EPPHATA to F. T. OR, THE DEFENCE of the Right Reuerend Father in God, the Lord Bishop of ELIE, Lord High-Almoner and Priuie Counsellour to the KINGS MOST EXCELLENT MAIESTIE. CONCERNING HIS ANSWER to Cardinall BELLARMINES Apologie: Against the slaunderous cauills of a namelesse Adioyner; entitling his Booke in euery page of it, A Discouerie of many fowle absurdities, falsities, lyes, &c. Wherein THESE THINGS CHEIFELY are discussed, (besides many other incident.)

  • 1. The Popes false Primacie, clayming by Peter.
  • 2. Invocation of Saints, with Worship of creatures, and Faith in them.
  • 3. The Supremacie of Kings both in Temporall and Ecclesiasticall mat­ters and causes, ouer all states and persons, &c. within their Realmes and Dominions.

By Dr. Collins, chapleine to HIS MAIESTIE.

Apoc. 18. 7.

Giue her Torture.

PRINTED BY CANTRELL LEGGE, Printer to the Vniuersitie of Cambridge. 1629

TO HIS MOST SACRED MAIESTIE, IAMES By the grace of GOD King of Great Britaine, France, & Ire­land, Defendor of the Faith, our most Soueraigne Lord, of God be­loued, &c.


MAY it please Your MAIESTIE, out of your Princely Clemency, which exceeding all things, yet enclaspes the least, to vouchsafe to these poore labours (true Benoni-es, the sonnes of my sorrow, so many disasters haue annoyed them from the wombe, and some with the perill of their parents life) the skirt of your royall cloathing, or but the shadow of your [Page] skirt, Acceptance with Patronage: Ʋndertaken at first by your MAIESTIES commandement, for the repulsing of the lewde slaunders of a namelesse Papist, and to redeeme the credit of a re­nowmed Bishop; but continued to the confirmation of Your MA­IESTIES leige people, in their Reiligion to GOD, and their Obedience to your MAIESTIE, with all subiection. In qui­bus duobus, vniuersa Lex pendet, & Prophetae, (to speake it in his words, whose doctrine it was most, yea whose onely errand it was, as Hegesippus testifies) I meane, in seeking the face of GOD, and his IACOB, as some euen Papists haue noted vpon that Psalme, that they are distinguished there not without cause, and the one is consequent, or to be consequent, to the other.

But not so the Cardinall (the more too blame he) a maine stick­ler in these Controuersies (after the Pope and the Pioners) that encomber the world; and I know not by what lucke, though Cer­uini generis animal, yet Your MAIESTIES audacious con­current in the cause. Who if he were younger, perhaps hee might be borne with, either fancying his superstitions, or fostering his se­ditions: As the Stoicke Philosopher was wont to say, that a young man at Sea, if hee abandon the Shippe to walke ashoare a while, and either digge some roote, or gather some shell which the Sea casts forth, there is no danger in it; but in an olde man it is dangerous, whome death, and sickenesse, and sundry casualties may preuent, from euer recouering ship againe. Yet he in his deuoutest meditations of all other, his booke last set forth de Aeterna Fae­licitate, will not excuse Kings from beeing murthered de iure, (not onely de facto) onely hee passes it ouer as a casus omissus, happily because anouched in his other Volumes more perempto­rily.

Of another minde was his Vnckle, of whome hee brags in one place, contesting with your MAIESTIE, (though S. Chryso­stome note, that S. Pauls sisters sonne, of whome there is mention in the Acts, was neuer a whit the blesseder for his Ʋnckles vertue, and as it may seeme neuer any good came of him; saue onely that he reuealed the Iewes conspiracie against Paul, which this man would rather defend the concealing of) but Marcellus secundus, [Page] of whome I was saying, (witnesse the Historian that alleadges friendship (for more faith) and some intimitie wit [...]d [...]im) In animo habuerat omnem militiam à se prorsus abigere, ipsos etiam corporis custodes exauctorare (whereas Bellarmine lately vrged this Pope to draw the sword, if fame say true; his Vnckle not admitting of necessarie Defence, if it were forcible;) cum illud saepe repeteret, multos principes viros, non tam armis de­fensos, quàm signo Crucis, &c. (himselfe hauing been lately Cardinall Sanctae Crucis.) And in particular of the Pope, Pon­tificem maximum neutiquam indigere, aut scutis, aut gla­dijs (indeede Athanasius remooues all iron from the Apostles, and S. Austen will not haue them strike, though they may carrie weapons, ferre ferrum, but not ferire) satius (que) esse ipsum si res ferat occîdi, quàm tam indecorum exemplum praeberi Ec­clesiae, namely as for the Pope either to handle a sword, or giue allowance to others, at his direction, so to doe.

So as no maruell, if the same man, considering the practises of such as were Popes in his time, clapt his hand once vpon the ta­ble, protesting in great earnestnes, that it seemed impossible for a Pope (as things then went) to be saued. And another saies, it was the voice of almost all men in those daies, that a Pope could not be saued, when this Marcellus came to it. I know not what cōtentment the Cardinall may take in his new skarlet-additions, which they would make vs beleeue he accepted of so lothly; but for my part, I should thinke one day of his Vnckles, (as Tullie saies of Antonie, compared with his grandfather) were more to be de­sired, then a whole age of the Cardinalls, lending his pen and bending his wit to the defence of such trumperies, and, which is worse, of such treacheries, as are now in vre with them; the di­slike whereof, and onely intended Reformation, cost his Ʋnckle his life, and that in very short space, after he came to the Popedome.

Of whome, because I haue said so much, almost before I was a­ware, I will not [...], trouble Your Royall eare (as that Councell speakes, which forbids Clerks to disturbe Kings, not onely in their states, or liues, (as now the fashion is,) but so much as in their leisures:) onely this it may please Your MA­IESTIE [Page] giue me leaue to adde, That the Pope whome I speake of (as Onu [...]us testifies) OMNEM ECCLESIASTI­CAM IVRISDICTIONEM, viris profanis, & nullis sacris initiatis, demandare cogitaverat; had a purpose to tran­slate all Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction to meere Lay-men: he calls them profane; but the more vehemently he expresses it, the more it makes for vs, and against themselues: the Papists all so stor­ming at the thing this day, and the Adioynder by name (with whome therefore I haue a dealing about this point somewhat at large) in Your MAIESTIES high Prerogatiue, and iustest Title; allowing You, by no meanes, Ecclesiasticall Iurisdicti­on: (if happily You should euer fulfil their suspicion of owning it:) Though KINGS were so farre from beeing counted profane, by the auncient Synods of CHRISTS Church, that their letters were holy to them, their syllables holy, their palace holy, their very bed-chamber holy, and all that was about them, or belong­ed to them, sacred and holy, in the style of those godly times, and Fathers.

Where I cannot but obserue, the prouidence of GOD, that re­quites humane actions, and how euen a course it keepes with our courses. For as the intents were good, which Marcellus fostered, but no effects followed, nay rather his Nephew drawes now backe most of all, and mainly opposes his Vnckles determinations: So we read, that the Cardinalls in fauour of his person (because repu­ted honest, and well be loued amongst them) decreed to haue his charges of the direption of his house and houshold stuffe, (a graue custome no doubt, and worthie of Christs Vicar, to haue all ri­fled, and ransackt, that the people can but lay hands of, when he is chosen Pope) to be repaid him of the publique; but it was neuer done (saith the Historian) till this day.

But to leaue the Vnckle (sith our question is not whether the Popes may keepe guards about their persons, but whether Kings crownes, or (if that be more deare) their liues are to be wholly at the Popes disposing) and to returne to the Nephew; He is peremp­torie, as I said, in his most mortified Treatise, and the fore-runner of his ende (as he would haue it thought at least) that Kings are [Page] subiect to murther, at best: First, de facto; though the Scripture as it flatters not, nor no where diuerts vs from the consideration of our mortality, so it leades vs to speake of KINGS and Princes in another straine; as if they that ought not to be violated by any mor­tall hand, could not die at all, or at least not die, till God himselfe assoild them of the bands of this bodie. How was he slaine (saies Dauid of Saul) as if he had not beene annointed with oyle? And, O King, liue for euer, saies the Prophet Daniel, not any courtly flatterer. The Kings soule is bound vp with God in the bundle of life, as it were Gero in sinu, nec discingor; fast bound, and not to shedde out. The period of their gouernment, is cum Sole & Luna, as long as the Sunne and Moone endu­reth. And though they die like men, (that is, quatenus homi­nes, non quatenus Reges) yet we are to remember, that they fall like one of the PRINCIPES, that is, one of the Angels (saies the Cardinall himselfe, among others, vpon that Psalme) who we know are not iudged, till GOD iudges them: though, no doubt but that aggrauates their iudgement so much the forer.

And whereas the Scripture so often, entitles the constitution of Kings to GOD, it may be it is to shew, that their authoritie is in­abrogable; as the Platoniques hold opinion, that whatsoeuer is mortall, was produced by some mediation of the vile creature, as man of the dust, most things of the materia prima, &c. but that which immediatly proceedes of God himselfe, as the soules of men, and the Angells, and the heauens, they are immortall. So of Princes.

Yet the Cardinall not content with a death de facto, im­plyes that they may be slaine de iure too, though he affirme vpon the other onely, which belike was enough to serue his turne in that place. No more Ceruinus now, nor of the mothers breed (which was the better of the two) but [...]—as Constantine be­spake Arius in the Nicene Councell, somewhat merrily; for the one hath Mars, the other warre, and weapons, and threats in his name; and as the one opposed the naturall, so the other the my­sticall Christ, he in his person, this in his offices and principall of­ficers; but each of thē to the most lamentable embroyling of Chrsts [Page] Church. And as the one of them was quelled by the Imperiall Constantine, iudicially proceeding, and Synodically sentencing him, with his band of three hundred and eighteene Bishops; So a­gainst the other, God hath excited Your most excellent MAIE­STIE, but without the trouble or labour of an Ecclesiastique Sy­node, to ouerthrow him by YOVR pen, and the pen of one onely Bishop of Your many; yet worth many, where all most worthy.

And albeit Your MAIESTIE needes no Defender, a­bounding with so many continually about Your Person, guar­ding the bed, and girding to them the sword (as the Spouse speakes) (besides Your owne inherent puissance inuincible) yet because what I haue now vttered concerning the Cardinall and his mortified propositions (crossing with Your MAIE­STIES both State and Honour, as much as may bee) I haue vttered it with the priuitie of many of Your leige people, (whom I confesse, as before, that my especiall care hath been to confirme, and whereof some perhaps will not disdaine to cast their eies vpon these papers, if at least they may passe with Your MAIESTIES approbation) it were worth the considering, what correspondence such grounds haue with the auncient doctrine, which the Cardi­nall and his followers would seeme so close to follow. Of Chry­sostome, for one, That a Soueraigne King is accountable to none (not onely to his Subiects, but) not so much as to his Suc­cessor, (as Dauid said euen now, that he is to be iudged like the Angels, that is, by God, and by God onely, and neither liuing nor dead by any other:) The same Chrysostome againe noting in another place, that where as the Psalmist passes ouer other mira­cles of the wildernesse in deepe silence, he insists onely vpon the death of Og and Sehon, two mightie Monarches; because Kings liues are so wholly in Gods hands, and the disposition of them is al­way miraculous, reserued and appropriated to God himselfe. Of Basil, That a King is subiect to no Iudge: Of Ambrose, that nullis tenetur legibus, not onely the King of Israel, but not the King of Egypt: Or (because the Papists make his case the worse of the two, that should bee the better in all reason,) not onely the King of Egypt, but not the King of Israel; for he saies it of both of [Page] thē, & in two seuerall places. Of that Pope in Theodoret (Ana­stasius I take it) who persecuting Flauian (as his Predecessours had done for a long time before) Theodosius that was their arbi­ter, bidde the Pope let goe Flauian (because hee sawe there was malice) and argue against himselfe, as if he were Flauian, giuing him good leaue to say what hee could. To whome that Pope most submissely; We may not doe so, if please your Maiestie, it is not lawfull for vs to implead a King; not onely in his per­son, but not personating another, not fictione iuris, as the Lawyers say. Yea the verie heathen Poet, and one of the wret­chedest, yet he had so much grace in him, as to make seruants thē ­selues safe vnder a Crowne (though worne not for Soueraignty, but for Solemnity onely, as was the fashion in their festiuals) [...]. As for that which follows, [...], &c. it is right the doctrine of our moderne Ie­suites concerning Kings, that if first they be decrowned, then they may be vsed, no longer as Kings, but as priuate men, that is, abused at pleasure. Euen the Cardinall himselfe opens his eyes at last, (the case is so cleare) and acknowledges as much. The STE­VVARD of a house (saies he) may be deposed by none, but only by the grand-master of the Family: which is God in the world, as the Steward in the State is the King, by analogie. Not but that his meaning is as trayterous as euer (for he vnderstands it of his Pope) but I suppose Your MAIESTIES name was partly fatall to giue him light (which is the character of Supremacy en­grauen in you by God) and partly it confirmes my opinion of him, that if Your MAIESTES Bookes and rare trauailes in this cause (out of which we all take, that now write any thing) had been but read of him when he was young, and afore he was embondaged in this damnable preiudice, he would haue yeelded to the spirit and power which they are fraught with, acknowledged your proofes, submitted to your reasons, admired Your MAIESTIES & cor & linguam; and finally thanked God for him his conuerter, whom now he is faine to endure his confuter. But, longa dies quid non captiuat? making vs, as S. Chrysostome sayes, [...], to preferre euen garlicke before Ambrosia.

[Page] But although not he (froward as he is) yet there are others in­finite both forreiners & domesticks, that profit by Your MAIE­STIES peerelesse writings daily; not onely to the enlarging of their skill and knowledge (whereof your Works may seeme to be an Vniuersall Seminarie) but to their redeeming from ruine (which Vn-subiection drawes to) and building them vp to euer­lasting saluation in the world to come, with quiet mindes and content in this present, which before they wanted. And truely our hope is, that the Rights which Your MAIESTIE shall transmitt to your posteritie, as nobly cleared by Your pen, as euer they were wonne by your Auncestors swords, will both breed much peace to the Land in generall, and great security to Your royall offspring the inheritours, confusion to the aduersaries, and barkers against Soueraignty; euen as long as either learning shall be held in price, or a man shall be left aliue to reuolue bookes.

Whereof because this worke pursues the remainders, and treads the same way, though in a most improportionable distance, once a­gaine imploring Your MAIESTIES sacred Patronage, wor­thie to be a Sanctuarie to a greater trespasser) both out of Your loue to the cause, and out of Your loue to the coate, (which is so great and so gratious, as no fame will be so niggard, but to record it to the furthest ensuing ages,) I beseech the GOD of ALL things, euen for his deare SONNES sake, (which is our hope, and our glorie, defending Your MAIESTIE, and by Your MAIESTIE defended) to accōplish his rare Graces vpon Your MAIESTIES Royall Head: Or, in stead of augmenting them, to adde but this one more blessing, to the many that he hath multi­plied, super virum dextrae suae, super Regem [...], eun­dem (que) Phil-ecclesiasticum, (in whome no bodie could euer discerne any cause of doubt, saue onely whether Your zeale to the Church, or to the Clergie, were greater) euen PERPE­TVITIE and AETERNITIE, the Imperiall style, and pa­trimonie of Kingdomes, in the most Orthodoxe language.

Your MAIESTIES most humbly-bounden, and deuoted seruant, in all dutifull and gratefull subiection, S. COLLINS.


BEfore I come to the maine matter, I thinke it not vnfit (Courteous Rea­der) to acquaint thee a little with the conditions of the man, against whome this is intended, for inten­ding against one so much better thē himselfe, to vse no more then Dauids 1. King. 2. phrase, about the murthering of Ab­ner, by vnmanly violence, and butcherly force; which base circumstances, no doubt, encreased the tragedie of that worthie Champion, in the opinion of Dauid. And surely so it is. A noble hand eases much a grieuous stroake, insomuch Hoc etiam tur­piùs a [...] ctatur Respub. quòd ne ab co quidè vexatur, vt tan­quam fortis in pugna vir, ac­ceptis à forti aduersario vul­neribus, &c. Lament. 5. [...]. as Tullie bemoanes the Common-wealth of Rome in one place, that shee was not so happie as to be borne downe by valiant aduersaries, but cowards gored her, and sotts insul­ted ouer her, and foxes, and recreants, ran vpon the battle­ments of her, as the Prophet complaines; Serui dominati sunt nostri, saies Ieremie, Slaues haue ridden ouer our heads. Not that I would haue the glorious Faith of our LORD IE­SVS CHRIST to be held in the partiall respect of per­sons, which Iam. 2. 1. Baron. tom. 1. ad annum 34. num. 79. Et ta­men alibi, multus est in co, vt aureas bra­cteas quasdā, siue bullas, & Iacobo ipsi, & Apostolis ommibus; ad colla circundet. Ex Eu [...]b. Clem Epiph. & alijs. Satin' vt sibi conste [...] Eodem Tom num.: 93. S. Iames forbids, (where Baronius saies Kings are secretly nipt at, and why forsooth? but for the de­scription of the man with the gold ring, whereas now we may find pearles vpon the Popes shooes: S. Iames beeing so farre from nipping Kings in that Epistle, that as if he had foreseene that one of his own name should lead the field in time to come, against the impugners of So­ueraigntie, [Page] he giues the onset so well, as to call that [...], which he meanes [...], the Kingly, or the royall Law, vn­derstāding vbi suprà. v. 8. the Diuine; not so then.) Nor that I would not haue all to open their mouthes, of what sort soeuer, in the cause of God, and his holy truth: it is not we that exclude Eldad from prophecie, or Medad from consultation, but Bellarmine that blesses them, with, Populus qui extra est. non De verb. Dei. l. 2. c. 15. nouit legem, and therefore maledictus; The people which is without, they are accursed. But yet me thinks some decorum would be obserued in these conflicts, and though all can­not be coped with by their matches in worth, as Kings by Kings, as Alexander said, (for the sword deuoures now one, now another) and so Bishops by Bishops, which the auncient Canons haue a speciall care of, that euery rakeshame should not challenge a Bishop, no not a Priest, saies S. Paul, vnder 1. Tim. 5. 19. some store of witnesses: yet modestie might be kept, and faire dealing maintaind, and respectiue warre of both sides nourished, that which wants in other points, to make euen the encounters, beeing supplied by humility, and courtesie, and moderation (as the Masters of the prizes are wont to equall the weapons of the combatants, afore they begin.) From which this man is so farre, that like the Orators in Tullie, who the worse they spake, the lowder they cried, & whom therefore he compares to lame riders, that not able to goe on foote, would needes be prauncing on horsebacke; so he mends his stature by a false shooe, as it were, and as ano­ther Publican after Matthaeus Tortus, climbes the sycomore of his owne wild fancies, to ouerlooke the croudes: or like the painters boy, that beeing to paint Helen, cùm pulchram pingere non posset, pinxit diuitem; so what he lacks in learning, he laies on load in lies, in taunts, in tearmes, and in abomi­nable raylings. Which for my part, I cannot see what effect it is like to haue, with the iudicious Readers, if at least any such cast their eyes vpon these pamphlets, (for we are not ignorant to what kind of people they are consecrated) then to strippe them quite of all credit, and euen pitch them ouer [Page] the barre, like forlorne lawyers, for not caring what they say, nor of whome they affirme: as the Scripture prophecies of such like fellowes in one place, that their owne tongue shall make them fall. So as henceforth it will be no shame for others, to be miscalled by them, and thundered vpon with all the vile tearmes that may be, after such a Reuerence could not escape their bad vsage, and a person besides exception, was depra­ued and disgraced by them beyond all reason, as Hamans gallowes was the last that euer he set vp, because erected for Mordecai, a vertuous man, and the waspe (saies Athana­sius) Citatur à Da­draeo. shooting his sting but once against a rocke, looses his power of annoying for euer after.

But to doe as I promised, gentle Reader, to giue thee a tast of this fellowes conditions, not Etenim si vnū hominem deter­rimū poeta prae­stanti aliquis ingenio fictis conquisitis (que) vi­cijs deformatū vellet induce­re, &c. de Arusp. Resp. by feigning a man in the forge of Poetrie, compounded of all vices, (as the O­rator saies,) which perhaps if I would doe, I could lacke no matter, nor yet following the sent of euery light report, though a Iohannes 21. a­pud Papyr. Mas­son. Pope of theirs was so addicted to newes, as he cared not what it were, so it tickled his eare, and digested false, as well as true, (whome the Cardinall it seemes, imi­tates, for all the world, beleeuing whatsoeuer our runna­gates bring him concerning English affaires, hauing quite lost his common sense, and not able to distinguish between seuerall obiects, if any whit semblable;) I say, to giue thee a tast of this mans spirit, wee will goe no further then his owne writings, and among them, then this booke, that we presently deale with, shall affoard instruction. Whereby his Vanitie, his Virulencie, his Ignorance, and his Circumstance, beeing sufficiently discouered, though we leaue no part of the whole vnexamined, (euen contrarie to iniunction, as our Sauiours example was not to answer Pilate to euery Contra Celsum in initio. 2. King. 18. question, as Origen well notes, and so Ezechias to say no­thing to Rabsace, but to let him goe as he came with a flea in his eare, for all his flaunting) yet perhaps this Preface might either satisfie the cause without thy farther labour, or at least so settle thy iudgement in reading, as to con­ceiue [Page] hereby the better, of that which is answered in due place, to his barbarous imputations.

I And first, for his Ʋanitie: it is worth the considering, how euery where he couples himselfe with the Cardinall, and sometimes iets before him, sometimes behind him, like the fantasticke wooer that Ouid describes, ‘Et modò praecedit, sequitur modò—’ Places (saies he) alleadged by the Cardinall and my selfe. p. 68. The Law inter Claras alleadged both by the Cardinall and by me. p. 38. Twelue Fathers alleadged by the Cardinall and me. p. 356. The like you may see, p. 112. p. 245. and diuerse more, for I spare. Another time, as diuiding the praise betweene them two, partly by the Cardinall, and partly by me, saies he, p. 304. But most ridiculous, where he goes before him, nothing a­shamed, yea and enters into comparison with him too, very deftly. First, for action. Obiected (saies he) as well by me, as by Pag. 1. And in the very front and title­page of his booke, Pl [...] & authorities alled­ged as well by him, as by the Cardinall, &c. the Cardinall, as if he could follow an argument, as well as the Cardinall. Againe a passiue. Pag. 39. The Bishops answer to S. Cy­prian (saies he) makes as much against me, as against the Cardi­nall. And many such like feathers of his frantique ambition, euery where scattered throughout the worke. Which had beene vncouth in any, to haue associated himselfe with an­other writer of fame, especially the Cardinall, where no neede was, and in a treatise no way de­pending on his, though happily falling The Cardinall himselfe, hath taken as much into his Controuersies, out of other mens writings, as any: and yet is wiser then to appeale them, or to make words of thē. But no doubt the Adioynder would haue vs thinke that good wits iumpt, the Cardi­nall, and his, about the inuention of the same argument. into diuers the same points, which he had handled before, (as what is there in Diuinitie, which some author or other hath not forestalled? and yet wee doe not name them, nor ranke our selues with them, when we prosecute the same argument:) but more strange in F. T. a man no way knowne, no way heard of, much lesse bearing any such reputation, patched vp (as they say) lately out of father Parsons his relliques, his leaden standish, and his wodden cansticke, (another Pseud-Epictetus) and perhaps some olde notes of his mustie paper-booke, otherwise a­mong [Page] a thousand the vnlikeliest that could be guest at, to beare a head with the Cardinall, or to succeede him, as his Yet F. Parsons bought skarlet in hope to be a Cardinall, as the Seculars write of him. And this man would bee knowne to suc­ceede F. Parsons. former flourishes import to be his owne conceit of him­selfe. I might adde hereto his craking euery where of his Supplement, whereof this is but a ribbe, an Eue taken out of the others side, as our Prometheus intimates, As I haue noted in my Supplement, saies he, p. 15. and, As I haue shewed in my Supplement, p. 36. I haue produced in my Supplement, p. 39. Ha­uing occasion in my Supplement, p. 98. So 139. 415. 417. So in many other places we are told of the Supplement, that is, by himselfe of his owne worke, (another qualitie somewhat vnusuall among writers, that are not starke madde, to beat vpon their own, especially so often) which you may thinke how good a Supplement, or how answerable to the title, when wee should not haue knowne it to be at all, but for this frequent supplie of his owne mouth. And yet for my part I neuer saw it, I consesse, neither know I any that look after it. If it be like this, no force: here is enough to make Catullus sicke, or his horse either, and once againe to be­thinke him, how he may recure his surfet with purgatiue herbes, ocymo (que) & vrticâ: in the meane time crying out, O librum horribilem, at (que) pestilentem. Et haec hactenus. I speake of his Ʋanitie, as you may remember, which appeares by these two points, his marching with the Cardinall in such 1 2 wanton equipage, as hath beene shewed, and his calling out vpon his Supplement, though this also be a fruit of his most hateful Tediousnes to come in it with so often; of which anon.

II The second is his Ʋirulency, which you may take vp by handfulls. I will not draine the fenne, or stand casting the ponde, I meane ransacke his booke by quoting the pages; but his Table of principall matters shall declare what I say, which himselfe hath adioyned to the end of his Adioynder; the fourth principall in the table. I omit how he strippes the Bishop of his title; And (not to say how due in all other mens iudgements, the most iudicious themselues thinking [Page] that they honour their iudgments most, when they expresse the honour that they beare to him) it was not denied to Dioscorus (I forbeare the rest, how vnsutable a man) yet drawing neere, (as he best knowes that cites the Councell Adioynd. cap. 2. toto. Act 3. Concil. Calched. at large) vpon the point of degradation, to be tearmed Re­uerendissimus, & Deo charissimus, Episcopus, the most Reuerend Bishop, and most beloued of God, at euery word. But what style doth he giue him, in liew of the other, which he takes from him? Let it be viewed, where I now quoted, (like Tertullians Ononychites, that he tells vs of in his Apologeti­cus, set vp by the Heathen, in despight of the Christians, or if euer any imagination crost the originall more fowly.) His vaine bragges, His cogging the dice, his inclining to Iuda­isme, A man prodigall of his Rhetorique, &c. Yea, a wronger of his MAIESTIE, turnd plains Puritane, no friend to the Su­premacie. And then ouer againe with the same notes, not onely in the booke, but in the Index twice, so well they please him. Fooles bolts, Shuttlecocks, dull head, &c. Finally, will you heare an heinous crime? He tryes how neare he can corne to Popery, and yet misse it: that is, graunts to the Pa­pists as much as may be graunted, though by no meanes be­traying the Palladium of Gods cause, multiplyes not con­trouersies, where no need is, abstaines from brabbles, and [...], as should the seruant of God (if S. Paul 2. Tim. 2. 23. say true) that is, the Minister [...], keeps the depositum in precise tearmes, [...], breakes not the rope with vnreasonable stretching, [...], as S. Basile forewarnes; but ioyning Charity with Piety, discretion with resolution, imitates the driuers at the Olympian games, whose praise was to come neare, and yet not to touch.

Now truely hauing described to you, his description of the Bishop, wherein, besides his Virulency, (of which I now entreat,) both his Vanity and Tautology, and almost all ap­peares, that before I charged him with, euen Ignorance it selfe in the highest degree (for what more grosse ignorance, then to be ignorant of the person (not only of the generall, [Page] or of the cause) whome the farthest parts know, farre other then so? vnlesse purposely he would decypher him like Arbos inuersa, as the Philosophers say of man, or by nega­gations and abstractions, as we doe the Genij in Metaphy­siques) me thinks he hath giuen you a description of a Iesu­ite, such as a better could not be wished, that shewes you the world cleane turnd in a glasse, and presumes he can alter the very nature of things, with his poisonous breath, and partiall censure: not vnlike to their late scholler, the par­ricide of France, that conceited the king to be an Aethiop Peter Mathieu. in the life of Henrie 4. Reg. Gall. in a Triangle, whom all the water in the sea could not wash cleane, and so detesting him by degrees, at last intoxicated, slew him.

III The third is his Ignorance, and I meane onely in the Latine tongue; for I will not search now his more hidden scholler­ship; I am content to be iudged by his knowledge in the en­try, in the verie portall (for so is that to learning, prima de dòtibus, or, prima de cotibus.) (And as for the Greeke, we were not best say much of that, though his [...] is a great argument of it, p. 234. and [...], accepit genua, (for, he tooke her by the kneees,) in the same place: Also, [...] for aequalis, p. 44. the verie same stone that his Reuerend Fa­ther Hudaem. Parall. p. 151. had tript at before: It will goe well with the Bishop, if he can scape his chasticements, for spending any part of his younger dayes, in the study of that, which helps him to dis­couer the Cardinals fallacies, or false quotations.) 1 First, pag. 40. id est, cap. 2. num. 3. because the Bishop had said, Le­gat canone inustum, ne maiora, sed aequalia, sint priuilegia, &c. he thus; Whereas he saies, that the Councell of Calchedon, did by that Canon giue to the Bishop of Constantinople, ne maiora, sed ae­qualia priuilegia, &c. Which though it be the preseruing of the word ne in both places, yet euery meane Latinist easily sees, that ne should haue been turned into non in the latter place, if he meant any sense should be in his sentence, as he began it. And therefore, I can impure it to nothing, but his lacke of skill in the rudiments. But let this goe for no­thing, [Page] if I make it not appeare yet plainer, that he is minus habens, and all too light, as he speakes of the Bishop in an other place, (for such reuerence he beares him.) Pag. 42. 2 that is, cap. 2. num. 6. thus we haue. It is said expressely of the Church of Constantinople, that it should be magnified and extolled as olde Rome was, secundam post illam existentem. Which is the letter, I grant, in the Councell of Calchedon, but almost killing Priscian, as hee sets it downe, for secunda post illam existens; the Church of Constantinople (to which that referres) be­ing ecclesia, not ecclesiam, in his period, and so to be transla­ted, if it were to be put into Latine, 3 I say nothing of his construing S. Austens words, simply God knowes, p. 149. Componit salutem membrorum in capite, which he englishes by compounded; compounding of healths, beeing a phrase scarse fit to be vsed by Apothecaries, or their boyes, much lesse by Physitians, but least of all by him, that would seeme to know the Latine, and to english S. Austen. 4 Neither onely can he not skill of the language himselfe, but marres the Bishops Latine with his addle corruptions, Concludit testas su­os cum Augustine, sayes he, p. 145. as quoting his words, which in the booke is some what otherwise, Concludit testes suos Augustino. And so againe, cap. 9. num. 53. Scrutabitur pag. 404. Ad­ioynd. Hierusalem cum lucernis, &c. Zeph. 1. (for, in lucernis;) ei­ther adding to the Scripture, or correcting his old Tran­slators Latine, or both. Though the one be impious, the o­ther very ridiculous, in him especially, to confront the Translator, whose Latine is not afraid of a farre nicer teste. Chap. 7. numb. 33. representare Th [...]dosium in liberis, is to giue the children grace that they may be like their father. 5 So as here Repraesentare stands for Likenesse onely, at another time for Gouernement, for Monarchy, and for Rule. But, repraesentare defunctū, is to supply the losse of the dead Theodosius, by yeil­ding another in his roome; which S. Austen wishes may be of the posteritie. Does not this also argue him a solide La­tinist? 6 S [...]blable is that, cap. 1. num. 11. where thus he [...] the Bishops words, [...] id loquuntur Ambrosius [Page] & Augustinus quàm vt obstrepere possint nouitij nostri: They speak it louder, or clearer, then that our nouices can contradict it. Whereas it should be, then that our nouices can drowne it. For a man may contradict that which is neuer so cleerely spoken, drowne it or suppresse it he cannot. But because he knew not the other sense of the word obstrepo, (as in Tully pro Mar­cello, obstrepi videntur militum clamore & tubarum sono) there­fore he commits this solaecisme in translating. And nouitij with him, be none but newly vpstart; for which cause hee maruells that the Papists should be so called, though nei­ther is their petegre [...] so very auncient (Gibeonites rather) and rawnes in ones facultie makes the oldest man to go for a nouice. [...]. But by this you see the cause why he answers the Latine booke with his English, because he thinkes the Bishop is not his crafts master in the Latine, and so he will take no aduantage against him, but deales with him in English, as one Englishman should with another, the vnknowne tongue beeing better for deuotion, not for disputation.

7 Lastly, whereas the Bishop speakes of Peters disease, which S. Austen had first toucht vpon, namely of confidence in himselfe, and too much ouerweening, so as he stucke not to say, Et si omnes non ego; to which the Bishop addes for expli­cation sake, id est, plus ego quàm omnes, (which is the verie thing that they attribute to S. Peter at this day, to bee the [...] of the Apostles, and worth them all: as also it fol­lowes out of his owne words, for, if though all not he, then he is of more worth or force then they all) this lither fellow, this exos asinus, not so good as Issachar, an asse without bones, without proofe, without mettall, construes it thus, out of the fulnesse of his Latine, That, though all other Diuines Vbi suprà. would giue ouer attempting the Popes cure, yet so would not the Bishop; et si omnes non ego. A likely speech to be vttered by that graue Prelate, concerning himselfe, especially with the disparagement of the rest of our Diuines, for so is his dispo­sition, as they knowe that know him. But how doe you [Page] thinke he falls vpon this sense? what pucke lead him out of the way? Because the Bishop had said a little before, Praeser­tim cùm eundem morbum in capite vestro notârint diu iam medi­corum filij; Medicorum filij; saies he, are Beza, and Caluin; for the olde heretiques were the medici, as the Donatists, &c. (whom the Papists nothing resemble, neither restraining Kings from medling with Church-matters, nor shutting vp the Church within a corner of the world, &c.) and these their sonnes. Then followeth, Etsi omnes, non ego, [...]1. plus ego quàm omnes: which in the Bishops booke referres to the morbum before spoken of, S. Peters disease consisting in these words, a disease of pride. But what does our Gen­tleman? He diuides etsi into two words, & and si, and then makes an interrogatiue at ego, construing it thus, Et si om­nes, non ego? And if all doe, shall not I? if all physicke the Pope, shall not I? To which you may thinke now how handsomly that suites which followes, id est, plus ego quàm omnes: as if the Bishop when he had asked that question by way of chal­lenge, should expresse himselfe, for more perspicuitie sake, by an id est, that is to say, I am more worth then they all. These are the fopperies of this great gull. And you see howe profound an vnderstander of the Latine, that is faine to point the Bishops words anew, with his senselesse interro­gatiues, before he can construe them, or misconstrue them rather; as likewise to diuide them, and to clip them, by tur­ning etsi into et si; but lastly, to deuise a difference, between medici, and medicorum filij, a most palpable demonstration of his vnmatchable dunserie, and not vnlike the boyes in the Grammar schoole, that construed pullus equinus, a horse­chicken. Now crie for Elleboron Sir, now prescribe Catholi­con, The Adioynders prescript of Receipts to the Bishop. like a Doctor in your facultie; which if it bee the name of a Dictionarie, or of a Grammar, or some such like, may stand you in good stead, for ought I know. As for the drug Catholicon, that intoxicates the braine, and prickes on to murther, and to combustion in States, it is a drug for your selfe, and for your fellowes, if they haue not too much al­ready. [Page] 8 For I passe by that, that he so construes the Bishops words (referring to S. Peter) plus ego quàm omnes, as if S. Pe­ter had been more scandalized then they all, cap. 4. num. 33. Yet this is his Latine, plus scandalizatus, for more scandalized. Which though by the rules of his Caetholicon, may passe for currant, not so by the touchstone of the more accurate Grā ­marians, who happily would no more say plus scandalizatus, for more scandalized, then plus illiteratus, for more vnlearned.

IV And though this bee not all that he might be shamed with in this kinde, yet come we now to the fourth, which is his Tediousnesse and his Talkatiuenes, in very truth vnsuppor­table. Cruditando ortygometram, vsque ad nausc­am. Tertull. I meane his lazy, and heauie, and dull repetitions of the same thing often; (the very Mathematicians doe not re­sume their grounds, I thinke, oftener then he) and yet all with such a confidence, or Thrasonicall boldnes, as makes it much more odious. Thou maiest remember good Reader (saies Vide cap. 10. numb. 30. item Numb. 47. & 43. maxin [...] per totum libium. hee,) And, I haue done this good Reader. Then, In such a chap­ter this; And, In another chapter this; As if all were so impreg­nable and impossible to be reuersed forsooth, that hee had once dealt in. Is there no [...], as Demades said of Phocion? No Spunge to wipe out a malitious crimination, as one teare of Olympias was able to deface, whatsoeuer lying tell-tales had conueyed into Alexanders eares, against her? But e­specially he triumphes in that, which aboue all others should not onely dye his cheekes in graine, but make him call for his hood, or rather his [...], as Homer cals it, to protect him from rebuke; yea almost wish the mountains to couer him, but at least not to endure euer to looke a man in the face againe; as the Poet saies of the like,

Et contra magnum potes hos attollere Solem:

Hee accuses the Bishop, for corrupting the Fathers, by name S. Ambrose, and reiterates this crime againe and againe. Yea he hath neuer done with it. But what crime thinke you? or how likely to be true? The Bishop to turne corrupter of the Fa­thers? S. Chrysostome beeing accused (as himselfe reports [...]. inter Sau [...]. in his Epistle ad Cyriacum) of a detestable crime, and such [Page] a one as his manners abhorred from most, offred to cleare himselfe without speaking a word, by shewing of his body. The case in hand is as cleere as there, and nothing so ready as the Bishops integrity to be viewed of all men, while the Adioynder is guilty euen of his owne imputations. See Chap. 1. p. 44. where of fifteen editions that we haue per­used of S. Ambrose, partly printed, and partly manuscript, (all of them of the auncientest, and farthest from suspect) there is not one but citeth those controuerted words, as the Bishop doth, Sixtus quintus beeing the first (then a priuate Also Ioh. Vigue­rius (a notable Papist) rehear­ses them for S. Ambroses. Vide Tabul. man, after Pope) that presumed to cut them out, and to corrupt the Copyes; which this good fellow would faine charge now vpon the Bishop of Ely, for retayning them.

And as they that tell lyes, till they beleeue them for true themselues, though at first they knew thē to be clean other­wise; or hoping to preuaile [...] after the fashion of the heathen, or as Cap. 9. num. 30. p. 384. Adioynd. himselfe speakes (the flowre of Elo­quence) Matth. 6. after the Gentilicall fashion, thus he furbushes it o­uer and ouer. Adioyn. p 418. & similia 419. id est, cap. 9. num. 71. 72. 73. &c. Thou mayest remember good Reader, (saies he) what poore stuffe he produced (so he speakes of the Bishop) to prooue that S. Peter had nothing peculiar to himselfe, by his pa­storall commission, &c. when neuerthelesse to make good his idle conceit, he was faine to vse great fraud and corruption, in the al­legation of those two Fathers (Austen and Ambrose) corrupting the text of S. Ambrose, as I haue amply declared in the first chap­ter of this Adioynder, Numb. 3. & sequent. ad 12. &c. Whereas no such corrupter on the otherside as himselfe. And indeed what maruaile if he corrupt the Fathers, and wring their no­ses, till he fetch out blood, as Salomon saies (such bloody posi­tions as they foster now in their schooles, with the danger of whole states) when he abuses the Bishops words so before his face, as I euen now declared, cutting Etsi into Et and Si, and to shew you how punctuall he is in his recitings, marring and monstrifying anothers directest meaning, with his own most prodigious interpunctions. You would say he were a Procrustes, with his bed of tyrannies (worse then Ogs iron [Page] bed) to crucifie his strangers. But is this all? doth he not corrupt the Fathers also most grossely himselfe? Augustine, 1 when he alleadges him vpon the 108. Psal. Cuius ecclesiae ille agnoscitur gessisse personam, pag. 6. of the Adioynder, which in S. Austen is not so, but thus rather, Cuius ecclesiae ille ag­noscitur in figurâ gestâsse personam: gestâsse beeing of lesse force to serue his turne then gessisse by much, and in figura beeing left out, which serues to turne all cleane another away. A­gaine S. Cyprian, de vnitate ecclesiae: 2 out of whome he thus cites, p. 101. To shew an vnity, he ordained one chaire. As if that were the chaire of the vniuersall Bishop, that is, the Pope. But in S. Cyprians words there is no mētion of chairs, either one or more. The words are onely these, Vt vnitatem Morel. edit Pa­ris. 1564. sed & aliae editiones Pontificiae non dissentiunt, prae­ter Pamel. manifestaret, vnitatis eiusdem originem, ab vno incipientem, suâ auctoritate disposuit. And yet professing to english them, he couches very handsomely into the heart of them, I know not what about the appointing of one chaire, belike for the Pope to sit downe in, and rest himselfe, whom S. Vide Cypr. l. 1. Ep. 3. & Ep. 4. Nisi pancis de­speratis & perditis, minor videtur esse au­thoritas Episco porum Africae [quàm Ro­mae.] Item ad Pomp. contra Epist. Stephani. Stephanus (saith he) maintaines the cause of heretiques against the Church of God. Hae­resin contrà Ecclesiam vindicat &c. Cypri­an had not the manners to entertain so kindly, as his sundry scufflings with him may testifie. Is not this to craue leaue, once again, to build a tabernacle more then Christ allowes? vnum mihi, one for Peter, &c. As for the Cambron copie, and Pamelius the finder, they are too light of credit, to outface so many, so aunci­ent, and so vncontrollable. Shall the Bishop be censured, for alleadging that which all haue saue one, and it so iustly su­spected, as sauouring of Sixtus Quintus his poisonous sal­let, and shall not this be called forgerie, to cleaue to one so abortiue and newfangle, & forsake the rest? 3 Neither doubt I, but if the Bishop had quoted Austens Epistle to Pope Coe­lestinus, about fustie Antonie, or Antonie of Fussula, his depo­sing from his Bishopricke, which in none of the old edi­tions is extant, it would haue bin counted coggery, or what worse may be in the language of our F. T. and his fellow-Criticks: yet he may vouch it, and aske no pardon. Eu­daemon-Iohannes [Page] that Reuerend Father, as the Adioynder styles him (mulus mulum, cap. 2.) had the Bishop in iea­lousie, when time was, for counterfeiting an Epistle of the first Councell of Constantinople to the Emperour The­odosius, which but that hee was starke beetle-blind at broad noone day, he might haue found and groped in more then one edition. And shall these ware goe for currant now, which neuer saw the light till yesterday, to speake of? But as for Eudoemon (howsoeuer he esteeme of him,) we will say no worse for this once, then with the holy Apostle, [...] Act. 27. 11. [...]. He should haue kept him at Crete, and not imbrued his hands in so vnciuill peice of seruice. More thankes would haue been shared him, with lesse losse to his reputation; the [...] and the [...] both avoided. Yet it seemes that the Adioynder, pricked on with his example, makes hast to fol­low him. Of whome because we are speaking now of his corrupting the Fathers, I see not but that also may be recko­ned among his corruptions, that he defends the Cardinalls adoremus for adornemus, and [...] for [...], and [...] for [...], yea orare for currere, and invocare Martyrem for festinare ad basilicam; with many such like er­rours, not onely against the originall Greeke or Latine, but against any reason that can be deuised in the world. Would it not follow by this meanes that angulos for angelos is good reading? As in the Councell of Laodicea, Ne angelos nomi­nemus, Can. 35. in sum­mâ Concil. per Garanzam Mi­rand. which they read angulos for many yeeres together, and thought they had the perfect meaning of the Canon; so little they feared to be encombred with idolatrie. But to drawe to a conclusion.

These things thus considered, may we not say to the Ad­ioynder, rudely replying vpon so reuerend a Prelate, as Chry­sippus did to one that pestered Cleanthes (and though vn­mannerly enough, yet I thinke not so rustically as our Ad­iumbler in many points) [...],. 1. Leaue troubling the graue and Apud Diog. La [...]. lib. 7. [Page] auncient Father, and bestow these thy qualicums (thou mou­thy Sophister) vpon some younger eares, or greener heads, that neither haue weightier studies to detaine them, and are lesse able to espie through the shallownesse of thy drifts or the preposterousnesse of thine endeauours.

Though who so blind, but sees that of himselfe, & sine mo­nitore? The Iesuites scope being only this in generall, to steale away hearts (with Absalon) from the KING, which is the damnable Plagium inueighed against by the Apostle, 1. Tim. 1. 9. and iustly coupled with [...], of the one side (their natiue marke) and [...], of the other (their e­quiuocating new character) like the sorcerers of Babylon, (right so they of Rome, the graund mother of enchantments) of whome we read in Ieremy, 27. 9. that they perswaded the people with all their Rhetorique, not to adhere to the King, but to relinquish their fidelitie, though Almighty God had expressely charged them to the contrarie. And so here. It is not the double, nor the treble bond, of oft-sworne AL­LEGEANCE, that can bate their furie, or bridle their force. For in all Vowes, the Popes relaxation is excepted, saies Iuxta saniorem sententiam, sub­ijcimus vota nostra summo ecclesi. e pastori, vt soluat votis quae quis vel absolutissimè prae­stitit, &c. Medi­na de cont. [...]. hom. l. 4. cont. 6. c. 2. pag. (Edit. Venet.) 310. B. Medina, (and hee speakes it of Ecclesiasticall vowes, how much more then of this, which goes but for Ciuill?) so as perhaps he will not excuse our very vowe in Baptisme. Chap. 14. v. 16. Thou knowest Lord that I hate this diademe, and these robes of honour (sayes Queene Ester of her owne, in humilitie of spirit.) But they of the Regall, wheresoeuer they find them, out of the peeuishnesse of their sect, and the pride of their heart. Especially in his MAIESTIE, since he hath entred the lists, and vndertaken in his owne person, the defence of his owne right (which these impugne) [...], putting his subiects in minde of their dutie by writing, as Athanasius saith euery worthie Prince De Incannat. verbi. Idem habet & Dionys. Epist. ad Demophilum. Sed Athan. incurrit & in Pauli verba (quanquam de Regibus cum maximè loquens) [...] &c. Tit. 3. Certè, si alij: illis, quidni ipsi sibi hanc operam locent? is to doe, when he doubts a defection. And he addes most elegantly (as if he had aimed at the courses lately held by his MAIESTIE) [...],. 1. least proiects [Page] without prosecution be despised and derided; suppose the pen­ning of the oath, without that noble iustification of it against the Cardinalls countermine, which soone followed.

As for the Adioynder in particular, (a calo of that campe, but the meanest of many,— [...]) it is not to be dissembled neither, what his ends are, or the ends of them that aduance him for their champion. (We heare he is a married man (though most decently he rayle against our Ministers for marrying, and carpe the Bishop Adioynd. cap. 3. & iterū cap. 10. that defends their doing so.) And they haue fitted him to the full; not onely with Haeresis est mala mulier. heresie the woman (as Epiphanius calls her, and a shrewd one too) but the Totum hoc [...] ­lieris opinio est, &c. De adoran­tibus Virg. womans heresie. For Idolatrie & Disloyaltie being the womans heresies (as Epiphanius also calls the one, and In Epist. ad Ludovicum Comitem Im­perij. Quidam inter MYLIERCVLAS & vul­gum suum mussitant, quòd non oporteat nos subijci superioribus potestatibus, &c. Wal­tramus of Naumberge the other, in par­ticular) his booke is composed of these two elements onely, and out of them amounts his whole summe. Also his carriage is answerable, (that you may know what he hath been vsed to, and what schoole he hath passed through) as partly may appeare by that which hath beene said for the Survay of the whole) partly is to be dis­cerned out of the Title and Superscription of euery page of his booke; viz. Conviciare audactèr, aliquid haerebit; Turning the speech, which the noble captaine sometime vsed to his souldier, into the cleane contrarie, Non alo te vt pugnes, sed vt latres modò atque incestes; Onely giue thy booke a broad and a bitter title, Call it, A Discouerie of lies and leasings, of frauds and falshoods, vsed by the Bishop; say somewhat, that so worthie a monument, and preuailing with the world, may not seeme to goe cleere away without some contradicti­on; Dart disgraces, vent thy virulences, fling reproaches boldly, though thou canst fasten none.

And the rather, because some Priests are said to stagger here in England, after their reading the Bishops Answer to the Cardinalls Apologie, and considering how he satisfies the very choicest proofes, that the Cardinall could bring, e­tiam [Page] totis cōtra veritatē viribus vtens, (besides his Accipiam in­tercessionē san­ctorum, &c. c. 1. p. 10. [...]. Xen. Cyropaed. own chu­sing what points he would speak to) the Adioynd. taske must be, vincta venari, (as Cyrus was wont to say of his huntings in a garden, after the Median fashiō) to hunt bound beasts; namely to keepe them Popish that are alreadie Papists, to diuert olde soakers from admitting the light shining in through the loop-holes of their double captiuitie (more pre­iudiced consciences, then imprisoned bodies) for this I say the Adioynder must throw dust, and cast smoake, and rayle with him that beares a head, to confound braines onely, to disioynt iudgements, and to disturbe proceedings.

And herein I report me to the consciences of those very Priests, that haue but read his booke, whether this be meet dealing for one that writes against a Bishop, or likely to perswade with Christian people.

But neither could Iannes and Iambres resist Moses in his Exod. 7. 11. 11. miracles, neither may the Truth of God now be outfaced with the calumnies of lewd and shameles persons, as S. Paul promises vs by Moses his example; (for that which Mira­cles were then, the Truth is now, by the tenure of S. Pauls sentence, 2. Tim. 3. 8.) And as for the Bishops reputation, whereof none that I haue obserued lesse sollicitous then himselfe, it may well be; For his glorie accrewes from hence most of all. Semper adventantis fuit omen dignitatis, bruta & praeter modum iniuria. As (to persist in the storie euen now touch'd vpon) when the people murmured, then Aa­ron Exod. c. 16. v. 41. &c. 17. prospered, when the assembly blustered, then his rodde flourished, then God gaue testimonie of his worthinesse from heauen, and not before, as S. Chrysostome also notes. Allway when a man is most trampled here vpon earth, then God is neerest hand to lift vp his scale.

An Abstract of the chiefer points treated in the Defence; either purposely, as drawne thether by the Adioynders method, or by incidence. And it may serue for a summarie resutation of the whole.
The Contents of the first Part.

CHAP. 1.
  • 1. IN what sense S. Austen saies, that Peter represented the Churches person; Not as Supreame Magistrate (which sauours not of Scripture, neither for words, nor sense, of Tullies Offices rather;) but as a patterne purposely pickt out by our Sauiour, to instance vnitie in, and to speake to one, what he meant of all, euen such as otherwise were cleane out of hearing. This is debated by collation of diuers places out of S. Austen, from pag. 3. to pag. 31. [Insomuch as Sylvester himselfe, V. Clavis. §. 5. Omnes Sacerdotes habent claves. Nec obstat quod dictum est Petro, Tibi dabo; Nam hoc factum est ad ostendendū VNITATEM ECCLESIAE. Yea Bellarm, acknowledges it to be the exposition of some Di­uines of Paris, quòd Dominus oravit pro Petro, vt TO­TIVS Ecclesiae figuram gerebat. Meaning thereby, that Christ praied not for his person; but for the Church, which he resembled. Or els Bellarm, neede not reiect this exposition, (as he doth) if they said onely, that our Sauiour Christ praied for Peter as chiefe Magistrate. For then it would descend fitly [Page] enough vpon the Pope; which is Bellarmines drift there. But he reiecteth it as I said; Therefore gerere personam Eccle­siae, is not to be chiefe Magistrate, in his or their opinion. De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 3. in initio.]
  • 2. How Peter arriued to the glorie of Christs sufferings, and yet suffered not for vs, though fondly he once presumed to suffer for Christ himselfe, pro liberatore liberandus, as S. Aust. saies. Against the bartring of Satisfactions between one man & an other, an vsuall and againfull trade in Poperie. p. 32. 33. 34.
  • 3. Peter the fitter to paragon the Church, because a great sinner, and so apt to shew mercie. The Church likewise, in the dispensa­tion of the Keyes. p. 35.
  • 4. Peters faults expressed by S. Austen, but omitted by the Ad­ioynder, where he complaines of omissions. Fiue in all, to the preiudice of their Primacie, not to the proofe of it, as Bellar­mine would. p. 35. 36. &c.
  • 5. The peace of the Church stands in the gratiousnes of Princes, and their wishing well to Relligion, not in Iesuiticall resistance and armes. p. 38. 39. &c.
  • 6. The Papists pride is the same with the Luciferians, in that they will not vnderstand Petrum in petra, that is, the Church in Christ, as S. Austen construes it. p. 40.
  • 7. The Luciferians forbid mariages, as the Papists doe: but not the Fathers, nor the Councells, though it be after vow, as is most probable. p. 41.
  • 8. The words of S. Ambrose, which the Adioynder impudently charges the Bishop to be of his deuising, and vtterly beside the truth of all copies, are manifestly shewed first to be in eleuen printed copies very ancient, then in fowre manuscripts beyond exception. One of the KINGS MAIESTIES Librarie, a copie very faire written, and withall so auncient as before the Conquest, giuen by a Monke called Os-Ketel, to the Mo­nasterie of Rochester. Another of Merton Colledge in Ox­ford. Two out of the Ʋniuersitie of Cambridge. Lastly, in an other edition of Paris, that retaines those words, after the late Rome Copie had presumed to leaue them out, by the partiall di­rection [Page] of Felice Peretto, afterwards Sixtus Quintus. pag. 44. &c. (Whereunto may be added (because the Adioynder makes this his capitall imputation of vntruths to the Bishop) that Iohannes Viguerius a Papist of chiefe note for learning and iudgement, reads them iust as the Bishop quoteth them. Institut, ad Theolog. Christianam, c. 16. § 6. v. 5. De Sa­cramento Ordinis.)
  • 9. How the Friars vse the Fathers, when they are not for their turne, but especially S. Ambrose aboue all others, out of Iunius his report of his owne experience of their Presses, when he was at Lyons in France. p. 45. & 46.
  • 10. Peter the prime, but more primes then Peter. p. 47.
  • 11. The Vicars of Christ, are all Ministers in their degree, but specially the Bishops. p. 49.
  • 12. Peter feeds all, and yet others feed him, as Paul and Iames, so as no superioritie follows from thence. p. 51.
  • 13. The friuelous distinction, betweene sheepe and lambs, hissed out by Maldonate; preiudiciall to the Pope though it were re­ceiued, by Tolet and Turrian their expositions. p. 50. 51. &c.
  • 14. The Leuites were subiect to the Temporall Prince, and a part of Israel, euen in that sense. The Adioynders proofes to the contrarie are answered. Arguments for the other side, which he hath not answered. p. 52. 53. &c. (Rabanus Mau­rus in locū, (praeter alios citatos in corpore Defens.) sic. Quòd recensiti quidem & Leuitae fuerint (inuentus (que) numerus ad 22000.) sed seorsim. Non ob exemptionem ab obedientia, sed eximietatem virtutis quam prae se fer­re debent. Deni (que). 3. Reg. 11. 38. (secundū 70) dantur Sa­lomoni. i. Regi saeculari. Nihil ergò iuvabit ad exemptio­nē, quòd aliàs Levitae dati sunt Aaroni; vt pertendit F. T.)
  • 15. The Adioynders blasphemie confuted, That Christ by his comming abridged the soueraigntie of temporall Prin­ces. That it remaines as ample still, as in the old Law. p. 59. &c. largè.
  • 16. Kings are to feede the Church of God, and Peter himselfe but to feede it. Cyrus head and pastor of the Church, with [Page] some likelihood that he was saued. p. 63. &c.
  • 17. The Papists ascribe temporall primacie to the Pope, for all the Adioynders dissembling. The KINGS MAIESTIE is not so forward to challenge spirituall primacie, as the Papists impute to him; whatsoeuer he might. p. 67.
  • 18. English Bishops, and among them the Bishop of Elie, no dea­ler in Coactions. p. 68.
  • 19. The Swords are two, and diuided in their bearers, though linked in vse; according to Gelasius his iudgement of that matter. p. 69.
  • 20. Princeps, & Caput, common to others with Peter, and therefore enforce not. p. 70. 71.
  • 21. The Papists, not we, are readie to depose Magistrates, vpon conceit of their misbehauiour. Their slaundering of Wickliff, vpon no ground, that they shew. (So, in another matter, Wick­liff is censured by Petrus Lutzemburg: to hold that which none els euer imputed to him, though they had sifted him nar­rowly. Witnes Alphonsus, lib. 12. contrahaereses. V. Purga­torium, in initio. Lex quaedam accusatoria, &, Consuetu­do maledicendi, pricking them on, without any further eui­dence, to carpe at Wickliff.) NONE but CHRIST from heauen may depriue his STEVVARD; by BELLARMI­NES owne confession. p. 74. 75.
  • 22. The Bishop said right, that Peter was restored to his Apo­stleship. p. 77. &c. (Adde & de Magist. in 4. Sent. dist. 19. §) Qualem autem &c. ex August. Saepè lapsis Sacerdotibus red­dita est dignitatis potestas, Et, Petrus post lapsum restitutus fuit, &c.)
  • 23. S. Cyrill giues the preheminence ouer all, to Kings. p. 81. (To which that might be added, ex eodem Cyrill. Comment. in locum Micheae citat. (which he speakes of Kings) [...], Crowned and dignified with the MOST SVPREAME EXCELLEN­CIES.)
  • 24. S. Chrysostome no fauourer of Peters singular Primacie, but against it directly. p. 82.
  • [Page] 25. Peter the mouth of the Apostles. And what though? p. 83.
  • 26. Peter gaines the checke, by asking Christ the question, which the Adioynder would draw to prooue his Monarchie by. p. 84.
  • 27. Leoes authorities of Peters primacie are discussed. p. 86.
  • 28. The Law Inter claras, not glossed by sundrie Lawyers; and for that, and other reasons, iustly to be suspected, if not reie­cted. p. 88. &c.
  • 29. The not erring of the Church of Rome for a certaine sea­son, was no securitie for her perseuerance in after-times. The titles giuen to her by Iustinian, are common to other Chur­ches; and some greater then they. p. 91.
  • 30. Iustinians facts of more force to prooue, then Patarensis his words. And the Adioynders instance against this, is answe­red. p. 93.
  • 31. Vniust assaults proceeding from authoritie, are not to bee resisted, but from others they may. Syluerius a traytour to Iustiniau. p. 94
  • 32. Iustinian slaundered by the Adioynder of vnlearnednesse, without ground. His saluation likewise questioned by him, ve­ry vncharitably. p. 95
  • 33. Patarensis his words imply not Syluerius his right to vni­uersall iurisdiction, and much lesse to the temporall, which the Pope challengeth. p. 96
  • 34. Euery Minister is a Minister ouer the Church of the whole world: in what sense. p. 97
  • 35. Liberatus his storie which the Adioynder quoteth, hath more for the preheminence of the Emperour aboue the Pope, then the Pope aboue him. p. 98
CHAP. 2.
  • 36. AThanasius flees to Iulius for aide, not for iudgement. As any Bishop in distresse might to him that were able to rescue. p. 103
  • [Page] 37. It was more then Pope Leo could doe, to quash the Canon of the Councell of Chalcedon, concerning the equalling of Con­stantinople with Rome. The Adioynders foure reasons to the contrarie are answered. p. 105
  • 38. The Popes censures derided by godly Bishops, and himselfe censured as fast when there was occasion. p. 107
  • 39. Other obiections dissolued against the Canon of Chalcedon, viz. 1. the Emperour Iustinus, and Iohn Bishop of Constan­tinople, their seeking for vnion with the See of Rome. 2. Tu es Petrus, & super hanc petram, applyed to Pope Symma­chus by the Easterne Bishops. 3. Vigilius his presidentship in the Councel of Constantinople, with Eutychius his good leaue. 4. The Popes deposing of Bishops, &c. p. 108. &c.
  • 40. Pope Leos humble and yet bootelesse intercession to the Em­perour Martian, to disanull the Canon of the Councel of Chal­cedon. The Adioynders childish aucupium at the word in­tercedere. p. 110. &c.
  • 41. Fowre reasons brought by the Adioynder, why Pope Leo had good cause to except against the said Canon, (though it be cleane beside the Text of the Bishops booke, which he profes­seth to refute, and a meere itching after occasion to be doing) are answered in their order. As first, that Anatolius his a­spiring humour was not the cause of enacting this Canon, as the Adioynder staunders him. Secondly, that the Canon was neither made in the absence of the Popes Legates, nor yet by constraint or surreption of the Fathers, but with generall wil­lingnesse and gratulation of all sides, saue onely the partiall A­gents of Pope Leo, &c. p. 112. 113. 114. &c.
  • 42. The styles of poore suiters, and the backesides of letters, not to bee drawne into argument, as the Bishop answered. The Adioynders replyes to the contrarie confuted. p. 116. 117
  • 43. Titles giuen to Leo by the Councell, are no more then haue been giuen to other Bishops, and some of them to Noble Lay-men. The Bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople are cal­led Bishops of the Catholique Church. p. 118
  • 44. Idle distinction of the Adioynder, betweene the priuiledges [Page] of Rome, graunted in respect of the seate of the Empire (as the Councell specifies) and others issuing from S. Peter, (which the Fathers take no knowledge of.) p. 121
  • 45. Leoes excommunicating of Dioscorus; but by the Synod, per praesentem sanctam Synodum, the very words of his Legates in the Councell. Which the Adioynder most wret­chedly sticks not to construe, as if the Synode had been Leoes instrument in the Excommunication.
    The Iesuites would make a generall Councell the Popes instrument. Yet at an o­ther time, the Pope was as much instru­ment to the Italian Bishops, and to the Sy­node of Rome; for so much as they wrote by Iulius Bishop of Rome, saith Ath [...]. Apol 2. Per Iulium scripsere.
    Whereas Peter himselfe might bee his instrument by the same meanes, it fol­lowing immediately, vnà cum beato Petro, &c. p. 122
  • 46. Leo the interpreter of the voyce of blessed Peter. A sorie elogium, yet much stood vpon by the Adioynder, to prooue the Monarchie. ibid. & 123
  • 47. Leoes presidentship in the Councell of Chalcedon, so much vrged by the Adioynder, nothing to the purpose. No wonder if he were suffered to appoint his owne Legates, after they had made choice of him to be their president. p. 124
  • 48. Priests admitted to Councels, and sometime they that were no Priests. p. 125.
CHAP. 3.
  • 49. THe Cardinall driuen to say Mother Peter, or else to
    Pamelius his owne Annota­tion there is, Est insignis hic lo­cut contra cos qui ECCLESIAM con­temnunt.
    let goe S. Cyprians authoritie; which belongs to the Church, not to Peter, nor the Pope. p. 126. &c.
  • 50. In the great equalitie of the Apostles between themselues, yet one was singled out from the quire in general, to recommend vnitie to the followers of Christ (which may serue to stop Mr. Saunders his fowle mouth, that cryes
    De claue Dauid. l. 3. c. 1. Neither had S. Cyprian, and S. Austen, (that obserue this my­sterie most) any such ONE. And how farre are they from it (for all their crying out vpon vs) that would turne their one into twelue? Though S. Austen say, Multi [...], & vn [...] dicitur, (wherein hee supposes it belonged to all, or else he saies nothing) Pasce o [...]es [...]. Therefore no Monarchy in those words. But the Iesuits calling for Twelue to sway the Popedome, doe they not pro­claime that it was intended to be the Cō ­mission of all Twelue, though for vnitie sake it was confined to ONE? The place of S. Austen is, De Pastor. c. 13.
    shame vpon vs for not hauing such a one at least, though wee admit no Pope, saith he. But neither haue wee such autho­ritie to frame mysteries, or mysticall signifi­cations to our selues, and vnitie is most v­nitie, [Page] when it is instanced but once; of­ten, were to breake it.) p. 128.
  • 51. Caput in S. Cyprian, is not the Popes person, nor any mans whatsoeuer; but Christs Originall Truth which he brought into the world for our direction. p. 129.
  • 52. The Adioynders grosse corrupting of S. Cyprians text: (though he crie out euery where against the Bishop for cor­ruptions.) p. 130.
  • 53. His ignorance no lesse grosse in his rudiments of Grammar, and of the Latine tongue, (the vsuall Cacoëthes that visits him euery where.) p. 131.
  • 54. How the Church is built vpon Peter. p. 132.
  • 55. The Bishops coniecture remaines probable, that the Cardi­nall left out those words out of Cyprian deceitfully, wherein he saies, That it had beene an arrogant and an insolent part in Peter, to haue answered Paul when he rebuked him, by saying, That the Primacie was his, and therefore he ought not to be controlled. ibid.
  • 56. The Adioynder neuertheles saies, that Peter might haue said so in his full right; giuing Cyprian the lie, so. ibid.
  • 57. Peters primacie opposed to Pauls nouellitie and iunioritie in the words of S. Cyprian. Ergò not a primacie of authori­tie. p. 33.
  • 58. The Adioynder is content to charge S. Peter with errour, dummodò imperet. Takes away veritie, to giue him prima­cie, very vnaduisedly. ibid.
  • 59. The Bishops denying the sequele, à fundamento ad caput, is maintained against the trifling sophistries of the Adioyn­der. p. 134.
  • 60. The testimonies out of S. Hierome for Peters primacie, are answered: for one word of eminencie, three of equalitie are found in the first of them. p. 135.
  • 61. A head against schisme, is a head of order onely; sufficient if it preuent disorder. p. 136.
  • 62. The Apostles though confirmed, might neede such a head; [Page] or though not they, yet the multitudes that might haue refe­rence to them. And to the Adioynder, telling vs that we neede such a head as much as the Apostles, we graunt what he saies, and we admit no lesse, or rather farre more, though we acknow­ledge no Pope. p. 137.
  • 63. The proudest Priest of them all, may not force a King: and, That externall coaction is denied to the Minister against whomsoeuer of the faithfull. Latè à p. 137. ad p. 144.
  • 64. The Bishops style not subiect to reproofe: they that repre­hend it, offend more grossely in the same kind themselues: and namely Cardinall Bellarmine [...]p. 146.
  • 65. Iovinians heresies touch not vs, (if they were herefies) but the Papists rather. And of the honourablenes of holy Matri­monie, which the Adioynder a married man (perhaps repen­ting) depraues, the Reuerend Bishop in his single life defends. p. 147.
  • 66. A most ridiculous distinction, betweene three kinds of Foun­dations, magnified by the Adioynder, but confuted. p. 149.
  • 67. Bellarmine and Baronius playing blind-man-buffe, about Peters primacie. That which is ordinarie to the one, is ex­traordinarie to the other, and that extraordinarie which is ordinarie. The same Andabata is betweene Bellarmine and himselfe, as if he loued the sport. Moses the greater Magi­strate (saies he) because extraordinarie: And yet, Peter be­cause ordinarie, therefore the greater. p. 150
  • 68. S. Hierome rackt to say, Peters chaire is the rocke vpon which the Church is built; he saies it not. p. 151.
  • 69. Magister orbis, is not Monarcha orbis, with S. Chryso­stome. p. 152.
  • 70. Columna & firmamentum both veritatis and Ecclesiae, was their title that were no Popes. ibid.
  • 71. S. Iames his prouince as large as Peters. p. 153.
  • 72. What manner of Princes the Apostles of Christ were in all Lands. p. 154.
  • 73. The Popes tyrannie is not abated by the multitudes of people that he vsurpes vpon, (as the Adioynder would) but rather [Page] creased, and made more odious. p. 155.
  • 74. Rome no Sanctuarie, Succession no shield, against corrup­tion and error. p. 156.
CHAP. 4.
  • 75. SPirituall Mens Monarchy pleaded for by the Adioyn­der, in ipsis terminis. p. 158
  • 76. To be pronounced Blessed, is not to bee preferred to the go­uernement of the whole Church. p. 159
  • 77. Basil is not for the Pope to be a Monarch. He findes foote­steps of reuerence towards secular Princes, euen in reasonlesse creatures; and interprets the Word of God to bee our King. p. 160.
  • 78. Others as well as Peter, haue prelation ( [...]) among the Apostles, out of Nazianzene. And therefore that implyes no soueraigntie. p. 161. 162. &c. (Vide & Procop. in Esa. 17. 6. duos tresue [...], & [...], at­que [...], elicientem Apostolos; id (que) ex verbis Prophe­tae vt sibi videtur. Nominat (que) (vt Nazianzenus) Petrum, Iacobum, Iohannem.)
  • 79. Pastor a word of basenesse, with S. Basil. And yet alleadged out of Chrysostome, to prooue Peters supremacy, by the Ad­ioynder.
    Item Aristot. pol. 1.
    p. 164
  • 80. The Pope alone is not entrusted with the care of conuerting infidell countries to the Faith. ibid.
  • 81. Both the Cardinall, and the Adioynder corrupt S. Chry­sostome, foysting the word caput into his Text, where there is none in the Greeke. And then beeing caught, he carps at our men for taking vpon them (as he calls it) to set out the Greek Fathers. A theife displeased with Candle-light. p. 165. &c.
  • 82. The comparison that S. Chrysostome makes, betweene Pe­ter and Ieremy, in respect of the latitude of their iurisdictions, it aduantageth not the Pope. p. 168
  • 83. Whether Peter might create an Apostle of his owne head in the place of Iudas, without consulting the communitie. It [Page] seemes not, both by S. Chrysostome, and otherwaies; though the Adioynder from thence would prooue the Popedome. p. 169.
  • 84. More proofes of the Adioynders good skill in Latine. The Bishops booke pushes him away, with the very style and pen­ning of it (tanquam cornibus) whiles hee offers to refute it.
    Musae surcillis praecipitem cijci­ [...]. Cat.
    p. 170.
  • 85. Sermones de Tempore, neuer so intitled by S. Austen. A doubtfull worke, and carrying small validitie in it. Full of fowle Latine, and fonder sense, is the Sermon quoted by the Cardinall. p. 172
  • 86. Miserable shifts of the Adioynder to defend them. ibid.
  • 87. As iust as Germans lippes, nine miles asunder. The Eue falls out three daies before the holy day; and at another time, fourteen yeares before the Feast; the Adioynders rauing com­putations. p. 173
  • 88. Peters fall was to asswage his fiercenesse, beeing a chollericke man; And though it were also to encline him to pitty, yet with­out any inference of the Popedome from thence, pittie beeing a generall vertue for all Ministers, and dealers in Soule-matters, (besides that Paul was toucht with as deep a sence of his infir­mities, and remorse for bad courses formerly vsed, as any of them all, Tit. 3. 1. Tim. 1. 15. Eph. 2. 3. & 4.) And yet both Bellarmine and the Adioynder are not ashamed to raise such an vnlikely consequence, from the fall of Peter, (for want of better proofe) to conclude his Supremacy. p. 174
  • 89. Praeferri cunctae Ecclesiae, is farre short of the Primacie, that they contend for. Common also not to the Apostles onely, but to all Bishops in generall, by Origens iudgement. p. 174
  • 90. The Reuerend Bishop not to be taught by the Adioynder, how to censure the falls and infirmities of Gods Saints. p. 175
  • 91. Appeales to the Pope out of Affrica, for bidden vnder paine of Excommunication, in a lawfull Synod, whereof S. Austen was one. p. 176. 177
  • 92. The Fathers words are not supplicatorie but peremptorie against Appeales, though preseruing their reuerence as to a [Page] worthy Sea, and the parties that sate in it, otherwise godly men, and like enough to be aduised by them. p. 178
  • 93. The Bishop forgeth not, but the Adioynder slauereth and slaundereth as he is wont. All Appeales out of Affrica are interdicted. Not only Priests but Bishops too, and the Bishops most of all. p. 180
  • 94. The Adioynders slight exceptions against this are answe­red. p. 181. & 182
  • 95. His monstrous sliding away from the state of the question, to fight with an imaginary shadow of his owne. And yet therein also he is not onely vnsound, but [...], hee contra­dicts himselfe, in his second instance, most apparantly. p. 182. & 183.
  • 96. Pope Zozimus his drawing of S. Austen to Caesarea, to dispatch Church-businesses, is no argument of the ones vniuer­sall authoritie, but rather of the others rare sufficiencie. Traxit, compulit, coegit, is for equalls, as well as for Su­periours. p. 184. & 185. (Adde ex S. Prospero Praef. lib. ad Excerpta Genuens. de Camillo & Theodoro Presbyte­ris; quibus obsequium deferens, simplicitatem obedientiae sibi tribuit, [tantus Episcopus.])
  • 97. Liberius his letters in behalfe of certaine false dissembling Arrians, to the Councell of Tyana, for their restitution, to which also the Councell yeelded, prooue not that the Bishop of Rome is of such authoritie as he must needs be obeyed, but that he is not so discerning, but he may be gulled and cheated, as he was by those hypocrites. Reasons out of S. Basil, why the Bi­shops of that Councell had respect to Liberius, nothing to the Supremacie. First, because the abuse springing from those parts (in receiuing Eustathius to grace, vndeseruing) reason it was that from thence also should come the reformation. Secondly, to auoide the suspition of emulation, and home-bred quarrells; which is incidenter between Bishops of the same Country, then between forreiners. Thirdly, to fortisie the proceedings in the cause by the concurrence of many Bishops, &c. p. 186. & 187 ( [...], Chrysost, At Ecclesi­ast. [Page] 12. [...]. Quod referunt & huc.)
  • 98. The Bishops that the Adioynder saies Iulius restored, So­zomen saies plainly, they were restored by the Emperour. Yet happily Iulius was
    Loco quidem ibi citato, de Constantio sa­tis clarè. Sed longè clarius de Constante, cir­ca Athanasium, cum Iulij literae nibil profice­rent [...] Verba ciusdem Sozom. Quem vide l. 3. c. 10.
    not slacke in the cause to do his best endea­uours; as becommeth euerie godly Bishop of Christendome, according to the abilities that his place affoar­deth him. And so may we construe, Omnium curam gerens. Quis scandalizatur & ego non vror? as it came not from Peter, so it belongs to all that are zealous in their rancke. The Greekes thinke much that they should come behind the Romans because of the amplitude of that Church,
    Their owne Genebrard in Psal. 67. r. 37. ex­pounding that prophecie there of the vo­cation of the Gentiles, and what degree of honour they shall hold vnder Christ, saies plainly, that the holy Ghost Aequat Orien­tales Occidentalsbus, preferres neither before the other. Which is a most true word; saue onely as inward worth shall commend thē to God.
    where as they presume for certaine, that they excell them in piety, and vertuous life. Lastly, they are so hardie, as to threaten Iulius for transgressing of the Canons, p. 188. & 189.
  • 99. Damasus his titles, the Adioynders tattles, frothie stuffe to conclude for Monarchie. p. 189. & 190
  • 100. Damasus his gouerning the house of God: His letters for Peter of Alexandria. ibid.
  • 101. Damasus takes in hand, Vitalis an Antiochian heretike, to examine him; but by the permission of Paulinus his own Bi­shop. So may any body. Prescribe, a proud word of the Ad­ioynders weauing in, cleane besides the truth of the text. Da­masus confesseth that Paulinus could doe as much as himselfe in the matter, but onely to shewe consent between Bishops, &c. p. 191.
  • 102. The Adioynders buskin tearmes are opened: Flauianus his pretended restoring by Damasus, was nothing but their mutuall returning to agreement after a priche; the manner be­ing in those times, for two dissenting Bishops, to forbeare the communion of one another, till reconciliation and clearing of matters, &c. p. 192
  • 103. Of Pope Siricius; That the Councell of Capua committing to him the small hearing of acause, makes for the Councels au­thoritie, [Page] rather then for his; the Councel deputing, he being de­puted. And yet not with any power to controwle former iudge­ments, but because (saies S. Ambrose) they presumed that what Theophilus (Bishop of Alexandria) should define, the same would Siricius (the Pope of Rome) allowe. [...]—p. 193
  • 104. Siricius rescript to Himerius questions, nothing to our question. ibid.
  • 105. Anastasius and Innocentius their speciall ayde implored by the Fathers against the heretikes: but no vniuersall iurisdi­ction of theirs acknowledged. p. 194.
  • 106. Ʋniuersall iurisdiction goes not with sedes Apostolica. Of which kind there are more then the Romane Sea. Pastorall diligence to preuent the danger of Christs weake mem­bers, is made power and authoritie ouer ALL the mem­bers of Christs bodie, as the Adioynder metamorphoses it, to claw the Pope. p. 195.
  • 107. Innocentius either a badpen-man, or his Epistles counter­feit. Yet Rescripsit ad omnia prout fas erat &c. is of the matters then in hand, not of the bye: which notwithstanding are not so prowdas the Adioynder would frame them, paring a­way words to peruert the sentence: which he imputes to the Bi­shop, while he practiseth himselfe. p. 196.
CHAP. 5.
  • 108. PEters Summitie, or Summa potestas, excludes not the other Apostles from their fellowship in it, no not in Bel­larmines mouth; and much lesse in Origens. Therefore it in­ferres no Monarchie. p. 198.
  • 109. The Papists fleete from sense to sense, in expounding of Scriptures, and at last they say, that the literall sense is not so plaine as the allegoricall. A fine fancie. p. 199.
  • 110. Not we, but the Papists, confound Clergie and Laitie. The Pope giues leaue to lay-men to dispense spirituall matters, and some to take the Sacrament out of their own hands. p. 200. [Page] (Womens Baptisme vsuall in Poperie: yet S. Chrysostome as astonished cries out vpon it. [...]; What saiest thou? Does a woman baptize? Tom. 5. Savilian. p. 480. [...])
  • 111. Origen tasts it not, that the Church should be built vpon Peter alone, and not vpon other Apostles as well. p. 201.
  • 112. But vpon Iohn rather; whome he preferres wonderfully. p. 203. & 205.
  • 113. As one, so the other, of things spoken to Peter, (in Ori­gens iudgement) are to be construed. Pasce oves, like Ae difi­cabo super hanc, & è contra. Therefore the Bishop satisfies all most directly, answering one by the other, of the places cōcer­ning Peter produced out of Origen, notwithstanding the Ad­ioynders absurd cauillation. p. 202.
  • 114. Paul equall with Peter at least. p. 204.
  • 115. Peter could not merit to be the rocke of the Church, as the Adioynder dreames out of S. Hilarie misunderstood. And much lesse by onely rowing in a boat at sea, (as out of Maximus) could he atcheiue such preferment, so incomparab­ly distant. S. Hilarie assignes the prerogatiue to his faith, fiue-fold to nothing, aboue his person. p. 206. 207. 208. 209.
  • 116. Maximus his Sermons, of what authoritie. p. 210.
  • 117. The Adioynder as all Papists, would faine be at his Car­ters-logicke, and professes cruelties. p. 213
  • 118. The Papists to blame (as the Bishop most acutely told them, answering Maximus testimonie,) to assigne Peter the charge of a particular Church (viz. Rome) after he was Cheife and Gouernour in their opinion of the Vniuersall. p. 211.
  • 119. This replie of the Bishops, is defended against the Ad­ioynders wittie follies. p. 213. & 214.
  • 120. Continuall succssion of Bishops, one after another, in the same Sea, doth not prooue that none of them euer erred. p. 212.
  • 121. And much lesse that Peter was at Rome, because the Suc­cession in the Sea of Rome neuer failed. ibid.
  • 122. Maximus his elogia of Paul and Peter so tempered, as he [Page] rather enclines to yeild Paul the preheminence. p. 214. & 215
  • 123. The old Papists were not so violent in their conclusions a­gainst Princes, as the moderne Iesuits. p. 217. (Iesuini in eo sapientes, quòd put ant se coelo ipsi quando (que) imperaturos. Pap. Mass. in Paulo 4. [Hem.])
  • 125. The Adioynder like a man deadly sicke, that does not feele his griefe; so refuses to see wherin the Bishop hath hurt them, and saies that his arguments trouble the Bishop out of all measure. p. 217. &c.
  • 126. The temporall and earthly Primacie disclaimed by the Papists, though they practise the thing it selfe; which is vtter­ly forbidden them. p. 220. & 221.

Faults escaped in the Printing, whereof some are alreadie mended in some Copies.

12011humour hishumour is
13121primùmprimum [& emē ­da sic, toties quoti­es. Viciū fuit cor­rectoris corrigēdi]
13524What then?[What then?]
1418truely Readfreely
12speakes vponspeaks it vpon
1521none butnone first but
16424tooke Capsurto Capsur
18733* IuliusIulius
34Marcellus* Marcellus
2182[post] Ambrose hath told you,and Origen hath told you,
23511Num. 49.Num. 20.
24215Thessalonians for himThessalonians to pray for him.
27514Baronius writ itBaron. writing it
27515The Apostle S. IohnTimothy S. Pauls scholler. [est (que) lo­cus apud Bar. T. 1. An. 60. num. 41.]
27723 [...] [...]
2815opposethapposeth (or pa­ralleleth)
28621 [...] [...]
307341. Cor. 15.1. Cor. 11.
315251. Cor. 15.1. Cor. 13.
3211300. yearescerten 100. yeare
24well euictwill euict.
35725dele also 
4176[post] [...] and Readthat which is not [...], (or, that which is [...]) may be, &c
4308dele this 
9vrging itvrging for the promise
4332in Iouinian,in Iouinianum,
4636[post] the Pope(remaining Pope) cannot
51127 [...] [...]

735. & 6& Heracleota Mopsuestenus,Heracleota, & Mopsuestenus,
25716with themby them
2631 [...] [...]
2782in Epist. 5. Cant.in cap. 5. Cant.
2796cap. 8. Readcap. 9.
3077himselfe said to S. Iohn?said to S. Iohn himselfe?
486 dele, Com. in Epist, &c. 
4897Homo nihiliTestis nihili
5061Luc. 2. 2.Luc. 3. 2.
549lin. 2.vnwillingvnwitting.


Of the Defence of the Bishop of E­LIE his Answer to CARD. BELLARMINES Apologie, against the slaunderous Adioynder of one F. T.

Wherein besides certaine other occurrents of lesser importance, two things especially are recleered: viz.

The BISHOPS vnderstanding of S. Austens exposition of Pasce oves meas in the right sense; and his most vpright quoting of S. Ambrose his words to the same purpose.

§ 1. AS Lib. 10. hist. a­pud Gelasium Cyzicenu [...], de a [...] Concil. Nicaen. l. 2. c. 1. Eusebius describing the raigne of Constantine the Great, after the Nicene Councell, calls it a blessed time, when all things beeing esta­blished both for Religion and Go­uernment, nothing was in mention but the Trinitie in heauen, and the Emperour vpon earth, with his Royall issue; that prayed to, these prayed for, ( [...] and [...], as S. Paul couples them, 2. Thess. 2. 4) euen twice a day praied for, in the publike seruice, without any flat­terie: witnesse [...]. 5. S. Chrysostome, Com. in 1. Tim. 2. So the Adioynder spends it selfe in the defacing of them both, the KINGS Supremacie, and the Invocation of the one and onely true GOD, by his Sonne Iesus Christ. And [Page 2] first the Supremacie, then the other; because Kings bee­ing as ramparts to fortifie Religion, when they goe downe, Gods worship consequently goes to wracke. For Kings doe not minde matters of warre so much, or of the State (saies the same Chrysostome else-where, and Leo Leo epist. 78. ad Le [...]. Aug. O [...]ta [...]um [...]st vt in [...]nnem gloria [...] vestrū c [...]t [...]ndatur im­p [...]r [...]um, qui SV­PRA CVRAM RE­ [...]M TEMPORA­LIVM Religiolae prouiden [...] fa­mulatun divi­nis & aeternis dispositionibus impe [...]itis Also long after his time, Eulb. Carn. Epist. 13. vt ve­tus m. s. habet: Henticus Im­per & Rob. Rex Franciae super Cha [...]um [...]luv ū convenerunt de statu Eccle­siae amicabiliter tractaturi. subscribes) by vertue of their calling which they haue from God, as of Religion, and Pietie, and of the Church. Georg. Alex­andrin. vitae Chrysost. in ex­tremo. [...]. Therefore many other particulars occurring in the Bishops Answer to Card. Bellarmine (as indeede each of his bookes for their ad­mirable varietie, is rather [...], then [...], rather an artificiall embroiderie, then a single monument) this man singles out onely these two in ef­fect, not ignorant of the relation, or the connexion that they haue betweene themselues, That it is fatall in a manner (as the 2. Philippie. Orator said of himselfe) nec vinci sine Republica posse, nec vincere; so, that Ne veniat a­nima mea in consilium co [...]ū qui dicunt vel imperio pacem & libertatem ecclesiarum, vel ecclesijs pro­speritatem & exaltationem Imperij nocituram. Non enim vtrius (que) institutor Deus in destructionem ea con­nexuit, sed in aedificationem. Bernard. ad Conradum Regem Romanor. Epist. 24 [...]. Christ should be dishonoured without the King were impeached, nor the King disparaged, vnles Christ were dishonoured. And againe, Nemo alteri bellum indicit, qui non eodem eti­am tempore & alteri: no man assaults the one, but he op­pugnes the other, for the most part, at the same time.

§ 2. FIue Chapters he spends about the first of these two points, fiue more about the second, and certaine other driblets which he There f [...]re (though he fall to other matter) yee he calls his 9. and 10. Chap. the Conclusion of the Adioyn­der, as if he had spent his spight with the former. See cap. 9. in Titulo. interlaces to the end of his booke. In the first, is first quarelled S. Austens exposition of Pasce oves meas, feede my sheepe; which the Bishop alleadged out of his booke de agone Christia­no, c. 30. Cùm Petro dicitur, ad omnes dicitur, Pasce oves. [Page 3] meas: when it is said to Peter, it is said to all, Feed my sheepe. And therfore he is not made, by vertue of those words at least, Vniuersall Gouernour of Christs Church. The strength of F. T. his replie to this authoritie (spa­ring the more ample quotation of the place, which in the ende I shall quote perhaps more amply then he, though he pretend to quote it somewhat more amply then the Bishop) lies in this; That whereas S. Austen saies, the commission giuen to Peter, Feede my sheepe, was giuen to all (ad omnes dicitur,) it was because S. Pe­ter bare the person of the Church, which with him im­ports as much, as to be indued with Supreame authori­tie ouer the Church. And to this end Tullies Offices are quoted very freshly, Est proprium munus magistratûs, &c. It is the proper office or dutie of a Magistrate, to vn­derstand, that he beareth the person of the citie. And so, saies he, Peter looses no authoritie by this authori­tie, but gaines rather.

§ 3. Where first when S. Austen saies, that Peter bare the person of the Church, and by that expounds his ad omnes dicitur, as this man fancyeth; I should thinke vnder correction, that he meanes the Church onely representatiue, consisting of the Apostles and Pa­stors, and no more; 1 for they onely feede: which will hardly amount to so great a summe, as the Papists would make S. Peter chiefe Magistrate of: viz. to beare authoritie ouer the whole Church militant, and euery member thereof. Yea, and in some cases of extention, not onely ouer them which are without holy orders, and so no Feeders, but ouer them also which are cleane fallen away from the Church: and which is yet more, ouer them which neuer set foote within it. For thither also reacheth their ierke, as they call it, of indirect power. 2 And though this should be granted in S. Austens sense, that S. Peter bare the person of all the members of the [Page 4] Church, (as no question but he figured the communitie in many things, as may be afterward not onely yeilded to, but declared at large,) yet who would euer beleeue, that whē the Feeders of thē ­selues, is put in the euill sense, by S. Iude v. 12. taking many things from S. Peter himselfe. 2. Pet. 2. precept is of Feeding the flock of Christ, this precept is giuen to the flocke it selfe? which ne­uerthelesse must needes be I say, if it be giuen to S. Pe­ter, bearing the person of the flocke; as he must needs beare that, if he beare the person of the whole Church, euen in that, that he was bid to feede the flocke. Doe you see then what a confusion you haue brought vs in already? how you haue pulled down the partition wall betweene the Laitie and the Clergie, so as now Theodor. hist. 5. 1 [...]. Theodosius may sit him downe where he will, though it be at Millan it selfe, without any scrupulositie? how you haue vtterly remooued the inclosures about the mountaine, and made way for M. Saunders his Lib. de claue David. Aclerus, as he calls him, while you would seeme to set vp a Nauclerus in Christs Church, and to be the onely true friend to the beautie of Gods house? Yet you are wont to Adioynd. c. 2. n. 19 & sequen. Item c. 5. n. 6. say, that this is our fault, to take away distinction betweene the sheepe and the shepheard, betweene the people and the Pastors, and to lay all open to the wild boare out of the wood. Nay, not onely you confound the Laitie and the Cler­gie, but you make as many Popes by this meanes as there be Christians. 3 For placing the Popedome in Pas­ce oves meas, in feeding Christs sheepe, you graunt that this commission was giuen to Peter representing their persons, &c. Which is as much to say, as, they are all made Feeders of the whole flocke, by vertue of these words, no lesse then he.

§ 4. As for that you expound the bearing of the person by Tullies Offices, to be no other then to be made Supreame Magistrate, though it be first vncouth to expound Austen by Tullie, whose phrase for the most part is not so sutable; yet let S. Austen deliuer his owne [Page 5] minde for this point, lib. de pastor. (for wee speake of pasce, and hee handles this argument in the very place that I quote) cap. 12. Quemadmodum loquantur authores mundi, quid ad nos? As much to say, as, What care wee how Tully speakes? Besides, that if S. Austen had meant to decipher Peter by those words to be cheife magi­strate of the Church vnder Christ, (for so you conceiue) perhaps he would rather haue said that he bore Christi personam, then Ecclesiae; the person of Christ, then of the Church. As the deputy Regent of a kingdome or territorie vnder an absolute Prince, may rather be said to beare the Princes person, then the Common-wealthes that he gouernes in his right. So here. And so speakes your Andradius, lib. 1. de Concil. Papa Christi personam gerit, the Pope beares the person of Christ: so diuerse more of the same straine. Neither lastly, does it seeme likely in reason, that a Prince should represent for his Common-wealth, the head for the bodie, which are rather distinguished still one against the other, as membra diuidentia, and two parties; but either certaine of the Commons for the whole multitude; or as in other cases, some one man for the King. But compare wee more narrowly S. Austen with Tully, since you will needs vrge vs to it.

§ 5. In Tully it is gerere, in S. Austen gestare personam Ecclesiae. Is there no difference thinke you betweene these two? What if one be of things figuratiue, ano­ther of things essentiall? wil you blame me as too cri­ticall for distinguishing betweene gerere and gestare? Gerimus magistratum, gestamus vestem, either scenicam, or some other. Gestamus & personam; I meane not nowe personam in S. Austens sense, least S. Peter be farther off from his supremacie then you are aware. And though Austen in some place may say, gerere personam, euen of Peter in this case, yet neither in that place that you now [Page 6] alleadge, de Agone Christiano, cap. 30. and for one gere­bat, you shal haue 5. gestabats in S. Austen, I beleeue. Ge­stare, portare, sustinere, sigurare, all these I may remem­ber; gerere, though I denie not, yet it comes so sieldom, as I may truely say, I scarce remember.

§ 6. Touching what you insert here, That whatsoe­uer is giuen to the King as King, the same is giuen to the Common-wealth, whereof he beareth and representeth the person: and so in like manner, what was giuen to S. Peter as head of the Church, the same belongs to the Church her selfe: I will not follow you too close about your State-posi­tions, so fauourable to Kings as we knowe of old, so inlarging their sway as you now professe, that what power the one hath, the other hath the like, King and people, (though 1. Sam. 8. 11. we read of iudicium Regis erga populū, but none populi erga Regem, the King might iudge the people, but not the people the King) & there­fore this secret might haue rotted in your breast; to o­mit this I say, It will follow out of your doctrine, that what our Sauiour may doe as Head of his Church, the same may his Church doe of her owne head. The in­stances are diuerse, in your practise specially, I need not faine. As to mangle the communion, to dismisse subiects from their allegiance, to restraine marriages, to dispense with vowes, with oathes, &c. In all which you set your wit against his, your authoritie against his, and namely in the question of assoyling from Obe­dience, how often doe we heare from you in plaine Thom. Aquin. 2. 2. q. 12. art. 2. Va­lentian, in il­lum locum, & alij. tearmes, that Ecclesia habet authoritatem Dei in terris? No doubt, because whatsoeuer is giuen to the head, the same is giuen to the bodie, as here you tell vs. Though againe you are as rude with your owne Doctors, as be­fore you were rash with Princes Crownes, when you say in your application, that in like sort whatsoeuer is gi­uen to Saint Peter as Head of the Church, the same is gi­uen [Page 7] to the Church her selfe: which you would neuer haue said, I suppose, but to defend your gram­mar-paradoxe about gerere personam, with a farre more desperate paradoxe in diuinitie. Discerne you no bet­ter betweene Popes and Councels, which are the Church in effect? or shall these play quarter-masters with the Pope? Doe you so vnderstand the Councell of Basile, or the Councell of Constance, which your fel­lowes would helpe you to construe more mildly; or will you reuiue that charme of our King Henrie the 4. of famous memorie, who writing to the Pope to per­swade Stow annal. Angl. ann. 10. Hen. 4. p. 546. him to conformitie, alleadged thus (if Stow say true:) Si non audierit Ecclesiam, &c. If he heare not the church, that is, obey not, let him be vnto thee as an hea­then & a Publican? As for S. Cyprians authoritie, which you botch into your text here, impertinēt enough, that Ecclesia est in Episcopo, the Church is in the Bishop, be­cause the Bishop, as you say, is Head of the Church; do you not consider why that was spoken by S. Cyprian, e­uen to curbe the insolencie of your Romish Hierarche, and to shew that Bishops are rather absolute in them­selues, (he of Carthage at least, Romes ancient peu-fel­low) Ecclesia Car­thag. [...] anne [...] Ep. 52. aliàs 55. ad Cor. & ad Steph. l. 2. Ep. 1. In Ecclesiae ad­ministratione v­nusquis (que) prae­positus liberum habet volunta­tis suae arbitri­um. Quae verba repetit & in Ep. ad Magnum. l. 4. Ep. 7. Nemini praescribamus quò minus sta­tuat quod putat vnusquis (que) Prae­positus, &c. De Pastor, c. 13. and no way depending on forraine Tribunalls? Rationem actûs sui Christo reddituri, as the same Father sayes elsewhere, to giue account of their doings to Christ [onely.] But I come to S. Austen. In whose words I affirme, that gerere personam, is to resemble the Church, or to stand for the Church; not to bee made the cheife magistrate of the Church, as you would face vs. And that our Sauiour directing his charge to them all, instanced the willinger, as I may say, in one, which was S. Peter, and spake to him for all, to commend the loue of vnitie to them. Imò verò & in ipso Petro vnita­tem commendauit: yea, and in Peter himselfe hee com­mended [this] vnitie: Multi erant Apostoli, & vni di­citur, [Page 8] Pasceoues meas: There were many Apostles, and it is said [but] to one, Feede my sheepe: Why that, but onely to commend vnitie to them? In hoc cognoscent Ioh. 13. 35. omnes vos esse meos: By this shall all men know you to be my disciples, if you loue one another. And, Looke you fall not out by the way: Iosephs precept that he gaue to Gen. 45. 24. his brethren. This was the care that our Sauiour had of vnitie. Againe, S. Austen in the same chapter, cap. 13. de pastorib. (that you may beleeue that booke the ra­ther in the explication of pasce,) Nam & ipsum Petrum Quasi alter alteri. cui commendauit oues suas, quasi alter alteri, vnum secum facere volebat. He sought not to make him a diuerse re­gent, as you imagine, a deputie in his absence, but in all his speech, he droue after vnitie, that intending the vnitie of the Church with himselfe, euen as he and his fa­ther are all one, (as he saies,) which shal not be perfected Ioh. 17. 22. till after this life, yet in the meane time one man might stand for his Church, and represent his Church, the bet­ter to knit vp this knot betweene them. Ʋt sic ei oues commendaret, saies S. Austen, vt esset ille caput, ille figu­ram corporis portaret, id est, Ecclesiae, & tanquam sponsus & sponsa essent duo in carne vnâ: that is, That so he might commend his sheepe vnto him, that himselfe might bee the head, the other might beare the figure of his bodie, that is the Church, and as bride and bridegroome they might be twaine in one flesh. Here, I trow, you haue Peter, not the head, but the bodie, plainely so distinguished by S. Austen, vt esset ille caput, that Christ might be the head; Peter, shall I say, the body? nay, not so much as the bodie, but figuram corporis portaret, saies S. Austen, that hee might carry the figure or resemblance of the bodie. And is gerere personam now, and gestare figuram all one, thinke you, because of Tullies Offices? Yet you cry out against the Bishop for fraudulent dealing, and super­scribe your boxe, A Discouerie of his absurdities, falsities, [Page 9] lyes: you blame him for lame quotation of places. Indeed he is as compendious in quoting the Fathers, as you are ambitious in citing your owne Supplement, and as talka­tiue and full of circumstance as any pies-nest.


But for quoting of places against the light of conscience, was there euer any wretch so taken [...], so in the very manner, as you are in the construction of gerere perso­nam, which S. Austen expounds by gestare figuram, or porta­re figuram, you would faine extend to boundlesse iurisdi­ction? And if gerere and gestare were graunted you to be all one, is there no difference betweene figure and persona, as persona is put for maiestas reip.? will you put figura in that sense too? You imagine the Church to carrie S. Peter; no doubt, as a beast carryeth the rider: and some of you haue allegorized it so, from Balaam and his asse, to the Pope and your Church. Here you see the Church doth not beare S. Peter, but S. Peter beares the figure of the bodie, that is, of the Church. And where you thinke the Supremacie that you attribute to your Pope was grounded vpon the infal­libilitie of his iudgement in faith, and from thence pro­ceeded that same Pasce oues meas, S. Austen tels you farther, to correct that opinion, that the ground of his commission was the strength of his loue, in these words, Proinde vt oues commendaret, quid illi priùs dicit, ne illi tanquam alteri commen­daret? Ne illi tanquam alteri. Petre amas me? Et respondet; Amo, &c. Confirmat tri­nitatem, vt consolidet vnitatem: that is, Therefore that hee might commend his sheepe vnto him, what first does hee say vnto him, that he might not commend them to him as to another man? Peter louest thou me? And he answereth, I loue thee, &c. He confirmes trinitie, to establish vnitie. So as euery where, vnitie and loue is aimed at, which is the bond that couples Christ and his Church; which Church as I tell you, Peter representeth here, no otherwise then a proxie doth him that he stands to be admitted for. But you [Page 10] doating vpon the priuiledges of your earthly God, blot out loue to bring in power, and for that which S. Austen said a little before, vt essent duo in carne vnâ, your Canonists haue not shamed to turne it thus; vt essent duo in sede vnâ: as if Christ and the Pope had one Consistoire. This is the a­greement between you and S. Austen here.

§ 7. You againe cite S. Austen in his commentarie vpon the 108. Psalme. Were you disposed, trow you, to doe your selfe a shrewd turne? For from whence could you re­ceiue a greater blow? Yet here againe I must tell you, that your citation is wrong. Cuius ecclesiae (say you, as quoting S. Austen) ille agnoscitur gessisse personam, meaning of Peter. But S. Austen sayes not so. First, not gessisse but gestasse, is S. Austens. See you now that I distinguished these two, not without cause before? For neither did you, I am sure, without cause here change them. You know that gerere is of farre more force, then gestare in these matters: so as ge­rere remp. is as much as regere remp., gestare not. And if S. Austen had said gessisse personam; yet see, I pray you, with what qualification. Not simply gessisse, but in figurâ gessisse personam ecclesiae: which you cut out: as if in figurâ were no words, or words of no sense, or sense, but not to your tooth. This is your honest dealing, that cry out against falshood. Call you this arguing in figurâ against your bet­ters? And would you read that to the Corinthians, or suf­fer to bee read, (suppose in your Colledge hall at Rome, where as we in our Colledges here read the Bible at our ordinary meales, so Father Parsons made the schollers to reade the booke of Titles, and of claimes to Kingdomes, if your Seculars haue said true, and men say that you boast of Father Parsons his spirit;) would you suffer I say to be read, Omnia contingebant illis, and no more, for omnia in fi­gurâ 1. Cor. 10. contingebant illis? specially if the controuersie were how omnia contingebant illis, as here the controuersie was a­bout gerere personam, and in what sense. But let vs heare S. Austen: Sicut quaedam dicuntur quae ad Apostolum Petrum [Page 11] propriè pertinere videantur, nec tamen habent illustrem intelle­ctum, nisi cùm referuntur ad ecclesiam, cuius ille agnoscitur in si­gurâ gestâsse personam, propter primatum quem in discipulis ha­buit, sicut est, Tibi dabo claues regni coelorum, & siqua huius­modi: ita Iudas personam quodam modo sustinet inimicorum Christi Iudaeorum; qui & tunc oderant Christum, &c. As some things are said which may seeme properly to belong to the Apostle Peter, and yet make no cleare sense, but when they are referred to the Church, whereof he is knowne to haue represented the person figuratiuely, for the cheifedome which he had among the disciples, as that is for one, To thee I will giue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen, and if there bee any like: so Iudas sustaines after a manner the person of the Iewes Christs enemies, who both then hated Christ, &c. Here is somewhat that you catch at, but more that we may retort vpon you. You catch verie greedily at propter primatum quem in discipulis habuit, which we neuer doubt but S. Peter had, a place of some priority in the quire Apostolike. And it may be for that, our Sauiour the rather chose him, to represent his Church. More zealous then the rest, more auncient then the rest; whether to figure the faith, or the eternity of the Church, the one in this world, the other in the next, or for what endowment else of his you can deuise. For some no doubt. And if it be secret, is it therefore none? will you call Christ to account for eue­rie thing? and vnlesse wee can answer for him, will you condemne him? Why not some other as well as Peter, say you, if it were onely a matter of representation? As if I might not say the like, Why not some other as well as Peter preferred to be the cheife magistrate? It was free, you will say, to our Sauiours choice, and but one could be to sway a mo­narchie: he chose Peter. And may not I say the same? But one could be to figure vnitie: for, for that cause hee chose one: and as in diuerse other things Peter had the prehemi­nence, but yet with others, as Iames and Iohn, [...], and Gal. 2. [...], (more primi then Peter, where more might be v­sed) [Page 12] so here where but one could be employed in the busi­nesse, the rest beeing slipt ouer, Peter was thought the meetest to be the modell of vnitie, because in some prero­gatiue hee might passe those primos; or perhaps it was the secret of our Sauiours brest. Are you so little acquainted with the libertie of Gods actions? or reserue you nothing for our knowledge in the world to come? This to your obiection.

§ 8. Now marke what we gather out of S. Austens text. First, Some things there are seeming to belong to Peter, which can make no cleare sense, but when they are construed of the Church. This is flat against you, that would haue Peter such a figure of the Church forsooth, as yet to occupy a certain place of his owne, and what is giuen to Peter should be giuen to the Church, and what to the Church, the same to Peter. But some things, saies S. Austen, are said to Peter which can haue no pregnant construction but of the Church.

Secondly, amidst those some things, is, Tibi dabo claues. S. Austen vseth this very example; which you would fain haue to be ingrossed by Peter, as if the keyes had personally beene deliuered to him, and in his owne right: which S. Austen denies.

Thirdly, Si qua alia, if there be any more. There may bee more then, as, Pasce oues. No doubt this must be one; by his owne exposition before, de Agone Christiano, c. 30.

Fourthly, that he bare indeed personam ecclesiae, but in fi­gurâ, which you had pared off. Not by power of his place, or authoritie permanent; but culld out before the rest by our Lord for that end, to signifie vnitie.

Fiftly, that primatus was not the primacie of magistra­cy, euen that declares; that he saies, the keyes were pro­mised to him propter primatum. So that first the primacie, then the keyes. And his primacie among the Apostles was a motiue-cause to promise him the keies in the name of the Church: whereas else primatus and the keies had gone to­gether, and as soone as primatus, so soone the keies. But [Page 13] now they are promised him for some specialty in him. Not for office then, as you would haue it.

Sixtly, as Iudas sustained the person of the wicked, (susti­nuit, a more powerfull word then gestauit, and much more then significauit, which is said here of Peter, and yet but quodam modo, so shie is S. Austen, so farre from the iurisdi­ction that you build vpon Tullies Offices) so Peter of the Church. As Iudas of the one, so Peter of the other, saith S. Austen: which is no authoritatiue primacie, you may bee sure, vnlesse Iudas shall haue a generation of Successors now, as well as Peter, and (which is more damnable) of ho­ly Scriptures institution. If any such were, who more like­ly then the Pope, that holds by the purse which Iudas car­ried, and troubles all the world for Supremacy in Tempo­ralls? But neither Iudas then, nor the Pope now. Else Pe­ter should haue been head, vnder Iudas, his head, (doe you like this?) when he went so farre as to scandalize our Saui­our, and deserued the name of Sathan at his hands. Was Peter then vnder Iudas his iurisdiction? yet, no doubt far gone in that part, which Iudas bare the person of, by S. Au­stens saying. For so we read in his Alia expositio of the same Psalme: Cuius populi diximus Iudam in figurâ gessisse personam, sicut ecclesiae gessit Apostolus Petrus. Your grauitie perhaps will say, that this is reproach: for so chap. 4. num. 33. But we doe but argue, and I pray who giues the cause? Qua­cunque scripta sunt, propter nos scripta sunt. Rom. 15.

§ 9. To omit that Prosper vpon the same Psalme (Pro­sper Leo's secretarie, and S. Austens scholler) tunes it yet in a higher key, making Iudas not onely beare the person of the wicked, which you construe so imperiously as we haue now heard; but he saies in plaine tearmes, Iudas primatum gessit inimicorum Christi, Iudas bare the primacie of Christs enemies: which I trust you will not expound, how impu­dent soeuer, that Iudas was made chiefe magistrate ouer Christs enemies: no more then was Peter ouer Christs friends.

[Page 14] § 10. YOV quote farther S. Austen in his 13. serm. de verbis Domini secundum Matth. out of which you haue these words, Petrus à Petrâ cognominatus, &c. which moreouer you thus english: Peter taking his name from a rocke, was happy, bearing the figure of the Church, hauing the principalitie of the Apostleship. Of which anon as it serues your turne. In the meane time you may see what varietie of words S. Austen hath, to set out the meaning of his gerere personam, both here and elsewhere. Though here he doth not vse so much as the word personam, but figuram onely, which is a great deale lesse, or rather makes all be­sides to be iust nothing. But as I began to say, see a little I pray you, his store of words, to giue you his right sense a­bout gerere personam, that you dreame not alwaies of Ma­gistrates in Tullies Offices. Admonet nos intelligere mare prae­sens saeculum esse, Petrum verò Apostolum ecclesiae vnicae typum: He giues vs to vnderstād, that the sea is this present world, and Peter the Apostle a type or instance of the onely Church. The same againe, de baptismo contra Donatist. l. 3. c. 17. In type vnitatis (as afore of the Church, so now of charitie, but it is all one in effect) Dominus Petro potestatem dedit, &c. In the type of vnitie, our Lord gaue Peter pow­er, (saies S. Austen.) or in the type of charitie. And will you say that all that were types in the old Testament, were Cypr [...] de bono Patient. Inueni­m [...] insto [...] om­nes qui figuram Christi imagine prae [...]unte por­tabant. so many magistrates? where some were of Christ, yea ve­ry many: were there so many gouernours of Christ, I pray you? or the types of the Church that went before in the old Testament, were they all Church-gouernours? And yet thus, you see, S. Austen declares his meaning about ge­nere personam, by sigura, by typus, and such like. But you will say, it followes in S. Austens words, Ipse enim Petrus in Apostolorum ordine primus. And what then? As if wee denied the primacie in the order of the Apostles, which are ready to graunt euen more then so, if need be. The Bishop Or [...] [...], loci, [...] ▪ p. 15 yeelds a triple primacie to Peter, in the booke that you confute before you vnderstand. Out of which you in time [Page 15] may prooue the triple crowne. And had S. Auston beene so fauourable, you had done it ere this. In whome it fol­lowes, Saepe respondet pro omnibus, spoken of Peter. And will you knowe, quo mysterio? Let himselfe shew. Ʋnus pro mul­tis, vnus in multis: once againe to endeare this vnitie to them. Proceed yet: Simon anteà vocabatur: women autem Petrus à Domino ei impositum est, & hoc, vt eâ figurâ significa­ret ecclesiam. Doe you heare figura? doe you heare significa­ret? How will this agree with gerere personam in your maie­sticall sense? Yea the name of Peter hee sayes, was giuen him to that ende, rather to signifie for the Church, holding the wholesome confession, Tues filius Dei viui, then for his owne preheminence of place ouer others. And yet more pregnantly, Quia enim Christus petrā, Petrus populus Christi­anus. Are you aware what the people haue gotten by this shift, whome you are wont to cut short? So many people, so many Peters. Vnlesse you are content that Peter do no more then represent the Church, that is, the people of God, as S. Austens meaning is.

§ 11. I might tell you of that between, because I would giue you good measure for complaining of lamo quotations. Petrus à petrâ, non petra à Petro, and that, as à Christo Chri­stianus vocatur, non Christus à Christiano. Yet you would not refuse to bee called of Peter: and Bellarmine saies, Chryso­stome De notis eccl. lib. 4. c. 4. prophecyed almost as much, Hom. 33. in Act. that you might not be ashamed if in time to come you were called of the Popes, among whom was Peter. Where you may do well to thinke how this agrees with Nazianzen, [...], &c. where he is so farre from beeing called of Peter, or any other, I loue not (saies he) to be cal­led after the name of men, beeing borne of God) that vnles our Sauiour Christ were God, he would thinke it no honour to be called by him, though as a man neuer so excellent. But we are now in S. Austen, More plainly then against them that would be built vpon Peter, which (as I said) you blush not, but boast of at this day as your secondary foundation, See Adioynd. num. 18. c. 3. [Page 16] Homines volenter adificari super homines, men that haue a longing to be built vpon men, (wee vpon their doctrine, Apoc. 21. 14. and Ephes. 2. 20. you hardly vpon his person, or as shall seeme good) [What say they?] Ego sum Cephae, ipse est Petrus. Quomodo enim non in Pauli, sic nec in Petri, &c. Vt Petrus super petram, non petra super Petrum: 1. I am Cephas his, now Cephas and Peter are all one. For as wee are not [baptised in the name of Paul, so are we not of Peter nei­ther, &c. that Peter may [be knowne to be built] vpon the rocke, and not the rocke vpon Peter. But close to our pur­pose. Illum videre Petrum, qui tunc erat figura nostra: that is, Consider that Peter who was then our figure; not bare our person, that is, bare rule ouer vs, we neuer liuing in Peters time, and his regencie being expired before we were born, but (as I haue often said) standing for the Church by way of type or figure, and so he represented for vs, and for the Church to the worlds ende, whereas hee could gouerne no more then liued in his owne dayes. Petrus TVNC erat si­gura nostra. Againe, to vrge significat against this mans mag­nificat, which he sings to S. Peter, but afore hee know well what it meanes, In eo quòd dixit Petrus, Tues filius Dei viui, firmos significat, saies S. Austen, in eo quòd trepidat, &c. in­firmos ecclesiae significat. Is this also to be construed by Tul­lies Offices, of gouernment? or doth S. Austen not speake yet significantly enough, without we turne the Iesuites di­ctionarie? Doth a magistrate signifie the citie that hee go­uernes? or was S. Peter at one time the gouernour of the strong, namely, when he confessed and beleeued Christ, an other time of the weake, namely, when he staggered? How then was he euer an vniuersall gouernour? For when hee doubted, he confessed not; when he confessed, he doubted not. So neuer was he gouernour of the bodie altogether, neuer did he gerere personam in that sense. I thinke you see cause to repent your construction, vnlesse you be wearie of vniuersall dominion. And yet once againe S. Austen, to giue you more light. In illo ergò vno figurabatur ecclesia, & [Page 17] vtrum (que) genus significandum fuit, id est, firmi & infirmi, quia sine vtroque non est ecclesia. In him therefore alone, or in that one man therefore, the Church was figured, and each kind of men was to be signified, that is both the strong and the weake, because without both of these, the Church is not. Doe you perceiue how this fits with that which went before? For either S. Peter was a ruler but by halfes, or gerere personam must be otherwise construed, euen as S. Au­sten does here, by figurare, and significare, not as you by re­gere, a word not once vsed by S. Austen in all this matter, nor any like it. For, as for primus & praecipuus in ordine Apo­stolorum, we haue cleared it before, and it is too weake a foundation to beare such stresse. Saue that as Peter of the Church, so these words of Peter, a semblable supportance and worthy your choosing.

§ 12. We are long vpon this place, but the reason is, discouer one of our Discouerers tricks, and discredit all. Ambulauit Petrus super aquas iussu Domeni. Hi sunt firmi ec­clesiae: Peter walked vpon the waters at our Lords com­mandement. These are the strong in the Church, saies S. Austen. It puts me in mind of your argument for the prima­cie. Aquae multae, populi multi: Peters walking on the sea, was his regiment of the world: yet not all waters, I hope, were in the sea of Tiberias. Or shall we say, that this pre­figured your Tyber? though so doubtfull is as yet Peters resiance at Rome, that he hath not beene seene sitting, and much lesse walking there, vpon your Sea. Onesiphorus with much seeking found Paul at Rome, 2. Tim. 1. 17. we Peter not yet. Our Lord indeed entred Peters shippe. But what then? I should thinke if Peter had entred his, it had been more pregnant. So might Peter haue been thought to haue succeeded in his charge; this allegorie makes Christ suc­ceed into Peters. No doubt Peter had a boat, as a fisher­man should haue; our Sauiour none, sanctifying another trade, as we are taught by Iustine Martyr, during the time of his minoritie, vntill it pleased him to reueale him­selfe [Page 18] vnto the world. But Bernard sayes it; wil you be iud­ged by Bernard? Doe but tell the Pope, as he did Eugeni­us, he will say you speake inconsiderately to him. I wisse an easie matter for S. Bernards wit, with a flourish or so, to e­stablish the Popedome already established. Besides that, he will tell you, S. Iames raised seede to his brother de­ceased, De consid l. 2 that is, succeeded into our Lords prouince. Vnlesse our Lord himselfe had not the world for his scope. And Eusebius as much, quoting Clemens for his author, l. 6. Hy­potyp. that the cheife Apostles themselues, whereof Peter Lib. 2. hist. cap. 1. [...]. [...]. was one, did not once contest with Iames for that priority. But returne we to S. Austen.

§ 13. There are yet two more places behind in S. Au­sten. One, Tract. in Iohannem 124. an other de Agone Chri­stiano cap. 30. With that we began, and with the same wee will conclude. But the first we will fetch from his Tractat. in Ioh. 123. somewhat higher. Speaking there of our Saui­ours repast after his resurrection with fish & hony-combe, he ponders the very number of the disciples then present, and thus gathers: Vt omnes qui hanc spem gerimus, per illum septenarium numerum discipulorum, per quem potest hoc loco no­stra vniuersitas intelligi figurata, tanto sacramento nos commu­nicare nossemus, & eidem beatitudini sociari. That is, That all we which are indued with this hope, may know that by that seuenfold number of disciples (by which our whole companie may here seeme to be figured) we are both par­takers of that mysterie, and fellowes in that blisse. Nei­ther doubteth he but S. Iohn ending his Gospel with this narration, hauing many things else to report of Christ: he ends it, magnâ & magnarum rerum contemplatione, as he saies: ma­king it as important, so mysticall, you see, by that word of contēplation. Where first we haue figurari in the sense before confirmed, not theirs, but ours. As erewhile Peter figu­red the Church, so now those seuen disciples figured the v­niuersalitie of Gods people, that is, the Church. And yet I hope they are not made thereby regents of the Church, [Page 19] though the Iesuites haue a proiect, wee heare, to bring in more then one, to manage at one time the Sea Apostolick. I remember Occham in his Dialogues hath a question to that purpose, whether the Popedome may bee swayed by many at once? And inclining to thinke it lawfull, it may be the Iesuites drew it from him, and would put it in pra­ctise. In truth our Sauiour choosing 12. Apostles, shewed he neuer meant, that one should gouern all after they were dead, as these now would haue the Pope to doe in Peters stead. But as I was saying, the 7. figurers here are not 7. gouernours: no more then is Peter figuring the Church, or bearing the figure of the Church, or whatsoeuer else soun­deth that way, inuested in the authoritie that this man here dreames of, as if gerere figuram, were gerere personam; and gerere personam, were potiri rerum.

§ 14. HEre also that is answered that F. T. in his wis­dome asked a little before, why onely Peter should beare the person of the Church? or, whether none was meete for that part but he? Wee haue answered it be­fore; and the like might be asked of Iudas, was there none wicked in those dayes but he? not Herod? not the Phari­sies? not any other? or could none but an Apostle stand for the patterne of bale and condemnation? But S. Au­sten here answers it a great deale more roundly; that seuen men at another time, and not onely Peter, figurauerunt vni­uersitatem nostram, represented our whole companie, the company of the faithfull, that is, the Church of God, whom yet, I suppose, he will not allow for Popes.

§ 15. Againe in the same tractat, that you may see how farre Pasce oues meas surmounts the Pope, or the Popes commission, which they squeeze to the vttermost to giue him aduancement, S. Austen insists first vpon that conside­ration, oues meas, not, oues tuas, which is worth the poizing, not onely in the sense that the Iesuits vrge it, as if all Christs sheepe were thereby recommended to Peters charge, Apo­stles, [Page 20] Prophets, Kings and Emperours: whereas our Saui­our neuertheles hath sheepe in heauen, & [...] & [...], both Saints and Angels, which I trust are not liable to Popish iurisdiction; no, though pasce were impera, and sarculum sceptrum, contrarie to S. Bernard. Not only thus then I say, but he addes further, and giues other cautions, 1. Feede my sheep, not, feed thy sheep. Seek my glory in [feeding] them, not thine owne glory; my soue­raig [...]e not thine; yea my aduantage, not thine owne gaines. pasce meas, not pasce tuas, therefore non te pascere cogita, gloriam meam in ijs quaere, non gloriam tuam, dominium meum (that was not ex hoc mundo) non tuum, yea lucra mea (let the Venetians heare this) not lucra tua: and to conclude, 1. Be not of their company that belong to the dangerous times: Alluding no doubt to that of 2. Tim. 3. where it is said, men shal be co­uetous, and proud, and lo­ [...]e [...] of plea­sures, more thē [...]ers of God. Ne sis in eorum societate qui pertinent ad tempora periculosa, perilous times: indeede times the more perilous, because all the strife is de tempora­libus.

§ 16. Neither doubts he to extend the force of that pas­ce which was giuen to Peter, to the censure not of Popes onely, though of them too, but of all bad ministers through out the world. Contra hos vigilat toties inculcata ista vox Christi (Pasce oues meas) quos Apostolus gemit sua quaerere, non quae Iesu Christi. Against those stands vp this saying of Christ, so often repeated, [Feede my sheepe,] whome the Apostle laments for seeking their owne, not the things that are Iesus Christs: [whosoeuer they are, or of what ranke soeuer.] And a little before that, Qui hoc animo pascunt oues Christi, vt suas esse ve­lint non Christi, se convincuntur amare non Christum, vel glori­andi, vel dominandi, vel acquirendi cupiditate, non obediends, & subueniendi, & deo placendi cupiditate. Which because our Adioynder vnderstands Latin so well, we will leaue to him for this once to English.

§ 17. Come we now to the 124 Tractat, out of which he vrgeth this: Hoc agit ecclesia spe beata, in hac vitâ aerumno­sa, cuius Ecclesiae. Petrus, propter Apostolatûs sui primatum, ge­rebat figuratâ generalitate personam. Which the easier to cleare, we may sort out by parcels that which makes for them. First gerebat personam, which this man thinks to be as much as tenebat regimen; but of that before. To omit how it is qualified with figuratâ generalitate, his bearing the per­son, [Page 21] beeing but figuring, and signifying, and representing still, with S. Austen, which is short of Magistracie. Se­condly, propter Apostolatús sui primatum. Which the better to conceiue, heare we further S. Austen, heare you too good Sir, that accuse the Bishop for laming places, as if no bodie were such a legall reciter of them as your selfe. Quod enim adipsum propriè pertinet, (speaking of Peter) naturâ onus ho­mo erat, gratiâ vnus Christianus, abundantiore gratiâ vnus i­dem (que) primus Apostolus. Sed &c. that is, For as concerning himselfe, Peter was by nature [but] one man, by grace one Christian man, by a greater measure of the same grace, one and a prime Apostle. But &c. You will say perhaps that this is a third kind of aduantage, an authoritie more then euer you were aware of, for Peter, vnus idem (que) primus Apo­stolus. But there is more in it then so. S. Austen knowes but three steps of condition here in Peter. A man, which he was by nature, a Christian, which by grace, but by height of grace, by excesse of grace, an Apostle. Yet vnus Apostolus, but one Apostle, not virtually as you would haue it, the whole quire or Colledge of them. Our Sauiour was not so poore as to haue but one Apostle, saies Irenaeus, l. 3. against them that thought Paul was the onely man. So farre off was Peter then, that scarce he was thought to be one of the number. Indeede twelue, as I shewed you before, for great cause. But concerning Peter, vnus Apostolus, saies S. Austen, but one Apostle. As for the prime, we graunt you, as you haue beene often told, and to content you the more, more then in one regard of primacie. An excellent flower he was in that garland; what would you els? But that this prima­cie was distinct from your supposed magistracie or maie­stie Ecclesiasticall, as you would inferre out of gerere perso­nam, heare what followes. S. Austen hauing recounted the three former degrees of Peters condition, he proceedes to a fourth, neither coincident with the rest, nor yet contai­ning any such principalitie as you talke of, but meerely af­foarded him of our Sauiours free bountie, in regard to his [Page 22] excellent worth among his fellowes. Sed quando ei dictum est, Tibi dabo claues regni coelorum, &, Quodcun (que) ligaueris su­per 1. But when it was said vnto him, To thee will I giue the keyes of the kingdome of heauē, & what­soeuer thou shalt bind vpon earth, shall be bound also in heauē, & what­soeuer thou shalt loose vpō earth, shall be loosed also in heauen, he repre­sented the Vni­uersall Church. terram, erit ligatum & in coelis, & quodcun (que) solues super terram, erit solutum & in coelis, vniuersam significabat ecclesi­am, saies S. Austen: he stood for the Church, it was said to him in the person of the Church, not as chiefe Magistrate, not as primus Apostolus, the first wheele in the clocke, but in a sense distinct from the former three degrees (therefore he saies, Sed quando) yet happily the rather for his aforesaid worthines, our Sauiour put this part vpon him, honoured him with representation of his Catholike Church, made him to signifie Ecclesiam vniuersam, (S. Austens words) but onely to signifie it, & that not as an Apostle, but in a fourth consideration, which helps you nothing, rather spoiles you of all.

§ 18. That which followes is pregnant, but I must be sparing; though you may thinke we are afraid to enlarge quotations. Besides, it hath beene brought totidem verbis before out of his 13. serm. de verb. Dom secundum Matth. the Father hauing recorded it in two seuerall places, so farre he was from retracting it; That, Petrus à petrâ, sicut Christianus à Christo, and not è contrà, that our boast should not be in men, but in the liuing God. And yet in truth more plainely in this place, which may serue, if any thing, to open their eyes, that dare build vpon a man as the foundation of their Church, though it were Peter himselfe, that I say not how vnworthy creatures now in his Roome. Ideo quippe ait Do­minus, Super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, quia dixe­rat Petrus, Tu es Christus filius dei viui. Super hanc ergo inquit petram quam confessus es, aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Petra enim erat Christus, super quod fundamentum ipse etiam aedificatus est Petrus. Fundamentum quippe aliud nemo potest ponere, praeter id quod positum est, quod est Christus Iesus. That is: For therfore saith our Lord, Vpon this rocke I will build my Church, because Peter had said, Thou art Christ, the Sonne of the li­uing God. I will therefore build, saies he, my Church vpon [Page 23] this rocke which thou hast confessed. For the rocke was Christ, vpon which foundation euen Peter himselfe was faine to be built. For another foundation can no man lay, besides that which is laid, which is Iesus Christ. Then, Ec­clesia quae fundatur in Christo, claues ab eo regni coelorum acce­pit in Petro, id est, potestatem ligandi soluendi (que) peccata. How so? Quod enim est per proprietatem in Christo ecclesia, hoc est per significationem Petrus in petrâ, qua significatione intelligitur Christus petra, Petrus ecclesia. Haec igitur ecclesia quam signifi­cabat Petrus, &c. that is to say, The Church which is foun­ded in Christ, receiued of him the keyes of the kingdome of heauen in Peter, that is, the power of binding and loo­sing sinnes. For that which properly the Church is in Christ, the very same by signification is Peter in the rocke. By which signification Christ is vnderstood to be the rock, Peter to be the Church. This Church therefore which Pe­ter signified, &c. I say nothing of signification, whereof e­nough before, and euery line in S. Austen is fraught with it. But is not this strange, that Peter whome they euery where aduance for the head, S. Austen should still take for the bo­die? In the person of the bodie, of the multitude of the faithfull, did our Sauiour heape those priuiledges vpon Peter. And whereas some of you are not ashamed to vrge Sequere me, for a document of his primacie, as if it were, Sequere me in gubernatione ecclesiae (a strange pro­bleme of desperate pleaders,) euen there Peter differs not from the communitie, but still stands for a figure of the bodie. Heare S. Austen: Vniuersitati dicitur, Seque­re me, pro quâ vniuersitate passus est Christus. It is saide to the whole multitude, Follow me, for which whole multi­tude Christ suffered. For to construe, Follow me, in so am­bitious a sense, that is, be Lord as I am Lord, be Regent as I am Regent, Christian people will soone abhorre, though meanely instructed, who know we are to follow our Saui­our Christ by imitation of his vertues, not by affectation of his place, and Peter to follow him no otherwise then we [Page 24] Peter: euen as Paul for the agreement of his spirit with them both, is not nice to call vs to the imitation of him­selfe, but yet subordinately to Christ, Bee ye followers of me, euen as I am of Christ, 1. Cor. 11. 1. And so absurd is this ar­gument for Peters Monarchy from Sequere me, that S. Au­sten in his commentarie vpon the 62. Psalme, construes Se­quere me, by vade post me: follow me, by get thee behind me. His words are, Redi post me Satanas, non enim sapis quae Dei sunt, sed quae hominum. Then, Quia antecedere me vis, redi post me, vt sequaris me, vt iam sequens Christum diceret, Ag­glutinata est anima mea post te: Because thou wilt needs goe before me, get thee rather behind me, that so thou maiest follow me. Though it be true also, that Sequere me, was a common word with our Sauiour, and spoken both to S. Matthew, when he called him to the Apostleship from the receipt of custome, Matth. 9. and to him that preferred to goe and burie his father, before the following of his Ma­ster, Euseb. Emes. in Hom. de Iohan. Euang. Quod Petro dicitur, omnibus dici­tur, Sequere [...]nc. Matth. 8. And if Peter obeyed the Sequere with the first of these two, in performing his ministerie, his succes­sors with the second, while they leaue Christ to snatch at a mortuarie.

§ 19. I am afraid of giuing the Reader a surfet in a case so euident: but yet I must not omit this one passage, that followes in the forenamed Tractate of the Father vpon S. Iohn, because our aduersarie hath quoted it.

§ 20. He saies then, That as there is a two fold state of the Church, one in misery and in exile, another in glorie, in royaltie, and in blisse; so Peter was made a figure of the former, Iohn of the latter, by our Sauiour Christ. So as not onely Iohannes anteponitur Petro, Iohn in the one of these is preferred before Peter, (as S. Austens words are) but sim­ply Iohn surpasseth Peter, as much as the life that we shall lead in blisse, excels this miserable that here we liue. For thereafter as the liues are, so are the figures of them both, which are here said to be these two Apostles, Peter of the militant Church, Iohn of the triumphaut, as hath beene [Page 25] shewed. But shall wee say, trow you, that Iohn is a mo­narch in the triumphant, or beares any rule or regiment a­mong the blessed, where the Sonne himselfe resignes his Kingdome, or submits it at least to God the Father, 1. Cor. 15.? Or if Iohn haue no such monarchie by vertue of his figuring and representing that state, why then should Pe­ter claime any in earth, because he stands for a figure of the militant? The words are somewhat long, but I will onely set downe as many as shall serue to giue the Reader light, the rest may be viewed and dwelt on by leasure. Duas vi­tas sibi diuinitùs praedicatas & commendat as nouit ecclesia: qua­rum est vna in fide, altera in specie: vna in tempore peregrinatio­nis, altera in aeternitate mansionis: vna in labore, altera in requie vna in viâ, altera in patriâ: vna in opere actionis, altera in mer­cede contemplationis: vna declinat à malo & facit bonum, altera nullum habet, à quo declinet, malum, & magnum habet quo fru­atur bonum: vna cum hoste pugnat, altera sine hoste regnat: vna fortis est in aduersis, altera nihil sentit aduersi: vna carnales li­bidines fraenat, altera spiritalibus delectationibus vacat: vna est vincendi curâ sollicita, altera victoriae pace secura: vna in tenta­tionibus adiuuatur, altera sine vllâ tentatione in ipso adiutore lae­tatur: vna subuenit indigenti, altera ibi est vbi nullum inuenit indigentem: vna aliena peccata vt sua sibi ignoscantur, ignoscit, altera nec patitur quod ignoscat, nec facit quod sibi poscat igno­sci: vnaflagellatur malis, ne extollatur in bonis, altera tantâ ple­nitudine gratiae caret omni malo, vt sine vllâ tentatione superbiae cohaereat summo bono: vna bona & mala discernit, altera quae so­la bona sunt cernit. Ergo vna bona est, sed adhuc misera, altera melior & beata. That is, Two sorts of liues doth the Church of Christ know, intimated and recommended to her from God: whereof the one consists in faith, the other in sight: one in toyle and pilgrimage temporall, the other in rest and ease eternall: one is of the way, the other of the coun­trey: one hath the taske of tedious action, the other the re­ward of blissefull contemplation: one flees from euill and does onely good, the other hath no euill to shunne at all, [Page 26] but enioyes a good past all expressing. One continually copes with her enemies, the other triumphs without any e­nemie: one maintaines courage in the midst of tribulation, the other is past sense of any more trouble: one restraines carnall lusts and pleasures, the other attends delights spiri­tuall: one is carefull out of the desire it hath to conquer, the other is at peace & secure like a conqueresse: one finds helpe of God in temptation, the other reioyces in her hel­per God, scorning the tempter: one releeues the poore with her charitie, the other is there where there is no po­uertie: one forgiues other mens sinnes, that her owne may be pardoned, the other neither commits what shee should wish to be forgiuen her, nor suffers ought of that which we pardon in another: one is chastened with ouils, least shee be proud of the good, the other is so freed from all kind of e­uill by the fulnesse of grace, that shee adheres to the cheife good without any danger of pride: one discerns the good from the euill, but the other sees nothing but that which is good. So as the one is good, but as yet in mise­ries, the other is better and in most perfect ioyes. Then followes. Ista significata est per Apostolum Petrum, illa per Iohannem. Ideo dicitur huic, Sequere me; de illo autem, si eum volo manore donec veniam, quid ad te? Tu me sequere. Quid enim est hoc? Quantum sapio, quantum capio, quid est hoc, nisi, Tu me sequere per imitationem perferendi temporalia mala, ille maneat donec sempiterna venio redditurus bona? That is, That life was signified by the Apostle Peter, this by Iohn. Therefore it was said to him, Follow me. But of him thus, If I will haue him rarrie till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me. For what means that? As much as I conceiue, as much as I vnderstand, what is it but euen this, Followe thou me by conformitie of suffering euils temporatie, & let him tarrie till I come, to repay the euer­lasting good. Do you see what a Sequere Peter is called to? Euen as much as S. Austen either capit or sapit, onely to the toleration of temporall iniuries, out of which you would [Page 27] frame temporall Monarchies. To which purpose he had al­so saide a little before, setting a marke vpon it, Ecce propter quod ei dictum est, Sequere me. Namely because Christ hauing suffered for mankind, left vs an example that we might fol­low his steps, S. Peter so expounding Sequere me, by, Ʋt se­quamur vestigia eius, 1. Pet. 2. 21. But go we forward as we began, in comparing the cōtemplatiue life with the actiue, Iohn with Peter, this world with the next. Amet ergo cum Petrus, vt ab istà mortalitate liberemur, and, ametur ab eo Io­hannes, vt in illà immortalitate seruemur. That is, Let Peter therefore loue him, to the ende we may be deliuered from this present mortalitie, and let Iohn be loued of him, that we may be saued by him in the immortall glorie. Againe, Hoc per Petrum significatum est, plus amantem, sed minùs ama­tum, quia minùs nos amat Christus miseros quàm beatos. Veri­tatis autem contemplationem qualis tunc futura est minùs a­mamus, quia nondum nouimus, nec habemus. Haec ergo per Iohan­nem significata est minùs amantem, atque ideo & ad ipsam, & ad eius in nobis amorem, qualis ei debetur, implendum, donec veniat Dominus, expectantem: sed plus amatum, quia id quod per illum figuratum est, hoc efficit beatum. That is, That was signified by Peter who loued Christ more, but was loued of him lesse: because Christ loues vs lesse in the state of miserie, then he wil doe vs one day in the kingdome of glorie. We also lesse loue the view of truth [and of the face of God] whiles we are as we are, because we neither haue it yet, nor know it, as we shall doe. This life therefore of ours is sig­nified by Iohn, who loued Christ lesse, and therefore waits for his comming, til the other life may be reuealed, and the loue of it perfited as it should be in vs: but the same Iohn was more loued of Christ, because that [life] makes vs bles­sed, which in him was instanced; [or, figured.] Then, Nemo tamen istos insignes Apostolos separet. Yet let no man seuer these two excellent Apostles. So then, as one figures, so the other figures: as the one represents, so the other repre­sents, and represents onely. Iohn was not hereby installed [Page 28] Monarch of heauen, no nor yet free denison thereof by a­ctuall possession. (It was long after that, that S. Iohn went to heauē.) No more was Peter, then, of earth, or any earth­ly prerogatiue: for they must not be separated, but as one, so the other. Nemo separet, saith S. Austen. Et in eo (saith the same Father) quod significabat Petrus, ambo erant, & in eo quod significabat Iohannes, ambo futuri erant: significando sequebatur iste, manebat ille &c. That is, Both in that [life] which Peter signified, they were both of them, and in that which Iohn signified, they were both of them to be. He followed, this staied, for signification sake, &c. Doe you see that if Peter be a Monarch of the Church, Iohn must needes be too, which is a thing impossible? For, in eo quod significabat Pe­trus, ambo erant, saith S. Austen. That is, In that which Peter signified they were both of them. In whome yet it follows plainer, Nec ipsi soli, (Peter and Iohn forenamed) sed vni­uersa hoc facit sancta Ecclesia sponsa Christi: ab istis tentationi­bus eruenda, in illa foelicitate seruanda. Neither Peter onely & Iohn, that is, two of the Apostles, but the whole Church of God, the spouse of Christ, doth the very same: auoiding the tentation, which is here present, creeping on to the sal­uation, which is laide vp for vs in heauen. Quas duas vitas Petrus & Iohannes figurauerunt (as before significabant, so now figurauerunt) singuli singulas &c. That is, Which two liues Peter and Iohn figured, the one the one, the other the other, &c. Lastly, Omnibus igitur sanctis ad Christi corpus in­separabiliter pertinentibus, propter huius vitae procellosissimae gubernaculum, ad liganda & soluenda peccata, claues regni coelo­rum primus Apostolorum Petrus accepit: ijsdem (que) omnibus san­ctis propter vitae illius secretissimae quietissimum sinum, super pe­ctus Christi Iohannes Euangelista discubuit. Quoniam nec iste solus, sed vniuersa Ecclesia, nec ille in principio, &c. That is, In lieu therefore of all the Saints of Christ, which are insepa­rably grafted into his mysticall bodie, as concerning their steerage, & the direction of their course, in this most trou­blesome and tempestuous world, the prime Apostle Peter [Page 29] receiued the Keies of the kingdome of heauen, for the bin­ding and loosing of their offences. And againe in lieu of all the same Saints, with respect to that most quiet either bosome of secresie, or harborough of blisse, the Euangelist Iohn leaned vpon the breast of our blessed Sauiour. Because neither he alone, but the whole Church, nor the other in the beginning, &c.

§ 20. Against this I know what Mr. F. T. will say (for Bell, l. 1. de Pon­tif. Rom. c. 12. he sayes no more then out of the mouth of his best masters) As Iohn really, so Peter really: as the one lay vpon our Sa­uiours breast, and it was no fiction, so the other receiued the keies of heauens kingdome, and it was more then a bare representation. Who doubts but S. Peter receiued the keies, as well as Iohn leaned on Christs bosome? But Pe­ter receiued the keies in the person of the Church militant, because our Lord would honour vnitie: & Iohn rested and repasted himselfe on his sacred bosome as a figure of the triumphant, to shadow out vnto vs the estate of glory and blissefull immortalitie. Each did as wee read they did, but with a drift to intimate some farther thing vnto vs. Non ti­bi sed vnitati, may we say to S. Peter: and, Non tibi sed aeter­uitati, may we say to S. Iohn. Omnibus In liew of all the Saints be­longing to the bodie of Christ. Sanctis ad Christi corpus pertinentibus, saies S. Austen. And, Neither Pe­ter alone, nor Iohn alone, but the whole Church. Quoniam nec iste solus, nec ille solus, sed vniuersa Ecclesia. In this stands the answer, that both Peter receiued, and receiued for him­selfe, (for he had a part in the keyes as well as others, wee denie it not) but Beda in Con­cion, hyemal. in 16. Matth. Po­testas ligandi & soluendi [per cla­ues] quamvis so­li Petro videatur à Domino data, abs (que) vllá tamen dubietate noscen­dum est, quia & caeteris Apostolis datur, ipso teste, &c. Et, Nunc etiam in Episcopis & Presbyteris omni Ecclesie essicium idem committitur. Et, Omni igitur electorum ecclesie ligandi ac soluendi datur áuctoritas, iuxta modum culparum vel poenitentiae. Et paulò antè, Meritò tamen prae caeteris ei qiu maiori deuotione confessus erat Christum, vt constaret omnibus, quiae abs (que) eà confessione, & fide, regnum coelorum nullus posset intrare. An other manner of reason why the keyes are giuen to Peter, then the Iesuites fancie. [...], not [...], portionally and particularly, not wholly and entirely, saue onely as hee stood in the Churches roome, to grace vnitie. And this prooues no vniuersall authoritie. As not Iohn in the trium­phant, as not Iudas in the malignant, so neither Peter in the militant. But so much may suffice to haue spoken herof.

[Page 30] § 21. THE last place of S. Austen that is cited for this purpose, is that which I first began with, de Agone Christ. c. 30. which because this hobby-horse cryes out vpon the Bishop so, for alleadging fraudulently and lamely, as hath bin said, I will keepe my promise to report it euen at large. Though in the 20. chapter of that booke, before we come to the place that is now to bee scanned, S. Austen suffici­ently shewes what he meanes, by his wonted phrase of ge­rere personam. Where he doubts not to say, speaking of the head in a mans bodie, wherin all the senses are lodged and recollected, that Caput ipsius animae quodam modo personam sustinet: not as if the head did rule the soule, which were very vnreasonable (as they would make Peter to bee go­uernour of the Church, they care not how) but happily for Oculos qua­si ipsam [...]. Et, [...] sunt [...]. Chrvs. in 4. ad Col. Ethi­co fe [...]è extre­mo. resembling the invisible soule in visible forme most liuely, and most apparantly, euen as Peter did the Church, one for many. And so it followes in S. Austen, Ibi enim omnes sensus apparent. But speake we to the 30. chapter, which is the thing in question. Intreating there how the Church ought to shew compassion to her children, conuerting by repentance, he thus saies: Non enim sine causâ inter omnes A­postolos, huius ecclesiae catholicae personam sustinet Petrus. That is, For not without cause doth Peter among all the Apo­stles sustaine the person of this Catholicke Church. Huic enim ecclesiae Claues regni coelorum datae sunt: For to this Church, the keies of the Kingdome of heauen were giuen. Which latter FOR, is not to show that Peter was chosen to beare the person of the Church, non sine causâ, not with­out cause, as he had said before, but to prooue what hee had supposed, that Peter did beare the Churches person; since the keyes are too great a depositum for Peter, to be re­ceiued in his owne name, but in the Churches. And so much he had deliuered before vpon the 108. Psalm. I will not now trouble the Reader to repeat it. Onely this may bee remembred, that there he saies, Tibi dabo claues, is a­mong those sayings, which howsoeuer videntur pertinere ad [Page 31] Petrum, non tamen habent illustrem intellectum, nisi cum refe­runtur ad ecclesiam, &c. which howsoeuer they may seeme to belong to Peter, yet cannot clearely be construed, but when they are referred to the Church. This there. But now in this place he addes another example, to shew that Peter did beare the Churches person, and not his owne: As when, Pasce oues, is said to him. Et cum ei dicitur, ad om­nes dicitur, Amas me? Pasce oues meas. Where I cannot de­maund without some passion, what can bee said more pregnantly to the Bishops purpose, that, Pasce oues, was not said to Peter onely, when S. Austen makes it common to all (all of the ranke at least) and vouches it as an instance, that Peter did beare the person of the Church, and not his own only, in diuers things that passed vpon him? Me thinks vpon the alledging but of thus much out of S. Aust. if truly, if in his sense, the question should be at an end. Yet because this man cries out against maimed allegations, I will keepe promise, as I said, to set downe so much of S. Austens text, as no man comming after shall neede more: and that by the way it may be seene, whether this fellow can clip a text or no, for his aduātage, & leaue out that which is too hoat for him to meddle with; practising that impudently at the ve­ry same time, which he traduces the Bishop for most wrong­fully. Thus then S. Austen: Debet ergò Ecclesia Catholica cor­rectis & pietate firmatis filijs libenter ignoscere, cùm ipsi Petro personam eius gestanti, & cùm in mari titubâsset, & cùm Domi­num carnaliter à passione reuocâsset, & cùm aurem serui gladio praecidisset, & cùm ipsum Dominum ter negâsset, & cùm in simu­lationem posteà superstitiosam lapsus esset, videamus veniam esse concessam, eum (que) correctum atque firmatum, vsque ad dominicae passionis gloriam pervenisse. That is to say: The Church Ca­tholicke therfore ought to pardon her children amending their faults, and established in godlines, sith we see pardon affoarded to Peter himselfe, sustaining the person of the church, both after that he had wauered in the sea, & carnal­ly dehorted our Sauiour frō suffering, and with a sword cut [Page 32] off the high Priests seruants eare, and finally fallen into his superstitious hypocrisie; [yet pardon I say affoarded him, notwithstanding all these faults,] in so much as amen­ded now and confirmed, he came in the ende to partake of the glorie of our Sauiours suffering. Here is nothing a­gainst vs, for ought I can perceiue, vnlesse Peter to haue come to the glorie of our Lords suffering, may seeme to a­ny to make against vs. Which yet I hope they will not con­strue, as if Peter had died for the sinnes of the world, and so equalled our Sauiours glorie. Wicked though they are, yet not so wicked, as to diuide that praise between Christ and Peter. Howsoeuer S. Austen in his tractat vpon S. Iohn 123. makes this to be one of S. Peters errors, to haue offered to die for Christ in all hast, pro liberatore liberandus &c. Where­in he might seeme to haue aspired to a glorie more then our Sauiours, that he dying to saue the world, Peter should die for him that died for the world, which is a point aboue the other. But howsoeuer they magnifie Peters authoritie, I hope they will attribute to him no such vertue as this, al­though he may seeme, I say, to haue said as much himselfe when time was, by S. Austens collection; but rather repent with him repenting, as afterwards we know he changed his minde, and no doubt cried out as Iob doth, his eyes beeing opened, and his weaknes discouered, I bewaile my Iob 42. selfe in dust and ashes, I haue said once, but I will say it no more. As for the wordes of S. Austen, that Peter attained to the honour of our Lords suffering, it is a storie in Eusebius worth the considering, how for the exceeding honour that hist. 3. 1. he bare to his Master, [...]. Bernard. epist. 25 [...]. Petrus & Paulus, alter amisso, alter submisso in cru­ce canite &c. though he were nailed to a crosse of wood like his, yet he refused to dic with his head vpward. Which we may beleeue the rather, because we read euen in heathen stories of that time, of diuers that were crucified with their heads downeward. And as Peter for humilitie, [...]. Hegesip. etiam lib. 3. c. 2. Indulgebat persecutor non invitus incre­menta poenarum. begd that boone of the tormentors, so it is like they were [Page 33] not nice to graunt it to him, as the more disgracefull. This was the reuerence that our Sauiours conuersation begat in his Disciples. In figure where of Iob, whome I named euen now, to shew the authoritie that he bare in his house, with semblable loue of all sides, My seruants, said he, thought Iob 29. 24. themselues happie in my presence; if I smiled vpon them they did not beleeue me, yea they cryed, Who vvill giue vs to Iob 31. 31. eate of his flesh? for the vnspeakable sweetnes they found by me. See S. Chrysost. in his 2. Epist. to Olympias. Who can write of these things without melting passion? To con­sider the strange conflict betweene our Sauiour and S. Pe­ter: a conflict of humilitie, not of pride, of loue, not of an­ger, like that betweene our Lord and the Baptist erst, refu­sing to thinke himselfe worthie to baptize him. Which yet in Peter is more, to thinke himselfe not worthie to die like him. Besides, that Iohn was faine to yeild in the ende, but herin Peter had his desire. And which is more singular, not onely the kind of strife, to striue for loue, but against the nature of loue, which delights in likenesse, that he should choose a contrarie positure of bodie, to testifie his loue to his Lord and master. Indeede we haue those now a daies in the Popedome, that loue to beare themselues [...] Euseb. vbi su prà. [...], contrarie to Christ, both liuing and dying, true Torti as the Bishop hath prooued them: but S. Peter affected this of meere modestie, which is able to make impression into a marble heart: These whither not climbing and soa­ring in the meane time, with the wings of such ambition, as not I, but F. T. euen now described, (where it is thought T should stand before F, but for crookednes sake,) not onely to controll Kings and Countries with their Vniuersall do­minion, but to challenge as much power as Christ himselfe, the Adioynd. c. 1. num. 4. Head of the Church? And yet they make as if it were doubt­full, whether Anti-Christ be come yea or no, whether he sit in the Church of God, shewing himselfe for God, or no. But we haue strayed out of the way, by occasion of this mention, that S. Peter was exalted to the likenes or fellowship [Page 34] of our Sauiours martyrdome. Which the Bishop hauing abated them in his citation of S. Austen, I confesse also they should neuer haue heard from me, but that this man complained of lame allegations. As for the force it might seeme to carry, against our Sauiours single and soueraigne sacrifice, I shall neede to say no more then in the Apostles words, If one member suffers, all suffer with it; euen the head and all, but 1. Cor. 12. 26. then especially I trow, when they suffer for the head, as S. Peter did suffer for the honour of his Master, in some like­nes with his Master, and yet not daring to die too like his Master. And our Sauiour though in glorie, yet he cried from heauen, (that you may knowe hee is the true Dauid, whome Saul annoyeth,) Saul, Saul, Why persecutest thou me? Which words, as if they had taught S. Paul what to thinke Act 9. 4. of the fellowship of sufferings of the bodie mysticall, he is bold to say afterwards in his owne case, Adimpleo in corpore meo relliquias. passionum Christi, pro corpore eius quod est Eccle­sia: Coloss. 1. I fulfill in my bodie the remainder of Christs sufferings, for his bodie which is the Church. Where pro is exemplarie, not satisfactorie, against the Rhemists that dreame of a masse of passions, vpon that place. So doth the Masse forsooth runne in their mindes. But we speake of his calling them passiones Christi, for sympathie, and for proportion; of which e­nough.

§ 22. To returne to S. Austen, and to conclude this whole matter with relating his text as largely as you can desire. The summe is, that the Church must bee gratious toward her children, conuerting and returning by repentance, as our Sauiour was to Peter, the image of the Church, or the proxie of the Church (for I feare not to vouch that name by him, which hath euery where so good grounds in S. Au­sten, as you haue heard) and bearing her person not without cause. For euen Peter (quoth he) found fauour after many de­faults. Let her shew her selfe like Peter then, whome Peter figu­red, and the rather figured, because himselfe was a sinner, yea a great sinner, as the Church containes many offenders in her. [Page 35] That here also you may see another reason, Sir, though you haue beene twice answered to this question before, why Peter rather then another figured the Church, name­ly, because Peter beeing a great sinner, and yet after his sinnes finding greater grace, was so much the apter to re­present her, which in both these kinds is verie notorious, both abundantis peccati, and super-abundantis gratiae, of sur­passing grace after exceeding guiltinesse, Rom. 5. Our Sa­uiours Parable is not vnknowne to this purpose, Luk. 7. (propounded to a Simon, though not this Simon) which of the two debters ought more? The case was Peters owne, both a great debter, and released of much, and perhaps our Sauiour deliuered it as in his hearing, so not without some reference to him standing by. But at least for this cause he bare the person of the Church. And so Petri lapsus potiùs De Pont. Rom. l. 1. c. 28. The Adioyndet also cap. [...]. confirmat primatum Pap [...], as Bellarmine saies; Peters fall ra­ther confirmes the primacie of the Pope. But you see what primatum, what kind of primacie, not to be vniuersall Lord or rector, but the Churches type, or the Churches figure, to teach the Church as you would say, by way of liuely instance, to shew grace, as hee had found grace, and shee both in her owne, and his person. This was his masterie that he had ouer the Church, to be master of mildnesse, and we denie not but aboue the rest of the Apostles. Doest thou loue mee more then these? Alas, how could he choose, to whome so much was forgiuen? then shew compassion.

§ 23. Now the faults of S. Peter, that S. Aust. had set down, but not so F. T. no more then he durst set downe his owne name aright, nay which purposely he leapes ouer, though they were incident to his allegation, as you may see in his first chap. num. 3. and yet blames the Bishop for maimed quotations, they are these insuing. 1 First, his doubting vp­on the sea. And if the sea be his seat, or the whole Church, as they imagine, you see in what danger the Church is to haue a staggering gouernour, I say staggering euen in faith. 2 Secondly, his disswading our Lord from death: You [Page 36] will say, that was no great matter: of which neuerthelesse you may be pleased to remember what our Sauiours cen­sure was, heauie no doubt. He called him Satan. 3 Thirdly, the snipping off of Malchus his care with a sword, wherein his pretended Successors imitate him but too truely. What though they strike no blow themselues? Executio (saies Bellarmine) ad alios spectat. Let Seneca be heard. It is thou, Contr. Barcl. saith Seneca, speaking to Alexander, (who transported by anger, commanded Lysimachus to be cast to a lyon, and so De Clem. lib. 1. cap. 25. torne in peeces, and deuoured) it is thou that openest thy iawes vpon him, it is thou that tearest him in peices with thy teeth: Tuum illud os est, tua illa feritas. O quàm cuperes, &c. The like may be said of Daniel and his enemies. But this, F. T. durst not so much as once to mention, he knowes it makes so harsh a sound. And therefore he fetches a leap from Peters doubting, to his denying, and pares away three of his errors with an & caetera, which S. Austen had com­prehended, and set downe in specie. I haue heard of some, that thinke for Peter to drawe his sword at Malchus, be­cause Malchus in Hebrew signifies a King, as we are taught by S. Ierome, de vitâ Malchi, was either a presage, or a iusti­fication of the Popes practises at this day. A presage it might well be. But as for iustification, they may call to mind how our Sauiour approoued it, threatning the sword to them that tooke the sword, though it were Peter him­selfe: Matth. 26. 52. for euen to Peter were those words directed. Not to them that beare the sword, as committed to them by God, which is the right and the duty of the ciuill magistrate, but to them that Rom. 13. 2. Accipient iudi­ciun ( [...]) [...]cilicet qu [...]a ac­cipiunt gladium non sibi com­missum. take it, that is, manage it without cōmission either by themselues or others, as the Popes at this day. Therefore lib. de Pati­ent. Tertull. most wittily, Patientia Domini in Mal­cho vulnerata est: Our Lords patience was wounded in Malchus: or, That which Malchus felt in his care, our Lord felt at his very heart. It displeased him so much, that a Churchman should strike. Therefore also hee healed the wound by miracle, and restored his care vnto him againe. [Page 37] Which was not ordinarie, to doe miracles, for the cure of vnbeleeuers, specially oppressours and impugners of his person; but that the importance of the cause so required it, and to shew how iniurious he accounted such curtesie, when those which are Church-men will draw the sword, though it be in defence of his truth or person.

§ 24. 4 The fourth error there named, was his ter negâsse Do­minu, triple deniall of his Lord and Sauiour. To which an­swers, as you haue beene told, his triple confession, which makes way to the mandate of Pasce oues meas, exciting care, and studie, and diligence, but importing nothing lesse then Monarchicall iurisdiction. Though S. Austen also finde an other mysterie there, namely of Trinitie in vnitie, in the threefold confession exhibited by one man, in the name of the Church, as we heard before out of his Tractate vpon S. Iohn: Confirmat Trinitatem, vt consolidet vnitatem.

§ 25. 5 The fift & last, is his superstitious simulation, as S. Aust. calls it, that at Antioch, no doubt, of which Gal. 2. This also the Adioyner thought good to leaue out, celans pec­cata sicut Adam, either because it drawes so neare an error in faith, or at least for subiecting the Monarch of the whole world, to the open resistance and reproofe of an abortiue; Tom. 5. [...]. In Epist. ad De­syder. though S. Chrysostome be so farre from vnderualuing Paul therefore, that he doubts not to call him [...], him that of last was made first: (where is primus Aposto­lus now?) and Petrus Damiani, that he was antepositus omni­bus fratribus, preferred before all his brethren, like little Beniamin (saith he) of whose tribe he came. And againe S. Chrysost. [...], nay, [...], no bo­die comes neere Paul, no not any thing neere. Vpon the first to the Coloss. [...]. Ethico. And Aquinas in his commen­tarie on the first to the Galatians, saies Paul is wont to be painted on the right hand, and Peter on the left, (for euen your Schoolemen are miserably troubled with arguments drawne from pictures) because Christ from heauen called the one to the Apostleship, from earth the other. But so [Page 38] much of these. I might adde more.

§ 26. For so it followes in S. Austen, Pax in Domino red­dita Ecclesiae à Principibus saeculi: peace in the Lord was af­forded to the Church by the secular Princes. Which is as pleasant to a Iesuits eare to heare, as vineger to the teeth, or smoake to the eyes, as Salomon saies, to thinke that the outward welfare of the Church should depēd on the Prin­ces gratious aspect, who if they be auerse, they knowe a meanes worth two of S. Pauls, to reduce them to order, not by prayer or supplication to God for them, 1. Tim. 2. 1. for either they will inforce them, or make them rue it, ei­ther bow or breake, as the prouerb is. But S. Austen euery where acknowledges Kings to be those kind nursing fa­thers, from whose gouernment flowes the Churches peace. And it is well knowne how he deriues it out of the second Psalme, Et nunc Reges intelligite, ver. 10. as if the meanes to order well the Church, and to promote the kingdome, of which it is said a little before, in the same Psalme, Yet haue I set my King vpon my holy hill of Sion, were the right per­swasion of Princes concerning the faith. So as against Fau­stus the Manichee, lib. 12. cap. 32. he saies, the Emperours ra­ging were the lyons deuouring, (S. Paul himselfe calls Ne­ro the lyon, not for nothing, but because king of beasts:) but againe when they conuerted and embraced the faith, and gaue succour and supportance to such as professed relligi­on, then was Sampsons riddle verefied, then was honie foūd in the lyons mouth, then exforti exiuit dulce, and the mouth that afore roared against God, and his truth, (Quare fremue­runt is the lyons propertie in the Psalme aforesaid) then, munimenta latebras (que) dabat dulcedini verbi Euangelici, became a refuge, or a couering to the honie-combe of the Gospel. And because we speake of lyons, which are soueraigne in their kind, kings of beasts, saies Epiphan. haer. 77. it may not be forgotten how the same S. Austen, more then once or twice, compares the enemies of Christian religion, Kings and Emperours, to the lyons that Daniel was cast vnto, amōgst [Page 39] whose hands neuerthelesse God preserued his Saints, for they that hurt the bodie could not hurt the soule, by our Sauiours saying; but when once they turned Christians, and enacted Lawes, and decreed punishments, for the sup­pressing Epist. 50 & lib. 1. contr. Gau­dent. c. 39. of Atheisme, or heresie, or Paganisme, or whatsoe­uer is contrarie to the glorious Gospel of our Lord Iesus Christ, then they were like the lyons, which deuoured, not Deniel, but Daniels accusers, and reuenged vpon them the wrong that they had done to him before. I see I should be long, if I would bring, not all, but the least part of the store that is found here of in S. Austens workes. I will point onely to that in another place of his of the like argument, where, as here he ascribes the temporall peace and prospe­rity of the Church, to the fauourable countenance of Chri­stian Kings; so, there to shew what authoritie they haue in the matters of God, he doubts not to set out their suppres­sing of heresies, and Atheisme, and schismes, in such a pe­remptory sort, as to say Post subuer­sa idola, post flagellatum dia­bolum &c. Cu­ius simile habes apud S. Cypr. contra Deme­trian. Torquen­tur spiritualibus flagris &c. Itē, de Idolot. van. Item, de bono Patient. Zabu­lus flagellatur cum Angelis suis. that they haue whipped & scour­ged the very deuills (the authors of the aforesaid) both by sea and land, both out of towne and countrey. It is well knowne, what enemies the Iesuits are to the Kings enter­medling with matters of this nature, to his handling the whip to lash the deuill, for his sowing of cockle amongst good corne; whome they perhaps would exempt, as a spi­rituall person, from the Kings iurisdiction, besides that the cause is a cause of faith. But S. Austen, though he knewe well that the deuill is not onely spirituall, but euen one of the spiritualia nequitiae in coelestibus, as S. Paul styles him, E­ph. 6. 12. one of the spirituall wickednesses in heauenly places, and so in regard euen of his place to be priuiledg­ed, yet doubts not to put a whip into the Emperours hand, I say, nor cares not though he crie out, or the Iesuits for him, Who art thou that torments vs thus without a calling? But we stray too farre. Howsoeuer it be, as I promised our gentleman to giue him good measure, so S. Austens ending must by no meanes be passed ouer, for the elegancie of it.

[Page 40] § 27. Speaking then against the Hereticks, descended of one Lucifer, that denied pardon to the conuerts of the Church, from which occasion sprang all this treatie about S. Peter, he thus saies; Hanc illi matris charitatem superbè ac­cipientes, & impièrepudiantes, quia Petro post galli cantum sur­gentinon gratulatisunt, cum Lucifero qui mane oriebatur, cade­re meruerunt. That is: These men, either proudly and scorn­fully receiuing, or wickedly reiecting the charitie of their mother, because they reioyced not with Peter rising after the cock-crow, they iustly fell with Lucifer that earely-ri­sing starre.

§ 28. We haue gone thorough the Chapter, which the Adioyner condemnes the Bishop for lamely quoting. Yet I can hardly abstaine from yeilding him somewhat, out of the next Chapter too, to fulfill his measure, to mingle him double in the cup, whereofhe complaines of the scantnes. Ita (que) miseri (saies S. Austen, speaking stil of the Luciferians, but it fits but euen too wel with out stout-hearted Iesuits) dum in Petro petram non intelligunt, & nolunt credere datas ec­clesiae claues regni coelorum, ipsi eas de manibus amiserunt. They haue lost the keyes whilst they talke so much of them, and all because they vnderstand not, or will not vnderstand, Petrum in petrâ, that is, Ecclesiam in Christo, as S. Austen be­fore expounded it in his 13. Serm. de verb. Dom. secundum Matth. that is, the Church in Christ. So neither Peter the petra, as they would faine make him, nor Peter at all, but Petrus in petra, that is, Ecclesia in Christo, or populus Christia­nus, and fidelis in Christo, the Church in Christ, or the num­ber Vide Bedam, vt suptà. of the faithfull, as they are recollected in Christ, is it to whome the keyes are here giues. But F. T. and his fellows, nolunt credere datas Ecclesiae claues regni coelorum, will not beleeue that the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were gi­uen to the Church, and why, but quia Petrum in petrá non in­telligunt, they will not vnderstand the mysterie of Peter, not in himselfe, but in the rocke, that is, in Christ: S. Austens prophesie, their propertie at this day.

[Page 41] § 29. It followes in him yet, against such as forbid se­cond marriages. Qui S. Hierome was of another minde, for the puritie of Marriage; (though reputed somewhat partiall) then either these hereticks, or the Papists. Com. in Tit. 2. Credant coniugati se opera libirorum perpetrare ante oculos Dei & Angelorum. Therefore not reprehensible. S. Chrysostome saies, that yong men go crowned to their marriage, in the places of Greece, where he liued, to shew they haue triumphed ouer the lusts of youth, and are now past daunger of temptation. Com. in 1. Tim. 3. Serm. 9. in Ethico. And againe, that our Sani­our turned water into wine, at a marriage, to shew the power and the effect of marriage, which is to restrain the frailties of nature, as wine hath a binding quality ouer water, Ipso fine Com. in Epist. ad Coloss. Origen in 17. Gen. hom. 3 saies that Abraham and his wife deser­ued to be called Pretbyteri, and were so indeede, that is to say Priests: for he construes himselfe to meane, not age, but ripenesse of vnderstanding. See you to what dignitie married women may come, not onely men? See lastly S. Ausien cont. Faust. l. 5. c. 9. where he iustifies holy marriage against Faustus and his in­pure litter, by those places of the Apostle, where in he giues rules to families; as husbands, wiues, fathers, children, masters, seruants, as carefully as Ignatius, or Frances, euer did to their Fraternities. Which is a signe of the reuerent estimation that he had of them. Quid dicemus de illis, quorum domoi tam solerti & diligenti curá componit Apostolus? &c. cum super Apostolicam doctrinam se mundiores praedicent, sinomen suum vellent ag­noscere, mundanos se, potiùs quàm mundos, vocarēt. Who pretending themselues cleaner farre then the Apostles doctrine, are found to be cleane besides all praise of cleannes. If you aske, why so? the reason is rendered in the next words; Cogunt viduas suas vri, quas nubere non premittunt. Non enim prudentiores habendi sunt quàm A­postolus Paulus, qui ait, Malo eas nubere quàm vri. They compell, saies he, their widowes to burne, whome they forbid to marrie, whereas they should not be coū ­ted wiser then the Apostle Paul, who saies, I had rather they should marrie then burne. But no doubt while they affect a purity aboue the Apostles do­ctrine, they might giue themselues, if so it pleased them, a name more agreeable to their filthie sect. The world hath not yet forgotten, how roundly Bellarmine replies vpon his MAIESTIE, moderately censuring their restraint of mariages, which yet they would haue to be so many Sacra­ments, that marriages before the vow indeede are Sacraments, but after that, sacriledges. S. Austen makes it free here for all to marrie, that find themselues to be They compell to burn: whō they forbid to marrie, saith S. Austen, implying, con­tinence is not so cheape or vulgar as the Papists giue out. For then, what compulsion to burne, I pray you, though marriage were forbidden? in daunger of burning, windowes and all, and who knowes but vowed and professed wi­dowes? The rule is generall, and he applies it generally, without any limitation, Malo eas nubere quàm vri: I had rather they should marrie then burne: frō which it is not to be thought he would excuse any. S. Paul him­selfe, [Page 42] 1. Tim. 5. 12. though he speake of widowes, that had giuen their first faith, suppose, as you construe it, their faith and vow to remaine widowes, yet afterward in the 14, he giues them leaue to marrie, since they could keepe it no better; I will haue younger widowes marrie. Where it were hard to construe yonger widowes twice named, v. 12. and 14. and one time condemned for their wantonnesse after vow, desiring to marrie, another time licensed to marrie, as for remedie, (They will marrie, v. 12. and S. Paul, I will haue [...] [...]. [...]. in ad Tim. Volo quia volunt. them marrie, v. 14.) I say it were hard to construe these two, of two sundrie kinds of widows, the one vowed, the other not vowed, whereas then the remedie were no remedie, if it be not a remedie against such as made default: and if Paul allowed the vowed widowes to marrie, though not with­out checke for breaking their vow, then Bellarmines sacri­ledge is no sacriledge, but rather his doctrine sacrilegious. Also Chrysost. hom. [...]. in [...] (not sparing belike the Vow and all) [...]: that is, Runne as much as thou please (the way of continence) but when thou art a­weary, and canst go no farther, take the remedy of marriage to thee. Whereto he addes the rea­son, Because the higher pitch, the greater fall. I might shew the same out of Lib. 1. Ep. 11. ad Pompon. S. Cyprians words are these: Si se ex fide Christo dicauerunt, pudirè & ca­stè perseverent: si perseverare nolunt, vel non possunt, melius est vt nubant, &c. And Epiphanius himselfe may seeme to say as much, where he is thought to say the contrarie: viz haeresi 61. qua Apostolico­rum est. Melius est lapsum à cursu, palàm sibi vxo­rem sumere secundum legē, &c. It is better for him that is stūbled in his course [of intended continence] to marry a wife in the sight of the world ac­cording to law, then &c. As for that, Peccatum est converti ad nuptias post virginitatem decretam: First, a light name, Peccatum, not Sacrilegium. Secondly, Peccatum, id est, non sine peccato, by reason of the rash vow. And Epiphanius allowes soone after, that melius est vnum peccatum habere quim plurae, which con­cernes this case very neerly. Besides that those Councells which cōdemne this inconstancie, punish it but lightly, and command not the marriage to be dissolued, as in other cases. See Concil. Neo­caesar. Can. 2. Matrimonio soluto admittatur ad p [...]nitentiam. Not so here. Cyprian, de S. Virg. cap. 34. Austen, ad Demetr. Ierome: I might shew it out of some of the auncientest Concil. Calched. Can. 16. censures them very gently, though it reprooue them. The like doth Con. Aneyr. Can. 19. And E [...]a [...] ▪ Sa, verb. Ornatus, makes it veniall for a Nun to decke & beu­tifie her selfe, though it be with danger of pleasing a yong mans fancie. Yet inducens in periculum con­trahendi mortalis mortale est, saith the same Sa, verb. Curiositas Therefore Nuns marriages are not so damnable. How much lesse then are others▪ sith these are counted among the most dangerous. Councels. I might alleadge Medina obseruing as much, though he ouerthrow it a­gaine, like a cow that hath giuen a good soope of milke, so with the dash of his heele: In contrarium est D. Thomas. What maruell if Thomas be of such authoritie, when Baron. in Martyrolog. Rom. Martij 7. some of you haue recorded, that in conclusi­on of your famous Coūcell of Trent, [Page 43] the Fathers cried out there, as if they had done a great act, vpon the name of S. Thomas, ascribing the winning of the day to him. Iust as Plato in his Timaeus, makes the maker of the world to congratulate his owne paines in the assembly of his pettie-gods, after the creation. And yet some thinke that Thomas is not so firme for vowes, but when they proue Seconda [...]. qu. 88. art. 10. inconuenient, he giues leaue to break them. But so much of S. Aust. and his authority, cited out of de Agon. Christ. c. 30. where F. T. complaines the Bishop to haue left out so much. Are these, trow you, the things that the Bishop left out?

§ 30. ANOTHER testimonie conforme to that of S. Austens, to shewe either the force, or the extent of the commission giuen to Peter in Pasce oues meas, the Bishop produced out of S. Ambrose, another of the fowre Doctors of the Church, of their owne registring, that it may satisfie the more. In ore du­orum, praesertim tanti, testium. De sacerdotali dignitate, as now the title runnes, though it hath runne otherwise in times past, cap. 2. not as F. T. wrongly cites, the first. Quas oues, & quem gregem, non solùm tunc B. suscepit Petrus, sed & nobiscum eas suscepit, & cum illo eas nos suscepimus omnes. That is, Which sheep, and which flocke, not onely Blessed Pe­ter then receiued, but both he receiued them with vs, and with him we all haue receiued them. As for the pregnancy of this testimonie, and that it toucheth to the quicke, what need we say more, when we haue our aduersary confessing, Cap. 1. num. 7. Adioynd. that this manner of speech doth indeede inforce a greater equalitie betwixt S. Peter and other Pastors, then euer S. Ambrose did imagine, he meanes then can subsist with their supposed primacie or Papacie of Peter. But how does he answer it? Forsooth they are said not to bee Ambrose his words, not those at least, & nobiscum eas suscepit, both he receiued them with vs, &c. And why so? Because first they are contrarie to Ambrose his iudgement in other pla­ces, but specially because they are not extant in the printed [Page 44] copies, and in a word are meerely of the Bishops forging. 1 A great fault, if it can be prooued; if not, a great slaunder, as all men may see, and sufficient to cracke the Adioyners credit, through out the rest of his whole booke. It may please the Reader then to vnderstand; that of sundry edi­tions of S. Ambrose which haue been set forth, though we could not come by all to consult them; yet so many are foūd to haue those words, which he quarrels to be foisted, as may easily shew, on which side the corruption lyeth, ours for adding, or theirs for defacing and with-drawing. Fiue editions at Basile, and all in seuerall yeares are found to haue them: Ann. 1506. 1516. 1527. the first of Iohannes Petri à Langendorfe his setting forth, the third is Erasmus first edition. Adde another at Basile, ann. 1538. And yet a fift of Costerius his edition, ann. 1567. all which haue them. Of Paris likewise fiue: one, ann. 1529. another, 1539. a third, 1549. a fourth, 1569. a fift, 1586. And so we might goe ouer a great many more, but here is tenne for any one that can be shewed yet to haue them not. Though as wee daily seeke, we find more daily: as a sixt edition at Basile, ann. 1492. ancienter then any that hath been cited yet, and further off from any likelihood to be corrupted by the Bi­shop. Adde hither foure manuscripts, which haue them all. One which is now in his Maiesties librarie, sometimes belonging to the Monasterie of Rochester, giuen by Os­Ketel a monke before the conquest, faire written, and with­out all exception. True it is that S. Ambrose his booke is entituled there, Sermo de obseruantiâ Episcoporum; but it is the same word for word, with De dignitate sacerdotali, the booke which we now treat of. An other is of Merton col­ledge in Oxford, which hath also those words; though the title of the booke be changed, as in the former, yet vtterly the same it is for substance. It is there intituled, De obser­uantijs Episcoporum, qui inscribitur Pastorale; but the same, as I said. The third is of Peter-house librarie in Cambridge, which they that will consult may finde the words in, and [Page 45] see the slaunder confuted with their eies. A fourth in Sidney Colledge librarie, of the same Vniuersitie, giuen by Mr. Mascall, which to this purpose hath been consulted, and is found to haue them. We will neuer denie but Sixtus quin­tus his edition, which he set out at Rome, before hee was Pope, and so the lesse irrefragable forsooth, hath them not. And accordingly an other edition of Paris, ann. 1603. which professes to goe step by step with that of Rome, lea­ueth them out. But what is that to controule so many aun­cient editions? Or does it not shew, that those words are so effectuall against your primacie (as your selfe at a blush confessed ere-while, saying that S. Ambrose neuer meant to bee so liberall) that because you could not wrest them with any forged interpretation, you had rather cut them out then abide the hazard? And yet it is found, that be­tween the Rome edition, of which I spake euen now, and that of Paris, ann. 1603. professing to followe it in euery point, there is an other of Paris, ann. 1586. which retaines the said words in spight of Rome. Concerning the Lyons, or rather the lyars edition of ann. 1559. by Frellonius, you may please to read what Iunius reports of his owne know­ledge, in his preface to the Index expurgatorius; you will not onely quit the Bishop from such blame, as now you cast vpon him most vnworthily, but acknowledge to your shame, that as you haue vsed small conscience towards any of the Fathers, so least to Ambrose, of all other, for abusing him. I will set downe a little of the storie that hee tells there, and so passe on to your next argument. When I The fellonious Edition of S. Ambrose at Lyons. was at Lyons, saith he, in the yeare 1559. I was acquainted with a certaine corrector of the Presse, whose name was Ludouicus Saurius. And comming one day to visit him, I found him by chance, or rather by the speciall prouidence of God, reuising S. Ambrose's works, which then Frelloni­us was in printing. And after much talke on both sides, when I had told him I would not hinder his worke, he rea­ding afresh a page of that worke, Do you see (quoth he) the [Page 46] fashion of this our edition of Ambrose, how neat, how ac­curate, and if you regard the sight, to bee preferred before all that haue been yet printed? Afterward as I considered and applauded the goodnes of it; Well, for all that (quoth he) if I were to buy me a copy of Ambrose, I would buy a­ny rather then this that you see. And demanding of him the reason of his so saying, he brought out certaine pages out of the decks vnder his table, in which pages there were two rowes one against the other, such as they call cancella­tioperis, and thus added: Looke you (quoth he) this is the first forme of our pages, which within these few dayes we printed after a copy of verie good credit. But two Fran­ciscan Friers by their authoritie dashed all this good work, and in place of the first sheets, made vs print these that you saw euen now, cleane besides all the direction of our co­pies, with no small hinderance and trouble to Frellonius, &c. This reports Iunius of his owne experience, touching your corrupting of Saint Ambrose; And so much of that point.

§ 31. 2 Your other argument is drawne from certaine places of that Father, which seeme contrarie to this, you say, and so this not to be admitted for his. The first is vpon the 12. of the second to the Corinth. Primatum non accepit Andreas sed Petrus: Not Andrew, but Peter, receiued the primacie. The other, lib. 10. comment, in Luc. cap. 24. Quia solus profitetur ex omnibus Petrus, ideò omnibus antefertur. Be­cause Peter onely professes emong them all, therefore he is honoured or preserred before all. Which the Bishop had as­soyled euen before they were alleadged, acknowledging, as I haue said, two such primacies in Peter, as no way cros­sing with S. Ambrose, no way aduantage your cause. The first is ordinis, the second praestantiae. The one of order, the other of eminencie. And the one in one, the other in the o­ther testimonie of S. Ambrose may be conceiued. Accepit primatum, you say. A primacie of order beeing to be giuen to some, to auoide confusion, as we shall afterward shew, [Page 47] the Lord that diuideth inter flammas ignium, and much more betweene one brother and another, which comes saliens & transiliens, as it is in the Cant. and of two bedfellowes, of two grinders at the mill, receiues one, refuses the other, preferd Peter before Andrew his brother. What is this to the Popedome? what to a Monarchie? what, I say not to their stately, but euen statarie and ordinarie supremacie in the Church? Was this to descend from S. Peter to his heires? which we are told here is so aliene from carnall preroga­tiue, that therefore it was giuen to Peter before Andrew, to shew it is meerely of diuine disposition. Though the more I consider S. Ambrose his words, the more me thinkes they fall vpon another answer of the Bishops, and that pro­per enough. He speakes in one word of primatus communis, Hieron. ad Pam­mach. de obitu Paulin. Primus erat, sed inter primos. So, De­cem-primi apud Ci [...]er. And, Mul­tiori [...] (in E­uang.) multi [...] postremi. not primatus proprius. So Clemens in Eusebius before quo­ted, [...], so Gal. 2. [...], and [...]: so here in this very place that S. Ambrose comments vpon, [...]. Which was a primacie of many, and S. Paul himselfe had a place in it, though called after Peter was made a Monarch, if euer he was made, euen as Ambrose here confesses; Hoc erant quod & Apostolus Paulus: They were the same that Paul, and Paul that they. The wonder then lies here. Andrew that followed first (that by the way you may see how little senioritie preuailes in Gods school, which yet you so trust vnto) receiued not the primacie that Peter did, that is, was none of those three primi wherof Pe­ter was. Neither say ye, that because Peter onely is menti­oned here, onely opposed to Andrew, therefore only Peter receiued the primacie in S. Ambroses meaning. For Peter is opposed to Andrew, as one brother to another, and the iu­nior to him which is knowne to haue resorted more carely to Christ, which comparison betweene him and others were not so cleare. For euen Andrew brought Peter to Christ, Ioh. 1. Now the other primatus, which is primatus praestantiae, as the Bishop had called it, and so foyled this fel­lowes friuolous obiections, euen before they were hatch­ed, [Page 48] belongs to the other place. Quia solus profitetur, solus antefertur. But anteferri is one thing, praeponi another. The latter may be of authoritie, the first of any excellencie. Doe I seeme once againe too grammaticall to you? To you perhaps: but how doe you gainsay me? Anteferri, I say, is one thing, as to be esteemed before another, to be graced before another, like anteire, antecellere, and if you haue any more like. For it was not no grace for S. Peter here, to be bid to feede, as a common man, an vniuersall man, as one in whose person the others were exhorted, and as S. Austen saies, the Church represented. Thus, quia solus profitetur ex omnibus, omnibus antefertur. And lastly, martyrij corona decer­nitur, as S. Ambrose here saies, he is promised martyrdome in those words, Cum senueris &c. which is no small glorie. In which place also by the way, you may see the libertie of Ecclesiasticall men, that you so stand vpon. When Peter was yong, that is, before he was Apostle, he might go whi­ther Ioh. 11. he would. Afterward he was to follow against his will. Is this exemption? But because you conferre place with place, to perswade vs that we construe S. Ambrose amisse, I hope you will giue vs the like leaue hereafter, to conferre diuerse places of the Fathers with themselues, before wee assent to that which you produce out of them. And yet it followes in S. Ambrose, after, omnibus antefertur, as it were by way of reason, Maior enim omnibus charitas est: for charity is greater then all. So as Peters anteferri, is neither groun­ded vpon his priuiledge of retaining the faith, as you would make it, of his loue rather, which you confesse often to haue failed in your Popes, (as if the after-name Peter had abolished Simon, qui interpretatur obediens, as Beda notes) and the prioritie, if he had any assigned him ouer o­thers, Serm. In Cath. Petri. is onely like Charities among other virtues, which is to be principall indeede, but not to rule. The virtues of the prosequutiue part rule not the intellectuall, but are ruled rather. So Faith and Loue.

§ 33. As for vicarium amoris, which is another thing [Page 49] that you vrge out of his Comment vpon Luke, that Christ left Peter the Vicar of his loue, or the deputie of his loue, as if therefore he were that Vicar of his power, or iurisdiction that you imagine, what so vnlikely? Of the Vicar of our Sauiour you may read in S. Iohn, cap. 16. Alium paracle­tum & cap. 14. De praescrip. dabit vobis: and Tertullian hath been told you to giue that to the holy Ghost. He is the Paraclete. Though you haue Cletus and Anacletus, yet neuer a Paracletus, the Vicar of our Lord, properly so called, in all the ranke of your Popes. For we must desire you now, that we may haue no Montanizing. Though, I suppose, you are not ignorant, what an ornament of yours had like to haue been transpor­ted, with the enticing prophecyes and Siren-songs of Mi­stresse Maximilla, when time was. S. Austen also answera­bly in his sermon vpon the Epiphanie, 185. Datur vicarius Redemptoris, meaning the holy Ghost: and yet he addes, Vt quod ille redemit, iste sanctificet, quod ille inchoauit, iste consum­met. Is this Peter? Does he sanctifie those whom Christ redeemed? or does hee perfect that which Christ began? But Ambrose cals Peter vicarium amoris, the deputy of Christs Heb. 7. 24. [...]. Bellarm. calls it blasphemie, to say the holy Ghost is Christs vicarius. loue. And who doubts, but as Christ hath no proper depu­tie in the course of his gouernement, vnlesse you wil admit the holy Ghost before named, which Bellarmine denies to doe, so, in a modified sense, the Vicars of his loue were as many as loued her in his absence, whom he loued, and im­ployed all their care to benefit his Church? which was not one mans charge, but all the Apostles, and not onely the Apostles, but all ministers, to the ende of the world. A­lij pastores vicarij sunt illius pastoris, saies Lyra vpon Ioh. 10. 16. Yea Ambrose himselfe; Omnes Episcopi (if not Presbyte­ri) sunt vicarij Christi, vpon 1. Tim. 5. 19. And you may adde the two Eusebij, one of Rome in his Epist. ad Episc. Tus­ciae & Campaniae, if it be not forged by you, Caput Ecclesiae Christus est, Christi autem vicarij sacerdotes sunt. The head of the Church is Christ, and Christs Vicars art the Priests. The other the Emesene, in his sermon vpon Ioh. 20. Domini­câ [Page 50] primâ post pascha; making it common to the Disciples all to be Christs deputies, Meos Vicarios vos constituo, meâ vi­ce vos mando, I make you my Vicars, I appoint you in my stead. In Tractatu de ordin. Epil. & in­vestituta Laic. Edit. lat. Sirm. Iesuita, p 418. Sed & Aquinas co [...]n Heb. 13. Dicit a [...]tē Chri­stum Pastorem magnum, quod omnes alq sunt [...]arij eius, &c. Vnde 1. Pet. 5. PRINCIPS PA­CTORVM vocatur. Goffridus Vindocinensis thus we read: Episcopus [om­nis] Dominus est & Imperat on Christianorum, qui etiam Christi vices agere creditur. And not onely Bishops, or Ministers; but as Christ loued vs, so for vs to loue one another, and in that sense to be the deputies of his loue (in which onely sense S. Ambrose meant it of S. Peter, sauing that he was to doe the workes of loue as an Apostle) is no more then is inioyned to euery Christian. Though S. Ambrose say onely velut vioarium amoris, not daring to say vicarium cleane out, as the nature of his office, as you would make it, but shewing that he speaks in a borrowed phrase, and as it is proper to none, so in that extent perhaps befitting many. Therefore Bellarmine leaues the velut clean out, citing this authoritie, de Pont. Rom. l. 1. c. 25.

§ 34. THERE is yet behind another graue obser­uation out of S. Ambrose, that Peter is not bid now to feede the lambes, or little sheepe, but ones ipsas, M [...]n Iob. 21. Qui disputat cui agnos poti­us quàm ones Christus vocet suos [quasi di­stinguens inter haec duo] videat ne doctis ho­minibus risum praebeat. Nihil discriminis est in re, sed in vo­ce tantùm. that is, the more perfect. I might send this noddie to M. Casaubones late monument, or rather mirrour of Exercit. 16. c. 133. ad Annal. Baron. Exercita­tions to Baronius his Annales, to be informed of S. Ambrose his reading this text, and the vprightnes of it. Woe is me for that diuine man M. Casaubone, that speaking of his mo­nument, I should speake ambiguously, of his tombe, or of his writings. But what that hath deuoured, these shall e­ternize, and now is no time to bewaile our losse. Be­cause Peter had lambkins, and lambs, and sheepe, commit­ted to his charge, to be fed by him, suppose incipientes, pro­sicientes, & perfectos, the leafe, the blossome, and the ripe al­mond in Aarons rod, suppose all the steps in Iacobs ladder, at least as it signifies the Church here militant, suppose Prophets and Apostles, Kings and Emperors, the bound­lesse latitude of the Church Christian, Ergò quid? who can [Page 51] replie with patience to such emptie stuffe? Doe we looke it should haue beene said, Feede all saue the Apostles? or, all saue Princes? why should Princes and Apostles not profit by Peter? why should they be denied the benefit of his feeding? why should not all the Apostles feede all the world? why should not one Apostle feede another, Peter his fellowes, and they Peter? As I thinke Paul fed him, and that with his staffe too, tipt with iron, (I haue heard some construe virgam ferream so, Apoc. 2. and Psal. 2. as alluding to the sheepehooke) I meane with his reproofe, and that at Antioch his owne seat, not onely with fodder, or with greene bowes. As againe, Iames fed him with, viri fratres audite me, Act. 15. 14. you would thinke this were rather the successor of Christ, of whome that was said, Heare you him. And againe ver. 19. [...]. To say nothing of, Sime­on narrauit, in the 14. ver. Not Peter now, but bare Simeon. Doth this prooue a Monarchie ouer the Apostles? Or, if Kings be content to lend an eare to his pipe, and to graze vpon such leaues as he shall cast before them, the word and the Sacraments, that refection of immortalitie, quorum vis August. contr. Faust. l. 19. c. 11. inenarrabiliter valet plurimùm, what is this to your moderne frighting omnipotencie? Me thinks I heare Constantine raui­shed with his note, to yeild thus much, Be you Bishops in the Church, and I without. Me thinks I heare Ʋalentinian call for such a Prelate, as he may safely lay his head in his lappe, Caesareum ca­put—quod caput orbis erat. Ovid. de Trist. but safely, beeing the head, which is the head of the world, as euen the heathen Poet could say. But doth this prooue the terrible power that you striue for, which is neither of kin to Peters feeding, and the daungerousest resort for a Kings head that may be? Nay, how if the Iesuit haue so mistaken himselfe, in his curious distinction betweene lambs and sheepe, that he hath cleane exempted both Apo­stles and Kings from Peters iurisdiction, to bring whome in, and to range them within the compasse of that supreme power, the distinction onely was at first deuised? For if o­ves and agni onely, be S. Peters walke, and he the sheepe­heard, [Page 52] where are arietes, where are the rams? The rams bee­ing the Apostles, by Turrian his exposition, or the successors of the Apostles, that is the Bishops. And againe, the rams beeing meant by Kings, as Tolet will haue it, vpon the 15. of S. Iohn, Annot. 3. Two Iesuits you see I bring him, and the one a Cardinall made for his learning, which I thinke will neuer be his lot. But hath not he spun a faire thread I say, shutting them out, both Apostles and Kings, whome by that very tricke he would haue shut in?

§ 35. And so much of his answer to the first exception, that the Bishop makes against their argument drawne from Pasce oues meas, consisting in the authorities of Austen and Ambrose.

§ 36. IN his second (saith he) he seekes to retort the 2 Adioynd. c. 1. num. 12. &c. Cardinals argument vpon himselfe, & to prooue the Kings supremacie by the word Pasce, for so much as God said also to Dauid, Tu pasces populum meum Israel, Thou shalt feede my people Israel. In retortió to the Cardinalls words, Vbi ne­mo negare potest S. Petrum factū esse pastorem om­nium fi lolium, & ipsorum etiam. A­postolorum, nisi [...] has vtros [...] [...]sse [...] Christi. [...] Where no man can denie (saies the Bishop) but that a King was made the Pastor of all Israel, yea of the Priests themselues, except he will deny them to be part of Israel. But what faies F. T. thinke you, to this? Thus argueth this learned and sharpe Doctor; ouer­throwing his owne argument sufficiently by his owne conclusion, graunting in effect, that if the Priests were not a part of the peo­ple Israel, the King was not their Pastor. These are his prefa­ces, if wee had time to ponder them. And yet it is almost the modestest clause in the Book, of them wherein he be­speakes the Bishop, that the Reader may pardon me, if now and then I be mooued, euen more then he is aware, or pitie me when I am compelled (as often I am for want of leisure) to swallow such curteous girds in silence. The summe is, that in answering to the Bishops retortion, hee would haue the Priests to bee no part of Israel. And once againe you shall discerne the spirit of the man, who thus sets forward. To this purpose then it is to be considered, what I haue amply de­bated [Page 53] in the first Chapter of my Supplement, concerning the ex­emption and separation of the Priests and Leuites from the tem­porall estate, by the expresse words of Almightie God, Numb. 8. who gaue the Leuites to Aaron, and his children, not to the tem­porall Prince: Tradidi eos dono Aaron, & filijs eius, de medio po­puli. And againe, Num. 1. The tribe of Leui shall not be num­bred, nor haue any part with the rest of Israel, but the Lord must be their possession, portion, and inheritance. I must bee short. And so shaking off the Supplement, with other idle comple­ments, though he is not ashamed to set a trūpet to his Pha­risaicall cheeks, and euerie where to display his owne worke, as if there were no other storehouse of learning in the world, no file but this Philistines to whet a witte vpon, consider we as well as we can, what is to bee said to this point, of the exemption of Leuites from the state politick, that is, from their subiection to ciuill Magistrates: for else he saies nothing, sith we knowe the Leuites were not lay-men, and the Priests Priests, not populars. Yet he implyes such a thing, when hauing quoted the text, and not daring to vtter that audacious proposition, that Priests were not subiect to the ciuill Magistrate, he saies onely this, that God reserued them for his owne seruice: which no doubt is the true meaning of the place, but how doth this ouerthrow ciuill obedience?

§ 37. To speake particularly to the places. As for Num. 1. (to beginne with that) Non numerabitur tribus Leui, I could send him to a place, as he does vs, where hee should finde his answer, if Datin be no eie-fore to him, alreadie shaped to a man of his coate; and as it seemes verie reue­rently esteemed by him; I meane Iohn Eudoemon of Crete: but the summe is this. A viewe of the people was to be ta­ken there, either as landed men, or sufficient for the wars. From both which the Leuites beeing exempt by calling, what maruell if with the rest they are not to bee leuied? Therefore children are not numbred, nor yet women, but as it is in the second and third verses, though often repea­ted [Page 54] throughout the Chapter, the more to condemne the blindnesse of this beetle-head: Quicquid sexús est masculini à vicesimo anno & suprà, omnium virorum fortium ex Israel: Whatsoeuer is of the male-sexe, from the twentieth yeare and vpward, of all the valiant men of Israel. Are women and children therefore, nay all vnder twentie, exempt from authoritie? Also Origen hom. 1. in Num. finds no such my­sterie, but makes it a token of perfection, to be numbred cum populo Dei, as the Apostles and Disciples (saith he) whose very haires of their head were numbred, &c. And so likewise in the resurrection, Alius (saith he) numerabitur in tribu Levi, credo qui benè praefuit sacerdotio, alius in aliâ tri­bu. So that he makes Levi to be numbred too. Lastly, Ru­port in his Comment. vpon the place, sees no other myste­rie in these words, saue that Clergie men should by all meanes withdraw themselues from secular affaires, as the holy Canons (saies he) haue decreed.

2 Now, that God is their portion, & that they may haue no foote of land in the land, which is another thing that F. T. here amplifies the separation of the Leuites by, though it is not vnknowne what cities the Leuites enioyed by assigne­ment afterward, yet what is that to the purpose? Onely I confesse they are so much the fitter to be exempted from subiection, if, their lands being taken from them, they haue the lesser meanes now to nourish sedition. But what saies The Archbi­shop of Roane was of another minde for Bi­shops castles. Chron. Angl no­strae sub Rege Ste­phano. Mariana de Institit. Prino. l. 1? Ego volo Episcopis firmissimas arces tradi: I will haue Bishops to be masters of the stron­gest or stateliest castles. Theres a Leuite of the Iesuits, or a prettie leuorite rather, to sucke a Kings heart-blood in time. 3 Concerning Num. 8. I haue giuen them to Aaron and his sonnes for a gift, from the midsts of the people, they are giuen for seruice in the holy calling vnder Aaron, not for any such dependance and obligation towards him, as if thereby they were exempt from the authoritie of the Ma­gistrate. Though the Iesuite crie out here, as hauing attai­ned a conquest, Not to the temporall Prince, but to Aaron. As [Page 55] if the temporall Prince had lost the Leuite, after once God had giuen them to Aaron. Where first I might aske him, whether Aaron were exempt himselfe or no? If not, why the Leuites, and he not? if so, by what gift, by what donation of God? For giuing them to Aaron, hee left Aaron as he was, for ought we read. He will say, Aa­ron was his before; which I graunt, for seruice, but where by exemption from the ciuill Magistrate? What text, what euidence hath he for that? And will he hold that course in making free of apprentises, as to cancell the indenture, or get the Masters release afore he thinke them free, and not the same in disanulling subiection to a Prince? Now, we know how Aaron was taunted by Moses, for making Exod. 32. 21. the calfe. Which is a signe that this discharge from obedi­ence is a fiction. Neither challenge we any other suprema­cie of Princes ouer the Clergie, saue in the like case to pu­nish the exorbitant. Besides, God here giues the Leuite to Aaron, as giuen to him freely by the people. Quos dedistis mihi, dono Aaroni, v. 16. & 18. See you then what the peo­ple may doe in the choice of their Minister? which Bellar­mine by no means can be brought to digest at his MAIE­STIES hāds, alledging it out of Cyprian, as anciently pra­ctised: here you see allowed by God himselfe in a sort, that the people should offer and set apart to him their Priests. And if the peoples giuing of the Leuite to God, did not set them free, why should Gods deliuering them backe to Aa­ron? Is Aarons protection more soueraigne then Gods, to priuiledge the Leuite? Yea you inthrall the Priests to the people vnaware, whiles you labour to exempt them from the Princes authoritie. For you make the people the first author of their infranchizoment, as giuing them to God, and God to Aaron, by which they hold. Lastly, the Le­uites v. 18. were giuen to Aaron, as is manifest by this place, onely in lieu of the first borne of the children of Israel, Opinio haec est Rabbi Moysis, & laudatur à Lyrano in lo­cum. because they by their default and odious idolatry, had made themselues vnworthie to doe God seruice. I demand [Page 56] then: were the first borne exempted before, or no? if so, by what charter? for you bring no euidence but this of the Leuites, Num. 8. If not, how could the single putting of o­thers in their roome, to supplie for them in diuine offices, affoard such priuiledge to the deputies, as the originall mi­nisters neuer enioyed? But to perswade you yet more ful­ly, that no more is implied in these words, then onely to put in one for the other, the Leuites for the first borne, that Aaron and his sonnes might not be destitute of some to serue them, in their religious performances, (besides that the 20. verse specifies so much, where the execution is de­scribed of all that is here commanded, and yet it reaches no further then onely to the application of Aaron and his sons to diuine seruice, together with the Leuites, as Lyra well obserues, without any speech of the least exemption from ciuill authoritie) please you to heare your owne Doctors speake. First Tostatus as the more worthie. I haue read that this Tostatus emulated Turrecremata, another prop of your primacie, both contending at one time who should doe the Pope most seruice. Though he got the Cardinal­ship, yet you are not wont to despise the Bishop for his learning. Thus he saies. [Tradidi eos dono Aaron & filijs eius. In 8. Num. quaest. 21. I haue giuen them for a gift to Aaron and his sonnes.] Id est, Leuitas acceptos pro primogenitis Deus tradidit Aa­ron & filijs suis. That is, God hath deliuered to Aaron and his sonnes, the Leuites, whome he tooke in liewe of the first borne. And after more plainely: Et dicitur quòd tradidit ijs dono, id est, donando, quia deus imposuerat onus toti­us ministerij super Aaron & filios eius. Cum enim dedit ijs Le­uitas vt adiuuarent ipsos, dicobatur dono dare. And it is said that he gaue them for a gift, that is, by way of gift, be­cause God laide the burden of the whole ministerie vp­on Aaron and his sonnes. For when hee gaue them the Leuites to helpe them, he is said to giue them for a gift. So againe, [De medio populi, from the midst of the people,] id est, dedit Leuitas Aaroni, educendo cos de medio populi, quasi [Page 57] dicat; Priùs erant Leuitae, sicut populares, non habentes aliquam specialem dei ministrationem. Posteà cùm deus fecit illos esse suos ministros, dicitur separâsse illos de medio populi, id est, ab alijs popularibus distinguendo eos, in diuersitate ministrationis ijs tra­ditae, quam non habebant alij Israelitae. That is, Hee gaue the Leuites to Aaron, by bringing them forth from the midst of the people. As who would say: Before the Leuites were as the common people, not hauing any speciall seruice of God [inioyned them.] Afterward when God made them to be his ministers, he is said to haue separated them from the middest of the people, that is, by distinguishing them from other of the popular sort, in the diuersitie of the mi­nistration committed to them, which the other Israelites had not. Againe, [Ʋt seruiant mihi pro Israel, that they may serue me for Israel] id est, vt seruiant loco primogenito­rum Israel, &c. That is, That they may serue me in liewe of the first borne of Israel, &c. And indeed these words shew as much as was said before, that, Tradidi dono, was only for seruice. Now heare Lyra. [Statues Leuitas in conspectu Aa­ron, & filiorum eius, & consecrabis oblatos Domino, ac separabis de medio filiorum Israel, vt sint mei. Thou shalt set the Le­uites in the sight of Aaron, and of his sonnes, and shalt consecrate them, hauing offred them to the Lord, and shalt separate them from the midst of the children of Israel, that they may be mine.] Hic subditur ratio dicti mandati. Ad hoc enim de mandato Domini ordinabantur, vt seruirent sacerdoti­bus in cultu diuino, quia cultus ante legem datam pertinebat ad primogenitos Israel. Sed quòd illi facti sunt inepti ad cultum dei, ideò Dominus loco illorum, voluit Leuitas ordinari ad cultum suum. Et hoc est quod dicitur [Et tuli Leuitas] deputando mihi pro cunctis primogenitis filiorum Israel. That is: Here the rea­son of the aforesaid commandement is set downe. For to that end were they ordained according to Gods comman­dement, that they might serue his Priests in diuine wor­ship, which worship before the giuing of the Law belong­ed to the first borne of the children of Israel. But because [Page 58] they became vnfit for Gods worship, therefore the Lord would haue the Leuites to be ordained for his worship in stead of them. And this is that which is said [And I tooke the Leuites] deputing them to me for all the first borne of the children of Israel. To conclude, the Chaldee Para­phrast thus expounds the text, of gift for seruice, not, for exemption, which men see none, in these words, that so be­witch you, except they are Iesuited. Offeret Aaron Leuitas munus in conspectu Domini à filijs Israel, VT SERVIANT IN MINISTERIO EIVS. That is: Aaron shall of­fer the Leuites for a gift before the Lord from the children of Israel, THAT THEY MAY SERVE IN HIS MINISTERIE. But so much, and too much, hereof be said. Sauing that not to F. T. this, whose argument deserues it not, but to others from whome he filcht it, that stand much vpon it.

2 § 38. ANOTHER of this wise-acres worthie exceptions to the Bishops retortion vpon Peters pasce from Dauids pasce, Hector Pintus comment. in cap. 3. Nalium, ad illa verba, Do [...]it auerunt pastores tui Rex Assur; exponit pasto­res per confiliarios, duces, iudices, & omnes qui temp. gubernandam sui cipi­unt. Citans (que) aliqunt loca in eam sen­tentiam, vt Esa. 63. Esa. 44. Ier 10. item Ier. 22. concludit, inquiens, Vides, prin­cipes, gubernatores, & consiliarios ap­pellari PASTORES Videant hi. which they vouchsafe not to regard; they are so swallowed vp of Peters, is this; That, suppose Dauid had had supreame gouernment ouer the Church in the old Law, yet no Prince temporall may now claime the like, no more then the ceremonies may be said to stand in force, as the keeping of the Sabbath day, as polygamie, abstinence from puddings, and the like meates, (saies he that is afraid of loosing his dish belike) and with such good stuffe are his pages fraught. Yea be­cause the Bishop insists more then once vpon Moses law, and the precedents of the old: Testament, to shew that pri­macie belongs to Kings, therefore he is a Iew rather then a Christian, &c. So that now obedience is become among the ceremonies, and the honouring of our parents, that is, in truth of our Princes, Patres patriae by auncient style, (and so Ezechias call'd the Priests his children, filij mei, 2. Chron. 29. 11.) is as subiect to alteration as the Sabbath day. [...] [Page 59] [...], may the ceremonies say; insulting vpon the moralls, as the other Kings doe vpon Lucifer, the king of Tyrus, in Ezekiel. And because the ceremonies not onely may be omitted, but may not be retained without heinous crime, therefore it shall be conscience to waxe wanton against Princes, to shake off their yoke, yoa merit, vertue, and what not? Let vs beleeue, that when Christ, wit­nes S. Paul, Coloss. 2. nayled the ordinances which were a­gainst Hegesip. de ex­ [...]id. Hieros. l. 2. c. 5. Pilatus Chri­stum nihil aliud docentem, nisi quo primum deo, deinde Im­peratoribus, populos face­ret obedientes, cruci suffixit. vs to his crosse, he nayled the law of our subiection to Magistrats, though he died vpon that crosse to establish the authoritie euen of Pilate himselfe, as both S. Paul else-where, and the Gospels witnesse. Though, when S. Paul saies, such ordinances were nayled to the crosse as were a­gainst vs, he sufficiently shewes that this was none, concer­ning Magistracie, then which nothing is more beneficiall to mankind, as S. Chrysostome often deduces out of his Epi­stles, namely Rom. 13. v. 4. & the 1. of Tim. 6. 2. [...] saies Chrysostome, and so likewise Oecumenius, is conditio seruitutis sub Domino, which is more beneficiall to the seruant, then the seruant possibly can be to his master. For, [...]; he takes care for all. But, if this be good Diuinitie, that the so­ueraigntie of Princes is to be reckoned but a ceremonie, and to be blowne away among the shadowes of the olde Law, as if the precept of honouring Parents, which is pri­mum in promissione, Eph. 6. were now secundum in omissione, after that against images, which is vsually cancelled in the Popish Catechismes, let him tell me what he saies to S. Austens sicuts in his Epist. 50. Epistle ad Bonifacium, where he paral­lels the Christian Kings with the Hebrewes, thus; Sicut ser­uiuit Iosias, sicut Ezechias &c. How absurd is his sicut, if their authoritie were ceremoniall, yea or iudiciall either, and to expire with the comming in of the new Testament? How does His wordes are: For in the booke of Kings we read, what pains godly Io­sias tooke to bring the kingdome giuen him of God, to the true worship of God, &c. Not that we compare our selues with his holines, but that WE SHOVLD ALVVAIES IMITATE SVCH EXAMPLES OF THE GODLY. Alwaies, saies he, as if the force neuer expired. Charles the great assume as much to himselfe [Page 60] from the example of the said Kings, praefat, in leges Galliae a­pud Ansegisum? Neither say as the Adioynder does here, that Dauid was a Prophet, and so Iosias, or Ezechias, and the like. Vide Acta Concilij. For the Councell of Chalcedon finds as much in Constantine; Constantinus magnus, vt Dauid, & Rex & Pro­pheta. Which they would not haue appropriated to Con­stantine neither, but haue giuen, you may be sure, to any o­ther Christian King, that should haue carried himselfe with the like valiant resolution. And no maruell, when Salomon makes it common to them all, to haue an oracle in Sozom. l. 7. c. 8. [...]: that is, God by a­racle instructing the King. Of Theodosius choosing Ne­ctarius to be Archbishop of Constantino­ple. their lips, Prou. 16. and in an other place, their hearts so set in Gods hands, as extraordinarily subiect to his directions. Where because I haue named Salomon, what thinke you of his Prouerbs? are they replenished with ceremonials, or with iudicialls, or with what? yet he talkes of a King, if you be remembred, one time as chasing away all wicked­nesse with his eye, suppose heresies and all: another time e­nacting and decreeing righteousnesse, sculpens iustitiam, c. 8. which cannot be without the cheife part of it, that is, rel­ligion: (as we read in Theodoret. l. 4. c. 5. that Valentinian taught all [...] beginning with [...], all equitie, as Sa­lomon here saies, beginning with piety:) another time as one against whom there is no rising vp, and with many such Prov. 30. 31. like elogiums, he aduances him as supreame in each kinde. Neither Salomon onely, but Aristotle himselfe, as if it were the lawe of nature, in the third of his politicks. Assuerus, Cyrus S Maximus Hom, in Litanijs, & de Ieiun. Ninivit. Mira res, dum se Regem hominum non meminit, incipit Rex es­ [...] Iusticiae. Et, Siue ferro, siue iusticiâ, pro ciuium salute primus invigilat. Et, Non perdidit imperium, sed mutauit. Obtinet nunc coelestium disciplinarū prin­cipatum., the King of Nineue, were they not all supreame ordainers in relligion, who neuerthelesse were strangers to the law of Moses? This, Parallel. part. 4. de Para­doxis. Eudoemon might haue told you, who twits the Bishop for ioining those aforesaid with the kings of Israel. Belike then they are distinct. Therefore not onely Israel, or they that were guided by the law of Moses, but meere Natura­lists haue acknowledged thus much, that supremacie is the kings by originall right, and not of ceremony. So, as our [Page 61] Sauiour said once about circumcision, Non ex Mose, sed ex Patribus, in like sort here. It is neither ceremonie, nor iu­diciall, neither from [...], nor [...], Rom. 9. this au­thoritie of Kings in all causes, and ouer all persons, which you so carpe. And if it be lawfull as you tell vs to argue from the old Testament to the newe, by way of signe to the thing signified, we haue enough in that kind to maintain our assertion, though wee had no other argument. For who found a type in Nabuchodonosor euen now, first fierce a­gainst Daniel, and Daniels God, afterward making lawes as zealously in his behalfe? The ouen that was heated to consume the three children, consumed their aduersaries. And so Daniels Lyons prepared against him, deuoured his accusers. These are types, if you beleeue S. Austen, of hea­then Emperours turning Christian, and countenancing re­ligion with all their might, as before they vsed the aduan­tage of their place, onely to suppresse it and destroy it. I might tell you of other types, that haue gone before in the old testament, touching the supremacie of Kings, appertai­ning to the newe. As Abrahams harnessing 318. houshold seruants against Kedar-Laomer for the redeeming of Lot; which is a type of Constantine (say the Fathers of a certain Chalcedon. in Actis. Councell) managing and mustering iust so many Bishops in the Nicene Synode, to the confusion of Arius. The lyon that slew the transgressing Prophet, is a figure of Leo the Christian Emperour suppressing heresies, &c. as Varadatus, Ibid. in Actis. whome they call excellentissimus Monachus, in his Epistle to Leo aforesaid, construes it. In a word, though you be im­pudent, and your fore-head full of blasphemies; yet mee thinks you should bee ashamed to bewray your selues so much, as to affirme that Kings lost any part of their stroke, by our Sauiours appearing in the new Testament, as needs Herods panick feare, Non eripit mortalia, qui reg­na dat coelestia. Sedul. they must, if the authoritie was but ceremoniall, or iudici­all either, which they exercised before. And therefore I spare from further confutation.

§. 39. As for that the Emperours in the new Testament [Page 62] were heathen, and so neither by Christ, nor his Apostles o­beyed, I hope, Sir, it is enough they were not resisted. And if they made no good lawes, yet they might haue made them, and the Church in such case had beene bound to o­bey them. Neither do the Bishops, I trow, alwaies preach the truth, in which case Lib. de pastor. c. 10. S. Austen, and Lib. 1. epist. 4. S. Chrysost. Homil. de Pseudoproph. Ne mirere etsi Pastores transcāt in lu­pos. Item Serm. apud Georg. Alexan. in vitâ Chrysost. Crucifigit Caiphas, & cō ­fitetur Latro. Deni (que), Occidêre Sacer­dotes, adorauere Magi. See his Epi­stles, for it was his owne case. He pro­fesses that the Bishops were his heaui­est enemies in the cause of God and his truth. S. Cyprian, giue vs leaue to abandon them. So is it when Kings, transported by error, forsake their dutie, & yet forfeit not their supremacy. Though our Sauiour and his Apostles did no more turne away frō the edicts of Princes cōcerning relligion, then from the Scribe and the Pharisee, and the chaire of Moses it selfe, which you perhaps would haue heard and obeyed in all things. Will you say therefore that the chaire was not supreame in those matters? To o­mit, that if Princes had been neuer so impious for the time present, yet [...], Gal. 3. the Scripture that fore­sees might haue confirmed the type that went of their au­thoritie in spirituall matters, euen in the old Testament, a­gainst such time as God should raise vp better in the new. Yet you say that in the new Testament there is not the least syllable to that purpose. Not Rom. 13. [...], Gods Minister, v. 4. [...], v. 6. which is rather more then the other, but still Gods, or to God belonging. And not in Gods matters, trow you? In terrorem malis, that is, to he­reticks and all. In laudem bonis; yet no goodnesse without true relligion, in S. Pauls estimation, who saies soone after, that whatsoeuer is without faith is sinne: the last verse of the next chapter. So, Coge intrare, Luk. 14. to the spirituall banquet, that is, Kings in speciall haue this compelling power, saies S. Austen often. So Gal. 5. where heresies are reckoned among the works of the flesh, which flesh at least the kings authoritie stretches to, according to the simili­tude that you are wont to quote out of Gregorie Nazian­zene, [...]ues timore [...]. of the flesh and the spirit, though Athanasius Orat. de [Page 63] incarnat. verbi, makes the King to be [...] the vnderstanding part, that sets all on worke. Lastly, 1. Tim. 2. 1. where shew­ing that God would haue all men saued, the Apostle from thence argues to prayers for Kings, knowing Kings, if they So Psal. 2. Dabo­tibi gentes hare ditatem tuam, & possessionem tuim terminos terrae, is ioyned with, Et nunc reges intelli­gite &c. as the ende with the meanes. be Christian, are the notablest instruments to worke the worlds saluation. Can this be, if Kings be not supreame in relligion, and the causes thereof, as wel in the new, as in the old Testament? For least you say, they are to doe these things indeed, but at the Clergies becke, and subordinate to them, they are called [...], supreame Magistrates, in the places that assigne them what to doe: Rom. 13. 1. 1. Pet. 2. 13. &c. But now if a man should aske you, where your Pontificall supremacie is established in the new (be­sides that you may fetch it, by authoritie, frō Moses, which Deut. 17. Iste lo­cus, vel à simili vel à maiori, debet etiam in­telligi de PP. Christianis. we may not, and so from Aaron & his sonnes, nay, à maiori saies Bell. de Pontif. Rom. l. 4. c. 16. though Moses figured not the Pope, but Christ, Heb. 3. 2. and so likewise Aaron, Heb. 5. 4. yet) perhaps you would quote Luk. 22. Vos autem non sic, for that is more pregnant, then Duo gladij in the same chapter; or, Qui maior vestrum est, fiat sicut minimus, or, Reg­num meum non est de hoc mundo, or for loue to Peter, Non do­minantes Cleris, 1. Pet. 5. 3. Doe not these shew the mea­ning of Pasce oues meas?

§ 40 You say againe the Bishop equiuocates in this, that though Dauid and Peter were both called to feeding, yet Pe­ter to one kind of feeding, Dauid to another, Peter to spi­rituall, Dauid to temporall. As if the Bishop could not dis­cerne the difference of their feedings, vnlesse you taught him. But, Sir, thus it is. For so much as you Iesuits would picke a Vrbanus 7. may seeme to haue been of another mind, whose chiefe care, af­ter he came to be Pope, was to pro­uide victualls good store: & his ground was, because he was called to Pas [...]e o [...]s meas, as he said, Cicarella in vitâ Vib. 7. feeding of state, that is, of regi­ment and Monarchy out of Peters feeding, we demand whether it be not likely, that, if any gouernment be implied in the word Pasce, it is rather in Dauids, whom you confesse to haue bin a King, then in Peters, whome we neuer acknowledged to be a Monarch? And therefore we say your argument for the [Page 64] Popes supremacie followes not well from Pasce oues meas. Rather Dauids Pasce giues him some interest euen in mat­ters of religion, to which Pasce belongs after a special sort, as it is vsed in Scriptures, and Peter is bidde to feed, rather then to rule, to shew his authority is not temporall, nor co­actiue, but of a milder kind. That you say Cyrus was no head of Gods Church, though styled Pastor, and Pastor me­us, by Gods owne mouth, how do you prooue it? No mem­ber Head of the Church is said in a threefold respect. 1 2 3 you say, therefore no head. But this Eudoemon will help you to vnriddle. Though neither hee was ingrafted into the bodie mysticall, nor yet linked in the bond of out­ward profession, yet a head he might bee of Gods people by a certaine deputation or assignement outward, that is, by bearing authority ouer the multitude of subiects, com­mitted to his charge, of what relligion soeuer, which is the onely headshippe that we attribute to Kings. I haue read Theodor. de eu­rand. Graec. af­fect. Chemnic. in locis com. part 2. de Pau­pert. Espenc in c. 3. Ep. ad Titum opponit eum impio. Quasi re­putet pium. Et, Diuinitùs serua­tum discimus. Nisi referat hoc ad salutem modò corporis. some both Fathers and moderne writers, that thinke Cyrus was illuminate, and faithfull, and perhaps saued. Who knowes what the reading of that prophesie might preuaile vpon him, Esa. 44. (as Iosephus witnesses in the 11. of his Antiq. cap. 1. quoted by S. Hierome vpon Esa. 45.) wherein he was called by his name Multo antequā nascereris. Hie­ron. Annis 210. ante impletam prophetiam. E­spenc. certaine hundred of yeares be­fore he was borne? If this be so, then he might bee both member and head in your sense, but howsoeuer, a Pastor by office and vocation, as God intitles him. Shall wee see what followes?

§ 41. Whereas the Bishop in like sort had instanced from Ioshua, Numb. 27. whome God called to feed his people af­ter Moses, one temporall magistrate after another, least they should be as sheep which haue no shepheard, he an­swers that Iosua was to be directed by the high Priest, not è contrà. As if direction were not one thing, and commaun­dement another. For the Priest may direct, though the King command. And we speake of authoritie now, not of abili­tie to counsell. Though Dauid is so little affixed to the Priests, that he sayes, Gods statutes are the men of his coun­sell, [Page 65] that is, his priuie counsellors. The Common-wealth no doubt is happie, where Heman the Kings Seer is admitted neere vnto him, vt exaltet cornu, 1. Chron. 25. or Benaiah placed ad auriculam Dauid, 2. Chron. 11. I meane where Bi­shops are of the consultation of estate. In multitudine boum Prov. 14. 4. implentur praesepia, and where such labourers are, all goes well. But yet Eleazar shall onely runne betweene Iosua and the Lord, while we neither denie the Lord to be supreme, nor yet suffer the messenger to turne the Kings master. To the place quoted out of Theodoret. quaest. 48. in lib. Num. that Moses diuided his double glorie betweene Iosua and E­leazar, as giuing his supremacie in spirituals to one, in temporals to another, as the Adioynder would haue it: we finde no such thing in the Scripture it selfe, Num. 27. but only that God appointed Moses, to giue Iosua of his glory, ver. 20. without naming Eleazar. And Theodoret meanes no more, but that Moses gaue of his Prophesie to Eleazar, which was aureola gloriae, as your Schoolemen would call it, or an additament to the maine, not any branch of dignitie, or of authoritie. His words are, Ex rationali iudicij humeris Elea­zari adiacente, discat Iosua quid sit agendum: Let Iosua learne what to doe from the Iudgement plate that rests vpon Ele­azars shoulders. A great prerogatiue, beleeue me, and to top Kings. Is it not rather to waite vpon them, and to serue their vses? Lastly thus, Ex quo discimus quomodo qui à sa­cerdotibus ordinantur, gratiam consequuntur spiritualem: that is, Whereby we learne, how, they that are ordained of Priests, attaine spirituall grace. We call not the Kings pri­macie spirituall, howsoeuer it extends to spirituall mat­ters: though you imputing such a thing vnto vs, as you doe afterwards, you may see what a hint Theodoret giues vs here, if we list to vse it. And before, he had told vs, that Io­sua was consecrated by imposition of hands. Does not that sauour of somewhat spirituall? And how does Moses pray here, when he praies for a man to be set ouer the Congre­gation, namely Iosua? Lord God of the spirits of all flesh. As if [Page 66] spirit and flesh, temporall and Ecclesiasticall, were the go­uernours charge. And straight after, ver. 18. God saies to Moses, Take Iosua, in whome is the spirit. So Platina in the life of Clement the seauenth, Corona & caeremoniae, per quas inau­guratur Imperator, testimonium sunt diuini spiritus accepti: The crowne and the ceremonies, saies he, whereby the Em­perour is installed, are a token of the diuine spirit receiued. And he addes, Qui animum Imperatoris iam augustum, augu­stiorem diuiniorem (que) reddat: Which makes the Emperours mind, alreadie royall of it selfe, more royall and more di­uine. Was not Saul changed into another man, vpon his at­taining the kingdome? And how, but by, the grace which he receiued in his inauguration? Salmeron your fellow-Ie­suit, but too learned I feare to be your fellow throughout, Tom. 12. in Ep. Pauli. p. 251. saies, Kingdomes themselues turne spirituall, in a manner, vnder Christian Kings. The same saies Rossaeus, with more store of words, Sacrum, Ecclesiasticum, spirituale, sacerdotale, pag. De iustā Eccle­siae author. 526. I might giue you more, but this shall suffice in this place.

§ 42. THE third exception (saies he) that the Bishop 3. Num 20. Ad­ioynd. takes to the argument, drawne from Pasce oues meas, is this: That albeit S. Austen, and S. Cyrill, haue amply commented vpon the Gospel of S. Iohn, and vpon those ve­ry words of our Sauiour to S. Peter, Pasce oues meas, yet nei­ther of them saw, illustrem hunc fidei articulum, de prematu Pe­tri temporali, This notable (as he construes it) article of faith, concerning the temporall primacie of Peter, &c. What saies Father Thomas to this? For some thinke F. T. to haue that mysticall signification, to note vnto vs his Fatherhood, which euery hedge-priest and beardlesse boy vsurps now a daies among the Iesuits, to beard Bishops with, and what Bishops? As if the Cardinall (saies he) did teach that S. Peters primucie is a tēporall primacie, because in some cases it extends it self to temporall matters. As for the spirituall primacie (saies he) the Bishop himselfe grants that sometimes, as far forth in effect as [Page 67] we demand. What the Bishop graunts, we shall see hereaf­ter, when we come to the place, which is Chap. 3. num. 36. as we are told by you. In the meane time, you recken with­out your host, the Bishop graunts nothing that he will not stand to. Be you but content with that which he pitches, and the controuersie will soone be at an ende. But did you euer heare such an impudent varlet, that plaies vpon the word temporall primacie, and denies they giue any such to the Pope? What is their primacie, but a primacie of power? and if the power then be temporall, is not the primacie so? Now for that, let but Bellarmine declare his opinion, who intitles his 5. booke de Pontif. Rom. De potestate Pontificis temporali: Of the temporall power of the Pope. This is plaine, but in the argument of the sixt chapter of the same booke, more plainly, Papam habere temporalem potestatem in­directè: That the Pope hath temporall power, [at least] indi­rectly. Whereas we neither ascribe to the King spirituall primacie ouerhastily, nor are wont to call his power spiritu­all. If the Bishop haue so done, let the place be named, and the imputation verified, wherewith F. T. chargeth vs, Num. 15. though very wrongfully, as if we nourished a doctrine of the Kings spirituall primacie. Yet they say, Sixtus Quintus would haue had those works of Bellarmine to be burnt, per­haps for giuing him temporall power onely, and not tem­porall primacy, totidem verbis. Adioyn. Num. 21. If the Pope's primacie may be called a tem­porall primacie for this cause, &c. then may the Bishop or Pastor be iustly called a corporall B shop, and a pe­cuniarie Pastor, because he doth punish men sometimes in his spirituall court, not only in their bodies, but also in their purses, &c. And here our lepus pulpamen­tum quaerit, a wretch and most obnoxious to all manner of scorne, flourishes and descants with his leaden wit, vpon a corporall Bishop, as he calls him, Bonner I trow, who excused his corpulencie, wherewith hee was wont to be painted, with saying he had but one doublet too little for him, and the knaue hereticks alway painted him in that. If you talke of a punisher of bodies, he was one. We doe not know, God be thanked, that our Bishops haue any such power in these daies, by the examples we see, but that you tell vs so. And there was a time, when your Popes themselues could inflict no punishments of this nature, saies Papirius Massonius in [Page 68] the life of Leo the second. Now all their strength stands that way. And so I might say of the punishing of the purse, and the gaines of the Bishops court, which you so enuie, wher­as not onely he is not forward to deale punishments, and much lesse to gain by the parties punished, but I haue heard his Chancellour, whom certenly you meant when you taxed the Courts, vtterly disanow, that their Courts condemne a­ny body in mony, howsoeuer offending. How beit if Kings, to whome all the power of the sword is cōmitted, that is all kind of coactiue punishment, should giue the Bishops leaue to mulct the purse, rather then their censures should be contē ­ned, what is that to the Popes either exercising or challen­ging to himself, I know not what tēporal power, by vertue of his Apostleship, and originall calling, without donation or delegation from Princes? Though againe if this be graunted, which I beleeue not as yet, because I haue beene otherwise informed, as I said, that the Bishops are so licensed by authoritie from his MAIESTIE here in England, yet the Bishop whome you shoot at, is so farre from delighting in any such markets, that he had rather redeeme offences with his losse, then raise profit to himselfe out of punish­ments. Imperatorem me peperit mater, said Scipio, non bellato­rem, I [...]l Front. lib. 4. stratagem. c. 7. when one chidde him as too remisse and loath to fight. So he. S. Theodoret saith sweetly, that there are no punish­ments in heauen, in regione hyacinthina, of which farther you may heare in his due place. And the Bishops calling is a kind Cap. 3. huius. of heauen. How much more when it is ioyned with consci­ence and clemencie? Which is so proper to the Prelate of whome we speake, as you may wonder: both his Office and Sea sauouring of [...], of mercie and compassion, rather then of rigour, but his nature much more. And if S. Chrysostomes Comm. in c 1. ad Philip. [...]. Ethico. argument for Kings be good, that they are called to [...], because unnointed [...], that is, called to mercy, because annointed with oyle, it may guide you to conceiue aright herein, of the Bishop, whose practise acquites him without hidden emblemes, or forced hieroglyphicks, Vnlesse you [Page 69] thinke that because he handled Tortus somewhat roughly, or the Cardinall either, therefore he is more vindicatiue out of his disposition. But for that you may remember, that he was the Kings Almoner, and dealt his liberalities as they had beene best deserued.

Now leauing the digression that this mans malepertnes hath driuen vs vnto, what saies he for substance to the Bi­shops third exception, as himselfe branches it?

§ 43. IT is enough (saies he) that Cyrill and Austen denie Num. 21. not the temporall power of Peter, though they auerre it not, in their commentaries. Forsooth they expound not Pasce halfe perfectly, wherein surely they are to blame, in so large a Commentarie, as few haue written vpon that Scripture, to say nothing of a thing so materiall as that, or so principall rather, and yet so obuious, when the text lies naked before their eyes. For it is a necessarie consequent, the temporall power (saies our Iesuit here) of the spirituall. Which yet Mr. Epist. ad Car­dinal. Bellarm. Black­well will neuer beleeue, nor those Covar. part. 2. p. 504. Navar. & alibi, & citat. i­bid. à Covar. Binsfield. Alan. authors whom he quotes to the contrarie, that make it a point like the new-found lands, or vnfound rather, so wholly vndefined and vnresol­ued, whether the Pope haue any such peece of dominion yea or no. Besides, he should haue shewed the necessarie consequence betweene the two powers, which because he does not, I thinke he either saw it not, or lacked abilitie to expresse his minde. Me thinkes nothing easier then to con­ceiue so of them, that though linked in vse, yet diuided in nature, and so likewise in subiect, as Gelasius gaue caution De vinc. Ana­them. long agoe very well, of not confounding them, like the two armes in a mans bodie, or the two lights in the firma­ment, (so farre I am content to goe with Bonifacius) yea or the two swords themselues, ecce duo gladij, whereof one questionlesse depended not of another, though your expo­sition be so good, that Stella is ashamed of it, and diuerse Comment. in Luc 22. more of your owne men.

§ 44. That S. Austen acknowledged the Popes tempo­rall [Page 70] primacie, implyed in those words, Pasce oues meas, you bring no other places then we haue hitherto answered, and it might be thought too largely, but that you bring them againe, as primus Apostolorum, and propter primatum Apo­stolatús, of which no more. Let them preuaile as they can. So likewise I say of representare personam, which you inforce here againe to be supreame gouernour ouer the Church. This is your riches, that runne round in a ring, and choake the children of the Prophets with your crambe, and yet cry out of the Bishop for his nakednesse and pouertie in proouing the cause, Numb. 15. As for that you here adde, that no other Apostle is said to represent the Churches person besides Peter, S. Austen hath made you to swallow it before; yet perusing your booke, I find it to be no more then your selfe attribute to Mr. Thomas Rogers, of whome you say in your ninth chapter, Num. 78. that he represents the authoritie of all the Clergie of England: not only the Clergie, but the authoritie of them all; and yet I thinke you neuer held him for our su­preame gouernour. To that of S. Cyrill, Vt Princeps caput (que) caeterorum primus exclamauit: I wonder first, why you should construe it exclaimed, vnlesse your argument stand in that, as if Peter should get the primacie by roaring. So hee in Plutarch, when he saw a tall man come in to try masteries, but otherwise vnweildy, This were a likely man, saies he, if the garland hung aloft, & he that could reach it with his hands, were to haue it for his paines. You know that we Englishmen call that exclaiming, when a man cries out by discontent, or pas­sion. Was Peter offended, when you make him to exclaime? As for princeps & caput, it is waighed in the ballance, and found too light. S. Ierome, Dial. 1. contra Pelag. Ʋt Plato princeps Philosophorum, it a Petrus Apostolorum: as Plato was cheife among the Philosophers, so Peter of the Apostles. Doth that please you? For Plato though he liued in Diony­sius his Court, yet he was no Monarch. No more was Peter. And if you would but turne Tullies Offices againe, or almost any other of his works, you should see Princeps, in quacun (que) [Page 71] facultate. In medicinâ, in re bellicâ, in scenâ it selfe, & where not? Illaerat vita, illa secunda fortuna, (saies he) libertate pa­rem Phil. [...]. esse caeteris, principem dignitate. Therefore princeps is no word of soueraigntie. And was no bodie euer call'd caput but Peter? For that is another thing which you stand vp­on. I could tell you a distichon out of Baronius, made nei­ther by Peter, nor by any of his successors, as you interpret his successors, wherein neuerthelesse the man is called after other titles, ‘—Pontificum (que) caput: Venantius F [...] ­natus de Niceta Treuerensi, a pud Baron. tom 7. an­no 529 XVII. Col. 181. which is, the head of Bishops, and Popes, and all. And if a man should call Eudaemon-Iohannes iustly deseruing it, as it may be some haue called him, caput furiarū, would you plead frō thence, if need were, that he had any authority ouer the de­uils, or were a yong Belzebub? Further, I beleeue, when all comes to all, it is but [...] in the Greek, if we could see it. Of which we shal say more when we answer to the other Cyrill, namely he of Ierusalem, a little after. For [...] is [...] Orat. [...], &c. [...], as we are taught by S. Chrysostome, where yet there is no authoritie of one actor ouer the other. Generally, this arguing from titles of cōmendation is very vnsound. Who knowes not that S. Iames was called Episcopus Episcoporum, as Nilus testifies? yet S. Ambrose serm. 83. giues that to Christ, to be Episcopus Episcoporū, as his priuiledge. Though Sidonius, an author not iustly to be excepted against, af­firmes Lib 6. Ep. 1. no lesse of one Lupus a particular Bishop, that he was Episcopus Episcoporū, & Pater Patrum, & alter saeculi sui Iaco­bus: that is, a Bishop of Bishops, and a Father of Fathers, & another Iames [the Apostle] of his age. Which in the end wil proue as much as caput caeterorum, though you bring that to magnifie Peter by. As if caput caeterorū, might not be one set vp by speciall prouiso, to keepe good order in the Colledge, I meane the Colledge of the Apostles, though without any commission to deriue it to his successors, or extrauagant power ouer the rest for the present. Lastly, I might aske you, how Peter could be caput caeterorum here, that is, Mo­narch [Page 72] installed in your sense, when you tell vs a little after, Num. 31. out of S. Chrysostome, that Peter durst not aske our Sauiour the question, who should betray him, till such time as he had receiued the fulnes of authoritie, and after that time he grew confident. Which time was not till after our Sauiours resurrection, and therefore farre from this. So if you trust to Chrysostome, you haue lost Cyrill, if to Cyrill, Chrysostome; you cannot possibly hold them both, if you vrge caput in so rigorous sense. I might adde out of S. Cy­rill once againe, to stop your mouth, crying out so mainely Hilat. can. 30. in Matth. Petrus pro fidei suae calore,—Quasi Christs di­cta efficienda non essent. So [...]oate that he thought Christ might be in the wrong, himselfe in the right. against lame quotations, that princeps as it may be taken, is expounded there by ferventissimus Apostolorum, so feruent saith S. Cyrill, that hee leapt naked into the sea, out of the ship, for zeale. Where if the ship be the Church, then wee haue Peter leaping out of the Church. You will say per­haps, from Antioch to Rome. Then Antioch is the ship, and Rome the sea. What vantage haue you now of all that is said of Peters ship to countenance Rome? Doe you see how one iumpe hath marred your allegorie, and almost your Monar­chie? Now S. Cyrill saies farther in the place you quote, lib. 12. cap. 64. in Ioh. Petrus alios praeveniebat, how? Ardore nam (que) Petrus alios praevenicbat. Christi praecipuo feruens, & ad faciendum & ad respondendum paratissimus erat. That is: Peter preuented others. For boy­ling Petrus feruens ardore. with an especiall zeale to our Sauiour Christ, he was most readie and forward, either to doe, or say. This was the cause why he exclaimed first. Primus, saies S. Cyrill, but not solus. Hic Malchi etiam aurem amputauit (that you cannot a­bide to heare of) putans hoc modo Magistro semper se inhaesu­rum. So little did he couet the primacie that you striue for, that he wisht neuer to be absent from his Master, which if he had not beene, he could neuer haue ruled in his roome. Then, in euery confession that he made (saies S. Cyrill) ratio­nalium ouium curam sibi habendam esse audiuit. Is cura no­thing? which with you praefectura hath cleane deuoured. And if you but remembred, that they were oues rationales, you would tyrannize lesse, and stand lesse for tyrannie. There [Page 73] There are other things betweene, which I passe ouer here, because you shall heare them anon. Take this for farwell. Doctores hinc Ecclesiae discunt (saith S. Cyrill) non aliter se Chri­sto posse coniungi, nisi omni curâ & operâ studeant, vt rationales oues rectè pascantur, & rectè valeant. Talis erat Paulus ille, &c. That is: The Doctors of the Church learne from hence, that they can no otherwise be ioyned vnto Christ, vnlesse they endeauour with all their paine and diligence, that his reasonable sheepe be well fed, and well liking. Such a one was Paul, &c. By which you see what a sense he giues vs of Pasce, of feeding Christs sheepe, namely with labour and dili­gence, which the Pope cannot skill of, and Paul (not onely Peter) a prime instance of it. Neither doubt I, but when Paul saies of himselfe, I haue laboured more then they all, S. Cyrill would construe it, according to this rule, I haue fedde more then they all.

§ 45. YOv farther accuse the Bishop, as speaking e­uidently false, when he saies of the holy Fathers Cyrill and Austen before named, that concerning Peters triple acknowe­ledgement, id tantum vident, nec praeterea quid, they see this onely and nothing els, that he abolished his triple negation by triple confession, & was restored to the place Isidorus Pelusiota Ep. 103. l. 1. [...]. Idem habent Cirillus, duo Theodori, & Hera [...] leo­ta, Mopsuestenus, Leontius, Theophylactus, Maximus, August. Beda, Nic phoru [...] Am­brosius. So as Maldonat. in Ioh. 21. Vi [...] au­thor vllus est qui non dicat, &c. or degree of Apostleship, from the which hee was fallen: for touching the primacie they are altogether silent. This you say is false in two respects. The one, for that they saw more then so, namely the primacie of Pe­ter, As I haue shewed (say you) out of them both: and, I thinke, we haue answered you, to them both. The other, because they saw not that, which he affirmeth in their behalfe: I meane (say you) that S. Peter was, by those words of our Sauiour, restored to his place in the Apostle­ship, which he had lost. For if they should haue said so, they should seeme to hold (or fauour at least) the pernitious heresie of Wick­liffe, [Page 74] that Magistrates loose their dignitie and authoritie by mortall sinne; which pestiferous opinion, those holy Fathers, no doubt, would haue abhorred, if it had beene set abroach, or taught by any in their time: seeing that it shaketh the very foundation of all obedience, either to Ciuill, or Ecclesiasticall Magistrates, be­cause it does not onely make all obedience vncertaine (for no man knowes who is in the state of grace) but also giueth occasion to subiects, vpon euery offence of their Prince, to cal his authority in­to question. This is the circumstance of this tedious Thom. But that Wickliffe was in this heresie, you must bring better proofes before wee beleeue it, it is long since that your words are no slaunders. The damnable enormities vsed in those times, your very houre and power of darkenesse, might driue some to opinion, that the office ceased when the Offi­cer was incorrigible, because they saw no other remedie. But this, as I beleeue not to haue beene Wickliffes iudge­ment, till you shewe better euidence, so whose-soeuer it was, you haue rather followed him in your Iesuiticall prin­ciples, that, the mightie are to be pul'd downe from their seats by you, though Marie and Anna make it Gods proper worke, Luk. 2. and 1. Sam. 2. one the pearle of the new, the other of the old Testament, then that we should feare to be enwrapped in his danger. Our doctrine you know, Reges in saeculum, as Iob saies, &, Coronamentum in generationem & Iob. 36. 7. Prou. 27. 24. generationem, with Salomon, though Caietane read it interro­gatiuely, Nunquid coronamentum? Againe, Deus perpetua regni sceptra donauit Principibus, saies he in the Councell of Chalcedon: and, Aeternum imperium, saies another in the Edit. Concil. [...]ian p. 251. same. Whether eternitie then, or perpetuitie, which Philoso­phie distinguishes, you see sound diuinitie giues them both to the Crowne. Neither are we slacke to subscribe to Op­tatus, lib. 2. cont. Parm. Deus defendit oleum suum, quia si pecca­tum est hominis, vnctio tamen est diuinitatis. God protects his oyle, because though the sinne be the mans, yet the annoin­ting is his owne. And not onely Princes, but by iust iudge­ment of God, in lieu of your other error, you turne out [Page 75] your very Popes for heresie; Canus, and Bellarmine, and some other hold so, that he is gone ipso facto: we yeilding to no such abdication of our King, no though his fault were here­sie, remembring that Deus defendit oleum suum, as euen now I told you out of Optatus: and, Caesar non desinit esse Caesar, euen in alto gentilismo, as our Sauiour acknowledged of him, Matth. 22. Insomuch as Dauid seemes to wonder, 2. Sam. 1. that Saul could die at all, because he was annointed with oyle. He was slaine (saith he) as if he had not been annoin­ted. Qui propter ingenium videbatur omninò mori non debuisse, quoth Tullie of Roscius. Nor he, propter imperij Maiestatem. Therefore the wickednes lies on your side, whatsoeuer Wick­liffe thought, whome you slaunder. But so hainous is the he­resie of deposing Magistrates for morall misdemeanours, that they are iustly scourged, euen with your owne whip. A bad head, I should thinke, which the bodie will be the better for the cutting off. So as De auctor. Concil. l. 2. c. 17 V [...]des Do­minum reseruare oeconomum, suo sol [...]di­cio: ex Luc. 12. Idem etiam docet vsu, om­nium [...]a [...]rum. Et, Serut hoc nec sol [...] pos­sunt, nec congregati. S [...]il. punire vel expell [...]re [...]conomum. Id enim ad solum Dominum [...] ­ [...]tus familiae pertinet. Bellarmine vnawares betraies his cause in my opinion, taking pro concesso, that the Steward of a house, cannot be deposed from his office, but onely by the grand master of the fami­lie, which he construes to be Christ, by analogie, in the state. What can be saide more for his MAIESTIES securitie that now is, (setting aside his princely vertues, which might arme him against all triall) and that out of the mouth of the very old-one, his aduersarie? Though the holy Ghost in E­say calls all Kings by that name, designing them Stewards, not onely of the state and weale publick, but of the Church it selfe, Erunt Reges dispensatores tui. As euen your owne Fo­rerius, Esa 49. and he a learned Portaguise, expounds it in his com­mentaries vpon that place, deducing it from the Rabbins. (To say nothing of the claime that Kings might make to Dispensations henceforth, which now the Pope only in gros­seth.) But his MAIESTIES cause is yet more pregnant then so, in whose name, not onely in his person, God and nature haue engraued this character, not onely in femore, but in ve­stimento, [Page 76] as it were to marke him out for sacred, against your furious designes.

§ 46. By the way I might aske you, what you meane by that, that no man knowes who is in the state of grace? Does that confute Wicliffe, or them that hold Magistrates are no longer Magistrates, after mortall sinnes? As if a man could not be out of the state of grace, & yet not all his actions be mortall sinnes. Such a babe you are in your owne doctrines.

§ 47. And if the Bishop should hold this, which you im­pute vnto him, hote iudges of his holdings, that make him a Polygamist, a Iew, as of late, and now a broacher forsooth of treasonable positions, yet with what face can you cry out against him as you doe, num. 28. Why should Peter rather then any other loose his Apostleship? seeing your selues are forwardest to censure your Pope with depriuation, ipso fa­cto, whereas another Bishop, I suppose, may come to his tryall. Is this that which the Pope gets by, A nemine iudi­cabitur? Vnlesse the crime were smal to denie Christ, whom he had seene and conuersed with so familiarly, which Opta­tus so exaggerates against S. Peter, lib. 7. as if he had no fel­lowe, Quisquis in persecutione negauit Christum, (imagine Marcellinus, or the like) leuiùs Petro deliquisse videtur. The sinne of denying Christ in persecution, seemes lesse then. Peters: or as if any religion can be maintained there, where the sonne of God is abiured and cast off, and therfore once no heresie more pernicious then this.

§ 48. But now what if the Bishop do not hold that Peter lost his Apostleship? or, what if hee doe? Shall it not bee lawfull for our Sauiour Christ to put out his Apostle, (Abi Satan, that is, Get thee gone, saith the Arabian translator, Kirsten. Not. Matth. 16. not, Recede, depart, or goe aside a while) and yet take him in againe, for so enormious a crime, but euery varlet and rascall companion shall presume to do the same against his Soueraigne, and sawcily shake off his Superiours at plea­sure? And yet these are the seedes of that good discipline which here you sowe, and you thinke S. Peters case is ā con­firmation [Page 77] of treason, as if hee could not loose his office by censure from our Sauiour, but subiects may lay down their fealtie to Magistrates, when they fall into offence. Or, doe you thinke that no Apostle could loose his place? If you do, you may read S. Hierome ad Rusticum, affirming of Iudas, that he fell de fastigio Apostolatûs, &c. to a place vnrecouerable. Wherein our Sauiour dealt more mildly with Peter, whom he tooke in againe. Curans verbis, quod verbis offensum erat, saith S. Cyrill: healing with words, his fault of words, that is, triple negation by proportionable confession. And remem­ber you not what the holy Ghost saith of Iudas, Episcopatum cius accipiat alter? which was not practised against S. Peter, our Lord dealing graciously with him, as I said, as if he had suspended him, not depriued him. But for my part, I take not vpon me to define this question; and the Bishop, as most able, so I dare say was farther of from medling with it. He lookes not to by-matters, but when dignus vindice nodus of­fers it selfe, then he lendes a hand; whereas you patch, and pelt, and clowt euery thing into euery place that you can, like a beggers coate, or a Sturbridge-faire booth, or a cy­presse tree in the midst of the sea. The Bishops purpose was onely to signifie in S. Cyrils words, that dignitas Apostola­tûs renouata est S. Petro, that the honour of the Apostleship was renewed to S. Peter. Fatemur (saies he) as assenting to S. Cyrill, not iangling nor determining, as you would haue it. And I pray Sir, how does that differ from S. Cyrils own words, which you traduce in the Bishop, ne propter negationem labefactata videretur? Concussa therefore it was, shaken and enfeebled, but not vtterly dasht nor vndermin'd. And where you prattle not a little, a little before, But perhaps some will say, that the Bishop does not plainely affirme this, but re­lateth the doctrine of S. Austen and S. Cyrill, which you in­fringe by those words, that you bring out of the Bishop, re­stitutus muneri, restored to his charge, as if therefore he had lost it in the Bishops opinion: what more is in restitution, then was afore in renouation? And if the Apostleship be renouatus, [Page 78] how is not the Apostle restitutus? If S. Cyrill be right, how is the Bishop wrong? May I not truely aske, what does this dog lacke but a bone? And yet soone after, hee can giue the Bishop that tearme, and another too with vantage. Ver­bum in corde stulti, sicut sagitta in femore canis. But the crown of reuerence is thicke set with such precious stones. Nei­ther does onely Cyrill say as much, but Euthymius vseth the very word restitutus. Conuersus, (saies he) id est, in pristinum locum denuò restitutus. See Chrysost. Hom. 2. in Psal. 50. where he saies no lesse: that he lost his Apostleship by denying, and re­couered it by repenting and confessing. Theophyl. in Luc. 22. Cum negaueris, iterum (que) receperis, viz. Apostolatum, of which be­fore. He recouered his Apostleship, ergo he lost it. Arnobius also in Psal. 138. Maior gradus redditur ploranti, quàm subla­tus est deneganti. A greater degree is restored to him wee­ping, then was taken from him denying. Therefore doubt­lesse his deniall depriued him of some degree. Victor Anti­ochenus, Denuò assumptus, & inter caeteros Apostolos rursus nu­meratus, taken home againe, and reckoned among the A­postles. And if S. Austen said by one, not of the best life, Anton. Fussul. quoted by F. T. Aut assumat obedientiam, aut deponat praedicationem, you may thinke what was fit to be done by Peter here. Quare accipis verba mea in os tuum? said God to the vngodly. Cùm vidi­sti ancillam, eiurabas me apud eam: for euen the falling of those drops, made a hole into our rocke. What maruell if the Fathers put Peter beside the Apostleship for his grei­uous [...]p. 1. ad Sympt. crime, when Pacianus saies, such put quite out of the Church? May he be an Apostle, nay the Prince of the Apo­stles, in your opinion, that is no member of the Church? Indeed Bellarmine construes those words of heresie. But first fondly, and without any ground, then Peters is no lesse, if it come to be weighed, as we haue shewed out of Optatus.

§ 49. As for the proofes that you bring in defence of Peter, how easily might he loose his Apostleship for all them, if a man were disposed to enter into argument? Cyrill of Ierusalem, Catech. Mystag. 2. is brought saying, Petrus digni­tatem [Page 79] Apostolicam retinuit non ablatam: that is, finally, and re­tinuit ex intervallo, that is, recuperauit: non ablatam, and yet suspensam. In the Greeke thus, [...], not that he kept it without euer loosing, but rather that the Apostleship, of it owne nature, is such if nothing hinder. But of that I contend not, neither do you for mo­destie quote the Greeke. The same to Optatus, lib. 7. He de­serued not to be separated from the number of the Apostles. That is, not finally. Else we know, he went out, and wept bitterly. He went out in a mysterie, and perhaps to shew his deserued separation. As when Christ lookt vpon him, I graunt sensi­bly, and yet in a mysterie, to shew the power of his grace, and irradiation vpon his heart. That Optatus saies, bono vnita­tis separari non meruit, it is not, least the Disciples should want a head, and yet there may be a head, only to keep out confusion, as the President of Councels, and other ordina­rie assemblies, without any great authoritie ouer the con­gregation, I wisse; but in regard to his patience, which hee Bono vnitatis. had learnt by his owne fal, to shew to other offenders. This is bonum vnitatis, this is pax publica, that keepes all in tune. Ne & tu tenteris, Gal. 2. how much more, post quam & tenta­tus, & elisus es? [...], Hebr. 7. Howbeit besides the Fathers afore-named, Optatus me thinkes is plaine enough, that Peters Apostleship was not a little en­dangered. Thus he saies, Cui satis erat, si postquam negauit, so­lam veniam consequeretur. For whom it had been enough, if he had obtained pardon onely, after his denyall. Not the keeping of his place, but pardon onely. Therefore at least he forfeited it. And by the way you see, what non meruit A foolish tricke that the Papists haue got, to raise English merit out of the Latin mereo and mereos, which sounds to a far other sense with the holy Fa­thers, God knowes. is, no more then assecutus est, I warrant you.

§ 50. Now whereas you come vpon vs in your num. 27. and num. 29. with an ouer-plus of valour, that the Fathers alleadged doe not onely teach in expresse words, that S. Peter did not loose his Apostleship by his fall, but doe with­all acknowledge a certaine increase thereof, and prehemi­nent authoritie ouer the rest of the Apostles, what increase [Page 80] could there be, if he was made their Head and gouernour before, and not onely theirs, but the whole worlds? Was it so, that more notice was taken thereof? For I see not what actuall exaltation could accrew. Therefore, you doe well to expound your selfe, by saying that he was made more emi­nent, then before. Yet if you will goe thus farre, Arnobius would teach you to maintaine that which you call increase, in a more literall sense. For that which before was promi­sed Peter, was now giuen and exhibited, and so plus redditum quàm sublatum, as Arnobius speakes. Yet no more to Peter, then to all the rest, as Matth. 28. 19. and Ioh. 20. 23. To all as much as to Peter was giuen. Saue onely, as the Bishop ex­cellently distinguishes, the res or the substance to all, the so­lemnitie to Peter, with demand of loue, and triple acknowledge­ment, Ioh. 21. 15. As for the place out of Matthew, if you compare the coherence, you shall see if our Sauiour made any Pope, he made more then one without all question. For who is the Pope, but he to whome the power of Christ is communicated? Now he saies thus; All power is giuen me, both in heauen and in earth. And what then? [...], Goe YOV therefore and teach: not, Goe THOV therefore. This power therefore of Christ is communicated to them all, by vertue of this therefore, as much as he thought good to communicate it at all. Either many Popes then, that you must giue vs, or we you none. This by the way. That Cyrill of Ierusalem calls Peter, princeps Apostolorum excellontissimus, I haue answered you before to the word princeps, in Cyrill of Alexandria, a man of more authoritie, then he of Ierusa­lem, (as one Sea exceedes the t'other) who writ what hee writ, when he was yong, saies S. Hierome. But the Greeke is otherwise, then you quote. First [...], that is, the most verticall. Therefore many [...], many vertices, that is, either heads, or crownes of heads, more eminent thē heads. What if Peter among these excelled? Euen the Sunne is sometime more verticall then another, yet he acquires no authoritie among the starres, though more opportunitie to [Page 81] worke vpon our bodies. So Peter to edifie with the rest that excelled. But if you stand vpon [...], Basil saies of Atha­nasius, Epist. Basil gr. Froben. p 304. Est alijs cp. 5 [...]. Wee runne to thee, or to thy persection, (so he styles him) [...], as to the vertex of the whole world. And Cyrill of Alexandria will tell you, that secular Princes are the heights of the earth, and so the Scripture Mich. 1. 3. [...], and [...], whom God treads vpon, not your Pope. Againe, Amos 4. Calcans altitudines, God treads vpon the altitudes of the earth: that is Kings, by Cyrills interpretation. What is Peters altitude to this altitude? [...], another word that S. Cyrill vses, (whome you al­leadge) is no more then was giuen to S. Paul in the Acts, Act. 24 5. and that by vnpartiall iudges of primacie, (I meane such as went by meere obseruation) to be [...], as they call him, or the prime man, of the sect of the Nazarites, that is, of the Christian Church, not onely of the twelue. To the place of Opratus: Solus accepit claues caeteris communicandas: Onely Peter receiued the Keyes to be imparted to others; What more to our purpose, what lesse to yours? Does not this confirme all that we haue said before, and ouerthrow you? Onely Peter tooke them, as an instance of vnitie, as a pledge of the body, as you haue often heard out of S. Austen before, but neither in his owne name, nor to be kept by him, or swaied by him, but communicandas caeteris, to be im­parted to the rest, and made common to all. Eucherius wit­tily, Hom. in Natal. Apost. Petri, & Pauli. Peter receiued the keyes, but Paul was rapt to the third heauen. How could that be, if he had not the keyes? And Clemens in Eusebius before quoted, lib. 2. cap. 1. saies generally of the three, that they cōmunicated it to others, what they had heard of Christ. These were Peter, Iames, and Iohn. But that was doctrine that Clemens spake of; yet the The Word and Keyes, two de▪ positums of like nature. like no doubt holds in the Keyes after a sort, at least de possi­bili, without any disparagement to the communitie of the Apostles.

§ 51. Chrysostomes authoritie mooues lesse then any o­ther, who in his Commentaries vpon S. Iohn, at that very [Page 82] place where of all the strife is, viz. Pasce oues meas, saies that Iohn as well as Peter, receiued the [...] And, [...]. And that the reasō why Christ so [...]bd Peter in his curiosities concerning Iohn, Hic autē quid, was because [...], beeing ioynt-go­uernours of the world, they were to be dispersed henceforth, & old amities to cease. For Iohn & Peter had loued toge­ther more thē ordinary. But most preg­nātlv the same Chry. Hom 2. in c. 1. ad Tit. [...], &c The Apo­stles diuiding the whole world between themselues, euen as if it had beene but one house, so discharged euery thing, and tooke care for euery thing, one ta­king this part, another that part to looke vnto. b Tom. 4. edit. D. Sav. p. 501. gouernment of the whole world from Christ, which is enough to ouerthrow Peters mo­narchie, euen when Chrysoft, shall say, that he was made go­uernour of the whole world, by pasce oues meas. For how can that now be speciall to Peter? I could affoard you better places out of Chryso­stome my selfe, as that Christ gaue power to Peter, [...], to carry all a­fore him, This, no doubt, would serue the Popes turne right finely, to tosse the ball whither he list, to raigne and to ruffle in the Church at his pleasure. But is any so madde, as to thinke that Chrysostome meant any such thing? And yet suppose he did, he saies the same of Paul, [...] in Epist. ad Coloss. id est, cap. 4. v. 9. adding [...], e­uen as Paul thought good. For that you bring out of his 2. booke de Sacerdot. you should haue specified the chapter, and we would haue closed with you better. In the Greeke I finde nothing but [...], of which before out of S. Cyrill, in the very superlatiue [...]. But in the same chap. he saies (which is the first of that booke,) that Christ committed his flocke by Pasce oues meas, [...], to Pe­ter, and them after him. And least you thinke he meanes onely the Popes, he applies it to Euen so is that to be taken which Bellar. notes out of Chrysoft in Acta (see pag. 15. [...]) that the Christi­ans are not to be ashamed, if they be miscalled af­ter the name of some eminent Pastor or Prelate of the Church. For he meanes not the Pope there, ra­ther then himselfe. For first, why should Constanti­nople, or Antioch either, gratifie Rome so much: considering the emulations. 2. Though we should grant Chrysoft to speake by prophesie. 3. But besides it appeares, that Chrysostomes followers were called Iohann [...], of his name. Zonar. & alij. 4. And yet we call not the Papists from the name of this or that Pope among them, as Chrysoft. meaning is, but from a gene­rall one to all that occupie the Sca. 5. Which til the Pope ingrossed it, was yet more generall. himselfe, not yet so much as Bishop, but onely called to single priesthood, that he should [...], suppose you like a Peter,. i. be set ouer all the substance of Gods house. And farther he saies he is to doe those things, which Peter if he did, should [...]. i. goe beyond the rest of the [Page 83] Apostles. Doe you see then how all the prerogatiue of Pe­ter, is built vpon his practise, and good desert; not abso­lutely cleauing to him, and his? Nay, no more (saies Chry­sost.) then extends to euery good Pastor. I might contemne your Latine now, to which nothing is answerable in the Greeke. Yet suppose it were so, as you auouch. AVTHO­RITATE praeditum, ac reliquis item Apostolis longè praecelle­re. Is this arguing for a Iesuit? Which all put together doth not shew so much, as that Peter had any authoritie ouer the Apostles. Vnlesse you thinke because he had authoritie, ther­fore they had none. This were prettie, if you could worke it, but neuer out of Chrysostome. And yet longè praecellere, is worse then so, of gifts, of qualities, not of iurisdiction. And I beleeue, if the truth were knowne, that same very [...], which I quoted euen now, nothing to their pur­pose. In summe, if S. Peter had all the authoritie that Chry­sost. giues the Priest in his book of priesthood, it would not serue the Pope, who is for temporall and coactiue, which Chrysost. denies tooth and nayle, cap. 2. 3. &c. of the afore-said. Another place you bring out of Chrysost. cap. vlt. in Euang. Ioh. that Peter was the mouth of the Apostles. And you might haue added that of Dauid, I will giue praise with the best member that I haue, meaning the mouth, or the tongue: for els what gaine you by this bargaine? And a­gaine, Awake my glorie, that is my tongue, say the Interpre­ters, because the tongue is the glorie of a man, Psalm. 56. Casaubone will shew you, and that most excellently, that the Exercit. ad Ba­ron. pag. 726. mouth is put in a diminutiue sense, and notes ministerie, not supremacie, office and paines, not authoritie. And so we might say of the head; which Peter was, as the forwardest to re­solue; ad respondendum & faciendum paratissimus, saies S. Cy­rill, as including both. This was his disposition, not his commission. Of late the Pope hath left both the head, and the mouth, and betakes him to the hands. S. Bernard had De consid ad Eugen. l 4. c 2. Voss. edit. challenged him for it long agoe, for liuing by his hands: not as S. Paul and the olde Monkes, which is tedious to you to [Page 84] heare of, but he meant of bribes, we of forcible and coactiue execution. Brachia mea iudicabunt populos, as if he tooke it Esa. 51. 15. literally, and to himselfe. And could you not for a neede, finde in your heart to construe, caput congregationis, after S. Austens meaning, as a figure of generalitie, and represen­ting the whole bodie? What a scandall will it be for Iesuits to encounter such a worke, and of so reuerend a Prelate, with no better speares, then one might make of fennell stalks, breaking into fitters with the least crush, and which if a man should answer but as many waies as he might, it would be intolerable?

§ 52. That which followes is as idle, that Christ did not vpbraid S. Peter for his sinne; as if he doth any, Iam. 1. 5. ei­ther for grace affoarded, or faults pardoned. That Peter had the care of his brethren committed to him; as if we imagi­ned Peter such a Cain, that cryed, What haue I to looke to my brother? But, he is confident now, that was fearefull afore, to aske [...]. Why not then rather superi­our, Chrysost in Ioh 21. a question. [...]: that is, Peter askes for [...] now, as afore Iohn askt at Peters [...]etting on. So it is no great preroga­ [...]i [...], but onely one for another. when he might set Iohn a work to doe as he directed? Besides, great charges make not confident, but carefull rather, and solicitous surely, as extraordinarie fa­uours binde to awe, flesh not in pride, vnlesse it be fooles. The approoued loue of our Sauiour Christ, in receiuing him to grace, and setling him in his Apostleship, or (if you would suffer me to speake so) in restoring him, might adde spirit to him, which is S. Chrysostomes meaning, not as you construe him. But, alas, what did Peter get by asking that question? What, not secret censure, but open check, at our Sauiours hands? Quid ad te? what preiudice to his discre­tion, let S. Cyrill shew you. But two faults onely, Curiositie, and Desire to haue other men partakers of his miseries. This is the inbred corruption of our nature. Communiter insitum ho­minibus (saith S. Cyrill) vt optent, si quid periculi subituri sint, non se esse solos, sed caeteros etiam aut videre pati, aut passos au­dire, aut passuros esse. It is the nature of men, if they be to slide in­to [Page 85] any daunger, to wish not to be alone, but either to see others to suffer, or to heare of them that haue suffered, or that they shall, and must, at least, suffer the same. So Peter. Hearing that he must suffer, he asked whether Iohn should escape; or no. As for, Si me amas; fratrum curam suscipe, if cura fratrum be the boundlesse Monarchie, little neede he wooe Popes to that place, by so stiffe a coniuration, as Si amas me. Aske Iulius the second, who when his friends were offended with him, Papyr. Mass. for offering too largely for the Popedome, he said, None that knew the worth of that place, would stick at any gifts, where­by to compasse it. Aske Praetextatus the heathen, Make me Ibid ex Amm. Marcel. Pope, saies he, and I will be a Christian. Yet, this is your, Si a­mas me, suscipe curam fratrum. It were infinit to go through all. I will conclude with Mr. Casaubones most worthie ob­seruation, that if Peter were the Head and Rector intended, as you imagine, what neede S. Chrysostome make the questi­on, Quare Petrum omissis caeteris affatur de his rebus? why does our Sauiour conferre with Peter about these matters, skip­ping by the rest? For euery man might see it were the due of his place. And so much of S. Chrysostome.

§ 53. THE last of them whose authoritie you al­leadge, is S. Leo, your owne Pope, and not a little addicted to the amplyfying of the Phylacteries of his owne sea, as his MAIESTIE hath told you in his Apolo­gy most plentifully; but all, as it seemes, vpon the deafe side. For you will not heare, nor bee charmed. Yet what sayes Leo? The charge of feeding the sheepe of Christ, was more speci­ally commended to Peter, Ep. 89. A most true word. But the Bishop tels you how, Praeceptum ad omnes, Solennit as ad illum. So Peter more specially receiued the keies: for hee receiued them, saies S. Austen, as the Churches proxey; but communi­candas cum omnibus, to bee imparted to all, as Optatus told you but verie lately. But in an other place, Ser. 3. de Assump. ad Pontif. what brings he? That Peter was chosen out of the whole world, to haue the cheife charge of the vocation of the Gen­tiles, [Page 86] and of all the Apostles, and of all the Fathers of the Church. Here is nothing for your turne, saue that Peter was chosen to haue the charge of the Apostles. But to the calling of the Gentiles, though all helped, yet none might compare with S. Paul, for that matter, who therefore calls himselfe the A­postle of the Gentiles: and least you thinke he gloses, [...], in faith and veritie, 1. Tim. 2. 7. Neither doe wee denie, that Peter might haue the charge of the Apostles, yet no commaunding charge; but either as ferrum acuit ferrum, as Salomon saies, one iron whets and sharpens another, so the Prou. 17. 17. face of one brother, to quicken another by his encourage­ments, Confirma fratres: or, bono vnitatis, preferred for his maturitie, to preuent schisme and disorder, as hath beene told you. Though the name Apostles is common to some without the companie of the twelue, and the Scripture vseth it so, Phil. 2. 25. whom Peter might be charged with, and with the other Fathers of the Church, as Leo here calls the Bi­shops of their making, without derogating from the Col­ledge of them, properly so called. Therefore heare how S. Leo qualifies this saying in the same Sermon, a little after. Transiuit quidem etiam in alios Apostolos vis potestatis istius, & ad omnes Ecclesiae principes decreti huius institutio commeauit: sed non frustrà vni commendatur, quod omnibus intimatur. It cannot be denyed, but the force of this authoritie passed also vnto the other Apostles, and the same ordinance com­prehends all the peeres of the Church. But not without cause is that deliuered to one, which concernes all. Why so? Petro enim ideò hoc singulariter creditur, quia cunctis Ec­clesiae rectoribus Petri forma proponitur. That is: For there­fore is this particularly recommended to Peter, because Peter is made a patterne of all Church-gouernours. And S. Austen de verbis Domini secundum Iohannem, Serm. 49. Dominus in vno Petro format Ecclesiam: Our Lord still fashions his Church in Peter. Leo saies, the gouernours; Austen, the whole Church, is exemplified in Peter. So that Peter, you see, still stood for a generall man, and not for a particular; and as S. Austen [Page 87] said afore, to commend vnitie: so Leo both takes in that, vni commendatur, and giues the reason withall, because Peters example was most worthy the imitating. Cunctis Petri for­ma proponitur, and, Ecclesiae rectoribus, to all rulers of the Church, to shewe that Peter was not ruler alone. I might oppose you with other sentences in that Sermon, which you could hardly salue, that wrest all so violently to your turne: as, Vt cum Petrus multa solus acceperit, nihil in quen­quam sine illius participatione transierit: yet the Scripture ne­uer sayes, that of Peters fulnesse we haue all receiued. And againe Leo, Nunquum nisi per ipsum dedit, quicquid alijs non ne­gauit. Yet S. Austen de verb. Dom. secundum Matth. Serm. 13. Quod nemo potest in Petro, hoc potest in Domino. But his MAIESTIE in his Apologie, hauing preuented all that might be alleadged in this kind, your silence shewes, you haue not what to answer. Neither will I therefore trouble my selfe with the rest of your citations, till you haue quali­fied these. Facile est Athenienses laudare Athenis: so it was Plato, Menexeno. easie for Leo, to rhetoricate at Rome, in the praise of Peter. Let vs passe, say you, to some other matter. And let vs see, say I, if you bring any better.

§ 54. AS for the law in the Code (the next thing in your booke) it is a signe you lacke proofes for Popedome: else you would ne­uer bring so cast a law, first controuert, and then counterfeit, besides importing so little for your side. Yet you say, this lawe is brought by you, in your Supple­ment, to prooue the dutifull respect and obedience of the auncient Emperours to the Romane Sea. The respect we graunt you, as long as it was Catholicke. For what good man would not respect both Church and Bishop Christian? I except not him that weares the diademe, as S. Chrysost. speakes in ano­ther Hom. 83. in Matth. iterum (que) comm. in Acta. case: but, as for dutie and obedience, certes neither a­ny that we find in this law greatly, and the clearer monu­ments, [Page 88] as Gregorie, as Agatho, as diuerse others, often brought you, and often told you, will shew it rests on the Popes side. And what if Iustinian writing to the Pope, had followed the veine of an Epistle so far, as to besmeare him with all the kind tearmes that might bee? All that you bring, is, that the Romane Church is caput Ecelesiarum, which no way derogates from the Emperours authority, nor inioynes him no such durie or obedience as now is vrged, and when all is done, caput is nothing, but ecclesia prima in ordine, not, tanquam habens authoritatem in cateras; which is no more then was determined in the Councel of Chalcedon. Can. 28. that the highest Church in Christendome after Rome, should neuertheles be magnified in Ecclesiasticall menages, no lesse themshee. And this hath been told you, and rung into you, Cicer. pro Mu­raenâ. Neminem vestrum fugit, cū multi pares digni­tate fiant, vnus autem primū so­lut possit obtinere, non eundem, & [...]. Proptereit quod renunciatio gra­dus habeat, digni­tas autem sit per­ [...]pè ead [...] omni­um. of the difference of order, in the equalitie of power, and yet you stand vrging a stale phrase, out of a law of the Code, no sounder then it should bee, and adde no strength to your blunt yron. So, still might the Bishop say, Poterat abstinere Cardinalis à criando, the Cardinall might haue abstained from quoting this law, and the law inter claras, is scarce a cleare law. Yet Baldus (you say) calls it, Clarissimam legem. And yet he vouchsafes not to glosse it, scarce in three words, you know. His calling of it Clarissima, with an allu­sion to Inter Claras, is nothing, but as euery pettie Master is wont to praise the author that he expounds to his schol­lers, as Persius notes, ‘—ab insano multùm laudanda magistro.’ As for Accursius his glossing of it, and some one or two more, of how much lesse force is that to proue the soundnes of it, then the silence of so many, that thinke it not worthy a glosse, to condemne it? Of whom you may presently rec­kon these, more afterward, if they come to your mind: Bar­tholomeus de Saliceto, Cynus, Iacobus de Arena, Iason, Antoni­us also de Rosellis, if I mistake not, Franciscus Aretinus, Pau­lus Castrensis, Butrigarius. And this last saies, It is neither ordinarily nor extraordinarily read, when he wrote, who wrote [Page 89] when the Pope was at the highest. Adde to them, Bartho­lus, and Angelus Perusinus. By which you see, what is to be attributed to Alciates coniecture, that, some later heretikes, and wishing ill to the Pope, haue rased it out of the bookes. Is the Pope such a Dionysius, that he dares not trust the razors? Yet consider how long those Lawyers flourished afore Lu­thers time, which is the time, no doubt, that Alciat glances at. Iacobus de Arena, ann. 1300. Butrigarius, who was Bar­tholus Vid▪ [...] ▪ Ge [...]d G [...]sner. Heg [...]. &c. his Master, ann. 1320. Cynus ann. 1330. Salicet 1390. Aretine 1425. which beeing the last of all that I haue now named, is iust a hundred yeares afore Luther. Castrensis la­ter, and Iason later then he, yet both short of the 500 yeere. Sichardus, whome before I named not, ann. 1540. yet he al­so passes it ouer without a Glosse. Since Alciat it hath been censured by other Papists in like sort, whose iudgement Alciat could not turne, as Gregorie Haloander, and Antonius Contius, the setter out of the law, in his Praetermissa. I passe by Hotoman, because he was ours, otherwise no obscure Fa­ther of the law, and hath written the largest of all in the cause. Whome he that hath vndertaken of late to answer, Andreas Fachineus Count of Lateran, in his eight booke of Controuersies, hath not satisfied so fully in all points, as is thought. Neither about the contradiction of the Dates, nor especially to the contradictions between Iustinian and himselfe, one time not consulting with the Pope of Rome, about Ecclesiasticall matters (as he professes to doe here notwithstanding) namely in his so many Nouell Constituti­ons: another time making the Church of Constantinople, to be Head of all Churches: (lib. 24. c. de Sacrosancta Ecclesia, [...]: and the same againe, L. Decernimus 16. eodem titulo,) which here you would haue him seeme to giue to Rome. So as still the law is no law de claris. Your oppositions to the contrarie are lit­tle worth, vnlesse because Hypatius and Demetrius were the messengers, no letter could be cog'd with their names, or that this must needes be the true Epistle, because Pope Ni­cholas [Page 90] quotes a shred out of it, or that Iustinian confesseth he wrote to Pope Iohn, in a letter to Agapetus, which letter of Iustinians, you referring vs onely to Binnius for, some would sooner question for Binnius his sake, then for the credit of it embrace the other. Though for my part, I like well of what I finde there, that Iustinian calls it the faith, quam sequendam DVXIMVS, which shewes he depended not vpon the Popes approbation, no not for his faith. And the Pope receiuing it with willing gratulation, as he also there signifies, not his assent onely, but the whole Church of Romes was added to it: which if the Pope were infallible, what needed it? But the truth is, that you haue not yet resol­ued, whether it be the Pope of Rome, or the Church of Rome, that cānot erre. Enough belike, if either of thē keepe vp the ball. Lastly, to returne to the Epistle to Pope Iohn, let me aske you, what you thinke of the good Latin in it? (I speake to a Priscian, to a Latine Aristarchus.) Which not onely Iustinian, but perhaps Bellisarius himselfe would not haue vttered in those daies. As, Properamus crescere honorem sedis vestrae, for, We make hast to increase the honour of your seat. They did indeed, that meant to doe it by faining. To omit, that if Iustinian gaue aduancement to the seate, it is behol­ding to the Empire, not the Empire to it, and so we know from whence the worship of it flowed. I haue heard of some, that this was the cause, why certain would not glosse it, because it fauours the opinion, that the primacie of Rome is iuris humani, or Imperatorij, not diuini. And yet doe you bring this law against vs? As if our selues could more de­spight the Pope, then by so saying. But proceed in your eloquence. Alieni Catholicae Dei Ecclesiae; which sounds well in Greeke, not so in Latin: and no better that, Quae ad vos est vnitas sanctarum ecclesiarum. Lastly, Petimus vos ora­re pro nobis, & prouidentiam Dei nobis acquirere. All which, your elegancie would neuer digest for good Latine, nor worthy of Iustinian, if you are the man that you are taken for. The testimonie that you insist vpon, of the perpetuall in­tegritie [Page 91] of your Romane Sea, that as often as any heretikes had risen in those parts, they had still beene corrected by the sentence thereof, was no warrant for the times to come. You did runne well, but who hath set you backe? Thou knowest not, saith Salomon, what a day brings forth. And if we be forbidden to boast of to morrow, how much lesse of the consequence of all times and ages, for the blessing of God hitherto affoarded? Yet these are your goodly proofes that the Chaire of Rome neuer tottered In the same booke of the Code, Lege Cunctos, Th odosius, Gratianus, and Valen­tinian, (Edicto ad Constantinopol. C [...]) wish all men to followe the same faith, quam sequi hodie claret Damasum, Pontifi­cem Romanum, & Petrum Alexandria E­piscopum: that is, which Damasus Bishop of Rome, and Peter of Alexandria em­bracet, the which Peter he calls more o­uer, Virum Apostolica sanctitatis, an an of Apostolike holinesse: ascribing to Damasus neither Apostolicke, nor any o­ther title. But I note it for this; If the Popes authoritie be not sufficient for our direction in matters of faith, except the Bishop of Alexandria his name be ioyned with him for illustration sake, what infallibilitie hath the one aboue the other? since, because it corrected heresies in Iusti­nians dayes. As if more hath not been said of priuate men, as Carm. de ingratis. Anne alium in finèm posset procedere sanctū Concilium, cui dux Aurelius, ingentum (que), Augustinus erat, quem Christi gratia corn [...] Vberiore rigans, nostro lumen uedit aeuo Accensum vero de lumine? S. Austen was light of verie light in S. Prospers eye. Prosper of S. Austen, that where he was present, it was impossi­ble for the Councell to goe awry, and yet no man would hold him thereupon excu­sed from possibilitie of error, much lesse perhaps promise for a whole Church. S. Chrysostome saies, that diuerse Bishops came to learne of Antioch, and went away in­structed, euen of the people there. Neither say, saies he, that Rome is famous for her great­nesse, but shew me a people if you can for your life, as diligent at hearing Gods word in Rome. Serm. 4. in Hoseam. [...]. For Sodome had the stately buildings, saies he, whiles Abraham remained in an ob­scure tent. And he sticks not to call Antioch, [...], in the same place, the mother citie of the whole world. What greater style doth Iustinian giue to Rome, though there were no question of the sinceritie of his style? Whereas Antioch otherwise was called Euagr. l. 4. c. 38. & alij complu­res. Theopolis, Gods owne citie, which must needs be the largest, I trow, for regiment. And afore, Hierusalem inherited that title, Ciuitas magni Regis, Gods citie, or, the citie of the great King, by our Sauiours own acknowledgement, Matth. 5. 35. Againe, Nazianz. Ser. E­pitaph. in Caesarium, cals Byzantium that then was, the nowe [Page 92] Constantinople, [...], the first city, & [...]. Are you not afraid least that be more then order, e­uen a presidence of authoritie ouer all Eu­rope? Ecclesia praesidens in regione Romano­rum. Ignat. Epist. which the Papists catch at: this per Europa [...]. Whereas Et l. 1. cp. 3. quae est ad [...] sub nomine Paulae & E [...], Quantò Iudea caeteris Prouincijs, tantò hae: V [...]S cunctà s [...]bl [...]or est Iudea. Et cum to­tius prouinciae gloria metropoli vindi catur, quicq ud in membus [...]udis est, omne refertur ad caput. Making by that meanes H [...]salem the prime seat, and as it were metropolis of the world. Hierome speaking of Rome, cals it quondam caput, the sometime head of the world. No doubt, because it was head in the right of the Empire, and that chan­ging, the spirituall preheminēce of it chan­ged also. So vncertaine are these things, and not built as you would haue it, vpon diuine ordinance, but either following the fauour & good liking of the Emperours, or the other variable streame of causes. To conclude your Law, about the Ʋniuersall authority of the Romane Sea: for so much as you quote Accursius his glosse, heare what a stout obseruation hee hath mode on both sides of that cause. Iustinian cals the Bishop of Con­stantinople, fratrem vestrum, the Popes brother. Parificat ergo, therefore he equalls them, sayes Accursius. But straight a­gaine, and with the turning of a hand, because the Empe­rour saies, sequi festinans sedem vestram, that the Bishop a­foresaid labours to follow the iudgement of your seat, Mi­nor est ergo, therefore he is vnder him. Is not this well shot now? As if sequi were to come behind in place, not to ac­cord in opinion. And whereas the Pope, sets the Empe­rours name before his owne, in the beginning of his Epistle, Iustiniano Iohannes, &c. Note, saies Accursius, Papa praemit­tit Imperatorem, quod hodie non faceret, the Pope sets the Em­perours name before his owne, which at this day he would not; belike because prouder. So much of this Lawe.

§ 55. THE labell, and the last of your first chapter, is this: The Bishop to the Cardinall alleadging the words of the Pataran Bishop, suing to Iustinian to restore Sylverius, whom he had condemned to banishment, which words seeme to spread the Popes authoritie verie farre, an­swered briefly, and in his wonted style, the style of wise­dome, [Page 93] [...], or as the auncient Diuines say of taking the Sacrament, [...]; What should we heare Patarensis his words, as long as we see Iustinians deedes? Iustinian banisheth, Sylverius is banished, Patarensis pleads for him: Who is the Superiour? Not because the words, that this pleader vsed in Sylverius his behalfe, to magnifie his reputation, could not otherwise be answered, as shall appeare anon, but beeing a namelesse person, and no where else mentioned (which is worthy your marking) the Bi­shop shooke off both him and the Cardinall, in the aforesaid fashion. So the valiant beast, little mooued with the dog, or the hunters staffe, goes on his iourney, minding other matters, as we read in the Poet,

—Et tergo decutit hastas.

By this reason, say you, neuer any thing in the world was so wic­kedly done, but it may be iustified. For, howsoeuer it bee repre­hended by holy, graue, or learned men, those that list to iustifie the fact, may say, Facta cum videamus, verba quid audiamus? When we see the deed, what should we heare words, &c. As though it were not one thing to iustifie a thing done, by the simple doing of it, against all that might be excepted, or control­led in it, concerning the wickednesse, and another thing to auouch the power of the doer, or the authority of the doer, who howsoeuer abusing the aduantage of his place, yet he doth no more then in that right he may, and his deeds passe for vncontrolled. As Nero, as Herod, as Pilate, whome you alleadge. Meritum criminis, not alwaies going with ordo po­testatis; and ordo potestatis, often hauing his course, where there is no meritum criminis. For neither, when Syluerius was banished by Iustinian, doe we iustifie Iustinian, as ha­uing done well, though we bid you marke what Iustinian did, but rather point at his authoritie, euidenced by such actions: nor if we would prooue the power of heathen Cae­sar ouer our Sauiour Christ, condemned by his deputy, and at length crucified, are wee therefore to be thought to ap­prooue his deed, or the vse of his iurisdiction. And yet I [Page 94] hope, it shewes where the authoritie rested, and how true it was that our Sauiour said, Non haberes potestatem in me, nisi desuper datam, for so much as our Sauiour neuer excepted a­gainst Passus est sub Pontio Pilato. This it a maine cause of Pilates coming into the Creede. And the Papists doctrine opposing Magistracie, oppo­ses so the Creed, & gathers fast vpon heresie. him as an incompetent Magistrate, but willingly submitted himselfe to the very death. According as S. An­drew, of whome we read in the Decret. part. 2. caus. 23. qu. 1. Decrees, that beeing con­demned to die by the Lieftenant of Achaia, when some would haue reskued him, he desired them, not; Quaeso, ne im­pedite martyrium meum: I pray, good people, disturbe not my mar­tyrdome. Who if pyrats, or theeues, had offered him this vi­olence, without any lawfull calling of Magistracie, I sup­pose he would not haue refused to haue saued himselfe by all honest meanes. As S. Paul did against whipping, Act. 22. He opposed, saies S. Austen, his ciuill priuiledge, to defend him, in the assault of his sacred faith, as the left hand holds out it selfe to protect the right. What so naturall? Cùm percutere­tur dextra, opponeb at sinistram: in Psal. 120. And most excel­lently to our purpose, the same Father againe, Epist. 48. to shew, that power howsoeuer vsed, is from God. 1. The countermine of Powers temporall op pugning the truth, is to the godly couragious a glorious triall, to the faint of courage a dangerous assault. But the same powers, whē they stand for the auouching of truth, to the honest-hearted that are in errour, they are profitable aduertisers: but to the foolish and besotted, bootlesse [...]ourges. Yet still there is no power but of GOD. Terror temporalium potestatum, saies he, quando veritatem oppugnat, iustis fortibus gloriosa probatio est, infirmis periculosa tenta­tio. Quando autē VERITATEM PRAE­DICAT, errantibus cordatis vtilis admoni­tio est, & insensatis invtilis afflictio. NON EST TAMEN POTESTAS NISI A DEO, &c. No iniquitie can abolish authoritie. And yet by your leaue, Sir, howsoeuer you excuse Sylvenius, in your relation how the matter passed, (as I can not blame you, if you be loath to haue more tray­tours registred in the beadroll of your Popes, then needes you must,) both Procopius and Euagrius, lib. 4. cap. 19. shew, that he was held in suspition of high treason, as drawing the Gothes to besiege the citie, and an author of your owne, In vit [...] Sylver. Papyr. Masson. can hardly acquit him, as in all likelihood sauouring of olde rellikes, and hauing a Goth in his bellie, since his first education. Fortè enim amantior Gothicarum par­tium [Page 95] erat Sylverius Frusinone genitus, and, as Pope, now able to giue countenance among the citizens, Such Popes, no maruell if S. Cyprian say, the Emperour was lesse offended with a rebels insurrection, then their creati­on. Aequior audiebat imperij amulum in se coniurare, quàm Dei fieri Sacerdotem. to trayterous attempts. Neither was this any cause, that Euagrius mentions, or in the least sort points at, why Iustinian afterward was stricken of God, but rather his hereticall declining from the faith. Now we neuer denied but Emperours, if they be men, may fall into heresie, but euen in heresie we so free them from the feare of earthly controll, as trembling­ly we referre them to the heauenly censure. Neither yet for lacke of learning was Iustinian punished, nor it may be for want of that so much as seduced to heresie (though you would gladly insinuate so much out of Suidas) sith many wanting learning, haue both knowne the right faith, and kept it to the ende. I am sure Pope Iohn, in the Epistle that begins Inter claras, of which before, cals him edoctum Eccle­siasticis disciplinis, taught in Church-learning, or Church-disci­plines. Suidas also, at the place that you quote out of him, [...], a most orthodoxe Emperour. And yet had it bin otherwise, neither you Mr. F. T. nor any of your side, re­membring your Popes; neede greatly to obiect the defects of learning to a secular Emperour; many of the Popes com­ming to their preferment, as if it were by that rule which Aquinas cites out of the 70. Psal. when he would defend Geburoth and So­pheroth no friēds in Poperie. 2. 2. quaest. 188. art. 3. such proceedings, but not from his heart, Propterea quòd non cognovi literaturam, ideo introibo in potentias Domini. And was it learning, or charitie, that you lacked trow, when you said, that Euagrius places Iustinian in hell, to endure penalties: whereas he onely saies, he was taken from hence, [...], to abide the triall of the places beneath. Which not onely your owne Popish relligion, holding more vnderground places then hell, but the right faith would teach you so to constiue, as should be no preiudice to Iustinians salvation. You cite also Euagrius about the suddenesse of his death, as a punishment of God, which Euagrius mentions not in the least word, but [...] [Page 96] [...], invisibly stricken; vnlesse you will say suddenly, because hee fore-sawe not his death comming: which who does? Else he raigned in all about 39. yeares. As for the words of Paterensis, whome you call from Pate­ra, as if your mind were in pateris, or your selfe dignum pa­tellâ Ve [...] Athenas ne (que) me quisquam ibi agnouit. Tusc. Quaest. 5. operculum, a worthy champion for such a wooden Bi­shop, whome no bodie vouchsafes to knowe (like another Democritus comming to Athens) saue onely Liberatus, and that in the very place, which Surius your owne author finds euident footsteps of egregious forgerie in, ab improbo nebu­lone quodam conficta videntur: and, nescio quid monstri parturi­re: which if any such bee, I see not but it may reach to this storie of your man of Patara, being both in the same page, and within halfe a score lines one of the other; but howso­euer it be, the authoritie is not worth a rush. 1 For first, what is this to the temporall primacie? which we descry here to be the Emperours, and not the Popes, by Iustinians driuing him into banishment; they call it, I know, Bellisarius his act, but in the power of Iustinian, no doubt, and for a secular matter, viz. for treason. So as the Pope is subiect to the Emperours censure for ciuill faults. 2 Secondly, let him bee Pope ouer the Church of the whole world, that is, in order of preheminence (not in right of gouernment, or confirmed iurisdiction) as the cheife Patriarch; which is euident by the comparison, or disparison rather, of earthly Kings there vsed, whereof one hath no such reference of order to an other, but the Patriarchall Seas are fixed, saith S. Leo, by inviolable Canon, legibus ad finem mundi mansuris, Epist. 33 ad Anatolium. 3 and admit no confusion. Thirdly, there is this difference betweene Kings and Priests, that Kings are confined to their owne dominions, and if they be taken without them, they loose their priuiledge, and stand but for lit­tle better then subiects in those parts: whereas the Priest may exercise his acts of office, in euery part of the Christian world, as bind, or loose, or preach, or administer, or ordaine also, if he be therevnto called. And if he be restrai­ned [Page 97] from any of these, it is Ecclesiâligante, as your Tapper telleth vs, and Viguerius, and diuerse more, quae ligat & liga­re, which euen binds out binding, and for orders sake con­fines that but to certaine places, which is indifferent to all by primitiue ordination. See your selfe of this point, cap. 2. numb. 50. & 52. Whosoeuer is Pastor in any one part of the Church, is capable of Pastorall iurisdiction in any other, though he be restrained to auoid confusion. And Basil saies of Athana­sius, pag. 304. of the Greeke by Frobenius (for the Epistles are not numbred) That hee takes no lesse care for the whole Church, or rather all the Churches, then that which was specially committed to him by our Lord. So Chrysostome sayes of the Priest, that he is, [...], the father of the whole In 1 ad Tim. c 1. orat. 6. initio ipso. world. Where by the way also, you may see the vanitie of your reason, which you magnifie so much, when the Coun­cell of Chalcedon calls the Pope their father. Which is no more then Chrysostome giues to euery Minister, to be father of the whole Church, though not in authoritie, yet in louing care, [...], not [...], which is all that the Councell sayes there of Leo, and explaines it selfe by In this sense Sidonius, l. 6. Fp. 6. ad Eut [...] ­p [...] Bonitas conditoris, habitationem po [...] hominum, quàm charitatem, finalibus clau­dit angustij [...]. And againe, S. Chrysost. hom. 3. in Acta Apost. Ethico. calls euery Bi­shop in generall [...], the Bishop ouer all men, and yet in the same place sayes, That no Bishop in Bishop ouer more then one Citie. Both of which make for vs against you, and seeming contrary include no contradiction. Yea Hom. 8. in Acta, hee saies twice together, that his Lay-auditors shalbe Occumenicall Masters, if they do this & this, of his prescribing. Also [...]: They shal be to all, that which he is to them. beneuolentiam praeferens; of which happily hereafter. The same Chrysostome againe, E­pist. 176. ad Paeanium, twice attributes as much to him, to be rector or rectifyer, as he there speakes, of the whole world. And doth not S. Hierome beginne his Epistle ad Salvinianam so, that the care of euery Chri­stian belongs vnto him, as he is a minister of Gods Church, pro officio Sacerdotij, & that their good proceeding is his glory? S. Sal­vian also ad Salon. l. 1. adv. Avar. Ad fidei meae curā. pertinet (as if not his Charities onely) nequid ecclesiastici operis vacillare permittā. When S. Chrysost. went into banish­mēt, Chrysost. in quadam epist. you may please to remēber how the Monks saluted him, that the sun might sooner loose his light, thē his vertue be eclipsed: & yet I hope his iurisdiction did not stretch, in your opiniō, [Page 98] as farre as the sunne, which if Patareus Apollo had but said of Sylverius, you would presently haue concluded in fauour of him. 1 I omit many things, to come to an ende. Of Iusti­nians Constitutions, about matter of faith, directed to the Bishops, sometime of Rome, sometime of Constantinople, which you so often tell vs of. Doe you see therefore, what power the Emperour had in spirituall causes, to giue forth Constitutions? 2 That Agapetus deposed Anthimus, and set vp Menas, but causa perorata apud Iustinianum, Iustinian hauing first the hearing of the cause, & by his authoritie, no doubt, though a Bishop was vsed to sentence a Bishop, as was Principis fauo­re Liberat. c. 21. most meete far forme; 3 Like as Menas was preferred to An­thimus his place, but how? as a speciall fauorite of Iustinian, saith the storie, and so you may be sure by his direction. 4 That Agapetus his iudgement of Anthimus was faine to be scanned in a Councell of Constantinople, gathered for that purpose by the Emperor, before the proceedings of a Pope could giue satisfaction to the Church. 5 That Patarensis doth not excuse Bishops in generall from the Emperours cen­sure, as you would haue it, but onely mooues him to shew respect to Sylverius, for the amplitude of his place. 6 And lastly, the Emperour as he binds him ouer to triall, to see whether he were guiltie of treason or no, so if he were found guiltie, he forbids him Rome; 7 which shewes that the Pope and Rome may be two, and bodes but ill, as if some Emperour one day, or Imperiall man, should make the di­uorce. On the other fide, it sets out Iustinians praise, that was content to punish treason so moderately, as not vtterly to take his Bishopricke from him, but onely to send him packing to Palmaria, or Fonicusa, as now they call it. Last­ly, whereas he reuerenced, you say, the Sea Apostolick, let them perish hardly that reuerence not the very place, where the doue hath troad, fleeing to the windowes, but with meete pro­portion, because corrupted since.

To the second Chapter, about sundrie passages in the Councell of Chalcedon.

IN the Romane discipline when of fendours were many, they vsed a course call'd Decimation, to chastise euery tenth person onely, for the misdemeanour of a multitude: So must I herafter, but point as it were at euery tenth soloecisme, which occurres in the perusing of the Adioynder; it beeing hard I graunt, for any to auoid faults in multiloquio, as the wise man tells vs, but specially for him, as I should thinke, who so purposely studieth it, as if he meant to oppresse vs with a flood of tearmes, and wearie the Reader whome he cannot perswade. Wherein he could not shew himselfe more ad­uerse to his aduersarie, whose praise is compendiousnes, [...], like the gold coynes, that include great worth in small compasse, and Timantus pictures, pre­senting more to the minde then to the eye.

§ 2. And for so much as I haue professed, as the truth is, that my taske now was to iustifie the allegations onely of the Bishops booke, against such idle scruples, as this man casts in euery where, hauing shewed, as I may say, by the blow in the forehead, so by this first encounter, that if neede were, I could take more aduantage, and rippe vp this Golias, this bulke of paper, as the other was of flesh, to his greater shame, I will now proceede with all possible breuitie.

§ 3. About the Bishops allegation of the Councell of Chal­cedon, the 28. Canon, partly he struggles to shift it off, partly he cauills with him, about the quoting of it. In which respect, [Page 100] I haue thought good, first of all to set it downe, as it lies in our bookes. In all points following the Decrees of the holy Fa­thers, and admitting the Canon lately read, of the 150 most bles­sed Bishops, assembled together vnder the great Emperour Theo­dosius, of pious memorie, in the Imperiall Constantinople, new Rome, we also decree and determine the same things, concerning the priuiledges of the most holy Church of Constantinople afore-said, the new Rome. For iustly did the Fathers giue priuiledges to the throne of old Rome, because that Citie was then regent. And the 150 most blessed Bishops, mooued with the same consideration, gaue equall priuiledges to the most holy throne of new Rome: wisely iudging it meete and reasonable, that the Citie which en­ioyed both Empire and Senate, and was endued with the like pri­uiledges (or equall priuiledges) that old Rome was, should in mat­ters Ecclesiasticall be aduanced and magnified, euen as shee (or no lesse then shee) beeing second after her, (not subiect to her, but, second after her: yet F. T. saies the Bishop left out those words of set purpose. Rather indeede because nothing to the purpose.) And that &c. Euen as, if I breake off now, and English not the rest, no wise man nor learned, that hath but read the Canon, will deeme I breake off fraudulently, or for aduantage, but onely because that which followes is not materiall. Now see what exceptions the gentleman takes to the Bishops allegation. As first, that he should say, that the Canon makes the two Seas, the one of Rome, the o­ther of Constantinople, equall in all things. What is here a­misse? Equall, saies the text, sicut illam, euen as the other: and [...] equall priuiledges. But where is that in all things, saies the wrangler? 1 The words perhaps not, but the sense so cleere, that without that, the Canon were no Canon, and the rest of the words to no purpose at all. 2 Haue you not heard, that indefinites are equiualent to vniuersalls, especially where one exception beeing made, it is plaine that all o­thers are thereby cut off, according to the rule, Exceptio fi­git regulam in non exceptis? And therefore the ranke, or the prioritie in order, beeing onely reserued to Rome in that [Page 101] place, as it followes about Constantinople, that shee should secunda post illā existere, be second in rew, as the new Rome to the old Rome, the old beeing first, and the new second, is it not cleere, that there is equalitie in all things else graunted to Constantinople, and the magnifying or aduancing of her in Ec­clesiasticall matters, sicut illa, as shee, or, no lesse then shee, gene­rally to be extended as farre as Romes? 3 Sozomene saies ex­pressely, for ciuill matters, [...], shee was equal­led in all things, Constantinople with Rome, lib. 7. cap. 9. and the ground of the Canon is, the equalitie of the two cities in ciuill affaires. Therefore, either the Fathers conclude not well, out of their owne premisses, or els the equalitie of the two Seas, euen in Ecclesiasticall matters, is to be vnderstood secundum omnia, in euery respect. 4 For as in the one, so in the others, let it be, say the Fathers. To omit that as Error is subiect to Inconstancie, you answer this afterward another way your selfe, that there might be equalitie, seruatâ pro­portione, and onely in comparison with inferiour Seas, where you will not denie, but per omnia, may be borne in that sense, in the alleadging of the Canon, though the text hath it not. The Bishop therefore might adde it without iniurie to the Text, though it be not in the letter. 5 Yea in your 47 numb. of this present Chap. you giue the Cardinall leaue to adde Totius, where there is none in the Text, but vineae only without totius, saying he doth it for explication sake. And may not we then, vpon so good grounds, as you haue not for Totius out of all that Epistle, but we haue for per omnia, out of the circumstances of the Canon, as hath beene shew­ed?6 I suppose if two Consulls should striue for prehemi­nence, or two States of Ʋenice (to vse your owne compari­son in another place of this brooke,) and the Iudge should so order it, that they should both haue equall allowance of honour, the paria priuilegia that you are so stumbled at, (for so I construe them, and I thinke the righter) one to be ad­uanced in matters of gouernment, as well as the other, one­ly that one should hold the second place, and the other the [Page 102] first, were it not euident that they were equalled in all points, though the word all were not by him expressed, saue onely in paritie of ranke and order? So the case was here. The Bishop of Rome was to sit afore the other in assemblies and meetings, to be mentioned before him in the praiers Barlaam. of the Church, to deliuer his opinion and iudgement first, and yet for matter of authoritie or iurisdiction, one Sea to be magnified sicut altera, euen as much as the other, and that per omnia, in all respects, whatsoeuer F. T. grinne to the contrarie.

§ 4. And by this we answer to his other wise obiection, that if preheminence of order bee reserued to Rome, how then does the Canon make them equall in all things? In all things else, this onely excepted, which the Canon excepts, and nothing else, to shew, that as for other things, they are to be equalled in all.

§ 5. Yet you cauill the Bishop, for leauing out that clause of [...], the second after the other, namely, Constantinople after Rome, as if the Bishop had left it out, be­cause making against himselfe, which was nothing to the purpose to haue inserted, because it concernes not the pri­macy of authoritie, but of order onely, about which wee striue not.

§ 6. As for the printing of those words, in all things, in a dif­ferent letter, which according to the measure of your accu­stomed franknes, you call corrupt and fraudulent dealing, how often shal we tell you, that the Bishop followed the differēce of the letter, as diuerse others haue done, and daily doe, to specifie the thing it selfe intended by the Canon, and to im­print it the deeper in the Readers mind, not as alleadging the letter of it, and so counterfeiting, as you please to call it. From which in truth he was so farre, that you make it his fault in this very Chapter, num. 3. not to offer to lay it down, or the words of it, but onely to argue, and to drawe conse­quences therefrom, as his occasion serued.

§ 7. Now whereas you would explicate the Canons mea­ning, [Page 103] by the words following, about the ordaining of cer­taine Bishops by the Patriarch of Constantinople, as Pontus, A­sia, Thracia, &c. and by exempting that Sea, from standing subiect any longer to the Bishopricke of Heraclea, of which it was once but a parcell; it is true, that from thence, euen from so low estate, it was exalted by consent, to be a patri­archall Sea, and not euery such neither, but the second in order, and setting that aside, equall to Rome in all respects. Else neither should this Canon haue suffered such oppositi­on, you may bee sure, at the Bishop of Romes hands, nor needed the Fathers to name this so distastfull equalitie with Rome, in the bodie of the Canon, if nothing but the ordai­ning of Bishops had been assigned him, which other Patri­arches exercise in their diocesse, as well as the Bishop of Rome, without his repining. And yet lastly, you may re­member, that the Canon of Nice, describing the prehemi­nence Can. 6. of the Bishop of Rome, as a patterne of Patriarchship, vtters it in those words of Ruffinus translation, quòd Ecclesi­arum suburbicariarum curam habeat, that he hath care of the Churches that are abutting vpon the citie; to which Canon of Nice, spreading so the iurisdiction of the Church of Rome, this Canon of Chalcedon may seeme to allude, menti­oning so many Churches as you here recite, and all of them subiect to the Sea of Constantinople.

§ 8. As for that you thrust in here, vpon verie small oc­casion, of Athanasius of Alexandria appealing to Iulius Bi­shoppe of Rome, to shewe that Alexandria was subiect to Rome, if you meane the subiection of order and ranke, it is nothing to the matter, and yet it followeth not, by your leaue, out of your example. The subiection of authoritie is that which we contend about, and yet that much lesse may be gathered from hence. For neither did Athanasius flee to Iulius alone, but with his companie of Bishops, as his letters Athanasiapol. conera Arian. shew, that he brought in his behalfe, Omnibus vbi (que) Catholi­cae Ecclesiae Episcopis,. i. To all the Bishops of the Catholicke Church: and againe, Hac quidem & ad omnes, & ad Iulium [Page 104] scripsere:. i. This they wrote to Iulius, and to all. And the Church that enioies more flourishing fortunes, or whose arme God hath strengthened with temporall prosperitie, may bee sought vnto of the distressed, though not subiect to it, by a­ny dutie of obedience, as one King (sayes the Orator) easi­ly Pro lege Manil. Regum afflictae o­pes facise alliciunt misericordiam. rescues and succors another, though not referring to him by subiection, no more then Mithridates did to Tigranes; as also I doubt not, but if Iulius had suffered wrong, and Atha­nasius could haue holpe him, neither would Iulius haue dis­dained to craue his assistance, nor Athanasius haue refused him; no more then the aforesaid Bishop of Patara did to sue for Syluerius, and to sheild him all he could, against the rage of Iustinian, as euen now you told vs; and yet he of Patara, much inferiour to the other without question.

§ 9. But, to deale more liberally with the Bishop in this point, put case (say you) that the Councell of Chalcedon did meane to giue to the Church of Constantinople that equality with the Sea of Rome, which he affirmeth; yet he should nothing gaine by it, but ra­ther it confirmes the primacie of Pope Leo, whose onely authority was able to quash it. How is that prooued? First, because the Canon tooke not place presently. Which is no more then hap­pens, for the most part, to any lawe, to haue slower execu­tion then it hath making. But does it follow from hence, that either the Bishop alleages a counterfeit Canon, (for by this reason you may cauill any Canon in the booke) or that Leo's authority was of force to disanull it? Let vs breifly looke into it, as not much to our purpose. For in truth, what ende may we looke for of dispute, if so pregnant alle­gations be reckoned for counterfeit? By a few heads we may iudge of all the rest. You obserue 4. things out of Ge­lasius his Epistle to the Bishops of Dardania, to disprooue the Canon.

§ 10. 1 One, that Martian praysed Leo for not suffering the old Canons to be violated in that point, and yet himselfe zealous for the aduancement of Constantinople. The answer is most ea­sie, He might take Leo's excuse in good part, as grounded [Page 105] vpon pretence of conscience, not to crosse the Canons, though it was so farre from beeing sound, that both Leo might haue altered them as your selfe confesse, (positiue Ca­nons) Num 70. huius & num. 28. and afterward it was altered euen by a generall Coun­cell, (if that of Lateran at least was general) as you acknow­ledge. And I hope, Sir, I may praise Constancy, euen in mine aduersary, and in a wrong matter, though I could wish his constancy were better imployed. So might Mar­tian with Leo; and somewhat the rather, to induce him by addoulcings; for direct thwarting alienates rather. Is this a good reason now, why the Canon should be no Canon, or this also scored among the Bishops forgeries?

§ 11. 2 You say secondly, that Anatolius, in fauour of whom the Canon was made, beeing rebuked by Leo for his forwardnes to preferre it, deriued the fault vpon the Clergy of Constantinople, and said it was positum in ipsius potestate; Leo might chuse whether he would grant it or no. Answer. That the Clergie of Constanti­nople concurred to the making of it, I hope, good Sir, dero­gates not from the Canon, but rather fortifies it, as likewise the consent of so many other Bishops; and if Leo's shake, bestriding his praye (that is, the honour of his seate, the sin­gularity rather) affrighted Anatolius, and startled lentum illum Heli, as he calls him, that timorous old man, what is that to the antiquating of the Decree of a Synode, and so po­pulous a Synode as this was? For I hope the Canon was not so in fauour of Anatolius, (whatsoeuer you prattle) but that much rather of his Sea, then of his person, as both the reason shewes which the Canon contaynes, drawne, as you may remember, from the Imperiall city, and Martians loue was to the city, not to the man. Yea it rather tooke place, you say, after his death. What then doe you tell vs of A­natolius?

§ 12. 3 Your third obseruation, that Pope Simplicius was as loath to yeild to Leo the Emperour, for the aduancement of Con­stantinople, as Leo the Pope had beene to the Emperour Martian in the same cause, prooues nothing against the Canon, vnlesse [Page 106] it be graunted, that the Pope hath a negatiue voice in the making of them, which is the thing in question betweene you and vs, & therefore to be prooued, not to be presumed. But if you meane, that it took not place so soone, you haue your answer before, it brake out at last like fire in the bones, and thats enough.

§ 13. 4 With like facility to your Quartum Notabile, that Acacius obtained the censures of Pope Felix, and executed them vpon the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. What then? As if one Bishop may not craue aide of another, to represse a­buses, when he cannot doe it himselfe, euen as they in Peters boate, beckened to the next to come and helpe them, (for your primacie is that Moses taken out of the waters by your owne description) so here Acacius becken to Peter, that is, to the Pope himselfe, as you dreame. Neither thinke you that Acacius was the Popes mā, to execute his pleasure, but [...], as Homer sayes. And, congregatis vobiscum v­nà cum meospiritu, as in all excommunications, so specially, I suppose, when Patriarches are to be censured. Does not Gelasius say so, in the Epistle that you quote, Ipso quoque A­cacio postulante, vel exequente. Where you see what executi­on Acacius performed, namely, with which Postulation might well stand, which is not the ministers, or the vnder-officers part, to demand censure against offenders, but only to lay it on as is enioyned. We read in the same Epistle, that Acacius proceeded against other two Patriarches of the a­foresaid Seas, whereof one was Calendion, whome Gelasius names, the other vnnamed, onely qualiscunque Catholicus, as Gelasius styles him, and that neither with a Synods, as Gelasi­us there sayes, nor by censure obtained from the Sea of Rome, for ought that hee implyes, but belike of his owne head; yet Acacius had no authoritie ouer the aforesaid Pa­triarches. No more then hath the Pope ordinary ouer them, whome in casu, and quantum fas est, he may offer to excom­municate, when they are otherwise incorrigible. And ther­fore this prooues no Supremacie neither, of the Pope aboue [Page 107] other Patriarches, that Acacius as you say executed his cen­sures.

§ 14. What should I say of them that withstood these censures of the Pope, and despised them? and yet godly men, and allowed by the Church. Which shewes, that they breath from no such power, as you imagine. See Austen contra Donatist. l. 5. c. 25. of Cyprian, not forfeiting his free­hold in the Church, though he were one of them, quos Ste­phanus Papa abstinendos putauerat, whome Stephen Pope doo­med with excommunication. Irenaeus censured Victors cen­suring Euseb. l. 5. c. 25. of the Churches of Asia, where Baronius would triumph vpon the name of Victor, as if straightway vi­ctorie went with Rome, but giue me Irenaeus for the [...], in choro nostro, the supremacie will goe rather on his side. Blessed are the peacemakers. So likewise did Polycrates, if you Ibid. c 26. regard names so much, a man compounded of multitudes and power, which two endowments your Church much delights in. Anicetus, a pretie name too, to guggle Baronius, yet re­sisted Ibid. by Polycarpus, not abhorring in his nomenclature frō the Churches propertie, Esa. 54. Paulinus in his Epistle ad Sulpitium Seuerum, calls the buzze of the Pope, or the bull, as you tearm it, vacui murmur culicis, the trumpeting, or the whee­sing of a silly gnat, that was all he set by it. Tertullian hath many flings at him, as Pamelius will tell you, and no maruell De liturgicis Fragment. Hi­larij. for the rigour he sustained among them. S. Hilarie to Libe­rius, Quotapars orbis es tu? as much to say, as, what are you, sir, that you should so take on? And sometime other Bishops did as much for the Pope, I meane, they excommunicated him, no bodie controlling them. For it is ius commeabile, or, ius reciprocum, passing and walking from the one to the o­ther. In the Councel of Ephesus, the Bishops that held with Apolog. Cyrilli Mandat. Synod. Ephes. Cyrill and Memnon, Scire autem volumus vestram sanctitatem, &c. We doe you to wit, (euen you the Popes Legates repre­senting his person) that if you despise ought of these things, you are thereby shut out from our Communion. what was that in ef­fect but excommunication? Lastly, you tell vs, that Acacius [Page 108] obeyed the Pope for a time, as much to say, as, while hee listed himselfe. And euen Gelasius, when he affirmes him to stand excommunicate, by vertue of the excommunications that he procured against others, he meanes iure meriti, not, iure fori, desert beeing one thing, sentence another. Vnlesse you will say, that Nathan censured Dauid, in, Tues homo, which was rather Dauids act against himselfe, like that in the Go­spell, Ex ore tuo iudico te, which in Conc. Sinuessano was made you knowe whose priuiledge, not the Bishops of Constan­tinople, but the Bishop of Romes, (though very ridiculously) that no bodie should proceed against him, but onely himselfe. And so much of your foure reasons out of Gelasius his Epistle, why this canon should be insufficient.

§ 15. In the examples that you bring vs, of such Bishops of Constantinople, as sought for vnion with the sea of Rome, what a childish ignorance is it, not to be able to discerne betweene the vnion of consent in matters of faith, and vni­on of subiection, which implies superiority, that they neuer acknowledged in the Popes ouer them? Was there no vni­on sought for but with Rome? Or, doe not all the members of the great bodie pant for it, each string of that harpe en­deauour after accordance, to make vp the perfect harmony of Christianity? No doubt this is that which the Apostle saith, Did the word of God come out from you alone? or to you a­lone? [...]. Cor. [...]. 36. which was the case of Corinth, not of Rome, in those daies. It were long to trace all your absurdities. The like you bring vs out of the Epistle of the Easterne Bishops to Symmachus, that the soundnes of the true faith was alway preserued in the Romane church, because of Tues Petrus, & super hanc petram. Loe the primacie of the Sea of Rome, say you, grounded vpon our Sauiours expresse words, with little regard to the equality of priuiledges in the Councell of Chalcedon, which the Bishop so much standeth vpon. Thus you will neither giue leaue to the learned Fathers, to deflect those words after a witty manner, to their innocent purpose, as Pighius saies of some of them, that scripturae ijs nascuntur sub manu, for their [Page 109] dexterity that way, and Andradius dares no otherwise de­fend your detortion of Ecce duo gladij, to establish the tem­porall Defens. Trid. l. 2. iurisdiction in the spirituall, (one monster in ano­ther:) nor againe can you distinguish betweene primacy of power, and infallibilitie of iudgement, which though Rome can­not be said to haue preserued alwaies, in rigore, as S. Basil Haere ses propagāt, Epist. 8. ad Eu­seb. Sam. and diuerse others will testify, and somewhat we haue spo­ken thereto afore, yet without doubt this place so glaunces at the one, as it hath no word so much as tending to the other. For if exemption from error entitles to soueraignty, then how could Peter be the gouernour of the Apostles, who all of them had this priuiledge of not erring? So fow­ly you fall vnder your owne instance. Lastly, Chrysost. Tom. Edit. D. H. Sauil. 4. pag. 942. in Lat. concion, applyes these words, Tues Pe­trus, &c. to demonstrate the steadfastnes of the Church of Constantinople, other some to Leo the lay Emperour, &c. Epist. episcop. secundae Syriae ad Leon. Habetur int [...] Act? Concil. Chalced.

§ 16. The like also I might say of Vigilius his president­ship in the Councell of Constantinople, which what if Eutychi­us did of courtesie offer him? Praesidente nobis Beatitudine tuâ. Who knows not that the Presidents of generall Coūcels, are not alwaies the chiefest Bishops in Christendome? As Cy­rill, as Hosius, as diuers more. Cui non concilio praefuit Hosius? and yet Hosius a Cordevant, not a Romane Bishop.

§ 17. The like of the deposition of diuers Bishops of Constantinople, by the Popes, as you say, and namely that A­gapetus deposed Anthimus, with many more. Shall I tell you what wise men are wont to say in this case? Agapetus did depose Anthimus; but was Anthimus deposed? as much to say, They did their best, but de bene esse onely, and, valeat vt valere potest, for, authoritie they had none. And there­fore all this while, the Canon is not impeached but remains good.

§ 18. What should I tell you of Euagrius, l. 2. hist. c. 4. that this Canon was enacted in that Councell by the Fathers, not forged by the Bishop? [...], you may read the rest in the very end of the chapter, that Constātinople had The preroga­tiues before other Churches [...] [Page 110] [...], onely short of Rome, and short but in [...], as hath beene said, in order, or, in number, as the Logi­cians are wont to discerne things of the same species. I Nouel. Constit. 131. Com. in Photij Nomocanon. tit. p. c. 5. Com. in Can. might adde Iustinian, Balsamon, Zonaras, the Councell qui­nisextum at Constantinople in Trullo, c. 36. which both dedu­ces it from the first generall Councell in Constantinop. c. 3. which you quarrell, and recites the words that offend you most in this of Chalcedon, about aequalia priuilegia, and, Mag­nificari sicut illam, equall priuiledges, or equal prerogatiues, and to be aduanced like as the other. But I goe forward. Indeed nothing is more absurd, or rather can be, then your descanting vpon intercedere, in a double sense, that you bring, to shew you haue some smacke of the Latin yet, at least when your masters and monitors helpe you. Because the Bishop had said, Leone frustrà intercedente per literas suas apud Augustum, Augustam, & Anatolium; that the Canon tooke place for all that Leo could doe by his letters to the Emperour, to the Empresse, and to Anatolius: you dreame of intercession like that to the Saints, which you build out of places as well construed as this. And because in other places, the Bishop happily so vseth the word, following your owne tearmes, for your better capacitie, therefore you conclude he vses it so here, but especially because else, Leo should haue beene so potent as to resist the Emperour. As if intercedere per lite­ras, did not a little mollifie the matter, which is to hinder and to disswade, but by his writing onely, and how humble that? Or to shew that Leo did all he could, yet to no pur­pose; which frustrà giues you to vnderstand, added by the Bishop in the same sentence, non frustrà. But if you will needes make Leo so sawcie a Prelate, you may doe as you please, your iudgement is free concerning the Popes whom you pretend to honour: we find his letters to be of another straine, very humble & supplicatorie, towards the great ones especially, and had rather construe more gently of him. Sci­ens gloriosam Clementiam vestram Ecclesiasticae studere concor­diae &c. precor & sedulâ suggestione vos obsecro. Epist. 54. ad [Page 111] Martianum Augustum. That is: Knowing your royall grace to be zealous of Church vnitie, I pray and beseech you by diligent suggestion, &c. Neither any command shall you finde giuen by him to the Emperour, nor resistance of authoritie, though he professe much zeale to maintaine the Canons, thinking he might not breake them, as was said before. Wherein ne­uerthelesse, you dissent from him, and say he might. So as, if you had beene his counsellor, not onely this had bin a Ca­non, but euen a Canon by Leo's owne consent, which you so much oppose, vnder colour of his name at this day.

§ 19. But are the Iesuits so idle, or so adle rather, as to thinke that they may put such tricks, I will not say vpon the Bishop, cui nulla ciconia pinsit, but vpon the yongest schol­ler in our Vniuersities, as because intercedere hath a double sense, either to withstand, or to entreat, they may pin which they list of the twaine vpon vs? Was not the word rather chose by the Bishop of purpose, to shew what a withstan­ding Leo vsed, namely ioyned with entreatie, as if all his resi­stance could not goe beyond praiers? which another that had waighed the double meaning of the word, and with single eye lookt into the matter, would rather haue belee­ued to be the Bishops very drift and especiall aime. But how should then the Adioynder haue blurred so much paper, to shew that Leo did make no suit? Sure those words before alleadged out of his Epistle to Marcian, put it out of doubt, that he did make suit, whatsoeuer this iangler mumble to the contrarie. Et precor & sedulâ suggestione vos obsecro, I both pray and beseech you, dutifully aduising, or informing. What can be plainer? As for that he saies, non frustrà, not in vaine, be­cause the Emperour praised Leo for his constancie, we haue re­futed it before, and the very euent proclaimes as much, that it was frustrà, or in vaine, the Canon hauing gotten the cre­dit, which they in vaine maligne.

§ 20. Now for that which he cites out of his Epistle to Pulcheria, the 55. in number, Consensiones Episcoporum re­pugnantes regulis apud Niceam conditis, in irritū mittimus, if it [Page 112] had beene onely so, it might haue shewed Leoes resolution against the Canon, and his stoutnes to deny it for his part, not but all this while he was suppliant to the Emperesse. But when he addes moreouer, vnitâ nobiscum vestrae fidei pietate, and, per authoritatem B. Petri Apostols, what a vantage does this giue, euen to Pulcheria her selfe, to interpose in determi­nation of Church-businesses, and as it seemes, a kind of fellowship in S. Peters authority? Yet this is our lay-Iesuites dish aboue Commons, which before he called liberall dealing.

§ 21. Concerning Anatolius his receauing to fauour, and I know not what submission, that he would faine bring him to, as it were to aske Leo pardon, I must tell him as be­fore, that Anatolius his cause, and the Canon are two. If either weakenes, or dissimulation, made him to shrink, yet the Ca­non prospered and thriued daily: neither did the Bishop say, frustrà, contra ingenium personae, but contra Canonē only, in that Leo made head in vaine against the Canon, not against Ana­tolius his disposition, which is nothing to our matter.

§ 22. Neither are his reasons sound, which he brings, why Leo should be against the Canon, though as I sayd, nei­ther this touches at all the Bishop, as beeing no refutation of any part of his booke, neither is it ought worthy our consideration, since we hold the Canon might be good without Leo. Indeede they hold that Leoes consent was re­quisite to the enacting of it, but that they prooue not. His reasons for Leo are these 4. 1 First because it sprang from Ana­tolius proud humour, to aduance himselfe inordinately. But this is a flat slaunder of Anatolius, not a iustification of Leo: or, though it were true of Anatolius priuate part, that he had a touch of the Luciferian spirit, to exalt his nest, and climbe higher, which is not so likely, yet the concurrers with A­natolius in his desire for Constantinople, were led, as is appa­rant, with farre diuerse respects. In their Epistle to Leo, the Fathers of that Councell mention these: 1. To gratifie the Emperours, who reioyced in it: 2. to shew their zeale to the Senate: 3. their honour to the citie of Constantinople it selfe: and 4. last­ly, [Page 113] not onely from the good liking of persons, but à naturâ rei, to establish order, and to abandon confusion out of the Church of God. You see all was not for Anatolius his sake, whom you so much talke of.

§ 23. 2 Secondly, because it was made you say in the absence of his Legates, and by surreption. Answer. That it was made in their absence, it was their owne default, who would not stay: but that it was made by surreption, it is your vntruth: for they all gaue consent to it againe the next day, and pro­tested strongly against this imputation. You shall heare the Councell it selfe for the first of these; Act. 16. so wee read. Paschasinus & Lucentius vicegerents to the Sea Aposto­lick said: If it please your highnes we haue somewhat to say to you. The most glorious Iudges answered, Say what you will. Paschasi­nus and Lucentius said, Yesterday after your Highnes were risen, and we followed your steps, there were certaine things decreed as we heare, which we thinke were done besides the order and Canons of the Church. We beseech you therefore that your excellencies would command the same to be read againe, that the whole compa­ny may see whether it were rightly or disorderly done. The most glorious Iudge answered, If any thing were decreed after our de­partures, let it be read againe. And before the reading, Aetius Archdeacon of Constantinople (after a few other words pre­mised) said thus. We had somewhat to doe for the Church of Constantinople. We prayed the Bishops that came from Rome, that they would [stay and] communicate with vs. They refused, say­ing, we may not, we are otherwise charged. We acquainted your Honours with it, and you willed that this holy Councell should con­sider of it. Your highnes then departing, the Bishops that are here, conferring of a common cause, required this to be done. And here they are. It was not done in secret, nor by stealth, but order­ly and lawfully. This for the First.

§ 24. Heare also for the second, what we read in the same Action. Lucentius reuerend Bishop, and Vicegerent of the Sea Apostolick, said: First, let your Highnes consider, how guilefully the Bishops were dealt with, and how hastily the matter was handled, [Page 114] that they should be constrained to subscribe, contrary to the holy Canons. And Beronicianus, most relligious Secretarie of the sa­cred Consistorie, interpreting the former saying, the Reuerend Bi­shops cryed out, None of vs was constrained. And after many things between, againe we read: The most glorious Iudges said: These, the most holy Bishops of Asia, and Pontus, that sub­scribed to the book, as it was read vnto them, let them say whether they subscribed of their owne accord, and with full consent, or com­pelled by some necessitie laid vpon them. And the aforesaid Bi­shops of Asia, and Pontus, that had subscribed, comming foorth into the midst, Diogenes reuerend Bishop Cyzici, said, Before God I subscribed willingly. Florentius reuerend Bishop Sardeo­rū Lydiae, said, No necessitie was laid vpon me, but I subscribed of mine own accord. Romanus reuerend Bishop Myrorum, said, I was not constrained: It seemes iust to me, and I subscribed willingly. Calogerus reuerend Bishop Claudiopolis Honoriadis, said, I sub­scribed with my will, not constrained, and according to the deter­mination of the hundred and fiftie holy Fathers [in the first Councell of Constantinople.] Seleucus Bishop of Amasia, said, I did it by mine owne will, desirous to be vnder this Sea (of Constantinople,) because to me it seemes good wisedome. Eleuthe­rius Bishop of Chalcedon, said, I subscribed by my will, knowing that both by the Canons, and by custome aforegoing, the Sea of Constantinople hath these priuiledges. Where, by the way, you may see how fond the obiection is, that Lucentius then made, and some since him, that the Canon of Constantinople was neuer put in vse, whereas the Bishop of the place here, where the Councell was held, alleadges both Canon and Cu­stome for it. Nunechius reuerend Bishop of Laodicea of Phrygia, I subscribed of mine owne accord. Marinianus, Pergamius, Critonianus, Eusebius, Antiochus, with diuerse more, too long to be reckoned, professed in the same sort, Sponte subscripsimus, we subscribed willingly, on of our owne accord. What can the Adioyndrer reply to this? And yet afterward more effectu­ally, if it may be, When the glorious Iudges had so pronounced, Oportere sanctissimum Archiepiscopum regiae Constantinopolis [Page 115] nouae Romae, oisdem primatibus honoris & ipsum dignum esse, &c. that the most holy Archbishop of the royall citie of Constantinople, which is new Rome, must be allowed the same primacies or prehe­minences of honour, that the Archbishop of olde Rome is: and when they desired the holy and vniuersall Councell, to de­clare what they thought, (for so are their words in the said Action,) Reuerendi Episcopi dixerunt, Haec iusta sententia, haec omnes dicimus, haec omnibus placent, &c. The Reuerend Bishops said, This is a iust sentence, we all say so, these things like vs all, we all say so (once againe) the decree is iust,—and much more to that purpose, which I omit.

§ 25. 3 His third reason is, because the other Canon of Con­stantinople, vpon which this was grounded, was neuer put in practise till that time. But how happily haue we refuted that euen now, out of the mouth of one of the Bishops that subscribed, Eleutherius Bishop of Chalcedon? Besides, Baro­nius confutes him, that acknowledges Chrysostome (talem pa­trem, as he saies, such a Father,. i. so reuerend) to haue pra­ctised this Canon, in deposing no lesse then 13. Bishops of Asia, as you may reade in Sozom. l. 8. c. 16. Likewise the Clergie of Constantinople, that in this verie Councell, Act. 11. relying on this Canon, challenged to themselues the ordination of the Bishop of Ephesus, metropolitane of Asia minor, and called it Custome, as well as right. So that belike they had knowne it practised by others. Lastly, why did Anatolius subscribe his name in this Councell, the Councel of Chalcedon, before Maximus and Iuuenalis, one Bishop of Antioch, the other Bishop of Hieru­salem, but onely because the Canon that was made at Con­stantinople, in fauour of that Sea, was and might be practised? And when you quote Leo, Ep. 53. that the Canon of Constan­tinople lacked authoritie, because it was neuer sent to the Bishop of Rome, neither does Leo say any such thing, that I can finde in all that Epistle, nor shall you prooue that the Popes con­sent is necessarie to enact Canons, though most childishly you presume it: and lastly, he rather yeeldeth in the said E­pistle, as I conceiue him, quandam transmissam huius rei noti­ciam [Page 116] ad Apostolicam sedem à praedecessoribus Anatolij, that A­natolius his predecessors sent knowledge hereof to the Romane Sea, and in the Epist. 55. he graunts that some might haue attemp­ted is, (which without Canon surely they would not in all likelihood) but could not obtaine it, he meanes perhaps, not so fully as afterward. Else wee prooued you know euen nowe, that the Canon was not buried for want of practise, some while afore. Neither can I tell, what those words of Euse­bius meane, in the 16. Act of this Councel: And I my selfe read o­uer this Canon, to the most [...] Pope, in the Citie of Rome, in the presence of the Clergie of Constanti­nople; and he receiued it. Et hanc regulā Sanctissimo Papae in vrbe Româ ego relegi, prae­sentibus Clericis Constantinopolitanis, eam (que), suscepit: I say, I know not what they meane, but that notice hereof was sent to the Pope; which makes Surius in the margent to note it thus, Either Eusebi­us [...], or Leo wa [...] deceiued. Aut Eusebius mentitur, aut Leonem fefellit: you may doe well to helpe me, if I be amisse.

§ 26. 4 Your fourth and last reason why Leo should dis­allow this, because it was repugnant to the Canons of Nice, is a very trifling one, and you answer it your selfe, in the 28. and 70. Numb. of this Chapter, graunting that he might haue ratified it for all that. And I hope, if the Canons of Nice had beene so inviolable, it concerned Maximus, and Iuuenalis, the two Patriarks, one of Antioch, the other of Hierusalem, to looke to the keeping of them, as well as Leo. Yet they yeelded. So much of this.

§ 27. Is there any thing else to be sifted in this chapter? It sticks sore in his stomack, that the Bishop finds a difference betweene the back-sides of letters, and the decrees of generall Councels. Because I know not who, some miserable suiters, had magnified Leo with glorious titles to mooue compassi­on. Mr. F. T. demands, why did not those suiters, that indorsed their supplications after such a fashion to Leo, rather magnify the Councell, and flatter that, if the Councels authority was greater then Leos? As if he neuer had heard, how the man tooke his [...]lspan [...]. A wood­ [...] in stead of a doue. intertainment, when he saw others vsed as well as himselfe; greatly scorning it which before he accepted, and breaking out into these words, [...]. And so Alexan­der [Page 117] refused to be enrolled free denizon of a certaine citie that offered him that honour, till he heard them say they neuer affoarded it to any but Hercules. For the respects are Non est admira­tions vna arbor, cum tota in ean­dem altitudinem sylua su [...] exit. Seneca. nothing which are shared among a multitude, to those which are throwne into the bosome of some one man, and perhaps like Leo here, ambitious enough aboue his fellows. Besides that who so honoureth the President of a Councell, in the place that he holdeth, his honour redoundeth to the whole assemblie, and yet it delighteth the ringleader of that daunce, after a speciall manner, beeing applied to him­selfe.

§ 28. These titles (saith he) were taken by the Notaries, and contradicted by none. They were taken, as the deuotions of poore suiters, who giue somewhat to gaine more, and speake faire where they looke for releefe.

—Liberalis est pauper [...] [...].
Quoties amico diuiti nihil donat,

could the Poet say, which when it wants in substance, must be supplied with language. Contradiction needed not, where the style of beggars carried no validitie, and the Councell eft-soones controuled those tearms, in the Canon that we speak of, vnlesse well construed and dextrously vnderstood. So the Patriarko Alexandrine at this day, in his lowest ebbes, writes himselfe the Iudge of the world, which some say S. Cy­rill deserued for himselfe, and his successors in that throne, for playing the President so well in the Ephesine Councell: and the rule is not vnknowne, which teaches vs how to inter­pret such manner of phrases, Loquendum vt vulgus, sentien­dum vt pauci, or, vt sapientes; the one like Ischyrion, and his distressed mates, the other after the ordinance of the sacred Councell.

§ 29. He thinks the Bishop hath not satisfied such pla­ces, as were alleadged out of the Epistle of the Synod, wher­in Leo's authoritie is so greatly extolled. Alas how great­ly? Head of the members, that is to say, President of the Coun­cell, and therefore they adde, Quibus tu sicut membris caput [Page 118] praeeras, not praees, which is continuall, as by vertue of his [...]. findes a Head in euery Congre­gation; but, Popes are not so frequent. Popedome, but praeer as for the time onely, and as President of the Councell. Againe, sicut pater, as a father, for many causes God wot, whereof the Popedome is none, for his age, for his grauitie, for his learning, for his Praesidentship, for his great eminencie in the Church of God, as we our selues confesse, and yet drawing no taile of vniuersall iurisdiction after it. So Cyrill, so Atticus, call them their sonnes, whom Epistad Concil. the African Councell sent for copies of the Nicene Canons to them; Innocentius the Priest, and Marcellus the subdeacon, though they were not of their Diocesse, but toto diuisi orbe 1. Sam. 25. 8. Da­uid eals himself Nabals son, yet so far from ac­knowledging a­ny authoritie that the churle had ouer him, as he threatens him the sword soone after, in the same chap. rather. And, I pray you, does not Marcian call Palladius fa­ther, Palladi Pater? (See Sacra Marciani, post Concil. Chal­ced.) which Palladius was onely Praefectus praetorio, and no way superiour to the Emperour Marcian. Not farre off from the same place, the Bishops of Aegypt writing to A­natolius, entitle him thus, Archiepiscopo Constantinopolitanae & Catholicae Ecclesiae Anatolio, as if besides his Archbisho­pricke of Constantinople, he had beene Bishop of the Vni­uersall Church of Christ, as you wildly faine of the Pope, that he hath the whole Church put into his hands, together with the Bishopricke of the citie of Rome; as if the skuller of Rome, forsooth, or the herring-boat rather, cymba Petri, had the ship of the whole world appendant to it. Proterius in the same Epistle, Bishop of Alexandria, is thus styled by them: Archiepiscopus, & Catholicae pastor Ecclesiae, which insi­nuates as much, too much I know for a Iesuit to graunt, without discreeter interpretation, Gregorie Nazianzenes Epitaph. in Pa­trem. father, though a very meane Bishop, and not to be spoke of, but for his sonne, was cleped the father of the Popes them­selues, [...], father of all the high Priests of God. Of him in Baronius I told you before, Pontificum (que) caput, the head of Bishops, yea of Popes verily. That our Sauiour com­mitted the charge of the vineyard to Leo, as is there said, as if therefore his supremacie were de iure diuine, is no more then Palladius, (another Christian Magistrate of that name) [Page 119] bestowes vpon Epiphanius in his Epistle to him, before the Anchoratus, Dignare ad hoc à Saluatore ordinatus, vouchsafe O thou appointed for this ende by our Sauiour, and what to doe, trow you? to prescribe rules of the right faith in the Trinitie, which yet was not Epiphanius his taske, de iure diui­no, the Popes rather, as they I am sure would haue it, Aqui­nas by name, in his 2. 2. to giue Creedes to the church; And a quaest. 1. art. 10. little before that, in a stranger tune, as speaking to our bles­sed Sauiour, Praeceptor serua, Master saue vs. Is not this ra­ther a pylot of the vniuersall ship?

§ 30. Whereas Dioscorus fault is amplified by the Fa­thers, to haue wronged Leo after Flauianus and Eusebius, Leo before all, because recko­ned after all. with a post haec omnia, as if therfore Leo were aboue them all, though we deny not but in order of place he was aboue thē, and specially then, when he was President of the Councell, (of which neuertheles we may say with S. Chrysostome vpon the Acts, homil. 3. [...], a matter of pre­sidence rather then of precedence) yet he might as well argue, that to imprison Peter was a greater fault in Herod, then to slay Iames, (and indeede thats the reckening that the Pa­pists make of these names now a daies, I meane Kings and Popes, the one in Iames, the other in Peter, yea though they flay the one, and but emprison the other) because the scrip­ture saies [...], he added moreouer, or, he proceeded also, Act. 12. 2. 3. to attach Peter. Though F. T. perhaps, drunken with Iesui­tisme, would argue from hence for Peters primacie, as cat­ching at euery thing, and surely as wisely as Turrian his fel­low Iesuite, from the 4. quaternions of souldiers that were set to guard him, in the same Chapter, an vniuersall man no doubt, and spreading into the foure corners of the world. A­nother time, quia vas pertigit ad Petrum, the vessell came iust as farre as Peter, that is, the Church and the Pope are coextending.

§ 31. But his greatest stick, is at the Bishops answer, a­bout the charge of the vineyard, committed to Leo, that ad curam omnium ex aquo pertinet, the care of the vineyard be­longs [Page 120] to all alike, not to Leo onely. And here he plunges into a discourse ouer head and eares, that all are not equally obliged in conscience, to take care for the Church. As if the Bi­shop had said, aequaliter pertinet, or aequè pertinet, that all are bound in like degree, who onely saies, ad omnes pertinet ex aequo, that is, that all are bound and none exempt, to take care for the Church; ex aequo pointing there to the indiffe­rency of the care, the generality of the parties, not to the degrees of caring.

§ 32. Yet he argues from hence (that you may know the man, and what his humour his) that if this be true, then coblers and tinkers shall haue as good right of suffrage in generall Councels, as any Bishop of them all. Yea nothing but confusion and Chaos will ouerflow, the difference of vocations beeing extingui­shed in the Church, &c. As if first the Bishop meant this of the Laity, such as coblers and tinkers, and not of Bishops on­ly and other Clergie-men, which afterwards himselfe is faine to acknowledge, num, 86. with shame enough, hauing beaten the aire so long before to no purpose. Or, if the Bi­shop should extend it to the Laity, and all, (for disputation sake, and to chafe this snarling mastiffe a little,) yet it were not easie to put off all that he brings, by this distinctiō, that howsoeuer the care as exiens in actum, breaking forth into this or some other duty, is not common to all, as the nurse onely cares so for the childe as to suckle it, yet the care in fonte, or in radice, the originall sollicitude and indistinct care, is common to all, as they say in the Psalmes, Wee haue wished you good lucke, you that be of the house of the Lord: euen as they may wish wel to the childe, that are not particular­ly put in trust to battle it, and to giue it suck, but custod [...]o ordine maternorum membrorum, as S. Austen saies in the like ease, or [...], euery man in his owne order, 1. Cor. 15.

§ 34. At last, the Bishop is set to schoole euen in plaine tearmes. Whereto I answer (saith he) he must learne to distin­guish, &c. Betweene what thinke you? Betweene the primacy [Page 121] of Peter, and the priuiledges of the Sea of Rome. So he. And what of this? Therefore the Fathers might giue the priuiledges indeed, as the Canon speakes, but still the primacie is of Christ. What pri­macie, Sir, what primacie, I pray you, but [...] ▪ to be aduanced and magnified in Church-mat­ters, to be Ladie-regent and gouernresse in that quarter? What primacie did our Sauiour els giue to your Church, when he gaue most, as you feigne in Peter? Vnlesse you speake of the Temporall, which neuerthelesse you make a [...] of the other, an vndiuided consequent, and so both as it were but one. Neuerthelesse this [...] is called here priuiledges, by the Fathers of this Councell, and it is saide, the Fathers gaue it afore to Rome, and now to Constantinople, by the tenour of [...], vnlesse you will teach the Fathers how to speake. Which deuise of yours, when I thinke of it, is as good as that before, numb. 59. that the Fathers gaue not all priuiledges to Rome, but some onely, and therefore the Bishop offended in his si qua, that is, all in generall, or whatsoeuer. Which you correct thus, The Canon speakes on­ly of priuiledges giuen to the Church of Rome, in respect of the Imperiall seat. So that whereas the Fathers of Calchedon bring this for an argument, why their fathers and prede­cessors gaue priuiledges to Rome, namely because Rome was the Imperiall seat, [...], the construction must be thus, by your grand Logick, The Fa­thers gaue not all priuiledges to Rome, for the seat Imperiall, but the priuiledges giuen thereto, in respect of the Imperiall seat, were giuen thereto in respect of the Imperiall seat, and none others. Is not this sweete art now, and worthie of a Iesuit?

§ 35. The reasons that you bring, why the Councell should not mention the prerogatiue of Peter, because it would hinder Anatolius his cause, and the preferment of Constantinople, which was then intended, doe they not shew, that either the Fathers were damnably partiall, to obscure the true cause of Romes aduancement, or else that Peter was no cause thereof at all? For say not, it helped not to [Page 122] the cause in hand. The Fathers were not so blind, as not to see it; much lesse so grosse, as seeing to smother it, or for desire to winne their cause, to translate it cleane another way. And suppose they would haue done so, why did no bodie contradict them, as you said a little before, about the titles of Supplications? When there were negatiues in the Councell, qui non subscripserunt, as we read in the 16. Acti­on: why did no bodie lay forth the lamenesse of their rea­son, and drawe Peter from vnder the stuffe? Once againe, me thinkes, an Angel should haue smote him on the side, and bid him stand vp now if euer. For the Fathers had bu­ried his prerogatiue cleane, and entitled the dignitie of Rome to the Empire, as if the Empire authorised the Church, not the Church the Empire. No reply was made, none found fault with the reason. Therefore wee take you at your word, num. 67. That the mention of Peters primacie, does not onely not helpe, but euen crosse this Canon. If the Canon then be good, Peters primacie is none.

§ 36. That Leo excommunicated Dioscorus by the Synode, re­straines his power of excommunicating Patriarchs, rather then establishes it. You know it was a question, whether the Pope might inflict censures promiscue, without a Synod, yea or no. Of which more Gelasius in his Epistle before ci­ted, ad Episcopos Dardaniae. And yet Leo does nothing here, but by the Synod, & re, & stylo, directly mentioning it, (his Legates I meane for him,) fetching assistance from it. And Peter is put in the last place, after Leo and the Synode, as Leo [...] & [...] S. Sy­ [...] cum [...] Apost. whose authoritie the Synode as well as hee participated. Might not this therefore haue beene better left out?

§ 37. You omit not so much, as that Leo is said to be or­dained to be the interpretour of the voice of blessed Peter to all men. I wonder what you would say, if what Nazianzen as­cribes to Athanasius, had beene said of your Leo in that [...]anegyr, in A­than. Councel? One time that he was the fanne that cleansed the floare, suppose you the fanne in our Lords hand, to separate as it were betweene the wheat and the chaffe, so betweene [Page 123] true opinions, or erroneous in the faith, yea you would say, iudging betweene the nations of the world, and diuiding the good from the bad by sentence. Behold [...] in Alex­andria, euen before Cyrill. Another time, that as our Lord ridde the asse, so Athanasius managed [...], the people of the Gentiles, as farre spread as they were throughout the world. Another time, that he was the two tables of Moses, and his ver­dict [...], the very law of veritie: another time, the tuft of Sampsons head, which, as we know, appropriated the holy Ghost to him. Yet Leo was the rather praised, be­cause President of the assembly, and to his face, also enioy­ing the grace that accompanieth Councells: Athanasius in his particular, and after death, and not onely at one time, but continuedly. And, I pray you, what saies the same Coū ­cell of the Emperours, Leo by name, but not your Leo? Leo Edit. Venet. p. 389. Imperator inexpugnabilis palma, & honor fidei, accepit a Deo su­per omnes homines sine prohibitione aliquâ potestatem. What is this to beeing the interpretour of Peters voice, whereas S. Pe­ter would haue euery bodie to be to God, as they, that you speak of, make Leo to be to Peter, [...], as the oracles of God, so let-euery man speak, 1. Pet. 4. 11. But there is more in that authoritie, for which cause I must english it. Leo our Emperor, the impregnable garlād & honour of the faith, hath re­ceiued of him (that is, of God) power ouer all men, without any con­troule. We see here for matters of faith, and of relligion, what the Emperour might challenge, beeing called the garland of it, and impregnable, or inuincible. 2. He hath command ouer all men, Clerks and all. 3. from God. 4. without any checke or controule, which would haue made great titles in the Popes style. Againe, Nerui, & arma, & virtus Ecclesiarum vos est is Ibid. p. 390. Christianissimi Imperatores, &c. You most Christian Emperours are the sinewes, the weapons, and the puissance of the Churches, &c. This out of the Councell that your selfe quote. And of the difference of the testimonies, giuen to the two Leo's, let the Reader iudge.

§ 38. The last thing that I will note in your second chap­ter, [Page 124] shall be this, remembring my promise to obserue bre­uity, from which I am but too easily blowne awry, with the storme of your fopperies.

You make it an argument of Leos supremacie, (you call it Monarchie very roundly a little after, and are not asha­med at it, chap. 4. num. 3.) that, first Leo was admitted Presi­dent of the Councell held in Greece: then, that Leo beeing absent, Anatolius kept not his place, but Legates of his owne sending, whereof one was a Priest. The answer is most easie. Leo bee­ing denied one part of his will, to haue the Councell in Ita­ly, it was a poore recompence (I meane for his monarchie, and in regard to that) to be employed to be their President, as a wise man, a learned man, and a stout man, likewise also in order surmounting them all, as hath beene acknowled­ged, whereas diuerse Presidents had beene in Councels, that were inferiour to Leo in these points, and therefore much more remooued from the stately Monarchy, that you from hence gather.

§ 39. But, Why not Anatolius? say you. Was not hee fit to be President, whome the Councell thought fit to be so aduanced in their Canon, as to haue the like stroke in Ecclesiasticall affaires, that the verie first of the ranke had? Once againe I must tell you belike, that the Canon aduances not Anatolius, but Constantinople. And it was the parting of stakes betweene Leo and him, that though the Councell were in Greece, yet Leo should be the President. As for his Legates, it was no matter, (after once they had concurred vpon Leo to bee the man) whome he sent in his place, so long as they were suf­ficient, since himselfe could not be there. And I hope they brought instructions From Leo, as themselues say often, and might haue reference to him, if any doubt should arise. Also it was the fitter, that Italian Bishops should be Presidents, and not Grecian, that the Canon might be the authentical­ler, which was enacted for Constantinople, as farther from partialitie of the lawmakers. To which purpose they say, in their Epistle to Leo, (the Fathers of that Councell) that [Page 125] the Emperours affecting the exaltation of Constantinople, Volebant celebrari & ab vniuersali Concilio, for more authori­tie sake no doubt, and so likewise by forraine Bishops, as Leo and his Legates. But if you thinke his Legates had any such stroke, that Anatolius should enuy them for their greatnesse, you may remember, how boldly the Councell dissented from them, and the Canon was confirmed, not­withstanding their demurres.

§ 40. Neither despise you Priests, to come into Councells, Ad num. 78. Specially one of Leos legates being but a Priest, saith the Adioyn. gentle friend. This shewes how vaine your discourse was before, num. 52. that Concilium Episcoporum est, the Councell consists of Bishops onely. Doe you not knowe the difference betweene suffrages, some decisiue, some deliberatiue; defini­tine, or consultiue? Hath Ego definiens subscripsi, so often re­peated in this Councell, no better setled into you? Or wil the Iesuites be content, to refraine from Councels, as ma­ny as are not Bishops? Perhaps because they are loath to bee called away from Princes Courts. But that you may know, Priests haue their interest in Councels, at least, Sir, by conniuence of Bishops, (as Concil 1. Nicen. Can. 8. A [...]r. c. 2. item (que) Can. 10. [...]. Sed praecipuè Can. 13. eiusdem. Sa verbo Praedicare. Nullus Episcopo contradi­cente praedicare praesumat. Ex Concil. Trid. Et Triumph. Ancon. Licere quidem presbyte­ris praedicare; sed de lice [...] Episcopi. Quia a­ctus est iurisdictionis. Etsi Pi [...]s 5. Mendican­tibus liberum voluit, & repugnante Epis­copo, nisi praedicare velletipse. Sa vbi priùs. in diuerse other things, as we read in the Canons) Athanasius a Deacon stood the Sozom. l 1. c. 17. church in good stead in the Nicen Councel: yea an i­diot, & a man wholly illiterate, confuted a Philosopher, one of the Princes of the world, as S. Paul calls them. In Conc. Ann. 813. Mo­guntino, three turmae were set apart, Epis­coporum one, Abbatum another; and the S. Cypr. lib. 4. cp. 2. mentions a kind of Synode, where vnà cum Episcopis, Presbyt. &c. etiam Laici stantes super lapsis tractauere rationem. The Araus [...]an Councell was subscribed by certaine honourable per­sonages of the Laity Garanza in fine Conc. Araus. And, in Conc. Syrmiensi, Iudices ex palatio, doctrinâ praestantes, (learned Cour­tiers) praesidebant. Soz. l. 4. c. 5. third of Laymen, that is lesse then Priests, as you are wont to reckon. I say nothing of S. Ambrose, made a Bishop before bap­tized, and Nectarius an Archbishop, So­zom. lib. 7. cap. 8. So much shall suffice to your second Chapter.

To his third Chapter.

1. Places of the Fathers, S. Cyprian and S. Hierome. 2. The Bishop farre from Ievinianizing. 3. Nothing is deducible out of his doctrine, which fauours the Popedome.

§ 1. THe Fathers follow. First S. Cyprian, de vni­tate Ecclesiae. Whereas the Cardinall had said, that Cyprian makes Peter the head, the roote, and the fountaine of the Church, the Bishop most truly and soundly answe­red, not Peter of the Church, but the Church her selfe head of the members be­longing to her, roote of the branches shooting out of her, fountaine of the waters issuing forth from her, &c. one in substance, but many in propagation, which is no new thing in this mysterie, or in any such bodie, as the Philosophers call deiuncta corpora, rising of many moities into one [...]. Plut. summe. Nay lastly, S. Cyprian, to shew whome he speakes of, calls her matrem, mother, in plaine tearmes, which is not mother Peter, but the Church saies the Bishop. And this so vexes the gall of our Iesuit, as you would not thinke. For indeede what more compendious victorie could there be, insomuch as F. T. is faine to say, that Cyprian had no occasi­on Numb. 7. hulus. to name Peter there, but the Church onely; like the Rhemists annotation vpon 16. to the Rom. that Peter was out of towne, when he should haue beene saluted by Paul; so we must beleeue, iust there the occasion failed of na­ming Peter, whereas in all the other current he onely is meant. [...], as S. Chrysostome saies most excel­lently, [Page 127] [...], Epist. 190. ad Pentadiam Diaconissam. Such a thing is truth, in one short word shee confutes the cauiller, and stops his mouth. For the words, lying thus as they doe in Cyprian, Ʋnum tamen caput est, & origo vna, & vna mater foecunditatis successibus co­piosa, yet the head is but one, the spring but one, the mother but one, plenteous in her blessed and happie fruitfulnesse, who can imagine, that Peter is the head here, and the church the mother, and not rather that the whole sentence belongs but to one, whether that be Peter, or the Church, or whoso­euer? For as the sentence runnes on in an euen line, so doubtlesse it comprehends but one and the same subiect. But Peter is not the mother, as F. T. confesses. Therefore neither the head, nor the spring; nor any thing els. And in­deede so it followes in S. Cyprian, Illius foetu nascimur, illius lacto nutrimur, illius spiritu animamur, shee breeds vs, feedes vs, and enliues vs, which may well be vnderstood of the Church our mother, but of whome else, whether Peter, or a­ny other, I see not, I confesse, I; S. Austen so, lib. 2. contra Crescon. Grammat. c. 35. & 36. and againe, l. 3. contra eundem, c. 58. & 65. vnderstands these words, quoting S. Cyprian, not of Peter, but of the Church. And I meane the words de fonte & riuo, de sole & radio, that I may fetch it as high as F. T. himselfe, euen from the place where, if any where, S. Cy­prian speakes of Peter, by his owne acknowledgement. And Pamelius, their owne author, commenting vpon S. Cyprian, though he greedily drawe all aduantages that may be, from other places of this Father, to establish the Popedome, yet passes this ouer in deepe silence, as no­thing fauouring their desired Headship, nay crossing it ra­ther. For he had read immediately before, in the same place, Hoc erant vti (que) & eaeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consor­tio praediti & honoris & potestatis. i. The rest of the Apostles were vtterly the same that Peter was, endewed with equall fellowship both of honour and power. Where by the way we may note S. Ambrose and S. Cyprian their agreement a­bout [Page 128] this point, not onely for matter, but for words. For so Ambrose before quoted, Hoc erant quod Paulus: and here Cy­prian, Hoc erant quod Petrus. As if there were no diffe [...] neither betweene Peter and Paul, nor betweene the other Apostles and them both. For quae alicui tertio vna sunt, inter se quo (que) vna, or aequalia, saies the light of nature. Will you know then, why he makes mention of Peter in singular? Sed exordium ab vnitate proficiscitur, vt ecclesia Christi vna mon­stretur. But the beginning proceedes from vnity, or from one man, to shew that the Church of Christ is but one. How does the beginning proceede from one, but as S. Austen shewes in the place before quoted, Onely Peter was spo­ken De verb. Dom. 13. to, that others beeing not excluded, yet this pretious vnitie might be commended in one? As we read vnder Salo­mon, that the people were all like one man, and Act. 2. in the first times of the new Testament, the people were all of one heart and one minde. Where by the way you see, how Salomon prefigured Christ, and those times these latter with strange accordance. And if this become the people, how much more the pastors, or the master builders, that they should all set to their worke like one man? To which nothing can be more contrary then the Popish vsurpation, ouer-bearing other pastors, which neuertheles they would ground vpon these places for vnity. S. Cyprian also declares his owne meaning in the same place, to be as I haue said, in these words. Quamnis omnibus Apostolis parem tribuit pote­statem, though our Sauiour gaue equall power to all his A­postles, tamen vt manifestaret vnitatem, disposuit originem eius ab vno incipientem, yet to shew the vnity (so he construes monstretur, not as if that Church could be pointed to with the finger; from whence other Churches receiue their vni­ty, as F. T. may imagine) but, vt manifestaret vnitatem, to make knowne the vnity of the Catholicke body, and that the Church is but one congregation of the faithfull, though branched and billetted out into sundry parcells, he tooke order that her originals should beginne at one, which is short [Page 129] of authority, and much more of supremacie, but most of all of the monarchy, that the Iesuites would crowne Peter with, by vertue of this place. And when the same Cyprian, a very few lines afore the words last alleaged, makes this to be the cause of abuses in the Church, quòd ad veritatis originem non reditur, nec caput quaeritur, nec magistricoele stis doctrina serua­tur, what is plainer, then that by caput (which they so catch at) he meanes nothing else but the originall verity, which our Sauiour Christ first deliuered, euen that same Sic ab i­nitio, as both origo veritatis, & doctrina coelestis magistri de­clares, which encompasse the word Caput like two torches of both sides of it, to giue light vnto it, that we mistake it not. Then followes his commendation of Church-vni­ty, the onely remedy in Cyprians iudgement against the a­foresaid maladies, which hauing taught to be figured by our Sauiour in S. Peter, whome in equall priuiledges of power with the rest, he called from the rest, to patterne that vertue, he amplifies from other places the authority of the Church, as vna est columba mea, Cant. 6. vnum corpus, and v­nus spiritus, vna fides, Ephes. 4. with, Qui ecclesiae resistit, quo­modo se in ecclesiâ esse confidit? and after a notable enforce­ment to the preseruing of vnity from vnus Episcopatus est, there is but one Bishoprick throughout the whole Church, which euery Bishop hath his solide share in, and, Qui in ec­clesiâ praesident, which are chiefe in the Church, shewing that many Bishops gouerne the Church, and not one Bi­shop alone, as the Papists would haue it, he returnes to ec­clesia, Ecclesia vna est, quae in multitudine latiùs incremento fae­cunditatis extenditur, &c. and yet againe more closely, after certaine protases of similitudes, which F. T. saies the Bishop durst not lay downe for fraud, but himselfe laying downe gets nothing but hatred for his abominable tediousnesse, Ecclesia Domini luce perfusa (saies he) per orbem totum radios suos porrigit, vnum tamen lumen est, ramos suos extendit, riuos expandit, vnum tamen caput est, & origo vna, & vna mater, &c. That is: The Church replenished with the light of [Page 130] our Lord, stretches her beames through all the world, yet the light is but one, (F. T. would haue Peter to be this light, as if the Church were but rayes, and he the body of the sun, which S. Cyprian neuer meant, but for more perspicuity sake calls it Domini lucem, our Lords light, vnlesse Peter be that Lord too) reaches out her branches, spreads her riuers; yet the head is but one, the spring but one, and the mother (her selfe) but one, abounding in fruitfulnesse, &c. So as one may wonder that F. T. after so manifest conuiction, would persist to force this clause vpon Peter, which so properly and so immediately belongs to the Church, but that it fret­ted both him and the Cardinall too, not a little, to be taken tripping so fowly, as to make Peter a mother, or the Pope a woman once againe: and he hath no shift but to say, that S. Cyprian in one and the same tenure of vndiuided con­nexion, meanes the first part of Peter, and the latter part of the Church, like Virgils monster: ‘—in Pristin' desinit aluus.’

§ 2. Here is also to be noted, that F. T. citing that sen­tence of S. Cyprian, tamen vt vnitatem manifestaret, &c. foists in those words, which are not to be found in the printed copies, vt vna cathedra monstretur, at least not in Morel. edit. of Cyprian prai­sed before all other by Alan. [...]. Ad [...]. ad Lector ante Dialogos. Morelius, yet a Popish edition, which I now vsed, anni 1564 at Paris, not of Frobenius at Basil, anni 1530. not of Gryphius, not di­uers more. And yet this is the man, that challenges the Bi­shop for corrupting of Fathers. And farther he prints those words, one Chayre, in an eminent letter, to giue credit to his cosenage, one Church in an ordinarie, because though that be Cyprians, yet nothing to his purpose, num. 5. of this third chap. How beit, if vna cathedra were read in Cyprian, it is not the Popes chaire, but answerable to that of which he said a little before, Episcopatus vnus est, &c. there is but one Bisho­prick in the Church, and yet such a one, as euery Bishop hath his full share therein. For as the Bishoprick, so the Chayre. With like honestie he peruerts the words of Cyprian, exordi­um ab vnitate proficiscitur, by either adding to them, or tran­slating [Page 131] them in this frantick fashion, num. 4. The primacie is giuen to Peter, whereof not a word that we find here in Cy­prian. And he tells vs, we heard before that Cyprian saies our Sauiour built his Church vpon Peter; which for my part, I neither heard nor read yet in S. Cyprian de vnitate Ec­clesiae, of which worke now the question onely is. What he saies ad Quintum, comes not to be examined till his 12. numb. But thus he must patch one thing with another, that cries out against falshood in all men els, as the onely Doue. And the toyle is more to recken vp his leud corruptions, then the taske to cleere the Bishop from those things, which he imputes to him in that very kind. Lastly, for a tast of his learning, as well as his sinceritie, he construes robur vnum, in S. Cyprians comparison, one strength. Multi rami, sed robur v­num: Many boughes, but one strength. Neither giuing vs the sense of S. Cyprians similitude, but vtterly smothering it, like a faithfull alleadger, and forgetting Virgil, Aeneid. 2.—Roboribus textis—. yea, his very Accidents, ‘Pectora percussit, pectus quo (que) robora fiunt.’

§ 3. Now in the epistle ad Quintum, what find we? Pe­trus quem primùm Dominus elegit, &, super quem aedificauit ec­clesiam suam. As if one of these did not expound the other. For our Sauiour is said to haue built his Church vpon Peter, in that he chose him first, not chose him to be first, primùm Constar ex Mat. 4. 18. Nec ob­stat, Iohan. 1. 41. vt periti ex­plicant Vide Maldonat. elegit, not elegit in primatem, as preuenting him with the promise, and honouring him with the exhibition of the keyes before the rest. For they were deliuered to him in the generall name, as signifying vnitie, as both S. Austen, and S. Cyprian haue taught before, so as the rest notwith­standing had as full right in them as euer Peter had; which S. Cyprian declares, when he saies, Pariconsortio praediti pote­statis, endued with like fellowship of power; and, Hoc erant caeteri quod Petrus, the rest were the same that Peter was. S. Austen also in those words of his cited before, but of neces­sitie to be brought to your remembrance, I see, euer and a­non, There are some things, which though they were spoken to In Psal. 108. [Page 132] Peter, yet can make no good construction, vnlesse they be referred to the Church in generall, and he instances in that, Tibi dabo cla­ues. As for the building of the Church vpon Peter, howso­euer some writer may say so in his sense, yet you neede not be ignorant, how the most sort construe it, to be a building vpon his faith, not vpon his person: Super petram quam con­fessus es,. i. super meipsum. August de verb. Dom. secund. Matth. serm. 13. Hilar. de Trin. l. 2. item l. 6. to the same purpose, (for I couple his faith with the obiect for this time, that is to say, Christ,) Chrysost. hom. 55. in Matth. Ambrosin Eph. c. 2. & [...]t iterū Chry­sost. [...] 7 pag. [...]. & iterum Beda [...]erm in Cathed. Petri. de Sacram. Incarn. Domin. c. 3. Beda in cap. 21. Iohan. I sidor. in Exod. c. 42. Dt quâ soliditate (fidei) Dominus dicit, Super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam:. i. of which soundnesse (of faith) our Lord sayes, Vpon this rocke I will build my Church. Euagrius may seeme to imply as much, lib. 4. c. 40. speaking of Anastasius Bishop of Antioch, where Peter first sat. To which Bishop the assaults were so fiercely giuen, as if his ouerthrow would haue been the Captiuitie of the right faith (they are the Historians words) and in him were all. But he manfully withstood, [...]. For he remained vpon the impregnable rocke of faith, Iuvenalis Bishop of Hierusalem, with fiue more Bishops, in Rescripto Synodico, in Concil Calched, ad presbyte­ros & monachos Palestina Prouincia, hauing quoted the words of the Gospel aforesaid, inferres thus, . i. Vpon this confession the Church of God is established. Super hanc confessio­nem roborata est ecclesia Dei. Where by the way you may see, what the opinion was of the Fathers of that Coun­cell, concerning those words, Super hanc petram, to settle the cheifedome in Rome, as before you would beare vs downe, though they deriue the priuiledges of it meerely from the Empire, and the graunt of their auncestors. Also the Bishops surmise remaines good, that the Cardinall left out those other words in Cyprian, as preiudiciall to his cause, that Peter did not challenge to himselfe any thing insolently or arrogantly, as to say he had the primacie. You say, he might haue said so, in his full right, but S. Cyprian [Page 133] calls it, an insolent, and an arrogant challenge, by which you see, that primacie whatsoeuer it was, was not of autho­ritie, but of meere senioritie, like primùm elegit, a little before (euen Andrewes first resorting to our Sauiours schoole hin­ders not this, sith there was duplex vocatio, as Maldonate will shew you, before quoted) which the words following shew too, Et obtemperari à nouellis ac posteris sibi potiùs opor­tere, comparing Paul the later called, with Peter auncient­ly designed to the Apostleship. In one respect an [...], or an abortiue, as himselfe confesses, and yet in other respects nothing short of the cheife. S. Austen also, though hee al­ter S. Cyprians words, lib. 2. de bap. c. 1. as is soone done in allegations of memorie, yet he keeps the sense, and fauours you nothing; the primatus Apostolorum excellenti gratiâ prae­eminens, standing in dignity or qualitie, (let the word gratia helpe to perswade you) not in authoritie. Yet wee haue principes Apostolorum, Paul and Peter, nothing so common in your owne mens mouthes: yea Cardinal Pole sayes, both their Apostleships grewe into one: Amborum Apostolatus in vnum coaluit: lib. 3. ad Henrie. 8. &c. So as either no monar­chie nowe, or of more then one, a thing meerely impossi­ble.

§ 4. That you quote out of S. Austen concerning Pe­ter, l. 2. de Bapt. c. 1. Peter did otherwise then the truth required, yea and in so great a point as was Circumcisiō, also afterward more plain­ly in the same num. 14. that he erred: would you euer write thus, if you were well in your wits, striuing for Peters pri­macie, to impute errour to him, and errour in faith, which you know cannot be, without the grand perill of the vni­uersall Church? As S. Gregorie sayes, that all fall, if vnus v­niuersalis Lib. 6. cp. 24. fall, one in whome are all, as you in your Pope, e­uen as the moile stumbling, all goes to wracke that the beast caries, and the greater the beast, the fouler the wrack, whether it be gold or siluer, or what other fraight foeuer. And I pray you, what does your primacie serue for, vnles it be ioyned with infallibity? Yet you forfeit the one here, to [Page 134] winne the other.

§ 5. I might likewise aske you what manner of primacy you call that, which excuses not the superiour from the iust and lawfull rebuke of his inferiour, but so as if S. Peter should haue refused to follow, and to obey S. Paul, (they are your owne words, num. 16.) he should haue done insolently. Call you that a primacy, specially a Popish one, which must be pa­tient of controule, liable to the obedience, euen of his vn­derling, if it will avoyd pride?

§ 6. And therefore thought the Bishop in his vsuall mo­desty, say, as you note (numb. 16.) videtur mens Cypriano fuisse, it seemes Cyprian was of the minde, it is not for dif­fidence Sir, but as I told you. Videtur and est is all one with the Philosopher, saies Zimaras in his Table, quoting the Commentor for it, And so the Lawyers. If there be fraud in videtur, it is rather in Bellarmines, De Pontif. Rom. l. 1. c. 9. Indicare videtur Apostolus ad Heb. 8. What? that the Church triumphant is a patterne of the militant; where there may be videtur, but no est certenly, because there is no such thing in the Apostles text. You might rather haue thought of that, Luke, 22. 24. Quis videretur esse maior, where if videretur be not better construed, your primacy is but a [...], a very fancie.

§ 7. I am ashamed of thus digressing: but your dealing forces me, I cannot forbeare; yet with this I will end con­cerning Cyprian. To your 17. numb. whereas the Bishop saies, Fundamentum, sed non vnicum, what more confonant to Scripture? not Apoc. 24. as you quote it, but 21. v. 14. where there are 12. specified. But againe, whereas he saies, There is caput vnicum, and therefore non sequitur à funda­mento ad caput; what more agreeable to sense? For, as for that you adde [...], and with a mouth spea­king bigge, which Anna forbids, 1. Sam. 2. 3. that as the 12. to Christ, so the eleuen to Peter, were enterchangeab­ly subordinate, you should shew this written humano stylo, either in Scripture, or in Father, that we might runne and [Page 135] read it. But though you sweat your heart out, it growes not there. Yet you seeme to your selfe wise, when you shew the Bishop as well many heads vpon one body, as ma­ny foundations of one building. Videlicet, say you, the states of Venice, so many states, so many heads of that commonwealth. Which first is harsh in Aristocraty, to make euery gouer­nour a seuerall head (more then the Amphisbaena hath) the whole company rather, and many men if you will, but one head. Yet this fonder, that the Bishop arguing from a ma­teriall house, not a metaphoricall, and from a naturall bodie not a proportionall, to demonstrate what is meet to bee expected in the mysticall, you shew him a politicall, which is nothing to his demand.

§ 8. NExt of S. Hierome. And why might not the Bishop taxe the Cardinall, for suppressing S. Hieromes words, as well as before S. Cyprians? As well (say you) the one as the other, that is iust neither, or neither iustly. But of Cyprian we haue seene, see we now of Hierome. Inter duodecim vnus eligitur, vt capite constituto, schismatis tolleretur occasio. A­mongst twelue, one is chosen, that a Head beeing appoin­ted, occasion of schisme might be taken away. lib. 1. in Iovin. But in the same booke (saies the Bishop) Hierome thus, which the Cardinall would take no notice of. But thou wilt say, that the Church is built vpon Peter. (What then?) though the same in another place be done vpon all, [that is, the Church is said to be built vpon all the Apostles,] and all to receiue the Keyes of the kingdome of heauen, and the strength of the Church to be e­qually grounded vpon them all. Yet indeede one is chosen among the twelue, that a Head beeing appointed, occasion of schisme might be cut off. Is this no cooling card to the other autho­ritie? For you that tell vs of dice, I may doe well to speake to you in a sutable metaphore, and not abhorring from your trade. As the Philosophers say, the braine in a mans bodie, tempers the heat of the heart beneath; so doe not the words precedent allay the force of these latter, which [Page 136] yet the Cardinall onely set before vs? For the threefold equalitie, which S. Hierome before ascribed to all the Apo­stles, one of their equall interest in the foundation, another in the keyes of the kingdome of heauen, and the third, which is reiterated for deeper impression, of bearing the whole strength, or stresse of the Church, leaues onely now this sense of caput, that Peter was chosen to haue such a kind of Headship, that is, of prioritie among the twelue, as should not derogate from paritie, and yet exclude schisme or gar­boyle, or confusion. Which is the primacie of order that we haue often told you of, and you would faine diuert to a primacie of Maiestie. I could not answer your fallacie in a directer fashion, yet I know you haue replies, as that caput in the last place, addes great force, to, super quem fundata est, in the first. Which we remit to the iudgement of the indif­ferent Reader, whether so many equalities yeelded to the Apostles, in the words afore, doe not rather force vs, to construe caput as hath beene sayd, not derogating from the equality of their power in the keyes, nor from bearing the groundworke of the Church ioyntly: that is, as you con­strue it, from beeing gouernours thereof. Besides that Ca­put is onely a borrowed word, and signifies primum, or the first in that kinde, (which we grant to Peter with all readi­nes) and lastly tempered with such a modest clause, to keepe out schisme or disorder onely.

§ 9. You say, there is more daunger of schisme nowe, then among the twelue. For they were confirmed by speciall grace, we not so. And therefore they were not so likely to runne into schisme, for which they should haue a head. As though Paul and Barnabas were not running into a Act. 15. 39. schisme, a paroxysme at least, that is the first grudging of the other ague; as though when Peter confirmed his bre­thren, & tu confirma, Luk. 22. 32. they had the lesse vse of him, as their head, against a schisme. And though the will of God be to confirme some here, yet not without meanes, neither at first to rectifie them, nor afterward to [Page 137] continue them in their good course, to the ende. Of which meanes this might be one, of which S. Hierome speakes. Was any man more confirmed then S. Paul? rapt into the third heauen, &c. yet he struggles with his nature, least preaching to others, he should be a reprobate himselfe. So here. Besides that this schisme, which our Sauiour preuen­ted, by appointing an Head, as S. Hierome saies, might be schisma populorum, not Apostolorum, and therefore he saies, vt occasio schismat is tolleretur; that the Christian people see­ing who was eminent in the Colledge of the Apostles, might not euery one rashly set vp their principall, and so fall into schisme.

§ 10. But at least we neede a Head now a daies, as much as they. As if we haue not our Head in our manifold regi­ments, Dedit quosdam pastores, Eph. 4. &, Obedite praepositis. Hebr. 13. &, Terribilis sicut castrorum acies ordinata, and so forth. Is there no Head but of an vniuersall Bishop? yea, theirs was of order onely, and to shun confusion, ours of power, and commands subiection. Besides What a sweete suppressor of schismes the Pope is, may appeare by that of In­nocent. 7. who slew eleuen persons, en­deauouring to succour the state of their country, running to decay, and cast their bodies out at a window, saying, That was the way to suppresse schismes, and no o­ther. Plat. Innocent 7. Catilines quench­ing of fire, non aqua, sed rui [...]. Kings and Princes, which God hath gi­uen to our times, as to feede his Church, and to giue them milke (which very milke is Discipline,) so to bring home wande­rers from the high waies and the hedges, to the feast of the great King; thats to suppresse schismes, as S. Austen often, but namely contra Gaudent. l. 1. c. 25.

§ 11. For where you tell vs that Princes may cause these schismes themselues, and so contemning spirituall censure and proceedings, must either be hampered with another coerciue power, extending to bodies, and to estates, or els all runne to nothing, and the Church be cleane extinguish­ed, you bewray your spirit sufficiently, and a man may read your drifts in your forehead, which at another time you would so faine couer and smooth ouer; Sermo tuus indicat te, may be our speech to the Pseudo-Peter, as was once to the true. Doe you thinke then, that S. Hierome would giue [Page 138] this leaue to Priests, or the Prince of Priests, as you would haue him, to bind Kings in materiall chaynes, and to load their Senators with such iron fetters, as no metaphore hath mollified, & to vse such other violence as commonly goes herewith? Though of you I lesse wonder, if you giue them iron in their chaynes, to whome you haue giuen it in their crownes, as Clement to Charles, if Platina say true, in Clem. 7. But to S. Hierome. How then does he construe these words of Dauid, Against thee onely haue I sinned, to haue been spo­ken Ad Eustochium. in that sense, because Dauid was a King, and not to be proceeded against by any temporall punishment, or coa­ctiue hand, of a mortall man? How does he say in his Epi­stle to Heliodore, de obitu Nepotiani, that a King rules men a­gainst their wills, a Bishop no farther then they will them­selues? They subdue by feare, these are giuen vs for seruice; and many the like. How does Basil vpon the 37. Psalme, [...], (and he knew his power as he bore his name,) A King is subiect to no iudge? How does Chrysostome professe so often, that he can goe no further then words, [...]? Shepheard though he be, yet he may not fling a stone at a wolfe, but rate him onely, [...], &c. Again in his 2. de Sacerd. c. 2. & 3. at large; againe in the Homil. which is not extant in Greeke, but in Latin onely, Cum ageretur de expulsione S. Iohannis; Statis om­nes non ferro sed fide deuincti. Tom. 5. And in Act. Apost. hom. 3. in Morali, the people to the Minister are not [...], but [...], [not subiect to him, or in his hands, but hauing their obedience free in their owne power.] Againe in the same place, within a fewe lines, [...]. [Magistrates rule by feare, so doe not these, viz. the Ministers.] And yet more frankly, [...] Hortantur affe­ctione non pote­state. Cypr. de habitu virgin. [...]. [There things are caried by order, and by appointment: here, no such thing, neither may wee commaund any thing as by authoritie.] Againe, Comment. in ad Hebr. [...]. The Minister is a teach­er [Page 139] (quoth he) [...]. And [...], &c. The same at large, Homil. 11. in 4. ad Ephes. in Ethico. [...] Idem habet Comment. in Epist. ad Tit. c. 1. [...]. Et, [...]. Et, [...], &c. p. 285. & 387. Edit. Eton. per D. H. Savile. [...]. A Mini­ster and a Counseller leaue euery man to himselfe, they enforce nothing. What more can be said for vs? See Orat. 5. in Oziam, toward the latter ende. He saies the course that God takes with Kings, if they offend, is not to deliuer them ouer to any man to chastize, but, Adduc ad me, as the father bid thē carrie the child to his mother, and our Sauiour the Apostles to bring the partie to him whome they could not cure. Let me alone with him, I shal deale with him. Orat. 1. in Babylam, he commends him more for moderating his hand, after he had once put the tyrant backe, and that he fell not to flat striking (which is not lawfull for a Priest) then for debarring him entrance into the Church at first. For, the one, euery bodie would haue done, that is, execute his anger, beeing enraged, but onely Babylas, or one like him, keepe a meane in perfor­ming his office after prouocation. And because we spake of chaines a little before, it may be for this cause, Babylas desired to be buried with his chaines, as S. Chrysostome re­lates, in one of his Orations vpon him, and againe, Hom. 9. in 4. ad Ephes. to shew what he endured, not what he admi­nistred; and so likewise of the sword that was buried with him, after it had struck off his head. S. Hilarie giues the rea­son, Can. 1. in Matth. why Rachel (that is, the Church) would not be comfor­ted for her children, whome Herod had butchered, (that is, the persecutor martyred) Consolatio enim rei amissae praestanda est, non auctae: [For we comfort loosers, not gainers.] Now the Church gaines by patience in persecution. Therefore shee looses by resistance, and opposition. Of which thing [Page 140] S. Cyprian also, in application to the Church, and how shee may not resist, nor wreake her wrongs, lib. de bono patient. at large. Et quoniam plurimos scio, vel pondere iniuriarum, vel do­lore, vindicare velociter cupere &c. nec illud reticondum est quod dicit Dominus, Soph. 3. Expecta me, quoniam iudicium meum est, vt excipiam Reges; Onely God is to deale with Kings. And soone after, Hunc expectemus iudicem & vindicem no­strum, omnium iustorum numerum ab initio mundi secum pariter Let all write for God our iudge & our reuenger, and not onely ours, but all the Saints [...] the beginning. &c A [...]d, The reuen­ger him (e [...]e hath not yet reuenged himselfe. [...] [...] [...] [...]. vindicaturum. And lastly, Qui ad vindictam suam nimium fe­stinat, & properat, consideret, quia needum vindicatus est ipse qui vindicat. And in his booke contra Dometrianum, he alludes to Virgils verse, [...]f [...]l [...] lolium & steriles DOMINANTVR ave [...]: Implying, that wicked and profane men may ob­taine domination ouer the Church in this world (though the Iesuite cannot abide to heare it,) and yet still remaine but infoelix lolium, in all their iollitie and worldly ruffe. Theodo­ret. quaest. 6. in Numer. [...]. By purple the Kingly office is declared, & with that goeth punishing, or coertion. Of what then is the Hyacinth a resemblance, which was another couering of the holy vessels? belike of heauen. [...], saith Theodoret. And in heauen there is no punishment. The Mi­nister, as a heauenly Magistrate, not an earthly Soueraigne, he afflicteth none. Gregorie Nazianzene in his 2. Steliteut. a­gainst Iulian, [...]. Doe you see what a course he prescribes for refor­matiō? Not by violence, as you dispute, to represse tyrants; by musike, not by blowes; by perswasion not cōpulsion, &c. And a little after, [...]; To which he opposes onely, [...], by word and by prai­er. You may remember Ambrose, Pugnare non debeo, I may Amb [...]. Ep 32. 33. [...]o [...]at contra Au [...]ent. &c. not fight: & Arma nostra lachrymae, our weapons are teares; and, Multi Iobi, many Iobs for one, that is, many patient Christians. And, lib. 3. de officijs cap. 9. Nulli noceat sacerdos, [Page 141] ne lacessitus quidem, & iniuriâ offensus: A Priest must hurt no man, (viz. forcibly and violently) though prouoked and wron­ged. Whereas you thinke you may doe any thing for bonum spirituale, and in ordine ad ecclesiam, to preserue that. Primasi­us in 2. ad Rom. Lex Christi iam non minatur gladium peccan­tibus, sed promittit praemium liberè seruientibus: that is, The law of Christ now threatneth no sword to offenders, but promises reward to them which truely serue him. Which you must construe in such a sense, as not to bring in Ana­baptisme, nor destroy all Magistracie, but to curbe your Cypr to the ve­ry same effect, Epist 11. l 1. ad Pompon. Tune gladio o [...]e [...] ­tur, quando cir­cumcisio carnalis &. nunc quia circumcisio spiri­tualis, sp [...]. gladio necantur. So as the Adioyner is the Iew, that stands for bloody sorce, not the Bishop, as he tayles & raues. Priests, in comparison of the Priests of the old lawe, from attempting violence, because Primasius speakes vpon those words, Litera occidit (that is, They) but spiritus vinificat, (which you would fain be accounted, calling your selues to that end the spirituall men.) See the same Primasius againe, a­gainst Ministers coactions, in 2. Cor. 1. Non quia ideò credi­distis vt vobis dominemur, sicut in lege sacerdotes, &c. And, Non quòd metu cogamini, not that you are cōstrained, not so much as with feare, much lesse by force. Yet with you it is appa­rent, that folks beleeue in Christ, that you may censure thē the more freely, euen Kings and all, ouer whom beeing in­fidels, you had no such confessed power. Qui laesi non essent Cic. pro Quint. nisi CREDIDISSENT, as he saith. And therefore see how you will answer Primasius. Tertullian in Apologet. giues no leaue to redresse inconueniences with force, no not with the death of a man, much lesse with the perill of a Soue­raigne Prince or State. Christianus etiam damnatus gratias agit. And, Christianus nec inimicum suum laedit. And, Paratus est ad omne supplicium ipse habitus oris Christiani. Hoc agite bo­ni Praesides, extorquete animam Deo supplicem pro Imperatore. And againe in the same booke, Hippias, dum ciuitati insidias disponit, occiditur. Hoc pro suis omni atrocitate dissipatis nemo vnquam Christianus tentauit. Yet nimius & copiosus noster po­pulus, saith S. Cyprian, speaking to the same purpose; contra And so also Tertul. de mul­titud. Christian. satis cre [...]iò. Demetrianum, whom you may do well to read. And to make short, see Eusebius Emesenus, sermon. in dominic. 4. Aduentûs, [Page 142] vpon Ioh. 1. Ego vox clamantis, (that is a ministers calling) not manus percutientis. If he write vpon the wall a sentence against Baltazar by Gods direction, that is all. Adde Con­cil. Tolet. 4. c. 31. where, whome the Minister cannot amend, he deliuers ouer to the King and his iustice, to bee accor­dingly censured, but who shall censure the King himselfe? Neither may I omit Origen, both in 13. ad Rom. and Tract. 12. in Euang. Matth. vpon those words of our Sauiour, Matth. 20. Reges gentium, &c. Sicut omnia carnalia in necessi­tate sunt posita, non in voluntate; spiritualia autem in voluntate, non in necessitate, sic & Principes spirituales. Principatus corū in dilectione subditorum debet esse positus, non in timore corporali. Which last authoritie is cited by Bellarmine, lib. 4. c. 21. de Pontif. Rom. you may wonder how he can digest it. In En­glish thus. [For as all carnall matters are subiect to force, not to free liking, and all spirituall matters to free liking, not to force; so are also spiritual superiours. Their cheifdom or princehood ought to stand in the loue of such as are vn­der thē, not in their bodily feare, &c.] Which bodily feare, the Pope is wholly for driuing his subiects into, and with­out that he is nothing. But thus farre the Fathers, because I spare the rest.

§ 12. The Scriptures also banish vs from like forcible dealing, in more thē one place, if we had leisure to produce them. The minister must be no striker. The seruant of the Lord must be patient and long suffering, expecting men till God giue thē a mind to returne home. We wrastle not with flesh & blood, that is, with materiall enemies. No maruell then if the weapons of our warfare be not carnall, nor materiall, but spirituall. Ar­mastulti pastoris sunt gladius & baculus. Our commission is in our tongue. [...], that is, [...], that I may explaine that by the way. We beare no rule ouer So, captiua capti­uitas, for captiui. Eph. 4. So electio for electi, Rom. 11. 7. Vide S. Au­gust. de Praedest. Sanct cap. 6. & [...]. your faith, that is ouer you the faithfull people of God (like vestra Sanctitas) limiting his power, and preseruing his re­uerence to the Christian people, both in one. Lastly, we beseech you in Christs stead, be reconciled vnto God. Yet with you [Page 143] if there be no coaction, all is marred.

§ 13. You say [that Bishops in their Courts mulct the purse, and sometime imprison the bodies &c.] Though I thinke you are scarce perfect in this part of your lesson (for I haue heard otherwise of a very sufficient Doctor) yet suppose it were so; This leaue comes of the King, streng­thning the arme of spirituall censure by that meanes, least the prophane and wanton of the world should contemne Nemo presumitur tulisse contra se­ipsum: &, Preuile­gia non sunt in­terpretanda in praeiuduium con­cedentis. it. Originally there is no such power in a Bishop. Will you then retort vpon the King with his owne license, or vnna­turally gall him with his owne quils? Is not this the way ra­ther to spoile all, and to disarme the Church of the royall protection?

§ 14. You say [that he which hath command of the soule, hath also of the bodie. And therefore the spirituall power which is acknowledged to be in the Minister, drawes the temporall with it as a consequent.] Truely I graunt, that he which can commaund the soule out of an absolute pow­er, it is likely the body is also subiect to him. But neither the ministers power commaunds the soule, by any forcible impression, (for as we cannot make one haire white or blacke, so no more can we make one soule merrie or sad, further then as God shall cooperate with our endeauours) and the perswasions that we vse, they are directed no lesse to the sauing of the bodie, then to the gaining of the soule. Both the Magistrate and the Minister, deale both with the soule and the bodie. But the Magistrate violently applies himselfe to the bodie, to reclaime the soule, if neede be; and the Minister perswasiuely carries himselfe to the soule, to the ende the bodie may be made pliant to righteousnesse, Rom. 6. The proceeding, not the subiect, then, is that which makes the difference betweene the two powers; and howsoeuer your Casuists say, a lame-handed man cannot Sa. Aphorism. regularly be made a Minister, yet that is for Pashurs tur­ning Magor-mishabibs, Ier. 20. the kingdome that we send [...]. 2. Cor. 5. 1. to, as it is not built with hands, so it requires no violence [Page 144] to conuey thither.

§ 15. If in the nonage of the Church, the Apostles were endued with power of punishing men corporally, to the Orig hom. 14 in Levit. 24. Hur. in 1. Cor. c. 5. Chrys in 1. Cor. hum. 15. ende the Gospel should not be trampled vnderfoote, by vnreuenged scornes, yet now the Magistrate supplies that place, beeing himselfe turned Christian, and suppose that should faile, and all things revolue to barbarous Heathe­nisme, as in former time, (which God forbid) yet we are to thinke, that the like extraordinarie prouidence would still attend the Church; but howsoeuer it were, no priuate man might be too forward, and much lesse a Minister, which see­med then so inconuenient, that the opposers were deliue­red 1. Corinth. 5. 5. [...]. 1. [...]im. 1. 20. [...]. to the deuill to be tormented, in defect of Magistrates, rather then the Iesuiticall mutinies, which F. T. here pleads for, should take place.

§ 16. THe substance of your Discourse beeing thus disprooued, it were no hard matter to gather vp the spoyles, and note certaine scapes of smaller impor­tance. In translating the Bishops words, numb. 22. Quod to­ties iam nobis seriò inculcat Cardinalis, you handle it thus: Which the Cardinall doth now so often and earnestly inculcate vnto vs. What thinke you of inculcate first? you that muster the tearmes of the Bishop of Lincolnes booke (for so hares may plucke dead lyons by the beard) though nothing so vncouth as your Rhemish Testament hath, Praepuce, Sin­don, to Euangelize, the orient, &c. But to omit that, Does the Bishop meane, that Bellarmine pleades earnestly in the case, or rather maruell, that hee is in earnest at all, the argument beeing trifling, and not worth the na­ming? yet thus you say, [so often and earnestly,] as if SO might augment his earnestnes too. Did you vnderstand the booke that you tooke in hand to confute? And as this is your eloquence, so view your conscience. numb. 27. you say, the Bishops haue their proper talent of calum­niating Bellarmine. Againe calumniate as good a word [Page 145] as inculcate before. And if common to both, how pro­per to either? yet you say both haue their proper talent. Be like not quarto modo. But, Sir, who taught you to call vi­ces talents? Is this your reuerence that you beare to Scrip­ture? or doe you so confound God with the deuill? What remaines but you call grace chaffe, and vertue cockle, and the rest as your vngodly Rhetorique shall inspire you? But well doe you fulfill the measures of your fathers, [...], and the thunder bolts walke not, as Nazianzen saies of them that abused S. Basil. So Campian in the tow­er ieasting at his aduersaries, for the weakenes of their ar­gument, said he could make as good sport about the Incar­nation. Another (I thinke Rastall) (or but a letters diffe­rence at least) paints his margent thus, Luthers lying with a Nunne in the Lord. What vengeance remaines for such gracelesse companions? And are these Diuines, and hand­lers of Gods cause, foming out such shame, which were intollerable in him that followed the plowtaile? Yet you haue vp with the Bishop (and Eudaemon before you,) for his pleasant veyne forsooth in writing. You may remember your iolly preface to Parsons Discussion, which I touched He sayes there, that the Bishops style becomes him as well, as to daunce about a may-pole in his hole and doublet. at before. If you had your will, you would make vs daunce about another maypole without hose or doublet, as you did our forefathers, while your power lasted. Thanks be vnto God, that hath shortned those dayes, abridged your malice. Yet Elias confounded Baals priests with a ieast, and S. Chrysostome commenting vpon the 140. Psal. bids vs Et in epist. ad Philemon [...]. make much of the frumpes of the godly; which is your fault, to haue profited no more by the Bishops kinde re­proofes. Yet in all the passages of that Reuerend man, there is no one word contumelious to pietie, or disgracefull to relligion, or preiudiciall to grauity and good manners. Whereas Sir Thomas More, the champion for your Cler­gie, (as it were vicarius in spiritualibus, he was such a buck­ler to the Bishops, as Stapleton saies the common voyce was De tribus Tho­mis. in those dayes;) yet he, I say, vndertaking the Churches [Page 146] cause, wrote a booke so gamesome, and so idly idle, that dissembling his owne name, he was faine to father it vpon Gulielmus Rossaeus; a title that one of your fellowes hath ta­ken vpon him of late, to shroud his virulences vnder, as he did his vanityes, and lastly the great Philosopher kept a foole at home, as the same Stapleton records, to make him merry no doubt, though his wit was able to prouoke laughter in others, as full often it did. And if More be of no more authority with you, you may looke backe to your owne Cardinall, that dry Child, that sage Sobrino: yet he ex­cuses himselfe in one place of his controuersies (a worke a man would thinke that did not fit so with mirth) Ignoscat lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. c. 22. Lector quòd temridiculè Tilemannum exceperim. Let the Rea­der pardon me for beeing so merrie, or so pleasant with Tileman­ne. This he. Yet because you haue descried such a veine in the Bishop, as you thinke at least, might you not haue an­swered your selfe, touching that which you obiect to him here about Iouinian, that it sauoured but of Ironie? For what more fit to be hit in your teeth, who euery where crake to vs of Iouinians heresies, then when you bring that in earnest, to countenance your Poperie, which S. Hierome puts vpon Iouinian, by supposall? At dices, tu; Iouiniane scilicet. Though the Bishop doth not challenge him for such an absolute Ioui­nianist, but onely saies, Probè in to secutus Iouinianum, the Cardinall therein following Iouinian very handsomely. Which words are enough to dissolue your cauill, that the Bishop should lay absolute Iouinianisme to his charge, which, you say, surpasses all impudencie. Such a rustique you are, an ar­rant clowne, not discerning what is ieast, and what is ear­nest. Howbeit, it will be hard for you, to prooue Iouinian to haue beene an hereticke, (Epiphanius and Philastrius doe not recken him among the catalogue). and they that may conclude him to haue held a falshood, will finde some a doe to condemne him for an hereticks. Neither. is the meaning of that word by all agreed vpon, neither doe all take it in e­uery place alike: Yet because this scandall rests vpon Ioui­nian [Page 147] for the most part, you may be pleased to remember, Sir, out of S. Austen, what other monsters Iouinian fostered, and therein, if you thinke good, compare his doctrine with ours. As, that all sinnes are in like degree heinous, which is the Stoicall paradoxe, no way cleauing to vs, though you slaun­der vs so vniustly, for not holding veniall sinnes, which Advers. Luther. And Andradius, Venialia qua dicuntur pec­cata, tamen sempiternis poen [...] (interdu [...]) [...] ­untur apud inferes. De pecc. orig. lib. 5. which vtterly ouerthrowes the nature of veniall sinnes, insomuch as Rada (in Conciliat Thomae & Scot [...]) saies, that God in strict iustice, can not punish such kinde of sinnes in that sort, though all grace of pardon be a­way. Rof­fensis himselfe held not. That fasting and abstinence profits nothing. Can you charge vs with any such impietie? That the rege­nerate man cannot sinne after baptisme; wherein he comes neerer to you then to vs. As for your merits, you may keepe them, the badges of your insolencie, and in Tertull. de carne Christ Quis con­spueret Christi faciem nisi merentem: Horribile dictu: Sed vult dicere, aptam conspui ex vestigijs infir­mitatum in suscepta mortalitate, &c. Sic est illud, [...], A­poc. 3. you, Sir, of your ignorance, not to know what merit meanes all this while. Yet beware how you magnifie the Virgin against the married, least the Councell of Gangra condemne you, not for an hereticke now, but a cursed hereticke, Can. 20. gi­uing you [...], if you doe but [...], though you condemne not marriage; if you but swell out of the con­ceit of your single life. And so Minutius Foelix most diuine­ly, Inuiolati corporis virginitate fruimur potiùs quàm gloriamur: After that he had said, Vnius matrimonij vinculo libenter inhae­remus. S. Chrysostome goes further, If the perfection of Monke­rie it selfe may not stand with marriage, all is spoil'd. See Comm. in ad Hebr. [...]. in ipso fine. And why should Virginitie then be exalted aboue marriage, if the perfection of the strictest Monks themselues be compatible therewith? And he closes his discourse, with that diuine [...], as Pindar saies should be taken [...]; (a iunket alwaies in Apud Clem. Alexandr. the ende of a feast) [...] &c. Vse marriage mode­rately, and thou shalt be the very first in the kingdome of heauen. Indeede therefore all the Saints are lodged in Abrahams bosome, in the married mans bosome, as the same Father cannot denie, lib. de Virg. in extremo. Once the Trinitie in his tent, and now the Saints in his bosome. Yet still the marri­ed [Page 148] man, and not the worse for his marriage. As for the re­wards of the faithfull, that they are not equall in the hea­uen that we looke for, and that the sacred Virgin suffered no decay of her maidenly honour, by the stainlesse and im­maculate birth of our Sauiour, let Iouinian thinke what he will, (though S. Hierome neuer imputes this latter to Iouini­an, in the 2. books that he wrote against him,) yet, not onely you, but troupes in the English Church so teach. And, would the time giue leaue, is there not a Montane, and a Tatian, to make you blush, for your abhominable heresies, about meates and marriages, as well as you haue a Iouinian to twitt vs withall? But because, I now onely assoyle the Bishop from your wicked slaunders, it is well his integritie hath so acquitted him without me, that your selfe dare not speake of him, but with, It may be, and, Except; such a hooke his fame hath put in your nostrills, who onely in this may be resembled to Iouinian (to Paphnutius rather) that in sin­gle life, he defends the libertie of other folkes marriages. But hast we to an ende.

§ 17. To the other places of S. Hierome, as Matth. 16. which in great good will you aduise the Bishop to read ouer forsooth, what saith S. Hierome there? That our Sauiours dicere is facere, his. saying is doing, therefore calling Peter a rocke, he made him so. But I hope, good Sir, as doing and saying went together in our Lord, so both of them in his owne meaning, not in your mistaking. What is this then to prooue Peters Monarchie, or smaller regencie either, if such could content you? And if it could, yet it were hard, I say, to boult it out of this place of S. Hierome, where (no sylla­ble [...] Apostoli lu­ [...] ex Christo lu­mine vocati s [...]t, & caetera ab codē sortiti v [...]bula: s [...] Simo [...] qui credebat in petrā Christum, Petri [...]gitus est nomē, Ac secundum me­taphoram rectè ei dicitur &c. Hier. of authoritie or power once appearing, for explanation sake, as reason was, if you meant to speede,) he saies onely, that Peter for beleeuing in the rocke, our Sauiour bespake him, and yet not properly, but in a metaphore, saying he would build vpon him.

§ 18. The like ad Marcellam, Epist. 54. vpon whome our Lord built his Church, namely Peter. But can we answer S. [Page 149] Hierome better then by S. Hierome? The fortitude of the Church, or the puissance of the Church, was equally built, or groun­ded vpon them all. Super omnes ex aequo. You heard it before out of his 1. lib. against Iouinian. How does this then prooue Peters priuiledge, in the matter of authoritie, though buil­ding were graunted to found that way, as it doth not? And when S. Paul sundrie times, as Coloss. 1. 23. and Eph. 2. 20. speakes of grounding, and building the Church, either vp­on faith, as in the first place, or vpon the Prophets and Apo­stles, as in the second, shall we thinke he was enuious, that said nothing of Peter, and that extraordinarie manner of the Churches building vpon him, that you dreame of?

§ 19. Here you tell vs of three waies, by which the A­postles might be saide to be foundations of the Church, in hope that Peter may be so in singular. And quoting Bellar­mine for it, not your owne inuention, you counsell the Bi­shop to learne it of him. Shall wee first see how good it is? 1 One way, for that they first conuerted nations, perswaded people, and founded Churches, not Peter alone, but ioyntly all of them. In this sense belike they are all foundations. But what is this, to, beeing the foundation of the Catholicke Church, and to lie like a rocke vnder that great building, because they were planters of particular Churches? Also you argue fallaciously, from the diligence of preaching, to the power of supporting, and that by authoritie, as now the question is. Besides, a founder and a foundation, is not all one. And did none plant Churches, good Sir, but the Apo­stles? Shall your Iesuites in Iaponia be foundations too? And shall we say of them, super quos aedificaeta est Ecclesia dei? You see the absurditie. Yet you quote proofes, Rom. 15. I haue preached the Gospell where Christ was not named, least I should build vpon another mans foundation. Does this prooue that men are foundations of the Church? or rather, that the man and the foundation are two? Againe, 1. Cor. 3. I haue laid the foundation like a wise architect (so speakes your Vi­truvius-ship) but would you call him a wise Logician, that [Page 150] should argue from hence, that S. Paul meant himselfe to be the foundation? Yea, though he said not in the same place, Iesus Christ, and no other foundation.

§ 20. 2 Secondly, you say the Apostles were all foundati­ons, because the Christian doctrine was first imparted to them, and the present faith is groūded vpon that, which was deliuered at the first. And new articles of faith (you say) are not alway reuea­led. Is not this accurate, trow you, as well for order as for substance? For had this been a reason, ought it not to haue been set, in all reason, before the other? Can a thing bee preached, afore it be vnderstood? or made knowne to o­thers, afore it selfe be knowne? Your argument therefore from preaching, should by all meanes, I say, haue followed this from reuealing; and this from reuealing, haue gone be­fore the other. But pardon your order, looke into your substance. Were not some things reuealed to others afore the Apostles? Did not our Lord first manifest his resurre­ction to women? Did not the Angel say to them, Goe and tell Peter? Will you haue women and all to be the foundati­ons of the Church? But we are much beholden to you, that you coyne not newe articles of faith euerie day. Articles therefore, and new articles you graunt, and of frequent re­uelation, but not euery day. We long for your last kinde of foundation, wherein Peter is so entire.

§ 21. 3 Thirdly then, you say, in respect of gouernement and authoritie. For Peters was ordinarie, theirs Legatine; his o­riginall, theirs depending from him. You should shewe what Father sayes so, besides your selues, for of Scripture you de­spaire. And yet you agree so ill emong your owne selues of this point, that you iumpe not about the very termes. For See Casaub. [...]. 16. cap. 138. ad Annal. liaron. with the like contradict ō between Baron. & Bellarm. as is between Bellar. & himself in this very matter, l. 3. de Interp. verbi dei, cap. 4. where he makes Moses extraordinarie, and so greater then Aa­ron, as Peter greater then the rest of the Apostles, because hee onely was ordinarie, &c. yet he sayes he mentions Peter, comparationis causá cum Mose, for comparison sake with Moses. What so vnlike? Be­sides, Aquine will tell him, that Paul rather answered to Moses, then Peter; each of them beeing ad­mitted to the Vision of Gods essence; the one as principall of the Old Test, the other of the New, (for so he cōpares them) Ne (que) enim probabile est vt minister veteris Testamenti, &c. Quaest. disp. de Raptu. Art. 1. in Conclus. As for Peters being in mentis excessu, Act. 11. he makes nothing of that, to this of Pauls. Ibid. resp. ad 9. Baronius cals Peters power extraordinarie, the other Apo­stles ordinarie: you make his ordinary, and theirs extraordinary. [Page 151] Is it possible that kingdome should long hold out, which is so at ods? Yet behold another leake in this obseruation. For though the Apostles had deriued their authoritie from Pe­ter; yet they might all haue beene foundations of the Church, as well as he, euen in regard of gouernment; no lesse then some receiuing the doctrine immediatly from Christ, as Peter, Iames, and Iohn, (witnes Clemens in Eusebius before quoted) the others from them, yet you make them all, in re­gard of doctrine, to be foundations alike, num. 25.

§ 22. Another authoritie of S. Hieromes is out of his E­pist. ad Damas. 57. I following no first, or chiefe but Christ, doe communicate with thy blessednes, [or am linked in fellowship with it,] that is to say, with the chayre of Peter, vpon that rocke I know the Church is built. You see Hierome followes no first but Christ. Nullum primum. Where is then the primacie that you challenge to Peter, if none of the Apostles be afore an­other, but Christ? Indeede Bellarmine saies, he meanes, he preferres none but Christ before Damasus; which is an vt­ter peruerting of S. Hieromes words, who, as he saies, he fol­lowes no chiefe but Christ, or none prime but Christ, so he shewes after what sort he is affected to Damasus, communio­ne not subiectione, by communion, not by subiection, (com­munico tibi) as to Theophilus, to Cyrill, to Athanasius, to who not? the auncient orthodoxe professe of themselues in di­uers places. But the edge of the place, as it serues your turne, lies in those words, I know the Church is built vpon that rocke. Which rocke is Christ, not so long before mentioned but this may referre to it; and to build vpon a chayre, is no such cleane pickt metaphore, that we should be forced to take it so, though vpon a rocke be. Besides the scio that he giues it, a word of certentie, makes vs * Vide citatos paulò ante auctores in hoc capit. p. 132. Quibus adde aliud S. August. tèstimonium ex Tract. 10 in 1. Epist. Ioh c. 5. Super hanc petram, edificabo Ecclesiam meam. Quid est super hanc petram? Super hanc fidē, super id quod dictum est, Tu es Christus, &c. There is Fides, and obiectum fidei, id quod di­ctum est, &c. But by no meanes doth it long to Peters person. thinke he would neuer be so perempto­rie for Peter, sith diuers haue construed the rocke another way, whome S. Hierome would not crosse ouer hastily with his Solo; and lastly his owne modestie decla­red [Page 152] a little before, professing to follow none but Christ. There­fore he tooke Peter for no such foundation.

§ 23. The last, and the least, is out of his first against Io­vinian, O vox digna petrâ Christi, â speech worthie the rocke of Christ! But you may as well build Christ himselfe by this deuise vpon Peter, as the Church of Riuallouus Archidiac. Redonensis, de Mar­bodo Episcopo, Hic basis Eccelesia po [...]du [...] portabat,—apud Iacob. Sirm. in no­tis ad lib. 3. & epist. 14. Goff. Abb. Vind. Christ. For as Saunders writes of the rock of the Church, so Hierome calls Peter here, the rocke of Christ. That is, the fortresse, and champion of the Christian faith, as S. Ambrose was called columna Eccle­siae, S. Iames [...], which is the title of the Church of Ephesus, wherein Timothie was to con­uerse, rather then of Rome, as the Apostle bestowes it, and the Petrus Chrysolo­gus. vide cap. 8. huius, ex Da­mas [...]. eadem ver­ba, de Iordane Archimandr [...]a Quid quòd idem Damas [...]. serm. de Defunctis, vocac Athanasium, [...],. i. the foundation of the Church of God? Among communities, the Vniuersity of Oxford was cal­le [...] Ecclesiae fundamentum, in the hearing of the King, and he disliked it not. Paris Anno 38. Hen. 3. Qui­dam Magistri Oxoniae, circiter nouem artistae, &c. Archbishop of Ravenna, in one of the Councells, was honoured by the same style. So cleane is petra Christi beside your purpose, either as too little, or too much.

§ 24. Of S. Chrysostomes testimonie we haue said enough before to your first chapter. Vertex and Princeps is found too light. Magister orbis is not Monarchae orbis. And for all S. Iames his, Be not many masters, in this case many Masters were sent out into the world, whereof Iames was one. Yea Chrysostome himselfe, as Theod. lapsus Rescrip. ad Chrysost. b Hom. 87. in Iohan. Theodorus entitles him. Nothing cleerer with Chrysostome in the place you quote, then that all the Apostles had the charge of the whole world, [...]. You will tell vs, I know, of Peters ordi­narie power. But in all antiquitie we finde no such diffe­rence. And yet another testimonie of Chrysostome we haue cited to you els-where, out of his Comment. vpon the Acts, affirming that Peter did nothing, by way of authoritie, in orde­ring Church-businesse. What can be plainer?

§ 25. As for Iames his beeing onely Bishop of Hierusalem, Adioynd. num. 44. Col. S. Chryso­stome (saies he) giues vs to vnder­stand, that where­as S. Iames was onely Bishop of Hierusalem, and the countries ad­ioyning &c. S. Pe­ter had the charge of the whole But if we heare Bellarm. de Pontif. Rom. l. 1 c. 27. Caeteri Apo­stoli missi sunt ad certas prouincias, Paulus ad omnes Gentes, sine cortae provinciae determinatione. Et ipse de se ait, Plus omnibus labo­raui. At least, as Eutalius Diaconus (for so they write him) praesat. in Epist. Pauli, Petrus & Paulus inter se partili sunt vniuersum orbem: in which diuision Paul had the better euery way. as if that might disparage him in comparison of Peter, it was not because his power was narrower then Peters, (for [Page 153] our Sauiour confined not Iames to Hierusalem, but priuate election) but to shew that S. Iames abode there, as thinking his paines best employed in that place, Peter in the meane while trauelling farther into the world. In the 3. of ler. 17. v. one would thinke Hierusalem the higher seat thē Rome, besides that it was our Sauiours prouince, as I told you, and so perhaps to be preferred in that respect. So farre is Peter from any excellence aboue Iames.

§ 26. I might passe by your argument out of the 44. Psalme, In stead of fathers thou shalt haue children, whome thou maist make Princes in all lands. Suppose first, that this were Monarchicall princehood, or a princehood of power, of ma­iestie, and of authoritie, which is nothing lesse: for Ite praedi­cate carries no such commission. Yet then they were sent in­to all the world, then they were made Princes in all lands. But whatsoeuer it be, what is this to Peter? Is it not common to all, does it not extend to all? And not onely Peter is not designed to be he, but no one Prince magnified before an­other, though we should graunt the singularitie to be his, if anies. And shall all the Apostles now haue their succes­sors? shall all their authorities be conueied to after-com­mers? I had thought Peters onely had beene permanent. Yet here, of all, Pro patribus tuis nascentur filij; euery Apostle hath his sonne, his successor, and euery ones sonne is made a Prince throughout all the world. You will say perhaps it makes for temporall power in the Episcopall calling, though not for Peters successors in speciall. But to omit, that Princehood here is regnare verbo, and regnare praconio, in which sense Virgil saies, a diligent husbandman—impe­rat aruis, as a King at his worke, and in his calling, though homely; You may remember that Chrysostome and Theodo­ret Conim. in locum. turne it another way, to the Apostles succeeding the Patriarkes, not to the Bishops succeeding the Apostles. Though he that considers the tenure of the place, and how [Page 154] the holy Ghost speakes to the Church there in the person of her husband the Lord Iesus, will soone resolue it to beare Genebeard con­strues this both of all the Apo­stles, citing Ar­nobius, Pro 12 Pa­triarchis [...] 12 Apostoli. and al­so of all the faithfull, who are called sonnes (saies he) because begotten through the Gospel. And he addes, that they doe gerere vices Christi, (how will the Pope like this?) and that their Soueraigntie here mentioned, stands in the i [...]tation of the vertues and worthines of their auncestors. And lastly, this he calls the eternall successi­on. Genebrard. in Psalm. this sense (vnder correction) that as young brides that are loath to leaue their parents, yet for loue of their husband, and hope of issue, are content to abandon their owne na­tiue home, &c. So should shee.

Hespere, qui coelo lucet crudelior ignis,
Qui natam poscas complexu avellere matris!

Yet this for Christs sake, and for the great reward. There­fore it followes, Then shall the King haue pleasure in thy beau­tie, and in stead of thy parents thou shalt haue children, euen royall children, whome thou maist make Princes in all lands. Whome we may construe to be the faithfull, and beleeuers in generall, who are Kings & Priests, apoc. 1. a royall priest­hood, (S. Peter himselfe calling them so) not the Apostles 1. Pet 2. 5. onely, or their proper heires, the Ministers. And to recall you to a place, Sir, of your owne citing before, Esa. 32. [...] liny [...]d c. [...]. num 56. Princeps digna Principe eogitabit, a Prince will deuise of things worthie of a Prince. Their princehood then beeing thus, as I haue described, you must looke they should content them­selues therewith, not moyle with temporall matters imper­tinent. Whereunto euen that perswades which you touch vpon soone after, in the same number, viz. 43. that Dauid faies of them in the 19. Psalme, Sonus eorum, their sound is gone out into all worlds, and their words (as you read it) into the boundes of the earth. For by them they rule, by words and by sound, not by forcible engines. Whereas happily if the Pope should domineer no farther then his voice were heard, or his sound went out, preaching especially, not one­ly a bulls hide might measure out his territories, as they say of Carthage, but ere a taper were cleane burnt out, wee might get forth of his cōfines, with greater ease, I suppose, then Pius quintus his nephew did, when his Vnkle once dis­charged Masson in vitâ P [...] V. [Page 155] him, in such a sort, vpon displeasure.

§ 27. Nought remaines that I know of, to be cleared in this Chapter, but your doubtie collection vpon the Bishops words: If the twelue had a head to preuent schisme, as S. Hierome saies, or if a head may be appointed ouer a competent number, that he can conueniently prouide for, and the same endued with a power proportionable, as the Bishop graunts; much more had we neede of one, after the Church is so multiplied &c. to exclude the disorders which are likelier to arise betweene many then few. To which I answer: That we are not so destitute of a Head, as F. T. i­magines, nay of many subordinations of heads and gouer­nours, not without reference to a Principall, though we in­tertaine no Pope. The Deacons to the Priests, the Priests to the Bishop, the Bishop must be subiect to Christ, saies Ig­natius, Epist. 7 quae ad Smymeni [...]s. euen as he is to his father, and Pope he knowes none. Dionysius also will shew you how the Church is raunged, in his Epistle ad Demophilum, where he makes the scala thus: Apud Gelas. Cy­zic. p. 172. ex e­dit. Morel. per Sal [...]oreum Ie­suitam; Episcopus habet locum capi­tis ecclesiae post Christum, preshy­ter Seraphicum. D aconus Cheru­bicum No Pope then but Anti-christ. from [...] to [...], from [...] to [...], and so [...], or [...], and the [...], as they call it, or the last pitch, is in [...], the coordinate faithfull, not one but many. So the prime in Christendome (for we denie not a prime) with his Synode of Bishops, as the Councells both of Basil and Constance would haue it, though the Iesuites re­pugne, may serue for that vse in the Church of God (not to call for Constantine.) which Peter emong the twelue. Though Peter was the apter to be trusted with that place (principium actionis onely, and the giuer of the onset) because a man [...], and so likewise the whole Colledge which he o­uersaw, neither that seditious, nor he tyrānous. But the Popes authoritie being extrauagant in it selfe, and no way law­full, his tyrannie is not abated by the encrease of the Church, or multitude of people, as the Adioyndrer disputes See him ad lon­gum, num. 40. &c Moses and Salo­mo, two famous patternes of gouernment in Scripture, each of them com­plaining of the great multi­tudes of people committed to their charge, (and yet but a handfull to the now Christian) maruell that Peter neuer did of his, if all was so entirely recommended to him, as they fable. See 1. King. 3. and Numb 11. 14. As for Quu ad baec idoneus, that is Pauls, not Peters. out of his hidden Politiques, but the more he curbes with it, the more cruelly he vsurps. And indeede whereas the Bi­shop made two exceptions against the argument from Peter, one from the number of the people to be gouerned, the o­ther [Page 156] from the nature of the authoritie to be exercised, he onely smothers the one with the other, (saying, Tyrannies are sooner practised vpon smaller states,) but answers neither.

§ 28. One thing more, and so an ende. Whereas our Aduersarie would bind the Adioyn Seeing that Peter was made head of the Apostles, [...]. of the Church, the Bishop cannot denie the same authoritie to. S. Peters successors, for the same reason, especially since the succession of all the Apostles is failed in other Churches, sauing onely in the Church of Rome by our Sauiours prouidence, &c. first place to Rome, by vertue, as he saies, of succeeding Peter, the chiefe of the A­postles, num. 38. to omit of Peters non com­paruit at Rome, of which before, & sure the Scriptures take no knowledge of his arriuing there, whereas S. Paul (saies Homil 55. in Act 2. Chrysostome) entred Rome like a King, or a Generall after sea-fight, quasi Rex post naualem pugnam at que victoriam, in regalissimam aulam istam ascendit; nay, as he speakes in another place, the very Praefat. in Epist. Pauli. [...]. Pro Lege Manil. fame of Pauls comming to Rome, composed matters, and put the citie in order. The like whereof Tullie rhetoricates of Pompey, and Plutarke reports as a truth of Philopoemen, that the opinion of his drawing neere, caused the enemies to raise their siege: (to omit this,) In Athanas. [...]. And Pertinax himselfe in Herodian, lib. 2. [...]. Much more true in the Episcopall throne, then the Imperiall. Nazianzō wil tell him, that no promise of grace goes cur­rant with succession simply considered, and we are so farre from acknowledg­ing the Prouidence, which he speakes of, in preseruing that Sea, that, to say nothing what wee haue groped with our owne experience, cōcerning the A­postasie, not onely Sedulius an auncient writer obserues vp­on those words, Rom. 1. Obedientia vestra divulgata est per­totum mundum, that the Romanes obedience was divulged Primas. [...] in Epist. Paul. giues this reason why the Epistle to the Romanes is set first. quiae scripta erat ad in­feriores. I sup­pose it should be infirmiores, by that which fol­lowes. But that helps but little. And comparing all the churches to which the Apostle wrote, he makes Rome simply the worst And wheras now a daies they conceit it to be such an armorie of faith against all defects, he makes them so simple, that he saies, nihil intellige­bant, They vnderstood nothing at all. As for their morall perfections, see Salvian de gubernat. dei. l. b. 7. Viciositas & impuritas quasi germanitas quaedam est Romanorum hominum, & quasi mens atque natura; quia thi praecipuè vicia, vbicun (que) Romani. Et ibid. Omne impuritatis scelus, omnis impudicitiae tur pitudo, à Romanu admit­titur, a barbaris vindicatur. Et, Auaritiae inhumanitas proprium est Romanorum penè omnium malum. Et, Indu­rauerunt facies suas SVPER PETRAM. This is the super petram that he acknowledges in Rome. And least you thinke he excuses them from peruerse faith in the midst of so many morall corruptions, lib. 5. he saies, Ipsae haereses barbarorum de ROMANI MAGISTERII prauitate fluxerunt. See Bernard. de Consyd. ad Eu­gen. lib. 4 c. 1 & 2. Quid tam notum seculis quàm proteruia & fastus Romanorum &c at large. Yet of late a French parasite, Flor. Rem. praises that sinke, (which is the worse for continuance without all question) as the Paradise of God, and the dugge of heauen. For he saies it signifies mamilla in the Hebrew, chil­dishly enough. De orig. haer. l. 5. c. 4. num. 5. 6. &c. One thing I allow that he obserues, that it was ab initio ob­noxia incendijs, alway in danger of fire since first it was a citic: that we may beleeue that one day it shal be burnt cleane downe, as it is in the Reuelation. throughout the world, divulgata magis quàm laudata, rather divulged then praised, but the Apostle himselfe is thought to point at as much, both Rom. 11. [...], els thou shalt be cut off, euen thou for all thy priuiledge, and Rom. 12. [...], that is, to the Bishop and all of that Sea, [Page 157] from time to time, viz. not to arrogate too much vnto himselfe, not to be wise in his owne conceit, as if he were that infallible one, [...].

To his fourth Chapter.

Basil, Nazianzen, Chrysostome, Au­sten, their authorities; The BISHOPS Answer stands good against his friuolous exceptions. And of the eight Popes, who liuing in S. Austens time, exercised (as the Adioynder dreames) an Vniuersall and supreame authoritie.

§ 1. NExt are Basil, Nazianzen, Chrysostome, and Au­sten. To the place of S. Basil, De iudicio Dei, Ille beatus qui caeteris praelatus discipulis fuit, cui claues regni coelestis commissae;. i. that blessed man (Peter) who was pre­ferred before the rest of the Disciples, to whome the keyes of the heauenly kingdome were committed, &c. he saies the Bishop hath answered nothing to any purpose. num. 5. in the ende. These are [Page 158] the crakes of this insolent patch; the very impatience whereof, were able to diuert any man from his busines. But how does he take away the Bishops answer, who yeilds him euen more then S. Basil saies in fauour of Peter, and yet still numb. 2 ipso fine. forsooth no Monarch, to returne his owne words, scoffing though he vse them, not ashamed now in plaine tearmes to plead for the Monarchie of spirituall men. I know Bisho­pricks haue beene called so, as by Hilarie, Pope, in his Epi­stle ad Leontium, but neuer in this sense. And so Paschasinus (emong Leo's Epistles it is) finds a Corona in his great Pa­tron, to wish honour and good successe to. But these are baubles. To the point in hand then. If the argument stand in BLESSED, that Peter was a Monarch, because called blessed, either by our Sauiour, or S. Basil, to omit how many others haue beene called blessed, both men and women, in holy Scripture, (they recken some seauen in all, I trow, of the feminine kinde) to whome no Monarchie was decreed; Et nos cum Petro beati, saies Epiphanius, and we are blessed with Praefat. Anchor. Idem Origen. in Matth. vide c. 5. huius. Peter, if we hold fast his confession. Nay, they say when Bellar­mines vncle came to the Popedome, the times were so bad, that it was thought a man could not be Pope and saued, Masson. in Mar­cello 2. that is, Pope and blessed. Therefore what doth this argu­ment from beatus on Gods name? But to omit this I say, the Bishop scanning S. Basils words, finds Basil the best opener of his owne meaning, both concerning the blessednes of Pe­ter, and his beeing preferred before the rest, which is the firmer hold of the two, for you to trust to, if you be wise. For immediatly thus it followes in S. Basil, after [...], preferred before all, [...], that is, who onely was witnessed of more then o­thers, and was pronounced blessed before others. Does not [...] and [...] now, limit [...], as the Bishop had said? Does not the honour that he receiued, to be witnessed of by Christ, as a little before he had witnessed of Christ, and our Sauiours pronouncing him blessed in plaine termes, (which imports no iurisdiction, whatsoeuer you fancie) li­mit [Page 159] his preferment in S. Basils style? And though no such thing were in S. Basil, yet how many waies are there of pre­ferment, besides making Monarch, or installing one su­preame Prince of the world? Your selfe, Sir, can tell vs soone after very sawcily, num. 10. of this Chapt. that the King can shewe fauour to some one subiect, and yet not make him Primate of the prouince. So might Peter be pre­ferred, and yet not made a Soueraigne prince, much more. Though the more I consider it, [...] is lesse then our PREFERRED in English. For he meanes, hee preferred him in voice & verdict, not in real exaltation, as they com­monly take it. And that is it which the Bishop answered out of S. Basils owne words: preferred, but how, quoth he? [...], &c. Let vs looke into the third title of Peters style, as it runnes in S. Basil, Cui claues, &c. to whome the keyes of the heauenly Kingdome were committed. But do you see how? Not onely the kingdome is described here, to be heauenly, not earthly, which Peter receiued the keyes of, (what is this then, I wonder, to temporall Monarchies, which the very place so counterbuffes, and yet they would faine establish, and establish from hence?) but how does it make for Peters soueraigntie, since as the Bishop hath most preg­nantly answered before, he receiued the keies indeed as Ba­sil sayes, but whether for himselfe, or for the Church, Basil shewes not, Austen does. You say, you haue refuted this, and Cap. 1. I thinke we haue answered you. Cum caeteris communicandas claues accepit, sayes Optatus himselfe. Will you haue so ma­ny Monarchs, as receiued the keyes, that are afraid of two a little after?

§ 2. Your impudent putting of a Monarchie vpon the Pope, by your queint definition, as you think at least, holds no water, and much lesse fire. A Monarch is he (say you) that gouernes for the common good, not for his owne. Let vs be­leeue the Pope to be that single-hearted Charitie, quaerens non quae sua sunt sed aliorum (aliorum indeede too often, for the deuill himselfe giues ouer seeking his owne, if S. Ber­nard [Page 160] say true) is this all that is required to make a Monarch? Is there no difference betweene gouernment and gouerne­ment? Let Gelasius tell you, de vinculo Anathematis, to say nothing of Chrysost. a little before quoted, or hath not our Sauiour himselfe, a Vos autem non sic, to spoile your definiti­on, and to marre his Monarchie?

§ 3. I might tell you of S. Basil in this very worke, what respect God hath planted in vs to Kings, by the hand of na­ture, which respect you would so wickedly purloyne from them, and carrie cleane away to the Popes, by peruerting the Fathers words about S. Peter. I haue Idem habet S. Cyprian. tract. de idolorum vanit. Rex vnus est apibus, dux vnus ingregi­but. Vide & Hieron. in epist. ad Rustuum, Grues vnum scquuntur ordine literato. It is a scholler-like order to be subiect to Monarchy in the politicke estate. Also Chrysost. most ex­cellently, Com in 13. ad Rom. (which com­ment. vpon all that discourse of the Apo­stle, for obedience to Magistrates, though they be infidels, the Iesuites are so con­fronted with, as if it had beene purposely written against their new-fangle deuises) finds the like euident prints of soueraign­tie in Bees, in Cranes, in flocks of sheepe, &c. yea, in the bottome of the sea, emong the fishes, [...]. Hence Seneca perhaps, l. 1. de Clemen. c. 19. Natura Regem commenta est. scene a swarme of bees, saies he, &c. But when he shewes what is answerable in the Church of God, to that which a King is in humane societies, he dreames not of a Pope to supplie the analogie, but of the word of God; that is our King (saies he) and the fall from that makes way to Antichrist: iust as S. Paul saies of the dissolution of the Empire, Donec tolla­tur è medio [...]. That you may see by what meanes the Popedome thri­ueth, On the other side, our Sauiour Christ came into the world, when intrusion and vsurpation of Kingdomes was [...]ifest: as if his errand had been emong others, to giue Monarchies their right, and to cut short the encroachers, sayes Haymo. Halberstat. conc. hyem, in Epiphan. Dom. Quia enim deficienti [...] principibus ex Iudi, alienus & ex­traneus at (que) falsus &c. namely by the fall of Princes, and what thriues with the Popedome, namely Antichrist, and the extinguish­ing of Gods word, which is our King, saies S. Basil. But I come to Nazianzene.

§ 4. And though I affect breuitie, yet Nazianzenes place I will set downe somewhat more fully, the rather because our man saies, the Bishop thought some words as sore as a bile, and therefore set them downe in his margent indeede, but durst not touch them in his text; those sore words. As if any would doe the one, I meane print them in the margent, that was afraid of the other, that is to speake to them in the text. For why might he not better haue left them cleane out? But heare we Nazianzene, & those words [Page 161] at length. See if any thing could be brought to check them more. De moderat. in disput. seruandâ, [...], &c. Seest thou of the Disciples of Christ, all high and worthy to be chosen, one is called a rocke, and hath the foundations of the Church entrusted to him, another is more loued, and leanes vpon the breast of Iesus, and the rest brooke this praelation, [...]. So that, whereas afore he argued out of S. Basil from praela­tus est, we haue now prelation first of more then one. But proceed. When they must goe vp to the mountaine, that he might glister in his shape, and shew his godhead, and discouer him that lay hid in the flesh, who go vp with him? For all are not beholders of the miracle. Peter, and Iames, and Iohn, [...], which both were, and were reputed to be afore the others. Afore we had two [...], preferred; nowe we haue three, [...], that were, and were reckoned to be afore the rest. But who were with him in his agonie, and a lit­tle before his death, when he went aside and prayed? the same a­gaine. [...]. This is the order that our Sauiour tooke in preferring. It followes. The rest of their com­linesse, and orderlinesse, how great? Peter asks this question, Phi­lip that, Iudas that, Thomas that, another that, and neither all the same, nor one man all, but euery man particularly, and one by one; and as you would say, euery one thereafter as he needed. But of that what thinke you? Philip would say a thing, and dares not alone, but takes Andrew to him. Peter hath a question to aske, and sets on Iohn by a nodde. Where is surlinesse here? where is ambition? How could they more shew themselues the disciples of Christ, that meeke and humble hearted one for vs, a seruant for vs his seruants, and who in all things returned all the glorie to his Father, that he might shew vs an example of orderlinesse and mo­destie, which we are so farre from obseruing, that I would think it were well with vs, if we were not bold-hardier then all besides, &c. Now let F. T. plead for primacie from hence, and the pride that our Sauiour suppressed in his disciples so long agoe. You see, that if our Sauiour preferred one, he preferred more, and the name of preferment, serues them all alike, no better [Page 162] of Peter, no worse of Iames, of Iohn, &c. So true it is, that the Bishop answered, of many monarchs, to bee pickt from hence, if any at all. But what say we to the words, as sore as a bile, That Peter had sibi credita Ecclesiae fundamenta, the foun­dations of the Church entrusted to him? Neither does this prooue monarchy, nor supreame magistracie. It is nothing but an exegesis of what went before, that Peter was a rock & not a rocke for nothing, but to build vpon, and to carry (as the rest doc, Apoc. 21. for I must not leaue vrging him with the Bishops answer, though I see it anger him) the foundations of the Church, though to him, more particularly confessing Christ, it was said also more particularly. But if this was the reward of his constant profession, as no man doubts, and the text most clearely shewes, to bee tearmed rocke, and withall hee confest in the name of the rest, as Bellarmine De Rom. Pontif. l [...]b 1 c 12. ex Chrysost. Hieron. & Aug. Petrus pro omnibus locu­tus est. Adde Cyprian. l. 1. ep. 3. ad Co [...]. Petrus vnus pro omnibus loquent, & eccle­sie v [...] respon­dent. graunts, and the Fathers affirme, who sees not that this ti­tle must belong to the rest, to be rocks all, as well as he? and therefore the Bishops answer remaines most sound, that he is a rocke indeede, and beares the foundations, but with others. And so his instance vanishes, that a King may beare one more fauour then another, though he make him not so great an officer or prelate. For, as we graunt, the preheminence that Nazian. speakes, to haue beene yeelded S. Iohn, to leane vpon Christs brest, did come from greater loue then to Peter; so we denie, that Peters was a prerogatiue of iurisdiction, though it was the honouring of him in an other meet kind, answerable to the confession, wherein he out-stript his fel­lowes. For as he spake first, so the tearmes of honour first lighted vpon him, no authoritie, Sir. And to bee graced with those tearmes directed to him, was the particular pre­heminence that Nazianzene speakes of, answerable to S. Iohns leaning vpon Christs bosome in particular. Though it is true, that Iohn also signified for others, as wee shewed Cap [...]ag. 25. 26. &c. before out of S. Austen, as well as in Peter the others were included, that allowed his confession. And truely if it be good arguing from the prerogatiues of Peter and Iohn in [Page 163] Nazianzene, the one to be called a rocke, another to leane vpon our Sauiours bosome, I see not but Iohn excelled Pe­ter herein. For his honour was reall, Peters verball (hither­to) though I knowe that Christ makes all good in the ende which he promises. Peters doubtfull, and subiect to exposi­tions; Iohns cleare, euident, and ocular. Peter, you say, was the first stone in the foundation after Christ, but Iohn wee see, immediately leaned vpon his breast; which breast, if it be, (as certenly it is) the foundation of the Church, is not this a type, who hath the greater interest therein of the twaine? But your way should haue beene, if you had not been that fumbler, to haue argued thus out of our graunts; That all the Apostles were the foundations of the Church, and Peter had the foundations committed to his charge, as Nazian­zene saies, therefore Peter was made gouernour of the Apostles. As if [...], were any thing but the exegesis of a rocke, as I said, ordained for building, it selfe the foundation, and carrying the foundations as you would say; [...], an vsuall scheme. Which was the cause that the Bishop medled not with that bile, hauing said enough to it in the word Rocke before. But suppose [...] made a distinct sense, wil you say they were commit­ted to him to bee gouerned? Does the earth gouerne the heauens and all, because they are in a manner founded vpon it? What preposterousnesse is this? or what faith is there in him, that would so falsifie the very word of faithfulnesse it selfe, [...] I meane, in his 8. numb. where he deflects it to gouernement, all too vnseasonably?

§ 5. As for Chrysostome, which is the next, neuer any thing so ridiculous, as he shewes himselfe there, in defending the Cardinall. Onely the Cardinall owes him so much the more, for doing him seruice, in so desperate a cause. ‘Tantò plus debes, Sexte, quòd erubui. Mart. Homil. in Matth. 55. Cuius pastor & caput homo piscator, spea­king belike of Peter and the Church; that is to say, whose [Page 164] Pastor and Head a fisherman is. Though to be a Pastor of the Church, is a small title in S. Peters style. For first, a pastor is [...], captivut pastor: non Rec pastor: as the Papists would. Vide Io­seph. l. 1. contra [...]. a word of reproach, and basenes, if we beleeue S. Basil. Orat. [...], and yet transferred to Church-vses, it is nothing singular, but comprehends, whome not? both Apostles, and others. Dedit quosdam pastores, Eph. 4. He gaue some to be Pastors, and to what ende? Not onely [...], to keepe them right that are once conuerted to the faith, but also [...], to gaine them that are without, (Aquinas so distinguishes them vpon the place) which the Papists would make to be the Popes proper care, to set men on worke to conuert the infidels and vnbeleeuers. But here we see it is common to collegium pastorum, to the many pa­stors, not to vnus pastor onely, Eccl. 13. or to the master of the assemblies. Euen as Demetrianus of Alex. sent Pantaenus into Hierom. epist. ad Magnum. India, to conuert the Brachmanes, into India Athanasius sent Frumentius, Sozom. l. 2. c. 23. A pud Theod in Eccl. lust. l. 5. c. 4. Meletius sent Stephanus into Germanicia: S. Austen of his owne head writes to the Ma­daurenses, to conuert them from Paganisme, Epist. 42. Victor Vticensis yields vs another example hereof, lib. 1. de persecut. Vandal. which I will set downe somewhat at large, because I am fallen into this argument. Martinianus (saith he) Sa­turianus, and two more brothers of them, beeing sold by Genseri­cus that cruell tyrant, tooke Capsur King of Mauritania, keeping his Court in that place of the wildernes, which is called Capra­picti, what by their preaching, what by their liuing, (and yet but At least Mar­tinianus consen­ted to marrie a maid called Maxima, which you may do well to see Mr F. T. whether you will allow to Church-men, or no [...] though we heare you haue taken this li­bertie to your selfe, whatsoe­uer you are. lay-folke, for so much as appeares by the storie, and more­ouer sold for bondslaues, whereas the Iesuites thinke that pietie can finde no worke to doe in captiuitie, but hath her armes and her legges chopt off, as Salomon saies in another matter, onely exercising her selfe in a pleasurable estate) ta­li modo ingentem multitudinem gentilium barbarorum Christo Domino lucrauerunt (so speakes Victor) vbi anteà nulla fama Christiani nominis erat divulgata: i. gained a great multitude of Gentiles and Barbarians to the Lord Christ, where before the Christian name was not heard by fame. And all this they ef­fected, [Page 165] afore they had helpe from Rome; afterward they sought, and found there, as reason was. TVNC DEIN­DE COGITATVR quid fieret &c. So as Rome it selfe did not presently come into their minds for this matter, but that other places might haue affoarded the same aide at neede, and like enough vsually so they did. This Victor. But now, as I was saying, and to returne to the authoritie quoted out of S. Chrysostome: Whatsoeuer become of pa­stour, which though we finde not where he quotes it in S. Chrys. yet with all our hearts we ascribe to Peter, (I would he could keepe there; God appeared to Moses, [...], not contending, but keeping sheep, saies S. Basil where before, but the Pope he hath left the one for the other) yea and ecclesiae pastor, pastour of the Church, of the Catholique Church. (So Clemens makes all Bishops, Constitut. lib. 6. cap. 14. much more then, an Apostle.) What saies he to caput, that Peter is head of the Church, which we finde not in the Greeke? You shall heare his answer, & cum riseritis ineptias hominis, then thinke as you list, for my discourse will soone be at an ende. I answer (saies he) that though they num. 12. be not now in the Greeke copies, which the Bishop hath seene, yet it little importeth, seeing that the Latin translatour found them, as it is most probable in the Greeke copie, which he followed, and S. Chrysost. saies as much in effect, both there, and in other places. Number the absurdities. First, not now. Belike then hereto­fore they were in. Who tooke them out? you shall heare his owne guesse, num. 18. Either the Grecians themselues in the time of their schisme from the Romane Church, or perhaps some of our late hereticks, who haue taken vpon them (TAKEN So cap. 1. hu [...]us, Al [...]ate not fin­ding the vncer­taine Epistle of Pope Iohn in some auncient copyes, suspects the heretiques (as he cals thē) to haue raced▪ it out. VPON THEM) to print the Greeke in these daies. Perhaps, saies he, so doubtfully he speakes, and perhaps neither. But if the Printers of these daies haue pickt them out, why shew ye not some ancienter copies at least; that haue them? Not any (say you) which the Bishop hath seene. Hath any then, trow, that your selfe hath seene? or that the Cardinall hath seene, or any other? If they haue, why doe they not name [Page 166] them, why not produce them? Not onely none hath them, that the Bishop hath seene, but shew you which of all hath not beene seene by the Bishop, that we may beleeue they are yet extant in some other copies. The rather, because the Cardinall alleadging the same place in his controuersies, de Rom. Pontif. lib. 1. c. 25. cries out by parenthesis, as if he had cause to triumph, Ecce nomen capitis Calvino inauditum, be­hold the name of Head which Calvin neuer heard of. And the Gentleman by the way, as offended with our mens am­bitious In like sort Flo­rimund. Remund. [...] orig haeres. part. 1. shews himself very much of­fended with those of our Diuines, that trāslated Greek authors, either historians, or dogmatists, &c. forwardnesse forsooth, calls it taking vpon them, to print the Greeke Fathers. Numb. 16. 3. You take too much vpon you, Moses and Aaron, said they of old, or as Dauids brethren, 1. Sam. 17. 28. We know thy pride. For our defence would not be taken, although we should say with Dauid, Was there not a cause? Belike they should haue tarried till F. T. would haue giuen the onset, the signall to the battell: as no man among the Brisson. in Per­sicis. Persians might shoote the deare, till the King had begun. But how if the man be so modest, that we should haue staied, God knowes how long, to our no small disaduantage, ere he had presumed to venture vpon the worke? Shall it notwith­standing be called arrogance, or precipitation, in our men, or taking vpon them? Crasse pudet me tui, ô stultos Cottas &c. I Cic. in Pis. am sorie for Eton Colledge, and my honourable and worthy friend Sr Henrie Savile, that he vsed no more aduise afore his setting forth of Chrysostome, but rashly so precipitated into a worke, not for his mowing, without the Popes leaue. But this complaint comes all too late nowe. And no force. Yet the Latine translatour found them there, as it is most probable (you say) in the auncient Greeke copies. Why not you rather foisted them into his translation? or, what if he were false and partial to your side, as you said euen now, the Grecians were to theirs, and so put them in where he found them not? Shall we not therefore be iudged by the authenticall Greeke copies? And yet, alas, poore Grecians, Plut. well may I pitie them; vpon whome (as gardeners set rue by roses, for these to purge all their venomous qualities vp­on the other, to whome such noysomnes is but naturall; so [Page 167] now) as if they serued for nothing else, other mens faults and scapes must be deriued. And shall that be called Chry­sostome, in the trying of the question betweene the King and the Cardinall, which is no where to be seene now but in the Translatour of Chrysostome? But the last excells. Though it be not extant totidem verbis, in the place quoted by the Cardi­nall, yet in effect and substance it is to be found, you say, both in that Homilie and else-where. Who euer heard such paltring as this? The words must be brought, and when they are not to be found, the sense must serue. So a man may say, that the deposition of Kings, and worse too, is authorised by the Apostle, Hebr. 7. 7. not that he speakes a word to that And indeede Pope Nicholas argues so in gond earnest, out of that place, from Be­nedicitur to M [...] ▪ l [...]d [...]ur. Epist. ad Michael Impor. Tom. 3. Com. Sur. purpose, but, minor à maiori benedicitur, this prooues the su­perioritie of Priests to Kings, in a Iesuits construction, and therefore interficitur, or deturbatur, and what not? Is this to giue vs the sēse for the words? the spirit for the letter, quoth you? or do you so maintaine godlines in the power of it, Tit. 1? And yet supoose this were right, where is the sense, or the substance that you talke of? If in other places of Chrysostome, why are not those places quoted at the first? why doe you choose to dwell vpon a counterfeit one? Are you not a­shamed to runne gadding thus vp and downe, first from words to sense, then from one place to another, to make your lamps to shine with borrowed oile, beg'd rather, nay stolne apparantly, after the thrones are set, and the Iudge is come? On the other side, how direct is the Bishop in his proceedings? how square, as I may say, and exact euerie way? Hath hee not satisfied the Cardinall to the very last farthing, and paied the score which he brought to conuince the King withall? His MAIESTIE calls for the Fathers of such a compasse, to disprooue him. And you see howe they are brought, not onely speaking by an interpretor, and not the faithfullest neither, whereas there should be no compromitting at all in so serious a canvase: but no tinker in his kettleworke was euer more fowly foyled, then he in avouching the Cardinals quotations. Lysanders two skins [Page 168] to patch the one the other, so he his words with senses, nay one text with another, is the most naturall representation of his dodging here. In so much, as if I should not answer a word more in the behalfe of the Bishop, yet you see how he hath performed as much as he vndertooke, namely, to maintain the kings challēge against the Cardinal, about the iudgement of the Fathers within such a space, and this fel­low cannot refute him without such shamefull shifts, as lay him open to more disgrace. Yet to two places I will say somewhat, for the other are not worth the while.

§ 6. 1 Out of the Homily aforesaid, Peter was a diamond, Ieremy a brasen pillar, or an iron wall. And which meant Chry­sost. for the stronger of the two? or did he meane to magni­fy one aboue the other at all? yet you should speake to their authoritie, and let their constancie alone. Their vertue is one thing, their place another, howsoeuer how confound them. Vnlesse you thinke, that because with you place goes for vertue, (witnesse Hildebrande in Dictatis) therefore with them vertue may inferre place too, which is nothing so. But let vs heare the rest. Ieremy was set ouer one nation, Peter ouer the whole world. And what is this, but the difference of the old testament and the new? the field and the garden? fons signatus Cant. 4. and fons patens or reclusus Zach. 13. the breaking downe of the partition-wall, Eph. 2. the rending of the vaile, &c. I hope euery minister in the new testa­ment, not Peter onely, hath not the land of Palaestine, which might be Ieremies limitation, but the latitude of the whole world, to deale with. Yea it is your owne doctrine, c. 2. numb. 50. and 52. that as farre as the Church reaches, (which at this day reaches through out the whole world,) the of­fice and function of euery minister may extend. But the Apo­stles specially, betweene whome and Peter, herein, there was no ods, whatsoeuer difference there might be in their prouinces, as they parted them among themselues. 2 Yea, but Peter might haue chosen Matthias Apostle without commu­nicating with the rest, for which you quote Chrysostome hom. [Page 169] 3. in Acta. Quid? annon licebat ipsi eligere? Licebat, & quidem maximè, &c. And againe in the same place, Quàm est ferui­dus? quàm agnoscit creditum à Christo gregem? Might not he chuse? yea verily he might. Then: How feruent is he? how doth he acknowledge the slocke of Christ committed to his charge? No doubt he regards the flocke of Christ, in speaking first in the congregation, about the choice of an Apostle, which much concerned the Church at that time, not to be desti­tute of a pastor, in the defect of Iudas. And this was grex creditus, which S. Peter so regarded, not the Apostles his flocke, as you would faine haue it: as if he were their Tu­tor, and they his pupills, (as you were wont to appoint Polydor. Virgil. Anglic. hist. l. 21. in Hen 7. Cic. de si [...]b. 5. our King his Tutor, Nos tutores Regibus misimus, right Ro­manes:) but the flocke which he regarded ioyntly with the Apostles, was the Church in generall, whose benefit he prouided for, in calling the company together, for the choice of an Apostle, Iudas beeing remooued. And S. Chry­sost. saies but so, as your selfe English him. How doth he e­uery where speake first? [...], Euseb. l. 2. c. 13. Not for any authoritie then, but [...] for his vertues sake. And what order can you imagine, where ma­ny meete, vnlesse one speake first? then, why not Peter he, and yet not superiour to the rest? As for Peters power to chuse an Apostle of his owne head, it is maruaile it should so be, since Bellarmine giues him not power to chuse the Deacons, (much lesse then the Apostles) without con­sent of the multitude, holding it to be enough that they were not chosen against his will, nor without his assent. de Pontif. Rom. l. 1. c. 16. In the chusing of Matthias, we finde no lesse then an hundred and twenty to haue come toge­ther. Act. 1. 15. whereof some were women, v. 14. of the same: and not Peter, but the lott settled it vpon Matthias, v. 26. What then saies Chrysostome, whome you quote, that Peter might haue done this alone, and of his owne authori­ty? You quote him lamely, which you obiect to the Bishop about Cyrill and Austen, but how falsly, we haue shewed. [Page 170] The next words in Chrysost. confute you plainly, if you had durst to alleadge them. [...]. And besides (saies he) he had not yet receiued the holy Ghost. Doe you thinke then, that Peter might haue chose the Apo­stle by authoritie giuen him from our Sauiour Christ, to whome Christ had not yet giuen the gift of discerning, or the holy Ghost to direct him? where is your axiome, that you can braue vs with elsewhere, Qui dat formam, dat omnia Cap. 3. num. 40. Qui dat esse. &c. consequentia formam? or where doe you finde God to allow the ende, without meanes sufficient to atchieue that ende? We are therefore to vnderstand, that if Chrysost. say (as he saies but at vncertaine) that Peter might haue made the A­postle himselfe, he might vpon presumption of the multi­tudes good will, who would not haue contested with him in such a case likely, as honouring him for his vertue, &c. In which regard he commends to vs the meeknes of those times, for our imitation, and as he saies, that Peter did no­thing [...] nor [...], so he maruels that S. Iames would not interpose a word, beeing at home as we would say, and Bishop of Hierusalem, where this assemblie was held. Neither lastly doe I see, how, ius constituendi par om­nibus habebat, can so handsomly be drawne out of Chryso­stomes text, [...], which is the commoner reading in the greeke copies, and denies it rather. Thus much of Chrysostome.

§. 7. About the place of S. Austen, serm. 1. 24. de Temp. I haue touched before in a word or two, your notable igno­rances, with no lesse malice, which you bewray in the mis­construing of the Bishops words. Componit salutem, &, medi­corum filij, &, Etsi omnes, non ego. You complaine in your 10. Chap. of the obscurenesse of the Bishops style, and he seemes to you [...] at noone day. I beleeue it verily, your appre­hension is so good. Senecaes foole said, the house was dark [...]. after her selfe was fallen blind: And S. Paul afore his con­uersion, was dazeled with the exceeding lightsomnesse, as [Page 171] S. Chrysostome notes most excellently: but soone after hee Ser 4. in Apost Paul. tom. 8. Ne­mo benè v [...]d [...], nisi qui priùs [...], exeundo Pauli. Chrysost. saw cleerest vpon his eye-sights taking from him. An image of the Papists (specially our English) that are offended with nothing more then the abundance of that light, that shines in their country at this day, whom a little of the old darknes perhaps would reduce to their right mindes; as mad folks are tamed (they say) with withdrawing of the light from them. But omitting complaints, quae ne tum quidem gratae, tùm necessariae, what say you to the answers to S. Austens place? Three exceptions did the Bishop take vnto it. First, 1 2 that it was cited out of a doubtfull worke. Secondly, that it mentioned but a crazed head, and therefore not to be brought for honesty sake, to prooue Peters primacie, which another would di­sprooue it by rather. 3 Thirdly, that S. Austen, not in asermon de Tempore, but in a lawfull Synod, cures this head, by confining him to his bounds, and restraining appeales from beyond the sea, which you brooke not. The first of these is confirmed diuers wayes. I 1 One, that the title of those Sermons is not sincere, neither giuen by S. Austen at the first, nor yet knowne by that name diuerse hundreds of yeares, after his death. And if S. Austen wrote no Sermones de tempore, why should we yeeld, as to S. Austens authoritie, to that which is quoted by the name of de Tempore? Yet you say, they are taken out of other his works. Let those workes then bee quoted by their owne names: let euery witnesse appeare in his owne likenesse. The Emperour would not trust the man that had dyed his Quia barbam ca­put (que) tinxerat, ic­circo rem [...] eum de coll egio [...]udi­cum P [...]ut. in apo­theg [...]. at Philip. owne beard, hee suspected salshood by such small tokens. And where the name is counterfeit, what credit can there be either in the man, or in his verdict? Does not such an one rather professe that he meanes craft? Innominatus habe­tur pro nullo, is the axiome of the law. And why not then per­uersè nominatus, much more? 2 Besides, you haue so chopt the number of these Sermons, yea the substance too, now adding, then diminishing, sometime amplifying, and then againe withdrawing, in your diuers editions, that no Euripus more vncertaine to build faith vpon. And yet these you bring [Page 172] forsooth to confute his MAIESTIE, and to disprooue his challenge. For where you say, they were so called and culled out from the rest, for the ease and commoditie of the Readers: I see not what more ease can be in giuing them a false name then a true, or what commoditie can arise from hence to the Reader, vnlesse to be abused and deceiued, be a commodi­tie. Yet such are the commodities, Egraunt, that you Iesu­ites deale in, when you set forth Authors. 3 But lastly, the Sermon it selfe, bewrayes it selfe, to be none of S. Austens. As what thinke you of that clause in the latter ende of it? Agnouit enim sibi vt homini peccati irrepsisse perniciem, quod to­tum hactenus vt memini diuinitùs procuratum est. Haue you so lost your smell, as not to difcerne betweene this, and the true S. Austen? I say nothing of that which followes, which no wise man but would abiure for S. Austens, Videte quem­admodum exiguae culpae permittitur subiacere tantus Apostolus: (first, who euer called this exigua cupla, to denie our Sauiour? which Bellarmine himselfe, when he excuses De Rom. Pont. [...]. [...]. c, 28. all that may bee, cannot denie to haue been a most horrible trespasse.) And againe, vt emendatus elationis vicio at (que) corre­ctus. Did S. Austen euer say, emendatus vicio? The rest is as good, but I spare. Yet, Quemadmodum eum dominus tui cau­sâ patitur circumscribi delicto, would not bee passed ouer. I leaue it to your thinking. In the same sermon, hee makes Peter to haue been a starke Pelagian; Per solum liberum arbi­trium, non addito dei adiutorio, promiserat se pro. Domino mori­turum. The Pope an [...]. 4 And yet you bring this to prooue Peters primacie, and Lordship paramount, ouer the whole Church, for di­rection sake. As for your sleeuelesse shift, that S. Austen wrote Sermons of the solemne tunes of the yeare, of Saints dayes also, &c. so hath the Bishop preached as much as any, of the yearely festiualls, (and long may he I pray God) yet he ne­uer thought he had made sermons de Tempore, till you told him so. The thing no doubt is auncient, for the substanti­all obiect, to solemnize the appointed times of the yeare, as the Quadragesima, or the Ascension, or the Natalitia, and [Page 173] the like, which you instance in, with sutable sermons: but Sermones de Tempore, is too short a name, though we take in de Sanctis too, to comprehēd all, sith there were many more Sermons made, both by Austen, and others, vpon ordinarie Sundayes, which are reducible to neither part of the afore-said diuision. 5 As for that you alledge out of Possidius, that S. Austen made sermons in vigilijs paschae, vpon Easter eue, whereof this, you say, was one in all likelihood, beeing made on the Wednesday before Easter, is it not as mad as all the rest, or shall we thinke it likely, that Easter eue fell vpon the wed­nesday before Easter? What confidence hath the Iesuite, that would bore such holes in his Readers nose, and paint his face, while he lies broad awake? Yet numb. 56. of this Chapter, you find that which vvas 14. yeare after the time, as fit as the Eue, you say, to the holy day, belike that we may beleeue you the rather here, of three daies distance between the Eue and the Feast, vvhen at another time the Eue sell out iust 14. yeere, you say, afore the holy day. And so much to instifie the Bishops first exception.

§. 8. To the second you answer, that Bellarmine had no II reason to be greatly ashamed of the place that mentions Peters frailty, for euen that confirmes his primacy most wonder­fully. How so? For hauing had tryall of infirmities, he was so much the apter to succour others, or to shew compassion to others. Truely I doubt not, but Peters fall made him the tenderer­hearted to repenting sinners, yet not so much in his parti­cular, or for any primacie, as representing the Church, and the whole bodie of the ministery, as you were told out of S. Austen, de Agone Christiano. c. 30. Else onely Popes should bee tender hearted. Though S. Austen also in the place, that you newly quoted, Serm. de Temp. 124. saies it fell the rather vpon Peter, because he was a fierce and a cholericke man, (not onely feruent as others call him) as his practise shewed vpon poore Malchus, and therefore it was meete he should be abated so. Howsoeuer it be, the Bishops ex­ception to the Cardinal is very good, that a better place [Page 174] would haue beene brought in all reason out of S. Austen, so copious an author, to prooue Peters headship by, then that which implyes the crazines of it, euen before we are shewed to what vse the soundnes of it serues. Neither does the Bishop argue, as you wickedly slaunder him, that Peter by frailty denyed our Sauiour, ergò he is not head of the Church. And yet it were as good as Bellarmines argument, and bet­ter too, which you vse in this place, that his headship is con­firmed, or established by his fall. As if none could fall any whit fowly, but from the height of supremacy ouer the Church. Was it nothing to fall after his exaltation to the Apostle­ship, after other graces which he enioyed not a few? Did not this make our Eutychus his fal the more dangerous, that he tumbled downe euen from such a window? That you may see how many primacies were in Peter, as it were sto­ries in a building, though no such monarchicall prehemi­nence ensue: which primacies the Bishop neuer denied. And if Peters gentlenes, which he learned by his fall, reach no further, then to assoile offenders vpon their repentance, as I see not what other you here ayme at, you know that office belongs to all Priests in generall, as well as to the head of Priests, and therefore no Popedome followes from­hence any way at all.

§ 9. To your place of S. Gregory, hom. 22. in Euang. that our Lord intended Petrum praeferre cunctae Ecclesiae, we re­turne S. Greg. l. 4. in 1. Reg. cap. vltimum, that Paul was made caput nationum, where caput is more then praeferri ec­clesiae, sith euery minister is set ouer the Church, as we haue often told you, Qui vocatur ad Episcopatum, vocatur ad ser­uitutem As the seruice of God is the truest libertie, so the ministers regiment is but seruice. [...]tius ecclesiae, saies Origen. hom. 6. in Esaeiam, each Bishop is seruant to the whole Church: as otherwhere, Ad imperium vocantur totius ecclesiae, qui Episcopi creantur. Goffrid. Tract. de Ordin. &c. for the sense is all one, and euery where you see the latitude of their bounds; and in a word, they are nothing but circūlocutions of their Apostleships both Pauls and Peters. Lastly, you abuse the Bishop intolerably, [Page 175] in saying he taunts at Peters fal, who is of another spirit, and knowes that Saints can, pugnare de genu, or as S. Chryso­stome Seneca. saies, [...], The Saints are glori­rious euen in their falls: but he refutes Peters proud vaunt, Etsi omnes non tamen ego, by his owne experience, which is lawfull to doe, I meane to take downe the confident and the ouerweener with a sober gleeke, as euen Aristotle can Arist. Rhetor. Cic. de orat. 2. teach you, Eth. 4. and elsewhere. So much also of his se­cond exception.

§ 10. 3 It is long before he will vnderstand the third, as hauing no mind to it, loath to come at it. It stands in this. That S. Austen, not a counterfeit Sermon of Austens, but him­selfe in person, and sitting in Councell, neither flourishing before the people in a bastard homily, about Peters prerogatiues (which we must tell you again & again, are not straight the Popes, though you presume so,) but consulting most aduisedly in an assembly of Fathers about the Bishop of Rome, (which is the man in controuersie, and against whome our plea lies, not against Peter,) I say, that S. Austen consulting about the Pope, and his authority to heare appeales, in a councell of Afri­ca, is not fearefull to censure them with excommunication, as ma­ny as shall appeale beyond the sea, that is to Rome, saies Balsamon, that is to the Pope say we, and you will not denie. Which how could S. Austen and others haue done, I would faine know of you, if they had beene perswaded of his vniuersall power ouer the Christian world!

§ 11. Here you cast mysts, and fogs, and raylings. But passing by them, as the Moone does by the barking of a curre-dogge, let vs take you as you lie. You deduct three points from the Bishops words, as you say, and you call them three lies of his, in little more then three lines. Vsuall modestie, but let vs view your parts. The first, That the Pope had no further authoritie, but ouer the Church of Rome in S. Austens time. The second, That no man might appeale to Rome, out of Africk, in those daies. The third, That S. Austen neuer acknow­ledged those three Popes, Zozimus, Bonifacius, and Celestinus, to [Page 176] be heads of the Church, and yet cured S. Peters disease in them. The first, say you, will be cleare by the discussing of the second and the third. But how if the Bishop neuer affirmed the first? nei­ther is any such thing to be gathered out of his wordes? What needes your second and third to refute this? Why ra­ther doe you not bend against the second, and third, for their owne sakes, to shew that all Appeales were not cut off, by the Fathers, out of Africk to Rome, or that S. Austen cured the swelling disease in the Popes aforesaid? Does not this shew, that you neither want impudence, and yet want matter? since the Bishops words, that may sound that way to your first propositiō, are only these, If euer he be hea­led (viz. the Pope) let him be head of the Church of Rome, as he was in S. Austens time, but let no man appeale, &c. And is this as much as that the Pope had no authoritie ouer more then Rome? whereas the Bishop neither denies his Westerne Pa­triarkship, Ci [...] saies of one, Quod nondū po­testate poterat, ob­ [...]i [...]u [...]t authorita­te. So as power & authority go not alway together, though the Ie­suit confound them. nor otherwise the great sway that he might iustly carrie throughout the rest of Christendome, out of the eminencie of his place, especially if ioyned with vertues answerable, though still his Diocesse were but particular. But as for Appeales, what more plaine, for the proouing that S. Austen censured all such Appellants out of Africk to the sea of Rome, with excommunication, then that which we read in the Councel of Milevitum, Can. 22. enacted both by him, and diuers other Bishops there? Whosoeuer shall think fit to appeale beyond the Sea, let no person within Africk receiue him to fellowship, or to communion. First therefore you turne away, and will not vnderstand, till diuers sections after, a­ny such Canon or Councell, but tell vs of a letter written to Pope Celestine by the African Bishops, which, you say, was petitorie, but containing no Decree nor demand, as al­together resting in Celestines pleasure, whether he would graunt it, or no. I will set downe the words, that the truth may be seene. Though this I must premise, that it was no­thing vnbeseeming the holy Fathers, to vse reuerēt termes, euen of petition and request to Pope Celestine, when they [Page 177] sued for no more then their owne right, as the Apostle S. Peter, and diuers others in the like cases, I beseech you bre­thren, abstaine &c. Sapientem omnia priùs quàm armis experiri decet; it is the old saying: and, Responsio mollis frang it iram. So here. Strictè exigo, & strictè praecipio, is for the Pope to his Catholiques, whome he makes conies. But the words are these: Our due salutations remembred, and done: We entreat, and earnestly pray you, that hereafter you will not lightly giue au­dience to those that come from hence to you, neither any more re­ceiue such to the communion, as we excommunicate: because your Reuerence shall easily perceiue that order taken by the Nicene Councell. For if there appeare a prouiso for inferiour Clerkes and lay-men, how much more would the Synode haue the same obser­ued in Bishops, that beeing excommunicated in their owne Pro­vince, they should not be suddenly, hastily, or vnduly restored to the communion by your holinesse? And likewise your holines must repell these wicked refuges of Priests, and other Clergie men [to Rome,] as becommeth you: for that by no determination of the Fathers, this is derogated from the Church of Africa: and the Ni­cene Canons doe most euidently commit both inferiour Clergie-men, and the Bishops themselues, to their owne Metropolitans. No doubt they most wisely and rightly prouide, that all matters should be ended in the places where they first arose: neither shall the grace of the holy Ghost be wanting to any Prouince, by the which equitie may be grauely weighed, and stoutly followed, by the Priests of Christ, especially whereas euery man hath libertie, if he mislike the iudgement of those that heare his cause, to appeale to the Coun­cells of his owne Prouince, or to a generall Councell. Or how shall the iudgement ouer the Seas [at Rome] be good, whereto the ne­cessarie persons of the witnesses, either for sexe, or for age, or sun­drie other impediments, cannot be brought? FOR THAT ANY SHOVLD BE SENT [as Legates] FROM YOVR HOLINES SIDE, VVEE FINDE DE­CREED BY NO SYNOD OF THE FATHERS.

§ 12. And be here no words, but supplicatorie, wil you say? When they vrge so vehemently, that the Nicene [Page 178] Councel tooke order to the same purpose, that causes should not be remooued from place to place, alluding to the 5. Canon of that Councell, and to the latter end of the fourth, doe these men thinke it is a matter of meere graunt, or wholly depending of the Popes pleasure? when they cal such a refuge, a wicked refuge, of them that runne to Rome, doe they not shew what opinion they conceiue of it? Is it in the Popes power to license wickednesse, or if it bee nowe, was it so then? Nay, when they say hee must repulse such stragling clients, is must a word for suters and suppliants? when they tell him in the same passage, that it becomes him to stop such holes, that wretched men would creepe out at, doe they not plainely declare, that they haue more confi­dence in it, then in a meere sute or petition onely? yea, when they vrge againe, that the Nicene Councell so ordered, and no derogation was euer made to that Canon, by any contra­ry constitution, doe they leaue it free to the Pope to yeeld to, yea or no? No doubt, say they, they most wisely and right­ly prouided, that all matters should bee ended in the places where they first arose. And would these men haue confest, that the Pope might with iustice doe to the contrarie? When they tell him, That the grace of the holy Ghost is not so fastened to The holy Ghost [...] other pro­uinces as well as in Rome. Rome, but that it is to be foūd in other Prouinces too, by the which equitie may be grauely waighed, and stoutly followed by the Priests of Christ; doe they not priuily taxe him for fondly ouer­weening his owne sea, if he thinke matters cannot bee en­ded at home, without his interposing? When they alledge, that witnesses cannot bee present at Rome, whom either age, or sexe, or diuerse other infirmities and casualties hinder, and yet so necessarie many times, as that the causes cannot bee tryed without them, doe they not rather shew, what is meet in reason, and iust in conscience, then leaue it wholly in the Popes hands, to graunt or no? Lastly, what opinion had they of the Popes agents in forraine countries, that sticke not to auouch this to his head, That any from his Holinesse should be sent as Legates, we finde decreed by no Synode of the Fa­thers? [Page 179] Where, because you dare talke of the Nicene co­pies, as allowing appeales, which were pretended then Numb. 36. with shame enough, but none such found vpon most dili­gēt enquiry, take you in that also which followeth, in Gods name. That which you sent vs hither by Faustinus, as a part of the Nicene Councell, in the truer copies which wee haue receiued from holy Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria, and reuerend Atticus Bi­shop of Constantinople, taken out of the originals themselues (which also we sent to Bonifacius your predecessor) in them, we say, wee could finde no such thing. Let Baronius, or Bellarmine, salue this now, as well as they can. Finally thus. And as for your agents or messengers, send them not, graunt them not at, euerie mans request (doe you see how faintly these men speake, as remembring they sued onely to the Pope for that which was in his power to graunt or no; and which if he did grant, he did but depart with his owne right?) To which, this that followes, may be a notable confirmation? Least wee seeme to bring the smokie pride of the world, into the Church of Christ, which proposeth the light of simplicitie and humilitie to those that desire to see God, &c. This of the Epistle of the A­frican Fathers to Pope Caelestine.

§ 13. But now what saies he to the Mileuitan Canon? Sith that was it, which the Bishop aymed at; as at last he awakes, and acknowledges himselfe. It excludes not all from appealing (quoth he) but Priests and Deacons onely, and such inferiour Clergie men. So as still the Bishops might appeale to Rome. And, transmarinus nemo, is of the Bishops forging, too too generall. Is it euen so? Whose forging then is that, Ad transmarina autem qui putauer it appellandum, whosoeuer shall thinke good to appeale beyond the sea, let him be renounced from the communion of all in Africa, the very words of the Canon? Is not, nemo transmarinus appellet, all one with quicun (que) trans­marinus appellandum putauerit, or, quicun (que) appellauerit ad transmarina, puniatur, &c? What difference is here, but that the one is comminatory, the other prohibitiue, both vni­uersall and peremptory? Yea, but Bishops are excepted, because [Page 180] not named. How if Bishops most of all included? As not onely reason leads vs to thinke, because Bishops might not so well be spared out of the prouince, as Priests might, they few to these many, (see Euseb. l. 6. hist.) and therefore no such Carnel. apud Eu­seb lib 6. histor. c. 33. d [...]t Rome vnum [...] Epis­copum, presby: e­rot autem [...]6. Vi­de B [...]ll [...]r. de Rom Po [...]t [...]f. lib. 2. c. 7. detriment in the Priests absence, as in the Bishops: but the Fathers of the aforesaid African councell, in their epistle to Coelestine, intimate as much, not onely that Bishops are comprehended as well as Priests, but euen much more. For if (say they) there appeare a prouiso for inferiour Clerks and laymen, how much more would the Synode haue the same to be obserued in Bishops, that beeing excommunicated in their owne prouince, they should not be suddenly, hastily, or vnduly, restored to the Communion, no not by your holines? And as the Coun­cell of Nice, meaning to forbid both Clerks and Lay, to forsake the iudgement of their owne prouince, and betake themselues to another, named not the Bishops, and yet in the generall comprehended them too, quoting an auncien­ter Canon for their purpose, [...] Can. 5. [...]. [...], that whome one casts out (whosoeuer he be) another should not receiue: so here the Fathers: for whome it was enough to instance in certaine inferiour de­grees of Clergie, though their intent was doubtlesse to comprehend all: either as ayming at the Nicene Canon it selfe, and so labouring to come as neere it as possibly they could, or because Canons are applied to the present vse, (as [...]. the saying is) and the rashnes of a Priest, one Apiarius by name, gaue occasion to Africk thus to decree. I might fur­ther aske, whether lay-men might appeale, notwithstan­ding this Canon, yea or no? Sith onely Clerks are mentio­ned in it, and F. T. will haue none but those to be prohibi­ted, who are directly named. If he say they might, what a wide gate is left open to tumult and disorder, notwith­standing the Canon, for lay-men to doe that which Clerks might not? Nay how does the Clerke auoid committing himselfe to forreine tribunals, sith a lay-man, in case of con­trouersie with a Clerke, complaining to a forreiner, drawes [Page 181] the Clerke happily after him, to his no small molestation? If he say, he might not; but that he is forbidden, though he be not specified, so might the Bishops likewise, which is our question. Lastly, if those Fathers might forbid Clergi-men to appeale to Rome, though Clergi-men onely of the inferiour sort, it shewes that the Popes iurisdiction is not vniuersall, and in the ende Bishops might be forbid and all.

§ 14. As for your fustïe Epistle to Antonie of Fussula, it is out of the number of S. Austens Epistles, which Possidius re­counts, a faithfull witnesse of S. Austens desks and papers. One Grauius, a Dutchman, brought it first from Rome, and set it out as a neweltie, which your selues durst not auow, from whome it sprang. And though nothing is in the Epi­stle preiudiciall to our cause, which may not easily be an­swered, yet this shall suffice in this place.

§ 15. Innocentius, you say, allowed the Canon of the Mile­vitan Councell. Therefore it makes not against the Pope. Nay, therefore Innocentius was content with that proportion, which the later Popes are not satisfied with. As Boniface himselfe in his Epistle to Eulalius Bishop of Carthage, is so impatient of this restraint, that he makes the deuill to be the author of that, which S. Austen and the rest de­uised, for the barring of Appeales to Rome. Behold, what kin the deuill is to S. Austen, as Boniface would perswade. And yet others succeeding, lesse moderate then he. You tell vs that the Sardican Councell allowed these appeales. What then? Therefore this in all likelihoode contradicts them not. As if that which was lawfully ordained at first, might not afterward be changed vpon apparant inconuenience, as your selfe here insinuate of the Popes Legates, and their outrages: of whome you know what Salisb. Polycrat. Vide & Bernard. de consid. ad Eugen. l. 4. The words of Charles Brandon Earle of Suffolke, that England neuer receiued any good by the Popes Legates. Vide & Sadolet. Epist. one said, that they were as Satanas emissus à facie Domini ad vexandum orbem terrarum, like the deuill let loose to scourge the world. Yet, you like a good fellow, would prooue the lawfulnesse of ap­peales, by their pranks and practises, though neuer so irre­gular, [Page 182] as he that would iustifie false titles by possession. Albeit neither was the Sardican Councell generall, and so of no force to bind all in all places: and if it had so beene, yet you may remember, how many Sanctions euen of the Nicene Councell, are out of vse with you, cancel'd, abro­gate, as the Bishop shewes in one part of that booke of his, Cap. 7. p. 168. which you now fumble about the refuting of. To omit that the constitution runnes but thus, though it were ne­uer so authenticall, euen by Placet vobis? May you please Can. 3. Sard. Concil. to allow; and rather for Iulius his vertue, then the seats pri­uiledge, and so to last no longer then men endued with the like integritie that Iulius was, should occupie the roome, but no way descending of such originall right, as you pre­tend. Else what neede the Canon either the Fathers con­sent, or the scrutiner to begin with placet vobis? As for Pe­tri memoriam, that they would vouchsafe to honour Peters, me­morie, [...], non res [...] ergò. euen that shewes it was arbitrarie, and rather not to be denied to his blessed memorie, then due to his successor by right of inheritance. Though Optatus leads vs to more memories then one, as there were more Apostles and Saints then one: of whome he construes that, euen in the Sardi­can sense, memorijs Sanctorū cōmunicantes ( [...] for [...]) Rom. 12. 13. lib. 2. contra Parmenianum, and againe, memorijs Apostolo­rum, lib. 4.

§ 16. Now to backe your fancie, that appeales were not forbid by the Mileuitan Canon, in S. Austens time, you descend to Leos time, short of S. Austens, so as you refute not the Bishop, nor say nothing to the purpose, but that you long to be vntrussing your pedlerly fardles. As if Leo were not like enough to encroach vpon the Canon, to gaine ad­uantage to his Sea; a sea indeed, which eares out the earth Leo Epist. 87. ad Episcop. Mau­citaniae. though neuer so well fenced: and the distressed estate of the Churches of Africa, encreasing with the times, might driue them to admit of more then was reason, but that they were glad to make their peace, at any hand, though with hard conditions. Concerning Gregories times, you fall a Greg. Regist. l. 1. epist. 82. [Page 183] great deale lower, though you are clean besides the cushion there too. For whereas you granted before, that the Canon forbad the appeales of Deacons, though not of Bishops; now you bring vs an instance of two Deacons appealing, Felicissimus & Vincentius. so as the Canon is trampled downe by your owne confessi­on, and yet the Bishops allegation was of the Canon onely. Shall law, or practise be our Iudge? And yet when Grego­ry, refers the plaintiue Deacons ouer to a Synode, hee does but as the Canons had enacted before in that behalfe, name­ly, Nicen. can. 3. Antioch. can. 9. Constantinop. can. 2. What proofe then is this of Gregories authoritie to heare appeals, which rather he commits to the triall of Synods, as equitie would?

§ 17. And the same fault is in your next example. Cer­taine Priests of Africa complained against Paulinus, Donadeus a Deacon against Ʋictor his Bishop. Yet you graunted euen now, that Priests and Deacons were barred Appeales, by the Canon, most euidently. What is this then to the mat­ter, but that you want worke, and are faine to sucke occasi­on out of your fingers ends, that you may be doing? And in one word, when Gregorie so orders the matter vpon these fellowes complaints, that he refers the hearing to an assem­bly of Bishops, with the primate of the Prouince, as you alleadge, either Victor, or Columbus, or whome you will, he shewes no authority, but onely does as the Canons had ap­pointed to be done, whether he would or no. Indeed Gre­gorie professes his respect to the Canons in diuerse places, and herein he keepes it.

§. 18. It followes, of certaine Popes, who exercised (he saith) vniuersall authoritie in S. Austens dayes. Though I shewed that this neede not, because no way thwarting the Bishops words, yet briefly to his obiections, that he seeme not ouer wise in his owne conceit. S. Austen saies of Zozim. Ep. 157. ad Opt. Iniuncta nobis à venerabili Papâ Zozimo Apo­stolicae sedis Episcopo Ecclesiastica necessitas nos Caesaream traxe­rat. The necessarie occasions of the Church imposed vpon me by [Page 184] Pope Zozimus drew me to Caesarea. And out of Possidius, Lite­rae sedis Apostolicae compulerunt. This may prooue violence, as well as authority, because of trahere and compellere: Which surely Zozimus vsed not to S. Austen. He lackt a learned man, and cald for S. Austen, vsing his best interest to per­swade him. What is this to the Popedome? How many such compellers could I shew you out of S. Austen? Marcelli­nus for one, a temporall Earle, but an exceeding good man, and afterward Martyr, as we are told by S. Hierome. Sic Contra Pelag. lib. vlt. me compulit vel ipsa charitas tui Marcelline Comes, sic inquam me compulit, sic duxit, & traxit, &c. De peccat. meritis & re­miss. l. 1. c. 1. Iust as the Apostle acknowledges of himselfe, and all Christians, Charitas Christi cogit nos, the loue of Christ constraines vs. So here the necessities of the Church did S. Austen, recōmended to him by Pope Zozimus; yet with no more iurisdiction perhaps, then Marcellinus had ouer him, which I thinke was but small. The examples of this kind of phrase, are rife euery where. We read in the booke of Samuel, that the witch constrained king Saul to eate meate. 1. Sam. 28. And Luk. 24. coegerunt eum, the two Disciples that went into Emaus, constrained our Sauiour to tarry with them. Howbeit doubtlesse not superiour to him, specially after his resurrection. Abraham and Lot constrained their guests, as we may read in Genesis, yet not giuing lawes I suppose to strangers, which is condemned in another place of that booke, Peregrinus est, & vult dare leges, but to teach vs to enforce our liberalities and our courtesies, where modesty Chrys. in locum. reiects them, though neede craue them. And these guests were Angels. Which it were fine if you could bring vnder the Popes compulsion, as some of your men haue seriously laboured, to make the Pope paramount to the Angels themselues; once, Abraham and Lot though no spirituall men, here constrained them for certaine. What speake I of Scriptures? Euen Tully de Amicitiâ, Cogitis certè, quid enim refert quâ ratione cogatis? You constraine me (quoth Lelius) no matter how. And againe S. Austen, Praef. librorum ad Sim­plicianum, [Page 185] Quaestiunculas quas mihi enodandas iubere dignatus es. He sayes, Simplician commaunded him to dissolue questions. And yet, I take it, Simplician had no such regular power o­uer S. Austen, as to command him. This iubere would haue troubled Pope Nicholas wonderfully. I neuer reade his E­pistle ad Michaelem Imperatorem, but I pitty his passions, to see him so stormed with a poore iubere of the Emperour. Whereas the Emperour writing in all likelihood in Greek, [...] might be construed, wishing or exhorting, if either he or his interpretour had not been afraid of a blew spider, a dread where none was. But againe S. Austen in the forena­med place, Cùm tibi placet quod scribo, noui cui placeat, quoni­am qui te inhabitet noui. Hee meanes, that the holy Ghost dwels in Simplicianus, which would haue made a faire shew in a Popes style. Largitor enim omnium munerum per tuam sententiam confirmauit obedientiam meam, &c. He speakes of obedience yeelded to Simplician, who yet was not his superi­our. Againe, In meo ministerio, dixit Deus fiat & factum est. (Hee calls it his ministerie, or his seruice, and sets him al­most in the place of God.) In tuâ verò approbatione, vidit de­us quia bonum est. At least, there he makes him his God, or his superiour directly. Generally of all Bishops, thus wee read in S. Austen, Epist. 168. In alijs ciuitatibus tantum agi­mus, quod ad ecclesiam dei pertinet, quaentum vel nos permittunt, vel NOBIS IMPONVNT earundem ciuitatum Episcopi, See the same phrase, Cura scripturarum in [...] ­posita, Epist 110. of the Bishops of Carth. & Nu­midia: that en­ioyned him to write a booke. Which he did. fratres & consacerdotes nostri. What is lesse in imponunt, then in the iniungunt that you vrge? Iniuncta nobis à Zozimo ne­cessitas. Yet here you see, imponunt is an act that any Bishop might exercise towards S. Austen, euen his brothers and fellow-priests, [fratres & consacerdotes,) not onely Zozi­mus. So Ruffinus in exposit. symbol. ad Laurent. which Lau­rence was no Pope, though he be called Papa there,. i. a re­uerent personage. One Laurentius stood with Symmachus for the Popedome, I graunt, but hee lost it, as you knowe. Well, what saies Ruffinus? He calls it, pondus praecepti, be­cause Laurentius desired him to put his exposition which he [Page 186] had preacht vpon the Creede, in writing; the weight of his charge, or the charge of his commandement. Againe, Astringis me vt aliquid tibi de side, &c. Yet Laurence had no power, that I know, of binding Ruffinus. Lastly, expositionis à te impositae necessitatem, sayes he, which answers word for word almost to that which you bring out of S. Austen, Iniuncta nobis à Zozimo necessitas. But of Zozimus (saith hee) hereaf­ter, wherein we will attend him.

§ 19. First therefore of Liberius, a most wretched proofe. Certaine Arian hereticks obtained his letters for their re­stitution, Basil. epist. 74. & 32. to the assemblie of Tyana, and by vertue of them they were restored, though they did but dissemble, in that they feigned their conformitie with the Church of God, inwardly remaining deepe Arians. Is not this fit to be brought in behalfe of the Pope, to shew how wel he stands vpon his watch, how meete a man he is to inherit the trust of all Christian soules, that suffers such knaues to beguile him in this sort? As for that, that Liberius letters were of force; so should any other graue and worthie Prelates haue been, vpon whose testimonie the Synod might relie; especially when, if there had beene no doubt of their repentance, they should haue needed no other mediatour happily then themselues. But because he hath quoted S. Basil in the mar­gent, let vs heare his words, and see what confidence he puts in Rome, or in the Bishop thereof. Epist. 74. thus he saies of Liberius, and his restoring of Eustathius that Arian heretick, which suspition, to say truth, Liberius was not free from, enclining thither himselfe when time was. The rather might he write in the behalfe of an Arian. [...], &c. Since there­fore from thence (he meanes from Rome, and from the We­sterne Churches, this Epistle bearing inscription to the [...], the Bishops of the West) since from thence he hath receiued power to hurt the Churches, and the libertie that you gaue him (Liberius with the rest) he to the subuersion of ma­ny hath abused, it is necessarie that reformation should spring from [Page 187] the same place, and that you should send word to the Churches, for what cause he was receiued, and how beeing changed since in his opinion, he makes void the grace that was then giuen him (not by Liberius so much as by the Fathers, that is, they of the Councell of Tyana) of which before. And in the same Epistle, a little afore this place, S. Basil giues two reasons, why he implores the aide of the Italian Bishops, in these words, [...], &c. The first is, because if onely the Easterne Bishops appeare against Eustathius, it may be thought to come of e­mulation and partialitie, one Bishop of the same countrey opposing another. [...]. But you the farther of, the better beleeued. Which, to say truth, hath alwaies bin the Popes felicitie. But you see he flies not to them for any vniuersal authoritie or prerogatiue (as they imagin) frō Peter deriued, but for the distāce of the place, which makes them seeme to be more incorrupt. The second reason is, from the consenting of many Bishops together, and the power of that to preuaile with peoples minds, when there shall be a concurrence, [...]. That is; But of with ioynt consent many shall auerre the same thing, the very multitude of them that are of one minde, will make it to be enter­tained without contradiction. By which, you see, the Pope can doe little alone. And so speakes Basil in his greatest extre­mitie, euen when he needes the Pope most. Else we know, how sharply he can taxe Rome, and giue the Popes their owne, when occasion serues. [...], the Westerne pride, saith he, &, haereses propagant, they spread heresies, or, multiplie heresies. Epist. 8. ad Euseb. Samosat.

§ 20. Of Yet Sozomene l. 3. hist. c. 23. Pa [...] ­lus, Marcellus, Asclepas, & Lu [...]i­us, suas sedes re­cuperarunt, quan­doquidē ex literis Imperatoris facta est his potestas ad sua redeundi. The Emperour ( [...]ot Iulius, saith he) restored them. Iulius and Athanasius I spake before. The same was the cause of Marcellus, and Asclepas, Paulus, and Lucian and the rest, restored, as you say, by Iulius Pope, tanquam omnium curam gerentem, as bearing care of all. Tri­part. [Page 188] l. 4. c. 15. As if euery Bishop were not obliged to doe his seruice to the whole Church, as farre as he can, which were easie to demonstrate, but that I haue done it before, and quoted Origen very lately for the same; yet Iulius the rather, because the prime Bishop, but prime in order onely, and in a certaine excellencie, propter sedis dignitatem, as the Tripartite here speakes, in the very words that this man quotes, not propter auctoritatem. S. Austen calls it Speculam, his watchtower. Besides that this same Iulius is many yeeres before S. Austen, and yet he professes to reckon vp onely such as liued in S. Austens time. Doe you not see how he labours to vtter his prouision? Finally in Sozomene, who reports the same matter, and is quoted by this man, to that very purpose, cap. 2. num. 8. In Sozomene I say, lib. 3. c. 7. thus we read. That the persons, to whome Iulius wrote, in behalfe of the aforesaid catholicke Bishops, though they acknowledged the Church of Rome, primas ferre apud omnes, to be the chiefe Church in euerie bodies estimation, as [...], and [...], the schoole of the Apostles, and the mother citty of piety, (not for any succes­sion into the authoritie of S. Peter in particular) and yet de­ny (they say) they cannot, but the first authors of Christian relligion sprang from the East (not from Rome) neuertheles indignati sunt se posteriores ide [...]ferre, quòd magnitudine ecclesiae superarentur, id (que) cū virtute, & pio viuendi instituto, longè supe­riores essent: they thought much that they should be set any whit behind the others, because their Church was not so great or so am­ple as theirs, specially when in vertue, and godly life, they farre excelled them. Thus they. I compare not now the opinions of Arians with Catholiques, in that point of their dissen­tion, which the Scripture hath determined, and right faith compounded, but as for East and West, you see what esti­mation one had of the other, and how little our Grecians thought themselues short of Rome. Therefore they are so confident a little after, as to challenge Iulius for doing a­gainst the Councell, and their owne definition; Insimulà­runt [Page 189] Iulium ceu transgredientem ecclesiae leges. And whereas Iulius a little before had threatned them, they threaten him againe: and Sozomene calls the letter that they sent to Iulius, plenam minarum at (que) ironiae, full not onely of threates, but mocks and taunts, vnlesse you will otherwise construe it; So mise­rably were they afraid of the Popes authoritie in those daies, diuided from equity. Pollicentur pacē & communionem Iulio, si approbaret abdicationem factam, sin resisteret decretis eo­rum, &c. They promise Iulius to be of his communion, if he will doe as they would haue him, if not, to leaue [that is, to disclaime] him, you would say to excommunicate him, if it made for you. And indeede in the 10. Chap. of Sozomene, soone after, they doe so in good earnest.

§ 21. The next is Damasus. In whom I must bee short. What tell you vs of titles, and tearmes, and styles? what though they called him most blessed Lord, raised to the height of Apostolique dignitie, holy father of fathers, Damasus Pope, &c. Thinke you, that the boyes would forbeare laughter, hea­ring this argument? That the Bishops of Africa call him Damasum Papam, Pope Damasus, &c. therefore Dama­sus Pope might receiue appeales out of Africa. If that be not in their style, the rest is vulgar, and nothing to the matter. Who was not Papa in those dayes? which you engrossing, bewray your selues. Yea, but nothing might goe for currant concerning important affaires, as deposition of Bishops, say you, nisi ad noticiam vestrae sedis delatum fuerit, vnlesse your Sea knew of it. To which, I answer, noticia is one Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 6. Assuerus Rex non erat subiectus sapientibus illis vi [...], quorum faciebat cuncta consilio: Hest. 1. And yet that was consilium statum, or permanen­tiae; this lesse then so. Nay there was to be consensut (cuncta faciebat de illorum consilio) here relatio at the most, or noticiae, but inti­mation. thing, consensus another. Men may seek for resolution, and yet not be subiect to authoritie, vnlesse themselues please. [...], that the soueraigne stroke in euery businesse should be the Metropolitanes of the Pro­uince, the Councell of Nice determined verie cleerely, Can. 4. of more authoritie then your Damasus his epistles, or to Damasus.

[Page 190] § 22. But is not that a braue confuting of the Mileui­tan Canon, alleadged by the Bishop against appeales beyond the sea, that S. Hierome sought to Damasus for his iudgement about Hypostasis? This also may prooue an appeale in time, when appeales grow scant. It hath been answered by our Diuines, ouer and ouer: it is nothing to our question, ther­fore I insist not vpon it. Neither yet that of Ambrose (if it be Ambrose) who liuing within Italy, that is Damasus his prouince, saies, Damasus gouerned the house of God, the house no doubt, wherein hee liued, and wrote at that day. But how if he had called it, as it followes in S. Paul, columnam 1. Tim. 3. & firmamentum veritatis, which S. Paul does Ephesus, where­in Timothy liued? yet neither Ephesus that infallible one, that you imagine Rome to be, for truth of doctrine, nor Timothy a monarch or vniuersall Bishop.

§ 23. That Peter of Alexandria was restored to his Bisho­pricke vpon Damasus his letters: you shewe not they were mandatorie, we thinke rather commendatorie. Damasus certi­fied good things of Peter, and the people receiued him, illis confisus, trusting they might be true; or, they did what they desired and longed to doe, vpon so good a hint. The Pope gaue not Patriarkships in And long af­ter that time, Fulbert. Carnoten. (I thought good to note it) calls himselfe, Dei gratiâ Episcop [...], & Regis sui Rob [...], i. Bishop by the grace of God and the King. Epist 4. quae ad ipsum. those dayes: yea had any so chal­lenged, the Alexandrines would haue torne him in peices, they were so violent.

§ 24. Ʋitalis an heretique, and an Antiochian, was exami­ned, and censured by Pope Damasus. But you dissemble not that Paulinus their Bishop permitted it. The wonder had beene, if Damasus had intermedied against his consent. One Bishop may referre his Priest, to be examined by another whome he will. Things were not so well setled with Pau­linus at this time in Antioch, as it should seeme, through in­testine discords, which long continued. So Damasus might prescribe a forme of abiuration to Ʋitalis the heretique, though otherwise prescribe is but an imperious word of [Page 191] your owne deuising, and to draw him a forme, which he meant should be vsed by him vpon his returne to Antioch, had beene enough. Your author whome you quote, in Ep. Elias Cretens. 2. ad Cledon. saies onely thus; Damaso postulante edidit, or, literis consignauit fidem: at Damasus his instāce he pen'd a forme of his beleife: not Damasus for him, but he to Damasus. Which Athanasius also did at the Emp. Iouians request, not to purge Theod. histor. lib. 4. cap. 2. suspicion, but to instruct him in the truth. Of prescribing to Paulinus, I read nothing in that place. In Damasus his Epi­stle Tom. 1. Concil. Ep. 1. Damas. I finde this qualification, both that tuae voluntati & tuo iudicto omnia derelinquimus, we leaue all to your will, and your iudgement: and in the ende this, Non quòd haec ipsa quae scribimus, non potueris conuertentium susceptioni proponere, sed quò noster consensus liberum in suscipiendo tibi tribuat exemplū: Not that you could not of your owne selfe haue propounded these things to conuerts, ere they were receiued, but that our concur­rence might yeeld you freedome of example to receiue them. And if freedome, how prescription?

§ 25. It is a wonder, how you dare mention the name of Flauianus, who by the Emperors fauour kept his seat a­gainst Theod. l. 5. c. 23. so many Popes one after another, striuing to vn­horse him, and all in vaine. The paines that Chrysostome and Theophilus tooke, to make a peace betweene him and Damasus, shewed their good care of the Churches vnity, and worthily entitles them to the blessing of peacemakers. But that which you call pardoning Flauianus offence, and restoring him to the communion of the Church againe, was no more then was vsuall in those dayes, between Bi­shop and Bishop, if they misliked one another, to forbeare communicating mutually; if satisfaction were giuen, to returne to fellowship and communion againe, which you perhaps, to amplifie the Popes power, would haue vs think to be excommunication and absolution. Where you say, that the people of Antioch, were IN TIME REDVCED to con­cord and vnitie, with Flavianus their Bishop, through this act of Damasus, it shewes it was rather the relenting of their [Page 192] mindes, and appeasing their stomacks, out of Flavianus good demeanure, and other such considerations, then the Popes sentence, or bare definition. For then what neede long time to worke it? Neither was that a signe of Dama­sus his supremacie, that Flavianus sent his embassage to Rome. For when two are to meete, why should not the in­feriour come to the superiour, rather then otherwise? I meane inferiour in order, as Flavianus here to Damasus, Antioch to Rome, but not in authoritie. Though the em­bassage was not intended so much to Damasus, as to cleere the scandall that went of Flavian, and to satisfie the whole Church of God in those parts, that East and West might no longer continue in iealousie and alienation.

§ 26. And now to come to his successor Syricius, as your owne words are, how doe you prooue his vniuersall iu­risdiction? I know it wrings you to be held to this point, but there is no remedy, to that you must speake. Forsooth the Councell of Capua, committed the hearing of Flauianus his cause to the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Egypt, with this limitation, as S. Ambrose witnesses (I report your owne words) that the approbation and confirmation of their sentence should be reserued to the Roman sea, and the Bishop thereof, who was then Syricius. Suppose this were so, how farre is it from arguing vniuersall iurisdiction? For as the Councell might make choice of the Bishop of Alexandria, and the Bishops of Egypt, to take the first knowledge of Flavianus his cause into their hands, so, out of the same authoritie, might it re­serue the after iudgement, and the vp shot of all, to the Bi­shop of Rome: it might doe this, I say, out of it owne liber­tie, and for the personall worth of Syricius Pope, not for a­ny prerogatiue of his Sea. And rather it shewes the prehe­minence of the Councell, that might depute the Pope to such a busines, as likewise the Bishop of Alexandria and E­gypt. The Eusebians made an offer (witnes Athanasius in his Apologie) to Iulius Pope of Rome, to be their iudge, if he thought good; Iulio si vellet arbitrium causae detulerunt. But [Page 193] if Iulius had no other hold, it was a poore supremacie that might content him. Yet Ambrose, in the Epistle 78. which you quote, saies not so much. Rather of Theophilus some­what magnificently, Vt duobus istis tuae sanctitatis examen im­partiretur, confidentibus Aegyptijs, that your Holines might haue the scanning of these mens cause, while the Bishops of Egypt were your assessors. And againe, Sancta Synodus, cognitionis ius una­nimitati tuae, caeteris (que) ex Aegypto consacerdotibus nostris com­misit. The holy Synod (of Capua) committed the power of iudg­ing this matter to your agreement, and the Egyptian Bishops. What then of the Pope? Sanè referendum arbitramur ad san­ctum fratrem nostrum Romanae sacerdotem Ecclesiae. Sure, we are of the minde, that it were good it were referred to our holy brother the Priest of Rome. First brother, then Priest of Rome, lastly ar­bitramur. The Synod belike not ordering so, but Ambrose giuing his opinion thus. And, Quoniam praesumimus te ea iu­dicaturum quae etiam illi displicere nequeant, because we presume you will resolue in such manner, as shall not be displeasing to him. See you, how one of them is as free from error, as the other, in S. Ambrose minde? And he is content, that Syricius should haue the cognusance of the cause after Theophilus, not that Theophilus errour might be corrected by Syricius, but that ones concurrence might strengthen the other.

§ 27. Doe you looke I should answer to Syricius Decre­tall sent to Himerius? or does the conueying of it, to France and Portugall, prooue vniuersall iurisdiction, exercised by the Popes in S. Austens time? But with such baggage you make vp your measure. Himerius askt, and Syricius answers. What then? And Himerius was within the Romane Patri­archship, caput corporis tai, not caput corporis vniuersalis, saies Syricius himselfe, in the ende of his Rescript. But proceede. Optatus (say you) calls Peter principem nostrum, our Prince. Now he could not meane Peter to be that Prince, for he was dead and gone, and so nothing worth. Therefore Siricius who then li­ued, and was his successor in the Popedome. Brauely shott, and like a Sadducee. Yet in the same booke, Optatus calls Siri­cius [Page 194] in plaine tearmes, not princeps noster, but socius noster, our frend and fellow, as S. Ambrose a little before, his brother and priest.

§ 28. That, in the African Councell, Can. 35. the Fathers decreed, that letters should be sent to their brethren and fellow-Bishops abroad, but especially to Anastasius, to informe them, how necessary their latter decree was, in fauour of the Donatists, con­tradicting a former Canon made against them, what is that to Anastasius his vniuersall iurisdiction? Doe you see how you are choaked, if you be but held to the point? yet they sent to others, no lesse then to Anastasius. But to him espe­cially, you say. It might be so; for the eminencie of his Sea, as we haue often told you. And the Donatists beeing too strong for them, as appeares by that decree, which con­troules the former, they were glad to take any aduantage, I warrant you, to countenance their proceedings. Durum telum necessitas est.

§ 29. That, the Bishops of Africa requested Innocentius to vse his authoritie, to the confirmation of their statutes against the Pelagian heretiques; it was not because the ordinances of prouinciall Synods, are not good in their precincts, without the Pope, as I thinke your selues will not denie, but that the Pelagian heresie beeing farre spread through­out the world, might be curbed within the places that In­nocentius had to doe in, as well as in Africk, where the Councel was held. Which taking so good effect, as it seems it did, S. Austen cries out that they were So likewise. Alexander Bishop of Alex­and [...], wrote to all Bishops wheresoeuer d [...], warning th [...]m to r [...]s [...]aine from t [...]e communion of [...]. Sozom lib. 1 c. 14. whi [...]h i [...] more then to define dogmatical­ly. Yet they will not allow him vniuersall [...]. toto Christiano orbe damnati, condemned ouer all the Christian world: not that Inno­centius authoritie was irrefragable, but the concurrence of so many Pastors in the cause of Gods truth, was of force at that time to recti­fie the consciences of such as wauered before. In this sense Possidius might well call it, iudicium catholicae dei Ecclesie, the iudgement of the Catholique Church of God, when Innocentius & Zo [...]mus accursed the Pelagians, because it sprang from [Page 195] the consent of so many godly Fathers, as incited those Popes to that act of iustice, and lead them the way in this daunce of zeale, as I may so call it. Not that the Church stood in them two, or as if they had the vniuersall iurisdi­ction that he talkes of, or rather dares not talke of, but cap­tiously and crookedly inuolues onely in impertinent alle­gations.

§ 30. I might spend time, about S. Austens authoritie, Epist. 92. writing thus to Innocentius; That the Lord hath placed thee Sozom. l. 1. c. 1. Episiopt Nicaeni dignum [...] dicauere Eustath [...]m, qui capesseret sedem, Apo­stolicam. Est vule dicere, [...] ex Be [...] ­ensi. Idem Sozom l. end. e. 10 Alexand [...]m quo (que) & [...] Ecclesiam. Apo­stol [...] accipit, sub Ma [...] & Alexandro. I­terum apud eundem Sozom. lib. 4. c. [...]4. Cy [...]l­lu [...] Aposto [...] sedis antistes, quia [...]cil. Episco­pus Hi [...]rosolym [...] Sido [...]. Epist. 1. l. 6 de Lu­po, Post nouem dec [...] sa quinque [...] [...] Sede. A­postol [...]. Et paulò antè de codem, To [...]a Ec­clesiae dei membra super [...]. Et, Dig [...] q [...] ab omnibus consula [...]. Howbeit Bishop onely of [...] in France Yet Bellar. most impu­dently l. 4. c. 8. de Not. Eccl. wil haue the whol Church of God to be called Apostolique, onely because the succession from the A­postles neuer failed in the Church of Rome, as he idly doates, whereas in other (he thinke) it hath, and so onely that Apo­stolique for [...]ooth. But besides that alreadie brought out of Sozomene and other [...], Baroni­us checks him, acknowledging more Chur­ches then the Romane to be Apostolique. See Tertull. de Praescript. c. 36. Per [...] Ec­clesias. Apostolicas, apud qu [...] adhuc Cathe dr [...] Apostolorum, &c. Lastly, Euseb l. t. hist. c. 1. in sede A­postolicâ. And doth this prooue vniuer­sall iurisdiction? or is there no Aposto­lique sea but the Romane? By which reason wee shall haue many vniuersall iurisdictions. Or, that it were negligence to cōceale ought from his Reuerence, which concerned the Church? But if it were, as they pretend, it were more then negli­gence, euen flat rebellion, not to commu­nicate with him about all such affaires. But making it but negligence, he shewes they sought for aduice onely, or coun­tenance, not for leaue and grace, when they referred to him. Whereas S. Austen had spoke, of the Popes applying his pasto­rall diligence, to preuent the daungers of Christs weake members, F. T. interprets it, his power and autho­ritie, ouer all the members of Christ; which if the Bishop had so done, to put in ALL, where it was not in S. Austen, to en­force an argument, had beene cheating, and coosenage, and to be proclaimed in markets. See chap. 2.

§ 31. Innocentius his testimonie of his owne preceden­cie, carries small force with it, and I confess I was once of [...] his mind; but since I [...] by perusal of more, that this Epistle, bad though it be, yet i [...] like all the rest of Innocenti [...]sse [...], as to [...] [...], to Aureliu [...], to Iohannes Hierosolym. &c. Neuer worse Secretarie, I thinke, or that kept [...]. Erasmus hath found some cause to suspect this Epistle for counterfeit, or at least [Page 196] censured it for one not worthie of Innocentius. Whereas the Apostle Paul had said of himselfe, Praeter ea quae extrinsecùs sunt, cura omnium Ecclesiarum, this man imitating him (Bellar. de Pont Rom. lib. 1. c. 17. [...] Quod autem. for you hold of Paul too as well as Peter) reads it cleane con­trarie, Praeter ea quae intrinsecus sunt, &c. that you may see his Clerkship. And yet you make him worse, then in truth he is. For whereas he more modestly, Arbitramur referri debere &c. you leauing out arbitramur, auouch it perempto­rily, that about matters of faith, all Bishops ought tareferre, &c. Is this good dealing? Lastly, if S. Austen and Alipius say of him, concerning his rescript, Rescripsit ad omnia eo modo quo Adomnia, and per omnia, differ. fas erat, &c. he hath written backe to all, as meete was; they meane for matter, and for the points in controuersie, be­tweene Pelagius and the Church, not for ought that he en­terlaces of the ambition of his owne Sea. And of these things hitherto.

To his fifth Chapter:

Of Origen, Hilarie, and Maximus, their authorities.

§. 1. AS I haue often complained of the tedi­ousnes of this mate, the onely: inuin­cible armour that he fights with, as certaine beasts make their parts good Cic 2. de [...]. Deorum. against the hunter, by the euill sauour and sent they cast forth to annoy him, beeing otherwise vnable to resist him in the encounter: So he shewes it in this chapter more then any where els, refer­ring vs (besides his prattle) to former places of his booke, for confutation of such points, as he mislikes in the Bishops Answer. As if no bodie had confuted his confutation of those Answers, which the Reader of himselfe is able to doe, I dare say, if he haue perused but the former part of this booke, without any further paines to be taken in that be­halfe. And yet euery where he remits vs to what hee hath done, and said, as altogether vnconquerable. Now for that which is so firme in the Bishops Answer, as not to be re­mooued by any meanes, that he railes at and calls stale: else S. Hilarie profes­ses of himselfe to doe so, vt re­cens lectio & col­lata responsis in­vitis etiam & cō ­tradicentibus sen­sum veritatis e­liciat. De Trin. lib 6. why cannot he iterate his refutation againe, as well as the Bishop repeat his Answer? but it shames him, that so many Arguments should stumble at one stone, Iudg. 9. like the sonnes of Gedeon, beheaded by Abimelech all at one blocke: and ther­fore he falls to carping and deprauing. Etiamne antidotum contra Caesarem? said he. So here, the Bishops fault is to haue [Page 198] shewed the errour, and not let the Cardinals fallacies to passe for currant.

§ 2. That Origen and S. Hilarie, in allowing the Church to be built vpon Peter, with certaine other preheminences which they affoard him, denie not but the rest had their fellow­shippe in the same, this is Adioynd. num. 3 He flieth to his common and s [...]e shift. All which I haue fully confuted to his sh [...] in the 1. Chap. where I haue de [...]la­red how he abuseth SS. August. Ambrose, Cy­rill, &c. stale to F. T. and for that onely reason deserues to be misprized. As if the fault were, not so much in the weakenes of the answer, as in the frequencie of repeating it, to which his Battismes neuerthelesse, and his abhominable Crambes, giue the only occasion. Whereas, I thinke, a bad answer is to bee ac­counted bad, though but As Menanders saying is, That Hunter is short to him, though his tale be neuer so long, because he telles it well; Chaerilus tedious in three words speaking. once giuen; and a good, the oftner it serues the pur­pose, the more it bewrayes its owne strength, and the aduersaries exigent, that hath but one kind of way to assault the truth, and therefore is still beat backe at the same doore. Where, what meruaile if the Bi­shop rest not satisfyed with this inference, that those Fa­thers Num. [...]. [Card.] Origen. in 6 ad Rom. Petro cum summa rerum de pascendus [...]bus tradere­tur. & [...].] To which the [...]ish answer, Summa rerum, The chiefe pastorall charge was gi­u [...] to Peter, but it was giuen others also. Ex Origene ipso in Matth. 16. Tract 1. when they ascribe certaine ex­cellencies to S. Peter, and yet perhaps, short of the supposed Monarchy, by that meanes, debarre the rest of the Apo­stles from their part therein, whereas the Cardinall himselfe saies as much of S. Peter, as you would thinke a man could possibly say, to aduance his dignitie, and yet meanes not but the Twelue were equall with him, in the same? Which were hard to alleadge now, for the proouing of Peters ex­cellencie aboue the other Apostles, though we would ar­gue for the Cardinall out of the Cardinals owne workes. For example, what can be more for Peters Monarchy ouer the Church, then to say, that he onely was made cheife Regent ther­of? And yet summa potestas, is by the Cardinall made com­mon to all the Apostles, not once, but twice, within fewe lines, cap. 9. l. 1. de Rom. Pont. and againe in the same chap­ter, Vnusquis (que) Apostolorum it a cur am gerebat totius Ecclesiae, [Page 199] ac si ad SE SOLVM ea cura pertineret. Euery one of the A­postles so managed the Church, as if that care had onely belonged to him. And, cap. 11. Summa at (que) amplissima potestas, is giuen to them all. Shall we not ponder these words then, hence­forth in Authors, if at any time they giue as much as this to Peter, and be readie to acknowledge by the Cardinall his owne confession, that Peter had no more then the rest of the Apostles in all this prerogatiue, and therefore no Mo­narch?

§ 3. Now that Origen followes an Allegoricall sense like to a Preacher, as you say, (whereas the Prea­cher, Adiovnd. It is to be obserued, that Origen in that Homilie followeth altogether an Allego­ricall sense, & seeking to draw from thence some morall doctrine, (as Preachers vse to doe) applieth the same, not onely to all the Apostles, as well as to Peter, but also to all perfect Christians, teach­ing, that whosoeuer doth confesse Christ as Peter did, he shall haue the same beatitude that Peter had, and be a Ra [...]ke as he was, &c. So also (N [...]m. [...]) he applies the giuing of the Keyes as well to euery [...]a [...] [...]ll Christian as Peter, or the rest of the Apostles. But then (Num. 5.) euery iust man and wom [...]n, should haue as much Ec­cles [...]sticall power and Iurisdiction as Peter, to bind, loose, ex [...]ommunicate, & [...]. Then (Num [...].) euery Priest as much as his Bishop, Bishop as Metropolitan, &c. ouerthrowing thereby all sub­ordination in the Church, and confounding the Eccles [...]sti all with the Se [...]ular, the La [...]e with the Clergie, head with members, shepheard with sheepe, &c. if any bodie should tell the plaine truth) leauing the literall altogether, it may shew his modesty; and check your rashnesse, that build so boldly vpon the literall sense, if it bee true which the Cardinall in another place obserueth, that the literal sense of things spoken to Pe­ter, is obscurer then the allegorical, though that be hard to be beleeued too, and is commonly found contrary, by his leaue. Yet thus he writes, lib. 1. de Pont. Rom. cap. 12. Non negat Augustinus ad literam posse & debere intelligi quae dicuntur de Iu­dâ, Petro, & Iohanne: Sed tantùm dicit literalem sensum sae­pe esse obscurum, & non facilè inueniri, sensum autem mysticum esse multò illustriorem & clariorem, & proptereà se omisso lite­rali figuratè ea exponere loca voluisse. That is, S. Augu­stine denieth not, (so as hee would bring S. August. too within the compasse of this dotage) that things said of Peter, Iudas, and Iohn, both may and ought to be li­terally vnderstood, but onely he saies, that the literall sense is ofttimes obscure, and hard to sinde out (where I wonder saies S. August. so?) but that the mysticall sense is He quotes Trac. vl [...] in Iohan. but all too wide. farre more cleere and euident, and therefore that he omit­ting the literall exposition, would expound those places fi­guratiuely, [Page 200] forsooth. This is the constancie of these men, that as Benhadad for feare and guilty conscience, ran from chamber to chamber, so they to avoide what makes against them, change sense for sense, sometime literall for allegori­call, then allegoricall for the literall, about the words spoken to Peter by our Sauiour. The former they thinke they may doe with S. August. and avouch him for it; there the alle­gory is the cleerer; As for the latter, they will not endure that Origen should doe so, by any meanes. Here all is spoild, vnlesse you stick to the Letter: And a Chaos, a con­fusion is brought in by vs, Lay folk and Clerks, Men and Women, promiscuously inuading both the keyes and the office, no difference left, nor signe of difference, if we allowe of this. Thus he. But howsoeuer you rowle and ruffle in your Rheto­rique, declaiming against the supposed Anarchy of our Church, and not discerning (which euen Balaam did) the beauty of those tents, to which you are a professed enemy, (so thicke is the fogge of your malitious ignorance, that stuffes vp your senses;) I beleeue Sir, the keyes are con­ueighed to the commonalty rather by you then vs, and to the worser sexe too (not so to be honoured) as in your Ab­besses to be gouernours, in your gossips to be dippers and baptisers, and I knowe not what. And doubtles you would haue admitted them to be Preachers Catholique Diuine in Answer to the Reports, &c c 8 sect. 16. quotes out of Baldus, that the Pope in some case may commit spirituall things to a meere lay-man And that de facto he gaue a noble Ladie leaue to take the communi­on out of her owne hands, Vide Florim. Rae­ [...] de ortu haeres huius saeculi. lib. 6. c. 19. sect. 4. too by this time, if you had not thought it fitter to discharge your men, then to licence your Women. Neither if Origen extend this to more then Peter, must it therefore presently be communicated to all; There are Apostles besides Peter, there are Pastors besides the Apostles, there are the iust and faithfull of all sorts, besides diuers that belong to the bodie of the Church in shew. It is not necessary we should open so great a gappe as you thinke, though wee take Origen litterally. Though this I must tell you, that Origen in all likelihood would not haue applied it so by allegory, vnlesse he had stretched it [Page 201] beyond Peter, in the very property. For assurance whereof consider his words. Si super vnum illum Petrum existimas ae­dificari totam in Matth. 16. Tract. 1. ecclesiam, quid dicturus es de Iohanne filio tonitrui, & Apostolorum vnoquo (que)? If thou thinkest the whole Church is built onely vpon Peter, what wilt thou say of Iohn the sonne of thunder, what of euerie one of the Apostles be­sides? It seemes incredible first to Origen, that the whole Church should bee built vpon one man onely, though it were Peter himselfe. Therefore he insists vpon totam Eccle­siam, and considerately opposeth vnum illum. And makes the one but existimas, or si existimas, If thou thinkest so (saith he) by Peter, but the other is, quid dicturus es, how wilt thou answer it, how wilt thou defend it, against Iohn, and against the rest? And sure as Origen was of the minde, that no A­postle of the Twelue, sate out from beeing a foundation of the Church, in the sense that Peter was, so hee names Iohn you see in particular, of whome afterwards you shall see how great opinion he conceiued, and how ful of reuerence, not inferiour to Peter. In the meane while it is euident how he pleades for the Apostles all in generall, whom he cannot digest to be denied this priuiledge, of supporting the frame equally with Peter. For which cause he deales so peremp­torily, and takes vp his aduersarie, as we noted before, Si existimas Petrum, quid dicturus es de caeteris, &c. Which dif­fers from his moral collection, as you call it, which is a great deale more mawdlen, where he affirmes by fortasse, Fortasse autem quod Petrus respondens dixit, &c. Perhaps if we say the same that Peter said, wee shall be priuiledged like him: this is but perhaps. Yea, the practise of the Church implyes no lesse, then we now stand for, which Origen there declares to­wards the ende of his discourse. Quoniam ij qui Episcoporum locum sibi vindicant, vtuntur eo dicto sicut Petrus, & claues reg­ni coelorum acceperunt, &c. Because they that are Bishops, take this to themselues, euen as Peter, and haue receiued the keies of the kingdome of heauen. Heare you? not euerie Christian now, nor predestinate man, which is his morall [Page 202] doctrine, and offends you so mainly, but the Bishops, good Sir, the Bishops in speciall take this to belong to them, and claime the keyes. Is not this a signe the keyes were com­mitted to all the Apostles? For the communitie of Bishops descendes from all the Apostles; If the Keies had been Pe­ters onely, onely the Pope should claime them, pretending Hierm. ad Euag. Omnes Ep [...]s [...]opi Apostolo [...]um suc­cessores sunt. to come of him, as now he doth. But Origen saith, the Bi­shops doe this in plural, Episcopi vtuntur eo dicto sicut Petrus. The Bishops make vse of this saying, euen as Peter did. And they haue receiued the Keies, &c.

§ 4. Now when you tell vs, that Origen neuer mentions in this place the commission of feeding, pasce oues meas, (though the Bishop brings this place to answer the other by, about Summa rerum de ouibus pascendis, out of his Commen­tary vpon Rom. 6.) and so the Bishops answer fits not with the obiection: You are to know, that S. Cyprian puts the [...] both in one, spea­king thus, De habitu V [...]rg. Petrus etiam cui o­ues suas dominus p [...]scendas [...] commen­dat, super quem posuit & fund [...]uit ecclesiam. as the one, so the other is to be constru­ed, either of Peter or of all. If, Tibi da­bo claues, belong to them all, and specially, if, Super te ae­dificabo ecclesiam meam, so doth Pasce oues too, by propor­tion, either equall, or maioris virtutis, as they call it. For what so singular and so individuate, as Super te aedificabo? Sure, pasce oues, is not so much. The one a promise, the other a precept, and precept is not broken, if it extend to many, promise either is, or is the weaker for it, without all doubt. And yet Origen himselfe teacheth you as much in this tractate, as it were preuenting your obiection, when thus he saith towards the middle of it: Si dictum hoc com­mune est caeteris, cur non simul omnia velut dicta ad Petrum tamē ­sunt omnium communia? That is, If this belong to all, though spoken to Peter, (as he doubts not but it does) why not all the rest then, though directed to him, yet are to be meant of all?

§ 5. Another place you quote out of the same Origen, vnquoted by the Cardinall, but belike to help him, post aciem inclinatam, out of Hom. 2. in diuersa Euang. namely that Pe­ter [Page 203] was Ʋertex, which is no more then [...], of which be­fore, giuen by S. Baesil to the great Athanasius. Yea, [...], no bare toppe, nor no bald vertex, as your Popes is, at this day. Martial hath an Epigram, against one that had three sculls, and when almes were distributed came for three mens parts. Si te viderit Hercules, peristi. We are not they that make more [...], or more Coryphaeos, then needs we must in the senate Apostolike. The number of such wor­thies, whereof euery one was so sufficient as to be a [...] (as they say of the Argosey, that euery mariner in it might haue beene a pilot) commends the wisedome of Christ the chooser, and makes much for the Churches safety and pro­sperity, to whome they were appointed guardians. But as for the man of three sculis, or the [...], in Mar­tial, let your Pope in good earnest take heed of Hercules, wearing three Crownes, and not content with more then three mens parts. Of vertex too much, whether in iest or earnest, vnlesse the argument were better. We are speaking of Origen, and his second Hom. in diuersa. Are ye aduised therefore what priuiledges he heapes vpon S. Iohn there, not inferiour to Peter, not to any? for it is not for nothing, that Iohn still crosses Peter, though the one set out former, yet the other arriuing first at his iournies end, Ioh. 20. Cui donatum est (saies Origen) quod tibi donatum est, ô beate? To whome was it euer giuen, that which to thee hath been giuen, O thou blessed creature? Dic quaeso, cui talis ac tan­ta donata est gratia? I pray thee tell me; To whom euer was such and so great grace conferred? Feare you not least hee deface the Virgins garland, not onely Peters? And as Peter is a rocke, by interpretation, as you tell vs, so Iohn (if wee beleeue Origen) Latinè, quod donatum est, as if a packe of gifts were couched in him, and the speciallest gift, that euer be­fell a man, (either the Monarchy then belike, or aboue the Monarchy,) another one in degree, to whom that may be­fit, [...], you know the place. And indeed no writer speakes of Peter, as if he had all gifts in him. S. Am­brose [Page 204] diuides them between Peter and Paul, serm. 66. One had one key, another another. Ille scientiae, iste potentiae. And iste erudit ad salutem, ille suscipit ad quietem. Paul in this life, Peter in the next. Neither doth this much make for the Popes preheminencies, who is not so simple, as to reserue himselfe for Paradise, rather all for the world present, which was made (they say) for the presumptuous. Yea, most plainely in the same Sermon, Quis cui praeponatur incer­tum est. S. Ambrose knowes not which to preferre. Where­in Bellarmine is more happie; for he saies, Paulus plus profu­it De Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 27. versus finem. Ecclesiae, Paul did the Church more good then Peter. And he would haue him more honoured of vs at this day, then Peter. As Stephen a Deacon is more honoured in his memo­rie, The Pope a Po­ly-Stephen for his triple crown sake. (saith hee) then S. Iames an Apostle (why should hee strike at Iames aboue all the rest?) Laurence then Sixtus, &c. Neither is this peculiar to Bellarmine, but all the Iesuites ought to be of this mind. For they propounded S. Paul of all other the Apostles, whome they would most willingly imitate, witnesse Maffaeus, de vitâ Ignatij, l. 2. c. 13. And yet Cuiut maximè ve­ [...] sequerentur. Therefore they went to his Church potissi [...], and there s [...]s [...]ere votum relligionis suae, profession [...] solenn [...]: sayes Massaeus ibid. the Iesuites, men archicall enough, or giuen to sway. Which is an argument, that may make for Pauls supremacie in time, aboue Peter; not onely for preaching, but for gouerne­ment too, vnlesse they abate. And the other Fathers are of the same iudgement. S. Leo serm. 1. de Natali Apostolorum. In the bodie of the Church, whose Head is Christ (not Peter nor the Pope) the two Apostles Peter and Paul are set like geminum lumen oculorum, like the two eyes in a mans head. Therefore no such difference. S. Gregorie, l. 1. dial. c. vlt. Adde E [...]ti­us com in Ep a l Rom c. 1. Ne vel ipso Coryphaeo Pe­tro inferior vide­retur Paulus, aut [...] aliquid ha­ [...]re. Not minus [...] in grace and in gifts; not [...]ior in go­uernment, and such like pr [...]he­minence. By which we see what a Cory­phaeos Peter. Paulus Apostolus Petro [etsi] Apostolorum primo, in principatu Apostolico frater est. What is this but equalitie, in principatu, in the cheife­dom it selfe? Eucher. in Natal. Apost. Petri & Pauli, calls them aequali per terram luce fulgentes, shining all ouer the world with equall brightnes. Lastly, all the solution that S. Ambr. can finde of his doubt, is this, by reducing it to their ti­tles; that one is Petra, the other Vasculum, both of them ne­cessaria domni saluatoris, each necessarie to our Lords house. [Page 205] Paul feeds and releeues the houshold, whiles Peters vertue is buried vnder ground, like the foundation of an house, & as it were least in sight. Though for my part, I confesse, I can hardly conceiue how this holds, or how Peter stands the Church in such stead, to lie vnder it, as you would say, to this very time. In a house, I graunt, S. Gregor. sayes, l. 28. in Iob c. 6. that, In sacri­loquio, &c. he neuer finds the word founda­tiō put in the singular, throughout al Scrip­ture, but onely for Christ. Yet the Papists make Peter a singular foundation, and by himselfe. See Haymo com. in Eph. 2. where he will not so much as construe that, Fun­dati super fund. Proph. & Apost. otherwise thē thus, That Christ alone is the foundation of Pra­phets, of Apostles, and all: and he addes out of Matth. 16. Super hanc petram, i. super me aedifi­cabo Ecclesiam. the foundation is of most vse. But such a Foundation, who can lay but Christ? 1. Cor. 3. 11. S. Pauls benefit of feeding vs, that is of instructing vs, is daily, and obuious, and intelligible. Therefore by my consent, the prerogatiue shall rest with him still. But leauing Am­brose, to whom we haue digressed, returne we to Origen, and conclude of him in a word. Concerning Iohn he addes; Fortasse quis dicet, tantundem Petro collatum. Happily a man may say, S. Peter had as much bestowed on him; but he de­nies it in the next words, and more plainely soone after; Sed non temerè quis dixerit, &c. yea, how high he rises? Non er­gò Iohannes erat homo, sed plusquam homo. Therefore Iohn was no man, but more then a man. How would this serue the Popes turne, had it been said of Peter, and if the Canonists had the handling of it? Who not onely salute him with Dominus Deus Papa, euen in their late editions of such slat­tering Glosses, as they haue deckt their Law with, which perhaps might be excused, either by Dij sunt multi, Domini (que) multi, 1. Cor. 8. 5. or the style of Rome vnder Domitian, full Though Augu­stus himselfe re­fused the title Dominus; which Orosius construes to haue beene done in honour of Christ then borne. l. 6. c 22. of basenesse; but euen in their studies, and closets, and most retired contemplations, define him to be, Ioh. Capistranus. Ens confla­tum ex Deo & homine, a certaine medley of God and man. But beeing affirmed of Iohn, as it is by Origen, I hope here Mr. F. T. will giue way to allegories, to quench the fire, which else these words might kindle verie dangerous, and not vrge him to maintaine the letter too precisely. Lastly, thus: Whiles Iohn was leaning vpon our Sauiours breast, [Page 206] and so safe, and well appaid, Peter often tripped, saepe titu­babat, quasi trepidae actionis symbolum, sayes Origen; not the rocke of faith nowe, immooueable, impregnable, but the picture of the actiue part of our life, weake, and fraile, and faint, and tottering. This of Origen.

§ 6. In S. Hilaries words, and your exception to the Of S. Hilar. te­stimonie. Bishops answer to them, there remaines onely these two points to be cleered. One, that you say S. Hilary so ascribes it to the faith of Peter, to be petra digna aedificatione Christi, a rock worthie of Christs building vpon, as yet withall he denyes it not to his very person. Another, that you affirme in plaine termes, it was the merit of his faith which purchased him this. 1 Which is first very insolent (for I beginne with your later) that faith should be a meritour at Gods hands, or a meri­tresse, if you will haue it so (I pray correct me, if I speake amisse, for you see whether your absurdities lead me) wher­as Charity not faith is the fons meriti, the actuall deseruer, by condignity at least, as your selues hold; for ex longinquo is a­nother thing, and expraeuiâ dispositione, &c. Where in truth you are so dazeled about this merit of Peters, that you say you know not what, ascribing that to his charity which is more proper to his faith, and againe that to his faith which belongs to his charitie. To be cheife in feeding you ascribe to his Loue, to Amas me plus his? Which is true in our Sa­uiours Ioh. 21. sense, for exciting his care, not in yours to inuest him in the supreame iurisdiction, which rather requires the priuiledge of freedome from errour. And here, his deseruing to be the rock, or the principall, for bearing sway, you impute it to his faith, which is too yong to be a deseruer, if it be Absolute Pela­gianisme. See S. Austen, &c. not otherwise accommodated, euen by your own doctrine. This is one absurdity therefore. Secondly, that he should merit to be the rocke of the Church, whereas a man canot me­rit, that is not first in the Church, (as yourselues will not deny) and so presupposeth the foundation is laid. But in no sort, can one merit to be the foundation thereof him­selfe. [Page 207] As De praedestin. Sanct. ad Prosper. & Hilar. lib. 1. Cap. 15. Est etiam praeclarissimum lumen prae­destinationis & gratiae, ipse saluitor, ipse medi­ator. Respendeatur quaeso, vnde haee merunt? Quod etus bonum qualecun (que) pracessit, &c. S. August. often shewes, that the Redeemer of the world, did not me­rit the coniunction of his flesh with the deity, but beeing inuested once there­with, then merited for vs, and wrought saluation. Whom, although we should grant, to haue merited to be the foun­dation of the Church, the Iudge of the world, &c. yet you are not ignorant, how it is held by your owne diuines, namely per titulum secundarium, hauing right to it before, out of the worth of his hypostasis, which in S. Peter is no­thing so. But especially, if you will take to that of Maxi­mus, whom you quote a little after, that S. Peter for rowing in a frigot or small boate, was made Master and gouernour of the Vniuersall Church. for what merit could there be, of that in this? And suppose that there is an orderly promotion a­mong Vide Epist. A­naclet. 1. &. 2 itē Clement ad Iacob. fratrem domini, [...]. 1. Tim. 3. 13. shipmen, from the Lower roomes to the higher, till they be Pilots, and Admiralls, &c. or in like sort, that the good Deacon gets himself a faire degree, (as S. Paul speaks,) to be made Priest, Priest a Bishop, Bishop a metropolitan, &c. yet you speake of a promotion in diuersissimo genere; which is too too vncouth, that S. Peter for steering his ma­teriall vessell at the sea, should be preferred to sit in the highest place of the Church, and congregation of God. Thirdly, if this were true that you auouch of his merits, S. Pe­ter should not only haue merited for himselfe, but for as ma­ny monsters & miscreants, as euer sate after him in that sea; Which you doe well to shroud vnder the merits of S. Peter, least they appeare too too vgly naked in themselues; sauing that pallium breue as the Prophet Esay speaks, their couering is too short, and non est satis nobis & vobis: Matth. 25. What? For them that beleeue not, for them that apprehend not, that concurre not in the least sort, yea for them that were not borne when S. Peter liued, could S. Peter merit? As for Hild. Dict. Sent. 2 [...]. Pontifex Ro­manus, sicanoni­ [...] mod [...] ordinatus suerit, meritis B. Petri indubitan­ter efficitur san­ctus. Hildebrands dictates, they are no gospel. His words are nei­ther slanders, whē they are directed against vs, nor testimonies of any force, when they are produced for you. And will you [Page 208] allowe no qualification of S. Hilaries word? Whereas they that haue but tasted the auncient writers, know that to merite, is to obtaine and procure, though by grace and fa­uour, and no further to be vrged. He attained then (saith S. Hilary) a supereminent glory. Which glory may be in many Lib. 6. de trin. things, beside his primacie, as the Bishop answered you of [...] and [...], in S. Basils authority; and calling it gloriam, it seemes he rather points to our Sauiours appro­bation, then to any reall preferment collated vpon Peter. Glo­ria is in fame, in predication, and report, as euen Tully will teach you, Orat. pro Marcello, which is nothing to of­fice, and to installment. Si quidem gloria est peruagata, &c.

§ 7. As for the coupling of S. Peters person with his Adioynd. num. 9. Thus saith the Bishop see­king by a lying glosse of his owne to make his Reader beleeue, that S. Hilarie doth so admit S. Peters faith to he the foundation of the Church that he excludeth his person, &c. Neuerthelesse I would not haue him to thinke, that in affir­ming with S. Hilarie, that Peter was the foun­dation of the Church, I doe exclude his faith frō his person, as though S. Hilar. should say, or any Catholike man meane, that the Church was built vpon Peters person, and not vpon his faith, &c. Fearing least another should depraue him as he hath done the Bishop. faith, & his faith with his person, which is the second point of the twaine, about which you sweat, and trauell sore, ca­sting vp mole-hils, and mustering your Metaphysicks long vnskoured, the Bi­shop neuer dreamt, as you fantastically imagine, that S. Hilary should giue this to a fleeting shadow, or to faith with­out a subiect, like your Accidents in the Eucharist, which you welcome as well, as S. Iames his hoste doth his guests, that biddes them warme them­selues without a fire, feede without victualls, and so you them to sit down without a chaire, or a stoole: Not so: But if faith be the proper foundation of the Church, as S. Hilary implies by his fiue-fold repetition, Haec fides, haec fides, &c. Haec fides Ecclesiae fundamentum est, per han [...] fidē infir­ma sunt aduersus eam po [...] infero­rum. Haec fides Regni coelestis, &c Hilar. vbi prius. then was Peter, in behalfe of his faith onely, pronounced by our Sauiour the foundation of the Church. Which is a­nother thing then to be preferred, for the merit of his faith, to be the Churches foundation, as you fondly dreame. For so it might fall out, that he should still remaine the foundati­on of the Church, though he had cast of his faith, where­with he beganne, which will not stand with S. Hylaries conceit of it, and accordingly, none other are at any time [Page 209] to bee reckoned the foundations of the Church, but they that shall tread in the steps of faithfull Peter, howsoeuer o­therwise they may come neere him in calling. For where is more promised to Peters successors, by vertue of meere suc­cession, then to Abrahams children? Rom. 4. Nay, the adop­tiue branch may not challenge so much to it selfe, as the naturall, Rom. 11. Succession (saith Greg. Nazianzen) is oft-times Paneg. in Atha­nas. between contraries. Sickenesse succeeds health, night suc­ceeds day, so an vnworthy Bishop succeeds a worthy, as Nazian­zen instanceth. So your Popes may Peter. Irenaeus saith wa­rily, that we must obey those Priests in the Church of God, which deriuing their succession from the Apostles, together with their succession in Office, haue receiued the certain gift of truth, lib. 4. cap. 43.

§ 8. By this also the other places of S. Hilary are decla­red, Beatus Simon sub­iacens aedificationi ecclesiae: (scil) post sacramenti confessionens. where he proceeds to call Peter the foundation of the Church, as you expound them; his person, I graunt, if ought at all, as the Bishop also meant, (not a qualitie without a subiect, which is your chimaera) but in respect of his vertue, not of his authoritie singular. And as all the faithfull may Idem Hilar. eo­dem libro, tres columnas eccle­siarum facit, Pe­trum, Iohannem, & Iacobum. In the same place S. Hilary thus bespeaks the Apostles (not Peter alone) Vos O sancti & beate viri, ob FIDEI VESTRAE MERIT [...], claues regni coelorum sortiti, & ligandi at (que) sol­uendi in caelo & in terrā i [...], &c. come more or lesse, neere to Peters faith, so they haue all more or lesse a part in this prerogatiue, as you heard lately out of Origen, yet still without disturbing the Churches a­ray. Neither perhaps should Peter haue been the rocke, [...], if so precise regard had been had to his faith, as to value it with his primacie, so much for so much, by way of meed and merit, as you pretend (and yet no Simonists) but either all the Christians, [...], 1. Pet. 2. 1. which are dignifyed with a faith nothing inferiour to ours, euen to Peters selfe, or the poore woman in the Gospel, of whome our Sauiour affirmed, O woman, great is thy faith: or lastly the Centurion, Ʋerily, I haue not found so great faith in Israel.

§ 9. But in silentio reliquorum, while others held their Hilar. vbi. priu [...]. peace, and primum cognoscere, & eloqui illud quod nondum [Page 210] vox humana protulerat, that was it that made S. Peters con­fession Vide Bellar. de Rom. Pont. lib. 1. cap. 12. [...]an­tem globum testiū in hanc sentent. Leo [...]rm. 11. de past. D [...] Omni­um [...] [...]ra pr [...]m. Chrysost [...]. 55. in M [...]t. Confe [...] pr [...]t, ac prae­ue [...] ait. Of [...] Ma [...]m. testimonie. so glorious, and so remarkeable, witnes Hilary, witnes diuers more, whome I forbeare to name. And in that sense, he might instly be tearmed a foundation, or a prime workman; not but that others followed or consented with him, and so foundations too, Apocal. 21. but his zeale was such, he spake first, for which hast it is not like he was made cheife gouernour.

§ 10. There remaines S. Maximus, and first, whether he were that same Bishop of Turin, or no. Which the Bishop denyed not, as not hasty that way (although the case were plainer) to be so peremptory, (it is enough for you to de­termine magistraliter) but left vnder doubt, the rather be­cause the Sermons that are attributed to Maximus, haue beene printed with S. Ambroses in times past, and so vn­certaine to whom to be adiudged, as in many other fathers it fareth at this day. And if your obseruatiō be good, which The Adioynd. p [...]fes, that S. Maximu [...] made certain [...]ermons of this kind. you bring out of Gennadius, you see what profit the Bishops doubting hath brought with it, I would say praise and com­mendation to you, if it were thought to be your owne, which you will hardly perswade them that know you here, not to haue dropt out of the Note-booke of some of your good Masters. As for the Sermons de tempore, not made as the Bishop said in S. August. time, which you call a scaepe or a not able ouersight of his, and you thinke you might call it a flat lie, according to the rest of your maydenly modesty; you are answered before; yea your selfe haue answered See afore cap. [...]. your selfe in that point, as Siseraes mother did, that at least S. August. gaue no such titles to his sermons, whatsoeuer they did that came after. Yet in producing Witnesses, is it not reason that you should call them by their proper and right names, or else they loose the force of their credite for deposition? And this was all, that the Bishop made sticke at, concerning that point.

§ 11. Now to the authority it selfe, & the Bishops answer thereto; Quanti igitur merits apud Deum suum Petrus, which [Page 211] you persist to construe, Of how great merit was Peter with his God, (so hardly are you driuen with the dogge from his li­courment) as if Peters merit had beene to rowe the boat, and his reward to be made the gouernour of the world, whereas the indifferent translator would rather haue con­strued it thus, Of how great interest, or how great account, there­fore, was Peter with his God, (antecedens pro consequente, which your Rhetorique cannot be ignorant of, that quote Quin­tilian Adioynd. cap. 9. afterward, about the trope Catachresis) who after the rowing of a little boate, had the gouernement of the whole Church committed to him? Thus Maximus. And the more to blame you then, as the Bishop well answers you, to assigne him the gouernment of a particular Church (Peter I meane) & so in effect to rob him of the Ʋniuersall. For we deny not, but that both he, and his fellow Apostles, had the whole Church committed to their care, ioyntly and se­uerally, without any limitation. And surely Maximus his words import no more. As for that the Bishop saies, that Y O V haue giuen him the gouernment of a particular Church, after the gouernment of the whole, haue not You, I Numb. 14. Hee supposes h [...]re that not Christ but [...] haue giue it him, and that S. Peter [...]s not Bishop of Rome, otherwise thē in our concert, and by our gift. pray, giuen it him, in that You allow it him, & that You stand for it to be his, against them that make question of it? Will you neuer leaue this dissembling of your skill, to take all things in so wrong a sense, and by the left handle, as Epi­ctetus calls it? Isay, You haue giuen it him. Not wee but Christ, you will say. You meane perhaps of his Vniuersall gouernment of the whole Church, which in a sense we grant you, as common to the rest, and not to be transmitted to posterity. In your sense you are as farre from euicting any such thing, for ought I see, as if you had neuer gone about it, that he should be the ordinary pastor onely, and the rest the extraordinaries. But to the particular Church of Rome, Eud [...]. Patal. p. 137 Non du [...] qu [...] tot [...] [...] sa­ [...]lo ho [...]m [...] ­deat, [...]m P [...] [...], [...] [...] [...]re. you will not say your selues that Christ designed him, no more then to Antioch which he abandoned after possessi­on, but rather his owne choice, if not your fiction. For you haue giuen him leaue to sleet, and to chop, and to fixe his [Page 212] seate else where then at Rome, when so seemes good. On­ly, piè wee must beleeue, that hee will not doe so in hast. How­beit Bellar. de Pont. Rom. lib. 4. c. 4. if wee should deny that he was euer at Rome, as some haue bin mooued by no weak grounds to do, as both colle­ctions out of Scripture, and supputations of the time when he should arriue there, yet your argument is strange where­by you would approoue it here, in your num. 15. where you say, it is demonstrated, and as it were proclaimed, by the conti­nuall successions of Bishops in that Sea, to this very day. Call you this a demonstration of Peters being at Rome, that Bishops neuer failed in that Sea, to this day, ergò S. Peter was the first that sate there? Though againe it were no hard matter, to disprooue the continuance of your Bishops in that Sea, euen at sundry sea­sons, By schismes, by simonies, by transmigra­tions, sometime also by pluralitie of incū ­bents. As Felix and Liberius, Sozom. l. 4. c. 14. But cheifly whereas the Papists challenge other Seas to haue fayled in their successi­on of Bishops, we may truely answer them, that it had beene more for their credit to haue had none at all, then diuerse such as they are faine to shew to vphold theirs, of late times. if it were pertinent to this place. But howsoeuer that be, you ought to bring a more colourable argument of Peters sitting there as I take it. For of many that I haue heard, this is simply the simplest. Neither is that much better, which you vaunt farre more in, if it be possible, writing thus in the same numb. And withall he addes a strange Parenthesis [quasi ea to­tius pars non esset] as though the same particular Church of Rome were not a part of the whole. As who would say, that S. Peter could not be gouernour, both of the whole Church, and of a parti­cular Church. Wherein, he argueth as wisely, as if he should say, that a Bishop of Ely could not be gouernour of the particular Church of Ely, and of the whole Diocese; or that a Bishop of Can­terbury could not be gouernour of that Bishopricke, and primate of England; or that a generall of an army could not gouerne a parti­cular company, and yet be generall of the whole army. And here, though you would seeme to haue triumphed ouer the Bishop, in your impregnable instances, yet you shew, it wrings you at the very heart, to bee so met with about Maxi­mus his authoritie, when in your numb. following you set him downe both in Text, and Margent, for a man whose [Page 213] head should be confounded with blowes, rather then confuted with arguments. So notable a champion you are at your Ismaels Logicke, whose fist was against euery body, and euerie bodies a­gainst his, which Philo interprets to be the image of a dis­puter, but like none so much as the Popish disputants (you may say they dispute in Schola Tyranni, Act. 19.) from whose butcherly hands, I pray God deliuer vs, that euen thus de­clare their fingers to be itching, till they may deale with vs.

§ 12. As for the Bishoprick of Rome, ioyned or adioy­ned to the Bishopricke of the whole Church, which you would patterne with the Diocesse and Church of Ely, re­commended to the gouernment of one man, or the go­uernment of a whole army, and one company in that ar­my, entrusted to the care of the same generall, and such like; how vnlike are these comparisons, I report me to your conscience! 1 For the gouernment of that company, which is a limbe of the maine army, while it remaines so, is im­possible to be diuided from the gouernment of the whole, and so Ely Church from Ely Diocesse is not so easily separa­ted, in ordine currente, as now things goe; but he that hath the one must needes haue the other. But your selues hold, that the Bishopricke of the whole world, hath beene actu­ally diuided from the Bishopricke of Rome, as namely while Peter sate at Antioch, before he came to Rome, to say nothing of your later Popes, that lay soaking at Aue­nion seuenty yeares together: wherupon Bellarmine graunts, as you heard euen now, that they may be diuided againe, if occasion so re­quire, Idem Bellarm. alibi, nimirum de Roman. Pont. l. 2. c. 12. Si transferatur etiamnum sede [...], Romani Episcopi non erunt [...] totius eccle­siae Episcopi. And, Francisc Vellosillus, Bishop of Luca, in Aduertentijs. in 4. tomum B. Chrysost. Quaesit. 17. prooues this conclusion of his, by diuerse reasons, Quid constitutione ecclesiae sieri posset, vt Episcopus vrbis non modò sedem suam ab vrbe demutaret (as he speakes) sed vt nullam omnino particularem ecclesiam sibi appli­caret, &c. and yet hopes that God will not ea­sily permit it; by which you see, your comparison halts of one foote. But the maine point lyes in this: 2 That the Bi­shop of Ely, hath no new induction to his Church of Ely, more then was giuen him at first entrance vpon the entire Bishopricke, and so [Page 214] the generall of an army, hath no newe constitution ouer a part of his army, after hee is admitted Generall ouer the whole. Whereas you giuing to S. Peter the whole Church for his Bishopricke, if afterwards he take vp his seate in Rome, by a more peculiar title, what doth he but extinguish his former cleane? which, I thinke, will hold euen in Fitz­herberts Law.

§ 13. Neither say that S. Iames was Bishop of Hierusa­lem, and yet gouernour of the whole Church, with the rest of his colleagues: for Iames was extraordinarie as you also confesse: but shew that one man may be ordinarie Pastor of the whole Church, and yet ordinarie Pastor of a part too, by a second title distinct from the former; or else you say nothing, but palter about the Bishops answer to Maximus, and bewray a manifest contradiction in your doctrine.

§ 14. I labour to be briefe, and I need not to adde any thing to the Bishops answers, which you see how pregnant they are against all reproofe. Onely, because the Bishop is so exceedingly compendious, in his Answer to the Apolo­gie, and occasion hath beene giuen me to peruse the Ser­mons newly quoted of S. Maximus, I will set downe, in a word or two, mine owne obseruations, out of the said Ser­mons lately set forth, for F. T. to consider, if they make not Ann. 1614. Pa [...]is. more for S. Paul, then that doth for Peter, which the Cardi­nall alleadged. In his second Sermon therefore, de eodem fe­sto, viz. Natali B B. Petri & Pauli, speaking of Paul, after he had commended Peter for his great faith, Cuius tanta est nihilominùs plenitudo sidei: Whose fulnesse of faith is so great not­withstanding. First, fulnesse of faith, like plenitudo spiritús, which they attribute to the Pope. And, notwithstanding Pe­ters, as deseruing a reward no lesse thē his, if there were place for deserts, vnlesse you will say, that Peter had engrossed all Nothing left for. [...]sopt. be­cause his fel­lowes professed to know all things first. [...]. before, and nothing was left for Paul though deseruing. Yea he addes, that our Sauiour in his prouidence chose him, pe­culiarem quodam modo ducem, a captaine (of his Church) in a manner singular, and without fellow. Erat enim tam praecipuus, [Page 215] &c. vt ad ecclesiae solatium, & ad firmamentum omnium creden­tium, Christus eum vocaret è caelo. Hee was so singular (in his gift) that to the comfort of his Church, and the support of all the faithfull, (firmamentum credentium not inferiour to petra) our Lord directly called him from heauen. Lastly, Vt aduerteret princeps futurus nominis Christiani, that he which was to bee the prince of the name Christian, that is, the most eminent in all the Christian congregation, might marke, &c. As for the third Sermon of that argument, which is that from whence the words, Quanti meriti, are quoted, whereunto the Bishop answers: it followes immediately after them in the praise of Peter, thus of Paul: That Paul in his Apostleship, how highly did he please Christ? (where you see meritum is counterpoized by placere, indeed all one) who is his owne witnesse, sidelissimus sibi testis: who shunning to reueale his owne praise, and yet seeking to make knowne the power of his Christ, wraps vp in modestie, &c. Alluding, no doubt, to those places of his Epistles, wherein hee euidently challengeth equalitie with the best, and re­porteth viz. 2. Cor. 11. 23. &c. such things as is wonderfull by himselfe, though not tickled thereto by any priuate vain-glorie, but meerly enforced by his aduersaries importunitie. In the first Ser­mon of that argument, they are ioyntly called, both Paul and Peter, Ecclesiarum omnium principes, Princes of all the S. Hieron Praef. comm. in epist. ad Gal. calls them twice, principes, within a few lines, once Apostolor [...], a­gaine Ecclesia [...]. Churches: and againe, reuerendissimi Principes omnium Eccle­siarum, the most reuerend Princes of all the Churches.

§ 15. I omit your railing in your num. 18. where you say the Bishop hath beene puzled with places, and faine to trisle, wrangle, cogge, and lye, &c. I account it my ill happe, to be matcht with such a rakeshame, that obserues no reuerence, and is onely good at proouing our patience. Onely my comfort is, as Demosthenes is said, to haue said in the like, that I shall ouercome in beeing put downe, and you loose in conquering, in so damned an encounter. The Bishop had said of the Cardinalls testimonies, cited out of the fathers, vnum hoc peccant omnia. All the places brought for Peters pri­macie, trip in this, that they haue nothing, in truth, which may [Page 216] not straight be granted, except some petty word, about which I meane not to iangle. And what more excellent [...] could there be then this? a premunition, or an amulet, against the errors, that might arise in vnstable minds, by mistaking the fathers, while they vse such speaches. For as Epiphanius saies, that such cautions must be vsed sometimes, euen to­wards the writings of holy Scripture, least the Reader be peruerted, rather then edified; so, in the fathers much more, who neither write so plaine for vnderstanding as the Scrip­tures, nor yet so currant for beleife. It followes in the Bi­shop; Nam nec primatum negamus Petri &c. for wee deny not the primacy of Peter, nor the names which doe signifie it, but wee de­mand the thing, or the matter it selfe now in question, to wit, his earthly Monarchy. Thus he. And to this what say you? You say, he grants the primacy of Peter, and yet labours to ouerthrow it, when it is prooued out of the fathers. As how, trow you? When they teach that Peter had the primacie, because he was the foundation of the Church, and that he had a speciall commission giuen him to feede Christs sheepe, he goeth about to prooue that Peter was no more the foundation of the Church, then the rest of the Apostles were, nor otherwise Pastor thereof, then they. And what of that? Wherein then consisted this primacy, which the fathers teach, and deduce, from the power giuen him by the keyes, and by his pastorall commission, which doe import authority, power, iurisdiction, and gouernment? This you. It hath bin told you, Sir, sufficiently, ouer and ouer, wherein the primacy of Peter consisted, though it draw no soueraignty or Iurisdiction with it, and much lesse so great, as you are in loue with, I meane the temporal and the terrible; quae & spiritum concutit saecularis rei gratiâ, as Tertullian saies, or saeculum concutit prae­textu De patientia. Spiritûs, as yours apparantly doth. It is The ancienter Papists were not so immode­rate. Ioh. Slotanus contr. V [...]sium, &c. after he had al­lowed the Pope [...]aculum, as well as [...]eram, one for doctrine, the other for discipline, expounds himselfe in this manner. Habet summus eccle­siae Antistes super omnes potentiorem potestatem coactiuam; quā etiam Principes sil [...] subi [...]ere potest. SENE CAEDE TAMEN. Hic est autem spi­ritualis gladius [...]lle, per quem interdicere potest ingressu ecclesiae, & coelum claudere, &c. Thus he limits the Popes coactiue power. And Espencaeus Digress [...]n Epist. ad Titum, c. 1. p 172. En Episcopalem duritiem, in VFRRIS tamen, non in VERBERIBVS sitam. Nam carceres, & huius­modi corporum coerctiones, cum dominij [...] tempora­libus, BENEFICIO ET DEVOTIONE PRINCIPVM accessisse puto. Grauissima TVM poena erat ex­communicatio, non MORTALIS [...]a [...], sed medi­cinalis. Also, Card. Pole, lib. de summ. Pont. c. 49. praising the Popes forme of gouerne­ment, None to that (saith he) quae—volen­tes Per populordat iura. And, c. 44. The Pope, if he will bee good, must neuer descendere de Cruce, i. interpose in worldly affaires. neither keyes not crooke, that will content you, but onely a glaiue, and a staffe, the armour of the foolish shepheard, whereof Zacharie speakes, describing your Pope, that idoll in sede meâ, as Christ from heauen bespake him long agoe, if the stories say true. And yet why should we tell you, wherein [Page 217] this primacie consists, that the Fathers deduce out of the words of Scripture, rather then you conclude it out of the words themselues, or the Fathers words vpon those words, and so force it vpon our consciences, that we may haue no­thing to answer, but by yeelding to your desire? Nowe you are faine to raue, and chase, and cry, after all is done, what is it, if it be not this? What is pa­sce oues, and super hanc petram, but onely the making Peter cheife Magistrate of the Church, so as all Iurisdiction may flow from him? Whereas we may say more truely, and aske of you, what so vnlikely foundation hath this exorbitant power, as either the keies of the Church, or the feeding of Christs sheepe? And doth the Bishop, good Sir, only goe about to prooue that other Apostles are ioyned with Peter, either in the feeding of Christs flocke, or in the receiuing of the keyes? Which hee hath euidently conuin­ced, and demonstrated to your eye, both by the sequele of the text, and the authorities of the Fathers. The Fathers ar­gument then, (say you) is nothing worth, whereby they would e­stablish the primacie of Peter, from such places. As though Pe­ters primacy might not be prooued from The Papists deuice is ouerthrowne by themselues; so farre are the Fathers from abetting it. For Maldonate vpon Ioh. 21. notes it for a principall circumstance, that Pasce oues meas was said to Peter, post prandi­um, after dinner: and yet the rule of their law is, that Ordines non dantur post prandium, Sa. ex Syluest. v. Ordines. § 14 How much lesse the Pop [...]dome, which so infinitly surmounteth all order▪ Though Mald. most absurdly note in the afor [...]said place, that our Sauiour Christ did almost all his extraordinarie works, either after dinner, or after supper. These are the grauities and godlines of our Iesuites. To our Sauiour, no doubt, all times were one. the places, and yet that primacie bee no such primacie as you conceit. For the verie promising of the keyes, though with intention to them all, yet to him onely formally, & the feeding of Christs lambes, which was the charge of them all, yet three seuerall times enioyned to him, because of his threefold deniall of his Lord, giues him a kind of preroga­tiue or primacie, if you call it so, which we enuie him not, and yet still falls short of your Monstrous Monarchie. S. Au­gust. [Page 218] hath told you, and S. Ambrose Bellarmine himselfe confesses, that Pasce o­ues meas, feed my sheep, is said omnibus pasto­ribus, to all ministers & past [...]. De Rom. Pont. l. 1. e. 12. resp. ad 5. and moreouer, whatsoe­uer is said to him, ratione off [...] pastoralis, in regard of his ministerie, is common to all. hath told you, the first two that Pasce o­ues, belongs to all, yea to all vs, not only to all them; but the last, that not those words onely, but whatsoeuer else was said to Peter, (by way of such honour no doubt) is commune omnium, common Vid [...] supra in hoe cap. to all, at least common to all the Apostles. Neither pittie the fa­thers, as most idlely you would seeme to doe, in your 19. numb. for inferring the primacie from such places as those; but rather condemne your owne foolish fancie, for misin­terpreting so grossely, both the Fathers and the places. When you say, The Bishop is miserably troubled with certaine petty words, with voculae quaedam, as Caput, and Primatus, and sometimes hee graunts them, sometimes denies them: What more iust, or more reasonable course can bee held, then both to graunt them, and denie them, the one in the Fathers sense, that they alledge them in; the other in yours, as you peruert them? As for troubling the Bishop, they are so farre frō that, those small words, & as you say, petty voculae; that by his accurate explaining them, I verily beleeue, he hath pro­uided so well, as they shall neuer trouble any man more hereafter.

§ 16. In fine you carp him, for calling the Popes supre­macy, an earthly Monarchy, or temporall primacy; of which before. Yet you repeat it againe. And wherefore then did you, in reporting Origens words, num. 2. of this Chap. con­cerning the founding of the Church vpon Peter, veluti super terram, as vpon the earth, breake off the English, to print those words aswell in Latine as in English, veluti super ter­ram, which is more then you affoarded to certaine other of Super terram. the same sentence, to expresse them twice? Was it not to perswade vs, that his primacie was earthly, or his Monar­chy temporall, which here you abhorre? But let vs heare Mo [...]chia terre­stris. you in good earnest. The place, say you, is temporall, or earth­ly, where it is exercised, that is this present world, the power Adi [...]yn. Num. 22. cap. 5. heauenly, both by institution from aboue, and because he is guided, [Page 219] by Gods spirit, in the vse of it. Which, I pray you, may we not say, of the power of Kings, as well? Vnles either you haue forgotten Rom. 13. That, there is no power but of God, Theodor. de Con­stantin. Magno, in principio hi­storiae: &, Concal. Triburiens. de Arnulpho, anno Dom. [...]95. vide edit. Venet. tom. 4. p. 27. A [...]apet. Epist. or the Emperours style, which the Fathers giue them, Non ex hominibus ne (que) per homines, or in the Councell of Calchedon, Desuper regni sceptra suscipiens Imperator, &c. Or, Per me reges regnant, Pro. 8. 15. Or, Inde potestas, vnde spiritus, Tertullian in Apologet. Or Gregory Nazianzene in orat. ad Praesidem irascentem, [...], ab illo sceptrum ha­bes, &c. Thou raignest with Christ, thou hast thy scepter from him. Or that happily yee are perswaded, that the Pope is better assisted, then the King, by God, in his Consultati­ons. What meanes that then, Prov. 16. 10? Oraculum in labijs: and, In iudicio non errabit os eius. What that, Prou. 21. 1? The heart of the King is in the hand of God, & quocun (que) vo­let flectet illud. Which S. August. so stands vpon, that he doubts not to say, per cor Regis ipsa veritas iussit, Truth it selfe commands by the heart of the King; and againe, Emperours commaund the selfe same that Christ, for when they commaund what good is, no man commandeth by them, but Christ. Epist. 166. To make short, what thinke you of that, Rom. 13. Rulers are no terrour to good works, but to the euill. No nor to Praise compre­hends all the meanes that Kings haue to reward, though they are mary. Because it is s [...] ­ [...]um humano [...], as Aristot [...]aves. [...]. workers neither. Doe what is good, and he will praise thee not punish thee. The ruler is the Minister of God, for thy good, but if thou doe that which is euill, be afraid, for he is the Minister of God, a reuenger to execute wrath vpon all them, that doe euill. Yea, they are all Gods Ministers, attending vpon this very thing continually. Doth not this ra­ther shew, that the King is assisted by God, then the Pope, to preserue him as well from scandall of action, as from er­rour in iudgment? Though for the Pope, you are not wont to deny your selues, that he may erre in action, and that ve­ry fowly: all your care is to vphold the credite of his Iudge­ment, wherein you see the King enioyes Gods directions, no lesse then hee. But why should you bee so loath, to ad­mit of the terme of temporall Monarchy, or earthly pri­macy? [Page 220] May we not say with the Poet, as he doth of Dido?—hoc praetexit nomine culpā, cladem rather: or with the same author elsewhere,—Quid si quod voce negatis, Mente datis, or vendicatis? What is this, but to cut the throat with a woodē knife, pretending gentlenes to the acts of fiercenes, Iacobs voice, and Esaus hands? Or like the Axe, in Aesops fables, which Bishop Fisher tould of, that came a begging vpon a time to a certaine goodly wood, or tuft of trees, for a helue or a handle, promising to trim it, and prune it, and keepe it neat, but ended in felling, quelling, and destroy­ing. So the Pope challengeth nothing, but a spirituall pri­macie, to keep Kings in order and in awe, who else would be extrauagant, he saies; which if once you graunt him, you shall see what feats of mischeife he will worke you, as Balaam said, I would kill the outright, if I had but a sword, or as Numb 22. [...]9. 1. Sam 21. 9. Dauid of Golias his, so he of the spirituall, Giue me but that, there is none to that. Let him alone, if once he can get but to graspe the sword, be it what it will be, sword, or swithe; Monarchy, or Primacie, and of what kinde soeuer.

§ 17. Why, but S. Peter exercised a corporall power, and S. Paul likewise, for so much as they both ended in corporall effects, as Adioyn Num. 22 in striking Elymas the sorcerer blinde, as in punishing Ananias, and Sapphira, with bodily death. As if this were the power, ei­ther of Peter or Paul, beeing miraculous in them both; wher­as Miracles come from no inhaerent power, as your School-men teach, from a circumstant rather, or an attendant; al­mighty God, by meanes vnknowne, being ready to exe­cute the determinations of his seruants. But wee speake of a power inherent in the magistrate, which is denominated by the effects, as the effects are sorted and qualified by their obiects, goods, bodies, limmes, and liberty. For about them are conuersant the acts of magistracy, depriuations, impri­sonments, maymes, or deathes. Which the doer of miracles hath no hand in the inflicting of, but at his request Omni­potencie effecteth. Euen as you read of Iosua commanding the sunne, Obediuit Deus voci hominis, but voci onely, &c. S. [Page 221] Ambr. confutes this argument of yours, lib. 3. Offic. cap. 14. speaking of Elizeus & the Syrians whom he took prisoners, that, Non erant manu percutiendi, quos supernaturali virtute subiugâsset. They might not be stricken with hand, whom God had extraordinarily put into his hands. So as S. Peter him­self Expellit dictis, non armis, saies Lucret. lib. 5. might not exercise any bodily force vpon those, whom the holy Ghost by miracle had subiected to him. Much lesse then may we, by his example.

§ 18. Neither is it to be wondred, that the primitiue Church might haue temporall power, or corporall power in defect of Christian Magistrates, to punish offendors, which since hath ceased in the ordinary gouernment, the Church hauing returned to her Channells, as I may say, and the Magistrate being at hand to take her part. To o­mit Cap. 3. huiu [...]. that as I noted to you before, the deuill was appointed to be the executioner, rather then once the Apostles should defile themselues, with that worke, or handle the sword; to which now the Popes hand euen cleaues for eagernesse, as did that Captaines, 2. Sam. 23. 10.

THE DEFENCE OF the Bishop of ELIE his Answer to Card. BELLARMINES Apologie, against the slaunderous Adioynder of F. T. The second Part.


¶ To thee, and but to thee to none, I make my prayer.

PRINTED BY CANTRELL LEGGE, Printer to the Vniuersitie of Cambridge. 1617.

To the sixt Chapter of the Ad­ioynder, about Inuocation of Saints.

The auctorities of the Fathers, of the first and second ranke (according to the BISHOPS most accurate diuision of the confused huddle brought by the Cardinal) are re-exa­mined in this Chapter;

AND HIS ANSWERS TO THEM found to be such, as maintaine themselues against all exception.

§. 1. TVllie would not vouchsafe to ac­cuse Ʋatinius, but onely presseth him with certaine questions, to disgrace him the more. I haue hi­therto done nothing, vnbesee­ming the reputation of a far grea­ter aduersarie, and indeede af­foarded him somewhat too large answers, making bold with the Reader, and his gentle patience, rather then I would come behind in any sort of satisfaction. Henceforth I I must craue leaue to bee a great deale rounder and stricter with him, as drawing towards the Center. It a feriendus est homo, vt ne sentiat quidem perirese: for his comfort.

[Page 224] § 2. Num. 3. then. He acknowledgeth inuocation of Saints (though not of God) to be possible without faith in them. This is first against the generality of the Apostles text, Quomodò inuocabunt in quem, that is, in quēcun (que) non crediderūt? Rom. 10, How shal they call vpon him, in whō[soeuer] they haue not beleeued? And at least a man might inuocate God, though not as the Aqui [...] part. [...]. summae, quest. 25. Artic. 3. in resp. citans glossam. Deus per creationem, cui debetur Latria. Dominus per po [...]am, cui Dulia. Such are their fooleriet, that in one respect now, God and the Saint shall bee worshipped alike, yea with equall worship, with Dulia both. Whereas, [...] Deo nihil mi [...] est, or els, Non esset omne Deu [...] quod in Deo est, contrarie to the Axiome. See S. Leo sweetly pronouncing of this point, serm. 8. in N [...]t. Domini. creator of heauen and earth, yet [...], as some Saint, or demy-god, by this distinction; not ex asse but ex semunciâ, (as Contra Iul. lib. 3. cap. 2. Iulian the Pelagian cauilled with S. Austen de senis vncijs) albeit wee did not put affiance in him. Which were against the Apostles, Quo­modò inuocabunt? How shall they call? As who would say, Nullo pacto, not at all. Therefore, num. 9. he eates his word, and allowes faith in Saints themselues, as necessary for the inuocation of them too. In some sort, saies hee. An egregious blasphemy, and by which one Chosroes onely, a Persian, is knowne, none els that euer I read of, [...] Call [...]st. lib. 18. cap. 22. Hist Ecclesiast. (Nicephorus reporting it,) to allow faith in Saints, or in creatures, to be lawfull. Ioh 24. You beleeue in God, beleeue also in mee. Who might say this, but he that was more then a bare creature? Quis dicat Sanctorum, Crede in me, nisi Sanctus Sanctorum, saith S. Austen, de peccatorum meritis & remiss. lib. 1. cap. 14. And Origen to the same purpose, In Euang. Io­hann. Tom. 32. Non est di­ctum, Qui credit in vos, credit in me; etsi dictum est, Qui recipit vos, recipit me. It is not said, He that beleeueth in you, beleeueth in me, though it be said, He that receiueth you receiueth mee. And the one of these, is for the Sermo, in Origens declarati­on of it, the other for them qui à sermone, that is for the A­postles. The very same hath S. Austen, almost totidem ver­bis, vpon the same place of S. Iohn, Tract. 44. that you may know one Father borrowed of another, specially the La­tine of the Greeke. Each of them shewing this, that the Saints though they are to be receiued by vs, yet not recei­ued by faith, but Christ onely, who is the word of his father. [Page 225] And againe Origen more pithily, Hom. 4. in Ezech. Ad e­os qui in Sanctis fiduciam habent, non incongruè proferimus ex­emplum, Maledictus homo qui spem habet in homine. Against them that put their trust in Saints, wee alleadge that Scripture not without good cause, Cursed is the man that makes man his trust. And a little after, Si necesse est in aliquo sperare, omnibus derelictis speremus in Domino. If wee must needes hope in some bodie, leauing all let vs hope in the Lord. Like those godly Burgundions, whome Socrates reports of, lib. 7. hist. cap. 30. that weary of seeking ayde any more of man, they determi­ned to commit themselues henceforth wholy to God, and guided by the prouidence that neuer forsakes, chose the Christians God, who was then worshipped throughout the Romane Empire; And their reason was, because he was neuer knowne to faile any such as trusted in him. A most true E­logium, and a worthy ground of comming to God, accedendi ad Deum, that I may speake with the Apostle, Heb. 11. Which soone after was verefyed vpon them, by a most ioy­full experience; and a Bishop of France (no neede of the Pope to such worke, I wisse, whatsoeuer you dreame) bap­tised them, and incorporated them, after he had humbled them with fasting (a most worthie practise) seuen dayes to­gether, & instructed them in the faith. But this by the way. Returne we to putting confidence in God onely. How of­ten doth the Scripture particularly so appropriate it? Faith in God, Act. 20. Hebr. 6. Ierem. 17. Psal. 117. Psal. 146. &c. As who would say, It is the priuiledge wherein God and the creature communicate not, (like gloria mea not to be giuen to another, like Achilles [...]. his speare, which on­ly himselfe could brandish) no more then Ioseph and Puti­phar, or Ioseph and Pharaoh, the one in the gouernment of his priuate house, the other of his Kingdome, might bee consorted. Yet nothing reserued from Ioseph by either of them, but onely the one his wife, and the other his crowne. So is faith in God, one of Gods peculiars. Yea S. Chry­sostome obserues, Hom. 3. in Act. that the Apostles durst not [Page 226] say when time was, Fides in eum, that is, in Christum, but onely, fides per nomen eius, faith by his name. So tender a point this is. Which he repeates elsewhere. S. Cyrill also; of whom In fine huius. anone. In the meane while proceed.

§ 3. Numb. 4. He belyes S. Hieromes Commentary Emong S. Hieromes workes, the Com. vp­on this Epistle is twofold. In one, hee ex­tends charitatem to the Sanct [...], but not fidem, [...]ing, Qu [...] enim diligit caput, diligat oportet & membra, not so, Qui credit; In the other, thus he explaines himselfe. Quod autem di­co [...]ale est. Cre [...] quispiam in con [...] Deum: Non potest credere [...]si prius crediderit de Sanctis [...] vera esse que scripta sunt: Adam à D [...]e plas­m [...]m, Eu [...]m, &c. Where is conscience now, Mr. F. T? vpon the Epistle to Philemon, who speakes of no faith to be reposed in Saints, but credence giuen to their do­ctrine onely. S. Paules text then must thus be vnderstood, fidem in Deum, and charitatem in Sanctos, faith in God, and loue to the Saints, specially such Saints as there he speakes of, whose bowells must be refreshed, which are neither fit to be praied to, be­cause they stand in want; how much lesse to be the obiects of our Christian faith, if it be but because they are the subiects of our sight? According as to the Coloss. 1. 4. he vtters the same more distinctly, thus; faith in Christ; and loue to the Saints, though here he deliuer it [...], or vpon a heape. So likewise againe 2. Thessal. 1. 3. albeit when he saies, [...], of euery one of you towards another, he shewes plainly enough, that loue goes further then faith may, vnles euery Christian may beleeue in euery one, and then where shall we stay? Gregory Nazianzen: orat. [...] in Ep. ad [...] [...] habutt Phil. [...], [...] [...] [...]lloru [...] ex [...]tendo. Or, [...], pro communone [...], as the [...] words are, explaining these, that is, d [...]ds of mercie, to which he was [...] to [...]ort him; not to beleeue in Saints. 5. de Theolog: saies well, [...], It is one thing to beleeue in a thing, another to be­leeue what is reported of it. Which S. Hierome onely meant of the Saints in that place, that the histories that went of them in Scripture, were to be beleeued, and credited. Nazi­anzene adds, [...], for this belongs to God[onely,] namely to be beleeued in. And againe, [...] The Co [...] of Cal [...] in Al [...] ad [...]. pag. 21 [...]. Sur. call [...] this, a ma­ [...] [...]ference. [...]; If he be a creature, how doe we beleeue in him? making it an euident argument of the diuinity of the holy Ghost, that we beleeue in him. Also the Creed knowes no faith in Saints, yet a compleat forme of our beleeuing no [Page 227] doubt. As for Credo in ecclesiam, if some [...]. Symb. Nicen. Quanquam idem symbolum, vt exprimit [...] a Basi [...]o, in Epist. ad Antiochen, pag. 308. edit. Graec. Froben. Omnem fidem perspicuè reuocat ad tres personas Trinitatis, ne nomin [...] quidem Ecclesiā, nisi in diuersissimum sensum, sati [...] di [...] post. haue read it so, though there are other answers, yet it is enough that the Church consists of farre more then they will allow vs to put our trust in. And indeede it is a strange huddle and con­fusion of things, when the Church which was wont to conteyne the faithfull, shall haue them in it now, vpon whome we must relye by faith.

§ 4. Numb. 5. Almost senceles shift. As there is, Soli Deo gloria, saies he, and yet, honor & gloria omni operanti bo­num. Rom. 2. so there is a double inuocation, one of Saints, ano­ther of God. As if glory in the first place, bee not glory which we ascribe to God, in the second that which God vouch­safes to vs. Is inuocation so? Doth God inuocate? And why does our Sauiour conclude his prayer, the exemplary platforme of all praying, with Quia tua est gloria, &c. but that Saints haue no such glory; and yet pray wee must not, but onely to them, to whome wee may ascribe the like glo­ry. As the causall particle in that prayer implyes, QVIA tuum est regnum, & potentia, & gloria, &c. FOR thine is the kingdome, the power, and the glory. Here they are gone in the Pater noster, as before they were confuted by pag. 94 [...]. the Creed, for Primacy. Passus est sub Pontio Pilato, &c.

§ 5. Out of Gen. 48. Inuocetur nomen meum super pueros, he is not ashamed to renew such motheaten stalenesses. For what does that meane? Let them be called by my name, or let it be their title and style to haue Abraham, and Isaac, and Iacob, to their Fathers. For it is no small prerogatiue, Quo­rum sunt patres, Rom. 9. Did they giue commaundement to be inuocated as Gods, when they lay a dying (as he belike Iacob is made to Canonize him­selfe, yet aliue. would haue it) like Cyrus in Xenophon, Sic me colitote vt De­um? And in Limbo this? See Psal, 48. as the seuenty read it. [...]. That is, vpon their houses and lands. Which we in English read thus, They call their lands after their owne names, an vsuall [Page 228] phrase throughout the scripture. So Iam. 2. 7. They slaunder the worthy name which is called vpon you, [...], that is, as our late English excellently well hath it, by which you are called. And Esay. 4. Seuen women shall say to one man, let thy name be called vpon vs; in the very same sense: that is, let vs be reckoned and accounted thine. Salomon a little o­therwise, in the dedication of his temple, desires that Gods name may be called vpon it, yet not as if the temple should pray to God, &c. But the rather did the Patriarch here de­sire this, concerning Ephraim and Manasseh, least the dispa­rity of their birth hauing an Egyptian to their mother, might quaile their confidence in Gods promises to their Fathers, and that they might know they had as good inte­rest in them, as the rest of their kindred.

§ 6. As for S. Austens place, Locutinoum de Genesi, num. 200. Hee determines not whether the Patriarks were in­uocated by their children, as F. T. would beare vs in hand, or vpon them rather as we say, but onely biddes vs note, that the word inuocation is sometime veryfied vpon men, aswell as vpon God, and so exaudition likewise. What of that?

§ 7. Numb. 7. Let him prooue and not say, or not say till he prooue, that intercession to Saints by our seeking to them, and intercession of Saints to God for vs, is all one. Negamus & pernegamus. In all Chrysostomes Liturgy, (Our Church seemes to rec­kon it for Chry­sostomes, calling one of the prai­ers in it Chryso­stomes praier. I meane that which beares his name) where there is mention of the intercession of Saints for vs so many and so Nothing but [...]. And as for Marie, [...]. Not to her, not to them, but to Christ onely. sundry times, there is not the least praying on the Vnderstand this of the originall Greeke, not of Leo Tuscus his translation. faithfulls part, so much as once, to the greatest Saint.

§ 8. To the. 9. Numb. It will neuer be disprooued what the Bishop answers to S. Basils authority, that aliud est [Page 229] faceré, aliud statuere; and Legibus non exemplis viuen dum est. Gregory Nazianz. saying is, as I remember, Priuilegia pau­corum non faciunt legem Ecclesiae. Seneca himselfe, Permittit si­bi Consol. ad Mar­cian. quaedam, & contra bonum morem, magna pietas. And what though S. Basil should draw an argument from thence, which he doth not? Does not S. Paul so from a corrupt fa­shion of baptising ouer the dead, in some Writers opinions? 1. Cor. 15. See Bellar. de Purgat. lib. 1. cap. 6. confessing as much. Likewise Chrysostome giues folke Hom. 10. in Acta Apost. Non tamen (inquit) [...]. leaue to sweare by themselues, that the name of God might be lesse dishonou­red by them in their daily mention. Is it lawful therefore to sweare by ones selfe? Himselfe denyes it in the same place.

§ 9. Numb. 25. He saies there is no ordinance, or no de­cree, but in Councells. Let him bring them hardly then, let Our demaund of a decree for prayer to Saints. him cite the Councells. Are not they Fathers, and multiply­ed Fathers? Will his MAIESTIE refuse the Councells, wherein so many speake as one man, that is content to be ordered by the Fathers in singular, if the authority be pregnant, and the antiquity sufficient? But how shame­fully does he belye the Councell of Gangra? Neither is any such thing in the Proeme there, nor yet in the Canons. Onely a corruption is crept into the Proeme, which is nothing materiall neither, though it were graunted. See the Greeke at Paris, of Tilius his edition, see other Greeke copies. And, is to meet at Churches, or not to shun assemblyes in Basilicis martyrum, all one with the inuocation of Saints now be­come? Why rather should we not thinke their priuate masse condemned vnder a Priest and his boy, in the 6. Canon of that Councell, contra [...], against them that assemble without a lawful assembly? as likewise their Gossip-baptizers taxed in that which followes, [...], that is, against the performers of Churchbusinesses, without Priestly assistance, &c. On the other side, how mainely are the Popish practises in [Page 230] that Preface confuted? About Can. 1. the honour of the married life, the Can. 4. indifferency of celebrating with Priests married or vnmarried, Can. 14. against women leauing their proper hus­bands, to obserue the profession of I know not what con­tinencie, but like theirs certainly. Against Can. 12. & 13. affectation of apparell, as in the Nuns and Fryars now of all colours. Yea, Can. 3. for the authority of Masters ouer their seruants (the very case of Supremacy this day in question) though the one be Christian, the other an infidell: of which point Epiphanius most sweetly in a certaine place, Nauis ecclesiae non recipit fugitivum, ne (que) qui à proprijs Dominis discedit. The ship of God, lib. 2. Tom. 1. haer. 61. quae. Aposto­licorum est. or of his Church, admits no run-away, nor for saker of his owne ma­sters. Against departing with riches vnder hope of more holynes, which is their vow of pouerty, so magnifyed at Vide Praefat. Concil. this day. I might adde, out of comparison of the 19. Canon with the second in that Councell, that although fastings, such as the Church appoints, are to be kept, which we de­ny not, yet without preferring of fish before flesh, as the more holy, which is their error. And doe they tell vs of the Councell of Gangra? In which there is not one syllable, neither in preface nor bulke, of praying to Saints. Yea, in the 20. Canon, [...], and [...], beeing distinctly so mentioned, and attributed to the Martyrs, [...] Martres memo­ries, but Gods seruice. are put absolutely as onely [...], as Gods onely. Yet we haue Councells against them, euen auncient Councells, prayer to Angells beeing condemned in the Laodicean Councell, and called a close Idolatry, of which hereafter. Now if to Angels, how much more to Saints, as Epiphani­us his argument is, Ne Angeli quidem, nedum silia Annae; No not the Angels, much lesse the daughter of Anna, which is their Hzres. Collyrid. highest Saint. See the Councell of Nice, Can. 20. [...], prayers to God, and to God onely: as S. Paul in the Acts. 26. 29. [...], and, 2. Cor. 13. 7. [...], which is not Pauls speach more then vox ipsius naturae, the voice of Nature; Men praying still to God, and to God onely, by the instinct of nature. As Tertullian ob­serues [Page 231] somewhat not vnlike in his Apo­loget. Idem ferè Cyprian l. de vanitat. idol Nam & vulgus in multis Deum natural ter consitetur. Item, Quae haec summa'delicts est, nolle agnos­cere quē ignorare non poss [...] Yet the Papists so. O testimonium animae naturaliter Christianae. Nature her selfe teacheth men this point of relligion. But passe wee to more.

§ 10. S. Hierome against Vigilantius, neuer patronizes in one word praying to Saints. Yet F. T. is not ashamed to confound the questions still, of their praying for vs, with ours to them. Whereas if they pray for vs, they pray to God, and all our question tends onely to the end, that God be not intermedled with, in his right to heare prayers. For so in the Psalm. 64. I ween, Thou that hearest the prayer; and, To thee shall all flesh come. Well may they goe together; The hearer of the prayer is the receiuer of all, to him. But no parti­cular Saint receiues all flesh to him, Ergò. Againe, Psal. 5. v. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. many reasons are giuen of his praying to God (vn­to thee doe I pray, saith he) which vtterly abolish all praying to Saints. As namely, the absolute puritie of the diuine es­sence: For thou art a God with whom dwells no wickednes: wher­as, in his Angels themselues hee hath found folly, as Iob saies, And many the like. But returning to our Adioynder, how grosse is his ignorance numb. 19. that Adioynd. Numb. 19. The Latine Translator doubted not to translate, [...], hos oret, (the more wretch he) expresting also the Indicatiue moode in the Greeke by an Impa­ratiue in the Latine: (so prates the parret, and so he writes it) how boldly both? [...], is to pray, or to runne to pray, as if there were no other running? Does not S. Austen speake of the fashions of his time, curritur cum infantulis, for baptisme, no doubt, to be had of the Priest, not for praiers to the Priest; and so for many other causes, besides intercession? Likewise Denys of Mars-street, in his Epistle ad Demophilum, not vnfit to be tung into a Iesuites eare, to expell the deuill of rebellion that is in them (as they hold opinion of bells, that they are Doctrine of peace & good order out of Mars-street. to be dis-enchaunted:) Si famulum in Dominum, si adoles­centem in Seniorem, si filium in Patrem dicere videremus, &c. flagitiosè facere videremur, nisi CVRRENTES superioribus Would this stand with Card. Allens proiect against Q Eliz [...] epem ferremus, etiamsi for sitan illi priores iniuriam acceperint. Here is CVRRENTES, and yet in no such sense. But I will English the whole, for the good that may come of it. [Page 232] If we should see ones seruant giue his Ma­ster Superiours must be holpen against their subiect, with all speed, euen RVNNING, though abused but in tongue onely, yea though themselues haue done the wrong. bad words, the yonger to his elder, the sonne to the father, we might seeme to bee guiltie of no lesse then villanie, if we did not R V N and succour them, yea & that though the iniurie sprang first from them (viz.) the superiours. R V N saith Denys, and succour the Magi­strate. Yet with this man, currere is nothing but inuocare; to runne is to pray vnto. I might aske him here, whom hee went to inuocate, which of all the Saints, that same aliquem Sanctorum, as most fondly they construe, Iob. 5. that he could not come to in England, when he ranne beyond Sea. Besides that, [...], is, to the monuments of the Martyrs, not to the Martyrs themselues, whom we need not to runne vnto, if it bee as they say, that they heare our prayers, but may speake vnto them in euery place, and from euerie place, as shut vp no where. Let them remember their owne princi­ples, Non inijcimus Christo compedes: We doe not fetter Christ. [...] de Eu­cha [...] And surely, where the Lambe is, there are they. Apoc. 14. 4. & Euang. Ioh. 17. 24.

§ 11. In his 16. numb. (for I goe ouer them thus curso­rily, not curious of a method) when he thinkes hee hath greatest aduantage against the Bishop, and talkes so like a noddie, of a new Grammer; what sayes Truely he must either make a new Grammer to [...] his construction, or els retract his exposi­tion, & and, Num. 15. But will you further yet beare him confute his own glosse, & see him tript, as I may say, in his [...] play? The word HEE (saith the Bishop) cannot be referred to relliques. For the gender doth not suffer it. Why doth he then in the former place, make hos to signifie memorias martyrum? Doth the gender trowe you suffer it, either in the Latine or the Greeke? Can he make hi or ho, to agree wish memorias [...] monumenta, &c. Ad [...]ynd. he? [...] (sayes he) cannot signifie memo­rias martyrum, or [...], or [...], be­cause that is masculine, and these are femi­nine, or neuter. I might tell him of [...], or the like; which in effect are all one with [...] or memoriae. But let them stand aside. Euripides in Medeâ, speaking of the children newly returned from play, [...], that is, ex gymnasio ad eum vsum: not frō the [...] themselues, though the one be masculine and the other neuter. So here. [...], per metonymiam, is put for the place to which they belong, of what gender soeuer they are, that resort to the place. See Casaubone of this in The­ophrasti [Page 233] characteres. And withall heare, what the oracle of our parts, for Greeke and all good learning, Mr. Andrewe Downes, (whome I name by way of reuerence, and singular honour) hath taught vs of this matter, euen ludibundus, sometimes. In orat. Demosthen. contr. Androtionem. [...], pro, in comitio, vbi congregatur [...], in the same oration, pro [...]. Theophrast. in Charact. [...] Apud Lu­cian. [...], pro loco haben­di symposy. [...].. i. in loco vbi praestigiae spectantur. I suppose, this is the place that giues occasion to Mr. Casaubone, whom I late­ly named, to make the like obseruation; but remembring the generall, I had forgotten the particular, I confesse. At Athens in the Piraeum, not farre from the hauen, there was a place called the [...], viz. where proofe was made of wares and merchandize. Homer. Odyss. [...]. (in answer to your quotations out of Homer about Thetis and the rest) [...]:’ there is [...], for locus saltandi, and [...] for locus certandi. Plautus himselfe, if his mention offend you not, (though why should it, when you can front vs with your Ouid?) In iure, pro eo quod est, [...], vbi ius dicitur. So, in ius vocare, in ius ambulare, pergere, &c. that is, [...]. In one of the Apocryphaes, [...], pro, in loco vbi discuntur & docentur parabolae. [...], apud Aristoph. pro, [...]. Sexcenta sunt eiusmodi. I must bring you home. How often in S. Leo, or S. Gregorie, crastino apud sanctum Petrum, for, in Basilica S. Petri, or the like? Your owne Maldonate in 4. Matth. v. 23. hath the like obseruation, of the word ecclesiae, both from the Hebrews and the Greeks, as he saies. The persons giue name to the place that they vse. Chrysost. orat. 1. [...], to the same pur­pose. [...]. It is the Scriptures fashion, when a thing is done at such a place, or at such a time, to call both time and place by the name of the thing. So also of the persons. Why not? And yet [...], shall not be cum memorijs, but cum Sanctis ipsis. For [...] is [Page 234] the place, I say, when words of moouing to it, or remoo­uing from it, are vsed, as [...] before. But [...], implyes no such thing, and may therefore be vnder­stood of the Martyrs themselues. Do you now see the rea­son, good Sir, to varie the construction, without any in­constancie in the Bishop as you imagine?

§ 12. Likewise once againe, I must tell you, to your num. 17. the Cardinals argument is most ridiculously mise­rable, from veneration of relliques, to intercession of Saints. Quo ferrumine tandem ista? What sother hath he to make these hold? Though we deny relliques to haue been euer venerated in the primitiue Church with your manner of venerations. S. Austen indeede sayes, veneramur baptismum Epist. 145. and, Hortatio haec quae vbi (que) iam praedicatur, quae vbi (que) veneratur, de Agon: Christ. cap. 11. Baptisme, and the word preached, are venerable to S. Austen would haue Baptisme and the word preached to bee had in worship of vs. Which the Papists making slight of, diuert their veneration now to the Sacrament of the Altar, as if none but that. S. Chryso­stome hom. 8. in epist. ad Ephes. Angeli vene­rantur [...] Pauli, which were too much for an Angel, to worship Paul himselfe, much more his chaines. But, Estimation with [...], is called worship, if F. T. would vnderstand this. S. Austen. So happily rel­liques. They were venerabiliter habitae, respectfully kept, or regardfully pre­serued, not worshipped, nor adored. You may read S. Gregory about this point, Epist. ad Constant. August. where he mislikes the taking vp of dead bo­dies, to make relliques of them; the worshipping much more. They neither sought the liuing among the dead, which the Angell con­demnes, nor à viuentibus ad mortuos, which Esay forbids, and hee purged as you know by an Angell, and a coale. But what neede wee more words, when your selfe say, that Cap. 10. Numb. 19. of the Ad­ioynd. the Bishop graunts as much as you desire in this point? Doe then as he.

§ 13. Now to your numb. 17. and 18. Not hae, but hi, protect Countries without all doubt. Adloynd. Although the Cardinall citeth those words of S. Bisil, for the veneration of rel­lique [...], [Hi martvres, &c.] yet the intercession of Saint, is also CLEERFLY prooued thereby, and againe the vse and veneration of holy relliques, by the helpe & protection [...] we receiue from [...] and Marty [...]. Not the relliques of Martyrs, but the Martyrs themselues (if ought at all) vnder God. S. Basil meant no other­wise. Therefore Bellarmine is most idle, [Page 235] when he drawes such consequences, from the vertue of Mar­tyrs, to the veneration of their relliques. Are not relliques sub­iect to diuers casualties? to warres, to fires, to consumpti­on, &c. And shall they keepe Countries, that not them­selues? S. Chrysost. in Lazarum, saies, that the very houses wherein Bibles are, are the more defenced against Deuills and sundry calamities. Yet the Bible is not worshipped, by you especially. But for their loue to the Bibles, God doth this. So for them that honour his Saints without ido­latry.

§ 14. To Numb. 29. Mamas was but vocatus, not in­uocatus, nor aduocatus neither, as you translate it. [...], Vocatus is not straight [...]ca­tus, or aduocatus. saith S. Basil. And that might bee by Apostrophe. Or, as if we should say, Daniels God, not inuoking Daniel; so Mamas his god; wee name his name, but wee doe not inuo­cate him as our patrone. Onely we shew we consent in re­ligion with him, and in our ioynt seruice to the com­mon Lord. As he that commaunded all men to worship Daniels God. Dan. 6. 26. Does S. Basil say that Mamas e­uer helpt him? I warrant you not. What then does he els, but euen take aduantage of the honest peoples affection, towards the deceased champion, to establish them in the zeale of the true God, whome he serued and suffered for? In this sense it may be true, what you say out of Theodoret, cap. 8. num. 45. That, prayer to Saints (such praier as I haue Deus Christiano­rum, often in the Church. hi­storians. Does that inferre praying to Christians [...] or not rather to the God of Christians only? now described) confirmes Christs Diuinity. Which els it disables rather, but surely dishonours. And so I answer to your 22. and 23. numb. of this Chap. that by this meanes they might know the same God to haue holpen them, whose Martyr Mamas was, though they made no petitions to the Martyr himselfe.

§ 15. The defence of your translation of S. Basils text, against so cleare a light as is the originall greeke, is more then impudent. Therefore I passe by that, and come to Eusebius, the Cardinalls next author, in your Numb. 29. De praep. Euan. l. 13. cap. 7.

§ 16. Though that also about Eusebius, is of the same [Page 236] straine, for matter of translation. Quid The Bishop chargeth the Cardinall with fraud in p [...]ting the Greeke text, because the words in the Greeke are somewhat otherwise, making no expresse mention of praying to Martyrs, but onely at their tombes. Whereto I answer, that the Latine translator followed the sense of Euse­bius, gathering the same out of the circumstance of the place. For Eusebius shewing the conformi­tie of Platoes doctrine to our Christian relligion, &c: Numb. 29. A dioynd. tandem? You defend Christophorsons false glosse against Eusebius his origi­nall greeke text. Whom shal we beleeue in this case? Neither say, it is gathe­red out of the circumstances of the text. His MAIESTIE lookes for Fa­thers, in suo puro & natiuo, without your dashings, or in­terlacings. Nay verily it is an argument, that no such ser­uice of Saints was euer vsed in the primitiue Church, be­cause Eusebius here hath no such words. Who els would haue beene forward, you may be, sure to haue paralleled herein the Christian fashion with Platoes deuices. But he mentions not praying to them in the least word; the Tran­slator onely. Therefore as I said.

§ 17. You plead, that the Cardinall is guiltles of this fraud, and deales vprightly, though the Translator lead him aside into error. It is hard to beleeue you, when the Greek was at his hand. But in the meane time, you see his proofes are an­swered, which is all we stand vpon.

§ 18. Numb. 31. Out of Chrysostomes Orat. in Iuventi­num & Maximinum. I would I had the leisure to compare your relligion, with the relligion of those two. They com­plained of smoake, of sacrifice, &c. while Iulian dominee­red. Apud Th [...]t. Vnder you the sunne is darkened with such vapours, with your censing, perfuming, and the like. They offered to die in obedience to the Emperour, and so they did, though martiall men and well able to resist. With you, a­gainst the King, if the Pope proscribe him, Omnis homo miles est, as Tertullian speakes, euen Church-men and all. Apologet. But to the purpose. Adoremus for adornemus. How can you defend this? Are you not ashamed to reiterate it? What though your Ʋenetian Editions haue it? the Iuntae, and the Sessae, and such like? Is that enough to make it authentical, because it came from Venice? So you read angulos for ange­los, Can. 35. apud Garanzam in [...]ma. Cone. in the Laodicean Councell, as if that were the way to de­cline [Page 237] it. But it is well, that the Councell is so forcible a­gainst you, that it driues you into corners. As for [...], which is to touch, that it should signifie to worship, as you beare vs in hand, who beleeues it? Yet it is maruaile you inferre not faith in relliques, because S. Chrysostome sayes, Let vs imbrace them, [...], with faith. Which rather, I should thinke, checks your vse of relliques, as now adayes they are vsed, and lifts vp the mind à mortuis ad viuentem, or à spolijs mortuorum, from shirts and hand-kercheffs, to the liuing God.

§ 19. You quote Plutarch, Othone, [...]. Some thinke it should bee [...], [...]. per modum sup­plicationis tetigere manus. But in Plut. Otho I find neither, and both come to one ende. If your quotation be right (for I promise you I cannot find it) it prooues not, that touching is worshipping, with Plu­tarch, but that hands supplicate, or make request, which they performed then, of whome Plutarch speaks, [...], viz. [...], aggressi sunt, they set forward to suppli­cate and make prayer by hands, as I construe it. Else I knowe not what the meaning of your quotation is, and whence you had it, see you. You quote Crispinus his Dictionary, cō ­piled out of another of Budaeus his, as you imply. But in Crispins Dictionary of 1595. which is said to bee recèns restitutum & auctum, I finde not one word sounding that way. Therefore I thinke it is not in Budaeus neither, yet hee reckons vp many significations (I meane Crispine doth) as capessere Rempublicam, laedere', haerere & congluti­nari, gustare, comedere, perstringere etiam & taxare. Mar­uaile, how hee should leaue out onely this, if any such were. Sure you neuer turned the booke, but either belee­ued your Monitors, or thought it was so, because you wi­shed and strongly imagined it to be so indeed. Hesychius, and Suidas, are as dumb the same way about the sense of the word [...]. Stephen and Scapula, who both quote Budae­us for the senses of [...], yet haue none such neither. In the end of Plutarchs Otho, I finde onely this, speaking of the loue which the souldiers bare to Otho euen dead, [...], that is, some touched his hands, Which, I [Page 238] pray you, may not a man doe towards a dead bodie, for the loue he bore to the person in his life time, vnles hee wor­shippe it? Remember the story of Artemisia and Mausolus. That was more then touching, when shee eate and dranke the ashes of her dead husband, for very loue. Some kissed (saies Plutarch) the wound of the dead bodie, some touched his hands, some made obeysance a farre off. What is this to the matter? And one of the Dictionarists aforenamed, quotes the place of the Gospel, of many that touched the hemme of our Sauiours garment. Yet of worshipping it, not a word. I should thinke that were a fine place to ground worship­ping of relliques vpon, (if touching be worshipping) our Sauiour beeing as sacred and soueraigne in his life time, as any Saint is after his death. But the story of his interring by Ioseph and Nicodemus, (where there is no mention to Mark. 15. 46. this purpose) consutes relliques more then this can possi­bly helpe them. And yet least you thinke it holds onely in Christ, who was to rise againe the third day; heare how your Maldonate construes that of S. Iohn, Ʋolo eum manere Com. in 21. Ioh. donec veniam. This may bee (saith hee) though S. Iohn dyed, well enough. For manere is to tarry, non concisum ne (que) dilace­ratum, sed sanum at (que) integrum, quamvis mortuum. Which could not bee if he were to be cut out into mammocks, such Nemo distrahat Martyres, etiam [...] sensu. Vide August. de oper. Monach. c. 28. Alij membra Martyrum (si tamen Martyrum) venditant, &c. In Greg. Turon. lib. 9. c. 6. A sachel of mice-bones, moales-teeth, beares-clawes, &c. were found with a Mountibanke, in steade of true Relliques. as your Relliques are. Not Christ therefore, nor Iohn, were to be carued into Relliques. And were any worthier to be preserued, trowe you, then they?

§ 20. As for tangere genua, a circumstance which they were wont to vse that prayed, it shewes not that tangere sig­nifies to pray, nor yet to worship, vnles genua bee put to it, or some such rite expressed, which in Relliques holds not. S. Chrysostome does not say, Let vs touch their knees, but them howsoeuer. Which some body perhappes would construe without any great anagogy, of not abhorring either the death of Gods Saints, which is pretious in his [Page 239] eyes, as Dauid witnesseth (in his, what­soeuer Sure in S. Gregories time it was impious and sacrilegious but euen to touch the bodies of Saints dead in the Westerne parts; with whom we haue now to deale. Intolerabile est at (que) sacrilegum. Vide Epist. 30. lib. 3. Regist. indict. 12. it be in the worlds) or the me­morialls of the deceased, lately temples of the holy Ghost. But vpon that I stand not. So [...], in Homer; so Thet is elsewhere; so Hecuba in Euripides. What is this to touching in an absolute sense, to signifie worshipping? Is it not one thing what touch­ing simply signifies, another what touching with such parti­cular circumstance, as the beard, the knee, the hand? &c. Our Sauiour himselfe touched the leper, and cured him, Mat. 8. 3. And, Mar. 10. 13. for the like cause they brought young children to him, [...], that he should touch them,. i. blesse them, not worship them. You say, Iob pro­fesseth that hee kissed not his hand at the Sunne rising, which with you imports, that he worshipped not the Sunne. If you would persist in your first principle, that touching is worshipping, Iob should rather haue S. Chrysost. construes those words of Iob, Iob 31. (the Adioynd. notes no place) of the frailtie of all things, which appeares euen in the sunne and moones decayes; nothing to Adoration. Orat de Auarit. l. a [...]. Tom. 7. E­dit. Eton. said, that he touched not the Sun with his hand, when it rises, which who doth? And S. Chrysostom does not bid vs touch our hands, or kisse our hands, at the sight of the Relliques, but touch them. Let Chrysostome expound himselfe in ano­ther place. In his Comment. vpon 2. Cor. the last chapter, Hom. 30. he mentions not onely touching, but kissing one an­other (and that expressely in osculo sancto, with the holy kisse, or the relligious kisse;) yea he saies, they kissed the Church so, and the Church-porch so. Which, I suppose, your selues would not admit, that we should worship one another, or worship the Church, and much lesse the Church-porch, with relligious adoration. Therefore touching is no adoring; no nor Touching & kis­sing of holy things, is from a reuerent assecti­on, not a relligi­ous adoration. kissing neither, which is a touching in specie, as your Marti­all, no doubt, hath told you long ere this time. And now to Mr. Marshall therefore.

§ 21.‘Roma salutauit voce manu (que) Ducem. Matt. lib. 8. What is this to worshipping, and not rather to saluting, but that with you, to salute the Virgine, is to pray to her? We [Page 240] worship the God, whom we confesse we cannot touch. But, Otho protendens manum, adorauit vulgum, in Tacitus. By that reason, S. Paul adored the assembly when he stretched out his hand, speaking to them, Act. 26. 2. Which Athanasius sayes of himselfe, that he does too, as much as he may in ab­sence, to the Emperour Constantius. See Apolog. ad Constant. in the beginning. Did he worship him in so doing, trowe you? or rather make audience? Neither did Otho touch the people whome he worshipt, and yet you bring this, to prooue, that touching is worshipping. Venerantes Deum tangimus frontem, saies Seruius; but nostram, not deorum. What is this to tangamus relliquias, for adoremus? So the rest that you produce out of Paynim-idolatry, as your selfe con­fesse to your great glorie. And lastly, out of Ouid his good stuffe, Tange manu mensam, as we doe the booke when wee take an oath. What of that? Or would you euer reason so, if you had either conscience, or reason in you? We touch the booke when we sweare vpon it: Ergò, the touching of relliques is the worshipping of them. Well, Basil saies, that relliques Com. in Ps. 115. Orat. 1. in [...]uliā. The bodies of Saints departed profit [...] lesse [...] the [...] s [...]ules. helpe by contact, and so Nazianzen. And, 4. Reg. 13. the touch of Elizeus bones, reuiued the dead. Belike, the dead bodie worshipt Elizeus, whome it touched; for that you must say, or els you say nothing. We will soone grant, that God may dispence blessings by dead bones, but not to the worshippers, no not of the liuing Prophets, but of God onely. Him worship, Apoc. 19. and 22. Yea, S. Ambrose would not say, Tactu ipso medicabiles esse relliquias, if Tactus ipse were adoration. For why should he extenuate adorati­on so? I touch a wholesome hearbe, and it abates an­guish; I worshippe it not. Nay, the woman that found health by touching our Sauiours hemme of his garment, though he was the proper obiect of worship, which Saints are not, yet her touching was no symbolum of her adoration of him, albeit by Gods blessing a meanes of health to her. Therefore we denie your conclusion, numb. 42. that touch­ing includes veneration of the thing touched. Yea, sometime [Page 241] the healer touched the party grieued, (whom he worship­ped not you may be sure) as 2. Kin. 5. 11. Naaman lookt for it. But in the 4. of the same booke, v. 34. Elizeus practiseth it farre more strangely, vpon the Sunamites dead child, whō he raiseth to life. Of our Sauiour before, who toucht the leper, another time the beere that carried the dead, Luk. 7. [...]. 14. but worshipt neither.

§ 22. Numb. 46. you say, a fewe sermons of Ephrem can­not deserue the name of a Tome. Yet [...], and re­soluit Conc. Constan­tinop. Can 5. & Calched. Conc. in Act. tomum, or scidit tomum, often in the Councels, not for a huge volume, but what scrowle soeuer. Why may not the Bishop speake after that manner? Though you cannot de­ny, that Ephrems edition is distinguished by Tomes, as they are properly so called, vnlesse you bee verie stranger to the matter. And giue vs leaue to suspect your Crypticke authors of your owne editions, and but late editions, when we call for Fathers, that is no bastard Fathers, to determine con­trouersies. The Bishoppe was not onely true in quoting E­phrem, but quoted him out of the originall Arabique, that he wrote in. Not in coggerie therefore, as you call it, but so much the more to bee respected and credited, afore your grottae, or your Cryptae. As for Ʋossius the Translator and Prefacer, and setter forth, with whose authoritie, poore man, you are so much delighted, as his name in Dutch, which was his naturall language, signifies a Foxe, so you are but the Goose for your labour, if you credit him too far. And this as I was wisht from him that vnderstands these things best, so I tell it you.

§ 23. Now Numb. 46. Wee may pray to God alone, you say, and yet to Saints too. Fine phoolosophyes. Tibi soli Ambr. in Psal. Hieron. ad Eu­sto [...]h. peccaui, and yet he sinned against men. Let S. Ambrose teach you, or S. Hierome either, the meaning of those words, to establish in you at once, as well loyaltie to Princes, as pietie to God: that he sinned against God onely, as his compe­tent Iudge, beeing vtterly exempt from flagella hominum, from humane punishments. And in that sense hee sinned [Page 242] not against any man.

§ 24. Numb. 47. S. Pauls stirring vp the Thessalonians to pray for him, is compared with prayers made to Saints deceased. Quàm nihil simile? Did S. Paul desire them to pray to Saints for him, or to Angels? &c. That were some­what. In the meane while, our requesting of good men to pray for vs, that yet liue, is no cultus, no Church-seruice, or els we might haue a lyturgie in the Church to liuing Saints, to mediate for vs to God. And not onely to the nowe li­uing, but to the veroe Saints in glory. Witnes their owme Car­dinal Tolet in Sū ­ma C [...]uum l. 1. c. 1. Qui prec [...]s pe­ [...] à sa [...]do [...]e, De [...] se [...]cere prae [...]s [...]mit. viz. Sae­ [...]e [...]dotaliter, & [...] a part of Church-seruice. Now, if we may offer them to the Saints, the Saints may pete­r [...], aske the n. Why not▪ So as Tullie Philip. 2. (guided by the light of nature) [...]rves out a­gainst. [...]. O h [...]inem dete­ [...]lem, for be­ing Cae [...]sar. Priest, after his death; that is, honou­ring him in pub­lique and Preist­ly [...]shion. But that were very absurd. Ther­fore your comparison is not fit, and your consequence does not hold. Fraternall and lyturgicall, or brotherly and Churchly, officious and relligious mediations, I say, are di­uerse. To the Saint it is worship, to one another of vs it is not. As appeares by the example which your selfe bring, of S. Pauls requesting the Thessalonians for him, whō doubtles he worshipped not, beeing so much his inferiours, though the Thessalonians like the Lystrians might seeme to doe so to him, (in your madde fancie at least) if they had requested the like charity of him.

§ 25. You aske the Bishop, who published Ephrem, how many Tomes of him, &c. In which matter we are not scru­pulous to shape you answer to the full, though it were more that you asked. Of Tomes before. The words are these, which willingly I would set downe, both in the Arabique and the Hebrew, as I haue receiued them of the Bishop, if we had such characters at hand. But in the Latine thus, both for forme & meaning. Illaica we shaueca lam atlabu.. i. Ad te & praeterquam ad te, non facio orationem. In English thus, for the satisfaction of euery Reader, your selfe and all, good Mr. F. T. To thee, and but to thee to none, I make my prayer. The Bishop cited them out of a manuscript which hee keepeth yet to be seene, vpon any occasion, called the Diuruall of the Maronites, a certaine kinde of Monks, in a Monastery on Mount Sinah. Which booke was printed at Rome, anno 1584. at the commaundement of Gregory 13. by Dominicus Basa in Syriaque characters, though it be the Arabique [Page 243] tongue, vnder the name of the prayer of S. Ephrem. The words also before and after, are these; Accipe deprecationem meam ô Domine, non propter iustitiam meam, sed propter mise­ricordiam tuam, & in multitudine benignitatum tuarum, & mi­serationum tuarum, salua animam meam, quae captiuata est à mor­te. Memor esto mei ô Domine, & etiamsi peccaui & vulneratus sim vulneribus laethalibus, tamen NON PRECOR QVENQVAM PRAETERTE. Sed ad misericordiam tuam & bonitatem me recipio, quoniam tu es ille Dominus Deus omnia cōprehendens, & potestas tua super omne vitam trahens, &c. That is; Receiue my prayer O Lord, not for my righteousnes, but for thy mercyes sake, and in the multitude of thy bountyes and of thy compassions, saue my soule which is taken prisoner of death. Re­member mee O Lord, and although I haue sinned, and am woun­ded with deadly wounds, YET DOE I NOT PRAY TO ANY BESIDES THY SELFE. Looke you; The Pa­pists would haue them that are oppressed with the consci­ence of grieuous sinnes, fly to the Saints as fittest to deale with, or to deale by, for desperate offendors; they beeing too vnworthy to appeare immediately before God. Yet S. Ephrem saith, that although hee haue sinned, and be dead­ly wounded, yet to God, and to God onely, doth he com­mend himselfe by prayer. It followes. But to thy mercy and bounty doe I betake my selfe, because thou art that Lord God, which comprisest all things, (or embracest all things) no doubt the most recreant sinners of all) and thy power is ouer all that liueth and breatheth, &c. Besides this, which yet is pregnant enough to iustify the Bishop from beeing such a falsary, as this man would make him, (who may rather feare the im­putation of it himselfe, as if his two letters were as many marks in his forehead to know a False Theefe by) besides this I say, though S. Ephrem (as he is now printed) haue not these words verbatim, yet in all the procationes and orationes of his (which of purpose haue been perused and read ouer for this ende) in the first Tome (for if any of it bee E­phrems, that is; as for the rest, the Bishop will avouch it, [Page 244] that they are no more Ephrems workes, then his owne) there is neuer any the least mention of praying to any Saint. And so much also of Ephrem and his authority bee spoken.

§ 26. Numb. 47. Ambiguously, if not fraudulently, or fraudulently if not falsly, you translate, [...], prayeth vnto them, for standeth in neede of them. Who euer denyed but wee need the Angels, and the heauenly messengers, as [...] Hebr. 1. yea the Sunne, and the Moone too, [...], made and appointed for the com­mon good by God? Yet I pray you, let vs haue no pray­ing to them. And is this the place that you would needes helpe the Cardinall with, out of S. Chrysostome, after the Bishops answer so pregnant to those authorities which hee brought before? For let me tell you in a word, you dash against that rocke, all your foming waues [...], the rocke I say of the Bishops double caueat. 1 First, de rebus necessarijs ad salutem, which Chrysostome neuer held prayer to Saints to be. Nay hee sayes that our Sauiour yeil­ded to the poore woman Matth. 12. suing for herselfe, and Hom. in ea verb. denyed her when shee vsed the Apostles for her mediators, and generally, that he respects our prayers for our selues, more then others for vs. Yea Tom. 1. in Genesin. pag. 345. Edit. D. Hen. Sauile. he sayes God neuer heares the prayers of the dead for vs, but onely when there are none left aliue to make intercessi­on in our behalfe. And hee whets it with that place [...], Esa. 48. 11. not onely [...] sayes hee, but if there were none els, [...], God will doe it for his owne sake. See ibid. pag. 49. of Iob, Daniel, and Noe, who he sayes benefitted others in their life time by Idest in Gen. c. 19. serm. 43. I­tem in Acta Apost. c. 16. Hom. 36. in Ethic. [...]: God takes it vnkindly at our hands, when we dare not trust him so farre, as to speake for our selues, but set vp other mediators to him in our roome. praying for them. But euen they being dead shall not be heard, sayes God: To shew, that the most potent for media­tion in their life time, are not to bee sought vnto after death. See pag. 360. and 361. to the same purpose. Yet most [Page 245] absurdly you prate numb. 55. that pray­er to Saints is a necessary duty, and may not be spared, nor bated vs at any hand, because the Catholicke Church hath practised it. Does not this bewray your beggarly proofes for prayer to Saints, together with your base conceit of the articles of faith, and things necessary to saluation? I remember Bonauenture (and hee not the worst of your schoole-men) In 4. senten. Dist. 45. art. 3. quaest. 3. hauing alleadged many reasons against prayer to Saints, and surely not to be despised, howsoeuer hee thought of them, determines thus in the ende, as in very good ear­nest, that those reasons are no reasons, because facit hoc communiter ecclesia, & constat quòd non errat, &c. that is his last resolution. The Church doth otherwise, and shee for cer­taine cannot erre. So you. But what saies the spirit, Psal. 93. v. 6. Eleuauerunt flumina vocem suam, the floods O God haue lift vp their voice. That is the noyse and the dinne which your Church makes. But. v. 8. testimonia tua credibilia nimis, &c. This drownes the other, not the other this, as Bona­uenture fancyeth. The Sonne of Sirach sayes right well, cap. 16. v. 3. Better is one that doth the will of God, then a thousand transgressors. The like sentence [...]is cited out of your owne Panormitane. See Chrysostome at large following the same point, and quoting that very place of the Son of Sirach, Hom. 8. in Acta Apostolor. where among other things he thus sayes; That a multitude not agreeing in the will of God, [...], is as good as no bodie, &c. And yet when did you bring vs the consent of the Church, (vnlesse it be your owne late faction, [...], but not [...], as S. Chrysostome there distinguishes) that alleadge no Councell, no Canon, Chrysoft. adds there, Multi in gehēna, pauci in regno. And, [...]. As he of children, so we of Fathers and au­thors themselues, vnlesse they be very ap­prooued. 2 nor no ordinance, within the compasse assigned for sound antiquity, but pri­uate men onely, voluntary deuotions, popular multitudes, which is the o­ther head, or the other horne, as I [Page 246] may so call it of the Bishops answer, and that impregna­ble?

§ 27. So Numb. 51. You adde to the authority that the Cardinall cited out of S. Chrysostome, certaine words next following, wherein there is not one dram of matter to your purpose, though they were squeezed to the proofe. Howbeit I make hast, yet I will set them downe. Thus he sayes. Therefore darest thou be so bold to say, that their Lord or Master is dead, whose seruants euen when they are dead, are Ex Hom. 66. 2d Pop Antioch. vel 26. Hom. in 2. Cor. the protectors of the world? (This may prooue perhaps their intercession for vs, though in strict Logicke it prooues not that neither, but ours to them no way, no colour.) Then hee goes forward. And this is not onely seen at Rome, but al­so at Constantinople. For euen here the sonne of Constantine the great, thought his Father to be much honoured, if his bodie were layd before the gates of the Fisherman. Thus Chrysostome. And what is this to the matter? Though I remember the same Father speaking of Constantinople in another place, sayes, How. 11. in 4. ad Ephes. If a man [...] lost [...] relligi­on, he might finde et at Co [...]tant [...]no­ple. the common voyce was, that they were a people that would entertayne any relligion, euen the Christians among them, and professed. The rather this perhaps vnder a sem­blant of deuotion, but the place shewes not so much as that. Vnlesse you please your selfe therein, that S. Peter is called the fisherman. Of whom I remember what Arator, lib. 1.

—Petrus omnia prendens (the Pope iust,)
Bethsaidá satus vrbe fuit. Then,
—Quo nomine Hebraeo
Venatorum est dicta domus, quia verus ab illà
Ecclesiae venator adest, &c.

You haue succeeded the hunter, and Abac. 1. 15. the fisher too. Specially in troubled waters.

§ 28. In the 53. Numb. You say somewhat, if you could prooue it, that they that oppugne prayer to Saints, op­pugne a notable argument of Christs diuinity. Which is so con­trary to all truth, that Athanasius, and Cyrill, and as many as prooue the diuinity of our Sauiour, against the Arrian [Page 247] heresie, prooue it by this argument among the first, some­time that he is prayed to, sometime beleeued in, sometime worshipped. So Domine Iosu suscipe spiritum meum; Stephen Act. 7. 5 p. at his death. And it is Bellarmines owne argument against the Transyluanian Arrians, to maintaine the diuinity of our Sauiour Christ by. So Psal. 72. Prayer shalbe made euer vnto him. ‘—vocabitur hic quo (que) votis. Aeneid. 1. And because you quoted Martiall euen now, take Martiall;

Qui fingit sacros auro vel marmore vultus,
Non facit ille deos, qui ROGAT ille facit.

Doe you see how gods are made, not as Michael Angelus, D [...]ina [...] M [...] h [...] & Ti­ [...]ani. Flor. Rem. l. 8. de orig [...] ­r [...]s. [...]. 3. or other Statuaries in your Church are wont, whose diuine hand most ridiculously you magnifie? Of our Sauiours quia, I spake before, quia tuum est regnum potentia & gloria. As who would say, therefore we pray to him, and but to him that stands inuested with these prerogatiues, wee pray to none, as Ephrem said euen now. Yet you will cauill per­haps, as you insinuated before, or rather more then insi­nuated, in the beginning of this Chapter, that honour and glory is to euery well doer, Rom. 2. Therefore to the Saints. But it followes in the Lords prayer, in saeculum saeculi, for e­uer and euer. Gods eternity confutes you, which the Saints doe not communicate in, neither ab antè at all, nor à retrò in the sense that the Lords prayer hath it. For the Saints continuance hath fluxe and succession, so hath not Gods, but is tota simul, as Bo [...]thius hath explained, and diuers o­thers. Who onely hath immortalitit. [...]. Tim. 6. Of Athanasius see answer to your 8. Chapter. Of Cyrill thus briefly, out of one onely booke of his, De rectâ Fide ad Theodosium. The Angels (saies he) were bidden to wor­ship Adorate e [...]m o [...] ­nes Ang [...]l [...] Dei. Heb. 1. the Son; poterant enim; & valde meritò, humanitatis viden­tes paruitatem, tardiores ad colendum & adorandum esse, & ad glorisicandum eum quem nobis similem cognoscebant; vt quàm longissimè discedere viderentur ab errore. That is: For they might, and that very iustly, considering the stendernes of his hu­mane-nature, be the lo [...]ther to worship and to adore him, and to [Page 248] glorifie one whome they knew to be like vnto our selues, auoiding so, the very shew of committing the error (of idolatry) as care­fully Abstinete ab om­nis spe [...]ie [...]li. as was possible. Doe you see how dangerous it is to worship a man? and how carefully the Angels fled of from that error? Themselues forbid themselues to be wor­shipped, Reuel. 18. and here they are faine to be commaun­ded to it, afore they can be brought to worship a Man. Yet what man? Adoratur, quidem vt vnigenitus, et si vocetur pri­mogenitus, id quod manifestissimae humanitatis mensuras maxi­mè decet. As the first begotten he worships, as the onely begotten he is worshipped. For he consists, ex natur a adorabili, & adoran­te, saies the same Cyrill there. According as his owne words are, Ioh. 4. Nos adoramus quod scimus. Yet playner. Num igitur tanquam hominem adoramus Immanuelem? Absit. Deliramentum enim hoc esset, & deceptio, ac error. That is. Do we therefore worship the Immanuel as a man? God forbid. For that were to doate, to erre, and to be deceiued. And, In hoc e­nim nihil differremus ab his qui creaturam colunt vltrá condito­rem. That is, For in so doing we should, differ nothing from them that worship the creature aboue the Creator. Not that any wor­shipt the creature more then the creator, (who so madde?) but euery iuxtà is vltrà with S. Paul, when any thing comes to be worshipped besides God, Rom. 1. Many the like clauses are in that booke, but with this I will ende, to shew Cyrills iudgement of faith in Saints, which was the thing that wee beganne with. Alioqui quemodè in illum cre­damus? Else how should we beleeue in him? namely if Christ bee not God. Againe, Non enim tanquam in vnum nobis simi­lem (yet the Saints are like vs, I am. 5. 17.) ne (que) etiam in homi­nem fides, sed in Deum tendit naturalem & verum (for we are [...] too, but not [...], Gal. 4. 8. whome we [...]. must not so much as [...], not giue dulia to, vnlesse it be naturalis deus) in personâ Christi. That is. For our faith is grounded, not vpon one like vs, (as the Saints for certaine are; no) nor vpon any MAN; but vpon the naturall and true God in the Person of Christ. And wot you what he addes yet, for [Page 249] assurance sake? Hinc quidam curabant, ne fides in Christum re­ciperetur, namely, quia eum simplicem hominem minime (que) deum esse putabant. That is. For this cause some endeauoured to hin­der the enterteyning of faith in Christ, because they were perswa­ded he was a meere man, and not God. Would the Church at that time allow faith in Saints thinke you? Ergò necessariò ad periculum & metum illum tollendum, sidem referebat in Dei­tatis naturam (Christus viz,) & quidem in persona patris, & non nostra humilitate, dicebat, Qui credit in me, non credit in me, sed in eum qui misit me. That is. Therefore of necessity to preuent that feare, and that daunger, (Christ) reduced our faith in him vnto the nature of his Godhead, and said in the person of his father, and not in our [natures] meannesse, He that beleeueth in mee, beleeueth not in mee, but in him that sent mee. This agrees with S. Chrysostome, who, as I told you before, obserues that the Apostle durst not so much as name sidem in Chri­stum, faith in Christ, a good while after his resurrection, till the world was better seasoned with the beleefe of his Godhead. But hereof so much.

§ 29. Numb. 58. Certaine bookes of Scripture, you say, are not known by what authors they were penned, and yet they car­rie the force of authoritie notwithstanding. Therefore Homilyes falsly or vncertainely attributed to these and these Fathers, are a­uaileable against the King, in the trying of this controuersie.] Ne­gatur consequentia. There we know the inditer, though we doubt of the penman. Here all rests vpon the credit of the writer. See S. Austen of thi [...], lib. 3. de Trinit. in prooem. Item lib. 2. ad Vincent. Vict. Epist. 1 [...] ad Hieron. Epist. 7. ad Marcel. Epist. 48. ad Vinc. Ep. ad Fort. 111. Item lib. 2. de Baptis. contra Donat. cap. 3. S. Hieron. in Ep ad The­oph. aduers. Ioh Hierosolym. Quae omnia apud Grat. 9. Dist. Decret. Diuine authoritie goes not with true Fathers, saies Gelasius, S. Au­sten, and your owne Who also distin­guishes between Canonita veritas, & Ca [...] ­ca authoritas. Driedo, with many more, much lesse with the suspected or questioned. Though suppose it were o­therwise, what sayes Maximus, or Am­brose, or whosoeuer he is, when you haue done all you In natoli D Ag­netis. can? For I spare to tell you that this Oration is not in Am­brose, where diuers others are of them which are found of late to be Maximus his broode. So as this also may seeme [Page 250] to smell of a grotte. I will take the words, as they lie in your booke, and of your owne translating: We beseech thee, O Vir­gine, with as feruent prayers as wee may. The very Latine words are these. Quibus [...] precibus exo [...]amus. Not as hee false­ly translates them, as seruently as wee may, (there is no word of feruencie there, or any such thing:) but doubting belike that shee was cleane out of the hearing of prayers; which we also thinke. Which wee our selues are ready to doe, I meane to pray to any that wee may. But hee that sayes so, doubts of the lawfulnes of his owne act. How thinke you? or if this like you not, you may do well next time to set downe Maximus his owne words in Latine, and sparing yours, to leaue the Reader to his owne interpretation of them, vnlesse you could better. And why I pray you does Maximus pray onely to Agnes among so many Saints, as he Panegyrizeth in those Orations, both men and women? Or how did he say a little before, Veni iam Virgo ad Thala­mum, &c. Is not your owne note, in the Margent there, this, IMITATIO? to shew that it is not reall but figu­ratiue. And yet you are hee, that will allow no tropes for­sooth, in the fathers compellation of Saints deceased.

§ 30. Numb. 63. You say, Nazianzene exhorted others, to imitate the example of her, that prayed to the blessed Virgine. Yet in Nazianzenes words, euen as you cite them your selfe, there is no such thing but only that they should reioyce, and giue eare, both sorts of them, both married and vnmarried: for to both (he sayes) his narration may serue for an ornament. This is all. What shall wee say to him, that so shamefully belyes his owne tale, and corrupts Nazianzene? Nei­ther doe you wipe away the staine of inconsequence and contradiction about a double Cyprian in that Orati­on of Nazianzene, which the Bishoppe had charged you with. In so much as Billius your owne man, confesseth, that Nazianzenus hîc caecutijt, Nazianzene was dazled here. Lastly, suppose the damosell made such prayer, as you speake of, it will alway be true, what I told you out of Seneca, Permittit sibi quaedam & contra bonum morem magna pietas. Deuotion transports, if it bee feruent, commonly. Gorgonia, Nazianzenes sister, abandoned her chamber, in Apud Nazianz. Epitaph. Gorg. [Page 251] her fit of sickenes, but a little slaking, & went to the Altar to pray to God, threatning not to depart ( [...] saith Na­zianzene) till she had her desire. Was that well done? And yet her fit. cleane left her, and shee came home well. For she prayed to God, not to the Saints. But I speake of the ab­errations of mindes, that are otherwise godly, euen in pray­er. Therefore when Abraham was to doe that great worke Orat. in eam rem. (saies S. Chrysostome) of sacrificing his son, God called him by his name, Abraham, Abraham, and he answered, Here I am. Not to shew in what place he was, which God doubted not, but that he knew what he did, and was not transported with any violent pang of passion. [...], saies the famous Apostle, 2. Cor. 5. 13. Wee are madde to God. Els Ignatius giues to maydens this precept in speciall: That, when they pray, at any time, they should [...] Epist 6. quae ad Philadelph. [...];. i. haue onely Christ and his father before their eyes, being illuminated by the holy Ghost. How sweetly hath he com­prehended the blessed Trinity alone, and shut out al others, from communicating with them in prayer? Now breifly to your seuenth Chapter: Of your sixth thus much.

To the seauenth Chapter of the Adioynder: Chap. 7. of the Defence, &c.

Wherein (answerably to the Title that he giues to his) the Fathers of the third ranke, their te­stimonies brought for Inuocation of Saints, are shewed to bee most plentifully assoyled by the Bishop, and S. Ambrose by name to haue receiued no iniurie, nor disgust from him, no not the least: (could they as wel iustifie their false prin­ting of him, a most inexpiable abuse:)

As also, That what he talkes of a generall pra­ctise of Inuocation of Saints in the Primitiue Church, both by the Fathers and the Faithfull, is a meere iest, and a Iesuiticall crake: Epiphanius besides others prophesying euen then, (and in this very matter) that Haeresis est sicut mala mulier, Heresie is like a shrew, getting groūd vnsensibly by the conniuence of people, vnles snebd at first, (which our age hath found true) as also (which F. T. here brings to our mindes, in not resting satisfyed with the Bishops an­swers, though neuer so absolute) that shee will be sure to haue the last word.

§ 1. NOthing is more accurate then that diuision of the Bishops, of the confused rout of the Cardi­nals witnesses into three classes. Some true Fathers, but not truely alleadged: Some truely alleadged, but not true Fathers: Some true and truely alleadged, but nothing to the purpose. Yet this man derides it, counts it not worth three chips. What should one stand tugging with such a sowter­ly fellow, qui neque literas neque nare, that knowes not art, [Page 253] when it is brought before him, and laid on his trencher? To the third of these ranks, belong those Fathers, sayes he, whome we must now intreat of, Nyssen, Nazianzen, Hierome, Maxi­mus, &c. We must see whether Apostrophes, or Rhetoricall com­pellations may bee discouered in these mens prayers to Saints. Which the Bishop had both answered, and backed with sun­dry reasons: as that they speake to other things in like phrase of speech, whome neuerthelesse they would neuer speake to, but in a figure of Rhetorique: So Luk. 1. 76. Et tu puer. Yet the child vn­derstood not Zacharie prophecying. Vnles we will continue the miracle, as I graunt some of the Fathers do, Origen, Theophylact, &c. but sure it needs not. And againe, 1. Cor. 15. O death, O hell, where is thy sting, or thy victorie? Eusebius to Pietie, de vitâ Constant. lib. 5. Ambrose to the water of Baptisme, lib. 10. in Luc. cap. 22. Nazianzene to the feast of Easter, Orat. 2. in Pasch. Of which sort wee haue many in Scripture too, and name­ly that, Numb. 21. 17. Rise vp well. Cantic. 4. 16. Arise O North, and come O South, and blowe, &c. Besides that they pro­fesse, they are vncertain whether they are heard by the par­tyes they speake to, yea or no. Nazianzen of Constantius, or rather of Constantine, [...], if thou discernest any thing that is here done. So of his sister Gorgonia. So Nyssen of Theodorus, Hierome of Nepotian, &c.

§ 2. We are admonished of 4. things by this man in his third numb, to disprooue the Bishops answer in this be­halfe.

1 First, that the doubt of some mens estates, as not deliuered from Purgatorie, nor hauing payd their last farthing (though Tertul­lian call inferos nouissimi quadrantis exactores, hell (not Purga­tory) De resurrect, carnis. the exactor of the last farthing) might make them to be vn­certaine whether they were heard or no, by such as they spake vnto. Wherefore is this? That one errour may support another, whereas rather each destroyes the other, as Cadmus chil­dren, or as they their brethren, whome Moses set on worke to mutuall slaughter, Exod. 32. For if they held them to be in paines, and not in glory, how would S. Cyprian, Orat. de lapsis. will not allowe Martyrs to helpe vs afore the day of iudge­ment: much lesse I should thinke those, whose state is either miserable, or at the best but vncertaine. Credimus quidem posse a­pud indicem plurimum [...] martyrum, &c. sed cum iudicij dies venerit, post occasuns saeculi, &c. And soone after, Putemusne quenquam priùs quàm vindicetur ipse, alios posse desendere? Shall any helpe another, that is yet vnreuenged himselfe? Yet so are all the Saints & Mar­tyrs, Apoc [...]. 10. Howbeit Emanuel Sain A­phor. [...]. O [...]atio, is for soules in purgatorie to be praved to and all. Possu [...] [...] & an [...] quae sunt in Purgatorio, sayes he. So crosse he is to Cyprian, and in the other extremitie cleane. But to which side soeuer of the two you encline, they both consute the Adioyn­ders fiction here, that the Fathers would pray more confidently to Saints departed, but for feare of purgatorie. they pray to them? were they not afraid of that, Thou which hearest others, help thy [Page 254] selfe? Or if they pray vnto them, afore they are certified of their estate, either they are rash in praying (for there must be no wauering Iames 1. 6.) or else it ap­peares they dreamt not of Purgatory. Would you haue them to mammer, as Elias said merrily once of Baal, Perhaps he is gone to warre, or perhaps in his iour­ney, so perhaps he is gone to Purgatory? You say, they made no question of their hearing, that were Saints declared and ac­knowledged, and you name Theodorus in Nyssen for one. Yet of him, Nyssenus in the Orat. you quote, Vbicun (que) tandem fueris, wheresoeuer thou art. Hee doubted therefore. Certenly A­braham hath not knowne vs, nor Israel acknowledged vs, Nune cognoui,. i. s [...]re & ipsum, & a [...] fect de A­brahem. Gen. 22. 12. Therefore Abraham a Saint declared. 2 meum say you, though erroneously, and Deus Abraham, Deus Isaac, confirmes no lesse by our Sauiours exposition. This was your first exception.

§ 3. Another, that when Nazianzen saies to Constantius, and so others to others, If thou hearest, or if thou discernest, it is not of doubting, but of adiuration, as when a friend to a friend, If you loue me: and S. Paul to Philemon, If thou account me as thy partner: that is, because I know thou accountest me. That Nazianzenes meaning may be this, Because ô Constantius I know thou discernest, &c. Which I list not to refute, but re­ferre to the Readers indifferent iudgement, whether Nazi­anzen in bespeaking Constantius so, should meane to adiure him, and all other soules of Christian Kings, whom there he calls vnto, no lesse then his. The Greeke Scholiast saies plainly, vpon that place, [...], this is taken from Isocrates, who perhaps held not that the Saints see all cleer­ly afore the day of iudgement. And he construes it in o­ther words [...] (for he was ab­sent) If thou hast any [...] to discerne and heare things here done. [...]. Now, [...], is no forme of adiuration, but of doubting still. Else it should be [...], like S. Pauls [Page 255] [...]. And by the way, you may see how true it is, that the Bishop obserues, of the Fathers falling into Rheto­ricall acclamations, whereof this was one, taken from Iso­crates, a Mr. in that faculty. But more cleerely of Gorgonia, Si Sancta animae haec talia persentiscant. If the holy soules vn­derstand such things as these. This is no adiuring of Gorgonia, I trowe, but his doubt in generall, euen of them he spoke not to, but onely of.

§ 4. 3 A third is, That it is dangerous to say the Fathers carri­ed themselues like Orators. Not a whit I warrant you, though it be your shame to mistake them so grossely, as from thence to patch vp your damnable idolatryes. So wings, and armes, and eyes, and other members are attributed to God in holy Scripture. A stumbling blocke to the Anthro­pomorphites, or such shallow wits, but no fault of the holy Ghostes, qui scribit vigilantibus, as lawes are made. Wee i­magine not, saies S. Austen, our God to be a Cupid, because he is described to haue wings and arrowes, lib. 3. contra Crescon. c. 78. You heard before, what Nazianzenes commentor sayes, of his borrowing from Isocrates. Though the Bishop sayes no where in plaine tearmes, that the Fathers did as Orators, not as Christians. But, Theologiamne docore, an rhe­toricari putes? Would you thinke these men meant to read a le­cture of Diuinitie, or to practise their Rhetorique? And, Ora­torum encomia, quae nihil habent enucleatae Theologiae: Orators prayses, which containe no perfect substance of Diuinitie: sup­pose you, like that which your Schoolemen deliuer. So Hie­rome (saies the Bishop) speaks with Paula and Nepotian: how? With both as an Orator, with neither as a Christian, that is, ac­cording to the rules of strict catechisme. What of this?

§ 5.4 Your fourth obseruation in the 8. numb. is petitio principij, and the turning of the wheele. Therefore I will not meddle with it. Let the Bishops answer be but applyed to your obiection, and it will salue it as before.

§ 6. You praise pictures by the way, and say that they greatly edifie the people. Which shewes to what kind of crea­tures [Page 256] your booke is dedicated, namely those, whome an I­dol may hold in awe for their simplicitie, and though it bee Ne [...] cognoscit Deum ex simula­chro. A [...]tisthe­nes apud Theo­dor. contr. Graec. 1. not good at teaching any thing, saue only lyes, as the holy Ghost saies, in Abac. 1. 18. yet it may serue well enough to bee their Master. You doe but vtter your ware, when you en­terlace here about pictures: for else you know it is nothing to that place in the Bishops booke, which you pretend to confute. And I might seeme to doe the like, if I should be so madde as to follow you. Onely thus in briefe. S. Chry­sostome of them that would haue pictures of the Seraphim, Tom. 7. [...]. because they appeared in such and such forme, Esa. 6. which is your verie pretence at this day, why God should be pain­ted, (not the Seraphim onely, but God; a monstrous shame.) Non te defodis? Art thou not ashamed, O thou wretch, (sayes he) of such a grosse collection? Why doest thou not rather runne vnder ground, burie thy selfe aliue? And he addes in the same place, that the Seraphim are said to couer their faces with wings at the appearance of God, onely to shewe that God is incom­prehensible. Yet you paint them for their wings, whereas their wings are giuen them by the holy Ghost, sayes Chry­sostome, to shew the secresie, and that it must not be painted, which cannot so much as be comprehended. I say nothing of the forbidding of the Lambe to be painted, in the Councel of Constantinople, which Mald. your fellow Iesuite in his Comment vpon Daniel answers thus. That the Fathers in that Councell were not rightly instructed, and the Church sawe more vpon better consideration in after times. Yet you make vs beleeue that you reuerence the Fathers, and we censure them. As for the fruit you talke of to come by pictures, it is one thing, I should think, what constant and staied minds may gather therefrom; another whe­ther A [...] speakes to his waxen image of Cupid, saying he will fire it, vnlesse it en­ [...]e him. A iust reason to burne Popish i­dols (euen out of the mouth of an idola­ter) because they kindle to no good. they are fit to bee set vp in Chur­ches, to nourish the deuotion of simple people by. Least they plant error while they would induce to pietie, seduce I should say, as they that pulling vp the weedes, in the parable, plucke vp the wheat [Page 257] with all, peruersâ diligentiâ. You may remember what S. Au­sten sayes de consensu Euangel. l. 1. c. 10. The same S. Austen lib. 5. contra Iulian. c. 2. when Iulian had said, that he borrowed his arguments from the pictures of Adam and Eue, repels that slaunder with this peremp­torie deniall, that, Non à pictore inanium si­gurarum, sed à doctore diuinarum literarum; shewing vs what we should trust to. And yet both Aquine and Bellarm argue from pi­ctures in the question of Peters primacie, and againe sarre worse about the dolours of Christs soule. If it were so (sayes Bellar.) we should haue seen him painted in Chur­ches tormented by the Deuils, &c. De ani­ma Christi. l. 4. c. 8. Is not this a graue hand­ling of controuersies, trow you, especially with them that find fault with our lightnes? Sic errare meruerunt qui Christum non in codicibus, sed in pictis parietibus quaesiue­runt. So they deserued to be mockt that sought for Christ not in written books, but in painted walls. Neither are muri depicti, your images, or your pictures, though such are promised vnto the Church, Esa. 49. 16. nor portae sculptae, 54. 12. of the same booke. Of the Councell Eliberitan. Can. 20. of Epipha­nius, and his rending the vaile of Anablath, of S. Chryso­stomes exiling painters cleane out of the citie, and out of the world too, as men of no vse, no seruice in life, much more out of the Church, I might spend much paper. See his hom. 50. in Matth. Yet with you it is one of the three gainefull trades now at Rome, as we are informed, euen as the ma­king of shrines was to Demetrius, or [...], Act. Apost. in the same booke. Nyssen speakes of pictures for ornament cheifly, for instruction either verie faintly, or not at all. And yet that also for grounded Christians, rather then for noui­ces, (for S. Austen is iealous what may betide to such) but Ad curuādam in­foelicem animam. In Psal. 113. of worshipping them not a word. Lastly, as the Martyr, so also the persecutor was painted in the worke that Nyssen speaks of, and vpon the pauement to be trode on, as well as vpon the walls to be gazd on. Par opus historiae in pauimento quod pedibus calcatur effecit pictor. What doth this helpe you?

§ 7. You mislike the Bishops answer, of Ʋbicun (que) fueris, to shew the vncertentie of their perswasion. He might be high (say you) in Gods fauour, wheresoeuer he was. What? if in the punishments of his owne sinnes? (for such a place you haue for the Elect after this life.) Might he be so high in fauour for all that, as to succour others, and be praied vnto? Ther­fore this is not Nyssens belying the people to their faces, as you [Page 258] fondly fancie, but your owne want of vnderstanding Nys­sens meaning, and the peoples practise. Which though vn­warranted by Scripture, or Church-law, as we haue often told you, yet was not so bad as you would make it. In such case we may be bold to say with Tertudian, Meminero cor De resurrect. carn. c. 3. The peoples heart is but ashes. populi cinerem dictum, and with Chrysostome, Hom. 4. in Epist. ad Rom. [...]: Not euery bo­dies voice, but wise mens, must be attended, to decide controuer­sies. Ne me curavt bubulcum, said he. Now when they pray to him in Nyssen, as entire and present, [...], who was mangled and disparent, is there no Rhetorique in this neither? or should that be a good ground to build faith vpon? Yet this is that gemme, for which you haue searcht the Vatican, as you tell vs. As for degrees of glorie, though we doubt not but there be such, for stella à stella, &c. and he that sowes sparingly shall reape sparingly, and many Vide supr. c. 3. the like, yet I hope one heauen containes them all. Would you say of Paul, vbicun (que) fueris, or of the blessed Virgin, &c? yet you know not their punctuall degrees of glorie. Yea, and of Christ himselfe? yet we know not the particu­lars of his aduancement; ouely nomen dedit supra omne no­men. Philip. 2. and 1. Pet. 3. 22.

§ 8. To colour your imposture, you construe Greg. Nys­sens, wheresoeuer thou art, by, howsoeuer thou art imployed in Gods seruice. Which is not Nyssens meaning, but your owne vision. For the Saints haue serued their age, seruierunt saculo suo, Act. 13. 36. and henceforth they are occupied about vs no more. Mortui non miscentur actibus viuorum, neque adiu­vandis, neque cognoscendis, saies S. Austen, de Curâ pro mortu­is, c. 13. Doe they not rest from their labours, Apoc. 14. 13? And actiue at least, if not passiue, to preserue your purgato­rie, as Denys answers it. Neither say it seemes not labour to Resolut. Theo­log. Item Fran­cis. Mayron. them, though it be laborious, for no more it here seemes to godly men. Lastly, it is wonder you should stand so stiffe­ly vpon that point, that the godly Fathers, and by name S. Hierome, (for you name him among the rest) should not [Page 259] sometime flourish with a figure of Rhetorique, since not onely diuers of them haunted that schoole, as Austen, as Ba­sil, as Nazianzen, and the like, Chrysostome especially (who would not ride to schoole, beeing a rich mans child borne, Vita Chrysost. per Anonymum. but prefer'd to goe on foote, for his loue to learning,) but S. Hierome professes of himselfe so much in plaine tearmes, where speaking of his Epist. ad Heliodorum, de laude vitae so­litariae, he calls it Iusus, his play. Epist. proximè sequent. quae est ad Nepotianum, de vitâ Ctericorum.

§ 9. To your 16. 17. &c. Numb. The Bishop said not, that Ambrose was blasphemous, as you blaspheme him, but that the Cardinall citing that place of Ambrose, which you might better haue abstained frō, shewes he had rather bring Christs blood into contempt, then let goe his Dalila. Is this against S. Ambrose? or the Cardinall rather? Whome Ambrose his speech, not so warie as to be wisht perhaps, yet excusable by his beeing a nouice, as then for certaine he was, might trip as it does, and hath done but euen too often. What vi­rulencie, good Sir, is this against S. Ambrose? Though if neede were, as there is none, and yet if there were, I were not worthie, beeing more nouice to the most worthie Bi­shop, then euer S. Ambrose was to himselfe, yet I say, if occa­sion so required, to shew what my conceit was once hereof at a blush, and a little to choake you the more about the place that you so ruffle in, how if graunting it in rigore, that To seeke to An­gels, may be construed, to resort to the Ministers for helpe, who are our Angels. obsecrandi sunt Angeli, &c. yet we should denie that Am­brose allowes prayers to Saints, or to Angels either? Are not Ministers called Angels? Apoc. 1. Euen as Angels are called Ministers, Heb. 1. Who if euer they be to be sought vnto by supplication, I suppose in such case as Ambrose there speakes of, that is, in the houre of temptation, and a­midst the violent assaults of youthfull lusts, and fancies. To say nothing of repayring to them in distresse of conscience, in which sense S. Chrysostome saies, he will rise at midnight for Simile apud Dionys. [...]cop­in epist. ad De­mophilum. the releefe of any poore soule, and Minutius Foelix in Octauio, reports the ieere of wicked Pagans, in those tearmes, Ado­rata [Page 260] sacerdotum virilia, &c. Not that it was so, but for see­king to them for aide, in the aforesaid fitts and pangs of mind, most submissely. But what then shall we say of Mar­tyrs, which is another thing in S. Ambrose? As if the aunci­ent Christians were not wont to craue pacem à Martyribus designatis, afore they went to execution. See Tertullian in Exhort. ad Mar­tyres. his booke of that argument, see others. I doe but oppose you, I leaue it so. Cyrill vpon the 1. of Michea, [...]. The Angels leaue vs, they play the fugitiues. And the same he gathers out of Esa. 1. 8. that the daughter of Sion shall Di [...]ys. in epist. praecita [...] ad D [...]: Deut haeret [...]ter & cum [...] qui cum dese­runt. God sticks l [...]gly euen to them that for­sake him. be like a cottage in a vineyard, like a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, namely, be­cause waited vpon no longer by the Angells. And how are they fit to be praied vnto that leaue vs? Neither say that after sinne, for after sinne we haue most neede to pray of all. The Apostle is confident, that Angels It is enough that Angels cannot diuide vs [...]tó Christ, but they mediate not for vs, Rom. 8. where ver 26. and v. 34. we haue two per­sons in the very Trinitie, one [...], another [...] for vs. As many as the mysterie of their relations would per­mit. And need we more? shall not separate vs, Rom. 8. 38. but no talke of vniting vs, or approaching vs to Christ. Sure S. Ambrose his ground was from intercessio viuorum, namely An­drewes and Peters, for Peters mother in law, Luk. 4. which we allow. And Ministers are praesidia nobis, (as S. Ambrose speakes) not onely Angels; while that which is said of mar­tyrs may be vnderstood per Proterosin, of them that are not yet martyred, but onely appointed to the blocke: whome we haue more then pignore corporis with vs, and yet that too. True praesules, true speculatores, as S. Ambrose calls them.

§ 10. Yet loe you will prooue, though cleane besides our scope, besides your owne, (but that, as they say, a beg­gar is neuer out of his way) that we may satisfie for our sinnes. And you lay your ground, numb. 18. that Christs passion giues life to all. That's the blindation. But as well wood and clay, or other base ingredients in Nabuchodonosors image, with sounder mettals, eagles feathers, and other birds, may be [Page 261] mixed and compounded, yea the iarring ashes of the two Thebane brethren reconciled, as our wretched works and sorry sufferings with our Sauiours righteousnesse, which is Ibi habitat iusti­tia,. i. Christus. Pet [...]. righteousnesse it selfe. Doe you not conceaue how one is in­compatible with the other, almost crying out with S. Peter, Depart Lord, for I am a sinnefull man, so, depart Lord, for I am a sinnefull worke; while you boldly blend, and play the Vin­teners, mingling guilty blood, with the blood of his sacrifice, innocent and immaculate, most preposterous Pi­lates?

§ 11. Nazianzen is quoted Orat. 1. in Iulian. vt satisfa­cerent Christo sanguine suo. In Nazianz. it is [...], which may as well be the iustifying of Christs cause by the ef­fusion of their blood, hauing newly dishonoured it by stoo­ping to the Emperours poisonous baits, as to satisfie for their fault to the iudge of the world; which no man can doe, though in shadow and proportion one may come nearer perhaps then another: As he that spares not his life in his Lords cause, after he hath offended him, before him that languishes still, and playes the lazy Christian. So Nazian­zen might meane, I see no cause to the contrary. Does not S. Peter take the word so? [...], 1. Pet 3. 15. &c. The same is to be said to your other authorities, if time would serue, which you fondly here multiply, cleane besides the marke, but that you long'd I dare say to vent your commodities, and were glad no doubt of this occasi­on. In so much as you haue not spared Dan. 4. Peccatum tu­um eleemosynis redime. Which in Hebrew is abrumpe, as hath been often answered you, and so in other places. Yea, we are saued by hope, and he hath saued vs, by the lauer of regeneration, comes in to shew, that a man may wash away his owne sinnes, either with teares, or with blood. Is this good handling of Scriptures, trow you? If we are saued by hope, is it by hope in our selues, or our owne arme? If baptisme purges vs, and the Sacrament of our Lord, shall there be the same vertue in our corrupt selues, who but for grace should rather staine [Page 262] the font, staine our baptisme, true Coprony [...]?

§ 12. To S. Ambroses place in 1. ad Rom. Ad deum non est opus suffragatore, that is, To god wee neede no spokes-man: He sayes, S. Ambrose speakes against them onely, that were de­uoted to the Sunne, and Moone, and the Planets. But did euer any man make them his suffragators or spokes-men to god? And if as numb. 18. you suggest to vs, it was the Paynims fault to hold that God gouerned the world by vnder officers, what is yours lesse, that apply that so, indeauouring to make way to inuocation of Saints, Take thou power ouer fiue cityes, thou ouer ten, &c? Shall Paynims faults be onely taxed in Coster. Enchirid. Paynims, and not in them that reuiue the errors of Pay­nims, which they call Catholique? You wish the Bishop to marke those words, Ad deum promerendum in S. Ambro­ses mouth, and so in other Fathers, nothing to your merit god wot. Multanos à deo bona meruisse cognouimus quibus ne­quaquam digni fuimus, saies Theodosius the Emperour (a­mong Felix culps quae talem MERVIT redemptorem. the lawes I trow it is) and many the like. Ad prome­rendum deum, that is, ad conciliandum. [...] is so transla­ted by our old interpreter, Heb. 13. By which you may see that to promerite is nothing, but to gratify, or to please. But of merit heretofore, and more hereafter.

§ 13. You say, no sacrifice might be offered but to God. And is not prayer a sacrifice? Indeede what The Papists make the Iewes to haue had a worship of God incōmunicable to crea­tures, namely sacrifice, vs none, since now sacrifices are ceased. So much are the Iewes perfecter thē the Christians by their reckoning. richer? Is not all almost turned there­into? Into puram precem, as Apologet. Tertullian saies. And what salt is in sacrifice, with­out prayer? Yet sale salietur, you know the place. Euery sa­crifice shall be salted with salt; which you applie to purgatorie, wisely no doubt. You say, that to God all hearts are manifest, and he needes no relator. Indeede because he onely is [...], Thou that hearest the prayer, (viz & beside whome none els; i [...] is made Gods property) to thee shall all flesh [...]ome. Psal. 64 [...] ­cumdum vulga [...]. therefore onely he is fit to be prayed vnto, sith prai­er is of the heart, not a calfe of the lips, though of them too, when occasion serues, but the life thereof is from the heart, as Salomon saies truly, that from the heart proceede the issues of life. And I see not but it may be verified, euen in this sense [Page 263] too. To whome of the Saints then dare you pray thus, ei­ther as they in the Acts, [...], 1. 24. or as the Church in her seruice, O God to whome all hearts are open, all desires knowne, &c. But that passes, that by this reason S. Ambrose may seeme to take away our Sauiour Christs mediation and all, if he be not limited by your interpretation. Read but the Fathers, Primasius, Chrysostome, Theodoret, and Theophylact, vpon Rom. 8. 34. Interpellat pro nobis. You shall finde, his in­tercession stands, in offering vp the memorie of his death and passion to his father, for vs. As a soldier which shewes his skars to his Prince, though he say nothing, yet he begs fauour. Which makes our prayers at the Eucharist, so much the more effectuall, because therein we renew the memorie of his death and blood-shed so liuely. According as him­selfe said at the institution, who best knew the vertue of his owne Sacrament, Doe this as oft as you shall doe it, in remembrance of me. Our [...], i (say some which are no raw Grecians) ad refricandam apud patrem memoriam mei, to bring the father in ren ē ­brance of me, and my pretious and power­full sacrifice. S. Chrysostome also saying to this purpose, that the time of praying is while the King is set,. i. during the communion, and so long he graunts any thing. minds therefore beeing possessed with the remembrance of that his death, wholly taken vp with that recogitati­on, our prayers haue so much the more easie speeding towards the throne of grace, to whome that giues force. And can the Saints doe so of theirs? Which of them all was crucified for you? 1. Cor. 1. 13. yet you compare their intercession, with Christs for vs. Of whome some died not at all, most of them not violently, but none at all to make atonement to God, for vs. And because I haue vou­ched the Fathers exposition vpon Rom. 8. to be as I said, I will set downe their authorities in no other words then their owne. Theophylact saies, Intuens nam (que) Christi corpus pa­ter, recordatur dilectionis suae erga genus humanum, quâ de cau­sâ scilicet filius olim corpus gessit, at que inde ad misericordiam & miserationem inflectitur. This sense renders Theophylact of in­terpellat pro nobis. The like hath S. Hierome, Comm. huius loci. Interpellare pro nobis dicitur [Christus] dum hominem quem su­scepit, patri pro nobis pignus ostendit & offert. The very words [Page 264] of S. Hierome, hath Primasius in his commentarie, and Sedu­lius in his. Remigius hath the sense in somewhat otherwords. Interpellat pro nobis patrem, saith he, non voce sedmiseratione; dum quotidie hominem quem assumpsit, & grauissimum genus mortis quod pro nobis sustinuit, vultui paterno offert, vt nostri misereatur. Haymoes words, in his commentarie, are the ve­ry same with Remigius his, now set downe. Sauing that Re­migius ends in this most sweete close; Qui qualemc un (que) ha­bet tribulationem, hanc audiat Pauliexhortationem. Into what­soeuer tribulation any man is sunke, let him giue eare to this exhortation of S. Paul. Whereas the Papists thinke, that some may be buried vnder so deepe oppressions for the conscience of their sinnes, as they may not presume to come immediatly to Christ, [whose intercession, saies Euthymius, is semper essicax, alwaies effectuall for vs: in comm. huius loci] but they must runne circuiting and fetching a compasse a­bout by the Saints. Of what iudgement Chrysostome and Theodoret are, may be seene by Theophylact before alleadg­ed, who sieldome dissent either for opinion or words. Of Ly­ra, and of Aquine, the like might be promised. But Sylvester in Summâ shall determine all, though he expressely quote Aquine, Part. 2. V. Oratio, § secundo: Filius orat patrem (saies he) ostendendo patri humanitatem cum mysterijs eius, vt dicit S. Tho. Rom. 8. Let this susfice for this matter.

§ 14. Neither does S. Ambrose say, Declaratore non opus est; but, suffragatore non opus est. You peruert him therefore when you say, he meant no more then so, that the Angels and Saints neede not informe God.

§ 15. I will conclude with that, that S. Ambrose forbid­ding to adore our fellow-seruants (for prayer and adoration goe together with him, as I told you of S. Cyrill euen now the saine) saies, we can reserue nothing more to God. But you haue found out certaine distinctions and kinds of it, which the Saints may partake, without Gods iniutie. Adoro te, but thus farre, intra Canonem, intra mensuram, 1. Cor. 10. 13. Huc vs (que) venies, & franges furentes fluctus tuos. Dulicè, not latricè. [Page 265] Gloriam meam dabo, but not totam dabo. The strumpets diui­datur.

§ 16. Numb. 32. and 33. Tu solus innocandus, is ra­ther strengthened and fortified, by, Tu I thinke the Bishop will not diuie, her that [...]. Ambrose might very lawfully haue d [...]sired the people to pray to God to represent Theodosius in his children, though S. Ambrose say, Tu solu [...] [...] gandu [...], [...], &c Therefore, Tu solu [...] [...] du [...], may stand with prayer to Saints. Adioyned. solus rogandus, but surely not enseebled. Though you cast this, as cold water, in the face of the other. For S. Ambr. (say you) might rogare the people to pray for another Theodosius. Is this comparable with our rogare Deū, with our making re­quests to God? Is God & the people sued vnto alike? Why then do you ioyne such vnsutable matches, whē you pretēd earnest? But hircum qui mulgent, & vulpes iungant. As for your sweet distinction, and subtill one no doubt, that on­ly Another shift of the Adioynd. God is to be sued vnto for grace, but Saints for other things, and that this is the reason, why S. Ambrose said, that God indeede onely was to be requested, to giue a sup­ply of more Theodosij, which without his grace could not be Consuted three wayes. 1 done, I might aske you, first, what one thing wee haue by vertue of prayer, which may not be tearmed grace? I meane as descending of free gift, and bounty. In which sense, per­haps, the fathers of that Councell defined so long agoe, that if any body, bearing the minde to commit leudnesse, [...]. Con [...]. Neocae­sar. Can. 4. should be hindred of his purpose [howsoeuer,] we were to knowe that such a one was deliuered by grace. Therefore if grace come from God, not from the Saint, from God not from the Saint must come all that we stand in neede of. And so prayer be made, not to the Saint, but to God onely. 2 But secondly, Saints may representare Theodosios, supply good men as fast as they decay, if not by their owne strength & inherent vertue, which reacheth neither to grace I confesse, nor to one crum of bread, yet by their potency with God, and by procuring his ayde through their mediation, if at least your doctrine be true on this part. And therefore the quali­fication that you vse towards S. Ambrose, about Tu solus in­riocandus, or rogandus either, is most ridiculous and chil­dish. For euen the Saints power, may stretch to Grace at [Page 266] second hand, as you imagine. 3 To omit, that, tu solus rogan­dus es vt Theodosios repraesentes, is particularly determined, and if you will to grace, because without that a Theodosius could not bee: but, Tu solus inuocandus es, is as generall as any thing, euen as the obiects of praier themselues in their largest extention; and therefore this last must not be limi­ted by the former, howsoeuer construed, but all inuocati­on is to bee confined to God by the iudgement of S. Am­brose, saying, Tu solus inuocandus es; scilicet ad omnia, or, in quacun (que) causa.

§ 17. The most Reuerend Bishop neuer said of himselfe, Adioynd. num. 34. that he could not slip in matter of memory. Si sciens fallo, is his imprecation. So Ieremy for Zachary, Matth. 27. 9. so diuerse like. For what should I say of the Fathers quoting Scripture, as they doe often, rather as it was in their me­mories, then as we read it in the text? And yet no honest learned man, but would hold such scapes for very veniall I imagine. S. Austen a little before was found to haue repor­ted S. Cyprian somewhat wrongly, citing words out of his Cap. 3. hulus. booke de vnitate Ecclesiae. Sunt quidam eruditi errores & obli­uiones, saies Rodolphus Agricola, Certaine learned errors or obliuious confusions euen in the best authors. And Turrian saies of Cicero, Praefat. in Constitut. Clementis, that he was minè immemoris ingenij: very forgetfull touching quotations. Though there are more in this kind to be obserued in Tully, then euer Turrian tooke note of I beleeue, as hypercriti­call as he was. And thinke you not that we may with better reason avow, if we had not rather be ingenuous, then ob­stinately contentious, as you are in defending your grosse errors when they are espyed, that S. Ambrose wrot not on­ly one booke, but euen many de Oratione, then you can a­vow the Cardinalls allegations, either by the circumstance of the text when the letter fayles you, or by the Italian presses of the Iuntae or the Sessae? Call to minde a little, if you thinke good, De interpellatione three books, De interpellati­one Dauid one booke, that is, all of them in effect de Oratione. [Page 267] Againe in his bookes de Sacramentis, also vpon the Lords prayer &c. All these wrote S. Ambrose in effect of prayer, I Basil. Orat. in Iulittam. Nyssen Orat. 1. item (que) 2. de Orat. dom. Chrysost hom. 3. in Gen. Damase. l. 3. de side Or­thod. c. 24. And Clichtoueus in his Cōment. vpon Damas. calls it completam defini­tionem orationis, a perfect de sini­tion of prayer. Sylvester, Nauar­rus, diuers other Papists retaine the same. say, or de Oratione, as the Bishop calld it, and mentions not any where praying to Saints. Is this now of no force with you? And finally, so many Fathers haue defined prayer by our reference to God onely, (as indeede the Pater noster does, which I must alwayes tell you of) that neither shall you be euer able to claw of that argument, neither if we now and then name one of them for another, ought you so much to blame vs for defect of memory, as forcibly sub­scribe to so great varietie of consent, as is able to confound the best memory.

§ 18. But what if S. Ambrose mention not praying to Saints? No more he does (say you) of our mutuall praying for our ene­mies and the like. As if these were not the obiects and mate­rials of our prayers, which are infinite in number, as Ari­stotle Indiuidua sunt insimta. tels vs, that all particulars are, and therefore not to be comprehended. We speake of him to whome we are to di­rect them, which is soone learned, and most meet to be told, as Pater noster, and nomen TVVM, and regnum TV­VM, and the conclusion of all, quia TVVM, thrice repea­ted, of which I told you before. Euery clause, euery syllable in the pater noster, shewes to whom we must pray. So no doubt would Ambrose, commenting of prayer, haue dire­cted vs to the Saints, if God had not sufficed. But he is Shad­dai so too.

§ 19. Yea but Numb. 36. you tell vs, that S. Ambrose makes no mention of the Saints interceding for vs, which the Bishop neuer thelesse graunts. Is it therefore none? [...], and an oxe with an asse. Good Lord how vnlike? For the one of these is free to thinke or not, the other of faith, that God must be prayed to. If he be on our side, Rom. 8. you know what followes, all other may be spared. Euen the Angels themselues, euen then when they come ad dena­rium numenum, Christ is better then tenne Angels, that is, then all, saith Albinus Alcuin. to the number of perfection, (decem principes ei­uitatis, Eccles. 7. 20.) yet wisedome is better then they, that [Page 268] is Christ, sayes Albinus, vpon the place before named. No doubt our Lord is all sufficient to releeue vs. And, not praying to God, we can receaue no benefit from him; the Saints intercession which they make for vs, whether we sleepe or wake, whether we know of it or not, is a­like beneficiall to all. No such reason therefore to determine this.

§ 20. S. Ambrose himselfe, of whome we speake, vpon the words now quoted, Rom. 8. Semper causas nostras agit a­pud patrem [Christus.] Our Sauiour alwayes pleads our causes before his Father. And shall the Saints put in, where he is al­way agent? This is worse then spectante Roscio gestum agere, to interpose our Sauiour at pleading for vs, as if he were not either cunning or gracefull enough at it. Againe, Cuius po­stulatio contemni non potest (nor therefore, adiavari opus habet aduentitiâ aliquâ aduocatione) quia in dextra Dei est. Whose re­quest cannot be despised, because he sits at the right hand of God. Like vnto which Tertullian, Facilè impetratur semper quod fili­us De peenitent. postulat. That suite hath euermore easie speeding which the sonne makes, (Christ, to wit.) Neither does S. Ambrose men­tion without cause, the sitting of Christ at the right hand of Christ fits at the right hand of God to make request for vs. his Father, to whet his mediation. Which S. Paul had mentioned, for the very same cause, in the place that hee comments vpon, Rom. 8. 34. And indeed but to Christ, it was neuer said to any, Sede à dexteris meis, sit on my right hand, Hebr. 1. 13. Which by collation of places, shewes, that there is none other intercessor for vs, but he. Lastly, thus S. Ambrose, Ʋt de Deo patre securi, & Christo filio eius, in eorum fide laetemur. That beeing confident of God the Father, and Christ his Sonne, we may reioyce in the faith that we haue in them. So as you see, faith and aduocation goes onely still with Christ, not with the Saints.

[Page 269] § 21. NExt is Ruffinus lib. 2. historiae c. 33. who sayes not, that Theodosius did inuoke the Saints, but as the Bishop answered you, and you cannot take away, that at the tombes of Martyrs he craued helpe of God, by the Saints intercos­sion. Which although it suppose their suing for vs, yet it is not coupled with our praying to them. What you bring out of Chrysostome, who names not Theodosius, much lesse points at this fact of his, as you dreame both here, and numb. 50. but onely speakes vniuersally of the Emperours, hath been replyed to before. We dresse no Crambe. Hee names Constantine. And if he meant Theodosius, why does he not name him? But whomsoeuer he meanes, they may be [...], need the holy ones (suppose the Angels) and yet not pray to them, nor to Saints neither; and yet whether they doe or no, it makes no lawe. Heare S. Cyprian orat. de lapsis. Mandant aliquid Martyres fieri? Sed si scrip­ta non sunt in Domini lege quae mandant, antè est vt sciamus illos de Deo impetrâsse quod postulant, tunc facere quod mandant. That is, Doe the Martyrs commaund a thing to be done? But if that which they commaund be not written in Gods lawe, it is reason we should first know, that God allowes what they aske, before we doe what they command. So as not onely the actions of mortall men, though neuer so godly, but the commands of Martyrs, appearing from heauen, must be examined by the law of God, ere they may be accomplished by S. Cypr. iudgement. Antè est vt sciamus, &c. Yet you back it by Sozomen. lib. 7. histor. cap. 24. out of whom that which you bring is but [...], in Sozomene, it is said, or reported, though you amplifie it, by, commonly reported. Well what is it? First you leaue out Theodosius his going into the Church to pray to God, and to none else, that he names in that part of the sentence. This you dissemble, and leaue out, as not concerning the matter, though nothing more, who charge the Bishop so causlesly and sencelesly else where for the same [Page 270] fault; yea, when it is no fault. Secondly, as for the Temple which Theodosius built in the honor of S. I. Baptist, we might aske you, how that agrees with S. Austens, Templum Mar­tyribus De ciuit. dei. lib. 8. c. 27. Sic Greg. de Val. T. 3. Comm. Disp. 6. q 11. puncto 5. de I­dololatria. non ponimus? You will say, it was called by the Bap­tists name onely, and in memory of him. So, it may be, he but named or remembred the Baptist in his prayer, as he had good occasion, conuersing in the Church that might put him in minde of him. You haue both built Churches, and offered sacrifice (though you cloake it neuer so much) to him and to Martyrs, contrary to S. Austen. For doe you not offer sacrifice in the honour of the Virgin? You will not de­ny it. How then does this differ from the Collyridian heresie? To omit howe Vide eundem Greg. vbi suprà, frigidissimè & hoc & alia defendentem. Atque iterum in libris de rebus fidei controuerfis, lib. singulari de Idolol. eadem ad verbum re­petentem. much more hainous a matter it is to of­fer Christ our Lord, in honour of his Mother, then a cake as they. The like I might say of vowes which you make to Saints by way of special honour, which the aforesaid Valentia, seeking fowre wayes to iustifie, is most fowle in all. One time he saies, that the Saints are called for witnesses of what we vow to God. A small pre­rogatiue, and yet more then need too, euen this. Another time, that wee vowe to God indeed, but for loue to the Saints. As if God were not louely enough, or had not right enough to our vowes, but for the Saints sake. A third time, that we doe this, because we thinke the Saints are well pleased with such seruice, when it is performed to God. But by this reason we may as well vowe to Saints in earth, and in mortalitie. Lastly', he denies it to be an act of relligion, if it be done to the Saints; of which hereafter. As for Theo