for lawfull Preachers, who can giue the same answer, which all heretikes can as easily, and as truly doe as his Mi­nisters.

2. Besides this (saith Monsieur du Plessis of the Catholiques) They alledge their long succession, that they are the children of Abraham, S. Peters heires &c. To whom our Sauiour answereth for vs. I know you are Abrahams seede, but you are of your father the diuell. And S. Paul:Io. 8. 2. Thes. 2. Be not deceiued brethren. The sonne of perdition shall sit and be worshipped in the temple of God.

We alleadge indeed our succession from S. Peter, not to proue by it alone our lawfull calling, but by it alone to disproue the calling of all those, who haue it not: and to this purpose the ar­gument is such, as neuer can be answered, as heereafter will ap­peare more at large.

The testimonies of our Sauiour, and S. Paul, are as pertinently alleaged against vs, as they might haue beene by the Arians or any other heretiques, against the Catholiques that impugned their heresie, and not otherwaies. But that I may refute his whole do­ctrine with better methode, then he deliuereth it, I will first set [Page 18] down his conclusion, and then answereth his arguments, wher­as he putteth most of his arguments before his conclusion, vsing therein more craft then good order: to wit, purposing by some sleight and apparent reasons, to bleare the eyes of his lesse care­full Reader, in such sort as he may make lesse d [...]fficulty to admit his conclusion, which is not only harsh but most absurd thus set downe.

Rom. 10.3. Not to inuert order, for we know it is said. How can they preach except they be sent? But because in a generall disorder, men respect not alwaies the formalities of order, and also because that to aduertise either the Church of necessary reformation, or a particuler person of his saluation, euery Christian is sufficiently grounded vpon a generall calling, by the zeale which he oweth to the seruice of God, and by the charity that bindeth him to his neighbour, reser­uing to the Church the examination by the word, whether he be well grounded there in or noe.

By th [...]s doctrine we see that all men, yea and women (for he speaketh without restriction, of all Christians, and if his examples serue for any thing, they prooue the same) haue a sufficient cal­ling to aduertise not only particuler persons of their saluation, but the church it selfe of necessary reformation. Which large and wide ground is doubtlesse laid of purpose; that if in case the new ministers shall by force of plaine and euident argument, be thrust out of all other ground of calling, as they know right well they shall, they may haue recourse to this at last, thereby to maintaine their credit if it be possible. For if it were not for this end, no man endued with the least dram of reason would euer haue vttered such a proposition, which first is directly contrary to the expresse doctrine of the Apostle saying.Rom. 10. How can they preach vnlesse they be sent? which doctrine Monsieur du Plessis confesseth to know well, and therefore is guilty of greater iudgement, by con­tradicting it, according to that of our Sauiour Christ saying: He that knoweth the will of my Father, Luc. 12.47. and doth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes. What shall then become of him, that knowing it, doth voluntarily contradict it, as Monsieur du Plessis heere doth? He saith that this is not to inuert order, but only in a generall disorder, not to respect the formalities of order. But S. Paul esteemeth the sending or mission [...] [...]eachers not a formality of order, but so necessary and e [...]iall a condition thereof, as without it none can preach, no more then others can heare without a Preacher, [Page 19] or beleeue without hearing, all which S. Paul knitteth together in one forme of speach. But belike Monsieur du Plessis thinketh it no disorder to breake order, where he falsly presumeth it is once broken already.

4. Secondly, it giueth liberty to euery wilfull, wrangling, and peruerse spirit, to disquiet and perturbe the peace of Gods Church, furnishing euery one with power and authority to re­forme the same. Which is the very true reason that there are as many new Reformers amongst them, as there are diuers sects of their reformation. And how many these are doth easily appeare, by the innumerable bookes written one against another. Wher­of that the Reader may haue some little tast, he may know that one Protestant author Hospinian, Hospinia. historia Sa­cramentaria parte. 2. maketh mention of aboue two hundred bookes, written in the space of seuenteene yeeres, by the brethren of the Reformation, one against another, in this one point only of the Eucharist. Neither is there any possible meanes, to auoide this euident mischiefe, the ground heere laide by Monsieur du Plessis once admitted. For seeing Luther had suffici­ent commission by this generall calling (for other he had not, as shall be shewed hereafter) to reforme the Church of Rome, why should not Zuinglius haue the like power, to reforme Luthers re­formation; and Caluin that of Zuinglius, and so forward till they at last haue brought forth the most vgly brood of Swenkfeldians, Ari­ans, Libertines, Anabaptists, and many other pests of the Christian world? It is fourteene hundred yeeres agoe that Tertullian obser­ued this liberty of reformation in all heretiques in these words. Let me be a lyer if they (Heretiques) differ not amongst themselues from their owne rules, De praescrip. cap. 42. whilest euery one by his owne iudgement doth molifie that which he receiued; as he who taught it him framed it of his owne braine. The progresse of the thing doth declare it owne nature and manner of beginning. The same thing was lawfull to the Valentinians that was lawfull to Valentin him­selfe: to the Marcionites that was lawfull to Marcion. (And why not then to the Lutherans as well as to Luther.) to innouat or change their faith and belieffe as they thinke good. And for this reason he saith there are seldome schismes amongst heretiques: because euery one maketh a sect and a body by himselfe.

Neither is the prouiso which Monsieur du Plessis addeth, saying: (that such Reformers ought to reserue, to the examination of the Church by the word, whether they be well grounded or no,) sufficient, to preuent [Page 20] this manifest mischiefe. Yea it is like, as if one should let loose a great number of rauening dogges, or woolues among the sheepe, but with this caueat, that they kill none, vnlesse the Shepheard allow them to doe it. For let the world (which is al­ready pestered with so many and diuers sects whereof one con­demneth the other to hell fire for their heresies) iudge, whether this caueat of Monsieur du Plessis, be not ouer weake a barre to stop from rage, the furious torrent of turbulent spirits, set once at li­berty by the former doctrine, to reproue in one another, what­soeuer their phantasticall spirits shall dislike, with the li [...]e free­dome that Luther vndertooke to reproue the Catholike Roman Church. For I would know of this new doctour, whether he that vpon the warrant by him heere approued, doth aduertise the Church of necessary reformation, as he tearmeth it, ought so to referre himselfe, to the iudgement of the Church, that it iudging his adu [...]rtisment, to be the meere motion of an vnquiet spirit, in­spired by the father of al lies, sedition, schisme and falsity, should be bound to submit himselfe thereunto, and to proceed no far­ther in his pretended reformation, vnder paine to incurre the censure, and penalty of a seditious rebell, or no? If he answere that he is bound so to doe, he shall giue sentence, against all his reforming brethren, who haue not yeelded, to the iudgement of the church, condemning their doctrine for heresie, by the same solemne manner of proceeding, to wit, by generall counsell, that she condemned Arius, Sabellius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Eutiches, and all others, who by the iudgment of these Reformers, are, and haue beene lawfully condemned. Neither can it be said, that this sentence is not iuridical, being the sentence not of any com­petent iudge, but only of the aduerse party. For the same might the condemned heretikes before mentioned, haue answered for themselues, and their doctrine. Secondly, when Luther (vpon this generall calling here mentioned, for other he had none) be­gan his pretended reformation, there was not so much as one man in the world, of his opinion in all points of his doctrine, no nor he himselfe at the beginning did hold all the heresies he taught afterwards: much lesse was there any church, which he would acknowledge for competent iudge of his propositions. And therefore was either to reserue the tryal of his reformation, to the iudgment of the Catholike Roman Church, or to none at [Page 21] all, and then Monsieur du Plessis his caueat is nothing worth.

If M [...]nsieur du Plessis answer, that such a Reformer is not bound to stand to the iudgement of the Church, but in case only, that it iudge according to the word: I will aske of him, who shall de­termine, whether the Church iudgeth according to the word or no? the church, or the pre [...]ended Reformer? if he say the church, he and his remaine condemned: if he say, the pretended Refor­mer, his caueat is no more then a very cobweb, to be blowne a­way with the smallest breath of euery one pretending reforma­tion; who may with as good right challenge to reforme the Church of G [...]neua, after the example of Seruetus, as Caluin did that of Ausburg, and Luther that of Rome. So that the world shall neuer be free from new reformations, so long as there is a diuell in hell to inspire the giddy spirits of restles, and rechles men, who are as willing and ready to run into sedition, as he is to push them for­ward into it. For if Monsieur du Plessis or any other for him thinke to wind himselfe out of this labyrinth by saying, that this must be determined, neither by the church, nor by the reformer, but by the word: he shall shew himselfe too too impertinent. For why then doth he say that it must be reserued to the Church, to iudge according to the word, whether he be well grounded or no? Secondly, seeing that in this case, the whole controuersie is reduced to the word in such sort, as it is now only in dispute, what the word doth testifie, it is all one to say, that this controuersie shall be iudge of this controuersie (then which nothing can be imagined more absurd) and to say, that the word shall be iudge of this con­trouersie, for the controuersie (as I supposed) is now, what the word doth iudge of the controuersie in hand.

5. Thirdly, I would know of Monsi. du Plessis, what he will an­swe [...] to the Anabaptists, [...]ibertines, and Arians all obiecting corrup­tion and heresie in the Church of Geneua and France, and therefore grounded vpon that generall calling of zeale to Gods seruice, which he here approoueth, doe aduertise it of necessary reforma­tion. If he say the Church (to wit of Geneua) doth condemne them and their reformation of heresie, they will appeale from that sentence, as from the sentence not of any competent iudge, but of their aduerse party. If he betake himselfe to the written word, they will contend with him, that the word doth wholly fauour them, and will at last inforce him to confesse these sayings [Page 22] of ancient Tertullian to be most true,Tertul. de praescriptio. cap. 11. 18. 19. though he will not easily grant them to vs alleadging them against him. The contention by Scriptures (against Heretiques) profiteth nothing but either to turne the stomach or the braine. Whereof he giueth this reason. This heresie re­ceiueth not some Scriptures, and those it receiueth it peruerteth by adding and detracting to make it serue his purpose. The false sense no lesse impugneth the truth then the corrupted text. Differing presumptuous doctrines doe necessarily deny that, whereby they are conuinced, and doe relie vpon that which they haue falsly framed. What wilt thou gaine (most cunning scripturist?) whilest what thou defendest, thy aduersary denieth, and what thou deniest he defendeth? Thou shalt indeed loose nothing but thy voice by crying: nor shalt thou gaine a­ny thing but choler by hearing blasphemies. And he for whose confirmation thou enterest into this dispute by Scriptures, shal he be more swayed to the truth or to heresie? being moued by that he seeth thee to haue gained nothing, the ad­uerse part being equall in defending and denying, doubtlesse by th [...]s equall alter­cation he will depart more doubtfull, not knowing whether doctrine he may e­steeme to be heresie. For this they (Heretiques) will say, that we corrupt the Scriptures and their interpretation, and therefore that they defend the truth. Therefore are not we to appeale to the Scriptures, nor is the controuersie to be setled in them, in which the victory is vncertaine, or at least not very certaine. Thus far Tertullian, whose doctrine if Monsieur du Plessis will allow for currant (as he hath no reason to refuse it) he must necessarily grant, that the triall of controuersies by only Scripture is neither easie nor effectuall. But whatsoeuer he shall esteeme of this te­stimony, yet shal he in fine be forced euen by his owne rule here set downe either to admit of their reformation, whom he con­demneth, to wit, the Arians, Anabaptists, and Libertines, or confesse that his doctrine here deliuered, is most wicked and per­nicious, as giuing liberty to all persons vnder a false pretence of reformation to disturbe the peace of Gods church at their owne pleasure: which liberty were it to be practised in temporall go­uernment, would quickly turne all vpside downe in such sort, as could neuer be remedied. For if it were lawfull for euery ambi­tious and vnruly spirit, to suggest against the established gouern­ment, and gouernors, what he list, vnder the colour of necessary reformation: and his suggestions being reiected by the soueraigne maiestrates as seditious and wicked, might appeale from their sentence, as parties and might cast himselfe vpon the triall of the law, and that to be vnderstood no otherwaies then he will haue [Page 23] it: what peace could be expected in such a common-wealth? Which in conuenience in the spirituall or ecclesiasticall gouern­ment of Gods church, is by so much more hurtfull and hatefull, then in the temporall gouernment of any common-wealth (but that men are lesse carefull of those things, that appertain to their eternall felicity then in those that touch their temporall weale) by how much more domageable it is to loose the inheritance of the kingdome of heauen, then to loose some small temporall e­state in this world.

Hauing thus refuted this seditious doctrine of Monsieur du Plessis, (which doubtlesse was first hatched there, where there is no or­der, but all horror and confusion) I wil now examin his grounds whereupon it is built. But by the way I will aduertise thee (care­full Reader) that he bringeth nothing at all, for the establishing of his doctrine, whereupon he groundeth this large commission of calling: but such stuffe as the Arians, Nestorians, Pelagians, and all other condemned heretikes whatsoeuer might haue brought against the Catholike chutch, and which the Anabap­tists and Libertines, (who Monsieur du Plessis esteemeth heretikes) may alleadge for themselues against him, which only obseruation is more then sufficient, to ouerturne all that he saith to this pur­pose. But let vs see the particulers. They consist of similitudes, and examples, which is the worst, and weakest kind of argument of all other. For oftentimes they prooue nothing at all but only serue to explicate the matter in question, and make it more easi­ly vnderstood: and that only when they are fitly applyed, as his are not.

6. VVhen a fire (saith he) hath taken in a city, Plessis p. 362. or the enimies scale the wals by night, if the meanest citizen giue the alarme, yea or a stranger, while the sentinels are a sleepe, they neuer aske him, by what commission he did it; much lesse doe they call him into question for it, but they fetch water, and run to the wals, they see what the matter is, and euery one c [...]nneth him thank [...]s for so good a warning. Contrariwise when we discouer Antichrist siting in the Church, and take vpon vs, to confute him openly in the face of a Councel, and in his presence, insteed of hearing vs, of weighing our reasons, of looking into the Scripture where he is so liuely painted, and by which we are to view him, they fall to examine vs of our qualities, and what Commission we haue to giue war­ning of him, yea they put vs to death worse, then if we had betraied the com­mon wealth.

Answer. This question, whence come yee? who sent you? where is your warrant to preach?Tertul de pros [...]riptio. troubleth all Heretikes and was propo­sed by Tertullian 1400. yeares agone to those of his time.

Here is nothing in all this that M.^r du Plessis saith which the a­fore mentioned condemned Heretikes, might not haue said for their defence against the Catholikes, or the Anabaptists may not now say against the Caluinists, and therefore is all idle, and emp­ty words. Whereas if he had made his comparison, betweene the ecclesiasticall, and temporall state, or gouernment, his argu­ment would haue had more shew of reason. But he saw well it was not for his purpose, but would haue made euidently against him,a [...]oue n. 5. as appeareth by that which is noted therof, not farre aboue. For if he would apply his argument to the temporall gouern­ment, and gouernours, and proue thereby the like liberty and power, in euery one to reforme the same as he would doe in the ecclesiasticall state, I doubt not, but he would quickly be con­demned for sedition, and treason to his Prince, and country, and yet in any sensible mans iudgement, is there more probability, in that then in this. But let vs come more neere vnto him.

His simile faileth fowly in diuers respects. First for that the pretended Reformers doe not discouer fire in the City, or the enimies scaling the Wals, but would gladly cast and kindle fire, and scale the wals of Gods church: or if it be otherwaies, let them shew some euident difference, betwixt their entrie, or en­deuour to enter, and of those that they themselues condemne for firebrands, and enemies of Gods church, which they can ne­uer doe.

Secondly, what man of ordinary sense will say, that it is as ea­sie a thing to discerne errour in doctrine of faith, or abuse in the Church gouernment, as it is to discerne fire in the towne, or e­nemies scaling the wals, (which must be supposed for truth, or else this argument is nothing worth) seeing this is a matter of sense, wherein none is deceiued, and that a matter of vnderstan­ding and iudgement, wherein the wisest, and greatest clarkes haue erred, as witnesse the laps of Tertullian, Origen, and Lucifer, to omit an infinite number of heretikes, who were not of meane vnderstanding, if they had had grace withall?

Thirdly, this argument supposeth, that the watch of the Church may be so a sleepe, that the enemies may surprise it, the [Page 25] watchmen (that is, the Pastors) being not aware thereof, which is directly against the Scripture, assuring vs the contrary.Esay 62.6. Vpon thy wals Hierusalem (saith almighty God) haue I placed a watch: night nor day shall they be silent for euer. And our Sauiour himself,Math. 28. I am with you for euer, euen to the consummation of the world. The diuell indeed may vpon the good seede, sowne in the hearts of men, sow coc­kle, that is, false doctrine, whiles the Pastors sleepe or neglect their office, as some expound the parable Math. 13.24 but it no sooner appeareth by externall word, or action, then the ordina­ry seruants of the master of the field, are ready to pull it vp, if he should so thinke good, as followeth in the same parable, so that they neede not to be aduertised by such, as haue no charge of that businesse. Wherefore with all reason, are such as come, preten­ding to aduertise the Church of necessary reformation, first exa­mined whence they came, who sent them, what commission they haue? For our Sauiour Christ foreseeing that false prophets would come in sheepes clothing (that is vnder the faire shew of reformation) whereas they are indeed rauening wolues,Math. 7.15. fore­warned his spouse the Church to take great heed of them: which warning she warily following, and withall knowing by S. Paules rule, that none can preach, vnlesse they be sent, Rom. 10. doth rightly demand all new Preachers testimony of their mission, and calling. Which if they will neither shew, nor yet desist from troubling the peace of Gods church: I referre it to any indifferent mans iudgement, whether they deserue not, the reward of rebels to Christ, and his kingdome. And howsoeuer this ought to be is easily knowne, by the seuerity vsed against those, that are found guilty of rebel­lion, and treason in any humane common-wealth only.

And the more openly, or publikly, these pretending Refor­mers doe take vpon them, (these are his words) to impugne their so­ueraigne Pastour, vnder pretence to discouer Antichrist, the more impudent and lesse tolerable is their rebellion. As in the like case, it would be in that subiect, that should publikely im­pugne his Soueraigne Lord, vnder pretence to discouer a tyrant, or an vnlawfull vsurper. And if these zealous Reformers, had such earnest desire to confute the Pope, (whom they heretically, and rebelliously call Antichrist) openly in the face of a Councell, (as Monsieur du Plessis vainly brageth,) why did they it not when [Page 26] there was a Councell assembled,Councell of Trent Sess 18 and they earnestly inuited to it, with such safe conduct as they desired? But they haue as much will, or purpose, to come to any lawfull Councell, as the Arians had, whose peruerse proceedings not vnlike those of our new Reformers, the Reader that hath desire to see, may read part of them in the Epistle of the Councell of Sardic recorded by S. Atha­nasius in his second Apology, and by Theodoret before cited. Mon­sieur du Plessis proceedeth.

Plessis.8. If the Gouernours of places should doe the like, when men giue them ad­uertisments, what place is there, that would not soone be in the enemies hands? And what Prince would not iudge them traitours, and tbinke they had intelli­gence with his enemies.

Answere. He falsly supposeth, that men giuing aduertisment of errour, or abuse creeping into the Church, are either punished or exa­mined of their commission. But if this be true, whence commeth it, that there haue beene so many Councels Generall, Nationall, and Prouincial, holden in the Church of Rome from time to time? was it not vpō notice giuen, and taken, of errors and abuses rising in the church? And can Monsi. du Plessis bring any one instance, of any one punished or examined of his commission for giuing such aduertisment? wel he may, of very many condemned, not for ad­uertising of errors, but for their obstinate persisting in their er­rors, after canonical, and iuridical examination had of them. And of this number is he,See the safe conduct grā ­ted by the counsell of Trent to all heretiques. Session 18. and all his obstinate adherents, whose aduer­tisments haue been patiently heard, and their reasons thoroughly weighed, and by lawfull authority iudged, to be repugnant to true faith, and therefore doe they most wrongfully complaine, as if they had not beene heard, nor their reasons weighed. But they are greeued (and euer may they be) that the Pastors and Rulers of Gods Church,Acts 20.28. placed therein by the holy Ghost to gouerne it, wil not suf­fer themselues to be thrust out of their charge, and the flocke of Christ, for which he hath shed his most pretious bloud, to be deliuered into the hands of robbers, and raueners. Of which sort all such are (by the infallible marke, which our Sauiour gi­ueth of them) that enter not into the Sheepe-fould by the doore, Iohn 10.1. (that is, by lawfull calling) but clime vp by an other way. See his example of a Gouernor forcibly retorted vpon himselfe, in the next Paragraffe.

Plessis.9 The question is not here of our qualities, but of the qualities of Anti­christ, [Page 27] and of his doctrine: the matter toucheth the duty of those whom we ad­uertise, it concerneth the saluation both of them, and of those that rely vpon them, and of our selues also. If the aduertisment proue true, it is the safety of the Church: if it be found false, it commeth of our owne. The question is then for examining of the circumstances of the aduertisment, and not the quality of the aduertisers.

Here it wel appeareth, Answer. how gladly they would leape ouer the question of their calling, to that of doctrine; not because they haue more true ground, or aduantage in the one, then in the o­ther, but because they haue more meanes to deceiue, and as it were cast dust into the eyes of such, as either are not able to dis­cerne the true grounds of doctrine, or being desirous of nouelty (as an infinite number in these daies are) will not examine them, but vpon euery text of Scripture cited, (though in as bad sense and meaning, as that which the diuel cited to our Sauiour) thinke they haue ground enough, for their new doctrine, and gratefull error. Whereas in the question of calling or commission, they cannot easily deceiue any man, but such as are willing to be de­ceiued. For the proofes of calling being sensible, and as easie to be discerned, as the proofes of any commission in ciuill gouern­ment, there can be small meanes of deceit therein. It is not any new manner of proceeding, with such as attempt to bring new doctrine into the Church, to demand of them proofe of their calling, and commission.Tertull. de praescriptio. For ancient Tertullian vrgeth the Here­tikes of his time in this sort; What are ye, when, and whence came yee? what doe you in my Teritory being none of mine? It is false therefore that Monsieur du Plessis saith, that the question is not of their calling, or quality (if he will haue it so tearmed.) For the question between the Catholike Roman Church, and the pretended Reformers is both of their calling, and of their doctrine, but that of their calling is first of all to be decided, for the reasons before men­tioned. VVhich also will more euidently appeare,Cap. 1. n. 7. 9 by the ex­ample of a Gouernor of a place, vsed by himselfe, if the case be put a like. I will suppose therefore, for example sake, that one should come to Saumeur where he is Gouernour for his King, and should begin to command as Gouernour there tel­ling the people that Monsieur du Plessiis is an Vsurper the Kings swo [...]e enemy, and that his gouernment is tyrannicall, [Page 28] and therefore is not to be obeyed, and that he himselfe is their true and lawfull gouernour, the Kings loyall, and faithfull ser­uant, and that he will gouerne them iustly, and according to the law: And being demanded by what authority or warrant he ta­keth vpon him the gouernment, and deposeth, or excludeth Monsieur du Plessis, who was placed there by lawfull authority, and hath beene so long in quiet possession of the same, should answer (as Monsieur du Plessis doth heere) that the question is not of his commission or quality, but of Monsieur du Plessis his quality, that the matter toucheth the duty of those; whom he aduertiseth: if the aduertisment proue true, it is the safety of the place, whereof he is Gouernour, if it be found false, it only com­meth from himselfe. The case being thus put (as it doth most re­semble Mounsieur du Plessis doctrine and their proceedings against the Catholike church) I dare to appeale to his owne iudgement for triall therein; To wit, whether he should thinke himselfe iustly dealt withall in this case, and whether the people of Sau­meur, could without euident rebellion to their Prince; and ma­nifest iniury to him, receiue this new comer for their Gouernor, and thrust him out. This proceeding though it be in the sight of all men most manifestly vniust, seditious, and rebellious, yet will it appeare more wicked and peruerse, if we adde thereunto ano­ther circumstance, which they vse in their rebellion against the Church. That is, if Monsieur du Plessis his aduersary, should not only refuse to shew any warrant, or commission, for vsurping his gouernment, but should farther enforce him to iustifie him­selfe of those crimes, which he obiecteth against him, not before the Kings Lieutenant, because he is esteemed by him party or partiall, nor any other ordinary iudge, but by the words, and text of the law it selfe, and that not to be vnderstood in any other sense, then he (to wit, the vniust plaintiffe) will haue them to be vnderstood: I no waies doubt, but Monsieur du Plessis would gree­uously complaine of this proceeding, being most exorbitant, and vniust, as it is indeed. And if it were permitted in any ciuill go­uernment, it would make, that no maiestrate should be two daies quiet in his charge, nor any country should euer enioy any peace. And hereby may the whole world see, how iust and ho­nest, our new Reformers be, whose proceeding against their mother the Catholique church, is no other in true sub [...]ance, [Page 29] then is set downe in this case. For it is to be noted, that they ne­uer proceeded as accusers, but as iudges, nor did they at any time propose, their matters by way of doubt, to be discussed and tried by canonicall triall which is not forbidden to any man to doe, but they absolutly as soueraigne iudges, haue condemned the Church of falsity and error, and her Pastors of Antichristian re­bellion. And yet doe they thinke much to be demanded, by what power or commission they doe it. Which manner of pro­ceeding how peruerse it is the former example doth sufficiently declare. Which also proueth further, that though the Catho­lique Roman Church (by impossibility) should be conuinced of error, and her Pastors of rebellion against Christ,Though the Catholike Pastors were proued vsur­pers: yet would it not thence fol­low that the Reformists should be true Pastors. yet could not they (to wit, the reformists) be receiued for lawfull Pastors, vn­till they had made canonnicall proofe of their mission or calling. For as the conuicting of Monsieur du Plessis of treason, and intrusion would neither sufficiently warrent his aduersary, to take vpon him his gouernment without the Kings patents, nor the people to admit of him as their gouernor, though he should pretend neuer so much fidelity, and equity in his charge, but if they should doe it, they should all be guilty of treason, and rebellion against their Prince. So neither can our new Reformers, nor those that receiue them, be free from rebellion against Christ and his Church, if they should without canonical proofe of their mission, take vpon them the charge of Pastors: though the Ca­tholique Roman church should by imposibility (as is said before) be conuinced of error, and her Pastors of rebellion. And there­fore howsoeuer the matter, in the question of doctrine should fall out with, or against our Reformists, yet is it manifest, that the question of calling, is necessarily to be decided, before they may lawfully pretend, any charge ouer Christs flocke either in preaching, or ministring Sacraments:

10. In the conspiracy of Cateline, the Senate gaue eare to a base woman, Plessis. against the greatest men in Rome. VVhen the Gaules would by night surprise the Capitoll of Rome, the Sentinels spake not, the Dogs were dumbe, there was none but the Geese that cried, and yet euery one made account of it, and ran thither, whereby the City, which afterwards conquered all the world, was sa­ued. VVherefore, if we were the vilest and most contemptible of the Church, we deserue (at lest the hearing) especially seeing we seeke not to speake in the [Page 30] eare, as backbiters doe, but in the face of the Church, and in their very eares whom we accuse, and not from our selues, but from God by authority of his word.

Answer. But what is there here that Seruetus might not haue said to Cal­uin, who caused him to be burned at Geneua, he himself deseruing as well the fire? Or the Anabaptists, Familians, or Libertines, who are esteemed by the other Reformed Churches damnable heretikes, may not also say for themselues? They neither speake in the eare as backbiters, when they cry for reformation, as ap­peareth by their many bookes written to that end, nor from themselues, but from God by the warrant of his word, of the te­stimonies whereof their bookes are full. The same answere therefore that Monsieur du Plessis or Caluin himself would make vn­to these Reformers of their Church, (with that which hath beene said aboue) shall serue for answer to his complaint heere made against the Catholike Church. And I appeale to the indif­ferent Reader, what peace or order were like to be either in the Church or Common wealth, if this licentious liberty of refor­mation, which he here insinuateth, might vpon pretence or co­lour of the warrant of Gods word, be permitted to euery one?

11. VVe read that Christ who was promised in the Iewish law, was re­uealed by the Angell to the shepheards watching their flockes, Plessis. and the shepheards published him among the people. Now after our Aduersaries law, they should haue beene set by the heeles.

Answer. How beetle blind is heresie, and wilfull obstinacy? Because the shepheards made relation of that which they had heard of the Angel, and seene with their eyes of our Sauiours birth, ther­fore would Monsieur du Plessis inferre, that euery one hath power to preach, and are authorised to reforme the established Church: As though it were all one for a man to make relation of a mira­culous worke, which he hath seene or heard, to others, and to preach any doctrine, (especially if it be new) with obligation on the hearers part to beleeue it, vnder paine of their damnation: who seeth not the absurdity of this illation? That which he ad­deth of setting fast by the heeles, is a childish taunt without ei­ther wit or weight. For the Catholique Church doth not impri­son any, but such as after canonicall declaration, and decision, of their errour, doe obstinatly persist therein.

[Page 31]12. Apollo also knew not but the baptisme of Iohn,Plessis. and consequently could not haue any charge in the Church. And yet for all that, through feruen­cie of spirit, he goeth into the Sinagoge at Ephesus, and being mighty in the Scriptures, declareth the way of God, namely that Iesus was the Christ. The brethren of Ephesus, who were the Gouernours of Christs Church, so farre are they from putting him backe, that they commend his zeale, and exhort him to passe into Achaia, and writ to the Disciples that they should receiue him.

Answer. What he would inferre hereupon is euident, by his former dis­course: to wit, that euery one should haue commission to preach, and reforme the Church. But this and that which Apollo did are as farre different, as it is for a Student at law, to pleade or dispute a cause, in the presence of others, with reasons and au­thorities for the proofe thereof; and for a iudge by authority to decide the same cause in publique court. Now who is there so senslesse as to say that he that may doe the first, may also doe the second? And who knoweth not, that the Catholique Roman Church, doth license Lay-men, that are knowne for learned, and grounded in piety, to dispute in controuersies of religion, either by word, or writing? who notwithstanding were neuer permitted to preach or minister sacraments. Apollo therefore did nothing, but that which the Catholique Church now alloweth in such men as he was, and therefore this instance is as imperti­nent, for Monsieur du Plessis his purpose, as the rest.

13. Hereof we haue examples also in the Primitiue Church. Plessis. In Aede­sius and Frumentius, who being by some occasion carried into the Indies, doe there preach the word of God, and make Christian assemblies, being but meere Lay-men, for Athanasius did not lay hands on Frumentius, that he should there doe the office of a Bishop, till long after. In a poore woman slaue also, who instructeth the Queene of the Iberians in the knowledge of Christ, and a while after the king himselfe, teaching them so well as she could the ser­uice of God, and aduising them at least, to send to the Emperour Constantine for some Doctours.

But how fitly these two Histories make for his purpose, Answer. will appeare by the Histories themselues, whereof I will set downe the summe: the diligent Reader may see them at large in the au­thor himselfe, if he please.

Aedesius and Frumentius being Christians and caried from Tire [Page 32] into the Indies, Theodor. l. 1. c. 23. & 24. by their Vncle, to learne the knowledge of strange countries, were by accident, (as God permitteth somtimes) re­tayned prisoners, all the rest of their company being slaine by the Barbarous people. They were presented to the King of the Country, who vnderstanding their prudent behauiour, gaue them the charge of his house. He being dead, his sonne had them in greater estimation. They hauing beene vertuously brought vp, did exhort the Marchants, that if any Romans, that is Christians (as the custome was) came thither, that they would meete toge­ther, and celebrate the holy rites. After long time they obtayned leaue of the King, to returne to their country, and Aedesius re­mayned at Tire, but Frumentius preferring Gods seruice before the loue of his parents, went to Alexandria, and informed S. Athanasius (who was then Bishop of that place) of the great desire, the Indi­ans had to be instructed, in the true knowledge of heauenly things. And Athanasius thinking no man fitter for this religious employment, then Frumentius himselfe, made him Bishop, and sent him thither to preach, and instruct that Nation, which he did with happy successe, God working by him great miracles, for the conuersion of that people. And thus much of Frumentius.

About the same time was there a woman captiue amongst the Iberians, who shewed them first the way of truth, she prayed con­tinually, her bed was a little sacke layed vpon the ground, and her diet was continuall fasting, shee being intreated by another woman, to cure her child which was sicke, tooke it, and laid it in her little poore bed, and prayed to God, that it might be cured which was done. Which then being knowne, the Queene her­selfe being vexed with a sore disease, went to the same poore cap­tiue, and was cured by her in the same fashion, who in gratitude offered her great gifts, which shee refused, saying, she had no neede of none of them, but shee would thinke herselfe highly re­compensed, if shee would vnderstand the true piety, and withall as she could she instructed her in Gods commandements, and ex­horted her to build a Church to the honor of Christ her Sauiour. Which the King not permitting for that time, was afterwards (by a new miracle done in his owne person) moued to consent willingly vnto it. The Temple being therefore finished, but Priests wanting, the same captiue woman aduised the King and [Page 33] Queene, to send vnto the Emperour Constantine, to send them such, as might instruct them in true piety, and he sent them a vertuous, and learned Bishop with many gifts also. This is the summe of these Histories truely set downe, wherein there is not any word of preaching, or making Christian assemblies, by any of those parties, (as Monsieur du Plessis falsly affirmeth) nor of re­forming a Church already established, but of making knowne either by way of miracle, or bare narration, the same points of Christian religion, to such as neuer had heard thereof before, which is allowed to be done by the Roman Church, in the same sort, as it was practised by these parties, and therefore these ex­amples make nothing against the Catholike doctrine, or pra­ctise, yea they euidently confute Monsieur du Plessis his doctrine. For seeing none of these though indued with the grace of mi­racles, did or durst in that great, ye extreme necessity, vndertake the office and charge of Pastours without mission, or calling gi­uen by, consecration, and imposition of hands: How can Mon­sieur du Plessis without blushing bring them, for the iustifying of this his no lesse seditious then new doctrine, that euery Christian is sufficiently grounded vpon a generall calling, to aduertise the Church of a neces­sary reformation; taking this aduertisment in that sense and sort, that they would practise it: that is, to iudge absolutely of the doctrine of the Church, reiecting that which they dislike, and establishing that which they approue.

But to what purpose shall we thinke, bringeth he the exam­ple of this good woman? to proue that women may preach? Surely if it proue any thing for him, it proueth that: which not­withstanding S. Paul expresly condemneth,1. Cor. 14.34. 1. Tim. 2.12. forbidding women to open their mouthes in the Church. So that Monsieur du Plessis hath gained as much by this example, as those old, wicked, and corrupt caitifes gayned by accusing the chast Susanna, that is, his owne condem­nation, bearing as euident witnesse against himselfe, as they did. For this holy woman so farre as she did cooperat to the making known of Christianity to those Pagans, which was not by preach­ing in publique assemblies, and congregations, or by exercising a­ny other Ecclesiasticall function (as is manifest by the History) but by fasting, prayer, austere life, and euident miracle. Which sorts of proofe, being iustly exacted of our new Reformists, as well for their calling, as their doctrine (either being as truely new and vn­couth [Page 34] in the Church of Christ, as Christianity was to those Pagans) yet haue they neuer shewed halfe so much, in ei­ther kind of proofe before mentioned, as this poore woman did: though she pretended not to be either Elder, superintendent, or Deacon in the church, as our new fellowes proclaim thēselues to be, and desire to be esteemed so of others. Rightly therfore doth M. du Ples [...]is bring this example, in condemnation of himself, as the wretched accusers of Susanna, did their testimonies against her.

Plessis.14 An [...] al this in a tim [...], whē the Christiā church had al her formes and rites.

Answer. What Sir, had the Christian church, al her formes and rites then in the Indies and amongst the Iberians, of whom only mention is here? what affected blindnes is this, or malicious desire to deceiue others?

Plessis. Now it could not be, but they preaching the true God, and saluation by Iesus Christ, must needes abhorre idols, and consequently incurre perill of their liues, from which the exception of our aduersaries would haue quit them, they hauing no neede to put themselues so far into danger, hauing no calling in the church.

Answer. He often but falsly, and fraudulently inculcateth the preaching of those parties, whereas they preached no otherwaies, then by their life and example, and as occasion was offered, by testifying their owne beliefe, and religion, not by authority as Pastors and Doctors, but by simple narration, which no man can doubt, but to be allowed and commended in the Catholik Romon church, as is before mentioned. And that they might, and did incurre danger of their liues, by abstayning from idolatry, and professing against it no man doubteth, but what may be inferred therby for his purpose I know not.

Plessis. But zeale and charity taught them, that they were bound to doe it, and that this exception could not secure them from the account, which they were to make of their talent.

Answer. Not only zeale and charity, but also duty and religion taught them that they were bound to abstaine from idolatry, and thereby to professe Christian religion, not in respect of any talent, whereof they were to giue an account (if he speak not vnproperly a talent in proper speach being that which is superadded to the substance of our faith) but in respect of their faith it self, which they were bound not to deny, nor forsake. As it happeneth with all Catholiques at this time in England, who are bound with hazard of their liues, not to deny the Catholique Roman faith, though they haue neither [Page 35] power, nor obligation to preach.

The same say we of the reuealing of Antichrist. Plessis. That questionles euery Chri­stian is bound to reueal him to the Church, whē God hath made him knowne to him. That we must not stand vpon these precise points of formality, and so much the lesse for that hauing gotten possession of the Church, it is to be presumed he hath inuerted all order.

Answer. When Monsi. du Plessis maketh answer to the Arians, Anabaptists, Libertines, and others, obiecting the same, against their new re­formed church, he wil find this vain cōclusion of all his seditious doctrine fully satisfied. Wherunto I wil remit him, not doubting but his owne conceit will best please him. Yet would I haue the (careful Reader) to mark how he esteemeth the ordinance of the holy Ghost so expresly testified by S. Paul, Rom. 10. that none can preach vnlesse they be sent, to be but a precise point of formality. Are these they that make such shew of the respect they beare to Gods word?

And here will I make an end with M. du Plessis, for as much as pertayneth to this point. He adeth indeed three, or foure testimo­nies out of Gerson, Picus, & Aliacus, which make nothing to the pur­pose for this present question, and especially the two latter, and as for the other (though his testimonies were direct against vs as they are not, being rightly cited and vnderstood) yet because he is knowne to haue said many things, which were neither approued thē, nor since, his sole authority can in equity weigh little against vs. And here once more (good Reader obserue) that nothing hi­therto hath been said, nor hereafter can be said, for the calling of these new Gospellers, which may not be said in the behalf of any heretiks whatsoeuer, new or old: yea which they, whō M. du Plessis here impugneth, may not say against him, if they were of any mo­ment. And therfore though we should grant him al his argumēts, yet should he gaine nothing thereby, they hauing as much force, being vsed by vs against him, as he wold they should haue against vs. And this thou shalt easly see, if thou wilt take the paines to ap­ply them one by one, for the Catholike church against that of Geneua. But the truth is, they are of no force, neither for the one nor the other.

16. Hauing thus far refuted the reasons of Monsi. du Plessis wher­by he would proue, that euery Christiā hath sufficient calling, to aduertise the church of necessary reformation not only by way of informatiō (for that is not in controuersie) but also by way of absolut iudgement [Page 36] and condemnation, which is the plaine drift of his discourse, and the practise of all the pretending Reformers it remayneth to proue the contrary, and withall to satisfie the question proposed in this Chapter.

Conclusion.It is no sufficient calling to the ministery of Gods word and sacraments, that any man be iudged either by himselfe, or others fit to exercise that charge: and that those who are in that office, are iudged not to performe their duty therein. And therefore if any one vpon these grounds take vpon him that office, what dis­order soeuer he shall suppose to be already in the Church, he committeth sacrilegious rebellion against Christ and his church. I wil not stand long vpon the proofe hereof, because it is euident to all those that know and beleeue the scriptures. And were it not that Monsieur du Plessis in his doctrine already refuted, did not euidently insinuat the contrary, yea and expresly teach it in these words.Treatise of the Church. pag. 371. Although some of our men in such a corrupt state of the Church, as we haue seene in our time, without waiting for calling or allowance of them, who vnder the title of Pastours oppressed the Lords flocke, did at first preach without this formall calling, and afterwards were chosen, and called to the holy mini­stery by the church, which they had taught, to the which they had vowed their seruice and ministery: yet this ought to seeme no more strange, then if in a free Common-wealth, the people without waiting for the consent, or for the voices of those, that tyrannize ouer them; should according to the lawes make choice of good, and wise magistrates. Were it not I say for this doctrine of Monsieur du Plessis, wherein as we see, he expresly approueth, the preaching of some of their men (he might haue said all, or at least all their first runners) without formall calling, only vpon the o­pinion, that those who were in the Pastors places, did not right­ly discharge their duties, I should haue supposed this conclusion (which is so cleerely expressed in holy Scripture) to haue beene so euident, that it needed not any proofe. But seeing we must prooue a thing so euident:Heb. 5.4.5.6. First S. Paul saith, that no man taketh vp­on himselfe this honour (of Priest-hood) but he that is called of God as Aaron. And farther he addeth, that Christ did not glorifie himselfe, that he might be made high-priest: but he that said vnto him. My sonne art thou, I this day haue begotten thee. As also in another place he saith. Tho [...] art Priest for euer, Io. 5.42. c. 7.28. c. 8.28.38. Io. c. 14 31. according to the order of Melchisedech. And our Sa­uiour doth often testifie, that he came not of himselfe, or in his owne name, but being sent by his heuenly Father. That he speak not of himselfe, but th [...] [Page 37] which he learned of his Father: and that as his Father commanded him, so he did. Now if the sonne of God came not, without being sent, nor preached not but that, which he heard, nor did not but that which he was commanded, (and that in a time, when there was greatest necessity of reformation) who is he that can lawfully doe any of these things of himselfe, though he pretend neuer so great disorder in the Church, or necessity of Reformation?

17. Secondly S. Paul saith How can they preach, vnlesse they be sent? Rom. 10. the hereticall euasion and declyning of which words is before vrged against Monsieur du Plessis, tearming it a formality of order, not necessary to be obserued, in a generall disorder: such is the peruersity of these new masters, who pretending to reforme the Church by the word are not ashamed, nor afraid, to contradict the plaine words, and sense of the holy Ghost, hauing no other meanes to maintaine there falcities by.

Thirdly, the same Apostle in another place, setting downe the order established by our Sauiour in his Church saith:1. Cor. 12.28. Are all Apo­stles? are all Prophets? are all Doctours? shewing manifestly, that none are such, but those that our Sauiour ordeyned, or constituted such, hauing imediatly before said. Some God hath set in his Church first Apostles, secondly, Prophets, thirdly Doctours, &c. But Monsieur du Plessi [...] more liberall in gifts, then God himselfe, will haue all Christi­ans, Doctors, to teach the Church, and aduertise it of necessary refor­mation, and that (as I haue noted before) not by way of informa­tion, but by absolute iudgement, and sentence. This is one of the great masters of reformation, that breatheth nothing for­sooth but the word, which notwithstanding the diuell himselfe could not without blushing, or trembling abuse so euidently as he doth. Pardon me Reader, if thou thinke me to exceed, for I cannot support these hippocritical pests of mens soules, that pre­tending the purity of the word, doe thrust vpon the simpler sort, their owne phantasticall inuentions, insteed of Gods word and truth.

18. Fourthly, our Sauiour himselfe giueth vs this rule, to discerne true Pastors, from vsurpers, and intruders, saying. Amen, Ioh. 10.1.2 Amen, I say vnto you, he that entereth not by the doore into the fold of the sheep, but climeth vp another way, he is a theefe and a robber: but he that entereth by the doore, is the Pastor of the sheepe. Now who can more manifest­ly clime vp another way into the sheep-fold, then they that [Page 38] come of themselues, to preach, and minister the sacraments, be­ing sent by none? especially seeing so many heretikes are confes­sed to haue come, vnder the same faire pretence of reforming the church and purging it from the corruption of false doctrine, that our new Reformers also vse as a sheeps skin, to couer their wol­uish hearts.Mason p. 9. Beza cited by M. Mason saith, it is an order appointed in the Church by the Sonne of God, and obserued in all the Prophets and Apostles, that no man may teach vnlesse he be called.

19. The second part of the foresaid conclusion, to wit, that if any one vpon the afore mentioned grounds shal take vpon him, without being sent, the ministring of Gods word and sacraments (what disorder soeuer he shall suppose to be already in the church) shall commit sacrilegious rebellion against Christ, and his church, and all those that wittingly fauour, follow, or ad­here vnto them, are also guilty of the same crime in their degree; is proued by diuers dreadful examples of Gods wrath, and indig­nation, shewed against such, as haue presumptuously thrust thē ­selues into Ecclesiasticall functions, without calling or commis­sion. Which, if our new masters in reformation, were as sincere searchers, and followers of Scriptures, as they pretend to be, would make them to be well assured of their calling, and com­mission, before they tooke vpon them that charge, which they so boldly chalenge to themselues:Cap. 2. n. 2. The only example of Core and his complices related before with that dreadfull sentence of S. Iude: wo be to them that haue perished in the contradiction of Core, as all they must needes follow his example, in vsurping the offices of the church without calling. Surely if there were no other example in the whole Scripture this alone would abundantly testifie this truth. Notwithstanding I will adde here some others of the like nature.

1. Reg. c. 13.1.3.14. Saul was reiected by God, and his posterity excluded, from being Kings ouer the Isralites, for once offering sacrifice, and that in a time when he thought himselfe pressed therunto by ne­cessitie. In which case M. du Plessis likely would haue iustified his fact, saying that in such cases formality of order is not to be obserued.

2. Reg. c, 6.7 Oza was stricken dead by God, for only putting his hand to hold vp the Arke, (which he thought was in danger to fall) In which case by all likelihod Monsi. du Plessis would haue dispensed with him, seeing hee alloweth their men in such a corrupt time [Page 39] as we haue seene in the Church, to preach at first without calling.

King Ozias was striken with a leprosie,2. Paralipo. 26.18.19. and continued leper all his life time, for attempting to offer incense, and not desisting from his attempt at the admonition of the high Priest Azarias, who told him, that that office pertayned not to him, but only to the sonnes of Aaron, whom God had consecrated to that ministe­ry. Here indeed was no necessity pressing to doe this, whereby Mnosieur du Plessis is wont to couer, and excuse the sacrilegious in­trusion of his reforming ministers. But neither doth the high Priest alleage that as a reason, why he should desist from his attempt, but directly telleth him that it is not his office, but the office of such only, as God hath appointed for that ministery.

Hereunto also may be added the indignation of God, against the false Prists of Ieroboam, who that wicked King by his power,3. Reg. c. 12. & 13. and not by Gods ordinance raised, to serue an Altar erected by himselfe, against that which God had commanded, and to with­draw the people from frequenting the true church, and his true worship in Hierusalem. To whose most wicked and sacrilegi­ous fact (to note this by the way) the new fashion of ordayning Priests and Bishops inuented in King Edwards time, and conti­nued euer since, is most like:Ann. 1. Ed 6. was an act made that Bishops shold be made by the Kings let­ters patents and not by e­lectiō of Dean and Chapter as saith Ra­stal in his a­bridgment. And there­fore in the be­ginning of Q. Elizab. Bishops writ thus. n. vir­tute literar [...] patentium Domine Ro­gina. as well for the manner of their ordering, to wit, only by the Kings institution, without exam­ple or warrant either in Scripture or antiquity, as also for the end of their ordering, which was to withdraw the people from the frequenting the true Catholique Roman church, and Gods true worship, and religion obserued therein.

20 To those authorities of holy scripture, I will adde only one cleare, and manifest reason, for the confirmation of the whole conclusion before set downe.

Nothing can be more euident in ciuill gouernment, then that he, that being subiect, or vassall to any Soueraigne, taketh vpon himself any office, charge, or ministery ouer his subiects without his warrant or commission, doth thereby vsurpe his Soueraignes authority, and consequently committeth manifest rebellion: if his vsurpation be in matters pertayning to command or gouen­mēt, as it is in our case. For no act of rebelliō can be more mani­fest, thē that wherby the subiect equalleth himself with his Soue­raign (therby impeching his soueraignty, & withdrawing frō him his due subiectiō) which was the crime of Lucifer, the first, & father [Page 40] of all rebels,Isa. 14. v. 14. saying. I will ascend aboue the topp of the clouds, I will be like the highest. But by no other meanes, can any subiect more equa­lise himself with his Soueraigne, then by taking vpon him that power and authority, which is proper to his soueraigne: one great part whereof consisteth in ordayning magistrates, and offi­cers in his dominions, who, euery one in their degree represent himselfe, exercising their offices not in their owne names, or by their owne power, but in his. He therefore that without his so­ueraignes appointment, or order, maketh himselfe officer in any charge ouer his subiects, doth manifestly vsurpe his authority, and therein doth equallise himselfe with him, and with-draweth frō him his seruice and subiectiō, which is a direct act of rebelliō.

Farther it is also euident, that not only he, that doth this, is guilty of rebellion, but all those that consent and concurre with him in the same act: in which manner transgressed all the other apostate Angels, that fell from heauen with Lucifer. As also the complices of Core, as is mentioned before. And of this S. Paul gi­ueth a generall rule,Rom. 1.12. saying. Not only those that doe wickedly are worthy of punishment, but also those that consent vnto them.

This being manifest on the one side, and it being also clearly proued on the other, that such as haue no other calling, to the ministery of Gods word and Sacraments, but an opinion that they are fit for that office, and that such as are already employed therein, doe not rightly performe their duty in discharge there­of, haue no sufficient calling, or warrant from Christ, (he neuer, either by himselfe, his Apostles, or his Church, warranting any such vsurpation, yea expresly condemneth the same, as appeareth by the testimonies before alleaged) it must needes follow, that such, as vpon the now mentioned grounds, take vpon them the charge of Pastors of Christs flocke, are rebels against him, as be­ing soueraigne ouer his Church,Math. 28. and to whō all power in heauen, and in earth is giuen. And not only they that doe this, are rebels against Christ, and his Church, but also all that fauour, follow, and ad­here vnto them in the same fact. Whether our new Gospellers, and their adherents be of this number, or no, wil appeare here­after. For if they be proued to haue, no other true calling, but that which is here mentioned, and already disproued, they are euidently conuinced, of the hatefull crime of rebellion against Christ, and his church.

The fifth Chapter. That the truth of doctrine is not a sufficient proofe of true and lawfull calling, to the ministery of Gods word, and sacra­ments. Nor is it any assured meanes for a Preacher and Pa­stor, to prooue himselfe authentically called to that charge, for him to alleage that the doctrine which he teacheth is good and true.

1. HAVING proued in the precedent chapter, that the sole opinion of the fitnesse of any person, to exercise the ministery of Gods word, and sa­craments, ioyned also with an opinion, that such as are in that charge, doe not rightly discharge it, is no suf­ficient warrant for any man, to take vpon himselfe that office, it followeth, that we examine whether euery one, that preten­deth, to teach true doctrine, hath true and lawfull calling, to the ministery of Gods word. And the sense of the question is: whe­ther they, that should haue no other proofe of their calling, to the ministery of Gods word and sacraments in his church, then that which is drawne from the nature, and quality of their do­ctrine, and manner of ministring the sacraments, in this sort: The doctrine which we preach and maner of ministring the sacraments, which we vse, is true and conformable to Gods written word: therefore our calling to preach and minister the sacraments, is lawfully, and sufficiently warranted. The question here (I say) is, whether this be a sufficient proofe of calling, to the lawfull ministery of Gods word and sacra­ments.

2. For the clearing whereof it is to be obserued, that two conditions are necessarily required in that whereby another thing is to be proued. The first is, that it be better knowne or more euident, then that which is to be proued by it. For it is an euident absurdity to proue one thing vnknowne, by another thing, that is as little, or lesse knowne. As for example, if one should proue the starres in the firmament, to be euen or of equal number, because they are not odde; or if one should prooue [Page 42] himselfe no bastard, because he is borne in lawfull wedlocke, the latter being no better knowne then the former, which should be proued by it? or (which is more to our purpose) if one should proue himselfe to be a lawfull iudge or iustice, because hee iudgeth all causes according to equity and iustice; I say, that these, and all other such like proofes whereby we would prooue the matter, which is in doubt and in question being as little or lesse certaine then that, which we would prooue by them, are euidently absurd, and of no force. For in this case, that which should be proued, is made no better knowne, nor no more certaine, then it was be­fore.

The second condition required in that thing, which is to be the proofe of another, is, that it be alwaies certainly, and in­fal [...]ibly ioyned with that, which is to be proued, (if we speake of certaine, and infallible proofes, as here we doe): for though one thing should be more euident, and better knowne then ano­ther, yet vnlesse it be found alwaies ioyned with the other, it cannot make any certaine, and infallible proofe of it. For ex­ample, it is more euident to him, that seeth a tree blossomed, that it is blossomed, then that it will beare fruit: and that a man, whom we see moue, doth verily moue, then that he doth ride on horsbacke, and yet neither is that an infallible and certaine proofe, that the tree blossomed, will bring fruit: nor this, that the man which moueth, doth ride on horsbacke, be­cause neither the one, nor the other, is alwaies certainely ioyned with that, which should be proued. This being ob­serued.

Conclusion.3. It is euident, that it cannot be any conuenient, or suffi­cient proofe of lawfull calling, to the ministery of Gods word, and sacraments, to alledge or affirme, that the parties, whose calling is in dispute, as doubtfull and vncertaine, doe teach true doctrine, and minister rightly the sacraments. And the reason is easie; because in this proofe, is neither of the conditions, whic [...] are required in a sufficient proofe, much lesse are they bo [...]h, and therefore is it not only insufficient but very idle and absurd. But let vs see, how neither of those conditions is found in this proofe.

First it is no lesse vncertaine and vnknowne, that the do­ctrine [Page 43] preached by any new master is true, and conformable to the holy Scriptures, then that his calling, who preach­eth it, is good and lawfull: yea vnles it be the same do­ctrine, with that of the whole Catholique Church, (as if it be new, it cannot be) it must needs be farre more vncer­taine, and more difficult to know, then is his calling, and there­fore can be no sufficient proofe thereof. For whether the proofe of doctrine consist in the conformity, with the true sense and meaning of the written word only, as the Protestants teach, or of the vnwritten, and written word together, as the Catho­liques beleeue, euident it is, that the proofes of doctrin, drawne from thence must needs be farre more difficult, then are those of calling because the difficultie, in finding out the true sense of holy scripture, is farre greater, then that, which is in trying out the true calling of any Pastor; as euidently appeareth, as­well by the confession, and example of the greatest wits, that e­uer haue beene in the Christian world; some willingly confes­sing great difficulty, in finding out the true sense, and meaning of the holy Scripture: S. Augustine the Eagle of the Latine Church, with admiration confessing the profoundnesse of Gods word, breaketh forth into these words. O wonderfull profoundnesse of thy words: wonderfull profoundnesse (my God) wonderfull profoundnesse, Confess. l. 12. c. 14. it maketh a man quake to looke on it: to quake for reuerence, and to tremble for the loue thereof. And in another place, the same ho­ly Doctor saith: that for no other cause, De Gen. ad lit. c. 9. l. 2. are heresies made but because men not rightly vnderstanding the scriptures, doe obstinatly affirme their owne opinions, against the truth of them: others of as great vn­derstanding peraduenture as he, but lesse humility, haue euidently erred from the true sense, and meaning of the Scrip­tures, as witnesse the laps and errors of Tertullian, Origen, Lucifer, with many others: as also by the euident testimony of the scripture it selfe. How can I vnderstand the things, which I read, Act. 8.31. 2. Pet. 3.16. (saith the religious Eunuch) vnlesse some man shew me? S. Peter also saith: that in the Epistles of S. Paul are certaine things hard to be vnderstood, which the vnlearned and vnstable depraue, as also the rest of the scriptures, to their owne perdition. Which difficulty our Sa­uiour Christ well knew, and therefore for remedie there­of, he opened the vnderstanding of his Apostles, Luc. 24.25. that they might vnder­stand the scriptures.

[Page 44]4. Neither doth the answer, which the Protestants vse to make to this, any way satisfie, saying; that though there be many hard passages in holy scripture, yet are they either expla­ned in other places more easie, or else they doe not containe any other points of doctrine necessary to be knowne, then those that are contayned in the more easie places: This answere (I say) doth no way satisfie. For besides that euery place of scripture contayneth doctrine profitable to teach, to argue, to correct, to instruct in iustice, 2. ad Timo. 3.16. as S. Paul teacheth, (and therefore not only the easie, but the hard places also): the many expositions giuen by the Prote­stants, contrary to the vnderstanding not only of the Catholikes, but also of other Protestants, vpon diuers places of scripture, contayning chief points of faith, as for example of these words: This is my body: Math. 26. to omit the misunderstanding of holy Scriptures, by all former heretikes: (the true cause of all heresies, as S. Au­gustine saith) doe euidently shew the great difficulty, in finding out the true sense, and meaning of Scriptures, euen in places contayning points of doctrine necessary to be knowne and be­leeued, and therefore this their answer is both false and friuo­lous.De doctrina Christiana li. 2. c. 6. And though S. Augustine saith, that nothing almost is drawne out of those obscurities, which may not be found in other places vttered plainly: yet is neither his saying vniuersall, as is euident by that word (almost) neither is his meaning such, as that without the inter­pretation of the Church, all the plainer places of scripture may be easily vnderstood: As the variety of interpretations opposite to the true meaning of the Scripture, and therefore causing he­resies as the same S. Augustine saith, doth euidently conuince. And thus much of the difficulty of finding out the true sense of Gods words, from whence the proofe of doctrine is to be had. It re­mayneth, that we now see, what difficulty there is in finding out the proofe of true and lawful calling, that afterwards it may appeare, whether the truth of doctrine, may be a conuenient proofe of calling, or no.

5. In the proofe of calling there is neither other difficulty nor mistery, then that he, that pretendeth to be lawfull Pastor, Preacher, or minister of Gods word, and sacraments, doe pro­duce some authenticall instrument, or testimony witnessing, that he is put in that charge by him, that is confessed to haue autho­rity to giue it, That this is the only knowne, and common way [Page 45] of making proofe, of the ordinary calling to the ministery, there is none of the Protestants, that deny it. I say of t [...]e ordinary cal­ling, for of that only I speake here, leauing the extraordinary to another place. This being so, no man of any iudgement will say, that it is a more plaine, and easie thing to know, what do­ctrine is conformable to the true sense and meaning of the Scri­pture; then to know, who hath lawfull calling of the ministery of Gods word and sacraments: but the quite contrary: and ther­fore that the allegation of the truth of Doctrine, or the confor­mity thereof with the word of God, cannot be any competent or conuenient proofe of lawfull calling, according to the grounds proposed, in the beginning of the Chapter.

6. And this is manifest by this cleare example. No ciuill ma­gistrate, and in particuler, no iudge or iustice, was yet euer found so extrauagant, as to proue himselfe true and lawfull iudge, by the right, and iust deciding of causes: But before any man can or dare to take vpon him to sit in iudgement, as a publique iustice, vpon any matter, be it ciuill or criminall, he produceth his pa­tent, or warrant, whereby it authentically appeareth, that he is established in that charge, by the soueraigne authority of the Prince: without which neither the alleadging nor the manifest proofe, both of his skill, and equity in deciding of causes, would auaile him for the proof of his calling to that charge. Yea though he were furnished with both kinde of proofes, to wit, as well with that of skill, and equity in iudgments, as with that of the Kings patent, yet who seeth not, that the latter is not onely a more certaine and authenticall, but also a more easie, and plaine proofe of his establishing in that office. For to discerne this, the only view of the Kings authenticall patent or other writ, accu­stomed in those affaires, with a small knowledge is sufficient; whereas to discerne the other, the skill as well in the nature of causes, as also in the tenour of the Law, (which is found in few) is required. And therefore he that should proue his Commis­sion, and powre in this case, by his good behauiour in his office, should prooue that, which is more cleere and easie to be known, by that which is farre more obscure, and more difficult, which to the sight of all men, is ridiculus and absurd. And this is true, though we should suppose, that the proofe of his knowledge, and sincerity in exercising that office, should be sufficient profe [Page 46] of his lawfull calling, and establishing therein: which notwith­standing is farre otherwaies, as will euidently appeare by that which followeth. The like absurdity they commit, that labour to proue their lawfull calling to the ministery, by the truth of their doctrine, and manner of ministring the Sacraments, though there doctrine were knowne, to be most conformable to holy scripture, and their manner of ministring the sacraments likewise approued.

7. But our new Reformists doe commit a farre more grosse and foule absurdity. For the truth of their doctrine, and their manner of ministring sacraments, being as much in doubt and dispute, as their calling, is it not more then absurd to produce the truth of their doctrine, for proofe of their lawfull calling? And is not this proofe altogether like vnto that, whereby the starres in the firmament, should be proued to be euen in num­ber, because they be not odde, this being as vncertaine as the other? And yet there is this difference, betwixt these two proofes, that he that should indeed proue the starres not to be odde, should sufficiently prooue them to be euen: Whereas he that should proue the Protestants doctrine to be true, should not for all that proue their calling to be good, as shall be shewed by and by.

Hitherto it hath beene shewed, that the proofe of calling to the ministery, by the truth of doctrine, is inconuenient and absurd, though the doctrine should be admitted for true. But in the case of our aduersaries, where the truth of doctrine is al­so in controuersie, it is most ridiculous and impertinent. But now let vs consider the second condition necessarily required in a lawfull proofe.

8. Where there is true doctrine, there is not alwaies law­full calling, to the ministery of Gods word and sacraments: and therefore the proofe of calling by the truth of doctrine, faileth in the second condition necessarily required in a lawfull proofe: and is like to this. Peter is learned in the Law, and an honest man, therefore a lawfull iudge: or Iohn is a valiant captaine, and faithfull subiect, therefore the Kings Lieutenant generall. For the truth of doctrine doth no more inferre the lawfulnesse of calling, to minister Gods word, and sacraments, then the [Page 47] knowledge of the Law, or skill in martiall affaires, ioyned with honesty, and fidelity, doe inferre the office of iudge or Lieu­tenant.

It is euident by many instances out of holy scripture, that the the truth of doctrine is not alwaies with lawfull calling to ministery of Gods word and sacraments. For S. Mathias before he was chosen to be an Apostle, had doubtlesse the same doctrine, that the other Apostles had, and yet had he not any lawfull Apostle-ship. And S. Ioseph surnamed the iust, who was chosen to stand with S. Mathias for the Apostle-ship,Act. c. 1. from which Iudas fell, had no doubt the same truth of doctrine, that S. Mathias had, and the rest, yet was he not an Apo­stle.

The like may be said of the rest of our Sauiours Disciples, and of those of the Apostles, who though they had the truth of do­ctrine, yet were they not for all that al owed for lawfull Pa­stors, and Preachers, vntill they were ordayned thereunto by the Apostles, or those that had that power from them. For why did S. Paul leaue Titus in Creete, Tit. c. 1.5. to ordaine Priests in all the Ci­ties, as he had appointed: but because more is required to the law­full power of Priest-hood, then truth of doctrine? whence it is manifest that wheresoeuer is true doctrine, there is not alwaies lawfull calling, to the ministerie of Gods word and sacraments. Which is yet more euident by the ex­ample of Core and his complices, who differed not from Moises and Aaron in any point of doctrine, or manner of Sacraments, sacrifice or ceremonies, but onely in the vsurpation of that function, whereunto they were not called, for the which they were so seuerely punished, as is before mentioned. Who notwithstanding might with much more reason, haue vsed this argument against Moi­ses and Aaron, then our aduersaries can vse it against vs, and might haue said, we haue true doctrine, and the lawfull man­ner of ministring the sacraments, aswell as you, therefore haue we the lawfull Priest-hood aswell as you. Which very ex­ample S. Ciprian vseth against some heretiques in his time say­ing; It cannot helpe them any thing, Epist. 76. ad Magnum. that they are said to know the same God the father with vs, and his sonne Iesus Christ, and the same [Page 48] holy Ghost. For Core, Dathan, and Abiron, did know the same God, with the Priests Aaron and Moises, liuing in the same law, and religion, inuocating the only true God, yet because ecxeeding the degree of their mini­stery, did vsurpe vnto themselues the licence of sacrificing against Aaron who by Gods ordinance had the lawfull Priesthood, therefore were they stricken from heauen, and receiued presently conding punishment, for their presump­tuous attempt. Thus far S. Cyprian, who had he either liued in these daies, or had our aduersaries liued in his, he would haue said vn­to them the same, their case being like to theirs, to whom he saith this.

Homil. 11. in epist. ad Ephesios in the moral. part.And S. Chrysostome confirmeth the same in these words. Doe ye thinke it is sufficient to say they are true beleeuers, and that it importeth not, though the election of Prelates perish? For what doth it auaile, if this be not exact and perfect? for we ought to contend for this as for the faith it selfe.

9. By these irreprouable testimonies both of holy Scrip­tures, and the ancient Fathers, it is euident, that the truth of do­ctrine, cannot be any sufficient proofe of lawfull calling to the ministery of Gods word, and Sacraments. And the reason is, be­cause the truth of doctrine, and lawfull calling proceed from principles, that are different in themselues, and not so dependent one of the other, but that the one may be well without the o­ther. For the truth of doctrine is taken from the conformity it hath with Gods reuealed word: but the calling of Pastors, or commission to minister lawfully Gods word, and sacraments, is receiued from the person of our Sauiour Christ (to whom all power is giuen in heauen, and in earth) by such meanes as he hath ordayned, and instituted for that purpose, whereof there is frequent mention in holy Scriptures, as we shall see more at large hereafter. Which being so, no maruel it is, that the one may be without the other, and consequently that the one cannot be any certaine, or sure proofe of the other. And this diuersity of principles or beginnings▪ whence the truth of doctrin, & lawful­nes of calling do proceed, is made more manifest by the example before mentioned of a ciuil magistrate. For the equity and iustnes of euery sentence, or iudgment in cases of the law, is taken from the conformity it hath, with the law it selfe, and with the na­ture of the case decided; And the authority of the iudge is r [...] ­ceiued from the Soueraigne, by such publique instruments a [...] meanes, as in euery common-wealth are ordayned for that p [...] ­pose. [Page 49] Which two things who doth not see to be so different, and so independent one of the other, that the one may easily be without the other? as it is also in the thing we speake off. For though the lawfull calling to preach, and minister Gods sacra­ments, doth presuppose truth of doctrine, with other qualities requisite, or at least ought to doe, yet doth not truth of doctrine necessarily inferre lawfull power to preach, as is manifest by that which is already said.

10. But here may be made a cauill in this manner. This question, What is calling? necessarily goeth before this other;A cauill pre­uented. where is lawfull calling, or who hath lawfull calling? For it is in vaine to aske where it is; vnlesse it be first knowne what it is; But this question, what is calling? is a point of doctrine, and not of calling, or authority, and therefore questions of doctrine must, or ought to goe before those of calling, and consequently truth of do­ctrine may be proofe of calling. And because questions of do­ctrine are to be decided by scripture, therefore is this question also to be tried by Scripture. For the satisfying of this cauill, it is to be obserued. First, that though this question: What is calling? be a question of doctrine, and necessarily goeth before this o­ther, where is calling or who hath it? yet doth it not therefore follow that all questions of doctrin, ought to goe before all those of cal­ling. As in the like case, though this question, what is lawful iuridi­cal power? be a question, of law, not of power, or authority, and necessarily goeth before this other, who is a lawful iudge, or who hath lawful iuridical power? yet doth it not therfore follow, that all que­stions of law are, or ought to be decided before this question of power or office, to wit, who is a lawful iudge or who hath the lawful po­wer to iudge? But when this is in doubt, it must necssarily be deci­ded before all others, excepting that one, what is a lawful iudge? be­cause without the decision of this question, who is lawful iudge? no other questions in law can be rightly, & iuridically decided: and the same happeneth in our question of Ecclesiasticall calling.

Secondly, it is to be obserued, that the difference or dispute, between vs, and our aduersaries is not about this question: What is lawful calling? For in this we all agree, to wit, that it is the lawful power to minister the word of God, & sacraments, in the church of Christ, therfore is not necessary to be disputed, it being suppo­sed by either party. But the difference between vs is, where this [Page 50] lawfull power is, or who hath it. To wit, whether the Prote­stants haue it, or no: Which is the first question of controuer­sie, that by all right, and lawful proceeding, ought to be decided betwixt vs.

Thirdly, it is to be obserued that though the Scripture doth sufficiently expresse both what this calling is, and by what means it is giuen, and deriued to those, that are made Pastors, as also the temporal law doth the office of a ciuil magistrate: yet doth it not nor can it expresse, who or what particuler person hath this cal­ling. For this necessarily includeth a matter of fact, which is as often repeated, as there is any new Pastor created, and therfore cannot be expressed in holy scriptures: as neither can the tēporal law declare, what person in particuler is true & lawful iudge, or iustice. So that we may truly say, that the scripture doth declare what is calling, but it doth not, nor cannot declare where it is, or who hath it. And again, that it doth indeed declare it, but it doth not giue it, as neither doth the temporall law giue the ciuill ma­g [...]trate his office. Therfore though it be true, that this question where is this calling? be to be decided by scripture; yet this other que­stion: where is this calling? or who hath it? which is only in controuersie here, cannot be decided by Scripture, because this includeth, or supposeth a matter of fact, which the Scripture cannot expresse. But now I wil go forward with my purpose, whence I may seem to haue somwhat digressed, by reason of the obiection made and answered.

11. This kind of proofe of calling, by the truth of doctrin be­ing so euidently impertinent and defectiue, as is already shewed, some that are not so throughly acquainted, with the absurd shifts of our new Reformists, may peraduenture thinke that they vse it not at all, but that they are wronged by this imputation: there­fore it will not be amisse to set downe their owne words, that they may be heard speake in their owne cause.

Answer to a demand of their voca­tion.First certaine Ministers of the pretended Reformation in France say thus. If there were no other reason, to prooue our vocation to be good, this would suffice, to wit, that we haue the true, and pure doctrine whol­ly, whereupon the true calling doth depend. This therefore we say, that where is ture doctrine, there also may be true calling, which is an order in the church prescribed by the doctrine. But we haue the true doctrine, as we will [...]r maintaine; and therefore doe we conclude, that we may haue the true calling, [Page 51] though we haue it not from others. These are the selfe words of these new Pastors, and Monsieur du Plessis saith the same in effect, when he saith, that to those, that aske them for their calling, they may answer in one word after our Sauiour, the words which we preach, beare witnesse of vs: which is a text of Scripture of his owne coyning, as is before noted. All which sufficiently sheweth, that they would prooue their calling, by the truth of their doctrine.

But how ridiculous this argument of theirs is, euery child may see. We haue (say they) the true doctrine. (well for disputations sake, we will suppose it so, though in it self it be most false) ther­fore (say they) may we haue true calling. Be it so what then? doth it follow hereupon, that they haue true calling? As well surely as if one should say, I am a true marchant, and may haue a thousand pounds in my purse, therefore I haue so much in my purse. Who would not laugh at the vanity of this fellow? And whereas they seeme to brag, that they haue other proof of their vocation besides the truth of their doctrin, when they say: if there were no other proofe of our vocation, then the truth of our doctrine: it is but a vaine brag of theirs, for they haue none at all, as is inuincibly proued against them, by their owne publike confession, propo­sed to the world for a declaration of their faith in these words. we beleeue that no man ought to intrude himselfe into the church gouernment, Confession of Geneua arti. 31. but that this be done by election (so far as is possible, and as God doth permit) which exception we wittingly adde, because it hath bin needful somtimes, and namely in these our daies, when the state of the Church was interrupted, that God should raise men by an extraordinary meanes to redres his church, which was in ruine, and desolation. This is the publike confession of their faith, whereby they openly professe themselues, to haue no o­ther vocation, but extraordinary. Now I coniure them, for the maintenance of this their extraordinary vocation, to bring some other proofe of it, then the pretended truth of their doctrine: which they can neuer doe, seeing thy haue not, and therfore doe not allow of, any miracles.

12. I know well that Monsieur du Plessis in France, and D. Field in England doe say, that the new ministery hath the same ordinary vocation, that is confessed by themselues to be in the Catholik Roman Church. The truth of which affirmation shall be exa­mined in due place. In the meane while the iudicious Reader may obserue, that these Doctors in affirming this, doe directly [Page 52] contradict the confession of their chiefest reformed Church of Geneua, whose Pastors, as we haue seen aboue, do professe to haue no other then an extraordinary vocation. And so doubtful euen among themselues is this matter, which ought to be most cleare, as being the ground of all their preaching and beleefe, that they cannot tell whether they should cal their vocation ordinary, or extraordinary. Some saying it is ordinary, asPlessis Tretise of the Church c. 11. sect. If therfore. Monsi. du Plessis andField 3. booke of the church c. 39. D. Field: some extraordinary, as the confession ofConfessi­on of Geneua artic. 31. Geneua; some both ordinary, and extraordinary, as theMini­sters of Frāce answer sect. For as much as perta [...]neth to the first. Ministers of France, in the treatise before mentioned: all speaking of the same churches, without inuoluing that of England, which hath speci­all priuiledge, as we shall see afterwards. All which being well waied, it cannot be much marueiled that the Reformists would make some shew of proof of their vocatiō, by the truth of their doctrine. For being on the one side destitute of all other proba­ble proof, and on the other side knowing right wel, that if they should once confesse themselues to haue no calling at all (as in­deed they haue not, but come of themselues, being sent by none) they should quickly be discried to be false prophets, and such, as in the holy scripture are called wolues, theeues and robbers, they are necessarily constrayned, to vse this absurd shift of prouing their calling,Io. 10.1.2. by the pretended truth of their doctrine. The absurdity wherof, though euident to euery one, that with any smal atten­tion waigheth it, yet is it not so apparant, but to such, as either are preuented with a preiudicate opinion, of the corruption of the Roman Church, which they impugne, or to such, as through carelessenes of their owne eternal good (of which sort the world is full) will not stand to weigh the vanity, and leuity therof, it may seeme sufficient. This apparent shift therfore they willingly, and craftily vse, that vnder the colour thereof (if it be possible) they may passe this point of their vocation, which is such a straite, as being kept with any indifferent ward, they know they can neuer passe: and therefore is by our Sauiour Christ called the doore of the sheep-fold, Io. 10.1.2. which being by any slight once passed, they are straight in the maine dispute of doctrine. Wherein though they haue no more ground of truth, then they haue true calling, yet are they not so easily, and euidently conuin­ced of falshood and error (to the capacity of euery one) as they are of the nullity of their vocation. For as it is far more easie to [Page 53] keep the dore, that the theefe enter not into the sheepfold, then to thrust him out again, being once entered, so is it far more easie to conuince all heretiks, of their intrusion, and want of calling (which is, as it were, to keepe them out of dores: then to cōuince them of false doctrine, and error in faith, which is, to trust them out againe, after they be once entered. And the reason hereof, (for so much as concerneth our controuersie with the pretēded Reformers) is euident. For they not admitting any other triall of doctrine, the then words of the scripture, and those inter­preted and vnderstood, as they themselues will, it is no maruell though they cannot easily be conuinced, of error in doctrine, (I say) conuinced so, as they haue no euasion: which is not pecu­liar to the heresie of these daies, but common to all heresies, that euer haue beene. For neuer were there any heretikes, that did not alleage scripture for themselues, which if we should suppose to be vnderstood in no other sense, and meaning, but as they did vnderstand it; no maruell would it be, though they could not easely be conuinced of error and falsitie. And for a pregnant proofe heerof, may serue the example of that silly Arian Legate, not long since burned in Smith-field, whom all the Doctors and Bishops in England, could not conuince of he­resie by only scripture, at least as he though. Wheras in the point of calling, there is no such meanes, either by obstinate wrang­ling or false pretence of scripture, to cast dust into mens eies, and to make their case if not probable, at least doubtfull. For vnlesse they bring forth the sensible testimonie of their calling, by the knowne Pastors of the church, they are immediatlie without farther proofe, or triall, knowne to be intruders, and rauening wolues. And this is the very true reason, why our new masters would so gladly skip ouer the point of voca­tion, (wherin they know they cannot hide their woluish fangues) and at the first leape, iumpe into the dispute of do­ctrine, where they know that only obstinacie, and wilfulnes, and a resolution to stand to no iudgment, but their owne, will furnish them of sufficient meanes, to wrangle till the worlds end. And this is euident not only by the disputes, they main­tanie against the Catholike doct [...]in [...], but by the endles iarres, they haue among themselues.

The sixth Chapter. That the sole election of the people is not a sufficient warrant, and calling, to the lawfull ministerie of Gods word & Sa­craments.

1. THat is that lay persons, be they Princes, or subiects, Magistrates, or common people, few, or many haue no power to ordayne Pastors, and to giue them au­thoritie, wherby they may lawfullie preach, and mi­nister Sacraments, or (which is the same thing) that no person elected by them, may lawfullie without any further calling or commission, take vpon him the ministerie of Gods word, and Sacraments with them, who haue so elected him.

Monsieur du Plessis, finding belike, that without this helpe, it is not possible to maintanie the calling of their reformed brethren in generall, but that some of them at least must needes be found, to haue intruded themselues into the ministerie without any calling, deliuereth this doctrine, which though it sute well with their religion, yet is it not only most false and absurd in it selfe, but also contrarie to their cheefest masters of reformation, as we shall see by and by; his words are these.

Plessis of the churh cap. 11. sect. and though &c. He seeketh all corners to maintaine their calling but in vaine. Although some of our men in such a corrupt state of the church, as we haue seene in our time, without waiting for calling, or allowance of them, who vnder the title of Pastors, oppressed the Lords flocke, did at first preach without this formall calling, and afterwards were chosen, and called to the ministerie, by the churces, which they had taught, to the which they had vowed their seruice, and ministerie: yet this ought to seeme no more strange, then if in a free common-wealth, the people without waiting either for the consent, or for the voices of those, that tirannise ouer them, should (according to the lawes) make choice of good and wise Magistrates, and such (happelie) as God would serue his turne of for their deliuerie, and for the publique restitution. Thus Monsieur du Plessis. Where it is euident, that in his doctrine, the election of the people is a sufficient calling to the holy mini­sterie, at least in such, as haue laboured amongst them in the [Page 55] want of others, and haue vowed their seruice, and ministerie vnto them. And this do all his arguments prooue, if they did prooue any thing, as we shall see by and by.

2. This doctrine is euidently confuted by Caluin himself in these words:He condem­neth himself for he was neuer so ordored. Institut. l. d. c. 3. sect. 16. Although there appeareth no other certaine precept of imposition of hands, notwithstanding because we see it to haue been euer vsed by the Apostles: their diligent vse therof ought to be to vs insteed of a commandement. And to exclude Monsieur du Plessis customarie shift of pretended necessitie, it is to bee noted that Caluin speaketh of a time, wherin there was greater necessitie of Pastors, then was or could be euer since, to wit, of that time, when the haruest was great, and haruest men but few, as our Sauiour himself saith:Math. 6.37. And Luther the father of all the refor­mers. Inquire diligently, if they can prooue their vocation: In locis com­munibus. pag. 38. For God neuer sent any, but either called by man, or declared by miracles, no not his owne sonne. But let vs see how this doctrine of Monsieur du Plessis agreeth with the holy scripture.

First, it supposeth for a ground, without which it cannot stand, that the church of Christ may be so oppressed, and ouer-run with Antichrist, that there remaine in it no true and lawfull Pastors: For so long as there remanie any such, others may be ordained by them, and so it shall not be needfull, to re­curre to any extraordinarie manner of ordination by the electiō of the people, as Monsieur du Plessis here mentioneth. But this suppositiō is not only without all warrant of holy scripture, (which sole reason according to their owne doctrine, is suffi­cient to conuince it of falsitie) but is also manifestly, against the expresse testimonie of the same, and therfore is euidently here­ticall.Cap. 62.6. Vpon th [...] wals Hierusalem (saith almightie God by the Prophet Esay) haue I set watchmen: day nor night shall they be silent for euer. If these watch men, who are manifestly the Pastors of Gods church, shall not be silent for euer; how can it be true, that the church shalbe at any time so deuoide of lawfull Pastors, that there shall none remanie to ordanie others?

And our Sauiour Christ giueth vs most infallible assurance of this neuer fayling order of Pastors in his church, for being, to leaue the world by his corporall and visible presence, and to go to his father, giuing that power and commission to his Apostles, by vertue wherof, they were to plant his church in the whole [Page 56] world, he saith. All power [...] giuen me in heauen and in earth. Going ther­fore teach ye all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost. Teaching them to obserue all things whatsoeuer I haue commanded you, Math. 28.20. and behold I am with you all daies euen to the con­summation of the world. Now if Christ be with the Pastors of the church all daies vntill the worlds end; how hath his church been so without true Pastors, from the time, wherin she first failed (as our aduersaries pretend, vntill Luthers apostacie, which hath been for many hundreths of yeares) that there were none to giue lawfull calling vnto others, but they were forced to come, not being called, and run, not being sent? Let Monsieur du Plessis, and all his crew either deny this to be holy scripture, or say that our Sauiour hath fayled of his promise, or that the church neuer wanted true Pastors. I leaue them to make choice of one of these three things: for one of them must necessarilie be true; And because the two first are blasphemous heresies, they are forced to accept of the third, which being no lesse true, then the other two are false, doth conuince Monsieur du Plessis his doctrine to be hereticall: and farther, that all those, that take vpon them the ministerie of Gods word and sacra­ments, without the lawfull ordination by true Pastors, vnder pretence, that all such as are, or were, failed in Gods church, are theeues and robbers, as not entring by the dore, but climing vp another way.

Io. 10.1.3. S. Paul also, after our Sauiour Christ, testifieth the same perpetuall continuation of true Pastors in Gods church, in most expresse words saying. He that descended, the same is also he that is ascended aboue all the heauens, that he might fill all things: And he gaue some Apostles, some Prophets, and other some Euangelists, and other some Pastors and Doctors. Ad Ephes. 4. To the consummation of the saints, vnto the worke of the mini­sterie, vnto the edifying of the bodie of Christ, vntill we all meete into the vnity of faith, and knowledge of the sonne of God. Is it not euident here, that our Sauiour hath ordayned Pastors, and Doctors to con­tinue in his church, till we all meete in vnitie of faith (that is) till the end of the world? Let the prudent reader iudge what pastors they are like to be, that can pretend no other right, or title to that charge, but the surmised faile of all true Pastors. Surely if S. Pauls doctrine be true, such fellowes must necessa­rily be theeues, that come to robbe and rauen, and not shep­heards, [Page 57] that should keepe, and gouerne the flocke of Christ) as our Sauiour himself doth stile them.Io. 10.1.2. And these so expresse te­stimonies of holy scriptures, do manifestly conuince, the suppo­sition of the faile of Pastors in the church, to be most false, and hereticall: And consequently it doth also conuince, the calling, or ministerie of those pretending reformers, that is built theru­pon,Confess. act. 31. (as the falsly reformed church of France confesseth theirs to be) not only to be no lawfull ministerie, but also to be a ma­nifested sacrilegious rebellion, and vsurpation.

Farther the Apostle teaching expresly; that no man taketh vpon him the honour (of priesthood) but he that is called of God as Aaron: And againe; that no man can preach, vnles he be sent. It is manifest, that those whom Monsieur du Plessis confesseth to haue preached first without this formall calling, haue trans­gressed the expresse prescript of the holy Ghost. And though the choice, and election of the churches taught by them, (wherof Monsieur du Plessis speaketh) should be granted a sufficient warrant, for their preaching afterwards (which no man will euer grant) yet himself cannot deny, but their first preaching was without commission, or warrant, and therfore vsurped. Neither is it lesse manifest, that the churches, which these men taught, could haue no power to call them, and make them lawfull Pastors. For neither had they this power of themselues, as shall appeare by the answere to his first argument: neither had they it from God by any grant, for no such thing appeareth, either in holy scripture, Ecclesiasticall tradition, Councels, or Fathers, but ma­nifestly the contrary (I speake of such election as giueth power to preach, and not of such, as goeth before ordination) neither could they receiue it from their new Pastors, who hauing it not themselues, could not giue it to their hearers, or disciples: And therfore had they it not at all, how could they therfore giue any lawfull authoritie to their Pastors to preach, or minister sa­craments? Certes they could not do it.

This being most cleare: whence will Monsieur du Plessis say, that their new ministers (descending from these first conuinced vsurpers) haue their calling? Doubtles from no other, them him, who taugh Core to take vpon him, the office of sacrificing for the vsurpation wherof, he was destroied with fire from heauen. Are they not therfore subiect to that heauy sentence,Numbers. 16. thundred [Page 58] out by the holy Ghost in these words; wo to them, that haue perished in the contradiction of Core.

Iude 11.4. Now for the preuenting of certaine friuolous cauils, which in the behalf of our aduersaries may here be made, it is to be obserued, that the question is not betwixt them and vs, whe­ther all the Pastors of Gods church, either were, when Luther first began to preach his heresie, or now are, without all fault or note of blame, for their liues and manners; but whether there were not then, and are now in the Catholique Romane church, Pastors furnished with true, and lawfull calling; and at least such, as our Sauiour speaketh of,Math. 23.2.3. when he saith: vpon the chaire of Moises haue sitten the Scribes and Pharisees, all things therfore, whatsoeuer they shall say to you, do yee, but according to their workes do ye not, for they say, and do not. Where our Sauiour doth euidentlie distinguish betweene the office or function of Pastors, or Prelates, and their life and manners, and will haue them to be obeyed, in that they commaund and teach as his officers, but will not that they should be alwaies immitated in their life and workes: to wit, when their deeds be contrarie to their words, as some­times they happen to be. This obseruation frustrateth all the cauills, which the aduersaries drawe either by calumnie, or otherwise from the liues, and manners of the clergy, and Prela­tes of the Catholike Romane church.See an excel­lent saying of S. Aug. cap. 8 before the end some what. For though they were all graunted as true (as they are not) yet do they prooue nothing against their function, and calling, as appeareth euidentlie by our Sauiours owne words euen now elleaged. Neither can the wic­kednes of the Pastors of the church, (were it as great, as the ad­uersaries do falsly pretend) any more iustifie their schismaticall reuolt, and rebelliō against the same, then can the corruption, or wickednes of the Kings officers, (supposing they were most Wic­ked) iustifie the reuolt, and rebellion of his subiects against him, though raised, and begun vnder the faire shew, of reforming abuses in his officers. For if they had sincerly intended, any true reformation in the church, and not the ruine therof, they would most carefullie haue kept whole, and entire the vnitie of the same, and laboured by such meanes, as the holy Ghost hath or­dained for that purpose, to amend, and correct that which was amisse: and not by running out into open schisme, to haue broken the vnitie of faith, and communion with the church; and therby [Page 59] to make the euill altogether incurable, and irremediable. For vntill their Apostasie, the vnitie of the church, and communion of all the members therof remained whole, not withstanding watsoeuer corruption of life, and manners, whether truly being, or falsly surmised to be, in particuler persons, were they priuate, or publique.

5. If they reply hereunto and say, that this course had bene good, and necessarilie to haue been obserued, had the vnitie of the church, or the church it self, continued, but the true church being long since vtterlie perished, and abolished, and nothing therof remaining but a Sinagogue of Antichrist, vnder the shadow and colour, of a Christian church, or congregation, this course could haue no place, no take any effect. To this reply (because it is a matter that cānot here be fully handled) I will say no more, then that no man that beleeueth either the old, or new testamēt, can thinke, that the church euer hath, or euer shall (vntill the worlds end) faile or perish in such sort, as here is supposed; and therfore to say, or thinke this, is, but to maintaine one errour, and heresie by another, which cannot be any fit meane, to iu­stifie their running out into rebellion, and schisme. And albeit my present purpose will not permit me, to prosecute at large the proofe of this propositiō, (that the church neither hath, nor shall faile) yet lest any should thinke, that I haue exceeded therin, and said more then can be iustified, I haue here pointed to some few places, as well of the one, as thother Testament, that make cleare proofe therof, which I leaue to be farther viewed, and consi­dered by thee (carefull Reader) at thy best liking and leasure.Esay. 59.21. My spirit that is in thee, and my words which I haue put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seede, nor out of the mouthe of thy seeds seede (saith our Lord) from henceforth, and for euer.

In the daies of those kingdomes, the God of heauen shall raise a kingdome, Daniel. 2.44. that shall not be destroied, and his kingdome shall not be giuen to another people, but it shall breake in peeces all those kingdomes, See also Dan. cap. 7.14.27. and it shall stand for euer.

And behold I am with you all daies, euen to the consummation of the world. Math. 28.20. Vpon which words M. Fulke disclayming from the doctrine, that supposeth the failing of the church saith. We neither say, Annotations vpon the testament. nor thinke that the church hath failed: but do constantly beleeue, that it hath alwaies continued, and alwaies shall continue to the end of the world.

Luke 1.33. And he shall raigne in the house of Iacob for euer, and of his kingdome there shalbe no end.

Math. 16.18. Vpon this rocke will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not pre­uaile against it.

Ephes. 4.11.12.13. And he gaue some Apostles, and some Prophets, and other some Euan­gelists, and other some Pastors, and Doctors, to the consummation of the saints, vntill we meete in the vnity of faith, and knowledge of the Sonne of God.

Cap. 8. n. 4. and after.The arguments, which our aduersaries vse to bring, for the proofe of the churches fayling, are herafter satisfied vpon an other occasion. And now I proceede in my pur­pose.

6. Hauing thus refuted this absurd point of Doctrine, of Monsieur du Plessis, by authenticall proofe of the contrarie, it re­maineth to shew the impertinency of his arguments, which he bringeth for confirmation of the same. His first argument is this in effect: It is no more strange for a Pastor, to be called to the holy ministerie, by the people in time of necessitie, then it is for a ciuill Magistrate, to be chosen by them in the like neces­sitie. But this is nothing strange; neither therfore is the other. Wherunto I answere, that it is a most grosse absurditie, and ignorance to compare the Ecclesiasticall ministerie, or ma­gistracie, with the temporall, or ciuill in this point: thone being a meere spirituall power, to minister, and dispense spiri­tuall things, hauing their effect in mens soules, which as they can only be instituted of God, so also can they only be law­fullie dispensed by him, who is ordayned by God, and therfore the Apostle saith: Let men so esteeme of vs, as ministers of Christ, 1. Cor. 4.1. and dispensers of the misteries of God. Thother is a meere temporall power, ouer mens bodies and goods, which no doubt may be giuen by men, as we see in the first institution of kingdomes, or common wealthes. As therfore it is vnpossible for any one, to giue that vnto another, which he hath neither of himself, nor by cōmission from any other, so is it vnpossible for the people, to giue to others the authority, to minister Gods word and sacraments, which they haue neither of themselues, nor by any commission from God: or if they haue, let it be shewed, where this power and commission was giuen them. For as none doth take vnto himselfe the honour of Priest-hood, Hebr. 5. but he that [Page 61] is called of God, as Aaron (as the Apostle saith.) So doubtlesse much lesse doth any man take vpon him to giue this authority, but he which receiueth it from God, who is the sole author thereof.

His second argument is this: Philip who was but a Deacon, preacheth in Samaria without the calling of the Apostles, Act. 8. yea and without their priuitie, who notwithstanding gaue their allowance to the worke. In these three lines are two notable falsities, not in the circum­stance, but in the substance of the argument. The first, that Phi­lip preached without the calling of the Apostles. Act. 6.5. For he was Deacon by imposition of the Apostles hands, whereby he had authority to preach, and baptise, which was all he did. The second, that he did this without the Apostles priuity, which is not said in the scrip­ture, but added to it by Monsieur du Plessis, who would gladly haue S. Philip like vnto their Ministers to haue run not being sent, S. Cyprian (if his authority be of any weight with him) saith expresly, that he was sent in these words.Epist. ad Iubaianum. They that beleeued in Sa­maria, beleeued in true faith: and were baptized by Philip Deacon, whom the Apostles sent,

His third argument is the example of Frumentius before allea­ged, and retorted vpon himselfe, as an euident argument against his doctrine both there and here.

His fourth argument is drawne out of these words of Origen. Hom. 11. in 18. numeri. Et consideremus ne fortè sicut in aliqua (verbi gratia) ciuitate, vbi nondum Christiani nati sunt, si accedat aliquis, & docere incipiat, & laboret, instruat, adducat ad fidem, & ipse postmodum ijs, quos docuit, Princeps & Episcopus fiat: ita etiam sancti angeli eorum, quos è diuersis gentibus congregauerint, & labore suo, ac ministerio proficere fecerint, ipsi eorum etiam in futuro prin­cipes fiant. That is: And let vs consider whether peraduenture, as in a city where Christians are not yet borne, if one come thi­ther, and begin to teach, and labour, instruct, bring them to the faith, and afterward is made their Prince and Bishop, whom he hath taught: so also the holy Angels may be Princes of those, whom by their labour they haue gathered together of diuers Nations, and whom they haue made to profit by their ministery. Now what argument Monsieur du Plessis can draw out of these words to serue his purpose, I see not. For Origen saith nothing, but that he, that hath conuerted any city to the faith, may be­come their Bishop, which no man denieth. For S. Peter did so [Page 62] in Rome, S. Denis in Paris, S. Augustine in Canterbury, and others in other places. How doth this prooue, that the people may make their owne Bishops or Pastors? But Monsieur du Plessis hel­peth himselfe with his accustomed manner of corrupting his Authors, which is so ordinary with him, that many authorities shalt thou not finde (good Reader) either of Scripture, or Fathers sincerely vsed by him. And therefore, no maruell, that for such falsity, he receiued that shame, and confusion, in the presence of Henry the 4. King of France, and all his court, at Fountaine Belleau, Conference of Fountaine Belleau. the yeare 1600. by that learned Prelate the Bishop of Euereux, now the most illustrious Cardinall of Perron, which sticketh in his fore-head till this day, to the confu­sion of himselfe, and all his adherents, nor euer will be blotted out, but by the humble recognising thereof by them all. With this art he helpeth himselfe here and saith VVe haue example of the people, calling their Pastors in those of whom Origen speaketh, that shall come by chance into a City, where neuer any Christian was borne, shall there begin to teach, to labour, to instruct the people in the faith, whom the people shall afterwards make their Pastours and Bishops. Marke I pray thee (iudicious Reader) where thou findest in Origen these words: (shall come by chan e) and these more important (whom the people shall afterwards make their Pastors and Bishops) and learne to know Monsieur du Plessis his fidelity, in this point of citing Authors.

7. To these friuolous proofes of his foule, and absurd do­ctrine, he addeth like impertinencies in these words. In all the Scriptures, there is not one place, that bindeth the Ministery of the Gospel, to a certaine succession: But contrariwise the scripture shew­eth, that God would send two speciall witnesses, to prophecy against Antichrist, against the beast, (a calling meerely extraordinary) now against this beast, properly and indeed, doe our Martyrs, and our witnesses crie out. This shooe is so well shaped, that it will fit any foot, aswell the Arians and Anabaptists, against the Cal­uinists, as the Caluinists against the Roman Catholiques: ther­fore the same answer, that they would make vnto it, being vrged against them by the Anabaptists, or Arians shall serue them for this time.Cap. 8. n. 19. and af­ter. What there is in holy Scripture, for the suc­cession of Pastors in the Church, shall appeare in due place. In the meane while the Reader is to note, that Monsieur du Pless [...] [Page 63] doth alwaies keepe a dore open, that when he hath no other shift he may recurre to the extraordinary vocation, which is the drift of this parenthesis (a calling meerely extraordinary.) And in very deede much neede hath he of it, whiles he is driuen, to take it from the Lay-people: which no man will deny, but to be very extraordinary indeed. But of this sufficient.

The seuenth Chapter. Not all ordination, consecration, or imposition of hands is a sufficient calling to the administration of Gods word and Sacraments.

HAVING in the three immediatly precedent chapters refuted, three seuerall sorts of calling, approued by some of our aduersaries, and necessarily maintayned by them, because they finde themselues to haue no better; it followeth, that here we examine the fourth, which as it hath some more apparence of probability, so hath it more maintayners. And the question is only,State of the question. whether the ordina­tion, or imposition of hands, by a simple Priest, or Priests, being no Bishop, or Bishops, is sufficient to lawfull calling. For the imposition of hands by such of our Aduersaries, as are, or pretend to be Bishops, shall be examined hereafter at large.

Al the pretended reformed Churches descending from Luther excepting that in England) are constrayned to maintaine, this sort of ordination by Priests only, to be a sufficient, and au­thenticall calling. For well perceiuing on the one side the pretence, of internall and extraordinary calling, auouched by the Caluinists to be so strongly impugned, that they dispaire to make it good, as in the next chapter shall be proued: And on the other side being manifestly destitute, of all other ordination, or imposition of hands, then by Priests onely: [Page 64] they stand hard vpon the defence of this sort of ordination, ho­ping or at least attempting by this means, so to colour and maske their intrusion, that they may make it appeare a lawful vocation or mission.

Where be­fore pag. 369. or 376 for the ci­pher is false.2. Monsieur du Plessis hauing therefore made a long discourse little to the purpose, of their Ministers that were sent by their first men, and are come euen vnto them now liuing (for of these only the present difficulty is, whose dessent is not so great, but may easily be reckoned, being yet not one hundered yeares since it began) he commeth at last a little nearer to the matter and ma­keth this obiection against himself, in the behalfe of the Catho­liques, and saith. Against all this they can alleage nothing but that these first Reformers of the church, Iohn Hus, Luther, Zuinglius, Oeco­lampadius, Bucer, and others from whom ours are descended, were not Bi­shops, but only Priests, or Doctors. VVhereunto we haue answered in one word: that a Priest, and a Bishop in the Primitiue Church were all one, and if they differ now in titles and miters, in the essential dignity, the differ nothing at all.

But it is false, that nothing can be alleaged against their Mini­sters, except their ordination by simple Priests: which though it be abundantly sufficient, to proue the nullity of their Ministery, as shall appeare by and by, yet is it not the sole thing they want. For though their ordayners had bene true Bishops, yet their or­dination had beene none at all, wanting the true matter, and forme of holy order.The defect which com­meth of he­resie is spo­ken of at large here­after. Which they must necessarily confesse to haue beene wanting, either in the ministers, that we now speake of, or in those that ordayned them, which is all one for the proofe of the nullity of their order. For the true forme of holy order being only one in substance, and these hauing beene or­dered by a forme quite distinct from that, wherewith their or­dayners were ordered (as is euident) it cannot be, but the one of the two wanted the true forme of holy order. Which if they will say to haue beene in the first, they must necessarily likewise say, that they were not true Priests, and consequently that they could not make others such, and therefore that these new Mi­nisters of theirs, that pretend to haue beene ordered by them, to be no lawfull Ministers at all. But let vs see, how solide this an­swer is, to wit, that Priests and Bishops were all one in the Primitiue Church.

[Page 65]3. Doctor Field our Country-man, laboreth to iustifie,3. book of the Church cap. 39. The French ministry was instituted by Caluin who was not so much as Priest. the ministery of these reformed Churches, and namely of that of France, by the same doctrine, which must necessarily be the do­ctrine of all those, that will maintaine any shew of ordinary calling, in all these pretended Churches. For euident it is, that they haue no ministery ordayned by Bishops. So that it resteth to be examined, whether such as haue the sole order of Priest-hood, and are not Bishops, haue power to ordaine Priests: or whether Priests,, and Bishops are of equall power and authority: Which question may haue two senses.Two diuers meanings of the question. The first, whether these functions be equall in any respect, the second, whether they be equall in all respects. As concerning the first sense, all Catholikes doe teach that Priests, and Bi­shops are equall in that, which is the prime and principall po­wer of Priest-hood, consisting in the consecrating of the true body and bloud of Christ, in a true and proper sacrifice of the new law. Which power our Sauiour gaue to his Apostles, (and in them to all Priests lawfully descended from them by true ordination) in his last supper when he said: Hoc facite, Luc. 22. doe ye this. For this reason these two appellations of Bishops and Priests, are often taken the one for the other in this sort, that as well in holy Scripture, as in the ancient Fathers Bi­shops are called Priests, and that truely, for they are so indeed: as iudges may truely be called Councellers: or a man may as truely be called a liuing thing, the greater or more perfection contayning the lesse. And contrariwise Priests are some­times called Bishops, which doth not argue, that they were equall in all respects, but in some one, which is true, as is already noted. Now how farre or in what other respects, this equality is to be acknowledged, betweene Bishops and Priest pertayneth not to this place to examine. For supposing they be vnequall, in this one point of power to or­daine Priests and Pastors; though they should be equall in all other respects whatsoeuer, it will be sufficient to de­termine this question, in our fauour, and against our aduer­saries.

4. For as much therefore as concerneth the second sense and meaning of this question, it is the vniforme doctrin, and be­leefe of all Catholike men in all ages, that Bishops haue this [Page 66] power aboue Priests, that they can consecrate or ordaine Priests, and Pastors, which Priests cannot doe. This being proued true, it will manifestly appeare, that none of the mi­nisters of all the pretended Churches reformed, which are knowne, and confessed to haue receiued their ordination, and calling from Priests only, (as they all doe, excepting those in England and in France, the latter comming from Caluin who was not so much as Priest, no nor Deacon) are lawfull Mini­sters, but meere Lay-men, and manifest intruders, and v­surpers.

For proofe therefore of this verity, I will begin with Saint Hierome, who of all the orthodox Fa [...]hers equalleth most Priests with Bishops, and of whose testimony, our aduersaries beare themselues most confident. This holy Father handling a que­stion, which gaue him occasion to extoll all that he could, the preheminence, and dignity of Priest-hood, and where in­deed he saith as much, as can be said in that point; yet doth he euen there expresly teach, that the power of ordayning Priests, is peculiar to Bishops in these few, but not auoida­ble words.Epist. ad E­uagrium. Hom. 11. in 1. ad Timot. initio. VVhat doth a Bishop except ordination, that a Priest doth not. Saint Chrysostome hath the same in these words. Betwixt a Bishop, and a Priest there is almost no difference: for the cure of the Church is permitted also to Priests, and that whi [...]h he (S. Paul) said of Bishops, agreeth also with Priests. For Bishops exceed them only in ordination, and seeme to haue this only more then they. But to conuince this from more ancient authority S. Athanasius saith thus of one, that was brought in by the Arrians his Aduersaries, as one of his ac­cusers.Apolog. 2. epist. presbit. Mareoti ad Flaui. They suborned one Ischyras, whom they brought with them: one that was in no sort Priest, albeit he boasted himselfe to be one. For being ordayned by one Coluthus, not a true, but an imaginary Bishop, who was commanded by Hosius with the rest of the Bishops present in the generall councell, to carry himselfe as a meere Priest, as he was before, and that all those, that had beene ordayned by him, should returne to their former degree. And the Councell of Alexan­dria speaking of the same Ischiras saith.In the same Apologie af­ter the midst of the coun­cell. How can it be that he is a Priest? or by whom is he ordered? was this done by Coluthus? surely nothing else can be answered: but that Coluthus died in the simple degree of Priest, and that all the imposition of hands exercised by him were anulled, and that all those, who were ordered by him, were reduced to the ranke of Lay-persons, [Page 67] and vnder the name, and title of Lay persons were admitted to the holy com­munion, it is a thing so euident to all the world, that no man doth thinke it to be doubted of.

What those holy Fathers, and most renowned Pastors tho­rough the whole Christian world (I meane those of the first Councell of Nice, for by them was Coluthus, and his censured) would haue said, or done to our new Ministers, who doe not so much as pretend to be ordered by Bishops, but doe confesse themselues to receiue their Ministery, from such, as were Priests onely, (so shamefully absurd are they) what I say they would haue concluded against them, if either they had liued now, or that these Ministers had liued then in their daies, I leaue euen to the partiallest Reader to iudge.

5. But yet more euidently is this doctrine of the equality of Priests and Bishops conuinced of absurdity. For the Catho­lique Church aboue 1200. yeares agoe hath branded the author thereof, who was called Aerius, with the note of heresie euen for this point. Of whom S. Epiphanius saith thus.Heres. 75. His words were more furious, then humane, saying: what difference is there betwixt a Priest, and a Bishop? the one differeth nothing from the other: it is one and the selfe-same order, one and the same honour, one and the same dignity. The Bishop doth impose hands, and so doth the Priest, the Bishop baptiseth, and so doth the Priest, the Bishop doth consecrate the Misteries of diuine worship, and so doth the Priest, the Bishop sitteth in the throne, so doth the Priest. And with these words he seduced many, who esteemed him as their guide. And a little after. But all this is foolish, as is manifest to any of vn­derstanding. For how is it possible to say, that the Bishop and Priest are equal? because the Episcopall order is the begetter of Fathers, for as much as it beget­eth fathers to the Church: whereas the order of Priest-hood hauing not power to beget fathers: by the lauer of regeneration doth beget children to the church, but not Fathers, and Doctors. Thus farre S. Epiphanius.

And Saint Augustin: Heres. 53. Aerians (saith he) are named of a certaine Aerius, (to wit as Caluinists of Caluin, and Lutherans of Lu­ther, an ancient marke of Heretikes) who being Priest, and greeuing (as some say) that hee could not be made Bishop: falling into the heresie of Aerius, added thereunto diuerse doctrines of his owne, saying, that the Priest and Bishop, are by no difference di­stinguished the one from the other. Hereby it is euident, that if [Page 68] these new Reforming Ministers had liued 1200. yeares agoe, they would haue beene condemned with Aerius, and put in the ranke of Heretikes with him, for teaching that Priests may ordaine Priests, as he did. Their calling therefore that is grounded vpon this doctrine, is euidently none.

Now in liew of these conuincing testimonies, I may iustly ex­act of our Aduersaries, for maintenance of their doctrine in this point, and of their calling grounded therupon, so much proofe at least, as either one instance of a Priest ordayned by a simple Priest, esteemed and receiued of the Church for a lawfull Priest, or some decree, or declaration either of the Apostles, or the ancient Church, or at least of the Church, for the whole space of fifteene hundered yeares after Christ, that Priests haue power to ordayne Priests: or if they cannot bring any one of these proofes, (as I am assured they cannot) let them cease for shame to maintaine it any farther, and withall acknowledged their Ministers so ordayned, to be no more but meere Lay-men.

6. M. Doctor Field laboureth much, in the defence of this doctrine, of the equality of Priests, and Bishops, forsaking therein the ancient Orthodox Fathers, euen those of the Councell of Nice, and adhering vnto the condemned heretike Aerius. But before I enter into any farther contestation with him, I will aduertise the Reader of a iolly slight, which he vseth, to keepe himselfe free from the note of Aerianisme, though he maintaine the same doctrine with Aerius. D. Feild. In the nine and twenty chapter of his third booke, being to iustifie himselfe and his Protestant brethren, of that point of Aerius his heresie, wherin he taught that Bishops, and Priests are e­quall, or else to acknowledge it for true, he slightly put­teth it of to another place.D. Feild doth not only make this word (Presbiter) to be English, of purpose to a­uoid the true English word Priest which is a sacrificer but most re­diculously or malitiously turneth this word sacer­dos, a priest into minister turning these words of S. Hie­rome, Eccle­sia non est, quae non habet sacer­dotem: in this sort: It can be no church, that hoth no mi­nistery. pag. 154. Lib. 3. cap. 39. sect these being &c. What im­pertinencie can be grea­ter then to alleadge the probable do­ctrin of some deuins for a certayn grownd of a matter in controuersie. Supplement. quest. 40. art. 5. Saying of the difference betweene a Bishop and a Presbiter (marke how fearefull he is to vse the true English word, Priest, least the very sound thereof should giue euidence against their heresie) I shall haue fit occasion to speake in examining the note of succession, and the ex­ception of the Romanists against vs touching the same. Who would not thinke, but that he intended to purge himselfe of this heresie? or if hee did not, why doth hee not heere acknowledge it for good doctrine? yet when hee com­meth [Page 69] to the place appointed, doth hee not speake one word, for their iustification in this point, but directly maintay­ning the equalitie of Priests and Bishops, doth (at least indire­ctly) acknowledge, that they are in the same errour with Aerius, which in the 29. chapter before mentioned (where he should haue answered directly to the question) he rather made shew to deny, then to graunt. But let vs see, what he bringeth for the iustification of this so long since condemned heresie.

His first argument is this. The best learned amongst the Romanists confesse that, that wherin a Bishops excelleth a presbyter, is not a distinct and higher order, or power of order, but a kind of dignitie, or office, and im­ployment only wich they prooue: because that a Bishop ordeyned per saltū, or that neuer had the ordination of a Presbyter, can neither consecrate, nor ordayne, though a Priest, that neuer was Deacon, may lawfully exercise the office of a Deacon, because the higher order includeth the lower. Hence (saith he) it followeth that that, wherin a Bishop excelleth a Priest, is not a distinct power of order, but an eminencie yeelded to one aboue the rest of the same ranke for orders sake, and to preserue the vnitie of the church.

He either doth not or will not vnderstand, the doctrine of these schoolemen, to whose iudgment if he would stand, he could not defend Aerius his errour. For though these whom he citeth, with diuers others teach, that, that wherin a Bishop doth excell a Priest, is not a distinct order, or sacrament from priest-hood; yet none of them all deny, but that it is either a distinct power of order, from that which is in a Priest, which power S. Thomas in the place by him cited saith, is a power in certaine Hierarchicall actions (meaning the power to ordaine Priests and other church officers) in respect of the misticall body of Christ, aboue that which is in a Priest? or at least the same power of order ex­tendded, not by externall deputation, but by sacramentall con­secration: not by the churches ordenance but by Christs owne institution: as S. Bonauenture and Sotus. And if he cannot con­ceiue, how it may be a distinct power of order, and yet not a distinct order, let him vnderstand that one, and the same order, may haue diuers powers; As for exāple, the order of Priesthood hath power, to consecrate the true naturall body of our Sauiour Christ, and also to absolue men, who are the members of his misticall body (the church) from sin, so likewise the same order of priesthood may be extended by Episcopall consecration, to [Page 70] haue power in sundrie Hierarchicall actions (as S. Thomas spea­keth) without addition of any new order vnto it, whervnto the simple order of preisthood cannot reach. And this is the cleare meaning of those diuines, that hold the order of a Bishop, not to be a distinct order, from that of a Priest, which opi­nion is probable, but not certaine, (for many most graue and learned auctors teach the contrarie) and therfore no suffi­cient ground, to build so important a point of Christian reli­gion vpon, as is the true calling of Gods ministers. Yea were it certaine, yet doth it nothing helpe his purpose. Because a simple Priest hath not the power of order, with the same exten­sion or ampliation which a Bishop hath in those schoolemens opinions. And hence it is manifest against D. Fields illation, that in the doctrine of these deuines, that, wherin a Bishop doth ex­ceed a Priest, is not only an eminencie giuen to one aboue others of the same ranke for orders sake, but a true power of order giuen or at least extended by consecration, wherby the order of priest-hood is extended to those actions (to wit of ordering Priests, and other Ecclesiasticall officers, wher vnto without consecration it cannot reach. And this also in their opinion is the reason, why a Bishop that is not a Priest (if such an one could be) can neither consecrate the naturall body of Christ in the holy Eu­charist, nor yet ordaine Ecclesiasticall ministers; though a Priest, that neuer was Deacon, may do the functions of a Deacon. For all holy order being measuted by the power it hath in, or about the naturall body of Christ in the holy Eucharist, which power is perfected in priest-hood: where that wan­teth, there can be no higher order, because this doth essen­tially presuppose the other, and where that is, there are also all inferiour orders, because these are referred, and ordayned to the other, and are essentiallie included in it.

7. Hence likewise is solued that vnscholerlike question, which he maketh a few lines after, saying. Who knoweth not, that all presbyters in cases of necessity, may absolue, and reconcile penitents: a thing in ordinarie course appropriated to Bishops (which is false, vnles he speake of publique penitents) and why not by the same reason ordaine presbyters in cases of like necessitie? For as much as pertaineth to the circumstance of necessitie, he shalbe satisfied by and by. And for the solution of his question here proposed I will aske [Page 71] him another, to as good purpose, as his is: why a child of three yeares old can speake and ea [...]e, but cannot beget another child, which a man of 20. o [...] 30. yeares old can? The solution of this question will solue also his: For as a child: at 3. yeares hath power to eate and speake, but not to beget a child: which power not wi [...]hstanding will come vnto him without ad­dition of any distinct nature, by the only extending of his owne, by growth and strength; so likewise a Priest hath power by his simple priest hood to absolue from all sins by these words: take thou the holy Ghost, whose sins thou forgiuest, are for giuen: but he hath not power to make Priests without an Episcopall consecration, wherby his order of priesthood is extended to that power, without adding any new or distinct order, speaking according to the opinion of the deuines before mentioned.

His second argumēt may be thus framed, in case of necessitie euery simple presbyter may baptise, confirme, absolue, and reconcile penitents, and do all those other acts, which regularly are appropriated to the Bishop alone: ther­fore in case of necessitie, namely all Bishops being dead, or become heretiques, they may in like manner ordaine presbyters. I graunt that in time of ne­cessitie, a simple Priest may do all that, which is reserued to the Bishop by Ecclesiasticall, or positiue lawes. But deny that the ordayning of Priests (or yet the ministring of the sacrament of confirmation) is such: for that is a power of order, which is as necessarilie required to this action, as the power of priesthood is to thother, and therfore in no case of necessitie can this action of ordayning Priests without this power be performed. And if M. D. Field aske of me, what is to be done then for conserua­tion of the church, in case that all Bishops should be taken away by death, or become heretiques. I answere him, that the same thing is to be done in that case, that were to be done in case, that all Priests were dead or become heretiques, or that were to be done for the conseruation of mankind, in case that all men were dead, which cases are as possible, or probable, as is his case.

But he obiecteth farther and saith,lib. 11. go Armenors. cap. 7. Hales part. 4. g. 9. memb. 5. art. 1. that the best learned in the church of Rome, in former times durst not pronounce all ordinations of this na­ture (to wit done by simple Priests in the former case of necessitie) to be void. For Armachanus saith, It seemeth that if all Bishops were dead, [Page 72] inferior Priests might ordayne Bishops. And Alexander of Hales saith, that some are of opinion, that by delegation of the Pope, one that hath holy orders, may giue the same to others.

8. A weake and feeble ground to build the foundation of Christian religion vpon.Cap. 39. initio. I say the foundation of Christian religion; the question in hand importing no lesse. For where there are no true Pastors, there can be no true church, as M. Field confesseth with SS. Hierome and Ciprian, and cannot be denied by any: But where there is no true church, there can be no true faith or religion, as all men confesse, therfore where there are no true Pastors, there can be no true religion. To ground ther­fore this maine point of Christian religion (who are true Pastors) vpon the doubtfull speculatiue opinion of two schoolemen, is either to want all iudgment, or to want all other better grounds for the same; verily I am ashamed in M. Field [...] behalfe, to see his litle iudgment, or sinceritie in this point: but much more do I greeue to see the world so palpably blind, as vpon the vaine pre­tēce of reformatiō, to leaue the auncient and troden way of sal­uation, and to follow by pathes of mens yesterdaies inuention. Especially seying the masters of this reformatiō, reiecting as in­sufficient all other proofe of Catholique doctrine, but the pure, and expresse written word, not withstanding when they come to make proofe of their owne doctrine, or grounds of their faith, are forced to vse the doubtfull speculation, of one or two schoolemen. Wheras the certaine, and constant opinion of all the schoolemen togiather, maketh but a theologicall, and not a certaine probation of any veritie: I say doubtfull, for that the one speaketh doubtfully, saying only (it seemeth) thother lesse to the purpose, speaking only of other mens opinions, of whom he maketh so litle accompt, that he vouch safeth not to name them, but vnder the vncertaine terme of (quidam, certaine) and they speaking also with that condition, which maketh more against our aduersaries, to wit, vpon condition of the Popes delegation. But let vs now say a word of the necessitie, which M. Field pretendeth to haue enforced them to seeke their new ministerie, where there was neuer any found before.

9. He saith, that this necessitie is only in two cases, to wit all Bishops being dead, or els falne into heresie, now he must suppose this secōd to be their case: wherin (for the strengthning [Page 73] of his purpose) I will suppose with him (against the truth) that all those, that opposed themselues against their pretended re­formation, were heretiques; and yet for all that, shall he not be able to maintaine their ministerie to be lawfullie ordered. For wheras one only Bishop had bene sufficient to haue peopled a greater part of the world, with lawfull ministers (supposing fit men were found) then yet hath of their gospell, it is knowne that there were diuers Bishops (I speake it with griefe) in diuers prouinces, that apostating from the Catholique Romane faith, ioyned themselues with the pretended reformers, wherof Mon­sieur du Pl [...]ssis doth brag, saying. Our furst ministers had the same calling, Treatise of the church: cap. 11. sect. It therfore. No word here of Caluin the fownder of y French and Gonenean churches who was not so much as Priest. and succession, which they (Catholiques) do so much brag of. For Wickliffe, Husse (marke how he begins their pedegree with heretiques that did differ from them in most points) Luther, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, Bucer, Capito, Martyr, were Priests, Curates, Do­ctors of diuinity: I omitt Archbishops, Cardinals in Germany, England, France, and Italy, in whose calling there wanted as litle, as in that our aduersaries do approoue, and magnify in theirs. Seing therfore there were Archbishops, and Bishops in these prouince one only wherof might haue sufficed, w [...]at necessitie can they pre­tend, that their second ministers should be ordayned by simple Priests only? Here hath not M. Field, nor Monsieur du Plessis (who maintayne the same doctrine) any starting hole, but they must needes confesse, if not an absolute nullitie in their ministerie, (which to all men of indifferēt iudgmēt is cleare) yet at lest must they acknowledge euen in their owne doctrine, a culpable pre­sumption, and ouer great boldnes, as M. Field saith pag. 159. in peruerting the anciēt, and euer obserued order, established from the beginning in the church: which note cannot stand with the true spirit of reformation, (which is the spirit of peace and or­der) but is an euident marke of his spirit, that confoundeth all order. And thus much for D. Fields case of pretended necessitie, but he addeth.

Neither should it seeme strange to our aduersaries, that presbyters should sometimes ordayne, seing their Chorepiscopi, suffragans, and tituler Bishops, that according to the old course of discipline are no Bishops, do dayly in the Ro­mane church giue orders. I cannot thinke his ignorance to be so great, as to make this obiection: whence then it proceedeth, let others iudge: for he cannot be ignorant, that none may giue the [Page 74] order of priesthood in the Romane church, but he that hath the consecration, and character of a Bishop: or if he thinke the contrarie, let him bring but one instance in the whole space of 150. yeares,This distin­ction of suf­fragans he may learne of M. Mason. pa. 128. and he shall gaine his cause. Neither do I thinke that he is so ignorant, as not to know, that the Corepiscopi, of which the auncient canons speake, which he citeth, were not indeede consecrated Bishops (as the suffragans in these dayes are) but were only simple Priests, assisting the Bishop in diuerse things pertayning to his charge, as now vicars generall do, and therfore no maruell, though they could giue no holy orders: and so hath he made an argument euidently against himselfe. But after all this, he cometh to make a shew, as if he would answere that, which is obiected by the Catholiques against this doctrine, and saith.

10. All that may be alledged out of the Fathers, for proofe of the con­trarie, may be reduced to two heads. For first wheras they make all such or­dinations voide, as are made by presbyters, it is to be vnderstood, according to the strictnes of the canons in vse in those daies, and not absolutely in the nature of the thing. Synod. Calced. can. 6. Con Laodi­ceū. can. 12. Con. Antio­chenum. can. 13. Which appeareth in that they make all ordinations sine titulo voide, all ordinations of Bishops by fewer then three Bishops with the Metropolitane; all ordinations by Bishops out of their owne churches without speciall leaue. Wheras I am well assured, the Roma­nists will not say any of these to be void. Secondly, their sayings are to be vnderstood regularly, not without exception of some speciall cases that may fall out.

M. D. Field is either fowly ouerseene in this answere, or els would wittinglie deceiue his reader therwith. For the Fathers do not make voide the ordinations of Priests made by Priests, by any positiue canon, as they do the ordinations he mentio­neth, but do declare them none, absolutelie, and in the nature of the thing it selfe (to vse his owne manner of speaking). And this is cleare, first by the Fathers owne words: S. Epiphanius saith expresly, that Priests haue not power to beget Fathers to the church, but children only, where it is manifest, that he speaketh of the nature of the thing, for such Priests as are subiect to the canons by M. Field cited haue not power, (that is, haue not lawfull vse of the power) to beget children to the church by Baptisme. Farther the councell of Alexandria before cited, vrging how Ischyras (ordained by Coluthus a true Priest, but a counter­faite [Page 75] Bishop) could be Priest, and by whom he was ordered? must needs vnderstand, that he wanted not only lawfull ordina­tion, but true and sufficient ordination. For if he had had true ordination, and only a canonicall impediment suspending the vse therof, the Arians enemies vnto S. Athanasius, would quickly haue absolued him from that impediment. Againe S. Hierome and S. Chrisostome expresly denying only the power of ordayning to Priests, cannot be vnderstood otherwise, then of the nature of the thing, and not by the rigour of any canon, for in that sort, they must haue denied many other things vnto them, which (by M. Fields owne confession) are at least for orders sake re­serued to Bishops. Moreouer how could S. Epiphanius, and S. Augustin esteeme Aerius an heretique, for teaching that Priests might ordaine Priests, if this were forbidden them by the rigour of positiue canon only, and not of the nature of the thing? These Fathers were neither so ignorant, nor so light of iudgment to condemne one of heresie, for contradicting a po­sitiue canon, or at lest would they not haue omitted to specifie the canon.

11. Secondly the Fathers declaring voide the ordinatiōs made by only Priests (as M. Field confesseth) and that not by the force of any canon, for there was no such canon, (at lest before the councell of Nice, where as we see by S. Athanasius all the ordi­nations made by the counterfeite Bishop Coluthus though a true Priest, were declared to be none) this iudgment (which by the confession of our aduersaries is of most weighty authoritie) must needs be grounded in the nature of the ordination, as not proceeding from sufficient power, and not from any canon or constitution, no such canon being then made. For I suppose no man wilbee so absurdly impertinent, as to say that a precedent action auailable of it selfe may be anulled and made voide (for the time when it was done) by a following or latter con­stitution, though there were any such, which I know not, whether there be or no. And hence it is manifest, that M. D. Field his answere to the Fathers authorities, is but a meere eua­sion, or colour of an answere. But that all may vnderstand the great difference betweene the Fathers declaration, of the nullitie of the ordinations made by Priests only: and the intent of the canons by M. Field alleaged, which make voide [Page 76] future ordinations without title, and the rest specified by him.

It is to be obserued, that the fathers alleaged for the former case, do not make any canon, or constitution for future actions, but giue their definitiue sentence and iudgment of an action past, declaring it to be of no value, wheras the canons allea­ged for the second case, are constitutions made for future facts, prohibiting the whole vse of the orders so giuen, and punishing as well the giuer, as the receiuer, but not anullating the order it self, (for that is not in the power of the church, as all Catho­lique men do beleeue) and in this respect these constitutions are like vnto those ciuill lawes, that make wards or pupils, for these lawes do not take away from him, that is ward or pupill the do­minion, which he hath in his inheritance, but only suspend the vse therof, during his minoritie, and therfore maketh voide all contracts, which he shall make, during that estate of wardship. And as he at the time prefixt by the lawe, certaine circumstances obserued, cometh to the full and perfect vse of his lands, wit­hout any new purchase or gift, so in like manner those, that hauing bene debarred, or suspended from the vse of their orders receiued against the ordinance of the canons, hauing giuen iust satisfaction to the church for their fault committed, are admit­ted to the free, and lawfull vse of their orders, without any new ordinatiō, as is manifest by the cōtinuall practise of the church. So that the difference betwixt the declaring an ordination to be none, and the suspending the vse therof, is very great, as euery one may see.

M. Field his second answere, as it is but his owne assertion wi­thot any groud either of reason, authority, or instāce in practise, as hath bene hetherto shewed, is as easely by vs denied, and with better reason, then by him affirmed.

He concludeth his discourse with this vaine bragge. Thus then we see that obiection which our aduersaries tooke to be vnanswerable, i [...] abundantly answered out of their owne schoolemen, the opinion of many singulerly well learned amongst them, and their owne daily practise in that, Chorepiscopi and Suffragans (being no Bishops but only Presbyters forbidden by old canons to meddle with ordination) do with good allowance dayly ordaine Presbyters.

What wāt of modestie, honesty, or iudgmēt these words shew, I had rather the reader should see, then I should tell him. First [Page 77] hath he brought nothing out of the schoole-men in fauour of his Aerian heresie, as I thinke will appeare by that, which hath bin said in that point. Secondly it is as euidentlie false, as it is true that the sunne is vp at noone-tide that any meddle with gi­uing orders of Priest-hood, in the Roman church, but such as are truely consecrated Bishops. And what these Chorepiscopi were w [...]ich were forbidden in the ancient church to meddle with ordinations, is shewed before, and M. Field cannot be ignorant of the difference betwixt them, but he would deceiue his Rea­der, by the bare sound of the word Chorepiscopi, who are for­bidden in ancient canons to ordaine, because they were not consecrated Bishops, as is noted before.

12. Monsieur du Plessis (to end this Chapter with him) hauing obiected to himselfe in the behalfe of the Catholique doctrine,Pag. 379. the authorities of S. Epiphanius, S. Hierome, and S. Chrysostome, all expresly teaching, that Bishops haue the power of ordination aboue Priests, as we haue seene before, formeth thereunto no other answer then this:In epist. ad Titum cap. 1. But let them (Catholiques) not conceale then that which S. Hierome saith: that it is by the custome of the Church, and not by the truth of diuine ordinance, fraudulently applying these words of S. Hierome to the question now in hand, of the power of ordering Priests, (against S. Hieromes expresse words, and meaning, in his 85. Epistle to Euagrius) he speaking in the place here cited by Monsieur du Plessis, manifestly of the power of iuris­diction or argument, wherein also he saith, that the prehemi­nence of Bishops aboue Priests, is as ancient as that (ego Pauli, ego Apollo.) Whereby it is euident euen by S. Hieromes testimony, that not only in order, but also in iurisdiction Bishops excell Priests from the Apostles times, [...]hich is also cleare by his words when he saith.Epi. ad Eua­grium in fine. That we may know the Apostolike traditions to be taken from the old Testament; what Aaron, and his Sonnes, and the Leuites were in the Temple, the same doe Bishops, Priests, and Deacons chalenge to themselues in the church. But Aaron, his Sonnes, and the Leuites were one a­boue another, both in order, power, and dignity; by Gods owne appointment therefore also are in like manner Bishops, Priests, and Deacons euen from the Apostles time in S. Hieromes opinion.

13. Obserue good Reader, that I haue treated here only of that defect of calling, which proceedeth from the want of or­der, [Page 78] or power in the party that ordayneth. Whereas there are diuerse other nullities, or defects, making void the new mini­stery of the pretended reformed Churches, which hereafter we shall haue fitter occasion to speake of.

The eight Chapter. The defects found in the callings to the Ministery hitherto refu­ted cannot be supplied by any extraordinary calling, nor is there now in the Church of Christ, any extraordinary calling to the ministery of Gods word and Sacraments.

1. THIS is the last question, that I haue to dispute with the Protestants in generall; which though it might easily be decided by that, which hath hitherto bin said, yet I thought it not amisse to make it a distinct question, and to handle it a part; aswell for that some may imagine, that though in all the sundry sorts of calling hitherto refuted, there are capitall defects, and such as euidently make them none, yet peraduenture they may be sup­plied by some extraordinary manner of calling: as also for that a great and principall part of the pretended churches, namely that of France, and all those that argree with it, doe not ac­knowledge any other calling of their first Pastors, but meerely extraordinary. For disdayning, and abhorring to receiue their calling from the Catholique Roman Pastors, as from Idolaters, and ministers of Antichrist, and hauing no other way to receiue any ordinary calling, they are driuen, to bethinke themselues, of an extraordinary meanes.Illirie. Ca­talog. testiū pag. 370. 371. Osiand. epit. Hist. cont. 9. 10. 11. See Fox pag. 29. 209. Hierom. con. Lucifer. Being in this point as absurd as VValdo, who of a marchant of Lions, made himselfe, a Preacher of a new Ghospel, and framing his doctrine to his calling (as these men also doe) taught that lay persons, might consecrate, and preach, more absurd then he, that S. Hierome speaketh of; (that being but a Deacon, and teacher of a new heresie, could leaue no pedegree after him) saying: The sect died together with the man, because he being but Deacon could leaue no clarke behind him; but that is no church, that hath no Priest. For in those daies extraordinary callings were not heard [Page 79] of, the world being yet not come to so great want of sense, as to thinke of such absurdities.

Because this question is like to be somewhat long,Order of this Chapter. and ther­fore requireth to be handled with some order: I will first shew, that the French Churches, and others that accord with them, doe teach, this extraordinary vocation, least any one seeing the absurdity therof may thinke I impose it wrongfully vpon them. Secondly, I will set downe their grounds and proofes for the same, and withall refute them; and if in the third place I bring any proofes of the contrary, that is of supererogation. For the proofs in this question belong to our aduersaries, and not to vs; they maintayning the affirmatiue, and we the negatiue.

2. The French Churches therefore falsly pretending refor­mation, doe not only teach the extraordinary calling of their first Ministers, or Pastors, but doe publish it to the world as an article of their beleefe, professing thus in their confession.Confession of faith of the French church ar­ticle 31. VVe beleeue that no man ought to intrude himselfe, into the gouernment of the Church: but that this ought to be done by election, as much as is possible, and God permitteth. VVhich exception we purposly adde for that it hath beene necessary sometimes, and specially in these our daies (when the state of the Church was interrupted) that God should raise men by an extraordinary fa­shion, to rectifie, or repaire his church anew, which was in ruine, and deso­lation.

Secondly, this is also manifest by their practise. For albeit they had some Bishops Apostates from the Catholique faith, as we haue seene before out of Monsieur du Plessis, and is yet fresh in memorie, yet were they not vsed for the consecrating or or­dering their ministers, as is manifest.

Thirdly, they farther vse this practise, that if any one,Card. du Pe­ron in his re­ply sect. speak freely fo. 92. impression 1605. hauing beene ordered in the Catholique church, reuolt vnto them, they doe not permit him to exercise the ministery, vnlesse he be first ordayned againe after their new forme: testifying thereby to the world, that they acknowledge no other vocation, then extra­ordinary. For albeit they pretend that such, as are now called to the ministery haue an ordinary calling, yet doe they willingly confesse, that their first Reformers, who are not yet on hundred yeares old, haue no other then an extraordinary calling. And de facto, Caluin who was the founder of their new Church was neuer Priest, nor euer had other calling then that he tooke to himself.

Fourthly, this doctrine of extraordinary vocation, is ordi­nary euen in England, at least amongst the refined and purer spirits. For M. Fulke one of the lights of Cambrige, is so earnest in this point, that he reiecteth with much vehemencie all order, or calling taken from the Catholiques, without which, they must of necessity recurre to their extraordinary calling. His words are these:Answer to a counterfeit Catholique pag. 50. Retentiue pag. 67. Con. Duraeū l. 9. p. 821. you are highly deceiued if you thinke, we esteeme your offices of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons any better then Lay-men, and you pre­sume to much to thinke, that we receiue your ordering to be lawfull. And in another place. VVith all our hearts we defie, abhorre, detest, and spit at your stinking, greasie, Antichristian orders. And M VVhitaker another light of the Gospel hath the like, and if it were needfull, many moe both testimonies, and arguments might be brought for proofe hereof, but in a matter so plaine, we haue beene too long already.

3. Of this so extraordinary doctrine, and practise, we may by very good right exact of them at least ordinary proofe; As­well because the matter it selfe is of principall moment, touch­ing the very foundation,Cap. 7. n. 8. and ground of C [...]ristian doctrine, as is plainly deducted before; as also for that they are so r [...]gorus in exacting proofes of euery point of our doctrine, that they will admit none,Cap. 5. from the n. 2. for­ward. but plaine words of Scripture. All this notwith­standing I dare affirme, that they are not able to make any bet­ter proofe of this their extraordinary vocation, then the vilest, vainest, and most detestable heretiques, that either are, or euer were, may make, or might haue made for there vocation, to preach their heresies. I will neither except Marcion, Valentinian, Manes, or Manichoeus, Aerius, Nestorius, Pelagius, nor our new Anabap­tists, Familians, or Libertines. If this be true, as in the processe of this question, it will appeare m [...]st true, who is it, that can say, that they haue any proofe at all of their vocation? They will say that they haue the truth of doctrine, which none of the a­boue named heretiques had, and therefore haue they better proofe of their calling then the other had? This single-soled shift is effectually refuted aboue, by authority of holy Scripture Fathers, and euident reason: And for the present I say, that they sticke euer in the same mire. For what other proofes doe they bring, for the truth of their doctrine, which all the aforenamed heretiques did not bring. They bring Scriptures: and did not [Page 81] the other so also? yea and in as great abundance, and with as great bragges as these doe. But they are condemned by lawfull iudgment to be heretiques, and their doctrine heresie: true, and the very same iudge hath condemned them of the same crime. What difference is there then betwixt them? Surely, none at all But let vs see, what proofes they bring for their new kinde of calling. And as they are proposed, good Reader, I beseech thee take notice of euery one in particuler, and thou shalt finde, they will serue as well, to proue the calling of all the aforenamed heretiques to be good, as of these in whose behalfe they are brought, which one obseruation doth answer them all, before they be proposed.

And that thou maiest know, that they are their owne; and the best they haue, I will tell thee here, before thou goe any farther, where I finde them, that thou maiest see, that I play a­boue board.

4. About the yeere 1596. a Gentleman of base Normandy, called Monsieur du S. Vast, with a friend of his (both of the new religion) hauing great doubts, of the lawfulnesse of the vocati­on of their Pastors, and Ministers, and consequently of the truth of their religion, proposed them vnto the said ministers by wri­ting, desiring resolution. The ministers (knowing the axe to be laid to the maine post of their new building) with as much indu­stry, as they could, framed answer, but with so little satisfaction of the parties, that they both quit their sect, and rendered them­selues obedient children of the Catholique Roman church. Out of the writing of these ministers, which is extant in the Bishop of Euereux his reply to the same, and neuer since answered nor euer will: doe I bring their arguments, for their extraordinary vocation, without leauing out any word of theirs, pertayning to the matter in hand.

The first is: Ministers. VVhere there is true doctrine, there may be true vocation, which is an order prescribed by the same doctrine. But we haue the true do­ctrine as we will euer maintaine, and hitherto haue we not beene conuinced of the contrary. Therefore may we also haue the lawfull calling, though we re­ceiue it not from others. Answer. The absurditie, and childishnesse of his ar­gument is shewed before vpon another occasion. The reader that by himselfe seeth not the impertinence thereof may looke backe to that place: thou shalt finde it in the fifth chap. n. 11.

Ministers. Secondly, VVe call that properly true, and lawfull calling which is con­formable to the rules giuen vs in the scripture, and which hath beene kept from the Apostles times, vntill this present in all true churches: which we haue at this day amongst vs, and therefore we call it truly ordinary, and receiued by succession from the Apostles; acknowledging no other, that may deserue thi [...] name, though it haue continued for some time.

Answer. If they can proue, that they haue such a vocation, as they de­scribe here, they must needes gaine their cause. But harken, I pray thee, good Reader, how they goe about to proue it.

Minister. But forasmuch as they (Catholiques) vnderstand by this word ordinary voc [...]ion, a perpetuall, and not interrupted succession from the Apostles times, we answere them vpon this point, that this is not the definition of true vo­cation.

Answer. These are their words immediatly following vpon the other which I could not omit to aduertise thee of, good Reader, that thou maist note the inconstant, doubtful, and wauering doctrin of these new ministers, that with one breath power out con­trarieties without blushing. In the lines immediatly going be­fore, that was true vocation with them, that was receiued by succes­sion from the Apostles, and retayned till this day, and that none other deserued that name: and now with the same breath, they deny succession to pertaine, to the definition of true calling. Let vs see farther, peraduenture they will make these two ends meete together: they adde;

Minister. There cannot any thing be gathered to this purpose (to wit, that succes­sion pertayneth to lawfull calling) out of any passage of Scripture, no not there, where there is expresse mention made of this charge: and in briefe there is not any promise of this in the whole Scripture.

Answer: If this be true, then is that false, which they said before in these words: that we properly call true, and lawfull calling, which is con­formable to the Scripture: and which hath beene kept from the Apostles times, in all true Churches till this time. But it booteth little, to stand vpon the contradictions of men, that maintaine an ill cause: for they will say, and vnsay vpon euery occasion. But let vs see, whe­ther they will remember themselues, and accord their owne sayings.

Minister. 5. If they alleage vnto vs these promises of Christ: that he will be with his Disciples till the consummation of the world: and that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against the church: we deny that this pertayneth to any succession [Page 83] of persons, which is to be in such sort perpetuall, that it is neuer to be interrup­ted, vntill the second comming of Christ.

Answer, So farre are they from proouing that they haue that vocation which themselues say, is properly and only the true and lawfull vocation, that they now labour to shew, that there is none such in the church: nor that euer any such was promised by our Sauiour. Are not these men so turn-sicke, that they know not whether they goe? what more euident proofe can there be, that they haue not that vocation, which they in formall words say, is properly the true vocation, then to see them so directly to im­pugne it; as to contend that there is no mention of it in the whole scripture? well we will take that, which they willingly yeeld; to wit, that they haue not that vocation, which import­eth a perpetuall, and not interrupted succession from the Apo­stles till this day. And now I will proue against them, that this vocation is taught in expresse words, in the holy Scripture. Behold (saith our Sauiour Christ to his Apostles,Maih. 28.20 and in them to all, that shall succeed them, in the charge, or gouernment of his church) I am with you all daies to the consummation of the world. Which promise they most impudently denie, to appertaine to a succession of persons, not to be interrupted vntill the second comming of Christ. For our Sauiour speaking there to his Apo­stles as Preachers, and Pastors of his church, as is euident by the words immediatly going before. All power is giuen me in heauen, and in earth: Going therefore teach ye all Nations, baptizing them &c. and te­stifying, that he will be with them all daies to the end of the world. How can any man, not wholly void of common sense deny, that here is expresse mention of a personall succession of Pastours, to continue without interruption, vntill the second comming of Christ? S. Paul testifieth the same in these expresse words. And he gaue other some Pastors, and Doctors, Ephgs. 4.12. to the consummation of the Saints, to the worke of the Ministery, vntill we all meete in the vnity of faith. So that those that will beleeue the holy scripture cannot doubt of the continuall succession, of Pastors in the Church so clearely set downe in the same.

Ministers But we say with S. Augustine, that this is to be vnderstood, of the church of the elect.

Answer. It is most false, that Saint Augustine did euer dreame, of the [Page 84] seperation of the church of the elected, from that of the called (for asmuch as apperteineth to the profession of faith, partici­pation of the sacraments, and subiection to their Pastors) and therfore what he saith of the church of the elect, which he tear­meth to be not only in the house, Lib 7. de baptismo con. Dona­tistas. but of the house, doth nothing helpe them. Note that they cite not S. Augustines words, nor the place, for so they should haue more euidently beene taken with the lie,

Ministers. VVhich God himselfe can conserue, without ordinary meanes, yea without Pastors for a time.

Answer. If we speake of his absolute power, there is no doubt of this: nor likewise that he could haue saued the world,The French Reformers in their Cathe­chisme teach expresly that Pastors are necessary for the conserua­tion of Gods Church. Sunday 45. without the incarnation, and passion of his only sonne. But if we speake of his power, ruled and determined by the decree, and ordinance of his will, he that saith, that God will conserue his church without Pastours doth euidently contradict S. Paul saying, that he hath ordayned Pastors, for the consummation of the Saints, and that we be not like children, carried away with euery winde of doctrine. Is not the conclusion drawne from these principles like to be solid? and the calling of Pastors that is forced to seeke such proofes to be very sound?

Minister. Ephes. 4.12. As it hath happened diuers times, in the church of the Iewes, and specially during the captiuity of Babilon, for the space of seuenty yeares.

Answer. If the Priest-hood of the Iewes, and consequently their charge did faile, during the time of their captiuity: whence came all those Priests, and Leuits, with other church officers, which are mentioned in the books of Esdras, to haue returned from the captiuity? Surely they were not then immediatly borne. Read these books they self (good Reader) and learne to detest, the he­retical spirit of these new masters, that dare for the maintayning of their owne imaginations, so euidently contradict the holy Scriptures, and yet by crying the word, the word, would make the world beleeue, they speake nothing but the Gospel it selfe.

Minister. And before that in the time of Elias as he complayneth thereof to God.

Answer. This is another fiction of their owne, contrary to the sacred story of the bookes of Kings, and [...]hronicles, which beare re­cord, that during the persecution of Gods seruants, raised by Achab King of Israel, and his most wicked wife Iesabel, of which time these men speake, the Church of God did greatly [Page 85] florish in Iuda, 3. Reg. 22. 2. Paralip. 17. and Hierusalem (the metropolitan city of that people) vnder the religious, and good king Iosophat. So that the church of the Iewes failed no more, neither in succession of Pastors, nor exercise of the true religion at that time (though the king and kingdome of Israell did persecute it) then the chu [...]ch of Rome did faile in the world, in Q. Elizabeths time, though she did persecute the same in her kingdome of England, and did her endeuour to extinquish it there.

Minist. And after wards vnder many kings of Israell and Iuda, as Azarias the Priest testified vnto king Aza: saying, that many daies had passed in Isra [...]ll, without the true God, without Priest, without Doctor, and without law.

Answer. It is not easy for any man, to put so many falsities, and con­tradictions in so few words as are in these. First Achab, of whose persecution [...]lias complained,3. Reg. 16. 2. Parali­pom. 15. began his reigne ouer Israell the 38. yere of Asa king of Iuda. And Azarias spake these words (wherof these men make mention) the 15. yeare of the raigne of Asa. How then could this saying of Azarias, follow that complaint of Elias, being many yeares before it? And yet to make the con­tradiction mare apparent, they put in the liues of many kings, which also should go betwixt these two. Secondly, how can it be that this default of the church should haue bene vnder many kings of Iuda, and Israell, as they say, in the time of Asa? Seying he was only the third king of Iuda, after the separation of the ten tribes: during the raigne of which kings, the sacred story of the ki [...]gs, and chronicles make it planie, that there was no such faile of Pastors, and Doctors, as Azarias mentioneth. Thirdly, they make Azarias to speake of a thing past,2. Paralip. 13.10.11. not only contrarie to the veritie of the vulgar translation, which saith not: many daies haue past: but that: many daies shall passe: but also contrarie to the planie,2. Paralip. 15.3.5.8. and necessarie meaning of the holy-Ghost, who bringeth in Azarias there, speaking as a Prophet of things to come, and not as one rehearsing things past, as is euident, as well by the words of the text it selfe, as by the cir­cumstances of the thing foretold. Fourthly, they manifestlie corrupt the text, to make it seeme more to fauour their pur­pose. For Azarias saith only, that many daies shall passe in Israell without Priest, and Doctor: foretelling the apostacie of the kingdome of Israell vnder Achab, from the true religion, and worship of [Page 86] God; and they impudentlie, and without all conscience, thrust in also (Iude.) Fiftly they going about to prooue by this autho­ritie, that the church may be without Priests, and Pastors, may prooue by the same, that it may be also without the true God, and without lawe. For Azarias foretelleth these things, as well as thother: yet do I not thinke they dare say, that the true church may be without the true God, and without lawe. Let them therfore consider, how litle this scripture helpeth them; and iudge thou also good Reader, whether these men do handle the holy scripture either sincerlie, or learnedlie, that in so few words, do multiplie so many grosse absurdities, and falsities?

Minist. VVe say the same of the Christian church, in the which are noted many confusions, and interruptions, and notoriously vnder the Arians, a litle after Constantine the great; and in the time of his sonns Constans, Constantius, and Constantinus: all the Bishops being reuolted, excepting two Liberius, and Athanasius.

Answer. They haue hitherto shewed their malice, and ignorance, in abusing the holy scriptures: now they begin to shew the same, in the abuse of the Ecclesiasticall histories. In the time of Con­stans, Constantius, and Constantinus (say they) all Bishops reuolted, excepting two. Fy vpon such shameles impudencie, seying the falsitie is so apparent, that it cannot be excused by ignorance. In whose time (I would aske of these men) was kept the councell of Sardis, where there were Some hun­dreths of Catholique Prelats? was it not in Constans, and Constantius time?Ruffin. lib. 1. c. 28. That of Alexandria vnder Athanasius, the first yeare of Iulian the Apostata, was it not immediatlie after the death of Constantius, which though it was no generall councell, yet was it of great renowne, for the merit of the Prelats there mett togither? To say nothing of those great lights of Gods church, S. Hillary in France, S. Dennis of Milane, S. Eusebius of Vercels, with many more of lesse note, wherof the Ecclesiasticall histories of those times make men­tion: but these men care not, what they affirme, so they may delude their readers.

Minist. Of whom it is not reade, that others came to take their vocation, for the reestablishing of the church: but that God raised from the Arians themselues, men to restore the true doctrine.

Answ. The further they goe, the more absurd they are. See (good Reader) for thy fuller satisfaction, in this point of repayring the church,lib. 1 c. 27. 28 29. in these troubled times Roffinus his hi­storie; where he saith, that by the councell holden at Ale­xandria before mentioned, it was decreed, that such (the heads excepted) as had any way consented to the Arians (ab­iuring their errour) should be receiued to the vnitie of the church. And they hauing had their calling from the catho­lique church, did not, nor could not receiue any new calling, but only a reconciliation to the same, from which they had falne, either of errour, or infirmitie. In like manner as the Bishops in England, that had liued either in schisme, or heresie, in king Henries or K. Edwards time, were reconci­led to the church againe in Queene Maries daies. So that no default of the succession of Pastors, doth any way appeare to haue bene in those times.

Minist. So many schismes, as haue bene in the church of Rome, do shew, that they cannot brag of this perpetuall succession.

Answ. No schisme, that euer was in the church of Rome, did or could hinder, the perpetuall succession of holy order, and law­full calling of Pastors. For all the schismes, that euer were in the church, were only about the person of him, that should sitt in S. Peters chaire, and not obout the power, or iurisdiction of the sea Apostolique. So that those, that did adheere to ei­ther party, in good conscience, did not make any schisme with the sea apostolique, from whence all iurisdiction is de­riued, but only erred (as thone party must necessarilie do) about the person, who had the true right to the sea of S. Peter. Which error could not hinder, or take away the true suc­cession, of holy order in the church, neither in respect of the sacrament it selfe, (as all Catholiques must say, who say that holy order is a sacrament, not depending in essence, and nature of the iurisdiction in him that ordereth, but of his power of order, and character) nor in respect of iurisdiction, which is required to the lawfull vse, of the power of order, or sacramentall character. For both parties did suppose, and in their conscience beleeue, that they did receiue this power from the sea apostolique, though one of them did necessarily erre in the [Page 88] person, by meanes of whom he did receiue it. Which errour was excused through inuincible ignorance, and afterwards was wholly remedied, by actuall reuniting themselues, to the true successor of S. Peter, when he was knowne. So that this argu­ment of our ministers, proceedeth a non causa, pro causa, as the sophisters tearme such fashion of arguing.

Minist. Aboue all in the time of the councels of Constance, and Basil, which depo­sing the Antipopes long after their establishment chose others: which shewed that the deposed had no lawfull calling, nor therfore could they giue any, to the Bishops, and other Ecclesiasticall persons created by them, and afterwards remayning in their church, of whom are also many others descended, who remaine till this day.

Answ. This is the same argument with that, which went immedia­tlie before, only the schisme is particularised, which changeth not the argument, and therfore it is already solued. Where they say, that the councell of Constance deposed the Antipopes, meaning those three, wherof euerie one at that time was estee­med by some to be true Pope, they say falsly as they do often. For euery one of them remitted, or resigned his right into the hands of the councell, which afterwards chose another, and so the schisme ended. The councell of Basill so long as it was a lawfull councell, deposed none, what it did afterwards, it im­porteth litle, or nothing at all.

Ministers. Aboue all in the time of Philip the faire, and when the church of France was separated from that of Rome: where was then this personall, and locall succession? And notwithstanding they will not say, that in those daies our fore­fathers were pagans, and heretiques.

Answ. Most ridiculously, and absurdly argued. Would they, that the succession of the whole church should cease for the separa­tion of one nation, and that only vpon a censure? If the church of Geneua should excommunicate one parish church subiect there vnto, would they say therfore, that their whole church failed? Intollerable ignorance. And yet this is one of their ar­guments aboue all the rest. So may they still argue to their owne confusion, and detestation of their new fangled heresies. Nei­ther is that, which they adde by manner of triumphe, lesse ridi­culous; saying, that in the opinion of Catholiques, their forefathers were neither Pagans, nor heretiques in those daies. For be it so, what follo­weth ther vpon, to prooue the succession of Ecclesiasticall [Page 89] order, and calling to haue bene interrupted in that time? yea doth not the contrarie rather euidentlie follow? For if their forefathers were not then heretiques, notwithstan­ding their separation from the church by excommunication: doth it not well follow, that the succession of the church was not t [...]en interrupted? Malice hath so blinded these ministers, that they know not, when they speake for, or against themselues. But if they would know, in what state their forefathers were at that time, I say, they were mem­bers cut of, from the misticall body of Christ (supposing the sentence to haue bene iust, which belongeth not to this place to examine) but were quickly reconciled, and reuni­ted to the head againe, without any preiudice to the suc­cession of holy order, and calling of Pastors, euen in the church of France it selfe. For though by excommunica­tion the lawfull vse of holy orders was suspended, yet was not the order it selfe taken away; and therfore the sentence of excommunication being remoued, the power of holy order was restored to the lawfull vse, without any new orde­ring, as I suppose these ministers do know, though they shew themselues to be most ignorant otherwayes.

Minister. And which is more, it is impietie to prescribe vnto God, the meane to execute his promises without his word: and to say that he cannot ac­complish them, if the state of the church be not alwaies florishing, from Father to sonne, or from Bishop to Bishop without interruption: and it is no lesse vnlawfull, when it falleth out otherwise, to say (a thing altogether execrable) that he is a lier, and vnfaithfull in his pro­mises.

Answer. Do not these men manifestlie condemne themselues of im­pietie, prescribing vnto God a new meane (to wit by extraor­dinarie calling) to accomplish his promises of conseruing his church, without which either he could not, or at least hath not accomplished them; and this not only without any warrant of his word, but directlie contrarie to his expresse word?Ephes. 4.12. Far­ther do they not in like manner condemne themselues of exe­crable blasphemy, saying that God hath falsified his word, and promise, in not keeping watchmen, and Pastors in his church, vnto the end of the world, which he hath so expresly pro­mised in his holy word: but hath permitted them so to faile,Esay. 62.2. Math. 28.20 [Page 80] that it is necessarie to find out a new origine, and beginning of preachers, and Pastors? Surelie one of these two things must necessarilie be true, either that God hath falsified his word, and promise to his church, specified in the places cited in the margent, or that the doctrine of these men, teaching that lawfull Pastors, haue failed in the church, is false. But seying the first is execrable blasphemie, the second must needs be the selfe veritie.

Ministers. 10. Seying therfore it appeareth not by the word of God, that these promises aforesaid appertaine to a perpetuall, locall, and visible succession. And that experience teacheth the contrarie we conclude, that this is not necessarie to true vocation; and consequentlie, that the defect therof doth not hinder that ours, that are called to that charge, ac­cording to the word of God, and Apostolique traditions, are not the true successours of the Apostles, seying they also vse their vocation to the true end, which is, to teach purelie the word of God, and to minister the sacraments.

Answer. Here they wind vp the faire threede, they haue spun hither­to to their owne confusion; and impudentlie say, that the per­petuall visible succession of Pastors is not promised in the scriptures, and that experience teacheth the contrarie. How euidentlie false these things are, I leaue it to thee, good Rea­der [...], to iudge, by that which hath bene replied to euerie particuler instance of theirs. And farther I leaue thee to con­sider, how clearelie, and manifestlie their pretended extra­ordinarie calling, (grounded wholy vpon this false, and here­ticall presumption, of the faile of ordinarie Pastors in the church) is conuinced to be theeuish intrusion, and sacrile­gious rebellion against Christ, and his church. Neither can the false vizard of teaching purelie the word, and ministring the sacraments (a cloathing wherwith all heretiques couer their wooluish harts) bleare their eies, that are not already blind. For the question here, is not of the true vse of the calling, but of the calling it selfe, whether it be lawfull or no, which if it be not, the good vse therof cannot excuse the vsurpation, as is euident by the example of the ciuill Magistrate, who is not excused from rebellion, by the good vse of that office, which he vsurpeth contrarie to the ordinance of his soveraigne.

[Page 81]11. For our first Pastors, of whom those that are now, Minister. haue their voca­tion successiuelie from hand to hand truly ordinarie, and restored to the former purity, we say that their vocation was partly ordinarie, partly extraordinarie: If for all that it may be said, that they had it of them, who had it not them­selues, at least pure, and by lawfull meanes.

Answer. Hauing layd a most false, and hollow ground, as we haue seene alreadie, now they begin to build ther vpon a light, vaine, and imaginarie edifice, but fitting the founda­tion; saying, that the calling of their first Pastors was partly ordinarie, partly extraordinarie, which is as much as to say, meerely imaginarie, and Chimericall. Moises and Aaron in the old law, and the Apostles in the new law, had the extraordinarie: the successors as well of the one, as of thother had the ordi­narie: Elias and S. Paul had both perfectly togither, but that there were euer any, that had halfe the one, and halfe the other, was neuer yet heard of, and certaine it is, that God is not the author of such mingled, and party coloured calling. For all his workes are perfect (as the scripture saith.)Deuteron. 32.4. Whence there­fore they haue fetcht this new commission, and ministerie of theirs, the Reader may easilie iudge.

Minister. First of all that there haue bene men in the church, that haue had ex­traordinarie calling, and namelie vnder the law of Moises cannot be denied.

Answer: In the law of Moises, there were two kinds of extraordinary vocation, the one fundamentall, as was that of Aaron, wherof the Apostle saith: the priesthood being translated, Hebr. 7.12. the law must also ne­cessarilie be translated. So that though this vocation was extraordi­narie in Aaron, yet was it the roote, origine, or beginning of that ordinarie calling of priesthood, which was neuer to cease, nor to be interrupted, till the law it selfe did cease, as S. Paul witnes­seth: thother may be called collaterall, because it did not impug­ne, nor take away the ordinarie priesthood, but vphold and strengthen it, admonishing the parties then in charge, of their negligence, and carelesnes in their function, reprehending their vices, as also those of the people. Of this sort was that of the Prophets sent extraordinarilie by God to cooperate with the Priests, who had the ordinarie calling, in the due gouern­ment of Gods people. Neither of these sorts of extraor­dinarie calling can agree with those, of whom our ministers [Page 52] here speake, to wit their first Pastors. For the fundamentall calling they cannot chalenge vnto themselues, without a new lawgiuer, as Moises was, and our Sauiour Ch [...]ist also. Nor yet do they content themselues with the collaterall calling. For they do not only reprehend the ordinarie Pa­stors of those faults, which they thinke are in them, as the Prophets did, but they challenge vnto themselues, to [...]e the only true Pastors, and to begin a new line, and succession of ordinarie Pastors. Which without a new religion, and a new founder of the same, cannot be imagined in the iudgment of any sensible, and vnderstanding Christian. And therfore the ex­traordinarie callings of the old law, are so farre from farthering the cause of our new Gospellers, that it is clearely condemned by them.

Minister. We demaund therfore of our aduersaries, by what place of scripture they can prooue, that this may not happen in the church of Christ. Seying the same reasons, that moued those of the Iewes church, to put themselues forward, driuen ther vnto only by the interiour calling of Gods spirit, are found also in the Christian church, to wit the negligence, malice, and reuolt of the ordinarie Pastors, and the corruption of the Ecclesiasticall estate.

Answer. In steede of prouing, that there is the like extraordinarie calling in the Christian church, that there was in the church of the Iewes, they bid vs prooue, that such a calling cannot bee: As if it pertained to vs, who are defendants only in this point, to prooue the negatiue, and they holding the affirmatiue, and being actors might be excused from proofe of the same. What impertinencie is this? Yet that they may know there is a great difference betwixt the church of Christ, and that of the Iewes euen in this respect, we tell them out of S Paul, Hebr 8 6. Math. 28.20. that the church of Christ is establis­hed with better promises, then the other, and that with the Pastors therof, Christ hath promised to be all daies, to the end of the world, and hath said it not only to his A­postles, but also to all Prelates, that shall suceede them by substitutiue ordination,Epist. ad Florent. (as S. Ciprian witnesseth) He that heareth you, heareth mee. Againe when they shall haue prooued the like extraordinarie calling in the Christian church, which is acknowledged to haue bene in the Iewish church, [Page 93] (which they can never do) what wil it availe them seing that cal­ling is nothing like vnto theirs, as is alreadie shewed Farther the Prophets of the old law, did not put forth themselues, moved only by an internall calling, or instinct of their conscience, which these men vse to call the mooving of the spirit, vnles we should speake of those [...]rophe [...]s, of whō God complaineth by the Prophet Hie­remie saying; I sent them not, nor spake vnto them, and yet they ran, Hier. 23.21.32. and prophetized. But the Prophets sent by God, besides the cleare re­velation either by vision, or other equiualent meanes of that, which they were sent about, and also the euidence, that it was of God h [...]d [...]lwaies the testimony either of miracles, or mira­culous predictions presently after to be fulfilled, whereby they prooued their mission to be from God. Neither of which con­ditions, we finde in our new Ministers first Fathers;De missa An­gulari. Luth [...]r in­deed recordeth himselfe a dialogue, which he had with the di­uell, for the abrogating of priuate Masse, but of any conference he had with God, it appeareth not in all his great volumes.

Hence it is manifest, that the extraordinary calling, which the Prophets had in the old law, was a farre different thing from that our new Reformers challenge to themselues. That which they say of the reuol [...] of the ordinary Pastors, and corruption of the ecclesiasticall estat as also of their desire and endeuour to re­forme it is no more then a sheepes skin clapt vpon a wolues backe, fitting as well the Arians, and all other heretiques, as our Caluinists. Our Sauiour Christ his promises before mentioned, doe warrant his Church, from all such reuolt, and vniuersall corruption, as they malitiously faine to be in it, and consequent­ly doe premonish vs, not to harken to their false alarms, but to esteeme them as false Prophets, and Wolues in sheepes clo­thing.

Minist. VVe say farther, that the beginnings of the Christian church hauing beene wholy extraordinary, the same may happen vnto it, in the middest, or to­wards the end thereof.

Answ. Deeply argued I wise, and like as if one should say: the be­ginning of mankinde was extraordinary, therefore the middle, or end may also be so. Yea this argument, if it conclude any thing, doth qute ouerthrow their extraordinary calling For if it be extraordinaty, it is not the same with that, which went be­fore, if not the same, then another distinct, if another distinct, [Page 84] then from another course, beginning, or origin then from the Apostles, or our Sauiour Christ, from whom the other was de­riued. As it happeneth in the race, or pedegree of any family, the successiue line wherof being once interrupted, it is no more esteemed to be the same race or family, with that which went before, but another distinct, and descending from another stocke, or roote. Whence it remaineth cleare, that the extraor­dinary calling of these new Reformers must necessarily come from some other origine or beginning, then our Sauiour Christ or his Apostles.

Minist. Thus farre we conclude at least the possibility, and contingency of extraor­dinary vocation, vntill the contrary be shewed vs by the expresse word of God.

Answer. If these men had brought any expresse scripture, for proofe of the possibility of the extraordinary calling, they might with more rerson haue exacted the like proofe of the contrary: but seeing they bring nothing but their owne fancies, and imagina­tions, with what reason can they exact expresse scripture for the confutation thereof?

But I say further, that though we should grant, that they haue proued not only the possibility, but also the true being, of an extraordinary vocation in the church of Christ, (as they nei­ther haue done, nor euer shal do) yet should they haue done no­thing, for the iustification of their extraordinary calling, which is already prooued to be such, as neuer was either in the law of Moises, or of our Sauiour Christ.

Minist. 13. But yet we goe farther, and prooue by the text of Scripture, extraor­dinary vocation, in the new testament. S. Paul hath left vs a most cleare prophecy of a generall reuolt vnder Antichrist, 2. Thes. c 2. who shall sit in the temple of God, Compare this doctrine with M. Masons succession, and see how thou destroy­eth thother. that is, he shall rule in the middest of the church. But our Sauiour shall destroy him with the breath of his mouth, that is, by the preaching of his word: And if there be Preachers against Antichrist, it followeth, that they shall haue their calling from some other, then from him, or his trayne, who notwith­standing shall haue all authority then vpon earth: or if at other times they haue had some calling from them, they shall execute it extraordinarily: and insteed of maintayning the abuse, and tyrannie of Antichrist, they shall restore the kingdome of Christ.

Answ. This proofe contayneth so many, and so difficult questions, that no man of common sense, would bring it to proue a thing [Page 85] that ought to be so cleare and easie, as should be the calling of Gods ministers. But this is done of purpose to make those be­leeue, that some thing is said to the point, that doe not vnder­stand, what is said. I will disperse a little this mist, that the wea­ker eyes may see the sun, and discerne how little it maketh for our Ministers purpose.

First it is doubtfull, whether this reuolt spoken of by the Apostles shall goe before Antichrist, or shal follow him as cau­sed by him: Secondlie, whether it shall be a temporall reuolt, or a reuolt in religion: Thirdly, if it be a reuolt in religion whether it be a reuolt only of Heretiques, and the Apostles meaning be, that till all the heretiques, that are to reuolt, be re­uolted, the day of our Lord shall not come; or if it be an Apo­stacie of some part of the church, which shal renounce the name of Christ, and adore Antichrist. Fourthly, whether the tem­ple here mentioned by the Apostle, be the temple of Hierusa­lem, as the conference of the 9. chapter of Daniel, the 24. chap­ter of S. Mathew, the 5. chapter of S. Iohn, and the 11. of the Apocalips doth shew it to be: or the societie either whole or halfe that sometimes bare the name of the Church, in which signification, the word temple without addition was neuer v­sed before. Fiftly, whether the spirit of our Sauiours mouth, wherewith Antichrist is to be destroyed, by the preaching of his word by the Pastors of the church, whereby he shall be de­scried, and loose all credit and estimation: or the maiesty, and glory of the second comming of our Sauiour, and the sentence which he shall pronounce against Antichrist, that is, whether it be the word of doctrine, or of power and vertue, which shall destroy Antichrist. All which questions if they be resol­ued according to the doctrine of the ancient church, are so far from affording to our new Ministers, any proofe of their ex­traordinary calling, to preach against Antichrist, that they will prooue them to be his manifest fore-runners, and potent a­gents to prepare his way. But being resolued howsoeuer this authoritie of the Apostle, cannot furnish them with any ar­gument, to proue their extraordinary vocation. For if they will say that Antichrist is to occupie the whole church, it will euidently follow in their doctrine, that the Pope is not An­tichrist, as they surmise: because there are diuers Churches, [Page 96] which they esteeme true churches and to haue the succession of ordinary calling, which notwithstanding are separated in com­munion from the church of Rome, as the Ethiopians, Grecians, Armenians, Syrians, Russians, and other. So that following this doctrine, they are conuinced, that the Pope is not Antichrist, and consequently that they are heretiques for teaching him so to be. If they say that Antichrist is to rule but ouer one part of the church only, the other being free from his subiection, what necessity can there be to faine an extraordinary calling of Pa­stors to preach against him, seeing that part of the true church, which shall be free from his tyranie, hath meanes to furnish Pa­stors by the ordinary course and calling? and so are these men euidently caught in the snare they set for others.

Minist. 14. The same may be gathered, from those excellent Prophecies of the Apocalips, where there is speech of two speciall, and particuler witnesses sent by God to prophesie against the beast; Confer this Paragraffe and that which goeth before, with the fifth fol­lowing, and see how they agree toge­ther. which clearely signifieth an extraordinary vocation, which shall not receiue testimony from vpon the earth, which is de­clared to follow wholy the beast. And it is not to be thought, that Antichrist and those that are vnder him, will authorize these witnesses in this worke, and put into their hands a sword, to cut their owne throates with, no more then we are to expect, that the church of Rome should reforme her selfe.

Answer. S. Paul saith: How shall they preach, vnlesse th y be sent? shewing thereby that the mission, and commission of Preachers ought to be most manifest and plaine: and these men contrariwise, ha­uing no other meanes to prooue their mission, alleadge the te­stimony of that booke,Rom. 10. which is most obscure, being full of fi­gures and allegories, which as themselues teach doe not prooue. And which is more, they alleadge it for the proofe of Luthers mission, who denieth the booke to be canonicall, and therefore doth not affoord sufficient proofe of any point of controuersie. But letting all this passe; for of bad debtors crackt coine is not to be refused. I would know of these men, whether they vn­derstand this place of the two witnesses litterally or allegori­cally:Apoc, 11. if litterally, how will they make it serue to proue their extraordinary calling? seeing the Fathers for the most part vn­derstood these witnesses to be Enoch, and Elias. If they say, that their meaning is only to prooue by this authority, an exttaor­dinary vocation, and afterwards to accommodate it to then first Pastors, they shal egregiously preuaricate. For fi [...]st the Script [...] [Page 95] restrayneth vs precisely to two, and therfore leaueth no meanes to extend it to any moe: and as well may they ground their ex­traordinary calling of that of the Apostles, as vpō this. Second­ly, they cannot accommodate this extraordinary calling to their first Pastors, vnlesse the conditions, and circumstances mentio­ned by the Scripture doe also agree with them, which they no way doe. For these two witnesses shall worke sundry great miracles as appeareth in the text, which can no way be accom­modated to our new Ministers.

But if they interpret this place of Scripture allegorically and vnderstand by these witnesses, the Preachers of Gods truth, contayned in the new, and old testament, whereby Antichrist shall be conuinced, they shall as little helpe themselues. For besides that it is their owne doctrine, that nothing can be pro­ued by allegory, they are by this meanes to seeke a new proofe, that these Preachers shall be destitute of ordinary calling. which proofe they can neuer finde, holding these two points of their doctrine; to wit, that the Pope is Antichrist, and that there are diuers true Churches separated from him, that haue continued the personall succession of ordinary calling till this day. And howsoeuer they teach in these points, no sufficient proofe doth appeare, that the witnesses here spo­ken of (be they literally vnderstood of Enoch and Elias, as the Catholike opinion is: or allegorically of all Preach­ers of truth, as others will) are not also to haue ordi­nary calling, and to ioyne with the ordinary Pastors of those times,Gal. 2.9. as Saint Paul did with the rest of the Apo­stles, which hee found in the Church before him. Yea Master Fulke vnderstandeth, by these witnesses ordinary Prea­chers, saying Christ shall haue his two witnesses alwaies, Apocal. 7. sect. 4. in the hottest persecution of Antichrist, and therefore is there no neede of Enoch and Elias. This Scripture therefore doth no way prooue an extraordinary calling to be in the church.

Minist. Thus farre we haue shewed in generall, that there may be an extraor­dinary calling. Now we say that if there be any men to whom this calling belongeth, it is they that in the latter times by the sword of Gods word, Marke this parenthesis against M. M [...]sons suc­cession. which is the spirit of his mouth haue not only reuealed, but also so impugned An­tichrist (which wee maintaine is the Pope of Rome and his followers) that wee hope hee shall quickly be quite ouerthrowne, such men will we [Page 96] maintayne our first Reformers to haue beene.

Answer. These men will maintaine the Pope to be Antichrist: and that their first Reformers were extraordinarily called. [...]t how? by their hereticall, and impudent asseueration, as the Anabaptists, and Libertins, and all other heretiques vse to doe their heresies. Hitherto haue they not prooued any extraordi­nary calling in the Church of Christ, but only said, it may be: much lesse will they be able to apply the same to their men, which notwithstanding they must doe, or else all their labour is lost. And yet when they shall haue done that, it will serue them to no other purpose, then to prooue that they haue such a calling, as neuer was either practised, or mentioned in the Church old or new. For they will not content themselues, with a collaterall extraordinary calling, which only was rei­terable in the old law, but they must haue an extraordinary fundamentall calling, which is neuer reiterated, or renewed, but by a new lawgiuer, and founder of a new religion, such as Moises was, and our Sauiour Christ.

Answer. 15. And if they demand miracles, for the confirmation of this extraor­dinary calling, we answer first: that might be iustly done, if they had publi­shed any new doctrine, but seeing they brought no other doctrine then that, which is recorded in the old and new Testament, other miracles were not ne­cessary then those, which were done from the beginning by the Prophets, and Apostles, for the establishing of the same.

Ministers.These men being asked of cheese, answer of chaulke. They are demanded for miracles to prooue their extraordinary missi­on or calling, and they answer the doctrine is the same with that of the Prophets, and Apostles. If that were true, and out of all controuersie (as it is not) what were it to the purpose? The Prophets of the old law had the same doctrine with Moises yet did they neuer alledge his miracles, for the confirmation of their extraordinary calling, but proued it by miracles done by themselues, which was necessary for the stopping the way to others, that pretending the same doctrine, which Moises taught, might intrude themselues into that function without a­ny calling, as many did in those daies, as well as now they doe. The two witnesses mentioned in the Apocalips,Cap. 11. and alleaged by these Ministers, in proofe of their extraordinary calling, shall doubtlesse teach the same doctrine with the Prophets, our [Page 97] Sauiour Christ, and his Apostles, and yet neuerthelesse for proofe that they are sent by God, doe they worke great mirac [...], (as the scripture there recordeth) as to shut Heauen that it raine not, to turne waters into blood, and to strike the earth with plagues as often as they will. Wherefore that these Ministers may prooue the extraordinary calling of their first runners to be from God, they must neither prooue it to be the same with that of the Apostles, confirmed in them by miracles, which without lineall succession they can neuer doe, or else they must proue it by new myracles, which hitherto they haue not done, nor hereafter can doe. And therefore it is euident, that they are of the number of those, that runne not beeing sent, of whom God complayneth by the Prophet,Hiere. 23. as is saied be­fore.

Againe, Minister. all extraordinary vocation hath not beene confirmed by miracles as appeareth by that of many Prophets.

Answer. It is false, that euer any Prophet was receiued as a Prophet, and sent extraordinarily by God, without extraordinary proofe of his calling. For though the particularitie, whereby euery Prophet made proofe of his extraordinary calling, be not regi­stred in the holy Scripture, as it is not necessary they should, yet are those of the most and chiefest, which ought to be a rule of the rest. Moreouer, this is euidently proued by the rule, which God himselfe giueth for the triall of a Prophet in these words. I will raise them a Prophet, Deut. 18.18. & infrà. from the middest of their brethren like vnto thee: and I will put my words in his mouth, and hee shall speake vnto them all things, that I shall command him. But hee that will not heare the words, that he shall speake in my name, I will reuenge it vpon him. And the Prophet that beeing depraued with arrogancie, will speake in my name the things, If this rule were now ob­serued there would not be so many false Pro­phets and Preachers as there are. that I did not com­mand him to say, or in the name of strange Gods, shall be slaine: and if in thy secret cogitation thou answer, how shall I vnderstand the word that our Lord spake not? This signe thou shalt haue: that which the same Prophet foretelleth in the name of the Lord, and commeth not to passe; that our Lord hath not spoken, but by the arrogancy of his minde, the Prophet hath forged it: and thereof thou shalt not feare him. Hence it is cleare, that before any man was bound to be­leeue, that any Prophet spake in the name of God, or was [Page 98] truely sent by him, he ought to see some euident proofe there­of, such as God heere speaketh of. For seeing on the one side God threatneth to punish those that doe not obay the Prophet speaking in his name, and on the other commandeth him to be slaine, that shall prophesie not being sent, it was ne­cessary, he should giue them some meanes certaine to know, who spake in his name, and who did not. Which could not be without myracle. And this verity is farther confirmed by our sauiour Christ, when he saith of himselfe (being notwithstan­ding the sonne of God, and teaching also doctrine most confor­mable to the holy scriptures) The workes, which the Father hath giuen mee to perfect them: Ioh. 5.36. the very workes themselues which I doe, giue testimony of mee, that the Father hath sent mee. Note that he maketh proofe of his mission,Ioh. 15.24. and not of his doctrine. And yet more plainly he testifieth the same, saying. If I had not done among them workes that no o [...]her man hath done, they should not haue sinned. If the Iewes should not haue sinned, in not receiuing our Saui­our Christ, vnlesse he had by doing such workes, as no man euer did, proued his Mission from his Father, though his do­ctrine was most conformable to the holy Scripture, yea and he fore-told in the same holy Scripture; who can say that any o­ther Prophet sent extraordinarily may and ought to be recei­ued, beleeued, and obeyed without any other proofe of his Mission, then the pretence of the conformity of his doctrine with the holy Scriptures? especially the conformity of the do­ctrine with the Scripture being no lesse in controuersie then the Mission it selfe, as it happeneth in the case of our aduersaries.

16. And of S. Iohn Baptist who wrought no miracle, as testifieth the Gospel of S. Iohn,Minist. and S. Iohn Chrysostome hath well obserued.

Answer. If those Ministers could bring the like miracles, to prooue the calling of Luther, which the scripture mentioneth to haue beene done for S. Iohn Baptist, they shall gaine their cause: But seeing they cannot; doth not this instance of S. Iohn conuince them of rebellion and intrusion? Besides the prophesies of Esay, and Malachie applyed by the holy Ghost to Saint Iohn in the first of Saint Luke, Esay 40.3. Mal. 4.6. Luc. 1. and first of Saint Marke; besides his mi­raculous conception, and enuntiation by the Angell, the imposition of his name, the binding and loosing his Fathers [Page 99] speach, the gift of Prophesie giuen to his Father and mother, in his natiuitie, his salutation of our Sauiour, both of them being yet in their mothers wombes, and such other miraculous signes, that made all the mountaine countrie of Iuda to wonder, and to aske what a one he should be? besides I say all this, his life, and example was such,Marke. 6.20. that not only the Iewes held him as Prophet, but Herode also had him in speciall honour. All which testimonies are very farre from suting with the brutish lust, and dissolute life of Martin Luther.

And here I will aduertise thee (good reader) that though these ministers haue bene beholding to Monsieur du Plessis, Treatise of the church cap. 11. towards the end. for a great part of their discourse, yet are they ashamed of his mira­cles, which he bringeth for proofe of their calling, and therfore had they rather stand to the triall of their extraordina­rie calling without miracles, then to vse the ridiculous miracles which he alleageth, which are all like vnto a shipmans hoase, and fit aswell the Anabaptists, and what other heretiques soe­uer as either Lutherans, or Caluinists. For he saith the greatest mi­racle of all (or rather the miracle of miracles) is, that so great a miracle is wrought without miracles, to wit the peruerting of so many men, as we see follow their new doctrine (we must take all their sects togither to make number, for els this great miracle would not be very illustrious:) but seying Martin Luther and his issue preach the broad way to libertie, teaching that no sinner though neuer so enormious can be damned, if he will beleeue, and therby take away all necessitie of good workes to saluation, and openeth the gape to all dissolution, and libertie, besides diuers other points of his doctrine tending to the same, it is in any reasonable mans iudgment, a greater miracle, and ar­gument of Gods speciall prouidence ouer mens soules, that he hath no more followers in this large and easy way, then that he hath so many. For as one saith very well, it is as great a miracle, that many men follow this libertine doctrine, as it is for a stone to fall downe from high, where it was staied before. And ther­fore Monsieur du Plessis not satisfying himselfe with this miracle of miracles, and seing withall the necessitie they haue of some shew of miracles, to prooue their extraordinarie vocation, bringeth another able, as he thinketh, to haue satisfied the very Pharises themselues; who demaunded signes from hea­uen, [Page 100] and saith that during the massacres th [...]ough all France, Ibidem. that new starre appeared in heauen, of which the like hath not bene sene, but when our Sauiour was borne, which cannot portend, or signifie any other thing, then the bearing againe of our Sauiour vpon earth, by the preaching of his word. Hereby we may see how beggerlie they are, that hauing greatest neede of some miracle, cannot affoord one. If they had but the least of all those, that haue bene done euen in our owne daies, at our ladies of Sichem, and elswhere, in confirmation of the catholique religion, and confutation of their heresie, what triumph would they make? But that the apperition of this star is most idly, and impertinentlie alleaged, as a miracle proo­uing either their religion, or their extraordinarie calling, it is euident by these considerations.

First it is so farre from being certaine, that it was a miracu­lous starre; that is, a starre produced by supernaturall vertue and operation, that it is scarse probable. Secondlie, supposing it was a miracle, there appeareth no probable reason, that it had any respect, or relation to the pretended religion, wherby it may be thought to be an approbation therof. For neither was it fore-told, or forseene by any of their religion: neither was it obtai­ned by any of their praiers: neither was it accommodated, or applied to that end by any externall effect. How can it therfore be said to haue appertained to that purpose? Againe it came too late to portend, or foreshew the bearing of Christ againe, through the preaching of his word by their first reformers. For Luther began his Apostacie, which was the beginning of their Gospell, the yeare 1517. and this starre appeared the yeare 1572. that is 55 yeares after, wheras signes, which foreshew any thing to come, must needs go before that, which they do forshew. And that which Monsieur du Plessis alleageth, that this starre did then appeare, when the massacres were in France, is so farre from helping his cause, that it doth quite ouerthrow it. For supposing h [...]t this star was a miracle, and had any respect to the massacre, no man of iudg­ment but will say, that it did rather shew the approbation, then the improbation therof. Because that God doth not vse to shew his displeasance in any action, by making new stars, but by thunder, tempests, earthquakes, fire, and the like. Againe new stars are no signes of Gods wrath, or anger, but of his good liking, and pleasance, as appeareth by the starre, which reuei­led [Page 101] out Sauiour Christ to the three kings. So that Monsieur du Plessis hath brought a miracle (if it were a miracle) not to prooue, but to disprooue his religion, and his preachers exttaordinarie calling. And here I will put the indifferent Reader in mind of certaine wonders wherof Osiander a Protestant-writer ma­keth mention most probablie pertaining to this purpose, though in a contrarie sense to that which Monsieur du Plessis desireth. To­wards the end of the yeare 1523. (saith he) at Tribruge in Mi [...]nia was brought forth a calfe in forme of a hooded monke: Osiand. in epit. cent. centuria 16. and at Hall in Saxonie a sow pigged a pigge with the head of a Priest. Which monsters seeme euidentlie to haue portended the brutish Apostacie of Martin Luther, who being a religious man and a Priest: the yeare after these hideous monsters appeared,Osiander ibidem. to wit the yeare 1524. cast of his religious habite, and shortlie after married Katherine Bore and wheras he had liued chast before (as he saith) he fell into such exorbitant lust that he himselfe testifieth, that it was no more in his power to be no man then to want the companie of a woman, Sermo: de matrimonio to. 5. with many such like speeches, wherby it appeareth that of a chast religious Priest he was become a most lasciuious beast. For if beasts could speake and vtter their sensuall conceites they could not possible vtter them in more euident sort. Therfore whether those pro­digious monsters mentioned by Osiander (the circumstances of the time and place considered) did not portend Luthers Aposta­cie and consequentlie condemne both his doctrine and calling to the preaching therof, let the indifferent Reader iudge. But let vs now go forward with our ministers.

17. Minist. For as much as appertaineth to the ordinarie calling of our first Pastors, we say that if there were any at that time in the Papacie, it was on their side, because they vsed it rightlie, wheras others did abuse it. And if it be replied, that they fell from their vocation, which they receiued of their Bishops, because they taught other doctrine: the question then must be of do­ctrine, and not of calling.

Answer. What miserable blindnes, and peruersitie is this? Euen now these men would maintanie the Pope to be Antichrist, and all that liue vnder his obedience to be his traine:See their fifth para­graffe before this. and now are they glad to chalenge from him, their ordinarie calling, and power, to preach and minister sacraments. As though Antichrist did furnish Christians, with any necessarie power, for edification, and conseruation of Christ his church, and familie. But let vs [Page 102] (contrarie to all right) allow these miserable men, to take their power of ministerie from him, whose power they most bitter­lie blaspheme, and let vs see, how they can saue themselues from euident sacrilege, and rebellion. They must of necessitie allow the Pope and church of Rome, to haue a lawfull or at least a sufficient calling: (For otherwise it is vnpossible, so much as to imagine, that they could receiue any such from it.) Seying ther­fore in their doctrine, holy order is neither a sacrament, not leaueth in him that is ordained, any indeleble marke, character, or spirituall power, by vertue wherof, all such actions which he doth pertayning to that order, are reall and truly sacramen­tall, and therfore not to be reiterated (as the catholique doctrine teacheth) but is only a meere morall deputation, of such a per­son to the function, of ministring the word and sacraments, which being lost, taken away, or suspended, all power to ex­ercise any such actions, as pertanie to that function is also lost, and taken away; and consequentlie, if such an one shall attempt to exercise any such actions, he shall do nothing, but committ sacrilege in attempting to do a holy action, which is not in his power to performe. This doctrine of theirs admitted, how can they pretend, to receiue any calling from the Pope or Church of Rome, which (as they say) long since lost all power, either to minister the sacraments themselues, or to ordaine others to that calling? Surely if their doctrine of the sacrament of or­ders, and of the church of Rome her reuolt from Christ, should be true, it is as vnpossible for them to haue any true calling to the ministerie, as it is for him to be kinght or iudge, that hath his order or office from him, that being declared rebell to his soueraigne, hath lost all power of ordaining such persons, though he had it before. And therfore as he, that being made iudge by such a one, should in vertue of that ordination exer­cise that office, should be no lesse rebell to his soueraigne, then he that made him. So in like manner, our ne [...] reforming mini­sters taking their calling from them, whome they esteeme re­bels to Christ, and exercising it in vertue of that ordination, can be no lesse rebels to Christ, then those, from w [...]om they receiue their calling. Neither will it auayle them any thing to say, that they vse it well, which thothers did not. For the question is not herere of the vse of their calling, but of their [Page 103] calling it self, which is prooued by their owne doctrine, to be none at all, and therfore cannot haue any good vse, but a meere sacrilegious attempt, to doe that wher vnto they haue no power.

If they say, that in the Catholique doctrine, which teacheth, that in holy orders is imprinted an indeleble character, or marke in the soule of him, which is ordained, (by vertue wherof, all such actions as pertanie to that order, are made of force) they may haue the same true calling, that the Catholiques beleeue to be in the church of Rome. I answere first, that there is no rea­son, that they should receiue any benefit, from the truth of the catholike doctrine, which they impugne, and which they esteeme to be false. Secondly, how can they thinke their calling to be good, seying they cannot maintane it without such gro­unds of doctrine, as they hold to be vntrue? But let vs grant them once more to shrowde themselues vnder the truth of Ca­tholique doctrine, so much impugned by them; What will they gaine therby? No other thing then that, which o [...]r Sauiour saith, an old garment getteth by a new patch set vpon it, that is, to make the rent greater. For either they must say, that in the Romane church (from whence they now of necssitie are dri­ven to take their calling) when Luther was ordered Priest, re­mayned the true, and lawfull calling in Christs church, not only for as much as pertaineth to the sacramentall power, or chara­cter; but also for the lawfull vse therof, and then must they ne­cessarilie confesse themselues to be heretiques, and schismati­ques, for hauing left the vnitie of that church, where there is the lawfull vse of calling, and consequently, the lawfull admi­nistration of Gods word and sacraments, which they acknow­ledge for the only true markes, of Gods true church: or they must say, that albeit the sacramentall power, or character al­waies remained in the church of Rome, yet had it not the law­full vse therof, being reuolted from the seruice of Christ. And in saying this, they do no lesse condemne themselues. For if those that ordained Luther had not the lawfull vse of the sacra­mentall calling, where, of whom, or from whence could Luther haue it? Surely he could not otherwaies haue it, but by sacrile­gious vsurpation. For to say, that he had it extraordinarilie, and immediatlie from God, is both impertinent, because here we [Page 104] speake of ordinarie calling, and is a desperate shift alreadie re­futed by the authoritie of our Sauiour himselfe, testifying that if he had not done those thing in proofe of his mission, that ne­uer any other did, the Iewes had had no sinne for not receiuing him. Seing Luther therfore neuer did any extraordinarie worke, for proofe of his extraordinarie missiō, he is not to be receiued, especiallie the sonne of God not challenging that priuiledge. Againe it is euident by the practise of the auncient church, [...]n the councels of Nice and Sardis, that such as are ordayned by he­retiques, haue no lawfull vse of the sacramentall calling, which they receiue,Cap. 11 n 4. as we shall see more at large here after. The Pro­testants therfore esteeming the Romane church hereticall, yea more then hereticall, and notwithstanding receiuing their cal­ling from it, cannot haue any more lawfull vse therof, then the councels of Nice and Sardis, did iudge those to haue, that were ordained by Miletius, and the Arri [...]n Bishops, which was none at all. So that these men are like vnto a bird in a net, that the more she striueth to get out, the more she intangleth her selfe, and the faster she is holden. Neither doth the idle pretence of necessitie of reformation excuse them from their sacrilegious vsurpation, and rebel­lion. For besides that there were diuers true Churches (as they say) separated from that of Rome, when Luther ran out, from whence he might haue had his calling, and therfore cannot with any colour pretend necessitie to run without mission. Besides this (I say) our Sauiour him­selfe, might haue pretended truer, and greater necessitie, to preach reformation, then Luther and his; and yet was he so farre from it, that he proued his mission by such mea­nes, as neuer any did, and witnesseth that without such proofe he had not bene receiuable. Shall we therfore be so deuoide of all sense, as to thinke Luther, and his crue to be receauable for true reformers, without all proofe of his calling, and commission, vpon a bare pre­tence of a fayned necessitie? Neither is the example that Monsieur du Plessis bringeth in their defence to any purpose. He saith thus.Fol. 375. A Magistrate called to the gouernment of the com­mon wealth, finding the lawes corrupted by his predecessors, the place of iustice full of iniustice, offices subiect to sale and the like, taketh [Page 105] in hand to reforme all, and to reduce it to the censure of the lawes. Now would he not be worthie to be laught at, that should aske him by what right or title he doth this? This example he thin­keth to agree with their first Pastors, who hauing bene ordered Priests in the Romane Church, vsed their calling, as he pretended, to the reformation of corruptions and a­buses crept into the Church, by the negligence and malice of their predecessors, and therfore cannot be rightly de­maunded, by what authoritie they do it. Let vs admit this example for good, and then aske of Monsieur du Plessis, what answere he would giue vnto the Arians, and Ana­baptists, making this argument against the reformed Chur­ches of Germany and France. I suppose he would say, that their pretence of reformation is but a vizard, and cloake, to enter into the Church, and afterwards to di­sturbe the peace therof, and to draw men into errour. And that if euerie one pretending reformation were to be hearkened vnto, either in the ecclesiasticall, or ciuill estate, it would bee vnpossible to keepe any peace, or order in either. This same answere will fit Monsieur du Plessis his example. Secondly this example maketh nothing to the purpose, vnles these two things be prooued. First, that the Church may be so corrupt in doctrine, and manners, as that no Pastors remaine vncorrupt to reforme it.

Secondly, that it was in that state, when Luther ran out of the Church. For vnles these be prooued, what appearance of probabilitie can there be in this example? But it is as possible to prooue these things, as it is to prooue the holy scripture to be false, or God to haue fai­led in his promise, as hath bene shewed before.

Thirdly, Luther and his folowers do not pretend only to reforme the corruptions which they falsly imagin to be in the Church, but they would thrust out of office the true and lawfull Pastors, by whom they receiued their cal­ling of priesthood, and make themselues the sole rulers and gouernours, not of Gods Church, but of a con­gregation of their owne gathering. Which absurd abuse [Page 106] if any seditiouse head should attempt in the temporall state, he would quickly be recompensed with the hier due vnto such a one. This example therefore of Monsieur du Plessis being rightly applyed doth manifestly comdemne Luther and all his Seditious brood.

18. Minist. Or if it be said, that the greater part amoungst them being only Priests could not giue calling to others, we send them to S. Hierome, who teacheth, that that power is common to Bishops and Priest, and S. Ambrose confirmeth the same. It appeareth therfore, that in what sort soeuer they take it, they are not without calling, and hauing it, they haue power to giue it to others, and these exer­cising it faithfully haue the true title, and possession of it.

Answer. How falsly they Father this doctrine vpon S. Hierome is shewed before, for he teacheth the quite contrarie say­ing what other thing doth a Bishop, Epist. to Euagrius. that a Priest doth not, ex­cept ordering or giuing of orders? And as falsly they cite S. Ambrose. So that it manifestly appeareth by that, which hath hitherto bene answered, to all their slender proofes, of their partie coloured calling, halfe ordinarie, halfe extraordinarie, that they haue none at all; and ther­fore are conuinced to be theeues,Iohn. 10.1. and robbers, climing vp another way, and not entring by the doore: and such as God complaineth of by the Prophet, that Pro­phesie in his name without sending,Ieremy. 23. and run without bid­ding.

The third part of this chapter.19. And albeit it be abundantlie sufficient, for the re­iecting of this new pretended ministerie, to haue so eui­dentlie refuted the proofes therof (our aduersaries being appellants in this cause, and we only defendants) yet of supererogation, and abundant declaration of triumphing truth, I will here briefly shewe that there can be no true calling to the ministerie of Gods word, and sacraments in Christ his Church, but that which is giuen and receiued from one to another from our Sauiour Christ, the true fountaine, and source of all lawfull power euen till this day, wherby it will clearelie appeare, that the pre­tended Churches of reformation in France, and all those that agree with them, haue no true calling at all. For [Page 107] they willingly confesse as we haue seene before, that their calling is extraordinary, and therefore not receiued from their predecessors (I speake of their first Pastors as they tearme them) but immediatly from God, as Moises, the Prophets, and Apo­stles did. And omitting those two euident testimonies of our Sauiour Christ,Nath. 28.20 Eph. 4.12. and S. Paul (before cited for the like purpose) proouing a continuall, and not interpreted succession of Pa­stours in the church, till the worlds end. I will heere only de­duce the same tradition, or deliuery of calling, from one to ano­ther, first out of holy Scripture, so far as the story therof reach­eth, and then out of the doctrine of the auncient church, which our aduersaries dare not reiect.

The holy scripture to shew the weight and moment of this calling, doth often, and in most cleere tearmes declare, that our Sauiour himselfe did not take vpon him this dignity, but by mission from his father, S. Paul saying,Heb. 5.5. that he glorified not himselfe that he might be made high-priest, but he that said vnto him, thou art my sonne, this day I haue begotten thee. And in another place: Thou art a Priest for euer. And againe: This is my beloued sonne, heare yee him; Math. 7.5. 2. Pet. 1. with many other like testimonies of his calling to the function of Priesthood, which he exercised according to his humanity. According to which hauing receiued from his Father,Math. 28.18 19. all power in heauen and in earth, he sent his Apostles to preach, and mi­nister the sacraments saying. All power is giuen me in heauen, and in earth, going therefore teach ye all Nations, baptising them. And in ano­ther place: As my Father sent me, so I send you. Iohn 20.21. The Apostles thus sent, sent others their disciples S. Paul saying to Timothy. I admo­nish thee, that thou resuscitate the grace of God, Which is in thee, 2. Tim. 1.6. by the im­position of my hands. And those disciples sent others. For the same Apostle saith to Titus. For this cause I left thee in Creete, that thou shouldest reforme those things that are wanting, and shouldest ordaine Priests by cities, as I also appointed thee. So that we haue in the holy Scrip­ture, the calling not only of the Apostles, and their disciples, but of their disciples disciples, one being called by another, as the sonne by the father, euen vntill our sauiour Christ, the head and fountaine of all calling and mission. And that this selfe same line, and succession of calling hath euer since continued it is euident, both by the personall succession of Pastors in the sea Apostolique, which is so euidently knowne, that M. Fulke [Page 108] saith, we can count it on our fingers ends, as also by the doctrinall te­stimonies of the most ancient fathers,Answer to a counterfait Catho. p. 27. whereof some I will here set downe, I say doctrinall testimonies, because they are not only testimonies of the beleefe and practise of the church, in the time wherein they liued, but also are rules for all times con­cerning that matter. S. Ireneus Bishop of Lions, and martyr, disciple of the Apostles disciples saith thus.Lib. 4. c. 43. VVe must obey those Priests, that are in the church, that haue the succession from the Apostles (as we haue shewed) that together with the succession of Episcopall power, haue according to the good pleasure of the Father receiued the certain gift of truth. But others that are not of the orignall succession, in what place soeuer they are assembled, to haue suspected, either as heretiques and of bad doctrine, or as schismatiques and highminded, or as hipochrites which doe this for couetous­nesse, either of gaine, or vaine glory.

Lib. de pre­scriptionibus cap. 32. Tertullian not much after S. Ireneus saith Let them (the Here­tiques) bring forth the origin or beginning of their churches, let them looke thorow the order of their Bishops, so descending by succession from the begin­ning, that their first Bishop haue for his ordainer and predecessour, some of the Apostles or Apostolicall men, who yet haue continued with the Apostles to the end. For in this manner doe the Apostolicall churches verifie their pedegree, as the church of Smyrna produceth Policarpe, placed there by S. Iohn, and that of Rome Clement ordayned by S. Peter.Contr. Mar­cio: l. 4. c. 5. And againe: wee haue churches founded by Iohn: For though Marcion reiect his Apocalips, yet the order of Bishops reckoned from the beginning will rest in Iohn as the au­thor, and so is the nobility of other churches knowne. And lower: He hath also churches, but his are as much latter, as they are adulterous, whose gene­nealogie if you seeke, you shall rather finde them Apostatique, then Apostolique. Marcion or some of his troope being the founder.

S. Cyprian in the age following. These are they that of themselues without commission from God, De vnitate ecclesiae. doe vsurpe Prelacy amongst certaine auditors disorderly gathered together, that make themselues Pastors without any law­full ordination, that take vpon them the title of Bishop, without that any man giue them a Bishops place or authority, at whom, the holy Ghost in the Psalmes doth point as sitting in the chaire of pestilence, being the plagues and ruines of true faith. And in another place. Christ said to his Apostles, and conse­quently to all Prelats, that by substitutiue ordination doe succeed the Apostles, he that heareth you heareth mee. Epist. 69. to Florentius. Lib. 2. con. Parmenian.

Optatus Mileuitanus in the age after S. Cyprian, hauing reckoned vp the Bishops of Rome from S. Peter (whom he calleth the [Page 109] head of all the Apostles) vntill Siri [...]ius then Bishop. Giue vs (saith he to Parmenian primate of the Donatists) the beginning or origen of your chaire, you that chalenge vnto you the Church of God.

S Hierome saith of a certain heretique one Hilarius: Dialog. con. Luciferianos The sect peri­shed together with the man, because he being but Deacon could not ordaine any Clergy to remaine after him: but where there is no Priest, there is no Church.

S. Augustine saith to the Donatists.In the Psalm against the party of Do­natus. Number vp the Priests from after S Peter, and see who in that line of Fathers succeeded others: that is the rocke, which the proud gates of hel shall not ouercome.

Now dare I appeale to the iudicious Reader, be he friend or foe, Catholique or Protestant, whether these Fathers deliuering this doctrine, could so much as dreame of any extraordinary calling in the church, immediatly from God, such as our new Reformers, seeing themselues euidently without ordinary cal­ling, are forced to recurre vnto. Surely if they had not presup­posed as a most sure, and infallible ground, that the calling, which our Sauiour Christ instituted, and left in his Church, should euer continue, and descend from one to another by not interrupted succession, they could not but haue seene, and knowne, that their arguments proposed, and vrged against the heretiques of their time, in such sort as is before related, could haue no force at all: their aduersaries hauing alwaies most easie recourse, to their extraordinary and immediate calling from God, which would haue deluded all their arguments. But this shift of maintayning heresie is so euidently absurd, that till our age it seemeth, the diuell could finde none so senseles or shame­lesse that would put it in practise.

Monsieur du Plessis after all shifts posible vsed, for the maintay­ning of their new Ministery, and seeing (as it is likely) that all he had, or could say was not sufficient to make it good commeth at last to say, that the question of calling is superfluous, and no­thing at all pertayning to the proofe of the true Church: which he goeth about to shew out of the conference of Carthage, be­tweene the Catholiques, and Donatists in this sort.

The question was betweene the Catholiques and Donatists, Plessis of the Church pag▪ 369. where the true Church might be: And to cleare the same the conference of Carthage was held by the authority of the Emperour Honorius, in the presence of the tribune Marcellinus: S. Augustine who spake for the Catholiques, would exa­mine [Page 110] it by the Scriptures: Petilian who defended the cause of the Donati [...], by the calling of the Bishops, thinking to bring him to this point, to name Ce­cilian Bishop of Africa for his ordinator, whom they pretended to haue bur [...] the holy bookes, and thereby made vncapable both of being Bishop, and orday­ning others: who art thou? (saith Petilian to S. Augustine) and whence hast thou thy beginning? and who is thy father? (that is, who consecrated thee?) and where is thy head and thy fountaine, and if thou haue none, art thou not then an heretique? S. Austin who will alwaies come to the ground, what an­swereth hee? This question, saith he, is but a cauill, and an euasion belonging no whit to the cause of truth &c. I am (saith he) in that church which Ce­cilian was in: my communion began at these words. It behooued that Christ should suffer and rise againe the third day, and that remission of sinnes should be preached in his name, beginning at Hierusalem, and from thence through­out all the world. Cecilian was my brother, and not my Father, nor he that consecrated mee. In this case I acknowledge no S. Augu­stine hath no such words. father but God, no head but Christ: For although the Apostle say I haue begotten you, yet that thou maiest know, that the base or foundation of that father-hood is not hu­mane, he addeth (by the Gospel of Christ) In a word (saith he) to omit these superfluous demands, I am a Christian, a faithfull man, a Catholique, I de­fend one church, the which, whatsoeuer I am, is a church: And to resolue thee Megalius hath ordayned me Bishop let vs come Falsifi­cation: no such thing in S. Augustin. to the matter, let vs come to the scriptures.

The same we say with S. Augustine to our aduersaries, you aske what the calling was of the first Reformers? from whom our calling doth descend? it was the If the same why do they abiure it, and not only refine it? same that yours is, faulty and corrupt in her formes, but recti­fied by vs, by calling it backe to her first rules, and by bringing it backe to her first vsage. So then there is no more question of the calling: we are quit one with another for that point, let vs come to the doctrine, and to the examining thereof by the Scriptures.

This concleusion of Monsieur du Plessis doth shew, how gladly he would be quit of this question of calling, knowing right wel that they can neuer satisfie therein, nor prooue themselues true Pastors, the want whereof doth necessarily inferre the want of the true church, true faith, and true religion. But let vs see how his authority alleaged by him serueth his turne in any point.

This conference was holden indeed, by the commandement of Honorius Emperor, but at the instance, and request of the Ca­tholique Bishops,Collat. 1. Carthag. art. 4. as appeareth by the Emperours owne letters. For the desire of peace and loue (saith the Emperour) we haue willingly [Page 111] yeelded to the request of the venerable Bishops; who haue desired that the Do­natist Bishops may be assembled, and that either part may make choice of cer­taine Bishops, by whose conference, or disputation, errour may be confuted.

This reason of this request made to the Emperour, was the obstinacy, and peruersity of the Donatists, who hauing beene condemned before, both by ecclesiasticall,Ibid art. 54. Epist Catho­licor. ad ini­tium. and imperiall iudge­ment, did still persist in their error. Which obstinacy moued the Catholique Bishops, to seeke the second time for the assistance of the secular power, whereby they might be constrayned to put in execution, the sentence that should be giuen against them. This I thought good to note, least the lesse skilfull rea­der might thinke, that either Christian Emperours did take vp­on them, the iudgement of Ecclesiastical causes, or that Catho­lique Bishops did seeke vnto them for the same any farther then for their assistance for the execution of Ecclesiastical iudgment. And I could wish, good Reader, that for the better satisfaction, and fuller information, and knowledge of the nature of here­tiques and schismatiques, thou wouldest take the paines, to read the whole conference it selfe, wherein thou shalt finde very many things for the proofe, and confirmation of the Catholike doctrin in the points controuersed at this day, but no word a­gainst it, and see as it were in a glasse, the peruersity of the here­tiques of these our daies set downe, and recorded 1200 yeares a­gone, it is printed together with Optatus Milenitanus: Ex Bibliopolio Commeliniano anno 1599. my copie hath no other addresse. But to come to the obiection it self, wherin Monsi. du Plessis vseth his ac­customed falsity, adding of his owne, and inuenting the sayings of his authors, as he thinketh most for his purpose.

The true state of the matter, for so much as appertayneth to this obiection is this.

The Donatists seeing themselues not able to sustaine, and make their partie good against the manifest truth forciblie vr­ged by the Catholiques, sought all occasions possible, to turne the dispute from the point in controuersie, and to spend the time in impertinent demands, that so they might (if it were possible) auoide the condemning sentence, which they saw would fall vpon them.

The maine question in controuersie was, whether the fault or crime of Cecilianus and his collegues (supposing they were [Page 112] trulie guiltie of any crime) might or ought to be so imputed to that church, whereof they were members, and which commu­nicated with them; that it was now no more the true Catho­lique church, but a false and corrupt congregation of bad men, and therefore might iustlie be so abandoned by the Donatists, that they might reiect euen the sacrament of Baptisme giuen in it as vnlawfull.

The second question was, whether Cecilianus and his collegues were indeed trulie guiltie of anie crime worthie of condemna­tion, or censure. That these were the maine questions in con­trouersie, is euident by the mandate of the Catholiques, set downe in the first daies conference. The Catholiques maintay­ned and euidentlie proued the negatiue in both these questions,Art. 54 45. as appeareth in the whole conference, and also by the sentence giuen accordinglie in the end of all.

Collat. 3. Act. 226.In the third daies conference S. Augustine hauing said thus: Cecilians cause hauing euer beene accustomed, to be obiected by the Donatists against the church, if they will now obiect it no more, what will they obiect against it? If they obiect nothing, why doe they separate themselues from it? If they obiect any thing else, let them propose it, let them shew it. Art. 227. Pet. Art. 228. Aug. Art. 229. Pet. Art. 230. Aug. Alters and memorie of dead in S. Augustine [...]is daies. Marke here the vniuer­salitie of the church. No mans faults ought to seperat vs from the vnitie of the church our mother.

Hereunto Petilian saith: who art thou? art thou Cecilians sonne, or no? art thou guilty of his crime, or no?

Marke good Reader how impertinentlie these questions are moued, in respect of the matter in hand, and thou shalt easilie see, that the Catholike Bishops had reason to say, that they were superfluous, and pertained not to the cause, notwithstanding S. Augustin answereth. I am in the church, in which Cecilian was.

From whence hast thou thy beginning? what father hast thou? if thou con­demne thy father, dost thou not professe thy selfe an heretique who will neither haue beginning, nor father?

VVe are in the church, wherein Cecilianus did beare episcopall authority, and therein died. VVe recite his name at the Alter, we communicate with his memory, as with the memory of our brother, not of our Father or mo­ther. Thou demandest of mee, whence my communion hath beginning. Our Lord Christ testifieth the beginning of my communion. It was necessary, that Christ should suffer, and rise againe from the dead the third day, and that penance and remission of sinnes should be preached in his name, through all Nations beginning from Hierusalem. From him nor from the Church [Page 113] my mother, no mans crime, nor no calumny shall separate mee. Art. 231. Pet. Art. 232. Aug. Art. 233. Pet. Art. 234. Aug.

Cecilian is he thy father, or mother as thou saiest?

Thou hast already heard that he was my brother.

He is not a brother, that begetteth children.

Cecilian is not my Father, if he be good, he is my good brother: If he be bad, he is my bad brother, yet because of the sacraments he is my brother whe­ther good or bad.

But if thou wouldest haue my opinion of him, Art. 235. I thinke him innocent and fafly accused. If thou obiect his crimes against the church, I defend as a bro­ther, and shew that they cannot belong to the Church, nor to the cause thereof, nor cannot hurt it. And so I shew, that thou obiect nothing against the Church, although the crimes of Cecilian should be true, which thou canst no waies prooue. VVhich if thou canst not in like manner prooue, thou seest where thou art; and what thou oughtest to embrace truth, and charity with vs, leauing thy obstinate errour.

Let them say plainly at last, whether they haue Cecilian insteed of their father, from whom this issue is descended. Art. 236. Pet. For nothing can be borne without some that begetteth it, nor begin without a head, nor grow without a roote. Behold they often professe to haue no beginning. If therefore he haue no be­ginning, is not he rather an heretique, who hath no father, or who condemneth the father he hath?

I haue a head, but it is Christ. Art. 237. Aug. Art. 238. Pet. Art. 342. A [...]g. Art. 243. Pet. Art. 244. Fortuna.

VVho made thee Bishop?

I haue a head but it is Christ, whose Apostle saith, all things are yours, but you are Christs, and Christ is Gods. And he afterward sheweth at large out of the scriptures, how we haue but one father to saluation, or that saueth vs, and yet how we haue diuers fathers for other respects.

How is he called that ordayned him? let him tell who gaue him orders.

VVe doe not well conceiue, what it importeth to the cause of truth (that now is in hand) who ordered euery Bishop, it is shewed by diuine testimony, that God is our father. Art. 245. Pet. Art. 246. Alipuis: Art. 247. Adeodatus. Art. 248. Possidius. Art. 249. Aug.

Let him declare who ordered him.

Ordered whom? we are many present. Let the aduerse part speake▪ whose ordination he asketh of, and why, that we may see, whether he be wor­thy of an [...]wer.

Augustin spake, let him tell who ordered him.

VVee haue not taken vpon vs to defend Augustins cause whatsoeuer it bee.

I see superfluous things are demanded by our brethren of the contrary part, and yet I refuse not to answer to these superfluous demands, the churches cause whereunto nothing can be answered, being in safety. I whose ordination th [...] requirest, am a Christian, a faithfull beleeuer (which I speake God being my witnesse) a Catholique. I defend that Church, which, whatsoeuer I am, [...]s a church. I see whereat thou aymest; thou seekest to calumniate, those things which you vse bragging to say, are not hidden to vs. Megalius ordered mee, the Primate of the Catholique church of Numidia, at that time when he had power to doe it. Behold I haue answered thee. Goe forward, propose that which thou hast prepared, and thou shalt be found a calumniator. I haue told thee my ordainer, now vtter the calumniations.

Thus farre lasted this contestation, about S. Austins ordination and here it ended. I haue set it downe at large word for word for the better clearing of the obiection made out of it, which in truth is as impertinently vrged by Monsieur du Plessis, against the Catholiques inquiring of the Protestants vocation, as it was vsed by the Donatists, against their Catholique aduersaries. S. Augustine, and his Catholiqe partakers doe rightly reiect this de­mand of his ordination, as impertinent to the matter in hand. For had he beene ordered by Cecilian (as doubtlesse diuers Ca­tholique Bishops were) yet before the Donatists could inferre any thing thereupon for their purpose, they were first to proue, that Cecilians faults were to be imputed, to the church, which communicated with him, which was the chiefe question in controuersie. Secondly, that Cecilian was truely guilty of the crimes obiected against him, which they were so farre from proouing, that the contrary was manifestly prooued by the Ca­tholique party. Who doth not therefore see, that the question moued of S. Augustines ordination, was altogether impertinent to the matter, and therefore worthily reiected by the Catholike Bishops as such.

Now if Monsieur du Plessis can shew vs any such impertinency, in our demands of their ordination, or vocation, we will cease from molesting them any farther in that kinde. But we are war­ranted therein, by the testimonies of holie scripture, and anci­ent Fathers,Aboue n. 20. and namly S. Augustin himselfe, euen against the Do­natists, as is afore shewed: therefore must they not thinke to fobbe vs off with such fables, and make vs giue ouer our pour­suit, till they either satisfie our demands, which they can neuer [Page 115] doe: or yeeld to the euident truth, and returne to the vnitie, and charitie of Gods holy Church, which I pray God they may soone doe.

The mith Chapter. Not all externall ordination, or consecration by such as beare the name, and pretend to be Bishops is a sufficient and true calling to the ministerie of Gods word and sacraments.

1. HAVING in the precedent chapters refuted diuers sorts of callings, which either are main­tayned by some Protestants, or may any waies be imagined to be probable, it remayneth to cleare the question heere proposed, concerning the lawfulnes of the calling of the protestant clergie of Ingland. Where first it is to be obserued, that (by the confession of those aduersaries, with whom we haue here to dispute) the ordinations made by the Bishops of the Romane Church, are sufficient for the true constitution of ecclesiasticall ministers. To which acknowledg­ment they are constrained by necessitie, not hauing any other possible meanes, to maintaine that ordinarie calling, which they pretend to haue. The question therfore is not here, whe­ther the ordinations made by the Bishops of the Romane Church be sufficient or no, this being confessed, and without controuersie. But whether the ordination [...] made by other Bishops, from the communion of the Romane Church, and namely by those of England, be such or no.

Secondly it is to be obserued, that though hitherto hath bene sufficientlie impugned the ministerie of the pretended refor­mation of France, and such other falsly named Churches, as agree with it in the extraordinary calling of their ministers, as that of Scotland, and Geneua, with whom aggree our Inglish puritanes yet because there are other Protestant Churches, which chalenge to themselues another kind of calling, then that of France: therfore to impugne directly, and effectuallie the same, it is necessarie, to enter into a particuler dispute with [Page 116] them. And because the Protestants in England haue most shew of an ordinarie calling, and beare themselues more boldly ther vpon (as M. Mason in his epistle declareth in these words.) VVheras other reformed churches were constrayned by necessitie, to admit ex­traordinarie Fathers, that is to receiue ordination from presbyters, which are but inferiour ministers, rather then to suffer the fabricke of our Lord Ies [...] to be dissolued: the church of England had alwaies Bishops to conferre sacred orders, according to the ordinarie, and most warrantable custome of the church of Christ. Therfore hereafter I will dispute with them. And if by force of argument it be made apparent, that they also want all lawfull calling, there can no doubt remaine of all the rest of the Protestants Churches, of what reformation soeuer they may bragge.The meaning of the present question. The meaning therfore of the question here proposed is, whether those that beare the names of Bis­hops in England, be true Bishops and haue any true power to consecrate, or ordaine the lawfull ministers of Gods church, or no. And to prooue that they haue, Monsieur Mason hath published a large volume, which I intend not to refute by way of answer, but by possitiue argument to impugne that which he would maintayne. For thou art to obserue (Iudicious reader) that M. Masons grounds (for maintenante of their calling) are but answeres, to such arguments and obiections, as he himselfe fra­meth against it (as is already noted in the preface:) If therfore any one of all those arguments, be maintayned good against him (as not only one, but many, God willing, shall be) he will find his dawbing like vnto that, wherof the Prophet speaketh; Dic illis, Ezech. 11.13. qui liniut abs (que) temperatura, quòd casurus sit. Tell them that dawbe without tempering, that it will fall. But to come to the matter it selfe.

This de­duction he maketh pa. 10. and is the sole gro­wnd of all his booke.2. All that Monsieur Mason saith in his great booke in summe is this. The Bishops that new are in England were ordained, by other Bishops their predecessours, and those by others, vntill we come to Thomas Cranmer, who was ordained by Bishops of the Romane Church. Therfore the Bishops now in Englang are true Bishops, and consequently haue true power, to ord [...]ine lawfull ministers of Gods word, and sacraments. If this were as surely and solidly prooued, or maintained, as it is easely said, M. Mason would deserue immortall praise, with equall thankes, for hauing deliuered his Fathers Bishops, and brethren mi­nisters, [Page 117] frō that difficultie of the proofe of their calling, wherin they are so farre from satisfying their aduersaries, that they themselues rest not satisfied therin. For it is not ten yeares since one of their Bishops, in priuate conference with others of his owne ranke, and confident freinds is knowne to haue confessed this. The french ministers haue no meanes at all, to prooue their calling, and we in England can hardly proue ours. Therfore if M. Mason performe this tascke that he hath vndertaken, dexterously, he shall doubtles deserue well of them all. And because ordina­tion, or conferring of holy orders, (wherby true, and lawfull calling is giuen) may be defectiue three manner of waies, to wit, either of the part of him that doth ordaine, or of him that is ordayned, or of the ordination it selfe, it belongeth to M. Mason to prooue, or at least maintaine that the ordinations of the Bishops in England, from Archbishop Cranmer, be not defectiue in any one of these respects, for if they faile in one of them, they cannot be true Bishops, and much lesse if they faile in them all, as I thinke they wilbe found to doe. But before we enter into the particuler examination of M. Masons doctrine in this point, I will wish thee, good Reader, to obserue two or three things, supposing in the meane while these ordinations to be good, in all the three respects now mentioned.

3. First, that if the ordinations of our supposed English Bishops be not otherwise canonicall, but only by reason of the succession they pretend to haue,Note. from Archbishop Cranmer it must necessarilie follow, that all other pretended Churches, as that of France, Germanie, Geneua, Scotland, and the rest that haue no such succession, haue no lawfull ministerie. For if the ordination of our English Bishops be good, only because it is deriued by succession from Cranmer who was a true Bishop, those Churches, that haue no such succession, can haue no such ordination, and consequently no lawfull ministers or Pastors. Whence farther it also followeth, that they can haue no lawfull Church, which cannot be without lawfull Pastors, as is con­fessed aswell by Protestants as Catholiques. And yet farther that of all the reformed Churches, there is no one true, but only that of England, and therfore the Church of Christ, which should be Catholique or vniuersall, as M. Mason him self proueth by this cleare profecie: I will giue the heathen for thin inheritance, and [Page 118] the vtternost ports of the earth for thy possession must needs be drawne within the compasse of England, which is more ridiculously absurd then the condemned doctrine of the Donatists, who affoorded the church a for larger compasse. Which absurditie wilbe more apparent, if we consider the smal number of the English themselues, that hold the calling of their ministers to be canonicall. For separating first the Catholiques, who esteeme the Protestants ordinations, but an apish imitation of the Ca­tholique consecrations, and then the Puritans, Brownists, and the rest that condemne the same as papisticall, there will remayne no great number, to make vp the glorious kingdome of the sonne of God, who hath the whole world giuen him by his father for his inheritance. as M. Mason acknowledgeth.

Psal. 2.8.4. This euident deduction cannot be possibly auoided, but by one of these two waies: to wit, either that the ordinations of the other reformed Churches, are all one with them of the Church of England; or els that there are diuers sorts of cano­nicall ordinations of Pastors in the Church of Christ. And yet both these are euidently false. For to begin with the latter, where is it read in holy scripture, or other authenticall record, that either our Sauiour Christ ordained, or his Apostles practi­sed diuers sorts, or fashions of ordinations in his Church? Su­rely no where. And seeing this is a point of principall moment, as being the first thing required in the building of Gods house, nothing ought to be affirmed therin without euident warrant, especially by our newly reformed masters, who pretend to re­duce all things, to the square of the written word it selfe. But yet we will deale more liberallie with them, then to ty them so strictly to the scriptures, and wilbe content to take for good sa­tisfaction, one only instance of practise, not with in the first fiue hundred yeares after Christ, as they exact of vs in other points, but within the whole fifteene hundred yeares, one al­lowed and approoued instance I say, of any other sort of ordi­nation of Pastors in the Church, but by the visible and sensible imposition of hands by Bishops, Which notwithstanding they are not able to produce. False therfore and absurd it is to ima­gine, that there are diuers sorts, of ordinarie callings of Pastors (for of ordinarie calling we speake here) hauing already suffi­ciently refuted all pretence of extraordinarie.

[Page 119] 5. Neither is the first euasion (to wit that the ordinations of the church of England, and of France are all one) lesse false. For where there is not one and the same formall cause, there cannot be the same effect: but in the ordinations of Pastors in the English, and French Churches, there is not the same formall cause, for in the English it is the power of a Bishop (at least as is pretended) which is not in the French church; therfore cannot the effect, or ordinance be all one. For to say that the power of Priests, and Bishops is all one in respect of ordination, is an he­resie cōdemned 1200. yeares agoe in Aerius, as is already shewed. And though some of our new masters would inferre,Doct. Mor­ton and D. Field. that Priests haue the same power to ordaine, that Bishops haue, vpon the opinion of some schoolemen, teaching that the cha­racter of Priests, and Bishops are all one: yet are they euidently conuinced, either not to vnderstand the schoolemen, or guil­fully to dissemble their doctrine. For those schoolemen that teach, that the character of priesthood, and Bishophood to be all one, do also teach, that the same character is extended in Bishops, by their consecrations to certaine actions, and na­mely to the giving of priesthood, wherunto it is not extended in Preists, and this not by any positiue decree, or ordinance of the church, but by Christs owne institution. Wherfore it is most manifest, that if the whole doctrine of these schoolemen be expressed, (as it must be, if any one will inferre any thing of their opinion) it maketh directly against this heresie, of the equalitie of Priests and Bishops, in respect of ordination of Pastors: but of this matter is spoken largly aboue cap. 7. n. 6.

6. Againe though this equalitie of Priests and Bishops were (against the truth) graunted, yet would it nothing helpe them in the question now in hand, to wit, whether the ordinations of the English, and French Churches be all one: it being cleare, that the French Churches do not receiue, or admit of the ordi­nations made by Priests; but if any Priests run out of the Ca­tholique Church to them, they ordeyne them a new (if they thinke them worthie of their ministerie) so farre are they from receiuing ordinations made by Preists. For which reason doub­tles do our English Puritans esteeme so vily of ordinations made by Bishops, as we shall by and by heare out of M. VVhitaker [Page 120] and M. Fulke. Yea Caluin the first founder of the French Chur­ches, (and therfore are they not very ancient) was himselfe no Priest, yet did he ordaine ministers, not in vertue of any priest­hood (which he had not, and which his schollers blasphemously tearme the marke of the beast,) but as hauing power, not only to preach, but also to ordaine ministers immediatlie from God, and not by any succession of ordination deriued vnto him, by the imposition of hands of priesthood.

From all which I conclude thus. The Church of England hath a different ordination of Pastors, from the churches of France, and all other churches, that haue not their ministers or­dayned by Bishops: therfore hath it also a different ministerie: of a different ministerie followeth necessarilie a different Church (which is nothing but the people vnited with their Pa­stors,Epist. ad Florētium. as S. Cyprian defineth it) but of two different Churches, the one at least must needs be the Synagogue of Satan, (for Christ hath but one Church) I say at least one; for they may well be both so: truth in euerie thing being but one, wheras falsitie mey be infinite. Whence M. Mason may see how ill he deserueth his name: For labouring to make vp the breach in their church, by proouing the calling of their Bishops by succession from the church of Rome, he hath made it much greater, by separating their Church from all their hitherto pretended sister Churches, and therby making it to stand alone, without communion with any other Church in the whole world (the euident brand of a schismaticall conuenticle.) For the communion, which is required to the vnitie of the church, is not the sole agreement in some points of Christian beliefe, for so all Christians, be they Anabaptists, Arrians, or other heretiques whatsoeuer, should be all of one Church (which notwithstan­ding no man of common sense will say,) but the agreement must be in all points of faith, and principallie in the lawfull calling▪ and cōstitution of Pastors, which is as it were the roote, and foundation of all communion, S. Paul saying. How can they preach, Rom. 10. See the do­ctrin of the French mini­sters of this matter cap. 8. n. 13. & 14. vnles they be sent? and therfore euerie difference or diuer­sitie therin, maketh a greather difference in the whole building.

Secondly it is to be obserued, that those that hold the Pope to be that speciall Antichrist foretold in the holy scriptures, and therfore beleeue the Bishops of the Romane Church, [Page 121] to be promoters for Antichrist, and not Pastors of Christs flocke, must necessarilie also hold, that Cranmer ordained by them was no lawfull Bishop. For that great Antichrist being by the vniforme consent of all Christians, the most opposite enemie of Christ that can be imagined,Du Plessis and the French mi­nisters men­tioned aboue grownd their extraordi­narie vocatiō here vpon. it cannot enter into any sensible mans vnderstanding, that he can or will minister any power so necessarie, and so directlie seruing for the glorie of Christ, as the true ordination of Pastors doth. And much lesse can it be imagined, that our Sauiour Christ, the wisdome of his Father, should leaue the power of ordayning necessarie Pastors of his flocke (so dearelie purchased by him) in the hands of his enemie in such sort, as the true ministers of his Gospell should be forced to go to him, or his proctors, for their warrant and commission to preach his truth, and minister his sacraments to the people redeemed with his most pretious bloud. What calling therfore could Cranmer receiue of the Bishops of the Romane Church, in the opinion of these men, who notwithstanding thinke themselues to haue the spirit of God? Surely no true calling, or commission to preach the Gospell of Christ, and minister his sacraments, but rather the marke of the beast to destroy his Church and kingdome.

And for this reason, do the Churches of the pretended re­formation in France, and elswhere, absolutely disclaime from all calling, receiued from the Bishops of the Romane Church: deriuing their vocation from themselues, without all succession to any predecessors, conformable to the rest of their doctrine: The Caluinists in France in the profession of their faith,Confess. artic. [...]. 1. testi­fying their calling to be extraordinarie, confirming the same by their practise, by ordayning anew such Priests, as reuolt from the Catholique Church to their congregation, yea (and which is more) making them to abiure their orders recei­ued before, as the verie marke of Antichrist. The Sacra­mentaries of Basil vpon the same ground, stiled their first peruerter Oecolampadius, their first Bishop. And M. VVhitaker to the same purpose saith. I would not haue you thinke we make such reckening of your orders, as to hold our owne vocation vnlawfull without them, and therfore keepe them to your selues. Con Dureū pag. 821. And M. Fulke more plainly: You are highly deceiued, if you thinke we esteeme [Page 122] your offices of Bishops, answere to a counterfaite Catholique pag. 50. Pag. 67. Cap. 11. pag. 365. 366. Priests, and Deacons better then lay men. And in his retentiue. VVith all our hart we defie, abhorre, detest, and spit at your stinking, greasie, Antichristian orders. And if Monsieur du Plessis with M. Mason contrariwise deriue their ministers, from the Romane Church, saying, that they haue the same calling and succession, which they (Catholikes) so much bragg of and that their first Pastors were Priests, Curates, and Doctors of divinitie. This contradiction amongst them yea of Monsieur du Plessis with him self is not so much to be mar­ueiled at, the difficultie of this matter wherof they can neuer find any sufficient solution, forcing them to turne, and wind vp and downe, now affirming, now denying one and the same thing, as the present occasion requireth, that they may by so many windings, if it be possible, loose their aduersarie, or at lest so dazle the eyes of the vnwarie reader, that he shall not easely see the absurdities they are driuen vnto, in defending their heresies.This doaling is euidently seene in du Plessis and the French ministers be­fore citet. For being pressed from whence they come, and who sent them: least they should be discouered to come with­out sending (the euident marke of theeues, and false Pro­phets) they answere, we come from the same stocke and foun­taine, that the Bishops of the Romane Church do come, for our first Pastors were ordayned Priests by them: And being vrged with the impossibilitie, of receiuing any lawfull calling from the Pope, whom they beleeue to be Antichrist, or from the Bishops of the Romane Church, who they teach to be An­tichrists proctors: they answere, that they receiue no calling from him or them, but extraordinarilie and immediatelie from God, so that one while they will receiue their calling from the Romane Church, and other while they will haue none from thence, but detest, abhorre, and spit at all their ordinations as Antichristian.

Which second resolution if we follow, (as it is the doctrine of the farre greater part of the Churches falsly called reformed) euerie one seeth, how litle it auaileth to lawfull calling, to haue bene ordered by the Bishops of the Romane Church, and to be descinded by succession from them. So that though M. Mason should prooue, that their Bishops succeede ours, yet shall he be farther from the proofe of their lawfull calling (euen by the iudgment of his owne reformed brethren) then he was before, and therfore whilest he laboreth to proone their discent from [Page 123] our Bishops, he laboureth quite against himselfe, vnlesse he will leaue, and disclaime from the society of his reformed brethren, who yet esteeme themselues better Christians then he.

8. And if M. Mason will say, that these men exceed in this point, and that therefore their doctrine in this particuler is not receiuable, I will admit it for an answer, not intending to make their Apology, though I know it will little content, and lesse satisfie them. But let them dispute thereupon one against ano­ther, till they either driue out all light of reason from both their vnderstandings, and so become blinde Atheists, towards which downefall they are farre slidden already, or else till they haue vomited out all their malice, against the Catholique Church, whereby they are become so blind, as they can neither see the cleare burning lampe set vpon the candle-sticke, nor the city mounted vpon the height of hils. Let them I say dispute together vpon this point of their calling, or manner of deriuing it from the Apostles, to themselues, whilest I touch a little nearer M. Masons owne do­ctrine: to which purpose.

9. It is thirdly to be obserued, that M. Mason holding the Pope to be Antichrist at least in that generall sense,If the Pope be not Anti­christ, they are heretikes that teach him so to be: therfore they that commu­nicate with them as our English Pro­testants doe, are at least fellowes of heretiques. Math. 5.14.15. Esay 2.2. and vnder­standing, that all heretiques are Antichrists, and consequently, the Bishops of the Roman churches communicating with the Pope to be also heretiques, cannot with any probability hold, that Cranmer receiuing his calling and ordination from them, could by vertue thereof be a lawfull Bishop. Which that it may appeare euidently to euery one: It is to be vnderstood, that for the giuing of lawfull calling or ordination, two things are re­quired in him that doth ordaine (omitting for the present that, which is required in him that is ordayned, and in the ordinati­on it self) The one is the sacramentall power of Episcopall or­der, which in the true and Catholique doctrine, is an indeleble and incorruptible character, and marke imprinted in his soule, when he was ordayned. by vertue of the like character in his soule, that did ordayne him: The other is the lawfull authority, to vse and exercise the same power of orders. So that without these two things, no man can giue to another lawfull calling or ordination. Yet is there a great difference betwe [...]ne them. For the first is so absolutly necessary, that vnlesse the ordayner haue it, he giueth nothing at all to him, whom he should ordaine, [Page 124] who therefore remayneth still a meere Lay-man, as he was be­fore: both of them committing sacriledge, by their presump­tuous attempt in that behalfe. The second is not necessary, that the ordained may receiue the character, or sacramentall, power of order, but only that he may together with the order, receiue the lawfull vse and exercise thereof, so that hee that should be ordayned by one that wanteth the first, must be or­dayned againe, ere he can be Priest or Bishop, whereas being ordayned by one wanting only the second, is not to be reorday­ned, but only to receiue that he wanteth, which is the lawfull exercise of the order receiued.

10. Let not (iudicious Reader) these words charecter or Sacramentall power breed any scruple in thee, as though the do­ctrine here deliuered were so builded thereupon, as without them it could not stand. For though it be true, that holy order is a sacrament, and that also it leaueth in the soule of the or­dayned an indeleble character, yet doth not this otherwise im­port to the question here in hand, then only to shew, that a certaine power is required in him, that ordayneth another in the degree of Priest or Bishop, without which the orday­ned should receiue nothing (which power whether it be a sacrament, or leaue in the ordayned any character, or no, importeth nothing to this present question.) And this do­ctrine is necessarily receiued of all parts. For it is vnpossible, that one should receiue any thing of another, vnlesse the other haue power to giue it. Yea the Catholique doctrine teaching an indeleble character, giuen in Holie Orders, doth much more aduantage my aduersarie, in the question now in hand, then doth the contrary, as will appeare by and by.

For if we should suppose with the Protestants, that holy or­der leaueth no permanent power in him that is ordayned, by vertue whereof, the actions which he doth in his function, are made of more force and valour, then the same actions done by one, that neuer was ordered, it is vnposible to conceiue, how an hereticall Bishop should giue lawfull calling because accor­ding to this doctrine, he himselfe can haue no more authority to ordayne another, then he that neuer was ordayned at all. But of this we shall haue occasion to speake more hereafter. In [Page 125] the meane while for the more aduantage of mine aduersarie, I will suppose the Catholique doctrine in this point. And say notwithstanding that M. Mason holding the Pope, and all the Bishops of the Roman Church to be heretiques, cannot with any probability hold the ordination, and calling of Cranmer re­ceiued from them, to be good or canonicall.

11. For though he receiued of them the episcopall character necessarily required to lawfull calling, yet if his ordayners were heretiques (as in Master Masons opinion they were) he could not receiue of them, the lawfull vse of the same chara­cter, and Episcopal power (they themselues not hauing it) which notwithstanding is also necessary to lawfull calling, as is already said. This will necessarily follow in Master Masons doctrine, vpon the proofe of these two points. First, that to the deliuery of lawfull calling, is required in him that ordayneth, not only the power of order, but also the law­full vse and exercise thereof. Secondly, that the lawfull vse and exercise of this power is lost, or taken away by heresie. These two things being prooued, it will necessarily follow I say that Cranmer had no lawfull calling in Master Masons opini­on, who esteemeth the Pope, and all the Bishops of the Ro­man church to be heretiques.

12. The first of these two points is prooued, by the pra­ctice of our Sauiour himselfe, who gaue his Apostles the power of order, before hee gaue them authority to vse it which doth shew, that these two powers are distinct the one from the other, and also that they are both necessa­rie to lawfull calling. At his last supper hee gaue them power, to celebrate the holy misteries (I doe not say to sacrifice his true bodie, though this also be true, because I will not heere inuolue that controuersie being not neces­sarie to this question) saying:Luc. 22.19. Doe yee this for commemoration of mee: and after his resurrection, adioyned hereunto the power to remit sinnes, saying vnto them.Io. 20.22.23 Receiue yea the Holy Ghost, whose sinnes you shall forgiue, they are forgiuen: Yet did hee not giue them Commission to vse this power, at least euerie where, till immediately before his Ascen­sion when hee saied thus vnto them.Math. 20.18▪ 19.20. All power is giuen to mee in Heauen, and in Earth, goeing therefore teach yea all Na­tions, [Page 126] baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost, teaching them to obserue all things whatsoeuer I haue comman­ded you. And againe: Going into the whole world, preach the Gospell to all creatures. Marc. 16.15. Hereby it is euident, that the power of order, and the power of the lawfull vse thereof, which vsually is called the power of iurisdiction, are two distinct things, in such sort, as that the first may be without the latter, which is also proued by the expostulation which the disciples had with S. Peter, Act. 11.3. for preaching and baptizing the Gentils; which (till they vnder­stood by him the warrant he had from God) they thought he had no commission to doe, though they well knew his Apo­stleship.

The same verity is also confirmed by the commission, which the Apostles had to preach amongst the Iewes before our Sa­uiours Passion,Math. 10.5.6.7. Marc. 6.7.8. Luc. 9.1. and prohibition to preach to others, shewing that albeit the power of order be alwaies one and the same, yet the lawfull vse thereof, and power of iurisdiction may be re­strayned, or amplified, suspended or quite taken away, as plea­seth him. that is the author thereof.

14. The example that may be taken from ciuill gouerne­ment doth make this yet more plaine. For the King when he maketh Magistrates and Officers of the Kingdome, as for ex­ample Iudges, he giueth them his letters patents, whereby they are created iudges. Yet for all that can they not vse, or exer­cise this office ouer the Kings subiects, without a speciall war­rant, or commission enabling them thereunto. Which com­mission if either it expire, or be taken from them, or be suspen­ded, they may still remaine iudges hauing their patent, but they cannot vse or exercise the office. And for this reason both the power of order, which is giuen by consecration, or ordination, and the indicatory power giuen by patent, may fitly be called after the fashion of Schoole-men, potestas in actu primo (that is) a power fit or able (when the vse and exercise thereof is granted) to doe such and such actions, and not otherwaies. Nature also it selfe affordeth examples explayning this truth. For though the fire haue power and actiuity to heat, yea and burne, yet can it doe neither vnlesse it be applied to that, which it should heat or burne.

From all which it is euidentlie concluded, that the sole po­wer [Page 127] of order in any Bishop, without the lawfull authority to vse it, is not sufficiēt to giue lawfull calling. And therfore though it be confesse, that the ordainers of Cranmer had the true power of order, yet is not that sufficient to prooue, that they gaue him lawfull calling, which without the lawfull power to vse their orders, they could not giue. Wherfore it now remaineth, that we examine the second point proposed, whether the orderers of Cranmer had togither with the power of order the lawfull vse thereof. And certaine it is, that in M. Masons opinion they had it not. For in his opinion they were heretiques, and conse­quentlie had lost all power of iurisdiction, and lawfull vse of their orders, as is plainly the doctrine and practise of the Ca­tholique Church aboue 1200. yeares agone, as appeareth by most irreproouable testimonies.

15. First the Arians accusing the Catholique Bishops of he­resie, in like manner as the Protestants now doe the Bishops of the Catholique Romane Church, notwithstanding that their first Bishops were ordained by them, as also the first Protestant Bishops were, are vrged by S. Athanasius in this sort.In epist. de concilijs Arim. & Seleuc. § Quae autem Seleuciae: post mediū. Apol. 2. epist. Iulij. De Synodis con. Arianos, ad finem. By what right can they be Bishops, if they receiued their ordination from heretiques, as they them selues accuse them to be? And in another place, speaking in the person of Iulius Pope, he saith. It is vnpossible that the ordinations made by Secundus being an Arian could haue any force in the Catholike church. S. Hilarie argueth in the like manner and saith. VVhat will become of vs, that bring the matter to this passe, that because they (his predecessors) were not Bishops, we also are not, for we are ordained by them, and are their successours. Let vs renounce our Episcopat, because we receiued it of excom­municate persons. This he saith to certayne Bishops that indirectlie obiected heresie to the Catholique Bishops of the councell of Nice their predecessours S. Hierome also protesteth, that there are now (speaking of his owne time) no Bishops in all the world, Con. Luci­ferian. but those that were ordained by the councell of Nice, vnderstanding those that did communicate with the fathers of that councell. Wherby it is euidēt, that he esteemed the heretiques no Bishops, though they had bene ordained by the Catholique Bishops.

Secondly heretiques publiquelie knowne, and declared to be such, are excommunicate, and cut of from all vnion, and communion with the Church, S. Paul giuing sentence against them, saying: A man that is an heretique, after the first, Tit. 3.10. and second ad­monition [Page 128] auoide. And our Sauiour him self: he that will not heare the Church (of which sort are all heretiques) let him be to thee as a publican and heathen, but he that is excommunicate, and cut of from the body of the Church, can haue no lawfull po­wer to minister in the Church, as is euident of it selfe. And Ter­tullian deduceth it in this sort.Mat. 18.17. de praes­criptione. Of hereti­ques and gentiles we are tō speake in the same fashion: Hiero. con­tra Luci­feria: ad ini­tium. If they be heretiques, they cannot be Christians, if not Christians, they can haue no right to the scriptures of Chri­stians: the same may be said of the power to ordaine others in the Church. So that by the iudgment of the auncient Church, of S. Paul yea and our Sauiour him selfe it is euident, that here­tiques can haue no lawfull power, to ordaine ministers of Christs word and sacraments. Whence is necessarilie deduced, that Cranmer in M. Masons doctrine could be no lawfull Bishop or minister, because he was ordained by none, but such as he esteemeth heretiques. When M. Mason shall plaster vp this brea­che (standing in his owne doctrine) I shall esteeme him a master in his art and that he daubeth clenly in deed.

16. But M. Mason hath yet one shift more, before he receiue the checke mate. For he will say, that albeit Cranmer was or­dayned by Bishops of the Romane Church, who, as he thin­keth, were heretiques, and therfore could not receiue any law­full power, to deriue his orders or calling vnto others, as is al­readie shewed; yet hauing by their ordination receiued the po­wer of order, as before is confessed; he might without any great difficultie recouer also the lawfull power, to vse the same, by being admitted to the cōmunion of other Bishops lawfullie ordained, as is manifest by the practise of the Church, both auncient and moderne in absoluing from excommunication, and reconciling to the vnitie of the Church, such as were be­fore excommunicate and seperated from the same. But this shift doth not auoide, the conclusion made against him. For first this euasion in M. Masons doctrine, who admitteth no cha­racter left in the soule of him that is ordained, (for example in him that ordained M. Cranmer) hath no shew of probabilitie at all. For if the ordination once past, nothing do remaine in the ordained, if by excommunication he loose the right and po­wer, which he receiued, how can it be imagined, that he may receiue the same power without a new ordination? But as I said before, I will giue M. Mason leaue to helpe himselfe out of this mire, by the hold he may take of the Catholique doctrine in [Page 129] this point. In which it is nothing hard to conceiue, how a Bish­op, or Priest excommunicate, may be restored to his former orders, or rather to the lawfull vse of them, without any newe ordination. The Catholique doctrine teacheth, that holy order leaueth an incorruptible marke in the ordayned, which remay­ning, the power of order doth euer remaine, and therfore no­thing appertaining to that function can be wanting in him, but only the right, auctoritie and power lawfullie to vse it, which may easily be recouered without any reordination, by the sole remouall of the impediment, wherby he is hindered from the communion of the Church. But all this helpeth nothing M. Mason, so desperate is his case. For Cranmer wanting true calling, by reason of that defect of heresie found in his ordainers (as M. Mason will) it is vnpossible for him to find a suplie of this defect, and therfore must he necessarilie remaine, without true calling for euer. And the reason hereof is euident, because this defect cannot be taken awaie, but by the reunion, and reconciliation of Cranmer to the body of the true Church, and the true Ca­tholique Bishops. But this was absolutelie vnpossible, because besides the Church of Rome, and the Catholique Romane Bishops, there were none in the whole world, of whom he could receiue this reconciliation. For to say, that there were other Protestant Churches alreadie founded before Cranmers reuoult, to which he might be reunited and reconciled, is too too idle to be alleaged, the case of those Churches being the same with that of England, and worse, as is before shewed: wherfore to recurre vnto them for helpe in this point, is like as if a lame cripple should craue help ouer a stile, of another that is both blind, and lame. There were indeed other Chur­ches separated from that of Rome, long before Luthers apo­stacie, as that of the Ethiopians, Grecians, Russians, and others; but to none of all these did our new reformers vnite themselues, differing as farre from them, as they do from the Catholique Romane: and therfore doth there remaine no meane of their reconciliation to any church, wherby they might recouer that, which they wanted of lawfull calling.

17. Hauing thus euidentlie shewed (as I thinke) that albeit it should be graunted, that our now English superintendents haue their calling from the Catholique Bishops, that went [Page 130] before them, yet they cannot in their owne doctrine be estee­med to haue true calling. And farther though they should be graunted to haue true calling, by reason of their pretended succession, yet would this rather destroy, then edifie their Church, because it doth euidentlie separate them from all other Churches, and therfore doth constitute them, a manifest schis­maticall conuenticle, and depriueth them of all appearance of a true Church: hauing, I say, sufficientlie shewed this, I would here make an end of my dispute with Monsieur Mason, as hauing alreadie frustrated the whole drift of his booke (which is to make good their vocation, and therby to cleare their Church, from a principall defect euer obiected against it) were it not, that he, to wind himselfe out of the difficultie last mentioned, laboureth to shew, how their calling may be good and canoni­call, though it be deriued from that of the Romane Church, which in his opinion is Antichristian, and wicked, and therby prouoketh me to proceed yet farther with him, in this same argument. And because our contestation is like to be some­what prolixe▪ that it may not be ouer irkesome or tedious to the reader, I will separate it from that, which is alreadie said of that matter, and handle it vnder this title.

The tenth Chapter. The calling of the now English superintendents cannot be law­full, supposing, that of the Bishops of the Romane church, from which it is taken, to be vnlawfull.

1. THIS in substance is the title of the 12. chapter of M. Masons fifth booke, who putteth downe his discourse by way of a Dialogue between Philodox bearing the person of a Romane Ca­tholique, and Orthodox representing (as M. Mason will haue it) an English Protestant. I will not quarrell with him for miscal­ling himselfe, but I will leaue it to Didimus a third interlocu­tor, to conuince him of theft, (if it be theft to take that, which is another mans without his consent.) Philodox therfore and [Page 131] Orthodox shall speake, as Master Mason will haue them, but Didi­mus as truth shall teach him.

VVell I perceiue one thing, Philodox. that howsoeuer you speake against Popish Priests calling them sacrilegious, and abominable, yet when your owne calling is put to the triall, you are glad to deriue it from such Bishops, as were Popish Priests, which you so disdainfully call sacrilegious, and abominable.

And I perceiue another thing, that howsoeuer you exclaim against Cran­mer as a schismatique, and burned him for an heretique: Orthodox. yet when the glo­rious succession of your Bishops in Queene Maries time is put to triall, you are forced to deriue it frō him, whō you scornfully cal a schismatique, & heretique.

No verily Orthodox, Didimus. you cannot inferre any such thing against Philodox, as he vrgeth against you, the case being nothing like. For Philodox doth not esteeme the Priest-hood, or Bishop-hood of Cranmer to be sacrilegious and abominable, but good, holy, and the same Catholique order, that is in their Bishops, and therefore no inconuenience followeth against him, though their Bishops in Queene Maries time deriue their succession from Cranmer, or (truer) by Cranmer. And though Cranmer fal­ling into heresie lost the power, and authority to vse lawfully his orders, and therefore could not giue lawfull calling, which includeth not only the power of order, but also the lawfull vse thereof: yet might this defect be easily supplied in these, whom he ordayned after the Catholique rite (of whom only I speake here, for the ordayned by him in King Edwards time, there is a great difference as we shall see in due place) by their reconci­liation to the Catholique church, and absolution from all eccle­siasticall censure or other impediment: which was done in the beginning of Queene Maries raigne,Mason p. 79. S. Hierome contra Luci­fer: satis an­te finem. Theod. l. 1. c. 9. hist. Cencilium Ni [...]eu. 1. can. 8. Tharasius in Nice. 2 act. 1. as you your selfe relate out of Sanders. I suppose you are too Well reade in antiquity, to doubt of the truth of this doctrine, and practise in the ancient church yet least you should haue any scruple therein, I wish you should take the paines to see the places quoted in the margent.

Now you (Orthodox) cannot say this in iustification of yur cal­ling. For first you esteem the Priest-hood of the Roman church whence you would deriue your calling, sacrilegious, idolatrous, Antichristian, and abominable, and therefore must of necessity make your owne which you say is deriued from it as bad. Se­condly, you had no Catholique church going before you, and extant, when your first Postors ran out, by reconciliation wher­unto, [Page 132] Cranmer and the rest might receiue that, which they must of necessity want in their calling (if the Bishops who ordered them were heretiques) but are truly such, as S. Iohn speaketh of, saying they went out from vs, an euident marke, or band of heretikes. So that you see two great differences,1. Ioh. 2.19. for which you cannot retort vpon Philodox, that which he vrgeth against you, and therfore if you haue nothing else to answer, you must be constrayned to beare that, which he chargeth you with.

Orthodox. But if our forefathers deriued their orders from such Bishops, as were Po­pish Priests, what inconuenience will follow?

Didimus.Why doe you speake with iffs, Orthodox, seeing it is the whole ground of all your proofes? But let Philodox speake.

Philodox. Then either confesse your calling to be vnlawfull, or acknowledge ours to be lawfull, from whence you deriue it. You cannot gather figges of thornes, or grapes of thistles: neither is it possible for a Rose, to spring out of a nettle.

Orthodox.2. But a garden of roses may be ouergrowne with nettles. For the mini­sterie pl [...]ted by Christ was a sweet rose without any nettle, and so it conti­nued in the Church for certaine ages: but when Antichrist began to reueale him selfe in the temple of God, as though he were God, the Romish Priest ho [...] became a monstrous birth, strangely compounded, halfe rose, and halfe nettle: the church of England, in the beginning of reformation, did borrow from the church of Rome the rose, Didimus. but left the nettle.

Fie, fie, Orthod [...]x, I am ashamed on your behalfe, did euer man heare so sensles a discourse, in so serious a subiect? Doe you not marke, that this very point is of such moment, that vnlesse it be throughly cleared by authority, either of holy scripture, or re­ceiued antiquity, all that, which you haue said in your whole 5. books, is but meere wind, a blast of words without al true force? If you see this, why do you reason so idly? or if you do not see it, permit me to shew it you, that thereby you may also see, how far you are from concluding your purpose. Is not your intent, to maintain the calling of your Bishops in England to be canonicall? and your mean or medium to do this, is it not to maintaine their succession from the Catholike Bishops? whence riseth the obie­ction proposed by Philodox, to wit, how your Bishops calling can be good, being deriued by succession frō that, which you esteem sacrilegious, and abominable? which vnles you solue solidly, you wilbe so far frō prouing your calling good & canonical, that you wil leaue it proued, euē by your own principles, sacrilegius, and [Page 133] abominable. For answer to this main obiectiō, you tel a tale, not of a tub indeed, but (lesse to the purpose) of a monstrus birth, of a thing half nettle, & half rose. Surely you were not in your wits I think, whē you bestowed so much labour, to bring the matter to such a point as that neither you must cōfesse your superintēdents to be sacrilegious Priests, (as you tearme them) or els meere laie­men For I dare vndertake to shew this dream, of the nettle and the rose, to be as idle a fancie, as euer entred into anie mans ima­ginatiō; which being performed, one of the aforemētioned mē ­bers, to wit, that your superintēdēts are either sacrilegius priests (I speake in your opiniō) or meere laie men, must necessarilie fol­low, vnles you can bring some better reason for the cōtrary thē hitherto is shewed. But to perform that which I haue promised.

3. First, it is euident by the consent of all men, that an ar­gument, or proofe drawn from a simile, or comparison (as this of the composition of the Roman Priest-hood is) is the most weake, and feeble kind of argument of all other. Secondlie, a simile drawne from, a naturall thing may somtimes, when it is fitlie applied, helpe vs to conceiue supernatural, which for the height, and eminencie it hath aboue our capacitie, cānot other­wise be conceiued of vs, but in that case, a simile prooueth no­thing at all. Thirdlie, all similes (that they may be of any vse in our discourses) must be taken from things either trulie being, or at least in possibilitie by nature to be. For he that would prooue one thing, by a simile taken from another, which is vnpossible, shall not onlie not proue that he would, but shall euidentlie disproue the same. For example, if one would proue you Orthodox to be so composed, as that you should be halfe a man, and halfe an asse. (patience Orthodox, you shall see I intend you no wrong) by this same example of a birth halfe nettle, and halfe rose which you vse, and should saie, that though you were borne a perfect man, and so continued for some yeares, yet since you went to the Vniuersitie, you are become a monstrous birth strangelie compounded, halfe man and halfe asse, would you not say (and truely in mine opini­on) that he was not halfe, but a perfect asse, that should make such an argument? and that he is so farre from prouing that he purposed, that he concludeth manifestlie the contrary? All these defects being in your discourse Orthodox, I leaue to your [Page 134] self to iudge, how sound your answer is to Philodox his obiectiō. Forthly, seeing the force of your answer dependeth, vpon the truth of that strange composition of the Roman Priest-hood, which you mention, you should haue not supposed it (though it had bin more probable, or possible then it is) but you should haue proued it, if not by holy Scripture (which kind of proofe you rigorously exact of your aduersaries) yet by receiued anti­quity, or some sound natural reason, or at least by some true ex­ample in nature, and not by a meere Chymericall, and impossi­ble composition, which nature neuer intended, or thought of▪ But will you, that I tell you the truth? this comparison suteth well with the calling of your ministery, which is as truly lawful as your monstrous birth halfe rose, and halfe nettle is in nature possible.

Pag. 264.4. Fiftly, though, as I imagine, you are not so Orthodox as to hold, that holy orders is a sacrament, yet you acknowledge a certaine forme of words, necessary for conferring of orders. which being supposed, I aske of you, whether these words may not so be altered, by adding of others vnto them, that they remaine no more the true forme of holy orders? If you say no: you must also say (contrary to all authority,) that this forme of baptisme is good, I baptise thee in the name of the Father grea­ter, and of the Sonne lesser, and of the holy Ghost, the least. If you say, yea, then would I know of you, why the additions, which you say the Papists haue added to the true forme of or­der (being greater then that, which is mentioned in the forme of baptisme) doe not make the order none? Againe, you know, as I suppose, that euery addition made to the essence, or nature of any thing doth change it into another essence, or nature, as euerie addition put to a number, maketh it a distinct number frō that it was before, for the nature or essence of euerie thing, in good Philosophie is like a number, which consisting indiui­sible, is altered by euerie addition put thereunto. The Papists therfore adding (as you say) to the nature, and essence of the forme of holie orders, that which appertayneth not thereunto, but maketh it idolatrous, they must needes corrupt the whole, and make all nettle, and consequently leaue no rose, for your Superintendents to plucke after them: who therefore must of necessity seeke their calling, else-where, then from the Pa­pists, [Page 135] who are prooued out of your doctrine (marke that I say out of your doctrine Orthodox) to haue none at all. And thus you see, that Philodox his obiection standeth, in full force against you: and that you must either acknowledge the Romane prie­sthood to be good and lawfull, or confesse that yours is either none at all, or at least vnlawfull; seing you haue none other but that, which you take from them. Againe, seing you con­fesse, that the ministerie planted by Christ was a sweete rose, and continued so for certaine ages: why do you not note the time, and place, and persons; when, where, and by whom this monstrous birth was brought forth? If you can bring but rea­sonable proofe, of any one of these three circumstances of this monstrous chaunge you speake of, I will take it for a satisfying answere, to all that which hath hitherto bene obiected against you, so that you shall not neede to labour in any thing els. If you cannot do this (as I know you cannot) cease for shame to obiect, against your mother the Catholique church, such pro­phane, and adulterous behauiour. But let vs now heare Phi­lodox. Philodox.

VVhat will you make of vs? are we ministers, or lay men? if we be mini­sters, then so acknowledge vs. If we be lay men, then I pray you, what was Cranmer, who had no consecration, but in our church? what were all the Bishops in king Edwards time, which were consecrated by Cranmer? what was Mathew Parker, Grindall, Sands, Horne, which were all ordained Priests in our church? were they all lay men? what are all the ministers in England at this day, which deriue their orders from the former? are they all lay men?

5. Your popish Priests are neither the true ministers of the Gospell, Orthodox. nor merely lay men. For your ordination consisteth of two parts: the former in these words, take thou power to offer sacrifice, and to celebrate masse for the quicke, and the dead, which you account the principall function of Christian priesthood▪ but in truth it maketh you not the ministers of Christ, but of An­tichrist: the latter in these words, receiue the holy Ghost, whose sins thou for­giuest, they are forgiuen, and whose sins thou retainest, they are retained, in which Euangelicall words, there is deliuered a ghostlie ministeriall power to forgiue sinnes, which, according to the true meaning of Christ, is performed by the ministerie of reconciliation. Therfore whosoeuer hath receiued this po­wer, hath withall receiued the ministerie of reconciliation, consisting, as was before declared, in the due administration of the word, and sacraments.

Didimus.You do greatlie abuse your tearmes Orthodox, in saying th [...]t the ordination of the Popish Priests consisteth of two parts▪ (if by ordination you vnderstand the order receiued, as you do in the paragraffe following.) For as the soule of man is but one indiuisible substance, hauing diuers distinct powers; so likewise the order of priesthood is but one indiuisible power, residing in the soule of the ordained, and hauing also diuers distinct fa­culties. And therfore your conceite of two parts of their preisthood, is but a grosse errour of your owne, which you seeme to correct in the words following, calling that a function (like a scholler) which before you called a part, like a man igno­rant in his tearmes. Now seing the whole force of your solu­tion to the obiection made, dependeth vpon this errour of two partes in the Popish priesthood, you cannot be so blind but see, that it is nothing to the purpose. For if it be but one simple power with diuers faculties, but without parts, you must either take it all, and be sacrilegious with the Papists, or leaue it all, and be but meere laie men. And albeit the diuers faculties, or functions of Preisthood be giuen at diuers times, and by diuerse words, as you say, yet is not preisthood therby prooued to haue diuers parts, more then the soule of man is prooued, to bee also compounded of diuers parts, by that it first giueth life and growth, then sence, and last of all vnderstanding, and reason.

Of the cheefe function of priesthood, which is to ofter sacrifice for the quicke and the dead, we shall haue fitter opor­tunitie to speake heerafter. In the meane while, I cannot omit to tell you Orthodox, that I much marueile at your rachnes in affirming, without all testimonie either of scripture, or anti­quitie, that the power of sacrificing is the ministerie of Anti­christ, especiallie seing you are accustomed to demaund of your aduersaries so rigorouslie expresse scripture, for the proofe of their religion, and hold it as an article of your beleefe, that nothing is to be beleeued, which is not prooued by scripture. Surelie Orthodox, there is no equall dealing in this course of yours, and therfore for your credit sake do I require some testi­monie of scripture, or at least of antiquitie, proouing this po­sition of yours: to wit, that the power of sacrificing maketh the Priests of the Romane church, to be the ministers of Anti­christ. [Page 137] For if this power be not disprooued, your ministerie, which wanteth it, is clearelie disprooued: and seing the dis­proofe of it belongeth vnto you, as necessarie for the iustifying of your ministerie, you foullie forget your selfe, in leauing it without all other proofe, but your owne bare assertion.

For your doctrine of the latter part of their priesthood (I speake in your owne tearmes Orthodox, for your better vnder­standing) those, that you call Papists in England, are greatlie beholding to you: for you deliuer them from the fowle impu­tation of treason, wherof diuers haue bene accused, condem­ned, and executed for reconciling men to god, by the power of reconciliation, giuen them by Christ himselfe, as you confesse. Surelie if in the Popish priesthood (as you tearme it) be inclu­ded the lawfull power of reconciliation, as you say, and your aduersaries do not deny, the statute made against the practise of that power, in the 23. yeare of Q. Elizabeth, and confirmed by King Iames must needs be vniust, as directlie against the power giuen by Christ to his lawfull ministers. And if for feare of in­curring the seuere penaltie of the same statute, you will say, that they abuse the lawfull power of reconciliation, and therfore are, or may be traitors. I answere in their behalfe, that if by abuse you vnderstand, that they vse it not, but by the meanes of sacramentall confession, I acknowledge that they vse it not otherwaies, but I deny this to be any abuse. Againe though it were an abuse, yet can it haue no appearance of treason, But I see you readie to replie, that they reconcile men to the church, and to the obedience of the see of Rome, which is treason; wherunto I am as readie to answere, that their intent, and practice is only, to reconcile sinners to God, through re­mission of their sins by that power, which you confesse them to haue, and if it follow hereupon, that they are reconciled to the Catholique Romane church, as to the spouse of Christ, who ordained this power of reconciliation, and therby are made sheepe of that fold, wherof the Pope (being Christs vicar vpon earth) is cheefe Pastor, this cannot iustlie be imputed vnto them for treason, no more then it can be to you, to haue baptised one, wherupon followeth necessarilie the selfe same reconciliation to the Catholique church, and to the visible Pastor therof.

Philodox. If it be so, then you must confesse, that the priesthood of the church of Rome hath the ministeriall function, because these words are vsed in our ordination.

Orthodox. Though these words as they were spoken by Christ, practised in the primi­tiue church, and are vsed at this day in the church of England, imply the substance of this holy function, yet as you abuse them in the church of Rome, to maintaine Popish shrift, the gold is couered with drosse, and the sweete flower is ouershadowed with noysome weeds. VVherfore if we consider your priesthood, as it is a totum aggregatū consisting of sa­crificing, and absoluing, it is vnlawfull, and contrarie to the scripture: if we come to the parts therof, Why is not this scripture cited? because it is not to be found. your massing, and sacrificing is simply abhomi­nable; the other part, so farre as it relieth vpon the woords of Christ, taken in their true sense and meaning, is holy, and implieth a ministeriall power, which notwithstanding by your construction and practise is greatlie de­praued.

Didimus.I am wearie Orthodox of those emptie, and idle discourses, where so many things are said, and not one prooued. In steed of sound arguments to prooue the Romane priesthood to be sacrilegious, and your ministrie (though deriued from it) to be good, you bring nothing but imaginarie similes of births half nettle, and half rose, and impertinent Metaphores of Gold and flowers, drosse and weedes, fictions of a tot [...]m aggregatum, where there is but one simple power hauing di­uers functions, as is aforesaid, I neuer heard such a drossie dis­course. If this be sufficient to ouerthrow the Romane prie­sthood, and establish your ministrie, what will you say to the Puritanes and Anabaptists, who will affoord you the like, yea and better arguments against you?

Marke, I pray you, this saying of that great piller of Gods church S. Athanasius writing against the Arrians, who bragged as much of the errour of their Catholique predecessors, as you do of that of the Papists,Epist. de con­cilijs Arimin. & Seleue. sect. quis igi­tur. See a notable saying of Tertullian to the same purpose, cap. 4. n. 4. of whom he saith thus: VVhat will they teach the people whom they instruct? will they say, that their pre­decessors erred? and how shall they be esteemed of their disciplies true saiers, whom they persuade that they are not to giue credit to their maisters? Is not this the true reason, for which since Luthers reuoult from the Catholique Church, you are deuided into so manie sects and reformations, that it is not easie to reckon them? you say, the Papists erred, and their priesthood is sacrilegious: do not the [Page 139] Puritans say the same of you, and the Anabaptists of them? And rightly. For whilest you say, that your fathers erred, you teach your successours and scholers to say the same of you, and theirs of them, till you end in plaine Atheisme. In one word if you will say any thing to the purpose, in the matter you haue in hand, you must first prooue by holie Scripture, the Roman Priest hood to be sacrilegious, or at least you must shew when, and by whom it began to be corrupted, seeing you confesse it was once pure and good, and then are you to prooue, that it is also diuisible in such sort, as that one part or peece remaineth good, though the other be corrupted, and lastly that you haue the second part. These three things when you haue well proo­ued (as I know you can neuer prooue one of them) then may you bragge, that your calling and ministery is lawfull, though it be taken from that of the Roman church, which you esteeme vnlawfull, till then your Superintendents must be content, ei­ther to be Popish Priests, from whom you pretend they be dis­cended, (but this they neither are, nor would be) or else to be sacrilegious vsurpers of an holy vocation, which though they would not be, yet are they: for true Bishops, which they would be, they are not, as henceforth shall be proued.

6. Hitherto hath it beene prooued against Master Mason, that though the pretended Bishop of England did truly, and ve­rilie receiue their calling, from the Catholique Bishops, yet can this be none at all according to their owne doctrine, in which the Bishops of the Roman church are heretiques and conse­quently vnable to giue any lawfull calling, as is before she­wed.

Secondly, that though the former impediment were not, yet, seeing they disclaime from the whole, and perfect order of the Catholique Roman Bishops, as being sacrilegious and abomi­nable, they are for another reason concluded to haue none at all. For the order of the Roman Priest-hood is not diuisible in di­uers parts, but is one and an indiuisible power, hauing diuers functions not vnlike our soules, as is before shewed, and there­fore is either all whollie giuen, or nothing at all. All which hath beene said not to disprooue, or disallow the Priest-hood, and calling of the Roman church, which is most holie and ca­nonicall, but onlie to shew the miserable blindnesse, and per­uersity [Page 140] of the Protestants, that being forced to challenge their calling from those, who, if they were such, as by them they are esteemed, can giue them none, are therefore constrayned eyther to condemne themselues, of sacrilegious vsurpation, and intru­sion, as hauing no calling, or to iustifie them whom they blind­lie abhorre, as wicked, and abominable.

Henceforth we will examine the calling that our English in­tendents pretend to haue, according to the three heads before mentioned. To wit, whether their calling, which they pre­tend to receiue from Cranmer, be good and canonicall, as well in respect of the callers as of the called, and calling it selfe, sup­posing (as confessed of either part) the calling of the Catholique Roman Bishops to be good, and canonicall, or at least so suffi­cient, as lawfull calling may be deriued from it.

And because there are foure diuers sorts or degrees of per­sons, all pretending to be true bishops, of whose true calling, there is question for diuers difficulties therein appearing, they shall be examined all apart, as they also are by M. Masons, begin­ning first with Cranmer, proceeding afterward to Barlow, Scorie, Co­uerdall and others made in King Edwards daies then descending to Mathew Parker with his fellowes, made in the beginning of Queene Elizabeths raigne, and last of all to those that haue euer since succeeded vntill this day. For though there be canonicall impediments in all and euery one of these, yet are they not the same in euery one, and therefore can they not be handled to­gether, but must be spoken of a part. I mention not here those, that were either made, or continued in Queene Maries time, be­cause there is no controuersie, but they were ordered after the Catholique manner of the Roman church. And though some of them were in the schisme of King Henry the eight, yet being the whole Realme reconciled, to the vnity of the Catholique church,Stow in Q. Marie. the second yeare of Queene Marie, they could haue no firmed by Cardinall Poole Legate, as M. Mason alleageth out of Saunders l. 2. 260.Lib. 2. cap. 9. pag. 79.

The eleuenth Chapter. Cranmer continued not lawfull Bishop till his death.

1. I Suppose that Cranmer was canonically ordayned Bi­shop, as well in respect of his ordayners, of his or­dination, and also of himselfe ordayned, and there­fore propose the question only of his continuation, in his lawfull ordination and calling. Neither is the question,The sense of the question. whether the power of order continued with him till his death. For no Catholique author euer either denied, or doubted, but that holie order once receiued (notwithstanding what censure soeuer incurred, yea degradation it selfe, or crime committed) doth euer remaine, because it is immortall, or incorruptible, as baptisme is. And therfore M. Mason fighteth against his owne shadow, when he laboureth to prooue this (which no man denieth) as he doth at large in his 2. booke and 9 [...]. chapter. But the question is, whether during his life he lost the lawfull au­thoritie to vse, and exercise the power of his order, or no; which is a question farre different from thother,Cap 9. n. 11. and forward. as hath bene alreadie prooued, and may brieflie be declared by this example. He that hath the kings patent of cheefe iusticeship, is trulie cheefe iustice, yet if the king suspend him from the execution of his office, either in whole or in part, he hath not the lawfull vse therof:The distin­ction of the power of or­der, and the lawfull vse therof M. Mason allo­weth, as is manifest by his Words cited in the proofe of the conclusion following. and if during that suspension he attempt any thing in the execution of his office, his fact shalbe vnlawful, not for default of power, which he is supposed to haue by the kings patent, but for default of authoritie, to vse the power he hath. In like manner he that hath the order, or character of a Bishop, is trulie Bishop, but if the vse and exercise of his order, be suspended (as it may manie waies be without preiudice of his order) whatsoeuer he shall attempt in the exercise of it, during the suspension, shalbe vnlawfull. This example is brought onlie to shew, that the power of order remaining, the lawfull vse therof may be lost, or [Page 142] taken away, which it doth sufficientlie shew, though there be in other respects disparitie in the two cases, a thing ordinarie in all examples, which doe not run vpon fowre feete, as the say­ing is. The question therefore being this, the resolution is.

Conclusion.That Cranmer before his death lost the lawfull vse, and exer­cise of his Bishops power, or order; and therefore lost also the power to giue true and lawfull calling to those, whom he or­dayned. The second part of this conclusion will necessarilie follow vpon the proofe of the first. For the power to g [...]ue true calling includeth necessarilie the lawfull vse of order, aswell in him that calleth, as in him that is called, no man being called but to vse the power, which he receiueth by his calling, and he onlie is said to vse a thing, that lawfullie vseth it. The first part therefore I prooue thus. By schisme and heresie is lost the law­full vse of the power of Episcopall order: But Cranmer before he died, fell into schisme and heresie: Therefore before he di­ed, he lost the lawful vse of the power of Episcopall order. This argument concludeth directlie, and infalliblie, if the premisses be made good. The first whereof M. Ma [...]on denie [...]h not, yea di­rectlie granteth,Pag. 61. saying that such as obserue the substance of institution being themselues in schisme or heresie, doe minister legitimum, but not le­gitime, and those that receiue it from them haue a lawfull baptisme, but not lawfully; though he specifie here baptisme onlie yet is his do­ctrine, and the Catholique also the same of holie orders. And he teacheth the same more plainlie in these words:Pag. 82. If by indel [...]ble cbaracter be meant only a gratious gift neuer to be reiterated, then we may safely confesse, that in baptisme, and holy orders, there is imprinted an indele­ble character. For a man rightly baptised, becomming a Turke or Iewe, and returning to the faith, is in no case to be rebaptised: likewise when a Priest lawfully ordayned, becomming a schismatique, or heretique, is iustly censured for his crimes, and after is reclaymed, he may in no case be reordayned, but may performe his function, by vertue of his orders formerly receiued▪ Hence it followeth manifestlie, that in M. Masons doctrine, schisme and heresie taketh away, the lawfull vse of holie order. For seeing it taketh not awaie the order it selfe, as M. Mason for his owne aduantage saith (though not concordablie with the rest of his doctrine of holie order) and yet maketh the ordination giuen by it, to be vnlawfullie giuen, as he confesseth in his former words, it must necessarilie take awaie the lawfull vse thereof. [Page 143] But least M. Mason seing himselfe Prest with his owne doctrine, [...]hould recall it, or at least others his brethren should denie it, I will prooue it by more weightie authoritie, then M. Ma­sons. For which purpose I will first prooue, that schisme, and heresie take not away, the power of order receiued, which though I might suppose as not onlie graunted, but also prooued by M. Mason, yet because my purpose is,Pag. 83. not onlie to refute M. Mason, but to prooue against all our English Protestants, that their Bishops haue no true calling at all, I will leaue nothing vnprooued, that may be doubted of by any one. But to the purpose.

3. S. Leo the great receiueth Donatus Salicinensis, Epist. 22. ad Episcopos Afric. n. 3. and his people, or flocke conuerted from the heresie of Nouatus to the Catholique church, and leaueth him in his charge.

And of one Maximus he saith thus. If Maximus be no more a Donatist, but free from schisme, though ordered not without fault, we do not depose him from his episcopall dignitie.

Secondlie, the seauenth generall councell, which was holden at Nice, and is called the 2. Nicene councell, defineth according to the doctrine of the former generall councels, and fathers, that not onlie such Bishops, and others of the cleargie,Synod. 7. actio. r. per tot. as ha­uing bene heretiques, and afterwards are conuerted to the Ca­tholique faith, but also such as were ordained by heretiques, being likewise conuerted, are to be receiued not onlie to the vnitie of the church, but also to the vse of their order, and that councell receiued ten Bishops, wherof some confessed themselues to haue bene borne in heresie, and so euer con­tinued vntill that time, when they did abiure their er­rour.

Thirdlie S. Augustine saith, that holy order doth so remaine, De bono con­iugali cap. 24. that al­beit any one be for his fault remoued from his office, yet the sacrament once giuen is neuer lost, though it remaine to the condemnation of him, that hath it. And againe. Both are sacraments, and giuen by a certaine consecration, Lib. 2. con. epist, Parm [...] ­nian cap. 13. that, whe [...] one is Baptised, this, when one is ordered, and therfore in the Ca­tholique church, it is not lawfull, that either of them be reiterated. And this shall suffice for the proofe of this point, which is most cleare both in the grounds of Christian doctrine, and also in the practice of the whole church, which (as S. Au­gustin saith in the words euen now cited) neuer allowed reordi­nation, [Page 144] yea did absolutelie forbid it in the councell of Capu [...] in S. Ambrose his time,This canon is cited in the 3. councell of carthag cap. 37. Bin. to▪ 1. pag. 545. Concili: Nice cau. 19. Bin. to, 1. pag. 3, 10. which is to be vnderstood of ordination truly giuen. For the councell of Nice did decree, that the Pau­lianists should be ordered againe by Catholique Bishops, but that was because they had no true orders before, no nor yet true baptisme. If therfore reordination haue euer bene pra­ctised by any, it was vpon coniecture, or presumption of some essentiall defect in the former ordination, but how pro­bablie this was done, it neither belongeth to this place to exa­mine, neither doth it any way pertaine to the question in hand. And therfore M. Mason, if it had not bene either to make his booke swell, or that the good man was loth to loose such an occasion, to taxe some Pope of errour, though but in a matter of fact, wherin no man doth thinke them infallible, well might haue omitted that,Pag. 85. & sequentib. which he inserteth of this matter imperti­nentlie, shewing therein more of the spirit of graceles Cham, that published his Fathers nakednes, then of his other brethren, that couered the same.

Now albeit it be cleare, that heresie doth not take away the power of order, or character once receiued, yet is it no lesse manifest, that it maketh the ordinations by heretiques to be vn­lawfull, and not canonicall. And because this cannot be, but by depriuing them of the lawfull vse and exercise of the power of order, which they haue, therfore it is plaine, that heretiques haue not the lawfull vse of their orders receiued: which is that I am here to prooue.

4. That ordinations made by heretiques haue euer bene esteemed vnlawfull, there is nothing more manifest in all anti­quitie, as appeareth.

Synod, 7. act. 1.First by the long dispute had in the second councell of Nice, about the receiuing of those that were ordained by heretiques.

Secondlie, the first Nicen councell decreed, that such as had bene ordained by Meletius an heretique should, vpon their con­uersion be receiued with their orders, being confirmed with more holy praiers, Sacratiori­bus suffra­gijs confirma­tos. l. 1. c. 9. or suffrages as Theodoret testifieth. Meletius himselfe being depriued of all power to ordaine any more.

Thirdlie, the councell of Sardis declared, that not only Gregorius of Alexandria, Basilius of Ancyra, and Quintianus of Gaza heretiques,Theod. l. 2. c. 8 post mediū, and intruded into other mens see as, but also [Page 145] Theodorus of Heraclea, Narcissus of Neroniadis,See a notable testimonie of the councell of sardy to the same purpose here­after cap. 15. n 3. Apol 2. epist. Iulij ab initio satis. Epist ad Ny­copolitas cited in the 7. generall councell act. 1, ad finem. Pag. 7 [...]. Pag. 87. with diuers others, conuicted of Arrius, his heresie, to be no Bishops, not because they had not the power of episcopall order, but because they had lost the lawfull vse therof by heresie.

Fourthlie S. Athanasius in the person of Iulius Pope of Rome saith, that it is vnpossible, the ordination of Priests made by Secundus an Arrian Bishop should haue any place in the Catholique church.

And S. Basil. I know him not for Bishop, nor number them amongst the Priests of Christ, which haue bene promoted to any dignitie, by defiled hands, to the destruction of faith.

The same teach Innocentius the first, and Nicholaus the first, with diuers others cited by M. Mason, who either not vn­derstanding, or dissembling their meaning, maketh doubt, how they may be reconciled with the Catholique doctrine, forbidding reordination. I marueile that so small a thing doth truble him, especiallie considering his owne doctrine, wherin he euidentlie distenguisheth, as is alreadie noted, bet­weene the power of order, and the lawfull vse therof, wherby are easily reconciled all the diferences, which seeme to appeare in the words of the auncient Fathers or councels in this point, they sometimes acknowledging, and receiuing the ordinations by heretiques for sufficient, sometimes reiecting them as if they were none at all. For receiuing them, they acknowledge the po [...]er of order, or character giuen by heretiques (suppo­sing they vse true forme, and substance of ordination) and adde thervnto the lawfull vse, which the ordained had not by their ordination, but recouer it by their reconciliation to the church. When they reiect them, they deny not the power of order, but the lawfull vse therof, which the or­dained cannot haue, so long as they remaine in heresie, and se­paration from the church. For the lawfull vse of the power of order necessarilie supposeth the vnion, or communion with the Catholique church.True calling doth not only include the power of order, but also the law­full vse of the same. And this is it that Innocentius and others fathers say, that heretiques cannot giue to those they ordaine, because they haue it not themselues: and not hauing, this, and wanting therby the l [...]wfull vse of their orders, they are said to haue no [...]hing, because he that hath any thing ordained to a certaine vse, and yet cannot make that vse therof, is in the same case, as if he had it not at all. So that the great difficultie M. Mason [Page 146] did apprehend in reconciling Innocentius, and Nicholaus with the rest of the fathers and councels, reiecting reordination, is easi­lie ouercome.

5. And that the communion with the true church (wher­soeuer it be) is necessarilie required to the lawfull vse of the power of holie order, and consequentlie to the deliuerie of lawfull calling, our aduersaries cannot deny. For I would know of them, whether they thinke, that the Arrians had either true calling themselues being in heresie, or true power to call others? and whether by their ordinations, they did giue true calling to the ordained? If they say yea, then must they ne­cessarilie condemne the whole Catholique church of errour, and iniustice, for condemning them in the councell of Sardis, euen now cited and declaring them to be no Bishops. If they say no (as I thinke they will) then must they necessarilie con­fesse, that besides the power of order which they had, was ne­cessarie also the vnion with the Catholique church, that they might either haue true calling themselues, or deliuer it to others, no other reason why they should not haue true calling, being to be assigned. If therfore it be prooued, that Cranmer was an heretique, and therbie separated from the vnion of the Catholique church, it will also follow, that notwithstanding he was canonicallie ordained (as all or most of the first Arrian Bishops were) that he lost the lawfull vse of his orders, and therfore neither continued in true calling himselfe, nor could trulie call others.

And to make it yet more plaine, that the actuall vnion, or communion with the bodie of Christ (which is his church) is necessarie, that any one may haue, or giue true calling (and con­sequentlie that no heretiques can either haue it, or giue it, they being by the Apostles owne mouth separated from the com­munitie of the faithfull) it is to be considered,Tit. 3.10. that no man is either called himselfe, or calleth others to any Ecclesiasticall function or office, to exercise the same in his owne name; by his owne power, or to his owne behalfe, or benefit alone: but in the power and honour first of Christ, and then in the name, and for the benefit of his church, whose minister he is; if therfore he be wilfullie seperated from Christ, and his church (as all heretiques are) he cannot do any thing in their name or [Page 147] power, or in their honour or edification, for neither hath he their concurrence or commission, being separated from them, nor hath he the will and intention thervnto, but to the contra­rie: Whatsoeuer therfore he doth or attempteth to do in that kind, he doth it in his owne name and power, and to the be­nefit of that bodie, wherof he is either head, or member, to wit, of that sect of heresie, wherof he maketh profession, and consequentlie vnlawfullie. And in steed of making him, whom he ordaineth, a minister of Christ, and of his church, he maketh him partaker of his owne heresie, and rebellion, and a minister therof.

6. And in this respect there is a great difference, betweene the sacrament of baptisme, and holie order, though in some other things they be like. For though the power of order, or character be trulie giuen by heretiques (supposing alwaies the true matter and forme be vsed by a true Bishop) as is that of baptisme; yet because the power of order is an actiue power, ordained to minister other sacraments, and exercise other fun­ctions in the church, wheras the character of baptisme is onlie a passiue power, in respect of other sacraments, which it ma­keth vs capable to receiue, but not to minister: therfore doth the sacrament of orders to the lawfull ministring therof, re­quire besides the power of order, the lawfull vse of the same, which those, who are excommunicate, and separated from the vnitie of Gods church (as all heretiques are) cannot haue. And thus farre haue we prooued, that heretique Bishops, though canonicallie ordered, haue no lawfull power to vse their epis­copall order, and consequentlie cannot giue anie lawfull calling to tothers, which was the first of the premises of that argu­ment, wherwith our conclusion was prooued. Now it remai­neth to prooue the second, which is, that Cranmer before he died, fell into heresie.

Though I neede not stand much vpon the proofe of this, but might make good the conclusion before set downe by this ar­gument. Either Cranmer, after his reuolt from the Catholicke church or those that ordered him, were heretiques: but whe­ther he or they were so, he could not haue the lawfull vse, and exercise of his Bishops power, or order; therfore Cranmer, whether he was heretique or no, could not haue the lawfull [Page 148] vse of his Bishops order. This argument, supposing the do­ctrine of all antiquitie to be true (that heretiques are not law­full Bishops) is vnanswerable. And though, I say, I might make vse therof, to prooue mine intent without any Farther labour, yet will I for thy greater contentment (good reader) prooue M. Cranmer an heretique, and purge his orderers from that note, which I will do.

7. First, by his owne confession, which M. Fox Setteth downe at large thus,Acts pag. 1710▪ edi­tionis 1610. I Thomas Cranmer late Archbishop of Canterbury, do renounce, abhorre and detest, all manner of heresies, and errours of Lu­ther and Zuinglius, and all other teachings, which be contrarie to sound and true doctrines. And I beleeue most constantlie in mine heart, and with my mo [...]th I confesse one only and Catholique church visible, without the which there is no saluation, and therof I acknowledge the Bishop of Rome to be su­preame head in earth, whom I acknowledge to be the highest Bishop, and Pope, and Christs vicar, vnto whom all Christian people ought to be subiect. And after the confession of many other articles of the Catho­lique faith he concludeth thus. And God is my witnes, that I haue not done this for fauour, or feare of any person, but willingly and of mine owne mind as well to the discharge of mine owne conscience, as to the instruction of other. In rigour of law this one argument would suffice to prooue Cranmer to haue bene an heretique, not for this abiura­tion, which here he maketh, but for that he perfidiously retur­ned to the errours here abiured, and therin died, as also he had liued in them before.

8. Secondly, the doctrine, which he professed after his se­paratiō from the Romane church, was authentically condēned by the same authority and iudgement, that Arranianisme, and all other heresies haue bene condemned since the Apostles time to wit, by the iudgment of the same Catholique church, assembled in a lawfull generall councell at Trent. Where I would haue thee (iudicious reader) to obserue, that as on thone side nothing can be said in defence, or fauour of this heresie, condēned in the generall councell of Trent, which the Arrians might not haue said in defence of their heresie condemned in the holy generall councell of Nice, the Arrians alleaging scripture, and the errour of the Catholique church in defence of their heresie, as well as the Protestāts do for theirs: so on the other side there can be no kind of argument produced for the proofe of the doctrine defi­ned, [Page 149] set downe or declared in the Nicene councell, and for the dispoofe of the heresie therein condēned, which may not in like manner be produced, for the proofe of the doctrine of the Tri­dentine councell, and in disproofe of the heresie, which is in it condemned. For as the Catholiques alleaged against the Arians, the authoritie of scriptures, fathers, consent and iudgmēt of the church both auncient and moderne, so do they also against the Protestants. Therfore as Arrianisme is a condemned heresie, and the professors therof heretiques, so likewise is Protestantisme a condemned heresie and those that professe it be heretiques, wherof Cranmer was one.

Thirdly, Cranmer went out, and separated himselfe from the church, wherin he was baptised, and ordered, which ther­fore was before him, and which neither he, nor any one for him can shew to haue gone out, or separated it self from any other church more aunciēt then [...]t, since the Apostles times. But who­soeuer goeth out of that church, or congregation wherin he is baptised, vnles he can shew, that it went out of another more auncient, is an heretique, therfore was Cranmer an heretique.

Fourtly, Cranmer going out from the Romane church ioined himselfe to that company, whose first founders or beginners went also out of the same church, and which cannot deriue their Christianitie from the Apostles, but by the discent, and succession of the Romane church, which notwithstanding they left, and afterwards impugned. But he that cannot de­riue the Cristianitie of that companie, wherunto he hath ioyned himselfe, from the Apostles, but by the discent, or succession of that church, which he hath forsaken and impugneth, is an heretique. Therfore was Cranmer an he­retique. This shall suffice for the proofe of the second proposition of the argument, wherby was prooued the con­clusion before set downe. And that M. Mason shall see, that I vse no hard measure of partialitie towards Cranmer, I do offer and promise, that if he can retort or apply, but any one of these foure arguments to the orderers of Cranmer, I will esteeme them to haue been heretiques. It remaineth therfore fully prooued, that Cranmer through heresie lost the lawfull vse, and exercise of his episcopall power and order; and consequētly, that he also lost the power to giue true calling [Page 150] to those, whom he ordained in the state of heresie.

9. But here M. Mason out of his loue towards the Catholi­que Romane church, charitablie warneth, that we take heede, least while we go about to put out their eies, L. 2. c. 9. n. 3. we pull out our owne. For (saith he) if your allegations be sound, what will become of Bonner, Heath, and Turlby, who were consecrated at such time, when in your iudgment, both the consecrators and consecrated were stained with schisme, and heresie? Did all these receiue nothing, because their consecrators had nothing to giue? If they were no Bishops, then what becomes of the Bishops in Q. Maries time, whom these did consecrate?

This great difficultie, least we should not be able to solue; M. Mason solueth for vs saying whithin a few lines after, that Cardi­nall Poole the Popes legate absolued them from schisme and heresie, and so they were cōfirmed for lawfull Bishops. Can. 8. The same thing that the councell of Nice practised with the Nouatians, as also S. Leo with the same, and with the Donatists, the 7. generall councell with other heretiques (as hath bene shewed before) and which hath euer bene vsed in the church, as occasiō occurred. So that M. Mason is not, as I sup­pose, so blind, but that he seeth well; that in all this, there is no daunger of putting out our eies: let him looke therfore, how he can keepe his owne, and his fellowes safe; which, vnles he can shew the like confirmation, and reconciliation of Cranmer, and the rest discended from him, to the vnitie of the Catholique church, which he confesseth of Bonner, and the rest obiected by him, they must necessarilie remaine in the same state, that the Arrians, and Nouatians were in, whilest they, continued in their heresie, and therfore can be no lawfull Bishops. For they, by the grauest iudgment of the whole world were declared to be no Bishops, as we haue seene before out of Theodoretus. And how impossible it is for M. Mason to shew any such reconcilia­tion,Lib. 2 ca. 8. it is easilie vnderstood, seing there were no Bishops in the whole world, by whom, or to whom, Cranmer might be reconciled, but those from whom he wilfullie separa­ted himselfe. For if he thinke to answere, that Cranmer leauing the vnitie of the Romane church, was receiued into the true church reformed by Luther, and Zuinglius (who were both his masters, though opposite thone to thother) he is alreadie pre­uented in that euasion. For besids that they were no Bishops, and therfore neither had the true calling of Pastors, nor could [Page 151] giue it to others: there is the same difficultie of their reconcilia­tion, that there is of Cranmers, they hauing also gone out of the same Romane church not long before him, and therfore must either necessarilie shew some church, whervnto they were vni­ted, after their separation from the Romane, or els must confesse themselues the foūders, and beginners of a church neuer heard of before, or at least not extant, when they reuoulted, which is as much as anie man of iudgment will require, to prooue them renegates and heretiques.

To conclude therfore this point; it is apparent by that, which hath hitherto bene prooued, were there no other defect, in the calling of the superintendents of the now English church, then that which they draw from Cranmer▪ that they haue no true, and lawfull calling at all, no more thē the Arrians, Nouatians, and other condemned heretiques had: [...]ut we shall yet find other matter. And thus much of Cranmers c [...]lling, of whose lewde life and de­serued death, thou maist good reader, (if thou be disposed) see much in a few lines in that learned, and vnanswerable booke, cal­led A prudentiall ballance pag. 234.

The twelueth Chapter. That the Bishops made in King Edwards daies were no true, or lawfull Bishops.

1. HAuing shewed in the precedent chapter, that Cranmer after his fall into heresie (for in King Edwards time he was first a Lutheran, and after­wards a Zuinglian) he was no more lawfull Bi­shop, by the iudgment of the most entire and florishing church of Christ, in the councells of Nice, and Sardis, it followeth by necessarie cōsequence, that those that were ordered by him, and communicated with him in the same heresie, and continued therin, were for the same reason no Bishops, though they had had no other defect, or impediment at all. Yet because the Bi­shops ordained in King Edwards time from whom those of Queen Elizabeth pretēd to deriue their Succession are deemed, [Page 152] to haue a more essentiall defect, then that of heresie either [...] themselues, or in their ordainers: for the more cleare proofe of the meere secularitie▪ and pure nullitie of the pretended cleargy of England, as well as of other falsly reformed churches: I will here examine the ordination of them, who are confessed to haue bene made in the raigne of K. Edward, that so we may by degrees descend to thothers ordained since. These were, a M. Mason saith,Lib 2. cap. 11 Nicholas Ridley, Robert Ferrar, Iohn Hoope, Iohn Poynet, Iohn Scory, and miles Couerdall, whose calling is not only defectiue, in respect of heresie both in their callers (which we haue seene in the former chapter) and in themselues (they being confessed to haue bene Lutherans or Zuinglians) but also in respect of their calling it selfe, which is much more essentiall then thother, this being oy no meanes to be repaired without a new ordination, wheras the other requireth only a confirma­tion, or reconciliation, as we haue said before. So that touching these men, the question is not whether their callers were law­full Bishops or no, but whether the manner of their calling it selfe was substantiall, and sufficient or no.

2. M. Mason, who hath trauailed more painfullie, in the maintainaunce of the calling of the present English cleargie, then any other that I know, confesseth, yea euidentlie proo­ueth, that the manner of consecrating Bishops in K. Edwards time was altered from that, which had bene in King Henries time,Lib. 2. cap. 11. n. 2▪ pag 94. and euer before, bringing for this purpose a statute made in the third yeare of his raigne: which because he fai­leth truly to relate, (whether of purpose, or of negligence I know not) I will set it downe, as it is recorded by M. Poulton in these words.

Kallend an. 3. Ed. 6. cap. 12. Mason: pag. 94. Such forme of making and consecrating of Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and other ministers of the church, shalbe vsed and none other, as by Sixe Prelates, and Sixe other men, learned in Gods lawe (to be appointed by the king) or the most number of them, shalbe deuised, and set foorth vnder the great seale, before the first day of Aprill next. According to this act was there a forme, or manner of making Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, set forth the fift and Sixt yeare of king Edward, which, (as M Mason saith) was recalled the first of Q. Mhrie, but reestablished the first of Q. Blizabeth, and confirmed the eight yeare of her raigne. So that [...] [Page 153] the ministers of England are ordered according to that booke, concerning which I would know (saith he) wherin it transgresseth the ecclesiasticall manner.

3. Where if M. Mason had opened his mind so farre, as to haue told what he meaneth by ecclesiasticall manner, it would not be hard to shew him that which he demaundeth. For if he vnderstand by ecclesiasticall manner, those words and actions only, which are expressed in holy scripture: his puritane bre­thren will saue vs a labour: for they will shew him, that it trans­gresseth the ecclesiasticall manner in many things. For example, the Litanies, the himne come holieghost, the oath of supremacie, all the set praiers prescribed in the rituall, none of all which haue any warrant in the scripture. And which is more: the formes of words vsed together with the imposi­tion of hands aswell in ordering Deacons, as Priests, and Bi­shops, are without all warrant of holy scripture. For where are these words vsed in making Deacōs, found in all the whole Bible? Take thou authoritie to execute the office of a Deacon, in the church of God committed vnto thee: In the name of the father, and of the sonne, and of the holie Ghost: or that the Bishop deliuering vnto him the new testament should say: Take thou authority to reade the Gospell in the church of God, and to preach the same, if thou be therunto ordinarily commaunded. Or where is it recorded, that the Apostles in or­dering of Priests either vsed, or appointed these words to be vsed? Receiue the holy Ghost, whose sinnes thou dost forgiue▪All this is in their rituall, or manner of making Bishops, Priests, and Deacons printed at London 1607they are forgi­uen, and who [...]e sins thou dost retaine, they are retained, and be thou a faith­full dispenser of the word of God, and of his holy sacraments, In the name of the father and of the sonne, and of the holy Ghost. Or where the Apo­stles deliuered them the Bible with these words. Take thou au­thority to preach the word of God, and to minister the holy sacraments in this congregation, where thou shalt be so appointed. Where is to be noted an absurd repetition of the same authoritie, of ministring sacra­ments giuen before; which repetition in matter of sacraments, is sacrilegious, except in case of doubt of the validitie of the former, by some accident extraordinarilie occurring. And in the consecration of Bishops, where are these words prescribed by holy scripture? Take the holy Ghost: and remember that thou stirre vp the grace of God, which is in thee by imposition of hands, for God hath not giuen vs the spirit of feare, but of power, and loue, and sobernes.

If M. Mason thinke to answere, that most of these words are the words of the holie scripture, and seeme to be fitlie applied to this purpose: he shall nothing satisfie. For besides that infinite other words of holie scripture might be as fitlie, and more fitlie applied to the same purpose, then manie of these, which notwit­standing, I suppose M. Mason will not saie, are anie sufficient forme of holie order, vnles he will admitt manie formes of the same thing: (a proposition neuer heard of either in Diuinitie, or Philosophie) besides this I saie, it being manifest, that by holie order (whether it be a Sacrament or no) is giuen power to exer­cise certaine ecclesiasticall and Spirituall actions, which haue their effect in our soules, and in Gods Sacraments: which power cannot be giuen by anie man or anie other meanes, but such as-our saviour Christ the author therof hath ordained for that pur­pose. M. Mason must either shew these words, and actions now repeated to haue bene instituted by our Sauiour Christ, as the lawfull meanes of giuing holie order, or els must he necessarilie confesse them, to be euidentlie sacrilegious and superstitious: Sacrilegious, as an irreuerent abuse of holie things: Superstitious as applying or ascribing an holie power to a thing that hath no­ne at all And seeing it is manifest, that M. Mason cānot shew by holie scripture, that our Sauiout Christ hath instituted these for­mes of holie orders, and that in all other points of faith and re­ligion, he reiecteth the authoritie of traditions (and therfore cā ­not with anie shew of honestie recurre vnto them in this parti­culer, though they fauoured him neuer so much) my witt, I con­fesse, is too short or shallow to conceiue, how M. Mason can iu­stifie this their forme, and māner of making Bishops, Priests, and Deacons from euident sacrilege and superstition or at least mere human inuentious euen by his own iudgment deliuerered vpon the same matter in these words: Doe you meane that the oyle, wherwith the head (of the Bishop) is annointed with these words, be thy head annointed and consecrated with celestiall benediction: or the ring blessed with prayer and holy water, and put vpon his fingar with these words▪ receiue the ring, the seal of faith: Or the crosier deliuered with these words: receiue the staff of the pasto­rall office: do you meane that these or the like belong to the offence of episcopall consecration? If you doe: you must giue vs leaue to reiect them, because they are only humā inuentions. The matter of ordination as you say is certayne and de­termined of God: now where shall we find the determination of God but in the booke of God.

When you can demonstre your rings and crosiers out of the booke of God we will accept them, in the mean while we cannot admitt them as essentiall matter of ordination▪ thus fare are his own words pag. 95.

If we showld now pay him with his owne coine, howe cowld he possibly iustify theyr newe ordinations? by no means can he doe it. But as in other points hertofore, we haue dealt liberallie with M. Mason and his felow reformists permitting them to re­curre to the fortres of Catholique doctrine, when they could find no refuge in their owne: So likewise in this particuler will I giue him leaue to haue recourse to traditions, and to seeke re­fuge there, for the iustification of their orders.

If therfore he say, that he meaneth by ecclesiasticall manner that, which hath bene vsed in the church from the beginning, and is brought downe from the Apostles to vs, by a nott interrupted tradition; his meaning is good, and such as it should be in this point. But it is so euident, that their manner of making Bishops, and priests is so different, from the ecclesiasticall manner accor­ding to this meaning that I much maruell at M. Masons either boldnes, or blindnes, when he saith, I would know, wherin it trans­gresseth the ecclesiasticall manner. If M. Mason would but conferr their māner of ordering Bishops, and Priests, with that of the Roma­ne church, (which because he cannot shew to haue begunne sin­ce the Apostles times, he maie safelie with S. Augustine beleeue it to come from them) he will find it to trangresse the ecclesia­sticall māner in so manie things, that it doth not agree therwith in anie one, vnles peraduenture in a small shadowe, or semblan­ce of words not the same, but diuerse. This needeth no other proofe then the confronting of their rituall, with that of the Romane church, which I will leaue to M. Masō to do, if he ma­ke doubt therof, and will expect his disproofe therim. Or if he think not good to cōpare their maner of ordination with that of the Roman church, let him bring forth some other if he can, more auncient then it, wherwith theirs doth aggree, and he shall satisfy.

Secondlie the words of the statute before rehearsed, if he had not ouer looked them, would easilie haue instructed him in this his demaund. For if the new church hatched in king Edwards time, had approoued the ecclesiasticall māner of making Bishops and priests, it had bene needles, and verie superfluous, to haue [Page 156] imploied the prelates and learned in Gods law, to deuise (marke I pray you this word deuise, which is the verie word of the sta­tute, if M. Poulton relate it trulie) a new forme and manner. Hereby M. Mason may see, and all others that haue eies and will see, that their newlie deuised manner of consecrating Bishops and priests (which he confesseth to be obserued till this daie, and that all their ministers are no otherwise ordered) is a meere hu­mane deuise and inuention,Pag. 95. fi­ne. (and therfore by his owne iudg­ment to be reiected) but of yesterdaies standing neither authori­sed by scripture, nor approoued by ecclesiasticall tradition, a meere shadow without substance, indented by giddie heads, and vnquiet Spirits greedie of noueltie, authorised first by the tem­porall power of a child in noneage, and after confirmed by the like authoritie of a woman, contrarie to the practise of the whose Christian world present, and without instance or exam­ple in anie age for aboue fifteene hundred yeares. And ther­fore doth M Mason discouer to much his blind affection, when he saith, I would know wherin it transgresseth the ecclesiasticall manner. 6 M. Mason to his former words addeth. Sanders saith, that King Edward tooke awaie the ceremonie. What ceremonie? If he meane the ceremonie of imposition of hands, he slaundreth King Edward: If he mea­ne their blessings, offerings, and crosiers; the grauitie of that sacred action may well spare them: as for the solemne vnction, your selues confesse it to be accidentall, other of your ceremonies being partlie superfluous, partlie su­perstitious: the wisdome of our church hath discretlie and religiouslie pared them away, establishing (marke this) such a forme, as is holie and accepta­ble in Gods sight.

Sanders doth not speake of taking awaie anie ceremonies, but saith directlie, that altogether a new forme of ordering was prescribed by parlement, in King Edwards daies, which appea­ring to be true by the same forme yet obserued, as M. Mason confesseth, Saunders doth not slaunder King Edward, but M. Mason either slaudereth or corrupteth Saunders. But why doth he not here set downe, by what authoritie the wisdome of their church doth shaue, and pare awaie such large portions of those holie rites, which the wisdome of the vniuersall church of Christ hath so long obserued, that the beginning therof cannot be found, and in their steede hath established a new forme of their owne inuention, that is not so old as themselues, and they [Page 157] litle older then King Edward the sixt. Can anie man of iudg­ment thinke, that these men haue anie sparke of Christian reli­gion in them? or the least reuerence to the misteries of Gods holie church? who make no scruple to cut and pare, chop and chaunge in the holiest actiōs, whatsoeuer their fancie disliketh? these men I saie, that breath nothing but scripture:Psal. 4.3. O ye Sons of men how long will you loue vanitie and seeke after lies?

M. Mason for all this in the two pages following earnestlie contendeth,Pag. 95. and 96. that the church of England (notwithstanding the alteration made in the manner of ordination) still retaineth the essentiall matter of Episcopall order: to wit, imposition of hāds: and likewise the essentiall forme of the same order, consisting (as he saith) in these words: Receiue thou the holie ghost: whence it will necessarilie fallow, that they are true Bishops. But he nei­ther prooueth that these two things here mentoined belong to the essentiall matter, and forme of Episcopall order, nor yet that nothing els belongeth therunto. And yet the veritie of both these points doth so much import, to the triall of the question in hand, that if either of them should be found false, our English superintendents will euidentlie be prooued no lawfull Bishops, and consequentlie M. Mason shall fall farr short of his purpose here aimed att. Wherfore it behooued him to haue made some better proofe of them, then his owne bare assertion. And seeing the proofe of these thing belongeth euidentlie to him, as main­taining the affirmatiue, and that therfore no mā can iustlie exact, or expect anie more of me in this particular then that which pertaineth to the defendant, which is onlie to answere the argu­ments of mine aduersarie. Yet notwithstanding in assurāce that the cleare truth stādeth on my side, I will willinglie, heerin ma­ke my selfe actor, and prooue against him the negatiue of his as­sertion: which for more distinct, and clare manner of proceding, and to auoide the tediousnes of lōg chapters, I will handle apart vnder this title.

The thirteenth Chapter. The whole essentiall matter, and forme of Episcopall order consist not in imposition of hands, and these wordes, receiue thou the holie ghost.

1. FOr the more easie explication of this question, it is first to be obserued, that the precise matter and forme of no one Sacrament is so clearlie expressed in holie scripture, but that without the authoritie of the church, and tradition, there maie be doubt, and question made therof. This is euident euen in Baptisme it selfe. For this forme N. I baptise thee in the name of the father, and of the sonne, and of the holie ghost which is vsed in all the west church: Or this forme, Be the seruant of Christ baptized in the name of the father, and of the sonne, and of the holie ghost, which is vsed in the east church, is no where in these tearmes expressed in the holie scripture. The same I saie of the matter, which all men hold to be elementall, or naturall water, and no other, which notwithstanding is no where ex­preslie prescribed in holie scripture. The precise matter and for­me likewise of the holy Eucharist, are not so expressly sett down in holy scripture but (were it not fore the churches auctoritie) there might, as also there haue beene questions therof. And here by the way it may be noted, how necessarie the authoritie of the church and tradition is, for the supporte of the verie grounds of Christian faith and doctrine: and that therfore not without cau­se S. Paul stileth the church the piller: and grounde of truth.

1. Timoth. 3.15.2. Secondlie it is to be obserued, that the precise matter, and forme of diuers Sacraments, and amongst others of holie orders (which according to Catholique doctrine I suppose to be a Sa­crament, because this doth neither aduantage me, nor disaduan­tage mine aduersarie in the present question) are not so expres­sed either in anie Councell, or the aunciēt fathers, but that there are diuers probable opinions in the same, according to the pro­bable grounds that are found, either in reason or authoritie. For the holie councells and fathers not making ritualls, nor [Page 159] explicating at large the whole order, or manner of ministring all Sacraments, but deliuering to their posteritie the practise of that manner, which they receiued from their Predecessors, do not prescribe in what precise things, actions, or words the mat­ter and forme of all Sacraments de consist, nor of this in particu­ler, which now is in question. Hence it commeth, that those Catholique Doctors, that haue had occasion to treate of this matter, finding no precise rule prescribed vnto them, neither in the scriptures, Councells, nor Fathers, haue deliuered their iudgment thervpon diuerslie, according to the diuers grounds which euerie one thinketh most probable. And therfore if any showld say that the essentiall matter of Episcopall order is the only imposition of hands (which notwithstanding I find not af­firmed by any but one only auctor) others will ioyne thervnto the vnction vsed in that action, and also the deliuerie of those things which are exhibited in consecration, as the booke of Gospels, the Pastorall staffe, and ring: Others excluding the im­position of hands from the order of priesthood, as not pertay­ning to the essence therof and therfore seeme also to exclude it from the essentiall mattet of episcopall order: none of these opi­nions touching the matter showld be certainlie false, nor yet any of them certainlie true. And because the common iudgment of the forme of holie order is, that it consisteth in those words, which declare the power of the order giuen, and are vttered when the matter is deliuered, the forme likewise of episcopall order commeth to be in such sort vncertaine, as it is not certain­lie knowne in which wordes preciselie it doth consist.

Neither doth the church of God suffer anie detriment here­by being assured, that she hath the true matter and forme, which the Apostles deliuered her from our sauiour Christ, though it be not knowne in what words, or actions preciselie they do con­sist: as it happeneth in like vncertaintie, and diuersitie of opinions, about the precise matter and forme of matrimo­nie, some saying the matter therof to be the mutuall consent of the partie, expressed by words of the present tense,Cā. de locis l. 8. cap. 5. Palud. in 4. di. 26. qu. 4. Adrian. qu. 1. de matri. and forme to be the words of the priest ioyning thē together: others, that the persōs cōtracting are the matter, and the words expressing their cōsēts, the forme▪ others that the words of the persōs cōtracting are both matter & forme in such sort, as the words of that partie, [Page 161] that last expresseth his consent, are the forme, and thothers that went before,In 4. di. 26. q. 2. ar. 1. qu. 245. de Sa­cramentis. In caput. tua nos. extra de sponsalibus. Manuale ca. 22. n. 20. the matter, so S. Thomas, and victoria: others, that the matter is the mutuall, and inward consent of the parties contracting the forme, the words of the same parties expressing the same consent, so the Canonists commonlie and Nauarre: all which diuersitie of opinions in this precise point, doth bring no inconuenience at all to the church, or Christiā common wealth, so long as nothing is omitted, that by anie opinion belongeth to the true matter, and forme. But if anie one should be so peremptorie in his priuate opinion, as to exclude all other but that, which he thinketh the true matter, and forme, he should make all marriages doubtfull, which must needs bring great in­conuenience to the whole Christian world, as all men euiden­tlie see: And this is true whether matrimonie be a Sacrement or no: for that doth neither help nor hinder in this present questiō. The like or greater inconuenience doth necessarilie follow in-the whole church, if all her pastors, and ministers should be or­dered with such matter, and forme, as in some mens opinion on­lie is true, and not in others. For if it should prooue, that their opinion [...]hould be true, that hold imposition of hands, and the­se words Receiue the holie Ghost; are not the true matter and forme of this order, then would it necessarilie follow, that such as should be ordained therwith are no true Bishops.He citeth Sal meron In­carnatus, Nauarre, So­to, for the contrary opi­nion, and might haue added others: citing onlie Bellarmin for this owne, and him fal­slie, pag. 95. Conclusion. Seeing ther­fore M. Mason is not ignorant of this varietie of opinions in this present questiō (which he relateth in part) and himself brin­geth no better, not yet so good ground of his opinion, as others do of theirs, it is marueile vnto mee, that he should so perēpto­rilie saie, that their Bishops are ordered with the true matter, and forme. But he doth well to be bold in affirminge, for a good fa­ce sometimes helpeth out an ill game.

3. My conclusion is, that the sole imposition of hāds with the­se words, Receiue the holie Ghost, is not the whole, true, and essentiall matter and forme of Episcopall order, and consequentlie, that those, that are ordained with them alone, as our English super­intendents are confessed to be, are not trulie ordained, nor are anie true Bishops. This conclusion I prooue first by this nega­tiue argumēt. Neither scriptures, Councells, Fathers, nor Diuines one only escepted doe teach, that the sole impositiō of hāds, and these words Receiue the holie ghost, are the whole essential matter, [Page 160] and forme of Episcopall order: therfore is it affirmed without ground. Bellarnime doth prooue in the place alleaged by M. Mason,De Sacramē ­tis ordinis lib. 1. c. 9. that imposition of hands doth belong to the essentiall matter of preesthood, but he ioyneth therwith as more princi­pall the deliuerie of the chalice, with the paten and host, and of the matter of Episcopall order, he saith nothing. And M. Maton bringeth foure other Catholique authors, that exclude imposi­tion of hands, from the essentiall matter of holie order, which sheweth that it is but probable at the most, that imposition of hands pertameth, to the essentiall matter of holie order: but that it should be the whole and sole essentiall matter, is no waie pro­bable. Neither do I thinke M. Mason would saie it were proba­ble, but that he is forced vnto it, not hauing other meanes to maintaine for good, the newly deuised maner of ordination of their Bishops, whervpon I appeale to his owne iudgment, whether that manner of ordination, deuised by the sixe Pre­lats, and other six learned in the law of God, appointed by King Edward for that purpose, is more like to be that manner of or­dination, which the Apostles themselues vsed, and left vnto their successours, then that which was ouer and is still vsed thorow the whole Christian church.

4. Againe whether this new forme of ordination was establi­shed by parlement, vpon anie grounded persuasion, that it was conformable to the manner vsed by the Apostles: or rather as a meane both to leaue the Catholique manner, and yet to retaine some externall semblance of ordination, the world being not yet readie to receiue the refined reformation, which we see smee to haue crept in amongst those, that haue apostated from the vnion of the Catholique Romane church, and by which is reiected as superstitious, not onlie this parlementarie fashion of ordination but the verie order of Bishops it selfe it is not verie doubtfull. And that this second was the drift at least of him, that first put into mens hartes the reuolt, and separation from the vnitie of the Catholique church, it is plaine enough by the boo­ke called; the forme and manner of ordination, and admission of Pastors to their church, according to the manner of the reformed churches: Printed at Middelberrough by Richard S. Hilders 1602. which prescribeth qui­te another fashiō of ordinatiō, thē that of the pa [...]lemēt of king Edward, and maketh a new Hierarchie of the church to wit, [Page 162] of Elders, Deacons, and ministers, Bishops, being estemed by them, as all the world knoweth, Antichristian instrumēts. Who­se senseles and absurd heresies I see not, but M. Mason and his fellowes must accept of, and acknowledge for necessarie refor­mations, by the same rule, that they pretend to haue reformed the Catholique Romane church. But I will proceed in the proo­fe of my conclusion.

5. Secondly the vniforme doctrine of those that haue written of holie order tracteth, that the matter thereof consisteth in the deliuerie of the instruments proper to euerie order, as of Deaconship the booke of the Gospells; of priesthood the chali­ce, and paten with the host, and so in the other orders: And that the forme consisteth in those words, which are vttered toge­ther with the deliuerie of the matter, and expresse the authori­tie giuen by the same, which in deaconship are these. Take power to reade the Gospell in the church of God, as well for the liuing as for the dead, in the name of our lord Amen. In preisthood they are these. Take power to off her sacrifice to God, and to celebrate masse as well for the liuing as for the dead, in the name of our lord. Amen. And the like in the rest of holy orders. Therfore Episcopall order ought in all reason, to haue like matter and forme, which cannot be imposition of hands, and these words Receiue the holie Ghost, because neither the one, nor the other apart, nor yet both together do expresse the power giuen in that order: but they rather expresse the giuing of the holie Ghost, whereby the consecrated is disposed or ma­de fitt, to exercise well, and worthilie the power and authoritie giuen by that order.

Thirdly seing there want not in Episcopall consecration, the like sensible matter, and signifying forme, which are of all deui­nes confessed to be the essentiall matter and forme of other or­ders. As for example, the anointing of the head of him that is cōsecrated with holie chrisme, with these words Be thy head anoin­ted, and consecrated with heauenlie blessing in Episcopall order: Besides are deliuered him the pastorall staffe, the ring, the booke of Gospels, all with seuerall words aptlie expressing the power giuen by that order, it is most probable that they pertaine to the essentiall matter, and forme of this order, I saie most probable, because we haue nothing clearlie certaine in this point, neither by scriptu­re [...], Councells, nor Fathers, as is before noted.

And this doctrine for as much as concerneth the anointing of the Bishops head, which seemeth to some least probable, is confirmed by the testimonie of most ancient Fathers. For S▪ Clement Pope and disciple of the Apostles saith,Epist. 3 ad vniuersos. that euery Bi­shop anointed with holy chrisme, placed in the city, and learned in holy scrip­tures, ought to be deare, and honoured of all men. And Pacianus of equall antiquitie with S. Ambrose, whence (saith he) can your people haue the holy Ghost, whom an anointed Priest hath not confirmed? Wherby this holy Father seemeth to ascribe the giuing of the holy Ghost in confirmation,Epist. 3. ad S [...]mpronian: The fame may we say to our English superinten­dents. to the vnction of the Bishop that giueth it; and therfore must of necessitie esteeme it to be essentiall to be Episcopall order.

I know that a certaine schooleman of these daies holdeth for probable that the imposition of hands, and these words accipe Spiritum Sanctū are the true matter and forme of Episcopall order. His grounds are these. First that at the least three Bishops are by diuine ordinaunce necessarie to Episcopall cōsecration. Secōdly. that it is necessary that the true minister of holy order apply the matter of order vnto the ordered, and therfore if one only Bish­op apply the matter of Episcopall order it is not sufficiēt, becau­se one Bishop alone (without cōmission giuen him for that pur­pose) is not the true minister of that order. Thirdly that only that action of imposing hands is performed by all the three Bishops. Wherupon he inferreth that that action is the true matter, and the words pronounced together with the same, are the forme of Episcopall consecration. How true or probable his discourse is, I meane not here to dispute, but (be the grounds therof what they will) I will for M Masons aduātage suppose the conclusiō to be probable, which is as much as he can expect, and more then he can exact. Now what will he inferre heervpō for his purpose.

6. If he say, that his opinion concerning the matter and forme of Episcopall order being probable, it will follow, that their Bishops are at least probably Bishops: I wil answere him: First, that though it be probable, that imposition of hands, and these words Receiue the holy Ghost appertaine to the essentiall mat­ter, and forme of Episcopall order, yet is it not probable, that they are the whole essential matter and forme therof, because there is no probable ground of this, as is shewed in the first ar­gument against this opinion, and therfore are not their inten­dents so much as probable Bishops.

Secondlie, be it probable (for the auctority of that one moderne writer nowe mentioned) that the whole essentiall matter, and forme of Episcopall order consist in the imposition of hands, and these words Receiue the holy Ghost: and consequen­tly, that their superintendents are probablie Bishops; yet will it not thence follow, that it is so much as probable, that they haue the lawfull calling of Bishops, because the lawfull calling of the Pastors of Gods church doth not hang vpon probabili­ties, but requireth vnfallible certainties, for so much at least as appertaineth to their essentiall ordination, without including matter of fact: for otherwaies all their actions (as they are Bi­shops and Pastors) should be but probablie canonicall, and therfore vncertaine, whence would necessarilie rise an irreme­diable confusion in the church, which notwithstanding is cal­led in the scripture an armie well ordered. Cant. 6.3. Therfore he that in mi­nistring, or receiuing holy order, leaueth the knowne, certaine, and receiued matter and forme, and vseth that which is only probable, doth not only commit sacriledge by his temeritie, but is also bound to renew the same action, by the accustomed mat­ter and forme, at least vnder condition or els to supply that which was omitted. For though in humaine and morall actions, which haue no other rule but humane reason, and prudence (which for the most part in matters of difficulty is but proba­ble) it is sufficient, to excuse vs from sinning in them, that we worke according to a probable opinion, yet is it otherwaies in sacramentall actions, which haue not for rule any humane rea­son, but diuine institution, and ordination, made knowne vnto vs, by the infallible testimony either of the holy scripture, or of the doctrine and practice of the church of Christ, which (as is noted before) is the piller and ground of truth. 1. Timoth. 3

M. Mason will peraduenture yet farther obiect, that there is no mention made in the holy scriptures, of any other thing ap­pertaining to the essentiall matter, and forme of holy order, but only of imposition of hands, and these words Receiue the holy Ghost and therfore are all other things to be reiected as mans in­uentions, and not diuine ordinations. But first if he wilbe so ri­gorous, as to accept of nothing as pertayning to the essentiall matter, and forme of holy order, but that which is expressed in holy scripture as appertaining therunto, without all respect to [Page 165] the authoritie of the church and ecclesiasticall tradition, then must he reiect the matter, and forme prescribed in their ordi­nall not only of Deacons, and Priests, which are not expressed in holy scripture, but euen those wherin he would the essentiall matter, and forme of episcopall order to consist. For though these words Receiue the holy Ghost are in holy scripture,Iohn 21. and that there is often mention made of imposition of hands, yet are these two neuer ioined together in holy scripture, nor prescri­bed as the matter and forme of Episcopall order. In their do­ctrine. Whence it followeth, that if M. Mason will either haue Deacons, Priests, or Bishops in their church, he must be forced to giue so much credit to the authoritie of the church and tra­dition, as to receiue from them, the essentiall matter, and forme of these orders. which being so, he will farther euidentlie find, that their superintendents hauing not bene consecrated with that matter and forme, which the church from ancient times vsed cannot be any true Bishops.

Againe, the scripture with imposition of hands ioyneth al­waies praier in the ordination of Deacons, Priests, or Bishops, as appeareth in the places cited in the margent, and therfore doth the scripture mention something vsuall in holy orders, be­sides imposition of hands, and these words Receiue the holy Ghost. Acts 6.6. and cap. 13.1 Now what these praiers were, seeing the scripture doth not specifie them, how can we better know, then by the church, which receiued them of the Apostles? And that they were not these words only, which M. Mason will haue the only essentiall forme of holy order, is manifest by S. Ambrose, saying.In 1. Timoth. 4. The im­position of hands is misticall words, wherwith the elect is confirmed, and made apt to his function, receiuing authority (his conscience bearing witnes) that he may be bold in our lords steede to offer sacrifice to God. And S. Hierome. The imposition of hands is the ordering of clearkes, which is done by praier of the voice, and imposition of the hand. From all which I inferre,In Esay [...] cap. 58. that although it be not certaine, what words or actions preci­selie are the essentiall matter, and forme of episcopall order, as is before noted, yet is it euident, that the matter and forme as­signed by M. Mason, is not sufficient to the true ordination of Bishops, being more then doubtfull, not to be the whole true matter and forme, and consequentlie, the ordinations of their superintendents made therby to be estemed none at all. And [Page 166] that this is the iudgment of all those both Catholiques and Pro­testants, who ought to haue knowne best the manner of their ordination, I will prooue by two or three cleare argu­ments.

First M. Fox speaking of the degredation of Ridley (one of those that were made Bishops in King Edwards dayes,Acts pag. 1604. and con­secrated after this new manner as M. Mason supposeth) saith, that Doctor Brooke, Bishop of Glocester delegated for that action of degredation told him, that they were to degrade him only of Priesthood, for that they did not take him for a Bishop. But if he had bene truly ordered, they could not haue denied him to haue bene a true Bishop, no more then Cranmer, whom they degra­ded as Archbishop. To this proposition of the Bishop of Glo­cester, Ridley replied not one word, nor pleaded any thing to the contrary, but by his silence shewed, that he consented thervnto, according to the receiued maxime. Qui tacet, consentire videtur. In which case he would not doubtles haue bene so mute (seeing he wanted not words in other occasions of farre lesse moment) had he not knowne himselfe to haue beene not true Bishop nor truly consecrated. Where it is to be obserued, that M. Mason bringeth this very obiection of D. Brookes words to Ridley,Pap 92. against the consecration of those, that were ordered in K. Edwards time, and confirmeth it greatly, for that he ans­wereth it not otherwaies, but by this impertinent question: what was not he, and all the rest of them consecrated by a competent number? As though the question had beene of the number of their consecrators, and not of the matter and forme of their conse­cration it selfe.

Acts pag. 1711.Secondlie M. Fox saith, because that Ridley, Hooper, and Ferrare were not able to make euen with Bishop Firsher, it seemed that Cranmer should be ioyned to them to fill vp the equalitie. But if they had bene in M. Foxes opinion true Bishops as well as Cranmer, surely their deathes would in his conceipt haue equalled Bishop Fishers, or els Cranmers would not do it, in whom there was nothing more, then there was in them, excepting the true consecration of a Bishop. So that it appeareth euen by M. Foxes iudgment, that Ridley, and his fellowes were not esteemed true Bishops, as Cranmer was, and that not for any other defect, then for want of true consecration. And what iudgment the whole [Page 167] realme made of the ordinations in king Edwa [...]s reigne is eui­dent by this article of Qeene Marie recorded by Foxe. Item tou­ching such persons as were heertofore promoted to any orders after the new sort and fashion of orders: considering they were not ordered in very deede: Acts and monu. pag. 1295. the Bishop of the diocesse, finding otherwise sufficiency and abilitie in these men, may supplie that thing which wanted in them before, and then according to his discretion admitt them to minister. For albeit M. Mason would ga­ther out of these words: (may supply that thing which wanted in them before) that they had some part or peece of order by their new manner of ordination. Yet neither doth this serue him to any purpose for the iustification of their calling, nor yet can it stand with these plaine words of the article: considering they were not or­dered in very deed: for the plaine meaning of the article is that those who had no orders, but such as they had receiued by the new fashion, should (being found fit) be ordered: but such as had receiued some orders before as of Subdeacon or Deacon, and the rest only after the new fashion should haue that they wanted, supplied by their Catholique ordinarie.

Thirdly it is recorded in bookes of lawe cases, that the leases made by the Bishops consec [...]ted in king Edwards time, though confirmed by the Deane an [...] chapter, were not esteemed auaila­ble, and the reason is giuen, because those Bishops were neuer truly consecrated, and consequentlie neuer true Bishops. The iudges words are these. Dicitur, Brooks nou [...]ll cases Placito 463. fol. 101 printed the yeare 1604. by Tho: wight with priui­ledge. que Euesques in tempore Ed. 6. ne fue­ront sacres & ideo ne fueront Euesques, & ideo lease pur ans, per tiels & con­ferinde per le Deane & Chapter, ne liera le successeur, car tiels ne vnques fue­ront Euesques contra de Euesques depriue que fuit Euesques in fait tem­pore dimissionis, & confirmation fait. viz: per le Deanne & chapter: which in English word for word is this. It is said that Bishops in K. Edward the sixth his daies were not consecrated, and therfore were not Bishops, and therfore a lease for yeares made by them, and confir­med by the Deane and Chapter, shall not bind the successour, for such were ne­uer Bishops. Contrariwise of a Bishop depriued which was Bishop in fact at the time of the letting and confirmation made by the Deane, and Chapter. And in the margent. Leas per Euesques nient sacres & per Euesques de­priues diuersitie. That is; Diuersitie of leases made by Bishops not consecra­ted, and Bishops depriued. So that it appeareth by the iudgment aswell of the ciuill, as Ecclesiasticall Magistrates, that the su­perintendents of King Edwards time were no true Bishops for [Page 168] want of true consecration yea M. Ridley himself (pretended Bishop of London) sueing vnto Q. Marie (as Fox relateth) that the leases made by him, during the time of his vsurpation of that see, might stand good, doth euidentlie shew, that he either esteemed himselfe, or at least know that others esteemed him not true, or lawfull Bishop. For otherwise he would not haue supplicated for that as a grace and fauour, but would haue de­maunded it as a thing due by right and iustice. Before I pro­ceede any farther, I will aduertise thee (heedfull reader) that albeit the arguments following are directly against the conse­cration of the Bishops in Q. Elizabeths time, yet haue they the same force against those of King Edwards time, for they were al ordered af [...]er the same manner, as is euident by the statute of the 8. of Elizabeth, which shalbe set downe by and by, which I would haue to be borne in mind, that it may not be needfull to repeate the same things hereafter, when we sh [...]ll come to speake of the Bishops made in herre time.

8. My fourth argument therfore, proouing all these pre­tended Bishops to haue bene no true and lawfull Bishops, euen by the iudgment of the Protestants thēselues is drawne frō that notorious, and publique case of Bishop Bōner, which was this.

Bishop Bonner being prisoner in the Marshalsae was con­uented by M. Horne, called then Bishop of Winchester, and lodging at that tyme in Winchester house by the clinke, who tendered to him the oath of supremacie, which Bishop Bonner refusing, his refusall was certified to the Kings bench, and ther­vpon an inditement was drawne against him vpon the statute. He was called for, and appeared before the iudges of the Kings bench. The inditement being reade he denied not the fact, but desired to haue councell assigned him, Iudge Catline chiefe Iu­stice granted his request, and assigned him M. Plowdon, M. Wray, and M. Louelaise, who at the pleading of the case ex­cepted against the inditement. First, because he was indited by the name of Edmond Bonner without the title of Bishop, he being at that present lawfull Bishop of London, and therfore the inditment insufficient. Secondly, because the oath was said to haue bene tendered vnto him by Robert Horne Bishop of Winchester, who was by no law Bishop, and therfore had no authoritie to tender him the oath. These points were first [Page 169] argued at the barre by the Bishops councell, and after by all the iudges at Sargeants Inne in Fleetstreete, in Iudge Catline, the chiefe Iustice his chamber, where, after much debate as Iudge Pyer reporteth it was resolued by all the iudges,Abrigment of Diers reports 7. Eliza. 234. that Bi­shop Bonner his plea vpon this issue; that he was not culpable because Horne was no Bishop when he tendered him the oath, should be receiued: and that the iury should try it: nowe what the triall was, appeareth by that he was not condemned nor euer troubled any farther for that case: thaugh he was a man specially shot at. Hereupon in the next parlement, which was holden the yeare folowing to wit the 8. yeare of Elizabeth (and this may be another argument, for profe of the nullitie of these new superintendents) this act was made.

9. Such forme and order, for the consecrting of Archbishops, Bishops, Poulton in his kalender pag. 141. n. 5. Preists &c. as was set forth in the time of King Edward the sixth shall stand, and be in full force and effect, and all acts and things hertofore had, made, or done by any person, or persons in or about any consecration, confirmation, or inuesting of any person, or persons, elected to the office or dignity of Archbish­op, Bishop, — by vertue of the Queenes letters patents, or commission, sithence, the beginning of her raigne, be and shalbe by authority of this parle­ment declared and iudged — good and perfect in all respects, and purpo­ses: any matter or thing that can or may be obiected to the contrary therof in any wise, notwithstanding. And all persons that haue bene or shalbe made, orde­red or, consecrated Archbishops, Bishops, Priests after the forme and order pres­cribed, in the same forme and order, be in very deede and also by authority he­reof declared, and enacted to be, and shalbe Archbishops, Bishops, Priests &c. and rightly made, ordered and consecrated any Statute, Law, Canon, or other thing to the contrary notwithstanding 8. Eliza. 1.Poulton ibidem. This statute doth argue that the for­mer statute of the 8, of Eliza. did not wholly warrāt these newe Bish­ops for if it hadd, this would haue bene super­fluous.

In the 39. yeare of Elizabeth, there were also two other sta­tutes made, the one for the ratifying, and making good in law the depositions, and depriuations of Archbishops, Bishops, and Deanes, from the beginning of her raigne till the tenth day of November in the 4. yeare of the same: and thother for the rati­fying, and making good in law the placing of other Archbish­ops, Bishops, and Deanes, in the roomes of the deposed with in the compasse of the same time, no ambiguitie or question either hertofore made, or hereaftet to be made, to the contrarie not­withstanding.

By all which it is manifest, that the Bishops ordained aswell [Page 170] in King Edwards time, as in Q. Elizabeths, were not otherwaies Bishops, but by act of parlement, for before these acts, they were iudged by the fathers of the law to be no Bishops, as we haue already seene.

10. M. Mason peraduenture will vnty vs this knot, let vs heare what he saith.Lib. 3 de schismate Mason pag. 121. He maketh to himselfe this obiection out of Sanders. They (Mathew Parker with his fellowes) being desti­tute of all lawfull ordination, when they were commonly said, and prooued by the lawes of England to be no Bishops, they were constrained to craue the assistance of the secular power that they might receiue the confirmation of the lay Magistrate in the next parlement, by authority wherof if any thing were done amisse, and not according to the prescript of the law, or omitted and left vndone in the former inauguration, it might be pardoned them: And that, after they had enioied the Episcopall office, and chaire certaine yeares without any Episcopall consecration. Hence it was that they were called Parlement Bishops. Hereunto M. Mason frameth this answere.

Pag. 122. The Parlement mentioned was in the 8. yeare of Q. [...]lizabeth, wherin first they reprooue the ouermuch boldnes of some, which slandered the estate of the cleargy, by calling into question, whether their making, and consecrating were according to the lawe.

Well then their consecration was questionable, and doubtfull, and therfore (though there had bene no other cause) to be re­iected. For what wisdome could it be after 1500. yeares to bring into the world, a new manner of ordination of Pastors, and that doubtfull whether it be sufficient or no, and to leaue of that, which no man euer doubted of? But farther it was not only called into question, but as it appeareth before, prooued to be none at all.

Mason ibi­dem. Secondly, they touch such lawes as concerne the point, declaring that euery thing requisite and materiall, was done as precisely in her Maiesties time, as euer before.

But what lawes were these? Certainly they could be none other thē those made in Ed. the 6. his raigne. For if any other be ment, both the parlement, and M. Mason should avouch a mani­fest vntruth, saying, that euery thing requisite and materiall, was done as precisely in her maiesties time, as euer before: seeing there was nothing obserued of the auncient forme, and manner, which before K. Edwards time was not altered. The lawes therfore here mentioned must necessarily be those of K. Edward. But the [Page 171] questiō in the parlement of the 8. of Elizabeth being, as yet it is, of the validitie, and sufficiēcy of that forme of ordinatiō deuised in K. Edwards time, it doth no way appeare, how either the par­lemēt thē did, or M. Masō now doth shew it to be sufficiēt, but onlie by force of that act, wherof we now speake: which not­withstāding (as M. Mason supposeth) giueth no force, nor valour to their cōsecration, nor maketh it good, but supposeth it to be good of it selfe; so that betwixt both these acts of parlement, I meane that of K. Edward, and tother of Q. Elizabeth, their new manner of consecration remaineth as sufficient as euer.

Thirdlie, they confirme againe the booke of common praier, [...] Mason. with the for [...] therunto annexed, enacting that all persons, that then had bene, or hereafter should be made, ordered, or consecrated Archbishops, Bishops, Priests &c. after the forme and order herein prescribed, were by authoritie therof declared, and enacted to be Archbishops, Bishops, and Priests &c. rightlie made, ordered, and consecrated, anie Statute, Law, Canon, or other thing to the contrarie not­withstanding. Wherby it is euident, that the parlement did not make them Bi­shops, but being in rerie deed true Bishops by lawfull consecration, that honora­ble court did declare, and enact them so to be. But what saie the Papists to all this? when they cannot infringe their consecration, for a poore reuenge they call our religion parlement religion, and our Bishops parlement Bishops.

If they had bene in verie deede true Bishops by lawfull con­secration, this act of parlement (being onlie to declare that to be good and lawfull, which in it selfe was such, and which the prince, and parlement had power to maintaine as such, by ordi­nary course of law without any new act) should haue bene who­ly superfluous (a thing not to be admitted in actes of parlemēt) for no act was euer made onlie to declare that good and lawfull, which was knowne or holden to be so before by the learned councell of the land.

Secondlie these words of the statute. All persons that haue bene, or shalbe made, ordered, or consecrated Archbishops, Bishops &c, after the forme prescribed in the said order (of Edward the 6.) be in verie deede, and also by authoritie hereof declared, and enacted to be, and shalbe Archbishops, Bishops &c. and rightlie made, ordered, and consecrated, anie Statute, Law, Canon, or other thing to the contrarie notwithstanding. These words, I saie, do clearelie shew, that this act doth not onlie declare these ordi­nations to be good (which yet is more then it can do, being but the decree of a temporall court) but doth enact, and if it [Page 172] could) make them good, and that so peremptorilie, that no law neither deuine nor humane (for so much do importe these words, Statute, Law, Canon, or other thing) can withstand it. A peereles power I wisse, and such as was neuer heard o [...] befo­re in any Christian common wealth: yet such an one, as is alto­gether necessarie to make the aforesaid ordinations good. For if the power of the parlement be not aboue the power both of the whole church, and of God himselfe, these ordinations war­ranted neither by Gods word, nor the practise of the church for 1500. Yeares and more, must necessarilie be none at all; and therfore with verie good reason are their Bishops called parle­ment Bishops, seeing their manner of ordination was first institu­ted by act of parlement and since the ordination it selfe, hath receiued the force of true ordination, by act of parlement, which it had not before. For if we should take awaie the statute of the 5. and 6. yeare of Edward the 6. establishing the new for­me of ordering Bishops, deuised by the six prelates, and other six learned in Gods law, as we haue seene before; and this sta­tute of the 8. of Elizabeth, I marueile whence M. Mason would deriue their ordination, and by what authoritie he would main­taine it to be good and Canonicall. Certainlie by none either in heauen, or in earth. Yea if their owne Iudges, professours of their owne new religion, supported by the countenance and fauour of the Queene her selfe, and whole state, could not by law maintaine their new ordination from nullitie in their owne courts, but that it was euicted against them, as appeareth by the case of B. Bonner set downe before (whervpon was made this peremptorie, and beyond all measure presumptuous all of the 8. of Elizabeth) who can deny, but if we take awaie this act, their ordination will remaine none, and consequentlie their Bishops no Bishops, and therfore if they now be Bishops, they must necessarilie be parlement Bishops.

11. M. Mason not finding anie colourable answere herevnto, notwithstanding the flant of words, which we haue seene befo­re, would willinglie retort the same inconuenience vpon Ca­tholiques in this wise. Might not we saie as well that in Queene Maries time, you had a parlement masse, and a parlement Pope? But I appeale to his owne iudgment (though I know him blindlie partiall in his owne cause) whether there be the like comparison betweene [Page 173] the Masse, or the Popes authoritie, and the parlemēt in Q. Ma­ries time, that there is betweene the forme, or manner of con­secrating Bishops, deuised and authorised (I vse the words of the sta­tute) in K. Edw. and Q. Elizab. time? If he saie yea, he shall for­faict his iudgmēt for euer. For who knoweth not, that the Mas­se, and the Popes authoritie were not onlie in England, but all the world ouer, many hundreth yeares before Q. Maries raigne? which cannot be said of their new forme of ordaining Bishops. For [...] Q. Marie did not enact by parlement, that the Masse should be a true Masse, and the Popes authoritie a true authori­tie, what law, or other thing to the contrarie notwithstanding, as this act of Q Elizabeth saith of the new superintendents and of their manner of consecration: But her act was to authorise the free vse, and frequentatiō of the Masse, with the acknow­ledgment of the Popes authoritie in her kingdome, which all her roiall progenitors, and predecessors had frequented, and acknowledged, since Ethelbert the first Christian king of our countrie togeather with all other kings, and Princes in the Christiā world. So that neither the Masse, nor the Popes autho­ritie depend otherwaies of the parlement, then that it may be free for euerie subiect of the king of England, to acknowledge both thone and thother, without incurring the penaltie of the temporall lawes. And therfore though the free vse of them may be taken awaie, by vniust and vnlawfull act of parlement, as we see practised, yet can neither thone nor thother be made none by act of parlement, as it would fall out with their superinten­dents, add the manner of their consecration, if those acts we­re taken awaie, wherby they are deuised and authorised. And the reason hereof is manifest. For neither the Masse, nor the Popes authoritie haue their beginning and institution by act of parlement, as the ordinations of our new superintendents ha­ue, and therfore can they not be made frustrate, and of no va­lue by anie power of the same, as these may be. Whence it is manifest that by verie good reason, the pretended Bishops of England are called parlement Bishops, and consequentlie no Bi­shops at all, because the parlement cannot haue anie power to make Bishops: and that without all reason, or shew of reason, the Masse is said to be a parlement mase. But let vs goe for word. 12. Sixtlie, the nullitie of this new manner of consecration [Page 174] is prooued by an obiection, which M▪ Mason bringeth against himself, and answeareth it not. The obiection he proposeth thus.

If their consecrations were found (he speaketh of D. Parker and his fellowes consecrated in the 2. and 3. yeare of Q. Elizabeth as he saith) Why did the Queene in her letters patents, Pag. 132. directed for the consecrating of them vse diuers generall words and sentences, wherby she dispensed with all causes, or doubts of anie imperfection, or dishabilitie, that could or might be obiected in anie wise against the same, as may appeare by an 8. Eliz. ca. 1 [...] act of par­lement, referring vs to the said letters patents remaining vpon recorde.

M. Mason finding no sufficient answere to this obiection (though not pressed so farr, as if he had set downe these letters patēts, peraduenture he might be) recurreth to the depth of her Maiesties designes, and hideth himself there, as in a Sanctuarie: Whither he thinketh no mā dareth aproach to giue him the pur­suite, and thence as from a sure hold he deliuereth his coniectu­re in these words.

She might entertaine some reason in her Roiall brest, which you and I, and such shallow heads are not able to conceiue: But if I might presume to giue my coniecture, I suppose she did it ad maiorem caute­lam: for there wanted not malicious Papists, which would prie into the state of the cleargie, and obserue the least imperfection that could be, whervpon to preuent their slaunders, and to stopp the mouthes of malice, that gratious Queene was not onlie carefull, that euerie thing requisite, and materiall, should be made, and done as preciselie as euer before, but also to the end that all men might be satisfied, that all doubt, scruple, and ambiguitie might be taken awaie, and that there should not the least spot of suspition cleaue vnto her cleargie, it pleased her maiestie (if peraduenture quicke sighted malice could find anie quicke, or quidditie against them, by colour of anie Canon or Statute) gratiouslie to dispense with it: which doth not argue anie vn­soundnes in their consecrations, but the Godly care, and prouidence of a re­ligious prince.

But M. Masons coniecture commeth farre short, of the diffi­cultie contained in the obiection. For either there was some true, and reall defect in these mens consecrations, or no. If none it was verie impertinentlie, and imprudentlie done (which, in publique acts of princes, and parlements is not to be admitted) [Page 175] to dispense with all causes, or doubts of any imperfection, or dishability, This power of dispenseng with all cau­s [...]s &c. doth not aggree with their doctrin of the only exter­nall coerci­tiue iurisdi­ction of the Prince ouer the church: see the last cap. that could, or might be obiected against the same. For the Prince and parle­ment hauing more then sufficient power, to depend and main­taine that which is well decreed, from all friuolous surmises of any aduersaries, especially their subiects all dispensations in such cases, are not only superfluous, but also pernitious, as opening the way to all cauils against euery decree of the Prince, and par­lement. If there were any true, and reall defect in their conse­crations (as the former argument euidently concludeth) the Queene hauing no power to dispence therwith, it must neces­sarilie still remaine, and consequentlie their consecration shall alwaies be defectiue, and insufficient. Or if it be pretended, that the Queene had any such power, Let some ground therof be produced, if not out of scripture (which yet we might iustly exact, seeing they protest to beleeue nothing but that, which is prooued by scripture) yet out of some councell, auncient fa­ther, or at least the president of some one approued fact, within the compasse of 1500. yeares. But if no such ground of this power can be produced, as most certainlie it cannot, what man of sense can thinke this dispensation to be of any force? M. Mason with the rest of his brethren thinke it ouermuch to graunt this power to the successour of S. Peter, to whom our Sauiour said: whatsoeuer thou shalt loose in earth, Math. 16. shalbe loosed in heauen; and all Catholique Diuines deny him to haue any such power, in the case we heere speake of, which is, of the mat­ter, and forme of holy order. How therfore can they thinke if due to the Queene of England, who if she would haue beene a Christian, must haue beene a sheepe of his fold, to whom the Sauiour of all our soules gaue the charge of feeding his sheepe? This dispensation therfore is so farre from satisfying all men, Ioh. 21. or taking away all doubt, scruple, or ambiguitie in these new consecrations, that it maketh the matter more doubtfull. For no man that doubted either of the power of King Edward to deuise, and institute a new forme, and manner of consecrating Bish­ops, and Preists, neuer knowne before in the church of Christ, or of the valore, and goodnes of the forme it selfe, but must necessarilie doubt of the power of Queene Elizabeth, by any dispensation to ratifie, and make good the same. Neither was it only the malitious Papists [Page 176] (as it pleaseth M. Mason to tearme them) that obserued this im­perfection in these new superintendents, but the Protestant iudges of the realme (as we haue seene before) which whilest the new statists laboured to couer by act of parlement (for they could not be of so weake iudgment, as to thinke by that mea­nes to take it away) it is made more euident to all the world, no man being so deuoide of sense or vnderstanding, as to dreame only, that the Queene could by any power she had, make those ordinations good and sufficient, which of themselues were not such.

Pag, 133.13. M. Mason seeing this to be ouercleare to be denied, la­boureth to shadow it at least in some sort, saying: that the Quee [...] did but dispense with the trespasses againg her owne lawes, not in essentiall points of ordination, but only in accidentall: not in substance, but in circum­stance. Neither did she giue leaue to make any voluntary violation of the law, but only dispensed, with such omission, as temporis ratione, & rerum ne­ccssitate id postulante. necessity it selfe should require, as may appeare by the letters Patents. And it pleased the almighty so to dispose, that all things were performed in most exquisite manner: yet the Papists (such was their hatred against the cleargy) did blaze abroad the con­trary. Wherupon the high court of Parlement, assembled in the 8. yeare of that famous Queene, hauing deepely considered and pondered all things, pronounced, that their speeches were slaunderous, not grounded vpon any iust matter, or cause. For Gods name be blessed, all things were done honestly and in order, euen from her first comming to the crowne.

What any man could say more in this matter I see not, and therfore in mine opinion M. Mason deserueth well his fee. Yet all he saith serueth to little purpose, for the iustification of these new superintendents, as will appeare in the particulers. Th [...] Queene (saith he) dispensed with the trespasses against her owne lawes. He should haue specified the lawes that it might ap­peare, he plaid not voluntary, and without ground, willing only to shuffle of the matter. But there appeare no such lawes made by her (before this dispense was graunted, which was in the second yeare of her raigne) with the transgressions wherof she might dispense, and therfore must she be thought to haue intended, to dispense with the trespasses of other lawes either of God, or his church, or both, wherwith she could no more dispense then any of her subiects can dispense with her lawes▪ [Page 177] For all parlement lawes, which might make against this new promotion, she repealed in her first parlement, and therfore could not dispense therwith. She dispensed (saith he) not in essentiall points of ordination, but only in accidentall: not in substance. but in cir­cumstance.

Fopperie, mere fopperie; these words of the latters patents clearelie conuince the contrarie: we dispense with all causes or doubts, of any imperfection or disability, that can or may bee obiected in any wise against the same.

Secondlie M. Mason saying, that the wisdome of their church dis­creetly, and religiously pared away all superfluous, Pap. 11. and 94. and superstitious ceremo­nies in ordination; there appeareth no neede of any dispensation in the accidentall circumstances. For it is not to be thought, that the Queene would dispense with those, which the wisdome of their church retaineth as good, and lawfull.

That which he addeth: the Queene gaue not loaue to make any vo­luntary violation of the lawe: but only dispensed with such omission, as ne­cessity it selfe would require: is neither warily, nor truly said. For no dispensation is a leaue to violate the lawe, but a suspension of the obligation therof, that it cannot be violated by doing of that, which the law forbiddeth. It is also vnwarily said of him. For what necessitie could driue them to omit any thing requi­site, to the accustomed manner of ordination, excepting only the want of true Bishops, that would consecrate the newly de­signed and elected Superintendents? Surely no probable appea­raunce of other necessitie can be alleaged, and therfore M. Ma­son laboring to iustifie this dispensation vnwarily discouereth an essentiall defect in the same, and in steed of making vp the breach, which appeareth in their vocation, doth (contrary to his name) make it greater. But of this point of the want of true Bishops, that might consecrate these new men, we shall speake of D. Parkers ordination. But before I come to that point: I will here add one other argument more to prooue the nullitie of this new ministerie.

14. In this sort. M. Iewell one of the first promoted (or truer) intruded Intendents in Q. Elizabeths time, the most forward, and peraduenture the best able of all the troupe to maintaine his owne and his fellowes ordination did not, nor durst not in his life time deny the nullitie therof, but by his [Page 178] silent dissimulation of his aduersaries more pressing arguments, did rather graunt the same. Therfore it is more then probable in any prudent mans iudgment, that their calling is not iustifia­ble in it selfe and that for want of true consecration. But that the reader may make a more perfect iudgment, of the force of this argument, I will here set downe the dispute betweene D. Harding and M. Iewell vpon this point.

Doctor Harding expostulateth with M. Iewell, and demaun­deth of him, how he came to be Bishop in this sort. Therfore to goe from your succession which Harding cō ­futation of the Apologie fol 57. 58. M. Iewell could not prooue their succession: how therfore is it like M. Mason can do it. Marke well these dema­unds, and the answere thervnto. ye cannot prooue and to come to your voca­tion, how say you sir? You beare your selfe, as though you were Bishop of Salis­bury. But how can you prooue your vocation? By what authori [...]y vsurpe you the administration of doctrine, and sacraments? what can you alleage for the right and proofe of your ministery? who hath laid hands on you? By what example hath he done it? how and by whom are you consecrated? who hath sent you? who hath committed to you the office you take vpon you? Be you a Priest, or be you not? If you be not how dare you vsurpe the name, and office of a Bishop? If you be, tell vs who gaue you orders? The institution of a Priest was neuer yet but in the power of a Bishop. Bishops haue alwaies after the Apoctles time, according to the Ecclesiasticall Canons, bene conse­crated by three other Bishops, with the consent of the Metropolitane, and confirmation of the Bishop of Rome. Thus vnity hath hither to bene kept, Lib. 1. epist. 6 thus schismes haue bene staid, and this S. Ciprian calleth le­gitimam ordinationem, for lacke of which he denied Nouatian to be a Bishop, or to haue any authority, or power in the church. Hereto neither you, nor your fellowes, who haue vnlawfully invaded the ad­ministration of the sacraments, can make any iust, ad right answere I am sure.

Athanas. Apolog. 2. VVhat, do ye not remember, what iudgment Athanasius, and the Bishops of Egipt, Thebais, Libia, and Pentapoli were of concerning Is [...]hyras the Arian? And why may not all good Catholique men iudge the like of you? Againe, what say you to Epiphanius, who writeth against one Za [...]cheus of his time, for that being but a lay man, with wicked presum­ption tooke vpon him, to handle the holy misteries, and rashly to do the office of a Preist.

To these pressing and vrging demaunds, M. Iewell ma­keth a very sleight and sly answere, wherin though all that which he saith were true, yet it is farre short of the marke, which he should haue touched; but being [Page 179] vtterlie false, as will appeare by D. Hardings reply, doth euidently shew his calling not to be iustifiable: his answere is this.

D. Harding hauing replied this, and much more vpon M. Iewells sleight answere to his former demaunds: how doth M. Iewell reioine vnto him thinke you? Marie with pro­found silence, deeply dissembling this whole replie, as though it had bene neuer written, albeit he would haue the world beleeue, that he hath fully answered in sub­stance at least the whole booke, wherin these things are contained. Now whether the true reason of this dissem­bling silence be not the want of all probable meanes, to answere with satisfaction, let the discreete reader iudge. But seeing he is so mute in this point, let vs see, what he answereth to the rest of D. Hardings demaunds before related.

To all this M. Iewell answereth with silēce as before, hauing nothing to reply with shew of truth: but to the rest of D. Har­dings demaunds he answereth in this sort.

15. All this sharpe reply affirming so directly M. Parker not to haue beene consecrated, wherby the consecrations of all the rest are necessarily prooued to be none, M. Ie­well (finding nothing to answere therevnto) dissembleth, as he doth the former, excepting these words only. In the old forme after the election, notice was giuen to the Bishop of Rome, and to all the Bishops in the church, that such a man was lawfully chosen in the church, and not schimastically &c. But so ye were not made Bishops. If ye were shew vs, to what Bishops out of England ye wrote any such letters. Whervnto though his answere be as impertinent, as his dissembling the [Page 184] rest is euident: yet because it pertaineth not much to our presēt purpose speaking here of consecration onlie, and not of those things, which goe before, or follow the same, I will not abuse so farre (good reader) thy patience, as to stand either to refute, or relate it, but will in briefe giue thee to vnderstand, the two­fold reason, for which I haue set downe here at large this dispu­te betwixt M. Iewell, and M. Harding.

First, that the heedfull reader, be he Catholique, or Protestāt may clearelie see, how M. Iewell himself, (the cheeftaine of all our new maisters in England, and haueing part in the matter being one of the Bishops about whose consecration the con­trouersie is, and therfore knew well how it was performed, and neither wanting witt, nor will to maintaine it, if it had be­ne to be maintained) is by strength of argument forced to yeeld the bucklers to his aduersarie, and to confesse the nullitie of his owne and his fellowes consecration, not by expresse acknow­ledgment of the truth, for that his hereticall pride, and obstina­te errour would not permit him to do, but by his deepe dissem­bling of his aduersaries arguments, whervnto because he could not answere, he let them passe in silence, as if they had not be­ne obiected against him at all, And this is speciallie to be ob­serued, in the obiection of M. Parkers consecration, wher­vpon the consecrations of all the rest do necessarilie depend, whom doubtles he either knew, not to be consecrated at all (vnles it were done at the nagges head, after the manner that is and hath hitherto bene verie crediblie reported) or els in such other sort as being specified would haue giuen his aduersarie (whom he knew was not altogether ignorant how that matter passed) greater aduantage against him. For thou maist be well assured (good reader) that M. Iewell vndertaking to answere this booke of D. Hardings, if he could haue shaped but anie shifting answere, to those pressing points of his owne, and his fellowes calling M. Harding should haue heard from him on both eares. Iudge thou therfore of what creditt M. Masons re­cords are, seeing that M. Iewell who was Bishop himselfe, and (without doing M. Mason anie iote of wrong) better able to haue maintained his calling, and consecration then he, and being vrged vnto it in such sort, as we haue seene, is driuen into such an absolute non plus about the same, that he hath not one [Page 185] wise word to saie in his owne iustification. Surelie it must needs be, that either these records were not then coined, or if they were, yet were they of small force, for the iustification of the new manner of ordination. For no man of ordinarie sense can thinke, that either M. Iewell knew them not at all, or know­ing them did not vnderstand, of what force they were, for the iustifying of his owne calling, supposing they were of anie at all.

Secondlie, I haue related this dispute at large, that the reader, who hath not the meanes to reade Harding, in his owne boo­kes, but onelie as M. Iewell relateth his words, may see, how easilie he may be deceiued therin. For as in this particuler point, so in all others he leaueth out that, which doth most presse; and relateth onlie those things, whervnto he thinketh he may ma­ke some such shufling answere, that he may be by the more i­gnorant sort esteemed, to haue satisfied his aduersarie. And this I would all men, that reade him, should take notice of, whe­ther they be Protestants, or otherwaies: For hardlies hall a mā find a more colouring, and lesse solide or substantiall aduersa­rie of Catholique religion, then is M. Iewell, being read with attention.

16. And to conclude this chapter it is farther to be obser­ued, that nor D. Harding onlie, but all or most of the Catholi­que writers of our owne countrie (to saie nothing of stran­gers) hauing in expresse words, obiected to the new superin­tendents, intruded into Bishopricks in the beginning of Q. Elizabeths raigne, the nullitie of their calling, and consecra­tion, did neuer by any either of themselues, who should best haue knowne the records, or by anie other in their behalfe, heare of anie such records, or registers, M. Mason now after 50. yeares would obtrude vpon vs, as authenticall testimonies of their Canonicall consecration. What therfore can any man of indifferent iudgment thinke in this case, but that either these records, which M. Mason now produceth,From the pa­ge 126. to the page 142. were not then ex­tant, or if they were, that they are not such as can make any probable, much lesse authenticall proofe of these mens Canoni­call consecration. For if they had bene in those daies, and also were such, as might haue made sufficient proofe of the matter in question, how is it possible, that they should not be produced [Page 186] before now? the parties themselues, whom it specially beh [...] ­ued to make proofe of their owne Canonicall calling being so often, and earnestlie vrged therevnto by their aduersa­ries, triumphing ouer them for want of due proofe ther­of.

Pag. 8.M. Mason relateth some of the sayings of our Catholique writers, that obiect the nullity of the English new ministery, which I will here set downe, and add one or two more vnto them; that the reader may therby iudge, how vnprobable it is, that M. Masons new found records should beare any creditt for the proofe of that, for which he produceth them.

Motiue 21. Consider (saith D. Bristow) what church that is, whose ministers are but very lay men, vnsent, vncalled, vnconsecrated, holding therfo­re amongst vs, when they repent and returne, no other place but of lay men, in no case admitted, no nor looking to minister in any office, vnles they take orders, which before they had not?

D. Sanders: The new cleargy in England is composed partly of our Apo­stataes, De Schismate lib. 3. pag. 299. partly of mere lay-men. And in the dedication of his rocke of the church, he stilleth M. Parker, to whom he dedicateth that booke, no otherwaies then M. D. Parker bearing the name of Archbi­shop of Canterbury.

Reason 7 M. Howelt: that either all, or the most part of the ministers in England, be merely laymen, and no priests, and consequently haue no authority in these things it is euident.

Rhoms testa­ment Rom. 10.15. All your new Euangelists, which haue intruded themselues into church and pulpit, be euery one from the highest to the lowest false prophets, running and vsurping, being neuer lawfully called.

Note that M. Fulke, who was ignorant of nothing in this point, that M. Mason can know, answering both Bristowes Motiues, and the notes vpon the new testament, to satis­fie their obiections of want of calling in the new ministery, de­nieth ordinary calling to be alwaies necessary, which despera­te shift he would neuer haue vsed, if he had bene prouided of so easie, and sufficient an answere, as M. Masons records would haue afforded him, if they had bene authenticall, and without flawe.

Caluino tur­cis: lib. 4. cap. 15.M. Reinolds: there is no heardman in all Turkie, which doth not vn­dertake the gouernement of his heard vpon better reason, and greater right, [Page 187] order, and authority, then these your magnificent Apostles, and Euan­gelists can shew, for this deuine and high office of gouerning soules, reforming churches &c.

D. Stapleton in his counterblast printed welneere fifty yeares agoe, against M. Horne, thē vsurping the Bishops see of Winche­ster hath these vrging speeches.Counterblast fol. 7. To say truly you are no lord Winchester nor elswhere, but only M. Robert Horne. Is Ibid. fol. 9. it not notorious, that ye and your Collegues were not ordained according to the prescripe, I will not say of the church, but euen of the very statutes? How then can you chalenge to your self, the name of the lord Bishop of Winche­ster?

You are without any consecration at all of your metropolitane, Fol. 301. himself poore man being no Bishop neither.

These speeches (which are no where answered) I do not re­late, for that I intend to conclude any other thing out of them, then that in the iudgment of any sensible person, it cannot be probable, that when these things were written, there were extant any such records, as being produced might make any thing for the iustification of our new superintendentes Canonicall consecration. For if there had bene any such, doubtles they could not haue bene vnknowne to M. Parker, who should haue bene the author of them, as bearing the na­me of metropolitane: not to M. Horne, and M. Iewell (to omit the rest) who should haue subscribed thervnto, as the parties whose consecrations were recorded: and being not vnknowne, there is lesse probability, that they should be so concealed by them, that notwithstanding the nullity of consecration, so oftē obiected against thē, by their Catholike aduersaries, they should not once mention hem.

It is also to be obserued that M. Masōs registers disagree with those that M. Goodwin vsed in his catalogue of Bishops some time in the day, some time in the moneth, and some time in the yeare, as is manifest in the cōsecratiōs of Doynet, Ridley, Couer­dall, Grindall, Horne, Gueast, Piers: Which necessarily prooueth falsity in the one at least, with suspition of forgery in both.

Againe M. Mason, M. Sutcliffe, and M. Butler, all speaking of M. Parkers consecration do all differ one from another in naming his cōsecrators. For M. Mason saith it was done by Bar­low. Scorie, Couerdall and Hodgekins. M. Sutcliffe saith besides [Page 188] the tree first named by M. Mason there were two suffragans as the act of consecration yet to be seene (saith he) mentioneth. Pag. 127. Sute: against kell: pag. 5. But: defence of their mis­sion. M. Butler saith the suffragan of Douer was one of the consecrators, who notwith­standing is not so much as named in the Queenes patēts, wher­by commission was giuen to the named therin to consecrate M. Parker. So that these men seeme to haue had three diuers and disagreeing registers of one and the same actiō and therfore the credit of euery one of them is made at least doubtfull.

The fourteenth Chapter. That M. Parker bearing some time the name of Archbishops of Canterburie, was not true and lawfull Bishops.

1. ALl the defects, and inhabilities either of heresie, or want of true consecration, which in the pre­cedent chapters are shewed to haue bene in Cranmer, and the Bishops aswell of K Edwards as Q. Elizabeth time, being without all cōtrouersie in M. Parker, it shall not be needfull to say anie more of them; yet because the succession of the present English ministery is deriued from him, as from the fountaine, I thinke it not amisse, to note some particuler circumstances of his consecration, which to anie in­different iudgment may shew the nullity therof, and consequē ­tly of all those that are deriued from it. For the fountaine being infected, the streames, that flowe from it, vnles they be purged, must necessarily be impure and noisome.

These circumstances, which I intend to note, are for the most part taken out of M. Masons owne relations, and therfore must needs be free, from all suspition of sinister, or partiall dealing in me.

First therfore M. Mason relateth out of the life of M. Parker this Singuler priuiledge, Pag. 131. or (as it is tearmed) felicity; that being the 70. Arch­bishop after Augustin, yet of all that number he was the only man, and the first of all that receiued consecration without the Popes bulls, and superfluo [...] Aaronicall ornaments, as Gloues, Rings, Sandals, Slippers, Miter, Pall, and such like trifles, making an happie beginning (more rightly, and more agreable [Page 189] to the simplicity, and parity of the Ghospell) with praier, Marke that the Protestāt ministtry be­gā but in M. Parker, and therfore was not afore. inuocation of the holy Ghost, imposition of hands, and religious promises.

What in anie sober iudgment can he said more directly, for the reproofe and disallowance of any mans ordination? M. Par­ker is confessed to be the first man of threescore and ten, that descending, and succeding one to another in the see of Canter­burie, for the space almost of a thousand yeares, that was conse­crated without the Popes bulls &c. Who therfore would not say, that he was the first man that was intruded into that see without all order, or Canonicall consecration? He is also confessed to be the first, that began the new order of consecration, who can therfore doubt, but that his consecration is not of Christs in­stitution, descending vnto him by succession from the Apo­stles, but a new inuention of man neuer heard of befo­re?

If M. Parker were not consecrated Archbishop, after the sa­me manner that S. Austin was, who brought vnto our nation, now a thousand yeares agoe the doctrine of Christ (as cōfessedly he was not) what man of sense and reason will say, that his con­secration is good, and canonicall?

Surely there is no more reason to say this, then to say that he should be rightly Baptized, that should receiue another manner of baptisme, then that which S. Augustin brought vnto vs, and practized. If therfore we retaine the baptisme which he brought vnto vs, as the only true baptisme instituted by Christ, and preached by his Apostles through the whole world; why should not we also retaine the orders, and manner of consecration of priests, and Bishops taught by him?

Who hath eies and seeth not, that to reiect the one, is but a step to cast the other away also, and so by certaine degrees to returne to our former paganisme, from which God conuerted vs, by the ministery, and cooperation of that holie man, and ser­uant of his S. Augustine.

2. I know that some haue bene so furious and frantique,Harrison in his descriptiō of Britannie, Aschā, Bale, and others haue the like. as to write that S. Augustin, in steed of conuerting vs from Paganisme to Christianity, brought vs from one superstition to another. But these men being possessed with his Spirit, that enuieth our conuersion, and therfore would draw vs backe to out former errours, and infidelity, speake not but as they haue [Page 190] learned of him; who, if they could be heard in this point, would quicklie say as much of the Apostles, yea and of our sauiour Christ himselfe. For that is the end aimed at by them, or at least by their maister, which because he is out of all hope to bring men vnto at the first iumpe, he laboureth to win them vnto it by degrees. And surely he hath much preuailed already in his purpose, seeing he hath found such instruments, as dare preach that he that conuerted vs first to Christ, brought vs into errour: oh senseles wretches!

Page 131.M. Mason saith: that M. Parker with the rest was made Bishop with imposition of hands, which is the only ceremony of ordination mentioned in the scripture: and which Bellarnime thinketh to be the matter essentiall. And for other ceremonies which are but inuentions of man, they cannot be inforced vpon vs, Farther then the wisdome of our church hold it con­uenient.

Acts. 13.3.It is false that the scripture mentioneth only imposition of hands in ordination: for it mentioneth also both fasting and praier; which are thone or both out of vse with our new mi­nistery. Neither is the imposition of hands mentioned in the scripture, a bare laying on of hands, without an expresse forme of words, as is before shewed out of S. Ambrose saying, that imposition of hands is mysticall wordes, Vpon the ac­tes, Cap. 13. wherwith the elect is confirmed to this worke, receiuing authority (his conscience bearing witnes) that he may be bold in our lords steed to offer sacrifice to God. But in the new forme of or­dination there is no such words vsed, as may giue authority to the ordained, to exercise any power of order. For these words. Receiue thou the holy ghost, which they only vse, are not such as is be­fore shewed.

And although Bellarmine say, that imposition of hands per­taineth to the essentiall matter of ordination, yet others doubt therof, (as is before mentioned out of M. Mason himselfe) in whose opinion (which cannot be denied but to be probable) our new ministery must needs want all essentiall matter of ordi­nation: But be it true, that imposition of hands pertaineth to the essentiall matter of ordination, as Bellarmine thinketh, and that most probably, yet doth neither he, nor any other Catho­lique author one escepted say, that it is the only or whole es­sentiall matter of ordination,De Sacram. ordinis Ca. 9. yea he teached expresly the con­trary, in the place cited by M. Mason, and therfore his doctrine [Page 191] serueth nothing at all, for the iustification of M. Parkers ordina­tion by sole imposition of hands.

And albeit the Catholique church doth not commaund (as necessary to the Sacrament) any ceremonies not pertaining to the substance of holy order, yet doth she iustly condemne the rashnes, and presumption of those, that of sett purpose, or contempt do omitt in ordination, any of those holy rites, which she hath receiued from her first Pastors, and hath religiously conserued vnto our daies, commaunding vs to vse the same: And Farther because amongst diuers words, and a­ctions which she hath alwaies vsed in ordination, it is not de­clared in which of them precisely, the substance, or essence of holy order consisteth, especially that of Episcopall order, ther­fore doth she vpon good reason, reiect that ordination as none at all; wherin are omitted either all, or the greatest part of those solemne words, and actions, which are knowne to ha­ue euer bene vsed, of which kind it is euident, and confessed here, M. Parkers ordination to haue bene. And therfore it is a notorious vntruth, that it was performed in such forme, Pag. 121. as is required by the ancient Canons, as M. Mason affirmeth, vnles by an­cient Canons he vnderstand the statutes, made of this matter in Edward the sixt his daies.

4. Secondly I gather out of M. Mason, that of the foure consecrators of M. Parker, there was neuer one of them true Bishop, vnles peraduenture it were Hodgekins the suffragan of Bedford: who (suppose he was truly consecrated himselfe, which is not certaine) yet could he not (euen in M. Masons do­ctrin) consecrate thother,Two Bb. pre­sent the party to be conse­crate [...] [...] the Archbis­hops or some for [...]him pro­nounteth the blessing as principall cō ­secrator. Saith M. Mason pa. 39. Page 127. Esdrae. 2. cap. 7.64. being only assistent in that a­ction, and not he that did consecrate, which (as M. Ma­son saith) was done by Barlow; who was neuer consecra­ted Bishop himselfe, as appeareth by that his consecra­tion is no where registred, and therfore is he no more to be numbred in the ranke of Bishops, then they were in the number of priests, who could not find themselues recorded in their linage.

M. Mason bringeth diuers coniectures of M. Barlowes con­secration, but not one haft proofe. He discharged (saith he) all things belonging to the order of a Bishop, euen Episcepall consecration: therfo­re [Page 192] doubtles was he consecrated. But by the like forme of argument might he be prooued to haue beene a lawfull husband, becau­se he had a Woman, and diuers children. Which kind of proo­fe how current soeuer it may be in M. Masons logicke, yet in it self it is ridiculous, as euidently supposing that for a truth, which is in question, and therby begging that which he should prooue. For vnles he first suppose, that M Barlow was con­secrated himselfe, which is the thing in question, to say that he did helpe to consecrate others, doth prooue nothing, vn­les he could farther prooue, or that it were graunted him, that M. Barlow neuer did any thing in that kind, but that he might lawfully doe, which I suppose M. Mason will not easilie vn­dertake to prooue.

Secondly, he was (saith he) generally acknowledged, and obeied as a Bishop. So I thinke he will not denie, but. Ridley, Hooper, Farrer, and the rest of their creation were, during the time they held the roomes of Bishops, and yet were they iudged, both by the Spirituall, and temporall court, as we haue seene before, not to haue bene consecrated, therfore this ar­gument prooueth nothing to the purpose but a popular er­rour, grounded vpon the vniust possession of a Bishopricke. And much lesse doth that prooue any thing, which he addeth, saying that Bucanan called him Bishop of S. Dauids. For it is no straunge thing, that he that hath a Bishopricke, should be called Bishop especially by a stranger, to whose testimony M. Mason recur­ring in this matter, doth shew that he is hard sett for proo­fes.

These are M. Masons coniectures of M. Barlowes consecra­tion, which, if the case should be brought into any indifferent court, would not I dare say suffice to prooue his consecration. For seing that no simple priest cā be beleeued, that he is a Priest, without the letters of his ordination (especially where there is doubt of his priesthood) much lesse ought a Bishop to be be­leeued to be a Bishop, without authenticall records of his or­dination.

And is there not therfore in all Bishops, and Archbishops sees, an office of register, where all the ordinations are recor­ded, to the end that euery one truly ordained may haue at all times authenticall constat [...], of his orders receiued? So that [Page 193] vnlesse the records perish by fire, or other extraordinary acci­dent (which cannot be said in M. Barlowes case) no man can faile of proofe of his orders, which in Bishops is by so much more certaine, by how much more diligence there is vsed the­rin, by reason of the great inconuenience which would ensue, if any such default should happen. Seeing therfore the records of M. Barlowes consecration do not appeare, (in so much that M. Mason is forced to prooue it by coniecture, as we haue see­ne: Wheras he citeth the registers of the consecrations of all the rest but his) nor yet haue miscaried by any extraordinary accident happening to the metropolitanes registers, how can he be iudged to haue bene truly consecrated? Especially seeing (as M. Mason saith) the registers of Cranmer beare record of his (I meane M. Barlowes) preferment to the priory of Bishame, of his election to the Bishopricke of S. Asaph,Pag. 127. and of the confirmation of the same; how is it therfore possible, that his consecration (if euer it had bene) should not be found like­wise recorded?

Farther if M. Barlow had bene truly consecrated, and con­sequently a true Bishop, he should not doubtles haue bene put after Antony Kitchin Bishop of Landaffe, in the Queenes let­ters directed vnto them, and the rest for consecration of M. Parker,Page 126. of which letters M. Mason repeateth a peece (saying that they are not only recorded in the registers of M. Parker; but in the chauncery it selfe) in these words. Elizabeth Dei gratia &c. Reuerendis in Christo patribus, Anthonio Landauensi. Will? Barlowe quondam Bath: nunc Cicestrensi electo, Ioh: Scory &c. Wheras Barlow if he had bene consecrated Bishop, should haue bene first in the ranke, as being most auncient by 4. yea­res at the least, as is euident by M. Masons owne Chrono­logy, putting Arth: Buckley his consecration (wherat he saith assisted as Bishop M. Barlow) an: 1541. and Anth. Kitchins consecration an. 1545. For it is euident that those Bishops, who haue not precedency by reason of their sees (as none haue in England, excepting the two Archbishops, and two or three more wherof Landaffe is none) haue their place and ranke, according to their antiquity in consecra­tion, which is alwaies necessarily obserued in such publique and solemne acts (as is the consecration of an Archbishop) [Page 194] for auoiding of scandall, which should necessarily follow, by inuercing and confounding of mens rankes and places. And doubtles if M. Barlow had knowne himselfe as truly a Bishop, as h [...] esteemed M. Kitchin to be, he would haue disdained to haue bene his second in that honorable action, seeing he should haue bene so much his senior Bishop, if he had bene Bishop indeede.

And what I pray you was the reason, that M. Kitchin Bi­shop of Landaffe hauing that honorable place assigned him; in that action by the Queenes patents, to be the consecrator of the new Archbishop, thaugh he was Iunior Bishop to M. Barlow by foure yeares as is already noted, was not for all that one of the cōsecrators, seeing he was present? Marie because he would not committ such a sacriledge; nor incurr the censures belōging therevnto though (fearing the Queenes and councells indigna­tion) he pretended darknes of sight to be the reason: vpon his refusall (which was not expected) they were forced to haue re­course to others, who made no scruple of any thing. But because this particuler toucheth directly the matter in que­stion, I will heere set downe how the whole action of the con­secration of all the first Bishops made in the beginning of Q. Eli­zabeths raigne (wherof M. Parker was one) passed, by the rela­tion of such as were present therat. At the nagges head in Cheapside by accorded appointment mett all those that were nominated to Bishoprickes vacant either by death, as was that of Canterbury only, or by vniust deposition, as were all the rest: their names are set downe in the chapter following. Thither came also the old Bishop of Landaffe to make them Bishops, which thing being knowne to D. Bonner Bishop of London then prisoner, he sent vnto the Bishop of Landaffe, forbidding him vnder paine of excōmunication to exercise any such power within his Diocesse, as to order those men, wherwith the old Bishop being terrified, and otherwise also moued in his owne conscience refused to proceede in that action, alleadging chiefly for reason of his forbearance his want of sight as is before said: which excuse they interpreting to be but an euasion were much mooued against the poore old mā, and wheras hitherto they had vsed him with all curtesie and respect, they then turned their co­py, reuiling and calling him doating foole, and the like some of [Page 195] them saying. This old foole thinketh we cannot be Bishops vnles we be grea­sed, to the disgrace as well of him, as of the Catholique manner of episcopall consecration. Being notwithstāding thus deceiued of their expectatiō, and hauing no other meane to come to their desire, they resolued to vse M. Scories helpe, who hauing bor­ne the name of Bishop in king Edwards time, was though to haue sufficient power to performe that office, especially in such a streate necessity. He hauing cast of together with his religious habite (for he had bene a religious man) all scruple of conscien­ce willingly went about the matter, which he performed in this sort, hauing the Bible in his hand, and they all kneeling be­fore him, he laid it vpon euery one of their heads or shoulders saying, Take thou authority to preach the word of God sincerely. And so they rose vp Bishops.

This whole narration without adding or detracting any word pertaining to the substance of the matter, I haue heard oftener then once of M. Thomas Bluet a graue, learned, and iudicious priest. He hauing receiued it of M. Neale a man of good sort and reputation, sometimes reader of the Hebrew or Greeke Le­cture (I remember not whether) in Oxford: But when this mat­ter passed, was belonging to Bishop Bonner, and sent by him to deliuer the message before mentioned to the Bishop of Landaf­fe, and withall to attend there to see the end of the busines. A­gaine M. Bluet had other good meanes to be informed of this matter being long time prisoner together with D. Watson Bi­shop of Lincolne, and diuers other men of marke of the aunciēt cleargy, in whose time and in whose sight, as a man may say, this matter was done. Of this narration there are (I thieke) as many witnesses yet liuing as there are priests remaining aliue, that haue bene prisoners together with M. Bluet in Wisbich ca­stle, where I also heard it of him.

M.What law doth he meane that they should haue incur­red daunger of. Mason in the appendix to his booke hauing related this same thing out of Sacro Bosco (who had heard it from the same partie for he was also prisoner sometime in Wisbich castle) for answere saith. No man of reason can imagine that they would goe to con­secrate one another in a tauerne, and so incurre the daunger of the law, after they had according to their harts desire an Archbishop of their owne religion, quietly possessed of his church and chaire.

But this is nothing to the purpose. For he supposeth M. Par­ker [Page 169] to haue bene consecrated, and already installed in his church and chaire before this solemne meeting at the nagges head, wheras the obiection wherunto he answereth saith the contrarie, and includeth M. Parker with the rest, as one of the number to be consecrated there, and therfore is his answere very friuolous. Peraduenture he thinketh that he that alreadie prooued M. Parkers consecration so fully by producing the re­gisters, that it cannot be denied, and therfore supposeth it in this his answere as cleare. But seeing his registers are found so full of crakes and flawes, that they neede to be made good by other proofes then yet appeare, they cannot in any indifferent mans iudgment be holden for good proofes of that which is here in question; when he saith, that they hauing quiet possession of churches it cannot be probable that they would goe to a tauerne to be conse­crated: he speaketh with more shew of reason then in any thing he hath said of this matter in his whole booke before, and yet this is also easily and truly answered, for it is not said that they went to the tauerne to be consecrated, because they had not the liberty of churches, but the reason was because they being out of all hope or expectation to draw the old Bishop of Lan­daffe (by whom they thouhgt they should be consecrated) to their church with them, they made no difficultie or scruple to resort to such a place, as he would be content to come vnto, and so it came to passe that their meeting was at the nags head, as is said before.

Not only Catholiques, who by our aduersaries may be su­spected of partialitie, are witnesses in this matter, but Iohn Stow a Protestant hath testified the same, not in writing, for that he durst not, though he had diligentlie sought out all par­ticulers therof, but in words to some persons that are yet liuing, and of most entire credit and fidelitie, who notwithstanding being no lesse fearefull to witnes this of him though now dead, then he himselfe was to write it being aliue, cannot here be na­med. But that this is true I can giue this most probable argu­ment, if it be no more then probable, Stow in his Chronicle maketh no more mention of the consecration of these new prelates, or any thing belonging thervnto, then if there neuer had bene any such matter, no not so much as of M. Parkers con­secration or enstalling, which silence, all circumstances conside­red, [Page 197] could not proceed from any other reason, then from feare of offending by saying the truth. For first it is euident that he is carefull to set downe all occurrents worthy of any memorie, (especially happening about London) though of farre lesse mo­ment then this. Secondlie he professeth speciall loue, and re­spect to M. Parker, and therfore setteth downe many particu­lers of him, of much lesse moment, then is his consecration or enstalling. Thirdly not only he, but all other Chrono­graphers take diligent care not to omit any innouation, or change of old customes or fashions into new, espe­ciallie in a matter of such moment as this is. Fourthlie he setteth downe the consecration, enstalling receiuing the pall, yea and the first masse of Cardinall Pole, M. Par­kers immediate predecessour. All which were but ordinarie oc­currents in other Archbishops, much lesse therfore could he forget to set downe the consecration of M. Parker, which was so new and extraordinarie, as M. Mason himselfe saith, it was singuler and vnlike to all those that went before since S. Austin the first Archbishop of that see, and might as truly haue said since Christ his time.

Fiftly, besides many other things pertaining to the change of religion, set downe by him in that yeare 1559. of farre lesse consideration then is the institutiō of a new cleargie: he putteth downe the depriuation (so he calleth it) of the old Bishops in the moneth of Iuly, which could not permit him to forget the creation of the new ones, especiallie he hauing ioined together before in Q. Maries time, the restitution of Bishop Bonner,Pag. 1036. and the rest of the Catholique Bishops displaced by K. Edward, and the remouing of the others intruded in their place, some reason therfore must there necessarilie be of his affected silence in this particuler.

Sixthly speaking of Hēry the 2. King of Frāce his obsequies so­lēnized in Paules this same yeare 1559. saith, that the 9. of Septē ­ber (to wit three monethes and more before M. Parkers conse­cration according to M. Masons registers) was a sermon preached by D. Scory, in place of D. Grindall Bishop of London. Pag. 1083. Now seeing he cal­leth him Bishop absolutelie without adding of elect or other like restriction, it seemeth that he had then some consecration; which could not be that which M. Masons registers speake of, [Page 198] for this was three moneths after and more as is already note [...], and therfore most like to be that at the nags head. I see well that Stow some lines before calleth D. Parker Archbishop of Can­terburie elect. But this taketh not away the difficultie. For he might for all that be consecrated Bishop as well as D. Barlow, whom he calleth in the same place Bishop of Chichester elect, and D. Scory whom he calleth Bishop of Hereford elect, which two notwithstāding are supposed to haue bene cōsecrated long before that time. And surely if D. Parker had not bene cōsecra­ted at least after their māner, he could not haue had pl [...]ce in that solemne action of the Kings obsequies, before D. Barlow and D. Scory if they were consecrated, as they are supposed by M. Ma­son to haue bene. For Archbishops only elect cannot haue place before consecrated Bishops in the offices of the church.

M. Masō will not haue priests thaugh car­dinals to sit before Bish­ops pag. 27. much lesse therfore priests nomi­nated onl [...] Archbishops.Therfore when Stow calleth him Archbishop of Canter­bury elect, he doubtles speaketh in the same sense of him, that he doth when he calleth D. Barlow Bishop of Chichester elect, and D. Scory Bishop of Hereford elect, which he doth not be­cause they were not consecrated Bishops after their manner, but because they were not as yet enstalled in those sees, as D. Parker also was not as yet in that of Canterburie. And that this is true, it appeareth by the different stile he giueth to D. Parker and D. Grindall, tearming thone absolutely Bishop of London without all restriction, because he was already enstalled and in possession of his Brishopricke, and thother only Archbishop elect for want of the same circumstance. If therfore D. Parker and D. Grindall were Bishops in the moneth of September the yeare 1559. as by the testimonie of Stowe they appeare to haue bene, what verity can there be in M. Masons registers, that make M. Parker to be consecrated only the 17. of December in the same yeare, and D. Grindall after him.

Sanders de schismate lib. 3.It is also to be vnderstood, that at the same time, when there was question of consecrating these new Bishops, there was prisoner in the tower of London an Archbishop of Ireland, who was offered his libertie and diuers other rewards, if he would haue consecrated the newly elected Bishops, which doubtles argueth the want of others, that were (euen by them­selues) esteemed true Bishops, for if such had bene at hand, they would not haue recurred to him, with daunger to receiue a [Page 199] disgracefull deniall as they did. But now I will returne to my former purpose.

6. The rest of M. Parkers consecrators, according to M. Masons accoumpt to wit M. Scory and M Couerdall were of the new consecration, deuised in K. Edward the 6. his time, and therfore found euen by the iudges of the Realme, to be no Bishops, as is before shewed.Pag. 93. And is euidentlie prooued out of M. Masons owne records and testimonies. For they were consecrated, as M. Mason saith the 30. of August 1551. to wit fiue moneths before the new forme of consecra­tions was se forth or allowed, which was done in the parlement holden the 5. and 6. yeare of Edward the 6. as appeareth both by the statute it selfe, which is the first of that parlement, as also by the first statute of the 8. of Elizabeth: but this parlement of the 5. and 6. of Edw. the 6. began the 13. of Ianuarie 1551. that is foure moneths and more after the conse­cration of Scorie and Couerdall. For by the coumpt of England the yeare beginneth in March, and not in Ianuarie as all men know. Euident therfore it is that they could not be consecrated by the new forme: and no lesse euident it is, that they were not consecrated by the old forme;Pag 94. for that (as M. Mason confesseth) was abrogated in the parlement of the third and fourth of Ed. the 6. and appeareth also by the 12. statute of that parlement. Soe that it is cleare that these two consecrators of M. Parker were neuer consecrated at all neither by one forme or other. And therfore had there bene none other defect in M. Parkers consecration (as diuers others haue bene already prooued) but only this, that his consecrators were not consecrated, and ther­fore no true Bishops, it is more then sufficient to prooue his want of consecration, and consequently his want of all true calling.

Notwithstanding all which so blind is M. Mason, either through his affection to new falshood, or hatred to auncient truth, that he blusheth not to write in this sort. Thus haue we exa­mined the place, the persons, the matter, the forme of his (M. Parker) con­secration, and find nothing but agreable to the lawes of the land, the Canons of the church, and the practice of reuerend antiquity. Do not thinke (good Reader) that I exceeded in saying, that M. Mason was blinded by affection when he wrote these words for he himself [Page 200] doth euidently prooue it, not seeing what he wrote, but only ten or twelue lines before in these words. This was his singuller feli­city, that being the 70. Archbishop after Austin yet was the first of all, which receiued consecration without the Popes buls &c. For if he were the first, that was consecrated in this manner, how doth his consecration agree, either with the lawes of the land which were ex­tant before this new manner of consecration was deuised many ages; and much lesse is it agreeable with the Canons of the church, and venerable antiquitie? Wherfore to make this speach of his agree aswell with that, which he said before, as also with the truth it selfe, he must wipe out this litle word (but) and so shall his saying be most true in it selfe, and conformable to his former words. Yet doth he shew himself more senseles in that which followeth, adding; wherin how circumspectly the Queene proceeded, may further appeare by this, that her letters patenet were sent▪ to diuers learned professors of the law, that they might freely giue their iudgmēt, and all of them iointly confessed, that both the Queenes maiesty might lawfully authorize, the persons to the effect specified (which was to consecrate M. Parker) and the said persons also might lawfully exercise the act of con­firming, and consecrating in the same to them committed▪ whose names sub­scribed with their owne hands remaine in record, Ex Registro Math. Parker fol. 3. as followeth. VVilliam May, Robert weston, Edward Leeds-Henry Haruy. Thomas Yale. Nicolas Bullinghā. Is not this beyond measure ridiculous? For, suppose that these men had bene as great diuines as S Augustin: as absolute lawiers as Barthold, as constant and vncorrupt as Curius Dentatus, and withall, not subiect to her that demaunded their resolution, and therby more like ad to deliuer their opinions with indiffe­rencie. of what moment should their iudgment be, in compa­rison of that of the whole Christian world from the Apostles time, till the raigne of King Edward the 6. For if in all this compasse either of time or place, including also the Apostles themselues, M. Mason can bring one instance, or example of a Bishop ordered in this sort, that M. Parker was, he shall gaine his cause. To bring therfore the approbation of halfe a dozen very ordinarie lawiers, no diuines, of no extraordinarie repu­tation for their integritie, and no more then ordinarie for their courage, and constancie, subiects to her that demaunded their opinions, a princesse peremptorie in her proceedings, and al­readie absolutelie resolued in her determination, whatsoeuer [Page 201] their resolution should bee: demaunding their opinions (which she knew before hand would be according to her will) only for a slender maske, or pretence of some colour of law; to bring six such mens iudgment (I say) against the iudgment, and practice of the whole Christian world (for nor only Catholiques, whom they ttulie esteeme enemies to their heresie, though not to their persons, but all their owne brethren of the pretended reformation in France, Geneua, Germanie, Poland, Hungarie, Holland, Scotland, yea and in England it selfe, for the greater or at least for the more Zealous part, do all condemne, and disauowe their parle­ment Bishops, and cleargie) is not this I say most perfect senslesnes? Surelie such an argument is most fit to conclude, and shut vp in all securitie, the ordination of the first Me­tropolitan of so new a cleargie. Yet this default I do not so much ascribe to the want of iudgment in M. Mason, as to the want of truth in the matter he would maintaine, which must needs be very miserable standing in neede of such beggerly support.

After all this M. Mason filleth eight pages in deriuing the descent of their new cleargie from M. Parker, who being the first of that race (as M. Mason willinglie professeth) and yet not of full fiftie yeares antiquitie, their church wherof he was the first Pastor, cannot possiblie be the church of Christ, yet M. Mason confidentlie addeth.See his owne words in the beginning of this chapter. M. Parkers consecration is disproued, and conse­quentlie the consecrations of all the rest depending therupon. The records alleaged are of such high credit and reputation, that they cannot pessibly be infringed. As for the maine point wherupon all the rest dependeth, that is, the consecration of Archbishop Parker, as it was solemnely performed in a great assemblie, so it was published in print in his owne time, when all things were in fresh memory. And though some of his spitefull and bitter enemies did then scornfully com­ment vpon his life, yet the truth of this fact they neuer called in que­stion.

What high credit or reputation his records are of, I leaue to the vnpartiall reader to iudge by that which hath bene hitherto said therof. And for the new proofe which he addeth heere of M. Parkers consecration saying it was published in print in his owne time without being called in question, it is a manifest vntruth. For both D. Harding, D. Saun­ders, [Page 202] and D. Stapleton besides others (as is euident by their owne words before cited towards the end of the chapter before this) euen in his owne time, and some of them to himselfe did not only (without any touch of his life) call his consecration in question but absolutelie de­nied it, and that without any reply or disproofe made either by himselfe, or any other in his behalfe as is be­fore shewed. Therfore if there were any such thing pu­blished in print, as M. Mason speaketh of, it went belike either in priuate amongst friends only who were willing to beleeue that which they desired to be true, or els was it esteemed to be of smal weight or authoritie, seing nei­ther M. Parker himselfe, nor M. Iewell, nor M. Horne, though earnestlie called vpon for some proofe of their con­secration, did neuer so much as once mention it; And thus much of M. Parkers consecration, the disproof wherof, is the disproof of the consecrations of all the rest of our English superintendents which as M. Mason saith depend thereupon.

The fifteenth Chapter. That M. Grindall, M. Horne with the rest preferred to Bishopricks in the beginning of Q. Elizabeths raigne were not true, and lawfull Bishops

1. ALl the defects and inhabilities prooued either in Cranmer, the Bishops ordained in K. Edward the 6. his raigne, or in M. Parker, are manife­stly found in these, of whom there is now que­stion: and therfore if the proofes already produced against thothers hold good, it is a cleare case, that these men can nei­ther be true, nor lawfull Bishops. Wherfore leauing them mar­ked with these notes (of no Bishops) till they purge them­selues, we will in this chapter examine, whether they had not yet some other inhability, which thothers had not.

And first it is euident, that when M. Grindall, M. Horne, and the rest (whose names I will by and by expresse out of M. Ma­son) were appointed to be Bishops, all the sees, whervnto they were nominated, were full, being possessed by true, and lawfull pastours. Therfore it is cleare, that these newly prefer­red must necessarily be violent intruders, and vsurpers, and no lawfull Bishops.

That the sees, whervnto these intendents were nominated, were full and not vacant, it is euident by this table set downe by M. Mason.

And that the displaced were lawfull Bishops, it is no lesse euident, neither their consecration, or any thing belonging therunto, being at any time called in question by any of their ad­uersaries euen vntill this day. It is therfore euident, that these new placed were intruders, and not lawfull Bishops.

2. This consequence, (supposing the displaced to haue bene lawfull Bishops, and not lawfully deposed, the first of which points is not denied, and the second shalbe prooued in due pla­ce) is both euident in it selfe, and prooued by infinite testimo­nies of antiquity. Wherof I will onely bring one as out of the councell of Sardis, wherof I make choice as well for that it is [Page 204] most direct for this purpose, and of irrefragable authority, as for that by the same labour I meane to shew, how impertinen­tly it is alleaged by M. Mason, in the behalfe of those, that in K. Edward time being thrust into Bishops sees, fled alway in Q. Maries time. In whose fauour to prooue, that they were law­full Bishops of those sees, euen in the time of their absence he saith thus.

Pag. 129.3. Although the Arian faction preuailing, the councell of Tyre deposed Athanasius, yea and the councell of Antioch, in the presence and with the consent of the Emperour, Sozo. li. 2. c, 24. Socra li. 2. c. 5. did institute Gregory in his place, yet the councell of Sardica pronounced Athanasius (as also Marcellus, Asclepas, and other Catholi­que exiled Bishops) to be pure and innocēt: And denyet that Gregory the vsurper of Alexandria, Bafill of Ancyra, Quintianus of Gaza (which had entered like wolues vpon the churches of these men) should be called Bishops. So the councell iudged the churches to belong to the (Catholique) Bishops, euen at such time as they were exiled, Note this words Catho­lique. and the Arians in possession: And accordingly they depo­sed Gregory with such like, and restored Athanasius and the rest with honour. Which act they signified in a synodicall epistle to the church of Alexandria, in this manner. Heretiques make not Bi­shops lawful­ly. Binnius to 1. Pag 444. We would haue you to know, that Gregory being made Bishop vnlawfully by heretiques, and brought by them vnto your city, is deposed from his Bishopricke by the whole synode, although in very deede he was neuer Bi­shop, therfore farewell, and receiue your Bishop Athanasius. Thus you see that though Athanasius fled away in time of persecution, though he were deposed by a councell, and another chosen in his place, with the consent of the Emperour: yet for all this he is iudged to be the true Bishop of Alexandria, and Gregory ne­uer to haue bene Bishop therof. The like is to be said of Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra, Asclepas Bishop of Gaza, Paulus Bishop of Constantinople, and others, who were persecuted for the Catholique faith, as well as Athanasius. Wherso­re if you will conforme your iudgment to the councell of Sardica, They were not lawfully pos­sessed, no more then Gregory was, whol is declared ne­uer to haue beene Bishop. you must con­fesse that such as in K. Edwards time were lawfully possessed of Bishoprickes (though in Q. Maries time being persecuted in one city they fled into another) did still retaine the titles of true Bishops, and that those that inuaded their churches were intruders, and vsurpers. Thus therfore it appeareth, that as A­thanasius and the rest returning from exile, might ordaine, and do all such things as belonged to their episcopall office, euen so Bishop Barlow, Bishop Couer­dall, and the rest returning from exile, might likewise ordaine, and iustify their proceedings in their episcopall function.

If M. Mason can apply this rightly to that purpose, for which he bringeth it, he shall no doubt gaine his cause. For the autho­rity [Page 205] he vseth is authenticall. But he doth in this as one, that ha­uing stolne another mans euidence, and records, produceth them against the right owner, thinking therby to disposesse him of his inheritance, but in fine the matter being brough to light he is ouerthrowne by the same proofes, which he allea­geth for himself. So no doubt will it fall out with M. Mason in this allegation. For I do not thinke, that any man could ha­ue brought any thing more direct, either against those in whose behalfe he bringeth it, or for them of whom the question is here to wit Bishop Heath, Thurlby Bonner, and the rest of their fel­low confessours deposed by Queen Elyzabeth, whose case in all respects like vnto that of S. Athanasius, Marcellus, Asclepas, and their Catholique consorts. And contrariwise the case of Young, Grindall, Horne, with the rest of their crewe, wherof I count Barlow, Couerdall, and the rest of K. Edw. Bishops, because their ordination is the same with thothers like to that of Gre­gory, Bafil, Quintianus and the others intruded by the Arian Emperour Constantius. Yet this disparity there is betwixt the fact of Constantius, displacing Athanasius with the other Ca­tholique Bishops, and intruding Gregory and his fellowes into their sees: and the fact of Q. Elizabeth dispossessing Bishop Heath and Bonner with the rest, and thrusting into their places M. Young, Grindall, and others: that Constantius seemed to pro­ceed canonically in this fact, hauing the colour, and shew of the sentence of two Synodes, to wit of Tyre and Antioch, though both hereticall assemblies, for the displacing of S. Athanasius; wheras Q. Elizabeth made no difficulty, nor had any scruple to thrust Catholique Bishops out of their sees, and intrude others into their roomes, without all shew, or colour of canonicall iudgment. So that the Arian Emperour Constantius, and the A­rian Bishops were much more religious in appearance then Q. Elizabeth, and the Bishops of her creation, seeing they made scruple to commit so vniust and sacrilegious a fact, as to depose Catholique Bishops, and thrust others in their roomes, without shew at least of some Ecclesiasticall and canonicall iudgment, wherof these made no difficulty. And if in defence of Q. Eliza­beths fact it be replied, that she being the head of the church of England, might do that she did of her absolute power, without the iudgment, or sentence of any Synode, what shall we say of [Page 206] Constantius his fact? For if Q Elizabeth was head of the church of England, he must necessarily be head of the church of the Empire, and therfore if her fact were iustifiable for that reason, his was iustifiable for the same, which notwithstanding was cō ­demned by the councell. But it is euident, if any thing that is past be euident, that neither Constantius though an heretique, nor any other Emperour, King, or Prince, before Henry the 8. of England, Father to Q. Elizabeth, did euer challenge, or pre­tend to be head of the church, or to haue any iurisdiction in spirituall causes and matters, Farther then the power to putt in execution, the decrees and ordinances of the church. And this very case of the deposition of Athanasius doth sufficiently shew thus much of Constantius, who did no more, thē putt in execu­tion the vniust decrees, of the two hereticall assemblies before mentioned, which decrees he would not haue expected for the deposition of S. Athanasius, had he esteemed himselfe head of the church. Farther had he bene head of the church, what power could there haue remained in the church, to reuerse his sentence, which notwithstanding we see done in the councell of Sardis.

4. M. Mason, or some other in his behalfe will demaund the reasons, why this decree of the councell of Sardis for the re­stitution of S. Athanasius, and the deposition of Gregory the intruder, may not be as fitly applied to prooue the restitution of Barlow, Couerdall, and others, together with the creation of Young, Grindall, and their fellowes by Q. Elizabeth, and the deposition of Heath, Bonner, and the rest to be, lawfull? as we say it may be applied, to prooue the deposition of Heath and Bonner, with their fellowes, and the intrusion of Young, Grin­dall, and their company to be vnlawfull? I answere that the rea­son herof is euident. For this decree of the councell of Sardis being made, (as M. Mason truly noteth) in the behalfe of the Catholique Bishops extruded by the hereticall party, who entred as wolues, and were not Bishops, as the councell decla­red, cannot in any shew of reason be applied, or wrested, to fa­uour the hereticall party in preiudice of the Catholique. True, will M. Mason say: But why should the Bishops putt out of their seas by Q. Elizabeth, be esteemed Catholiques, ra­ther then those that she putt into their places? Marrie for the [Page 207] selfe same reason, for which S. Athanasius and his fellowes we­re esteemed, and were indeed true Catholique Bishops, and their aduersaries heretiques. And if M. Mason aske what that reason was: I answere, that it was because S. Athanasius, and the rest restored by the councell of Sardis, did communicate both in faith and Sacraments, with the whole Catholique church, both present and precedent, as also the Bishops, thrust out of their sees by Q. Elizabeth, are knowne to haue done: wheras their aduersaries, to wit, the Arians, made a sect apart not heard of, before Arius reuolted from the Ca­tholique church, breaking communion therwith both in faith and Sacraments; as in like sort, the Bishops intruded by Q. Elizabeth, who separated themselues from the vnity of the Ca­tholique church, and made a sect apart, neuer heard of in the world before Luthers reuolt, and apostacy. And if M. Mason or any other can bring any thing to prooue Barlowe. Young, Grindall, with the rest of their confession to be Catholiques, which the Arrian Bihops Gregory, Basil and Quinrianus de­posed, and condemned by the councell of Sardis, could not with as much, or more shew of truth, haue brought for themselues; or contrariewise if he can alleadge any one thing to prooue, that S. Athanasius was a Catholique, which may with the same truth be alleaged for Bishop Heath, and his fel­lowes, he shall gaine his cause in this point. And therfore do I conclude with M. Masons owne words against himselfe in this sort. Wherfore if you will conforme your iudgment to the councell of Sardis, Pag. 129. you must confesse that the Bishops deposed by Q. Elizabeth, were the true Bishops of their sees, and those that inuaded rheir churches, were intruders and vsurpers.

5. And this is Farther prooued, by the continuall pra­ctice of the whole church, euen from the Apostles them­selues, wherin is not to be found one example of so many Bishops deposed, and thrust out of their sees, without the iudgment and sentence of a councell. It is true that some princes vpon vniust indignation, haue forced diuers holy Bis­hops to leaue their sees, and transport themselues into other countries, as (not going any Farther for examples) Wil­liam Rufus did by S. Anselme and H [...]nry the 2. by S. Tho­mas, yet did they forbeare to put any others into their [Page 208] places, so long as their cause was not iudged by ecclesiasticall sentence. And if any be found to haue proceeded further, to the iniust intrusion of some one, into the place of another v­niustly deposed, without a synodicall sentence yet none was euer found, to haue proceeded in that sort against all the Bis­hops of a whole realme, but Q. Elizabeth, the first woman head of the church, that euer was in the world. And therfore no doubt, but if the case of the deposed should be examined, by a Synod of lawfull Bishops (to whom the hearing, and de­termining therof doth only pertaine) they would be iudged to haue bene the true Bishops of those sees, and thothers to be intruders, and vsurpres, not entring into the fold of Christ by the dore of canonicall election, and consecration, but climing vpp an other way by the power, and force of the secular Prince, and therfore could not be true pastors, but theeues and robbers, as our sauiour himselfe testifieth of them.Ioh. 10.1.

6. M. Mason, notwithstanding to iustify these men M. Young, Grindall, and the rest of intrusion, inditeth the deposed (after so many yeares that they are in the other world) of three things, wherof their greatest aduersaries neuer accused them, in their life time, when they might haue answered for themselues: So pious he is towards the departed, of whom (according to the common saying) we ought to say nothing but well. How well (saith he) they Bishop Bonner,Page 101. White, and the rest before mentioned) deserued at the Queenes hands, may appeare by their behauiour in three points; concerning the coronation, disputation, and excommunication. In the two first, they refused to be actors, and for the third, they consulted whether they should excommunicate the Quueene, or no.

Of these three things M. Mason (thinking to find therin so­me colourable matter to iustify the vniust deposition of those venerable Pastors, and the intrusion of the new intendents, ma­keth a large dispute, which I intend not here to repeare, but will make in briefe this answere. First none of all these three points was obiected against them as any cause, or occasion of their de­position, which doubtles would not haue bene omitted by their aduersaries, if they had bene thought materiall for that purpose. Secondly it is false, that all the deposed were culpable of these things (supposing they were faults) Owen Oglethor­pe Bishop of Carlill, neither consenting to excommunicate the [Page 209] Queene, not yet refusing to crowne her, for as M. Mason saith and all men know he set the crowne vpon her head, whom not­withstanding she deposed, for continuing in his Catholique re­ligion, and refusing the oath of supremacy, as M. Mason him­self testifieth in expresse words,Pag. 125. which indeed was the only cause of all their deposition, as we shall see by and by.

Thirdly suppose, that all M. Mason saith concerning these points were true,Ambro. li. 2. epist. 13. Ruffinus li. 2 hist. (as it is not) yet should they not therfore ha­ue deserued deposition. For neither S. Ambrose, nor Euphemius Patriarch of Constantinople were yet euer so censured by any, though the first, both refused disputation with the Arrians for the like reasons,Theodor. A­nagnostes li. 2. coll histor. acclesiastic. for which those Catholique Bishops did refu­se to proceede in the disputations appointed with such vnequall conditions as were prescribed and also did excommunicate the Emperour Theodosius indeede, and not only in consultation. And the second refused to acknowledg Anastasius for Empe­rour, but called him heretique, and vnworthy to rule ouer Christians, till he gaue him a protestation in writing to embrace the doctrine of the councell of Calce­don.

Fourthly, the only true cause of their deposition, being the profession of the Catholique Romane faith, and their refusall to sweare that the Queene was supreame head of the church,Pag. 1082. impression 1605. as not only Sanders, but also Stow affirmeth, yea and M. Ma­son himself confesseth both in Bishop Oglethorpe, as we haue already seene, and in all the rest, in this title.Pag. 113. Of the oath of the princes supremacy, for denying wherof the old Bishops were depriued, he doth ignorantly and impertinently multiply so many words in these other points, which appertaine nothing to the pur­pose he goeth about: which is to iustifie the deposition of Bishop Heath, Bonner, and the rest, that therby he may make way, for the lawfull entry of the intruded.

7. This controuersie therfore standeth in this only point, whether the Queene and her councell, could lawfully depose those Bishops for refusing to sweare, that she was head of the church or no? For if they were not lawfully deposed; it will necessarily follow that those, who were putt into their sees, were manifest intruders, and therfore no lawfull Bishop, and that they were not lawfully deposed, belongeth to me to proo­ue [Page 210] against M. Mason, in proofe wherof I will vse this only ar­gument.

No iudiciall action is of validity whe­re the agent hath no au­stority With M. Mason pa. 107.No sentence or iudgment can be lawfull, but where the iud­ge hath lawfull and competent power, both ouer the cause and persons iudged. But the Queene, and her councell (whether they be taken iointly or seuerally) had no lawfull and competent power ouer these Bishops, and the cause for which they were iudged by them. Therfore their sentence and iudgment of deposition pronounced against them could not be lawfull.

In this whole argument there is nothing that needeth proo­fe, but only the second proposition, which I will make good both by diuine, and humane authority, supposing first, that which is euident and cannot be denied, to wit, that the par­ties iudged were Bishops, the cause a point, or article of faith and religiō, and that the iudges were lay, or seculer persons. This being presupposed I say thus.

Those, who are appointed, and authorised by God, to teach vnto others all matters of faith, and religion, cannot in the same matters of faith and religion be subiect to their iudgment, who are bound to heare and learne the same of them: for otherwaies the scholler should be aboue his mai­ster euen in that, wherin he is his maister, contrary both to the light of reason, and the expresse doctrine of our Sauiour Christ. But the Bishops, and Pastors of Gods church are appointed,Math. 10.24 and authorised by him, to teach all temporall men, as well the highest Princes, as the meanest people, all matters of faith, and religion. Terfore the Bishops, and Pa­stors of Gods church cannot be subiect to temporall mens iudg­ment, (though they be princes) in matters of faith, and re­ligion: And consequently temporall Princes cannot haue au­thority, or power to iudge them therin. Whence it is eui­dently concluded, that the Qeeene and her councell, being seculer, or lay persons had not, nor could haue any law­full and competent power, ouer these Bishops in the cau­se iudged by them. I adde of purpose these words (in mat­ters of faith and religion) because I will not enter he­re into that other question, whether ecclesiasticall per­sons are exempted in all causes, from the iudgment of the [Page 211] secular court, or tribunall, because this question is nothing ne­cessarie for the determination of the controuersie here pro­posed.

The first proposition of this argument, being of it selfe cleare to all men of any vnderstanding, and the conclusion fol­lowing directlie of the premises, there remaineth only the se­cond proposition, which may seeme to haue neede of proofe. Notwithstanding in proouing this, will I also prooue thother, for the fuller satisfaction of those, that may haue any doubt therof. That Bishops therfore and Pastors are authorised by God, to teach all men their faith, and beleefe, which is the pro­position cheeflie to be prooued, it is euident by the testimonie of our Sauiour himselfe, saying: All power is giuen me in heauen, Math. 28, 19.20. and in earth; Going thefore teach ye all nations: teaching them to obserue all things whatsoeuer I haue commaunded you: And behold I am with you all daies euen to the consummation of the world. Which last words do shew, that this power to teach all men all matters necessarie for their salua­tion, was not meant to the Apostles only, to whom our Sauiour then spake (because they were not to continue till the worlds end) but also to all such, as should succeede them in the fun­ction of Pastors, as Bishops do.

The same proposition together with thother, that Bishops can­not be iudged in matters of religion by seculer persons, is as euidentlie proued by the testimonie likewise of our Sauiour himselfe, saying to those whom he sent to preach. He that heareth you, hea­reth me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth me. Luke 10.16. He therfore (may we say in the person of Christ) that iudgeth you, iudgeth mee; which is true at least in matters of faith and religion, wherin he hath ordained them preachers and teachers.

The same is yet more clearelie conuinced out of the do­ctrine of S. Paul, saying. Obay your prelates, and be subiect vnto them. Hebr. 13.17. For they watch as being to render account for your soules. For it is eui­dent, that our prelates, and pastors cannot be subiect to vs, and to our power in those things, wherin we are by Gods ordinan­ce subiect vnto them, and they haue charge ouer vs (no more then the sunne being aboue the moone can also be vnder it) but we are subiect to our prelates, in matters pertaining to our soules, in such sort, as they are to giue an account therof, as S. [Page 212] Paul testifieth; And therfore they cannot be subiect vnto vs, not iudged by vs therin.

Act. 20.Farther, God hath appointed Bishops to gouerne his church, which he purchased with his blood, as witnesseth S. Paul, how therfore can they be commaunded, or iudged by them, who are or ought to be members of the same church, wherof they haue the gouernment by Gods owne appointment?

To these few but firme testimonies of diuine authoritie, I will according to my promise adde one or two humane, not to adde force to the former, but to declare, what hath bene the sense of the greatest iudgments, of former ages in this point.

Constantine the great, the glory of our countrie, worthilie honoured for many memorable deeds, and sayings, who had as great right to all power pertaining to temporall princes, as any other whatsoeuer, was so farre from chalenging iurisdiction ouer Bishops, in matters of faith and religion, that he disclai­med from all power, to iudge of their priuate complaints made one against another,Buff. l. 1. ca. 2 saying; God hath made you priests, and hath giuen you power to iudge vs, and therfore are we rightly iudged by you. But you can­not be iudged by men, wherfore expect the iudgment of God only, and reser [...] your complaints to his diuine examination. For you are giuen to vs by God as Gods, and it is not conuenient that man iudge Gods, but he alone of whom it is written, God stood in the Synagogue of Gods.

Sozomon. l. 6 c. 7. Epist. ad synod. Ephesin. Bui. to. 1. pag. 732And Valentinian the first. It is not graunted to me being a lay man to attribute vnto my selfe these iudgments.

Theodosius also the younger together with Valentinian. It is not lawfull for him that is no Bishop, to meddle with the decision, or iudgment of ecclesiasticall matters.

These great Monarchs, who knew as well as any others, what pertained to their right, were farre from iudging their prelates, and pastors in matters of religion; and much farther from chalēging vnto themselues, the headship of Gods church. But seeing they disclaime from this power, let vs see whether peraduenture the pastors of the church in those times did attri­bute it vnto them.Epist. ad Cō ­stantium apud Atha­nas. Epis. ad [...]oli. vit. ag. Epist. ad solit. vit. agentes. Ibidem. Certes no such thing, but quite the contrary. It is not lawfull for vs (saith the great Hosius of Corduba to Cōstan­tius Emperour) to hold the Empire vpon earth, nor for you to take into your hands the censer, and vsurpe authority in religiō. And S. Athanasius the glory [Page 213] of pastors. VVhen was it heard from the memory of man, that Ecclesiasticall iudgment? had their force from the Emperour? And againe The question is not of the affaires of the Roman commonwealth, where you haue power as Emperour. But the question is of a Bishop. And yet againe.Ibid. VVho seeing the Emperour president, in counsell of Ecclesiasticall matters, will not iudge, that it is the abomination of desolation foretold by Daniell? S. Gregory Nazianzen some what behind them in time, but of equall authoritie.Orat adciues rim percul­sos & prin­cip. irascontē. VVill you heare (O President) a free speach? the law of Christ hath made you subiect to my iurisdiction, and to my tribunall; for we haue also an Empyre, yea a greater, and more perfect then that of yours, vnlesse it be fit to subiect the soule to the body and heauenly things to earthly. And S. Ambrose the most auncient of the foure doctors of the west church.Epist. 13. ad Valenti. Iuniorem. VVho will deny if we looke either into the holy scripture, or antiquity, but that Bishops are accustomed to iudge Christian Emperours in matters of faith and not Em­perours to iudg Bishops? Againe. Your father said it appertaineth not to me to iudge betweene Bishops, and your clemency saith, I ought to iudge. And yet again: when did you euer heare most gratious Emperour that in matters of faith lay men iudged Bishops? And his Maiestie our dread soueraigne doth testify the same truth in these expresse words. It is true, In his decla­ratiō against Cardi. du Perron pag. 70. impressiō of Paris. that the Emperours did neuer auow themselues to be soueraigne iudges, in matter of faith and doctrine. And a litle after. I confesse that it is a point of diuinity, to iudge how far the power of the keies reacheth: and that cleargy may, and ought to vse their censures against those princes, that make warre against Iesus Christ, without making the laity iudges therof.

Thus we see it most cleare, both by diuine and humane, Ec­clesiasticall, Emperiall, and Regall authoritie, that seculer per­sons, be they princes or others, can haue no iurisdiction, or po­wer ouer Bishops, in matters of faith and religion. Neither is the contrarie maintained by any of the pretended reformation, our parlement prelates only excepted: who as the haue no other origen, or beginning, but the temporall power of the prince, so can they expect no other vphold but from the same. And ther­fore do they, not for the princes right, but for their owne in­terest, labour to maintaine that Paradox of the supreame au­thoritie of temporall princes, in spirituall or Ecclesiasticall causes, which is odious and contemned, euen by their owne reformed brethren, as appeareth by Caluin himselfe, who cal­leth it blaspemy and sacriledge. Amos 7.13. And the Centurists say of the ciuill [Page 214] Magistrates.Praefat. cen­tur. 7. pag 11 ante mediū. Epist. ad ele­ctorem Brā ­deburg. Non sunt capita ecelesiae quia ipsis non competit iste primatu [...]: that is, they are not heads of the church, for this primacy belongeth not to them. And Chemnitius saith of Q. Elizabeth. Famineo & a saeculis ina [...] ­dito fastu, se Papissam & caput ecclesiae fecit. She made her self Pope, and head of the church, by a womanish and vnheard of pride.

6. Now for the preuenting, and satisfying of all such argu­ments, as vsuallie are brought either against this euident truth, or for proofe of the contrarie, I would haue thee (iudicious reader) diligentlie to obserue, that temporall princes haue po­wer to make lawes for the conseruation, and increase of Catho­lique religion, and for the suppression, and extirpation of all sort of infidelitie, whether it be heresie, Iudaisme, or Paganisme yea this is their greatest honour, and the chiefest reason, for which they are endewed with the soueraigne power of the sword,Esay 49.23. and for this are they called in the holy scripture nourishers, or nurses of the church. But, what is truth in all points of faith and religion, wherin question may be moued, they are to learne of their Pastors, and Prelates, to whom God hath giuen commis­sion, and authoritie to teach all men all things necessarie for their saluation;Math. 28.20 I say they are to learne this of them, and not to teach it vnto them: yet hauing learned it, the are bound not only to beleeue it themselues, but also to maintaine, and defend it by the power of their scepter, against all inuasions of heresie, or other falsitie whatsoeuer. By which only obseruation are answered all the arguments drawne, either from the facts of Kings, as well in the Iewish, as Christian church, interposing their authoritie in Ecclesiasticall, or spirituall matters (I speake only of approoued facts) or from the councels, and fathers sol­liciting, or mouing them therunto. For no King either of the one, or other church hath (with approbation and allowance) euer attempted any thing in matter of religion, contrarie and repugnant to the iudgment of the Pastors, and Prelates of the vniuersall church then militant vpon earth, which is the only faithfull keeper, and infallable interpreter of Gods law, in mat­ters pertaining to mens saluation; and therfore is called by S. Paul the house of the liuing God, 1. ad Timoth. the piller and ground of truth. And that tem­porall Princes haue no other power, or iurisdiction, in matters of religion then this, M. Mason is forced to graunt.

Pag. 113.7. For hauing alleaged for the proofe of the Princes supre­macy [Page 215] in spirituall causes: that Gratian the Emperour made a law agai [...]st the Arrians, commaunding them like wild beasts, to be driuen from the chur­ches, and the places to be restored to good Pastors, comitting the execution therof to Sapor as captaine: and inferring therupon, that Q. Eliza­beth might with more reason do the like, because of the neces­sitie, and want of good Bishops, wherof there were plentie in his time. He obiecteth to himself: that Gratian hauing the de­termination of synodes, condemning the Arrians, he might law­fullie make such a law, and commit the execution therof to his captaine.

To which obiection what answere maketh he, thinke you? Marie that Q Elizabeth had also for her supremacy, the determination of a Synode of Bishops wherof Bishop Fisher was one, which synode gaue to K. Henry the title of supreame head, of the church of England, which was renewed in another Synode two yeeres after. And two yeares after that, the two vniuer­sities deliuered their iudgment. That the Pope had no more to do in England by the law of God, then any other Bishop.

In which answere is first to be noted, the graunt of that, which the obiectiō intendeth, to wit, that the Queene without the determination of a Synode, could not make any law concer­ning matter of religion: whence it euidentlie followeth, that all the lawes made in her raigne, in preiudice of the Catholique Romane faith, are vniust, as not proceeding from true, and law­full authoritie, no Synode hauing determined any such lawes to be either good or lawfull.

Secondlie, for as much as concerneth this particuler point of supremacie, wherof the present question is: the Synodes wherof he speaketh, are not extant, but thone in a manuscript as he saith, and thother [...] where. But let it be, that there was such a synodicall determi [...]on, as he speaketh of, of what authoritie could it be? Surely of none at all. For first the same parties, that consented to that determination in King Henries time, recalled and disauowed their owne fact in Q. Maries raigne, as M. Ma­son himselfe confesseth: yea Bishop Fisher, (whom he frau­dulently here nameth as not dissenting from that decree) is knowne to all the world, to haue died for the defence of the contrarie. And though he neuer consented to the new title of the Kings supremacie, yet hauing once said,Saunders d [...] schismate li. [...] that he would graunt it so farre, as it was agreeable with holy scriptures, [Page 216] did penaūce all his life after, for that fearefull speach, knowing and confessing that he being a Bishop, and therfore bound to instruct others, as hauing charge ouer their soules, should not haue spoken in that doubtfull manner, but should haue said, that it was whollie repugnant to holy scriptures, that others might therby haue bene kept from errour.

Farthermore, what authoritie can a synode of the Bishops of one only nation haue, being assembled by the commaundement of their owne King within his owne dominions, in a matter most earnestly affected, and pursued by him: what authoritie I say, can such a synode haue against the iudgmēt of all the whole world besides? First this synode if it be to be called so, was no lawfull or generall councell, as the weight and moment of that matter would haue required. Secondly, it was no free councell, as appeareth as well by the circumstances already mentioned, as by the changing of their opinions afterwards, which only con­sideration (of want of freedome) is sufficient to make it of none authoritie, as it did that great councell of Arriminum, which after the threates of the Arrian Emperour Constantius, was ne­uer holden to bee free councell, nor the decrees therfore of any force. Therfore (to apply all that which hath hitherto bene said to the matter now in question) if there had bene any iust cause of deposition probablie suspected in Bishop Heath, and the rest, why was not their cause committed to the examination of the rest of the Bishops of the church, as the custome groun­ded vpon manifest reason, and equitie hath euer bene, in cases of difference betweene Bishops and their owne Prince? In which case if they had bene found culpable, their deposition had bene iustifiable to all the world. But they were well knowne to be without all fault worthie of deposition, nor could in any equall, or cempetent iudgment, haue bene found guiltie of any crime deseruing it: Therfore their deposition being already decreed, to make roome for those that were to be intruded, it was necessarie they should be iudged by such, as would assuredlie find them guiltie, though they were neuer so innocent.

The case of these venerable Prelates being thus, as hath bene mentioned, Let any indifferent man iudge, whether their deposition was iust, or no, and consequentlie, whether [Page 217] those, that were thrust into their roomes, were lawfullie inuested therin.

M. Mason from the page 106. to the page 113. laboureth to iustifie the deposition of these Bishops by the example of Abia­ther deposed by Solomon. His argument in briefe is this. Salo­mon deposed Abiather high Priest, and put another in his place.

Therfore Queene Elizabeth might do the like by the Bish­ops of her kingdome. I answere that though we should suppose,3. Reg. 2.26. first that the fact of Salomon was iust and lawfull which is not euident. Secondly that he did depose Abiather as King and not as a Prophet, by speciall reuelation or warrant which is vncertame. Thirdly, that the Priests and Priesthood of the old and new law are of equall dignitie and priuiledge, which with all true Christians is euidentlie false. Though (I say) we should suppose all these things, yet is this argument alto­gether impertinent for M. Masons purpose. For Abiathers case was altogether different from that of the Catholique Bish­ops, of whom the question is here: his case being meerelie temporall, to wit the conspiring against Salomon in behalfe of his brother Adonias, which had it not bene in the person of a Priest, should without all controuersie haue belonged to the triall of the temporall tribunall, wheras theirs was a case of faith and religion, which though it had not bene in the persons of Priests, yet could it not haue bene iudged by the temporall Magistrate, as is alreadie shewed both by di­uine and humane, Ecclesiasticall and temporall, imperiall and regall authoritie. Most impertinentlie therfore is this fact of Salomon deposing Abiather, alleaged for the iustification of that of Queene Elizabeth deposing the Catholique Bish­ops.

After this argument of Abiathers deposition, M. Mason putteth great force, he sweateth hard in iustifying the oath of supremacie, for refusall wherof he confesseth the old Bishops to haue bene deposed. And for answere (besides that which hath bene alreadie said in this chapter for proofe of the contrarie) I will remit the reader to the last chapter of this treatise, where he shall find how opposite the oath of supre­macie is to the Protestants owne doctrine, and therfore needeth no other refutation by the Catholique partie.

The sixteenth Chapter. Of the oath of the Princes supremacie, for denying wherof the old Bishops were depriued.

1. THIS is the title of the third chapter of M. Masons; booke. Where first is to be noted, the true cause of the depriuation of the Bishops to haue bene the refusall to sweare, that the Queene was supreame had of the church of Englād in spirituall causes. And therfore the; other points obiected against them by M. Mason, and already reiected, are meere impertinencies of his owne. Secondlie, that here I am only to answere the argu­ments, that M. Mason bringeth for the proofe of this supre­macie, and not to prooue the contrarie, which is alreadie performed in the precedent chapter. To come therfore to the point, M. Mason hauing in the beginning of this chapter al­leaged, for the proofe of the Queenes supremacie in spirituall causes, that Marcian, Iustinian, Theodosius, and Gratian Empe­rours made lawes pertaining to Ecclesiasticall affaires, and fru­strated the same allegation by saying, that these Princes follo­wed therin the determinatiō of Synodes, which he would haue to be true also in Q. Elizabeth, as we haue seene and refuted before.Apol. cap. 1. he commeth to cite these word out of Card. Alen. was there euer any King or Queene, Christian or heathen, Catholique or heretique in all the world beside, before our age, that did practice, chalenge, or accept of the title of supremacy? Wherunto he maketh this answere Looke into the godly Kings of Iuda; Pag. 114. looke into the proceedings of Christian Emperours, Constantine, Gratian, Theodosius, and such like, looke into the lawes of Charles, and Lodowike: and you shall see, that they practised as much, as euer we ascribed to the Queene in this oath.

But first M. Masō bringeth no one fact of any one of all these, proouing the practise of this supremacy, which was very neces­sary he should haue done. Secondly, by this answere, if he will [Page 219] stand therunto, it wilbe very easy to cōuince him either of trea­son, against the Queene if shee were liuemg and her lawes, or of manifest falsi y. For if he say, that by the oath of supremacy, he ascribeth to the Queene no other power then that, which these Emperours practised, he shall by the lawes of England be guilty of high treason; they hauing neuer practised any other power in ecclesiasticall affaires, then that which standeth well with the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, which M. Mason is bound by the lawes of England,In the oath of supremacy and the sta­tute made for the resusull of the same an­no. 1. Eli. vnder the paine of high treason to abiure. If he ascribe vnto her by the oath, any other power then that may stand with the Popes supremacy, then is that false, which he here affirmeth, to wit, that by the oath of supremacy, they ascribe no other power to the Quene, then these Emperours practised. The testimonies before allea­ged out of Constantine, and Theodosius owne mouthes, as they are faithfully related by authenticall authors, do prooue for their parts, that they neuer practised any power, which did not stand well with the Popes supremacy. And as for Gratian, M. Mason himself confesseth, that in making lawes pertaining to ecclesiasticall matters, he followed the determination of Syno­des, and therfore did not take vpon him supreame iudgment therin. Charles the great is so farre from the practise of suprea­me power of the church, that he alleadgeth and approoueth the examples, and sayings of Constantine, and of Valentinian Emperours for the contrary, saying.Capitulari [...] Caroli Mag. l. 6. cap. 301. Constantine answered that it was not lawfull for him, to iudge the causes of Bishops. Againe. Valentinian (saith he) answered, your cause is aboue vs, and therfore iudge your cau­ses amongst your selues, for you are aboue vs. Now if M. Mason do giue to Bishops this power aboue the Queene, that these Em­perours doe, he shalbe a traitor by the lawes of England, which giue to the Queene, supreame power in all causes. If he do not, then is it false to say, that he ascribeth no other power to Queene Elizabeth, then these Emperours practised: Let him take whether part he will. But he goeth on;

2. When the Councell of Ephesus, by the packing of Dioscorus had allowed the cursed opinion of Eutiches, and deposed Flauianus Bishop of Constantino­ple, Pope Leo vpon this occasion wrote thus vnto the Emperour Theodosius. Behold most Christian and reuerend Emperour, I, with the rest of my fellow Bishops make supplication vnto you, that all things may stand in the same sta­te, [Page 220] in which they were before these iudgments, vntill a greater number of Bishops may be gathered out of the whole world. Who made this supplication? Pope Leo an holy, and learned Pope. To whom? To the Emperour Theodo­sius. For what? that all things might stand in their former state. What things meaneth he? The highest mysteries of religion, concerning the natures and person of Christ. But what is it to stand in the former state? That is might be lawfull for all men, so to iudge and speake of these holy misteries, as they did before the springing vp of the Eutichian heresy: for then they held the truth according to the Apostolique faith. And this he beseecheth the Emperour to commaund, notwithstanding the contrary determination of the councell of Ephesus.

Here is a great deale of Cry, but to litle purpose S. Leo intrea­teth the Emperour Theodosius, that notwithstanding the vio­lent iudgment, of the hereticall assembly holden at Ephesus, wherby the Catholique faith was euidently impugned, and the Eutichian heresie approoued, he would commaund that all things should remaine in the same state, they were before that wicked iudgment. Therfore (inferreth M. Mason) hath the Emperour authority to commaund what to iudge: and speake in the highest misteries of religion, concerning the person and na­tures of Christ. A strange illation. If Clement the seauenth had written in the same tearmes to Henry the 8. concerning the ti­tle of supreame head of the church, giuen him by the Synode of Bishops mentioned before by M. Mason (as doubtles he would haue done, if he had had the like occasiō to hope, that he would haue hearkened to his request, as S. Leo had of Theodosius) M. Mason would not for all that (I suppose) inferr therupon, that Pope Clement esteemed King Henry to haue authority to commaund, what should be iudged, and spoken of that mat­ter. Certes S. Leo his words import no more, but that the Em­perour would not in any sort fauour, or strengthen the wicked decree of Dioscorus and his complices, and therby make him­self partaker of their sinne (as he saith) knowing right well (as none of common sense can be ignorant) how much force the fauour of the Prince hath, for maintaining either of the Catho­lique truth, or for the bolstering of the contrary, though he ha­ue not any deciding power therin. And that S. Leo did not as­cribe vnto the Emperour any decisiue, much lesse supreame po­wer in that matter, it is manifest by the same epistle. For first [Page 221] he requesteth a suspension, of the decree of the false Ephesine councell, only vntill a greater number of Bishops through the whole church, should be called together in councell, that might determine that controuersie: wherby it is more then ma­nifest, that S. Leo attributed the power to iudge that matter, to the pastors of the church, and not to the Emperour.

Secondly Flauianus who was wrōgfully deposed by the pac­king of Lioscorus (as M. Mason well saith) appealing from that sentence, deliuered his appeale into the hands of the Popes Legates, as to the Lieutenants of his supreame iudge, and did not addresse himself to the Emperour, which he would not haue o­mitted, if he had esteemed him supreme iudge in his cause.

Thirdly Theodosius himselfe disclaimeth not only from su­preame power in Ecclesiasticall matters, but from all power the­rin, saying: It is not lawfull for me being no Bishop, to meddle with the decisiō, Epist. ad Sy­nod. Ephesin. or iudgment of Ecclesiasticall matters.

And here I will put M. Mason in mind of one thing, which he noteth well against his owne heresie, which is, that as befo­re the springing vp of the Eutichian heresie, all men held the truth of ou [...] Sauiours two distinct natures in one person, so also before the springing vp of the Lutheran heresie, all men held the truth in all those points, wherin he and his differeth from the same: and consequently as Euthices was to be called backe to that faith, which was in the church before his heresie sprang vp, so are likewise the Lutherans, and all their progeny. But he prooueth by another epistle of S. Leo to Marcian the Emperors supremacy. S. Leo saith thus.

3. The second councell of Ephesus, which apparantly subuerted the faith. Leo epist. 43. cannot rightly be called a councell, which your highnes for loue to the truth, will make voide by your decree to the contrary, most glorious Emperour. I therfo­re earnestly request, and beseech your maiesty by our lord Iesus-Christ,Marke here the auctority of traditions fathers, and councels. the founder and guider of your kingdome: that in this councell (of Chalcedon) which is presently to be kept, you will not suffer the faith to be called in questiō, which our blessed Fathers preached, being deliuered vnto them from the Apo­stles, neither permitt such things, as haue bene long since condemned by them, to be freshly reuiued againe, but that you will rather commaund, that the con­stitutions of the auncient councell of Nice may stand in force, the interpretation of heretiques being remooued. Thus farr S. Leo, as M. Mason relateth his words. Whervpon he saith. Here the Pope ascribeth to the Empe­rour [Page 222] power to ratify, and establish those councells, that they call not the truth of God in question. Which the Emperour Marcians preactised, entring the councell of Chalcedon in his owne person, and forbidding the Bishops to auouch any thing, concerning the birth of our Sauiour, otherwise then was contey­ned in the Nicene creed. Moreouer when the councell of Chalcedon was conclu­ded, Leo epist. 59. Pope Leo wrote thus againe to the Emperour. Because I must by all mea­nes obay your piety, and most religious will, I haue willingly giuen my consen­ting sentence to these Synodicall constitutions, which concerning the confirma­tion of the Catholique faith, and condemnation of heretiques pleased me very well. The Emperour required the Pope to subscribe, and he did so cheerfully, protesting that for his part, he must by all meanes obey the Princes will in the­se cases. Now tell me, whether the Pope did not acknowledge the Emperour, and the Emperour show himselfe to be supreame Gouernour ouer all persons, euen in causes ecclesiasticall?

Neither thone nor thother can be probably gathered, much lesse clearly prooued out of these testimonies. For the first is only a fatherly, or pastorlie admonition to the Emperour, ex­horting him in sweete manner to maintaine the decreese, of the pastors of Gods church, which as a Catholique Prince he was bound to doe, and which he practised precisely, according to the Popes direction, and not as hauing supreame power therin, forbidding that any thing should be affirmed, of the birth of our Sauiour Christ, otherwise then was conteined in the Nicene councell, and in the epistle of the most holy Bishop of Rome S. Leo vnto Flauianus: Cōcil. Chal­cedon. apud Bin. to. 2. pag. 4. which latter words M. Mason malitiouslie leaueth out, least the reader should see, what respect the Emperour bare vnto the Bishop of Rome, proposing his doctrine to the councell, as a rule of truth.

The second allegatiō is as litle to the purpose: for these words because I must by all meanes obay your piety, and religious will (wherin con­sisteth the force of M. Masons illation) do not import any bōd, or obligation of duty, which the Pope had to the Emperour in that matter, as an inferiour to his superiour, but a prompt and readie fulfilling of his reasonable, and religious request, as eui­dently appeareth by the Epistle following, written at the same time, and of the same matter to Pulcheria the Empresse, where the Pope writeth thus. And for as much as the most Godly Emperour would, that I should write to all the Bishops, that were present in the councell of Chalcedon, wherby I might confirme the things, that were defined there [Page 223] touching the rule of faith, I willingly performed it: least the crafty dissimula­tion of some should make my iudgment doubtfull. Where M. Mason may see, that the Emperour did not desire the Pope, to subscribe to the councell, as other Bishops had done, but to confirme that, which they had decreed, neither did he commaund him to do it, but willed him only, as a thing profitable, and conuenient, to make cleare his opinion in those points, which some craftily would haue called into doubt, as the Pope himselfe in the for­mer words declareth. Wherby it euidently appeareth, of what force the iudgment of the see Apostolique was then, for the deciding of controuersies in faith.

But if M. Mason stand yet in doubt of S. Leo his iudgment in this point of supremacy, let him take the paines to reade (amongst others of his epistles written in the cause of Eutiches) his 7. epistle to Theodosius Emperour, where he shall see, that he esteemeth himself, (as Bishop of the see Apostolique) to be supreme iudge in matters pertaining to faith, and reli­gion, which he also sheweth plainly in the epistle immedia­tly following.

4. As the Emporour Marcian (saith M Mason) did practise this supremacy, so the Emperour Basill did chalenge the title, Cōcil. 8. act. 1. Bin. to. 3. Pag 880. when he said in the councell of Constantinople: that the gouernment of the vniuersall Ecclesiasti­callship, was committed vnto him by the diuine prouidence.

But because Surius readeth this sentence in the person of Ba­sill, thus: VVhen the diuine, and most benigne prouidence had committed vnto vs the gouernment of the vniuersall ship. And Binnius thus: The diuine and gratious prouidence of God, committing vnto you (the Bishops) the gouernment of the ecclesiasticall ship: out of neither of which rea­dings he cannot draw any argument for his purpose, he saith, that neither of them reade it truly: thone leauing out the word (ecclesiasticall) and thother putting in (you) for (vs) so that he would haue it reade thus. The diuine prouidence of God hauing com­mitted vnto vs, the gouernment of the vniuersall ecclesiasticall ship. VVherby (saith he) it is euident, that the Emperour Basill did chalenge the gouernment of the vniuersallship, both ecclesiasticall and ciuill, and that in a generall councell, no man resisting him. VVhat doth this differ from supreame gouernor, as it is vsed in the church of En­gland?

But first who would not rather thinke, that M. Mason [Page 224] corrupteth the reading, either putting in the word (ecclesiastical) or chaunging the word (you) into (vs) seeing he citeth no copy, or author for this reading, wheras either of the other readings hath at least one graue author. He bringeth some coniectures for the proofe of his reading, which prooue nothing at all. But because I will not bestow many words in this matter, I will giue him that which he cannot prooue, and will suppose his reading to be true: and yet if he dare stand to the iudgment of the Emperour Basill, will euicte my cause against him, or els I wilbe content to loose it for euer. Neither will I repeate all he saith to this purpose in the whole 8. generall councell, for that would be ouer tedious, I will therfore relate only a few periods of his speach, made in the end of the councell. Where first he auoucheth in expresse words,Binn. to. 3. Pag 861. that to lay men it is not graun­ted by the rule of the church, to speake any thing at all (in councell or by way of iudgment) in ecclesiasticall matters, which (saith he) is the worke of Bishops, and priests. And after his speach to the Bishops, he saith thus to the nobility, with the rest of the laity.

But as concerning you, that are of the late sort, as well you that beare offi­ces, as priuate persons, I haue no more to say, but that it is not lawfull for you by any meanes, to moue talke of ecclesiasticall matters, neither to resist in any point the integrity of the church or the vniuersall Synode. For to search and seeke out these matters, belongeth to Patriarches, Bishops, and Priests, which are gouernours by office: who haue power to sanctifie, to bind, and to loose: who haue the keies of heauen, and of the church. It belongeth not vnto vs, who ought to be fedd, who haue neede to be sanctified, to be bound, and to be loosed from bonds. For of whatsoeuer religion, or wisdo­me the lay man be, yea though indewed with all internall vertues, so long as he is a lay man, he shall not cease to be called a sheepe. Againe a Bishop how­soeuer vnuenerable he be, and naked of all vertue, so long as he is a Bishop, and preacheth duly the word of truth, he suffereth not the losse of his Pastorall vocation, and dignity. VVhat then haue we to doe being yet sheepe? The Pastors haue power to discusse the subtilty of words, and to seeke and find out such things as are aboue vs. VVe must therfore in feare, and sincere faith harken vnto them, and reuerence their contenances, as being the ministers of almighty God, and bearing his forme: and not seeke any more then that, which belongeth to our degree and vocation. Thus farre the Emperour Basill.

And now dare I remitt the matter to M. Masons owne iudg­ment, whether this Emperour chalenged vnto himself, the su­premacy in ecclesiasticall causes, as he would haue him, vpon an argument patched together of diuers peeces, as we haue seene before. But peraduenture he was persuaded to vse this argu­ment, by the authority of Tortura Torti, to whom in the margent he referreth the reader with this note: vide Torturam Torti pag. 349. Where indeede he hath it, but with how small rea­son, may appeare by that, which is already said.

5. As Basill (saith M. Mason) did chalenge this gouernment, no man resisting him, so sundry Synods haue giuen the like to Princes refusing it. There was a councell holden at Mentz ie Germany, the yeare 814. in the time of the Emperour Charles the great, and Pope Leo the third, the Syno­dicall acts wherof Bennius professeth to haue compared with a manuscript sent him out of the Emperours library at Vienna. Now the Bishops assembled in this Synode began thus: In the name of the Father, of the sonne, and of the holy ghost. To the most glorious and most Christian Emperour, Carolus Augustus gouernor of the true religion, and defender of the holy church of God &c. And a litle after. We giue thankes to God the Father almighty, because he hath graū ­ted to his holy church, a gouernour so Godly &c. And againe. About all these points we greatly need your aide, and sound doctrine, which may both admonish vs continually, and instruct vt curteously, so farr, that such things, which we haue briefly touched beneath in a few cha­pters, may receiue strength from your authority, if so be, that your piety shall so iudge it worthy, whatsoeuer is found in them worthy to be amended, let your magnificent, and imperiall dignity com­maund it to be amended.

In the yeares 847. there was holden another Synode at Mentz, Binn to. 3. Pag. 631. in the time of Leo the 4. and Lotharius the Emperour, where the Bishops in like manner. Binn. tom. 2. Pag. 1183. To our most gratious Lord and Christian King Lodo­wike, the most puissant gouernor of true religion. The like was ascribed to King Recesuinthus, in a councell holden at Emerita in Por­tugale, about the yeare 705. in these words. Whose vigilance doth gouerne both secular things with greatest piety, and Ecclesia­sticall by his wisdome plentifully giuen him by God. So they ac­knowledged him gouernour both in causes secular, and Ecclesiasticall. Garsias in notis in Con­ciliū Emeritā This councell of Emerita receiued much strength, and authority from Pope Innocent the 3. in his epistle to Peter Archb: of Compostella, as witnesseth Garsias [Page 226] Thus you see most famous Bishops assembled in Synodes haue giuen vnto Pri [...] ­es, such titles as are equiualent to the stile annexed, to the Imperiall crowne of his kingdome.

It is more then false, that euer any Synode gaue to any tem­porall Prince, any title equiualent to supreame head, or gouernor of the church, in all causes aswell Spirituall or ecclesiasticall, as temporall. Which is now vnlawfully, and sacrilegiously annexed to the crowne of England Neither do these authorities alleaged import any such thing.

For omitting that these Synodes here alleaged were neither generall, nor with in the first Foure, Fiue, or Six hundreth yea­res after Christ (which conditions the Protestants exact in our proofes, and therfore by the law of equity ought to be tied the­runto themselues) they giue vnto the Emperours no other titles, then rectors of religion, which with due proportion may be giuen vnto men of farr meaner condition, and degree, as to Church wardens, Officialls, and the like, who may be called rectors of religion, (that is of matters pertaining to religion) in their degree. Emperours and Princes are in very deede go­uernors of religion in the highest degree, that any secular or lay persons can be, that is, to commaund that the decrees, and ordinances of their pastors, and prelates be obserued, and to punish the transgressours therof, and the like, but that they haue any power, or authority to determine, iudge, or decide any thing in ecclesiasticall matters of themselues, without the sentence of the ecclesiasticall iudges, to wit the Bishops, and prelates of Gods church, is a meere paradox, nouelty, and heresie, neuer taught, or practised in the Christian world befo­re Henry the 8. of England. And this is irreproouably conuin­ced by the testimonies, both of holy scripture, Fa­thers, and Emperours, of the first Foure, and Fiue hundreth yeares before alleaged, which M. Mason wit­tingly dissembleth, because they can receiue no answe­re, as his Maiesties words before related euidently shew: yea these very councels of Mentz, which seeme most to fauour his purpose▪ do expreslie teach the contrarie, not in the epistle or preface to the Emperour, where a precise forme of words is not alwaies obserued, but in the Canon it selfe, whence the sence of all councels is to be taken. The first Maguntine coun­cell [Page 227] here cited by M. Mason hath this Canon.Can. 8, VVe will that Bishops haue power to prouide, rule, gouerne and dispose of Ecclesiasticall things, ac­cording to the authority of Canons: and that the laity in their offices obay the Bishops, to the gouernment of the churches, defence of widowes, and or­phanes: and that they be obedient vnto them, to the conseruation of their Christianity. Which Canon is repeated word by word, in the se­cond councell of Mentz here cited, but there it is in the sea­uenth place.

Now let M. Mason himselfe iudge, whether these councels gaue, or intended to giue to the Emperour, the title of su­preame head, or gouernor of the church in Ecclesiasticall causes.

That which he bringeth of the councell of Emerita, is alto­gether impertinent. For it is not denied, that Kings may gouerne Ecclesiasticall affaires, in their ranke and order, that is vnder their Pastors, and Prelates, and by their direction (as persons of meaner qualitie do) for which this King is commended by the councell. But it is denied, that Kings haue supreame power, and gouernment in Ecclesiasticall causes. And this doth the same councell teach in these words.Concil. Emerit. can. 17. Bin. tom. 2. Pag. 1182. Because Episcopall power is by Gods di­uine grace ordained, in his holy church, it is seeming that as he is chiefe in honour, and bounty in his life time, so after his death he be not wronged by detraction. And because M. Mason for the strengthning of his purpose doth adde, that this councell receiued great force, by the epistle of Innocentius the 3. (to shew him that all his argu­ments to this purpose are like vnto the sting of a Scorpion, which though most poisonfull, yet neuer hurreth where the Scorpion her selfe is brused vpon the place) I will relate here the beginning of that epistle, that M. Mason may see, that if this apistle be of any force with him, as it is most worthie to be▪ his doctrine of the supremacie is most false: thus therfore wri­teth that learnep Pope.

Although the body of the church, wherof Christ is head be one, and all the faithfull are members, yet he which of Christ the rocke is called a Peter (that is a rocke) and of Christ the head, is called the head, he being witnes that said, thou shalt be called Cephas, which according to one interpretation is expoun­dod the head: because as the fulnes of the sense aboundeth in the head, and some part of that fulnes is deriued to the rest of the members: so the rest (of the Apostles) are called to part of the care. Only Peter is assumed to the fulnes [Page 228] of power, to whom as to the head, the more weighty causes of the church are worthily remitted, not so much by constitution of Canons, as by diuine ordina­tion. Let M. Mason, or any other though more partiall, iudge, what force or strength this epistle giueth, to the supremacy of temporall Princes in Ecclesiasticall causes.

Ad Scapulā. Con. Par­men, l. 5.6. VVe might (saith M. Mason) adde herunto the iudgment of other fathers. Tertullian: we reuerence the Emperour as a man next vnto God, and inferiour only to God. Optatus: Aboue the Emperour is none but only God, who made the Emperour. So S. Chrisostome saith, that the Empe­rour hath no peere vpon eath, and calleth him the head, and crowne of men vpon earth. If he be next vnto God, and inferiour only to God, if none be aboue him but God only: if he haue no peere vpon earth, as being the head, and crowne of all men vpon earth, then must he needs be supreame head, and go­uernour vpon earth, according to the iudgment of the fathers.

True Sir, so he is in matters meerelie pertaining to ciuill, and politique gouernment, which properlie are earthlie, or vpon the earth: But what is this to your purpose, to prooue him su­preame head, iudge, and gouernour of spirituall matters which are from heauen, and aboue the earth? and whither his power reacheth not, as not hauing receiued the keies of the kingdome of heauen, which our Sauiour left to S. Peter, and not vnto Cesar. Therfore all these words of yours are but wind, and quite besides the question: as also are those that follow in this sort.

4. This is agreeable to the scripture, which testifieth that most godly Kings commaunded both Priests, and high Priests, euen in cases of religion, as was before declared.

You bring not one instance of any good King, commaunding by his Kinglie power any thing pertaining to religion, which was new, doubtfull, or in controuersie, but only to execute such things, as were euident by the law, according to the inter­pretation and practise of the church in those times; As for ex­ample, that the Priests and Leuits should instruct the people, offer sacrifice, sing in the church, purge the temple of things pertaining, to the worship of false Gods, and the like: which, or the like things are practised by Christian Kings, not only without blame, but with greatest praise. But what is this to the purpose? is this to iudge, or determine in matters of faith, and religion, as supreame head therof? and not rather euidentlie to [Page 229] follow the iudgment of the church, and her Pastors in these things? If you do not know, that the gouernmēt of the church in matters of faith, and religion, did not appertaine to the Kings, but to the Priests, euen in the old law of the Iewes, you may learne both of the Prophet Malachie, saying:Malachie 2. the lips of the Priest shall keepe knowledge, and from his mouth shalt thou take the law, for be is the Angell, or messenger of the God of hostes: and also of the law it self commaunding, that in all difficult cases, euen in ciuill matters, and therfore much more in matters of religion, men should recurre to the iudgment of the Priests. If thou perceiue (saith God by Moyses) that the iudgment with thee be hard and doubtfull betweene bloud and bloud, cause and cause, le­prosy and leprosy: and that thou see that the words of the iudges within thy gates (that is the particuler iudges) do vary: Denteron. 17.8 &c. arise and go vp to the place, which thy Lord thy God shall choose. And thou shalt come to the Priests of the Leuiticall stocke, and to the iudge, that shalbe at that time, and thou shalt aske of them: who shall shew thee the truth of the iudgment. And thou shalt do, whatsoeuer they, that are presidents of the place, which our Lord shall choose, shall say, and teach thee according to his lawe: and thou shalt follow their sentence: Neither shalt thou decline to the right hand, nor to the left hand. But he that shalbe proud, refusing to abay the commaundement of the Priest, which at that time ministreth to our Lord thy God, and decree of the iudge, that man shall dye.

8. Neither is this authority (saith M. Mason) taken away in the new testament, but continueth the very same: as may appeare by S. Paul, M. Mason. whu lifteth vp his voice like a trumpet, proclaiming: Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers, which words (euery soule) compre­hend all persons both Ecclesiasticall, and temporall, yea though they were Euangelists, Prophets, or Apostles, as S. Chrisostome doth truly ex­pound them. If euery soule be subiect vnto higher powers, then the Prince is superiour to all, and consequently supreame within his owne dominions.

I will not ascribe it to want of iudgment in M. Mason, that he bringeth alwaies arguments against himselfe: but to the na­ture of the cause he maintaineth, which being naught, can haue no good grounds to be sustained by He bringeth and with good reason S. Pauls commaundement, for the subiection of all men to higher power.

But what will he inferre hereupon for the Princes suprema­cie? [Page 230] Marie that the Prince is supreame superiour within his owne domi­nions. But what in spirituall causes? Surelie he must meane so, or els his argument concludeth nothing against any one, vnles it be against some of his holy, and hot spirited brotherhood, that hold themselues to be made free by Christ, from all such subie­ction as S. Paul speaketh of here. But he disputeth not here against them, but against Catholiques, who, as he knoweth, teach obedience, and subiection to temporall Princes, in all ci­uill and temporall causes: therfore must he needs meane supe­rioritie in spirituall causes. In which sense it is euidentlie con­cluded, out of this authoritie of S. Paul, that temporall Princes are not supreame heads, or gouernors of the church, by this argument.

The Princes, whom S. Paul commaundeth the Christians of his time to obay, had the same, or as great authoritie ouer their Christian subiects, as Christian Princes now haue ouer their subiects, considered only as they are temporall Princes: But those Princes being Pagans had no authoritie ouer their Chri­stian subiects, in matter of faith, and religion. Therfore Christian Princes now, for so much only as they are tem­porall Princes, haue no such authoritie ouer their sub­iects.

What M. Mason. will say to this argument, wherof he him­selfe furnished the matter, I know not; but well I wot that he will not easilie shape any probable answere to it. Which diffi­cultie besides many others, he either did not, or would not see, when he concluded his paragraffe in this brauing manner.

But why do I stay so long vpon this point, which hath bene of late so learne­dly, and plentifully handled, that to say any more, were to cast water into the sea, or to light a candle at noone day.

Where, or by whom this point hath bene either more large­lie, or learnedlie handled, then by M. Horne sometime preten­ded Bishop of Winchester; I know not: who notwithstanding was so encountred by D. Stapleton in his counterblast, that nei­ther he himself, nor any other for him, that I know, haue since appeared in maintainance of that quarrell, but haue left the field to their conquering aduersarie. And if any one since haue said any thing in this point, it hath not bene by way of reply, but a repetition of some of these arguments, which were be­fore [Page 231] answere, vpon assurance that the booke being printed welnigh 50. yeares agone, and neither ther publiquelie sold, but as other Catholique bookes in the vulgar tongue are, is long since laid out of mens hands, and now either not knowne, or not found. And therfore M. Mason thinking himselfe in this dispute to be sailing at maine seas, when he is but wading in a brooke not ankle deepe, is no lesse deceiued then he was, that comming in the night time out of a darke lane into Cheapside, where he sawe the moone shyne bright, thought he had bene neere vpon Thames, and called hard, oares, oares.

9. Hauing thus farre brought such proofes, for the tempo­rall Princes supremacie, as he thinketh to add any more ther­unto, should be to cast water into the sea: (all which notwith­standing do either make against him, or nothing for him, as ap­peareth by the answeres therunto) he beginneth to answere such obiections, as he maketh against himselfe,Pag. 117. wherin he she­weth no lesse the weaknes of his cause, then he did in arguing for it. For he neither bringeth the most pressing arguments, which make for the Catholique doctrine in this point, (some part wherof haue bene touched before) neither doth he pro­pose those he bringeth, to their most aduantage, neither doth he (which is worst of all) satisfie them as they are proposed. The first obiection he maketh thus.

If the Prince be supreame gouernor in causes spirituall, he may commaund what religion he list, and we must obay him.

This argument should be thus proposed. If the temporall Prince be supreame gouernour in spirituall causes, his subiects are bound to obay his commaundements therin, for euery subiect is bound to obay his superiour in that, wherin he is his superiour according to S. Paul: Let euery soule be subiect to superiour powers. But he may commaund that, which is false and perni­cious, as many temporall Princes are knowne to haue done, and no marueile for all men of themselues are subiect to errour, as the scripture testifieth, saying that all men are liars, vnles they be freed from that defect, Psalm. 115.11. Rom. 3.4: by the speciall assistance of the holy Ghost, which in the gouernment of spirituall causes, is no where promised to temporall Princes. Therfore if the Prince be supreame gouernour in spirituall causes, his subiects may be bound to do that, which is false and pernitious. Which notwithstanding is most absurd. To this argu­ment thus proposed, I do not see what probable answere M. Mason would frame, but let vs see how he answereth it, as he himself proposeth it.

Not so (saith he) for he is supreame gouernour in causes temporall, yet in may not comaund a man to beare false witnes, or to condemne the innocent [...] Iesabell did: or if he should, we must rather obay God then man: so in cases of religion: Nabuchodonozor had no warrant to erect his image, not Ieroboam to set vp his golden calues. For the King as King, is supreame vnder God, not against God; to commaund for truth, not against truth. And if he shall commaund vngodly things, we may not performe obedience, but submit our selues to his punishment with patience.

Yeu do not satisfie M. Mason. For you giue no rule, nor can you giue any, how to know, when the King in matter of doubt, and controuersie commaundeth for God, or for the truth, and when he commaundeth against God, and the truth. For exam­ple, the King of England forbiddeth in his kingdome the Masse, and all other rites and articles of religion, wherin the Prote­stantes differ from the Catholiques: the King of France comma­undeth, and alloweth them all in his kingdome. I would now vnderstād of you M. Mason, how either English or French men may in your doctrine know, whether of these two Kings com­maundeth for God and the truth, and whether of them com­maundeth against God and the truth. For seeing they cōmaund contrarie things, thone of them at least must necessarilie com­maund against God or how he knoweth that K. Henry the 8. commaundeth against God and ther truth in commaunding the obseruance of the six articles. So directly opposit to their reli­gion: but for the truth when he commaunded himself to be called supream head of the church contrarie to all Catholique doctrin. You will I doubt not according to your accustomed manner, recurre to the written word and say, that he that com­maundeth according to the word, commaundeth for God and the truth. But this is but losse of time, for we are no nearer to know the truth then before; the question and doubt yet remai­ning, whether of these Kings commaunde according to the written word, which how to know I would Learne some rule of you. For seeing that in your doctrine, they are both supreame gouernors in these matters, within their owne dominions, and both of them prentend to commaund according to Gods word, it seemeth to me, that in your doctrine both their subiects are bound to obay them, and yet this is manifestlie absurd, seeing that thone of them at the least commaundeth against God and [Page 233] his truth. I will attend your satisfaction M. Mason in this point, which vntill you giue, I shall promise you to esteeme your do­ctrine, of the supremacie of temporall Princes in spirituall mat­ters, not only an heresie in matter of faith, but an absurd Para­dox euen in politike principles, as diuiding Princes one from thother in religion, wherin they ought most to agree, and tying their subiects either to obay them in matters hurtfull to their soules, or for feare of that to disobay them, in matters pertaining to their duty: And to giue them power to iudg when their Prince commaundeth for God or against God and therby to open the dore to all rebellion and sedition.

10. The second obiection M. Mason proposeth in this sort. If the supreame gouernment in spirituall causes be due to the imperiall crowne, it skilleth not, whether the Prince be man or woman, woman or child, nor of what religion. For the princely power was no lesse in Traiane, then in Theodosius, in King Henry, then Q. Mary, in Queene Mary the enemy of the new Gospellers, then in Q. Elizabeth their protectrix: Yea it was no lesse in King Lucius before he was baptised, then after. And conse­quently the Emperour of the Turkes may be called supreame gouernour, in causes Ecclesiasticall within his owne dominions.

The force of this argument would more euidentlie appeare, if M. Mason had thus proposed it If it belong to the Imperiall crowne, to be supreame gouernor of the church of Christ, euen in spirituall causes, it will necessarily follow, that Turkish and Pagan princes are so also. But this is very false and absurd. For no man can be head of that body, wherof he is not a member: But Turkes and Pagans are not members of Christ his church, as is euident; they therfore cannot be heads, nor supreame gouernours therof in these cause, which, as it is Christs church, doth appertaine vnto it. But let vs see his answere to it, as it is proposed by himselfe.

Heere are two things (saith he) to be considered, First, the princely power and authority: Secondly the hability, rightly to exercise the same. The princely power is giuen immediatly from God, both vnto Christian Princes, and also vnto Ethnikes, which are guided only by the light, and law of nature, and by constitutions thence deduced by the wit of man. For this is true in all: by me Kings raigne. And Daniel said vnto Nabucho­donosor. O King thou art a King of Kings, Prouerb▪ 8.15. Dan. 2.37. for the God of heauen hath giuen vnto thee a kingdome and power, and strength, and glory. But the habi­lity rightly to vse and exercise this authority, by referring it vnto the true end, that is the glory of God, (for all our riuers ought to run into that [Page 234] Ocean) and the eternall good of the subiects, is communicated from the Lord only to such, as know him in Christ Iesus, and are guided by his grace.

Note diligent reader, that M. Mason putteth here a distin­ction betweene the princelie power, and the habilitie rightlie to vse it: and therfore cannot deny the same distinction in Epis­copall power, wherupon it followeth that a man may be a true Bishop, and yet cannot make a lawfull Bishop, because he wan­teth abilitie to exercise his power, as it happeneth in hereti­ques, schismatiques, and excommunicate persons. Which distin­ction obserued, will shew the Bishop [...] now in England to be no lawfull Bishops, (though they did descend from Cranmer by true consecration as they do not) for want of habilitie in him, that did consecrate them, to exercise rightly that power, as is before mentioned.Rom. 13.1. De ciuit. l. 5. c. 21. So the domi­nation and power that mans reasons hath ouer his senses and gifts either of natur or for­tune is of nature, but the right vse thereof is frō ground. But what then? will follow hereupō that human hath supreame power in matters of faith and religion? Isay. 45.2.3. Epist. 50. Epist. 50.

The fountaine therfore of all power is God himself: as the Apostle witnes­seth, saying: there is no power but of God, To which purpose it is well said of S. Austin. He that gaue it to Marke, gaue it to Cesar, he that gaue it to Augustus, gaue it to Nero: he that gaue it to Vespasian father, or his sonne most sweet Emperours, gaue it also to Domitian the most cruell. And that I may not reckon vp the rest in particuler, he that gaue it to Constantine the Christian, gaue it also to Iulian the Apostata. But though domination, and power were from the law of nature, yet the right vse of it is not from nature, but from grace. A Prince as a Prince be he good or bad, in respect of princely calling hath sufficient power, and authority to gouerne his people, according to the will of God. And it is his duty so to doe. The Lord said vnto Cyrus. I will go before thee, and make the crooked streight. I will breake the brazen doores, and burst the iron barres. And I will giue thee treasures of darknes, and the things hid in secret places, that thou maist know that I am the Lord. Vpon which words S. Hierome no [...]eth, that God giueth kingdomes vnto wicked men, not that they should abuse them, but as for other reasons, so for this, that being inuited by his bounty they should be conuerted from their sins. So it is their duty to serue God, not only as they are men, but as they are Kings. And Kings (saith S. Austin) do in this serue God as Kings, when they do those things to serue him, which none but Kings can do. But what is that? It may ap­peare by these words. Let the Kings of the earth serue Christ, euen by making lawes for Christ. For though the immediate end of humane societies [Page 235] be peace, and prosperity, yet the last end of all,So the last end of all hu­man actions as Gods glory. But what will folow hereupō for the su­premacy. 1. ad Timoth. 22, So euery ar­tificer in that he is such an one, hath po­wer to serue God as such an one yet for the due exe­cution of it, grace is required and yet by his art is not he supreā head of the church I ho­pe which not­withstand would folow in M. Masōs doctrin.and west principally to be re­spected is the glory of God, and eternall happines. For which purpose it is the duty of all subiects, to praie for their Prince, though he be a pagan, that vn­der him they may liue a Godly, and peaceable life, in all Godlines and honesty. But though euery Prince, in that he is a Prince, hath authority to serue God as a Prince, yet for the due execution of it, there is required grace. Authori­ty is in a Pagan: the due execution requireth a Christian. The King of Ni­niue had authority long before, to proclaime a fast: Nabuchodonosor had au­thori [...]y to commaund, that all nations should worship the God of Daniell: but they put it not in execution, till God touched their hearts: and when they put it in execution, it was not by any new authority, but by vertue of their former Princely power hertofore abused, but now vsed rightly by direction of Gods spi­rit and assistaunce of his grace.

I confesse it was very irksome vnto me, to make relation of all this longe and loose discourse, containing nothing to the purpose for the matter in hand. For the most that is here said, is that Kings as Kings, haue power to make lawes for the serui­ce of Christ, which is not denied (supposing they do it accor­ding to the iudgment, of the pastors of Gods church.) But this is Farre from that, which M. Mason hath here to shew, which is to prooue that Kings as Kings, and therfore aswell Pagan and infidell, as Christian Kings, haue supreme and soueraigne authority, in ecclesiasticall and Spirituall matters and causes. A proposition, which (as I thinke) hath no author but M Ma­son, nor any other ground but his fancy, straitened by the for­ce of the obiection, made against his doctrine of the suprema­cy of temporall Princes, which he, finding no other meane to maintaine, is forced to sett abroach this palpable absurdity. When M. Mason shall haue prooued this paradox, of the soue­raigne power of Pagan Princes ouer Christs church, by some other ground then his owne senseles assertion, we will dispute with him, whether the distinction of the power it selfe, and the meanes to exercise it, be appliable to that purpose, for which he vseth it, or no.

In the meane while I will let him see, how dangerous this his doctrine, and distinction is to all estates, and how it openeth the waie to all sedition. For by it maie he, or anie other, main­taine himselfe to be King of England, or anie other Kingdome, Saying that as he is the sonne of his Father (be he whom he [Page 236] will (he hath power from God to gouerne the Kingdome, and wanteth only hability to exercise that power, and to rule as King, and therfore if he should now begin to raigne, he should not do it by vertue of anie new power graunted him, but by vertue of the same power he had before. If he, or anie man els should argue in this sort, he would (I doubt not) be quicklie lodged in the place appointed for crackt wits, till he should grow more wise. The fault that M. Mason would find in this dis­course will let him see the like in his owne, that he may mēd it, if he will.

And seeing he giueth vs no kind of proofe of this new para­doxe: that Pagan Princes haue soueraigne authority ouer Christs church, in Spirituall matters, and want only meanes to execu­te it, but will haue vs to beleeue it vpon his bare word, though he exact of vs,we builde not our saith vpō Popes, councels, nor Fa­thers, but on­ly vpon the sacred Word of God regi­stred in the writings of the Apostles and Prophets saith he pa. 101. Cap 15. n. 7. 1. Cor. 5.12. for proofe of whatsoeuer we affirme, expresse scripture, and thinketh he is not well dealt with, if we giue him the testimonies of Fathers, and councels, of which vnequall dealing I more often, and willingly putt him in mind, because I see it often vsed both by himself, and his reforming brethren. Seeing (I say) he will giue vs no proofe for this his assertion, I will (to the proofes of the contrary before alleadged, aswell out of scripture, antiquity, and reason) add one other deduced out of the doctrine of S. Paul, who saith expresly, that he hath no power to iudge of those, that are without (that is) that are not any way wi­thin the church, which is the house of God, and body of Christ. Whervpon it followeth and by greater reason, that those that are without the church, as all Pagans euidently are, haue no power to iud­ge, either those persons or causes, that are within the church. But M. Mason to make his new doctrine more currant expli­cateth the same in this sort.Mala. 2.7. How he ar­gueth against him self? For if God hath made priestes the mesēgers of his truth he, hath not giuen the sa­me auctority to Princes.

The truth of this answere, that thou maist see in another glasse, let vs a litle remooue our speech from the Prince to the priest: I demaund therfore if the Priests, the sons of Aaron were not the messengers of the Lord of hastes. Yes verely as saith Malachy. But he may be a false prophet, an idolater, an Apostata, he may turne Pagan, or Atheist. Is such a Priest the messenger of the Lord of hostes? A priest as a priest, be he good or bad, in respect of his priestly calling, and authority, is the messenger of the Lord of hostes: he ought to leaue his impieties in seducing the people, and to serue God in teaching the truth. In that he is a priest, God hath armed him with a calling to deliuer his [Page 237] message, for performance wherof, he needeth no new calling, but grace to vse that well, which before he abused. Apply this to the present point, and it will satisfie.

Good God, how blind and peruerse is heresie, which being to maintaine it self without the grounds of Catholique doctri­ne, doth notwithstanding obstinately impugne the same? This I say because, vnles M. Mason suppose as true, the Catholique doctrine of an indeleble character in Christian preiesthood, wherby the power of order once receiued doth alwaies remai­ne, this his discourse is altogether vaine and idle (I speake he­re of Christian preiesthood, and not of that of Aaron, which descended by the line of generation.) For without some such meanes to conserue the power of order, it is not possible to cō ­ceiue how the lawfull [...]y therof being lost by excommunica­tion, heresie, apostacy, or the like, it can anie waies be renewed or repaired without a new ordination, which M. Mason ap­prooueth not. And therfore this example of priesthood, vnles he suppose the Catholique doctrine, doth make nothing for his purpose, which is to shew how temporall Princes may haue su­preame power, in Spirituall affaires, though they haue not the true or lawfull vse therof.

Secondly, though M.It is a differēt thing to say, that tēporall Princes are suoreā heads in all Spiri­tuall causes and things: and to say that they ought to re­ferr all their Princely a­ctions to Gods glory the first is that M. Masō should prooue the later noe mā denieth, Mason. Mason should be permitted to make vse for his owne aduantage of the Catholique doctrine in this particuler, yet will it not anie waie helpe him, vnles he cā first shew, that temporall Princes, eo ipso, that they are Princes, haue souereigne power in Spirituall causes, and then that they haue some character, or some other thing, by meanes wherof the same power is conserued in them, though they haue not the lawfull vse therof. But how M. Mason can make anie pro­bable proofe of either of these points, it surpasseth my small capacitie to conceiue He doth therfore in this whole loose discourse of his, miserably and vnlearnedly begge the graunt of that, which is in question: to wit, that temporall Princes haue from God supreame authority in Spirituall things: Which vnles it be graunted him (and yet it is that wherupon we dispute) all these words of his are but wind, and may serue him as a glasse, to see the impertinency of his former answe­rein.

The third obiection M. Mason setteth downe thus. To make [Page 238] the Prince supreame head, or gouernour of the church is vnnaturall, for s [...]l the sheepe feede the flocke? he would haue said I thinke the shepheard at least so he should haue said) or the sonne guide the Father? His ans­were is this.

Psal. 78.70. As the Priest is Father, and shepheard in respect of the Prince, so the Prince is a shepheard and Father, in respect of the priest. The Lord chose Dauid his seruant, and tooke him from the sheepfoldes, to seede his people in Iacob, and his inheritance in Israel. So he fed them in the simplicity of his hart, and gui­ded them by the discretion of his hands And Ezechias called the priests his sons: 2. Chron. 29.11. If the Prince be their shepheard, then he must feede them, if he be their Father, then he must guide them, this is naturall.

The force of truth is great, and alwaies victorious M. Mason after all his wrāgling, is at last constrained to confesse that Prin­ces are sheepe, and children in respect of priests, and therfore by the very order of nature, to be fedd and guided by them: not in temporall matters (for in those he saith the Princes are their shepheards, and Fathers) therfore in Spirituall things, vnles he will that one and the same persō maie be sheepe, and shepheard, superior and subiect to another, in respect of one and the same matter, which no man of common sense will thinke. Is it not therfore euen by his owne conclusion most cleare, that by the course of nature Princes are to be fedd, and guided by the priests in Spirituall things? and consequently, that Princes are not, nor can be supreame gouernors, or heads of the church in the same.

12. Hitherto haue I deferred to answere that maine argu­ment of M. Masons, in vrging wherof he emploieth Six, or seauen whole pages of his booke in folio, thinking it of princi­pall force, for the concluding of his purpose, which is to proo­ue the deposition, of the Catholique Bishops by Q. Elizabeah to haue bene iust and lawfull. I haue (I saie) hitherto differed to answere it, because though it appeare to M. Mason of great force, yet is it indeed altogether impertinent to his purpose, as shall appeare by the answere.

3. Reg. 2.27.The argument in briefe is this. King Salomon deposed Abiather being high priest, and put another in his place. Therfore Q. Elizabeth might do the like by the Bishops of her kingdome.

Wherunto I answere, that though it should be graunted, that Salomon as King only and not as a prophet and therefore by [Page 239] speciall reuelation deposed Abiather: and Farther that his fact was iust, and lawfull (which two things M. Mason cannot ea­sely prooue) yet doth not this argument conclude any thing for M. Masons purpose. For though it were also graunted, that the priests of the old law were subiect, in all temporall causes to the iudgmēt of their Kings, yet it doth not follow therupō, that the priest of the new law are in like manner subiect to their Kings. For noe true Christian can deny, but that the preiesthood of the new lawe, is both different, and also more perfect, then that of the old, whereas the power of the Kings is the same in both. And this is more then sufficient, to hinder the necessary sequell of the argument proposed, in the iudgment of any one that hath anie iudgment.

But yet Farther, be it that the priests of the new, and old law are equall in this respect, (which M. Mason will neuer be able to prooue) yet doth M. Masons argument conclude nothing at all for his purpose. For Abiathers case was farre different from that of our Catholique Bishops his cause being meerely tempo­rall, to wit his conspiring against Salomon in fauour of his bro­ther Adonias, which cause had it not bene in the person of a priest, should without all question haue belonged to the tēporall tribunall to be iudged. But theirs was a matter of faith, and reli­gion, which though it had not bene in the person of priests, yet could it not haue bene iudged by a temporall iudge. And so M. Masons maine argument is shewed to be most impertinent for his purpose, yea it may be retorted against him in this sort. Nei­ther Salomon, nor any other good King euer iudged, the priests of the old law in matters of faith and religion, but were subiect to their iudgmēt therin, as is manifest by the example of Saul and Ozias: therfore much lesse can temporall Kings iudge, the priests of the new law in the like matters. Aand this whole matter I will prooue by the ineuitable testimony of his Maiesty, to whose authority M. Mason, I suppose, will readily submitt his iudgmēt: thus therfore his Maiesty writeth.

13. I confesse, In his decla­ratiō against Cardinall de peron page 70. impr [...]ssiō of paru. that when a Prince commaundeth any thing directly against the word of God, and which tendeth to the subuersion of religion, that the cler­gy in this case ought not only to dispence with his subiects in their obedience to him, but ought expresly to forbid them to obay him, because we ought rather to obay God, then men.

And because there may be difficulty to know when the Prin­ce commaundeth any thing directly against Gods word, and to the subuersion of religion, no Prince being so malitiously wic­ked, as to commaund anie thing that he knoweth, and cōfesseth to be such, his Maiesty declareth how this may be knowne, and who ought to iudge therof, denying first that this iudgment per­taineth to Princes in these words.

It is true, that the Emperours neuer vaunted themselues to be soueraigne iudges in points of saith, and doctrine. And then he telleth who are cō ­petent iudges in these matters, saying. I confesse that it is a point of di­uinity to iudge, how farre the keies doth reach, and that the clergy may, and ought giue their cēsures against Princes, that contrary to their oath make war­re against Iesus Christ, without making lay men iudges therof,

By all which it is plaine, that in his Maiesties iudgmēt, the cler­gy hath soueraigne power ouer Princes, in points of faith, do­ctrine, and diuinity, and that they may iudge and censure them therin indepēdentlie of the laitie: euen so farr as expresly to for­bid their subiects to obaie thē, in case they commaund any thing cōtrarie to Gods word, and to the subuersion of religion, which, when it happeneth, belongeth vnto the cleargy to iudge, as a matter of faith, and doctrine, and not to the temporall Princes, who are not iudges in those points.How the oath of supremacy doth aggree with the protestātes doctrin see the last capt of this treatise. Wherby M. Mason may see, how farr he differeth from his Maiestie, in this point of tempo­rall Princes supremacy, in Spirituall matters, and causes.

Therfore to conclude this point, I saie that the oath of supre­macy, wherby the title of supreame head, or gouernour of the church in all Spirituall causes, and things is giuen to temporall Princes, being Sacrilegious and wicked, as cōtrary to holy Scri­ptures, Councels, Fathers, and the practise of all Christian Prin­ces, since the first foundation of Christianity, as hath bene alrea­dy shewed, and therfore such (as his maiesty saith) as being cō ­maunded by the Prince may and ought to be expresly forbidden by the cleargy, who in that case is to be obaied by all the Prin­ces subiects, the refusall therof by the Catholique Bishops could not be anie act of disloialty, nor any iust cause of their depositiō, or depriuatiō, and cōsequētly they who vpō this only cause we­re thrust into their places could not be lawfully inuested therin, but must necessarily be vnlawfull vsurpers, and intruders, and therfore no lawfull Bishops.

The seauenteenth Chapter. Those that succeeded M. Parker, and the rest in the places of Bishops, downe to this present daie, neither were nor are true, and lawfull Bishops.

I Comprehend all those that succeeded M. Parker, and the rest that were first intruded into the places of the Catholi­que Bishops, euen till this daie in one question, because their case is not different. Wherin it is cleare, that the same defects, which haue bene found in any of their predecessors since M. Cranmer (except that of intrusion specified in the cha­pter going before) are also in the same degree in these, of whom the present question is proposed: and therfore the difficultie here is not of those defects: but whe­ther there be not some other in these, which was not in thothers.

1. The resolution is, that they haue a defect so essentiall, or materiall (more then thothers had) that it alone is sufficient to make them no Bishops. And this is that they were not, or are not priests. So that their calling is defectiue, not only in respect of the callers, and calling; as that of the others was, but also in re­spect of the persons.

That preiesthood is necessarily,No man can be Bishop, that is high priest vnles he be priest. and essentially presupposed to episcopall order, and power in such sort, as he that is not priest cannot be Bishop, I find it not doubted of by anie of our aduer­saries, neither can there be any doubt therof. For it is no where found either in holy scripture, or ecclesiasticall history, that any one was Bishop, that was not also priest, and therfore Bishops are ordinarily called priests, because all Bishops are indeed priests; though all priests be not Bishops, as hath bene shewed before.

The Catholique councell of Sardis doth admire and withall condemne the impudency of the Arrians, accusors of S. Athana­sius, for vsing the testimonie of one as a Bishop, who was not so much as a priest. They gaue to him (saith the councell) [Page 242] the title of Bishop, Athanas. A­pol. 2. in epi. cōcil. Sardic. ante med. Theod. l. 2. cap 8. ante med. D. Field of the church l. 3. c. 39. ante med. that was not so much as priest. And againe, They brought forth him for witnes as Bishop, which was not priest. And yet againe. They named him Bishop, which was not as yet made priest. This is so certaine with M. Field, that herupon he would prooue euery priest, or presbyter (as he calleth them, to auoide the consequence which the very word inferreth) to haue the same authority with Bis­hops, and that only for orders sake, the distinction is made betwixt them, which doctrine although false in it selfe, as hath bene shewed before, yet doth it manifestly suppose, that preiesthood is so necessarily required to episcopall order, or power, that none can be Bishop vnles he be Priest.

The state of the question.This ground therfore being agreed vpon by all parties: the present controuersie resteth in this only point: Whether the preiesthood of the new law doth include in it the power to offer sacrifice vnto God, not only of praier, praise, or trankesgiuing. but a true, proper, and externall sacrifice, as the priests of the old law, or rather as our sauiour Christ offered to his Father, or no. If it be prooued, that the priesthood of the new law essentially includeth in it such a power, it will inuincibly follow, first, that the new mi­nistery of the pretended reformation, as well in England, as elsw [...]ere, (disclayming from all such power, as from Anti­christian idolatry) hath no true priesthood: and thence will it as euidētly follow that they haue no true Bishops and pastors, which is that I intend here to prooue.

That this disputation maie proceede with some or­der, I will first prooue by the testimonie of holy scriptu­res, interpreted by the Fathers of the first fiue hundreth yeares, that there is in the church of Christ a sacrificing priesthood, or a power to offer externall, and sensi­ble sacrifice to God, no lesse trulie and properly, then in the law of Moises. Secondly, I will answere the chie­fest obiections against the same. Thirdlie, I will inferr therupon that, which is chieflie intended in this dispute. In the first point I will not multiplie manie testimonies of holie scriptures, but will bring only two, or three at the most, with the ancient Fathers interpretations, which shalbe sufficient to persuade anie vnderstanding not wilfullid tied to his owne errour, of which Kinde of [Page 243] persons it was said long since, and most trulie,S Hierom. contra Luci­ferianos in fine. Luke 22.19. 1. Corinth. 11.25. that they may be ouer­come, but they can neuer be persuaded.

2. The first testimonie shalbe our Sauiour Christ his owne fact, and institution recorded by S. Luke, and S. Paul in these words. This is my body which is giuen for you. Do this for a commemoration of mee. This chalice is the new testament in my bloud: this do ye as often as ye shall drinke: for the commemoration of mee. Heere our Sauiour gaue vnto his Apostles, (and to all those that succeede them in the office of priesthood) charge, and withall authoritie, and power to do the same thing that he then did, as is manifest by these words do ye this. And thrrfore (to prooue, that he instituted, and ordained in his church a sacrificing power of priesthood) it re­maineth only to prooue, that he did then offer sacrifice himselfe. Which I prooue in this sort. Our Sauiour Christ was Priest ac­cording to the order of Melchisedech,Psal. 109.4. Hebre. 5.6. God himselfe hauing sworne so: and therfore was he at some time to offer sacrifice (the proper action of priesthood) in the same forme and rite, that Melchisedech offered in, for otherwaies he neither could haue bene said, or knowne to haue bene so particularlie a Priest of that order. But vnles he sacrificed in his last supper, when he gaue his body and bloud to his disciples, vnder the forme of bread and wine, he neuer sacrificed in that forme and rite, that Melchisedech sacrificed in, (for his sacrifice was in bread, and wine) Therfore is it necessarie that he then did truly sacrifice. The whole difficultie of this argument is reduced to this point; whether Melchisedech offered in bread and wine, as the pecu­lier offering of his order and priesthood, or no: for this being prooued, the rest is cleare.

And that the proper, and peculiar offering of Melchisedech his pristhood, was in bread and wine: no man that beleeueth the holy scriptures, interpreted by vncorrupt antiquitie, can make doubt.Gen. 14.18. The scripture saith thus But Melchisedech bringing forth bread and wine, for he was Priest of God most high. Wherupon the most aun­cient fathers do teach without controllment, or contradiction, that Melchisedech being the Priest of God, did there offer sacri­fice of bread and wine, in figure of that, which our Sauiour in his last supper offered.

VVhat can our nevv maisters say to this? Surelie nothing but that S. Ciprian vvas a papist, teaching the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ, vnder the formes of bread and vvine, vvherin the sacrifice and order of Melchisedech, consisted ac­cording to vvhose order our Sauiour vvas priest, differing in this notvvithstanding, that Christ and his sacrifice vvas the truth prefigured, Mel­chisedech and his sacrifice the figure.

Of this same subiect he hath a large discourse vpon the Psal. 33. conci. 1. vvhich is ouer prolix to be related here S. Ambrose is as plaine, saying.

And Theodoret vvho liued 1200. yeares agoe testifieth the same yet more clearelie.

But the testimony of S Hierome setting dovvne not only his ovvne doctrine, but that also of his auncestors Hypolitus, Irenaeus, tvvo Eusebiuses and Eustachius, is vvorthy of more speciall note.Epist. 126.

[Page 248]3. Notwithstanding all these cleare testimonies of vncor­rupt, and vnpartiall antiquitie, wherunto might be added many more,Lib. 5. cap. 2. pag. 609. if necessitie required, for the proofe of Melchisedech his offering of bread and wine, in sacrifice M. Mason in the name of all his brethren reformed stoutlie denieth, that euer he offe­red in these kinds, or that our Sauiour Christ euer offered in the like. But vpon what ground thinke you, doth he so perem­ptorilie contradict such euident testimonies of venerable anti­quitie? Surelie vpon no other, then his owne wilfull obstinacy, that will not permit him to acknowledge the truth. For if all were true, that M. Mason saith for his negatiue, yet would it nothing hinder the truth of that we affirme, as shall appeare in euerie particuler of his discourse, which is this.

Genes. 14 18 It cannot be gathered out of this text: (And Melchisedech King of Salem brought forth bread and wine, and he was a priest of the most high God) that he sacrificed to God in bread and wine. Antiquit. li 1. c. 11. Iosephus saith, that he gaue entertainment to the souldiers of Abraham: Con Iudaeos cap. 14. Tertullian saith, that he offered bread and wine to Abraham, returning from the battell. Lib. 4. de sacramētis cap. 3. S Ambrose saith likewise, that Melchisedech did offer it vnto Abraham. De vulgari editisne Lati. lib. 4. Defens. pag. 636. Your owne Andradius saith, I wilbe of their opinion which say, that Melchisedech refreshed with bread, and wine the souldiers of Abraham, being weary and tired with a long battell. In Genes 14 And Cardinall Caietan: Here is nothing spoken of the oblation or sacrifice, but of the pro­lation and bringing it out, which Iosephus saith was done to refresh the con­querours.

Be it so; what repugnance hath any part of all this, with Melchisedech his offering of bread, and wine to God in sa­crifice, that M. Mason should so confidentlie or (truer) im­pudentlie deny it, contrarie to the cleare testimonies of so many, and so great fathers, positiuelie affirming it as expres­sed in holy scripture? none at all: For he hauing brought forth bread and wine, what might hinder him to offer it first to God in sacrifice, and that done deuide it to Abraham and his souldiers for their refreshing? was it euer a whit lesse fit for their refreshing and nouriture, for being offred to God, and therby sanctified, or not rather much more fit? The custome and manner aswell of Iewes as Gentiles, feasting and banquetting with the same meate that was offered in sacri­fice, (wherof I suppose M. Mason is not ignorant) doth [Page 249] shew, that there is no repugnance betwixt Melchisedech his offering to God of bread and wine in sacrifice, and his en­tertaining, feasting, or refreshing Abraham, and his armie with the same. And that the feasting or entertainment, which Melchisedech made to Abraham, was not of meere frindship or hospitalitie, but a sanctified and holy feast, it is plaine euen by Iosephus the Iew, whom M. Mason citeth, who saith that Melchisedech made vnto Abraham a holy banquet, as the Greeke word will without any force beare. But seeing M. Mason maketh force of a Iewes authoritie, against the most auncient Christian Doctors, in a matter pertaining to Gods worship, and true sense or vnderstanding of holy scripture (which to any good Christian may seeme iustly absurd) I will remit him in this point to Philo the Iew, who was not only Iosephus his auncient, but also esteemed of more authoritie by many de­grees, aswell for his iudgment, and learning, as for his since­ritie in his religion. His words are these. VVhen that great, Philo lib. de Abrahamo. and prin­cipall Bishop of God most mighty saw Abraham returned in safety, with victo­ry, his company all whole, (for he had lost neuer a man) admiring the great prosperous successe, and thinking (as it was true) that by Gods speciall proui­dence, and helpe, he had caried himself so prosperously, holding vp his hands to heauen blessed him, and sacrificed a victorius banquet, and richly feasted all his company. Wherby M. Mason may learne, that Melchisedech his banquet prepared for Abraham was not a prophane feast, or a meere ciuill entertainment, but such a religious banquet, as was wont to be made both by Iewes and Gentiles, in such occasions of ioy, and exultation, accompanied with sacrifice to God. And therfore without all shew of reason doth he deny, that Mel­chisedech offered sacrifice of bread and wine, seeing so many, and so graue fathers do in most expresse words testifie the same, and no one good authour doth deny, or contradict it.

Farther M. Mason dealeth most iniuriouslie with his authors. For both S. Ambrose and Andradius in the very same places by himselfe cited, do most expreslie teach Melchisedech his sacri­fice, which M. Mason so peremptorilie denieth. Melchisedech (saith S. Ambrose offered bread and wine. Lib 4. de Sa­cram. cap. 3. And commenting vpon the 5. chapter of the epistle to the Hebrewes he saith thus. Mel­chisedech was not priest according to the law (of Moyses) but according to the dignity of a singular priesthood, offering to God bread and wine, not the bloud [Page 250] of brute beasts, in the order of whose priesthood Christ is made eternall priest.

Andradius disputing with Kemnitius hath a large and learned discourse, wherin he maintaineth against his aduersary, the truth of the vulgar Latine translation: reading the text of Genesis thus: Melchisedech bringing forth bread and wine for he was priest of the most high God: and therby proouing the Catholique doctrine of the sacri­fice of the Eucharist, doth most expresly mention the sacrifice of Melchisedech in bread and wine. Thou maist see him if thou please diligent reader, and detest M. Masons bad dealing with him. But because euery one can neither haue, nor vnder­stand the booke being in Latine: I will out of his long discourse set downe here one periode only of his in these words.In the place cited aboue by M. Masō. As in other things Melchisedech bare the person of Christ, so did he represent his priesthood, in that he first after the accustomed manner, offered to God as to the author of a most glorious victoire, the bread and wine, which he gaue for the nourishing of Abraham his army.

As for Cardinall Caietan, whose singuler interpretation of holy scripture is often worthely reprooued, though otherwise a great and learned Doctor I appeale to M. Mason himselfe, whether his authoritie be of such weight as for it alone, any prudent man may follow it in a matter of moment, against the iudgment of all the other Orthodox writters, aswell moderne as aunciēt. Thaugh he also speaketh rather according to the opi­nion of Iosephus then his owne as appeareth by his words cited by M. Mason seeing well that in the expositors of this passage, neither old nor new, he can haue any helpe for the ouertro­wing of Melchisedech his sacrifice in bread and wine, he recur­reth to the text it self, and to make it seeme to serue his turne somewhat, he boldlie condemneth the auncient vulgar transla­tion of errour,Pag 210. and saith.

4. The vulgar translation, which you follow is erroneours: for according to the Hebrew it is not (for he was a priest) but (and he was a priest) as Arius Montanus translateth it, and Ballarmine confesseth. So the clauses are not ioined together with a coniunction causall, but with a copulatiue: therfore your argument drawne from the causall vanisheth away.

But he himselfe easeth me of the labour in answering this obiectiō: for in the lines immediatlie following, he bringeth di­uers examples of the like reading by the copulatiue in the He­brew, and Greeke, which themselues reade by the causall: as Behold thou art angry, Esay 64.2. and we haue sinned: which they turne. [Page 251] Behold thou art angry, for we haue sinned. And blessed art thou among womē,Luke. 1.42.and the fruite of thy wombe is blessed. Which they turne: because the frui­te of thy wombe is blessed. These are M. Masons examples,Gen. 20.3. wherunto I will adde other two: Genesis 20. where the Hebrew is: behold thou shalt die because of the woman, which thou hast taken: and she hath a husband. they reade with the vulgar translation, for she hath a hus­band. And Genesis 24. the Hebrew hath: And he dwelt in the south. Gen. 24.62. Which they turne with the vulgar. For he dwelt in the south. Seeing therfore M. Mason and all his reformed brethren confesse, that the Hebrew copulatiue is oftē most truly turned by the causall, and seeing it hath euer bene so turned in this place (which we now speake of) by the most learned and auncient Fathers, as appeareth aswell by their owne testimonies, as by the vulgar Latine translation, which is most auncient, and cannot be sus­pected of partiality, being extant many hundreth yeares before this controuersie began, is not he more then impudent, that dare condemne the reading of errour? Especially hauing seene this self same obiection made before by Kemnitius, so fully sa­tisfied by Andradius, in the place by himself alleaged, as he neither can, nor dare saie anie thing against it, but wittinglie dissembling the answere, wilfully repeateth the obiection, as though it had neuer bene answered. Is this sincere dealing, and worthie a reformer of Gods church? Not hauing much confi­dence in this shift, he thinketh to elude the force of this testi­monie, another waie and saith.

5. Melchisedech gaue entertainment to Abraham, moued therunto by consideration of his owne office, euen because he was not only a professour of the true religion, but also a priest; For as it becometh all that embrace religion, to loue one another, and reioice at their good, so this duty specially belongeth to the priest. And your learned Iesuite Andradius, The learned Andradius was no Iesuit. hence obserueth the great linke of religion. Therfore is there no necessity to saie, that he sacrificed bread and wine: for the text, euen read and pointed as you would haue it, maie in the iudgment of some of your learned diuines, admit an excellent sense with­out any sacrifice.

But this is wholly besides the purpose. For first Melchisedech is not said to haue sacrificed in bread and wime, because there appeareth no other occasion, why he should bring forth bread and wine to Abrahā, but only to sacrifice: for none that I know euer dreamed of such a reason. But because the scripture inter­preted [Page 252] by the Doctors, and Pastors of Gods church, to whom he hath giuen the keie of knowledge, to interprete his law vnto his people, doth teach, that he did sacrifice in bread and wine, when he mett Abraham. Secondly, the words of the scripture as they haue euer bene read, since they were turned into Latine, cannot haue anie conuenient, or probable sense, without his Sacrifice be vnderstood. For though the Profes­sion of the true religion might be a motiue, why Melchisedech should reioice at Abrahams victorie, and consequently enter­taine him with a ciuill, and friendly banquett, yet the holie Ghost giuing for the reason of his bringing out of bread and wi­ne, that he was the priest of God, must in anie reasonable mans vn­derstanding be thought to expresse something done by Melchi­sedech, bringing forth bread and wine that was proper only to a priest to do which could be nothing but Sacrifice. For the other frindly entertainment beseemed him rather as a King, a­greeing with Abraham in the worship of the true God, then as a priest. And therfore if there had bene no other matter in Melchisedech his bringing forth of bread and wine, then a frin­dly act of Hospitalitie, the holie Ghost giuing the reasō therof would doubtles haue said. For he was King of that country; and not: for he was priest of God most high. Againe seeing the linke of religiō, as M. Mason saith (after Andradius) might mooue Melchise­dech to congratulate with Abraham a straunger for his victory, and to entertaine him with a ciuill banquett, rather then to condole with his neighbour Kings for their ouerthrow: the same linke of religion might with greater reason also mooue him being a priest, to offer to God Sacrifice of thankesgiuing for his victory, and to receiue him with a religious, and sancti­fied feast, especially the ancient custome being, that solemne banquets were neuer made, without sacrificing first to God. Neither doth Andradius admitt anie probable sense of those words of Genesis, wherin Sacrifice is not expressed, as M. Mason falsly fathereth vpon him.

6. M. Mason cometh now to cast his shott anker, and saith. Though it be imagined, that Melchisedech offered bread and wine, yet will it be nothing to our purpose. For our Sauiour Christ neuer offered bread and wine in our doctrine, but his body and bloud, and therfore from Melchise­dech his offering of bread, and wine, can we inferre nothing for the proofe of [Page 253] that sacrificing priesthood, which we pretend to haue bene instituted by our Sauiour Christ in his last supper. This is the full sense of that he would saie, for his words are too many, and too empty of matter, to make rehearsall therof all at large.

This meane obiection which is M. Iewells, or M. Hoopers, S. Cyprian preuented, and answered 1300. yeares agoe and more. And therfore my labour in answering the same, shalbe only to relate his words: that if M. Mason disdaine to learne his faith, of the present Catholique church, yet he maie not re­fuse to learne it of the same church, teaching the same doctrine in S. Cyprians daies. Thus therfore writeth that ancient pre­late, and glorious martyr. Who is rather the priest of the most high God, then our lord Iesus Christ, who offered sacrifice to God the Father, Epist. ad Ce­cilianum. and offe­red the same thing that Melchisedech offered, that is, bread and wine, to wit, his body and bloud?

How can it be, will M. Mason aske, that our Sauiour Christ offered his body and bloud, as S. Cyprian with the Catholique church doth teach, and yet offered the same thing which Mel­chisedech offered, who offered only bread and wine? This que­stion in M. Masons beliefe, or rather misbeliefe, is not easily answered, but in S. Cyprians doctrine, which is that of the Ca­tholique church, it hath small difficulty. For S. Cyprian doth in the same place explicate, how both these are true, of whom if M. Mason will learne, he will find this hard question easilie, and clearely solued. Thus he writeth. Therfore that the blessing of Abraham in Genesis might be rightly performed by Melchisedech the priest, the image of Christs sacrifice constituted in bread and wine went before, which thing our lord perfecting, and fulfilling offered bread and the chalice mixt with wine, and he which is the fulnes (or perfection) did fulfill the truth of the pre­figured image. So that the cleare doctrine of this holy Father is, that our Sauiour Christ, who was prefigured by Melchisedech, offered his bodie and bloud, the truth or thing it selfe of that, wherof Melchisedech offered the figure in bread and wine, and therfore maie truly be said to haue offered the same thing, that Melchisedech did. Which is also in another respect, to wit, in that the sacrifice of our Sauiour Christ did not differ in externall forme and appearance, from that of Melchisedech, both of thē being in forme of bread and wine, which is a sufficient reason, why our Sauiour may be said to haue offered in bread and wine, [Page 254] though not in substance of bread and wine. For it is no vnus­uall matter in holy scripture,Acts. 1.10. Acts. 10.30. to call things by that name which they appeare outwardlie to be, as for example. Behold two men stood by them in white garments. And againe. A man stood before me in white ap­parell: and elswhere often.

7. Hauing thus shewed (sufficientlie as I suppose) all M. Masons euasions and shifts, against Melchisedech his offering of bread, and wine, to be of no moment, in comparison of the weightie authoritie brought for it, wherin I haue bene defen­dant only: he shall now giue me leaue as opponent, to aske him one question, which shalbe this. Wherin he will make the pe­culier priesthood of Melchisedech to stand? which question is neither impertinent, nor vnprofitable. For seeing it is euident first, that he was a priest. Secondly, that he was priest of an order distinct from that of Aaron, and peculier to him­selfe.

Thirdly, that our Sauiour Christ was priest of his order. Fourthly, that it ought chiefly to be honored of all Christians, as appeareth as well by that, that God himselfe would so highly honour it, as to make his owne only sonne priest of that order for our sakes, and therby obliged vs peculiarly, to honour both him and his priesthood, as also by the high, and maiesticall sti­le, wherwith the holy ghost doth proclaime his order in this manner,Psal. 109. Our lord hath sworne, and it shall not repent him; thou art a priest for euer according to the order of Melchisedech. All this I saie being euident, it is most necessary for vs to know, wherin this highly honoured priesthood doth consist, which I would learne of M. Mason. But vnles he can shew out of holy scripture some particularitie, proper onlie to this order, (which seeing he reiecteth the Sacrifice of bread and wine, he is no more able to performe, then to pull the sunne out of heauen with his fingers) he can neuer satisfie this demaund. For three things only are mentioned in holy scripture, which Melchisedech did as priest: First that he brought forth bread and wine.Genes. 14. Secondly, that he blessed Abraham.

Thirdly, that he tooke tithes of him, wherof the two last are common to the priesthood of Aaron,Numbers. 6.23. Hebrewes 7.5. as is manifest by the places cited in the margent, so the first only remaineth as proper to Melchisedech.

Are not our new maisters more then peruerse, to forsake in a matter of principall moment, the testimony of holy scripture, interpreted by so manie faithfull, and vnpartiall pastors, and to grope after vncertaine fancies, and vaine coniectures of their owne wauering, and wandring braine? But such is the impo­tent malice of heresie, that it esteemeth not into what euident absurdities it falleth so that the Catholique truth maie be obscu­red, and drawne into question. When M. Mason shall set downe out of holy scripture, the proper function of Melchisedech his order, that therby we maie come to know the high priesthood of our Sauiour Christ, so extraordinarily established by the im­mutable oath of his eternall Father, and shall prooue it as firme­ly, as his Sacrificing of bread and wine is prooued, he shall saie something to the purpose; till then he must not thinke much, if following his owne singuler fancies, he be esteemed, as all other sectaries are, a seducer of Gods people. Vnles he thinke better, as it is indeede, to turne backe, and follow the troddē path of Gods Catholique church. And that I saie to M. Mason, I vnderstand as said to all those, that deny a Sacrificing priesthood in the church of Christ.

8. He cometh next to declare the eternity, or continuall ex­ercise of our Sauiour his priesthood, wherin though he do fowly erre as he doth in other points, yet because mine intent is not to handle here all matters of controuersie, but onlie such as are ne­cessary for the proouing of a Sacrificing priesthood in the Euan­gelicall law, which is prooued by the priesthood it selfe of Mel­chisedech (as we shall see in the end) without disputing this pointt of the eternitie of our Sauiour priesthood, though by this it be also prooued, I will not stand here to refute his errour tou­ching the same. But I will only bring one authority of Theodo­retus for this purpose, which I make not choice of amongst ma­ny others of the ancient Fathers, because I esteeme it the most formall of all others, but because it is brought by M. Fulke for the contrary end; Yet do I not so much intend hereby to taxe M. Fulke of want of iudgment, in bringing a testimony so clee­rely against himselfe, as therby to shew the pouerty of the cause he would maintaine, seeing it is forced to seeke support from thē, that beare testimony against it, and the force of truth. Which he would impugne, which is so euidently strengthened by the [Page 256] arguments brought for the cōtrary.Fulke Hebre. 7. sect. 8. ad medium. These are Theodoretus his words vpon the 109. Psalme, as M. Fulke relateth them. Christ is now a priest, which is sprung of Iuda according to the flesh, not offering any thing himselfe, but is called the head of those that offer, seeing he calleth the church his body, and therfore he exerciseth the priesthood as man, but he recei­ueth those things that are offered, as God. And the church offereth the tokens of his body and bloud, sanctifying all the leauen by the first fruites. Theodoret saith here three things, out of which is manifestly concluded, the continuall exercise of Christ his priesthood, to consist in the visible Sacrifice of the church, to wit the holy Eucharist. First he saith, that Christ is now a priest. Secondly, that though he offe­reth nothing himselfe, yet is he the head of those that offer, and consequently doth offer by them. Thirdly that as man he exer­ciseth euen now his priesthood, to wit concurring as head with those, that offer as his members or ministers. Wherby it is mani­fest, that in Theodorets doctrine, the cōtinuall exercise of Christ his priesthood consisteth in the visible Sacrifice of the church. Which Sacrifice whether it be the true body and bloud of Christ, as the Catholique church teacheth and beleeueth, or no, it per­taineth not to this place to examine, being a distinct questiō frō that, which we haue here in hand. Now to returne to the que­stion in hand of Melchisedechs Sacrifice, M. Mason confirmeth his doctrine touching the same in this sort.

9. The Apostle to the Hebrewes speaking very particulerly of this ripe (of Melchisedech in respect of Christ) saith not one word concerning his Sacrifice, but vnfoldeth it in these braunches following. First that he was King of iustice. Secōdly that he was King of peace. Thirdly that he was both King and priest. Fourthly that he blessed Abraham. Fiftly that he receiued titles of Abra­ham. Sixtly that he was without Father and nother. Seauenthly, that he had neither beginning of his daies, nor end of his life. Thus the scripture vnfoldeth the type of Melchisedech, plentifully and particulerly and yet saith not one word concerning his sacrificing, which is an euident argument, that it is a meere de­uise and imagination of mans braine.

It is true that our Sauiour Christ was prefigured in all these things by Melchisedech: but not only in these for he was also prefigured by him as priest as the holy scripture testifieth psal. 109. And that the Apostle saith nothing of his (Melchisedechs) Sa­crifice it is more thē false. For in this 7. chapter to the Hebrewes, doth he insist specially in the inculcating of our Sauiours prie­sthood, [Page 257] according to the order of Melchisedech, as is cheefe drift in that chapter (as any man that will reade it shall plainlie see.) How can therfore any man (that is not blind either with malice, or ignorance) saie, that the scripture speaketh not one word concerning Melchisedechs Sacrifice, seeing priesthood, and Sacrifice are no lesse cōioined together, then are fatherhood and generation? Tell me I praie you good Sir, if one should saie that M. Mason is a husband or a Father, according to the ordi­narie manner of other husbands and Fathers: should he saie nothing concerning those actions, without which all mē know you can neither be husband, nor Father? You will not I suppose denie, but that he should make such mention of them, as that all men might vnderstand them to be in you.

How therfore can you so confidētly saie, that S. Paul saith no­thing concerning Melchisedechs Sacrifice, seeing he saith so much of his priesthood? vnles peraduenture you can find out so­me priesthood without Sacrifice, which was yet neuer heard of.

10. There is not one word (saith M. Mason) in the whole Bible to declare, that Melchisedech was a type of Christ in offering such vnbloudy Sacri­fice in the formes of bread and wine; And this very silence is like the voice of a trumpet proclaiming vnto the world, that popery is the meere inuentiō of man, and shall wither in the roote from whence it sprung.

Your threating prophecies Sir, are hereticall vanities like tho­se of your Father Luther, who threatned to be the ruine of the Pope; But he is dead and rotten, and the Pope is where he was before he was borne, and so shall popery (as you scornfully tear­me the Catholique truth) be, when you and all your fellowes shalbe gone, to giue account of your heresie, and rebelliō against God and his church, with the rest of all those, that haue impu­gned the Catholique verity, euer since the first founding of the same. God giue you his holy grace to preuent it by true repentā ­ce, I do not greatly marueile, that you cannot find any word in the whole Bible, declaring Melchisedechs Sacrifice in bread and wine, in figure of Christ vnbloudy Sacrifice. For neuer any here­tique could find any word in the Bible (or that which he tooke for the Bible) against his heresie. Arrius could find nothing for the consubstantiality of the sonne with the Father, nor Euno­nius [Page 258] or Macedonius, for the diuinity, or godhead of the holie Ghost; Nestorius, Eutiches, Pelagius, and the rest in like manner, could not find one word in holy scripture, for the proofe of the Catholique truth by them impugned. But what then? Shall we therfore saie, that the holy Bible contained no one word of all these truthes? M. Mason I am sure will not saie so. For though those wretches blinded, with hereticall pride and ob­stinacy, could see nothing of all this in the holy scripture, yet the Catholique Pastors, who defended against them the Catho­lique truth, did find them all contained therin, as also their Catholique successours now do this truth, which M. Mason here impugneth, whose iudgments if he will not yeeld vnto, as either suspected of partialitie, and moued with passion against his errour: or that he esteemeth his owne iudgment as good as theirs: yet if he haue either but any one sparke of the light of reason, or dramme of modestie in him he cannot appeale from the iudgments, of those great lights of the world, the Fathers of the primitiue church, against whom neither of these exceptions can be made, who found in holie scripture the Sacrifice of Mel­chisedech in bread and wine, in figure of Christs vnbloudy Sacri­fice, as hath already bene shewed, and M. Mason himselfe is at last forced to confesse in these words.

Ibidem.11. First, Some of the Fathers say not, that Melchisedech offered bread and wine to God, but to Abraham whoe are these Fathers? why are they not named? but be it so: this doth not for all that exclude the offering therof to God, but rather include it, as is already seene. Secondly, (saith he) those which say it was offered vnto God as a Sacrifice (as all do that write either vpon the 14. cap. of Genesis, or the psalme 109 or by other occasion handle this marter) may meane an Eucharisticall Sacrifice, and not a propitiatory. So may they meane both, as they doe in deede. Thirdly if any of the Fathers say, that he offered a propitiatory Sacrifice, yet it followeth not, that because they make the oblation of Melchisedech a type of the Eucharist, that therfore in the Eucharist, there is a propitiatory Sacrifice. And why Sir I praie you doth it not follow? If you consider that the condition of a type, or figure is alwaies to be lesse perfect, then the thing it self which is figured by it, you will find it to follow a fortiori, or with grea­ter reason.

But you say, that those which hold so (to wit that Melchisedech offered a propitiatorie sacrifice) must make a double oblation of this bread and wine, the first to God by way of sacrifice: the second to Abraham, and the army in the manner of a banquet: the first might haue relation to Christ vpon the crasse: the second to the Eucharist. There is no doubt, but the fathers vnderstood this double oblation you speake of, thone to God in sacrifice, thother to Abraham and his armie for their refreshing but whether the first offering in the fathers meaning had relation to Christ vpon the crosse, and not to him as offered vnder the forme of bread and wine in his last supper, the fathers cleare testimonies before alleaged for this purpose, yea and M. Caluin, and the Centurists sayings hereafter cited, (whose authoritie I hope will sway something with you) shall witnes, you add.

Fourthly, your popish massing sacrifice presupposeth transubstantiation, which is contrary to Christs institution of the Eucharist, as in due place shalbe declared. VVherfore those fathers, which vnderstand the Eucharist according to Christs institution, cannot referre the type of Melchisedech to any transub­stantiate sacrifice.

You flinch M. Mason, you flinch; what haue you here to do with transubstantiatiō? Our question was whether in the iudg­ment of the auncient fathers, there be any mention in holy scripture of Melchisedech offering bread and wine, in figure of the sacrifice of the Eucharist. Why do you therfore run to the question of transubstantiation? I know the reason as well as if I were in your bosome. Your owne eies conuince you of the question in hand, and because your obstinacie will not permit you to yeeld to the manifest truth, you run to that other questiō of transubstantiatiō, which cannot orderly be spoken of, before thother be decided, as you saw your self, when you deferd it to another place.

But to let this passe, and to take that only, which victorious truth hath drawne from you, I wil only aske of you, what you thinke of the doctrine of those fathers, who you cōfesse to haue taught Melchisedechs sacrifice in bread and wine, (be it Eucha­risticall or propitiatorie, it shall not much import for the pre­sent) whether it be comformable to scripture or no? If you say no: you will not be beleeued of any man, that hath but one drā of true iudgment. For who can imagine, that those great lights, [Page 260] and pastors of Gods church, whose learning, pietie, and other excellent vertues beseeming the pastors of Gods church, haue made them venerable to all posteritie: liuing many hundreth yeares before these controuersies were hatched, and therfore voide of all passion and partialitie, were not more like to find out the true sense and meaning of holy scripture, and also to deliuer it with more sinceritie, then either you M. Mason or any of your reformed brethrē, who though you were of equall learning with those auncient fathers (which verie few or none at all will beleeue) and of as great pietie and other vertues as they were (which is euidentlie false) yet you being parties in this cause, as authors of the controuersie, your sinceritie can­not but most iustlie be suspected, and therfore your iudgment lawfullie excepted against as partiall. With no shew of reason therfore can you say, that the auncient fathers doctrine, is not conformable to holie scripture in this point. Wherfore if you will speake with anie probabilitie in this matter, you must ans­were to the question proposed affirmatiuelie, and say that you thinke the fathers doctrine, teaching the sacrifice of Melchise­dech in bread and wine, in figure of the holy Eucharist to be ac­cording to holy scripture. Wherby you shall find, how farr and fowlie you ouerlashed,Pag. 215. When you said, that there is not in the whole bible one word to declare, that Melchisedech was a type of Christ in offering such an vnbloudie sacrifice in the formes of bread and wine. Pag. 209. And yet far­ther when you dare to say: VVe denie that Melchisedech did offer any bread and wine, for a sacrifice to God. But I will leaue you to aduise with your self (now at your more leasure) whether these pro­positious haue any veritie in them, or no: and will conclude of that which hath hitherto bene said, that (vnles you will deny the euident truth) you must necessarilie graunt a sacrificing priesthood (trulie and properlie, as that was of Melchisedech) in the law and church of Christ, in this distinct and briefe man­ner.

First we haue out of holieGenesis 14.18. scripture Melchisedechs prie­sthood.Hebrews 7.11.12. &c. Secondlie his proper order of priesthood, distinct from that of Aaron.Genes. 14.18. Thirdlie we haue out of scripture (inter­preted by vncorrupt and vnsuspected antiquitie) Melchisedechs sacrifice in bread and wine, as the proper act of his peculier priesthood, and order.Psal. 109. Hebr. cap. 7. Fourthlie we haue out of holy scripture, [Page 261] that our Sauiour Christ was, and is preist according to the pe­culier order of Melchisedech: whence followeth, that he sacri­ficed, according to the rite of Melchisedech in bread and wine.Luk, 22.19 What one of all these six verities can M. Mason vpon any probable grownd deny. Fiftlie, that he gaue to his Apostles commaundement, and power to do the same thing, which he did, when he offered ac­cord [...]ng to that rite. Sixthlie, that the same power, which he gaue then to his Apostles, remaineth still in his church, and con­sequentlie, that there is in the church at this day a sacrificing priesthood, no lesse trulie and properlie, then was that of Mel­chisedech, according to whose order, our Sauiour Christ was ordained priest for euer, by the immutable oath of his eternall father. Such a cleare deduction from holy scripture, interpreted by the ancient church, would I gladlie see in proofe of the Pro­testāts emptie, and naked ministerie, which may the more iustly be exacted of them, because they pretend neither to teach, nor beleeue any thing, but that which may be prooued by holy scripture: but I will now proceede to the second proofe of the Catholique priesthood of holy scriptures.

The second testimonie of holy scripture,Malachie cap 1.11. clearlie proouing a sacrificing priesthood in the euāgelicall law, is out of the Pro­phet Malachie who fortelleth the dignitie of the sacrifice of Gods church, vnder the new testament in this sort. I haue no will in you saith the Lord of hostes (speaking to the priests of Aarons or­der,) nor offering will I receiue at your hand. For from the rising of the sun to the setting therof, my name is great amongst the Gentiles, and in euery place is there sacrificing, and a cleane oblation is offered to my name.

The Protestants do not deny, that this prophesie is fulfilled in the church of Christ: but they deny that this cleane oblation, which the Prophet here speaketh of, is any sensible or proper sacrifice, but a spirituall or inward oblation: vnto which mise­rable shift they are driuen by force. For if they should grant this cleane oblation here fortold to be a true, proper, and sensible sacrifice, their pretended church should be conuinced to be a Synagogue of Satan, and not the true church of Christ, because it hath no such sacrifice. But if there be any certaine meanes, to find out the true sense and meaning of the holy scripture, either by the sound of the words themselues, or by the circumstance of the place, or the vnderstanding of the auncient church, or [Page 262] agreement and conformitie, as well with other places of scri­pture, as with naturall reason and discourse or by all these to­gether, their interpretation of this place is euidentlie false, and consequentlie their reformed church hereticall.

The sound of the Words.First the words sacrificing and cleane oblation being without any restriction drawing them to a spirituall sense, are to be vnder­stood in their proper signification, and as they sound, without limitation.

Pag. 220.M. Mason answereth, that this rule is not generally true▪ for the Pro­phet Esay saith. They shall bring of their brethren for an offering to the Lord, out of all nations where he vseth the same word that Malachy vseth, and yet it is not meant that the gentiles should be offered carnally, but spiri­tually.

Which example maketh clearelie against himselfe: for who seeth not that this word (brethren) restraineth the word (offering) to a metaphoricall signification. Let him find such a restriction in the words of the Prophet Malachie, and then shall his exam­ple be to some purpose.

Secondlie the Prophet in the whole chapter speaketh of true, and proper sacrifices, and maketh a direct and expresse an­tiphesies, or opposition betweene this pure sacrifice, and the sacrifices of the Iewes, which were proper and sensible, and hath not one word of improper, or spirituall sacri­fice.

The circum­stance of the place.Thirdlie the properties ascribed to this sacrifice, cannot agree with the spirituall offerings of praier, praise, thanksgiuing and the like. For this is said to be one: they are many: this is proper to the church of the gentiles vnder the law of grace: they are common not only with the Iewes vnder the law writ­ten: this succeedeth the Iewes sacrifices; they succeeded none but are ioined with all sacrifices of all lawes: this is a cleane sa­crifice, and cannot be polluted by him that offereth it: they (at least in the Protestants doctrine) are polluted and as a stained cloth: by this oblation Gods holy name is said to be greatlie glorified, which is proper to externall and sensible sacrifices: for spirituall sacrifices hauing their being and perfection, from the inward intention, which is hidden from all others, but him alone which offereth them,Philo. lib. de victimis. are not fit to make Gods name magnified by other men, as is euident. Now of the contrarie [Page 263] part it cānot be denied, but all those properties do exactlie agree with the sacrifice, of the bodie and bloud of our Sauiour Christ in the holy Eucharist.

To the first of these properties M. Mason saith.Vbi supra. That albeit the word vsed by the Prophet be of the singuler number, yet by that offering, many offerings may be signified, as when it is said sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not haue; where thaugh the word be singular yet the sense and mea­ning is plurall.

But he marketh not, or at least will not marke,Hebr. 10.8. that there is as great a difference betweene this saying of Malachie: In euery place a cleane oblation is offered to my name: and that of the Apostle. Sa­crifice and effering thou wouldest not haue; (I meane in respect of the number) as there is betweene this saying: the King will receiue no gift or present: and this, the city will giue to the King a gift or a present. Which first saying, though it be of the singuler number, yet doth it euidentlie import, the refusall not of any one gift, but of all gifts: wheras the latter saying importeth one only single gift or present, as euery man may plainlie see.

If M. Mason vnderstand not the reason hereof, and be desi­rous to learne it; let him turne backe to his Logique, and see the difference betweene the nature of an affirmatiue, and a negatiue proposition, for here is no place to reade him any longer lesson of this matter. In the meane while by this example may he see, how impertinent his instance is for his purpose. But his answere to the second propertie is not only impertinent, but also most impious.

13. They (the Iewes,Ibidem. saith he) might euerywhere pray and praise God aswell as we, but this was not a discharge of their duty, vnles to these spirituall sacrifices they annexed carnall: to be offered at the time and place appointed: so their spirituall sacrifice were mixed, but ours are meerely spirituall, and these are proper to the Gospell.

O traitor of Christianitie: what greater aduantage can a Iew desire against Christian religion, then this confession? to wit that they haue the same oblations, and sacrifices that Christians haue (wherin the professiō and practise of all religion cōsisteth) and that ouer and aboue, they haue the sensible and externall sa­crifice of creatures: wherby they offer vnto God not only their praiers, and praises of his name by spirituall sacrifice, but also their goods and temporall substance by externall oblations: [Page 264] wherin M. Mason freelie confesseth their religion to exceede, and surpasse ours Such is the obstinate blindnes of heresie, that rather then to embrace the Catholique veritie expressed in holy scripture, and testified in all antiquitie, will make the immacu­late spouse of Christ (wherof most glorious things are spoken) inferiour in religion,Psal. 86.2. and lesse perfect then the Iewes reprooued Synago­gue. And to make vp the measure of his malice, against Gods church and Christian religiō, he yet runneth on into more grosse absurdities. For to the third propertie of the sacrifice mentio­ned by Malachie, which was that it succeedeth those of the Iewes, wheras the spirituall sacrifices are ioined with all, and succeede none he saith.

Ibidem. Though the spirituall sacrifice of the Iewes and of the Christians were all one in substance: yet they differed in manner, because as I said theirs were mixtly, ours meerely spirituall, and the merely succeed the mixed.

If the sacri­fices of the Iewes were the same in substance with those of the christiās: they should also be the same in sub­stance with that of our Sauiour Christ which notwithstā ­ding is more then hereti­call to affirm.What other thing is this, then that in substance the Christian religion and worship of God is the same with the Iewes, and differeth from it only in manner; and that in such a manner, as that of the Iewes remaineth the more perfect, seeing it contai­neth the same perfection, that the Christian religion doth, and ouer and besides something more? But M. Mason thinketh he hath learnedly preuēted this absurdity in saying, that their sacrifices were mixedly, and are meerely spirituall, wherby (as I suppose) he would say that ours are better, and more perfect then theirs, which yet is more senseles then the rest. For I would aske of him, whether by adding the externall, and corporall sacrifices to the spirituall, these are made lesse spirituall, and cōsequently lesse perfect? He cānot say yea. For vnles we suppose, that this additiō should change the nature of the spirituall sacrifice (which M. Mason will not haue, for he saith they are both of one substāce) it cānot be imagined, how the adding of the corporall, or exter­nall sacrifice may make the internall lesse spirituall, or lesse per­fect. And he himselfe will confesse the same in this example. If one should giue him a purse with twentie pounds of gold in it, and another should giue him another with as much gold, and besides with as many peeces of siluer more, I thinke not that he wold esteeme the latter gift of lesse valew, thē the other for the siluer added therunto, but of more worth. So in like manner no man of iudgmēt can esteeme the spirituall sacrifices of the Iewes, [Page 265] (which M. Mason saith are the same with those of Christiās) to be either lesse spirituall or lesse perfect, but rather of more per­fection, by reason of the corporall sacrifices adioined therunto. For if it were otherwaies, God hauing cōmaunded thē to offer such sacrifices, should haue commaunded a thing both hurtfull to them, and displeasing to himselfe (as impayring and diminis­hing the valour, and worth of their spirituall sacrifices) which is verie absurd to imagine. The Iewes therfore haueing the same spirituall offerings that Christians haue, as M. Mason confesseth, and ouer and aboue other corporall sacrifices commaūded, and ordained by God himselfe, (and therfore cannot be hurtfull to thother being good in themselues) it must necessarilie follow, that in M. Masōs doctrine, the Iewes offerings and sacrifices are more perfect, then those of the Christians, and consequentlie their religion also and manner of Gods worshipe more perfect. So that M. Mason, whilst he wil be a Protestāt in this point, doth prooue himself more a Iew then a Christian, and yet he goeth forward in most palpable absurdities. For answering to the fourth propertie, which was that this sacrifice spoken of by Malachie, is so cleane of it selfe, that it cannot be polluted by the priest that offereth it, be he neuer so wicked; wheras the spi­rituall sacrifices, being our workes are stained, and vncleane in the Protestants iudgment: answering I say herunto, he verie wit­tilie as he thinketh, retorteth the argument in this sort.

14. Are all our spirituall offerings vncleane? Ibidem. then all our good workes are vnperfect, and if they be vnperfect, they cannot iustifie, they are not merito­rious, nor satisfactory.

But most ignorantlie (by his good leaue be it spoken) doth he inferre these consequences against the Catholiques, vpon an antecedent which is his owne only and none of theirs. For this antecedent all our good workes are stained, vncleane, and vnperfect, is the doctrine of Protestants, and not of the Catholiques, therfore though the Catholiques do inuinciblie inferre therupon against them, that our workes cannot in their doctrine be that cleane oblation spoken of by Malachie, because one of those proposi­tions both euidentlie destroie, and contradict thother: yet cānot they vpon the same antecedēt (which as I said is none of ours) inferre against vs, that our workes are not meritorious or satis­factorie. Mary whether vpon the contrarie proposition, to wit [Page 269] (the good workes of men proceeding from Gods grace are cleane, meritorious, and satisfactorie) which we acknowledge to be our doctrine, may be inferred, that they are that cleane oblation mentioned by Malachie, is another question, which shall by and by de touched. But we will first see, how M. Mason accordeth these two things together, that our workes are vn­cleane, and yet are the cleane oblation here spoken of: which two ends if he can well bring together, he shalbe a Maister Mason indeed; thus he discourseth.

They (that is our good workes) are cleane but vnperfectlie: that is in plaine English they are cleane, but they are not cleane, which is a plaine contradiction: for that which is vnperfectlie cleane, is not cleane, as all men know I thinke. Well let him goe for ward, perhaps he will make something of this matter at least.

They are cleane (saith he) because they proceede from the christa­line fountaine of the spirit of grace: they are vnperfect) he should haue said vnperfectlie cleane, if he had minded what he went about, but pardon him for he is in a maze) because they are wrought by the will of man, which is regenerate only in part, and so the pure water gathereth mudd, because it runneth thorough a muddy channell.

O more then muddie braine. Marke I pray thee, iudicious reader, how groslie he buildeth one absurd errour vpon ano­ther. To prooue that mans workes, euen such as proceed from the christaline fountaine of the spirit of grace, are vnpure, or vnperfectlie cleane, he saish that they are wrought by the will of man, which is regenerate only in part. An euident falsitie, di­rectlie against many cleare testimonies of holy scripture, wherof I will brieflie point at two or three.Deuteron. 32.4. The workes of God are perfect. Act 22.17 Be baptised and wash away thy sins. Tit 3.5. He hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration, and renouation of spirit. Ezech. 36.25. I will power vpon you cleane water, and you shalbe cleansed from all your con­taminations. Psal 50. Thou shalt wash me, and I shalbe whiter then snow; with many others to the same effect, not necessarie here to be specified.

By all which it is euident, that Gods grace being in the soule of man doth purifie and cleanse it in such manner, that it is made whiter then snow or wooll: how then can any man imagine, [Page 267] that it should leaue the soule so impure, or to vse M. Masons metaphore so muddie, that it maie infect and defile those wor­kes, which proceed from the same cleare fountaine of grace? False therfore is the ground, wherupon M. Mason would inferr the impurity, or vnperfect cleannes of our workes proceeding from the Spirit of Gods grace.

Well then (maie M. Mason saie) if they be cleane, they maie the rather be that cleane oblation mentioned by Malachie, and so haue I made a good argument for him, and against my selfe: I haue argued for the manifest truth, and neither for him, nor a­gainst my selfe, as we shall see by and by, after I haue discoue­red one point more of M. Masons absurd doctrine. Vpon his last words he maketh vnto himself this obiection.

15. If they be muddy, how can they be called the pure offering in Malachy? Wherunto he answereth in these words.

Because (sait he) the denomination is of the worthier part, and the gra­ces of God in his children are in like vnto the light, which shineth more and more vnto the perfect daie: Prouerb. 4.18. and though the flesh rebelleth against the Spirit yet at lenght the Spirit shall haue the victory, and the flesh shalbe abolished. In meane time though our good woorkes be stained with the flesh, yet God looketh not vpon them as an angry iudge, but as a loueing Father crowning his owne graces in vs, and pardoning our offences. Now because they are imperfect, they cannot iustify, merite nor satisfy, yet because they are Gods graces, they are the pure offering.

Here are scarse so manie words in this answere, as three are absurdities and impertinencies, and in summe nothing prooued either by reason or authority but barelie affirmed, and therfore might with good reason, without anie Farther refutation as ea­silie be denied: but I will deale more courteouslie with him, and take some paines to refurt his paradoxes.

Our good workes (saith he) though muddy maie be called the pure offering in Malachiy, because the denomination is of the worthier part: to wit of that, which proceedeth from the Spirit of Gods grace. Here are two grosse ab­surdities. The one in supposing that our good workes haue two parts, thone cleane as proceeding from Gods grace, thother vn­cleane as proceeding from the will of man regenerate in part-According to which doctrine not only our good workes, but our greatest abominations may be called the cleane offering in Malachie: because all our workes, be they neuer so bad, pro­ceed [Page 268] from God according to some part (as M. Mason speaketh) For he worketh in vs all our workes (saith the Prophet) And our Sa­uiour himselfe:Esaie. 26 12. Ioh. 15.5. VVithout me you can do nothing: in respect of which part they maie be said to be cleane, as prooceeding from God: and because the denomination is taken (as he saith) of the wor­thier part, those very wicked workes maie be said to be a cleane offering. This I suppose M. Mason will not deny to be most wicked doctrine, and yet how he will auoide it according to his grounds I see not.

If he aske me how this inconuenience may be auoided in the Catholique opinion,Taugh all our workes, pro­ceed frō God, and necessa­rily depend of him, yet is he not the cause or auctor of our badd workes. For those he only per­mitteth: giueing vs strengh to work, and leaueing vs in our liberty to vse it as we will. which teacheth that all our workes pro­ceede frō God; or depend of him I answere that it is easily auoi­ded in true diuinitie, and Philosophie, according to which our whole actions do proceed from God, or depend of him and ne­uertheles the same whole actions proceed also from vs, but af­ter a diuers sort and order. For from God they proceede as frō the first, vniuersall, indeterminate, and independent source, or agent: from vs as from a secondarie, dependent, and limi­ted, or determinate cause, from whence they take their nature, qualitie, valour and denomination: so that they are wholly good, or whollie bad, and not partie coloured, as M. Mason would haue them. Which point because it is somewhat nice, and subtill, and not easie to be vnderstood of euerie one, I will make more plaine by this example. The actions or operations, wherby the fire bringeth forth heate or fire, an appletree bringeth forth an apple, a horse begetteth a horse, or a man a man, and the a­ctions of all other creatures whatsoeuer, do proceede frō God as from the first and supreame cause, from the heauens or the sun, as from an inferiour, or secondarie cause or argent (for without the cooperation of these causes, the inferiour agents can do nothing) and also from the fire, tree, horse, man, or other creature, as from the lowest, neerest, and most immediate cause. And no action, or operation of these inferiour creatures is produced, but by the concurse, and cooperation of all these agents not in part, as if one part were produced by God, ano­ther by the sun, and a third by the fire, or other creature, but euery one of these agents cōcurre to the producing of the who­le action, but in his order and degree, and though all these cau­ses do concurre to euerie one of these actions, yet is it not ma­nie [Page 269] actions of diuers natures, but one only action and of one na­ture or qualitie, and therfore that, which is brought forth by it is one onlie thing, for example heate, fire, apple, horse, man or the like, and not partlie fire or apple, and partlie another thing. Farther that, which is brought forth by anie one of these actions,Our good workes thaugh only morall, do otherwaies proceed from God, thē doe our badd For our good wor­kes God coun­selleth, and oftē cōmaun­deth▪ and the refore by his inspirations moueth as vnto thē but our badd workes he forbi­deth and by threats of punishment withdraweth vs from thē, and haueing giuen vs strengh to worke, only permitteth vs to worke ill. Al [...] this ten­deth only to shew how our actions are either wholy good, or wholy badd, and not to shewe that our good a­ctions do not cheefly pro­ceed frō God. proceeding (as is alreadie noted) from all these subor­dinate causes, taketh it whole nature and qualitie from the im­mediate, and nearest cause, for example that which is brought forth by the actiō of the fire together with the other superiour causes, is fire, and not party fire, and partie anie other substan­ce, and so in the rest.

And the reason hereof is, because the cooperation of the fire being determined to one effect, doth determine the concurren­ce, and cooperation of the superiour agents, (which of them­selues are indifferent, and as fitt to bring forth any other thing as fire) to this determinate effect. The fire therfore or apple ha­ue not the being, essence, or nature of fire or apple rather then anie other, frō the cooperation or concurrence of God, or the sun, but from the fire or the tree, from whence they proceede immediatly, though they do as truly proceed from the sun and from God, as they do from the fire and from the tree. So in li­ke manner our morall actions do take their whole nature, qua­litie, and morall valour good or bad from vs, from whom they immediatlie proceede, and not from God: though they as truly proceede from him (forasmuch as pertaineth to the substance of the action) as from vs. Therfore if they be according to the rule or prescript of right reason (which is the measure of all hu­mane actions) they are good, honest, and laudable, not in part but in whole, though they proceede from man as well as from God, as an apple is an apple not in part but in whole, though it proceede as well from the sun and from God, as from the tree. If they be not according to the prescript of right reason, they are vitious, inhonest, and blameworthie, not in part but in the whole, though the whole substance of the action pro­ceede from God as well as from man, because the nature, and qualitie of the action is taken from the immediate agent, as is noted before. And Farther if they proceede not onlie from our free will guided by the light of nature, but also from the pure fountaine of heauenlie grace, they are not only morallie good [Page 270] and honest, but meritorious before God of the increase of gra­ce and glorie, not in part, but in whole. False therfore and fri­uolous is M. Masons imaginarie mixture of our workes, accor­ding to diuers parts, wherof one should be good and another bad, one cleane and another vncleane.

Thother absurditie contained in M. Masons former word is: that our workes are denominated of the worthier part. For though it we­re true, as it is alreadie prooued to be most false, that our wor­kes had two parts, thone cleane, thother vncleane (as M. Ma­son necessarilie supposeth when he saith, that they are nomina­ted of the worthier part) yet would it be false, and absurd to say, that they take their nomination of the worthier part. For the contrary is most true, as appeareth by that euident rule of natu­re noted first by S. Dennis,De diuini nominibus. Bonum ex integra cau­sa, malum ex quocumque defectu. Dion. and since receiued of all as well Phi­losophers, as diuines, that that which is good is of a perfect cause, but euill is of euery particuler defect. So that, that worke, or action, which hath in it anie defect, is truly said to be euill, and consequen­tlie all our workes being in part vncleane, (according to M. Ma­sons doctrine) must needs be naught, and therfore cannot be that pure offering foretold by Malachie. And this is euident by the common iudgment of all men, who esteeme a man or wo­man bad, though they haue but one bad qualitie or condition, so wee saie a rotten apple or crackt vessell, though the greatest part therof be good and sound: and we saie likewise a lame man and a tearne coate, though he want the vse but of one hand or foote, or there be but one hole in the coate: By all which exā ­ples and a thousand more it is euident, that M. Masons propo­sition is most false, whose ertour in this particuler proceedeth of ignorance in naturall Philosophie, which teacheth him to distin­guish betwixt those things, that so consist of two positiue parts, that thone is the forme in respect of the other, in which his proposition of taking denomination from the worthier part is true. And therfore a man is said to be a reasonable creature in respect of his soule, which is the worthier part, and a horse is said to be a liuing, moouing, and sensible thing, for the like rea­son. And betwixt those things that are composed, or consist to speake as the vulgar sort conceiueth) of one positiue, and ano­ther negatiue or priuatiue part, as a man may be said to consist of a whole, and a lame legg, an apple of a sound and rotten side, [Page 271] and the like. In all which the denomination alwaies followeth the defectiue part, for the reason giuen before out of S. Den­nis: and of this latter kind are our workes and actions, which when they want anie circumstance, or perfection which is due vnto them, and which they ought to haue (as all our actions do in M. Masons doctrine) are alwaies said to be euill and naught; and therfore can in no sort be said to be that pure offering mentioned by the Prophet Mala­chie.

Hauing thus refuted M. Masons shifts, concerning the pure offering so often mentioned, I will now satisfie the obiection before insinuated, which maie be framed out of the Catholique doctrine in fauor of M. Mason in this sort.

16. The good workes of a iust man proceeding from Gods grace are meritorious, satisfactorie, and iustificatiue, and con­sequentlie are pure and cleane. Why therfore maie they not be that pure offering mentioned in the Prophet Mala­chie?

The answere is easie. For though a iust mans workes, which proceede from Gods grace, be pure and cleane, yet can they not be that pure offering, wherof the Prophet Malachie spea­keth, for diuers reasons, wherof some part are alreadie tou­ched. Namelie for that the Sacrifice fortold by Malachie is a true and proper Sacrifice, wheras our good workes are but metaphoricallie, and vnproperly called a Sacrifice: that is but one; these are manie: that is proper to the church of the gentiles: these are common to the Iewes and genti­les. That succeedeth the Sacrifices of the Iewes: these are ioined with all Sacrifices, and succeede none. Therfore the holy ghost reproouing the priesthood and Sacrifice of the Iewes in respect of that of the gentiles, it must needs be, that he ment some other Sacrifice, then all that which the Iewes offered: who notwithstanding offered the same Spirituall Sacrifice of prayer, praise, and thanks giueing, that the Christian gētiles doe. For▪ otherwais the Sacrifice of the gentiles, if it were no other then of Praier, and praise cowld not be so preferred before that of the Iewes as that it showld be approoued by God, and tho­ther. All these reasons are already touched, and shew manifestly, that our good workes although neuer so cleane, and pure, cānot [Page 272] be that pure offering mentioned by the Prophet; which will al­so more euidently appeare by that, which shall now be said to prooue, that the testimony of Malachy is necessarilie to be vn­derstood of a proper, sensible, and externall Sacrifice. From pro­secuting of which point I haue bene thus farr deturned, by oc­casion of M. Masons odd shifts thrust in to thwart my pur­pose. To returne therfore thither where I left before, I saie.

Conferēce of places.27 Fourthly that the pure oblation spoken of by the Prophet Malachie being vnderstood of a true and proper Sacrifice, a­greeth rightly with other places of holie scripture; and namely with that of Genesis.Gen. 14. But Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of God most high. And that of S. Luke. This is my bodie which is giuen for you, Luke 22.19. do this for a commemoration of mee. And of the Psalme.Psal. 109. Hebr. 12.10. Thou art a priest for euer according to the order of Melchi­sedech. And of S. Paul. VVe haue an altar, wherof they haue not power to eate that serue the tabernacle. Dan. 11.31. & 12.11. And of Daniell. They shall take awaie the dailie Sacrifice. Which places cannot literallie be vnderstood without a proper and sensible Sacrifice in the new lawe. Againe the prophesie of Malachie being vnderstood, is not repugnant to anie other testimonie of holie scripture, as shall clearely ap­peare hereafter.

Fiftly, the testimonie of Malachie being vnderstood in the foresaid sense is no lesse consonant with naturall reason, then conformitie with true reason are the Sacrifices of the law of na­ture, and of Moises, yea by so much more conformable to na­turall reason it is, that we should haue a true and proper prie­sthood, and Sacrifice in the law of grace, then in that either of Moises or of nature, by how much greater tie of gratitu­de, and thankfulnes we haue to God our soueraigne Lord for greater blessings and benefits receiued, then they had that liued vnder the former lawes. marke the testimonie of S. Ire­neus following.

Interpretatiō of the aunciēt church.Sixtlie the auncient church of the first two, three, foure, and fiue hundreth yeares after Christ, the iudgment wherof our aduersaries dare not refuse, vnderstandeth this oblation to be a true, and proper Sacrifice, and that verie same, which our Sauiour Christ offered in his lost supper. Which onlie reason is more then sufficient to persuade [Page 273] any one (well affected either to his owne saluation, or to the knowledge of the truth it selfe) of the true sense and meaning of these words.

And to begin with most auncient Irenaeus, who liued within the second hundreth yeare after Christ: that is more then 1400. yeares agoe. thus he writeth.

Which words iudicious reader if thou diligently marke, thou wilt find that if this holy Father had liued in our daies, he could not almost haue spoken more directlie against the Protestants heresie, in this point. First he giueth the reason, why our Sauiour taught his Apostles to offer Sacrifice to God, that they should neither be without the Spirituall fruite of Gods grace, nor vngratefull to him for his benefits receiued; as if with­out Sacrifice they should be both. Secondlie he teacheth what this Sacrifice is: to wit the bodie and bloud of our Sauiour Christ, and how it is offered, in these words: this is my bodie: this is my bloud: Thirdlie he saith that Christ in this action taught a new Sacrifice of the new testament, and therfore such an one as had not bene before, as the Spiri­tuall Sacrifices of our workes are. Fourthlie that this Sa­crifice being deliuered by the Apostles to the church, is offered to God through the whole world, and therfore cannot be the Sacrifice of our Sauiour Christ, as he was offered vpon the crosse. Fiftly he faith that the prophet Malachie foretold the same in the words related out of him. All which things well weighed, I do not see what could be said more direct for the proofe either of the churches Sacrifice, or that it was foretold by Malachie the Prophet.

Aug. de ciuit. lib. 18, cap. 35.S. Augustin teacheth the same veritie in as plaine tearmes saying:

And vvhat S. Augustin meaneth by the sacrifice of Christs priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech, thou shalt heare (good reader) of himselfe, vvho in another place vvritteth thus.

Now do I appeale to thy iudgment, indifferent reader, whe­ther M. Mason (affirming this testimonie of the Prophet Ma­lachie to be vnderstood of spirituall offerings, by the iudgment of the fathers, and namelie of these two) doth not say either he careth not,Pag. 219. or knoweth not what? But let vs see, vpon what ground he affirmeth a thing so farre from all appearance of truth. Marie because these fathers with S. Hierome, and Euse­bius say, that by incense (which according to some readings the Prophet here mentioneth) are vnderstood the praiers of saints, which are spirituall offerings: This is true indeede: but nothing to the purpose. For both the Prophet Malachie, and all these fathers speake expreslie of a cleane offering, ouer and aboue the incense: the text it selfe as M. Mason turneth it being this: In euerie place incense shalbe offered vp to my name, and a pure offering. Be it therfore that these fathers vnderstand by incense the praiers of saints, yet by the pure offering expressed by the Prophet, they with all the rest that handle this matter, do vnderstand the sa­crifice [Page 277] of the holy Eucharist, euen by M. Caluins owne confes­sion as we shall see by and by.

Againe though by incense the fathers vnderstand the praiers of saints, yet is there no reason to thinke, that they should therby exclude a true, and proper externall oblation, and sacri­fice, more then the sweet odor, which God smelled from the sacrifice of Noe, did exclude,Gen. 8.21. or take away the true externall oblation of beasts and foules, which he made to God at his issue out of the Arke. So that M. Mason without the least shew of reason, affirmeth the aforementioned fathers to vnderstand this testimonie of Malachie onlie of spirituall offerings: which is yet farther, most euidentlie conuinced out of S. Augustin,August lib. 18. de ciui­tat. cap. 25. Chrisostom. orat. 3. con. Iudaeos ante finem. and S. Chrisostome, who vse this testimonie of the Prophet Malachie against the Iewes, to prooue that the Messias is alreadie come, by the change of the Leuiticall sacrifice into that, which is fore­told by the Prophet. Which argument (the Prophet being vn­derstood of spirituall sacrifices) could be of no force at all. For besides that these spirituall sacrifices being principally internall, cannot be vnto men, who see not that which is in the hart, any euident signe of another thing wherof they stand in doubt, as the Iewes do of that point, that the Messias is alreadie come, and therfore should verie impertinentlie be brought to prooue it. Besides this I say, these fathers who vse this testimonie, if they should vnderstand it only of spirituall offerings, as M. Masō would haue them, could not inferre therupon any change of the Iewes sacrifices into some better, which the Prophet plainlie fortelleth, saying in the person of God. I will take no offering at your hands, for in all places is offered to my name a pure offering: but a bare cessation of the Iewes externall sacrifices, without substi­tuting any other in their place, and continuation of the inter­nall, which they wanted not: And consequentlie the Iewes should hereby rather be confirmed in their errour, then drawne from it, seeing by this argument their religioni prooued to be more perfect, then that of the Christians, as is before clearelie deduced.

And I appeale to M. Masons owne iudgment, whether if he where at this daie to prooue vnto a Iew, that the Messias whom he expecteth, is alreadie come, he would thin­ke this testimonie of the Prophet Malachie, vnderstood only of [Page 278] Spirituall Sacrifices, would be a God medium for his purpose? I haue not so bad an opinion of his iudgment to thinke, that he would verelie take it so to be: for it is euident, that this place so vnderstood could haue no shew of proofe at all against the Iewe: which seeing it is so, how can he thinke that S. Augustin, and S. Chrisostome, the latter especiallie disputing expreslie against the Iewes, should vse so impertinent an argument? can he thinke that they were lesse iudicious, in choosing their testi­monies against their aduersaries, then he would be? And I would haue him obserue, that S. Chrisostome doth not only vrge the latitude of the place, where the sacrifice of the new law is to be offered, which the Prophet expresseth in these words, from the rising of the sun to the going downe therof, and in euerie place, but also much insisteth vpon the sanctitie of this sacrifice aboue that of the Iewes, declared by the Prophet in these words a pure offering, and that not only in respect of the imper­fectiō which the Iewes sacrifice might haue, from the offerers, but in respect of the verie offering it selfe, wherof he saith thus.

Wherby it euidentlie appeareth that S. Chrisostome speaketh of some other sacrifice, then of the spirituall sacrifices of our good workes, which cannot so farre exceed the sacrifices of the Iewes, whose spirituall sacrifices were the same with ours, as M. Mason expreslie confesseth.

18. But if all these reasons will not persuade M. Mason to thinke, that the fathers vnderstood by the pure offering, men­tioned by the Prophet Malachie, an externall, sensible, and pro­per sacrifice, and that they taught such a sacrifice to remaine in Christs church, he will (I doubt not) do that honour to his great Maister. M. Caluin, as to credit his iudgment herein: [Page 279] or if he will decline and disclaime from him, as being the father of the puritane faction, yet in no reason can he refuse the sen­tence, of those great lights of the Protestant church the Centu­rists, who will tell him the same: but let vs heare the words as well of one as thother.

M. Caluin vvriteth thus.

Here vve see the Sacrifice of the Masse, and reall pre­sence of Christ in the blessed Sacrament, to haue be­ne beleeued and taught by the Fathers, both of the east and vvest church, aboue tvvelue, and thirteen hundreth yeares agoe euen by Caluins ovvne con­fession. The Centurists saie also of S. Irenaeus.

And of S. Cyprian, vvho liued vvithin the third hun­dreth yeare of Christ, the same authors testifie that he saith.

For vvhich speech they reprooue him of superstitiō, in their alphabeticall table of that century vnder the letter 5. 9.

Now though I might iustly suppose these most pregnant te­stimonies of corrupted antiquitie, grounded vpon the expres­se words of holie scripture, abundantly sufficient to prooue the truth of the Catholique faith in this point of a sacrificing priesthood in the law of Christ: yet because this veritie doth not only serue to conuince the protestants of want of true Bishops and pastors (for which purpose it is here dispu­ted) and consequently of he like want of a true church; but also is a point principallie impugned and controuersed, by them, I will for the more abundant and euident cleering therof here adde the testimonies of the auncient pastors, and Doctors of Gods church, of the first 500. yeares after Christ, not of anie one countrie or nation, but of all the three parts of the Christian world, Asia, Africke, and Europe, that therby the partialest reader maie see, this doctrine to haue had no other authors or beginners then them, of whom the ho­ly ghost saith.Psal. 15.5. Their sound hath gone forth thorough all the earth, and their words haue raught to the ends of the round world,

Theodoret. Dialogi. 1.To begin therfore vvith S. Ignatius that most glo­rious martir, made Bishop of Antioch in Syria by S. Peter himselfe, and is cited by Theodoret Bishop of Cyre 1200. yeares agone. This gre­at personage speaking of certaine heretiques saith.Theodoret. Dialogo. 3.

S. Iustinus a Ievve borne in Palestina,Dial cū Tri­pho. printed at Basill. vvho suffered martirdome 1400. and 50. yeares agoe saith.

Of S. Irenaeus Archbishop of Lions in France and martir, who liued more then 1400. and 40. yeres agoe see a most pregnant testimony before in this same chapter.

Tertulliā borne and brought vp in Africke in his boo­ke of prayer vvritten, vvhilest he vvas yet Catholique,De oratione cap. 14. aboue 1400. yeares agoe.

And againe declaring the custome of the Christians in his time.De corona militis cap. 3.

S. Cyprian another African Doctor, Bishop of Carthage,Cyprianus epist. 63. ad Cec llium. and martir aboue 1300. and 50. yeares agoe, besides that vneuitable testimony before related hath this doctrine in the same epistle.

And yet againe.

Yea the vvhole epistle is such, as no man that readeth it can deny, but that S. Cipriā did beleeue and teach a true, sensible, and externall Sacrifice, and consequē ­tly a true and proper sacrificing priesthood, in the nevv lavv and church of Christ.

Epist. 66.And in his epistle to the cleargy and people of Furnes he saith.

And the first coūcell of Nice celebrated almost 1300. yeares agoe, the authority vvherof vvas neuer reie­cted or denied by any but the damned Arians, saith.

Eusebius, vvho liued at the same time, setting dovv­ne the history of the councell holden at Hierusalem vnder Constantine the great, saith.

S. Cyrill Patriarch of Hierusalē 340, yeares after Christ, that is 127. yeares agoe in his catechisticall sermons.

And yet againe.

And so many most notable things hath this holy Father in the same place, as well for the declaratiō of this point, and diuers others of Catholique doctrine, as also for the encrease of true piety, that I could wish he were read & vnderstood of all mē. S. Epiphanius in his epistle to Iohn Bishop of Hieru­rusalē successor to S. Cyrill, vvhich is translated by S. Hierome aboue 1200. yeare agoe, and is amongst his epistles the 60.

S. Gregory of Nlsse brother to the great S. Basil, whō S. Gregory Nazianzen calleth child of light, and man of God, vvho liued 1200. and 30. yeares agoe deliue­reth the Catholique doctrine, of the Sacrifice of the nevv testament in these memorable vvords.

And S. Gregory Nazianzē, for his singuler knovvledge in diuinity surnamed the diuine, S. Hieroms maister, of the same age vvith S. Gregory of Nisse, compagnon in studies vvith his brother the great S. Basil.

And in his apologeticall oration hauing declared vvhat perfectiō was required euē in the priests of the old lavv, he cōcludeth with these memorable words.

S. Ambroise Bishop of Millaine 1220. yeares agoe besides the testimonies alleaged out of him before saith thus.

And againe.

And yet againe he prooueth the excellency of this mistery by these words of the canō of the holy masse.

S. Optatus Mileuitanus an Africā author of the same an­tiquity with S. Ambrose writing against the Sacrilegious Donatists, who brake downe Gods alters, amongst many other sharpe and vehement reprehensions (which I wish thee diligēt reader to see thy selfe, being too long to relate here, and which are by so much more proper for our Pro­testants, [Page 289] then they were for the Donatists, by how much more outragious they haue beene in pulling downe chur­ches and alters then the Donatists euer were.Lib. 6. con. Parme ad i­nitium.)

S. Hierome who wrote aboue 1200. yeares agone saith thus.

S. Iohn Chrisostome vvho liued about 1200. yeares agoe besides diuers other sentences to the same pur­pose hath these expresse vvords.

And S. Augustin that great light of the latine church of the same antiquity with S. Chrisostome Bishop of Hip­poe in Africke saith.

If thow desire good reader to see more testimonies of this great Doctor to this purpose, see him in his booke of here­sies in the heresies of Aerius. his 20. booke against Faustus cap. 21. his 10. booke de ciuit. Dei cap. 20. the 17. booke cap. 20. the 18. booke cap. 35. and the 22. booke and 8. cap. for my purpose will not permitt me to staie longer in him.

S. Cyrill Patriarch of Alexandria who died the yeare 444. in the explication of his 11. anathema or curse exa­mined in the third generall councell where he was not [Page 292] only present but president by Celestinus then Pope of Rome his appointment saith.

S. Leo the great created Pope the 440. yeare after our Sauiours natiuity.

S. Fulgentius an African, made Bishop the yeare [Page 293] 504. and died 529. saith.

And a litle after.

In the latter end of this age to wit the yeare 590. was S, Gregory the great chosen to sit in the seate of S. Peter, of whose doctrine cōcerning the sacrifice of the masse, and consequently of a true sacrificing priesthood in the church of Christ, there can be no more question made, then whe­ther there was euer such a man in the world as S. Gregory. And from his time downeward to our owne daies is there lesse question of that matter. For he sent S. Augustin into England who with Christian religion brought in the holy sacrifice of the masse which from that time till Edward the sixt his raigne, hath euer continued there as is euident by all Kind of records. So that it remaineth cleare, that in Europe, Asia, and Africke, (that is) in all parts of the Christian world euer since the Apostles times. This do­ctrine hath bene cōmon and neuer impugned or gainsaied by any one of those vigilāt watchmen, and sentinells,Esaie. 62.9. See the ans­werable pro­testants apo­logy for the Catholique faith, in the conclusion to the iudges sect. 5. whō God from time to time according to his promise, hath set to watch ouer his church, and who haue not ouerseene, or let passe the least errour in faith, that since Christ his ascen­sion into heauen hath sprung vp, but haue, assoone as it hath appeared or bene vttered, espied it, impugned it, and neuer desisted till they had driuen it downe to hell againe from whēce it came, witnesse all the heresies that haue bene raised [Page 294] in all parts of the Christian world since Symon Magus o­uer whom S. Peter himselfe triumphed. This doctrine I saie hauing bene thus vniuersall both in respect of time and place, hath not bene impugned by any one before Martin Lu­ther, who (as he confesseth himselfe, to his owne and all his fol­lowers eternall confusion receiued his instructions from the de­uill for the purpose.

If the Sacrifice of the church had either bene practised in se­cret corners or that it had bene a matter either indifferent or of smallest moment, such as are not so well either instructed, or persuaded of Gods continuall care and watch ouer his church as they ought to be, might peraduenture thinke it a thing possible that it might creepe in and continue for some time. But being as it is, not only the publique seruice of all Chri­stians, but that at the celebration wherof, all things that are to be published, are for the more solemne publication de­nounced, and besides is of that moment, as no act of Chri­stian cult, worship, and religion is comparable to it, being a most expresse and direct act of idolatry (if it were not the true worship ordained by God) for the which God, iea­lous of his honour, hath from time to time so seuerely puni­shed all nations as well Iewes as Gentils, this I saie being, I doe and dare boldly auouch, that it cannot be esteemed pos­sible by any man, that hath the least dram of true iudg­ment, or knowledge of the foundation of Christian faith and religion, that it should haue bene practised so publi­kely, so vniuersally, and for so long time, (as alreadie appeareth by irreproouable testimonies that it hath (without controlement and contradiction.

Now hauing sufficiently prooued, as I thinke, a sacrificing priesthood to be in Christs church, it remaineth that we satis­fie such obiection, as our aduersaries make against the same. For as all other articles of Christian faith haue had, haue, or may haue arguments made against them, euen out of the scripture it sel­fe, so likewise hath this.

The Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrewes, not truly vn­derstood, is depraued by the Protestants in preiudice of this truth, and to their owne perdition as S. Peter saith,2. Petri. 3.16. the rest of the scriptures, and [Page 295] namelie those of S. Paul are by the vnstable: that is such as will haue no other interpretation of them but their owne. Out of this epistle are drawne diuers arguments, against the holie sacrifice of the Masse, whihh may all be reduced to this forme.

19. The Apostle to the Hebrewes teacheth first, that the priest of the new testament is one onlie. Secondlie, that the host or sacrifice of the new testament is but one onlie. Thirdlie that the offering, or sacrificing of that one host in likewise but once performed, and not often iterated or repeated: All which see­meth directlie against the sacrifice of the Masse, which hath ma­nie priests, manie hosts, or at lest the same host often offered. Further he teacheth, that the priest of the new law, is not only one, but such a one as hath no neede to offer for himselfe? That the host or sacrifice is so pretious, that it taketh awaie all sinne; And that the offering therof is so effectuall, that Gods people hath no more guilt of sinne. Which singuler degree of per­fection in the priest, sacrifice, and offering of the same doth make, that there can be but one in each kind, as is said before; so that this latter argument is rather a reason and cause of the former, then anie new and distinct argument. All this is proo­ued by the expresse testimonies of the Apostle. In setting downe wherof I will obserue the order of the chapters, and not the order of the points here touched, wherunto they may be easely applied.

The other indeede were made priests being many, Hebr. ca. 7.23.24.25. because by death they were prohibited to continue. But this for that he continueth for euer, hath an euerlasting pristhood, wherby he is able to saue also for euer, going by himselfe to God, alwaies liuing to make intercession for vs: who hath not necessity daily (as the priests) first for his owne sins to offer hosts, then for the peoples. For this he did once in offering himselfe.

By his owne bloud entered once into the holies, Cap. 9.12.13.14. eternall redemption being found. For if the bloud of goates &c. how much more hath the bloud of Christ clensed our conscience from dead workes, to serue the li­uing God.

Nor that he should offer himselfe often, as the high priest entereth into the holies, euery yeare in the bloud of others: otherwise he ought to haue suffered often from the beginning of the world: but now once in the consummation of the worlds, to the destruction of sinne, he hath appeared [Page 296] by his owne host. Cap. 10.1.2. So also Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many. For the law hauing a shdow of goad things to comme, not the very image of the things: euery yeare with the selfe same hosts which they offer inceassantly, can neuer make the comers therunto perfect. Otherwise they should haue ceased to be offered, because the worshippers once clean­sed should haue no conscience of sinne any longer.

Cap. 10.10.11.12. In the which will, we are sanctified, by the oblation of the body of IESVS CHRIST once. And euery priest indeed is ready daily ministring and often offering the same hostes, which can never take away sins. But this man offering one host for sinns, for euer sitteth on the right hand of God. For by one oblation hath he consummated for euer them, that are sanctified. But where there is remission of these, now there is not an oblation for sins.

These are the passages, which our aduersaries ordinarilie vse, for the impugning of the sacrifice of the Masse.

For the better vnderstanding of the Apostles doctrine in this epistle, touching the sacrifice of the new testamēt, it is first to be obserued: that he speaketh not any one word directlie, and ex­preslie of the sacrifice of the Masse, or holie Eucharist, as espe­ciallie our aduersaries must graunt; seeing they teach and belee­ue, that there is no such sacrifice at all. If therfore they will prooue any thing against it out of this epistle, they must do it by consequence and deduction only: which kind of arguing that it may be good and lawfull, the Apostles principall drift, and intent must attentiuelie be considered. For it is no law­full arguing to inferre that vpō any mans words, without which his meaning is otherwaies full and perfect: As for example Hel­uidius did falslie,Math. 1.25. and hereticallie vpon these words: And he knew her not till she brought forth her first borne sonne: deduce, that the bles­sed virgin did not continue perpetuallie virgin, inferring more vpon the Euangelists words, then his meaning was to expresse, as the Protestants do also by S. Pauls doctrine, in this point of the sacrifice of the Masse.

It is secondlie to be obserued, that the cheefe intent of the Apostle in this epistle is, to prooue the dignitie, and preheminē ­ce of our Sauiour Christs priesthood, and the necessitie and effi­cacy of his sacrifice, and oblatiō vpō the crosse, against such mis­beleeuing Iewes, as held and esteemed the priesthood, and sacri­fices of Moises law, to be euerlasting, vnchangeable, and sufficiēt [Page 297] of themselues for the remission of sins, without respect or de­pendence of any other priesthood, or sacrifice to be instituted, from whence they might haue their valour and force.

The Apostles cheefe intent therfore in this epistle being this, it no way pertained to his purpose, to treate of the sacrifice of the Eucharist. For this depending of the sacrifice vpon the crosse, which the Iewes, for whose instruction S. Paul wrote this epistle, did not yet beleeue, they could not profitablie be instructed therin, nor S. Paul but verie preposterouslie, could treat directlie therof. This being well kept in mind, it will easelie appeare, that the Apostles intent is not to speake any thing in this whole epistle against the sacrifice of the alter, and consequentlie that whatsoeuer our aduer­saries would inferre therof to that purpose, they do it besi­des the meaning of the Apostle, and therfore can be of no force.

20. M. Fulke obiecteth, against this that the Hebrewes, Ad Hebraeos 7. sect. 5. & cap. 10. sect. 4. to whom the Apostle writeth, were Christians, and therfore could haue no such opinion of the sacrifices of the law, which no faithfull Iew had before the coming of Christ. Wherby he would insinuate, that the Apostles intent could not be to prooue, the necessitie of the sacrifice of the crosse.

But M. Fulke is either deceiued, or would deceiue. For S. Hierome deliuering not onlie his owne opinion, but the doctrine of his auncestors, which he also embraceth, saith; that the Apostle wrote to the Iewes, that were not yet Christians, nor true beleeuers. And that those,Epist. 126. ad Euagr. Hebraeis enim, idest, Iudaeis per­suadebat, non iam fi­delibus, quibus pas­sim prode­ret sacra­mentum. Hebr. cap. 7.11. Cap. 10.4. to whom or against whom the Apostle wrote, were of that opinion, that their sacrifices were of themselues sufficient, without any respect or relation to any other sacrifice, it is more manifest by S. Pauls owne words, euen in this place handled by M. Fulke, then can stand with his ignorance therin; and therfore doth he wittinglie, and wilfullie depraue the Apostles doctrine, and goe about to deceiue his reader. The Apostles words are these. If then consummation was by the Leuiticall priesthood (for vnder it the people receiued the lawe) what necessitie was there yet another priest to rise, according to the order of Melchisedech, and not to be called according to the order of Aaron? And agine in the 10. chapter. It is vn­possible, that with the bloud of oxen and goates, sins should be taken away. Is it not manifest hereby, that the Apostle disputeth [Page 298] against such, as taught the sacrifices of the law to be sufficient, for the consummation of our redemption, and remission of our sinnes? Certes it is ouer euident to be denied by any man, not depriued of cōmon sence. The Apostle therfore in this dispute, doth not so much instruct the Catholique beleeuing Iewes in their faith, as confute the errours, and falsities in their misbelee­uing countrimen, as all other Catholique Doctors, and pastors of Gods church doe, whilst they write in confutation of the newlie rising heresies.

Fulke.But he vrgeth farther, and demaundeth, how the Apostle could omitt to speake of the sacrifice of the Masse, seeing as we say, his drift was to auouch the eternall fruite, and necessity of Christ his passion, wherof the sacri­fice of the Masse dependeth? An impertinent question: For as well might he aske, how the Apostle could omit to speake of the Eucharist, as it is a sacrament, and of all other mysteries of our religion, which he confesseth (and necessarilie) to depend vpon the passion of Christ. And which (I pray you) of all the holie writers doth explicate all the misteries of our faith at once, or in one place, though they haue dependēce thone vpon thother? If M. Fulke had bene but half as quick sighted in the search of the truth, as he was to impugne it, he would easilie haue found the reason, why the Apostle made no mention of the sacrifice of the Masse in this epistle. For the Iewes, to whom he wrote, beleeuing not the necessitie of Christs passion (as is noted be­fore) it could not be conuenient, that the Apostle should instruct them in that other high misterie, which necessarilie re­quired the beleefe of our Sauiours passion before. Which reason the Apostle himselfe doth clearelie insinuate, saying; Of whom (Melchisedech) we haue great speach, Hebr. cap. 5 11. Hieron. vbi supra. and inexplicable to vtter: because you are become weake to heare. Not because the Apostle could not (saith S. Hie­rome) explicate that he would say, but because it pertained not to that time. For he spake to the Iewes not yet faithfull beleeuers, to whō he would eftsoones haue opened the mistery.

Yet M. Fulke is not satisfied, but replieth, that this reason is vaine, vnles we will confesse that there was no Masse said among them, since they were conuerted; still running counter, taking the misbeleeuing Iewes for true Christians, and supposing their conuersion, be­fore they were conuerted.

Yea but (saith he) such as were conuerted, and had the sacrifice of [Page 299] the Masse amongst them, were necessarilie to be instructed in the ground of it out of the law and Prophets, as well as of the sacrifice of Christs passion which if order required to be first handled, yet reason would not, that the Masse should haue altogether bene omitted: yea thother being so handled as they could not see, what need they had of Masse, but rather should be brought into detesta­tion of it, if euer before they had vsed it.

The conuerted and beleeuing Iewes were so well instructed, in the ground of the sacrifice of the Masse, out of theGenes. 14. law, which recordeth Melchisedechs oblation in bread and wine, and out of thePsal. 109. Prophets, which testifie our Sauiour Christ to be a priest of that order:Malachy [...]. Dan 11.31.12.11. and that the time would come, when that their carnall sacrifices should cease, and a cleane oblation should be offered to God in all places, And that there should be a daily sacrifice, as they were so farre from being brought into dete­station of it, (as M. Fulke seemeth to be by his more then Iu­daicall incredulitie) that they saw it most conformable to holie scriptures, and perfectlie agreeing with the all consummating oblation of the crosse; as all other trulie beleeuing Christians haue also done euer since that time. And therfore is it more thē false,In the same place. that the Apostle doth not only omitt to speake of the sacrifice of the Masse, but doth speake much against it, as M. Fulke impudentlie affir­meth. For he is not able to produce anie one approoued author for 1500. yeares after Christ, that euer found any such thing in this epistle. Is not he therfore more then impudent, that dare so peremptorilie father that vpon the holie Apostle, that none of those watchfull sentinels, whom God hath from time to time set to watch incessantlie ouer his church, could euer espie?Esay 62.6. but to leaue this forger of new fa [...]les to himselfe.

21. It is thirdlie to be obserued, that the ancient fathers writing vpon this epistle, and explaning the Apostles doctrine therin, saw the same obiections, that the heretiques of these times now make out of it against the sacrifice of the Masse, and answered them aboue 1200. yeares agone, So farre are they from thinking, that the Apostle speaketh any thing therin, against this holie sacrifice. Is not this onlie consideration sufficient, to per­suade anie reasonable vnderstanding, of the truth of the Catho­lique beliefe in this point? These fathers were as learned, and as Zealous of Gods truth, as the Protestants are (to say no more) and besides this aduantage they had aboue them, that they were [Page 300] deuoide of all passion, and partialitie against any party, hauing liued manie hundreth yeares before this question was moued, and therfore much more like to giue true iudgment therof. But let vs heare what they say.

S. Chrisostom and S. Ambrose, (for both these holie and ancient fathers haue the same saying, and almost the same tear­mes in their commentaries vpon these words of S. Paul.Hebr. cap. 10.1.2. The law hauing a shadow of good things to come, not the very image of the things: euery yeere with the selfe same hosts, which they offer incessantly, can neuer make the comers therunto perfect. Otherwise they should haue ceased to be offered, because the worshippers once cleansed should haue no conscience of sinne any longer.

Vpon these vords I say thus write these holie fathers. VVhat, do we not daily offer? we offer truly, but we renew the memory of his death. For we offer alwaies the same, not now another, but alwaies the same, Marke that it is Christ that is dayly offered. and therfore is it for this reason one sacrifice. Because it is offered in many places, are there therfore many Christs? Not so, but one Christ, who is wholly there, and wholly here one body. Like as therfore he is offe­red in many places being one body, and not many bodies, so is he but one sa­crifice.

Why the Masse thaugh oftē repeated is but one sa­crifice and howe the same thing is offered therin that our Sauiour offered. Ad Hebraeos cap. 10. sect. 9. It is our high priest, that offered that sacrifice which cleanseth vs: and we now offer that, that then was offered, which cannot be consumed. This is done in remembrance of that which then was done. For he saith, do ye this in commemoration of me. VVe do not offer another host, as the high priest (of the old law) did, but alwaies the same, or rather we make a commemoration of that host and sacrifice (of the crosse.) The like sayings haue other fathers of latter times as Theophi­last, Oecumenius of the Greekes, and of the Latins Haymo, Re­migius, and Paschatius.

And Primatius who was S. Augustins scholler, answereth the same obiection in these words, as he is related by M. Fulke him­selfe.

VVhat then shall we say? do not our priests the same thing daily, while they offer sacrifice continually? they offer indeede, but for the remembraunce of his death. And because we sinne daily and neede daily to be cleansed, because he cannot now die, he hath giuen vs this sacrament of his body and bloud, that as his passion was the redēption, and absolutiō of the world: (marke) so also this oblation may be redemption and cleansing, to all that offer it in true faith, and haue a good intention.

So that it is cleare that the obiections, wherby the aduersa­ries of the Catholique truth thinke to ouerthrow, the holie sa­crifice of Gods church, were forseene and answered aboue a thousand yeres, before our new maisters of reformation were heard of in the world.

22. And that the indifferent reader be not deceiued, by the [...]ergiuersations of our aduersaries in this particuler, it is necessa­rie to beware of their cauilling shifts, which they vse to auoide these cleare testimonies of antiquitie. For because these fathers say, that the dailie sacrifice of the church is a commemoration, or remembrance of the sacrifice of the crosse, they would against their expresse words and meaning inferre that it is no true sacrifice. But by the same argument they maie also conclude, that all the sacrifices of the law of Moises were not trulie, and properlie sacrifices. For they all had the like respect to the same sacrifice of the crosse, that the sacrifice of the Masse hath, without any other difference at all, but that those, because they went before, did prefigurate or forshew it as being yet to come, and this of the Masse is a remembrance or commemoration of the same, as being now past: which difference can no way preiudice, or impaire the perfection, and true proprietie of a sacrifice in this latter, as is too too ma­nifest. If therfore the respect of prefiguration in the sacrifices of Moises lawe, did not let or hinder them to be properlie sa­crifices; the respect of commemoration, in the sacrifice of the Masse, cannot make it to be improperlie a sacrifice. But to come nearer the difficultie, and to declare the true meaning, and sense of the Apostle, in the speeches before related.

23. It is fourthlie to be obserued, that he disputing against the errour of those Iewes, that taught the priesthood, and sacrifice of Aarō to be so perfect and absolute of it selfe, that it sufficed (wi­thout respect to any other) to cleanse the professours of the law from all guilt of sinne, and to open vnto them the kingdome of heauē, as is before declared. He prooueth first the insufficiēcy of the priesthood, and sacrifice of the Leuiticall lawe, to take awaie any sinne at all of it selfe, and much more to discharge and re­deeme all mankind from all sinnes, or to open vnto them the kingdome of heauen. This he diuinelie demonstrateth ^a first on the behalfe of the priests, who being sinners, [Page 302] themselues had neede of a mediatour,Cap. 7.27.28. cap. 9.7. and redeemer, as well as the people for whom they offered. Secondlie on the behalfe of theCap. 9.9. cap. 10.4. sacrifice, which being but onlie the flesh and bloud of goa­tes and calues, could not possible cleanse the soules of men from sinne, nor pacifie Gods wrath against them. Thirdlie on the be­halfe of theCap. 7.19. cap. 10.1.2.11. action of offering, which being so often repeated, was manifestlie prooued of small or no force, for if it had bene effectuall, it should haue ceased, for the worshippers once cleansed haue no more conscience of sinne.

Haueing thus prooued the insufficiēcie of the Leuiticall prie­sthood, and sacrifices to the effects before mentioned; heCap. 7. from the 11. verse. in­ferreth the necessitie of another priesthood, and sacrifice, which should worke the consummation, that is, the vniuersall redem­ption of all mankind from all sinne, and the opening the gates of the heauenlie kingdome: And sheweth this priest to be our Sauiour Christ, and his passion to be the consummating sacrifi­ce, declaring that in all the respects before mentioned, wherin the leuiticall priesthood was defectiue, this is most perfect.Cap. 7.26. His person being most innocent, impolluted, separated from sinners, and made higher then the heauens. Cap. 9.12. cap. 10.10. His sacrifice not the flesh and bloud of beasts: but his owne body and bloud▪ and theCap. 9.25.28 cap. 10.10.12, action of sacrificing, or offering but once performed or done, being so effectuall that it needed not to be repeated any oftener.

This being the principall intent, and purpose of S. Paul in this dispute of our Sauiours priesthood, and sacrifice (as will eui­dentlie appeare to all that read him with indifferencie and attē ­tion) neither his words, nor meaning can with truth, and reasō be vrged against the sacrifice of the Masse, or any other sacrifice not supposed, or pretended to be sufficient of it selfe for the cleāsing of sinne, and redeeming of man from the same, wheras against such a sacrifice his reasons are inuincible, and would cō ­clude as effectuallie against the sacrifice of the Masse, if it were maintained to be a propitiation of mens sins absolutelie of it selfe (without respect or dependence of the sacrifice of the crosse) as they do against the leuiticall sacrifices, falslie maintai­ned by the Iewes to haue bene such. But because no Catho­lique Christian euer dreamed, that the sacrifice of the Masse should be such a consummating, redeeming, and independent sacrifice, as the Apostre here speaketh of, and as the misbelee­uing [Page 303] Iewes esteemed theirs to be, the Apostles discourse maketh no more against it, then it doth against the sacrifices of Moises lawe, euen in those verie times, when they were appointed by God himselfe to be vsed, as shall by and by be clearely deduced.

In the meane while it is to be noted, that there are two sorts of sacrifice (I speake onlie in respect of their efficacie, for in o­ther respects there are diuers sorts:) thone absolute and indepē ­dēt, hauing effect and efficacie of it selfe, without respect or de­pendence of anie other, and maie be called cōsummatiue or re­demptiue: thother respectiue and dependent, which hath not ef­ficacie of it selfe to remit sinnes, or of it proper institution, but from another and maie be called applicatiue, because it applieth the efficacie, and valour of another to such effects, as it is ordai­ned vnto. Amongst all the sacrifices that euer were, either in the law of nature, of Moyses, or of Iesus Christ, that onlie of the crosse is of the first kind; all the rest (yea that of the Masse) are of the second sort. For all true Christians did, and do be­leeue and confesse, that the holie sacrifice of the Masse hath the whole efficacie, and vertue, which it hath, as it is pro­pitiatorie, from the sacrifice of the crosse. And in this respect dependeth no lesse therupon, then the Iewes sacrifices did: though in respect of the perfection as well of the cheefe priest, as of the host or thing offered (both being our Sauiour Christ himselfe) and consequentlie of the greater vertue it hath, to applie vnto vs the merites of Christ his passion, this doth in­comparablie exceede thothers, as S. Chrisostom before cited doth euidentlie teach.Supra n. 17.

This distinction of an absolute, independent, redeeming, or consummating sacrifice, and of a respectiue, dependent, and ap­plying sacrifice, our aduersaries must necessarilie confesse, and acknowledge to be good and allowable, malgree all their ma­lice against the sacrifice of the Masse: vnles they will either whollie exclude all the sacrifices of the old lawe, from the nū ­ber and nature of true sacrifices, or say they were redeeming and independent sacrifices, neither of which extreames they will dare to auouch.

14. This doctrine therfore of these two diuers sorts of sacrifice being necessarily allowed it will easelie be shewed, that the same arguments, that our aduersaries make out of the Epistle of [Page 304] S. Paul, against the sacrifice of the Masse, haue the same force against the Leuiticall sacrifices, and if they conclude that to be superstitious, and idolatricall, they will conclude the same of these, euen for the time they were approoued by God, and therfore ought not onlie now to cease, but neuer to haue bene instituted, or practised. And farther, that all the reasons, that prooue the sacrifices of the Leuiticall law to haue bene good and holie, notwithstanding the necessitie and efficacie of the sacrifice of the crosse, do prooue the verie same of that of the Masse. This difference onlie being, that they prefigurating Christs passion as going before it, are now necessarilie ceased: This commemorating or renuing the me­morie of the same as coming after it, being to continue so long as the new testament, (which is established and dedicated in it, our Sauiour saying.Math 26.28 This is my bloud of the new testament,) shall last; which shalbe to the worlds end.

Hebr. cap. 10.14.18.The doctrine of S. Paul in this epistle cānot otherwise be vr­ged against the sacrifice of the Masse: then, for that by one only obla­tion once offered, the high priest of the new testament Christ Iesus hauing con­summated for euer the sanctified: there can remaine no more sacrifice for sinne, because the worshippers once cleāsed, they haue no conscience of sinne any more.

Cap. 10.2.But all this may in the same māner be vrged, against the sacri­fices of the old law, as it is against the Masse, and prooueth as much against thone, as against thother. For this self same one onlie sacrifice once offered vpon the crosse, by Christ Iesus the high priest of the new testamēt, was offered as well for the sin­nes committed vnder the Leuiticall lawe, as for those that were cōmitted since the abolishing of the same,Hebr. 9 15. S. Paul expreslie say­ing, that our Sauiour died for the preuarications, which were vnder the for­mer lawe. And our aduersaries dare not deny, but that all the sin­nes remitted since the beginning of the world, haue bene remit­ted by vertue of this one onlie sacrifice vpon the crosse; and not onlie that, but that this one sacrifice is the consummation of all sanctitie giuen to men, and all worship giuen to God by all the former sacrifices. If therfore the argument before alleaged, prooue the sacrifice of the Masse to be superstitious or none at all, it will also prooue the same of all those sacrifices, that haue bene since the beginning of the world. And the selfe same rea­son that maketh the sacrifices of the law of nature, and Moises [Page 305] (being not onlie true sacrifices, but propitiatorie in their de­gree, euen for those sinnes that were to be taken awaie by the sacrifice of the crosse) to be good and lawfull (notwithstanding that the consummation of those worshippers was to be made, by that one onlie sacrifice of the crosse) doth prooue the same of the sacrifice of the Masse.

If it be said that the sacrifice of the crosse, wherby the consū ­mation is wrought, being not yet offered, there might be diuers iust reasons for the institution and vse of other sacrifices, such as were in the law of nature, and of Moises: But that sacrifice being now finished, all those reasons seeme to cease, and consequen­tlie all sacrifices to be abolished: It is impertinent; For either those reasons, making for the institution of other sacrifices in the former lawes, were repugnant to the vertue, and efficacie of the consummating sacrifice of the crosse, or they were not. If they were, they could not iustifie the institution and vse of anie such sacrifices. If they were not (as manifestlie they were not) the same may be said of the sacrifice of the Masse, which hath no more repugnance with the sacrifice of the crosse, then those o­ther sacrifices had. For that accidentarie circumstance of time, by reason wherof the old sacrifices went before the all consum­mating sacrifice of the crosse, and the sacrifice of the Masse co­meth after it, maketh no such difference betweene them, that by reasō therof thone may be good and lawfull, and thother vn­lawfull: because the vertue and efficacie of the sacrifice of the crosse, did reach to all the time as well going before it, as follo­wing after it: It being that sacrifice, wherin was offered the lābe, which in Gods preordinatiō was slaine before the beginning of the world, and in respect and regard wherof all sacrifices were ac­ceptable to God, as being foūded in the valour and merit thereof.

25. If it be demaunded, why then are these sacrifices abolis­hed and taken away, and another instituted, if there be no difference betweene them, by reason of that circumstance of time, they going before the consummating sacrifice, thother following after? I answere they are not abolished for any re­pugnance, that a true and propitiatorie sacrifice (whether it go before or follow after) hath with the onlie redeeming sacri­fice of the crosse. For by that reason they should not onlie haue ceased, but should neuer haue bene instituted, [Page 306] as is shewed before. But they are abolished for two reasons amongst others. First they were figures, and shadowes of that which was to come, as is confessed of all Christians, and therfo­re the truth wherof they were shadowes appearing, it was ne­cessarie they should cease, and vanish away.

Secondlie because of their grossenes and imperfection, which fitted not the state of the new testament, for which God of his infinite goodnes, and wisdome had prouided better promises, and therfore instituted a sacrifice for this time, in substance the verie same with that vpon the crosse, though in māner and ex­ternall forme different from it. Which albeit in perfection and excellencie, it doth as farre exceede the sacrifices of the former lawes, as the bodie and bloud of Christ our Sauiour doth excee­de that of calues and goates, yet hath it some resemblance with them in two other respects.

Thone, that as those sacrifices had relation to the sacrifice of the crosse, and depended thervpon in regard of their effect; so doth also the sacrifice of the Masse. For it is not an absolute and independent sacrifice, as that was vpon the crosse, neither doth it redeeme vs from sinne, nor purchase vnto vs grace, other­waies then by applying vnto vs the fruite, valour, and effect of the bloudie sacrifice vpon the crosse; as also the other sacri­fices of the former lawes did in a certaine degree, but not in such perfect and ample manner, nor ex opere operato, or of worke it self as this doth.

Thother, as they did prefigurate, or foreshew the sacrifice of the crosse as going before it: so this doth renew the memorie, of the same being now past, as S. Paul testifieth, saying. So often as you shall eate this bread, 1. Corinth. 11 and drinke this cupp, you shall declare the death of our Lord.

Farther it is to be obserued, that if our aduersaries will take awaie the sacrifice of the Masse, pretēding that it doth derogate from the merit, dignitie, and sufficiencie of Christs passion, of wich the scripture saith, that it alone hath consummatet all the sanctified: they must also for the same reason take awaie the sa­craments of the Eucharist, and of baptisme, and which is more, euen their iustifying faith. For all these do no lesse derogate, from the perfect consummation of our redemption, wrought by the sacrifice of the crosse (being necessarie for the effe­ctuall [Page 307] applying of the merite, valour, and effect therof vnto vs) then doth the sacrifice of the Masse. For if they will that eue­rie meane, wherby the merit of Christs passion is applied vnto vs, though it haue this verie applicatiue power from the passion of Christ, doth derogate from the sufficiencie therof, then must they necessarilie saie, that the aforesaid sacraments, and also faith it self do derogate from it, not otherwaies pro­fiting vs then by applying vnto vs, those graces and blessings, which Christ by his passion merited for vs. But of the contra­rie part, if they will admit some other meane, distinct from Christs passion, to applie vnto vs the merites therof without derogating from it (as all Christians doe and must) then haue they no reason at all, for that respect, to denie the sacrifice of the Masse.

26. And that the carefull reader may see, that by this doctrine of our aduersaries against the sacrifice of the church, is erected that abomination of desolatiō, wherupon followeth the taking awaie of the dailie sacrifice, fortold by the Prophet Daniel,Dan. 12.11. he may obserue with detestation, that nothing in Atheisme it selfe can be more impious, then by the triūphant crosse of Christ and his bitter passion, the firme and immouable rocke of all true religious worship, to take awaie from the new law that onlie worship of sacrifice, which euer euen by the light of nature, hath bene with all true worshippers properlie due, to the eter­nall power of Gods maiestie.

Thus is not onlie prooued a truly sacrificing priesthood,Conclusion. to be in the church of Christ, but also are satisfied the cheefest obie­ctions against it, wherupon it clearelie followeth, that the pre­tended Bishops that succeeded M. Parker, and the rest promo­ted with him vntill this day, (of whom the question is in this chapter) being no true priests, could be no true Bishops, as is before irreproouablie shewed, and therfore haue such an essen­tiall defect in their calling, more the the others had, that though their predecessors had bene true Bishops, as they were not, yet these could be none.

But now to conclude them all in one, and the same dam­nation: I say, that though euerie one of the arguments brought here against the Bishops of England, since Cranmers fall into heresie, should not demonstrate them not to be lawfull Bishops [Page 308] and Pastors, yet all of them together cannot but make a cleare demōstration therof, which may be framed in this sort. 27. Those Bishops whose calling and consecration is iustlie, and with good reason doubted to be essentiallie defectiue, and they therfore to be no Bishops, but meere vsurpers of that title, are euidētlie no lawfull and canonicall Bishops. But such are all the protestant Bishops in England, since Cranmers reuolt, and apostacie from the Catholique Romane faith and religion.

Therfore are they euidentlie no lawfull, and canonicall Bi [...]hops.

The first proposition of this argument is euidentlie prooued diuers waies.

First by this example. No ciuill Magistrate, be he iudge, lieu­tenant, Embassadour, or other officer whatsoeuer, who is iustly and vpon good reason doubted to haue no such authoritie, but is suspected vpon good groūd to be a counterfeite, vsurper, and deceiuer, is so euidentlie no lawfull magistrate, that whosoeuer should obay him in his pretended office, should therby commit an act of rebellion against his soueraigne, who sendeth no magistrates to his subiects, but with cleare and vndoubted war­rant. For to a lawfull magistrate is not onlie required, that the haue authoritie, but also that he haue a cleare and euident con­stat or proofe that he hath authoritie. Therfore much more are they no lawfull Bishops, or ecclesiasticall magistrate, Who are in like manner doubted to haue no such authoritie, and power: I say much more: because as the harme, and inconuenience which would follow of such abuses in the Ecclesiasticall gouer­nement, is farre greater, and lesse remediable, then that which might arise by the same in the temporall state, so is the proui­sion to auoide it greater, and more easie, by his prouidence who is soueraigne gouern our therof.

28. Secondlie, the magistrates in all cōmon wealths, and king­domes, are alwaies so euidētly, and clearelie knowne to be such, that no reasonable doubt may be made of their power and cō ­missiō. And it is necessarie it should be so. For otherwaies what­soeuer they should doe in their office, should be doubtfull and vncertaine, and cōsequentlie would bring all things to strife and confusion, then which nothing can be more pernitious. Ther­fore those magistrates, that are iustlie and reasonablie doubted [Page 309] to be none at all, cannot be any lawfull magistrates. This reason holdeth à fortiori in Bishops, who are Ecclesiasticall magistrates and gouernours. And so the first proposition of the former ar­gument remaineth euidentlie prooued: to wit, that those Bish­ops whose calling is iustlie doubted to be essentiallie defectiue, and they therfore to be no Bishops but meere vsurpers, are eui­dentlie no lawfull Bishops.

The second proposition is euident by that, which hath hi­therto bene said, against the calling of our English Bishops, and maie cleerelie be concluded in this manner. The calling of those Bishops is iustlie doubted to be essentiallie defe­ctiue, which is manifestlie doubtfull both on the part of the callers, called, and calling; but such are the Bishops in England, as appeareth before. ergo.

Secondlie their calling is iustlie doubted to be essentiallie de­fectiue; (that is, to be none at all) for the proofe of the sufficiēcie wherof nothing can be said, that maie not as trulie be alleaged for their calling, who are euidentlie and confessedlie knowne to be no Bishops, as the Arians, Nouatians, Nestorians, Pelagiās, and the rest of the old condemned heretiques. But such is the calling of the Bishops in England. ergo.

Thirdlie their calling in iustlie doubted to be essentiallie de­fectiue, which hath no instance or example of the like, in the whole Christian church, for aboue 1500. yeares after Christ.

But such is the calling of the Bishops in England. ergo. And so remaineth prooued the second proposition of the former argu­ment, and cōsequentlie the conclusiō must necessarilie be true; to wit that the Bishops of England descended from Cranmer since his reuolt from the Catholique church, are euidentlie no lawfull Bishops.

29. Wherupon I farther inferre, that the pretended church of England is no true church, and consequentlie the faith and religion therof to be no true faith and religion.

For where there are no true Pastors and Bishops, there can be no true church, as all our aduersaries confesse, and it is of itselfe euident, the church (as S. Cyprian saith) being in the Bishop, Epist. ad Flore. and the Bishop in the church, or otherwise the church is the flocke vnited with the Pastor, and Pastor with the flocke: and where there is no true church, [Page 310] there can be no true faith and religion; the true church being the house of God, Ad Timoth. the piller and grounde of truth, (as S. Paul testifieth) and our aduersaries deny not. Now where there is no true faith, how can there be any meanes of saluation? seeing that without faith it is impossible to please God, as teacheth expreslie S. Paul.Ad Hebr. 11.6.

Marke well (I beseech thee iudicious reader) this cleare deduction, and if thou be a Protestant, and professour of the English religion, see which maie thou canst auoide it with the contentment, and satisfaction of thine owne con­science.

And if thou find the meane to do it, set downe thy con­ceptions clearlie, and without wilfull wrangling, and thou shalt (God willing) haue a satisfying replie. If thou canst not, (as if thou laie aside wilfull obstinacie, which hindreth the sight of all truth, I thinke thou canst not) returne quicklie to the vnitie of Gods Catholique church, and be not so grosselie and inexecusablie deceiued, as to thinke to find thy saluation in that congregation, which hath no true Pastors, and consequentlie neither true church, true faith, nor true religion.

The eightteenth Chapter. That neither the present superintendets in England haue, nor their Protestant predecessours euer had anie lawfull Episcopall Iurisdiction.

1. HAVING thus farre shewed the pretended Bishops in England, promoted to bishoprikes since Cranmers reuoult from the vnitie of the Catholique Romane church, and lapse into heresie in Edward the 6. his raigne, to haue wanted the true po­wer of order, it now remaineth to shew, that they want also the lawfull power of iurisdiction; whence it will follow, that they haue nothing belonging no true Bishops, [Page 311] sauing the possession of the temporall liuings, and the bare na­me of Bishops. For the whole ecclesiasticall power being diui­ded into the power of order, and iurisdiction, as M. Field,Field of the church. l. 3. c. 29. Carleton of iurisdictiō pag. 7. and M. Carleton with all Catholiques truly confesse, if they be found to want both, they can haue nothing pertaining to true Bishops.

That the power of iurisdiction is necessarilie required, to the lawfull calling of ecclesiasticall ministers, and pastors of Gods church, is without all controuersie graunted, and con­fessed of all parties, aswell protestants as Catholiques: and the question here is onlie, whether our English Intendents haue any such lawfull iurisdiction or no. Which question that we maie dispute more clearlie, and fitly for the capacity of euery one, it wilbe necessary brieflie to declare, both what iurisdi­ction is in generall, what parts it hath, and of what kind of iuris­diction we are here to treate.

It is first therfore to be vnderstood,What iuris­diction is. that though this word (iurisdiction) soundeth only deliuerie of the law, or denouncing of iudgment, or sentence in matters of iustice, yet is it both he­re, and ordinarily euery where taken for the power it selfe that one man hath ouer others, not only in matter of lawe and iusti­ce, but in all other manner of rule, gouernment, or dominion: so that in this large signification parents may be said to haue iu­risdictiō ouer their children, maisters ouer their seruants, Kings and soueraigne Lords ouer their subiects and vassalls, and Bishops or pastors ouer their flocke and charge.

Secondly it is to be vnderstood, that iurisdiction in the first and proper signification is two fold, Spirituall, which is also called ecclesiasticall, to which belongeth the gouernment, charge, disposition, and administration of all those Spirituall helpes and meanes, which our Sauiour Christ hath left in his church, for the farthering of man to his eternall saluation, as are Gods holy word, and his Sacraments, and those actions and things that belong therunto, wherof S. Paul speaketh when he saith. Let a man so esteeme vs as ministers of Christ, 1. Corinth. 4.1. and dispensers of the mysteries of God: and temporall or seculer, which gouerneth and commaundeth in matters pertaining to mens temporall weale, and prosperity; as to minister iustice in causes ciuill and crimi­nall, and to commaund that which is iust and honest in all occa­sions, [Page 312] and occurrences of the common wealths, and to forbid the contrarie. Either of these kinds of iurisdiction may be yet farther diuided, into directiue, and coactiue, or coercitiue. The directiue maketh lawes, and giueth precepts guiding men to that end, for the attaining wherof the iurisdiction is ordai­ned, which, if it be spirituall, is life euerlasting: if temporall, is the peace and prosperitie of the common wealth, and of eue­rie particular person as member of the same. The coercitiue compelleth men by penalties, and punishments, to the obser­uaunce aswell of the same lawes and constitutions, as also of those prescribed by God and nature, and therfore is well tear­med coercitiue.

Thirdlie it is to be vnderstood, (that leauing apart the tem­porall, or secular iurisdiction, as not pertaining to our pur­pose) we speake here onlie of spirituall, or Ecclesiasticall, which either administrateth matters immediatlie pertaining to the soule, and conscience, without respect to the ex­ternall or contentious court, as to preach and minister sa­craments, and therfore is called of some internall; or exa­mineth, heareth, and determineth, in the externall and contentious court, such cases and causes, as arise amongst men, by the transgressions of the prescripts, and prohibi­tions of the Ecclesiasticall superiour, and what other causes els are knowne to belong to the Ecclesiasticall tribunall, and this is called also by some externall.

That the spirituall iurisdiction hath all these parts or members, not onlie in the Catholique, but also in the protestants doctrine, it is euident by their owne practices. For besides their preaching and ministring sacraments, which appertaineth to the internall iurisdiction, they haue their externall and contentious courts, where by Ecclesiasticall power they iudge, trie, and determine, without recourse to the temporall court, verie manie causes, and especiallie such as arise by the vndue ministring of the sacraments, or other holie actions: in which cases they exercise both dire­rectiue, and coercitiue iurisdiction. I haue seene a printed booke intituled thus.

Articles to be inquired of within the diocesse of Chichester. In the second generall visitation of the R.^d father in God, Lancelot [Page 313] Bishop of Chichester, holden in the yeere 1609. contayning 79. Articles, with the forme of an oath to be ministred to the church wardens, and sworne men; which (if it were not cleare otherwise) doth shew, that they pretend to haue all these kinds of spirituall iurisdiction here mentio­ned.

This therfore being cleare, the question is,The questiō. whether our pre­tended Bishops in England haue indeede any such iurisdiction, as by their practise they pretend to haue, or no. And they are prooued not to haue anie such in this sort.

Of themselues, and as they are men, they haue no such iuris­diction, for all men, as they are men, are equall, and neither sub­iect nor superiour one to another, as is euident, neither haue they it from anie other (as shalbe prooued) therfore haue they it not at all.

2. That I maie prooue that they haue no iurisdiction from any other, and with the same labour refute M. Masons shifts in this point, thou art (iudicious reader) to vnderstand, that he, being driuen therunto by miserable necessitie, patcheth vp for their Bishops a iurisdiction of two parts: one wherof he saith they haue from Christ himselfe,Mason fol. 143. thother from the Prince.

But what part it is, that they receiue from the Prince, neither doth M. Mason tell vs, nor is it easie to gather either out of his owne or his fellowes doctrine. For from the Prince they cannot receiue that iurisdiction, which the Prince hath not to giue, as is euident: but the Prince hath neither that part of iurisdiction, which is called in­ternall, consisting in the administration of Gods holie word and sacraments, as the articles of their religion do expreslie declare.

Neither hath he the externall coercitiue iurisdiction,Article 37. con­sisting principallie in inflicting the censure of excommunica­tion, suspension, and the like. For M. Mason sheweth out of Tortura Torti, that the Prince hath not this iurisdiction:Tort. tort. pag. 151. Carleton of iurisdict. pag. 9. 10. Nos Principi censurae potestatem non facimus: saith he, that is, we giue not the Prince power of inflicting censures. And M. Carleton saith the same in most expresse words hereafter cited.

Neither hath he the directiue iurisdiction, consisting in the power to make canons and constitutions, for the giuding and directing of ecclesiasticall ministers, in the due ministerie of the Sacraments, and of the people to receiue the same, and other actions pertaining to the charge of pastors. For this is meerely a Spirituall power (as the Sacraments, to the due administration and vse wherof, this power appertaineth, are also Spirituall) and therfore cannot belong to the Prince, in the Protestants doctrine. VVe giue (saith M. Carleton) all Spirituall power to the church: Pag. 4. Pag. 5. 6. And againe. The Spirituall gouernment of the church is committed to Spirituall gouernors: as first from Christ to his twelue Apostles: from them to Bishops, Pag. 9. and Pastours, their successours. And yet againe. As for Spirituall iurisdiction of the church, standing in examinations of controuer­sies of faith, iudging of heresies, deposing of heretiques, excommunication of notorious and stubborne offenders, ordination of priests and deacons, institution and oblation of benefices, and Spirituall cures &c. this we reserue entire to the church, which Princes cannot giue, or take from the church.

And to strenghthen M. Carletons authoritie with an euident reason. If the Prince had this Spirituall directiue iurisdictiō, he should also consequently haue, the compulsiue, or coercitiue of inflicting censures, which proceedeth from directiue as neces­rily requisite,Tortura Tor­ti. pa. 151. that it may take effect. But this kind of power the prince hath not, as is already shewed out of their owne doctrin: Neither therfore hath he thother. What part therfore or kind of iurisdiction, the Bishops and Pastours of Gods church, can re­ceiue from the temporall Prince, euen in the Protestants doctri­ne I see not: Neither can M. Mason, or any other for him shew it. And therfore his doctrine of a Spirituall iurisdiction (for of Spirituall iurisdiction he speaketh) partly receiued frō the Prin­ce, is euidently false.

For though the prince haue power to make lawes, wherby the contumacious, and obstinate contemners of ecclesiasticall canons and censures, may be by corporall penalties compelled, to the due obseruance of the iust, and profitable constitutions of their lawfull pastors (which power both M. Mason, and M. Carleton call externall coercitiue iurisdiction) yet is this power so farre from being soueraignly aboue that of the church, or that the churches iudgmēts depend therupon, that it is euidently sub­ordinate therunto, and therfore doth not intermeddle with any [Page 735] such delinquent, till the Spirituall iudge hath declared him in­corrigible by ecclesiasticall meanes, and therfore leaueth him in the hands of the temporall magistrate, to proceed with him according to the temporall lawes, enacted for such of­fenders.

And for the auoiding of all cauills, and intermedling with questions not pertaining to the present purpose, I would haue it noted, that I speake here of cases meerely Spirituall or eccle­siasticall, such as M. Carleton in his words last cited saith, are so entirely reserued to the church, that the Prince can neither giue, nor take from it the iudgment therof.

Againe, whatsoeuer this externall coercitiue power is, which the Prince hath in either of these, or other causes pertaining to the ecclesiasticall, yet is it not any such as he giueth, or commu­nicateth to the Bishops, and Pastors of the church (who nei­ther haue nor pretend to haue any such power) but to his ciuill and temporall magistrates. And therfore whatsoeuer this power is, it is wholly impertinent to M. Masons purpose, which is to shew that Bishops haue some part of their iurisdiction, necessa­ry for the exercise of their episcopall power, from the Prince.This saith M. Mason pag. 113.

He maie peraduenture saie, that the Prince giueth them li­cence, to exercise their functions freely within his territories, and therfore maie in some sense be said, to giue then iurisdiction in the same. But this is too too idle to be imagined. For neither is it in the Princes lawfull power to deny, or take awaie thie leaue, or liberty from the preachers, and Pastors of Gods church, as is euident in all doctrine: Neither is this leaue necessarie for the lawfull exercise and executiō of episcopall power, as appea­reth by the first planting of Christianitie in the world, which was effected without it, yea contrarie to the decrees, and ordi­nances of the temporall Princes, And our new reformers, who pretend to preach Gods word, and minister his Sacraments, do not expect the leaue of the temporall Prince, but thinke they may lawfully do it without their leaue, in case they will not gi­ue it, as we see by dailie experience. No part therfore or parcell of Spirituall iurisdiction, haue the Bishops and Pastors of Gods church from the Prince, euen in our aduersaries owne doctri­ne.

And here before I come to shew, that our English Inten­dents haue as litle iurisdiction from Christ, as they haue from the Prince, and consequentlie that they haue none at all: I will put the reader in mind of a most vnchristian, and sacrilegious kind of dealing in our English Prelates, both with God and their Prince.

First yeare of Elizabeth.3. First, they gaue their consents, if not their counsels, for the establishing of an oath, wherby the queene was sworne, to be supreame gouernor of her dominations in all things, or causes, aswell spirituall or Ecclesiasticall, as temporall; the first refusall wherof is premunire, the second high treason; And also for the enacting of a statute, wherby all such iurisdictions, priuiledges, superiorities, and preheminences spirituall, as by any spirituall power hath hitherto bene, or lawfully may be vsed, for the visitation of the Ecclesiasticall state and persons, and for reformation, order, and cor­rection of the same, and of all manner errours, heresies, scismes, abuses, offences, contempts, and enemities are for euer vnited to the crowne of England. By which statute the latitude, or extent of the power ascribed to the queene in the oath of supremacie, is in part declared, which oath is declared by the queenes in­iunctions, to giue vnto the same authoritie, that king Henrie the 8. chalenged in the 26. yeare of his raigne, in a statute of this tenour,Anno 26. Fl. 8. c. 1. as it is abridged by M. Poulton. The King shalbe taken, and reputed the only supreame head in earth of the church of England, and shall haue power to redresse all errours, heresies, and abuses in the same.

Secondlie, they haue all of them taken the aforesaid oath, and therfore haue by their proper fact approoued it as good and lawfull, wherby not onlie the Prince hath bene moued to exact the same of all her subiects, as both lawfull of it selfe, and of right due vnto her soueraigntie, but manie haue bene for the same reason moued, to take the same oath as lawfull.

All this notwithstanding, do they in printed bookes teach, that Princes haue no such spirituall authoritie, power, or iu­risdiction, as by the aforesaid oath, and statute is ascribed vnto them. And therfore haue they either by their sacrilegious per­iurie, not onlie themselues highlie offended God, but also indu­ced their soueraigne, and manie of her subiects into the same [Page 317] offence, or els by their false doctrine do they manifestly detract, from the lawfull power of their Prince and soueraigne. Whether of these two extreames they will make choice to confesse, I know not, but that they must necessarilie be guiltie of the one, I shall easelie prooue, and euerie indifferent man will easilie see, their fault to be sacrilegious periurie, ioined with pernicious, flatterie of the Prince. But let vs see their doctrine, that therby we maie know how well it agreeth with their oath.

The whole cleargie of both prouinces (in their article agreed vpon, in the conuacatien holden at London the yeare 1561. and are of principall authoritie in their new church) say thus. VVe giue not to our Princes, the ministring either of Gods word, or sa [...]ra­ments.

But I would know, why they giue not to the Princes this ministerie: Is it because they haue not power and authoritie requisite for it? If it be so, why do they then sweare, that they are supreame heads, and gouernors in all spirituall things or causes? For supreame gouernors haue power to do by themselues all actions, vnder or within their gouernment, and which they can giue power to others to doe: As our Sauiour Christ being supreame head, and gouernor of his church, had power to do by himself all those things, which he gaue power to others to do. So likewise soueraigne Princes haue the like power in all temporall causes within their dominions. Or is it because this function is not worthie of their roiall dignitie? In­deede M. Mason seemeth to insinuate such an answere.Pag. 143. For gi­uing a reason, why our Princes did neuer practise the inflicting of Ecclesiasticall censure, he saith, that it is because regall iurisdi­ction consisteth not in a ministeriall power, but in a supreame commaunding authority. But all Christian eares will abhorre to heare such a rea­son, seeing our Sauiour Christ the king of kings did exercise this ministerie, of the word of God and his sacraments, as pertaining directlie to his office and function. The do­ctrine therfore of this article can no more stand with the oath of supremacie, then can these two propositions ac­cord together. The Prince is supreame head and gouernor of all things, and causes spirituall: And, The Prince is not supreame head, and gouernor of all things or causes spirituall. The for­mer [Page 318] is the same with the oath; the latter is the same, or equiualent with the article: and are directly contradictorie the one to thother, and therfore one of them necessarily false. The same contrariety betweene the said oath, and their doctrine, is shewed out of Tortura Torti expresly saying. VVe giue not to the Prince power to inflict censures. Pag. 151. Therfore (do I inferr) do you not giue to the Prince, supreame power in all Spirituall things and causes, as you sweare. This saying of this author M. MasonMason pag. 143. citeth and approoueth.

But yet this is more plaine out of M. Carleton, who hath written a whole booke of this subiect, wherin he hath these expresse sayings.In his admo­nition to the reader. The Fathers write for the Spirituall iurisdiction of the church aboue Princes, which we neuer denied. Why do you sweare thē, that the Prince is supreame head, and gouernor of the church in all things, and causes Spirituall? how can the church haue Spi­rituall iurisdiction aboue the Prince, and yet the Prince be su­preame head of the church, or gouernor of all Spirituall things? If these be not contradictions there are none at all to be found. Againe he saith. VVe giue all Spirituall power to the church. And yet againe.Pag 4. Pag. 5. 6. The Spirituall gouernment of the church is committed to Spirituall gouernors, as first from Chrsst to his twelue Apostles: from them to Bishops and Pastors their successors. How then can you without periurie sweare, that the Prince being neither Bishop, nor Postor, is supreame gouernor in all things Spirituall? And yet more dire­ctly against the oath, and the statute, declaring the latitude of the power, giuen to the Prince in the oath before mentioned, he saith thus. As for Spirituall iurisdiction of the church, standing in exa­minations of controuersies of faith, iudging of heresies, deposing of heretikes: excommunication of notorious and stubborne offenders, ordination of priests and deacons, institution and collation of benefices, and Spirituall cures &c. This we reserue entire to the church, which Princes cannot giue, nor take from the chucrh. The Prince doth not medle with the keyes which God hath giuen to the church: Saith M. Mason pag. 113. How this doctrine (which is true, though it be not the whole truth) can accord with the oath and statute mētioned, which giueth all this power to the Prince, passeth my capacity to conceiue. Infinite other proofes of the contrariety of their do­ctrine, with the oath which they haue sworne, might be brought: but till I see how they will reconcile, and satisfie these, I will spare farther labour.

[Page 319]5. Both M. Carleton and M. Mason mention more then once,Vhi supra and M. Ma­son pa. 143. an externall coercitiue ecclesiasticall iurisdiction, which supre­amly (as they saie) belongeth to the prince; wherby if they in­tend to satisfie the afore mentioned difficulty, and to reconcile their doctrine with their oath, they are farre short of their purpose. For first this iurisdiction is so farre from being anie supreame ecclesiasticall iurisdiction that it is no waie ecclesia­sticall, or Spirituall, not reaching to any Spirituall thing at all, but resting in the meere temporall, to wit the goods of nature, or fortune: as are life, liberty, lands, or goods, wherof the prince hath power to depriue, the declared obsti­nate contemners of the ecclesiasticall ordinaunces, and censu­res, but not to iudge of their cause or offence, as appeareth by their former doctrine. Now they know (if they know any thing in true Philosophie) that the nature, or quality of eue­ry power is measured by the obiect or thing, wherabout it is conuersant, or wherunto it reacheth; so that this externall coercitiue power of the prince, reaching only to things tem­porall (for it toucheth no kind of Spirituall, or ecclesiasticall thing, function, or action, as by M. Carletons doctrine be­fore related is manifest) cannot by any meanes be Spirituall, or ecclesiasticall, and much lesse can it be supreame in that kin [...]: Especially seeing it can neither reuerse, nor controll the Ec­clesiasticall iudgment but only helpe to accomplish the same, by inflicting of temporall penalties where the ecclesiasticall cē ­sures are contemned: Neither can it euoque vnto it, the causes directly pertaining to the Spirituall court, or tribunall, but doth only receiue the delinquents already iudged therby, to proceed with them according to the rigour of the themporall law.

Secondly, though this iurisdiction were an ecclesiasticall power (which is euidently false) yet would it not serue to excuse them from sacrilegious periurie, when they sweare, that the prince is supreame gouernor in all things, and causes Spirituall and that he hath all iurisdictiō and superiority Spirituall that by any Spirituall power hath hitherto or may lawfully be vsed, as the statut before men­tioned expresly declareth.

For there is as great falsitie in this oath and statute (though the coercitiue iurisdiction were graunted to be Spirituall) as [Page 320] there would be in that, wherby any one should sweare, that King Iames is soueraigne lord ouer all the whole world. For as this oath is euidently false, notwithstanding that his maiesty be truly soueraigne lord of some part of the world, because he is not soueraigne ouer the whole, so is also that wherby it is sworne, that the prince is supreame gouernor of all things, and causes Spirituall, though it were true, that he had the coerci­tiue Spirituall, iurisdiction. And this is true not only in it selfe, but euen in the doctrine of our English Protestants, who) as we haue seene) teach, that there are many things, wherin the prince hath no power, or iurisdiction nor can haue any.

Hence it is euident, first how vnlawfull, euen in the doctrine of the Protestants, themselues, the oath of supremacy is, being a manifest breach, of the second commaundement of the first table, as not only taking the name of God in vaine, as it hap­peneth in idle, and not necessary oathes though true, but also calling God to witnes, and to testifie a thing which they see and say to be euidently fals then which, can hardly be any greater offence committed by man.

Secondly it is euident how vniustly the Bishops, Heath, Bō ­ner, White, and the rest of their brethren, were depriued of their Bishopricks in Q. Elizabeths time, for refusall of the same vnlawfull oath: and consequently, how manifest intru­ders they were, that were thrust into their places v­pon the same refusall, wherof we haue spoken at large before.

Thirdlie, how vncertaine, and daungerous guides of sou­les these new prelates are, that by their publique suffrage in par­lement first, and then by their owne personall fact in swearing, haue approoued an oath, which by their auerred and auowed doctrine is euidently false.

6. The reasō also of this so shameles, and wicked doubling, in a matter of so great moment, is worthie to be obserued. For which purpose it is to be vnderstood, that the new intendents of the new church and gospell, seeing that the oath, and sta­tute of supremacy did discharge them of all subiection, and o­bedience to the church, and Bishop of Rome their true and lawfull pastor, and therby gaue them liberty to bring into the Realme, their new doctrine and heresie, which without their [Page 321] separation from the vnity of Gods church, and casting of the yoke of obedience to their supreame pastour, they saw well they could neuer effect, they were willing, and ready not on­ly to giue waie vnto it, and to set it forward with their suffra­ges, but also to their owne perpetuall disgrace, and disho­nour to sweare therunto themselues; I say to their owne dis­grace: For the temporall lords being by expresse act of parle­ment priuiledged, and exempted from taking the oath, they (the pretended Bishops I meane) did basely subiect themsel­ues therunto, wheras the freedome, and priuiledges of the lords Spirituall were alwaies equall, if not greater then those of the temporall lords. But they that had already broken lea­gue with God, and his church, for the setting forward of their owne libertine fancies, no marueile though they made no difficultie, to morgage their honour and reputation, for the gaining of their Bishoprickes. Hauing done this, and yet finding both by the litle light of naturall reason, that darke he­resie had left vnextinguished in them, and also by the vnanswe­rable arguments, of their Catholique aduersaries at home, to­gether with the disauow of their most renowmed reformed brethren abroad, as Caluin, Centurists, Chemnitius, and o­thers, that their fact was no waie to be iustified, no nor colou­red; they to make their double disloialtie to God and his church, their prince and countrie, knowne to all the world, publish in their printed bookes, that they meane nothing lesse, then to giue to the prince supreame power, and iurisdiction in all things and causes Spirituall, which notwithstanding they sweare vn­to in most expresse tearmes. For when they come to explicate, what supreame Spirituall; or ecclesiasticall power the prince hath, they comprehend it all in an externall coercitiue power, by inflicting temporall penalties, which power is as much Spirituall, as oxen, horses, houses, lands, and mans life or li­bertie (to which things only this power doth reach, as is alrea­dy noted) may be called Spirituall, so that they sweare one thing, and teach the contrary. Now hauing noted this by the waie, I will returne to my former purpose, and prooue, that our Pro­testant prelates haue as litle iurisdiction from Christ, as they haue from the prince, and consequently that they haue none at all.

[Page 322]6. The iurisdiction, which they pretend to receiue imme­diatly from Christ, they saie they receiue by the meanes of their episcopall consecration,Mason pag. 145. as M. Mason expresly teacheth, and they must all saie the same, hauing no other meanes wherby they maie receiue any iurisdiction. But our Protestant prelates haue no true episcopall consecration, as is already largely prooued. Therfore haue they not,Cap. 12. nor can they haue any iurisdictiō from Christ. This argument (supposing the proofes of the nullity of their consecration to be effectuall, as till they be effectually ans­wered, which neuer wilbe, they are to be esteemed) is vnans­werable as well in it selfe, as in their owne doctrine, which testifieth, that they haue no other iurisdiction from Christ, but that which they receiue by their episcopall consecra­tion.

But I will (for the more cleare euicting of my purpose against them) suppose, contrary to the prooued truth, that their con­secration is good and canonicall, and yet will I shew, that they cannot haue any iurisdiction from Christ. For the more easie and cleare proofe wherof, one or two grounds are to be laid before.

First that the power of order, which is giuen by consecra­tion is so distinct from the power of iurisdiction, that thone maie be without thother. This is manifest by the vse of excom­munication, suspension, deposition, and other censures (com­mon as well with the Protestants as Catholiques) which though they take awaie the iurisdiction from the parties, vpon whom they are inflicted, and therby make all the exercise of the power of order in them to be vnlawfull, yet do they leaue entire the power of order, as M Mason often sheweth, and they must all confesse that allow the power of excommunication. Hence it is euident, that the power of iurisdiction cannot rightly be in­ferred, from the proofe of the power of order, because this may be without that.

Secondlie no crime doth either more iustlie, or euidentlie draw with it the censure of excommunication, and consequen­tlie the losse and depriuation of iurisdiction, then heresie or apostacie. For heretiques are excōmunicate by our Sauiours and the Apostles owne mouthes,Math. 18.17 Tit. 3.10. who say he that will not heare the church let him be as a publican and heathen: and. Flie a man that is an here­tique, [Page 323] after the first and second admonition. Which is also so euident by the perpetuall practise, of the most auncient church, that it would be imprudencie to prooue it.

Thirdlie it is a receiued principle, and denied of none of common sense, that no man can giue to another that, which he hath not himselfe; as for example, he that hath not a groate cannot giue a groate to another. Euident therfore it is, that he that hath not iurisdiction himselfe, cannot possiblie giue it to another.

Out of these euident and receiued grounds, I conclude by as euident deduction, that our new Intendents in England haue no episcopall iurisdiction: though (as I said) it should be graun­ted against the truth, that they were trulie consecrated. Some may peraduenture thinke, that I will make ruine argument in this sort.

The pretended Bishops in England are condemned hereti­ques.

But all condemned heretiques are excōmunicated and therby depriued of all Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction. Therfore our preten­ded Bishops in England are excommunicated, and depriued of all Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction. This argument indeed is cleare, and euerie proposition therof most true, yet because my aduer­saries will wrangle vpon the first proposition, and denie them­selues to be heretiques, and here I intend not to enter anie te­dious dispute with them,Cap. 11. n. 7. especiallie hauing conuinced the same against thē alreadie, by foure seuerall argumēts, which they can neither solue nor retort, I will here vse an argument more free from all cauill, and no lesse effectuall against them in this sort.

If either the Protestant Prelates, or the Bishops of the Romane church; from whom they receiue their consecra­tion, be heretiques, the Protestants can haue no episcopall iurisdiction.

But either the Protestant Prelates, or the Bishops of the Ro­mane church are heretiques? Therfore can the Protestant Pre­lates haue no episcopall iurisdiction.

The first proposition is cleare by the grounds before mentio­ned, and is euidentlie deduced in this sort. If the Bishops of the Romane church, from whom our new intendents pretend to [Page 324] receiue their consecration (as we haue seene in this whole trea­tise) and consequentlie their episcopall iurisdiction, which they say they receiue with their consecration, were heretiques, they were excommunicate, and therby did they loose their iurisdi­ction, which hauing lost, they could not giue it to their Prote­stant successors, and if the Protestant intendents were hereti­ques, they could receiue no iurisdiction for the same reason: So that the first proposition is cleare: the second is without all de­batable controuersie; The conclusion followeth naturallie, and necessarilie of the premisses: Therfore the whole argument, wher by it is concluded, that the Protestant intendents haue no Episcopall iurisdiction, is euidentlie cleare.

7. And now will I wind vp, our whole dispute with our English Protestant Prelates, in this short and perspicuous argument.

The whole ecclesiasticall power of Bishops and pastors consisteth of the power of order, and the power of iuris­diction. But the English Protestant Prelates haue neither power of ordor, nor iurisdiction. Therfore haue they no part of ecclesiasticall power. The first proposition is cleare, and denied of no English Protestant, the second hath bene prooued by sundrie arguments, which neuer will haue anie true, or effectuall answere or solution, the conclusion is necessarie, supposing the truth of the premises. And ther­fore do our English pretended Bishops remaine, prooued no Bishops, no nor ecclesiasticall persons, but meere lay men.

The consequences that necessarilie folow hereupon are briefly deduced in the later end of the precedent chap. n. 29. turn back thither and see them.

8. And now for a farwell to M. Mason, I would know of him, how he can iustifie the discent, and succession of their Bis­hops, from those of the Romane church, who had their iurisdi­ction from the see of Rome, [...]. Eliza. 1. without incurring the premunire; this being a manifest defending, and acknowledging of the law­full power of the Bishop, and see of Rome in England, at least for the time past. Whence it farther followeth, that if it was euer lawfull, it is, or at least ought to be lawfull now, and euer heerafter. For if the Bishop of Rome euer had anie lawfull po­wer [Page 325] in England (as doubtles he had, and M. Mason must needs graunt it, vnles he will frustrate his whole proofe of their law­full succession, from the Bishops of the Romane church) he had it by such power, as cannot by temporall lawes be impaired, or taken away. M. Mason therfore is to aduise with himselfe, whether he will quit, and renounce the proofe of their conse­cration, and vocation, taken from their succession to the Ca­tholique Bishops, (the onlie true proofe, of the lawfull calling of Ecclesiasticall pastors) or standing therunto, will incurre the daunger of premunire; which, if he should find but equall iud­ges, I thinke he would not easilie auoide, as neither his dire­ctors, or abbertors in this worke, whose penaltie in these cases are knowne, to be like, with that of the principall offender. He and they may peraduenture relie, vpon the grace of the prince for their pardons: which trulie I do not enuie them, but thinke they haue in some sort deserued fauour, not hauing committed this transgression altogether voluntarilie, but vpon a certaine necessitie, not finding anie other meanes, to maintaine the cal­ling of their new ministerie. Yet I thought good to let them know, that the world taketh notice of such a repugnancie in their ministerie, euen with their owne parlement lawes, that it cannot be maintained without the transgression of them: which manifestlie argueth, that either their lawes are vniust, or their ministerie vnlawfull I say either, not because both maie not be, or de facto are not, but because thone is infalliblie inferred, vpon the repugnance found betwixt them.

9. Some maie peraduenture thinke, that to the full accom­plishment of this treatise, should be added some proofe, of the true calling of the Catholique pastors, because it is not a suffi­cient establishment of the truth in this point, as likewise in none other, to haue reiected, and refuted that which is false, vnles the truth be also made manifest. But we are quit of this traueile by our aduersaries themselues, who pleading, that their best right, and title to episcopall calling, is receiued from our Bishops of the Romane church, must necessari­lie confesse, that they haue at least sufficient calling, (for it is otherwaies altogether vnpossible, they should deriue it vnto them) with which acknowledgment we are con­tent for this time, especiallie hauing alreadie iustified the [Page 326] same calling in that point of a sacrificing power, and prie­sthood, which is the cheefe, or onlie thing they carpe at in the same. And though this iustification of the calling of the Catholique Bishops, and pastors, might be suffi­cient, yet will I adde farther and aboue, this briefe argu­ment.

10. The Bishops of the Catholique Romane church haue the same calling, which the Apostles deliuered vnto their immediate successours. But they deliuered to their successors the true, and lawfull calling. Therfore the Bis­hops of the Catholique Romane church haue the true, and law­full calling.

The first proposition (which being made good the whole argument is euident) is thus prooued. The Bishops of the Catholique Romane church receiue their calling, by not interrupted succession from the Apostles: which our aduersaries can with no more reason denie, then they can denie, that the same sunne, which God created in the be­ginning of the world, doth now shine vnto vs, but that it is some other made since; vnles they can shew when, where, and by whom this other calling, which they pre­tend to be now in the Romane church was brought in, which they can no more doe, then they can shew the change of the sunne. Therfore doth it remaine cleare, that the calling of the Catholique Bishops is the same, which the Apostles deliuered to their immediate successours, and consequentlie the true and lawfull calling. When this argu­ment shalbe solued by anie other answere, then maie in the same manner be applied, to the instance made of the change of the sunne, I will confesse it to be satisfied; till then, I shall esteeme it vnanswerable, and consequentlie, the calling of the Catholique Bishops therby inuinciblie prooued.